As is apparently about to be demonstrated.
If you try to tell me that God doesn’t give one any more than one can carry, I will gently point out to you that every day, thousands of faithful Believers die from something. This is a fact. If you tell me, “Yeah but that only means those people are in heaven right now. They dutifully carried their bucket of water for Jesus and they have been rewarded, just as promised”, I will put you in the category “Religious person that doesn’t believe a fact contradicts their faith”.
If you tell me, “Only non-believers die. Those thousands of people are thus non-believers”, then I might conclude you are a “Religious a person who doesn’t accept the fact as truth.”
If none of this applies to you because you don’t believe in that old bromide anyway, then you aren’t the type of religious person I’m talking about.
But really, I don’t care enough to “win you over” to anything. You can believe whatever you want to believe as long as you don’t try to use your faith to tell me I’m right or wrong.
Interesting. Are you saying that you could defend your beliefs against someone less smart but perhaps you would be unable to defend those same belief against someone smarter than you?
Religious belief roughly equals organized superstitions.
So let me ask you, grude: is there any point to it? (blight, tadpoles, etc)
I have been following these discussions for a few years now and have yet to hear a fact that disproves the existence of a higher power or God for that matter. Religion can easily be torn apart by facts, I believe the catholic church and several other larger churches are looking closely at some of thier doctrine as we speak. From a philosophical point of view one that allows for primitive interpetations even religion becomes harder to tear down.
When I saw the title of this thread my first impulse was to repost one of my sig-lines:
Never try to teach a pig to sing.
It’s a waste of time.
And it annoys the pig.
But after reading the many responses and also recognizing that I do tend to contribute to the discussions when collected superstitions (i.e. organized belief systems) are brought into arguments, I decided to be less flippant (and, admittedly, rude) and say
Yeah. It’s worthwhile.
First off, some of the astoundingly unrealistic crap that gets spouted by politicians and other extremists really needs to be stomped-on.
Second, people around here seem to ask all manner of questions in what seem to be genuine efforts to learn – and they receive all manner of responses – and some of those questions include religious content. I think it’s generally a pro-social activity for us to do that and I suspect this is probably because our boards are tied to the Straight Dope, which is dedicated to fighting ignorance (i.e. correcting incorrect concepts by providing the real researched facts).
Third, as others have noted, the consumption of facts has helped many participants re-evaluate their positions and make positive adjustments. Again, the fact that religious matters are being discussed seems to make no difference; people learn and grow around here and it’s the lively discussions that foster that learning.
So yeah. It’s worth contributing to the discussions. I think maybe the term “engage” seems a bit too confrontational (but perhaps that’s just my fencing background putting a different meaning on the word).
–G!
I think you just proved her point.
Okay, you’re not talking about “facts” here, you’re talking about attitudes and approaches to life that you CAN’T refute with logic.
Millions of people, religious and non-religious alike, have a set of beliefs and attitudes that help them get through the day. Some of them are genuinely profound, some are laughably corny, but none of them is demonstrably false.
IF a religious relative tells you that the Earth is only 4,000 years old, well, that IS demonstrably false, and there IS abundant scientific data to disprove that notion. But you probably know already that there’s little point in trying to convince them with facts. Their minds are closed on the subject.
But IF a religious relative tries to comfort you with bromides that strike you as trite or beside the point, those bromides WON’T be readily refuted with facts.
So, my only advice is this: if you’re ever feeling miserable or depressed, and a well-meaning Christian friend or relative offers what seems like fortune cookie philosophy (“Remember, no matter how awful things look, God loves you and is always with you”), well, you CAN’T logically refute that message, no matter how much you’d love to.
What you CAN do is tell the well-meaning friend, “I know you’re trying to help, but that is NOT making me feel any better right now- can we talk about something else?”
Or, if there’s something tangible and practical your well-meaning friends could be doing to help[ you, let them know. If they care about you (and I assume they do), let them know of some concrete things they could offer that would be more immediately helpful than prayers or happy thoughts.
If, after the death of someone close to you, a well-meaning Christian tries to assure you that person is in Heaven, well, you CAN’T prove her wrong. It may strike you as silly, wishful thinking, but there aren’t any facts with which you can prove there’s no Heaven. Don’t bother trying. But if you could give her an actual task that would help you out while you’re grieving, ask her to do it. She’ll probably be happy to do more than offer unwanted, unhelpful Christian pep talks.
I don’t know why you think someone can’t refute an attitude with logic and reason.
If someone says, “I believe good things happen to people who have a positive outlooks on life”, I can easily refute this with concrete evidence. I can ask this person if they think they have a positive outlook on life. If they say yes, I can remind them that just last week, they broke their leg. They are currently sleeping on my couch because they got evicted from their apartment. These would be facts. I can also remind them that I have a negative outlook on life (I don’t, but let’s say I do), but I just won the lottery. This would also be fact. They can choose to ignore these facts and keep believing what they want to believe. But I have refuted their position.
As do delusional schizophrenics. But go on.
If someone tells me that the Ebola epidemic isn’t caused by a pathogen, but by evil spirits or Western do-gooders looking to exploit African suffering for their own gain, I can point to reams of evidence disproving this idea. I may not be able to convince the true believer. But the notion can be proven false.
And yet every day, a person loses their faith because the bromides stop making logical sense to them. I am such a person. It wasn’t so much the inanity of a God-man rising from the dead that I turned me off of Christianity as much as it was hearing “God loves you” all the freakin’ time.
I can and I have. When I was depressed and my mother could only come up with bromides like “God loves you and is always with you” to comfort me, I told her why that wasn’t comforting: God is presumably with the tsunami and earthquake victims too. He is with the starving children in famine, war-torn countries. He is with all the women being raped and mutilated. He is with the people contorted in unimaginable pain and terror on their lonely sick beds.
So why should I find all this love comforting?
My mother is still very devout. My reasoning didn’t convince her of anything. But interestingly, since that dark time she has become a much better counselor. I like thinking that me showing her how empty church-speak is helped her to become more sensitive and empathic.
If they don’t stop talking to you in that way, you should be able to tell them exactly why you think what they are saying is crazy. Just as I did with my mother. Being a Believer doesn’t get you off the hook for having your beliefs questioned. If I’m spouting silly conspiracy theories, even of the nebulous unprovable type, I’d hope someone would tell me I sound like a kook. If I’m truly the mature, intelligent person that I think I am, my ego should allow for this kind of criticism.
Yes. You have to start somewhere.
And to answer this, no there is not. Facts are even grudgingly accepted, but frogs are still gross and disgusting. Facts are never gonna turn tadpoles cute, waste of time.
I’ll do it because I like debate and I actually do enjoy theology. However, I let people know that I’m an atheist and don’t actually believe any of it.
Yes. There’s plenty of point debating religious interpretations of the ‘God told me to display your severed head on Youtube’, ‘Oh no he didn’t’ variety.
Sure. Both to educate bystanders, and on the off chance the other party might have a smidge of an open mind. Many formerly religious people lost their religion because they were convinced by logical and reasonable arguments.
So, when your Mom tries to comfort you in bad times, you compare her to a delusional schizophrenic and imply (if you don’t say it outright) that she’s a kook.
Nice.
No. I tell her that she’s not making any sense, and I respectfully explain to her why I think this.
And because my mother is a reasonable person, she doesn’t fly off the handle like you seem intent on doing. She knows the difference between an insult and a rebuttal. She raised me to question and not give someone a pass just because they mean well. The road to hell is paved in good intentions–that’s one bromide that contains a grain of truth.
And those religious people might be able to understand the facts but have been blocked from seeing them. They have been home schooled so the evil atheist teachers can’t destroy their faith. They’ve been told that scientists lie and are in it for the big bucks. They get told these stories in church, and not believing their preacher is turning their back on God.
The last time a JW came to my door I quizzed her on evolution. I doubt there is any hope for her, but maybe I put a tiny wedge of doubt into the kid she was traveling with. It was all done politely, so I might have come across as evil but not obnoxious.
That one disproof of what the authorities told them might do it. I became an atheist when I found that the Bible was not written by Moses, but I was probably 3/4 of the way there anyhow.
Since the people who make the laws we must follow and decide curriculums of public schools our kids go to often hold dangerously wrong religious views, I think we have to at least try.