What if atheists had a missionary service?

[amorphous_constellation]

I only ask this because I was checking out about half a dozen videos for people who went on mormon missions. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think they said they do it for like 2 years? Anyway, they all go as young people and seem to to have great adventures learning new languages, new cultures, and go all around the world. I guess I was listening mainly because some of them were great story tellers. However, their highly organized and effective style of missionary work got me thinking...

How come there is not a similar western organization to spread secular thought? Does anyone actually travel, learn new languages, and try spread science and reason? It seems like it just never had that kind of appeal to be able to really do that, or has it?

I think maybe part of the problem for atheists to get organized is that maybe they have stop branding themselves as atheists, (and this is just me responding to my own questions) and develop or re-develop terms for what they actually believe. Are you representing the nihilist, positivist, platonic, dualist, or humanist etc. school of thought? You'd have to bring an appealing moral system to the table. How do you approach science? Can old philosophical schools be resurrected so that the atheists can start choosing philosophies again?

The archetype of the messiah oftentimes draws so much from the archetype of the philosopher. Therefore, a philosopher of reason can compete with them, if they are a persuasive enough figure. The only thing they'd have to work on is a message that morally outweighs the message of all the religious figures, and people would start to follow it. Of course, this philosopher figure would have to be truly in line with the atheist planes of thought, no magic should be included.

 

[Quintessence]

How come there is not a similar western organization to spread secular thought? Does anyone actually travel, learn new languages, and try spread science and reason? It seems like it just never had that kind of appeal to be able to really do that, or has it?

Yes, there are organizations that do this. Many of them, at least some of which promote (if not preach/proselytize) their particular can of vegetables. One would have to do more precise analytics to determine if the scope and scale is comparable to other organizations, but in a sense, that doesn't matter.

I think maybe part of the problem for atheists to get organized is that maybe they have stop branding themselves as atheists, (and this is just me responding to my own questions) and develop or re-develop terms for what they actually believe. Are you representing the nihilist, positivist, platonic, dualist, or humanist etc. school of thought? You'd have to bring an appealing moral system to the table. How do you approach science? Can old philosophical schools be resurrected so that the atheists can start choosing philosophies again?

Doing this would make it something other than atheism. All atheism means is rejection of some particular god-concept. That's it. It is a way of defining oneself in the negative, and what you're asking is for them to start defining themselves in the positive. Don't get me wrong, I think that should happen, but when it does, the cohesive unit of atheists will fragment and fall apart. People who are not atheists will also affirm these same things. There are plenty of theists who are science advocates, plenty of theists who support secularism, and even plenty of theists who are against particular forms of religion.

 

[sule007]

Yes, there are organizations that do this.

Thanks for link advice

 

[aoji]

How come there is not a similar western organization to spread secular thought?

Most probably because they don't need to since they have our media, Science, Americanism (culture, society, Democracy, Capitalism; Secularism, Humanism, Political Science-Social Engineering).

Does anyone actually travel, learn new languages, and try [to] spread science and reason?

They don't need to because we are exporting movies, music, sports, art, books and magazines, the Internet, even. Part of the reason why it is not proselytized is because it can get you killed. In some countries voicing opposition to a political party can get you killed and in others voicing a differing religious voice can get you killed (and not just in Northern Ireland - think any country that has a Muslim population - the Balkans, Philippines, India (although in India plenty of religions have been fighting other religions for hundreds, if not thousands, of years (like when Buddhism was driven out of India), etc.).

Some religions can get along with other religions but few are likely to see their religious beliefs attacked, which may be the case when someone starts to say that there is no God. Just your use of the word "reason" implies that the religious believers are un-reasonable, so not only will correct language need to be taught, but syntax, grammatical context, semantics, etc. It may be easier to proselytize a religion than to proselytize a non-religion; what gets proselytized is a separation of Church and State, which basically makes it a political ideology. Unfortunately it may still have religious underpinnings, for example the American Indian genocide, which while started by Christian politics still exists today. Some would also consider America hypocritical when Secularism is proselytized but bigotry, prejudice and discrimination is still existing against Black Americans. So, is Secularism and Humanism strictly sub-ideologies of Political Science to affect Social Engineering?

One does not spread Science, one spreads Medicine & Education; we may use The Peace Corps to spread the science of getting better agricultural yields to feed starving populations but we can't promote Genetically Modified seeds to promote the enslavement of the same farmers because then we are promoting Corporationism. And just as there seemingly needs to be a separation of Church and State there should also be a separation of Science and State, where Science is now seemingly subservient to Politics (in our case, Capitalism) because Science is heavily, if not mostly, funded by governments.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

All atheism means is rejection of some particular god-concept. That's it. It is a way of defining oneself in the negative, and what you're asking is for them to start defining themselves in the positive. Don't get me wrong, I think that should happen, but when it does, the cohesive unit of atheists will fragment and fall apart. People who are not atheists will also affirm these same things. There are plenty of theists who are science advocates, plenty of theists who support secularism, and even plenty of theists who are against particular forms of religion.

Well, I've argued it before and I'll argue it again. The word 'atheist' really doesn't say anything, and I think use of this label is basically just a display of utter confusion. The fact is that theists are members of religions, and atheists are members of philosophical schools, or were. You don't label yourself as just a theist for a reason, you say you are a pagan. Therefore an atheist should instead say they are a nihilist or platonist or some other system to tell you what they are.

 

[JayJayDee]

How come there is not a similar western organization to spread secular thought? Does anyone actually travel, learn new languages, and try spread science and reason? It seems like it just never had that kind of appeal to be able to really do that, or has it?

When the education system promotes atheism and evolution in every science class, young minds are affected, particularly if there is no religious instruction at home to counter the influence.

They don't need atheistic missionaries...the home grown variety are in every public school and university.

 

[psychoslice]

Yes I think it would be great if there was missionaries for atheist, we would go into places where so called civilised people haven't been before, and teach these people that you don't need to have a belief in a God or whatever, that you can be happy living your life as you are, life is enough, we don't need silly god's or whatever to enjoy our life. Our life is like a canvas, its up to each one of us to create what we put to the canvas, if you put misery then that will be your creation, if you put joy, then that will be your creation, the ball is in your court.

 

[paarsurrey]

What if atheists had a missionary service?

They would go to that stage.
Never-mind, that will expose them that they don't have legs to stand.
Regards

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well, I've argued it before and I'll argue it again. The word 'atheist' really doesn't say anything, and I think use of this label is basically just a display of utter confusion. The fact is that theists are members of religions, and atheists are members of philosophical schools, or were. You don't label yourself as just a theist for a reason, you say you are a pagan. Therefore an atheist should instead say they are a nihilist or platonist or some other system to tell you what they are.

I basically agree with what you mean here, atheist is uninformative. But there are a LOT of atheists I know (RL rather than on forums) who would not have the least idea what they 'are' philosophically. Even usage of the word 'atheist' would be rare, although that is what they are.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I only ask this because I was checking out about half a dozen videos for people who went on mormon missions. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think they said they do it for like 2 years? Anyway, they all go as young people and seem to to have great adventures learning new languages, new cultures, and go all around the world. I guess I was listening mainly because some of them were great story tellers. However, their highly organized and effective style of missionary work got me thinking...

I think there are a few issues with your premise.

1) First, look at missionary work not from the point of view of the missionary, but from the point of view of the local culture. You should form an opinion on the value of missionary work, what is positive about it and what is negative about it. 'Copying' an aspect of religion is definitely a bad idea. Taking something of value is quite a different proposition though. So, in your opinion, what is positive about missionary work, and what is negative about it, from the point of view of the culture rather than the missionary?

2) There is absolutely nothing stopping any atheist from going overseas for 2 years and having an adventure. I did this, straight out of Uni, and spent time in the Papuan New Guinea jungles, which is a popular destination of missionaries anyway. I was teaching, rather than performing 'atheist missionary' work, and indeed it was safer for me not to proclaim being an atheism to be honest.

3) I'm all for spreading secular thought. But you don't need to be an atheist to do that. There are organisations which are non-religious in nature. I would think looking for an 'atheist' organization is actually a negative. Look for a secular organization.

4) Missionary work, and the methods of proselytization and conversion are often quite different to what you seem to be estimating. Philosophical discussions are generally limited, and ineffective. Who are you converting and what are their educational standards? What is their first language, and how ready are they for philosophical discussion in a language that is not even their own? My advice is to print t-shirts. T-shirts are popular, and handing them out ensures a bunch of locals will hang around long enough to hear you speak...
Provision of food and water are also important, but printing t-shirts is cheaper than effective management of food and water resources, so you'll get to more villages and spread your message, plus there'll be an ongoing need for your 'services'. Sorry, that last is a little overly cynical, I know.
*shrugs*

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What if atheists had a missionary service?

They would go to that stage.
Never-mind, that will expose them that they don't have legs to stand.
Regards

Legs? Can you explain more fully? Do you mean from a philosophical standpoint?

 

[Valjean]

Doing this would make it something other than atheism. All atheism means is rejection of some particular god-concept. That's it. It is a way of defining oneself in the negative, and what you're asking is for them to start defining themselves in the positive. Don't get me wrong, I think that should happen, but when it does, the cohesive unit of atheists will fragment and fall apart. People who are not atheists will also affirm these same things. There are plenty of theists who are science advocates, plenty of theists who support secularism, and even plenty of theists who are against particular forms of religion.

No, atheism doesn't reject anything. Basic atheism -- weak atheism -- is simply a lack of belief. My cat is an atheist, and she doesn't reject anything -- except maybe salad.

Atheist missionaries is an interesting concept. Most missionaries have some message or point of view to promote. An atheist missionary would necessarily have nothing to promote.

Perhaps aid organizations like the Peace Corps could be described as atheistic missionary services. They have missions, but religious indoctrination is not one of them.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

How come there is not a similar western organization to spread secular thought? Does anyone actually travel, learn new languages, and try spread science and reason?

If there were atheists missionaries I would worry about them being boiled in a pot by Westboro Baptists.

 

[paarsurrey]

If there were atheists missionaries I would worry about them being boiled in a pot by Westboro Baptists.

What they would do with that?
Regards

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What they would do with that?
Regards

You know, like the cannibals used to eat Christian missionaries.

 

[paarsurrey]

You know, like the cannibals used to eat Christian missionaries.

But the soup would taste very bitter?!!
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Legs? Can you explain more fully? Do you mean from a philosophical standpoint?

Yes. It is no ideology.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

No, atheism doesn't reject anything. Basic atheism -- weak atheism -- is simply a lack of belief. My cat is an atheist, and she doesn't reject anything -- except maybe salad.

Atheist missionaries is an interesting concept. Most missionaries have some message or point of view to promote. An atheist missionary would necessarily have nothing to promote.

Perhaps aid organizations like the Peace Corps could be described as atheistic missionary services. They have missions, but religious indoctrination is not one of them.

I agree with you.
Regards

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

How come there is not a similar western organization to spread secular thought?

There are home-grown varieties of such organizations. Most tend to feel that their first "battleground", if you will, is in their own communities and nations.

Does anyone actually travel, learn new languages, and try spread science and reason

Yes! Many scientists and researchers are atheists, and in the performance of their research and learning, they do travel the world over.

I think maybe part of the problem for atheists to get organized is that maybe they have stop branding themselves as atheists, (and this is just me responding to my own questions) and develop or re-develop terms for what they actually believe. Are you representing the nihilist, positivist, platonic, dualist, or humanist etc. school of thought?

You are convoluting a life's philosophy with the statement of how one feels about the existence of the supernatural. Not all Christians, Muslims, Jews, Druids, Wiccans, etc. share equal philosophies. Why is it an expectation that all who do not believe in Gods should share the same philosophy?

You'd have to bring an appealing moral system to the table.

Moral systems, appealing or otherwise, are founded in the individual philosophies of the one who lacks the belief. Lacking belief in god(s) does not automatically infuse a specific philosophical premise into the mind of the disbeliever nor does lack of belief automatically infuse a moral compass.

Here is a generic sentiment among many atheists; though not all will share the philosophy presented:

If you are thirsty, I will offer water.
If you are cold, I will offer warmth.
If you are in need, ask and I will give.
If you are in trouble, ask and I will help.
I do not do these things in hopes of being rewarded, or out of fear of being punished.
I do these things because I know them to be right.
I set my own standards and I alone enforce them.
I am an atheist.

Can old philosophical schools be resurrected so that the atheists can start choosing philosophies again?

We already choose our own philosophical schools, knowingly or otherwise. Theists do too. Philosophy and religion influence each other, but are not altogether inclusive.

Therefore, a philosopher of reason can compete with them, if they are a persuasive enough figure. The only thing they'd have to work on is a message that morally outweighs the message of all the religious figures, and people would start to follow it. Of course, this philosopher figure would have to be truly in line with the atheist planes of thought, no magic should be included.

Richard Dawkins. Sam Harris. Christopher Hitchens. Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Carl Sagan. Bil Nye. Lawrence Krause. Samuel Clemons. Gene Roddenberry. MIchio Kaku. Aran Ra. Daniel Dennett. Various YouTube personalities.

Well, I've argued it before and I'll argue it again. The word 'atheist' really doesn't say anything, and I think use of this label is basically just a display of utter confusion.

The confusion comes because others convolute the word with other expectations. Atheist means that one lacks belief in god(s) (and the minority, like myself, will emphatically state that there is no God; admittedly a faith-based claim); but that is ALL that atheism means and all that atheism is supposed to mean.

Never-mind, that will expose them that they don't have legs to stand.

Of course, I will disagree with you here; the first point of dissension is the long list of names I have provided of those who do, indeed, speak their unbelief. They write books, enter debates, etc. etc. and certainly are not hiding in closets because "they don't have legs to stand" on. IN fact, here in RL, you are debating and conversing with atheists who certainly are not shying away from theistic claims because they're afraid that "they don't have legs to stand" on. Your claim contradicts evidence at even the most cursory glance.

But there are a LOT of atheists I know (RL rather than on forums) who would not have the least idea what they 'are' philosophically.

True. But the same applies to any person who holds any belief whatsoever about the existence of the supernatural.

An atheist missionary would necessarily have nothing to promote.

The first thing a atheist "missionary" would have to promote is the necessity for human action to solve problems; and praying, supplication, etc. are NOT "actions". Don't "pray" that God will end a famine in Africa; get off your knees and go feed the hungry. I find your claim utterly and wholly false.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

They don't need to because we are exporting movies, music, sports, art, books and magazines, the Internet, even. Part of the reason why it is not proselytized is because it can get you killed. In some countries voicing opposition to a political party can get you killed and in others voicing a differing religious voice can get you killed (and not just in Northern Ireland - think any country that has a Muslim population - the Balkans, Philippines, India (although in India plenty of religions have been fighting other religions for hundreds, if not thousands, of years (like when Buddhism was driven out of India), etc.).

Good one. Pop culture, modern culture does kind of have an atheist tinge to it, but the thing about that is that they are actually 'materialists.' I'd venture to guess many atheists follow the philosophy of materialism, but there are probably many who don't back up a path like that. I don't like it, I don't think that kind of path is going to save us.

Some religions can get along with other religions but few are likely to see their religious beliefs attacked, which may be the case when someone starts to say that there is no God. Just your use of the word "reason" implies that the religious believers are un-reasonable, so not only will correct language need to be taught, but syntax, grammatical context, semantics, etc. It may be easier to proselytize a religion than to proselytize a non-religion; what gets proselytized is a separation of Church and State, which basically makes it a political ideology.

Well, religious proselytizers I think use the word 'reason' too. I mean I don't think a materialist needs to center their argument on their not being salvation. A materialist might say however that 'the printing press is our salvation' or that GMOs and the mass production of all products in all industries is going to spring the world out of whatever troubles it has.

One does not spread Science, one spreads Medicine & Education; we may use The Peace Corps to spread the science of getting better agricultural yields to feed starving populations but we can't promote Genetically Modified seeds to promote the enslavement of the same farmers because then we are promoting Corporationism.

Well, the fact is that those are tools within greater systems. Those three things fall under the banner of either x, y, or z.