This clever picture really breaks down the state of affairs when it comes to arguing over the internet, especially when it comes to the arguments between Christians and Atheists.
This scenario is not just limited to the Christian and atheist discussions either. It’s possible this happens more frequently among fellow Christians than any other group… well, obviously political liberals and conservatives are at the top of the charts, but Christians REALLY know how to spat with one another at times. Anyway…
I’ve had many fantastic in-person conversations with Atheists, Muslims, and other people I strongly disagree with on important religious, moral, and political topics, and it rarely gets tense or personal. This is not due to how fantastic of a communicator or humble of a Christian I am, as I am neither. However when it comes to internet dialogue, I’ve been so angry I’ve had to wait hours before hitting the “submit” button lest flames erupt from the monitor and consume the person on the receiving end of my wrath.
So why can we have good arguments (on the whole) with people in person but internet arguments build walls, fortresses, and flaming barrels of oil? Obviously there are a lot of different reasons for this, but everyone can agree this is indeed the case. As an ambassador for Christ, I primarily want to focus on what we can do to avoid this. Here are a few I’ve been thinking about.
Don’t do it
One way to avoid this is to simply avoid social media and not get involved. I know many people who choose this route and I think there is some merit to it. Social media can be a huge leech on your time and pull you away from much more important real life interpersonal activities such as playing with your kids in the backyard. As I type this, my kids are in the backyard playing, so I’m gonna take a break and live life for a little bit…
(shot BB guns, bow/arrow, and slingshots, then rode bikes)
However, I obviously see the tremendous benefit of social media interaction, especially when it comes to sharing the Christian worldview with nonbelievers. We just have to know how to do it.
Choose your battles wisely
This is one area I really have messed up in multiple times, but I’m trying Ringo… I’m trying real hard. Whether it’s politics, business, sports, or something else equally as unimportant, these topics of conversation can turn real ugly, real quick, and there’s usually nothing eternal at stake.Posting this is incorporating some public personal accountability because I can get easily sucked into this stuff. When these arguments are engaged with nonbelievers, they can be especially damaging to our Christian testimony so we must tread very lightly. I don’t consider abortion or other moral issues as political, but whatever we engage in, we must:
Argue well
This is not just restricted to online debates but in every area of life. If we can do this, it’s ok to argue and discuss many issues. Arguing is a good thing, but it must be done properly. We don’t want to be perceived as consistently contrary, but arguing can help tremendously in how we relate to others if we do it the right way. In online debates, it’s very easy to not see the words posted as coming from a person made in the image of God who is worthy of respect, oftentimes even if we know that person outside of the internet. We say things online we’d never say in person, and frankly we just need to stop.
One of the biggest pitfalls is employing logical fallacies. There are a lot of them, and it can be a tough pill to swallow to realize you’ve been arguing poorly. So study them, avoid them, and take your time before hitting “submit”. Keep your cool and for the love of Pete do NOT commit one of the worst fallacies one can commit in an argument; the dreaded ad hom attack. When things get heated, it’s incredibly easy to fall into ad hom mode, and many times an argument can be won this way… but it is never productive for the kingdom and will typically nullify any positive ground gained.
There are many more areas we can cover, but for now I just wanted to hit a couple of the basics, primarily because I know about these firsthand.
The irony is, all of these rules can be followed to a T, and you may still offend others and find yourself wondering “what just happened???”. You can go Columbo and ask good questions, avoid all logical fallacies, and you still get people who are angry, bitter, and just not good at arguing. At the end of the day, our task is to share the Biblical Gospel with the people we encounter everywhere (online and in person), so we just need to make sure we don’t get in the way of the message we are proclaiming.
As Greg Koukl said: “The Gospel is offensive enough, don’t add any more offense to it; but we dare not remove the offense that is inherent to the Gospel.”
Excellent! I make loads of blunders while arguing with atheists. Most off the time the arguments get worst and then I block the person as a final resort. I think I need to change my tactics. Thanks for a great post. It makes complete sense.
I lean toward Catholic Apologetics. I try not to toss around verses because everybody picks and choose and of course I don’t believe in SOLA Scriptura. I believe every verse based on the Church’s teaching.. I try and explain why I converted not to convert my “debater” but maybe some seed might get planted in a reader.
Don’t do it and choose your battles well are two of the philosophies I subscribe to. As you mentioned, social networking and the internet in general can be a huge time suck if you don’t use it wisely. So I spend a short time at the end of each day getting caught up on my twitter feeds, emails etc. My twitter feeds are all Christian related. I can skim through them and pick the articles I want to read for that day. I love reading blog posts like this one – informative, uplifting and friendly towards Christians of course. I’ve gotten away from reading posts by atheists or even comments by atheists. If I get into a comment and realize it’s from an atheist I immediately just stop reading and move on. No sense getting worked up over it.
You’re right – in personal offline interaction “most” of them are caring, friendly people willing to put beliefs aside. Online they are rude, condescending and typically unwilling to listen or even consider my arguments. They say things they would never say to anyone if they were face to face. It’s true what they say, the “Internet Brave” are not so brave off the internet.
Peace
Not only are “they”, but I find that “I” can just as easily fall into it.
The biggest anathema I find is people arguing over whether a certain statement constitutes a logical fallacy or not. Eg. People claiming to be experts in logical fallacies calling me a moron, then saying… ‘’that’s not an abusive ad hominem because…’’
* It’s true you are a moron.
* It’s just an ordinary insult unconnected with our debate.
* I meant it as a compliment.
Heres some more examples;
Apologist : Kalam CA premise…things which come into existence etc.
Atheist : Oh that’s a fallacy of special pleading.
Apologist : No, it’s a premise, all premises are self-asserting.
Atheist : Look, you just committed another fallacy of generalization.
Apologist : No, it’s an agreed structure of syllogisms. Prominent philosophers agree that…
Atheist – Oh, you did it again
Apologist : 99.9999999999 percent of logicians and philosophers accept that…
Atheist : That doesn’t mean you’re right. People used to think the earth was flat.
Apologist : Sure, not by necessary inference but if 99 percent of peer review scientists agreed that…look, you know what, never mind. Bye.
Amen… Navigating through the waters of logical fallacies can be very tricky indeed!
Great article.
I personally stopped engaging online for a few reasons.
The first was because of the level of disrespect, most of the time, they would completely ignore what I had said, clicked on my Facebook account, and send personal hate messages.
The second, they did not understand at all what I was saying. Granted, maybe it was I who wasn’t articulating the point clear enough, but simply ignore my response, and then asking THE SAME QUESTION….. Suggested otherwise.
Finally, I don’t have patience……
but you just engaged with me online!!! 😉
I think the breakdown in communication is a VERY real concern and one I wanted to add but I had a deadline and had to hit “submit”. I’ll probably revise but note you will get the props. Thanks!
Great article. How a person argues often matters more to me than what they’re arguing, because if they’re not arguing “nicely”, I will just refuse to engage them.
The sad thing is that typically communicates to them “I won bc he’s scared to debate with me”. Those types are tough to win over and you usually gotta employ the Kenny Rogers philosophy of “know when to walk away, know when to run”.