I’m an atheist, but say I was in a debate, and asked to argue FOR creation, then I’d have to find valid, plausible things to say, even if I don’t believe in it. Like how the hell is the Big Bang NOT like the idea of creation? Can’t just happen out of nowhere.
Not really, because then I would have to use arguments that I know are bunk and of which I know why they are bunk.
In short, I would have to lie to support religion.
@Blondesjon It would take an exceptional Devil’s advocate to be a Devil’s advocate when he doesn’t believe in the Devil. I see no reason why an atheist couldn’t fill that role.
@ragingloli, a “devil’s advocate” is just someone who takes the opposite side for the sake of the argument. It doesn’t have to do with religion. Often it’s the best way to bring out all sides of a discussion. I do it particularly to test the strength of the side I’m supporting and help it mend its flaws.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but I do separate religion and the notion of god. I can understand why someone would believe in god as an entity to explain the mystery of the universe, but I have a really hard time understanding why any adult would continue to believe in a religion.
@Jeruba I agree. I also think it’s beneficial to sometimes try and argue a point from a side you don’t necessarily believe because it forces you to think about that sides point of view as well, thus leading to you to better understand the whole issue.
I’ve thought about doing that here, on an alt account, just to see if I could do it convincingly. I’m told it wouldn’t be kosher against the “deception” rule.