The volume of atheistic evangelism--that is, proactive attempts to convince others that God does not exist--has ratcheted up a great deal even in my short lifetime. Could the atheists here shed some light on their reasons for doing so?
Said differently, what value are you trying to create (if that's, in fact, what you're doing) and by what standard could it be considered valuable?
Well, if you changed that to
QuoteThe volume of evangelism--that is, proactive attempts to convince others that God does exist--has ratcheted up a great deal even in my lifetime.
then I would agree with you. But then I'm from the UK. I now live in Italy, having arrived here via a great many other countries. I have been plagued by Jehovah's Witnesses and the happy clappy brigade, and here we have an infestation of Mormons. But I have never had an atheist knock on my door to "show me the light". I have never known a bunch of militant atheists demand government funding to open a school where they can indoctrinate children. I have never even considered evangelising - a ludicrous term in this context - or even cared what other people believe. I just ask you theists to leave me in peace.
If indeed there is atheist "evangelising" going on in your country, what form does this take in real life?
I cant answer for others as I am not them, but here is my take on it any way. Personally I'm not an atheist that goes out of my way to actively convince others that a god does not exist, however I will argue my point if needed or asked directly on an issue concerning my atheism. Now that's out of the way and know my position you can pretty much see that my opinion is guess work.
I think what you have described as "atheistic 'evangelism'" is a misinterpretation of the actual situation, but what you are seeing is an inevitable counteraction to the rise of outspoken christian fundamentalism in the US in a country where it has freedom of speech and a rising atheist population that don't want to be governed by those that want to impose restrictions on peoples lives, that they see not only as immoral but a step backwards and oppressive that has arose from believing in something that to an atheist is no different than Santa Claus. Also the media are giving the atheists the floor with TV, movies, books, and newspapers which may be over hyping the situation (i.e. dangerous world syndrome) because the more controversial and outspoken the better the ratings.
Though just to point out. The case in the UK is very different than what it is in the States. (well the perception that I can gain from comments and American media).
Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 07:05:47 PM
The volume of atheistic evangelism--that is, proactive attempts to convince others that God does not exist--has ratcheted up a great deal even in my short lifetime. Could the atheists here shed some light on their reasons for doing so?
This is an interesting question and one that I have pondered on occasion. There is a definite trans-atlantic view to this question. In the UK evangelism of any kind is considered at least eccentric (and thus to be walked past quickly as one would a smelly tramp) or at worst down right bad mannered! The UK is also far less theistic than the US and becoming less theistic by the day (Hallelujah!) So in the UK evangelising atheists are about as common as rocking horse droppings, with the notable exceptions of Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins (who is now an American citizen anyway).
It's been enlightening to be on a number theistic/atheistic forums over the past few years and there are always a high proportion of Yanks in attendance, so I've had a good chance to observe from the outside. I think there are a number of factors at play here. In no particular order.
I have read literally thousands of introduction posts and maybe 50% from American atheists have said, or had sentiments, such as, 'I didn't realise there were other people like me'. 'I'm scared of telling friends/family about my atheism.', 'My parents will hate me!', 'I'm so isolated.'. Being an overt atheist in parts of America takes real courage and determination due to the undisguised hatred exhibited by some sections of American society.
The Internet is making a huge difference to the isolated atheist. There have always been atheists and with few exception they have always been in the minority and considered aberrations and/or dangerous. The anonymity of the Internet allows atheists to communicate in a way never before possible, in safety and without fear of ridicule or threat.
Freedom of speech in the US means that atheists who are prepared to risk admitting their world view cannot be suppressed, however much the theistic majority want to. This probably means that the atheists that do speak up tend to be perceived/presented as outspoken/evangelistic; particularly in the media that always like shit disturbing.
The American style of debate (and I use that word advisedly) is also a contributing factor. In my experience working with Americans and on Internet forums, Americans often take the attitude 'I don't give a shit what you think. I'm right! Prove me wrong buddy!'. This forces both interlocutors to be highly vociferous in their arguments and how the argue. The American political system of standing at the 'stump' also influences how messages are expected to be delivered, in a strident and uncompromising manner.
There is also the issue of released oppression. People who are given, or take, a voice want to use it. Classic recent examples would be the emancipation of women an the LGBT movement. When an oppressed group start trying to right palpable wrongs they are perceived as evangelising, whether they are or not, by the majority that sees itself as supporting the status quo.
In the past theists have claimed authority, moral superiority and ultimate knowledge and there was no realistic alternative to that situation. There is now. Secular society has cut back implicit theistic authority. The immoral behaviour of Muslims (9/11 etc.) has caused people to question the moral high ground of all theists. Finally education has made scientific understanding available to wide swathes of society where it would not previously been available. This has shown up the inadequacies of theistic 'ultimate knowledge' and cut into the very roots of theistic strength, that it is the only real truth.
I think all these factors combined make atheistic evangelism the US inevitable.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 07:05:47 PM
Said differently, what value are you trying to create (if that's, in fact, what you're doing) and by what standard could it be considered valuable?
From a UK perspective we already have what US atheists seek, a level playing field where atheists are not treated like shit. If theists, like you, were prepared to keep your opinions off of atheist forums there would be no need for forums like this in the first place. You and people like you are unintentionally part of the problem. The Christian religion requires its followers to reach out and prevent atheism as atheism is simply wrong. Thus for some Christians it is utterly impossible for them to respect atheism as a valid world view and keep their opinions to themselves. IMO this lack of respect for the atheistic community by the theistic community crates a reactive evangelism that is required simply to allow the atheistic community to survive.
However in addition to the reactive element there is a proactive element that simply wants to break the hold of institutionalised superstitions that are no longer relevent in today's world, but I'll leave that to another thread ;)
I have little to no interest in atheist "evangelism" in my day-to-day life. I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of people who know me are unaware that I'm an atheist.
I don't make it an issue until someone else does.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 07:05:47 PM
The volume of atheistic evangelism--that is, proactive attempts to convince others that God does not exist--has ratcheted up a great deal even in my short lifetime. Could the atheists here shed some light on their reasons for doing so?
Said differently, what value are you trying to create (if that's, in fact, what you're doing) and by what standard could it be considered valuable?
Could you provide some concrete examples of this evangilizing? That would help a lot in explaining whatever it is. Personally, I've never see anything I'd consider atheist evangelizing.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 15, 2011, 11:20:10 PMCould you provide some concrete examples of this evangilizing? That would help a lot in explaining whatever it is. Personally, I've never see anything I'd consider atheist evangelizing.
Atheist Evangelist Brother Sam Singleton's Rules of Engagement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JloO47PZf5k).
Brother Sam Not Funny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LtB2AwyCx8&feature=related)
Maybe not what you were thinking of, but Brother Sam does bill himself as an Atheist Evangelist.
Quote from: Tank on October 15, 2011, 09:20:29 PM
If theists, like you, were prepared to keep your opinions off of atheist forums there would be no need for forums like this in the first place. You and people like you are unintentionally part of the problem.
Do you and others want me to discontinue posting on this forum? Had no idea you felt my presence here was so oppressive. Happy to respect whatever you decide.
Speaking for myself, I couldn't care less what people believe in, as long as they don't adversely affect myself and other like-minded people.
I do find theists who outright door-to-door evangelize feel offended when an atheist speaks out or questions their beliefs to be ridiculous, especially because they're the ones who came looking for trouble in the first place. People who do this in classrooms is one example, there's little reason to worry about offending these types.
As for forums, I personally like differing perspectives, and if I have a problem with it, I can always just ignore the person. I wouldn't blame theists on a theistic forum for instance for trying to evangelize to me, were I to register and talk to them.
Quote from: Recusant on October 15, 2011, 11:31:53 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 15, 2011, 11:20:10 PMCould you provide some concrete examples of this evangilizing? That would help a lot in explaining whatever it is. Personally, I've never see anything I'd consider atheist evangelizing.
Atheist Evangelist Brother Sam Singleton's Rules of Engagement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JloO47PZf5k).
Brother Sam Not Funny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LtB2AwyCx8&feature=related)
Maybe not what you were thinking of, but Brother Sam does bill himself as an Atheist Evangelist.
Not at all what I was thinking of, but I sincerely covet his specs.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 12:42:13 AM
Quote from: Tank on October 15, 2011, 09:20:29 PM
If theists, like you, were prepared to keep your opinions off of atheist forums there would be no need for forums like this in the first place. You and people like you are unintentionally part of the problem.
Do you and others want me to discontinue posting on this forum? Had no idea you felt my presence here was so oppressive. Happy to respect whatever you decide.
Goodness no! You're a member just like any other. I apologise if I have made you feel unwelcome. The point I was attempting to make, evidently very badly, was that proselytising and preaching (theistic or atheistic) risks a backlash. It has been my experience on atheist centric forums that many of the ex-theists join specifically to get away from theists to a 'place of safety' where they can explore their new world view and don't appreciate theists butting in on this process. I'm having great difficulty articulating what I'm thinking so please bear with me an accept my apology for upsetting you. I'll come back to this if I think I can get my thought down correctly.
A classic example of thoughtlessnees on the part of a theist is our new member John 3:16, if he had any consideration for the environment he was entering he would not have used that name. At the moment I'm considering him thoughtless, he may turn out to be a troll or a Poe, only time will tell, but frankly he blotted his copy book before he even posted and then used pajorative terms in his second post. If he carries on the way he started he won't last long.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 07:05:47 PM
The volume of atheistic evangelism--that is, proactive attempts to convince others that God does not exist--has ratcheted up a great deal even in my short lifetime. Could the atheists here shed some light on their reasons for doing so?
Personally, I don't give too much of a damn. Debating religious people can be a decent enough way to waste huge amounts of time and that's about it.
However, I view religion and particularly the Abrahamic monotheism as harmful, so it doesn't make me sad that there are people out there trying to minimize god's influence.
QuoteSaid differently, what value are you trying to create (if that's, in fact, what you're doing) and by what standard could it be considered valuable?
What value do I try to
promote?
All values I hold and consider important. Friendship, for instance. Respecting private matters and property. Openness. A few more.
They are valuable by my personal standards, the social contract and/or the standards of the society I live in.
Quote from: Tank on October 16, 2011, 07:50:42 AM
A classic example of thoughtlessnees on the part of a theist is our new member John 3:16, if he had any consideration for the environment he was entering he would not have used that name. At the moment I'm considering him thoughtless, he may turn out to be a troll or a Poe,
Hi Tank (ok not CareBear),
What's a Poe? I don't know the term. POS, I've heard but not Poe (except for Edgar Allen: and the bells, bells, bells, bells, bells, bells, bells.)
TIA,
Attila
Hi Tankie,
Since we're on the subject of theists on an atheist forum, have there ever been women-theists? So far I've seen Bandit4God, Brucie-Wucie, and now Luke 19:27 (or was that John 23:23) and the late, unlamented CForceRunner but no women? Have there been any in the past?
ciao,
Attila
Quote from: Attila on October 16, 2011, 10:06:27 AM
Hi Tankie,
Since we're on the subject of theists on an atheist forum, have there ever been women-theists? So far I've seen Bandit4God, Brucie-Wucie, and now Luke 19:27 (or was that John 23:23) and the late, unlamented CForceRunner but no women? Have there been any in the past?
ciao,
Attila
Female theists on atheist forums are pretty rare. Here there was Happy Forever, a Muslim, and at RDF I remember just the one Christian lady.
Quote from: Attila on October 16, 2011, 10:06:27 AM
Since we're on the subject of theists on an atheist forum, have there ever been women-theists? So far I've seen Bandit4God, Brucie-Wucie, and now Luke 19:27 (or was that John 23:23) and the late, unlamented CForceRunner but no women? Have there been any in the past?
We are too busy cleaning the house and raising your 14 children to mess around on t'internet. Also we do not argue with men. We Know Our Limits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU
Quote from: Attila on October 16, 2011, 09:52:47 AM
What's a Poe?
Poe's Law | Iron Chariots (http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Poe's_law)
Quote from: Attila on October 16, 2011, 09:52:47 AM
Quote from: Tank on October 16, 2011, 07:50:42 AM
A classic example of thoughtlessnees on the part of a theist is our new member John 3:16, if he had any consideration for the environment he was entering he would not have used that name. At the moment I'm considering him thoughtless, he may turn out to be a troll or a Poe,
Hi Tank (ok not CareBear),
What's a Poe? I don't know the term. POS, I've heard but not Poe (except for Edgar Allen: and the bells, bells, bells, bells, bells, bells, bells.)
TIA,
Attila
Beg pardon, I missed this but I see Recusent has dealt with it :)
One of the more infamous, and effective (I have seen it being taken seriously on quite a few occasions) Poe sites is Landover Baptist Church (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/).
I have gotten more and more outspoken with regards to my atheism, not because I want to annoy people, or because I want them to change their beliefs, but because I am sick and tired of the "religious right" cramming their ideals down my throat every time I turn on a tv or radio. I am sick and tired of people here in the US who think I should follow their rules and their doctrine because their "holy book" says so. There should be NO laws based on religion, and there should be NO tax breaks for religious organizations, because not everyone subscribes to it. In america, children are brainwashed from an early age to be Xtian. I know, it happened to me. I was taught the same intolerance and hate that can be seen any evening on the 700 club or faux news. I was told that if I didn't accept jesus I would perish in eternal flames, and that I should never think for myself, and how dare I *gasp* question the church? That bullshit cost me the better years of my life following something that simply isn't real, out of fear. So do I hate Xtianity? yes. Do I have that right? yes. Will I do whatever it takes to make sure this does not happen to my children? You better believe it.
So to answer the OP's question?
When theists respect my views, don't try to change me, and don't discriminate against me, I will offer the same respect.
There are a ton of emotions around this topic, even more than I expected. Coming back around to the original question, however, I'm still wondering how (and by what measure) convincing a theist to be an atheist adds value?
I am really curious to hear your thoughts, so a couple of possible answers to get the juices flowing:
- I consider pleasure to be valuable in it's various forms, and seeing someone discover the truth brings me pleasure
- Scientific progress has value, and will be accelerated if more clear-headed, atheistic minds were engaged in advancing science
- Life has positive intrinsic value, and suffering has negative intrinsic value, and atheism will reduce war, hatred, and bigotry in such a way as to promote life and reduce war/hatred/bigotry
Just examples of possible answers, please share yours!
Sorry about the rant. I just dealt with a relevant situation in my personal life, and I wrote that entire post on emotion alone. To give an honest answer, I would say the only real reason to share atheism with a theist would be to try to get them to understand why the hatred and bigotry xtianity tends to project, not only against homosexuals, but also against people of different races and most of all women is wrong. I have met xtians who were open and tolerant of others and treated all people with respect, and I have no problem with them.
I was raised to hate, and it took me years to get over that.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 06:12:19 PM
Coming back around to the original question, however, I'm still wondering how (and by what measure) convincing a theist to be an atheist adds value?
I'm still waiting for examples of this atheist evangelism you've seen because I've never seen any of it, much less a greatly increased amount of it. Without examples of what you're talking about, I have no idea how to answer.
If you're asking what value I would find personally in deconverting someone (which is very different from your original question), I'd say "none". As long as the government and laws are secular, I don't care how religious our society and most of its citizens are.
Edited to add: The only value I do see in more people in our society being atheists is that there'd be far fewer attempts to violate the separation of church and state. That's it and, as valuable as I do see that, I wouldn't do anything to deconvert anyone because that's simply not my business. And I think it's possible to defend the separation of C&S without harrassing people about their private lives.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 16, 2011, 07:38:13 PM
I'm still waiting for examples of this atheist evangelism you've seen because I've never seen any of it, much less a greatly increased amount of it. Without examples of what you're talking about, I have no idea how to answer.
Might be regionally concentrated, but a few notables that have been on the rise:
- professors beginning their classes by asking if there are theists present and excoriating them
- journalists framing questions about faith to interviewees in condescending ways
- the rise of the activist-scientist (e.g., Hawking's recent show on the Discovery channel, "Did God Create the Universe?")
- Bill Maher
- rise in court cases to remove student-led prayer from school grounds, references to God on government monuments/buildings, etc.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 08:31:26 PM
Might be regionally concentrated, but a few notables that have been on the rise:
- professors beginning their classes by asking if there are theists present and excoriating them
- journalists framing questions about faith to interviewees in condescending ways
- the rise of the activist-scientist (e.g., Hawking's recent show on the Discovery channel, "Did God Create the Universe?")
- Bill Maher
These are just people giving their opinions, the same way the religious do in classes, in books, on TV shows, etc. I wouldn't call this evangelizing.
Quote- rise in court cases to remove student-led prayer from school grounds, references to God on government monuments/buildings, etc.
And that's protecting the separation of church and state, an essential element of freedom in a diverse society. Also not evangelizing.
Evangelizing is going door-to-door, or standing on street corners, asking people if they've found Jesus and trying to convince them to do so. I've never seen atheists doing anything like that.
Let me ask this, are you opposed to atheists giving their opinions as freely as the religious do? Are you opposed to the separation of church and state?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 08:31:26 PM
Might be regionally concentrated
It is.
Quote- professors beginning their classes by asking if there are theists present and excoriating them
It may have to do with the individual professor's experience with theists, but there is no excuse for bigotry.
Quote- journalists framing questions about faith to interviewees in condescending ways
Same, but that is sort of what the journalists do to keep the numbers up.
Quote- the rise of the activist-scientist (e.g., Hawking's recent show on the Discovery channel, "Did God Create the Universe?")
Presenting good and widely accepted science and its standing facts is not a bad thing. Counters blind faith, superstition and the like and promotes curiosity and critical thinking. Nothing at all wrong with that.
Quote- Bill Maher
Can be a bit of an asshole, but most of his points on religion tend to be sound.
Quote- rise in court cases to remove student-led prayer from school grounds, references to God on government monuments/buildings, etc.
Prayer in school is a waste of time for those who come there to learn not pray. The rest can pray in private during free periods if they are so inclined. You can't smoke at school either, but that never stopped me from having a cig during lunch when I was young.
Removing references to god from standing monuments is a bit silly, but there is no reason to add more of those. Brazilians have this huge statue of Jesus on some hilltop or some such. Ought to be enough, that. As for government buildings, god has no place in the government since god never ran for elections and was voted in.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 16, 2011, 08:46:31 PM
Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 08:31:26 PM
Might be regionally concentrated, but a few notables that have been on the rise:
- professors beginning their classes by asking if there are theists present and excoriating them
- journalists framing questions about faith to interviewees in condescending ways
- the rise of the activist-scientist (e.g., Hawking's recent show on the Discovery channel, "Did God Create the Universe?")
- Bill Maher
These are just people giving their opinions, the same way the religious do in classes, in books, on TV shows, etc. I wouldn't call this evangelizing.
How about proselytizing: "to convert a person from one doctrine, cause, faith, or belief to another"?
QuoteLet me ask this, are you opposed to atheists giving their opinions as freely as the religious do?
Nope! Just wonder what value you see in it. Theists do it for many reasons that are clear and transparent, and some atheists (Hitchens) have been clear of their motivation as well. But even for them, it's unclear to me what those value judgements are based on. What standard of measurable value do atheists reference when they proselytize?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 09:15:57 PM
What standard of measurable value do atheists reference when they proselytize?
I think I answered that rather directly somewhere. I also think it varies from person to person and from group to group.
Quote from: Asmodean on October 16, 2011, 09:22:20 PM
Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 09:15:57 PM
What standard of measurable value do atheists reference when they proselytize?
I think I answered that rather directly somewhere. I also think it varies from person to person and from group to group.
Agreed.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 08:31:26 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 16, 2011, 07:38:13 PM
I'm still waiting for examples of this atheist evangelism you've seen because I've never seen any of it, much less a greatly increased amount of it. Without examples of what you're talking about, I have no idea how to answer.
Might be regionally concentrated, but a few notables that have been on the rise:
- professors beginning their classes by asking if there are theists present and excoriating them
- journalists framing questions about faith to interviewees in condescending ways
- the rise of the activist-scientist (e.g., Hawking's recent show on the Discovery channel, "Did God Create the Universe?")
- Bill Maher
- rise in court cases to remove student-led prayer from school grounds, references to God on government monuments/buildings, etc.
- The exact opposite happened in several classrooms I was in during high school, and happens a lot more than you realize. (but thats more pubicly acceptable isn't it?)
- Try watching faux news or 700 club sometime
- Scientists talking about science?
- Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson
- I dont want my tax money paying for anything religious. Sorry, seperation of church and state is very much necessary. Or we can add references to allah, mohammed, and the flying spaghetti monster. Gotta be fair......
Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 09:15:57 PM
How about proselytizing: "to convert a person from one doctrine, cause, faith, or belief to another"?
Again not the same thing as just giving your opinion, whether someone has asked you in a conversation or whether you have a column or TV show whose purpose is you giving your opinion.
I get people telling me about their religious beliefs and experiences fairly regularly (I'm not sure why, maybe I just have one of those you-can-talk-to-me-about-religion faces, or maybe I live in a religious section of town) but I've never considered this an attempt to convert me or proselytize to me. I click around the TV and see lots of religious shows, or commentators on political shows talking about their religious beliefs, I go into bookstores and see plenty of books about the joy of being religious and even a few about what idiots atheists are (ever heard of Ann Coulter?) and I have never considered these attempts at conversion or proselytizing. Should I have? Maybe people have been trying to convert me left and right and it's just gone over my head.
Let me ask another question, using Bill Maher as an example since I'm fairly familiar with him. What is Maher doing that qualifies as trying to turn people into atheists, rather than just explaining why he's an atheist and why he thinks the religious are nuts?
QuoteQuoteLet me ask this, are you opposed to atheists giving their opinions as freely as the religious do?
Nope! Just wonder what value you see in it.
Asked and answered then but I'll do it again in case you missed it (this has been an active thread): I don't agree that atheists are proselytizing, and certainly not by the standard you're using, and I don't personally see any value in proselytizing but the value I do see in society having more atheist citizens (however they became atheist) is fewer attempts to violate the separation of church and state. And that's the only value I see in an increased number of atheists.
I notice you didn't answer my question about church and state, any reason why?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on October 16, 2011, 09:32:13 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on October 16, 2011, 09:22:20 PM
Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 09:15:57 PM
What standard of measurable value do atheists reference when they proselytize?
I think I answered that rather directly somewhere. I also think it varies from person to person and from group to group.
Agreed.
Thanks for sharing, Asmo--was just trying to get a few more data points, but I've having difficulty getting beyond, "But you've got 700 Club and don't support separation of church and state, gwahahahha!?!?"
Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 10:21:00 PM
was just trying to get a few more data points, but I've having difficulty getting beyond, "But you've got 700 Club and don't support separation of church and state, gwahahahha!?!?"
How are these invalid points, considering some of us are trying to determine if atheists are evangelizing at all or if you're just misinterpreting things (whether you're doing it deliberately is another issue), and protecting the separation of church and state is something that came up in one of your own examples? If you'd address these points we might be able to move the discussion forward and you'd be able to collect more "data".
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 16, 2011, 09:53:24 PM
Asked and answered then but I'll do it again in case you missed it (this has been an active thread): I don't agree that atheists are proselytizing, and certainly not by the standard you're using, and I don't personally see any value in proselytizing but the value I do see in society having more atheist citizens (however they became atheist) is fewer attempts to violate the separation of church and state. And that's the only value I see in an increased number of atheists.
I notice you didn't answer my question about church and state, any reason why?
Got it, you don't believe atheists proselytize. Thanks!
On the separation of church and state question, I thought answering here would be a distractor that would have us chasing alignment around definitions of separation, church, and state. In passing, I'll hazard to say our state would be far worse if Washington, Lincoln, Harriett Beecher Stowe, King, and others did not leverage their Christian faith in it's service.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 17, 2011, 12:33:12 AM
Got it, you don't believe atheists proselytize. Thanks!
It's more accurate to say I don't believe you're using the word proselyize correctly in reference to atheists, and I'm trying to define your use of the term so at least we're talking about the same thing.
I don't buy that atheists are proselytizing based on your first 4 examples because I also don't think Xtians who do similar things are proselytizing, I think both are exercizing their right to free expression. Am I wrong, are Xtians who do the Xtian version of these things proselytizing?
QuoteOn the separation of church and state question, I thought answering here would be a distractor that would have us chasing alignment around definitions of separation, church, and state. In passing, I'll hazard to say our state would be far worse if Washington, Lincoln, Harriett Beecher Stowe, King, and others did not leverage their Christian faith in it's service.
And I'd agree with that, since I don't regard being guided by one's faith as a violation of the separation of church and state. But your fifth example of school prayer (atho to the best of my knowledge this is usually only a problem if the prayer or prayer group is teacher-led and in public schools), and references to god on Government momuments and buildings, can be considered a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment, since it does give the impression of favoring a specific religion. Whether all these cases are worth fighting over or should just be shrugged off as historical is another issue. But minor as these cases may be, they are authentic church and state issues. Your example above is not.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 17, 2011, 01:10:29 AM
I don't buy that atheists are proselytizing based on your first 4 examples because I also don't think Xtians who do similar things are proselytizing, I think both are exercizing their right to free expression. Am I wrong, are Xtians who do the Xtian version of these things proselytizing?
Proselytizing: "to convert a person from one doctrine, cause, faith, or belief to another"?
What did Billy Graham, Martin Luther King Jr, Richard Dawkins, and Stephen Hawking all have in common? They met the definition of proselytizing as defined above.
The difference for me between proselytizing and opinion-sharing as you describe is proactive/reactive respectively. If the perspective is proactively shared or broadcast unasked-for with the intent of persuasion, it's proselytizing. If someone asks your opinion and you subsequently share it, it's reactive opinion-sharing. All of these are protected, as you rightly said, under the right to free speech.
I'm clear on the motivations for the first two above, but less so the motivations of the second two (aside from financial profit).
QuoteAnd I'd agree with that, since I don't regard being guided by one's faith as a violation of the separation of church and state. But your fifth example of school prayer (atho to the best of my knowledge this is usually only a problem if the prayer or prayer group is teacher-led and in public schools), and references to god on Government momuments and buildings, can be considered a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment, since it does give the impression of favoring a specific religion. Whether all these cases are worth fighting over or should just be shrugged off as historical is another issue. But minor as these cases may be, they are authentic church and state issues. Your example above is not.
Makes sense, but worth noting that it cuts the other direction as well. Article in the opinion section of today's Wall Street Journal highlighted a case being taken up by the Supreme Court in which a church-based school fired a teacher and the teacher is suing for her job back. Should the state be permitted to interfere in the hiring/firing of ministers?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 08:31:26 PM
- professors beginning their classes by asking if there are theists present and excoriating them
I have a 5 year degree and took an extra year kinda off in which I took philosophy classes, so that's 6 years of college 1.5x as long as most people...yet not once did I have a professor do anything like that. I did have a philosophy of religion professor imply that we might as well drop the class if we made it past all his "proofs" of god and were still atheists....I couldn't tell if he was joking or not because the rest of the class was a discussion of theistic religious philosophy. That was the only time i had a professor say something that even kinda looked like evangelism. So, I have a hard time believing that it is common for any professor to evangelize in general.
I think the examples you are looking for is in books such as God is Not Great, A Letter to A Christian Nation, The God Delusion, The God Virus etc But I wouldn't consider their type anything new; there have always been atheist authors/philosophers; it's just safer for their ideas to be spoken publicly now than it was back in the day when speaking out against religion would get you tortured, hung, or burned at the stake. So there's your answer...why now because we are free. Why at all? They all have their own personal reasons and most of the above books will explain why somewhere in them.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 17, 2011, 09:08:10 PM
Makes sense, but worth noting that it cuts the other direction as well. Article in the opinion section of today's Wall Street Journal highlighted a case being taken up by the Supreme Court in which a church-based school fired a teacher and the teacher is suing for her job back. Should the state be permitted to interfere in the hiring/firing of ministers?
A teacher at a church based school can teach the state mandated curriculum without having to share the religious beliefs of the school and so there would be no basis for firing. It's not like the teacher would be allowed to say anything negative about religion in class...professional can separate work from home. A minister, however, would need to be religious (or at least able to pretend to be religious) in order to fulfill his job responsibilities so it wouldn't violate non-discrimination to overlook an atheist for such a position.
Being religious doesn't exclude organizations from federal non-discrimination laws.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 17, 2011, 09:08:10 PM
Proselytizing: "to convert a person from one doctrine, cause, faith, or belief to another"?
What did Billy Graham, Martin Luther King Jr, Richard Dawkins, and Stephen Hawking all have in common? They met the definition of proselytizing as defined above.
I don't consider that simply saying "I believe this" unasked qualifies as an attempt to persuade, saying "I believe this
and you should too" is an attempt to persuade, esp. if the speaker won't shut up about the "you should too". And in the cases you mentioned, the individuals
were not giving their opinions unasked -- they were either preaching to a congregation who asked them come and talk about their beliefs or communicating with people who'd chosen to listen to them either by tuning them in or reading their book.
I discussed this topic today with a co-worker who's a devout Xtian and he did have an real example of atheist evangelizing -- a man he once worked with would put phamplets explaining why no one should believe in god on peoples desks. Since nobody asked for those pamphlets, I think the message does qualify as "I believe this and you should too", so that was definitely atheist evangelizing. As to what value there was in it for him, I would guess working off annoyance at having "you should believe in god" pamphlets left on his desk. That's not an excuse for it, just a stab at explanation.
QuoteQuoteAnd I'd agree with that, since I don't regard being guided by one's faith as a violation of the separation of church and state. But your fifth example of school prayer (atho to the best of my knowledge this is usually only a problem if the prayer or prayer group is teacher-led and in public schools), and references to god on Government momuments and buildings, can be considered a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment, since it does give the impression of favoring a specific religion. Whether all these cases are worth fighting over or should just be shrugged off as historical is another issue. But minor as these cases may be, they are authentic church and state issues. Your example above is not.
Makes sense, but worth noting that it cuts the other direction as well. Article in the opinion section of today's Wall Street Journal highlighted a case being taken up by the Supreme Court in which a church-based school fired a teacher and the teacher is suing for her job back. Should the state be permitted to interfere in the hiring/firing of ministers?
I would say no, the whole point of the separation of church and state is that it goes both ways, protecting both from the interference of the other. Not sure what a teacher has to do with ministers.
Quote from: Whitney on October 18, 2011, 01:27:10 AM
Quote from: bandit4god on October 17, 2011, 09:08:10 PM
Makes sense, but worth noting that it cuts the other direction as well. Article in the opinion section of today's Wall Street Journal highlighted a case being taken up by the Supreme Court in which a church-based school fired a teacher and the teacher is suing for her job back. Should the state be permitted to interfere in the hiring/firing of ministers?
A teacher at a church based school can teach the state mandated curriculum without having to share the religious beliefs of the school and so there would be no basis for firing. It's not like the teacher would be allowed to say anything negative about religion in class...professional can separate work from home. A minister, however, would need to be religious (or at least able to pretend to be religious) in order to fulfill his job responsibilities so it wouldn't violate non-discrimination to overlook an atheist for such a position.
Being religious doesn't exclude organizations from federal non-discrimination laws.
The mission of the church-based school was, "To provide a Christ-centered education based on Biblical principles." To the extent that teachers are fully aware of their role in this mission and sign statements of faith accordingly, in what way are they not full-fledged ministers of the church? Separation of church and state does not apply here?
Legal precedent for cases such as this (never at the Supreme Court level) have gone two directions in the past:
- attempt to add up the amount of time the teacher spends on secular education vs ministerial activities and render a minister/non-minister verdict based on which supercedes a 50% threshold
- consider the all educational activities conducted by the teacher as impacted by the ministerial tenor of the church/school mission, rendering him/her a full minister
Quote from: bandit4god on October 20, 2011, 10:18:48 PM
Quote from: Whitney on October 18, 2011, 01:27:10 AM
Quote from: bandit4god on October 17, 2011, 09:08:10 PM
Makes sense, but worth noting that it cuts the other direction as well. Article in the opinion section of today's Wall Street Journal highlighted a case being taken up by the Supreme Court in which a church-based school fired a teacher and the teacher is suing for her job back. Should the state be permitted to interfere in the hiring/firing of ministers?
A teacher at a church based school can teach the state mandated curriculum without having to share the religious beliefs of the school and so there would be no basis for firing. It's not like the teacher would be allowed to say anything negative about religion in class...professional can separate work from home. A minister, however, would need to be religious (or at least able to pretend to be religious) in order to fulfill his job responsibilities so it wouldn't violate non-discrimination to overlook an atheist for such a position.
Being religious doesn't exclude organizations from federal non-discrimination laws.
The mission of the church-based school was, "To provide a Christ-centered education based on Biblical principles." To the extent that teachers are fully aware of their role in this mission and sign statements of faith accordingly, in what way are they not full-fledged ministers of the church? Separation of church and state does not apply here?
Legal precedent for cases such as this (never at the Supreme Court level) have gone two directions in the past:
- attempt to add up the amount of time the teacher spends on secular education vs ministerial activities and render a minister/non-minister verdict based on which supercedes a 50% threshold
- consider the all educational activities conducted by the teacher as impacted by the ministerial tenor of the church/school mission, rendering him/her a full minister
I think you assumed I actually read about this case...my point was merely that a teacher can teach at a religious school without having to be religious; most religious schools don't have the preaching and the classrooms mixed that much.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 18, 2011, 01:43:45 AM
I discussed this topic today with a co-worker who's a devout Xtian and he did have an real example of atheist evangelizing -- a man he once worked with would put phamplets explaining why no one should believe in god on peoples desks. Since nobody asked for those pamphlets, I think the message does qualify as "I believe this and you should too", so that was definitely atheist evangelizing. As to what value there was in it for him, I would guess working off annoyance at having "you should believe in god" pamphlets left on his desk. That's not an excuse for it, just a stab at explanation.
That's interesting, I've never heard of such pamphlets before. Appreciate you sharing!
Quote from: bandit4god on October 21, 2011, 08:30:45 PM
That's interesting, I've never heard of such pamphlets before. Appreciate you sharing!
Neither had I, probably for good reason. Why do I have the feeling you're now going to run off thinking such pamphlets are in wide circulation and not just something slapped together by one irate atheist to tick off some irritating Xtians he worked with?
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 22, 2011, 01:51:12 AM
Quote from: bandit4god on October 21, 2011, 08:30:45 PM
That's interesting, I've never heard of such pamphlets before. Appreciate you sharing!
Neither had I, probably for good reason. Why do I have the feeling you're now going to run off thinking such pamphlets are in wide circulation and not just something slapped together by one irate atheist to tick off some irritating Xtians he worked with?
Our secret is out, it will likely be on faux news tomorrow night, and the pamphlet revolution will be over. Drat! Foiled again by meddling Xtians!
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 22, 2011, 01:51:12 AM
Quote from: bandit4god on October 21, 2011, 08:30:45 PM
That's interesting, I've never heard of such pamphlets before. Appreciate you sharing!
Neither had I, probably for good reason. Why do I have the feeling you're now going to run off thinking such pamphlets are in wide circulation and not just something slapped together by one irate atheist to tick off some irritating Xtians he worked with?
Perhaps not... but I walked out to my car after work and my car was covered in them!!
kidding :)
Quote from: bandit4god on October 22, 2011, 02:52:52 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 22, 2011, 01:51:12 AM
Quote from: bandit4god on October 21, 2011, 08:30:45 PM
That's interesting, I've never heard of such pamphlets before. Appreciate you sharing!
Neither had I, probably for good reason. Why do I have the feeling you're now going to run off thinking such pamphlets are in wide circulation and not just something slapped together by one irate atheist to tick off some irritating Xtians he worked with?
Perhaps not... but I walked out to my car after work and my car was covered in them!!
kidding :)
Good one. ;D
How many theists are misinformed about atheism/atheists?
Why shouldn't atheists actively attempt to correct this misinformation?
How many theists are taught that atheists are evil and tools of Satan?
Why shouldn't atheists actively attempt to correct this lie?
How many theists have ever actually spoken to an atheist to find out what they really think?
Why shouldn't atheists actively talk to theists to show them what they really think?
Why shouldn't atheists actively attempt to destroy the lies and falsehoods of all religions?
Until institutionalised superstition (religion) is wiped out, or at least marginalised to the point it is insignificant and powerless, the real problems of being an evolved ape with just enough brains to be dangerous cannot be addressed. Until humanity accepts its real origins and responsibilities, I.E. grows up, it will be incapable of addressing the issues of its innate behavious and possibly start to cope with the issues brought about by its evolutionary origins.
Quote from: Tank on October 22, 2011, 09:21:11 AM
How many theists are taught that atheists are evil and tools of Satan?
Why shouldn't atheists actively attempt to correct this lie?
Bloody hell, Tank, you take all the fun out of it.
If we're not evil and tools of Satan, then what's our purpose for being here?
Hi [hushed tone]People of Faith[/hushed tone]. Don't listen to Tank. He's just in a bad mood because the universe didn't cease to exist.
Quote from: Attila on October 22, 2011, 09:40:37 AM
Quote from: Tank on October 22, 2011, 09:21:11 AM
How many theists are taught that atheists are evil and tools of Satan?
Why shouldn't atheists actively attempt to correct this lie?
Bloody hell, Tank, you take all the fun out of it.
If we're not evil and tools of Satan, then what's our purpose for being here?
Hi [hushed tone]People of Faith[/hushed tone]. Don't listen to Tank. He's just in a bad mood because the universe didn't cease to exist.
Well one can choose to be an evil tool of Satan, obviously some choose not to ;D
Quote from: Tank on October 22, 2011, 10:22:19 AM
Well one can choose to be an evil tool of Satan, obviously some choose not to ;D
But I didn't choose; the devil made me do it. ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Tank on October 22, 2011, 10:22:19 AM
Well one can choose to be an evil tool of Satan, obviously some choose not to ;D
In my stars I am below thee; but be not afraid of evil: some are born evil, some achieve evil and some have evil thrust upon them.
All the best,
Malvolio
Quote from: Tank on October 22, 2011, 09:21:11 AM
How many theists are misinformed about atheism/atheists?
Why shouldn't atheists actively attempt to correct this misinformation?
How many theists are taught that atheists are evil and tools of Satan?
Why shouldn't atheists actively attempt to correct this lie?
How many theists have ever actually spoken to an atheist to find out what they really think?
Why shouldn't atheists actively talk to theists to show them what they really think?
Why shouldn't atheists actively attempt to destroy the lies and falsehoods of all religions?
Until institutionalised superstition (religion) is wiped out, or at least marginalised to the point it is insignificant and powerless, the real problems of being an evolved ape with just enough brains to be dangerous cannot be addressed. Until humanity accepts its real origins and responsibilities, I.E. grows up, it will be incapable of addressing the issues of its innate behavious and possibly start to cope with the issues brought about by its evolutionary origins.
The above illustrates the source of my confusion--why? If I became convinced at 8pm there was definitively no God, by 9pm I'd be drunk, high, and planning the next day's bank robbery. Through an atheist's lens, what's the value in any of the things you list above? Why not try to squeeze every ounce of pleasure from life you possibly can? Why give a second thought about the other apes, past, present, or future?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 22, 2011, 07:15:10 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 22, 2011, 09:21:11 AM
How many theists are misinformed about atheism/atheists?
Why shouldn't atheists actively attempt to correct this misinformation?
How many theists are taught that atheists are evil and tools of Satan?
Why shouldn't atheists actively attempt to correct this lie?
How many theists have ever actually spoken to an atheist to find out what they really think?
Why shouldn't atheists actively talk to theists to show them what they really think?
Why shouldn't atheists actively attempt to destroy the lies and falsehoods of all religions?
Until institutionalised superstition (religion) is wiped out, or at least marginalised to the point it is insignificant and powerless, the real problems of being an evolved ape with just enough brains to be dangerous cannot be addressed. Until humanity accepts its real origins and responsibilities, I.E. grows up, it will be incapable of addressing the issues of its innate behavious and possibly start to cope with the issues brought about by its evolutionary origins.
The above illustrates the source of my confusion--why? If I became convinced at 8pm there was definitively no God, by 9pm I'd be drunk, high, and planning the next day's bank robbery. Through an atheist's lens, what's the value in any of the things you list above? Why not try to squeeze every ounce of pleasure from life you possibly can? Why give a second thought about the other apes, past, present, or future?
So from the highlighted sentence you're saying your essentially an evil person kept in line by superstition aren't you?
There is no atheist lens, atheism is 100% lensless. Unlike theism which is the systematic distortion of reality.
If you want to live in the real world and outside of a prison cell there are some things you don't do.
If you want to live in the real world with friends there are some things you don't do.
If you want friends there are things you do do.
Simple, no God required.
Now if you want to live in a lie then fine, do so. But don't expect to be free from criticsism for promoting those lies.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 22, 2011, 07:15:10 PM
The above illustrates the source of my confusion--why? If I became convinced at 8pm there was definitively no God, by 9pm I'd be drunk, high, and planning the next day's bank robbery.
...So you are letting some buzzkill god prevent you from living a little..?
QuoteThrough an atheist's lens, what's the value in any of the things you list above?
Things in your example..? They are all fun that costs you.
QuoteWhy not try to squeeze every ounce of pleasure from life you possibly can? Why give a second thought about the other apes, past, present, or future?
Compromises make your life easier and potentially longer. You don't have to compromise if you are disinclined to, but ignoring the social contract will make you a purple ape in the world of gray and boring apes, and that aint easy because them gray apes don't particularly like purple and are likely to move against purple things given the opportunity.
Religion is for the morally challenged. The rest of us don't need a god to figure out right from wrong. Sick. Sick. Sick. Bandit. ;)
Quote from: Tank on October 22, 2011, 09:21:11 AM
How many theists are misinformed about atheism/atheists?
Why shouldn't atheists actively attempt to correct this misinformation?
How many theists are taught that atheists are evil and tools of Satan?
Why shouldn't atheists actively attempt to correct this lie?
How many theists have ever actually spoken to an atheist to find out what they really think?
Why shouldn't atheists actively talk to theists to show them what they really think?
Why shouldn't atheists actively attempt to destroy the lies and falsehoods of all religions?
Until institutionalised superstition (religion) is wiped out, or at least marginalised to the point it is insignificant and powerless, the real problems of being an evolved ape with just enough brains to be dangerous cannot be addressed. Until humanity accepts its real origins and responsibilities, I.E. grows up, it will be incapable of addressing the issues of its innate behavious and possibly start to cope with the issues brought about by its evolutionary origins.
Excellent post, Tank. I'd only add "how many theists have ever actually spoken to an atheist to find out what they really think,
and then believed them when they were told", and I'd settle for religion being marginalized because some people do seem to need it.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 22, 2011, 07:15:10 PM
The above illustrates the source of my confusion--why? If I became convinced at 8pm there was definitively no God, by 9pm I'd be drunk, high, and planning the next day's bank robbery. Through an atheist's lens, what's the value in any of the things you list above? Why not try to squeeze every ounce of pleasure from life you possibly can? Why give a second thought about the other apes, past, present, or future?
Did you think about your answer before replying?
1) Did you consider that the percentage of atheists in prison is lower that that of atheists in general society, which suggests that those who believe in some kind of god are
more inclined to commit crimes than those of us who don't?
2) The value of the above (Tank's post) is correcting a wrong. That always feels good -- just ask anybody who's been misjudged or wrongly accused.
3) Are you aware it's possible to enjoy being alive without getting high, getting drunk and/or committing crimes? Thru this atheist's lens, my life has been more than pleasurable without any of those things.
Others have already pointed this out, but whether there's a god or not, there are still other people to deal with and get along with and serious consequences if you don't. And that's something that's always puzzled me -- why so many theists don't take that into account when they think about what life without god would be like? It's like you think other people will vanish at the same time your belief in god does.
Quote from: Tank on October 22, 2011, 07:48:02 PM
So from the highlighted sentence you're saying your essentially an evil person kept in line by superstition aren't you?
I am an evil person--we all are! What's baffling to me, though, is how an atheist could consider an animal and/or it's behavior good or evil. Are there evil bears? Can dolphins be evil? If not, why do you classify humans as evil-able?
QuoteThere is no atheist lens, atheism is 100% lensless. Unlike theism which is the systematic distortion of reality.
If you want to live in the real world and outside of a prison cell there are some things you don't do.
If you want to live in the real world with friends there are some things you don't do.
If you want friends there are things you do do.
Simple, no God required.
Now if you want to live in a lie then fine, do so. But don't expect to be free from criticsism for promoting those lies.
Tank, I'm simply asking you and other atheists to articulate what brings you value in your life and why.
I truly believe that the reason theists tend to fear atheism is because of this misunderstanding that we can't possibly have morals without a book and leaders to tell us how. The fact is, fearing a hell does not instill morality. We all know right from wrong, and some of the most devious people I have ever met go to church 3 times a week.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 23, 2011, 01:13:35 AM
Quote from: Tank on October 22, 2011, 07:48:02 PM
So from the highlighted sentence you're saying your essentially an evil person kept in line by superstition aren't you?
I am an evil person--we all are! What's baffling to me, though, is how an atheist could consider an animal and/or it's behavior good or evil. Are there evil bears? Can dolphins be evil? If not, why do you classify humans as evil-able?
Humans are animals. OK, we got that out of the way. Can animals be evil? Sure. Humans can be considered evil within the confines of a human constructed framework of morality -- man-made morality. Dolphins can be evil within the confines of a dolphin constructed framework of morality. Who are dolphins to judge us when they live outside of our paradigm of what constitutes "good and evil?"
Quote from: bandit4god on October 23, 2011, 01:13:35 AM
Quote from: Tank on October 22, 2011, 07:48:02 PM
So from the highlighted sentence you're saying your essentially an evil person kept in line by superstition aren't you?
I am an evil person--we all are! What's baffling to me, though, is how an atheist could consider an animal and/or it's behavior good or evil. Are there evil bears? Can dolphins be evil? If not, why do you classify humans as evil-able?
QuoteThere is no atheist lens, atheism is 100% lensless. Unlike theism which is the systematic distortion of reality.
If you want to live in the real world and outside of a prison cell there are some things you don't do.
If you want to live in the real world with friends there are some things you don't do.
If you want friends there are things you do do.
Simple, no God required.
Now if you want to live in a lie then fine, do so. But don't expect to be free from criticsism for promoting those lies.
Tank, I'm simply asking you and other atheists to articulate what brings you value in your life and why.
So we have a second example where you failed to get a simple question across in your OP. What does "Benefits of atheistic "evangelism"" have to do with "Tank, I'm simply asking you and other atheists to articulate what brings you value in your life and why", sweet FA that's what. On the basis of once is luck, twice is coincidence and three times is a trend, I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know what you want to know ;D
Quote from: Tank on October 23, 2011, 01:39:41 AM
So we have a second example where you failed to get a simple question across in your OP. What does "Benefits of atheistic "evangelism"" have to do with "Tank, I'm simply asking you and other atheists to articulate what brings you value in your life and why", sweet FA that's what. On the basis of once is luck, twice is coincidence and three times is a trend, I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know what you want to know ;D
On this and other threads, posters have used words like "fervor" and "tear down" to describe their orientation to atheistic evangelism. Some stated they find value in it and spend some of their life accordingly. This interests me! :)
What does sweet FA mean?
I can't speak for every atheist, but I don't usually go out of my way to try to de-convert people unless provoked. Last week I had a rough time with some theists and would have likely tried to de-convert or blatently offend any theist that crossed my path. But normally I have a live and let live policy. It is only when people try to force their views on me, or talk down to me that I get belligerent.
What do I find value in? The same things as everyone else. My wife, children, nature, the mountains, trees, everything around me. I don't need a god to have meaning in my life.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 23, 2011, 01:13:35 AM
I am an evil person--we all are!
No, we're not and it's unbelievably sad that you've bought that line of BS for yourself.
QuoteWhat's baffling to me, though, is how an atheist could consider an animal and/or it's behavior good or evil. Are there evil bears? Can dolphins be evil? If not, why do you classify humans as evil-able?
Are you truly not aware of human society and the social order/morality we construct for ourselves to make it workable? It's like some theists live in a bubble.
QuoteTank, I'm simply asking you and other atheists to articulate what brings you value in your life and why.
You were asking originally about the value of atheist
evangelism (which I still dispute your examples of), not the value of an atheist
life. Which is it?
QuoteWhat does sweet FA mean?
Sweet fuck all. Do you need BS explained too?
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 23, 2011, 02:42:58 AM
Sweet fuck all. Do you need BS explained too?
And there's always WYSIWYG. That's always been a favourite of mine.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 07:05:47 PM
The volume of atheistic evangelism--that is, proactive attempts to convince others that God does not exist--has ratcheted up a great deal even in my short lifetime. Could the atheists here shed some light on their reasons for doing so?
The establishment of a new world view based in reality, not silly superstition. We'll never evolve as a species until we're all on the same page and that cannot ever happen with religion.
QuoteSaid differently, what value are you trying to create (if that's, in fact, what you're doing) and by what standard could it be considered valuable?
All atheists are different and have different motives - personally speaking it annoys me that people are taken in by this god garbage, as for values - not being gullible would be the first one I'd try and get across.
Quote from: Attila on October 23, 2011, 12:24:23 PM
And there's always WYSIWYG. That's always been a favourite of mine.
OK, I do need that one explained.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 23, 2011, 05:10:25 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 23, 2011, 12:24:23 PM
And there's always WYSIWYG. That's always been a favourite of mine.
OK, I do need that one explained.
Your wish=my command. Dates from the old word processor days (Wordstar, FinalWord, etc) I just to run WS on my DEC Rainbow using CP/M 8 bit OS.
WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET
we take it for granted today but it was a big deal in the 80's. Oh, and it's pronounced wizzy-wig
What you see is what you get.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 23, 2011, 02:42:58 AM
Quote from: bandit4god on October 23, 2011, 01:13:35 AM
QuoteWhat does sweet FA mean?
Sweet fuck all. Do you need BS explained too?
It actually means sweet Fanny Adams.
Fanny Adams was a young girl that got killed and butchered in the 19th century, the term "sweet Fanny Adams" was what the newspapers called the girl, but it got its slang association (which does mean the same thing as fuck all) from the British Royal Navy who were issued with cans of tinned mutton around the time and started referring to the tins as "sweet fanny adams". It caught on and anything that was a poor cut of meat got refereed to as "sweet FA" then later everything that was worthless.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 23, 2011, 03:20:22 PM
The establishment of a new world view based in reality, not silly superstition. We'll never evolve as a species until we're all on the same page and that cannot ever happen with religion.
Again,
why is this something that you value? What standard of value are you referring to when you assert "evolving as a species" as being more valuable than not evolving?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 24, 2011, 03:47:48 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 23, 2011, 03:20:22 PM
The establishment of a new world view based in reality, not silly superstition. We'll never evolve as a species until we're all on the same page and that cannot ever happen with religion.
Again, why is this something that you value? What standard of value are you referring to when you assert "evolving as a species" as being more valuable than not evolving?
Why do I value reality over make believe? ::)
Do I really need to answer that?
As for evolving as a species, my personal value marker would be dropping superstitions that cause conflict. We'll never be a peaceful world, but we could get nearer to that if we eradicate religion. I'd call less wars and getting along better "evolving", wouldn't you?
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 24, 2011, 11:00:57 PM
As for evolving as a species, my personal value marker would be dropping superstitions that cause conflict. We'll never be a peaceful world, but we could get nearer to that if we eradicate religion. I'd call less wars and getting along better "evolving", wouldn't you?
Nope, I wouldn't call that "evolving" in a technical sense (as in evolution by natural selection). Evolution in the technical sense is blind and purposeless. I'd call "getting along better" progress. Does that work for you?
Atheism needs positive promotion.
This rubbish about "Good without God" just provokes people, and makes us out to be the bad people.
We need to emphasise what Atheism really means. The ability to think for ones' self, to be selfless, non judgmental, supportive, compassionate, inclusive, value diversity, value the individual, value progress, value culture.
We need to make Atheism cool. We ought to have a symbol, synonymous with a sense of belonging to this group. The symbol needs to be cool, not too scientific, not anti, but positive and bright. We need pendants, shirts, whatever, with some great art.
Fund some community events, e.g. family day, cultural day,... something that can embrace and showcase diversity and help to unite and glorify us in our diversity.
We don't need to compete with religions in their charity events, we all know that is a double edged sword, they will never provide charity without evangalising.
We just need to be much more positive and smarter with regards to promoting Atheism. Most people don't even know what an Atheist is? The majority of Atheists claim to be Agnostic, because they think Atheism is something negative, when really these people are Atheists, they are just scared to associate with the term Atheist, because their perceptions are grossly incorrect.
We need brand recognition, how hard can it be to let people know that an Atheist simply meant a person who does not have a belief in gods?
Quote from: Stevil on October 25, 2011, 05:59:05 AM
We need to make Atheism cool. We ought to have a symbol, synonymous with a sense of belonging to this group. The symbol needs to be cool, not too scientific, not anti, but positive and bright. We need pendants, shirts, whatever, with some great art.
Fuck that!
I hope that was a a little dig at religion rather than a serious proposition, the reason being if you change the word atheism with Christianity that is exactly what you will find various sects of Christianity (and other religions) are doing.
The worst thing you can do is turn atheism into a brand, it needs stay individual and personal. As soon as you start trying to turn it into a something that reflects more than a disbelief in a god by making into some sort of organization it is practically creating a religion out of it, I don't know if I am alone in this but is something I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with. There are of amazing art, design, music, literature, plays and movies being created by atheists at the moment but it isn't being glorified as being a display of atheism and needs to stay this way.
Quote from: Stevil on October 25, 2011, 05:59:05 AM
We need to make Atheism cool. We ought to have a symbol, synonymous with a sense of belonging to this group. The symbol needs to be cool, not too scientific, not anti, but positive and bright. We need pendants, shirts, whatever, with some great art.
Fund some community events, e.g. family day, cultural day,... something that can embrace and showcase diversity and help to unite and glorify us in our diversity.
That's basically what we are trying to do with Fellowship of Freethought (and I'll humbly mention that I think the logo I came up with after a group idea session fits pretty well with what you are suggesting)....but for some reason the more an atheist/freethought group focuses on community building the more likely atheists are to think it feels churchy and not want to participate (I assume that is due to some kind of emotional damage from their past church experience and not having had any kind of community outside of church life). Personally, I'm fine as long as we don't have to repeat after the 'leader' or any other ritualistic type things that actually are churchy.
Quote from: Crow on October 25, 2011, 02:23:25 PM
Quote from: Stevil on October 25, 2011, 05:59:05 AM
We need to make Atheism cool. We ought to have a symbol, synonymous with a sense of belonging to this group. The symbol needs to be cool, not too scientific, not anti, but positive and bright. We need pendants, shirts, whatever, with some great art.
<snip>
The worst thing you can do is turn atheism into a brand, it needs stay individual and personal. As soon as you start trying to turn it into a something that reflects more than a disbelief in a god by making into some sort of organization it is practically creating a religion out of it, I don't know if I am alone in this but is something I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with.
You are not alone in this. I reject the idea that atheists are a group.
Gathering atheists together is like herding cats. It runs against the laws of nature. Ignostics are even worse.
Quote from: Ildiko on October 25, 2011, 03:05:43 PM
You are not alone in this. I reject the idea that atheists are a group.
Well, we do have one defining characteristic in going one god further (Well... A few million gods further when ompared to like India) than everyone else when it comes to lack of belief.
I think that gives us cause to unite in order to procure me world domination. Because... Because... That's what going one god further is all about.
There. How is that for a group ideology, should we decide to get one? ;D
Quote from: Stevil on October 25, 2011, 05:59:05 AM
We need to emphasise what Atheism really means. The ability to think for ones' self, to be selfless, non judgmental, supportive, compassionate, inclusive, value diversity, value the individual, value progress, value culture.
The problem here is that I don't think think atheism automatically has anything to do with any of that. Some individual atheists may well have these qualities but that would probably also be true of them if they were theists.
Quote from: Stevil on October 25, 2011, 05:59:05 AM
Atheism needs positive promotion.
This rubbish about "Good without God" just provokes people, and makes us out to be the bad people.
We need to emphasise what Atheism really means. The ability to think for ones' self, to be selfless, non judgmental, supportive, compassionate, inclusive, value diversity, value the individual, value progress, value culture.
We need to make Atheism cool. We ought to have a symbol, synonymous with a sense of belonging to this group. The symbol needs to be cool, not too scientific, not anti, but positive and bright. We need pendants, shirts, whatever, with some great art.
Fund some community events, e.g. family day, cultural day,... something that can embrace and showcase diversity and help to unite and glorify us in our diversity.
We don't need to compete with religions in their charity events, we all know that is a double edged sword, they will never provide charity without evangalising.
We just need to be much more positive and smarter with regards to promoting Atheism. Most people don't even know what an Atheist is? The majority of Atheists claim to be Agnostic, because they think Atheism is something negative, when really these people are Atheists, they are just scared to associate with the term Atheist, because their perceptions are grossly incorrect.
We need brand recognition, how hard can it be to let people know that an Atheist simply meant a person who does not have a belief in gods?
What is the difference between atheism's promotion, which Stevil advocates, and atheistic evangelism?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 05:31:04 PM
What is the difference between atheism's promotion, which Stevil advocates, and atheistic evangelism?
I'm sure he'll answer if he can be arsed. My atheism (ignosticism, actually) is merely derivative. I don't attribute much importance to it per se. It's simply a consequence of something much more fundamental and important (at least to me.)
I see what stevil is getting at here. It is not as much about organizing into a group as it is to get people to understand that we aren't horrible people who are going to break into your house in the night and eat your children. Ever notice the reactions of people when you tell them you are an atheist? It is because they (thanks to the churches) associate atheism with satan worship. I think it would be a good thing to change this perception, not necessarily to de-convert anyone, but so people understand that we are not bad evil people.
Just for the sake of argument, and to see what the replies are, What exactly is wrong with atheistic evangelism? What would be wrong with trying to de-convert people?
Quote from: Xjeepguy on October 25, 2011, 06:01:53 PM
I see what stevil is getting at here. It is not as much about organizing into a group as it is to get people to understand that we aren't horrible people who are going to break into your house in the night and eat your children. Ever notice the reactions of people when you tell them you are an atheist? It is because they (thanks to the churches) associate atheism with satan worship. I think it would be a good thing to change this perception, not necessarily to de-convert anyone, but so people understand that we are not bad evil people.
I'm just interested in why do you care what church folk think about your atheism? I personally don't care but then again I have never come across any persecution due to my atheism.
Quote from: Xjeepguy on October 25, 2011, 06:01:53 PM
I see what stevil is getting at here. It is not as much about organizing into a group as it is to get people to understand that we aren't horrible people who are going to break into your house in the night and eat your children. Ever notice the reactions of people when you tell them you are an atheist? It is because they (thanks to the churches) associate atheism with satan worship. I think it would be a good thing to change this perception, not necessarily to de-convert anyone, but so people understand that we are not bad evil people.
Which is what makes it not evangelism.
QuoteJust for the sake of argument, and to see what the replies are, What exactly is wrong with atheistic evangelism? What would be wrong with trying to de-convert people?
Not wrong, just annoying and presumptuous. Also probably a waste of time since I think people are far more likely to deconvert on their own than because they're nagged or insulted into it.
pro·mote (pr-mt)
tr.v. pro·mot·ed, pro·mot·ing, pro·motes
1.
a. To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank.
b. To advance (a student) to the next higher grade.
2. To contribute to the progress or growth of; further. See Synonyms at advance.
3. To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment.
4. To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity: commercials promoting a new product.
5. To help establish or organize (a new enterprise), as by securing financial backing: promote a Broadway show.
Still lacks the "and you should too" of evangelizing.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 25, 2011, 04:47:25 PM
Quote from: Stevil on October 25, 2011, 05:59:05 AM
We need to emphasise what Atheism really means. The ability to think for ones' self, to be selfless, non judgmental, supportive, compassionate, inclusive, value diversity, value the individual, value progress, value culture.
The problem here is that I don't think think atheism automatically has anything to do with any of that. Some individual atheists may well have these qualities but that would probably also be true of them if they were theists.
Emphasis on the phrase "The ability to... "
Why promote Atheism, because people by and large don't know what it is and often have negative perception of it.
There are people out there that would be willing to try it out but may be afraid of what it is.
I think Atheism is powerful and naturally leads to a more tolerant, accepting and peaceful society.
We also need more surveys, to highlight this, e.g. like the low proportion of Atheists in prison.
The extremely low proportion of Atheists that are anti-homosexuality...
Quote from: Xjeepguy on October 25, 2011, 06:01:53 PM
Just for the sake of argument, and to see what the replies are, What exactly is wrong with atheistic evangelism? What would be wrong with trying to de-convert people?
Exactly the same thing that is wrong with religious evangelism. If I don't want evangelicals knocking on my door or stopping me in the street, trying to convert me to their point of view, then I should offer them the same courtesy.
Of course, the moment they DO knock on my door, they're fair game! ;D
Quote from: Whitney on October 25, 2011, 02:46:53 PM
That's basically what we are trying to do with Fellowship of Freethought (and I'll humbly mention that I think the logo I came up with after a group idea session fits pretty well with what you are suggesting)
Whitney, for what little I know about you, I really admire you and what you are actively doing.
Have you posted your logo anywhere?
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 25, 2011, 07:14:40 PM
Still lacks the "and you should too" of evangelizing.
Read closely...
- "to urge the adoption of..."
- "to attempt to sell or popularize..."
If there's one thing that we could learn from the religious it is the community-sense, which really could go a long way, even if just to make people more knowledgeable about what atheism isn't (easier to do that than what atheism is), which would not mean trying to deconvert people or pushing beliefs onto others.
Atheists are one of the least trusted minorities, a huge "we exist!" campaign could be productive (many groups are already doing this) especially since people see that the average joe who they might have even thought was like them (i.e religious) because he was a good decent person is actually an atheist. He doesn't hate something which he doesn't even believe in, but just has better arguments and very good reasons for not accepting theist's claims.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 08:04:25 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 25, 2011, 07:14:40 PM
Still lacks the "and you should too" of evangelizing.
Read closely...
- "to urge the adoption of..."
- "to attempt to sell or popularize..."
b4g
You read this closely. One more patronising post like this and I'll restrict your access to 'Getting to know you' until you can convince me you are not here to troll. Your replies today have been way out of line and this is the last straw.
Tank
Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 08:04:25 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 25, 2011, 07:14:40 PM
Still lacks the "and you should too" of evangelizing.
Read closely...
- "to urge the adoption of..."
- "to attempt to sell or popularize..."
Read closely yourself. Neither of these were what Stevil was suggesting.
Quote from: Stevil on October 25, 2011, 07:29:29 PM
Whitney, for what little I know about you, I really admire you and what you are actively doing.
thanks!
QuoteHave you posted your logo anywhere?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffofdallas.org%2Fimages%2Flogo1.png&hash=da6e2331010923096284a70cde619984711d8630)
http://fofdallas.org/images/logo1.png
Wow, that's a great logo! Fine use of the freethought pansy (http://symbolism.wikia.com/wiki/Pansy), and I love the way you've also worked a circle of people into the design. Excellent work, Whitney!
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 25, 2011, 08:19:13 PM
Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 08:04:25 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 25, 2011, 07:14:40 PM
Still lacks the "and you should too" of evangelizing.
Read closely...
- "to urge the adoption of..."
- "to attempt to sell or popularize..."
Read closely yourself. Neither of these were what Stevil was suggesting.
These are the very definition of "promote", a word stevil used many times.
bandit....it has been made expressly clear that no one here wants to actively recruit new atheists and that to "evangelize" someone means to try to recruit new members to a belief. So, what's the problem?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 10:19:06 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 25, 2011, 08:19:13 PM
Quote from: bandit4god on October 25, 2011, 08:04:25 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 25, 2011, 07:14:40 PM
Still lacks the "and you should too" of evangelizing.
Read closely...
- "to urge the adoption of..."
- "to attempt to sell or popularize..."
Read closely yourself. Neither of these were what Stevil was suggesting.
These are the very definition of "promote", a word stevil used many times.
I'm not sure why people are getting worked up. It is no big deal if we evangalize Atheism or not.
Myself, I was talking about promoting what the term means and showing some facts that may debunk some preconceptions people have. I am not promoting a recruitment drive, although there would be nothing wrong with doing so.
I really do see Atheism as being for tolerance and appreciation of diversity, not for converging people into one thought pattern.
Love the logo Whitney, I could see myself wearing a gold, greenstone or bone carving pendant of that.
Even a discrete logo on a shirt or hat or bumper sticker, if done with style it could be fun.
I'm just sitting here thinking about how nice that would look on a black shirt. 8)
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 26, 2011, 02:57:59 PM
I'm just sitting here thinking about how nice that would look on a black shirt. 8)
This.
I'd buy one.
we actually do have a cafe press store set up http://www.cafepress.com/fofdallas
but we also need to add more options to it; especially for anyone that doesn't want fofdalla.org really big.