The atheist motive for converting others

[Nelvan]

Here is a sort of thought experiment:

Let us say there is a secret prison bunker in an unmarked, uninhabited island far from a main continent.  There are two prisoners in a cell:  one a militant atheist and one a very devout fundamentalist Christian.  They do have something in common though:  they are both absolutely convinced, without doubt, that they will never be found, and that they will die in the cell.  Let us also assume that they have food, water, and medical all provided for.

This is my argument: 

It is the Christian's duty, from above, to convert the atheist to theism in order to save his soul so that the atheist can experience eternal paradise.  The atheist, on the other hand, does not have such duty. 

The reason the atheist does not have such duty is because the Christian is simply an individual, and under materialism/naturalism, the individual does not matter.  The only reason the atheist converts an individual to atheism is so that the individual will in turn convert other individuals to atheism and so on.

Conclusion:  what matters to the atheist then is not the individual but affecting society so that society is more fit to the liking of the atheist.  Therefore, the atheist is using the individual as a means to an end while under theism, the individual is primarily and foremost the end.     

[Moot]

under materialism/naturalism, the individual does not matter.

Yep. Every atheist in the world agrees with this.

[Nelvan]

I'm curious as to whether every atheist agrees with you.

[searcherman]

Where do you find this particular world of atheists? A New Atheist? I would love to respond, but not to such an exaggerated strawman argument. Why not try a humanist in your arguments?

[Nelvan]

searcherman,

I'm afraid a humanist is more concerned with spreading humanism.  You can't spread humanism in a cell.  There is no point of being liberal or conservative in a cell.  There is no outside world.  You are stuck with an individual, and so what is the point of converting the devout Christian to atheism?

[searcherman]

searcherman,

I'm afraid a humanist is more concerned with spreading humanism.  You can't spread humanism in a cell.  There is no point of being liberal or conservative in a cell.  There is no outside world.  You are stuck with an individual, and so what is the point of converting the devout Christian to atheism?

You don't convert, you try to ease your cellmate's suffering.

[apophenia]

The reason the atheist does not have such duty is because the Christian is simply an individual, and under materialism/naturalism, the individual does not matter.

Whoah.  Time out.  Mattering is always mattering to someone, it is not a postulate of naturalism that individuals do not matter, period.  That's an emprical question decided by those capable of having a viewpoint on what does and doesn't matter.  The consensus appears to be that the individual does matter to most folks, as evidenced by morals.

The only reason the atheist converts an individual to atheism is so that the individual will in turn convert other individuals to atheism and so on.

This isn't the only reason, or even necessarily the primary reason.  There are multiple reasons that might motivate an atheist to convert a theist to atheism.   One is a shared goal of rationality, that false beliefs have negative consequences.  The atheist would then want the theist to abandon any false beliefs both for his and the theist's own good.   You're putting an awful lot of words in the mouth of someone whose reasons you don't appear particularly familiar with.

Conclusion:  what matters to the atheist then is not the individual but affecting society so that society is more fit to the liking of the atheist.  Therefore, the atheist is using the individual as a means to an end while under theism, the individual is primarily and foremost the end.     

False dichotomy.  The individual is both an end in itself to many atheists, and the individual is also a means to an end as well under many theistic worldviews.  Being an end in and of itself does not prevent people also being used as a means to an end.

[Nelvan]

searcherman,

You said, "You don't convert, you try to ease your cellmate's suffering."  Yes, I agree.  Of course, it benefits both.

apophenia,

You said, "The consensus appears to be that the individual does matter to most folks, as evidenced by morals."

Morals are just a social construct.  Even in a cell limited to two people, under atheism, it is a social construct.

You said, "One is a shared goal of rationality, that false beliefs have negative consequences.  The atheist would then want the theist to abandon any false beliefs both for his and the theist's own good."

You are assuming that belief in God, which you have concluded to be irrational, would somehow affect the two prisoners in the cell in a negative way.  I assume in a more negative way then they find themselves.  Please provide examples.

 

[apophenia]

apophenia,
You said, "One is a shared goal of rationality, that false beliefs have negative consequences.  The atheist would then want the theist to abandon any false beliefs both for his and the theist's own good."

You are assuming that belief in God, which you have concluded to be irrational, would somehow affect the two prisoners in the cell in a negative way.  I assume in a more negative way then they find themselves.  Please provide examples.

No, I'm not assuming anything.  I'm illustrating a motive.  The atheist may be dead wrong in believing the theist's beliefs to be wrong, that doesn't make his motive and his actions any less altruistic.  As to examples, since it's a hypothetical in which you are blankly condemning the motive of the atheist, it's your rhetorical duty to be charitable and not start presenting obstacles to that defense which aren't immediately apparent on the surface of the hypothetical.  Suppose they believe that if they stick together, they can find a means of escape.  That their belief may be wrong doesn't dispute its possibility as a motive.

 
[/quote]

[Hawke123]

Here is a sort of thought experiment:

Let us say there is a secret prison bunker in an unmarked, uninhabited island far from a main continent.  There are two prisoners in a cell:  one a militant atheist and one a very devout fundamentalist Christian.  They do have something in common though:  they are both absolutely convinced, without doubt, that they will never be found, and that they will die in the cell.  Let us also assume that they have food, water, and medical all provided for.

This is my argument: 

It is the Christian's duty, from above, to convert the atheist to theism in order to save his soul so that the atheist can experience eternal paradise.  The atheist, on the other hand, does not have such duty. 

The reason the atheist does not have such duty is because the Christian is simply an individual, and under materialism/naturalism, the individual does not matter.  The only reason the atheist converts an individual to atheism is so that the individual will in turn convert other individuals to atheism and so on.

Conclusion:  what matters to the atheist then is not the individual but affecting society so that society is more fit to the liking of the atheist.  Therefore, the atheist is using the individual as a means to an end while under theism, the individual is primarily and foremost the end.     

I think an atheist could actually agree with what you say, but further add that he/she thinks a society that is atheistic is better than a society that is theistic.  Hence, his/her endeavoring to convince people that God does not exist. 

The part in your OP that needs elaboration is how you concluded the insignificance of the individual as a corollary of naturalism. 

Additionally, as a Christian, I would not agree that "the individual is primarily and foremost the end."  Rather, the end is to establish a community that embodies Christ-likeness.  We get to that objective by finding the lost sheep and welcoming in the prodigal sons one at a time as best we can.

[Nelvan]

Apophenia,

I think I've made my point.  You would have to argue, that when it comes to converting others to atheism, how that benefits the individual who is completely and forever cut off from society.  I am simply arguing that the atheist's agenda is solely social engineering, and has nothing to do with the individual in- himself.

[Nelvan]

Hawke,

I agree with you that for Christians community is important, but saving your soul is more important.  For an atheist, converting someone on their deathbed to atheism is pointless.  Not to the Christian.  To the Christian, all people, those that are sick and soon to die matter, including human embryos.

Also, in early Christianity, there is a tradition of monasticism, of vows of silence, hermitages, desert fathers, wandering monks.

[searcherman]

Apophenia,

I think I've made my point.  You would have to argue, that when it comes to converting others to atheism, how that benefits the individual who is completely and forever cut off from society.  I am simply arguing that the atheist's agenda is solely social engineering, and has nothing to do with the individual in- himself.

The atheist you are portraying I now see is the old school Marxist-Leninist or dialectical materialist. Once N Korea is free, that form of atheism will truly be in the dustbin of history.

[Trinity]

New school Marxism may be worse than old school Marxism. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.

[Nelvan]

Searcherman,

You are thinking of social engineering as a huge government  project.  That is not so.  It can be done individual to individual.  That is the point I'm trying to make.  It is a case of just using the individual as a meme.  Sometimes television, newspaper, or the internet is more effective.  Sometimes word of mouth, face to face is more effective.  But it is just a means either way.