The pointlessness of debating fundamentalists

[Haven]

After nearly four years on this forum, I'm starting to realize that it's completely pointless to debate religious fundamentalists. Conversations almost always seem to go like this:

1. Fundamentalist makes an unsubstantiated claim
2. Non-fundamentalist asks for evidence
3. Fundamentalist gives an excuse as to why she/he/they can't give any evidence ("you just need to have faith!")
4. Fundamentalist makes another unsubstantiated claim
5. Non-fundamentalist asks for evidence of the new claim
6. Fundamentalist gives another excuse
7-∞. This continues ad nauseam

The fundamentalists' positions obviously aren't based on evidence (at least not evidence that they're willing to discuss), so the non-fundamentalists' requests for evidence don't do anything to further the discussion. Really, in cases like this, there is no discussion, just one-sided preaching and a long string of unanswered requests.

What exactly is the point of "debates" like this? What does anyone hope to accomplish? Aren't discussions like this just a waste of time?

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 1 by Haven]

Debate/discussion are pointless unless the participants can begin with a basic set of agreements, and then stick to them regardless of where the debate goes, or how their particular argument is faring.

Fundamentalism is built on certain presuppositions, which themselves are never questioned. Most of these 'go unsaid', and operate behind the scenes so that I've wondered if fundamentalists are even aware of the presuppositions they operate from. This is just human nature, we all do it to some degree -- until the presupposition is highlighted, or brought into focus for the first time. Everyone has been there, realizing they assumed something untrue all this time.

It looks like for fundamentalists, debate that touches on any of the presuppositions is more skillfully, or less so, avoided, and then the 'tactics' begin (goal post shifting, semantics, distraction). It seems deliberate sometimes, and other times it seems like a genuinely desperate attempt to salvage something untenable.

If I were a fundamentalist, the LAST thing I'd want to do is get into it with an empiricist. At least for me when I was one in that church, some of the beliefs were so outrageous (we're the only Christians going to Heaven) that I tried not to even think about them. Here, fundamentalists get their faces rubbed in it, over and over again and I want to tell them 'you don't have to do this!' It is so spectacularly unattractive and off-putting that evangelizing is equal to chasing people away. Folks already temperamentally OK with imposing ancient cultural mores and taboos on themselves will join, they'll gravitate to it. Ironically, within the fundamentalist movement comes Dominionism, which I don't know a lot about, other than it is the belief that 'all knees shall bow', whether they want to or not. Even more offensive.

The worldview of fundamentalists (and the presuppositions never to be examined or questioned) is such an insular mindset that it is alien territory to people outside it. It's like a whole different reality -- we're looking at the same world and seeing completely different things. No wonder debate is often impossible, there's not enough common ground, and the important issues that separate us are those infernal presuppositions, which are off limits.

[Zzyzx]

.

What exactly is the point of "debates" like this?

As far as I am concerned the purpose of debate is to expose ideas for examination by observers. Think of presidential contender debates in this regard.

My objective is not to "win" points or debates but rather to present ideas / arguments that are sound and supported – and to ask questions that expose flaws in opposition positions.

I fully expect Apologist opponents to fail to provide sound support for their claims, statements, and stories – and to evade, distract or deny – the usual dance with each new crop of Theists (and some of the old ones).

Does anyone think that readers are not aware of how poorly Apologist arguments hold up in debate on our level playing field?

What does anyone hope to accomplish?

I intend to help Apologists discredit religious claims of knowledge based on ancient tales "by people who didn't know where the sun goes at night" (to quote some anonymous wit) – but who profess great knowledge about magical characters and events.

Another objective is to expose hypocrisy, prejudice, discrimination, hatred hiding behind religion.

Aren't discussions like this just a waste of time?

Not at all if we keep in mind that READERS are the real audience for our presentations.

Also, as so well put by PghPanther in http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=28817 and by others elsewhere, even fervent believers can discover they have been deceived by religious literature, tradition and preachers. That may be all it takes to begin the deconversion process (which can take considerable time and anguish – as OnceConvinced and others have described). It may help others to know they are not alone or unusual in departing from an ingrained religion.

Those who argue vehemently for religion now may well be strong opponents of religion in a few months or years – perhaps at least partially influenced by what is said in these debates.