Also, they wanted only one outward social control influencing their populous. As religious people have two loyalties and the Soviet Union required but one. (not counting family and the like)
I actively try to convert. The difference between evangelical religion and evangelical atheism is that one is demonstrably harmful.
How? Going door to door with pamphlets? ^_~
By not treating religion as a sacred cow that cannot be disrespected. Freedom of religion in the US has unofficially evolved to mean indemnity from ridicule. Freedom to practice, though, does not mean freedom from criticism; respecting the religious rights of others does not mean respecting their delusions. There will be a blog post about this.
I didn't even know about that. That is horrendous.
Most people outside Australia don't - but it is still one of the greatest, if not outright the greatest shame upon our nation.
A lot of those people and kids are alive, why can't you just ask them?
I have had contact with a number of people of the stolen generations - my family has strong ties to the aboriginal community. Also, there have been a number of documentaries, articles, books and other media that have done exactly that, which are readily available, for the most part, on the internet.
By not treating religion as a sacred cow that cannot be disrespected. Freedom of religion in the US has unofficially evolved to mean indemnity from ridicule. Freedom to practice, though, does not mean freedom from criticism; respecting the religious rights of others does not mean respecting their delusions. There will be a blog post about this.
Exactly right. The right to do something means just that. The right to do it. Just because you are permitted to do something, doesn't also mean that doing it is a good idea. Also, while you will not face legal consequences for exercising a right, you are not protected from any other consequences.
This also ties back into the discussion of the nanny state. Because the government puts laws in place to limit freedom and protect people from danger, people begin to equate legality of action with quality of action. Their comes this assumption that if something is illegal, it must be bad and vice versa.
By not treating religion as a sacred cow that cannot be disrespected.
I tend to approach it as disagreement instead of disrespect. Unfortunately those two words have become synonymous among many religious people, but I think there's an important difference between the two. Open, reasonable discussion is the best way to approach any religious person from a non-theistic viewpoint, whereas outright disrespect will get you nowhere most of the time.
I actively try to convert. The difference between evangelical religion and evangelical atheism is that one is demonstrably harmful.
How? Going door to door with pamphlets? ^_~
By not treating religion as a sacred cow that cannot be disrespected. Freedom of religion in the US has unofficially evolved to mean indemnity from ridicule. Freedom to practice, though, does not mean freedom from criticism; respecting the religious rights of others does not mean respecting their delusions. There will be a blog post about this.
Do you instigate these conversations or do they come as a reaction to someone practicing their religion/forcing it on you? I agree with you in not pussy-footing around people that wave their religion around or act as if it is something that cannot be discussed, let alone refuted. However, instigating that conversation with no provocation (yelling at a clerk in a store for wearing a golden cross necklace, etc.) would just be assholery. Atheists should organize a bit more and pass out pamphlets and the like. Active, but not aggressive "conversion" would be kinda neat, I think.
But really, if I saw a group of atheists handing out pamphlets in an airport, I would quickly become embarrassed to identify myself with them. It seems pathetic, like you need people to "join" you or something.
if I saw a group of atheists handing out pamphlets in an airport, I would quickly become embarrassed to identify myself with them.
Handing out pamphlets on atheism is like handing out flyers explaining that Batman isn't actually real, except for the fact that more people will disagree with you.
Do you instigate these conversations or do they come as a reaction to someone practicing their religion/forcing it on you? I agree with you in not pussy-footing around people that wave their religion around or act as if it is something that cannot be discussed, let alone refuted. However, instigating that conversation with no provocation (yelling at a clerk in a store for wearing a golden cross necklace, etc.) would just be assholery.
I was in a bible study and going to church for a long time as an atheist, so conversations about faith and religion came up naturally.
Do you instigate these conversations or do they come as a reaction to someone practicing their religion/forcing it on you? I agree with you in not pussy-footing around people that wave their religion around or act as if it is something that cannot be discussed, let alone refuted. However, instigating that conversation with no provocation (yelling at a clerk in a store for wearing a golden cross necklace, etc.) would just be assholery.
I was in a bible study and going to church for a long time as an atheist, so conversations about faith and religion came up naturally.
Oh, I thought you meant you walk around all the time instigating these conversations since you said you actively attempted to convert.
if I saw a group of atheists handing out pamphlets in an airport, I would quickly become embarrassed to identify myself with them.
Handing out pamphlets on atheism is like handing out flyers explaining that Batman isn't actually real, except for the fact that more people will disagree with you.
Hey, Church groups use PR and marketing methods and it has worked. Why not for atheists? Some people go to Church for social experience and feeling like they belong. While many atheists may not need this, I am sure that some would enjoy socially networking and getting more people to "see the light" in the process. Taking power away from religions is important as religions are systematically holding back society. You win people over with calm, respectful conversations, some literature and a sense of belonging. There is no shame in that.
When it comes to Christian marketing techniques with atheism, I'm so not with that. I'm talking the Jehovah witness type of way that I have experienced from both sides. They both annoy the hell out of me and I try to be polite and not a snark to them so they can leave me alone. Catch me on a bad day though...
When it comes to Christian marketing techniques with atheism, I'm so not with that. I'm talking the Jehovah witness type of way that I have experienced from both sides. They both annoy the hell out of me and I try to be polite and not a snark to them so they can leave me alone. Catch me on a bad day though...
Not home visits - YUCK! I meant kiosks, brochures, informational meet-ups, social gatherings, etc.
When it comes to Christian marketing techniques with atheism, I'm so not with that. I'm talking the Jehovah witness type of way that I have experienced from both sides. They both annoy the hell out of me and I try to be polite and not a snark to them so they can leave me alone. Catch me on a bad day though...
Not home visits - YUCK! I meant kiosks, brochures, informational meet-ups, social gatherings, etc.
Jehovahs do more than home visits. Plus, if not them the baptists, penecostals, etc.
Then there's the train incident. It was an ambush I tell ya! They came from all sides of the train systematically and Jesus'd me and my friend. They sat apart like separate train riders but then they assembled on us. HIT THE DECK!
I'm not being silly. This happened. Not saying an atheist conversion team would do this tactic, but it's the same annoying sound.
When discussing a group of radical feminists at our high school that is school-sponsored (this was when I was a freshman), a wise senior gave me a piece of advice I have never forgotten:
"The world should work like this: Have your beliefs and adhere to them, but never make the mistake of believing for even one second that I am at all interested in hearing about them."
I try to live that rule, but sometimes I fail. However, sometimes-failing is a lot different than say, the Hare Krishna that accosted me and my friends on the street and said we were "rich students" and asked for money to buy a few copies of his "sacred scripture." Now, I like the Bhagavad Gita in the scholarly sense as much as anyone else; however, in terms of trying to sell it to me as evangelism...not so much.
As for Christian evangelism, its kind of odd; I feel like it almost-always depends on the denomination in question. I'm a Catholic (albeit lapsing), and I've never seen modern-day Catholics attempt to evangelize until this year in religion class, when I told my teacher, who had asked if we "do God's work by spreading the good news" that, quite frankly, "If anyone wants to hear the 'good news,' it's not like it isn't out there. Pretty much every human being has heard in some way or another about Jesus and if they don't choose to adopt that, that's their choice and I'm cool with it. I'm not going to go out of my way to force ideas on people." The entire class agreed, and she was displeased. It was pretty funny.
Comments
This also ties back into the discussion of the nanny state. Because the government puts laws in place to limit freedom and protect people from danger, people begin to equate legality of action with quality of action. Their comes this assumption that if something is illegal, it must be bad and vice versa.
Do you instigate these conversations or do they come as a reaction to someone practicing their religion/forcing it on you? I agree with you in not pussy-footing around people that wave their religion around or act as if it is something that cannot be discussed, let alone refuted. However, instigating that conversation with no provocation (yelling at a clerk in a store for wearing a golden cross necklace, etc.) would just be assholery.
Atheists should organize a bit more and pass out pamphlets and the like. Active, but not aggressive "conversion" would be kinda neat, I think.
But really, if I saw a group of atheists handing out pamphlets in an airport, I would quickly become embarrassed to identify myself with them. It seems pathetic, like you need people to "join" you or something.
Then there's the train incident. It was an ambush I tell ya! They came from all sides of the train systematically and Jesus'd me and my friend. They sat apart like separate train riders but then they assembled on us. HIT THE DECK!
I'm not being silly. This happened. Not saying an atheist conversion team would do this tactic, but it's the same annoying sound.
"The world should work like this: Have your beliefs and adhere to them, but never make the mistake of believing for even one second that I am at all interested in hearing about them."
I try to live that rule, but sometimes I fail. However, sometimes-failing is a lot different than say, the Hare Krishna that accosted me and my friends on the street and said we were "rich students" and asked for money to buy a few copies of his "sacred scripture." Now, I like the Bhagavad Gita in the scholarly sense as much as anyone else; however, in terms of trying to sell it to me as evangelism...not so much.
As for Christian evangelism, its kind of odd; I feel like it almost-always depends on the denomination in question. I'm a Catholic (albeit lapsing), and I've never seen modern-day Catholics attempt to evangelize until this year in religion class, when I told my teacher, who had asked if we "do God's work by spreading the good news" that, quite frankly, "If anyone wants to hear the 'good news,' it's not like it isn't out there. Pretty much every human being has heard in some way or another about Jesus and if they don't choose to adopt that, that's their choice and I'm cool with it. I'm not going to go out of my way to force ideas on people." The entire class agreed, and she was displeased. It was pretty funny.