Is Evangelization equal to Cultural Genocide?

And who is going to judge the purpose of speech, and whether it is "wrong" under the Wolf Law? This is suppression of freedom of speech, when you say that X may speak on X topic, but Y may not speak on Y topic. This should be obvious.

----------------------

To argue the ABSENCE of something in the universe would require omniscience. Example: if you said "There are no green cars." then you must know what exists in every area of the universe in order to totally eliminate the possibility of a green car. Omniscience is required.

To state that you have the experience of seeing or encountering something or someone, does not. If I see a green car, I do not need to know what exists in every area of the universe to state what I have seen. Omniscience not required.

Mm, hm. And when have I said I don't approve of Freedom of Speech? I may have argued against complete freedom of speech at one point, but that was merely to make you realise that in our world, we cannot really complain about people spreading hate because Freedom of Speech allows that.

I personally aprove of Freedom of Speech, something I may have neglected to admit in my previous posts, and have nothing against it. However, I have pointed out, haven't I that it does come with consequences?

This is a dilemma and you haven't answered my question on it, but I don't want you to, because that would take us off topic.

My question is, what should we do about those Islamic clerics that praise terrorists and calls for all Muslims to take up arms and harrass the Western world and commit mass murder? We can't suppress them, because that would be suppression of Freedom of Speech. So what can we do?

Obviously, I wouldn't want the suppression of Freedom of Speech, because as you so clearly pointed out, suppression is determined on who interprets what is bad speech and what is good. You cannot control who determines it and you cannot prevent that person from deciding other things should be banned, such as being able to put forth our ideas on these forums.

Have you ever tried arguing from the opposite viewpoint? From a viewpoint you don't believe? I have and it's very difficult, but it allows you to see other things and put things in perspective.



Ah, but we weren't talking about the entire Universe, were we?

I was merely referring to humanity and humanity does not have enough evidence to prove the existence of God sufficiently. Why else do you think there's so much doubt in the world? If there was enough evidence, there wouldn't be this doubt.



Yes, but you haven't seen God and even if you have, how can you be sure he really was God? You can't. God is not like a green car. His existence is vague and unprecise. You cannot say where he is, what he is or how he is with any certainty.

Where is the proof and how can you be sure that the proof is correct? You have to prove that your proof isn't spurious and then prove that the method you used wasn't spurious itself.

Only then can you say, that this statement is more true. However, you cannot say that with "Does God exist?" Any proof that does exists cannot be proven to be correct.

Not omniscience. Scientific methodology and under that methodology the statements, "You cannot be sure whether God exists or not" is more true than "God exists" and the other statement "God does not exist".

I wish it were omniscience. I'd love to be omniscient, then I'd know why my experiments keep failing. Of course, it would probably have the downside of being extremely boring.

This is getting severely off topic. Let us leave all this and discuss it in a more appropriate topic elsewhere on the forums. Isn't there a "What does God mean to you?" topic somewhere else here?

I'll see you there, because you obviously don't have anything to add on the "Is Evangelism equal to cultural genocide?" question, despite the fact that you haven't actually argued for your viewpoint (No).

Yes we are. Because the question of Does God exist would require you to have knowledge of the entire universe to answer it in the negative.

However even if we were only talking about the earth, or your country or your city, or your street: The answer is still the same. You do not have all knowledge of everything on your street. How could you possibly state that you can eliminate logically the possibility of God anywhere at any time?


When I say, God is a non-corporeal Being that I know. To respond "you haven't seen God" seems as if you don't understand or don't want to understand the issue. To insist that the only way something can be known must be empirical is a circular argument.




Actually I did. I stated that persuasion of one or a group of people to adopt a point of view which they did not hold previously does not constitute cultural genocide. If those people, once persuaded, decide to alter their way of life, customs , etc that is their choice as well and there is no benefit and much harm done by thinking that we should somehow force people to keep beliefs, customs , etc which they no longer desire to keep. Perhaps you should have read the posts.

No, that is not answering the question.

That is answering the question, "Is Evangelism justified?" It is even answering the question, "Is the gradual erosion of other cultures justified?" Maybe I should have used the phrase, "Is Evangelism equal to the gradual erosion of other cultures?" but it doesn't have the same eye-attracting oompf that the phrase "cultural genocide" has.

Maybe, now that I think about it, they don't mean the same thing.



Likewise, how could you possibly eliminate logically the possibility that God isn't everywhere at any time?

Look, this topic is going severely off topic, so I'll be moving it right now.

You can find the rest of my answer in the "What is God to you?" topic, because that's where it belongs. Not here.

Click here for the rest of my argument: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=48210&start=130