my question is this (help me understand):
if atheists hold a nullset of theistic beliefs, what is it that compels so many atheists to evangelize their position a la Dawkins or Dennett. your explanation, which i agree with, comes off as benign, diplomatic, neutral, etc. What about this nullset-belief drives many to approach aggressive (i’m not talking about violence) persuasion. for example, theists may pander their ideas because they believe they are required to. does having a nullset-belief or being a ‘true’ atheist require one to ‘convert’ others to adopt nullset? i realize this analogy blurs the line a little, but you see what i’m getting at. if this is hijacking the thread, then by all means. i really am interested to know what you think about this issue.
Politics. They are not acting as atheists per se, they are trying to influence the politcal landscape. I am not objecting to that practise. But it is not some philosophical war they are trying to win. It’s a political one.
The Religious Right, such as it exists in various incarnations (specific organisations) is not a religious group, it’s a lobbying group, in effect. A “mega-lobbyist”.
The (now defunct?) Moral Majority was literally that. It was a legal entity, the purpose of which wa to lobby the lawmakers.
do political agendas not stem from a group’s philosophies?
“i’m quite keen on the politics of persuading people of the virtues of atheism”- dawkins (11/06 Wired magazine)
i’m not disagreeing with the politicizing. but he’s talking about the virtues of atheism. at root, it’s more than politics, no? seems to me that’s what the driver is.
Faust is correct.
The religious Right don’t run TV adds saying “put your faith in Jesus or you’ll end up in hell”, which would be a religious message.
Instead, they run TV adds (or used to) saying “vote for Senator X, he’ll cut your taxes and get rid of all the homos in Washington”. While this message has resonance with right wing Christians it’s a political message, not a religious one.
of course. but this political persuasion and maneuvering is the continuation of philosophical assumptions/religious ideals by other means.
ataraxia,
If I tell you I’m keen on convincing you to not hit yourself in the head with a hammer, whatever pursuasive techniques I use are merely to point out the benefits of not hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. The “virtue” lies in getting you to put the hammer down…
very true. ok, i can understand that.
i guess theists just believe firmly that hitting themselves in the head with a hammer is a great idea
tentative, the hammer is a great example. It is simply out of concern for our fellow man/woman that we try to bring in reason to old superstition.
Currently I could see myself being labeled an evangelical atheist for at least the following two reasons:
1. I'm the son of an evangelical pastor. It is in my blood to have the desire to teach others of the truths that I understand about the world. I was always the most passionate of my siblings, friends, and peers in seeking out God and the 'big questions'. I have always had a desire to teach and reason with others about 'the big questions.' I firmly believe that religion has it all wrong, and I feel obligated to teach the world.
2. I am a closet atheist (or rather agnostic). Everyone one around me are Christians. Literally everyone except a few acquaintances. I can now see my agnostic reasoning and skepticism bleeding into conversations with Christian friends. I am SO SOLID in the many reasons why it is clear to me that, whether or not there is a God, when we talk of 'God' it is an anthropomorphic all-inclusive concept that mankind has developed and evolved over history.
I agree that there is political motivation with many an Atheist agenda, but honestly in my case, I simply feel repressed. I know that I will be a community outcast if I champion sound reason and disbelief in superstition. It makes me very sad.
I like the example of racism or slavery. Today, no one goes around saying that they are anti-slavery. Most people obviously are, but it would seem silly to do so. For a while there were abolitionists because the institution of slavery was such a massive monster to take down. The institution of slavery is nothing compared to the institution of religion. It will not go quietly and will take many more years than perhaps many of the philosophers of old expected. There are no more proclaimed ‘abolitionists’ because eventually the institution of slavery was broken down. It is just assumed now that most are anti-slavery. As long as religion exists, there will be Atheists, Brights, Freethinkers, whatever they might be labeled, fighting the good fight to tear down the institution of organized superstition… religion. Someday, it too will seem silly that there were people who actually had to go around claiming they were ‘anti-theists’ or anti-religion or anti-superstition. It really is silly today that people who simply don’t believe or doubt are labelled atheists or agnostics. We don’t have a name for disbelievers in Santa Claus. A anti-unicornist seems rediculous. 
Almost all of us are Zeus-Agnostics, but we don’t feel obligated to go around preaching to people about it because the Zeus Proponents aren’t running the world anymore.
As a Christian, I completely disagree with the approach you are taking. To be blunt, I think it displays poor character on your part to hide your beliefs whatever your motivation for doing so. You should state clearly, but not offensively, what you believe and not hide it from your friends and family. It takes courage. But surely a free-thinker like yourself will be up for that particular challenge?
Don’t worry that Christianity or the faith of Christians around you will crumble under the weight of your superior insight, I’m sure they’ll manage. And you may even cause them to take another look at why they believe and what they believe. And that’s always a good thing for a Christian.
If your friends and family shun you because of your atheism, then their behavior is decidedly unchrist-like and you should simply tell them so. A community that would behave in this manner is no community that you should want to be a part of.
It’s never a good thing to keep your deepest convictions to yourself. You are denying yourself one of the most important parts of life - a true community where your thinking and ideas can be explored and developed.
Ned,
You’re right is the ideal sense, but sometimes prudence is the wiser choice. It’s a curious thing about religious communities, disagreement is rarely honored. Disagreement is more often met with shunning or outright excommunication. In fact, we wouldn’t have the word excommunication if it weren’t for religion. 
But your point is well taken. One needs to act on their beliefs. At the same time one must not alienate all those around themselves if possible. Finding the middleground isn’t easy.
Thanks Ned. Though, it is a tougher predicament than it may seem to you. It is just not that simple. I am however, always inserting ‘little points’ of reason in conversation and people can definitely tell that I have given my ‘faith’ a great deal of thought.
It may come to a head though. I have dreams of starting an ‘freethinkers’ group or kind of agnostic philosophy bible-study. We’ll just have to wait and see. 
That seems to sidestep the question in generalities. Even if it is to change the political landscape, it’s a bent to change that landscape toward atheism. So the question remains: Why do atheists have to be aggressive about pushing their beliefs / nonbeliefs?
This question is mainly why I consider Atheism to be a religion. I don’t think that religions need to be quiet and tell everyone believe what you want. People have ideals about how the world should be. Ultimately, what religion you practice does have effect on society, even if it’s as minor as a police officer insisting he should wear his turban because otherwise it’s discrimination.
The reason why we don’t start wars over beliefs is because we generally feel others believe silly things that have only trivial results. And of course there are rights some of us believe shouldn’t be overstepped (eg: If your beliefs are shown in the form of information only, you have the freedom of speach).
But the atheist anger probably relates to anger toward fascism. They don’t want another Nazi holocaust . . . or another Bush administration. But I’d debate wheather resorting to violence on the grounds of atheism would solve more problems than it would create.
I’d debate whether it is even possible to commit violence on the grounds of a disbelief in something. Violence may be committed for a belief in something, but not a disbelief. Do you see?
Someone can claim to want to annihilate all religions, violently… but they are not committing violence based on their disbelief, they are committing it based on the belief that they feel threatened by religion, or they are seeking power, or etc. etc. any reason that someone would commit a violent act.
Violence is wrong period. Ghandi had it all figured out.
I do not want to evangelize atheism because of my disbelief in God. That doesn’t make sense. I want to evangelize because of my belief that the world is better off without superstition. I believe the world will be a better place without the negative affects of religion. However, factors such as community, service, support are an important contributions of religion that must be preserved.
Gaiagorilla,
Well, just for starters, people who want to kill me as they blow themselves into paradise could probably stand a little bit of a challenge to their beliefs. But on a different note, non-believers have no particular reason to not challenge irrational beliefs just because they are “religious”. Why is it OK to challenge the killing of people when the motive is territorial or political gain, but isn’t OK when the motives are “religious beliefs”? The breaking of the tabboo of speaking out against religion is not only common sense, but necessary in a world filled with religion-driven violence.