Should theists be treated like ordinary humans?

[Me-Ki-Gal]

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


Or go straight to 4 and have a nice day.

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

 

[Yazata]

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

How does someone dismiss other people's religiousness?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Enmos]

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

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

 

[John99]

How does someone dismiss other people's religiousness?

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

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

Why tell anyone they have food stuck in their teeth?

 

[sniffy]

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

My own armpit mostly.

Still 4. is about right I reckon.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

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





Why tell anyone they have food stuck in their teeth?

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

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

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

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

 

[wynn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zagzebski, Ethical and Epistemic Egoism and the Ideal of Autonomy

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

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

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

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

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

 

[wynn]

Why tell anyone they have food stuck in their teeth?

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

 

[wellwisher]

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

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

 

[quinnsong]

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

 

[Dywyddyr]

One of the problems that atheist recruitment faces, is it is a strict and clannish religion that repels people.

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

Atheism is very negative and full of grouchy people.

Balls.

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

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

 

[Dywyddyr]

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

The way soft fruit and a blender go together?

 

[gmilam]

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

Fixed.

 

[quinnsong]

Fixed.

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

 

[quinnsong]

The way soft fruit and a blender go together?

Yes just like that! Like a and theist!


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

 

[Yazata]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[wynn]

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

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

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

 

[wynn]

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

How did you come to that stance and practice?

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

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

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

The concept being discussed is "override".

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

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

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

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

 

[RevArchangel]

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

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

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

rev