Talking with (to) believers. Golden Rule.

[fshrink]

All so-called discussions start with believers taunting readers to engage on a rational argument. Then, as AZ finely detailed, the "discussion" jumps, shifts and changes in a mercurial manner. The rationalist engages because the argument is presented in a rational manner and, in so doing, implicitly validates the believer's position that the belief is admissible and cannot be dismissed. This is pr oven by the rationalists very participation to the discussion and *not* by the content of his participation, which is therefore in effect irrelevant. There are thus two logical possibilities:
1- Refuse to participate, which amounts to validating the believer's implied secondary message that the rationalist's perspective is weak or demeaning, and therefore weak.
2- Neutralize the argument by reminding publicly the believer that belief is defined at the root by a break with reason and logic (e.g. the famed "leap of faith"), which makes arguments based on logic and reason logically irrelevant. The question naturally follows of knowing why a believer would need to adulterate, indeed question, his belief with reason and logic. Is the belief too weak? Is the believer insincere? Aggressive?
Golden Rule: when a believer attacks on reason and logic, counter-attack on belief, never on reason or logic.

[Taxloss]

1. Makes sense.

I love the elaborate workarounds some come up with to cast God in the movie of life. Like AZ said, God of the gaps. Look where science hasn't conquered, and colour in God there. A shrinking kingdom.

[Tafiti]

2. Exactly.

As Taxloss pointed out, makes perfect sense.

However, I can see where, upon application in an actual discussion, the believer would not accept this. After all, I would think very few believers would invalidate their own belief by admitting it both unreasonable and illogical. To them, their faith is both - I say this because I've heard it said before. They think it is irrational to look at "nature" and the universe and not believe that, at least, a Creator exists.

I think this would be a nice "rule of thumb" to use only when having a discussion with a believer who has a firm grasp of basic philosophical concepts and a more objective view of other religions, philosophies, etc. There are too many simple and narrow-minded believers who would think this argument nonsensical. In such case, simply out of frustration, the temptation would be to not engage that person in such a discussion, thus falling into your first problem.

[GOPFighter]

3. How can you have a rational argument...

..with someone who bases his/her entire argument on faith that God exists? I keep asking them for proof and so far there has only been one item that I will accept: that there is no other more logical explanation for the creation and existence of the universe. But that is not proof, it merely suggests that a supreme entity may exist.

I can't argue with these people, but I can taunt them back. I suggest they only believe this stuff in case it might be true. They don't want to take a chance of burning in hell. I tell them that atheists are so sure we're right, we bet our eternal lives on it!