G'day Forum,

I understand that a religious proselyte is a person who feels compelled to spread the truth of life after death and the arcane rituals required to be performed in order that life after death may be accessed.

I seek a descriptive of the opposite of this person.  This person was born Athiest (as we all are) and immediately inculcated into a very main stream Religion and passed through all the requisite rites of passage and took great comfort in the knowledge of an afterlife and lived a commensurate lifestyle in the face of great adversity but a thing finally happened that broke this faith.

This person is now a Born Again Athiest but feels compelled to not spread the truth of death after death as this will unnecessarily remove a wonderful comfort from any lives thus touched?

What do I call this thing? 

What is the label for The Anti-Proselyte?

Stannum

Well, you asked how we would describe someone so enlightened that they don't think others worthy of their enlightenment.  I read your description as an atheist who lets others believe what they want, all the while thinking them completely weak-minded fools, hence inferior.  Condescenders are those who act in a superior way.

I may be reading too much into your original description, but it seems like the difference between atheism and agnosticism would be the element of pride.

Old Man Gordon wrote:

Well, you asked how we would describe someone so enlightened that they don't think others worthy of their enlightenment.  I read your description as an atheist who lets others believe what they want, all the while thinking them completely weak-minded fools, hence inferior.  Condescenders are those who act in a superior way. I may be reading too much into your original description, but it seems like the difference between atheism and agnosticism would be the element of pride.

Thank you for the blunt honesty of your response.  I like a bloke who calls a spade a spade but I am a bit concerned with a bloke who calls a spade a shovel which is most certainly what you have managed to do in this case.  In any event I thank you because it is a perfect example of the problems I have encountered ever since my first post. 

Unless I am totally lucid and utterly crystal clear with my posts every bloke and his pet dog interprets me as being a demon with malice aforethought.  This is not the case about me in general and most specifically not about this thread.

A slightly more charitable interpretation of my question, that is now utterly destroyed by your cuttingly blunt honest reply, was from a bloke who was a deep believer who knew for a certainty that if I continued to live my life exactly as I was living it that I would be assurred of a place in Heaven for Eternity and that if I died Hurt On Duty I would sit at God's right hand for said Eternity and that something happened to break that deeply held belief and that I am unutterably sad at the loss of comfort that the firmly held belief engendered so I would not do anything to break the faith of those who believe.

A very slightly charitable read would interpret a deep sadness at the loss of faith and a desire to do nothing to be mean to anybody and a desire to believe again that is simply impossible.

Could you now explain to me how on God's Earth you managed to find so much hatred in my post?

How do you interpret from my question that I consider Athiests to be superior to Religious Believers?

Where do I say that Religious Believers are either weak minded or fools?

Where did I mention Enlightenment and what is Enlightenment to an Athiest or Agnostic?

Who am I condecending to?

Who am I acting in a superior manner to?

Where is pride displayed in my question?

Thank you for your bluntly honest reply.  It is most revealing.

Stannum