SafeAsMilk wrote:PensivePenny wrote:SafeAsMilk wrote:I'm not sure I understand. I also find it
hard to believe that you were previously religious but you don't see how
leading a person to question their faith is a better strategy than blindly dismissing them.
Your credulity isn't required.
Well then you shouldn't have asked for it with your "believe me, I know from experience"

Show me where I said "Believe me" or stop putting words in my mouth. I made no such
appeal. That's cheap. When every sentence is greeted with suspicion, one can imagine all manner of motives. I only shared MY experience to illustrate that YOUR experience (stated prior) wasn't valid as an argument (in case that's why you shared it). Granted it's a subtlety I thought sufficient to that task. Apparently not.
Saying, "Leading a person to question their faith is a BETTER STRATEGY..." assumes both a value judgement ("better") based on some axiomatic premise to which I've accepted, OR the acknowledgement of some universal (objective) guiding morality.
No it doesn't. One strategy is either more effective than another or it isn't. You could ask for citations that coaxing a toddler into eating is a better strategy than just shoving the spoon in their closed mouths, but why would you do that if you know anything about toddlers?
Um, yeah. It does.
Strategy can ONLY be "better" in consideration for
some goal. "Aspirin is a better medicine," is only "a better strategy" if the goal is thinning the blood as part of a heart health program (even then there are a bunch of caveats). Where as it is NOT "a better strategy" if its part of a strategy to prevent unwanted births (unless the female holds it between her knees). What if the goal is to strengthen the gene pool? Wouldn't it be better to let the toddler fend for itself or die? In which case, feeding the child AT ALL would be the poorest "strategy" conceivable.'
To my recollection, I've done neither explicitly or implicitly. "Strategy" likewise implies a goal or purpose on my part. I'm not claiming I have no goals or purpose, but the conversion of christians is NOT one of mine. While I have had that goal at times in my life, I haven't for quite some time. The benefit to me, doesn't justify my effort.
Thats nice, but you'll excuse me if I don't take strategy advice from someone who can't be arsed to try. In case you're wondering, "this doesn't work in my experience" is strategy advice.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion. Do you likewise consider the statement, "In my experience, checking the air in the tires doesn't extend tire wear," to be advice for car maintenance strategy? Perhaps all sentences I write should be concluded with YMMV?
The thing you never seem to get...
"Never?" Gee, and we've known each other for such a looong time and soooo intimately. I'm hurt you don't know me better!

is that while people may hold varying ideas of morality, there is often common ground.
Hmm. You can attribute all of that to
me based on what exactly? Divination? Perhaps you're projecting, because I really have no idea how you could have drawn that conclusion about me. Just because I have not
explicitly acknowledged that there is common ground within groups of people, respective of their moral beliefs, is not indicative that I "don't get" it. Let me rephrase that in a way you might find more digestible. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
What's worth pointing...
Fuck me! Why must you insist other people share YOUR valuation of fuck all???? How about you drop the value statements and let ME decide for myself whether or not the words that follow have any "worth" or is "better". Those are fine words for beginning an argument or stating an opinion, but
then the burden of proof is on YOU to provide the facts to support it.
... out is when a particular morality doesn't live up to its own expectations...
Do only "particular moralities" have "expectations." Which ones? I wasn't aware a morality could HAVE expectations. I've an open mind. Enlighten me.
... Internal consistency, you might call it. But I suppose being completely opposed to engaging is one way around that.
FFS... My behavior's lack of comportment with YOUR desires or expectations is NOT my responsibility! It's YOURS. Again, your thinly veiled and childish attempts to goad me into revealing some kind of deeply held agenda or beliefs that you seem
convinced I'm in possession of, is merely annoying. Would that you put so much effort into extracting hemoglobin from a root vegetable, I quite think you might succeed!
Since you've insinuated that I'm "completely opposed to engaging" you, I'll present 'exhibit A', the DOZENS of posts we've exchanged in just the last couple days. I think I've been more than "engaging" with you (patient as well) even if not meeting with your expectations.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.