"Midjis" <midwinter_m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1192207775.920056.253090@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 12 Oct, 15:52, "Rob Brown" <bbr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Would that include missionaries and those sending them out to
>> proselytize?
>
> Absolutely it would. The only person a missionary is going to convert
> successfully is someone who - for whatever reason - is already
> inclined towards that way of thinking. The process of 'conversion'
> doesn't involve taking a non-believer and making them believe: it's
> taking someone who's already a believer and prompting them to admit it
> to themselves.
>
>
>> They certainly see converting non believers as their duty.
>
> Sure: after all, those who don't believe are going to Hell. The most
> altruistic interpretation of proselytisation is that these people want
> to save people's souls. That doesn't change the fact that only the
> individual themselves can change their point of view.
>
>
>> You suggest a scenario which would have both believers and non
believers
>> almost never discuss their beliefs.
>
> No, not at all. I'm all for discussion. Exchanging points of view is
> one thing - it's instructive. It can help understanding and therefore
> reduce fear and mistrust. But actively trying to persuade someone to
> accept your own point of view is something else.
>
>
>> The discussion, if it happens at all, can always be interpreted as
>> either
>> side trying to persuade the other.
>
> It can be interpreted that way, sure. And by those who are afraid of
> the other point of view, it usually is.
>
>
>> Why are you even posting to discussion groups on the subject?
>
> Because the subject interests me. And because I feel inclined to
> share my point of view. Whether you agree or not is, of course, your
> own business.
>
>
>> I think your last paragraph states an untenable position. It practice
it
>> would
>> forbid almost any discussion of religion between believers and non
>> believers and
>> even between believers, particularly of different religions.
>
> Not really. You work from your stated assumption that discussion
> equates to an attempt to persuade.
I carefully read your posts to this thread and they all seem consistent
with your position that one should not try to persuade someone to believe
or
not believe in a god.
It seems unlikely your god beliefs would motivate you to fly airplanes
into
buildings or burn heretics at the stake. No surprise that all religious
people aren't so rational in their dealings with nonbelievers. That would
be
atypical of humans in general.
That in itself is interesting. Once again, in spite of commonly made
claims
to the contrary, it seems the religious differ from any other groups of
humans only in that they profess a belief in a god. Otherwise they have
the
same range of actions common to the human race, from loving and kind to
hateful and cruel.
The tenets of a religion are almost always believed to be the revealed
wishes of a god. God gave you different rules of behavior than it gave
many
other believers. Why? Who is right? You, Pat Robertson or Osama Ben Laden?
You can't all be right.
I have one more observation about persuasive argument. You do seem to be
very careful in this thread not to argue for the existence of your
god.You,
however, are willing to attempt to persuade someone to agree with you on
peripheral issues related to the subject of belief in a god. An example is
your defense of your definition of atheist. Fine, your position in that
semantic argument while annoying doesn't seem threatening.
Rob Brown
>
>> The fact that you are posting causes me to question your stated
position.
>
> That doesn't really matter. My position is my own.
>
|
