Is Christian Evangelism a threat to our way of life?

[Svartalf]

...and religious kids should be made to feel so horrible that they start killing themselves.

You mean guilt tripped into becoming emo?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

...and religious kids should be made to feel so horrible that they start killing themselves.

You mean guilt tripped into becoming emo?

Only if they're catlickers.

[Gallstones]

Maybe not so much a threat to my way of life, Seth. In fact, I'm not sure what "a threat to my way of life" means exactly That may be a little melodramatic. But the fact that so many members of my family are religious loonies, or otherwise loony, means I essentially have no family.

Melodramatic indeed. No, it means that you are an intolerant ass who cares more about your own bigoted ideological biases than you do your family.

I have, actually, fucked off and left them to their own devices.

How very selfish and self-centered of you.

They can certainly do as they wish, and have every right to do as they wish.

Thank God for that. But I note that many people here (and certainly at Ratskep) would enshrine anti-religious bigotry and oppression into law if given the chance to do so.

But my father is born-again, my twin sister is born-again, my step-sister is born-again, and my mother is insane, so far into the lobster trap of (in her case non-religious) woo that she'll never find a way out, and my little sister is brain damaged as the result of an accident. So for all intents and purpose I have no family. I suppose it's a threat to my way of life in that I no longer have a family life.

Hoist on your own petard, I'd say, if you'd give up all your family relations over such a petty thing as their harmless delusions.

All you have to do to have your family back is give up your intolerance and bigotry and accept that they are human beings who hold beliefs different from your own and allow them to live their lives in ways that make them happy without being an arrogant, judgmental, supercilious prick who thinks their own opinions and beliefs are perfection incarnate and is fearful that those beliefs are so very weak and insubstantial that even associating with family members who hold different opinions will tarnish and corrode that ignorant bigotry. You don't have to agree with them, all you have to do is tolerate their religious beliefs, and that's not really very hard at all. I do it every day.

Maybe they know something about happiness that you don't. After all, when 80 percent of the planet believes in "woo" and live happier lives as a result, perhaps it's you that's the errant fool, not them.

I don't understand the last line of your post.

Gay bashing and religious bashing come from exactly the same motivation: bigoted intolerance of those not like you. A bigot is a bigot, no matter who the target is. Cloaking it in self-righteous atheistic moralizing doesn't change the fact that you're an anti-religious bigot by your own admission.

By the way, how does it feel to be excoriated, attacked and reviled for your beliefs? Not very nice, is it? There's a lesson there for you if you have the wit to see it.



*** This post is currently under staff discussion. ***

*** Seth was suspended for 24h for this post. ***

Seth was enjoying the 4th of July holiday fireworks and doesn't give a flying fuck about the suspension because the sentiments stated are simply reflections of the sentiments stated by atheists about people of faith on a regular basis and Seth thought it might be instructive to apply a little sauce to the gander by way of illuminating the hypocrisy of intolerant religion bashing, particularly of one's own family members.

Gander sauce:

It must also be noted that it is a civil right to hate people and even to discriminate against them, with a very few explicit exceptions when it comes to interstate commerce, which makes trying to suppress "hate" a direct conflict with the rights of the individual to both express themselves freely and to associate...and disassociate...freely.

Besides, I'd rather the bigots announce their beliefs and intentions publicly, so we can identify them and revile and discriminate against them in turn. Hidden bigotry and prejudice is far more dangerous than openly expressed bigotry because the ways in which a bigot can oppress the target of their bigotry without actually violating a law are numerous.

Who knows one's family members better, a family member or some person on the internet?

Family are like everyone else, deserving of respect and affection or not. They earn it by deeds as other people do. One need not associate with any person just because they are family. Family is more likely to be abusive than any other category of associates.

[Gallstones]

There is no mandate, requirement or moral precept that says that everyone has to show approval of everyone else's lifestyle, nor are all groups required to associate with all other groups. People are free to decide for themselves if homosexuality is sinful, disgusting, objectionable, morally wrong, acceptable or simply of no consequence. Heck, my girlfriend's daddy is in high dudgeon over the fact that she's "living in sin" with me, and she's on her way to move her things out of his house at this very moment because he's being a hypocritical judgmental ass. But that's his right, and it's his house, so she's disassociating from him because she's happy living with me. It's sad, but neither of us is angry at him, because it's his problem to overcome, and it's his right not to overcome it and continue to be a hypocritical judgmental ass.

Seth thought it might be instructive to apply a little sauce to the gander by way of illuminating the hypocrisy of intolerant religion bashing, particularly of one's own family members.

I'm confused, is it only rejection and dissociation of family because of their religion that makes one hypocritical and judgmental?

Besides, what leads you to the belief that anybody is under any sort of compulsion to be accepting of homosexuality religion? The best you can expect is benign tolerance. And that's what you should have, and what you get from many people, of faith and otherwise. But you don't get that by being a judgmental ass towards 80 percent of the population of the planet, most of whom don't give a fig one way or another where you put your penis as long as you don't wave it in their faces. When you point to the occasional judgmental ass and hold them up as representatives of the behavior and beliefs of the majority, you're just being as much of a bigoted judgmental ass as the occasional anti-gay bigoted judgmental asses that are around.

[Jason]

Only if you allow your government to either favor or disfavor religion.

Hello Seth.

I'm surprised at you. You didn't even raise issue with the groupism inherent in the title question of this thread. 'Our way of life' presupposes a group and, what's more, a group with a certain 'way of life'! Atheists and 'freethinkers' are always careful to shy away from calling themselves a group, most critically in any sense in which it could be used to identify them as sharing more than one commonality. Yet here it is, handed to you on a silver platter, and you say nothing. I'm shocked.

[Pappa]

Only if you allow your government to either favor or disfavor religion.

Hello Seth.

I'm surprised at you. You didn't even raise issue with the groupism inherent in the title question of this thread. 'Our way of life' presupposes a group and, what's more, a group with a certain 'way of life'! Atheists and 'freethinkers' are always careful to shy away from calling themselves a group, most critically in any sense in which it could be used to identify them as sharing more than one commonality. Yet here it is, handed to you on a silver platter, and you say nothing. I'm shocked.

By 'our' I was actually referring to modern Western civilisation mostly (because that's where the forum members live), but any modern human culture really. Perhaps I should have said so explicitly, but I was including moderate christians and other religions too, as they would also be affected by evangelism.

[Robert_S]

Only if you allow your government to either favor or disfavor religion.

Hello Seth.

I'm surprised at you. You didn't even raise issue with the groupism inherent in the title question of this thread. 'Our way of life' presupposes a group and, what's more, a group with a certain 'way of life'! Atheists and 'freethinkers' are always careful to shy away from calling themselves a group, most critically in any sense in which it could be used to identify them as sharing more than one commonality. Yet here it is, handed to you on a silver platter, and you say nothing. I'm shocked.

By 'our' I was actually referring to modern Western civilisation mostly (because that's where the forum members live), but any modern human culture really. Perhaps I should have said so explicitly, but I was including moderate christians and other religions too, as they would also be affected by evangelism.

That's how I was interpreting it.

[Jason]

Only if you allow your government to either favor or disfavor religion.

Hello Seth.

I'm surprised at you. You didn't even raise issue with the groupism inherent in the title question of this thread. 'Our way of life' presupposes a group and, what's more, a group with a certain 'way of life'! Atheists and 'freethinkers' are always careful to shy away from calling themselves a group, most critically in any sense in which it could be used to identify them as sharing more than one commonality. Yet here it is, handed to you on a silver platter, and you say nothing. I'm shocked.

By 'our' I was actually referring to modern Western civilisation mostly (because that's where the forum members live), but any modern human culture really. Perhaps I should have said so explicitly, but I was including moderate christians and other religions too, as they would also be affected by evangelism.

Hmm I'm not in the frame of mind to argue a silly point, so I'll answer it straight:

Christian Evangelism exists and is prevalent, to widely varying degrees, in most, if not all, of Occidental civilization and is so, necessarily, already a part of 'our way of life'. It follows that what is, in fact, already part of our way life cannot threaten our way of life for the simple reason that it is already a part of it. To argue otherwise would be to commit a logical fallacy - the whole has properties, Christian Evangelism being one of them - it is undeniably so. So your question is fatally flawed in its current form - you must appeal to a shared idealism, or ideal 'way of life', in which Christian Evangelism does not already hold a well and long established part lest your question have no discernible meaning whatsoever.

This is why I assumed that by 'our' you were appealing to a certain subset of the Occidental civilized populace, and it seemed most likely that it should be atheists or 'freethinkers'.

I'm afraid your question, as posed, makes no logical sense and cannot be answered. Assuming, however, we are to take 'our way of life' to imply some undefined ideal, or rather if I understand your question to be something along the line of 'Is Christian Evangelism an impediment to progress (toward whatever goal)?' I say no it is not.

[Seth]

Only if you allow your government to either favor or disfavor religion.

Hello Seth.

I'm surprised at you. You didn't even raise issue with the groupism inherent in the title question of this thread. 'Our way of life' presupposes a group and, what's more, a group with a certain 'way of life'! Atheists and 'freethinkers' are always careful to shy away from calling themselves a group, most critically in any sense in which it could be used to identify them as sharing more than one commonality. Yet here it is, handed to you on a silver platter, and you say nothing. I'm shocked.

The "Atheist" group is implicit, but my answer applies to all groups and everyone everywhere. Christian evangelism is not a threat to anyone unless government either favors or disfavors it, or any other religious belief. Nor is any other religious belief. This is because so long as religious belief is not supported by government compulsion, individuals can take or leave it, and defend themselves against any attempts to force religion upon them by other individuals.

[Jason]

Only if you allow your government to either favor or disfavor religion.

Hello Seth.

I'm surprised at you. You didn't even raise issue with the groupism inherent in the title question of this thread. 'Our way of life' presupposes a group and, what's more, a group with a certain 'way of life'! Atheists and 'freethinkers' are always careful to shy away from calling themselves a group, most critically in any sense in which it could be used to identify them as sharing more than one commonality. Yet here it is, handed to you on a silver platter, and you say nothing. I'm shocked.

The "Atheist" group is implicit, but my answer applies to all groups and everyone everywhere. Christian evangelism is not a threat to anyone unless government either favors or disfavors it, or any other religious belief. Nor is any other religious belief. This is because so long as religious belief is not supported by government compulsion, individuals can take or leave it, and defend themselves against any attempts to force religion upon them by other individuals.

Interesting point of view.

So would you say that government is a potential threat to our way of life then?

[Seth]

Only if you allow your government to either favor or disfavor religion.

Hello Seth.

I'm surprised at you. You didn't even raise issue with the groupism inherent in the title question of this thread. 'Our way of life' presupposes a group and, what's more, a group with a certain 'way of life'! Atheists and 'freethinkers' are always careful to shy away from calling themselves a group, most critically in any sense in which it could be used to identify them as sharing more than one commonality. Yet here it is, handed to you on a silver platter, and you say nothing. I'm shocked.

The "Atheist" group is implicit, but my answer applies to all groups and everyone everywhere. Christian evangelism is not a threat to anyone unless government either favors or disfavors it, or any other religious belief. Nor is any other religious belief. This is because so long as religious belief is not supported by government compulsion, individuals can take or leave it, and defend themselves against any attempts to force religion upon them by other individuals.

Interesting point of view.

So would you say that government is a potential threat to our way of life then?

Of course. Government is a necessary evil, and it is ALWAYS a potential threat to the lives of everyone. That's why we in the US tried (somewhat successfully) to constrain the government within strict boundaries using the Constitution. The Founders said explicitly that government can be the greatest evil that besets a free people, but also that it is necessary to have some government in order to secure the blessings of liberty.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to give us the ability to put down a tyrannical government at need, and the Founders knew that the worst sorts of abuse take place when government is allowed, or is able to disarm the citizenry.

Like fire, government is a useful servant and a terrible, deadly master.

[JimC]

Only if you allow your government to either favor or disfavor religion.

Hello Seth.

I'm surprised at you. You didn't even raise issue with the groupism inherent in the title question of this thread. 'Our way of life' presupposes a group and, what's more, a group with a certain 'way of life'! Atheists and 'freethinkers' are always careful to shy away from calling themselves a group, most critically in any sense in which it could be used to identify them as sharing more than one commonality. Yet here it is, handed to you on a silver platter, and you say nothing. I'm shocked.

By 'our' I was actually referring to modern Western civilisation mostly (because that's where the forum members live), but any modern human culture really. Perhaps I should have said so explicitly, but I was including moderate christians and other religions too, as they would also be affected by evangelism.

Hmm I'm not in the frame of mind to argue a silly point, so I'll answer it straight:

Christian Evangelism exists and is prevalent, to widely varying degrees, in most, if not all, of Occidental civilization and is so, necessarily, already a part of 'our way of life'. It follows that what is, in fact, already part of our way life cannot threaten our way of life for the simple reason that it is already a part of it. To argue otherwise would be to commit a logical fallacy - the whole has properties, Christian Evangelism being one of them - it is undeniably so. So your question is fatally flawed in its current form - you must appeal to a shared idealism, or ideal 'way of life', in which Christian Evangelism does not already hold a well and long established part lest your question have no discernible meaning whatsoever.

This is why I assumed that by 'our' you were appealing to a certain subset of the Occidental civilized populace, and it seemed most likely that it should be atheists or 'freethinkers'.

I'm afraid your question, as posed, makes no logical sense and cannot be answered. Assuming, however, we are to take 'our way of life' to imply some undefined ideal, or rather if I understand your question to be something along the line of 'Is Christian Evangelism an impediment to progress (toward whatever goal)?' I say no it is not.

You could argue, though, that an increase in Christian Evangelism is at least irritating, and has the potential to effect social and political structures in a direction that compromises secular principles, ie. that religions should stay the fuck out of peoples faces, eschew politics and basically mind their own fucking business...

[Tigger]

Derail moved to here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 07#p907207
If anything's wrong, let me know.

[Seth]

You could argue, though, that an increase in Christian Evangelism is at least irritating, and has the potential to effect social and political structures in a direction that compromises secular principles, ie. that religions should stay the fuck out of peoples faces, eschew politics and basically mind their own fucking business...

Why should people of religion stay "out of people's faces?" This is the same as saying that their beliefs and practices are less worthy than yours, which is both arrogant and entirely untrue. They have a right to proselytize and express themselves freely just as you do. If you don't like their message, then don't listen to it.

People also have a perfect right to let their religion inform their politics and to choose both laws and representatives that will uphold their moral beliefs, whether they are based in religion (as all such beliefs are to one extent or another) or they are based in atheistic sentiments. Each of us has the right to argue that society and government should conform to our moral beliefs, and ultimately the decision is made by the people as a whole to what extent religion affects government.

Anything else is tyranny by the atheistic minority, and history proves that leads to the worst sort of despotism, tyranny and mass murder.

You're just going to have to get used to the notion that religion exists and learn to live with people of religion, not vice versa, because they radically outnumber you and its their right to create a society that satisfies their needs and desires every bit as much as you do.

[HomerJay]

You could argue, though, that an increase in Christian Evangelism is at least irritating, and has the potential to effect social and political structures in a direction that compromises secular principles, ie. that religions should stay the fuck out of peoples faces, eschew politics and basically mind their own fucking business...

You're just going to have to get used to the notion that religion exists and learn to live with people of religion, not vice versa, because they radically outnumber you and its their right to create a society that satisfies their needs and desires every bit as much as you do.

What about Voluntary Euthanasia?

The question is: Does your experience on earth affect your experience of the eternal afterlife?

If it does, then God doesn't seem to be being very fair on people that die (very) young, as they would be unable to fully participate in eternity.

If the experience of eternity, of people that die (very) young (perhaps even before they have developed language) is in no way diminished, then continued experience of earth has no value.

The 3 score and 10 will seem like a blink where compared against the infinity of eternity, so there is no reason for believers to continue their experience on earth. In fact as it would improve things for the rest of us, surely it is their duty to vacate as soon as possible?