Arguing Religion With Others

[Antiventurecapital]

Arguing religion with those who don't believe as you do is really quite pointless.

For the people trying to convert everyone over to their particular belief system, I suggest that you imagine that you have a friend who is a total Lord of the Rings fanatic. He's so into the story that he's come to believe that it's a historically accurate record of a real place from the past called Middle Earth and of real races of beings: men, hobbits, elves, dwarves, and orcs.

He insists on talking about it constantly and feels smugly superior to those who have concluded that it's only a myth which has evolved over centuries to convey certain moral principles. Whenever you tell him that you don't believe the story is historically accurate, he responds with quotations from LOTR as "proof" that it is, since he obviously missed the day at school when "circular reasoning" was covered.

Everyone should watch this short video with Bill Maher and two other guests trying to explain to a woman why they don't share her religious beliefs. It's as if they are speaking different languages. The woman is just convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is something wrong with them for not sharing her beliefs. Furthermore, she believes that if only they could see what she sees, they would join her as believers. Meanwhile, Maher tries unsuccessfully to get across to her that he knows exactly what she believes but can't take it seriously. I was fully expecting him to start banging his head on the desk out of frustration. It was like talking back to the radio.

Video

[natopoto11]

You are correct. Arguing is pointless. But discussion is the main purpose of this forum.

[Antiventurecapital]

Originally Posted by natopoto11

You are correct. Arguing is pointless. But discussion is the main purpose of this forum.

Discussion of religion is difficult, if not impossible, for one simple reason. When you initiate the discussion from a desire to "save" someone, or share "the good news", or "witness for Jesus", you are in effect saying to the other person, "You are a misguided fool, meanwhile I see "the light". Therefore, I must save you from yourself."

This is not a great way to start things off.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

Discussion of religion is difficult, if not impossible, for one simple reason. When you initiate the discussion from a desire to "save" someone, or share "the good news", or "witness for Jesus", you are in effect saying to the other person, "You are a misguided fool, meanwhile I see "the light". Therefore, I must save you from yourself."

This is not a great way to start things off.

nor is implying that anyone who happens to be 'religious' is some how intellectually inferior to you...especially when you smugly state that you, for example, can find so many mistakes in their post that you don't know where to being...then when asked to back up that statement, say you're done discussing it.

just a tip

[Antiventurecapital]

Originally Posted by dor

nor is implying that anyone who happens to be 'religious' is some how intellectually inferior to you...especially when you smugly state that you, for example, can find so many mistakes in their post that you don't know where to being...then when asked to back up that statement, say you're done discussing it.

just a tip

Get your eyes checked. I did respond by pointing out that wealthiest and best countries as well as places in the USA are secular.

I then left because trying to reason with someone like you is like trying to talk to the radio. It's an exercise in futility.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

Get your eyes checked. I did respond by pointing out that wealthiest and best countries as well as places in the USA are secular..

no, you said the facts were incorrect in my post, then you made a vague, unrelated/unprovable general statement and called me a bunch of names....you begrudingly admitted i*might* be right about locke, but it was cherry picking, which, i demonstrated, illustrated that you were remarkably uninformed about anglo american history and philosophical thought

you again made a sweeping inaccurate statement about 'red and blue' states, which further shows how uninformed you are. you constantly call imply i was narrow minded, yet you back up your sweeping statements with unprovable generalizations and , as i demonstrated you were /are clearly uninformed about the basic history of Europe from the middle ages to the present.

just to show you how uninformed you are, here is a real 'red'/blue breakdown:
Image:2004 US elections purple counties.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Antiventurecapital]

So how should evangelicals try to attract others to their religion?

Simple answer: Actions speak louder than words.

We are all drowning in a sea of charlatans, conmen, and plain old ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

By age 20 or so most of us know that we need to take what people say with a grain of sale (and sometimes a bucketful). It's far wiser to watch what they do than to go by what they say.

Behavior NEVER lies.

[Antiventurecapital]

Originally Posted by dor

no, you said the facts were incorrect in my post, then you made a vague, unrelated/unprovable general statement and called me a bunch of names....you begrudingly admitted i*might* be right about locke, but it was cherry picking, which, i demonstrated, illustrated that you were remarkably uninformed about anglo american history and philosophical thought

you again made a sweeping inaccurate statement about 'red and blue' states, which further shows how uninformed you are. you constantly call imply i was narrow minded, yet you back up your sweeping statements with unprovable generalizations and , as i demonstrated you were /are clearly uninformed about the basic history of Europe from the middle ages to the present.

You really have no shame have you? You distort everything even when it's a matter of public record what a person said.

You are such an incredible waste of bandwidth that I looked for an ignore function to switch on. Sadly, there does not appear to be one on this forum.

As I advised you before, don't rely on your bible class instructor for accurate lessons in history and science.

I won't waste anymore time on you.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

So how should evangelicals try to attract others to their religion?.

umm, i am not evangelical, I am epsicopal, not that you would know the difference, and I have no intention or desire to attract you to my religion, I am just amused how you claim to be rational yet are completely irrational and fantatic- an eerie reflection of a fundemenalist - you have clearly demonstrated you don't understand even the rudiments of western history, yet in the other thread you spewed your idealogy (notice you kept spewing your idealogy in that thread, and I simply pointed out facts, and didn't discuss idealogy) here is an example:

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

For the benefit of others, those more interested in facts than in dogma, most of history has been a steady moving away from superstition towards science. Look up "god of the gaps" to understand the radical shift that has taken place in mankind's evolution over the past 2000 years. Long ago, any occurrence was directly attributed to god. Your goat died? God killed it because he was angry at something you did. A deer accidently bumped into your hunting party? It's a sign that god is pleased with you. Overtime we came to see that there are simple scientific explanations for most of life. Occam's razor. You don't need imaginary critters to explain most things.

As far as someone with an agenda to push cherry-picking one historical figure who is in agreement with him, whoop-dee-doo. It proves nothing.

now, nowhere did i try to do this, I simply pointed out facts- facts which fly in the face of your idealogy..and can we at least agree that you really don't know a whole lot about western history?

[dor]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

You really have no shame have you? You distort everything even when it's a matter of public record what a person said.

You are such an incredible waste of bandwidt

you are lying . here is what you said:

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

Hey, you forgot to debunk evolution too.

Seriously, there are so many incorrect claims in your post that one doesn't where to begin in correcting you.

The lesson here is not to rely on bible class for your education about the real world.

in response to this:

Originally Posted by dor

Just blew right by that physicist-minister didn't you?

Another 'humanist' twisting reality to fit his pet theories. Open a history book. The Renaissance was followed by a resurgence in religious belief, known as the protestant reformation.

resurgence in religion led to freedom foundations of the US and UK -since mans right were God, not King given, the king could not impede them (please see John Locke).

Those 'more religious' countries actually soared past the less religious catholic ones - intellectually, scientifically (the scientific method has its roots in Christianity, Kepler and newton, for example were seeking god's order ) - in which the church had been corrupted.

Oh, i do have two examples of enlightened rational beings rejecting religion 1789 France (known as the Reign of Terror) and the various Communists regimes that left 120 + million people dead.

I called you a sophomore because, well, look up the meaning. You make , sweeping statements - and baseless assertions about religion going the way of the dodo bird....under the guise of being rational , but it's really just a thin veneer for your own irrational hatred and excuse to feel 'superior' to those ignorant 'religious peoplel' sounds like you just picked up Richard Dawkins latest 'masterpiece' .

as for it "fu¢king" mattering, yes it does, if you're a product of any US school system, - for example 'kids' graduating today have had 10+ years of diversity /sensitivity indoctrination, which makes them very different fish, on average than those who went to school pre-PC.
and yes you are making sweeping judgments, where my statement was a reflection in sweeping changes in the US educational system with the asendence of the sixties (hippie/baby boomer generation) into positions of power, particularly in educational fields - which has directly effected education.

you said there incorrect claims in this post and you couldn't prove one - you are now blatently lying.

[Antiventurecapital]

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

Only a fanatic would attempt to argue with the reality that the best places on earth to live are the most secular but with freedom for everyone to practice their individual faith: Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand. What's the best and most advanced Moslem country to live in? The most secular one: Malaysia, although religious fanatics are now threatening it too.

What are the best regions of the USA to live in? The secular coastal Blue states and the largest cities in the Red States.

There is a disturbing movement in the USA to turn the nation into a theocracy. The people behind this movement are different from the Taliban only in degrees. Given time and power, there would be no discernible difference between the two groups.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
[INDENT]RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

the nonsense you're willing to believe is really amusing.


"It is important to challenge Paul's assertion forthrightly, because the casual, non-research minded reader, might easily accept his conclusion as entirely plausible on the face of it," writes Gallup.

"Gregory Paul's conclusion is based on a flawed analysis according to my research associate, D Michael Lindsay, an expert in the department of sociology at Princeton University. After carefully examining Paul's international study, Mr. Lindsay maintains that it does not pass scholarly muster."

He makes two points, says Gallup:

First. Paul claims that regressions and multivariate analyses were not used because 'causal factors for rates of societal function are complex', and because he finds enough uniformity across the cases of 18 of the world's most powerful societies to consider them basically consistent and not in need of control variables. Can he identify a single other study published in a major social scientific journal that compared results across countries that did not employ multivariate analysis to control for differences among nations? No, because multivariate analysis is required for cross-national comparisons of this sort.

Secondly. In order for the author's bold claims against religious commitment contributing to society to hold true, he would have to refute the hundreds of volumes that have proven otherwise. From discussions on parenting and fatherhood, to mental and physical health, the weight of empirical evidence is against Paul's assertions: religious commitment has notably positive effects on the individual and collective levels of human society.
VirtueOnline - News - Exclusives - GALLUP ORGANIZATION REFUTES "SOCIETIES WORSE OFF WITHOUT GOD" STORY

oh and perhaps the reporter should read the newspaper she writes for:
Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries-News-UK-TimesOnline
Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries

and, again, if you didn't let your idealogy cloud your reality you'd *figure out* why Japan has less crime - its homogenus, ordered society with low immigraiton -crime has soared out of control in europe in direct results of mass immigration and mutliculturalism -which essentially creates ethinic blocks- do you recall the 5 week riots in france, my uninformed friend?
.

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

[
What are the best regions of the USA to live in? The secular coastal Blue states and the largest cities in the Red States..

really, I invite you move to the south bronx, harlem, bed-stuy, the south side of chicago... you obviously didn't take a careful look at the map i posted, and if you knew ANYTHING about poor neigbohoods in new york, as I do, you would know that for example, in black neigboorhoods the religious kids are less violent, less promiscous, corteous, better educated and hard working because the churches - often 7 day adventists - provide structure, but of course you don't because you have no idea what you're talking about. I do. I live on the edge of such a neigborhood.

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

[
There is a disturbing movement in the USA to turn the nation into a theocracy. The people behind this movement are different from the Taliban only in degrees. Given time and power, there would be no discernible difference between the two groups.

There is a disturbing movement in the US to turn it into a PC-Taliban, the same goes for Europe - restrictions on freedom of speech have almost exclusively come from multiculturlists. once again you're idealogy distorts your reality

[annie]

HA!

I love the title of this thread......and the example given

I just had a terrible argument with my husband this morning....no, not about religion (since me mostly agree on that)

But every time we fight, I learn a few things....and maybe this can apply to arguing religion also.

1. It's hard to overcome the human nature tendency of wanting to be right.

I know of so few people that don't fit into this category. And with that said....EVERYONE wants to be right....especially the person arguing with you.

2.Why oh why must we continually spout our stuff when we know dang well that they aren't listening.

Developing a space where people can share their own opinions without ridicule is one of the most important things. Once we cross over and criticize, mock or make fun of, it's downhill from there. The offended person feels justified in taking the same behavior.

3. Don't back them into a corner....the only result is that they have to defend themselves. Giving a person wiggle room also allows space for them to listen, think about what you said and come back with their own argument.

My...I could go on all day, but I won't.

[Antiventurecapital]

The thing that has made America such a great country is that our Founding Fathers understood the critical importance of keeping church and state separate. As a result, we have been be free to practice our individual faiths while respecting the rights of others to practice theirs.

The vast majority of people have no desire to impose their religious beliefs on others, they know better, but unfortunately a few still engage in narrow intolerant tribal thinking that their way is the only way.

Over the past few years one group has been attempting to turn this great country into a theocracy based on their particular beliefs. We have them to thank for the worst and most corrupt president and administration in history.

On the bright side, America has woken up to the results as evidenced by the November election.

By the way, there is an Ignore function at the bottom of the CP panel.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

The thing that has made America such a great country is that our Founding Fathers understood the critical importance of keeping church and state separate.

that's why there's been a congressional chaplain first appointed by the founding fathers?
Chaplain of the House of Representatives

John Adams - Wikiquote
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.

[annie]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

By the way, there is an Ignore function at the bottom of the CP panel.

Like I was saying............(in my previously ignored post ) Arguing is the worst form of communicating...because there is none. Such more pyscho-babble in proving your point and making you right.

But hey..............knock your socks off because nobody is really reading this

[Antiventurecapital]

Hi Annie,

Here's something I believe to be true based on personal experience. People who are secure in their faith don't feel any need to convert others. However, people who are insecure about their faith feel threatened by seeing that others believe differently. So they attempt to convert them over to their way of thinking as a means of making their inner doubts go away.

The more others resist them the more shrill they become.

[annie]

I certainly wouldn't argue with your personal experience....but consider a different perspective.

I'm from a religion that is HIGHLY know for it's "trying to convert" tendencies. That's the way I was brought up....but the core belief is: I have something so incredible that shouldn't I share it with everyone??

So I do discuss religion with others (occasionally if it's appropriate) and tell them what I believe and if it's an open discussion and friendly (people just sharing how they feel) then we continue on.

Not once in my 43 years have I ever tried to converty someone to make my inner doubts go away.....but interesting concept. I'll chew on it a bit.

[Antiventurecapital]

Originally Posted by annie

I certainly wouldn't argue with your personal experience....but consider a different perspective.

I'm from a religion that is HIGHLY know for it's "trying to convert" tendencies. That's the way I was brought up....but the core belief is: I have something so incredible that shouldn't I share it with everyone??

So I do discuss religion with others (occasionally if it's appropriate) and tell them what I believe and if it's an open discussion and friendly (people just sharing how they feel) then we continue on.

Not once in my 43 years have I ever tried to converty someone to make my inner doubts go away.....but interesting concept. I'll chew on it a bit.

I spent 12 years in a private religious school. However, we never would have tried to convert others over to our way. It just wasn't something that we even thought about.

My dad told me that a person's religion is a matter between themselves and god. That's been my philosophy.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

Hi Annie,

Here's something I believe to be true based on personal experience. People who are secure in their faith don't feel any need to convert others. However, people who are insecure about their faith feel threatened by seeing that others believe differently. So they attempt to convert them over to their way of thinking as a means of making their inner doubts go away.

The more others resist them the more shrill they become.

Kind of like constantly having to harp about fanatics when you actually are one yourself.

Let's examine your posts:

spouting idealogy that flies in the face of history - check
labeling and prejudging people - check
categorizing people who simply disagree with you,
prove you wrong as 'evangelists' trying to convert
you when they were simply pointing out
sloppy thinking and gross error on
your part - check.

Like i said you're an eerie reflection of fundementalist.

still waiting for you to refute one error in my post which you said was so full of them you didn't know where to begin...apparently that much is true.

[Antiventurecapital]

Originally Posted by annie

I certainly wouldn't argue with your personal experience....but consider a different perspective.

I'm from a religion that is HIGHLY know for it's "trying to convert" tendencies. That's the way I was brought up....but the core belief is: I have something so incredible that shouldn't I share it with everyone??

So I do discuss religion with others (occasionally if it's appropriate) and tell them what I believe and if it's an open discussion and friendly (people just sharing how they feel) then we continue on.

Not once in my 43 years have I ever tried to converty someone to make my inner doubts go away.....but interesting concept. I'll chew on it a bit.

You sound like a sensible person.

Back in the first grade a fellow student asked the teacher what happened to people who had never heard of Jesus. The answer was "Oh they all go to hell."



That's what got me to start looking at religion and ask if it was something I could believe in.

To make a long story short, I have an interest in spirituality and feel there are many paths to god. As a bumpersticker says "god is too big for just one religion."

Wise words.

[dor]

Originally Posted by annie

I certainly wouldn't argue with your personal experience....but consider a different perspective.

I'm from a religion that is HIGHLY know for it's "trying to convert" tendencies. That's the way I was brought up....but the core belief is: I have something so incredible that shouldn't I share it with everyone??

So I do discuss religion with others (occasionally if it's appropriate) and tell them what I believe and if it's an open discussion and friendly (people just sharing how they feel) then we continue on.

Not once in my 43 years have I ever tried to converty someone to make my inner doubts go away.....but interesting concept. I'll chew on it a bit.

Annie, people try to 'convert' people for or against the iraq war, for or against global warming - to be more environmental, and a host of other things,
I know directly in the fine arts that you learn by teaching - so this isn't confined to religion...- but as long as your respectful what is wrong with that?
no one likes an fanatic trying to impose views -whether they are religious, political or environmental or other....but there are also people that are so hateful of religion that they react by labeling everyone with preconceived lables - as antiventure as done. NOt to drag you into the argument, but invite you to find, anywhere where i tried to 'convert him' - i only pointed out his assumptions were way off base, an indicated he was pretty uninformed about western history and, further, that he was letting his ideology, ironically enough distort reality.

So while it's interesting to 'chew on it' it's essentially pop psychology from someone who might do better to apply it to himself.

[Antiventurecapital]

Originally Posted by natopoto11

You are correct. Arguing is pointless. But discussion is the main purpose of this forum.

I agree but it's really tough "discussing" religion. People tend to get very irrational very fast. Sometimes so much so that you need to put them on Ignore (which works very well, I might add.)

[ethereal]

There is no way to convince or persuade others, hence arguing is pointless. Everybody has their own experiences and information and countless other factors, and given their circumstances, that is the conclusion they came to. If you were in their shoes you'd be the same. All arguments are based on the hypothetical reality that others could/should be different than who they are.

Most debates are pointless. People first pick the side they want to support, and then generate the arguments and logic to support it. You can try it out; pick a side and debate it, then pick the other side and debate that too. You'll find that you can support either side with good arguments either way -- hence the pointlessness of it all

Religion is especially tough, because religious beliefs are fundamental to self-identity. You could say they're directly attached to the ego, and attacking people's religious beliefs is equivalent to attacking their ego identity and threatening their very physical survival (at least, it seems like it). All rationality gets thrown out the window when that happens.

What one can do is offer information in the hopes of producing understanding in others. Beyond that, there is not much anyone can do.

[Antiventurecapital]

Originally Posted by ethereal

There is no way to convince or persuade others, hence arguing is pointless. Everybody has their own experiences and information and countless other factors, and given their circumstances, that is the conclusion they came to. If you were in their shoes you'd be the same. All arguments are based on the hypothetical reality that others could/should be different than who they are.

Most debates are pointless. People first pick the side they want to support, and then generate the arguments and logic to support it. You can try it out; pick a side and debate it, then pick the other side and debate that too. You'll find that you can support either side with good arguments either way -- hence the pointlessness of it all

Religion is especially tough, because religious beliefs are fundamental to self-identity. You could say they're directly attached to the ego, and attacking people's religious beliefs is equivalent to attacking their ego identity and threatening their very physical survival (at least, it seems like it). All rationality gets thrown out the window when that happens.

What one can do is offer information in the hopes of producing understanding in others. Beyond that, there is not much anyone can do.

You're absolutely correct.

Evangelical believers should try to remember that they come across like the LOTR fan in my above example when button-holing those with other beliefs.

[celeste]

Originally Posted by dor

Kind of like constantly having to harp about fanatics when you actually are one yourself.

Let's examine your posts:

spouting idealogy that flies in the face of history - check
labeling and prejudging people - check
categorizing people who simply disagree with you,
prove you wrong as 'evangelists' trying to convert
you when they were simply pointing out
sloppy thinking and gross error on
your part - check.

Like i said you're an eerie reflection of fundementalist.

still waiting for you to refute one error in my post which you said was so full of them you didn't know where to begin...apparently that much is true.

Thank you for speaking for the general public.

[Antiventurecapital]

Originally Posted by celeste

Thank you for speaking for the general public.

Do you even know what this forum is about?

What would your pastor say if he found out you were trolling this place?

[celeste]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

Do you even know what this forum is about?

What would your pastor say if he found out you were trolling this place?

He would be glad that I am being exposed to other people's views, whether they are logical or not.

[Antiventurecapital]

Originally Posted by celeste

He would be glad that I am being exposed to other people's views, whether they are logical or not.

Glad to see that there's some hope for you.



Actually I know how you feel.

I felt that way too once.

Then I found out a lot of things about religions after I began reading up on them.

I strongly recommend readings in the area of "comparative religions".

[ethereal]

Argue spirituality, not religion.