Why are religious people try converting us

[Moose]

It's all SIMPLE logic.

And I'm done with it. You can't use simple logic when dealing with theism. There's nothing simple about it.

 

Finite beings can't possibly comprehend it.

 

Besides, I usually don't say things like, "God did it", or "it just is" unless I have Scripture to back it up.

 

I'll tell you straight out that I don't know but Science will get closer and closer to finding out and it's my belief that God will reveal Himself in ALL things.

 

Take it or leave it is just fine by me, but calling my beliefs, "fairy tales" is just as bold as saying they're true if you don't have anything to offer as proof.

[shadowofman]

Ah.....screw it....without the Holy Spirit you wouldn't understand anyways.....(wipes dust off feet)

 

This is a good position to have. Since the holy spirit finds us unworthy to reveil itself to us, maybe we are hopeless. But we will continue to challenge these extraordiary claims, and something tells me you will feel compelled to defend them.

 

well, to be any sort of extremist, one must cut off all other interests to focus on that one particular thing, be it religion, food, sports, etc. So yeah, I follow what you're saying

 

In each of these instances critical thinking is fully fuctional, except religion. Food: Critical thinking tells you that two fish and some bread can not feed the masses, unless you use magic.

 

Chris Angel is not really making things disappear. ah, but he does a fantastic job of making the mind break out of the mold when it comes to expecting the obvious.

 

And religion does the same thing. They are called magic tricks for a reason.

 

Finite beings can't possibly comprehend it.

 

I wonder who is claiming to comprehend the universe. Not a single scientist, that is for sure. Theists are the ones claiming to know what is at the end of the rainbow. First heaven was in the sky. Then the cosmos. Now it is outside of space and time (whatever that means). As our observation methods get better and better, the God of the Gaps gets pushed into smaller and smaller spaces. I'm not saying there aren't undiscovered, invisible things all around us, but to claim you know what they are without demostratable evidence is foolish.

 

Take it or leave it is just fine by me, but calling my beliefs, "fairy tales" is just as bold as saying they're true if you don't have anything to offer as proof.

 

I know this guy that believes in fairies. Maybe it's mean, but I can't help but laugh at that. Maybe you are not the type of person to challenge his belief, but I am. And I give other beliefs the same treatment, I don't care how popular they are. Honestly, my intent is to never disrespect the person, but I must challenge and mock beliefs that I find silly. I expect the same from other people when discussing things that I have faith in (yes I do blindly believe in some things), and I will attempt to defend them to the best of my ability. That is until I am proven wrong.

[Rooster_DAR]

The question is how do you explain the unexplainable without a cop-out "god" answer?

 

They can't, it's always going to be a cop out God answer because they cannot produce any kind of solid material evidence.

 

Like I've always said, we are a direct product of how are parents brought us up and we harbor many of the traits and ideas of our family, god is just something that we learn and respect so we carry it into our adult lives without any real critical thought. Some people can deduce the facts while others choose to resort to the fiction they have learned to be the truth.

 

Religious nuts are going to defend their beliefs with all they have because it's what they really believe, it's not that easy to let go of something you embrace your whole life. Atheists nuts will continue to profess their beliefs as well.

 

Let them believe what they want as long as they do not harm anyone, this goes the same for us who understand what we believe.

 

Cheers!

[quankanne]

well, honey, of course religious "nuts" are going to defend their faith because they own it! Much like you'd defend something that was uniquely yours and someone was trying to take it away from you, ya know?

 

Common sense tells you that these things are impossible.

 

you're right about this being an empiricist society, but sometimes, man desires more than just getting what he sees, and he looks to the Supernatural to find those answers. Because what value does life have if it's only restricted to this plane of existence but you sense there's something more that can't be explained or rationalized away?

 

yes, common sense does explain what's possible and what's not possible, but faith is the trusting leap into the unknown. If we can (and are expected to) make that leap for something like love, which has no physical qualities or can be empirically measured, why is it so hard to allow that same leap for a belief in a personal God? Is it too much of a hassle to put self aside? Or demeaning to say there's something bigger than self?

[quankanne]

I will attempt to defend them to the best of my ability. That is until I am proven wrong.

 

so this means we can show utter disrespect for your position on spirituality because it's not mine? And spit on you and curse you because you don't fall in with my particular spiritual mindset? Because even though I can't give empirical evidence of the things I believe in, it doesn't mean they're not viable ... for ME. And when it comes down to base, that's the only person I need to worry about in spiritual matters. I don't walk your walk, you don't walk mine, and really, I don't give a damn what you think because my faith is my own. Just like your belief system is yours, and you shouldn't give a damn about what anyone else thinks.

[shadowofman]

so this means we can show utter disrespect for your position on spirituality because it's not mine? And spit on you and curse you because you don't fall in with my particular spiritual mindset? Because even though I can't give empirical evidence of the things I believe in, it doesn't mean they're not viable ... for ME. And when it comes down to base, that's the only person I need to worry about in spiritual matters. I don't walk your walk, you don't walk mine, and really, I don't give a damn what you think because my faith is my own. Just like your belief system is yours, and you shouldn't give a damn about what anyone else thinks.

 

Yes, you should show disrespect for positions on matters of irrationality. Never said that you should spit or curse, but you should call people out on silly beliefs. My disrespect does not go beyond civility. I may call you beliefs rediculous, and occationally I'll lose my cool and call you a name(sorry), but that is as far as it goes. And of course I would never force my beliefs upon anyone. I would be just as opposed to "There Is No God" on our money as I am "In God We Trust". That is secularism and the only moral option we have. Some people may think it's cute for an adult to believe in fairies (like my mother), but I think it's sad and I am compelled to express that.

Edited January 2, 2008 by shadowofman
sp

[Phateless]

well, honey, of course religious "nuts" are going to defend their faith because they own it! Much like you'd defend something that was uniquely yours and someone was trying to take it away from you, ya know?

 

Common sense tells you that these things are impossible.

 

you're right about this being an empiricist society, but sometimes, man desires more than just getting what he sees, and he looks to the Supernatural to find those answers. Because what value does life have if it's only restricted to this plane of existence but you sense there's something more that can't be explained or rationalized away?

 

yes, common sense does explain what's possible and what's not possible, but faith is the trusting leap into the unknown. If we can (and are expected to) make that leap for something like love, which has no physical qualities or can be empirically measured, why is it so hard to allow that same leap for a belief in a personal God? Is it too much of a hassle to put self aside? Or demeaning to say there's something bigger than self?

 

Love is by far the most apt comparison I have ever seen. Love is something we believe in but it is hard to conceptualize. The difference is that love is a PERSONAL thing, whereas God is claimed to affect everything in this life.

[shadowofman]

I actually disagree. Love is a very concrete thing, though most decide to ignore this fact. What we so conveniently call "love" is a complex cocktail of chemical reactions in the brain. We can manipulate this through physical means, therefore we know it is a physical response. Some rare people are incapable of expressing or experiencing "love" due to lack of the correct brain function.

 

It may not be romantic to look at it this way, but it's a fact. Not suggesting that we understand the brain fully, but enough evidence is there to support this fact. Love is concrete!

[Phateless]

Good point...

[quankanne]

sorry, I just don't buy that. Love is more than a biochemical cocktail, because it's more than just the sum of hormones or chemistry that "create" the feelings that comprise love. And besides which, it's just not possible outside a medical or scientific laboratory to access this love-producing cocktail, nor can it be replicated by science. Chocolate comes close in eliciting feelings of being in love, but there's absolutely, positively no way you can identify chocolate as love. Because chocolate can be empirically measured by the average Joe, love isn't.

 

however, love affects everyone, it's not limited to the beholder. It's a state of being dictates our words, our beliefs, our actions – even our society. So in that sense, I can easily make the connection between what I know of love with what I know of God!

 

Yes, you should show disrespect for positions on matters of irrationality … you should call people out on silly beliefs.

 

but that all goes back to who sets the standards, and why should I lower or raise myself to meet them when they don't accurately reflect me?

[JamesM]

 

but that all goes back to who sets the standards, and why should I lower or raise myself to meet them when they don't accurately reflect me?

 

...and who is to say that they represent reality? Interesting take on it. If there are no absolutes and all things are relative...as the latest philosophies would have us believe, then who sets the standards and how can we believe that they will be the same tomorrow?

 

Is it worth gambling the future of my soul for the popular theories of the present?

[DutchGuy]

sorry, I just don't buy that. Love is more than a biochemical cocktail, because it's more than just the sum of hormones or chemistry that "create" the feelings that comprise love. And besides which, it's just not possible outside a medical or scientific laboratory to access this love-producing cocktail, nor can it be replicated by science. Chocolate comes close in eliciting feelings of being in love, but there's absolutely, positively no way you can identify chocolate as love. Because chocolate can be empirically measured by the average Joe, love isn't.

 

however, love affects everyone, it's not limited to the beholder. It's a state of being dictates our words, our beliefs, our actions – even our society. So in that sense, I can easily make the connection between what I know of love with what I know of God!

 

Love is complex, it isn't reducible to a few components and it's difficult to define, but it's not as magical as you claim.

 

What is love really? A state of happiness caused by the presence and recognition of another person. A addiction-like happiness-inducing component of one's life that approximates the value of their own life.

 

But is this such a unique feeling? I don't think so.

Being in love is the same sort of feeling as being addicted to drugs or being at home, a comforting fulfilling feeling.

Losing a love is the same sort of feeling like going cold turkey or feeling homesick.

 

These loving feelings are a biological phenomenon and have a evolutionairy role and advantage. Mothers and babies have tons of hormones going through their bodies, just to make sure that the child will get to the age where it can reproduce on it's turn.

 

But biology has tendency to derail. So some people have no feelings of love or experience them all the time. Some people love their pet so deeply, they have no need for love with other humans. Some people love pain and humiliation and some people love Justin Timberlake or Beyoncé (not as in being a fan, but truly love them with all of their hart).

And some people, as I see it, love a god. They get loving feelings from the idea that a god loves them. They are filled with happiness if they think about their god.

[DutchGuy]

...and who is to say that they represent reality? Interesting take on it. If there are no absolutes and all things are relative...as the latest philosophies would have us believe, then who sets the standards and how can we believe that they will be the same tomorrow?

 

Is it worth gambling the future of my soul for the popular theories of the present?

 

Do you have a choice?

Isn't 'your soul' also a popular contemporary theory?

Christianity, Islam, Judism, Hinduism an Scientology, aren't these also popular contemporary theories?

 

Why gamble on God or Allah and not on Zeus?

Or do you feel like that theorie is dated?

[Rooster_DAR]

sorry, I just don't buy that. Love is more than a biochemical cocktail, because it's more than just the sum of hormones or chemistry that "create" the feelings that comprise love.

 

Love is an emotion based on chemical processes and has to be an evolutionary characteristic to induce pro-creation. I don't think it takes an Einstein to figure this out.

 

Someone please correct me if I'm incorrect with this belief.

[quankanne]

when you substitute the word "God" for "love" in this sentence, then you've defined faith:

 

Love is complex, it isn't reducible to a few components and it's difficult to define, but it's not as magical as you claim.

 

Love is an emotion based on chemical processes and has to be an evolutionary characteristic to induce pro-creation.

 

love has nothing to with procreation, because procreation is merely the act of sustaining/ensuring the presence and/or evolution of a species. Love is that extra oomph that makes the act of procreation much more enjoyable for the people involved. And if we want to argue evolution, then we can definitely include faith as an impetus for spiritual evolution

 

Isn't 'your soul' also a popular contemporary theory?

 

man is more than just a mere living, breathing organism, he has an intrinsic value. And that's based on his soul – if it were merely a theory, what need would there have been to have such a highly individualized species when a cookie-cutter male and a cookie-cutter female would suffice for propagation of species. For that matter, why would emotions like love even be necessary?

[quankanne]

Why gamble on God or Allah and not on Zeus?

 

because it's my relationship with my Creator, and the Catholic Christian concept of God is the one I choose to embrace because it makes sense to/for me.

[shadowofman]

Wow!

This is a very complex debate between people that are obviously from different planets, so I really don't think we could ever agree on any of this.

 

Love is a complex feeling. More complex than science is capable of understanding right now. We do know of several chemicals (not chocolate) that contribute to what we think love is, but let me first say that the word "love" is just a symbol. A sequence of letters that form a word. It's definition is different to different people and across different languages. Love of a parent is defined differently than love of a spouse, etc, etc.

 

All we really know is that humans become attacted to other humans, things, and ideas. We are also one of the most social species on the planet. It makes us feel good to look at our loves, touch them, think about them, etc. We know that serotonine, oxytocin, dopamine, and possibly hundreds of other chemicals and hormones are reacting in these cases. We know that children with extreme autism lack sufficiant amounts of these chemicals. We know that Down's Syndrome creates and abundance of some others.

 

Love is complex, it isn't reducible to a few components and it's difficult to define, but it's not magical

 

Perfect discription for what we currently know about it. No need to ascribe anything more to it than that.

 

love has nothing to with procreation, because procreation is merely the act of sustaining/ensuring the presence and/or evolution of a species. Love is that extra oomph that makes the act of procreation much more enjoyable for the people involved.

 

Sorry but I don't think you thought this statement through. Love is required for procreation in humans. Babies die without love. Unless you are a sea turtle. I guess I should have asked that first.

 

And if we want to argue evolution, then we can definitely include faith as an impetus for spiritual evolution

 

Oh, I agree that faith is an evolutionary progression in memes of humans, but I would say that it's been replaced by reason. That is were our planets differ. You rely on spiritual evolution, something I don't understand; I rely on memetics, or cultural evolution.

 

man is more than just a mere living, breathing organism, he has an intrinsic value. And that's based on his soul

 

No evidence for a soul. And some people would argue that other living breathing organisms have intrinsic value as well.

 

For that matter, why would emotions like love even be necessary?

 

I'm sure you will disagree, but love is not a uniquely human emotion. It's very mammalian. Maybe birds love. Maybe even some reptiles. Love is so obviously an advancement. It creates a bond that helps in the survival of species, herds, packs, troops, families. A well bonded groups is much more likely to succeed than an individual (in most cases).

 

If mothers didn't love their babies, they would turn blue. That's what I call nessessary.

Edited January 3, 2008 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Removed offensive remark

[shadowofman]

Yes, you should show disrespect for positions on matters of irrationality … you should call people out on silly beliefs.

 

But that all goes back to who sets the standards, and why should I lower or raise myself to meet them when they don't accurately reflect me?

 

I have no idea what you are talking about here. What I was suggesting, is that you should not repect my beliefs if you think they are silly. The standards are "what is reality" even if noone has it correct. Your opinions are what they are.

 

Let me start over. There is an absolute truth that we are attempting to discover. Forget all these "reality is relative" people, they are wrong. I think we can agree on that. Of all your life experience you have hedged a bet. Your bet is on the Catholic Church (forgive me if I got that wrong).

My bet is on naturalism, materialism, atheism, whatever you want to call it.

 

If we both encounter a person that believes in fairies (we probaby don't agree with this person), then it is my opinion that we should call out their belief as silly. Ignoring their claim is your choice, just as it is their choice to bet on this reality. My choice is to demand evidence, openly question them, and call them silly. I will respect the person and their right to choose silly beliefs, but I will not repect the belief.

 

This is the theory of memetics and the reason that "we try to convert". It's because we all think that we have it right and that we can enlighten others. It's completely natural and safe for us to do so, so long as we don't coerse through force or violence. Some would believe that it's their duty, as many Christians and I, myself believe. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Many people give Christians hell for conducting missions into third world countries, and I would agree that they are doing harm in regards to AIDS awareness and more. But I do not condemn them for spreading their memes. I would just rather see my scientific, humanist memes spread.

[JamesM]

 

Let me start over. There is an absolute truth that we are attempting to discover.

 

This is the theory of memetics and the reason that "we try to convert".

 

Many people give Christians hell for conducting missions into third world countries, and I would agree that they are doing harm in regards to AIDS awareness and more. But I do not condemn them for spreading their memes. I would just rather see my scientific, humanist memes spread.

 

Ahh, a man who has read Dawkins! Have you ever seen a meme? This theory is an attempt at explaining something that is not materialistic/naturalistic...correct?

 

How DO you pronounce that word anyhow? Me Me or meem?

[quankanne]

sorry but I don't think you thought this statement through. Love is required for procreation in humans. Babies die without love. Unless you are a sea turtle. I guess I should have asked that first.

 

*blushes*

sorry, I've gotten ahead of myself without laying foundation. When I say love isn't necessary for procreation, I'm thinking of all those kids conceived through abuse or rape, or "damn, the condom broke" during a meaningless fling. Conception occurs whether love is present or not.

 

what you point out about babies dying without love or affection is also a truth, because the average person needs that stimulation that comes with touch. But babies (the end product of procreation) are different from the act of procreation. ¿Entiendes?

[quankanne]

But that all goes back to who sets the standards, and why should I lower or raise myself to meet them when they don't accurately reflect me? I have no idea what you are talking about here. What I was suggesting, is that you should not repect my beliefs if you think they are silly. The standards are "what is reality" even if noone has it correct. Your opinions are what they are.

 

I'm talking about how standards vary from person to person, and I have a hard time condemning or poking fun of someone's spiritual belief (or lack of) when I understand that it's a highly personalized thing.

 

while I may not agree with a fairie-worshiping person, I'm not going to be so rude as to tell him he's silly for his belief, just point out that my belief differs – and why – if he asks. Because I'm not the one to set standards for him.

[shadowofman]

Ahh, a man who has read Dawkins! Have you ever seen a meme? This theory is an attempt at explaining something that is not materialistic/naturalistic...correct?

 

Actually, I haven't read much Dawkins. I learned of Memetics through Howard Bloom (my hero). Memetics is not science. It's totally a metaphor. And memes could be expressed physically, like circumcision. Memes are just cultural ideas. And cultural ideas "seem" to be more of a driving force in human evolution, then our genes currently are. Just a convienient concept, but totally not methodical science.

 

while I may not agree with a fairie-worshiping person, I'm not going to be so rude as to tell him he's silly for his belief, just point out that my belief differs – and why – if he asks. Because I'm not the one to set standards for him.

 

Maybe my disrespect come from having a fairy believing mother. I tell her to her face that she's stupid. I call her an omni persuasist, or a believer in everything. It's just not cute to me like it is to everyone else. It's sad.

[Citizen Erased]

Well I just got a nice little visit outside the shops. As my bf and I were getting out of the car, this woman accosts us (literally mid-getting out of the car) and tries to give us some flyers about some stupid Mormon "church" meeting. My bf said no thank you and she rudely said "Don't you believe in God?" The nerve of these people! He replied no, because he doesn't, and she went on, asking him does he believe in other religions, is he open to them, what he thinks happens when we die

 

So I got out of the car, stood fairly close to her and said "Nothing. When it is any of your business, then you can ask us again. Now leave us alone." She got all bitchy and in my face but when she saw the look on my face she backed down and left

 

Seriously, who does that at 7:00 at night? We were clearly in a rush, the area we live in is nice, but those sort of questions could easily get one's head kicked in

[shadowofman]

See, my W would have reacted the same way. In a rush is one thing. I would have just said, "No time, gotta run".

 

But if I did have time, I would have done the same thing I do in here. "Evangalized!"

[taiko]

Well I just got a nice little visit outside the shops. As my bf and I were getting out of the car, this woman accosts us (literally mid-getting out of the car) and tries to give us some flyers about some stupid Mormon "church" meeting. My bf said no thank you and she rudely said "Don't you believe in God?" The nerve of these people! He replied no, because he doesn't, and she went on, asking him does he believe in other religions, is he open to them, what he thinks happens when we die

 

So I got out of the car, stood fairly close to her and said "Nothing. When it is any of your business, then you can ask us again. Now leave us alone." She got all bitchy and in my face but when she saw the look on my face she backed down and left

 

Seriously, who does that at 7:00 at night? We were clearly in a rush, the area we live in is nice, but those sort of questions could easily get one's head kicked in

I've never understood street and door to door witnessing myself, yet when confronted my normal response is to just take flyer say thank you and then trash the flyer latter. When you engage you invite a responce. The opening was given to talk about God which the Mormon in this case wished to exploit.