I would say it is a little devious, as I would have no other reason to go at all.

However is not legislating, stacking courts and preaching politics from the pulpit also devious?

@Davesnothere Yes; for sure.

I used to hold that same position.
Unfortunately, "live and let live" doesn't work.
The believers actively worth to influence public policy at all times, which
effects me, and others who do not share their religious delusions.
I can't sit back and tolerate that anymore. I have to be vocal in my
resistance to it whenever I have the opportunity.
Passivity leads to dominance. I refuse to be dominated, by anyone, EVER.

@KKGator - Yes, part of the process is that the fundamental religious right will infiltrate aspects of the public sector and get laws passed in their favor or to further their agendas. Prohibition in the US followed closely on the heels of the Charismatic movement. But laws do change.

The Wedge strategy is alive and well in this day and age. I do know all this.

But there are other ways to get in there and fight the battle (if you so choose). After Kitzmiller v Dover, the entire school board of religious zealots were voted out. Confrontation doesn't feel that effective in this day and age, being outside the shouting rabble feels more effective to me.

Fact is - this Cattus won't get in anyone's face about it. I don't have to.

@LatentumCattus You do you.

@KKGator - Always - like I said, live and let live.

@LatentumCattus Just don't cry when (not if) that attitude comes back to bite you.
Because it will.

@KKGator - a fair warning, but you present it as an either/or 'argument' with no other alternatives. What knowledge do you have of me suggests that I couldn't or wouldn't defend myself should my rights become infringed? Why should I become reactionary because you see Christian jackboots at your throat and I do not?

It feels like you are assuming that just because my atheism is not militant that I am also apathetic in every event. The foundation is faulty.

@LatentumCattus I prefer Jefferson, "as long as it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket"

Do you think all believers are rabid fanatics?

@Davesnothere White evangelicals seem to act the most fanatical, since they are defending their white patriarchy turf.
[culturacolectiva.com]

@birdingnut They are also the most political. Have you seen how they took control of HS textbooks, inserting creationism?

Haven't been threatened with Exorcism as yet, but have been 'sprinkled ' with 'holy water' by a few Catholic Priests before when I've tried to 'enlighten the Congregation.'

@Triphid I can just imagine. Be careful, when they get the restraints out, RUN.

@CarolinaGirl60 Can't run that well BUT my t-shirt usually manages to stop them in their tracks.
And now I also have Agnostic.com t-shirt as well.

@CarolinaGirl60 yes, they like a crazy label too much, & will invest a lot of time trying to discredit that logic. But it’s not wrong to hope, or have a dream. Still, I can’t help comparing going into church with the report where a missionary went to an isolated cannibal tribe where the cannibals ate the missionary for coming into their territory. I don’t think it would go well going directly to most churches to introduce atheism or agnosticism.

So trying to change any aspect of society or politics is all futility?
While it is true change comes from the inside, do you discount all human affects on others?

@Davesnothere

Don't be ridiculous. I was talking about individual people. Not society or government.

You cannot force someone to change if they don't want to.

As a parent of a strong-willed girl, I was a chiefly a loving role model. We disciplined Claire with grounding and removing privileges. No hitting or spanking.

@LiterateHiker Yes, but the comparison between a child or human we love, and a vast demographic of organized people, who routinely denegrate and villanize us is not the same animal.

I see it as more akin to Jews in 1930 discussing Nazis. When one group is so denegrated from the pulpits the parishioners begin to see that demographic ina less than us, less than human way. It is the de-humanization of us which increasesthe danger to all of us, more so some than others depending on geolocation.

Nor would the idea be to force others to change, but to see us as HUMAN, equal and of another opinion.

No it does not assume that a conversation (or 1000) will suddenly change entrenched thinking.)

It actually mirrors the way a lot of folks did reason their way out later in life, by exposure to critical thought actually applied to a religion they accepted before they had critical thought. Nor is the idea to remove someones faith based world view.

ONLY to get them to consider why they believe it.
For many of us that is what changed us from a believer to a non believer, learning and understanding some facet of the religion which they did not know and were NEVER taught. That makes folks PAUSE and wonder, and that is the begining of a "considered faith", which for most of us who broke free was the begining of the end.

@Davesnothere I didn't say that speaking nicely and logically about the falseness of their beliefs assumes anything "suddenly" would happen. I said the idea assumes it would do a specific thing (eliminate delusional thinking) regardless of a time period. Christianity has been around for 2000 years. Do you honestly believe that no one else has made the attempt in the past 2000 years to speak nicely and logically to dismiss belief in a Christian god and that it's a new idea?

Regardless, nothing in your comment explains why a logical, calmly defined argument hasn't worked to change the minds of theists in the past but has suddenly become viable. Nor have you demonstrated why ridiculing the "God delusion" is incorrect or doesn't work.

@redbai Certainly not no one else< BUT there has never before been a large social/digital movement and organization of public non believers actively questioning faith in religious assertions.Until recently religion held the stage and all the microphones.

Nor am I saying debate or ridicule do not work (not in the original OP context, there it would just cause ejection)

What I am saying is
WE ARE VILLANIZED-even to the extent that avg believers think we cannot have morals without religion.
WE ARE OUTNUMBERED--we are a minority in the overall population
and
The Theocrats, evangelicals and their supporters in the Congress, Senate, and White House are actively seeking policies which affect us, and are driven by their religious worldview. In such a world view WE ARE VILLANIZED.

If we do not find a way to humanize ourselves then we are targets.

@Davesnothere I think the issue with your position is that you think that the solution is that atheists need to change their ways to be more acceptable to people who are suffering under a delusion and forcing it onto others. You are making it the atheist's responsibility to be more accepting of a delusion and it's affects instead of addressing getting rid of the delusion by any means possible short of physical violence.

Also, unless they are locking people up where you live for being an atheist, I don't see the villanization that you are talking about. And if they are locking people up where you live, I don't see how being calm and polite will mitigate that at all as they will still lock you up for heresy, whether your calm and polite or angry and rude. Can you name a single human rights issue that was resolved because the oppressed were "calm and polite"? Personally, I can't think of a single example where that worked anywhere in the world.

That's just it though, isn't it?
They ARE actively trying to make the entire world their own.
Most of the world has already succumbed.

@JohnnyQB yes i’m aware. i was raised christian, somewhat fundamentalist, and i know the mindset. i know what they’ve done/are still doing to the rest of the world, especially communities like mine, the grsm/lgbtq+. that doesn’t mean i want to go to church, drag up all my old trauma, make everyone in my life think i’m “coming back” to their god, and sit through bigoted conversation and sermons. my line is drawn at the door to the church. if you guys want to play double agent, go for it, but it’s not going to help. the more things you say that are “out of line,” the more likely they are to avoid and eventually shun you anyway. and you’ll give evidence to their belief that they’re under attack by the “worldly.”

@JohnnyQB Just more intentional blindness to reality. The believers have
been infiltrating and influencing public policy for as long as there have been believers. They aren't letting up. In fact, they're getting worse because
they feel threatened. They're even more dangerous now than they've ever been.
Which is precisely why I believe in fighting fire with fire.
I cannot condone passivity.
I certainly won't engage in it.

Not denying anyone their space.

My intent is more "Lets take street epistomology rightinto the Newbies Bible study classes, and see what ripples in critical thought we make"

In the context of "Let US try to understand them by asking them why they believe as they do"
WHILE letting them understand why you are not convinced by that.

The Other aspect of the notion is "I am BATHED in your religious world view, by tradition, but you have a poor idea of ME, as a human being"
As long as Atheists and Agnostics are OTHER, they can be easily villified.

THIS is exactly NOT what I was thinking . . .
" that doesn’t mean i want to go to church, drag up all my old trauma, make everyone in my life think i’m “coming back” to their god,"

IN NO WISE should those who have broken free go back to their old stomping grounds. I see little to no upside to that and a slew of downsides.

Such folk, in small groups (for mutual support and emotion checking (Street Epistomology can be tiring) could go to other churches, other denominations if they felt confident to do that.

For some people it would be too much, for others it might be cathartic.

Fair enough, but I think they are doing as you say. . .

Is this a sybling of not in my backyard?
Not your issue, not your problem?

Is that still true when they, as a block, manipulate the levers of gov to determine what is in the school books?
Or what medical care women are allowed to have?

@Davesnothere 1. That's "sibling"...try Googling it!
2. I am as opinionated as it gets, on here & on Fb, but did you take one second to check into that before you launched into attack mode? Methinks Not!
3. How the hell did "medical care" enter? You lost or ?
4. Why not try Minding Your Own Business?

Me too in the past (30 odd years ago)

@Davesnothere My last attempt was about 14 months ago, still ended up the same way though.

I would think that would be sadly common.

I am more concerned that the world would see it exactly as David above said, that it was prostelitizing, when it really would not be.

But it might be seen as such and have an overall negative effect because of that perception.

My idea is more "Lets take street epistomology rightinto the Newbies Bible study classes, and see what ripples in critical thought we make"

Not trying to educate anyone out of a belief
It would be trying to have people actually consider what they believe, which leads to less extreme religious views.

@Davesnothere thinking for yourself is pretty radical for some people it seems