ChipDipSM wrote:
Also I have a great dislike of pushiness and I've known a few people that called themselves atheists that were just as pushy as religious people.
I'm going to have to quote Penn for a moment here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owZc3Xq8obk
Penn Jillette wrote:“And I’ve always said, you know, that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell or NOT getting eternal life, or whatever, and you think that uh well it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward —and atheists who think that people shouldn't proselytize, "Just leave me alone keep your religion to yourself"— uh, how much do you have to hate somebody to NOT proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?
I mean, if I believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that a truck was coming at you, and you didn't believe it —that truck was bearing down on you— there's a certain point I'd tackle you, and this is MORE important than that.
It doesn't have to be irrational to shout something from the rooftops. If anything is important, to the world, to others, to individuals, then it makes sense to say it.
If you think religion and non-religion are really the same thing in the end -- that religion doesn't cause wars or promote fundamentalism or terrorism or anything like that, or that science and science education and critical thinking just isn't important -- then sure, it could be confusing why anybody would want to argue about it or try to deconvert people away from religion.
Likewise, if you just think the 'pushy' methods are ineffective (which is an empirical question), then you might try something else.
But, if you believe it does good -- that these methods are both effective, and one way of thinking is actually better than another -- what's wrong with it? Of course, it's socially awkward, but that's pretty much the definition of a first world problem. In the free market place of ideas, don't we need people to put forward concepts like these so they can be discussed, criticized, and -- if they're illogical, irrational, and harmful -- smashed to pieces?
Here's a discussion of Penn's argument, which has a couple interesting posts:
http://www.quora.com/What-do-atheists-a ... roselytize
And here's a thread here, about whether it's useful or not to criticize religion:
http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... f=11&t=803
I think we may be naturally inclined to dislike pushiness, because it makes us feel socially uncomfortable, but is it really wrong? Shouldn't society be pushy against things that are really harmful?
The more important question, I think, is identifying what is or isn't harmful.