Dawkins & Religion

[McBell]

As usual the claim of "agenda" or "out of context" is applied to anyone who sees a contrary view to the poor old humble atheist or their spokespeople.

I kept Dawkins IN context, he makes the context of the quote about the debate of religion and purposely associates that debate with his change after 911 and states "Lets all stop being so damned respectful."

Damn right I have an agenda, it's a call for respectful debate.

Now you want to try the self martyr tactic?

 

[Peacewise]

Now you want to try the self martyr tactic?

That tired old come back again, please get some new material.

:sleep:

 

[Kathryn]

Okay... so you don't have a problem with his underlying message, just the tone and manner in which he delivers it. Could you describe to us how he could deliver his message in a way that you wouldn't find offensive?

I didn't say I don't have a problem with his underlying message. I don't agree with his underlying message - which is the support and proselytizing for the cause of atheism. I DO however, support his right to be an atheist and express his beliefs - and make a lot of money doing so as well.

I don't agree with his message, and I don't like his approach. So...I'm probably not going to buy or read any of his books.

 

[Kathryn]

In my view I must say that there is nothing offensive at all in the idea that someone who believes in the invisible man who has an army of winged creatures at his disposal that sadly nobody ever recorded is not really different from someone who believes in faires (winged small ladies flying through the woods).
It's also not overly sarcastic. The problem is that it appears to be true. If you think it is wrong you are more then welcome to show us the evidence that sets you apart from blind believers in whatever idea you think is not comparable to your religion.

Well, that's your view. It's not offensive to you because you AGREE with it. That seems elementary enough logically.

As I said in an earlier post, this thread is not about whether or not Dawkins' beliefs are true - it's about his tone and delivery. I'm not going to highjack the thread by morphing it into a debate about theism vs atheism.

I think the real problem is here that you are not able or willing to see that "atheism" didn't kill anybody. I have yet to see even one single piece of evidence that someone who called himself an atheist or was one ever justified evil acts by his "holy book of atheism".

Remember that PEOPLE do all sorts of evil and good things.
The question is if someone can do something in the name of a religion or atheism.

OK, OK - you win the splitting hairs contest. Atheism doesn't kill people, and neither does religion. People kill people.

That being said, the 20th century alone offers enough evidence that atheists can be absolutely as intolerant and abusive as anyone else, and that regimes that demand the suppression of religion and the embracing of atheism can and will slaughter millions who refuse to go along with the ideals of their philosophy and politics.

They share a history of intolerance, violence, genocide and mayhem with their fellow humans who are theists.

I don't see a shred of moral superiority in either camp. Both are predictably human and flawed. And THAT'S my point.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Well, that's your view. It's not offensive to you because you AGREE with it. That seems elementary enough logically.

I think you don't do yourself a favour with this claim.

According to your "elementary logic" i would have to be offended by anything i dont agree with and not offended by anything that i agree with.
And according to your logic the reason why you find Dawkins statement to be bad is your disagreement with them and not actually his statement "as is".
Why should i accept your judgment of Dawkins tone which according to your own logic wouldnt be objective.

An offense is not related to my agreement to a statement Kathryn.
An offense in my view is an insult.
Saying that belief in angels is comparable to belief in fairies is no insult in my view.
Its a simple, reasonable equation to which you would come if you measured both claims with the same standards.

An insult would be something like "a****". Something which you for example said about Dawkins. That's an insult. And i am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you concerning that because i do not know Dawkins personally.

As I said in an earlier post, this thread is not about whether or not Dawkins' beliefs are true - it's about his tone and delivery. I'm not going to highjack the thread by morphing it into a debate about theism vs atheism.

Well, we will not agree here. For me the question about his tone is related to the question of truth. Calling someone an "idiot" for example can be either insulting or true but in my view not both at the same time.
You don't like Dawkins style. As said we could discuss that for eons and it would amaze me if we ever found objective common grounds. "Style" is like fashion.... every day something else.
Truth is what matters for me.

OK, OK - you win the splitting hairs contest. Atheism doesn't kill people, and neither does religion. People kill people.

thank you. We can agree here.

If the rest of your post is to illustrate that mongst theists as well as atheists (or lets say amongst all humans) people commit crimes then we agree there as well.
Unfortunately i think however that you did not actually understand my point and that you made a little mistake.
The mistake is that you seem to equate all atrocities comitted by theists to those made by atheists. And i would not agree to that. We could spend some time adding up death tolls and atrocities but i dont think that should be done here and now.

And the main point that you have not adressed and which is my main point is that the motivation as well as the excuses used were not adressed by you.

In any case: My point simply is that religious people do often have "religious" excuses for their evil acts, atheists never have.
A criminal atheist is exactly that.... a criminal atheist
A criminal theist is sometimes a blessed, honorable defender of religion.

For me both are criminals and perhaps the theist wouldnt have been one if not for his belief that he did the right thing.

We deviate from the topic though

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, that's your view. It's not offensive to you because you AGREE with it. That seems elementary enough logically.

Sorry, but that's a pathetic point to make. We might as well dismiss your view of Dawkins and the offense you take at his position as just being the result of you DISAGREEING with it.

OK, OK - you win the splitting hairs contest. Atheism doesn't kill people, and neither does religion. People kill people.

But religion directly inspired people to kill people and is responsible for many deaths. Religious doctrines have also been used to justify slavery, rape, genocide, suicide and torture. You cannot put atheism - a position which holds no doctrine - on level-pegging with religions - which hold central doctrines that teach people to enact atrocities.

That being said, the 20th century alone offers enough evidence that atheists can be absolutely as intolerant and abusive as anyone else, and that regimes that demand the suppression of religion and the embracing of atheism can and will slaughter millions who refuse to go along with the ideals of their philosophy and politics.

But none of that has anything to do with any "core atheistic tenets". Atheists do not all support the idea of "suppressing religion", including Dawkins, and there is no logical route for an atheistic position to justify any such atrocities. Religion, on the other hand...

They share a history of intolerance, violence, genocide and mayhem with their fellow humans who are theists.

I don't see a shred of moral superiority in either camp. Both are predictably human and flawed. And THAT'S my point.

Nobody in here has claimed that atheists are morally superior, only that religion has -repeatedly- directly inspired a spectrum of atrocities throughout history, and atheism has not. This is not because of any moral superiority, it's just basic logic. Atheism does not have a central doctrine or core belief structure, therefore there is no means to justify any such atrocities through an atheistic mindset. On the other hand, if you inherently believe in the word of the Bible, then it stands to reason you also may inherently believe in the passages that justify stoning, homophobia, slavery, sacrifice, etc.

Whether you accept these passages or not, they exist, and people continue to use them as the sole justification of their position. I also do not accept your position that these people are just "evil". Not so, they could be perfectly good, well-rounded people. But it makes no difference; because if you view your central doctrine as the inherent word of God that should be followed under penalty of eternal torture, you're going to be more inclined to agree with what it says, in spite of how horrific it may be.

That's not evil, it's called indoctrination. And that's the biggest problem with religion that Dawkins and other atheists such as myself have. And yes, it is a problem with religion - not people.

 

[Kathryn]

According to your "elementary logic" i would have to be offended by anything i dont agree with and not offended by anything that i agree with.

No - what I mean is that people are not as likely to be offended by the TONE of a person's argument if they agree with the premise. People tend to applaud sarcasm and condescension as cleverness and wit when theyagree with the content of an argument.

And according to your logic the reason why you find Dawkins statement to be bad is your disagreement with them and not actually his statement "as is".

No, I don't like his condescension and his intentionally provocative style.

Why should i accept your judgment of Dawkins tone which according to your own logic wouldnt be objective.

I never expected you to accept my judgment. I'm not trying to win you over. I'm not even claiming to be objective. Style, humor, and wit are ALL subjective qualities.

An offense in my view is an insult.
Saying that belief in angels is comparable to belief in fairies is no insult in my view.

Ok, that's your view. Your subjective view. Have at it.

An insult would be something like "a****". Something which you for example said about Dawkins. That's an insult. And i am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you concerning that because i do not know Dawkins personally.

I never called Dawkins an ******* or any other "name," by the way. I said "Bullocks!" tongue in cheek regarding his style of delivery. That's about like someone saying, "Hogwash!"

Well, we will not agree here. For me the question about his tone is related to the question of truth. Calling someone an "idiot" for example can be either insulting or true but in my view not both at the same time.

Oh really? So as long as we're telling the truth (or what we believe to be the truth) we can just say it any way we want and that's ok? Wow, are you married or in a long term relationship? If so, have you tried that theory out?

"Honey, no offense, but your *** is looking huge these days."

Let me know how that works out for you.

You don't like Dawkins style. As said we could discuss that for eons and it would amaze me if we ever found objective common grounds. "Style" is like fashion.... every day something else.
Truth is what matters for me.

The OP is not about the truth or untruth of Dawkins. It's about his style and delivery of his opinions.

Truth matters to me too, but that's not what I was discussing.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

No - what I mean is that people are not as likely to be offended by the TONE of a person's argument if they agree with the premise. People tend to applaud sarcasm and condescension as cleverness and wit when theyagree with the content of an argument.

I tend to agree.
But i wouldnt be so bold in generalising it especially when you make an exception in the opposite case for yourself. like..

No, I don't like his condescension and his intentionally provocative style.

Why should i not think that people (including you) are of yourse also likely to be offended by the TONE of a persons argument if they dont agree?
See ... it is all a two sided coin.

But i do not have a problem with you beeing offended (or not offended). What interests me is if it actually was an offense EVEN from the standing point of someone who does not have your opinion.

I never expected you to accept my judgment. I'm not trying to win you over. I'm not even claiming to be objective. Style, humor, and wit are ALL subjective qualities.

I can accept that (and thank you for not trying to win me over).
Yet when all is subjective then why discuss it at all. As i stated my interest is in the rather objective question. We would never have all people agree on something as volatile as "style".

Ok, that's your view. Your subjective view. Have at it.

You see.... i think it is NOT subjective.
My reasoning for it is rather logical and reasonable. It MAY be not conclusive and therefore WRONG, but it is not based on subjectivity.

I never called Dawkins an ******* or any other "name," by the way. I said "Bullocks!" tongue in cheek regarding his style of delivery. That's about like someone saying, "Hogwash!"

Then I must have misunderstood your following statement taken from a post a few pages back:

Richard Dawkins may be right as rain - though personally I doubt it. And the thing is, he'll certainly never win me as a convert, because he's simply such a ****** when it comes to his delivery.

Oh really? So as long as we're telling the truth (or what we believe to be the truth) we can just say it any way we want and that's ok? Wow, are you married or in a long term relationship? If so, have you tried that theory out?

I have been married for 17 years now, with three kids. Thanks
And indeed i do tell the truth when i am asked for my honest opinion. Everybody around me knows that you shouldnt ever ask me about my honest opinion if you don't want it.
Please do remember that honesty doesn't automatically equate to being mean or belitteling or insulting.
As i already stated.... if my kid came along with an F i wouldnt sit there and say "fine" just because it might feel insulted if i said "thats crap".

"Honey, no offense, but your *** is looking huge these days."

Well if we really want to devle into that then an apropriate statement would be:
"Honey, that garment makes you look ugly, old and fat. I would rather wear the other one that we bought 2 weeks ago." (constructive criticizm you know )
Or (to give you a statement that I get from my wife)...
"You have really gotten fat and look old, go and burn some fat."
Thats what i get to hear after a week of vacation with long nights and much pizza. And you know what... she is damn right about it and i love her for that.

Let me know how that works out for you.

If you prefer a liar or someone like a politician ... well thats not something that would make ME happy. Never knowing the truth while someone smiles into your face is not my favorite way of living in trust with someone.

The OP is not about the truth or untruth of Dawkins. It's about his style and delivery of his opinions.

Truth matters to me too, but that's not what I was discussing.

Ok, i think i finally get the message.
I care for truth even if it doesn't sound as pleasing as I might want it to be.
You seem to care for comforting words and mild criticizm no matter how bad the situation actually is.

Well thats two different approaches and if yours makes you happy, then have a go at it. I have my problems with it.

I think Dawkins is honest. He is not someone who smears honey around your mouth in order to lure you into something. He is "brutally" honest. You might find that insulting, I would agree that sometimes it is not the most effective way. But it is a truth (unless prooven otherwise).

 

[Magic Man]

Nevertheless, here are some examples of the type of comments I find sarcastic, condescending, and/or offensive:

Come on - if you can't see how those types of comments would offend people who take their religious beliefs seriously - you're in denial about the man's tactics, approach, and agenda.

Oh, I can see how they'd offend people, but then again I can see how just telling someone you're an atheist could offend some people. The question is whether or not those comments were sarcastic, condescending or especially offensive. I didn't see any that fit those bills. It shouldn't be considered any of those things to say that someone who claims they don't believe in evolution is simple-minded, or ignorant. It's just a fact.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No - what I mean is that people are not as likely to be offended by the TONE of a person's argument if they agree with the premise. People tend to applaud sarcasm and condescension as cleverness and wit when theyagree with the content of an argument.

They're also more likely to take offense to the tone of views they disagree with when they don't have a problem with a similar tone when it comes from someone they don't mind so much. I think a lot of the reason that Dawkins draws so much criticism is specifically because of his subject matter: he tackles topics that get people's backs up, so they're more sensitive to his tone than they are normally.

No, I don't like his condescension and his intentionally provocative style.

I disagree with you about him being condescending, but on your other point: he advocates societal change. Isn't this sort of message necessarily provocative?

Oh really? So as long as we're telling the truth (or what we believe to be the truth) we can just say it any way we want and that's ok? Wow, are you married or in a long term relationship? If so, have you tried that theory out?

"Honey, no offense, but your *** is looking huge these days."

Let me know how that works out for you.

Going with the analogy for a moment... say your spouse has a serious weight problem; he's obese to the point where there's a danger to his health (or even his life). You care about his well-being. Do you stay silent for the sake of keeping the peace? If not, is there a way that you could broach the subject that wouldn't offend your spouse, at least initially?

 

[Peacewise]

So how do these believers who indoctrinate hate, make their peace with...
Matthew 22:36 onwards...
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Seems to me that those believers who inherently believe in the word of the Bible would inherently follow these greatest of commandments rather than seeking to "justify stoning, homophobia, slavery, sacrifice, etc." Matthew 22 is contrary to stoning, homophobia, slavery, sacrifice etc.

The fact of the matter is that those "Christians" who do know the above Matthew 22 scripture and do "justify stoning, homophobia, slavery, sacrifice, etc." are evil, as defined by the Bible itself

"2 Samuel 22:22 NIV
For I have kept the ways of the LORD; I have not done evil by turning from my God." revealing that a believer turning away from God is evil and turning away from these two greatest commandments is turning away from God.

Do you see, God will judge these "Christians" far harder than those who are not believers for these believers know the truth of the greatest commandments and they have rejected both of them, yet still claim to be christian.

Ya should go have a read of what God does to those believers in Him, who do evil, yozzers. Psalm 50 for a tiny bit on this and why it happens and indeed mentions that God does not need sacrifices of animals.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't say I don't have a problem with his underlying message. I don't agree with his underlying message - which is the support and proselytizing for the cause of atheism. I DO however, support his right to be an atheist and express his beliefs - and make a lot of money doing so as well.

I don't agree with his message, and I don't like his approach. So...I'm probably not going to buy or read any of his books.

Okay... a fine distinction, but fair enough. However, my main point was that as I understand you're argument, you're saying that people's offense (or maybe just your own offense) at Dawkins comes from his tone and not his message. So, could you tell us what sort of tone he could use to deliver the same message without offending you?

So how do these believers who indoctrinate hate, make their peace with...
Matthew 22:36 onwards...
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Seems to me that those believers who inherently believe in the word of the Bible would inherently follow these greatest of commandments rather than seeking to "justify stoning, homophobia, slavery, sacrifice, etc." Matthew 22 is contrary to stoning, homophobia, slavery, sacrifice etc.

The fact of the matter is that those "Christians" who do know the above Matthew 22 scripture and do "justify stoning, homophobia, slavery, sacrifice, etc." are evil, as defined by the Bible itself

So... then you'd have no problem with institutions (even purportedly Christian institutions) that advocate these sorts of activities being torn down?

Do you see, God will judge these "Christians" far harder than those who are not believers for these believers know the truth of the greatest commandments and they have rejected both of them, yet still claim to be christian.

Ya should go have a read of what God does to those believers in Him, who do evil, yozzers. Psalm 50 for a tiny bit on this and why it happens and indeed mentions that God does not need sacrifices of animals.

If you're talking about Earthly punishment, I'd say that the evidence shows that things don't work the way you say. If you're talking about punishment in the afterlife, then taking comfort in what you describe would first require believing it to be true. Somehow, I doubt that anyone who doesn't believe in any gods is going to put much stock in the idea of a god they don't believe in wreaking punishment on people after they die in some unseen realm.

 

[sojourner]

Trap?
I was merely being sarcastic.

But thanks for the vote of confidence!!

We seldom agree, but we sure agree on the point about the Spirit and responsible interpretation.

 

[sojourner]

As an institution, the church is not a charity.

Of course it is. It's Christian mission is to give everything to the poor and follow Jesus...
The fact that many don't do that notwithstanding.

Wrong, the church is also funded by the assets of commissioners, reserve funds, and hiring out churches for various occasions such as weddings - not donations.

Many other charities also operate off of foundations and grants. I have never known a church to make money off of renting out the building. The rental covers operations costs.

And yes, the churches DO turn in profit.

Most do not.

And "the giving of time" is a nonsense argument. You could argue that anybody is a charity if they "give time" to anything

haven't you heard of volunteer work? Sometimes professionals can claim tax deductions for the donation of their time. It is a valid argument.

So, it's exactly the same, then?

Provocative and not cogent to the argument. Ministry does not include yelling or pandering.

I would argue that mainstream religions do partake in brainwashing and are usually centered around an individual. They work for profit, to propagate their message and spread their agenda - therefore they are not altruistic, and are self-serving.

Take another look. You're dead wrong here.

Maybe not a cult in every sense, but the line to me seems very blurred.

Perhaps you need better boundaries -- and better perception.

So, it's just incoherent nonsensical rambling?

Oh! You mean like your argument here?

Which can be demonstrated how?

God's existence is not predicated upon human demonstration.

Or because it's not there.

It is there, and it can be perceived if that's how one chooses to understand it.

I have been. I went to a series of Catholic schools and taught by a wide variety of priests, surrounded by theists. I already "understand" spirituality enough to know that, to me, it doesn't exist and that people who say it does are just partaking in wishful thinking at best, or delusion at worst.

Going to Catholic schools is not exposure to spirituality. I taught in Catholic schools and they're the furthest thing from spiritual experience. Even with the inclusion of "mandatory chapel." If you understood, you wouldn't think spirituality was bogus.

Once again you make the profoundly arrogant assumption that I do not understand something or have not been exposed to it just because I am an atheist, and that this somehow negates my opinion of it.

Not arrogance. You're the one who said you grew up without exposure to it. I'm merely arguing that, without exposure, you cannot understand it, since it is an experiential and not an educational process.

Again, another arrogant assumption. Having read his books, I can say he understands it very well. He just doesn't agree with it. And, frankly, your attitude more-or-less sums up one of the main reasons he doesn't.

How can one who doesn't understand possibly be able to determine with any accuracy whether someone else understands? Spiritual experience is not found in reading books.

In other words, it defies rationality and embraces unproven, mythical claims without any basis in reality. How can you not see that that is not a good thing?

Well, I wouldn't say that it defies rationality. It exceeds rationality. It embraces the mythical, yes, but it does have its basis in reality.

Then what is God based on, and on what factual basis (is any) can you make any claims about God whatsoever?

God is God's own basis. God is beyond fact. God is largely experiential.

Yes, it is a cop-out. It's a means by which theists avoid answering the requirement for evidence. We're not asking you to "reduce God to human terms" (although millions of people already do that by believing that God took the physical form of Jesus less than two-thousand years ago), we're asking you to provide evidence of God. Evidence can take many forms, the only requirement being that it is objectively verifiable.

God is not evidentiary, since evidence is a human construct. So to provide evidence is to reduce God to human terms. How can a human being objectively verify that which lies outside of, and yet is the essence of creation?

Let me make this simple: I am an atheist, so to me any of your claims about "God" are meaningless - unless you can present evidence of said God. Telling me what God is like, what basis God works on or how God functions is no different to telling me how Frankenstein conducted his experiments or how Superman can breathe in space. Before I can take your claims seriously to any degree, you must first demonstrate that your subject is based on facts.

Well, we're at an impasse, since God cannot be factually verified.

You claimed that I and Dawkins do not understand religion, yet it is clearly you who does not understand atheism.

One of my best friends in the world is an atheist -- and an engineer. He and I throw around the "does God exist" debate all the time. Yet we still have a great deal of respect for each other. I cannot fully understand atheism, because I cannot narrow the universe to what can be factually verified. For me, it would be like going blind. I do understand, though, that you eschew that "spiritual sight." That's ok.

When I say that "you don't understand," it's not said with judgment or with arrogance. I hope we can continue to debate with respect for each others' POV. Thanks for your comments.

 

[sojourner]

I haven't encountered a religion yet that wasn't selling something.

It disturbs me that it appears that way to outsiders. It also disturbs me that many churches do turn it into a sales process. It's not supposed to be that way, and the churches of which I have been part have not done that. We're supposed to freely give to all who will receive.

 

[sojourner]

Depends on what you consider 'selling'... but I can think of a few that don't sell themselves and are very offended by any association with the idea.

Anyway, to the OP.
I think Dawkins makes some good points... but he also makes some bone-headed generalizations and caricatures.
Like anyone, not everything he says is solid gold.... sometimes it's a stink-bomb. This is why you don't idolize people.

wa:do

Still can't frubal you! But cheers!

 

[sojourner]

Once again respect is earned not gained. People comming to my house trying to convert me is a clear lack of resppect for my religion, at yet once a week people come round.

Faith is only as important as you make it. The more important you make it the more you set yourself up to be knocked down. Simple.

I've never come to your house and tried to convert you...
Yes, faith is very important to many people. But I disagree with your last sentence. "Importance" has little to do with it. "Depth" has everything to do with it, and the deeper one's faith, the less "set up" one becomes. There are too many people running around for whom faith is claimed as "important," but whose faith is very shallow. They're the ones who get knocked down -- sometimes simply by entertaining questions!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It disturbs me that it appears that way to outsiders. It also disturbs me that many churches do turn it into a sales process.

I'm not just talking about the level of the individual church. I think that much of the power brokering that goes on at the level of dioceses and denominations falls under the umbrella of "selling" as well.

For instance, various Catholic dioceses have threatened to withdraw all their charitable services from a state if they don't get their way on laws about things like gay adoption and same-sex marriage, in effect creating a tit-for-tat exchange, or IMO effectively getting the society to sell its soul to make sure that its poor get fed.

Also, much of the opposition to increased secularism in government has been (IMO) in the form of arguments that say "you can't get rid of us! You NEED us!" It's common for religious leaders to try to position their product as a necessary commodity.

However, I also think that at its core, evangelism is salesmanship. I don't see how a religion that proselytizes can avoid this.

It's not supposed to be that way, and the churches of which I have been part have not done that. We're supposed to freely give to all who will receive.

Okay, but how do you give?

I've seen many examples where a church works almost like a Mary Kay or Amway group: it recruits new members with promises of benefits, who then recruit new members, and so on, and so on, perpetuating the organization.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've never come to your house and tried to convert you...

What are your personal feelings on the Great Commission? What do you think is (or should be) expected of Christians in terms of spreading Christianity?

 

[sojourner]

I'm not just talking about the level of the individual church. I think that much of the power brokering that goes on at the level of dioceses and denominations falls under the umbrella of "selling" as well.

For instance, various Catholic dioceses have threatened to withdraw all their charitable services from a state if they don't get their way on laws about things like gay adoption and same-sex marriage, in effect creating a tit-for-tat exchange, or IMO effectively getting the society to sell its soul to make sure that its poor get fed.

Also, much of the opposition to increased secularism in government has been (IMO) in the form of arguments that say "you can't get rid of us! You NEED us!" It's common for religious leaders to try to position their product as a necessary commodity.

However, I also think that at its core, evangelism is salesmanship. I don't see how a religion that proselytizes can avoid this.

Okay, but how do you give?

I've seen many examples where a church works almost like a Mary Kay or Amway group: it recruits new members with promises of benefits, who then recruit new members, and so on, and so on, perpetuating the organization.

Yeah, you're right about that, unfortunately. It's petty and it's wrong. Personally, I think Xy made a HUGE mistake when it went Imperial. Xy is better off as a grass-roots movement instead of an established powerhouse.

I'm not into evangelism -- at least not in the modern-popular sense. It is sales. Evangelism isn't about selling. It's about living the gospel.

Unfortunately Our Lady of Perpetual Make-Up and AmChurch are all too prevalent, and they're not doing Xy a favor.:sad4: