Elevating the atheism/religion discussion

[lotus503]

Well, I'm not going to argue over an exchange that we can't prove even happened, so have at it. For all we know, Lotus could be making that up (not saying he is, though).

Note: In the context of my point to you, "unrestricted" means "telling someone they're wrong as much as you like".

So do you support anyone for that matter, being allowed to tell you how wrong you are without limitations? And that's not to say its a good idea to keep telling people they're wrong, I'm asking about the freedom to do so.

Yes or no please.

I don't know what to say, I have no reason to be untruthful about what happened. Yes Sydney's mom left in tears because for 20 minutes she tried to save face in front of her daughter and present evidence of Gods existence.
I merely pointed out that her evidence has no factual basis and then went on to explain how her evidence was emotional not factual. She cried because of obvious frustration, once her factual baseline was destroyed she talked about faith and personal experience.
Now mind you, I like the family they are good people and have been very good to my daughter with movies and spend the night parties etc. I would have never initiated such a conversation, but was backed in a corner and forced to defend my viewpoints.
As the parent of two small children, I can tell you this, these types of conversations happened frequently among children and I have been very careful to teach my children we respect what other people believe.
I point out that we and Christians both think we should treat people like we want to be treated and that we should be kind etc. in an effort to focus on what we have in common vs the dogma and things we do not.

My goal is to let people believe what they want and to walk whatever path they need to find happiness, the problem is some Christians can’t return the favor and feel compelled to evangelize, in some pretty unconstructive ways to boot.

In my opinion and this goes for all people live by example, I think all people should aspire to be Christ like that doesn't all mean we need to view Jesus as God. I didn't say you don't have the freedom to tell people they are wrong, merely pointing out that's when the trouble starts for Christians.

 

[alzan]

Essentaily, this is my point...and why I said that atheists have the same rights, so there is no use complaining about how religious people use the same rights...no ones violating your freedoms, you'll just have to deal with hurt feelings.

As well, there's no use in complaining about atheists/agnostics who post their concerns about evangelizing theists as you did in post #593, in response to lotus' post #591. Violating your freedom to speak was not being discussed so I guess you'll have to deal with hurt feelings.

 

[alzan]

It takes two to be conforntational. The message is never meant to be confrontational, unless you're bent on telling people they're going to Hell (which, again, I don't believe in so it's never apart of my speaking).

But, I've learned that being the bigger man is always the way to go. I've walked past people trying to stop me to donate to their anti-abotion campagns...I simply smile and nod, no matter what they say to me, and say "thanks, but I'm fine" and keep it moving.

Taking the high-road as long as someone doesn't physically assualt/touch you is always the best option.

The message is confrontational on it's face, it doesn't matter how the conversation starts. Unless the person being witnessed to has invited the conversation it is confrontational.

As an agnostic it's never been my SOP to speak about it to random people or friends, unless they ask me and agnostics/atheists with whom I'm familiar have much the same attitude. Your Sam Harris', Richard Dawkins', etc.; they're all invited to speak about their views at various meetings, debates, etc. Not knowing them or others personally I'm not aware of them bearing witness to random people on the street, not saying it hasn't happened just that I'm not aware of it.

To me, taking the high road is also the best option and includes not asking people about their beliefs or lack there of; if they bring it up and/or ask my opinion that's completely and utterly different.

 

[Retro Rob]

My goal is to let people believe what they want and to walk whatever path they need to find happiness, the problem is some Christians can’t return the favor and feel compelled to evangelize, in some pretty unconstructive ways to boot.

Wait, you *can* believe what you want and walk your own path, the only way to violate that is to force (by rule of law) my beliefs on you...evangilizing doesn't at all come close to that because you have the option to say "NO".

You seem to be bothered by them being out there talking and approaching people (yourself included), but there is nothing more to say other than "deal with it", or...do something to change the law as it applies to that, or move to place in which that sort of thing is minimal.

I agree with the "uncontructive ways", but like I said...its hardly typical that someone comes up to you and just says "you're going to Hell you infidel"...it doesn't happen that way.

 

[Caravaggio]

I think of evolution beyond the context of biology.

Most people use the word in that metaphorical way. That notion gave rise to the theory of 'social evolution' which was very interesting but completely wrong. Evolution is not teleologically driven.

At 44 years old my mind and thoughts have evolved from the time i was 16. largely based on my observations and experiences

Yep, we all do that, it is called attitude change.

BTW, apologies for the brusqueness of my earlier response.
But you said something interesting about dealing with believers in a more accepting way. I wish I could rise to that higher plane, but I have found myself moving in exactly the opposite direction.
I used to nod to any old untestable hippy notion now I'm becoming more like a 1930's Viennese 'logical positivist'.

 

[Retro Rob]

The message is confrontational on it's face, it doesn't matter how the conversation starts. Unless the person being witnessed to has invited the conversation it is confrontational.

Really, you have a lot of growing up to do if you get "confrontional" with a religious person.

Keep up that silly attitude, and you'll probably end up in jail.

As an agnostic it's never been my SOP to speak about it to random people or friends

So what? That's you.

unless they ask me and agnostics/atheists with whom I'm familiar have much the same attitude. Your Sam Harris', Richard Dawkins', etc.; they're all invited to speak about their views at various meetings, debates, etc. Not knowing them or others personally I'm not aware of them bearing witness to random people on the street, not saying it hasn't happened just that I'm not aware of it

Well, you're terrbly misinformed. Watch "Enemies of Reason" or "Religilous" when Dawkins and Maher walk up to people, questioning them, and editing the interviews.

This is a free country...they're allowed to do it.

 

[lotus503]

Wait, you *can* believe what you want and walk your own path, the only way to violate that is to force (by rule of law) my beliefs on you...evangilizing doesn't at all come close to that because you have the option to say "NO".

You seem to be bothered by them being out there talking and approaching people (yourself included), but there is nothing more to say other than "deal with it", or...do something to change the law as it applies to that, or move to place in which that sort of thing is minimal.

I agree with the "uncontructive ways", but like I said...its hardly typical that someone comes up to you and just says "you're going to Hell you infidel"...it doesn't happen that way.

Your problem is you are confusing legal rights with common decency and what it takes to get along with others in society that do not think the way you do.

My point is only evangelize if you are ok with putting personal relationships with people on line and making yourself look like an idiot in front of your kid.

If you think going to hell isn't part of the evangelical conversation I suspect its because you have never been on the other end of one.

 

[Retro Rob]

Your problem is you are confusing legal rights with common decency and what it takes to get along with others in society that do not think the way you do.

You just don't like it...and that's fine. I really don't either, to be honest, but I don't find it indecent.

That's me though.

My point is only evangelize if you are ok with putting personal relationships with people on line and making yourself look like an idiot in front of your kid.

Hey, there are risks involved with anything we do. People put personal relationships on the line when they come out as gay or bi, or transgender, so I guess they should consider that as well and perhaps keep it to themselves if they want to avoid losing relationhips.

Gald we agree.

If you think going to hell isn't part of the evangelical conversation I suspect its because you have never been on the other end of one.

Its not a part of mine, I don't (and never have) beleived in Hell.

 

[lotus503]

You just don't like it...and that's fine. I really don't either, to be honest, but I don't find it indecent. I don't find it indecent but I also don't think many Christians are used to having their belief system challenged in personal interactions with neighbors. In my case they introduced problems that didn't need to be introduced by failing the basic tenet of letting there kid know now everyone believes like they do and that's OK.

That's me though.



Hey, there are risks involved with anything we do. People put personal relationships on the line when they come out as gay or bi, or transgender, so I guess they should consider that as well and perhaps keep it to themselves if they want to avoid losing relationhips. False comparison, Being Gay, BI and transgender is not a choice, having faith is.

Gald we agree.



Its not a part of mine, I don't (and never have) beleived in Hell.

Responses in bold

 

[Retro Rob]

Responses in bold

I do agree with you about telling your kids people will disagree with them or whatever, but Id like to challenge you here:

You say they aren't used to having their beliefs challenged by neighbors in personal interactions. Well, if they're always evangelizing, then they should be ready for it, or are used to being challenged personally by strangers, let alone people they know as neighbors.

I for one, enjoy challenges.

But what I think you mean is having their beliefs "disrespected" -- thats not "challenged". Additionally, no one deals well with outright disrespect, but most people I know (and I know a lot of christians, obviously) are fine with being called on something as long as the conversation doesn't fall in the gutter of needless hostility by either party.

 

[lotus503]

I do agree with you about telling your kids people will disagree with them or whatever, but Id like to challenge you here:

You say they aren't used to having their beliefs challenged by neighbors in personal interactions. Well, if they're always evangelizing, then they should be ready for it, or are used to being challenged personally by strangers, let alone people they know as neighbors.

I for one, enjoy challenges.

But what I think you mean is having their beliefs "disrespected" -- thats not "challenged". Additionally, no one deals well with outright disrespect, but most people I know (and I know a lot of christians, obviously) are fine with being called on something as long as the conversation doesn't fall in the gutter of needless hostility by either party.

I don't think they go out evangelizing, I've lived near them for three years and while we knew they were Christian the topic didn't come up until their kid told my kid that my kid was going to hell. What I find fascinating in retrospect is Mom never even addressed the fact her child said that to my child. The confrontation was all about how my kid told her kid God isn't real and there is no evidence of God.

 

[alzan]

Really, you have a lot of growing up to do if you get "confrontional" with a religious person.

Keep up that silly attitude, and you'll probably end up in jail.

So what? That's you.

Well, you're terrbly misinformed. Watch "Enemies of Reason" or "Religilous" when Dawkins and Maher walk up to people, questioning them, and editing the interviews.

This is a free country...they're allowed to do it.

Cute picture, is that you as a child?

And you have a lot of learning to do when it comes to social situations and the common decency expected by all parties involved. The level of my response towards a given question or statement by someone I don't know or haven't approached for the purpose of dialogue is directly proportional to the content of the statement or question.

As I said before, any response by me or anyone else to a stranger's question or comment that doesn't break civil/criminal laws is allowable; so no, my responses won't make it probable that I'll end up in jail. Just sayin'

Let's see: Enemies of Reason is a documentary (something one chooses to see) in which Dawkins is attempting to debunk astrology, psychokinesis, etc. I don't know how people were approached (at random or agreed to participate in the documentary) or if the documentary was scripted. Religulous is also a documentary (which people choose or choose not to see) where Maher admittedly used less than honest ways to obtain his interviews. I wouldn't use that method myself all though it could be argued that one is more likely to get a real-world, honest response by obtaining interviews that way.

However, neither of the two documentaries speak to how Maher, Dawkins and others comport themselves while off camera and out in public. If they were to approach me out in public in the manner in which they approached people in the documentaries they would get the same response as a theist attempting to bear witness to me.