Skeptic Project

I believe the word atheist is sort of a generic term, many atheists would have different points of view on conduct, also I would argue that atheism is a religious view (or lack of) to an extent. Even if you don't believe in religion you believe in something that explains the world around us.

Atheists can be just as obnoxious as Evangelicals. I sort of take the Penn Jillette position, which is feel free to talk about it, but don't try to convert people, and be tolerant of those who disagree, and be honest when people ask you about your atheism. Most importantly, don't take yourself too fucking seriously.

Oh ye of young naïveté.

Because it's obnoxious, like those banners people spend thousands of dollars on to say "There is no god." If you're in America (and you are), I'd say 99% of the time you're just going to annoy the hell out of people, and not help anyone, let alone yourself.

Converting people to atheism won't better the world at all, because people who are likely to become atheists probably didn't give their money to religious groups anyway, and probably didn't worry about god, jesus, or anything else.

Let's get down to brass tacks: If you're looking to just be able to pat yourself on the back, then just admit that, but you're not actually accomplishing anything useful at all.

My point is just that annoying people isn't the best way to win support for atheism.

Just be open and honest, and show that even as an atheist you can be a good person, that you don't need religion to have morality. If you build it, they will come. I imagine that Penn Jilette has won more hearts and minds for atheism by doing just that, than those guys in the UK who put up signs all over buses, telling people there's no god.

I don't worry about theists, but I do worry about creationists. There are many great theists such as Kenneth Miller who have heroically fought back against creationist irrationality, and defended the integrity of science. What purpose would be served by converting Miller to atheism? Who cares if people want to believe in a higher power as long as they aren't attacking science, or pushing their beliefs down your throat?

I would worry less about converting people to atheism and worry more about defending science.

//also I would argue that atheism is a religious view (or lack of) to an extent.Even if you don't believe in religion you believe in something that explains the world around us.//

This needs to be defined better, what exactly do you mean by believing in something? Evolution? Big Bang? The Standard Model? As an atheist what I accept in science is no different than what a rational theist accepts. I just don't see how my acceptance of scientific facts as the basis that explains the world around me places me in the religious category.

//As for your post, Kepp: Because ideology is still ideology.//

We were discussing religion, not ideology. Ideology doesn't require a religion. But anyway, while atheism can be part of a religion, it isn't a religion on its own. You can also replace religion with ideology in the last sentence.

Is it okay to "preach" atheism, if you will?

Depends. I treat it like any other bullshit belief, if somebody tells me they believe in astrology, I call them out on it.
If they don't tell me, I won't act like a dick by trying really hard to bring it up.

I personally like both Dawkins and Hitchens. Would I mimic either of these guys behavior towards theists? No.

I've read a few of Dawkins books, the guy is brilliant. I think his problem is that he isn't good at debating/interacting with theists. Hitchens on the other hand is awesome in debates, but I can see how he would piss people off. Especially religious people. I plan on picking up Hitchen's god is not great in the near future.

@2012: I am not a Christian.

MUERTOS IS A CRYPTO JEW

I am anti-religion, but the most I'll do is debate theists or creationists (and I'd debate AGW deniers if I was more knowledgeable about it). But I'm really more focused on promoting skepticism, empiricism, and critical thinking, because that is the deeper issue, I believe. I think we have a responsibility towards each other to act rationally, and that can only happen if we have rational beliefs. Since I live in a democracy, what my fellow citizens believe can have a profound effect on me and the rest of the world. And I'll be damned if Christian fundamentalists and oil industry interests continue to convince people not to act on global warming..

in other words...conduct yourself accordingly to the severity of the situation

^ domokato's post = WIN.

I think Dawkins is also very willing to gnash the bullet when no one else is.

Science/Reason/Logic/Skepticism is corrosive to faith and religious belief.

Martin Luther also said that "reason is the enemy of faith."

And yet, those things are pushing humanity down the line of development, and most people will continue them because of that. If that means that it makes people abandon faith and religion in droves, then perhaps we're all a little anti-religion, in a more subtle way.