Atheism evangelism

[dougo]

Another informal poll: Is trying to convert someone to atheism any better than trying to convert someone to a religion?

Comments

[colubra.livejournal.com]

No, it's not.
And I demand an agnostic jihad. Immediately.

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I believe in jihad.

[(Anonymous)]

Then someone needs to convert you. Immediately.

[jtemperance.livejournal.com]

Leading by example is the best policy in both cases.

[cnoocy]

No, it's not.

[novalis.livejournal.com]

Yes, because by trying to convert someone to a religion, you're encouraging them to move towards bad epistemology.

[chrismwage.livejournal.com]

atheism is a bad epistemology

[novalis.livejournal.com]

That depends upon what sort of atheism one is talking about.

As I use the term, it means that my belief in God is very similar to my belief in Unicorns: sure, I don't think there are any, but if someone showed me one, I would change my mind.

This, I think, is how most atheists believe. We describe ourselves as atheists instead of agnostics, not because agnostic is denotationally incorrect, but because it has connotations of priors closer to 50-50 than five nines.

[gemini6ice.livejournal.com]

iawtc

except i believe in unicorns as i disbelieve in god. I believe that there must have existed unicorns at some point, but I know my belief is based on nothing. :)

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

It's equally pointless.

Converting someone to agnosticism, on the other hand, I support. We must have more doubt and uncertainty!

Agnosticism?

[(Anonymous)]

Do you mean agnostic atheism or agnostic theism?

Do you turn them to fuzzy believers- "I BELIEVE- um... something. It makes me feels good. And no, it ISN'T a crack substitue"
Or weak atheists? "The land mines should keep the Mormons away"

Re: Agnosticism?

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

Neither. "Does God exist? μ".

Re: Agnosticism?

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

I support fuzzy believers. They're a lot less likely to kill people or overthrow legitimate goverments on the basis of their beliefs.

Agnostics

[(Anonymous)]

People who don't have faith, who don't BELIEVE are agnostic atheists. Agnostics are those who lack conclusive knowledge in this case. Agnostic atheists don't say God doesn't exist- they simply say they have no reason to believe in him.

Re: Agnostics

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

I ID as agnostic because I think the question of whether God exists is irrelevant and distracting. It's not just that I have no reason to believe in God. It's that I have no reason to even ask whether I believe in God or not.

Re: Agnostics

[(Anonymous)]

That's the best description I've heard of agnostic apatheism (or is it apathetic agnosticism?)

[sirvalence.livejournal.com]

Trying to convert someone is always bad, because your goal is to impose your beliefs upon them. Respectfully sharing your own understanding with someone is always good, because your goal is to get them to think.

Whether atheism or religion is worse is debatable, of course, but it seems to me that most problems either way come from people who don't think for themselves.

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

I'm inclined to say it's better, but really it's about the method of conversion rather than the goal.

Which is to say, thumbscrews are right out.

[prusik.livejournal.com]

Trying to convert anyone to anything is just obnoxious. This is regardless of who or what.
I find Richard Dawkins unbearable even though I agree with him for the most part. Stooping down to the level of religious zealots just means you've decided to wallow in the muck with them.

yeah that

[cthulhia]

aggressive atheists also tend to deny their level of aggression, which makes they seem more hypocritical to me, ergo more offensive. Particularly since much of their argument typically points out the "hypocrisies" of religeous folks.

[gemini6ice.livejournal.com]

a little. they don't want money, whereas other religions do. but it's almost as bad.

[nosrednayduj]

The American Humanist Association would be delighted to have some of your money. As would the Unitarian Universalist Association (or your neighborhood UU church). UU's aren't officially athiest, but there are many non-believers in their congregations. My atheist housemate's PRESIDENT of her UU congregation. Sheesh. Church-going atheists. What is the world coming to?

We're sending our kids to UU Sunday school as innoculation against future being born-again. Dunno if it'll work... The curriculum is decent. They tackle moral questions in ways that aren't "it says so in the bible", but require you to think about your place in society and the world around you.

[(Anonymous)]

In my experience, the innoculation works. Although I have a tiny sample and jury is still out on at least half of it. At least I"m with you in hoping it works. And as for the money, CFI wants it, too.

[cnoocy]

I don't know of any born-agains among my classmates from UU Sunday school in the 70's and 80's. Not that I'm in touch with them all, but I am at least unaware of any spectacular failures of the theory.
(I do also have a friend who was sent to Catholic school by her ex-Catholic folks as inoculation against Catholicism, and that worked great as well. So you can apparently tackle the problem from either side.)

[surrealestate.livejournal.com]

Trying to convince someone to think like you do for reasons that don't clearly involve their or someone else's safety is generally not a good thing. The trouble is that that certain religious folks truly believe they are saving your life/soul by converting you, so it gets challenging.

[42itous.livejournal.com]

No.

:)

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

It's worse than trying to convert someone to a religion. When someone tries to convert you to a faith, they at least believe that they are saving you.

In fact, I'm kind of offended when my Christian friends don't try to "save" me. Don't they care about my immortal soul?

Now, a question for you: Is trying to convert someone to vegetarianism wrong?

[ghudson.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if it's better or worse, but I think it's very different.

If I am religious, I try to convert people because God wants me to, or because it will save their souls, or because I my organization to grow richer and more powerful.

If I am an atheist, I don't have any of those motivations. Maybe I like to argue epistemology. Maybe it offends my aesthetics or morality to see people acting according to arbitrary strictures. Maybe I see it as a way to loosen the grip of religion on public life.

The methods are also more likely to be different. Atheists don't have Bible study groups, so "conversion" is less likely to take the form of concerted social pressure and more likely to take the form of extended argument.

Either way, it can be welcome or unwelcome. If it's unwelcome, I think it's probably worse to be an obnoxious evangelical atheist than an obnoxious evangelical religious person, because atheists don't derive as much benefit (personal or altruistic) from converting people as religious people do. A religious person can rationalize that making someone uncomfortable is worth the chance you might save their soul or bring more people into the fold; an atheist doesn't have a great excuse.