Atheism evangelism followup

[dougo]

I posted a comment on hahathor's post about evangelical atheists, and since I never followed up on my post about it here, I figured I'd repost part of the comment here.

The thing that spurred me into asking [whether atheist evangelism was any better than religious evangelism] was this: I saw a documentary about evangelists where someone explained that, if you truly believe that someone you love will go to Hell because they are not a Christian, then shouldn't you do everything you can to prevent that loved one from going to Hell? It does make logical sense, if you accept the assumptions of Sin and Hell. And it made me think, hypothetically speaking, if I truly believe that someone I love is doing damage to themselves because of their religion, then shouldn't I do everything I can to convince them otherwise? For instance, suppose I knew a Christian Scientist who was suffering from a treatable illness, but who refused medical treatment in favor of prayer. If I cared about this person, shouldn't I try to convince them that medical treatment is far more likely to be effective than just prayer? Maybe this doesn't count as evangelism, since I'm not trying to convert them completely to atheism, just away from a particularly egregious corollary of their religion. But it falls into the category of "disabusing others of their beliefs". This is an extreme example, but I think this is the kind of motivation that spurs people to talk someone out of a religious belief: the stereotype is that religious people do some irrational things based on their religious belief that can sometimes be harmful to themselves or others, and if you think that this might happen, then in theory it's socially responsible to try to change their mind. But, yeah, in practice it's usually just rude.

To be clear, I personally think evangelism of any sort is usually a bad idea, not just because it's rude, but also because in general it's dangerous to assume that you know better than someone else what's good for them. But I think the motivations of atheist evangelists can be as virtuously-intended as religious evangelists who want to save your soul from eternal damnation.

Comments

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

You made the argument that all religions do collective harm - extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Has Soka Gakkai done collective harm?
How about Izumo Taishakyo?
Izunome?
Seicho No Ie?

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

before i go into detail, do you really know anything about those religions and their or did you pull them out of a google search?

their problem range between controversies wrt cult status to historic problems with the ainu genocide.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Listen - you stated, categorically, that ALL religions do collective harm - that means google search is a great reference to find ANY religion.

I know about them as existing due to work on the VA emblems of religious belief allowed on headstones.

controversies wrt cult status

Let us know which definition of cult you are using, that would be extremely helpful.

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

do you know more than they exist?

talking about soka gakkai is really hard without a background in nichiren buddhism, buddhism in japan, buddhism in general, and the way state religion has shaped japanese history.

similarly for inzomo taishakyo but w/ shintoism.

izunome is a new on to me to be honest. but at a quick glance it shares a common problem with many religions (and more secular schools of thought) wrt whether or not morality/virtues/goodness is an objective feature of the universe - in practice. i can discuss this wrt no-mind and/or samsara if you need.

seicho no ei is also new to me, but from their website:

It was founded in Japan in 1930 by Rev. Masaharu Taniguchi, who, through his deep concern over the many contradictions in life, dedicated many years of intensive study to different philosophies and religions, until one day, while in deep meditation, he received the divine inspirations that were to form the basis for the Truth of Life Movement.

but this "divine inspiritation" thing? not new. and it generally has a common set of problems and harms around it.

* * *

re: cult
the controversy is the problem. not what constitutes a cult. as a phenomena, claims of cult status happen when memberships is controlled that such a way that leaving, joining, or being excluded estrange relations between family/friends of members. this is harm.

* * *

if you really want to pick a bone with me, try to determine what harm is.