A small doubt is my hope, if I can have a nagging question about the Bible at 8, he may get one.
And that accomplishes
what?
Okay, let's try the shortcut:
Are you hoping that doubt leads to conversion?
I mean, I get that performing for the sake of being seen is the primary objective, even if I wonder at the efficacy.
But, what are you expecting will happen if that person thinks?
And in this it's not just Sciforums. One thing I have never understood about evangelical atheism is what it's for. That is, I would have thought it had something to do with the reduction of religion or religious influence in society, but time and tide, and atheists, have disabused me of such presumptuous silliness. Unfortunately, the question remains without resolution, but in some way I suppose that's why I ask.
So, can you help me think it through, please:
• Here you are, passing through the nearly ritual stations of "a debate or tutorial on Evolution", and along comes someone of the "Evolution is a lie" archetype, which leads to certain other nearly ritual stations, with the primary objective that, "Observers will see a measured exchange and a calm presentation of facts", and thus you show some manner of merit.
Now, a couple of things. And I'm not even going to bother with the whole,
even Christ could figure this part out¹, because, er, oh, right. Anyway, you're not new to the atheism gig, so what is it about an immovable-object archetype that moves you to performance? To wit, is the performance the point? Because you already know you're not actually moving them. And the other thing is, look, how far back do we want to go? The O'Hairs, maybe? Or perhaps the time of the internet? Or, perhaps the question is when the current stations of performance emerged. Because, in all that time, attending the stations of archetype just doesn't seem to have worked, except, uh, maybe it just doesn't have anything to do with anything, or something: How can I say whether it worked if I don't know what it is for?
†
Here, storytime: Don't worry, I'll be brief; there's a hook at the end.
• Anyway, there was this old historian, and, to the one, the stories I could tell ... and I never met him. But, anyway, yeah, there was this old historian, and the metajoke piles up; we even get to razz Hobbes along the way. Thing is, he's an historian. That's it, that's the story. I mean, if you want to get technical, he's also a medievalist, and that's a term he claims for himself, and in its moment it was kind of important. But the so-called stories I could tell, they're just weird bits of trivia, like how he resents the fame for his literary survey of the Devil because he would rather be known for his books on the particulars of Heaven, and something about how there never were any flat-earthers. And, oh, yeah, it also turns out he's kind of accidentally the reason I study theology the way I do, even before I ever heard of him. Oh, and the whole point is that he's also a Christianist.
You do realize, "Evolution is a lie" person is
at least as confused by that as you are?
Thing is, inasmuch as you as an atheist might give a damn about the historical discussion of religion, sure, I could
probably fill in the gaps for you until it all makes sense. It will never make sense, though, to the "Evolution is a lie" people; the history of what such Christians believe is never important to them because its importance defies their purpose.
Toward which, the short form is a
2020 note (two-mark, °°)↗ on disarming God. It's not a popular idea among evangelical atheists. And not just because it requires effort.
†
The thing about the shortcut, if you're hoping that doubt leads to conversion, is that you already know it doesn't work that way. But I can't actually presume that's where you're going because, it's true, evangelical atheists are so often somehow mysterious about their purpose.
And the performance, I don't know enough about your audience to know who's new, I mean impressed, I mean, not in one camp or the other, or who is supposed to be observing the measured exchange and calm presentation of facts.
But, yeah, turns out that stuff doesn't really work. Y'know. Time. Tide. Christian nationalists.
Anyway, sure, that's why I ask. Y'know, in case anyone was wondering.
____________________
Notes:
¹ Make the superficial point, I dare you. Or anyone. Whatever. The pre-emptive response is, 「Oh, you mean the people who made up the story in the first place, then: Even they could figure it out.」 (And, honestly, like any number of requisite disclaimers in the world, the only reason I bother on this occasion is that, by experience, if I don't, someone, somewhere, will say it.)
