30
   

Why do atheist try to convert Christians

 
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 08:02 pm
@reasoning logic,
The argument seems to be we have morals because we are a pack animal . I gave several examples where pack animals and us do not behave in a moral manner .
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 08:09 pm
@Ionus,
Oh Ok I see your point and agree with it! I would say that our morals are screwed because we are animals!
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jun, 2011 12:44 pm
@FBM,
igm wrote:

If a pacifist becomes violent who's to say he will return to pacifism? As soon a he acts violently we have no way of knowing he’s a pacifist until he renounces violence, if he ever does, it’s impossible to know that he will. He is therefore not a pacifist during his violent act because he may continue to act in this way indefinitely. A Scotsman is a Scotsman because of his birth nothing can change that. My point was not based on the fallacy exemplified by the Scotsman example.


FBM wrote:

Sounds a lot like the "No True Scotsman" fallacy:

Quote:
Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

When the statement "all A are B" is qualified like this to exclude those A which are not B, this is a form of begging the question; the conclusion is assumed by the definition of "true A".


FBM wrote:

…And I think that's where I stand with igm. Agree to disagree and move along.


You’re a philosophy undergraduate, why not explain why my statement above is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You can can’t you?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jun, 2011 04:45 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:
You’re a philosophy undergraduate, why not explain why my statement above is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You can can’t you?


I'm a graduate student, and it doesn't matter whether I can or not; I'm not going to. Have a nice day. Thank you. Smile
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2011 08:24 am
Could these be some of the reasons that some atheist try and convert {change} Christians?

Raccoon Adorability, Nazi Propaganda & False Gods
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DPP6w0N5GQ&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Arella Mae
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2011 10:03 am
@reasoning logic,
You seem to be overlooking the fact that atheists on this thread have said they DO NOT try to convert Christians. I am starting to really wonder what it is you are trying to accomplish here.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2011 10:15 am
@Ionus,
So because a drive does not cause perfect behavior it does not exist?

Millions of men had thrown their lives away in the name of their country and their fellow soldiers in the last century alone on battlefields for a pack drive that you are claiming does not exist.

Amazing..............
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2011 10:25 am
@Arella Mae,
You are correct! Just as most Christians do not go and spread the word neither do atheist try.

I do have to hand it to Christians for trying to add to their system of values more than what most atheist do. So I would have to say that they may be one step ahead of the atheist.

If there was just some way that we could get both sides to see that {We} all could be wrong about some of the things that they think are true and to hear words of wisdom that are greater than what {we} know at this present time rather than being deaf to words of wisdom. Who knows maybe {we} would all be able to walk in a way that is less stumbling.


Have you ever heard of a Therapeutae? They seem to be the first Christ like people! What do you think? Please take notice to the period in time that they were alive! Do you think that they were all killed off?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutae
Arella Mae
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2011 11:20 am
@reasoning logic,
I have never heard of them and I'd have to read more before I could speak at all about them.

I do have to correct you on something. You said "just as most Christians do not go and spread the word neither do atheist try." That would be in direct opposition to what scripture tells us to do about spreading the gospel. I suppose as with anything there are different degrees to how people do that. The most important thing I think a Christian needs to remember when telling or preaching the gospel is that we cannot convince anyone or talk anyone into believing.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2011 11:30 am
@Arella Mae,
Yes I do suppose that you are correct about the degrees that people try and share with others what they think truth to be.

I grew up behind a church and I can not recall being asked to attend! The church backed up to my back yard and I could see them but I wonder if they could not see me?
It kind of reminds me of this homeless video!

Voices of the Homeless (from invisiblepeople.tv)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF6GDlk0kZg&feature=channel_video_title
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2011 09:06 pm
RE: A pacifist who acts in violence

There is a description of this in simple game theory terms. Consider five classes:

Hawks - Always fight. Wins or dies.
Doves - Argue, but never fight. Wins or flees.
Retaliators - Act like doves until attacked, then fight back. Wins or flees.
Bullies - Fight until someone fights back, then flees. Wins or flees.
P-Retaliators - Act like doves but only fight back if a bully. Wins or flees.

If you have three resources:

- A piece of bread (won or lost)
- Time (used or lost)
- Their own Life (kept or dead)

...that are in competition or of value to all five classes, you'll eventually reach an equilibrium in a population based on survival strategy. If you give each of the resources a numeric value, you can actually see the distribution.

The example of the pacifist who does a single act of violence is the example of what is called the Retaliator. If they never did the single act, they'd just be a Dove.

As it turns out, stable populations given most point distributions on the values of the resources, give an outcome distribution that shows the Retaliators, and the Doves as being the most successful (in terms of the points assigned). By most successful, it means they hold the greatest share of the population distribution. Any variance from that equilibrium, lowers the overall mean score of the population.

In short, the pacifist who survives due to an act of violence wasn't a pacifist to begin with. They haven't become a hawk, and in encounters with doves, they are indistinguishable.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2011 01:44 am
@reasoning logic,
Too many pages to read through and so I apologize, in advance, if this is redundant.

I'm sure you have received many replies that atheists do not try and convert Christians, but that's to be expected.

Of course, many of them do try and convert Christians, and other Believers.

Why do they try?

For the same reasons Christians and other Believers try to convert atheists.

In some few instances it is because they truly care about the people they are trying to convert and want them to benefit from what they believe to be the truth.

In far more cases, it is because they are uncertain of their beliefs and wish to reinforce them through the process of shoving them down someone else's throat.

It's all about ego: "I know something you don't know and that makes be better than you!"

I suspect that one way or another conversion is most often a case of coercion.

In many respects Atheism is as much a religion as any other.

BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2011 04:05 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
In many respects Atheism is as much a religion as any other.


BULLSHIT...............
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2011 04:16 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Why do they try?

For the same reasons Christians and other Believers try to convert atheists.


A few of us had the same response.


Quote:
In far more cases, it is because they are uncertain of their beliefs and wish to reinforce them through the process of shoving them down someone else s throat


Maybe you are correct I suppose some people will behave in such a way.


Quote:
It's all about ego: "I know something you don't know and that makes me better than you!"


Well I do think that there is truth to this, I think that the ego is involved regardless if someone thinks that they are better than someone else or if they merely think they have something of value that they want to share with others!


Quote:
In many respects Atheism is as much a religion as any other.


It can be for some people now if we could just get people to believe in an atheistic god and too tithe we could start up a real atheist church!lol


BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2011 04:57 am
@reasoning logic,
Yes science and witchcraft/magic have a lot in common also..............
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2011 11:08 am
@BillRM,
Bill I think that you might like what this man has to say, He has some very good videos!

Beware Christians this video is not for you because it will seem very offensive and I do not want to offend you!
Aggressive atheism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk&feature=channel_video_title
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2011 12:42 pm
@reasoning logic,
If you knew anything about TRUE Christianity you would KNOW the ego has nothing to do with it.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2011 12:50 pm
@Arella Mae,
How well do you understand the ego and the word ego?
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2011 01:08 pm
@reasoning logic,
What kind of question is that? I know what ego is. It's all about self, all about pride. This is why I said TRUE Christianity has nothing to do with ego. For a Christian it is all about God and others, not about themselves.

I know there are some out there calling themselves Christians that think they are so much better than anyone else because of it. I say they have no idea of what being a Christian is if they feel that way. I am not better than anyone. The Apostle Paul called himself chief of sinners. It amazes me anyone thinks themselves even above Apostle Paul but they do. That is not about Christ. That is about the ego and foolish pride.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2011 01:28 pm
@Arella Mae,
I guess that ego can mean almost anything you want it to mean.

Ego is a Latin word meaning "I", cognate with the Greek "Εγώ (Ego)" meaning "I", often used in English to mean the "self", "identity" or other related concepts.

Many people get their understanding about the ego from people like Freud or from people like you and I.

Ego

The ego acts according to the reality principle; i.e. it seeks to please the id’s drive in realistic ways that will benefit in the long term rather than bringing grief.[11] At the same time, Freud concedes that as the ego "attempts to mediate between id and reality, it is often obliged to cloak the Ucs. [Unconscious] commands of the id with its own Pcs. [Preconscious] rationalizations, to conceal the id's conflicts with reality, to profess...to be taking notice of reality even when the id has remained rigid and unyielding."[12]

The ego comprises that organised part of the personality structure that includes defensive, perceptual, intellectual-cognitive, and executive functions. Conscious awareness resides in the ego, although not all of the operations of the ego are conscious. Originally, Freud used the word ego to mean a sense of self, but later revised it to mean a set of psychic functions such as judgment, tolerance, reality testing, control, planning, defence, synthesis of information, intellectual functioning, and memory.[1] The ego separates out what is real. It helps us to organise our thoughts and make sense of them and the world around us.[1]"The ego is that part of the id which has been modified by the direct influence of the external world ... The ego represents what may be called reason and common sense, in contrast to the id, which contains the passions ... in its relation to the id it is like a man on horseback, who has to hold in check the superior strength of the horse; with this difference, that the rider tries to do so with his own strength, while the ego uses borrowed forces."[13] Still worse, "it serves three severe masters...the external world, the super-ego and the id."[12] Its task is to find a balance between primitive drives and reality while satisfying the id and super-ego. Its main concern is with the individual's safety and allows some of the id's desires to be expressed, but only when consequences of these actions are marginal. "Thus the ego, driven by the id, confined by the super-ego, repulsed by reality, struggles...[in] bringing about harmony among the forces and influences working in and upon it," and readily "breaks out in anxiety — realistic anxiety regarding the external world, moral anxiety regarding the super-ego, and neurotic anxiety regarding the strength of the passions in the id."[14] It has to do its best to suit all three, thus is constantly feeling hemmed by the danger of causing discontent on two other sides. It is said, however, that the ego seems to be more loyal to the id, preferring to gloss over the finer details of reality to minimize conflicts while pretending to have a regard for reality. But the super-ego is constantly watching every one of the ego's moves and punishes it with feelings of guilt, anxiety, and inferiority.

To overcome this the ego employs defense mechanisms. The defense mechanisms are not done so directly or consciously. They lessen the tension by covering up our impulses that are threatening.[15] Ego defense mechanisms are often used by the ego when id behavior conflicts with reality and either society's morals, norms, and taboos or the individual's expectations as a result of the internalisation of these morals, norms, and their taboos.

Denial, displacement, intellectualisation, fantasy, compensation, projection, rationalisation, reaction formation, regression, repression, and sublimation were the defense mechanisms Freud identified. However, his daughter Anna Freud clarified and identified the concepts of undoing, suppression, dissociation, idealisation, identification, introjection, inversion, somatisation, splitting, and substitution.
"The ego is not sharply separated from the id; its lower portion merges into it... But the repressed merges into the id as well, and is merely a part of it. The repressed is only cut off sharply from the ego by the resistances of repression; it can communicate with the ego through the id." (Sigmund Freud, 1923)

In a diagram of the Structural and Topographical Models of Mind, the ego is depicted to be half in the consciousness, while a quarter is in the preconscious and the other quarter lies in the unconscious.

In modern English, ego has many meanings. It could mean one’s self-esteem, an inflated sense of self-worth, or in philosophical terms, one’s self. Ego development is known as the development of multiple processes, cognitive function, defenses, and interpersonal skills or to early adolescence when ego processes are emerged.[11]
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/06/2024 at 02:58:58