It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How do you Win a Religious Argument?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 




There is no such thing as a pointless endeavor and to call an action being undertaken by someone else while you stand by as an outsider looking in pointless is ignorant



Plus the fallacy of the OP is that someone can actually "win" a religious debate.


Well, in my very short post, notice I said:
"When beliefs and opinions and lack of proof on both sides try to "win", it is a pointless endeavor IMO."


I have fruitlessly engaged in these debates before, and learned more about people's opinions than about any religions or philosophies that I haven't already studied on my own or thought of.

Debating opinions on religions? Call me ignorant if you want if I'd rather not go in endless circles.


Seeing that you seem to feel so strongly about this, why haven't you participated in this thread beyond calling me ignorant??
edit on 4/15/2014 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Simple.....
Dont get into one in the first place!



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Exactly, you don't win a religious argument. There is no winning one. You are arguing a topic based in faith. You're arguing philosophy, morality, things that don't yield hard, empirical results that can be collated and tested and slung around as facts.

And generally, people are going to just resent because as convinced as you are that you're right, they're going to be equally convinced on their end.

The best thing you can do is to hope to have a productive discussion where you agree that you will disagree and show polite interest in each other's varying points of view and part without rancor.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   
the best way to win a religious argument is the way they have always been won;
by venting a little air into one or the other waterbags on the opposite ends of that particular debate
( a knife, or a sword, or for you modernists - possibly with a bullet, )
and so dispatching that one off to become truly enlightened ( by a couple of grams of energy which can't be created or destroyed ) to see the truth for himself ( did i forget to mention that they will also be lighter by the weight of the gold and silver coins they used to own...after all, they can't take it with them...so you might as well pick out the gold teeth too)

and one of these days the winner will return to verify the score
edit on Tuepm4b20144America/Chicago31 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Head to Georgia, change your name to Johnny and have a fiddle off.

Or battle rap if you want to modernise.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


Because when I find threads that I don't wish to actively participate in, I don't deem it necessary to let the whole world know my displeasure in the threads like I've seen you do on other threads. Instead I may be content to just be a bystander, happily reading what other people have to say, or just ignore the thread altogether. Also don't hit me with the fallacy that because I'm passionate about a subject that I inherently want to read and participate in EVERY thread that discusses it. Sometimes I like to defer my arguments to smarter and wiser people than I rather than just clutter up the internet with another misinformed opinion. I'd say this strategy has helped me not say a great deal of things that I'd regret later because I wasn't adequately informed on the topic.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


I admire that in you, Krazy. Maybe I should take notes.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


I haven't read the whole thread.....just wanted to answer the question as I see it before doing so.

How do you win a religious argument?
Well, its impossible really because its all reliant on conjecture, dogmatic creed and blind faith - so its irrelevant really, acts and deeds are all that matter.
Hence me being Agnostic.
edit on 16/4/14 by Freeborn because: grammar and clarity



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarl
 



Religion has always been about picking a team ... and little to do with understanding what spirituality is All about.

A method which has served me well is a deeper understanding of all religions. Some people just want to talk and are comforted when you understand the choices they have burdened themselves with. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Yes, correct, and a great point. I'm with you - get a deeper understanding of the lot of them, both ancient and modern, as well as their evolution over the centuries, and one can find what 'spirituality' is about.

I really appreciate and admire the last sentence above. They do want to talk, and yes, they do feel comforted to be 'heard and understood.' They feel comforted by their religion/religious views.

The converse, of course, is also true:
"People will cling even tighter to their beliefs when shown evidence against them."

Therefore, it is the rare bird indeed who wakes up and realizes they've been misled all their lives and jumps ship. It can be traumatic, like losing a loved one. Many have to simply start all over, and it's frightening.
People will often choose to stay with a familiar discomfort than gather the courage to dump it and face an uncertain alternative.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by BuzzyWigs
 


the courage to dump it

If you help, it's not really about dumping anything. It's more about seeing from a different perspective. I haven't found yet a religious practice whose tenets are flat out wrong. Some, I'd rather not expose myself to, but that's my problem.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Obviously one can be self righteous and dogmatic regardless of their religious beliefs or lack there of.

I have studied many and find value in having done so.

Why cant religion be discussed without it becoming a pi$$ing contest?

There must be a few Christian out here in the world filled with billions that you like or love or respect.

Discuss religion or what one believes with manners.

How complicated is that?

Instead you get called an idiot for having faith. That is when the sparks start flying.
edit on 103030p://bWednesday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Just gotta learn a few things about the laws and culture, and find something good enough to be used against them. Confucius was good at this I think, I saw movie about him. Kind of interesting how he turned the death sentence on the death sentencer, which actually got scared.

It like Akido, just gotta use all there muscle against them. Problem is, how much do you wanna study the culture, or religion, or else it be used against you.

But hey, if people wanna claim to be Jesus, or have some oriential or arab high honor standard, then might have to die for it.
edit on 16-4-2014 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


Excellent post! I like many people probably were raised going to church and were introduced to or indoctrinated into a certain religion, so this forms the religious beliefs of the child that stay with them in many cases for life, unless he does seek to find out for himself what is true concerning his somewhat superimposed religious beliefs or faith.

In my own adult search for truth and understanding, one verse in the Bible sums it up and whether you believe in the book and story or not, you can't begin to count the many lessons taught and things that will make you start thinking and analyzing any situation you are faced with, this verse sort of defined it for me in my search for truth.

John 18:38
King James Bible
Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.


You had Pontious Pilate not finding any reason whatsoever to put Christ to death, but because in the crowd there was majority Pharisees and Rabbis that felt that Jesus was wrong in how he was being critical of them and possibly creating a situation where their very livelihoods were being threatened as his teachings were spreading and causing a possible erosion of the power of the Pharisees over the people of Israel.

So unfortunately at the time when Pontious Pilate put it out to the crowd for the verdict, the majority in the audience were in the corner of the Pharisees and they voted to crucify.

So the big question is what is truth?

Well you hit the nail on the head, whoever has the power and the control does control the perceived truth whether that is right or wrong, one must generally arrive at the conclusion the basis for the verdict must have been either true or overwhelmingly based on facts that were closer to the truth, just like any trial in a court of law, many times circumstantial evidence and other factors point to guilt and thus supply a basis for truth regardless of there being a possibility of that outcome not necessarily being true.

With that said, any argument on religion will usually never end in a winner because there are things that in a lot of instances when it comes to religion and that serve as the basis for it, simply either cannot be fully proven as fact or proven as being true beyond a shadow of a doubt.
edit on 16-4-2014 by phinubian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 



Discuss religion or what one believes with manners.

How complicated is that?

Instead you get called an idiot for having faith. That is when the sparks start flying.

Or you get told you'll burn in a "Hell" that not everyone believes in.

I think that's where the sparks begin. It seems to me that it's nearly impossible to have a mannerly discussion about religion unless both parties are aware of facts that dispute myths in some religions. If a person is determined to believe, like Ken Ham, to the extent that nothing could ever change his mind about a young earth, despite every other person on Earth (aside from his cult followers) knowing that it is however many mbillions of years old, there is no 'discussing' with them.

My fascination with discussing religion is about that, I think. If people are presented with more plausible alternatives and/or actual facts that refute their 'beliefs' as myth, taken from other sources, or outright lies, or facts that support the beliefs of others, why are they not able to comfortably question themselves and their previous beliefs?

Why do they have to put their listening organs on MUTE and turn up their own VOLUME with lalalalala?
What growth occurs when one tells another that they will be burning in hell for eternity simply for not believing an obvious myth?

I wish people could be more receptive and excited about learning, rather than so eager to silence, bully, mock, shame, or condemn anyone who has very good reason to disagree with and/or point out the fallacies of any particular dogma. This is particularly the case with factions of Christians and Muslims, both when they argue amongst 'their own' on specifics, or with the opposition. I don't know that much about Judaism, but we see in the Jews there is also schism.

WHY can everyone not simply agree that we want the facts, and no conclusions will be made until such time as we have those facts? A charismatic preacher does not a truth-teller make. No matter who they are.




edit on 4/16/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by BuzzyWigs
 


Theology and doctrine are complicated, many schools of thought argued and debated between Christian schools of thought as well, I particularly love the wisdom teachings.

I spent many years studying with different denominations, and then decided to try and find the earliest teachings which led me to studying all religions.

Like it our not we are all influenced in our society by Judeo Christian values.
edit on 113030p://bWednesday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

edit on 113030p://bWednesday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 




I don't deem it necessary to let the whole world know my displeasure in the threads like I've seen you do on other threads. Instead I may be content to just be a bystander, happily reading what other people have to say, or just ignore the thread altogether.

I gave my opinion that "you can't win a religious argument."

Others have expressed the same thing in this thread.

How is that displeasure?

In your first of your two only posts in this thread (both "telling me off"), oddly you also said one can't win a religious argument.

You said you're "content to be a bystander" but then you enter a thread just to call someone else ignorant for their opinion, as you did with me?

edit on 4/16/2014 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 



Like it our not we are all influenced in our society by Judeo Christian values.


Dunno about that. Seems to me that Judeo Christian values are just really trumped up reboots of the Golden Rule. "Don't be an asshole, man."



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


Don't put words in my mouth. This is what I said:



There is no such thing as a pointless endeavor and to call an action being undertaken by someone else while you stand by as an outsider looking in pointless is ignorant.


I called the action ignorant. Nowhere did I label you ignorant. You called the arguing pointless and I disagreed with you. Just because you don't see the point or don't get anything out of it doesn't mean that it is pointless or a waste of time. That was the issue I had with your post.

If you got offended by my remarks, then that is your problem.

Also, keep in mind, I said this as well:



Plus the fallacy of the OP is that someone can actually "win" a religious debate. The point of the debate is to lay your facts and reasonings down and let the opposition as well as the audience (yes the audience is involved in a debate just as much as the two parties participating in it) interpret them. Sometimes, a debate is a success if you can just get someone to alter their opinion slightly or maybe you educated a complete bystander on a subject that they weren't entirely up to speed on. Anyone who goes into a debate on a topic such as religion thinking they are going to completely change someone's mind 180 degrees is deluding themselves.


So it's not like I just came into the thread just to rant at you. I addressed the OP as well.
edit on 16-4-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 



Like it our not we are all influenced in our society by Judeo Christian values.


Dunno about that. Seems to me that Judeo Christian values are just really trumped up reboots of the Golden Rule. "Don't be an asshole, man."


Golden rule huh?

hmmmm


edit on 113030p://bWednesday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 




Also, keep in mind, I said this as well:

Plus the fallacy of the OP is that someone can actually "win" a religious debate.

Yes, what I said without the apparently awful addition of the word "pointless".

But IMO, like I basically said to try to "win" something that is inherently "unwinnable" is pointless.

No one will "win".

Very sorry that this is the post threw you into a rant:

Chamberf=6
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




I dont understand why people insist on debating about religion.

Just dont get it.

Neither side is ever going to win.

I agree completely and actually expressed that in different words in a separate thread.

When beliefs and opinions and lack of proof on both sides try to "win", it is a pointless endeavor IMO.
edit on 4/14/2014 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/16/2014 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join