Is there anything wrong with Christians evangelising?

[Thomas Ash]

I sometime see people on these boards saying that there is, and I was wondering why... I suppose that if I thought that people's immortal souls were at stake (i.e. that non-Christians would go to hell, or at least miss out on heaven) I'd figure I was duty-bound to try to convert people (if it seemed like I had any chance of successfully doing so).

[Jedi Mind Trick]

I don't know if there is anything particularly wrong with it when it is done to adults (indoctrinating children just may be another story). It's just that it’s irritating. But they have the right to free speech. However, they should expect then that their beliefs could be attacked on an equal basis. So then they should not cry “victim” or “persecution.”

[achristianbeliever]

I wrote this in another thread but I'll repeat it here:

quote from http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=206820

I hope its ok if a Christian puts in his two cents. I don't have a problem with
KKK material being sent out as long as it doesn't lead to purposeful harm. In other words material could theoretically lead to harm but the question is was it the writer's intention for harm to occur. I also don't have a problem with holocaust denial writings.

Some atheists have indeed called Christians delusional and ignorant. Those like me who deny evolution are told that the evidence is so overwhelming that only a blind, dumb or brainwashed person could deny it. I've been told this to my face and I still don't believe an atheist should be told what they cannot say. I also have no desired fantasy of seeing atheism gone. I think Christians need atheists to keep them honest and asking the hard questions.

Obviously this means I don't believe proselythising should be banned. One reason is what exactly does this look like? Should a Christian who does this be fined, put in prison, capital punishment?

And does this mean that a parent is not allowed to tell their children what their parent believes? "Mommy why do you go to church every Sunday?"

"I'm sorry dear I'm not allowed to tell you."

Don't forget Christians really believe that they are saving people from Hell. Now whether its true or not is not the point. Should a non-smoker not be allowed to tell a smoker of cancer if the smoker says, "I don't believe smoking causes cancer". Should the non-smoker still be allowed to try and convince them?

So whether Hell is real or not doesn't change the fact Christians are trying to save them.

Yes Christianity believes this religion has a moral superiority from other religions but I don't think other Christians or at least myself I don't believe non-Christians are morally inferior. In fact as a Christian I believe I suck worse than an atheist. I'm asking an innocent man to die for my sins while an atheist is willing to face his sins head on. But what can I say I'm a selfish bastard and God has granted me a pardon from my sentence so I'm taking it.

But still we do the moral superiority card all the time. We've gotten morally better than those past morons who all approved slavery in the past. In the past women were treated terribly but we've evolved beyond that. Shouldn't that be treated the same way as holocaust deniers?

I want atheists to tell me that I'm delusional or ignorant if that's what they truly believe. B

[naturalist.atheist]

I am always amazed how even among atheists that people are so cowed and conditioned by supernatural religion that they are oblivious to the chicanery that goes on every single day just about everywhere all over the world.

If a person came up to you and said that they have a huge warehouse full of the greatest goods imaginable. Items to delight and amaze the mind. Items so fantastic that it is a joy just to behold them and that he didn't have immediate access to them and he could not show them to you. Not until you were dead. But that he wanted you to have them, but you could not have them unless you followed a set of rules that required you to come to his place once a week, donate one tenth of what you make to his organization. Raise your children in his organization and on and on. That you had to try to get other people to join his organization by telling them about the amazing things they would get when they died if they joined.

Most people would think that such crooks should be sent to jail for fraud, let alone be tolerated in public.

And then substitute what they are actually selling instead of the warehouse of goods.

Then you tell me if proselytizing should be allowed. Because in any other context what they are actually doing would put them in jail.

[trendkill]

Is there anything wrong with Christians evangelising?Depends on the tactics used, but generally, no. People should be free to think what they want and to try to convince others to agree with them, whether the subject is religion, politics, or whatever.

[naturalist.atheist]

Depends on the tactics used, but generally, no. People should be free to think what they want and to try to convince others to agree with them, whether the subject is religion, politics, or whatever.

It all depends on what representations or claims they make and what they ask for in return.

There is a fine line between trying to convince others of your opinion and promising eternal salvation if you do what a self proclaimed god intermediary tells you to do. (The line is not really all the fine. In any other context people would see the difference immediately)

In fact the mere act of claiming to represent another entity and making representations and promises on behalf of that entity when you can't demonstrate in any legal way that it exists in any form that is different from a myth should be enough to get people thrown into jail.

It is one thing to argue an opinion but supernaturalists don’t claim to have an opinion, they claim to have the “TRUTH”.

[wiploc]

Is there anything wrong with Christians evangelising?


It is an attempt to make people stupid. To the extent that it works, it reduces the intelligence of the universe.

crc

[Plognark]

I agree that it's fine, as others have indicated. It's just really annoying, basically.

However, It's awfully hypocritical of them to cry "persecution " when challenged on their beliefs or when other competing religions or philosophies are promoted.

[Darkenmoon]

If a person chooses to come to me once and try to talk to me about Christianity and I tell them no and they then leave me alone unless I bring it up and want more information on this "being saved", that's great. I can respect that they want to "save" me. But if they choose to tell me all the time or often even after I've asked them to stop and even been polite enough to listen to their case once, this is a problem. I don't believe it ought to be illegal... unless they cross the line into it being harassment, however I think for their own case and my own sanity, they should let it rest after they make their point. This doesn't mean religion or the lack there of can't be discussed... but the manipulative argument to try to convert me should be left behind. But again, that's just being polite...

[Gooch's dad]

Other than the fact that it is incredibly rude? Nothing at all.

It is especially rude when the victim says "I'm not interested" and the Christian continues to preach.

[naturalist.atheist]

Other than the fact that it is incredibly rude? Nothing at all.

It is especially rude when the victim says "I'm not interested" and the Christian continues to preach.

It is more than rude. Exactly who do they claim to be representing when they offer you eternal salvation? How can they make that representation in any legal or ethical way? In any other context, simply pulling out a brochure (the bible) not matter how detailed or verbose it may be would still be considered fraud. But because it is for gawd they get a pass.

[Hydra009]

Don't forget Christians really believe that they are saving people from Hell. Now whether its true or not is not the point. Should a non-smoker not be allowed to tell a smoker of cancer if the smoker says, "I don't believe smoking causes cancer". Should the non-smoker still be allowed to try and convince them?

So whether Hell is real or not doesn't change the fact Christians are trying to save them.This is true. Some Christians believe that they're doing a morally good thing by proselytizing. Even the Fred Phelps people probably think they're doing the right thing in their efforts. But keep in mind that it looks very, very different on the other side of the stained glass.

Obviously, I believe in the freedom of speech, so I, in principle, don't have a problem with people advertising their religion, provided they also accept whatever people have to say in response.

But in practice, street preachers with megaphones and worn-out cardboard signs with messages of love scratched out with what appears to be human blood are extremely obnoxious/disturbing and the door-knockers brigades are just plain intrusive. Not even billboards, that shining bastion of materialist America, are safe from the ominous gaze of an all-powerful deity with the miraculous power to create traffic congestion. The market is thoroughly saturated with every 2-bit televangelist who thinks our 6,000-year-old world is going to end tomorrow. So yeah, in reality, I could probably do with a little less proselytization.

Yes Christianity believes this religion has a moral superiority from other religions but I don't think other Christians or at least myself I don't believe non-Christians are morally inferior.No, Christianity, being a non-person, doesn't believe anything - Christians believe things. And some Christians occasionally advance is the belief that non-Christians are morally inferior, almost always through the implicit argument that their religion is the only "true" foundation of morality and regarding atheists in particular as immoral due to their non-belief in a God.

In fact as a Christian I believe I suck worse than an atheist. I'm asking an innocent man to die for my sins while an atheist is willing to face his sins head on. But what can I say I'm a selfish bastard and God has granted me a pardon from my sentence so I'm taking it.From a Christian perspective, that's understandable. But from an atheistic perspective, there are no sins to confront, since sin is by definition disobedience towards a deity. So I can't say that I agree the statement that "an atheist is willing to face his sins head on".

But still we do the moral superiority card all the time. We've gotten morally better than those past morons who all approved slavery in the past. In the past women were treated terribly but we've evolved beyond that. Shouldn't that be treated the same way as holocaust deniers?Well, I wouldn't break out the champagne just yet.

There's still a lot of fallout from slavery in the form of racial prejudices and hatreds, which both atheists and Christians have to face, and the more extreme fringes of Christianity - some Christian Reconstructionist and Christian Identity members still seriously advocate slavery.

Even after most Christians have changed their views on the status of women, women sometimes still do get treated unequally in Christianity - for example, churches denying women pastors ordination and some Christians believing that the Bible states that the husband is the head of the household, and that the wife should be subservient to the husband.

So even on those issues, which were supposedly settled long ago, some still cling onto the past.

Additionally, there are problems with acceptance of democracy and freedom of religion, with some Christians advocating theocratic governance even some advocating imprisonment/expulsion of non-Christians. There are also problems with science, attempts to blot out some scientific theories purely on the basis of one's religious beliefs. And the trend towards gay bashing doesn't exactly demonstrate moral higher ground.

And obviously, tolerance of people who do not hold religious beliefs could use some work as well.

So all and all, not a great resume from the moral superiority card.

[naturalist.atheist]

Freedom of speech is not freedom to defraud. You can express an opinion but if you present that opinion as more than opinion and make promises based on required action and claim it is "true" that is far more than free speech. You are entering the realm of a contract. And if you make representations for an entity that has no more legal standing than the easter bunny then that would clearly be either fraud or insanity or both.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

I'm not sure I would go as far as saying it is outright fraud. Sure, the atheist doesn’t believe in said deity, but the proselytizer believes in it with all of his/her heart. It’s a clearly flawed model of how things work, but one that at some level accomplishes something for those who are taken by it. God belief has helped our species cope with our heightened awareness of our mortality if even only imaginary.

[vikingrob]

And then we have verses we can refer to as well: Luke 14:25-26 (25) And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, (26) If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. and Matthew 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

[Gwen]

It depends on the context. If the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons and every other breed of Christian are all fine with having someone knocking on their door at eight o'clock in the morning on a Saturday trying to sell them vacuum cleaners, then I guess they're not particularly hypocritical doing the same thing selling God. (Doesn't mean I like it, though, either.) I think that there should be a law against trespassing on the property of people who have clear "No Soliciting" signs up, whether it's for Jesus or for Avon and Fuller brushes. My doorstep is not public property. (I'd have a sign that said something like "No Soliciting--unless you're selling cookies, nuts, or calendars" because I was a Girl Scout once. ;))
And I'd suspect that most Christians don't like the idea of people coming up to them on sidewalk asking them if they've found out the truth (that God doesn't exist) and inviting them to join atheist organizations. Why not? Shouldn't they be glad? We're just trying to save their minds! And no ulterior motive either, we don't get Godpoints for evangelizing our good news.
Evangelizing at public schools, even if it's the students who are doing it, is wrong because it's a captive audience. Megaphones in the public square, same thing. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, remember? Render unto the citizenry that which belongs to us, and go pray in your closet, not on streetcorners.

[Thomas Ash]

Other than the fact that it is incredibly rude? Nothing at all.

Do you think it's intrinsically rude to try to convince someone of any position (or any religious position, or any religious or ethical position, or somesuch)? Why?

[Scifinerdgrl]

I sometime see people on these boards saying that there is, and I was wondering why... I suppose that if I thought that people's immortal souls were at stake (i.e. that non-Christians would go to hell, or at least miss out on heaven) I'd figure I was duty-bound to try to convert people (if it seemed like I had any chance of successfully doing so).

It's obnoxious. I started evangelizing right back with my atheist position and somehow I don't have to deal with it as much now. :huh:

[Hydra009]

Do you think it's intrinsically rude to try to convince someone of any position (or any religious position, or any religious or ethical position, or somesuch)? Why?My impression of the post was that while it wouldn't be rude to engage someone in theological discussions provided the other person expresses an interest in that sort of thing, it would be rude to just shout whatever personal conviction is in one's head at the moment at the nearest passerby. Spamming is generally considered rude.

[Clivedurdle]

I asked is xianity a form of warfare partly because of evangelism.

Normally, to conquer someone you have to use force, but what if they surrender because you play mind games with them - threaten eternal damnation if you do not believe, untold riches if you follow me.

A judiious use of the idea of heresy, burn a few troublemakers, little bit of torture - far easier and cheaper than armies.

The Vatican preaching its gospel in another country technically is a form of treason.

[naturalist.atheist]

I'm not sure I would go as far as saying it is outright fraud. Sure, the atheist doesn’t believe in said deity, but the proselytizer believes in it with all of his/her heart. It’s a clearly flawed model of how things work, but one that at some level accomplishes something for those who are taken by it. God belief has helped our species cope with our heightened awareness of our mortality if even only imaginary.

Since when does sincerity excuse fraud? The law doesn't care if the company you worked for was selling fake securities if you personally vouched for those securities when you were selling them and you had no reason to know if they were legitimate or not. You personally can't make any representations of "TRUTH" unless you have something reasonable to to base that representation on.

[Clete]

Since when does sincerity excuse fraud? The law doesn't care if the company you worked for was selling fake securities if you personally vouched for those securities when you were selling them and you had no reason to know if they were legitimate or not. You personally can't make any representations of "TRUTH" unless you have something reasonable to to base that representation on.
I think your comparison misses the mark in more ways than one. First of all, if you yourself were duped into selling the bogus securities then I think it is unlikely that you would be convicted of fraud. So, yes, sincerity is relevant. Secondly, in your metaphor there is money changing hands. This is not the case with some preacher on the the street. Fraud implies a person making false claims for personal gain. So the street preacher who says "Jesus is the key to heaven" is no more committing fraud than the political activist who says "My candidate is the key to cleaning up city hall".

From the Wikipedia entry on fraud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud) (emphasis mine):

In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation. Many hoaxes are fraudulent, although those not made for personal gain are not technically frauds. Defrauding people of money is presumably the most common type of fraud, but there have also been many fraudulent "discoveries" in art, archaeology, and science. The John Cooke Fraud Report offers a three word fraud definition: "Gain Through Misrepresentation.

[Gwen]

You don't think evangelists are not doing it for personal gain, do you?
Don't you get Godpoints for evangelizing?

[Clivedurdle]

Is Islam actually more evangelical? Holy war....

[Clete]

You don't think evangelists are not doing it for personal gain, do you?
Don't you get Godpoints for evangelizing?
Well, if there's no God, then there's no personal gain for them and they're just a dupe like anyone else they convince, right? And if there is a God, then they're telling the truth. Either way I see no fraud there. :)

[Chuck Rightmire]

I have had evangelists come to my front door. I have had evangelists approach me on the street. I have had evangelists leave tracts in places where I have to go. The latter leaves me the freedom to ignore them if I wish. But when they come to my front door, they are no better than door to door salesmen who I also tell to leave. Why do they feel that a religious conviction gives them the right to interrupt whatever I'm doing to try to sell me on their belief? One Sunday morning, my breakfast was interrupted by several adults with an under six year old child knocking on my door. They wanted me to listen to the child tell me about god. I said no and shut the door and they were lucky I didn't call the cops and have them charged with child abuse.

[purple_kathryn]

is there any problem with Muslims preaching, Jews Preaching, Wiccans preaching. Do you have a problem with atheists coming up and telling you exactly why you are wrong and why you should immediately change your beliefs

[Clete]

is there any problem with Muslims preaching, Jews Preaching, Wiccans preaching. Do you have a problem with atheists coming up and telling you exactly why you are wrong and why you should immediately change your beliefs
I would find all of those things annoying but neither morally nor legally wrong.

[Soralis]

I think your comparison misses the mark in more ways than one. First of all, if you yourself were duped into selling the bogus securities then I think it is unlikely that you would be convicted of fraud. So, yes, sincerity is relevant. Secondly, in your metaphor there is money changing hands. This is not the case with some preacher on the the street. Fraud implies a person making false claims for personal gain. So the street preacher who says "Jesus is the key to heaven" is no more committing fraud than the political activist who says "My candidate is the key to cleaning up city hall".

From the Wikipedia entry on fraud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud) (emphasis mine):

Well it is for personal gain, after all, how do you think churches and preachers and such make money?

[purple_kathryn]

I would find all of those things annoying but neither morally nor legally wrong.

Even if all of them were doing it? You'd be more than annoyed.

[naturalist.atheist]

I think your comparison misses the mark in more ways than one. First of all, if you yourself were duped into selling the bogus securities then I think it is unlikely that you would be convicted of fraud. So, yes, sincerity is relevant. Secondly, in your metaphor there is money changing hands. This is not the case with some preacher on the the street. Fraud implies a person making false claims for personal gain. So the street preacher who says "Jesus is the key to heaven" is no more committing fraud than the political activist who says "My candidate is the key to cleaning up city hall".

From the Wikipedia entry on fraud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud) (emphasis mine):

This site purports that the legal definition of fraud as:


Definition - Noun
[Latin fraud- fraus]
1 a : any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage
specif
: a misrepresentation or concealment with reference to some fact material to a transaction that is made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity and with the intent to deceive another and that is reasonably relied on by the other who is injured thereby
b : the affirmative defense of having acted in response to a fraud
2 : the crime or tort of committing fraud <convicted of securities ~>
see also misrepresentation
A tort action based on fraud is also referred to as an action of deceit.

Certainly they have a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the claims they make. And they certainly have intent to convince. You could say that trying to convince people of something when you have no idea of the actual truth or falsity of your claims is deception. And certainly many people have been convicted on fraud for doing just that. All it looks like to me is that you want to excuse Christians simply because you think they are sincere. I don't see how sincerity in fraud makes any difference.

As for injury, there are all sorts of horror stories and many have been posted on these very boards. If it were a case of a spinach company selling contaminated veggies making reckless claims of truth without anything to back them up then you betcha they could very well be charged with fraud. But if it is for gawd then it is acceptable.

[Clete]

Well it is for personal gain, after all, how do you think churches and preachers and such make money?
They make their money through contributions from their members, not the people they evangelize to, who are by definition non-members.

[Clete]

Even if all of them were doing it? You'd be more than annoyed.
Doubt it. I've been living in fairly large cities continuously since the mid-90s and am frequently evangelized by all kinds of people. I find it annoying and rude and my preference whould be for them to not do it. But as I said, I don't see anything legally or morally wrong about it.

[naturalist.atheist]

They make their money through contributions from their members, not the people they evangelize to, who are by definition non-members.

That is just silly. Money doesn't need to change hands. If it leads to injury or damage or loss of anything of tangible worth then it is fraud. People sell their time for money.

What makes it fraud is the reckless disregard for the varacity of their claims. And the representations that they make on behalf of an entity that has no more legal standing than the tooth fairy. And most of them know this when they make the claims.

[Clete]

Certainly they have a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the claims they make. And they certainly have intent to convince. You could say that trying to convince people of something when you have no idea of the actual truth or falsity of your claims is deception. And certainly many people have been convicted on fraud for doing just that. All it looks like to me is that you want to excuse Christians simply because you think they are sincere. I don't see how sincerity in fraud makes any difference.
I think it's pretty clear from the definitions you posted that it's all about intent. Let's look definition #1 again (with a little bolding on my part):

1 a : any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage
specif
: a misrepresentation or concealment with reference to some fact material to a transaction that is made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity and with the intent to deceive another and that is reasonably relied on by the other who is injured thereby
b : the affirmative defense of having acted in response to a fraud

As for injury, there are all sorts of horror stories and many have been posted on these very boards. If it were a case of a spinach company selling contaminated veggies making reckless claims of truth without anything to back them up then you betcha they could very well be charged with fraud. But if it is for gawd then it is acceptable.
Again, I don't think this is an apt comparision. Since you are talking about something that (1) involves money changing hands and (2) involves what would be clear-cut health violations.

To go back the example that I used in my previous post, if a volunteer political activist stands on a street corner with a sign and brochures saying that if Bob Smith gets elected mayor he'll really clean up city hall but then the candidate gets into office and does a sucky job, do you really think that the guy on the street corner was guilty of fraud?

But if it is for gawd then it is acceptable.
Of course not. If someone is actually committing fraud via relgion then they deserve to go to jail like Jim Bakker did.

[Clete]

That is just silly. Money doesn't need to change hands. If it leads to injury or damage or loss of anything of tangible worth then it is fraud. People sell their time for money.
Why is it silly? Soralis asked how I thought churches made their money and I answered the question.

Of course money doesn't have to change hands, but the person does have to have been deliberately taken advantage of in some tangible way such as money, property, etc.

[Tubby Lardmore]

If they truly believe the Gospel message that nonbelievers and lukewarm believers are going to be burned with fire for an infinite amount of time, the interesting question is why so few of them buy a megaphone and stand on a busy street corner preaching through the megaphone from an open Bible.

[naturalist.atheist]

Why is it silly? Soralis asked how I thought churches made their money and I answered the question.

He made the statement in the context of fraud.

Of course money doesn't have to change hands, but the person does have to have been deliberately taken advantage of in some tangible way such as money, property, etc.

Okay. And you are saying this is not happening? At least when it comes to the televangelists?

[AthenaAwakened]

Is there something wrong with evangelizing?

You damn skippy!

This morning I was curling my hair. There was a knock at the door. It startled me and I burned my ear. I get to the door with half curled hair holding a cold washcloth to my ear while still in my bath robe and what is waiting for me there?


JWs!!!!

"Do you believe that there is an evil influence in the world?"

"Ask me after my flesh ceases to sizzle"

SLAM!!!

[naturalist.atheist]

I think it's pretty clear from the definitions you posted that it's all about intent. Let's look definition #1 again (with a little bolding on my part):

1 a : any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage
specif
: a misrepresentation or concealment with reference to some fact material to a transaction that is made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity and with the intent to deceive another and that is reasonably relied on by the other who is injured thereby
b : the affirmative defense of having acted in response to a fraud


Again, I don't think this is an apt comparision. Since you are talking about something that (1) involves money changing hands and (2) involves what would be clear-cut health violations.

It can be injury or loss of any kind. And intent is difficult, but courts manage to convict any way. Because certainly the crooks did it for all the purest of intentions.

But hey, you could have a point. So you would think that honorable people would conduct themselves so that there wasn't even a possible whiff of fraud in their actions. And if that is the case then they would not proselytize. Because what they are selling is god and there is no way for them to even show that they represent god in any legitimate way. In fact people that claim to represent a person and they have nothing to show that they represent that person are frauds. And certainly Christians qualify on that count many times over.

To go back the example that I used in my previous post, if a volunteer political activist stands on a street corner with a sign and brochures saying that if Bob Smith gets elected mayor he'll really clean up city hall but then the candidate gets into office and does a sucky job, do you really think that the guy on the street corner was guilty of fraud?

What if the campaigner for Bob Smith could not show you where Bob Smith was? Or that there was even a person named Bob Smith? But was trying to get you to vote for him? I think that in the cases where that happened people went to jail for fraud.

I am always amazed by how ingrained religious foolery is even to people who claim to know better. It never occurs to people that we are talking about people that are trying to convince others of the reality of something that under any other circumstance they would admit was a myth. If that isn’t fraud then I don’t know what is.

Of course not. If someone is actually committing fraud via relgion then they deserve to go to jail like Jim Bakker did.

It is just a matter of degree. All Jim is guilty of is doing it on TV before a mass audience, but he is no different than any other god intermediary that claims to speak for god when they can’t show that their god is any more real than the tooth fairy.

[Seeker630]

Other than the fact that it is incredibly rude? Nothing at all.

It is especially rude when the victim says "I'm not interested" and the Christian continues to preach.

It's even worse when after the non-believer has said thy're not interested, the Christian says some incredibly condescending, asshole comment like "Well you had your chance". I had that happen to me once in an e-mail from someone who used to work for the same outfit I did. So I asked him if he accepted Allah as the one and only god, and Mohammed as his only true prophet. Of course he said no. I replied:

"Hey------you had your chance".

[steamer]

Since when does sincerity excuse fraud? The law doesn't care if the company you worked for was selling fake securities if you personally vouched for those securities when you were selling them and you had no reason to know if they were legitimate or not. You personally can't make any representations of "TRUTH" unless you have something reasonable to to base that representation on.

I think though that the church does escape fraud because it merely asks for donations as opposed to demanding fees. A whole flock of atheists could occupy pew space forever without putting a dime in the plate so long as they weren't disruptive.

A flock of atheists could probably put a church out of business by merely showing up early and occupying every seat. The church cannot demand any payment.

[Gwen]

Well, if there's no God, then there's no personal gain for them and they're just a dupe like anyone else they convince, right? And if there is a God, then they're telling the truth. Either way I see no fraud there.

Then pyramid schemes are fine, because if you don't actually get money then there's no personal gain for you and you're just a dupe like anyone else you convince, right? And if you do get money, then you're telling the truth.

[naturalist.atheist]

I think though that the church does escape fraud because it merely asks for donations as opposed to demanding fees. A whole flock of atheists could occupy pew space forever without putting a dime in the plate so long as they weren't disruptive.

A flock of atheists could probably put a church out of business by merely showing up early and occupying every seat. The church cannot demand any payment.

If we were talking about pew space you would have a point, but it goes way beyond that. Certainly the church encourages donations by implying that they know that god will look kindly on the donor. And certainly in the past many god intermediaries have claimed that if they did not receive donations that god would do something undesirable.

The fact that they claim to speak for god and claim that god will provide beneficial treatment to people based on how well they obey the god intermediary is more than enough to show fraud. Because no god intermediary on the planet can demonstraite any better than a random person on the street that they speak for god.

[Clete]

He made the statement in the context of fraud.
He made the statement in the context of equating two things which I don't feel are equatable within the context of this thread. The topic of the OP is about whether or not there is anything wrong with evangelizing, a practice which is enacted upon nonbelievers. What religions do within their own membership is another matter entirely.

Okay. And you are saying this is not happening? At least when it comes to the televangelists?
Not in the context of what the OP is talking about.

It can be injury or loss of any kind. And intent is difficult, but courts manage to convict any way. Because certainly the crooks did it for all the purest of intentions.

But hey, you could have a point. So you would think that honorable people would conduct themselves so that there wasn't even a possible whiff of fraud in their actions. And if that is the case then they would not proselytize. Because what they are selling is god and there is no way for them to even show that they represent god in any legitimate way.
Yes, you would think so. As I have said a number of times in this thread, I find evangelism rude and annoying. But that's the thing with free speech is that you take the good along with the bad. The good part is I'm also free to tell those people to fuck off.

In fact people that claim to represent a person and they have nothing to show that they represent that person are frauds. And certainly Christians qualify on that count many times over.
Again, it comes back to intent. Intent is the difference between fraud and simply being mistaken.

What if the campaigner for Bob Smith could not show you where Bob Smith was? Or that there was even a person named Bob Smith? But was trying to get you to vote for him? I think that in the cases where that happened people went to jail for fraud.
What if the campaigner had been just as duped as everyone else? He saw some writings that allegedly came from Bob, he knew a number of people who claimed to have had conversations with Bob, he liked Bob's platform. So he campaigned for him completely unaware that there was no Bob. Do you really feel that such a person is guilty of fraud?

I am always amazed by how ingrained religious foolery is even to people who claim to know better.
:rolleyes:

It never occurs to people that we are talking about people that are trying to convince others of the reality of something that under any other circumstance they would admit was a myth.
Actually, I'm well aware they are perputuating a myth. My whole point is that they are not doing so via deliberate deception for personal gain.

If that isn’t fraud then I don’t know what is.
I know, you've made it very apparent that you don't know what fraud is.

It is just a matter of degree. All Jim is guilty of is doing it on TV before a mass audience, but he is no different than any other god intermediary that claims to speak for god when they can’t show that their god is any more real than the tooth fairy.
The difference is that he took money, lied about was he was using it for, spent it on himself and doctored the books to hide his trail. That's fraud. Why is it fraud? Because of intent.

[naturalist.atheist]

Then pyramid schemes are fine, because if you don't actually get money then there's no personal gain for you and you're just a dupe like anyone else you convince, right? And if you do get money, then you're telling the truth.

If you do it by mail it’s illegal. But it may not be technically fraud but it is not as if people do not realize that it is a very shady thing to do.

[Clete]

Then pyramid schemes are fine, because if you don't actually get money then there's no personal gain for you and you're just a dupe like anyone else you convince, right? And if you do get money, then you're telling the truth.
The way in which this metaphor is attempting to relate to my comment seems to be confusing cause with effect.

[Gwen]

They make their money through contributions from their members, not the people they evangelize to, who are by definition non-members.

But they get the members by evangelizing. "Find God, join our church!" means that they get more members who will contribute because they're told they have to to get salvation.
Members are by definition ex-non-members. What's the purpose of evangelizing?

The way in which this metaphor is attempting to relate to my comment seems to be confusing cause with effect.

How? Keep in mind I'm not talking about the people starting the schemes, but the people in the middle.

[naturalist.atheist]

What if the campaigner had been just as duped as everyone else? He saw some writings that allegedly came from Bob, he knew a number of people who claimed to have had conversations with Bob, he liked Bob's platform. So he campaigned for him completely unaware that there was no Bob. Do you really feel that such a person is guilty of fraud?

Certainly someone is. It all depends on what that person represented. If he said that he knew Bob and that Bob had told him certain things when he never actually met Bob then it would be fraud. Christians do that constantly.

But in the end if you are involved in an enterprise and you make representations for that enterprise and you have not actually seen anything to back up those representations but you present them to others as if you had then perhaps in some very technical sense you may not be a fraud but you might as well be. You certainly can’t call yourself honest.

Actually, I'm well aware they are perputuating a myth. My whole point is that they are not doing so via deliberate deception for personal gain.

Nonsense. Even if the personal gain is imaginary they still think it is a gain. People commit fraud for station. Besides fraud is not just for gain. It can also be for harm.

I know, you've made it very apparent that you don't know what fraud is.

Hey. Be nice. I would tell you what is apparent here but I agreed I would not to post such things. I think you agreed to do the same.

The difference is that he took money, lied about was he was using it for, spent it on himself and doctored the books to hide his trail. That's fraud. Why is it fraud? Because of intent.

Funny how you didn't actually present intent in that description, just action and what was known. That is because a court can’t actually establish intent. They can't read minds. But they still convict for fraud all the time. At best all they can do is compare the actions to what an honest person would do and ask if it was reasonable to infer intent from the actions.

But it should be no surprise that in this society religious foolery gets an automatic pass.

[Perm]

What has always confused me is, why the need to evangelise? If you are in possession of the one and only truth, via your direct comm link to God(tm) (the bible or some such holy text. voices in your head also works) then why wouldn't you assume that other people would receive the revelation also? Unless God(tm) specifically told YOU to go and convert more sheep, why wouldn't you focus on doing more productive things and let God(tm) convert everyone else in his copious spare time?

Also, if God(tm) really did just tell YOU to convert more people, don't you have to wonder a bit about his motivation? Why didn't he tell your roommate, or the guy down the street? Why hasn't he informed the Hindus yet?

If you can't tell yet, yes I have a problem with evangelising. It strikes me as a way to appear intellectually superior to another. They believe they KNOW something I don't, when in fact, they are attempting to increase the strength of their groupthink. Me "joining" their cult supplies the numbers that continue to feed it.

Also, like others have stated... being sincere has little to do with committing fraud. There are cases of libel, slander, con-men activities, etc, etc all fall into the same group. If someone lies to or about someone else, regardless of how "sincere" it is, it's illegal.

More facts are good. Less facts is bad.

[sourdough]

I sometime see people on these boards saying that there is, and I was wondering why... I suppose that if I thought that people's immortal souls were at stake (i.e. that non-Christians would go to hell, or at least miss out on heaven) I'd figure I was duty-bound to try to convert people (if it seemed like I had any chance of successfully doing so).
from atheist pov xian beliefs and their proselytizing seems as rediculous as this
www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

[Soralis]

They make their money through contributions from their members, not the people they evangelize to, who are by definition non-members.

Well of course, why would they need to evangelize to their members? They're already getting money from them, so the only reason to evangelize to them is to keep them as members. Non-members are the people they need to evangelize to if they want to increase their income, by turning them into members.

[Godless Dave]

I sometime see people on these boards saying that there is, and I was wondering why.

At best, it's annoying, rude, and presumptuous.

[Biff the unclean]

If they intend to advertise then they should have to obey the "truth in advertising" consumer protection laws.
Which should mean jail time if they can't support their claims.

[naturalist.atheist]

If they intend to advertise then they should have to obey the "truth in advertising" consumer protection laws.
Which should mean jail time if they can't support their claims.

Biff you would have a point if Christians were not such slippery buggers. They own the "TRUTH" for two reasons:

1) Whatever they say is automatically the "TRUTH".
2) And if you disagree then see 1.

[Biff the unclean]

One finds that wheelers and dealers who make a big deal over "truth" are doing so for a reason. Like Honest John the Used Car Salesman. All evangelists need is to be held to the same standards Honest John is by law. They would need to be able to demonstrate that their claims are true. Honest John needs to show that he has an actual car that he is selling and not some fantasy. Evangelists should be held to that same, rather low, standard.
Then there are the "lemon laws"...

[Godless Dave]

from atheist pov xian beliefs and their proselytizing seems as rediculous as this
www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

Your location field coupled with your misspelling of "ridiculous" is hilariously ironic.

[Thomas Ash]

Ha, everyone's taken "evangelism" as "knocking on your door when you're having dinner evangelism", which wasn't my intent - but that's a good topic for a rant :)

The discussion of fraud is interesting: if you can convincingly claim to believe a story you spin, does that mean you can escape a charge of fraud? (You may show a reckless disregard for your belief's truth, but not intent to deceive.)

[trendkill]

My take on the fraud angle: Religious organizations are supposed to be non-profit, and it ain't fraud if you're not selling anything. Now, churches may get way too much latitude, but every once in a while you do hear about someone who goes too far and runs afoul of the law, so it's not like they're totally immune. I suspect there may be certain biases at work in some societies that make it too easy for religious organizations to do flout the principles a non-profit organization should be governed by, but this does not change the fact that proselytizing in general is not, or should not be, considered fraud in my book.

[naturalist.atheist]

Profit does not have to be involved for fraud. And sincerity is no excuse for reckless disregard for the veracity of your claims. Especially when you would certainly consider it fraud if it occured to you under any other circumstance. And it is all very well to say that an individual proseylitizer is not culpable because they are just a cog in the wheel but until someone starts smacking these people in a hard and public way they will not think about what they are doing before they do it.

And I have no problems if a non-profit organization seeks my help to help others but when all they are doing is trying to help their own organization then I am sorry, it may technically be non-profit but it is certainly self serving for that organization.

[Gwen]

Ha, everyone's taken "evangelism" as "knocking on your door when you're having dinner evangelism", which wasn't my intent - but that's a good topic for a rant

Well, in my experience, evangelism has meant selling God door-to-door, handing out pamphlets, asking random people in your classes if they've found Jesus yet, going around "spreading the good news" about Christianity like it's even remotely possible that any significant portion of the people they're irritating are completely ignorant of the existence of the most prominent religion in the country.
Oh, no, wow, I'd never heard of Christianity before. You say there's a book called the Bible that is the word of God? Wow, nobody's ever told me that Jesus loved me before! And Jesus has redeemed my sins, and all I have to do to be forgiven is to accept him as my lord and savior, because Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and no one comes to God except through him? What an amazing idea, Jack Chick Character! I'll do that right away! Wow, I'm so glad you exposed me to this Christianity thing that I'd never heard of before; now my soul has been cleansed of all of its sins!

...And these are the same people who can't figure out why gay people have to be so open about loving people of their own sex. Because every single homosexual child in America knows that it's all right to be gay and that there's nothing wrong with them, but Christianity is the best-kept secret in the United States of America, under God, in God we trust, Amen. Riiiiight.

[scombrid]

I sometime see people on these boards saying that there is, and I was wondering why... I suppose that if I thought that people's immortal souls were at stake (i.e. that non-Christians would go to hell, or at least miss out on heaven) I'd figure I was duty-bound to try to convert people (if it seemed like I had any chance of successfully doing so).

In a free society? Evangelize away.

However, in the free society you are not permitted to use government or other power to coerce belief or even to give your message a competitive advantage. An example of "Other power" is well meaning adults pressuring children to believe against the wishes of the children (ie. a coach or friend's parent leaning on a child of another faith).

Additionally, once someone has declined interest in the message, leave them alone. Otherwise, don't play the victim when your advances are further rebuffed and refuted.

[scombrid]

I too would like to see these guys held accountable for fraudulent behavior and claims. Example: The pastor (and founder!) of Victory World Outreach on TV last night was claiming to have witnessed his father reviving a heart attack victim with just prayer. It isn't just televangelists though. I've had the random street, gym, and grocery store evangelists include tall tails of supernatural events in with their sales pitch as well. If not legal accountability, it would be nice if it were as socially acceptible for me to call bullshit as it is for them to lie for Jesus.

[Morgana]

Evangelizing to children or to mentally incompetent adults is evil. It's brainwashing. It erodes their capacity for logic and reason.

Using fear tactics for evangelizing is evil.

Making unverifiable promises of reward after death is dishonest.

Using charity funds earmarked for real charity work to evangelize is wrong. If I give someone money to feed the poor or for disaster relief, it had better not be used for bibles and other useless shit.

Waking me up or interrupting my dinner is inconsiderate.

If someone wants to try to convince me of the truth of their beliefs, at a time I agree to, without resorting to fear tactics or unsupported promises of great rewards, I would be willing to listen.

[Biff the unclean]

If someone wants to try to convince me of the truth of their beliefs, at a time I agree to, without resorting to fear tactics or unsupported promises of great rewards, I would be willing to listen.
Do you mean like living a wonderful eternal life after you are dead, happier than you have ever been?:banghead:

[trendkill]

Profit does not have to be involved for fraud.But there does have to be some sort of injury to the person on the receiving end.


And sincerity is no excuse for reckless disregard for the veracity of your claims.Maybe in a moral sense, but it isn't fraud unless there is intent to deceive.

[Biff the unclean]

Maybe in a moral sense, but it isn't fraud unless there is intent to deceive.
If you are fully aware of the fact that you cannot support your contentions but you make them anyway I would say there was intent to deceive. Why would we let a religionist get away with such behavior when we wouldn’t let, say, a hot dog vendor do the same thing?

[trendkill]

If you are fully aware of the fact that you cannot support your contentions but you make them anyway I would say there was intent to deceive.1. I disagree, all that is required to avoid intentional deception is sincerity.

2. Most religionists think they can support their claims. E.g. they believe the results of religious practice and/or belief which they experience are support for the trustworthiness of their religious authorities, which in turn support the assurance of things like life after death.

[Biff the unclean]

1. I disagree, all that is required to avoid intentional deception is sincerity.
No, if I were a hot dog vendor and sincerely believed I had hot dogs to sell while at the same time could produce zero evidence of frankfurters my sincerity would be without value as far as consumer protection laws go. The judge might be lenient because I appeared to be crazy, but that’s it.

2. Most religionists think they can support their claims.
I’ve never met a single one that didn’t admit that they could not produce a God for examination.

E.g. they believe the results of religious practice and/or belief which they experience are support for the trustworthiness of their religious authorities, which in turn support the assurance of things like life after death.
The fact that they as consumers have been defrauded does not they give them sanction to defraud others. They cannot demonstrate that their “goods and services” actually exist. That inability is the only difference between a conman and a business man. It's a basic "truth in advertising" law.

[ELECTROGOD]

Yeah, and to add to that, any president who makes his decisions based on such a supernatural idea should have to first prove that said supernatural idea actually exists first before he is allowed to make decisions for us based on it.

[Ghostdog]

Yeah, and to add to that, any president who makes his decisions based on such a supernatural idea should have to first prove that said supernatural idea actually exists first before he is allowed to make decisions for us based on it.

Screw that. If he is in any way supernaturally influenced then he should not be allowed presidency. Making such decisions based on supernatural ideals is unacceptable.

[trendkill]

No, if I were a hot dog vendor and sincerely believed I had hot dogs to sell while at the same time could produce zero evidence of frankfurters my sincerity would be without value as far as consumer protection laws go.I don't know about that. Intent to deceive is legally required AFAIK.


To constitute fraud the misrepresentation [or omission] must be made knowingly and intentionally, not as a result of mistake or accident; that is, that the person either knew or should have known of the falsity of the misrepresentation [or the false effect of the omission], or that he made the misrepresentation [or omission] in negligent disregard of its truth or falsity.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f079.htmIt sounds like you'd basically have to prove in court that the religious person in question should've known better than to believe in their religion.


I’ve never met a single one that didn’t admit that they could not produce a God for examination.Yes, your regular litmus test. I think it's silly. I can't produce for your examination the feeling of annoyance I get from reading it, but I assure you, that feeling does exist, and can be rationally believed in by other people even though no one has ever seen it.

The fact that they as consumers have been defrauded does not they give them sanction to defraud others.No one said it did.

They cannot demonstrate that their “goods and services” actually exist.Rarely do religions offer salvation in the sense of offering it as a "good" or "service". That would be like saying that Internet Infidels is in the business of selling logic and reason because it accepts donations. Any religion that actually "sells" salvation as a business transaction should definitely have to abide by consumer protection laws.

[Biff the unclean]

I don't know about that. Intent to deceive is legally required AFAIK.

Quote:
To constitute fraud the misrepresentation [or omission] must be made knowingly and intentionally, not as a result of mistake or accident; that is, that the person either knew or should have known of the falsity of the misrepresentation [or the false effect of the omission], or that he made the misrepresentation [or omission] in negligent disregard of its truth or falsity.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f079.htm
It sounds like you'd basically have to prove in court that the religious person in question should've known better than to believe in their religion.

Then I would use the same low standards that protect the public from unscrupulous hot dog vendors.
“I have personal experience with hot dogs, they have changed my life. I believe in them.”
“Have you ever seen any of these hot dogs of yours?”
“No, no one ever has.”
“Can you prove that your hot dogs exist.”
“No, but you can’t prove that they don’t exist.”

That would pretty much wrap it up right there. The hot dog vendor is committing fraud because he’s either a conman or he’s a nut case. Wouldn’t matter overly much to the people who thought they were getting lunch. Should he be held to account for not knowing better than to believe that the absence of franks is not the absence of franks? Yes.

Truth in advertising laws should prevent him from advertising these hotdogs he has no empirical evidence of. It should prevent evangelizing for exactly the same reasons.

Yes, your regular litmus test. I think it's silly. I can't produce for your examination the feeling of annoyance I get from reading it, but I assure you, that feeling does exist, and can be rationally believed in by other people even though no one has ever seen it.
Amazing the theistic bullshit that even Atheists will buy into. When did the Supreme Being become an emotion? When did emotions become undetectable? Why give evangelists the right to defraud the public but not a hot dog vendor?


Rarely do religions offer salvation in the sense of offering it as a "good" or "service".
The only way to the Father is through Christ is a service offered by every single one of the 30,000+ Christian sects

Any religion that actually "sells" salvation as a business transaction should definitely have to abide by consumer protection laws.
Did you notice in the news reports on Falwell today it was mentioned that his ministries pulled in $200,000,000.00 last year?
You donate your money, you’ve been promised a hot dog and you get nothing. Consumer protection laws are supposed to protect the public from things like that. It’s basic honesty, you have to live up to your advertising if you intend to deal with the public. Why should evangelists not be held even to these low standards? Oh, they donated the money to maintain the empty hot dog cart… they all love the fellowship under the umbrella so much. Yeah, right.

[trendkill]

Then I would use the same low standards that protect the public from unscrupulous hot dog vendors.
“I have personal experience with hot dogs, they have changed my life. I believe in them.”
“Have you ever seen any of these hot dogs of yours?”
“No, no one ever has.”
“Can you prove that your hot dogs exist.”
“No, but you can’t prove that they don’t exist.”

That would pretty much wrap it up right there.Yes. Because hot dogs are in the class of things you'd expect to be able to see. Congratulations, you've espoused an epistemology under which it's irrational to believe in atoms.


Amazing the theistic bullshit that even Atheists will buy into.Funny, when I read your posts, I sometimes find it amazing the televangelist-like argumentative tactics some atheists will sink to.

When did the Supreme Being become an emotion?It is in the category of things that cannot be produced on command for visual or tactile examination.
When did emotions become undetectable?When did theists start talking holding that gods are undetectable? "The undetectable feeling of God's love" is not a phrase I've heard often from religious speakers. Maybe your mileage varies. :rolleyes:

Come on, Biff. You do a lot of damage to peoples' view of atheism with these kinds of shennanigans. God is supposed to be many things, but a hot dog is not one of them. As a filter for things that are rational to believe in, "you can literally produce it on a platter for visual examination" does not pass the laugh test.

[Awmte]

Yes. Because hot dogs are in the class of things you'd expect to be able to see. Congratulations, you've espoused an epistemology under which it's irrational to believe in atoms.
In all fairness to Biff, he did mention provability as a criterion.

I agree religion is given more leeway than any other subject, but I'm of the opinion that this is mostly inertia and/or homeostasis.

It's hard to break ingrained habits, especially if they're bad. :D

[naturalist.atheist]

But there does have to be some sort of injury to the person on the receiving end.

Yes. And there is certainly damage. Plenty of damage. However in fraud not every instance of attempted fraud has to result in damage in order for fraud to be shown.

Maybe in a moral sense, but it isn't fraud unless there is intent to deceive.

Intent is a difficult concept to show in a court of law. In most cases it is determined by comparing actions to what an honest person would do in a similar circumstance. And an honest person would not make the dishonest, unsubstantiated and emotionally manipulating statements that proselytizers have a very long history of making.

In any other context people would be screaming that all churches and their assets be seized and the operators of those churches be sent to jail for a very long time.

[wiploc]

If the hotdog vendor really believes his hotdogs are there, then he is not committing fraud.

But he would be shut down for reasons unrelated to fraud. The implied warranty of merchantability is only one of them.

crc

[naturalist.atheist]

If the hotdog vendor really believes his hotdogs are there, then he is not committing fraud.

I think it would be hard for a court to accept that claim if the vendor in question had no problems in determining the reality of everything else including determining what is not real. Unless he could show some kind of peculiar brain damage it would be difficult to convince the court that the vendor had such a selective inability to determine if something exists.

In actual reality people lie all the time and persist in that lie to the bitter end and have no problems convincing themselves that they were justified in lying. Just look at the Enron and MCI crowd.

[Biff the unclean]

It is in the category of things that cannot be produced on command for visual or tactile examination.
And being in that catagory is what makes it a fraud, because you have no way to know it exists.
Hot dogs that don't exist can't be produced on command for visual or tactile examination either.


Come on, Biff. You do a lot of damage to peoples' view of atheism with these kinds of shennanigans. God is supposed to be many things, but a hot dog is not one of them. As a filter for things that are rational to believe in, "you can literally produce it on a platter for visual examination" does not pass the laugh test.
The whole point is that you hold a lousy hot dog to a higher standard than you do Almighty God. And you hold a street vendor to a higher standard of honesty than you do an Evangelist.
You do a lot of damage to the term "rational."

[naturalist.atheist]

For all you posters that do not think that proselytizing is fraud I would suggest that you try a simple experiment.

The next time one of those frauds shows up at your door ask them if they have ever been to heaven or hell. Or if they personally knew anyone that had. Then draw your own conclusions if what they are doing is reckless disregard for the reality of their claims. Especially if they start tap dancing around those questions. If you don't think they are being deceitful I would ask you if under any other circumstances would it not be considered deceit?

[naturalist.atheist]

The whole point is that you hold a lousy hot dog to a higher standard than you do Almighty God. And you hold a street vendor to a higher standard of honesty than you do an Evangelist.
You do a lot of damage to the term "rational."

It is unfortunate but the supernaturalists have been at their fraud for so long that the games they play are so ingrained into our culture that people just don't see it for what it is anymore.

[Thomas Ash]

I think it would be hard for a court to accept that claim if the vendor in question had no problems in determining the reality of everything else including determining what is not real. Unless he could show some kind of peculiar brain damage it would be difficult to convince the court that the vendor had such a selective inability to determine if something exists.

In actual reality people lie all the time and persist in that lie to the bitter end and have no problems convincing themselves that they were justified in lying. Just look at the Enron and MCI crowd.

So is delusion a valid defence then? What you were saying was just that we wouldn't believe the hot dog vendor was so deluded...

[Biff the unclean]

So is delusion a valid defence then? What you were saying was just that we wouldn't believe the hot dog vendor was so deluded...
Well, insanity is a defense of sorts.
This thread is about evangelism, which is, more or less, advertising. When one advertises to the public then one takes on a responsibility to the public to be truthful in that advertising.
That the hot dog vendor who evangelizes his franks is deluded about his empty pushcart and not just lying is pretty hard to believe. Especially since he has no problem at all telling that Mohammad the ice cream salesman across the street has nothing in his wagon but the fog from a block of dry ice.

If a person were deluded about what they were advertising that might be reason to let them off with just a warning but they would have to stop evangelizing. This is rather basic honesty. But for some strange reason, in our culture, religion is not expected to be honest in its dealings with the public.

[naturalist.atheist]

So is delusion a valid defence then? What you were saying was just that we wouldn't believe the hot dog vendor was so deluded...

People plea insanity all the time. However if the vendor had no problems determining the reality or non-reality of everything else then the court would not buy that defense. And I wouldn't either. They would say that the vendor was a liar.

[Clivedurdle]

How does evangelists being insane rather than liars help their case?

[wiploc]

How does evangelists being insane rather than liars help their case?

It doesn't. The discussion just got hung up on the issue of whether nut cases are technically perpetrators of fraud.

crc

[naturalist.atheist]

How does evangelists being insane rather than liars help their case?

It doesn't. Haven't you been following the thread?