Conversations

[Beady]

I prefer her to be into religion because it satisfies the need she has without causing her the physical damage of the other two

I suppose, so long as her religion doesn't have any funny ideas about medicine or health care.

 

[qayak]

I suppose, so long as her religion doesn't have any funny ideas about medicine or health care.

Well, she didn't get her two youngest kids inocculated because someone told her it caused autism which is weird because she takes them to the doctor if they get so much as a runny nose.

 

[chance]

Not every conversation with my sister is absurdly funny, sometimes they are absurdly sad or absurdly scarey.

<snip>

Understood, but I certainly admire your ability to think fast on your feet, if I were in your shoes, there would be many a long pregnant pauses as I try to come up with a similar response.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

You missed the point of the conversation. There comes a time where, as a skeptic, I have to stop asking questions and refuting silly things that people believe. That point is when it is going to hurt someone I care about, in this case my sister. But let's extend this a little bit and realize that the people we are arguing with are as worthy of respect as my own sister is. I could have blown all my brother in law's arguments out of the water but at what expense? My sister's happiness and maybe her marriage?

Something that we often forget in our zeal to set the world straight, is that on the other side, there are people who have invested a lot of themselves into their beliefs and by callously destroying their beliefs we are also destroying part of them. Is it any wonder why people get so irritated with us?

It isn't enough to understand where others have made mistakes. You have to have a way to correct those mistakes in a way that will be most effective. Humiliating people or trashing their beliefs is not a very effective way of communicating.

In fact, I suggest that such behaviour is the number one road block to the skeptic movement. It needs to be addressed.

Very well put, and I agree with the sentiment there. I've kept my mouth shut many a time because I care about the people saying silly things and don't really want to start something. I was just wondering why asking the simple question "why is abortion murder?" was avoided, but not the other things. Perhaps the other things you said were a way to avoid getting to the heart of things? Were you again attempting to shift the conversation away from that? Sounds reasonable. I myself probably would have asked that early on though if I had got into such a conversation.

I will add one thing. Do you really thing an argument about abortion would break up a marriage and destroy your relationship with your sister? I've gotten into a few heated arguments with some family members in the past but it all blows over pretty quickly. I can see feelings being hurt that you would want to avoid, but somehow I doubt the consequences would have been that severe. Then again, I don't know these people.

 

[fuelair]

You: Furthermore, is a god who would throw me into Hell really deserving of worship?

K: You're right. God is an ass. From this I conclude He doesn't exist.


Well, one can always dream.

Indeed, an ass complete, an ass entire, an ass whole!

 

[Tanstaafl]

It seems to me that your sister is doing a pretty good job, under the circumstances, of hanging on to some rationality judging from how she reacts to the rants of her husband. It's got to be tough to hold up under that, day in and day out.

I also think your approach of gently nudging her towards rationalism is excellent.

And welcome to the forum, you sound like one of the best additions we've had in a while.

 

[Soapy Sam]

It isn't enough to understand where others have made mistakes. You have to have a way to correct those mistakes in a way that will be most effective. Humiliating people or trashing their beliefs is not a very effective way of communicating.

In fact, I suggest that such behaviour is the number one road block to the skeptic movement. It needs to be addressed.

Might I ask to which "sceptic movement" are you referring here?

 

[coalesce]

Might I ask to which "sceptic movement" are you referring here?

It started in Flushing, New York.

Oh wait, that's the "septic movement."

Sorry.

Michael

 

[coalesce]

You missed the point of the conversation. There comes a time where, as a skeptic, I have to stop asking questions and refuting silly things that people believe. That point is when it is going to hurt someone I care about, in this case my sister. But let's extend this a little bit and realize that the people we are arguing with are as worthy of respect as my own sister is. I could have blown all my brother in law's arguments out of the water but at what expense? My sister's happiness and maybe her marriage?

Something that we often forget in our zeal to set the world straight, is that on the other side, there are people who have invested a lot of themselves into their beliefs and by callously destroying their beliefs we are also destroying part of them. Is it any wonder why people get so irritated with us?

It isn't enough to understand where others have made mistakes. You have to have a way to correct those mistakes in a way that will be most effective. Humiliating people or trashing their beliefs is not a very effective way of communicating.

In fact, I suggest that such behaviour is the number one road block to the skeptic movement. It needs to be addressed.

I wholeheartedly agree, primarily because I've always felt that if I were in the believer's position, this is how I would like to be taught. I've also found this tactic to be the most effective in real life. I'm not claiming 100% success using this method, but I have opened some people's eyes. However, there are some on this board who feel that a 2' X 4' followed by a sledge hammer is the best tactic when confronting someone who believes in things like psychics, Ouija boards, blind religious beliefs and such, especially those who like to use such beliefs for financial gain. Be prepared to allow those other voices to be heard, too. Calling each other "trolls" or "bleeding-heart liberals" does nothing to advance our cause.

But something tells me, judging from the tenor of your posts, you knew that already.

Michael

 

[Van]

What an incredible set of conversations. I found K's definition of heaven scary.

I recently had my first religious conversation with my father, where I found out he prays. I had never known this before and it blew me out of the water. It makes me wonder what conversations I'm not having that i should, or what questions I should be asking that I'm not.

Lesson learnt, I will ask more in future.