Gone Over To the Christian Side
- Thread starter Gustav
- Start date
The moral superiority of science (scientists?) is so overwhelmingly obvious (as Ophelia and MountainConey would say) that it hardly needs defending. The onus is on those who even attempt to claim ethical equality with scientists to prove their case.
Just kidding.
Just kidding.
Gustav said:
Each of us responsible for his or her own happiness. This person you are talking about is responsible for his or her own happiness. You are responsible for your own happiness.
That the other person has turned in ways you might not like is *not* your problem to solve. It is not your job to change them.
State that you don't like what they have done, state how you feel. See then how the situation develops.
Keep in mind that you are responsible for your own happiness, for your own well-being. Other people may add to that, but they cannot diminish it. That you don't like them or the things they do, is your problem, not theirs. How you feel is your thing.
We all want to be happy, and we go about it in different ways. But if we let our happiness depend on others being a certain way (so that we like them), then we are in for misery.
Gustav said:
The approach you have chosen so far is as wise as philosophizing about suicide with a person holding a gun to his head. It leads nowhere but to more fighting and more aggravation on both sides.
Accept the other person as they are, and stop trying to make them responsible for how you feel.
Accept the other person as they are, and stop trying to make them responsible for how you feel.
Accept them as delusional and ignorant? Where is the logic in that? It would be the same as watching your friends or family turn to hard drugs or contemplate suicide while you sit by and do nothing but accept it.
Accept them as delusional and ignorant? Where is the logic in that? It would be the same as watching your friends or family turn to hard drugs or contemplate suicide while you sit by and do nothing but accept it.
Okay: I looked over my last three posts in this thread:
Post 1: I responded to the Original Poster, and gave him good sober advice:
No preaching involved. I didn't even attempt to convert the OP or present any Christian arguments. Only dissuade him from interfering in someone else's life.
Post 2: I asked another poster to prove his allegation that I was some kind of Creationist.
Post 3: I gave a quick synopsis of the history of the conflict of religion and 'science' in America, ending with:
Still no 'preaching'.
Post 4: I presented a thesis that we are now in the Post-Scientific Era:
While there is a religious reference here, I clearly give the reader a choice of two equally brilliant strategies. I have not favoured one unique religious solution to modern man's dilemma. Still no preaching.
Post 5: I made an ironic suggestion that those who challenge the ethical superiority of 'science' must prove their claim. Given, it was a sarcastic comment on current affairs, but how was it preaching?
So, 0/5 on the preaching thing.
Nice accusation though. Those who can't read or are too lazy to check might assume I am a preachy Creationist judging from the incompetent evaluations. Thanks.
Good hypothetical question: Do you have any actual examples of societies who are too stable to need religion? The YMCA perhaps? Or New York Bondage clubs?
Last edited:
If that's your reason, then maybe you should use Medicine Womans advice. Not for your sake, but for your friends sake.Gustav said:
That to this extent show him/her off as a moron is very, very sad - not because we somehow know who she/he is, but that you in witness of yourself does. Walk with him, or walk away from him.
and this.....
"I personally see entering the cult and the deprogramming as quite separate psychological phenomena. Getting into the cult consists of the cult recruiter getting the new initiate to stop the thought processes, to think only in cult terms and concepts, to stop thinking about their past and to give them a [narrow] frame of thought... The deprogramming process is more a freeing up of the person to once again use their mind and to reflect and think and reason and to trust their own experiences." (Margaret T. Singer)
"I personally see entering the cult and the deprogramming as quite separate psychological phenomena. Getting into the cult consists of the cult recruiter getting the new initiate to stop the thought processes, to think only in cult terms and concepts, to stop thinking about their past and to give them a [narrow] frame of thought... The deprogramming process is more a freeing up of the person to once again use their mind and to reflect and think and reason and to trust their own experiences." (Margaret T. Singer)
Goooooood riddance!!
We need more "compassionate" Christians, people!
You know, the kind that kill in the name of love, and can’t see their own selfishness behind all their bleeding-heart selflessness.
You know the type that can fall for any argument if it is sufficiently pleasing.
We need more "compassionate" Christians, people!
You know, the kind that kill in the name of love, and can’t see their own selfishness behind all their bleeding-heart selflessness.
You know the type that can fall for any argument if it is sufficiently pleasing.
Einstuck:
Then again, you've never clarified your beliefs, and I can't blame you. By keeping your religious beliefs secret, you can cry 'Assumption!' and 'Leaping to conclusions!' when someone brands you a religious nutcase. And as we all know, we need you to admit that you are a Creationist before we can judge you as one... right? Just like we need a murderer to admit his crime before we can judge him a murderer.
Oh look, another poster on sciforums making shit up, as usual. I guess I'd be a little upset if I was soundly trounced in open debate, so I can't blame you for engaging in such childish antics.
It's obvious that you are a Creationist. Once again, this is an inference made from available evidence (aka. Your nutty statements).
Then again, you've never clarified your beliefs, and I can't blame you. By keeping your religious beliefs secret, you can cry 'Assumption!' and 'Leaping to conclusions!' when someone brands you a religious nutcase. And as we all know, we need you to admit that you are a Creationist before we can judge you as one... right? Just like we need a murderer to admit his crime before we can judge him a murderer.
Gustav said:
It shouldn't be an issue. It's a very personal thing. Your friend shouldn't be trying to shove Jesus down your throat, and you shouldn't be trying to persuade your friend either. My advice is that both of you have some respect for one another. That shouldn't be so difficult if you are truly friends, and if your friend has truly met Jesus Christ. Jesus did not force Himself or His teachings on anyone...He never came uninvited. He is respectful, humble, kind, generous, and has nothing but unconditional love for everyone. He taught against judgement and condemnation. If your friend has truly met Jesus and is born again, then he should be a better friend than he ever has been before. Then again, if he's just been indoctrinated into some cult-like organization of hypocrits, then run for your life.
it is us, the secular humanists that give everyone a fair shake. we let everyone have the freedom of religion. what do we get in return?
Actually, Christians tolerate the beliefs of others as well. I don't know what Christians you're talking about but the Christians I associate with realise that it's fruitless to argue with people to try to convert them. And why should you care if your friend has become a Christian. If you believe that God doesn't exist then what harm could it do to let your friend believe. The only way I could see it doing harm if it it causes him to do something drastic like give away all his money or something. If believing in God makes him feel better then why try to stop him? If you really insist on stopping him from believing the only way is to come up with some hard hitting evidence. That has stopped many people from believing.
Actually, Christians tolerate the beliefs of others as well. I don't know what Christians you're talking about but the Christians I associate with realise that it's fruitless to argue with people to try to convert them. And why should you care if your friend has become a Christian. If you believe that God doesn't exist then what harm could it do to let your friend believe. The only way I could see it doing harm if it it causes him to do something drastic like give away all his money or something. If believing in God makes him feel better then why try to stop him? If you really insist on stopping him from believing the only way is to come up with some hard hitting evidence. That has stopped many people from believing.
Last edited: