Both sides of the debate fall into a trap to start with,
They start the argument from I am right, you are wrong.
A intellectually honest person would admit that Agnostic, or I don't know, is the only real honest un biased stance.
So both start from a position that does not allow for debate to begin with.
A better argument against the "faithful" Of any religion is not that there is NO god, but to chip away at the argument to begin with. As your not just
attacking their belief in a deity, but in deeper held religious and culture beliefs as well.
Address the internal theological flaws, etc.
Same with the Atheist, starting with MY PERSONAL KNOWABLE GOD is real, is silly. As your arguing fairy tales to them, better to start with if the
current known physics allow or disallow for a creator, etc.
Everyone starts at an uncompromising stance, which is based purely on subjective personal experience, all anyone can say, is my life till this point
puts me here.
Yet everyone speaks from "authority" of their own emotions, which blinds the argument from the start.
Science can't even tell us if we are all just sims running in some quantum holographic CPU somewhere, on an aliens laptop... (Simulation theory) Yet
most Novice want to expound definite beliefs...
Personally, I like to live my world view. Who I am, how I treat people, should be all that is needed to determine what I believe, or at least what
matters about what I believe.
edit on 25-4-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)