A Question for Everyone...

[SGOS]

as a parent I can say, people aren't reachable after 6 years old.

I dunno.  I have had some excellent discussions (not debates) with believers.  I count some quite devout believers among my friends -- and I have tremendous respect for a born-again friend of mine who said, early in our friendship, that he was praying for me and that was the last thing he would say to me about my beliefs -- and it was.  He has not mentioned it since, and it's been more than 25 years.  I respect faith like that (regardless of whether I agree with it), and I respect respect like that.

They make me feel obliged to be an example by being a good example for the non-religious life, rather than by talking about it, and I cannot help but think that that's a good thing.

Don't confuse reachable with respect.  I am good friends with a fundamentalist couple, and while there is acceptance of each other's views, or respect if you wish to call it that, they are not reachable.  Nor am I at this time.  There is no possibility of rational debate over religion with that couple.  There might be at sometime in the future, but they have made it clear that it is not possible at this time.  This is a positive understanding between us.

I also think some people are reachable after the age of six.  At six, I was a Christian, but I gradually became an atheist.  Not that anyone person "reached" me and caused a conversion, although obviously my transformation involved a lot of discussion with both atheists and theists.  I don't know.  Perhaps I was predisposed to atheism.  The theist arguments, while inspirational, made no logical sense to me.  The atheist arguments interested me, and caused me to think.

[Baruch]

So you are the exception that proves the rule?  If the majority had a life story like yours, the world would be radically different.

[SGOS]

So you are the exception that proves the rule?  If the majority had a life story like yours, the world would be radically different.

The only thing I prove is that the rule is not sacrosanct.

[trdsf]

Don't confuse reachable with respect.  I am good friends with a fundamentalist couple, and while there is acceptance of each other's views, or respect if you wish to call it that, they are not reachable.  Nor am I at this time.  There is no possibility of rational debate over religion with that couple.  There might be at sometime in the future, but they have made it clear that it is not possible at this time.  This is a positive understanding between us.

I also think some people are reachable after the age of six.  At six, I was a Christian, but I gradually became an atheist.  Not that anyone person "reached" me and caused a conversion, although obviously my transformation involved a lot of discussion with both atheists and theists.  I don't know.  Perhaps I was predisposed to atheism.  The theist arguments, while inspirational, made no logical sense to me.  The atheist arguments interested me, and caused me to think.

Oh, certainly -- but 'reachable' implies 'willing to listen in the first place', and I'm always willing to respect 'willing to listen in the first place' even if it never gets to the point of 'reachable'.

And likewise, I was raised a Catholic, and throughout the 1970s I was a very devout young RC -- altar boy, lector, probably on track to be a deacon, and then John Paul II happened and I watched 'my' church turn reactionary and I just couldn't anymore.  Even so, it took drifting through Wicca and a sort of collision between Jeffersonian Deism and Discordianism before finally sitting down and having a good solid think about it and realizing that it was an explanation of the universe that was entirely unnecessary.

[aitm]

Respect is a difficult thing to truly do. I prefer the word considerate. I am considerate of "your" religion, but I do not respect it. There are one or three "religions" that are less intrusive so they can get a little more consideration, but respect implies, at least to me, a little bit of agreement.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Respect is a difficult thing to truly do. I prefer the word considerate. I am considerate of "your" religion, but I do not respect it. There are one or three "religions" that are less intrusive so they can get a little more consideration, but respect implies, at least to me, a little bit of agreement.

They EARN respect, it's not granted without cause. Too many people do, in deed, grant respect without reason. They should use a different word for that, like "ImTooLazyToReason" or some such.

[Baruch]

Oh, certainly -- but 'reachable' implies 'willing to listen in the first place', and I'm always willing to respect 'willing to listen in the first place' even if it never gets to the point of 'reachable'.

And likewise, I was raised a Catholic, and throughout the 1970s I was a very devout young RC -- altar boy, lector, probably on track to be a deacon, and then John Paul II happened and I watched 'my' church turn reactionary and I just couldn't anymore.  Even so, it took drifting through Wicca and a sort of collision between Jeffersonian Deism and Discordianism before finally sitting down and having a good solid think about it and realizing that it was an explanation of the universe that was entirely unnecessary.

Same thing happened to my Ex ... she saw Catholicism as potentially progressive.  Then the Curia chose a Pope outside of Italy, because there wasn't any Italian clergy conservative enough for them ;-(  Pope John XXIII was their last chance, and he nearly made it.

[Cavebear]

The problem is that most theists can't discuss things rationally.  In another forum, a theist just said (in totality) "John something" as if that was proof I was wrong. No discussion, no explanation, just a quote from the very book we were arguing did not exist as proof of Jesus. 

I don't understand these people.  There is NO rational thought in any of them. 

[SGOS]

The problem is that most theists can't discuss things rationally.  In another forum, a theist just said (in totality) "John something" as if that was proof I was wrong. No discussion, no explanation, just a quote from the very book we were arguing did not exist as proof of Jesus. 

I don't understand these people.  There is NO rational thought in any of them. 

When they do attempt to engage, the discussion that ensues is a stew of confusion, a fact here, an wild assertion there, and a host of logical fallacies.  If I let my mind become that disorganized, I would go crazy.

One way to deal with such chaos is to look for something that tells you it has all the answers and says, "Don't worry.  There is a plan, and everything is under control."  We hear this from politicians, dictators, priests, and televangelists (people who want to be recognized as necessary for your own personal well being).  Religion is a defense against the chaos of a disorganized mind.

Try and have a debate with a theist, and if you can draw them out, you will see the chaos.  It takes the familiar shape of a discussion the makes no sense.  Faith in a god of some sort is the remedy they use to deal with it.

[Cavebear]

I am aware of their chaotic thinking.  That is the whole frustration.

[Baruch]

I am aware of their chaotic thinking.  That is the whole frustration.

Voltaire said .. those who can be convinced of absurdities, can be persuaded to commit atrocities ;-(

[Cavebear]

Makes sense, I even save worms from the driveway after it rains hard.

[Baruch]

Makes sense, I even save worms from the driveway after it rains hard.

I tend to be kind to animals also, even insects.  But humans?  Maybe lower than insects ;-)

[Cavebear]

Try and have a debate with a theist, and if you can draw them out, you will see the chaos.  It takes the familiar shape of a discussion the makes no sense.  Faith in a god of some sort is the remedy they use to deal with it.

I had a couple of theists (JWs) visit a couple of months ago.  They were not prepared for me.  For starters, I was wearing my American Atheist hat and directed their attention to it.  You would think I had answered the door with a gun in my hand!

And I was quite polite.  No yelling or anything, just nice awkward questions.  They were disturbed but unsure how to proceed with their usual spiel.  I didn't help them with that any.

After about 30 minutes of discussion, they admitted they should send a male "brother" to discuss things further.

That was sexist.  And I'm still waiting for the more talented "brother" to knock on my door some Saturday. 

Such pathetic superstition fools...