Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, July 18, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version Print | Comments |

Document Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

by Tyrone Williams, ExChristian.net

Thanks to Dawn Duke for the link.

Reposted from:
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2007/07/why-i-believe-anti-evangelism-is-wrong.html

If there's one thing worse than an evangelical Christian, it's an evangelical UNBELIEVER. Someone who insists on preaching the "good news of UN-belief." Sheesh. Will it never end?

There must either be something in the water, or something in our genes, but for some reason every human being, at one time or another, believes it is their (forgive me) "god-given" right to tell someone else how to live/what to do. Why do we often believe that WE have the "right answer" for everyone else? Why do we find it so damned difficult to just shut the hell up and leave other people alone? Why do we derive so much carnal satisfaction from assuming the role of Authority Figure in everyone else's lives? From governments to parents to teachers to best selling authors to comedians to friends to spouses to neighbors to co-workers, everybody seems to get off on being "right" and correcting someone else's alleged deficiencies.

And if there weren't enough know-it-alls roaming the landscape, now added to the list are the newest evangelical busybodies -- the religious unbelievers. Those people who have made a successful break from god-belief and now believe it is their DUTY to convince (force) the "deluded masses" of the error of their ways.

To this I cry, "Shenanigans!"

[I recognize the delicious irony of my telling people that THEY are "wrong," in a hit piece admonishing people to "mind your own business!" But it just can't be helped. Simply take solace in that this is just an informative rant, and you are under no obligation to agree with what I say here. I'm not speaking as any Authority Figure. Just someone with a salient point of view. Okay?]

Now, before I begin casting my stones, let it be known that I also shared in this particular "sin." I'm as guilty as the next impertinent a-hole who dared to stick his nose where it wasn't wanted. So I KNOW whereof I speak. Back when I was a new atheist I considered it my Duty to de-convert all and sundry. I wrote many hostile anti-Christian diatribes and formulated many plans for my Atheist Evangelical Crusades. I even called myself an "Evangelical Atheist." Fortunately none of my plans ever saw the light of day. By spending time on these forums, and others like this one, I was humbled to confess the error of my ways. A few people (Christians and Ex-C) correctly beat it into my thick skull that ANTI-evangelism is equally as wrong and as offensive as it's counterpart.

The reason that I'm re-visiting this subject is that it appears that the lesson must be taught anew to the newly "born-again" unbelievers. I'm seeing a resurgence of people who wish to perform door-to-door anti-evangelism, begin forum wars with Christians or engage in e-mail debates with family and friends, just to delight in telling them how "wrong" they are for believing. Not cool, people. Not cool.

Your zeal is commendable, but misplaced. Rather than labor fruitlessly to free those who resent your efforts, you should simply enjoy your new lease on life.

I KNOW how much it hurts you to witness those you love "throwing their lives away in this foolish pursuit." I KNOW how badly you want to shake some sense into them. You want to take them through their religion and brick by brick tear down it's foundation. You want to strap them down, a la A Clockwork Orange, and force them to watch Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris videos until they see the light, hallelujah! And having done these things, you imagine that you will be congratulated or applauded for "rescuing them" from their enslavement.

But that would be wrong. In fact, I hope you realize that it would be down right sadistic. Who are we to take away someone's comfort? Going toe-to-toe in debate with people on forums such as this is one thing. We all asked for it. But ambushing friends, family and strangers minding their own business is out of bounds.

In general, anti-evangelism is wrong because A) We don't have the RIGHT to take away someone's beliefs, and B) IT DOESN'T WORK ANYWAY!

Religious beliefs aside, people of all ages, creeds, sex, races, politics, etc. have ALWAYS believed something "stupid" (i.e. something someone doesn't agree with). And as I said earlier, there seems to be a never-ending procession of self-appointed Authority Figures lining up to correct/control these "errant thinkers."

Do I REALLY need to belabor the point that it is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong to abrogate another's freedom of choice? It all boils down to the Golden Rule. If YOU don't want someone telling YOU how to live/what to do, then it sure is hell is wrong for you to force YOUR views down another person's throat. It doesn't matter how ill-advised or self-destructive you believe someone is being. So long as their choices don't infringe upon YOUR life, then we are all obliged to shut the hell up. Case closed. No debate necessary.

No one is saying that you aren't entitled to your opinions. Nor that you must hide what you believe, or not defend your beliefs. Not at all. I happen to be one of THE Most Strongly Opinionated curmudgeons this side of the Antares Maelstrom, and I will defend my beliefs with every nefarious weapon in my considerable mental arsenal.

But note that I said "DEFEND my beliefs." If someone wants to start an argument with me then I'll be more than happy than to assail them with whatever beliefs I have, simultaneously laying assault to THEIR beliefs. What I WON'T do is start a fight with someone in an attempt to "convert them" to my side. I think that is rude. And anyone who does such a thing deserves to get their head handed to them on a platter. I'm a firm believer in "Live and Let Live" and "Mind Your Own Damned Business!" [Present case excepted! I'm giving advice, not challenging your world view.]

Aside from any necessary defenses, I believe that it is the height of decency and good manners just to ignore people's religious foibles. Don't get your knickers in a twist every time someone casually says something religious. It's not a Call To Arms. They're just words. Don't be such a prickly pear. If mom and grandma think their prayers are doing YOU some good, then how does this harm you? Let them have their pacifier. Humor them and politely change the subject.

Besides, you won't change their minds anyway.

Anti-evangelism is doomed to fail and here are several reasons why.

1. Religious people (just like everyone else) believe that THEY are right, and YOU are wrong. Everyone believes that THEY have done ALL the requisite thinking/research enough to have made an "informed decision", and your gnat's buzzing will simply be viewed as "sour grapes" from the undereducated. Simply stated -- they're NOT going to listen to you. Talk/write ALL you want, but you're preaching to the Unconvertable. They may humor you, but rest assured your words are being filed in the Circular File Cabinet. [We do the same thing to them.]

2. Faith trumps Reason everyday and twice on Sunday. No matter what Reason you trot out -- no matter how many contradictions you find, no matter how many errors, no matter how well you can dismantle their doctrine -- the Theist will ALWAYS find refuge in their Faith. God has given them Faith to believe, while denying it to you. (Poor soul.) It sucks to be you, with your hardened heart.

3. Your "attack" against their Faith will ALWAYS be viewed as "panic fire", AND it will justify and cement their belief. The more you lash out at religion, the more it will be seen as someone who is "afraid of God", or "angry at God." Trust me -- you can't win by going on the offensive with religion. They'll perceive it as "persecution" and you'll only strengthen their Faith. The best thing to do is just humor them and live your life in peace. That ALWAYS confuses the hell out of them.

4. They can't AFFORD to be wrong. After many years of convincing themselves to believe, and investing their LIVES in this thing, the theist can't now afford to admit that they're wrong! You don't really expect someone who has claimed Faith for 80 years to just drop it all after a few clever words from you, do you? Decades of egg on the face doesn't wash off that easily.

Think back to how difficult it was for YOU to let go of your faith. The Most Difficult Thing To Do was to admit that you were wrong. That you'd been suckered for a fool. Confessing to being wrong is hard enough, but admitting that you'd wasted years and resources to a huge and now OBVIOUS con? That goes against every screaming, self-defensive nerve ending in your body.

5. Which brings me to my final reason for believing anti-evangelism to be wrong. People are seldom (if ever) convinced of their mistakes via external pressure. The revelation MUST come from within. The more you press from without, the MORE they resist your "attacks." Just out of spite or embarrassment.

Remember how it was with you? I remember how it was with me. For the short time that I was a Christian NOBODY could have convinced me that I was wrong, and for all the previous reasons listed. I was only capable of escaping when I doubted, questioned and REASONED myself out of the faith. Had anyone poked and prodded me I probably would have gone running back to the church, fearing a "trap of the devil." People MUST be allowed to make their own decisions/mistakes. Not only is this their Right, but in that way they can be certain that they weren't tricked by some smooth talking "devil." If they suspected for a moment that you tricked them into unbelief, then they'll be back on their knees to god, begging forgiveness, faster than you can say "Rosary beads."

Not to mention the fact that I wouldn't WANT to be responsible for causing someone to "lose their faith." People are left in a fragile and vulnerable state after that. Are you going to be around 24/7 to nursemaid them through all their doubts and recriminations? I'm not. People are much better equipped to accept their new reality IF they labor through the stages on their own.

The Best Anti-evangelism is similar to the Best Evangelism…just live an honest and exemplary life. Be "salt and light" and SHOW them what "fruit" you have. If they're curious they'll begin doubting, asking questions and making informed decisions. Arm twisting and propaganda pieces are coercive tactics and they stink.

So there you have it. Why I believe anti-evangelism is both wrong and doomed to failure.

Now, I'm not naive. I know that some of you haven't been convinced and feel totally justified in taking the battle to THEM. That's your right. But before you go off half-cocked, picking fights where once their was none, ask yourself these questions…Is THIS the hill you want to die on? Is ruffling feathers and getting friends and family members' noses out of joint REALLY worth this dubious "cause" of yours? Having dropped one fundamentalist habit, do you really want to take up another? Besides, you're unlikely to convince anyone that you're right, AND you're more likely to strain your relationships.

I'm not saying you can't be openly unbelieving. Just stop acting like a fundamentalist unbeliever. Stop trying to live everyone's lives for them and mind your own business.

Fortune cookie say, "He who sticks his nose in other people's business is apt to lose his sense of smell."

So put down your Skeptics Annotated Bible. Amp down the volume and rage on your anti-apologetics web sites. Stop e-mailing your friends, family and your old pastor to pick a fight over their religious mania, and start smelling the roses, instead of smelling a rat. It may well be rotten in Vatican City, but unless you're a resident it doesn't concern you. Take that Golgotha-sized chip off of your shoulder and just relax in your newly won freedom from religious tyranny, alright? We've got more than enough would be dictators telling everyone ELSE what to do. We don't need you adding to the signal-to-noise ratio, further confusing the picture so that no one can tell the apologists from the apostates.

Comments 1 - 50 of 59 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #57327 by Logicel on July 19, 2007 at 12:30 am

 avatarHere's an excerpt from a comment written by Jamie at the original site, summing up my opinion of this rant:

I agree with you, though, that it isn't my place to pipe up out of the blue and start telling everyone what I think they should think...nor should they do it to me. Where I disagree, though, is your statement about the anti-apologetics sites, etc. During my own deconversion I found (and still find) such sites invaluable. I needed them to help me find my way. I also needed them to help me in my defense, since as most ex-christians must know, I will have people who believe they need to 'reason' me back to the faith. (Come now let us reason together).

Other Comments by Logicel

2. Comment #57332 by Macho Nachos on July 19, 2007 at 12:55 am

 avatarOooh, this is going to get butchered.

My first thoughts, without much reasoned discussion:

1. Religions don't tend to live and let live. For example, on the Australian current affairs/debate show Insight, a religious person/people are always sitting near the front, butting in, talking over and imposing their religion's views in discourse over major issues such as stem cell research, abortion, gay rights and climate change. Religion imposes itself in the public sphere, which gives 'new atheists' the right to speak out against it.

2. If you don't broach the irrationality of faith and religion, then religious people aren't exposed to alternative, contradictory ideas to their faith and aren't forced to think about it and question it. Clearly if you're just flaming someone on the internet it won't have an effect, but I had a very large role when my cousin lost his religion through (sometimes heated) discussions over the course of several years. Surely, a person close to you earnestly posing questions about why you hold certain beliefs is a strong reason to trigger that all-important self-reflection and internal questioning that leads to loss of illogical faith.

3. Faith enjoys far too much unchallenged tiptoeing in the media and in general society. This is not fair, and is not a good state of affairs. As a scientist, this can have an indirect (or potentially direct) negative effect on the scientific establishment, method and my role in society.

4. Most atheists have lived and let live for a very, very long time. We are now in the 21st century, where scientific literacy is critical to the development of countries, let alone simple understanding of contentious issues. Sure, you can be a liberal religious type and be well informed in science; I'm not arguing that. However, kids brought up in a religious circle of influence (moderate or fundamentalist) aren't given the 'default alternative' - atheism - being religious is forced on them (the very thing that the author is railing against). Direct your rant against religious parents if you want an exercise in forcing beliefs onto others.

5. Atheism is not religion. Please wash your mouth out.

Other Comments by Macho Nachos

3. Comment #57334 by Thor on July 19, 2007 at 1:06 am

 avatarWhat Logicel said.

It's always a difficult balance but there should be something or someone out there to turn to. Unbelievers should try to establish a certain presence in society - now which activities one desribes as "framing", "awareness building", "invititation to debate" or on the other hand "offensive rhetoric", "attacking religion" etc... will always me a matter of contention.

Even the current crop of "strident" atheist authors is not aggressive in any sense that would be applied in any other issue but religion.
For heaven's sake (sorry), these people do book tours and give interviews. Period.

Those who are interested buy the books and watch the debates. Hard-core believers will not fall away from their faith just because there is a certain amount of publicity right now. It may be that there are many who are "on the fence" or, as the religious would say, "not strong in the faith" who are swayed by the arguments that atheists bring.
But to describe what is happening right now a atheist proselytizing is really quite a stretch.

This is exactly the same as if two political parties compete on some issues and one accuses the other of "evangelizing", i.e. making the case for their point of view. To quote the eminent philosopher Homer Simpson: "Well, duh."

And yes, there are indeed many political issues where religious people and unbelievers will clash, but that results less from evangelism on either side but from the simple fact that we have groups of people here with stongly diverging worldviews and moral values in certain areas which necessarily results in different policies.

That's the real issue right there: we would all just get along fine and not bother with who is a believer or an atheist if it had no consequences - BUT IT INVARIABLY DOES. On certain issues atheists and believers will inevitably differ and therefore we need to have a voice in society.

I know I am repeating myself but again: the resulting media uproar over religion vs. atheism has nothing to do with evangelizing - we are only claiming the same rights as every other group with certain ideas and intersts in our society.


Other Comments by Thor

4. Comment #57337 by alovrin on July 19, 2007 at 1:14 am

 avatarPoor Tyrone just cant shut up. Next it will be the anti anti evangelising.
Me, Im glad to see spokepeople for unbelief in the public forum who dont need to fear being burned at the stake for expressing their opinion.
I wonder if this was a page filler for some mag or website. But its just another poorly considered opinion piece.
Maybe Tyrone will get over himself eventually

Other Comments by alovrin

5. Comment #57339 by Severus on July 19, 2007 at 1:17 am

Well now Tyrone. You believe that i should keep my opinions to myself or to the enclosed Forum, where i don't attempt to enslave the faithful with my fundamentalist, (yes i saw the Capitals) views.
Lets look at that for a minute then.
interference in Politics.
Interference in schools and education.
Interference in Other countries and other cultures.
Demands made.
Demands granted.
Opinions and Cultures and Politics changed at the point of a sword, or a gun or a Thermonuclear bomb.
Crusades and Imperialism.
Immunity from Criticism.
Violence, threats, Prayer in schools, State religion, The church roof fund, missionaries, evangelism, street marches, street protests, papal bulls, kidnapping videos, leaflets through the letter box, stopping people on the street, outdoor prayer mmetings...
when the orange lodge march down a street in Scotland or Ireland they are not doing sdo to keep their opinions to themselves. when the bishops issue a press release stating that floods are gods punishment for a society which allows homosexuality they do not do so to keep their opinions to themselves. when the church of the Latter day Saints knock on my door on a sunday afternoon to tell me the Good News they do not do so to keep their opinions to themselves. when i got thrown out of the Scouts because i would not read the obligatory prayer at the end of the night it was not done so because the organisation was keeping its opinion to itself, when muslim extremist threaten to kill me because i hold a different opinion to themselves they do not do so...do i really need to go on.
it is not that extremism is the ugly face of religion, it is not that i am trying to convert others around me, it is not that moderate, quiet, Sunday morning religion is harmless and should be immune from critique.
there is an incessant attack on our cultures, our children,our education, the way we live or the fact that we live at all, our political structure and whether i am free to spend a quiet sunday morning without my privacy being breeched by God's Good News.
this is now a matter of defence, every aspect of my choice of life is being assaulted. moderate and extremist working hand in hand to demand that i fall into line, that my children are taught ridiculous non-science, that i must not express my opinion in public in case i upset someone.
i am no fundamentalist, i am no polemicist, i am no missionary for the new religion of atheism. i am just a bloke thoroughly p****d off at being assaulted, invaded and threatened by a group of people that don't seem to recognise the world for what it is but will happily put a gun to my head, both metaphorically and physically, to make sure that i am equally blind and dumb.
you stay quiet if you want, they'll find you, they'll love you, you're just what they're looking for;
i've got a voice and i'm going to use it.
i don't care if i ever convert anybody, that's not my point, but if they ever dare to tell my children that the world was made yesterday by a fairy man in the sky and that if i don't accept this then harm will come my way, then my voice they will hear.
i can't ever remember meeting a christian,Jew or Muslim who was worried about talking to me about their religion in case i was accidentally converted.

Other Comments by Severus

6. Comment #57341 by roach on July 19, 2007 at 1:36 am

I just skimmed the article so I may miss the mark with this post.

The arguments sound just and tolerant but I must disagree with much of what the author says. There is so much I disagree with but it's pretty late so I'm just going to attempt to make one point.

If everyone ordered their lives around "live and let live" and "mind your own damned business" we would never have developed government and/or technology. We'd probably still be small tribal units of hunter-gatherers. But hunter-gatherers did not live their lives by these precepts. Why not? Well, I'd argue it's because "live and let live" and "mind your own damned business" conflict with human nature (and each other btw). Humans, being the evolved creatures we are, are inherently self-interested and seek to maximize those interests. There is a real survival value in not adopting live and let live and mind your own damned business. Of course there is survival value in being cooperative. But it is a sad reality that I can enhance my well-being (my "business") by depriving others of theirs. So "mind your own damned business" and "live and let live" are mutually incompatible.

One other quick point. When i discuss religion with my believer friends and family members, I find it to be an enjoyable experience (and they tell me the same). I am a big fan of getting to know my friends and family. I don't see polite discourse as something to be avoided.

One more...the author should check out "Convert's Corner" if he thinks people cannot be reasoned out of their delusions.

Other Comments by roach

7. Comment #57349 by bitbutter on July 19, 2007 at 2:07 am

 avatarMerely 'recognising the irony' doesn't diminish the fact that this article is doing exactly what it chastises others for doing: telling someone else how to behave.

I don't think there should be a 'ban' on telling others how to behave, our society depends on our ability to do just that. If you disagree then you're out of luck because the only consistent thing you can do with your conviction is to keep it to yourself.

The weakness of William's position is demonstrated when he implies that evangelism is actually okay as long as it's accompanied by the following disclaimer:

Simply take solace in that this is just an informative rant, and you are under no obligation to agree with what I say here. I'm not speaking as any Authority Figure. Just someone with a salient point of view. Okay?


Other Comments by bitbutter

8. Comment #57363 by Scott McMeekin on July 19, 2007 at 3:11 am

 avatarI'll leave the inevitable disection to those better motivated today. Nothing new in this article. Another "shut up and be wrong" piece from a wingnut. One question does spring to mind, however.

Is there an english class for EVANGELICALS somewhere where people LEARN to CAPITALISE words for EMPHASIS every so OFTEN, as if the ENGLISH language wasn't well equipped ENOUGH to enable people to do that through the PROPER use of STYLE and SENTENCE STRUCTURE? This is OBVIOUSLY a PEDANTIC point, but HONESTLY - how ANNOYING is THIS?

More coffee please...

Scott.

Other Comments by Scott McMeekin

9. Comment #57365 by bamboospitfire on July 19, 2007 at 3:16 am

 avatarWow. What makes this article so amazing is that Williams actually recognises the flaw in his argument but doesn't realise that his rationale for fixing that flaw applies even more strongly to the militant atheism that he's attacking. "It's wrong to tell people what to think," he says, "but I can still write this article because I'm not saying that you have to agree with me." Right. How about applying that logic to the rest of us atheists? Are any of us putting guns to the heads of the faithful and ordering them to reject their gods, or else? Are we telling people that unless they agree with us they'll burn in hell for all eternity? Are we throwing acid in the faces of women who refuse to cover themselves? Are we ostracising people merely because they disagree with our perspective? Dawkins has said time and again that we are only using words and we are fundamentally entitled to do so. What are people like Williams so scared of?

Furthermore, I doubt many of us need Williams's lesson in persuasion. It is painfully obvious that trying to force someone to abandon their beliefs isn't going to work in a month of Sundays. I always find it incredibly sad when someone suffers from irrational theistic belief but unless it comes up in conversation naturally then I don't make a point of offering my point of view. When such a conversation does arise, however, I'm always sure to approach the subject openly and reasonably because I know that by doing so I will increase the possibility of the believer taking my points to heart and slowly dismantling their faith from within. If that doesn't happen then (as long as the person's faith is not likely to find some more harmful manifestation) so be it.

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

10. Comment #57374 by donmak on July 19, 2007 at 3:44 am

As someone who was raised in a religious cult myself, I feel the most important thing for me is helping "believers" overcome their fear of asking questions out loud that they have always had deep inside. As a religious "believer", you are usually trained to believe that asking those questions out loud is a sign that Satan has sowed seeds of doubt in you. This is the awful truth - one that I lived with until my mid-20's when I began to pursue my doubts wholeheartedly.

So I would say it's not as important to say I'm RIGHT and you're WRONG, as much as it is important to help fundamentalists see it is OK to go down the rabbit hole and find the answers to questions that have been nagging them.

After that, the RIGHT and WRONG will take care of itself. ;-)

DM

Other Comments by donmak

11. Comment #57380 by BicycleRepairMan on July 19, 2007 at 4:30 am

 avatar1. Lots of people are not exposed to an alternative to faith. Muslims even like to outright deny the fact that atheism even exists, just like they deny that homosexuality is real. Its not just that its wrong, it doesnt even exist to them. So nobody will get converted by a forum post, or a youtube video, or an atheist website, or a book, or five, but atleast they are shown people that seems perfectly happy with their atheist lives, and I guarantee that that has some influence on some people.

2.In a world with 21st century weapons mixed with 1st century ideology, we dont have time to "live and let live" to the extent that apologists wants us to.

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

12. Comment #57383 by Russell's Teapot on July 19, 2007 at 4:40 am

 avatarI have to disagree with the sentiment that "If there's one thing worse than an evangelical Christian, it's an evangelical UNBELIEVER". The only thing worse than an evangelical Christian is an arrogant, evangelical moderate unbeliever *cough*

Other Comments by Russell's Teapot

13. Comment #57385 by andyb001 on July 19, 2007 at 4:55 am

Let's just bury our heads in the sand and proclaim religion the victor...

Other Comments by andyb001

14. Comment #57389 by HarryHUK on July 19, 2007 at 5:37 am

I wonder what experiences Tyrone has been through as recent non-believer that have led him to his current thoughts,and stance on "anti-evangelism"

It sounds rather defeatist to me.

And why encourage other non-believers to follow the same path,doesn't he have the same concerns as many of us have regarding religious belief and it's insidious nature?

Other Comments by HarryHUK

15. Comment #57390 by Stephen Maxwell on July 19, 2007 at 5:51 am

"It doesn't matter how ill-advised or self-destructive you believe someone is being. So long as their choices don't infringe upon YOUR life"

He just proved our point. When Christian Evangelicals have as much political sway as they do in America with the Bush administration, it affects a lot of peoples lives.

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

16. Comment #57392 by pewkatchoo on July 19, 2007 at 6:13 am

 avatarWhat a git!

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

17. Comment #57393 by BillySands on July 19, 2007 at 6:24 am

 avatarI personally dont have a problem with attacking those who attack me or my values. I'm not going to stay quiet when there are creationist retards out there spouting lies, or when some brain dead moron says that "the devil is the author of secular values y'all - By the way bud, have you already got dibs on yer sister or can I have a shot? Let's nuke them muslims sodomites!"

I also find that debating reasonable types makese me even more aware of how wrong it is to believe in gods.

Other Comments by BillySands

18. Comment #57396 by phasmagigas on July 19, 2007 at 7:03 am

 avatarevangelising atheists.

well im not one of them, i never bring up evolution or god but if the subject does arise I will only answer questions that are thrown at me, i will never throw questions back unless im trying to get a point across such as 'can you accept that its possible that a brown and green grasshopper in a green field could be at an advantage if it had a bit more green than another one? Sounds patronising maybe but its things most have never even contemplated.

Sometimes though you just have to grit your teeth. I was once asked 'why would god make such an ugly creature?' as i showed this person a large insect that had happened to land on me. I so wanted to say something like 'because he didnt' or 'how could god possibly make something ugly, you saying god makes ugly things' or 'yes, why would god make such an ugly thing, a good question. the said insect was a jewel of construction and I peversely enjoyed the fact that I found it exquisite and the believer found it ugly.

I will also make rubuttals if somebody says something that as far as i can tell is erronous like the comment i recenly had (when discussing artificial selection) that 'selective breeding basically disproves evolution' or words to that effect, this was said flippantly as if the person just had to get it in, wed been talking simply AS as a general topic (it had been on TV) so i had to say that it actually was the contrary, that it demonstrated it perfectly, and evo has yet to be falsified. That then opens up further questioning usually which im happy to answer, I never say god didnt do it, i simply explain my position and if they dont like it thats fine.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

19. Comment #57400 by DC_Runner on July 19, 2007 at 7:45 am

It's funny, I've never had an atheist knock on my door and try to convince me not to believe in god. It sounds like roving bands of proselytizing atheists are common in Tyrone's neighborhood. Not so much in mine.

Other Comments by DC_Runner

20. Comment #57401 by heathen2 on July 19, 2007 at 7:46 am

 avatarI have always detested "evangelizing" and can't see myself behaving that way. However I do regret that in the past I have backed away from using a few choice words to put believers in their proper place for the sake of being polite.

I guess the difference now is that I don't have that sort of politeness holding me back.

Other Comments by heathen2

21. Comment #57402 by blueollie on July 19, 2007 at 7:52 am

Ok, here is a dissenting view: I agree with much of what the author said.

don't get me wrong: I feel duty bound to fight religious influences that step on the rights of others e. g., creationism and/or ID being taught in public schools, bans on federal funding for stem cell research, not caring about global warming due to the expected "second coming" (I wish I were making that up, but in the U. S. there is a faction of fundies that believe this)., etc.

Also, I support the excellent books that have came out (I've bought and read GD, GING, EOF); it is useful to let my fellow non-theists know that they are not alone.

But to seek out and directly argue with theists, well, that just isn't a fruitful exercise. They merely retreat.

Probably the best way to attack superstition is with continued education; IMHO, if one is interested in "converting" a "reasonable" theist friend, a good way to start is to, say, recommend they read a good book on evolution rather than, say, one of the new atheist books.

Eventually, those who can see the light might come around.

But getting in their face and attacking their "sacred superstitions" directly won't work.

Other Comments by blueollie

22. Comment #57403 by Friend Giskard on July 19, 2007 at 7:54 am

 avatarThis sentence in the second paragraph convinced me that I need not read any further.

Why do we often believe that WE have the "right answer" for everyone else?


"Right answer" in quotes. For everyone else.

The guy is an epistemological relativist.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

23. Comment #57408 by PeterK on July 19, 2007 at 8:37 am

What's this, an atheist telling other atheists to put a sock in it? And asserting the futility of deconverting theists as his primary reason for all atheists on earth ( or in his immediate reading area anyway ) to clam up? So the real words of truth shall never be spoken to the poor deceived?

And what a lousy atheist, referring to these new atheists as 'militant' and 'evangelical'. I thought this was a ruse implemented primarily by the theists, displaying their own ignorance of what an atheist actually is.

I feel he has become frustrated in his own attempts of deconverting and debating, and coming to a realization it just isn't all that easy as he may have thought it would be. More than likely he laid some of his new-found knowledge on his craggy 80-year-old grampa, and got nothing but a series of inflexible reponses in the form of grumblings and nasty looks in return, and threats to remove poor misguided Tyrone from a hefty inheritance. Maybe in some time he'll learn some ways to broach the subject without having to resort to the snorting and stamping of the feet.

It's just right now this Tyrone hath no Power.

Other Comments by PeterK

24. Comment #57409 by blueollie on July 19, 2007 at 8:53 am

PeterK: I think that those of us who grew up theists "converted" to atheism "one mutation at a time"; sort of an evolution of thought, if you will.

Here is what I mean: if someone told me that my beliefs were "absurd", I would have gotten defensive.

On the other hand, had someone said "ok, what do you think of that passage in the bible" and i agreed that that passage certainly

1) couldn't be taken literally or
2) was pure fokelore and/or propaganda

Then we have a small crack in the wall.

Then maybe a discussion: "ok, so you think that evolution happened. Good. Why must there have been a designer? Oh, even a designer for malaria? Why would a designer do that?"

Drip by drip, the crack widens.

In short, I think that the author is saying to be a bit less "in your face" so to speak; after all, the eventual goal is to erode support for superstition.

Other Comments by blueollie

25. Comment #57412 by pewkatchoo on July 19, 2007 at 8:58 am

 avatarFriend Giskard
"The guy is an epistemological relativist."

and I still say he is a git.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

26. Comment #57419 by Vinelectric on July 19, 2007 at 9:29 am

 avatarThe writings of RD and CH make news for the very reason that the religious establishment has traditionally remained unchallanged. If that many atheists are out there waxing evangelical then there's definitely a lot that escapes my attention nowadays.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

27. Comment #57428 by automath on July 19, 2007 at 10:02 am

 avatar
Now, I'm not naive.


Maybe you should have wrote something that justified that statement?

Maybe you should start by examining your belief about the lack of humanity you ascribe to people in general?

Other Comments by automath

28. Comment #57431 by BT Murtagh on July 19, 2007 at 10:13 am

 avatarI don't pick fights, but then again I don't need to; all I need do is refuse to be cowed.

If someone makes what is to me a transparently stupid statement I'll challenge it, even if it is a religious statement (most of which are in fact transparently stupid).

If that means a fight/argument/discussion, then I feel more than adequately prepared to hold my end of it, thanks due in no small part to 'evangelical unbelievers' who have gone before me.

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

29. Comment #57433 by ranjani on July 19, 2007 at 10:15 am

Ah, another article about: I am an atheist but....Anyone else see shades of Scott Atran in this article or is it just me?!!!

Other Comments by ranjani

30. Comment #57437 by AtheistAcolyte on July 19, 2007 at 11:05 am

His two reasons, the crux of his argument are thus:

"In general, anti-evangelism is wrong because A) We don't have the RIGHT to take away someone's beliefs, and B) IT DOESN'T WORK ANYWAY!"

A) But we DO have the right to take away someone's incorrect beliefs with regard to the tooth fairy, Flood Geology and racism. Were anyone to come to me with these ideas and say "Don't try to change my mind! They're my beliefs and you should respect them!" I would have to laugh in their childish, creationist and racist face. Religion has set itself up as one of the only memes which cannot be challenged, and we need to recognize this or we can never begin to be free of it.

B) Convert's Corner rebuts this quite effectively, I think. It does work.

He also says "It all boils down to the Golden Rule. If YOU don't want someone telling YOU how to live/what to do, then it sure is hell is wrong for you to force YOUR views down another person's throat."

I think I should be glad to accept reasoned criticism of what I do, and I have taken such criticism in stride. It has helped me become a better person. So, by the Golden Rule, if I would have others criticize me reasonably, I should criticize others reasonably.

All his reasons for why it will not work boil down to "People are stubborn as f**k and never admit they're wrong as long as you push them", which is true enough, but the New Atheists aren't going for the hard-core religious believers. They're going for the middle-of-the-road folks, the millions of twice-a-year Catholics and social Protestants.

In all, thoroughly unconvincing.

Other Comments by AtheistAcolyte

31. Comment #57438 by AtheistAcolyte on July 19, 2007 at 11:06 am

Just a little cheap shot I'm sure will not have escaped anyone's (including his) notice:

"So put down your Skeptics Annotated Bible. Amp down the volume and rage on your anti-apologetics web sites. Stop e-mailing your friends, family and your old pastor to pick a fight over their religious mania, and start smelling the roses, instead of smelling a rat. It may well be rotten in Vatican City, but unless you're a resident it doesn't concern you. Take that Golgotha-sized chip off of your shoulder and just relax in your newly won freedom from religious tyranny, alright? We've got more than enough would be dictators telling everyone ELSE what to do."

Plus one.

Other Comments by AtheistAcolyte

32. Comment #57450 by heathen2 on July 19, 2007 at 11:39 am

 avatarDC_Runner says:

It's funny, I've never had an atheist knock on my door and try to convince me not to believe in god. It sounds like roving bands of proselytizing atheists are common in Tyrone's neighborhood. Not so much in mine.

Yeah, where are these people he is talking about? There may be super aggressive atheists out there going around attacking theists unprovoked, however I don't know a single one.

I also don't see many theists actively provoke figths with atheists either, but they make smug, infuriating assumptions which are hard to put up with. One christian woman who assumed I was one too commented on how we should try to get our kids' soccer coach (who is Muslim)to a church and help him see the light. This was a while back so I silently fumed. My friend (a very devoted christian, but is lacking evangelizing skills)who was there too, gave me a sympathetic look of support because she knows how I feel about it. If it happened today, I would have been happy to have made an appropriate response. That is how Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and others and this website have helped me.

Other Comments by heathen2

33. Comment #57454 by ross on July 19, 2007 at 11:58 am

What a whining baby!
For the first two decades after I first raised my middle finger to the sky, I followed the creed that the only thing more tiresome than a proselytizing Christian is a vocal and hostile anti-Christian.
But, as Macho Nachos implies, the live and let live thing obviously doesn't work.
They're still knocking on my door, voting in presidents, and, well, you know, doing all the usual crap.

I really take issue with this crybaby's "so long as it doesn't affect me" stance. What a cowardly way to live.
It's hard to add to Severus' excellent review, but I'd like to try: How can decent people stand aside and watch other people beat, lie to, and in every other way subjugate women and children, and the flock, and not do something about it?
Seems to me speaking up is a pretty minor thing to be so damned riled up against.
What a dickhead.

Other Comments by ross

34. Comment #57468 by Lauregon on July 19, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Not to be picky, but by definition, to "evangelize" is to preach the Christian gospel.

That aside, discusing non-theism is the discussion of ideas, just as discussing politics is the discussion of ideas. As for the alleged pointlessness of discussing non-theism, I disagree with ole Tyrone. Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins pushed me over the line.

Other Comments by Lauregon

35. Comment #57489 by Dr Benway on July 19, 2007 at 2:21 pm

 avatarI give this article

* * *

three woolies!

Other Comments by Dr Benway

36. Comment #57545 by BAEOZ on July 19, 2007 at 6:04 pm

 avatarDr. Benway, I'm sure I'm not the first to comment on your new avatar. Are you stuck in some form of Freudian anal fixation? Actually, scratch that, amp up the volume, so to speak. Can we have an Ostrich or Emu moon shot? That would scare the b'jesus out anyone who doubted your authority!

Other Comments by BAEOZ

37. Comment #57547 by blueollie on July 19, 2007 at 6:12 pm

Hey DC runner:


"It's funny, I've never had an atheist knock on my door and try to convince me not to believe in god."

You need to see this: :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V8t_Ux0JPc

Other Comments by blueollie

38. Comment #57548 by Dr Benway on July 19, 2007 at 6:34 pm

 avatarSilly devil! There's no anus on a titmouse.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

39. Comment #57552 by Goldy on July 19, 2007 at 7:02 pm

 avatarI had a couple of mormons come around the other month. They asked me if I knew about the church yadda yadda ad I told them I was an athiest. Oh, they said....a quiet pause...well, anything we can do?
Luckily, I was going to move a washing machine and they helped me. I didn't convert them and they didn't convert me but my washing machine was moved adn we parted with smiles all round.
That's how it should be done :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

40. Comment #57553 by geckoman on July 19, 2007 at 8:09 pm

AtheistAcolyte

I think you make a very good point in evoking racism as an example to refute the author's claims.

I live adjacent to South Africa. Among some people its racist legacy lives on. If I am conversing with someone who calls an African a derogatory term, I normally point out the rdiculousness of their archaic views (unless they're armed and drunk of course.) I am in effect challenging what they think and, by unsubtle implication, suggesting what they should think.

As my confidence as an atheist grows, I feel increasingly obliged to do the same with anyone talking religious claptrap, if they talk first.

Note though that in general atheists are acting IN RESPONSE to religion. Religion threw the first punch. We have been provoked by stupidity and superstition and the extent to which it has infiltrated our lives. It is not in my nature to go looking for theists to argue with; but I have respect for those atheists that do, as long as they do so with some decorum and reasonableness.

Other Comments by geckoman

41. Comment #57554 by BAEOZ on July 19, 2007 at 8:10 pm

 avatarDr. Benway:
Silly devil! There's no anus on a titmouse

You are correct as usual good Dr. Do you have a cloacal fixation then? And it should change it's name to titbird or titavian thus not confusing lower mamals, such as the marsupials like myself who see the word mouse and think mammalian morphology with it's anality.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

42. Comment #57555 by MrEmpirical on July 19, 2007 at 8:18 pm

Tyrone is a douche. Here's why:

We don't have the RIGHT to take away someone's beliefs


Wrong. In many situations, we DO have the right to take away someone's beliefs. If my friend believes that his bus is arriving at 10:30, but I learn that the bus is actually arriving at 10:15, I have the right to provide my friend with information with the explicit aim of changing his incorrect belief about the arrival of his bus. And no doubt he'll thank me for it.


it is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong to abrogate another's freedom of choice


Wrong again. Our freedoms of choice are subject to numerous limitations and caveats, and for good reason. Your freedom to choose to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Your freedom to believe nonsense does not give you license to impose such nonsense on the minds of innocent children. Beliefs, by their very nature, have consequences. To the extent that a belief has negative consequences, the belief should be addressed critically.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

43. Comment #57556 by Bonzai on July 19, 2007 at 8:19 pm

 avatarAtheistAcolyte

But we DO have the right to take away someone's incorrect(my emphasis--Bonzai) beliefs with regard to the tooth fairy, Flood Geology and racism.


I can't see how you can put the belief in the tooth fairy and racism in the same catagory. That just goes to show the absurdity of using factual correctness as the sole criterion for judging ideas. I couldn't care less if someone believe in flood geology as long as he doesn't try to peddle it to others. Unlike racism, the mere beliefs in UFOs, the flood and the tooth fairy doesn't hurt people, the catagorical difference should be elemantary.

I don't know about you, I have no problem with people getting high as long as they don't interfere with others even though hallucinations are by definition delusional. I have no issue if some ugly guy indulging in the self deception that he is dashingly handsome, what do I achieve by screaming to him the truth that he is an ugly toad?

I am not talking about you specifically, but my problem with some evangelical Christians turn atheists is that they bring over the pesty missionary mindset, only now they read from a different gospel. I know, atheism is not supposed to be a religion, but some "born again atheists" apparently mistaken it as one when it comes to being preachy and pushy.

We don't need "rationality police" any more than we need "religious police". The "right" to "take away incorrect beliefs" is a scary, totalitarian idea that has been invoked by all absolutist theocrats from the Church to Stalin,--Stalinism was a secular religion.

Other Comments by Bonzai

44. Comment #57564 by MrEmpirical on July 19, 2007 at 10:38 pm

Bonzai,

I couldn't care less if someone believe in flood geology as long as he doesn't try to peddle it to others. Unlike racism, the mere beliefs in UFOs, the flood and the tooth fairy doesn't hurt people, the catagorical difference should be elementary.


Is the difference really so clear-cut? Racist beliefs only hurt people when they translate into certain behaviours, such as unfair discrimination. Similarly, beliefs in Flood geology only hurt people when they translate into certain behaviours, such as miseducating innocent children. You seem to assume that certain beliefs (in this case racist ones) necessarily lead to negative actions, while other do not.

If you had a friend who believed in both Flood geology and the inferiority of blacks, but allowed neither of these beliefs to influence his behaviour, would you attempt to change either of these beliefs?

Of course, how possible is it for someone to hold a belief without letting it at all influence his behaviour? As Sam Harris notes in The End of Faith, beliefs are by their very nature geared towards guiding behaviour. Which is all the more reason to be suspicious of irrational beliefs of all description, because there is always the chance that people's behaviour will be influenced by these beliefs.

There is another argument to be made against irrational beliefs, even if these beliefs are not leading to any negative consequences. If I had a friend who believed in Creationism, but did not let this belief affect his actions, I would still be motivated to change his belief. Why? Because I expect that his happiness will be increased if he has the opportunity to appreciate the full majesty and wonder of the universe, as revealed by an accurate, rational, scientific view of nature. An increase in my friend's rationality might also lead to him being more willing to explore other areas of science and rationalism, and he might find his eyes opened to new and beautiful vistas of knowledge and understanding. I would never force him to drop his irrational beliefs, or insist that he change his beliefs, but I would want to put alternative beliefs on the table for him, and argue for the advantage of adopting them.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

45. Comment #57586 by Shuggy on July 20, 2007 at 3:22 am

 avatarWhat a straw person! Discussing beliefs, pointing out logical or internal fallacies or contradictions with fact, is not
... to take them through their religion and brick by brick tear down it's foundation. ... to strap them down, a la A Clockwork Orange, and force them to watch Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris videos until they see the light, hallelujah!
I don't even know anyone who wants to do those things. But "religious instruction" comes close to the reverse.

Other Comments by Shuggy

46. Comment #57604 by konquererz on July 20, 2007 at 6:06 am

 avatarIts high time that people like the one who wrote this article wake up and realize that atheists have been taking this approach for decades! What has it gotten us? No where thats where. Its allowed more religious schools opened, more end time believers, more desire and attempts to put biblical creation in the science class room, and allow the Office of Faith Based Initiatives to be created in the United States government!

Wake up dude, this isn't a game where live and let live actually works. In the real world, if we don't stand up for reason, and try to get others to see reason, then this will become a theocracy! Sure, true believers won't have their minds changed, but some will, and those people are the ones we have to win over. We need more people to see things through the eyes of reason.

For him to wish to go back to the way it was shows that he is completely out of touch with reality. And btw, it is absolutely the job of people to tell others when their belief in something that is impossible begins to intrude on everyone else's lives. Its not like we have people just minding their own business and along come the big bad atheists to ruin their beliefs. They jump in and try to enforce their beliefs on us first. We have to shine the light of reason or we will be in another dark age.

Other Comments by konquererz

47. Comment #57608 by phasmagigas on July 20, 2007 at 7:15 am

 avatargenerally, theres one thing i dont understand. if the majority of americans (including those in all sections of government) believe evolution to be false (and they are all experts on the subject right? so entitled to their opinion) then WHY arent there nationwide protests outside all schools demanding that teachers stop teaching kids lies? If they beleived that the teachers were by law teaching falsehoods why isnt there a move to legally remove it from the curriculum. I mean, a neighbour of mine is a creationist, so he should therefore be kicking up a stink at the school saying 'why are you teaching my kids lies', maybe they just arent that convinced by their own position. If my kids school were teaching creationism as a truth and not a religious idea I would be kicking up a stink for sure.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

48. Comment #57620 by Lauregon on July 20, 2007 at 9:23 am

if the majority of americans (including those in all sections of government) believe evolution to be false (and they are all experts on the subject right? so entitled to their opinion) then WHY arent there nationwide protests outside all schools demanding that teachers stop teaching kids lies? If they beleived that the teachers were by law teaching falsehoods why isnt there a move to legally remove it from the curriculum. - Phasmagigas

Exactly. I know a man who insists he believes "with all [his] heart and soul" that the earth as we know it is merely some 6,000 years old---and yet this guy argues against teaching creationism in public schools. Why would he want his kids and grandkids taught lies? Aha, because he believes in freedom of religion! I think this is what's called cognitive dissonance.

Other Comments by Lauregon

49. Comment #57645 by sanjiv on July 20, 2007 at 11:57 am

This Tyrone guy, is he a Christian in atheist clothing by any chance? Sounds like a Christian slyly trying to lecture us by becoming 'one of us'

Other Comments by sanjiv

50. Comment #57646 by Dr Benway on July 20, 2007 at 12:07 pm

 avatar
I think this is what's called cognitive dissonance.
As in, "astonishing lack of."

Other Comments by Dr Benway
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE