Is it right to confront the religious with their mythology?

I'm quitting the security business soon, for a risky endeavor with far less security: writing.

SO, I've become a bit more confrontational, a bit more adversarial, towards those coworkers with whom I've had religious/ethics discussions. Don't have to maintain a good working relationship any more...

Today, I was mentioning the Passover to a deeply religious woman, and pointed out that god used his holy miraculous powers to send an angel to commit infanticide.

I said, "Now, according to your mythology..." That got a finger up and wagging in my face immediately. "Don't call my religion mythology!"

"Well, why on earth not?" was my dunderheaded reply, and it was off to the races...

My question is this: is it right (insert your definition of 'right' here) to point out what you see as the failings or inconsistencies of a religion in a discussion with a person who holds that faith? We all know deeply religious people who will not be moved, who will spout self-contradictory idiocy in defense of what their holy book says.

I do get angry sometimes. Not 'Dark Cobra' angry, but frustrated because the conversations usually go nowhere with such people. They like to think they're participating in a useful theological discussion, but the mind is just... too... closed...

And as an atheist, my mind is nearly shut to the possibility of god(s) existing. But I feel I must spread my beliefs, because I feel they're correct... I'm struck by the similarities between belief sytems...

anyway, when you know that you're probably simply making the other person uncomfortable by throwing what you feel to be the cold hard facts at them, is it right?

[Shroud of Akron]

it seems to me that it would be okay if you are stating facts. your belief is a different story, don't throw your belief in someone's face, just facts. if someone can't handle facts and get angry at you for stating them, f*ck 'em, they deserve to pissed off.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Lost Sailor
I'm quitting the security business soon, for a risky endeavor with far less security: writing.

SO, I've become a bit more confrontational, a bit more adversarial, towards those coworkers with whom I've had religious/ethics discussions. Don't have to maintain a good working relationship any more...

Today, I was mentioning the Passover to a deeply religious woman, and pointed out that god used his holy miraculous powers to send an angel to commit infanticide.

I said, "Now, according to your mythology..." That got a finger up and wagging in my face immediately. "Don't call my religion mythology!"

"Well, why on earth not?" was my dunderheaded reply, and it was off to the races...

My question is this: is it right (insert your definition of 'right' here) to point out what you see as the failings or inconsistencies of a religion in a discussion with a person who holds that faith? We all know deeply religious people who will not be moved, who will spout self-contradictory idiocy in defense of what their holy book says.

I do get angry sometimes. Not 'Dark Cobra' angry, but frustrated because the conversations usually go nowhere with such people. They like to think they're participating in a useful theological discussion, but the mind is just... too... closed...

And as an atheist, my mind is nearly shut to the possibility of god(s) existing. But I feel I must spread my beliefs, because I feel they're correct... I'm struck by the similarities between belief sytems...

anyway, when you know that you're probably simply making the other person uncomfortable by throwing what you feel to be the cold hard facts at them, is it right?

Society is quick to promote religion. To contribute to a hideous mental disease.

Religion (and irrationality!) are very much like computer viruses.

Jerry Falwell is like the "Cherenyoble"(sp?) virus, while some passive, more liberal people with religions are just like the virii that take up hard drive space.

Their minds are closed because faith is seen as a good thing, that it's "ok" to be infected, that it is part of your identity.

[shemp]

You might as well walk up to people in the street and call them a f*cking idiot to their face. It's approximately the same.

Good luck with your writing. I'll let the grass grow long, and when you're starving you can come up here and graze.

[LCBOY]

Being a Chrisitan, I guess I qualify as one of Lost Sailor's "deeply religious people who will not be moved". But I promise I will NOT "spout self-contradictory idoicy in defense of what my holy book says". :D

As a former atheist, though, I was intrigued by you comments:

And as an atheist, my mind is nearly shut to the possibility of god(s) existing. But I feel I must spread my beliefs, because I feel they're correct... I'm struck by the similarities between belief sytems...[QUOTE]

Have you always felt this way?

[evildave]

I dunno. Seems to me that it's just a bit pointless.

An accurate comparison might be provoking someone whom you regularly see wandering down the highway having animated arguments with himself.

Can you really believe you can make such a person see "sense"?

Besides, a conversation requires two way communication. As described, conversation is impossible.

Your mind is closed to all things religious.

Their mind is closed to all things NOT of their personal religion.

Not a lot of communication will occur in this situation. It can only be an exercise in mutual frustration.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by LCBOY
But I promise I will NOT "spout self-contradictory idoicy in defense of what my holy book says". :D


Why not? It's the only possible way for you to defend your irrational, unfounded beliefs.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by LCBOY
As a former atheist, though, I was intrigued by you comments:


Much though I hate to hijack this thread,... wait, I'll start a new one, because now you've got me interested.

[Knightmare6]

I like to confront the religious with their own mythology, but you can only do so much to those who wish to remain blind by choice.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Knightmare6
I like to confront the religious with their own mythology, but you can only do so much to those who wish to remain blind by choice.

We need more people to counteract those crap feel-good "you need something to believe in" commercials.

[Knightmare6]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
We need more people to counteract those crap feel-good "you need something to believe in" commercials.

Agreed, I'd rather feel better about myself, and at the accomplishments my own perseverance enabled me to conquer. I'm all for spiritual fulfillment, but not through the idolization of some entity forced down my throat by organizations that have probably caused more wars and death than power-mongering warlords.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Knightmare6


Agreed, I'd rather feel better about myself, and at the accomplishments my own perseverance enabled me to conquer. I'm all for spiritual fulfillment, but not through the idolization of some entity forced down my throat by organizations that have probably caused more wars and death than power-mongering warlords.

Spiritual fulfillment? How can you fulfill something that doesn't exist (at least no evidence indicates there is such)?

Unless you're talking about alcoholic beverages...

[Knightmare6]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Spiritual fulfillment? How can you fulfill something that doesn't exist (at least no evidence indicates there is such)?

Unless you're talking about alcoholic beverages...

By spiritual fulfillment I mean the feeling of my own life having a purpose beyond the life-and-death cycle, the furthering of my lineage, keeping myself happy, and trying to leave a legacy with which I can be remembered upon my passing after death by others.

Egotistical... yeah.

[fishbob]

EP er LS sez: My question is this: is it right (insert your definition of 'right' here) to point out what you see as the failings or inconsistencies of a religion in a discussion with a person who holds that faith? We all know deeply religious people who will not be moved, who will spout self-contradictory idiocy in defense of what their holy book says. Sure you can point out the inconsistencies of a religion to a deeply religious person. The problem is that you don't have the time to do a thorough job of it.

Like trying to teach a pig to sing - not much chance of success and it sure annoys the pig.

I have tried this (the religious discussions, not the pig training) once or twice. The discussions didn't really conclude, we just got tired and quit.

[Samus]

Religious beliefs (even if those beliefs are "none") are something that a person has to come to accept by themself. Listening to someone else yammer on rarely works, as those beliefs are very deeply rooted (even if those beliefs are "none").

Hence, giving a "persuasive speech to convince" isn't going to get you anywhere with the majority of people. In other words, you're not going to convince a/an [a]theist to think otherwise in a three minute argument at the office.

Instead, the focus should be on spreading information. Don't try to tell people to be atheists, try to inform people on the problems with any given dogmatic religion, or with being a theist in general. Point out whatever "evidence" you see that disproves the existence of God. Then, let people decide for themselves whether you have a good point or that you're full of it.

Your overarching motivation seems to be to convince other people that they're wrong. Of course you're inviting conflict. People don't like to be told they are wrong, and will often become very defensive if they think you're attacking them personally (see threads with Dark Cobra and I replying to each other).

I stopped trying to convince people to change their beliefs. If the topic comes up, I will give the conclusions that I've reached and why I have reached those conclusions. Never do I try to convince others they are wrong, unless of course, they try to do that to me.

Your mileage may vary, but I've found arguing with the ultra-religious to be pointless.

[sorgoth]

^This board turned me into an atheist. And for that I was thankful.

Actually, right before finding this place, I was entering the Logical phase , and things needed to make SENSE. So many good arguments against religion...just didn't make sense to me anymore.


Back on topic... No, I don't think it's wrong. I mean, sometimes people just don't have the right information to make a decision.

[Mercutio]

I only argue if they try to convert me first. Then I look them in they eye and tell them I used to be a born-again christian, now I'm an atheist, and if they really want to go there, I guarantee I'll convert them before they convert me. So far, that's all it has taken. I guess that means I don't actually argue, but I do get a point across.

[Ladewig]

My question is this: is it right (insert your definition of 'right' here) to point out what you see as the failings or inconsistencies of a religion in a discussion with a person who holds that faith?

Depends on what your goal is. If you are trying to sell blood pressure medication, then leading off with calling someone's religion a mythology is a perfect starting point (especially if you are doing so on a high holy day). If you goal is to understand the other person's position and beliefs, then using emotionally-neutral language to ask specific questions about the failings or inconsistencies might be a better approach.

Because good writers always consider for whom they are writing, understanding the person's views on fundamentalism and literal interpretations might help you tailor your approach. My advice is to walk away from literalists.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Knightmare6


By spiritual fulfillment I mean the feeling of my own life having a purpose beyond the life-and-death cycle, the furthering of my lineage, keeping myself happy, and trying to leave a legacy with which I can be remembered upon my passing after death by others.

Egotistical... yeah.

But the feeling of fulfilling something impossible (life after death) is placed their by the religions themselves.

[LCBOY]

Why not? It's the only possible way for you to defend your irrational, unfounded beliefs.

I joined this board to learn how other people think and what they believe in and why. I have a sense that no matter what I say, it's not going to move you at all. So I am not even going to try. :) But, that's ok, this board is about exchange of ideas, right?

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by Lost Sailor
...

Today, I was mentioning the Passover to a deeply religious woman, and pointed out that god used his holy miraculous powers to send an angel to commit infanticide.

I said, "Now, according to your mythology..." That got a finger up and wagging in my face immediately. "Don't call my religion mythology!"

...Starting a sentence with "according to your mythology" you immediately insulted their reasoning ability. If you started with "according to the bible" or "according to your beliefs" you would be provisionally be giving credence to their beliefs (at least for the duration of the argument). The latter examples I think are better form in an argument.

Walt

[Clancie]

I agree that "mythology" gets it off on a bad start from the beginning.

But, since you asked, on the broader question...Why should someone have to defend his/her beliefs (at work, no less) to you?

For example, maybe your coworker thinks its wrong to eat meat. A good rational argument can be made for that position--ethically, economically and environmentally. And, with its many practical implications, it might even be argued that vegetarianism has more value to argue with others than religion does.

But I'm wondering how someone who felt entitled to question others religious beliefs, mythology, etc. would feel about enjoying a meal in a restaurant and having a co-worker start criticizing your "irrational food choices"?

Speaking of which, why is an atheist's proselytizing any better than a Jehovah Witnesses' proselytizing?

After all, its not like we can offer proof that their belief is 100% wrong and ours is 100% correct.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Clancy


After all, its not like we can offer proof that their belief is 100% wrong and ours is 100% correct.

But that's not the point. With all the information we have, the only rational conclusion is atheism.

[Clancie]

I disagree, D.C. Do you feel the only rational position for all the things we cannot see for ourselves and have no direct proof of is to assert their non-existence?

Based on the evidence at hand, agnosticism is the most rational choice, imo. But what do you think about my other questions?

#1. Why should someone have to defend his/her beliefs (at work, no less) to you?

#2. A good rational argument can be made for vegetarianism--ethically, economically and environmentally. And, with its many practical implications, it might even be argued that vegetarianism has more value to argue with others than religion does.

Do you feel a vegetarian has the same right to badger you about your irrational food choices as an atheist does about your irrational religious views?

If we all can freely impose our belief system on others, whenever and wherever we like, it would seem consistent to say, "Yes."

#3. Speaking of which, why is an atheist's proselytizing any better than a Jehovah Witnesses' proselytizing?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Clancy
But I'm wondering how someone who felt entitled to question others religious beliefs, mythology, etc. would feel about enjoying a meal in a restaurant and having a co-worker start criticizing your "irrational food choices"?

Mmmmmm... irrational steak. Glaaaaallll...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


But that's not the point. With all the information we have, the only rational conclusion is atheism.

Or, as some of us conclude, that would be the most-rational irrational conclusion one could reach.

Agnosticism is at least logical; i.e. I don't know. ;)

[a fantoche de meia]

Originally posted by LCBOY

I joined this board to learn how other people think and what they believe in and why. I have a sense that no matter what I say, it's not going to move you at all. So I am not even going to try. :) But, that's ok, this board is about exchange of ideas, right?
Yes, and some ideas deserve only laughter. We will not shirk that duty.

I do not seek opportunities to proselytize. But if someone brings up the topic of their religion, I will not always acquiesce.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Clancy
I disagree, D.C. Do you feel the only rational position for all the things we cannot see for ourselves and have no direct proof of is to assert their non-existence?

Based on the evidence at hand, agnosticism is the most rational choice, imo. But what do you think about my other questions?

#1. Why should someone have to defend his/her beliefs (at work, no less) to you?

#2. A good rational argument can be made for vegetarianism--ethically, economically and environmentally. And, with its many practical implications, it might even be argued that vegetarianism has more value to argue with others than religion does.

Do you feel a vegetarian has the same right to badger you about your irrational food choices as an atheist does about your irrational religious views?

If we all can freely impose our belief system on others, whenever and wherever we like, it would seem consistent to say, "Yes."

#3. Speaking of which, why is an atheist's proselytizing any better than a Jehovah Witnesses' proselytizing?


Yes, they must not be assumed to exist.

I do not think gnomes, trolls, ogres, and the like exist. Are you agnostic to gnomes? I doubt it. It is silly to think they exist, and it is silly to think that something that we have NO evidence of exists.

Now, if you think that there is most likely a rock on X distance faraway planet, even though we have no evidence, it would be more justified because of the plausibility of the claim. You cannot remain agnostic to the existence of invisible walls, do you go about your daily life wondering if you will or will not walk into one?

As for your questions:

1. The irrational people are a threat to the rest of humanity, even if only a little bit. The majority of people are sheep, if you contribute to ignorance even slightly, it won't be much, but with groups of people, it adds up. People aren't the most rational creatures that could exist... that's why one of the most common falacies is "appeal to common belief".

If they cannot adequatly defend their beliefs, their mind should be changed.

2. Vegatarianism is not nearly as irrational as religion, however it is obvious that humans have evolved to consume meat and it is easier to get certain nutrients from it.

PETA members and militant vegetarians are not rational, and neither are militant anti-vegetarians.

3. Because atheistism is the rational point of view :)

If you disagree-- that's why we have debates. But no JW has (or seemingly can) defend their beliefs adequatly.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by hammegk


Or, as some of us conclude, that would be the most-rational irrational conclusion one could reach.

Agnosticism is at least logical; i.e. I don't know. ;)

If the idea holds no water, and is implausible, it is more rational to believe it doesn't exist (unless the idea gathers evidence).

Such as Thomas Jefferson and meteorites. ;)

[triadboy]

Originally posted by LCBOY


I joined this board to learn how other people think and what they believe in and why. I have a sense that no matter what I say, it's not going to move you at all. So I am not even going to try. :) But, that's ok, this board is about exchange of ideas, right?

I think the fact you were a former atheist and now a believer is fascinating. Were you a "I don't care" atheist or someone who studied and discovered the mythology atheist and then somehow denied your knowledge?

With what I've learned, there is NO way I could possibly go back to believing now.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by triadboy


I think the fact you were a former atheist and now a believer is fascinating. Were you a "I don't care" atheist or someone who studied and discovered the mythology atheist and then somehow denied your knowledge?

With what I've learned, there is NO way I could possibly go back to believing now.

He has already indicated in another thread that he was what I call an "ignorant atheist", that is not having proper justification for atheism in the first place.

[Denise]

I work with a super religious female Archie Bunker. I have gotten into it a couple times with her, but I usually have to leave as she gets red in the face and I have work to do. She found out I was an atheist when we were eating lunch and she said to the gals at the table " We all know that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus is going to hell." By the way, I work with a lot of Muslims among them Bosnian Muslims which freaked her out finding out that "white" people could be Muslims. Anyhow... Before Palm Sunday she came in with a big Palm frond and tacked it to her cubicle. I would say that in my experience that more Christians are "in your face" than atheists. Although most Christains could care less what others believe.

[gnome]

I usually don't bring it up unless someone engages me in conversation. Save your efforts for the ones that actually listen and ask more questions, or think and respond... those are more likely to give their religion some thought... and saves you from the moral question of attacking someone's beliefs... you're there by invitation.

Wow, some excellent answers. I want to make it clear that I have never attempted to engage people in a 'your silly life-after-death fantasies have no basis in reality' type of conversation. The woman with whom I've had these discussions/arguments begins them about half the time.

I don't try to sell her on atheism (she's well happy with her religion) but on what I see as the observable facts, and my conclusions.


LCBOY, welcome to the family! I was raised a Catholic, and have only embraced atheism in the last two years. Before that I'd considered the priesthood, then went through a stage of uncertainty... and finally started to look for evidence indicating the existence of all the things that religions propose. Found none at all.

I have a smugness about my beliefs (no god)... the very same smugness one can find in somebody who fervently believes! Life is hilarious...

I'm not of the opinion yet that it's pointless to try arguing your position with well-chosen religious people. I just have to learn to choose more selectively...

[LCBOY]

Thanks Lost Sailor!

As a former "ignorant atheist" I look forward to learning what other people believe in.

[LCBOY]

I am sorry about your negative experience with the crazy christian lady. Unfortunately, some of my fellow christians lose touch with reality and need to get a life. I just want to say that not all christians are that way. Like with any group of people, there will always be some cooks in the bunch.

[Torment]

If they start something with you, I don't see why you would feel the need to act politically correct about it.

She stated herself that you were going to Hell for not believing in Jesus. She was stating her beliefs as facts. I don't see how she had any right to be offended when later on you did the same to her by calling her religion mythology.

My personal philosophy when it comes to religious debates is to give their ideas the same respect they give yours, which in this case was obviously not much.

[LCBOY]

I think the fact you were a former atheist and now a believer is fascinating. Were you a "I don't care" atheist or someone who studied and discovered the mythology atheist and then somehow denied your knowledge?

I'm not sure what you mean? It just seemed that atheism was the most rational philosophy to accept. I did do a lot of reading of philospohy, logic, biology (had to get that evolutionary thought in there!), history, archeology, etc.

[LCBOY]

Several of you have asked me very good honest questions. I'll need a little bit of time to answer them. I'll put together a short summary to answer these questions. Please be patient for a little while...

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Denise
I work with a super religious female Archie Bunker. I have gotten into it a couple times with her, but I usually have to leave as she gets red in the face and I have work to do. She found out I was an atheist when we were eating lunch and she said to the gals at the table " We all know that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus is going to hell." By the way, I work with a lot of Muslims among them Bosnian Muslims which freaked her out finding out that "white" people could be Muslims. Anyhow... Before Palm Sunday she came in with a big Palm frond and tacked it to her cubicle. I would say that in my experience that more Christians are "in your face" than atheists. Although most Christains could care less what others believe.

Christians wave their religion in everybody's face and many are looking for ways to sell it to themselves, hence everybody around them.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by LCBOY

I did do a lot of reading of philospohy, logic, biology (had to get that evolutionary thought in there!), history, archeology, etc.

With that background, do you believe the Bible is the inerrant "Word of God"?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by LCBOY


I'm not sure what you mean? It just seemed that atheism was the most rational philosophy to accept. I did do a lot of reading of philospohy, logic, biology (had to get that evolutionary thought in there!), history, archeology, etc.

What philosophy did you come across that was particularly atheistic? And since I assume you have chosen to reject it, perhaps you could say why.

[plindboe]

I'm no expert in Christianity, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Is it not a cornerstone in that religion to spread the word to as many as possible? Judgement Day will not come until every person on the planet has made the decision, whether they believe or not. Therefore I see no crime in spreading what we see as the truth, now that they have chosen a religion that forces their beliefs onto others. Though I must say that the more condescending you are in your approach, the more closed people's minds will be. Respect for other people's beliefs is neccessary, or the entire discussion is wasted.

Peter ;)

[Clancie]

I didn't want to hijack the thread, but since LCBOY is going to be responding to questions later, I did have two comments about the notion of "pushing our values on others".

1. First, D.C. You said:

Vegatarianism is not nearly as irrational as religion, however it is obvious that humans have evolved to consume meat and it is easier to get certain nutrients from it.

I think vegetarianism is actually a far more rational choice than eating meat, especially in today's world--ethically, environmentally and economically speaking. I wonder why you would assert that meat consumption is the more "rational" choice?

Likewise, this statement requires some support: "It is easier to get certain nutrients from it." "Easier" doesn't mean "only" or "better" way to get them. And how would you compare the "advantages" you see from meat vs. the health hazards it causes due to fat and cholesterol, or the carcinogens that have been found to be formed in the broiling/grilling/frying process?

The point I'm trying to make with the vegetarian analogy (and it applies to me as well) is that considering oneself more rational than other people, doesn't mean its "across the board" in all areas of one's life, or necessarily even true.

And that changing one's ideas or beliefs can, for some, be much easier than changing one's behavior.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by plindboe
Is it not a cornerstone in that religion to spread the word to as many as possible?

Yes, just like their brother religion Islam. So we have fundamentalists from two huge, idiotic religions spreading their fertilizer all over the planet.

[Yahzi]

There are two positions here.

On the one hand, it's wrong to diss someone else's poetry. Art is a matter of taste, and if the Holy Nailing gets you moving, that's your perogative. You can be emotionally motivated and illuminated by whatever you want. Some people sit and stare at rocks, for chrissake. There is no call to be a buzzkill when it's not necessary. If somebody offers you a toke, you don't have to give them a lecture, you can just say, "No thanks."

On the other hand, some people seem to think all this crap is actually true. Those people are deeply misguided, and they need to be reminded of it at every oppourtunity, the more annoying the better. They are living a a fantasy, and they need to be poked until they wake up and drive. Life is far to important and dangerous to others to be operated by a sleep-walker trapped in a dream.

I have recently decided that I am not against creches and nativity displays and even crosses on public ground. Man needs art to live, and our public places ought to be stuffed with art. Art of all kinds, that speaks to everybody. The problem is not that there is a baby Jesus on the courthouse lawn at Xmas; it is that there isn't a Buddha, a Krishna, Santa and the elves, Mithra and a tree, snowflake prints by the 3rd graders, graffiti by the taggers, statues, paintings, and a three-piece band.

Art should be everywhere in our lives. The only problem is that some people have mistaken their art for truth. These people are delusional and we need to educate them before they harm themselves or others.

There is nothing wrong with religion as long as you don't think it is actual, physical, truth. Much as there is nothing wrong with country music, magic, or theater, as long as you don't think it is actually true. The problem is not in the existance of metaphyisical symbology: the problem is that some people can't tell the difference between an allegory and a fact.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Much as there is nothing wrong with country music ...... as long as you don't think it is actually true. .

I understand about all that other stuff... but country music?

We gotta' draw the line somewhere..



-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Diogenes


I understand about all that other stuff... but country music?

We gotta' draw the line somewhere..
What? You don't think it's possible for a man's wife to leave him, his truck to break down and his dog die all in the same day?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Upchurch

What? You don't think it's possible for a man's wife to leave him, his truck to break down and his dog die all in the same day?

I don't have any problem with any of that.. Other than, you left out the part about being on the way to pick up his mom, who was just getting out on parole...

I think you misunderstood my position on that one..

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I think you misunderstood my position on that one..
Probably. I was more interested in making fun of country music than actually advancing any particular position.

[Yahzi]

You don't think it's possible
Oh, sure, it's possible. But remember, scientific knowledge deals in the probable.

:D

[jimmygun]

I used to hold my tongue whenever the religious nuts started to prattle on. I did not wear my atheism on my sleeve because I felt I didn't have to defend myself to others. If someone asked me about my atheism I was willing to give them an earfull.

Times change and so did I. I have become more millitant. I don't go looking for a verbal battle but if someone says something incredibly stupid, like it was a miracle that bla bla bla happened or that so and so wasn't killed, then I get into their faces about the obvious contradictions they are spouting. At least the religious that know me keep it to themselves.

One thing that bugs me and I have never gotten a straight answer from those that consider it their obligation to spread the word of god, is why do you insist on continuing with your tirade after someone has said they already heard the word and have rejected it as pure flapdoodle? I have lived in this country for 55 years but every door banger assumes that I have never heard the word of god. What gives?

[Nitravitro]

Originally posted by LCBOY


I'm not sure what you mean? It just seemed that atheism was the most rational philosophy to accept. I did do a lot of reading of philospohy, logic, biology (had to get that evolutionary thought in there!), history, archeology, etc.

I'm more interested in why you converted (!? is that the right word?) to christianity, from Atheism. I was raised a catholic, but just sorta knew that it wasnt right from the age of about 12, as a result people converting to christianity (as opposed to being indoctrinated into it) baffles me.

Maybe you can clear this up for me :)

[Nitravitro]

oops wrong thread
damn linx :p

[Tricky]

One thing to remember when debating someone with strongly held beliefs is that they are not going to give them up easily, and they are not going to "give an inch" in the argument. However, it is important to try to keep anger out of the picture. If you have influenced a person with your ideas, it will not be immediately apparant. You may have planted some memes which, given time to gestate, will pop out again at unexpected places.

As an example, I give you Jedi Knight, who steadfastly maintained that humans don't have any gravity. Though countless people ridiculed him and provided evidence, he was stalwart. Eventually the conversation died. But then someone remembered about it and brought it up again. Miraculously, he no longer held this opinion (he had been misunderstood all along).

So if you must debate with "closed minded" believers, just don't mistake a grudging reluctance to give up on illogical beliefs as complete rejection of logic. These things take time.

And to LCBOY, welcome to the forum. You will find here that with a few notable exceptions, most atheists (like myself) agree that God is possible, just that the evidence is very poor and self-contradictory. As skeptics, we require strong evidence before we believe in something.

[Kashyapa]

I would tend to think that this is reasonably OK as long as you aren't out prostylestizing for your views. Don't fall into the same trap they do. But if somebody gets in your face about, let the dogs out.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Clancy
I didn't want to hijack the thread, but since LCBOY is going to be responding to questions later, I did have two comments about the notion of "pushing our values on others".

1. First, D.C. You said:



I think vegetarianism is actually a far more rational choice than eating meat, especially in today's world--ethically, environmentally and economically speaking. I wonder why you would assert that meat consumption is the more "rational" choice?



..."ethically"? Good grief! Apparently we have an animal bias here!

Humans have evolved to have meat in their diet. It is far easier to get certain nutrients from meat and from plants.

However, I am not advocating ONLY meat-- eat both meat and plants.

Restricting one is restricting your intake of nutrients.



Likewise, this statement requires some support: "It is easier to get certain nutrients from it." "Easier" doesn't mean "only" or "better" way to get them. And how would you compare the "advantages" you see from meat vs. the health hazards it causes due to fat and cholesterol, or the carcinogens that have been found to be formed in the broiling/grilling/frying process?

You don't HAVE to eat meat fried or grilled, and if you eat the right meat in the right amount fat and cholesteral shouldn't be much of a problem.

You should eat both, for a balanced diet.

I might as well say if you eat veggies, the pesticides will hurt you.


The point I'm trying to make with the vegetarian analogy (and it applies to me as well) is that considering oneself more rational than other people, doesn't mean its "across the board" in all areas of one's life, or necessarily even true.


But you can still be "more rational" in general, which skeptics are and woo-woos aren't.


And that changing one's ideas or beliefs can, for some, be much easier than changing one's behavior.

Point is...?

[Clancie]

Restricting one is restricting your intake of nutrients.

Please explain. What nutrients can you only get from eating meat?

You should eat both, for a balanced diet
Why?
I might as well say if you eat veggies, the pesticides will hurt you
Well, you still get them with the diet you're recommending. :)
(There are organically grown vegetables easily available here in California anyway, not very expensive any more either).


Clancy: The point I'm trying to make with the vegetarian analogy (and it applies to me as well) is that considering oneself more rational than other people, doesn't mean its "across the board" in all areas of one's life, or necessarily even true.

D.C: But you can still be "more rational" in general, which skeptics are and woo-woos aren't.
Well, you describe "more rational" based on critical thinking that leads to ideas about abstract things, like God. What if I define "more rational" as critical thinking that leads to (1) abstract understanding about the eco system on the planet plus (2) an actual change in behavior in order to put values into meaningful practice in life?

Clancy: And that changing one's ideas or beliefs can, for some, be much easier than changing one's behavior.
DC: Point is...?.
Point is...That it could be a lot easier for people to adopt an ideology that doesn't require them to actually do anything difficult about it (like "I am smarter because I'm an atheist") than it is to understand and change a lifestyle based on a better understanding of environment/economy (like changing your consumption habits through vegetarianism).

[stamenflicker]

This board turned me into an atheist. And for that I was thankful.

You put way too much faith in the clowns on their unicycles around here if that is truly the case.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

I have recently decided that I am not against creches and nativity displays and even crosses on public ground. Man needs art to live, and our public places ought to be stuffed with art. Art of all kinds, that speaks to everybody. The problem is not that there is a baby Jesus on the courthouse lawn at Xmas; it is that there isn't a Buddha, a Krishna, Santa and the elves, Mithra and a tree, snowflake prints by the 3rd graders, graffiti by the taggers, statues, paintings, and a three-piece band.

This is most rational thing I've ever seen Yahzi post...

Art should be everywhere in our lives. The only problem is that some people have mistaken their art for truth. These people are delusional and we need to educate them before they harm themselves or others.

You've only included one definition of the word truth-- truth is anything that conveys meaning, and meaning is always layered. I think I would agree more with the notion that delusional people interpret their art as fact. Fact carries a connotation much different than truth. Perhaps I'm arguing over minor details, but a fact is a fact regardless of its shades of meaning, or lack of. Truth however is quite different. Something can be unfactual, yet convey meaning. In that sense it is a truth.

For example, "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence," is not a factual statement in the least little bit. The statement does however contain a high degree of truth, should one chose to peel back the layers of meaning.

The problem on this forum, and with sooo many atheists, is the utter inability, stubborness, or insecurity to peel back the layers of anything religious in this manner.

Flick

[INRM]

Originally posted by Lost Sailor
I'm quitting the security business soon, for a risky endeavor with far less security: writing.

SO, I've become a bit more confrontational, a bit more adversarial, towards those coworkers with whom I've had religious/ethics discussions. Don't have to maintain a good working relationship any more...

Today, I was mentioning the Passover to a deeply religious woman, and pointed out that god used his holy miraculous powers to send an angel to commit infanticide.

I said, "Now, according to your mythology..." That got a finger up and wagging in my face immediately. "Don't call my religion mythology!"

"Well, why on earth not?" was my dunderheaded reply, and it was off to the races...

My question is this: is it right (insert your definition of 'right' here) to point out what you see as the failings or inconsistencies of a religion in a discussion with a person who holds that faith? We all know deeply religious people who will not be moved, who will spout self-contradictory idiocy in defense of what their holy book says.

I do get angry sometimes. Not 'Dark Cobra' angry, but frustrated because the conversations usually go nowhere with such people. They like to think they're participating in a useful theological discussion, but the mind is just... too... closed...

And as an atheist, my mind is nearly shut to the possibility of god(s) existing. But I feel I must spread my beliefs, because I feel they're correct... I'm struck by the similarities between belief sytems...

anyway, when you know that you're probably simply making the other person uncomfortable by throwing what you feel to be the cold hard facts at them, is it right?

You want my honest opinion?

If a person won't be budged, there's no point in trying to persuade them. You're simply wasting your breath, and making them angry.

If you get a thrill out of making them angry, that's one thing; you're a sadist. But if you're honestly trying to persuade them? Give it up.

I think if you're just doing this to get your rocks off, I think you're an obnoxious, arrogant sh*t.

-INRM

[c4ts]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
This board turned me into an atheist. And for that I was thankful.

You put way too much faith in the clowns on their unicycles around here if that is truly the case.

Flick

You mean UCE's posting as Juggler again?

[Floyt]

If a person won't be budged, there's no point in trying to persuade them. You're simply wasting your breath, and making them angry.

If you get a thrill out of making them angry, that's one thing; you're a sadist. But if you're honestly trying to persuade them? Give it up.


Third reason: get to the bottom of your own views (rather like practicing pingpong against a wall :) )
At the moment I'm slugging it out on a German board with a bunch of die-hard creationists/literalists. From the answers I got till now I can tell that there's absolutely no way whatsoever that any of these people are ever going to concede a single point. But going up against a Pro-Creationist FAQ (which is clearly in use in that case...) without references is an interesting test.
I'm actually having to think through for myself a lot of things I have taken for granted about evolution, the scientific method etc.

Also, maybe someone manages to convince me in the process, and wouldn't it be fascinating to see that happen :D

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by stamenflicker


The problem on this forum, and with sooo many atheists, is the utter inability, stubborness, or insecurity to peel back the layers of anything religious in this manner.

Flick

You choose the most amazing metaphors Flick..

If you want to peel back the layers of religion, lets compare it to peeling back the layers of an onion.

They pretty much look the same, they don't get any sweeter and when you get to the middle, there is nothing there.

[stamenflicker]

They pretty much look the same, they don't get any sweeter and when you get to the middle, there is nothing there.

Thanks for the good knee-slapper :)

You can keep your untrained eye.

Flick