I found the article below to be a good read:<\/p>\n
How to Talk About Your Religious Beliefs (Without Being a Jerk)<\/a> <\/p>\n This seems to have been written by an agnostic at ‘best’ (depends where you’re standing) – but nevertheless, he makes a very good point (about not being right no matter what stance you take), and it’s one that’s never lost on me when I talk about these sorts of things.<\/p>\n For those who aren’t familiar with the posts on my perspective<\/a> section, you know that the purpose of my posts are to shed light on why I think the way I do. I guess in context of the linked article, it would be “my story” – and the posts are more to explain why my reasoning is the way it is – so that people who don’t agree with me, at least understand why I’ve arrived at my conclusions. And I think when you at least have that (proper context) any debate, argument, turns into a proper and meaningful<\/em> dialogue where I get to learn about others as much as they learn about me.<\/p>\n For the most part, I have no issue if a person approaches an argument through the lens of faith. But they shouldn’t be surprised if I consider their angle to have lesser weight than a practical, scientific, or secularist argument. That’s not to say that arguing through faith automatically makes anyone wrong – it just means that you really have bring more to the table if you want to make a really convincing argument. To over-simplify, saying “because God said so”, to me, is a weak argument.<\/p>\n To be fair, the truth is ANY perspective\/argument is rarely entirely<\/em> correct. Which is to say that even if you argued secularly, or scientifically, you simply cannot<\/em> claim full accuracy and unassailability – because there’s always something to nitpick, or an experience that seems to be an exception, etc.<\/p>\n However, here’s the key difference that is simple and true: that given two contrasting perspectives that are equally<\/em> in<\/strong>complete, the one with a basis that can<\/em> be confirmed will (and should) always have more merit IMHO.<\/p>\n For example, if you’re arguing the validity of Sharia law based on doctrine – when you can easily (and statistically) confirm its practical effects on societies, 1 <\/sup><\/a>which is mostly oppressive unless you purposefully violate some tenets here and there<\/span><\/span>