A Question

[Atherosclerosis]

Atheists:

An honest question here, which deserves an honest answer—why are so many (not all) atheists obsessed with convincing theists that God doesn’t exist?

Note: this is not meant to be hostile or insulting to any atheists. It is simply meant as an honest question.

[Divine Insight]

Is that what you see. I'd say it is more the true to say that atheists put a lot of energy into trying to show the theists how problematic their arguments are. If religious folk are going to dedicated their lives to a belief system and encourage others to do likewise they should at least have their mettle tested. To be honest I think the first reason we debate is that the religious solution is just found wanting. We argue because we think you guys are just getting things badly muddled.

I agree with Furrowed Brow.

I'm not even an atheist in the strictest sense of the term, as I actually give serious consideration to mystical ideas of a spiritual essence to reality. I personally favor philosophies like Taoism, Buddhism, and a very special abstract view of Wicca.

However, when it comes to the Abrahamic Religions; Christianity and Islam in particular. These are both highly arrogant proselytizing religions that are very often proselytized "in-you-face", complete with all manner of accusations that if you fail to believe in them you are choosing to reject the God of these religions and worship some supposed evil demon named Satan.

This is an outright accusation being made toward the "non-believers" of these jealous-God religions.

So most of my efforts toward renouncing these Abrahamic pictures of "God" is actually in direct response to the over-bearing arrogance of these highly proselytizing religions.

These people don't merely bash atheists in the name of their arrogant jealous God.



But they bash other religious people too who don't cower down to their specific dogma and religion.

So I point out why their religions are totally nonsensical and have no validity whatsoever. I point out every single absurdity, contradiction, and ignorant thing I can find with their religious doctrines, and trust me, there's a lot of absurdities, contradictions, and ignorance to point out.

I tell them them the truth. In every way I possible can.

Including the truth, that it's utterly absurd for some supposedly benevolent God to expect people to believe in him who could never believe in such utter absurdities, contradictions, and ignorance.

In order for me to pretend to believe in any of the Abrahamic religions, that's precisely what I would need to do. I would need to pretend.

So does this God want people to pretend to believe in him just to avoid his hateful unjust wrath? Or to lust for an imaginary gift of eternal life?

It seems to me that a truly benevolent God would want people to be truthful.

And my truth is that the Abrahamic religions have no more merit than Greek mythology.

That's my truth.

They are far too ignorant to be a true and correct picture of a supposedly all wise, all-benevolent God.

So yes, I'll point this out to anyone who proselytizes these kind of ignorant arrogant religions in my face.

And the funny thing is that the harder I push back against their ignorant arrogant proselytizing, the harder they shove it in my face. So they just give me ample opportunity to continue point out the absurdities, contradictions, and ignorance of their arrogant overbearing religions.

Then they ask, "Why are you so bent on convincing me not to believe in my religion?"

What?

I'm not.

I'm just responding directly to the non-stop relentless proselytizing and personal accusations and innuendos, that if I don't believe in their arrogant jealous God then I'm supposedly choosing to worship their stupid Satan.



I'm not interested in their jealous God, or their stupid Satan. They can keep them both.

All I do is explain why I see no merit in any of it.

[Hugh Mann]

Atheists:

An honest question here, which deserves an honest answer—why are so many (not all) atheists obsessed with convincing theists that God doesn’t exist?

Note: this is not meant to be hostile or insulting to any atheists. It is simply meant as an honest question.

Christians and Muslims have a religious imperative to preach to those who do not believe what they do.

When they do so with me, I feel is right and proper that I explain to them why I do not believe what they do.

To do otherwise would be to just ignore them, which in my culture is extremely rude.

[Danmark]

Atheists:

An honest question here, which deserves an honest answer—why are so many (not all) atheists obsessed with convincing theists that God doesn’t exist?

Fair question, tho' I don't think they are necessarily trying to convince as much as they are trying to assert their own freedom.
Particularly those of us who grew up in a church community may still be trying to make the case for our own break from our tradition. As I look at possible motivations I come up with several that may apply. Some we may not even be conscious of. These are not so much aimed at those who continue to believe, but at ourselves:

1. We feel a bit stupid for not making the break sooner, for going along for so long with beliefs we now see as childish and without foundation.
2. There is an almost innate sense of wanting others to be like us. In a very general sense we are attracted to those who we see are like us.
3. The very things that attracted us to think about religion are still active in our minds. We wonder about purpose, about eternity, about essential questions, about how to help our fellow man.
4. We never quite stomped out the Evangelical in ourselves, that person that wants to convert others to the truth. We really do feel we have freed ourselves from a lie and want to share that freedom with others.
5. We see many believers as unhappy, angry, and intolerant and think the world will be a better place when they can learn to relax and let go of false idols. We think that goal will be advanced by helping others to dissolve their superstitions.

[wiploc]

... why are so many (not all) atheists obsessed with convincing theists that God doesn’t exist?

Theists are evangelical. We are bombarded with people trying to convince us that gods do exist. It's not weird that some of us take to answering back.

Theists are trying to take over the government and use it as an arm of the church, to prevent abortion, for one thing. Theists who wanted to convert the Middle East to Christianity were a significant force among those promoting W's invasion of Iraq.

Plus there are personal tendencies. I'm an argumentative person. I react to being told I can't be moral. I had thirteen tires slashed by Christians when I came out as an atheist. Theist arguments are usually so flawed that it's hard not to take a swing at them.

Much evil is done in the name of religion. We'd be so much better off without it.

[rbarton]

[Replying to post 7 by Furrowed Brow]

Indeed, you have a lot of issues. I think that, covering most believers with a broad brush like that is a way of consoling yourself. I think that this answers your last statement. Maybe it's the responsibility of the naysayer to inform himself better as to the arguments and rationale. To some, I believe, satisfaction is gained by continually picking off the low hanging fruit on both sides.

[Danmark]

There's another reason. Some non believers want to speak out against the traditionalists that accept these ancient manuscripts without sufficient factual basis. They are annoyed by the sloppy thinking, the lack of genuine questioning some believers engage in. It's almost as aesthetic issue; the lack of critical thinking in and of itself is offensive. Non theists tend to have a healthy skepticism that intuitively rebels against belief in a god; a belief that seems to come from "we've always thought thus." We accept solid evidence only, and 'we've always done it this way' means nothing.

The knowledge that people overwhelmingly tend to believe what their parents and their culture believes tells the non theist that these choices are not based upon facts, but upon their traditions.

[rbarton]

[Replying to post 16 by Danmark]

Perhaps, solid evidence for one is not solid evidence for another. Would you have accepted Davinci's blueprints of inventions not yet invented or was that solid evidence only for himself?

[Cephus]

[Replying to post 16 by Danmark]

Perhaps, solid evidence for one is not solid evidence for another. Would you have accepted Davinci's blueprints of inventions not yet invented or was that solid evidence only for himself?

It wasn't evidence at all, it was a plan that may or may not have worked. Evidence is something that is demonstrable to all. It's not just someone's opinion.

[rbarton]

[Replying to post 18 by Cephus]
I will repeat myself, here. Evidence for one, may not be evidence for another. For instance, I witness an event, a crime, a miracle, a dog crossing the street, this is evidence for myself, you on the other hand may not believe me, so this is NOT evidence for you! Remember many people are sitting on death row, as a result of eye-witness testimony, so this, indeed, qualifies as evidence. Or, you know that 8 + 8 = 16. try as you will to convince a given 3-year old of this simple formula, in the end, you fail. So, evidence for one is not evidence for ALL. Some are privy, to much more insight on a given subject than others!

[Cephus]

[Replying to post 18 by Cephus]
I will repeat myself, here. Evidence for one, may not be evidence for another. For instance, I witness an event, a crime, a miracle, a dog crossing the street, this is evidence for myself, you on the other hand may not believe me, so this is NOT evidence for you! Remember many people are sitting on death row, as a result of eye-witness testimony, so this, indeed, qualifies as evidence. Or, you know that 8 + 8 = 16. try as you will to convince a given 3-year old of this simple formula, in the end, you fail. So, evidence for one is not evidence for ALL. Some are privy, to much more insight on a given subject than others!

Then you're not talking about evidence, you're talking about belief and faith and wishful thinking. If you see any of those things, that's an experience, not evidence. If you see a dog crossing the street and think that proves that he's being pushed by ghosts, that's not evidence for ghosts. It might be evidence of a delusional mind though. Just because something you experience causes you to believe something, that doesn't mean that it's a good belief or that the experience, as you interpreted it, is rationally justified. Wishful thinking, based on a twisted evaluation of a questionable experience doesn't justify an irrational belief, no matter how much you wish it did.