No, You're Wrong., >:-( Options

Anybody else here getting tired of the people who always want to say that you're wrong?

The "above average" student who tries to use science to debate whatever they can.
The religious zealot who uses arguments such as "Well, you're going to hell. That's just the harsh reality of it."
Or maybe just the goddamn skeptics who like to deny the existence of anything above them simply because they can never get enough proof.

Makes me freaking irate.

We should all do something about these people. Any suggestions? Maybe organized genocide? Mass marginalization and eradication? War? LOL. (It's funny cause those are all basically the same thing.) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rofl.gif)

But no really. Something ought to be done about people like this. Maybe we could start a movement to pass a bill making it illegal to deny another person's beliefs, so that a person has to state that it is only their opinion. I mean really it should all be categorized as hate speech anyway. If I started saying in a public building that all Mexicans were shit, I would get arrested. Yet Christians can stand around in their Churches and belittle the beliefs of others, simply because the people who founded this country were Christian. ...They were also white. And isn't it more wrong to verbally assault someone for their beliefs than for their heritage? It's "Oh, Buddha was a fatty and you're going to hell" as compared to "I dislike you because your people have social standards that most of the rest of the world would imprison a person for."

Am I making sense to you guys? I'm saying that it's one thing to assault a person's heritage, but quite another to assault their beliefs. Yes, it is all marginalization, but one has some degree of rationale behind it (unless you're a hateful inbred).

And I was soooo not serious about starting a holocaust. I'm just making a point in the best way that I can at the moment, and would ask that the moderators not freak out over it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Vagrant, I would appreciate your normal in-depth critique.

At that point, they usually proclaim "It's true whether you believe it or not!" - insisting that what they're saying has nothing at all to do with beliefs or believing. Then I point out that if what they are saying is indeed true, if beliefs and believing have nothing at all to do with it, then there's no need for me to believe anything they're saying. There's no need for me to "believe in God" or "believe in Jesus" or believe that any of their teachings about how to get to heaven and how not to go to hell, etc...

I'm not sure if you think this is a flaw with Christianity, Islam, or Judaism specifically or just with specific people who have poorly discussed these topics with you. Christians believe that people are going to hell if they do not accept the validity of Jesus and ask forgiveness. So the reason to believe is so you can be saved from hell. It doesn't matter, from a Christian perspective, if you believe in hell the same way it doesn't matter if you believe a downed, live power line can kill you. However if you believe it can be dangerous then you can avoid it. It's not a conundrum it's just poor wording/logic.

That usually puts them in a conundrum.
While they are in that conundrum, I very concisely explain that a belief is an idea that does not match my experience - and that believing therefore is the process of living as if a belief is true. Living as if a belief is true is trusting that such beliefs are true - and trusting that such beliefs are true also can be called "having faith" in beliefs.

Empiricism (or "experience") can be argued as well as faith. But it's pretty hard to get anywhere (except "I exist" lol) with pure reason.

That compounds their conundrum, because "faith", "having faith", "believing", and "beliefs" are the bread and butter of their entire perspective. They're stuck now, because if they insist that believing doesn't have anything to do with outcomes, then they invalidate their motivation and reason for believing, having faith, etc...

Then I contrast this with knowing and knowledge, which I explain are based upon experience.
And I toss in the example: I don't believe that gravity exists ... I know that gravity exists because I experience gravity functioning.
At this point, they start doing a series of dodges and back-peddling, or they tenaciously hold onto their affirmation that "It's true whether you believe it or not!", and I simply, calmly, and evenly ask them where I can get the experience of hell so that I can be sure they're not just making shit up and otherwise lying to me (in the deceitful and despicable attempt to control how I live my life) - without quoting me doctrines from their belief system, since it has nothing to do with beliefs or believing.
This is where watching their cognitive dissonance unfold becomes truly interesting.

Actually no one can prove gravity exists, it just can be more apparent than, say, Christian, Jewish, or Muslim beliefs. Of course it is pretty ridiculous to try and say that gravity doesn't exist, but the point is that people of religious conviction are not simply blundering fools who cannot grasp the basics of rationality. Religious texts apply to all people. It is not usual to find a Christian who is able to argue with non-believers reasonably, but it is also unusual to find a non-believer who can argue well either. I think it's just fair to say that people all around are pretty ignorant.

If we were having this conversation it would not have gone the same direction your one here does, but if it did I would ask you how you can argue that it is "deceitful and despicable" for me or someone else to try to control your life. What are these principals you are so sure of? Clearly no one can prove their faith to your standard of empiricism and yet you claim that attempting to knowingly lie to you, in an effort to control you, is despicable. Why would that be despicable?