I do, on an almost weekly basis. A goodly portion of the people I deal with at work know that I'm an atheist. We can actually joke about religion together, with ruffling their feathers. So far, I've yet to have anyone get offended by me or my point of view. I don't attack them, I will question them though.
I understand what you are saying here, and of course from experience you are right, the ones you personally deal with in that situation are like you say and act as you say. And i
am mostly of that nature too. It depends on the other person I'm dealing with though, to some extent . This varies from the above example to agreeing to disagree. Also you state that
you question
them. Is it not understood that one of the basic and most foundational ideas behind the religion your guys practice is the
sin of questioning the god they worship (note, I did not say all gods)?
Although a sociable banter is a methodology i prefer and love, even that can easliy, and is by many (maybe not the majority but a lot) regarded as a form, albeit mildly, of attack. This is regretable, and not, as you rightly state, universal.
Ok, so how is lumping all religious beliefs in any way helpful to getting others to abandon their beliefs?
Understanding the commonalities amongst, as you correctly state, a wide variety of religions (worldwide) is essential to finding a way of removing them, either with the host's approval or not. Preferably with.
Doing this gives one a common set of tools on which to perhaps build a more tailored response to the individual details, if needed. you know,
foundational knowledge and all that.....
If you treat all religions as if they are some brand of Christianity, you're going to just irritate people because you keep arguing against something they don't hold to be true.
See above... and i agree. (yes really)
All religions are not the same. Islam is not Judaism is not Buddhism is not Taoism is not Christianity. Hell, different flavors of each of them aren't even the same. You start telling a Methodist that Christianity is wrong because "god doesn't heal amputees" they'll probably look at you like you have three heads because as a general rule, Methodists don't go in for faith healing to begin with. Try telling a Buddhist that religions are wrong because there's no evidence that god exists, there's an even chance that they'll agree that there isn't any evidence.
True. recognising diversity is a scientific pursuit, it is not so prevelant in religion though is it. Recognition to most adherants means tolerance, this might be in practice the way that a lot of religions ensure their survival, however the actual teachings often proscribe the opposite.
Also, not all adherents are equal. You have all kinds in every congregation. You're going to have the gamut from the moderate to the light-weight to the fanatic. And then every congregation is going to vary as well. Religion is not a singularity. About the only universal is that religions bring people together over a commonly held belief. If you do not understand what that belief is and how it relates to the community it's held in, you're not going to be effective in talking to them and convincing them whatever it is you want to convince them of.
Yup totally agree.with the caveats i gave above included though
Remember the first rule of diplomacy, your enemy never sees themselves as evil. the sooner you learn that and start modifying your rhetoric the sooner you'll start getting your point across.
I do know it already really. I'm mentally questioning the conclusions you draw here based on a very small amount of exchanges we have had though.
I have sometimes got my point across, sometimes not. I
am responsive to the other party generally, unless they refuse to cooperate or, then the gloves come off occasionally.
Look, I do respect the person, but respect for that person's belief is to me a different thing.
I see the occupancy, at a more global level, of a human's mind by a religion as an infection in an almost medical sense of the word. Clinical objectiveness is my ultimate strategy. The problems I've outlined in my previous post illustrate the difficulty in being so that could, and are, experienced by the perhaps more serious debunker. I can see you are questioning the more simplistic and seemingly generalist stratetgy I've portrayed here, and I can assure you there is more to it than that. If that's your point i again agree.
Attack the argument though, not the person. (sorry, isnt that what
you're saying I should do? Maybe not.
