Fear of recruiting christians

[butter7]

err....

A little thoughts here....


Any one here (atheist) want to try to "save" one or two religious people from their fairy tale addictions?

I'm extremely curious if we use a similar methodology but with advanced features, how the result could turn out...

Don't do this experiment to your friend though, coz you might hurt them. But someone that you knew and said "hello" with?

Don't take it too serious though, I just think if this could be a interesting social science/human behaviour/psychology case study or research direction?

Any one want to comment on this? From purely academic view point of course.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I'm not discussing smoking with smokers or trying to convert them, and I'm much less willing to discuss religion in that way.

 

[butter7]

I'm not discussing smoking with smokers or trying to convert them, and I'm much less willing to discuss religion in that way.

Yeah, but smoking is very different. Smokers all know that smokes are killing them, but religion to religious people?

I don't know.

I just got a comment on my blog and another people is converting me to believe in God! (thank you, Peter)

I couldn't stop notice that these people are repeating the same thing to my ear/ eyes, over and over and over again. "God loves you", "Jesus will save you", "You'll see him", and their own experience how god helped them, how wonderful they felt with the connection of god....etc, etc, etc...

Well, based on my limited psychology knowledge (psychology isn't my major), I know that if you keep repeating something to someone, that one are likely to remeber, then accept the things you said to him/her. And if everyone aroud that person saying the same thing, he/she would believe even a lot quicker

That's why and how advertisement works to human brain. You saw/hear them over and over again in various media. Even if you didn't run to the shop to buy the products right away, but when you need to buy something, these brand names that you've been familiar with will certainly jump to your mind first.

I come across these scientific information when I did one subject: Casino and gaming management. We read few reports and analysised the gambling addiction within people. A lot of poker/gambling machines are actually designed to make people addict, by using the brain/psychological science achievement.

And that's basically why I dislike any form of missionaries. Because scientifically speaking, they are designed to make you addict as well.

I just curious about this subject, and I want to hear what other people think, from scientific/academic point of view.

I don't want people who read my post feel embarrassed or anything like that. It's just the little curiousity I had, nothing more than that.

 

[popsadie]

This is the problem with your conjecture. Although the existence of God can not be proven without a doubt, there is circumstantial evidence of him. In my case, I just witnessed a friend with emphysema be prayed for and miraculously be healed, as in she went from needing oxygen 24/7 to needing nothing in a day. This, combined with my belief that the prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled by Jesus in the New Testament have my belief in a creator God a little bit more than wish fulfillment. I'm sorry, but your equation of belief in a God with an addiction, I feel, is a little out of line.

 

[BVS]

Yeah, but smoking is very different. Smokers all know that smokes are killing them, but religion to religious people?

I don't know.

I just got a comment on my blog and another people is converting me to believe in God! (thank you, Peter)

No, not all smokers know that it's killing them, ever read any of iron horse's threads?

And yes it does go the other way, there are certain posters in here(won't mention name) that make a point to step into almost every thread about God and try their hardest to dispprove to these individuals, and it wasn't even a thread debating the existence of God.

So if in both cases it wasn't asked for, what is the difference?

 

[butter7]

No, not all smokers know that it's killing them, ever read any of iron horse's threads?

And yes it does go the other way, there are certain posters in here(won't mention name) that make a point to step into almost every thread about God and try their hardest to dispprove to these individuals, and it wasn't even a thread debating the existence of God.

So if in both cases it wasn't asked for, what is the difference?

You are saying that some religious people don't think God exist? Just like some smokers don't think smoke kills?

A bit weird to me...if they don't think God exist, what they believe in then?

 

[BVS]

You are saying that some religious people don't think God exist? Just like some smokers don't think smoke kills?

A bit weird to me...if they don't think God exist, what they believe in then?

How did you get that from what I said?

I'm saying there are die hard down your throat athiests as well, that will go around spreading their word.

 

[butter7]

This is the problem with your conjecture. Although the existence of God can not be proven without a doubt, there is circumstantial evidence of him. In my case, I just witnessed a friend with emphysema be prayed for and miraculously be healed, as in she went from needing oxygen 24/7 to needing nothing in a day. This, combined with my belief that the prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled by Jesus in the New Testament have my belief in a creator God a little bit more than wish fulfillment. I'm sorry, but your equation of belief in a God with an addiction, I feel, is a little out of line.

But please do notice that even for the similar kind of events (healing, as you mentioned), people will have different explaination, in different religions, and science...Therefore, you cannot use them as evidence to prove the existance a God, I suppose?

 

[butter7]

How did you get that from what I said?

I'm saying there are die hard down your throat athiests as well, that will go around spreading their word.

Ur...I don't know, honestly.

I was listening to a funny song with my headphone, plus was playing a flash puzzle game before I posted...

Sorry if I made any misunderstanding...

I didn't see much athiests persist their friends to give up their religions, based on my own experience. I suppose many of athiests believe it's kind of dis-respect to other people? I made this assumption because I actually felt this way.

Like vincent said, I never talk about religion with religious people in real life either. It's just too easy to be misunderstood, somehow. And that's why I treasure ever seconds on the internet which you can actually talk with religious people about their religion.

 

[martha]

I didn't see much athiests persist their friends to give up their religions, based on my own experience.

Then you need to read more FYM threads.

 

[popsadie]

I don't know....the existence of other religions, does not, in my mind disprove a creator God. I definitely believe that God is big enough to act with or without the correct religion, so I do view all healing as God ordained, regardless of the religious faith or not of the person being healed. I do think that healing, in combination with other effects that I have seen of faith is circumstantial evidence.....note, I did not say proof....

 

[anitram]

I'm just arguing against taking the behavior of one group and using that to make blanket statements about missionary activity in general.

I don't think all missionary action is necessarily bad. But I also don't believe it's bad behaviour on behalf of one group - this has been systemic, over centuries. It is very arguable whether missionary actions have been more beneficial or harmful to local populations, but this is a matter of historical perspective.

I mean, consider this statement made by the Pope just a couple of days ago:

In a speech to Latin American and Caribbean bishops at the end of a visit to Brazil, the Pope said the Church had not imposed itself on the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

They had welcomed the arrival of European priests at the time of the conquest as they were "silently longing" for Christianity, he said.

To me, that's simply outrageous.

I actually really like what Bill Maher said on his show when he was discussing Jesus Camp. He had an evangelical woman on who stated that if you see somebody hungry on the street, would you not be compelled to feed them? And he replied with essentially: why can't you understand that I'm not hungry?

 

[butter7]

Then you need to read more FYM threads.

Any recommendations?

 

[martha]

Any recommendations?

This one.

Your own posts.

 

[butter7]

To me, that's simply outrageous.

I actually really like what Bill Maher said on his show when he was discussing Jesus Camp. He had an evangelical woman on who stated that if you see somebody hungry on the street, would you not be compelled to feed them? And he replied with essentially: why can't you understand that I'm not hungry?

watched this too. Not very familiar with this Bill, but I agree him on the Jesus camp thing 100%.

And I think the funniest part is when the mid-estern looking guy said something like "I really wish you could find Mohammed".

 

[butter7]

This one.

Your own posts.

Still don't quite get what you mean, but, juse assume what you said is true, you clicked on this thread and read my post.

I did not follow you on your way home, nor stand at your door way with a monitor at my hand, and insist you to read them.

And I didn't gather a big group of people with candy on the hands with some files on the other, either.

You are welcome to join in this thread's discussion, or left it. It's only a several kilobyte of data in the cyber world.

 

[BVS]

So it's only different when you do it in person?

You're treading a thin line verging on the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[martha]

You are welcome to join in this thread's discussion, or left it. It's only a several kilobyte of data in the cyber world.

WTF does this mean? I'm fully in this thread's discussion. Too damn bad if you don't like what I say.

 

[butter7]

So it's only different when you do it in person?

You're treading a thin line verging on the pot calling the kettle black.

It's different because it is a internet forum, designed for discussion, where you can: curse me, say all the dirty words to me, do everything you like to express your anger (without typing a word down, and I wouldn't see it...isn't it wonderful? )

or reply, to make your voice heard by others.

And I won't get it personal and won't get upset. Because I knew it's only a discussion. A discussion only worth well when there are different opinion. And in that sence I really appreciate everyone's post/reply.

However, it is your choice to read it and participat, or just walk away, read something make you feel more comfortable and entertaining.

I did not insist you have to read anything I typed. So don't say that I try to sell it to you, because I didn't.

And I will repeat, it is a discussion, so don't get it personal.If you uncool about other people's opinion, it's gonna make you look stupid, IMHO.

 

[butter7]

WTF does this mean? I'm fully in this thread's discussion. Too damn bad if you don't like what I say.

I respect what you said, honestly.

If I made you misunderstood something, please pardon me on that, since English isn't my first language.

The sentence you quote simply means, it is just a person's choice to join in or leave. Join in won't make anyone a superhero, leave won't make any difference, either.

You make it sound like if I took a 2 days off to work on some other project and have to left the internet, by the time I came back, everyone is going to call me a loser? Funny, don't you think?

I don't even know who you are, why should I care about you, personally?

 

[BVS]

And I will repeat, it is a discussion, so don't get it personal.If you uncool about other people's opinion, it's gonna make you look stupid, IMHO.

You mean like:

Any one here (atheist) want to try to "save" one or two religious people from their fairy tale addictions?

 

[BVS]

Yes this is a discussion forum. But this wasn't a thread discussing the existence of God, so you invited yourself to make it that way, just like these people invited themselves to discuss Jesus.

 

[butter7]

You mean like:

Take one sentence out from a whole post isn't the right way to understand what one person trying to say, do you agree?

Plus, didn't you notice the beautiful double quote? And I think this punctuation basically means some thing not true or opposite; when a person using this kind of punctuation in one sentence, it will mean that this person is writing something in a joking way?

Isn't this taught in primary school?

 

[butter7]

Yes this is a discussion forum. But this wasn't a thread discussing the existence of God, so you invited yourself to make it that way, just like these people invited themselves to discuss Jesus.

I recommend you to read my previous post (the one you quoted), carefully.

It is not about Jesus or god.

That post, is opinion which I wanted to discuss with people here, about the linkage between the methodology which majority missionaries use and and the scientific/psychological truth that widely accepted about the way human brain works.. All I was saying is that the method they used fits the way that scientific truth, therefore, in theory, it would be very easy for them to achieve the objectives.

And I was just curious if the same methodology been used by the people who have opposite opinions, what result that might produce?

If it was a one way thing, or it could go other way around?

Because I'm not a psychologiest or a brain scientist, or expert on human behaviour, so I couldn't answer these questions.

Don't just let you nerve break whenever you saw an atheist typing the world Jesus or God down. For me, it's really no much different from other word, like chocolate, air, people, dice...they all neutral, because they are nouns.

 

[BVS]

Take one sentence out from a whole post isn't the right way to understand what one person trying to say, do you agree?

Plus, didn't you notice the beautiful double quote? And I think this punctuation basically means some thing not true or opposite; when a person using this kind of punctuation in one sentence, it will mean that this person is writing something in a joking way?

Isn't this taught in primary school?

Your intent was pretty clear. And no, " " does not mean "not true".

You can use them to acutually quote someone, or you can use them to satire someone's use of the word(which your example did).

Regardless they don't mean "not true", and even if they did you didn't place "fairy tale addicitons" in quotes, so how were we to believe that part to be a joke?

 

[butter7]

Your intent was pretty clear. And no, " " does not mean "not true".

You can use them to acutually quote someone, or you can use them to satire someone's use of the word(which your example did).

Regardless they don't mean "not true", and even if they did you didn't place "fairy tale addicitons" in quotes, so how were we to believe that part to be a joke?

fairy tale addicitons is true, I mean that.

I did meet some people who talks only based on one ancient book, and I do admire the ability that they could get the two words (which you seems don't want to see me type down, so I avoid using them, hope that makes you feel better) in every sentence they say!

...Glad no one in this forum talks this way though.

 

[BVS]

Don't just let you nerve break whenever you saw an atheist typing the world Jesus or God down.

Well you're missing my point by a mile. Do you think I'm getting upset because you are an athiest talking about Jesus? If so, you're completely wrong.

 

[BVS]

fairy tale addicitons is true, I mean that.

And you don't consider that a personal attack to people who believe?

 

[butter7]

Well you're missing my point by a mile. Do you think I'm getting upset because you are an athiest talking about Jesus? If so, you're completely wrong.

Cool, much reliefed.

The least thing I'd ever wanted is someone take a pure theoretically discussion up to personal level.

It made me want to abandon the discussion immediately, but somehow felt guilty for upset someone that I don't even know.

 

[butter7]

And you don't consider that a personal attack to people who believe?

No....why?