To atheists/non-believers: Why the evangelism?

reply to post by Anonymous404


Argue with Etyology.

reply to post by Wolf321


EVERYONE who is an atheist is agnostic.

If we were to make a scale of agnosticism from 1 to 10, no one atheist is a ten. Even Richard Dawkins (the sexist arse whom I despise yet is a very reputable evolutionary biologist) considers himself an 8 on this scale. He simply sees no reason to have to define it and gave himself the label as an atheist.

Evidence doesn't lie on the negative side of an argument. We don't have faith in no existence of a god, just have no faith in existence of a god.

The lack of faith isn't faith.

Personally, I never go out of my way to talk about my lack of faith. In my personal life I only talk about it when I'm either alone with friends or when someone asks me.

EDIT:

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by Anonymous404

 

Argue with Etyology.

I believe in no divine power and have taken no monastic vows. Neither have any other atheist/agnostic.

There's just so much aggression and nihilism and rage. I've seen that with Dawkins, as well.

Stephen Fry is the closest thing I've seen to an atheist who actually seems somewhat happy. I've never known any non-famous atheists who were.

I see a lot of arrogance, worship of a Cartesian materialism which assumes that every life form on the planet is simply a dead robot of whatever kind, and anger.

I don't see happiness. I don't see peace. I've never heard of a self-identifying atheistic charitable organisation that does the sort of positive work which some Christian denominations do, despite the other problems with Christian behaviour that I admit exists.

I really don't understand how being an atheist actually benefits someone. Aside from the simple answer of, "because it's the truth," I've noticed that the answer that most atheists give, usually reduces down to a power issue. Something like what Annee said.

"I don't want to believe in God, because Christianity depicted God as being an authority figure. I don't like authority figures, because most of the ones that exist today are corrupt and psychopathic, so I'm used to assuming that authority figures in general are like that. I also haven't been able to figure out that if Nature (or any sort of co-ordinating intelligence that might have been responsible for the origination of life) was the sort of psychotic tyrant that Christians have told me to think their God is, that life in general would logically not be able to exist."

This implies to me, that atheism in most cases doesn't actually have anything to do with whether or not God (in whatever form, Christian or otherwise) actually exists, at all.

It has a lot more to do with the atheistic assumption that if God in any form does exist, then he/she/it must inevitably be a psychopathic tyrant, simply because most humans in positions of power are, and the atheist in question does not want to be subjugated by an entity which he/she is incapable of conceiving as not being a tyrant.

So the real issue is political, not ontological or spiritual, at all.

reply to post by petrus4


I'm very happy and peaceful, and I'm not yet famous. And there's a long list of famous athiests(www.celebatheists.com...), and an even longer list of those who aren't(www.atheistnexus.org...).

www.squidoo.com...

here are some good charities for you.

Originally posted by Anonymous404
EVERYONE who is an atheist is agnostic.

If we were to make a scale of agnosticism from 1 to 10, no one atheist is a ten.

Arguing this is like arguing what subcategory of Christianity is really Christian. Contrasting Catholics and Baptists, or Methodist and Lutherans.

At the basis, an Agnostic can neither believe there is or isn't something. Atheism and agnosticism may be related, but are not the same.

Personally, I never go out of my way to talk about my lack of faith. In my personal life I only talk about it when I'm either alone with friends or when someone asks me.

That's good.

ETA:

The lack of faith isn't faith.

So you say that you do not believe in a god. Do you believe that there is no god?

Originally posted by Anonymous404
reply to post by petrus4

 

www.squidoo.com...

This is something very positive. I've bookmarked this. I think in future when I encounter an online atheist who is foaming at the mouth, I will quote this URL; not only to inform the atheist themselves that some among them are doing something constructive, rather than just being a aggressive fanatics, but so that non-atheists are made aware of it as well.

It might stop Christians making the assumption that atheism necessarily implies amorality. Said assumptiion is one that I do not make myself. I know that atheists can be good, if they choose to be; it's just that a lot of them that I encounter don't choose to be, because they're too busy engaging in scientistic, arrogant triumphalism, and being furiously angry.

reply to post by petrus4


I like you.

Your reply made me very happy.

as far as i'm concerned, vive la difference. whatever your faith, or whether you have one at all. but i too don't like to be beaten about the head with a particular point of view. whether it be contrary to my own, or not. sometimes less is truly more, and those who aggressively push their opinions on others do themselves, and their kind, a disservice.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by Anonymous404
reply to post by petrus4

 

www.squidoo.com...

This is something very positive. I've bookmarked this. I think in future when I encounter an online atheist who is foaming at the mouth, I will quote this URL; not only to inform the atheist themselves that some among them are doing something constructive, rather than just being a aggressive fanatics, but so that non-atheists are made aware of it as well.

It might stop Christians making the assumption that atheism necessarily implies amorality. Said assumptiion is one that I do not make myself. I know that atheists can be good, if they choose to be; it's just that a lot of them that I encounter don't choose to be, because they're too busy engaging in scientistic, arrogant triumphalism, and being furiously angry.

Some of the most morally upstanding people I've ever met in my life were Atheists (or at best, agnostics). In fact, I'd say Christians have a pretty terrible track record when it comes to morality (myself included). If you read the thread in it's entirety, I've never ONCE made the claim morality is impossible without a belief in God. That is a philosophical debate outside of the scope of this thread.

Where I draw issue here (specifically) is in regards to the proselytism we see in the atheist movements today.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by Sailor Sam
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

I am an atheist and I am sick and tired of people like you forcing god, who I believe does not exist, down my throat.
You keep your religious beliefs to yourself (ie - don't talk about them) and I will keep my atheist beliefs to myself.
You see it is people like me who only respond to religious clap-trap espoused by people like you.
If you shut up, I will shut up, don't try and brainwash me.
You are trying to silence people who do not share your belief, but in a free society that does not work.
So live and let live.

Ridiculous. Make some more random assumptions please

I make it a habit not to do ANY of the things you just accused me of. I think this thread is becoming more and more telling as it grows. It's becoming obvious where the real prejudice lies.

Yes it lies within the religious bigots who insist that they alone know the "truth".
Then you fight everybody who disagrees with you, especially other religious bigots who have a different version of the "thruth".
pathetic.
I firmly believe in the statement "beware of any religion where the men in charge wear dresses."
This includes television bible bashers, roman catholics, muslims, anglican clergy etc etc etc.

Originally posted by Sailor Sam

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by Sailor Sam
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

I am an atheist and I am sick and tired of people like you forcing god, who I believe does not exist, down my throat.
You keep your religious beliefs to yourself (ie - don't talk about them) and I will keep my atheist beliefs to myself.
You see it is people like me who only respond to religious clap-trap espoused by people like you.
If you shut up, I will shut up, don't try and brainwash me.
You are trying to silence people who do not share your belief, but in a free society that does not work.
So live and let live.

Ridiculous. Make some more random assumptions please

I make it a habit not to do ANY of the things you just accused me of. I think this thread is becoming more and more telling as it grows. It's becoming obvious where the real prejudice lies.

Yes it lies within the religious bigots who insist that they alone know the "truth".
Then you fight everybody who disagrees with you, especially other religious bigots who have a different version of the "thruth".
pathetic.
I firmly believe in the statement "beware of any religion where the men in charge wear dresses."
This includes television bible bashers, roman catholics, muslims, anglican clergy etc etc etc.

Kind of like you just did?

Originally posted by Wolf321

At the basis, an Agnostic can neither believe there is or isn't something. Atheism and agnosticism may be related, but are not the same.

Agnosticism: The Basis for Atheism

What is Agnosticism? Agnosticism is a recent concept, introduced by Thomas Huxley, the famous friend and advocate of Darwin, to describe his own concerns about knowledge and belief. It is derived from the Greek roots a- for 'no' or 'without' and gnosis for 'knowledge.' Dictionary definitions, which are often worse than useless, tend to depict it as the position that certain things, like god(s), are unknown or ultimately unknowable; in common usage it is a third religious position between Atheism or Theism. The Oxford World Encyclopedia goes so far as to declare that it is a \reasoned basis for the rejection of both Christianity and Atheism\.

However, neither dictionaries nor common usage reflect Huxley's intent in coining the term. His original formulation of the concept goes as follows:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as, in matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.

In this characterization, which we can take as authoritative, there is no mention of belief in general or of religion in particular. Rather, it addresses what we should and can claim to know. It is akin to skepticism in the less extreme sense: not that it is impossible to have knowledge or that we have none but that we should not claim to have knowledge that we do not have.

Agnosticism, then, is not a branch of religion but of epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge: what is it possible to say that we know with some acceptable degree of certainty, and how do we know that we know it? More accurately, it is a method in regard to knowledge, a method for separating out what we can justifiably say we know from what we cannot justifiably say we know. It is certainly not a body of particular knowledge, nor is it a position to take on any particular issue. It is the process by which to arrive at such knowledge on which to base one's position. atheists.org...

Originally posted by Sailor Sam

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by Sailor Sam
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

I am an atheist and I am sick and tired of people like you forcing god, who I believe does not exist, down my throat.
You keep your religious beliefs to yourself (ie - don't talk about them) and I will keep my atheist beliefs to myself.
You see it is people like me who only respond to religious clap-trap espoused by people like you.
If you shut up, I will shut up, don't try and brainwash me.
You are trying to silence people who do not share your belief, but in a free society that does not work.
So live and let live.

Ridiculous. Make some more random assumptions please

I make it a habit not to do ANY of the things you just accused me of. I think this thread is becoming more and more telling as it grows. It's becoming obvious where the real prejudice lies.

Yes it lies within the religious bigots who insist that they alone know the "truth".
Then you fight everybody who disagrees with you, especially other religious bigots who have a different version of the "thruth".
pathetic.
I firmly believe in the statement "beware of any religion where the men in charge wear dresses."
This includes television bible bashers, roman catholics, muslims, anglican clergy etc etc etc.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. From the sounds of it, it's only a matter of time until atheists are wearing dresses too.

"If atheism is a belief, then off is a TV channel"

Atheists have no system of belief, Christians and other various religions have yet to give us any proof that a divine entity exists (No the bible does not constitute evidence, anyone could write a "Bible" and claim its true)

On topic though, I have seen many atheists (including myself) do this, I think its more so the newer people who convert to atheism that are the majority of the guilty party. When i first became one I was bad with it, mostly focusing my evangelism towards young earth creationists and people who want to teach creation and "ID" in school as a fact.

Im not near that bad any more and don't preach my "Atheism" to people of religion. I agree OP that it is ironic that Atheist' "Preach" about their non-belief.

reply to post by GR1ill3d


I, myself, was once guilty of being a evangelical atheist. I realized that being a peaceful atheist actually did more for the cause than being so militant about it.

reply to post by Annee


Cute how you used an atheist websites interpretation to make a point on agnosticism.

I stand by my claim. Agnostics make no determination or assumption as to either side of the issue of belief in or against a god.

At its simplest levels, you can only have three options: to believe (deist/theist), to be unable to say one way or the other (agnostics) and to believe in the absence of a god (atheist)

Originally posted by Anonymous404
reply to post by petrus4

 

I like you.

Your reply made me very happy.

If I'm honest, I tend to think of myself as something close to agnosticism. In practical terms, yes I believe in God; and I actually believe in (at least speculatively) a lot of things which to strong atheism, would probably seem very silly, but I always maintain the idea in the back of my mind, that it could all just be in my head, and that when I die, there might not be anything there at all. I think a person of faith has to do that, if they are going to consider themselves really honest.

The main reason for my own theism, has simply been that it assists me (to the degree that I'm active with it, at least; and truthfully I need to be a lot moreso) in maintaining psychological equilibrium. If I'm doing puja (the equivalent of Catholic communion) regularly, then I find that I am not motivated to take drugs, eat junk food, or engage in other pathological forms of psychological bandaid behaviour.

So if there is one thing which I'd encourage atheists to be aware of, it's that in the case of some of us, the main reason why we retain theistic belief, is because it can be genuinely and practically beneficial.

When I say this, however, I want to emphasise that I'm not trying to be evangelical. As I've mentioned before, Stephen Fry to me is a prominent example of atheistic homeostasis, or some degree of psychological equilibrium. I'm not accusing him of perfection here, at all; I'm sure he probably still has bad days, as we all do.

The point, however, is that Mr. Fry has identified that for him, homosexuality and atheism are necessary for the maintenance of whatever degree of psychological wellbeing that he *can* have. For myself, on the other hand, theism is. If I was going to be honest, active heterosexuality would probably make me happier than I currently am as well; but I've also found that when I'm more spiritually active than I am at the moment, the lack of sex ceases to bother me as well.

reply to post by petrus4


How very honest of you.
I'm sure you also understand that it doesn't take something like your sort of routine to stay away from drugs/excess and stay moral for absolutely everyone.

You're probably one of the theists who keeps a "to each his own" kind of philosophy on the whole matter. Kudos.

Originally posted by GR1ill3d
"If atheism is a belief, then off is a TV channel"

Atheists have no system of belief, Christians and other various religions have yet to give us any proof that a divine entity exists (No the bible does not constitute evidence, anyone could write a "Bible" and claim its true)

On topic though, I have seen many atheists (including myself) do this, I think its more so the newer people who convert to atheism that are the majority of the guilty party. When i first became one I was bad with it, mostly focusing my evangelism towards young earth creationists and people who want to teach creation and "ID" in school as a fact.

Im not near that bad any more and don't preach my "Atheism" to people of religion. I agree OP that it is ironic that Atheist' "Preach" about their non-belief.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Originally posted by Anonymous404
reply to post by petrus4

 

How very honest of you.
I'm sure you also understand that it doesn't take something like your sort of routine to stay away from drugs/excess and stay moral for absolutely everyone.

I have something of a history with alcohol abuse. Not nearly as chronic as many, perhaps; but periods of binge alcoholism have occurred.

The thing that I eventually learned, is that alcoholism is a response to a stimulus. Usually it is engaged in as an attempt at anaesthesia; a person is trying to deaden the pain of something. What I therefore also learned as a consequence of that, is that if the negative stimulus is removed, the urge to anaesthetise generally also goes as well.

And yes, there are many different potential solutions to such a problem.