Otherwise who among us is absolutely, irreproachably good? Mother Theresa? Gandhi?

I think good persons (those more than average ones) care much more for the things avarage persons prefer to not care because of conformity. I do not found most people good for example becouse the evidence of homeless people they do not care about From this point of view we are bad Other example is "jesus" perself - I am quite sure that this jesus you mocking on

was much more good and deep thinking person than you, mocking on him..Taking a pain of others on you (sharing the pain) not ignoring it is also some thing that make you "less bad"

(this is far from ideal explanation of the thing but some hint only)

I don't mock anyone, much less people I personally believe to be a fictitious character, so please don't assign any malice towards it. If I were to have written my story replacing the name Jesus with the name Carl, it seems reasonable that we could all agree with the things I was saying about Carl, regardless of whether or not Carl is now, or ever was, a real person.

Then I could have made the big reveal at the end that your Jesus was just like my Carl, and herp-derp aren't I a clever monkey. The reason I don't do that is because its less direct, attempts to sidestep what might be my personal biases, prevent you from exercising yours (which is your right), and overall just seems like the less-honest way to share this experience I had. This is something that actually happened, I think I still have the pamphlet, and these are my actual thoughts that I've had on it. Its a kind of allegory, just like in the Bible or other religious texts, Shakespeare, Walt Disney Movies, fairy tales, and nursery rhymes.

Furthermore, you don't actually know what I do or don't do that might meet your arbitrary bar for positive, above-average 'goodness', though I have no problem stating plainly that I certainly don't do all the good things that Jesus is written to have done. I certainly haven't healed any lepers or restored anyone's sight. But doctors and scientists have. So, are they good? They're certainly doing good, and there's probably a better than average chance that they're good on the whole, but I bet they're not irreproachably good either. Then, of course your whole comparison between myself and Jesus (thanks, by the way, its the first time anyone has made the comparison because I can't grow full beard to save my life) stands on at least three articles of faith -- Firstly that Jesus was a real being, secondly that he was the son of God and therefore able to work miracles and live beyond sin, and third that the Bible is a true account, unbiased and unfailingly translated through centuries and languages.

If all of those things hold true, then yes, Jesus is objectively a better man than I. And if you merely accept that those things are true--that is, they are true to you--then I accept that you believe that Jesus is a better man than I, and that's the objective truth for you, but a subjective one to me.

The other side, it Is people INSISTING on other to take their position as you do in last sentence - i consider worse thing,
give me a freedom to disagree ;-)

Of course you can disagree. I never said you couldn't.

But disagree after you've heard all the relevant arguments.

I'm not even saying you have to take all arguments seriously; you can (and should) quickly dismiss the likes of homeopaths and creationists, but even for the likes of climate change deniers, you should at least hear them out.

Is it just me, or does the title of the thread itself sound incredibly conceited?

You must consider that the way you phrase your argument and the tone you deliver it in is just as important as the literal meaning of what you say. Every word has connotations associated with it. Every change in tone or emphasis can change meaning.

If you are having arguments where you are intentionally or accidentally introducing combative connotations or tone into your conversation, you're going to anger the other person and motivate them to continue the argument (even if it's futile). If your goal is to stop wasting time having the argument in the first place, you must avoid motivating the other person at all costs.

I agree with what was mentioned above: "The only winning move is not to play."

The other side, it Is people INSISTING on other to take their position as you do in last sentence - i consider worse thing,
give me a freedom to disagree ;-)

Of course you can disagree. I never said you couldn't.

But disagree after you've heard all the relevant arguments.

I'm not even saying you have to take all arguments seriously; you can (and should) quickly dismiss the likes of homeopaths and creationists, but even for the likes of climate change deniers, you should at least hear them out.

I disagree, maybe you should, Why you think you should ? ;/

Is it just me, or does the title of the thread itself sound incredibly conceited?
....
I agree with what was mentioned above: "The only winning move is not to play."

Yes, and why do I have a sudden urge to watch Wargames?

besides this all if I am right and the middle of the winter is about 21 december, now begining of the early spring is almost here (coming this week) so be happy ! //<yuppi>

Wow, I'm late to the party. Can I come in? Here's my 3p...

A famous proverb goes something like this (dependent on translation): "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." I think this is what is happening to the OP. The pearls here being the equivalent of the OP's logical arguments. The trampling is the abject dismissal of the points of the OP's statements by the argument's instigator. The turning and tearing you to pieces is the continuation of the argument and the later repeated attempts to re-engage. Engaging in an argument known to be doomed to futility is a waste of time. As mentioned already: it's best to shut it down as quickly and politely as possible. If politeness doesn't work, then be direct and (slightly) impolite. Get it to where they hate even bringing that topic up with you. Yeah... I've had to do that sometimes.

Otherwise, if you feel like leading a horse to water, rather than drag it to the watering hole, coax it there. Your example shows a head-on collision of ideologies, and while yours id the correct one (I'm giving you the BTOD, here!), the other person just gets whammied and leaves stunned, and no wiser. A good, constructive argument takes finesse like a fencing foil. Take an aspect (not the whole idea) of their position and challenge it lightly. Get them to give on one teeny-tiny aspect of their concept. That's one whole conversation. Don't overreach. Let it set in for a while (days at the least). On the next conversation, ask if they still think that the changed aspect stayed changed. Then, yes or no, pick a different aspect to work on. Ultimately, what you are doing is teaching them to think. Not so much as trying to "win" an argument. You have to be subtle and it may not even be worth the effort in the end, but with patience, it can be done.

As an aside, I do love a good argument and am insanely curious as to which topic has your acquaintances in a twist. Would you mind informing me of the topic in a PM? I promise to not post it publicly nor try to argue either side with you, your stance be what it may. If you don't trust me as I'm a stranger to you, I understand. I just had to ask.

Sadly over the past six years I have been on the one others want to convince / change. This isn't about religion as im an atheist, I just have changed a lot over the years, resulting in interventions, arguments and desperate urges to change me, with arguments over and over occurring.

Back when I was a troll I had all the time in the world for arguments, correcting people and just generally giving a shit what people thought. Now I just have no time for it and don't think it is necessary, funny enough when you go from being a toxic, selfish, argumentative, angry person to a happy, healthy, friendly one you end up losing all your friends and get excluded from almost everything or maybe I just picked bad people to socialise with in the first place.

I guess in the end what I am saying is, I don't really have any need to argue with anyone and all the people I probably could argue with are no longer speaking to me because im "too boring", "quiet" and "no longer fun". I know this is in different context to you but I have repeatedly over my transitional years have been the victim where people have tried to win arguments where it is not required.

You are best off avoiding the toxic situation and if you start it yourself then you might want to find out why as really arguments are almost always never needed, there are other ways to dealing with a situation and if it fails avoid the person. It may be hard to avoid arguments but I am sure you can find a million and one other things far more useful for you to be engaging in than arguing. In the end if you change a person through an argument just remember it may be just as easy for the next person to change them back. People who change usually do it themselves sometimes out of fear and sometimes because it is the right thing to do. People who change from arguments tend to be people who change over and over quite easily and are very easy to manipulate.

Focus on programming not on arguments

My cousin, for example, I've been explaining this to him for years and he still doesn't understand my viewpoint. His responses are the same, in spite of what I say, so I know it's not going to be productive.

That is the perfect example of why I don't bother. There's a popular definition of 'insanity' (not a textbook definition): doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. You may want to consider the possibility that you are a glutton for punishment as well since you continually engage in these arguments knowing full well that are going to be unproductive and futile.

There's the implication here that because you've been explaining something for years and the other person doesn't change their view, they're in the wrong. This doesn't strike me as very objective. If one of you has a firm position on something why would you?

You see a lot in religious 'debates' where fledgling atheists pop 'big questions' as if they are the first to think of them, and then get upset when a religious person doesn't seem to take the question seriously. They jump to the conclusion the religious person has been indoctrinated not to question their beliefs - which may be the case obviously, but more often the religious person has heard this question 100 times before and is simply bored of answering it. They may also have put thought into that question before they were converted and have a solid stance on it, which would only be shaken by a much more rigorous challenge than "everyone knows evolution is proved" ;)