• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Proselytizing

I've been saying all along that quasi-spiritual quasi-religious awe displayed by atheists is perfectly understandable - to me - because we are spiritual beings made in God's likeness.

This is just a Goddidit argument.

Sceptic: "I don't know how the universe began."
Christian: "I know: Goddidit."

Sceptic: "I don't know why humans are awed by things."
Christian: "I know: Goddidit."

*Sigh*

No - this is a question about two different responses to the same event.
The night sky.

"...thank you oh mighty sky god. The beauty of thine works is so great and thy majesty immeasurable"

"...the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today."

Why express awe the way Krauss does when the stars and the star dust (from which we are made) are equal constituents of an uncaused, unguided, past-eternal perpetual motion machine?

Because our brains have been programmed by hundreds of millions of years of evolution to feel certain emotions?

The capacity to feel emotions likely helped our ancestors understand and interact with the world in a way that increased their biological fitness. Because feeling emotions for our family members and neighbors and members of the same species was beneficial to the family, to the community and to the species. When we look up at the sky or through the microscope lens and feel a sense of wonder at what we see, it drives us to explore how reality really works, which has given rise to the methodology that we call science. Science us allowed us to tame our environment (for better or worse), live longer and better quality lives, and devote more and more of our lives to activities that are not related to the everyday tasks of paying the bills and putting food on the table. On the other hand, praying and $4 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, and you could skip the prayer and still get the coffee.

Our brains are complex organs that evolved over hundreds of millions of years. We know this because we see it in the fossil record, and by comparing our nervous system to those of other animals. We don't understand how our brains work very well at this time, but that doesn't mean magic and Bronze Age supernatural stories are the answer. We didn't know how to fly just 200 years ago, but today we have sent machines beyond the (enormous) extents of our solar system. If we continue on our current trajectory of enlightenment and technological development, someday we will figure how exactly how our brains work, and perhaps even have the ability to record our images of our neural patterns in powerful computers.

You, on the other hand are stuck in the Bronze Age. At a time when disease was caused by demons and people offered sacrifices to various gods in the hopes that their crops would be bountiful, their families would remain healthy, they would win in wars. We have come a long way since then. It is a whole new world, and the waters fine - all you have to do is open your mind.


Why express awe the way Krauss does when the stars and the star dust (from which we are made) are equal constituents of an uncaused, unguided, past-eternal perpetual motion machine?

The past may be eternal. But we don't know today because our technology and physics is stuck at a singularity event in spacetime beyond which we cannot look, only speculate. If you want to make the case that your preferred supercreature is responsible for our existence, you have to show us how! How did this fantastic "uncaused, past-eternal" entity come to exist? How does it defy the arrow of time? How does it create matter and energy to make our universe, and potentially others like it. Even if all our scientific speculations about cosmic inflation are wrong, it is still not evidence that your God exists. If you want to make a case for your preferred God, you have to actually make the case - not just criticize the scientific method and our imperfect understanding. I am certain you understand this, even if you can't bring yourself to acknowledge it publicly. You have to provide a better explanation than what is available today!!!!!!
 
I suspect that emotions of awe and wonder, delight in life, love of beauty, and similar emotions long precede humans. These little emotions may be the fine line between going on and giving up when life is hard and everything seems to be going against you. Pushing one to go that little bit more. It may even sometimes save a creature's life. These sorts of emotions then would have survival value, and evolution would give creatures with large brains emotions like these over time because they enhance survival.

Just my opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XimkoZ8uEI
 
Watched a show on cable The Jewish Voice. Aprently for Jews who convert to Chtistianity.

A woman sent in a question saying she married a Jew and what should she do? The host answered that god placed her in the marriage for a reason, converting her husband. Then he proceeded to suggest a list of biblical refines she should use to prove that Jesus is the Hebrew messiah.

That is Christian proselytizing. It is a pathetical obsession with making people think like they do. If it were anything but religion it would be considered a psychological disorder.
 
You're married, and what you should do now is convert him?
Huh. All my answers to the question were WAY off.

Porn has failed me.

Then again, the host's fantasy that someone got married just so he could lose his religion is probably about as realistic as the copier serviceman wanting to test the unit by having sex on top of it.
 
...That is Christian proselytizing. It is a pathetical obsession with making people think like they do.

I never understood why atheists have such a "Safe Space" phobia about preaching.

As you say, it's just wanting to change the way others think. (The contest of ideas.)
Why such fear and loathing?

All day, every day, everywhere, we are bombarded by verbal and visual spam - unsolicited opinions and advertisements.

Change the TV/radio station, flip to a different YouTube channel, tweek your Facebook feed settings, change your circle of friends, move to a different neighbourhood, find a different FreeThought Discussion Board - it won't help.

You're ALWAYS going to be exposed to ideas which you dislike and with which you disagree.

So why single out opinions on religion for such special treatment. I should clarify that it's only certain opinions about religion which atheists want censored.

Atheists around here freely offer their unsolicited opinions about the existence of God. They freely proselytise their anti-Christian views.

They are completely free to try and make people think the way they do about God and religion and The Pearly Gates.

And yet we see the double-standard whereby FreeThought is fine when it comes to politics, economics, culture, sexuality, pseudoscience, metaphysics, etc. - but not when it comes to plain old garden variety Christian evangelism.
 
Last edited:
...That is Christian proselytizing. It is a pathetical obsession with making people think like they do.

I never understood why atheists have such a "Safe Space" phobia about preaching.

As you say, it's just wanting to change the way others think. (The contest of ideas.)
Why such fear and loathing?

All day, every day, everywhere, we are bombarded by verbal and visual spam - unsolicited opinions and advertisements.

Change the TV/radio station, flip to a different YouTube channel, tweek your Facebook feed settings, change your circle of friends, move to a different neighbourhood, find a different FreeThought Discussion Board - it won't help.

You're ALWAYS going to be exposed to ideas which you dislike and with which you disagree.

So why single out opinions on religion for such special treatment. I should clarify that it's only certain opinions about religion which atheists want censored.

Atheists around here freely offer their unsolicited opinions about the existence of God. They freely proselytise their anti-Christian views.

They are completely free to try and make people think the way they do about God and religion and The Pearly Gates.

And yet we see the double-standard whereby FreeThought is fine when it comes to politics, economics, culture, pseudoscience, metaphysics, etc. - but not when it comes to plain old garden variety Christian evangelism.

If we needed a "safe space", we'd all have put you on "ignore" a long time ago. And please stop with the notion that you're here for some noble "contest of ideas"; you have no ideas, just superstitions, with no basis in reality. You're all hat, no cattle.
 
Anyone been proselytized to lately? I live in the Deep South and it never happens to me. Maybe it’s an urban living thing. I kinda wish they would. I wouldn’t mind getting into it with some dumbshit evangelical.

SLD
Not lately but I have been proselytized to, a good while ago, by followers of Jehovah's Witnesses and Hare Krishna. Being the curious sort, I actually listened to them to find out what the hell they actually believed - weird folks they were. The literature I got from the Jehovah's Witnesses (mostly copies of the Watchtower) were pretty worthless but the Hare Krishna gave me a nice hard cover copy of the Bhagavad-Gita that I still have in my "weird religious literature" collection along with the religious books of other religions.

Is the Hare Krishna movement still active? I haven't seen them for decades. At one time it was impossible to go through an airport without running into a group of them.

My best interaction with Hare Krishnas was outside a Grateful Dead concert. It was a cold evening and the faster the wind blew the faster they played their tambourines! :D
 
I never understood why atheists have such a "Safe Space" phobia about preaching.

As you say, it's just wanting to change the way others think. (The contest of ideas.)
Why such fear and loathing?
This seems to be a rather self absorbed misunderstanding and mischaracterization - either that or another strawman.

It has nothing to do with fear and loathing. It is simply pointing out someone's lack of thought and reasoning and applies equally to flat Earthers, believers in homeopathy, hollow Earthers, 9/11 truthers, crop circles, Moon landing deniers, religious evangelists, etc.
All day, every day, everywhere, we are bombarded by verbal and visual spam - unsolicited opinions and advertisements.

Change the TV/radio station, flip to a different YouTube channel, tweek your Facebook feed settings, change your circle of friends, move to a different neighbourhood, find a different FreeThought Discussion Board - it won't help.

You're ALWAYS going to be exposed to ideas which you dislike and with which you disagree.
No shit... and some are ignored while some is engaged just because it is sometimes interesting to see how delusional some people can be.
So why single out opinions on religion for such special treatment. I should clarify that it's only certain opinions about religion which atheists want censored.
You are claiming victimhood? What have you said about your religious beliefs that have been censored here?
Atheists around here freely offer their unsolicited opinions about the existence of God. They freely proselytise their anti-Christian views.

They are completely free to try and make people think the way they do about God and religion and The Pearly Gates.

And yet we see the double-standard whereby FreeThought is fine when it comes to politics, economics, culture, sexuality, pseudoscience, metaphysics, etc. - but not when it comes to plain old garden variety Christian evangelism.
WTF. I have seen you frequently and freely offer your unsolicited opinions about atheism and atheists. Are you upset that the opinions of others are allowed to be freely expressed rather than only your opinion? You do realize that this is a discussion board and not a platform for religious proselytization only don't you
 
You're ALWAYS going to be exposed to ideas which you dislike and with which you disagree.

You're trying to mimic atheists again. You do it a lot. You whine and get called on it and then say "atheists whine". You see a logical fallacy named, and you try applying the label (with no comprehension of what it means) to atheist arguments. You interrupt a hypothetical discussion, then soon afterwards accuse atheists of interrupting hypothetical discussions, and characterize it as a "bait-and-switch". Which means you pulled a bait-and-switch. You just wanted to twist things around and lay it on the atheists. It's a silly game of "No, YOU!"

How conscious you are of it can't be known. But the end-effect is you keep mocking yourself, because it highlights your own errors. And that's so bizarre it's hard to not wonder sometimes, is this guy for real??

So the "critique atheism rather than defend religion" strategy doesn't work because it means you have to "score points", which means you have to engage in sophistry rather than just forthrightly present your views (with accompanying reasons for them).

Atheists ... freely proselytise their anti-Christian views. They are completely free to try and make people think the way they do about God and religion and The Pearly Gates.

Christian proselytizing is manipulative because 1) there's only one right answer, 2) it's based in authority and tradition, and 3) there's a dire consequence to not accepting it as Truth.

Free thought's very different from that. Arguments based in skepticism/freethinking/atheism share the wish to persuade, but only by reason and evidence. There's no "believe this or you're damned because some old book says so" to it. The invitation is to apply reason instead of merely have opinions. There's no "make people think the way they do" about it.

And yet we see the double-standard whereby FreeThought is fine when it comes to politics, economics, culture, sexuality, pseudoscience, metaphysics, etc. - but not when it comes to plain old garden variety Christian evangelism.
It's not a double-standard. Free Thought "is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma."

That's the standard. Explain the reasons that it is wrong if seems like censorship to you. Preaching is a problem not for being religious but because preaching is merely an "This is the truth!" with no reasonable reasons given.
 
You're married, and what you should do now is convert him?
Huh. All my answers to the question were WAY off.

Porn has failed me.

Then again, the host's fantasy that someone got married just so he could lose his religion is probably about as realistic as the copier serviceman wanting to test the unit by having sex on top of it.
Wait, I thought that was SOP!
 
Seeking for myself I need no religious security blanket or safe space. Apparently you do not understand irony? It is Christians who are obsessed with enlarging their safe space by proselyting. Bringing someone to take Christianity increases your sense of security.

The issue with atheists is th right to bd free from any religion if we choose so.]]There are people who would eliminate relgion. I am, not one of them. I expect most atheists do not care what someone's religion is, as long as the tolerance is mutual. Which it often is not.
 
...That is Christian proselytizing. It is a pathetical obsession with making people think like they do.

I never understood why atheists have such a "Safe Space" phobia about preaching.
That is a huge non-sequitur. Or, really, just a straw man.
Steve didn’t say anything about you not being allowed to talk about religion, he just said you sound stupid when you do.

Do you not know what a “safe space” is? It’s not a place with explicitly labeled fora welcoming the thing youre supposedly safe-spacing from.

As you say, it's just wanting to change the way others think. (The contest of ideas.)
Why such fear and loathing?
Oh, that.. You misunderstand. The loathing part is for religionists who want to pass laws forcing us to cleave to their stupid insane rules for no reason other than their kooky beliefs.

If Christians just sat there kooky, we’d have no problem with them. But they want to punish others. That’s loathsome.


All day, every day, everywhere, we are bombarded by verbal and visual spam - unsolicited opinions and advertisements.
Luckily no the same damn one year after year and day after day.
And luckily it’s just spam, not laws and prison terms.

Change the TV/radio station, flip to a different YouTube channel, tweek your Facebook feed settings, change your circle of friends, move to a different neighbourhood, find a different FreeThought Discussion Board - it won't help.
Oh, if only it were so easy to rid ourselves of the yoke of christianity!

You're ALWAYS going to be exposed to ideas which you dislike and with which you disagree.
Exposure to ideas, as you have been told time and again, is not the problem.


So why single out opinions on religion for such special treatment. I should clarify that it's only certain opinions about religion which atheists want censored.
Wait, why’d you stick a link to an article about China in there?
Another non-sequitur? ANother straw-man? You don’t ever feel stupid slinging those?

Atheists around here freely offer their unsolicited opinions about the existence of God.
Only in the EOG forum, really,

They freely proselytise their anti-Christian views.
They really don’t preach-and-run, tho. They engage and debate. Which you are free to do - and you do - also. The only thing barred is flat-out non-responsive preaching, which you have to agree is tedious and not worth the bandwidth on a discussion board.
 
I did not necessarily say Lion sounded stupid for talking about faith. At the end of the day I am Jeffersonian, tolerance of differences. I do not know who Lion is in the real world.

The premise of Christianity is that those who ae not are morely deficient and Cjhristians are obligated to bring us to Jesus/ The least of it is being annoys like telephone sales calls. The worse of it is suppression of speech and action based on an ancient set of writings of unknown authorship clamed to be the inspired words of a one and only deity.

I have no problem with those who identify as witches or new age mystics. They are free to believe what they will and form groups, essentially the right to free association. Rosicrucians and similar groups have been around for centuries. They do not intrude on anyone.

Christians on the other hand from the start of organized Christianity has been about power, dominance, extending membership aggressively, and suppression of thought and action. The RCC was modeled on the Roman power structure.

Up through the mid 20th century being an outspoken atheist in connubities could get you black balled and death threats.
 
This seems to be a rather self absorbed misunderstanding and mischaracterization - either that or another strawman.
Fine. Just dissociate yourself from the type of atheists who do single out religious advocacy as the one POV they simply can't bear to hear in the midst of all that other wall of noise which goes on in the public square contest of ideas. Wave goodbye to the strawman and say you're not THAT type of atheist.

It has nothing to do with fear and loathing. It is simply pointing out someone's lack of thought and reasoning and applies equally to flat Earthers, believers in homeopathy, hollow Earthers, 9/11 truthers, crop circles, Moon landing deniers, religious evangelists, etc.

Great. Then in the spirit of treating others the way you would like to be treated, let them point out the lack of thought and reasoning in your imaginings and beliefs about God.
...or is that too 'preachy'?

...some are ignored while some is engaged just because it is sometimes interesting to see how delusional some people can be.

Sure. Chew toys etc etc

Lion IRC said:
So why single out opinions on religion for such special treatment. I should clarify that it's only certain opinions about religion which atheists want censored.
You are claiming victimhood?

Yep. Coming to an atheist dominated board and demanding the right to preach uninterrupted and waiting for my round of applause.
That's me. That's what I expected.
Of course I'm the victim here.

Lion IRC said:
Atheists around here freely offer their unsolicited opinions about the existence of God. They freely proselytise their anti-Christian views.

They are completely free to try and make people think the way they do about God and religion and The Pearly Gates.

And yet we see the double-standard whereby FreeThought is fine when it comes to politics, economics, culture, sexuality, pseudoscience, metaphysics, etc. - but not when it comes to plain old garden variety Christian evangelism.
WTF. I have seen you frequently and freely offer your unsolicited opinions about atheism and atheists.

Sure. Why not?
Isn't that what a discussion forum is about?
What we're talking about here is the atheist who wants to freely preach their phobic hatred of theism Christianity while simultaneously railing against other religions who likewise want to "try and make people think the way they do."
Atheists want me to think the way they do. They proselytise their atheology.
Why can't both sides of the contest of ideas preach to each other and/or walk away as they wish.

Are you upset that the opinions of others are allowed to be freely expressed rather than only your opinion?

No. I love hearing and engaging with atheist counter-apologetics.
I'm glad there are places like this where people can preach their non-theist worldview(s).
#Enlightenment_values #freethought

You do realize that this is a discussion board and not a platform for religious proselytization only don't you

No I don't understand that.

Please explain the difference between atheists telling me I'm wrong about God and me telling atheists they are wrong about God. (Or have the intellectual integrity to admit that you prefer asymmetric rules of engagement such that "discussion board" means one-sided echo chamber and that Christians are expected to be adequately humble in the presence of their betters and obsequious when spoken to.)

I might be more understanding if this was a discussion board where the topic was "non-stamp collecting" or "the hair colour called baldness".

I might be more understanding if there was an ongoing problem with threads about sport constantly being derailed by preachers saying how sport reminds them of 1st Corinthians 9:24.
Or threads about culinary topics getting spammed by preaching about loaves and fishes and how God fills the hungry with good things.
 
Not belabor the point. It is primarily Christians who see atheists as a threat and people to be changed. There us a saying in Evangelical Christianity, convent the world one person at a time. You are not going to turn the tangle and make the issue about atheists.

That is why they go to places like North Korea and Russia for that matter. There are Christians who are persona non grata in Russia. The Russian Orthodox Churn works to maintain control of religion. It took years for Billy Graham to get permission to put on his show.

I never got that impression from Jews and American Muslims I knew.
 
You're trying to mimic atheists again. You do it a lot. You whine and get called on it and then say "atheists whine".

What can I say? I'm an equal opportunity whiner.

You see a logical fallacy named, and you try applying the label (with no comprehension of what it means) to atheist arguments.

Gee. Folks on the internet arguing over whether something is a logical fallacy.
Somebody alert the media.

You interrupt a hypothetical discussion, then soon afterwards accuse atheists of interrupting hypothetical discussions, and characterize it as a "bait-and-switch". Which means you pulled a bait-and-switch.

Yep. Guilty as charged.
I deliberately interrupted a few supposedly sincere Courtiers Reply, mental masterbation, chew toy click-bait threads and (rhetorically) asked why does it matter how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

You just wanted to twist things around and lay it on the atheists. It's a silly game of "No, YOU!"

Tu quoque

How conscious you are of it can't be known. But the end-effect is you keep mocking yourself, because it highlights your own errors. And that's so bizarre it's hard to not wonder sometimes, is this guy for real??

Concern trolling. Meh.


So the "critique atheism rather than defend religion" strategy doesn't work because it means you have to "score points", which means you have to engage in sophistry rather than just forthrightly present your views (with accompanying reasons for them).

I don't have to score points and in case you hadn't noticed, I'm not too fussed whether or not you think my *cough* strategy is working. What I do know is that when people dismiss their opponents arguments as sophistry, they frequently don't know how to resolve the actual point being made. You call it sophistry but there's something nagging at you - something about that little stone I put in your shoe - which leaves you with nothing to say except "That's Sophistry".

Christian proselytizing is manipulative because 1) there's only one right answer, 2) it's based in authority and tradition, and 3) there's a dire consequence to not accepting it as Truth.

How many right answers are there to the God question?
What's wrong with actual "authority". Science is a (1) highly authoritative source of knowledge. And it has its own long and glorious (2) history/tradition.
And what's wrong with the argument from consequences? Global Warming science has many such 'oughts'.

Free thought's very different from that. Arguments based in skepticism/freethinking/atheism share the wish to persuade, but only by reason and evidence. There's no "believe this or you're damned because some old book says so" to it. The invitation is to apply reason instead of merely have opinions. There's no "make people think the way they do" about it.

And yet we see the double-standard whereby FreeThought is fine when it comes to politics, economics, culture, sexuality, pseudoscience, metaphysics, etc. - but not when it comes to plain old garden variety Christian evangelism.
It's not a double-standard. Free Thought "is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma."

That's the standard. Explain the reasons that it is wrong if seems like censorship to you. Preaching is a problem not for being religious but because preaching is merely an "This is the truth!" with no reasonable reasons given.

I read the Wiki and found it very helpful. I'm a FreeThinker. Who knew? :eek2:
 
skepticalbip said:
You do realize that this is a discussion board and not a platform for religious proselytization only don't you

No I don't understand that.

Please explain the difference between atheists telling me I'm wrong about God and me telling atheists they are wrong about God. (Or have the intellectual integrity to admit that you prefer asymmetric rules of engagement such that "discussion board" means one-sided echo chamber and that Christians are expected to be adequately humble in the presence of their betters and obsequious when spoken to.)

I might be more understanding if this was a discussion board where the topic was "non-stamp collecting" or "the hair colour called baldness".

I might be more understanding if there was an ongoing problem with threads about sport constantly being derailed by preachers saying how sport reminds them of 1st Corinthians 9:24.
Or threads about culinary topics getting spammed by preaching about loaves and fishes and how God fills the hungry with good things.
My goodness. Is it that you don't understand what a discussion board is or is it that you don't understand what a discussion is?

In a discussion where the two parties have very different views, each can state their position and then a discussion moves into each presenting support for their view and challenging the other to support the other's view. That is how discussions happen. You seem to be taking any non acceptance of your views (beliefs) as a personal attack when the actual problem is that you have offered no or very weak support for those views (beliefs) so no reason to accept them.

Dude, this isn't a war. You are entitled to your beliefs but if you want to convince others that there is compelling logical reason they should be accepted by others then you need to make a compelling logical argument for them. "It says so in the Bible" is not a compelling logical argument unless you are in a discussion with someone who already accepts the Bible as infallible truth.
 
How many right answers are there to the God question?

Does the question "how to be saved" (the basic reason to proselytize) boil down to that one question? To only whether God exists? No, it doesn't.

There's only one right answer to how to "be saved", and that's pretty absolutist and limiting. Buddhism and stoicism, and so many other paths to overcome whatever existential crisis might draw a person to them, don't pressure anyone to "believe this or you go to an actual hell". They at least try to account for how reality is actually experienced by most humans.

What's wrong with actual "authority". Science is...

Yeah, and off you go into making words mean something different, to arrive at the wanted (false) conclusion. I guess that has to be the case when belief matters more than truth.

Scientists have "to prove it" like anyone else. And science's history is only of academic interest.

Religious authority comes from revelation. "It is written" justifies belief.

And what's wrong with the argument from consequences? Global Warming science has many such 'oughts'.
It's well-evidenced. Zip, nada, nothing for hell.

I read the Wiki and found it very helpful. I'm a FreeThinker. Who knew?
Uh huh. So you translated English into "Lion-ish" there too.
 
Last edited:
Yep. Guilty as charged.
I deliberately interrupted a few supposedly sincere Courtiers Reply, mental masterbation, chew toy click-bait threads and (rhetorically) asked why does it matter how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

You sound very angry and frustrated here. Layering on mean words to hide your frustration? Are you okay today? Is there someone we can call to comfort you?
 
Not belabor the point. It is primarily Christians who see atheists as a threat and people to be changed. There us a saying in Evangelical Christianity, convent the world one person at a time. You are not going to turn the tangle and make the issue about atheists.

That is why they go to places like North Korea and Russia for that matter. There are Christians who are persona non grata in Russia. The Russian Orthodox Churn works to maintain control of religion. It took years for Billy Graham to get permission to put on his show.

I never got that impression from Jews and American Muslims I knew.

Putting into perspective in regards to the wide spectrum to which many various groups or individuals, calling themselves Christians. Christianity (the type as "according to Jesus") does not see atheists as a threat at all , different from the groups like in your example: the type that "preaches for profit" etc..
 
Back
Top Bottom