Disappearing Evangelists

[Unknown Soldier]

Recently my good friend and colleague Fritz decided to take an exit:

I really feel like I'm getting stupider just trying to talk sense to you folks here. Bye.

We were discussing the role religion plays in violence, and when I explained that such violence cannot always be blamed on nonreligious factors, he bid goodbye. He didn't bother making a case for his position. It appears that we may not again have the pleasure of dialoguing with Fritz.

I've debated religious evangelists for decades, and such disappearances on their part are almost always the result of the debates. I do my best to argue my case in good faith, and when it appears that none of their arguments hold water, they beat a hasty retreat never to be heard from again. My guess is that they cannot concede that they are wrong and give up the battle knowing that they will not convert me.

How can any of you explain these disappearing evangelists?

 

[Elixir]

How can any of you explain these disappearing evangelists?

I see no urgent need for an explanation. An evangelist is under orders to evangelize. If you make yourself an unfriendly target for evangelism, they go elsewhere. Maybe you caused them some discomfort with their superstitious beliefs, maybe you didn’t. Doesn’t really matter, because if they end up de-converting they’ll probably let you know. Meanwhile there’s no point in becoming evangelical about disabusing evangelicals of their irrational beliefs.

 

[Politesse]

My guess is that they cannot concede that they are wrong and give up the battle knowing that they will not convert me.

Are you sure you can't understand this? Do you often, or indeed ever, concede that you are wrong? I've never witnessed you doing so on this forum, certainly not in the context of an apologetics dispute. Most people don't.

 

[steve_bank]

The lord works in mysterious ways. It is all part of the plan.

I expect what they post is perfectly clear to them.

For the relgious when it comes to theology admitting they are wrong is essentially admitting faith is wrong. Impossible for someone who's life is based in religion.

In the RCC when the pope speaks on theology and morality it is from god's mouth and imdsiputable.

In the past there was a steady stream of theists. They all made the same genral arguments and then left when nobody came to Jesus. In one case somebody discivered there was a school where the students as a project went around the net.

Some theists came well prepared with well thought arguments quoting scirnce to back claims like YEC. Others are not prepared to sustan an argument, get frustrated, and move on.

 

[southernhybrid]

Before y'all get into some stupid flame war, did any of you notice that the person in point has "existentialist", not "evangelist" under his basic beliefs"? So, either the poor man can't spell or some of you can't read! There's a hell of a difference between an evangelist and an existentialist, most of who are probably atheists or agnostics. The guy probably just liked to argue while adding nothing to the discussion. And, really! Is what some brief visitor who had nothing substantial to say really worthy of your time? Or do you want to discuss evangelism v. existentialism? Could it be that Fritz ia an existential evangelist? I suppose that's possible.

 

[abaddon]

My guess is that they cannot concede that they are wrong and give up the battle knowing that they will not convert me.

That's delusional horseshit.

Fritz left for the reason he said. I pos-rep'd that post because I agree with his point. He's done the best thing for himself, as there's nothing to learn from automatons who only repeat clichéd bullshit that they picked up on the Net from 15, 20 years ago.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

How can any of you explain these disappearing evangelists?

I see no urgent need for an explanation.

There's no hurry. Take your time.

An evangelist is under orders to evangelize. If you make yourself an unfriendly target for evangelism, they go elsewhere.

Jesus predicted us tough skeptics. We read in Matthew 10:14:

If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.

So these "disappearing evangelists" are in obedience to Christ. I wonder why Jesus didn't tell his apostles to show the skeptics miracles to convince them.

Maybe you caused them some discomfort with their superstitious beliefs, maybe you didn’t.

It appears that many people, not necessarily the religious, experience cognitive dissonance whenever some pet belief of theirs has doubt cast upon it. If a person is convinced of something she dearly wants to believe, then emotional turmoil can result when she realizes that belief might not be true. One way out is to flee whatever is causing the doubt.

Doesn’t really matter, because if they end up de-converting they’ll probably let you know.

It hasn't happened yet. In fact, I've been taunted that I haven't succeeded in convincing any religious persons that their beliefs are not true.

Meanwhile there’s no point in becoming evangelical about disabusing evangelicals of their irrational beliefs.

I've noticed that people tend to be very cynical of anybody who openly expresses doubt about religious beliefs. Such skeptics are seen as out to destroy people's comforting faith no matter the cost. I don't see it that way. Most critics of religion I know of just respect the truth and don't like it when they're fed a lot of baloney. You should understand that most of us outspoken skeptics and critics of religion are on defense rather than offense. It was the religious who came after me to indoctrinate me and who still do come after me on occasion. If the religious don't want to be disabused of their comforting myths, then they darned well better not try to evangelize me like they have done so many times in the past.

 

[steve_bank]

Before y'all get into some stupid flame war, did any of you notice that the person in point has "existentialist", not "evangelist" under his basic beliefs"? So, either the poor man can't spell or some of you can't read! There's a hell of a difference between an evangelist and an existentialist, most of who are probably atheists or agnostics. The guy probably just liked to argue while adding nothing to the discussion. And, really! Is what some brief visitor who had nothing substantial to say really worthy of your time? Or do you want to discuss evangelism v. existentialism? Could it be that Fritz ia an existential evangelist? I suppose that's possible.

An evangelical existentialist.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

My guess is that they cannot concede that they are wrong and give up the battle knowing that they will not convert me.

Are you sure you can't understand this?

Who said I can't understand why evangelists flee tough skeptics? Why they do so is fairly obvious.

Do you often, or indeed ever, concede that you are wrong?

Of course I have. Just earlier today, I miscategorized a nonlinear second-order differential equation as linear! Here's the equation:

y'' + 2xy' + y = 4xy^2.

The last y in this equation is taken to the power of 2 which disqualifies the equation as linear. I immediately corrected my error, of course.

I've never witnessed you doing so on this forum, certainly not in the context of an apologetics dispute. Most people don't.

I would be pretty stupid to admit I'm wrong if I'm not wrong. What did I get wrong?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

For the relgious when it comes to theology admitting they are wrong is essentially admitting faith is wrong. Impossible for someone who's life is based in religion.

For the religious, to be wrong is to lose one's pie in the great bye-and-bye from the guy in the sky. Any such realization is to be avoided at all cost.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

My guess is that they cannot concede that they are wrong and give up the battle knowing that they will not convert me.

That's delusional horseshit.

Is this statement an example of how religion cannot inspire hostility? According to Fritz's point of view, your comment here is more a cause of "geopolitics" than of religion.

Fritz left for the reason he said.

He said he could not convince us of his position that religious violence cannot be blamed on religion.

I pos-rep'd that post because I agree with his point.

I'm not surprised that you agree with him.

He's done the best thing for himself, as there's nothing to learn from automatons who only repeat clichéd bullshit that they picked up on the Net from 15, 20 years ago.

If you can't learn from us "(sic) automotons," then why don't you go the way of Fritz?

 

[abaddon]

Is this statement an example of how religion cannot inspire hostility? According to Fritz's point of view, your comment here is more a cause of "geopolitics" than of religion.

Picture a guy who reeks to high heaven so people "beat a hasty retreat". His best guess of why they "flee" is because of how awesome he is.

You're like that.

He said he could not convince us of his position that religious violence cannot be blamed on religion.

No he didn't. He said something extremely obvious, that theism in itself doesn't directly cause violence, that politics must be included in the explanation. You whined about being misrepresented but then continued asserting the same about theism causing violence. Whether you meant there's a direct causation "theism --> violence" or just suck at expressing your actual point, you had a chance to learn from Fritz and chose not to.

BTW, I'd like to see an example of the accused person's evangelizing. Do you have a quote, or can you post a link? I've read his posts and didn't find anything like that.

I'm not surprised that you agree with him.

He seemed like a smart guy. I agree with his point about no direct causation between theism and the violence among some religious people. And I agree with the point of feeling stupider when reading some of the posts here, including most of yours.

If you can't learn from us "(sic) automotons," then why don't you go the way of Fritz?

Why don't you just start a new thread and tell falsehoods about me in the OP to see if you can get some jeering going?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Before y'all get into some stupid flame war, did any of you notice that the person in point has "existentialist", not "evangelist" under his basic beliefs"? So, either the poor man can't spell or some of you can't read! There's a hell of a difference between an evangelist and an existentialist, most of who are probably atheists or agnostics. The guy probably just liked to argue while adding nothing to the discussion. And, really! Is what some brief visitor who had nothing substantial to say really worthy of your time? Or do you want to discuss evangelism v. existentialism? Could it be that Fritz ia an existential evangelist? I suppose that's possible.

I've just had a lot of evangelists flee my debates with them, and I wanted to discuss that issue with others here.

And yes, anybody can be an evangelist.

 

[steve_bank]

I've just had a lot of evangelists flee my debates with them, and I wanted to discuss that issue with others here.

You might try reading Dale Carnegie's book.

How To win Friends And Influence People

1. Do Not Criticize, Condemn or Complain. ...
2. Be Generous With Praise. ...
3. Remember Their Name. ...
4. Be Genuinely Interested In Other People. ...
5. Know The Value Of Charm. ...
6. Be Quick To Acknowledge Your Own Mistakes.

 

[steve_bank]

I've just had a lot of evangelists flee my debates with them, and I wanted to discuss that issue with others here.

You might try reading Dale Carnegie's book.

How To win Friends And Influence People

1. Do Not Criticize, Condemn or Complain. ...
2. Be Generous With Praise. ...
3. Remember Their Name. ...
4. Be Genuinely Interested In Other People. ...
5. Know The Value Of Charm. ...
6. Be Quick To Acknowledge Your Own Mistakes.

The gospel of Dale.

 

[Politesse]

Before y'all get into some stupid flame war, did any of you notice that the person in point has "existentialist", not "evangelist" under his basic beliefs"? So, either the poor man can't spell or some of you can't read! There's a hell of a difference between an evangelist and an existentialist, most of who are probably atheists or agnostics. The guy probably just liked to argue while adding nothing to the discussion. And, really! Is what some brief visitor who had nothing substantial to say really worthy of your time? Or do you want to discuss evangelism v. existentialism? Could it be that Fritz ia an existential evangelist? I suppose that's possible.

I've just had a lot of evangelists flee my debates with them, and I wanted to discuss that issue with others here.

And yes, anybody can be an evangelist.

Out of curiosity, am I an evangelist?

Is steve-bank?

Are you?

 

[steve_bank]

Colloquial evangelical can refer to aggressive proselytizing and preaching of any kind.

Analogous to saying someone has a 'religious' devotion to a non religious cause.

A pro athlete religiously sticks to a diet and exercise regime.

 

[southernhybrid]

I never had the impression that Fritz was a Christian. Maybe because he had existentialist as his basic belief. I've known plenty of atheists and non religious people who didn't necessarily believe that religion was dangerous or violent in general, although just like ideology, whether secular or religious, it can lead to violence at times. So, I thought that the assumption that Fritz was an evangelical Christian may have been wrong. Who knows? Did he ever say he was a Christian? I don't read many posts in the religion section, so maybe I missed something. I just thought it was a bit humorous to assume that a man who identified himself as existentialist, was being identified as an evangelical. But, then, I try to see humor in most things. It's a good way to cope in the crazy would we live in these days.
If you want to debate someone, make sure, you understand each other's positions.

 

[southernhybrid]

Colloquial evangelical can refer to aggressive proselytizing and preaching of any kind.

Analogous to saying someone has a 'religious' devotion to a non religious cause.

A pro athlete religiously sticks to a diet and exercise regime.

True. I've seen atheists and humanists use the term evangelical atheists to describe obnoxious atheists who feel it's their duty to convert religious people to atheism. I get it. It didn't appear to me as if that was what was going on earlier in this thread. In all seriousness, it can be difficult to understand each other when posting on a forum like this. I just found the entire thread a bit humorous.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I've just had a lot of evangelists flee my debates with them, and I wanted to discuss that issue with others here.

You might try reading Dale Carnegie's book.

How To win Friends And Influence People

1. Do Not Criticize, Condemn or Complain. ...
2. Be Generous With Praise. ...
3. Remember Their Name. ...
4. Be Genuinely Interested In Other People. ...
5. Know The Value Of Charm. ...
6. Be Quick To Acknowledge Your Own Mistakes.

I've read that book. It doesn't work.

But making friends isn't what I'm out to do. My purpose is to come to a common understanding of the truth with others.