Q for atheists: should we campaign?

[chaseter]

I like the "The. End." part. It makes me say "The" pause "End".

 

[Spider-X]

I like the "The. End." part. It makes me say "The" pause "End".

lol...thanks, twas the point

 

[chaseter]

Gooooood. Use your hate boy and your transformation to the dark side shall be complete.

 

[Spider-X]

Gooooood. Use your hate boy and your transformation to the dark side shall be complete.

*slowly picks up lightsaber, vengeful/sinister look in the eyes*

 

[yenaled]

the whole idea of atheism being a group or some kind of movement makes me shudder.

There is nothing wrong with belief or worship it's organized religion that has messed the world up and there is no reason why atheiests should make a united front or party it's just ruining what should be a personal opinion. Sure attacking corrupt leaders of churches or cults is an honourable thing but marching around publically enforcing your beliefs is what got us in a mess in the first place.

For the record I'm not religious and I don't believe in God.

 

[The Battousai]

If that's what you want to call it, go for it. But no, it's not.

There's a distinct difference between sound waves and sound. If you don't want to accept the fact that you were wrong, you don't have to. It's only the internet, so I'm not going to push any further to try to convince you, since you likely wouldn't listen regardless.

I never said there wasn't a difference - I was simply using a broader and incorrect definition of the word than I had originally anticipated. Initially, I had thought that you were disregarding how sound travels - I was clearly wrong in that assumption.

 

[Danalys]

i see it some what like vegetarians advertising. vegetarians are only a group based on one thing, the lack of eating meat. athiests are a group only because of the lack of belief in gods godesses.

so vegetarians would advertise because they want there to be more vegetarians or for existing vegetarians to be better understood or just acknowleged. the idea of vegetarianism should be out there.

the only difference is that eating meat isn't sacred, so speaking against it in anyway shape or form, no matter how polite, isn't seen as an insult.

 

[Joker]

While I understand the point of the bus ads, the fight fire with fire mentallity, and find them funny, I don't think it's the proper way to be going about it. What we should be doing is literally using fire and burning the religious alive. I mean, they did it to us back in the day, and it would be even funnier than the bus ads...

 

[Majic Walrus]

While I understand the point of the bus ads, the fight fire with fire mentallity, and find them funny, I don't think it's the proper way to be going about it. What we should be doing is literally using fire and burning the religious alive. I mean, they did it to us back in the day, and it would be even funnier than the bus ads...

 

[terry78]

While I understand the point of the bus ads, the fight fire with fire mentallity, and find them funny, I don't think it's the proper way to be going about it. What we should be doing is literally using fire and burning the religious alive. I mean, they did it to us back in the day, and it would be even funnier than the bus ads...

There's more of us than there are of you. Majority rules.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

While I understand the point of the bus ads, the fight fire with fire mentallity, and find them funny, I don't think it's the proper way to be going about it. What we should be doing is literally using fire and burning the religious alive. I mean, they did it to us back in the day, and it would be even funnier than the bus ads...

 

[Franklin Richards]

i see it some what like vegetarians advertising. vegetarians are only a group based on one thing, the lack of eating meat. athiests are a group only because of the lack of belief in gods godesses.

so vegetarians would advertise because they want there to be more vegetarians or for existing vegetarians to be better understood or just acknowleged. the idea of vegetarianism should be out there.

the only difference is that eating meat isn't sacred, so speaking against it in anyway shape or form, no matter how polite, isn't seen as an insult.

I thought eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin at one point?



You never know when people will become enlightened.

 

[Abstract]

There's more of us than there are of you. Majority rules.

But the atheists have no fear of divine punishment either in this world or the here-after to limit them :P

 

[bunk]

The problem with an anti-religion thread is it will probably be just like the religion thread- two differing sides beating their heads against a wall. We should have a head beating wall smilie.

Probably. However, there are a lot of amusing atheist-related articles and what not that could be posted. It could be something broader and cover evolution and science as well.

the whole idea of atheism being a group or some kind of movement makes me shudder.

There is nothing wrong with belief or worship it's organized religion that has messed the world up and there is no reason why atheiests should make a united front or party it's just ruining what should be a personal opinion. Sure attacking corrupt leaders of churches or cults is an honourable thing but marching around publically enforcing your beliefs is what got us in a mess in the first place.

For the record I'm not religious and I don't believe in God.

It's been said that organizing atheists would be like trying to heard a group of house cats, and I'm inclined to agree. But if it could happen, I think the goal would mostly be to have a say in things, not to try and de-religion people. There's no representation in the government and atheists are continually demonized by congressman, judges, and other people of authority. The idea is to have people able to say they're atheists and not be condemned for it.

 

[Kent]

But campaigning is different then sharing. I've got no problems sharing my ideas with individuals who can make their own choice, but not to campaign for atheism like it's some sort of noble cause.

Maybe I didn't make it quite clear in my previous post, and if that's the case then... you know... "my bad"... but I'm not for campaigning for atheism as much as I am for campaigning with the intent to raise awareness and thought surrounding atheism. Because quite frankly, the majority of people in the western world are religious, and I don't trust them with giving the right view of what atheism is.

Atheism in itself would be pointless to campaign for. That is, I'm not interested in religious people being magically transformed into being Atheists over night. I'm interested in the rational thought process which would lead to it.

All this being said, I don't see the hostility towards spreading ideas via, for instance, bus banners. As if this is somehow forcing these ideas on people.

I for one don't see a problem with people going about their business this particular way... and this includes religious people. If a bus campaign, for instance, were to upset me, it would not be due to the choice of medium to spread whatever idea it is, but due to the idea in itself.

You sound like a Christian evangelist.

And you sound like you've never heard a Christian evangelist.

Not all atheists are enlightened individuals, just most of them.

Oh I agree. I'm sure there are plenty of bigots, ignoramuses (sp?), and just plain *******s who are also atheist. This is because atheism doesn't instruct anyone on what to believe or how to behave.
However, because atheism does not instruct people to be bigots, they have to be so out of their own convictions, while I'm quite certain that there are bigots out there who would not be so out of their own convictions if they didn't think their religion instructed them to be. Dogmatic thinking is a way of preserving bad ideas about morals that would otherwise have been flushed out by rational thinking a long time ago.

Just because we campaign for atheism isn't the same as campaigning for our political ideas.

I know you can't know this since I made the clarification in this very post, but I want to make it clear. I'm for campaigning for awareness, or possibly for rational thinking and reason... not atheism as a concept in of itself.

If you seek political change then you should campaign for those things. Against prop8 for example. Not against God. The first will reap much larger rewards than the second.

Do you or do you not agree with the point that religious beliefs do in fact "change things" (which you claimed they do not in the post I was responding to)?

 

[Kent]

i see it some what like vegetarians advertising. vegetarians are only a group based on one thing, the lack of eating meat. athiests are a group only because of the lack of belief in gods godesses.

so vegetarians would advertise because they want there to be more vegetarians or for existing vegetarians to be better understood or just acknowleged. the idea of vegetarianism should be out there.

the only difference is that eating meat isn't sacred, so speaking against it in anyway shape or form, no matter how polite, isn't seen as an insult.

I think if vegetarians were the least trusted group of people in the U.S., or if it was shown that a vegetarian, regardless of his/her stances on other matters could never be elected president of the U.S. because "vegetarians are baaaaad", and so on... I'd be all for there being a "vegetarian campaign" to raise some awareness... and I'm not a vegetarian.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Maybe I didn't make it quite clear in my previous post, and if that's the case then... you know... "my bad"... but I'm not for campaigning for atheism as much as I am for campaigning with the intent to raise awareness and thought surrounding atheism. Because quite frankly, the majority of people in the western world are religious, and I don't trust them with giving the right view of what atheism is.

Atheism in itself would be pointless to campaign for. That is, I'm not interested in religious people being magically transformed into being Atheists over night. I'm interested in the rational thought process which would lead to it.

All this being said, I don't see the hostility towards spreading ideas via, for instance, bus banners. As if this is somehow forcing these ideas on people.

I for one don't see a problem with people going about their business this particular way... and this includes religious people. If a bus campaign, for instance, were to upset me, it would not be due to the choice of medium to spread whatever idea it is, but due to the idea in itself.

I can get behind the idea of campaigning "with the intent to raise awareness and thought surrounding atheism." To a certain degree, but I think that billboards and bus posters are a negative way to do that. The reason religious evangelists use billboards and tracts amount to basically shock marketing and that doesn't help raise awareness about atheism it only works to convert people to atheism, which is pointless really in the long term or convincing them that atheists are god-hating crazy-loons.

And you sound like you've never heard a Christian evangelist.

Given what you said about your campaigning with the intent to raise awareness and not to convert people you don't actually sound evangelical.

Oh I agree. I'm sure there are plenty of bigots, ignoramuses (sp?), and just plain *******s who are also atheist. This is because atheism doesn't instruct anyone on what to believe or how to behave.
However, because atheism does not instruct people to be bigots, they have to be so out of their own convictions, while I'm quite certain that there are bigots out there who would not be so out of their own convictions if they didn't think their religion instructed them to be. Dogmatic thinking is a way of preserving bad ideas about morals that would otherwise have been flushed out by rational thinking a long time ago.

See but I don't think that atheism is the key to rational thinking. The goal should be to promote non-dogmatic rational thinking as a means of bringing out the goodness of people and ridding ourselves of the bad. Trying to do that through atheism is pointless. I would rather seek to make religious folks not bigoted and let them have their religion if it makes them happy.

See: Squeek.

I know you can't know this since I made the clarification in this very post, but I want to make it clear. I'm for campaigning for awareness, or possibly for rational thinking and reason... not atheism as a concept in of itself.

Which would be totally awesome.

Do you or do you not agree with the point that religious beliefs do in fact "change things" (which you claimed they do not in the post I was responding to)?

I mean to say that religion does not change someone's immortal spirit or operating thetan level or any of that meaningless BS. I think that the only power religion has over the people is convincing them to believe or act a certain way which does shape the face of the world.

I think the best solution, as you mentioned earlier, is to promote awareness of rational thought, anti-dogmatic practices, and political and civil freedoms. In reality I think we both want the same thing, I just want to do it without flying under the banner of Atheism or claiming Atheism in any way shape or form. If Atheism doesn't make people good then logically I would say that religion doesn't make people bad. Some people are good because of Atheism and some people are bad because of religion but I would rather tackle the specific issues than tackle the belief system.

 

[Joker]

There's more of us than there are of you. Majority rules.

We'll just scare you away with our science. We'll have our scientists create some kind of new flamethrower that automatically seeks out believers, and burns them to the bone. It will be glorious! GLORIOUS!

 

[SuperFerret]

i see it some what like vegetarians advertising. vegetarians are only a group based on one thing, the lack of eating meat. athiests are a group only because of the lack of belief in gods godesses.

so vegetarians would advertise because they want there to be more vegetarians or for existing vegetarians to be better understood or just acknowleged. the idea of vegetarianism should be out there.

the only difference is that eating meat isn't sacred, so speaking against it in anyway shape or form, no matter how polite, isn't seen as an insult.

Yeah, but the thing here is that everyone can be justified in their beliefs, regardless of whether they believe in a diety or not. Vegetarians are just loons that ignore the fact that our species is where it is today due to preying on other animals that fully expect to be eaten anyway.

 

[Danalys]

hmm just cos something needed to happen in the past doesn't mean it has to happen now. not that i believe it has to happen now. i just think your logic was abit off. you could say that religion was a nessersary component of tribal survival in the past for example.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

My reason for being a atheist is that I feel religion, Christianity in particular, was just cooked up a few hundred years ago to scare people into being controlled. A glorified universally accepted form of Propaganda if you will.

 

[Star]

I have a question for the Atheists on the board:

I don't know if I'll ever have kids, but if I do I have no intentions of raising them religiously.

However, what should they be told about death?

Like, I wouldn't want to make up a bunch of stuff about an afterlife or use some religion's version of things, since I don't believe in that myself, but I also wouldn't want to completely horrify my kid by being all "oh there is just nothing. You cease to be aware and that is it." I know that concept freaked me out nearly as bad as the concept of hell when I was little. I guess "make up something comforting" is the lesser of the two evils, but still...

 

[michephantom]

Eh, just tell them that they will go to sleep for a long, long time. It solves everything. Who doesn't like to sleep? Of course, it may also make them afraid to go to sleep in the evnt that they might not wake up and Daddy will put them into a hole in the ground, but oh well...

Actually, although I'm an atheist, I have in the past wondered if I should bring my (future) kids to some church services. That way they could be exposed to religion and it would be up to them whether or not to embrace it when they're older.

 

[Star]

I don't think I agree with what many church services teach children. For example, I went to cadicism (sort of a weekly brainwashing club that catholics send their children to) and there was so much of it that I look back on and regret believing. Children are far too gullible.

That's why it's so hard to figure out-- it's comforting for a child to go to church and have the belief in an afterlife, but it's so hypocritical to teach your child that.

 

[Cosmic]

I have a question for the Atheists on the board:

I don't know if I'll ever have kids, but if I do I have no intentions of raising them religiously.

However, what should they be told about death?

Like, I wouldn't want to make up a bunch of stuff about an afterlife or use some religion's version of things, since I don't believe in that myself, but I also wouldn't want to completely horrify my kid by being all "oh there is just nothing. You cease to be aware and that is it." I know that concept freaked me out nearly as bad as the concept of hell when I was little. I guess "make up something comforting" is the lesser of the two evils, but still...

If they don't ask, then don't worry about it. When I was a kid, I didn't have enough time in the day to sit around thinking about life and death. I was too busy playing, reading comics, drawing, and enjoying life to ponder questions like this for any significant amount of time. My parents never made even the slightest effort to explain the concept of death to me, and I never asked. I was more interested in Star Wars, Transformers, X-Men, Batman, etc. If I have kids someday, then this is the route I will take.