I do realize he’s talking to a specific type of Christian. I just don’t think his targeted audience will buy what he’s selling. And he’s an atheist who is telling the extremist Christians to go read the bible again in order to see their own errors? Wouldn’t that be like Christians telling hardcore atheists to go back to their “scientists” to see proof for their own errors regarding the supposed non-existence of God? And the types of moderate Christians who would be able to see his points aren’t the ones he’s trying to reach with that article. I think he just demonstrates that atheists can’t grasp the Christian mindset anymore than Christians are able to grasp the atheist mindset. (And I can’t quite grasp why either group tries at all.)
I tend to think it’s more like 100% of the targeted group won’t get it. And they feel equally that their message needs to be said. But even if it were 1% success, that’s very similar to the logic and optimism of the proselytizing Christians. They think a 1% success rate is absolutely fantastic odds. And even the hope of converting .1%, or even .01%, is a wildly joyous occasion for a Christian. But in the end Christians don’t even proselytize for the percentages. They feel that talking about God to non-believers is a privilege and glorious blessing for its own sake, that speaking the word of God aloud, and often, is enough reward.
Yes, I admit the atheists on this board seem a bit much. But everywhere else (besides this board) the atheists do seem to keep quietly to themselves.
Not sure. Is that the same as the Watchtower? Honestly I try not to notice. And no selling either; it’s absolutely free. But one day it occurred to me to put a small sign on the door to specifically invite them NOT to knock. I had no idea that such a simple solution would result in uninterrupted Saturday mornings, ahhh. But that still doesn’t help with those waiting on the corner. I just might take to wearing a sign.
In the mindset of the proselytizing Christian (et al*), it is not only worth it, but it’s a gloriously divine privilege and honor. They simply see it as obedience to a direct order from God, and they feel wholly (and Holy) honored to do God’s bidding.
*I can’t remember now, but I think Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t call themselves “Christian,” at least not in the typical sense of the word.
As for the article, I love it.
I am memorizing the Unicorn belief so I may use it
when Christianity is forced upon me in the future.
My first step to atheism was to do exactly what the author
requests at the very end: actually read the bible.
It is not ridiculous to think that all Christians-- every single one of them–
that have actually read the bible dismiss the parts they don’t get as
“old fashioned” and believe the ones that promise reward or salvation.
How does religion really spread today? Simple. Church is the one place
we can still go that requires no real education. Can’t read or write?
No prob, just come in and pray. Maybe if churches required a yearly test on each book of the bible,
questions would arise and common sense ( otherwise known as doubt ) might prevail.
One bad thing about the article, it appears to egg the religious to continue their preaching, just differently.
Does this mean they’re willing to discuss, or still just witness, again, just dfferently?
[QUOTE=
No, what really gets me is when people ask about my religious beliefs (and yes, they do ask, in subtle ways, like, “Do you celebrate Christmas or Hanukkah?” or, “X is a Jewish last name, isn’t it?”). If I say I have none, I sometimes get, “I’m sorry,” or “I feel sad for you,” or “I’ll pray for you.” I find that so incredibly condescending, patronizing, and provocative that I have to bite my tongue in half not to say something just as offensive right back. Maybe they don’t even know how it sounds, which is why I usually restrain myself, though sometimes it launches a rather pointed conversation, depending on how rude the other person is. And it’s not just Christians who do this: I had a pagan say it to me recently, that she felt sad for me because I “don’t have faith in anything.” :rolleyes:
If people could just keep their snotty little cracks to themselves, on both sides, I think things would be a lot less contentious. It’s rude to bring up religion, period. Don’t do it.[/QUOTE]
I’m SO with you on the condescending remarks.
I always respond to anyone who says " I’ll pray for you,"
I say, “So you’ll do nothing.”
I think dialog is very important. Teaching ourselves how to talk to people we disagree with is a plus. I agree with Sam Harris that religious beliefs need to be challenged, especially when they seek to influence our laws. In the meantime the point in the article is correct. How you live your life reveals more than words ever will.
The problem with this, for any evangelizing religion, is that there are good people of all faiths.
That a Christian decides to live the non-obnoxious commandments doesn’t mean that they are truer than the tenets of Buddhism based on the Dalai Lama’s life. There are also counter-examples in all religions, of believers who were dreadful to others. No one with any sense is going to derive the correctness of a religion from the good deeds of some of its believers.
You may be right - none is so deaf as the man who has all the answers. But if someone actually reads and understands this, he might well get why atheists reject his word, without imagining we hate god or are sinful or want permission to do horrible things.
Ah, much better than us uppity atheists, eh?
I don’t see any atheists trying to convert anyone here. What I do see is the same kind of argument as is typically used in scientific debates - real ones, not the ones that make it into journals. We argue the data and the logic as fervently as we can, and some go maybe a bit overboard, but it is only an attempt at conversion in the same way as arguments about the Big Bang, for instance, were. Faith is not allowed in this kind of argument, and the presence of faith in religious discussions is probably the biggest disconnect between the two sides.
And you think(hope?) that proselytizing Christians might be the source of your satisfaction? Why? What does it matter what Christians think about atheists?
So why are you defending/explaining the indefensible* atheists to me? (or so it seems). I see my “a bit much” as being exactly equivalent to your “a bit overboard.” Same difference. And I wasn’t accusing atheists of trying to convert anyone either. But I do agree with you about the “biggest disconnect between the two sides.” In fact, that’s one of the points I was also trying to make. I don’t expect the proselytizing Christians to ever shut up about God (because unfortunately for me I know them too well and too intimately), but I don’t get why the so called “logical” atheists keep getting baited into silly emotionally charged arguments with the Christians. What do atheists want from Christians? Validation? Understanding? Acceptance? And why seek that in the Christians who are least likely to offer it?
I can’t tell whether I’m being whooshed here. In the event that you’re serious, I suspect that if the above is anything to go by, your definition of “reasoning” leaves something to be desired.
However, I do think a rather important detail has been missed by several posters here, probably because it’s buried in the Comments section of the link in the OP:
Because polls show that Christians don’t think atheists are worthy to hold office, for instance. The problem is not that we aren’t Christian - Jews and Muslims, and Hindus no doubt, get much more support. It must be the god thing - or some basic misunderstanding of what atheism is.
I seem to see a lot of people complaining about atheists being fundamentalist (which is absurd) or being as obnoxiously proselytizing as the worst of Christians. I don’t see it. I’m curious to see examples of this behavior. Obnoxious behavior is something else - I’m not arguing about that. Most atheists only get into a discussion when it is started by someone religious. Some newbies do start threads like “God can’t create something too big to lift - so there” and they get corrected by both sides.
I understand the need for being evangelical - which is contradictory to the supposed desire for ecumenicism. Being Jewish, that’s something I’ve rejected even when believing in god. What do we want? Maybe the same level of acceptance as I’d get as a gay theist vs. being a straight atheist? It would be a start.
Oh, I don’t claim it as an indicator of truth. Like an advertisement, there can be particularly impressive forms and entirely uninteresting ones, without actually making any difference as to the product itself. I’m simply saying that for a person who wants to proseylatize, with the prior assumption that the truth is already there, the best way to go about that is to be a good person. It’s certainly not the most intellectually honest approaches to it, at least in and of itself, but I believe it’sa highly effective one.
So the point of the article was a political one? M’kay, I must have missed that too. Besides, I don’t see how an atheist political agenda can be served by trying to appeal to proselytizing Christians. Or have you noticed a sizable number of pamphlet-wielding proselytizers in political circles?
I never implied any of those things so I still don’t get why you’re taking those issues up with me. Or would you like to hold me accountable for those who accuse atheists of having behaviors (that they really don’t) just because I described some loudmouths on this board as “a bit much.” Or would it also be reasonable if someone confronted you about unfairly describing them as “a bit overboard”?
My original point was that it’s ridiculous for atheists to try to appeal to proselytizing Christians, because that’s the group of Christians that is LEAST likely to be swayed by atheists. IME proselytizing Christians simply have a mindset that atheists can’t ever hope to budge, no matter how well they frame their arguments. And if atheists really want change, (political or otherwise) I’d think it’s much more reasonable to attempt a dialogue with Christians who are more moderate in their views. Besides, there is a much larger population of moderate Christians than there is of the fringe proselytizing Christians, (which is another reason it would be more effective to appeal to the moderate ones).
Um, ISTM that gay theists have their own gripes about the extremist Christians. Are you really so sure that’s what you want?
BTW I once read a psychology book that explained why some of us tend to seek something from those who persistently demonstrate they won’t ever give us what we seek. Just let me know if you want the book title.
I’d say rather that it is a minimum standard. Some guy talking about God’s love while screaming at his kid and kicking his dog is not going to convince many people.
I was responding to your question about why it matters what Christians think of atheists. I agree the article was not political. If you are making a point of the similarity between proselytizers and political canvassers, I agree. They both are looking to convert and to drive a specific action. However political canvassers also have to understand their target audience
Sorry, this was a general comment.
But we don’t have a gripe about the general run of Christians who live and let live, and who would probably agree with the article. (A lot did in the comments.) So, targeting the moderates is preaching to the choir. They may not understand atheism, but they behave as if they do.
Straight moderate theists, like Kerry, has trouble with extremists. I’m only talking about getting elected.
I didn’t write the article. I don’t have a problem with these people, for they come to my door only once. I think I’m on some sort of proselytizer blacklist. I’d actually welcome more proselytizers, since I love to debate and feel I could give them some of the points in the article directly. But they all run away from me.
