Has Atheism The Mission To Convert Others Over To It?

[Alceste]

God's existence has absolutely nothing to do with whether even one person believes in Him or not.

If nobody believed in any gods, we'd have a society of people who believed there were no gods. People who believe there are no gods are, by definition, atheists. There do not need to be theists in order for God to exist, if He does. If He doesn't exist, He simply doesn't exist. Can't give the atheists credit for making it happen.

But in the mind of an atheist, gods simply don't exist. The existence or non-existence of gods is never pondered at all. If everybody thought that way, the whole issue of gods would be exactly as irrelevant as the issue of the moon being made of cheese. Would there be a word for it? IMO, probably not. "Atheist" isn't something most of us generally define ourselves as, it's something theists define us as. If there were no theists, there would be nobody around to slap a label on people who don't believe in gods.

 

[Katzpur]

But in the mind of an atheist, gods simply don't exist. The existence or non-existence of gods is never pondered at all. If everybody thought that way, the whole issue of gods would be exactly as irrelevant as the issue of the moon being made of cheese. Would there be a word for it? IMO, probably not. "Atheist" isn't something most of us generally define ourselves as, it's something theists define us as. If there were no theists, there would be nobody around to slap a label on people who don't believe in gods.

Okay, I see what you mean. I was thinking along an entirely different line.

 

[slave2six]

If nobody believed in any gods, we'd have a society of people who believed there were no gods.

So, would you say that we are a society of a-zyizzybalubas then since none of us believe in an entity by that name?

 

[slave2six]

I don't think so. Do we have a word for not believing the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around it? I'm sure there were words for these things once (probably "heretic" ), but not any more.

But those words are simply a refutation of an incorrect dogmatic statement. No one ever believed that the world was a trapezoid. Does that make us anti-trapezoidalists? We have never believed that the Earth revolves around a giant handkerchief. Does that make us anti-hankerchiefians?

 

[Katzpur]

So, would you say that we are a society of a-zyizzybalubas then since none of us believe in an entity by that name?

I think we live in a society of people, many of whom have nothing intelligent to say but continue to run off at the mouth anyway.

 

[Madhuri]

So, would you say that we are a society of a-zyizzybalubas then since none of us believe in an entity by that name?

Were there ever people who termed themselves 'zyizzybalbubas'? Was there ever a time when there were both these and a-zyizzybalbubas?

The point I was making earlier is that if we still have the knowledge and concept then the term is still relevent to some extent. 'Atheist' would probably still be a relevent term in history lessons, for example.

 

[Alceste]

Were there ever people who termed themselves 'zyizzybalbubas'? Was there ever a time when there were both these and a-zyizzybalbubas?

The point I was making earlier is that if we still have the knowledge and concept then the term is still relevent to some extent. 'Atheist' would probably still be a relevent term in history lessons, for example.

From what I recall from my history lesson, not much time was spent discussing people who didn't believe stuff. Everybody got lumped together. The Greeks believed this and the Romans believed that, in Medieval Europe they believed in bleeding and leeching, etc.

The lunatic fringe never gets any press when it comes to history.

 

[dogsgod]

From what I recall from my history lesson, not much time was spent discussing people who didn't believe stuff. Everybody got lumped together. The Greeks believed this and the Romans believed that, in Medieval Europe they believed in bleeding and leeching, etc.

The lunatic fringe never gets any press when it comes to history.

How about this:

Diagoras "the Atheist" of Melos, Greek poet, (5th cent. BCE).
Threw a wooden image of a god into a fire, remarking that the deity should perform another miracle and save itself. The uproar this caused in Athens prompted Diagoras to flee for his life. "Athens outlawed him and offered a reward for his capture dead or alive. He lived out his life in Spartan territory."

 

[Alceste]

How about this:

Diagoras "the Atheist" of Melos, Greek poet, (5th cent. BCE).
Threw a wooden image of a god into a fire, remarking that the deity should perform another miracle and save itself. The uproar this caused in Athens prompted Diagoras to flee for his life. "Athens outlawed him and offered a reward for his capture dead or alive. He lived out his life in Spartan territory."

Awesome! That's just the sort of thing that adds a bit of spice to a narrative. I wish I knew more about history's misfits, criminals and ne'er-do-wells.

 

[Shia Islam]

Reply to OP:

There are some atheists who strive more than theists to spread Atheism, My first impression about this was that they want to:

persuade you to convince themselves!

 

[Alceste]

Reply to OP:

There are some atheists who strive more than theists to spread Atheism, My first impression about this was that they want to:

persuade you to convince themselves!

lol - how funny. That's exactly what I think of certain religious people.

 

[Katzpur]

lol - how funny. That's exactly what I think of certain religious people.

Actually, I think it applies to both groups. In all honesty, haven't you seen it on both sides?

 

[dogsgod]

Awesome! That's just the sort of thing that adds a bit of spice to a narrative. I wish I knew more about history's misfits, criminals and ne'er-do-wells.

Here's where I got that little gem:

Famous Dead Nontheists

 

[Alceste]

Actually, I think it applies to both groups. In all honesty, haven't you seen it on both sides?

In all honesty, no, I haven't gotten the same impression from any atheists. It's not a particularly difficult thing to convince yourself of.

A lot of them are jerks though, don't get me wrong. I think Dawkins must have had some kind of awful personal experience with religion when he was a child. Molested by a priest or something. So he hates religion. But I don't think he lies awake at night worrying that maybe there really IS a god. None of us do.

 

[dogsgod]

In all honesty, no, I haven't gotten the same impression from any atheists. It's not a particularly difficult thing to convince yourself of.

A lot of them are jerks though, don't get me wrong. I think Dawkins must have had some kind of awful personal experience with religion when he was a child. Molested by a priest or something. So he hates religion. But I don't think he lies awake at night worrying that maybe there really IS a god. None of us do.

Dawkins is a biologist and he's motivated to answer back by the objection of evolution being taught in some schools. I think he deserves a lot of respect.

 

[Smoke]

A lot of them are jerks though, don't get me wrong. I think Dawkins must have had some kind of awful personal experience with religion when he was a child. Molested by a priest or something. So he hates religion.

Really? What is your basis for thinking so?

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

In your opinion, does atheism have a mission to convert others over to it?

I posted a similar thread over in the atheist section but I understand that only atheist can reply there. I would like to hear all your opinions on the subject.

obviously not.
Atheism doesnt exist at all.

 

[Caladan]

I think the mission is more to insult than to convert. After all, if all theists became atheists, what would the atheists have to do with all of their free time.

There are many exceptions, of course, because there are a lot of really cool atheists on RF. :yes: But the ones I think you're referring to couldn't care less if they converted anyone to a state of unbelief. They just get their kicks out of ridiculing theists.

WOW Katzpur you wanna talk about it?

The mission of atheists is to waste their time on insulting? so the atheists who are concerned about the spread of fundamentalism, about mixing religion with politics, about freedom of thought, humanism and naturalism are the exception?

 

[BucephalusBB]

In your opinion, does atheism have a mission to convert others over to it?

I posted a similar thread over in the atheist section but I understand that only atheist can reply there. I would like to hear all your opinions on the subject.

.. I have a mission now???
Well, I know it's not to convert interresting thoughts to mine. People who think exactly the same as I do are boring to talk to. I allready know what they are thinking . I allready know enough atheists, if I knew how I would convert a few to some random religion instead.

Appareantly, reading this thread, my mission is to tell people that dawkins is not my leader even though he is also atheist. :sarcastic

 

[Alceste]

Really? What is your basis for thinking so?

The aggressiveness and spitefulness of his criticism. I'm not saying his criticism isn't valid, but that the attitude and language he uses to express it is un-necessarily spiteful. I usually take that kind of thing as a clue of some personal, deeply buried grudge. But I could be wrong, of course. Maybe that's just his way of talking.