what he said, ya

Thanks for reminding me of this cartoon.

It's possible. I've done it.

Religion informs laws that take away citizens' rights. I can't think of a better reason to try to convince someone of something.

@JeffMurray Then argue against the laws and in favor of religious tolerance.

@editor20 So you're suggesting we let them make awful laws that take away rights first so we can fight against those instead of just fighting against the ideology that put them, and many more to come, in place? Is that an efficient plan? Anyway, got to get back to killing individual ants and bees that make their way out of the colony and hive in my attic; I swear it's like a full time job, but I don't know what else I can do if I don't want a ton of ants and bees in my house.

@JeffMurray I can't think of anything less efficient or less effective than telling Christians to abandon their belief system; there is no spray or poison for it like there is with bees and ants. This is not a suggestions to allow fundamentalists to make laws and then try and reverse them. It means building a barrier around the hive to keep its ideology from polluting the public discourse.

@editor20 Sure, you can try that too, but how does trying to convert people into non-believers not a part of that toolkit? If there are enough of them, the hive will be too big to build a wall around to separate it from the legislature. ( And in our case in the US, it obviously already is... )

Also, not for nothing, but we're not simply telling people to abandon their beliefs. That mischaracterization drastically taints the argument so much some might call it a straw man.

I find it quite amusing how you act as if atheists and xtians are the same type of people.

@redhog If they are arguing with others and trying to change their belief systems, then they are the same type of people.

@redhog I'm only talking about this atheist, me. And I was responding to the original question that seems to make the assumption you bring up.

You're fortunate you xtian friends aren't overly evangelical. Evangelical xtianity has taken over in the US and most xtians see it as their duty to convert atheists.

@Theresa_N A very sad situation.

Damn fine answer!

You seem to be going both ways on this answer. I'm not sure if you're saying you should or shouldn't.

@JeffMurray I would not try to make anyone doubt her faith. But if you have some reason to do so--perhaps someone you want to keep in your life is trying to convert you to the point of harassment-- you can ask provoking questions.

@Bobbie63 So someone trying to convert you is a good enough reason, but someone voting for people that plan to take away your rights is not?

But they all do. All the time. Every time they vote, donate, etc. they are working to impose their beliefs on everyone. The ONLY way to push back against that is to try to convince some of them it's wrong.

@JeffMurray that simply isn't true. i personally know christians who believe in separation of church and state and act accordingly and vote accordingly. joe biden, whom i do not personally know, is a practicing catholic and he believes in separation of church and state. he is not alone. i am not advocating christianity. i am advocating leaving people alone unless they do try what i said, and no, they do NOT all do that.

g

@JeffMurray and furthermore, turning christians into atheists or at least convincing them there is no hell is NOT the way to make them stop legislating, executing, adjudicating and bullying their religion onto others. outvoting them, out-arguing them on the legal aspects, THAT is the way. they can believe in hell all they want.

g

@genessa I not arguing about specifics of hell and heaven. I'm taking about converting people to non-believers. And I don't know any atheists that are actively legislating their religious beliefs, just sayin'. I also disagree that religious people can be completely unbiased by their religion at all times in any way that relates to things that will affect others. The question comes down to, how do you outvote them when they outnumber you and/or have used previously obtained power to rig the system. Maybe once it gets to that point, you'll wish more people tried to fix the root cause instead of fighting against the symptoms or consequences...

@JeffMurray I wasn't arguing about those things either, and no, that actually wasn't the question.

g

@genessa

or at least convincing them there is no hell is NOT the way to make them stop legislating

Seems like you were...

no, that actually wasn't the question.

What wasn't the question?

@JeffMurray Oh please. I should rewrite everything I said when it wluld be so much easier for you to reread it?

g

@genessa
If you're not interested in a discourse on the OP that's fine, just say so. But I obviously didn't understand what you were referring to from what you've written, so rereading isn't going to help matters.
You asked two questions:
Why would I want to convince someone they should believe what I believe (or not believe what I don't believe)?

Why would I be so rude as to try to convert them?

I believe I answered both with my original response: basically that you should want to convince and convert because they are legislating or supporting legislators that are trying to bully their religion onto you.

You claimed that some Christians support separation of church and state and that conversion isn't the answer, out voting them is.

I pointed out basically that out voting them isn't working because there's enough of them abusing the power advantage they've given themselves and that you'll probably wish more people tried to fix the root cause instead of symptom management at some point in the future.

Then it got confusing with vague pronoun usage.

@JeffMurray i am sorry you didn't understand what i said. your not understanding what i said does not, however, indicate that i am not interested in discourse on the original post or for that natter on side issues, which are not against the rules either. however, if you're going to tell me what i am or am not interested in, then that DOES diminish my interest.

g

@genessa I didn't tell you you weren't. I asked if you weren't.

@JeffMurray whatever 'sigh. i was. now i'm not.

g

@genessa Well that's sad. Didn't mean to make you so exasperated.

Heaven and hell exists in another dimension solely of one's imagination.

@jlynn37 just like the Bible plainly says, yes

There is a big difference: your lack of belief isn't informing laws that take rights away from women.

@JeffMurray It is the same in my view. I vote one way because of my views and they do the same.

@indirect76 You honestly feel that someone voting to take away the right for others to marry the person they love or have autonomy over their own body is the same as someone voting to protect those rights because they are both simply voting their beliefs??

@JeffMurray Yes

@indirect76 I thought about this on and off all day long and I'm thoroughly confused by this. I honestly didn't expect you to say yes and that there was some sort of miscommunication. I'm interested to know more about how these things aren't distinguished for you by their aim and outcome.
Is the same true for you for stuff like hate speech?

@JeffMurray I appreciate your thoughtful response. My comment is more inspired by my understanding that my point of view, opinions and the way I see things are subjective. We probably agree on an enormous amount of things and I feel strongly that I am right, but at the end of the day it’s an opinion. People on the other side of the political spectrum believe they are right as much as we do.

This is why I see less difference than you may. Thanks for your civility and allowing me to expand on my previous one word response.

@indirect76 So the reason I asked a clarifying question is because I understand the 'different ideology' thing. As much as I think people who believe in trickle down economics are wrong and that there's more evidence than anyone should need to realize it doesn't work, I still grant that it's a difference of opinion. One can vote for their candidate that believes in it, and I'll vote for mine who doesn't. Hopefully, if voting is fair, the candidate whose policies help more people will win. Democracy at work. However, I just don't think one's desires to disenfranchise others or eliminate them from our system altogether is "on par" with the differing ideology, and it perplexes me beyond belief that someone with whom I seemingly have so much in common doesn't share what I thought was a gimmie.
So to my previous question, while it would be a subjective opinion to think "all Jews should be gassed" or "All Black people should be reverted to ⅗ of a person/vote/etc." I can't see how that's on equal footing of opinions like "All men are created equal". And if we can agree that there's a fundamental difference between wanting to vote for someone that will try to "get rid of" certain people, and one that will try to protect the less fortunate, that's a start.