Why Is It So Important To Refute The Religious?

I know why I did it back in the day, but I'm curious why some of you do it. Why is it so important for you to try to convince people who are religious that they're wrong?

Before someone even asks, because I know it's going to come, I'll explain why I feel it's so important to convince people that Christ is the answer. It was because someone took the time to talk with me and show me the light that I am saved today, and my life has improved significantly since then. Those chains that held me down for so long have been broken, and I'm a new creation in Christ. It would be incredibly selfish of me not to share with others what one chose to take the time (and effort: I used to like to turn Christians away from God, too) to share with me.

Probably for the same reason you might try to convince people that you're right, you know?

Neither "side" can force the other to agree with their point of view. On a very simple level, it's not so different from two patients who have the same condition, but need different treatments to accomplish the same goal (to be healthy again...or in this case, to be spiritually healthy).

Surely if the goal is to genuinely help people realise their own potential spiritual peace and live a good life, the path isn't the important part....but rather, a means to an end?

But in many of the cases, the goal is to help people cease their own spiritual journeys. How does stealing away hope from someone help them?

Probably because both sides think they're right...and thus, the "other party" needs to be convinced, otherwise they'd be wasting their life (in the case of the non-believer trying to convince the believer), or destined to hell (in the other case).

When two sides both think they're utterly, absolutely right....it's often hard to even see the other point of view, let alone accept it, you know?

When people try to change someone's mindsets, they are doing so in an egoic mindframe. The identification with a mental position requires opposition in order to define the identity of the belief.

Who would be the believers without the unbelievers?

We see this a lot in history when a collective unconsciousness creates enemies in order to define its sense of self.

Hi Jungle Jake:

I'm glad your life is feeling better now.

I have noticed by reading ancient literature that many persons who had subscribed to the Mystery Religions in ancient times (e.g. Eleusius, Mithras, Dionysius, Hapi-Osiris =Serapis, Attanuzzi (=Attamuz or Adonis), Zeus Zagreus etc.) like those who have been baptised into the Mysteries of Christos (or Christ) have undergone a kind of spiritual change from death to life, and especially prevalant those cults that specifically designated "personal saviour gods" like Mithras (which competed with Christianity for converts until about AD 600).

Presumably the idea of a clean slate, or "fresh start" is a method of dealing psychologically with deep seated guilt feelings inculcated from childhood, which certain persons are more susceptible than others.

These susceptible types seem to respond to religious fervour more readilly, and sometimes see real changes in their life.

Unfortunately, the same feelings of "being saved" from some fear of destruction after death can also lead to an obnoxious arrogance that they have the ONLY answer and that all people must accept their same faith (e.g. the Christians who insist on making people into "quasi-cannibals" by forcing them into ceremonies of drinking the blood and eating the flesh of their dead hero-god Galilean seditionist who was executed for breach of the Roman Lex Maiestatis during the reign of the Divine Emperor Tiberius in AD 36.)

Just curious how you feel that performing such unsavoury rituals as 'symbolic cannibalism' in public is something everyone should be partaking in on a fairly regular basis?

For what it's worth, I don't refute religion itself; I refute the manner in which the subject is normally broached. I've seen you enough on the boards to understand you don't behave in this manner--you're normally quite open about your religion, and you're willing to share it with anyone. You'll defend your beliefs much like anyone else would, and you'll take criticism on it when due.

I personally refute the manner in which religion--Christianity in particular--is handled between believers and non-believers. My problem arises when people speak down on me and my beliefs because I don't follow theirs; while it isn't a Christian only trait, Christians are the ones I've seen most often guilty of this. Many people who follow a certain belief not only try to force it down your throat, but often they don't even have enough knowledge about it to properly argue their case. Or, when they do, it's purely selective knowledge--they'll quote "an eye for an eye", but never "turn the other cheek."

My own religious views are just that, my own. I have no problem sharing them with anyone willing to listen (or at least who won't interrupt and tell me to bug off), and I have no problem hearing others'. But when someone tells me "you're wrong because this book says this is how it is" or "you're evil and you need to be saved" I get miffed. A different opinion is fine, as long as it's presented as an opinion.

I also agree with the thought process that religion is a mostly psychological and sociological function, especially in instances like yours. I'm not trying to say that you're wrong--this is just my belief, like you have yours. But the idea of having a higher power that you can put your trust in would certainly make me feel a lot better in my life. I wouldn't have to worry about anything: it'll happen if God wants it, as long as I pray for it. Whether there is a higher being who's constantly listening and paying attention to my every wish and whim or not, I'd feel better for it. And when something goes wrong, or things don't turn out like I'd rather, it's always easier to just think "that's just not the way God wanted it" than to think "what if I would've done this?"

Originally posted by junglejake
Why is it so important for you to try to convince people who are religious that they're wrong?

I'm not one of those that try to refute religion, although I have in the past. But here's a thread about 'right' and 'wrong' and religion that I think relates to this. You might just read it over. It's just one page.

www.belowtopsecret.com...'

Before someone even asks, because I know it's going to come, I'll explain why I feel it's so important to convince people that Christ is the answer.

From the above thread:
---------
Bottom Line:
You have the mind, the heart, the soul the intelligence to decide what you believe in, what's right for you, to live your life.

All I'm asking is that you realize that I have the same faculties. I have the capacity to decide what I believe in, what's right for me, to live my life.
---------

I don't like to be 'convinced' of something that I don't believe in. I don't like to have my arm twisted. I am very much against proselytism. Perhaps the kickback you're getting is when people simply get tired of the preaching and in essence say. "The stuff you believe in is crap anyway and I'll prove it."

Or when religious people use their interpretation of the bible to impose morals on other people, (we) want to show the religious people the hypocricy in the bible to say, "Hey, if you force those beliefs on me because they came from the bible, what do you say about these biblical words"?

Another reason could be that when people talk like they know the TRUTH (which most practicing Christians do), and that everyone else is 'wrong', it's human nature to at least want to find fault in your TRUTH.

Originally posted by junglejake
I feel it's so important to convince people that Christ is the answer.

Christ is not the answer for everyone.

I'm sure there are several reasons people want to convince you that you're wrong. But in my experience, if you didn't try to convince them that they should take up your beliefs , you'd never have to deal with it.

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
Hi Jungle Jake:

I'm glad your life is feeling better now.

I have noticed by reading ancient literature that many persons who had subscribed to the Mystery Religions in ancient times (e.g. Eleusius, Mithras, Dionysius, Hapi-Osiris =Serapis, Attanuzzi (=Attamuz or Adonis), Zeus Zagreus etc.) like those who have been baptised into the Mysteries of Christos (or Christ) have undergone a kind of spiritual change from death to life, and especially prevalant those cults that specifically designated "personal saviour gods" like Mithras (which competed with Christianity for converts until about AD 600).

Presumably the idea of a clean slate, or "fresh start" is a method of dealing psychologically with deep seated guilt feelings inculcated from childhood, which certain persons are more susceptible than others.

These susceptible types seem to respond to religious fervour more readilly, and sometimes see real changes in their life.

Unfortunately, the same feelings of "being saved" from some fear of destruction after death can also lead to an obnoxious arrogance that they have the ONLY answer and that all people must accept their same faith (e.g. the Christians who insist on making people into "quasi-cannibals" by forcing them into ceremonies of drinking the blood and eating the flesh of their dead hero-god Galilean seditionist who was executed for breach of the Roman Lex Maiestatis during the reign of the Divine Emperor Tiberius in AD 36.)

Just curious how you feel that performing such unsavoury rituals as 'symbolic cannibalism' in public is something everyone should be partaking in on a fairly regular basis?

Hi NEOAMADEUS

Please stop deliberately trying to be inflammatory...Please.

Also stop confusing Catholic rites to Christianity. In almost, and I say almost because I think Luther’s still hold rites, Communion is not a requirement for salvation. As far as public last time I checked service were held inside a church, which while always open to all who desire, and not held on a street corner. In fact if I ever saw a Communion held on a in public I would be shocked and offended.

Secondly your charge:

dead hero-god Galilean seditionist who was executed for breach of the Roman Lex Maiestatis during the reign of the Divine Emperor Tiberius in AD 36.)

You are factually incorrect. The Roman authorities acquitted him of any charge. If anything, and I am not accusing Jews of Deicide, it was the Sanhedrin who found him guilt and requested the Romans to carry out the sentence. There for he was neither a seditionist nor was he guilty of breaking the Law of Treason.

And finally, there is a preponderance of evidence that show a marked and quantifiable influence of religion. The changes that can occur to people are so remarkable that even today the A.P.A. and other members of the medical/mental health community can not determine how the changes occur. My wife was always suspect of religion, until she became a psychologist and saw first hand what it can do. Before this she assumed it to be simply placebo or panacea effect, but the stipulations for either of the two effects are simply not met.

I also asked here about:

Presumably the idea of a clean slate, or "fresh start" is a method of dealing psychologically with deep seated guilt feelings inculcated from childhood, which certain persons are more susceptible than others.

These susceptible types seem to respond to religious fervour more readilly, and sometimes see real changes in their life.

She laughed and said to read up on Psyco-Dynamic Theory, no one uses Freud. BTW Freud was an athesist (no correlation, just an observation).
___________________

Jake,

My $.02:

I do not think there is one hard reason for people's hating on Christians. Some do not hate. Some do.
There are plenty of non-believers who are very open minded and are very good people. And yes when I come into contact with them, if the conversation arises, I do share my faith. But once I do, I never do so again until asked.
My neighbor is Buddhist and is incredibly supportive of my religious beliefs. Of course he is enlightened enough to understand that to make sweeping generalizations about any group of people, based on the worst of the lot, is bigoted. Some of the things I have heard about Christians are so wrong. Many of the people, who have said some of these hurtful things, would not bat an eye at knocking Christians but would be appalled if someone used sweeping generalizations about a ethnic or racial group. The whole time they do not see the hypocrisy of it all.
Another question is why do "WE" speak up? The simple answer I give, is that I am commanded to do so. But you are right, the ancillary answer is, How could I not. People, who are annoyed or do not understand, lack our faith. They simply do not understand that the reason why we do not accept other avenues to G-d, is because we are told....There is no other avenues to G-d. To accept alternatives is to go against G-d's word. Sorry but neither you nor I will do that, but they do not believe and therefore they are not held to our obligation.

2Cr 11:19 For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye [yourselves] are wise.

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
Hi Jungle Jake:

I'm glad your life is feeling better now.

I have noticed by reading ancient literature that many persons who had subscribed to the Mystery Religions in ancient times (e.g. Eleusius, Mithras, Dionysius, Hapi-Osiris =Serapis, Attanuzzi (=Attamuz or Adonis), Zeus Zagreus etc.) like those who have been baptised into the Mysteries of Christos (or Christ) have undergone a kind of spiritual change from death to life, and especially prevalant those cults that specifically designated "personal saviour gods" like Mithras (which competed with Christianity for converts until about AD 600).

Presumably the idea of a clean slate, or "fresh start" is a method of dealing psychologically with deep seated guilt feelings inculcated from childhood, which certain persons are more susceptible than others.

These susceptible types seem to respond to religious fervour more readilly, and sometimes see real changes in their life.

Unfortunately, the same feelings of "being saved" from some fear of destruction after death can also lead to an obnoxious arrogance that they have the ONLY answer and that all people must accept their same faith (e.g. the Christians who insist on making people into "quasi-cannibals" by forcing them into ceremonies of drinking the blood and eating the flesh of their dead hero-god Galilean seditionist who was executed for breach of the Roman Lex Maiestatis during the reign of the Divine Emperor Tiberius in AD 36.)

Just curious how you feel that performing such unsavoury rituals as 'symbolic cannibalism' in public is something everyone should be partaking in on a fairly regular basis?

Hi NEOAMADEUS

Please stop deliberately trying to be inflammatory...Please.

Also stop confusing Catholic rites to Christianity. In almost, and I say almost because I think Luther’s still hold rites, Communion is not a requirement for salvation. As far as public, last time I checked service were held inside a church, which while always open to all who desire, it is not the same as held on a street corner. In fact if I ever saw a Communion held on a street corner in public I would be shocked and offended.

Secondly your charge:

dead hero-god Galilean seditionist who was executed for breach of the Roman Lex Maiestatis during the reign of the Divine Emperor Tiberius in AD 36.)

You are factually incorrect. The Roman authorities acquitted him of any charge. If anything, and I am not accusing Jews of Deicide, it was the Sanhedrin who found him guilt and requested the Romans to carry out the sentence. There for he was neither a seditionist nor was he guilty of breaking the Law of Treason.

And finally, there is a preponderance of evidence that show a marked and quantifiable influence of religion. The changes that can occur to people are so remarkable that even today the A.P.A. and other members of the medical/mental health community can not determine how the changes occur. My wife was always suspect of religion, until she became a psychologist and saw first hand what it can do. Before this she assumed it to be simply placebo or panacea effect, but the stipulations for either of the two effects are simply not met.

I also asked here about:

Presumably the idea of a clean slate, or "fresh start" is a method of dealing psychologically with deep seated guilt feelings inculcated from childhood, which certain persons are more susceptible than others.

These susceptible types seem to respond to religious fervour more readilly, and sometimes see real changes in their life.

She laughed and said to read up on Psyco-Dynamic Theory, no one uses Freud. BTW Freud was an athesist (no correlation, just an observation).
___________________

Jake,

My $.02:

I do not think there is one hard reason for people's hating on Christians. Some do not hate. Some do.
There are plenty of non-believers who are very open minded and are very good people. And yes when I come into contact with them, if the conversation arises, I do share my faith. But once I do, I never do so again until asked.
My neighbor is Buddhist and is incredibly supportive of my religious beliefs. Of course he is enlightened enough to understand that to make sweeping generalizations about any group of people, based on the worst of the lot, is bigoted. Some of the things I have heard about Christians are so wrong. Many of the people, who have said some of these hurtful things, would not bat an eye at knocking Christians but would be appalled if someone used sweeping generalizations about a ethnic or racial group. The whole time they do not see the hypocrisy of it all.
Another question is why do "WE" speak up? The simple answer I give, is that I am commanded to do so. But you are right, the ancillary answer is, How could I not. People, who are annoyed or do not understand, lack our faith. They simply do not understand that the reason why we do not accept other avenues to G-d, is because we are told....There is no other avenues to G-d. To accept alternatives is to go against G-d's word. Sorry but neither you nor I will do that, but they do not believe and therefore they are not held to our obligation.

2Cr 11:19 For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye [yourselves] are wise.

Edit: Jake, the above are correct is some ways, Christians can be a little annoying. Some of our brethern have not take any PR classes! LOL Even I will admit that!

2nd edit: Ahh I hit quote and not edit!!! Doh....Stupid I know!!

MODS: Would you be so kind as to delete my first post? Thank You!

[edit on 3-10-2005 by Imperium Americana]

Hey Imperium Americanum:

Hmmm... let me see....

Gailiean Seditionists Who Defy the Roman Lex Maiestatis and Arm their Disciples with Swords on Hills and Call Themselves Kings and Sons and Nazrim of David and Who Start Violent Riots in Temples and who Ride into Town on White She-Donkeys of Solomon during Daviddic Tabernacles Coronation Ceremonies walking around saying things like THESE BE THE DAYS OF VENGEANCE OF OUR GOD and THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES IS FULFILLED, THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS AT HAND being Crucified Naked to CrossBeams by Roman Authorities as...Factually Incorrect?

um...no.

Maybe you are unaware of what a Titilus is hung around the neck of a crucified seditionst? (This is Yeshua the Nazir, King of the Judaeans).

Sound's like a violation of Lex Maiestatis to me. Or perhaps you are Blissfully Unaware that Crucifixion was a SPECIFIC punishment for ARMED SEDITION AGAINST THE ROMAN MAIESTAS during the reign of the Divine Tiberius?

But then judging from your moniker, your Latin isn't so good...so I'm not really that surprised!

Consider and reflect, if you would for a moment, on some of the "uncomfortable facts" in the "canonical gospels" ref: the very Roman Crucifixion of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Naked Galilean Seditionist which happened during a very Important Pesach in AD 36 --on the 100th anniversary of the very violent Invasion of Pompey the Roman General into Jerusalem which ended up in a search and seizure event in the very holy of holies (in BC 63, a bloody event which happened exactly following a period of 100 years of "self rule" following the Macabbean Revolt against Syrian Greeks at Chanukkah in BC 163).

It's called "Ride into Town and Blast Zechariah 9:9 in their Faces Fiesta Weekend" or "The Times of the Gentiles Is Fulfilled at the 100th anniversary of the Roman Invasion Syndrome" or, "You Can Take your Lex Maiestatis and Shove It Concert".

Or maybe we should nickname it the "Festival of Tell that Cowering Sissy-Jackal I will not Cease and Desist until I have Completed My Work..."

Sort of a conscious take off on Moses and ye olde Very Already Occupied Promised Land back in the days "when the Amorites were in Eretz Yisroel", you know...another Taking Back the "Promised Land" back for the "Chosen People" after those Nasty 100 years of Brutal Roman Occupation by all those pesky Kittim-Sons of Darkness, aka the Dirty Gentile Dogs Under the Table unworthy of the Crumbs of the Children of Light.

I mean, Matthew chapter 15 and all that racist vomit.

But if you REALLY want to read some hardcore Zionist Racist Vomit, why don't you go out and check out the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially one called THE WAR SCROLL= 1QM (compiled c. BC 60 and revised around AD 6) which was found in Cave 1 (and also in Cave 4 too !) at Qumran and locked up in AD 68 during the 1st Failed Jewish Revolt against Rome, where lots and lots of Naked Armed Seditionists ended up dangling from wooden crosses with signs around their necks too.

It uses all those handy dandy phrases like THESE BE THE DAYS OF VENGEANCE OF OUR GOD...from which our little story teller got alot of his, um...Seditionist Rhetoric.

What?

You mean to say that ALL of that Seditionist Greek Language found so apparently stripped from conscious notice from all 4 of those council approved Midrashic Propaganda Tracts managed miraculously to eradicate ALL TRACES of the Warrior Language placed into the tiny mouth of our harmless little story-telling Rebbe who just happened to be executed by Crucifixion as an Armed Rebel Against Rome because, oh, I don't know, the Judaean authorities were having a really BAD hair day?

Well, think again.

And just for kicks and giggles, why don't you check out a little verse like Luke 21:22,which Christians rarely talk about--despite it being a direct quote from the Aforementioned War Scroll found at Qumran if you think I'm making all of this up from el scratcharoo.

What?

All of this is NEW to you....

I wonder why....

You mean you've NEVER been told by your "Church" about the blatant Seditionist Sayings of that heavilly whitewashed and overpainted little "insane madman" (Mark 3:21) who just HAPPENED to arm his disciples on the hill with Real Swords (see Luke 22:17) during "THE INSURRECTION" (Mark 15:6), or just HAPPENED to start a RIOT in the Court of the Goyim during the so-called Temple-Tantrum (see Matt 21:12 or even John 2:15 if you want another order of events...) involving, oh, I don't know, whips and chains and a bunch of chord thingies and some heavy handed stomping around that just HAPPENED to knock over all those lamps and other flammable thingies which could easily catch fire if you're not very careful...

And speaking of setting fires, what about this one:

"I will destroy this Temple made with Hands and Build another one in its place in Three Days Not Made With Hands...!"

"Think Ye that the Son of Man cometh to Bring Peace? Nay, not Peace, but a Sword: Not Harmony, but Division !"

or from the Gospel of Thomas, which never made it in to the official book: "Behold, the Son of Man hath come to set the land [of Israel] on fire: and, how I am constrained until it blazeth into an Inferno!"

So much for "The Prince of Peace Prize" for him...!

But all this Fire Talk might just explain the puzzling sentence in the fragment of the Greek Gospel of Peter which was recently discovered...

Gosp Peter v. 7 ff

"And I Peter with my brothers were sorely grieved; and terrified of the authorities we hid ourselves from them: for we were being sought for by them as seditionists and as those who wished to set fire to the Temple..."

Go and do some homework on this subject...you might be surprised what you find if you dare to dig a little deeper than your church normally allows !!

Originally posted by junglejake
I know why I did it back in the day, but I'm curious why some of you do it. Why is it so important for you to try to convince people who are religious that they're wrong?

Because it's a false set of beliefs that threatens not only me, but all of humanity.

More importantly though, I'm an evil bastard that finds it fun to attack the most cherished of beliefs for my own amusement at the expense of the sanity of others. (pinky approaching side of mouth with palm facing outward). I will gladly go away for 100 billion dollars.

A third possibility is that 'refuting the religious' is really nothing more than presenting my (our?) own perspective, in the same way that you present yours. :bnghd:

Come on now. You don't present your case because your so concerned about all of us poor lost souls, you do it to reaffirm your own position in your own mind, just like what the rest of us are doing.

...it could be some combination of these, particularly the evil bastard stuff...or is it? mwa ha ha ha

Spam, I'm confident in my explanation. If I were to choose, I could walk away right now, never read another post on the religious boards of ATS, and know that Christ has spoken to me and that I am saved.

A bonus of these boards is that through your questions and others, I dig deeper into my religion and discover things I hadn't realized, but my cinfidence in what I believe is solid. There is no question any more. I did my investigation. I spent 4 years doing so. I came to a solid conclusion, and I don't need someone else to affirm it for me. The only reason I participate on these religious boards is because I want to share with others what I have discovered. I want to spare them from the pain and the difficulty I endured in coming to my conclusion. If I wanted to just afirm my belief, why wouldn't I have put you on ignore at this point and pretended you don't exist? If I was so delusional as to go into a state of psychosis in all of my spiritual "lies" and experiences, why would I allow myself to listen and respond to your rational reasoning when I'm being extremely irrational and only want affirmation?

Burden of proof, or at least evidence, is on you in this one. I explained where I'm coming from; how are you so sure I'm coming from a different direction?

Junglejake I will do my best to answer your question bear in mind that this is just my point of view.

I take a dim view of reglion.
Do I care if people take part in reglion?
Quite frankly I dont give a toss people should be free to run there lives how they choose. I only have a problem if the government or a group of people expect society to live by reglions morals. I have enough to think about without caring if somebody choose to take part in reglion or use the TV remote to think.

Of course Athiests can over step the mark I read a thread that said people shouldnt pray after Katrina.
Do I think praying is useless?
Personal I think praying is a waste of time but I dont have the right to say that a person shouldnt pray. Just dont expect me to.

[edit on 4-10-2005 by xpert11]

No one deep down really knows the answer for sure, whether they're a religious fanatic or an ardent atheist no matter what they say. I think if they are able to convice someone else to agree with them, it makes them feel better because is somehow validates their own view, giving them a reassuring feeling. At least that's my theory.

Originally posted by junglejake
I'm curious why some of you do it. Why is it so important for you to try to convince people who are religious that they're wrong?

We are programmed to move closer to perfection.

It is a duty to try to correct what we may regards as incorrect.

Human conscience feels responsibility to correct an error.





[edit on 4-10-2005 by mr conspiracy]

Originally posted by mr conspiracy

It is a duty to try to correct what we may regards as incorrect.

Human conscience feels responsibility to correct an error.

The problem being, there's no one "truth" that is right for all beings (in this context, anyway).

So who's version of truth is more important?

Is it not more of a duty to encourage someone to find their own path to enlightenment?

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

So who's version of truth is more important?

Is it not more of a duty to encourage someone to find their own path to enlightenment?

if you feel that a person's "path" to enlightenment involves coc aine then surely you would see that as an error. You will be trying to lead them to abandon that path.

therefore, it is "your" version of truth that is most important, even though it might be as harmful as the guy's who is on the coc aine path.


---

Neom//

"I will destroy this Temple made with Hands and Build another one in its place in Three Days Not Made With Hands...!"

This quote above and many others that you have made in previous posts are out of ignorance!
please STOP making spiteful comments .....and if it were turned the other way.........................

Interpretation of the above is Temple.....Body of Christ.
Therefore when He spoke about the Temple Jesus Christ was talking about His body that would be raised ''Resurrection'' at 3 days.


And for another one of your COMMENTS///
“I did not come to bring peace but a sword” (Mat. 10:34)
..........He who disregards slander and persecution and witnesses Christ before people, Christ will witness for him as His true servant at judgment day before the Heavenly Father.
He will also turn away from those that turn away from Him. “I did not come to bring peace but a sword” (Mat. 10:34); these words should not be taken literally.
They mean that disagreement between people appears as the undoubted and necessary result of the Lord’s arrival on earth, because human hatred will raise a bitter war against God’s Kingdom, His followers and preachers. “And a man’s enemies will be those of his own household” (mat. 10:36);

Read the rest here...
www.intratext.com...

Each time, when the Pharisees demanded some type of sign from the Lord, He told them that they will see no other signs but that which He called the Prophet Jonah sign - resurrection after three days of interment.

read here

The kind of Pharisee at that time was one who embodied the most narrow and fanatical, distinguishing nationalism: they regarded themselves completely distinct from the rest of the people.
They thought that just being a Jew, particularly being a Pharisee, meant that they were certain and worthiest members of the glorious Messiah’s Kingdom. According to their belief, the Messiah Himself must be like them, Who will free the Jews from their foreign yoke and establish a world dominion, in which they, the Jews, will occupy commanding positions.
Apparently Nicodemus, in sharing these common opinions of the Pharisees, possibly deep down in his heart felt that they were false.

(John 3:1-21).

Glory be to God
IX
helen

I can only answer this question by asking another; Why is it so important for YOU to refute the religious? As far as I am concerned, as long as the beliefs of others do not infringe upon my own rights, then I really do not concern myself with the religious beliefs of others. I am more concerned, on a personal level, that I remain true to myself.