When to debate religion

[Mahou]

I've recently been on a debate binge, watching Dawkins, Hitchens, even Stephen Fry in various forms of debates. After watching one with Matt Dillahunty I wondered what the point of it was, since the religious side would often speak for more than twice as long as Matt, going on long, preachy tirades to Matt's simple, concise points.

This made me wonder: what's the value of debating religious people? When is it a good idea to do so and when it it worthless, or even harmful? What's your opinion on religious debates?

[Animavore]

The thing about religious debates is that they can influence the unsures. I remember A.C. Grayling and Dawkins had a debate with two religious types about religion being a force for good, or something. Before the debate there were, roughly, 300 fors and againsts in the audience with 400 undecided (I can't be arsed checking). Anyway, after the debate the vast majority of the undecides moved to the against side, religion is not a force for good, with the religious side only accumulating an extra 3

[Feck]

I find 'I'm sorry. I don't believe on the tooth fairy .' or 'But that's not really true is it ' Are the most 'debate ' I see the point in .

' Oh look unicorn ! ' is sometimes appropriate

If the god bothers want a public debate then well spoken intelligent Atheists should make them express in public just how fanciful their beliefs are .
I have noticed a recent theme in public debates Of discussing whether the effects of Religion are good rather than the facts of religion are true ,It's almost as If
it's taken for granted that it's untrue and a blatant lie , they seem to want only to argue that it makes people feel better etc or that it's good for art or music .

[Santa_Claus]

Although I am on the "Set them all on fire and then laugh at them burn" end of Atheism I am quite happy to concede that Religions through the ages have (overall) been a good thing for the advancement of mankind / civilisation simply because they have been a powerful glue for societies that allowed them to advance.........including past religions.

The fact they are all based on nonsense being no great matter.

Are religions still needed? Not in the civilised world (But in places life Somalia and Afghanistan then yes! - for the next couple of hundred years). The key will be to fully replace religions, Not quite there yet.....

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Debates will only rarely (if ever) change the mind of either of the debaters. That is not really the point. It is the audience that matters.

[Mahou]

Debates will only rarely (if ever) change the mind of either of the debaters. That is not really the point. It is the audience that matters.

Well, yes, I understand this, but like I mentioned with that Dillahunty debate, sometimes the preachers just, well, preach. They don't debate and instead just ramble on about the glory of god, often taking way more than there fair share of the time. So do you think that there are times we shouldn't debate? That if someone offers, we should turn them down?

[Animavore]

Debates will only rarely (if ever) change the mind of either of the debaters. That is not really the point. It is the audience that matters.

Well, yes, I understand this, but like I mentioned with that Dillahunty debate, sometimes the preachers just, well, preach. They don't debate and instead just ramble on about the glory of god, often taking way more than there fair share of the time. So do you think that there are times we shouldn't debate? That if someone offers, we should turn them down?

Yes. Times like if they try to control the topic. They'll always try to make it as broad as possible so you can't pin them down. Narrow the field right down. This is why even grade A idots like Kent Hovind can "win" debates.

[Libertarian]

Watching several clips of Dillahaunty debating a few years back is what initially grabbed my attention and ultimately led to deconversion. If I hadn't seen those clips posted on a random music forum I was visiting, I'd still be a believer. So yes, debate helps. Hearing your prized views questioned by an intelligent dissenting voice might not sway you right away, but it will definitely plant a seed. I think we should speak up and debate whenever possible, but also in a courteous tone appropriate to the situation. Don't be a dick by forcing the issue or insinuating that believers are silly/deluded. If you want to have an impact, politely give your reasons for doubting if someone asks you, and be prepared to ask a few tough questions of your own in response. You won't sway people in a single conversation, but you can definitely get the cogs in their head turning.

[Trolldor]

The thing about religious debates is that they can influence the unsures. I remember A.C. Grayling and Dawkins had a debate with two religious types about religion being a force for good, or something. Before the debate there were, roughly, 300 fors and againsts in the audience with 400 undecided (I can't be arsed checking). Anyway, after the debate the vast majority of the undecides moved to the against side, religion is not a force for good, with the religious side only accumulating an extra 3

Fry/Hitch vs Whale lady and that other guy was even lulzier in the swing.

[Deep Sea Isopod]

' Oh look unicorn ! '
.

Where?

[Thinking Aloud]

After watching one with Matt Dillahunty I wondered what the point of it was, since the religious side would often speak for more than twice as long as Matt, going on long, preachy tirades to Matt's simple, concise points.

Was that the one on Morality recently up on YouTube? I watched that too, and eventually had to FFWD through the "Father's" sections, as he was saying nothing except that atheism leads to the Gulag... And yes, he got WAY more time than MD.

But, as has already been said, the debators are not the key - the audience is what counts. That's why certain folks here and at RatSkep will provide very long and detailed rebuttals even to the most commonly repeated canards - you never know who's reading. A detailed and polite response will sway more than an "effing creationist bull" dismissal.

[Mahou]

But even for the audience's sake, it still seems like a waste of time to debate fools like Ray Comfort and his idiot ilk. My concerns mainly are
1) they may get more time and more support, giving them an unfair advantage to convert the middle ground to religion, such as that recent morality debate I keep going back to, since it's the most blatant example I've seen.
2) It grants credibility to people who don't deserve credibility or attention.

Some debates I think are enormously useful, that Hitchens/Fry vs whale lady one being a good example. However, some I believe do more harm than good.

[Feck]

You can't debate Ray Comfort he is a moron .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You don't challenge those kind of people some folks will assume they're right.

[Loki]

The problem with a lot of these debates is that the theist can happily do the Gish gallop and make eleventy-twenty baseless assertions of which the atheist can only address three (it takes a lot longer to point out why shit is shit than to say shit). It takes a well practiced debater like a Hitch to circumvent the Gish.