Why Do Atheists Preach??

[Valjean]

The few who do become sufficiently annoyed at the endless barrage of religiosity to 'preach', generally preach the gospel of Reason. The atheism is incidental.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I was musing this question a few weeks ago. Dawkins, Krauss, etc, they literally preach atheism under the guise of science. Not only is this "scientism" (yes it's a valid term, check if you don't believe me) but preaching atheism is also not a very "atheist" thing to do. Let me explain, if I may.

An atheist simply lacks belief in a deity or deities - including but not limited to - his own lack of belief. In short, an atheists position is one of uncertainty. So why then, do they preach? I believe it is because they are not essentially atheist, but rather, misotheist. Misotheism is an hatred of God(s) and a love of, and for, anything Godless.

I postulate, that it is not atheists who preach, but misotheists who claim to be atheist!

Further, just now I wrote above that an atheist simply holds a position of "uncertainty". Unlike the Agnostic, who hasn't resigned from searching for answers, the atheist has resigned his or herself from learning other ways to substantiate their belief, or lack thereof in God(s). I recently found a verse in the Qur'an in chapter 52 verse number 35 and 36:

35: Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?
36: Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.

I found this to be of damning relevance. The unique and marvelous rhetoric in these two verses is simply, masterful. Verse 35 poses two questions, each referring to the creation of the human being.

Or were they created by nothing? Nothing being the absence of everything, including the metaphysical. So there is no idea mind! Even a child can tell us, "from nothing, nothing comes" (yes I know, I'm also quoting a certain philosopher) so the answer to this first question, is a loud resounding NO. From Nothing, Nothing Comes!

or were they the creators [of themselves]? Paradox, it's kike saying "a mother gave birth to her self" - so again, the answer is NO.

Next, the following verse takes the attention away from the human and towards the universe itself.

Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Any of us would concede here the answer is again NO. But it's an humbling turn of rhetoric. How mankind has deluded himself into thinking he is all important, the genesis of wisdom, the accumulated total of knowledge - when in reality, man only has a pixellated insight - blindsided by hubris.

The final part of this verse is what really tickles my brain though: Rather, they are not certain! God revealed this over 14 centuries ago! The atheist hinges his whole belief on the principles of uncertainty. But at least he's honest with that. The misotheist (Dawkins, Krauss et al) just hates God(s) and pushes his/her world view onto everyone else, without realizing they have turned into what they themselves mock - preachers!

This video just came out, I've finished watching it now and it's a real gem!

You're not helping your case against "preaching" by quoting the Qur'an. Just sayin'.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I was musing this question a few weeks ago. Dawkins, Krauss, etc, they literally preach atheism under the guise of science. Not only is this "scientism" (yes it's a valid term, check if you don't believe me) but preaching atheism is also not a very "atheist" thing to do. Let me explain, if I may.

An atheist simply lacks belief in a deity or deities - including but not limited to - his own lack of belief. In short, an atheists position is one of uncertainty. So why then, do they preach? I believe it is because they are not essentially atheist, but rather, misotheist. Misotheism is an hatred of God(s) and a love of, and for, anything Godless.

I postulate, that it is not atheists who preach, but misotheists who claim to be atheist!

Further, just now I wrote above that an atheist simply holds a position of "uncertainty". Unlike the Agnostic, who hasn't resigned from searching for answers, the atheist has resigned his or herself from learning other ways to substantiate their belief, or lack thereof in God(s). I recently found a verse in the Qur'an in chapter 52 verse number 35 and 36:

35: Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?
36: Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.

I found this to be of damning relevance. The unique and marvelous rhetoric in these two verses is simply, masterful. Verse 35 poses two questions, each referring to the creation of the human being.

Or were they created by nothing? Nothing being the absence of everything, including the metaphysical. So there is no idea mind! Even a child can tell us, "from nothing, nothing comes" (yes I know, I'm also quoting a certain philosopher) so the answer to this first question, is a loud resounding NO. From Nothing, Nothing Comes!

or were they the creators [of themselves]? Paradox, it's kike saying "a mother gave birth to her self" - so again, the answer is NO.

Next, the following verse takes the attention away from the human and towards the universe itself.

Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Any of us would concede here the answer is again NO. But it's an humbling turn of rhetoric. How mankind has deluded himself into thinking he is all important, the genesis of wisdom, the accumulated total of knowledge - when in reality, man only has a pixellated insight - blindsided by hubris.

The final part of this verse is what really tickles my brain though: Rather, they are not certain! God revealed this over 14 centuries ago! The atheist hinges his whole belief on the principles of uncertainty. But at least he's honest with that. The misotheist (Dawkins, Krauss et al) just hates God(s) and pushes his/her world view onto everyone else, without realizing they have turned into what they themselves mock - preachers!

This video just came out, I've finished watching it now and it's a real gem!

I always took it as a jab in the ribs of intolerant theists using their own medicine. Like Billboards , it's easy to give but not to take as history had proved itself.

I don't see what's preachy about atheism myself anyways, it's good for debate and discussion. Preaching seems to be a bit off kilter aside for levity along the lines of which turnabout is fair play. FSM seems to be a good enough example.

 

[Fool]

I was musing this question a few weeks ago. Dawkins, Krauss, etc, they literally preach atheism under the guise of science. Not only is this "scientism" (yes it's a valid term, check if you don't believe me) but preaching atheism is also not a very "atheist" thing to do. Let me explain, if I may.

An atheist simply lacks belief in a deity or deities - including but not limited to - his own lack of belief. In short, an atheists position is one of uncertainty. So why then, do they preach? I believe it is because they are not essentially atheist, but rather, misotheist. Misotheism is an hatred of God(s) and a love of, and for, anything Godless.

I postulate, that it is not atheists who preach, but misotheists who claim to be atheist!

Further, just now I wrote above that an atheist simply holds a position of "uncertainty". Unlike the Agnostic, who hasn't resigned from searching for answers, the atheist has resigned his or herself from learning other ways to substantiate their belief, or lack thereof in God(s). I recently found a verse in the Qur'an in chapter 52 verse number 35 and 36:

35: Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?
36: Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.

I found this to be of damning relevance. The unique and marvelous rhetoric in these two verses is simply, masterful. Verse 35 poses two questions, each referring to the creation of the human being.

Or were they created by nothing? Nothing being the absence of everything, including the metaphysical. So there is no idea mind! Even a child can tell us, "from nothing, nothing comes" (yes I know, I'm also quoting a certain philosopher) so the answer to this first question, is a loud resounding NO. From Nothing, Nothing Comes!

or were they the creators [of themselves]? Paradox, it's kike saying "a mother gave birth to her self" - so again, the answer is NO.

Next, the following verse takes the attention away from the human and towards the universe itself.

Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Any of us would concede here the answer is again NO. But it's an humbling turn of rhetoric. How mankind has deluded himself into thinking he is all important, the genesis of wisdom, the accumulated total of knowledge - when in reality, man only has a pixellated insight - blindsided by hubris.

The final part of this verse is what really tickles my brain though: Rather, they are not certain! God revealed this over 14 centuries ago! The atheist hinges his whole belief on the principles of uncertainty. But at least he's honest with that. The misotheist (Dawkins, Krauss et al) just hates God(s) and pushes his/her world view onto everyone else, without realizing they have turned into what they themselves mock - preachers!

This video just came out, I've finished watching it now and it's a real gem!

preaching isn't exclusive to clergy of monotheism or polytheism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good question. They not only preach. They also are self appointed teachers of science, the scientific method, evolution theory... etc.

You do not seem to understand that correcting people about their mythological beliefs is not preaching.

The fact that you share a common ancestor with other apes is not atheism. It does not disprove the existence of God.

 

[HonestJoe]

I was musing this question a few weeks ago. Dawkins, Krauss, etc, they literally preach atheism under the guise of science. Not only is this "scientism" (yes it's a valid term, check if you don't believe me) but preaching atheism is also not a very "atheist" thing to do. Let me explain, if I may.

An atheist simply lacks belief in a deity or deities - including but not limited to - his own lack of belief. In short, an atheists position is one of uncertainty. So why then, do they preach? I believe it is because they are not essentially atheist, but rather, misotheist. Misotheism is an hatred of God(s) and a love of, and for, anything Godless.

I postulate, that it is not atheists who preach, but misotheists who claim to be atheist!

You're making an all too common error here. You're working on the flawed assumption that individuals can only every have a single label apply to them.

The term atheist in it's simplest form does simply mean a lack of belief in any gods but clearly nobody could have a personal worldview that consisted of atheism alone. Every one of us has a complex, varying and often inconsistent mix of all sorts of knowledge, understanding, beliefs and opinions and each of us could have countless different labels (and different interpretations of labels, however fair and honest) applied to us.

Ans I really mean all of us. You're not only a theist after all. You're theist and Muslim. You probably follow a particular branch of Islam, maybe differing of specific details of history, belief and practice to your fellows. And regardless of how big a part of your life your faith might be, you're countless other things too. You're apparently male, a message board poster, English speaking, educated... all labels you happen to share with me and that we both share with Dawkins. The two of us share the label of not really liking Dawkins "preaching" as well.

It's very easy (thus very lazy) to apply simple singular labels to your opponents as a tool to dismiss anything they say and do out of hand and to avoid addressing any of the details and nuances of their opinions. Even if they did "hate gods", that in itself could cover a vast range of things worthy of discussing and addressing and nobody is going to make a career from expressing such a singular idea alone anyway. They must be saying more than just that so, however flawed or invalid that might be, it would all need addressing before you could dismiss the individuals entirely.

Of course, the other opinion is not to try to dismiss anyone entirely regardless of what they might belief and instead focus on the facts and opinions in and of themselves.

 

[suncowiam]

I was musing this question a few weeks ago. Dawkins, Krauss, etc, they literally preach atheism under the guise of science. Not only is this "scientism" (yes it's a valid term, check if you don't believe me) but preaching atheism is also not a very "atheist" thing to do. Let me explain, if I may.

An atheist simply lacks belief in a deity or deities - including but not limited to - his own lack of belief. In short, an atheists position is one of uncertainty. So why then, do they preach? I believe it is because they are not essentially atheist, but rather, misotheist. Misotheism is an hatred of God(s) and a love of, and for, anything Godless.

I postulate, that it is not atheists who preach, but misotheists who claim to be atheist!

Further, just now I wrote above that an atheist simply holds a position of "uncertainty". Unlike the Agnostic, who hasn't resigned from searching for answers, the atheist has resigned his or herself from learning other ways to substantiate their belief, or lack thereof in God(s). I recently found a verse in the Qur'an in chapter 52 verse number 35 and 36:

35: Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?
36: Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.

I found this to be of damning relevance. The unique and marvelous rhetoric in these two verses is simply, masterful. Verse 35 poses two questions, each referring to the creation of the human being.

Or were they created by nothing? Nothing being the absence of everything, including the metaphysical. So there is no idea mind! Even a child can tell us, "from nothing, nothing comes" (yes I know, I'm also quoting a certain philosopher) so the answer to this first question, is a loud resounding NO. From Nothing, Nothing Comes!

or were they the creators [of themselves]? Paradox, it's kike saying "a mother gave birth to her self" - so again, the answer is NO.

Next, the following verse takes the attention away from the human and towards the universe itself.

Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Any of us would concede here the answer is again NO. But it's an humbling turn of rhetoric. How mankind has deluded himself into thinking he is all important, the genesis of wisdom, the accumulated total of knowledge - when in reality, man only has a pixellated insight - blindsided by hubris.

The final part of this verse is what really tickles my brain though: Rather, they are not certain! God revealed this over 14 centuries ago! The atheist hinges his whole belief on the principles of uncertainty. But at least he's honest with that. The misotheist (Dawkins, Krauss et al) just hates God(s) and pushes his/her world view onto everyone else, without realizing they have turned into what they themselves mock - preachers!

This video just came out, I've finished watching it now and it's a real gem!

Are you saying only Theists can preach because a whole lot of them loves to preach.

 

[Earthling]

Lol wut? Dawkins preaches against stupidity. I mean he's a little "harsh" when it comes to religion.

Dawkins is fighting fire with fire. Stupidity with stupidity. An atheist that preaches does so for the same reason a theist does it. To promote their beliefs.

Hitchens was closer to preaching Athiesm if you like. But even then, much like Dawkins, it was in response to creationists.

I miss Hitchins. There was a man with integrity. Now, he was knowledgeable on the subject of religion, which is a loathsome thing, but like Dawkins, ignorant of the Bible outside the teachings that are well documented as being pagan, or outside of original Christian teachings. Hitchens didn't preach atheism, he knew better. He had the integrity to call it what it is. Anti-theism.

And if I had to deal with the aggravating morons I have often seen "debate" them then I'm sure I'd go the same route eventually. I doubt even Buddhist monks have enough patience for some of the infuriating anti science, anti intellectualism idiocy I have seen these so called "preachers of athiesm" encounter on a regular basis.

I think you mean atheism? Science is a scam.

Also pretty sure when a scientist says "nothing" in reference to space or something they don't mean in the literal sense of a black void of actual nothingness.

LOL. Another gifted intellectual gymnastic artist trying to define nothing for us.

 

[Deidre]

If there are outspoken atheists, I think their reasons have to do with not wanting religion to take over secularity. Atheists, like theists, have one thing in common -- they both think they're right.

 

[blü 2]

Dawkins, Krauss, etc, they literally preach atheism under the guise of science.

The Four Horsemen certainly took atheism to the public, but if you recall the times, it was in no small part in reaction to the aggressive, intolerant, often sheerly dishonest acts of Christian fundamentalists, very particularly in the US. In retrospect, it seems to me that the fundy wave peaked at the time of the Dover case during 2005, and began to subside a little after that, but this was far from obvious at the time.

Not only is this "scientism" (yes it's a valid term, check if you don't believe me) but preaching atheism is also not a very "atheist" thing to do. Let me explain, if I may.

I don't think you make your argument stronger by alleging scientism: unless you back it with clear examples (and you haven't), it seems to me just a cheap shot.

An atheist simply lacks belief in a deity or deities - including but not limited to - his own lack of belief.

In what sense is 'a lack of belief in a deity' a belief? Is it not, by definition, the absence of a belief?

In short, an atheists position is one of uncertainty.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. What uncertainty do you see in that lack of belief? Do you correspondingly think lack of belief in the tooth fairy is a position of uncertainty?

So why then, do they preach? I believe it is because they are not essentially atheist, but rather, misotheist. Misotheism is an hatred of God(s) and a love of, and for, anything Godless.

I can think of some atheists who've publicly expressed their bitterness towards particular churches, but that doesn't seem to be what you mean. I also disagree with, in particular, Dawkins, who holds that any belief in gods is morally harmful ─ I have too many friends and relatives who are believers, though I'm firm in the view that teaching fundamentalism to children ought to be a jailable offence ─ that is perversion. But a hatred of gods for its own sake? I can't think of any important examples. Indeed, it would allow the argument that you'd have to think gods were real before you could hate them as such.

I postulate, that it is not atheists who preach, but misotheists who claim to be atheist!

As I said above, I think rather they were a reaction against fundamentalist encroachment. And now, all they're asking for is to be part of normality ─ which, not yet being a majority view in the US, still may need urging.

35: Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?

The universe exists. It gave rise to chemistry, and to biochemistry and via evolution to us. How does the universe exist? Necessarily as the result of the operations of physics, since not only do we have no reason to think it was the product of sentience ─ and if it was, wow, it was a gobsmackingly inefficient sentience ─ but we don't even have a definition of a real god ie one which would tell us whether any real candidate were a god or not.

 

[Willamena]

Atheists preach because people preach.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again atheists only go after the clearly false beliefs of theists. Correcting theists for rejecting evolution or believing the flood myth is no different from correcting Flat Earthers. Hypocritically the creationists do not see a problem with that but the Flat Earthers read the Bible only slightly more literally than creationists do. It is the same error, the only difference is in extent.

 

[gnostic]

I am against uneducated stupidity of theistic creationism. And it has nothing to do with science or with evolutionary biology.

The stupidity come from modern creationists thinking that their holy scriptures, be it the “Bible” or the “Qur’an”, are history books or science books.

The stupidity is not even in the Bible and Qur’an; no, the real stupidity come creationists’ interpretations of their scriptures, because they are the ones stupid enough to make absurd claims.

 

[Augustus]

Once again atheists only go after the clearly false beliefs of theists.

That's not true.

Celebrity atheists frequently talk about the harms of religion, why we would be better off without it, why people are religious, etc. which require speculation and reflect subjective value judgements and ideological preference.

 

[stvdv]

So why then, do they preach? I believe it is because they are not essentially atheist, but rather, misotheist. Misotheism is an hatred of God(s) and a love of, and for, anything Godless.

Not 1 atheist has preached to me on RF sofar. Maybe it is because I do not belittle Atheism: a)NOT in words + b)NOT in thoughts [this one is major important IMO]

 

[Gallowglass]

You're mixing up atheism, agnosticism, and anti-theism.

Agnosticism is the belief that whether or not there is a god or gods is unknowable.
Atheism is the belief that no gods exist.
Anti-theism is the belief that religions are bad and make people bad, evil, or stupid.

And if atheists were truly preaching, you'd think they'd pick on polytheists more. I mean, we have more gods. If your logic were true, they'd want to preach against the people with the most gods. I've only ever had one atheist preach at me, and he was an anti-theist. He was also sure I was Christian until I burst his bubble.

 

[ChristineM]

That's an interesting idea, but I'm sticking with my own notion that they see religions as bad on net.

Undoubtedly some do, i certainly see some aspects of religion as horrendous and abusive but will only argue those points if slapped in my face. As i believe, a majority of atheists would.

But preaching atheism? What is to preach? "I don't believe in a god, there is no god, what god?" Thats it, preaching over, now the preaching comes from the religious side who incredulously flap around trying to make apologetic excuses why their god god can't be evidenced and we atheist are all going to hell because we wont believe in their particular god believe.

 

[ChristineM]

No one preaches more myth than evolutionist. That's why so many scientists are against it.

If all atheists were expelled from the US you would loose 0.1% of the prison population and 93% of the national academy of science.

So many against it??

 

[Spiderman]

Lol wut? Dawkins preaches against stupidity. I mean he's a little "harsh" when it comes to religion. Hitchens was closer to preaching Athiesm if you like. But even then, much like Dawkins, it was in response to creationists. And if I had to deal with the aggravating morons I have often seen "debate" them then I'm sure I'd go the same route eventually. I doubt even Buddhist monks have enough patience for some of the infuriating anti science, anti intellectualism idiocy I have seen these so called "preachers of athiesm" encounter on a regular basis.
Also pretty sure when a scientist says "nothing" in reference to space or something they don't mean in the literal sense of a black void of actual nothingness.

"Dawkins preached against stupidity?"
Im sure sometimes he did.

But for all we know he may have been speaking falsehoods and therefore was himself preaching stupidity.

We simply don't know one way or the other!

 

[LuisDantas]

"Dawkins preached against stupidity?"
Im sure sometimes he did.

But for all we know he may have been speaking falsehoods and therefore was himself preaching stupidity.

We simply don't know one way or the other!

There is a significant difference between inaccuracy and stupidity.