Why do atheists proselytise?

Húrin

I've wondered why atheists bother to go out of their way to refute theism, and explain why it is false.

It is clear why Christians and other faiths proselytise, that is because they think they have some knowledge that can help people, make them happier, and serve their God.

What is the atheist motive? Why preach a negative position?

I know that some used to think that the world would be a better place if there was less religious faith but does this argument have credibility any more?

I'm not so much talking about internet forums, where it is just fun to type and think (though I often wonder why some atheists bother go to the lengths that they do, the full 21 pages), but more like the atheist bus advertisements (London) and the books of Richard Dawkins and the others.

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

It is clear why Christians and other faiths proselytise, that is because they think they have some knowledge that can help people, make them happier, and serve their God.

It is clear why Atheists proselytise, that is because they think they have some knowledge that can help people, make them happier.

kiffer

Húrin wrote: »

I've wondered why atheists bother to go out of their way to refute theism, and explain why it is false.

They don't like to see easily manipulated people taken advantage of? Religions are often pyramid schemes for the priests... Based around successful memes.
You can't deny that being a priest is better than working the land...

It is clear why Christians and other faiths proselytise, that is because they think they have some knowledge that can help people, make them happier, and serve their God.

Remove the serving god part and your half way there...

What is the atheist motive? Why preach a negative position?

I know that some used to think that the world would be a better place if there was less religious faith but does this argument have credibility any more?

Yes. More than ever. What makes you think people use to think that? Why the past tense?

I'm not so much talking about internet forums, where it is just fun to type and think (though I often wonder why some atheists bother go to the lengths that they do, the full 21 pages), but more like the atheist bus advertisements (London) and the books of Richard Dawkins and the others.

After a while you get sick of seeing/hearing about how you're going to hell for not believing a crazy story about a volcano god from the middle east so it's worth your time pointing out that neither the god nor hell exist and that people should just be sensible and get on with life with out worrieing about what, from their point of view, a character in a book wants you to do.

For me it's about pre-emptive strikes... I don't care if people believe in gods, spirits, devils and their ilk. It's the young earth creationists that I'm worried about they actively spread such stupid crud which I feel I need to protect my future children from... the idea that they could get it into schools really worries me...

Also as a geologist I'm completely offended by the suggestion that I'm just making things up or that i've somehow been tricked by clever slight of hand.

Good god it's 0320

Mark Hamill

Húrin wrote: »

I've wondered why atheists bother to go out of their way to refute theism, and explain why it is false.

It is clear why Christians and other faiths proselytise, that is because they think they have some knowledge that can help people, make them happier, and serve their God.

It is clear why Atheists proselytise, that is because they think they have some knowledge that can help people, make them better.

Húrin wrote: »

What is the atheist motive? Why preach a negative position?

Why do you think its a negative position? Why would it being a negative position have any bearing whatsoever on its veracity?

Húrin wrote: »

I know that some used to think that the world would be a better place if there was less religious faith but does this argument have credibility any more?

Is there any reason to think that the argument has less credibility?

fatmammycat

Ah the negative card, if believing in woo was a pack of cards the negative card must be the ace in every pack.
I don't believe in psychics =Why must you be so negative, they're 'helping people.
I don't believe in reiki= Why must you be so negative?
I don't believe in god/gods= Negative
I don't believe people can read palms or chat to dead people= being negative.
I don't beieve in animal telepathy= being negative.
I don't believe in baby whisperers= being negative.
I don't believe in fairies, strange vortexes opening in fields, ghosts, the devil, people who claim they know a friend of a friend of a friend who knows someone who had an exorcism= being negative.
I am confunded by people who bring sick people to hospitals where they are operated on and cured by science but who then thank 'god' for the person pulling through= obviously being negative.
I find chi/ qi/ mystical energies laughable= being negative.
I am suspicious of 'angel seers' or stigmata sufferers who are 'humble' yet go on to earn millions preaching the same claptrap as the last 'humble' huckster preached= being negative.

You know, the negative card is all powerful. It the greatest get out of jail card the woo carrier has. And yet I find there is nothing negative at all in living in the present, having a full life, being kind to your fellow man, and doing so not because of an inner fear of what might happen to you after you die, but just because you're a decent human being.
I was sitting on a train in Belgium earlier this year and it struck me that all this 'other worldly' nonsense is just the human ego, we cannot accept we're just like every other thing on the planet, we are born, if we're lucky we live and then we die. But for some people that's just not enough, the ego drives them to NEED an extra dimension.
Well I'm sorry, if your life is not enough, I find that pertty sad, but no doubt= being negative.

Galvasean

There's nothing negative about calling things like they are.

kiffer

fatmammycat wrote: »

Ah the negative card, if believing in woo was a pack of cards the negative card must be the ace in every pack.
I don't believe in psychics =Why must you be so negative, they're 'helping people.
I don't believe in reiki= Why must you be so negative? ...

I didn't think the OP ment negative in the bad sense but rather in the sense that some crappy sci-fi robot would use it.

"Hey Robot is it safe to go in to this cave?"
"Negative! Will Robinson, Dr. Smith is in the cave with a stun gun and a tub of lube!"
"So I should run, run as fast as I can?"
"Affirmative Will Robinson!"
*hooks flail wildly*

"There is no god" is a negative statement.
"There is no devil" is as well.

Atheism is a negative standpoint.
There is no god/devil, angles/demons or heaven/hell.
There is no solid/trustworthy evidence for these things.
Then again!
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...
There is no evidence of comic ether, no reproducabld experimental evidence... But that could be because the test just wasn't good enough.

"Luckily" for us we came up with better theories which we could prove true.
Wait... why am i mumbling on about æther? I'm not making sense. i'll come back later when i've eaten.

rockbeer

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?

sink

Why do atheists proselytise?

Surely it's because we are sent by the devil to test the faith of god fearing Christians. I mean this is fairly basic and obvious stuff I thought you would know.

ironingbored

I feel the need to proselytise for a number of reasons:

1) To counteract the status quo and denounce idiocy whenever I see it.
2) I really fear for the world with regard to islamo-fascist fundamentalists and Christian fundies who push the creationist agenda.
3) I firmly believe one's life is enriched by accepting we are related to every other living organism.
4) I wonder what kind of a world we would live in if all the energy put into religion by priests, shamens, sanctified snake oil salemen, televangelists and their ilk was channeled into looking for a cure for cancer or exploring space.

sdep

Húrin wrote: »

I've wondered why atheists bother to go out of their way to refute theism, and explain why it is false.

They don't, much. How many times have you been doorstepped by militant atheists, or collared by them in the street? How many missionaries of unbelief are busy burning up jet fuel? How many TV channels preach round the clock godlessness? Not many, I bet.

Why is this? If Christians are right, then atheists are facing eternal damnation or somesuch. If the atheists have it correct, then Christians are wasting their Sunday mornings. The downsides to getting it wrong are not exactly commensurate, hence you don't find atheists outside every shopping centre, shouting "People of the world, wake up! Then have yourselves a lie-in."

Atheists - generally secularists - do get vocal when religion seeks to mould society in ways they see as harmful. Mostly, though, they don't really go out of their way to convert the godful.

Gordon

If atheism was defined as a religion then proselytising would be acceptable and tax exempt, that's funky. Personally I don't like anyone telling me what to believe in, be they godpeople or not.

Schuhart

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

It is clear why Atheists proselytise, that is because they think they have some knowledge that can help people, make them happier.

I'm not sure that the motivation is always about making people happier. Take that famous Carl Sagan quote

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

I think that implicitly recognises that delusion may actually be a happier state. He was simply saying that, for him, he preferred to accept a little unhappiness in exchange for feeling that he understood.

I've a feeling this is expressing something about the outlook of at least some atheists. I think our proposition is that religion is not unlike drug addiction. A crack addict may be perfectly happy, deliriously so, for as long as they have a supply. But its not a dignified or emancipated way of living. I know that provokes the question of 'dignified or emancipated by what standard? Who's to say we shouldn't just get stoned'. But I feel that the motivation of many 'evangelical' atheists is in that space, however unclear the ethical imperative is.

I think I'm right in saying the Buddhist contention, on the other hand, is that the purpose of their approach is simply to promote happiness and remove unhappiness. But then, as I understand it, the Dalai Lama has said this means that if Buddhism does not accord with your experience, you must reject it. So there is no assumption that its methods necessarily work for everyone. And, I think I'm right in saying, they don't do missionary work - you pick Buddhism if you think its right for you.

kiffer

Right now that I've had some lunch and woken up a bit...

Christians please remember Jesus's Golden Rule...
Do onto others as you would have done onto you... Luke 6:31

If you stand up and try to "show them the light" don't be surprised or insulted if they try to do the same.

Everyday there are many many religious people out there preaching, it's a bit hypocritical to expect the other side of the debate to sit quietly and not point out the silly things that are being said.

Once you've been told a few times you're going to hell for not believing something absurd, and then you see someone pushing their beliefs on you and others, you push back.

Then you see Creationists and ID proponents pushing their agenda on the schools systems of the world and you realise ... crap... they could do that here.

The adverts and posters are a backlash against Creationists and Fundamentalists rather than against normal day-to-day theists...
Who of course are caught in the flak, because they share beliefs with the extremists.

Dave!

Well for me it's just a matter of being intolerant of ignorance or lies.

If someone told me that they invented the bicycle (first thing I saw when I looked out the window, lol), I would be inclined to disagree with them and then attempt to show them how I know this (e.g., show them a bike that was built before they were born).

I guess I argue with religious people for the same reason that I argue with conspiracy nuts about the JFK assassination or the moon landing.

If someone doesn't want to debate or argue it, then I'm not one to force them to, so I don't see the problem really. If someone willingly engages in a discussion on it, then I'll show them the error of their ways , but if they don't want to then I don't attack anybody.

Seems fair to me.

Zaph

Gordon wrote: »

Personally I don't like anyone telling me what to believe in, be they godpeople or not.

+1

As an atheist it annoys me seeing other atheists trying to convert people as much as it does seeing religious people doing the same. I was able to make my own mind up on the subject, and I think that other people should be afforded the same consideration. If having given it some thought they come to the conclusion that there is a god, well fair enough, as long as they don't try to shove their views down my throat I won't shove mine down theirs. I've seen atheists who are far more fundamentalist about their position on religion than any religious person I've ever met, and that disturbs me.

Húrin

kiffer wrote: »

They don't like to see easily manipulated people taken advantage of? Religions are often pyramid schemes for the priests... Based around successful memes.
You can't deny that being a priest is better than working the land...

This is understandable. But I would expect that nowadays most farmers are richer than most priests!

Remove the serving god part and your half way there...

It is good to see that atheists do have some sort of altruistic motive for this. But that does not explain why many atheists delight in attacking beliefs that make theists' lives happier, when there is no "eternal happiness" component that might justify temporary upset.

Yes. More than ever. What makes you think people use to think that? Why the past tense?

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.

After a while you get sick of seeing/hearing about how you're going to hell for not believing a crazy story about a volcano god from the middle east so it's worth your time pointing out that neither the god nor hell exist and that people should just be sensible and get on with life with out worrieing about what, from their point of view, a character in a book wants you to do.

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.

For me it's about pre-emptive strikes... I don't care if people believe in gods, spirits, devils and their ilk. It's the young earth creationists that I'm worried about they actively spread such stupid crud which I feel I need to protect my future children from... the idea that they could get it into schools really worries me...

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.

Also, the conventional refutations from both atheists and Christians against the young earth creationists seem not to be working. Best to just ignore them I think.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It is clear why Atheists proselytise, that is because they think they have some knowledge that can help people, make them better.


Why do you think its a negative position? Why would it being a negative position have any bearing whatsoever on its veracity?


Is there any reason to think that the argument has less credibility?

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

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.

fatmammycat wrote: »

Ah the negative card, if believing in woo was a pack of cards the negative card must be the ace in every pack.

I think you misunderstand my use of the word negative. I didn't mean it in any emotive way.

I was sitting on a train in Belgium earlier this year and it struck me that all this 'other worldly' nonsense is just the human ego, we cannot accept we're just like every other thing on the planet, we are born, if we're lucky we live and then we die. But for some people that's just not enough, the ego drives them to NEED an extra dimension.
Well I'm sorry, if your life is not enough, I find that pertty sad, but no doubt= being negative.

That's a circular argument that presupposes atheism. Theists don't need an 'extra dimension'. As far as we're concerned it is simply the state of reality that God exists.

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.

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

Schuhart

Húrin wrote: »

But that does not explain why many atheists delight in attacking beliefs that make theists' lives happier, when there is no "eternal happiness" component that might justify temporary upset.

Just to clarify, are you saying those beliefs should be left unchallenged if they are false but satisfying?

I'm not saying you'd be wrong to hold that opinion. I'm just clarifying that this is what you mean - that truth is to be avoided if unpleasant.

rockbeer

Zaph wrote: »

I've seen atheists who are far more fundamentalist about their position on religion than any religious person I've ever met, and that disturbs me.

Are you serious?

Maybe you need to get out more. I've never heard of an atheist-motivated bombing, sacrifice or suicide.

ChocolateSauce

rockbeer wrote: »

Are you serious?

Maybe you need to get out more. I've never heard of an atheist-motivated bombing, sacrifice or suicide.

Or an even atheist who knows (in their heart) there is no god.

Regarding the original post, I'm not sure where to start...

Húrin

Schuhart wrote: »

Just to clarify, are you saying those beliefs should be left unchallenged if they are false but satisfying?

If you believe that the atheist mission is to make people happier, then yes.

I'm not saying you'd be wrong to hold that opinion. I'm just clarifying that this is what you mean - that truth is to be avoided if unpleasant.

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).

AtomicHorror

Some of us only proselytise reactively. We refute statements that are demonstrably untrue or attack publicised moral positions if we consider them untenable. This is a mere pursuit of the truth.

Anti-theists by contrast generally believe that religious followers will be better off without their faith and are acting accordingly. Of course, few of them hold a core belief quite so simplistic as that. Broadly speaking, I disagree with anti-theism. 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.

neilled

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.

The Nazi's weren't atheist. Hitler never revoked his Catholicism and you should go and read some of Goebbels writing. They explicitly draw comparison between Nazi "christ love" with the hate of the jews. They worked to get the churches onside and then went wandering down the path of introducing neo pagan rites or inscribing "got with us" on the belt buckles of those most christian individuals - the SS. I'll dig out the goebbels stuff when the exams are over but the Nazi's were far from Atheist and rather closer to theists, were content to warp reality in order to suit the teachings in their magical little book.

The raising the spectre of the USSR is an irrelevant point. The USSR did not commit its barbaric acts out because they were Atheists, but out of a system that was dedicated to a political end. Indeed they engaged in Theist like behaviour, take the propaganda of various citizens of Stalingrade seeing comrade Joseph magically appear before them, or even the skygod like worshop of dead soviet leaders. And again, unlike atheists, they subjected absolutely everything to their world view in order to try and make facts fit their ideology.

The other forces you mentioned, the Spanish, the crusaders specifically slaughtered their enemies in the name of their invisible friends.

Zaph

rockbeer wrote: »

Are you serious?

Maybe you need to get out more. I've never heard of an atheist-motivated bombing, sacrifice or suicide.

I'm talking specifically about their desire to convince others of how right their position is. I'm not talking about any acts perpetrated in the name of religion, or lack thereof. I have no desire to proselytise, I believe that everyone is entitled to make their own choices, even if I don't agree with those choices. Unfortunately a great many atheists aren't happy with this. They'll condemn churches for proselytising and yet do exactly the same thing themselves. I realise that this position may not work for many people, but it does for me.

Valmont

kiffer wrote: »

After a while you get sick of seeing/hearing about how you're going to hell for not believing a crazy story about a volcano god from the middle east

What if someone is sick of hearing how they're irrational, illogical and downright stupid for having faith? That, I'm sure, is equally annoying.

Especially considering most people don't believe in God in these terms. Those who do deserve to have the wrath of the boards athiest jihadists brought down upon them.

kiffer wrote: »

I don't care if people believe in gods, spirits, devils and their ilk. It's the young earth creationists that I'm worried about they actively spread such stupid crud which I feel I need to protect my future children from... the idea that they could get it into schools really worries me...

Amen to that.

Schuhart

Húrin wrote: »

If you believe that the atheist mission is to make people happier, then yes.

In fairness, I think that sometimes atheists perceive that mission in terms of something other than happiness. Buddhists may hold that enlightenment equates to happiness. But what I see in that Carl Sagan quote is an expression of the view that this may not be the case.

But, indeed, that's hardly a reason to disturb people who don't want to be disturbed if they're doing no harm to anyone else. Sagan prefaced his comment with the words "For me", and I think that's a sentiment we can both hold to be true.

The Mad Hatter

rockbeer wrote: »

Are you serious?

Maybe you need to get out more. I've never heard of an atheist-motivated bombing, sacrifice or suicide.

He said more than people he'd ever met. Remember that the vast majority of religious people are not lunatics.

fatmammycat

"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.

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

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. In much the same way I don't reject Thor or the hecatonchires. I can read about them, understand and appreciate their stories, myths and legends, but I don't assume they are real.
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. 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 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. Nobody needs to read Dawkins or Hitchens or Myers if they choose not to, nobody needs to hang up their godsquad badge if they choose not to. there is plenty of room for the abrasive atheist just as there has been plenty of room for the abrasive god warrior. Let them have at it.

rockbeer

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

He said more than people he'd ever met.

Which was exactly why I said he should get out more.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Remember that the vast majority of religious people are not lunatics.

No, of course not, but to compare the so-called 'fundamentalism' of atheists - essentially limited to disagreeing with people - to the behaviour of some of the more extreme religious types is laughable. It's shows a total loss of perspective on the situation.

ChocolateSauce

neilled wrote: »

. And again, unlike atheists, they subjected absolutely everything to their world view in order to try and make facts fit their ideology.

On board with you, except I would argue that there is no proscribed behaviour which atheists must follow. I would have said: unlike humanists...

neilled

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

On board with you, except I would argue that there is no proscribed behaviour which atheists must follow. I would have said: unlike humanists...

I phrased it wrong. I wished to contend that there was no "atheist" ideology/doctrine/dogma that had to be followed. Atheists have agreed that they do not believe in the existence of a skygod but beyond that there is little to unify them and many have drastically different views and are free to hold them.

Húrin

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

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

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

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

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

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--

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

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

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

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

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

Húrin wrote: »

Why preach a negative position?

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

Rev Hellfire

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

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

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--

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

--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

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--

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

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.