Athiest Evangelising?

Glenster

King Mob wrote: »

How am I misunderstanding your points?
You said:


Is internal consistency in your argument too much to ask?

???

How is me admitting that we cannot agree on an ideal term for atheist evangelising and me accusing you of misunderstanding on purpose inconsistant?

Dades

Glenster wrote: »

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.

And your solution to having someone else's beliefs affect your life was to do what, exactly? Write to your TD? You realise the Humanist Soc of Ireland has been lobbying about various things for years - how much of that has been in your face?

iUseVi

Maybe he/she has Dades on ignore. I know I do.

Disclaimer:This is a lie.

Turtwig

Don't worry OP, the internet can be a tough place sometimes.

doctoremma

Glenster wrote: »

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.

I want a government to legislate without accounting for religion. I don't want positive discrimination or "pro-atheist" laws.

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.

Democracy does not automatically infer correctness. Even if if 99 % of people wanted to ban homosexuality, it would not be the right thing to do to ban homosexuality. Even if 99 % of people wanted to be able to discriminate against particular children attending particular schools, that would not make it right.

Glenster wrote: »

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.

Lol.

Glenster wrote: »

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.

Just because you couldn't get your head around it doesn't mean it's wrong or invalid.

Glenster wrote: »

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.

I reserve every right to call mumbo-jumbo ideas mumbo-jumbo. Calling someone's belief "ridiculous" is not offensive, calling a person "ridiculous" might be.

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.

Perhaps you could give a few pointers on how we should be behaving? If people are backslapping, it's because you've conformed perfectly to the stereotype of a troll. You will note that there are many religious posters here who appear to be perfectly able to have an adult discussion with atheists, without resorting to playground taunts.

Glenster

Malari wrote: »

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:

Do the bus campaign in Washington DC, the two in london, and several others privately funded along the eastern seaboard of the united states not count as evangelising (the term im using now - forget the religious overtones)?

And i used the term "ramming down the throat" to highlight both sides disgust at being preached at. I thought it would be okay because i used in relation to both sides but seemingly not. Seemingly you're all too sensitive for that.

Ickle Magoo

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.

Just do a search over this forum and pick a few random threads that have been locked, seriously now.

Every other day it seems, some religious nut puts aside his sandwich board for the day and wanders in here pretending to just try to garner knowledge and understanding. The problem is it never seems possible to do so without the incessant digs, the veiled insults, the oh-so boringly predictable drawing of similarities between atheists and theists, clubs and custom - pretending to be interested in discussion about atheism but not smart enough to mask the ulterior motive of just wanting to have a go over something they can't understand and feel so threatened by.

If you think you are doing something unique, big or clever - you'd be very much mistaken - on all counts. You are just the latest in huge long line of people who haven't bothered checking your definitions, haven't read the forum, haven't searched for questions previously asked and clearly haven't read the charter.

Glenster wrote: »

How are vocal and active as good as militant?

A baby crying is vocal, a dog is active.

You ask for terminology and suggest you do not want to offend but that's exactly what you want to do, it's always the same. Start off barely feigned incredulous insecurity followed by all out silliness.

You can also have vocal dissent or active service, I thought we'd been through the whole grammar and context thing. Look, you can try to cherry pick your definitions and use other such p*ss poor arguments if you want but it's hardly doing your troll tag any favours.

Glenster wrote: »

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!

Please link to the dictionary that states posting signs suggesting "There is probably no god" is militant, I just have to see that. Is it in ChristianDictionary.com or something?!

Do you really think sticking posters up on the side of buses suggesting there probably isn't something is aggressive? Soldier-like? Akin to terrorism or other gun wielding militants. Oh dear.

King Mob

Glenster wrote: »

???

How is me admitting that we cannot agree on an ideal term for atheist evangelising and me accusing you of misunderstanding on purpose inconsistant?

No that's you admitting that the word isn't an accurate description of what people here believe or how they act.

Glenster wrote: »

I understand that the term is not ideal.

But seeing as how you've been ignoring all opinions and answers you said that you were looking for, instead insisting that your definitions of words and atheism are the correct ones, I don't really think your argument is an honest one let alone a consistent one.

Dades

Glenster, most people here don't give a rats ass if some Christian group spends money on posters. It's a free world to advertise in and it's their money.

If that's the best idea you can come up with about "ramming" stuff down people's throats you're a lot thinner skinned than you think we are. There are actual issues that people want resolved.

doctoremma

Glenster wrote: »

Do the bus campaign in Washington DC, the two in london, and several others privately funded along the eastern seaboard of the united states not count as evangelising (the term im using now - forget the religious overtones)?

Maybe I could get down to the level you are using. They started it.

Every single one of us has been subject to religious "advertising" throughout our lives, notably the fluorescent pink "Jesus loves you" type signs that adorn every single church you go past. I mean, people knocking at your door, shouting at you in the streets, etc etc etc.

And you think that for someone to sponsor a sign saying "God probably doesn't exist..." is somehow innappropriate?

Turtwig

Glenster wrote: »

Do the bus campaign in Washington DC, the two in london, and several others privately funded along the eastern seaboard of the united states not count as evangelising (the term im using now - forget the religious overtones)?

And i used the term "ramming down the throat" to highlight both sides disgust at being preached at. I thought it would be okay because i used in relation to both sides but seemingly not. Seemingly you're all too sensitive for that.

No it doesn't.

This is evangelical atheism :

Note that he is picketing outside a Cathedral.

Glenster

doctoremma wrote: »

Just because you couldn't get your head around it doesn't mean it's wrong or invalid.

I didnt say it was wrong, just that it was unhelpful, exhaustive pedantry, discussions are not moved on that way.

And

Who decides what is 'correct' for society if not the people? You?

doctoremma

Glenster wrote: »

Who decides what is 'correct' for society if not the people? You?

Not particularly. I try to support equality for all, don't you?

Glenster

doctoremma wrote: »

Maybe I could get down to the level you are using. They started it.

NO NO NO NO!!!

That is the exact opposite of what I'm saying It is not okay for someone to condemn the tactics of one side one minute and use those same tactics the next minute.

Everyone believes their side is right, is true.

Where people fall down is by condemning the other side as liars or fools and trying to ban them.

Frustrating.

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

I didnt say it was wrong, just that it was unhelpful, exhaustive pedantry, discussions are not moved on that way.

And

Who decides what is 'correct' for society if not the people? You?

I think you need to clarify perhaps the limits to what you consider militant atheism.

You seem to be suggesting that anyone who publicly expresses a view contrary to a religious view (such as there is no God now stop worrying) is a militant atheist?

To your mind what is not a militant atheist? Someone who never expresses an opinion publicly about religion?

doctoremma

Glenster wrote: »

NO NO NO NO!!!

That is the exact opposite of what I'm saying It is not okay for someone to condemn the tactics of one side one minute and use those same tactics the next minute.

Everyone believes their side is right, is true.

Where people fall down is by condemning the other side as liars or fools and trying to ban them.

Frustrating.

Lol. Get a sense of humour.

King Mob

Glenster wrote: »

Where people fall down is by condemning the other side as liars or fools and trying to ban them.

Frustrating.

Who's trying to ban who?

It's been told to you several times that no one here want's any such thing.

And same tactics?
Seriously?

A politely worded bus sign vs. telling everyone loudly that they are all sinners, at best, Telling everyone they are going to hell, at the middle, and the Westboro Baptists at the worst.
It's a strange view you have that this:

As as bad as this:

Ickle Magoo

Same tactics? That's just laughable!

How many atheists have knocked on your door trying to get you take a copy of the latest Dawkins book? How many secular schools have religious parents had trouble getting their kids into because they had a faith? How many sexualities or genders have atheists proclaimed as second best? Do atheists offer charity only if the worlds poorest people throw aside their own culture sign up to atheism?

It absolutely beggars belief that anyone could have such a skewed view of the world that they would consider one rather fluffily worded poster campaign as anywhere near the same league of proselyting and throat shoving as organised religion.

Sam Vimes

Glenster wrote: »

"we dont disbelieve, we just dont believe". Exhausting pedantery.

Do you understand the difference between being unconvinced of a proposition and being convinced that the proposition is false?

Undergod

Glenster wrote: »

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.

Ah here. I'm with Sam Vimes on this one. There is zero pedantry in making a distinction between disbelief and lack of belief.

For example: Do you believe I am wearing a red jumper?

You have no reason to believe that I am. You also have no real reason to believe that I am not wearing one. I'd guess that while you don't believe I am, neither do you believe I am not. The lack of belief is different to disbelief.

MrPudding

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Should I be insulted, or honoured that you remembered

Creeped out...?

MrP

DogmaticLefty

Glenster wrote: »

Do the bus campaign in Washington DC, the two in london, and several others privately funded along the eastern seaboard of the united states not count as evangelising (the term im using now - forget the religious overtones)?

I agree. It's blatant evangelising. St John would be proud.

The borg needs to keep its numbers up in order to survive.

By the way, I have no problem with atheists trying to convert others to their way of thinking.

DogmaticLefty

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

How many atheists have knocked on your door trying to get you take a copy of the latest Dawkins book? How many secular schools have religious parents had trouble getting their kids into because they had a faith? How many sexualities or genders have atheists proclaimed as second best? Do atheists offer charity only if the worlds poorest people throw aside their own culture sign up to atheism?

That's because you're not as passionate about your beliefs. Would you have the confidence to go out and try and convert the general public to a minority's way of thinking? Perhaps it's easier to read Dawkins and aspire to be an internet message forum hero.

Dave!

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

That's because you're not as passionate about your beliefs. Would you have the confidence to go out and try and convert the general public to a minority's way of thinking? Perhaps it's easier to read Dawkins and aspire to be an internet message forum hero.

Aspire to be? Ickle Magoo already is a hero

DogmaticLefty

Dave! wrote: »

Aspire to be? Ickle Magoo already is a hero

Seems more of a Pied Piper to me.

ChocolateSauce

Not to mention passionate.

strobe

Agreed, a passionate hero(ine) for all to see.

Zillah

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Would you have the confidence to go out and try and convert the general public to a minority's way of thinking

Confidence? Sure. Motivation? Not so much.

I'll fight both publicly and privately for issues of secularism, specific instances where the negative effects of religion are most manifest, but I have no desire to convert the masses. Possibly more importantly, I don't think direct evangelising is very effective. Education, in the broadest sense, is the best inoculation against superstition.

DogmaticLefty

Zillah wrote: »

Confidence? Sure. Motivation? Not so much.

I'll fight both publicly and privately for issues of secularism, specific instances where the negative effects of religion are most manifest, but I have no desire to convert the masses. Possibly more importantly, I don't think direct evangelising is very effective. Education, in the broadest sense, is the best inoculation against superstition.

I'm sure you're prepared to put your hand in your pocket to support the promotion of your beliefs so.

There appears to be an implicit assumption that last sentence that you snuck in that education=enlightenment, which leads to atheism. But you're entitled to that firmly held belief and I respect that.

ChocolateSauce

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

There appears to be an implicit assumption that last sentence that you snuck in that education=enlightenment, which leads to atheism. But you're entitled to that firmly held belief and I respect that.

There are some very explicit studies which show pretty conclusively that atheism is directly correlated with education and intelligence; that is, smarter and better educated people are more likely to be atheists.

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm