As long as you’re equally prepared to be deconverted.
Totally agreed on this point! To have a fruitful theological conversation, all parties ideally would have set aside emotion and bias in order to pursue the truth. That is much easier said then done, but is something I think we should all strive for.
You have included a lot more here than I have the time to respond to sadly (hopefully someone else will) but I’ll respond to your last point:
How are you able to love me, and also let me be, even as you genuinely believe that “my journey” ends in eternal suffering? Or how can you expect me, to accept someone who can do that, as a genuinely good person?
I can’t say I’m a genuinely good person, but I would say that it comes down to respecting the persons individual autonomy. For example, if I have a friend who has a habit that I consider destructive, I wouldn’t join them in the habit, but my love for them shouldn’t change. I would be sad that the trajectory (in my opinion) would end with suffering but as their friend, I should lead by example in what I think is a better life and keep hoping that they see where I’m coming from. Plus, maybe they will convince me the other way on this or other topics!
My general life philosophy is to question everything. You will either end up with a more solid foundation in what you believe or you will have one of those awesome paradigm shattering events. Either way though, an open mind is required and I’d encourage you to keep listening to those you disagree with. You may be surprised!
I’ve deconstructed theological “logic” to the point of boredom.
I can’t say as a secular thinker that I’m anything like “open-minded” to religion. I used to describe myself as agnostic, but that is a mere stop along a road to the truth of anti-theism.
And that road absolutely has a “wrong” direction. At this point, there is zero chance of anyone converting me. No-one has ever said a word to me that managed to shake that conviction even for a second. I’m at a point where I fail to see the point of religion even as a mere human institution of utility. All it seems to do is twist perception of reality en-masse, causing all the evil it does, and making all the good it does less efficient.
Both sides do not need to be open to convincing, for us to have a discussion about whether Santa exists. We can still talk about it even if one us knows he doesn’t. And I would consider an adult changing their mind on Santas non-existence, to be an obvious regression. A child who is never falsely told by anyone that Santa exists, will never need to have that belief dispelled. The very same things are true for religious discussion.
It’s not even that I won’t listen anymore. It’s merely that where I am now, I starting to hear the same arguments repeatedly, to the point that I can regularly re-use counter-arguments.
You speak of behaviour you’d consider destructive, as if we’re talking about things a person chooses to be. We are not. Your god will judge me based on a set of a couple reasonable, and great very many arbitrary standards, obviously set for the convenience of those in power when they were written/last updated.
I hope you have your paradigm shift. Religions are born from human lies, and sometimes truths worshipped beyond reason. As such I will never see where people subscribing to them are “coming from”. I can understand, but never agree.
The very definition of faith is belief without evidence, and I have never met a religious person who claims to have evidence, who isn’t just interpreting circumstances, or mistaking their inner monologue for the voice of god.
How can you claim to love me, even as you accept a god that judges me deserving of literally infinite pain? If I am truly that bad, how can I possibly deserve your acceptance?
And if I’m not that bad, how can you be ok with worshipping a god, that so insanely arbitrarily, condemns someone you love?
You cannot save me. The only way out for me, in your belief system, is for your god to spare me. But you and me both know you don’t worship that kind of god.
Totally agreed on this point! To have a fruitful theological conversation, all parties ideally would have set aside emotion and bias in order to pursue the truth. That is much easier said then done, but is something I think we should all strive for.
You have included a lot more here than I have the time to respond to sadly (hopefully someone else will) but I’ll respond to your last point:
I can’t say I’m a genuinely good person, but I would say that it comes down to respecting the persons individual autonomy. For example, if I have a friend who has a habit that I consider destructive, I wouldn’t join them in the habit, but my love for them shouldn’t change. I would be sad that the trajectory (in my opinion) would end with suffering but as their friend, I should lead by example in what I think is a better life and keep hoping that they see where I’m coming from. Plus, maybe they will convince me the other way on this or other topics!
My general life philosophy is to question everything. You will either end up with a more solid foundation in what you believe or you will have one of those awesome paradigm shattering events. Either way though, an open mind is required and I’d encourage you to keep listening to those you disagree with. You may be surprised!
I’ve deconstructed theological “logic” to the point of boredom.
I can’t say as a secular thinker that I’m anything like “open-minded” to religion. I used to describe myself as agnostic, but that is a mere stop along a road to the truth of anti-theism.
And that road absolutely has a “wrong” direction. At this point, there is zero chance of anyone converting me. No-one has ever said a word to me that managed to shake that conviction even for a second. I’m at a point where I fail to see the point of religion even as a mere human institution of utility. All it seems to do is twist perception of reality en-masse, causing all the evil it does, and making all the good it does less efficient.
Both sides do not need to be open to convincing, for us to have a discussion about whether Santa exists. We can still talk about it even if one us knows he doesn’t. And I would consider an adult changing their mind on Santas non-existence, to be an obvious regression. A child who is never falsely told by anyone that Santa exists, will never need to have that belief dispelled. The very same things are true for religious discussion.
It’s not even that I won’t listen anymore. It’s merely that where I am now, I starting to hear the same arguments repeatedly, to the point that I can regularly re-use counter-arguments.
You speak of behaviour you’d consider destructive, as if we’re talking about things a person chooses to be. We are not. Your god will judge me based on a set of a couple reasonable, and great very many arbitrary standards, obviously set for the convenience of those in power when they were written/last updated.
I hope you have your paradigm shift. Religions are born from human lies, and sometimes truths worshipped beyond reason. As such I will never see where people subscribing to them are “coming from”. I can understand, but never agree.
The very definition of faith is belief without evidence, and I have never met a religious person who claims to have evidence, who isn’t just interpreting circumstances, or mistaking their inner monologue for the voice of god.
Let me put it in much fever words.
How can you claim to love me, even as you accept a god that judges me deserving of literally infinite pain? If I am truly that bad, how can I possibly deserve your acceptance?
And if I’m not that bad, how can you be ok with worshipping a god, that so insanely arbitrarily, condemns someone you love?
You cannot save me. The only way out for me, in your belief system, is for your god to spare me. But you and me both know you don’t worship that kind of god.