Religious people only care about nature because they are told to

I always believe in arguing in an unexpected way. One should not confuse an argument with an opinion. At least in my case. ;)
 
S.A.M. said:
I always believe in arguing in an unexpected way. One should not confuse an argument with an opinion. At least in my case. ;)
Click to expand...
Me no do this. But you are implying an opinion over and over. I think it would sound weaker if you stated it directly. Thus I am saying you are being evasive. Being evasive may not be your motive but it ends up being the result. I think most of the atheists missed your point - as I did for a while. I do not think the discussion can more forward with you simply repeating that religious people simply do what they are told. I think it would be useful if you made your position explicit. You don't want to do this. Fine. But saying that religious people simply do what they are told and do not think for themselves is, from you, rather expected now. A 3rd option?
 
I believe it was from atheists on this forum that I first learned of the unique notion of an exclusively theistic brainwashing. Apparently, if cast into the wild as infants, all people grow into rational human beings with altruistic and intelligent opinions derived from self examination of their navel lint over a long period of time.

Hence, after facing constant bouts of anti-[ENC]S.A.M[/ENC]-itism, I have decided to uphold this "rational" universal truth for its own sake. Apparently, this does not sit too well with atheists either. One is hard put to reach any non-brainwashed conclusions in this matter.
 
S.A.M. said:
I always believe in arguing in an unexpected way. One should not confuse an argument with an opinion. At least in my case. ;)
Click to expand...

Gee, SAM, this is unexpected. Are you arguing that your opinion is confusing? Or in your case, are we to opinionate that your argument is believable? In my case, I'm very confused....
 
S.A.M. said:
I believe it was from atheists on this forum that I first learned of the unique notion of an exclusively theistic brainwashing. Apparently, if cast into the wild as infants, all people grow into rational human beings with altruistic and intelligent opinions derived from self examination of their navel lint over a long period of time.

Hence, after facing constant bouts of anti-[ENC]S.A.M[/ENC]-itism, I have decided to uphold this "rational" universal truth for its own sake. Apparently, this does not sit too well with atheists either. One is hard put to reach any non-brainwashed conclusions in this matter.
Click to expand...

That first paragraph may get some bites from the atheists, I suppose, and move the discussion along. It is not something I agree with, nor am I likely to agree with the corrected versions atheists may give you - like 'we never implied that feral children would be atheists, but when a child is presented with critical thinking tools.....' and so on.

For me knowing the category someone falls into gives me little information about their levels of brainwashing. Most people have ideas shoved into their brains that they do not question and most people think ideas should be shoved into brains. Most people have developed tools for cutting off portions of their intuition and experience and they tend to pass these on to their children using a variety of devices from direct pavlovian beating type approaches to shaming, mocking, belittling, going cold to, or even the rather effective silently judging while pretending to do otherwise.

I see most people as having put on blinders, some cotton in their ears, a huge set of mental defense mechanisms that come into play when they experience certain things outside or inside themselves.

Atheists and religious alike.

But it sounds like I will get frustrated in the crossfire. Who knows? maybe your repetitive strategy here and taking on the insult will get somewhere or at least is fun for you.

I'll check back another time and see if anything has developed. For me it is a dead end.
 
Well I used to try and have discussions, before I realised that the only discussion you can have in the religion forum is "theists are stupid and delusional and anti-science"

So I decided it may at least be amusing to have my own discussions as mirror images of their arguments. If nothing else, its interesting to see how the perspectives are almost laughably alike.
 
S.A.M. said:
Well I used to try and have discussions, before I realised that the only discussion you can have in the religion forum is "theists are stupid and delusional and anti-science"

So I decided it may at least be amusing to have my own discussions as mirror images of their arguments. If nothing else, its interesting to see how the perspectives are almost laughably alike.
Click to expand...
Revenge has its place and so does mockery. I think in the right spirit they can be teaching devices.

(changed my mind about including the rest of this)
 
Last edited:
Mostly what I have noticed is that everyone thinks they are right and this gives them some divine right to impose their will on others.
 
S.A.M. said:
Mostly what I have noticed is that everyone thinks they are right and this gives them some divine right to impose their will on others.
Click to expand...
How do you see this imposing of their will taking form here? I mean, how can anyone really impose, here?
 
Simon Anders said:
I was trying to box SAM in in the same way she was on her thread in relation to atheists. I think she has a valid line of reasoning, but it is easier for to maintain via implication and some of its weaknesses will be more visible if she states it rather than circling it a la Socractes. I wanted her to disagree with me and present how religious people decide to be conservationists. (she had earlier sarcastically said that they have rules for living). Once she laid out the reasons I would check to see if she could agree atheist might also choose decide to care about the environment for similar reasons.

So far however she has not settled on my skin but like a mosquito in the darkness she can be heard.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I will wait and observe.
 
Simon Anders said:
How do you see this imposing of their will taking form here? I mean, how can anyone really impose, here?
Click to expand...

In my estimation, some people have this sense that others are imposing their will on them due to the following: Namely, a person who is not sure about their own conviction will feel pressured when facing someone who expresses surety about their own conviction. If you are sure you are right, you won't feel threatened by what others claim that is right. If you have doubts whether you are right, it can easily happen that you will feel threatened by what others say and become defensive and so on.
Of course, if confronted directly about their convictions, many people will state that they are sure of their own convictions, that they know for sure about right and wrong - but this doesn't yet mean they actually are. What convictions we declare to have is often not what is actually taking place in our minds at any given time.
 
Simon Anders said:
Religious people have rules for living. If their religion tells them to treat nature well, they do. If it doesn't, they don't. The only possible motivation for caring about something is because one follows rules. No one knows what the future will bring. It would be foolish to worry about the future of nature, except if your God has told you to do this. One cannot recognize the value in anything without being told what to value.
Click to expand...

Consider this scenario:
I gave up smoking. Previously, you have told me to give up smoking. Does this mean that I have given up smoking because you told me to and I simply obeyed you?
 
greenberg said:
In my estimation, some people have this sense that others are imposing their will on them due to the following: Namely, a person who is not sure about their own conviction will feel pressured when facing someone who expresses surety about their own conviction. If you are sure you are right, you won't feel threatened by what others claim that is right. If you have doubts whether you are right, it can easily happen that you will feel threatened by what others say and become defensive and so on.
Of course, if confronted directly about their convictions, many people will state that they are sure of their own convictions, that they know for sure about right and wrong - but this doesn't yet mean they actually are. What convictions we declare to have is often not what is actually taking place in our minds at any given time.
Click to expand...

I see this as doubling the responsibility and quite rightly. It is my issue to work on: how to deal with people who are present themselves as certain (perhaps while merely suppressing their own doubts or thinking to do so is a winning system). And it is their responsibility to notice if they are feeding off of other people's uncertainty.

I cannot simply wait for them to be better people or more fully aware of themselves, etc.

Nevertheless, I am not the only one with responsibility here.
 
greenberg said:
Consider this scenario:
I gave up smoking. Previously, you have told me to give up smoking. Does this mean that I have given up smoking because you told me to and I simply obeyed you?
Click to expand...
Well, the whole thread was me trying to squeeze SAM out of her self-deprecating irony in another thread. So I don't really have the opinion you are responding to. But in the spirit of answering anyway...
Not unless the power dynamic is what would generally be considered illegal, for example in Europe.
 
Simon Anders said:
Nevertheless, I am not the only one with responsibility here.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It is the nature of human interaction that we are mutually responsible both for our own and for each other's welfare.
I can't come posting to a forum and insist that "I am just doing my thing and others read my stuff at their peril".
 
greenberg said:
Agreed. It is the nature of human interaction that we are mutually responsible both for our own and for each other's welfare.
I can't come posting to a forum and insist that "I am just doing my thing and others read my stuff at their peril".
Click to expand...
Oh, no. You caught one of my moods.
Hm. Not 'peril' I suppose.
 
Simon Anders said:
Well, the whole thread was me trying to squeeze SAM out of her self-deprecating irony in another thread. So I don't really have the opinion you are responding to. But in the spirit of answering anyway...
Not unless the power dynamic is what would generally be considered illegal, for example in Europe.
Click to expand...

Given that this thread was started as a SAM fest, I'm not sure whether to respond seriously ...
But I'll respond anyway -

Following religious rules can be done simply out of coercion or blind obedience, but it can also be done out of a deep sense of conviction and realization. There may also be other motivations for following religious rules, such as ulterior motives. On the outside, all those different motivations for following religious rules might produce the same result.
All in all, we must beware not to jump to conclusions when it comes to understanding why people do the things they do.
 
greenberg said:
What do you mean?
Click to expand...
I meant that some of my posts could easily be seen as coming from that attitude and perhaps, I wondered, actually are coming from that attitude. But then I could not identify with 'peril'.
What else did you have in mind, as opposed to "peril"?
Click to expand...
Since I had my guilty response first I will counterbalance with a very positive view:
"at the risk of a shock of recognition which may, at first, at least, seem unpleasant despite its value."

And nowthe waves of guilt and pomposity interfere and cancel each other out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top