I'm sorry, I was hell of unclear. I meant that the people attacking atheists on those grounds aren't making that distinction, and thus defending it on that assumption results in a terms mismatch.
Evangelism means "speading the good news," and anybody who has been actually evangelized to (who's had a religious person come and try to convert them, as opposed to read or heard anything intended to be persuasive in any way) can't help but be pretty clear on the fact that evangelists are not engaging in good faith. There is no back and forth. There is no real dialogue. The would-be evangelist isn't interested in anything coming from their target's mouth; they're just waiting for a key word to latch onto so that they can give their next talking point.
And I've personally seen all of the criteria you use here satisfied by pro-atheist arguments - very often online, occasionally in person. No, it's not 100%, or even the majority of people who are pro-atheist - but then, it's not actually 100%, or even the majority of pro-religion people. It sucks that that generalization gets made, and it's certainly unfair, but it's not a generalization coming out of nowhere, which is my objection to your original argument.
Also, I think it's worth pointing out that your definition of evangelism isn't the one commonly used by religious people, and I'm not sure it's a good idea to take your definition formed at least partially out of resentment at religious evangelism and apply it to the speech of people with positive perceptions of the value of evangelism. I don't think that it's unfair in all cases - vehemently "BOTH OF YOU JUST SHUT UP, CARING ABOUT THINGS IS STUPID" types might very well have that definition attached to it, but it's not universal.
As far as your three numbered points, I largely agree, although I feel that picking on Jehovah's witnesses is a little problematic. Yes, they're annoying as hell, but they're also, by and large, perfectly willing to debate things out with you till the cows come home, and usually politely. It's very unlikely you'll convince them, but that's not (always) a lack of good faith - it's that they've thought about it, come to a different conclusion than you, and they aren't obliged to see your position as special any more than you're obliged to convert to their position.
It's also worth pointing out that evangelical sects make up a severe (although not vanishingly so) minority within Christianity; I'd be surprised if it was a larger minority proportionately than "evangelist atheists."
I'm so picky about this because I used to do persuasive speaking for a living, and when canvassers talk to people at the door without actually listening to contacts and thinking about what they say... it shows, they do a shitty job as canvassers, they don't raise any money, and they get fired.
I feel to a certain extent that you're talking about politesse and claiming that it equates to argument in good faith. The most open-minded, listens-well canvasser is still not arguing from a position of potential conversion - heck, if they were convinced of the opposite argument, they'd also be fired (or have to quit) because they'd no longer be arguing for the side that hired them. I'm not saying that this is immoral, just that the function of canvassers DOES have a closed bias, at least on the topic they're canvassing in support of.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.
Date: 2011-03-15 06:40 pm (UTC)From:I'm sorry, I was hell of unclear. I meant that the people attacking atheists on those grounds aren't making that distinction, and thus defending it on that assumption results in a terms mismatch.
And I've personally seen all of the criteria you use here satisfied by pro-atheist arguments - very often online, occasionally in person. No, it's not 100%, or even the majority of people who are pro-atheist - but then, it's not actually 100%, or even the majority of pro-religion people. It sucks that that generalization gets made, and it's certainly unfair, but it's not a generalization coming out of nowhere, which is my objection to your original argument.
Also, I think it's worth pointing out that your definition of evangelism isn't the one commonly used by religious people, and I'm not sure it's a good idea to take your definition formed at least partially out of resentment at religious evangelism and apply it to the speech of people with positive perceptions of the value of evangelism. I don't think that it's unfair in all cases - vehemently "BOTH OF YOU JUST SHUT UP, CARING ABOUT THINGS IS STUPID" types might very well have that definition attached to it, but it's not universal.
As far as your three numbered points, I largely agree, although I feel that picking on Jehovah's witnesses is a little problematic. Yes, they're annoying as hell, but they're also, by and large, perfectly willing to debate things out with you till the cows come home, and usually politely. It's very unlikely you'll convince them, but that's not (always) a lack of good faith - it's that they've thought about it, come to a different conclusion than you, and they aren't obliged to see your position as special any more than you're obliged to convert to their position.
It's also worth pointing out that evangelical sects make up a severe (although not vanishingly so) minority within Christianity; I'd be surprised if it was a larger minority proportionately than "evangelist atheists."
I feel to a certain extent that you're talking about politesse and claiming that it equates to argument in good faith. The most open-minded, listens-well canvasser is still not arguing from a position of potential conversion - heck, if they were convinced of the opposite argument, they'd also be fired (or have to quit) because they'd no longer be arguing for the side that hired them. I'm not saying that this is immoral, just that the function of canvassers DOES have a closed bias, at least on the topic they're canvassing in support of.