Is This Too Over the Top for an Atheist?

I personally think the banner on the roof of his car, parking near a church, is a bit much. And I’m as atheist as an atheist can be (if that makes any sense).

It is a little Westboro-ish to be so confrontational. I personally would have left it at the vanity license plate and “Call me” note, and that’s it. Hell, I’m even thinking of making my own bumper sticker mentioning atheism in some way.

However, this could be his shtick, so to speak. He could easily make this his “thing” where he goes around his neighborhood, then his state, then perhaps the country, standing up for atheism and sparking debate nationwide. This could turn into a huge deal… IF he made it his “thing”.

Not sure if that makes any sense or not. I’m pretty tired and/or hungover. 😉

I think its a bit too much. This is the kind of thing that fuels evangelicals to call atheism a religion. I dont like the idea of calling his website the “atheist evangelical” because it sets the wrong tone right away. While I understand his intentions to spark a conversation I think he may be going about it the wrong way, the way that religious people would. I do consider myself a “new atheist” for what is worth, but I don’t think this helps atheism one bit, all it does is validate the evangelicals assumptions about atheists.

My main problem with Xianity in the US is how many of them are zealots. I don’t think a zealous aetheist is going to change that dynamic.

To say it’s comparable to the WBC, I think, is too much. The WBC doesn’t calmly, peacefully try to share their views or give people a way to understand them. All they do is insult people, tell them they’re going to hell, and making many people’s lives a living hell (like the families at the dead soldiers’ funerals). I don’t dislike the WBC for trying to inform others of their beliefs or views, I dislike them because they don’t care about that, all they care about is hurting others.

Now, as for whether or not what Stewart is doing could be seen as going too far, I don’t think so. He doesn’t have a sign that says “You’re an idiot for believing” or “I’m an atheist, fuck you,” he has a sign that says “I’m an atheist, ask me why.” He’s not physically getting in their way, he’s not going up to them (or their children) and handing out free copies of Dawkin’s “the God Delusion” (not to make it sound like that’s the atheist’s Bible), he’s not even yelling or chanting at them. He’s just sitting there, asking people to indulge in their curiosity. If more religious people did that (quietly sitting at places with a sign that says “I’m [insert woo here], ask me why” and not yelling or being annoying), it would bother me. But what most religious people do is make noise and actively get in your way (I’m sorry, but I don’t like it when someone just shoves their beliefs or books in my face), if not something worse (which is what the WBC does).

Going back to the WBC, they’re just assholes. They take advantage of the 1st amendment to insult and hurt people who disagree with them. Doug Stewart isn’t yelling at the church goers, hell, he’s trying to be as close as possible without being a nuisance. The moment he starts holding signs insulting or threatening the church goers, and the moment he starts yelling at them, that’s when he becomes just like the WBC and is going too far.

I don’t see how his actions are at all comparable to the WBC. They promote hate and revel in others suffering. Doug is promoting a dialogue in a legal manner.

If he wants to express himself this way, more power to him.

He should remember that all the basic rules that move along WBC are going to move him along and he’ll end up having to deal with police (who hopefully are as polite as this officer was) enforcing minor laws. Maybe he should read up on the traffic manual so he’ll know acceptable places to park.

That said, as someone who used to attend church, once those doors opened, I just wanted to get on with my church-free day. He might get more conversation if he parks near the restaurants or cafes where the post-church crowd goes. He’d have more parking options and could support a local business.

I don’t know how likely it is that church goers will pay much attention. I would think the larger impact would be in locations where the herd insulation and social support is not as easily available. Ultimately, it isn’t a bad idea to learn from organizations that have successful evangelical traditions.

Have you guys considered that maybe instead of making atheists out of them, he can get them to be more understanding and less hateful towards us?

Deconversion doesn’t HAVE to be the main goal in everything we do. I mean sure, it’s nice, but I think it’s more important that we get religious people to understand, at first, rather than go for the goal of deconversion right out of the… starting line…

How did that turn into a sports metaphor?

I would find it just as obnoxious as JW’s coming to my door selling me religion.

Personally I think this is fantastic, he is not attacking anyone, or being insulting. He is making himself available to anyone who has questions. I dont think he will result in any conversions but if anyone takes the time to learn his position a little better then this is worth it. I have thought about hosting a happy hour myself to do something similar, to encourage conversation and answer questions that people may have.

Personally, I think it’s a little too much. It’s really not necessary to sit outside churches and “preach” or “witness” atheism to anyone. For one, I think that atheists have a reputation of laying a little low and “converting” people through logic and reason in an environment where they might be more accepted. Doing this kind of thing is about as far as one can be from being in an accepting environment and is clearly done to stir the pot. Secondly, anyone coming out of a church is probably about the least likely to be convinced that their faith is wrong.

About as far as I’ll personally go is the FSM Jolly Pirate Fish sticker on the back of my car. Which is only recognized by fellow non-believers.

That sign is lowering his gas mileage. And he’s gonna need a new phone number. Perhaps a new car and a new place to live in the not too distant future. People who are insecure in their beliefs, as most christians are, are not going to view his actions as simply exercising his right to free expression. They will take it as a personal affront, and eventually someone will retaliate harshly.

I like his sign, his license plate, and the fact that he is happy to talk with people that want to talk with thim about atheism. I even like that he will contact preachers, priests, ministers, etc. and offer totalk to the congregations. However, the part I have a problem with is going to the churches. I see it as being analogous with going to a atheist meeting and standing outside and passing out pamphlets. No matter how polite you are, I would feel put-upon.

It’s very Jesus-esque. If Jesus hung out with sinners because that’s where his message was needed most then an evangelical atheist should hang around dens of un-reason to offer a way out.

If WBC went to funerals of gay soldiers and were as civil as this no-one would care that much. Driving past someone who is quietly saying “I think being gay is a sin, ask me why” would not get national press coverage.

It sounds like it wasn’t done right with traffic safety in mind, just move to some place where you’re allowed to park.

I think that kind of evangelism is undesirable of any belief set. A lot of it people have every right to do, but I don’t know if it really does anything but turn people off.

BTW: regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses, isn’t there a standard sign that you can put near the house entry to tell people you’re not taking uninvited sales pitches? Like “no soliciting” or something like that. Maybe door-to-door selling was something acceptable in the last century, I just don’t see how it’s socially acceptable anymore.

I certainly would not engage in this type of social theater, but I like his chutzpah. I was approached by born-agains constantly when I was in college. Minding my own business, drinking a Snapple and pow, “Have you heard about the gospel of Jesus Christ?” It was really irritating, just like door-to-door sales people. Maybe a friendly dose of their own medicine is what some Christians need. No one likes to have their day interrupted by an unsolicited sermon.

I wouldn’t be quick to assume that there isn’t anyone receptive to his message.

I’d bet a good deal of money on the idea that someone is going to church because they have to or because they feel like they ought to in order to please someone. Having him outside with his little banner probably serves the same function as the “Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone” billboards. Even if he never, ever gets contacted, it’s reassuring.

I’d be willing to alienate 10 believers, who probably never would have had a good opinion of atheists anyway, if it means a closet atheist doesn’t feel isolated.

Wow, there are some harsh self-hating atheists here.

re Phelps – if you think that the problem with Phelps is that he’s discussing religion near secular events, you need a big help catching the clue train

re Jehovah’s Witnesses – yeah right, like the problem with them is that they’re advocating their religion. Coming door-to-door, interrupting our days and refusing to engage in a rational discussion has nothing to do with it. Please. The comparison seems badly out of touch.

re “no point” – man, what a defeatist! Exposing people to new views, being open about unusual or socially unfamiliar/unacceptable views creates tolerance and acceptance, creating an example are all perfectly good, valuable reasons for this. Just like gay rights, atheists are going to be accepted when people learn that there are atheists in their community and they are normal, polite people. By merely being visible & polite, he’s doing a big service.

Good for him! I hope he keeps it up! For most xtians in that area, the mere existance of an atheist is offensive, there is no reason to placate them it won’t help anyway.

I can’t believe you put his actions in the same sentence as Westboro! Phelps is not offensive because he goes where he’s not wanted! If that was all he did, it wouldn’t bother anyone. He’s offensive because he screams and has signs that say GOD HATES FAGS and THANK GOD FOR DEAD SOLDIERS- at funerals. Last I checked, funerals are full of hurt people mourning, and disrupting them with screaming hatred is one of the rudest actions one can take.

This is not even close to being the same as standing quietly, at distance, with a polite sign that says “I’m an athesit, do you have any questions for me”. He was outside a CHURCH, an appropriate place for such questions, unlike praising the death of a person at their funeral!!!

I think what he’s doing is great, polite, and necessary.We wouldn’t be offended is a xtian did the same thing outside a Dawkins talk, as long as they were polite. He is NOT being pushy either- when a nuetral car sign,and cards makes you pushy,we’ve got issues!

He has balls of steel for putting himself out there in this way. I hope I get an opportunity to meet him and take him to dinner and drinks- he deserves it.

He’s probably better off now that all those Catholics will be praying for him.

quick answer to question 1:

Unless it was a funeral service, then no. not as bad as westboro baptist church.

Epic troll is epic.

Also, he wasn’t helping himself by calling the priest “Pastor.”

Yes, too much.

Let people live their lives. I hate proselytizing atheists just as much as hate proselytizing Christians.

I’m fine engaging in discussions in the proper forum or political discourse, but to seek them out is too aggressive.

I want them to keep their religion out of my secular life, and I’ll keep my secular views away from their church

Too over the top for an atheist? I didn’t know atheists were defined by NOT being over the top. Too over the top for a person with a certain view? Perhaps. Still, I’m sure we all agree that it is his right. I’m not particularly upset myself… I did find the pastors reaction amusing though. It’s a bit like take the fight to the frontlines instead of hanging back politely in the background.

Every little bit helps. If they are talking about this as much as we are, it is a great thing.

I personally wouldn’t put a sign on the top of my truck, but I’m cool with everything else he is doing.

I met Doug when I lived in the area at a few NOSHA events. He seems like a really good guy and I have to give him credit this is the kind of thing I have thought about doing for a while. I don’t see a comparison to Westboro. There is a big difference between standing somewhere and wanting to engage in a conversation and what they do. I would not try it in a place like Laplace at a Baptist church. I used to work out there and I could see them getting violent. Good, bad, or neutral? I don’t know.

If this was outside an evangelical church in any other country, there would be scores of churchgoers more than happy to engage in conversation. (you know.. the same ones who don’t think that ‘atheists can’t be good people’)

some slowed down to stare at me and did the sign of the cross on their bodies

Amazing. The medieval magical gesture to ward off evil magic whenever something demonic is encountered. Walk into that church and ask what is today’s date. They’ll look at you a little curiously, and say, “It’s May 12, 1010 of course.”

I think what Doug is doing is perfectly fine. We need to normalize atheism. If Father Calkins stood outside City Hall or a large business building with a sign that said, “Hi, I’m a priest. Do you have any questions for me?” very few people would think that’s over-the-top, or somehow an outrageously inappropriate way to share his views and advertise his services. I admire Doug’s courage, because there is an uncertain amount of risk to what he is doing.

And that is because fearful people are dangerous people. It is fear, not anger that is the root of the hostility theists hold for atheists.

I think most Christians’ faith is extremely fragile. That’s why they keep going to church every week to prop up their crumbling belief like a tottering ruin. I suspect that there are as many secret nonbelievers sitting there in those pews as there are outside. They’re just afraid of the social penalties they’ll face for telling the truth.

Then they all walk out of the church, and there’s Doug standing outside their Belief Booster Shot Clinic and essentially saying,

“Hi. I drive a nice car, wear nice clothes, and smile and wave politely. I’m apparently smart, sane and solvent, and I don’t believe any of that stuff that you’re trying so hard to believe.”

It’s his normalcy that is the threat. He doesn’t look like some lunatic, or drunk, or criminal who can be dismissed at a glance. He’s normal looking.

The parishioners’ basic reaction is fear, regardless of how it is outwardly expressed. The fragile believers are threatened by the implications of a nonbeliever who is obviously not a degenerate monster, and the secret nonbelievers walking alongside are afraid they’ll be exposed, that it will somehow show in their faces.

I doubt that Doug will get anyone to talk to him right there on the sidewalk unless they’re screaming threats. Nobody will want to be seen by the others speaking politely to him. But by being there like that, he’s helping to make our mere existence normal, harmless and acceptable.

I don’t think it’s that bad. He wasn’t rude, he asked permission first, he obeyed all local laws, he didn’t confront anyone.

I don’t think he’ll convert anyone, but he will raise awareness about the existence of atheists.

We tend to be a mostly silent and hidden group (unless we’re on the internet), which makes us easy to ignore.

We may all have our point of view. But we cannot treat “atheism” as a religion and try to persuade people. As long as we fight to keep religion out of government, fine. But, people’s ideals, ridiculous as they may seem, have to be respected. . . As Long As, they do not interfere with public matters.

We do not like it when religious people try to shove their beliefs down our throats. . .So we should not do that either. It sinks us to their level.

Atheists do not have a fixed set of beliefs, except for not believing in any supernatural being or deity. We all vary on opinions, what one atheist may find moral, another may find immoral.

@ MikeTheInfidel,

I get that a lot from people who want to just be atheist and not have to preach it or stand out.

I personally do not “peacock” atheism, but once in awhile I like to. It is intimidating to hear others disapprove of people’s passions for non-religion. I enjoy reading about it and talking about it, just like I do playing Wii. It can be someone’s hobby. I wish non-believers would stop telling other non-believers how to go about not believing.

I support what he’s trying to do, personally I’m tired of religious groups handing out bibles on my campus, typically there’s 4 different churches vying for your attention on my community college campus. Raising awareness and showing that atheists aren’t deranged evil people (as some of the more religious people like to think we are) can’t be a negative thing. As long as he stays respectful and polite about it, I see no problem with the way he’s going about what he’s doing.

Too bad Doug didn’t run into a cop that didn’t care about his free speech rights and run him in for disorderly conduct. It would have made for an interesting news story. I would have loved to get the priest’s comments on TV along with Doug’s. I also imagine Doug would have gotten his bail paid many times over by atheist supporters too.

@Miko – big cars and trucks reduce visibility for other drivers. How is the actual presence of a billboard even an issue?

@ Steven – I suspect that is exactly it. Those who are the most uncertain in their faith are the most bothered by the suggestion that they may be wrong and are the most diligent about insulating themselves against doubt. They surround themselves only with those who believe and act exactly as they do and all others are unwelcome. Terribly sad.

Like most here, it’s not something I would do (or I’d be doing it). However, I think it’s great that Doug is “evangelizing” for atheism. I hope people take him up on his offer of discussion. He might not change anyone’s mind, but secret non-believers may feel less isolated and it’s important that atheists become more visible in the common culture.

…so polite….

I considered doing the atheist prosletyzing after I was hit with a bolt out of the blue; the overwhelming realization that there isn’t a supreme being and then feeling an almost Kubler-Ross sense of death; Denial, anger, barganing and depression which for me happened over a couple of days and then an acceptance and almost a “spiritual experience” from my frontal cortex that made me feel that everyone deserves to know the truth. Very similar to religious experiences. Later, as I felt grounded in godlessness and examined my life experiences being raised as an orthodox RC I slowly became more and more outraged that these inane fallacies are being perpertrated on my young nieces and nephews and then there was rage. I can see putting a sign on the car and handing out pamphlets and explaining the word of science to people who might be on the fence as someone mentioned; there at church because the wife or husband or family has always blindly done so. This man is a bright light for all of us who ache for people we know and love to realize and live each day for each other and not in obeisance of religion.

re-door-to-door preachers (is there a more proper word for them): I had some knock on my door a while back and they said “We would like to tell you the good news about Jesus Christ!”
I replied, “Already heard it, thanks.” and closed the door.
The looks on their faces was priceless.

I admittedly have not read all of the comments here, but I think that Doug is difference from WBC in that he was polite about his activism and that he did not harass anyone or attempt to approach someone who was obviously uninterested.

I don’t know that showing up near churches with signs about atheism is good for atheism, but I think that the attitude with which it was done (polite, courteous, legal, contacting the church ahead of time) is good for atheism. Doug is passionate about atheism just like some people are passionate about christ, and he demonstrated that passion in an acceptable way.

As a Cajun atheist, I have to say: yes. He should definitely keep it up. Louisiana desperately needs it.

Is this sort of activism good, bad, or neutral for atheism? To atheists: good. To the religious: bad. To those who just don’t give a shit: neutral. All-in-all, time will tell.

Is he at all comparable to Westboro Baptist Church, exercising his First Amendment rights by showing up precisely where he is not wanted? Pretty much, yes. :/

He sounds a lot less intrusive than the guys handing bibles out on college campuses. He’s even less intrusive than the guys who go around actively debating people on college campuses.

I’d say he’s just trying to tell people what he’s about, but not trying to cram it down their throats. Neato!

It’s not something I would do (I live in a little liberal pocket city surrounded by the religious South so there is a fair amount of freethining here) but I don’t think it was too confrontational in the sense that he was really respectful and even gave the pastors fair warning.
The cops were correct in this case that he has free speech and is on public property.
This shouldn’t be any more offensive to anyone than the holier-than-thou sayings on church marquees. At least this guy seems to want to have a *discussion*.

would like to ad that he CAN accomplish something positive with this. Many church goers (especially young people) have “never met” an atheist- as in they have never had a conversation about atheism with someone who is openly nontheistic- even though they have certainly spoken with someone who is atheist and just didn’t know it. He could do some serious positive representing for us. Someone may see that people can be kind w/o religion and that’s a big deal to me.

I proposed to my local atheist group that we go to all area churches so they could meet an atheist IRL, see that we weren’t evil, and learn a thing or two about us in the hopes the ignorance and hate would subdue a bit. We decided against it for whatever reasons (I can’t remember why and no, I’m not biter…really. Not biter at all.)
Anyway, this seems to be a similar type action and I applaud it.
Would I do it myself?
Hell yes…but I’d be drunk and wearing a bikini.

Ha! I love this guy. He’s my next New Orleans tourist attraction. 🙂

A guy stands in an area where he knows believers will be walking by, saying ‘Hi, i’m here if you’d like to ask me any questions’……no condemnations, no shoving pamphlets in peoples’ faces…..

I’m at a loss to see what could be described as being ‘too over the top’ about such a gesture.

Ooh, offering a conversation to anyone who wants one (and only to those who want one)…..scary stuff!

Jeff P… do my eyes deceive me, or is that the Jesus art from injokester’s collection on stripcreator.com? Now there’s a blast from the past…

On the topic… Well, I would never be game to do what Doug has done, but I have an immense amount of respect for him. I have seen plenty of Christians push their faith in far less respectful ways, and I see no issue with his behaviour. I also commend him on being so respectful and law-abiding.

A lot of things that Christians do would seem a bit freaky when done by atheists, and would no doubt cause godbothering freakouts were we to engage in them Imagine if atheists rocked up in pairs to know on your door on a Sunday morning, all smiley in their neat suits, wanting to share the good words of Richard Dawkins.

If nothing else, Doug’s actions illustrate the double standard in the community – that some Christians feel entitled to be creepy and pushy – and I think that’s a good thing.

Holding up a mirror so your opponent can see how ridiculous he looks is never a bad thing.

DexX,

Yes that image (minus the halo) is from injokester’s collection at Stripcreator.com.

I’ve also used a couple of your images in some comics as well.

like in this.

I’d ask him what is that sign doing for MPG? 😛

I totally support Doug. I have been preached upon many times, people still bring religious magazines to my door.

I wish there were atheist missionaries visiting my home many years ago when I lost my family to jehova’s witnesses.

Ever time I have the opportunity I “preach” my atheism. And I am very proud.

I wouldn’t do it, partly because I’d be afraid of violent backlash, but mostly because I really want to respect believers. They can believe anything they want, so long as they keep their beliefs out of the schools and the government. (I know, I know.) It just feels wrong to go to their church. Like Westboro.

All that said, I admire the courage it took, and I can never tell someone else what they can or can’t, should or shouldn’t say. Free speech, you know?

I would prefer it if he was doing something a little more constructive. For example, instead of “Ask me a question?” he could start up a simple website where he could post relevant information about common doubts, and about how to deal with telling family and leaving the church. Have the sign say, “Having doubts? Visit www…….”

This way, instead of being in-your-face for the sake of it (though there are certainly other motivations, they’re just not clear — especially to the church-goers), it would provide an anonymous way for doubters to get more information and support.

Hey, at least he didn’t build a big building professing his beliefs, stick a big symbol on top, and ring a bell every week. You’d have to be a real big prick to do that.

I think I completely support Doug. Whilst I personally don’t have the guts to do something like that, I definitely think there is a place for people like Doug. He was completely non-confrontational, he began by attempting to open a dialogue with the priest at the church who was incredibly rude with his response. His message was simple, non-denigrating, and inviting others to increase their knowledge – never a bad thing.

This is all in complete opposition to the WBC lot who seek simply to offend, and never to have an open dialogue.

It is real simple. Atheists do not proselytize.

The reason I do not think this crosses the westboro line at all is everything He has on his car in view of everyone is just talking about himself. He has no signs making claims about anyone else, not even the sign says the usual there probably isn’t a god, it just says I am an atheist, which I feel kept this from going to far. He didn’t confront anyone, and didn’t attack anyone in his message, no words of hate at all.

Matt Stone:

Evangelist, maybe. Fundamentalist, no, that would imply some sort of dogma, which is absent in this case. And what is so crass about his message? “Ask me about my atheism”?…

Can we call atheism a religion yet, now that you are the ones with the placards preaching at us?

He didn’t preach at anyone, just stood there.

Is he at all comparable to Westboro Baptist Church, exercising his First Amendment rights by showing up precisely where he is not wanted?

Yes and no. He is intentionally being provocative towards a group he knows disagrees with him. However, his signs state information about himself in a neutral way instead of about others in a negative way, so in that sense, he is nothing like the WBC. Additionally, the WBC clearly has no intentions of having a reasoned and thoughtful conversation with the people they encounter whereas all indications suggest that this gentleman is willing to hear other people out.

Is this sort of activism good, bad, or neutral for atheism?

It’s irrelevant. People may define atheism a certain way but all it is, is a lack of belief in a god or gods. I’m also a non-musician but no one judges all non-musicians based on my behavior. The more atheist individuals use terms that suggest we are all unified in some way the harder it is for people to understand how it differs from religious belief and other dogma. Questions like this can be safely dismissed out of hand.

Should he do this again? If so, near other churches or denominations?

It depends on why he wants to do it. It doesn’t appear to be a particularly effect tool as he hasn’t actually been engaged by anyone other than an angry pastor and a few waving passers-by. On the one hand, I get a little Mr. Burns-ish style glee knowing that it riled up the pastor but at the same time, it seems like much ado for no payout. But in terms of what the individual gets from it, if he’s not hurting anyone, if he’s enjoying it and if he’s following all applicable laws, then I say, have at it.

> Or bald a hair style.

Yeah. Because bald people go around standing outside barber’s shops with pickets.

In fact, they set up websites where they unquestioningly parrot the words of their great leader Richard Baldin’, suggesting that having hair is a virus.

You’re right. That doesn’t sound like a religion. It sounds more like a cult.

One part of me thinks “What a attention whore”, the other part of me thinks “Well, kids could see him, then at least start thinking about there being no god”. My visceral reaction still is one of douchiness though, and it’s hard for me to not see this as self-defeating because of how many people are gonna see this guy as a loser. Like really, you’re gonna call this random dude on the street because you’re doubting your religious beliefs? More likely: You’re gonna call this guy because you’re pissed off at him.

I think as Atheists, too, we have an inherent disrespect for anyone who drinks the kool-aid this much about ANYTHING, even causes we agree with. We all know there are crazy Atheists too.

Tough to quantify his impact positive or negative, but I wouldn’t want to hang out with the guy.

I like him. Go, Doug! If all Christians and Muslims ever did was stand around with a “do you want to talk to me?” sign, I’d be pretty happy about it.

Thank you all sooooooooooo much for your comments. Thanks also to everyone that called me. Judging from the number of comments alone atheist proselytizing/godless evangelism is a controversial subject, even amongst the free thought community.

I’ve done an extremely unscientific analysis of the comments and I estimate them to be about a third either neutral or negative, (this is roughly split down the middle), and just about two thirds positive. Hey, with a two-thirds majority Congress can go to war! So, as a “fundamentalist atheist” I have permission to fly a building into a plane right?

Anyway, I’d like to take this opportunity to rebut a few of the criticisms.

As you’ve probably picked up, I’m a great advocate for atheist proselytizing/godless evangelism. Evangelical Christianity is the only religion that’s gaining ground in this country, and the reason for that is in the word “Evangelical”. So the argument that I’m “just like the religious” in that respect is exactly true. Religions have had thousands of years to evolve the extremely effective viral thought mechanisms that they have today. Not learning from the opposition’s ‘play book’ is insane!

However, there’s a difference between using religious tactics and calling atheism a religion. Apart from the obvious illogic of a non-belief in something being a “religion” which implies that we’re all “religiously” non-Zeus, non-Jupiter, non-Thor believers, why isn’t anyone that stands up for say, women’s rights ever accuse the feminist movement of being “a religion”? I also happen to be a fanatical LA Laker fan, but it’s a stretch to say that I’m a Kobe Bryant worshipper. (However, my wife would disagree.) It’s simply because it’s a knee-jerk reaction to accuse a protester of being exactly what they’re protesting against. (That’s why the Ted Haggard and more recently George Rekers stories are classical!) For example, feminists are often accused of just being ‘anti-men’.

The ‘purpose’ of this exercise was to: –

1. Show the most religious in the community that atheists exist. – Showing they’re ‘normal’, maybe even likable, is a bonus.
2. Engage in dialog with theists and give them some “reason” to think.
3. Become known in the community so if anyone wants to talk to an atheist, they know where to go.

From only my most recent experiences, I think I’m achieving all three of those.

As much as I would like it, a Christian leaving a church service and having a chat with an atheist and then loosing his/her faith would be a ‘miracle’! (This would prove there is a god.) So that ‘purpose’ isn’t even on the list. But maybe it’ll be ‘chipping away at a mountain’, ‘the little engine that could’, or maybe even the ‘straw that broke the camels back’? (Too many metaphors eh?)

The goal of the activity is that maybe, when these people enter the voting booth and vote for a politician that’s going to take away gay’s rights to marry/serve openly in the military, women’s rights to choose, stem cell research, death with dignity, evolution in the classroom, separation of church and state, and do it with uncontested certainty that it’s the ‘Will of God’, that certainty wouldn’t have been so uncontested. It’s funny that if I was demonstrating against any one of the above issues I’ve mentioned no one would bat an eyelid. But as I’m demonstrating against the belief that causes those issues, that becomes an issue.

The argument that “religious people can believe what they want” (of course they can) “as long as they keep it out of my secular life” is also bogus, because they DON’T do they? The other argument of “why bother” is equally lazy with the irritating stench of defeatism. It’s like a black person attacking Rosa Parks for ‘causing unrest’ when she said “no” to sitting in the back of the buss.

I do have a web site http://www.godlessevangelist.com but my own personal view is that the internet ‘battle’ has been pretty much won by the atheist perspective. People like Hemant, and PZ do a much better job than I ever could. I loved Thunderfoot’s video “The Internet – Where Religions Come to Die”. His point that religious belief requires community so it is not viral in the one-on-one interaction of a person and a computer. In that environment, people are forced to think for themselves. That’s why I want to focus on the ‘real’ world and enter the belly of the beast, ride into the valley of death, sail towards the mouth of the monster, (okay, that’s enough metaphor again), and talk to people where we can see each other’s body language and facial expressions… like humans used to do.

I called the top clergyman a Pastor because on the churches website, http://www.maryqueenofpeace.org/contact.html , he refers to himself as Pastor Rev. Ronald Calkins. Then in his email reply to me he refers to himself as Father Ronald Calkins. So, I have no clue!

Lastly, @Ifiguresomeonewillreadthis I hope I’m quoting you out of context when you say “The game must be played by rules already established. If this doesn’t work, then we must turn to violence. And when that doesn’t work, then we use more violence until it does.” WTF?

I’m interested in social psychology, especially when it involves religion. I’m specifically interested in why religious belief has a free pass in society. My theory is that just as genes are analogous to memes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme as biological and cultural replicators, the biological phenomena known as ‘allelopathy’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allelopathy, where plants emit toxins that inhibit the growth of other plants, religion emits ‘toxins’ into the cultural system that ‘inhibit the growth’ of reason by making it ‘uncomfortable’ to dismiss or even question the irrational beliefs in it’s presence. This applies to theists and atheists (as evident from the comments) alike. Anyway, I thought I’d do a social experiment where I ‘plant a seed’ of atheism in ‘soil’ where one would think it would immediately die off. That’s outside a Church after Sunday morning worship.

So’ I’m definitely going to not only do this again, but make a regular community occurrence out of it.

Just looking at this from a purely PR or promotional perspective, I would ask if the effort is getting any results. And by “results” I mean “converts” or new members to local freethought groups. In sum, is it working?

Of course this assumes that Doug’s goals and mine would be the same. But perhaps Doug has a different purpose. If so, what is it, exactly? What does he hope to accomplish?

Because if the goal is to increase the number of local organized atheists, a traditional church is simply the wrong place to find that audience. In which case I would regard Doug’s strategy as “bad marketing.” He should prefer locales where unorganized nontheists might be more in abundance, and more willing to talk–such as political rallies populated by lefties and libertarians (as just one example), or UU churches (as another). I mean, if he’s going to put in the time, he may as well try to maximize his recruitment stats.

If any of those church people were questioning religion, they could easily go on the internet or to the library and explore the issues. Atheism isn’t some big secret, and a man outside a church with a sign seems a bit pointless. I wouldn’t want someone holding a religious sign outside of my secular group meetings. That doesn’t mean that they don’t have the right, but it seems pointless.I honestly don’t see anyone changing their minds because of it– especially when the people he is targeting are leaving church. Plus, most church goers probably wouldn’t want to look bad in front of the other people leaving church by talking honestly about atheism.