Athiest Evangelising?

Glenster

Dave! wrote: »

This thread is f*cking bizarre.......

Don't you hate it when someone pretends they're asking honest questions and that they're interested in the truth, and then clearly demonstrates that this is not the case?

It's the same sh*te the creationists do over and over again, twist things and ignore facts in order to confirm their original beliefs. They, and our OP here, have absolutely no interest in the truth.

Sickening really

?!?!?

I really hope that doesnt refer to me.

I really dont understand all this aggression. I've tried to be as paitent, inclusive and delicate as possible, even made a few jokes when things started to go a bit dark.

My suspicion was, and i think i mentioned it at the outset, that the arguments that inevitably erupt between militant religious and militant athiest (or active rationalist) was as much to do with just the stubborn, but natural, human desire to be right about something.

I merely asked for an alternate reason why militant athiests (or vocal freethinkers) feel the need to convince people to their point of view.

I tried to keep the argument on a clear path by pointing out from the outset that I think I know why the religious do it, I merely wanted to know why non-religious wanted to do it.

When I rejected the idea that it might be done with the goal of promoting scientific thought by saying something like,

"If they want to promote the sciences why not do that directly"

my argument being that there are plenty of avenues people can go down to support the study of sciences directly

And then all of a sudden I'm beset on all sides by people saying that I'm not listening.

I feel a bit like Jesus when he preached in Nazareth, y'know? People rejected what he was saying because of who they thought he was, what a great story................

Glenster

On further thought maybe you were refering to DogmaticLefty, in which case, fair enough.

But what do you expect from an argument with someone who has dogmatic in his name?

That's like inviting simon the paedophile to babysit.

Turtwig

Glenster wrote: »

On further thought maybe you were refering to DogmaticLefty, in which case, fair enough.

But what do you expect from an argument with someone who has dogmatic in his name?

That's like inviting simon the paedophile to babysit.

Ahh, jeez, I'm having a terrible day. I just copped that dogmatic was in his/her name.:o

CerebralCortex

Glenster wrote: »

...I merely asked for an alternate reason why militant athiests (or vocal freethinkers) feel the need to convince people to their point of view.
...

You equating vocal freethinkers to something militant isn't really helping your cause. Reason compels the atheist at least its what compels me and it in an environment where supernaturalism and mysticism is given precedence in how people shape a society there is no real question left to ask. Is there? It's fairly simple, you sir are just being contrary, whatever your agenda is.

Dave!

Glenster wrote: »

?!?!?

I really hope that doesnt refer to me.

I really dont understand all this aggression. I've tried to be as paitent, inclusive and delicate as possible, even made a few jokes when things started to go a bit dark.

My suspicion was, and i think i mentioned it at the outset, that the arguments that inevitably erupt between militant religious and militant athiest (or active rationalist) was as much to do with just the stubborn, but natural, human desire to be right about something.

I merely asked for an alternate reason why militant athiests (or vocal freethinkers) feel the need to convince people to their point of view.

I tried to keep the argument on a clear path by pointing out from the outset that I think I know why the religious do it, I merely wanted to know why non-religious wanted to do it.

When I rejected the idea that it might be done with the goal of promoting scientific thought by saying something like,

"If they want to promote the sciences why not do that directly"

my argument being that there are plenty of avenues people can go down to support the study of sciences directly

And then all of a sudden I'm beset on all sides by people saying that I'm not listening.

I feel a bit like Jesus when he preached in Nazareth, y'know? People rejected what he was saying because of who they thought he was, what a great story................

Not arsed going through the thread again but I was probably referring to you yes

I'm not interested in going back and forth with you on the subject, but to answer your question, I'm 'passionate', if ya like, about expressing my atheism, because it's just another example of a bad, unscientific way to explain things. When attempting to explain the objective reality of our physical universe (as religion does, even though religious people like to pretend otherwise), religion is a sh*t way of going about it.

You'll also see me in the Paranormal forum telling those people that they're stupid, I sometimes post in Conspiracy Theories for the same reason, and I'm currently in After Hours arguing with anti-vaccination people about the safety of vaccines.

Pseudoscience and anti-science gets my goat. Religion falls within that realm.

There's also the obvious issues of compulsary religious oaths for some public offices, religious references in our constitution, baptismal certs being requested to get into public schools, the blasphemy law, evolution-denial, stem-cell research, blah blah blah, and they're all riddled with religious issues.

Turtwig

*All Hail*

Dave! Defender of science.:)

Galvasean

Great, now I have to change my sig to robert T. Bakker. Then you'll all be sorry!

Malari

Malty_T wrote: »

Ahh, jeez, I'm having a terrible day. I just copped that dogmatic was in his/her name.:o

I have to ask if you have ever said this poster's name out loud?
Goduznt Xzst

@ Glenster, I'm not sure why you are still asking the question? Is it that you haven't had enough answers to your question about why atheists sometimes tell others about their point of view? Or is it because no-one has answered the way you want? ie: I evangelise because I am the equivalent of a fundamentalist christian or muslim except with a different belief.

Because you are not going to get anyone saying that! We DON'T think that way!

Dades

Glenster wrote: »

I merely asked for an alternate reason why militant athiests (or vocal freethinkers) feel the need to convince people to their point of view.

People don't start societies to convince people their religion is wrong - they want to convince people to keep their religion to themselves.

For example, do not have it illegal to say certain things about religion, or allow priests to choose what religion a kid has to be to get into taxpayer-funded school.

You then said, why not lobby your TD if you have an issue, I ask you what better way to lobby a TD than form a group?

strobe

Glenster wrote: »

I merely asked for an alternate reason why militant athiests (or vocal freethinkers) feel the need to convince people to their point of view.

Glen would you now agree that you have been given several reasons why some atheists choose to present thier views in what they view as a convincing manner in public? That your question has been answered? What have you learned from the responses? Were they what you expected? Do you now feel you have a greater understanding why "Atheist societies" exist and why some athiests feel a need to be proactive in thier atheism? Based on the responses given to you in this thread what are the reasons that some atheists "evangelise"?

Glenster

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You equating vocal freethinkers to something militant isn't really helping your cause. Reason compels the atheist at least its what compels me and it in an environment where supernaturalism and mysticism is given precedence in how people shape a society there is no real question left to ask. Is there? It's fairly simple, you sir are just being contrary, whatever your agenda is.

OH MY SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!

People were objecting to me using the phrase militant atheist before and suggested alternate designations like vocal or active and freethinker or rationalist.

But because they are very vague terms I still feel the need to use militant atheist to make it clear what I'm talking about.

Most activists for social change dont have a problem with the term militant (militant gays, militant political activist). In this context it doesnt mean soldiers or violence.

tbh i'm surprised you were able to type a response what with your knee jerking so hysterically the whole time.

no. im not being contrary.

Ickle Magoo

You are being contrary, you asked for an alternative to militant, you were given several but prefer not to use them because they don't evoke just the right kind of negative image you wish to portray, pathetic. :rolleyes:

Glenster

OK in response to some of your questions. This is what I think I've gotten from you as a response to my "why go to all that trouble?" question.

At the start people were saying (in a vague way) that they wanted to be free of religion/irrational ideologies/mumbojumbo.

When I asked more about that, people said that they wanted the government to stop legislating against atheists/start legislating more for atheists.

When I said that government represents the people and expressed my naive view that if enough people want the government to do something TDs will force the government to do it (Its a votes thing). I was accused of belittling the argument.

Then there was about ten pages of reductive "I just want to live in a rational world" or "look how bad religion is" talk. Slogans. Like the sheep from animal farm.

During which time I was sucked into a boring world of semantics "We object to the term atheism", "we dont believe ideas, we know facts", "we dont disbelieve, we just dont believe". Exhausting pedantery.

Then the attacks began "you have an agenda", "I see you've slunk off", then the immunologist came on and said he was sick of me.

So this is what I've learned, there can be no true dialogue.

I've tried my best to use your words and not offend, but a religious person would no doubt take offense to their beliefs being dismissed as mumbo-jumbo or supernaturalism or merely false.

It's clear to me now that this forum is, for most people, a place simply for self satisfied back slapping and relaxation in the comfortable knowledge that what you know is true without really examining yourselves, a lot like most religious forums.

Glenster

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You are being contrary, you asked for an alternative to militant, you were given several but prefer not to use them because they don't evoke just the right kind of negative image you wish to portray, pathetic. :rolleyes:

How are vocal and active as good as militant?

A baby crying is vocal, a dog is active.

Militant means active agressive campaigning, i.e. seeking people out and trying to convert them around to your way of thinking.

Posting signs expressing your beliefs is militant. It is a dictionary definition!

robindch

Glenster wrote: »

People were objecting to me using the phrase militant atheist before and suggested alternate designations like vocal or active and freethinker or rationalist. But because they are very vague terms I still feel the need to use militant atheist to make it clear what I'm talking about.

Glenster wrote: »

I've tried my best to use your words and not offend

Epic. Fail.

Glenster

robindch wrote: »

Epic. Fail.

I used my terms and their terms together so people would be clear what I think is the most succinct way of expressing it and what they think is the fairest way of expressing it.

I dont think most people would automatically equate freethinker with someone who doesnt believe in God. If I were to just use the term freethinker I would be including people who arent atheists and excluding some people who are.

dvpower

Glenster wrote: »

I dont think most people would automatically equate freethinker with someone who doesnt believe in God. If I were to just use the term freethinker I would be including people who arent atheists and excluding some people who are.

It'll do for now (we know what you mean)


Main Entry: free·think·er
Pronunciation: \-ˈthiŋ-kər\
Function: noun
Date: 1692
: one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma
— free·think·ing \-kiŋ\ noun or adjective

Dades

Glenster wrote: »

When I said that government represents the people and expressed my naive view that if enough people want the government to do something TDs will force the government to do it (Its a votes thing). I was accused of belittling the argument.

This is the second time you've skipped past this point:

Dades wrote: »

People don't start societies to convince people their religion is wrong - they want to convince people to keep their religion to themselves.

For example, do not have it illegal to say certain things about religion, or allow priests to choose what religion a kid has to be to get into taxpayer-funded school.

You then said, why not lobby your TD if you have an issue, I ask you what better way to lobby a TD than form a group?

Any thoughts?

Glenster wrote: »

It's clear to me now that this forum is, for most people, a place simply for self satisfied back slapping and relaxation in the comfortable knowledge that what you know is true without really examining yourselves, a lot like most religious forums.

I'll be honest, nobody will cry if you never come back here. Like every seemingly genuine thread that is created here, people tried to respond with their opinions. It was fairly clear from the outset that you had preconceptions that were not going to be swayed by people's responses. Either they just weren't the opinions you wanted to hear, or any response was just an excuse to trot out the tired atheism is a religion argument.

strobe

Glenster wrote: »

So this is what I've learned, there can be no true dialogue.

.

There has been true and helpful dialogue in the most part. Your question has been answered and on points you didn't understand, people have tried to explain them to you.

The reason some people are getting frustrated with you is the general tone of our posts in the thread have been the equivalent of, for example: Going onto the soccer forum, admitting you don't know much about soccer and asking people thier opinion of why Pele was the best footballer, then after being given countless reasons why people believe he was, telling them they're wrong and despite the fact you don't know much about soccer X,Y and Z is the reason George Best was the greatest. You seemed to ask the question with preconceived ideas and when the responses didn't match up to your own opinions you wrote them off as innacurate. Or worse still, ignored those responses, didn't mention Pele's speed or two-footedness and started talking about the models Best has slept with.

You have to understand, that type of attitude isn't a rare occurance in the A & A forum. There have been countless threads started by people asking the atheists here a question about atheism and then following the exact same Pele-Best line of argument. Most people here are very patient when trying to answer a genuine question, but it can get tiresome having people that admit not knowing much about soccer coming into the soccer forum and telling people that know about soccer why there opinions on soccer are wrong.

(Bah! I'm crap at analogies)

King Mob

Glenster wrote: »

How are vocal and active as good as militant?

A baby crying is vocal, a dog is active.

Militant means active agressive campaigning, i.e. seeking people out and trying to convert them around to your way of thinking.

Posting signs expressing your beliefs is militant. It is a dictionary definition!

No that's not what the words mean. And you agreed with that.

We provided you with examples of "militant" religious folk and you said "we shouldn't compare ourselves with terrorists, we're better than that."
You even said that you used the word militant because you couldn't have been arsed to think up a more accurate term. (Which I did in five seconds)

Seriously dude, you should read your own posts.

Glenster

Dades wrote: »

I skimmed over the point that the purpose of {cant say the word-will get in trouble again] societies' is to stop people cramming religion down your throat by promoting the idea of a probable non-existence of god (bus signs, atheist{damn} summer camps) because that amounts to two people shouting at each other trying to drown each other out. Both sides see the other as intruding on them.

Enlightened individual -"Stop ramming religion down my throat"

Credulous Simpleton- "Stop ramming atheism down my throat"

robindch

Glenster wrote: »

I used my terms and their terms together so people would be clear what I think

I don't think that people here are in much doubt about what you think. Namely, that everybody who won't keep quiet about their views is "militant".

It goes without saying that you apply this pejorative, prescriptive boo-word to people on only one side of your argument.

Malari

Glenster wrote: »

I skimmed over the point that the purpose of {cant say the word-will get in trouble again] societies' is to stop people cramming religion down your throat by promoting the idea of a probable non-existence of god (bus signs, atheist{damn} summer camps) because that amounts to two people shouting at each other trying to drown each other out. Both sides see the other as intruding on them.

Enlightened individual -"Stop ramming religion down my throat"

Credulous Simpleton- "Stop ramming atheism down my throat"

Can you give any examples, apart from the isolated bus campaign, of this happening?

Glenster

King Mob wrote: »

We provided you with examples of "militant" religious folk and you said "we shouldn't compare ourselves with terrorists, we're better than that."

Someone compare 'you' to a guy in a turban holding a rpg and a guy standing outside an abortion clinic holding a firebomb. 2 terrorists. when you used the term militant it was clear that you meant terrorist. I have said on several occasions that I was using the term militant in an activist sense.

Dont misunderstand me on purpose to gain points. thats hella lame.

Dades

Malari wrote: »

Can you give any examples, apart from the isolated bus campaign, of this happening?

You mean the bus campaign started by a comedienne that I gave the background to twice but was ignored both times?

King Mob

Glenster wrote: »

Someone compare 'you' to a guy in a turban holding a rpg and a guy standing outside an abortion clinic holding a firebomb. 2 terrorists. when you used the term militant it was clear that you meant terrorist. I have said on several occasions that I was using the term militant in an activist sense.

Dont misunderstand me on purpose to gain points. thats hella lame.

How am I misunderstanding your points?
You said:

Glenster wrote: »

We discussed the term militant athiests at the start (around page two) and we couldn't find a more accurate term (everything else had religious overtones; evangelising, missionary, zealous).

If you have a suggestion, please. I understand that the term is not ideal.

Is internal consistency in your argument too much to ask?

CerebralCortex

Glenster wrote: »

....no. im not being contrary.

So how has the thread lasted so long?

Glenster

Malari wrote: »

Can you give any examples, apart from the isolated bus campaign, of this happening?

Its methods that we are talking about. I dont want to get involved in a list war, then no-one wins. My point was that it is childish to say that my organisation exists to stop that organisation from exclaiming loudly their beliefs at me, and the way my organisation does this is to exclaim loudly our beliefs.

Dades

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So how has the thread lasted so long?

We take the term "benefit of the doubt" to extremes here.

I suspect it's not long for this world, however.

Malari

Dades wrote: »

You mean the bus campaign started by a comedienne that I gave the background to twice but was ignored both times?

Well, clearly the OP saw it as evangelising as it's the only example he has mentioned. I certainly don't see it that way! Just wanted to get another example of so-called "ramming" of atheism down anyone's throat. :cool: