Sorry if it seems harsh but it really seemed to me that you were arguing with a strawman. A very shallow one, by the way, who made an awful lot of “beginner’s mistakes”.
I don’t think Theo in the dialogues is meant to be like an average believer; nor is Art meant to be like an average nonbeliever. Rather, the whole debate is there mostly as a hook on which to hang various lessons in how to address difficult and contentious topics. A real debater who spoke like Art would probably sound annoyingly pedantic and pompous (with the constant refrain of “now I am going to apply such-and-such a technique”), but of course those bits are really addressed to the reader much more than they are to Theo.
The OP writes atheists will be able to discuss theology more effectively with theists after reading it. As such I would expect the article to actually debate the position of real theists.
In general I’m weary of using examples that are far removed from a sincere attempt at learning the truth to teach reasoning.
Sorry if it seems harsh but it really seemed to me that you were arguing with a strawman. A very shallow one, by the way, who made an awful lot of “beginner’s mistakes”.
Mistakes in reasoning or in “defending” his idea?
Are there ways he should be defending his idea because of its merit, or just ways he could defend his idea, by being irrational?
I don’t think the person you presented looks like the average believer. It might be useful to actually engage with real world people.
I don’t think Theo in the dialogues is meant to be like an average believer; nor is Art meant to be like an average nonbeliever. Rather, the whole debate is there mostly as a hook on which to hang various lessons in how to address difficult and contentious topics. A real debater who spoke like Art would probably sound annoyingly pedantic and pompous (with the constant refrain of “now I am going to apply such-and-such a technique”), but of course those bits are really addressed to the reader much more than they are to Theo.
The OP writes
atheists will be able to discuss theology more effectively with theists after reading it. As such I would expect the article to actually debate the position of real theists.In general I’m weary of using examples that are far removed from a sincere attempt at learning the truth to teach reasoning.