The “We Are Just Going to Have to Agree to Disagree” Cop-Out

agree to disagree

I started blogging in 2007 — almost twenty years ago. Since then, I have engaged countless Evangelicals in discussions, debates, arguments, and intellectual fist fights over their beliefs and my disagreements with them. On occasion, genuine progress is made, but more often than not, my interlocutors refuse to budge, regardless of my argumentation and evidence. This should not be surprising. No one is argued into faith or persuaded by evidence alone. Think of your own past salvation experience. Did you catch the operative word: experience? You see, religious conversions are fundamentally emotional experiences. People rarely, if ever, profess faith in Jesus because someone shared with them the five points of Calvinism or the transcendental arguments for the existence of God. I know it took years for me to admit that my deconversion had an emotional component. Not the primary motivator, but certainly a factor. I didn’t want the motivation for my loss of faith to be dismissed as nothing more than me being emotional. Eventually, I came to understand that our emotions are never far from our decision-making. That said, I desire to the best of my ability to use sound reasoning skills to make decisions about what to do or believe.

Instead of trying to argue people out of faith in Jesus, I try to challenge their sincerely held beliefs. I know if I can poke a hole in one of their cherished dogmas, they might be willing to ask themselves what else they are possibly wrong about. The first chink in my Evangelical armor came when I determined the Bible was not inerrant and infallible. I asked myself, “If I am wrong about the nature and history of the Bible,” what else I am wrong about?” As I learned, virtually every theological belief I had as an Evangelical pastor was intellectually lacking or not as theologically certain as my pastors and professors led me to believe. Did these men of God lie to me? Probably not. Like me, they were products of the religious environment and culture they grew up in. You can only teach and preach what you think you know, and that was likely the case for these men.

Sadly, many Evangelicals I interact with will not be moved off their Fundamentalist beliefs. They know in whom they have believed; they know what they know, end of discussion. Unfortunately, few of them seem to understand what they don’t know.

Have you ever had an Evangelical tell you, “We are just going to have to agree to disagree?” I have, more times than I can count. This is their way ending conversations; a dodge as they prepare to claim victory while actually suffering defeat.

Last week, a local Evangelical man in his thirties posted a meme that said, “Jesus is King” on a few Facebook groups I follow. I typically ignore religious voyeurism, but on this post, I decided to click the laughing emoji; my passive-aggressive way of saying your comment is bullshit.

As you might have guessed, I infuriated the poster. How dare I attack him and criticize his beliefs. He got all this from a laughing emoji? Amazing discernment, right? I took a few moments to explain the difference to him between respecting people and respecting beliefs. He ignored me. I generally respect people regardless of their religious and political beliefs. I do make exceptions for Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth, Franklin Graham, James Dobson, and others of their vile, disgusting ilk. Outside of these degenerates, I generally respect other people. I do not, however, respect their beliefs. If you drag your beliefs into the public square or try to evangelize me for your cause, I am going to push back.

I don’t let people off the hook with the “We are going to have to agree to disagree” cop-out. Beliefs matter. Beliefs have consequences. The beliefs of others can negatively affect my life and the lives of those I love. So, no, I am not going to treat your beliefs with undeserved respect. And when you tell me, “We are going to have to agree to disagree, ” I will take that as you admitting defeat. Running to the house of faith is what people do when they lack evidence and argumentation for their beliefs. I won’t follow them into their “safe space,” but I will be waiting for them when they return to the battlefield.

Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Comments

22 responses to “The “We Are Just Going to Have to Agree to Disagree” Cop-Out”

  1. Avatar
    thingspookyeb9d485ecd

    The two great evangelical cop-outs: “We are going to have to agree to disagree” and “I’ll pray for you.”

    1. Avatar

      Thank you for mentioning this. The “I’ll pray for you” cop-out came to mind as I was writing, but I decided not to use it. I’ve have mentioned it before, but this is the first time I’ve written about “We are going to have to agree to disagree,” so it got the space. ❤️

    2. Avatar
      John S.

      Yep. The “I’ll pray for you(r) (soul).” This would infuriate my late father, whose siblings, most of whom had remained fundamentalist Protestants of the Mountain Church or Assembly of God variety just would not leave him alone.
      He actually would respect their beliefs, but he would bristle when they did not respect his. He had more a “ respectful coexistence” attitude which I personally inherited. But this attitude disappeared when the Amway-like slow roll evangelism witness began. The conversation usually began innocently then progressed to Jesus-land. My dad would give his own thoughts on Jesus and the conversation ended with dad declining an invitation to whichever church they attended. Then the inevitable ending- “I’ll pray for you”..oh, and “Jesus is coming back soon”. These interactions were in the 1980’s and early ‘90’s.

  2. I am living proof that beliefs matter: I am transgender. I can’t have any kind of relationship with, or vote for, anyone who doesn’t believe I exist or have the right to exist.

    Thing: You made those two phrases seem synonymous.

    1. Avatar

      I agree. I can ignore or forgive lots of things, but attacking/disparage my family, my partner, or people I admire/respect (for no other reason than for who/what they are) is a red line for me. You cross it, and we can’t be friends, and if provoked enough, I might roast your sorry ass for dinner and eat it for leftovers the next day. 🤣🤣

  3. Avatar
    Barbara Jackson

    You have more courage than I do.

    According to my psychologist I am very left brained and try to analyze everything and uses my limited scientific and sociological knowledge to figure out what someone else is saying and find a solution, maybe this is why I stayed in computer programming for 30 years. However I will argue with people (my husband does not like this) saying we live in a physical universe. Inside that is our social universe, but the social universe cannot overrule physical reality. I have had to learn to shut up because people do not like my views.

    Thanks

  4. Avatar
    GeoffT

    The phrase “agree to disagree” can be useful where arguments are equally based in reality and where differing points of view share a solid evidential base. It’s generally a way of acknowledging that the discussion has reached an end, in the sense that neither side is going to change its mind. I’ve recently been engaged in an unpleasant argument over the murders in Minnesota by the ICE agents, with an outlier to the discussion taking the position that the murders were entirely justified, and including in the conversation claims that were completely contrary to the actual facts that were available for all to see. I think their position is disgusting, reflecting a high level of moral bankruptcy, but nothing can be said to change this kind of mindset, because it’s grounded in bigoted and irrational dogma, not reason. An easy way to finish would be ‘agree to disagree’, but then we’ve let this person off the hook, seemingly giving a level of respect that their position doesn’t warrant. Instead I’ve left it that we can’t take the discussion further, that the matter stands one day to be adjudicated by a judge in a court of law (I believe that this will happen one day), and until then further exchanges are useless.

    Of course, Jesus arguments can never be settled in a court of law, but it’s perfectly reasonable to point out that conversations can only go so far, and that your interlocutor is in a minority, not just throughout the world, not just in the western world (Europe has largely thrown off the shackles of Christianity), but even in the US, where both Christianity and religious belief generally are in terminal decline.

    1. Avatar

      Geoff astutely said:

      “The phrase “agree to disagree” can be useful where arguments are equally based in reality and where differing points of view share a solid evidential base. It’s generally a way of acknowledging that the discussion has reached an end, in the sense that neither side is going to change its mind.”

      I agree. This post is more focused on Evangelicals afflicted with the Dunning-Kruger Effect. These confident, know-it-all Evangelicals irritate me, but I know I must respond to them. To not do so lets them think they have conquered another atheist for Jesus. Can’t have that. 🤣🤣

    2. Avatar

      Your post went to moderation due to you misspelling your name. 🤣 I fixed it.

      1. Avatar
        GeoffT

        The site used to pre-populate the fields. I need to be more careful in future! Thanks Bruce 😊

    3. Avatar
      JT

      Geoff,

      I agree would would like to offer one scenario where “agree to disagree” makes perfect sense. Let’s say we have three people with the following beliefs in regard to the world around us:

      Person 1 – There is no God and our world was created by an evolutionary process taking millions of years.
      Person 2 – There is a God and he used evolution to mold his creation into what we have.
      Person 3 – God made it all through creation (various beliefs of how long it took).

      Now, these three people are all looking at the same product, the world around us. Person 1 doesn’t believe in God and Persons 2&3 cannot prove that God exists. Therefore, no reason for person 1 to agree with them. Persons 2&3 only agree on the point that there is a God and the evidence for existence is all around us. Person 1 cannot prove to them that there is no God. They all believe they are right and, to your point, it could not be settled in a court of law.

      In this case, the only solution that any of them can agree on is “agree to disagree.” It’s not really a cop out for any of them and no one really wins or loses the argument.

      1. Avatar
        GeoffT

        I’m not sure I agree, JT. If someone takes a stance that is in wilful disregard of the evidence then, regardless of the fact they don’t see it, I think we are entitled to take a stance that doesn’t ‘agree to disagree’ (though in practice it sort of comes to the same thing, unless you want to continue the argument for evermore). Whilst a court of law probably isn’t the place where these kinds of argument are going to be settled, it’s certainly an approach that can be heeded. A court of law could certainly exclude the third option, as evolution passes even a criminal burden of proof, which is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. For civil cases, which require only ‘balance of probabilities’ I think there are some interesting discussions amongst your list.

      2. Avatar

        You seem to imply that each position is equally true. They are not. The goal is not “proof,” but sufficient evidence for a particular claim. Not claims, actual evidence. While I cannot conclusively say there is no God, I can say that the Abrahamic deities either do not exist or are not worthy of our worship. The evidence is sufficient for me to say that the Christian God is a myth.

        1. Avatar
          GeoffT

          Bruce, this is interesting regarding where things are at with the wider ‘can you prove god’ debate. Traditionally apologists have forced the argument by fairly cunning apparent logic. “Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence” was coined years ago as a seeming gotcha, until eventually people realised it’s absolute nonsense. This has led to arguments over the burden of proof, whereby if you take an assertive ‘there is no god’ position you are accused of acquiring a burden of proof that must be discharged. Recently it has started occurring to those who debate the issue that actually the sheer lack of evidence over countless hundreds of years does amount to a compelling argument. You confine yourself in your comment to the Christian god, but it applies equally to all gods that have ever been worshipped by humankind, everyone of them can be dismissed as myth. As you say, it’s technically possible that some deity exists who did bring everything into being, but even that faces some really hard intellectual questions that need to be answered. In short, we can all live our lives as though there is no god. If you happen to believe that there is a god that you wish to worship then fine, good for you, but don’t interfere with my life, or others in the ‘community’ who take a different view.

        2. Avatar
          JT

          I agree with you to the point that the positions I listed are not all true, and it is impossible for them to be so. I also agree with Geoff that number 3 is the easiest to discard and scientifically disprove. So, just using persons 1&2 give us two positions that cannot both be true. The issue then comes down to beliefs, which you wrote a recent post about. One of the two is wrong, but they both believe they are correct.

          More practical example, and this one is a real life experience… Arguing with my wife’s twin sister about almost anything is an exercise in futility. I used to tell my wife that you could have the newspaper in front of her with evidence proving her wrong and she will just ignore it. Has always been that way and probably not changing at this point in her life. My wife and I both “agree to disagree” with her because it’s just not worth it.

  5. Agree to disagree is fine when arguing about pizza toppings or music genres. It’s absolutely not acceptable when discussing human rights and genocide. I think to many Evangelicals (who also are MAGA) it’s an attempt to make their abhorrent views seem equal to basic decency. How can I be expected to respect the Evangelical Christian who believes in policies that destroy the environment, abolish human rights, and promote genocide because they believe Jesus is coming soon? I have to respect the beliefs of someone who will destroy the planet I have to live on too? Bullshit!

    And then the passive aggressive “I’ll pray for you.” 🙄 Because the all-knowing, perfect Christian really cares about us. I live in a building where the old women love to say “God bless you” after an argument. Of course, what they really mean is “Fuck you, heathen!” I am so over them, but I bite my tongue because they are in invalid mode (by choice, because Jesus is coming) and I don’t want to get into trouble for being mean to old ladies.

  6. Avatar
    Steve

    There was a fairly recent blow up at Cambridge University where academics were being cajoled into accepting that *everyone’s beliefs must be respected” that was finally beaten into “everyone’s beliefs must be tolerated”

  7. Avatar
    Jeff Bishop

    I find that Evangelical Christianity is much like “smoking tobacco”, let me explain:
    One is raised in a household from birth by parents that “smoke”.

    What does a child think? They accept this as normal, social, acceptable behavior, do they not?
    The parents knock out a pack or two a day, each. First thing in the morning, after eating, during the day, driving the car, during the night and right before bed.

    Children aging into pre-teen or early teen years and, well, the majority raised in such a household ……….start smoking.

    Along comes medicine, science and warning labels on packs of cigarettes that smoking is harmful for your health, and these things are essentially ignored.

    While not true today, in my youth, American society was bombarded by commercials espousing the virtue of smoking, See the “Marlboro Man or the Virginia Slims dilettantes.”.

    While it is true that tobacco ad’s were essentially eliminated, not so in movies where this odious health hazard is still glamorized – see “Peaky Blinders”. as a prime example.

    Now transpose this to Evangelical Christianity.

    Children are born into the households of Evangelical Cults. They are “Baptized” into the cult. They are taken to “Sunday School” and Church. Cult activities become a primary focus of life outside of school or work.

    Along comes education, academics, and world views that are contrary to their “cult socialization”.

    What does one do? Follow social, and far more important, ideological views, particularly in the voting booth,
    when selecting elected politicians, based on the teachings of the Christian Cults”?

    There was once this concept of separation of church and state, remember that?

    Getting back to smoking, when does one begin to doubt the veracity of this habit?
    Cost?
    Nastiness?
    Recognizance that this is a physical and psychological addiction?
    Death of a Loved one due to smoking?
    Perhaps a personal diagnosis of Lung Cancer?

    Evangelical Christianity:
    Cost?
    Ugliness of the Cult?
    Recognizance this is psychological addiction?
    Playing with Rattlesnakes, or Not taking Medicine?
    Ignoring Science?
    Loved one going “over the top”
    US Constitution threatened by Christian Nationalists?
    U.S. Foreign Policy dictated by the Book of Revelation?

    Just sayin………………..

  8. Avatar

    “We are just going to have to agree to disagree?”

    Seems such a shallow statement. ‘Oh well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Right?”

    Agree about what? Disagree about what? Heaven? Hell? Eternal life? Eternal death?

    So, you want to get together for a tea/coffee/brew again next week?

    Sure, sounds good.

    If I may, why do you even want to have a visit with someone who according to you ‘is going to hell?’

  9. Troy

    I’m content with “agree to disagree”. Rarely can one zinger convert someone to your point of view, this is all schema psychology. We build a stack of beliefs, you can’t pull one out and expect the stack to fall, it’ll accommodate its lost member.
    I’d suggest that sometimes you can have a latent victory in a debate. The immediate response can be a defensive one, but upon rumination and contemplation there is an ah-ha moment later. (Ok this is unlikely to work for someone indoctrinated from a young age.)
    I think we should always ask, “what else am I wrong about”. The reality is that every person is wrong about a lot. That’s why, I suppose, we look for people on our same wavelength.

  10. Avatar
    Karen the rock whisperer

    I’ve used “agree to disagree” in the past when the conversation runs off into the weeds and neither of us is going to change the pother’s mind. Lately, though, it strikes me as slightly disingenuous when used to end a discussion about something that really matters. The other day I was having a conversation with a beloved family member who is religious and somewhat distressed by my lack of belief. The conversation was getting us nowhere, and so I finally said outright, “I don’t think this conversation is going to get us anywhere.” Then I changed the subject. We aren’t agreeing to disagree, they’re convinced I’m wrong and the presence of God is obvious, and I’m not saying there is no deity but I’m not seeing the evidence. This conversation will undoubtedly happen again, run off into the weeds again, and I will gently end it the same way.

    For people who aren’t family or friends and want to proselytize me, I simply say, “I’m not engaging” and either leave or redirect the conversation. I’m old, life is short, and I don’t have time for BS. OTOH, if the topic is not how about I need Jesus but about any of the atrocities being perpetrated by the US government, either against our own people or those abroad, I will engage. If you support those things I will do my best to eviscerate you.

  11. Avatar
    dachief

    Never argue with idiots. First, they bring you down to their level and then they Beat you with experience.

Want to Respond to Bruce? Fire Away! If You Are a First Time Commenter, Please Read the Comment Policy Located at the Top of the Page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading