Atheists, do you personally try to persuade others to become atheists as well?

[Htom Sirveaux]

Of course, no one can change the mind of another for them, but it would still be persuasive to offer suggestions and arguments to encourage another to reflect more deeply, in the hopes that they will see what you have seen after your own deeper reflection.

[cbayer]

1. Are you assuming that people haven't reached their religious beliefs

by the same personal deeper reflection that many atheists have?

Trying to convert people to religion or atheism is objectionable, imo.

[Htom Sirveaux]

3. I'm not assuming that.

But its an assumption that could be made by a person who decided that atheism is the perspective for them.

[cbayer]

21. I think it's obnoxious when anyone takes the position that they are more

enlightened or have reached their religious position in a way that is superior to those who have reached a different conclusion.

[Htom Sirveaux]

23. Arrogance is certainly a turn-off.

And merely having a different conclusion is not prima facie evidence of inferior processes.

[trotsky]

10. Is it OK to try and convert people from Republican to Democrat? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Hardly anyone "reached their religious beliefs

through deep personal reflection", but if you have evidence otherwise please do share it.

Religious belief, for the vast majority of believers, is cultural indoctrination acquired from their parents family and community.

As a group atheists are different. Many in fact arrived at their non belief despite their upbringing, arrived through this process of deep personal reflection you seem to oddly think is universal.

[Htom Sirveaux]

18. What about people who weren't raised in a religious atmosphere?

If they become atheists, would you agree that they are so by virtue of their culture, rather than deep personal reflection?

[Warren Stupidity]

20. I was objecting to the odd assertion

implied pugnaciously by cbayer that religious beliefs are generally arrived at through a process of deliberate personal choice. That was a ludicrous assertion. Your response was quite defensive, I thought it needed to be pointed out just how wrong her premise was.

To your point, sure some atheists are unexamined atheists raised by atheists, who have never deeply considered their lack of belief. I'll assert without any hard evidence at my disposal to back it up, that these are a small minority of atheists, while "unexamined believers" are the vast majority of believers.

[Htom Sirveaux]

22. Actually, she was responding to what she thought was a generalization by me.

Her pugnaciousness was directed toward the apparent suggestion that religious people never arrive at their beliefs by deep personal reflection. Which I think we can all agree isn't true, whether we agree or not on the percentage of people who do reflect deeply. To add to our growing pile of evidence free assertions, I think that a lot of people just don't care about religion one way or the other. They default to whatever is around them because it doesn't actually impact how they live.

Also, on a side note, is it even possible to imply an assertion? They would seem to be opposites, an implication being indirect and an assertion being direct.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. Of course it is possible to imply an assertion. People do it here all the time.

The assertion is left unstated, generally because it is indefensible.

[randys1]

2. When i was born i did not have a NON belief in leprechauns or Hobbit's

I dont have to have a name for someone who doesnt believe these exist.

I wouldnt waste time convincing anyone that leprechauns or hobbits dont exist.

[Arkansas Granny]

4. No. You can't make someone "unbelieve" any more than you can make someone believe.

Very few people know that I'm a non-believer and would probably be quite surprised to find that out.

[Demobrat]

5. Never

Most people who are religious have been brainwashed since they were born. I can't undo that, nor do I wish to try. If they take comfort in it, more power to them. I have no desire to take that away. Of course if they try to foist their beliefs on me they'll be met with an entirely different attitude, but most do not. Live and let live.

[bowens43]

6. I don't.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Not necessarily moving people to atheism, but I have had occasion to

help them eliminate a particular form of faith they had ascribed to. It usually starts by probing the reasons they hold a particular religion to be worthy of allegiance. Things they held to be true. Then destroy those assumptions, because they are nearly always couched in ignorance, and not true at all.

For instance, I have a friend that ascribed to a particular church for a variety of reasons, one at an example, the walls of Jericho story in the bible. He maintained that no force other than the trumpets/god could have brought down the walls. I suggested that an earthquake could have done it, and if it happened some time around the siege of the city, legend-making could have given rise to the biblical story as allegory. He insisted that an earthquake was impossible, unless by the hand of god, because Israel is not geologically active.


Dunn dun dunnnnnn.

It took less than an hour to demonstrate that is actually geologically untrue. Israel has plenty of faults. There are orgs within Israel agitating for stronger building codes, because the evidence suggests there may be strong quakes in the region periodically, and they are under-prepared. (Much like the south, in the New Madrid Seismic Zone area. That's going to kick our asses some day)

So anyway, I chipped away at enough of those beliefs, he eventually started questioning his own faith and found it wanting. Long story short, he's still a Christian, but he's now of a sect that is far less obnoxious on social issues, because it is not fundamentalist. So I consider that progress, and while I didn't convert him to atheism, I'm satisfied that a good guy, that I felt was being misled, more accurately knows his place in the universe today, and that's cool. And a fundamentalist social activist church is one member family poorer, which is great.

[rogerashton]

9. If I remember correctly,

archeologists have shown that Jericho was in ruins long before the period in which, according to the Old Testament, the walls were brought down.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. I have heard that as well.

But the solution to the problem was much simpler. Showing there was ANY alternate mechanism besides 'god did it' (And this was across multiple things, I just gave one example) caused him to question the whole enchilada.

[rogerashton]

63. Good point.

eom

[Trajan]

54. I think Israel Finklestein was part of that investigation

Jericho had in fact been erected and destroyed quite a few times, one layer atop the other ... primarily due to earthquakes, I understand ...

[Htom Sirveaux]

12. Is he glad today that you did that with him?

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Yes.

I don't have any friends that don't, on some level, seek the truth. Love to learn new things.
He looks back on his former church as something of a scam. To the best of my knowledge, he is comfortable and happy with his current faith community.

[clydefrand]

8. I have no desire to

try to convert anyone to atheism. You either 'believe' there is a god, or you don't

[longship]

14. Never. nt

[NastyRiffraff]

16. Rarely

If the subject of religion vs atheism comes up, I try to have a conversation about it, which is different from trying to convert them. If someone seems to be listening I am willing to feel them out about the possibility of at least examining their beliefs in the light of logic and science. If someone is hostile (as a certain type of religious people are) I drop the conversation, not responding to them as they go on (and on and on and on) about how belief in a god is necessary for "morality," etc.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. Sure. If the opportunity to discuss belief

comes up I have no problem challenging believers to explain and justify their beliefs. After all, in my opinion they are deluded about some fundamental aspects of human existence. How can I let my brothers and sisters wallow in ignorance and delusion without at least offering them the opportunity to rise above the shackles of religiosity? To refuse to do so would be a rejection of empathy for my fellow human beings.

[Htom Sirveaux]

24. Do you appreciate those believers who have the same attitude towards you?

Because they are just trying to save you from what they see as eternal peril? ("Let me go back and face the peril!" "No, no, it's too perilous!&quot

[Warren Stupidity]

36. they generally do not want to actually discuss their beliefs in any rational way.

and yes, I'm fine with that discussion.

[LeftishBrit]

19. No, I don't.

I do, however, try at times to persuade both atheists and believers of the dangers of the religious right.

[Starboard Tack]

25. Never. nt

[gcomeau]

26. Outside arguing about it on the internet when it comes up?

No, pointless exercise. People generally aren't conditioned to react rationally to anything that calls their religious beliefs into question... which is how they retain possession of religious beliefs.

[mike_c]

27. no

on edit-- I should point out though that I don't personally know many people that I'd characterize as actually religious, so in truth I have relatively few opportunities to try and change anyone's mind anyway.

[arcane1]

28. Nope, I generally avoid the topic altogether.

If someone asks, I'm more than happy to answer. But I won't be the one to bring it up.

[Prophet 451]

29. The arrogance on display in some posts here...

...is telling. It seems that neither atheist or theist is immune to believing that they have The Truth (tm) and all else is lies.

[unblock]

30. nonsense! only believers believer the have "the truth". non-believer *know*.

joking! just couldn't resist a little friday snark

actually, i'm very careful when discussing such matters to only say "i think..." or "i feel that..." or "in my opinion". i never try to convince anyone that my view is "correct" or "the truth" or the only view.

in truth, i think we likely all believe pretty much the same thing and make far, far too much of linguistic differences. in particular, i think the word "god" is practically meaningless. when we get down to specifics, we are all often in far more agreement.

[cbayer]

32. This is a really interesting reply

that resonates with me to a large degree.

I often use the blind men and the elephant analogy, where each is touching a different part of this enormous animal and each reaches an entirely different conclusion about what it is (and what it isn't).

It is the need to be right that so often gets in the way of simple acceptance that others just experience things differently.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. Couldn't disagree more.

When it comes down to "god" we do not believe "pretty much the same thing". The word "god" is not meaningless. It might be difficult to pin down the theists here (well some of them) on what they believe that means, but they believe, most of them, in some sort of supernatural entity that, at a minimum created the universe. Christians, almost all of them, believe that this supernatural entity became a human being they call "jesus", who lived and died 2000 years ago.

[unblock]

39. begging the question. what is a "supernatural entity"?

as you point out, there are many different notions of "god", but for the most part, people don't care to distinguish, even when it's highly pertinent.

was einstein an atheist or a believer? if you asked him he would say he believed in god, but he defined god as the sum total of the physical laws of the universe. which sounds an awful lot like what many atheists believe in, although the avoid the word "god".

einstein's god is pretty much at the extreme intrinsic end of the intrinsic-extrinsic spectrum. the more god looks like santa claus, a discreet being separate from the universe or merely one part of the universe but not the whole thing, the further that god is on the extrinsic side. and of course this is only one way to characterize the many different beliefs of what people mean when they say "god".

but for the most part, people agree more when they talk further, about the nature of the universe and humanity and morality. if you view "god commanded me to..." as equivalent to "my core convictions compel me to...", then we're all pretty much on the same page.


well, until we start talking about races and genders and so on.... ultimately, it's all a bunch of hogwash to divvy us up into tribes, one way or another.

[trotsky]

41. I think it's also a bunch of hogwash...

to accuse people of "divvy(ing) us up into tribes" when they're just trying to explain their use of words.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. einstein appears to have been a pantheist

identifying the universe as "god", which is quite different from "a supernatural entity". By definition the universe is a (or the) natural entity. The common conception of god is of a entity "outside" the universe, thus "supernatural", which entity acted or acts to create the universe, and then may or may not continue to act within that universe, as for example the Christian god which quite specifically appears in the form of a human being 2000 years ago. You continue to ignore that quite specific bit of common agreement among Christian believers as it doesn't fit into your view of cosmic vagueness.

[unblock]

43. you're talking about one particular conception of god. there are many, even among christians.

you're talking about an extrinsic god. not everyone, not even all christians, believe if an extrinsic god.

many believe in an intrinsic god. when they say "god is everywhere, god is in every rainbow, god is in every tornado..." that's an intrinsic god they're talking about. plenty of christians and others believe this is what god is. they believe that jesus was the embodiment of god but that nevertheless god was at the same time in all of us and everything else as well.

then there are christians who believe in both intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of god, and often point to the "holy spirit" part of the trinity as the intrinsic aspect, often with the "father" being the extrinsic aspect and "jesus" being the specifically human aspect of it.

anyway, my point in saying that the word "god" is meaningless is that there are so many difference concepts of god and people, even non-believers, get stuck in particular concepts. it makes talking about it challenging!

[Act_of_Reparation]

46. As a baseline, most people who refer to "God" associate the word with some kind of agency.

Whether they are talking an intrinsic God, an extrinsic God, or a turtle-shaped God who stands on the backs of a thousand turtles, they still ascribe to their God some kind of will, character, or purpose.

Does everyone do this? No, but I'd bet the tattoo off my right arm the vast majority of theists do.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. yes i understand you want to make that claim, but really there is substantial agreement about what

The word god means among Christians, and your examples do not disprove that. Moreover there is a clear distinction between pantheistic beliefs, and theistic beliefs, and between both of those and atheists. You don't get to wave your hands at those distinctions, claim meaningless where there is obvious meaning, and announce some sort of half assed ecumenicalism transcending belief and non-belief with any credibility.

[unblock]

49. you're nearly taking the opposite of what i'm saying and ascribing it to me.

i'm not at all glossing over the distinctions you note; in fact, that's my point. there are myriad distinctions in the nature of "god" among believers (you refer to christians, i'm referring to all believers).

for the most part it's those who *do* believe who draw the sharp line between believers and non-believers. i'm not announcing some sort of half-assed ecumenicalism transcending belief, i'm simply noting that all believers seem to insist on using the exact same word, "god", to describe a vast array of differing beliefs.

that is what renders the term "god" pretty meaningless.

[beam me up scottie]

57. "which sounds an awful lot like what many atheists believe in"

Atheists do not require god substitutes.

[AtheistCrusader]

109. Though, a good Irish Coffee, late at night when I have a lot of shit to get done, comes really close

[AtheistCrusader]

35. As we have discussed before, why don't you address the poster's you're talking about directly?

[phil89]

31. I try to promote rational thought

Skepticism and critical thinking, atheism is a natural result of that, so I suppose I do indirectly promote atheism, but no more than I consider myself promoting lack of belief in pixies, Scientology or Santa Claus.

[Humanist_Activist]

50. Exactly, skepticism and critical thinking come first, atheism can be an end result of that...

though I've known quite a few skeptics who apply critical thinking to everything but there religion, cognitive dissonance is strong with them.

[Iggo]

33. Nope.

[NeoGreen]

34. Nope. However, depending on the group/context...

... I actively seek out those who have already made the journey and have concluded that god the afterlife and magic are all bunk.

Proselytizing is for Patsies

[rug]

40. If they are, they're doing a slam-bang job of it.

[FiveGoodMen]

44. I would if I thought it would work.

[brooklynite]

45. Only if they express a religious opinion to me first.

[LostOne4Ever]

48. No

I do, however, try to promote secularism and liberalism. My atheism is a very small part of me.

You don't fret over your non-belief in Zeus or Odin do you? I don't think about my non-belief in YHWH too much either. I do, however, think quite a bit about my liberalism and how I want to go down to Austin and take the wheels off Greg Abbots wheelchair and stick them up his and Rick Perry's a.....you get the idea.

I keep my lack of belief purely online and usually only bring it up when it comes to politics and religion....IE on DU and on some facebook feeds. Even then, I don't promote it so much as I am either trying debunk a conservative argument or defend what I see as misrepresentations of what I and others (don't) believe.

[djean111]

51. Me too. Well said.

[Warpy]

52. Of course not

Not everybody can fly without a net and besides, it's just as rude a thing to do as trying to sell somebody else on a religion that is not their own, never mind trying to harangue an atheist to come to Jebus.

[Faux pas]

53. Nope.

And, I'd appreciate the same consideration from the 'believers'.

[HooptieWagon]

55. Absolutely. Every missionary or gospel spreader that knocks on my door....

gets a major sales pitch. It keeps them from ever returning.

[BarbaRosa]

56. No.

I don't really care who, what or if they believe.

I'll keep my stuff out of your face and you do the same for me, thank you.

[Starboard Tack]

58. Happy to see that most replies are well reasoned and respectful.

Only the usual handful of fundies who can't stand the thought of anyone believing something that can't be proven.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. Awful lot of 'non specific' passive-aggressive posts in this thread too, all the sudden...

[LeftishBrit]

60. Most of these 'fundies' are reacting against attempts to impose religion on either themselves or

on society as a whole.

[Starboard Tack]

65. You're right there. They are "reacting".

Like reacting to Xmas trees on public property and calling believers delusional and mentally ill.
Fundies will be fundies, though, regardless their beliefs. They just love to get in your face and shove their garbage down your throat.

[LeftishBrit]

66. I haven't had many people do the latter to me with regard to religion...

either atheists or believers.

People have certainly done so with regard to their educational theories, or their tastes in music, or their favourite football team, or currently the World Cup.

As regards calling believers 'delusional and mentally ill': that is rude, and more importantly a trivialization of mental illness; BUT most people who do so are responding to years of religious right-wingers seeking to impose their laws on them.

[Starboard Tack]

67. Me neither.

Maybe they only come out on internet forums, Sunday morning TV and AM radio in the bible belt. I understand why many of the fundies do what they do, but it is no excuse for being obnoxious.

[LeftishBrit]

69. There are degrees of obnoxiousness

It would be better if no one were obnoxious at all.

However, I would prefer to be described as 'delusional' for not believing in God, than have it implied that my atheism makes me less of a citizen, or is politically dangerous to society, or that all 'organized atheism' is akin to the imposition of state atheism by dictators (as was frequently implied by a certain former DU-er). And I would prefer either to happen on the Internet, than to have people in power use religion as an excuse to impose social or economic conservativism, or for going to war.

[Starboard Tack]

93. Can't disagree with any of what you say there.

[Warren Stupidity]

77. Of course we haven't actually done that.

Nobody has made the claim here that all believers are mentally ill. That is just horseshit and should not be apologized for as it lends credence to the bullshit claim that this argument has been made.

[LeftishBrit]

78. I don't think anyone has claimed that ALL believers are mentally ill..

however, some have said that religion is a mental illness (sometimes admittedly as a result of 'have you stopped beating your wife?' type questions on the subject).

I have in real life been called crazy for various beliefs that I've had; though never, I think, for my atheism.

[Warren Stupidity]

80. No really the claim was that religion is a delusion.

From which statement it was extrapolated that therefore religion is a mental illness. As was pointed out repeatedly, a person can have delusional thoughts without being mentally ill.

But that was not what the alleged atheist Starbord Tack said, he claimed not that we were calling religion a mental illness, but "believers mentally ill". Now you might make the claim that his outrage was over calling some believers mentally ill, but surely there are mentally ill believers, so outrage over that seems a bit misplaced, or otherwise he was, as I said making the claim that we have called all believers mentally ill. Please don't apologize for us for this sort of bullshit attack.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Why should there be xmas trees on public property again?

Remind me, why they would be acceptable there.

[Starboard Tack]

74. I didn't say there should be.

But I see no problem with them or any other festive items. Certainly not worth reacting over a Xmas tree. There are far bigger fish to fry in the struggle against religious intrusion of public spaces, such as the pledge of allegiance, US currency, and a host of other things. A Xmas tree is no more religious than Santa or the Easter bunny.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. Have you shared that opinion with a christian lately?

Because they get pretty upset when people try to remove them.

[Starboard Tack]

79. Why would anyone want to remove a Xmas tree?

They are symbolic in different ways to different people. They predate Christianity. Personally, I see them purely as seasonal decoration and completely harmless.

[Goblinmonger]

81. Oh, I don't know, the constitution, perhaps?

[Starboard Tack]

82. Oh right! You wanna point out the tree clause?

I guess the White House never got your message.

http://o1.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims3/PATCH/format/jpg/quality/82/resize/442x295/http://hss-prod.hss.aol.com/hss/storage/patch/9bfae089c6768f5a630b592ea834b966

or the National Park Service.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. And christians lost their shit over the White House starting to call them 'holiday trees' instead of

Christmas trees.


Christmas trees do not, in fact, pre-date Christianity.

[Starboard Tack]

87. You are right. I should've said Holiday Trees, which do predate Christianity.

Obviously, anything referring to Christ cannot predate Christianity. I don't celebrate Christmas, but I celebrate the Holiday Season and the trees are a part of that, just as the eggs are part of Easter, which I don't consider a Christian holiday either. That said, I have no problem with Christians and others faiths overlapping certain holidays. It's nice to share celebrations and the festive season with others, regardless of personal beliefs.

[AtheistCrusader]

89. I think a yule tree could probably be construed as a religious thing as well.

I have to argue this from a position of principle. Equal access to all, or, do religious displays on private property. Those conditions work. Anything else is special pleading/train wreck.

[Htom Sirveaux]

94. I agree with equal access to all.

Put the billboard comparing God to Santa right next to the tree.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. That means the satanists get to play too.

Which I am also ok with.

[Htom Sirveaux]

96. Quite so.

That doesn't change my opinion.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. Fair enough. I accept your internally logical/consistent position.

[Goblinmonger]

91. Nice use of RW talking points.

Keep that up. It really helps your credibility.

[Starboard Tack]

92. RW talking points? What are you blithering about?

Nothing in your constitution about holiday trees. Sorry to disappoint you.

[Goblinmonger]

98. "blithering about?" Be the change, Starboard.

There's nothing about prayer in school in my constitution, either, but I seem to remember something about Engel v. Vitale. Sorry to disappoint you.

And just so you know, you just doubled down on the RW talking points. "Nothing in your constitution about holiday trees" Thanks, Glenn Beck.

[Starboard Tack]

99. Nice try GM!

Have a truly wonderful day!

[Goblinmonger]

100. That's it?

Nothing about the fact that your argument (there is no mention of holiday trees in your constitution) also would apply to school prayer?

FWIW, I expected nothing more. You are all drive-by comments and no actual desire to discuss/analyze. Contrary to what you say you want this place to be.

[Starboard Tack]

107. And all I expect from you is more smear.

I never mentioned school prayer. You made that leap. You also brought up the constitution. I said trees don't bother me. Period. Reciting the pledge bothers me, school prayer bothers me. Theater, not so much.

[Goblinmonger]

108. You said there is nothing in the constitution about holiday trees.

I said that there was also nothing in the constitution about school prayer. I was pointing out your use of RW talking points to support your notion of why trees are OK. If there is nothing in the constitution about the pledge or school prayer why does that bother you? Or, better yet, why did you bring the presence of a specific religious thing being absent from the constitution up as some sort of actual argument.

Are you really this obtuse? I'm starting to think yes but have given you the benefit of the doubt.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. If it's harmless, why get upset at their removal?

[Starboard Tack]

88. I don't get upset at their being there or their removal.

There's very little about religious symbolism that upsets me and I don't see these trees as being religious. I guess it depends on how they are decorated. I did go through a phase where I opposed cutting down young trees for this purpose, but if they are farmed responsibly and recycled, then there is a plus side - a green industry that employs 100,000+ people.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. There are a lot of people who DO get extremely upset about their removal.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. In fact, if it's not a big deal for them to be there, why is it such a big deal to remove them?

One of these things is not like the other...

[skepticscott]

62. They were, until yours

But you just had to jump in with the usual bayer clan condescension, though, didn't you? As if you and your family were the room's ultimate arbiters of what constitutes "well reasoned" and "respectful", or an Excellent Post (r).

Not to mention your family's apparent inability to acknowledge the harm done by subcultures that promote and encourage belief in things that have no evidence to support them.

[Iggo]

70. You just had to, didn't you.

[Htom Sirveaux]

71. I agree with your first sentence.

I think that overall, this thread has been going very well indeed.

[beam me up scottie]

61. Honey where I live just telling people you're an infidel will get you in a world of hurt.

I'm serious.

My home state is much more progressive, people dion't discuss religious beliefs, it's considered rude to inquire about such things.

If I had the chance I would be happy to explain why I'm an atheist but I wouldn't try to convince anyone else.

Besides, our club is very exclusive; we don't allow just anyone in.

[Htom Sirveaux]

64. That stinks.

I support you having the freedom to be open about where you stand, and get a fair hearing. The believers around you may mouth words of love amongst themselves, but how can they love anyone if they can't pay attention without judgment first?

[beam me up scottie]

72. Well down here where the Southern Baptists run amok religion has nothing to do with love.

Quite the opposite, actually.

A recent local election got nasty when someone went through the trash of one of the candidates and found a letter from a Secular Humanist organization. They cleaned it up, photographed it and posted it EVERYWHERE. Since most people have no freakin clue what Humanists are they were informed that this person was an atheist and wanted to close all of the churches and religious schools in the district.

Guess who lost the election?

That part she could get over but now she has to deal with being labeled a godless heathen and targeted by religionists for rest of her life.

[hrmjustin]

68. IRL I have a lot of friends and family here in NYC that identify as...

atheist/agnostic/get religion away from me and for the mostpart I can't really say any of them try to convert me. We have had interesting discussions but they really don't get into trying to convert me nor I them.

[Heddi]

85. Oh yes. OF course. I go knocking on stranger's doors, hand out tracts, and stand proud that Atheism

is the law of the land: That non-Atheists can't hold state office, that Non-Atheists are forced to not say "so help me god" at the end of a swearing in, that the 10 Atheistic Commandments are proudly displayed on courthouses and in public schools....

Every day, my fellow Atheists and I go throughout the city, knocking on people's doors and asking them if they have time to answer a few questions about their Atheism, or if they've thought about what's going to happen when they die. We hand out tracts to people walking down the street that promote the Atheist Viewpoint. WHen not doing that, we produce one of the 2000 televised Atheist TV and radio shows. We also publish magazines and newspapers, and have reached people as far away as Antarctica and Laos.

We do great fund-raising. we're non profit but that doesn't mean we can't be prosperous!!! In fact, one of the Great Atheist Leaders just got a new jet for proselytizing in far away countries, and so that way we can open a new TV station in South Korea



what a stupid fucking question. Seriously. This is what you want to know of Atheists? Do we try to convert people? Give me a fucking break. What's your next ground-breaking question "Atheists, when did you stop eating babies?"?

what a fucking joke.

[Htom Sirveaux]

86. Actually, this is my next question:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218135492

Any recommendations?

[catbyte]

101. No

[DrewFlorida]

102. No! I would never waste my time trying to tell someone else what to believe!

I rarely talk religion with someone unless they bring up the subject first.

[Sylvarose]

103. What an interesting question...

....personally I think of that as "evangelical" atheism.

I have engaged in conversations on spirituality and religion with atheists, agnostics, evangelical Christians, "liberal" Christians, pagans (from Wicca to Asatru). I've been to Catholic mass and to a Gnostic mass. I've gone to pagan festivals, Pow-wows and to bible camp. I have family who are agnostic, atheists and fundamentalist Christian. I have friends who are pagan, Buddhists, atheists and Christian. I had a co-worker who was Muslim who first taught me about Ramadan.

I once engaged in a three-way all night discussion on religion with someone who been raised in Iran during the 80's along with someone raised in Israel at that same time. It was one of the most challenging conversations of my life. It left me for weeks really examining my faith and in the long run forced me to make some significant changes.

I have a co-worker is a very straightforward atheist with whom I have had some really meaningful discussions on religion.

Point is...in all I have had some wonderful experiences and conversations. However, those have all come from a place of respect. See, I identify myself as a Christian but I'm not evangelical. I'm not out there to convert. When the topic of religion comes up..or the chance to engage on spirituality is given I genuinely like to hear what people think and believe. It can be challenging personally but I find that it has always helped me grow.

I confess though I have as little patience for 'evangelical' atheists as I do for 'evangelical' or fundamentalist Christians and yes I have encountered both. I believe if you cannot approach a conversation on religion/spirituality with a respect for the other then you probably shouldn't have that discussion (which is yes why I find it very difficult to have discussions with many evangelical Christians).

However, sometimes I think the simplest approach (for me) to the subject is just to repeat:

“All shall be well, and all shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well.” - Julian of Norwich

[Htom Sirveaux]

104. If you feel like sharing, how did your faith change

after your conversation with the Israeli and the Iranian?
-
I think there is a very strong connection between attention, respect, and love. If anyone intends to love their neighbor as themselves, then it would follow that they should strive to know and understand their neighbor as themselves. Otherwise, they may not even know that someone is their neighbor, or they may be relating to an imaginary version of that person.

[Sylvarose]

105. it changed in a couple of ways

...first it really made me realize how much of my "support" for Israel was just built on my "Sunday" school teachings as a child and not necessarily geo-world politics. It was a real eye-opener for me to realize I wasn't as "knowledgeable" about the world as I thought. In fact, I was quite ignorant. That I was quite literally basing my current political beliefs based on religious beliefs that had been formed in grade school.

It made me understand that the middle east was a much more complicated place. Now did I suddenly have the answers, no. But that's the point...I realized I DIDN'T have the answers.

That realization made me start to question where else was I being dogmatic in my faith. WE had touched on some many subject that night where I argued vehemently what I believed but in the days after as I thought of their answers and their questions I began to realize just how dogmatic I really was and how my answers were just a reflexive response rather than a truly self-examined response.

So I guess in short how my faith changed...is that...well it wasn't the first time that I had questioned or had some sort of evolution but it really was one of the first times where I sat down and examined began to identify what in my faith was a learned dogma that I held on to because it was familiar and what did I really BELIEVE. Further more.... and very importantly...when was there and where should that line between the secular and the religious be?

[Shadowflash]

106. Nope.

I don't care what you believe as long as you don't try to push it off on me.