Debating religion and pointers

[nygreenguy]

Hello all. I have found recent difficulty in debating religion with theists. (Go figure) They seem to get all defensive and call me intolerant when I challenge their ideas of faith. If at all possible, i would like a critique of my remarks made against theists and other nonsensical people.

These are links to a different thread. I'm not asking anyone to reply, but to just look at my responses, so i can become better prepared to debate later on. I am also nygreenguy on these forums!

Here. (http://oldamericancentury.org/bb/index.php?showtopic=11337)

Here. (http://oldamericancentury.org/bb/index.php?showtopic=10203)

[Vitalstatistix]

both links require login

[nygreenguy]

both links require login
Crap, i forgot. The religion section is the only on that requires you to be a member to see. Dang it. Am i allowed to post some of the discussions here if i omit names and such?

For example i find it necessary that if people wish to speak about religion and such, that they must also be able to back up their claims and beliefs. And I am called intolarant when i do such a thing.
I still believe that the most fundamentalist religion is the one that has reduced itself to no god. It seems to have the most rigid dogma and produce the most tenacious proselytisers of any. And the most insistent that theirs is the one and only true way.

Everyone's faith is the right one...for them. I even believe in something. I think what hurts progressives most is self-proclaimed atheists who are so damned insecure in their beliefs that they have to make snide, derogatory remarks about people who do believe in some sort of a higher power. Often to the press. They are every bit as bad as mindless Bible thumpers who tell me I'm going to hell for liking chocolate instead of vanilla.

And my response:
Sort of how "the world is flat" is ok, to those who believe it! Talk about irrational thinking. Its a good thing us smart atheists are around to show this world the difference between the real and the imaginary.

On a more serious note, I could care 2 shits about what people believe, but i will NOT say "everyone beliefs are valid" because it is just not true. (as i pointed out in my world is flat statement) Not to mention to say all beliefs are valid is not just a fallacy (reducto ab absurdum) but its a contradiction. (i can say i believe all beliefs are not valid, which is contradictory)

If you want to have "faith" in something, thats ok, just keep it the hell out of the public arena. (unless you plan to defend it)

NYGG, you just cannot stop yourself. You are totally addicted to a religion that has no deity, and insist that it is the only valid religion that there is. A fundamentalist religious zealot whose dogma espouses no god instead of one (or more), and denigrates any other belief. You have all the worst traits of the religious with none of the benefits. If what you say is true, why is it so important to you that others believe as you do, or passively accept your arrogance? I mean, if you're right, we're not going to hell or anything. Do you maybe feel it is the last thing you have a chance to be right about? I'm hangin' with MM on this issue. His beliefs and mine probably differ as greatly as yours and mine, but he has expressed no need to insult me or prove me wrong for having spiritual beliefs, or any other kind, whatever they may be. And so you know, your beliefs are yours and I respect that. What I dislike is your smug, self-righteous attitude, and your condemnation of believers who have too many gods for your taste, even if only by one. Do you think for a moment that religious liberals and progressives who are dissuaded from voting Democrat by some smarmy pseudo-intellectuals will vote Green instead?

Right here, in your very first post on this topic, is where you left the tracks. The fact, undeniably, is that people with religious affiliation vote. It would be nice for the US and the world, generally, if they felt comfortable voting Left rather than Right. You have absolutely failed to address the topic, and instead turned it into your own personal rant against faith, releigion and god. The original poster, Jimjayhawk, makes a good arguement and a valid point. People who claim Christianity make up, by your own estimation, 60% of the US population. Would you rather have them on the right side of the aisle or the left? It is a simple question, and does not ask you to believe what they believe. I should mention also that atheism, like monotheism and pantheism and animism and others, is just one more class of religion, and if other religions should be kept out of politics, then perhaps so should atheism.

My big thing is i like to challenge people when bullshit is put in front of me. Is that a BAD thing to do? Many of the people I debate this with are hardcore liberals and when i ask them if they would be quiet if a republican was ranting and of couse, they refuse to answer because they know they would say something. How would any of you respond in a similar situation?

[Vitalstatistix]

Can't win them all. Some people aren't working with a full deck of cards. Choose your battles & don't waste too much time.

[seebs]

I think the two of you are talking past each other.

[MadPhatCat]

I see you making a short and sweet statement getting your point across, using some logic and reason even... and then I see some jackass make all of these crazy assertions based on nothing. Better off not to bother with that guy.

[Karen M]

I’m not sure anyone can really make an accurate assessment without more of the thread. Also, from the very first post, you seem to either already have a “bad” reputation on this forum, or this individual has serious issues with atheism from the start.

You might want to focus more on correcting the atheist caricatures and generalizations. Also, you may need to either tone down your posts as a whole or use a form of arguing that doesn’t imply that anyone not atheist is stupid. Be “forceful” if you like, but keep your attacks and implications all aimed at the belief, not at the believer.

[nygreenguy]

I’m not sure anyone can really make an accurate assessment without more of the thread. Also, from the very first post, you seem to either already have a “bad” reputation on this forum, or this individual has serious issues with atheism from the start.
Both. Stupid overly pc liberals hate it when people criticize anyone.

You might want to focus more on correcting the atheist caricatures and generalizations. Also, you may need to either tone down your posts as a whole or use a form of arguing that doesn’t imply that anyone not atheist is stupid. Be “forceful” if you like, but keep your attacks and implications all aimed at the belief, not at the believer.

Like proving atheism isnt a religion? And from what i have seen, i have always focused on the belief and not the believer!

[nygreenguy]

I think the two of you are talking past each other.

Talking past? Like not actually addressing what the other is saying?

[DBT]

Originally Posted by not me
Everyone's faith is the right one...for them. I even believe in something. I think what hurts progressives most is self-proclaimed atheists who are so damned insecure in their beliefs that they have to make snide, derogatory remarks about people who do believe in some sort of a higher power. Often to the press. They are every bit as bad as mindless Bible thumpers who tell me I'm going to hell for liking chocolate instead of vanilla.

Obviously everyone's faith is the right one to meet their particular emotional needs. But that doesn't mean that the article of their faith is true.

Simply believing in 'something' will not make that 'something' an objective fact.

[Jobar]

I always liked "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color."

NYGG, in the wise words of Lazarus Long: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig." Some people just can't see past their own preconceptions, and arguing with them only results in nonsense and flame fests.

You can use that sort to demonstrate the ignorance and incoherence of their ideas to other people, though. If you do that, never forget that your audience is your actual target, not the moron you're talking to. Ask lots of questions, and point out the inconsistencies and fallacies in their arguments. Avoid losing your temper, and if he loses his, don't act mad yourself; act amused, but not too much. Poke fun, but gently, so that others won't see you as being nasty. Don't call an idiot, an idiot; let them demonstrate their own idiocy. Much more effective, and won't get you in trouble with moderators, or other posters who might understand your points and become your allies.

If others who aren't so close-minded start talking to you, be strictly honest with them. Don't talk down to even obviously uneducated people, if they treat you and others with respect. (It's best to start off trying to treat even the close-minded ones that way- give them at least three strikes, or more. People with sense will respect you for that, and see how ridiculous your opponent(s) are.)

If anyone criticizes you for being critical, you can always point out that they too are criticizing *you*! :D If they try to give you the 'judge not lest ye be judged' line, reply that you do judge, and are always ready to be judged in a fair court.

[nygreenguy]

I always liked "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color."

NYGG, in the wise words of Lazarus Long: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig." Some people just can't see past their own preconceptions, and arguing with them only results in nonsense and flame fests.

You can use that sort to demonstrate the ignorance and incoherence of their ideas to other people, though. If you do that, never forget that your audience is your actual target, not the moron you're talking to. Ask lots of questions, and point out the inconsistencies and fallacies in their arguments. Avoid losing your temper, and if he loses his, don't act mad yourself; act amused, but not too much. Poke fun, but gently, so that others won't see you as being nasty. Don't call an idiot, an idiot; let them demonstrate their own idiocy. Much more effective, and won't get you in trouble with moderators, or other posters who might understand your points and become your allies.

If others who aren't so close-minded start talking to you, be strictly honest with them. Don't talk down to even obviously uneducated people, if they treat you and others with respect. (It's best to start off trying to treat even the close-minded ones that way- give them at least three strikes, or more. People with sense will respect you for that, and see how ridiculous your opponent(s) are.)

If anyone criticizes you for being critical, you can always point out that they too are criticizing *you*! :D If they try to give you the 'judge not lest ye be judged' line, reply that you do judge, and are always ready to be judged in a fair court.

Heres the thing, once you start asking questions, they start calling me names, or they just refuse to address them.

[Jobar]

Then point out that they won't address your real questions, and ask them if that's because they can't. As for insults, ignore them or laugh at them, in a way that shows you think such things are indications that they can't answer you honestly. If they keep doing it, just reply with something like "yeah, yeah, and you're ugly, and your momma dresses you funny, too." (A grinning smilie won't hurt.) Then point out that insults don't answer questions, and if they've asked you any questions you think are worth answering, do so.

Sometimes- often, I'm afraid- people like this are just a waste of your time to address. But if you keep your cool, and learn to hold to the high ground in debating them, you make a good impression on people who might be worth talking to. Back when I was a mod, I once pointed out that he who first loses his cool, loses! If they really piss you off, wait a few hours, or even a day or two, before writing any reply. That's one of the real advantages of the discussion board format over F2F conversation, or chat rooms. Take your time. Maybe write up a really insulting post, knowing all the while you won't send it. That can help relieve some of your anger- and it can also help you prove to yourself that such outbursts never convince anyone. And that's true victory, in this battle- convincing others that you're more correct than they are. You can't do that if you've angered the one you hope to convince.

The ones who come to the discussion already angry- well, they've already lost, even if they don't know it or admit it. They'll never convince anyone! Best to just ignore that sort, and don't let them get your bowels in an uproar, the way that theirs already are. :)

[Tom Sawyer]

Talking past? Like not actually addressing what the other is saying?

Yes, this is what I've found generally happens when debating with theists (and communists, but that's a different forum). You each probably think that you're addressing the other's point's and making valid, well thought out answers, but since you're operating from such different premises, it seems to both of you that the other is both completely missing the point that you're making and deliberately avoiding giving answers on the main thrust of your argument.

Arguments that make sense to you are nonsense to him, because the parameters by which he's filtering them are so different and it's the same the other way. Based on his response to you, it seems that he's frustrated that you are just unable to see what's so entirely clear to him, no matter how much effort he goes through to explain it to you. You're likely equally frustrated with him for the same reason. Neither of you are ever going to convince the other of anything because you're not talking to each other in the same language.

On the bright side, though, you're actually right and you're correct in feeling all superior to him and he's just a poor, deluded idiot, so don't let him get to you. :)

[Jobar]

GG, notice how people will use anger to avoid actually listening to you.

If someone comes at you with guns blazing, obviously you can't talk to them. Your only possible way of opposing them is to fight back; and all too often, almost always, fighting back involves collateral damage- hurting others who weren't directly involved in the fight, and thus getting them involved, on the side of your opponents.

Debate can be like virtual combat. If it is, then your attempts to fight ideas you see are nonsensical and wrongheaded are likely to polarize all who hear them, and separate your audience into warring camps, who are talking past each other without even recognizing that, just as Tom says. To stand any chance of actually convincing those you speak with, you have to listen first, and try to understand the heart of their arguments.

Too many of both atheists and theists come to a discussion with the idea that it's a war of words. It's a competition, yes, but it should be treated more as a chess game, with strict rules of engagement; and even that's not a precise metaphor, because there's plenty of people who get mad when they lose at chess, too.

You may not know it, but for a long time now I've tried to convince the owners and operators of this board that they should have a forum similar to the old 'Rants, Raves and Preaching' forum. That was where II used to allow 'wars of words' to get much hotter than they allow anywhere nowadays. My reason for supporting such a thing is because it helps demonstrate the ultimate futility and ineffectiveness of flame wars, and deliberate attempts to anger and inflame those you talk to; if you try to use words as weapons, no real communication occurs. You just polarize your opponents further. The mods of such a forum would have to be aware of that, and constantly pointing it out. It might help some on both sides learn to actually communicate, and how to deal with angry opponents; the present rules of II just ban all who can't already argue with a modicum of self-control, and so limit the number of people who might benefit from II.

[Soul Invictus]

Always look for the strawman. I can't tell you how many times I've had to keep a discussion on focus.