Well, the reason I asked the question is it would never occur to me to try to convince a religious group to accept any aspect of my own religious/spiritual leanings. I don’t want to convert anybody and won’t discuss with anyone who wants to convert me. I don’t care one bit if they understand me in any way whatsoever. So I don’t get why atheists want to talk about atheism to proselytizing Christians, or why atheists want those particular Christians to know how Christians should talk to atheists. But I will also admit I asked the questions because I wonder if atheists ask themselves those questions. An atheist earnestly appealing his/her position to a firmly entrenched fringe Christian? Or saying to a Christian “Please read this article so you can know how to approach me”? or even “Please read this article so you can know why you annoy me”? I honestly can’t wrap my brain around that one.
Nooo, that’s not the point I was making. I was trying to show how your mention of politics here is irrelevant because there are not huge numbers of pamphlet-wielding proselytizing Christians holding political office. If you want an atheist presence in political offices I don’t see how trying to appeal to the fringe proselytizers will give the desired result. IOW it’s not the proselytizers who are politically blocking atheists, because proselytizers are the fringe, and the majority mainstream Christians don’t like them either. If proselytizers are not the ones with the real political power why try to engage them with atheist appeals?
Really, I had to laugh at this, because it can be read from a couple of different angles. It’s also funny because I originally joined this thread to say that the atheists don’t understand their target audience. But then as Gyrate pointed out, the author of that article isn’t atheist anyways, hmm. But from the responses from the atheists I do get that atheists would like to inform Christians about how to understand and talk to atheists (so the Christians can be more effective? Huh?) And I now wonder if it’s an article written by a Christian to help Christians understand their target audience (in order to convert the atheists???) But whatever is going on I seem to come again to the same conclusion that in this case the atheists and Christians are at cross-purposes, each side with an agenda to sway the other in some way.
Oh, okay.
I don’t know if were intending to be haha funny but this REALLY cracked me up. LOL I suddenly had an image of JWs running away from me, oh my. LOL. Well, I’ve never gotten the knack of being blacklisted in that way, so I resort to putting up my “keep away” signs.
I guess - I mean, I suppose it’s going to be bang on target for a certain subset of its supposed audience. I found it annoying mostly because it didn’t take the trouble to make that distinction.
Speaking personally (again, as an agnostic) I don’t try to get Christians to stop being Christians, I try to get Christians to stop being idiots, ignorant or jerks (which, I hasten to add, I am not equating to being Christian). I find it genuinely heartwarming when someone tells me how Jesus changed their life and how they’re no longer alcoholic/taking drugs/criminal/a total loser and how they are generally a happier, better person for it. But when this strays into the area of creationism/ID or historical revisionism or other abuses of basic logic and/or the scientific method, I get a little miffed myself. And when certain people claim that where their interpretation of the Bible contradicts reality, the Bible wins, well…I may be apt to say a few harsh words.
I once had a couple of elderly JW ladies appear at my doorstep and attempt to convince me that evolution wasn’t true because “that VW there can’t just turn into a BWV”. When I pointed out that evolution didn’t apply because cars don’t reproduce, I could see that I’d already gone out beyond their depth. To be fair, I threw them a lot of softballs from then on out of sympathy (and because they were elderly, polite and clearly meant well), but the heart had gone out of their pitch.
So when I think about handing the article in the OP to a certain subgroup of Christians, it’s not because I secretly want to be converted. It is because I want them to raise their game. C’mon - give me a real pitch for joining your faith, one that doesn’t either beg the question (I’m talking to you, Mr “Liar, Lunatic or Lord” McDowell) or require me to lobotomize myself. If your faith and reason are mutually exclusive, you can’t use reason to convince me.
Maybe I should go talk to the Jesuits - they used to be good at this sort of thing…
I admit I don’t get the point of telling people how to approach me either. Telling people how atheists think, though, is good. As for talking to Christians, many atheists came to their opinion through a logical process. I did. I find it fascinating to understand the thought processes of someone with an opposite view, and to be able to quiz them and get answers back. In my experience, most proselytizers are not very receptive to this approach, and would rather talk to someone who has not thought this stuff out. I don’t blame them; they are basically salesdroids, after all. I’m not going to wander into a church and ask these questions, but if someone comes up to me I will. If they can’t defend their product, screw them.
A noisy evangelical atheist isn’t going to be running for office in any scenario either. Though we did have a Baptist minister who was a governor running for president, didn’t we? I’m talking about atheists with the same level of commitment as Christians and Jews today; devout perhaps but not noisy. (Devout is a joke.)
When the Baptists came I said I was Jewish, and instead of them politely leaving I got a “you’ll burn in hellfire anyway” bit. So I turned on my outrage Jew shtick - we’ve been oppressed for 2,000 years by you people, Inquisition, Crusades, blah blah blah. I suspect they thought I was going to punch them out, Kinky Friedman style. They ran.
When the JWs came, I politely said, “sorry, this is a devout atheist household” and that was enough for them to run. No one has bothered me since. Polite but outrageous seems to do it.
Gyrate, thanks for your explanation. Makes sense. Maybe I’ve known too many Christians who are idiots, etc. (which I ALSO hasten to add, I am not equating to being Christian ;)). I grew up in a fundie proselytizing family and church, and I’m still surrounded by an abundance of family/friends who continue to happily wallow in that realm. I guess I’ve had my fill of their cultish simplistic logic, and also their never-ending bull-headed attempt to rationalize all that’s not rational. It doesn’t help that I seem to be a magnet for the fringe types; (people tell me I seem “sooo approachable” [sigh]). I know those types of Christians who can’t be easily changed, and don’t even want to be changed. I’m just not interested in engaging them, because I can think of too many other places I’d rather be, and too many other people with whom I’d rather be there. When someone attempts to convert/recruit me, I have an overwhelming sense of “hmm, what could I be doing other than this?”… and then I go and do it.
I also hold the (admittedly unusual and somewhat Eastern) belief that none of us ever chooses our religious/spiritual paths; I happen to think our religious paths choose us. For instance, could an atheist choose to be Christian? Or could a Christian choose to be atheist? I just don’t see it happening that way. I have an unshakable feeling that every one of us is already exactly where we’re supposed be. And when/if we’re supposed to make a transition to another path, we will, and at exactly the right time.
So, I completely accept that we won’t all agree, and I generally don’t get too miffed at Christians for doing what comes naturally to them, (that is, until they try to convert me [grrr]).
BTW I like that you are capable of offering sympathy (and softballs) to well-meaning elderly ladies. :)… But wow, who the heck is the colorful Mr. McDowell?:eek:
LOL @Voyager. Geez, nobody ever runs away from me. I usually have to beat them off with a stick. LOL
Sometimes I catch a glimpse of the JWs as they stroll past my house, (because the “keep away” sign works good, yay!). But now whenever I see them I will only be able to think of them running scared away from you.
If you were bleeding on the street and I said, “I’ll go get a doctor for you,” wouldn’t I be asking someone else to help you? Would you say “thanks for nothing?”
Asking someone else to help you isn’t doing nothing. It may not actually help anything, but it isn’t doing nothing. And this response comes across to me as an arrogant “I don’t believe that will help, and neither should you.” Actually, it comes across worse than that. “I don’t believe that will help, and neither should you,” actually seems to me now as a much nicer, kinder, more honest, (honest to what you actually mean,) response.
And according to quantum mechanics, belief can change the outcome of events that by all appearances, should have already been determined. So, prayer may actually help, even if God doesn’t exist. What Einstein called “Spooky action at a distance,” could account for many occurances of “God works in mysterious ways.” Then again, maybe God set it up that way.
Just as faith is not appropriate in science, (you need data and evidence and logic,) logic doesn’t always mean as much in religious issues.
Logic will never find everything that is true. If you want to try to find one of the truths that can not be verified by logic, you naturally must step outside of it. This means, though, that some of the conclusions you come to will be wrong. Does this make the exercise meaningless? I don’t think so.
A system can be either complete or consistant. It can not be both. Logic is consistant, and therefore, will always be incomplete. Religion strives for completeness, and therefore, will always be inconsistant. Is it any wonder you can’t convince believers to disbelieve simply because their beliefs are inconsistant?
amen. faith has no business dictating what comes out of science.
also, amen.
[QUOTE=Gyrate]
C’mon - give me a real pitch for joining your faith, one that doesn’t either beg the question (I’m talking to you, Mr “Liar, Lunatic or Lord” McDowell) or require me to lobotomize myself. If your faith and reason are mutually exclusive, you can’t use reason to convince me.
[QUOTE]
once again, amen. I think. unless you’re saying that faith must abide by the rules of logic. It won’t and shouldn’t as I mentioned above. I agree you can’t use reason to convince someone to faith. But you also can’t use reason to dissuade someone from faith. And having faith doesn’t mean you’ve lobotomized yourself.
I think many believers have to realize that a search for truths that are beyond logic is going to result in inconsistancies. Those inconsistancies shouldn’t be used to “correct” science. Logic and science come up with truths that are more consistant.
And I also think that many non-believers should realize that logic will never reach all truths, and that the inconsistancies that arise from a search for truths beyond logic doesn’t mean that the effort is meaningless.
What “believers” need to understand is that if we don’t know the answer to a question, making up an answer isn’t the correct response. “I don’t know, but I’m working on it” is honest and might prove to be productive.
Right. There seems to be an emotional and psychological need to be certain for some believers. It’s as if , this is what I believe but I admit I don’t really know, is an affront to their faith. It isn’t. Even Paul admitted he didn’t understand it all. Jesus told the apostles there was a lot they weren’t ready for.
It’s the “we’re sure we’re right and we want everyone else to know it”, attitude that creates a lot of friction. That was pointed out in the article.
An act of compassion and humility would be to approach someone with a “this is what works for me, maybe it will work for you” attitude.
As a sidebar, do we see this need to be right reflected in other non religious aspects of life. Politics comes to mind. Anything else?
But back to your comment, *An act of compassion and humility would be to approach someone with a “this is what works for me, maybe it will work for you” attitude. *
This is where I get hung up every time. “This” works for me? How do you know that something unverifiable is “working” for you?
If people find their belief comforting, encouraging, , and their participation in a church personally rewarding they could say it’s working for them. The question of the accuracy of the details isn’t all that relevant at that point. It’s possible something else might work even better but each individual has to decide when and what to embrace and when and what to let go of. IMHO that’s how human growth works.
Nobody , including non believers, can “know” but we all operate on what we feel is working for us whether it’s verifiable or not.
But they genuinely don’t feel they’re making anything up. They feel they are just trying to explain the unwavering TRUTH by using a clumsy and inadequate language. Even when the words fail, the conviction of their faith maintains a fast hold on them. And for the believer the utmost default is the faith they feel deep in their being, not man’s logic, and not words either. So they would agree with ch4rl3s, that “logic will never reach all truths.”
And what about the atheists who hold this view? Isn’t it just as unproductive for an atheists to approach a believer with the “I’m trying to convince you of my ineffable correctness” attitude?
Again, the only reason I can see that a hardcore atheist would try to talk to the hardcore Christian faithful is because the atheist doesn’t really understand his/her targeted audience.
And this is where I keep getting hung up. If they feel that it’s working for them, why does it matter to YOU?
I just find it odd that some people choose to use a different standard of evidence for this one area in their lives. I find it quite interesting, actually.
I don’t know any atheists who claim anything other than no belief in god. Most atheists I know say they have no reason to believe there is an omnipotent overseer of mankind. That’s a far cry from a person claiming to know that a god exists.
We respond when the subject arises, but we rarely bring it up in conversation. It’s not something that controls our thoughts unless our rights are being infringed or our constitution is being trifled with by those who believe their way should be our way.
Curiosity, mostly. Again, if the information is offered up, I can’t help but question how someone would “know” something supernatural can not only exist, but also have and active role in their life. Of course it’s nothing more than an annoyance until these believers take it a step further and try to force this curious influence into my life. There are some believers who believe in separation of church and state, and I have no problem with them. It’s the larger group of believers who think these ideas should be supported by my government, my time, or my money that I have a problem with.
Verification of anything, under any circumstances, is always the application of a set of rules that assume certain things as axiomatic. In other words, the system of beliefs (be it scientific hypothesis or notion about how to live your life or whatever) is being verified via the application of rules that are themselves a part of, or derived from, a system of beliefs.
Absolute verification, in the sense of “everything I hold to be true has been verified by processes that have themselves already been verified to be entirely valid”, is simply not an option.
Start with the base level, the solipsistic question. The sequence of events that seem to be occurring to you, as evidenced by your five senses and any extensions thereof provided by technology and etc, may in fact be occurring, or your mind could be inventing every single bit of it, with the entirety of your life and the universe as you know it no more than products of your imagination. You cannot verify that this is not, in fact, the case; you can only conclude that there is nothing useful you can do with the premise that it is and therefore you take it on faith that it is not.
From there you build, as we all do, some system of belief around what our senses do appear to be telling us. We accept many things as being self-evidently what they appear to be, and those that we do not we accept as illusory or misleading based on a sequence of other observations that, at some point, break down into steps at which we accept this or that observation as being self-evidently what it appears to be.
Each of those little acceptances is a leap of faith of some sort. They themselves aren’t validated.
I don’t know any atheists IRL (at least not any who’ve admitted it aloud to me). But I’ve read quite a few atheists’ posts on this board that struck me as if the atheists were definitely trying to convince believers of the atheists’ “ineffable correctness.”***** That attitude of “I’m right, you’re not, and I need to tell you just how wrong you are” didn’t seem to bypass the atheists. That’s what I was addressing in my comment that you quoted, not whether either side was claiming if God does/doesn’t exist.
I guess I’m different that way. Whenever the “God” subject arises I don’t respond, or I change the subject, or if they persist I soon get bored, and then start looking for other/better ways to spend my time. When I see staunchly opposing sides belaboring God/no-God with each other I just wonder WHY?
Okay, “curiosity” is definitely a notion I can grasp.
*I sure hope nobody asks for a cite, because I’m feeling very un-inclined to combing through those threads to find those types of posts.
I suddenly had an image of JWs running away from me, oh my. LOL. Well, I’ve never gotten the knack of being blacklisted in that way, so I resort to putting up my “keep away” signs.
