I think I finally figured out why Christians are pissed of at "new athiests.

[Binkie The Clown]

It's simply because "new atheists" behave pretty much the same way "old Christians" behave, pushing their point of view into your face whether you want to listen or not. It's nothing more than jealousy because we stole their shtick, and turned it on them. Payback is a bitch. The only big difference is that we don't go door to door passing out atheist literature. Maybe we should. Maybe we really should be more aggressive in our quest to bring intellectual enlightenment to a world victimized by the scam that is religion.

[Lordquinton]

1. That's why evangelizing is bad now

Even though every religion relys on it, and when you get them to boil it down to what they mean, you find that extreme fundamentalists Evangelical atheists are at the same level as a passive Christian.

[De Leonist]

9. Not quite

"Even though every religion relys on it"

Not all of them rely on evangelizing. In fact I think at least one, Sikhism, makes a point of not Evangelizing. Also Rastafarianism, Taoism, Shintoism and I believe the Baha'i Faith don't really have a tradition of Evangelism. I'm sure there are others but I can't think of them at the moment.


Lastly just in case anyone would like to now, I'm also an unbeliever of sorts, I'm a Naturalistic Pantheist. I don't believe in any actual gods or anything metaphysical but rather I celebrate and revere what Dawkins would probably call the "Numinous" qualities of the Natural World and the fact that every single living creature in this world is genetically related to each other.

[Lordquinton]

10. There is always an exception

Shakers, I believe, don't ever recruit, you are born into it, and because they don't allow sex it's pretty much all through adoption.

Zoroastrian are the same way, but they are down wih the dirty.

But to highlight the very few exceptions underlines the fact that it's a major component of the rest. Kinda like saying "not all men" in a conversation about rape culture. And Sikhs may not evangelize but they very much wear it on their sleve (well, head but you get the picture)

What you are talking about has more basis that any notion of God, like our man Tyson said "We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically."

[Major Nikon]

11. If they didn't rely on it, their religion would die out in one generation

[De Leonist]

12. Not really....

Unless you define it as something other than actively attempting to convert others than your mistaken in this case. A number of religions do not actively attempt to change the religious beliefs of other people(or lack there of).

Now most religions do tend to indoctrinate the children of people who are already followers of that given religion.(Which is something that I heartily disagree with) If you include that as evangelizing than yes I agree with you. But as I understand it Evangelism is defined as sending out missionaries to actively convert people already not members of a particular religion. Which Sikhism, Taoism, Shinto, etc do not do. None of these religions have traditions of Evangelism, at least not under that definition.

[Major Nikon]

13. Children aren't born with a religion

The only way they can get one is through evangelism. Without evangelism, no organized religion can survive one generation absent the almighty himself miracle-ing some new ones up.

I tend to use Websters most prominent listing for the definition, albeit it applies exclusively to Christianity:

evangelism
noun evan·ge·lism \i-ˈvan-jə-ˌli-zəm\
Definition of EVANGELISM
1
: the winning or revival of personal commitments to Christ

YMMV

[trotsky]

2. Naw, we don't even have to be "in their face."

Dawkins doesn't force his point of view on anyone. He writes books - people can buy them or not. He gives lectures - people can attend and listen or not. Yet he is one of the most hated "New Atheists" out there.

What bothers Christians about "New Atheists" is that they don't quietly keep their disbelief to themselves. Or as this simple comic so adequately demonstrates:

[Duppers]

3. Zactly!

[bvf]

5. That says it all. n/t

[haikugal]

8. Yep...there it is.

[MindPilot]

4. Well, the big difference is...

when a "new" atheist fails to bring a christian to the realm of enlightened thought, the atheist may call the christian a stupid poopy-head and not talk to her anymore.

But in the reverse scenario, the christian wishes upon the atheist an agonizing death and eternal torture.

[Curmudgeoness]

7. Yeah, atheists are so evil, aren't we? nt

[Major Nikon]

14. There's another difference as well

In a society that is still majority Christian, the atheist viewpoint is still in the minority. So it's not as if the "tyranny of the majority" option is even available to atheists as it is with Christians.

[mountain grammy]

6. New atheist, old atheist, who cares?

Just leave me alone and don't pray for me, or prey on me.