The Yorkshire Atheist

Some Good Rules For Debate…

Theists, I’m going to give you a few pieces of advice, if you listened it might even help your cause (though I know you won’t); when debating an atheist do not quote scripture at them. Let me explain to you why this is important, atheists do not believe in the veracity of your holy book, and therefore will instantly dismiss (and rightfully so) anything you quote from it. Let me provide you with an example to outline this, if you were debating a Muslim and he quoted the qur'an you would dismiss this instantly, why? simple, you don’t believe the qur'an is legitimate so you don’t accept it as evidence, it’s the same thing with atheists and the bible.

Secondly, if you are going to argue with us about a subject (whether it be evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang, radiometric dating) then it is your responsibility to learn about that subject, saying scientific principles are incorrect without actually understanding what they say is intellectually dishonest and we will call you on it instantly. A lot of us know what is in your holy book (in my experience more atheists have actually read the bible than theists) so we are justified in commenting on its veracity, if you don’t understand the basic principles of evolution (or any other subject) you have no right to question it. If I said to you “the bible is clearly false because it claims a unicorn shat the universe into existence” you would be enraged, and rightfully so, just as I would be enraged if you were to say “evolution claims we come from nothing”. Both the previous statements are incorrect, if you don’t understand this then you should not be involved in the debate.

Finally, try actually listening to your opponent instead of instantly dismissing what they say. Your arguments and understandings will never advance unless you actually listen. Try to suspend your disbelief for a moment and think about the fact your opponent might actually have a valid point. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a better example of this in action than the recent Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate; Ham clearly stated that nothing would ever change his mind whereas Nye outlined that clear evidence would alter his opinion instantly, who of these two men do you think is the more intellectually honest? which do you think is likely to have a better understanding of the world? The man who refuses to change his opinion regardless of evidence or the man who will question everything? To make this point clear let me give you a hypothetical example: Two people believe the white stuff on top of a mountain is cottage cheese, one of them refuses to question this idea and will ignore any evidence that contradicts it, the other is willing to be proven wrong. Upon being taken up a mountain and shown that the peak is in fact covered with snow, upon being given scientific documents showing how the snow has formed and come to be located at high altitudes one man will give up his ignorance, the other will not. Which of these positions is intellectually dishonest? Ignoring evidence against you beliefs is exactly the same principle whether you like it or not.

The Do’s and Do Not’s of Debating.

I am going to discuss three argument types I see occurring on a regular basis in religious debates, usually from theists however some atheists are guilty of this too. The three areas I feel need highlighting are:

- Straw Man Arguments

- Argumentum ab Auctoritate (argument from authority)

- Ad Hominem Attacks

I’m not going to go through what each of these means (if you want to know, click the links above to see what Wikipedia has to say) I am simply going to explain when these should or should not (if ever) be used and why.

Starting with straw man arguments - These should never be used, it is a waste of time and can easily be rebutted by anyone with a modicum of knowledge. By proposing a straw man argument you are simply saying “I don’t know enough to debate you properly so I’m going to make something up about you and attack that instead”, this is lazy, pointless and a waste of time. An example of this is: “Atheists think everything came out of nothing”; although we are now beginning to understand that matter can appear spontaneously (Hawking radiation) as a whole we do not generally believe that everything formed from nothing, a lot of us don’t actually have a fixed opinion as to how the universe began, so proposing we all believe something we don’t is ridiculous.

Secondly the argument from authority - In some situations it is fine to use an appeal to authority; we can use an appeal to authority when we are referring to knowledge garnered by those that know more than ourselves. An example of this would be that because my knowledge of physics is limited I will accept the information available to me from those who know more (Krauss, Hawking, etc) about that specific subject, to further this example, if someone were to say to me “the big bang can’t possibly have happened” I may retort that according to physicists such as Hawking it is possible and therefore “my opponents” standpoint may be incorrect.

A claim to authority should not be used as a means of proof in itself; simply claiming so-and-so was a Christian (Newton is often brought up here) or so-and-so is an atheist does not make a slight bit of difference as to the validity  of the argument; Newton being a Christian does not validate Christianity it simply shows that he was a Christian, this also works inversely; claiming an evil person was atheist or religious does not make atheism or religion inherently evil it merely shows that an evil person held a certain belief which has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of that worldview.

Finally we get to ad hominem attacks - on rare occasions ad hominem attacks could be considered legitimate arguments, for example when discussing Mormonism we have evidence suggesting that Joseph Smith may have been tried (or at least investigated) for fraud in New York, and that he was a known con-artist; highlighting this point is legitimate as it casts aspersions as to Joseph Smiths honesty with regards to him being a prophet.

We should not use ad hominem attacks to attempt to de-value information that is not related to the honesty or integrity of the target: for example attacking Darwin does not make the theory of evolution any less valid. Equally we should not use ad hominem attacks without evidence to support our claims: for example making aspersions about an individuals beliefs, ethics, sexuality or lifestyle without any evidence in an attempt to devalue their contributions/discoveries that are relevant to the argument is intellectually dishonest.

All three of these points can be surmised quite simply; any arguments should be evidence based, honest and pertinent to the topic of discussion.