Let me restate my point of view before we get off point. Proselytization upsets people, and it should. Something is wrong if you are not emotionally affected over the prospect of conversion. This should not paralyze anyone, though, from the moral imperative of proselytization. I recognize that there are prideful intentions on the part of some proselytizers, but not all. Where do you disagree with me?
@BalladoftheWindfish Once again, to proselytize is to say "I am right; you are wrong" and this is an unreasonable thing to say. You don't know what someone else believes, so you can't say they are wrong. You don't understand your own beliefs, so you can't say that you are right.
For example: is any part of your belief system faith-based?
@Anekantavad I agree that is what is tacitly admitted in proselytization. Otherwise, there would be no point to proselytization. I disagree, though, that this is unreasonable. Why do you insist that I cannot know what someone else believes or what I believe?
Answer to your question: Of course. I don't see where you are going with this, though.
@Anekantavad There are different forms of Hinduism, so it is foolish to speak narrowly. Hindu beliefs span monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, atheism, agnosticism, and so on. We can apply the same tests as before to see if these beliefs are internally and externally consistent. I will not get into specifics, sorry. There is not nearly enough space, time, etc., and I happen to think this discussion does not need it.
@BalladoftheWindfish Sorry, I deleted your post by accident. But let me assure you that I have been consistent all along in my questioning of the logic of proselytism.
You wrote "Being right is important. Who wants to be wrong?" yesterday.
@Anekantavad Yeah, I did a double take - "Where did it go?". It is a fair question, don't get me wrong, but I DO think it is not a question that is relevant to this discussion. And even if it was, you have to admit that there really is not enough space or time (at least for me) to go into into it.
Being right is important. Who wants to be wrong? Syncretism can lead to practical atheism since it abstracts and dilutes the truth claims of all religions to accommodate coexistence - something which no one, in my opinion, should want. Proselytizing is a good thing.
@Anekantavad In any of a number ways. As a start, we can apply tests to see if any given religion is historically, metaphysically, morally, or otherwise internally inconsistent with itself. An atheist or agnostic would assert that all religions are guilty of this, but this is, quite frankly, an ignorant and unsound assertion. For example, the metaphysics of many eastern religions are self-refuting - not so with the western religions. If I had more space, I'd expound, but I'm sure you understand.
@BalladoftheWindfish All metaphysics are self-refuting. Just because something is a paradox, however, doesn't mean that it is nonsensical.
For example: we use things like time, space, mass, inertia etc all the time. But do9 we really know what any of these things really are? No, we do not. Problem is, we have built the entire edifice of our world-view on such concepts - and have thus created something of a castle on sand (or at least a castle on what may or may not be sand).
@Anekantavad No, I am still stuck on "all metaphysics are self-refuting." They are? What you're writing sounds like a lot like solipsism or absolute skepticism, and that's a whole other enchilada.
@BalladoftheWindfish I disagree. If you are going to use terms like "right" and Wrong" it isn't enough to just say that one is "wronger" or "righter" when both could be totally off base. "More plausible" is fine. But right and wrong are not about plausibility.
@BalladoftheWindfish Well, I questioned our capacity to be "right" or "wrong" in determining the ultimate Truth. We can't. So proselytism is irrelevant anyway, because I can't determing the Truth myself, let alone try to sell it to anyone else.
@Anekantavad With all due respect, then, speak for yourself. The notion that we cannot know ultimate Truth is entirely without basis. It also undermines itself since, apparently, enough about ultimate Truth is known to know that we cannot know it! As a Christian, I claim and can support that Truth is a person, and proselytization is necessary to share this with others.
@BalladoftheWindfish That's fine. I only speak for myself. The problem is that we can't agree on what the untimate Truth is (otherwise we'd never have any theological disputes, which we most certainly do). In the absence of a consensus, we can either agree to differ or agree to compete (not the same thing). Agreeing to compete ends up sidetracking the real issue, since no matter how many people subscribe to a particular point of view, the Truth is not determined by a vote.
@Anekantavad I do not see the link being made between proselytization and competition over numbers. There may be prideful intentions on the part of some proselytizers, but I think proselytizers in general understand the moral imperative of knowing ultimate Truth. Doing nothing is not an option.
@BalladoftheWindfish Trying to proselytize is by its very nature approaching metaphysics from an arrogant angle, as you are implying a) that you understand your own beliefs well enough to try to spread them (doubtful) b) that you understand someone else's beliefs enough to know that they are wrong (impossible) c) that you have the communication skills to make this clear to others (unlikely) and d) that you can verify that the "convert" actually believes any of it (again impossible)
@Anekantavad But you can say that about any endeavor, religious or irreligious. I doubt very much that my math teacher knows everything there is to know about math, but the point is that she is competent enough. Besides, a gung-ho attitude towards proselytization is not a default - we can proselytize and still be humble and open to the possibility that we're wrong. This shouldn't paralyze, though.
@Anekantavad No, I am saying that we do not have to have expert knowledge before we can proselytize (or teach). We can be competent enough.
I do not see how your question follows from your "if" statement. I can got out there and be sure that Buddhist metaphysics violates the law of non-contradiction even though I am open to the possibility that I could be wrong. The two are not related. It's worth saying, though, that I am only open to the possibility out of charity. I am otherwise certain.
@BalladoftheWindfish Explain how Buddhist metaphysics don't work. Then I will ask a Buddhist and see what s/he makes of your position. I bet a nickel that s/he will say that your grasp of Buddhism is flawed.
@BalladoftheWindfish I would say that it is central to my point. You can only have any hope of converting someone if you have both a near-perfect grasp of what you are trying to convert them to and a very good grasp of what they already believe and what its errors are. I would hold that this is nearly impossible.
@Anekantavad I, on the other hand, think it is very possible. But not necessary. One need only be "near-perfect" at answering the questions of the potential convert, who likely does not require an exhaustive case to be made.
@BalladoftheWindfish Near-perfect? Very interesting idea. IMO to be "near-perfect" in understanding someone else's faith, one needs to have at least studied it in depth, and this means at least a degree. How else can one conclude that it is "wrong"?
@Anekantavad I only used the words "near-perfect" because you used them. In practice, one need only be competent enough to answer the questions of a potential convert. More to your point, a degree is not necessary to conclude a religion is wrong. For example, my own faith depends entirely on the historical fact that Christ rose from the dead. If this fact can be disproven, Christianity falls apart. No one needs a comprehensive degree for this.
@Anekantavad No, if there is one objective fact at all, it is that you must acknowledge the historical fact of the Resurrection to be a Christian. Otherwise, you do not believe in a "Christ" but another social teacher or guru.
I agree that this is problem, but not one that is related to the topic of this issue: proselytization.
@BalladoftheWindfish Yes it is related, because it points out that people need to agree on terminology before using words like "right" and "wrong". We don't even agree on terminology (ie, what is a Christian?) so how can we even start the discussion?
@Anekantavad I agree it is important to agree on terms. Thankfully, terms have definitions independent from ourselves. To be a Christian is to acknowledge the historical fact of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, and we can know that anything else is a vague abstraction that is outside the pale of Christianity.
If a cultural of crackheads learned how to smoke crack with out overdosing and getting or causing people trouble would you wouldn't allow that culture to to do so without objection because that culture mightInfluence other cultures to smoke crack and they wont be able to do it without Overdosing and becoming junkies. So you stop it!Christians can't fight Islamic extremism until the acknowledge there own religion is mythology because they can only fight it with skepticism not another religion
i hated being a student at a protestant school, belief wise. i went to bethany, and i wanted to constantly scream at chapels there was "shut up!" it really annoys me, too. i also wanted to scream that catholics ARE christians, and i like being catholic, because catholics are more open minded.
I have to agree that proselytizing can be very disruptive. BUT how can you stop it when most Christians and Muslims see it as their divine duty to spread their faiths. They claim it as a, what word am I looking for, umm, rule I guess of the faith. They must do it.
I do think it's important for an atheist especially to explain how you came to that point. Especially here in the US where we are considered less trustworthy than any other group. In the US, atheist are the most discriminated against
Yes, and I am at pains to differentiate between explaining one's point of view and one's 'journey' and actually trying to recruit. Explanation, education, etc are excellent ways to avoid the spread of fear and misunderstanding, as well as to maintain an atmosphere of tolerance and mutual respect.
Proselytizing, OTOH, is a very damaging thing. I am all for positive Christianity, but there are too many evangelists out there for me to trust 'Christian' motives - and hidden agendas.
Well you must also understand that many Christians shun proselytism, one like myself. Your beliefs or lack thereof are just as valid as mine and I don't understand why we, as humans, can't co-exist.
I sometimes think that proselytizing is an act of "psychological warfare". You don't really know if the new convert really "gets it", nor do you know if the conversion will "stick" for very long. But you do know that the Other Side are infuriated by it, and not a little bit scared.
Yes, and I sometimes wish I was saner, but considering the stats of kids of terribly abused parents, I thank my lucky stars that I am merely eccentric and nutty and not totally messed up. This is, of course, a matter of opinion :-)
Anyway, Canada is usually like this too. The only people aggressively proselytizing are the "usual suspects" like the JW's and the Scientologists. The missionaries generally head to Africa or Asia.
Anekantavad, I'll try to find a link to the (I believe German) news report that effectively exposes George Bush's attempts to convert many Muslims in Iraq to fundamentalist Christianity - He even called it a Holy War if i remember correctly! Yet another nail in the Republican's coffin.
You are quickly becoming one of my favorite youtubers. Good points mostly. You have a very different perspective than mine and that is refreshing. I don't always agree, but it's been wellworth the time invested so far. -max
Why thanks. I don't blame anyone for not agreeing with my point, as I can imagine that it's not so easy to figure out what the heck my point actually *is* most of the time :-)
Let me restate my point of view before we get off point. Proselytization upsets people, and it should. Something is wrong if you are not emotionally affected over the prospect of conversion. This should not paralyze anyone, though, from the moral imperative of proselytization. I recognize that there are prideful intentions on the part of some proselytizers, but not all. Where do you disagree with me?
BalladoftheWindfish 1 year ago
@BalladoftheWindfish Once again, to proselytize is to say "I am right; you are wrong" and this is an unreasonable thing to say. You don't know what someone else believes, so you can't say they are wrong. You don't understand your own beliefs, so you can't say that you are right.
For example: is any part of your belief system faith-based?
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad I agree that is what is tacitly admitted in proselytization. Otherwise, there would be no point to proselytization. I disagree, though, that this is unreasonable. Why do you insist that I cannot know what someone else believes or what I believe?
Answer to your question: Of course. I don't see where you are going with this, though.
BalladoftheWindfish 1 year ago
@BalladoftheWindfish Let me ask you this: how are (say) hindus wrong?
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad There are different forms of Hinduism, so it is foolish to speak narrowly. Hindu beliefs span monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, atheism, agnosticism, and so on. We can apply the same tests as before to see if these beliefs are internally and externally consistent. I will not get into specifics, sorry. There is not nearly enough space, time, etc., and I happen to think this discussion does not need it.
BalladoftheWindfish 1 year ago
@BalladoftheWindfish Well, give me one example of the "wrongness" of hinduism.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@BalladoftheWindfish Sorry, I deleted your post by accident. But let me assure you that I have been consistent all along in my questioning of the logic of proselytism.
You wrote "Being right is important. Who wants to be wrong?" yesterday.
I am asking you to explain.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad Yeah, I did a double take - "Where did it go?". It is a fair question, don't get me wrong, but I DO think it is not a question that is relevant to this discussion. And even if it was, you have to admit that there really is not enough space or time (at least for me) to go into into it.
BalladoftheWindfish 1 year ago
Being right is important. Who wants to be wrong? Syncretism can lead to practical atheism since it abstracts and dilutes the truth claims of all religions to accommodate coexistence - something which no one, in my opinion, should want. Proselytizing is a good thing.
BalladoftheWindfish 1 year ago
@BalladoftheWindfish How can you tell who is right and who is wrong?
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad In any of a number ways. As a start, we can apply tests to see if any given religion is historically, metaphysically, morally, or otherwise internally inconsistent with itself. An atheist or agnostic would assert that all religions are guilty of this, but this is, quite frankly, an ignorant and unsound assertion. For example, the metaphysics of many eastern religions are self-refuting - not so with the western religions. If I had more space, I'd expound, but I'm sure you understand.
BalladoftheWindfish 1 year ago
@BalladoftheWindfish All metaphysics are self-refuting. Just because something is a paradox, however, doesn't mean that it is nonsensical.
For example: we use things like time, space, mass, inertia etc all the time. But do9 we really know what any of these things really are? No, we do not. Problem is, we have built the entire edifice of our world-view on such concepts - and have thus created something of a castle on sand (or at least a castle on what may or may not be sand).
See the problem?
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad No, I am still stuck on "all metaphysics are self-refuting." They are? What you're writing sounds like a lot like solipsism or absolute skepticism, and that's a whole other enchilada.
BalladoftheWindfish 1 year ago
@BalladoftheWindfish I disagree. If you are going to use terms like "right" and Wrong" it isn't enough to just say that one is "wronger" or "righter" when both could be totally off base. "More plausible" is fine. But right and wrong are not about plausibility.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad I agree. I don't see, however, how this relates to anything I said.
BalladoftheWindfish 1 year ago
@BalladoftheWindfish Well, I questioned our capacity to be "right" or "wrong" in determining the ultimate Truth. We can't. So proselytism is irrelevant anyway, because I can't determing the Truth myself, let alone try to sell it to anyone else.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad With all due respect, then, speak for yourself. The notion that we cannot know ultimate Truth is entirely without basis. It also undermines itself since, apparently, enough about ultimate Truth is known to know that we cannot know it! As a Christian, I claim and can support that Truth is a person, and proselytization is necessary to share this with others.
BalladoftheWindfish 1 year ago
@BalladoftheWindfish That's fine. I only speak for myself. The problem is that we can't agree on what the untimate Truth is (otherwise we'd never have any theological disputes, which we most certainly do). In the absence of a consensus, we can either agree to differ or agree to compete (not the same thing). Agreeing to compete ends up sidetracking the real issue, since no matter how many people subscribe to a particular point of view, the Truth is not determined by a vote.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad I do not see the link being made between proselytization and competition over numbers. There may be prideful intentions on the part of some proselytizers, but I think proselytizers in general understand the moral imperative of knowing ultimate Truth. Doing nothing is not an option.
BalladoftheWindfish 1 year ago
@BalladoftheWindfish Trying to proselytize is by its very nature approaching metaphysics from an arrogant angle, as you are implying a) that you understand your own beliefs well enough to try to spread them (doubtful) b) that you understand someone else's beliefs enough to know that they are wrong (impossible) c) that you have the communication skills to make this clear to others (unlikely) and d) that you can verify that the "convert" actually believes any of it (again impossible)
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad But you can say that about any endeavor, religious or irreligious. I doubt very much that my math teacher knows everything there is to know about math, but the point is that she is competent enough. Besides, a gung-ho attitude towards proselytization is not a default - we can proselytize and still be humble and open to the possibility that we're wrong. This shouldn't paralyze, though.
BalladoftheWindfish 1 year ago
@BalladoftheWindfish Just so I am clear, are you comparing faith and mathematics?
Secondly, if one is open to the possibility of one's own error, how can one then be sure of another's error?
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad No, I am saying that we do not have to have expert knowledge before we can proselytize (or teach). We can be competent enough.
I do not see how your question follows from your "if" statement. I can got out there and be sure that Buddhist metaphysics violates the law of non-contradiction even though I am open to the possibility that I could be wrong. The two are not related. It's worth saying, though, that I am only open to the possibility out of charity. I am otherwise certain.
BalladoftheWindfish 1 year ago
@BalladoftheWindfish Explain how Buddhist metaphysics don't work. Then I will ask a Buddhist and see what s/he makes of your position. I bet a nickel that s/he will say that your grasp of Buddhism is flawed.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad Only a nickel? Heck, I would bet more than nickel. :p
Can we stick on topic, though? I really don't think going into that will be necessary.
BalladoftheWindfish 1 year ago
@BalladoftheWindfish I would say that it is central to my point. You can only have any hope of converting someone if you have both a near-perfect grasp of what you are trying to convert them to and a very good grasp of what they already believe and what its errors are. I would hold that this is nearly impossible.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad I, on the other hand, think it is very possible. But not necessary. One need only be "near-perfect" at answering the questions of the potential convert, who likely does not require an exhaustive case to be made.
BalladoftheWindfish 1 year ago
@BalladoftheWindfish Near-perfect? Very interesting idea. IMO to be "near-perfect" in understanding someone else's faith, one needs to have at least studied it in depth, and this means at least a degree. How else can one conclude that it is "wrong"?
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad I only used the words "near-perfect" because you used them. In practice, one need only be competent enough to answer the questions of a potential convert. More to your point, a degree is not necessary to conclude a religion is wrong. For example, my own faith depends entirely on the historical fact that Christ rose from the dead. If this fact can be disproven, Christianity falls apart. No one needs a comprehensive degree for this.
BalladoftheWindfish 1 year ago
@BalladoftheWindfish This is your opinion. there are plenty of self-identified christians who do not believe that christ rose from the dead.
See the problem?
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad No, if there is one objective fact at all, it is that you must acknowledge the historical fact of the Resurrection to be a Christian. Otherwise, you do not believe in a "Christ" but another social teacher or guru.
I agree that this is problem, but not one that is related to the topic of this issue: proselytization.
BalladoftheWindfish 1 year ago
@BalladoftheWindfish Yes it is related, because it points out that people need to agree on terminology before using words like "right" and "wrong". We don't even agree on terminology (ie, what is a Christian?) so how can we even start the discussion?
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad I agree it is important to agree on terms. Thankfully, terms have definitions independent from ourselves. To be a Christian is to acknowledge the historical fact of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, and we can know that anything else is a vague abstraction that is outside the pale of Christianity.
BalladoftheWindfish 1 year ago
If a cultural of crackheads learned how to smoke crack with out overdosing and getting or causing people trouble would you wouldn't allow that culture to to do so without objection because that culture mightInfluence other cultures to smoke crack and they wont be able to do it without Overdosing and becoming junkies. So you stop it!Christians can't fight Islamic extremism until the acknowledge there own religion is mythology because they can only fight it with skepticism not another religion
jjason55740 1 year ago
i hated being a student at a protestant school, belief wise. i went to bethany, and i wanted to constantly scream at chapels there was "shut up!" it really annoys me, too. i also wanted to scream that catholics ARE christians, and i like being catholic, because catholics are more open minded.
Buizel88 1 year ago
I have to agree that proselytizing can be very disruptive. BUT how can you stop it when most Christians and Muslims see it as their divine duty to spread their faiths. They claim it as a, what word am I looking for, umm, rule I guess of the faith. They must do it.
I do think it's important for an atheist especially to explain how you came to that point. Especially here in the US where we are considered less trustworthy than any other group. In the US, atheist are the most discriminated against
tattooskin72 2 years ago
Yes, and I am at pains to differentiate between explaining one's point of view and one's 'journey' and actually trying to recruit. Explanation, education, etc are excellent ways to avoid the spread of fear and misunderstanding, as well as to maintain an atmosphere of tolerance and mutual respect.
Proselytizing, OTOH, is a very damaging thing. I am all for positive Christianity, but there are too many evangelists out there for me to trust 'Christian' motives - and hidden agendas.
Anekantavad 2 years ago
I didn't get everything in my comment that I wanted nor how I wanted... so I was just hoping it made any sense to you :)
thanks for your videos ;)
tattooskin72 2 years ago
@tattooskin72
Well you must also understand that many Christians shun proselytism, one like myself. Your beliefs or lack thereof are just as valid as mine and I don't understand why we, as humans, can't co-exist.
GruppeSechs2004 1 year ago
indeed... religions are all at war with each other at their root...
because they are proclaim to be the Only correct religion, thus everyone else is lost, damned, infidels, etc.
it breeds division and bigotry.
onlywhenprovoked 2 years ago
... and makes people feel threatened.
I sometimes think that proselytizing is an act of "psychological warfare". You don't really know if the new convert really "gets it", nor do you know if the conversion will "stick" for very long. But you do know that the Other Side are infuriated by it, and not a little bit scared.
Pointless.
Anekantavad 2 years ago
... raised in a roman catholic orphanage ...
now That must have been hard.
I prefer living in New England, where the Catholics and Jews don't really try to recruit. You're either part of their club or not.
onlywhenprovoked 2 years ago
Yes, and I sometimes wish I was saner, but considering the stats of kids of terribly abused parents, I thank my lucky stars that I am merely eccentric and nutty and not totally messed up. This is, of course, a matter of opinion :-)
Anyway, Canada is usually like this too. The only people aggressively proselytizing are the "usual suspects" like the JW's and the Scientologists. The missionaries generally head to Africa or Asia.
Anekantavad 2 years ago
Anekantavad, I'll try to find a link to the (I believe German) news report that effectively exposes George Bush's attempts to convert many Muslims in Iraq to fundamentalist Christianity - He even called it a Holy War if i remember correctly! Yet another nail in the Republican's coffin.
xtremerandomness 2 years ago
If you want to start an out-and-out war between the West and Islam, a mass-conversion program will pretty much guarantee results.
Not that the Islamic world's hands are any cleaner in this regard, mind you ...
Anekantavad 2 years ago
You are quickly becoming one of my favorite youtubers. Good points mostly. You have a very different perspective than mine and that is refreshing. I don't always agree, but it's been wellworth the time invested so far. -max
jsmxwll 2 years ago 3
Why thanks. I don't blame anyone for not agreeing with my point, as I can imagine that it's not so easy to figure out what the heck my point actually *is* most of the time :-)
Anekantavad 2 years ago