I agree with the general sentiment of his article, but ITR is right that the article is unintentially condescending. For what it’s worth, it’s more or less the methodology I use. I don’t think I’ve ever approached anyone to do a “cold witness”, but I try to live my life by my beliefs, and sometimes people ask me about it or it naturally comes up in conversation, and I get a chance to explain. Sometimes they are receptive, sometimes they aren’t.
I also agree that some of what he points out, like the whole “human spam” concept is somethign that is hurting Christianity, and religion in general, by not only failing to be effective at actually convincing anyone, but in many cases actively turning them off.
However, the problem that he doesn’t state, is that athiests do the same things to Christians. There’s plenty of prominent athiests (like Dawkins), and even a number of posters on this board who employ essentially the same methodology that Christians are being accused of in the article. Just as much as a Christian trying to convince an Athiest that he should believe in absence of proof, Athiests constantly telling Christians that there is no proof is perceived exactly the same way. I know that there’s no scientific proof, constantly reminding me of it isn’t going to convince me of anything, that’s exactly what faith is, belief in the absence of proof.
I think the real important concept that isn’t touched on, is that for every hypocritical Christian, or obnoxious spam witnesser, there’s dozens who witness by example. They try to live a Christ-like life, they respect other people’s beliefs, and mention it when it’s relevant or when asked and not just randomly. At the same time, for every obnoxious Athiest, there’s probably dozens who just don’t believe, live moral lives, and are very decent people. Everyone needs to just treat those who have differing beliefs with respect, and not judge the majority by the loud minority.
Well put. I’m not a Christian, or indeed a believer in any religion, but I know several people whom I consider ‘good Christians’ - by which I mean they “witness” by example only, and do a good job of it.
Most of the time, atheists are responding to religious claims. There’s a difference. Kind of a “taste of your own medicine” approach.
When I see (predominantly) christians trying to sneak their faith into places it has no business being, I tend to get pissed off. It happens A LOT and I’m tired of it. There are religious freedoms and then there are lines being crossed. Many believers refuse to see the difference.
You’re absolutely right, and I get that this is the point that he’s trying to get at, but the way it’s stated is, in fact, somewhat offensive because it doesn’t carefully examine that the reason there’s a disconnect is because religion belief and atheism are paradigms that affect every part of our lives, not just those. As a Christian, it takes some perspective to realize how others live their lives who don’t accept the Bible as the word of God. He could have stated it better but, plainly, he just doesn’t really get how it can potentially be offensive, because his perspective is fundamentally different.
The point important point that I really want to make is that this fundamental disconnect goes both ways. Just as Christians base their lives around what are basically axioms like the Bible is the word of God and have trouble understanding how Athiests live their lives without it, since they don’t themselves, Athiest base their lives around different axioms, like proof and observability and they have trouble understand how a lack of proof doesn’t dissuade Christians from their beliefs.
Both sides are trying to convince the otherside as though people who share their specific axioms are their audience, but they’re not. Quoting the Bible would work if the person you were quoting it too already believed that the Bible was the word of God, but they don’t. Reitterating how various things are well explained by science and that there’s no proof of God’s existence would work to someone who believes that scientific evidence is the best or only basis for belief, but they don’t.
Know how to talk to an aheist? Talk about football, sex or golf. As soon as you talk about your salvation and how god makes you special ,it gets ugly. keep your religion to yourself.
To be fair, I don’t think this is a good rule, and I wouldn’t expect the same from an Athiest either. The thing is, I don’t want to be talking about, say, sports, and suddenly get “Yeah, that play was great. By the way, God doesn’t exist.”
However, sometimes it is relevant and it would be dishonest to oneself not to mention one’s faith. For instance, it’s often perfectly reasonable for me to mention my beliefs. As an example, an aquaintance last week asked me if I had plans for Christmas, to which I responded that I am a Christian but I don’t celebrate it, which ultimately led to a conversation about my beliefs, even though I was not making any attempt to witness. I would have felt dishonest to have answered that question any other way. OTOH, many people would say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays to me, and I felt fine simply returning with a “have a good one” or a similar greeting.
Beliefs shouldn’t be in your face, but they shouldn’t be taboo either. I remember one person once told me that there’s three things you’ll never change anyone’s mind on: religion, politics, and music. And I try to treat people’s differing opinions on all three with the same level of respect and I treat them the same way. Just like I wouldn’t go around telling everyone how great some of my favorite bands are and how they’re idiots for not liking them, I’m not going to be afraid to mention them if it’s relevant to the conversation.
Unless you actually want a discussion and don’t mind being offended. Then, I’m all up for it. I’m a lot less offensive to believers than I used to be, but I am quite a bit more experienced in arguing with them. So if you can take some constructive criticism, I don’t mind it one bit if you’re evangelical. Just name a time and a place. I hate people springing their world-view on me when I’ve just woken up.
In your example you obeyed the rule. You didn’t bring it up. Your friend did by asking a question that is relevant to it.
The rule is about not bringing it up out of the blue.
And it can apply to things other than religion - Sport. Bring up the subject of Ice Hockey and if it turns out the person you brought it up with isn’t interested in that particular sport then you’d be a bit of a bore if you carried on talking about it. The same principle should apply to religion. I NEVER IRL discuss my Atheism or religion in general if somebody else hasn’t initiated the conversation.
Putting forth the effort to to what, exactly, though? Proselytize or live by The Word? By my understanding simply doing as right as you can by your fellow man is what it’s all about. Witnessing, tempting converts, and spreading The Word no matter to whom you are spreading it strikes me as just a modern, “kinder, gentler” version of The Crusades – old testament material that any reasonable, modern Christian would agree rather misses the point.
That doesn’t necessarily follow. As has been said, while he probably shouldn’t have used such a blanket statement in such a condescending manner – and I’ll agree that there is a bit of a condescending tone here – there’s a disconnect with some between knowing what an atheist is and actually understanding what it means. As the article adroitly points out, atheists not only believe that there is no God, we also don’t believe that there is a need for one, nor that any such supernatural being could have ever existed. To me, there is a greater chance for unicorns to have existed then any sort of supreme being. Witnessing to me would indeed be like preaching to a stop sign, yet even having been told of my abject lack of religious belief I have still been told that I can still accept God if only I listen to The Word and let Jesus into my heart.
Many Christians who witness, while knowing technically what an atheist is, just seem to unconsciously assume that it means they’re still open to accepting Christ if only they can be convinced of how life-changing it is. They just don’t fully comprehend that I can’t accept that letting Jesus into my heart will change my life forever and for the better when I don’t even accept that there’s any such being to let in. You might as well tell me that I’ll find a leprechaun who will grant me eternal virility and an endless parade of beautiful women if only I can get to the other side of the rainbow.
I’ve never been accosted in the street by a non-believer to force me to his side.
I’ve never been caught in a subway car and told not to believe in a loud sermonizing tone.
I’ve never been awakened by knocking at my front door on a Saturday morning by an atheist wanting to discuss his lifestyle with me because he assumed I needed to hear his news.
I don’t think that most Christians do these things, but the ones that do are an irritant, and need to read the article.
The only times I’ve discussed belief/non-belief is after a believer initiates the conversation in an effort to convert me. I’ve never scoffed at a belief or disrespected those with faith. I’ve gone to church/temple/shrine to be social when invited, and I’ve never asked a believer to skip services to hang with me.
If you ask someone how they are and they reply with, “I love my lord and he’s treating me well,” I will feel like punching you and my skin will start crawling. That will really rub me the wrong way, although I may stay and chat for another 15 seconds. My husband, on the other hand, will not say another word to you and will walk away.
As an Atheist I tend to fall in Love or ‘let into my heart’ people who I’ve seen and know to exist. And I usually don’t get to choose the person. So please I kindly ask anyone who is thinking about it - do not ask me to love Jesus. Don’t ask me to do something I normally don’t get to choose to do anyway.
Try to hide the gulp I just did. Then after a pause say ‘OK that’s good’, and immediately change the subject to the furthest subject from religion you can come up with in three seconds.
Apparently there are at least two words here you don’t know the meaning of. The first is “straightforward.” Ain’t nothing straightforward about that article in terms calling the reader an idiot. I know this because the word “idiot” doesn’t appear once, nor any of its synonyms. The second word is “ignorant.” Clearly, this is what is meant by the expression “not realizing the concept.”
I guess there’s actually a third. I’ll let you look up “realize” yourself so you can see it has more than one meaning.
There was a woman where I used to work who, when asked how she was, would reply in a voice that could be heard twenty feet away, “I’m Blessed!” (Yes, you could hear the capital B.) Fortunately, I never had any reason to talk to her, and she was later transferred to another work area. Unfortunately, she would occasionally drop by to chat with her friends so I wasn’t completely spared hearing her.
