NationStates Jolt Archive

Two words that are pretty much alien to my worldview and how I was raised. Hinduism doesn't proselytize. It doesn't spread itself by informing those not in-the-know about religious books and practices. No one can officially BECOME Hindu, though one can live the Hindu lifestyle. The closest thing we have to evangelism is actually more in line with personality cults built up around particular religious traditions than an actual "spreading the word" sort of thing, and they more often than not pick up followers who are already Hindu.

And the more I read about evangelism in the Abrahmic religions (the bad kind, the knocking on your door at 6 A.M. kind. Not to be confused with the "telling you about the Gospels and similar texts kind if you ask" kind, which I have little to no problem with) the more confused I get. I can understand the mentality of wanting to tell friends, and people who are already showing interest in your beliefs about your views. But to go around and spread those beliefs to those who aren't aware and don't necessarily want to listen to you, I see that as impolite. It's one thing to mention to a friend, or someone who has expressed an interest, about your religious, cultural, political, etc. beliefs especially if those beliefs are providing you with a perceived benefit. It's another thing to tell a random person on the street about them.

Still, I'm sure there's a side to this I'm not seeing, largely because I have no framework to see it in. And so I'd like an explanation, if at all possible. And I'd like to try and keep this civil, on BOTH sides of the religious spectrum.

Because if you don't believe, you'll go to hell. Which isn't really something we want.

In a nutshell, (or maybe not quite, I didn't see Zatarack's reply in time) its because Christianity and Islam each have doctrines to the effect that without believing in the tenents of whichever religion, you'll basically be condemned to Hell. That may seem somewhat shocking at first if you're not familiar with the issue, (I assume you aren't, since its so relevant to why people in each religion try to spread their beliefs), but in both religions, God is described as a god of infinite justice who simply cannot tolerate evil, and in each religion, there is an explanation of why being a member of the religion in question is the only way for God to forgive someone. Furthermore, i'm sure many people trying to convert others in both religions often have a sense of urgency, (which would explain doors being knocked on at 6 A.M.) because after all, for each religion, not being a part of it ultimately means you go to Hell :/. Of course, each religion is different about the specifics of how exactly you are saved, in Islam if i'm not mistaken, you basically have to be moral according to Islamic dictates enough for your good deeds to outweight your bad or something. In Christianity, God sent His son Jesus to sacrifice himself for the sins of humanity, to the effect that anyone who believes in Jesus' message and accepts his gift of forgiveness for their sins will be saved. Those summaries are missing some of the more intricate details, but they are basically correct I think.

However, evangelism is really only in Christianity, the term for Islam is something else, and technically, I don't think there's any specific command in Islam for followers to work to convert people of other religions all the time. Christianity, on the other hand, says that believers must actively make disciples, and to have disciples, you have to have Christians, and thus you have to evangelize :/. That's a very simplified summary of it, Islam gets kind of tricky when you talk about whether Jihad is used to make other people convert or die or not, since I think only Sunni's are on a mandate for continuous offensive Jihad. (I'm pretty sure for Shia's, there isn't supposed to be any more Jihad until the return of a new caliph, or something like that)

Also, keep in mind that Judaism is also an abrahamic religion, but i'm almost positive they do no proselytization of any variety. (I wonder if I spelled that word right...)

Missions typically take on two forms. Sometimes (though not always) they are performed together.

Religious missions, similar to those engaged by the Latter-Day Saints are those which send people door-to-door.

Social Missions are those which send out to do things like build homes for people, establish schools in areas where there are none, and feed people.

The second type is far more common... Though the first type gets more notice, since by design they attract more negative attention.

Evagelicalism didn't really start until Abrahamic religions gained serious power...which first occurred when Emperor Constantine chose to become a Christian. Ever since the church has used it gain more and more power over people. Look at history and note how the Church spread across Europe like a cancer.

Evagelicalism didn't really start until Abrahamic religions gained serious power...which first occurred when Emperor Constantine chose to become a Christian. Ever since the church has used it gain more and more power over people. Look at history and note how the Church spread across Europe like a cancer.

Could you please use a less pejorative term?

Could you please use a less pejorative term?

I'm going to presume that pejorative means "insulting" or "potentially enraging" since I've never heard that word before.

Sure.

"...note how the Church spread across Europe like the plague."

...

Err, I mean.

"...note how the Church spread across Europe like mating rabbits."

I'm going to presume that pejorative means "insulting" or "potentially enraging" since I've never heard that word before.

Sure.

"...note how the Church spread across Europe like the plague."

...

Err, I mean.

"...note how the Church spread across Europe like mating rabbits."

Thank you.

Evagelicalism didn't really start until Abrahamic religions gained serious power...which first occurred when Emperor Constantine chose to become a Christian. Ever since the church has used it gain more and more power over people. Look at history and note how the Church spread across Europe like a cancer.

I wouldn't say that it's spread started with Constantine, since many of gothic tribes had already been converted to Christianity before Constantine converted. About all Constantine did was consolidated power for the first time in history to a particular branch of Christian religion.

I wouldn't say that it's spread started with Constantine, since many of gothic tribes had already been converted to Christianity before Constantine converted. About all Constantine did was consolidated power for the first time in history to a particular branch of Christian religion.

Yes, but it was that consolidation that formed the power base, and it was from there that spreading the faith was used as a way for power.

In a nutshell, (or maybe not quite, I didn't see Zatarack's reply in time) its because Christianity and Islam each have doctrines to the effect that without believing in the tenents of whichever religion, you'll basically be condemned to Hell. That may seem somewhat shocking at first if you're not familiar with the issue, (I assume you aren't, since its so relevant to why people in each religion try to spread their beliefs), but in both religions, God is described as a god of infinite justice who simply cannot tolerate evil, and in each religion, there is an explanation of why being a member of the religion in question is the only way for God to forgive someone. Furthermore, i'm sure many people trying to convert others in both religions often have a sense of urgency, (which would explain doors being knocked on at 6 A.M.) because after all, for each religion, not being a part of it ultimately means you go to Hell :/. Of course, each religion is different about the specifics of how exactly you are saved, in Islam if i'm not mistaken, you basically have to be moral according to Islamic dictates enough for your good deeds to outweight your bad or something. In Christianity, God sent His son Jesus to sacrifice himself for the sins of humanity, to the effect that anyone who believes in Jesus' message and accepts his gift of forgiveness for their sins will be saved. Those summaries are missing some of the more intricate details, but they are basically correct I think.

However, evangelism is really only in Christianity, the term for Islam is something else, and technically, I don't think there's any specific command in Islam for followers to work to convert people of other religions all the time. Christianity, on the other hand, says that believers must actively make disciples, and to have disciples, you have to have Christians, and thus you have to evangelize :/. That's a very simplified summary of it, Islam gets kind of tricky when you talk about whether Jihad is used to make other people convert or die or not, since I think only Sunni's are on a mandate for continuous offensive Jihad. (I'm pretty sure for Shia's, there isn't supposed to be any more Jihad until the return of a new caliph, or something like that)

Also, keep in mind that Judaism is also an abrahamic religion, but i'm almost positive they do no proselytization of any variety. (I wonder if I spelled that word right...)

But it just seems to me to be an amplification of the "This works for me, I want to pass it on to you because of this." Which is fine for people of like mind, for people who are already open and receptive to the idea. However for a random person or for people who are uninterested, to give them this information unasked for seems a little rude.

I can understand the need and desire to "save" other people. I just don't see why it can't be done in a less intrusive fashion.

Yes, but it was that consolidation that formed the power base, and it was from there that spreading the faith was used as a way for power.

So evangelical missions are more an issue of expanding ones power base by increasing followers?

Could you please use a less pejorative term?
Evagelicalism didn't really start until Abrahamic religions gained serious power...which first occurred when Emperor Constantine chose to become a Christian. Ever since the church has used it gain more and more power over people. Look at history and note how the Church spread across Europe like a fungus.

Fixed. :)

So evangelical missions are more an issue of expanding ones power base by increasing followers?

Exactly. Or at least that's how I interpret it. The followers, sadly, usually believe they're really just spreading the "good word" for the sake of helping others. They're being taken advantage of.

Not all missions are like this mind...especially nowadays, most actually do tend to help people. Back when I used to attend a church, I was on a mission trip to Mexico, about a hundred miles or so south of Mexicali. I helped out a small village with various tasks for about a week.

But it definitely started to expand the power base, possibly because Constantine saw his Empire falling apart and wanted to figure out some way of reuniting it. Well, he did, only in a much different way.

Exactly. Or at least that's how I interpret it. The followers, sadly, usually believe they're really just spreading the "good word" for the sake of helping others. They're being taken advantage of.

Not all missions are like this mind...especially nowadays, most actually do tend to help people. Back when I used to attend a church, I was on a mission trip to Mexico, about a hundred miles or so south of Mexicali. I helped out a small village with various tasks for about a week.

But it definitely started to expand the power base, possibly because Constantine saw his Empire falling apart and wanted to figure out some way of reuniting it. Well, he did, only in a much different way.

Well, see, I dunno.

If you are legitimately helping people, and only spreading the good word to those who express an interest, I see no problem.

But there are plenty of missions that do harm, and often more harm than good, one way or another.

Most did for some time. Take Spain's actions in the Americas...the Spanish tromped all over the Native American tribes and converted them, oftentimes forcibly.

And then, of course, you have the simple fact that the religion--like most others--is spreading the irrationality of faith over reason, which definitely harms scientific development throughout the world, as we can see here in the United States with the many arguments over the "ethics" of stem-cell research.

Yes, but it was that consolidation that formed the power base, and it was from there that spreading the faith was used as a way for power.

I'll give you that... Pre-Constantine it was merely a religion, afterwards it was a political force... At least Romish Christianty (there were still other sects left which were assaulted by this new theocracy afterwards) up to and including the various pre- and post- reformation sects like the Hussites and Waldenses.

Most did for some time. Take Spain's actions in the Americas...the Spanish tromped all over the Native American tribes and converted them, oftentimes forcibly.

And then, of course, you have the simple fact that the religion--like most others--is spreading the irrationality of faith over reason, which definitely harms scientific development throughout the world, as we can see here in the United States with the many arguments over the "ethics" of stem-cell research.

And with that, you show a lack of knowledge about the true relationship between religion and reason. Though it's not entirely your fault, as the Middle Ages aren't covered very much, especially their philosophers.

Examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oresme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Duns_Scotus

Most did for some time. Take Spain's actions in the Americas...the Spanish tromped all over the Native American tribes and converted them, oftentimes forcibly.

And then, of course, you have the simple fact that the religion--like most others--is spreading the irrationality of faith over reason, which definitely harms scientific development throughout the world, as we can see here in the United States with the many arguments over the "ethics" of stem-cell research.

I don't see why that's such a big deal. There are many irrational positions that we take for various reasons that we are perfectly fine with.

It's not how rational or reasonable the position is, but how harmful the various interpretations of that position are. There are plenty of people of faith who are comfortable with issues like abortion, evolution, what have you. It's those that have difficulty reasoning outside the bounds of their beliefs that are the ones taking a hostile approach to things like that.

And with that, you show a lack of knowledge about the true relationship between religion and reason. Though it's not entirely your fault, as the Middle Ages aren't covered very much, especially their philosophers.

Examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oresme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Duns_Scotus

Aye. Add to that Aquinas and Augustine, though I don't agree with many of Augustine's beliefs.

Could you please use a less pejorative term?


What isn't cancerous about religion? It grows for the sake of growth, causes the regression of the world around it, and it kills. Cancer is accurate for describing religion.

Well, see, I dunno.

If you are legitimately helping people, and only spreading the good word to those who express an interest, I see no problem.

But there are plenty of missions that do harm, and often more harm than good, one way or another.

If they're feeding people that's one thing, its completely another to tell someone they'll burn for eternity if they don't adore the 2000 years dead main character of their storybook.

And with that, you show a lack of knowledge about the true relationship between religion and reason. Though it's not entirely your fault, as the Middle Ages aren't covered very much, especially their philosophers.

Examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oresme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Duns_Scotus

I'm talking about the average person and political groups who will use faith over reason. Yes, there were scholars and scientists who were also very religious, but time and again when a scientific discovery threatened tenets of the religious powers they were shut down.

Take Galileo, for instance...prime example. He uses the telescope to show that the Earth does in fact revolve around the Sun rather than the other way around, and he is shut down and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life because of it.

Many other examples litter history...as I said in my first post here, examples today include the fierce outcry against stem-cell research.

Deus: True...I suppose I should have clarified my point, as it is those that react in a hostile manner that are the problem. Unfortunately that hostility is much more common than you might think. The United States, for instance, despite being the most powerful nation in the world with some of the best available educators has well over fifty percent of its populace not believing in evolution...a figure that puts us comparable to Turkey rather than the other powers.

I'm talking about the average person and political groups who will use faith over reason. Yes, there were scholars and scientists who were also very religious, but time and again when a scientific discovery threatened tenets of the religious powers they were shut down.

Take Galileo, for instance...prime example. He uses the telescope to show that the Earth does in fact revolve around the Sun rather than the other way around, and he is shut down and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life because of it.

Many other examples litter history...as I said in my first post here, examples today include the fierce outcry against stem-cell research.

The interesting thing, though, about astronomy, especially pre-Galileo, was that it was actually initially sponsored BY the Catholic Church in response to a disparity and inaccuracy in the calendar of the day.

The interesting thing, though, about astronomy, especially pre-Galileo, was that it was actually initially sponsored BY the Catholic Church in response to a disparity and inaccuracy in the calendar of the day.

Really? I didn't know that.

If they're feeding people that's one thing, its completely another to tell someone they'll burn for eternity if they don't adore the 2000 years dead main character of their storybook.

Agreed, if they're saying it without being asked. If someone asks for that info? Fair game.

Really? I didn't know that.

Yeah, it's pretty neat. There was a reward posted for it, initially. If someone could come up with a more accurate model for the calendar and planetary movement, they'd get the money.

It's interesting, because a few attempts at mapping the stars from a geocentric model led to really amusing path tracings for the various planets. There's a specific word for the multiple loop-de-loop paths they took, but it escapes me now.

I'm talking about the average person and political groups who will use faith over reason. Yes, there were scholars and scientists who were also very religious, but time and again when a scientific discovery threatened tenets of the religious powers they were shut down.

Take Galileo, for instance...prime example. He uses the telescope to show that the Earth does in fact revolve around the Sun rather than the other way around, and he is shut down and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life because of it.

Many other examples litter history...as I said in my first post here, examples today include the fierce outcry against stem-cell research.

Deus: True...I suppose I should have clarified my point, as it is those that react in a hostile manner that are the problem. Unfortunately that hostility is much more common than you might think. The United States, for instance, despite being the most powerful nation in the world with some of the best available educators has well over fifty percent of its populace not believing in evolution...a figure that puts us comparable to Turkey rather than the other powers.

Except Galileo wasn't about the Church vs. Science, the other scientists in the day thought he was wrong as well. And it's also due to the fact he portrayed the Church as a simpleton after promising not to talk about his views. And there's also noncontroversial alternatives to embryonic stem-cells like amniotic stem-cells.

Yeah, it's pretty neat. There was a reward posted for it, initially. If someone could come up with a more accurate model for the calendar and planetary movement, they'd get the money.

It's interesting, because a few attempts at mapping the stars from a geocentric model led to really amusing path tracings for the various planets. There's a specific word for the multiple loop-de-loop paths they took, but it escapes me now.

Yes, I recall seeing something about that on The Universe...the loop-de-loop thing, I mean. Very fascinating the way people used to view things...I just hope we won't be derided with the same sort of ignorance a few hundred years from now...

Except Galileo wasn't about the Church vs. Science, the other scientists in the day thought he was wrong as well. And it's also due to the fact he portrayed the Church as a simpleton after promising not to talk about his views. And there's also noncontroversial alternatives to embryonic stem-cells like amniotic stem-cells.
He had every right to portray the Church as a group of simpletons, and so what if the other scientists thought he was wrong? That's completely irrelevant because he was actually correct!

And no, as Dempublicents can gladly tell you, amniotic stem-cells are not a reasonable alternative because they don't work nearly as well. Further, the controversy is based on misinformation and misguided beliefs about embryos--naught but a small collection of cells--somehow being a full human and having a "soul" or what have you. It's nonsense.

Let's not even forget the false connection they make between embryonic stem-cell research and abortion...

Oh yes...that drives me absolutely NUTS...the sheer misinformation...

Let's not even forget the false connection they make between embryonic stem-cell research and abortion...

But it just seems to me to be an amplification of the "This works for me, I want to pass it on to you because of this." Which is fine for people of like mind, for people who are already open and receptive to the idea. However for a random person or for people who are uninterested, to give them this information unasked for seems a little rude.

I can understand the need and desire to "save" other people. I just don't see why it can't be done in a less intrusive fashion.

Well, it's not just a matter of it "working" for someone in either religion, the tenents of each religion are held as fact for everyone who has ever lived to the people in each religion. If spreading one's faith could be done in a less intrusive fashion and yet still be just as effective, I certainly wouldn't complain, but that "if" is the problem :/. (At least for Christianity, I don't know what any Muslims would think about that, I don't even know if they do door to door type things)

He had every right to portray the Church as a group of simpletons, and so what if the other scientists thought he was wrong? That's completely irrelevant because he was actually correct!

And no, as Dempublicents can gladly tell you, amniotic stem-cells are not a reasonable alternative because they don't work nearly as well. Further, the controversy is based on misinformation and misguided beliefs about embryos--naught but a small collection of cells--somehow being a full human and having a "soul" or what have you. It's nonsense.

That. Is Not. The Point. The point is that it wasn't religion vs. science, it and the Pope was one of his biggest supporters, until he was alienated by Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems where his words were put in the mouth of Simpleton. Oh, and he was wrong in

And I am afraid I disagree with you on a fundamental point on the last bit, of which I doubt either of us will change our opinions on.

That. Is Not. The Point. The point is that it wasn't religion vs. science, it and the Pope was one of his biggest supporters, until he was alienated by Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems where his words were put in the mouth of Simpleton. Oh, and he was wrong in

And I am afraid I disagree with you on a fundamental point on the last bit, of which I doubt either of us will change our opinions on.

It's still not relevant. Whether the Pope at the time supported him or not, he was shut down because of faith--because of believing with no evidence--rather than reason. And he was wrong in...what? Specify.

And no, I won't change my opinion on that last bit. I honestly don't see how someone could hold that belief either...by all means if you evidence, share it, but if you don't, then please kindly do not try to direct scientific policy.

That's a major thing that pisses me off about people of faith who're hostile towards anything that contradicts their faith...they try to define scientific policies and the way this government does its business, and that harms all of us in so many ways...

It's still not relevant. Whether the Pope at the time supported him or not, he was shut down because of faith--because of believing with no evidence--rather than reason. And he was wrong in...what? Specify.

And no, I won't change my opinion on that last bit. I honestly don't see how someone could hold that belief either...by all means if you evidence, share it, but if you don't, then please kindly do not try to direct scientific policy.

That's a major thing that pisses me off about people of faith who're hostile towards anything that contradicts their faith...they try to define scientific policies and the way this government does its business, and that harms all of us in so many ways...

No, he was shut down because he made a lot of enemies with his tone and nearly everyone else thought he was wrong because he preferred Archimedes as opposed to Aristotle, whom everyone else thought was right. He also lacked an explanation for parallax.

Two words that are pretty much alien to my worldview and how I was raised. Hinduism doesn't proselytize. It doesn't spread itself by informing those not in-the-know about religious books and practices. No one can officially BECOME Hindu, though one can live the Hindu lifestyle. The closest thing we have to evangelism is actually more in line with personality cults built up around particular religious traditions than an actual "spreading the word" sort of thing, and they more often than not pick up followers who are already Hindu.

And the more I read about evangelism in the Abrahmic religions (the bad kind, the knocking on your door at 6 A.M. kind. Not to be confused with the "telling you about the Gospels and similar texts kind if you ask" kind, which I have little to no problem with) the more confused I get. I can understand the mentality of wanting to tell friends, and people who are already showing interest in your beliefs about your views. But to go around and spread those beliefs to those who aren't aware and don't necessarily want to listen to you, I see that as impolite. It's one thing to mention to a friend, or someone who has expressed an interest, about your religious, cultural, political, etc. beliefs especially if those beliefs are providing you with a perceived benefit. It's another thing to tell a random person on the street about them.

Still, I'm sure there's a side to this I'm not seeing, largely because I have no framework to see it in. And so I'd like an explanation, if at all possible. And I'd like to try and keep this civil, on BOTH sides of the religious spectrum.

It's cultural. In the US of A, they have the right to stand on the street corner and shout out their religion to total strangers. It's the first amendment that allows them to do this. Street evangelism goes back to the time of Christ himself. Evangelizing in the church and at festivals or picnics is also a centuries old tradition in christianity.
But if you don't want them coming to your door to try to evangelize you, you can put up a no soliciting sign on your fence or your door and they are legally bound by law to abide by your desire to not be evangelized. If they knock on your door and try to evangelize anyway, politely tell them you are not interested in what they are offering. If they persist, let them know, in nice terms, that if they don't leave you will have them charged with trespassing. While they have the right to preach, private property rights say you can bar them from doing so on your property which you own. Unless you don't own the property. In that case you would complain to the person who owns the property for allowing it.

No, he was shut down because he made a lot of enemies with his tone and nearly everyone else thought he was wrong because he preferred Archimedes as opposed to Aristotle, whom everyone else thought was right. He also lacked an explanation for parallax.

You can believe that if you want, but I'll be sticking with facts, if you don't mind.

I'm going to presume that pejorative means "insulting" or "potentially enraging" since I've never heard that word before.

Sure.

"...note how the Church spread across Europe like the plague."

...

Err, I mean.

"...note how the Church spread across Europe like mating rabbits."

<3

In a nutshell, (or maybe not quite, I didn't see Zatarack's reply in time) its because Christianity and Islam each have doctrines to the effect that without believing in the tenents of whichever religion, you'll basically be condemned to Hell. That may seem somewhat shocking at first if you're not familiar with the issue, (I assume you aren't, since its so relevant to why people in each religion try to spread their beliefs), but in both religions, God is described as a god of infinite justice who simply cannot tolerate evil, and in each religion, there is an explanation of why being a member of the religion in question is the only way for God to forgive someone. Furthermore, i'm sure many people trying to convert others in both religions often have a sense of urgency, (which would explain doors being knocked on at 6 A.M.) because after all, for each religion, not being a part of it ultimately means you go to Hell :/. Of course, each religion is different about the specifics of how exactly you are saved, in Islam if i'm not mistaken, you basically have to be moral according to Islamic dictates enough for your good deeds to outweight your bad or something. In Christianity, God sent His son Jesus to sacrifice himself for the sins of humanity, to the effect that anyone who believes in Jesus' message and accepts his gift of forgiveness for their sins will be saved. Those summaries are missing some of the more intricate details, but they are basically correct I think.

However, evangelism is really only in Christianity, the term for Islam is something else, and technically, I don't think there's any specific command in Islam for followers to work to convert people of other religions all the time. Christianity, on the other hand, says that believers must actively make disciples, and to have disciples, you have to have Christians, and thus you have to evangelize :/. That's a very simplified summary of it, Islam gets kind of tricky when you talk about whether Jihad is used to make other people convert or die or not, since I think only Sunni's are on a mandate for continuous offensive Jihad. (I'm pretty sure for Shia's, there isn't supposed to be any more Jihad until the return of a new caliph, or something like that)

Also, keep in mind that Judaism is also an abrahamic religion, but i'm almost positive they do no proselytization of any variety. (I wonder if I spelled that word right...)

There's no specific commandment to evangelize. At least not in the way you are talking about. There's no "you need to convert people" commandment. Most Christians believe that it's not humans that do the converting anyway, it's God. Humans are just used to deliver the message. Christians are told they need to speak about the Gospel if asked about it. In other words, if you go up to a Christian and say "tell me about Jesus" they aren't supposed to say "piss off." Christians are also warned to spead the Gospel with gentleness.

Missions typically take on two forms. Sometimes (though not always) they are performed together.

Religious missions, similar to those engaged by the Latter-Day Saints are those which send people door-to-door.

Social Missions are those which send out to do things like build homes for people, establish schools in areas where there are none, and feed people.

The second type is far more common... Though the first type gets more notice, since by design they attract more negative attention.
That's exactly it in a nutshell.

So evangelical missions are more an issue of expanding ones power base by increasing followers?
Everyone has their bloody history. Even athiests. It's been the exception rather than the rule though.

Deus: True...I suppose I should have clarified my point, as it is those that react in a hostile manner that are the problem. Unfortunately that hostility is much more common than you might think. The United States, for instance, despite being the most powerful nation in the world with some of the best available educators has well over fifty percent of its populace not believing in evolution...a figure that puts us comparable to Turkey rather than the other powers.

But those are just idiots. It has nothing to do with religion. Hell, even the Pope agrees with evolution.

We also have more people voting on American Idol than in presidential elections here.

I also don't believe that 50% statistic. I think it's made up. Just like that one about [some insane percent that I can't remember] of highschoolers not being able to find Louisiana on a map.

Hell, even the Pope agrees with evolution.

http://www.orlyowl.com/yarrrly.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=401950&in_page_id=1811
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c017.html

http://www.orlyowl.com/yarrrly.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=401950&in_page_id=1811
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c017.html

It's in my little Catholic book. You know the "we read teh Bible so you don't have to" type book. It was written when John Paul was alive, so it must have been him (yes I read the article and remeber the incident). I'm glad I'm no longer Catholic and can say that Pope Benedict is creepy and scary and I think he chose the name just to fufill the papal prophecy. He's done a lot of wierd things that no one agrees with, so...

I'm glad I'm no longer Catholic and can say that Pope Benedict is creepy and scary and I think he chose the name just to fufill the papal prophecy. He's done a lot of wierd things that no one agrees with, so...I'm in total agreement with you there, it would seem.
:eek:

And the more I read about evangelism in the Abrahmic religions (the bad kind, the knocking on your door at 6 A.M. kind. Not to be confused with the "telling you about the Gospels and similar texts kind if you ask" kind, which I have little to no problem with) the more confused I get. I can understand the mentality of wanting to tell friends, and people who are already showing interest in your beliefs about your views. But to go around and spread those beliefs to those who aren't aware and don't necessarily want to listen to you, I see that as impolite. It's one thing to mention to a friend, or someone who has expressed an interest, about your religious, cultural, political, etc. beliefs especially if those beliefs are providing you with a perceived benefit. It's another thing to tell a random person on the street about them.

Still, I'm sure there's a side to this I'm not seeing, largely because I have no framework to see it in. And so I'd like an explanation, if at all possible. And I'd like to try and keep this civil, on BOTH sides of the religious spectrum.

That's cause it basically IS impolite. Extremely impolite.
It's a sales and marketing technique that's as aggressive as they come, and still expects to be treated with special consideration and respect. Wether it's Jehova's Witlesses hanging on your doorbell each Saturday morning or Mormons dressed like undertakers scaring old ladies in pedestrian areas. Not even politicians go that far, and for good reason. They've got clever people who tell them that annoying people on their doorstep is NOT going to win them any votes. But evangelicals don't understand that, I think. Either that or they are even more arrogant and impolite than I assumed so far.

should be noted that Jehovah's witness and the Mormon church are considered to be a bit 'out there' by most Christians who bother thinking about it.

also, all the stories i hear about them from the USA...
while their views are just as weird here, they're less annoying. tend to knock on the door mid afternoon anyway, most of them will go away if asked politely to do so, etc.

'course, that might be because i just take their literature, say something to the effect of "thanks, i'll read that later" and step back, say something polite and dismissive [though not of their beliefs] and close the door.

mum gets into great long conversations with them... which really must frustraight them later when/if they stop and think about it. she's a Christian you see [as am i]... she ends up telling them more about what she believes than they tell her :D [hey, they want to talk religion, they get to talk religion :D]

dad managed to convince the jehova's witness to give him up as a bad job. *laughs* had them come back, and come back, time and again, listened to their whole speil, asked questions, etc etc etc...

eventually they ran out of stuff to tell him, asked if he'd join...

he said something to the effect of "no thanks, already a Christian, go to church each week and everything"

... they never came back.

anywho. there's a line in the new testament somewhere that says "go and spread the good news to all men" or "go and make deciples of all men" [men as in humans. English uses the masculine for the unknown, after all, and it's an older translation i remember]... possibly both in different places.

that's pretty much the basic reason for evangelism in general.

the 6am thing is over enthusiasm, idiocy, impolite, etc etc etc.


interestingly, the whole "why did galaleio get in trouble" bit?

he dabbled in politics, and got burned. his IDEAS were disagreed with in general by the scientists of the age [who, incidentally, worked mostly on the basis of "the authority says thus" with more venerated 'authorities' being held as more correct, rather than on testing and peer review and scientific method and such] because they thought it was different.

the church, so far as i've ever been able to tell, disagreed with his scientific theory on the basis that no one else agreed with him. they acted against them because his Political actions were undermineing their authority.

faith vs reason never came into it.

might want to check what facts Are befor claiming that people can believe what they want, and that you'll only believe facts in a derogatory manner. you could be wrong, and then where does it leave you?

Check your facts.

[it's entirely possible, i suppose, that i could be wrong. i always maintain that if anyone can present me with a logical, reasoned argument, with evidence, that works more effectively/accurately/correctly/whatever, I'll change my mind. it should be noted that the same attitude is taken by the person claiming that gallelao was punished for being reasonable and disagreeing with faith... is the exact attitude that the man himself took that got him in trouble in the first place, or near enough :D]

it's also, incidentally, unwise to take small factions as representative of the whole, whatever they may claim. all Christians will take any effective opportunity to spread their faith, for reasons outlined previously by myself and others. only small groups actively set out to do so in ways that agrivate people on a regular basis.

.. also, Chick tracts are... stupid. they're used in a sort of psudo-evangalical manner at times, but frankly, they're just hate, hate, and more hate. now, some of the things they're about are serious concerns [though the tracts tend to massively skew even those to insanity] but they're lost in a mess of highly illogical gibberish and 'anti-everything' hate.

Christianty is quite possibly the only 'religion' [while specific denominations are subject to debate, Christianity as a Whole, and as layed out in the bible, fits the dictionary definition of 'religion' less well than Atheism does.], at least so far as i know, which actively Encourages it's followers to check the scripters against reality, to check and test the teachers and scholars against the scriptures and reality, etc.

so many people miss this in the morass of fools and idiots who, rightly or wrongly, claim to be Christians and/or know these things, but the bible actually Encourages reason, thought, study, testing, etc.

to be fair, the catholic church, many mega churches, etc, often Don't, or even actively discourage it, but the bible is the 'holy book' [or, i believe, literally 'The Book'] and the fundamental basis of the entire faith. and in more than one place it says to test one's teachers etc.

so, yeah, feel free to argue that idiots follow religions
feel free to argue that idiots harm scientific development.
be Very careful about claiming that all followers of religions are idiots or that all religions harm scientific development.

also, be wary of claiming that scientific advance, however beneficial, trumps morality. at the very least, one should be looking Very hard at things that seem to cause conflict there.


err, that's enough rambling from me. hope i answered some questions, made some corrections, or at the very least inspired some thought :D
[and i'm well aware that I don't know everything either :P]

also, be wary of claiming that scientific advance, however beneficial, trumps morality. at the very least, one should be looking Very hard at things that seem to cause conflict there.

What does morality have to do with religion? :confused:

It takes a special kind of arrogance to think that you can best contribute to the world by making everybody share your personal superstitions.

I can't think of a group of non-criminal people I despise more than missionaries.

I can't think of a group of non-criminal people I despise more than missionaries.
Seconded.

What does morality have to do with religion? :confused:

'nothing and everything' apparently.

religion shapes the specifics of one's personal view on morality. moral objections to various factors are often based at least in part on the world view of the individual, which is at least partially shaped by their religion.

i was thinking on the whole stem cell issue. people do not oppose it because of their religions, so much as because, to their world view, it is immoral. given that they have religious believes, that contribute to that world view, and that the world view is required in order to understand their point, the religion comes up in the discussion about it. the moment the religion comes up, many people discard the whole point of view as invalid, neglecting to take anything else into account.

of course, that's not counting the number of people who make irrational decisions then use religion of one sort or another to Justify it. honestly, Those are far more common [at least with Christianity], so far as i can tell, than those who come to apparently... less than sane... conclusions based on religious beliefs.

my comment was a response to another dismissive "anyone who believes anything other than what i do is an idiot" type remark.

I can't think of a group of non-criminal people I despise more than missionaries.

i can think of a large number, personally... [which isn't to say there isn't overlap from time to time. humans are humans, after all, and prone to folly.]

It's in my little Catholic book. You know the "we read teh Bible so you don't have to" type book. It was written when John Paul was alive, so it must have been him (yes I read the article and remeber the incident). I'm glad I'm no longer Catholic and can say that Pope Benedict is creepy and scary and I think he chose the name just to fufill the papal prophecy. He's done a lot of wierd things that no one agrees with, so...

Always my root problem with Catholicism... Church doctrine changes whenever a new infallible pope ascends to the throne, and says stuff contradicting the last infallible pope.

Always my root problem with Catholicism... Church doctrine changes whenever a new infallible pope ascends to the throne, and says stuff contradicting the last infallible pope.

Or several infallible popes.

There's no specific commandment to evangelize. At least not in the way you are talking about. There's no "you need to convert people" commandment. Most Christians believe that it's not humans that do the converting anyway, it's God. Humans are just used to deliver the message. Christians are told they need to speak about the Gospel if asked about it. In other words, if you go up to a Christian and say "tell me about Jesus" they aren't supposed to say "piss off." Christians are also warned to spead the Gospel with gentleness.

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matt. 28:16-20

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matt. 28:16-20

its not like evangelism is NEW. the first apostles set up missions around the mediterranean area. paul went from group to group preaching. the epistles are his letters to his various followers in various communities.

you cant have a religion of a few hundred people and expect it to last without acting to spread it around. it what christians have done since the very beginning.

its not like evangelism is NEW. the first apostles set up missions around the mediterranean area. paul went from group to group preaching. the epistles are his letters to his various followers in various communities.

you cant have a religion of a few hundred people and expect it to last without acting to spread it around. it what christians have done since the very beginning.

yes, exactly.

I am sure all of Jesus' traveling around and preaching on mounts and feeding people fish and bread was all about fun too. Surely the man had nothing to say, nothing that ended up with people screaming to crucify him.

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matt. 28:16-20

I forgot about that one.:(

yes, exactly.

I am sure all of Jesus' traveling around and preaching on mounts and feeding people fish and bread was all about fun too. Surely the man had nothing to say, nothing that ended up with people screaming to crucify him.

i cant imagine what it would have been....


the difference between hinduism and christianity (non theologically speaking) is that christianity started in an area that already HAD plenty of religions whereas hinduism IS the religion of the areas it thrives in. it grew up there.

christianity had to evangelize to get anyone to notice that it existed and to convince them that they had the right idea.

I forgot about that one.:(

Jesus never said to be an asshole about it though. I don't think he would want us going door to door selling religion. You ever notice in the Bible how people mostly came to him? ;)

As for the OP, I give money to missions, my church is very mission based, as a church we spend about $350,000 a year on foreign missions, mostly digging wells, helping in disasters, feeding the poor kind of stuff. We also spend about $1,000,000 on local missions, mostly after school programs, crisis pregnancy centers, preschool programs, feeding the poor, helping after disasters, etc.

I don't think we are evil.

Well, see, I dunno.

If you are legitimately helping people, and only spreading the good word to those who express an interest, I see no problem.

But there are plenty of missions that do harm, and often more harm than good, one way or another.
Indeed. "No, AIDS-stricken Africans. Don't use condoms, they are evil and will make God hate you. And they don't help with AIDS at all. Not one bit. So don't even bother."

Most did for some time. Take Spain's actions in the Americas...the Spanish tromped all over the Native American tribes and converted them, oftentimes forcibly.

And then, of course, you have the simple fact that the religion--like most others--is spreading the irrationality of faith over reason, which definitely harms scientific development throughout the world, as we can see here in the United States with the many arguments over the "ethics" of stem-cell research.
Definitely. The fact that religion teaches that faith is a virtue, that it is a good thing to just accept ideas without evidence or rational thought, truly harms our society. Even if a certain sect doesn't doubt specific scientific evidence, the very nature of religion encourages faith--a detour around rational thought-- as equal to, or (in most sects), better than rational thought. It trains the mind (not) to think using faith, instead of to think using reason.

Everyone has their bloody history. Even athiests. It's been the exception rather than the rule though.

When have atheists killed people in the name of atheism? I'm curious-- the example I always hear is Stalin, but he killed people in the name of Communism, not atheism. Incidentally, the form of communism that was practiced in the Soviet Union, while technically an atheist ideology, was very religious in the way it encouraged absolute faith in a supreme leader who was perfect and all loving (despite the fact that he killed anybody who disagreed with him). Hmm... have we ever heard of an all-powerful, perfect being who sends his people eternal torture if they disagree with him... because he loves them?


But those are just idiots. It has nothing to do with religion. Hell, even the Pope agrees with evolution.

We also have more people voting on American Idol than in presidential elections here.

Really? It has nothing to do with it? Are you sure? So, non-religious people and religious people will deny evolution at the same rate, then?


I also don't believe that 50% statistic. I think it's made up. Just like that one about [some insane percent that I can't remember] of highschoolers not being able to find Louisiana on a map.

http://images.livescience.com/images/060810_evo_rank_02.jpg
(http://www.livescience.com/health/060810_evo_rank.html)
Look at the US. Only about 40% of the population answer that evolution is true, and approximately 40% say that it is not true, with about 20% unsure.

Now, of course, there are other factors-- a lack of understanding in genetics or evolution itself, for example, but it's undeniable that religious belief plays a major part in the denial of evolution.

When have atheists killed people in the name of atheism? I'm curious-- the example I always hear is Stalin, but he killed people in the name of Communism, not atheism. Incidentally, the form of communism that was practiced in the Soviet Union, while technically an atheist ideology, was very religious in the way it encouraged absolute faith in a supreme leader who was perfect and all loving (despite the fact that he killed anybody who disagreed with him). Hmm... have we ever heard of an all-powerful, perfect being who sends his people eternal torture if they disagree with him... because he loves them?
I was thinking Chairman Mao.

And it's entirely possible the NT descriptions of Gehenna/hell are quite simply a parable.

Really? It has nothing to do with it? Are you sure? So, non-religious people and religious people will deny evolution at the same rate, then?
It has to do with idiocy. People just believing what's told to them. Same type of people that think the Texas Chainsaw is based on murders that happened in Texas. Same type of people that believe in colonics or that chiropractors can cure athsma. Same type of people that believe in UFOs. Doesn't matter why, they'd figure out something to believe against overwhelming scientific evidence and common sense.

http://images.livescience.com/images/060810_evo_rank_02.jpg
(http://www.livescience.com/health/060810_evo_rank.html)
Look at the US. Only about 40% of the population answer that evolution is true, and approximately 40% say that it is not true, with about 20% unsure.
You want me to believe stats that come from a site that talks about the possibility of bigfoot and the lochness monster being seen via sattelite?




Now, of course, there are other factors-- a lack of understanding in genetics or evolution itself, for example, but it's undeniable that religious belief plays a major part in the denial of evolution.
Not nearly as much as stupdity does. Take the religion out of it and they still believe nonsense.

I'm quite sure if you find a break down of statistics the higher educated people overwhelimingly do believe in evolution.

Could you please use a less pejorative term?

How about, The Church spread across Europe like an out-of-control wildfire, completely consuming everything in it's path until there was nothing left but charred ruins.

i cant imagine what it would have been....


the difference between hinduism and christianity (non theologically speaking) is that christianity started in an area that already HAD plenty of religions whereas hinduism IS the religion of the areas it thrives in. it grew up there.

christianity had to evangelize to get anyone to notice that it existed and to convince them that they had the right idea.

That's a good point. In fact after talking about this topic to my dad I've found out that shortly after the founding of Buddhism, Hinduism DID go through a period of what might be called evangelism because of followers, largely from the lower castes, converting to the less socially restrictive (for the time) Buddhist philosophy.

Still, I'm sure there's a side to this I'm not seeing, largely because I have no framework to see it in. And so I'd like an explanation, if at all possible. And I'd like to try and keep this civil, on BOTH sides of the religious spectrum.

I've no idea. While I don't see anything "wrong" with people voicing their beliefs (freedom of speech and all that), I think it is more effective to evangelize with action. That is, being a good person, and teaching others through example. If someone converts to a religion, they are of course going to have to eventually be taught about its beliefs, but I think it is much more effective to teach the specifics to people who are willing to listen, and are willing to listen because they respect the Christians or Muslims they know.

Always my root problem with Catholicism... Church doctrine changes whenever a new infallible pope ascends to the throne, and says stuff contradicting the last infallible pope.

That has never happened. Just because the pope says something does not make it infallible.

Always my root problem with Catholicism... Church doctrine changes whenever a new infallible pope ascends to the throne, and says stuff contradicting the last infallible pope.That is not true at all. You obviously have no clue about Catholicism. If a pope declares church doctrine on matters of faith and morals ex cathedra he speaks with the authority and in the name of the entire church, and he does that only after consulting with the church. The infallibility dogma was primarily set up to prevent political forces from changing church doctrine to further their own political aims, i.e. by making priests propagate party teachings.

That is not true at all. You obviously have no clue about Catholicism. If a pope declares church doctrine on matters of faith and morals ex cathedra he speaks with the authority and in the name of the entire church, and he does that after consulting with the church.
Exactly. Wait, I'm actually agreeing with him about the Catholic Church...
The infallibility dogma was primarily set up to prevent political forces from changing church doctrine to help their own political aims, i.e. by making priests propagate party teachings.
Phew, never mind. That was a close one.

You're completely missing the point, Snaf. Yes, it is stupidty. Yes, it is gullibility. Yes, it is people just accepting what others say.

But WHY do they do that? Why do people in the U.S. do that so much more than other nations? There has to be a cause, Snaf.

The reason we blame religion is that religion is the central cause of the kind of stupidity you're talking about. It teaches faith as a virtue, teaching people to stop thinking, to just accept what the church tells them or what their pastor tells them, ect ect ect. It is the cause of the stupidity, and that's the problem.

You remove religion and its effects, and yes you will still have some stupidity, but you won't have anywhere near as much because people won't be taught the attitude of faith being a virtue. They will be more willing to reason because it is a natural behavior of humanity to reason. If it wasn't we wouldn't have this kind of technology, this kind of civilization...we'd still be a hunter gatherer species. Hell, we probably wouldn't have even EVOLVED because the whole reason we evolved to the point we have was due to intelligence and reason being prioritized as very helpful traits to be preserved throughout the various species to come before homo sapiens.

ect?

Because if you don't believe, you'll go to hell. Which isn't really something we want.

Hell is a part of Christian Mythology. So with it being a myth and nothing more, how can you go there?

And Evangelicals are just being obnoxious. They're the ones who try to force people to be Christians. They're also the ones who seem to believe that they're better than anyone who's different than they are. They're the reason it took so long for black people and women to gain the rights they have today. They're the reason gays, bisexuals and transsexuals are suffering.

Simply put, if they would jsut shut up and accept differences, the world would be a lot better.

You remove religion and its effects, and yes you will still have some stupidity, but you won't have anywhere near as much because people won't be taught the attitude of faith being a virtue. They will be more willing to reason because it is a natural behavior of humanity to reason. If it wasn't we wouldn't have this kind of technology, this kind of civilization...we'd still be a hunter gatherer species. Hell, we probably wouldn't have even EVOLVED because the whole reason we evolved to the point we have was due to intelligence and reason being prioritized as very helpful traits to be preserved throughout the various species to come before homo sapiens.

I disagree. I'm not sure if there are any atheist parents here, but if there are I would like to ask: do you teach your children to keep an open mind about the existence of god(s)? Do you expose them to as many religions as you can, so that they can come to their own conclusion? Most people don't; they teach their children what they believe. This doesn't mean they tell the little cherubs that Christians are evil, but I doubt they teach them that Christianity makes any sense, either.
There is a great amount of faith in reason (no pun intended. Actually, now that I have acknowledged it, I guess it is intended. Oh well.) I don't see why. Reason is useful, but there is nothing inherently good about it. Also, plenty of religions employ reason, and just have different postulates from other faiths (Scholasticism, for example).

I disagree. I'm not sure if there are any atheist parents here, but if there are I would like to ask: do you teach your children to keep an open mind about the existence of god(s)? Do you expose them to as many religions as you can, so that they can come to their own conclusion? Most people don't; they teach their children what they believe. This doesn't mean they tell the little cherubs that Christians are evil, but I doubt they teach them that Christianity makes any sense, either.
There is a great amount of faith in reason (no pun intended. Actually, now that I have acknowledged it, I guess it is intended. Oh well.) I don't see why. Reason is useful, but there is nothing inherently good about it. Also, plenty of religions employ reason, and just have different postulates from other faiths (Scholasticism, for example).You doubt the usefulness of reason? why? that's what puts the sapiens in homo sapiens, you know...

I was thinking Chairman Mao.

It has to do with idiocy. People just believing what's told to them. Same type of people that think the Texas Chainsaw is based on murders that happened in Texas. Same type of people that believe in colonics or that chiropractors can cure athsma. Same type of people that believe in UFOs. Doesn't matter why, they'd figure out something to believe against overwhelming scientific evidence and common sense.

Just becasue people believe in life on other planets(and UFOs), doesn't mean they're stupid.

Are you an Evangelical Snafturi? Because you seem to be just like them. You don't accept other people's beliefs either.

But it just seems to me to be an amplification of the "This works for me, I want to pass it on to you because of this." Which is fine for people of like mind, for people who are already open and receptive to the idea. However for a random person or for people who are uninterested, to give them this information unasked for seems a little rude.

I can understand the need and desire to "save" other people. I just don't see why it can't be done in a less intrusive fashion.

It -is- rude, and I find it sort of insulting as well. I really don't have a problem with religion, or even people talking about their religion casually, until someone starts going, "Hey, you know what my religion can do for you?" Then I get irritated. In my experience Christians are the worst (not to say no one else does this, but it's never happened to me before with anyone else). It's as though to them, everyone who isn't with their faith has been walking around with their heads in a hole their whole lives to not have noticed Christianity.

And yes, I understand the need to 'save' everyone, that it's a little moral worm in their hearts that not everyone believes what they do. I just wish that THEY would understand that yes, the world knows about their God and no, not everyone wants to be a part of their fan club for Him and no matter how many times someone says to me, "Do you REALLY know what you're missing? Really REALLY know? I mean REALLY!?!" it's not going to change my mind.

You're completely missing the point, Snaf. Yes, it is stupidty. Yes, it is gullibility. Yes, it is people just accepting what others say.
Same reason people believe all the stupidity that's not religiously motivated. Texas Chainsaw Massacre for a start.

But WHY do they do that? Why do people in the U.S. do that so much more than other nations? There has to be a cause, Snaf.
People lack critical thinking and reasoning in this country. It's not taught by and large.

The reason we blame religion is that religion is the central cause of the kind of stupidity you're talking about. It teaches faith as a virtue, teaching people to stop thinking, to just accept what the church tells them or what their pastor tells them, ect ect ect. It is the cause of the stupidity, and that's the problem.
Religion doesn't make people believe in UFO's, Bigfoot, or the Texas Chainsaw Massacare.

You remove religion and its effects, and yes you will still have some stupidity, but you won't have anywhere near as much because people won't be taught the attitude of faith being a virtue. They will be more willing to reason because it is a natural behavior of humanity to reason. If it wasn't we wouldn't have this kind of technology, this kind of civilization...we'd still be a hunter gatherer species. Hell, we probably wouldn't have even EVOLVED because the whole reason we evolved to the point we have was due to intelligence and reason being prioritized as very helpful traits to be preserved throughout the various species to come before homo sapiens.
You'd still have it. We aren't teaching our children how to think in schools. That's the problem. Critical thinking is a learned skill. Kids aren't learning it.

Just becasue people believe in life on other planets(and UFOs), doesn't mean they're stupid.

Are you an Evangelical Snafturi? Because you seem to be just like them. You don't accept other people's beliefs either.
Way to miss the point. Okay, since you seem to lack reading comprehension let me lay out what all of those have in common; they are all things people believe in despite credible empirical evidence to the contrary.

Now before you spout of about UFOs go look up 'empirical evidence.' I'm not talking about deductive reasoning. I'm talking about all those things that don't have scientific studies from credible sources to back them up.

And I never said life on other planets. I said UFO's. Read. It does good.

I didn't say it was a commandment :/. Like I said, Jesus did say to make disciples, (It's at the very end of Matthew) and in order to make disciples, you have to have Christians. If just letting people be curious was enough, why would Jesus of bothered to tell his disciples to go visit a bunch of villages and preach?

Yeah, Smunkee already corrected that. KTHX

There's no specific commandment to evangelize. At least not in the way you are talking about. There's no "you need to convert people" commandment. Most Christians believe that it's not humans that do the converting anyway, it's God. Humans are just used to deliver the message. Christians are told they need to speak about the Gospel if asked about it. In other words, if you go up to a Christian and say "tell me about Jesus" they aren't supposed to say "piss off." Christians are also warned to spead the Gospel with gentleness.


I didn't say it was a commandment :/. Like I said, Jesus did say to make disciples, (It's at the very end of Matthew) and in order to make disciples, you have to have Christians. If just letting people be curious was enough, why would Jesus of bothered to tell his disciples to go visit a bunch of villages and preach?

Yeah, Smunkee already corrected that. KTHX

Oh, I guess I didn't see that...

There is a great amount of faith in reason (no pun intended. Actually, now that I have acknowledged it, I guess it is intended. Oh well.) I don't see why. Reason is useful, but there is nothing inherently good about it. Also, plenty of religions employ reason, and just have different postulates from other faiths (Scholasticism, for example).
Bold added.
You doubt the usefulness of reason? why? that's what puts the sapiens in homo sapiens, you know...
I don't doubt the usefulness of reason, as my post said. However, I am suspicious of the claim that just because humans are able to reason, it it automatically good.

Yes, critical thinking is a learned skill. Yes, we're not educating people very well.
Reason is not just critical thinking though.

BUT AGAIN the question is WHY? And again, it's because of ways of thinking introduced to people. We can't ignore that. That way of thinking affects every decision every person makes. How you think--whether you think critically, whether you just believe with no evidence, ect ect--can and does radically effect how you act. That's why policies are put into place, why our educational system is suffering, and so on. It's the why.

It's not just religion though. It's also people in power who don't want people questioning their power, or thinking very critically about it. I'd argue, in fact, that's far more prominent in why our educational system is the way it is now as opposed to how decent it used to be back in the fifties.

New Limacon: There is a serious difference between teaching open-mindedness and being stupid. I'm sick of this argument. "You're not open-minded enough!"

That's not the case. People who use reason over faith are not closed-minded...indeed, if anything they are far more open-minded than those who use faith, because people who use reason are swayed by evidence, by facts and by new knowledge rather than persisting in beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. That is a much better way to go about things. For example, why just assume that this God or that God exists? We have never seen a single shred of credible evidence to support their existence, therefore logically it stands to reason that until we do, we can conclude that they do not exist.

That's why usually people who emphasize reason over faith are atheists, though certainly not always.

There's also another factor involved in human stupidity or lack thereof: comfort. As with any other animal, a human desires comfort. We're not fond of uncomfortable thoughts and truths...we often turn away from them and ignore them. This happens all the time...take the overweight person who acts as if they are trying to lose weight when they refuse to change the dietary habits that brought them to the point they are at, for example.

Religion is one of the ultimate comforts, really, and that's why I think it has continued to persist. What's more, those who use it for power exploit this very fact...it's something they understand very well indeed.

I disagree. I'm not sure if there are any atheist parents here, but if there are I would like to ask: do you teach your children to keep an open mind about the existence of god(s)? Do you expose them to as many religions as you can, so that they can come to their own conclusion? Most people don't; they teach their children what they believe. This doesn't mean they tell the little cherubs that Christians are evil, but I doubt they teach them that Christianity makes any sense, either.
There is a great amount of faith in reason (no pun intended. Actually, now that I have acknowledged it, I guess it is intended. Oh well.) I don't see why. Reason is useful, but there is nothing inherently good about it. Also, plenty of religions employ reason, and just have different postulates from other faiths (Scholasticism, for example).
Actually, many atheists that I know have said that they'd rather teach their children how to think-- teach them critical thinking skills and the ability to analyze claims-- than they would teach them that there is no God, so that they can let their kids make up their own minds. The Brights movement specifically even says you aren't allowed to sign your own children up-- it has to be their own choice. How many religious movements have similar rules?

Way to miss the point. Okay, since you seem to lack reading comprehension let me lay out what all of those have in common; they are all things people believe in despite credible empirical evidence to the contrary.


And religion relies on this sort of belief, and indeed encourages it. Martin Luther, who most Protestant Churches look up to as somewhat of a hero, encouraged church leaders to stamp out reason in all Christians, as it was an enemy of faith. I was raised in a Lutheran Church, and they still read Luther's Small Cathecism to children-- so you can hardly claim that nobody is influenced by him anymore.

Or, a more modern example, look at the modern ID movement. A religious movement, no matter what they say. Look at Answers in Genesis, where they specifically say they put faith in the Bible as higher than reason.

Again, I'm not saying religion is the only contributor, but you are being extremely silly to say that religion has absolutely nothing to do with this problem of people accepting things as true without evidence(faith).

And religion relies on this sort of belief, and indeed encourages it.
Exactly my point, but thanks for explaining it to me anyway like I'm an idiot.

Martin Luther, who most Protestant Churches look up to as somewhat of a hero, encouraged church leaders to stamp out reason in all Christians, as it was an enemy of faith. I was raised in a Lutheran Church, and they still read Luther's Small Cathecism to children-- so you can hardly claim that nobody is influenced by him anymore.

Or, a more modern example, look at the modern ID movement. A religious movement, no matter what they say. Look at Answers in Genesis, where they specifically say they put faith in the Bible as higher than reason.

ain, I'm not saying religion is the only contributor, but you are being extremely silly to say that religion has absolutely nothing to do with this problem of people accepting things as true without evidence(faith).
What I'm saying is people will believe stupid things regardless. If you take religion out of the mix, the same people will believe the same idiocracy.

Exactly my point, but thanks for explaining it to me anyway like I'm an idiot.




What I'm saying is people will believe stupid things regardless. If you take religion out of the mix, the same people will believe the same idiocracy.

Oh sure, some people would. But the number would be somewhat fewer, without the extra encouragement that religion provides. If you've agreed that religion encourages this thought, then I'd assume you believe that the number of people who will believe stupid things without evidence would decrease to some degree. Obviously, it's (probably) impossible to say exactly how much a difference it would make, but I'd be willing to bet it'd be quite significant.

Yes, critical thinking is a learned skill. Yes, we're not educating people very well.
Reason is not just critical thinking though.

BUT AGAIN the question is WHY? And again, it's because of ways of thinking introduced to people. We can't ignore that. That way of thinking affects every decision every person makes. How you think--whether you think critically, whether you just believe with no evidence, ect ect--can and does radically effect how you act. That's why policies are put into place, why our educational system is suffering, and so on. It's the why.

If you don't know how to use logic and reasoning, how can you be expected to listen to reason?

Here's a totally non-religious example. Colonics. People actually beleive that a normal, healthy intestine gets clogged. That five year old cornflakes live in your colon. Why do people believe this? They see professionally printed pamphlets with "testimonials" from little old ladies who say popcorn was washed out of their colon and they haven't eaten popcorn in five years.

Now, if you stop and think about this, you can see the lunacy. But people will go to great lengths to rationalize this. Why? They don't think critically. It's in a professionally printed pamphlet therefore it must be true. "My friend does it all the time, so it must be true." Nevermind that we humans have lived thousands of years and the only regular colon cleaning we have is our bowel movements. Nevermind you can look in any healthy person's colon (via a colonoscopy) and see that your colon doesn't get build-up. Heck, if you think back to 8th grade bio and the dissection of a fetal pig you know this is wrong.

It's not religion. It's humans. Specifically it's humans that haven't been taught to reason. It's the under educated.

Break down the stats. Look at how many people who are college level believe in creationism. Look at how many people with a doctorate believe in creationism. I'd be willing to bet all my savings and every penny in my pocket the more education the less is believed. Same with the colonics et al.

It's education. Not religion. But that's okay. I love the uneducated. The less people with critical thinking skills the better. Makes it easier for me to attain my goals because there's less competition.

If you don't know how to use logic and reasoning, how can you be expected to listen to reason?

Here's a totally non-religious example. Colonics. People actually beleive that a normal, healthy intestine gets clogged. That five year old cornflakes live in your colon. Why do people believe this? They see professionally printed pamphlets with "testimonials" from little old ladies who say popcorn was washed out of their colon and they haven't eaten popcorn in five years.

Now, if you stop and think about this, you can see the lunacy. But people will go to great lengths to rationalize this. Why? They don't think critically. It's in a professionally printed pamphlet therefore it must be true. "My friend does it all the time, so it must be true." Nevermind that we humans have lived thousands of years and the only regular colon cleaning we have is our bowel movements. Nevermind you can look in any healthy person's colon (via a colonoscopy) and see that your colon doesn't get build-up. Heck, if you think back to 8th grade bio and the dissection of a fetal pig you know this is wrong.

It's not religion. It's humans. Specifically it's humans that haven't been taught to reason. It's the under educated.

Break down the stats. Look at how many people who are college level believe in creationism. Look at how many people with a doctorate believe in creationism. I'd be willing to bet all my savings and every penny in my pocket the more education the less is believed. Same with the colonics et al.

It's education. Not religion. But that's okay. I love the uneducated. The less people with critical thinking skills the better. Makes it easier for me to attain my goals because there's less competition.

But religion encourages people to be content with not knowing, without education. Religion is very often strongly anti-intellectualism. I've actually been told by campus preachers, "See, coming to college has messed with your brain and brought you away from faith."
People not pursuing education because of religion. Which leads to what you're talking about.

Oh sure, some people would. But the number would be somewhat fewer, without the extra encouragement that religion provides. If you've agreed that religion encourages this thought, then I'd assume you believe that the number of people who will believe stupid things without evidence would decrease to some degree. Obviously, it's (probably) impossible to say exactly how much a difference it would make, but I'd be willing to bet it'd be quite significant.

Really? And what part of the Bible is UFO abductions and bigfoot in?

Really? And what part of the Bible is UFO abductions and bigfoot in?

Irrelevant. My claim isn't that religion encourages those specific beliefs, but that style of (not) thinking. I don't see how this is deniable, when figures still revered by many religious people today were strong Fideists.

I have my own story, and I would guess that there are at least some others like me, that demonstrates that there are people who only believe in the manner we're talking about in the case of religion, and in nothing else. Take away religion, and there's no barrier between them and rationalism. Sure, some of them who are more predisposed towards irrationality might take up bigfoot/UFOs, or whatever. But some would, once free of childhood indoctrination, not do so.

Check this out:
30 percent of adult Americans believe that UFOs are space vehicles from other civilizations; 60 percent believe in ESP; 40 percent think that astrology is scientific; 32 percent believe in lucky numbers; 70 percent accept magnetic therapy as scientific; and 88 percent accept alternative medicine.
Let's leave the alternative medicince folks alone as that will spill into a whole new debate. Okey dokey? Well, one little poke. How many people do you know that believe Airborne works? Do you really suppose a highschool teacher knew more about medicine than real scientists? The cure to the common cold is something scientists have been working on for decades. And why on earth wouldn't you sell your discovery to the highest bidder?

Okay, enough of that. Name one thing up in that list that Christianity- or any religion for that matter- has planted in someone's head. More people believe in ESP than creationsim, even by your poll that came from a website that believes bigfoot may exist. More people magnetic therapy, almost as many believe in astrology. Surely you can't blame religion for that?


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=0002F4E6-8CF7-1D49-90FB809EC5880000

Irrelevant. My claim isn't that religion encourages those specific beliefs, but that style of (not) thinking. I don't see how this is deniable, when figures still revered by many religious people today were strong Fideists.

I have my own story, and I would guess that there are at least some others like me, that demonstrates that there are people who only believe in the manner we're talking about in the case of religion, and in nothing else. Take away religion, and there's no barrier between them and rationalism. Sure, some of them who are more predisposed towards irrationality might take up bigfoot/UFOs, or whatever. But some would, once free of childhood indoctrination, not do so.

Totally relevant with the percent of people that do believe inane things that aren't based in reality. I just gave you the facts and figures to back that up.

*shrugs*

I think telling other people what they should believe is just flat-out rude. If they want to ask me what *I* believe and why, that's cool -- but I'd never harangue anyone about my beliefs being the only way or rot in hell.

I do know of several pagans around here that believe astrology as a part of their religion, but, look at it this way.

The people who believe in, say, creationism, and nothing else on the list. What if they'd not had religion plant that belief in their head with childhood indoctrination? Granted, some may have found other superstitious ideas, but there is likely some number of them that would not have instead taken up some other superstitious belief. Some number that would have, without any childhood indoctrination in any belief, grown up to be rational, thinking people. Those people demonstrate that religion is at least partially responsible for irrational thought.

*shrugs*

I think telling other people what they should believe is just flat-out rude. If they want to ask me what *I* believe and why, that's cool -- but I'd never harangue anyone about my beliefs being the only way or rot in hell.

It's not only rude, it's flat out wrong. I don't know how many people try to out- logic you into believing their way. At the end of it, I'm like "fine, you've out logic-ed me, I'm still not buying what you're selling." You can't force belief (or non-belief for that matter) on anyone unless they are extrememly weak minded. There's no emirical data either way. You cannot rove existence of a higher power. You can't prove a negative either, you cannot prove there's no higher power.

The choice to believe or not either comes from your own personal thought process or from that higher power.

What isn't cancerous about religion? It grows for the sake of growth, causes the regression of the world around it, and it kills. Cancer is accurate for describing religion.

If you're talking about the Big Three, please refer to them as such. Some religions are actually selective and require more of someone than a three minute conversion process.

I do know of several pagans around here that believe astrology as a part of their religion, but, look at it this way.

The people who believe in, say, creationism, and nothing else on the list. What if they'd not had religion plant that belief in their head with childhood indoctrination? Granted, some may have found other superstitious ideas, but there is likely some number of them that would not have instead taken up some other superstitious belief. Some number that would have, without any childhood indoctrination in any belief, grown up to be rational, thinking people. Those people demonstrate that religion is at least partially responsible for irrational thought.
You would have a leg to stand on if the stats weren't so staggering. 88% believe in alternative medicine. 70% in magnet therapy. So if these people do exist, their numbers are inconsequesntial. You also have zero empirical evidence to back up your claims. You are going on thoughts and feelings and proving my point entirely.

Because if you don't believe, you'll go to hell. Which isn't really something we want.

DONT SAY HELL MAGET

It's not only rude, it's flat out wrong. I don't know how many people try to out- logic you into believing their way. At the end of it, I'm like "fine, you've out logic-ed me, I'm still not buying what you're selling." You can't force belief (or non-belief for that matter) on anyone unless they are extrememly weak minded. There's no emirical data either way. You cannot rove existence of a higher power. You can't prove a negative either, you cannot prove there's no higher power.

The choice to believe or not either comes from your own personal thought process or from that higher power.

Agreed. Besides, I'm one of them thar weirdo Catholics who can believe in Darwinian evolution alongside my faith. ;)

You would have a leg to stand on if the stats weren't so staggering. 88% believe in alternative medicine. 70% in magnet therapy. So if these people do exist, their numbers are inconsequesntial. You also have zero empirical evidence to back up your claims. You are going on thoughts and feelings and proving my point entirely.

Well, I did admit that I can think of no way to test what a specific person would have done had they not been indoctrinated as a child, but the nearest approximation I can think of is people who have escaped religion-- and most of them, to my knowledge (admittedly anecdotal), most people who escape religion do not turn to other superstitions. Though on that fact, which can be tested, evidence would sway me away from it. If a study were done and showed that religion escapers turned to other superstitions, I'd admit I was mistaken.

The problem with using that as a comparison, though, is that the people who lose religion are precisely not the sort of person that we're speaking of.

The problem is, really, that while it's easy to find correlation between religion and irrationality, is that correlation does not imply causation.

There have been historical cases where religious people have specifically attempted to (or at least advocate such an idea) stamp out rationality in their followers. Now, would they have done this without religion? I suppose it's entirely possible, but to what motivation? Even if it doesn't always apply at the individual level, religion does encourage people to try to get rid of rationality in others, whereas beliefs like bigfoot/UFOs pretend to be rational. (While religion often does, there are many cases where it does not. See Luther, Tertullian, et c.)

Further, to go back to your comment that spawned this tangent, that (unless I misunderstood) disbelief in evolution has nothing to do with religion-- do the believers in bigfoot/UFOs have the strong tendency to disbelieve evolution, the way religious believers do? I do not know, but I see no reason why they would. If, say, all religious people were instead UFOers, do you contend that we'd still have this large a disbelief in evolution?

But now I'm just rambling. I need to sit down and think about it for a while. You may well be right, and the correlation is not causative at all. After all, my evidence for irrationality often (but certainly nowhere near always) springing directly from religious faith is largely anecdotal.

Though I must comment, I'm against bigfootism and UFOism for the same reason I am against religion. They encourage irrational beliefs in much the same way.

DONT SAY HELL MAGET

Spelling and an actual point are appreciated on this forum. Caps lock doesn't improve on any of those.

DONT SAY HELL MAGET

Needs moar gun smiley.

DONT SAY HELL MAGET

Hell, maggot.

If you're talking about the Big Three, please refer to them as such. Some religions are actually selective and require more of someone than a three minute conversion process.

Catholic Christianity, at least in the Latin Rite, which happens to be the largest by a fair amount, generally has a conversion process lasting between six months and two years from what I've seen.

Conversion to Islam is in theory a simple and short process, but I doubt many people make the decision to convert overnight.

And Hinduism happens to be the third largest religion, and I don't think conversion to Hinduism is quite so simple as to take three minutes either.

So unless you were referring to a different Big Three, I'm not particularly convinced that quick conversions are the norm for the Big Three. Those sorts of split-second changes in belief are something I've only found common in highly charismatic Christian Protestant movements.

Well, I did admit that I can think of no way to test what a specific person would have done had they not been indoctrinated as a child, but the nearest approximation I can think of is people who have escaped religion-- and most of them, to my knowledge (admittedly anecdotal), most people who escape religion do not turn to other superstitions. Though on that fact, which can be tested, evidence would sway me away from it. If a study were done and showed that religion escapers turned to other superstitions, I'd admit I was mistaken.

The problem with using that as a comparison, though, is that the people who lose religion are precisely not the sort of person that we're speaking of.

The problem is, really, that while it's easy to find correlation between religion and irrationality, is that correlation does not imply causation.
Exactly.

There have been historical cases where religious people have specifically attempted to (or at least advocate such an idea) stamp out rationality in their followers. Now, would they have done this without religion? I suppose it's entirely possible, but to what motivation? Even if it doesn't always apply at the individual level, religion does encourage people to try to get rid of rationality in others, whereas beliefs like bigfoot/UFOs pretend to be rational. (While religion often does, there are many cases where it does not. See Luther, Tertullian, et c.)
It more than likely would have been something. The stamping out of rationality is generally done for power's sake.

Further, to go back to your comment that spawned this tangent, that (unless I misunderstood) disbelief in evolution has nothing to do with religion-- do the believers in bigfoot/UFOs have the strong tendency to disbelieve evolution, the way religious believers do? I do not know, but I see no reason why they would. If, say, all religious people were instead UFOers, do you contend that we'd still have this large a disbelief in evolution?

I think there'd still be widespread disbelief in evolution. Tell me you've never heard someone say "I look at a monkey and I cannot belive I came from that." Those people just use religion as the excuse. If it weren't religion it would be because a friend of a friend heard it on the news. Or his friend's cousin Bobby works in a research place and they say evolution isn't true." Or maybe (in this day and age) because there's a paragraph on wiki about flaws in the evolution theory.

You're hard pressed to find someone who knows exactly what the definition of the "missing link" is. That has nothing to do with religion.

Yes I realize I'm now diving into anectodal land. Here's my thing; if it's not the belief in evolution, then it would be the exact same people believing in something equally unproven and inane.


But now I'm just rambling. I need to sit down and think about it for a while. You may well be right, and the correlation is not causative at all. After all, my evidence for irrationality often (but certainly nowhere near always) springing directly from religious faith is largely anecdotal.
As am I. I think I need some rest before continuing.

Though I must comment, I'm against bigfootism and UFOism for the same reason I am against religion. They encourage irrational beliefs in much the same way.

That's a rational statement.

Because if you don't believe, you'll go to hell. Which isn't really something we want.

Any religion fails when it resorts to self-preservation or carrot and stick tactics to ensure conformity. If you can't give a positive ideal outside 'believe or be punished' then the religion fails.

Hell, maggot.

Winner of thread, of course. :D

As Christians, we are called to go out and preach the good news of Jesus Christ to every nation and all people. This is found at the very end of the book of Matthew. And no, were not suppossed to force our view on you, but to tell you about the grace of God, and to explain the gospel to you so that you are informed and can make a decision to follow Jesus or not too.

Love in Christ

Really? And what part of the Bible is UFO abductions and bigfoot in?

Elijah?
http://www.logoschristian.org/ufo.html
Ezekiel?
http://ufo.whipnet.org/creation/ufo.bible/ezekiel.html

As Christians, we are called to go out and preach the good news of Jesus Christ to every nation and all people. This is found at the very end of the book of Matthew. And no, were not suppossed to force our view on you, but to tell you about the grace of God, and to explain the gospel to you so that you are informed and can make a decision to follow Jesus or not too.

Love in Christ

A big part for me, also, is the attitude that christians seem to have (and forgive me if I'm misinterpreting) that the only reason some of us aren't Christians is because we haven't heard about the Bible and Christianity. That's so... arrogant.

A big part for me, also, is the attitude that christians seem to have (and forgive me if I'm misinterpreting) that the only reason some of us aren't Christians is because we haven't heard about the Bible and Christianity. That's so... arrogant.

i think that one may be a hold over from not all that many decades back when such was often the case, at least in part.

*shrugs*

I think telling other people what they should believe is just flat-out rude. If they want to ask me what *I* believe and why, that's cool -- but I'd never harangue anyone about my beliefs being the only way or rot in hell.
I don't mind when people explain why they believe what they do, and how it has helped them. I'm probably going to be a lot more convinced to become, I don't know, a Jehovah's Witness, when the missionaries say why they became one, and not that I should join to avoid punishment.

The reason for evangelism is simple for Christianity. In many denominations, it is believed that non-Christians are going to go to hell. They think they're doing you a service by knocking on your door and bothering you. A big service, bigger than saving your life.

Actually, many atheists that I know have said that they'd rather teach their children how to think-- teach them critical thinking skills and the ability to analyze claims-- than they would teach them that there is no God, so that they can let their kids make up their own minds. The Brights movement specifically even says you aren't allowed to sign your own children up-- it has to be their own choice. How many religious movements have similar rules?

That's possible. Actually, it's more than possible, it's true. However, actual education doesn't play as large a part in teaching children than leading by example (that's how children learn to talk, and even walk). If you take a child to synagogue every week, the will probably become Jewish. If you don't go anywhere on Sundays, the children won't see why they should.

And even teaching critical thinking education is not free from bias. Plenty of religious people I know teach their children critical thinking is important, but the kids are still religious. Now, unless there is some secret part of critical thinking education those parents are leaving out, it seems safe to assume that parents don't only teach that. Similarly, it is impossible for atheists to only teach their children critical thinking, without letting their own beliefs getting out. There is nothing wrong with this. But it is unfair to claim critical thinking is exclusively the domain of nontheists, or that religionists are unable to reason.

The reason for evangelism is simple for Christianity. In many denominations, it is believed that non-Christians are going to go to hell. They think they're doing you a service by knocking on your door and bothering you. A big service, bigger than saving your life.Somehow by wanting to do you this particular service they want to determine your fate and posses you and your gratitude. Possessiveness, however, is the origin of all evil.

Somehow by wanting to do you this particular service they want to determine your fate and posses you and your gratitude. Possessiveness, however, is the origin of all evil.
Be honest now, you just made that up, didn't you?

Be honest now, you just made that up, didn't you?Nope. You should read the Silmarillion.

To want to save somebody from hell (in the Judeo-Christian understanding) means to seek power over the to-be-saved person's life. That is a form of possessiveness, and it is an attempt to gain a part of something that these self-styled saviors have no right to.

Nope. You should read the Silmarillion.
I have read it, it was pretty good. But I don't see how it relates to your claim.

To want to save somebody from hell (in the Judeo-Christian understanding) means to seek power over the to-be-saved person's life. That is a form of possessiveness, and it is an attempt to gain a part of something that these self-styled saviors have no right to.

That's the part I think you made up. If I give money to charity, I like to think that I am "saving" people, but I don't feel I own them. Do you have any evidence to support that?

That's possible. Actually, it's more than possible, it's true. However, actual education doesn't play as large a part in teaching children than leading by example (that's how children learn to talk, and even walk). If you take a child to synagogue every week, the will probably become Jewish. If you don't go anywhere on Sundays, the children won't see why they should.
Well, I'd argue that's just evidence that people will rarely pick up religion if they aren't indoctrinated. Doesn't mean that atheists raise their children to be atheists, though, the way the Christians raise their children to be Christians or Muslims raise their children to be Muslims, &c. It just means if nobody raised anybody under religious indoctrination, religion would almost disappear.

And even teaching critical thinking education is not free from bias. Plenty of religious people I know teach their children critical thinking is important, but the kids are still religious. Now, unless there is some secret part of critical thinking education those parents are leaving out, it seems safe to assume that parents don't only teach that. Similarly, it is impossible for atheists to only teach their children critical thinking, without letting their own beliefs getting out. There is nothing wrong with this. But it is unfair to claim critical thinking is exclusively the domain of nontheists, or that religionists are unable to reason.

True, they do, but they then say "But, despite this critical reasoning stuff we've taught you, you have to believe this and this and this, and you mustn't apply reason to any of it, but you should instead just accept it on faith."

True, they do, but they then say "But, despite this critical reasoning stuff we've taught you, you have to believe this and this and this, and you mustn't apply reason to any of it, but you should instead just accept it on faith."

I have never heard anyone say that.

As Christians, we are called to go out and preach the good news of Jesus Christ to every nation and all people. This is found at the very end of the book of Matthew. And no, were not suppossed to force our view on you, but to tell you about the grace of God, and to explain the gospel to you so that you are informed and can make a decision to follow Jesus or not too.

Love in Christ

Right. And you seriously assume that people living in the Western hemisphere (or indeed anywhere in the world by now) haven't heard it all before more often than they even care to remember?
The bit about making the bible known has been completed centuries ago, I would say. To pretend that you're just informing people about something they didn't know before is a lousy excuse for being a prick and infringing on their lives.

I have never heard anyone say that.

My grandfather. Several times.

My grandfather. Several times.

And the multitude of campus preachers around here. (Well, except the "we taught you" part. But the rest of it) Indeed, isn't one of the common objections to atheist arguments "But you can't apply reason to faith/God/religion! Faith is above reason!"?

That's the part I think you made up. If I give money to charity, I like to think that I am "saving" people, but I don't feel I own them. Do you have any evidence to support that?What does giving money to charity have to do with saving someone from Hell? We are talking about "saving" people as those understand it who try to win you over to their religion (which for them means saving).

I despise evangelism and, by extension, evangelists -- of all religions, of any kind. I find the practice rude, arrogant, and intrusive. I don't care about the motivations of the evangelists. Their good intentions mean nothing to me. They are annoying, which to me (just personally) is unforgiveable.

I have no problem at all with social missions in which churches organize to do good works. At least that offers some practical justification for their existence. However, I have zero respect for those churches who call their missions "good works" but in fact are just trying to impose their religious beliefs upon others indirectly -- such as supposed AIDS prevention programs that leave out mention of condoms or discourage their use. To me such groups are far, far worse arrogant bastards than the arrogant bastards who think they have a right to ring my doorbell without an appointment. They are scum, in my opinion. In some cases, murderous scum.

I care first about what people do and only second about why they do it. Regardless of why people evangelize, the techniques of evangelism are exactly the same as salesmanship. When dealing with evangelists, religion is reduced to the level of merchandise, and I see no difference between the evangelist and the door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman, or the snake oil peddlar. So to that extent, I think evangelism insults religion as much as it insults me.

EDIT: That said, since I believe absolutely in the right of religious freedom, then if a person's religion requires them to evangelize, I will defend their right to do so. Sadly, that just means I am defending their right to have me slam my front door in their faces, because I will be god-damned before I'll listen to them. ;)

Two words that are pretty much alien to my worldview and how I was raised. Hinduism doesn't proselytize. It doesn't spread itself by informing those not in-the-know about religious books and practices. No one can officially BECOME Hindu, though one can live the Hindu lifestyle. The closest thing we have to evangelism is actually more in line with personality cults built up around particular religious traditions than an actual "spreading the word" sort of thing, and they more often than not pick up followers who are already Hindu.

And the more I read about evangelism in the Abrahmic religions (the bad kind, the knocking on your door at 6 A.M. kind. Not to be confused with the "telling you about the Gospels and similar texts kind if you ask" kind, which I have little to no problem with) the more confused I get. I can understand the mentality of wanting to tell friends, and people who are already showing interest in your beliefs about your views. But to go around and spread those beliefs to those who aren't aware and don't necessarily want to listen to you, I see that as impolite. It's one thing to mention to a friend, or someone who has expressed an interest, about your religious, cultural, political, etc. beliefs especially if those beliefs are providing you with a perceived benefit. It's another thing to tell a random person on the street about them.

Still, I'm sure there's a side to this I'm not seeing, largely because I have no framework to see it in. And so I'd like an explanation, if at all possible. And I'd like to try and keep this civil, on BOTH sides of the religious spectrum.

This has probably already been said so please forgive me if I just repeat.

If you believed that by doing certain things, or living life in a certain way you would be rewarded with the greatest thing imaginable, and in addition you would live forever in perfect harmony with the entirety of the universe. Would you not tell the secret to attaining this to those closest to you? Now imagine that part of the secret was to share this secret with as many people as you could.

Religion as chain letter.

Umm yeah! Well perhaps pyramid scheme?:D

This has probably already been said so please forgive me if I just repeat.

If you believed that by doing certain things, or living life in a certain way you would be rewarded with the greatest thing imaginable, and in addition you would live forever in perfect harmony with the entirety of the universe. Would you not tell the secret to attaining this to those closest to you? Now imagine that part of the secret was to share this secret with as many people as you could.

Religion as chain letter.

This has probably already been said so please forgive me if I just repeat.

If you believed that by doing certain things, or living life in a certain way you would be rewarded with the greatest thing imaginable, and in addition you would live forever in perfect harmony with the entirety of the universe. Would you not tell the secret to attaining this to those closest to you?

If I believed that there was one magical formula to perfect happiness, I'd be a fucking moron. That's kindergarten-level thinking.


Now imagine that part of the secret was to share this secret with as many people as you could.
If one of the requirements for perfect happiness is that you insult and annoy your fellow humans, then I think you had better re-examine your theory of perfect happiness.

If I believed that there was one magical formula to perfect happiness, I'd be a fucking moron. That's kindergarten-level thinking.


If one of the requirements for perfect happiness is that you insult and annoy your fellow humans, then I think you had better re-examine your theory of perfect happiness.

Hey Bottle,

Once again you have me mightily mistaken. These are not my views, just an answer to the question asked.

Why do some religious people feel the need to prothletise?

In essence, because they feel they are helping. Get it, got it?

Two words that are pretty much alien to my worldview and how I was raised. Hinduism doesn't proselytize. It doesn't spread itself by informing those not in-the-know about religious books and practices. No one can officially BECOME Hindu, though one can live the Hindu lifestyle. The closest thing we have to evangelism is actually more in line with personality cults built up around particular religious traditions than an actual "spreading the word" sort of thing, and they more often than not pick up followers who are already Hindu.

<snip>
I'd like to mention that I am a polytheist animist, and that my kind of religion also has no such thing as evangelism in the Abrahamic-religion model, by which I mean converting non-animists to animism by persuasion. Such a thing is impossible. Animists are born, not made. You either think like an animist or you don't. Even within animist cultures, animist religions have no ability to persuade people who do not have an animist mindset to believe what the religions have to say.

However, animist religions also tend to have cults of this or that spontaneously emerge from day to day, usually on the basis of an individual person's spiritual vision of the thing the cult is about. Sometimes these cults are flash-in-the-pan fads, sometimes they have legs. Oftentimes, such new cults are evangelical, in that they want to tell people about the vision that they think is so freaking wonderful. However, like the Hindu cults, they will appeal only to people who are already animist, or prone to animistic thinking. Outside such a world-view or cultural structure, such cults would make no sense at all.

Hey Bottle,

Once again you have me mightily mistaken. These are not my views, just an answer to the question asked.

Why do some religious people feel the need to prothletise?

In essence, because they feel they are helping. Get it, got it?
Sorry if I was unclear. The "you" in my post was a general "you," not a "you, peepelonia" type of "you."

Yes, I know that some people evangelize because they think they're helping. My point is that they are either 1) being lazy and choosing not to use their brain, or 2) have thought about it and know full well that they are being an asshole, but want to keep being an asshole because they think it will benefit them.

I'd like to mention that I am a polytheist animist, and that my kind of religion also has no such thing as evangelism in the Abrahamic-religion model, by which I mean converting non-animists to animism by persuasion. Such a thing is impossible. Animists are born, not made. You either think like an animist or you don't. Even within animist cultures, animist religions have no ability to persuade people who do not have an animist mindset to believe what the religions have to say.

However, animist religions also tend to have cults of this or that spontaneously emerge from day to day, usually on the basis of an individual person's spiritual vision of the thing the cult is about. Sometimes these cults are flash-in-the-pan fads, sometimes they have legs. Oftentimes, such new cults are evangelical, in that they want to tell people about the vision that they think is so freaking wonderful. However, like the Hindu cults, they will appeal only to people who are already animist, or prone to animistic thinking. Outside such a world-view or cultural structure, such cults would make no sense at all.

Interesting. I know very little about animism, but that actually sounds conceptually a lot like Hinduism.

I wonder if that's it, the reason why Hinduism doesn't generally proselytize. It takes a particular framework and mindset to believe in it, that not even everyone in the community relates to.

Hey Bottle,

Once again you have me mightily mistaken. These are not my views, just an answer to the question asked.

Why do some religious people feel the need to prothletise?

In essence, because they feel they are helping. Get it, got it?

I get it, and I say let those who think that way take Bottle's points to heart. And I said earlier, their motives mean nothing to me. I don't care why they are annoying me, I only care that they are annoying.

It's still not relevant. Whether the Pope at the time supported him or not, he was shut down because of faith--because of believing with no evidence--rather than reason. And he was wrong in...what? Specify.

Galileo's heliocentric model of the solar system only worked if you assumed that the stars are much farther away than the sun and the planets in our solar system. Galileo had no proof of this. At all. Yet he believed it to be true. Isn't that how you just described faith?

No, he was shut down because he made a lot of enemies with his tone and nearly everyone else thought he was wrong because he preferred Archimedes as opposed to Aristotle, whom everyone else thought was right. He also lacked an explanation for parallax.

Yes, the Aristotelean model of the universe was the current scientific paradigm. Thus the lack of the supprot by the prevailing scientific community.

A big part for me, also, is the attitude that christians seem to have (and forgive me if I'm misinterpreting) that the only reason some of us aren't Christians is because we haven't heard about the Bible and Christianity. That's so... arrogant.

There is also the possibilty that the evangeliser believes that your experiences with his or her religion has been solely through misinformation or negative portrayals. By evangelising, he or she is revelaing the truth about the religion, which was previously undisclosed to you.

And the multitude of campus preachers around here. (Well, except the "we taught you" part. But the rest of it) Indeed, isn't one of the common objections to atheist arguments "But you can't apply reason to faith/God/religion! Faith is above reason!"?

But you aren't discussing the nature of debate here, You are discussing parenting. I think the question would have been better worded "How many times have you heard a theist ssay that to their children?"

If I believed that there was one magical formula to perfect happiness, I'd be a fucking moron. That's kindergarten-level thinking.

If one of the requirements for perfect happiness is that you insult and annoy your fellow humans, then I think you had better re-examine your theory of perfect happiness.

Reminds me of my friend from my teenage years. Always had a pet theory that would solve everything: one week it was enviromentalism, next it was communism, next it was behavioural engineering, then drug culture, etc. If we all believed in x and lived our lives according to x, we would solve all the world's problems!

Needless to say, he is now a Southern Baptist (or was it Reformed Baptist?) minister. You can see how organised religion would really appeal to his 'one size fits all' mentality.

And as a mystic, I can honestly say that annoying people does not bring you closer to communion with the godhead.

Anyways, i think evangelism is good and bad. An example of good: In Mexico, the Catholic Church had an incredible amount of influence. Evangelisation in Mexico by Pentecostals has led to a diminshed Catholic influence, and that has led to more debate and more religious freedom.

In the suburban developed world, though, I think it deserves a high speed baptism (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=539274).

I get it, and I say let those who think that way take Bottle's points to heart. And I said earlier, their motives mean nothing to me. I don't care why they are annoying me, I only care that they are annoying.

Heh that's quite funny. When you transport that kind of though into other subjects it makes your point seem a tad silly though.

I am(for my sins) a Leeds Utd supporter, I proudly proclaim them the best in the world and will shamelessly sing their praises to anybody willing to listen. The same is true about cake, my favorite author or the kind of music I enjoy, TV programs I like to watch, chocolate and many more aspects of life.

Would you find it annoying if you and I where to discuse my ideas on why chocolate is extreamly good for you? Or is it just religoin?

This has probably already been said so please forgive me if I just repeat.

If you believed that by doing certain things, or living life in a certain way you would be rewarded with the greatest thing imaginable, and in addition you would live forever in perfect harmony with the entirety of the universe. Would you not tell the secret to attaining this to those closest to you? Now imagine that part of the secret was to share this secret with as many people as you could.

Oh, I understand that. But I don't go from door to door telling people that being a swinger is just the bestest thing in the world. Cause I realise that it would be imposing, impolite, and most likely even insulting to a good few people.
The difference is that religious groups constantly assume that their religion gives them more rights than others.

Oh, I understand that. But I don't go from door to door telling people that being a swinger is just the bestest thing in the world. Cause I realise that it would be imposing, impolite, and most likely even insulting to a good few people.
The difference is that religious groups constantly assume that their religion gives them more rights than others.

There may be some truth in that.

Heh that's quite funny. When you transport that kind of though into other subjects it makes your point seem a tad silly though.

I am(for my sins) a Leeds Utd supporter, I proudly proclaim them the best in the world and will shamelessly sing their praises to anybody willing to listen. The same is true about cake, my favorite author or the kind of music I enjoy, TV programs I like to watch, chocolate and many more aspects of life.

Would you find it annoying if you and I where to discuse my ideas on why chocolate is extreamly good for you? Or is it just religoin?

Have you ever discussed your belief in Leeds Utd with, say, a Chelsea fan?
Was that annoying? ;)

Have you ever discussed your belief in Leeds Utd with, say, a Chelsea fan?
Was that annoying? ;)

Bwahahah naa, I don't talk to scum like that!:D

Interesting. I know very little about animism, but that actually sounds conceptually a lot like Hinduism.

I wonder if that's it, the reason why Hinduism doesn't generally proselytize. It takes a particular framework and mindset to believe in it, that not even everyone in the community relates to.
There is a great deal of overlap. From what little I know of Hinduism (as a casual student of it, never a practitioner), I think of it as one of the most highly intellectualized polytheist religions ever. However, at its root, Hinduism is a largely animist religion, although it has evolved over thousands of years to reach into areas of mysticism that are not considered integral to an ethnographical definition of animism. Note that I keep referring to "animist religions." That is because animism is a type of religion, and there are many, many religions, religious views, and religious practices that fall within the type.

My personal type is the no-longer organized form of European animist belief, focusing strongly on veneration of personal and social ancestral spirits and on veneration of local spirits within the environment. In addition, in keeping with typical animist thinking, I also have a little catalogue of personal "tutelary" spirits/gods that are pulled piecemeal from various other religions. Animists do that kind of thing. It's why evengelical religions run into trouble when they wander into places with strong animist cultural structures, like in the Pacific regions. Those people traditionally try on new religions like new clothes, keeping lots of different ones in their spiritual closets, switching outfits for different occasions, even mixing and matching to make new outfits/sects. Evangelists think they're racking up converted souls by the truckload, only to find their new believers haven't changed their views at all and still practice their other religions at the same time. Hey, even the Europeans are like that. They strut around as the uber Christians and whatnot, but in their local habits, they are just as pagan/animist/ancestor worshipping as they ever were. Crap, even in Rome, across the street from the frikkin Vatican, they still believe in stregas and propitiating the dead and hanging bull pizzles from their rear view mirrors for luck.

Heh that's quite funny. When you transport that kind of though into other subjects it makes your point seem a tad silly though.

I am(for my sins) a Leeds Utd supporter, I proudly proclaim them the best in the world and will shamelessly sing their praises to anybody willing to listen. The same is true about cake, my favorite author or the kind of music I enjoy, TV programs I like to watch, chocolate and many more aspects of life.

Would you find it annoying if you and I where to discuse my ideas on why chocolate is extreamly good for you? Or is it just religoin?
Let me make the bottom line very clear for you.

If you, without an invitation from me, interrupt my chain of thought in order to try to make me pay attention to you and/or anything that is important to you, that will annoy me. And I will hate you for it. Because I hate being annoyed.

I do not care what the topic is that you think is so frikkin interesting. I do not care how interesting you find it. It cannot be more interesting to me than the things that are interesting to me, and those are the things I am thinking about. If they do not include you, then I am not interested in you or anything connected to you or coming from you. Period.

This applies to religion, politics, chocolate, sports, your pain or happiness, and your opinions about my pain or happiness.

Evangelists are annoying because they presume to speak to me without first getting my permission to do so.

Let me make the bottom line very clear for you.

If you, without an invitation from me, interrupt my chain of thought in order to try to make me pay attention to you and/or anything that is important to you, that will annoy me. And I will hate you for it. Because I hate being annoyed.

I do not care what the topic is that you think is so frikkin interesting. I do not care how interesting you find it. It cannot be more interesting to me than the things that are interesting to me, and those are the things I am thinking about. If they do not include you, then I am not interested in you or anything connected to you or coming from you. Period.

This applies to religion, politics, chocolate, sports, your pain or happiness, and your opinions about my pain or happiness.

Evangelists are annoying because they presume to speak to me without first getting my permission to do so.


Your life, live it as you wish. Do you though afford others the same, could I blankly tell you to fuck off and stop annoying me, without upsetting you?

Secondly, I cry 'ohhhhh handbag' on you and your sulky words.:eek:

Evangelists are annoying because they presume to speak to me without first getting my permission to do so.

That and they expect you to listen to their 'important message' but have no interest at all in any kind of reciprocation.

I don't care what the topic - religion, or otherwise - if someone wants me to listen to their little lecture, they better be willing to hear (and that means actually listen, if they expect the same courtesy, not just nod along looking for a space to speak) what I have to say, also, or we are not going to get along.

Your life, live it as you wish. Do you though afford others the same, could I blankly tell you to fuck off and stop annoying me, without upsetting you?

Secondly, I cry 'ohhhhh handbag' on you and your sulky words.:eek:

Is it really too much to ask for a little courtesy? I think Muravyets was suggesting that it offends her that people assume they have to right to circumvent politeness, and that they instantly assume she can't possibly be doing anything more important than hearing someone preach.

Interesting. I know very little about animism, but that actually sounds conceptually a lot like Hinduism.

I wonder if that's it, the reason why Hinduism doesn't generally proselytize. It takes a particular framework and mindset to believe in it, that not even everyone in the community relates to.
It should also be pointed out that, within animistic societies, there are plenty of native people, raised within the culture, who don't believe in the religious views. The animist religions do not make any effort to change their minds.

Possibly, this is because one of the key features of animist religions is that they are "practical" religions. They generally have little or no concern with the future of a person's soul after death or with "salvation" or such things. They are concerned with maintaining a good spiritual balance in THIS world and, therefore, put heavy emphasis on practical considerations such as crops, weather, health, safety, material existence, ensuring good conditions for various endeavors, etc. If you don't need anything from the spirits, there is little point in going to their shrines, and if you don't believe in them at all, well, then you obviously don't think you need anything from them.

Is it really too much to ask for a little courtesy? I think Muravyets was suggesting that it offends her that people assume they have to right to circumvent politeness, and that they instantly assume she can't possibly be doing anything more important than hearing someone preach.


It didn't read that way to me. I could of course be wrong, this is 'net forum after all.

Naa to me it read 'don't wanna talk to you, waaaaaaaaa!'

Come on we really have to ask each others permission to talk to each other?

I know people the peddle the same sort of line that Muravyets has done here, and not one of them shows anything other than basic social skills.

Like I said though, we should all feel free to life how we like, be anti social, or try to foist you own brand of 'good news' off onto others, whatever.

It didn't read that way to me. I could of course be wrong, this is 'net forum after all.

Naa to me it read 'don't wanna talk to you, waaaaaaaaa!'

Come on we really have to ask each others permission to talk to each other?

I know people the peddle the same sort of line that Muravyets has done here, and not one of them shows anything other than basic social skills.

Like I said though, we should all feel free to life how we like, be anti social, or try to foist you own brand of 'good news' off onto others, whatever.

I disagree. I think we should all make at least an attempt to respect one another, to some extent. Otherwise, we've no real room to speak when someone turns around and smacks us in the face for pushing our stupid shit on them.

After the constant (and fairly aggressive) preaching I receive on a (literally) daily basis, from 'Christians' in my locale, it is sometimes tempting to start banging on random doors and greeting them with some kind of comment about 'you do know your god is made up, right'?

But I don't, because I'm not an asshole, and - just because they have no respect for my boundaries, doesn't mean I have to lower myself to their level.

I do, however, have a great deal of respect who are willing to share their 'good news' in a reasonable fashion.

I don't have any particular problem with people of differing faiths evangelizing toward me. I've had many indepth discussions with LDS', JW's and SDA's. Not to say they have or will convert me, but I have no problem discussing with them, nor have they acted in a retaliatory manner when I have discussed how my views differ with theirs.

I disagree. I think we should all make at least an attempt to respect one another, to some extent. Otherwise, we've no real room to speak when someone turns around and smacks us in the face for pushing our stupid shit on them.

After the constant (and fairly aggressive) preaching I receive on a (literally) daily basis, from 'Christians' in my locale, it is sometimes tempting to start banging on random doors and greeting them with some kind of comment about 'you do know your god is made up, right'?

But I don't, because I'm not an asshole, and - just because they have no respect for my boundaries, doesn't mean I have to lower myself to their level.

I do, however, have a great deal of respect who are willing to share their 'good news' in a reasonable fashion.


Sorry now I'm confused, what are you disagreeing with?

Your life, live it as you wish. Do you though afford others the same, could I blankly tell you to fuck off and stop annoying me, without upsetting you?
Yes, absolutely. The only thing that would upset me would be the realization that I had annoyed you, but I would fix that by stopping. My best friends often tell me to shut up when I forget myself and go on and on about something they're not interested in, and I do likewise with them. We do try to do it politely.

When it comes to strangers, I do not engage strangers in unsolicited conversations, so the issue has never come up.

NSG, obviously, is a special case. None of the conversations here are unsolicited because no one is forced to enter a thread, and anyone can use the ignore function to avoid being annoyed by another participant.

Secondly, I cry 'ohhhhh handbag' on you and your sulky words.:eek:
I find it amusing when people respond to blunt speech with accusations of "sulkiness" and similar demeaning words. I told you where and why I draw the line on what annoys me. I fail to get the "handbag" connection.

I don't have any particular problem with people of differing faiths evangelizing toward me. I've had many indepth discussions with LDS', JW's and SDA's. Not to say they have or will convert me, but I have no problem discussing with them, nor have they acted in a retaliatory manner when I have discussed how my views differ with theirs.

I've had a number of really good conversations with local evangelising Witnesses. However, they were respectful enough to start the conversation with a simple 'do you mind...' question, checking if it was okay to take up some of my time to discuss something they think is really important.

A little gesture like that goes a long way.

My grandfather. Several times.

So did my junior school teacher.

Yes, absolutely. The only thing that would upset me would be the realization that I had annoyed you, but I would fix that by stopping. My best friends often tell me to shut up when I forget myself and go on and on about something they're not interested in, and I do likewise with them. We do try to do it politely.

When it comes to strangers, I do not engage strangers in unsolicited conversations, so the issue has never come up.

NSG, obviously, is a special case. None of the conversations here are unsolicited because no one is forced to enter a thread, and anyone can use the ignore function to avoid being annoyed by another participant.


I find it amusing when people respond to blunt speech with accusations of "sulkiness" and similar demeaning words. I told you where and why I draw the line on what annoys me. I fail to get the "handbag" connection.


Fair doo's then. I find it an odd way to live, it seems quite insular to me.

You do not consider it sulky to proclaim something along the lines, of 'go away, I don't wish to talk to you, I don't even know you'? You don't see it as a little bit anti social? It seems both to me.

The handbag reference is a bit of slang it means, broadly 'ahh wazermatter my baby?' or even 'ahhh diddums want his dummy?'

Which is to say it means, stop ya whinging and bleating, ahhh them naughty people insist on haveing unsocilited conversations with you, ahhh my sweetness.

Fair doo's then. I find it an odd way to live, it seems quite insular to me.

You do not consider it sulky to proclaim something along the lines, of 'go away, I don't wish to talk to you, I don't even know you'? You don't see it as a little bit anti social? It seems both to me.

The handbag reference is a bit of slang it means, broadly 'ahh wazermatter my baby?' or even 'ahhh diddums want his dummy?'

Which is to say it means, stop ya whinging and bleating, ahhh them naughty people insist on haveing unsocilited conversations with you, ahhh my sweetness.

I don't get this... the message seems to be "saying you don't want to talk to me is 'bad'... but me pissing my pants because you don't want to talk to me is okay".

Maybe I'm missing something subtle?

It didn't read that way to me. I could of course be wrong, this is 'net forum after all.

Naa to me it read 'don't wanna talk to you, waaaaaaaaa!'
You are indeed wrong. GnI is right.

Come on we really have to ask each others permission to talk to each other?
Yes, you do have to ask other people's permmission to talk to them. That's called courtesy. That's called being mindful enough of others to think they may be busy at the moment.

I know people the peddle the same sort of line that Muravyets has done here, and not one of them shows anything other than basic social skills.
Tarring me the same brush as your (possibly fictional) under-developed friends is nothing more than an indirect personal insult that is unprovoked and completely out of line.

If you need to be reminded (after Bottle already reminded you), we are using the rhetorical "you" here. We are talking about a generic idea of "evangelists," not about Peepleonia. You yourself claimed that you were merely describing, not defending, the evangelical viewpoint, and that you yourself do not think that way. Now you are acting very defensive and offended at my statement of why I dislike the tactics of evangelists, as if I had attacked your personal views.

Like I said though, we should all feel free to life how we like, be anti social, or try to foist you own brand of 'good news' off onto others, whatever.
I would like to see your justification of how people have the right to try to foist their views onto others. I do think evangelists have the right to evangelize. But how do they have the right to evangelize to me, or to any other given individual? Because if they have no right to target me for their little lectures, then they have no right to try to foist their views onto me. Do they?

I've had a number of really good conversations with local evangelising Witnesses. However, they were respectful enough to start the conversation with a simple 'do you mind...' question, checking if it was okay to take up some of my time to discuss something they think is really important.

A little gesture like that goes a long way.

The one thing that really pisses me off, and you should try going out and viewing this on a Sunday time period after church services (and its generally baptists that do it), is watch them "tip" their wait(er)(res) with a gospel tract.

You are indeed wrong. GnI is right.


I am. I always am. There should be like a law or something.

:D


Yes, you do have to ask other people's permmission to talk to them. That's called courtesy. That's called being mindful enough of others to think they may be busy at the moment.


Agreed.


Tarring me the same brush as your (possibly fictional) under-developed friends is nothing more than an indirect personal insult that is unprovoked and completely out of line.


And wrong. You rock out loud. :)

I don't get this... the message seems to be "saying you don't want to talk to me is 'bad'... but me pissing my pants because you don't want to talk to me is okay".

Maybe I'm missing something subtle?

Huh? What you talking about? The message was simply, I find it an odd way to live ones life, telling people that you cannot talk to them. It seems inward, and unsocial to me.

If a bloke I had never met before come up to me in the pub, and started to talk to me about his footie team(for example) it would not bother me, interested or not. I would not 'cop a sulk' as Muravyets, has told us that she/he would, and think how dear you initiate an unsoliceted conversation with me.

If I didn't want to talk to the man, I would let it be known, but I just would not think to my self, how rude.

Galileo's heliocentric model of the solar system only worked if you assumed that the stars are much farther away than the sun and the planets in our solar system. Galileo had no proof of this. At all. Yet he believed it to be true. Isn't that how you just described faith?

As the distance of stars was not measurable at the time, the two systems were judged by their performance against each other and Galileo's was superior. There's a difference between something which is testable in principle, if not in practice, and something which is not testable at all.

Yes, the Aristotelean model of the universe was the current scientific paradigm. Thus the lack of the supprot by the prevailing scientific community.

I'm not sure where you got that idea from; by the time Galileo published the majority of scientists had accepted Heliocentrism and it was only the Catholic Church which was burying its collective head in the sand lashing out at dissidents. To quote Dennett:

Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems [was] not published until 1632, when the issue was no longer controversial among scientists.

I've had a number of really good conversations with local evangelising Witnesses. However, they were respectful enough to start the conversation with a simple 'do you mind...' question, checking if it was okay to take up some of my time to discuss something they think is really important.

A little gesture like that goes a long way.

That little question is the entire journey, in my opinion. If someone asks if they may take up my time, I will consider their request respectfully. If I say no, and they say, ok, thank you, good-bye, I will think well of them as people and may be more likely to make time for them on another occasion.

The one thing that really pisses me off, and you should try going out and viewing this on a Sunday time period after church services (and its generally baptists that do it), is watch them "tip" their wait(er)(res) with a gospel tract.

I've seen that done. It's quite popular around here. Because of course, when you're a young single mom with a crappy dead-end less-than-minimum-wage job, what you really need is bible tracts.

Now, if only the electric company would start accepting them in payment.

I've seen that done. It's quite popular around here. Because of course, when you're a young single mom with a crappy dead-end less-than-minimum-wage job, what you really need is bible tracts.

Now, if only the electric company would start accepting them in payment.

LOL, yeah, I'd like to see these people hand the Electric company or telephone company a tract in replace of payment.

You are indeed wrong. GnI is right.


Yes, you do have to ask other people's permmission to talk to them. That's called courtesy. That's called being mindful enough of others to think they may be busy at the moment.


Tarring me the same brush as your (possibly fictional) under-developed friends is nothing more than an indirect personal insult that is unprovoked and completely out of line.

If you need to be reminded (after Bottle already reminded you), we are using the rhetorical "you" here. We are talking about a generic idea of "evangelists," not about Peepleonia. You yourself claimed that you were merely describing, not defending, the evangelical viewpoint, and that you yourself do not think that way. Now you are acting very defensive and offended at my statement of why I dislike the tactics of evangelists, as if I had attacked your personal views.


I would like to see your justification of how people have the right to try to foist their views onto others. I do think evangelists have the right to evangelize. But how do they have the right to evangelize to me, or to any other given individual? Because if they have no right to target me for their little lectures, then they have no right to try to foist their views onto me. Do they?


Wrong wrong wrong. I have not insulted you, I have made fun of an attitude of life that makes no sense to me, if that is insulting to you, then by all means choose to grab that 'handbag' in both arms and be insulted.

The royal you, the personal you, or the rethorical you, I am not even thinking of. What I am responding to was you post showing the sulky attitude of self ego, was I offended by it, not at all, am I free to take the piss, yep and that is all that I have done.

Fair doo's then. I find it an odd way to live, it seems quite insular to me.

You do not consider it sulky to proclaim something along the lines, of 'go away, I don't wish to talk to you, I don't even know you'? You don't see it as a little bit anti social? It seems both to me.

The handbag reference is a bit of slang it means, broadly 'ahh wazermatter my baby?' or even 'ahhh diddums want his dummy?'

Which is to say it means, stop ya whinging and bleating, ahhh them naughty people insist on haveing unsocilited conversations with you, ahhh my sweetness.
Oh, I see. You were deliberately trying to insult me by talking to me as if I were a child. Well, to use a local NYC slang expression, "Fuck you, too."

Now we see where my attitude towards other people comes from. (*ignores Peepleonia until he/she learns how to behave*)

Huh? What you talking about? The message was simply, I find it an odd way to live ones life, telling people that you cannot talk to them. It seems inward, and unsocial to me.


That was the simple message? I knew I must be missing something subtle. I thought you tacked on a load of crap about 'handbags' and spitting dummy references.

I stand corrected.


If a bloke I had never met before come up to me in the pub, and started to talk to me about his footie team(for example) it would not bother me, interested or not. I would not 'cop a sulk' as Muravyets, has told us that she/he would, and think how dear you initiate an unsoliceted conversation with me.

If I didn't want to talk to the man, I would let it be known, but I just would not think to my self, how rude.

Leeds supporter, right? Of course you wouldn't consider it rude... it'd make a change that someone would want to talk to you. :D

That little question is the entire journey, in my opinion. If someone asks if they may take up my time, I will consider their request respectfully. If I say no, and they say, ok, thank you, good-bye, I will think well of them as people and may be more likely to make time for them on another occasion.

Agreed. It always seems to escape some peope that - right or wrong - they are examples of the product they are selling. If Christians always act like assholes, people are going to think all Christians are assholes.

I'm not sure why someone would want to queer their own pitch in such a way, but... I guess I just don't understand people.

I am. I always am. There should be like a law or something.

:D
I'll start lobbying for it next week. ;)



Agreed.



And wrong. You rock out loud. :)
Thank you, dear. :fluffle:

LOL, yeah, I'd like to see these people hand the Electric company or telephone company a tract in replace of payment.

"I'd like a McNugget Happy Meal, please.... you take Chick Tracts, right?"

The one thing that really pisses me off, and you should try going out and viewing this on a Sunday time period after church services (and its generally baptists that do it), is watch them "tip" their wait(er)(res) with a gospel tract.

I've seen that done. It's quite popular around here. Because of course, when you're a young single mom with a crappy dead-end less-than-minimum-wage job, what you really need is bible tracts.

Now, if only the electric company would start accepting them in payment.
Please tell me you guys are kidding and that doesn't really happen.

Please tell me you guys are kidding and that doesn't really happen.

I'm not, I've witnesses it many times. And I have friends who work in the restaurant industry who've been the victim of it. You have someone working for 2.15-3.00 per hour, who need tips to make up the extra income, and someone leaves a bible tract (and they have some that actually are printing like currency on one side) but no monetary tip.

Please tell me you guys are kidding and that doesn't really happen.

Rural North-East Georgia. It really happens. It's like a universal answer. I've been handed tracts among the cash for rentals, when I worked at a video store... found them in the video cases... been handed them by chemical company reps in my current job... had them stapled to my wage packet.. you name it.

I can't imagine how offended I would be if someone tipped me with one... I've been mortified just seeing other people be the victim.

The one thing that really pisses me off, and you should try going out and viewing this on a Sunday time period after church services (and its generally baptists that do it), is watch them "tip" their wait(er)(res) with a gospel tract.

That really would piss me off. Same with the ones that give out Chick Tracts on Halloween. I always hated those guys.

Oh, I see. You were deliberately trying to insult me by talking to me as if I were a child. Well, to use a local NYC slang expression, "Fuck you, too."

Now we see where my attitude towards other people comes from. (*ignores Peepleonia until he/she learns how to behave*)

Ohhh really! lets just go through this then huh.

I said:

'Heh that's quite funny. When you transport that kind of thought into other subjects it makes your point seem a tad silly though.

I am(for my sins) a Leeds Utd supporter, I proudly proclaim them the best in the world and will shamelessly sing their praises to anybody willing to listen. The same is true about cake, my favorite author or the kind of music I enjoy, TV programs I like to watch, chocolate and many more aspects of life.

Would you find it annoying if you and I where to discuse my ideas on why chocolate is extreamly good for you? Or is it just religoin?

As you can see, I am in good homour here, and what I have asked you to consider is would you thing the same about other topics, or is it just relioign.

You said:


Let me make the bottom line very clear for you.'
If you, without an invitation from me, interrupt my chain of thought in order to try to make me pay attention to you and/or anything that is important to you, that will annoy me. And I will hate you for it. Because I hate being annoyed.

I do not care what the topic is that you think is so frikkin interesting. I do not care how interesting you find it. It cannot be more interesting to me than the things that are interesting to me, and those are the things I am thinking about. If they do not include you, then I am not interested in you or anything connected to you or coming from you. Period.

This applies to religion, politics, chocolate, sports, your pain or happiness, and your opinions about my pain or happiness.

Evangelists are annoying because they presume to speak to me without first getting my permission to do so

What you have told me is that you don't like talking to people you don't know, you would actualy hate and resent a person who you did not know trying to talk you, and you are only interested in you, and things pertianing to you.

Yes it struck me as sulky and indeed childish, hence the tone of my reply. Now of course you don't show me anything other than more, childish, sulky behavour with you comment on ignoring me, until I learn to behave.

Behave in what mannor I wonder, childish or sulky? Still as I also said right at the very begining, you are free to live how you wish, but I'm still free to take the piss.

Agreed. It always seems to escape some peope that - right or wrong - they are examples of the product they are selling. If Christians always act like assholes, people are going to think all Christians are assholes.

I'm not sure why someone would want to queer their own pitch in such a way, but... I guess I just don't understand people.

I tend to put it down to ego-tripping, but then I'm a cynic. But I mean, look at how some people get so bent out of shape at the mere suggestion that someone else doesn't want to talk to them and thinks it's rude of them to interrupt the person's private thoughts/day. They react with wholesale insults and personal attacks. To me, it seems as if the message is, "How dare you not want to pay attention to me?"

But as I said, I'm a cynic.

Oh...that is So. Incredibly. Wrong. I feel like someone just threw something at me, I'm that shocked that anyone would do such a thing. The bible lit WITH a tip, I could see, but instead of? That's just fucking cheap. And disguising it as money??? A person deserves a punch in the mouth for that kind of thing. I'm sorry, but there it is.

*resolves to tip even more on Sundays from now on*

Hell, I'll do the same. I may be on a college budget and unable to really afford it, but damn, it's the principle of the matter!

I'm not, I've witnesses it many times. And I have friends who work in the restaurant industry who've been the victim of it. You have someone working for 2.15-3.00 per hour, who need tips to make up the extra income, and someone leaves a bible tract (and they have some that actually are printing like currency on one side) but no monetary tip.

Oh...that is So. Incredibly. Wrong. I feel like someone just threw something at me, I'm that shocked that anyone would do such a thing. The bible lit WITH a tip, I could see, but instead of? That's just fucking cheap. And disguising it as money??? A person deserves a punch in the mouth for that kind of thing. I'm sorry, but there it is.

*resolves to tip even more on Sundays from now on*

That really would piss me off. Same with the ones that give out Chick Tracts on Halloween. I always hated those guys.

Ah, I forgot that one. Nothing like dropping your religious propaganda in lil kiddies candy baskets.

Oh...that is So. Incredibly. Wrong. I feel like someone just threw something at me, I'm that shocked that anyone would do such a thing. The bible lit WITH a tip, I could see, but instead of? That's just fucking cheap. And disguising it as money??? A person deserves a punch in the mouth for that kind of thing. I'm sorry, but there it is.

*resolves to tip even more on Sundays from now on*

I don't get how someone can have that fundamental lack of respect for the service they are provided, to start with.

I'm not sure I'd have the balls to pull a stunt like that on someone who has it within their power to make my meatloaf contain more than the recommended daily dose of bodily waste.

Rural North-East Georgia. It really happens. It's like a universal answer. I've been handed tracts among the cash for rentals, when I worked at a video store... found them in the video cases... been handed them by chemical company reps in my current job... had them stapled to my wage packet.. you name it.

I can't imagine how offended I would be if someone tipped me with one... I've been mortified just seeing other people be the victim.
On rare occasions up here in the Northeast (one thing you gotta give the Puritans, they know how to keep their mouths shut), I've seen such things included WITH cash at shops, in tips, etc. If I'm the recipient, I just throw them away (right in front of the person who handed it to me, if they're still there). But the idea of doing that INSTEAD of paying a tip....I can't wrap my brain around how that can be seen as anything other than a mean prank.

<snip a bunch of insulting crap none of which was an apology>

Read my earlier post about ignoring you until you learn how to behave. This is the last post you will receive from me. Either amend your manners or save your energy and stop talking to me altogether.

Rural North-East Georgia. It really happens. It's like a universal answer. I've been handed tracts among the cash for rentals, when I worked at a video store... found them in the video cases... been handed them by chemical company reps in my current job... had them stapled to my wage packet.. you name it.

I can't imagine how offended I would be if someone tipped me with one... I've been mortified just seeing other people be the victim.
What's in these tracts?

What's in these tracts?

The most common form of attack is the straight forward 'message of salvation'... which is usually a few quotes from Matthew and a few from John forming an undeniably potent argument for immediate conversion. Or something like that.

I've seen others... anti-abortion or anti-gay-marriage, for example. And this is one of the parts of the US where you might get handed a Chick tract.. .in which case it could be anything from how 'Mohammedans' want to steal our babies, to why Satan will seduce you with witchcraft if you play Dungeons and Dragons.

The most common form of attack is the straight forward 'message of salvation'... which is usually a few quotes from Matthew and a few from John forming an undeniably potent argument for immediate conversion. Or something like that.Hmmm... I must have skipped those undeniably potent arguments when reading Matthew and John. What arguments would that be?

I've seen others... anti-abortion or anti-gay-marriage, for example. And this is one of the parts of the US where you might get handed a Chick tract.. .in which case it could be anything from how 'Mohammedans' want to steal our babies, to why Satan will seduce you with witchcraft if you play Dungeons and Dragons.Sounds like the propaganda that Muslims are frequently accused of conducting. Are they already piling up pyres over there?

Hmmm... I must have skipped those undeniably potent arguments when reading Matthew and John. What arguments would that be?


Oh ye of little faith. You're never going to get anywhere with an attitude like that.


Sounds like the propaganda that Muslims are frequently accused of conducting. Are they already piling up pyres over there?

No... that's the thing. It's bad when 'they' do it, but it's okay if 'we' do.

Oh ye of little faith. You're never going to get anywhere with an attitude like that.??

No... that's the thing. It's bad when 'they' do it, but it's okay if 'we' do.American christians are weird folks...

The world would be a better place if people stopped preaching to each other and just let the rest of us live in our sinfully unrestricted ways the world would be a better place. After all, I can't go to hell if I don't believe in it to begin with so I don't need to be "saved".

After all, I can't go to hell if I don't believe in it to begin withThat is an illogical statement. If you were to not believe in the Grand Canyon's existence, could you not fall into it? Since when does the existence of something depend on *your* beliefs?

If a bloke I had never met before come up to me in the pub, and started to talk to me about his footie team(for example) it would not bother me, interested or not. I would not 'cop a sulk' as Muravyets, has told us that she/he would, and think how dear you initiate an unsoliceted conversation with me.

If I didn't want to talk to the man, I would let it be known, but I just would not think to my self, how rude.

In my experience, a polite "I'm not really interested, sorry" never deterred neither drunk footie fan nor religious evangelist...

That is an illogical statement. If you were to not believe in the Grand Canyon's existence, could you not fall into it? Since when does the existence of something depend on *your* beliefs?

Does it work in the realm of quantum physics, I wonder? ;)

In my experience, a polite "I'm not really interested, sorry" never deterred neither drunk footie fan nor religious evangelist...

Well you do have a point, but I'm gonna say mostly instead of never.

That really would piss me off. Same with the ones that give out Chick Tracts on Halloween. I always hated those guys.

I can't stand Chick Tracks... It's some of the most ridiculous stuff I've ever seen in those things.

Well you do have a point, but I'm gonna say mostly instead of never.

I haven't met every single individual in either category ;)
But those I've met usually had very little regard for politeness...

The most common form of attack is the straight forward 'message of salvation'... which is usually a few quotes from Matthew and a few from John forming an undeniably potent argument for immediate conversion. Or something like that.

I've seen others... anti-abortion or anti-gay-marriage, for example. And this is one of the parts of the US where you might get handed a Chick tract.. .in which case it could be anything from how 'Mohammedans' want to steal our babies, to why Satan will seduce you with witchcraft if you play Dungeons and Dragons.
I propose the following:

Take the text of these "tracts" and reduce them onto trading cards. Put some appropriate illustration on the other side of the card (Our Lady of Guadalupe summoning The Grace (tm) or John Calvin putting the smack down on a coven of witches), and a list of powers and attributes that go with it. NOW you really do have something to hand out to kiddies on Halloween.

EDIT: Don't forget the Christmas and Easter deluxe card sets with 10-sided dice included.

I haven't met every single individual in either category ;)
But those I've met usually had very little regard for politeness...
Well, drunk sports fans are their own category, but in general, there are rude, inconsiderate people and there are polite, considerate people. Being an evangelist doesn't make you rude. You have to be rude to begin with. My opinion, however, is that the nature of evangelist activities is so inherently intrusive, it makes evanglism attractive to rude people, so you are likely to find at least as many rude evangelists as polite ones.

I have a big beef with rude, inconsiderate people. I also have a big beef with evangelism because of its intrusive nature. I realize they are two different sets of annoying things, and only partially overlap.

That is an illogical statement. If you were to not believe in the Grand Canyon's existence, could you not fall into it? Since when does the existence of something depend on *your* beliefs?

You cannot compare something abstract (hell) to a concrete one (the Grand Canyon). Fail.

That is an illogical statement. If you were to not believe in the Grand Canyon's existence, could you not fall into it? Since when does the existence of something depend on *your* beliefs?
It's a perfectly logical statement.

If I walk up to you and tell you that there is a giant chasm--the size of the Grand Canyon, in fact--directly behind you, and that if you turn around and take two steps you will plummet to your death, what would you do?

Would you "logically" accept my statement and behave as if there were a canyon directly behind you? Or would you, say, make some effort to confirm the existence of the canyon?

If you turned around and noted absolutely no evidence of a canyon, would you still behave as if one were there?

Asserting the existence of some magical torture dimension is no different. I'm not going to embrace belief in something simply because some yahoo suggests it. I require, at the very least, SOME evidence that there is a Hell. I have never encountered any. And I've looked.

It's a perfectly logical statement.

If I walk up to you and tell you that there is a giant chasm--the size of the Grand Canyon, in fact--directly behind you, and that if you turn around and take two steps you will plummet to your death, what would you do?

Would you "logically" accept my statement and behave as if there were a canyon directly behind you? Or would you, say, make some effort to confirm the existence of the canyon?

If you turned around and noted absolutely no evidence of a canyon, would you still behave as if one were there?

Asserting the existence of some magical torture dimension is no different. I'm not going to embrace belief in something simply because some yahoo suggests it. I require, at the very least, SOME evidence that there is a Hell. I have never encountered any. And I've looked.
UB seems to have a... non-conformist... notion of what constitutes logic. I sometimes think the arguments he makes here are just parts of a larger argument matrix, the whole of which has not been revealed. The parts left unsaid would account for the many gaping holes in everything he posts.

You cannot compare something abstract (hell) to a concrete one (the Grand Canyon). Fail.For a Christian who wants to save you from hell by showing you his faith and maybe converting you hell is as concrete as the Grand Canyon.
And anyways does hell's existence not depend on *your* personal beliefs. How can you claim that hell is abstract? There is no way of knowing (except by getting there), is there?

"After all, I can't go to hell if I don't believe in it to begin with" makes no sense at all. Because if hell does in fact exist, you could well get there without believing in it.

(Spiritual Dude=Evangelical dude, Moi=French for ‘me’)
Spiritual Dude: "If you believe in Jesus then you'll go to heaven"
Moi: "That simple?"
Spiritual Dude: "Yes, that simple my friend."
Moi: "& all the time, I've been praying five times a day facing Mecca. Fasting for one month of the year (Ramadan), Giving alms to the needy, planned visiting Mecca and other holy sites, and you say just believing in Jesus will get me into paradise?"
Spiritual Dude: "Yes"
Moi: "Do you know that I follow another faith?"
Spiritual Dude: "Well yes but...."
Moi: "Do you think my religion is wrong?"
Spiritual Dude:" uhhmm..."
Moi: "Do you know that we Muslims do believe in Jesus just as we believe in Prophet Muhammad?"
Spiritual Dude: "You do?"
Moi: "Yes, Arabic name for Jesus is Isa, the only difference is, for Islam, it is heresy to claim that God had a son."
Spiritual Dude: "Wow, I didn't know that."
Moi: "Are you interested in reading in these Muslim pamphlets?"
Spiritual Dude: "Okay, sure"

This kind of scenario actually happens to me quite often these days. Oddly enough, this happen to me just before entering a Mosque. It didn’t irritate me because I enjoy sharing knowledge.

UB seems to have a... non-conformist... notion of what constitutes logic. I sometimes think the arguments he makes here are just parts of a larger argument matrix, the whole of which has not been revealed. The parts left unsaid would account for the many gaping holes in everything he posts.

as much as i hate to side with UB, surely he is right.

just as the existence of the grand canyon is independant of my belief in it, so is the existence of hell.

that a billion or so christians beleive in hell doesnt make hell exist. that a few billion others (leaving other hell believing religions out of it) DONT believe in hell doesnt make hell not exist.

and while the extremely remote chance of hell existing isnt much of a reason for anyone to believe in it, lack of belief is irrelevant to whether or not it exists.

if hell exists, Kryozerkia's lack of belief in it is as irrelevant to whether or not he ends up there as his lack of belief in the grand canyon is irrelevant to his falling in if he steps past the edge.

if hell exists, Kryozerkia's lack of belief in it is as irrelevant to whether or not he ends up there as his lack of belief in the grand canyon is irrelevant to his falling in if he steps past the edge.

The argument Kryo should have made is: those who don't believe in 'hell' are hardly going to be worried about ending up there.

Or something along those lines.

The argument Kryo should have made is: those who don't believe in 'hell' are hardly going to be worried about ending up there.

Or something along those lines.

which is the position i take.

the chances of hell existing are so remote that id be better served by worrying about being killed by a meteor while gardening.

which is the position i take.

the chances of hell existing are so remote that id be better served by worrying about being killed by a meteor while gardening.

Agreed. Me too. And, I don't even do gardening. :D

as much as i hate to side with UB, surely he is right.Well, if hell does exist, it surely has frozen over now. :eek:

It's a perfectly logical statement.

If I walk up to you and tell you that there is a giant chasm--the size of the Grand Canyon, in fact--directly behind you, and that if you turn around and take two steps you will plummet to your death, what would you do?

Would you "logically" accept my statement and behave as if there were a canyon directly behind you? Or would you, say, make some effort to confirm the existence of the canyon?

Err..yes, of course I would. I lose nothing by accepting what you say to be true, but if there really is a canyon behind me, I can lose a lot by not accepting it. I understand your point (I think), that there is no reason to believe something without evidence. But that's not what your example proves.

I propose the following:

Take the text of these "tracts" and reduce them onto trading cards. Put some appropriate illustration on the other side of the card (Our Lady of Guadalupe summoning The Grace (tm) or John Calvin putting the smack down on a coven of witches), and a list of powers and attributes that go with it. NOW you really do have something to hand out to kiddies on Halloween.

EDIT: Don't forget the Christmas and Easter deluxe card sets with 10-sided dice included.

I think this is something Ned Flanders gave out.

Well, if hell does exist, it surely has frozen over now. :eek:

it must be a byproduct of global warming.

Err..yes, of course I would. I lose nothing by accepting what you say to be true, but if there really is a canyon behind me, I can lose a lot by not accepting it. I understand your point (I think), that there is no reason to believe something without evidence. But that's not what your example proves.

Are you serious? Okay, let's extend this further. Pretend you're walking to work/school/a friend's house/whatever. And somebody walks up to you and says "Hey, there's a giant canyon right in front of you, the depth of the Grand Canyon. But, it's invisible, due to a magical illusion. Trust me, though, it's there. Go a mile down that way, it's safe to cross there." Would you take the mile-long detour? Or would you act on the assumption that the person is lying and/or wrong?

or you could try a comparison that makes a bit more sense [well, in terms of making the point. not so much in terms of 'that's not a stupid situation']...

say you're Blind and someone else [who's Also blind] tells you there's a canyon right in front of you but if you go X distance to the right there's a safe crossing.

what do you do?

[it's a more accurate comparison]

Are you serious? Okay, let's extend this further. Pretend you're walking to work/school/a friend's house/whatever. And somebody walks up to you and says "Hey, there's a giant canyon right in front of you, the depth of the Grand Canyon. But, it's invisible, due to a magical illusion. Trust me, though, it's there. Go a mile down that way, it's safe to cross there." Would you take the mile-long detour? Or would you act on the assumption that the person is lying and/or wrong?What are you talking about?

or you could try a comparison that makes a bit more sense [well, in terms of making the point. not so much in terms of 'that's not a stupid situation']...

say you're Blind and someone else [who's Also blind] tells you there's a canyon right in front of you but if you go X distance to the right there's a safe crossing.

what do you do?

[it's a more accurate comparison]

I'd use my white stick to check for a canyon, and if I couldn't find one then I'd assume they were mistaken.

Are you serious? Okay, let's extend this further. Pretend you're walking to work/school/a friend's house/whatever. And somebody walks up to you and says "Hey, there's a giant canyon right in front of you, the depth of the Grand Canyon. But, it's invisible, due to a magical illusion. Trust me, though, it's there. Go a mile down that way, it's safe to cross there." Would you take the mile-long detour? Or would you act on the assumption that the person is lying and/or wrong?

See, that analogy makes sense. Of course I would assume they were lying or wrong. (If they were lying and wrong, there would be a canyon.) But in the original one, I had no reason to think otherwise.

Are you serious? Okay, let's extend this further. Pretend you're walking to work/school/a friend's house/whatever. And somebody walks up to you and says "Hey, there's a giant canyon right in front of you, the depth of the Grand Canyon. But, it's invisible, due to a magical illusion. Trust me, though, it's there. Go a mile down that way, it's safe to cross there." Would you take the mile-long detour? Or would you act on the assumption that the person is lying and/or wrong?

I would just force him/her/it to walk in front of me. If he/she/it mysteriously dissapears through the ground, I would take the detour. :p

I would just force him/her/it to walk in front of me. If he/she/it mysteriously dissapears through the ground, I would take the detour. :p

What would be better would be to make him take the mile long detour. If you asked him to go ahead of you, toward the supposed canyon, he would just continue saying he would fall (and therefore not go).

What would be better would be to make him take the mile long detour. If you asked him to go ahead of you, toward the supposed canyon, he would just continue saying he would fall (and therefore not go).

I guess you don't understand what I meant by 'force'.

I guess you don't understand what I meant by 'force'.

Ah, I see. :)

For a Christian who wants to save you from hell by showing you his faith and maybe converting you hell is as concrete as the Grand Canyon.
And anyways does hell's existence not depend on *your* personal beliefs. How can you claim that hell is abstract? There is no way of knowing (except by getting there), is there?

"After all, I can't go to hell if I don't believe in it to begin with" makes no sense at all. Because if hell does in fact exist, you could well get there without believing in it.

Well, there is no proof that hell exists. The people who claim that certain others are going to hell for not believing in their two-bit god have no actual proof of god other than some antiquated scripture.

Well, even if I did in theory wind up there, I'd be six feet under and dead for at least seven minutes before that ever happened. I believe the saying goes, "there be seven minutes in heaven before the devil knows you're dead", so it would be no concern because I'd be a rotting corpse.

The argument Kryo should have made is: those who don't believe in 'hell' are hardly going to be worried about ending up there.

Or something along those lines.

Or something like that. But, as it is, there is no real proof hell exists (and to your classclowns, don't go showing pictures of Hell, Michigan or any of those variations because we're talking about the theological place of hell and not the actual ones on our maps).

Are you serious? Okay, let's extend this further. Pretend you're walking to work/school/a friend's house/whatever. And somebody walks up to you and says "Hey, there's a giant canyon right in front of you, the depth of the Grand Canyon. But, it's invisible, due to a magical illusion. Trust me, though, it's there. Go a mile down that way, it's safe to cross there." Would you take the mile-long detour? Or would you act on the assumption that the person is lying and/or wrong?

I like your humour. That is a good way of looking at this. :)

Well, there is no proof that hell exists.That's not what we are discussing. The actual state of existence of "hell" is irrelevant.
And well, there is no proof that hell exists not.

I agree with Lord Kryo... It's pretty absurd for fundamentalists and the like to attempt to convince people in hell as a priority... Hell is meaningless unless someone first develops a framework of "God" and a concept of "God's Law"... They're putting the theological cart before the theological horse.

I agree with Lord Kryo... It's pretty absurd for fundamentalists and the like to attempt to convince people in hell as a priority... Hell is meaningless unless someone first develops a framework of "God" and a concept of "God's Law"... They're putting the theological cart before the theological horse.

Not strictly true.

Whether or not you believe in a god, or gods... doesn't necessarily inform whether or not you believe in an afterlife. It certainly doesn't automatically define what might be present within an afterlife.

So - if you believe in a Christian 'god'... you might have certain ideas about the nature of an afterlife... some ideas about 'heaven' and 'hell', perhaps.. but even within those confines, I've seen worlds of difference as to what those concepts mean.

If you believe in no 'god'... you still might expect some kind of post-mortal existence. You might not attach those titles peculair to Christian theology, but you could be describing the same basic concepts.

Example: if I don't believe in Jehovah, but I think that an afterlife exists in which I am doomed to repeat my dying moments (like some ideas of 'ghosts' might suggest), that would be a 'hell'.

Not strictly true.

Whether or not you believe in a god, or gods... doesn't necessarily inform whether or not you believe in an afterlife. It certainly doesn't automatically define what might be present within an afterlife.

So - if you believe in a Christian 'god'... you might have certain ideas about the nature of an afterlife... some ideas about 'heaven' and 'hell', perhaps.. but even within those confines, I've seen worlds of difference as to what those concepts mean.

If you believe in no 'god'... you still might expect some kind of post-mortal existence. You might not attach those titles peculair to Christian theology, but you could be describing the same basic concepts.

Example: if I don't believe in Jehovah, but I think that an afterlife exists in which I am doomed to repeat my dying moments (like some ideas of 'ghosts' might suggest), that would be a 'hell'.

Yes, but for a particular definition of "hell" one would need to establish a framework of this reason, for a Christian this would be their particular God, or God's law... In the case of someone without a belief in God, you would still need to establish a framework as to why someone is going there and for what purpose... Simply "warning" someone that they are going to hell if they go where, means nothing unless there is a framework establishing the concept of their path as wrong. One particular element needs to proceed another, in order of its establishment. IOW, a christian hell means nothing unless someone first believes in the christian God... If you were to attempt to establish your concept of an afterlife, it means nothing unless you provide your framework of belief in that particular afterlife.

I agree with Lord Kryo... It's pretty absurd for fundamentalists and the like to attempt to convince people in hell as a priority... Hell is meaningless unless someone first develops a framework of "God" and a concept of "God's Law"... They're putting the theological cart before the theological horse.what? why would the concept of afterlife and underworld require God or God's law. And what God are you referring to anyway?

what? why would the concept of afterlife and underworld require God or God's law. And what God are you referring to anyway?

I figured that was clarified by the term "fundamentalists"... Not to mention they and their ilk are the ones generally "warning people" about "hell"...

I figured that was clarified by the term "fundamentalists"... Not to mention they and their ilk are the ones generally "warning people" about "hell"...The sentence "Hell is meaningless unless someone first develops a framework of "God" and a concept of "God's Law"" was yours, right? What does that have to do with any fundamentalists?

The sentence "Hell is meaningless unless someone first develops a framework of "God" and a concept of "God's Law"" was yours, right? What does that have to do with any fundamentalists?

Umm, which is proceeded by...

"It's pretty absurd for fundamentalists and the like attempt to convince people in hell as a priority..."

Or something like that. But, as it is, there is no real proof hell exists (and to your classclowns, don't go showing pictures of Hell, Michigan or any of those variations because we're talking about the theological place of hell and not the actual ones on our maps).

Can I put up a picture of some random person? Taking a page from Sartre, Hell is other people!

Can I put up a picture of some random person? Taking a page from Sartre, Hell is other people!

..a.nd there is.. No Exit! :eek:

... why do people use the term "fundamentalist" to mean "lunatic" "extremist" or "person who vehemently disagrees with me"?

that's not what it means.

a fundamentalist is one who bases their belief, opinion, philosophy or what have you on the fundamental principles of the religion/text/philosophy/whatever.

as such, no Christian, person, organization, or otherwise, which/who bases their 'Christian' status/philosophy/etc on anything Other than the bible, is a fundamentalist Christan. [though they may be a fundamentalist of whatever denomination they follow]

militant is another word often [incorrectly in Most, but not all, cases] used interchangeably with 'fundamentalist'.

which isn't to say that an awful lot of the people the term is used to describe aren't pretty darn odd. . . . just that it's the wrong term.

[among other things, if the word is used correctly, I am a fundamentalist. in the sense I've seen it bouncing around here fairly recently, and used by various 'religion is EVIL!' types other places, i most assuredly am Not]

man, this thread's gone a long way off topic.

... why do people use the term "fundamentalist" to mean "lunatic" "extremist" or "person who vehemently disagrees with me"?

that's not what it means.

a fundamentalist is one who bases their belief, opinion, philosophy or what have you on the fundamental principles of the religion/text/philosophy/whatever.

as such, no Christian, person, organization, or otherwise, which/who bases their 'Christian' status/philosophy/etc on anything Other than the bible, is a fundamentalist Christan. [though they may be a fundamentalist of whatever denomination they follow]

militant is another word often [incorrectly in Most, but not all, cases] used interchangeably with 'fundamentalist'.

which isn't to say that an awful lot of the people the term is used to describe aren't pretty darn odd. . . . just that it's the wrong term.

[among other things, if the word is used correctly, I am a fundamentalist. in the sense I've seen it bouncing around here fairly recently, and used by various 'religion is EVIL!' types other places, i most assuredly am Not]

man, this thread's gone a long way off topic.

The christian fundamentalist movement asserts a belief in quantifying what constitutes a "Christian" by a series of necessary fundamental tenents, hense why they refer to themselves as fundamentalists. There are in fact Christian "Fundamentalists", because that's what their movement is called by the movement.

Actually, monotheism is quite dumb and boring.

And with that, you show a lack of knowledge about the true relationship between religion and reason. Though it's not entirely your fault, as the Middle Ages aren't covered very much, especially their philosophers.

Strangely enough, I agree with Z-Dog here. If it hadn't been for Muslim philosophers and scientists, we'd still be in the Dark Ages. You see, when the Roman librarian Hypatia was murdered and her library ransacked and destroyed, the West lost all its scientific achievements up til then. You can thank the Muslims for starting at square one and reinventing long-lost sciences.

You see, when the Roman librarian Hypatia was murdered and her library ransacked and destroyed, the West lost all its scientific achievements up til then. You can thank the Muslims for starting at square one and reinventing long-lost sciences.

She was neither a librarian nor Roman. A scientist and philosopher, she lived in Alexandria in Egypt, spoke Greek, and had a small library that by no means contained the whole knowledge up to then.

And, yes: her murder by Christians was despicable. Moslems had nothing to do with re-inventing her knowledge, though.

She was neither a librarian nor Roman. A scientist and philosopher, she lived in Alexandria in Egypt, spoke Greek, and had a small library that by no means contained the whole knowledge up to then.

And, yes: her murder by Christians was despicable. Moslems had nothing to do with re-inventing her knowledge, though.

My bad :confused:

But I don't know why you emboldened "her," because I referred to Hypatia as a she....

And, yes, the destruction of her library WAS a big deal and the Muslims played a major role in bringing us up to date. All I got wrong was her nationality. She owned a library, therefore she was a librarian. Omission does not equal falsification).

My bad :confused:

But I don't know why you emboldened "her," because I referred to Hypatia as a she....

And, yes, the destruction of her library WAS a big deal and the Muslims played a major role in bringing us up to date. All I got wrong was her nationality. She owned a library, therefore she was a librarian. Omission does not equal falsification).

I think, though I obviously don't know if it's true, that he meant that her work in particular wasn't "re-invented." I do know that Aristotle and Plato's works were recovered by Arabs, and that Europeans in the Middle Ages got their hands on them through trade with them.

My bad :confused:

But I don't know why you emboldened "her," because I referred to Hypatia as a she....

And, yes, the destruction of her library WAS a big deal and the Muslims played a major role in bringing us up to date. All I got wrong was her nationality. She owned a library, therefore she was a librarian. Omission does not equal falsification).

Bolded "her" because it was not her own -- but other work.

No, again: she was not a librarian. Get that piece of wrong synapse out of your mind.

At about the same time the Museon (of which the famous Library of Alexandria was part by then) was indeed burned by the Christians, but that had absolutely nothing to do with Hypatia.

Again, she was not a librarian. Everybody has books at home and is not a librarian, and so exactly did she. She was a mathematician, astrologer, astronomer, physicist and even physician, as most scholars of her time were. The only difference -- she was a woman, and that was unusual. But she had nothing to do with the library.

Actually, monotheism is quite dumb and boring.

Indeed, that's what it comes down to. And that says something about its followers as well...

Indeed, that's what it comes down to. And that says something about its followers as well...

Har..har..har..
:rolleyes:

Since you are adept at assuming that certain things don't exist and that certain people are damn near a waste due to their beliefs, I am just going to assume you had a bad experience with a portrait of Jesus.

Since you are adept at assuming that certain things don't exist and that certain people are damn near a waste due to their beliefs, I am just going to assume you had a bad experience with a portrait of Jesus.
What would Jesus or a portrait of him have to do with that? The fabrication of the biblical god had nothing to do with Jesus at all, he was just a follower of that phantasm.

as much as i hate to side with UB, surely he is right.

just as the existence of the grand canyon is independant of my belief in it, so is the existence of hell.

that a billion or so christians beleive in hell doesnt make hell exist. that a few billion others (leaving other hell believing religions out of it) DONT believe in hell doesnt make hell not exist.

and while the extremely remote chance of hell existing isnt much of a reason for anyone to believe in it, lack of belief is irrelevant to whether or not it exists.

if hell exists, Kryozerkia's lack of belief in it is as irrelevant to whether or not he ends up there as his lack of belief in the grand canyon is irrelevant to his falling in if he steps past the edge.

At the risk of hijacking this thread into yet another circular argument over what's real, merely real, or really most sincerely real, the fact is that UB cannot be shown to be right about hell, and neither can the people who hold the opposing view. So, to say categorically that UB is right about this is, well, kind of silly, imo.

It is also beside the point I was dancing around, which is that UB has what could amount to an ulterior motive in all his posts. I personally think everything he posts about religion is merely a subtle kind of flamebait for religious people. It seems not to matter to him whether there is any sense in his posts or not -- sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. But one thing all his recent posts have in common is the assumption that nothing is metaphorical, and that if someone says they believe in something, they MUST believe in it to the most literal extreme possible, or else they don't believe in it, not really. In other words, raising questions about the sincerity of other people's beliefs. To me, his posts read as attempts to elicit certain kinds of responses from religious people along those lines, and frankly, imo, that kind of gamesmanship is neither fair nor interesting.

Could you please use a less pejorative term?

Why? Is is not that far from the truth regarding the early truth; it's arrival was heralded by socio-political conflict, whilst classical and pagan texts were burned, and the last vestiges of Greco-roman academia and endeavour replaced by ruralism and sullen fear of damnation.

For my money, the early church was indeed a cancer.

At the risk of hijacking this thread into yet another circular argument over what's real, merely real, or really most sincerely real, the fact is that UB cannot be shown to be right about hell, and neither can the people who hold the opposing view. So, to say categorically that UB is right about this is, well, kind of silly, imo.

It is also beside the point I was dancing around, which is that UB has what could amount to an ulterior motive in all his posts. I personally think everything he posts about religion is merely a subtle kind of flamebait for religious people. It seems not to matter to him whether there is any sense in his posts or not -- sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. But one thing all his recent posts have in common is the assumption that nothing is metaphorical, and that if someone says they believe in something, they MUST believe in it to the most literal extreme possible, or else they don't believe in it, not really. In other words, raising questions about the sincerity of other people's beliefs. To me, his posts read as attempts to elicit certain kinds of responses from religious people along those lines, and frankly, imo, that kind of gamesmanship is neither fair nor interesting.


given that i agree with your analysis of UB, i dont think he was advocating that hell exists. (unless it turns out that the ancient sumerians had a hell) i think he was saying that its silly to claim that your belief about something determines whether or not it exists.

What would Jesus or a portrait of him have to do with that? The fabrication of the biblical god had nothing to do with Jesus at all, he was just a follower of that phantasm.

Emotional Scarring by Proxy.

Well, to the people saying hell may indeed exist, is Judaism wrong? Within the Jewish faith, there is no existence of "hell".

Hades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hades) in Greek mythology is not the same as the Christian Hell or Hades in Christianity, though it is the place for the dead in the afterlife. Whereas Hell is a place of eternal damnation, with demons tormenting the souls of the wicked sinners, Hades is a place that neither rewards not punish, long the same lines as sheol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol).

In older Greek myths, Hades is the misty and gloomy abode of the dead, where all mortals go. There is no reward or special punishment in this Hades, akin to the Hebrew sheol. In later Greek philosophy appeared the idea that all mortals are judged after death and rewarded or cursed.Another symbol is the three headed dog cerberus.

So, using this, can we now say that Hell exists or that it may not exist as per the Christian view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_in_Christian_beliefs), thus meaning it's an abstract concept because there is no agreed view as to the existence of hell itself.

Well, to the people saying hell may indeed exist, is Judaism wrong? Within the Jewish faith, there is no existence of "hell".

Hades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hades) in Greek mythology is not the same as the Christian Hell or Hades in Christianity, though it is the place for the dead in the afterlife. Whereas Hell is a place of eternal damnation, with demons tormenting the souls of the wicked sinners, Hades is a place that neither rewards not punish, long the same lines as sheol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol).

In older Greek myths, Hades is the misty and gloomy abode of the dead, where all mortals go. There is no reward or special punishment in this Hades, akin to the Hebrew sheol. In later Greek philosophy appeared the idea that all mortals are judged after death and rewarded or cursed.Another symbol is the three headed dog cerberus.

So, using this, can we now say that Hell exists or that it may not exist as per the Christian view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_in_Christian_beliefs), thus meaning it's an abstract concept because there is no agreed view as to the existence of hell itself.

Well doesn't the word Hell itself come from Norse mythology and the goddess Hel, who was the goddess of both magic and the underworld?

Sorry if I got that mixed up with something else. It's been a long time since I read the Prose Edda

Well doesn't the word Hell itself come from Norse mythology and the goddess Hel, who was the goddess of both magic and the underworld?

Sorry if I got that mixed up with something else. It's been a long time since I read the Prose Edda

The place where the dead go according to Norse Mythology is Niflheimr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niflheimr).

There is a place called "Hel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel_%28realm%29)" which shares its name with the presiding goddess. It is similar to Hades (see Sheol).

given that i agree with your analysis of UB, i dont think he was advocating that hell exists. (unless it turns out that the ancient sumerians had a hell) i think he was saying that its silly to claim that your belief about something determines whether or not it exists.

Imo, this is one of those cases where UB's "ulterior motives" tricked him into accidentally saying something sensible.

In my view, the two statements -- "I don't believe in it, therefore I know it is not there" and "I do believe in it, therefore I know it is there" -- are exactly equally nonsensical.

I have no problem at all with people having faith in things they cannot see -- whether that faith is positive (it exists) or negative (it does not exist) -- but I do think that only either a fool or a desperate person with no other options would take practical, physical, material action based on nothing but faith -- not even putting their beliefs to the simple test of looking.

There is a fine -- I'm not sure how fine it is -- line between faith and bull-headed stubbornness. But in UB's case, I still think the argument is invalid because, as has been argued over and over and over again in NSG, we can PROVE the existence/non-existence of the Grand Canyon because testable data exists regarding it -- for instance, we can observe the person who does not believe in the Grand Canyon plummeting blindly into its depths. Heaven and hell cannot be subjected to tests of proof because there are no testable data about them. There are only the untested/untestable assertions people make about them, and those are neither provable nor disprovable. Therefore, to apply the same standards of proof/knowability to hell as to the Grand Canyon simply will not work.

You can know that the Grand Canyon exists, therefore it is at best a small verbal cuteness to say you believe it exists. However, you cannot know things about hell. You can only believe it exists or does not exist. (For the record, btw, I do not believe hell exists.)

It seems to me that people who cannot live in a world that includes metaphor (an inherently non-literal way of communicating) cannot understand how sane people can be religious because they cannot understand how people can be content to believe something they cannot know. And people who cannot understand or accept metaphors but who do follow religions, are some of the most dangerous people in the world because they will do anything -- and i mean anything -- in a vain attempt to turn the non-literal thing they are asked to believe in into a literal thing they think they can know.

EDIT: But this is off topic, sorry. I'll leave it here, but not pursue it unless it can be brought back to the subject of evangelism.

given that i agree with your analysis of UB, i dont think he was advocating that hell exists. (unless it turns out that the ancient sumerians had a hell)well, Sumerians had an underworld, just as any other ancient people, and of course the christian idea of hell has somehow gradually evolved out of it (with many stages on the way). in the end there is no way of knowing about it except by getting there.

i think he was saying that its silly to claim that your belief about something determines whether or not it exists.
exactly that. saying that you don't and can't go to hell because you don't believe in it, is simply stupid. it's the same as saying that if you you don't believe in the Grand Canion you can't fall into it (because of your belief). the existence of something is independent of a particular person's beliefs about it.

You can know that the Grand Canyon exists, therefore it is at best a small verbal cuteness to say you believe it exists. However, you cannot know things about hell. You can only believe it exists or does not exist.If you have never been to the Grand Canyon and somebody tells you about it, then your "knowledge" of it has the exact same quality as the "knowledge" you could have about hell from somebody's narration (or reading some holy book, etc). and if you decide that all the folks who have told you about the Grand Canyon were lying to you, you can chose to not believe in it. but this belief does not change any circumstances of the Grand Canyon's actual existence, just as somebody' beliefs of hell won't change any circumstances of hell's actual existence.
And then there is the erroneous assumption that it is generally impossible to know anything about hell, or god, or anything else out of the "other" world. Impossibility is only true if hell, god, etc do indeed not exist. Otherwise it is possible, even if it might be rather unlikely.

And as for the evangelical missions: in addition to the uncertainty in the knowledge about hell, god(s), etc, there is also the history of certain religions that comes into play. If a Christian proselytizer comes to me and asks me to believe in his God, then I'd have to ask him why I should believe in something that nobody believed in >2500 years ago. Why would a god that nobody has ever worshiped in ancient times and who thus has apparently never communicated with humans be real but another god that has been worshiped and thus may have communicated with humans not be real?
The Jewish-Christian god is an idea fabricated out of many facets of gods that have been worshiped prior to the Jews' return from the so called Babylonian Captivity. If their god were real, then why the change in interpretation, and more to the point: why the change from polytheism to monotheism? Divine revelation? Inspiration? Increase in knowledge? And why the strange re-interpretation of history prior to this point in time? Why is it pretended that people, especially Jews and their (supposed) forebears the Israelites, had believed in the same idea of god as Jews later did although they apparently did not? Why do they claim that people like Moses, Joseph, Abraham had believed in the god as the bible describes him when there is in fact no indication whatsoever that any of them would have believed in anything different than their respective contemporaries? And further back: why do they "steal" the Sumerian Noah/Utnapishtim, the flood hero, and pretend he was a follower of a Jew-ish Yah when the only Yah back then was Ea/Enki who was in fact very different from the idea of god that Jews have later made out of him? Why this attempt to create an alternative history only to fit a new religion? It's pretty much the same pattern visible in such tales that create the foundation of such groups as Mormonism and Scientology.

If you have never been to the Grand Canyon and somebody tells you about it, then your "knowledge" of it has the exact same quality as the "knowledge" you could have about hell from somebody's narration (or reading some holy book, etc). and if you decide that all the folks who have told you about the Grand Canyon were lying to you, you can chose to not believe in it. but this belief does not change any circumstances of the Grand Canyon's actual existence, just as somebody' beliefs of hell won't change any circumstances of hell's actual existence.
And then there is the erroneous assumption that it is generally impossible to know anything about hell, or god, or anything else out of the "other" world. Impossibility is only true if hell, god, etc do indeed not exist. Otherwise it is possible, even if it might be rather unlikely.

And as for the evangelical missions: in addition to the uncertainty in the knowledge about hell, god(s), etc, there is also the history of certain religions that comes into play. If a Christian proselytizer comes to me and asks me to believe in his God, then I'd have to ask him why I should believe in something that nobody believed in >2500 years ago. Why would a god that nobody has ever worshiped in ancient times and who thus has apparently never communicated with humans be real but another god that has been worshiped and thus may have communicated with humans not be real?
The Jewish-Christian god is an idea fabricated out of many facets of gods that have been worshiped prior to the Jews' return from the so called Babylonian Captivity. If their god were real, then why the change in interpretation, and more to the point: why the change from polytheism to monotheism? Divine revelation? Inspiration? Increase in knowledge? And why the strange re-interpretation of history prior to this point in time? Why is it pretended that people, especially Jews and their (supposed) forebears the Israelites, had believed in the same idea of god as Jews later did although they apparently did not? Why do they claim that people like Moses, Joseph, Abraham had believed in the god as the bible describes him when there is in fact no indication whatsoever that any of them would have believed in anything different than their respective contemporaries? And further back: why do they "steal" the Sumerian Noah/Utnapishtim, the flood hero, and pretend he was a follower of a Jew-ish Yah when the only Yah back then was Ea/Enki who was in fact very different from the idea of god that Jews have later made out of him? Why this attempt to create an alternative history only to fit a new religion? It's pretty much the same pattern visible in such tales that create the foundation of such groups as Mormonism and Scientology.
You and I have had this argument before in another thread. I'm not interested in having it again. I will only repeat my position that age =/= validity, and that, as a point of information, the religions you cite as ancient enough to suit you were new themselves once upon a time. As for the rest of your argument in support of your opinion, I really don't care about it. You are as entitled to your beliefs as anyone else is.

But this is still not really germane to the topic of this thread except to the extent that it is your preferred response to evangelicals who try to sell you religions you don't like. It really says nothing at all about evangelism itself.

It didn't read that way to me. I could of course be wrong, this is 'net forum after all.

Naa to me it read 'don't wanna talk to you, waaaaaaaaa!'

Come on we really have to ask each others permission to talk to each other?

I know people the peddle the same sort of line that Muravyets has done here, and not one of them shows anything other than basic social skills.

Like I said though, we should all feel free to life how we like, be anti social, or try to foist you own brand of 'good news' off onto others, whatever.

I know I'm days behind in this conversation... but yes, you do need permission to talk to each other, it's not so much "May I please talk to you? Please please please??" but if you go to someone and say "Hi!" and they say "Hi, sorry, I'm busy, talk later?" or "FUCK OFF FREAK!!" then you should respect their business or disrespect and move along... if they're busy (but show an interest,) go back later, if they're disrespectful (or if they're busy but really don't show any interest in talking to you,) don't go back. Fairly simple I think.

What's in these tracts?

I don't know if it's true of all of them... but those which I have seen are thinly disguised hatred... and by "thinly disguised" I mean "blatant"

That said most of my experience of tracts is based around the joyeous works of Jack Chick. When I first found out about them I thought they were a joke but they're pretty serious about themselves and for all their "love thy neighbour" stuff they do a lot of "thou art FILTH" rants.
http://www.chick.com/ (Chick Publications) if you care to expose yourself to insane propaganda

(If I'm wrong about this please enlighten me, I'm still open to the idea of tracts that teach the ideal of love rather than hatred.)