Braincleaned said- Absolutely adamah, I agree — but I can only go so far in disputing a personal faith such as Tec's. If you have the time and energy to argue what I feel is delusion (sorry Tec, I do think this faith of yours is delusional to an extreme), then be my guest.
No one expects you to ANYTHING, and that's one of the beautiful things about being a rationalist: you're not expecting a punishment or reward for anything you do, other than that which makes makes the World a better place for yourself and others TODAY, in the here and now.
Braincleaned said- I am not here to argue against every single person. I am here to expose an important point about the pathos of faith. I hope that some read this thread and opt for reason and justified trust. Tec has always been polite and at least shared what many also feel. I am convinced that Faith is a strong emotional state that has obviously nothing to do with human reason. My quote above was meant to draw a line that sets a step I will not go, if only for my own sanity.
And no one doubts the importance of protecting your own sanity: by all means, do what it is your best interest.
However, I put the words in bold since TEC's perceived "politeness" is partly what makes her pushing (AKA demonstrating) her faith to others so dangerous: as an ex-JW knows, many people are fooled by a janitor who dons an empty suit who's wearing polished shoes and carrying a briefcase, where such superficial appearance and politeness lends credibility to someone who's delivering a potentially-toxic message, since here's the extreme cost of religious faith:
The doctrine of faith is WHAT Is dangerous, and it's common to ALL of Christianity, as a cornerstone of Jesus' message. Faith is the 'engine' that drives Christianity, and it is fundamentally-flawed, since it leads to abuse and control, and has NO VALUE aside from teaching individuals to blindly follow orders without thinking about their actions.
Braincleaned said- But worry not, as much as I will not destroy the beliefs of one individual — I zealously fight for Reason, Logic, and evidence based facts.
You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here, for how does one "zealously fight against religious faith" WITHOUT destroying the beliefs of individuals? We're talking about INDIVIDUALS who have to see for themselves what a danger religious faith represents. No one CAN (or SHOULD) force anyone else to act: they have to "see" it for themselves, showing them WHY faith is so potentially harmful to themselves AND to others.
TEC (who's never been a JW, but only studied) seems to honestly believe faith ISN'T dangerous, when anyone who's actually been through the grinder of JW beliefs should know better, having experienced the loss of loved ones, whether due to their death to blood transfusion, or the loss via shunning.
Note TEC's not simply possessing her faith, she's advocating it to OTHERS, even SELLING it, prostelyzing for faith as a desirable trait for others to have, too.
Braincleaned said- Meant with no condescendence or mockery, I choose to let Tec continue on like I do towards a child's belief in Santa. I am a rationalist — and I'm pretty well known, using my personal name, for exposing the folly of religious faith. I just don't need to continue arguing with someone who is this high in the clouds of Faith, for which I have respect for as a person.
Don't confuse my challenge of her advocating her faith-based BELIEF with it being a personal attack against TEC. I don't have any less (and certainly not more!) respect for her as a person due to her beliefs, since I fully understand how challenging the IDEAS of a person is different from disrespecting the person, and citizens have the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to believe whatever they want (including the right to believe that fairies inhabit their garden, etc).
The problem is that many aren't able to differentiate between challenges to their beliefs vs personal attacks, since their egos are so intertwined with THEIR beliefs that it becomes difficult for them to discern any difference.
Anyway, I responded to your assertion above, since I detected a sense of someone who is uncomfortable with conflict and tension; that's a different matter entirely. Some ex-JWs still hold that "sticking thinking" of JW's, who DEMAND the superficial appearance of agreement and consensus, and don't allow ANY challenge to their Divine authority (and their attitude is merely an exaggeration of political correctness, where even non-JWs feel it's not polite to challenge religious faith). That attitude of tolerance partly explains WHY religion has been given a 'free pass' for so long, and such beliefs have only proliferated (some 78% of the U.S. population profess some form of religious faith).
Adam
