Is atheism the New Evangelism?

[fellowtraveller]

There is more than a faint whiff of fervent evangelism about atheism these days.

Is there much difference in the approach, the marketing between say, Dawkins/Hitchens and somebody like Falwell or the Billy Graham Crusade?

I know the opinions are very different, but is there any substantive difference in the fervor?

Or does the environmental movement take the crown as the New Evangelism? There is a large dose of faith after all......

[Mad_Michael]

There is more than a faint whiff of fervent evangelism about atheism these days.

Is there much difference in the approach, the marketing between say, Dawkins/Hitchens and somebody like Falwell or the Billy Graham Crusade?

I know the opinions are very different, but is there any substantive difference in the fervor?

Or does the environmental movement take the crown as the New Evangelism? There is a large dose of faith after all......

As a general rule, I'm inclined to agree. There appears to be a 'fundamentalist' or 'fanatical' component to atheism these days that has not been present previously. The traditional position of atheists towards religion is to generally dismiss it and/or ignore it (as none of my business).

Anecdotal evidence drawn from numerous forum discussions suggests that for many atheists, this is no longer the case. One might speculate that this may be in reaction to the rise of the politically ambitious US religious rightwing during the 1980's.

As for the environmental movement, I wouldn't put them in the same category of 'fundamentalist' or 'fanatical' type theists or atheists. They do appear to share the same passion of their cause which is the prime similarity, but the behaviour appears to be entirely different in terms of motivation and application.

[stignasty]

Yes, just today two atheists came to my door and asked me if I wanted to renounce god.

Perhaps the perceived evangelism an indication that we live in a free society that people can now boldly proclaim that they don't believe in a deity. While some may see "fanatical" atheists (not sure how you can be fanatical about a lack of belief, but anyway), I see people who are not afraid to be burned at the stake for speaking their mind.

[Drea]

The world needs atheists.

The world needs sanity and levelheadedness and that can only be accomplished by NOT adhering to any unproveable fantasy of an unknowable entity.

Arabs would have no problem with "western society" if not for religion. Religion should be banned. All religion.

And if you want to call me a fanatical atheist go ahead. I might even get a bumper sticker "Fanatical Realist".

[Mad_Michael]

The world needs sanity and levelheadedness and that can only be accomplished by NOT adhering to any unproveable fantasy of an unknowable entity.

I respectfully submit that 'sanity and level-headedness' in society is best achieved by not denigrating the beliefs of a very large proportion of our fellow citizens.

Live and let live.

Arabs would have no problem with "western society" if not for religion.

Methinks you 'misunderestimate' the power of culture. Take away religion from the Arabs and they still have justification for a huge cultural and historical hatred for the Western powers.

And if you want to call me a fanatical atheist go ahead. I might even get a bumper sticker "Fanatical Realist".

I've called you nothing. You are the one claiming the label. I'm only concerned with defining terms here.

The most important point is that there is NOTHING about atheism that requires an attack upon religion. Many, if not most atheists don't do it. Those atheists that insist on attacking religion are thus 'fanatical' atheists - one step beyond the usual type of atheism.

[Drea]

Live and Let Live

Four beautiful words.

Too bad the religious amoung us cannot abide by them.

They only understand force. If force is what they understand, force is what they get.

Betsy and her ilk lap this stuff up! "Kill em all in the name of Jeeessus! Save the children, kill the muslim before he kills us!"

Enough crap from the religious already -- they need to be silenced.

I took my apology back MM. Sorry, when I said "you" I did not mean you personally. And people can, if they like, call me a fanatical atheist. I rather like having a title. "Drea the Fanatical Atheist." or Drea Fa., A.

[scribblet]

Enough crap from the religious already -- they need to be silenced.

Wow, now there's a statement, talk about fascist atheism, silence anyone you don't agree with. All people have a right to a voice in a democratic society.

Atheists today seem to be as overly zealous in bashing established religion (usually Christianity), as any religious zealot, maybe that's ecause democracy and the concept of all people, including religious types, are a threat to their Marxist vision.

[Drea]

if yah can't beat 'em, join 'em.

If the only way to drown out the fanatical religious voice is to be as loud, then loud I shall be.

[Mad_Michael]

I took my apology back MM.

Feel free. As you noted, the apology belongs to you, not I.

Besides which, apologies aren't usually worth the breath they are spit out with (or the little pixels they are displayed with) so I don't place much store by them at all.

[Mad_Michael]

Atheists today seem to be as overly zealous in bashing established religion (usually Christianity), as any religious zealot, maybe that's ecause democracy and the concept of all people, including religious types, are a threat to their Marxist vision.

I always enjoy reading zealous fanatics chiding others for zealous fanatism.

Your sweeping generalisation of "atheists" puts you in the same camp as those you presume to rant about.

[scribblet]

Atheists today seem to be as overly zealous in bashing established religion (usually Christianity), as any religious zealot, maybe that's ecause democracy and the concept of all people, including religious types, are a threat to their Marxist vision.

I always enjoy reading zealous fanatics chiding others for zealous fanatism.

Your sweeping generalisation of "atheists" puts you in the same camp as those you presume to rant about.

Really, but its okay for some atheists to rant about silencing voices they don't agree with? I know its not all atheists, I suppose one has to be very careful about wording these days...so it should have read 'some atheists'

[Mad_Michael]

... I suppose one has to be very careful about wording these days...so it should have read 'some atheists'

Correct.

I am an atheist yet I do not bash religion or religious folks.

Some atheists do, most don't.

[AndrewL]

The real issue is that some atheists have come to realize that there is complicity in the silence of religious moderates in regards to the suffering they cause.

Too often religious moderates don't speak out loudly enough against the fundamentalists.

There are many reasons atheists have gone on the offensive:

1) Militant islam is in the news, 9/11, Taliban, and so on. There is an obvious danger here that is connected directly to religious belief. Many western conservatives complain that moderate muslims are not voicing their opposition loudly enough agianst the islamic fundamentalists. Western conservatives are admitting here that quiet moderation is complicit in violent or cruel fundamentalism.

2) Two writers, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, have eloquently provided legions of atheists with well thought out and meaningful arguments that us atheists can now use and expand upon. I really enjoyed Dawkins expose on how people actually dont' get morals from religion, thereby destroying the notion that atheists are immoral.

3) The internet is a great place to speak openly about all issues, religion included. We now have a forum.

4) fundamentalist christianity has achieved political power in the US, Canada, and the UK. If you want to join politics, get used to being harangued, even if you are religious. Fuck off if you cant handle it.

I think it is wrong to confuse the positivistic atheism with fundamentalism. At the core, all that we are doing is attaching the same logic and disposition we use in everyday life to notions of existence and meaning. That is it. There is no reason i can think of why religion should be shielded from the same open criticism that art, entertainment, or politics is normally subjected to in our everyday lives. There is no reason why religion should not be held to the same low standards as other human institutions.

Andrew

[White Doors]

Live and Let Live

Four beautiful words.

Enough crap from the religious already -- they need to be silenced.

haha

Will the real Drea please stand up. Why do you come to an internet forum?

I'm sure the arguments you have with your various personalities are entertaining enough, no?

[Drea]

HERE!

Drea Fa., A (Fanatical Atheist) At your service!

Cheers !

[cybercoma]

I'm still waiting for you and your husband to come over and have sex on our couch. That's what immoral heathens do, don't they?

[sharkman]

Enough crap from the religious already -- they need to be silenced.

I took my apology back MM. Sorry, when I said "you" I did not mean you personally. And people can, if they like, call me a fanatical atheist. I rather like having a title. "Drea the Fanatical Atheist." or Drea Fa., A.

I would like to submit this for the consideration of the open minded. Today, Drea expresses her bigotry for religion. Yet just YESTERDAY she said this:

I am sorry.

You are correct -- the folks on this board (most of you) deserve the same level of respect afforded my coworker.

When I wanna dis religion I'll go to an atheist forum.

It seems though -- just questioning an illogical belief is considered "dissing" to some folks -- yes I know I've done more than simply question... and for that I am sorry (not sorry for questioning though).

Now today she is bigotted again. She suggests she likes a title, so here's one we all can call her: Hypocrite.

[Drea]

I took the apology back.

My perogative.

Of course you missed that part

Tough noogies.

Cheers!

Drea Fa., A

edited to add an "H"

Cheers!

Drea, Fa., A.H.

Ha ha ha.

[Mad_Michael]

Andrew, this is probably a topic we've touched on in the past.

En garde!

The real issue is that some atheists have come to realize that there is complicity in the silence of religious moderates in regards to the suffering they cause.

Too often religious moderates don't speak out loudly enough against the fundamentalists.

That is perhaps because volume is just another form of violence. If they don't listen to moderate voices, they aren't likely to listen to loud moderate voices.

Indeed, the fundamentalists have not increased their visibility by 'speaking loudly'. They have done it with deeds.

I see no value, purpose or function in moderate religious people harranguing immoderate fundamentalists.

There are many reasons atheists have gone on the offensive:

You accept my thesis then?

Now all we have left to establish is the validity and justification of the distinction between moderate and immoderate atheists.

1) Militant islam is in the news, 9/11, Taliban, and so on. There is an obvious danger here that is connected directly to religious belief. Many western conservatives complain that moderate muslims are not voicing their opposition loudly enough agianst the islamic fundamentalists. Western conservatives are admitting here that quiet moderation is complicit in violent or cruel fundamentalism.

American conservatives are politically allied with religious fundamentalists. Of course they are going to take that line.

Indeed, that line of argument is un-conservative by definition of a lack of moderation, but one can't expect consistency or rationality in partisan politics.

And the statement 'admits' nothing. It is not a proven argument or statement or fact - just a partisan tactic.

2) Two writers, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, have eloquently provided legions of atheists with well thought out and meaningful arguments that us atheists can now use and expand upon. I really enjoyed Dawkins expose on how people actually dont' get morals from religion, thereby destroying the notion that atheists are immoral.

I have no formal objections here - though I might suggest that atheists have no need to expand upon anything. Faith is a personal and subjective thing. If some person comes to you and asks your view on faith, I should think you should be welcome to give it.

By why the need to aggresively expound it? There is no commandment or Godly reward for prolselytizing from some atheistic anti-God. Even the most expansive interpretation of the principles of personal morality and/or ethics doesn't require an atheist to go around to 'save souls' or 'disabuse' the believers.

3) The internet is a great place to speak openly about all issues, religion included. We now have a forum.

Absolutely - public discussion forums are places for public discourse and the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of expression do have some application (limited of course by various applicable laws and terms of service and whatnot).

But I repeat, given "we now have a forum" - why the need for the soapbox? Are you not granting the religious fundamentalists more credit and influence than they actually have by taking up arms? Does not the very act of 'taking up arms' against them not act as a catalyst for religious fundamentalism in the first place? Are you not trying to throw gasoline on a fire here?

4) fundamentalist christianity has achieved political power in the US, Canada, and the UK. If you want to join politics, get used to being harangued, even if you are religious. Fuck off if you cant handle it.

No.

You must not meet fire with fire. That just feeds the flames. Given what you say, there is all the more reason to engage a different approach. If you must fight a battle, take Sun Tzu to heart, not Blitzkrieg.

I think it is wrong to confuse the positivistic atheism with fundamentalism. At the core, all that we are doing is attaching the same logic and disposition we use in everyday life to notions of existence and meaning. That is it.

No - that is not it.

If fundamentalist religious people stayed home and prayed all day or spent all their time in Bible study, no one would care. To each his own. But it is the fact that they sometimes perhaps overstep the bounds of civil society in their desire to impose their fundamentalism upon you, me and society. That is why some people rightfully feel they have a duty to object to religious fundamentalism.

Now if an atheist stayed home and speculated about a godless universe all day long, no one would care. To each his own. But when they sometimes perhaps overstep the bounds of civil society in their desire to impose their atheism upon you, me and society, that's when moderate and responsible people have a duty to rightfully object to these 'positivistic' atheists.

I fail to see any difference between the characteristic of 'positivistic' or 'fundamentalist' here. They are indeed quite similar in character and form.

There is no reason i can think of why religion should be shielded from the same open criticism that art, entertainment, or politics is normally subjected to in our everyday lives. There is no reason why religion should not be held to the same low standards as other human institutions.

Absolutely. Rational criticism is a core principle of classical liberalism and I can never defy that.

But where is the rational criticism?

All I see is 'partisan attack' in the application of the term 'evil'. That is to play the same game.

Andrew

Indeed you are.

[sharkman]

I took the apology back.

My perogative.

Of course you missed that part

Tough noogies.

Cheers!

Drea Fa., A

edited to add an "H"

Cheers!

Drea, Fa., A.H.

Ha ha ha.

You have no such perogative. You lack intellectual integrity, thinking you can say one thing and then contradict yourself as you please. Glad to see you're getting a few yucks out of it. Ha ha ha.

[fellowtraveller]

There is more than a faint whiff of fervent evangelism about atheism these days.

Is there much difference in the approach, the marketing between say, Dawkins/Hitchens and somebody like Falwell or the Billy Graham Crusade?

I know the opinions are very different, but is there any substantive difference in the fervor?

Or does the environmental movement take the crown as the New Evangelism? There is a large dose of faith after all......

As a general rule, I'm inclined to agree. There appears to be a 'fundamentalist' or 'fanatical' component to atheism these days that has not been present previously. The traditional position of atheists towards religion is to generally dismiss it and/or ignore it (as none of my business).

Anecdotal evidence drawn from numerous forum discussions suggests that for many atheists, this is no longer the case. One might speculate that this may be in reaction to the rise of the politically ambitious US religious rightwing during the 1980's.

As for the environmental movement, I wouldn't put them in the same category of 'fundamentalist' or 'fanatical' type theists or atheists. They do appear to share the same passion of their cause which is the prime similarity, but the behaviour appears to be entirely different in terms of motivation and application.

Au contraire, I see a strong link between the fundies and hardcore environmentalists - a link that goes well beyond mere 'passion' and extends to faith. Yes, Faith, that heartland of ambiguity where unquestionaing acceptance of an initial premise can lead to the oddest of undertakings. Where believeing unquestioningly that 'God created the heavens and the Earth ' can be quickly and effectively leveraged into killing little brown people without any brain sweat at all. Faith, where we blindly accept what a scientist says as Truth - and extrapolate that into the oceans rising 20 feeet in the next decade.

Let's face it , few of us have any clue at all about the purported facts of climate change, and couldn't begin to understand the computer models and complexities of what we are told - and told by people who also have no way at all of verifying the information. Isn't that akin to faith? "I'll believe you because you seem trustworthy and sincere" is the level that this important discussion is at for people who belive very fervently in science explained badly by people who don't know.

Sorry, I digress and I'm threadjacking my own thread.

[Mad_Michael]

Au contraire, I see a strong link between the fundies and hardcore environmentalists - a link that goes well beyond mere 'passion' and extends to faith. Yes, Faith, that heartland of ambiguity where unquestionaing acceptance of an initial premise can lead to the oddest of undertakings. Where believeing unquestioningly that 'God created the heavens and the Earth ' can be quickly and effectively leveraged into killing little brown people without any brain sweat at all. Faith, where we blindly accept what a scientist says as Truth - and extrapolate that into the oceans rising 20 feeet in the next decade.

Let's face it , few of us have any clue at all about the purported facts of climate change, and couldn't begin to understand the computer models and complexities of what we are told - and told by people who also have no way at all of verifying the information. Isn't that akin to faith? "I'll believe you because you seem trustworthy and sincere" is the level that this important discussion is at for people who belive very fervently in science explained badly by people who don't know.

Sorry, I digress and I'm threadjacking my own thread.

Right. 1,000's of scientists, specialists in their applicable fields of study, following the principles of science in their peer-reviewed process are obviously engaged in propagating a myth. And everyone is following blindly behind these mystical soothsayers of science like a flock of sheep.

Clearly, global-warming exists entirely as an article of faith since there is no way to collect evidence upon the topic and no way we can scientifically study this stuff and there's no way anyone can understand it, even if someone does study it - unless they are trustworthy and sincere, in which case that changes everything and shows why those who believe that global warming is in fact occuring are clearly delusional and entirely motivated by a fanatical passion for myth-making.

[Who's Doing What?]

Well when you look around and can see wars and terrorism across the world perpetuated in the name of religion it makes you wonder what the use of something so destructive is. Then when you look through history more people have did in the name or their god than for any other reason, save perhaps disease.

Then you flip around the TV and see these charlatans getting rich by hoodwinking the masses a few bucks at a time. Sure if you don't believe in a god you want to stand up and shout "smarten the **** up!!"

So yes athiests should be more outspoken and critical of religion. If that makes them "evangelical" then so be it.

[runningdog]

I respectfully submit that 'sanity and level-headedness' in society is best achieved by not denigrating the beliefs of a very large proportion of our fellow citizens.

Live and let live.

I think the problem with this is that religious minded people will hold out for a "silver bullet" solution instead of taking ownership of whatever situation themselves....."God willing, that levee will hold." "God willing, all of our problems will be solved." etc...

I don't think that all church-goers are bad. I know that many people attend church for the fellowship, and that many churches do serve a useful function, as long as it's not a case of soup in one hand and the bible in the other. That sickens me.

[Mad_Michael]

Well when you look around and can see wars and terrorism across the world perpetuated in the name of religion it makes you wonder what the use of something so destructive is. Then when you look through history more people have did in the name or their god than for any other reason, save perhaps disease.

This is tossed around as if it were 'conventional wisdom'. But there is no real basis for this statement based on the historical record.

I defy you to list a few of the most bloody 'religious' wars in history.

I will then show you that particular war was not about religion at all.

If you do try taking up the challenge, don't bother with the 12th/13th century Crusades or the 16th/17th century religious wars. Those ones are too easy for me. Pick a tough one!

So yes athiests should be more outspoken and critical of religion. If that makes them "evangelical" then so be it.

Yes, everyone loves a good civil war.