Questions you Don't Answer

[Zzyzx]

.
In these debates it is very common for Christian apologists, particularly fundamentalists / literalists, to avoid or evade questions. The techniques for doing so are legion (and occasionally original or creative) but the effect is the same – to NOT answer honestly and openly questions that are asked in debate.

When engaging in these debates one agrees to abide by forum rules – which include a requirement that claims and statements be substantiated. When one refuses to answer questions asking for substantiation, they are being unethical and dishonest. They LIED when they agreed to abide by forum rules as required to become a member.

Perhaps it is uncomfortable to acknowledge when claims and statements cannot be supported, or can be supported only by quoting an ancient book, or are matters of opinion rather than factual information. However, by engaging in debate in these threads we agree to substantiate what we say. If we cannot do so, we are ethically obligated to acknowledge that we cannot AND to withdraw our unsupported statements.

Does anyone really believe that readers fail to notice the ducking and weaving to avoid giving honest and open answers to questions? Not everyone is that gullible, naïve or stupid. Does a statement about fooling some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time ring a bell? OR, is fooling the gullible and naïve acceptable when "defending the faith" or proselytizing?

[JoeyKnothead]

Does anyone really believe that readers fail to notice the ducking and weaving to avoid giving honest and open answers to questions?

I think this tactic relies on folks being unable to discern the difference. IMO, it is these 'discerning challenged' individuals who fall into the fundamentalist/literalist camp.
My reason for believing so is within these forums:
Where I see some religious folks make claims that are more fantastical in nature, they tend to disregard requests for evidence. Instead of just admitting they have no evidence, they will often ignore, or become indignant at requests for evidence.
Then I see some religious folks make what are (at least in my opinion) sound, rational claims; they will take the time to fully explain why they make a claim. Sometimes I will still not accept the claim, but as it is laid out from a position I feel the claimant has come about 'honestly' (read logical/reasoned) I will sometimes let the issue go.

To me, when a poster is willing to at least attempt to offer evidence, I find that poster much more believable, and honorable. I have a rule for myself that I could be wrong about anything I say, and if I'm unable to prove my claims, then my value system compels me to retract the claim.

Just because I retract a claim does not mean I don't believe a claim, only that I am unable, due to the nature of the internet to prove the claim. Of course some claims I've made have just been wrong, and these I blame on other folks editing my posts

You bring up a good issue Zzyzx. I have myself become less of a 'militant' atheist because some religious folks herein have provided sound, reasonable arguments for me to question my position. It is when some make claims and ignore requests for evidence that I feel my atheism is more correct.

If the issue of God is as important as implied, I would think theists would be more compelled to prove the claims they make.

Cnorman18, Joer, Jester, Micatala, Vanguard, and others have given, at least me, reason to think that maybe my position is wrong. In doing so these posters (and others) have done more to make me think there actually is a God than any preacher or unproven claims ever will.

Sure, some things just can't be proven, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. When a poster is willing to admit this, and explain why a claim is still important, then I myself can only think; here's a logical, reasonable guy, he admits to a hole or two, but no one can know everthing. This guy here is trying to teach me to the best of his ability, and to the ability of available evidence. I am compelled by my senses to consider their argument, and not just dismiss it as someone trying to claim stuff in disregard to notions of honorable discourse.

Just recently Vanguard had to do just this. He asked me to suspend one issue so that we could discuss another. In suspending the one, he pointed out a huge hole in my understanding of Christianity. Had he not been willing to clarify, and instead just 'preached on', I may have not been open to his evidence for the 'second issue'.

[msmcneal]

This is the case, as you have said, with fundamentalists/literalists, especially Christians. I think the main reason why they do this is because of the sphere that they have created for themselves that is not necessarily based in reality. I don't think they do it intentionally, I think most of them are honest and sincere, but due to the fact that they are so emotionally invested in their particular religious views, they are unable to cope with the fact that they might be wrong. I went through the same thing when I left Christianity. I wouldn't have considered myself a fundamentalist, but I was a conservative. I went through periods of withdrawal just like all the times I've tried to quit smoking. To them, the idea that they, or their religion, might be wrong, is similar to the feeling one might have who is seriously contemplating suicide. It's a feeling of hopelessness, unworhiness, loss of purpose, loss of security, and a general feeling of despair. I can partly sympathize, having been in a similar position, but at the same time, I feel like to be intellectually dishonest is something that we all have the choice to make for ourselves. But that brings up another point. Most of them are not capable of making their own choices, seeing as how most of their choices have already been made for them. They don't see with their eyes, they see with their feelings. They're blinded to reality, and are not able to cope or comprehend the real world. It's a sad position to be in, I think, and one that I have been in. But as I have been in that position, I think I might feel like I can help them out of it. But what they need to realize is that they can still be a Christian or whatever, and still think for themselves, and realize that fundamentalism and literalism does not have all the answers.

[indie_girl03]

exactly my views. it is much more believable if someone can stand up for their belief based upon their own mind rather than always quoting what someone else said thousands of years ago that we don't even know is credible or not.
if i was given a strong, convicted reason to believe in christianity, or any other religion for that matter, i would accept it. but i never hear that! all i hear is "this religion feels right." and "jesus died for our sins so you should be a christian."
well how does that work?
people's explanations really made me start to question religion.

[PeaceWolf]

exactly my views. it is much more believable if someone can stand up for their belief based upon their own mind rather than always quoting what someone else said thousands of years ago that we don't even know is credible or not.
if i was given a strong, convicted reason to believe in christianity, or any other religion for that matter, i would accept it. but i never hear that! all i hear is "this religion feels right." and "jesus died for our sins so you should be a christian."
well how does that work?
people's explanations really made me start to question religion.

I feel the same way. I never know what to believe, so now I identify myself as agnostic. I've had experiences where I am almost driven to tears, hearing the story of Jesus' passion, and there are other times when I want to shoot myself the next time I hear "Jesus died for you." It's all a mangled up knot and I never know which way to turn.

Devout Christians continue to shove the the Bible in my face and tell me to believe.

But I want evidence, not doctrine.