While it may be true that a Christians heart is in the right place I don't think all Christian morals are gold. Should I then just lie?
It's a change of they way people think, sometimes it's a matter of challenging long held beliefs. But changing those beliefs is only secondary.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't ever talk to theists about God and why he doesn't exist. I'm saying that you can't argue with them if they don't want to talk about it. If they do want to talk about it, by all means talk about it! If you talk to a theist and tell him God isn't real and he tells you that you're wrong and wants you to leave him alone, then that's as far as you should go. If you point out how his views are wrong, then you are no better than the theist trying to convert people to their religion. It may be simple logic to you, but to the man you are debating with, it's not logic at all. "But it is logic because it has scientigic blah and no proof blah blah blah", do you honestly think they care?
If they accept your debate, then go ahead and debate. If they tell you to drop it, then you will be nothing more than a hypocrite if you continue to challenge him against his will.
Well one aspect would be to point out flaws in there logic as for not believing in God they can come to that conclusion for themselves.
So far, I pointed out flaws in your thinking. Each time I pointed out a flaw, you countered it with something. I'm certain that you believe yourself to be right and justified in each rebuttal. How you feel is how theists feel when they make their rebuttals. It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong because they believe themselves to be justified.
You can tell a man that there's a problem with his logic all you want, but it rarely does anything more than put him on the defensive. If you're trying to convert someone's way of thinking, you don't tell them all the ways they are wrong, but all the ways they are right. The only time you tell a man he is wrong is if you do so in front of their peers, that way you may recruit their peers to your way of thinking.
Yes repetition is a tool in learning weather it be with a group that wants to learn or not. Perhaps you've heard the phrase "show me proof God exists" once or twice around here?
I'll explain proof of God's existence. Religion exists. There's not way it should. People should have doubted it. The only way people can still believe in God is if there was a God.
Do I honestly believe the above to be true? It doesn't matter, because if I do, then you won't be able to change my mind by pointing out flaws in my logic, because all I have to do is say "no, ur rong" and we go back to the drawing board.
A true win in a debate is what you take away from it this goes double for online debates.
This is not a fact, this is your opinion. Why do you think politicians avoid details when talking to the people? Their job is to motivate, not to educate. If what they say sounds true, people will vote for them. They gain their votes by appealing to the people's needs.
What
you get out of debating is not the same as everyone else. For online debates, such as this one, I would have to agree that people generally debate to learn and challenge their own beliefs. The debating strategy you are using here is valid because this is a friendly debate. If you're trying to fix a problem with your debating, then you can't simply jab holes in their theories.
So are you saying it's acceptable to ignore reality in favor of a comforting fantasy to the point you think that fantasy is reality?
Religion, fantasy? You are using atheist justifications to support your points. But for the sake of argument...
Yes, as long as those people aren't causing problems. Please don't say that this does cause problems, I know that. That is why I'm debating here, to tell you there are better ways to fix these problems than persuading them of God's non existence.
Again you appear to be trying to make the claim that if you leave religion alone it will leave you alone.
Not once have I made such a point. I claim that you must use religion to change radical views of theists. You must use their beliefs against them, but in such subtle way that they don't understand what you're trying to do. They will start supporting views they previously fought without noticing it.
It goes far deeper then even those door to door Bible thumpers who like to knock on my door just as I'm waking up. It effects the politics and laws I have to live under, it fights to pollute the education of our schools, it's robbing it's members of free thinking worst of all the kids, it has made large attempts to restrict scientific breakthroughs, there are a number of states where someone who does not believe in this fantasy can't hold a political office... Just to name a few.
You can challenge these problems without converting everyone to atheism.
When we are talking about a specific God/s it can most defiantly can be an error. We can look at the evidence of the claims of that God and examine how it matches to reality. If it doesn't match then we can say such a belief is in error.
What good are facts if your opponent doesn't recognize them as justifiable?
How you debate depends on the situation. Persuading theists that God doesn't exist is seldom a working strategy if your goal is to fix a problem they are causing. If they aren't causing any problems and you are simply challenging their views, go ahead and poke holes in their theories, just respect them and back off when they say they are done debating and let them live their life without constantly reminding them that they are wrong.
