jpahmad

I didn't want to let you down by leaving out that important step I was planning on you countering with the above statement. Yes, of course you should sit down with them them and explain, however, this step is a lot of work, right? It's not something that can be done in an hour's discussion. Most people have no idea what's going on, and you have to spend a significant amount of energy to cut through all the propaganda that has been pumped into them for years. It's not easy work. Stef has been making a career of it! I really do think people will initially show revulsion to what we suggest here on the forum. For us, it's a storm that has to be weathered. Well, no, let me rephrase that. It's a storm that can be weathered. And you can slowly but surely chip away at someone's conscience. There are people here that post about how their spouses are not being reasonable. Or, hold irrational beliefs. They also claim to have a pretty decent relationship in spite of that. What would be your advice to them? What does Stef do everyday? Does he only broadcast his videos to reasonable people. If that were the case, than his efforts are wasted on those minds that don't need his guidance. Everybody is unreasonable at some point in their lives. That's why Freedomain Radio is needed. I can be unreasonable. I might be unreasonable right now. I don't think I am, but It may be the case. Now, if you "go galt" from someone who is unreasonable, and then they return later and apologize by accepting how they were unreasonable in the past, well, then you can't say they are unreasonable people. All you can say, is that they were in a temporary state of unreason when you left them.

So for the first two years, the bond between mother and child is the strongest bond that could ever exist between two separate sentient beings. If they are not separate beings, then at what age in the child's life do they become separate? If they automatically become separate beings at some point in time, then to what extent does this effect the bond between them?

I really didn't even think about the appearance. I just thought it was nice to put a face to a voice.

Would you consider your mother to be the nurturing type?

dsayers, I'm not talking about people like your father. Remember, I said those who are "benign" irrational people. You're father is obviously not "benign." He is directly abusive and violent. Someone who votes, is indirectly violent. They support an empire that murders. So, by your reasoning, if you interact with anyone who votes, you are culpable in murder. Good luck escaping that association. so can you clarify this event? They came to you to find out why you have been missing in their lives, without a clue as to why that might be? or they came to you to offer apologies and already knew why you dumped them from your life?

This is somewhat of a play-by-play recreation of yesterday. I don't think it has been resolved. At least to my satisfaction. We both agree what the first step should be: Bring up the issue, point something out, hope their reaction is positive. I agree that if this doesn't work, then distancing yourself from this person is a good action assuming that their is nothing of value left in the relationship. But there is usually always something of value there. That's why you were friends in the first place. In my experience, I have had different views with almost everybody I'm friends with; I'm an anarchist and an atheist so its not surprising. I also think about these things way more than most of my friends. They have not taken the time to go through the logical thought process that lead one inevitably to where we are on this forum. Come on, everybody who is religious advocates violence against children and non-believers. But these people are not bad people. And I am using religion as an example here. Here's the thing, if you use logic and reason to try to convert a religious person to atheism, 99% of the time you're going to fail. You should fail. It is unreasonable to expect someone to discard the very thing that props them up emotionally and gives them security. They will reject it over and over again....unless....you offer an emotional substitute. So before giving up the effort to enlighten people, you need to attack the matter from an emotional angle. Once you've primed them emotionally, then you can bring in the logic and reason. This takes a long time and may not be worth the effort. But it's how you change the world. It's always been emotion first. I was in high school when I finally rejected religion and god. I was told that those who don't accept Jesus as their savor will go to hell. This was emotionally unacceptable. It would mean that half my family was going to burn in Hell. From that point on I followed science and philosophy and never looked back. But it started with something that rocked my world emotionally. There are people that are convinced they have been cursed by evil spirits. I know one. She is in her 50s and completely useless and unproductive. Has been that way for years. In fact, everyone around her is superstitious as well and they play into this narrative. So they feel sorry for her. It works out great for her. Try convincing her that there is no curse and that she is just using the story to leech off people. It will never happen. It would wreck her emotionally. I got off here on a tangent. And completely lost sight of my argument. I'll try to get it back together here.

@dsayers, I don't think they know that they are advocating violence against others. At most, they might think that the violence they advocate is some form of self-defense. I could be wrong about this, but please give me an example to demonstrate your position. Also, when mentioning "some here will say..." I was referring to something xelent said in another post, which is the same thing he said above. @xelent, You apparently have empirical evidence which disproves my theory. That may be the case. But I think it has to be investigated further. Let me ask you, what do you think it was that made them feel badly about their behavior towards you. You can't say for certain that it was your lack of presence in their lives that caused them to change. Maybe someone else came into their lives and showed them where they were wrong in their thinking, and then this lead them to feel bad about arguments they made in the past, which included arguments with you. Could this be a possibility?

So what's stronger, the bond between mother and child, or wife and husband? Assuming that both relationships are healthy and flourishing.

I don't see how "going Galt" and removing yourself from unreasonable people's lives is going to accomplish anything. I know that they can be damaging to your own life by being abusive, and in that case, you should remove yourself. However, in the case that they are people who are for the most part benign, and only guilty of having some warped ill-conceived view points (most of the time when it comes to politics/economics and religion) it is very important that we begin to plant the seeds of rational thinking. Some here will say that by disengaging with unreasonable people, they will soon realize their errors and change their ways. There is no proof of that and I have never seen it happen in my life...ever. How many people have defood and then seen their family suddenly change their world outlook? Now, if someone does ultimately see the error in their ways as a result of losing a friend, then that means that they are reasonable. But this can't be possible if they are an unreasonable person. It takes a reasonable person to look back, re-trace their steps, and see where their thought process went wrong. The implication is that the only way to transform an unreasonable person into a reasonable person, is to stop being friends with them. If that were the case, then no one would have to "defoo" for more than a short period of time.

How was your marriage before you became an atheist?

O.k., when you said he apologized I assumed that he recognized that what he did was inconsiderate. From what you're telling us, this was obviously not the case. It's probably best to not associate with him any longer. @dsayers: I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

That's 99% of the world Mike

dsayers, he doesn't knowingly support violence. He doesn't have any clue what he is doing. He is ignorant. Why would you just write someone off like that. In his mind, he thinks he is being compassionate and caring. As far as disconnecting from him, it will be only productive for for you, not for him. That's not to say that you shouldn't do it though. I'll bet my money on the fact that as soon as you cut him off, there will be no personal epiphany on his part, no self-reflection, and no analysis of his thought process. You'll be just be lumped together with all the other people he defines as the enemy and he'll post about it on facebook.

Antony, You're exactly right. We need to empathize first, meet them where they're at, and then lead them forward towards logic and reason. This is what I can stand about religious debates. Atheists keep trying to use reason to convince a mystic of their position. You have to use emotion! We all know why people become and stay mystical; they are afraid. It is not a reasoning process that got them there. Richard Dawkins keeps walking into the same brick wall over and over again. I honestly can't stand it it. People didn't come to hail Jesus as the prophet because he made a good argument. They worshiped him because he allegedly did amazing, emotionally moving things, like "walk on water", and "make the blind see again." That's why. People who are religious have emotional problems that need to be addressed.

I wouldn't have engaged him online - in front of an audience. That changes everything. It adds an unnecessary component to the discourse. Let me ask you this. Did you empathize with him? Did you acknowledge his concerns about society?

I understand. You have to pick your battles. Can I ask what approach you took when engaging with him on the topic of liberalism and healthcare?

I think you give his power to influence people with those absurd simplistic statements like "believe that abortion rationalizes rape" to much credit. These are just stupid political platitudes that everyone has already heard. No epiphanies here. I wouldn't worry about him influencing anybody. He has recognized what he did was inconsiderate to you. He apologized with both voice message and e-mail. So, it sounds to me that the relationship could continue to bear fruit. You have to be patient and work at this. It is incumbent upon us "free thinkers" to tolerate, empathize with, and then lead these confused individuals to the light. They are like children. You're not going to turn your back on a child. Instead, you would take all measure to demonstrate the correct way of behaving/thinking. These people don't have the experience to know any better.

Well, if you don't think it's worth the opportunity cost to spend time working on changing this person's mind, then do something else instead. However, you can't say that this individual has nothing to offer you in terms of friendship if you were friends already. I think that there is nothing more important one can do then to lead people away from irrationality and superstition. If your aim is to help humanity, then what could be more worthwhile? You've already got one foot in the door with this friend of yours

Hey Creakins, I did the same exact thing as you and have been running my own private music academy for the past five years. Through trial and error I figured out a pretty efficient way to handle the business end of it. But I probably could use some useful apps. Check out my website www.franklinmusicacademy.com I'd love to exchange ideas jp

No, do not cut him off. What is that going to do? How is that going to be productive? You are now in a position to change someone's point of view. Why would you disengage from the opportunity?

How does one love on infant?

Let's do May. 24th or 31st. We could meet at Docs in SoCo if the weather is agreeable.

I'm in Austin. I can do a Saturday evening.

Yes, just try to influence one or two people. That's really all you can do. Change one person's thought process; that is a success. If we all did that, free-thinking people would double in size. We could grow exponentially at that that rate!

I don't understand, you guys are acting like you've tried everything and there is nothing else do. Is this correct? Why the pity party?