arguments spawned by mention of religious topics
Offline Hey to be honest I'm not sure where to put this, so maybe a mod can bump it to the right place!
I just joined this to ask this one question (although I may stick around). I'll mention the context of it coming up first then pose the actual question.
My girlfriend has recently crossed the barrier of being agnostic to atheist, and is rather proud of it (I've always been an atheist personally), and she posted a comment on her blog. I believe it was mainly focusing on the twisting of morals based on various bible stories and historical events like the issue of putting out your daughters to be gang raped and so forth. It was more of a personal musing. I'm no scientist or "intellectual" but I agree with the logic of it, and so forth.
What happened was that it instigated a HUGE argument with an online friend ... former now. But something was amiss. I'm all for logic based arguments, even if I suck at it, I always want to improve. But this argument was nothing of the sort. I believe the breaking point was my statement, when I said that when we pick a belief we infer our judgement on to peoples lifestyles, even if unintentional, and it cant be avoided, nor can both sides of an opposing statement be correct. i.e a rock is solid green, or a rock is solid red. One statement has to be correct (this doesn't in my opinion have to mean we have to delve into color theory and mixing until it's so over analyzed the original idea is lost). Another example of this is someone who says "I have nothing against gay people, I just don't want them to be able to marry each other" I think the same view point that causes you to not want them to marry (which I say go for it you crazy lovebirds) is the same viewpoint that says they're immoral, therefore, you very much have something against them, otherwise why would you deny them a basic human right (or what should be a right).
Anyways!
I'm not saying both sides didn't get into some insults and so forth, so that leads to my question.
Logic based arguments do not seem to work in debates of religion, because most (not all people) really don't care what you have to say. You can quote things, explain them, present the science data, give the proper definition of terms, you can try and take the high road and apologize for getting angry but you don't understand why they ignore the evidence. Or why they wont even present logical evidence of their own, without ignoring basic grade 10 science lessons. Sometimes it gets turned into a victim complex, like your oppressing them even if they actively chose to pick the fight. So really, Ive seen a million FANTASTIC arguments, obviously, as I am an atheist, but they're all too clever. Is it that i'm losing my edge to start thinking the only way to counter an irrational argument from someone who doesn't care about the rationality, and will not address any of your evidence, and never offer up anything past assumptions and bible quotes, that maybe I should take a more irrational approach myself? Am I losing sight of something here?
If they dont care to listen to reason, what, in all honesty, not idealism, can one do to at least soften the punch, to change that. What could allow someone to break through 25 +years of programming, not people who were born catholic, never REALLY went for it, but decided that at 25 I guess it doesnt exist. But like hard core, the worlds 10k old, jesus rode a t-rex (not literally but you know what I mean), im going to hell kind of religious believer. Even if that person puts up a front, where they themselves actually believe they are, an accepting, open minded person. As if to say to avoid argument, because we are all right... but you're going to hell and I'm not. I find that almost more offensive then someone who tells me im going to hell to my face. Anyways sorry, but yeah, how would you even attempt to soften that kind of person up? Because, honestly... they're not biting on the reason and logic.
I expect the answer to be something along the lines of, you can't, those people will eventually dissapear over time, and newer and newer generations will become increasingly open minded as per the way of history in all complex social issues. But as for this issue, it seems, including in recent year politics, that they are fighting harder and harder to suppress scientific thinking and spread the belief. Or even newer beliefs like scientology, that keep sprouting up, and gathering up the stragglers into another form of insanity.
But as you can tell by that last statement, obviously I have little faith of things improving without people making an honest effort to spread proper logic and reason to these people. otherwise why would they change at all?
So sorry, rambled a bit, but yeah, is there a more simplified way of cracking a hard nut? A cool logic puzzle, like a religion proof, robot head exploding, rubix cube style riddle, that plants the seed of reason? or am I screwed?
Thanks, sorry for the typos, long day
- Login to post comments
Essentially your looking to make a cleverly crafted irriational arguement, that forces the theist into a logic trap, in an attempt to defeat you.
I attempt this constantly for personal entertainment, theres just 1 flaw in it. Intelligent theists are to smart to fall for it, Dumb theists are to stupid to notice, let alone understand it.
So your still not gonna make any headway using it... which is why, as i said, reserve it for entertainment purposes.
What Would Kharn Do?
I don't know anyone who hasn't run into people like this. There is no use trying to be rational with them, because they are not interested and they insist that they must hold these beliefs or they will burn in hell. Some are truly frightened of this and fear is the most difficult to argue against.
This is my spiel:
"If I meet a maker when I die, I will ask, where is the evidence? You gave me a brain, you gave me an inquiring mind and you left me with a 3,000 year old book that you supposedly dictated to a bunch of goat herders. If you are going to send me to hell for using the brain you gave me, so be it. I don't want to be in your heaven."
At least the really hard core ones will go away, and occasionally I will get into a reasoned discussion with someone who has perhaps been secretly uncomfortable with their religion.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
It's essentially a drug they are dependent upon. They can't imagine giving up religion because they believe their existence depends on faith. How people feel always trumps reason.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Need to ask them a thought provoking question like.. "If jesus can walk on water, why does he wear sandals"?
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
As do I; though we may be in the minority there. While those elastic ones are easier to get along with during the day, they're also harder to crack- and they bounce right back if you do ever get through a bit. That is, the ones with the strong beliefs who will tell you to your face are going to be more easily brought out of it.
Compare a soft, rubber wall to a hard yet brittle stone wall against a blunt trauma- the harder will crack and crumble dramatically, the softer will just bend, and flex back into shape.
That said, it's still not easy-- it still requires a trauma. Emotional or physical can do it- if you catch one after a car crash, or after the death of a loved one you might have more luck.
I encourage you to look at PETA's website, and see how they use emotional shock to kind of jolt people. Obviously that's only remotely useful on the people who claim, at the root of it, to care about the well-being of animals (because it exposes a contradiction- those who don't care aren't bothered by it because there's no contradiction); but almost all people (in the case of arguments for atheism) claim to care about believing in what's real.
That brings me back to the soft, rubbery sort- they often don't care about believing what is real (unlike the hard-core ones); their beliefs are flexible in accordance with their whims. As such, demonstrating a contrast to reality while they're receptive to it in the context of emotional shock won't work much, because though they might momentarily accept it, they'll be right back where they were because they prefer ignorance.
The hard ones will, but they'll only listen to you if they're in a state to.
However, with all of them you can plant seeds of doubt with very concise and strong arguments- you don't even have to catch them in shock to do that. The *next* time they're in shock and having a crisis of faith, your voice will come back up (if you were memorable in your presentation), and you may succeed years later without ever knowing it.
Ask many ex-Christians, and they'll often say it was remembering something that they pushed under the rug years ago that finally brought about the realization- or sometimes it's a flood of those memories that just add up to be too many.
That probably won't ever work. If the whole population turned atheist today, you'd have cult leaders popping up again in a matter of months. People are flockers; that's what they do. It doesn't make sense, and they don't care. That's also why it's so hard to organize atheists- we tend to have somewhat weaker flocking instincts (the only thing that let us escape the clutches of religion to begin with).
However, if we're careful and meticulous, we can work against the most far-reaching and insidious of it; and hopefully break it up enough that people don't become *isolated* by their own beliefs, because it's the isolation that breeds the extremism.
Put a bunch of Christians together, and you get a new Crusade. Put a bunch of Muslims together, and you get a Jihad. Mix them up, so they realize, at least intuitively, that their beliefs aren't ultimate, and the illusion of us vs. them morality fades, and you get their very presences moderating each other.
*That* is what we should be doing. Shattering, fragmenting, and mingling various religions. That's why I don't focus attacks on things like Scientology- it's yet another way for Christians to see reflections of their own isolated extremism. Any minority religion is helping, relatively speaking, by simply being there as an alternative voice.
We're idiots if we focus on killing the weakest and must vulnerable memes- it only makes the opposition stronger- which is why we should be going more for the heart of the matter. Using arguments of evolution against fringe Young Earth Creationists may not be helping; it very well could be strengthening the herd by picking out the crippled memes.
Thinking less of obliterating religion bit by bit, and more of weakening it and guiding it to be less socially destructive, is what we aught to be doing.
I actually hear you on that, makes a lot of sense. Even with modern day politics...
I don't think you can change a person's mind in a single debate.
However, over several debates, they might see that their position does indeed have a lot of holes in it.
Furthermore, they might eventually reveal their personal motivating reasons for believing, and if you address them then that really could lead to a change of mind.
Your girlfriend's change was probably of a similar process.
You perhaps had a few discussions, or she perhaps just observed you being the atheist you are.
This caused her to reflect on her own reasons for believing in God and she came to realise she had none and "admitted" her atheism.
I think on these forums, I think we've often seen people change their opinions over time.
Though some are more resistant that others.
cj and Blake both have good points here.
On one hand, there are simply people who aren't going to listen. You see them on this forum all the time...they have too much riding on religion and they were never interested in anything but justifying their belief anyway. cj's response, or something similar, is best. Say that, and move on.
And Blake's point about choosing your battles applies as well. I actually agree with him 100%, I think it is more practical to blunt theism than to destroy it. We'll never destroy theism, but we *can* help mold it into something that is less damaging. If I can convince someone to adopt a more deistic approach to God, or even a liberal Christian approach to God, that is a victory.
Even in a recent debate with a theist on this forum, I tried to focus on showing him that his interpretation of theism was no more valid that anyone else's. Sometimes that is a more appropriate target than getting them to go cold turkey on religion.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Yeah I have to say I didn't consider the idea of dulling it and choosing battles based on that principle
I find this to be the essence of religious discussion. Try as I may, a reasoned approach to the subject never seems to bear fruit. At some point, a theist will run out of rational arguments and fall back on faith-based/emotive response mechanisms. When forced to stare reality in the face, it is no surprise that such knee-jerk reactions occur: we are challenging a central feature of a theist's existence, namely their religious identity. I likewise feel that we atheists are guilty, from time to time, of much the same sort of reaction. As reason and logical processes are typically core attributes of our personalities, I can recall many times where I have simply given up an argument since the theist refuses to weight their discourse with anything other than emotion. Did I lose those confrontations, per se? I don't know- but I could not bring myself to continue the discussion. I wonder if my frustration stems from the intransigent nature of the process, or the feeling that my time and energy is being wasted by someone with whom I would rather not associate.
It's hard to argue rationally with most theists because when presented with facts and evidence that prove them wrong, they just choose to close their eyes and minds and say that god sent them to test his faith or that atheists will burn in hell. Another thing you could have trouble arguing about is religious and spiritual experiences which even though can be explained by science(hallucinations, delusions, dreams, LSD slipped in their coffee)people who have had such experiences(not all of them, but a lot) choose to believe that they were sent a message from god
. And we all know you can't argue with a delusion.
"I don't believe in afterlife, although I am bringing a change of underwear."