I still come and check on the deconverts – since some of the topics are very interesting (and I pride myself and hearing all angles of an idea). This topic won me over immediately – she likes mmma and used a boxing analogy – gotta love that!

“I’ve noticed most atheists these days either don’t fight back, or fight back fairly, carefully, and by the “rules”, using logic, science, reason, facts and (gasp) common sense.”

OK. If you say so. To tell you the truth though, I have seen plenty of nonsense coming from the atheist side.

Neece, you say you have been atheist for 7 years, and agnostic for several years before that. Were you ever a devout believer of any religion?

Gods ways are mysterious or greater than our ways

The gospel is foolishness to those who don’t believe

God can do anything he wants and may defy our human logic

They have the Holy Spirit so they are privy to some inside details most may not be

Etc…

In the end, it’s a cop-out from the actual stuff presented and put on the table for discussion – because they won’t admit this – but they lack the neccesary knowledge to be able to even be in the argument. They have their one-sided viewpoints and when someone presents more than that ‘one side’ it can be tough for them to hear and process.

Fallacy of parts: Some Christians do this, many do not. It’s certainly more prevalent among fundamentalists than most other types of Christians. If I were to hazard an estimate based on my own experience, I’d say the majority of Christians don’t behave this way. Likewise the majority of boxers don’t behave like Mayorga. But who gets noticed the most?

I’d also say that a lot of Christians are just as disgusted with their dirty-playing brethren as you are.

I’ve noticed most atheists these days either don’t fight back, or fight back fairly, carefully, and by the “rules”, using logic, science, reason, facts and (gasp) common sense.

On the other hand, I’ve seen scads of atheists who use name-calling, ridicule, ad hominen attacks, and so on.

It isn’t an atheist and religious issue. It’s a human one. People, regardless of philosophy, are often emotional, illogical, etc.

Why do atheists have to play fair when Christians get to play dirty?

This, as you basic tenet, is flawed. It’s a fallacy of parts, and somewhat of a straw man. Christians and atheists are guilty of what you call playing dirty. And I’ve seen more than a few Muslims, Wiccans, New Agers, etc playing just as dirty.

But religious people aren’t content with keeping their god to themselves.

Duh. They think others will suffer in some really bad way if the “truth” doesn’t reach through. If you really thought someone was going to try to fly off a building with two handfuls of turkey feathers, would you keep your knowledge of aerodynamics to yourself? So what it they are wrong. They think they are right and we are in danger. They honestly believe they are doing great good. I can fault their understanding or logic, but not their motivation.

And keep your church out of my government.

Ridiculous. Everyone is going to bring their personal philosophy into their voting, petitioning, law-making, and other government activities. It’s part of an open and more or less free republic. You don’t get something you think is bad out of government by barring them. You do it by defeating them.

No. Christians aren’t supposed to play dirty. Neither are atheists, communists, or proponents of jaywalking. But they do. And they will always do so.

And atheists are not shining pillars of logic and decorum. They rant, rave, and play dirty just like anyone else.

So don’t paint US and THEM with a big brush. Isn’t that just the sort of tactic that gets decried so much here? Why adopt it?

Or perhaps that they play by a different set of rules.

The real goalhere is that Christians and atheists have to submit to common rules first and then debate.

But Christians submit first and foremost to the truth of Christ, whereas atheists submit to reasoned logic. So the Christian by default holds all the truths of his faith above the microscope of the atheist.

Both sides think the other is “playing dirty”. The Christian thinks the atheist is ignoring the “deeper” (i.e. out of the reach of logic) truths of life by pretending like they can be debunked by logic. Atheists think the Christian is ignoring the fact that their faith claims should be submitted to reason and logic as well.

The only way to demonstrate and convince the other side something is wrong is by… like Neece has pointed out… to show the hypocrisy where the other side is being inconsistent in the application of their rules.

Hmmm…

I’m ex xtian too btw.

The reason we don’t play dirty, is because we don’t need to. Our ideas and arguments should speak for themselves. The only concern should be expressing things clearly and ensuring we are not misunderstood.

If someone does resort to cheating, dirty play, ad hominem, it usually is just an indication of how insecure their position is. A good tell really.

Cheers.

Atheists certainly need to be careful about targeting their criticisms, but I’ve had people respond to statements along the lines of, “It’s sad that 38% of Americans believe that their religious text is literally true and therefore reject any science that shows that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old,” with “How dare you accuse me of that! Not all believers are anti-science, so therefore that’s not an accurate critique of religion!”

As for your last point, I don’t think it matters how well you understand both sides; no matter how much you pretty-up “It’s irrational to believe anything on faith and you don’t have any evidence for your beliefs,” you will almost always be met with “No, you miss the point completely.”