How do you deal with unbelievers online?

[Xeno]

I don't see what the Big Bang being postulated by a catholic priest or Louie Pasture being Christian does to ultimately prove anything though. Those are personal beliefs of the people who theorized something or discovered something, and modern science has taken those things further and has no regard for what one's religious or non-religious views are.

As far as Richard Dawkins goes, have you ever read any of his books all way through, or do you just like to select him because he's not the big name that's dead? The amount of non-believers in scientific fields in the present day does vastly out number the amount of believers because of the kinds of data they are working with does not coincide kosherly with the bible or other religious texts unless you do a lot of compromise. So yes, mentioning that pasteurization and the Big Bang both had connections to religiosity via their discoverors/theorizors does little considering how long ago both of those came into the scientific world.

[rocklobster]

No, I select him because he inspires people to be unkind to us Christians. For that reason, I despise him. Oh, and he also thinks religion in general is a disease and a "mind-virus" and thinks parents who instill religious values in their children (some of which are actually found in even non-theistic faiths like Buddhism) are abusing their children.
Xeno, I have no problem with atheists. Jerks, on the other hand...

[Xeno]

No, he encourages people to despise religion, not religious people. Once again, a misunderstanding of his viewpoints by someone who has failed to ever read any of his material. He considers raising children to be religiously indoctrinated as a form of child abuse (Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris have stated the same) because it prevents the child from having the ability to freely choose what they want to believe. If an adult wants to believe there is a god and all the other things that go along with it then that is fine; the argument is that children should not be forced to believe the things their parents believe just because their parents believe them. Religious values is a vague term anyway, if you're speaking about things like general morality (it's wrong to kill other people, don't take other people's stuff) then there is nothing to indicate religion causes that to arise and it's more likely part of our genetic coding and something we have developed as humans to live in society together.
You perceive him as a jerk because he is attacking the foundations of your belief structure, yet you clearly either don't know in what way he is doing it or how to properly defend your beliefs from his attacks other than to call him a big ol' meanie and pretend that religion belongs on some pedestal where it is beyond critique.

[Peanut]

To answer the question posed at the start of this thread, I'm at least attempting to not have arguments about Christianity or religion in general online with non-believers. Even conversations online, I'm shying away for a combination of reasons. One, is protection against arrogance from myself as well as them and the other is that there really isn't anything to gain from them (arguments especially). I have a degree in Theology and am pursuing my master's in the same field. I know more about a lot of these topics then most people and am equipped with a tool set I've practiced with quite a bit to tackle a lot of these questions. Because of this, I do have a tendency to look and talk down to people who I think are being stupid and don't know what they are talking about. A lot of times I'm right about this, but I know that there are always people who know more and are better read then you in this world and, there is always the possibility that I could be talking to one online (especially if I don't know them). It is not fair to them to make an assumption and then treat them in a way that is only going to tick them off. There's also the issue of misinterpreting tone of statements which can make things go sour fast. There is nothing worse then having your words read in a way you didn't intend them to be read. On top of this, my experience with online arguments/discussion is that they usually don't end well or in a constructive manner. My experience has been that they tend to end with both sides keeping the same views of the other side without any real growth. This has happened to me even when things have been civil.

So now, instead of writing long responses to things I think are stupid, I merely gizoogle them, have a good laugh, and move on to better things in life.

No, he encourages people to despise religion, not religious people. Once again, a misunderstanding of his viewpoints by someone who has failed to ever read any of his material. He considers raising children to be religiously indoctrinated as a form of child abuse (Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris have stated the same) because it prevents the child from having the ability to freely choose what they want to believe. If an adult wants to believe there is a god and all the other things that go along with it then that is fine; the argument is that children should not be forced to believe the things their parents believe just because their parents believe them. Religious values is a vague term anyway, if you're speaking about things like general morality (it's wrong to kill other people, don't take other people's stuff) then there is nothing to indicate religion causes that to arise and it's more likely part of our genetic coding and something we have developed as humans to live in society together.
You perceive him as a jerk because he is attacking the foundations of your belief structure, yet you clearly either don't know in what way he is doing it or how to properly defend your beliefs from his attacks other than to call him a big ol' meanie and pretend that religion belongs on some pedestal where it is beyond critique.

As I recall Dawkins also applauded a camp that teaches naturalistic values as opposed to religious in the God Delusion which would count as indoctrination. I tried to find the page where this was but was too lazy to comb through the entire book so I could be remembering this wrong. He also has pushed for Theology to be taken out of universities so he's not exactly the shinning example of encouraging free thinking. Either way, I'm not a fan of Dawkins and espeically Harris (I haven't read enough of Hitchens to have an opinion of him). Both of their arguments in their works are awful and they tend to rely more on emotion to pack punch in what they are saying then the actual logic behind it. I'm more forgiving of Dawkins because he's made major contributions in other areas but Harris not so much. The guy is outright offensive and hostile in his book and I found myself being offended for other groups of people I don't associate with. If both of them were Christian writers, I'd be vocally telling people not to read them or recommend them to their non-believer friends. I think they do more damage for atheism then good. This also isn't a case of me just hating people who are criticizing my viewpoints either because what little I've read of Bertrand Russell I love. I don't agree with him, but I still appreciate the works of his I've read and would recommend several of them to just about everyone. I also get the feeling that when I get around to reading Nietzche, that I'm going to like his writings as well.

[Xeno]

I have a strong feeling that a lot of the reason some people either love Nietzsche/hate Dawkins or the other way around have to do with how they perceive or understand things. When I read Nietzsche, his stuff I find mostly dreary and far too philosophical about everything. As an atheist I have gotten rid of my beliefs in the supernatural, thus I don't see the point in focusing on high thought philosophy from 100+ years ago. Something written by a scientist, like Dawkins, I find much more compelling since it is scientific and backed by how things actually work, and my mind likes that kind of thing more.

As far as Harris, Hitchens, and other modern non-philosphical atheist writers that people like to hate these days, I think it again breaks down to the fact that there are a lot of people that expect a critique of religion to be either soft or have a bunch of code words in it. Something that is brash and harsh they just don't like, especially when it is directly hitting something that they believe. I might not personally agree with everything these writers say myself, but it certainly annoys me when I find people who have quite obviously never read any of their materials raging about them because of (insert reason they heard of from someone else).

[Nate]

Hitchens is a sexist jerk so he's probably not the best name to bring up in a conversation about beliefs.

[Xeno]

And Nietzsche wanted the reinstitution of aristocracy, believing that those in lower levels of society deserved no assistance from the higher classes. Classic "bootstrap"/GMFY ideology, so I don't see why he is the go-to guy when it comes to philosophy on this sort of thing.

[ClaecElric4God]

It probably isn't my place to say this, and I know it's none of my business, but I think we've veered off from the original topic a little bit; unless I'm totally missing some secret code - in which case, sorry, my bad. First off, the original question was resolved almost two months ago, the original poster was satisfied with the answers he got, and we all moved on with our lives. Second, what does science vs. religion and Dawkins vs. Nietzsche have to do with the original post? I don't mean to be rude, Rock, but I don't think Christians in science has anything to do with amp's question.

Now I sound stuck up and bossy. *sigh* I'm just going to go watch Cowboy Bebop and eat my rice krispie treats...

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I have a strong feeling that a lot of the reason some people either love Nietzsche/hate Dawkins or the other way around have to do with how they perceive or understand things. When I read Nietzsche, his stuff I find mostly dreary and far too philosophical about everything. As an atheist I have gotten rid of my beliefs in the supernatural, thus I don't see the point in focusing on high thought philosophy from 100+ years ago. Something written by a scientist, like Dawkins, I find much more compelling since it is scientific and backed by how things actually work, and my mind likes that kind of thing more..

It's really just a matter of difference in epistemology. Remember that all philosophy will ultimately regress to epistemology -- or how we know what we know (I guess that itself can further regress to weird things like poststructuralism or deconstructionism or something mindboggling as such). Dawkins is a natural scientist so he's already built all his ideas off of certain assumptions. These assumptions are that we can ascertain truth via empiricsm (See critical realism or logical positivism).

Nietzsche (I'm going to lump myself in this category because Kierkegaard has been the most influential to me) on the other hand is more or less vehemently opposed to that train of thought. Nietzsche embraced philosophical skepticism. It was Protagoras (who was a major influence to Nietzsche) that states "Man is the measure of all things", meaning we're each the focal point of reference of everything we experience (and we're always linguistically defining and processing everything. Derrida takes this even further). The problem is that we're always trapped in ourselves. So we can't possibly "know" if things are objectively true or not (See Fallibilism).

This, by the way, I think is a strong case against frameworks such as logical positivism or critical realism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

[goldenspines]

Yeah, this is getting way into deeper theology and off topic. Therefore, take it to PM, please.

[Mullet Death]

If it's okay, I'd like to give my two cents here.

I think it's important to keep in mind something that Bishop Fulton Sheen once said: "Win an argument, lose a convert." I recognize the potential that the internet has as an evangelical tool, considering that is all the internet really is- a tool. Nevertheless, I have (over time and through a school of hard knocks in which my arrogance and retaliatory personal attacks and other inexcusable behavior has probably served little but to lead others even farther away) learned that most attempts at apologetics are little more than petty arguments and do more damage than good.

Yes, it is indeed possible to be GOOD at arguing, and St. Peter instructed us to "Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope..." (1 Peter 3:15) but I think that one should be aware of his or her strengths and weaknesses. Not every Christian will be good at "debate;" far from it.

Another thing to keep in mind is that even if we assume that we are good at debates and can keep everything civil and never once raise our internet voice as if we were Christ Himself typing away, is that mere arguments never convert anyone. I don't need to provide "evidence" that such is the case. Everyone that actually thinks about it knows that right away. And so we remember the words of St. Francis of Assisi: “Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words." It should not be considered our job to "convince" people; it is our sacred duty to INFORM them- when the are wrong, when they sin, etc, and even more importantly, to love them and care for them as our brothers and sisters and perform the works of mercy, etc. The job of convincing others is the job of the Holy Spirit Himself, and the duty of each individual to decide for themselves.

So, if one were to heed my advice on this topic, say what you have to say and back out; do not drag things on and engage in an intellectual back-and-forth unless you know good and well you have a gift for such a hefty task, and sometimes not even then. So now it's probably time for me to heed my own advice, no?