By MATT B
Added: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 17:44:41 UTC

I used to draw a line in a sand between those who (profess to) believe in a god and those who do not. After many debates online (and several in person), I've come to the same conclusion as others who argue against religion. Logic, reason, and common sense play no role in such arguments. The other side will typically apply circular reasoning and refusal of fact, and when they cannot get away with these tricks, will resort to the "I have faith" card, which is an indicator that a meaningful debate is over.

Every member of my immediate family has a soft "belief" in god, and I have trouble keeping my mouth shut about the dangers of religion. After such discussions with them, I found that people like this tend to agree that the bible is mostly tripe, and the fundamental believers are little more than a brainwashed cult (with an unfortunate amount of political and social power).

Based on this, I have changed the line drawn in the sand. I now make the separation between those who believe in the universe (with or without god) and accept science, and those who follow the holy book of a specific religion (the completely blind follower or fundamentalist). I figure those soft believers should be allies (for the time being) in the battle against the organized religions trying to seize power in our society.

This has led to some fantastic breakthroughs in discussions with soft believers now on my "side." Basically, the conversation goes like this: First, I ask them what religion they consider themselves. Then I ask if they believe this point and that point (the beliefs of the religion they supposedly follow). Being more enlightened than the other "side," they tend to admit that they do not literally believe these points to be true. Then I tell them that while they label themselves a certain religion, they are not actually a part of that religion by not taking all of the ridiculous teachings to heart. When I sever this connection in their head, I quickly try to fill it in with a reasonable alternative; deism.

Most people will not change their beliefs (or lose them) after a good argument or two, but my method doesn't force them to change their minds. It is meant to show them that their point of view doesn't match what they claim it does, and it gives them a new label to consider themselves as. Deism is still a delusional belief (I feel), but if more soft religious people are swayed by this, it will reduce the number of people claiming to be christians or catholics (etc). This would be a good step towards reducing the social power of organized religion.

Posting on this forum is, to me, a good training ground for debating. Any unclear argument or incorrect assumption will be pounced upon by fellow posters, who will tear such an argument to pieces. This has allowed me to hone my own arguments and argumentational methods to a strangely effective tool. Recently, I had a discussion with my brother in law, a self-proclaimed catholic who wants his kids (my nephews) to be raised catholics (for the record, he is one of those who doesn't really believe what he is supposed to, but goes along with it for reasons I can only assume are traditional). After several arguments, I made one that jammed his gears and made him think. I asked; "Aren't you afraid that religious teachings, which tells them to accept what they are told without thinking about it, might inhibit their intellectual development?" Then I explained deism to him, and gave him a book from my little library (I gave him Sam Harris's "End of Faith;" I wanted to give him a book that made points relevent to our discussion).

I'm sure this angle is nothing new to many of you, but I discovered it myself recently and have had (relatively) great success with supposed christians and catholics (the bulk of religious people I know personally).

I am curious what people here think about:

Thank you for your time.

Matt B.

TAGGED: DEBATE POINTS, RELIGION