We hereby interrupt our regular broadcast with a message to all Evangelicals in the field. This special is the first of a series of three, aimed at making your ministry to atheists more effective and successful.
I suppose one of the biggest accomplishments an Evangelical Christian could hope for, is to convert a hard-core atheist to Christianity. The biggest problem is that evangelical Christians and atheists do not speak the same language.
The most important thing you need to do, before you start sharing with atheists, is to learn how they think. Like Paul, you need to walk the streets of Athens, you need to immerse yourselves in their culture, to walk their streets, to see and understand their altars “to an unknown god”. Only once you understand, once you can speak their language, will you be able to share the Good News. In fact, only then will you be able to fully understand the Good News yourselves. I repeat, the crux of the matter is this:
You need to learn to think, like they do.
This more or less concludes the advice in the first post in this series. Continue thinking until next time, and please keep in mind that arguments such as this one by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort:
are not at all effective. Such arguments will merely turn you into the laughing stock of the rational scientific world. (Update: If the clip stops working, try e.g. a Google search for ray comfort banana.)
This series will continue next week, when we will look at the gap in communication between atheists and Christians. We will show you what not to do, how not to share the Good News, as it will immediately push them away. The third post is the clincher, and will accomplish what Kirk and Ray can only dream about. Please share this series with your friends. May the world become a better place, may the kingdom come!
57 responses so far ↓
1 emily // Oct 4, 2007 at 11:37 am
I had a thought last night about the cult thing you joined and had to return to this site. If I’m correct, it must be Shophar. The hurt they are causing with their rules and rituals to people (non-members) near to their members is unbelievable. They infiltrate everywhere and the saddest is that they make people from other denominations feel that their relationship with God is inferior to theirs.
I see I am just in time for an interesting bit of reading.
Atheists know the Bible better than most Christians and being slightly cynical, I have always been of the opinion that Christians do not reach atheists because they see themselves as more superior, holier. They do not read Luke 10 where Jesus sent the disciples out to go into peoples houses and eat what they are eating. Join them, don’t try to beat them, and you might save them (and yourself). There’s a saying that most Evangelist preach like a fire on television, fierce, but without any warmth. Well, most Evangelists like to see themselves on television too. 
2 Negate // Oct 5, 2007 at 10:42 am
I am a Atheist, Even if you think like an atheist, you chances of converting a hard core atheist is none, because theist and atheists don’t and will never speak the same language
Allot of religious people get angry at god for some reasons and then turn to atheism, it is these people you must aim at helping if any!
I agree with emily i do know my bible better that most of the Christians that try and convert me, it is because before i started thinking like a atheist, i was a Christian but Christianity started to make no sense to me, so i turned to the bible for answers, and the more and more i looked the more doubtful i became of god
Leave atheist alone with this crap. you are only making yourself look more stupid, atheist are on a different level of logic, the more you try the evangelic crap on them the more we are going to hate and laugh at you
3 Hugo // Oct 5, 2007 at 10:55 am
@emily: no need to make excuses for reading this blog. Glad to have you on board, feel free to stay.
@Negate: I hope you will give me a chance to finish my story. I’m sorry you gave an invalid email address. (I understand, though.)
The schedule has a post every two days (working titles, they may change):
6 October: What is Science (4 of 12)
8 October: Know the Good News (2 of 3)
10 October: TBA (I don’t want to give any hints away, its a little special about the afterlife and heaven…)
12 October: TBA (3 of 3) (the final in this little series)
4 emily // Oct 6, 2007 at 9:15 pm
dankie
5 Get the Good News Right (2 of 3) // Oct 8, 2007 at 4:38 pm
[...] making evangelicals in the field more successful in their ministry to atheists. The first post was How to Convert an Atheist. Go and read that one first if you have not already done [...]
6 Grace // Oct 8, 2007 at 10:34 pm
I think the first thing, and the most important thing to remember is that God converts people. Not us. Our job is to tell them the gospel in a gentle, and respectful manner. That’s it. We don’t bash it down people’s throats. If people don’t want to hear it, we respect that decision, and back away. I think that’s where many of us are making a mistake -we get so caught up thinking that WE’RE converting them, that OUR words are going to change them, but meanwhile it’s all God!
7 Coenie // Nov 10, 2007 at 7:26 am
At this moment, I am attempting to keep this response as civil as possible. Please, I beseech you, do not make it your personal meaning in life to try and convert atheists to Christianity. Atheists have a choice, do not take it upon yourself to try and elucidate this choice.
I grew up in a Christian family. I was a born again Christian, then I became an Atheist, a very devout atheist. I had a choice. The decision was not preceded by some life altering event of an enigmatic trauma saturated nature. I simply chose atheism as it makes me happy, and is fundamentally based upon science. Can you not accept this?
How many Atheists do you see who try and convert Christians? How many atheists do you know that are less moral than Christians? How many atheists do you know?
If it is your desire to live in a delusional world, believing in a plagiarised fairy tale, so be it! But please, leave us be. If you have a deep seated worry that we will burn in hell, then so be it! At least I’ll have Einstein, Nietzsche, and Ghandi to keep me company.
If you have a deep rooted desire to spread your ‘’good news’’ then try it on your own religious fundamentalists who preach nothing but intolerance.
My email address is valid and you can find me on facebook.
8 Hugo // Nov 10, 2007 at 9:17 am
Coenie, you are eavesdropping on a conversation that was not addressed to you. Of course, you are very welcome to do so, this is a public conversation on the internet. However, I beseech you to check the whole conversation then, not just part one of three.
Maybe this helps: check the bold/italic sentence, and add a comma about two thirds of the way through.
9 Hugo // Nov 10, 2007 at 9:18 am
Check the “You New?” page at the top, that might also help you get some context here. More reading, less writing. Thanks.
10 Hugo // Nov 10, 2007 at 9:26 am
(For the record, I do completely agree with Grace… At the same time, my perspectives are very Einsteinian.)
11 Fearing The Golden Compass? How small is your God? // Nov 10, 2007 at 4:28 pm
[...] the wisdom of Jesus, encourages us to not fear foreign culture. Go, Walk the Streets of Athens (1, 2, 3). Learn to understand “their” culture. In the process, you not only get an [...]
12 Erwin McManus on Eating Meat on the Streets of Athens // Feb 8, 2008 at 10:36 am
[...] have been talking about “Walking the Streets of Athens” in a number of places. This idea applies to anyone wanting to make a difference in other people’s [...]
13 Alisha Pennington // Oct 9, 2008 at 12:01 am
This is the truth about religion though you may see it as just an opinion. I am an Atheist surrounded by lots of christians and I have practically been raised in the church. The bible says “train up a kid in the way it should go and it won’t ever stray” (not exactly word for word) but I’m an example in the flesh of how that statement can be proven wrong. The bible isn’t truthful. Here is a peice of advice: LEAVE US ALONE!!! Don’t try to convert us. Curveball? Most religions have issues with homosexuals. Here’s an even bigger curveball: THERE’S ALOT OF ‘EM!!! Religion is sexist. Many religions say that men are inferior to women. Hogwash! Bologna! Women aren’t better than men and men aren’t better than women. You’re going to have to deal with the fact that people beleive differently than you. You might think I’m going overboard with what I’m saying here, but the thought of actually converting someone to serving a false God is wwwwwaaaaayyyyy overboard, too, don’t ya think!!!!!!!!!! Yes, I celebrate Christmas, but for teh presents, not for Jesus. I celebrate Easter for the little chocolate candy eggs and Easter egg hunting and the Easter Bunny, not for the reserection, but I accept the fact that thet’s what everybody else around me is celebrating these holidays for. I have to hide what I think to keep from being rejected? That’s not right. I have respect for the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus is my homey! And Halloween is not the Devil’s birthday! lol! You can email me at ishihomeeg16@yahoo.com. Send a comment or a flame about what I just said. I stand by my right to speak my mind and want everyone else to do the same.
14 Hugo // Oct 9, 2008 at 1:17 am
Alisha, thanks for stopping by and speaking your mind. I don’t know if your comment will find the audience it is looking for though, because I’m not it. How many people read comments on old posts? I don’t know.
Firstly, this post is not addressed to you. This post is addressed to Christians that want to convert Atheists. You are outside of its target audience. What did this post say? Not really that much. Think about the contents of this post, get past the title. How did you get here, by the way? It at least doesn’t look like you got here by looking for “how to convert an atheist”. I get many of those, or variations of those. If that is what someone is looking for when they find this, they’re at the right place, as in they are the people I’m writing for. Not you.
Now much of my campaign on my blog is indeed about how to “evangelise”, irrespective of the worldview. And my belief is that it is important to build relationships, to understand one another as human beings, rather than hitting one another over the head with whatever arguments hit the hardest. In that case, I think maybe you might actually be in my target audience, broadly speaking.
I believe that your comment is largely a knee-jerk reaction at the frustration that you experience being in a minority in your neighbourhood/culture. If you’re the one that got here by searching for “how to give hints to the christians around you that you are atheist”, we can discuss that later. First back to this post though…
This post is the first in a series of three, not aimed at you. I don’t expect you to have the patience to read them all. However, if you want to understand the context of this post, I can suggest you take a look at the second and the third. I should probably make that clearer. And make it easier to access them. The second and third are at:
http://thinktoomuch.net/2007/10/08/get-the-good-news-right-2-of-3/
http://thinktoomuch.net/2007/10/12/language-differences-3-of-3/
Please remember my target audience, keep in mind that my language and descriptions are aimed at them. Once you have read all three, you can flame me from an informed opinion and understanding, if you want. Then we can have a real discussion. Otherwise, the exchange could develop into something reminiscent of a bunch of silly and immature youtube comments where people hack at each other for the hell of it.
If you were looking for “how to give hints to the christians around you that you are atheist”, my suggestions would be this, take them or leave them:
These are some ideas to get you started. Feel free to discuss this further if you want or think it could be helpful to you. Let’s open up some cross-cultural cross-worldview dialogue, might be useful, don’t you think?
15 Kevin // Nov 8, 2008 at 3:19 am
Why must you Christians INSIST on trying to change the views of others, are you so insecure in your own faith that you need to make sure that others know you’re right? If your “god” condones this kind of asinine, narcissistic intolerance, than fuck you, and fuck “god”.
16 Kevin // Nov 8, 2008 at 3:22 am
If any of you ASSHOLES would like to converse about this, get in touch with me, Buhglahgluh@hotmail.com. No it’s not fake, add it to your list to find that out for yourself. Cunts.
17 Hugo // Nov 8, 2008 at 3:53 am
Can I have a quick vote? I’d like to censor this guy. I know he’s got a knee-jerk reaction, which is why he comments before he has a clue who he’s insulting…
*sigh*
18 Hugo // Nov 8, 2008 at 4:56 am
Or shall I radically stick with my “no censorship” policy? We could turn this into a discussion of human nature and the relative value-vs-worthlessness of comments like that?
19 Ben-Jammin' // Nov 8, 2008 at 5:41 am
Your blog, your preferences. If it doesn’t cause you grief, I don’t think it will hurt anything to leave it there.
20 Hugo // Nov 8, 2008 at 5:47 am
Fair enough. I have my own initial knee-jerk reaction when I read something like that, and it takes me a couple of moments to calm down.
*snip further pointless blabber*.
21 Paul // Dec 24, 2008 at 9:14 am
Come on people. Please stop embarrasing me as a human being. Believing in a higher power is very primitive and superstitious. If you can’t see how religion has poisened society since the beginning of time then you really need to start using the grey slimy thing that’s embedded in each of our skulls. If you knew anything about atheism you would also know that an atheist cannot be converted to believing in any form of religion unless they lose the part of their brain used for reasoning and logic. Atheism is about taking resposibilty for our own actions and treating people as we ourselves would like to be treated. If the world was free of religion it would be a far greater, safer place to live in. Please start thinking for the sake of mankind!
22 Hugo // Dec 27, 2008 at 11:07 am
Peeps, what do you think? I think I should disable comments on this post. That might encourage people to actually read the rest of the series before being so kind as to bless us with their thoughts…
23 Teapot // Jan 8, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Well I am a teapot agnostic, and what that means is that I consider the probability of the existence of a personal God (like the Christian idea of God) is roughly equivalent to the probability that a large china teapot is in orbit around the sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars. (Bertrand Russell).
You might call it soft atheism, I don’t state that “God Does Not Exist” (it is logically impossible to prove a negative proposition), I just see no reason to believe – sometimes called a Skeptical Agnostic.
I think that you will probably find that it is easier to convert a hard atheist than a soft atheist.
The reason for this is that you share a critical factor – faith.
If we define belief to be “the acceptance of a proposition as being true”, and we define faith to be “belief without empirical evidence”, then, since one cannot yet prove that God does not exist, the hard atheist position is one of faith.
Most scientists and any rational thinker worth their salt is a soft atheist, even atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens consider themselves as soft by this definition.
Your opening statement was: “I suppose one of the biggest accomplishments an Evangelical Christian could hope for, is to convert a hard-core atheist to Christianity.”
I think that your most difficult task, and thus biggest accomplishment would actually be to convert a true Rationalist Skeptical Agnostic.
To have any chance of converting someone like this, you should know that most of them read work by the greatest thinkers and philosophers on both sides of the debate, and are familiar with the best arguments that the top theologians can come up with.
To have even the slightest chance of success, you would need to become familiar with the best arguments from the top rationalist thinkers.
The only way to do this is to study their work.
You may take this as a challenge if you wish…
A Teapot
24 Hugo // Jan 8, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Interesting. Good point. Though I think the hardest of them all to convert, is a liberal Christian.
Now this comment by A Teapot is actually a pretty sweet one, the kind of thing that urges me *not* to close comments on this post. (Then I realise: why am I considering that in the first place, anyway? These comments might be helpful in encouraging others to read the other two posts! Plus, they’re entertaining in their own right.) I’ve a number of nice pipe dreams, as always, will work on them later. And will make the other two posts more visible. Later.
25 Will // Jan 13, 2009 at 6:32 am
Mark 5:19
…”Go back home to your own people, and report to them how much the Lord has done for you and how He has had mercy on you.”
See, this is why we must tell others of our joy and salvation. If we don’t tell anyone of the love and power of the Lord Jesus Christ, it is keeping them from having the same joy. We do respect everyone’s beliefs (most of us). I think it’s wrong to bother non-Christians about not being Christian, but I do believe we should try to spread the gospel. It is a non-Christians decision whether he accepts or not, so we can’t force anyone to “convert”. Why would we go against our own beliefs because some other group of people are offended by it.
There is no way to get around the fact that the Bible will offend people, even Christ himself said it. It’s because God stated that “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” (Exodus 20:3) And Romans 10:9 states “if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” Many people find this offensive because it’s not liberal like most other religions are.
(Romans 3:23) “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” These kind of statements in the Bible often offend, but if you read further, “For the wages of sin is death, BUT THE GIFT OF GOD IS ETERNAL LIFE IN JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD,” you find that this of course means if we love the Lord Jesus and truly believe he died on the cross and rose again, God will accept us into heaven. Of course you may say that God is horrible, why would he send people to hell. He gave us free wills, to make decisions of our own, to believe or not to believe. If he didn’t, we wouldn’t be as sincere. He also must punish non-believers because they’ve had the choice to accept his everlasting gift, but have rejected. We must help as many people as we can. “Look, I am coming quickly! Blessed is the one who keeps the prophetic words of this book.” (Revelation 22:7)
On the subject about ex-Christians, I must only say that ex-Christians never had the true joy that comes from the Lord Christ. They must have never been saved in the first place (I’m not one who can judge though). If the ex-Christians truly loved Christ and had the true joy of Jesus, they would never want to leave him. Some leave him for guilt or because they want to do what they want without rules. Let me explain that the Lord forgives for all sins the same. To Him, murder is the same as lying. He thinks all sin is equally evil and forgives for all sin equally with His blood. The thing about the rules, truthfully, a Christian doesn’t absolutely have to follow the rules that God has told (except for believing in the risen Lord Jesus), but if you truly have Jesus in your heart, you will want to follow the rules.
One last thing I must say. Atheists (mainly, of course it’s basically all other religions as well) always say that they have the right to believe what they want. I was reading a blog about Tim Tebow after he (and the University of Florida) won the National Championship in college football that said he should stop stuffing his religion down everyone’s throat, stop proclaiming Jesus as Lord, because they had the right not to believe. Christians also have the right to believe and proclaim their faith. All Tim was doing was saying that Christ helped him to be successful and he had John 3:16 on his face during the game. He never forced anyone to convert, and I’m not trying to convert anyone here. Although, I would love if someone found the love of Jesus.
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, He gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.”
26 Will // Jan 13, 2009 at 6:35 am
And nice point Grace.
27 Hugo // Jan 13, 2009 at 10:12 am
Will, what did *Jesus* teach as “the gospel”, the good news, would you say?
28 Kenneth Oberlander // Jan 13, 2009 at 10:36 am
There are some assumptions in this statement…
How do you reconcile these two contradictory ideas?
I see.
An omnipotent, supposedly benevolent being punishes, with eternal torture, subjects of his own creation (whom he professes to love and who cannot possibly harm him) for acting the way he made them to act? Sounds pathologically twisted to me.
I think the “atheism is a religion the way bald is a hair colour” quote is relevant here. Atheism, by definition, isn’t a belief, it is a lack of belief. I think you will find it hard to justify atheism as a religion.
29 Will // Jan 14, 2009 at 12:22 am
To Hugo, yes. The good news about the second chance we receive because of the resurrection of Christ. Christ died on the cross for me and you, and everyone who writes and reads this discussion.
There is no way anyone can have as much joy as a true Christian has. They may have joy, but not as much or the same. Most people find a temperary joy but they seem to still feel empty after the joy of the item or thing goes away. It is not an assumption because many people tell how they’re life completely turned around from the emptiness they had before. Of course it has to be sincere.
What I meant by spreading the Truth is that Christians shouldn’t bother people a thousand times trying to get them to “convert”. We should tell others about Christ, but if the person rejects the Lord, we must move on. If Christians force a “conversion”, it’s not genuine. If the non-believer says that they will not accept Christ, then there is nothing more to say.
He never created us to sin and be hateful towards him. He still loves non-believers, but if you never loved Him back, He never knew you. Since the non-believer rejected him, rejects them from the pearly gates of heaven. What more could you ask for if your a believer. All He asks is that you believe in Jesus Christ, and you have eternal happiness. Why even ask questions?
Yes, I know atheism is the lack of religion. What I basically meant was everyone besides Christians. I’m sorry for the confusion.
30 Hugo // Jan 14, 2009 at 1:48 am
…argument from incredulity
Utter bovine baloney, try saying that to these guys. And all too often, judgemental people give silly disclaimers like the following, thinking it somehow excuses their judgementalness:
But never mind all that, Will, if you’re still around… I much prefer interesting and thought-provoking conversations comparing how different people see things. Could I interest you in the second post in this series, something I’d love to discuss? It shares a video clip about a certain stereotype of religion, sketching out how many atheists experience Christianity. I would love to have a discussion around where the stereotype gets it wrong, as well as where it has the ring of truth, and what the nuances are around that. Because these things get so nuanced and religion is so diverse. Your religion, and views on religion, is miles away from my religion and views on religion. And I’d love to discuss yours in more depth.
Hoping to hear from you again…
31 Kenneth Oberlander // Jan 14, 2009 at 8:31 am
How can you possibly say this? This is an assertion with no evidential basis. Not to mention flirting with a No True Scotsman argument.
Again, really? You really believe this? On what basis?
You can say this with equal truth for many deconversion stories, or for conversion between religions.
Doesn’t this leave you with a moral conundrum? By your own argument, you know the person who has rejected god will burn in hell forever. Surely as a Christian, nay, as a person, it is your moral duty to pursue conversion with this unbeliever so as to save their immortal soul from eternal hellfire?
Again, this presupposes that he created us at all.
Then why persecute them eternally for using the minds he gave them?
Because this all hinges on the very basic fact that the above sentences have to be true. I would venture to say that for non-Christians, this is of course an issue…
No problem. And (belated) welcome.
32 Hugo // Jan 14, 2009 at 10:36 am
Sorry Will, I missed your #29. Permit me 5 comments this time around:
(1) What Kenneth Said.
(2) Let me explain my question about “What did *Jesus* teach as “the gospel”, the good news, would you say?” — People talk about what “contemporary Christianity” teaches about Jesus, or they talk about what Paul taught about Jesus, or they talk about what early Christianity taught about Jesus. But I see very few people talking about what *Jesus* taught. I suppose this is quite an uphill battle for me to fight, but anyway.
Hmmm… the Gospel of John doesn’t really help my case — the fundamentalist’s favourite Gospel. Higher criticism points out, being written last, it is largely a theological work, heavily influenced by the developing beliefs of the early Christian movement. Thus it is typically taken as “non factual” by higher criticism. And statements like “I am the way, the truth, the life” becomes a piece of theology rather than a simple and direct statement, needs to be understood for its theological meaning.
But that doesn’t really get you anywhere for those that reject higher criticism and the historical method. So at best one can quote Matthew: “…he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” So, unless you’re Jewish, Jesus wasn’t talking to you. (I borrowed these words.)
(3) What Kenneth said.
Yes, there are stories about people that find joy because they find Christianity. And that’s great. I know someone personally that turned from a terrible life of crime and had his life turned around by Christianity. But you can’t trot that out as the be-all-end-all. It isn’t the full picture. At churches where they encourage that kind of testifying, you effectively get what is called “selection bias” — only those with a good story to tell, will tell the story (self-selection bias), but more obviously, only Christians are telling their stories. There is no representation of non-Christians’ stories. Kenneth, what do you say, shall we start a collection of testimonies, to balance the imbalance fundies see at their congregations?
Now one more comment to add, with regards to the link I shared above. That link hoped to debunk the absurd claim that “they weren’t REAL Christians” (No True Scotsman, as Kenneth pointed out, check wikipedia if you want to know more on it). The post ends with:
Yes, emptiness… But this is no evidence that “non-Christians have emptiness”. This is just the experience of a *Christian losing faith*. A non-religious life is very different for those that lived non-religiously from the start. The emptiness experienced by deconverts, the harshness and grief the deconversion process causes, is because of the change in state more than about the resultant state. It takes a while to rebuild a healthy worldview after your previous worldview crumbles. All that said, please don’t respond to this paragraph without reading that link. The context is important, and that post is short.
(4) The second post in this series is Get the Good News Right.
Note that I typically don’t like my old posts, and I do also take issue with a number of things in these posts. But I still support their primary message. I still have to develop my stance on “editing old posts”. I’ll do one edit now, I’m adding a comma to the bold sentence. Not too intrusive, is it?
In any case, I’d love it if we could include thoughts from the second post in this discussion.
(5) What Kenneth said.
33 Hugo // Jan 14, 2009 at 10:44 am
…Actually, I think that comma change is quite profound. I used to think it is *so* profound that it is best that I leave it out. But after having “run” this post for 15 months without, I thought I might as well see if it makes any difference if I include it.
With some code, I could technically set up a double-blind experiment to see if it makes any difference in the kinds of comments, but we most certainly won’t have enough samples for any statistically significant conclusion, irrespective of my huge curiosity whether something that small can cause any change in the way people experience a blog post…
34 Kenneth Oberlander // Jan 14, 2009 at 10:58 am
@Hugo
Do you think it’s necessary? There are many, many, many deconversion/reconversion stories on the internet. Don’t you think it would be better just to list some sites that deal specifically with these issues? That way you eliminate duplication, and spare yourself a shitload of work.
35 Heidi // Jan 15, 2009 at 12:43 pm
LOL!
Great experiment! It just goes to show how easily people jump to conclusions.
Ek meen, mens hoef maar net na jou links te kyk om ‘n idee te kry waar jy le…. Which yet again shows the importance of viewing anything and everything within context.
Amazing.
Net jammer die video werk nie. Sou graag wou gehoor het wat Kirk en Ray te se gehad het.
36 Hugo // Jan 16, 2009 at 12:18 am
@Heidi, I’ve updated the embedded video clip, it should work now. Hmm, a bias in my links? Maybe I need to add a couple to bring back balance (to the force?
)…
@Kenneth, it might be useful to (a) collect a couple of links, when the time is right, and (b) maybe provide a place where people from Stellenbosch can have their say… collect local balancing testimonies, kinda. Low effort on my part, audience-participation style.
When the time is right.
37 Angelica // Jan 19, 2009 at 4:39 pm
You know what I find ironic? The comma. Without a comma, the phrase is “you need to learn to think like they do”, i.e. “you need to learn to think in the same manner as they do”. WITH a comma the phrase is “you need to learn to think, like THEY do, AS OPPOSED to your behavior”. Which is surprisingly accurate. Burn.
This is also true. For instance, in my religion class, where I am the Class Atheist, I am also the Class Genius. During sixth grade I read a portion of the *actual* bible as opposed to the silly textbook adaptions of it. Much more sex.
Your sentence leaves it ambiguous whether the Christians or the atheists are seeing themselves as holier/superior. I think it can work both ways. Christans naturally can be inclined to think they’re holier because they’re going to heaven and atheists are not. Meanwhile, we atheists feel superior, because we are supported by actual evidence, we’ve actually thought about what we believe(*), and so on.
*You may object to this statement. However, find a Christian who can give you a better response than one of these:
- I have a feeling/Faith
- It’s a society thing/I was raised in it
- Pascal’s wager/Why shouldn’t I
Somebody who CAN give you a response different from that is somebody very different from anybody I have ever met.
38 Hugo // Jan 20, 2009 at 2:16 am
Yea, isn’t it amazing how big a difference an innocent little comma can make.
39 Hugo // Jan 20, 2009 at 2:18 am
Re: the comma, refer comment 8, point 4 in comment 32, and comment 33.
40 Angelica // Jan 20, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Hmmm. You’re right. Thank you for that clarification.
I would appreciate it if you took any note of the other 90% of my post. I’m not JUST a grammar freak, you know.
41 Hugo // Jan 20, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I did read and take note of your whole comment before responding. My response might have been more brief than it would have been, had I not been dealing with a demanding on-call shift.
So responding to the rest then:
Thanks for your contribution. I think the ambiguity you point out in emily’s comment is adequately clarified by the context – both the paragraph as a whole, and the comment about “cynicism” (for which I have the advantage of knowing her a few years back): I’m quite sure she was referring to Christians.
At the creationism seminar I attended in late 2007, one of my challenges to the presenter was responded to with a classic fear-of-hell Pascal’s wager expressed in terms of “if you jump out a plane, you might believe it unnecessary to have a parachute, but wouldn’t you want one just in case?” I responded by naming his argument: “ah, Pascal’s wager!” He said, “huh?!” Many in the crowd helped him out, in case I was mumbling too much: “Pascal’s Wager!” “Sorry, I haven’t heard of it.” Scary, huh. At least it warmed my heart to know many in the crowd were better educated than the creationist presenting, and surely also noticed that fact. Then again, I guess many of those may also have been critically thinking outsiders like me, ther to observe the indoctrination happen first hand.
42 Angelica // Jan 20, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I completely respect the Real Life Reasons Not To Fully Respond. I hate when those sorts of things happen all too often.
Wow. That’s interesting to know. Fascinating experience.
A response to that metaphor: Six hundred Americans die falling out of bed every year. So maybe you should put protective cushions besides your bed to keep from dying that way. Even if there’s an incredibly small risk, and the cushions are made from red, lead-containing paint from China anyway.
43 Hugo // Jan 21, 2009 at 12:52 am
My father always said
you shouldn’t get out of bed
in the mornings, because the sky might just fall on your head!
eye ees poe-it!
More seriously, there’s some real conversations behind this … uh … “poem”, but it isn’t really about Pascal’s Wager: it is about people not wanting to take risks.
Pascal’s Wager, xkcd style – I like that one.
And then there’s Cectic’s Expanded Pascal’s Wager.
44 Hugo // Jan 21, 2009 at 1:26 am
(With the cectic one taken in good humour. Of course. Because I want us all to remain very friendly around here.)
45 Joe Bigliogo // Jul 9, 2009 at 3:55 am
Hugo,
I think this is parody, and given away by the line, “You need to learn to think, like they do”. The little comma inserted between “think” … and … “like they do” speaks volumes. And of course the reference to the hilarious Ray Comfort video makes it pretty obvious you are an atheist who is pulling legs.
Am I wrong?
46 Joe Bigliogo // Jul 9, 2009 at 3:59 am
Hugo
I answered just before I read the comments. So I guess I caught on early but not early enough to realize it had already noticed. So the three stars I gave myself I will now take away.
Regards, Joe the atheist Bigliogo
47 Hugo // Jul 9, 2009 at 9:32 am
You could keep one of ‘em, methinks?
48 Jairo Mejia // Aug 16, 2009 at 11:23 pm
It has been common among religious believers to look with misgiving at atheists and agnostics, and to think that they are mistaken; however, in many instances the opposite is the truth; some religious beliefs are not just baseless, but obsolete and irrelevant. It is unbelievable how myths and a religious fantasy have influenced human minds with more strength than reality!
Most people don’t dare to confront their religious doubts; they are afraid of abandoning the “certainty” of their convictions, and opt for the status quo. The “God” of main line traditions simply does not exist. I accepted the challenge of finding the One who may be recognized even by agnostics and atheists, and came to the conclusion that God isn’t other than the Existence itself; and the Existence is, “I am,” the total existence, “All-That-Is.”
There is a book most probably not written for you, but perhaps useful for some of your religious friends who still think that you are wrong and they are right: “Christianity Reformed From ist Roots.” It might help them to be relieved of the illusion, as I did myself. Distinguished philosophers and thinkers might give you an idea of this book—perhaps a generation ahead of time for most believers—(links below); or you might look at excerpts at Amazon.com.
Jairo Mejia, M. Psych., Santa Clara University
Episcopal Priest, Retired
Carmel Valley, California
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Grudzen.htm
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Churcher.htm
49 Joe Esch // Oct 8, 2009 at 5:46 am
What an interesting discussion. It truly comes down to a search for the truth. Pilate said it best before he sentenced Christ to death, “What is truth” ( John 18:37). Christian believe that truth comes from a long history of monotheistic beliefs that originate with Gods chosen people the Jews. Historically speaking the bible is accurate that fact isn’t refuted by secular historians. Where faith comes in to effect is TOTAL accuracy of the bible. We know that the Jews were enslaved in Egypt circa 3600 years ago and know that traveled to the the land of Cannan. Where most people dissent is, Did God part the Red Sea? How did that happen? Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. (Romans 10:17) Therefore The word of God is the basis of all this. The bible also states “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the Word was God”. (John 1:1)
1)So once a Christian is able to establish that the Bible is True (Factual history)
2)Truth is then defined in the bible and proclaims that it is the word of God.
3)God then gave his creation a choice (free will) to be obedient to his law. (Genesis 2:16,17) True love for a creation is shown only through free will. Let me give an example:
If parents neglects to establish boundries to a child they are doing there child harm. Furthermore, when true love is shown to another human being Is it shown through force? (if you love something set it free, if it returns…)
God was showing Perfect love to Adam. Adam disobeyed thus introduction of sin (imperfection). Imperfection cannot coexist with Perfection and Adam was cast out (but still loved by his creator, God) (Genesis 3:23,24)
4 We still have that choice today through Jesus Christ (Roman 3:23)
5) Christ, being the only PERFECT human (fully God and fully human, and a totally different discussion) Sacrificed for our sin, because the only reconcilitation with God is through blood shed or death. This is because Sin is Death, (Roman 6:23)it causes death in our live and the only way to understand all of sins implication is to through sacrifice or death itself (a paradox in itself)
6) Accept Christ’s message (the gospel) or good news. (Romans 10:9)
7) Belive Christ’s Message
Once this has happened it becomes critical to spread the news to others the wonderful transfiguration that happens (being born again). The joy that is experienced and peace that overcomes you. Also known as being sanctified.
50 Kenneth Oberlander // Oct 8, 2009 at 8:48 am
Welcome Joe Esch.
Depends on how you define accuracy. For instance, I don’t think you can apply this to much of Genesis.
Hmmm…I’ve heard conflicting arguments about this:
http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch.html
A large amount of actual history conflicts strongly with the Biblical account. This obviously has repercussions for the rest of your argument.
Please define true love. And free will while you’re at it.
How does this square with the concept of hell?
If imperfection couldn’t exist with perfection, where did the serpent come from in the first place? How did it manage to co-exist with the perfection of the garden?
That doesn’t sound very loving to me…
This would only hold the chance of being true if you survive your own death. Needless to say, there is considerable argument about whether this is true or not.
I know of a large number of people who have experienced substantial relief and joy once they let go of religious thought. Not to mention the feelings of those who have changed religions. How would you feel if they proselytised the news of their happiness?
51 Lance // Dec 22, 2009 at 11:35 pm
These are all interesting comments – and definitely give insight on the train of thought of an athiest. I am a christian – and when I say I am a christian I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins so that I may be saved from eternal damnation (separation from God), if I put my faith in Jesus Christ.
I am not commenting on this post to prove or disprove anything. The context of this blog and recent posts would just present it self as an arguement to athiests if I were to do so, and in the end prove to be some wasted time, However, I am just intersted in finding out what the other side of the coin thinks – or rather why they think the way they do.
I am more intersted in finding out the core reasons on why people become/are athiests. From basic observation, reading previous posts in this blog, and other blogs about athiesm, etc. – there seems to be some underlying themes on the thoughts of athiests. I am not an athiest so I do not understand – but these are just some of my views on this topic from a Christian perspective.
It appears that athiests think that the thought of believing in a God is an insult to their intelligence because they like to base their beliefs on actual facts that can be proven, or theories that are postulated in the scientific community. Since there perception is that they have not physically seen God, any miracles or evidence of an act of God themselves – they do not believe in a God. They believe that life can be explained scientifically or mathimatically. Where as my point of view is that the world is full of evidence of God – I think of how ecosystems are so fragile, complexity of the nervous system, ability for humans to procreate – the list goes on, but those to me are evidence of God and not of a scientific phenomenoa.
Athiests also seem to have a very bitter taste in their mouth about organized religion or religious people. Athiests seem to have a point of view that Christians are always pushing rules and beliefs down their throat and condeming them for wrongdoings. Now, I cannot speak for all Christians, all men fall short of the glory of God and just because I claim to be a Christian does not make me a better person than others, however, I do have good intentions and I only proselytise out of concern for non-believers. The Bible even gives the harshest warnings to those who are deemed to be teachers of the word but do not accept all who are sinners, but not to condemn those who are percieved to be sinners, vagrants, etc. The pharsiees of the old testament is a good example of how man adds rules upon rules to their faith until they loose sight of the true message. Jesus warned them of how they made elaborate prayers in the synagogues purely for show, and shunned people who were not Jewish and weighted the people of the faith down with so many man made rules.
I saw a good video blog by Pen from Pen and Teller a few months ago. Pen states in the video that he is an athiest, however, he was apparently moved by an interaction he recently had from a Christian man. He stated that he was a good man because his intentions were good. Pen gave an analogy, if you and another person were standing in the street and a bus was coming for the other person, but they didn’t see it. Would it be wrong in trying to save their life? I realize that not all Christians have a skillful approach to discussing their beliefs with athiests – but from my perspective, I’m only trying to save your life. Sometimes I have trouble understanding why that is so offensive.
I not here to argue with anyone, If anything I’ve written comes across as defensive or arguementative, please don’t take it that way. I was just trying to give a point of view of the dicotamy between Christians and Athiests from a Christian perspective. I am purely trying to gain perspective on how and why athiests believe in what they do as I have never been an athiest.
52 Kenneth Oberlander // Dec 23, 2009 at 10:19 am
Hi Lance, welcome here.
A belief that the test of time has justified, methinks…
Some ecosystems are fragile, particularly the ones that we as humans interact with every day. Do a Google search for extremophilic or lithotrophic bacteria and the environments that they are found in. It’s going to be rather difficult to disturb those ecosystems!
We (in the sense of the scientific community, not me per se) have a very good understanding of the functioning, development and evolution of the vertebrate nervous system. It is incredibly complex, but hardly evidence for a god.
Again, there is an immense amount of information about reproduction and development out there. Both processes are quite explainable using only well-understood chemical and physical phenomena. There is no need to invoke a god (of any flavour) to understand them.
OK. As I’ve mentioned, these are well understood scientific concepts. Have you considered that there are scientific explanations for other things on your list? Have you searched for those explanations?
Well, have you been following the Catholic paedophile scandals in Ireland recently? Or the Pope’s idiotic anti-condom stance? The material and financial hypocrisy of the Evangelical church leadership in the USA? The Troubles in Ireland? The massive issues between Hindu and Muslim in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh and the history of the Partition of these three states? 9/11? The history of the Levant? The Crusades? The Inquisition?
By giving you these examples, I am not cherry-picking the worst possible and ignoring the good that religion can do. I don’t deny that organised religion can do good. My purpose here is to show that any religion that claims to be the official mouthpiece and conscience of a benevolent deity on earth (which one, again?), and yet can allow (or even worse, actively encourage) such breathtaking examples of evil to thrive within their very organisations, does not deserve anybody’s allegiance or support. The hypocrisy in such cases is stunning.
I think many Christians don’t realise how pervasive (and invasive) Christianity is in western culture to those of other beliefs (or non-beliefs). To pick a relatively mild example, how would you feel if you were in a culture that worshipped the Flying Spaghetti Monster before every meal? And frowned upon those that didn’t? It would be unpleasant and disquieting at best…Now extend that line of thought to things like religious interference in civil rights, freedom of speech, freedom of association and expression, education…I can give examples of these, if you like.
The very fact that most people (pre- and post- Jesus Christ, across all cultures, religions and nationalities) would answer in the negative, is very good evidence against the moral argument for god. We don’t need a god to be moral.
Which I understand. It sounds noble, doesn’t it? However, consider this from a different perspective. From an atheist’s point of view, you are wasting your only life (ever: there is no continuance after death) believing in a thing that doesn’t exist, and which requires you to do things that are at best a waste of time and at worst morally repugnant. Even worse, you are busy trying to convince other people that they need to believe in and to do the same! Can you see how this would irritate or trouble an atheist?
I’m not saying all of this to put your back up, or offend you. But you did ask why atheists believe what they do…
Hope this helps.
53 Hugo // Dec 23, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Hi Lance. If you’re very much interested in the writings of people that have deconverted, a good place to look is http://de-conversion.com/ – be sure to read the posts linked from the “Attention Christian Readers” on the right sidebar, next to the exclamation mark. It might be a rough read to start with, but I would suggest you also read a number of posts and/or discussions before climbing into discussions yourself. That site is a goldmine if you’re really seeking to understand what de-converts go through.
That would probably cover “why people become atheists”. Kenneth’s a really good correspondent* if you’re interested in chatting with someone that wasn’t a “former Christian”, and being a scientist, a good source for the scientific angle on atheism.
(*Declaring my bias: he’s a friend of mine.)
Kenneth, slightly off-topic (though it could become a talking point in this discussion), it looks like Uganda might be walking down a road where it will be joining your list soon… check the two links currently at the top of the miniblog – I think Rick Warren should be held responsible (not solely of course, but sufficiently and directly) for any atrocities that will be committed as a result of this.
54 Hugo // Dec 31, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Kenneth, I’m wondering if ecosystems are actually fragile. (And I’m playing with semantics, sorry…)
I started wondering today whether ecosystems aren’t rather remarkably robust… when given an undisturbed-by-humans habitat. Thus, I’m rather replacing a view of “fragility” with one of how powerful humans are in this context. We have the capability to destroy habitats at a scary rate, over-hunt and over-fish due to our tools, etc.
Extremophiles and lithotrophs: are those ecosystems really robust, or is it just that their environments are so extreme that it keeps us away? The fact that we can’t really disturb rocks or extreme undersea vents? Example: how robust would the ecosystem of an acidophile be if we spilled a bunch of caustic soda or something in its environment, raising the pH? (And whether its robustness characteristics would be due to its own robustness/fragility or due to our power or lack thereof to manipulate pH levels / its environment remains semantic, or perspective-dependent, and probably dumb to argue about.)
Just some thoughts, for the purpose of possibly reframing a “oh its so fragile, why not just let Darwinian competition destroy it then” into a “we’re powerful, gotta recognise the great responsibility that comes with that” view. (Which also doesn’t have much point, “we’re so powerful, thus our wills lay down the law in terms of Darwinian competition” aint no better a stance.)
55 Kenneth Oberlander // Jan 2, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Hugo:
OK, I see where you’re going with this…good question.
You have a very good point: the reason I used these ecosystems as examples is because they are difficult to get at…which doesn’t really agree with the definition of the term robust…my point in the previous post was not whether these ecosystems are sensitive to disturbance once introduced, but whether we can disturb them in the first place…
So you’re right…I was conflating robustness with ease of contact, which are not the same thing (although closely related). I can’t tell you whether lithotrophic ecosystems are fragile (i.e. not robust), because I don’t know of any research into these ecosystems on this aspect! But I stand by my point that it would be very difficult to destroy or even disturb these ecosystems…they are to all intents and purposes unreachable to us.
Something that I’ve always considered under-represented in conversations like these is the very interesting question about ecosystems that we as humans are creating…
Hurgh…this is a sticky point with me…why do people always associate with the nature red in tooth and claw aspect of natural selection? Mutualism is an incredibly powerful force, as is genetic drift…why focus on the competition aspect when the others are just as attractive?
56 Hugo // Jan 25, 2010 at 12:14 am
This is interesting…
I expect there’s always some kind of selection pressure, some sort of thing to “compete” against. I suppose “Darwinian competition” implies “between species” (or between members of a species), whereas the mutualism you refer to is much about cooperation “against” the forces of nature, at coping with habitat?
Some more thinking, I suppose for species able to correctly control their birth-rate, life could be very much not about competition? (And for tropical “birds of paradise” living in lush rainforests, I get the impression the toughest competition they face is wooing the females…
– though I’m surely grossly simplifying things and forgetting about all sorts of challenges they face.)
Thoughts?
57 Kenneth Oberlander // Jan 25, 2010 at 8:30 am
This counts for mutualism as well. You need some sort of thing to “mutualise with”, for lack of a better term.
Well, competition is also “against” the forces of nature, in the form of resource scarcity.
I think you have the cart before the horse here. Birth control is often a response to competition.
Which results in sexual selection, of course…
Yep!
Parasitism, predation, competition for food availability and nesting sites, competition between males for the best courtship spots…
I also see I included genetic drift in the above post…
/slaps himself upside head for sloppy sentence construction.
Genetic drift is, of course, an incredibly powerful force, particularly in small populations. But it is not an aspect of natural selection, as the quoted paragraph implies.
Leave a Comment