'Sincere' seekers. . .
Ronie Mooney ronie@InfoAve.Net
Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:41:31 -0400 (00905895691, 000201bde0cc$dafb62a0$47be74cc@ronie-s-)
Hi everyone!
-----Original Message-----
From: Bryce Anderson <bryce_anderson@yahoo.com>
To: errancy@infidels.org <errancy@infidels.org>
Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 11:40 PM
Subject: 'Sincere' seekers. . .
> RON
> I know you believe in God, just like most of your "atheist"
buddies,
> simply because you are so angry at Him. How can you be so mad at a
guy,
> and devote so much time combatting Him, if He doesn't exist[?]
BRYCE
Fair question. Why WOULD anyone try and combat something that
doesn't exist? Here are a few answers I can think of off the top of
my head:
1) We just can't seem to get away from those %&#*@ Mormon
missionaries.
2) There is a vast political movement afoot to return all of
America to the precepts supposedly dictated by this non-existant
being. Even though we don't believe in this God critter, a lot of
other people do, and consider their beliefs valid enough to force them
upon the unwilling.
3) Every time we mention the fact that we don't believe in this God
critter, we are met with either stunned silence, or a random quote
from the Big Book o' Thees n' Thous. Your refusal to accept that
atheists really DON'T believe in God is proof of how strange and sick
most people consider the idea.
4) In spite of the fact that I'm open about my beliefs, my dad
still wants me to donate a tenth of my income to the LDS Church. I'm
sure others on this list are married to people who insist on forking
hard-earned cash over to a preacher.
5) The God critter has decided that I will never see my sisters get
married. The ceremony is for Mormons only.
I think every one of these is a valid reason to feel anger, and
in none of these cases is the anger directed at an omnipotent,
omniscient, otherworldly being.
RON
Take Till
> for example. Even though he claims not to believ in God, his whole
life
> and work revolves around Him. Such apostolic zeal must originate with
> some source.
DAVE
I agree with Bryce and his statements above, especially #2. Actually, Ron, it
was #2 that spurred Till to his "work". Till was an atheist for 25 years and
kept his mouth shut while living a relatively peaceful life until the
fundamentalist movement in the 80's, led by the Falwell's and the Robertson's
aroused him out of his slumber and drove him to be more of an activist. It is
strange that fundamentalist's can pursue their activism with tremendous
resources, such as publications, radio stations, satellite TV (TBN), and other
media and demand to go unchallenged, while if a solitary atheist dares to
publish a bi-monthly journal with a limited readership he is considered a pawn
of Satan. This in itself is a good reason to be a freethought activist, to
counter such negative views.
But there are other, more simple reasons why some skeptics are evangelical.
One occurs even in fundamentalist christianity when a convert leaves a "cult"
and becomes a newborn christian. The experience can be so enlightening and
liberating that some form their own little ministries refuting the religion they
were once in. Why not just leave their ex-church alone? If those people are
happy in their beliefs just let them be, right? However this is hard to do.
Whenever one believes he has discovered a new truth he is filled with the desire
to share it with others, though they may not agree with him/her. The new convert
usually concentrates on the group he was in before he became an orthodox
christian because he may have loved ones and friends in that group.It also
provides a sense of redemption . To deliver these friends and loved ones from
what he thinks is error can be a powerful motivation. The most important thing
to keep in mind is the new convert believes he is right, hence his evangelism.
Truth, as one perceives it, is extremely liberating, whether it promises eternal
life or not. It brings much satisfaction to share it with others. So even if you
don't agree with it, at least you may better understand *why* some skeptics are
evangelical.
Another reason is this: debate is extremely mentally stimulating, especially
over a hot topic, whether it be political or religious or whatever. There is
little more satisfying then a good debate with a good opponent, a sharing of
ideas, and defending what you believe with well reasoned arguments. Democrat
activists love debating with Republican activists not only for the mental
stimulation such debate can bring, but also it because it can open one to new
ideas he had not considered before. Hearing a new argument against your position
can be initially disconcerting, but it provokes further study and perhaps a
strengthening of ones position or perhaps even the shedding of another false
belief. It is by debate that these things often happen, not by sitting in your
room while life passes you by, fearing to speak out because you may be branded
as evil or whatever. I know from experience the satisfaction one can have from
sharing his beliefs with an opponent and do to it well, especially if one was
once in the position of his opponent. He has been there, done that, so to speak
and maybe he can help some of the listeners to consider some things they had
never thought of before.
I think #2 in Anderson's post above is reason enough for one to get
evangelical, but most skeptics and freethinkers are nototriously silent and do
little to offset the tremendous propaganda machine of the religious right. The
few who do are often disorganized and have little funding, certainly nothing
like the millions per year that James Dobson or Pat Robertson have to spend to
propagate their beliefs. How many TV stations or even radio stations do you know
devoted exclusively to promoting freethinking or atheistic views? If you know of
any, let Farrell or the Freedom from Religion Foundation in Madison, Wisconsin
know. They will be grateful.
In closing, I would like to comment on the complaint that the atheists are
unneccessarily harsh and derogatory toward the position they are "attacking".
Although I try to avoid insinuations innuendoes , I can see that sometimes a
more direct attack can be effective. It is doing no worse than what christians
used to do to unbelievers for hundreds of years, only what they did was usually
far worse, death, imprisonment or ostracism. The person should never be attacked
but the belief is fair game. A skeptic would fare no better on a predominantly
christian group than what an inerrantist does on this group. Anyway, Ron, I
hope this helps you better understand WHY atheists, skeptics and freethinkers
are sometimes evangelical in their beliefs.
In freethought,
Dave