Hugh Jass

In a discussion with a liberal-type xian yesterday I had been pointing out some of the more unsavoury laws and deeds of her 'lord' when she dropped it suddenly( after trying the 'out of context bit' first) and said that of course the NT was not like that. So I mentioned that Jesus said he agreed with the old laws 'Every jot and tittle'. Her answer was 'Oh but he ALSO said..........'. So of course I asked her what authority she used to decide which bits were in her religion and which bits weren't. Guess what...yup, faith!
It's like trying to nail Jello to a tree. She changes the focus of the argument until she can't change it anymore and ends with a magnificent non-sequitur.
Can anybody give me some pointers on dealing with someone of this ilk? I am not going to change her mind and she certainly left the discussion realising that she hadn't defended her religion very well but she also would put this down to a failing on her part rather than inconsistencies and idiocies in her religion.
Any help, rejoinders and pointers would be gratefully received!

Draygomb

I find it usefull to take the position of trying to learn their religion. Because while they are describing their religion they are also nailing their feet to the floor.

Or you can really shortcut the process by getting them to define god. I have yet to see a noncontradictory definition of god that was anywhere near remotely worthy of worship.

Why argue which religion is correct when they haven't even proven that god could exist?

Though that can be fun. Assume that god does exist and have them try to prove that their religion is true. Then sit back and watch.

Wyrdsmyth

Hi Sandy,

I've had many encounters like this, and I sympathize. I don't think you can force someone to see inconsistencies in their religion, not with all the intellectual force in the world. Someone who is cornered only fights all the more fiercely. The only success I've ever had in changing someone's mind is by planting seeds, and sort of "being on their side" not with a confrontational debate. What I mean by "being on their side" is that if I don't present myself as being committed to the antithesis of their worldview, they won't feel obligated to disagree with every single thing I say about their religion. I've often said, "What if there is no God... I'm not saying there isn't, I'm just saying: what if religion is all made up?" Comments like that need to germinate over time.

You've already seen the various replies to cold, hard debating -- "You're taking it out of context" and "I can't explain this inconsistency, but that only means I don't understand it, or I have some failing, not that the Bible is really inconsistent" or "It's mysterious, you have to have faith to understand it." If someone is committed to the position that something's just gotta be true no matter what, then there is no philosophical crowbar long enough that could possibly pry them away from that. They have to be at least somewhat open minded before you can apply any pressure at all.

Technos

Why not just leave them to their blissful ignorance? It's likely better that they believe in a god and be good little citizens because they want to live in happy happy land someday than it is for them to realize that gods don't exist and make the idiot mistake of assuming that anything goes since there is no heaven or hell (as many ex-christians seem to do for a time). Seriously, I'd much rather have a stupid christian as a neighbor than a stupid Atheist.

Hugh Jass

Okay,try to learn their religion. By making them define things your suggesting? You are probably onto a good tactic here because in the course of the discussion I asked her to define 'spirit' and she was lost in a morass of indefinite terms. I didn't realise how backed up she was and I didn't press it.
Just for info, I have been an atheist all my adult life but I used to get so frustrated talking to intelligent people who believe in ghosts that I tended to just avoid discussing it.
No longer! That is just letting them win by default and so I have recently joined up here to try and learn more effective ways of debating them.
Thanks. Feel free to add anything at all.

Hugh Jass

I take your points and they are nicely put but I had no hope in my own mind of deconverting her. I guess I am just looking for ways to keep people like that on the defensive....make them stumble and fumble for arguments.

Arrowman

Yes, but would you want one running your country?

Oh, wait....

Hugh Jass

Yeah, I know, and you are probably quite right. It is just that I have reached the stage where I want to shake them out of their complacency.

Hugh Jass

Atheists, stupid or otherwise, ain't allowed to run countries. They don't got fambly values.

virgio

Wyrdsmyth, that's probably one of the most disgusting suggestions I've seen posting. You're suggesting the specious tactic of 'soft conversion' - pretending to care about someone's thoughts, opinions and beliefs for the sole purpose of changing those thoughts, opinions and beliefs. The betrayal of trust and lack of basic human empathy only seems to support the 'immoral atheist' stereotype - do you really want to do that?

virgio