No, it isn't about who you talk to while getting a blow job, though that is also an interesting question. It's about how you can talk honestly about religion to believers without offending their delicate little sensibilities.

The question occurred to me as I was browsing Amazon looking at books about atheism. One complaint that arose repeatedly about all the books was that they were intolerant or bigoted or narrow-minded or smugly superior or otherwise just not nice about religious belief or about believers. There's no question that some of the books--anything with Christopher Hitchens associated with it, for instance--are calculated to offend. On the other hand, some of them were works based on reason and philosophical principles, and relatively dispassionate. But even for those, here's the problem. Let's say you really think (and can cogently argue) that there is no reason to believe in a big man in the sky (a la any mainstream religion) or anything like him, and the various reasons adduced to support such a belief appear to be weak or non-existent. And it's apparent that such belief isn't really adequate for a consideration of the modern world. And so on.

What ends up happening is that religious ideas and the credulous impulse itself almost inevitably have to be described in terms that are less than flattering, even when not used as invective. Let's face it, when discussing actual religious substance and you point out to an adult that he's using the same kind of faulty reasoning as a small child, or that his arguments in favor of God's existence (or the possibility thereof) apply equally well to unicorns, or whatever, it's understandable that they get a little tweaked. But what are you supposed to do? Pull your punches?

This sort of leads in to the whole "everybody needs to respect everybody else's belief" thing. I'm sorry, there are cases where that's just not possible. I can respect and would even defend anybody's right to believe as they wish, but there's just no way I can respect a belief and line of reasoning that isn't, well, respectable. Even people who make the plea don't really buy it, or at least I hope not. Let's get real here. If while discussing religion at a cocktail party some fellow, his tongue loosened by the third martini, professed a literal belief in the ancient Egyptian or Greco-Roman gods, would anybody feel required to validate such nonsense by honestly allowing as how that's a perfectly reasonable thing to believe, and by golly, though it's not how I see things, you know, it just might be true. Other than for the sake of politeness and bonhomie, I sure hope not. Zeus is dead, people, and as far as I'm concerned, so is the god of the desert religions. (The rest of them, too. Call it a theoholocaust.)

Now, if you're having a real honest discussion with a Baptist about what they believe, is their false belief system and the incredibly faulty edifice upon which its built due more respect than that of the hypothetical cocktail party guest just because a lot more people go to church on Sunday than make sacrifices at the Temple of Apollo? I just haven't got it in me to nod pleasantly and say, "Well, though I'm not a person of faith myself, believing in the Christian theology is nonetheless a perfectly reasonable viewpoint." Sorry, it's not reasonable at all.

I dunno. When dealing with the honest and well-meaning theists, I just try to be as nice as I can, tell the truth without rancor, and let the chips fall where they may. Still, there ought to be a better way. Any ideas?

There's a difference between philosophical argument and what best-seller-seekers like Hitchens, Harris (and their religious counterparts) do, which is more properly called "rhetoric." Few people who use the word "philosophy," including Hitchens and Harris, have any idea that philosophy is actually a discipline with its own principles and usages, which allow theists and atheists (among others) to debate vigorously and without rancor--because their focus is on the quality of the argument, not on persuasion. Philosophers, like mathematicians, know that the point is the question and the debate, not the outcome; philosophy is an activity, not a manufacturing process. Most people (and most popular writers) don't see it that way. They think it's about getting the "right answers," and having found theirs, they feel vaguely threatened by the existence of others. Hence the invocation of every means of persuasion to extinguish that threat.

If you want philosophy, seek it where the philosophers are, not in the parking lot of the nearest Baptist church.

And how many Christians have come around to your point of view during debate? The answer of course is none, not true Christians who have been touched by The HOLY Spirit anyway. The Christian experience is undeniable, if the whole world believes as you do or just the opposite makes no difference, the experience called being "Born Again" is unforgettable and can not be denied. That person knows that GOD is real and nothing will change their minds.

Not staying, just popped in to see what you are all up too xxx hope you and family are well xxxx The sun has come out here , miraculous! so I am going to make the most of it today xxxx God Bless

From one who is not very articulate (with the written word at least) and cannot put up a very good argument for or agin God, I do see your problem and think that you are right, no matter how learned or reasonable one is one often comes across 'brick walls' from either side. I don't usually bother anymore it is a bore, I find. A good argument is hard to find now a days x good hunting.

This was my experience when I finally informed my family that I no longer had any use for the Christian religion. It was a tough conversation, and I got pretty emotional. My mother, predictably, felt that I was struggling with the devil; but what she and my father could not understand was that I was terribly afraid of offending them personally.

A person with a devout faith cannot be separated from that faith. To some extent, turning away from Christianity meant turning away from my parents.

I have no qualms about taking a dismissive attitude about it with people I barely know. But I've always been very close to them, and I knew I had to walk a fine line if I was going to help them understand how I came to my own conclusions. They still don't understand it. But we don't let religion come between us, either, which is a victory in itself.

Nanotech:

And how many Christians have come around to your point of view during debate? The answer of course is none, not true Christians who have been touched by The HOLY Spirit anyway. The Christian experience is undeniable, if the whole world believes as you do or just the opposite makes no difference, the experience called being "Born Again" is unforgettable and can not be denied. That person knows that GOD is real and nothing will change their minds.

Fritz owes you thanks for illustrating his point so perfectly...

I don't think it's necessary to accept ideas/beliefs/principles that you personally feel as completely unreasonable as reasonable and in fact doing so would seem more than a good bit dishonest.

That being said, it's also unnecessary to tell people that you think they are full of shit, even politely, in a social but impersonal setting. (It's not strictly necessary in any setting, but some are better than others...)

So why not just say "I'm not a person of faith myself, but respect your right to believe as you do."?

Note that in doing so you haven't said anything about respecting their actual beliefs and the unspoken subtext could be "even though I think you're a fucking loon".

Just make sure that the subtext remains unspoken...

Boss Greer:

Nanotech:

And how many Christians have come around to your point of view during debate? The answer of course is none, not true Christians who have been touched by The HOLY Spirit anyway. The Christian experience is undeniable, if the whole world believes as you do or just the opposite makes no difference, the experience called being "Born Again" is unforgettable and can not be denied. That person knows that GOD is real and nothing will change their minds.

Fritz owes you thanks for illustrating his point so perfectly...

And with the ever reliable "excuse"....somebody "loses their faith" they were "never REALLY a Christian to begin with".

Nano gets an "out" for anybody who questions or doubts...they weren't "EVER true believers!" Which means he discounts their experience, while ONLY maintaining the validity of those who share his belief.

Nano gets an "out" for anybody who questions or doubts...they weren't "EVER true believers!" Which means he discounts their experience, while ONLY maintaining the validity of those who share his belief.

This is why living by faith is ultimately pointless; you can find any number of ways to justify yourself.

It's also why having a president that puts faith above all other things is a bit scary.

Nanotech:

...not true Christians who have been touched by The HOLY Spirit anyway. The Christian experience is undeniable, if the whole world believes as you do or just the opposite makes no difference, the experience called being "Born Again" is unforgettable and can not be denied. That person knows that GOD is real and nothing will change their minds.

That's fine, but in that case, those people really have nothing to say in rational argument anyway, so why do they bother pretending to engage others in discussions about religious matters that use logic and reasoning?

As a zen guy myself, I'm a big believer in personal experience as something very fundamental and necessary. However, you're claiming that your personal experience validates an exclusivist theology. This leaves you in the position of having to insist that everybody else's personal experience (or at least the interpretation they put on it) is not valid to the extent it doesn't correspond to your own. That's not a good place to put yourself.

"However, you're claiming that your personal experience validates an exclusivist theology. This leaves you in the position of having to insist that everybody else's personal experience (or at least the interpretation they put on it) is not valid to the extent it doesn't correspond to your own. That's not a good place to put yourself."

I could accept his world view except that he demands that we ignore our own expereinces and accept his as truth (based only upon his word).

"I dunno. When dealing with the honest and well-meaning theists, I just try to be as nice as I can, tell the truth without rancor, and let the chips fall where they may. Still, there ought to be a better way. Any ideas?"

There can only be a better way when both sides are open to discussion and exchange of ideas, or agree from the outset to respect and value the position of the other. And well, usually with such discussions with theists who proselytize that is going to be a one way agreement. That is it perfectly fine to question your beliefs and you are supposed to thoughtful consideration to their beliefs. However, no such consideration will be given to yours other than to reinforce that they are wrong.

With those beliefs that do not charge adherants to go convert the world, you have a much better chance of having that agreement...but ymmv

Hello WL, Things are fine here. Hope you are in good health and things are going well with you.

GOD BLESS

o_hellenbach:

Nanotech:

...not true Christians who have been touched by The HOLY Spirit anyway. The Christian experience is undeniable, if the whole world believes as you do or just the opposite makes no difference, the experience called being "Born Again" is unforgettable and can not be denied. That person knows that GOD is real and nothing will change their minds.

That's fine, but in that case, those people really have nothing to say in rational argument anyway, so why do they bother pretending to engage others in discussions about religious matters that use logic and reasoning?

As a zen guy myself, I'm a big believer in personal experience as something very fundamental and necessary. However, you're claiming that your personal experience validates an exclusivist theology. This leaves you in the position of having to insist that everybody else's personal experience (or at least the interpretation they put on it) is not valid to the extent it doesn't correspond to your own. That's not a good place to put yourself.

"That's fine, but in that case, those people really have nothing to say in rational argument anyway, so why do they bother pretending to engage others in discussions about religious matters that use logic and reasoning?"

More often than not "they"(Christians) are engaged rather than engaging in such conversation just as in this case. The doctrines of Christianity are logical and resonable and that is often where the discussion leads. While their initial Spriritual experience can not be proven, many of the results from such experiences can, people who giveup drugs or other abuses as a result of their experience. These tend to be dismissed out of hand by those who don't want to see any evidence. For the most part, Christians have no desire to Listen to or read posts made by those who are hostile to Christianity. They perfer to live their lives in peace and joy as much as possible.

"As a zen guy myself, I'm a big believer in personal experience as something very fundamental and necessary. However, you're claiming that your personal experience validates an exclusivist theology. This leaves you in the position of having to insist that everybody else's personal experience (or at least the interpretation they put on it) is not valid to the extent it doesn't correspond to your own. That's not a good place to put yourself."

I have no choice in the matter. The only way I could do anything other would be to lie to you and myself about what I know to be true. As I've often said, I have an obligation to tell people about Christ, but that's were it ends. I'm not obligated to beat anyone over the head with Christianity. Most of my time on this board is spent attempting to correct the misinformation posted on this board by non/anti-Christians. What a person believes is between them and their higher power whoever or whatever that might be.