Things To Remember When Debating

I've been quiet lately on here.  I wanted to let the Aurora Shooting slide out of the spotlight, but during the downtime, I've been doing quite a bit of thinking.  It's occurred to me that we, the atheist community, do a few things that I don't quite like.  You're all free to disagree with me on any of these points, but I think there are a few things we could do better when interacting and debating religious folk.  I've noticed that, especially when we have the bible quoted to us, we quote it back.  Oftentimes it'll be an exchange like this:

Theist:  Well, of course, you know that Leviticus says that gays are an abomination.

 Atheist:  True, but it also says that you shouldn't eat shellfish, cut your hair, etc.

 As true as this statement from our hypothetical atheist is, it does something that should be avoided.  Quoting the bible back in this fashion actually lends credibility to the very book we seek to show is fallible.  There are times when quoting from the bible is a great technique.  When we point to the contradictions, inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, and scientific misunderstandings, we discredit the infallibility of the bible.  I think I can say with some amount of certainty that atheists generally understand how very errant the bible is, so we should use this to our advantage.

 Another thing we tend to do is get angry and resort to insults.  We know that an ad hominem is not a valid argument; or we should, at least.  In fact, I see atheists call their opponents out for using the personal attack, then turn around and use it a few comments later.  In my experience, theists use this more often than atheists, but the fact remains that it's not appropriate on either side.  If either side expects any ground to be gained, attacking the people rather than the arguments only stops the conversation.  I give the benefit of the doubt to both sides of the argument, and I'll assume they both know that the ad hominem is a bad idea, but sometimes, during the heat of the moment, it's easier to call someone a jackass douchemonkey rather than point out the jackassery douchemonkey-shenanigans of the argument.  Most theistic religions espouse peace.  Theists, do you want to be the angry vengeful kind of person your god(s) say are bad?   Atheists, do you want to seem irrational?  I rest my case.

A third issue I take with how atheists take to the debate floor is similar to the previous one.  Humility.  If you have no response to your opponent, admit it.  There is absolutely no shame in saying, "I don't know."  Don't we often talk about how there's no shame in science not knowing all the answers?  If it did, there would be no more need for science.  We are no different.  While there has never been a sufficient argument for the existence of any god at all, it's doubtful we know how to respond to every single argument for the existence of a god.  There's no shame in that.  We should admit it, and, if we can, come back with an answer.

The final thing I'd like us to take into consideration is how we respond.  Many comments end up being a full paragraph, and it's important to notice that not everyone understands how paragraphs work.  There are often many different ideas and thoughts that should be addressed within each of these paragraphs.  With that in mind, I'd like to suggest that we break up each topic into its own section.  For example, if we see that one paragraph, comment, or whatever has arguments x, y, and z, we should format our response like this:

Argument X.

Your response to that specific argument or thought.

Argument Y

Your response to this argument

Argument Z

Do I really need to explain again?

Not only does this clarify what you're responding to, it should eliminate any confusion on both sides.  This will eliminate people taking things out of context.  In your response to Argument X, you might have said something that pertained to a different argument, and your opponent could take that to meant that your response to this argument was actually a response to a different argument, and therefore makes no sense.  I seek to eliminate these issues, not only for clarity, but because it also allows each side to be extremely aware if one argument wasn't addressed.

I implore all theists who defend theism to follow these guidelines, too.  You don't have all the answers, either.   There's no need in name-calling, or faulty logic.  If we can discuss these things peacefully, I'm sure we'll cover much more ground.