NOTICE:

[xenologer]

LGBT activism isn't about creating more gay people; it's about supporting and advocating for the ones who're here. Still, atheist activism is framed (by people who aren't doing it) as evangelism. We don't care about converting you; we're just... out. Get over it.

Jeez.

Comments

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[count-fenring.livejournal.com]

I am, and did in my entry.

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.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[virginia-fell.livejournal.com]

I already conceded to you that there are atheists who use the shitty evangelism-style attempts at persuasion, so I'm not going to sit here and argue it with you. What I'm saying is that I'm sick and fucking tired of talking about them and having to answer for them at the most random goddamn times. I'm not saying that they're all a myth; I'm saying that they don't have to be the center of every conversation.

And yet! There is no conversation into which it won't be injected by somebody. There is no conversation atheists can have for or about each other that won't have this brought into it, whether it makes any topical sense or not.

You know how this rant all started for me a couple days ago? Greta Christina posted the entry I linked you about how people who are advocating on behalf of atheists absolutely must make more of an effort to be more welcoming to women and people of color. This is not because there need to be more woman and POC atheists, but because there already are plenty and nobody sees them in a predominantly white and male movement. Then she put out a request for blogs by atheist women and POC so that she could give them some specific attention and get them some better representation.

There is absolutely no way that this could be construed as being some kind of fucking atheist evangelism recruitment drive. At least... no honest way. And yet, somebody replied to this to state that if they wanted to get involved in organized evangelism, they would have stayed religious and "would be a fucking Mormon."

So when I get frustrated that every single conversation atheists have gets derailed to be about this shit, I do mean every conversation. It's not just the ones which are about talking to non-atheists about atheism, or the ones about dismantling the grotesquely-oversized privilege and special status that religious institutions have, or even the ones about other religions and how some of us just plain think they're silly.

I was just in a conversation which was literally centered on how to give diverse races and genders and orientations who are already atheist fair representation, and somebody was so used to the "shut the atheists up by calling everything they do evangelism" card, that we got hit with it again even though it was in no way germane to the conversation.

I'm sick of this. "Oh, atheists are talking again. EVANGELIZERS!"

I'm annoyed for the same reason that I would get annoyed if my efforts at supporting LGBT people, or other women, or POC, or poor people, or whoever, all got reframed as me shoving my values down some poor bystander's throat. Why? Because it isn't always about those other people, no matter how badly they think they need to make it about them.

Just for once ever I would like a conversation started about us hanging together and sticking up for each other to stay about that for any length of time, rather than turning into how best to appease theists. There is always somebody who apparently can't stand to allow a conversation to occur about atheists supporting other atheists without making it about our relations with non-atheists. It's always somebody.

Now, the point is not that you've done this terrible awful thing, but that it becomes terrible and awful when atheists get hit with it every single time. It's exhausting, to have to fight in every single conversation just to get the smallest acknowledgement that it is even slightly legitimate for atheists to try and create a support system for other atheists. Never mind talking about how best to do it; it never seems like we're allowed to get that far. Why? Because before that point, someone comes in and derails and then we end up having to have the same conversation for the hundredth time about how everybody thinks we're assholes for good reason because look at us here evangelizing.

This is why it's a sore spot, and this is why you have atheists griping in this thread. We're tired of having this conversation, especially when we set out trying to have a different one. It's like this is the only conversation non-atheists want us able to have, and it's frustrating.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[count-fenring.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry for contributing to the irritation, and I'll drop it. I get way easily caught up in point-by-point dissection, and miss the larger point, and I feel like I've done that here.

I'm very sorry.

Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.

[count-fenring.livejournal.com]

Also, feel free to ignore and/or not unscreen the other post I just made - it was made prior to reading this entry or making the immediately previous response.