What activity/involvement will be beneficial for our cause?

Oct 19, 2013


Discussion by: RedA

We, who find it unlikely that some sort of diety is in charge of "all and everything" should consider having a discussion about what activity we should invoke which will “do good" and bring our cause forward. It appears that our SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) is not bringing us anywhere. Rediculing (in a disrespectful way) both the ‘belief in’ and the ‘believers of’ holy scriptures may be funny and good for “internal consumption”, but it seems clear that people who generally sympathize with us and what we stand for are turned away by our statements.

My humble opinion is that a strategically well-thought-out approach for external use is needed because, as missionaries for an excellent cause, we need a common approach that will benefit our mission and create a mass opposition to religious activity, regardless type, moderate, extreme or traditional.

Am I on a wrong track? I will rest my case if the concensus is that I’m barking up the wrong tree. Thanks for giving this a thought. RedA

61 comments on “What activity/involvement will be beneficial for our cause?

  • 1
    Michael Fisher says:

    RedA quote:- “Rediculing (in a disrespectful way) both the ‘belief in’ and the ‘believers of’ holy scriptures may be funny and good for “internal consumption”, but it seems clear that people who generally sympathize with us and what we stand for are turned away by our statements.”

    I don’t give a flying fig for the feelings of the religious [or non-religious] elements who are alienated by the scornful remarks of the militant atheist. Disrespectful disrespect & ridicule is a useful tool against those who would have their boot on your neck given half a chance.



    Report abuse

  • Yeah…I think you’re barking in the wind. I don’t think good deeds or leading by example will make much difference. I think books, articles, and most importantly, good education will be the ticket in the long run. I am very optimistic in the long run. I see the movement toward atheism much like the movement toward equal rights. It’s a very very slow process but we aren’t owning slaves or subjugating women (as much) or working children to death the way we did years ago. It still happens in many places in the world but overall….over time….the world is becoming a better and better place to live and I think it is ultimately because of science and education. Me making fun of a fundy won’t affect the progress at all. My worry is that christians could take over the US or muslims could continue their quest to set back the clock of time and have even more success. The world is worse off than it was a few hundred years ago in many places but overall I still believe we are on a slow path to enlightenment. In the mean time I keep looking for a chance to ridicule fundies but sadly I don’t know any.



    Report abuse

  • 3
    Alan4discussion says:

    @OP – My humble opinion is that a strategically well-thought-out approach for external use is needed because, as missionaries for an excellent cause,

    Applied science provides us with the expertise do the good works many take for granted in the modern world. – Clean water, electricity, heating, drains, transport, medicine, communication systems, bulk food production, housing, flood, fire and weather warnings etc. … . … .

    Gods provide none of these. – Only parasitic priests who try to take the credit for fortuitous events or scientific benefits.

    we need a common approach that will benefit our mission and create a mass opposition to religious activity,

    Religious dogmas which are contrary to scientific evidence, need to be shown to be antiquated carbuncles on the human population – and often on the planet as well!
    Their intrusion into people’s lives is brought about by the unevidenced and illogical processes of indoctrinated “faith-thinking”!



    Report abuse

  • Anybody in the middle of the black civil rights movement, the gay movement, the women’s movement would feel as if nothing were happening. Even when there is a major change over a generation, it is like trying to detect the movement of the hands of a watch. You compare what you have done to what is needed universally and feel discouraged. You ignore that thousands of others are also working. You ignore that the people you convert effectively become workers too.

    The key is to look at the attitudes of teens. They will be universal in 50 years.

    In leading a gay lib group, I found we got most accomplished when I put whomever came up with an idea in charge of implementing it. People will always work harder for their own ideas than someone else’s. So it is actually counter productive to try to reign in the range of activity.

    When I did lectures, I took as many people with me as I could. Different people respond to different people. It is largely a matter of matching ages.



    Report abuse

  • The modern world, with its relentless increase in technology and the reasoning needed to cope with it, will steadily (though bumpily) diminish the appeal and ubiquity of superstitious thinking. The emergence of the ‘atheist movement’ is just one symptom of this change. Sit back and enjoy the ride.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #4 by Roedy:

    Anybody in the middle of the black civil rights movement, the gay movement, the women’s movement would feel as if nothing were happening. Even when there is a major change over a generation, it is like trying to detect the movement of the hands of a watch. You compare what you have done to what is…

    I think it’s an interesting comparison. In any movement you always have the more strident and militant types along with people more moderate. In the civil rights movement Malcolm X was very militant at least in the beginning where as King was moderate. In gay rights you have the Act Up people vs. people who are more into working with democrats. I think in atheism the people who emphasize how we should be strident and confrontational are the equivalent of the Malcolm X’s.

    IMO it’s the moderates who tend to make more serious change but that’s partly my pragmatic personality. However, in an atheist movement I would have hoped that the calmer, rational side would have been stronger than it seems to be so far. It seems like as part of the overall philosophy of critical thinking, reason, and science would also be a preference for winning people over via reason rather than mocking.



    Report abuse

  • There’s a big difference with the tone in the things people say here and the utterances of people in their everyday exchanges with friends and acquaintances. It’s okay to use mockery and ridicule if you’re in no danger of hurting the feelings of someone you know and care about. I find many comments really funny and manage to laugh quietly whilst reading them. If I were in the company of someone saying these things out loud in casual conversation where I know they’d cause offence a hurt the feeling of others I’d be appalled at their lack of sensitivity.

    Freedom to articulate my actual thoughts regarding religion and superstition , coupled with the privilege of reading similar thoughts of others, is exactly why I bother. Perhaps a quiet ( as opposed to aggressive) insistence that one does not believe, is all that is needed to tip the balance when a fellow human being is considering their position.

    Richard Dawkins and the other spokespeople for atheism are in a different category. I’m so pleased that they make public this position and raise the consciousness of the public in general.



    Report abuse

  • 8
    Marktony says:

    You really think those “act up” gays, those marching for gay rights, had less influence than those who worked with the democrats?

    Malcolm X was a religious fundamentalist and a black supremacist – are you suggesting strident atheists such as Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris are his equivalent?

    In reply to #6 by Red Dog:

    In reply to #4 by Roedy:

    Anybody in the middle of the black civil rights movement, the gay movement, the women’s movement would feel as if nothing were happening. Even when there is a major change over a generation, it is like trying to detect the movement of the hands of a watch. You compare wha…



    Report abuse

  • The good news is superstition is nonsense. The more it gets argued the more obvious that will become.

    Imagine being a creationist. You have no good argument for it. Every argument you propose gets shot down and, over time, more and more people are aware of why it is bogus. Your best strategy is to keep people ignorant and away from dissenters. However, you can’t do that because of the Internet, cheap e-books and cheap long distance. Every time a creationist learns anything about science, it has the risk of debunking his beliefs. One famous case was a guy who dropped Christianity when he learned that navigation was incompatible with biblical thought.

    As a creationist, you rely on logical fallacies. However, knowledge of them is spreading simply by person-to-person conversations on the net. They are losing their power.

    Watch their increasing desperation, trying to get children to hear nothing but cult speak. The promises of fabulous riches, cute partners etc get wilder. Watch how they try to force their religion on others. That is not the confident complacency of yesteryear.

    The attendance of most churches is falling. The German government collects tithes even from non-attendees. If that stops the lack of attendance will hit Germany too. Churches are reeling from child abuse scandals, and they appear to be unwilling to change.

    On the other hand homophobic Americans have managed to foment a hyperhomophobia in East Africa, and right wing Islam has been flexing its muscle. We may have to change direction and tackle primarily debunking Islam — a much harder target that Chrisitianity.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #10 by Roedy:

    The good news is superstition is nonsense. The more it gets argued the more obvious that will become.

    Imagine being a creationist. You have no good argument for it. Every argument you propose gets shot down and, over time, more and more people are aware of why it is bogus. Your best strategy is t…

    All these things are true, but that’s public ridicule not ridicule and mockery on a person level. If a newspaper editorial for example, openly ridicules the creationist standpoint and this leads to a discussion and public debate via a series of letters to the editor, it’s not personal. The the debate is not targeting the integrity of the believer.

    When humorous posts appear on this site I’m not fazed at all, because anyone visiting RDFRS knows what to expert and should be hardened to criticism.



    Report abuse

  • There are so many areas of life riddled with nihilism, moral relativism and general apathy that it would take an awfully long time to detail all the different things atheists could do, but essentially we need to just take over the institutions that religions use to indoctrinate people, by which I mean we should secularize and make rational peak experiences of awe and connectedness using institutions that do not have a deity at their core. This will cripple the major religions because, once not believing in god is shown to be more emotionally rewarding than believing in god, the incentive will be there for people to consider leaving their religion.

    This is a TED talk with some large ideas on architecture and celebratory holidays and education, by Alain de Botton: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oe6HUgrRlQ

    Sam Harris is advocating using meditation in a secular context to improve mental health and attention: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-meditate

    Daniel Dennett has some ideas about replacing religions (the specifics aren’t very attractive to younger generations, but the general idea of taking over the empty churches to communally watch TED talks is interesting): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5tGpMcFF7U

    Don’t listen to naysayers who try to say that people should only become atheists through intensive research and existential crises, there is an intellectual/academic bias in atheist circles at the moment that excludes from the discussion people who don’t feel like reading 10 books on the topic.

    Spreading education is one of the best things you can do, so if you have ideas you should definitely develop them and come up with some actionable goals for yourself and any other like-minded people to make a reality!



    Report abuse

  • 13
    David W says:

    I think education is the key. Religion persists mainly because children are indoctrinated at a young age. If they are educated to use reason, think critically and look for evidence they will see that all religions are man made.



    Report abuse

  • I have been watching a documentary about abolitionist John Brown. The wickedness of the pro-slavery forces is astounding. Yet I see echoes of those same attitudes in today’s Christians. Societies do not change overnight. Look at them as like giant ocean liners. You have to push and push over a long period of time to get them to shift. The key is stubborn persistence.

    Back in my gay lib days people would often ask me, “Why are you bothering? There is no chance society will shift”. I did not think I would have any success either. I said, “I feels better to take some action.”

    It’s the action, not the fruit of the action, that’s important. You have to do
    the right thing. It may not be in your power, may not be in your time, that there’ll be any fruit. But that
    doesn’t mean you stop doing the right thing. You may never know what results come from your action. But if
    you do nothing, there will be no result.

    ~ Mahatma Gandhi 1869-10-02 1948-01-30



    Report abuse

  • 15
    Red Dog says:

    In reply to #8 by Marktony:

    You really think those “act up” gays, those marching for gay rights, had less influence than those who worked with the democrats?

    Yes, I do. Absolutely. The Act Up people are great at making noise and taking credit for things but when you look at the real accomplishments: abolishing DADT, DOMA, passing things like the Mathew Sheppard Hate Crimes laws, the vast majority of the people who led those efforts went out of their way to appear moderate, reasonable, and even to work with conservative republicans.

    Malcolm X was a religious fundamentalist and a black supremacist – are you suggesting strident atheists such as Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris are his equivalent?

    I agree that early in his career he was all those things. I think if you look at the life he lived and the environment he lived in he had a right to be militant. You can even make a case that without Malcolm’s threats of violence white leaders wouldn’t have been willing to work with King, I’ve heard plenty of black intellectuals say that, I’m not sure if it’s true and in any case I’m always opposed to violence for political ends except in direct self defense. Again though when you look at how black people were treated, you can almost make a case that if it hadn’t changed self defense was justified.

    Malcolm changed quite a bit toward the end of his life. Ironically enough it was his actual understanding of Islam of all things that changed him. He had understood a very bastardized jailhouse version of Islam through the corrupt nation of Islam but when he went to Mecca and saw people of all colors and nationalities he changed his philosophy quite a bit.

    But in any case, no of course not Sam Harris is no Malcom X. And when I was talking about people who are militant I was talking more about the comments on this site. People who advocate destroying bibles, or denying free speech to religious people, or locking up all religious people as mentally ill. Of course it’s a far cry from telling atheists to get guns but you know it’s not that far when you start advocating that the state lock up people just because you disagree with them.



    Report abuse

  • 16
    Reckless Monkey says:

    In reply to #17 by Red Dog:

    In reply to #8 by Marktony:

    You really think those “act up” gays, those marching for gay rights, had less influence than those who worked with the democrats?

    Yes, I do. Absolutely. The Act Up people are great at making noise and taking credit for things but when you look at the real accomplishment…

    Hi Red Dog,

    I almost agree with you. Yes I think we need people ultimately who are prepared to compromise and work with people. However I never heard of any atheists when I was young and indoctrinated myself most atheists were either too afraid to come out of the closet so to speak or didn’t want to upset the apple cart. I am very grateful to the likes of Harris, Dawkins et al who make a stand and make a public noise. Those that ridicule and openly criticise keep atheism in the public eye.

    I remember thinking about the Gay Madi Gras ‘I think they should have equal rights but do they have to parade their sexuality about the place?’. I think now I was wrong. Wrong because they made a loud yearly noise which got them on the media and outraged the conservatives who spat venom each year on talk back radio (still do) but it also gave homosexuals airtime to defend themselves against the religious conservatives and I think they have won the PR law, gradually then cooler heads have gradually changed legislation in the manner you describe. Politicians will only act if they are likely to gain votes if they make a change (or lose them if they don’t). I don’t blame them for this but ultimately I think this is a PR battle, it’s about getting our ideas into the public and being discussed around lunch rooms and in pubs and BBQ’s, Noisy atheists are succeeding in doing that, and yes I agree that someone more consistory needs to come in and negotiate in good will but at this stage I think the mix is about right. But I could be wrong. And I’m not suggesting we have parades dancing about in bottomless chaps (to each his or her own though), but too much respect has been given to religions like the Catholic Church for too long.



    Report abuse

  • 17
    mjhudston says:

    There is something to be said for being very vocal, even critical of others beliefs. I mean it has worked for the religious groups for thousands of years, earning them billions of followers and exemption form equality laws in so called “Civilised Countries” like the United Kingdom.

    This should be proof enough to any sane and reasoned person, that we have failed and are not being forceful enough!



    Report abuse

  • 18
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #13 by Nitya:

    If a newspaper editorial for example, openly ridicules the creationist standpoint and this leads to a discussion and public debate via a series of letters to the editor, it’s not personal. The the debate is not targeting the integrity of the believer.

    When humorous posts appear on this site I’m not fazed at all, because anyone visiting RDFRS knows what to expert and should be hardened to criticism.

    Why not ??!!!!

    Here,s a little story:-

    A jihadist suicide bomber meets an angel and explains he has blown up killed 40 Christian infidels.
    He is ready to meet his 70 virgins in paradise.

    He is shown through a gate and goes down a corridor to a marble doorway which has a door with his name on it in golden letters.

    He is directed to enter the dimly candle-lit room filled with hooded ladies, and enters. The door closes behind him and locks shut.

    Having discovered he is to share eternity with 70 geriatric nuns who have been there since the Spanish inquisition, he bangs on the door yelling, ” There is some mistake! – This is going to be Hell”!!!

    No one answers!

    Ah well – Which god did you say? ! – So much for stories!



    Report abuse

  • 19
    Jaya Jagannath Das says:

    Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts, theories etc.



    Practical Explanation ( For Example ) :- `1st of all can you tell me every single seconds detail from that time when you born ?? ( i need every seconds detail ?? that what- what you have thought and done on every single second )

    can you tell me every single detail of your `1 cheapest Minute Or your whole hour, day, week, month, year or your whole life ??

    if you are not able to tell me about this life then what proof do you have that you didn’t forget your past ? and that you will not forget this present life in the future ?

    that is Fact that Supreme Lord Krishna exists but we posses no such intelligence to understand him.
    there is also next life. and i already proved you that no scientist, no politician, no so-called intelligent man in this world is able to understand this Truth. cuz they are imagining. and you cannot imagine what is god, who is god, what is after life etc.


    for example :Your father existed before your birth. you cannot say that before your birth your father don,t exists.

    So you have to ask from mother, “Who is my father?” And if she says, “This gentleman is your father,” then it is all right. It is easy.
    Otherwise, if you makes research, “Who is my father?” go on searching for life; you’ll never find your father.

    ( now maybe…maybe you will say that i will search my father from D.N.A, or i will prove it by photo’s, or many other thing’s which i will get from my mother and prove it that who is my Real father.{ So you have to believe the authority. who is that authority ? she is your mother. you cannot claim of any photo’s, D.N.A or many other things without authority ( or ur mother ).

    if you will show D.N.A, photo’s, and many other proofs from other women then your mother. then what is use of those proofs ??} )

    same you have to follow real authority. “Whatever You have spoken, I accept it,” Then there is no difficulty. And You are accepted by Devala, Narada, Vyasa, and You are speaking Yourself, and later on, all the acaryas have accepted. Then I’ll follow.
    I’ll have to follow great personalities. The same reason mother says, this gentleman is my father. That’s all. Finish business. Where is the necessity of making research? All authorities accept Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. You accept it; then your searching after God is finished.

    Why should you waste your time?


    all that is you need is to hear from authority ( same like mother ). and i heard this truth from authority ” Srila Prabhupada ” he is my spiritual master.
    im not talking these all things from my own.


    in this world no `1 can be Peace full. this is all along Fact.

    cuz we all are suffering in this world 4 Problems which are Disease, Old age, Death, and Birth after Birth.

    tell me are you really happy ?? you can,t be happy if you will ignore these 4 main problem. then still you will be Forced by Nature.


    if you really want to be happy then follow these 6 Things which are No illicit sex, No gambling, No drugs ( No tea & coffee ), No meat-eating ( No onion & garlic’s )

    5th thing is whatever you eat `1st offer it to Supreme Lord Krishna. ( if you know it what is Guru parama-para then offer them food not direct Supreme Lord Krishna )

    and 6th ” Main Thing ” is you have to Chant ” hare krishna hare krishna krishna krishna hare hare hare rama hare rama rama rama hare hare “.


    If your not able to follow these 4 things no illicit sex, no gambling, no drugs, no meat-eating then don,t worry but chanting of this holy name ( Hare Krishna Maha-Mantra ) is very-very and very important.

    Chant ” hare krishna hare krishna krishna krishna hare hare hare rama hare rama rama rama hare hare ” and be happy.

    if you still don,t believe on me then chant any other name for 5 Min’s and chant this holy name for 5 Min’s and you will see effect. i promise you it works And chanting at least 16 rounds ( each round of 108 beads ) of the Hare Krishna maha-mantra daily.


    Here is no Question of Holy Books quotes, Personal Experiences, Faith or Belief. i accept that Sometimes Faith is also Blind. Here is already Practical explanation which already proved that every`1 else in this world is nothing more then Busy Foolish and totally idiot.


    Source(s):
    every `1 is already Blind in this world and if you will follow another Blind then you both will fall in hole. so try to follow that person who have Spiritual Eyes who can Guide you on Actual Right Path. ( my Authority & Guide is my Spiritual Master ” Srila Prabhupada ” )


    if you want to see Actual Purpose of human life then see this link : ( http://www.asitis.com {Bookmark it })
    read it complete. ( i promise only readers of this book that they { he/she } will get every single answer which they want to know about why im in this material world, who im, what will happen after this life, what is best thing which will make Human Life Perfect, and what is perfection of Human Life. ) purpose of human life is not to live like animal cuz every`1 at present time doing 4 thing which are sleeping, eating, sex & fear. purpose of human life is to become freed from Birth after birth, Old Age, Disease, and Death.



    Report abuse

  • 20
    Reckless Monkey says:

    In reply to #20 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #13 by Nitya:

    If a newspaper editorial for example, openly ridicules the creationist standpoint and this leads to a discussion and public debate via a series of letters to the editor, it’s not personal. The the debate is not targeting the integrity of the believer.

    When humorous posts…

    Yes, similar to the family guy terrorist goes to heaven bit

    [here] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dxpMTFBg48)



    Report abuse

  • Red A , did you have in mind some form of group project such as the message on the bus or the billboard in Times Square? I’m not not quite sure what you were aiming for, because everyone has their own area of interest and we cover so many different countries and cultures.



    Report abuse

  • 22
    Reckless Monkey says:

    Hey does anyone know why the hyperlink bracketing system doesn’t seem to work. I’m following the process it appears to work in preview and then if I come back to the thread its reverted back to showing the brackets? Anyone know?



    Report abuse

  • 23
    nick keighley says:

    In reply to #9 by QuestioningKat:

    International “Tell Someone Your an Atheist Day” February 12.

    seems a bit silly (like most “X day”s)

    if the subject arises I tell people anyway.



    Report abuse

  • 24
    Katy Cordeth says:

    In reply to #24 by Reckless Monkey:

    Hey does anyone know why the hyperlink bracketing system doesn’t seem to work. I’m following the process it appears to work in preview and then if I come back to the thread its reverted back to showing the brackets? Anyone know?

    Don’t leave a space between the second ] bracket and the first ( bracket as you did in this post.

    …here] (http://www.youtube.com

    should look like

    …here](http://www.youtube.com



    Report abuse

  • 25
    QuestioningKat says:

    In reply to #26 by nick keighley:

    In reply to #9 by QuestioningKat:

    International “Tell Someone Your an Atheist Day” February 12.

    seems a bit silly (like most “X day”s)

    if the subject arises I tell people anyway.

    There’s power in numbers. A reminder doesn’t hurt either. Besides, a massive “out” campaign is perhaps the most significant move that could be made for the atheist cause.



    Report abuse

  • 26
    Red Dog says:

    In reply to #27 by Katy Cordeth:

    In reply to #24 by Reckless Monkey:

    Hey does anyone know why the hyperlink bracketing system doesn’t seem to work. I’m following the process it appears to work in preview and then if I come back to the thread its reverted back to showing the brackets? Anyone know?

    Don’t leave a space between the…

    BTW. it cam be confusing because if you leave the space the system still makes it seem like things are working in preview mode (at least on some browsers like Chrome), in the preview it looks like it will be a link it only doesn’t work when you commit the change. A bug in the preview IMO, that should be one of the goals of preview, WYSIWYG.



    Report abuse

  • 27
    Red Dog says:

    In reply to #18 by Reckless Monkey:

    In reply to #17 by Red Dog:

    In reply to #8 by Marktony:

    You really think those “act up” gays, those marching for gay rights, had less influence than those who worked with the democrats?

    Yes, I do. Absolutely. The Act Up people are great at making noise and taking credit for things but when you lo…

    I don’t think we disagree all that much if at all. I was thinking about the gay rights parade (I live in San Francisco) after I wrote my other comments. When those parades first happened they were such a big deal. What? Gay people not just marching but marching in their flamingist in your face outfits? I’m straight btw but always had gay friends even in high school and I loved the parades at first. And although I think what I said initially was still correct — the people who got the most done in gay rights were the pragmatists — I agree that just as Malcolm helped people see the need for a reasonable guy like King the Act Up people got the essential first bits of attention and started the whole movement and there never would have been a movement without them.

    It’s funny how my opinion of the parade and even the opinions of many of my gay neighbors has changed. Now that we are all older it’s just kind of a pain that clogs up traffic on the weekend.

    Getting back to Dawkins, etc. though I don’t consider him to be in the strident camp. I think one of the most important contributions that Dawkins made was just to tell people it’s time to get over this ridiculous social convention that you can never talk about religion or challenge someone’s religious BS in “polite society”. I don’t think that is strident.

    What I am referring to is the attitude some commenters here take that essentially says any religious person must be considered an idiot or evil. To me that is as nonsensical as someone like Malcolm X saying that all whites are the devil. It not only isn’t true it is actually counter productive because in both cases it alienates potential allies. In Civil Rights a lot of white people helped make the movement happen and for atheist rights a lot of religious people (I know several) are all for science and secularism and support all the issues that really matter. If they still want to go to church that is an opportunity to have more reasonable debates with them but you don’t start a reasonable debate by claiming your opponent must be mentally ill.

    You mentioned the Catholic Church, I’m all for mocking them. I just want people to acknowledge that not all churches are like them and that even within the Catholic church there can be good people like Father Daniel Berrigan



    Report abuse

  • 28
    Marktony says:

    I think you have a better opinion of the political system than I do. Most politicians probably think they are going to change the world for the good (even if their ideas are misplaced) but soon realise it’s tough to get things changed and so just toe the party line. Those “act up” people bring issues
    to the attention of the media and the public and prompt the debate that allows the politicians to do their job. Interesting that there was a photo of a group of protesters right at the top of your linked article. Basicly, I’m agreeing with Reckless Monkey.

    I agree that early in his career he was all those things. I think if you look at the life he lived and the environment he lived in he had a right to be militant.

    Perhaps if you looked at the life some ex-theists lived and the religious environment they lived in you could say they also have the right to be militant (within limits). But I don’t think you need to have experienced something to understand how wrong it is and to protest about it, even if that protest is mainly just sounding off on the comments pages of web sites.

    But in any case, no of course not Sam Harris is no Malcom X. And when I was talking about people who are militant I was talking more about the comments on this site. People who advocate destroying bibles, or denying free speech to religious people, or locking up all religious people as mentally ill. Of course it’s a far cry from telling atheists to get guns but you know it’s not that far when you start advocating that the state lock up people just because you disagree with them.

    But earlier in your post you said:

    You can even make a case that without Malcolm’s threats of violence white leaders wouldn’t have been willing to work with King..

    Even though you went on to say you were against violence for political reasons, I think this sort of comment is as bad as those you mentioned. After all, Malcolm X had a wider audience than those posters you are so concerned about. I have read posts here where people have advocated destroying the bibles provided in hotel rooms – I hate the idea of destroying books but I liked the idea someone had of placing warning stickers in those bibles pointing out the immoral and violent content. As for locking up the religious and denying free speech, I would be surprised to read that on RDFRS even as a poor joke.

    In reply to #17 by Red Dog:

    In reply to #8 by Marktony:

    You really think those “act up” gays, those marching for gay rights, had less influence than those who worked with the democrats?

    Yes, I do. Absolutely. The Act Up people are great at making noise and taking credit for things but when you look at the real accomplishment…



    Report abuse

  • 29
    Reckless Monkey says:

    In reply to #27 by Katy Cordeth:

    In reply to #24 by Reckless Monkey:

    Hey does anyone know why the hyperlink bracketing system doesn’t seem to work. I’m following the process it appears to work in preview and then if I come back to the thread its reverted back to showing the brackets? Anyone know?

    Don’t leave a space between the…

    Thanks Katy



    Report abuse

  • 30
    Reckless Monkey says:

    In reply to #30 by Red Dog:

    In reply to #18 by Reckless Monkey:

    In reply to #17 by Red Dog:

    In reply to #8 by Marktony:

    You really think those “act up” gays, those marching for gay rights, had less influence than those who worked with the democrats?

    Yes, I do. Absolutely. The Act Up people are great at making noise and tak…

    Yeah I think we are in complete agreement. I also cringe at some posts on this site. I do think some of the vitriol on this site is a vent and some of those people are probably getting it out of their system in an arena where they feel safe to let fly. I’m sure there is also a percentage that do mean exactly what they say and that can be worrying. I’ve been an atheist for a few decades now and I’ve been through an initial angry faze and out the other side to a ‘get on with other people phase- so shut up about constantly arguing with people’ to now somewhat standing up for my beliefs and if something comes up I publicly disagree but I try to be as good natured about it as I can, but I’m sick of people essentially thinking they have the right to tell me who I can marry and in what circumstance (I’m straight too but I demand the right to choose) and right to die with dignity etc. Anyway thanks for the clarification.



    Report abuse

  • There is one particular class of Christian who is in deepest trouble. They imagine a voice in their head is god giving them a stream of infallible advice. They are usually low status (Only you Maynard, only you). They gain self esteem by imagining god is singling them out for coaching. Of course this advice is not particularly sensible, but they don’t seem to notice.

    What might help them is a series of essay that would pop up under Google with the theme “How to tell if the voice in your head is god”. For example, you would get them to check how well it turned out. You would ask them to check if the voice ever told them something only god (not them) would know.

    They project confidence, and sometimes convince others their pronouncements are indirectly from God.



    Report abuse

  • 32
    craigz06 says:

    What is missing is a gathering place for the like minded so ideas can be exchanged. Furthermore singing and dancing should be encouraged along with lectures and group events. Of course you can’t call it church; something catchy.



    Report abuse

  • 33
    Red Dog says:

    In reply to #31 by Marktony:

    I think you have a better opinion of the political system than I do.

    It’s not an opinion it’s a simple observation of historical data. Political movements can make change. The civil rights movement and the gay rights movements made amazing changes. The political and peace movements I’ve been involved in have had some big wins and bigger losses.

    But it wasn’t and never is easy and it’s always possible to lose and it’s always necessary to make some compromises if you really want to get something done. That is the main complaint I have with many of the people in the Actup, Occupy, and other radical movements. They just aren’t serious about doing anything real. They seem in it mostly for macho posturing and to “raise awareness” which ends up being little more but preaching to the choir.



    Report abuse

  • 34
    Stuart Coyle says:

    “Ridiculing (in a disrespectful way) both the ‘belief in’ and the ‘believers of’ holy scriptures may be funny and good for “internal consumption”

    Individuals who, through no fault of their own, are mislead, misinformed and brainwashed probably should not be the target for ridicule. The organisations and leaders who do the brainwashing should be the subjects of embarrassment, argument, ridicule and opposition without too much concern for their feelings.

    The problem with this lies in the fact that believers feel personally attacked when their leaders, institutions and belief systems are attacked. Approaches that can assist with de-personalising criticism of belief would be useful. I’m no psychologist, but I’m sure there are some out there who have ideas on this.



    Report abuse

  • 35
    Len Walsh says:

    It appears that our SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) is not bringing us anywhere. Rediculing (in a disrespectful way)

    RedA, what prompted your barking about our excellent, missionary cause being to hate all religion, or to generate mass opposition to any of its manifestations?
    Did you imagine we are all on that track too, and that only a vote of users could dissuade you? And what’s with this “respect” crap?

    Our mission statement promotes “lively discussion of issues relevant to science, reason and unreason.” If you reckon RDFRS lacks a strategically well-thought-out approach what do you suggest? Oh, and please answer Nitya first.



    Report abuse

  • 36
    Reckless Monkey says:

    In reply to #37 by Stuart Coyle:

    “Ridiculing (in a disrespectful way) both the ‘belief in’ and the ‘believers of’ holy scriptures may be funny and good for “internal consumption”

    Individuals who, through no fault of their own, are mislead, misinformed and brainwashed probably should not be the target for ridicule. The organisatio…

    Approaches that can assist with de-personalising criticism of belief would be useful. I’m no psychologist, but I’m sure there are some out there who have ideas on this.

    Hi Stuart,

    I’m somewhat conflicted by all of this but I see what a powerful tool ridicule can be, look at peer group pressure lets say for example with smoking. The public perception of smoking has likely done more to change behaviours than the numerous health messages. That is the health message worked on some but mainly on non-smokers who then made it socially awkward to smoke in work places. Then with a decreased amount of smokers going outside for 10 minutes every hour to suck down a cigarette there then becomes a second wave of being considered some sort of bludger for wasting time.

    Ideally I would like it if rational reasons to say not smoke were convincing because they were rational. But they don’t alone. I hardly know any smokers any more and those that I do know are terribly apologetic and embarrassed about it and feel like their putting me out if I try to find something they can use as an ash tray (I’ve never thought to buy one) if they step outside for a smoke. I feel sorry for what it must be like to be addicted to cigarettes and feel a social pariah but the stats show numbers are falling and I suspect it is in no small part due to peer pressure. I think atheists will have a couple of decades of making pains in the arse of themselves before peer pressure is such that the religious no longer think it socially acceptable to discriminate against those that don’t believe as they do. Gradually law by law things will begin to improve but they’re in for a lot of ridicule in the meantime I suspect.



    Report abuse

  • 37
    steve_hopker says:

    In reply to #10 by Roedy:

    The good news is superstition is nonsense. The more it gets argued the more obvious that will become.

    Imagine being a creationist. You have no good argument for it. Every argument you propose gets shot down and, over time, more and more people are aware of why it is bogus.

    I wish I could share the optimism in this and other posts. But here in the UK I’m beginning to get worried. It seems that a large proportion of the new ‘Free’ schools being strongly promoted by the UK government are faith-based (‘Free’ as in non-fee paying: many are Bible / Koranic based so will be far from free intellectually).

    Such schools don’t need to appoint qualified teachers and, perhaps crucially, do not have to follow the national curriculum. Recently a Muslim ‘free’ school was closed by the inspections agency (which at least is an intermittent overseer) – but the school had been trying to force non-Muslim female teachers to wear head scarves. They were caught out on this occasion – but how can sure we be that other faith based academies (all state funded) are not subjecting children to heavily delusional Koranic / Bible / based indoctrination? Of course, the fact that such indoctrination – paid for by my taxes – may be with the parent’s consent provides absolutely no reassurance. But it is not hard to envisage that in some areas, say in Bradford, where I live near to, those areas with high numbers of Muslims, parents who do not want their child to go to such ‘Free schools’ will have problems if all their local schools have gone down the Free school option.

    In terms of what to do? Well, while writing this post I have thought of writing to my local parliamentary representative (MP). I might come back with his reply…



    Report abuse

  • 39
    aquilacane says:

    If you look at the growth numbers for the young unaffiliated or none believers I think what we are doing is already working fine. We are having open an honest discussions about religion. That has never happened before. We are also showing that it is ok to be open about it. Those with common ideas and initiatives will group together, those who want to be individuals will be individuals. We are united by not being quiet.

    Sam



    Report abuse

  • 40
    steve_hopker says:

    My MP has promptly replied to say he will pass my concerns to the Minister. My letter to the MP included this:

    As a tax payer I think there are reasonable limits to religious involvement in state education, limits which over ride parental rights. I do not think that, whatever parents may believe (however religiously zealous they may be), they have the right to use state funding in schools to create extremely doctrinally controlled environments. For example, where young children might come to think it is a good thing for non-believing female teachers to be forced to adhere to religious dress codes (and without such strictures upon men) [There has been a recent case of this in the UK]. I actually question the moral right of parents to impose such views on their children even privately. But I do feel that I have a democratic right to lobby against state funds being used in this way…

    I cannot but worry as to the longer term implications [of fundamentalist Christian and Muslim ‘Free Schools’] for wider society regarding integration and mutual tolerance… we may be raising future adults rendered almost incapable of independent or evidence based thought, who cannot make logical sense of the world or daily technology: or who have little idea of commonly respected values and accepting differences of belief and opinion. I genuinely fear the spectre of a society with large populations reared on regimes of blind and unquestioning acceptance of Fundamentalist teaching.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #43 by steve_hopker:

    My MP has promptly replied to say he will pass my concerns to the Minister. My letter to the MP included this:

    As a tax payer I think there are reasonable limits to religious involvement in state education, limits which over ride parental rights. I do not think that, whatever parents may believe (…

    That sounds good. Could you send a copy of the letter to the editor or a respected newspaper as well? I love reading the letters page and it would have far wider exposure that way.



    Report abuse

  • Why do you feel the need to change others… there are no crusades here, no battles to be won… nothing to be gained… You sound like you are on a mission to prove something…. which you can’t! Why can’t people believe in god if they want to… it’s not hurting you? … I’m happy being an atheist, and just because I believe there isn’t a god doesn’t mean I’m right.

    Be happy with the path you have chosen and leave others to make up their own minds!



    Report abuse

  • What makes you think current approaches aren’t working? Atheism is on the rise in the United States according to “The Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism” poll conducted by WIN-Gallup International. Americans who say they are “religious” dropped from 73 percent in 2005 to 60 percent in 2012. Those who said they were “convinced” atheists rose from 1 to 5 percent. And 33 percent of the people polled said that they don’t consider themselves as a “religious person.” The same trend is found in Europe, even though starting from a much larger base of non-religious! I just upset a wishy-washy agnostic by saying all religious people are irrational, “But I have nice Christian friends, and they believe in the Big Bang,” he moaned. Then he insulted me, and things got really heated, and now he’s not responding. So what? Maybe he’ll be less wishy washy next time, and such robust approaches are working, just look at the figures. Just use your strongest arguments, without being gratuitously insulting. (Calling religious people ****ing as*ho*** is being gratuitously insulting. Calling them mad, bad, and ignorant is not an insult – just accurate.) Why hold back? Tell it like it is!



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #6 by Red Dog:

    It seems like as part of the overall philosophy of critical thinking, reason, and science would also be a preference for winning people over via reason rather than mocking…

    But many Christians react to rational argument as mockery, which wouldn’t matter so much, but sometimes “moderate” atheists sympathise with them, and join them in attacking me! For instance, I have called Christian views irrational and have been attacked as narrow-minded by fellow atheists, and the thread has been entirely derailed. Most atheists are liberal, nice people but “moderate” atheists shouldn’t react to moaning Christians by telling their “militant” atheist questioners to be nicer, when all they are doing is telling the truth (including the truth that their Christians opponents are mad, bad, or ignorant.) It’s a discussion group, the Christians can go just go away and chill out if they get wee bit upset, poor dears. Maybe the moderates can go into the corner to help them chill out – a kind of good cop, bad cop routine. But the cops shouldn’t be attacking each other!



    Report abuse

  • 46
    Seraphor says:

    In reply to #45 by GRAViL:

    Why do you feel the need to change others… there are no crusades here, no battles to be won… nothing to be gained… You sound like you are on a mission to prove something…. which you can’t! Why can’t people believe in god if they want to… it’s not hurting you? … I’m happy being an atheist, a…

    I was about to respond to this thread by saying that we should be careful not to come across as crusaders out to convert all the believers, and this post demonstrates why.

    There is more at stake than the private beliefs of the masses. Religious indoctrination and scientific ignorance accounts for so much that is wrong in the world, even on our doorsteps. We have the myriad problems with the religious right in the US, we have the latest debacle of free schools in the UK, we have the tithes in Germany, we have the silencing of scientists in Canada and an increasingly fundamental Islamist subculture all over Europe, Africa and the middle East, to name but a handful.

    This is not about Atheism and a dismissal of the existence of god, this is about Secularism, human rights and social progression.

    We cannot allow ourselves and the many ‘activists’ to get confused about this, or our opponents will themselves continue to confuse secularism for a faith in itself and fight it with everything they have. Our goal should be a global realization that secularism is good for everyone, whatever their faith, and ignorance is bad. An increase in atheism will be a natural byproduct of this.



    Report abuse

  • 47
    steve_hopker says:

    In reply to #44 by Nitya:

    In reply to #43 by steve_hopker:
    Could you send a copy of the letter to the editor or a respected newspaper as well? I love reading the letters page and it would have far wider exposure that way.

    It would. But while I might be being over nervous, I’d probably have to think carefully as to what I put so that it helped, not hindered. Public criticism of religion in the UK, and especially Islam, can be very controversial – and may backfire, as my evident atheism would be a target, allowing the religious faction to deflect the case. I feel more able to be open to my MP than I would in the press. For example, someone I know who is a headmaster in the region (and actually a church goer) was the subject of a fatwah for daring to raise the problem of underage girls going off from school for long periods to ‘marry’ in Pakistan. I doubt I’d be a target in that way – its more that I wouldn’t want to lose the message in all the smoke.

    There is in the UK a loose organisation called the English Defence League. They seem very thuggish and, despite their protestations, unpleasantly reminiscent of neo-fascists such as the old British National Party. So their message of criticism of Muslim fundamentalism gets drowned out by the generally bad press they correctly (in my view) get. This has I think further muddied the waters in this already murky ‘debate’ (if the public disagreements over fundamentalism and immigration merits such a term – doubtful if you see clips of EDF marches).



    Report abuse

  • Sorry for commenting late. First, what triggered me to initiate a discussion on this subject was what happened a month ago when two Watchtower women showed up at my door.

    As I have been a hard-nosed, non-conciliatory non-believer since my early teens, I have, as Michael Fisher also expressed it, not “given a flying fig” for the feelings of the indoctrinated. I have tho, as time has gone by (I have now passed 50) mellowed down a bit when responding to blabberdash.

    So, back to the women on the doorstep; for time-saving purposes, I interrupted them when they were about to start their rehearsed hokum. I asked for a couple of minutes to explain my position and gave them two examples of pure errors in the NT to demonstrate that it is absolutely impossible to interpreted the Bible literally and it would be the best for all of us to terminate the visit. I did this, in what I deem to be a polite way: using carefully selected words, uttered with slow speech in a low volume while resisting making upsetting comments. I seriously tried to appeal to their sense of curiosity and asked them to go home and do some reading and source checking before knocking on more doors.

    Two days later, to my great surprise, one of the women came back and said “thank you”. She told me that she had been reading and thinking a lot and had realized that the truth was not in that congregation. I was flabbergasted and dumbfounded. I managed to collect my senses and ran to the study to grab a sheet of paper so I could scribble down a few more points for her to study. She expressed appreciation and left.

    This was like a revelation to me as I have been using rock-hard confrontations in the past. This is the first time I have really had a listener. And, as Red Dog indicates: The Malcolm X’s do not represent the force for change. (And, off course, as Red Dog also pointed out: Harris and Dawkins are not to be compared to Malcolm X.)

    Nitya also seem to concur with the idea that “easy does it”. But, I’m also willing to believe that Nitya also are of the opinion that there are quite a few people who needs to be ridiculed and their IQ level questioned. Stuart Coyle are right on when he says: “Organisations and leaders who do the brainwashing should be the subjects of embarrassment, argument, ridicule and opposition without too much concern for their feelings.” But, the poor brainwashed souls: We have to do what we can to save them.

    So, Nitya. What I was aiming for was maybe not a conclusion on this subject, but merely a continuous exchange of good ideas and valuable point that we all can use and thereby achieve our goals. If each one of us jumps up on a pedestal, yelling away on subjects that 1) are insignificant issues or 2) Passerbys don’t care about. Unfortunately, some of us may even risk censorship or a gag – then we are helping alienating our own cause. (I sense that the Europeans are more safeguarded than Americans in this regard.)

    The only thing I wish for is that our cause will win. And, I think it will be beneficial for many of us to exchange good info.



    Report abuse

  • 49
    Seraphor says:

    In reply to #51 by RedA:

    So, back to the women on the doorstep; for time-saving purposes, I interrupted them when they were about to start their rehearsed hokum. I asked for a couple of minutes to explain my position and gave them two examples of pure errors in the NT to demonstrate that it is absolutely impossible to interpreted the Bible literally and it would be the best for all of us to terminate the visit. I did this, in what I deem to be a polite way: using carefully selected words, uttered with slow speech in a low volume while resisting making upsetting comments. I seriously tried to appeal to their sense of curiosity and asked them to go home and do some reading and source checking before knocking on more doors.

    >

    Two days later, to my great surprise, one of the women came back and said “thank you”. She told me that she had been reading and thinking a lot and had realized that the truth was not in that congregation. I was flabbergasted and dumbfounded. I managed to collect my senses and ran to the study to grab a sheet of paper so I could scribble down a few more points for her to study. She expressed appreciation and left.

    This was like a revelation to me as I have been using rock-hard confrontations in the past. This is the first time I have really had a listener.

    This is probably the best result any of us could hope for, it certain gives me some more hope as I’ve never had a positive confrontation with a proselytizer, but then I haven’t had many. I would love to know exactly what you said to them.



    Report abuse

  • 50
    craigz06 says:

    because memes want to infect others. It’s not us it’s those pesky memesIn reply to #45 by GRAViL:

    Why do you feel the need to change others… there are no crusades here, no battles to be won… nothing to be gained… You sound like you are on a mission to prove something…. which you can’t! Why can’t people believe in god if they want to… it’s not hurting you? … I’m happy being an atheist, a…



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #50 by steve_hopker:

    In reply to #44 by Nitya:

    In reply to #43 by steve_hopker:
    Could you send a copy of the letter to the editor or a respected newspaper as well? I love reading the letters page and it would have far wider exposure that way.

    It would. But while I might be being over nervous, I’d probably have to thin…

    I see your point. You definitely would not want to be seen as part of that group. I reread your proposed letter and I could see why people could think that way. I was focussing on the aspect of ‘tax dollars ‘ and ‘doctrinally controlled environments’ at the exclusion of all else, I’m afraid. I think the debate needs to be aired at some time, though you don’t have to be the one to kick it off. A letter to a member of parliament would be fine.

    Both political parties endorse government subsidies to faith based schools over here in Australia as well. Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle regarding funding and I fear it will be that way forever. Last year I read the mission statements of about fifty schools. They all purport to have the aim of developing good citizens , so on the surface it appears as if they’re not doing anything improper. I would like to see comparative religious studies taught as a matter of course. The fact that these schools are allowed to presented their’s as the one true religion to impressionable young minds is the worst part.

    Good luck.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #51 by RedA:

    Sorry for commenting late. First, what triggered me to initiate a discussion on this subject was what happened a month ago when two Watchtower women showed up at my door.

    As I have been a hard-nosed, non-conciliatory non-believer since my early teens, I have, as Michael Fisher also expressed it, no…

    Thanks for your reply . I wish you’d mentioned the Watchtower women in your article. I’ve been waiting in vain for a visit as I want to practice some of the techniques suggested by Peter Boghossian. I’m planning a friendly chat in which I’ll begin to question how they know what they know. I have tried this strategy with a group of potential converts, but I failed miserably. When I asked if a gut instinct was a good was to know something, the ingenuous reply was ‘yes’….bad for everyone else but very good for them.



    Report abuse

  • 53
    Mr Greene says:

    First off you assume that we have something to sell, rather than simply not buying that which is being aggressively marketed.
    Second, I suspect that you are from the US, given that you think that Atheism isn’t getting anywhere. It’s at a different point on the curve from European countries but it is on the curve. Belief has fallen 10% in the last decade in the US whilst in Britain it dropped by around 25% and non-belief will soon be the majority viewpoint, assuming it isn’t already.
    the British position is that the church has no significant influx of fresh believers since WWII and has developed a quarterlife as the WWII generation approaches life expectancy. The average age of a church goer is about 5-7 years short of life expectancy and will reach parity in about 15-20 years.
    The position in the US is that there is still a significant influx of youth into churches though this is showing signs of reduction and the average age of church goers is still relatively young but increasing.
    You don’t need to convince dyed in the wool fundies that their god is a lie, they will eventually die off.
    In fact the best promoters of atheism are the preachers themselves, it is they who are out ramming lies down people’s throats and they who are primarily undermining their own position.
    Of course they try to pin the blame on someone -anyone else, but it’s just a matter of people starting to realise that they are being lied to.



    Report abuse

  • 54
    Len Walsh says:

    In reply to #51 by RedA:

    … Watchtower women showed up at my door.

    ….I have been a hard-nosed, non-conciliatory non-believer since my early teens…(I have now passed 50) mellowed down a bit …

    Your “strategic” plan to use ” carefully selected words, uttered with slow speech in a low volume while resisting making upsetting comments” is neither novel nor does it conflict with the SOP of RDFRS. Most of us have religious relatives, neighbours or colleagues with whom we get along already. Some of us already enjoy JW visitors and some deeply resent their uninvited intrusion, so your action plan wouldn’t suit us all.



    Report abuse

  • 55
    mralstoner says:

    What you seek is more to do with humanism (how to live without religion) rather than atheism/secularism (fighting against religion). So click over to some humanist websites and get involved there. IMO, humanists are nicer people than atheists.



    Report abuse

  • Yes, I agree, Mr Greene: “it’s just a matter of people starting to realize that they are being lied to.” It’s just that I think that many of these brainwashed/indoctrinated souls need help to be cognizant of that fact. Many church-leaders have an unreal grip on their followers and when religious fanatics like members of evangelical churches and fundamentalists manage to change school curriculum and get people to deny scientific facts, I feel that we should put our heads together and fight against those deceived idiots in a smart way.

    To guide the misguided by pointing out biblical errors may not do any good, but I think it is an option if it looks like there is an opening and they are willing to listen. Slamming doors and issuing insults will always be on the table too tho, but I prefer to reserve that for the knockleheads.

    To Seraphor: The Bible is packed with questionable items and I just tried to remind these misguided women of the verses that have never been in the original manuscripts. 1) the story of the woman who had been caught in adultery as outlined in John 8:1-11 and 2) the description of what Mary Magdalene did after visiting Jesus’ empty tomb as described in Mark 16: 9-20. Some scribes have invented and inserted these verses, but to point out this or other examples of errors and mistakes may or may not work, but it can be worth a try.

    To round this off, don’t get me wrong: I’m also of the opinion that abusive language that is spiced up and inventive can be really funny, especially when it is jazzed up with creative insults. But, we should never forget that we are supposed to be the champions of reason and logic! With Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, the deeply missed Christopher Hitchens and the many other great advocates in mind: We cannot and should not ignore the crazy path that the religious fanatics are talking society. Although some say that this is tapering off, I think we should be aware: The trend is to be tolerant and tolerance is our enemy.

    A remark is like spice: when used sparingly – with the correct blend – in the right amount – people will enjoy and sincerely welcome it. I just wish I could get some guidance to be a better cook. Thanks.



    Report abuse

  • 57
    hellevejby says:

    Hi
    First of all, I am Danish, English is not my native language. And this is my very first post, so please don’t eat me, but feel free to be amused 🙂

    One of religions best cards is their huge “fan-base” and the “fans” willingness to give both labor and money to their respective religion. Humans get easily devoted to something, if the “thing” provide some kind of centrum that they can focus on. Sports teams, churches, rockstars and so on.
    If people with no religion had something similar, more would come out of the closet and the more there are, the more will join. IMO
    In my view a worldwide Celebrate Life day in the summer and Celebrate Science in the winther would be a great way to involve everyday non-religious people. And it would be a place for people in doubt to meet up too.

    eta: I don’t know how I managed to place my post at the top of the thread /scratchhead



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #60 by hellevejby:

    Hi
    First of all, I am Danish, English is not my native language. And this is my very first post, so please don’t eat me, but feel free to be amused 🙂

    One of religions best cards is their huge “fan-base” and the “fans” willingness to give both labor and money to their respective religion. Humans ge…

    Your post goes to the top of the thread when you look at it. When anyone else reads the thread as a whole ( as opposed to a specific comment) it just falls into sequence like that of every other post. 🙂



    Report abuse

  • It appears that our SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) is not bringing us anywhere. Rediculing (in a disrespectful way) both the ‘belief in’ and the ‘believers of’ holy scriptures may be funny and good for “internal consumption”, but it seems clear that people who generally sympathize with us and what we stand for are turned away by our statements.

    You won’t like what I have to say (hell, even I don’t like it). When people have a false belief and are treated kindly when speaking on that topic, they will always come away thinking that their belief isn’t THAT bad. They will even bless you and promise to pray for you. These religious fools need to really hear it. NO! THERE’S NO INVISIBLE FRIEND, YOU IDIOT! GROW THE HELL UP! This will at least force them to really think about the lunacy they’re believing in.



    Report abuse

  • 61
    Martyns says:

    I think it’s important we maintain a distinction between the religion and the religious. Being mean and ridiculing people isn’t going to help free people from religious oppression.

    It’s difficult, particularly as most of the world is fairly uneducated and living in terrible conditions. Living in Western Europe or the nice parts of the USA can give you a distorted perception of the world. We probably have less reason to cling onto an irrational belief.



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.