For the past year I've been discussing religion, and other subjects, with religious people and non religious people. The usual structure of the discussion goes like this:
I present what I think of perhaps Islam or some other religion.
The religious person or the non religious person that I am arguing with says that I am wrong and that I've missunderstood religion and that it is the people, the evil leaders, that have corrupted the religion. Sometimes they accuse me of getting my arguments from sionism, when clearly I have not gotten anything from there.
I show them quotes and context from the book, or I keep explaining why religion poisons everything.
This continues and the person keeps denying what I'm saying and I keep telling them what I think, and they keep telling me what I think.
This continues for ages until it ends in some way.
The problem, or insane thing is, that the way that I look at this person, is the same way as he or she sees me. I know that I'm right, not to sound arrogant, and even if Dawkins himself or perhaps Hitchens, two great debaters, would argue with these people, they would never listen.
I'm not trying to say in some philosophical way "What is the truth?", but instead I want to discuss how you can argue when clearly both the sides look at each other like if the other one is misunderstanding or being "Blind and ignorant".
This goes for every other subject there is, like Cannabis (Which I discussed two days ago with an arrogant priest". Except with Cannabis, you can clearly find evidence that are way more effective.
Now, some parts of the Quran are obviously hostile, bigoted, plagiarism or just plain stupid. Anti-theists chooses the obvious context and meaning that the verses of the Quran were written in, we expose the plagiarism from Arabian myths, folk tales, Buddhist legends etc.
But religious people goes against these remarks and says that we could not be more wrong. But it is very difficult, or nearly impossible, to expose the true meaning of the Quran and the true meaning of the verses. The religious side and the anti religious side will continue to try to disprove each other, and people will choose the side that has the best arguments. But what is the point in discussing religious verses with religious people, they will only say that you've misinterpreted the texts or that the text was written in this confusing language because of some idiotic reason.
So why would you discuss religious texts with religious people when the answer of the intentions of the author can probably never be proven?
Personally, I never bother to discuss the contents of any delusional faith with the believer. It is as futile as any discussion about what is printed upon toilet paper. Because I cannot imagine any other use for the bible, or koran or what other venerated book they have.
But there is a fascinating question: Why has the gullibility and suscibility for any religious delusion so successfully evolved by natural selection.