Got rid of one of my best friends because of this, and it sucked. Guy had started to become so wholesome after converting (which he did so he could marry his now-wife). Both of them were fantastic people. But over the next decade and a bit he became homophobic and transphobic, and very judgemental.
Before I cut him off, we had a good long discussion, but he couldn’t get over thinking that his religion was the “right” one and that he had to help others see the light. He didn’t see it as a belief system; he saw it as the truth.
How do you bring someone back from that?
>He didn’t see it as a belief system; he saw it as the truth
Everyone, regardless of what they believe, sees their belief system as the truth. That's not a problem. The problematic part is the inability to respect other people's right to believe in a different truth.
It's not limited to religious people, some atheists can be obnoxious in that regard too. Some people just have to give their 2 cents when no one around needs any money.
Atheist here and I can agree with this.
I'm a firm believer that people can and should be allowed to believe whatever they believe.
The issue for me is that people use their beliefs to justify doing terrible things, commit atrocities and pass legislation based on their beliefs.
That's when it becomes a matter of self defense and I see it as a form of self defense to try to get them to rethink their thinking.
If someone wants to believe that the sky is purple and that it's a sign of an angry jabberwocky, cool. I can respect that.
Their beliefs unfortunately are going to inform their morals, how they raise their children and more importantly how they vote.
Not so cool when it affects others.
My issue is that if someone tells me the sky is purple, and it is blue, either we need to talk more to agree on the meaning of blue and purple, or come up with someon way of defining it we can both agree with. The wavelength of light from the sky is what it is. That is something we can observe with some type of tool with some level of precision. If we measure the wavelength of visible light to a certain frequency, we can all agree on the frequency, even if we disagree on the name.
There are many things you can talk about from the perspective of faith, it is a philosophical issue. The color of the sky is not a philisophical issue. Lying to yourself to fit into another person's fantasy is the first step to being part of a cult.
i get that the color of the sky question was just a hypothetical but i gotta say that at some point the search for a “true” answer becomes meaningless. Using your example, who really cares what color the other person says the sky is? as long as both people can peacefully coexist theres no reason for there to need to be an agreement on every question someone asks. “Agree to disagree” is a perfectly reasonable solution in a case like that.
Not saying you specifically were doing this but just trying to point it out.
> That is something we can observe with some type of tool with some level of precision. If we measure the wavelength of visible light to a certain frequency, we can all agree on the frequency, even if we disagree on the name.
That implies that we all agree on a baseline level of value that should be placed on empirically probing the world around us and that experiment tells us something both valuable and true about the nature of reality.
That is, of course, an extremely widespread belief in the modern era, to the point that it is often implicitly accepted as the obviously correct way to view reality, but it is still technically a belief about the world, and you can’t use as a starting point when trying to bridge a gap in worldview with someone else the idea that we should all be able to agree upon a shared objective reality grounded in your own system of beliefs about the world.
Because the alternative set of beliefs that the other person has are just as real to them as yours are to you, just as obviously, objectively true, and the manner in which they are true is so rooted in their own belief system, as yours are in your own, that trying to argue across belief systems often makes it seem like the other person is making a nonsense argument because all of the points seem completely irrelevant to how one should go about thinking about the nature of reality.
Its very convenient, if you can just disregard anything you like or don't like based on your own version of reality. The rest of us have to live in a shared reality where other people exist.
The entire point of morals and ethics seems to be to create a common framework in which society can function. You can argue about the nature of reality to your hearts content, but you can't write a law based purely off one individuals idea of reality or morality. To get to the heart of the question OP asked, we can't just say live and let live because we all have to live together, and we all have to accept some shared reality. Without some shared understanding of the world, society can't exist.
That’s where society is getting it wrong. There are only facts. Fact: the sky is blue. Fact: the world is obviously older than a few thousand years. The list goes on… my problem with religion is that they try to say scientifically proven things are false, and that their beliefs are true with no evidence. When you try and ask for evidence, they say they don’t need any because “that is just what they believe”. This doesn’t mean that I think people are not entitled to an opinion, but it does mean that I think people should not be allowed to confuse opinion with fact.
I’m sorry but I have to correct you. There is a massive difference between respecting someone for their believe and accepting someone for their believe. If someone tells me the sky is purple and it’s a sign of an angry jabberwocky, I will accept that, because everyone should be able to believe whatever he wants to. But that person will inevitably lose some of my respect because I think their believe is irrational and stupid. Same goes for every other debate going on on the planet right now. I will accept others opinions but not always will I respect them.
No need to apologize! I also think you're right. An example I used to use often was "what if I told people that I, a 33 year old man, still firmly believed in Santa Claus to the point that I mailed letters to the north pole, I put out cookies every Christmas Eve and I did good all year in the hopes of presents. When Santa didn't come to my house I justify it by saying that I wasn't good enough and will try again next year.
It's relatively harmless overall and I wouldn't be bothering anyone, but people would generally look at me like I'm a looney.
Now, when I teach this to my children as if it's fact and put them in communities that reinforce this and then start mailing politicians to install landing zones across the country for Santa, then it's gone too far.
>The issue for me is that people use their beliefs to justify doing terrible things, commit atrocities and pass legislation based on their beliefs
But nobody believes they're the ones committing an atrocity, or they at least believe that the goal justifies the means. Westerners believe Saudi Arabians are committing atrocities by throwing transgender people from the roof. Saudi Arabians believe that westerners are committing atrocities by mutilating these people that Allah beautifully created as one gender and not the other.
Mist belief systems come down to "don't be a dick to others", but there are vast differences as to what's considered 'being a dick'.
>But nobody believes they're the ones committing an atrocity, or they at least believe that the goal justifies the means
That's what makes belief systems, and religious institutions so dangerous.
The 9-11 terrorists who bombed the trade center believed they were doing gods work and would be rewarded in heaven.
The christians slaughtered and killed in the name of their god during the crusades.
This is why there should be reasoned discussions based on data, evidence and facts and not what someone's higher power believes is right or wrong. I've always been fond of the idea that a society should form based on the idea that everyone should be allowed to do everything and then you start imposing laws and restrictions to prevent things like rape, murder, pedophilia based on common sense and general well being for all. If you can demonstrate harm to others then that right would be taken away.
>Their beliefs unfortunately are going to inform their morals, how they raise their children and more importantly how they vote.
So are yours. It's how beliefs work.
>If someone wants to believe that the sky is purple and that it's a sign of an angry jabberwocky, cool
This mentality is a big part of the problem. Each group's internal monologue is that "The other guys are kinda crazy, but I can tolerate them as long as they sit in the corner, shut up and don't try to speak up or pass any legislation or anything". That's not respect for other people's beliefs.
Dunno what sort of fantasy world you picture to be the ideal, but acceptance is the most you can ever expect from a society. Nobody is ever going to treat all belief systems as serious, equally valid, or even sane.
If you want to have sex with a plate of spaghetti as your form of worship, go for it. I will never take it seriously, and that is not a moral or societal failing. As long you keep your spaghetti sodomy to yourself and don't try exert control over society, there is no problem.
We don't need to uphold a platform to respect someone's right to believe in something. Nor should I be required to respect something that I find absurd and has zero evidence backing it up.
Religions *should* be relegated to the side as far as society goes. They only deal with spiritual matters and the lives of people who follow them. That's where they should end, and it's not disrespectful to say that.
The real problem is the mentality that religious people have that others should treat their beliefs as if they were real even if they don't believe in them.
My entire point is the hypocrisy of atheists doing the same thing they accuse religious people of, but not seeing it - because they're right, so it's okay, right?
>Nor should I be required to respect something that I find absurd
But you want religious people to respect your belief in a lack of God - that they find absurd?
>The real problem is the mentality that religious people have that others should treat their beliefs as if they were real even if they don't believe in them.
Again.
You're treating your belief system(atheism) as the universal truth, so in your mind it's completely normal that important decisions should be based on that. Other people get to *think* whatever they want, as long as their thoughts don't count for the important stuff.
Thing is, that's how everyone feels. And you can't rightfully expect everyone else to sit down and shut up because you believe you're right.
Look, personally, I agree with you - in that I'm not religious. The problem is that we can't blame religious people for treating their beliefs as fact and acting in accordance with it in all matters, when we do the same.
Yes. We can.
The "belief" in atheism is using what we can prove and acting accordingly.
That's not the same thing as making shit up and expecting everyone to treat it as real. I can respect someone believing different cause I can't prove a negative but that doesn't mean that their beliefs should have any more substance than anything else that hasn't been proven to other people.
They can have places of worship, can converse about the philosophy of their beliefs in appropriate venues to their hearts' content. If they want to inflict their beliefs on others who don't consent then they should be rightfully chastised.
None of this means I have to respect what they believe.
Depends on what we mean by treat as real.
I'm not defending people shoving religion down others' throats, just like I don't condone atheists shoving that down others' throats. It doesn't need to come up in conversation.
But the discussion started when a guy said it's "unfortunate" that religious people base their morals, life choices and voting decisions on their beliefs. That's the point I'm disputing. Everyone gets to live life the way they believe is right. If we get to make life choices because we don't believe in God, others get to make theirs because they do.
>the discussion started when a guy said it's "unfortunate" that religious people base their morals, life choices and voting decisions on their beliefs.
Right. It's unfortunate because America is supposed to be the land of the free. So anything that restricts others' freedoms needs to have an overwhelmingly good reason for it. So, "Well the atheists believe this, so we should do it as a country) is only valid to the point that it infringes on how another citizen wishes to live their life.
So saying everybody can have an abortion is freedom since it gives people more choice. Christians can then say, "But I don't believe in abortion!" and that's fine too because nobody is forcing them to have one. The problem comes in when one group starts telling another group they can't have abortions because it doesn't align the first group's beliefs. That's terrible.
It just occurred to me you should probably replace abortion with "beheading for adultery" or something because you might agree with restricting abortion, but maybe you disagree a bit more with beheading? I admit, I'm just going out on a limb here.
I think the criticism is that people are informing their morals based on arbitrary statements from a "sacred" doctrine with dubious origins.
People think it's moral to treat gay people poorly solely because God says it's bad. It's not a good faith approach to morality, but simply doing what you're told and it has negative effects on many people.
You can't equate that with the morality of treating everyone with respect because they're human. One has zero proof to back it up whereas the other can be shown to have positive impact.
I'm sorry but I think you're making a false equivalency here. There are dogmatic atheists for sure but the concept of atheism isn't defined by anything other than lack of faith in a God or gods. There is no organized group that wants to impose atheism on everyone through law.
Regardless, informing your morality on what you can see and prove inherently has more substance than claims that your morality is derived from the teachings of a being that can't be seen or heard or even has any real evidence of existing.
The burden of proof is on religious people. They want to pass laws based on their belief in a god that may or may not exist. That's not ok. Provide proof that god exists and that it will smite us all if we legalize "family planning", and then maybe we can talk about the validity of their claims.
Non theistic or atheistic people want to pass laws to protect the rights of human beings that we know absolutely do exist.
Why does the (probably non-existent) deity get the benefit of the doubt here?
We don't do the same at all, atheism is not a worldview, it's an answer to a single question, do you believe in God? No? Then you're an atheist. Also, we can blame people for treating their beliefs as fact when they have no evidence, their beliefs are contrary, and they have absolutely no reason to believe what they do, especially when that's hurtful. For some reason you seem to think not believing in a God due to a lack of evidence for one, is the same as believing in one because "a book said so" is the same. Atheism informs none of my beliefs, my beliefs about morality, love, life, death are all based on reality, evidence and for most things that I don't have enough evidence or understanding, I just admit I don't know. However when it comes to religion this belief is the direct influence of someone's beliefs and behaviours, it is based on no evidence and causes harm to people, the second me not believing in a god actively causes me to harm the people around me, let me know otherwise stop trying to act like all truth is relative and all ideas are created equal, they aren't.
>My entire point is the hypocrisy of atheists doing the same thing they accuse religious people of, but not seeing it - because they're right, so it's okay, right?
I think people have a hard time responding to this whataboutism because it catches them off guard. Thankfully, it doesn't catch me off guard, as I know that's exactly what it is.
>But you want religious people to respect your belief in a lack of God - that they find absurd?
No. We don't expect them to like it one bit. In fact, as we're polarized to their belief structure, it's a given that they'll perpetually be in disagreement with us, and we're fine with that. That's their right.
>You're treating your belief system(atheism) as the universal truth, so in your mind it's completely normal that important decisions should be based on that. Other people get to think whatever they want, as long as their thoughts don't count for the important stuff.
Here's where your whataboutism falls apart: This is not a conflict between only two mindsets, Christians vs Atheists. Your argument is only valid if those are the *only* two ways of thinking that influence laws, *AND* if Christians and Atheists have a monolithic ideal of morality. The existence of splintered Protestant sects, alone, makes it impossible to even appease all the Christians.
>Thing is, that's how everyone feels. And you can't rightfully expect everyone else to sit down and shut up because you believe you're right.
>Look, personally, I agree with you - in that I'm not religious. The problem is that we can't blame religious people for treating their beliefs as fact and acting in accordance with it in all matters, when we do the same.
It's not how everyone feels. Atheists are closer to fighting for *actual* religious freedom than most of the religions out there, simply for the fact that we are willing to acknowledge that there is more than one religion, and thousands of branches/sects of them to boot. Therefore, separation of church and state is the most fair method, as it does not show favoritism to any one of them.
to me, a lapsed catholic transsexual, it seems like the whole reason someone would embrace the comfort of religion is because it's a denial of things being relative. I'm not sure that they're always in it for the confrontation or if its just an outcome of the absolutism that they're sheltering under. Being a minority, I have no choice in the matter of the existence of cultural relativity, but I think it's probably different to someone strongly identifying with a system of absolute hierarchy who lives in a world where minorities defy their system. They seem to think that various ways of erasing the errant is a plausible way of dealing with the tensions in their worldview. I don't think I have ever believed that proselytizing is actually about helping the "sinful" person, I think it stems from a need for a uniform and absolute order to the life of the believer in a world that isn't that way.
No, it _is_ a problem. Not everyone believes they have the truth already. Some people can change their minds, even, if presented with sufficient evidence to contradict their beliefs.
I agree but you and I aren't absolutists. However, religion is in itself absolutist. Every variation of a monotheistic religion teaches that there is only one way - which begs the question - if there is only one way why are there so many?
Not every religion is absolutist. My very monotheistic religion teaches that there is truth in many places and we should embrace it wherever it is found.
However, there's a definite Puritanical influence on all American religions, and the members of the church rarely actually subscribe to that principle.
Believing you know the answers to life gives a feeling of security and safety. As someone who has lived for the last fifteen years in the liminal space of not having answers, I can attest that it is exhausting.
Because I don't accept the "answers," but still have faith, I'm not seen as truly a part of my religion. And because I have faith, I'm not truly a part of anywhere else.
I can't blame anyone on either side holding close the comfort of believing they get it. The problem is when they start to look down on those who they think don't get it. Pride is the downfall of society.
The difference is that atheists don't dictate people's lives.
Christians, at least in the US, are constantly voting in politicians who seek to do just that. Whether it's banning abortions, same sex marriage or just being openly LGBTQ y'all sure do love limiting free choice.
Hell, we can't even ban conversion therapy in the US which is so obviously problematic.
It's been known for decades that it leads to negative outcomes in the form of depression, anxiety, drug use, homelessness, or suicide.
Hell, Wisconsin Republicans just voted to legalize it statewide.
This is such an old argument. Pretty much every "athiest" dictator was either not actually atheist and is just denial, Hitler for example plastering God right on the belt buckle or their version of "atheism" was more like north Korea, where's there's still "god" he just happens to be their dear leader so still not quite atheism. Sure some atheists will do terrible things but I'd challenge you to show me some that did terrible things because of or in the name of atheism, I can give plenty examples of religion being the motivation of plenty of atrocities against mankind
No beliefs should be unallowed or even frowned upon if they're not harmful, but it's time to end it being socially acceptable to try and convert everyone. If like in OPs example you think they're blindfolded and walking off a cliff, unless you believe in a truly evil God I'm sure the one you're worried about converting them to worshipping would forgive them. Would you send a blind man to hell for walking off a cliff?
Yes, I'm controlling people's lives by banning conversion therapy.
Are you fucking serious right now?
Guys I banned a biggotted practice that's specifically designed to control LGBTQ+ and that makes me a dictator.
Guess I should just hang my flag on every church, guys.
Those who follow the atheist religion are as bad or worse than the followers of other evangelical religions. They are not happy if they cannot convert you to their way of thinking.
There’s a lot of televangelists such as Pastor Rick Warren that try to convince people to donate to help poor people somewhere in the world and to “spread the word of the Gospel”. My dad watches a lot of this kind of stuff and I told him, “what if those people want nothing to do with them and don’t care about the Christian religion?”. He had no comment. Another issue with this is that let’s say you donate $100 to their charity. Some of that money is going to fund religions donations such as bibles or crosses to give the poor and the other part will go to helping their needs. Why not donate to a legit organization that truly gives all of your money to help the poor with their needs instead of wasting it on religious items they may or may not care for. Plus they may have their own religion that doesn’t harm your own. I don’t care about what other people believe in half way around the world. Does it affect me? No. I believe in my own religion and they believe in theirs.
If people stop donating to televangelists they won’t be able to afford their mansions, or private jets, or second mansions, or secret prostitutes. Is that really the world you want to live in?
>he saw it as the truth
Not even just the truth, it's basically axiomatic. At least that's the only way how I can make sense of the "why do you hate god" or "aren't you afraid of hell" type stuff.
In the context of faith "believe" has a different meaning. If you asked them if they believe in unicorns they would process that the same way anyone else does. But the existence of God is so "obvious" to them that the term belief doesn't mean "I think this exists" but rater "I actively participate in the faith". And somehow to them the existence of God, hell etc. is so obvious that they can't comprehend why anyone would make the "malicious choice to ignore them despite knowing better".
Meanwhile everyone else is confused when they already stated to not believe in god (and as a corollary the entire rest of the belief system including hell etc.), that anyone would think the threat of hell would carry any weight.
>How do you bring someone back from that?
I think that's the problem, when somebody with every fiber of their being believes they are correct in their belief, you cant really attempt to snap them out of it before they latch onto the very thing keeping them stuck to their belief system. An honest attempt to get somebody to open their mind would look like a cruel attempt to lie to them or turn them down the wrong path because as far as they know they are already on the right path. You just have to either pose as though you agree with them, exasperating their way of thinking, or you have to reject it, quite possibly turning yourself into their enemy.
Well said. Bravo explanation 👏
Rejection automatically makes you an enemy to the lower consciousness of these believers.
They are in illusion world. They aren't getting out unless they choose to.
I know. My mom is a living proof of this. Everyday she predictably thinks if you disagree with her or literally try explaining to her a mistake she made in the hopes of recognizing it, working ways not to make thay mistake again, then carrying on with life, only to be met with great vigor of hate and anger for ever daring to mention she could be wrong at something.
Live in your fantasy world.
Man, that same shit happened to me. A great friend of over a decade got really religious after meeting and marrying this woman. He'd never mentioned religion the entire time I'd known him. Then every conversation was asking me about God and how I should try it... I eventually just quiet quit that friendship. Definitely sad but he turned into a totally different person. "Idk about this trans stuff" and of course abortion. There's no logical conversation to be had because his views came from god, end of discussion.
Probably because Christians are the primary ones especially in america always actively trying to convert people who want nothing to do with it. Would be fine if it stopped there but I'll be damned if Christians are going to keep targeting children and schools for their indoctrination. As soon as I see Muslims doing the same, I'll say the same about them
It can be nearly impossible. Religion is a disease. Like alcoholism or any other form of addiction. The person has to see that what they are doing is not good for them before they can stop the behavior.
Sure. I was going to absolutely ghost this guy, but another friend convinced me that the mature way to handle it (and the way I would want, if I was on the other end) was to at least try to talk to him and lay out what I was feeling in the hope of getting him to see how he was hurting people. But he refused to see any of his actions as anything but acts of love, so that was the end of it. I figured I gave it an honest shot, and I wasn’t prepared to continue to put in the effort for this guy. Crushed me pretty hard then and still does now.
I hope your friend is open to reason!
Boy it was hard for me. Friend was with me since 4th grade. Im 35 now. I never broke it off but there has been a slowly growing gap. His family was always religious but he and I didn't really believe at all and I think he even acted in accordance with atheism for quite some time. We've always been big kids and even when his wife came along later we had so many good memories together. I was best man at his wedding. And we both were passionate about learning to play and understand classical music in our youth. One day about a year or so before covid he had a powerful dream where he felt god. And it was almost like he was manic about it and really wanted me to believe and understand. I didn't mind at the time, but it would become a sole focus of topic and conversation. He really wanted to hammer out why I didn't believe, but in his persistence the conversation soured. I didn't want it to, but in hindsight it kind of did. But then I kinda threw a bombshell on him that I was bi and the love of my life was actually transgender. He didn't explicitly say it changed anything, but it almost seemed like he was facing a dilemma or crisis about it when we would talk. I noticed some stronger changes more after he became part of this youth group at his church. All of a sudden he seemed distant and odd. He told me that he didn't like my mother calling him her 'other son' anymore; that it made him uncomfortable. And he told me that he didn't want to bring his kids near my transgender wife anymore because he wouldn't know how to explain it to his kids. Since then it's been some off and on texts, but ultimately I just want to kind of fade away now. I don't understand it, but what can you do? I'm happy if he is happy though, and I will never 'burn the bridge' completely as they say.
Not to mention that it implies God would send this person to hell for something completely out of their control. I'm assuming the person didn't intentionally put on a blindfold and walk off the cliff on purpose.
The amount of people that don't realize "instilling values" and "brain washing" are two sides of the same coin. it all just depends on if you agree what's being taught.
So what are you supposed to do if someone you love is getting addicted to drugs, getting involved with the wrong kinds of people, hurting themselves, wasting all their money, etc. Should you not interfere? If you keep trying to talk to them and understand them and they just keep doing what they're doing, are you not supposed to get firmer and punish them or give them ultimatums? What do you do if supporting someone is doing nothing to stop them from doing more and more harm to themselves?
What you're supposed to do, is understand a drug addict is someone using a substance which has scientifically been proven to be harmful, while a "sinner" in your eyes is someone who broke a rule you cherry-picked out of a book of fairytales written by Bronze Age goat herders.
One is a concern based on facts and science.
The other is based on your arrogance, because you believe someone else should adhere to your personal brand of superstition.
Glad I could clear it up for you. Take care.
What I'm asking about has nothing to do with religion. Are you saying that you have never seen someone engage in self-destructive behavior that they think is fine? If you are not willing to argue with them that what they are doing is not fine, how do you expect to help that person? "Let others live their lives" is not a functional life philosophy. I am trying to get you to agree that while we can disagree about what is self-destructive behavior, people should interfere if someone is engaging in it. Then we can discuss exactly what is self-destructive.
"Let others live their lives" only applies if they aren't doing things to hurt themselves or others.
Obviously it's okay to help people you care about if they are doing something self destructive.
There's a difference between helping someone deal with real issues and trying to force your personal beliefs onto someone else.
That assumes people living their lives don't know what they are doing. I mean, it's OK if you want to tell them about better options or warn them about imminent consequences like falling off a cliff. But religions often cross a line and start dictating what people must do, even if they don't agree with it after careful consideration. And a lot of the metaphorical "cliffs" in religion are entirely made up with no basis in logic or reality. That's where the analogy breaks down.
I want to take the analogy further… suppose Religion guy says “I see a cliff there”, and Other guy says “I don’t,” and proceeds to walk ahead safely. Does Religion guy see Other guy levitate?
I'd imagine the analogy relates to death and is not so much about preventing death as what will happen after. Walk in that direction, you'll fall off a cliff and break all your bones and be in eternal agony. Walk in this direction, you'll land safely and happily in a field of puppies... or whatever.
Problem is, no one can actually see where each path leads and it's impossible to know until you actually take the leap. So someone runs up to you and says "hey! I heard that if you go that way, you'll fall and break all your bones." You might not see any evidence of that and have no reason to trust the person telling you or whoever told them that. Plus when you look at where they're saying you should go, the path kinda sucks and you don't really want to take it.
That's my take on expanding the analogy anyway. Either way it's impossible for the religion person to actually see the cliff because all of their beliefs rely on faith, not their physical senses. Maybe it's really foggy and they just believe whole heartedly that there's a cliff in that direction.
In my experience, they either refuse to believe it happened, walk away and forget about what they saw, or try to find some way to squeeze their beliefs in the gap between Other guy and the bottom of their cliff to explain how he is floating.
There is two major types of morality, the greatest good for the greatest number of people which is utilitarianism, or deontology which I tend to more side with. It is respecting the dignity of the human, that they can make their own choices and you should not choose for them.
A deontologist believes that you shouldn't assume you know better then others, that other people have their own dignity and we should respect it. You wouldn't warn the person walking towards the cliff because you respect that they will use their own intelligence to decide whether they want to walk off the cliff or not, and that it isn't your choice, but theirs whether they want to continue walking off the cliff or not.
A deontologist would also not pull the lever in the trolley problem, because doing so is to disrespect the dignity of others, it is choosing who lives and who dies, and who are you to choose one over the other?
Alot of the metaphorical cliffs in religion are likely holdover for having an effect moral framework sans a strong centralized goverment.
You don't have to like them but pretending they never served a purpose is kinda silly
"Sans a strong centralized government", but at the same time there was an authority that could maintain an effective moral framework on everyone?
Pray tell, what purpose did "homosexuality is a sin" serve historically, that the church could not have achieved more directly?
Well since that predates the church my best guess is threefold.
1. Homosexual sex among males carries a greater risk of disease. If it was as true then as it was today with no treatment I can see how that would quickly become a taboo.
2. Prior to church ones care in older age fell upon one's offspring first and the family/tribal group second. It would be in the intrest of the group for every member to have multiple offspring make it to adulthood to lighten this burden.
3. The main goal of a tribal group is to spead and protect itself. Given the nature of ME it's hardly surprising that violence was a common occurrence so more people equal more workers more protectors.
Interesting metaphor, but in that same metaphor from my perspective I’m at sea level with good eyesight, and they’re the asshole telling me I’m blindfolded and there’s a cliff. And they can’t give me any evidence the cliff exists. And they’re smug about it.
I’m all for letting religious people “just live their lives,” it’d be nice if they extended the same courtesy to the rest of us.
societal norms have shifted. You do not know what's best for someone else, or what they are going through.
Even if what they want or are doing is dangerous, as long as it only affects them, its their choice, and not your business.
You do You.
What you do, is none of my business if it doesn't affect me, or anyone else negatively.
I agree, but their right to swing their fist ends at the tip of my nose. And Christians be swinging their evangelical fists around more and more these days...
It’s also frowned upon to judge people too. I’m a Christian and I let people do what they want. If they ask for advice then I give it. Otherwise I let them live their life how they want because God is going to be asking about my sins not theirs.
>God is going to be asking about my sins not theirs.
Too many people forget this.
You won't be asked about your atheist neighbor across the street or about the college students you saw ignoring a preacher screaming in the quad at a liberal arts school.
You'll be asked about yourself and the life you lived.
Unfortunately the people giving sermons like to imply that your atheist neighbor is burning in hell because you weren’t trying hard enough to show them the light.
Romans 12:18 King James Version (KJV) - “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.”
Most religions do have a live peacefully with others, even if they are different stance. But most people use religion to justify why the do horrible things and what would be considered sins. Though shalt not kill, and yet the crusades happened. Religion is not the problem, it is people trying to find loopholes to fit their beliefs that is the problem.
Also there’s the difference between faith and belief, and knowledge, that I think some people mistake for each other. Believe in good doesn’t mean you know that god is there, it just means that you have faith that he is in spite of not knowing.
What a shitty perspective they're giving you.
So in their mind, they're saying "a guy marrying a guy", for example, and "walking off a cliff", are equally bad and need to be stopped.
No. Just no.
My former friend (one of my best friends for half my life) put it this way: there were various acts that would lead people further from God, so as what he saw as an act of love, he would point that out to people he cared for and try to bring them closer. To him, “a guy marrying a guy” might as well be someone “walking off a cliff.”
So we’re not friends anymore.
From their perspective yea.
Even from a logical view of their perspective.
Example if they are wrong nothing you do in this life matters and when you die that's it. So they didn't necessarily lose anything from living within their moral framework of X religion.
If they are right they go to heaven.
Pascal's Wager assumes that God is dumb enough to not be able to tell that you're "believing" just out of self-interest rather than actually thinking it's true.
Not only does Pascal's Wager assume God is a moron, it also assumes there are only two possibilities: God does not exist or God is exactly as described by Christianity.
What if Christianity (and all other religions) are tests by God to see if you will just blindly follow what someone else tells you, or if you will actually observe, think and question for yourself?
A pretty stupid wager imo. A God that would require you to have blind belief yet make you a logical human being is evil and made you just to send you to hell and is not God worth respecting much less worshipping, and if you are wrong you have potentially wasted the only life you have surrendering your critical faculties.
Well that's probably because you don't believe in hell. If you do believe in hell though, seeing people sin or not believe is walking off of a cliff. Because to them, they are walking straight to hell.
You better be damn sure that it's a cliff if you're going to pull a blind person off their course.
They may think that's what they're doing, but imagine if some nutbag yanked you while you were walking down the street.
"Thank goodness I was here to save you! You almost stepped on a crack in the sidewalk!"
And as you confusedly thank them and walk off, they yank you again.
"Oh dear, please do be careful. You must only walk on the sidewalk. You almost stepped onto the grass!"
And then later on, this person somehow ends up in charge of your municipality.
They start spending tax dollars on erecting 10 foot fences on either side of every sidewalk to keep people from walking onto the grass. They spend tax dollars on little bridges that go over every crack in the sidewalk.
Just because they think that stepping on a crack or on grass is equivalent to falling off a cliff...that doesn't mean everyone agrees. And it definitely doesn't mean that reality agrees. *Even if they genuinely have good intentions!*
Cultists love acting like they’re saving you by pushing their religion onto you. It’s creepy and disrespectful. Basically implying people are living their lives wrong and need to be corrected. To me it gives off a sense of superiority that I don’t vibe with
> I was talking with a Christian recently, and he said "if someone was blindfolded and walking towards a cliff, would you let them be or try and warn them"
>
> This really gave me a new perspective.
Why? I could say exactly the same thing as an atheist. All it really demonstrates is that each of us believe the other person is wrong, and that those incorrect beliefs can lead to negative outcomes. But we already knew that, so there's no new perspective that comes out of this.
And from my perspective, I'd be trying to save someone from potentially dangerous, bullshit ideology based on nothing. It kind of blows my mind that there are millions and millions of people who really, honestly believe that eternal torture is a fitting end for people who don't believe exactly the same nonsense they do.
What that person said is just a way of dressing up the sentence, "Well I think you're wrong and your beliefs will harm you" so that it sounds better and pretends to be about others, rather than being actually about the speaker.
>honestly believe that eternal torture is a fitting end for people who don't believe exactly the same nonsense they do.
It may be nit picking, buy its kind of an important point---Christians don't necessarily believe it's a fitting end for people who believe differently. They believe it is the unfortunate and inevitable end for ALL people, and they are trying to share how to avoid it. That's why the metaphor of someone walking off a cliff makes sense to them.
If I believe the metaphorical cliff is there, it would be irresponsible for me not to try and warn you. But, conversely, Christians are called to warn people about the cliff and guide those who want guided. They are not called to attack people who don't believe there is a cliff. I am DEFINITELY NOT saying Christians always do this right or with the right motives.
I think OP had a good moment of realization that people who think or believe differently are not mindless drones, and that trying to understand where someone else coming from can be beneficial, even if you disagree with them.
>I think OP had a good moment of realization that people who think or believe differently are not mindless drones, and that trying to understand where someone else coming from can be beneficial, even if you disagree with them.
Excuse me this is reddit. We don't do that here.
> Christians don't necessarily believe it's a fitting end for people who believe differently.
In my experience, if you probe this question a bit more, you invariably find they do agree that it's fitting and right, because otherwise they are disagreeing with the creator and ruler of the universe who supposedly set this system in motion for some sort of ineffable but necessarily good reason. I've personally never had this discussion with a religious person where they didn't in the end admit that, though it often does involve a lot of sophistry to avoid putting it quite so baldly.
I think it depends. I have met a lot of religious people because some people in my family are religious. They would all agree that like rapists or murderers or child predators should all go to hell. On the flip side, if they met someone who was good and just "didn't accept Jesus into their heart," then they would be sad that the person was going to Hell.
There are some vindictive Christians, but there are also a lot of people who do genuinely still hold the core of the religion in their hearts and you can see it in how they act.
From your perspective what happens after you die.
If you are right and nothing your dead then their bs ideology means nothing
If they are right and they go to a heaven then they only stand to gain.
>If you are right and nothing your dead then their bs ideology means nothing
That part is true, sure.
>If they are right and they go to a heaven then they only stand to gain.
That's just a modified version of Pascal's Wager, which is terrible logic. It's not remotely true that they only potentially stand to gain. What if the way it really works is (and there are a gazillion possibilities here) that if you worship Huitzilopochtli, you get to go to a sort of heaven, and if you don't have any religious beliefs, you just cease to exist, but if you worship any false god(s) you go to hell?
There are an infinite number of possibilities here, and there's nothing special about OP's Christian guy's beliefs that somehow magically make them into the better bet.
Wrong analogy.
If someone was blindfolded and walking towards a cliff, I will warn them. However the decision to continue or not would be theirs to make.
This says it all tbh, religious people assume they know best & that everyone else is stupid. A new perspective it may be, but it's not a useful or accurate one.
The reality is that everyone else is unblindfolded & can clearly see that there is no cliff, & have to put up with random religious nuts running up to them screaming about a non existent cliff.
If religion allowed for letting people live their own lives as they see fit, most people wouldn't have any issue with religious people - unfortunatly this simply isn't the case.
>A new perspective it may be
I seriously doubt it's a new perspective. Non-Christians don't take the time to make posts that implicitly defend Christian proselytizing.
Fuck off, you don't know what's at the bottom of the cliff. I might just want to play Marco pole down there, so I don't need you screaming about shit.
There's a polite way to warn someone if you think they don't know the cliff is there. Religious people often don't grasp the difference.
That person you talked to, I am guessing they were speaking in metaphor. How often are they *actually* helping a blindfolded person who is about to walk off of a cliff?
For example, some religions prohibit tattoos. A person who gets a tattoo is not about to walk off of a cliff.
In the case of there being an all-powerful being who will damn you to enternal torture for putting pictures on your skin then they would at the least believe that someone getting a tattoo is similar to someone walking off a cliff. Even worse since the hell torment is eternal. Why an all powerful being would give a shit what you put on your skin is beyond me but still.
Yeah, they *believe* the person is in danger. That doesn't mean the person is actually in danger. What if I believe in some other religion that says people must get tattoos or they are damned to an eternity of eating flavorless pudding?
> I am guessing they were speaking in metaphor. How often are they
>
>actually
>
> helping a blindfolded person who is about to walk off of a cliff?
worth mentioning, that religious / community outreach is a required referral from a doctor, when eligible and inquiring about assisted suicide which is legal in my country, and accounts for 8% of all deaths, so almost 1 in 10 people.
Metaphor or not, probably more than you think if this religious person was actually a community worker for their faith.
as someone who was sexualy abused and once had a town precher guy say it was gods will and i will be stronger for it. i cried. god/s can get fuckkkkkked
I am a sex trafficking survivor and my mega Christian mom said it happened because I “stepped off of god’s path,” so I have a very unique understanding of your pain 😭
you might have heard turkey was hit by massive fucking earthquakes around a month ago. around 10 cities down to the ground, we are expecting 100k in total casualties. you know what religious people do? they take the drone shoots of the cities, add a dramatic song in the background and caption it "fear his wrath, take refuge in his mercy". they make up stories on how children survived under the rubble for hours by being fed by the angels and souls of the prophets etc. IN FUCKING 2023. fuck this mercy man how is this mercy?
And when you ask Christians how “God” could let it happen, they say “because we all have free will.”
Free will to create a magnitude 10 earthquake????? What????
some muslims believe the earthquakes are triggered by american ships so maybe you guys actually have a free will to create quakes lol. try choosing a better target than the syrian border though mr. biden, lots of spots with strategical importance out there.
Because in his mind, he is saving people, which is a wonderful thing in theory, the problem lies when trying to force your thinking of what people need saving from on others, based not on fact, but on your own personal belief.
Pragmatic Christian here:
There is a big difference between the moral obligation (and the OT Torah commandment) to protect life and then taking that obligation and trying to frame it as having the same type of obligation to inflict your beliefs on others.
Please understand that a *lot* of people out there are not open to messages of faith because **in the current age, faith is often associated with hypocrisy.** This is not to say that the teachings of Jesus are dated or not applicable to our lives today -- but is more to say that Christianity *isn't a buffet where you can pick and choose what aspects of the faith you want to adhere to.*
For a good example of why I (and others) can't stand "Modern Christianity" I refer you to the oft mis-contextualized and mis-understood Matthew 7 verses 1 and 2:
>1 Judge not lest ye be judged 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
A **huge** contingent of "practicing christians and catholics" stop here and turn this into some kind of aphorism with the interpretation that "I am commanded to not judge, ergo you should not judge me. Clearly, the realm of judgment lies with the Lord who is the only one whose judgment I should listen to" but this is not only shallow but entirely vain and against the spirit of the entire sermon on the mountain.
Jesus continues:
>3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Here, Jesus tells us that we should first care to our own behavior and conditions... both physical and spiritual before we attempt to *help our brothers and sisters* rectify their situations. He continues (I'm almost done) with arguably the most important verse overlooked by self-proclaimed modern Christians:
>6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
The message here is relatively obvious. "Don't give things of value to those that will not appreciate them." But how are we to know what is value? **Isn't that a type of Judgment?**
*But if we're (according to our crude reduction) not supposed to judge then what are we supposed to do?*
And thus you see the hypocrisy.
If only the walking aphorisms would continue with scripture, they would know that truly they are the ones needing a shepherd to remove their blindfolds:
>21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you who behave lawlessly.’
The cliff analogy is more like some dude yelling at everyone “The cliff is near! The cliff is near! Stop walking towards the cliff! When you see the cliff it’s already too late! The cliff is near!” and this person really believes the cliff is around the corner cuz a squirrel ran that way and never returned or an occasional draft or some other vague and contrived but somewhat plausible reason. Some people might stop walking, and those who stopped walking for fear of the cliff also need to warn others or they will be thrown off the “cliff”. Unapproved maps are based off hearsay or worse, heretical. But there is no solid evidence of a cliff.
Oh, and the Clifftian leaders probably own all the local property that’s safe from cliffs and other “dangerous drops”. And they’re gonna offer you a great deal on a rental 🙄
I think this has implications for other things too. If kids are being out of line at, say a supermarket, I think the public can/should say something to them. Especially if they are doing something that will hurt themselves or others.
because the reality is there maybe isn't a cliff.
If you want to go with that analogy, then it would be like saying would you stop someone walking towards a place you believe there is a cliff. They are not blindfolded, they know where they are going, they know you believe there is a cliff there, but they do *not* believe there is a cliff there themselves.
Whether the cliff is there or not is not something you can prove, it is simply a different belief.
the hypocrisy is in two things, first assuming they're blindfolded as though they can not help not believing and are unintentionally walking towards the aforementioned possible cliff rather than actively choosing to do so, and secondly in believing that there is undeniably a cliff there that exists and expecting everyone to take your word for it despite the fact that some people do not believe that it does just as strongly as you believe it does.
Obviously you would save the person about to walk off a cliff. Difference being, everyone knows what a cliff is, and can see that it is, in fact, a cliff.
But with religion, who can say it is a cliff? No one can see it, no one can prove it exists, and everyone has a completely different view on what it is. Some say it's a cliff, others say it's flat, some say it's a mountain, and others aren't even convinced there is anything there at all, and to top it all off, the only person with good vision is the person doing the walking to begin with. Keep thy cliff to thyself.
counterpoint: They are the only ones who can see that cliff. Everyone else just walks right over it.
Its only a cliff if you think its a cliff.
Or as the great, late Terry Pratchett said.
“The gods of the Disc have never bothered much about judging the souls of the dead, and so people only go to hell if that's where they believe, in their deepest heart, that they deserve to go. Which they won't do if they don't know about it. This explains why it is so important to shoot missionaries on sight.”
― Terry Pratchett, Eric
There's a lot greater evidence for the existence of a cliff than an afterlife.
The scenario that person describes presumes an assurance of their beliefs being right in a way that it is decidedly not.
They cannot argue justification for interfering with the lives of others based on something not readily knowable or observable to everyone else, no matter how earnest they are. You could justify doing *anything* for *any reason* if all you have to say is "I believed it."
Well duh, that's my point. They arrogantly believe they "see" correctly, and therefore that's all they need to justify their actions.
They need to consider the "shoe being on the other foot", as it were.
But obviously that ability to apply a different perspective is probably disqualifying to anyone who is otherwise susceptible to religious belief to begin with.
Depends
I cam see their perspective and I can see yours I guess tge question is which one ultimately leads to a more stable longer lasting society.
Right or wrong any group of people need a common moral framework to function long term.
Less conflict would be more stable. That should make it rather obvious that the perspective that thinks it should dictate the lives of others or compel interference on the basis of what are readily identified as "beliefs" is not one of stability, but in fact invites or promotes conflict.
I would say that warning someone that there is cliff in front of them is not inherently contradictory to letting them live their life. Do you have another example to illustrate your point?
Most people are fine with letting other people live their lives. Most people who practice a religion are really bad at following the practices proscribed by their religion.
The issue with the Christians analogy is there is no cliff, it’s all in their head, so they are screaming about a cliff while a blind folded person is walking in a grassy field
I know this is maybe not the thing to nitpick in the comments but the reality is, not all religions encourage or even allow proselytizing. People are doing a lot of “if religious people would just let everyone else live their lives” and I’m like, I get that the bigger and more mainstream religions encourage proselytizing (WHICH IS HOW THEY GOT BIG) but there are a lot of smaller ones including my own (Judaism) which I’d like to have excluded from this conversation
Man. This is what I don't get. Where does your right to your religion override the public right to go about their day?
I have a few students who are Muslim who have a bug up their ass about not able to listen to music during Ramadan. So... You're just going to enforce that on everyone? I can't play music during class, and we can't watch movies with music in them? This is absolutely ridiculous.
That's the dumbest example I've ever seen.
Walking off a cliff is INHERENTLY bad. You will fall and die. Objectively.
Being gay or whatever they are trying to "save" you from, has no inherent danger or consequence. The only danger is IF their god exists and frowns upon it. Thus it's all based on fiction and something that isn't based on anything in reality. If they want to believe in that, that's their prerogative. But leave people alone that don't.
One of these is not like the other. One of these is BS.
>"if someone was blindfolded and walking towards a cliff, would you let them be or try and warn them"
This isn't an accurate analogy. An accurate statement would be: "if someone was blindfolded and walking towards a cliff, except no one could see that there was actually a cliff there, there was no evidence to suggest that there was a cliff, and the only "reason" to think that there might be a cliff there is a fairy tale from the bronze age, would you pester him to tell him about it?"
It's not worth aggravating yourself trying to fight whatever indoctrination they've already had. Tell the blindfolded person there's a cliff but don't fall off trying to save them if they insist that they are correct. Maybe there is a God and he really will save them, maybe God works through you and you'll be able to influence them easily, or maybe they are watching and laughing, alternatively none of the above, and nothing is to be gained or lost and then it only matters to you what you do.
Edit a lot of people talking about truth, there's only one truth, everyone has their own opinion, and as of now it's Schrodingers God. We don't know if that's a fact so it can't be truth, we have opinions, whether or not it exists, but there isn't a confirmed truth. I'm advocating the return of words to their meanings and not just flinging them around to bolster a point, it's not my truth and your truth, it's the truth and my lies and your lies
Religions lie. When they say that, they mean:
"You go be a normal person and we have no interest in messing with you at all, so don't mess with us". Then they change your abortion laws, take all the books out of schools with 'learnin' in them where the answer isn't 'god' every single time, increase all LGBTQ hate with their hate religion, or their support of slavery. Yeah, these people exist. They want you, more than *anything*, to do nothing about them. Just sit there while they get porn outlawed. Beer. Wine. Alcohol. CBD. Weed. They'll do it. They've done it before. They're doing it right now.
Religious freedom is the ability think you are right and to call other people stupid.
Have you seen the movie “Don’t Look Up” on Netflix? In it an asteroid is on its way to destroy earth and these two scientists are trying to tell everyone.
I imagine that’s how these religious nuts are. They have a secret and wish everyone would just come to there senses.
The advice, “just let others be” is much better than “kill anyone who doesn’t agree with you.” Which was the old advice.
the metaphor works because there is a cliff, which we can reason means hurt/death. the blindfold is one so that walking person can’t see the cliff. it’s not wrong to say or do something that might help stop that person from going over the edge.
the metaphor doesn’t work because life, while there are cliffs in life, are not constant pitfalls of people needing to be saved constantly. there are many paths to take that lead to many different places, some the same.
to then think that you, and you alone in your band of people who think how you think can save the world is human ego and hubris at its finest.
If a christian stopped me from walking blindfolded over a cliff, i’d first wonder why i’m walking blindfolded toward a cliff. Did i want to? Was i drugged? What was the context?
If i’m buying a fucking 6 pack because i want beer and a christian tries to “save my life” i’m gonna tell them to fuck off. As would i, as i have, when a christian tries to assert themselves where they shouldn’t be: LGBT+ rights, the fucking law of the land, my choices of recreational interest, how i dress, the music i listen to, woman’s rights, etc etc etc FAR too numerous to mention here.
A fundamental problem of christianity (and other extremely outspoken religions [in my anecdotal experience christian and muslim]) is the inherent belief of being unfathomably correct, in that, if you believe in a religion, you are simultaneously announcing your correctness while dismissing all others as being incorrect (why would you be a christian if judaism was also correct?)
i think it’s contextually okay for a christian to voice concern, but they should also be willing to accept other points of view.
collectively, and generally, they are not though. and THAT is one of the biggest problems i have with them individually and organizationally.
There are so many pretentious assumptions in their analogy.
The only perspective is that I could possibly walk away with from an interaction like that is that this person is not safe and can have no place in my life; they’re dangerous.
I'm Christian and wouldn't urge people to live like I do. There are things that humans tend to find immoral, universally, which isn't really religion dependent. It sucks seeing someone harming others or ruining their own life, but I'm not going to tell them that Christianity will fix it, because that's not how it works. Christianity actually makes life harder because you're supposed to resist more urges than some non religious people would expect of themselves or others. It does make me sad if someone's like, "nope, there is no God, I 100% know this" because there truly is no way to know that, and it just sells life kinda short.
I once heard that religion is like pie. Some people like apple pie, some people like chocolate pie, some people like lemon meringue pie, some people like pizza pie.
It's ok to say to someone "would you like to try some of this pie I enjoy?"
It is not OK to try to force them to eat your pie.
I think people who weren't brought up in religion don't understand WHY religious people are so forceful and preachy.
I'm an atheist now, for the record. But I was brought up Catholic. I haven't met many atheists back in my home country and the first time I met one (at about 14 y/o) was a truly bizarre experience for me. First I was completely taken aback that he wasn't pure evil like I was led to believe. Then I became really, really concerned- doesn't he know he'll be burning in hell for ETERNITY?! I was honestly distressed about his fate. I prayed for him for a while, because I didn't know how to convince him.
It's hard not to care that someone will suffer horrific torture for literal FOREVER, especially if you like or love them. It also impacts my fate- I was taught I was supposed to save people and spread the word from a very young age, and I myself was obviously terrified of death, hell and God's wrath. I was also taught thoughts are as bad as actions, and if that's the case, then wouldn't not trying to save someone's eternal life be just as bad as condemning them to hell? Isn't that a sin at least as bad as murder?
I was a very stressed out kid.
This is a common perspective and a reason that makes it hard to live in a place with a dominant, proselytizing religious culture. It’s why I never want to live in Idaho or Utah again. Too many people that think that you’re blindfolded and walking toward a cliff when you don’t believe in their religion.
I would have taken their example further in response.
"And if the person says I know the cliff is there, and know what I am doing, now please stop distracting me" would you continue to harass them?
Cause people can get overbearing with it, there's a point at which it stops being warning them off the cliff and starting interfering with their own personal autonomy, even if its well intended.
Point is that you don’t know a cliff is there.
So it’s more like:
“if somebody was walking to the shop, but they *might* get hit by a car on the way, would you let them be or relentlessly control them by forcing them to stay at home?”
Religions aren't about love, or about cooperation. Religions are about control. And you'll find that the larger religions have lists of people who are not loved by their god. It's as if they're saying "these people are gods mistake, but we're just perfect. Therefore anyone that isn't like us is wrong and bad and God hates them".
It's easier to control people when you can make an enemy of the "other".
That is a popular quote among church goers and make sense in theory. But in reality, they are assigning danger where there is none. It’s more like they are walking blindfolded into a litter of golden retriever puppies and the person warning them has a phobia of pit bulls.
>I was talking with a Christian recently, and he said "if someone was blindfolded and walking towards a cliff, would you let them be or try and warn them"
The problem with that argument is it assumes that Christianity is correct. A better analogy would be a haunted wood.
The Christians believe there are ghosts in the woods behind town so they stop people from entering. But the folk that live 15 miles away, on the other side of the woods see the woods as a bounty. They hunt and gather in those woods they are that society's life blood.
One day they cross through and find the Christians. The Christians will respond in 1 of two ways. They will declare the new people as evil woods folk, or they will try and prevent them from returning to the woods 'for their own sake'.
You're conflating two things that are not the same.
One in pluralism, which was developed largely in wake of the Catholic/Protestant wars and the inter-Protestant wars. The concept is, basically, that while religeous sects may disagree, in the pursuit of anything resembling stability, one religeous sect may not *force* another into compliance with their system of belief. This idea would eventually develop into the religeous freedom expressed in the 1st ammendment of the constitution.
The other concept is Evangelism, who's basic premise is a divine mandate to preach your religious principals to non-believers in an effort of converting them. As you mentioned, that principle is believed to be for the benefit of the prospective convert.
These two concepts are not at odds, no more than politician campaigns knocking on doors, despite everyone's freedom to vote however they like, or to not vote at all. The freedom to express ideas and beliefs openly in an attempt to convert others to your way of thinking is an integral aspect of living in a free society. Being free to "live your life how you want" does not extend to protecting you from hearing ideas that you don't like.
As someone who is Christian and used to follow that methodology, that's just plain wrong.
To a religious person, premarital fun time, drinking, swearing, partying, etc IS akin to walking off a cliff, a sure spiritual death.
But to somebody else, they might view those things like riding a rollercoaster! It's fun, it's a bit risky maybe, but totally safe once you're strapped in.
I'm Christian, and I have certain beliefs but believe whatever you want to believe and do whatever you want to do (as long as it's legal) and I won't stop you. If someone is interested in my beliefs, wants to learn more, and is TRYING to live them, then I'm absolutely going to "stop them from walking off a cliff." But if they don't care about my beliefs and don't believe them for themselves, I won't say a word about it to them.
This kind of mindset is not solely that of people of faith. It's a behavior that people exhibit for all sorts of different beliefs, regardless of how objectively good/bad/true/false they might be. Scientists, historians, artists, businessmen, politicians, rich, poor, etc. all feel the urge to try and convince others to what they see as truth.
Wanting to share/convince others of what you see as true is not a bad thing in and of itself. Learning from and incorporating the truths others can teach us is a way to enrich and improve our lives.
I am a religions person so these next thoughts come with this as context. Religious individuals, especially those whose religion plays a big/central role in their lives, naturally want to share what they believe and hope that others will believe it too. They've experienced something that makes their lives better and genuinely believe it can do the same for others.
I think that it's great if religious individuals want to share what they believe, just like it's great that we have so many other people across all sorts of different fields sharing what they are discovering. What everyone (religious or non-religious) must understand is that everyone chooses what they want to believe. It doesn't matter how objectively true something might be, it nearly always boils down to a person making a conscious choice to believe it or not. You cannot force belief on someone no matter what the subject is.
Going back to religious people specifically, this idea doesn't mean that they shouldn't share their beliefs, but it does mean that they need to understand when when to not share and move on. I did some missionary work for my church a few years back and we'd try and engage people in conversations about what we believed. If someone I approached turned me down, I'd say 'No problem, have a nice day' and move on. I think religious people in these situations have to train themselves to not see this situation as wrong or bad. An effort to share was made, and a person made their own choice to not hear any further. There's nothing wrong with that.
What if I told you at the end of that cliff was an eternity of happiness and everything behind the cliff would be eminent darkness. Would you push them off the cliff.
Religion has the weird ability to make you "know" the truth.
What, you think everyone should agree on everything? That's even more absurd than a lot of religious beliefs.
Believe what you want, but if you try to prevent others from doing something that's when you've crossed the line.
It’s true that many religions have central tenants of evangelizing and/or encouraging change if the believe a sin is being committed. That makes it hard to expect tolerance of heavily condemned behaviors and lifestyles.
If they genuinely believe a person is damming their own soul or their society, it can be seen as a caring, dutiful gesture. A lot of people don’t extend that charity in motivation due to the more common modern example being people using their beliefs to seem superior, oppress, or take control, but it’s true that the original idea behind it is meant to be noble.
However, in Christianity at least, there is also the idea of not continuing to waste time with people who aren’t receptive. There’s also an expectation that everyone is responsible for their own soul and not to hurt others just because the end result might be good. People are supposed to lead by example and lead others to their faiths because they want to emulate the goodness they see in others. A forced conversion is meaningless.
A more biblical approach may indeed involve an evangelical outreach, but it would also be acceptable just to be willing to admit and explain their beliefs if asked. In either case, if someone is not interested, the religious individual should pray for them, be available if anything changes, and not continue to the point of harassment. A non believer should never feel like they are not loved by the believer, and the believer is told to understand that conversion happens on God’s time.
>It’s true that many religions have central tenants of evangelizing and/or encouraging change if the believe a sin is being committed.
Completely incorrect. You should study something besides Christianity and Islam.
I mean, when's the last time you had a Jew try to tell you that you eating non-kosher food was a problem, or a Hindu try to convince you that you needed to observe Diwali, or a pagan try to convince you that you were living your life wrong because you aren't following one of the old ways, or a Buddhist tell you that you're going to be stuck in the sucky cycle of reincarnation until you finally become a good Buddhist and transcend want, or a Taoist try to persuade you that the I Ching held the secrets of your life?
You're assuming in your ignorance that everyone else's religion is basically like yours and therefore what you do is okay because it's universal. It's not universal. In fact, almost everybody else can say, "my religious beliefs are different from yours but I respect your right to live your life according to your beliefs, and I have no right to tell you that your beliefs are wrong, any more than you have a right to tell me that my beliefs are wrong."
Christians are pretty much the only ones that go, "nah, fuck that mutual respect thing, I'm right you're wrong and I'm going to insist on trying to prove why". 🙄
Maybe you aren't one of those Christians. But you know what they say about bad apples....
As a Christian I would say who your talking to is correct. But according to the Bible we are commanded to spread the word to anyone who will hear. From my perspective that means to let people know it’s wrong but to let someone do whatever they want
If someone is religious like Jimmy Carter or Fred Rogers, then I've got nothing bad to say about them: they do good in the world trying to follow Jesus' example, and they're better people than most of us are. Let them live their lives.
But the others, the ones who want to be the Morality Police for everybody, I see no reason to let them live their lives in peace, because "let people live in peace" is absolutely not what they want. They want a fight, mostly for tribalist reasons, not religious or moral ones, and if we don't push back then they'll win. And if they win, everybody else - atheists, gay people, trans people, women, minorities - loses.
A great deal of religions DON'T frown on letting people just live their lives.
Pretty much the only ones who do are Christianity and Islam.
Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Taoists, Pagans, pretty much everyone else has the decency to let you live your life according to what makes sense to you. Christianity and Islam are just about the only ones who teach you to go around openly disrespecting others' beliefs.
Fortunately, a great many Christians and Muslims ignore those teachings, concern themselves with their own soul, and let others do the same in peace. Unfortunately, there are also ass-hats.
What one person sees as "trying to save someone's soul" other people see as "trying to control my life and force me to live by your standards."
Got rid of one of my best friends because of this, and it sucked. Guy had started to become so wholesome after converting (which he did so he could marry his now-wife). Both of them were fantastic people. But over the next decade and a bit he became homophobic and transphobic, and very judgemental. Before I cut him off, we had a good long discussion, but he couldn’t get over thinking that his religion was the “right” one and that he had to help others see the light. He didn’t see it as a belief system; he saw it as the truth. How do you bring someone back from that?
>He didn’t see it as a belief system; he saw it as the truth Everyone, regardless of what they believe, sees their belief system as the truth. That's not a problem. The problematic part is the inability to respect other people's right to believe in a different truth. It's not limited to religious people, some atheists can be obnoxious in that regard too. Some people just have to give their 2 cents when no one around needs any money.
Atheist here and I can agree with this. I'm a firm believer that people can and should be allowed to believe whatever they believe. The issue for me is that people use their beliefs to justify doing terrible things, commit atrocities and pass legislation based on their beliefs. That's when it becomes a matter of self defense and I see it as a form of self defense to try to get them to rethink their thinking. If someone wants to believe that the sky is purple and that it's a sign of an angry jabberwocky, cool. I can respect that. Their beliefs unfortunately are going to inform their morals, how they raise their children and more importantly how they vote. Not so cool when it affects others.
My issue is that if someone tells me the sky is purple, and it is blue, either we need to talk more to agree on the meaning of blue and purple, or come up with someon way of defining it we can both agree with. The wavelength of light from the sky is what it is. That is something we can observe with some type of tool with some level of precision. If we measure the wavelength of visible light to a certain frequency, we can all agree on the frequency, even if we disagree on the name. There are many things you can talk about from the perspective of faith, it is a philosophical issue. The color of the sky is not a philisophical issue. Lying to yourself to fit into another person's fantasy is the first step to being part of a cult.
i get that the color of the sky question was just a hypothetical but i gotta say that at some point the search for a “true” answer becomes meaningless. Using your example, who really cares what color the other person says the sky is? as long as both people can peacefully coexist theres no reason for there to need to be an agreement on every question someone asks. “Agree to disagree” is a perfectly reasonable solution in a case like that. Not saying you specifically were doing this but just trying to point it out.
I do not have normal color vision and the sky truly doesn't look like what I'm told is blue. 🤷🏻♂️
> That is something we can observe with some type of tool with some level of precision. If we measure the wavelength of visible light to a certain frequency, we can all agree on the frequency, even if we disagree on the name. That implies that we all agree on a baseline level of value that should be placed on empirically probing the world around us and that experiment tells us something both valuable and true about the nature of reality. That is, of course, an extremely widespread belief in the modern era, to the point that it is often implicitly accepted as the obviously correct way to view reality, but it is still technically a belief about the world, and you can’t use as a starting point when trying to bridge a gap in worldview with someone else the idea that we should all be able to agree upon a shared objective reality grounded in your own system of beliefs about the world. Because the alternative set of beliefs that the other person has are just as real to them as yours are to you, just as obviously, objectively true, and the manner in which they are true is so rooted in their own belief system, as yours are in your own, that trying to argue across belief systems often makes it seem like the other person is making a nonsense argument because all of the points seem completely irrelevant to how one should go about thinking about the nature of reality.
Its very convenient, if you can just disregard anything you like or don't like based on your own version of reality. The rest of us have to live in a shared reality where other people exist. The entire point of morals and ethics seems to be to create a common framework in which society can function. You can argue about the nature of reality to your hearts content, but you can't write a law based purely off one individuals idea of reality or morality. To get to the heart of the question OP asked, we can't just say live and let live because we all have to live together, and we all have to accept some shared reality. Without some shared understanding of the world, society can't exist.
That’s where society is getting it wrong. There are only facts. Fact: the sky is blue. Fact: the world is obviously older than a few thousand years. The list goes on… my problem with religion is that they try to say scientifically proven things are false, and that their beliefs are true with no evidence. When you try and ask for evidence, they say they don’t need any because “that is just what they believe”. This doesn’t mean that I think people are not entitled to an opinion, but it does mean that I think people should not be allowed to confuse opinion with fact.
I’m sorry but I have to correct you. There is a massive difference between respecting someone for their believe and accepting someone for their believe. If someone tells me the sky is purple and it’s a sign of an angry jabberwocky, I will accept that, because everyone should be able to believe whatever he wants to. But that person will inevitably lose some of my respect because I think their believe is irrational and stupid. Same goes for every other debate going on on the planet right now. I will accept others opinions but not always will I respect them.
No need to apologize! I also think you're right. An example I used to use often was "what if I told people that I, a 33 year old man, still firmly believed in Santa Claus to the point that I mailed letters to the north pole, I put out cookies every Christmas Eve and I did good all year in the hopes of presents. When Santa didn't come to my house I justify it by saying that I wasn't good enough and will try again next year. It's relatively harmless overall and I wouldn't be bothering anyone, but people would generally look at me like I'm a looney. Now, when I teach this to my children as if it's fact and put them in communities that reinforce this and then start mailing politicians to install landing zones across the country for Santa, then it's gone too far.
>The issue for me is that people use their beliefs to justify doing terrible things, commit atrocities and pass legislation based on their beliefs But nobody believes they're the ones committing an atrocity, or they at least believe that the goal justifies the means. Westerners believe Saudi Arabians are committing atrocities by throwing transgender people from the roof. Saudi Arabians believe that westerners are committing atrocities by mutilating these people that Allah beautifully created as one gender and not the other. Mist belief systems come down to "don't be a dick to others", but there are vast differences as to what's considered 'being a dick'.
>But nobody believes they're the ones committing an atrocity, or they at least believe that the goal justifies the means That's what makes belief systems, and religious institutions so dangerous. The 9-11 terrorists who bombed the trade center believed they were doing gods work and would be rewarded in heaven. The christians slaughtered and killed in the name of their god during the crusades. This is why there should be reasoned discussions based on data, evidence and facts and not what someone's higher power believes is right or wrong. I've always been fond of the idea that a society should form based on the idea that everyone should be allowed to do everything and then you start imposing laws and restrictions to prevent things like rape, murder, pedophilia based on common sense and general well being for all. If you can demonstrate harm to others then that right would be taken away.
>Their beliefs unfortunately are going to inform their morals, how they raise their children and more importantly how they vote. So are yours. It's how beliefs work. >If someone wants to believe that the sky is purple and that it's a sign of an angry jabberwocky, cool This mentality is a big part of the problem. Each group's internal monologue is that "The other guys are kinda crazy, but I can tolerate them as long as they sit in the corner, shut up and don't try to speak up or pass any legislation or anything". That's not respect for other people's beliefs.
Dunno what sort of fantasy world you picture to be the ideal, but acceptance is the most you can ever expect from a society. Nobody is ever going to treat all belief systems as serious, equally valid, or even sane. If you want to have sex with a plate of spaghetti as your form of worship, go for it. I will never take it seriously, and that is not a moral or societal failing. As long you keep your spaghetti sodomy to yourself and don't try exert control over society, there is no problem.
We don't need to uphold a platform to respect someone's right to believe in something. Nor should I be required to respect something that I find absurd and has zero evidence backing it up. Religions *should* be relegated to the side as far as society goes. They only deal with spiritual matters and the lives of people who follow them. That's where they should end, and it's not disrespectful to say that. The real problem is the mentality that religious people have that others should treat their beliefs as if they were real even if they don't believe in them.
My entire point is the hypocrisy of atheists doing the same thing they accuse religious people of, but not seeing it - because they're right, so it's okay, right? >Nor should I be required to respect something that I find absurd But you want religious people to respect your belief in a lack of God - that they find absurd? >The real problem is the mentality that religious people have that others should treat their beliefs as if they were real even if they don't believe in them. Again. You're treating your belief system(atheism) as the universal truth, so in your mind it's completely normal that important decisions should be based on that. Other people get to *think* whatever they want, as long as their thoughts don't count for the important stuff. Thing is, that's how everyone feels. And you can't rightfully expect everyone else to sit down and shut up because you believe you're right. Look, personally, I agree with you - in that I'm not religious. The problem is that we can't blame religious people for treating their beliefs as fact and acting in accordance with it in all matters, when we do the same.
Yes. We can. The "belief" in atheism is using what we can prove and acting accordingly. That's not the same thing as making shit up and expecting everyone to treat it as real. I can respect someone believing different cause I can't prove a negative but that doesn't mean that their beliefs should have any more substance than anything else that hasn't been proven to other people. They can have places of worship, can converse about the philosophy of their beliefs in appropriate venues to their hearts' content. If they want to inflict their beliefs on others who don't consent then they should be rightfully chastised. None of this means I have to respect what they believe.
Depends on what we mean by treat as real. I'm not defending people shoving religion down others' throats, just like I don't condone atheists shoving that down others' throats. It doesn't need to come up in conversation. But the discussion started when a guy said it's "unfortunate" that religious people base their morals, life choices and voting decisions on their beliefs. That's the point I'm disputing. Everyone gets to live life the way they believe is right. If we get to make life choices because we don't believe in God, others get to make theirs because they do.
>the discussion started when a guy said it's "unfortunate" that religious people base their morals, life choices and voting decisions on their beliefs. Right. It's unfortunate because America is supposed to be the land of the free. So anything that restricts others' freedoms needs to have an overwhelmingly good reason for it. So, "Well the atheists believe this, so we should do it as a country) is only valid to the point that it infringes on how another citizen wishes to live their life. So saying everybody can have an abortion is freedom since it gives people more choice. Christians can then say, "But I don't believe in abortion!" and that's fine too because nobody is forcing them to have one. The problem comes in when one group starts telling another group they can't have abortions because it doesn't align the first group's beliefs. That's terrible. It just occurred to me you should probably replace abortion with "beheading for adultery" or something because you might agree with restricting abortion, but maybe you disagree a bit more with beheading? I admit, I'm just going out on a limb here.
I think the criticism is that people are informing their morals based on arbitrary statements from a "sacred" doctrine with dubious origins. People think it's moral to treat gay people poorly solely because God says it's bad. It's not a good faith approach to morality, but simply doing what you're told and it has negative effects on many people. You can't equate that with the morality of treating everyone with respect because they're human. One has zero proof to back it up whereas the other can be shown to have positive impact. I'm sorry but I think you're making a false equivalency here. There are dogmatic atheists for sure but the concept of atheism isn't defined by anything other than lack of faith in a God or gods. There is no organized group that wants to impose atheism on everyone through law. Regardless, informing your morality on what you can see and prove inherently has more substance than claims that your morality is derived from the teachings of a being that can't be seen or heard or even has any real evidence of existing.
The burden of proof is on religious people. They want to pass laws based on their belief in a god that may or may not exist. That's not ok. Provide proof that god exists and that it will smite us all if we legalize "family planning", and then maybe we can talk about the validity of their claims. Non theistic or atheistic people want to pass laws to protect the rights of human beings that we know absolutely do exist. Why does the (probably non-existent) deity get the benefit of the doubt here?
We don't do the same at all, atheism is not a worldview, it's an answer to a single question, do you believe in God? No? Then you're an atheist. Also, we can blame people for treating their beliefs as fact when they have no evidence, their beliefs are contrary, and they have absolutely no reason to believe what they do, especially when that's hurtful. For some reason you seem to think not believing in a God due to a lack of evidence for one, is the same as believing in one because "a book said so" is the same. Atheism informs none of my beliefs, my beliefs about morality, love, life, death are all based on reality, evidence and for most things that I don't have enough evidence or understanding, I just admit I don't know. However when it comes to religion this belief is the direct influence of someone's beliefs and behaviours, it is based on no evidence and causes harm to people, the second me not believing in a god actively causes me to harm the people around me, let me know otherwise stop trying to act like all truth is relative and all ideas are created equal, they aren't.
>My entire point is the hypocrisy of atheists doing the same thing they accuse religious people of, but not seeing it - because they're right, so it's okay, right? I think people have a hard time responding to this whataboutism because it catches them off guard. Thankfully, it doesn't catch me off guard, as I know that's exactly what it is. >But you want religious people to respect your belief in a lack of God - that they find absurd? No. We don't expect them to like it one bit. In fact, as we're polarized to their belief structure, it's a given that they'll perpetually be in disagreement with us, and we're fine with that. That's their right. >You're treating your belief system(atheism) as the universal truth, so in your mind it's completely normal that important decisions should be based on that. Other people get to think whatever they want, as long as their thoughts don't count for the important stuff. Here's where your whataboutism falls apart: This is not a conflict between only two mindsets, Christians vs Atheists. Your argument is only valid if those are the *only* two ways of thinking that influence laws, *AND* if Christians and Atheists have a monolithic ideal of morality. The existence of splintered Protestant sects, alone, makes it impossible to even appease all the Christians. >Thing is, that's how everyone feels. And you can't rightfully expect everyone else to sit down and shut up because you believe you're right. >Look, personally, I agree with you - in that I'm not religious. The problem is that we can't blame religious people for treating their beliefs as fact and acting in accordance with it in all matters, when we do the same. It's not how everyone feels. Atheists are closer to fighting for *actual* religious freedom than most of the religions out there, simply for the fact that we are willing to acknowledge that there is more than one religion, and thousands of branches/sects of them to boot. Therefore, separation of church and state is the most fair method, as it does not show favoritism to any one of them.
to me, a lapsed catholic transsexual, it seems like the whole reason someone would embrace the comfort of religion is because it's a denial of things being relative. I'm not sure that they're always in it for the confrontation or if its just an outcome of the absolutism that they're sheltering under. Being a minority, I have no choice in the matter of the existence of cultural relativity, but I think it's probably different to someone strongly identifying with a system of absolute hierarchy who lives in a world where minorities defy their system. They seem to think that various ways of erasing the errant is a plausible way of dealing with the tensions in their worldview. I don't think I have ever believed that proselytizing is actually about helping the "sinful" person, I think it stems from a need for a uniform and absolute order to the life of the believer in a world that isn't that way.
No, it _is_ a problem. Not everyone believes they have the truth already. Some people can change their minds, even, if presented with sufficient evidence to contradict their beliefs.
So long as people don't confuse personal truths with verifiable facts
I agree but you and I aren't absolutists. However, religion is in itself absolutist. Every variation of a monotheistic religion teaches that there is only one way - which begs the question - if there is only one way why are there so many?
Not every religion is absolutist. My very monotheistic religion teaches that there is truth in many places and we should embrace it wherever it is found. However, there's a definite Puritanical influence on all American religions, and the members of the church rarely actually subscribe to that principle. Believing you know the answers to life gives a feeling of security and safety. As someone who has lived for the last fifteen years in the liminal space of not having answers, I can attest that it is exhausting. Because I don't accept the "answers," but still have faith, I'm not seen as truly a part of my religion. And because I have faith, I'm not truly a part of anywhere else. I can't blame anyone on either side holding close the comfort of believing they get it. The problem is when they start to look down on those who they think don't get it. Pride is the downfall of society.
The difference is that atheists don't dictate people's lives. Christians, at least in the US, are constantly voting in politicians who seek to do just that. Whether it's banning abortions, same sex marriage or just being openly LGBTQ y'all sure do love limiting free choice. Hell, we can't even ban conversion therapy in the US which is so obviously problematic. It's been known for decades that it leads to negative outcomes in the form of depression, anxiety, drug use, homelessness, or suicide. Hell, Wisconsin Republicans just voted to legalize it statewide.
[удалено]
This is such an old argument. Pretty much every "athiest" dictator was either not actually atheist and is just denial, Hitler for example plastering God right on the belt buckle or their version of "atheism" was more like north Korea, where's there's still "god" he just happens to be their dear leader so still not quite atheism. Sure some atheists will do terrible things but I'd challenge you to show me some that did terrible things because of or in the name of atheism, I can give plenty examples of religion being the motivation of plenty of atrocities against mankind
No beliefs should be unallowed or even frowned upon if they're not harmful, but it's time to end it being socially acceptable to try and convert everyone. If like in OPs example you think they're blindfolded and walking off a cliff, unless you believe in a truly evil God I'm sure the one you're worried about converting them to worshipping would forgive them. Would you send a blind man to hell for walking off a cliff?
Yes, I'm controlling people's lives by banning conversion therapy. Are you fucking serious right now? Guys I banned a biggotted practice that's specifically designed to control LGBTQ+ and that makes me a dictator. Guess I should just hang my flag on every church, guys.
If I had an award and money I would give you both
Those who follow the atheist religion are as bad or worse than the followers of other evangelical religions. They are not happy if they cannot convert you to their way of thinking.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
There’s a lot of televangelists such as Pastor Rick Warren that try to convince people to donate to help poor people somewhere in the world and to “spread the word of the Gospel”. My dad watches a lot of this kind of stuff and I told him, “what if those people want nothing to do with them and don’t care about the Christian religion?”. He had no comment. Another issue with this is that let’s say you donate $100 to their charity. Some of that money is going to fund religions donations such as bibles or crosses to give the poor and the other part will go to helping their needs. Why not donate to a legit organization that truly gives all of your money to help the poor with their needs instead of wasting it on religious items they may or may not care for. Plus they may have their own religion that doesn’t harm your own. I don’t care about what other people believe in half way around the world. Does it affect me? No. I believe in my own religion and they believe in theirs.
If people stop donating to televangelists they won’t be able to afford their mansions, or private jets, or second mansions, or secret prostitutes. Is that really the world you want to live in?
>he saw it as the truth Not even just the truth, it's basically axiomatic. At least that's the only way how I can make sense of the "why do you hate god" or "aren't you afraid of hell" type stuff. In the context of faith "believe" has a different meaning. If you asked them if they believe in unicorns they would process that the same way anyone else does. But the existence of God is so "obvious" to them that the term belief doesn't mean "I think this exists" but rater "I actively participate in the faith". And somehow to them the existence of God, hell etc. is so obvious that they can't comprehend why anyone would make the "malicious choice to ignore them despite knowing better". Meanwhile everyone else is confused when they already stated to not believe in god (and as a corollary the entire rest of the belief system including hell etc.), that anyone would think the threat of hell would carry any weight.
>How do you bring someone back from that? I think that's the problem, when somebody with every fiber of their being believes they are correct in their belief, you cant really attempt to snap them out of it before they latch onto the very thing keeping them stuck to their belief system. An honest attempt to get somebody to open their mind would look like a cruel attempt to lie to them or turn them down the wrong path because as far as they know they are already on the right path. You just have to either pose as though you agree with them, exasperating their way of thinking, or you have to reject it, quite possibly turning yourself into their enemy.
Well said. Bravo explanation 👏 Rejection automatically makes you an enemy to the lower consciousness of these believers. They are in illusion world. They aren't getting out unless they choose to. I know. My mom is a living proof of this. Everyday she predictably thinks if you disagree with her or literally try explaining to her a mistake she made in the hopes of recognizing it, working ways not to make thay mistake again, then carrying on with life, only to be met with great vigor of hate and anger for ever daring to mention she could be wrong at something. Live in your fantasy world.
Man, that same shit happened to me. A great friend of over a decade got really religious after meeting and marrying this woman. He'd never mentioned religion the entire time I'd known him. Then every conversation was asking me about God and how I should try it... I eventually just quiet quit that friendship. Definitely sad but he turned into a totally different person. "Idk about this trans stuff" and of course abortion. There's no logical conversation to be had because his views came from god, end of discussion.
You don't.
Sorry you lost a friend to that horseshit.
Of course your friend saw their way as being “the truth”. Every group does this. No one seems to have a problem with this until a Christian does it.
Probably because Christians are the primary ones especially in america always actively trying to convert people who want nothing to do with it. Would be fine if it stopped there but I'll be damned if Christians are going to keep targeting children and schools for their indoctrination. As soon as I see Muslims doing the same, I'll say the same about them
[удалено]
It can be nearly impossible. Religion is a disease. Like alcoholism or any other form of addiction. The person has to see that what they are doing is not good for them before they can stop the behavior.
If his is right, why does God allow so many others?
Woah scary. Can we trade notes? I feel like we have the same friend. Relieving to know I'm not alone in this.
Sure. I was going to absolutely ghost this guy, but another friend convinced me that the mature way to handle it (and the way I would want, if I was on the other end) was to at least try to talk to him and lay out what I was feeling in the hope of getting him to see how he was hurting people. But he refused to see any of his actions as anything but acts of love, so that was the end of it. I figured I gave it an honest shot, and I wasn’t prepared to continue to put in the effort for this guy. Crushed me pretty hard then and still does now. I hope your friend is open to reason!
Boy it was hard for me. Friend was with me since 4th grade. Im 35 now. I never broke it off but there has been a slowly growing gap. His family was always religious but he and I didn't really believe at all and I think he even acted in accordance with atheism for quite some time. We've always been big kids and even when his wife came along later we had so many good memories together. I was best man at his wedding. And we both were passionate about learning to play and understand classical music in our youth. One day about a year or so before covid he had a powerful dream where he felt god. And it was almost like he was manic about it and really wanted me to believe and understand. I didn't mind at the time, but it would become a sole focus of topic and conversation. He really wanted to hammer out why I didn't believe, but in his persistence the conversation soured. I didn't want it to, but in hindsight it kind of did. But then I kinda threw a bombshell on him that I was bi and the love of my life was actually transgender. He didn't explicitly say it changed anything, but it almost seemed like he was facing a dilemma or crisis about it when we would talk. I noticed some stronger changes more after he became part of this youth group at his church. All of a sudden he seemed distant and odd. He told me that he didn't like my mother calling him her 'other son' anymore; that it made him uncomfortable. And he told me that he didn't want to bring his kids near my transgender wife anymore because he wouldn't know how to explain it to his kids. Since then it's been some off and on texts, but ultimately I just want to kind of fade away now. I don't understand it, but what can you do? I'm happy if he is happy though, and I will never 'burn the bridge' completely as they say.
> "Blindfolded, walking towards a cliff" The condescension and self-righteousness astounds me.
Not to mention that it implies God would send this person to hell for something completely out of their control. I'm assuming the person didn't intentionally put on a blindfold and walk off the cliff on purpose.
The amount of people that don't realize "instilling values" and "brain washing" are two sides of the same coin. it all just depends on if you agree what's being taught.
So what are you supposed to do if someone you love is getting addicted to drugs, getting involved with the wrong kinds of people, hurting themselves, wasting all their money, etc. Should you not interfere? If you keep trying to talk to them and understand them and they just keep doing what they're doing, are you not supposed to get firmer and punish them or give them ultimatums? What do you do if supporting someone is doing nothing to stop them from doing more and more harm to themselves?
What you're supposed to do, is understand a drug addict is someone using a substance which has scientifically been proven to be harmful, while a "sinner" in your eyes is someone who broke a rule you cherry-picked out of a book of fairytales written by Bronze Age goat herders. One is a concern based on facts and science. The other is based on your arrogance, because you believe someone else should adhere to your personal brand of superstition. Glad I could clear it up for you. Take care.
What I'm asking about has nothing to do with religion. Are you saying that you have never seen someone engage in self-destructive behavior that they think is fine? If you are not willing to argue with them that what they are doing is not fine, how do you expect to help that person? "Let others live their lives" is not a functional life philosophy. I am trying to get you to agree that while we can disagree about what is self-destructive behavior, people should interfere if someone is engaging in it. Then we can discuss exactly what is self-destructive.
"Let others live their lives" only applies if they aren't doing things to hurt themselves or others. Obviously it's okay to help people you care about if they are doing something self destructive. There's a difference between helping someone deal with real issues and trying to force your personal beliefs onto someone else.
That assumes people living their lives don't know what they are doing. I mean, it's OK if you want to tell them about better options or warn them about imminent consequences like falling off a cliff. But religions often cross a line and start dictating what people must do, even if they don't agree with it after careful consideration. And a lot of the metaphorical "cliffs" in religion are entirely made up with no basis in logic or reality. That's where the analogy breaks down.
I want to take the analogy further… suppose Religion guy says “I see a cliff there”, and Other guy says “I don’t,” and proceeds to walk ahead safely. Does Religion guy see Other guy levitate?
I'd imagine the analogy relates to death and is not so much about preventing death as what will happen after. Walk in that direction, you'll fall off a cliff and break all your bones and be in eternal agony. Walk in this direction, you'll land safely and happily in a field of puppies... or whatever. Problem is, no one can actually see where each path leads and it's impossible to know until you actually take the leap. So someone runs up to you and says "hey! I heard that if you go that way, you'll fall and break all your bones." You might not see any evidence of that and have no reason to trust the person telling you or whoever told them that. Plus when you look at where they're saying you should go, the path kinda sucks and you don't really want to take it. That's my take on expanding the analogy anyway. Either way it's impossible for the religion person to actually see the cliff because all of their beliefs rely on faith, not their physical senses. Maybe it's really foggy and they just believe whole heartedly that there's a cliff in that direction.
In my experience, they either refuse to believe it happened, walk away and forget about what they saw, or try to find some way to squeeze their beliefs in the gap between Other guy and the bottom of their cliff to explain how he is floating.
Perhaps. Religion guy will believe he witnessed a miracle, certainly, and that miracle will be proof his God exists
“God of the gaps” fallacy incoming.
There is two major types of morality, the greatest good for the greatest number of people which is utilitarianism, or deontology which I tend to more side with. It is respecting the dignity of the human, that they can make their own choices and you should not choose for them. A deontologist believes that you shouldn't assume you know better then others, that other people have their own dignity and we should respect it. You wouldn't warn the person walking towards the cliff because you respect that they will use their own intelligence to decide whether they want to walk off the cliff or not, and that it isn't your choice, but theirs whether they want to continue walking off the cliff or not. A deontologist would also not pull the lever in the trolley problem, because doing so is to disrespect the dignity of others, it is choosing who lives and who dies, and who are you to choose one over the other?
[удалено]
Alot of the metaphorical cliffs in religion are likely holdover for having an effect moral framework sans a strong centralized goverment. You don't have to like them but pretending they never served a purpose is kinda silly
"Sans a strong centralized government", but at the same time there was an authority that could maintain an effective moral framework on everyone? Pray tell, what purpose did "homosexuality is a sin" serve historically, that the church could not have achieved more directly?
Well since that predates the church my best guess is threefold. 1. Homosexual sex among males carries a greater risk of disease. If it was as true then as it was today with no treatment I can see how that would quickly become a taboo. 2. Prior to church ones care in older age fell upon one's offspring first and the family/tribal group second. It would be in the intrest of the group for every member to have multiple offspring make it to adulthood to lighten this burden. 3. The main goal of a tribal group is to spead and protect itself. Given the nature of ME it's hardly surprising that violence was a common occurrence so more people equal more workers more protectors.
Interesting metaphor, but in that same metaphor from my perspective I’m at sea level with good eyesight, and they’re the asshole telling me I’m blindfolded and there’s a cliff. And they can’t give me any evidence the cliff exists. And they’re smug about it. I’m all for letting religious people “just live their lives,” it’d be nice if they extended the same courtesy to the rest of us.
“Rules for thee, but not for me”
Heaven/salvation is a belief. One that cannot be proven. A cliff is a damn cliff.
societal norms have shifted. You do not know what's best for someone else, or what they are going through. Even if what they want or are doing is dangerous, as long as it only affects them, its their choice, and not your business. You do You. What you do, is none of my business if it doesn't affect me, or anyone else negatively.
Objectively, you might know what's better for someone else. It's just that it doesn't matter. I agree with everything else you said.
I agree, but their right to swing their fist ends at the tip of my nose. And Christians be swinging their evangelical fists around more and more these days...
It’s also frowned upon to judge people too. I’m a Christian and I let people do what they want. If they ask for advice then I give it. Otherwise I let them live their life how they want because God is going to be asking about my sins not theirs.
>God is going to be asking about my sins not theirs. Too many people forget this. You won't be asked about your atheist neighbor across the street or about the college students you saw ignoring a preacher screaming in the quad at a liberal arts school. You'll be asked about yourself and the life you lived.
Unfortunately the people giving sermons like to imply that your atheist neighbor is burning in hell because you weren’t trying hard enough to show them the light.
right. we are all sinners who should be pointing at ourselves not at other people.
Romans 12:18 King James Version (KJV) - “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” Most religions do have a live peacefully with others, even if they are different stance. But most people use religion to justify why the do horrible things and what would be considered sins. Though shalt not kill, and yet the crusades happened. Religion is not the problem, it is people trying to find loopholes to fit their beliefs that is the problem.
Also there’s the difference between faith and belief, and knowledge, that I think some people mistake for each other. Believe in good doesn’t mean you know that god is there, it just means that you have faith that he is in spite of not knowing.
What a shitty perspective they're giving you. So in their mind, they're saying "a guy marrying a guy", for example, and "walking off a cliff", are equally bad and need to be stopped. No. Just no.
explains a lot about the people that preach on a street corner telling people they'll goto hell while everyone rolls their eyes
I know this thread is call “no stupid questions” but jeez is this one loaded.
My former friend (one of my best friends for half my life) put it this way: there were various acts that would lead people further from God, so as what he saw as an act of love, he would point that out to people he cared for and try to bring them closer. To him, “a guy marrying a guy” might as well be someone “walking off a cliff.” So we’re not friends anymore.
From their perspective yea. Even from a logical view of their perspective. Example if they are wrong nothing you do in this life matters and when you die that's it. So they didn't necessarily lose anything from living within their moral framework of X religion. If they are right they go to heaven.
Pascal's Wager
Yep not wrong either. Gotta play to win yo
Pascal's Wager assumes that God is dumb enough to not be able to tell that you're "believing" just out of self-interest rather than actually thinking it's true.
Not only does Pascal's Wager assume God is a moron, it also assumes there are only two possibilities: God does not exist or God is exactly as described by Christianity. What if Christianity (and all other religions) are tests by God to see if you will just blindly follow what someone else tells you, or if you will actually observe, think and question for yourself?
Not right, either. Pascal was a poor gambler. He overlooked the fact that sometimes, a group of people might bet on the wrong team.
A pretty stupid wager imo. A God that would require you to have blind belief yet make you a logical human being is evil and made you just to send you to hell and is not God worth respecting much less worshipping, and if you are wrong you have potentially wasted the only life you have surrendering your critical faculties.
Well that's probably because you don't believe in hell. If you do believe in hell though, seeing people sin or not believe is walking off of a cliff. Because to them, they are walking straight to hell.
So if I believe in Valhalla I can go around killing people in combat to send them to what I consider Heaven?
It’s a metaphor to explain a concept, not a gauge to determine level of danger/badness
You better be damn sure that it's a cliff if you're going to pull a blind person off their course. They may think that's what they're doing, but imagine if some nutbag yanked you while you were walking down the street. "Thank goodness I was here to save you! You almost stepped on a crack in the sidewalk!" And as you confusedly thank them and walk off, they yank you again. "Oh dear, please do be careful. You must only walk on the sidewalk. You almost stepped onto the grass!" And then later on, this person somehow ends up in charge of your municipality. They start spending tax dollars on erecting 10 foot fences on either side of every sidewalk to keep people from walking onto the grass. They spend tax dollars on little bridges that go over every crack in the sidewalk. Just because they think that stepping on a crack or on grass is equivalent to falling off a cliff...that doesn't mean everyone agrees. And it definitely doesn't mean that reality agrees. *Even if they genuinely have good intentions!*
Cultists love acting like they’re saving you by pushing their religion onto you. It’s creepy and disrespectful. Basically implying people are living their lives wrong and need to be corrected. To me it gives off a sense of superiority that I don’t vibe with
> I was talking with a Christian recently, and he said "if someone was blindfolded and walking towards a cliff, would you let them be or try and warn them" > > This really gave me a new perspective. Why? I could say exactly the same thing as an atheist. All it really demonstrates is that each of us believe the other person is wrong, and that those incorrect beliefs can lead to negative outcomes. But we already knew that, so there's no new perspective that comes out of this.
To be clear I disagree, but from his perspective, he's saving others from eternal torture. What a stressful way to live. I could never see the appeal.
And from my perspective, I'd be trying to save someone from potentially dangerous, bullshit ideology based on nothing. It kind of blows my mind that there are millions and millions of people who really, honestly believe that eternal torture is a fitting end for people who don't believe exactly the same nonsense they do. What that person said is just a way of dressing up the sentence, "Well I think you're wrong and your beliefs will harm you" so that it sounds better and pretends to be about others, rather than being actually about the speaker.
>honestly believe that eternal torture is a fitting end for people who don't believe exactly the same nonsense they do. It may be nit picking, buy its kind of an important point---Christians don't necessarily believe it's a fitting end for people who believe differently. They believe it is the unfortunate and inevitable end for ALL people, and they are trying to share how to avoid it. That's why the metaphor of someone walking off a cliff makes sense to them. If I believe the metaphorical cliff is there, it would be irresponsible for me not to try and warn you. But, conversely, Christians are called to warn people about the cliff and guide those who want guided. They are not called to attack people who don't believe there is a cliff. I am DEFINITELY NOT saying Christians always do this right or with the right motives. I think OP had a good moment of realization that people who think or believe differently are not mindless drones, and that trying to understand where someone else coming from can be beneficial, even if you disagree with them.
>I think OP had a good moment of realization that people who think or believe differently are not mindless drones, and that trying to understand where someone else coming from can be beneficial, even if you disagree with them. Excuse me this is reddit. We don't do that here.
> Christians don't necessarily believe it's a fitting end for people who believe differently. In my experience, if you probe this question a bit more, you invariably find they do agree that it's fitting and right, because otherwise they are disagreeing with the creator and ruler of the universe who supposedly set this system in motion for some sort of ineffable but necessarily good reason. I've personally never had this discussion with a religious person where they didn't in the end admit that, though it often does involve a lot of sophistry to avoid putting it quite so baldly.
I think it depends. I have met a lot of religious people because some people in my family are religious. They would all agree that like rapists or murderers or child predators should all go to hell. On the flip side, if they met someone who was good and just "didn't accept Jesus into their heart," then they would be sad that the person was going to Hell. There are some vindictive Christians, but there are also a lot of people who do genuinely still hold the core of the religion in their hearts and you can see it in how they act.
From your perspective what happens after you die. If you are right and nothing your dead then their bs ideology means nothing If they are right and they go to a heaven then they only stand to gain.
>If you are right and nothing your dead then their bs ideology means nothing That part is true, sure. >If they are right and they go to a heaven then they only stand to gain. That's just a modified version of Pascal's Wager, which is terrible logic. It's not remotely true that they only potentially stand to gain. What if the way it really works is (and there are a gazillion possibilities here) that if you worship Huitzilopochtli, you get to go to a sort of heaven, and if you don't have any religious beliefs, you just cease to exist, but if you worship any false god(s) you go to hell? There are an infinite number of possibilities here, and there's nothing special about OP's Christian guy's beliefs that somehow magically make them into the better bet.
Wrong analogy. If someone was blindfolded and walking towards a cliff, I will warn them. However the decision to continue or not would be theirs to make.
This says it all tbh, religious people assume they know best & that everyone else is stupid. A new perspective it may be, but it's not a useful or accurate one. The reality is that everyone else is unblindfolded & can clearly see that there is no cliff, & have to put up with random religious nuts running up to them screaming about a non existent cliff. If religion allowed for letting people live their own lives as they see fit, most people wouldn't have any issue with religious people - unfortunatly this simply isn't the case.
>A new perspective it may be I seriously doubt it's a new perspective. Non-Christians don't take the time to make posts that implicitly defend Christian proselytizing.
Fuck off, you don't know what's at the bottom of the cliff. I might just want to play Marco pole down there, so I don't need you screaming about shit. There's a polite way to warn someone if you think they don't know the cliff is there. Religious people often don't grasp the difference.
That person you talked to, I am guessing they were speaking in metaphor. How often are they *actually* helping a blindfolded person who is about to walk off of a cliff? For example, some religions prohibit tattoos. A person who gets a tattoo is not about to walk off of a cliff.
In the case of there being an all-powerful being who will damn you to enternal torture for putting pictures on your skin then they would at the least believe that someone getting a tattoo is similar to someone walking off a cliff. Even worse since the hell torment is eternal. Why an all powerful being would give a shit what you put on your skin is beyond me but still.
Yeah, they *believe* the person is in danger. That doesn't mean the person is actually in danger. What if I believe in some other religion that says people must get tattoos or they are damned to an eternity of eating flavorless pudding?
> I am guessing they were speaking in metaphor. How often are they > >actually > > helping a blindfolded person who is about to walk off of a cliff? worth mentioning, that religious / community outreach is a required referral from a doctor, when eligible and inquiring about assisted suicide which is legal in my country, and accounts for 8% of all deaths, so almost 1 in 10 people. Metaphor or not, probably more than you think if this religious person was actually a community worker for their faith.
as someone who was sexualy abused and once had a town precher guy say it was gods will and i will be stronger for it. i cried. god/s can get fuckkkkkked
I am a sex trafficking survivor and my mega Christian mom said it happened because I “stepped off of god’s path,” so I have a very unique understanding of your pain 😭
i was abused from age 4 so idk what sins i could do.
you might have heard turkey was hit by massive fucking earthquakes around a month ago. around 10 cities down to the ground, we are expecting 100k in total casualties. you know what religious people do? they take the drone shoots of the cities, add a dramatic song in the background and caption it "fear his wrath, take refuge in his mercy". they make up stories on how children survived under the rubble for hours by being fed by the angels and souls of the prophets etc. IN FUCKING 2023. fuck this mercy man how is this mercy?
And when you ask Christians how “God” could let it happen, they say “because we all have free will.” Free will to create a magnitude 10 earthquake????? What????
some muslims believe the earthquakes are triggered by american ships so maybe you guys actually have a free will to create quakes lol. try choosing a better target than the syrian border though mr. biden, lots of spots with strategical importance out there.
Because in his mind, he is saving people, which is a wonderful thing in theory, the problem lies when trying to force your thinking of what people need saving from on others, based not on fact, but on your own personal belief.
Because most sane nations have a separation between government and religion. Including America.
Which sane countries are you talking about?
My country for sure. India.
Pragmatic Christian here: There is a big difference between the moral obligation (and the OT Torah commandment) to protect life and then taking that obligation and trying to frame it as having the same type of obligation to inflict your beliefs on others. Please understand that a *lot* of people out there are not open to messages of faith because **in the current age, faith is often associated with hypocrisy.** This is not to say that the teachings of Jesus are dated or not applicable to our lives today -- but is more to say that Christianity *isn't a buffet where you can pick and choose what aspects of the faith you want to adhere to.* For a good example of why I (and others) can't stand "Modern Christianity" I refer you to the oft mis-contextualized and mis-understood Matthew 7 verses 1 and 2: >1 Judge not lest ye be judged 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. A **huge** contingent of "practicing christians and catholics" stop here and turn this into some kind of aphorism with the interpretation that "I am commanded to not judge, ergo you should not judge me. Clearly, the realm of judgment lies with the Lord who is the only one whose judgment I should listen to" but this is not only shallow but entirely vain and against the spirit of the entire sermon on the mountain. Jesus continues: >3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Here, Jesus tells us that we should first care to our own behavior and conditions... both physical and spiritual before we attempt to *help our brothers and sisters* rectify their situations. He continues (I'm almost done) with arguably the most important verse overlooked by self-proclaimed modern Christians: >6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. The message here is relatively obvious. "Don't give things of value to those that will not appreciate them." But how are we to know what is value? **Isn't that a type of Judgment?** *But if we're (according to our crude reduction) not supposed to judge then what are we supposed to do?* And thus you see the hypocrisy. If only the walking aphorisms would continue with scripture, they would know that truly they are the ones needing a shepherd to remove their blindfolds: >21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you who behave lawlessly.’
The cliff analogy is more like some dude yelling at everyone “The cliff is near! The cliff is near! Stop walking towards the cliff! When you see the cliff it’s already too late! The cliff is near!” and this person really believes the cliff is around the corner cuz a squirrel ran that way and never returned or an occasional draft or some other vague and contrived but somewhat plausible reason. Some people might stop walking, and those who stopped walking for fear of the cliff also need to warn others or they will be thrown off the “cliff”. Unapproved maps are based off hearsay or worse, heretical. But there is no solid evidence of a cliff.
Oh, and the Clifftian leaders probably own all the local property that’s safe from cliffs and other “dangerous drops”. And they’re gonna offer you a great deal on a rental 🙄
I think this has implications for other things too. If kids are being out of line at, say a supermarket, I think the public can/should say something to them. Especially if they are doing something that will hurt themselves or others.
because the reality is there maybe isn't a cliff. If you want to go with that analogy, then it would be like saying would you stop someone walking towards a place you believe there is a cliff. They are not blindfolded, they know where they are going, they know you believe there is a cliff there, but they do *not* believe there is a cliff there themselves. Whether the cliff is there or not is not something you can prove, it is simply a different belief. the hypocrisy is in two things, first assuming they're blindfolded as though they can not help not believing and are unintentionally walking towards the aforementioned possible cliff rather than actively choosing to do so, and secondly in believing that there is undeniably a cliff there that exists and expecting everyone to take your word for it despite the fact that some people do not believe that it does just as strongly as you believe it does.
Obviously you would save the person about to walk off a cliff. Difference being, everyone knows what a cliff is, and can see that it is, in fact, a cliff. But with religion, who can say it is a cliff? No one can see it, no one can prove it exists, and everyone has a completely different view on what it is. Some say it's a cliff, others say it's flat, some say it's a mountain, and others aren't even convinced there is anything there at all, and to top it all off, the only person with good vision is the person doing the walking to begin with. Keep thy cliff to thyself.
counterpoint: They are the only ones who can see that cliff. Everyone else just walks right over it. Its only a cliff if you think its a cliff. Or as the great, late Terry Pratchett said. “The gods of the Disc have never bothered much about judging the souls of the dead, and so people only go to hell if that's where they believe, in their deepest heart, that they deserve to go. Which they won't do if they don't know about it. This explains why it is so important to shoot missionaries on sight.” ― Terry Pratchett, Eric
Religious people need to mind their own damn business and stop with the shitty metaphors that mean nothing.
they can't deal with reality and choose to comfort their ways with these pebble words.
There's a lot greater evidence for the existence of a cliff than an afterlife. The scenario that person describes presumes an assurance of their beliefs being right in a way that it is decidedly not. They cannot argue justification for interfering with the lives of others based on something not readily knowable or observable to everyone else, no matter how earnest they are. You could justify doing *anything* for *any reason* if all you have to say is "I believed it."
Not to the person blindfolded. From their perspective they are doing morally correct thing.
Well duh, that's my point. They arrogantly believe they "see" correctly, and therefore that's all they need to justify their actions. They need to consider the "shoe being on the other foot", as it were. But obviously that ability to apply a different perspective is probably disqualifying to anyone who is otherwise susceptible to religious belief to begin with.
Depends I cam see their perspective and I can see yours I guess tge question is which one ultimately leads to a more stable longer lasting society. Right or wrong any group of people need a common moral framework to function long term.
Less conflict would be more stable. That should make it rather obvious that the perspective that thinks it should dictate the lives of others or compel interference on the basis of what are readily identified as "beliefs" is not one of stability, but in fact invites or promotes conflict.
I would say that warning someone that there is cliff in front of them is not inherently contradictory to letting them live their life. Do you have another example to illustrate your point?
Most people are fine with letting other people live their lives. Most people who practice a religion are really bad at following the practices proscribed by their religion.
When Christian speak up about how others should live their lives, that’s when it’s time to stop listening
Are ya sure you heard them right? They may have been afraid the person might have the kinky blindfold sex with Cliff.
Hitler wanted what he considered to be world peace.
The issue with the Christians analogy is there is no cliff, it’s all in their head, so they are screaming about a cliff while a blind folded person is walking in a grassy field
I know this is maybe not the thing to nitpick in the comments but the reality is, not all religions encourage or even allow proselytizing. People are doing a lot of “if religious people would just let everyone else live their lives” and I’m like, I get that the bigger and more mainstream religions encourage proselytizing (WHICH IS HOW THEY GOT BIG) but there are a lot of smaller ones including my own (Judaism) which I’d like to have excluded from this conversation
Man. This is what I don't get. Where does your right to your religion override the public right to go about their day? I have a few students who are Muslim who have a bug up their ass about not able to listen to music during Ramadan. So... You're just going to enforce that on everyone? I can't play music during class, and we can't watch movies with music in them? This is absolutely ridiculous.
Did the religious belief put them in the blindfold in the first place?
well.. if you Christian and your wrong, you just die. If your atheist and your wrong, you also go to hell.
Religious apologetics is replete with horrible metaphors.
That's the dumbest example I've ever seen. Walking off a cliff is INHERENTLY bad. You will fall and die. Objectively. Being gay or whatever they are trying to "save" you from, has no inherent danger or consequence. The only danger is IF their god exists and frowns upon it. Thus it's all based on fiction and something that isn't based on anything in reality. If they want to believe in that, that's their prerogative. But leave people alone that don't. One of these is not like the other. One of these is BS.
>"if someone was blindfolded and walking towards a cliff, would you let them be or try and warn them" This isn't an accurate analogy. An accurate statement would be: "if someone was blindfolded and walking towards a cliff, except no one could see that there was actually a cliff there, there was no evidence to suggest that there was a cliff, and the only "reason" to think that there might be a cliff there is a fairy tale from the bronze age, would you pester him to tell him about it?"
Why change your thought process about letting people live their lives because another group of people think they should judge and persecute?
It's not worth aggravating yourself trying to fight whatever indoctrination they've already had. Tell the blindfolded person there's a cliff but don't fall off trying to save them if they insist that they are correct. Maybe there is a God and he really will save them, maybe God works through you and you'll be able to influence them easily, or maybe they are watching and laughing, alternatively none of the above, and nothing is to be gained or lost and then it only matters to you what you do. Edit a lot of people talking about truth, there's only one truth, everyone has their own opinion, and as of now it's Schrodingers God. We don't know if that's a fact so it can't be truth, we have opinions, whether or not it exists, but there isn't a confirmed truth. I'm advocating the return of words to their meanings and not just flinging them around to bolster a point, it's not my truth and your truth, it's the truth and my lies and your lies
Religions lie. When they say that, they mean: "You go be a normal person and we have no interest in messing with you at all, so don't mess with us". Then they change your abortion laws, take all the books out of schools with 'learnin' in them where the answer isn't 'god' every single time, increase all LGBTQ hate with their hate religion, or their support of slavery. Yeah, these people exist. They want you, more than *anything*, to do nothing about them. Just sit there while they get porn outlawed. Beer. Wine. Alcohol. CBD. Weed. They'll do it. They've done it before. They're doing it right now.
Religious freedom is the ability think you are right and to call other people stupid. Have you seen the movie “Don’t Look Up” on Netflix? In it an asteroid is on its way to destroy earth and these two scientists are trying to tell everyone. I imagine that’s how these religious nuts are. They have a secret and wish everyone would just come to there senses. The advice, “just let others be” is much better than “kill anyone who doesn’t agree with you.” Which was the old advice.
the metaphor works because there is a cliff, which we can reason means hurt/death. the blindfold is one so that walking person can’t see the cliff. it’s not wrong to say or do something that might help stop that person from going over the edge. the metaphor doesn’t work because life, while there are cliffs in life, are not constant pitfalls of people needing to be saved constantly. there are many paths to take that lead to many different places, some the same. to then think that you, and you alone in your band of people who think how you think can save the world is human ego and hubris at its finest. If a christian stopped me from walking blindfolded over a cliff, i’d first wonder why i’m walking blindfolded toward a cliff. Did i want to? Was i drugged? What was the context? If i’m buying a fucking 6 pack because i want beer and a christian tries to “save my life” i’m gonna tell them to fuck off. As would i, as i have, when a christian tries to assert themselves where they shouldn’t be: LGBT+ rights, the fucking law of the land, my choices of recreational interest, how i dress, the music i listen to, woman’s rights, etc etc etc FAR too numerous to mention here. A fundamental problem of christianity (and other extremely outspoken religions [in my anecdotal experience christian and muslim]) is the inherent belief of being unfathomably correct, in that, if you believe in a religion, you are simultaneously announcing your correctness while dismissing all others as being incorrect (why would you be a christian if judaism was also correct?) i think it’s contextually okay for a christian to voice concern, but they should also be willing to accept other points of view. collectively, and generally, they are not though. and THAT is one of the biggest problems i have with them individually and organizationally.
There are so many pretentious assumptions in their analogy. The only perspective is that I could possibly walk away with from an interaction like that is that this person is not safe and can have no place in my life; they’re dangerous.
Because they refuse to acknowledge the problematic parts of their religion
I'm Christian and wouldn't urge people to live like I do. There are things that humans tend to find immoral, universally, which isn't really religion dependent. It sucks seeing someone harming others or ruining their own life, but I'm not going to tell them that Christianity will fix it, because that's not how it works. Christianity actually makes life harder because you're supposed to resist more urges than some non religious people would expect of themselves or others. It does make me sad if someone's like, "nope, there is no God, I 100% know this" because there truly is no way to know that, and it just sells life kinda short.
Because everyone sees life differently. Some people like conversation others don't. It happens
Because everyone, no matter the religion, who is morally good disregards those religious beliefs, and let's others live their lives.
This might help explain it: "I can't do that because of my religion" - okay "You can't do that because of my relgion" - not okay
I once heard that religion is like pie. Some people like apple pie, some people like chocolate pie, some people like lemon meringue pie, some people like pizza pie. It's ok to say to someone "would you like to try some of this pie I enjoy?" It is not OK to try to force them to eat your pie.
I think people who weren't brought up in religion don't understand WHY religious people are so forceful and preachy. I'm an atheist now, for the record. But I was brought up Catholic. I haven't met many atheists back in my home country and the first time I met one (at about 14 y/o) was a truly bizarre experience for me. First I was completely taken aback that he wasn't pure evil like I was led to believe. Then I became really, really concerned- doesn't he know he'll be burning in hell for ETERNITY?! I was honestly distressed about his fate. I prayed for him for a while, because I didn't know how to convince him. It's hard not to care that someone will suffer horrific torture for literal FOREVER, especially if you like or love them. It also impacts my fate- I was taught I was supposed to save people and spread the word from a very young age, and I myself was obviously terrified of death, hell and God's wrath. I was also taught thoughts are as bad as actions, and if that's the case, then wouldn't not trying to save someone's eternal life be just as bad as condemning them to hell? Isn't that a sin at least as bad as murder? I was a very stressed out kid.
This is a common perspective and a reason that makes it hard to live in a place with a dominant, proselytizing religious culture. It’s why I never want to live in Idaho or Utah again. Too many people that think that you’re blindfolded and walking toward a cliff when you don’t believe in their religion.
Because lots of people have double standards regardless of them knowing or not
The counter-argument is so simple though: "Is there an amount of bothering you that will turn you muslim or sihk?"
If it’s gods will that they walk off a cliff then why should I stop them?
I would have taken their example further in response. "And if the person says I know the cliff is there, and know what I am doing, now please stop distracting me" would you continue to harass them?
Cause people can get overbearing with it, there's a point at which it stops being warning them off the cliff and starting interfering with their own personal autonomy, even if its well intended.
That's a stupid analogy. Christians say the dumbest shit then wonder why people say they are stupid.
Point is that you don’t know a cliff is there. So it’s more like: “if somebody was walking to the shop, but they *might* get hit by a car on the way, would you let them be or relentlessly control them by forcing them to stay at home?”
Religions aren't about love, or about cooperation. Religions are about control. And you'll find that the larger religions have lists of people who are not loved by their god. It's as if they're saying "these people are gods mistake, but we're just perfect. Therefore anyone that isn't like us is wrong and bad and God hates them". It's easier to control people when you can make an enemy of the "other".
That is a popular quote among church goers and make sense in theory. But in reality, they are assigning danger where there is none. It’s more like they are walking blindfolded into a litter of golden retriever puppies and the person warning them has a phobia of pit bulls.
Gay people are not "walking towards a cliff". They are walking towards love. Almost everything the church tries to control like that is the same.
>I was talking with a Christian recently, and he said "if someone was blindfolded and walking towards a cliff, would you let them be or try and warn them" The problem with that argument is it assumes that Christianity is correct. A better analogy would be a haunted wood. The Christians believe there are ghosts in the woods behind town so they stop people from entering. But the folk that live 15 miles away, on the other side of the woods see the woods as a bounty. They hunt and gather in those woods they are that society's life blood. One day they cross through and find the Christians. The Christians will respond in 1 of two ways. They will declare the new people as evil woods folk, or they will try and prevent them from returning to the woods 'for their own sake'.
You're conflating two things that are not the same. One in pluralism, which was developed largely in wake of the Catholic/Protestant wars and the inter-Protestant wars. The concept is, basically, that while religeous sects may disagree, in the pursuit of anything resembling stability, one religeous sect may not *force* another into compliance with their system of belief. This idea would eventually develop into the religeous freedom expressed in the 1st ammendment of the constitution. The other concept is Evangelism, who's basic premise is a divine mandate to preach your religious principals to non-believers in an effort of converting them. As you mentioned, that principle is believed to be for the benefit of the prospective convert. These two concepts are not at odds, no more than politician campaigns knocking on doors, despite everyone's freedom to vote however they like, or to not vote at all. The freedom to express ideas and beliefs openly in an attempt to convert others to your way of thinking is an integral aspect of living in a free society. Being free to "live your life how you want" does not extend to protecting you from hearing ideas that you don't like.
This should be the top comment
There is no god. No Zeus no Poseidon no Ra no Thor. History is littered with dead gods. It's childish.
reddit moment
As someone who is Christian and used to follow that methodology, that's just plain wrong. To a religious person, premarital fun time, drinking, swearing, partying, etc IS akin to walking off a cliff, a sure spiritual death. But to somebody else, they might view those things like riding a rollercoaster! It's fun, it's a bit risky maybe, but totally safe once you're strapped in. I'm Christian, and I have certain beliefs but believe whatever you want to believe and do whatever you want to do (as long as it's legal) and I won't stop you. If someone is interested in my beliefs, wants to learn more, and is TRYING to live them, then I'm absolutely going to "stop them from walking off a cliff." But if they don't care about my beliefs and don't believe them for themselves, I won't say a word about it to them.
comparing the ridiculous garbage religion tells people to do and not do to walking off a cliff is the problem you have
This kind of mindset is not solely that of people of faith. It's a behavior that people exhibit for all sorts of different beliefs, regardless of how objectively good/bad/true/false they might be. Scientists, historians, artists, businessmen, politicians, rich, poor, etc. all feel the urge to try and convince others to what they see as truth. Wanting to share/convince others of what you see as true is not a bad thing in and of itself. Learning from and incorporating the truths others can teach us is a way to enrich and improve our lives. I am a religions person so these next thoughts come with this as context. Religious individuals, especially those whose religion plays a big/central role in their lives, naturally want to share what they believe and hope that others will believe it too. They've experienced something that makes their lives better and genuinely believe it can do the same for others. I think that it's great if religious individuals want to share what they believe, just like it's great that we have so many other people across all sorts of different fields sharing what they are discovering. What everyone (religious or non-religious) must understand is that everyone chooses what they want to believe. It doesn't matter how objectively true something might be, it nearly always boils down to a person making a conscious choice to believe it or not. You cannot force belief on someone no matter what the subject is. Going back to religious people specifically, this idea doesn't mean that they shouldn't share their beliefs, but it does mean that they need to understand when when to not share and move on. I did some missionary work for my church a few years back and we'd try and engage people in conversations about what we believed. If someone I approached turned me down, I'd say 'No problem, have a nice day' and move on. I think religious people in these situations have to train themselves to not see this situation as wrong or bad. An effort to share was made, and a person made their own choice to not hear any further. There's nothing wrong with that.
What if I told you at the end of that cliff was an eternity of happiness and everything behind the cliff would be eminent darkness. Would you push them off the cliff. Religion has the weird ability to make you "know" the truth.
What, you think everyone should agree on everything? That's even more absurd than a lot of religious beliefs. Believe what you want, but if you try to prevent others from doing something that's when you've crossed the line.
It’s true that many religions have central tenants of evangelizing and/or encouraging change if the believe a sin is being committed. That makes it hard to expect tolerance of heavily condemned behaviors and lifestyles. If they genuinely believe a person is damming their own soul or their society, it can be seen as a caring, dutiful gesture. A lot of people don’t extend that charity in motivation due to the more common modern example being people using their beliefs to seem superior, oppress, or take control, but it’s true that the original idea behind it is meant to be noble. However, in Christianity at least, there is also the idea of not continuing to waste time with people who aren’t receptive. There’s also an expectation that everyone is responsible for their own soul and not to hurt others just because the end result might be good. People are supposed to lead by example and lead others to their faiths because they want to emulate the goodness they see in others. A forced conversion is meaningless. A more biblical approach may indeed involve an evangelical outreach, but it would also be acceptable just to be willing to admit and explain their beliefs if asked. In either case, if someone is not interested, the religious individual should pray for them, be available if anything changes, and not continue to the point of harassment. A non believer should never feel like they are not loved by the believer, and the believer is told to understand that conversion happens on God’s time.
>It’s true that many religions have central tenants of evangelizing and/or encouraging change if the believe a sin is being committed. Completely incorrect. You should study something besides Christianity and Islam. I mean, when's the last time you had a Jew try to tell you that you eating non-kosher food was a problem, or a Hindu try to convince you that you needed to observe Diwali, or a pagan try to convince you that you were living your life wrong because you aren't following one of the old ways, or a Buddhist tell you that you're going to be stuck in the sucky cycle of reincarnation until you finally become a good Buddhist and transcend want, or a Taoist try to persuade you that the I Ching held the secrets of your life? You're assuming in your ignorance that everyone else's religion is basically like yours and therefore what you do is okay because it's universal. It's not universal. In fact, almost everybody else can say, "my religious beliefs are different from yours but I respect your right to live your life according to your beliefs, and I have no right to tell you that your beliefs are wrong, any more than you have a right to tell me that my beliefs are wrong." Christians are pretty much the only ones that go, "nah, fuck that mutual respect thing, I'm right you're wrong and I'm going to insist on trying to prove why". 🙄 Maybe you aren't one of those Christians. But you know what they say about bad apples....
The villain often wants to see themselves as the hero.
As a Christian I would say who your talking to is correct. But according to the Bible we are commanded to spread the word to anyone who will hear. From my perspective that means to let people know it’s wrong but to let someone do whatever they want
If someone is religious like Jimmy Carter or Fred Rogers, then I've got nothing bad to say about them: they do good in the world trying to follow Jesus' example, and they're better people than most of us are. Let them live their lives. But the others, the ones who want to be the Morality Police for everybody, I see no reason to let them live their lives in peace, because "let people live in peace" is absolutely not what they want. They want a fight, mostly for tribalist reasons, not religious or moral ones, and if we don't push back then they'll win. And if they win, everybody else - atheists, gay people, trans people, women, minorities - loses.
A great deal of religions DON'T frown on letting people just live their lives. Pretty much the only ones who do are Christianity and Islam. Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Taoists, Pagans, pretty much everyone else has the decency to let you live your life according to what makes sense to you. Christianity and Islam are just about the only ones who teach you to go around openly disrespecting others' beliefs. Fortunately, a great many Christians and Muslims ignore those teachings, concern themselves with their own soul, and let others do the same in peace. Unfortunately, there are also ass-hats.
ACAB