• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What if atheists had a missionary service?

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
It seems to me that the OP is ultimately proposing that atheism should not be an obstacle for the spread of Dharmic religion.

It is right on that measure, IMO. But there is no particular reason to make atheism a defining attribute for that practice.

Perhaps it would make sense for a while as an effort of recovery from excessive reliance in god concepts, but I am not sure.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
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. o_O

Well, some places might not have public schools yet in the way we think of them. But I guess I see what you're saying.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
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?

Quite on the contrary I think the missionaries may have copied us, the philosophers. The original Greek science may still have had spirituality however, but in stepping out of their doors they 'preached' ideas which surely took on new (at the time) trajectories through math, science, and styles of critical thinking hitherto unknown.

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.

Well, you don't have an organization to necessarily 'send' you, do you? I mean, take liberalism for example, and I don't know if you are a liberal. However, liberalism might be one day made into a way of viewing the universe, if only they would explain themselves that far. Same goes for the conservatives. Once either of those things start telling you how they think the universe started and why we are all here, then with just those two simple things they might go from political opinion to actual philosophical systems.

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

Me too, but I wonder if secular organizations can be too particulate.

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*

People need someone to speak in that kind of language that maybe Jesus or Socrates spoke in, apparently. Not only do they need to maybe print t-shirts and create the miracle of the fish and loaves, but along with this they need to give the moral teachings people would like to hear. And the teachings about why we are all here, the science of the big bang or whatever, the reason to sustain the earth. You know. It's all right there, someone just has to plug it into pre-exsisting forms.
 
Last edited:

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
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?

No, but if they only said they were theists what would I know about them? Nothing! They are all theists, but the Druid and the Christian, having defined themselves such, I know can't possibly follow the same path!

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.

No it does not. That's why you pick one. And there is certainly no way a person can fill out the morality form with all blank answers, I don't know if you are an ascetic pacifist or believe in imperialist anti-plurality. That's also why it's dangerous, and also those labels are incomplete, for a philosophical title should encompass the moral system, the ontological system, and the methods of epistemology. Leading philosopher(s) may also be required.

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

They may frequent some of the same dog parks but the fact is at the end of the day they are not the same dog. Christianity may attempt to consume and process materialism or even vice versa, but at the end of the day the hardcore industrialist either believes in his material or doesn't. And the Christian who favors materialism will at the end of the day believe it was just a tool to be used.

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 take Dawkins, he wrote the Selfish Gene. I think there is something nihilistic doing that, and it may have materialistic appeal. Now look at Harris, he seems to like meditation and some Eastern spiritual thought. Is he a materialist who would write The Selfish Gene? Probably not right? So those are two vastly different people. I don't know what Hitchens really believes. Tyson, Sagan, Nye and Michio Kaku might roughly be atomists, since some or all of them are described as physicists of one kind or another, though I am unsure if they cover enough areas to complete the picture that needs be framed. Daniel Dennett seems to be something of a logical positivist. In contemporary centuries, the common philosopher still incomplete.

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.

Right, just like the word theism means the opposite, very simply. Now from atheism there is still more paperwork to complete. I don't know if your system wants to terra-form the ocean or smash all the machines. There might however be systems that are closer to defining your actual stance.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
It seems to me that the OP is ultimately proposing that atheism should not be an obstacle for the spread of Dharmic religion.

It is right on that measure, IMO. But there is no particular reason to make atheism a defining attribute for that practice.

Perhaps it would make sense for a while as an effort of recovery from excessive reliance in god concepts, but I am not sure.

I know I had a thread along these same lines before and you said something about that, but I can't remember what it was.
 

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Right, just like the word theism means the opposite, very simply. Now from atheism there is still more paperwork to complete.

No. There is not.

I mean, think about. Someone identifies themselves as "Christian". What does that tell us about that person? Nothing. Nothing whatsoever; other that in one degree or another, they believe in the Jesuit God. It does not tell me what they value or what they believe outside of that. There are many, many issues where all those who call themselves "Christian" have not met agreement, including:
  • The path to Salvation
  • Whether or not Jesus was the Son of God
  • The Gifts of the Spirt
  • The Prayer Language doctrine
  • Abortion
  • Gay Rights
  • What to use for communion ceremonies, if any should be performed at all
  • Demonic possession doctrines
  • Predestination doctrines
  • "Once saved, always saved" doctrines
Even moving on to Druidism: where I have a room mate who has become intolerant against atheists but who supports gay rights; in direct contrast to a Druidic poster here in RL who opposes homosexuality altogether.

Why the insistence in putting people into boxes? Why the insistence in demanding atheists go on missionary journeys and "standardize" their beliefs? Why the insistence in labels?

Each and every individual on the face of this earth are individuals.

Bisecting your take on the differing philosophies of the atheists I mentioned who are busy writing books and "spreading the word" of atheism simply proves my point that for some reason you feel compelled to debate. What we believe about supernatural concerns (if there are any supernatural concerns) influences one's philosophies and worldviews, but does not dictate them.

This is true regardless of whether or not we are atheist, Christians, Druids, or any other religion you can throw out there.

The atheist community need not come to a unanimous agreement on what it means to be atheist and what all atheists are supposed to believe just because you say that we do.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
. It does not tell me what they value or what they believe outside of that. There are many, many issues where all those who call themselves "Christian" have not met agreement

Sometimes. If they are Catholic, they have the pope as spokesman, if they are protestant they have other guidelines. Oftentimes but not always they say they are baptist or mormon etc., and that enables you to look up what they are. Sometimes people just say they are a plain "Christian," in which case they must at least partially agree with Martin Luther in rejecting Catholicism in their action which tacitly does so. So at least by the omission of Catholicism things can be inferred. Atheists have no comparable standard from which to deviate.

Even moving on to Druidism: where I have a room mate who has become intolerant against atheists but who supports gay rights; in direct contrast to a Druidic poster here in RL who opposes homosexuality altogether.

The fact is Druidry still needs to be reconstructed. Original schools of Druidry took 20 years to learn their every code, until the last Roman slayed the last druid. So they have to rebuild their school. Legend has it they were influenced by Pythagoras. There are also other sparse anecdotes which pepper the writings of antiquity.

Why the insistence in putting people into boxes? Why the insistence in demanding atheists go on missionary journeys and "standardize" their beliefs? Why the insistence in labels?

They can do whatever they want to do. They are in boxes anyway, but they are unlabeled, and anything could be in them. You want to associate with other atheists? As it stands they could belief just about anything in regards to morality, in regards what we should do, why we are here, and who should be in charge.

Each and every individual on the face of this earth are individuals.

You and I might believe that, but not everyone does. And if you think that is a common belief, that is a great assumption. There is also no way to infer that belief from the word 'atheist.'

The atheist community need not come to a unanimous agreement on what it means to be atheist and what all atheists are supposed to believe just because you say that we do.

I'm interested in organizations that show a semblance of unanimous agreement. The term 'atheist' is amorphous. It could mean anything. It's like saying
'I am a musician.' Well, that says very little. Now, do you play speed metal or balkan folk music? Oh really? Wow, now I know more about what you're all about. That's how it works.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes. It is no ideology.
Regards

Ah...I see.
Yes, I agree then. You'd have to go beyond atheism to have anything meaningful to say.

For me, secular/humanist work (non-religious, but can be contributed by both religious and non-religious) makes more sense than 'atheist missionaries'.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Quite on the contrary I think the missionaries may have copied us, the philosophers. The original Greek science may still have had spirituality however, but in stepping out of their doors they 'preached' ideas which surely took on new (at the time) trajectories through math, science, and styles of critical thinking hitherto unknown.

My direct familiarization with missionary work is around the conversion or education of indigenous populations, so most of what I say is slanted that way. Perhaps you are talking more about missionary work conducted amongst a population which has a higher level of educationand literacy?
Suffice to say that based on what I have seen, talking about math, science and styles of critical thinking are of far less value than trying to ensure a majority of the local population is literate, and has some basic access to schooling.

Well, you don't have an organization to necessarily 'send' you, do you? I mean, take liberalism for example, and I don't know if you are a liberal. However, liberalism might be one day made into a way of viewing the universe, if only they would explain themselves that far. Same goes for the conservatives. Once either of those things start telling you how they think the universe started and why we are all here, then with just those two simple things they might go from political opinion to actual philosophical systems.

No, you're right. I was working for a timber company, in fact. Even if I worked for the international schooling system, your point would be valid.
But I don't want to convince uneducated populations that my point of view is correct. Hence, for me, secularist organisations which help the local populations are vastly preferable to proselytizing, regardless of message.

Me too, but I wonder if secular organizations can be too particulate.

Sorry, I'm familiar with 'particulate', but not in this context, so I might be missing the point. But their lack of philosophical direction is why I would support tham, not a negative (in my opinion).

People need someone to speak in that kind of language that maybe Jesus or Socrates spoke in, apparently. Not only do they need to maybe print t-shirts and create the miracle of the fish and loaves, but along with this they need to give the moral teachings people would like to hear. And the teachings about why we are all here, the science of the big bang or whatever, the reason to sustain the earth. You know. It's all right there, someone just has to plug it into pre-exsisting forms.


This is completely dependent on WHO you are talking to, I will readily admit. But where I lived (and commonly in terms of missionary work) the education levels were extremely low. You would literally be talking to a population who often lacked Grade 6 (primary school) educations. Literacy was common, but far from universal, and English was not the primary language.

So imagine a bunch of 10 year olds, speaking in a language not of their own. That is the level of sophistication you can bring to the table and have it understandable. One of the major issues I have with missionary work is the 'shooting fish in a barrel' aspect of it. But it cuts both ways, of course. Getting locals to pay lip service, and even invest time in something is not difficult, but what does that actually achieve?

Have you heard of the cargo cults of PNG? It might be an interesting topic for you to check out.
I think you're over-estimating the ability of rational argument to gain traction.

Whilst living in PNG I had difficulties convincing a group of Western born kids I had (mixed race) not to throw rocks at a dwarf who lived by himself. The hardest part was the lack of backup from the parents.
Their view was that there was a good chance the dwarf was a sorcerer, so they'd back me up, since it was clearly dangerous for the kids to provoke him.

It's not exactly Socrates, the Big Bang, or anything else.

This is a country that is now 98% Christian due primarily to missionary work. They also have (I think) the highest rate of witch-burnings on the planet, and commonly infuse animism and ancestor worship with their Christian beliefs.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
True. But the same applies to any person who holds any belief whatsoever about the existence of the supernatural.

I guess my only real point is that for most people I can think of, calling them an 'atheist' is that start of dissecting their views, not the whole of it.
But there are some who have such undeveloped views, or are so uninterested in such discussion, there isn't much further to go in the short term. They would require exposure and/or motivation to develop their views further.

IN much the same way I have met a lot of people who have a vague 'Something is up there but I don't know what' type of belief. I suppose you could term them theists, but calling them a Christian is inaccurate.

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.


I know this wasn't to me, but just to stick my nose in...lol..

You are simply talking about secular charity here. I have met plenty of religious people who subscribe to exactly the sort of thing you are talking about here, so I don't think it's fair to them to see it as atheist in nature. It's non-religious, or secular.
 

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Atheists have no comparable standard from which to deviate.

And none is needed. The word "atheist" means that we do not see evidence for a God or we do not believe in a God. No other definition is needed.

You continue to demand that tenets and philosophies be infused into the word "atheism".

I can tell you I am atheist.
I can tell you that I am Secular Humanist.
I can tell you that I am a Materialist.
I can tell you that I am not entirely a Relativist.

Now, you have your "comparable standard from which to deviate". It does not have to be summed up in one neat little word or package for you like secular humanist-materialist non-relativist atheist". That's ridiculous.

They can do whatever they want to do

Exactly!

They are in boxes anyway, but they are unlabeled, and anything could be in them.

I'm not sure about the "in boxes anyway" but as far as "anything can be in them" -- if you want to find out what's in my box, ask me. Regardless of what any other person of any other religion claims to be, anything can be in those boxes too. If you continue to insistently judge people by the groups in which they belong, you are in for some real heartaches; as not all Christians are trustworthy and moral, not all Satanists are violent and not all atheists are selfish. "You can't judge a book by its cover".

You want to associate with other atheists?

I wish to associate with friends. I have a Druid friend, two Christian friends, an Agnostic friend and one whom I have no clue what his spiritual beliefs lie. Friendship transcends group association. I do not go around asking people if they are atheist as a precursor for my association with them. If you do, then you are a very shallow person.

As it stands they could belief just about anything in regards to morality, in regards what we should do, why we are here, and who should be in charge.

Correct. But as stated and as you cleverly ignore, religious affiliation does not dictate one's morals. Telling me that you are a ________ gives me an idea of what your group determines as moral or otherwise; but it does nothing to tell me what your morals are. Only your behavior and words can tell me that.

You and I might believe that, but not everyone does.

I don't give a rat's *** what "everyone" thinks. I am an individual. You are an individual. That should be more than enough.

I'm interested in organizations that show a semblance of unanimous agreement. The term 'atheist' is amorphous. It could mean anything. It's like saying
'I am a musician.' Well, that says very little. Now, do you play speed metal or balkan folk music? Oh really? Wow, now I know more about what you're all about. That's how it works.

We have a semblance of unanimous agreement; we lack the belief in Gods or believe there is no God. This is what atheism means. This is what atheism has always meant. This is all that atheism is supposed to mean.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
And none is needed. The word "atheist" means that we do not see evidence for a God or we do not believe in a God. No other definition is needed.

We have a semblance of unanimous agreement; we lack the belief in Gods or believe there is no God. This is what atheism means. This is what atheism has always meant. This is all that atheism is supposed to mean.

Ok, alright, but imagine this scenario I'm about to lay out for you here. Say atheism actually takes off. We now have all these people who do not have religion, well the fact is sometimes their humanism may clash with their materialism. Some people may not be relativists, and in a much stronger way than is anticipated. An individualist, a valid and worthy view, may also clash with so many other views. Say I put the environment first, if there is some philosophy brought forth of the intricate harmonies of biophilia. Now, with this system of environmentalism put into place, what does the hypothetical atheist associated with this system have in common with another, who perhaps believes the human story should cross more heavily into the way of machines and productive industry?

. If you continue to insistently judge people by the groups in which they belong, you are in for some real heartaches; as not all Christians are trustworthy and moral, not all Satanists are violent and not all atheists are selfish. "You can't judge a book by its cover".

No, but within those systems one divides subsets from which there is at least some data that can be weighed by probability as regards an inference. An eschatologist for example, of any kind, will generally believe in a certain kind of vanity in our present existential state in relation to meaning. Perhaps an atheist can subscribe to eschatology as well. A non-theist could well believe that there is no way to intercept the space rocks that cause destruction on the earth every few million years, that there is no way to planet jump to leave behind a dying sun. There are others who may be more optimistic than this.

I wish to associate with friends. I have a Druid friend, two Christian friends, an Agnostic friend and one whom I have no clue what his spiritual beliefs lie. Friendship transcends group association. I do not go around asking people if they are atheist as a precursor for my association with them. If you do, then you are a very shallow person.

Well, consider if had an atheist friend. What they could believe is almost anything really in comparison to the sketch or rough outline that you surely can surmise with the titles of Druidism, Christianity and even Agnosticism.

Correct. But as stated and as you cleverly ignore, religious affiliation does not dictate one's morals. Telling me that you are a ________ gives me an idea of what your group determines as moral or otherwise; but it does nothing to tell me what your morals are. Only your behavior and words can tell me that.

There's truth in that, but the question might be become how closely to they follow their beliefs and how do they interpret the moral teachings found within it? Sectarianism seems to indicate something wasn't too clear. Which theistic classification is closer to the fringe can tell us something, which theistic classification seems less organized than another tells us something else. On some level, I think the clues are well in place as to why those types of concerns might be.

I don't give a rat's *** what "everyone" thinks. I am an individual. You are an individual. That should be more than enough.

You can declare that, but people who place strong values on culture or nationalism etc. will not like it. Some people think groups are the way to go, and you'd have to refer your arguments to them. Individualism can be made into a system as well, but that is not an inference I would necessarily make of any random atheist.
 

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
ideogenous_mover, let me give you a nod and a handshake for listening to what I have to say and for making the attempt to understand where I'm coming from. This speaks well of your character and is much more fun than endless arguing.

I'm very tired right now and my brain is mud. I will make every attempt to respond to your queries in Post #33; but at present, I am too mentally fatigued to fully absorb your well articulated queries and rebuttals at the present time.

There are some areas in which most atheists do agree. I will try to address these as well in the hopes that "atheist" may be less ambiguous a term.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Ok, alright, but imagine this scenario I'm about to lay out for you here. Say atheism actually takes off. We now have all these people who do not have religion, well the fact is sometimes their humanism may clash with their materialism.
Where did humanism and materialism come into it? Atheism speaks only to theism.
. Some people may not be relativists, and in a much stronger way than is anticipated. An individualist, a valid and worthy view, may also clash with so many other views. Say I put the environment first, if there is some philosophy brought forth of the intricate harmonies of biophilia. Now, with this system of environmentalism put into place, what does the hypothetical atheist associated with this system have in common with another, who perhaps believes the human story should cross more heavily into the way of machines and productive industry?



No, but within those systems one divides subsets from which there is at least some data that can be weighed by probability as regards an inference. An eschatologist for example, of any kind, will generally believe in a certain kind of vanity in our present existential state in relation to meaning. Perhaps an atheist can subscribe to eschatology as well. A non-theist could well believe that there is no way to intercept the space rocks that cause destruction on the earth every few million years, that there is no way to planet jump to leave behind a dying sun. There are others who may be more optimistic than this.



Well, consider if had an atheist friend. What they could believe is almost anything really in comparison to the sketch or rough outline that you surely can surmise with the titles of Druidism, Christianity and even Agnosticism.



There's truth in that, but the question might be become how closely to they follow their beliefs and how do they interpret the moral teachings found within it? Sectarianism seems to indicate something wasn't too clear. Which theistic classification is closer to the fringe can tell us something, which theistic classification seems less organized than another tells us something else. On some level, I think the clues are well in place as to why those types of concerns might be.



You can declare that, but people who place strong values on culture or nationalism etc. will not like it. Some people think groups are the way to go, and you'd have to refer your arguments to them. Individualism can be made into a system as well, but that is not an inference I would necessarily make of any random atheist.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
My direct familiarization with missionary work is around the conversion or education of indigenous populations, so most of what I say is slanted that way. Perhaps you are talking more about missionary work conducted amongst a population which has a higher level of educationand literacy?

Well, and here perhaps I'm making a trail into a whole new plot of woods, but literacy and education are relative on some level, perhaps. And that's kind of revealing of my own philosophical views that might be including kind of a liberal dose of relativity. You see, the enterprise of literacy is actually quite a new feature of human history, so as to suggest that this level of abstraction isn't all that integral to the generation of free thought. Its western manifestation or genesis might not have necessarily been codependent with the potential for human rationalization, as it seems to be something that actually may have sprung forth with some kind of unknown pre-exsisting rationalizing experience.

But I don't want to convince uneducated populations that my point of view is correct. Hence, for me, secularist organisations which help the local populations are vastly preferable to proselytizing, regardless of message.

You know, I think you're probably right. In posing this question, I think I have come to the realization more firmly that an environment of freedom, complete freedom really, is the correct environment in which a human thinker may come to reason. For freely coming to reason is the only true way to truly come to reason. Does that make sense?

This is a country that is now 98% Christian due primarily to missionary work. They also have (I think) the highest rate of witch-burnings on the planet, and commonly infuse animism and ancestor worship with their Christian beliefs.

We the westerners have not so may hundreds of summers behind us in which were playing the cruel barbarian, the judge of witches and non-believers. What a horrible time that must have been to live in? Human suffering I feel should find a salve through the production of better history for ourselves. I think if we have shown anything, anything at all that is provable, it is that the human experience can ascend, even if marginally at first, up the stairs of better living.
 
Last edited:
Top