Agnostic.com

25 27

Is it better to stay silent? I think so when it comes to discussing philosophy or religion. Or maybe it just depends on whether there is a mutual understanding and respect

HelenRoseBuck 6 May 27
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

25 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

7

I made this point in reply below, and I want to make it here: I never expect a religious person in debate to agree with me, or concede a point, or admit to doubts. That's not how it works. In arguments, people tend to double down rather than admit they might be wrong. But, it just might be that a religious person might go away and think about what was said. Change in religious people away from religion has to come from within, and just maybe we can have an influence, but thinking we might change people during debate ignores the reality of belief and human psychology.

7

Don't be silent. Ask questions like Socrates said. Listen and ask questions.

Yeah, good luck with that.

7

For me, it really depends upon the situation, those involved, and my mood at the time.

Same 🙌🙌🙌

6

I doubt Darwin ever said this, for one thing he was not an atheist and for another he was English and so would never have spelled HARBOUR as harbor is a relatively modern US spelling.
I call BS

Unless someone can reference where and when and in what context he said it.

You are correct. I’m unable to trace the quote to anyone

5

I don't know who actually said this, or if it was dreamed up by a Meme maker, but, I am now reminded of the phrase "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.” Also, of the advise not to argue with a fool, as anyone watching will not be able to tell which is which.

4

You can lead a theist to reason, but you can't make him/her think.

4

I wouldn't typically be arrogant enough to disagree with Uncle Charles but if we don't engage with them how are theists supposed to have their kooky ideas challenged?

Apparently just asking what would it take for them to not believe in God is enough. Then sit back and make like a Darwin 😉

3

Sorry, but this is most likely an inaccurate meme that does more harm than good.

The religious argument against Darwin is that he was an atheist who sought to bring down religion by coming up with the theory of evolution.

Darwin, however, was no atheist activist. He merely sought to understand how humans evolved based on the evidence he was uncovering.

Darwin's well documented theory of evolution is a good vehicle for drawing people away from religion.

However this inaccurate meme will undercut the case for evolution by attributing it to his supposed atheist beliefs.

Not everything that seems to support our side (any side!) actually does so when closely examined….

Well put. It was ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’ (Thomas Henry Huxley) after all who coined the term ‘agnostic.’

Darwin had been on the brink of entering religious training. To claim that he was an atheist is to show one's ignorance. Because of his religious leanings he did not publish his thesis, until Wallace was about to publish the same concept, based on his years of research in South America.
the claim you refer to is based on "lying for God is excusable, because the end justifies the means." Notwithstanding that the bible specifically states that those who lie can not gain entrance to heaven.

3

Regardless of whether Darwin actually stated this, I tend for several decades now to stay away from "debating". I'm ok to state my views, whether on theism or morality or economics or government or whatever, and sometimes I will be blunt, for the avoidance of any misunderstanding, and state that I think Theism is nonsense. I'm also ok to hear from others here and there. This is all different from "debating" though.

kmaz Level 7 May 27, 2021

I can tell you that I never expect a religious person in debate to agree with me, or concede a point, or admit to doubts. That's not how it works. In arguments, people tend to double down rather than admit they might be wrong. But, it just might be that a religious person might go away and think about what was said. Change in religious people away from religion has to come from within, and just maybe we can have an influence, but thinking we might change people during debate ignores the reality of belief and human psychology.

@David1955

One of the surprises to me is to realize how much some of my friends and family are emotionally hurt when I give voice to my views on theism, and on the moral systems usually associated with the main theistic systems in the US (i.e.: Christianity, Judaism, Islam and (perhaps importantly) a generic sort of theism that many of my friends seem to embrace).

Anyway, some of what we're saying overlapping, but what I won't do is engage with someone where there is some understanding that the objective "loser" of the "argument" needs to acknowledge they were wrong and go over to the other side. There are various reasons for this including:
a) I'm not going to do the work necessary to figure out all the problems with the arguments of a theist, particularly as being a theist (at this point) means they don't care to do the work themselves, IMO. So, my points may, in the moment, simply be recitation of my views, not a cogent argument, and they may be "perceived" as "winning". Still, I like being intellectually honest, and trying to give fair consideration to others' views. In a discussion with such a sloppy or intellectually lazy person, where there is some supposed agreement or tacit belief that I should "admit" that I am wrong and now go over to the other side, the point there is simply that my honesty and self-respect and respect for others are then being used against me.

b) While there is no "danger" that I will end up believing in god, what I really care about are the many various nuanced principles (aside from belief in God) that will come up in any free ranging discussion (if not debate), and they will get into territory where I am not as clear, or where I fail the principle itself with weak or inappropriate defense or development. I don't like being guilty of failing principles that I have only half formed but which I think are important, so this is another reason I stay away from debate, particularly with people who basically don't understand or give a damn about any of this.

c) If I were given to debate, I would not spend my time debating nonsense propositions where the debate is (arguably) lost by me simply by conceding that it can be useful to debate a nonsense proposition. What if we were debating whether to "believe in" the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster (let alone dedicating one's life to such). Is there a point to spending a single second on that "debate"?

d) but I do tend to care (I guess, in some way) about some of the people I speak with and it can also be damaging to me to get drawn into the idea that I am somehow going to convince them of something. Maybe I will, but it's dangerous territory (to me) in my view.

@kmaz well, frankly, on these matters I tend to let the cards fall where they may. On any form of belief in mysticism, I advise that people have the right of belief, but not the right to demand their belief be respected. Any offence taken by others is their problem.

3

It seems to me that, when religion is discussed, it is nearly always the religious person who introduced the topic. Why on Earth shouldn't we chime in?

I found this to be true, by the way, when I was on the other side (former fundamentalist here). I know that I was the one who inserted religion into every damn thing. I remember it well. Why shouldn't my irreligious peers have challenged me? I'm glad that they did!

Did you persist if faced with push back? I never was religious and my pat response to people who bring it up is, "Ya know God had nothing to do with religion. Religion is something man cooked up and it's been a real problem ever since."
Then they leave me alone. Now if someone asks what I believe as a serious question we can discuss things.
There was a woman here in the apartment complex where I live that was a real religious nutter, but like all abusers she would only pick her battles with people who she could bully. She left me alone after I used the previously mentioned statement. But she verbally attacked 2 other people, one to the point the cops were called and a judge granted the abused resident an order to keep the religious nutter from talking to the abused person. He shut down the nutters free speech argument because she does not have the right to terrorize, yell or cause a public disturbance. The nutter passed away 3 weeks ago, I know several who did a happy dance.

@silverotter11 Did I persist if faced with pushback? I guess that depends on what you mean by "persist" and what you mean by "pushback". I enjoyed a lively discussion, as much then as I do now.

But no, I have never (thus far, anyway,) been on either end of a restraining order. For what it's worth, though, I would have very much enjoyed debating your "pat response".

@AmyTheBruce I too enjoy a lively discussion. I wrote about the religious nutter as MY example of push back. I pretyy much figured you were never like that.
That might have been an interesting debate, at one time.LOL
WHat caused you to change you're point of view?

@silverotter11 Ha! How much time have you got?

My point of view changed suddenly and gradually, for reasons both large and small, benign and tragic. The transition was tidy and messy, emotional and logical, often at the same time. Death, fire, angry ranting and quiet contemplation were all involved at different points. The process took years, and yet concluded overnight.

How's that for a messed-up answer?

@AmyTheBruce It's a WONderful answer! Here is the one question I would love an answer to.
Why are there 2 creation stories in Genesis? Chapter one gives us everything including man and woman are created in the first 6 days and it is good AF. Then Chapter two gets a bit misty and there is a mud man created in their image and a wayward bitch out of a rib and things start to go south from there.
I asked it of my cousin who deeply religious and high up in the church. He just side stepped it completely. As we were at the memorial for my mom and we never see each other (I am out west and he is back east) never got to follow up on it. None of the Bible thumping people I know have an answer either.

@silverotter11 My old answer: The first story was an overview. The second story was just more detail. The plural pronoun was either God talking with the angels, or he was using the "royal" we.

My current answer: Isn't Lilith awesome?! She's the best character in the whole damn book, which is a neat trick, since she's not really in the book at all.

3

This does not mean not to challenge them in courts when they want to impose their bullshit into laws but discussing religion with these people is useless.

Not 100% useless, no. Maybe 90% useless.

For that remaining 10% , though, it can mean a lot. You can introduce thoughts that they've literally never thought before.

There are atheists who will still do that. I wonder if the more subtle street epistemology approach is better than outright “debate me” confrontation.

But yeah legal confrontation is warranted when they continue chipping away at Jefferson’s wall in the public sphere.

@AmyTheBruce good luck with that!

3

Atheists have been silent for too long. 20th Century atheism was often characterised by this approach. Look what happened: rampant abuse of churches, and ever more extreme forms of monotheism, including Christianity. To hell with staying silent. I don't look for arguments with religious people, especially if they have long held views based on habit more than thought; but if religious people try one on with me, then I'm their Huckleberry. It's just my game.

It depends on who it is. I've had good chats, WTF chats and crazytown chats. Religious nutters are like any other predator they look for the weak.

@silverotter11 all true. I have had some good ones too, but if you are a confident atheist around believers, sooner or later they either get personal or sound really dumb, trying on the usual bad history, mythology, theology, unproven claims and emotional blackmail and fear. I take comfort that when they either get personal or sound dumb, and I've induced cognitive dissonance and they have lost.

3

Mutual understanding and respect is notably absent from all religious zealots, regardless of which particular religion they espouse.

Yes, I though I was having a good discussion once and then they started spouting off about all the good god would do for his people.
No concept of what a godless life could be, all about what another entity (non existent) could do for them.
The eternal child fallacy, daddy will come and help you in the end. Grow the heck up! 😂

2

I have no problem staying silent when it comes to discussing philosophy or religion ... it's pretty much what I do at every family gathering. But when it comes to attempts by the faithful to impose their belief systems in the political sphere and society as a whole, I cannot ever remain silent.

Hi there. Am I right in saying that some religious groups insist that the US was designed to be officially Christian, and therefore, the US laws should enforce the doctrines of (their version of) Christianity? Considering that the US Constitution is a wholly secular document, aren't those people being disrespectful to the Constitution? Have they ever made an attempt to change it?

@Ryo1 Christian nationalists and their ilk interpret the Constitution in their own way and to suit their own purposes, as we all do. Most of them love the 2nd amendment, but when it comes to the 1st amendment, particularly the establishment clause, they often thumb their noses at it, on the state and local levels, through efforts to, for instance, reintroduce school prayer, installing the 10 commandments in public facilities and channeling taxpayer dollars to families for tuition at church run schools via voucher programs.

@p-nullifidian I meant to mention - I don't know how active they are, but I've heard about Project Blitz.

@Ryo1 Footwear? [projectblitz.com]

@p-nullifidian
That as well but...
[blitzwatch.org]

2

I’m never silent when it comes to my beliefs. I outright flaunt the fact that I’m against religion and I’m an Atheist, regardless if I’m in the most religious part of the country or not.

I state, up front, that I follow Zen Taoism. Someone, maybe the religious person, asks "What's that" and it becomes the conversation b/c it's much more interesting.

2

Are you sure Darwin said that? He was a religious man and knew very little of a "true atheist." As for debating a theist, I'm never silent. What is there about a book that became popular as we know it some 300 plus years after the time of Jesus that you want me to know about? Also, did the people resurrected in the OT have to die again later? How about the ones who came out of the tombs as Jesus died?

Yes, there is nonsense like this and the believers still think I am angry with their god. I'm also pissed off at Casper too.

But, at least, Casper is cute!
I am, also, I expect, not angry with their god, for how can one be angry with a fairy tale character. I do get angry when they push their absurd "Jesus is the Answer" crap in my face, though.

Not positive this quote is directly from Darwin. Sorry for that. There are references to letters he wrote (recently auctioned letters) that made his doubts about certain dogmas clear.

[google.com]

1

i feel pissed off when a religious retard starts talking about the truth of their religion and i feel i want to reply but i don't always do it... just to avoid headache!

Basem Level 7 May 28, 2021

I suggest saying something highly offensive. Like, "God fucking damn, you're God seems to be bloodthirsty!" and then walking away.

@rainmanjr i'd be picking a fight if i said something like that!

@Basem You can't fight after walking away yet your words, or idea, remains.

1

Respect is at the foundation of discourse. Without it, there is no opportunity for rationality.

1

Just headaches to argue with them

bobwjr Level 10 May 27, 2021
1

What aspects of philosophy are you reluctant to discuss?

1

I’m skeptical of the provenance of the quote. As with his Bulldog I thought Darwin was an agnostic.

And it rings close to “no true Scotsman”. Firebrands are as much atheists as those more reticent, accommodationist, or in the closet.

1

You have to remember that C. D. trained for the church, and was always shy of challenging the status quo. However great as a thinker and a naturalist, he was still at the bottom a Victorian country parson.

0

No point to discuss religion.

0

You do you. I confront their hypocrisy when it's presented to me period

0

There's no "one true" anything.

Leelu Level 7 May 27, 2021
Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:599307
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.