A Conversation with Ruby

[evildave]

And conversely, just because someone does believe in god does not make that person a bad person, right?

Very true.

However, people demonstrate themselves to be "bad people" by their deeds in this life, irregardless of whether they believe that whatever they do is "forgiven" by their gods, or not.

When someone behaves badly, the "bad people" label gets applied. When it recurs, it tends to become generalized to classes of people. This over-generalizing is generally very, very bad behavior. It's intellectually lazy, and appeals to the basest of human nature.

Lots of very bad words are applicable. Prejudice, bigotry and worse. Bigoted people are generally bad people.

Now then, there are certain people who have a core belief that anyone who is not exactly like them in their philosophy are "bad" people. Even worse, in their own hearts they condemn to death, and/or some form of "eternal" suffering afterwards, and think that this is "perfect justice".

Words like "bigoted" fit perfectly in this case.

This does not mean that all Christians are this way, or that this trait does not exist in other sample groups. The only ones that actively seek me out to be rude and obnoxious, also happen to be "Christian", by their own words.

Of course, all good people can behave very, very badly in certain situations.


When I have a private conversation with someone about my beliefs, who eavesdrops from another table, even another room, and storms in and confronts me like I have just slandered their mother? Self-identified "Christians". Every time.

When I am sleeping in on the weekend, who comes to my door demanding I be just like them? Self-identified "Christians". Every time.

When I am waiting in a public place, minding my own business, who corners me and demands I be just like them? Self-identified "Christians". Every time.

When someone discovers I'm not just like them, who is it that has a litany of condescending remarks prepared, such as "I will pray for you!", and "You're such a nice person. Too bad you're going to Hell."? Want to take a guess? Self-identified "Christians". Every time.


Small samples, personal anecdotes, etc.


All I can do is forgive them on the spot. What? Did you think forgivenness is a uniquely "Christian" thing to do?


Whenever this topic comes up, do you know what else I hear? These rude self-identified "Christians" are not "real Christians". Funny thing. The rude ones usually make a point of saying the same thing about the nice ones. Am I to elect myself judge as to who is a "Real Christian", and who is not?


Should I simply expect more of Christians, or less? If I expect more, I will be judging them as inferior to my standards, and if I expect less, I will tend to be over-generalizing them as "bad" people.

Safest to forgive them and not worry about their little personality quirks.

 

[RandFanJr.]

Now then, there are certain people who have a core belief that anyone who is not exactly like them in their philosophy are "bad" people. Even worse, in their own hearts they condemn to death, and/or some form of "eternal" suffering afterwards, and think that this is "perfect justice".

I watched "Inherit the Wind (1999)" yesterday. I recomend it to anyone. A good object lesson of what you are describing.

I have often come to the defense of "Christians". I should point out that even when I was a believer I was not accepted by most who called themselves Christian. When I moved into my current home in 1991 and I was still somewhat active in my church, my children were not allowed to play with the some neighboorhood children because they where Christian and my children were Mormon.

I have never judged "all" Christians by the acts of "some" Christians or even perhaps the majority. All people should be judged on the basis of their own acts and intentions.

Thanks Dave

 

[rachaella]

Christian,


You mention that you think Ruby did not make her desicion for intellectual reasons. To that, I can only respond "yeah? And?"

The fact is, not everyone leaves the church for intellectual reasons. I am willing to bet that no one actually joins the church for intellectual reasons.

I just wanted to echo this point. I think that religion inherently has an emotional component. I think many decisions to join a religious, become more religious, or even abandon religious beliefs can be accompanied by events that trigger strong emotional responses (aka, a death of a loved one, a large-scale terrorist attack, etc.). Ruby had some very unpleasant experiences with her church and these emotions led her to question long-held beliefs. Sometimes it takes a person's intellect a little time to catch up with their emotions. Sometimes this leads to realizing the decision made out of emotions was the correct one, sometimes not. Whether or not she made the decision based on intellectual reasons does not diminish the fact that there are intellectual reasons to leave the church, ones that over the past 6 months (and sometime before) she has most likely realized.

 

[a_unique_person]

Ruby

Here a sample of your comments:











Ruby wrote:
I was not aware that I have "Constantly" talked down about Christians. I will stand corrected if that is the case. Perhaps I have made a reputation on JREF for cutting down Christians without even realizing it.

Constantly is a subjective term I used loosely, nevertheless, you have done it sufficiently enough to accept challenges and observations.

That you successfully vilified me, does not stop me from asserting that my statements have gone unchallenged by you. And I believe that because of your comments, I have the right to make them without being perceived as an attacker (the villain)objectivity is hard to find. This crowd is as any, biased].

You have missrepresented my position. (this is another fact I point out.

And I believe you are wrong. You can't take a position and the complain if someone calls you on it.

Here our exchange in the blinding power of fear:
The rest is already on record.

I can back Ruby on this 100%. Fear is a major motivator. It was used on me at a very young age, and is a disgraceful abuse of young children. Those xians who use it should be ashamed of themselves.

I see no need to apologise for attacking xianity on this.

If you think that Ruby is being over the top with here attacks on the use of fear by xians, then maybe she just resents being manipulated so cynically. I was. With time, she will probably get over it.

 

[Yahweh]

This thread is created from a Christian to a former Christian.

Ruby has agreed to join in and talk about her path to atheism.

Ruby, what was the main reason of your "Conversion"?

Well, the question isnt asked toward me, but I'll take a short amount of time to chime in my sentiments:

I was never a Christian though I used to believe lots of crazy things. Then I started to educate myself, I learned more and more and more and more.

The concept of God and all other aspects of supernaturalism became increasingly more incoherent, the stories of the bible are obviously allegorical and were of no use to me except in terms of being a moral tool (but seeing as I felt my morals were in perfect order, I have no uses for the bible outside of a reference tool for religious debate on internet messageboards), it became obvious that there is no way to defend a belief in god without eventually widdling down the debate to "you just never know" or "science cant prove everything" (I'm sorry, but I am unimpressed with those types of arguements), the simple fact is that all of the evidence and science we have today is quite indistinguishable from that of an universe absent of supernaturalism, naturalistic philosophies made complete sense but it comes to the point where they became undoubtedly true.

The things I believe are in perfect order, they are well thought out. There exists no gods.

 

[RandFanJr.]

I think many decisions to join a religious, become more religious, or even abandon religious beliefs can be accompanied by events that trigger strong emotional responses (aka, a death of a loved one, a large-scale terrorist attack, etc.).

Missionaries are told to seek out people who have experienced a lifechanging event. When I was a missionary we used to ask members if they knew anyone who had gone through such an event.

I think many if not most individuals who are religious need such an event to get them to look at the evidence. It is imposible to prove that the moon exists to someone who refuses to look into the sky.

 

[Marc]

Missionaries are told to seek out people who have experienced a lifechanging event. When I was a missionary we used to ask members if they knew anyone who had gone through such an event.

I think many if not most individuals who are religious need such an event to get them to look at the evidence. It is imposible to prove that the moon exists to someone who refuses to look into the sky.

In other words, find people who are at an emotionally vulnerable point in their lives and exploit it. Find people who are in need of comfort and offer it too them in the manner of having them join the offered belief system. Pretty common practice actually, if a bit unethical when you truly think about it.

 

[espritch]

The things I believe are in perfect order, they are well thought out. There exists no gods.

Don't be daft! Of course there is. His name is Rex. He sleeps on my rug and eats choice tidbits from my table. He growls when he is displeased and wags his tail when he is happy. He often speaks to me. He commands me to do things that I do not understand - but he is Rex so I obey. He...wait, you said "there exists no gods". I thought you said "dogs" ...ummm....nevermind.

 

[elliotfc]

The longer I live, the more apparent it is that people believe what they want to believe, and that includes everybody on this forum, and it includes myself.

If you want to find reasons to not believe, or to believe, or to have no opinion, or to believe in disbeliving, or to disbelieve in believing, you'll find them.

There are so many ideas out there and who knows if the best ones survive, are the most popular, stick around the longest, etc. In the end we are left with our perceptions and our evaluations of these ideas. These judgments are unique to our minds. This is all very personal. I hate to get judgmental about other people and what they believe. I make exceptions when people are uncharitable, spiteful, dishonest, and obviously unthoughtful and lazy.

Anyhow, I went through a period of a few years where I didn't believe in anything written in the Bible. I thought it was a book of fiction. I saw no reason to believe any of it, besides capitulating to authority. I only believed in skepticism and basically was skeptical of everything except outrageous and obscure theories. See, when I was young, people used to ask me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I would have given the correct answer (Charles Fort) but then I would have to explain a few things and that wasn't my thing back then.

-Elliot

 

[RandFanJr.]

In other words, find people who are at an emotionally vulnerable point in their lives and exploit it. Find people who are in need of comfort and offer it too them in the manner of having them join the offered belief system. Pretty common practice actually, if a bit unethical when you truly think about it.

Exploitive, unethical? Perhaps, but you are absolutely right about one thing, it is very common practice. Republicans and Democrats alike have made such activity both art and science. I suppose ethics and exploitation, depends on ones viewpoint.

Is using the emotions of minorities to join the civil rights cause exploitive and/or ethical? Are lawyers who specialize in disaster cases ambulance chasers or sincere individuals looking after the needs of the powerless.

Yes, this is another thread but I think it is food for thought. I'm not convinced it is de facto exploitation. When I was a missionary I truly believed that I was saving people. I did not make one red cent from proselytizing, on the contrary I spent $200.00 a month of my own money and gave up my own time.

Do the leaders know the church is false and are exploiting the missionaries and the converts? Difficult question to answer. There are allot of leaders and most are in denial of the evidence that they so obviously possess. I think many if not most are like Lady Henriette Felicité Tichborne who refused to accept the evidence that her son was dead.

Demonstrably exploitive and unethical? Arguable, at least IMHO.

 

[RandFanJr.]

Re: Re: A Conversation with Ruby

The longer I live, the more apparent it is that people believe what they want to believe, and that includes everybody on this forum, and it includes myself.

There are some exceptions I think, I for one do not believe all that I want to. I want my "soul" to live beyond my own mortality. I want a loving god and a purpose for my existence beyond mere happenstance. Wanting something to be true won't make it so. It is important to me to find the truth and not just believe what I want to. That being said I am sure that I don't always live up to my own standard.

I understand your sentiment and I agree with it. I would say that most people's ego push them to belive what they do. I would say that MY ego makes it difficult for me to look at things objectively. However I am cognizant of it and I have committed to objectivity.

If you want to find reasons to not believe, or to believe, or to have no opinion, or to believe in disbelieving, or to disbelieve in believing, you'll find them.

Absolutely, and there must be some evolutionary value to this very human of traits. It very likely helped propel the human race to where it is today.

There are so many ideas out there and who knows if the best ones survive, are the most popular, stick around the longest, etc. In the end we are left with our perceptions and our evaluations of these ideas. These judgments are unique to our minds. This is all very personal. I hate to get judgmental about other people and what they believe. I make exceptions when people are uncharitable, spiteful, dishonest, and obviously unthoughtful and lazy.

Agreed, but we should seek intellectual honesty, critical thinking and admit our own egos and commit to objectively seeking the truth.

Good post Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: A Conversation with Ruby

There are some exceptions I think, I for one do not believe all that I want to. I want my "soul" to live beyond my own mortality. I want a loving god and a purpose for my existence beyond mere happenstance. Wanting something to be true won't make it so. It is important to me to find the truth and not just believe what I want to. That being said I am sure that I don't always live up to my own standard.

Nice one Rand.

I didn't exactly mean what I say, or, let me try again.

Take this ARod business. I want to believe that the Yankees aren't going to have ARod on their team next year. Of course I have to believe that, in fact, they will. This is a case where knowledge overrides my wanting (intellectual honesty that you mention).

I think what I was hinting at had more to do with philosophical belief and/or opinion stuff, as opposed to more factual data. The concept of soul, or afterlife, is a different kind of thing than who is playing third for the Yankees.

Have humans simply made up such ideas to satisfy themselves? Perhaps. I suspect not. I used to want to believe that humans made up these ideas. Now I want to believe that these things are more than imaginative coping mechanisms. I could go either way. I don't see any way of verifying one or the other, as I could verify whether or not it rained on my house today. This is what I was getting at when I said people believe what they want to believe.

-Elliot

 

[Ruby]

Ruby

Hi,

I'm sorry I have not responded to your recent posts. I came down with the flu Saturday morning, and have been feeling very ill. I've had a slight improvement this evening, but still weak and sick. I hope to be feeling better tomorrow.

I will reply to your posts as soon as possible.

Thanks,

Ruby

 

[RandFanJr.]

Re: Re: Re: Re: A Conversation with Ruby

Nice one Rand.

I didn't exactly mean what I say, or, let me try again.

Take this ARod business. I want to believe that the Yankees aren't going to have ARod on their team next year. Of course I have to believe that, in fact, they will. This is a case where knowledge overrides my wanting (intellectual honesty that you mention).

I think what I was hinting at had more to do with philosophical belief and/or opinion stuff, as opposed to more factual data. The concept of soul, or afterlife, is a different kind of thing than who is playing third for the Yankees.

Have humans simply made up such ideas to satisfy themselves? Perhaps. I suspect not. I used to want to believe that humans made up these ideas. Now I want to believe that these things are more than imaginative coping mechanisms. I could go either way. I don't see any way of verifying one or the other, as I could verify whether or not it rained on my house today. This is what I was getting at when I said people believe what they want to believe.

-Elliot

I understand, thanks for the response.

 

[LFTKBS]

Christian: "Ooh! Ruby said bad things about Christianity! Ooh! My heart is breaking! Where are my Midol?"

Hey: get over it. Christianity is brutal and barbaric and based on fear and blackmail and bribery. Sucks to be you.

Additionally: so Ruby's deconversion from your cult isn't intellectually-based: so what? Not what I'd prefer, but better for her to realize why she left later than to never leave at all. Your god is the exact negation of reason, so pull that log outta ya eye, mote-face.

P.S. You are ugly.

 

[Marc]

Is using the emotions of minorities to join the civil rights cause exploitive and/or ethical? Are lawyers who specialize in disaster cases ambulance chasers or sincere individuals looking after the needs of the powerless.

Yes, this is another thread but I think it is food for thought. I'm not convinced it is de facto exploitation. When I was a missionary I truly believed that I was saving people. I did not make one red cent from proselytizing, on the contrary I spent $200.00 a month of my own money and gave up my own time.

I think we have different views on the meaning of exploitation here. In this context I am using it as refering to using the emotional vulnerability of a person in a time of crisis to get them to take actions (join groups) that they would most likely not have any interest in any other time. It has nothing to do with if the exploiter is a fraud or truly believes in their cause, it is about taking advantage of anothers moment of weakness.

 

[Suddenly]

Christian: "Ooh! Ruby said bad things about Christianity! Ooh! My heart is breaking! Where are my Midol?"

Hey: get over it. Christianity is brutal and barbaric and based on fear and blackmail and bribery. Sucks to be you.

Additionally: so Ruby's deconversion from your cult isn't intellectually-based: so what? Not what I'd prefer, but better for her to realize why she left later than to never leave at all. Your god is the exact negation of reason, so pull that log outta ya eye, mote-face.

P.S. You are ugly.

This is roughly what I was thinking...

I went through the whole "deconversion" thing similar how others have described, nothing really unusual about it. I did spend a lot of my life worrying about things like "should I go to church" and "should I pray more" and other nonsense; having people imply that I am flawed by my not wanting to believe in things that come with personal cost but no evidence.

So, there was a weight lifted off of me when I discarded this God thing for the unneccessary. I can act the way I act towards other people without invoking some supernatural concept as requiring me to do so. There is another emotional reaction.

I'm a bit ticked off at the whole thing. All the time, thought and worry about not being religious, whether just being a good person was enough or do I have to truely believe in some sky daddy, the sadness I used to feel when I would realize I really wasn't buying this stuff.

Then I think about how religion has been used to subjugate women, the idea that a good "Christian" woman knows her place, that it is used as an excuse for xenophobia, how it by design seeks out those that are at their weakest so that they can be brainwashed (feel the power of the lord, etc.), and I get a little more upset.

Then factor in the idea that, while I don't know Ruby, I have followed her saga as well as have some idea what she must feel as her path has been at least 20 times rougher than mine. Then I think about someone like this "christian" person trying to make a deal out of her expressing some disdain for those that tried to run her life through fantastic threats and fear, and I get really, really mad.

I don't usually get mad at particular Christians, just as I don't get mad at the actual telemarketer that calls me when I am waiting for an important call, I tend to forgive them "as they know not what they do" (heh heh). This doesn't mean I have no right to hang up the phone.

It also doesn't mean I have to be nice about Christianity as a whole; it is nothing but a cult propped up on 2,000 years of white trash dumbness and ignorance and no more valid at it's core than simple sun worship. It tells us sex is dirty and women are made to serve man, that we shouldn't worry about getting f*ck*d over in this life as we will be rewarded later and all these mean people will be punished as long as we believe in unknowable entities and realize that we are shameful sinners because we like to have a good time now and then...

How stupid that sounds now. I feel like an idiot for falling for this as long as I did. Which makes me even madder.

F*ck these people.

 

[Christian]

As in many occasion before, the lack of objectivity shown with members in this group is evident.

The lack of ability to READ this information is also evident.

But, just for my sake and the record, I will offer a synopses.

This is paraphrasing (not what actually was said).

Ruby: I think Christians are crazy. They also involve themselves in worthless rituals, their beliefs are based on fear (not reason), they are sadists and delight in the idea that people will go to hell. They have been brainwashed, and are paranoid. They are immoral and the biggest backstabbing gossips. They spread false and malicious stories is rampant. They are abusers of every sort...including sexual.

They present no legitime arguments for their beliefs, and I characterize on of such (from Christians) to be the most ridiculuos I have ever heard. The Bible is full of factual contradictions, and most of the refutations by Christians are illogical.

Me: I state as a fact that you know very little of Christian dogma.

Ruby: I studied 13 years this stuff.

Me: Furthermore, you say a lot but not show very little evidence of intelectual work. In this subject you show that your decision are emotions based, that you are being intellectually lazy about it.

Ruby: You are insulting me, you are a bad person.


Me: I'm making factual observations to you. If I'm wrong show me your work. You say Christians are crazy, illogical, with beliefs based on fear and that is your critizism of them. I chanllenge your judgements, and what you to show me the intellectual work that brings you to those conclusions.

Ruby: You are not my god, you are not my king. You can't make do anything.

Me: That's is not what I'm saying. If you call other people illogical, these people have the right to challenge you reasoning. Of course you don't have to answer any of it. But then, your statements become worthless. And it could be perceived as hypocrisy.

Ruby: You are a villian, and others agree with me.


Others: Ruby is entitled to her opinion and she has the right to say whatever she wants about Christians. Besides, you are very ugly.


Me: I'm not arguing about her right to say those things (she has). I'm not even arguing about the right of her to villify me (she has).

I'M STATING THAT I HAVE THE RIGHT CHANLLENGE WHAT SHE SAYS AND TO ASK HER FOR THE INTELLECTUAL WORK BEHIND HERE STATEMENTS

She has the right to not to answer me.

AND I HAVE THE RIGHT TO CALL THAT HYPOCRISY


And she has the right to villify all over again.

 

[Christian]

And just a reminder:

All forms of intolerance to a classified (specific group) is called bigotry.

One is guilty of bigotry when one talks negatively about the group instead of the individuals (exceptions are noted, Nazis, KKK, etc.)

 

[LFTKBS]

And just a reminder:

All forms of intolerance to a classified (specific group) is called bigotry.

One is guilty of bigotry when one talks negatively about the group instead of the individuals (exceptions are noted, Nazis, KKK, etc.)

Oh, get of here, Whiney McWhineface. So because someone correctly points out that most Christians are sadists whose beliefs are predicated on fear, that person is a bigot? Meh. Am I a bigot because I correctly point out that Scientology is a cult?

Are you a bigot because you believe the set of {all non-Christians} is going to hell? It's a group! A group!

You can't defend yourself with reason, so you try to scare us with this "bigotry" garbage.