Atheist & "Proselytizing"?

[Brian37]

I really hate this, because both theists and atheists use "proselytize".

A theist uses marketing, trying to sell a club membership. But no, the atheist countering that is not selling anything, anymore than saying "The New York Yankees DID NOT win the Super Bowl" is selling something.

If there weren't people claiming the moon is made of cheese the atheist would not have to go around correcting such absurd statements.

Saying "that is not true", or "what year do you live in?" is not selling anything. Questioning is the sound reasonable people make when absurd claims are made.

Talking donkeys, magic babies, 72 virgins, multiple armed deities, magic underwear, is all the same to the atheist. Deities are let's pretend no matter who is claiming them. "Grow up" is not marketing anymore than saying there is no tooth fairy is marketing.

Once you know what a telescope is and you still insist on kaleidoscope thinking, you look like an idiot.

[Esquilax]

It's something of a coping mechanism in place of not having any evidence, to me; they can't rise to the level of objective justification for their beliefs, so the only choice left is to drag us down to theirs. And so, rather than just questioning them, the reason we're giving them trouble is because we've got our own ideological agenda that's counter to theirs. At that point, our position is just opinion, no better than theirs.

[Brian37]

It's something of a coping mechanism in place of not having any evidence, to me; they can't rise to the level of objective justification for their beliefs, so the only choice left is to drag us down to theirs. And so, rather than just questioning them, the reason we're giving them trouble is because we've got our own ideological agenda that's counter to theirs. At that point, our position is just opinion, no better than theirs.

Science as a method has an agenda as much as saying gravity exists is an agenda.

Opinion? No, science is not atheist based and I've met some people calling themselves atheists with just as whacked out beliefs as any god claim. "Atheist" is not an "agenda".

We are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts.

The ability to express an opinion from a legal standpoint is not the issue. The credibility of any given claim is the issue. Not all claims are equal by default.

[Jacob(smooth)]

I really hate this, because both theists and atheists use "proselytize".

A theist uses marketing, trying to sell a club membership. But no, the atheist countering that is not selling anything, anymore than saying "The New York Yankees DID NOT win the Super Bowl" is selling something.

If there weren't people claiming the moon is made of cheese the atheist would not have to go around correcting such absurd statements.

Saying "that is not true", or "what year do you live in?" is not selling anything. Questioning is the sound reasonable people make when absurd claims are made.

Talking donkeys, magic babies, 72 virgins, multiple armed deities, magic underwear, is all the same to the atheist. Deities are let's pretend no matter who is claiming them. "Grow up" is not marketing anymore than saying there is no tooth fairy is marketing.

Once you know what a telescope is and you still insist on kaleidoscope thinking, you look like an idiot.

Pfft. Typical "fundie" atheist.

[Ryantology]

It's something of a coping mechanism in place of not having any evidence, to me; they can't rise to the level of objective justification for their beliefs, so the only choice left is to drag us down to theirs. And so, rather than just questioning them, the reason we're giving them trouble is because we've got our own ideological agenda that's counter to theirs. At that point, our position is just opinion, no better than theirs.

Science as a method has an agenda as much as saying gravity exists is an agenda.

Opinion? No, science is not atheist based and I've met some people calling themselves atheists with just as whacked out beliefs as any god claim. "Atheist" is not an "agenda".

We are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts.

The ability to express an opinion from a legal standpoint is not the issue. The credibility of any given claim is the issue. Not all claims are equal by default.

If you notice, theists are great at projecting their flaws on us. It seems as though almost every theist argument involves the assumption that atheism is a religion, that we 'worship' science, that we 'proselytize', that we think of ourselves as 'gods', that we rely on 'faith', and that's ignoring every other attempt at equivocating perceived flaws of atheism to the real flaws of theism.

Theists are not constrained by intellectual integrity, as they can invent all the facts they think are necessary to win an argument. Really though (and I know it makes me a bit of a hypocrite to say this), debating with a theist is really kind of self-defeating, because it implies that their position is worth debating. Not only is the kernel of their beliefs intentionally designed so as to be unfalsifiable, so is every single argument in defense of it. What better indication could you need to know for sure that there's no substance at the heart of any of it?

Treating theist beliefs with any degree of validity only gives them the false impression that they are.

[Brian37]

Science as a method has an agenda as much as saying gravity exists is an agenda.

Opinion? No, science is not atheist based and I've met some people calling themselves atheists with just as whacked out beliefs as any god claim. "Atheist" is not an "agenda".

We are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts.

The ability to express an opinion from a legal standpoint is not the issue. The credibility of any given claim is the issue. Not all claims are equal by default.

If you notice, theists are great at projecting their flaws on us. It seems as though almost every theist argument involves the assumption that atheism is a religion, that we 'worship' science, that we 'proselytize', that we think of ourselves as 'gods', that we rely on 'faith', and that's ignoring every other attempt at equivocating perceived flaws of atheism to the real flaws of theism.

Theists are not constrained by intellectual integrity, as they can invent all the facts they think are necessary to win an argument. Really though (and I know it makes me a bit of a hypocrite to say this), debating with a theist is really kind of self-defeating, because it implies that their position is worth debating. Not only is the kernel of their beliefs intentionally designed so as to be unfalsifiable, so is every single argument in defense of it. What better indication could you need to know for sure that there's no substance at the heart of any of it?

Treating theist beliefs with any degree of validity only gives them the false impression that they are.

It isn't that we treat theists claims with any validity. It is a matter of that if we don't combat this crap it dumbs people down long term.

[SteelCurtain]

Complaining that we are only doing the same thing they are doing is absolutely the modus operandi for theists. It has to be. They must be able to pretend that there are two competing theories (colloquial sense) and that they have merely chosen a side. The right side. It is a fantastically effective way to convince the lay person. They have the advantage of having the majority of the population indoctrinated. So marginalizing the "atheist agenda" into some sort of fringe "belief" is a perfect way to keep people from even exploring. And that, after all, is the point. It is vastly important for theists, especially now, to keep people from asking questions. Things start to unravel pretty quickly if they do.

[Whateverist]

Naw, I don't agree. Fundie atheists just want to argue that literal gods don't literally exist and they will always find a willing disputant among fundie Christians and other theists. Fundie atheists don't feel it is necessary to understand why the god hunch has been around so long, or glibly dismiss it as primitive 'science'. Fundie atheists don't get anything out of a discussion with agnostic theists; they prefer conversing with others who see the world in the same black and white manner they do.

No, atheism is not the epitome of enlightenment nor would universal atheism signify the dawning of Aquarius.

[Ryantology]

It isn't that we treat theists claims with any validity. It is a matter of that if we don't combat this crap it dumbs people down long term.

Absolutely, we need to combat it. It's just that, we're copping to their intellectual dishonesty if we grant equal respect to the claims of theists.

[Brian37]

It isn't that we treat theists claims with any validity. It is a matter of that if we don't combat this crap it dumbs people down long term.

Absolutely, we need to combat it. It's just that, we're copping to their intellectual dishonesty if we grant equal respect to the claims of theists.

Equating "that is not true" or "bullshit" to being militant is fucking absurd. If our species never questioned anything we'd still be dragging our knuckles. The reality theists do not want to face is that WE DO KNOW what causes god belief. Evolution and psychology explain why people make up and believe false things.

Humans SHOULD value rights, but that does not mean a claim by itself deserves to be valued.