6 ms·

While it's a great thing he's doing, it looks like his main purpose is to convert people to his religion. Well, if that's what it takes to motivate someone to h

While it's a great thing he's doing, it looks like his main purpose is to convert people to his religion. Well, if that's what it takes to motivate someone to help others, then so be it.

dvt 10y ago
He literally says that his goal is not conversions and that he's doing it because he realized he wasn't putting his faith into action. Further, even if he was trying to convert people, what's so bad about that? "Hi, let me help you and by the way here's what I believe and why I'm doing what I'm doing." -- no idea why that kind of train of thought can rationally be looked down upon. I've always failed to see why atheists view proselytizing as "bad" -- it's the same thing as lobbying for any other kind of position.
- averagewall 10y ago
  It's a one-way conversation. "I'm set in my belief and I think you might be weak-willed enough for me to influence your belief." Proselytizers don't open themselves up to be converted to athiesm. I've met a few and they shut down logical arguments.
  - dvt 10y ago
    > It's a one-way conversation. Even if this were true, so what? My argument has nothing to do with the merits of any belief or how set anyone is in said beliefs, there's no need to move the goalpost. I ask again: what is wrong with someone feeding a poor and destitute person and then handing them a Bible or a Quran or saying a prayer? Your only argument is that they might have an alterior motive. But I would counter that argument in the same manner: so what? The good deed is still done and society has been objectively improved.
    - etjossem 10y ago
      There's nothing wrong with charitable work on the part of religious groups, but the fact that they are able to get something out of the situation is a symptom of a larger problem. Food, clean clothes, and a place to sleep are fundamental human rights. When folks don't have access to these things, we have to ask ourselves where we went wrong - as voters and engaged citizens, that's on us. In an ideal world, we would already have agreed as a society to deliver these basic services without a catch. As soon as we agree to fund non-denominational relief for people in need, they will stop feeling compelled to give up their spiritual dignity for a meal.
      - battlebot 10y ago
        None of what you listed as human rights are in fact human rights. Being treated with dignity may be a human right, but getting free shit from others who produce is not, nor has it ever been, a legitimate right. No one has the the right to encumber the labors of another. We have seen the dire outcome to that way of thinking time and time again over human history and it never ends well. Currently Venezuela is going through a collapse due to that way of thinking about property rights. It's a road to nowhere. That doesn't mean we can't be charitable to one another, but the idea that some stranger has a right to the results of your hard work? Insanity. That we are taxed to death in the west in order to try and create such a system is also insanity and is bleeding dry the real system of prosperity which is based on individualism and free enterprise. You want more homeless? Keep up that humans rights bs. Lastly, it is magical thinking to believe we can solve the problem of homelessness. Some people choose to be impossible to help. Many homeless have options that they don't pursue due either to ignorance, substance abuse, treatable mental illness, or whatever else. It is an enormously complex issue. For those who want to be helped, there are programs, many of which are taxpayer funded. It's not like they can't get help, but most just stubbornly want to be drunk and hopeless. I have seen this firsthand. Also, many are outright criminals, or former criminals who committed horrible crimes against others. I have extremely little sympathy for criminal individuals and they certainly merit no free food, clothes, nor anything else.
    - averagewall 10y ago
      I didn't really answer you did I. I see it as a kind of insult. To get your clothes washed, you have to either be rude and feel like you might be turned away, or act humble and let someone unload their beliefs on you. Listening has a kind of psychological cost/effort. Offering someone who's desperate a free thing in exchange for their pride is a bit like bullying, but on a milder scale.
- alkonaut 10y ago
  If someone drove around in a van and offered conversation to homeless people with a christian angle - that would be great. It's also great if someone offers laundry service. Talking to people is great. Talking about religion must be on their terms, otherwise it's preaching or being a missionary - which isn't. What disturbs me is the idea of people have to feel even a little pressure to participate in his prayers or religious conversation just to get their clothes washed. It's exactly what missionaries in Africa do: build schools and hospitals and inform about christianity. If you are serious about charity then don't preach. Even if being charitable is part of acting out your own faith, separate the two. I think this guy has a heart of gold and like so many others (like the missionaries in Africa) he doesn't see that there is a conflict in what hd is doing.
  - dvt 10y ago
    > If you are serious about charity then don't preach. Even if being charitable is part of acting out your own faith, separate the two. I don't really follow. If they are being charitable because of their faith, why separate the two? It's an integral part of their identity and why they do what they do.
    - alkonaut 10y ago
      > I don't really follow. If they are being charitable because of their faith, why separate the two? Let me rephrase it: if being a christian requires you to be a good samaritan - by all means be a good samaritan. Charity is a good thing. But if you want to come across as doing someone a favor altruistically - don't preach.
      - dvt 10y ago
        Let me offer a thought experiment. You're moving and need some help. Some dude on the street freely offers to help you and carries much of your stuff. What a nice guy. Once all is well and done and you're moved into your new place, he turns towards you and says "hey by the way, you seem like a nice guy and I'm a part of the local chess club, we're always looking for new members -- care to hear more?" I just don't see how his invitation to join the chess club detracts from his good deed. Even if (for whatever reason) he helps people move solely to get a chance to ask them to join chess club, I still have a hard time finding fault.

While it's a great thing he's doing, it looks like his main purpose is to convert people to his religion. Well, if that's what it takes to motivate someone to help others, then so be it.

dvt 10y ago

He literally says that his goal is not conversions and that he's doing it because he realized he wasn't putting his faith into action. Further, even if he was trying to convert people, what's so bad about that? "Hi, let me help you and by the way here's what I believe and why I'm doing what I'm doing." -- no idea why that kind of train of thought can rationally be looked down upon. I've always failed to see why atheists view proselytizing as "bad" -- it's the same thing as lobbying for any other kind of position.

averagewall 10y ago
It's a one-way conversation. "I'm set in my belief and I think you might be weak-willed enough for me to influence your belief." Proselytizers don't open themselves up to be converted to athiesm. I've met a few and they shut down logical arguments.
- dvt 10y ago
  > It's a one-way conversation. Even if this were true, so what? My argument has nothing to do with the merits of any belief or how set anyone is in said beliefs, there's no need to move the goalpost. I ask again: what is wrong with someone feeding a poor and destitute person and then handing them a Bible or a Quran or saying a prayer? Your only argument is that they might have an alterior motive. But I would counter that argument in the same manner: so what? The good deed is still done and society has been objectively improved.
  - etjossem 10y ago
    There's nothing wrong with charitable work on the part of religious groups, but the fact that they are able to get something out of the situation is a symptom of a larger problem. Food, clean clothes, and a place to sleep are fundamental human rights. When folks don't have access to these things, we have to ask ourselves where we went wrong - as voters and engaged citizens, that's on us. In an ideal world, we would already have agreed as a society to deliver these basic services without a catch. As soon as we agree to fund non-denominational relief for people in need, they will stop feeling compelled to give up their spiritual dignity for a meal.
    - battlebot 10y ago
      None of what you listed as human rights are in fact human rights. Being treated with dignity may be a human right, but getting free shit from others who produce is not, nor has it ever been, a legitimate right. No one has the the right to encumber the labors of another. We have seen the dire outcome to that way of thinking time and time again over human history and it never ends well. Currently Venezuela is going through a collapse due to that way of thinking about property rights. It's a road to nowhere. That doesn't mean we can't be charitable to one another, but the idea that some stranger has a right to the results of your hard work? Insanity. That we are taxed to death in the west in order to try and create such a system is also insanity and is bleeding dry the real system of prosperity which is based on individualism and free enterprise. You want more homeless? Keep up that humans rights bs. Lastly, it is magical thinking to believe we can solve the problem of homelessness. Some people choose to be impossible to help. Many homeless have options that they don't pursue due either to ignorance, substance abuse, treatable mental illness, or whatever else. It is an enormously complex issue. For those who want to be helped, there are programs, many of which are taxpayer funded. It's not like they can't get help, but most just stubbornly want to be drunk and hopeless. I have seen this firsthand. Also, many are outright criminals, or former criminals who committed horrible crimes against others. I have extremely little sympathy for criminal individuals and they certainly merit no free food, clothes, nor anything else.
  - averagewall 10y ago
    I didn't really answer you did I. I see it as a kind of insult. To get your clothes washed, you have to either be rude and feel like you might be turned away, or act humble and let someone unload their beliefs on you. Listening has a kind of psychological cost/effort. Offering someone who's desperate a free thing in exchange for their pride is a bit like bullying, but on a milder scale.
alkonaut 10y ago
If someone drove around in a van and offered conversation to homeless people with a christian angle - that would be great. It's also great if someone offers laundry service. Talking to people is great. Talking about religion must be on their terms, otherwise it's preaching or being a missionary - which isn't. What disturbs me is the idea of people have to feel even a little pressure to participate in his prayers or religious conversation just to get their clothes washed. It's exactly what missionaries in Africa do: build schools and hospitals and inform about christianity. If you are serious about charity then don't preach. Even if being charitable is part of acting out your own faith, separate the two. I think this guy has a heart of gold and like so many others (like the missionaries in Africa) he doesn't see that there is a conflict in what hd is doing.
- dvt 10y ago
  > If you are serious about charity then don't preach. Even if being charitable is part of acting out your own faith, separate the two. I don't really follow. If they are being charitable because of their faith, why separate the two? It's an integral part of their identity and why they do what they do.
  - alkonaut 10y ago
    > I don't really follow. If they are being charitable because of their faith, why separate the two? Let me rephrase it: if being a christian requires you to be a good samaritan - by all means be a good samaritan. Charity is a good thing. But if you want to come across as doing someone a favor altruistically - don't preach.
    - dvt 10y ago
      Let me offer a thought experiment. You're moving and need some help. Some dude on the street freely offers to help you and carries much of your stuff. What a nice guy. Once all is well and done and you're moved into your new place, he turns towards you and says "hey by the way, you seem like a nice guy and I'm a part of the local chess club, we're always looking for new members -- care to hear more?" I just don't see how his invitation to join the chess club detracts from his good deed. Even if (for whatever reason) he helps people move solely to get a chance to ask them to join chess club, I still have a hard time finding fault.