Proselytizing atheists

[Shakermaker]

I don't really know why I am posting this, but it took me a while to write down, so just consider it a rant and feel free to reply.

The Hitchens vs. Blair thread and the discussion about the Dawkins video made me realize something that has been in the back of my mind for some time now. I don't like proselytizing atheists. I am irritated by the fact that Richard Dawkins has become the quasi-Pontiff of Atheism. It annoys me because he is turning my belief into something that is almost starting to resemble a religion. Which is a contradiction in terms because this whole thing started about not following a faith in the first place.

Atheism isn't a badge, on the contrary. By saying you are an atheist you simply state that religion doesn't play a role in your life. It doesn't mean you a follower of the non-Faith. You don't need to apply stickers to the bumper of your car, proclaiming your belief. And you certainly don't have to tell everyone that God doesn't exist. I know I don't care, just like I am not bothered by the fact that some of my friends believe in fairy tales.

If I am ever blessed with offspring I will introduce my children to religion and I will try to explain it to them as objective as possible. I will also tell them that you don't necessarily have to believe in a higher being, that you can also believe in yourself and that you as a person can give meaning to life and the people around you. I will try to explain to them what they can believe in, not what they should. I will trust them on making the logical conclusion, just like I did myself.

You can't 'preach' atheism. Contrary to all the faiths, it is something you have to know, not something to believe in. Atheism is an active process of the mind, not a passive belief put there by someone else. It only needs facts, not poster boys.

 

[Eejit]

I think most of us are atheists who are ridiculing religion rather than proselytising.

 

[CptStern]

the religious seem to want to make atheists into a cohesive group. gives them a clearer target

If I am ever blessed with offspring I will introduce my children to religion and I will try to explain it to them as objective as possible. I will also tell them that you don't necessarily have to believe in a higher being, that you can also believe in yourself and that you as a person can give meaning to life and the people around you. I will try to explain to them what they can believe in, not what they should.

I've done this ..and then some christian came along and ruined everything. no really. my son's devout christian friend (he's 7) pushes his religion to the point where he ridicules him and others for believing in santa or going out for halloween

it's hard to tell your kid to be respectful of other people's belief systems when in my experience they dont teach their kids the same

 

[Maestro]

I think most of the animosity each side accords to the other boils down to people are dicks.

 

[Sulkdodds]

In what way is Dawkins the pontiff of atheism and in what way is support for him anything like a religion? Don't give me something wishy-washy like "people support him and he tries to speak for them"; with that logic any attempted spokesman for any group or tradition can be accused of the same thing, and it's only happening here because we're in the religious arena to start with. Dawkins does not dictate a doctrine, he isn't universally supported, and he isn't uncritically followed. He's a writer, a publicist. Big whoop.

I don't agree with this bugbear that 'atheism isn't a badge'. Like it or not, it is. In a culture where Christianity is the default perspective - like most of America - to be a declared atheist is to be labelled as something other. Moreover, atheism cannot only be construed in terms of absence. To say that one does not believe in something is - again whether you like it or not - a kind of positive statement. Anarchists don't agree with the state; you might as well say that they can't band together and advocate. Of course, as with anarchism, atheism is a very wide term because it implies nothing beyond lack of belief in god (or belief in no god - a distinction which I think little off). But people like Dawkins and Hitchens are obviously trying to reverse that, to form a deliberate substantial atheist position that can make attacks and mount defences without being accused of insubstantiality. In Dawkins' case, this is an explicitly and specifically humanist position - notice how these days he is advocating for us all to come out as 'humanists'. That's a substantial belief, not just an abstention.

Rightly or wrongly, they are doing this - creating an atheist bloc, if you will - because they think it's necessary to stand against the encroachment of modern fundamentalist religion. They think that being wishy washy and standing back and saying "atheism isn't a badge, man, I don't care, I'm not involved" is playing into the hands of the religious - because they ARE willing to get involved, they ARE willing to come forward, and they DO propose a substantial ideological solution - no matter how stupid it is. And their 'proselytizing' is aimed at keeping a substantial alternative constantly alive in public discourse.

Fundamentally, all statements of belief about the state of the world are equally 'substantial'. To claim positive belief in a god is not to somehow say metaphysically 'more' than to negatively declare disbelief. As statements about the world, both are on equal footing, because you cannot speak without making a claim. It's like writing a book and then telling people it's not 'political', that it wasn't supposed to be about that. In fact it is political insofar as it refuses the importance of political concerns, and as Bertolt Brecht says, anything that ties not to be political is by default on the side of the winners. Just so, both Dawkins and Hitchens believe that religious has genuinely harmful effects, and so for them it would be a dereliction of moral duty not to speak out.

At the end of the day, this is important. I'm sick and tired of people complaining about "pushing beliefs". I want people to push their beliefs; if they have beliefs I expect them to push them into my face whenever the opportunity prevents itself. This is subject to conduct; you can do it fairly or obnoxiously, in a good way or a bad (like, not just randomly in a club). But speak it. Get it out there. That's what civil society is for.

 

[Krynn72]

Think of it as counter-proselytizing. The religious do it all the time, as Hitchens pointed out in the video you mention, so the only way to stem the tide of the religious converting people is to try and convince the same people that religion isn't the only option. Annoying? Sure. But I think its a hell of a lot better than apathetic atheists who would let religion do as they please, exacerbating the problems that come with it.

EDIT: Sulk said it better than me

 

[Mr. Djees]

Just so, both Dawkins and Hitchens believe that religious has genuinely harmful effects, and so for them it would be a dereliction of moral duty not to speak out.

At the end of the day, this is important. I'm sick and tired of people complaining about "pushing beliefs". I want people to push their beliefs; if they have beliefs I expect them to push them into my face whenever the opportunity prevents itself. This is subject to conduct; you can do it fairly or obnoxiously, in a good way or a bad (like, not just randomly in a club). But speak it. Get it out there. That's what civil society is for.

This reflects my beliefs as well. I don't mind Jehovas Witnesses knocking on my door because they are pushing their beliefs, that's just the logical conclusion of what their religion tells them, they genuinely believe that the world is going to end and are just trying to save my life, that is the right thing to do. My problem with them is that I think they are wrong.

If it makes you feel any better, Hitchens labels himself as an anti-theist.

 

[Absinthe]

Outside of media figures like Dawkins and the internet, I really have to wonder where people are encountering these proselytizing, "hardcore" atheists. I can't think of too many occasions in my life where I've encountered a really pushy non-believer. I've never seen an atheist seriously attempt to convert or rip into a believer (unless they were really asking for it), but I can't say the same for the reverse. Maybe that's a consequence of theists outnumbering atheists by about a trillion to one, therefore by sheer probability I'm more likely to see a Christian or Muslim make an ass of himself over his faith. But I've found that your average heathen is more likely to keep his true opinions to himself when encountering religious foolery. And why wouldn't they? Saying you don't believe in God can make you a target for many.

 

[PvtRyan]

I agree with Sam Harris on this.

TLDR conclusion:

Finally, I think it’s useful to envision what victory will look like. Again, the analogy with racism seems instructive to me. What will victory against racism look like, should that happy day ever dawn? It certainly won’t be a world in which a majority of people profess that they are “nonracist.” Most likely, it will be a world in which the very concept of separate races has lost its meaning.

 

[Shakermaker]

To make one thing clear: I don't mind atheists speaking up. If it makes people think about the stupidity of religion, then it is a good thing. But what annoys me are for example poster campaigns on buses. A person won't lose his religion because of an add. If anything, it will have the reverse effect.

 

[lord_raken]

I find proselytizing Atheists just as annoying as proselytizing religious people. I think the both do more harm than good.

But why must you belittle my personal beliefs? I'd like to live in a world where I can feel comfortable about my faith even amongst my Atheist friends but even the more rational atheists (like you) make that difficult by showing only contempt for those beliefs.

I do not begrudge you for you literal understanding of the natural world. You are not crazy in believing in only what can be proven... I just think you lack imagination and a sense of a greater purpose other than F**king and propagating the species. That is our physical purpose, no doubt about that. We are here (in part) to make sure the species continues. I simple believe in something greater than that existence. Is that so stupid you can't even talk about faith without portraying it as anything other that a superstitious delusion?

If you think I'm unaware of how strange faith can sound then you are also mistaken. I know very well.

 

[No Limit]

But why must you belittle my personal beliefs? I'd like to live in a world where I can feel comfortable about my faith even amongst my Atheist friends but even the more rational atheists (like you) make that difficult by showing only contempt for those beliefs.

The reason you feel uncomfortable is because the most basic questions about these beliefs are found to be controversial, when they shouldn't be. Outside the internet I only discuss religion with close family and sometimes close friends. I only do this when they bring it up. And when you ask them the most basic questions about what they believe suddenly you're the asshole because you're making them uncomfortable.

 

[Shakermaker]

@lord_raken
I am not belittling your beliefs, I am simply stating my own opinion. In my reality religions are nothing more than figments of the imagination, fairy tales to give explanations for stuff some minds have trouble to comprehend. I respect your right to believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, but respect my right to call it nonsense.

EDIT No Limit has a good point too.

 

[CptStern]

But why must you belittle my personal beliefs? I'd like to live in a world where I can feel comfortable about my faith even amongst my Atheist friends but even the more rational atheists (like you) make that difficult by showing only contempt for those beliefs.

would you belittle the beliefs of someone who believed in santa claus? because the idea of santa is ridiculous right? well that's how most non religious people see religion: as a series of illogical irrational beliefs that people cling to despite the obviousness of how irrational it is.


also it doesnt hurt that christians bend over backwards to impose their POV on the rest of us

 

[Shakermaker]

also it doesnt hurt that christians bend over backwards to impose their POV on the rest of us

Don't forget the Muslims.

 

[CptStern]

well I only know 2 muslims (well) and if anything it's the opposite; they have come to terms that we are infidels and dont try to preach their religion

 

[Absinthe]

I do not begrudge you for you literal understanding of the natural world. You are not crazy in believing in only what can be proven... I just think you lack imagination and a sense of a greater purpose other than F**king and propagating the species. That is our physical purpose, no doubt about that. We are here (in part) to make sure the species continues. I simple believe in something greater than that existence. Is that so stupid you can't even talk about faith without portraying it as anything other that a superstitious delusion?

Well, I can't speak for anybody else. But the point of my existence isn't the propagation of the humanity. Saying something like that belies a kind of arrogance that's offputting to atheists. As if you have some kind of expanded worldview that us mere naturalists can't tap into, and the purpose of our lives is to eat and mate or some bullshit like that. I don't think either atheists or theists have some greater capacity for creativity, spirituality, or the ability to appreciate greater concepts like love, friendship, or compassion. I just think your belief in a god unfounded.

 

[Shakermaker]

well I only know 2 muslims (well) and if anything it's the opposite; they have come to terms that we are infidels and dont try to preach their religion

The Muslims and Christians I know aren't the converting type neither. But followers of both faiths in general are trying to impose their point of view on me or the community in general. To give you a couple of Dutch examples: prohibiting shops to be open on Sundays (Christians), trying to outlaw criticism on religion (Muslims), and violating equal rights (both). This annoys me way more than the original topic of this thread.

 

[jimbo118]

You're a disgrace to your Templar heritage.

 

[Shakermaker]

You're a disgrace to your Templar heritage.

You seem to misinterpret our goals.

 

[CptStern]

The Muslims and Christians I know aren't the converting type neither. But followers of both faiths in general are trying to impose their point of view on me or the community in general. To give you a couple of Dutch examples: prohibiting shops to be open on Sundays (Christians), trying to outlaw criticism on religion (Muslims), and violating equal rights (both). This annoys me way more than the original topic of this thread.

ya the christians freaked out about sunday shopping here but they got over it in the 1980's ..the jews, understandably, were estatic!

 

[lord_raken]

The reason you feel uncomfortable is because the most basic questions about these beliefs are found to be controversial, when they shouldn't be. Outside the internet I only discuss religion with close family and sometimes close friends. I only do this when they bring it up. And when you ask them the most basic questions about what they believe suddenly you're the asshole because you're making them uncomfortable.

I actually love discussion on this topic. The reason I feel uncomfortable is not because they question what I believe it's that atheists I talk to dismiss out of hand any reasons (not arguments) for my own beliefs. Very seldom do I feel that they actually understand where I am coming from or even consider what I say. That is what makes me uncomfortable, the idea that you have already been dismissed as a quack no matter what you say or how reasonably you speak.

@lord_raken
I am not belittling your beliefs, I am simply stating my own opinion. In my reality religions are nothing more than figments of the imagination, fairy tales to give explanations for stuff some minds have trouble to comprehend. I respect your right to believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, but respect my right to call it nonsense.

EDIT No Limit has a good point too.

Fair enough, I respect your position. but calling it nonsense feels belittling as it implies the people who prescribe to those beliefs are somehow stupid or gullible. I have no issue at all with some one saying that they do not believe because they have seen no evidence to support the belief, but that's different from calling it nonsense.

But I do respect your position and opinion. I just want to communicate what it sounds like on my end.

would you belittle the beliefs of someone who believed in santa claus? because the idea of santa is ridiculous right? well that's how most non religious people see religion: as a series of illogical irrational beliefs that people cling to despite the obviousness of how irrational it is.


also it doesnt hurt that christians bend over backwards to impose their POV on the rest of us

This is a major problem in the conversation of religion. I'm trying to fix that but its hard. Both sides see the other are ridiculous and can't understand how their views look to the other side.

Too many people try to make it about Religion vs. Science event though the two are opposing forces. Science is about the how, Religion is about the why.

Well, I can't speak for anybody else. But the point of my existence isn't the propagation of the humanity. Saying something like that belies a kind of arrogance that's offputting to atheists. As if you have some kind of expanded worldview that us mere naturalists can't tap into, and the purpose of our lives is to eat and mate or some bullshit like that. I don't think either atheists or theists have some greater capacity for creativity, spirituality, or the ability to appreciate greater concepts like love, friendship, or compassion. I just think your belief in a god unfounded.[/QUOTE

Yea, sorry about that. It did come across as arrogant. I couldn't help myself from putting a little fire in my post even though I know that is not the prevailing view of most Atheists and you guys on the forums.

 

[Maestro]

I think a lot of people who disregard ideas out of hand could benefit from this:

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle

 

[Krynn72]

I think a lot of people who disregard ideas out of hand could benefit from this:

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle

My problem is that I've done that for years on end, and I've simply exhausted myself on it. At some point you must stop entertaining a notion that has proven itself untrue. I never considered myself an atheist until about half-way through college. I never was particularly religious, but I was an agnostic theist. I entertained the notion that God exists, because surely so many couldn't be wrong. It wasn't until after several years of debating it with myself and others that I decided there was no reason whatsoever to believe in it. I simply could not entertain the idea anymore, because after a period of scrutiny, I found it completely unfounded and really quite silly. And I think that most atheists had a similar experience. We have entertained the thought, and we've found it to be false.

 

[lord_raken]

Not false... but you felt that there was not enough support to merit belief.

You can't say its false because... (you know what's coming).... it hasn't been disproved either.

 

[RidleyRockets]

I actually love discussion on this topic. The reason I feel uncomfortable is not because they question what I believe it's that atheists I talk to dismiss out of hand any reasons (not arguments) for my own beliefs. Very seldom do I feel that they actually understand where I am coming from or even consider what I say. That is what makes me uncomfortable, the idea that you have already been dismissed as a quack no matter what you say or how reasonably you speak.

Fair enough, I respect your position. but calling it nonsense feels belittling as it implies the people who prescribe to those beliefs are somehow stupid or gullible. I have no issue at all with some one saying that they do not believe because they have seen no evidence to support the belief, but that's different from calling it nonsense.

If you profess belief in clearly absurd things don't be offended when people point out just how absurd they are.

People aren't attacking you, they are attacking what you believe which is perfectly fair.

Too many people try to make it about Religion vs. Science event though the two are opposing forces. Science is about the how, Religion is about the why.

Science is about finding answers and religion is about already having all the answers, those answers being "goddidit".

 

[VirusType2]

This is a major problem in the conversation of religion. I'm trying to fix that but its hard. Both sides see the other are ridiculous and can't understand how their views look to the other side.

You see overwhelming evidence to the contrary of religion as ridiculous?

Too many people try to make it about Religion vs. Science event though the two are opposing forces.

This is a contradiction. If you meant to say "even though the two are not opposing forces", I would ask what exactly you mean.

 

[No Limit]

I actually love discussion on this topic. The reason I feel uncomfortable is not because they question what I believe it's that atheists I talk to dismiss out of hand any reasons (not arguments) for my own beliefs. Very seldom do I feel that they actually understand where I am coming from or even consider what I say. That is what makes me uncomfortable, the idea that you have already been dismissed as a quack no matter what you say or how reasonably you speak.

Who dismisses your arguemnts as bullshit without first hearing what you have to say? I don't know very many people that do that. I think you are just assuming that this is what they are doing to you. But the sad fact is that no matter how reasoned or how smart you sound if your belief is that there is a almighty God out there and his word was spoken to us through a holy book 2,000 years ago then your belief is bullshit. And any rational thinking on your part would guide you to that same conclusion. It is rational thinking, not that other people are dismissing your reasoning, that makes you uncomfortable.

The very argument you just tried to make above about "we can't prove otherwise" is in itself irrational. You are asking someone to prove a negative. In any other type of debate this type of argument is instantly dismissed. For example, how do we know Obama wasn't born in Kenya, we didn't see him born? How do we know Bush isn't behind 9/11? We can't prove otherwise.

So if those are the reasons behind your thinking that is why they are being dismissed, religion doesn't have a special set of rules when it comes to debating those ideas.

 

[Krynn72]

Not false... but you felt that there was not enough support to merit belief.

You can't say its false because... (you know what's coming).... it hasn't been disproved either.

No, I mean false. There is enough evidence pointing to the non-existence of God, and not a single piece of evidence suggesting otherwise, for me to feel safe to say that belief in such a being is an incorrect one. There will never be enough evidence to prove the nonexistence of something with 100% certainty, but I am still perfectly safe to say that there is no God. I am just as sure of this as I am that there is no pink bubble named Jeremy floating around in space shooting laser beams at stars to make them go supernova. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest Jeremy exists, and indeed there quite a lot of evidence to show he doesn't. So I say with confidence (not 100% certainty, but close enough as to be an insignificant distinction) that belief in Jeremy is false.

 

[Tyguy]

We're all fairly educated when it comes to religion so the bulk of atheist talking points can come across a bit antiquated. I think that, combined with the rising number of children not being forced into belief, is at the heart of this perception of proselytizing atheists. I would, however, like to smack a large number of atheists who actually hurt the cause by focusing purely on being loud, obnoxious shit kickers.

 

[CptStern]

We're all fairly educated when it comes to religion so the bulk of atheist talking points can come across a bit antiquated. I think that, combined with the rising number of children not being forced into belief, is at the heart of this perception of proselytizing atheists. I would, however, like to smack a large number of atheists who actually hurt the cause by focusing purely on being loud, obnoxious shit kickers.

I think they balance out the batshit insane religious loud obnoxious shit kickers. there seems to be a lot of them. so much of them that I've met several dozen of these shrill loudmouths but have yet to ever meet an openly atheist person much less an openly atheist loud obnoxious preachy person


the thing is that, and I'm not going to pussy foot around this, but the religious people need to STFU because they've been doing exactly what they accuse militant atheists of doing since the dawn of man. we need more loud obnoxious atheists not less

 

[StarBob]

I didn't want to read through this whole thread but my opinion of religion and atheism falls into about the same boundaries. I think a lot of atheists aren't truly atheists either.

Atheism requires that the follower believe 100% that there is no intelligent creator, force, or interaction whatsoever. I think a lot of people are better defined as agnostic. Since human understanding of the universe goes only so far it's just as impossible to prove there is an intelligent being as there isn't one at all. So called "atheists" try to prove their statement by using "science." Both terms are in quotes because neither seems to be used correctly. Scence can only explain so much with certainty.

Personally I think every mainstream standard religion is a little off the wall crazy (when explaining things that have already been scientifically explained). Tracing real history back through time shows us that most religions were just created from explainable events or morphed from other religions. What religion offers is comfort to the masses to believe there's more to this life than living and dying. It's designed to explain the unknown. It was created for that. The first humans who developed the ability to perceive their environment beyond pure survival sought to explain things beyond their understanding. When it rained, to them it wasn't evaporated water condensing and falling back to earth, it was some force beyond their power bringing a life giving substance to them.

I understand how religion has a place in the world. I don't think it should be the job of non-believers to convert the religious or the religious to convert the non-believers. It should be a choice made when presented with information. Neither side is going to make some massive ground in the situation. As science explains more, there will be fewer true religious, but as long as some uncertainty remains it will exist and it will comfort people.

My lack of religion has given me a disposition that leads me to not caring much about my own life. Sure I want to be alive, and I know I want to somehow make the world a little better in my lifetime, but I know that I'm comprised of a bunch of various incognizant parts that were born from the firey hearts of stars... and they themselves were born from even more basic processes. I also know that my tiny clump of matter and energy is so wholly insignificant in the universe that my life and death will ultimately have no effect on anything that happens within it.

Now it seems bleak doesn't it? Some people could never handle that. I never let it get me down though. I want to be successful and do the things humans have done for their enire existence. I'll continue living this way and if I have children one day I won't expect them to do the same. They'll have the option of the same religious freedom I was given. I wish more people were as... indifferent to the spirituality of their fellow humans.

I think this may be a little off topic but I like to verbalize my personal beliefs on religion once in a while... less to tell people and more to remind myself.

 

[Tagaziel]

Not false... but you felt that there was not enough support to merit belief.

You can't say its false because... (you know what's coming).... it hasn't been disproved either.

While indeed absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it's just as fallacious to assume that since it hasn't been disproved, it's certainly possible. There hasn't been a single, undeniable, scientifically valid proof of the existence of a higher power.

Occam's Razor, man.

 

[Absinthe]

Atheism requires that the follower believe 100% that there is no intelligent creator, force, or interaction whatsoever. I think a lot of people are better defined as agnostic. Since human understanding of the universe goes only so far it's just as impossible to prove there is an intelligent being as there isn't one at all. So called "atheists" try to prove their statement by using "science." Both terms are in quotes because neither seems to be used correctly. Scence can only explain so much with certainty.

Don't mean to butt in and nitpick, but here's my take on this.

Atheism is the absence of belief in God. Technically, even if you are "on the fence", you are an atheist because you don't possess an actual belief in deities. Most people who consider themselves agnostic are people I would call atheists. I think they just prefer being called agnostic because it makes them seem "balanced" or something.

I usually use agnosticism as a qualifier for both atheism and theism. For instance, an agnostic atheist is somebody who admits he has no certainty on the existence of God, but doesn't see enough evidence to warrant belief in one. Conversely, a gnostic atheist would be somebody who would claim outright that God does not exist. That latter position does have its issues, but for all practical intents and purposes I'd throw it in the same boat as saying that unicorns don't exist with certainty.