Penn and Teller are magicians and after their show Penn (an outspoken atheist) usually comes out and talks about his views to the crowd.
I thought it was interesting that an atheist would come out and say some of the the things that he said in his blog. Because I remembered the same analogy used here on the watch in The Close (I think its deep in the Catholicism reverts (again) thread.
How much do you have to hate someone to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? If I believe that there is a truck bearing down on you, and you didn’t believe it, there’s a certain point at which I tackle you. And this is more important than that.
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch
This kind of atheist, and the kind of Christian the man was are great examples of the dialogue/relationship that SHOULD exist. [and should exist between peoples of different faiths as well] I consider myself fortunate to have a very close friend who is just this kind of Christian.
Nice link, SB.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler] the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass. "Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation." the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
How much do you have to hate someone to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? If I believe that there is a truck bearing down on you, and you didn’t believe it, there’s a certain point at which I tackle you. And this is more important than that.
Suppose I had a vision that said God will destroy the earth next week unless everyone I see gives me five bucks.
Do I hate everyone if I don't accost them for money screaming that their life depends on it?
Often I lean in favor of Wayfriends thoughts...so I'll presume to summarize and paraphrase (or question and hope?) that the point is the ridiculousness of going to logical extremes. [logical extremes are arguable...sort of..., illogical ones...well..not at all] Unfortunately, it is the nature of logic [at least so far as humans have mastered logic] that it is incapable of answering its own endpoints [and often its own premises]
Unfortunately, religion suffers the same shortcomings.
Logic has the advantage of working in the middle very effectively, in many situations...if you build a bridge using proven logical methods, it works, as long as you follow the instructions [whether you believe in them or not is irrelevant] since the point is to cross the river.
If you build your life around the Koran, your life may or may not work, and you won't know if you made it across the river until it's too late. [unfortunately, the same is true if you didn't follow the Koran, and it was right]
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler] the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass. "Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation." the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
I still think that the best response to an atheist's views comes from Puddleglum, in Lewis's "The Silver Chair":
"One word, Ma'am. One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things -- trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one." Bill Hingest ("That Hideous Strength" by C.S. Lewis)
"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
The point of my logical experiment was to demonstrate that "not hating everyone" is at cross purposes with "being unconscionably rude" when it comes to "spreading the word".
From you're POV, you're saving souls.
From someone else's POV, you're being a arrogant, rude, insufferable busybody who has no authority to dictate someone elses way of life.
Hmmm...
I was raised to take other people's POV into consideration.
The problem I have is, the ability to construct an storyline that self-explains why people need to be arrogant, rude, insufferable busybodies IN AND OF ITSELF doesn't make it true.
wayfriend wrote:
From you're POV, you're saving souls.
From someone else's POV, you're being a arrogant, rude, insufferable busybody who has no authority to dictate someone elses way of life.
I was raised to take other people's POV into consideration.
If someone is truly rude, arrogant and insuffereable, then it doesnt matter what they are trying to tell someone else, because the other person wont hear them.
Not everyone out there trying to save souls is what you are describing. Sometimes its a nice person just trying to plant a seed.
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch
SoulBiter wrote:Not everyone out there trying to save souls is what you are describing. Sometimes its a nice person just trying to plant a seed.
Someone "trying to plant a seed" is often enough considered rude (not your business), arrogant (to think you know better), insufferable (not discouraged by pleas to stop), and busybody-ish (not your job to tell me how to live).
SoulBiter wrote:Not everyone out there trying to save souls is what you are describing. Sometimes its a nice person just trying to plant a seed.
Someone "trying to plant a seed" is often enough considered rude (not your business), arrogant (to think you know better), insufferable (not discouraged by pleas to stop), and busybody-ish (not your job to tell me how to live).
It's that POV thing again.
At least this man did the courtesy of not pestering or lecturing Penn. He made his point quite clearly with a simple gift and simple compliments. To me, that speaks volumes about the gift giver and his ability to touch someone else who is not of his faith.
Patrick Stewart wrote:Mostly [fans were] very pleasant. Then there are the scary ones - the unhinged people who become obsessive. The most charming experience was some years ago when I was working in Zagreb. I went to dinner with a friend at a rather fancy restaurant in a converted monastery. We were welcomed very formally and shown to our table with no special treatment whatsoever. Halfway through the meal the salad came, and on each one of our plates there was a beautifully constructed model of the Enterprise made out of green peppers, cucumbers, carrots and other vegetables. We spend the whole evening there and no-one made any reference to Star Trek except for that.
"It is not the literal past that rules us, save, possibly, in a biological sense. It is images of the past. Each new historical era mirrors itself in the picture and active mythology of its past or of a past borrowed from other cultures. It tests its sense of identity, of regress or new achievement against that past.”
-George Steiner
SoulBiter wrote:Not everyone out there trying to save souls is what you are describing. Sometimes its a nice person just trying to plant a seed.
Someone "trying to plant a seed" is often enough considered rude (not your business), arrogant (to think you know better), insufferable (not discouraged by pleas to stop), and busybody-ish (not your job to tell me how to live).
It's that POV thing again.
Exactly! It is the POV thing again. I dont think you have taken to heart what you were supposedly taught. Maybe you should get a refresher. It appears as though you are saying that any attempt at speaking of religion to you in any form is rude and arrogant. If that is the case then you have quite a chip on your shoulder along with not being able to see the POV of the person who trys to plant the seed, no matter how innocuous and simple.
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch
wayfriend wrote:
Someone "trying to plant a seed" is often enough considered rude (not your business), arrogant (to think you know better), insufferable (not discouraged by pleas to stop), and busybody-ish (not your job to tell me how to live).
It's that POV thing again.
That's true. And the same may be applied by the alcoholic, or drug addict, to the person that tries to tell them they are hurting themselves and others. So, should that person stop?
I know in that situation, I could care less about what that person thinks of me, I care enough about them. Its that POV thing.
--Andy
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.
I believe in the One who says there is life after this.
Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?
SoulBiter wrote:Not everyone out there trying to save souls is what you are describing. Sometimes its a nice person just trying to plant a seed.
Someone "trying to plant a seed" is often enough considered rude (not your business), arrogant (to think you know better), insufferable (not discouraged by pleas to stop), and busybody-ish (not your job to tell me how to live).
It's that POV thing again.
Exactly! It is the POV thing again. I dont think you have taken to heart what you were supposedly taught. Maybe you should get a refresher. It appears as though you are saying that any attempt at speaking of religion to you in any form is rude and arrogant. If that is the case then you have quite a chip on your shoulder along with not being able to see the POV of the person who trys to plant the seed, no matter how innocuous and simple.
I don't think the phrase "often enough" implies "any attempt, in any form" to anyone. So all this chip talk is off the mark as well as too much about me.
Cybrweez wrote:That's true. And the same may be applied by the alcoholic, or drug addict, to the person that tries to tell them they are hurting themselves and others. So, should that person stop?
Hang on. I don't think I said anything that sounded like any effort to help another any time, any where is a bad thing. (But I can see how you'd think that I did if you read what Soulbiter says I'm saying instead of what I'm saying.)
I don't think intervening with someone with a dangerous drug addiction is necessarilly wrong. (Allthough I think anyone could show examples where it would be out of line.) And yet, I think that intervening with someone because you think they have the wrong religious beliefs is usually wrong.
Those two things are so substantially different as to reasonably allow a different response. I don't feel nailed.
wayfriend wrote:
And yet, I think that intervening with someone because you think they have the wrong religious beliefs is usually wrong.
If I could just offer a thought, wayfriend, that is very POV. If the religion is a proposition of truth, rather than merely a matter of opinion, then you must address the question of whether it is true or not. Obviously (it seems), your prepared answer is "not". But if they are right and you are wrong then it follows that they could be right to intervene. As long as you refuse to address the religion as a proposition of truth you will not be able to deny that. It is only if you engage with the religion and conclusively determine that it is not the truth that you could be justified in rejecting intervention.
(I could have misread your position. But that's how I see it now.)
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one." Bill Hingest ("That Hideous Strength" by C.S. Lewis)
"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
wayfriend wrote:
And yet, I think that intervening with someone because you think they have the wrong religious beliefs is usually wrong.
If I could just offer a thought, wayfriend, that is very POV. If the religion is a proposition of truth, rather than merely a matter of opinion, then you must address the question of whether it is true or not. Obviously (it seems), your prepared answer is "not". But if they are right and you are wrong then it follows that they could be right to intervene. As long as you refuse to address the religion as a proposition of truth you will not be able to deny that. It is only if you engage with the religion and conclusively determine that it is not the truth that you could be justified in rejecting intervention.
(I could have misread your position. But that's how I see it now.)
This, then, is YOUR point of view. I have every right to deny your intervention or viewpoint. Just because you think you know the truth, that does not justify your interference in my life. You can say what you want, but I can deny it as I want, and I don't have to engage and determine anything to do so. I have already determined all I need to determine to be quite content with my POV, and as long as I don't go around intervening in Christian lives, you can stay out of mine.
1) Is the religion in question a proposition of truth?
Obviously, there are many people, yourself included, who believe their religion is, and all others are not.
2) Even if it is a proposition of truth - even if I have reason to believe that religion is true, though I don't know much about it - am I "justified in rejecting intervention"?
Yes, I am. Nobody's beliefs have the right to tell me I am not. Only I can allow them to tell me I am not.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -Paul Simon
How much do you have to hate someone to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? If I believe that there is a truck bearing down on you, and you didn’t believe it, there’s a certain point at which I tackle you. And this is more important than that.
Suppose I had a vision that said God will destroy the earth next week unless everyone I see gives me five bucks.
Do I hate everyone if I don't accost them for money screaming that their life depends on it?
Very good.
I'm hard pressed to try to top it. Oh well, here it goes: suppose I had a vision that the Flying Spaghetti monster were real, and would save us all? How much do I have to hate everyone not to try to convert them to this belief?
Just because someone is trying to "save" me doesn't mean they are automatically sane or should be heeded. Maybe they are hallucinating a truck bearing down on me. How grateful am I supposed to be that they keep tackling me every time I turn around just because they imagine there are trucks bearing down on me everywhere? At some point, I'm going to have to whack them in the head to get them to stop, or I'll spend my life being tackled "for my own good."
How much do I have to hate someone who sees imaginary Mack trucks everywhere not to get them into a mental institution before they hurt themselves and everyone else around them?
[I didn't watch the video. I hope this is appropriate.]
Yeah, I know a few christians like that too...most of them I met on this site. 
And it's a valid argument which, as SB says, we've brought up before.
