Is There Such a Thing as Evangelical Atheism?

[MineralMan]

I've not encountered it, if it exists. I do not know any atheists to attempt to recruit believers in religion to atheism. Perhaps there are such people, but I have not met them. I am not one, and am fine with people's religious beliefs, if they can believe in such things. I do object to evangelism from religious people, since I believe that each person should determine for him or herself what beliefs they can hold. But, I have zero interest in converting believers to non-believers. I see no point in attempting to do such a thing.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Hey buddy, speak for yourself! I work full time at

"Atheists R Us!"

We have booths all over the country in malls, we disguise them by selling knick knacks like cell phone covers, but the real deal is we sell ATHEISM!

It looks like this




but trust me, when you buy the cell phone cover, we whisper this to you "Satan is my buddy, Satan is my pal" over and over



Oh wait, that makes me a satanist, not an atheist

[trotsky]

3. Ugh, are you really next to Yankee Candle all day?

I suppose it wouldn't be as bad as Bath and Body Works at least.

[Eliot Rosewater]

4. I just pulled this out of google images, dont even know what Yankee Candle is LOL

[trotsky]

5. Haha J/K

[trotsky]

2. The whole point of people claiming atheism is a religion, or a belief, or whatnot...

is to try and silence criticism of religion and religious beliefs.

"Evangelical atheism" is a popular trope to toss out in response to any atheist who is viewed as too aggressive in their questioning of the status quo. It dilutes the meaning of "evangelical" to the point of making it ridiculous.

[Eliot Rosewater]

6. Yes, exactly.

[MineralMan]

10. So, if you are other than a silent atheist,

some religionists will think you're trying to destroy their faith and turn them into atheists, too? How odd.

I'm using the basic dictionary definition of evangelism. One can be an evangelist for almost any idea, including the idea that Apple computers and devices are so superior to others that it's impossible that you could be happy with anything else.

[Igel]

65. And unless you're a silent believer,

some atheists will think you're trying to convert them.

It really is a two-edged sword.

However, I've known atheists who were so militant is extirpating all vestiges of religion of their lives--which includes life-adjacent people and activities, as well as the generically public sphere--that it was pretty clear they'd be much happier and think me/us much more enlightened and smarter if we gave up our silly faith in some supernatural being.

This was in grad school. Work. Family. Sometimes it was mere mockery. Sometimes it was active warfare. Sometimes it was shunning. The tools for using manipulation and coercion to get people to change their minds are fairly universal and fairly non-specific. They resembled those, for example, I used in getting my father to give up smoking or my roommate in his ill-begotten effort to "convert" the young woman he tried to date. (The former was a success, since my father and I tended to be around each other by necessity; the young woman fairly quickly told my roommate what he could do with all sorts of things and bodily orifices, none of which were remotely anatomically possible. His attempted witticism that "God is everywhere" did not, by any means, have the desired humorous effect. Not to mention that it was sort of gross.)

[Croney]

7. I was somewhat of a proselytizer in my younger days.

But now I’m just a quiet atheist unless provoked. I don’t think the word evangelical can logically precede the word atheism.

[brewens]

8. I'm not even an atheist. I haven't been convinced either way. I suppose I could be, but

I'm not some kind of seeker either. Just what it would take to prove or disprove the existence of god, gods or some other controlling entity, I don't have a clue. It won't be just going along with something because it's what so many other believe. I know that for sure. If whatever it might be decides it's time for me to know, I guess I'll find out.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. The word "evangelical" comes from the Greek, and means "good news."

So "evangelical atheism," at least literally-speaking, would be spreading the "good news" that there is no God, which I don't think is what any atheist intends. I have run into a few atheists who insist that they are right and believers are wrong, but that's not the same as evangelism or proselytization; it's just being very convinced of the correctness of one's belief (or more accurately, the lack of it).

[MineralMan]

11. Yes. That's how I see it, too.

I can see no particular reason to convince others to disbelieve, even if that were possible. I don't care. It doesn't really matter. My only reason for discussing religion at all is its pervasiveness in our society and the views held by some religionists that insist that their way is the only way for everyone. That, I will argue against.

[SWBTATTReg]

12. Agree...

don't have much patience w/ attempts to convert others as it is an insult to their belief(s) or non-belief(s) if any. I firmly believe that each one of us, w/ our own beliefs, is an island to ourselves, and that's the way it should be. And this is the way it should be, I don't think it does society any good if one belief dominates or swamps all others, after all, in the old days when there was just IBM (and I hated it, they (IBM) were the most arrogant techs I dealt w/, prior to the arrival of the PCs/other non-IBM mainframes)...

[guillaumeb]

13. Yes there is. A good question. eom

[MineralMan]

14. Would you care to expand on that?

Perhaps with some examples you've discovered of evangelical atheists?

[guillaumeb]

15. Any time one discusses faith, and other types of beliefs,

one is evangelizing in a sense by the mere fact of speaking of these topics. Perhaps proselytize is a more accurate term, but I have known a few atheists who, by their conversation, were clearly attempting to persuade their listeners that
1) theism was not a logical position, and
2) that atheism is a logical position.

So they were advocating for an atheistic viewpoint as they were attacking a theistic viewpoint.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Why?

What was the impetus of the discussion?

I sometimes do that, when defensively trying to separate theology from government. That's about it though.

[guillaumeb]

26. The few people I was thinking of,

and it is only a few, were more aggressive in approach on the subject of theism vs atheism.

[Lordquinton]

16. Not as such

You can expand the definition to mean talking about a subject in a positive manner, but it's a weasal word to equivicate them with the worst in theists. Atheists still don't go door to door, and there is nothing to recruit people to.

[PragmaticDem]

17. I think that is the wrong would to use. There are atheists who are for lack of a better word are

Enthusiastic about their views and proudly express their views. In real life I have never encountered an atheist who wanted to convert me but the internet...

[MineralMan]

18. Well, I have no interest in converting anyone to anything.

None whatsoever. Other people's beliefs, per se, have nothing to do with me. Now, they might try to impose them on me, and I will respond negatively to that. But, the principle of reciprocity says that I should not try to impose my ideas on them, either. That doesn't mean I can't discuss my ideas or reveal them. It just means that I should not try to get others to believe as I do, since I do not want others to do that to me.

I define evangelism as any attempt to get someone to believe as you do.

[PragmaticDem]

19. Good point.

[Mariana]

20. Some people, like Gil upthread, consider that evangelism.

Discussing your ideas, or theirs, is evangelism, by his definition. He's far from alone in holding this opinion.

[MineralMan]

24. Well, different people have different ideas about stuff.

There it is. For me, evangelism must include the intent to convert. Simply informing does not. Discussion does not. Finally, there's nothing in atheism to convert anyone to. One either has belief or does not. Atheism is simply the absence of something. Beyond that, it is nothing, really.

[Voltaire2]

59. Nah, that is just deliberate equivocation.

He’ll use the broadest meaning of evangelize in order to use the common meaning to then claim that atheists are as bad as fundamentalist Christians pushing their religion into every part of the social fabric.

[trotsky]

21. Do you have an example of what you consider an atheist trying to "convert" you? n/t

[PragmaticDem]

23. One one tries to personally convert me I will tell you.

[trotsky]

25. Oh, so it still hasn't happened?

In that case, your statement "In real life I have never encountered an atheist who wanted to convert me but the internet..."

Might be more accurately stated as: "I have never encountered an atheist who wanted to convert me, in real life or on the Internet."

Correct?

[PragmaticDem]

27. Wow you are hyper technical.

Ok does telling me my religious views are myth, childlike, and that I should learn to deal with reality count to you? Because I have experienced that in real life and on the internet. I would never say such a thing to someone else.

[trotsky]

28. Accuracy is important in any dialog, don't you agree?

So if I tell you that I think your religious views are false, is that unacceptable to you? Do you consider that to be me attempting to "convert" you? Would you never ever say someone else's religious views are false?

[PragmaticDem]

29. You can say whatever you like.

I can handle criticism of my views and I think others should learned to handle criticism well. I think in terms of conversion attempts it is probably how you put forth your arguments and how it is received. In other words it is in the eye of the beholder.

I personally have never tried to convert someone to my faith. I find people who do that completely annoying.

[trotsky]

30. So it's more of a "I know it when I see it" kind of thing?

Are we allowed to tell the Phelps gang we think their beliefs are wrong, or would that be attempting to convert them? Or would it be OK to attempt to convert someone who has views like them? If so, why?

[PragmaticDem]

31. You can attempt to convert anyone you want.

If you see something bigoted or just plain wrong speak up. Phelps crew and the lot like them should be confronted. I did at my cousin's funeral and at the pride parade.

[trotsky]

32. So converting is OK if you think their beliefs are wrong? n/t

[PragmaticDem]

33. I am not saying it is ok or not ok.

I am saying challenging a belief is perfectly fine. If you want to try to convert people go ahead.

[trotsky]

34. You understand why I drew this conversation out, right?

What I see in this group time and time again are accusations that a nebulous group of atheists ruin things by attacking people's beliefs, etc. You identified examples of such attacks as "telling me my religious views are myth, childlike, and that I should learn to deal with reality" in post #27, even though you provided no evidence of those things occurring. But to call something a "myth" is to say that it's not real, not based on reality - i.e., one is simply claiming it is factually false.

So by extension, if I say I think your religious beliefs are false, you would then identify me as one of the horrible atheists who ruin things here, would you not?

But it's OK if I tell the Phelps gang I think their religious beliefs are false? Why?

[PragmaticDem]

36. You can challenge faith without being mean-spirited.

I have encountered mean-spiritedness here about being a believer. I have no doubt you have your own grievances.

[trotsky]

39. But who decides what is "mean-spirited"?

I think it's incredibly mean-spirited to define atheism as a belief itself, especially when atheists themselves say it is not.

Yet I have not seen you condemn that kind of action. Will you do it here and now? Will you call it out the next time it happens?

[PragmaticDem]

40. Atheists are better at defining atheism than believers.

And mean-spiritedness is in the eye of the beholder. But I have seen it here.

[trotsky]

41. OK, perhaps you can point to some SPECIFIC examples of mean-spiritedness then.

You are claiming you've seen it. Provide the evidence so that people can understand what offends YOU.

[PragmaticDem]

42. I found this rather mean-spirited and offensive.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=266249

[trotsky]

43. How could that poster have better expressed their opinion?

What specific phrases or words were most upsetting?

[PragmaticDem]

44. Is there a nicer way to say I don't value my and other's lives as much as someone

who doesn't believe in an afterlife. It was an honest opinion but it is mean and complete bullshit!

[trotsky]

45. I don't know, is there?

You believe we get another life after this one, right?

One that (assuming you go to heaven) is far better than this one, and will last forever?

[PragmaticDem]

46. I don't think there was a way to sugar coat that. Do you think the poster was right?

[trotsky]

47. Let me ask you this:

If a child is abused and dies at a young age, do you take some consolation in believing that they will have a pain-free existence for eternity?

[PragmaticDem]

48. No.

[trotsky]

49. OK, care to elaborate?

Trying to have a discussion here.

[PragmaticDem]

51. Fine but do you agree with the other poster who wrote that?

[trotsky]

52. I think that when you believe there is an afterlife...

where the injustices of the world will be righted, and where everyone will have a much better life than what they got here, that there will be a tendency, sometimes subconscious, to not view this life as important as someone who thinks this is all we get, and that nothing will make it better in the end.

You personally might not feel that way, but you asked in a generic way why that poster thought such beliefs were bad, and they gave you their opinion.

[PragmaticDem]

53. My response to you then is to actually talk to believers and you will see how wrong you are.

We care just as much about this life as you do.

[trotsky]

54. I have.

And based on what they have told me, I have formed my own opinion.

So how about you explain your perspective? You know, discussion?

[PragmaticDem]

57. What specifically do you want to know?

[trotsky]

67. At every religious funeral I've attended, I hear phrases like:

"S/he's in a better place now."

"At least s/he is no longer in pain."

And so on.

What do those mean to you?

[PragmaticDem]

69. No longer in pain means just that, no pain.

A better place means heaven.

[trotsky]

81. Yes, exactly the point.

Another life where all the troubles of this life are over. A far better place to be.

No one is saying you can't value *this* life at all if you're a believer (which seems to be what you're so upset about) - just that if you think there is a much better life AFTER this one, there is a tendency to view injustice and suffering with the hope that it will all be made right later.

Your answers to this point have been one-word denials with no explanation whatsoever why this doesn't apply to you either. Some clarification and explanation would be great if you can offer it.

[PragmaticDem]

82. Because it is hogwash!

I value this life just as much as the next! The average religious person understands that they can be wrong and there is nothing after death. We cherish this life just as much as an atheist! It is insulting and ridiculous to think otherwise!

[trotsky]

83. "The average religious person understands that they can be wrong and there is nothing after death."

I do not believe you can speak for the "average religious person." In fact, from my experience, the average believer is quite certain that a god exists and that an afterlife is promised. It's kind of the central tenet of certainly the "big three" Abrahamic religions.

[PragmaticDem]

85. Your answer suggests you really don't know religious people!

We have our doubts and questions.

You have a view that is wrong! I advise you to actually talk to real-life believers, and stop assuming you know so much about us.

Just like you rightly get pissed when believers here try to define atheism, we get pissed when you try to define us and say what we think.

[trotsky]

87. See the link I posted.

The vast majority of believers are CONVINCED.

[PragmaticDem]

88. If you formed your opinions based on that poll then it is not worth my time arguing with you!

[trotsky]

93. Considering you haven't actually advanced any arguments...

but only made blanket statements about "average believers" that you can't support, I would be inclined to agree that this isn't worth our time.

[PragmaticDem]

95. Your insulting manner is tiresome.

Goodbye!

[trotsky]

97. OK, thanks.

Sorry you couldn't actually defend your position and instead got mad at me for asking you to.

[Voltaire2]

98. You are atheists badz very.

Asking questions. How you dare?

[trotsky]

84. "the average religious person"

http://news.gallup.com/poll/20437/americans-little-doubt-god-exists.aspx

A recent Gallup Poll* looked a little more closely at Americans' certainty. Seventy-eight percent of Americans say they are "convinced" that God exists; another 12% think God probably exists, but have "a little doubt"; and 4% think God probably exists, but have "a lot of doubt." Only 4% think God "does not exist, but are not sure," and 1% are "convinced" that God does not exist.

[PragmaticDem]

86. Gallup said Romney was going to win by seven percent.

Get a more reliable poll!

[trotsky]

92. Provide your own survey then. n/t

[PragmaticDem]

94. I don't put my trust in polls like you do.

[trotsky]

96. It's the only data presented to this point.

All you have is your opinion of what the "average believer" thinks.

To counter the data presented, you've basically said Gallup is fake news.

[Mariana]

55. I don't think you can speak for every believer. nt.

[PragmaticDem]

56. I don't claim to.

[Mariana]

60. It did seem as if you claimed to, in post #53.

53. My response to you then is to actually talk to believers and you will see how wrong you are.

You seemed to imply that every believer would tell Trotsky the same thing you told him.

[PragmaticDem]

61. No.

[wryter2000]

35. That's what I call it

When the mere idea that someone might believe in a deity makes someone else furious.

[MineralMan]

38. I can't remember any time when such an idea made me furious.

I can't imagine any time when it would. Frankly, I don't know any atheists for whom the idea of someone believing in a deity makes them furious.

I can be made furious by someone insisting that I believe whatever stuff they believe, though. I will resist such efforts.

[Mariana]

50. I don't think it's made anyone furious, ever.

The straw man strikes again.

[Voltaire2]

62. "furious" in this group appears to be "asks questions about belief".

[Mariana]

64. No one is furious. It's just a lie to demonize atheists.

Some people really like to feel persecuted, so much so that they'll make shit up so they can pretend.

[Act_of_Reparation]

66. It's standard privileged tone policing.

Self-reflection is difficult. Complaining about language is easy.

The Catholic Church is buying up hospitals and deliberately restricting everyone's access to reproductive healthcare, but we can't ever have a productive discussion on that topic because we're too busy defending language deemed too harsh by a demographic that could not be less affected by what's said about them on the internet.

[wryter2000]

58. Not you

But plenty of other atheists on this board fit into that category

[Voltaire2]

63. OIC, just the atheists badz

gosh, I'm like having deja vue all over again

[trotsky]

68. Really?

"Plenty"?

Can you link to some posts demonstrating this?

[AtheistCrusader]

70. Links or get out.

[PragmaticDem]

71. I don't think you have the authority to tell a poster to get out.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. It's a colloquialsim. I am fully aware that poster is under no obligation to comply.

But it was a bullshit smear. I don't feel the need to be polite today.

[PragmaticDem]

74. Oh ok.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. Yeah, act like you didn't already know that.

[Voltaire2]

99. sure he does. he just did.

Perhaps you misspoke again. I think you meant he doesn't have the authority to make a poster get out.

[MineralMan]

72. Really? To which of the atheists in this group do you refer?

Please take the time to support your statement. Thanks a bunch.

MineralMan
Non-Evangelical Atheist

[MineralMan]

37. Why "Evangelism," in definition, includes attempts to convert:

Anyone who has ever attended a tent revival or "Crusade" has listened to some noted Christian evangelist. If you have attended such an event, you know that the climax of the entire event is the "Call to Come Down and Be Saved!" Everything involved in the revival or crusade has that as its goal. If that "call to the altar" did not occur, it would have been some other sort of gathering.

Evangelists seek to convert. That is their sole reason for being there and advertising their event. If you go, you will be asked to convert to Christianity. Evangelism is the process of leading people to conversion.

That is the definition I am using in this thread. Atheists don't care if you become an atheist, because there's nothing to convert TO. Atheism is simply non-belief. If you don't believe in deities and other supernatural entities, then you are an atheist, by definition. You don't have to actually do anything. In fact, you are simply not doing something.

There is no conversion to atheism. It is just not believing. There are no evangelistic atheists. Atheism is the opposite of belief. You either believe or you do not or you are uncertain. If you do not believe, you are an atheist.

There's nothing to it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

76. "Evangelize" means "to convert or seek to convert to Christianity"

Unless there's some atheist with some seriously fucked up priorities hopping about, I think we can safely assume the answer is "no".

[MineralMan]

79. The definition has expanded in the English language.

A common usage today refers to people who promote products and brands. Brand evangelism is a real thing, and can even be rewarded financially for bloggers, etc.

The language changes over time, so "evangelist" and "evangelism" no longer have that restricted meaning.

[Act_of_Reparation]

90. Which makes "evangelical Atheists" an equivocation.

Theists lob the term at atheists to compare us to Evangelical Christians. They are using Definition A for the Christians and Definition B for the Atheists, yet presenting them as being the same.

[MineralMan]

91. Equivocation 'R' Us, I guess...

[still_one]

77. No. An atheist doesn't care whether someone believes in a god or not

[Still In Wisconsin]

78. I'm Jewish. I have a couple of atheist friends who tried pretty hard to "convert" my wife and I

away from Judaism (or any kind of theism), always citing the argument that we are logical people and religious belief is (in their opinions) illogical. They gave up after a couple of years. We're still friends.

[MineralMan]

80. Thanks for your example.

I'm glad they're still your friends. I have met several Jewish people who call themselves atheists. That helped me understand Judaism better as a word with more than one meaning.

[Still In Wisconsin]

89. Oh, Judaism as a word and concept is fascinating isn't it?

There's an ethnic/cultural dimension, a social dimension, a religious dimension, and a sociopolitical dimension.

For example: I am both an ethnic Jew (of Eastern European and Russian descent) and a religious Jew (I attend regularly). My wife converted from Christianity- she is of Norwegian and German ancestry. Socially, my wife and I are close with many other Jewish families here in town. Our congregation is politically progressive for the most part. I support Palestinian statehood and believe Bibi is a stain on Israel. Back home where I grew up, most of the Jewish families I know are dead set against Palestinian statehood and see Netanyahu as a "strong leader." Variance all over the map!