Once More, With Feeling ...

Great Debates
41

Ah, but I didn’t say that bomb exists. I merely said that this is genuinely convinced that it exists – for whatever reason. Should he really provide scientific evidence of the bomb’s existence before he starts warning everyone?

Should we really demand that people have incontrovertible, scientific evidence on hand before they act on their convictions – even in matters of mortal urgency?

Nobody’s contesting that. Nobody says that people have no choice in the matter. Your statement, while correct, is not relevant to the subject at hand.

42

JTC: *First of all, are you serious in saying that the immorality of slavery is strictly a matter of opinion? I daresay that any reasonably moral person would say that slavery is strictly wrong. *

“A matter of opinion” doesn’t necessarily mean “it doesn’t matter which opinion you hold.” The distinction I was drawing was one between opinion and fact. The question of what moral standards should be is indeed a matter of opinion; there are no universally agreed-upon facts about what the “right” morality is. There are many moral issues on which we do have a unanimous or near-unanimous consensus of opinion, and such a consensus (such as the one that slavery is wrong) is very important and valuable: but that is not the same thing as saying it is a consensus about facts.

*Look, I’m not arguing that hell exists, or that the Christian gospel is true. That’s irrelevant to the question at hand. I’m arguing about whether it is morally offensive for someone to express alarm about going to hell. *

That is also irrelevant to the question at hand. An important point that you seem to have missed is that I am not arguing against proselytizing or fire-and-brimstone-type preaching here. Strictly speaking, yes, it is a violation of etiquette to offer any unsolicited advice to anybody; but I am assuming that I’m dealing with people who consider the situation a dire emergency so etiquette has to take a back seat. I am not, in this case at least, telling you that you can’t warn me about the danger of going to hell; as I noted in my first post, I’ve got my answer ready, but I’m not trying to stop you from mentioning the topic.

What is unacceptably arrogant, as I keep pointing out, is for “conversionists” to draw parallels between the kind of emergency consisting in someone’s being about to fall off a building or die from alcohol abuse, and the kind of “emergency” consisting in someone’s not believing in Christian doctrine. If you say, “I believe that you are going to hell unless you become a Christian and I believe that it’s my divinely-commanded duty to warn you about that,” fine, you’re entitled to your opinion, I’m entitled to mine, we’ll leave it at that. Thanks for the warning.

But if you say, “It’s my duty to warn you of your danger just as it would be my duty to warn you if you were an alcoholic or were about to step off a tall building,” then that’s using sloppy reasoning to make yourself sound more important, and that isn’t okay. As several of us have remarked by this time, there is a serious difference between warning somebody of a danger that they acknowledge does exist, even if they don’t yet know that they’re in it, and warning somebody of a danger that they consider to be wholly mythical. People who warn heavy drinkers about the dangers of alcohol abuse are basing their advice on the assumption that the drinkers also understand that alcohol abuse exists and that it can lead to illness and death. People who warn others that they’re too close to the edge of the cliff are basing their advice on the assumption that the others know that F=mg or at least that gravity can kill you. In other words, they are operating on a set of shared premises in trying to help the potential victims.

Proselytizers who warn non-believers about the dangers of hellfire, however, do not have any shared premises with the “potential victims.” The “dangers” they’re trying to warn about don’t exist, in the opinion of the non-believers. Therefore, proselytizers who compare themselves to the helpful counselors described above are using sneaky and dishonest false analogies to make themselves and their advice sound more important and necessary. If you say, “I must warn you about hell because I believe God commanded me to,” okeydokey, that’s your belief and as long as your warnings don’t involve violence or abuse, I’m not going to tell you not to act on it. But if you say, “I must warn you about hell because it’s the same thing as trying to stop you from walking over a cliff,” then you’re a conceited self-aggrandizing liar who is dishonestly attempting to imply a connection with the sort of universally-recognized emergency that necessitates such warnings, and you better believe that I’m going to spot that as arrogant and insulting.

43

Well, that depends on a number of other conditions. Is he convinced of the bomb because of compelling evidence, or did he interpret a line from Nostradamus to predict a bomb at 219 Maple street at 2:30pm September 15? Does he run into a crowded building and cause a panic which results in babies being trampled?

My point is that the evidence for your belief that others are in peril needs to be compelling enough to justify disrupting those people’s lives in order to convey your warning. In the case of the stereotypical fundie with missionary zeal to convert all atheists to Christianity to “save” them from eternal torment, we (the atheists) do not feel their evidence is that compelling, and find comparisons to time bombs and alcoholics nothing but insulting hyperbole.

(And, on preview, what Kimstu said. Tag)

44

JTC, this is exactly the inane non-reasoning that fired the Salem witch hunts. If you put forth a belief which you would like me to accept, the burden of proof is on you to prove your assertion with unambiguous evidence. I can’t prove there are no little green men on Mars; this doesn’t mean that there really are. Until you understand the basic rules of logic, you will get no respect from the vast majority of posters on this board.

45

I see. So must we always have absolute proof before we attempt to convince each other of our beliefs? Is this truly a reasonable demand?

There’s a difference between evidence and proof. A proselytizer SHOULD be ready to present the evidence for his belief, and to answer objections to this evidence as best he can. However, it is unreasonable to demand ABSOLUTE PROOF of one’s beliefs before someone can begin to share them – especially with regard to matters that are inherently unprovable.

Again, should atheists have incontrovertible proof of the non-existence of God before they attempt to convince others of their belief?

How about your belief that absolute proof is necessary before we can share our beliefs? Can you prove that belief is true, or do you merely regard this as a reasonable requirement? If you can’t prove it, then should you really be attempting to convince me of that belief?

46

Ah, so contrary to what previous posters have said, we don’t need “proof” of the existence of hell.

I will agree that a Christian (or a Muslim, or whatever) should not take the existence of hell on blind faith. He must have reasons for his belief – reasons which are compelling enough for him to act on that belief. And he must act on that belief, even when other people disagree with him.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by xenophon41 *
**

Once again though, that’s not the issue. The question is not whether atheists find the reasoning compelling. The question is whether it’s appropriate to warn people of danger (e.g. hell, alcoholism, time bombs), even in the absence of absolute proof. As we’ve seen, it depends on whether the person has evidence that’s compelling enough for him to act on that belief.

Sure, other people may disagee… there will always be people to disagree. We can’t expect to obtain consensus before we act on our every belief, especially where matters of life, death and damnation are concerned. Going back to our time bomb analogy… should a concerned citizen refrain from warning others, simply because these people are not yet convinced that the time bomb exists? Or even if they’re convinced that the bomb does NOT exist?

47

Well, since that’s your specific view, let’s change the analogy slightly. What if, instead of a bomb, the danger came from some little-known disease – a disease which some skeptic considered to be wholly mythical? Should we refrain from warning this skeptic about the disease, simply because he is unconvinced that the disease even exists?

To my mind, it doesn’t matter if the skeptic believes that the danger exists – or that he is personally in danger. If a concerned citizen is convinced that the danger is there, then it’s perfectly reasonable for that person to issue words of warning. Of course, the concerned citizen should be prepared to support his beliefs with evidence, as best he can, but it’s unreasonable to demand that he produce incontrovertible evidence before he can start warning others.

48

JTC: *Ah, so contrary to what previous posters have said, we don’t need “proof” of the existence of hell. *

Right, if you don’t need proof to believe in hell then you don’t need proof to act on that belief. But you do need proof of the existence of hell if you’re going to compare it to proven dangers like alcoholism or bombs. I know you can get this.

*And he must act on that belief, even when other people disagree with him. *

Fine, no argument here.

*Sure, other people may disagee… there will always be people to disagree. We can’t expect to obtain consensus before we act on our every belief, *

Perfectly reasonable.

*especially where matters of life, death and damnation are concerned. Going back to our time bomb analogy… *

AAARRRRGH! Cornpone, you are hopeless. I give up.

49

JTC: *What if, instead of a bomb, the danger came from some little-known disease – a disease which some skeptic considered to be wholly mythical? Should we refrain from warning this skeptic about the disease, simply because he is unconvinced that the disease even exists? *

For the last time: I am not saying you have to refrain from warning people about mythical or possibly-mythical dangers. I am saying you have to stop comparing them to ones that are demonstrably not mythical, whether they be alcoholism, cliffs, bombs, or little-known diseases, in order to juice up your warnings of peril!!

50

In which case, we can easily modify the analogy to encompass unproven dangers, such as purely hypothetical diseases. This objection really doesn’t cut to the heart of the matter.

Since you cut off my inquiry, let me post it again.

“Going back to our time bomb analogy… should a concerned citizen refrain from warning others, simply because these people are not yet convinced that the time bomb exists? Or even if they’re convinced that the bomb does NOT exist?”

Or alternately, should we refrain from warning others about dangers, even when they’re unconvinced that these dangers are real? (As I said, if you don’t like the time bomb analogy, we can substitute any number of hypothetical threats – dangers for which there is no proven existence.)
It shouldn’t matter if the endangered people believe in its existence – though of course, one should be ready to convince them of its reality.

I must commend you, at least, for admitting that absolute proof is not a requirement for warning people about dangers. That’s going far beyond what other posters on this forum have claimed.

51

Thanks for saying that David - I was thinking exactly the same thing.

Now, on to Mr. Cornpone.

Caller: There’s a bomb in your building. I know because I have this book of indeterminate, multiple authorship that’s 2000+ years old, and it says there’s a bomb in your building.
Building Security: Uh, do you have any other evidence?
Caller: Yes, my minister told me that there’s a bomb in your building - he interpreted it from that same book, and he knows more about the book than I do.
Building Security: Sorry sir, unless you have some direct knowledge that someone put a bomb in the building, it’s not really believable. Did you see someone plant it, or did someone tell you they planted it?
Caller: No, but the book is good enough for me - isn’t it worth evacuating, even if there’s only an infinitesimal chance there’s a bomb?
Building Security: Look, by your own account, there’s no reasonable evidence there’s a bomb in the building.
Caller: Well, before you disagree with me, you’d better search the whole building for a bomb and PROVE there’s no bomb.
Building Security: Listen buddy, the first time you called, we took you seriously, and investigated the situation. This is the 15th time you’ve called, and we’re sick of listening to you - you’re like a broken record.
Caller: Well, it’s clear you WANT to be blown up - I’ll pray for you.

52

Kimstu I feel your pain.
Excellent posts. Too bad your talking to a brick wall.

53

I do not think it’s at all unreasonable for someone to pass on their warnings of eternal damnation. However, once the warning has been delivered, refuted, rejected, and/or denied, kindly remove the needle from the scratched record and move on. Proselytizing is its own worst enemy when it continues past the “No thanks” stage to the “I SAID ‘No thanks’” stage to the “Get the hell away from me!” stage. Is there a less effective way to convert people than to continuously badger them after they’ve declined? If I had to pick a religion (God forbid;)!), Fundamental Christianity would rank just above anything that required me to eat live puppies, simply because of the number of people who practice it that feel that God calls on them to be such assholes.

54

Once again, JTC, you resort to logical fallacies to prop up your thesis. This time. it is a straw man argument, where you attribute a statement to me that I never said, then knock it down in order to appear as though you have somehow won a debate. AT NO TIME did I demand absolute proof of anything; merely unambiguous evidence. Now, if you are incapable of differentiating between that which is absolute and that which is unambiguous, any further discussion should be tabled until you spend a few minutes with the dictionary of your choice. Then check the site I recommended before, and familiarize your self with the difference between logical arguments and logical fallacies. Then we’ll talk.

55

*Originally posted by AerynSun *

No, I wouldn’t say that. I think man’s “thinking is that he has to much intellegence” is a reason for not believing. God is a faith thing.

[quote]
Building Security: Listen buddy, the first time you called, we took you seriously, and investigated the situation. This is the 15th time you’ve called, and we’re sick of listening to you - you’re like a broken record.-/quote]

Can I play the caller on his last line?
Caller: You don’t get it the bomb doesn’t go off until you die. I was just trying to warn you before it does?(And I will end the same with same dialog as you) I will pray for you because I did my part telling you about it. (except for)Not everyone will go to Heaven.

And FriendofGod, I also think you are one of the nicest posters I have seen. That is one of my faults as a Christian is my quick temper and my mouth or should I say my “typing fingers”. Go where God would have you go.

56

Yes, since yelling, “Fire!” in a crowded theatre is considered a threat to public safety, regardless of whether there actually is a fire or not. You start yelling, “Bomb!” and it’s not true, you’re a fraud. You’d also probably be ignored by the people in the building, as you’re not in a position of authority - you’re some fruitcake yelling, “Bomb!” And if it’s true, no doubt you’d get interrogated as to how you knew there was a bomb there in the first place.

I still see little relevance between this and proselytizing.

Esprix

57

Whoops - seems I posted too soon.

What AerynSun said. (And well done, too.)

Esprix

58

Let that be a lesson to you. Never shout “Hell!” in a crowded church.