Why Do Theists Want to Argue?

[DepricatedZero]

Other then that, of course, they argue because strong opinions are hard to keep to ones self... and because religion is very good at fooling people into thinking their position is unassailable.

I think borrofburi and others have it right when they say that various people have a variety of reasons to argue for theism the way they do. However, I think Anachronous Rex's point is true for most people who choose to debate...

...except that the vast majority of these debaters are Christians (the predominant religion of anglophones) yet they argue for deism rather than their specific religion. I think this is telling of something but I don't know of what. Perhaps they know that their specific religion is mostly a product of their environment so they argue for the more vague notion of the existence of a deity instead?

...but that's just projection on my part. It's so easy to fall into the common mind fallacy yet it's hard to believe that anyone can honestly not see that their chosen religion is the product of the communal tradition of the region where they were raised...

I think it's more that they think if they can get us to accept -a- god then it will be their god.

 

[borrofburi]

Other then that, of course, they argue because strong opinions are hard to keep to ones self... and because religion is very good at fooling people into thinking their position is unassailable.

I think borrofburi and others have it right when they say that various people have a variety of reasons to argue for theism the way they do. However, I think Anachronous Rex's point is true for most people who choose to debate...

...except that the vast majority of these debaters are Christians (the predominant religion of anglophones) yet they argue for deism rather than their specific religion. I think this is telling of something but I don't know of what. Perhaps they know that their specific religion is mostly a product of their environment so they argue for the more vague notion of the existence of a deity instead?

...but that's just projection on my part. It's so easy to fall into the common mind fallacy yet it's hard to believe that anyone can honestly not see that their chosen religion is the product of the communal tradition of the region where they were raised...

... lost my post because google chrome is inferior to firefox and my internet sucks.

anyway... quick summary version with typos and grammatical errors left in (like, unfortunately, my last post with the painful "heard" instead of "herd"):
From personal experience allowing for cognitive dissonance I think a lot of believers hold one or more of the following things in their head at once:
(1) they're so glad to be fortunate enough to be born into the great and glorious region where the one true divinity's light shines brightest
(2) they think that they're so awesome even if they had been born in the middle east they would have become a christian, recognizing the one true truth
(3) they don't think about it much

always nice to see typical mind fallacy, I too easily forget about it (fortunately i'm generally fairly aware of the personal implications of dunning-kruger).

 

[borrofburi]

I think it's more that they think if they can get us to accept -a- god then it will be their god.

This is probably true as well.

 

[Amerist]

Validation is a highly likely reason why religious people want to argue their point. In essence, their position only means anything to them if everyone else agrees with them or if they feel that they can hold their own in the midst of peers. Doing so socially validates their position to themselves.

Btw, everyone in this thread is an amazing person and I'm glad to be writing to them. (See: Validation.)

 

[Cephei]

It also seems like that the more familiar you are with the dogma of a particular religion, the less likely you are to see how little sense it makes. For instance, ask a Christian fundamentalist about the Ark, then they will probably not find it strange at all, but find the elephant-headed Ganesha absurd. And then, since it makes sense to them, they find it hard to imagine that it won't make sense to everyone. It's as if being accustomed to it makes it easier to accept absurdities.

 

[TerminalHamster]

It also seems like that the more familiar you are with the dogma of a particular religion, the less likely you are to see how little sense it makes. For instance, ask a Christian fundamentalist about the Ark, then they will probably not find it strange at all, but find the elephant-headed Ganesha absurd. And then, since it makes sense to them, they find it hard to imagine that it won't make sense to everyone. It's as if being accustomed to it makes it easier to accept absurdities.

They do say if you hear something often enough you begin to believe it.

I guess it makes sense, Humans learn through experience, the more we experience something the more naturally it comes to us.

 

[borrofburi]

It also seems like that the more familiar you are with the dogma of a particular religion, the less likely you are to see how little sense it makes. For instance, ask a Christian fundamentalist about the Ark, then they will probably not find it strange at all, but find the elephant-headed Ganesha absurd. And then, since it makes sense to them, they find it hard to imagine that it won't make sense to everyone. It's as if being accustomed to it makes it easier to accept absurdities.

This is the typical/common mind fallacy at work in other people (of course, again, the real lesson is that it's easily applicable to oneself).

 

[Divergedwoods]

Islam doesn't seem to care much for debate or discussion with non believers, which may contribute to the pathetically low representation they have in religious debate

6. - Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (o Muhammad) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

I actually argued because I wanted to educate people. And through this education I would be able to convert others. Yes, I seriously thought I brought something new to the table.
Going in that was the whole plan, but going out the exact opposite happened.

This... kind of. I was sort of tricked into evaluating christianity rationally because I was a fairly rational person before, and I was familiar with arguing before; so I figured I would use all my rational ability to "prove" and "convince" others to go to heaven; but unfortunately my critical evaluation simply found all the "best" arguments to fail and I found I no longer believed really.... Although noting that this is only part of the reason I used to (and continue to) argue.

Perhaps this is what separates us deconvertees from those who are foolhardedly hanging on to whatever they can find.
We were actually trying to teach the good news and be honest to people. To be different and to show them the truth - not to "win an argument" or do it for our own martyr complex. And being faced with the fact that we were wrong, we were (eventually) forced to admit that we were wrong in our beliefs.

It's an interesting contrast to theists like Japha, who will stubbornly ignore everything he can't answer and just copypaste more nonsense. Contrast that to Story, for example, a muslim (which is a religion that requres adherence as much as possible) who deconverted because he looked into his faith and upon finding out it was nonsense, had to let it go.
I think that's where a big difference lies between the casual believer that is stubborn nonetheless and the strict believer that is able to change his mind.

 

[godisabullet]

The reason I asked the question was because I was watching a YouTube vid made by *insert promo for clever, reasonable yt atheist*, and I realised that the guy had no agenda. Really. None. There was no money, ego, no need to feel a part of the crew... etc etc.

Then I made a quick comparison to all the religious people out there who like to throw up (sometimes in a more literal sense!) arguments to non-theists. And was wondering if they maybe, possibly, didn't have an agenda? Just like this guy.

Crazy, I know, but I just wanted to explore the idea with an open mind for at least a little while. :shock:

So far I'm getting the impression from your replies (thank you all) that there too many different reasons for the theist argument.

Perhaps this is what separates us deconvertees from those who are foolhardedly hanging on to whatever they can find.
We were actually trying to teach the good news and be honest to people. To be different and to show them the truth - not to "win an argument" or do it for our own martyr complex. And being faced with the fact that we were wrong, we were (eventually) forced to admit that we were wrong in our beliefs.

It's an interesting contrast to theists like Japha, who will stubbornly ignore everything he can't answer and just copypaste more nonsense. Contrast that to Story, for example, a muslim (which is a religion that requres adherence as much as possible) who deconverted because he looked into his faith and upon finding out it was nonsense, had to let it go.
I think that's where a big difference lies between the casual believer that is stubborn nonetheless and the strict believer that is able to change his mind.

You know, in a way it's admirable when even the religious have conviction with (even blind) honesty. But it can be annoying too :lol:

 

[JWW]

We like to. Its fun, helps us better understand where you are coming from, and gives us better arguments for future debates, not just those of the religious nature.

A lot of the arguments here are flawed however. For example, I've heard a lot of talk about theists presenting arguments repetitively: have you not considered that many of these "stubborn theists" may simply be new to the forum like myself and therefore not be aware that certain arguments have been presented? In addition, some may feel that they can better present an argument though it has already been "sufficiently picked apart." They may feel that the former argument was presented in a far less than sufficient way as, I agree, many indeed are. Perhaps you're simply being rude, as many here tend to be, be they theist or atheist, by simply turning down an otherwise lively debate under the case of "I've heard that before", often times without even looking the argument over.

Another thing I've found: By simply posting this "debate", you seem to be the one trying to inspire unnecessary argument, filling someone's time with a tangent discussion- time that could be used for some very interesting conversations in whatever forum they may exist.

Finally, I'd like to remind you that this is in fact a forum for debate. Where would it be if no-one wanted to debate and no-one had the patience to respond? You need the theistic arguments to even debate in the first place, even if the "debate" consists of you picking someone apart, you can still, at the very least, reinforce your beliefs and have a bit of fun doing so.

I hope I have given you a sufficient answer, and I apologize if I have come off as insulting. These are simply theories and I try not to single out or insult anyone in my support. With logic and patience to the best of my ability,
-Jeb Watson

 

[godisabullet]

We like to. Its fun, helps us better understand where you are coming from, and gives us better arguments for future debates, not just those of the religious nature.

A lot of the arguments here are flawed however. For example, I've heard a lot of talk about theists presenting arguments repetitively: have you not considered that many of these "stubborn theists" may simply be new to the forum like myself and therefore not be aware that certain arguments have been presented? In addition, some may feel that they can better present an argument though it has already been "sufficiently picked apart." They may feel that the former argument was presented in a far less than sufficient way as, I agree, many indeed are. Perhaps you're simply being rude, as many here tend to be, be they theist or atheist, by simply turning down an otherwise lively debate under the case of "I've heard that before", often times without even looking the argument over.

Another thing I've found: By simply posting this "debate", you seem to be the one trying to inspire unnecessary argument, filling someone's time with a tangent discussion- time that could be used for some very interesting conversations in whatever forum they may exist.

Finally, I'd like to remind you that this is in fact a forum for debate. Where would it be if no-one wanted to debate and no-one had the patience to respond? You need the theistic arguments to even debate in the first place, even if the "debate" consists of you picking someone apart, you can still, at the very least, reinforce your beliefs and have a bit of fun doing so.

I hope I have given you a sufficient answer, and I apologize if I have come off as insulting. These are simply theories and I try not to single out or insult anyone in my support. With logic and patience to the best of my ability,
-Jeb Watson

Ok well, cool. Its fun. That's fair enough. So knowledge and understanding. That's cool. Another point of view. Thank you.

I can guarantee you, all arguments have been presented - slightly differently but usually just playing with semantics.

I assure you, my intention is not to be rude. It's a legitimate question - if you read the whole thread you'll know where I'm coming from. I really do want to know what motivates a theist to argue a point that has, not only been previously debunked, but that has no basis in fact. And really, if an argument has been debunked before why present it again? You can twist the semantics all you want but usually the "new" argument is just a re-hash/re-worded one that has been debunked many times before (the many versions of Intelligent Design for example. In fact we know that ID is just a rehash of old arguments itself).

The other thing that has come up is that there are variety of motivations and that one can't generalise about these things. If I didn't start this thread I would still be wondering about that.

I'm not trying to argue with anyone. Like I said, it's a legitimate question. It's not a debate topic and is not meant to be provocative. If you think it's a waste of time - 1. you're not understanding where I'm coming from 2. Why do you bother contributing?

The League of Reason is not a debate forum. There is a debate section but usually topics are put up for discussion. At least that is my understanding. If you feel you can contribute then please by all means do so.

Unfortunately, most of your post was you just having a go at me. You really just contradicted yourself a bit.

I've learned a lot from the replies. Really, I have and that was my intention when I started the thread.

So yes, you did come across as a little insulting but I don't really mind. Unfortunately most of your post was taken up with an attempt to belittle the question (and perhaps the questioner) so really, one or two lines dedicated to the actual topic? C'mon... And you haven't presented any "theories" really - just an attempt to nullify the question.

Cheers.

 

[Asrahn]

At least one common modivation can be found towards the end of this (about 9:15)


Other then that, of course, they argue because strong opinions are hard to keep to ones self... and because religion is very good at fooling people into thinking their position is unassailable.

"We're a nation of Indians ruled by Swedes."?

Shit, I didn't know we were in charge. What did I miss?

Joking aside, the conviction with which these people speak outright frightens me.

 

[Andiferous]

I hope I have given you a sufficient answer, and I apologize if I have come off as insulting. These are simply theories and I try not to single out or insult anyone in my support. With logic and patience to the best of my ability,
-Jeb Watson

The League of Reason is not a debate forum. There is a debate section but usually topics are put up for discussion. At least that is my understanding. If you feel you can contribute then please by all means do so.

I wasn't aware of that . That said, someone might smite me right about now. I follow the principle that many people (including myself) learn and understand themselves best by debating other people. It's a weird back and forth comparison that seems to make our real life education competitive and worthwhile in some cases, and allows us to understand the other side and other perspectives. But.... *shrug* I am not the League either.

JWW, I like your questions. They are challenging.

I am worried when we all close ourselves to debate. On the other hand, I respect people so much when they discuss like human beings. Well done both.

And this is notthemodspeaking.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Hey Jeb.

A lot of the arguments here are flawed however. For example, I've heard a lot of talk about theists presenting arguments repetitively: have you not considered that many of these "stubborn theists" may simply be new to the forum like myself and therefore not be aware that certain arguments have been presented?

You probably haven't seen the thread in question.
Ignorance of the rebuttals is fine. What is not fine is ignoring everything you can't answer. I've always learned - even as a theist - that if you don't know the answer it's fine to say so, and that you'll do some research on the subject. Japha (as it is in this case) does none of that.

In addition, some may feel that they can better present an argument though it has already been "sufficiently picked apart." They may feel that the former argument was presented in a far less than sufficient way as, I agree, many indeed are. Perhaps you're simply being rude, as many here tend to be, be they theist or atheist, by simply turning down an otherwise lively debate under the case of "I've heard that before", often times without even looking the argument over.

Stale cookies are spat out, and it becomes really difficult to take it on its own merit every time. It becomes a force of habit to dismiss it if you've seen Pascal's Wager a hundred times already. But you are right.

Another thing I've found: By simply posting this "debate", you seem to be the one trying to inspire unnecessary argument, filling someone's time with a tangent discussion- time that could be used for some very interesting conversations in whatever forum they may exist.

I think this is an interesting conversation, and everybody has the choice whether or not to participate. Apparently you found the conversation interesting enough to post the reason why you argue. ;-)

Finally, I'd like to remind you that this is in fact a forum for debate. Where would it be if no-one wanted to debate and no-one had the patience to respond? You need the theistic arguments to even debate in the first place, even if the "debate" consists of you picking someone apart, you can still, at the very least, reinforce your beliefs and have a bit of fun doing so.

Nobody is saying they should not debate. ;-)

- Bastard.

 

[borrofburi]

Much of this was covered by TFB (i decided to go to sleep instead of answering when I first read JWW's post) but I'll take a stab at it anyway.

A lot of the arguments here are flawed however. For example, I've heard a lot of talk about theists presenting arguments repetitively: have you not considered that many of these "stubborn theists" may simply be new to the forum like myself and therefore not be aware that certain arguments have been presented? In addition, some may feel that they can better present an argument though it has already been "sufficiently picked apart." They may feel that the former argument was presented in a far less than sufficient way as, I agree, many indeed are. Perhaps you're simply being rude, as many here tend to be, be they theist or atheist, by simply turning down an otherwise lively debate under the case of "I've heard that before", often times without even looking the argument over.

I do believe I already mentioned the "theist didn't know the argument was old stale and wrong, instead thinking its new, powerful, and right" concept; I'm not saying you can't re-mention it, but it sort of seems like you're saying that the whole thread is wrong because no one suggested this, which is, in fact, incorrect.

However: I do believe the "present arguments reptitively" was less about a new person coming and repeating, say, the KCM yet again; but instead a particular theist ("Japha") presenting the KCM, having it criticized, and often doing one of the following: (1) ignoring the criticism and asserting the KCM is valid and repeating it again (2) copy paste something that has some of the same keywords as the criticism, and asserting the KCM is valid and repeating it again. I think I even once pointed out that he had failed to address my criticism with his copy pasted text, and the result was him re-pasting the same block of text at me. In short: the frustration of "stubborn theists" who simply repeat arguments was less about a "new" theist presenting an old and bad argument, and more of a frustrating with a single theist repeating the same argument and failing to address (or even really understand, or even, I think, attempting to understand) the consequent criticisms.

I also suggested that a specific theist may believe they are more capable of presenting the same argument (I think... I guess I could scroll up and find out for sure; what I know is it was in the ideas behind my post, but it might not have been one that explicitly made it into my post).

Of course part of the problem with suggesting we re-encounter every argument is that once you've understood the details behind it, there is no "re" involved. And it takes time to reply to the same old argument you've heard before, knowing (from experience) that there's a very significant chance that the theist in question will respond with the equivalent of "nananana, nuh-uh, I'm right, you clearly didn't understand me because I know I'm right therefore that you think I'm wrong only proves that you didn't understand, so here's the argument once more for your silly little brain, maybe you'll understand it this time:..."

Another thing I've found: By simply posting this "debate", you seem to be the one trying to inspire unnecessary argument, filling someone's time with a tangent discussion- time that could be used for some very interesting conversations in whatever forum they may exist.

I thought *this* was an interesting discussion... And it wasn't really a debate, mostly just a question.

Finally, I'd like to remind you that this is in fact a forum for debate. Where would it be if no-one wanted to debate and no-one had the patience to respond? You need the theistic arguments to even debate in the first place, even if the "debate" consists of you picking someone apart, you can still, at the very least, reinforce your beliefs and have a bit of fun doing so.

Err, this forum is for whatever anyone wants it to be (within limits defined in the rules)... It's not "for debate" nor does it "require debate" or any of that. Personally I do enjoy me a new theist every once in a while (good with caviar (too terrible of a joke?)), but that still doesn't undermine the legitimacy of this thread or the questions in it.

 

[lrkun]

We like to. Its fun, helps us better understand where you are coming from, and gives us better arguments for future debates, not just those of the religious nature.

People enjoy doing debates. However, I'm a little bit confused with respect to the term argue as used by the thread starter. Does he mean argue in the sense of an argument, where we do the premise-conclusion thing, or is it in a more stubborn manner?

A lot of the arguments here are flawed however. For example, I've heard a lot of talk about theists presenting arguments repetitively: have you not considered that many of these "stubborn theists" may simply be new to the forum like myself and therefore not be aware that certain arguments have been presented? In addition, some may feel that they can better present an argument though it has already been "sufficiently picked apart." They may feel that the former argument was presented in a far less than sufficient way as, I agree, many indeed are. Perhaps you're simply being rude, as many here tend to be, be they theist or atheist, by simply turning down an otherwise lively debate under the case of "I've heard that before", often times without even looking the argument over.

I understand your bias towards your fellow theist. This also applies to me. I am bias to my fellow atheists. The reason is simple, well, it's backed by experiments. In particular, experiments which can be tested repeatedly.

Also, if I baby a theist, I won't be helping him or her. I make it a point to be direct. My reason for doing so is to imply that I am taking him or her in a serious manner. It is up to the other party to catch up. Trial and error, you make a few mistakes, people laugh, you remember such, you don't repeat. The end result is that you impress, gain respect, or people will disagree with you.

Also, you must consider the idea that some atheists here reject god. Like me for example. I reject your god. Convince me that he or she exists in a concrete manner. If you give me good arguments, I'll test them. For example, if you define your god as Venus - I can see the planet venus, then I can accept that such is your god.

The problem is most of the time, creationists claim they don't know science, then as if by magic they'll be plagiarising previously debunked works. In my opinion it's an unfair playing field, because more often than not, you won't be able to convince us, especially if we really know the facts behind the information.

Another thing I've found: By simply posting this "debate", you seem to be the one trying to inspire unnecessary argument, filling someone's time with a tangent discussion- time that could be used for some very interesting conversations in whatever forum they may exist.

I agree with you on this one. Theists are not the only one who likes to argue - debate, atheists enjoy and take pleasure in debunking creationist claims.

Finally, I'd like to remind you that this is in fact a forum for debate. Where would it be if no-one wanted to debate and no-one had the patience to respond? You need the theistic arguments to even debate in the first place, even if the "debate" consists of you picking someone apart, you can still, at the very least, reinforce your beliefs and have a bit of fun doing so.

This is not so. We can debate and update with our fellow atheists with respect to the issues. Of course, if a theist will show up, he or she will be subjected to scrutinity. I am often criticized here by the forum members. It's all part of the game. Question one's knowledge. Test if it is accurate and effective. If it is wrong, update. If it is right, stay the path.

I hope I have given you a sufficient answer, and I apologize if I have come off as insulting. These are simply theories and I try not to single out or insult anyone in my support. With logic and patience to the best of my ability,
-Jeb Watson

These are allegations. They are not theories nor hypothesis. However, I am persuaded to see your point of view. I mean, if a sheep ventures in a den of wolves, it will definitely feel uncomfortable.

-oOo-

Keep it real.

 

[godisabullet]

Irkun, I meant argument as in discussion/debate.

 

[lrkun]

Irkun, I meant argument as in discussion/debate.

Thanks for making it clear.

 

[Andiferous]

We like to. Its fun, helps us better understand where you are coming from, and gives us better arguments for future debates, not just those of the religious nature.

A lot of the arguments here are flawed however. For example, I've heard a lot of talk about theists presenting arguments repetitively: have you not considered that many of these "stubborn theists" may simply be new to the forum like myself and therefore not be aware that certain arguments have been presented? In addition, some may feel that they can better present an argument though it has already been "sufficiently picked apart." They may feel that the former argument was presented in a far less than sufficient way as, I agree, many indeed are. Perhaps you're simply being rude, as many here tend to be, be they theist or atheist, by simply turning down an otherwise lively debate under the case of "I've heard that before", often times without even looking the argument over.

Another thing I've found: By simply posting this "debate", you seem to be the one trying to inspire unnecessary argument, filling someone's time with a tangent discussion- time that could be used for some very interesting conversations in whatever forum they may exist.

Finally, I'd like to remind you that this is in fact a forum for debate. Where would it be if no-one wanted to debate and no-one had the patience to respond? You need the theistic arguments to even debate in the first place, even if the "debate" consists of you picking someone apart, you can still, at the very least, reinforce your beliefs and have a bit of fun doing so.

I hope I have given you a sufficient answer, and I apologize if I have come off as insulting. These are simply theories and I try not to single out or insult anyone in my support. With logic and patience to the best of my ability,
-Jeb Watson

I have no desire for winning and losing and such. If you are still interested in a discussion with myself, I would be pleased. You could do so through messages if you like. I rather abhor the concept of a public debate, but will do so if necessay. Let me know. Either way, you should know I have no weight or faith in winning or losing debates. Else, I could continue to contribute here. Either way, really.