On 18-Jan-09 3:24, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> That sentence was meant to be short for: "Sometimes when you find out 
>> what makes them tick and what is their ultimate motivation it turns 
>> out that they don't believe in a god but are atheists and have taken 
>> the non-existence of god as their primary inspiration for helping 
>> others."
>>
>> Small question, possibly on behalf of my daughter (see separate 
>> 'international english' thread): is this a rhetorical device that does 
>> not carry across cultures?
>>
> 
> Hmm. I suppose that is possible, but I don't think I have met anyone 
> that uses "that" as their reason for helping anyone.

For all practical purposes the non-existence of God is the base of my 
ethics, so count me in.

>>> That said, your comment does re-bring up a point that Saul danced 
>>> around a bit. Since he won't read the blog of an atheist, 
>>
>> given the way you tried to force it on him, I can't blame him.
>>
> I provided a link, stating that his personal definition of what atheists 
> where like was wrong, and this was an "example" of someone that didn't 
> fit. Not **real** clear how the heck giving an example is "forcing" 
> something? I certainly didn't force him to go there, force him to read 
> it, force him to "anything", including forcing him to ignore it the way 
> he did. By comparison, the second link was 10,000 times more "forceful", 
> in that reading the post made reading the man's interpretation of events 
> mandatory. But, if that is "forcing", then quoting, paraphrasing, or 
> linking to anything is. It smacks of the tried and true whine you get 
> from some people that, "Expressing a difference of opinion is bad 
> enough, but confronting me with facts is going too far! Stop persecuting 
> me!!"

I know what you meant, but to me it sounded rather similar to that 
infamous: "here is a bible, read it!".

[snip]

>> There is nothing is this story that suggests that the people in the 
>> church did it with the goal of converting the father. Suggesting that 
>> that was the actual goal and from that building up to a condemnation 
>> of their actions is rhetorically not sound and I would be livid if 
>> someone would question my intentions in this way.
>>
> No, nor is the last statement I made about it having to do with what the 
> "author" said. Its **suspicion* of motive, based on observation, and he 
> even says, very clearly, in his own comment, that its not possible to 
> prove if they had that motivation or not, so one has to take in on face 
> value, even "if" they are suspicious of it being true. I agree. Its not 
> possible, unless they admit it, through actions or words. The problem 
> is, a lot of them "do", 

And my problem is that I know too many people that don't and would 
justifiably be angry if you would question their motives based on 
suspicion. Basically what you are saying, or at least suggesting to say, 
is that if someone belongs to a church you can not trust them anymore.

> then claim that having the alterior motive makes 
>  what they did "superior" to everyone else's expression of the same 
> thing, due to it including "pleasing god", not just "helping people".
> 
>> To answer what I think is your underlying question: Compassion exist 
>> and is present both in atheists and theists. When people interact 
>> closely for some time they can grow philosophically closer together. 
>> Sometimes that results in people dropping out of a church sometimes 
>> into it and sometimes they move churches. The fourth option will not 
>> result in anything visible from the outside, that does not mean that 
>> the internal changes can be just as profound. If I or e.g. Saul behave 
>> friendly towards a fellow human being we do that just to do that. We 
>> might hope that the other follows our example, but that does not make 
>> any of us missionaries.
> 
> True enough. But, again, the principle tends to be undermined by the 
> fact that, for anyone that claims to really "believe" in certain 
> religions, there is no justifiable difference between being a person of 
> compassion and being a missionary. And, that creates a serious problem 
> for people that don't think the two need be, or should be, connected. It 
> means that "all" motives from them must be at least "somewhat" suspect, 
> even if you badly want them not to be. To discount that element of those 
> religions, is to be dishonest about what they teach, and how they expect 
> people to behave.

Ah, 'teach' may be the important word here. Most people I have met are 
not from churches that teach missionary actions. Apart from the Jehovah 
witnesses that come to the door (must be 9 years since I saw the last 
one). Catholics here tend to not take serious anybody from the ranks of 
bishop up. I have yet to meet a Muslim that has taken it's faith serious 
enough to even know how to explain his faith to an infidel. In short, 
all religious persons I know personally that are serious about their 
faith and every church they are in are not of the missionary type. 
Remember, I live in the Netherlands.

Post a reply to this message