Posted: Jun 11, 2018 2:21 pm
Well then you shouldn't have asked for it with your "believe me, I know from experience"
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?
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.
Used to do what all the time?
Empathize, I guess you could call it. I was a good kid. I always tried to imagine how others felt about everything I said and did. I think a lot of "empathy" is imagination but you also have to read people without making assumptions based on how you think you'd feel. The mile in moccasins idiom is one of the oldest I recall from my childhood. It was very much a part of my being.
Well you don't seem to be doing it in this case.
Your mastery of observation is impressive.
I know you don't care and all, but you can't seriously think that trying to brute force a religious person is a more effective strategy than laying the groundwork of doubt so they can come to the conclusion themselves. That's just basic psychology.
There's that word, "strategy" again. But, your implied incredulity is again irrelevant. And was the purpose of your last sentence, "That's just basic psychology," an appeal to nature? Am I somehow flawed in your eyes because I don't behave in the manner in which you think I "ought?"
As an aside, one might be inclined to think I have no personal moral code. But, it is quite strong however unfamiliar it might be to YOU (or not). I don't tend to interject it in these forums, not that I'm secretive or opposed to sharing my PERSONAL moral code, but that it is wholly irrelevant in most cases and purely unsupported by any fact (AKA opinion)... merely the rules I give myself that let ME sleep at night. Plus, it's ironic but mention one little personal moral on this forum and just watch how fast the "rational skeptics" pile on with their "right" moral, justifying it with whatever science they think makes their case and destroys the interloper. Why, all I have to do is say, "I believe 3rd world citizens who are hungry, should be left to die," and watch the fireworks. Not everyone would pile on, but watch the morality drip from you monitor (display, or screen).
I don't object to anyone's morality. It is my opinion that ones morality can be neither right nor wrong. Even if someone thought people like me should be put to death, morally. Well, that certainly would suck for me, but such is the world. I find as much benefit in converting christians as I do in converting lovers of the color red, to the opinion that blue is superior and that they should change their evil ways.
The thing you never seem to get is that while people may hold varying ideas of morality, there is often common ground. What's worth pointing out is when a particular morality doesn't live up to its own expectations. Internal consistency, you might call it. But I suppose being completely opposed to engaging is one way around that.