My Unfortunate Encounter with a Theist, Too Harsh?

[Anomalocaris]

So, I was sitting in a booth today, working on a power point presentation that I have to do this Tuesday (I'm a graduate student at Eastern Washington University) and a young gentleman approached me with a card in his hand. He did not let me read the thing, but he asked me if I had heard of his organization. Taking my earphones out, I asked "Is this a religious thing?" You see, sir, the lord does not really approve of religion, the gentleman answered (to paraphrase him a bit). As soon as I heard the words "the lord" come out of his mouth, I knew what the deal was. As he continued on with his proselytizing speil, I looked down and realized my Atheist necklace was tucked under my t-shirt and not visible to the gentleman's eyes. So I held it up and asked him "what does my necklace say?" He answered "it says Atheist", and before he could continue, I cut in: "you have freedom of religion and I have freedom from religion, so I would appreciate it if you would fuck off." Then I put my earphones back in and continued with my work. As the gentleman walked off, he said "well, sir, God loves you", and mumbled something else that I didn't catch because I had stopped paying attention to him. In retrospect, I think I should have said "how the hell do you know, ya crazy asshole? You're not the lord."

Was I too harsh with the gentleman? I don't think I was too much so, no. As Christopher Hitchens understood, religion must infringe on the values of non-believers in order for it to spread. So this gentleman was giving me a sales pitch with the hopes of proselytizing me. But...if I could go back in time and do this over, I may have just said "you have freedom of religion and I have freedom from religion, and I wish you and this organization luck in whatever your goals are, but I'm a lifelong atheist and not interested".

But on the other hand, did he deserve that much respect? If I were nicer, he would be less hurt and the chances that he would continue accosting people in public would be higher. That would not be good at all. I was harsh like that because I wanted to show him what I thought of public proselytizers and to show him that converting ignorant fools to the primitive crap found in ancient, theistic texts is harder than he thinks. If I had wished him luck with his work, I would have been lying, too. But sometimes it's necessary to lie in order to be polite and not sound like a prick.

But anyway, that was my adventure for today. Thank you for reading.

If he does not ask your permission first before telling you anything about his religion, then you need feel no compunction about telling him to fuck off with the degree of severity that suited the degree of irritation caused by his impertinence.

[Michael Schubert]

If he does not ask your permission first before telling you anything about his religion, then you need feel no compunction about telling him to fuck off with the degree of severity that suited the degree of irritation caused by his impertinence.

Yeah, if he was at a table out in the courtyard with his organization's name on it, and not going around accosting people, that would be okay. But no, the guy is spreading his religion by pestering me while I'm working.

[paulpablo]

So, I was sitting in a booth today, working on a power point presentation that I have to do this Tuesday (I'm a graduate student at Eastern Washington University) and a young gentleman approached me with a card in his hand. He did not let me read the thing, but he asked me if I had heard of his organization. Taking my earphones out, I asked "Is this a religious thing?" You see, sir, the lord does not really approve of religion, the gentleman answered (to paraphrase him a bit). As soon as I heard the words "the lord" come out of his mouth, I knew what the deal was. As he continued on with his proselytizing speil, I looked down and realized my Atheist necklace was tucked under my t-shirt and not visible to the gentleman's eyes. So I held it up and asked him "what does my necklace say?" He answered "it says Atheist", and before he could continue, I cut in: "you have freedom of religion and I have freedom from religion, so I would appreciate it if you would fuck off." Then I put my earphones back in and continued with my work. As the gentleman walked off, he said "well, sir, God loves you", and mumbled something else that I didn't catch because I had stopped paying attention to him. In retrospect, I think I should have said "how the hell do you know, ya crazy asshole? You're not the lord."

Was I too harsh with the gentleman? I don't think I was too much so, no. As Christopher Hitchens understood, religion must infringe on the values of non-believers in order for it to spread. So this gentleman was giving me a sales pitch with the hopes of proselytizing me. But...if I could go back in time and do this over, I may have just said "you have freedom of religion and I have freedom from religion, and I wish you and this organization luck in whatever your goals are, but I'm a lifelong atheist and not interested".

But on the other hand, did he deserve that much respect? If I were nicer, he would be less hurt and the chances that he would continue accosting people in public would be higher. That would not be good at all. I was harsh like that because I wanted to show him what I thought of public proselytizers and to show him that converting ignorant fools to the primitive crap found in ancient, theistic texts is harder than he thinks. If I had wished him luck with his work, I would have been lying, too. But sometimes it's necessary to lie in order to be polite and not sound like a prick.

But anyway, that was my adventure for today. Thank you for reading.

It depends how harshly he interrupted you, if he said excuse me or something along those lines then yeh I think that you were a bit harsh.

But there's been more than once where I've been in the middle of a convo walking through a shop and someone has shouted at me and the person I'm talking to in order to get our attention to something they're trying to sell within the shop, like a new phone service provider or something. In cases like that I think it should be allowable by law to punch someone right in the face, for literally shouting right into the conversation you're having.

I hate being interrupted in general but it depends how someone does it.

[Tonus]

Was I too harsh with the gentleman?

I think you were. I tend to be a mixture of polite and aloof, so I would not have been harsh, though I probably would have been a bit rude by making little eye contact, offering a wan smile and a disinterested "no thank you." It probably comes off as smug and condescending, but I like to think of it as energy efficient.

[The Valkyrie]

Was I too harsh with the gentleman?

I think you were. I tend to be a mixture of polite and aloof, so I would not have been harsh, though I probably would have been a bit rude by making little eye contact, offering a wan smile and a disinterested "no thank you." It probably comes off as smug and condescending, but I like to think of it as energy efficient.

I would probably have done the same if he hadn't interrupted someone wearing earphones. When they do that Mean Beccs comes out to play.

[jesus_wept]

"Too harsh" would have been hitting him over the head with a brick.

I think this could be considered doing them a favour if they believe they'll go to heaven when they die.

[DarkHorse]

I wouldn't have had the courage to handle it the way you did, but that doesn't mean I think you were too harsh. I thought it was the perfect reply. I would have probably listened for a while, then tried to get out of it by saying I'm late for a meeting or something.

[sven]

I don't really think you were too harsh with him. The worst thing you can do to people like that is to treat them like air, and you did not do that.
The other day I was bothered by Muslims spreading the word at my local mall. I politely told them that I think their religion is medieval nonsense. Well; I tried to be polite, at least...
The most rude thing you can do to people is to treat them as non-beings. Nobody deserves that.

[Rampant.A.I.]

If only it were so simple with close friends. The other night at a friend's house, I'm listening to a friend tell a story about Matt Parker and Trey Stone giving a lecture at a ComiCon or some similar venue, and he segues into:

"you know, a lot of people are surprised when they find out they're not atheists. They called some guy out in the front Dow, and said: you're an atheist, right? The guy says 'yeah'. Well Matt says, 'how many Christmas carols do you know?' And the guy names off a list, and Matt says 'see? Who doesn't love that? The only people who hate Christmas carols are holiday retail employees. How can you not love that?' Atheists are still mad about having to spend every weekend in a pew, or because something bad happened to them."

Which is the biggest pile-o-shit appeal to emotion non-argument I've heard in some time, but there were four other people laughing, and I've worked my share of holiday retail, and haven't been able to stand most Christmas music since, so I sort of chuckled, too.

Never mind the fact that Matt and Trey identify as AGNOSTIC, likely for publicity reasons with an acerbic show like South Park, and are likely agnostic in the way that Neil Degrasse Tyson is agnostic, or I myself am agnostic.

At some level, you have to realize that *Chef Voice* "hey, this over here smells like a big ol' heapin' pile a' stinkin' bullshit" and "why, this here looks like the same pile o'bullshit, 'cept they covered it in glitter and dressed it up with hand tied bows."

TTA's Seth Andrews uses Mexican food as a metaphor: religion seems to be all the same ingredients presented in different ways.

"I'll have a taco. What's in a taco?"
"Well it's beans, meat, lettuce, tomato, in a corn or flour tortilla. We can fry it and make it crispy if you like."
"Hmm. Well, I'll have a burrito. What's in a burrito?"
"Well it's beans, meat, lettuce, tomato, in a corn or flour tortilla."

So I consider trotting out this metaphor, and how I can subtly imply religion seems to be all the same ingredients dressed up in different ways for different palates, some of it is useful and some of it not so much, and the majority seems to have so much dogmatic nonsensical garbage thrown in that it's better to discard the whole thing and pick out the useful pieces than order something made out of the same key ingredients with a bunch of crap nobody likes heaped in "because invisible deity X wants it that way."

And I'm sifting there, stewing, with my deist girlfriend on my left, a couple I barely know to my right that seem marginally deistic, and knowing my friend with the story has a gay older brother who is a priest, and a very nice man, of what I can only assume is Unitarianism, knowing their mother is in hospice care.

So somewhere between "haha, yeah, what are those atheists so angry about? They're silly" and "what in the hell does the Christmas music developed from traditions dating back to the Vikings have to do with the Bible's message of rape, infanticide, slavery and eternal torture," my train of thought derails, I'm stuck smiling and nodding like an idiot, while the passengers are screaming, some of them on fire, and the conductor is fingering the trigger on his Colt Single-Action, trying to figure out whether the chambered bullet looks tastier than the possibility of eternal damnation vs. the 100' drop into the gully below.

Is it me? Am I the one who is on the fence here, surrounded by people who need any reason to believe there is a hereafter, and something beyond, or am I an agnostic who knows there is no possible truth claim about the supernatural, and what comes after death, knowing I didn't see any angels or pearly gates the last time I was pronounced dead?

How is it me, when I have first-hand knowledge of what I saw prior to the medic who straightened out my airway, and pronounced me "already dead on the spot," who is the odd one out in this conversation that everyone else seems so convinced they have pertinent knowledge and answers to?

So I grinned, laughed, took another pull on my beer, but it still bothers me. These people who are so certain that they're morally, factually, or otherwise completely superior to the position of agnosticism, but unwilling to state what their actual beliefs are, are not superior to me. They're afraid. They think there's some supernatural entity in the sky, who will come down and grant them a boon for not truly deciding one way or the other.

They think the title "Agnostic," which I have held so long and with such conviction will grant them a second stay. A period in which they can reflect on the musings about a heaven in which they believe their loved ones reside, with whom they will eventually be reunited.

No. I'm sorry. Whatever religious beliefs you think you have transcribed over under the auspices of Agnosticism doesn't hold a candle to what may come of your lack of belief in whatever tradition you were indoctrinated into, because none of it makes sense.

Being agnostic does not mean you get to check out on a bunch of bullshit claims. It means you have to confront them, and examine your claims for what they really are.

Which, right now; seems like a bunch of bullshit claims with celebrity names attached to then.

[fr0d0]

It's a counter productive tactic, aggressive marketing.