Perchance

Not all religious people are poor, though.

That's one thing that bothers me about the "opiate of the masses" thing. Do the people who think this also believe that a person stops being a True (whatever) as he or she becomes rich? That anyone above the poverty level who insists that he or she believes in God/Allah/Vishnu/Zeus is faking it? That seems to me as blatantly wrong- and potentially harmful- a stereetype as the one that says everyone below the poverty level is dirty and a lazy bum.

If religion were to disappear overnight, with no explanation, there would probably be a quite a bit of upheavel. However, it wouldn't just take place among poor people. Quite a few fundamentalists, for example, are middle-class. I wonder what would happen if all of them were to suddenly lose faith at once?

Also, even if you do the take the view that religion's major purpose is to be a chain tying the lower class to the ground, I don't think it's the only one. Possession of education, money, brute physical strength, political power, and many other things work to keep some people on the top and others below.

I think "religion is the opiate of the poor" is far too simple a view of the matter, and does disservice to a great many people of all classes who break the "stereotypes."

-Perchance.

[Edited to add: I also think it may contribute to "group mentality" of one of two kinds: that people who do not believe are somehow enlightened and special because we "get it," and that people who are oppressed or persecuted or different from the norm are also special. I don't think that every atheist I've met is a saint, irony fully intentional. I don't think every theist is a deranged jerk. I don't think that every poor person is perfect and should always be listened to, and I don't think every rich person should be castigated and hated. And the reverse of all those applies as well.

If I thought being a non-believer meant I had to consider myself part of a special, select group despising all theists for being "sheep" and "unaware," I would probably stop calling myself a non-believer].

[ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

excreationist

Well basically this would involve a single topic that he could think about... although there are several things to take into account when thinking about varves.
You could ask him if he is interested in trying to find out what the truth is about the age of the earth - or if he is happy to unquestioningly accept whatever he reads in those magazines.
If he is open to evaluating evidence to the contrary you could bring up the Green River/varve topic. Note that you should make sure that he becomes aware of all of the problems to do with the young-earth and varves - not just one or two of them... it is much harder to dismiss several evidences about varves pointing to an old earth than one or two.

oneofshibumi

In my opinion, to facilitate a person’s growth from religion toward a humanistic perspective require some tool to deal with how this person used his mind. Humanist does not offer a realistic alternative without giving the other person an “owner’s manual” of his personality. Transactional Analysis provides this possibility. I would strongly suggest the use of this mind-technology when removing a mind-virus (PP). The individual grows out of their religion, taking what is important, leaving the mind virus ideas, and ending up with the knowledge of why they were mind viruses.

I go more in depth, in Miscellaneous Discussion, Shibumi world view.

[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: oneofshibumi ]</p>

MrDarwin

Is it wise to take away a crippled man's crutch?

ex-preacher

Is it wise to take away an alcoholic's drink?

oneofshibumi

Is it wise to take away a crippled man's crutch?

When methods exist to heal the man, why not?

People can only save themselves. A person can only help 50%. Any more becomes a game. If the other person does not want to change, they will not, and they are playing a Game. Game means a series of repetitive behaviors, some that become life-long styles of living.

Is it wise to take away an alcoholic's drink?

The question is too ambiguous. Let’s identify the individual. What type of alcoholic is s/he? The categorization I prefer classifies three categories of Games: Drunk and Proud (D&P), Lush, and Wino. They all can be described as, “I’m no good, and you’re OK, (ha, ha),” which real means “You’re not OK.”

(D&P) = “You’re good, I’m bad (try to stop me.)” Anyone who tries to stop an alcoholic from being bad will end up feeling definitely not OK, feeling either foolish or angry.

Lush = This alcoholic Game is usually played by a middle-aged married suburban wife or, at times, by a downtrodden, hardworking white-collar employee. It is often played by aging male homosexuals. In each case, it is played in response to sexual deprivation, or as a TA would call it, a lack of “strokes.” Lush can be reduced to, “I’m crazy (depressed), you can make me feel better (cure me) (ha, ha).” It is usually played with a partner who is unable, or for whom it is difficult, to give strokes. As a consequence, the Alcoholic’s continued drinking is to the partner’s advantage since, as long as the drinking continues, his own emotional deficiency and his part in the game will not be exposed. As long “It” drinks, the partner preserves the appearance of blamelessness while, of course, both know that this is not true. Because of the partner’s guilt over his deficiency, he is always ready to switch from Persecutor to Rescuer.

Wino = is always part of a self-destructive life script. “I’m no good, You’re OK, (ha, ha,)” is translated here to “I’m sick (try and avoid that), you’re well, ha, ha.” The game of “Wino” is played “for keeps” because it uses body organs and tissues as counters. The players are narrowed down to “It” and Connection.

Success is highest with (D&P) and Lush. Success is higher than doing nothing.

cydonia

This reminds me of a temp job i had a few months ago. One of the guy's i worked with was a very intrusive christian, very judgemental, had been written up for religious harassment, butted into conversations to protest the heathen lifestyle of seeing movies etc. The guy was way over the top, walked around singing hymns all day etc. I learned he was a reformed gambler, who used to " live in the casinos", and you could tell he was a reformed something or other. You just knew he had a weird life before coming to work as a supplies manager at age 50.

I was as respectful as possible, never saying anything for a few months, until i was tired of being judged and ridiculed in front of other people. He didn't know i was very involved in researching the bible and coming to websites like this.

I started asking him if he knew various things most here are familiar with, the history of the virgin birth, the similarities of the pagan myths and christianity, etc.etc. and he had absolutely no idea what i was talking about. He was a little blown away i "knew" so much, and said "obviously you've read alot about this, you can talk to my pastor if you have any questions"....Then later he started threatening me over work related issues. It's a shame because his religious fanaticism destroyed what had been a fairly good natured co-worker friendship between us.

The guy obviously went from one extreme indulgant lifestyle to the other extreme of hard core fundy. I think if he really entertained any doubt, and questioned his faith, either he'd be back living in the casinos again or coming to work with a sawed off shotgun. I mean, he joked about bombing abortion clinics. I was honestly a bit concerned of my safety, after "persecuting" him.

So i guess, in response to the thread title, sometimes it's wise, and sometimes it can be potentially pretty dangerous.

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: cydonia ]</p>

oneofshibumi

cydonia

This reminds me of a temp job i had a few months ago.

Did this man have the following observable behavior?

(P) physical = Furrowed brow, pursed lips, the pointing finger, head-wagging, the “horrified look,” foot-tapping, hands on hips, arms folded across chest, wringing hands, tongue-clucking.

(P) Verbal clues = I am going to put a stop to this ONCE AND FOR ALL; I can’t for the life of me…; always remember…; (“always” and “never” are ALMOST always (P) words, which reveal the limitation of an archaic system closed to new data [Church]); How many times have I told you? If I were you…

Does the above sound familiar to your ex-coworker?

So i guess, in response to the thread title, sometimes it's wise, and sometimes it can be potentially pretty dangerous.

It can be dangerous if you do not understand. Transactional Analysis (TA) calls his behavior, he was speaking from his Pig Parent (PP). Usually, you have to try to make his Adult (reason and logic) stronger. In Childhood he was: Anxious, withdrawn, and unhappy mood; hostile when frustrated.

In Adolescence he was: Less well adjusted than agemates reared with the authoritative style, but better school performance than agemates reared with permissive or uninvolved styles.

Harris’s book “I’m O.K. You’re O.K.” describes, explains, and allows you to predict what type of person you are dealing with.

Radcliffe Emerson

The problem I run into is it is extremely difficult to find a Christian who is well behaved. I can talk to them about sports, movies, etc, but as soon as world events get mentioned, inevitably they start going on about Satan controlling people like Bin Laden, everyone who doesn't accept Jesus will burn in hell, etc.
If I question comments like that, or say I'm not sure about it, etc, I usually get blasted.
Christians at that point for the most part just get pissed off and respond like it's a personal attack on them that I think it's ok for anyone to believe whatever they want.
Then they want to pray for me.....
But there are instances when I don't think beliefs should be challenged. Both of my folks are staunch Christians, and aren't going to be around too many more years. Mom has cancer, dad's getting health problems. I see no reason to try to persuade them to my point of view.

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]</p>

abe smith

ummmm... My Opinion: do not initiate religious/belief discussion w/ your Friend. IF Friend initiates the discussion (He's asked for it THEN you shd state your own position as clearly & persuasively as you can. = no holds barred. If, in doing this, Friend then evinces unwillingness to continue the discussion, = because it is threatening to him, perhaps ... THEN quickly end the subject there, (until Friend starts it up again another time). It looks as if you are more secure about all this than your Friend is, & probably it is your place as a friend to protect him by tempering the wind to the shorn lamb. = Treat him kindly.