Common Turn Offs in discussing your religion or beliefs

[Revoltingest]

A person's beliefs might fly in the face of fact, or said person might need to misrepresent or distort the claims of others in order to make their beliefs seem correct.

Unless you've shown said person time and time again examples of events that actively contradict their beliefs (or claims related to such) or show them to be false and they continue to expound as if you'd never shown them anything.

Calling a duck a 'duck' isn't an example of bad behaviour. Sometimes 'liar' is as good a word as any to describe someone's dishonesty.

Usually, what's being argued about in the arena of beliefs is neither provable nor disprovable.
You think socialism sucks?
Or you think capitalism sucks?
These are value based opinions.
I've never seen anyone prove someone else a liar.

Suppose I tell someone over & over that they're wrong about something....
If they don't change their mind, this isn't necessarily lying.
What's so obviously false to one person isn't always so to another.

I've been thru this before.
Someone tells me how dishonest I am, based upon their claim of "facts" & "logic".
The reality is that they offer neither....just opinion mistaken as fact, & reasoning which really just presumption.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Usually, what's being argued about in the arena of beliefs is neither provable nor disprovable.
You think socialism sucks?
Or you think capitalism sucks?
These are value based opinions.
I've never seen anyone prove someone else a liar.

Fair enough; when you're talking about opinions then you're right. That's not the right situation to call someone a liar.

Suppose I tell someone over & over that they're wrong about something....
If they don't change their mind, this isn't necessarily lying.
What's so obviously false to one person isn't always so to another.

But what if you show them they're wrong and why they're wrong beyond reasonable doubt? What if somebody makes claims about a religious figure; example, the Buddha, how he viewed the divine and how deity fitted into his world-view. What if those claims about what he said flew in the face of everything the Buddha is recorded as having said and the person was shown this, read it for themselves, and continued making their claims anyway? Is that not deliberate deceit?

 

[crossfire]

Fair enough; when you're talking about opinions then you're right. That's not the right situation to call someone a liar.



But what if you show them they're wrong and why they're wrong beyond reasonable doubt? What if somebody makes claims about a religious figure; example, the Buddha, how he viewed the divine and how deity fitted into his world-view. What if those claims about what he said flew in the face of everything the Buddha is recorded as having said and the person was shown this, read it for themselves, and continued making their claims anyway? Is that not deliberate deceit?

It's propagating propaganda. Their minds might be overtaken by greed, hatred, or delusion, which is a perfect environment for propaganda to flourish.

Before the suttas were written down, they were kept as oral tradition. Of course, Buddha's rejection of much of the local cultural egregore lead to slanderous oral propaganda, in very much the same way that you see it propagated by social/cultural engineers who wish to maintain the status quo today. Much of this slanderous propaganda is still being propagated and is being taken as truth down to this day. Therefore, it comes down to which oral tradition you want to believe-the one that wants to take over individual thought via greed, hatred, or delusion, or the ones that lead to empowering individual thought.

 

[Revoltingest]

Fair enough; when you're talking about opinions then you're right. That's not the right situation to call someone a liar.

Woo hoo....detente!

But what if you show them they're wrong and why they're wrong beyond reasonable doubt? What if somebody makes claims about a religious figure; example, the Buddha, how he viewed the divine and how deity fitted into his world-view. What if those claims about what he said flew in the face of everything the Buddha is recorded as having said and the person was shown this, read it for themselves, and continued making their claims anyway? Is that not deliberate deceit?

I've seen 2 episodes I can recall where I've high confidence that someone was lying.
1) I simply pointed out the same correction in clear undisputable detail as before.
The mischievous claim hasn't surfaced since.
Had I pointed out what I thought was dishonesty, it would've soured relations with the individual even more than they already were & remain.
2) I pointed out a deliberately altered quote.
As I recall, I did claim dishonesty.
I point the above out because I agree with you in principal.
But I also urge caution & sparing use.

 

[Akivah]

I wanted to ask people what are the "turn-offs" when you are discussing your religion or beliefs with someone. i.e. What are the things that make you think it is not worth discussing it with this person?

An instant turn-off for me is when a person tells me that the Jews are blind and don't understand their own religion (or their Messiah).

Our bible is written in Hebrew and is unchanged from when it was originally given to us by G-d. We are fanatical about keeping our new copies exact to the original. We are called the "People of the Book" for a reason. So it annoys me when someone comes with different bible written thousands of years after our bible, and claims theirs is the true bible that we should give authority to.

It annoys me when a person that has no knowledge of Hebrew attempts to instruct native Hebrew speakers about the "true" meanings of Hebrew words.

 

[RRex]

When people invoke Jesus or Allah I go into s**thead mode, especially if they cite scripture, etc.

Also, it irritates me that the the Jews claim they're chosen based on books written by men. It's the height of arrogance.

I like a person who can speak generically of religion without throwing phony-baloney books at me.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

What irritates me is (1) fundamentalism and (2) illogicality. I never make a claim for which I cannot provide evidence or a reasoned argument. When I can't, I try to remember Mark Twain's advice: "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Too many people have no evidence and no arguments.

There are Abrahamic fundamentalists who simply quote their scriptures at you with no attempt to provide a reason why you should accept those texts.

Then there are the atheist fundamentalists who have their own slogans. Thus they'll talk about "lack of evidence" without saying what constitutes evidence or considering how evidence is normally evaluated. They'll label the 90% of humanity who practice a religion as "deluded" without considering a clinical definition of delusion, the ability of clinicians to detect mental deficiencies and their observed frequency, or the improbability of the species having survived if the vast majority were incapable of distinguishing delusion from reality.

 

[Revoltingest]

When people invoke Jesus or Allah I go into s**thead mode, especially if they cite scripture, etc.

Also, it irritates me that the the Jews claim they're chosen based on books written by men. It's the height of arrogance.

I like a person who can speak generically of religion without throwing phony-baloney books at me.

I offer you artisanal baloney.....

 

[RRex]

I offer you artisanal baloney.....

Well, it ain't bacon, but I never refuse an offer of food, especially MEAT.

 

[Akivah]

Also, it irritates me that the the Jews claim they're chosen based on books written by men. It's the height of arrogance.

Oh yeah, it also annoys me when someone thinks that the chosen-ness of the Jewish people thinks that it means that we consider ourselves superior to anyone else. (There is no authoritative person in Judaism that says it means that.)
Particularly, when their own beliefs include a belief that only people that believe as they do will get to Heaven (i.e. they already subscribe to a superiority belief for themselves).

 

[Kori]

I think this fits here.

 

[RRex]

Particularly, when their own beliefs include a belief that only people that believe as they do will get to Heaven (i.e. they already subscribe to a superiority belief for themselves).

I'm a Deist. I don't consider myself to be superior in any way. I believe we are all equally fallible.

 

[LuisDantas]

- Presumption that beliefs can somehow be chosen.

- Presumption that beliefs are a merit as opposed to a liability for religion.

- Presumption that deity-related beliefs are somehow indicative of moral discernment or responsibility

- Presumption that one is entitled to tell someone else what he or she believes or values. Particularly when it is guided by labels as opposed to anything coming from the person proper.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

An instant turn-off for me is when a person tells me that the Jews are blind and don't understand their own religion (or their Messiah).

Our bible is written in Hebrew and is unchanged from when it was originally given to us by G-d. We are fanatical about keeping our new copies exact to the original. We are called the "People of the Book" for a reason. So it annoys me when someone comes with different bible written thousands of years after our bible, and claims theirs is the true bible that we should give authority to.

It annoys me when a person that has no knowledge of Hebrew attempts to instruct native Hebrew speakers about the "true" meanings of Hebrew words.

I cannot Like this enough. Well said.

 

[Paleo]

"But you aren't really Orthodox if you don't belong to Netjer." Please look up the definition of 'Orthodox', thank you.
"But Asetians can't be Orthodox." Google is you friend and it's free; use it.
"But those Gods are actually demons and were thrown into Hell by the real God." There's too much stupid in that sentence, I'm not even going to bother.
"But you can be Kemetic, you're white." That's so illogical an racist I don't even know where to start.

 

[Quagmire]

There are a few things that immediately make me stop listening:

• Using criticisms of Abrahamic Monotheism against me - This is a common one among newer members who think they've come across an all-encompassing criticism of theism. They're new, they have an excuse. Established members don't.
• Ignoring an entire post in order to pick on a trivial flaw - I've seen entire posts of mine missing from a quote while somebody focuses on a flawed analogy, incorrect name or something equally minor. If you do this, I have to conclude your only interest is in "winning" a debate. That's not what I'm here for.

Thanks, you saved me a post.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"But you aren't really Orthodox if you don't belong to Netjer." Please look up the definition of 'Orthodox', thank you.
"But Asetians can't be Orthodox." Google is you friend and it's free; use it.
"But those Gods are actually demons and were thrown into Hell by the real God." There's too much stupid in that sentence, I'm not even going to bother.
"But you can be Kemetic, you're white." That's so illogical an racist I don't even know where to start.

I had that once. When I practiced at the Church and African American looked at me (Im same race) and says "so you going to an white Church"... then he admit he thought only hispanics and whites are Catholic. Didnt have the heart to tell him to come to Mass.

 

[Thief]

The motivation for insults is easy to understand.
They get angry, & they lash out.
But the accusation of lying is strange.
Why would any of us have reason to lie about our beliefs & opinions?
And there's no way another poster could know if we were.
It's an accusation which bespeaks not just abuse, but hubris.

So, to any posters prone to making this accusation.....
Bear in mind that such behavior reflects poorly upon you.

I gave you approval....now let's start a thread....

 

[Aupmanyav]

What are the things that make you think it is not worth discussing it with this person?

I an an atheist Hindu, therefore, too much of devotion to Gods and scriptures (I do not mind some), and opposition to science.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It annoys me when a person that has no knowledge of Hebrew attempts to instruct native Hebrew speakers about the "true" meanings of Hebrew words

This one just has to have a gold star.