How do you reason with religious people?

[Polyintrinsic]

See, the main flaw with talking to really religious people is that they don't believe in fact. Their whole belief system is based on something that they have been told to believe in, and not something that has evidence supporting it. When a logical person tries to bring facts into an argument against a religious person they don't understand its usefulness or purpose because its not relevant.

Usually they tend to get angry because in the argument you are trying to get them to see another side of a story, to get them to look beyond what they know, to push their boundaries of thought. For religious people this is very scary, therefore they react with anger. Religious people have been told what to believe their whole life, you can't just force them to think independantly because its like sheep without their shepard, they get lost and scared.Free or inspirational thought is something the church likes to suppress as much as possible, so trying to get an indocrinated person to think for themselves, to look for facts, or to challenge their beliefs is near impossible.

Disclaimer: This is just my experience in dealing with religious poeple. If you take offence to this post and are not a religious person, then I am sorry just ignore my post. If you take offense and are a religious person, I won't bother debating with you for reasons stated above.

I find that last paragraph interesting. You basically just equated religion with anti-intellectualism, and you don't want anyone to challenge you on it. Your perception of all religious people is conveniently such that you claim it wouldn't be worth discussing it with them. Good job remaining comfortable in your lack of understanding! *sarcastic thumbs up*

Look, you don't need to debate with someone about it, you just need to understand that you're generalizing here, and the resulting ideas are wrong. Some religious people have issues with that, true. But the amount is becoming less and less. Reason being, we live in a culture that is increasingly hostile toward religion; it's "tolerated" in the actual meaning of the word, but generally made fun of in our culture based on sweeping generalizations like the ones you made here. Anyone growing up with, or accepting later in life, a given religion goes through a period in his/her life where they have to step back and take a serious look at what they believe and decide whether they actually believe it for themselves. Faith does play a role in a religion, but rarely does it take an all-important one. You don't have to agree with any given religion if you don't want to, but to essentially say that anyone who believes in a given religion is against logical thought is more than a little much, and more than a little ignorant.

I agree with you that I was generalizing. And that my tone came off as ignorant. And that not all religious people are the same. Though, it's hard to remind one's self that organized religion has a place in the world when there are nutjobs like WBC taking up the airwaves. That lady's (the one in the anon vs WBC interview) pompous grin alone, makes me scared for humanity.

Yeah, Westboro is... ugh, they really need to stop existing. I find it interesting though, to be honest, that gamers don't understand the plight of Christians more than they tend to. I mean every time someone kills someone over a video game, or lets a baby die while they play WoW, we have to jump to clarify that those few nutjobs are not representative of the whole, the majority, or even a notable minority of the gaming populace. Yet when Westboro Baptist acts up again, everyone is quick to criticize Christianity as if anything those idiots say is representative of what the faith actually teaches. I get that it can be difficult (I admit sometimes, as a Christian, I have to remind myself that not every atheist is a militant Christian-hater), it just seems like gamers and believers should be able to connect on that level a little more.

Such thoughts can become burdensome, yes double standards exist. But its not up to an individual to set moral standards, because what is a singular human but a product of their surroundings.

 

[Astoria]

I've had plenty of practise of dealing with people who avoid questions, I just take it as I've won the arguement because they can't think of a good responce to what I've said. I find there's no point debating with seriously devout religious people because they just refuse to accept anything but their beliefs.

 

[lettucethesallad]

My dad's a lutheran minister, and I'm an atheist. As long as we're both respectful of eachother's viewpoint, we can have really interesting discussions on the christian faith without getting pissy with eachother. As long as I don't say he preaches stories and as long as he doesn't try to convert me, we're all good.

Having a minister dad is great when it comes to being an atheist though. Through my upbringing I know more about what the bible says than the average christian and can illustrate points by actually using passages in it. I try to not debate religion though, I think people have the right to believe what they want, even if it sounds inplausible to me.

 

[Nyaliva]

I wish to take this away from religion because most of what I have to say is very general. I will be talking as if we were talking about brands of video games.

Say someone played a few Nintendo games during their childhood and became elated whenever they saw the logo. Then imagine this person once got to play his friend's Play Station and the game he played with his friend was so different, difficult or weird that this child then started to hate Sony. From now on, no matter what anyone said, this child will fight tooth and nail to defend Nintendo, avoiding it's flaws and trying to play down and put down Sony every chance he gets. Some people will come and say that Nintendo is crap now because it's just re-releasing old franchises but this child, now a teenager, will ignore this and side-step it or even agree with it, saying that it isn't a bad thing. The point is, when someone gets an idea in their head, it's extremely hard to sway them no matter how right or wrong you are. Similarly, this thought pattern doesn't discriminate between ideas, using the story above you could switch out Nintendo or Sony for Microsoft and jumble them around all you like.

My point is, some religious people are like this, but so are some atheists. In fact, anyone who has an opinion on religion will think in this similar pattern. They will have their reasons and they won't compromise no matter what evidence you provide.

By the by, I'm Christian but I don't tie myself to any church because I worship God in my own way. For example, I don't believe God hates homosexuals, but I don't think it's right. Have fun with that one.

Oh, and I actually like Nintendo, however they have fallen off the track and stopped bothering to come up with anything much new but then isn't everyone?

 

[SundayRoast]

I've had some intelligent conversations about religion with religious people.

I've also had conversations about religion ending with being called a fag or something else.
One one occasion I was harrassed on youtube for 3 months.

 

[Snipers-edge]

Okay, I grew up in a religious family, been living with religious people all my life, but I, myself, am not very religious. From personal experience, I've learnt that it is not easy trying to reason with very religious people, but then again, it is never easy reasoning with anyone that has been taught to believe one thing, and to accept or consider nothing other than that. It just happens to be how the human mind is programmed: if you are made to believe one thing, you will simply not accept anything contradicting it.

So what do I do to reason with them? Nothing, because at the end of the day, it will prove to be a losing battle, and this is for both parties. It will not change anyone's perspective whatsoever. I've dealt with extremely religious people for years, in fact, I've dealt with many people with strong belief systems, and well believe me, even the slightest contradiction will set them off, and in the end, they will reject or ignore anything you have to say, no matter how strongly your point comes across, or how much sense you make.

 

[The Clown]

I've tried to reason with them, it usually doesn't work, most of them were brought up religious and didn't choose themselves so the idea is so lodged deep in their brain, they haven't got anything else to believe. By all means I don't believe god is not real, it's entirely possible, just very unlikely.

The universe is governed by the laws of physics and logic, god was an easy explanation made by people who had no way of discovering the truth, it has evolved from there and has been so strongly embedded in out culture that it has become accepted. I do believe it is a good thing, the amount of charities and good acts that have been done because of it is great, but people shouldn't need a god or the promise of a reward after it all to make their acts justified, people just be good for the sake of being good, I do not worship a god, and I am in general a nice person, but I am by no means a saint. I think that children should not be brought up with religious view thrust upon them before anyone else has a chance to open their minds to other Ideas, They should be brought up to be logical and use reasoning, after they are old enough to think for themselves and aren't still at the stage where they'll believe whatever their parents tell them, then they should have the other ideas told to them, otherwise you get a load of close-minded angry christians like we have today, jumping at anyone who tries to suggest their ideas are wrong.

But in general I just ignore them, they are entitled to their beliefs just as we all are, I will usually talk to them as friends just fine, the only time I will actively argue against them is if they are trying to imprint their beliefs forcefully upon others.

 

[Marik2]

I live with a Devout Christian, and I study Archaeology which they don't believe in...

You Can't Reason with them.. We just have a laugh and banter about it.. Just try not to get into a serious argument and you'll be fine

I hate to derail (no, I don't), but...what do these people think you're digging out of the ground then?

Things put there by God...not sure why God'd put them there though.

You must be talking about fundamentalists christians cuz Ive never met a Christian who didnt believe in archeology...

Growing up I had a good friend of the family who was an archeologist. Oh, and he was a professor at a religious University and an ordained Pastor.

I am so sick of bigots (not you Marik2, other posters in this thread) who always assume a lack of logic and a lack of belief in science by all religious people because of a few funamentalists in a couple of religions.

Yeah Im also getting tired of that as well.

Im just gonna leave this quote.

"Unshakable faith is only that which can face reason in all human epochs."

-Allan Kardec

Science and faith can coexist with one another.

 

[blankedboy]

I ignore them when they get ranty and otherwise have a nice conversation.

But if they're Landover Baptists, some good trolling should do the trick.
If you're Swedish, >> http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=44379 <<

 

[Nieroshai]

Like any other person I think. I never reason with them about their own religion simply because religion isn't supposed to be reasonable. Besides that I have only ever met a few people who were the close-minded religion type, and that was because they didn't like me dating their daughter. That's when I learned there is no point in even trying to reason with such people.

One COULD argue that religion is about reason, just from a different philosophy. But I respect your right not to be curious.

Oh sure, I find religion interesting from an anthropological standpoint. And I sometimes like having an insight in how religious zealots think. Maybe I should have written 'belief is not meant to be reasonable'.

But I do find mine reasonable. I myself joined it because I could not reason against its reality, I have defended it using reason, etc. Just because others don't doesn't mean the whole religion is like that. The apostle Paul was a philosopher that convinced people to join through reason and debate. Being reasonable and having reasonable premises doesn't make ANY belief the absolute truth, however, because science is unable to prove or disprove, thus leaving "proof" up to philosophers to find holes in arguments.

You find your religion reasonable because of your belief I suppose. That's fine. But also irrelevant since you can't reason about that belief to someone who doesn't share it.

My reasoning with atheists is about the possibility of the supernatural existing, and the fact that scientists haven't yet invented something that can detect psionic presence doesn't mean it does not exist, in fact quantum theory shows how it's possible.

I see. This sort of thing might work on people who have no idea what quantum theory is but for people who actually understand some of the basics of the science it's quite insulting. Quantum theory says absolutely nothing about the supernatural I'm afraid. You can claim it does because it's so hard to understand and because nobody knows all of it yet.

As far as your argument goes, ever heard of Occam's Razor?

See this is the problem, we can't talk about this reasonably since this has nothing to do with reason.

Once again telling me I don't use reason. I am reasoning with you right now. It IS unreasonable to try to undermine my integrity during a debate. It IS unreasonable to claim to be INSULTED by my view on a topic that has nothing to do with you as a person.
Alright then, let's argue about whether or not I understand quantum theory, without noting outside this post that many quantum physicists have been convinced by their observations that there IS more than the physical, or else matter wouldn't work. Instead of making this thread a long and boring classroom in which each of us thinks they're the teacher and the other the impudent student, I direct you to the von Neumann/Wigner interpretation.
Also, Occam's Razor is a "rule of thumb," NOT a scientific law. Occam's Razor would indicate, in fact, thhat there MUST be a God because that's the simplest solution. Or as some of my friends say, "It's easier to say a wizard did it." Occam's Razor is simply meant to be a coin toss between two equally likely scenarios, and cannot be counted on to produce accurate results.

 

[Nieroshai]

Like any other person I think. I never reason with them about their own religion simply because religion isn't supposed to be reasonable. Besides that I have only ever met a few people who were the close-minded religion type, and that was because they didn't like me dating their daughter. That's when I learned there is no point in even trying to reason with such people.

One COULD argue that religion is about reason, just from a different philosophy. But I respect your right not to be curious.

Oh sure, I find religion interesting from an anthropological standpoint. And I sometimes like having an insight in how religious zealots think. Maybe I should have written 'belief is not meant to be reasonable'.

But I do find mine reasonable. I myself joined it because I could not reason against its reality, I have defended it using reason, etc. Just because others don't doesn't mean the whole religion is like that. The apostle Paul was a philosopher that convinced people to join through reason and debate. Being reasonable and having reasonable premises doesn't make ANY belief the absolute truth, however, because science is unable to prove or disprove, thus leaving "proof" up to philosophers to find holes in arguments.

You find your religion reasonable because of your belief I suppose. That's fine. But also irrelevant since you can't reason about that belief to someone who doesn't share it.

My reasoning with atheists is about the possibility of the supernatural existing, and the fact that scientists haven't yet invented something that can detect psionic presence doesn't mean it does not exist, in fact quantum theory shows how it's possible. To other religions, I look for loopholes in their religions and ask them to do the same to me. One must believe in the supernatural in order to believe in God, so I don't argue God with atheists, only the possibility of the immaaterial.
But I digress. I don't want to hijack this thread, so suffice to say I don't worship on blind faith alone.

So your belief stems mostly from the "god within the cracks" ideology. I'm not criticism you but that is still mostly (if not 100%) faith, rather than fact.

In my view, even science has not really been able to undeniably prove anything, and any ethical scientist will say any law at all can and will have to be revised in the future. Science isn't set in stone.So "fact" is as much faith as my beliefs, but justified by claiming to be based on observations, which are often fallible.

 

[theheroofaction]

...STOP WITH THIS IRRELEVANT NONSENSE, people will always have different beliefs than you and you should just start accepting it. I'm tired of atheists treating people of religion differently than they do otherwise. And vise versa seriously, it's no better than racism.

 

[conflictofinterests]

http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Rob/laserjesus.png


But in all seriousness, you have to do it VEEEEEEEEERRRRRRYYYYY carefully. You can't actually bring up the subject that you wanted to talk about in the first place until you've gotten them to agree with each and every one of your arguments supporting your side, preferably in a fashion that doesn't lead them to suspect you will later be questioning their religion/other people who practice "their religion." You've got to remember, religion is one of those things that have been ground into a person almost since birth, and it's very close to, if not part of, their core belief system. Let me tell you, it doesn't matter who you are, where you're from, what you've done or was done to you, your core belief system is fucking HARD to change, and less restrained people will flip out if you even touch on it in a way that doesn't affirm it. Basically in order to get away with poking their column of truth, you have to stabilize it at every other relevant point, and even then they might still flip out at you.

EDIT: You also have to be really respectful. Like, it should be painfully obvious that you are making every effort not to offend them while still trying to make a potentially offensive point. They will take EVERY opportunity to be offended, so you have to nip that in the bud at the outset.

 

[Highbrow]

Can't be done.

Just make sure you're at a safe location when they blow themselves up in the name of Allah/Jesus/Flying Spaghetti Monster and be glad you're not a complete dumbass.

 

[Romidude]

You can't reason with religious people, they will plug their ears and scream "LA LA LA LA LA" as you disprove their God, using a modicum of effort. Don't believe me? Look up Thunderf00t on Youtube, and watch him expose these people for who they are.

 

[Nimcha]

Once again telling me I don't use reason. I am reasoning with you right now. It IS unreasonable to try to undermine my integrity during a debate. It IS unreasonable to claim to be INSULTED by my view on a topic that has nothing to do with you as a person.
Alright then, let's argue about whether or not I understand quantum theory, without noting outside this post that many quantum physicists have been convinced by their observations that there IS more than the physical, or else matter wouldn't work. Instead of making this thread a long and boring classroom in which each of us thinks they're the teacher and the other the impudent student, I direct you to the von Neumann/Wigner interpretation.

In his treatise The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, John von Neumann deeply analyzed the so-called measurement problem. He concluded that the entire physical universe could be made subject to the Schrödinger equation (the universal wave function). Since something "outside the calculation" was needed to collapse the wave function, von Neumann concluded that the collapse was caused by the consciousness of the experimenter.[21] This point of view was later more prominently expanded on by Eugene Wigner, but remains a view held by very few physicists.[22]

So, yeah. Dodgy at best.

Also, Occam's Razor is a "rule of thumb," NOT a scientific law. Occam's Razor would indicate, in fact, thhat there MUST be a God because that's the simplest solution. Or as some of my friends say, "It's easier to say a wizard did it." Occam's Razor is simply meant to be a coin toss between two equally likely scenarios, and cannot be counted on to produce accurate results.

No, it's a coin toss between two scientific explanations. God is not scientific.

 

[0_Insomnis_0]

Having been in your position (or a similar one) many a time, i suggest that you do your research, and present the evidence the best you can. I would also ask your friend to please treat you with respect, and keep the standard of discorse higher. Good luck man.

 

[technoted]

You deal with them the same way you deal with ignorant athiests who put all religious people in the same boat and won't even have the consideration to realise people have the right to a different opinion to them.

 

[icaritos]

Like any other person I think. I never reason with them about their own religion simply because religion isn't supposed to be reasonable. Besides that I have only ever met a few people who were the close-minded religion type, and that was because they didn't like me dating their daughter. That's when I learned there is no point in even trying to reason with such people.

One COULD argue that religion is about reason, just from a different philosophy. But I respect your right not to be curious.

Oh sure, I find religion interesting from an anthropological standpoint. And I sometimes like having an insight in how religious zealots think. Maybe I should have written 'belief is not meant to be reasonable'.

But I do find mine reasonable. I myself joined it because I could not reason against its reality, I have defended it using reason, etc. Just because others don't doesn't mean the whole religion is like that. The apostle Paul was a philosopher that convinced people to join through reason and debate. Being reasonable and having reasonable premises doesn't make ANY belief the absolute truth, however, because science is unable to prove or disprove, thus leaving "proof" up to philosophers to find holes in arguments.

You find your religion reasonable because of your belief I suppose. That's fine. But also irrelevant since you can't reason about that belief to someone who doesn't share it.

My reasoning with atheists is about the possibility of the supernatural existing, and the fact that scientists haven't yet invented something that can detect psionic presence doesn't mean it does not exist, in fact quantum theory shows how it's possible. To other religions, I look for loopholes in their religions and ask them to do the same to me. One must believe in the supernatural in order to believe in God, so I don't argue God with atheists, only the possibility of the immaaterial.
But I digress. I don't want to hijack this thread, so suffice to say I don't worship on blind faith alone.

So your belief stems mostly from the "god within the cracks" ideology. I'm not criticism you but that is still mostly (if not 100%) faith, rather than fact.

In my view, even science has not really been able to undeniably prove anything, and any ethical scientist will say any law at all can and will have to be revised in the future. Science isn't set in stone.So "fact" is as much faith as my beliefs, but justified by claiming to be based on observations, which are often fallible.

But that is exactly the point, science is malleable, assumptions are made based on observation and if later on new discoveries are made thanks to the advancement of technology those assumptions can be revised. That is the beauty of science and what most strongly differentiates it from religion. There is no "faith" as you described in science because it IS changeable, as opposing to religion which from the very definition cannot be changed. Faith stops change, it ends rational though and makes observation and learning impossible.

The key difference here is that when a scientists observes something the mindset is "here is some evidence, lets find out the result". The religious mindset however is closer to "here is the result, now how can we make this evidence fit into it".

Sorry but while i believe everyone is entitled 100% to their own religious belief, don't try to correlate something that has changed almost every single year since the dawn of mankind with a belief based on a 2000 year old book. Believing on the weight of factual, tangible evidence can't be even remotely compared to believing in some archaic concept of creation, perpetuated by a invisible father figure. To even suggest such is quite frankly a bit ridiculous.

 

[DSK-]

I tell them that I'm not religious, but I respect their beliefs. I do act surprised whenever I meet someone religious (like when I found out two of my uni friends go to church - I've not had friends who did that).

How do I respond if I DON'T respect their religion?

I'm not you, I don't know you, so how can I possibly answer that question?