Not that I disagree with him, but "I wouldn't dream of going around knocking on doors ... to spread the good news" is mildly contradictory with a dude that has a youtube channel full of atheist / anti-religious videos.

He isn't interrupting people; they have to come to him, but he in essence is proselytizing. I happen to firmly agree with his message, and think it is very worthwhile to spread the good news that there isn't some all-seeing eye out there waiting to smite you if you eat meat on a Friday, etc. Or in particular it is a good thing to be able to defend your own beliefs at least to yourself, as well as others if the situation warrants.

As an ex-Mormon, I'm going to do something a bit weird and quote myself from 2 years ago when this topic came up. I wish the guy in this vid had talked more about his reasons for leaving; I would have been interested to hear more about why he thinks their church is not honest or why it doesn't have integrity. Original comment posted for this video.
>> ^SDGundamX:

I was a Mormon for several years (lived in a rural area, was the closest church in town until I was about nine and a new Presbyterian church was built closer). I have to say I'm a bit confused at all the hate that's delivered towards them. Of all the churches I ever attended (and I attended lots as a kid), theirs had the most caring and active community I've ever seen. If you were sick, church members were there the same day with food and asking what they could do to help. They had lots of great family activities all year round, such as picnics and camping trips.
But what impressed me the most about the Mormon church is that they basically taught me the morals I hold true today. They didn't just teach the kids in Sunday school not to lie because "God says so." They explored the consequences of things like lying and stealing. We'd do role-plays where they'd make us think about the consequences our actions had on other people. Like, for instance, if you shoplifted a toy you really wanted, how would the toy store owner feel? How would he feed his family if people kept stealing the stuff in his shop? The fire-and-brimstone Christian churches I later attended never impressed me much with their Bible beating compared to this style of teaching.
This is not to say Mormons aren't without their flaws. In some ways, they do resemble a cult. When my family left, they hounded us for years trying to "save our souls" and get us to come back. They would just show up unannounced at our house or call at random hours. It was more annoying than anything else.
Another downside was the whole proselytizing thing--I distinctly remember being told as a child that if I wanted to be able to play with my friends in heaven that I'd have to convince them to become Mormons too. Otherwise I wouldn't see them there. To put that into perspective though, my Dad's priest (he was Catholic as a kid) told him the same thing about his Protestant friends back when he was a kid. The Mormon religion hasn't got a lock on the conversion market by any means.
All things considered, I find the Mormon religion to be relatively harmless. Yes, they believe in some odd things like the Book of Mormon, but at the end of the day, unlike a lot of self-proclaimed Christians, I found the Mormons to do more than just give lip service to their values and actually practice what they preach.

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
@BicycleRepairMan

I think that if, instead of railing against religion, you actually took the time to study it (study...not practice--I'm not proselytizing here) you would find that all of the major religions have important messages of wisdom to offer us about how to live our lives. .... I think you're missing out.

Hmm, well what can I say.. I dont consider myself a biblical scholar, but I'd say I know just as much about the bible or religion in general as the average religious person does, perhaps in some cases even more. I may be missing the ability to actually believe in the various myths, but I am nevertheless capable of reading them and even seeing the value in them. For instance, I find the mantra of "forgiveness" that Jesus represents to be an interesting idea(or should i say ideal?) in the moral realm. And its one of those things worth considering before acting out our too common revenge-instinct. It is an idea I have given serious consideration, and I think that in some sense, the world would have been poorer off without it. I consider such thinking a contribution to moral philosophy as I would any other contribution. (I do have several objections to it, but thats a somewhat separate issue)

There are also similar examples from other religions that are interesting in their own way, and even if I dont believe a word of it, I can always appreciate the concepts and ideas

As an atheist, I am perfectly comfortable borrowing any good idea from any religion, its no different from lets say a Christian person borrowing from Buddhism or vice versa. But do you think I'm "missing out" because I dont subscribe to a particular religion? Since there are so many religions, is it ok if I just make my own, that lets say believe potatoes are intelligent, and I borrow some concepts from here and there of other religions, and voila I wont "miss out"? IAW: do i have to believe some supernatural nonsense to really "get it" when it comes to religious moral teachings?

And what about the BAD stuff? Lets just get it straight: some of the moral codes outlined in the bible are just downright EVIL. How, as a believer in the bible, can people tell the difference? Who or what tells christians that punishing people for killing is ok, but stoning homosexuals or disobedient children to death isnt? How do they decide? I'm guessing they decide the exact same way I decide. By thinking for themselves. By not living in a desert tribe 2000 years ago, and by having an innate sense of right and wrong that works with facts, knowledge an philosophy cumulated over hundreds of years.

So what am i missing exactly?

@BicycleRepairMan

I don't understand your arguments. For example, I'm not sure what your point is about "change." Religion changes because society changes. This is no different than technology replacing jobs that used to require manual labor. Do you think the guys who used to work on the assembly line "voluntarily" learned new job skills when automation replaced them? No, of course not. So, why is there something wrong with adapting to current circumstances? Whether the change is voluntary or not doesn't affect the argument of whether religion can be a useful tool in helping us find happiness in our lives, so I fail to see the relevance.

Next, dismissing entire religions because of the actions of a few individuals is just illogical. A few radical Muslims rammed jets into the World Trade Center, so all Muslims are terrorists (and Islam is evil)? A few priests molested children, so all priests are are child molesters (and Catholicism is evil)? A few black people have committed crimes, so all blacks are criminals? You strike me as an intelligent guy (judging from our previous conversations), surely you can see the problems with those arguments.

Finally, you dismiss religious work because they were written by our ancestors. Therefore, they couldn't possibly have anything relevant to say about our current lives right? Well then, how about the U.S. Constitution? There's a document that was written by our ancestors. Should we scrap that too? Couldn't possibly be relevant, right? After all, it hasn't changed in since it was written (though it has, of course, been added to).

The reason why we still cherish the Constitution is because of the wisdom it contains. That wisdom has been reinterpreted many times since the constitution was originally written--reinterpreted based on changes in both technology and society but never changed. In a similar manner, all of the religions have collected wisdom of what it means to be a human being and how to live happily. That wisdom too has been reinterpreted many times based on changing conditions.

I think that if, instead of railing against religion, you actually took the time to study it (study...not practice--I'm not proselytizing here) you would find that all of the major religions have important messages of wisdom to offer us about how to live our lives. Certainly people have mis-used and abused religion to further their own ends. Certainly people who claim to be religious have done terrible things. But in almost all cases you find that these people are not actually following the teachings of their own religion when they do these things--that they have hijacked the messages, distorted them, and used them for their own ends. I don't blame religion for that. I'm sorry to hear that you do, because like I said I think you're missing out.

I believe that somewhere in the Universe sits the descendant of Luke Skywalker, and he's a Christian who stands on the corner and preaches the gospel to passing Wookies, who roll their eyes at his proselytizing. They know he comes from a rich line of Jedi masters, and they're apoplectic that he eschews his ancestors' faith for that of some race of miscreants in a galaxy far, far away.

Awesome powers of analysis & explanation!

"a god of attraction, not of promotion" is pretty sweet though, I'll use that on religious people I think. Nice way to stop proselytizing.

"charities would handle need", can you point to any instance where this has worked better than federally mandated social programs?

also, charities, theoretically, reserve the right to refuse services based on lifestyle choices and proselytize at will. governments don't.

if we are upset because our tax dollars are going to fund aggression, foreign occupations, war and a prison state, then fuck yeah i'm with you.
if we are bitching that our tax dollars are providing much needed social services, then... meh.

do those social services need innovation and renovation? could they be run better? absolutely.
could we stop foreign aggression and bloated defense budgets and save billions and still have the funds to provide social services and infrastructure in a vastly superior fashion than we ever have before? fuck yes!
do those services need to be abolished? that's dangerous.

as far as your willingness to help people who's needs aren't met by a nanny state: may i point you to somalia? algeria? the sudan? DR congo, perhaps? or how about the 17% of american children who belong to the "working poor" and don't ask for state assistance?

also, let's talk about CPS.
I have had personal and professional dealings with CPS that lead me to believe that it is severely underfunded and that has led to its gross incompetence. however, i still think it's a very important service.
so if, theoretically, charities would take care of the poor. who is going to take on the nasty job of removing, investigating, and protecting children from abuse?
here's a hint: law enforcement is severely ill-equipped to handle this all by itself, the needs of those children reach far beyond arresting offenders. and in a lot of counties in the country, women and children are still property.






>> ^blankfist:
>> ^peggedbea:
what is the libertarian solution to making sure these people are cared for and have the highest quality of life possible?
i obviously believe that a society is responsible for taking care of its most vulnerable members.
but milton friedman and ayn rand say i'm wrong.
so what is the solution? sometimes people with disabilities are born into poverty too. and i refuse to accept that their dignity, health and quality of life just aren't as important as your bank statement.

Not all Libertarianism is shades of Friedman and Rand. The truth is charities would take care of those without if people didn't A) think there's already a welfare system in place to take care of everyone and B) they weren't already taxed so much currently. You sound like you already understand that the welfare system is broken if there's a 7 year wait for medicaid benefits for these people, yet I don't imagine you'll attribute that to poor government management. The military spending is enough to take care of every poor soul in this country, but the fact that politicians from the two party system are content on raising military budgets while people are suffering domestically should be the biggest indicator that they're not capable of handling the welfare responsibly and legitimately!
Taxation of this magnitude is immoral. They're saying they own your labor if they can directly steal from what you earn, and then they can use that money any way they choose to use it. They claim they want to help, but they're too busy dumping bucketfuls of the stolen money into the military and prison industrial complex, while those on welfare and social security have drudge through the harassment of red tape to get any help.
I'd take any system outside of government and bet it would work more efficiently and better than government. Any of them. If I learned there was a place where old people were dying because they didn't have funds for health care (and there wasn't a nanny state already devised to take care of them), you better believe I'd be there to help in what way I could. Not wanting the government stealing from you does not mean you are against helping others. You honestly think everyone around you is a cretin who is selfish and unwilling to help those in need? When did we become so cynical of our neighbors? If this is the case, then we should just throw in the towel on humanity now, because we certainly don't have a chance, government or no government.

Billy Graham is influential? What the fuck has that proselytizer done that anybody with a soap box and an ancient book of sick stories couldn't?

>> ^Truckchase:
I said my peace, it's your decision. I think it's one you'll regret, but it won't impact me one way or the other. My last "jab" is to ask you rhetorically if it is a good strategy to maintain the same belief system throughout all your life, regardless of your maturity or relative wisdom. Go forth and do whatever!


ANT has chose his path,you should honor him not deride him for that choice because it may differ from yours.
he is a devout christian.you dont see him proselytizing or dictating to anyone on the sift about their choices.
choices i am sure he may disagree due to his faith.
if he has chosen with love and faith he will experience not one regret.
i believe your comment was meant with a tongue and cheek flavor but to someone who is faithful it may come across as offensive.
dedicated vigilance should be honored.
in the end it is ANT's choice...honor that choice,because as you stated,it IS ANT's choice.
whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant.

>> ^thinker247:
But we are fighting a war of religious ideology. The people who started both wars were end-of-the-world proselytizers who wanted to fight Islam, not just the fundamentalist part of it. So should this be surprising?


Dude, that's supposed to be a secret.

But we are fighting a war of religious ideology. The people who started both wars were end-of-the-world proselytizers who wanted to fight Islam, not just the fundamentalist part of it. So should this be surprising?

Our Lady Rosa Mystica has been a source of friction between Catholic and Buddhist communities in Crooswatta for years. In the last four years, extremists have stopped the construction of the church, which is near a Buddhist monastery. In 2006 and 2007, the Church was targeted by Buddhist extremists, and construction was halted.

(source)

There is an ongoing problem with over-aggressive Christian proselytizing conducted in a dishonest and unethical manner by some conservative evangelical groups. Missionaries have targeted the poor with offers of money if they would renounce the Buddha, for example. They have distributed inflammatory literature, such as pamphlets condemning the Buddha as a reincarnation of Satan.

(source)

Yeah, those innocent Christians just minding their own business....

Sometimes it's really easy to hate Christians, and totally understandable, too.

They prey on the weak. They constantly go around pushing their beliefs onto other people, and then they call anybody who finally gets sick of their shit and stands up to them an "extremist."

They've been doing it for hundreds of years.

Yes, I think it's moronic to post billboards against religion. Even if it does advance your cause a few percent, it's not worth the strife. It's plain disrespectful. Not to mention hypocritical. Just live your own reasonable life and let memetics win in the end.

I am relegated to using the word atheist because on a purely semantic level, that's what I am. Unfortunately, most people (even most self-proclaimed atheists, but particularly religious people) cannot see that it's just a word for someone who doesn't believe in any gods. They see that "ist" on the end of the word and think it's akin to being a communist or satanist or objectivist or cubist. In other words they think there MUST be a pernicious agenda attached to the label. And mismatched agendas, or the perception thereof, are the cause of most of the pain and hurt in this world. I don't want to control anyone or even proselytize against religion. If everyone would be cool then everyone could be cool. Atheist as a word is uncommon in that virtually all other commonly used "ist" words are describing what a group DOES believe or DOES practice.

Militant atheism, dogmatic atheism, practicing atheism of any kind is ludicrous and shows one does not get it.

Christianity is a well-designed Chinese finger trap for the mind. As you get closer to proving your side of the argument and disproving something said in the Bible, they fall back on "the devil makes us question the Bible so I can never do that." Modern religions are built to resist competing ideologies, whereas old polytheistic beliefs were pretty simplistically presenting a theory of how the world works and how to survive in it. That's why it's futile trying to attack their core beliefs. It's like attacking a knight on his shield, it's the most defended target.

As ReverendTed said, the Bible doesn't directly contradict evolution. In my experience, it seems like a large percentage of Christians presently believe that god "set in motion" his creations via evolution, rather than making them directly from nothing, and that the Adam and Eve creation story is a parable. That's how I understood it, and I went to Catholic school for 12 years. The recent anti-evolution wave was more a cultural phenomenon than a religious one.

I think there's no point in proselytizing nonbelief. Defending your rights, ensuring your children get real education in school and not indoctrination--there's definitely a point to that, and that's when atheism is at its strongest. But going on the offensive against basic religious belief is counterproductive and creates more conflict.

When I think of fun loving great places to visit or live.....well just read and see what I mean.......................(the Koran is not a simple history. It is the way all true Muslims must live.
What Islam Isn't
By Dr. Peter Hammond
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, April 21, 2008
The following is adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat:

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ).

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad &Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris --car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam - Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%
(Where's your next vacation to?)