Best way to debate atheists?

[Cubits144]

Hello all,

I am new to the forum and still learning the ropes of apologetics. My question is this (forgive me if it sounds too simplistic). In your experience which is the best approach in answering atheists? The evidentialist apologetic using evidence,science, history etc. Philospohical apologetic or the Presuppositional apologetic.

I've seen arguments for all three, but would covet your opinions and why.

Blessings.

[Manwë Súlimo]

Hey, welcome aboard!

Not all atheists are created equal. They each have their own biases. But my favorite apologetic is the kalam cosmological argument and the "Argument from Jesus".

The KCA appeals to common sense that things just can't pop into existence from nothing and for nothing, and the AFJ kills two birds with one stone; because by pointing to historical proof of the resurrection of Jesus, we both prove the existence of God and the existence of the Christian God.

[Jin-Roh]

Hello all,

I am new to the forum and still learning the ropes of apologetics. My question is this (forgive me if it sounds too simplistic). In your experience which is the best approach in answering atheists? The evidentialist apologetic using evidence,science, history etc. Philospohical apologetic or the Presuppositional apologetic.

I've seen arguments for all three, but would covet your opinions and why.

Blessings.

What inspires you to debate atheists?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Cubits. My advice when debating anyone is simple. Start with them where they are. If they want to discuss philosophy, do that. If history, do that. etc.

[Darth Executor]

Avoid getting into debates in areas you're not particularly knowledgeable in. Philosophy is perhaps the only exception (you still need to be able to think though) as it doesn't require specialized knowledge of any hard data like history or science do, though familiarity with the jargon wouldn't hurt.

[Jin-Roh]

I don't know. I think philosophy really does demand a lot a of specialized knowledge.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I agree with Jin-Roh. Cubits. I'd be glad to discuss with you on AIM if you ever wanted to. I'm always interested in helping aspiring apologists.

[Darth Executor]

I don't know. I think philosophy really does demand a lot a of specialized knowledge.

Like what?

[Jin-Roh]

Like what?

Knowledge of the relevant schools might be important. I can't imagine debating somebody on, say, empiricism without knowing what Hume said on it and then what Kant said on it.

Furthermore, I couldn't imagine talking about philosophy of "natural revelation" without knowing very specifically what Aquinas meant when he talked about his five ways, and furthermore I don't think I could understand Aquinas without knowing Aristotle.

Hard to understand Marx or Feuerbach without knowing a bit about Hegel....

[Philosophickle]

Baseball bats and Purell.

[Manwë Súlimo]

Ptett, only Christians can post here.

[Darth Executor]

Knowledge of the relevant schools might be important. I can't imagine debating somebody on, say, empiricism without knowing what Hume said on it and then what Kant said on it.

Furthermore, I couldn't imagine talking about philosophy of "natural revelation" without knowing very specifically what Aquinas meant when he talked about his five ways, and furthermore I don't think I could understand Aquinas without knowing Aristotle.

Hard to understand Marx or Feuerbach without knowing a bit about Hegel....

See, this is why I specifically said knowledge of "hard data".

You can indeed discuss those, because your opponent still has to present their arguments. You can't just say "i agree with whatever Kant said" in a debate, you have to actually present his arguments, at which point it's not even necessary or relevant to mention that it came from Kant (credit aside).

An example of "hard data" would be knowledge of, say, the fossil record when discussing evolution. Or past experiments that add or detract to your arguments.

I think the issue here is that you (and the philosophy field in general) mixes up philosophy with philosophers. For example:

"Hard to understand Marx or Feuerbach without knowing a bit about Hegel...."

You don't need to understand people to understand arguments. I've read very little philosophy written by dead dudes and it hasn't hampered my ability to debate actual philosophical issues one bit. I have read philosophy pieces written by modern people (including a handful of twebbers like Nick). I'm not saying reading philosophy isn't useful at all, as it can clue you in on arguments you might not have thought of on your own. But it's not strictly necessary to debate issues.

[Jin-Roh]

See, this is why I specifically said knowledge of "hard data".

You can indeed discuss those, because your opponent still has to present their arguments. You can't just say "i agree with whatever Kant said" in a debate, you have to actually present his arguments, at which point it's not even necessary or relevant to mention that it came from Kant (credit aside).

An example of "hard data" would be knowledge of, say, the fossil record when discussing evolution. Or past experiments that add or detract to your arguments.

I can see what you are saying here. Although philosophoy tends to bleed into those scientific/historical issues, and thus also makes used of "hard Data' (see Thomas Kuhn "Structure of Scientific Revolutions")

I think the issue here is that you (and the philosophy field in general) mixes up philosophy with philosophers. For example:

"Hard to understand Marx or Feuerbach without knowing a bit about Hegel...."

You don't need to understand people to understand arguments. I've read very little philosophy written by dead dudes and it hasn't hampered my ability to debate actual philosophical issues one bit. I have read philosophy pieces written by modern people (including a handful of twebbers like Nick). I'm not saying reading philosophy isn't useful at all, as it can clue you in on arguments you might not have thought of on your own. But it's not strictly necessary to debate issues.

I still strenuously disagree. You might as well be saying "I am going to debate Christianity without ever reading the Bible, or just reading a few of Jesus' parables." This is especially important in debate because different schools of philosophy have different standards of "proof."

I am studying philosophy right now and about 60% of what we do is understand what people are saying before we argue a point.

[Darth Executor]

I still strenuously disagree. You might as well be saying "I am going to debate Christianity without ever reading the Bible, or just reading a few of Jesus' parables." This is especially important in debate because different schools of philosophy have different standards of "proof."

Christianity itself isn't philosophy. You CAN discuss the philosophical viability of the trinity (and other philosophical issues within Christianity) without reading the bible at all. You just need to know what the trinity is, which would fall under "familiarity with the jargon" part. Yeah, you need to read the bible (and not just the bible but other data as well) to form a comprehensive defense, but people usually debate more specific issues (IE: resurrection).

I am studying philosophy right now and about 60% of what we do is understand what people are saying before we argue a point.

Not sure what this has to do with what I said. I never implied otherwise. All I said is that you don't need to read some ancient philosopher to understand an argument an opponent is making. Two people can debate arguments used by Kant or Plato without even mentioning their names. Philosophical issues do not rest on the shoulders of any man.

[Cubits144]

I appreciate all of your responses yet I think I need to rephrase my question: What is your favorite approach to apologetics( of the three I mentioned) and why.
I recognize all three have flaws but I would rather focus on one approach and be a master of one rather than a jack of all trades. Please don't misconstrue what I've just said as I recognize that the defense of the faith must indeed be multi faceted. I would just prefer to specialize on the approach with the best potential outcome.

Hope I didn't confuse the issue as I do covet your expertise.
Blessings.