Point the First: If I proclaim that something you know for a fact to be true is actually false, it is very unlikely that you will get offended. You may disagree with me, and give me evidence to the contrary, but you’re not going to take it personally if I still don’t agree with you. Becoming offended when confronted with an argument is an example of an ad hominem attack. You are dismissing my arguments because they insult you, without refuting the claims. At best, you are hoping I’ll go away and shut up for fear of offending you more, you are pulling emotion into an argument, which up to that point was logical.
Point the Second: If I confront someone about why they believe in their religion of choice, they become offended. Not all the time, of course, I have had reasonable conversations with people about their theology. However, nine times out of ten, the confronted individual will start acting irrationally, disagreeing with everything I say. The worst cases involve the subject of my research to act as though I just insulted them.
Point the Third: This is the logical conclusion of point the first and point the second. People are generally not certain of their religion. My theory is that no one actually absorbs what their religion is teaching; they don’t look at the primary source, the bible for example, but rather look at secondary or even tertiary sources, the preacher or rabbi. Not that secondary sources are necessarily bad, we would end up no where if we didn’t build on what others have already figured out. However, if we don’t look at the primary source we can never draw our own conclusions. If we never draw our own conclusions, we can never be sure of anything we know.
Secondary sources can point you in the right direction, and for relatively unimportant claims, or claims that are unreasonable to research yourself, they can be enough. For claims that matter, and theology definitely matters, you should back them up yourself. If I told you that your friend had just died, you might want to do some research yourself as opposed to just not calling him.
Point the Fourth: Now, if you said global warming was a myth, I’d be offended. But by my own logic that would mean that I am not sure of myself. Bullshit. You not accepting global warming, and continuing to drive your gigantic, gas-guzzling, emission-tastic SUV harms me. I, unlike you, assume that we simply cease to exist when we die. I rather enjoy my life the way it is, and would like to put off dying for as long as possible. If you driving this SUV moves me closer to dying, I have good reason to be offended, you are essentially saying that you want me to cease to exist.
Also, even if you do get me offended, I’m still going to attempt to hold a reasonable debate with you. I’m not going to go all brick wall on you and continue to repeat the same points over and over.
Conclusion: Leave me the hell alone, or at least be reasonable about the whole conversion thing. Don’t get offended if I say you’re wrong, you come to no harm if I end up in hell. Also, for the love of everything good, make your own opinions. Read your primary source of choice and try to understand it.
Heh, Ninjas,
Ethan
