On Changing Minds

[Guest end3]

For the child in my Wednesday night class considering suicide because the world has worked so well for them, (and there are some), I will just tell them I am pretending, and furthermore, shit happens.

And feeding this poor person another hopeless lie makes you more honest than someone who would assist him/her with truth? Why do Christians always associate the terrible injustices in "the world" with atheism. At least a logic-based realistic solution to that person's anguish would be better than giving them false hope in an invisible and impossible God.

 

Legion wanted to know when it would be appropriate to speak out? This is one instance where I could not keep quiet. I find it shocking that well-meaning people like End3 are offering false hope to desperate people. The sincerity is there, no doubt, but the solution is not.

 

So tell me Steve, what is it that makes me go help? And the logical organization that will help her...oh, which one are you describing, the one she can afford...or the one that's not there?

There is nothing wrong with helping her end. Religion doesn't need to play a part in helping someone, although it has for centuries filled people with hope...temporarily. A lasting help would be, well, more helpful, IMO.

The church has been there since inception.

[NotBlinded]

There is nothing wrong with helping her end. Religion doesn't need to play a part in helping someone, although it has for centuries filled people with hope...temporarily. A lasting help would be, well, more helpful, IMO.

The church has been there since inception.

Well, I don't really understand that unless you are saying that they have been there the entire time trying to help people feel better about something that they instilled in them to begin with.

 

I came back to this thread because I wanted to expound on what I said above. Christianity offers them a cure to a disease that they inflicted. They are not practicing preventive medicine. It may be able to help people feel better about themselves within the mindset that was given to them, but it doesn't remove the mindset, or the disease. I know this sounds hurtful to you, and I don't mean to do that, but if one can remove the idea that they are sinful by nature, the disease is treated and the medicine that only hides the symptoms can be discontinued.

 

Tell her that she isn't a sinful creature that needs saving. Tell her that she is perfect just the way she is. There is nothing that she has done that she needs to feel bad about (in the way of being born).

[bdp]

 

The church has been there since inception.

 

...whatever THAT means...

[laurie]

The only mind that I have the duty, or even the ability to willfully change is my own. However, after each interaction I have with a person, both minds leave different than they were. Through experience we are exposed to new information and other ways of thinking. My responsibility is to be open to the new things I experience, and to be as honest as I can in my interactions with others.

[Guest end3]

There is nothing wrong with helping her end. Religion doesn't need to play a part in helping someone, although it has for centuries filled people with hope...temporarily. A lasting help would be, well, more helpful, IMO.

The church has been there since inception.

Well, I don't really understand that unless you are saying that they have been there the entire time trying to help people feel better about something that they instilled in them to begin with.

 

I came back to this thread because I wanted to expound on what I said above. Christianity offers them a cure to a disease that they inflicted. They are not practicing preventive medicine. It may be able to help people feel better about themselves within the mindset that was given to them, but it doesn't remove the mindset, or the disease. I know this sounds hurtful to you, and I don't mean to do that, but if one can remove the idea that they are sinful by nature, the disease is treated and the medicine that only hides the symptoms can be discontinued.

 

Tell her that she isn't a sinful creature that needs saving. Tell her that she is perfect just the way she is. There is nothing that she has done that she needs to feel bad about (in the way of being born).

 

What makes you think that I tell children that they are evil? That's a pretty broad brush stroke.

[StevoMuso]

So tell me Steve, what is it that makes me go help? And the logical organization that will help her...oh, which one are you describing, the one she can afford...or the one that's not there?

I agree that there are many help programs, free aid clinics etc. hosted by Christian organizations. My view is that good people, compassionate people (like yourself maybe) are attracted to religion because it has been marketed as the 'good and compassionate thing to do'. These people would do a lot more good, IMO, if they formed free counseling services etc. without the religious aspect. There are plenty of secular aid organizations around the world doing as much good as the religious ones.

 

Think of all the money/human resources/etc. that could have been put into doing good rather than funding the multi-billion dollar churches around the world. I think good people will always do good things, but religion can sometimes make good people do bad things. If you have the compassion to serve others, why not do so without the religious aspect? If you dropped the whole faith-facade you would still be the same person - you would still have your Wednesday group, but with less religion you may find a more realistic way of helping those folk.

[Phanta]

The only mind that I have the duty, or even the ability to willfully change is my own. However, after each interaction I have with a person, both minds leave different than they were. Through experience we are exposed to new information and other ways of thinking. My responsibility is to be open to the new things I experience, and to be as honest as I can in my interactions with others.

 

This speaks to me.

 

We cannot change another's mind. We may influence them sometimes, but we have no power over what the results of our influence look like. We have very little power over our own results, either (my experience), but moreso us than others.

 

Thank you for sharing this, Laurie. I see a kindred spirit.

 

Phanta

[NotBlinded]

There is nothing wrong with helping her end. Religion doesn't need to play a part in helping someone, although it has for centuries filled people with hope...temporarily. A lasting help would be, well, more helpful, IMO.

The church has been there since inception.

Well, I don't really understand that unless you are saying that they have been there the entire time trying to help people feel better about something that they instilled in them to begin with.

 

I came back to this thread because I wanted to expound on what I said above. Christianity offers them a cure to a disease that they inflicted. They are not practicing preventive medicine. It may be able to help people feel better about themselves within the mindset that was given to them, but it doesn't remove the mindset, or the disease. I know this sounds hurtful to you, and I don't mean to do that, but if one can remove the idea that they are sinful by nature, the disease is treated and the medicine that only hides the symptoms can be discontinued.

 

Tell her that she isn't a sinful creature that needs saving. Tell her that she is perfect just the way she is. There is nothing that she has done that she needs to feel bad about (in the way of being born).

 

What makes you think that I tell children that they are evil? That's a pretty broad brush stroke.

End, I didn't say that. What I am saying is the very heart of Christianity is that one is sinful by birth and therefore needs a saviour. And, people can't help but to be sinful by nature. This is the disease.

 

Now, I don't know her problems and that's not for me to know. I don't even know if she is a Christian or not. And yes, I was being broad in my assumptions that she is a Christian and sees herself as born sinful, but I didn't say you told her she was evil.

[Shyone]

So tell me Steve, what is it that makes me go help? And the logical organization that will help her...oh, which one are you describing, the one she can afford...or the one that's not there?

I agree that there are many help programs, free aid clinics etc. hosted by Christian organizations. My view is that good people, compassionate people (like yourself maybe) are attracted to religion because it has been marketed as the 'good and compassionate thing to do'. These people would do a lot more good, IMO, if they formed free counseling services etc. without the religious aspect. There are plenty of secular aid organizations around the world doing as much good as the religious ones.

 

Think of all the money/human resources/etc. that could have been put into doing good rather than funding the multi-billion dollar churches around the world. I think good people will always do good things, but religion can sometimes make good people do bad things. If you have the compassion to serve others, why not do so without the religious aspect? If you dropped the whole faith-facade you would still be the same person - you would still have your Wednesday group, but with less religion you may find a more realistic way of helping those folk.

I was going to say this, but he said it faster and better than I could. So there.

 

If good could not be done without religion, then religion (even if false) would make sense. But religious organizations are not primarily help organizations; they are religious. There is an inbuilt inefficiency in an organization whose primary mission is proselytism rather than help. The "multimillion dollar churches" are the best example of that.

 

End, even if you stop believing, I know that you will continue to be a good person and help others. You can take comfort in that.

[Legion]

The only mind that I have the duty, or even the ability to willfully change is my own. However, after each interaction I have with a person, both minds leave different than they were. Through experience we are exposed to new information and other ways of thinking. My responsibility is to be open to the new things I experience, and to be as honest as I can in my interactions with others.

 

This speaks to me.

 

We cannot change another's mind. We may influence them sometimes, but we have no power over what the results of our influence look like. We have very little power over our own results, either (my experience), but moreso us than others.

 

Thank you for sharing this, Laurie. I see a kindred spirit.

Yeah, I tend to agree. I'm not always successful. Sometimes I forget that we influence each other and that my own lack of understanding needs to be remedied first, before I attempt to influence the people around me.

 

As for honesty, I've become ever more convinced that I am influenced most when others just express facts about themselves. The things they've experienced and what they think and feel about them is what moves me. If this is true of me, then I suspect it is likely true of many.

[Guest Net Eng]

The only mind that I have the duty, or even the ability to willfully change is my own. However, after each interaction I have with a person, both minds leave different than they were. Through experience we are exposed to new information and other ways of thinking. My responsibility is to be open to the new things I experience, and to be as honest as I can in my interactions with others.

 

Nicely said laurie.

 

This reminds of a this quote:

 

If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple.

But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.

 

George Bernard Shaw

 

Granted all ideas are not equal, but in the long run the bad ones will be weeded out... eventually.

[Franko47]

 

 

As for honesty, I've become ever more convinced that I am influenced most when others just express facts about themselves. The things they've experienced and what they think and feel about them is what moves me. If this is true of me, then I suspect it is likely true of many.

 

 

I think that needs to be repeated. A fine point here, Legion.

[Antlerman]

It seems clear to me that there are times when it is not only appropriate for us to try and change other people's minds, it is also a duty. I think here of things like education and mental health. But I wanted to open this for discussion.

 

When should we attempt to change people's minds and why?

I'll respond to the OP first before reading the other responses...

 

I think it would help to put things put things into contexts first. I think there is always a value to offer your perspectives in challenge to another's point of view. If the other person can be challenged to see things from your point of view, then there is communication and possibly an expansion of thinking to be more respectful or inclusive of others. Thinking your ideas are the only ones that are valid is both unrealistic and unhelpful socially - if individual freedom in considered an ideal worth embracing.

 

When we should challenge would be where we see those ideas impinging on the freedom of other's rights to their own points of view. However, this is not just going after those we see as having ideas that we don't like. It has to begin with us actually trying to understand them first and seeing things from their perspectives from angles that are more than just our individual impressions of them. If not, then we are no different that what we perceive them to be in trying to impose our points of view on them without acknowledging their freedom.

 

In other words trying to change someone else's mind without really understanding with some real degree of depth from their point of view first and actually, genuinely communicating with that, is basically little more than saying "No, I'm right and you're wrong!" That's just swapping one religious belief for another.

 

When should we refrain from the effort and why?

When we don't have enough understanding and risk it being a religious war. When our efforts are about validating our beliefs to ourselves by corralling others into our camp. When it's not about trying to establish genuine dialog and understanding. When we view others as idiots, stupid, sinners, lost, outsiders, deceived, etc at the outset simply because they think differently than us. When our motives are our egos.

 

Now to address an objection I can hear coming, "What about those who think you don't deserve to live?" Answer, "It's not about changing their minds. You just establish rules they are compelled to follow under risk of consequence if they act in ways that threaten others freedom."

 

If we decide that a change is in order, then what means should we use, and why?

True understanding. Not political or ideological rhetoric. Dialog in the spirit of respect to others freedom and dignity.

[Phanta]

I think there is always a value to offer your perspectives in challenge to another's point of view. If the other person can be challenged to see things from your point of view, then there is communication and possibly an expansion of thinking to be more respectful or inclusive of others.

 

Always? Are you sure about that?

[Antlerman]

I think there is always a value to offer your perspectives in challenge to another's point of view. If the other person can be challenged to see things from your point of view, then there is communication and possibly an expansion of thinking to be more respectful or inclusive of others.

 

Always? Are you sure about that?

No, I suppose not always. I would say that there are cases where someone may not be ready to hear something, or there is insufficient context in order for communication to happen. Sometimes it just leads to conflict and may not be worthwhile to attempt to seek dialog. Better to let sleeping dogs lay. I think what I mean to say is that when you do challenge another's point of view, there is inherent in it the value of trying to enlarge each others perspective, which is always valuable when that happens. However it may not always be expedient to do so.

 

Again the guiding principle is what is your motive for trying to challenge them? If it's not about ego and about communication, than it obviously has to be governed by wisdom of when to speak and how to speak.

[Phanta]

I think there is always a value to offer your perspectives in challenge to another's point of view. If the other person can be challenged to see things from your point of view, then there is communication and possibly an expansion of thinking to be more respectful or inclusive of others.

 

Always? Are you sure about that?

No, I suppose not always. I would say that there are cases where someone may not be ready to hear something, or there is insufficient context in order for communication to happen. Sometimes it just leads to conflict and may not be worthwhile to attempt to seek dialog. Better to let sleeping dogs lay. I think what I mean to say is that when you do challenge another's point of view, there is inherent in it the value of trying to enlarge each others perspective, which is always valuable when that happens. However it may not always be expedient to do so.

 

Again the guiding principle is what is your motive for trying to challenge them? If it's not about ego and about communication, than it obviously has to be governed by wisdom of when to speak and how to speak.

 

I appreciate the expansion of your ideas, Antlerman. I agree that discernment about timing is important. I see this as two part: one, the intention of the challenger; two, the readiness of the communication partner.

 

Case in point, I am sad about my recent relationship ending. I was with dear friends last night, needing to be held as I cried and verbalized my pain. This is what I needed. One friend kept wanting to challenge my sad thoughts. Though her challenges were positive, they felt like assaults. I really needed to just feel my feelings for a while in an atmosphere of love. After I deflected her challenges for a long time (exhausting...wore me down even more), she seemed to get it. She stopped talking and just loved on me. I was so grateful.

 

Great thoughts all around, Antlerman.

 

Phanta

[OrdinaryClay]

Ideas are not weapons or dangerous.

Shyone please forgive me. I singled this out because it is so patently absurd to me that it damages your credibility on this topic, in my eyes.

 

Ideas are frequently used as weapons. Propaganda is proof. And deception is the essence of warfare.

Legion, you are 100% correct on this one.

[OrdinaryClay]

It seems clear to me that there are times when it is not only appropriate for us to try and change other people's minds, it is also a duty. I think here of things like education and mental health. But I wanted to open this for discussion.

 

When should we attempt to change people's minds and why? When should we refrain from the effort and why? If we decide that a change is in order, then what means should we use, and why?

People, all people, try and change other people's minds because they believe something. Why? Maybe a sense of obligation, group politics, or a need for commiseration.

 

As a Christian I'm commanded by my Lord to spread the Gospel. I obey gladly and unconditionally. That said, I do not have the ability to change people's minds. I can only speak what I believe to be the truth. People make their own choice.

[OrdinaryClay]

For the child in my Wednesday night class considering suicide because the world has worked so well for them, (and there are some), I will just tell them I am pretending, and furthermore, shit happens.

And feeding this poor person another hopeless lie makes you more honest than someone who would assist him/her with truth? Why do Christians always associate the terrible injustices in "the world" with atheism. At least a logic-based realistic solution to that person's anguish would be better than giving them false hope in an invisible and impossible God.

 

Legion wanted to know when it would be appropriate to speak out? This is one instance where I could not keep quiet. I find it shocking that well-meaning people like End3 are offering false hope to desperate people. The sincerity is there, no doubt, but the solution is not.

Clearly, millions of people have found it not to be a false hope. No offense, but your view is myopic. Just because you have made a choice to believe He is impossible and does not exists does not make it so.

[Legion]

People, all people, try and change other people's minds because they believe something. Why? Maybe a sense of obligation, group politics, or a need for commiseration.

You think so? I think some people are content to have their beliefs and leave others to have theirs.

 

As a Christian I'm commanded by my Lord to spread the Gospel.

Man, I wish you could see from my perspective how uptight and misguided this sounds.

 

I obey gladly and unconditionally.

So you've never questioned being compelled to bring some message, whatever the message, to other people?

 

That said, I do not have the ability to change people's minds. I can only speak what I believe to be the truth. People make their own choice.

Okay. Well, I try to just tell people what I'm thinking or feeling and why. They generally do with it as they want. My experience is that other people's ideas present me with a multitude of choices.

[Shyone]

Clearly, millions of people have found it not to be a false hope. No offense, but your view is myopic. Just because you have made a choice to believe He is impossible and does not exists does not make it so.

A choice?

 

Did you choose to stop believing in Santa Claus?

 

I seem to be presuming that you stopped believing in Santa Claus. If I am mistaken, then let me know and I'll find another mythologic creature that you (hopefully) don't believe in.

[Ouroboros]

 

The church has been there since inception.

 

...whatever THAT means...

It's his runabout way of saying "it started when it started." Big whoop-de-doo.

[Ouroboros]

Clearly, millions of people have found it not to be a false hope. No offense, but your view is myopic.

Why is it myopic?

 

Just because you have made a choice to believe He is impossible and does not exists does not make it so.

To think that people choose to un-believe is a very myopic view. It's clear display of ignorance and inability to understand.

[Guest end3]

 

The church has been there since inception.

 

...whatever THAT means...

It's his runabout way of saying "it started when it started." Big whoop-de-doo.

No, it means it is still here since inception.

[bdp]

 

As a Christian I'm commanded by my Lord to spread the Gospel.

 

Characters in fictional books don't command anyone.