Athiest Evangelising?

Glenster

OK so I can kind of see why a religious group might actively prosthelytize and attempt to convert people (spreading a message of god for all people that will lead to eternal life etc.)

But what is it that athiest groups try to achieve by spreading a message of not-belief?

Is it the same "I'm right, you're wrong, you have to believe this because it's TRUE!!!!" mentality that some of the religions have?

What is the endgame for militant athiests? Christians and muslims believe that once everyone is converted the world will become a kingdom of peace, do athiests believe the same? If so why?

I'm not trolling, I'm just interested. Athiest bus campaigns, athiest summer camps, athiest societies, it's a lot of trouble to go to. For what?

doctoremma

Glenster wrote: »

I'm not trolling, I'm just interested. Athiest bus campaigns, athiest summer camps, athiest societies, it's a lot of trouble to go to. For what?

The right to be free of religion.

Sam Vimes

One major example is that >90% of schools in this country are run by the catholic church so I can't send my child to the local school unless I want him taught that he's born deserving eternal torture and he can only avoid it if he believes that some Jewish guy 2000 years ago walked on water and raised from the dead, that is if he doesn't get refused for not having a baptismal cert. Another example from America, 53% of Americans would not vote for someone if they were an atheist. Just like any other group, lots of atheists have similar political and social goals and the societies represent them.

you'll never hear of a group of people who don't collect stamps but if people were refused entry to schools for not collecting stamps or couldn't get voted into office because they didn't collect stamps you would

iUseVi

Glenster wrote: »

Is it the same "I'm right, you're wrong, you have to believe this because it's TRUE!!!!" mentality that some of the religions have?

No, its the "Don't believe it, its not true!" mentality.

Wacker

If everyone were able to love God the way the Godfather, Randy Couture, chicken curries, or whatever, then imagine I would rarely, if ever, mention religion at all. Unfortunately, religious belief affects how people behave, and this behaviour can often affect me. Therefor I don't see how I can afford to be completely ambivalent towards religion.

fitz0

Glenster wrote: »

What is the endgame for militant athiests?

Money from numerous book deals :pac:

The way I understand proselytizing ala the likes of Dawkins or Hitchens is that religion is too often seen as the default position, that atheism is just a rebellious fad for teenagers. They challenge this, trying (often in vain) to show people that religious beliefs are often ridiculous on even casual inspection. Most people won't ever think to examine the religion they've been brought up in, whereas they are no more religious than any agnostic.

Just because they go to mass and have a good old pray every now and again, that doesn't mean much. As a Catholic, they should at least know the rules and regs of their faith (remember, no touching yourself, that's wrong.)

sink

I want the atheist lobby to have more political power essentially. I want non-believers concerns give a higher precedence when framing legislation and in the management of public services and one way to do that is to increase the size of the atheist vote.

ChocolateSauce

Glenster wrote: »

OK so I can kind of see why a religious group might actively prosthelytize and attempt to convert people (spreading a message of god for all people that will lead to eternal life etc.)

But what is it that athiest groups try to achieve by spreading a message of not-belief?

Is it the same "I'm right, you're wrong, you have to believe this because it's TRUE!!!!" mentality that some of the religions have?

What is the endgame for militant athiests? Christians and muslims believe that once everyone is converted the world will become a kingdom of peace, do athiests believe the same? If so why?

I'm not trolling, I'm just interested. Athiest bus campaigns, athiest summer camps, athiest societies, it's a lot of trouble to go to. For what?

For me, the end game point is when superstition has zero influence on how governments legislate. As long as governments are filled by people who either legislate according to their unprovable beliefs and faith-guided morals, or who pander to a population who want said government to legislate their unprovable beliefs and faith-guided morals, I'll hope for religion to recede and fight to that end.

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

OK so I can kind of see why a religious group might actively prosthelytize and attempt to convert people (spreading a message of god for all people that will lead to eternal life etc.)

But what is it that athiest groups try to achieve by spreading a message of not-belief?

Is it the same "I'm right, you're wrong, you have to believe this because it's TRUE!!!!" mentality that some of the religions have?

What is the endgame for militant athiests? Christians and muslims believe that once everyone is converted the world will become a kingdom of peace, do athiests believe the same? If so why?

I'm not trolling, I'm just interested. Athiest bus campaigns, athiest summer camps, athiest societies, it's a lot of trouble to go to. For what?

Most "militant atheists" don't spread the message of non-belief.

They spread the message of reason and science and rationality and rejecting pseudo-science and supernatural mumbo-jumbo

Non-belief just becomes an inevitable consequence of that.

An atheist by itself is not a sought after end. To a lot of atheists, myself included, a pig ignorant atheist is as bad as a pig ignorant theist.

Glenster

doctoremma wrote: »

The right to be free of religion.

BUT WHY?

Turtwig

Right now I consider the greatest threat to the future of humanity to be irrational ideologies. Ideologies such as homoeopathy, pseudo-climatology and anti-vaccinations conspiracy nuts, are destroying the future prospects of this planet. Granted these aren't necessarily the fault solely of the religious but I consider the allowance of religions to operate within this planet as means of embracing irrational ideologies as accepted norms. It is really telling that scientific research has shown that people are more concerned about the motives and beliefs of others, than the actual logical,rationality, or technical detail they are being presented with. For this reason, I deplore superstition and irrational ideologies of any form. By allowing religion to be presist we allow humanity to have irrational ideology as a form of accepted societal norm. This I feel, is biggest threat to a newly enlightened way of life and the pursuit of scientific truths. I respect peoples right to belief, but black hell! I'm not going to refrain for one second in criticising them.:)

Glenster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you'll never hear of a group of people who don't collect stamps but if people were refused entry to schools for not collecting stamps or couldn't get voted into office because they didn't collect stamps you would

I've never heard of anyone not being allowed to go to school because they were atheist.

and people can vote for whoever they want to vote for, I probably wouldn't vote for ryan tuberdy's brother because I hate ryan tuberdy so much. Fair? No. But life.

I'm sure lots of people wouldn't vote for someone who is divorced, why isn't there the same furore about that?

Glenster

sink wrote: »

I want the atheist lobby to have more political power essentially. I want non-believers concerns give a higher precedence when framing legislation and in the management of public services and one way to do that is to increase the size of the atheist vote.

But is that not true for any pressure group?
I could form a society for the promotion of Wicklow (:eek:.... Not such a bad idea....) and use it to lobby for wicklow interests.
Is that all militant atheism wants?

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

But is that not true for any pressure group?
I could form a society for the promotion of Wicklow (:eek:.... Not such a bad idea....) and use it to lobby for wicklow interests.
Is that all militant atheism wants?

What is the point of asking a question if you are not going to listen to the answers you get?

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

OK so I can kind of see why a religious group might actively prosthelytize and attempt to convert people (spreading a message of god for all people that will lead to eternal life etc.)

But what is it that athiest groups try to achieve by spreading a message of not-belief?

Is it the same "I'm right, you're wrong, you have to believe this because it's TRUE!!!!" mentality that some of the religions have?

What is the endgame for militant athiests? Christians and muslims believe that once everyone is converted the world will become a kingdom of peace, do athiests believe the same? If so why?

I'm not trolling, I'm just interested. Athiest bus campaigns, athiest summer camps, athiest societies, it's a lot of trouble to go to. For what?

Why would atheists want people to recognise their point of view as valid and have the country legislated as such? Why do you think? Personally, I think I should have the right not to have my life negatively influenced or effected by an archaic embroilment of church and state. Simples.

It's not so much demanding anyone else become an atheist - I don't really care what religions people choose to practice or leave as long as it doesn't affect me & mine - it's much more to do with ensuring the atheist or non-Christian vote is counted. The numbers of non-Catholics/non-Christians should be recognised so many of the outdated systems & legislations which still only cater for one religion and, in some cases, are so out of date that they are in contravention of international human rights legislation, can be abolished and we can move forward as a modern society.

Glenster

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

governments are filled by people who either legislate according to their unprovable beliefs and faith-guided morals

Are faith guided morals somehow of less worth that fact based morals (is that a thing?).
Surely a better goal would be to get rid of the politicians with no morals first, why start with the religious?

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

Are faith guided morals somehow of less worth that fact based morals (is that a thing?).

Yes, obviously since religious faith was made up by not particularly nice people living thousands of years ago.

The idea that we should be paying much attention to what ancient Hebrew nomads thought about homosexuality or the rights of women is frankly ridiculous.

The best way to combat say anti-homosexual laws based on religious opinion is to convince people their god doesn't exist, and thus there foundations for their horrible moral code is false.

You will find that if you remove the promise of eternal paradise or the threat of eternal suffering a lot of people don't care nearly as much about these moral position as they did when they were religious.

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

I've never heard of anyone not being allowed to go to school because they were atheist.

You must not read this forum too often, or AH for that matter. If you did a quick search, you'd find hundreds of threads about schools in Ireland being legally allowed to pick and choose pupils based on whether they can produce a baptismal cert or not.

Glenster

Wicknight wrote: »

Most "militant atheists" don't spread the message of non-belief.

Why identify yourselves as athiests then? Call yourselves......reasonalists.......sciencists......I've never been good with names, you are identified with religion through your name.

Also is militant atheists wrong? I dont want to cause offense.

Ickle Magoo

What do you mean identifying ourselves?

Lack of belief in a God = atheist.

It's a dictionary definition not a form of club identification.

Turtwig

Glenster wrote: »

Why identify yourselves as athiests then? Call yourselves......reasonalists.......sciencists......I've never been good with names, you are identified with religion through your name.

Also is militant atheists wrong? I dont want to cause offense.

I hate the term "atheist" it has no sense of identity what so ever and gives undue respect to the theist. It's the theists that lumps the position on us. Freethinker, is my preferred term.

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

Also is militant atheists wrong? I dont want to cause offense.

I've never understood the term militant atheist. How can one be aggressively lacking in belief?

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

Why identify yourselves as athiests then?

We generally don't. Atheist has always been a designation assigned to us, often in an attempt to combine us all together into some form of group or movement, just like you have been doing.

Being called an atheists is a bit like being called an a-football-fan instead of say a rugby fan. The only people who would do this are football fans who see the world only in terms of those who like football and those who don't

It happens because we live in a culture so drenched in religion that for a lot of religious people they can't imagine that you would just not believe and thus they had to come up with a special name for us, like a group of football fans who simply can't imagine not being a football fan

Personally I much prefer the term non-religious, as this signifies that I'm not religious but doesn't pretend to assert what I am.

Glenster wrote: »

Also is militant atheists wrong? I dont want to cause offense.

You are going to have to define what you mean by "militant"

When people use the term "militant atheism" they are generally disgruntled religious people, calling someone like Richard Dawkins a "militant" because he wrote a book and won't do what is expected of him and shut up about religion.

In this context militant apparently means talking to much about a subject religious people would rather no one talked about

Turtwig

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I've never understood the term militant atheist. How can one be aggressively lacking in belief?

Militant can also mean a strong position of active support for a given cause. The cause being lack of belief.

Glenster

Wicknight wrote: »

What is the point of asking a question if you are not going to listen to the answers you get?

I'm just trying to engage.

What I want to know is why there is this missionary zeal (no offense) in converting people to the cause. Representative democracy has at it's core the idea that if you want something vote for it. I'm not sure lobbys are a very democratic idea, if enough people want religion not to be taught in schools (for example), they could vote for a law.

I'm all for full equality.

But if some people want religion taught in schools (for example) and some dont and most dont care, the solution doesn't seem to be to ban religion in schools.

Turtwig

Glenster wrote: »

But if some people want religion taught in schools (for example) and some dont and most dont care, the solution doesn't seem to be to ban religion in schools.

What exactly do you mean by ban religion in schools? Be specific.

Glenster

Wicknight wrote: »

religious faith was made up by not particularly nice people living thousands of years ago.

I'm not a Jesus nut but it seems a bit harsh to say that he wasnt very nice. "treat each other as you would like to be treated" is a fairly common theme in the major religions. Is that something to get upset about.

ChocolateSauce

Glenster wrote: »

Are faith guided morals somehow of less worth that fact based morals (is that a thing?).

Yes, intrinsically. Morals arrived at by thought and logic are superior to morals hoisted upon someone without thought merely because their religion requires it.

Surely a better goal would be to get rid of the politicians with no morals first, why start with the religious?

Good luck with that.

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

I'm just trying to engage.

And like I said you are ignoring the answers you are getting, which makes this some what pointless engaging with you.

Glenster wrote: »

What I want to know is why there is this missionary zeal (no offense) in converting people to the cause.

Because superstitious and irrational belief tend to be quite harmful.

What is the great mystery with that?

Glenster wrote: »

Representative democracy has at it's core the idea that if you want something vote for it. I'm not sure lobbys are a very democratic idea, if enough people want religion not to be taught in schools (for example), they could vote for a law.

Representative democracy also has at its core the idea of the spread and exchange of ideas.

You respect everyones vote but you also try and convince them of your argument and get them to vote that way because they agree with you.

Glenster wrote: »

But if some people want religion taught in schools (for example) and some dont and most dont care, the solution doesn't seem to be to ban religion in schools.

Who is asking to ban religion is schools?

King Mob

Glenster wrote: »

I'm not a Jesus nut but it seems a bit harsh to say that he wasnt very nice. "treat each other as you would like to be treated" is a fairly common theme in the major religions. Is that something to get upset about.

Except that's only a small part of the bible.
There's alot in there about keeping and selling slaves, keeping women down and killing a lot of people for ridiculous reasons.

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

I'm not a Jesus nut but it seems a bit harsh to say that he wasnt very nice. "treat each other as you would like to be treated" is a fairly common theme in the major religions. Is that something to get upset about.

Have you actually read the Bible?

Jesus (God) also ordered the Hebrews to attack their neighbors and butcher all the men and boys and take the women and girls as slaves. He has ordered children killed and countries burned.

Except he didn't because God doesn't exist.

But this is the sort of thing that the Hebrews tried to justify by saying their god told them to do it. The same people who then decided to write down their laws and customs as if they came from God, outlawing things like homosexuality.

Do these people sound like the sort of people we should be listening to, let alone taking as infallible, when deciding our laws and morals?