How to discuss religion with believers?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Is it even possible to catch a unicorn?  Well yes, but it depends how "unicorn" is defined.

Next up, the proper net mesh width for trapping fairies in flight and at rest, respectively.

Respectively, you would need to objectively define what you mean.  Same as the "unicorn."

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Next up, the proper net mesh width for trapping fairies in flight and at rest, respectively.

Respectively, you would need to objectively define what you mean.  Same as the "unicorn."

So, my soon-to-be-released magnum opus, 'Leprechauns: Not Just For Breakfast Anymore' is foredoomed to failure?

Boru

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Respectively, you would need to objectively define what you mean.  Same as the "unicorn."

So, my soon-to-be-released magnum opus, 'Leprechauns: Not Just For Breakfast Anymore' is foredoomed to failure?

Boru

In this case maybe subjectively define what you would consider "success" or "failure."  Maybe also provide more detail about the subject so that others can understand what it is to you and your expectations for it.  The latter isn't necessary though, but could be helpful for feedback.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So, my soon-to-be-released magnum opus, 'Leprechauns: Not Just For Breakfast Anymore' is foredoomed to failure?

Boru

In this case maybe subjectively define what you would consider "success" or "failure."  Maybe also provide more detail about the subject so that others can understand what it is to you and your expectations for it.  The latter isn't necessary though, but could be helpful for feedback.

Fair dues. 

Success:  The book sells enough copies that I can finally afford that solid rhodium toilet seat I've been pining for all these years.  Spielberg options the film rights.

Failure: The book sells exactly one copy.  The purchaser is so disappointed that s/he hunts me down and beats me to death with my own book.

Subject:  For years, people have been eating leprechauns for breakfast.  The book examines how they can be used for brunches, suppers, late day snacks, and those intimate romantic dinners when burgers and chips just don't set the right mood.

Boru

[T0 Th3 M4X]

In this case maybe subjectively define what you would consider "success" or "failure."  Maybe also provide more detail about the subject so that others can understand what it is to you and your expectations for it.  The latter isn't necessary though, but could be helpful for feedback.

Fair dues. 

Success:  The book sells enough copies that I can finally afford that solid rhodium toilet seat I've been pining for all these years.  Spielberg options the film rights.

Failure: The book sells exactly one copy.  The purchaser is so disappointed that s/he hunts me down and beats me to death with my own book.

Subject:  For years, people have been eating leprechauns for breakfast.  The book examines how they can be used for brunches, suppers, late day snacks, and those intimate romantic dinners when burgers and chips just don't set the right mood.

Boru

I wouldn't say it's "foredoomed" if you see two distinct possibilities and one could lead to success for you.  More a question of risk, reward, and probability.

If I had to guess, and this is just me suggesting independently, it would probably not be either extreme. You would sell some copies, not get beaten to death, and maybe get a toilet seat that is "good enough."

As a writer, it's usually about the vision of the master.  We project what we feel, experience, or believe on to others.  If someone doesn't like it, then at least we tried.  If we inspired someone to understand us better, even in part, then that in itself is a success.  Most of the time we don't even know everyone who read our work, but we don't need to either.

[Scientia]

You are pushing against the religious because you see them as stubborn in their belief and yet you are doing the same thing you accuses them of doing, You can't do that and get anywhere. You say you do not believe in anything without proof stick around for a while and you'll be challenged on that statement, many things in science have no proofs and thus by your own words must reject them as you have God, welcome to the forum.

GC

I just got back home. Wow this topic grew a bit.

Anyways, back to the point: I am not pushing anything, I am trying to understand where they get enough evidence to state "god did it".

Alll I perceive is the present physical reality, no more no less. Someone in the past tried to understand how this reality works, carried out experiments and discovered the fundamental laws that regulate everything and it turns out they actually work. Thanks to these discoveries, now we can fly or communicate at distance in real time like it was nothing. In parallel, many creeds and religions developed, trying to justify the same things with magic and gradually losing impact as more things got explained by science.

How did everything come to life? I don't know. There are many theories around such as the big bang, which is the most "scientific", and then there is creationism, which is more abstract and magical. I still don't know which one it is, I don't have enough proof to state with certainty that no magical being exists. 

So not knowing, I keep questioning and exploring and learning, in the attempt to discover the truth. I don't make it my ultimate mission, as keeping myself alive in practice requires a good deal of work, but it's a side project I keep an eye on. What really puzzles me is how believers (no matter the religion) have this certainty that it was a magical being called god. Where do they get this confidence? Do they possess some kind of evidence I overlooked in my learning process? If so, can they share with me this personal evidence they uncovered?

Also, assuming that we were created by some entity, where do they get the confidence it's the benevolent and magical god described in their book? Couldn't it be some impartial, neutral and uncaring being that just creates life and moves on? No heaven or hell, just some giant manta ray that wanders in the universe and creates things? Or a giant metallic octahedra with the mystical power to generate life? How exactly is their version of god more likely than the examples I named?

Also, since the main "counter argument" of theists in this forum seems to be related to abiogenesis, giving for granted that if someone doesn't believe in creationism, then it must be abiogenesis, there is also the option that we don't know. Or well, I personally stated in the first line that I'm agnostic and I remain open to the possibility of both being plausible until conclusive evidence is shown. The difference is that believers are very confident in their statements. It's like they are in a hurry to discover the truth and would rather blindly accept some sketchy story now rather then question it and keep exploring.

Ultimately, to anyone who makes it their strong point that "science can't explain this, so it must be god", I'd like to add a "yet" in their sentence. Give it time, don't be in a hurry. I'd rather die questioning than blindly accept some farfetched story.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

You are pushing against the religious because you see them as stubborn in their belief and yet you are doing the same thing you accuses them of doing, You can't do that and get anywhere. You say you do not believe in anything without proof stick around for a while and you'll be challenged on that statement, many things in science have no proofs and thus by your own words must reject them as you have God, welcome to the forum.

GC

I just got back home. Wow this topic grew a bit.

Anyways, back to the point: I am not pushing anything, I am trying to understand where they get enough evidence to state "god did it".

Alll I perceive is the present physical reality, no more no less. Someone in the past tried to understand how this reality works, carried out experiments and discovered the fundamental laws that regulate everything and it turns out they actually work. Thanks to these discoveries, now we can fly or communicate at distance in real time like it was nothing. In parallel, many creeds and religions developed, trying to justify the same things with magic and gradually losing impact as more things got explained by science.

How did everything come to life? I don't know. There are many theories around such as the big bang, which is the most "scientific", and then there is creationism, which is more abstract and magical. I still don't know which one it is, I don't have enough proof to state with certainty that no magical being exists. 

So not knowing, I keep questioning and exploring and learning, in the attempt to discover the truth. I don't make it my ultimate mission, as keeping myself alive in practice requires a good deal of work, but it's a side project I keep an eye on. What really puzzles me is how believers (no matter the religion) have this certainty that it was a magical being called god. Where do they get this confidence? Do they possess some kind of evidence I overlooked in my learning process? If so, can they share with me this personal evidence they uncovered?

Also, assuming that we were created by some entity, where do they get the confidence it's the benevolent and magical god described in their book? Couldn't it be some impartial, neutral and uncaring being that just creates life and moves on? No heaven or hell, just some giant manta ray that wanders in the universe and creates things? Or a giant metallic octahedra with the mystical power to generate life? How exactly is their version of god more likely than the examples I named?

Also, since the main "counter argument" of theists in this forum seems to be related to abiogenesis, giving for granted that if someone doesn't believe in creationism, then it must be abiogenesis, there is also the option that we don't know. Or well, I personally stated in the first line that I'm agnostic and I remain open to the possibility of both being plausible until conclusive evidence is shown. The difference is that believers are very confident in their statements. It's like they are in a hurry to discover the truth and would rather blindly accept some sketchy story now rather then question it and keep exploring.

Ultimately, to anyone who makes it their strong point that "science can't explain this, so it must be god", I'd like to add a "yet" in their sentence. Give it time, don't be in a hurry. I'd rather die questioning than blindly accept some farfetched story.

Maybe describe the science you believe can be applied to the "Big Bang" to validate it.  Why do you feel it is the most "scientific? By what process or measure do you give it the attributed value?

Also, who said "God is a magical being"?  Was it you?  If so, why did you choose to define "God" that way?  If it was someone else, why did they attribute that to God?

I'm assuming you're finding issues with people discussing abiogenesis, because "biogenesis" is observable and we we know it's scientific.  As far as abiogenesis, it's a competing view when used as an explanation to explain life and its origins.

What part of the "story" is sketchy?  Who is the determining factor what someone should believe?  Why do you believe they are blindly accepting something?

Who is claiming "science can't explain something so it must be God"?

Don't feel like you need to answer all of them, or any for that matter.  They are just questions that seemed relevant when reading your concerns.

[Dr H]

So my question is: how do you engage in a discussion with these people without it derailing?

I'd say a lot depends on your motivation for engaging in the discussion in the first place.  Is the point to understand why the person believes what they do?  Or is it to mock their belief and try to convert them to non-belief through verbal brow-beating?

I've put in a lot of time studying comparative religion, and the history of religion.  My motive for this is that, like it or not, I live in a world and a society surrounded by religion and religious views.  As a practical matter, I need to understand how this works in order to survive and function in this context.  The primary other option would be to become a hermit, and my nature is a bit too social for that.

Having done this, I have been able to engage in discussion of religion with religious believers of all sorts.  I've had these discussions with everyone from strangers on the street to priests, rabbis, imams, and swamis.  Some have been friendly cultural exchanges.  Some have been heated, but civil philosophical debates.  And some have come close to fist fights and exorcisms (usually from my misjudgment of the context).  

In general, my motivation for having religious discussions at all, is to try to better understand the motivation of people around me, so that I may more peacefully co-exist.  Sometimes my motive is to hopefully persuade someone from making what appears to me a bad choice, based on their religious belief.  

Now, I do like to argue, and will admit that I sometimes have religious discussions just to scratch that itch, but I usually try to have those with someone I know well enough to know that they are not going to be offended or insulted by that kind of interaction.

Almost never has my motive been to try to persuade someone to give up their religious belief and become an atheist.  For one thing, I think this is virtually impossible:  that kind of change has to happen from within.  For another, I feel that one of the most ridiculous things I could become would be the atheist equivalent of an evangelical preacher or door-to-door salvation peddler.

That's been my experience; YMMV.  But it might give you some things to think about.

Oh, and welcome.

[Scientia]

1) Maybe describe the science you believe can be applied to the "Big Bang" to validate it.  Why do you feel it is the most "scientific? By what process or measure do you give it the attributed value?

2) Also, who said "God is a magical being"?  Was it you?  If so, why did you choose to define "God" that way?  If it was someone else, why did they attribute that to God?

3) I'm assuming you're finding issues with people discussing abiogenesis, because "biogenesis" is observable and we we know it's scientific.  As far as abiogenesis, it's a competing view when used as an explanation to explain life and its origins.

4) What part of the "story" is sketchy?  Who is the determining factor what someone should  believe?  Why do you believe they are blindly accepting something?

5) Who is claiming "science can't explain something so it must be God"?

Don't feel like you need to answer all of them, or any for that matter.  They are just questions that seemed relevant when reading your concerns.

I expected an answer rather than all those questions in response, but I'm familiar with this so I'll play along (I numbered your questions in your original post for ease):


1) The big bang is the most scientific theory because, unlike religion, it is based on the scientifc method. This means scientists went out in the field, made astronomical observations, formulated hypthesis and built a theory around it. 

2) How would you describe something that defies any physical law and makes no real sense, based on what we currently know of this perceived reality? I've read many colourful definitions of god, either some transcendent being that is everywhere and nowhere, knows everything, is intangible and can't be seen but is there and you can perceive it depending on some conditions. Such elusive and vague descriptions allude to the nothingness from my pov, so I just label it as "magic" for ease of speech.

3) You misunderstood what I wrote. I don't personally have any issue with either theory, but from this topic here https://atheistforums.org/thread-52712.html , I could see that one of the main "counter-response" to atheists was the fact that they "seemingly" support abiogenesis. So in response to their "you don't have enough proof of creationism" you answer back with "you don't have enough proof for abiogenesis". I'm trying to move a step ahead and say "I don't know which one is true, but how are you so confident of your own theory? Do you possess some particular piece of evidence that eludes everyone else?"

The thing is, not being able to explain from where life originated at the present moment, doesn't necessarily imply that we have to hurry and see the answer somewhere else. If neither parties can prove it, then just take more time to investigate it further. 

4) Many details are left out, all descriptions of this god are vague and elusive. It's like describing the nothingness. Even anti-matter has an easier to understand definition. Other uncertain things can be found in my original post but I'll copypaste for ease:

Most of these religions are sketchy and superficial and fail to address many points (eg, how are animals or plants judged? And what about cavemen that didn't know how to speak and communicate and just hit things with their club? And what about people who are born in such conditions where knowledge is kept hidden to them? What about people who are born physically or mentally ill and can't really help themselves? What about those who are forced to behave in some way? If we really must assume there is a creator, then I'd picture it as some neutral and uncaring entity that wanders in the universe. No hell or heaven, just something that spawns life here and there and moves on).

5) Basically any time people ask to "disprove" the existence of their god or when they go on about "How do you explain this phenomenon? Your dear science failed to explain it, while my religion can". It's as if they expected science to be already fully evolved and fledged out. It doesn't cross their mind that perhaps science hasn't YET explained it.

Now that I've answered your questions, would you bother to answer the questions I asked in my previous post?


EDIT
@ Dr H
My goal is to understand what led the other person to believe in their religion. I myself am full of doubts and questions, yet these people appear to have figured it all out. I investigated their book but couldn't find enough evidence supporting their claims, and so I ask them directly just in case I missed something along the way, but turns out they know as much as I do, and so I'm left wondering whether they are just being superficial or if they are doing it on purpose to dodge the question and live peacefully (which is a very reasonable and understandable path).

From what I gathered so far, all religions pretty much preach the same things (love, piece, altruism) or more generally, they preach common sense, just with different tales and characters. From my point of view, they aren't even that bad if taken just as guidelines (and not rigid unflexible rules) to live peaceful lives. One of my previous housemate was from Jordan and was muslim. We basically did the same things, played the same games, had the same philosophy of life, shared food, enjoyed the same movies for the same reasons, basically almost everything the same but in two different frameworks: he did all of this in the framework of his religion and beliefs, I did it in the framework of my own philosphy of life which boils down to "don't do to others what you don't want be done to you" and "assume nothing, question everything", that I would define as "common sense". In this sense I don't have issues with these people. But when they get super serious about it, it puzzles me and I start questioning it and eventually it heats up and derails.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

1) Maybe describe the science you believe can be applied to the "Big Bang" to validate it.  Why do you feel it is the most "scientific? By what process or measure do you give it the attributed value?

2) Also, who said "God is a magical being"?  Was it you?  If so, why did you choose to define "God" that way?  If it was someone else, why did they attribute that to God?

3) I'm assuming you're finding issues with people discussing abiogenesis, because "biogenesis" is observable and we we know it's scientific.  As far as abiogenesis, it's a competing view when used as an explanation to explain life and its origins.

4) What part of the "story" is sketchy?  Who is the determining factor what someone should  believe?  Why do you believe they are blindly accepting something?

5) Who is claiming "science can't explain something so it must be God"?

Don't feel like you need to answer all of them, or any for that matter.  They are just questions that seemed relevant when reading your concerns.

I expected an answer rather than all those questions in response, but I'm familiar with this so I'll play along (I numbered your questions in your original post for ease):


1) The big bang is the most scientific theory because, unlike religion, it is based on the scientifc method. This means scientists went out in the field, made astronomical observations, formulated hypthesis and built a theory around it. 

2) How would you describe something that defies any physical law and makes no real sense, based on what we currently know of this perceived reality? I've read many colourful definitions of god, either some transcendent being that is everywhere and nowhere, knows everything, is intangible and can't be seen but is there and you can perceive it depending on some conditions. Such elusive and vague descriptions allude to the nothingness from my pov, so I just label it as "magic" for ease of speech.

3) You misunderstood what I wrote. I don't personally have any issue with either theory, but from this topic here https://atheistforums.org/thread-52712.html , I could see that one of the main "counter-response" to atheists was the fact that they "seemingly" support abiogenesis. So in response to their "you don't have enough proof of creationism" you answer back with "you don't have enough proof for abiogenesis". I'm trying to move a step ahead and say "I don't know which one is true, but how are you so confident of your own theory? Do you possess some particular piece of evidence that eludes everyone else?"

The thing is, not being able to explain from where life originated at the present moment, doesn't necessarily imply that we have to hurry and see the answer somewhere else. If neither parties can prove it, then just take more time to investigate it further. 

4) Many details are left out, all descriptions of this god are vague and elusive. It's like describing the nothingness. Even anti-matter has an easier to understand definition. Other uncertain things can be found in my original post but I'll copypaste for ease:

Most of these religions are sketchy and superficial and fail to address many points (eg, how are animals or plants judged? And what about cavemen that didn't know how to speak and communicate and just hit things with their club? And what about people who are born in such conditions where knowledge is kept hidden to them? What about people who are born physically or mentally ill and can't really help themselves? What about those who are forced to behave in some way? If we really must assume there is a creator, then I'd picture it as some neutral and uncaring entity that wanders in the universe. No hell or heaven, just something that spawns life here and there and moves on).

5) Basically any time people ask to "disprove" the existence of their god or when they go on about "How do you explain this phenomenon? Your dear science failed to explain it, while my religion can". It's as if they expected science to be already fully evolved and fledged out. It doesn't cross their mind that perhaps science hasn't YET explained it.

Now that I've answered your questions, would you bother to answer the questions I asked in my previous post?

Thanks for your answer and the organized approach.  Just going to respond back, but may have an additional question or two so as to clarify some things.


1.  Can you clarify which study that used the scientific method? Just curious as to how they applied the scientific method to demonstrate it as being feasible explanation

2. Got the "ease of speech" thing.  I believe how we define things are important.  That way we know how to study something.   In other words, if we don't have a basic understanding of what something is supposed to be, then how can we observe it in the context of which it is.

3.  The "creation vs abiogenesis" thing can end up in a wash a lot of times, but we are talking about the past. We've not observing the creation of matter and/or energy, and observe it as law that we won't see it happen by natural processes.  Abiogenesis isn't something that is naturally observed.  Of course we know biogenesis is observable (life begets life), so it's easy to conclude.  Personally, I'm not just interested in organic from inorganic, but also increases and improvements in genetic information, just because you can't go from A to Z if you're still stuck at B or C.

4. I understand where you are coming from here. For me personally, I would rather define something as it is assumed to be. Not how I might want it to be.  If everything was subject to how I choose to define it, then apples could be oranges, and oranges could be whatever I want them to be.,  But I could never explain to someone else what I meant if they assumed the common definition and I was out in outer space with mine.

5. I would suggest that you don't need to try and "disprove God", but I don' have an issue as to both "God" and science providing viable explanations to things.  In practice, I would rather know before I assume, or even discount something. Of course I have my moments when I can violate my own rules, be it unintentionally.

Also, I already answered your initial question in post #7, but I'll repeat it.

"Be honest to people. Don't make up definitions for things, then assume they'll accept them. Apply logic and use citations from the Internet or literature you are referring to. If you're using two different standards, there's no point. "