I run into many people who wear a cross or a star of David, and many who make some comment that identifies them as christian or some other religion. Similarly, I might mention that I’m an atheist if it’s germane to the conversation. However, I never expand on that or question others about their beliefs unless they start the conversation, especially if they clearly have the goal of converting me. Even then, I try to change the subject and avoid the discussion.
Occam
This is something I have have a hard time wrapping my mind over. It makes me reflect on the words of my agnostic friend, who, does not have a problem bringing up controvercial subjects, demonstrating reason and logic in all things, and is French. It is cultural for him to be argumentative, and he finds nothing wrong with it.
I guess depending on who you are, having an argument does not need to lead down the passionate uncivil flury that besets a vocal few. I do not mind conversing or even getting into a heated argumentwith a person over the most non-religious things, such as science, nutrition, politics, etc. because perhaps unlike many, I am able to dissassociate my opinion from me. My opinion changes, my opinion can be wrong, it is up for confrontation, it is up for change, and to call my opinion foolish, I will not take personal offense that you just called me a fool but rather ask you to demonstrate what reason or logic or proposition you have that has concluded that my opinion is foolish. I do not care if the person is trying to persuade me to their way of thinking, most people believe this ‘converting’ offensive, but I am at a loss to find the reasoning behind why it is offensive.
First, I find the best way to understand a person, is to convert to their thinking. That is what I call listening and understanding your opponent. I have dissociated myself from my opinion, so I am able to scrutinize myself and adopt new opinions in order to understand them. Like many of you, I have a healthy skeptisism for many ideas that come across my plate. It is difficult to do this, if one takes it personally.
Second, if I find that new opinion does not make sense, I am able to scrutinize it, and understand it from their perspective and some cases know it better then they in the first place.
Example:
In my quest for knowledge, I entered a mystic cult, I adopted their thinking and found out what their motivations were (it would not have been known from the outside looking in) and was able to draw a dozen members out of the danger they were in because I understood why they believed what they did and as a result address those motivations and bring them to a healthy skeptisism of the cult leader and realize they were more enticed by the man, rather than the ideas. I brought forth that the idea was in the end to control their lives and finances, a lot of lightbulbs turned on for some and growls from others. Though, those dozen who left, they were free from a crippling influence which ultimately gave them misery and for that I was glad I could ‘convert’ them back out. The idea of course, brainwashing reversal.
Am I guilty for proselytizing? Some will say I am, even though none adopted my ‘religion’. I was simply pointing out the flaw of their belief in order to save them from being destroyed by this cult and was persistant in it.
The same can be said for 9-11 Conspiracy Theorists, we can know it is just a bunch of BS, and present them with counters to their theories and expose the lies and tell them to read it; yet, how useless that is if we are unable to address the reason why these theorists believe in the conspiracy in the first place. If we call ourselves humanists and humanitarians, I find these types of discussions and arguments are needed, not avoided. We are called to help mankind, and save it from the lies of religion, fear, despotism and the like. We can do it without violence, but I believe we do not need to be apathetic either.
Do not mind me, it is not my intention to be offensive, staying in line with the original premise of this thread, each have their opinions and I am quite new, so again my apologies if I broke any rules in expressing my opinion. May you understand my intent is communication and dialogue, and mutual understanding with reason.
[ Edited: 17 December 2007 05:12 PM by Craig_SOtW ]
Craig, I didn’t mean to imply that I run from an argument. I just don’t like to get people upset without reason, and often the religious do just that when any of their beliefs are questioned. Of course, they don’t mind telling others that they are stupid and wrong. I just give them a number of opportunities to back off. If they persist, I love having a rational, non-emotional, argument. Like you, I’m not bothered by their emotional attacks, but I often recognize that I’m just wasting our time. That’s when I walk away.
If a religious person sincerely wants to discuss my beliefs, I’m quite willing to do so, and hope that s/he may become a bit more accepting of theistic diversity. I’m not so optimistic that I think I have any chance of converting them.
Craig, I didn’t mean to imply that I run from an argument.
My apologies if I inferred that you did in my response, thank-you for the correction.
Occam - 17 December 2007 09:47 PM
I just don’t like to get people upset without reason, and often the religious do just that when any of their beliefs are questioned. Of course, they don’t mind telling others that they are stupid and wrong. I just give them a number of opportunities to back off. If they persist, I love having a rational, non-emotional, argument. Like you, I’m not bothered by their emotional attacks, but I often recognize that I’m just wasting our time. That’s when I walk away.
Occam
Are people really upset without reason? Perhaps I am too analytical and believe in cause and effect without question and find irrational responses themselves irrational, but the reason for the irrational response is rational. To avoid the emotional element would be removing a lot of what humankind is, would you not agree? I see the hypocracy of the religious, though I am sure there is a reason for it somewhere deep in them.
Though I agree, there are points where there is no good which comes from an argument and we walk away.
To avoid the emotional element would be removing a lot of what humankind is, would you not agree?
I certainly do agree, but one very effective way of driving a religious fanatic who gets nasty and emotional totally buggy is to appear guietly and gently rational without showing the emotions of anger he’s trying to evoke in you.
And here I thought you were Vulcan! jk but if you are curious- look at your avatar. It looks like Spock.
When I was reading Thomas Cleary’s Mastering The Art of War it occurred to me that the Chinese invented Vulcans 2500 years ago.
And that avatar is The Evil Mr. Spock from the parallel universe. The most inscrutable of them all.
My eyesight is still good. :D
Craig_SOtW said:
Are people really upset without reason? Perhaps I am too analytical and believe in cause and effect without question and find irrational responses themselves irrational, but the reason for the irrational response is rational.
Well, Craig, it just doesn’t make sense to get so upset that they are defensive, sometimes insulting, and acting hateful. It could alienate liberal Christians who could be very helpful to some of the causes we both have concerns for- like fighting the Religious Reich. They don’t like them anymore than we do.
To avoid the emotional element would be removing a lot of what humankind is, would you not agree?
I certainly do agree, but one very effective way of driving a religious fanatic who gets nasty and emotional totally buggy is to appear guietly and gently rational without showing the emotions of anger he’s trying to evoke in you.
Occam
Yea, I agree. Sometimes it aggrivates even more, when they see that I have not reacted emotionally to their emotional appeals. It is a lot easier to do in person, then in an email or forum because of the tendency for the reader to assume the tone and emotion of what they are reading. So the reason for the anger, is to cause you to react and they gain power.
I have a story
I had a roommate who is a 3rd Degree Black Belt Karate, Red Sash Kung-Fu instructor, Jijtsu and Mixed Martial Arts instructor, and is 5’5” 170lbs (stalky). My next door neighbor is a 6’4” 300lb body builder. We have two dogs which are very good, hardly bark but sometimes, as dogs are, they would. When my neighbor moved in, my roommates dogs would bark at our neighbor, but the dogs were never let out in the morning or night, because of consideration to our neighbor. But during the day, the dogs have free reign in my yard but they just did not like him. Our neighbor did not like that our dogs barked at all, and came over to ‘talk’ to my roommate about silencing our dogs. Seeing that my roommate was 5’5” and 170lbs, instead of talking he grabbed my roommate by the shirt collar and threatened him with violence. Needless to say when the police showed up, my neighbor was told by the officer, he was lucky because my roommate is well known. My roommate didn’t have a mark on him. My roommate and I talked about this, and we concluded that our neighbor has always used physical intimidation to get his way, and that day it did not work. We have been on good terms with our neighbor ever since.
Everyone is out to convert each other to their way of thinking, do you not agree? That is what a conversation about philosophy, values, morals, ethics, and yes, religion is all about. I don’t know, any time I talk abour religion and politics to someone who doesn’t have a religion and abstains from politics, they try to convince me of the evils of religion and the conspiracy of politics.
I agree that many people do push to convert others to their way of thinking. For me it is more of a personal inquiry. I question others in order to test my own skepticism and make sure I have heard all the rational arguments and that my pursuit of knowledge is thorough. If these discussions lead to a conversion, that is just “icing on the cake”.
Craig_SOtW - 17 December 2007 12:12 PM
I find a fine line between discussing what a person believes versus prosyleting and sometimes it is too fuzzy for some, so just bringing up the mere fact that I may believe in a higher power, has labelled me as a fanatic trying to convert them. Haha. I am very much not religious, and have fought hard against the ‘Christian’ agenda for too long to be grouped with them when I discuss Christianity.
You accept, possibly enjoy, reason and rational debates and (maybe I misunderstood but,) you hint at possibly prescribing to a supernatural power. I am thoroughly intrigued. Do you mind sharing more of your beliefs?
I have become bored with the theist vs. atheist debates. For a very long time I engaged in these discussions, if for no other reason than to sharpen my skills in debate. However, it has become repetitive and downright dull as of late.
I am far more interested in the Humanist side of things these days, which appears to get little traction in this forum. I fear that the members of CFI are beginning to lapse into an endless battle that they have little hope of winning. Only due to the tactics employed. If there were more emphasis on Humanist values versus Secular obstinance, we may find that we are able to sway more away from theism.
I agree with Craig_SOtW, when he says
I find the best way to understand a person, is to convert to their thinking.
I do this all the time, of course it is not a complete conversion, in that I do not succumb to it. But I find spending some time walking in their shoes gives me the ability to discover how others have developed sympathies to certain lines of thinking.
BTW, Craig, if you have discovered the magic bullet to dissuade 9/11 conspiracy believers, let me in on it. I have been working on my brother for 2 years without success.
I have found that if you find ways to sympathize with their arguments while pointing out gently why you believe differently goes much farther than blunt arguments. Humanist values are a great bridge, much more effective than confrontation. They demonstrate the ethics we Seculars have and often point out more areas of agreement.
Most of all, we can sway by providing a fine example with our actions. If we can show that we can be good citizens, who care about our neighbors, and the world around us, we can squash a lot of hostility and begin to gain some sympathy for our cause.
I would echo what Charles said so well. It’s not that the issues about theism and atheism aren’t improtant, but they’re not the way to move forward, win hearts and minds, etc. And since compassion is a key humanist value, we should endeavor to extend it to anyone, regardless of their own beliefs, and that means encouraging the kind of empathy Craig and Charles are talking about.Debate works for the intellectually minded, but that’s not so many people, andother ways of reaching other kinds of people are vital.
BTW, Craig, if you have discovered the magic bullet to dissuade 9/11 conspiracy believers, let me in on it. I have been working on my brother for 2 years without success.
Unfortunately, I have not. The underlining issue which prompts them to continue in the thought process has not been addressed because I do not know what it is. Mistrust in government? Personal suffering by those in authority? Racism? Religion? Though perhaps one on one’s with an individual works better to discover the source of the persistance in the conspiracy in order to address it. I gather these types of instances and treat them as I would a brainwashed cultist, to reach the cultist, there are layers of things which one needs to get through. That could be why reason seems to fail, but not for the reason I assumed before. There is more people being persuaded by anything but reason, than there is those with a reason to bring them out of it.
There was a professor of psychology name Dr Drew Westin who concluded with his research 80% of the American population processea information through emotional filters before it reasons. So, people make up their mind about something, without knowing it, because of how they feel about it. If it feels scary, a person will fight or flight from it in terror, even if it isn’t scary at all in reality. If a person is comfortable with it, they will accept it, even if it will lead to suffering. That is why charasmatic leaders gain popularity even if they are stupid, and intelligent good leaders never are elected and so forth. It also takes no time for someone to be persuaded by emotional appeals, but it takes a longer time to be persuaded by reason. So like an epidemic, these meme’s of emotional appeals move quite fast before we are able to stop it through reason.
I was introduced to this site by a friend because I am rational and reasonable, using knowledge and aquiring it to better society. I am enjoying this conversation.
It’s fascinating that we all seem to have very similar ideas in this thread, but focus on the small differences we have. That is a point I try to make when I’m with a religious person who wants to discuss beliefs and faith. In addition, I work hard to show the person that theistic beliefs and ethical beliefs are not identical and are not necessarily even connected. I believe just convincing them that humanists have ethics as strong as and similar to theirs is a major victory for tolerance and acceptance.
It’s fascinating that we all seem to have very similar ideas in this thread, but focus on the small differences we have. That is a point I try to make when I’m with a religious person who wants to discuss beliefs and faith. In addition, I work hard to show the person that theistic beliefs and ethical beliefs are not identical and are not necessarily even connected. I believe just convincing them that humanists have ethics as strong as and similar to theirs is a major victory for tolerance and acceptance.
Occam
I think it is hard for someone who is religious to understand that mankind can be good without it’s influence. The doctrine of humankind, according to traditional fundimentalist Christianity that we (humankind) are inheritantly evil, or as the Calvinist would say “T” is for Total Depravity. So they are already trained to reject any notion of anything good is within humankind without their religion.
[ Edited: 18 December 2007 02:13 PM by Craig_SOtW ]
jk but if you are curious- look at your avatar. It looks like Spock. 
