Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I will avoid using the term "proselytizing" because it comes with a lot of emotional baggage that muddies the waters unnecessarily.
you may not like the word and you may avoid the word but it accurately describes the behavior that you and others engage in.
pros·e·lyt·ize convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
synonyms: evangelize, convert, save, redeem, win over, preach (to), recruit
what word would you use instead? "seek converts" "evangelize" "save them from their false beliefs" "win over" ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
...Bottom line: Yes, sometimes I will try to change someone's mind if I believe that they have a significantly wrong belief.
my observation is that many on these boards (who consider themselves "intellectually superior") don't like to admit they engage in the exact same behavior as religious preachers, zealots, and evangelists. hence their aversion to words like "proselytize." Perhaps you could tell us more on the aversion you have to the word and what is its "emotional baggage."
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-01-2018 at 01:42 PM..
Did you even TRY to read and understand it without your Creator meme and atheist bias???? Clearly NOT. Your antipathy to ANY attempts to support the existence of God (NOT a specific set of beliefs about God that you repeatedly seem unable to abandon) is palpable and close-minded. You are emotionally attached to your atheism in the way that fundamentalist theists are to their dogma. I can see why Arach has been singing that tune. It is blatant. You have no intellectual fluidity or flexibility so my characterization of your mind as concrete is even more evident. Not a bad thing but it keeps you mired in the mud of ignorance with no hope of ever seeing anything not in your current knowledge or immediate view. As I have said before your overestimation of your prowess in debates is legion and your confidence in your understanding is completely unwarranted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Wrong on all three counts and showing both your inability to think clearly or even honestly or even take a second to step back and see how you look to others.
What sense does the god -argument make without the creator meme? You said yourself (in response to Tzaph's point that otherwise, you are just taking the stuff that humans make up and calling it God) that it something apart from humans. As soon as you have a cosmic mind that's independent of that, 'atheist mode' (your deprecating term for skepticism of such a claim) applies, and creator thinking (without which evolution of consciousness along with life is the better explanation) really being the usual meaning of God. If it's not what you mean, the right thing to do is say so, not use it to try to wave away the opposition without addressing any of the problems.
QED. You cannot abandon your Creator meme and "the usual meaning of God." Sad.
Quote:
Your latching onto Arach's obsessive hatred of Liberal atheism as a handy stick to bash anyone with who is not 'flexible' (read "Gullible") enough to accept your claims without question, says more to the trashing of your already minimal credibility than mine.
Finally, your backhanded compliment and reluctant recognition that you have been beaten yet again, despite your persistent denial, is most appreciated.
If any here have any remaining doubts that your theory is Faith-based, crackpot and without any real coherence, or that you have been made by Faith (because other than that you are a wise and caring person, I know) into an irrational, deluded and intellectually dishonest bit of work, you just keep right on trying to bash me in this way and any remaining doubts anyone may have will be laid to rest.
Your pride in your lack of knowledge, pompous pretensions of success, and complete inability to comprehend the actual issues under consideration make discourse with you impossible. You tenaciously refuse to parse my Synthesis from my Beliefs pretending they are one and the same. Your disdain for Faith is palpable despite your inability to acknowledge your own. For you, Faith in anything about God is per se, irrational despite the "We do not know" underpinning. Your Faith in the "No God" belief is irrational despite the fact that "We do not know" but you consider it rational because of "the usual meaning of God." You refuse even to TRY to contemplate and engage any other meanings of God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
The bolded belies the initial assertion. You simply can't evaluate a unified field theory using assumptions (as opposed to facts) that are not shared BY that theory. It's like discussing line xy in geometry and asking "what about z that is not ON line xy?"
Thanks, Nate. It is quite frustrating to engage with what Arach calls the fundy-mentals on either side.
Words carry and express meaning and nuance. Part of critical thinking is our awareness and attention to the words we use and what our language conveys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
Gosh. I never even remotely considered that before. Thanks for the moment of enlightenment.
I think her post is an example of those posters on here that she refers to as those who consider themselves "intellectually superior."
...
In light of this extreme example, would you admit that there are some circumstance in which you would, indeed, try to change someone's mind about some belief that they have? If so, then the question becomes: In what types of situations, or with regard to which types of beliefs might you try to change someone's mind?
if you want to start a thread on that, for everyone, go for it.
With regards to this discussion thread, I am primarily addressing the behavior of seeking converts based on religious or irreligious beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
...[with some words added by me]
for decades (most of my life) it was one of the reasons i absolutely refused to have anything to do with any religion whatsoever. i even said "i will never be part of any religion unless it does not seek converts, does not proselytize." i didn't think there was such a thing. around age 50 i learned that the religion i am part of has that very policy: no proselytizing, does not seek converts. it actually discourages conversion. that was and is very appealing to me.
.... to my thinking it is arrogance to claim any ONE teacher or any ONE religion is the ONE AND ONLY gatekeeper to God. that smacks of supremacy which leads to intolerance and arrogance which fosters hate.
I would add: The same holds true for people who proselytize and seek converts for irreligion.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-01-2018 at 02:48 PM..
Just for the record, the Qualiasoup video did not reference religion - except in the one minor example referring to the Sun God causing drought (and I've agreed that it was a bad choice for an example due to the sort of tone it might set in the minds of some people, such as yourself).
But the relationship between religion and critical thinking is important to consider. Once you embark on a path of critical thinking, there is no good excuse for exempting religion from your critical thinking efforts - at least insofar as your religious faith impacts society. Something that makes you feel good and does no significant harm can be exempt because critical thinking takes time, energy, and just plain work, and we cannot realistically expect ourselves, or other people, to work laboriously at every little detail of life. Harmless issues of personal taste don't require critical thinking, and to the extent that religious beliefs fall in this category, just relax and have fun. Don't worry; be happy. I would also add that some religious ideas are not only harmless, but they are positively beneficial for everyone - or, at least, they have a significant net benefit on society. The Golden Rule is a great reminder to treat others with respect. Inspirational themes focused on love and compassion fit into this general category. A few philosophers, for their own enjoyment, might want to put a lot of work into finding philosophical justifications for compassion, etc., but that's just their own preference. The vast majority need not worry about such things.
But some religious ideas have significant negative or potentially negative impacts on other people's lives. These ideas do need to be tested, and when you test them, you often need to go down to the deep roots. This brings you into a realm of assumptions that, in themselves, may seem relatively harmless, but serve as cornerstones for higher-level justifications that do, indeed, cause great harm. For this reason, the foundational assumptions of religious claims do need to be tested in the fire of critical thought. And here is where my criteria #1 (a willingness to change your mind when you discover a better idea) often poses a challenge to certain fundamentalist/literalist types of religious people.
Having faith, up-front, that God exists and that God has certain attributes like "is good and loving" falls in the harmless category. Virtually nothing bad ever comes from such faith. It's a mere personal preference, sorta like enjoying the taste of broccoli, or not. But the practice of claiming various types of specific attributes for God can lead quickly into vast grey areas, and even some very dark and/or wildly irrational areas. But even here, some of these beliefs could remain relatively harmless. But when you bring these beliefs in a public discussion forum, then critical thinking becomes needed (although the need goes unmet far more often that not).
rational people have rational beliefs. they are the ones that openly question stupid rules. be them form theists fundy's or atheist fundy's.
we see here, everyday, that irrational people hold irrational beliefs. being part of a religion doesn't mean "irrational", most of rational religious people don't hold to the religion's rules to the letter. Infact, they are the ones that change the religion over time.
That's why I prefer Internet exchanges to debate though, I might be able to note each point in the gallop and dispute each one.
no, you prefer the internet because you can just 'hit submit" no matter how soundly you have been debunked. You just repost and repost.
In a room, with textbooks and a board, your foolish anti-religious socialism and emotional based belief system would not hold up. it would be exposed as the exact same emotional foolishness as a theists fundy.
here, on the net, you just "hit submit" as if it makes it more real. Well, like "them", I guess it does to you.
if you want to start a thread on that, for everyone, go for it.
With regards to this discussion thread, I am primarily addressing the behavior of seeking converts based on religious or irreligious beliefs.
I would add: The same holds true for people who proselytize and seek converts for irreligion.
But I gave an example that specifically involved some problematic religious beliefs. Would you try to convince the terrorist that God does not want him to kill people?
But I gave an example that specifically involved some problematic religious beliefs. Would you try to convince the terrorist that God does not want him to kill people?
No i would not. And the scenario you described is not about religious beliefs. It is about emergency response to a physically threatening situation.
you are asking what someone would do in an emergency response situation facing someone threatening bodily harm to others. my training that I have received from professional federal law enforcement is to call 911, tell someone else to call 911, get to safety, try to get other people to safety. the most recent training I received, again from professional federal law enforcement, is if none of the above are possible and I am cornered with a dangerous person is to "outcrazy the crazies." I can tell you from the fortunately very few times I have had to use this, it works.
in short: buy time until professional law enforcement can get there. Is that "talking to him about God and his beliefs?" No it is not. Talking to him about something else to distract him? perhaps.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-01-2018 at 03:59 PM..
But I gave an example that specifically involved some problematic religious beliefs. Would you try to convince the terrorist that God does not want him to kill people?
The biggest problem I see with any belief is that people drop commonsense for personal need.
Wrong on all three counts and showing both your inability to think clearly or even honestly or even take a second to step back and see how you look to others.
What sense does the god -argument make without the creator meme? You said yourself (in response to Tzaph's point that otherwise, you are just taking the stuff that humans make up and calling it God) that it something apart from humans. As soon as you have a cosmic mind that's independent of that, 'atheist mode' (your deprecating term for skepticism of such a claim) applies, and creator thinking (without which evolution of consciousness along with life is the better explanation) really being the usual meaning of God. If it's not what you mean, the right thing to do is say so, not use it to try to wave away the opposition without addressing any of the problems.
Your latching onto Arach's obsessive hatred of Liberal atheism as a handy stick to bash anyone with who is not 'flexible' (read "Gullible") enough to accept your claims without question, says more to the trashing of your already minimal credibility than mine.
Finally your backhanded compliment and reluctant recognition that you have been beaten yet again, despite your persistent denial, is most appreciated.
If any here have any remaining doubts that your theory is Faith -based, crackpot and without any real coherence, or that you have been made by Faith (because other than that you are a wise and caring person, I know) into a irrational, deluded and intellectually dishonest bit of work, you just keep right on trying to bash me in this way and any remaining doubts anyone may have will be laid to rest.
I would say you need the old outdated version of god to fight. Fighting one that lines up with science data means your belief will come up short and debunked. Come to think of it, debunked again and again. There is no need for "creator god", so you are debunked again. again.
now, as for your personal opinion, "why do I need it." well, that's as good as "why they need their omni one". No difference. neither based on anything but what you want to believe and what you try to push on others.
deny everything? anything? cracked pot for sure. It holds no water, let alone mustard. its anti-science. science doesn't deny anything based on what you want to fight. Science doesn't care what you want to deny.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and reluctant recognition that you have been beaten yet again, despite your persistent denial, is most appreciated. 
