I think most door to door evangelists have just been told they should "convert" people otherwise they won't get into heaven. :)

From my perspective, as a Christian converted from a totally atheist background, I find that people require an explanation for belief in a God/gods much more frequently than they require an explanation for belief in no God/gods. Which feels sort of unfair - assumptions have already been made that one needs to prove the existence of a God. I see the argument more like "given the universe, the nature of man, etc etc, which theory best fits the situation". Under that question the existence of no God requires as much proof as the existence of one - both are competing theories.

In response to your question about the general population: Basically, i think the vast majority is in the "i haven't really thought about it" section, being busy with work, socialising, holidays, housework, and generally getting on with heading for death without switching their brains on if at all possible. Also, i think most people grow up with an idea that some people believe in a God and some even go to church/temple/mosque etc. This is changing and we are probably the first generation in britain mostly raised in the "post church" era - i.e. we weren't all forced into churches as kids, and don't know much about it.

So, door to door people must have some success by a combination of prodding people into general enquiry and the attraction of a demonstrated absolute assurance in a given set of beliefs.

Its much more interesting to have a discussion with a reasoned atheist though - I used to be one so obviously they are a great bunch of people. :)

There are also vast crowds of unreasoned believers too, of course, who just believe whatever they are told. But as atheist evangelists are much thinner on the ground, noone goes round prodding them into thought.

In either case, the vast majority of people grow up with assumptions, are bombarded by a variety of opinions, and end up choosing ones that suit them rather than actively deciding which are likely to be correct and living by those standards. Its much easier to just believe whatever is convenient rather than think about it.

At least the door to door evangelists prompt a debate! Unfortunately it is very difficult to have open debate when both parties have an agenda for the outcome - usually both parties are convinced of their own position and are looking to prove the other wrong, rather than come to a consensus.

Interesting topic - but i feel the need for alcohol in hand to discuss further! :)

m

I think you're describing mutual tolerance, which is great, but not the same as a consensus. It's agreeing to differ rather than holding a discussion with the aim of agreeing on a common conclusion.

I'm all for it of course, live and let live and all that, but i don't think that's what the doorstep evangelists are trying to achieve - I think they would aim to effect change in the other person's beliefs rather than persuading people to refrain from burning them. :)

Ah, indeed, that is true, it is more tolerance than consensus. But then, I think "there is a God, who is worth worshipping" and "there's no reasonable ground for believing in a God, and tensions over worshipping this being has caused untold misery again and again and again in human history, so it's something to be avoided" are like "the sky is purple" versus "the sky is blue"; "consensus," were it to be reached, would have much bearing on reality.