Forced belief

[bkadoctaj]

Where can the line be drawn between someone sharing ideas and someone forcing them down your throat? Is it fair to say that certain religions tend to have a tendency toward one end of the spectrum or the other? Does it offend you? What about our right to free speech? Does it matter in this context?

[CosmicSerpent]

I don't think we should have laws against talking openly about religion or anything like that, but I often consider it personally offensive when someone brings up religion during a totally unrelated conversation in a persuasive way. Same thing with soliciting religion like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. This is really the only major problem I have about people's beliefs... they arrogantly assume that I'm not intelligent enough or open minded enough to decide for myself, and that their individual way of thinking is something that can be applied to everyone. I don't have a problem with someone trying to defend their beliefs if someone is arguing with them, or simply discussing it in a friendly debate, but to push it on someone like that is pathetic.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by CosmicSerpent

I don't think we should have laws against talking openly about religion or anything like that, but I often consider it personally offensive when someone brings up religion during a totally unrelated conversation in a persuasive way. Same thing with soliciting religion like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. This is really the only major problem I have about people's beliefs... they arrogantly assume that I'm not intelligent enough or open minded enough to decide for myself, and that their individual way of thinking is something that can be applied to everyone. I don't have a problem with someone trying to defend their beliefs if someone is arguing with them, or simply discussing it in a friendly debate, but to push it on someone like that is pathetic.

Which is why I ask: how do you draw the line? What is "push"y?

[CosmicSerpent]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

Which is why I ask: how do you draw the line? What is "push"y?

I guess all of these general situations:

- When someone brings up a religious topic during a completely unrelated conversation

- When a total stranger begins persuasively talking to you about their personal religion without any provocation.

- When a religious institution sends its members out with the sole purpose of trying to convert people.

I can understand wanting to get your message out there, but any halfway intelligent person knows of the existence of all these religions and is fully capable of pursuing them independently. I think religion/spirituality is something that you should come to your own conclusions about and not be fed because it conforms with an organized group. If your tendency is to believe in one of these groups, then that's fine too... but that should be your own personal choice. No amount of persuasion from someone should make you abandon what logically makes sense to you. That being said, I also would never be overly rude and offensive to someone who approached me in one of the above situations. I would simply tell them that I'm not interested in what they have to say because I have my own independent beliefs.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by CosmicSerpent

I guess all of these general situations:

- When someone brings up a religious topic during a completely unrelated conversation

Where does a religion end? It seems pretty all-inclusive for some people, don't you agree? You might be encroaching on someone's most essential values, for example if you refused to allow a Muslim to pray in your presence if he had to five times day.

- When a total stranger begins persuasively talking to you about their personal religion without any provocation.

What the fuck is persuasion? Appealing to logic? Appealing to fear? Appealing to emotion? Repeating things? And what is provocation? Could listening to a Death Metal song in a devout Christian's presence be construed as provocation? (just an example, lol)

- When a religious institution sends its members out with the sole purpose of trying to convert people.

Convert people? What if it means saving people to them? What if it truly does mean that to them? There is no law against this. Should there be? If people convert, it's a personal decision. We don't need to protect people from evangelicals, do we? You talk about letting people think for themselves, but you're saying some people aren't smart enough to not be "fooled" or "tricked" by the religious organizations. Aren't they just groups of people with a common belief set and common goals? Like a company or a family, often? Groups of people talking. So what?

I can understand wanting to get your message out there, but any halfway intelligent person knows of the existence of all these religions and is fully capable of pursuing them independently. I think religion/spirituality is something that you should come to your own conclusions about and not be fed because it conforms with an organized group. If your tendency is to believe in one of these groups, then that's fine too... but that should be your own personal choice. No amount of persuasion from someone should make you abandon what logically makes sense to you. That being said, I also would never be overly rude and offensive to someone who approached me in one of the above situations. I would simply tell them that I'm not interested in what they have to say because I have my own independent beliefs.

Yes, "halfway intelligent", indeed. An intelligent person is not always an educated person. Genii? Persuasion is the only way I can see to respond to steady skepticism. Oh, damn, I keep saying that word like it's limiting or something...

[CosmicSerpent]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

Where does a religion end? It seems pretty all-inclusive for some people, don't you agree? You might be encroaching on someone's most essential values, for example if you refused to allow a Muslim to pray in your presence if he had to five times day.

I don't have a problem with people praying around me. I just think that it isn't necessary to bring religion into every conversation. When someone else's personal beliefs start interfering with my life and ability to think independently, that's when I have a problem.

What the fuck is persuasion? Appealing to logic? Appealing to fear? Appealing to emotion? Repeating things?

Well I don't consider it persuasion if it's something that is considered "objectively true" (even though I hate to use that term). But when it's something involving our souls, our sins, the origin of the universe/life, then I don't see any reason for a stranger to approach me and start discussing these subjects.

More often than not, when people are trying to convert someone, they are appealing to fear, emotion, and repeating the same things over and over. My opinion is that this isn't how anyone should ever establish their beliefs about anything.

And what is provocation? Could listening to a Death Metal song in a devout Christian's presence be construed as provocation? (just an example, lol)

Well if it's in a situation where they're basically forced to listen to the music, then that's justified. But if they're fully capable of simply walking away or not paying attention, then that's ridiculous. I don't yell at people for playing Christian music, so why should Christians yell at me for playing non-Christian music?

Convert people? What if it means saving people to them? What if it truly does mean that to them? There is no law against this. Should there be?

Already answered that in the first line of my first post.

I'm not saying there should be laws against these things, I'm just saying that I consider it personally offensive and honestly it makes me want to give even less credit to their beliefs. It is naive and ignorant to assume that everyone in the world should believe exactly the same thing. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to share their opinion.... but I should also be allowed to share mine. Would religious people like it if I came knocking on their doors telling them that Jesus never existed and God isn't real? No, because it's rude and disrespectful, not to mention arrogant.

If people convert, it's a personal decision. We don't need to protect people from evangelicals, do we? You talk about letting people think for themselves, but you're saying some people aren't smart enough to not be "fooled" or "tricked" by the religious organizations.

Again, I never said anything about not allowing religion. I agree converting is a personal decision... but a lot of religious people (evangelicals for example) try to make it into an objective truth and the only "right way" instead of what simply works best for them. I'm just saying that people should be smart enough to decide for themselves and not have to be persuaded if it really is the truth. You're misunderstanding my personal opinion... what makes me different from all of these religious people is the fact that I respect everyone's right to think independently.

Aren't they just groups of people with a common belief set and common goals? Like a company or a family, often? Groups of people talking. So what?

Then what was the point of even making this thread? Aren't you just a person talking.... so what? Sure, they are in many ways like a company... but just as I ignore solicitors, I can also choose to ignore religious converters. That's all I'm saying... not that they should be executed, or put in jail, or that we should live in a communist state... I'm just expressing my personal opinion like you are, and like they are. The difference is that I don't desperately seek out strangers to argue with and try to convince them of my personal beliefs.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by CosmicSerpent

[Talking]

Gotcha.

[BubbleFunker]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

Where can the line be drawn between someone sharing ideas and someone forcing them down your throat? Is it fair to say that certain religions tend to have a tendency toward one end of the spectrum or the other? Does it offend you? What about our right to free speech? Does it matter in this context?

Some ppl are more easily brainwashed than others.
I am annoyed when someone thinks they can convince me their brainwashing was correct.
I don't go around trying to brainwash anyone into Existentialism.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by BubbleFunker

Some ppl are more easily brainwashed than others.
I am annoyed when someone thinks they can convince me their brainwashing was correct.
I don't go around trying to brainwash anyone into Existentialism.

But what is brainwashing? Are you saying that people who have been "brainwashed" have no power to think or communicate on the level of "non-brainwashed" people?

[HighGrowMan]

I've spent time in corporate communications and marketing. So this question has been something that I've had to question myself with.

Communications and sales/marketing is always about winning people over to your company, and your ideas (product/service).

I've found that it is always better to convince people by understanding their needs and providing them the most information possible; and letting them know where they can find more information.

This way if the person says that the product/service isn't right for them, you don't have to feel as though you lead them into a bad situation; You did your best to provide them with the information that they needed to make an educated decision, and although you won't necessarily tell them not to purchase, you also shouldn't need to put on pressure tactics.

For example if you are a computer salesman and a person seems to just need a simple computer, and they look to be a student, or otherwise in a position where they are on a tight budget, you don't up sale them; you provide them information. And if they upsale themselves. So be it.

Now when you bring this to the religous circle. If I am having problems in some way or another, and I tell them to someone, and he tells me that he believes that his religion can help me with those problems, and then he provides me with information about his religion, then I will take the religion seriously.

However on the other hand, if they come to me, and then instead of providing me with all the answers to my questions, they instead use sales tactics to convince me that the religion will solve all my problems; then I have a problem with it.

[TheRiz]

Almost every person who subscribes to one of the 3 major monotheisms was forced into this belief as a child, part of family custom. Children have no clue what is going on so of course they will listen to their parents.

Later in life, people are afraid to betray their family despite tons of evidence against the wicked and absurdly ignorant claims of religion. They also don't feel like doing the research or dig up stuff on these evil cults.


Thus, I challenge anyone on this board to describe how they came to choose their religion, if it wasn't instilled as a child, and to say why. I bet there are few, if any.

[Zylark]

Well Riz, there are quite the few who as adults have changed their religion. From muslim to christian, or jew to muslim. what have you. Also a lot of more secular "disinterested" have been swept up by some charismatic demagogue.

But ofcourse, the largest trend is from child instilled belief to adult non-belief. And of the adults that still do believe, most "believe in belief" to quote Dennet. That is they think religion is a good tool in society, but not necessarily true in all it's detail, and certainly not observed all that rigid. the real world takes precedent, and the religion is only dragged up in times of need.

And then ofcourse you got your fundamentalists and fanatics, that are, to put it mildly, delusional bordering on insane.

But I get the point you're trying to make, and as a general rule it is quite correct. It is not an accident that americans and europeans are predominatly struggling with the christian strand of the religion virus, whilst the mid east is under the spell of a more virulent strain. And that Indians are Hindu and so on. It's a cultural thing, like language and tablemanners. But whereas language and not burping excessively at the dinnertable have practical applications, no society could do without, religion is entirely superflous.

[thedon420]

I was born and raised in the catholic church, but I am free thinking and open minded enough to reject the teachings that don't make sense to me (come on, does god really care if I eat a steak on friday), not to say these teachings didn't influence me, the church teaches against reincarnation, but what happens to the soul when you die can't heaven and hell simply be different planes of existence? if so you are born again on these planes, sorry for that tangent, but, I was spoon fed what I should believe, but I formed my own thoughts, what works for one person will not work for everyone else, forcing any belief on a group of people leads to persecution and hatred, I wish everyone would understand that

[BubbleFunker]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

But what is brainwashing? Are you saying that people who have been "brainwashed" have no power to think or communicate on the level of "non-brainwashed" people?

I think brainwashing is when a person totally buys what they've been fed about a religion/ideology.
And, yes, I do think some ppl are completely stuck in the dogma crap of their religions, and cannot communicate on the same level with the "non-brainwashed" ppl.
My family are catholic/christian, and like so many with that supposed faith, they are hippocrites. I decided, at age 10, that I didn't buy it, and I became an atheist, for a time.
I am now an Existentialist, as it seems a label which most closely matches my own thoughts on the topic.
I do not presume to know any truth about the existance of a deity. I do not have the audacity to presume that having any such knowledge would even change how I live my life.
It is what it is.

[Chaohinon]

If you apply the functioning of religion to any other situation, it gets the label of child abuse. So why the special treatment? Most parents don't even realize what they're doing, but by instilling in them the fear of hell, they're committing an act of psychological torture and repression.

Now, imagine trying to explain to a child that stealing is wrong. How to go about it?

Secular approach: "Stealing is wrong because you've deprived a person of something they've earned. How would you feel if something you had worked hard for was taken from you and never given back?"

This open's the child's mind up to empathy for others, developing an acute awareness of how one's actions reverberate in their surroundings.

Religious approach: "Stealing is wrong because God said so. Thievery is a sin, and sinners will burn in everlasting hellfire."

Well, God also says to stone homosexuals to death, and to not drink out of bendy straws after 2:45 on the second thursday in November. This sets dangerous precedent for how the child formulate's decision-making and moral evaluation, typically always appealing to a higher form of authority. It also contains a strong element of fear-mongering, which is nothing short of mental slavery for a developing, impressionable mind.

I shouldn't have to tell a forum full of stoners that autocratic directives are not always preceded by anything morally sound.