How would one defuse an argument with an atheist?

Dave Hitt www

How would you deal with a racist sexist bigot who wasn’t an atheist? Try that with him.

Life is too short to deal with unreasonable people. If you can’t avoid him completely, avoid any unnecessary conversations with him. The moment he steers things toward the subject of religion say “I’m sorry, but I’m not going to discuss religion or politics with you. How ‘bout them Mets?” If (when) he does it again, just say, once again, “How ‘bout them Mets?” Eventually he’ll get the idea.

Eshu www

It’s quite reasonable for you to walk away if the other person is being unreasonable or insulting. I’ve done this online and in real life.

It may feel like giving up and perhaps the antagonist may think they’ve won, but that really doesn’t matter.

Unless you have the patience of a saint you’re unlikely to be able to defuse someone who is perhaps intentionally, being so unreasonable.

Unfortunately it seems that every demographic group has some idiots.

logicel

There is no magic potion that can be applied generically to an irritated, angry person that will work in any situation! Communication with others is fraught with all kinds of problems.

If a person is acting in a way that is not comfortable for you, you are not the problem, they are. And nothing compels you to solve it for them. If you have concluded that a discussion is no longer worth having, then the best policy is honesty. Say that you are finding the discussion most unpleasant, and you are ending it. When you say this, concentrate on how correct your sentiment is, how you trust yourself in knowing what is the right action for you to take. Then say goodbye in a civil tone and walk away.

If you will encounter this person in the future, stick to your guns. You are not interested in resuming where the discussion left off. Be firm and consistent.

With that aside, I can tell you what turns me off to the point that I will no longer be bothered discussing a topic with anyone: intellectual dishonesty.

Excerpted from the Wikipedia article

If the person is knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence but purposefully fails to check, and then acts as though the position is confirmed, this is also intellectual dishonesty.

For example, if a Catholic can’t admit that their church has a serious problem in terms of preventing child abuse by minimizing and rationalizing away the evidence that the church does have problems in this regard, then I will not have a conversation with them. I am not interested in spending my precious time with intellectually dishonest people. This hypothetical Catholic can very well maintain her faith, but not her own facts.

I am heartened when theists acknowledge that vigorous debates makes them what they perceive to be better religious believers. Most theists and atheists share the same push to be ethical/moral. The hijacking of this motivation is when religion can go horribly wrong. If I can identify that a religious believer worships faith to the extent that they can’t examine evidence and acknowledge its existence (they still have the right to belief in spite of the evidence), then I conclude that in this person faith is a handicap.