OK, that was just to call your attention.

It seems to me that, in certain cases, the motivation behind the extreme actions and passionate behavior of some people could be considered praiseworthy, in that it could be argued that in fact they reveal integrity, good nature and an active interest in others. To people who don't share the beliefs that give rise to such motivation, those actions usually appear excessive, extravagant, and even insane; and those carrying them out annoying fools at best, and dangerous lunatics at worst. But think of anti-abortion activists, for example (I'm not one): If you knew of places where children were being pretty much gratuitously massacred, wouldn't your consequent outrage compel you to intervene, even violently if necessary, in order to stop such a horrific slaughter? Well, I suppose that's the way anti-abortion activists perceive abortions. If they do, how on Earth can they remain passive? Seen this way, their vociferous outrage seems not just understandable but wholly justified. Another example could be a close friend or relative who is utterly convinced that your atheism will condemn you to the eternal flames. Wouldn't it be a natural consequence of his beliefs and his affection for you that he'd do all in his power to save your soul, even if that meant greatly annoying you no end with what you'd consider unspeakable nonsense? Seen that way, one could almost resent a friend who held such beliefs and were nonetheless rather cool about one's current atheistic path. It would be like you seeing a good friend about to drown due to some foolish or misguided action and failing to intervene decisively to save him.

I suppose the reason that most religious people tend not to bother their atheist friends and relatives too much is that they don't hold their beliefs too firmly after all, or perhaps that they choose primarily to believe in or give more weight to the nice bits of their faith (a loving and forgiving god) and ignore the nasty ones (a cruel and vindictive one). On the other hand, some religious people might feel disinclined to intervene in favor of "infidels" who are neither their friends nor relatives out of spite... That is, they may derive a malevolent satisfaction from the heathens' just deserts: burning in hell for having willingly conspired with the devil in their rejection of the almighty...

CdeLosada wrote: If you knew of places where children were being pretty much gratuitously massacred, wouldn't your consequent outrage compel you to intervene, even violently if necessary, in order to stop such a horrific slaughter? Well, I suppose that's the way anti-abortion activists perceive abortions. If they do, how on Earth can they remain passive? Seen this way, their vociferous outrage seems not just understandable but wholly justified.

Uh, no. Because unlike the anti-abortion nutcases, I would do at least ONE thing first: make sure that slaughter is actually happening before I go batshit insane. They, like creationists, anti-vaxxers, etc. have made up their mind from the get-go that they are right, and nothing can convince them that they're wrong.

Another example could be a close friend or relative who is utterly convinced that your atheism will condemn you to the eternal flames. Wouldn't it be a natural consequence of his beliefs and his affection for you that he'd do all in his power to save your soul, even if that meant greatly annoying you no end with what you'd consider unspeakable nonsense?

I'm not one for overemphasizing intentions. Actions matter more. And in this case, the actions in question are not only the constant pestering, but the willful ignorance to not consider that his beliefs may be wrong. It's absolutely despicable, and there's nothing you can do to reason with these types: they're right, you're wrong, and they are determined to convert you to their side to "save" you, no matter what kind of hell they have to put you through. It's as if someone insisted on shooting you in the head in order to save you from being eaten alive by the monster in the closet.

I suppose the reason that most religious people tend not to bother their atheist friends and relatives too much is that they don't hold their beliefs too firmly after all,

I've thought this for a long time. I often wonder, if they're going to cherry pick and ignore so much of their own religion, why not just go all the way and drop it completely?

paceetrate wrote:

CdeLosada wrote: If you knew of places where children were being pretty much gratuitously massacred, wouldn't your consequent outrage compel you to intervene, even violently if necessary, in order to stop such a horrific slaughter? Well, I suppose that's the way anti-abortion activists perceive abortions. If they do, how on Earth can they remain passive? Seen this way, their vociferous outrage seems not just understandable but wholly justified.

Uh, no. Because unlike the anti-abortion nutcases, I would do at least ONE thing first: make sure that slaughter is actually happening before I go batshit insane. They, like creationists, anti-vaxxers, etc. have made up their mind from the get-go that they are right, and nothing can convince them that they're wrong.

Another example could be a close friend or relative who is utterly convinced that your atheism will condemn you to the eternal flames. Wouldn't it be a natural consequence of his beliefs and his affection for you that he'd do all in his power to save your soul, even if that meant greatly annoying you no end with what you'd consider unspeakable nonsense?

I'm not one for overemphasizing intentions. Actions matter more. And in this case, the actions in question are not only the constant pestering, but the willful ignorance to not consider that his beliefs may be wrong. It's absolutely despicable, and there's nothing you can do to reason with these types: they're right, you're wrong, and they are determined to convert you to their side to "save" you, no matter what kind of hell they have to put you through. It's as if someone insisted on shooting you in the head in order to save you from being eaten alive by the monster in the closet.

I see what you're saying. My main point was simply to remark that, no matter how wrongheaded their beliefs may appear to those who disagree with them, the actions, or rather the motivation and sentiments behind them, that such strong beliefs trigger are not in themselves "evil". Thus in many cases it might be far more productive for all involved to vigorously challenge and refute the misconceptions, without at all passing judgment on one's opponents' moral qualities.

paceetrate wrote:

CdeLosada wrote:I suppose the reason that most religious people tend not to bother their atheist friends and relatives too much is that they don't hold their beliefs too firmly after all,

I've thought this for a long time. I often wonder, if they're going to cherry pick and ignore so much of their own religion, why not just go all the way and drop it completely?

Indeed!

CdeLosada wrote:OK, that was just to call your attention.

It seems to me that, in certain cases, the motivation behind the extreme actions and passionate behavior of some people could be considered praiseworthy, in that it could be argued that in fact they reveal integrity, good nature and an active interest in others. To people who don't share the beliefs that give rise to such motivation, those actions usually appear excessive, extravagant, and even insane; and those carrying them out annoying fools at best, and dangerous lunatics at worst. But think of anti-abortion activists, for example (I'm not one): If you knew of places where children were being pretty much gratuitously massacred, wouldn't your consequent outrage compel you to intervene, even violently if necessary, in order to stop such a horrific slaughter?

I really, truly, honestly, would love to "have a few words"* with e.g.: those child-molester priests.

*Those who now my posting history, know what word to substitute in italics.

I've been called a few of those words on the old forum and elsewhere, and also passionate, but I don't like the word "passion" it's too romantic-ish, full of saliva.

I always write it down to people being too sentimental and getting emotional over issues, or issues of others they really shouldn't. E.g.: Crazed gunman kills a dozen people at Fort Hood, we all know why "Allah Akbar". I say execute him (okay fine, interrogate him first), they say "No, he's a human being, he has rights...etc." *snore*...Nauseating.

It's interesting how compassion and sentimentality are virtues of the human race and at the same time their flaw and undoing.

CdeLosada  wrote:Wouldn't it be a natural consequence of his beliefs and his affection for you that he'd do all in his power to save your soul, even if that meant greatly annoying you no end with what you'd consider unspeakable nonsense?

There would be nothing praiseworthy in that whatsoever. The presumptive arrogance of said believer would actually be quite worrying in fact - it would be highly suggestive of a self-righteousness that held no room for doubt or self-questioning; a self-righteousness, in fact, that probably wouldn't be too far removed of that of Hitler, or Stalin, or (and more to the point) Cromwell.

People who think they know exactly what everyone else needs are usually the worst fuckers imaginable.

CdeLosada wrote:
Wouldn't it be a natural consequence of his beliefs and his affection for you that he'd do all in his power to save your soul, even if that meant greatly annoying you no end with what you'd consider unspeakable nonsense? Seen that way, one could almost resent a friend who held such beliefs and were nonetheless rather cool about one's current atheistic path. It would be like you seeing a good friend about to drown due to some foolish or misguided action and failing to intervene decisively to save him.

It wouldn't be "natural" as far as I'm concerned, since his beliefs that led him to "annoy" me are themselves inherently
un-Natural and even anti-Natural. Any argument he might make to try to sway me to his point-of-view would be inherently SUPER-natural and beyond life experience or what I consider "reality." As for his "affection" for me, I would judge that based upon his respect for me and for my personal points-of-view and individual FREEDOMS--not on his passion to convert me to his preferred style of indoctrination and dogma, especially when his beliefs come with no varifiable scientific, historical or empirical evidence.

As for the drowning analogy; I have to say it would NOT be ANYTHING AT ALL like "drowning." By definition, in order for a person to run the risk of drowning, one must be in direct contact with water (no matter how deep or shallow) or some other liquid ... as far as I know, literally drowning in mythology or superstition is an ever-lasting impossibility. One could be, I suppose, literally beaten to death with the denotative word, but one cannot drown in the figurative waters of ideology or symbolism without actively participating, or being subjected to the results of a person crossing the line between what is real in the "physical" sense and what is not. In other words, for example, could a "ghost" drown me? My friend might believe it's possible, but I do not. In my opinion, his words and beliefs are more like ghosts than they are like water. After all, he cannot even prove to me the existence of a "soul."

A terrific book related to this topic is: "Terror in the Mind of God" by Mark Juergensmeyer

Finally, I can't help but think of your Original Post and the questions you posed without thinking in two directions:

One is, in my opinion, the entirely convincing argument against "Pascal's Wager" as argued through "Occam's Razor" (both can be seen below):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

And the second is the Terry Schiavo case, which can be accessed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case

And which always makes me ask questions about who--EXACTLY!--held the "Respect for Life" position in the Schiavo case, and which side was more "Brain Dead" than Terry herself?
--G