Thursday, July 15, 2004
Violent conversations |3:54 PM| Remarkable. There's a new editor. Hope it doesn't screw up anything up.
Anyhow, while I'm typing here, (I guess this is liveblogging?) I'm stuck in a religous conversation. Well, not me, I deliberately stay the fuck out of such things. It's messy, and I'll try to illustrate why. I should mention that I'm agnostic, so it's going to color my statements.
One participant is a believer in a God. The other is a staunch atheist. The atheist does not have "belief", he does not believe there is no God, but for the simplification of this, I'll refer to his motivations as beliefs as well.
The believer thinks that it is ignorance on the non-believer's part that motivates his questions, that if the non believer is taught enough, he will believe. He thinks that the questions being posed to him are arising from a lack of some realization that he is motivated to help bring about in the atheist.
The atheist feels that religon is evil. Semantic arguments aside, definitions of evil and belief, the atheist cannot stand by and allow the existence of religon. Because of this attitude, he will not back down until the religous person cracks or leaves, or ceases to exist.
They are working in different directions. They are not two sides of a balance or debate, they might as well be two trains on different tracks.
Until an impasse is agreed upon, which is looking less and less likely, then this is merely a waste of oxygen.
Oh shit, he just brought up evolution.
This going to get messy.
I may ask to go home early.
Anyhow, the reason I am not joining in this debate, that I am trying to avoid its very existence, is that any interaction on my part is a losing move. That my co-worker is religous does not affect my ability to work, and so far it has not affected his productivity. Engaging him in a debate can only lead to anger, and lawsuits.
While I do not share his beliefs, I do not think myself capable of changing them. If I was asked, then I would tell him what my motivations are, and I would defend it, but I will not debate its merits when compared to their own...UNLESS I thought they were actually seeking information and not attempting to "show me the light". There is a distinct difference, one leads to impasse, the other leads to an exchange of ideas.
Violent conversations |3:54 PM| Remarkable. There's a new editor. Hope it doesn't screw up anything up.
Anyhow, while I'm typing here, (I guess this is liveblogging?) I'm stuck in a religous conversation. Well, not me, I deliberately stay the fuck out of such things. It's messy, and I'll try to illustrate why. I should mention that I'm agnostic, so it's going to color my statements.
One participant is a believer in a God. The other is a staunch atheist. The atheist does not have "belief", he does not believe there is no God, but for the simplification of this, I'll refer to his motivations as beliefs as well.
The believer thinks that it is ignorance on the non-believer's part that motivates his questions, that if the non believer is taught enough, he will believe. He thinks that the questions being posed to him are arising from a lack of some realization that he is motivated to help bring about in the atheist.
The atheist feels that religon is evil. Semantic arguments aside, definitions of evil and belief, the atheist cannot stand by and allow the existence of religon. Because of this attitude, he will not back down until the religous person cracks or leaves, or ceases to exist.
They are working in different directions. They are not two sides of a balance or debate, they might as well be two trains on different tracks.
Until an impasse is agreed upon, which is looking less and less likely, then this is merely a waste of oxygen.
Oh shit, he just brought up evolution.
This going to get messy.
I may ask to go home early.
Anyhow, the reason I am not joining in this debate, that I am trying to avoid its very existence, is that any interaction on my part is a losing move. That my co-worker is religous does not affect my ability to work, and so far it has not affected his productivity. Engaging him in a debate can only lead to anger, and lawsuits.
While I do not share his beliefs, I do not think myself capable of changing them. If I was asked, then I would tell him what my motivations are, and I would defend it, but I will not debate its merits when compared to their own...UNLESS I thought they were actually seeking information and not attempting to "show me the light". There is a distinct difference, one leads to impasse, the other leads to an exchange of ideas.
Labels: Religon
View My Stats
-->
