Street evangelism

[Frank Merton]

I question why it should be viewed as an imposition or assault on another's beliefs if a person of faith refuses to attempt to "prove" their beliefs. The assumption is that no amount of discussion or attempts to prove the belief will suffice to change a non believer's mind. So the only other reason to delve into such matters would be to challenge the individual to reject that faith - even if the faith does them no harm.

No one is making you prove anything -- that is a red herring. All we want is valid logic and rational evidence. We know you can't prove it. I think you are trying to evade the real issue here.

I very much think reliance on "faith" does do harm, to the person's mind, and you are a case in point. There is also the karma involved. To lie is to break with the spirit of the world, and that includes lying to oneself. Spiritual progress is not possible in such an environment.

[Davros of Skaro]

So, how did her decorations become Pagan? She didn't realize they were when she got them? How does she feel about the majority of Christmas traditions are Pagan in their start? Or so I have researched and heard from my historic looky into Christmas itself.

If she is worried about her decorations, I think there is something else too, but I digress.............

There was a Church member that was telling others to throwaway their Pagan decorations. They should have given it to the poor. LOL!

Are you talking about all types of prosetylizers? Or just one set of believers or non-believers? Maybe for you, but I have noticed that various ones have that cognitive bias, and various do not. But, it's nice that we can see a consistency with everyone.

Just look at "And Then" recent post.

From what? Retail meyhem? Bullying busy bodies?

You are just so cute.

( I like to think I saved myself years and years ago, and there was no putting my heart and soul into someone long dead or alive today.

Well, there are some Trek characters, and their portrayers, ( and some Australian performers too, if I might add ) that came close in my worshipping. )

I find this so cute. I know you see the irony in this. An Atheist quoting the bible to a believer who has no clue to what it says.

You can just start the Church of Chekov.

Yes the irony was a hoot.

Here's some irony:

Judges 1:19

19 So the Lord was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron.

I'm interested in something here. Do you see the same neurological processes going when some one is addicted to reading? And how does it do that with praying? I'm curious.

( Oh, by the way, if there is a showing of the neurological processes going when someone is addicted to reading, then mine burnt out long time ago. )

It usually works under the parameter of "yes", "no", and "maybe". Now think of how Slot Machines are set up. They are designed to spit out rewards here, and there. This gets the juices flowing because yes, no, and maybe altogether makes the Brain think it's learning. Meanwhile there's nothing to learn except you're a sucker, but people that pump out more juice escape this realization.

Video games have scores, levels, puzzles, and reaffirming sounds.

If it's a good book? Why not be addicted? I hear more bad about video game addicts than of bookworms.

Again, here is my question, who has the right, the audacity to make that justification in their eyes. Be it right or wrong, what is truth and what someone else makes up, doesn't matter. Who has the audacity to make a life decision about someone else? About society in general?

I see in your posts, here and there, that you think you have a right to .... what I think is best described as this.....control someone else's life. You may have.................'truth' on your side, and I'm not saying you don't, you obviously do, but in a sense, doesn't that make you act like.... God?

People do it all the time, we just call them politicians. I'm making nobody's decision. I just give what chances are they never encountered, and or known before. Sometimes I give a side of mockery free of charge.

When I say right, I mean free speech. I do have to abide by UM rules, which I try to do (believe it or not mods). If I just talked politics we would not be having this conversation. Religion's no touch status is not deserved, and there's nothing that should be free of ridicule.

My hope is everyone gets educated and fairy tales as reality is so yesterday. LOL!

[robinrenee]

In the beginning, Peter Boghossian, an assistant professor of philosophy at Portland (Oregon) State College,

https://www.pdx.edu/...eter-boghossian

wrote a book called A Manual for Creating Atheists. The book begat a movement called Street Epistemology.

http://www.streetepistemology.com/

In last month's "Talk Jesus in England" thread, Christians were being encouraged to engage non-believers in conversations about Jesus.

Street epistemology encourages atheists to engage believers in conversations about Jesus (or whatever the believer believes in). Have a listen,

That's one of more than 200 videos on Magnabosco's channel.

Magnabosco never tells Elizabeth to lose Jesus, or became an atheist. His goal is not debate, nor to advocate atheism, but only to inspire the interviewee to question his or her belief in whatever religion they profess. (I chose this video since Elizabeth has obviously already thought about her religion a lot, and so the quality of the exchange is epecially good. There is also a briefer after-conversation here:

)

I have a number of questions and concerns about this activity. Here are enough to begin a discussion:

When asked, the interviewer doesn't disclose that his actual objective is opinion change. He doesn't lie, he is truly interested in faith and so forth, but he isn't candid, either. Is that ethical?

What if a Mormon missionary said only, "Oh, I'm interested in religion, especially Christianity. It's a hobby of mine...," never mentioning LDS, but saying how to contact him later?

More generally, when religious people do something very much like this, some atheists complain about it. Ought I not to conclude that evangelism of strangers is a praiseworthy activity if I agree with the message, and despicable if I disagree?

Is soft-sell effective? Is it likely, in the words of the book title, to create atheists? (Should English Chrisitans be studying these videos?)

Finally for now, why shouldn't Elizabeth, for example, be satisfied with her current views, and how those views might naturally ripen as time goes on even if that turns out to be a deeper commitment to her religious faith?

This is at least equally the thread of davros of skaro, who posted a different Magnabosco video in another thread. We kicked around the idea of a "street epistemology" thread, and now I've ended up posting this. OK, OK, davros wouldn't have titled the thread "street evangelism" instead of street epistemology; forgive me, but isn't that what it is?

Hmmm... I find Magnabosco's interview with Elizabeth to be strangely curious. I don't understand his motivation. Is he proselytizing? Is he gathering data for a book, article, thesis, dissertation?

I am familiar with the motivation of fundamental Christians. They have been indoctrinated on the "Great Commission," and they believe that they are "saving" others from hell. I've always thought the "saving from hell' dogma is superstition. I didn't believe it even as a teenager in a fundamental Southern Baptist church, and I never participated in any street evangelism. But still, their street evangelism, I believe, comes from a place of loving concern... even when it's a lunatic fringe preacher shouting about hell fire and damnation on a street corner.

By the way, I left Christianity when I was 22 years old in 1964, but I have warm, happy memories of it. I just felt that I had spiritually outgrown it.

Is Magnabosco's motivation to "save" others from ignorance? Is there an Atheist agenda? I'm just curious about his motivation.

Edited December 11, 2015 by robinrenee

[Davros of Skaro]

No one is making you prove anything -- that is a red herring. All we want is valid logic and rational evidence. We know you can't prove it. I think you are trying to evade the real issue here.

I very much think reliance on "faith" does do harm, to the person's mind, and you are a case in point. There is also the karma involved. To lie is to break with the spirit of the world, and that includes lying to oneself. Spiritual progress is not possible in such an environment.

Frank. I think you should change your name to Yoda Buddha because you're most wise.

Here's some new Avatar ideas.

[Frank Merton]

Frank. I think you should change your name to Yoda Buddha because you're most wise.

Thanks. Coming from someone like you I appreciate it.

However, I'm a fish and will remain what I am.

[Davros of Skaro]

I question why it should be viewed as an imposition or assault on another's beliefs if a person of faith refuses to attempt to "prove" their beliefs. The assumption is that no amount of discussion or attempts to prove the belief will suffice to change a non believer's mind. So the only other reason to delve into such matters would be to challenge the individual to reject that faith - even if the faith does them no harm.

Just look at an example that you use as proof:

Zechariah 14:12

"12 And this shall be the plague with which the Lord will strike all the people who fought against Jerusalem:

Their flesh shall dissolve while they stand on their feet,

Their eyes shall dissolve in their sockets,

And their tongues shall dissolve in their mouths."

You believe this predicts a very near future nuclear bomb detonation. It looks to be very very rapid decay from disease. This is inline with ancient people's fears. Sure an A-bomb may leave some buildings standing, but being close enough to melt flesh will not leave you standing.

I can only imagine what you go through mentally, especially when you travel to your "end times" conferences.

Edited December 11, 2015 by davros of skaro

[+Sherapy]

Thanks. Coming from someone like you I appreciate it.

However, I'm a fish and will remain what I am.

Frank, does "fish" have symbolic significance for you?

Edited December 11, 2015 by Sherapy

[Frank Merton]

Frank, does "fish" have symbolic significance for you?

No. I was looking for something unpretentious and simple, and it was the first thing I found that fit.

[+Sherapy]

No. I was looking for something unpretentious and simple, and it was the first thing I found that fit.

Gotcha

[eight bits]

In the nearby "Talk Jesus in England" thread, I posted yesterday about a Church of England bishop who is now urging his flock to do a pious version of street epistemology, centering on the historical Jesus problem. People interested in this SE topic might want to check that out.

robin

My understanding of Anthony pieced together from non-systematic research is as follows. He read Boghossian's book, and thought he'd like to try "street epistemology." The idea of making a Youtube project of it, and structuring it around a five-minute commitment are his ideas.

Later on, the "street epistemology dot org" organizers discovered Anthony's Youtube channel, and they got together. Anthony now gives talks on the skeptic circuit. I would be unsurprised if he wrote a book soon. He seems materially OK based on the background in some of his tutorial vids, and his dog looks well cared for and happy.

To be candid, I don't fully understand the Protestant "calculus of works." On the one hand, Jesus (or Paul) commanded some overt acts (baptism, Lord's supper, Lord's prayer, staying in a failed marraige, ..., Great Commission). On the other hand, simple assent suffices for salvation. There is the further complication that maybe some folks are motivated to evangelism by the desire to share something that has worked for them, or the "high stakes" leading to compassionate concern for others' eternal welfare.

It's a tangle. I don't have a clear grasp of all the subtleties. Unsurprisingly, then, I don't fully understand non-believer evangelism, either. All I know is that there is no agnostic tradition of evangelism.

As to "agenda," Boghossian does profess a goal to eliminate faith from society at large. He is a philosopher and educator, so it cannot be a surprise that he professes that clear and critical thinking should be encouraged. I suspect that he also believes that if somebody agreed with him about how to think, then they would probably also come to agree with him about what to think. Which, of course, simply restates that whoever believes anything believes that that thing is correct, so not really an "agenda," as much as a hope or prediction.

and then

Well, many Christians (just to name one group of believers, but a big one) have this "Great Commission" thing. Jesus, formerly dead and just about to fly away, told the guys to effect belief change everywhere. That was two thousand years ago, and Christians still do this.

How can you effect belief change except by offering proofs (in the sense of convincing arguments grounded in verifiable facts explaining why somebody should think that what you say is true)? If you don't wish to offer proofs, then can we expect the Great Commission thing to go away?

Stubbly

And why does one have to scrutinize one's belief?

There's a topic all by itself.

I think among the videos we've been discussing in this thread, Vanessa would be the prime example. She apparently hasn't scrutinized her belief, and hasn't felt the need to, either. She seems to be doing all right.

We all probably have more beliefs than we could possibly scrutinize at any length, on pain of never actually doing anything ("paralysis by analysis"). If religious beliefs are not "special" in the sense of not deserving social deference, then why are they "special" in the sense that they, more so than other beliefs, must have priority for extended scrutiny?

davros

I'm not convinced that religious ideas are held sacrosanct, at least not in my relatively secular region of the US. There is widespread awareness that many people hold their religious ideas deeply. That makes these ideas poor topics for light conversation. At the very least, religious discussions are best delayed until the second or later round of brewskies.

It's not a question of being a meanie; you probably aren't mean really. It's a question of what has any lively prospect of doing any good, for either party to the conversation.

[Davros of Skaro]

Should I start knocking on Doors with the good Book "The God Delusion" in Hand?

Edited December 11, 2015 by davros of skaro

[Davros of Skaro]

I should dress up like the flying Spaghetti monster and go to times square. I will tell Spiderman, Spongebob, and Micky Mouse how FSM boiled for their sins.

Edited December 11, 2015 by davros of skaro

[eight bits]

davros

I should dress up like the flying Spaghetti monster and go to times square. I will tell Spiderman, Spongebob, and Micky Mouse how FSM boiled for their sins.

I am almost certain that if somebody wore a tee shirt with the slogan "Let's talk about spaghetti," a lot of people would take them up on it .

[Davros of Skaro]

davros

I'm not convinced that religious ideas are held sacrosanct, at least not in my relatively secular region of the US. There is widespread awareness that many people hold their religious ideas deeply. That makes these ideas poor topics for light conversation. At the very least, religious discussions are best delayed until the second or later round of brewskies.

It's not a question of being a meanie; you probably aren't mean really. It's a question of what has any lively prospect of doing any good, for either party to the conversation.

What I mean by "sacrosanct" is do not rock the Boat, or respect what a Religious person believes. Meanwhile the subject of Politics, or Sports is more open season except maybe at a family gathering. Getting drunk is best left at getting drunk for many topics depending on company.

I see it as the long term good. People deep in their belief will continue to believe. There's plenty of scripture to fall back on, and other fellow believers to effect confirmation bias. When in a public forum like this, or on Youtube, it will help innoculate potential victims of bad ideas of Religion.

[Davros of Skaro]

davros

I am almost certain that if somebody wore a tee shirt with the slogan "Let's talk about spaghetti," a lot of people would take them up on it .

LMFAO! Awesome idea.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I question why it should be viewed as an imposition or assault on another's beliefs if a person of faith refuses to attempt to "prove" their beliefs. The assumption is that no amount of discussion or attempts to prove the belief will suffice to change a non believer's mind. So the only other reason to delve into such matters would be to challenge the individual to reject that faith - even if the faith does them no harm.

In a sense, I can see your point. I wonder too.

The thing is, is this about individuals approaching, more than likely non-inviting, to others to question the beliefs or lack of them to others? Frankly, I disapprove any form of that. I think we all have our unvoiced judgments of how others should live, ( and as I have been touting ) who has the right, the authority, the audacity, to say what is best for everyone, and attempt it too even.

No one is making you prove anything -- that is a red herring. All we want is valid logic and rational evidence. We know you can't prove it. I think you are trying to evade the real issue here.

I very much think reliance on "faith" does do harm, to the person's mind, and you are a case in point. There is also the karma involved. To lie is to break with the spirit of the world, and that includes lying to oneself. Spiritual progress is not possible in such an environment.

I like your first paragraph. I do wonder, and probably disagree with the second paragraph, but of course, you have your right, your understanding, and your good thought provoking reasons to think what you do, especially in the first line of your second paragraph. I feel that I disagree. I wonder if it depends on how much one relies on faith, and if the level of it is the key. *shrugs*

There was a Church member that was telling others to throwaway their Pagan decorations. They should have given it to the poor. LOL!

Well, in a sense, I can understand that one should have given to the poor, would be an admirable thought. Other than that, I would be least likely to judge how churches should conduct their congregation's behaviors, since I don't know how one goes. *shrugs*

Yeah, I would think, let them be, it's doesn't make sense. But, whatever..............

( despite the fact, that I have read that churches stole the majority of today's Christmas traditions from the Pagans, so maybe they need to get their little reality checks. )

Just look at "And Then" recent post.

Well, I did, ( and replied ) but I'm still a bit confused on if everyone, believer and non-believer are believed to do that or not do that. Or is there a double standard going on, and one side says they should do it, and the other side shouldn't. Either way, I feel, to be fair, no side should do it. I guess it goes back to the respect for everyone, and everyone has a right to what they feel is best for them thing, etc. etc. etc.

You can just start the Church of Chekov.

Wait?! How did you know he was my Star Trek first?!?!?!?

And I think I did in my teenage years, even met the actor............................ the original. I'm sure Anton Yelchin is a lovely guy, and he does a pretty good job of it too. But Koenig, the man is a *snicker* a god to me.

Others, I have met too, but nothing ( next to Nana Visiter, ((who is a wonderful and gorgouse lady)) and Alexander Siddig, (( oh boy what a selfless and awesome gentleman. He went out of his way to make sure I was sitting down and he actually picked up an automon. *gush gush* )) (((by the way, I think I started something there with that too ))) but meeting the late James Doohan.............. this thoughtful and gracious gentleman was such a beautiful man. I still have tears in my eyes remembering it.

* Comes back to topic *

Oh yeah, Heeeeeey there Davros, How ya doing?!?!?

Well, I guess I already did...................

Yes the irony was a hoot.

Davros, you and my cup of coffee here. * raises her cup in honor *

Here's some irony:

Judges 1:19

19 So the Lord was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron.

Sorry, there my friend, but as I have said to others, I do not pay attention to bible quotes. Like a particular poster in these forums, I avoid them, back off, and go to the next thing.

*shrugs*

*goes back to drinking her coffee *

*looks up and raises her cup to Davros again*

Cheers!

It usually works under the parameter of "yes", "no", and "maybe". Now think of how Slot Machines are set up. They are designed to spit out rewards here, and there. This gets the juices flowing because yes, no, and maybe altogether makes the Brain think it's learning. Meanwhile there's nothing to learn except you're a sucker, but people that pump out more juice escape this realization.

Video games have scores, levels, puzzles, and reaffirming sounds.

Well, from my observation, ( and I could be wrong to something of a sort, ) I think on the level of enthusiasm and activity, I think those levels flow more when the body moves more too. I think there are also levels to how one reads, one plays, one prays, or how one does things.............. like me.

I would think those individuals and their activity on the slot machines have some calories that they have lost.

If it's a good book? Why not be addicted? I hear more bad about video game addicts than of bookworms.

Well, you had better hear that!!!

Ya ever heard of those who stayed up all night to finish that book. It's been known to happen to me on several nights.

This is based on my experience, of me, and my family, and from my over eleven years of bookselling. There are those who love to read, and those who hate it, and I feel (despite the fact that the jury is still out on this one, dealing with it's being nurture vs. nature) that those who love to read, ( I think it's inherited ) will want to read anything. You can't stop them. Put the directions of putting up an entertaining center, they'll consider it a best seller afterwards.............. maybe. So, I kind of think there is a more complicated situation to this topic here. Hence my question and thoughts on the levels of readers. ( It's close to my heart man!!! )

People do it all the time, we just call them politicians. I'm making nobody's decision. I just give what chances are they never encountered, and or known before. Sometimes I give a side of mockery free of charge.

Well politicians are mocked for it too, so I will push them aside in this discussion for a minute.

And still, I firmly believe, in the idea of approaching someone, because you think you have the right, and that you think you are right, doesn't give them the right to un-invitingly encroach on someone and tell them how they should believe or not-believe. If someone approached me, Atheist or believer, and started to tell me they want to talk about what I should do, I will tell them, no. I have that right to be left alone. If that is not respected, I will consider that crossing the line into assault. ( and the authorities will be contacted. )

Just as some believers I have noticed, who arrogantly think they are right and no better for everyone else, I will think that on that type of unbeliever. No one knows best for someone else. It's like doing the job of a professional therapist or psychologist, and mucking that up and creating a monster or disturbed person.

I'm sorry, I find those who think they know better than someone else, as arrogant and controlling. That crosses the line.

Now, mind you, if I'm misunderstanding you, and you have mentioned that you don't do this, ( if I could try to remember if I have read this in your past posts........................ then please forgive me. I could be way off base, and go back to my church of Chekov.

My hope is everyone gets educated and fairy tales as reality is so yesterday. LOL!

And my hope is that everyone gets educated too. Trust me, one of my beefs, is that education is not concentrated enough, in this country I definitely feel that way. As for beliefs, i think they can be good for those who hold them, and that education will always trump that in everyday living.

Frankly, I'm hoping education, with a definite dose of really good philosophical teaching, might just help everyone also 'respect' everyone!!

But that is me....................

( Whew!! * goes for another cup of coffee! * )

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Hmmm... I find Magnabosco's interview with Elizabeth to be strangely curious. I don't understand his motivation. Is he proselytizing? Is he gathering data for a book, article, thesis, dissertation?

I am familiar with the motivation of fundamental Christians. They have been indoctrinated on the "Great Commission," and they believe that they are "saving" others from hell. I've always thought the "saving from hell' dogma is superstition. I didn't believe it even as a teenager in a fundamental Southern Baptist church, and I never participated in any street evangelism. But still, their street evangelism, I believe, comes from a place of loving concern... even when it's a lunatic fringe preacher shouting about hell fire and damnation on a street corner.

By the way, I left Christianity when I was 22 years old in 1964, but I have warm, happy memories of it. I just felt that I had spiritually outgrown it.

Is Magnabosco's motivation to "save" others from ignorance? Is there an Atheist agenda? I'm just curious about his motivation.

Yeah, I can see that, understand that in a behavior of thoughtful thinking.

As I have discussed with Davros, who really has the right to think what is best for others? What's next, telling someone what is best for your spouse, or that you should have a spouse? Or you should have children, when you are not ready, and then you have them and abuse them, because it was not your intention to have children? Or that you should become a manager of a place, with no inclination to lead, and then you muck that up too.

Telling people what to believe, when they honestly don't believe, I firmly see as screwing up their minds.

But, yeah, I feel, you know that,................ right?

*goes back to her coffee*

No. I was looking for something unpretentious and simple, and it was the first thing I found that fit.

Here's the thing. I always thought the fish symbolized something religious.

robin

My understanding of Anthony pieced together from non-systematic research is as follows. He read Boghossian's book, and thought he'd like to try "street epistemology." The idea of making a Youtube project of it, and structuring it around a five-minute commitment are his ideas.

Later on, the "street epistemology dot org" organizers discovered Anthony's Youtube channel, and they got together. Anthony now gives talks on the skeptic circuit. I would be unsurprised if he wrote a book soon. He seems materially OK based on the background in some of his tutorial vids, and his dog looks well cared for and happy.

To be candid, I don't fully understand the Protestant "calculus of works." On the one hand, Jesus (or Paul) commanded some overt acts (baptism, Lord's supper, Lord's prayer, staying in a failed marraige, ..., Great Commission). On the other hand, simple assent suffices for salvation. There is the further complication that maybe some folks are motivated to evangelism by the desire to share something that has worked for them, or the "high stakes" leading to compassionate concern for others' eternal welfare.

It's a tangle. I don't have a clear grasp of all the subtleties. Unsurprisingly, then, I don't fully understand non-believer evangelism, either. All I know is that there is no agnostic tradition of evangelism.

As to "agenda," Boghossian does profess a goal to eliminate faith from society at large. He is a philosopher and educator, so it cannot be a surprise that he professes that clear and critical thinking should be encouraged. I suspect that he also believes that if somebody agreed with him about how to think, then they would probably also come to agree with him about what to think. Which, of course, simply restates that whoever believes anything believes that that thing is correct, so not really an "agenda," as much as a hope or prediction.

In which, I too don't understand it either, and I don't think what is being done, Boghossian also doesn't have a right, in my feeling, to profess what he knows best for others as well. I think the goal, should be simply, respect others beliefs and or lack of them, and hope everyone is educated enough to go on with life that is in front of them as well.

and then

Well, many Christians (just to name one group of believers, but a big one) have this "Great Commission" thing. Jesus, formerly dead and just about to fly away, told the guys to effect belief change everywhere. That was two thousand years ago, and Christians still do this.

How can you effect belief change except by offering proofs (in the sense of convincing arguments grounded in verifiable facts explaining why somebody should think that what you say is true)? If you don't wish to offer proofs, then can we expect the Great Commission thing to go away?

Stubbly

There's a topic all by itself.

I think among the videos we've been discussing in this thread, Vanessa would be the prime example. She apparently hasn't scrutinized her belief, and hasn't felt the need to, either. She seems to be doing all right.

We all probably have more beliefs than we could possibly scrutinize at any length, on pain of never actually doing anything ("paralysis by analysis"). If religious beliefs are not "special" in the sense of not deserving social deference, then why are they "special" in the sense that they, more so than other beliefs, must have priority for extended scrutiny?

That is a good question.

In which, it all should have the same respect, and no one should feel that someone else should be 'changed' because they think they know best. Again, who has the right?

It's kind of like the bumper sticker I usually see, ( and I think it was on someone's sig here a few years back ) all the symbols of religions and Atheism forming the word, 'co exist'. I find that a sweet sentiment.

davros

I'm not convinced that religious ideas are held sacrosanct, at least not in my relatively secular region of the US. There is widespread awareness that many people hold their religious ideas deeply. That makes these ideas poor topics for light conversation. At the very least, religious discussions are best delayed until the second or later round of brewskies.

It's not a question of being a meanie; you probably aren't mean really. It's a question of what has any lively prospect of doing any good, for either party to the conversation.

I agree too, and hope Davros doesn't feel that I think of him that way. But yes, I think it does more damage than good.

LMFAO! Awesome idea.

LET'S EAT!!!!1

[+Liquid Gardens]

Unsurprisingly, then, I don't fully understand non-believer evangelism, either. All I know is that there is no agnostic tradition of evangelism.

That's a good point, I'm not sure why there isn't exactly but I guess I could see a few factors. Agnostics seem to include at least a couple incompletely overlapping groups of beliefs: those who are on the fence or unconvinced either way concerning theism/atheism period, and those who are on the fence but regardless believe that the justification for theism as currently stated is invalid ("I don't know based on my own agnostic analysis whether god exists or not, but believe the 'reasons' some believers are citing are plainly unjustified rationally". Only the latter group may have enough confidence in their position to contest theism. I can understand non-believer evangelism to the extent that some proportion of believers have discriminatory beliefs that may result in discriminatory behavior for example and directly cite their religious beliefs as the justification for it. I'm sure there are some atheists who justify 'bad' things based on there being no god, but it doesn't seem to be as proportional with respect to the number of atheists who do that nor the degree to which they do it.

As to "agenda," Boghossian does profess a goal to eliminate faith from society at large. He is a philosopher and educator, so it cannot be a surprise that he professes that clear and critical thinking should be encouraged. I suspect that he also believes that if somebody agreed with him about how to think, then they would probably also come to agree with him about what to think. Which, of course, simply restates that whoever believes anything believes that that thing is correct, so not really an "agenda," as much as a hope or prediction.

Glad you said this, it puts into relief something I keep butting my head against on some points in this conversation, namely that the evangelism tactic is to essentially provide education, which can be limited to what the evidence shows without stating 'and this is what you should believe'. At some level it is, but I have trouble calling education 'a sell' like evangelism or advertising typically is.

Let's say Stephen Jay Gould was alive and started a 'street biology' program where he explains the science and evidence supporting evolution, very similar to how he would teach it in a classroom. He never states why he does this however, nobody knows who he is or his background or his beliefs, and he never actually says, 'you should believe in evolution', he simply provides factual material. If when questioned he says he want to educate people, sure there's a goal in mind but I don't think 'to educate people about science' is really what we would term 'evangelism', except in the mundane way that every communication can be said to have some goal. If however when questioned he says that he provides this education in hopes of eradicating creationism, he has a goal in mind, but there is nothing in his presentation that actually advocates for evolution or directly criticizes creationism; people would walk away not sure whether Gould was evangelizing for evolution/against creationism or just communicating accurately the state of biological knowledge. It seems strange to say that education is evangelism and is why I have had a molehill of a disagreement about the 'informed consent' angle; there are not many actual evangelists who, if you were to just read a transcript of what they say and had no idea who said it, don't make it clear what is being advocated.

However, to counter my position on 'consent', I can see some arguments for it. There are the ancillary reasons for it; "I don't trust atheists for other reasons and even though the content of your street epistemology doesn't directly encourage me to give up theism, I simply don't want to have anything to do with atheists at all". That's fine, but I don't think is a concern that requires the questioner to offer up ahead of time their position or ultimate goal. But there are more directly related reasons I think, mainly having to do with the evaluation of the content being presented and the fairness/bias of it, the concern of being presented with only one side of a debate. Even in the Gould example, we could say by not explaining, 'there are some theists who believe that biologists are wrong and that the Bible is the literal word of God and disagree with evolution', at some level with respect to his audience which will include some theists that he is not being unbiased in his presentation; they're hearing only one side even if the other side is crap. Sure ultimately it should be a person's own responsibility to go do their own research and weigh both sides of the argument... and then there's the real world where available time isn't always plentiful. To that extent, knowing who is talking to you and why can provide a potential short-cut, that it may be worth analyzing his specific claims and see if there is a reasonable 'other side of the story' he is not telling; to that end, I agree that informed consent responsibility shifts a little to the presenter.

But then I get to the actual example and it becomes more clouded. There is a lot more specific content in 'creationism' than I've seen at least in 'justification by faith', which is what the Elizabeth example seems to ultimately be about. I don't know but I'd be surprised if there is a wealth of philosophical discussions about the epistemology of faith as far as it being supported by philosophy, it seems difficult enough to get a handle on any actual claim or definition, and I think epistemology has already dealt with the question of whether the most common definition, 'trust', is a valid argument why a proposition is true ('uh, no'). It's hard to give a biased presentation on 'faith' as there aren't that many coherent arguments or even definitions for it and how it 'works', thus the arguments that can actually be articulated are already skewed in volume towards the criticism of faith side of the see-saw. That's why I'm more tempted to say in this example that although there may be ancillary reasons to disclose your identity there are not the more direct and relevant ones, such as the possibility of bias. If the topic being discussed is likely to be presented, even inadvertently, in a biased way, pre-stating who you are and why you are stopping people on the street is more relevant and more of a legitimate onus. However, I don't think there really is much of a way to introduce much bias on the topic of faith as it barely has a concrete definition and very little has been offered to support it.

Okay, my hairsplitter is getting taxed from recent overuse so I'll leave it there.

[+and-then]

No one is making you prove anything -- that is a red herring. All we want is valid logic and rational evidence. We know you can't prove it. I think you are trying to evade the real issue here.

I very much think reliance on "faith" does do harm, to the person's mind, and you are a case in point. There is also the karma involved. To lie is to break with the spirit of the world, and that includes lying to oneself. Spiritual progress is not possible in such an environment.

Valid logic for a religious belief? Frank I think you do not understand the concept of faith. It is, by it's nature, illogical. To believe a man rose from the dead and lives after 2000 years is ridiculous on it's face. Does that mean it's impossible? Faith says NO. Logic says yes, it IS impossible. We (Christians) also believe that if we believe in his word, his good news, that we also will live forever. How do you find rational evidence for such a belief? Since I assume there is none, where does that leave us?

ETA After reading more of this thread I realize that I seem to be representing all of Christianity rather than just my own beliefs. I am no apologist. That is a shortcoming of mine, actually. All Christians are told that they should be able to give reason for their faith but I have never seen the need. If a person relays the Gospel and explains how it affected their own life then from that point it is up to God to call the person close - not the Christian. The fact that I'm a lousy apologist for my faith really does nothing to prove the points of those who are dissecting my words Believe, don't believe, that is a personal choice and it's all good as far as I'm concerned.

Edited December 11, 2015 by and then

[eight bits]

and then

To believe a man rose from the dead and lives after 2000 years is ridiculous on it's face.

I sense we may be coming closer to understanding each other. You don't have to change your belief or prove it. An SE would just ask that you recognize that your sentence poses something to ponder, and that you think about why.

Stubbly

In which, I too don't understand it either, and I don't think what is being done, Boghossian also doesn't have a right, in my feeling, to profess what he knows best for others as well. I think the goal, should be simply, respect others beliefs and or lack of them, and hope everyone is educated enough to go on with life that is in front of them as well.

It is tricky for anyone to express their opinions without there being some element of persuasion. I think it is OK for Boghossian to express his opinions, and even to do that while thinking that changing you would make the world a better place for both of you. He believes that expressing his opinions in a neoSocratic way will change you.

The hitch is that the neoSocratic method requires your cooperation. I think you should know going in what you are going in to. At a practical level, that may be more useful than Boghossian's respect, which you aren't going to get. His loss.

LG

I can understand non-believer evangelism to the extent that some proportion of believers have discriminatory beliefs that may result in discriminatory behavior for example and directly cite their religious beliefs as the justification for it.

Except I don't believe that. Some people really despise gay people. The Bible obliges. Other people of faith reach out to help LGBT people. The Bible obliges. Change the religion of religious gay bashers, and you'll end up with secular gay bashers, IMO. Change their attitude toward gays instead. Who cares what anybody else does on weekends?

(Br Cornelius and I had a brief related exchange this morning in the "Talk Jesus" thread, centered on Sam Harris' ideas about Islam and other political concerns.)

I don't think anybody's hair-splitting, but I also don't see the business case or the ethical case against the amount of self-disclosure in my (not necessarily ideal) example-proposal

"I want to know more about faith. I don't have faith, maybe I should. Please don't sell me on that right now, and I won't sell you anything today, either. I also hope that someday we'll agree, but for these few minutes let's only talk about what you believe and why."

[+Liquid Gardens]

Except I don't believe that. Some people really despise gay people. The Bible obliges. Other people of faith reach out to help LGBT people. The Bible obliges. Change the religion of religious gay bashers, and you'll end up with secular gay bashers, IMO. Change their attitude toward gays instead. Who cares what anybody else does on weekends?

I'm confused on what you don't believe, I assume it's not that religious people cite religious beliefs as justification for their discrimination? Evidence for that abounds. Or is that you agree that religious people do cite those but you don't believe them? I did leave a part out of my statement, specifically that poll results show for example that religious people disapprove of same sex marriage at significantly higher levels than unaffiliated people. Do those polls really run afoul of 'correlation is not causation' to the extent that someone is not justified suspecting that it is the specific religious belief that can be an important factor in that potential discrimination?

The justifications for discrimination for this convo can be rolled up into a couple high-level categories - the religious 'I think God wants me to discriminate against gays' and the secular 'gays are icky'. Bigots can believe one, the other, or both of those things. I think the main reason touted for the increase in acceptance of gays, which has overall increased for the religious and non-religious over time, is that people are having more contact with them and seeing that they are actually no different than anyone else in significant ways. I think that realization is more likely to counter 'gays are icky' more than 'God wants me to discriminate'. The Pew poll I'm looking at could be support for that, it is the 'unaffiliated' who have increased their acceptance of same-sex marriage at a greater rate than any of the religious groups they list.

So if we change the religion of the gay bashers who are not doing it for supposedly secular reasons ('gay parents aren't as good as straight parents, because they are icky') and largely because of their religious beliefs, if you can change or remove that religious belief, their attitude is more likely to change given that you've removed the justifications for it. We obviously hear a lot, 'hate the sin but love the sinner', and also, 'homosexuality is no worse than any other unrepentant sin', that I think align with those who object to gay marriage based on their religion better than those who also or instead believe gays are icky for secular reasons, since we are all equally icky in the eyes of the Lord. It's tough for me given that to say advocating for atheism isn't a sound strategy, it potentially helps with certain categories of people and as I think I've made verbosely clear, I'm not seeing the evidence that there is an offsetting danger of making things worse overall.

[robinrenee]

I do not have the credentials, or skills of Hitch to gain the platform he had. I do concur his sentiments.

https://youtu.be/MJ2LehsA1dk

I see my actions as helping things along. People come up with their own morality for murder. I chose my own for logic and reason for a ever increasing dangerous world.

Thanks Davros, that's a thought-provoking video.

I wonder if the "fault" of this line of thinking (Armageddon) lies in the mind of the preacher, rabbi, and mulla. I believe the incendiary rhetoric of Islam is in the Hadiths and some is in the Qur'an. There are passages in the Old Testament that are frightful. In the New Testament, I can think of very few warmongering verses outside of Revelation. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the preachers, rabbis, and mullas are inciting man's cruelty to man. These "holy" books were written by men with some inspiration from God.

A whole industry of Armageddon and "rapture" movies, books, TV series, art, etc. has propagandized the common man, both in the religious institutions and secular world. It's also making a lot of money for those who promote the scenario.

I personally have been hearing heart-stopping nonsense about the "end times" for 70 years. Hello... we're still here! I remember my grandmother's telling tales about hell fire and damnation preachers terrifying her 115 years ago.... so....

Deus ex machina ... That's the hope of the rapture. People are confusing real life with movie make-believe when they eagerly anticipate it. And preachers, rabbis, and mullas are giving the followers what they want to hear so they keep coming back, and they keep donating money.

The warmongering bankers and politicians are adding fuel to the flames of fear. Israel is definitely complicit in the horror stories. Everyone seems to be getting in on the act with bombs and beheadings.

Oh, well, hadn't planned to go here. That's just what the video brought to my mind.

Edited December 11, 2015 by robinrenee

[Davros of Skaro]

Well, I did, ( and replied ) but I'm still a bit confused on if everyone, believer and non-believer are believed to do that or not do that. Or is there a double standard going on, and one side says they should do it, and the other side shouldn't. Either way, I feel, to be fair, no side should do it. I guess it goes back to the respect for everyone, and everyone has a right to what they feel is best for them thing, etc. etc. etc.

They do it out of a command by Jesus. I do it on my own.

Wait?! How did you know he was my Star Trek first?!?!?!?

And I think I did in my teenage years, even met the actor............................ the original. I'm sure Anton Yelchin is a lovely guy, and he does a pretty good job of it too. But Koenig, the man is a *snicker* a god to me.

Others, I have met too, but nothing ( next to Nana Visiter, ((who is a wonderful and gorgouse lady)) and Alexander Siddig, (( oh boy what a selfless and awesome gentleman. He went out of his way to make sure I was sitting down and he actually picked up an automon. *gush gush* )) (((by the way, I think I started something there with that too ))) but meeting the late James Doohan.............. this thoughtful and gracious gentleman was such a beautiful man. I still have tears in my eyes remembering it.

* Comes back to topic *

Oh yeah, Heeeeeey there Davros, How ya doing?!?!?

Well, I guess I already did...................

Davros, you and my cup of coffee here. * raises her cup in honor *

You mentioned your love for Walter in a Farscape thread started by PA.

That's cool you met those stars, and Nana has beautiful brown Eyes.

Sorry, there my friend, but as I have said to others, I do not pay attention to bible quotes. Like a particular poster in these forums, I avoid them, back off, and go to the next thing.

*shrugs*

*goes back to drinking her coffee *

*looks up and raises her cup to Davros again*

Cheers!

You should read the Bible. I did.

Here's more that you do not have to look at, nor am I forcing you to.

Psalm 137:8-9

"8 O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed,

Happy the one who repays you as you have served us!

9 Happy the one who takes and dashes

Your little ones against the rock!"

Well, from my observation, ( and I could be wrong to something of a sort, ) I think on the level of enthusiasm and activity, I think those levels flow more when the body moves more too. I think there are also levels to how one reads, one plays, one prays, or how one does things.............. like me.

I would think those individuals and their activity on the slot machines have some calories that they have lost.

A Runner's high is different.

Well politicians are mocked for it too, so I will push them aside in this discussion for a minute.

And still, I firmly believe, in the idea of approaching someone, because you think you have the right, and that you think you are right, doesn't give them the right to un-invitingly encroach on someone and tell them how they should believe or not-believe. If someone approached me, Atheist or believer, and started to tell me they want to talk about what I should do, I will tell them, no. I have that right to be left alone. If that is not respected, I will consider that crossing the line into assault. ( and the authorities will be contacted. )

Just as some believers I have noticed, who arrogantly think they are right and no better for everyone else, I will think that on that type of unbeliever. No one knows best for someone else. It's like doing the job of a professional therapist or psychologist, and mucking that up and creating a monster or disturbed person.

I'm sorry, I find those who think they know better than someone else, as arrogant and controlling. That crosses the line.

Would you agree that some thoughts even though not spoken should be punishable?

Now, mind you, if I'm misunderstanding you, and you have mentioned that you don't do this, ( if I could try to remember if I have read this in your past posts........................ then please forgive me. I could be way off base, and go back to my church of Chekov.

And my hope is that everyone gets educated too. Trust me, one of my beefs, is that education is not concentrated enough, in this country I definitely feel that way. As for beliefs, i think they can be good for those who hold them, and that education will always trump that in everyday living.

Frankly, I'm hoping education, with a definite dose of really good philosophical teaching, might just help everyone also 'respect' everyone!!

But that is me....................

( Whew!! * goes for another cup of coffee! * )

Respect! I'm all out of respect, but I have plenty of Bible, and Quran verses.

[Davros of Skaro]

Thanks Davros, that's a thought-provoking video.

I wonder if the "fault" of this line of thinking (Armageddon) lies in the mind of the preacher, rabbi, and mulla. I believe the incendiary rhetoric of Islam is in the Hadiths and some is in the Qur'an. There are passages in the Old Testament that are frightful. In the New Testament, I can think of very few warmongering verses outside of Revelation. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the preachers, rabbis, and mullas are inciting man's cruelty to man. These "holy" books were written by men with some inspiration from God.

A whole industry of Armageddon and "rapture" movies, books, TV series, art, etc. has propagandized the common man, both in the religious institutions and secular world. It's also making a lot of money for those who promote the scenario.

I personally have been hearing heart-stopping nonsense about the "end times" for 70 years. Hello... we're still here! I remember my grandmother's telling tales about hell fire and damnation preachers terrifying her 115 years ago.... so....

Deus ex machina ... That's the hope of the rapture. People are confusing real life with movie make-believe when they eagerly anticipate it. And preachers, rabbis, and mullas are giving the followers what they want to hear so they keep coming back, and they keep donating money.

The warmongering bankers and politicians are adding fuel to the flames of fear. Israel is definitely complicit in the horror stories. Everyone seems to be getting in on the act with bombs and beheadings.

Oh, well, hadn't planned to go here. That's just what the video brought to my mind.

Oh my! If only they were brought to attention to the revelation of the final Prophet from the Religion of peace.

The "end times" as revealed to Muhammad (Pbuh) is much to hunger for.

Quran 40:71-74

"When the shackles are around their necks and the chains; they will be dragged In boiling water; then in the Fire they will be filled [with flame].Then it will be said to them, "Where is that which you used to associate [with Him in worship]Other than Allah ?" They will say, "They have departed from us; rather, we did not used to invoke previously anything." Thus does Allah put astray the disbelievers."

Thanks for participating.

[eight bits]

LG

I'm confused on what you don't believe, ...

I don't believe that

Person P attributes their attititude A to cause C

is a reliable basis to answer:

whether C did in fact cause P to hold A

whether changing P's attitude toward C will cause P not to hold atitude A.

For example, suppose that a hypothetical lifelong adult Muslim, Fatima, had never eaten pork. When asked why not, she said her religion forbids eating pork in most situations. Fatima also regularly donated to charities for the relief of the poor. When asked why, she said her religion impels her to help the less fortunate.

Then Fatima had a crisis of faith and converted to deism. That was eight years ago. Today, she no longer prays, no longer accepts revelation as a basis of knowledge of God, takes her fashion advice from Kim Kardashian, and enjoys alcoholic beverages in moderation. She continues to donate to charities for the relief of the poor and to believe that a divine being created the universe.

From this information, can you reliably infer whether Fatima eats pork?

http://www.theguardi.../islam.religion

So, it would appear that even radical change in religious perspective may change many personal behaviors "related" to the religion, but not necessarily all of them nor any specific proportion of them.

It is clear that people who read the same book take away different things from the experience. Even a single person can read selectively, as when a gay basher eats bacon while wearing a cotton shirt and wool pullover. Recall that you, no less than I, expressed wonderment at what some readers make of Jesus' injunction to pray simply and privately.

It is a staple of atheist counterapologetics that the Bible contradicts itself. It follows that the Bible teaches nothing or, if you prefer, teaches everything. Teaching nothing does not prevent readers from attributing some "lessons" to their reading. Teaching everything will not prevent readers from adhering to the "side" they prefer in whatever issue, and disdaining its opposite (even as other readers choose the other way "for the same reason," that is, Bible says.)