TED Conversations

Farokh Shahabi Nezhad

CEO & Co-Founder at Idearun, BipFa

TEDCRED 20+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Is there any way to prevent religious debates from turning into a big fight?

People discuss lots of things, politics, sports, anything
But when they discuss religious opinions, most of the time, they get all angry and try to win even with fight.
why is that? why that can't be a normal subject?
and more important, How can we prevent this?

+18
Share:

Closing Statement from Farokh Shahabi Nezhad

Tnx everyone for their replies. I enjoyed learning from different aspect for this problem.

I can only conclude this : Don't argue with someone unless they are open minded and ready to be changed and challenged.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Feb 19 2013: In my opinion, most religious persons in the world are really "closet agnostics" but afraid to even admit it to themselves and thus risk losing their seat on the "heaven bus".
    • Feb 19 2013: The problem is that if you go into a discussion assuming the other is naive, you're automatically disrespecting them before ever having met them. This is a failure to understand the topic from the other person's point of view. Not taking perspective into account is equivalent to ethnocentrism. If you want to look for a reason for fights coming from a bunch of well-adjusted individuals about a reasonable topic, look no further.

      Respect is the answer. The difficult part of this, often left aside or incorrectly assumed, is a healthy appreciation of the other's perspective.
    • thumb
      Feb 19 2013: Exactly !
      The world around me is a big big endless masquerade of people who have masks and blieve each other's !
    • thumb
      Feb 19 2013: "In my opinion."

      That's a good start. At least we know that your ensuing conclusions, which aren't the result of a worldwide study, or a poll, can be dismissed out of the gate, as they only represent the feelings, the thoughts, the observations, and the ideas of only one--and that one heavily biased.

      "[M]ost religious persons in the world are really 'closet agnostics' but afraid to even admit it to themselves."

      Are you a "closet agnostic"? If so, that would explain how you arrived at your conclusion. That "closet" of which you speak, must be one of the largest in the history of mankind for it to hide the supposed truth of one's agnosticism from one's self as well as the entire world.

      If they're "afraid to even admit it to themselves," why should they, if that admission would severely impact the harmony they're now experiencing, and the tranquility. In the end it won't matter who's right: We all die. Sometimes "ignorance is bliss," but you'd have these supposed benighted souls to live with the truth as you have determined it, despite how it might upend their reality.

      "Misery loves company" it seems. You seem to say: "Why should these believers in an afterlife, and a Heaven, get to live out their deluded lives in peace, and not live with the sure knowledge of what is--there is no Heaven?"

      "[A]nd thus risk losing their seat on the 'heaven bus'."

      The Pope says that Heaven isn't a locale, or a destination, but a state of mind. By that reasoning, you don't have to die to experience Heaven, you merely have to alter your state of mind, from one that's Hell Bent, to one that's Heavenly Bestowed.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.