Why do atheists proselytise?

Húrin · 14-12-2008 6:25pm

fatmammycat wrote: »

One cannot submit to something they don't believe in the first place. It just makes no sense. I think you believe atheists are rejecting god, but that is not the case with me, I don't reject a god, I don't believe there is anything to reject.

Exactly; you have just demonstrated my point. That is, both arguments are circular because they assume a position in the first place. Your version of the argument assumes that God does not exist. My version of the argument assumes he does exist. See how this gets nowhere?

With regards to this generation, I think anyone that wants to learn or wants to expand their mind or wants to question can have more access to the tools that will help them to do so.

I agree, the information age has greatly helped the average citizen seek truth.

Certainly people are less willingly to blindly follow, so I am not sure that how viewing theism as a cul-de-sac is a 'fashion'. Rather the opposite I would have said.

I would question this. People do not blindly follow their families so much any more, but people seem equally enslaved to capitalism - money and fashion - as ever were, if not more so.

I don't see why atheists should live quietly either, why not be vocal? Have not the religious been yoddling their tripe for years? It's time for equal footing.

Religious people have a positive reason for 'yoddling their tripe'. Atheists don't unless they add some other ideology onto their atheism

ChocolateSauce · 14-12-2008 6:47pm

Húrin wrote: »

Religious people have a positive reason for 'yoddling their tripe'. Atheists don't unless they add some other ideology onto their atheism

I think the destruction of tripe is an end to itself, if the removal of that tripe has positive effects.

pH · 14-12-2008 9:41pm

Húrin wrote: »

Religious people have a positive reason for 'yoddling their tripe'. Atheists don't unless they add some other ideology onto their atheism

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I think the destruction of tripe is an end to itself, if the removal of that tripe has positive effects.

I agree. If something is wrong and harmful then just removing or stopping it is a positive step. If you're on the negative side of the number line, a jump back to zero is a positive move.

What you're saying is akin to stating that people should not be anti "violence against women" unless they have another ideology for treating women. Nonsense I say, stopping someone beating on their wife is something worth doing, as is loosening the hold religions have over social policies and justice in this society.

Tha Gopher · 15-12-2008 12:59am

rockbeer wrote: »

Why do christians proselytize? Why do they threaten vast numbers of people who have lived good and ethical lives with eternal punishment simply for believing different things to them? Why do they claim their egotistical and contradictory creator loves us when he is willing to inflict such punishment on us? Why do they act as though they had some sort of monopoly on the truth when in fact they're just guessing like the rest of us? Why do they subscribe to a faith rooted in guilt, fear and human sacrifice?

Why do christians believe in such a negative religion?

Lol

Please, thretened? IIRC school religion classes dont even mention hell any more. Why try mke a problem out of something that doesnt exist?

The irony that athiesm has turned into a type of religion (people dedicating a few hours a day to reading athiest texts/websites) and people making money off athiest belief (Dawkins etc) seems to be completely lost on you all.

Galvasean · 15-12-2008 1:12am

Tha Gopher wrote: »

The irony that athiesm has turned into a type of religion

No it hasn't.

Tha Gopher wrote: »

(people dedicating a few hours a day to reading athiest texts/websites) and people making money off athiest belief (Dawkins etc) seems to be completely lost on you all.

Thats all it takes to be a religion? Better tell all the football fans.

Dades · 15-12-2008 10:57am

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Why try mke a problem out of something that doesnt exist?

Why teach kids to believe in something that doesn't exist?

Tha Gopher wrote: »

The irony that athiesm has turned into a type of religion (people dedicating a few hours a day to reading athiest texts/websites) and people making money off athiest belief (Dawkins etc) seems to be completely lost on you all.

Congratulations on the worst attempt to define atheism as a religion I've seen yet.
And there's been some peaches.

--amadeus-- · 15-12-2008 11:14am

Húrin wrote: »

It doesn't seem to make sense that one should counterattack.

This little nugget seemed to escape...

To "counter attack" you must first have been attacked. If god botherers stop preaching I'll stop arguing. After all, who would I argue with?

Fanny Cradock · 15-12-2008 2:25pm

A little unfair, no?

Firstly, for the use of the pejorative term 'god botherers'. No wonder some religious types get all hot under the collar. Secondly, for not recognising that there are some atheists quite willing to take the fight to believers. In similar vein to some god botherers, there are a few atheists that have their fingers primed in readiness for the next assault on the enemy.

AtomicHorror · 15-12-2008 3:25pm

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Lol Please, thretened? IIRC school religion classes dont even mention hell any more. Why try mke a problem out of something that doesnt exist?

The irony that athiesm has turned into a type of religion (people dedicating a few hours a day to reading athiest texts/websites) and people making money off athiest belief (Dawkins etc) seems to be completely lost on you all.

Lost on us? Not at all. We now appropriately recognise all of the religions in which people spend time reading books and websites and in which people make money off these things.

New religions include Galvasean's aforementioned "Football". I'm anti-football but I expect to get religious status for that soon.

Mark Hamill · 15-12-2008 3:31pm

Húrin wrote: »

It was an understandable thought in the 18th century, before the rise of secular (e.g. C19 French/British/American Empires) and even rigidly atheist (Nazis, USSR) powers demonstrated that they could be equally if not more bloodthirsty and merciless in the pursuit of their agendas, than the religious powers that came before (e.g. Spanish Empire, the Crusaders). But after the 20th century, it seems to be naive to hold on to such a supposition.

But those atheist and secular powers are not blood thirsty in the name of atheism. They took their religious agendas and replaced with wealth and power agendas (which have the same underying qualities anyway). All you have shown is that greedy and power lusting people, when they don't have religion as tool for power, will just use something else.

Húrin wrote: »

This is fair enough, but the logical next step would be to quietly live as an athiest. Openly, yes, but quietly. It doesn't seem to make sense that one should counterattack.

If someone attacks you, should you not counterattack?

Húrin wrote: »

The young earth creationists are disagreeable but I think it's paranoid to worry about them. As a political and educational force it seems to be limited to the inland United States. It is widely ridiculed here and even more so on the continent. I have no fear of it taking hold as credible science here.

Romania recently removed evolution from the curriculum in their schools. Thew are people in Ireland who would like to see creationism taught in Irish schools (see the BC&P thread in the Christianity forum). All idealogies start small, and then grow and before you now it, the christians have taken over Rome. Its better to nip them in the bud.

Húrin wrote: »

1. There's no evidence to suggest that being an atheist leads to moral improvement.

There's no evidence to suggest otherwise. Besides I didn't mean better as more moral. I meant better as more intelligent, less gullible, more skeptical.

Húrin wrote: »

2. The word suggests that it is a negative. Theist is the positive, the prefix of a- means that it is the opposite of theist. Thus to exist at all it relies on what it's against. That's not a bad thing. I'm simply pointing out that atheism in itself offers nothing. You have to add on some other ideology in order to proselytise meaningfully, such as this claim that atheism causes moral improvement.

3. Yes, see above.

a- as a prefix just means without or no. Atheist is the not even the negative of theist, anti-theist is.

Húrin wrote: »

Your argument is a reasonable possible explanation for why religion exists (upon coming to the conclusion that it is false in the first place) but it also cuts the other way. I think that theism is so unpopular nowadays because people feel, correctly, that submission to God's will restrains their ego, and they do not want that.

I see religion as mans ego going wild, trying to convince him that above all the evidence, humans are important in the universe.

Húrin wrote: »

Contrary to popular mythology, this generation has no special knowledge of reality and no special intelligence that lets us rise above atheism. It's just fashion, a symptom of egocentric postmodern capitalism.

Fixed

H&#250 wrote: »

I think that people have some responsibility to seek the truth rather than happy delusion for themselves. I just don't see the purpose in "enlightening" other people with your version of the truth if it does not offer them more happiness than they have already. Especially when coupled with the superiority complex that atheists usually have (when words like "irrational", "backwards", "superstitious" are used).

There are billions and billions of people in this world. Making one person happy might make others unhappy. How do you take account for this? What if the simple answer for why do atheists proselytise is that it makes them happy, be it because it makes them feel smug, makes them feel good for helping other people become better or it just makes them feel better to rant. How do you measure one mans happiness against someone elses? Why is happiness the most important thing? Its only a point of view (one mans heaven is another mans hell), people can find new happinesses if they have to and if they are helped. What if someone was happy being healthy but you knew they where sick. Would you tell them? They would become unhappy. But what if there was a treatment to cure them, but they had to do it early for it to work. Would you make them unhappy to help them?

Mark Hamill · 15-12-2008 3:32pm

Tha Gopher wrote:

The irony that athiesm has turned into a type of religion (people dedicating a few hours a day to reading athiest texts/websites) and people making money off athiest belief (Dawkins etc) seems to be completely lost on you all.

Does that make porn the biggest religion of them all?

dceire · 15-12-2008 3:33pm

Húrin wrote: »

Why preach a negative position?

Why do you see atheism as being a 'negative' position?

Rev Hellfire · 15-12-2008 3:45pm

Personally I don't see a significant difference between theists and atheists when it comes to proselytising. Both you would imagine are doing out of an ideal to better society and the people it represents.

As for attempting to juxtaposition modern social morality with events from the middle ages is just plain ludicrous.

pwd · 15-12-2008 4:18pm

atheists do so because they have beliefs, and when people believe something they tend to proselytise it.
Atheists believe there is no god: Some atehists believe in that non-existence as zealously as theists believe in their god's existence - and they act in a similar manner.
Agnostics don't have a belief in the same way - beyond the belief that they do not or cannot know - so they are less likely to be zealous and less likely to proselytise.

MrPudding · 15-12-2008 5:09pm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I don't intend it to sound patronising but I think that there are many for whom the loss of faith would be psychologically crippling. Or for whom the path to atheism would be too difficult. Hence my more passive stance.

And lets not forget those who believe that were it not for god being in their heart they would have no choice but to go on a murderous raping rampage.

MrP

--amadeus-- · 15-12-2008 7:37pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

A little unfair, no?

Firstly, for the use of the pejorative term 'god botherers'. No wonder some religious types get all hot under the collar. Secondly, for not recognising that there are some atheists quite willing to take the fight to believers. In similar vein to some god botherers, there are a few atheists that have their fingers primed in readiness for the next assault on the enemy.

I wouldn't see "god botherer" as overly prejoritive, especially in the context of an A&A thread!

And yes there are atheists who will go online and take the fight to teh religious. But it's unheard of for a non-believer to leaflet houses, preach on street corners or knock on doors to convert people. After all athiests don't have a duty to convert teh religious but the religious do have a duty to convert us heathens. It is this drip drip drip of conversion attempts and subtle (or not so subtle) attempts to influence the political and educational agendas that drives the anger you see against religion.

Fanny Cradock · 15-12-2008 9:34pm

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I wouldn't see "god botherer" as overly prejoritive, especially in the context of an A&A thread!

And yes there are atheists who will go online and take the fight to teh religious. But it's unheard of for a non-believer to leaflet houses, preach on street corners or knock on doors to convert people. After all athiests don't have a duty to convert teh religious but the religious do have a duty to convert us heathens. It is this drip drip drip of conversion attempts and subtle (or not so subtle) attempts to influence the political and educational agendas that drives the anger you see against religion.

Well, context of the A&A forum aside, it would be considered a belittling term by some.

As for atheists deciding not to preach on street corners- that's your choice, no one is stopping you. Certainly Dawkins, enjoyable enough as he can be, prattles on about God and religion as much as us god botherers do. With regards to not producing leaflets, I seem to remember that some people have decided to get a few ads together on buses, which isn't a million miles away from stuffing a leaflet into someone's hand.

All of this is your right, of course. It's something I like to think I have no problem with. But I see the special ground of passive resistance ('if they don't bother me, I wont bother them') that some atheists say they occupy as a piece of shrinking real estate, one that is being replaced by a more direct form of action. Again, nothing wrong with that. But in my experience, this can lead to a type of overly passionate forcefulness that really only replaces religious proselyting with its own equally shrill and unpalatable anti-religious version. It's a case of the basic message not really changing (you are wrong, I am right) and the voice remaining exactly the same.

rockbeer · 16-12-2008 1:53am

I think there's some truth in the suggestion that atheists are becoming more vocal. This I think is largely because many secular aspects of society that could once be taken for granted are changing in disturbing ways. I think people like Dawkins have helped many atheists realize that there are a lot of us and that we have a voice, perhaps even some influence. We no longer need to hide away in corners while religious types determine the agenda. That, in my view, is a good thing.

Whether this phenomenon is shrill and unpalatable is a matter of opinion. What is certain is that atheism has an awful long way to go to rival the proselytising efforts of christians and muslims. A quick browse through the dark nether regions of my sky box reveals thirty or more religious channels, each one with the specific aim of spreading the word. A few bus adverts hardly compare, and Dawkins TV is still a distant dream nightmare.

What's really interesting is how threatened many christians seem to be by the idea of atheists becoming increasingly vocal.

--amadeus-- · 16-12-2008 2:30am

rockbeer wrote: »

A quick browse through the dark nether regions of my sky box reveals

The pr0n is at the bottom of the list.

I'm told :pac:

lostexpectation · 16-12-2008 3:17am

we don't reach, we argue for room in areas that should have nothing to do with religion if we happen to state the obvious ie there is no god along they way, its incidental.

Tha Gopher · 16-12-2008 4:35pm

Dades wrote: »

Why teach kids to believe in something that doesn't exist?

Do you honestly have any idea how little time per week is spent teaching religion to national school kids?

Do you actually remember how little religion was actually in secondary school religion classes?

Congratulations on the worst attempt to define atheism as a religion I've seen yet.
And there's been some peaches.

I think WWF and UFC are two of the most pointless sports ever invented. I dont frequent anti WWF forums going on about its gheyness for a half hour per day. I dont buy books by notable critics of the WWF. I dont get alarmed that the WWF targets children to watch it. I think someone taking out bus adverts to tell people not to watch WWF would be a bit stupid.

Having no belief in god is fair enough. Getting hyped up with delusions of how much school time is dedicated to the teaching of catholic doctrine is retarded tbh.

And if you think this is OT, is isnt. The original question was why do hardcore athiests (i.e. people who treat athiesm like a belief system in itself, as opposed to people with no interest in god or religion) try to broadcast those beliefs. Hardcore athiests, like fumdamentalist theists, seem to be pushing their opinions fuelled by misguided education (e.g. again, how much religion is taught in our schools. The true answer, of course, being close to none)

Anyway, happy christmas

Dades · 16-12-2008 5:08pm

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Do you honestly have any idea how little time per week is spent teaching religion to national school kids?

So if they ran a bomb making class for an hour a week that would be cool? Or am I missing your point that because it doesn't really take up much time it's all irrelevant?

Tha Gopher wrote: »

I think WWF and UFC are two of the most pointless sports ever invented. I dont frequent anti WWF forums going on about its gheyness for a half hour per day. I dont buy books by notable critics of the WWF. I dont get alarmed that the WWF targets children to watch it. I think someone taking out bus adverts to tell people not to watch WWF would be a bit stupid.

Vegetarianism is clearly a religion too, based on your criteria.

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Having no belief in god is fair enough. Getting hyped up with delusions of how much school time is dedicated to the teaching of catholic doctrine is retarded tbh.

Okay, we get it. You don't give a crap what they teach kids to believe in school. That is your right. However I reserve the right to give a crap what they teach my kid in school, using my money to pay for it. Again, you don't have to give a crap yourself, but you could at least refrain from calling people who do retarded.

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Hardcore athiests, like fumdamentalist theists, seem to be pushing their opinions fuelled by misguided education (e.g. again, how much religion is taught in our schools. The true answer, of course, being close to none)

It's been said before, fundamentalist theists fly planes into buildings and teach their kids that humans lived with the dinosaurs, while fundamentalist atheists request schools don't teach their kids someone else's religion. Those crazy bastards.

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Anyway, happy christmas

And to your, sir.

kiffer · 16-12-2008 7:17pm

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Do you honestly have any idea how little time per week is spent teaching religion to national school kids?

Do you actually remember how little religion was actually in secondary school religion classes?

I guess that depends on your school.
My school had an hour a week of learning about religions from around the world.
Other people's schools had nuns pushing catholic dogma...
My girlfriend was telling me the other day some of the lines that her RE teacher spewed... "You don't need to know anything about safe sex, because as good Catholic girls you'll only ever have one sexual partner, and that will be your husband after you are married."

I think WWF and UFC are two of the most pointless sports ever invented. I dont frequent anti WWF forums going on about its gheyness for a half hour per day. I dont buy books by notable critics of the WWF. I dont get alarmed that the WWF targets children to watch it. I think someone taking out bus adverts to tell people not to watch WWF would be a bit stupid.

WWE (WWF is the world wildlife foundation)
That's a terrible comparison.
WWE is awful but they don't threaten you with damnation if you don't watch... or if you point out that it's staged.
People that do watch WWE don't tell you and your children that if you don't watch and believe it's not staged then the wrestlers will come round your house and send you to hell.
They don't try to make political decisions based on the fact that Machoman Randy Savage beat Jake the Snake Roberts in Westlemania 1995.

Having no belief in god is fair enough. Getting hyped up with delusions of how much school time is dedicated to the teaching of catholic doctrine is retarded tbh.

Should there be any time spent teaching doctrine in schools?
What about primary schools?

Anyway, happy christmas

And a happy new year!

Mark Hamill · 17-12-2008 2:08pm

Tha Gopher wrote: »

I think WWF and UFC are two of the most pointless sports ever invented. I dont frequent anti WWF forums going on about its gheyness for a half hour per day. I dont buy books by notable critics of the WWF. I dont get alarmed that the WWF targets children to watch it. I think someone taking out bus adverts to tell people not to watch WWF would be a bit stupid.

WWE and UFC aren't sports, they are companies who hold events showcasing entertainment wrestling and mixed martila arts competitions.

Tha Gopher wrote:

Having no belief in god is fair enough. Getting hyped up with delusions of how much school time is dedicated to the teaching of catholic doctrine is retarded tbh.

The problem is not how much, the problem is there is any. If someone offered you a burger that contained only a little bit of dog faeces in it, would you still eat it?

anonymous_joe · 17-12-2008 2:13pm

The only reason anyone proselytises (spelling? I hate not being certain) is because they like telling other people what to do/believe. And that's quite often because they believe that they're helping.

That applies to any religion/non-religion, and any context at all.