How do you Win a Religious Argument?

The conversation of children arguing amongst themselves.

Sometimes it's not worth it other times you fight for what you believe in. Follow a truth, follow a lie nobody wins and everything dies.

Perhaps it's best to leave a person with their own belief or idea. Because each time we break something like hope and trust, parts of us die and wither away. You won't win an argument over things like this because no one has an answer for what happens when we die, or how we came to be.

All are ideals worth fighting for, so don't expect a person to give in to another's idea so easily.

reply to post by darkbake


I guess the best way to win a religious, or any other, would be to only discuss such things with those who are atleast on your own intellectual level. Remember all things move to the lowest common denominator.
In case you do find yourself arguing with an idiot just "nuke-up" and move on.

reply to post by darkbake


Who are you trying to convince?

If you have faith, if you believe what you are saying is true, then why do you have to "win" anything?

blueyezblkdragon
Perhaps it's best to leave a person with their own belief or idea.

Unless those beliefs or ideas are dangerous for the rest of us.
Then education is the key, I'd think.

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.

yeahsurexxx
reply to post by darkbake

 

People has a tendency to invest alot of their ego in faith.
This is why they get offended as soon as you want a explenation for their 15th century behavior.

I'll stand by the fact that if you show me the reality of "God" i will accept it.
So far I've seen no god. Just preachers making money.
But I'm open for suggestions.

I would say seeking is a personal journey where seeking within gives more understanding of everything on all levels. You can always play around with different chi/chakra-tools and see if you can get it to work for you. No real faith in any religion needed. Seek the tool that works for you and evaluate the tool.

reply to post by colbe


That's the kind of crap that made this thread seem necessary in the first place.

reply to post by Chamberf=6


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've learned quite a bit about various religions, counterpoints, and arguments by debating religion that I would not have known otherwise. I'd call that the exact opposite of pointless, and I haven't even changed my opinion about religions in the slightest since I started participating in them.

I really hate it when the people who have no interest in debating a topic come in and call everyone participating in it foolish because they dare to partake in an activity that the person has no interest in. Just because YOU don't get anything out of a religious debate is not a good call to say that no one gets anything out of a religious debate. 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.

Phage

okamitengu
just walk away, why do you have to win anything?

Winning is OK, but you can't win a religious argument because dogma is the only thing to argue about as far a religion goes and, well, that's just a matter of opinion...ain't it?

And they'll argue back that your own opinion is dogmatic as well. When it comes to matters of faith and belief, it's a zero sum game because it is a matter of faith and belief. Those things so are so rigid in either side that they are downright inflexible. I'm an atheist but I choose not to fight with others' beliefs regardless of my own thoughts about religion. There's no way of winning.

I used to love arguing over religions and which one is 'better' than the other or of course religion vrs science and what not.
As time went on, and as I spoke to many people in different religious background I eventually just accepted what they had to say as what they truly believe in and it's not up to me to make them 'lose' an argument or for me to 'win' over them.

About a year ago a good friend of mine who used to be hardcore christian denounced her faith, moved out of her house, and moved in with her girlfriend, yes, girlfriend. She became atheist and came running to me for help to 'fight' her old church. At first I just tried to tell her to forget, and educate herself on the scientific way. Well that turned into fuel for her battle against Christianity.
She had been shunned by her church, her siblings, and only her good friends and parents accepted her new life style.
Eventually it got to a point where one of her sisters was constantly barraging her to emails, and facebook messages about God and such, so I jumped in and we had a little 'debate' about Christianity vrs evolution, it was going no where. So I walked away from it, and so did my friend.
Ever since then I haven't even bothered to get involved in conversations like that again. Why? Because it's completely useless to do so. Human ego gets in the way with religion, it takes a huge step to do what my friend did, and it was when she was at rock bottom, when ego can't get in the way.

reply to post by darkbake


Except it isn't just the religious who do this. Try disagreeing with the politically correct correct crowd in any way. Look at the gal who made a tweet just before getting on the plane. She was trying to riff off of something the left does and she did a very poor job. Someone took it the wrong way and branded her a hater, and by the time, she landed and was able to reconnect ... her entire life had been destroyed. She made one poorly thought out comment.

I was making conversation with my husband via email this morning. My car is having transmission problems and may not last until the end of the week when we were planning to replace it. I entitled the email "Tranny" without thought. About a dozen exchanges in, my husband pointed out how un-PC the title was. I wasn't even thinking about LBGMNOPTQRSTUV or however many letters we are now including in it these days when I chose the title. My tranny is bad and may die and that's all I was thinking about.

But these days, the thought police can ruin your life just as much as any religious group might.

They say never to argue over politics or religion. Both being multi-sided, it's hard for you to win over with your point/position.

reply to post by ketsuko


You have brought this same point to a few discussions I have started, and I agree with you once again. As a matter of fact, this particular argument win tactic could be applied in a variety of situations. I was even reading Call of the Wild earlier today and the main character, a dog, was beaten into submission and noted it was his first time experiencing "primitive law."

I don't like the politically correct crowd, either. I'm checking out various news outlets like Fox and CNN and MSNBC and honestly it looks like they are painting each other as villains who need to be gone to war with.

beezzer
reply to post by darkbake

 

Who are you trying to convince?

If you have faith, if you believe what you are saying is true, then why do you have to "win" anything?

There are positive and negative aspects to faith, I believe. I think a religious person can lift people up using their faith in a positive manner. This is wonderful. It doesn't deserve to be in the same section as what I'm about to explain.

-----

There are others who seek to use religion to maintain their power in their local political arena and keep others from criticizing their inept policies, which I have seen first-hand, that is the best way to describe it. It isn't really religion or faith that is being used at all here, but blasphemy.

It might be hard to believe what I'm saying, but I have seen it first-hand in families where the parents are abusive, even physically, and also in Idaho politics as a way to keep the power in people's hands who are really, honestly harming their state. But when they can use religion as a tool (probably against God's will) to confuse the voters and continue to harm them, you can see what I mean about it being a problem Beezer?

reply to post by darkbake


I believe the WOPR had it right...

"The only winning move is not to play".

Snarl
reply to post by darkbake

 

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.

That's good Snarl, one of the benefits of your method is that it involves understanding religions. I am under the impression that a lot of politics going on in the U.S. that are using the label "Christian" are really not Christian at all, but are taking advantage of people who can't think critically enough to understand their religion is being infiltrated.

Even though I grew up Episcopalian, I think I understand more about Buddhism and Taoism than I do about Christianity - although I have much to learn about all three. When I come back to Christianity I have to think about it, it seems like something fishy and inconsistent is going on there. I understand the Vatican fairly well - much easier than the Protestants.

I consider Mormons and 7th Day Adventists ridiculous - my friend took a masters in teaching from a 7DA university, and much of their teaching style had been channeled by prophets, and it went against what I knew as a psychology major in a lot of cases, and what I had heard from my friends in other teaching programs.

I just don't think that a prophet channeling how to teach from a God is a good source compared to empirical research or peer-reviewed studies, especially when I don't trust the prophets I heard about that much... and I am thinking Oh My God... how can these people become accredited teachers?

If you know enough about Christianity you will understand that it is one big sham and the argument should start at why... Take this video for example which actually discredits modern day Christianity and their ridiculous beliefs. The video is refering to one of the oldest and earliest teachings of Christianity and there is no mention of a Cross or even Jesus as God from his closest followers including his very own brother. If anything it just shows how gullible Christian's actually are.

darkbake
Hear me, because this is the truth.

1) You gather a lot of money, and a lot of power

2) Whenever someone does something you don't like, you deny them services, or you go out of your way to make their life hell

3) When the opposition brings up a valid point about how to make their lives and the lives of others better, you point out how they have failed, and it is their fault - for example, they can't buy groceries because they are gay - clearly their fault, even though you have shadily convinced the local grocer to deny services to gays.

4) Since they are failures, their idea obviously doesn't work.

5) In the end, you don't have to win any argument, you just have to maintain totalitarian control and make people believe that fault exists where it does not.

-----

I am not against religions - but I am against this kind of power play, in particular. It could also apply to rich people, to be honest, or other situations - and since I find Truth very important, any situation where lack of empathy comes into play to create misinformation makes me frustrated.

edit on 14amMon, 14 Apr 2014 01:17:02 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

seriously?

lol, where the hell do you live?

iran? SA?

you can't be talking about christianity, are you?

islam? sounds like it.

christians don't give a rats what you think, you should give us the same courtesy.

bash thread.

reply to post by darkbake


You have to remember that the first example of emotional blackmail is by religion.

Its actually purely a lobby that try to give the impression of the 'high moral ground'. Its a very powerful lobby especially when looking at the Jewish lobby in the USA - that basically runs that country.

I do think that the tactics employed in the past though are now seen in the light of day for what they are. In the UK we have the muslim lobby usually faced by some convert be-spectacled female twittering on about islam is nothing by love and ooh and ooh etc- but its merely emotional backmail again. Religious lobbyists either use the PR approach, professional and religious or the en-mass wailing approach. Whether it washes so much these days or meets the contempt of the public remains to be seen and as gays are their newest focus which, when they are asked did God create all life on earth then he also created homosexuality in his wisdom - have no answer - Although its annoying when these fiddlers get into high places, just ignore them and complain loudly about them if they seem to be in favour of allowing their religious mates to push their wishes onto the public at large.

People forget that multiculturalism has worked very well until the extremists popped up and every religion has these God-Botherers.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
I dont understand why people insist on debating about religion.

Just dont get it.

Neither side is ever going to win.

Sorry to be the patronizing buddhist type person, but you lose instantly as soon as you try. If you just be, then the worst that can happen is you learn things from people you disagree with and they learn from you. I think sometimes people project their own selves into these conversations and assume it's a zero sum game. It's a bit like saying, 'I don't undertsand why people insist on debating about football''.

There are piles of other reason to debate of course including just belonging or believing ideas are genuinely dangerous etc ...

In regards to the OP, isn't this more an Orwellian / government policy thing that is sometimes used by religious entities rather than a religious arguing technique?