What Door to Door Evangelists for Atheism Would Really Be Like


STEP 1: Here’s the original cartoon that’s been making the rounds on the web:

Atheist Evangelists Cartoon

STEP 2: Compare what actual atheists are regularly noted for (hint: it’s not positively extolling the virtues of nonbelief, that’s for sure):

Flinging ‘unholy water’ on a highway to negate a blessing
Put up signs mocking religion – on space for Nativity scenes… Which gets all displays banned (tipped by wits0).
Booking up as many display lots as possible – intentionally at Christmas and Hannukah time
‘De-baptizing’ people of holy water with a hair dryer
Offering porn in exchange for Bibles to declare that the Bible is worse
Threatening a lawsuit to force the removal of a landmark chapel from a city logo – because it has a cross
Put up a confrontational billboard, at Christmas of all times
More confrontational and mocking billboards, at Christmas and targeting Christmas themes
– Trying to get a historic cross landmark removed
– Succeeding in getting crosses that stood for decades on a municipal building removed by threatening lawsuits
– Getting free Bibles removed from hotel rooms
– Getting free Bibles removed from guest rooms
– Getting a coach ordered to stop leading team prayers
Threatening a restaurant which gives discounts for praying before meals
Threateneing a pizza joint which gives a discount for bringing in a church bulletin
– Trying to get a cross removed from police property… Even though the only guy who can actually see it doesn’t feel offended by it!
– Christians (including chaplains!) being harassed out of the military by militant atheistic intolerance of any and all religion
– City being sued year on year to remove a cross that resides on private property – at taxpayer expense!
– Seemingly the majority of remarks left on a blog, comments section, message board or Twitter feed by atheists. Examples: ohTHATJesus Twitter feed, By The Book Comics.
– BONUS anti-Judaism… Demanding that the Star of David be barred from a Holocaust memorial!
– Among the most rabid hobbies of basically every single Communist regime which all just happen to be de-facto atheist. Examples: Leninist Russia, Stalinist USSR, Communist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, Calles’ Mexico, and overall list here.

STEP 3: Thus I submit my edit of the cartoon, to better reflect reality:

Atheist Evangelists Realistic Real Life Cartoon

As Ace says:

But one of the central planks of the Church of Atheism is that religion is inherently evil and causes you to behave like an a$$hole.

Well, that’s not true. Most religious people are as far away from a$$holery as is possible.

Sure, there are the always-present Some. Some are a$$holes. Sure.

But if it’s religion that’s causing all this illogic and anger and emotionalism and pettiness and spitefulness and general a$$holery, why is it so present among those who have no religion?

Ace, btw, is not a religious person – self described as atheist/agnostic – and is by no means a Christian.

And via AoSHQ, Dinesh D’Souza:

But if you think about it, this is an inadequate explanation, because if you truly believe that there is no proof for God, then you’re not going to bother with the matter. You’re just going to live your life as if God isn’t there.

What I’m getting at is that you have these people out there who don’t believe that God exists, but who are actively attempting to eliminate religion from society, setting up atheist video shows, and having atheist conferences. There has to be more going on here than mere unbelief.

And from Kurt Schlichter:

Tis The Season For Militant Atheists To Whine

The key is not to be a jerk – that goes for both the person sharing his views and the person hearing them.

But jerkiness is the difference between the decent guy who’s just not feeling the connection with the Lord and the smug militant atheist who thinks that putting a fish sticker with legs that says “Darwin” on his Prius is biting social commentary.

These atheist evangelicals aren’t satisfied not to believe. They think we need to not believe too. They seem to live under the bizarre misapprehension that if they are just rude enough to us believers, we’ll somehow unsee the light, put the scales back on our eyes and cast off our faith to embrace a life of spiritual emptiness.

The most annoying ones file lawsuits. Somebody wants to say a prayer before a Friday night high school football game in East Tumbleweed, Texas, and you can be sure some litigious twerp will allege that he is being subjected to the worst religious oppression since the Christians played the lions in the Colosseum.

And what Christmas and Hanukkah season would be complete without some friendless killjoy suing because a town decided to stick a cross and a menorah out in front of city hall? The sight of so many happy, content people seems painful to them. But then, have you even met a happy, content militant atheist? If so, what was the name of his unicorn?

——————–

See also twin posts, Christianity Inspires Good in A Way Unbelief Cannot Emulate (serious) and Things That Are Highly Unlikely (Atheism vs Christianity) – Me on Twitter (snarky).


15 Responses to “What Door to Door Evangelists for Atheism Would Really Be Like”

  1. Ron Says:

    Compare what actual atheists are regularly noted for (hint: it’s not positively extolling the virtues of nonbelief, that’s for sure)

    One cannot extol the virtues of non-belief in deities any more that one can extol the virtues of non-belief in other entities (Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Bogeyman, magic pixies, leprechauns, etc.).

    However, a large percentage of non-believers do extol the virtues of logic, reason, inquiry, compassion, empathy, community, respect, self-actualization, and wonder.

    – Flinging ‘unholy water’ on a highway to negate a blessing
    – Put up signs mocking religion – on space for Nativity scenes
    – Booking up as many display lots as possible – intentionally at Christmas and Hannukah time
    – ‘De-baptizing’ people of holy water with a hair dryer
    – Offering porn in exchange for Bibles to declare that the Bible is worse

    Parody, satire, and yes, even ridicule, are all valid forms of expression in challenging/criticizing commonly held beliefs or viewpoints. If all other topics in life are open to such critique, why should religious beliefs alone be placed on a pedestal and held beyond the reach of scrutiny?

    – Seemingly the majority of remarks left on a blog, comments section, message board or Twitter feed by atheists

    It’s the nature of the beast that those who agree with the blog author’s opinions are less likely to comment than those who don’t.

    However, enabling comments is entirely optional, and site owners have complete freedom to regulate both the message participants and the message content.

  2. Scott Thong Says:

    However, a large percentage of non-believers do extol the virtues of logic, reason, inquiry, compassion, empathy, community, respect, self-actualization, and wonder.

    Compassion, empathy, community, respect… I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

    Parody, satire, and yes, even ridicule, are all valid forms of expression in challenging/criticizing commonly held beliefs or viewpoints. If all other topics in life are open to such critique, why should religious beliefs alone be placed on a pedestal and held beyond the reach of scrutiny?

    Yes, of course. But why is it that atheists seem to intentionally seek out people who have no quarrel with them, just to pick a fight? It’s like I formed a club dedicated to ‘harmlessly’ harassing vegetarians for their beliefs, seeking them out wherever they go and eating juicy steaks right in front of them.

    Could it be because the entire philosophy – atheism is based on a negative proposition?

    It’s the nature of the beast that those who agree with the blog author’s opinions are less likely to comment than those who don’t.

    I am more referring to the sheer number of sites and accounts dedicated solely to mocking the beliefs of religious folk. I’ve added some of those such links to the post.

    (PS. You subscribe to my blog just to look out for new posts regarding atheism so you can remark on them, or what?)

  3. Ron Says:

    I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

    I’m going by the standard dictionary definitions.

    Yes, of course. But why is it that atheists seem to intentionally seek out people who have no quarrel with them, just to pick a fight? It’s like I formed a club dedicated to ‘harmlessly’ harassing vegetarians for their beliefs, seeking them out wherever they go and eating juicy steaks right in front of them.

    Tell me, when was the last time an atheist darkened your doorway holding a tract? Or stood on a street corner proselytizing his non-beliefs? Or left a note on your windshield? Picketed your place of worship? Disrupted your Sunday service? Denied you service because of your beliefs? Told you to leave the country if you didn’t subscribe to his beliefs? Put up billboards along the highway condemning your way of life? In fact, do you even know any atheists IRL?

    Could it be because the entire philosophy – atheism is based on a negative proposition?

    Atheism is not a religion, or a philosophy, or a world view. It is simply an absence of belief in gods. You wouldn’t call non-belief in the Easter Bunny a philosophy, would you?

    I am more referring to the sheer number of sites and accounts dedicated solely to mocking the beliefs of religious folk. I’ve added some of those such links to the post.

    I see several links to your favourite blogs complaining about atheists mocking religion, and two humorous links I was previously unaware of but have now bookmarked. Thanks for the heads-up.

    But to address your complaints…

    1) Did you really lose any sleep over the “un-blessing” of the highway or “de-baptism” of the faithless? Did those pranks harm anyone? Because the only ones who might be offended are hardcore Catholics; and to my knowledge, you’re not a Catholic.

    2) Putting up religious displays in the state Capital violates the 2nd Amendment. And despite the usual chorus of complaints about state interference in the freedom of religious expression, I think we both know that such freedom of expression on public property is reserved exclusively for one religion: Christianity. If Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, or Scientologists put up displays those same complainants would be singing a very different tune.

    3) According to the news reports, the display case in Santa Monica were always auctioned out, but the same coalition of churches that held a virtual monopoly on 14 of those 21 spots was complaining because they had to contend with new participants vying for those same spots. That sounds like sour grapes to me. I thought conservatives were in favour of unfettered competition?

    4) Porn for Bibles was voluntary — no one was forced to participate in the event.

    As for the number of atheist sites permeating the web: that’s called freedom of expression, no? Or should only religious organizations be permitted to disseminate their opinions?

    (PS. You subscribe to my blog just to look out for new posts regarding atheism so you can remark on them, or what?)

    Nah, I just felt inclined (or perhaps was led?) to drop by after an extended absence and noticed the new post. 8)

  4. Scott Thong Says:

    I’m going by the standard dictionary definitions.

    I am snarking. What I mean is that atheists generally come across as the exact opposite, at least online and in the news.

    Atheism is not a religion, or a philosophy, or a world view. It is simply an absence of belief in gods. You wouldn’t call non-belief in the Easter Bunny a philosophy, would you?

    Exactly the point. If it’s not a philosophy, then why don’t we see other non-philosophies go around mocking children who are keeping their baby teeth for the tooth fairy, or shaving the beards of shopping mall Santas?

    Put bluntly, why do atheists have to be so loud and in-your-face about their non-worldview? Why would a cartoon with derisive door-to-door Loch Ness Monster Skeptics, by contrast, make no sense?

    1) Did you really lose any sleep over the “un-blessing” of the highway or “de-baptism” of the faithless? Did those pranks harm anyone? Because the only ones who might be offended are hardcore Catholics; and to my knowledge, you’re not a Catholic.

    I don’t personally lose sleep over the Rwandan Genocide either.

    I think we both know that such freedom of expression on public property is reserved exclusively for one religion: Christianity. If Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, or Scientologists put up displays those same complainants would be singing a very different tune.

    Well maybe Hiro Nakamura could go back in time and populate the country with Shintoist settlers, complete with monks for the Founding Fathers.

    4) Porn for Bibles was voluntary — no one was forced to participate in the event.

    Dare them to offer porn for Qurans, or free white powder for blacks.

    As for the number of atheist sites permeating the web: that’s called freedom of expression, no? Or should only religious organizations be permitted to disseminate their opinions?

    Missing the point again: Proportion of vocal online atheists who are nice vs trolls. Compare against proportion for religious ones, particularly religious ones who make the entire point of their online presence to troll atheists.

  5. Scott Thong Says:

    WAIT…

    Atheism is not a religion, or a philosophy, or a world view. It is simply an absence of belief in gods. You wouldn’t call non-belief in the Easter Bunny a philosophy, would you?

    Then why do you self-identify as an atheist, but not an aEaster Bunnyist or an aunicornist???

  6. Ron Says:

    Exactly the point. If it’s not a philosophy, then why don’t we see other non-philosophies go around mocking children who are keeping their baby teeth for the tooth fairy, or shaving the beards of shopping mall Santas?

    Well, that could quickly change if the tooth fairyists and mall Santas were to form PACs and begin lobbying for legislation that gives them special status or abrogates the rights of others.

    Put bluntly, why do atheists have to be so loud and in-your-face about their non-worldview?

    Loud and in your face? Again, when has this happened to you? You never responded to any of my previous queries about your real life (aka meat world) experiences with atheists. I have a strong hunch you don’t know any, or at least none that have openly identified themselves as such.

    Why would a cartoon with derisive door-to-door Loch Ness Monster Skeptics, by contrast, make no sense?

    This scenario isn’t quite as far-fetched as you may think,, because Nessie’s existence is taught as a fact by a number of evangelical schools in the UK (and the U.S.). If religious apologists start pressing the issue publicly, the skeptics will eventually mount countermeasures.

    I don’t personally lose sleep over the Rwandan Genocide either.

    So in other words this was just a talking point to fill out the list of grievances, i.e., activities which you consider the Catholics might find offensive, but don’t cause you any real personal discomfort because you don’t share those religious beliefs anyway.

    Your flippancy regarding the Rwandan Genocide is also duly noted. But let me remind you that even though the genocides were ethnically motivated, the vast majority of participants on both sides of the conflict belonged to the Catholic faith — something to keep in mind the next time you’re tempted to argue that Christianity has abandoned its violent tendencies.

    Well maybe Hiro Nakamura could go back in time and populate the country with Shintoist settlers, complete with monks for the Founding Fathers.

    The U.S. may have started out predominantly Christian, but the demographics have changed considerably over the past 236 years and it’s now a pluralistic society. Besides, if religious priority were based on who was here first, we’d have to cede that right to the Native American deities and spirits.

    Dare them to offer porn for Qurans, or free white powder for blacks.

    First off, it was called a ‘Smut for Smut’ campaign and offered to trade porn for all religious texts.

    Second, the event took place in San Antonio, Texas — a staunchly conservative Bible Belt state — where Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Muslims combined make up less than two percent of the population; so it’s unlikely that many people there would read the Qur’an.

    Third, the event attracted screaming Christian protesters and angry feminists — so it was hardly a success in terms of generating positive publicity.

    Fourth, a number of atheist blogs denounced the campaign as juvenile, sexist and counter-productive to promoting goodwill within the community. (And I would concur.)

    Missing the point again: Proportion of vocal online atheists who are nice vs trolls. Compare against proportion for religious ones, particularly religious ones who make the entire point of their online presence to troll atheists.

    [citation need]

    In my opinion, the word “troll” gets used so often it’s essentially become meaningless. It was originally reserved for those who intentionally posted inflammatory comments to disrupt peaceful discussions; but now its just another epithet thrown out whenever anyone posts a dissenting viewpoint.

    Then why do you self-identify as an atheist, but not an aEaster Bunnyist or an aunicornist???

    Actually, I almost always refer to myself as a non-believer (which leaves the burden of proof in the believers court where it belongs). To my thinking the word atheist shouldn’t even exist since a lack of belief in something isn’t really a formal position on the matter. However, I confess that I am often guilty of using the term as a matter of expediency.

  7. Frake Says:

    Ron, I would personally concur that Scott Thong is a masochist. He is offended by atheist movement because he is the one who personally takes a lot of time to read other people’s subjective opinion on how offended they are by atheists, he wants to personally feel their pain, but he can’t speak about atheist genocide or anything like that, in historical context, or from his own experience.

    I do concur with you that he uses the word ‘troll’ too often that it is essentially meaningless. Another word he uses often is ‘snark’. It is meaningless too, when one attempts to justify himself so many times, which phrases are snarky which aren’t. What is the point of being snarky when only the author himself understands his own jargon.

  8. Scott Thong Says:

    Actually I just pick up a lot of vibes from even a casual browsing of atheist sites, blogs, webcomics and twitter feeds.

    Why do you guys always seem so… Grumpy?

    And I actually do cite genocide often enough.

  9. Scott Thong Says:

    Loud and in your face? Again, when has this happened to you? You never responded to any of my previous queries about your real life (aka meat world) experiences with atheists. I have a strong hunch you don’t know any, or at least none that have openly identified themselves as such. – Ron

    I admit that we bascially don’t have Western style secular atheists around these parts.

    But my gist is, do a quick browsing of atheists online and tell me how many of them are espousing logic and rational thinking in a cheerful and amicable manner?

    It just seems to me that atheists fit the label too well – they are defined by their opposition to the beliefs of others as opposed to their own beliefs.

    Hence I concur with your identification as ‘non-believer’ as the more accurate term. Or perhaps ‘rationalist’ or ‘logical thinker’ which would have the added benefit of insinuating that every other belief is irrational and illogical, the way ‘free thinker’ insinuates that religious believers have captive, restricted minds.

    Unfortunately most neat labels already come with, or soon end up saddled with, unwanted connotations. Hence the list at the top right of the main page.

  10. Mike Says:

    Atheists are the most hated in society because they are ignorant. Check out God’s name at JW.ORG (BTW, True Religion of the Future)

  11. James Says:

    Hey Scottie, are you aware of this?

    http://k0ks3nw4i.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-first-ever-atheist-versus-christian.html

    It is claimed to be the first Christianity versus Atheism debate in Malaysia. Wanna try your hand at ripping the atheists’ arguments apart?

  12. Scott Thong Says:

    Thanks for the tip… There’s a whole pile of videos and words there, for which I currently don’t have the spare time to go through! But I’ll pass on the link to those I know whom, may be interested.

  13. Ron Says:

    And via AoSHQ, Dinesh D’Souza: …

    Speaking of which:

    After a meteoric rise in the evangelical world, The King’s College president Dinesh D’Souza now faces his board’s likely questions about his relationship to a woman not his wife.

  14. Scott Thong Says:

    “The article is structured to avoid any sense that there was an enduring marital separation and give the impression that I, a married guy, was carrying on an affair, and passing off this woman as my fiancee, and when it was exposed, I rushed to file for divorce that very day,” he said.

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/october-web-only/dinesh-dsouza-denies-infidelity.html

  15. Ron Says:

    D’Souza, a former CT columnist, said he did not know that Christians generally do not approve of engagements prior to divorces being finalized.

    “I asked a lawyer whether there was anything wrong in being engaged while separated but prior to being divorced,” he said. “I was told there’s no problem with that and actually that happens all the time. I proposed to Denise and we became engaged.”

    “I believe I have good biblical grounds for divorce and was going through the legitimate process,” said D’Souza. “The thing I will admit: I did not have any idea that it is seen as wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced even though separated. … That was a true error of judgment, but it was truly a case where I didn’t know better.”

    Right. A self-professed evangelical, who signed an evangelical statement of faith to head an evangelical college, writes columns for Christian publications and regularly attends Christian conferences as a guest speaker had absolutely no idea that sharing hotel rooms with women he wasn’t legally married to was frowned upon in Christian circles (at least doctrinally if not in actual practice).

    If you buy that, I have a bridge not far from King’s College you might be interested in buying, as well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: