Religious discussion

I had this thought just recently about discussing religion. How is so often becomes adversarial. Have you ever been in the discussion with someone about religion and either you or the other person gets really angry and starts yelling? I've had this happen to me a lot. Wonder why this discussion always seems to be such a contentious topic.

I have a few ideas but I want to hear what others have to say first.

So please express your thoughts as to why discussions about religion become so heated.

 

We are raised to believe what our parents/culture teach us. We get upset when we find that not everyone agrees. Our parents/culture wouldn't lie to us! Now let's go to war! That's my view of why we are at non-stop war. I am sure it is much more complicated than that but is the reason I don't do religion.

 

well I definitely think it's more complicated, and it isn't just based in what our parents tell us. I've encountered atheists who were raised by Christians that get upset about this discussion.

 

I do believe in a God but I think religion would piss him off, my thoughts.

 

Religions are too ethnocentric and most of them are outright racist in point of view.

 

Outside of a few oddities I'm not sure this is true.

 

Can you name any exceptions?

 

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism

 

Part of this comes when the discussion includes politics, I think.

For example, there's a difference between discussing religion and discussing why Christianity should be allowed to set laws that all must follow.

Also, people get confused about science and religion - unfortunately.

 

Religion (that is the comprehensive versions) is peoples innermost conclusions in life. Topics of religion are sacred to the soul so to speak. When you destroy someones religious beliefs you pull up their core personality by the roots, their most self intimate strongly held beliefs, beliefs which they hold as highest in importance, its the constructs to what they stand for their personality and uniqueness etc. When you attack that core belief system you become enemy number one and will be immediately shut out by most people who feel threatened in discussion. We see it here all the time, some in total 100% denial of the facts. All you need to do is remind atheists that their atheism is a religion and they come swarming in to defend it! case in point

 

why not atheists do, is it really necessary to bring stalin up? Not to mention this country?

 

religion gives you the right to discriminate against other religions, its a reserved right and technically above the constitutional jurisdiction, the caveat however is do no harm do no injury. The secularists (us gubmint mob) have their own religion enforcing societal controls under the commerce department. Yes it can be complicated, but its really not.

 

I'm not sure about that.

I don't think you understand what I'm talking about.

Definitely not talking about that.

 

I get that people are very devout to the religious beliefs and that's good that's what they're for. And I agree with you it is one's innermost conclusions in life but we are all different so we do come to different conclusions so why should I be angry with someone because they come to a different conclusion than me?

Having a different view point isn't an attack and it certainly shouldn't uproot it destroy somebody's beliefs. It should strengthen them.

Yeah if you attack that is the response you will get.

 

I think there are several reasons why people get angry when discussing about ideologies and worldviews.

1. Ingrained thought patterns, are, I believe, the main stumbling block to understanding each other. Any attempt to change thought patterns pulls one out of one's comfort zone. Not a pleasant experience. Stress and anxiety ensue.

2. Cognitive distortions, like overgeneralization. One might see a single failure (the wrong point of view in a discussion, for instance) as a part of a pattern of defeat. The thought of being, or being seen as, a loser, is not likely to induce warm fuzzy feelings for those defeating the person in a debate.

3. Frustration due to real or perceived inability to properly communicate thoughts is a major factor, I think.

Every other reason I can think of seems to be a consequence of one of the three factors above, so I'll leave it at that.

 

So you are suggesting that it's because people don't want to be challenged?
Am I correct in my summation?

 

So you are suggesting that it's because people don't want to be challenged?
Am I correct in my summation?

 

Judaism is the most racist of the bunch. It basically thinks that Gentiles are just garbage meant to be slaves to the Jews. When that belief infiltrates politics you end up with the worse of all worlds.

Christianity is very racist and was responsible for slavery in the Americas and for Jim Crow and segregation in America.

Hinduism and Buddhism are ethnocentric religions and don't travel very well in other cultures.

Islam is an ethnocentric religion based upon the reverence for a white guy (Mohammed) and the belief in Jews (Jesus, Mary, Moses, Abraham). But it is also the least racist of the major religions and welcomes anyone regardless of race. It is also the most manipulative as far as squeezing money out of its believers.

 

they will let anyone convert to Judaism it is not exclusive to any race

Christians were also responsible for the abolition of slavery envy passing of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights act. Anybody can be Christian.

Buddhism and Hinduism share so much with any peaceful and lightning society they travel extremely well. So I disagree with you on that.

Jews and Christians Hindus and Buddhists all welcome to anyone of any race just like Islam.

I don't know where you got this idea what religions are restrictive based on race.

 

To a large extent, I reckon it is what a lot of people have been saying, people get defensive about their fundamental beliefs. So many things implicitly depend on our fundamental beliefs that when they get challenged, there are a lot of connections of thought that get severed at the same time.

Another angle (that has been mentioned in this post but I don't think got the focus it deserves) is that religious considerations (and certain other fundamental ideas) give us the framework that we use to examine arguments. People often think that their own point of view is obvious, so they get frustrated when the ideas don't translate or rest on hidden preconceptions that other people don't have. This makes it hard to communicate, and easy to get lost.

 

Some people don't like to be challenged, true, but they're more likely to avoid a shouting match with a potential ideological opponent.

See @Swensson's post for a clear explanation.

The best way you can answer your own question is a deep and honest scrutiny of your own feelings and thoughts in moments of contradictory, heated debate. It's rather difficult to do that in real time while shouting,, of course, but the forum is an excellent environment for self-analysis.

 

Should Christians be allowed to set laws that all must follow? Or are only atheists moral enough to decide between good and evil?

 

I'm going to go with Secularism here. The best way of running a society is one that doesn't take a stance on God's existence or commandments, but there are Christians, atheists and others who are capable of formulating those rules.

 

I think the literature is overflowing with stories about white Christian churches in America refusing to allow black Christians to attend their white churches.

Christianity is an user-friendly religion in that anyone can claim to be a basic Christian because it is not a peer pressure religion, unless you get stuck in one of the many cults such as Amish, Mormon, Shakers, etc. In that case you will be expected to adhere to the cult rules, like special clothes and manner of behavior.

Very few Westerners convert to Buddhism and even fewer to Hinduism. Maybe that is because, in the case of Hinduism, even a typical superstitious Westerner, will draw the line at worshiping a monkey or a cow.

 

I don't know what your point is here, but I don't see it passing as religious discussion in any way.