Deciphering gibberish?

[SlowCalculations]

Some of the arguments I've seen from theists in this very forum have led me to go, "What?" "How?" "Huh?" and "You lost me at blank." To the extent I just don't engage with them unless it's something I can comprehend.

In most cases, I think that's a good way to go and although I'd like to know how they've gotten themselves there.  I realize also that it's not always worth my time I try to select carefully. But apart of me does wonder if sometimes it's me not being able to keep up with huge terms like morality and ethics even though i understand morality and ethics to a degree I'm not good enough to where i feel like I'm not gonna make a fool out of myself and then drag them into more confusion.

[zwanzig]

I think I know what you're talking about but without a specific example, it's hard to say if it is simply my deconversion from religion that has given me a handy translator. There are lots of things that I assess as nonsense and absurd now but in the back of my head, the translator is running and my old faith-based understanding is able to interpret it from a theist pov. So, even as I'm coming at it from a more rational mindset now, I know from what I was taught growing up, how I was indoctrinated, how these things are supposed to go together or work. They still don't objectively make sense but I can at least understand how once I might have made sense of them if I was a theist being confronted with it.

[SlowCalculations]

Religionists tend to go to great and convoluted lengths to try to make a point. It isn’t you.

Boru

Thanks, yea, I wish I had arguments for some of them but some require information I'm still learning so I can't and others I understand but I'm sitting there going this is so bad that I do not know how to simplify this on the level their needing while also trying to avoid insulting them.

Calling someone stupid doesn't get a person to understand an argument, but there are also times i have called an argument silly or suggested why it's flawed. I don't want to come across as an aggressive person. I want people to feel like they can approach me and have these conversations in a setting that isn't yelling or screaming. This is because although yelling or screaming was maybe some people's way of coming out of religion it wasn't mine. I needed someone who didn't yell and scream but talked me through things. I think it's the direction of my goals. But I'm also not NT? so maybe there is some hidden reason as to why that way didn't work? Or maybe it's unrelated i think it's most likely unrelated and connected to my personality.

---

I think I know what you're talking about but without a specific example, it's hard to say if it is simply my deconversion from religion that has given me a handy translator. There are lots of things that I assess as nonsense and absurd now but in the back of my head, the translator is running and my old faith-based understanding is able to interpret it from a theist pov. So, even as I'm coming at it from a more rational mindset now, I know from what I was taught growing up, how I was indoctrinated, how these things are supposed to go together or work. They still don't objectively make sense but I can at least understand how once I might have made sense of them if I was a theist being confronted with it.

I think you get it and I know I should have given an example but I wasn't able to pull an example up that i could think of off the top of my head but if anything comes to the surface i'll throw it at you and show you what I'm meaning. Off-topic: That made me consider learning from their perspective even though I disagree then maybe I'd have a chance at getting someone to comprehend mine. But I feel like I'm already doing that at times and it's frustrating figuring out complicated subjects for myself and having the ability to share them in a way that makes sense? I often feel dumb but then i got people always telling me I'm quick and I'm not as dumb as i think i am which is confusing. Cause i feel like i should keep up but maybe I'm putting to much pressure on myself to quickly.

---

I don't argue religion with believers. I don't even talk much about religion with atheists, for that matter.

Neither do I except on this forum.

Australia is one of the most secular nations on earth.  Religion simply doesn't come up. Believing Aussies tend to go to church for hatchings, matchings and despatchings.

Since my devout Catholic Mother died 2 years ago, there have been no believers in my life. The only time mum and I spoke about religion it was obliquely. Eg She didn't like Pope John Paul 11 because she thought he was reactionary.  Didn't like the next one , Pope Benedict XV1   because she thought he was unpleasant. Quite liked the current one. She also saw through the most senior Catholic cleric in Australia at the time, referring to him as "that slimy George Pell" 

 I have a very religious family but there unique. My family isn't terrible they may try to convince me God is real and argue their case but they don't use fear tactics or tell you you're going to hell either. It can be annoying I guess? but it's never become a concern they're fairly democratic too so I got lucky. My dad raised us to believe whatever we wanted to believe. Ironically though I was the only one who ended up being the athiest.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I don't argue religion with believers. I don't even talk much about religion with atheists, for that matter.

I'm autistic and my special interest in psychology and philosophy. why I have these discussions is I'm just observing people and seeing their responses or how they come to their conclusions. It's "Rare" when I fall back to debates. When I do it's typically because I'm trying to figure something out. You don't find a ton in debates but you do find things. 
It's also a way to teach myself to remain calm under pressure.

Where are you on the spectrum? IE how well do you function?

I was diagnosed as being on the high functioning end of the spectrum at age 65, in 2012.  That explained a great deal about my life, but didn't  change all that much on a day to day sense. It did mean that I began to hate myself a bit less. 

I'm glad you're here.  I find it's a lot easier not having to try to interpret social cues and non verbal communication.  They're a pretty good bunch here mostly.   I hope you hang round for a while.

[SlowCalculations]

I'm autistic and my special interest in psychology and philosophy. why I have these discussions is I'm just observing people and seeing their responses or how they come to their conclusions. It's "Rare" when I fall back to debates. When I do it's typically because I'm trying to figure something out. You don't find a ton in debates but you do find things. 
It's also a way to teach myself to remain calm under pressure.

Where are you on the spectrum? IE how well do you function?

I was diagnosed as being on the high functioning end of the spectrum at age 65, in 2012.  That explained a great deal about my life, but didn't  change all that much on a day to day sense. It did mean that I began to hate myself a bit less. 

I'm glad you're here.  I find it's a lot easier not having to try to interpret social cues and non verbal communication.  They're a pretty good bunch here mostly.   I hope you hang round for a while.

 This is a really complicated and long story so I'll try to sum it up. If you got any further questions though feel free to ask I don't mind.  I got diagnosed when I was seven because I wasn't engaging, walking, or speaking coherently. But how they diagnosed autism when I was 7 was basically saying your kids on the spectrum but we don't know where. So I got rediagnosed when I was a teenager and was given high functioning autism as a diagnosis by a professional. They didn't give the diagnosis of Aspergers because of my speech and walking being late. However, today high functioning autism isn't considered a term it's just all put together under autism. They decided to get rid of these terms because they were too nit-picky and all terms were "Autism" anyways. I disagree with leveling autism, but you could classify me as "Medium range" at the time I needed a lot of support and help and there were times where nobody thought I was going to be able to live alone. But the older I got the better I got and I'm now independent and doing fine, I have people who help me if it's needed but for the most part, I do everything on my own and I'm capable of caring for myself and making my own decisions. I do experience self-hate still, but I think it's related to traumatic experiences and how my disability was perceived by others. It's unfortunate, but I've since realized and have been told I'm quite gifted. Although it is very hard for me to accept going from you're dumb to you're an extremely intelligent young adult.

[albatross]

Why debate the existence of otherwise of any entity that is purely imaginary? We have nothing to prove let alone defend. In fact for me the only religion I see any value in is Pastafarianism. So when theists spout their nonsense what IS there to debate? I have no desire to educate them and they have nothing to teach a true Atheist so why should either party waste breath? It's when they attempt to FORCE their ignorance and stupid superstition on us the gloves have to come off.

[SlowCalculations]

Why debate the existence of otherwise of any entity that is purely imaginary? We have nothing to prove let alone defend.  In fact for me the only religion I see any value in is Pastafarianism.  So when theists spout their nonsense what IS there to debate?  I have no desire to educate them and they have nothing to teach a true Atheist so why should either party waste breath?  It's when they attempt to FORCE their ignorance and stupid superstition on us the gloves have to come off.

Well, that is fair if that is what you want. 
But my question would be do you believe ignorance is forever? 
With this question think outside of "god" vs "No god" because I think that is irrelevant.

[Brian37]

I have a question that I'm still trying to figure out and I'm probably going to be trying to figure out for a while 
I occasionally, shift back into having debates I understand debating is basically: Two people doing this to each other   
We're on the same page? If so cool, I don't really want to go into my own reasoning for continuing to debate but that's a conversation for another day. 
What I'm needing to ask is it me and my lack of knowledge that makes it difficult for me to look at a religious person trying to make an argument and see gibberish?
I'm not saying that to be mean. I genuinely am trying to understand their perspectives and how they've arrived at the conclusions they have no matter how extreme. 
There are arguments that pop up that I can't decipher. Yet, I see people usually atheists that can have these conversations and seem to understand the questions. 
Is the understanding in some of these questions from people's lived personal experiences? And am I just never going to be able to grasp how people arrive at insane concepts? 
Or is there a skill in myself that I am missing? I'm aware I've probably phrased this a couple of other ways in the past sadly half the time I'm here I don't remember what I last posted
every time i show up I'm always here with new ideas and concepts I'm bouncing around in my head or simular ones I'm trying to phrase in new ways. As a friend told me if you cannot verbalize what you're trying to say correctly people aren't to understand what you're asking. So I'm working on that. 

Another way of phrasing this may be: How to decipher gibberish? 
Or should i be treating some of these conversations as actually dulisional? (Of course in a nicer manner)

Gibberish always begins with, " My religion is" and "I am good because of such" and "My holy book says". Mind you, I am not talking about any one single religion or sect, but just in general, that humans world wide don't want to accept it is an excuse for tribalism. If any one religion had  a  patent on morality, then why does every nation on the face of the planet have both hospitals and prisons?

[albatross]

Is ignorance forever? If ignorance means lack of knowledge then it need not be. However if people reject increasing knowledge in favour of superstition then that's not ignorance - it's stupidity.

[Paleophyte]

Or should i be treating some of these conversations as actually dulisional? (Of course in a nicer manner)

It varies greatly by the individual, the topic, and the phase of the moon.

 - A very few may actually be mentally ill and literally delusional. These are rare but don't argue with one if you spot it. They literally need professional help. Happily, they're few and far between.

 - Many arguments are so spammy, trolly, or simply ill-conceived as to be indistinguishable from gibberish. These are the product of laziness and stupidity rather than a psychiatric condition. You should ignore these as being too dumb to waste your time with. A title like "Atheism and the existence of peanut butter" is a red flag that debating the topic is going to kill brain cells.

 - Many of the remainder are simply coming from such a different world view that it can be very difficult to understand them if you have trouble seeing the other person's point of view. That's a two-way street, and we get to see how badly theists misunderstand atheists every time they start telling us what we think or believe. It's usually utter bollox. If your autism lends itself to a high degree of analytical thinking or narrow but intense focus then you may have a hard time shoe-horning your brain into these very different head spaces. On the plus side, you'll drive evangelicals mad because they'll have an easier time converting a brick wall than getting through to you if that's the case.