Proselytization

[flitzerbiest]

Topic for debate: proselytization

Opening statement: I believe that proselytization amounts to cultural genocide, and is inherently immoral.

[Noodles]

Flitzerbiest, you have yet to address my post.

Dictionary.com defines genocide as

-the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

and

proselytize as

-to convert or attempt to convert

If I understand this definitions correctly, they are not synonymous.

[flitzerbiest]

Flitzerbiest, you have yet to address my post.

Dictionary.com defines genocide as

-the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

and

proselytize as

-to convert or attempt to convert

If I understand this definitions correctly, they are not synonymous.

Yes, I have. My terminology was cultural genocide. If you insist on continuing to read this as literal mass murder, I really can't help you.

[Kuan]

For the sake of argument, consider proselytization to be the act of attempting to lure a member of one religions to another.

Based upon this description, he is not proselytizing. Its time to move on to a deeper discussion rather than point fingers.

Flitzerbiest, Is it morally wrong to want to share what you believe to be true?
Is it wrong to knock on someones door to ask them to discuss religion?

Lets set aside all opinion on whether it is annoying or not also.

Why should that be set aside? Why do your beliefs give you the right to go knock on someone's door and tell them that they need salvation on your terms despite the fact that you can't possibly be sure that you are right about the product you are selling.

Because arguing over this opinion will not further the debate in a civil or reasonable way. I think it would be obvious that theists dont view it as annoying while non-theists do. Of course there are exceptions though.

Do I think it's immoral for you to want to share? Of course not. I have no business regulating your thoughts. Conversely, you have no business regulating those of someone else. If someone asks you about your faith--fine. If not, you are just forcing your viewpoint on them, frequently on their time and on their property. You are tacitly claiming a superior spiritual footing and asserting that unless someone thinks the same way you do, they are lost.

Maybe some take that approach but for me, I try to just discuss things the way they are, I accept that I could be wrong and I hope that the other person does too.

Meanwhile, no one has addressed the specific example which I have presented--specifically the targeting of an entire ethnic group for conversion. What does this have to do with love and sharing? The fact of the matter is that these folks are using deception to bring down a culture simply because they think it will bring Jesus back sooner, and they're sick of waiting for payday.

See, there is a difference at this point. Few theists (I believe) would actually support mass targeting of an ethnic group. While few would actually do it. There is a difference between the Dutch example and a mormon or JW having a discussion with you. Although you bring up a good point that it might be a waste of your time, you have control over your life, just say no politely.

[flitzerbiest]

Lets set aside all opinion on whether it is annoying or not also.

Why should that be set aside? Why do your beliefs give you the right to go knock on someone's door and tell them that they need salvation on your terms despite the fact that you can't possibly be sure that you are right about the product you are selling.

Because arguing over this opinion will not further the debate in a civil or reasonable way. I think it would be obvious that theists dont view it as annoying while non-theists do.

In other words the people intruding on the privacy of others in order to tell them how to think don't find that act offensive, but those who have to be subjected to it do. You can't carve this out of the debate--it is a huge component of the problem. Door to door evangelism is at least as annoying as the salesman who telephones during dinner, and more invasive, as it involves a personal visit. Further, the salesman only wishes to sell you a subscription to Time Magazine, whereas the evangelist seeks to convince you:

1. That you are eternally damned
2. That you are incapable of finding any sort of salvation on your own
3. That only by agreeing with his religious dogma will you escape punishment

And, of course, the evangelist can provide no evidence that any of this is actually true. He can point to his holy book, but he will be the first to point out that other people's holy books are wrong despite the fact that they also articulate (different) paths to salvation.

[Kuan]

Lets set aside all opinion on whether it is annoying or not also.

Why should that be set aside? Why do your beliefs give you the right to go knock on someone's door and tell them that they need salvation on your terms despite the fact that you can't possibly be sure that you are right about the product you are selling.

Because arguing over this opinion will not further the debate in a civil or reasonable way. I think it would be obvious that theists dont view it as annoying while non-theists do.

In other words the people intruding on the privacy of others in order to tell them how to think don't find that act offensive, but those who have to be subjected to it do. You can't carve this out of the debate--it is a huge component of the problem. Door to door evangelism is at least as annoying as the salesman who telephones during dinner, and more invasive, as it involves a personal visit.

I never said it is not annoying, it probably is but an annoyance is far from "cultural genocide."

1. That you are eternally damned
2. That you are incapable of finding any sort of salvation on your own
3. That only by agreeing with his religious dogma will you escape punishment

Not true of every person. Unless you are only limiting this to evangelists, but even then I doubt its true of all evangelists.

[Wootah]

You are trying to convince/proselytize your views. 'Convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another'. You argued yourself into silence by your claim. Absurdity was won in the first post.

There is a profound difference between having a live and let live attitude about religion and pounding on doors telling those encountered that they must change their beliefs or face the prospect of eternal damnation. Apparently this distinction is lost on you.

The real issue in this thread is that you cannot accept the reality of the contradiction you created for yourself. It really should be embarrassing, you really should allow yourself to feel embarrassed.

[Baz]

I have to admit to being a little disappointed with this thread.
I thought it was deliberately ambiguous and overstated to instigate some responses, so that a profound point could be made with regard to something like the Christian crusades or fundamentalist Muslim doctrines attempting to transform or degrade some cultures.





Please tell me it’s not about Jehovah’s witnesses coming round at tea time?

[East of Eden]

Do me a favor: please introduce me to the non-theistic proponents of ID here at DCR.

"When Darwin put forward his theory in the middle of the nineteenth century, he never mentioned how the origin of life, in other words the first living cell, came to be. Scientists looking for the origin of life at the beginning of the twentieth century began to realise that the theory was invalid. The complex and perfect structure in life prepared the ground for many researchers to perceive the truth of creation. Mathematical calculations and scientific experiment and observation demonstrated that life could not be the "product of chance," as the theory of evolution claimed.

With the collapse of the claim that coincidence was responsible and the realisation that life was "planned," some scientists began to look for the origin of life in outer space. The best-known of the scientists who made such claims were Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. These two cobbled together a scenario in which they proposed that there was a force which "seeded" life in space. According to the scenario, these seeds were carried through the emptiness of space by gas or dust clouds, or else by an asteroid, and eventually reached the Earth, and life thus started here.

Nobel Prize–winner Francis Crick, co-discoverer with James Watson of the double helix structure of DNA, is one of those who has sought the origin of life in outer space. Crick came to realise that it is quite unreasonable to expect life to have started by chance, but he has claimed instead that life on Earth was started by intelligent "extraterrestrial" powers."

[East of Eden]

Lets set aside all opinion on whether it is annoying or not also.

Why should that be set aside? Why do your beliefs give you the right to go knock on someone's door and tell them that they need salvation on your terms despite the fact that you can't possibly be sure that you are right about the product you are selling.

Because arguing over this opinion will not further the debate in a civil or reasonable way. I think it would be obvious that theists dont view it as annoying while non-theists do.

In other words the people intruding on the privacy of others in order to tell them how to think don't find that act offensive, but those who have to be subjected to it do. You can't carve this out of the debate--it is a huge component of the problem. Door to door evangelism is at least as annoying as the salesman who telephones during dinner, and more invasive, as it involves a personal visit. Further, the salesman only wishes to sell you a subscription to Time Magazine, whereas the evangelist seeks to convince you:

1. That you are eternally damned
2. That you are incapable of finding any sort of salvation on your own
3. That only by agreeing with his religious dogma will you escape punishment

And, of course, the evangelist can provide no evidence that any of this is actually true. He can point to his holy book, but he will be the first to point out that other people's holy books are wrong despite the fact that they also articulate (different) paths to salvation.

If 1, 2, and 3 are really true, I would hope someone would try and tell me.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 58:

"When Darwin put forward his theory in the middle of the nineteenth century, he never mentioned how the origin of life, in other words the first living cell, came to be...

This appears to be a copy / paste from here. Unattributed references may indicate the presenter is aware of possible problems with the source / data.

That site is based on the works of Adnan Oktar, aka Harun Yahya, a controversial figure, to say the least.

Here's an excellent example of the 'quality' of his work...



(edit for speling)