People Trying to Convert you

Post Reply New Topic

I dont see it as MY Problem.

If it isn't yours then why do you care?

Its not MY problem as in- the problem exists with those that are foisting their religious values onto others. Sorry I believe the world would be a much better place without a***holes hiding behind the bible to promote their nasty beliefs. If you get angry with this statement ask yourself why you Identify with it. Once again religious folk out there with values similar to Orwells this is NOT aimed at you.

If we decided to make system worldwide, in which everybody on the planet should adopt a unique belief system and ban the rest, then getting rid of them should be something to care about, in order to improve this utopian or dystopian (whichever fits here) system.

Well, how does the problem exist with them? They don't have a problem with what they are doing, ergo, it seems like it is your problem.

No, I don't get angry at this at all. This isn't an issue of my anger, this is an issue of finding your position and perhaps even undermining it no matter what it happens to be. I am not religious in case that is what you were thinking.

That is not what I am talking about, read again my last post and if you still dont get it I will try to put my position in an even more simplyfied way.

awesome I really cant be bothered debating Pedantics ( yes my new addition to the lexicon)

Umm... I don't get what I apparently did not understand of what you stated. You stated that you did not have the problem, but rather that the problem was with an external. I argued that the external was fine with doing what they did, thereby meaning that if there was a problem then it was yours. I also stated that I wasn't angry.


Then why bother at all? If a person is smart enough to consider you on your merits then they will likely have some pedantic element to them, if they are not smart enough to do so, then why argue to them? Not only that, but if you *could not* be bothered with that, but can be bothered with the others then do you propose a magic, anti-pedantic power preventing your action?

Now, all of that may seem overly pedantic, but you have to keep in mind that this debate has, to a great extent, been supported by your aggressiveness, your argumentativeness, and ultimately, your motives. Now, I have to be pedantic to get to the roots of a matter, otherwise they are covered up by surface issues, therefore I am pedantic.

If everyone had an absolutely unique belief system, I think most people would get tired and call a truce at liberalism. However, yes, people will strive to put in place the system they believe in, if they didn't then they wouldn't believe in their system.

Waste of time is so subjective. I think I understand what you've said, but that does not mean I think what you've said has been properly systemized down to a foundational principle. Right, and the issue was you still projected the problem onto other people in the end, and still, I sense a disturbing bit of moral realism.

Ok, I don't care if you are conciliatory towards other people. You could be a jerk to them and call them followers of the angry sky fairy while citing Deuteronomy 28:15-68.

I can be a bit arrogant at times, excuse me, however, every opinion is created by an intellectual framework, and the intellectual framework if mighty will tend to create good "opinions" and if less so will create bad "opinions"(opinions being in quotes because it has not been established that the referent ideas are purely subjective).

Mmmm methinks the pot is calling the kettle black



I would have thought that -
'I do not fight religion because I think it is delusional, I fight religion because of the effect it has on people that do not fit its criteria'
Gets to the roots of the matter and explains my motives quite plainly and simply

oops sorry awesome I deleted that post as soon as I put it up. Think you have posted all of it though

I might as well try and learn something, can you please explain this one Thanks

Been here a long time, have posted something thousand posts in this section of WP alone. I am probably easy to figure out.


I suppose the issue comes down to a few questions:

1) Is it a moral imperative to fight such religion?
2) If it is not a moral imperative, then how can you fight such a thing? After all, the fight is only against holders of the mistake in a manner that you dislike rather than all holders
3) If there is a moral imperative, then from what does it come from?
4) By effect, do you mean what it does to other people? If so, then what would you think of other ideologies that attacked people who did not fit a criterion?
5) What are legitimate criteria for discrimination?
6) How will criticizing such religion ever be effective? The holders do not care about the depraved after all.

I am certain I can come up with a lot more questions.

I suppose the issue comes down to a few questions:

1) Is it a moral imperative to fight such religion?
2) If it is not a moral imperative, then how can you fight such a thing? After all, the fight is only against holders of the mistake in a manner that you dislike rather than all holders
3) If there is a moral imperative, then from what does it come from?
4) By effect, do you mean what it does to other people? If so, then what would you think of other ideologies that attacked people who did not fit a criterion?
5) What are legitimate criteria for discrimination?
6) How will criticizing such religion ever be effective? The holders do not care about the depraved after all.

1. With trepidation I would say yes
4. I have not thought too deeply on this but at first thought it would have to be taken on a case by case basis. For example in NSW there is an anti-vilification law making it illegal to vilify on the grounds of sexuality and race, now is this attacking racists and homophobes because they do not fit a criteria, it probably is. The next question is do I support their right to be racist and Homophobic, I am not sure because on the one hand I beleive in the freedom of speech but on the other hand do I support this freedom if the purpose of the user of this right is too remove others freedom to the same right. I have struggled with this dichotomy for years. I suppose if the ideology is effecting others in a negative way that is patently unfair (yes very subjective) then I oppose the ideology.
5. Now here is a pandoras box that I am not going to open. From what I have said in this and other threads you could conclude that my veiws are discriminatory and that I find my behaviour legitimate, in my defence I would have yuo refer back to my freedom of speech dichotomy
6. who was it that said 'for evil to triumph all that is needed is for good people to stay silent' or words to that effect


I await with baited breath

Which leaves you open to question 3, which is where that comes from.

Well, at least you are being openly subjective. I do see this as inconsistent, for if speech is ideologically monitored for any reason, then it ceases to be free and instead is merely a variant of constrained speech.


Yes, I could. Also, there are tons of other behaviors that are discriminatory, but we consider just.


Who knows? I don't believe in evil. But, the issue is just that you won't persuade the holder to change, and most people pick their side on the question of religion without much thought or openness to such.


I didn't say I necessarily would, only that I could. Especially since it is 3 something in the morning over here.