Deciphering gibberish?

[SlowCalculations]

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)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

Boru

[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.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

Why on earth would you want to avoid insulting them?

Boru

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

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.

Why on earth would you want to avoid insulting them?

Boru

Yeah. Such people may become offended when you attack their beliefs.  That isn't the same as attacking the person.

Plus, imo, free speech must include the right to offend. To decline to say something because it may offend is to allow oneself to be manipulated. However, in Australia; we have anti hate speech laws. To decline to insult a person may be a pragmatic decision, as in fear of being arrested.

Keeping it simple; most theists I run across are presuppositional apologists. By that I mean they assume the existence of god is a given. It ain't. Before arguing  about the bible or specific beliefs, it's quite reasonable to demand they demonstrate the existence of their god. So far, no one in recorded history has managed to do that. Nor has anyone been able to demonstrate there is no god.

If you are not familiar, it might be a good idea to have a look at some of the more common logical fallacies.  At least one usually turns up in most discussions with believers.

It's worth remembering  that religious beliefs are based on faith, not reason and not facts. In fact Jesus himself is reported as admonishing his followers to believe on faith: John 20:29  (KJV) Jesus saith unto him,Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.


((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

25 Common Logical Fallacies That Sway You From Winning Arguments (coffeeandjunk.com)

[Fireball]

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

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

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" 

[SlowCalculations]

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.

[T.J.]

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.

[SlowCalculations]

Why on earth would you want to avoid insulting them?

Boru

Yeah. Such people may become offended when you attack their beliefs.  That isn't the same as attacking the person.

Plus, imo, free speech must include the right to offend. To decline to say something because it may offend is to allow oneself to be manipulated. However, in Australia; we have anti hate speech laws. To decline to insult a person may be a pragmatic decision, as in fear of being arrested.

Keeping it simple; most theists I run across are presuppositional apologists. By that I mean they assume the existence of god is a given. It ain't. Before arguing  about the bible or specific beliefs, it's quite reasonable to demand they demonstrate the existence of their god. So far, no one in recorded history has managed to do that. Nor has anyone been able to demonstrate there is no god.

If you are not familiar, it might be a good idea to have a look at some of the more common logical fallacies.  At least one usually turns up in most discussions with believers.

It's worth remembering  that religious beliefs are based on faith, not reason and not facts. In fact Jesus himself is reported as admonishing his followers to believe on faith: John 20:29  (KJV) Jesus saith unto him,Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.


((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

25 Common Logical Fallacies That Sway You From Winning Arguments (coffeeandjunk.com)

I'll look into logical fallacies that's a good recommendation thank you. You hold a point.