Proselytizing

[Sunstone]

This thread is directed mainly towards adherents of the two largest proselytizing religions, Christianity and Islam. But anyone else is welcome to join in.

First Question: In your view, is there a moral or other crucial difference between New Atheists like Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and PZ Meyers trying to convert folks to atheism, and theists like Pat Robertson, Billy or Franklin Graham, D. James Kennedy, and John Hagee trying to convert people to theism? (I apologize for not including any prominent Muslim proselytizers, but, in my ignorance, I don't know of any. Maybe someone can help me out with that?)

Second Question: Would it invoke a contradiction to answer "yes" to the first question? And if so, is there some way that contradiction can be resolved?

Third Question: What other thoughts do you have about proselytizing -- both by theists and nontheists?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I see no difference between theistic proselytizers and anti-theist ones. Both tend to annoy me.

The most valid way to mission to others is to live out the love of Christ to them. By showing selfless love, compassion and care, you get people interested in what motivates you to be that way. Plus, it builds up respect for the religion you are representing and that also encourages people to look into it. It's like with Pope Francis and the many things he said and did this past year, I saw many comments from people who had left the Church saying that he is making them interested in coming back and people who aren't Catholic more interested in Catholicism.

Waving a Bible around and telling people they're sinners who need the Blood of Jesus is not very effective, especially in this day and age.

 

[HonestJoe]

I guess some people could resolve the apparent contraction on the terrorist/freedom fighter principle. Convincing people to believe the "right" thing is good while convincing them to believe the "wrong" thing is worse than nothing at all.

My opinion is that the manner in which people promote their beliefs is more significant than what those beliefs are (even ones I disagree with or even fundamentally object to). Presenting facts and your own interpretation of them is quite different to stating your belief as unquestionable truth and condemning anyone who dares disagree.

 

[Pegg]

This thread is directed mainly towards adherents of the two largest proselytizing religions, Christianity and Islam. But anyone else is welcome to join in.

First Question: In your view, is there a moral or other crucial difference between New Atheists like Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and PZ Meyers trying to convert folks to atheism, and theists like Pat Robertson, Billy or Franklin Graham, D. James Kennedy, and John Hagee trying to convert people to theism? (I apologize for not including any prominent Muslim proselytizers, but, in my ignorance, I don't know of any. Maybe someone can help me out with that?)

the only difference really is that one is provoking a belief in God, the other is attempting to revoke such a belief.

The moral difference is that Athiests dont attempt to provide an alternative to spiritual fulfillment. They are taking away a spiritual belief and not replacing it with anything spiritual...and to me, that is morally wrong.

I think its fine if someone does not have a belief in spiritual things if thats their choice, but to convince someone that such things do not exist and then fail to provide them an alternative is just plain mean.

Third Question: What other thoughts do you have about proselytizing -- both by theists and nontheists?

I think its fine to do so because it provides people with options...they get to explore different beliefs.

 

[Sunstone]

The moral difference is that Athiests dont attempt to provide an alternative to spiritual fulfillment. They are taking away a spiritual belief and not replacing it with anything spiritual...and to me, that is morally wrong.

Would you describe what you mean by "spiritual fulfillment", Pegg? For something to be spiritual, would it necessarily require a belief in deity? And what, if anything, do you mean by "spiritual fulfillment" that an atheist, by virtue of being an atheist, simply cannot access.

 

[Thana]

1 - I think there is a moral difference between an Atheist proselytizing and a theist proselytizing.

Atheism is a lack of, So Atheists aren't trying to bring you to a new way of life, Rather they're trying to take one away and convince you that this is all there is.

Atleast with Theism, It provides numerous alternatives and hope to many.

So I do find Atheist's proselytizing wrong, And kind of cruel and selfish in a way.

2 - I don't think it's a contradiction

3 - Mm, I think it's okay. I don't hate it and I don't love it. I just accept it. People will do what they feel necessary.

 

[Iti oj]

yet atheist live happy fulfilling lives, and neither of you take into account that theism can be dangerous and unhealthy, at least from the antintheist perspective.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This thread is directed mainly towards adherents of the two largest proselytizing religions, Christianity and Islam. But anyone else is welcome to join in.

First Question: In your view, is there a moral or other crucial difference between New Atheists like Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and PZ Meyers trying to convert folks to atheism, and theists like Pat Robertson, Billy or Franklin Graham, D. James Kennedy, and John Hagee trying to convert people to theism? (I apologize for not including any prominent Muslim proselytizers, but, in my ignorance, I don't know of any. Maybe someone can help me out with that?)

One big difference: Dawkins, Hitchens, and the like rely on arguments alone and not on threats. They never present atheism as the thing you should accept "just to be safe." Christian and Muslim proselytizers seem more than happy to use emotional reactions to the idea of Hell to persuade people when rational arguments can't do it.

Second Question: Would it invoke a contradiction to answer "yes" to the first question? And if so, is there some way that contradiction can be resolved?

Not sure what you mean here. What sort of contradiction did you have in mind?

Third Question: What other thoughts do you have about proselytizing -- both by theists and nontheists?

I think that if it's not entered into as a two-way conversation with the proselytizer willing to change his own mind if presented with good arguments, then it's being done in bad faith... no pun intended.

 

[LuisDantas]

First Question: In your view, is there a moral or other crucial difference between New Atheists like Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and PZ Meyers trying to convert folks to atheism, and theists like Pat Robertson, Billy or Franklin Graham, D. James Kennedy, and John Hagee trying to convert people to theism?

Sure. So-called "New Atheism" is inherently less dangerous than theistic proselitism, mainly because it makes no high promises and lacks the power to manipulate people into destructive actions.

Second Question: Would it invoke a contradiction to answer "yes" to the first question? And if so, is there some way that contradiction can be resolved?

I am not seeing any contradiction, nor can I even conceive of how one could see any. You made me curious, in fact. Hopefully that mindset will be explained further down this thread.

Third Question: What other thoughts do you have about proselytizing -- both by theists and nontheists?

People should have the means to afford to be wrong about their convictions. That alone is one major reason why atheistic "proselitism" is inherently safer and often morally superior to the theistic variety.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1 - I think there is a moral difference between an Atheist proselytizing and a theist proselytizing.

Atheism is a lack of, So Atheists aren't trying to bring you to a new way of life, Rather they're trying to take one away and convince you that this is all there is.

Atleast with Theism, It provides numerous alternatives and hope to many.

So I do find Atheist's proselytizing wrong, And kind of cruel and selfish in a way.

Who does this? Every prominent atheist I've ever read or heard hasn't just advocated atheism; they've advocated positive worldviews like skepticism or humanism, and then argued that these worldviews imply atheism.

 

[Iti oj]

@ luis, both Pegg and Thana are holding a contradictory opinion. Its OK for theist to prolitisize but its morally wrong when theist do it.

 

[steeltoes]

Those atheists mentioned are trying to deconvert people so that they can learn to think for themselves rather than simply accept a prescribed set of beliefs that theists offer.

What is so "wrong" and "cruel" and "selfish" and "unspiritual" about trying to convince people to think for themselves? It's actually enlightening.

 

[Thana]

Those atheists mentioned are trying to deconvert people so that they can learn to think for themselves rather than simply accept a prescribed set of beliefs that theists offer.

What is so "wrong" and "cruel" and "selfish" and "unspiritual" about trying to convince people to think for themselves? It's actually enlightening.

You're trying to say that Theists can't think for themselves,
Which is unfair and untrue.

 

[Quirkybird]

If a person's faith is worth having then their deeds will do the talking, there is no need to shove it down the throats of others. In my experience it is the people of faith with the meanest hearts who make the most noise about what they believe. The decent ones don't make a fuss about it.

 

[Apex]

One big difference: Dawkins, Hitchens, and the like rely on arguments alone and not on threats.

They do not rely on arguments alone. They also enjoy using irrational arguments, petty insults, and gross generalizations.

Like this gem:

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”
- Dawkins

Although I admit that some of the more hate filled Christian's do the same thing. So the "new atheists" are in good company.

 

[Apex]

Those atheists mentioned are trying to deconvert people so that they can learn to think for themselves rather than simply accept a prescribed set of beliefs that theists offer.

What is so "wrong" and "cruel" and "selfish" and "unspiritual" about trying to convince people to think for themselves? It's actually enlightening.

^Speaking of gross generalizations, here is another one.

 

[LuisDantas]

You're trying to say that Theists can't think for themselves,
Which is unfair and untrue.

That would in fact be unfair and untrue.

Not so with the warning that there are those who use theism to discourage thinking for themselves, though. And some do it of their own, even.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They do not rely on arguments alone. They also enjoy using irrational arguments, petty insults, and gross generalizations.

Like this gem:


Although I admit that some of the more hate filled Christian's do the same thing. So the "new atheists" are in good company.

I find it strange that you'd give an argument (one you disagree with and consider illogical, sure, but still an argument) as evidence that Dawkins doesn't only use arguments.

 

[Tarheeler]

This thread is directed mainly towards adherents of the two largest proselytizing religions, Christianity and Islam. But anyone else is welcome to join in.

First Question: In your view, is there a moral or other crucial difference between New Atheists like Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and PZ Meyers trying to convert folks to atheism, and theists like Pat Robertson, Billy or Franklin Graham, D. James Kennedy, and John Hagee trying to convert people to theism? (I apologize for not including any prominent Muslim proselytizers, but, in my ignorance, I don't know of any. Maybe someone can help me out with that?)

Second Question: Would it invoke a contradiction to answer "yes" to the first question? And if so, is there some way that contradiction can be resolved?

Third Question: What other thoughts do you have about proselytizing -- both by theists and nontheists?

I don't care for proselytizing by any group; I don't care what brand of belief or disbelief they're pedaling. To me, it implies that their targeted audience is too stupid or otherwise unable to examine things for themselves and make a decision. I don't see any difference between theistic and atheistic proselytisers; they both have decided that their understanding is the only possible one, and they have set out on a mission to get people to accept their reality.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't care for proselytizing by any group; I don't care what brand of belief or disbelief they're pedaling. To me, it implies that their targeted audience is too stupid or otherwise unable to examine things for themselves and make a decision. I don't see any difference between theistic and atheistic proselytisers; they both have decided that their understanding is the only possible one, and they have set out on a mission to get people to accept their reality.

What if the proselytizer is willing to listen and be proselytized, even as he tries to proselytize?

In other words, what is the difference between debate and proselytizing?