Best ways to discuss religion: logical arguments?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

By "top theologian" do you mean people like Kent Hovind?

Umm no,Ken Hovind is a young earth creationist loon,not a serious thinker. I meant people such as such as Frederick Copleton or currently,people such as John Spong. Not sure if he's a 'top theologian', but I think he's rational and easy to understand. Clip below "Jesus For The Non Religious"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AfFcAmx-Ro

[JesusShaves]

Wow I'm a fan of John Spong now. In one of his videos he is asked how to have a conversation with the fundamentalist sort of crowd. His reply it's not possible to have a "conversation" with people that are sure they are right and you are wrong, but didn't have much more of an answer then that. Coming from someone that use to be a fundamental literal sort of person this is even more profound because even though he got out of that way of thinking, he is basically saying here that it's not something that can be helped from the outside. If I got it right.
Burke Lecture: John Shelby Spong

---

t

---

(it's 2 hours long)

Well I won't accept that I can't reach people. So I'm thinking that the best way to approach those non-logical Christian type thinkers is to:
Provide them with the tools they need to get out of that.
Show them it's not that scary on the outside.
Appeal to whatever keeps them closed off to the rest of the world.

So what does keep people closed off from accept new ideas? If I've ever committed a similar mistake I'm still clueless to doing it to this day. I have a hard time picturing not accepting new ideas and not questioning my old ways of thinking because I always remember recognizing the basic truth that it's not smart to let your ideas stagnate. So can anyone help me understand how this works?

Also what would a good way to string all 3 of these ideas together?

[kılıç_mehmet]

The way I discuss religion in real life is on arguments based on theology. Like for example, discussing the nature of a religious matter.
Interpretating the meaning of a certain verse.
My goal in discussing religion is certainly a lot different than yours.

[FallentoReason]

I think that saying theists are not smart or illogical is extremely unfair and isn't a true reflection of the deeper elements at work.

Logic doesn't have to be grounded within reality, but it's rather the truths about reality that are grounded in the greater framework that is logic. For example, could you logically agree with me that the Hulk would beat Batman in a fight, because the Hulk can use his brutal strength over Batman's relatively useless gadgets? Maybe you actually wouldn't agree based on a different logic, but the point still stands. We're logically talking about something that isn't real in this instance. I think the debate about God, whether one believes in him or not, is the same. There are logical reasons as to why people believe what they believe. Is this logic based on reality? Well that's a different debate altogether but it doesn't mean they are not intelligent.

I'm sure you've experienced what I'm trying to say when sometimes a theist has a pretty solid theological argument for something and you can't seem to find a way in to be able to dismantle it. I think it takes an intelligent person to be able to formulate such an argument. But once again, said argument is a reflection of logic at work and not necessarily a truth about reality.

[Zen Badger]

By "top theologian" do you mean people like Kent Hovind?

Kent Hovind is so stupid even other creationists avoid him.

[JesusShaves]

I think that saying theists are not smart or illogical is extremely unfair and isn't a true reflection of the deeper elements at work.

...

I'm sure you've experienced what I'm trying to say when sometimes a theist has a pretty solid theological argument for something and you can't seem to find a way in to be able to dismantle it. I think it takes an intelligent person to be able to formulate such an argument. But once again, said argument is a reflection of logic at work and not necessarily a truth about reality.

I agree and didn't say that.
Yes I have and those are the ones I most like to deal with. I love it when the theist has a solid understanding of the concepts at hand.
What I'm wonder about now is the rest of them. The ones that base there arguments off of "you can't understand God with logic and reason" (an actual quote). Even these people I will still say are not illogical or stupid, they just ignore logic for God.

In the end I just want to know how to reach people. Even if they are stupid and undoubtedly some of them are.

[FallentoReason]

I think that saying theists are not smart or illogical is extremely unfair and isn't a true reflection of the deeper elements at work.

...

I'm sure you've experienced what I'm trying to say when sometimes a theist has a pretty solid theological argument for something and you can't seem to find a way in to be able to dismantle it. I think it takes an intelligent person to be able to formulate such an argument. But once again, said argument is a reflection of logic at work and not necessarily a truth about reality.

I agree and didn't say that.
Yes I have and those are the ones I most like to deal with. I love it when the theist has a solid understanding of the concepts at hand.
What I'm wonder about now is the rest of them. The ones that base there arguments off of "you can't understand God with logic and reason" (an actual quote). Even these people I will still say are not illogical or stupid, they just ignore logic for God.

In the end I just want to know how to reach people. Even if they are stupid and undoubtedly some of them are.

I'll give you two ways that I find are useful to reach people:

1) say it how it is.
The truth is the truth and it is independent of any one individual's needs and wants. With this in mind, you need to realise that you have to be humble about the points you bring forth because that will show that you are sincere in your motives and you don't have a bias for anything but the truth.

2) Develop the ability to understand their point.
It's only after they have realised that they got 'through to you' that the discussion can really gain momentum. This also allows you to give an argument that directly deals with their points.

[LiberalHearted]

hello, I'm new here and if you want to know more about me or why I'm here please see: http://atheistforums.org/thread-12839.html

About 3 days ago I had a idea. I wanted to get a better idea of how the Christian mind works, deals with logical problems, views Satan, and other religions. I signed up on a Christian form and asked them a hypothetical question "what would a religion look like if Satan wrote there holy book?" and "can you tell if other religions are satanically influenced?" and lastly "how can you know if your religion isn't inspired by Satan?".

Quite a few people immediately started to tell me how this was a impossible thing to prove because of how I had set it up. That is proving Satan didn't write the bible to someone that doesn't think Satan wrote the bible is impossible. Quite a few also seamed to think I was an arrogant know-it-all jerk and assumed many things about me.

This is a good guy/bad guy religion. Should any good be spoken about the bad guy the boos with contempt will come. Thus the acquisition of being a satanist. - - Name calling.

Since this is good/bad guys in premise. With endings of good to magnificent if you are for the good guy, and torture, pain unending for the bad guy. Fear comes

Religion I'd say mostly the Abrahamic ones are extremely fear based. Feeding into the fear puts them in a comfortable little bubble of bliss. So there goes the delusion.

Logic evades them completely.

I refuted that I was a Satanist, that I would not allow any answers possible (twice), that I threw out the bible as evidence (after saying that I didn't care how much it said that it was not written by Satan) and many other hints that things I didn't quite get. They did seam to be quite nice, but it seamed they went crazy assuming things about me to the best of my efforts. After a while I did get a couple of fair answers, assuming God is real, and many many bible quotes that say the bible is right.

Fear based, and logic evades them, now they are looking for their bottle because they can't answer the questions (otherwise they become affiliated with the bad guy) and curl up in a ball, but smile and nod kindly because they are supposed to be the good guys.

Someone said that Satan DOES influence religion because all the churches that accept homosexuals. I warned them that I would debate with anger if they continued to call homosexuality a sin around me (keep in mind that I spoke much more carefully then I am now) and I was I.P. banned for a month because they didn't want to see my anger.

There is a little part of the bable that commands Do not forget the OT
Then there is Leviticus all the don't sleep with......slavery keeping.....the law.

I'm not telling you about this just to whine about it. I think it's interesting that just about every one of them tensed up the moment I presented something requiring a small amount of logic to solve and said I was an Atheist that wasn't interested in converting them.

Fear based most of us know this. Then some of them don't believe in us?!

I hope I'm not re-enforcing any stereotypes of Theists, but I'm compelled to ask. Are Theists allergic to logic?

I would say yes, but there are some intelligent theists. I still say long time fear like when little as in the boogeyman.

That is do they see it as something foreign to there own brain that must be expelled? I know that Theists can and do use logic but I worry they fear doing so because of bad experiences they have had with someone else using logic and have reacted by concluding they can't argue that way, it's impossible.

I'd like, if I could to hear your stories and advice for the best experiences you've had introducing yourself as a Atheist and debating religious ideas. Thanks.

It isn't a foreign thing it is a long time of indoctrination. The holy way of brainwashing.

[Jackalope]

I'll give you two ways that I find are useful to reach people:

[...]

2) Develop the ability to understand their point.
It's only after they have realised that they got 'through to you' that the discussion can really gain momentum. This also allows you to give an argument that directly deals with their points.

I'd like to add a little something to this. If you cannot understand their point, and the means by which they got there, unless you happen to get lucky, you're going to be unable to speak to them in terms that will work for them.

Trying a reasoned, logical argument with someone who is not versed in and doesn't value logic will not likely succeed. Likewise, attempting an appeal to emotion isn't going to get far with someone who values reason over feeling.

People approach situations using different methods, have different points of view. A person's worldview and strategies for dealing with reality is going to be a product of the sum of their environment, experience, education, values, etc.

I personally have started to appreciate that if I am unable to make my case at least understood to a point where another can actually speak to what I think rather than what he thinks I think, it is at least partially my fault for failing to understand how I can reach them. In some cases, it's been a result of my preconceptions getting in the way.

That's not to say that there aren't those who just won't listen. I find many people aren't like that if you take an earnest effort to try to understand them - even if you disagree.

[JesusShaves]

Well those have been some great points. I think I've learned all I need to and need to get back to playing the devils-advocate and get some more experience with different people and different tactics.

Thanks, this has been really fun.