Should theists be treated like ordinary humans?



Consider:

Theists are directly or indirectly making the claim that they know God, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

In my opinion, this is as special and as advanced as it gets, for earthly terms.

As such, theists are special people, a category apart from others.

From this, it follows that they should be treated differently than ordinary people who don't (claim to) know God.

For example, such different treatment would mean to avoid them whenever possible, and otherwise to limit contact with them as much as possible.
To reciprocate with the same hostile and exlusivist elitism they have toward ordinary people.



Yes, or No?

Should theists be treated like ordinary humans?



Consider:

Theists are directly or indirectly making the claim that they know God, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

In my opinion, this is as special and as advanced as it gets, for earthly terms.

As such, theists are special people, a category apart from others.

From this, it follows that they should be treated differently than ordinary people who don't (claim to) know God.

For example, such different treatment would mean to avoid them whenever possible, and otherwise to limit contact with them as much as possible.
To reciprocate with the same hostile and exlusivist elitism they have toward ordinary people.



Yes, or No?

No. :)

If we where into exclusivist then we would not be out there trying our best to encourage atheists to come join us.

And We are Ordinary people. The majority of the worlds population are Theist, or into some form of spirit world belief. Sometimes you atheists forget that you are on a world wide scale a small minority.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I would say that beliefs, in god(s) religion, spiritualism, or whatever, should grant no benefit or exemption from any law or system imposed on others.

So if there is a motorcycle helmet law, and you are a Sikh with a Turban, you have a choice, find a way to wear the helmet, or do not ride a motorcycle. Also, as regular people aren't allowed to carry weapons, the kirpan needs to be left at home too.

There should be no exemptions granted to pursuing one's job, because of religious sensibilities,.... in the UK we've had Christian fundies refusing to perform same sex unions in registry offices. Luckily, the plaintiffs have been judged against in these cases, while it might be their choice to not engage in same sex unions themselves, they do not have the right to deny others.

I also think that all activities should be taxed equally,.. church collection plates,.. vicars salaries, the interest in the bank accounts of churches, same as businesses operate. Religions sell entertainment. If I pay VAT on a cinema ticket and get entertained for 90 minutes, a church service that people stick money on a tray to see should also get taxed, no exemption.

So everyone should be treated the same under the law, regardless of belief. How you choose to react to people that believe, and proselytise a load of old arse however, is your personal choice. I tend to slam the door in their face when they disturb me and wave a bible in my direction.

Should theists be treated like ordinary humans?



Consider:

Theists are directly or indirectly making the claim that they know God, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

In my opinion, this is as special and as advanced as it gets, for earthly terms.

As such, theists are special people, a category apart from others.

From this, it follows that they should be treated differently than ordinary people who don't (claim to) know God.

For example, such different treatment would mean to avoid them whenever possible, and otherwise to limit contact with them as much as possible.
To reciprocate with the same hostile and exlusivist elitism they have toward ordinary people.



Yes, or No?

you're psychotic.

you're psychotic.

Not really, he's exploring the converse parallel of 'heretic' or 'heathen'. Seems odd, when he says it that way, but it's not really any different to the status believers have historically attributed to others.

Not really, he's exploring the converse parallel of 'heretic' or 'heathen'. Seems odd, when he says it that way, but it's not really any different to the status believers have historically attributed to others.

the psychotic part is why would he want to do that.

do you think signal's really this fucked in the head, or do you think he's a troll? because if he's a troll, he's been trolling this way for years and years.

I vote troll.

In my opinion, this is as special and as advanced as it gets, for earthly terms.

Assuming God exists..

Or did you mean they are 'special people' in another way? :D

do you think signal's really this fucked in the head, or do you think he's a troll? because if he's a troll, he's been trolling this way for years and years.

Excuse me, but one could say the same about you.

Excuse me, but one could say the same about you.

no you couldn't. i'm not lying about anything. i'm not out here saying "oh i'm so desperate and miserable looking for answers" and lying about it.

no you couldn't. i'm not lying about anything. i'm not out here saying "oh i'm so desperate and miserable looking for answers" and lying about it.
Says you.

Says you.

and you call yourself a moderator?

and you call yourself a moderator?
Nope.

Nope.

good. or you might want to do something about signal, cause he's a fucking troll.

good. or you might want to do something about signal, cause he's a fucking troll.
Read your visitor messages.

the psychotic part is why would he want to do that.

It's not like he's proposing an 'Atheist Inquisition' and torturing those of faith, nor a Crusade, and sacking a Holy City in the name of atheism, nor promoting violence amongst sects, or any of the other things religion is guilty of, so he's hardly psychotic.

Should theists be treated like ordinary humans?



Consider:

Theists are directly or indirectly making the claim that they know God, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

In my opinion, this is as special and as advanced as it gets, for earthly terms.

As such, theists are special people, a category apart from others.

From this, it follows that they should be treated differently than ordinary people who don't (claim to) know God.

For example, such different treatment would mean to avoid them whenever possible, and otherwise to limit contact with them as much as possible.
To reciprocate with the same hostile and exlusivist elitism they have toward ordinary people.



Yes, or No?

I don't think they are any different than a baseball player who believes his lucky hat is the cause of his win.

Should theists be treated like ordinary humans?

That's a rather bizarre question in my opinion.


Consider:

Theists are directly or indirectly making the claim that they know God, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Or at least theists are saying that they believe in such a thing. They may or may not be claiming personal contact with it.


In my opinion, this is as special and as advanced as it gets, for earthly terms.

Only if you believe what they say. This rather strange line of thinking is totally dependent on the truth of the theists' claims. As such, it's a line of thinking that would only occur to a theist.


As such, theists are special people, a category apart from others.

Sure. If there really is a divinity, and if this divinity actually communicates with them and not with everyone else, then you would probably be right. You seem to be describing something like Mohammed or a biblical prophet, perhaps.


From this, it follows that they should be treated differently than ordinary people who don't (claim to) know God.

"It follows" how, exactly?

This whole argument assumes two unstated but implicit premises --> first, that the theist claims are indeed true, and second, that the rest of us should know that they are true.

That's a pretty big leap.


For example, such different treatment would mean to avoid them whenever possible, and otherwise to limit contact with them as much as possible.

Why in the world would I want to do that?

Look, if I believed that a "god" truly exists, then I would already be a pretty solid "theist". If I was convinced that some theists out there "know" this god in some way while I don't, then I'd probably want to seek those more fortunate theists out, not avoid them.


To reciprocate with the same hostile and exlusivist elitism they have toward ordinary people.

I'm happy to say that theists are among my closest friends and associates. None of them behave like you describe.


Yes, or No?

No.

It's not like he's proposing an 'Atheist Inquisition' and torturing those of faith, nor a Crusade, and sacking a Holy City in the name of atheism, nor promoting violence amongst sects, or any of the other things religion is guilty of, so he's hardly psychotic.

the basis of the behavior is the mentality. does he actually posses that same mentality or is he a troll?

if he's a troll, his behavior has been to repeatedly come out here and lie FOR YEARS about the same thing. and i'm sorry, but that's flippin' weird.

something does NOT add up with signal.

Assuming God exists..

We don't know.
But the threat of God is the utmost threat that there can be. That is something to consider.



Or did you mean they are 'special people' in another way?

I certainly didn't suggest anything to do with the way the Nazis gave the Jews a "special treatment" or "special" the way children in special ed are "special".

Personally, I don't see a way to be friends with a theist. Although I have had theists tell me they are my "friends".
I even keep a distance to those relatives of mine who are theists.


But recently, I had a clash with a theist, and it made me second-guess my current attitude. Perhaps I had treated him too impersonally.
Perhaps I should have viewed him as more human, a person with needs, interests and concerns, a person with feelings. Because as it was, I treated him strictly as a theist, and the only interaction we had was concerning discussion of theistic topics and related.
From the beginning on, I had the impression that to him, I was just a person he preached to, a faceless, nameless entity who is supposed to simply believe what he said about God and theism. I had given him the credit that he knows what he is talking about, and even though his treatment hurt me, I went along. After all, if he is right, my hurt wouldn't matter.

I don't know. Perhaps theists want to be treated as some abstract entities after all. Perhaps they are so advanced that they are beyond personal needs, interests and concerns. It's difficult to talk to them about such things, and they take offense easily.

We don't know.
But the threat of God is the utmost threat that there can be. That is something to consider.

Theocracy is indeed a threat to human liberty.

This whole argument assumes two unstated but implicit premises --> first, that the theist claims are indeed true, and second, that the rest of us should know that they are true.

What option is there but to essentially take people at face value?

Granted, often enough, we can see for ourselves whether someone is what they claim to be - this is so in mundane matters.

It's just that in the case of theism, the situation is categorically different. One cannot really prove whether the theists are right or wrong, whether they are what they claim to be. They are referring to an authority to which an ordinary person has no access. But if they are right, then we, the ordinary people, are doomed.

To me, everything a theist says carries special weight - because it was said by a theist.
If an ordinary person says something to me, nice or mean, I can evaluate it for myself and do as I see fit.
But with a theist, I can never know what I am up against, or what relevance their statement might have. I think it has to be presumed that a theist always has or at least might have God behind them, supporting the theist. (They, after all, often enough say so directly, or imply it.)



I'm happy to say that theists are among my closest friends and associates. None of them behave like you describe.

Good for you, then, I suppose.

I'm happy to say that theists are among my closest friends and associates. None of them behave like you describe.

Do you mean that you and your theist friends and associates view eachother as persons with needs, interests and concerns, as persons with feelings?

How do you contextualize their theism?

Do you not feel threatened by it in any way?
Have they never used their theism as a justification for mistreating you?

What option is there but to essentially take people at face value?

Try to be a little less credulous and a bit more discerning?


Granted, often enough, we can see for ourselves whether someone is what they claim to be - this is so in mundane matters.

It's just that in the case of theism, the situation is categorically different. One cannot really prove whether the theists are right or wrong, whether they are what they claim to be. They are referring to an authority to which an ordinary person has no access. But if they are right, then we, the ordinary people, are doomed.

That depends on the theology that the theist is espousing, I guess.


To me, everything a theist says carries special weight - because it was said by a theist.

Somewhere deep inside you, I think that part of you believes what they tell you. And unfortunately, you seem to listen most attentively to the hellfire and damnation types. You appear to fear God more than you love him.

I wasn't raised in a Christian home and never grew up believing any of it. So to me, "theists" (whatever that word refers to) are just part of the mix, part of the world's religious diversity. Lots of people believe lots of very different and often contradictory things, some of it more credible than others.

So I just call'em the way that I see'em. Tha's all that I can do. I don't worry about it. Theists are no more authoritative, and no more threatening, to me than anyone else that I pass every day in the street. They just happen to believe things that I don't. That's true of pretty much everyone, I guess.

Do you mean that you and your theist friends and associates view eachother as persons with needs, interests and concerns, as persons with feelings?

Of course.


How do you contextualize their theism?

I'm not sure what question you are asking there.

Most of the Christians and Jews that I know are very secular people. I relate to them through the events of our lives, working for the same employer, through similar avocational interests, through discussing the news and sports, through family, and similar things. Religion isn't typically the foremost thing in any of our minds.

I do have more formal interests in the area of religion, and I do discuss the subject with religious believers of all sorts. But in academic contexts at least, everyone gives everyone else room and nobody seems to be overly concerned when others don't believe precisely as they do. As I've said before, my thesis supervisor was a former Catholic priest with a Doctorate in Sacred Theology no less. We got along very well.


Do you not feel threatened by it in any way?

No. I find it kind of fascinating.


Have they never used their theism as a justification for mistreating you?

I don't recall that ever happening in my life. People have mistreated me now and then, but never for religious reasons.

Should theists be treated like ordinary humans

If they weren't the majority, it might make sense to treat them as handicap.

But they are not ordinary, they are extraordinary. They think that their path will lead them to the light while we're going to rot in our miserable world that on one hand resembles paradise, but on the other hand looks like hell, they're so amazing that they think that paradise and hell's somewhere else, up or below -- doesn't really matter, what matters is that it has to be somewhere else, although one could claim that we're already in the eye of the tornado, but we ought to reach our hands out for something that we can't reach one way or the other; human nature is pretty arrogant, or maybe I should rather say insatiable?

Should theists be treated like ordinary humans?



Consider:

Theists are directly or indirectly making the claim that they know God, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

In my opinion, this is as special and as advanced as it gets, for earthly terms.

As such, theists are special people, a category apart from others.

From this, it follows that they should be treated differently than ordinary people who don't (claim to) know God.

For example, such different treatment would mean to avoid them whenever possible, and otherwise to limit contact with them as much as possible.
To reciprocate with the same hostile and exlusivist elitism they have toward ordinary people.



Yes, or No?

We could always put them in a mental institution.

Avoidance is the key, Signal, when possible, as nothing or very little can be done about their condition of belief. For proof, see SciForums or life.

We don't know.
But the threat of God is the utmost threat that there can be. That is something to consider.
Well, again, only if he actually exists. I don't perceive 'the threat of God' to be any sort of real threat.


I certainly didn't suggest anything to do with the way the Nazis gave the Jews a "special treatment" or "special" the way children in special ed are "special".
I was only joking, of course ;)


Personally, I don't see a way to be friends with a theist. Although I have had theists tell me they are my "friends".
I even keep a distance to those relatives of mine who are theists.
How come? Most theists are not that outgoing about their beliefs. I've been friends with religious people and their religion hardly ever came up. It certainly didn't create any problems.
You seem to be generalizing here.


But recently, I had a clash with a theist, and it made me second-guess my current attitude.
[..]
Perhaps I should have viewed him as more human, a person with needs, interests and concerns, a person with feelings.
Yes, you should have. I mean, come on. You see theists as some sort of sub-human creatures? :bugeye:


I don't know. Perhaps theists want to be treated as some abstract entities after all. Perhaps they are so advanced that they are beyond personal needs, interests and concerns. It's difficult to talk to them about such things, and they take offense easily.
*raising eyebrows*
Are you serious?

Whosoever attempts to strike fear into someone using the "Power of God" is doubly foolish. One insists you are naive with words and have false pretenses over what God actually is. And two because all one has to do to give up the fear is stop believing. If god is the only thing you fear. Give him up and live with nothing. Pick up your dragging, lost, agnostic mind and let it roam free through limbo. Not attached to any belief or desire. Completely independent from the universe itself.

Then choose to believe in something deep within yourself. The "I" that does the thinking.

We all think pretty much the same things. Why show emotions at all towards other people. Probably my largest pet peeve. Someone showing emotions that are too strong for the moment or too soft for a lifetime. Those lips you should have kissed, or those bitter words that came harshly spoken yet well meant. Pointless wastes of time that cause people to forget that we are only people.

Do you mean that you and your theist friends and associates view eachother as persons with needs, interests and concerns, as persons with feelings?

How do you contextualize their theism?

Do you not feel threatened by it in any way?
Have they never used their theism as a justification for mistreating you?

Sounds like you were wronged . Ass holes come in all types . I have been known to be a little ass holish my self . If I ever hurt you ' I am sorry . People do stupid things . We are people . We make mistakes . Hopefully we learn from mistakes

We could always put them in a mental institution.

I say no no no

Just ignore them; nothing can work on them.

How come? Most theists are not that outgoing about their beliefs. I've been friends with religious people and their religion hardly ever came up. It certainly didn't create any problems.
You seem to be generalizing here.

Like I said, I'm talking about my experiences.

But you are from the Netherlands and Yazata is from California. Perhaps you should try out the Bible Belt, or Ireland or Poland or some parts of Germany, just so that you can get an idea ...



Yes, you should have. I mean, come on. You see theists as some sort of sub-human creatures?

No, but I do see them as a different category. In my experience, this is what they themselves want anyway (they, the believers in God, vs. us, the worldly people).

That depends on the theology that the theist is espousing, I guess.

In my experience, not really. Whether they preach eternal damnation to non-believers or such criteria for coming to faith that are not under one's control, the result is in roundabout the same. You go to hell, or you never get it right, either way, you're doomed.




How do you contextualize their theism?

I'm not sure what question you are asking there.

You partly answered it above, when you said -


I wasn't raised in a Christian home and never grew up believing any of it. So to me, "theists" (whatever that word refers to) are just part of the mix, part of the world's religious diversity. Lots of people believe lots of very different and often contradictory things, some of it more credible than others.

So I just call'em the way that I see'em. Tha's all that I can do. I don't worry about it. Theists are no more authoritative, and no more threatening, to me than anyone else that I pass every day in the street. They just happen to believe things that I don't. That's true of pretty much everyone, I guess.



Somewhere deep inside you, I think that part of you believes what they tell you. And unfortunately, you seem to listen most attentively to the hellfire and damnation types.

True, and I think this comes from my worst-case-scenario reasoning.



You appear to fear God more than you love him.

I'd say I am one of those people who don't believe in God, but who fear Him anyway.

I heard a tidbit from an anthropologist once who was studying Arctic natives. An elder told him, after some discussion on their beliefs - "we don't believe, we fear".



I wasn't raised in a Christian home and never grew up believing any of it. So to me, "theists" (whatever that word refers to) are just part of the mix, part of the world's religious diversity. Lots of people believe lots of very different and often contradictory things, some of it more credible than others.

So I just call'em the way that I see'em. Tha's all that I can do. I don't worry about it. Theists are no more authoritative, and no more threatening, to me than anyone else that I pass every day in the street. They just happen to believe things that I don't. That's true of pretty much everyone, I guess.

Actually, I had made a deliberate effort to help myself, and looked up some literature on living in a multicultural society, education for tolerance and such.
And although it all generally made sense, I could not integrate it - as such integration would mean that I myself would be neutral, not have a culture of my own. Much of the tolerance talk seems to imply that tolerance and respect for others can only come at the cost of respect for oneself.

Do you know any useful literature on this topic?

Found this:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religious-pluralism/
Will study it, and see.

"3. Religious Diversity and Epistemic Obligation" - that is the kind of thing I am interested in.

Should theists be treated like ordinary humans?



Consider:

Theists are directly or indirectly making the claim that they know God, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

In my opinion, this is as special and as advanced as it gets, for earthly terms.

As such, theists are special people, a category apart from others.

From this, it follows that they should be treated differently than ordinary people who don't (claim to) know God.

For example, such different treatment would mean to avoid them whenever possible, and otherwise to limit contact with them as much as possible.
To reciprocate with the same hostile and exlusivist elitism they have toward ordinary people.



Yes, or No?

1) Hang all theists (along with a few commies, liberals and rednecks for the sake of balance)
2) Hang a token gypsy so they don't feel left out
3) Throw the hanged theists et al in pits of burning lye just to ensure they are properly dead
4) Then just go about your own business knowing that the evil theists are no threat to your own picaresque world view


Or go straight to 4 and have a nice day. :D

4) Then just go about your own business knowing that the evil theists are no threat to your own picaresque world view

Or go straight to 4 and have a nice day. :D

This is what I find so fascinating - How do people arrive at such a stance?

How does someone dismiss other people's religiousness?

Somehow, you have come to the point where your personal ethics and philosophy override other people's ethics and philosophy.


As an example: How would you treat a member of the royal family if you somehow met them in a private setting (say, a birthday party at your friends)? Would you keep more distance to them than to other people whom you have also met there for the first time?
If they had food between their teeth, would you tell them?

Somehow, you have come to the point where your personal ethics and philosophy override other people's ethics and philosophy.
Of course. It's your life, Signal! Wake up and take control of it.

1) Hang all theists (along with a few commies, liberals and rednecks for the sake of balance)
2) Hang a token gypsy so they don't feel left out
3) Throw the hanged theists et al in pits of burning lye just to ensure they are properly dead
4) Then just go about your own business knowing that the evil theists are no threat to your own picaresque world view


Or go straight to 4 and have a nice day. :D
You fucker ! The Token Gypsy is tired of being hung. You think that is the what is going to Make me feel excepted . That sounds similar to all the people that think I should commit suicide. What if I don't your going to hang Me now ? Good look with that one . I am kind of a tough ass amber bastard. I shoot flames out my ass. I learned from a guy named Baron Chapman . F--ck that guy love to fight . I love em anyway , He be my good buddy if he is still alive . We were not that friendly when we were growing up . Latter after we got older he said " It was not just Me Mike and all I could say was "I know Baron" I bare the Burden too . Then He said " We got to stick together then bought Me a drink.
Your a funny person Sniffy . What exactly you be sniffing. Underwear I bet!

This is what I find so fascinating - How do people arrive at such a stance?

How does someone dismiss other people's religiousness?

Somehow, you have come to the point where your personal ethics and philosophy override other people's ethics and philosophy.

Not really. I'm rarely interested in dominating other people or in bending them to my will. But equally, I feel no need to agree with everything that other people say, just because they say it.

Not letting other people's views override my own isn't the same thing as trying to override their views with mine.


As an example: How would you treat a member of the royal family if you somehow met them in a private setting (say, a birthday party at your friends)? Would you keep more distance to them than to other people whom you have also met there for the first time?

Your analogy is kind of flawed, unless we assume that theists are royalty among humans. I most emphatically don't believe that.

As for your question, if it was a young couple like Will and Kate, I'd be very impressed that my friend knew them. I'd probably feel a little sorry for them, if truth be told. If they were at a civilian party here in California, hosted by a non-celebrity (none of my friends are celebrities) I'd assume that they were trying to live like normal people for a little while, as best they can in their circumstances. So I'd treat them like normal people and socialize with them freely. I'd assume that was why they were there. I'd try to make them feel comfortable and among friends.

But again, your intended analogy between theists and royals doesn't hold. Totally different situations.


If they had food between their teeth, would you tell them?

I'd probably have some hesitation about saying something that might embarass anybody, unless we'd had a few beers first. Then we'd probably all laugh about it. Their being British royals wouldn't have a whole lot to do with that.

As an example: How would you treat a member of the royal family if you somehow met them in a private setting (say, a birthday party at your friends)? Would you keep more distance to them than to other people whom you have also met there for the first time?
If they had food between their teeth, would you tell them?

I wouldn't treat them any different than I would treat anyone else.

How does someone dismiss other people's religiousness?


Well i dont dismiss anything about a person. Someone i meet on the road i really could care less...not my job. Not a dismissal though.




As an example: How would you treat a member of the royal family if you somehow met them in a private setting (say, a birthday party at your friends)? Would you keep more distance to them than to other people whom you have also met there for the first time?
If they had food between their teeth, would you tell them?

Why tell anyone they have food stuck in their teeth?

Your a funny person Sniffy . What exactly you be sniffing. Underwear I bet!

My own armpit mostly.

Still 4. is about right I reckon.

Well i dont dismiss anything about a person. Someone i meet on the road i really could care less...not my job. Not a dismissal though.





Why tell anyone they have food stuck in their teeth?

Your best friend will tell you . If they take it out so be it if they don't so be it , but at least you were told . I care about people on the road because I am on the road my self

I wouldn't treat them any different than I would treat anyone else.

Kill em all Aye. I hear you Netherlands girls are hot sizzling sex freaks . Must be the cold weather , or maybe just rumors?

Not really. I'm rarely interested in dominating other people or in bending them to my will. But equally, I feel no need to agree with everything that other people say, just because they say it.

Not letting other people's views override my own isn't the same thing as trying to override their views with mine.

I'm not talking about prevailing over others in actual face-to-face debate.

In the privacy of your own mind, your personal ethics and philosophy do override other people's - do they not? At least from what you say, I infer this to be the case.

What interests me is how a person comes to the point of not letting other people's views - and will - override one's own.



...
It is curious that we accept the limitations of a material world, but we hate submitting to the will of another, and we hate submitting to the intellect of another. We are right to resist being abused or dominated or controlled, but I have argued that there is nothing wrong with submitting to the intellect of another just because it is the intellect of another and not our own. Submission to a will is a more complicated case because submission implies a will to submit. We can have a will to submit to the intellect of another, and we can have a will to submit to the will of another. I do not see that there is anything inconsistent in refusing to do the latter, but neither do I know of a plausible argument in favor of refusing to submit to the will of another either.

Zagzebski, Ethical and Epistemic Egoism and the Ideal of Autonomy (http://www.ou.edu/ouphil/faculty/zagzebski/zagzebski.html)

When a theist summons you to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior - what exactly is that stops you from doing so?

Many people (as witnessed in this thread) seem to take for granted their will matters and should, at least internally, override other people's will.
But how does that happen? How have they arrived at that point? How can those with self-doubts arrive at that point too?

Apart from taking for granted that one has epistemic and ethical autonomy, there seems to be no reason for not submitting to the intellect and will of others.



But again, your intended analogy between theists and royals doesn't hold. Totally different situations.

Then how to account for the possibility that theists may be right?

Why tell anyone they have food stuck in their teeth?

Would you like that someone would tell you if you had food stuck in your teeth (or some other similarly embarrassing thing about appearance - a displaced toupe, open fly, ...)?

One of the problems that atheist recruitment faces, is it is a strict and clannish religion that repels people. I doube anyone was ever recruited from religion on this site. Atheism is very negative and full of grouchy people. Religions grow and renew themselves for centuries because they know how to be nice and inclusive; even the atheists are welcome.

As an helpful exercise for the atheists, maybe we can practice good manners and open discourse. I am getting the impression the heathens are still semi-savage. I finally understand why the animal standard is so important; atheist are not that far away and should be given liberty until they evolve further. Once they evolve then other options can open up.

Mekigal and Sniffy a match made in heaven...um...ooops I am an agnostic, a match made in sciforums!

One of the problems that atheist recruitment faces, is it is a strict and clannish religion that repels people.
Still peddling that idiocy I see...
It is not a religion.


Atheism is very negative and full of grouchy people.
Balls.


As an helpful exercise for the atheists, maybe we can practice good manners and open discourse. I am getting the impression the heathens are still semi-savage. I finally understand why the animal standard is so important; atheist are not that far away and should be given liberty until they evolve further. Once they evolve then other options can open up.
You're an idiot. A particularly stupid one at that.

Mekigal and Sniffy a match made in heaven...um...ooops I am an agnostic, a match made in sciforums!
The way soft fruit and a blender go together?

Religions grow and renew themselves for centuries because they know how to be nice and inclusive threaten people with eternal hellfire and damnation; even the atheists are welcome other theists who don't believe as they do.
Fixed.

Fixed.

Damn gmilam you must know my family!:p Just think if theists are willing to sentence their own children to hell and damnation for not believing as they do then what kind of apes they must have evolved from! I am thinking wellwishers relatives just recently climbed out of the trees!

The way soft fruit and a blender go together?

Yes just like that! Like a and theist!


Dywyddyr, I think Sniffy may just be able to translate MeKiGal and I will finally figure out why I always laugh at his posts!

I'm not talking about prevailing over others in actual face-to-face debate.

In the privacy of your own mind, your personal ethics and philosophy do override other people's - do they not? At least from what you say, I infer this to be the case.

I don't automatically believe everything that other people tell me.

That isn't "overriding" another person's ethics and philosophy. Nothing has been "overridden". They still have their ethics and their philosophy.

I just don't automatically overwrite the other person's ideas on top of my own. I would need to have some convincing reason why I should do that.


What interests me is how a person comes to the point of not letting other people's views - and will - override one's own.

Maybe they aren't convinced that the new idea is true or ethical or desirable or something. There could be any number of reasons for one person not agreeing with another person.

If you expect everyone to accept, believe and do whatever they are told, then what's possessed you to argue with me?

One of the problems that atheist recruitment faces, is it is a strict and clannish religion that repels people. I doube anyone was ever recruited from religion on this site. Atheism is very negative and full of grouchy people. Religions grow and renew themselves for centuries because they know how to be nice and inclusive; even the atheists are welcome.

As an helpful exercise for the atheists, maybe we can practice good manners and open discourse. I am getting the impression the heathens are still semi-savage. I finally understand why the animal standard is so important; atheist are not that far away and should be given liberty until they evolve further. Once they evolve then other options can open up.

What exactly are you saying? Could you translate it into more direct terms?

I don't automatically believe everything that other people tell me.

How did you come to that stance and practice?



That isn't "overriding" another person's ethics and philosophy. Nothing has been "overridden". They still have their ethics and their philosophy.

If a person tells you to do X, but you don't do X, then we can say that your own personal ethics and philosophy has overriden theirs.



I just don't automatically overwrite the other person's ideas on top of my own. I would need to have some convincing reason why I should do that.

The concept being discussed is "override".



Maybe they aren't convinced that the new idea is true or ethical or desirable or something. There could be any number of reasons for one person not agreeing with another person.

Interesting. And you grew up in a society/culture where disagreeing with others doesn't necessarily imply that you are criminal, bad or insane?



If you expect everyone to accept, believe and do whatever they are told, then what's possessed you to argue with me?

My immediate reaction is to think "Because I am rebellious, evil. If I would be a good person, I would do as others tell me."
I just became aware of this. It's what I was taught from early on.

No. :)If we where into exclusivist then we would not be out there trying our best to encourage atheists to come join us.
And We are Ordinary people. The majority of the worlds population are Theist, or into some form of spirit world belief. Sometimes you atheists forget that you are on a world wide scale a small minority.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I agree! If they carried out that fantasy (ie isolating theists or spiritual people) the demographics of spiritual vs atheists of the world would look no different. Atheists would remain a very small, in fact the very smallest of minorities, and the religious of the world would cover the earth. A much better question would be how can Christians help atheists rid themselves of the mantle; 'the most hated and mistrusted minority of the world'* Most atheists do not deserve that title. I am a live and let live type. Christians have been persecuted and are persecuted throughout history. We do not want a repeat of our history to befall atheists even if their paradigm is diametrically opposed to ours.

* since I can not post url Google study, mistrusted minority etc

rev

Atheists would remain a very small, in fact the very smallest of minorities
False.


help atheists rid themselves of the mantle; 'the most hated and mistrusted minority of the world'*
* since I can not post url Google study, mistrusted minority etc
Also false.

That study refers to the USA (as does, I assume, your claim that atheists are "the smallest of minorities").
I think, if you bother to look, that you'll find that the USA is not (and this may come as a shock to you) the entire world.

Interesting. And you grew up in a society/culture where disagreeing with others doesn't necessarily imply that you are criminal, bad or insane?

My immediate reaction is to think "Because I am rebellious, evil. If I would be a good person, I would do as others tell me."
I just became aware of this. It's what I was taught from early on.
Sounds like you were raised in a closed community of some sort. Mennonite maybe...

There are support groups to help people learn to live in "normal" society.

One of the problems that atheist recruitment faces, is it is a strict and clannish religion that repels people. I doube anyone was ever recruited from religion on this site. Atheism is very negative and full of grouchy people. Religions grow and renew themselves for centuries because they know how to be nice and inclusive; even the atheists are welcome.

As an helpful exercise for the atheists, maybe we can practice good manners and open discourse.

Well said. :)

Having been on this forum for years i have probably only seen 1 or two atheists who have come across as caring or polite.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Still peddling that idiocy I see...
It is not a religion.


Balls.


You're an idiot. A particularly stupid one at that.

LOL proving the point in replying to that post. How funny it is being grouchy and impolite while replying in the negative that atheists are grouchy and impolite.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I don't automatically believe everything that other people tell me.


How did you come to that stance and practice?

It's called native intelligence and fundamental sanity. Everyone is born with it, to a greater or lesser extent. I've never encountered anyone, child or adult, who always behaves as he's told to behave and believes as he's told to believe. We are human beings, not automatons.


If a person tells you to do X, but you don't do X, then we can say that your own personal ethics and philosophy has overriden theirs.

I don't agree.


The concept being discussed is "override".

The topic of this rather neurotic thread is "Should theists be treated like ordinary humans". The word "override" was yours, introduced during one of the stream-of-consciousness twists and turns that the thread subsequently took.

My point is that my not letting an evangelist's views overwrite and hence replace my own existing views is NOT overriding their views. Not in any conceivable way. They still have their own views, every one of them, totally pristine and intact. I'm just reserving my right to say the same thing, to possess views of my own.


Interesting. And you grew up in a society/culture where disagreeing with others doesn't necessarily imply that you are criminal, bad or insane?

Of course I didn't. Neither did you.

If a person tells you to do X, but you don't do X, then we can say that your own personal ethics and philosophy has overriden theirs.

I don't agree.

Then how would you describe what happens when you don't do as others tell you?

Do you conceptualize the situation as something like this: "Other people's personal ethics and philosophy are within the boundaries of their personal space and do not impinge on mine." -?


Generally, I tend to view communication in the metaphor of the exchange of chemicals, where each person throws chemicals at the other and also uses them for oneself. If dangerous chemicals are thrown, then unless one somehow neutralizes them or otherwise makes them harmless, one suffers.
(Hence the notion of overriding - if someone throws acid at you, you have to apply lye to yourself to neutralize the acid or you get burned.)



Of course I didn't. Neither did you.

I was certainly often made to feel guilty for expressing disagreement.