Search This Here Blog

Loading...

3.27.2008

How To Actually Talk To Atheists (If You're Christian)

Update 3.31.08: A number of people have emailed and asked if they can print and distribute this article / email it to friends / tattoo it on their buttocks, etc. If you think there's value in it, feel free to print or email it :) Also, thanks to Bishop Alan for his kind words about the article. It's nice to see an actual church blessing on my work.

* * *

You know what's great?

Unicorns.

In fact, unicorns are freakin' AWESOME. And you know why? Because once you accept one into your life, they provide you with a lifetime membership into the Beer, Massage, Chocolate and Steak club. Have you not heard about the beer, massage and steak club? Well, let me tell you all about it - it doesn't matter if you don't like beer, or steak, or chocolate, or massages - whichever one you like, you get 24 hours a day for the rest of your life. And if you like all four or any combination of them, well... You're in luck! Because That's what the rest of your eternity will be - massages (happy ending or not, your choice), steak cooked just the way you want it, chocolate of any sort coated in any topping (or as a topping on anything you want), and any beer ever made or ever conceptualized, always on tap and never flat. And to get all of this, all you have to do is accept a unicorn into your life.

What? You don't believe in unicorns? Well, I assure you that they are very real! And I know this because I've accepted a unicorn into my life, and I trust that it will one day gain me admittance into the BMCS Club. How could I have accepted it into my life? Well, I just believe in them. And I trust they exist, because there are texts available to me that discuss them, as well as people available to teach me all about them. I mean, after all, with such great eternal rewards, why wouldn't you believe?

Okay, fine, don't believe in them - you're going to end up in the Pushups For Eternity club. That's where you have to do knuckle pushups on mounds of broken glass with Rush Limbaugh sitting on your back for all eternity. All because you won't accept a unicorn into your life.




Pretty silly, right? Well, my dear Christian friends, that's exactly how you sound to an Atheist.

Now, I know that the message of Christ's death and resurrection sin so that humans can spend eternity in Heaven isn't being sold by (most) Christians as steak and chocolate and unicorns. That's not my point. I do not want or intend to discuss the actual merits (or lack thereof) of the Christian faith. My point is simply that you're asking a group of people to believe in something they do not believe exists, for a reward they cannot prove they'll ever obtain.

And I'm sure that the first reaction that you, as a Christian, felt toward my example was distinctly negative. I'm sure your feelings ranged anywhere from marginal discomfort to outright repulsion; given the notion that your chosen religion - the belief system that you've based everything you know and do around - could be compared to unicorns, steak clubs and push-ups in hell, well... I think I'd be offended myself. But I assure you, it is not my intention to offend you. I have but one goal, and that is to illustrate a single fact:

What you're currently doing - cold-call witnessing and talking to strangers at the mall about your faith and standing on street corners holding signs that read "REPENT"? Well...

It's not working.


This? Not working.


It's at this point that you're probably ready to just write me off as yet another heretic. And that's your right, and I certainly can't stop you. However, you need to understand that I didn't intend to upset you. If I did, however, I will not apologize. Instead, I'd ask that you give me a chance to explain my case by pointing out that your reaction to my comparison actually proves my point:

Confronting a person by attempting to convince them that everything they believe and know is wrong and that you are right is quite possibly the worst way on Earth to persuade them.

But I'm getting a bit ahead of myself. Before I illustrate how your current arsenal of witnessing tactics are not only ineffective, but are actively harming your religion and its' stance in an ever-growing public consisting of non-believers, I need to give you a bit of background information. And it's very important that, no matter how much you THINK you know these points, you pay attention to what I'm about to say, because the rapid swelling of the ranks of the Neo-Atheist movement have proven that what you think you know about them is absolutely, unequivocally, 100% WRONG.

First (and most important):

Atheists do not believe there is a God.

Yep, I'm using the definition of Atheism as my first point. And I do this not because I think you don't know what the word means, but because I'm fairly certain you've not yet realized the concept. When you witness to an Atheist, the person whom you are addressing does not believe there is a God - therefore, any information about God, Jesus, the holy trinity, the parting of oceans, great floods, and the creation of man falls on deaf ears.

To put this in more universal terms, you're attempting to sell a concept for which there is no proof other than the beliefs of men who have spread the word before it.

Whether you like it or not; whether you accept it or not, the fact remains - you're attempting to convince someone that something they cannot see, feel, hear, or otherwise partake of any empirical evidence of its existence, exists. Regardless of how much you believe in the story and how much it has affected your life and the lives of those around you, they do not.

This is important to understand. Until you do, you're arguing with a stop sign.


Second, Atheists do not need to believe in a God.

We've established that you're communicating with a person who does not believe what you are sharing with them exists. You're asking them to buy on faith the fact that spending time in church, telling other people about this belief and living a life based on it may one day reward them. That's difficult enough. When you add to this the fact that you are not only selling them something you can't prove exists, but that they don't even want, things turn from difficult to impossible.

Atheists assert that the foundation for their actions and deeds lie in proven methods related to science and the establishment of undeniable fact. In this, they believe that they have everything they need to live a healthy, rewarding life.

They're not wrong - no more than you are in asserting that your faith in the tenets of Christianity are all you need to live your life. And that's the point. It's hard to convince a man with two working legs that he needs to buy a third, or worse, get rid of his and try the ones you have on. And when he looks for your version and cannot see, feel, touch or otherwise prove that they actually exist, he's going to completely dismiss you. It's not personal, it's just how we work as people.

You're no different. Think about the last time you heard about a confidence scheme on the news - twenty or thirty elderly couples were duped out of their life savings by a man promising investment returns or selling a product which did not exist. If you are honest with yourself, you'll admit that your very first reaction - the one you had before you caught yourself and realized that these poor people are victims - was "Holy cow, why didn't they research it before they invested?"

It's crazy to buy something you can't prove exists, isn't it?


Witnessing is interruption marketing.

It's unfortunate but true - just about every method of "witnessing" to non-believers equates to human spam. To start, I'll list just a few of the methods we all know about:
  • Knocking on doors and talking to strangers about your new church / Christ / a church-related event designed to get new members
  • Cold-calling people from the phone book / phone lists to invite them to your church / discuss Christ and his teachings
  • Direct mail campaigns
  • Holding up signs on street corners
  • Walking up to strangers at Starbucks / the mall / anywhere besides your church
  • Handing out literature (i.e. "Chick Tracts")

This = Human Spam.



It's really easy to point these out as interruption marketing because... Well, they are. Honestly, they're low-hanging fruit. Easy targets, right? Probably unfair of me to just pick those and use them to illustrate the tactics all Christians use to witness. So let's talk about some techniques you may have employed that, to you, probably didn't come across as brazen as the above mentioned tactics:
  • Have you ever asked a co-worker to attend church with you?
  • Have you ever asked a stranger to attend church with you?
  • Have you ever asked either of the above about their faith in God or Jesus Christ?
  • Have you ever shifted a conversation that had nothing to do with church, Christ, or God into a conversation about any of the above?

When you did any of those things, did you notice an eye roll? Did the person groan? Did they shift in their seat and, at the very least, say they would go (or research what you just said, or give the matter some thought) and then never got back to you?

These techniques probably feel natural to you. They feel like you're sharing the good news of your faith and the joy it brings to your life, and it probably feels great to share that joy with others.

There's another organization / concept that those involved are equally as glad to share, because it's changed their life and they can't wait to spread that good news. This organization thrives on new members. Each individual collection of people works diligently to get more folks into the stable, because the larger they grow, the more they thrive and the farther they can spread the word of this great, life-changing group.

Surely, you know who I'm talking about. It's called Amway.

Now, before you get up in arms, I did NOT just compare your belief in God and Jesus to selling cleaners and credit cards and pre-paid cellphones. But I did, however, compare your technique of spreading the word about your belief to the technique of spreading the word about Amway.

Again, try to put yourself outside of your own perspective and into the shoes of your intended audience. You're interrupting their time and space to bring them a message you feel is important. And sure, you have the right to choose your faith and the right to free speech, but as GK Chesteron said, to have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it. And ultimately, "You need to hear this because I need to say it" is the ultimate in self-serving causes... And if you're serving yourself, you certainly aren't serving God.

So. You're dealing with an audience that doesn't believe that what you want to share with them even exists. They don't need it. They don't want to hear about it. Your attempts to share it with them are seen largely as annoying or, at the very least, an interruption in their day. And the result of these tactics is a massive swelling of the ranks of the "New Atheist Movement" (Neo-Atheism) in America and abroad; a movement that has been covered in great detail and has caused great concern within all denominations of the Christian church.

What to do, what to do...

Well, considering the facts, you've really only got two choices. The first is to just keep doing what you're doing. After all, it worked in the past. Your church regularly asks you to do it. It feels good to witness, and at the very end of the day, you can justify a few "lost sheep" if you gave it your best effort, right?

Well... If you're fine with that - if screaming your message through a megaphone and praying (literally) that someone hears you - is okay with you, well... Look forward to staying as frustrated as you are now (if not moreso). Stay persistent, right?

Well, to quote Seth Godin, quite possibly the most brilliant modern marketing guru alive today:
Persistence isn't using the same tactics over and over. That's just annoying.

Persistence is having the same goal over and over.
And the goal is to get people to follow the teachings of Christ and live a Christ-like life, right? Well, telling them to do so over and over again in ways that disrespect their time and personal space is nothing more than simple badgering. It might FEEL like you're doing the right thing, but as we all know, feeling like you're doing work, and actually getting work done are two different things. But there's something you can do that will bring you far closer to your goal than just talking and hoping:

Become the prototype.

Live the example, and let your actions spread the message. Get people to see the merit in the life you live and adopt your practices.

Let's follow two scenarios - one for each path you can take.

Using the traditional, human-spam model of witnessing, you use interruption-marketing techniques to spread the word about your faith. Because you are Christian, and because you are employing techniques that are unwelcome and unwanted, you communicate the following through your actions:
  • Christians would rather be correct than listen to differing opinion.
  • Christians do not respect the personal space (mentally and physically) of non-believers.
  • Christians feel they are superior to non-believers because they have salvation.
  • Christians would rather rely on faith as evidence than rely on fact.

All of these are going to lose your audience. Period.

And as I said before, if you're fine with that - if you're okay with the notion that saying the words and annoying or inconveniencing people with your methods of spreading what is supposed to be a message of brotherhood, unity, respect and love... Well, let's just say that you might need to evaluate the motives behind your actions, for they couldn't possibly be borne of love, respect or brotherhood.

Did Jesus ever hand out a pamphlet about himself? Did he ever tap people on the shoulder and say "Hey, have you heard the good news about me?" No... Not according to any of the literature I've ever read... And I've read a lot of it.

No one pays attention to magazine ads and billboards. People use Tivo to skip commercials on television. There are any number of email spam filters available to prevent just that sort of communication from inflicting itself on you digitally. In every segment - including yours - interruption techniques fail.

Considering your audience's opinion that you are infringing on their freedom to choose not to follow your faith, and their personal space with selling tales of what they consider to be mythical tales and arguments based on belief, you've lost before you've begun... And to go ahead with that program anyway implies a selfishness that only further harms your cause.

Its time for a new tack.

If I am the target for your message, I'm going to be far more receptive to one that incorporates respect for my time and my belief (or lack thereof). I will probably dismiss, as you do, the one which interrupts my routine and infringes on my time to tell me you're right and that everything I have spent years figuring out and pondering and basing my life and views around is wrong.

The second scenario, using my proposed example of witnessing by example, you employ the exact methods that Christ himself used to bring people inline with a respect and love based lifestyle. Live the teachings of your faith and sway action by your deeds. It may not feel like it’s as effective as talking and handing out literature - but the rational being will concede that that stuff has already failed everywhere it's being employed. And ultimately, living the example may not SEEM like it's as much work as hitting the street to hold posters or cold-call people to invite them to your church... But it's far less intrusive and far more effective in the long run.

Make no mistake - this is NOT giving up on saving souls or witnessing. Its a changing of tactics, one which requires diligence in action, commitment to the lifestyle, and confidence that those around you are taking notice.


Spreading the 'good news' is fine... But its hardly news at this point, and there's nothing good about not respecting my right to be who I am. And I can't guarantee or even suggest you'll convert everyone you meet with this new tact. But obviously, judging by the level of concern within all denominations of the rapidly spreading New Atheism, what you're doing isn't working the way you think it should. In fact, its doing more to push people toward the movement you're fighting so hard against. That doesn't seem like a good plan to me.

Eventually, living the example will entice someone who is paying attention to ask you your motives, or at the very least, inquire about the specific actions you're undertaking (such as volunteering for community service, feeding the hungry at a shelter, working with Habitat for Humanity, etcetera). And when they do, you'll have to engage them in conversation about your faith.

When you do, you should know that electing to enter into conversation with an Atheist equipped with your faith and scripture as tools is akin to electing to explore the ocean with a torch. The equipment you've chosen simply will not work in that environment. You can't blame the environment - after all, it is what it is, and you chose to go there.

So, here's a few pointers:
  • Don't bring it up first.
  • If you do bring it up first, and the other person is disinterested or reacts negatively, just let it go.
  • If the conversation does continue, remember that respect is paramount. You're not right, and I'm not wrong - you simply have faith in something I do not. That's not a weakness on my part, even when you consider it a strength on your part.
  • The faith you have? It's belief in the absence of proof or fact. That's the definition of faith. So, don't offer belief as evidence. You can, however, offer it as motive. "I believe in God" does not prove that God exists. "I volunteer at hunger shelters because I believe in God" does prove that you have a motive for your actions.
  • You will not sway an Atheist with promises of eternal reward or threat of eternal damnation. You can't point to heaven or hell on a map, so there's no evidence of their existence. Furthermore, bribery and intimidation are the tools of those who seek power, not those who seek redemption.
  • The Bible is not regarded as the word of God to an Atheist. It's a book written by men. Using it as evidence or proof of anything more than your motives for doing what you do is going to be dismissed.

Even if the conversation never ensues, it's a universal truth that action speaks louder than words. People DO take notice of those who act in accordance with a respect and love based lifestyle. They feel good when they see a person helping another person - and in fact, it makes them want to help out themselves. One need only look at the total figures of collected donations for the victims of Hurricane Katrina and the World Trade Center attacks to see this in action. Deed follows deed. Tell a person what to do, and you may get them to do it... Make them want to do it, and it'll get done, no matter what.

Ultimately, salvation has very little to do with saying the words "I believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and died for my sins." There are many, many people - some of whom hold the highest offices in the American government - who say this, and then go on to live lives that, by any account, are not at all Christ-like. How many people in your church have spent a week engaging in debauchery and other 'sinful' behaviors, only to appear in church on Sunday, ready to ask forgiveness for what they've done? And how many go right back out and do it again? How are these people better than those who live good lives and help their neighbor and further advance brotherhood and unity... But don't believe in God?

Which of these two types of people would you rather point to and say, "I taught them that?"

If you're more interested in lip service than in actually influencing people to live better lives, I'd say you need to revisit that book you proclaim to live by and, you know...

...Actually read it.
Posted by Joe Peacock at 6:58 AM

294 comments:

  1. Sadly, I know plenty of people to whom the words really are the most important thing. It doesn't matter how good a person someone may be, how Christ-like and charitable and humble, if he doesn't walk into that church every week or give enough money to it or have himself dipped in the sacred dunk-tank, he's on par with murderers and devil-worshippers. But if you do get baptised you've got a free pass for assholishness. Why? Because these people are Saved, and once you're Saved it doesn't matter what you do, you will be forgiven. So they can be hypocritical greedy adulterous jerks all week long because they pay their tithes and say their prayers and donate to causes that send bibles, not food or medicine, to undeveloped parts of the world.

    Seems that even atheists understand the message of the bible better than the Christians. Be a good person is what I always thought it meant, but churches seem to teach that it means to be an annoying fuck who strives toward a convert-quota.
    ReplyDelete
  2. opiumfireworksandleadMar 27, 2008 10:04 AM
    Christianity is an absolute stain on society. Take a good read-through of Proverbs or James and put a check-mark next to every command that is utterly ignored by "Christians".

    I believe that the Bible is God-inspired, etc. etc. The hypocrisy just pisses me off.
    ReplyDelete
  3. You should print this out as a pamphlet to hand back to the human spam and leave on bathroom counters.
    ReplyDelete
  4. Great job on this one, Joe! It's very thorough and comprehensive, and it needed desperately to be said.
    ReplyDelete
  5. Insert "Some" in front of everyone's group attack on Christians here and I'll agree!

    Also, mmm bacon.
    ReplyDelete
  6. The abridged version: "Practice what you preach while living and let live." How novel!
    ReplyDelete
  7. First off, I am an atheist. Now, onto my actual point. I very much respect the author of this article. Very much indeed. However, it is true that Christians and other religious people tend to become absorbed in the technical aspects of the religion because that is precisely what the people "running" the religion want, and therefore the incentives for the believers line up accordingly. Crippling the reasoning faculty directly produces passionately driven, weak-minded, hypocritical assholes who think they're Saved. I of course have no issue with people being truly good, but the "enlightened" religious people would have done that regardless, in their own way.
    ReplyDelete
  8. I have encountered Christians who knock on my door to just "have a little chat". I also have an ex-colleague who constantly requests me to just "drop in his church" for a Sunday.

    And the irritating part to me is that these people know I'm a Muslim . I think that they just need to realise that not everyone can be Christians or agree with their doctrine.

    To be fair, I've also met some Christians who are pretty nice and not pushy
    ReplyDelete
  9. Very nice article, very nice indeed. Should be required reading for all Christians.
    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm a Christian, and agree with this post. The Amway comparison says it all. I am happy to report, though, that I don't hang out with people who push their beliefs on others, even though I can relate to what you're saying. (In fact, I avoid conversations with people who do, because even as a Christian, I feel like I'm being "taken hostage".) Luckily, most people I know, regardless of their religion, seem to follow the advice given here.
    ReplyDelete
  11. Screw you, you aren't a christian, don't tell me how to live my life.
    ReplyDelete
  12. Awesome article! I agree with much, if not most of it, and it is very well put.
    I am in fact a Christian - I am studying to enter into ministry one day and may in fact leave my 6 figure job to do so-(but I will likely wait a few more years until my kids are out of school-I don't expect to make much money where I think I will be going).
    Anyways, I am currently taking a course on evangelism, so I have been giving a lot of thought to the topic as well.What you say makes a lot of sense to me, and I really appreciate your respectful approach that you bring to the conversation.
    I used to be quite 'conservative'.Now I am much more modrate, and the irony of it is that my faith is stronger than ever, and my awareness of God's love in my day to day life is deeper than any day I might have felt 'on fire' for God after pushing tracts into peoples hands.

    There is a new stream of thinking that is flowing in the church-it is called by some the 'emerging' church, and you hear a lot about the 'conversation'.It is all about sharing,relationship with others, and looking for common ground with people of all faiths (including good atheist folk like yourself!).Like you have said yourself,if there is any truth or merit to our(Christians) claims, why should it not be more evident by our very lives and prescence?

    The holy lives of the saints have been portrayed by painters over the centuries by halos. When was the last time you met a person that exuded such a prescence that it was palpable?
    I guess it's because many of them would rather help the orphaned babies of aids striken Africa than pass out tracts in Maconalds. Although you will find them with their sleeves rolled up at the shelters and soup lines too...
    God Bless you,sir.
    Rick
    ReplyDelete
  13. Agreed. I'm a Christian college student involved in a Christian organization on campus that, at least in my perspective, pushes "random evangelism." It very much frustrates me for the reasons you stated. I do think that in some cases, God makes it possible for this to work (I have seen it happen). However, just talking to a random person, they have no reason to believe you. Your best piece of evidence for God is your life, which is why living according to the Bible is so important.

    At least, that is what I believe. I hope it helps someone to understand that not all evangelical Christians fit the stereotype.
    ReplyDelete
  14. Yeah, I'm a Christian. So many of the evangelicals...have no idea what the other side is like, so they have no frame of reference when dealing with anyone who doesn't agree with them. Like the supervisor I had who didn't think I was Christian enough because I belong to the wrong church. This lesson you wrote should be taught in missionary schools, swear to God. It's a lesson I learned, but also my temperment: I don't want to force you to believe anything you don't want. It worked for me, it makes me happy. Live and let live. Don't mock me, and I won't mock you. You know, to your face.
    ReplyDelete
  15. dude I'm totally with you.
    you should join my club.
    you should join my family.
    you should join my life.

    I love you.













    fucking retard.
    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.
    ReplyDelete
  17. I didn't read all the other comments - time constraints suck - but as a Christian who somehow comes in frequent contact with hardcore Atheists on a regular basis, I have to compliment you both on your content and your approach. Oh, and the writing style was clever. But that's just my desire for constant entertainment speaking.

    It seems like both sides (that is, the religious and the non) forget that they speak primarily from personal experiences when they make most of their arguments. We forget that other people haven't seen, heard, and felt the same emotions as we have. We forget that we're different. I certainly do. Christians assume (and rightfully so, from their perspective) that any individual who doesn't worship Christ is going to Hell. Though unpleasant and perhaps delusional, the fact remains that Christians honestly desire to help those around them. In an eternal and temporal sense of the word "help." As irritating as he is, the Christian that keeps asking if you wanna hang out or check out his bible study ("because it's a great group of people") does so not out of some kind of churchy obligation, but because he cared. Whether Christians succeed in telling people about Christ or just piss people off depends on the methods they use. As evidenced by...well, every example I've ever witnessed, megaphones don't really work.

    At the same time, Christians forget that "saving the damned" is far less about what they say than about what they do. I think you hit that point on the head. I think hypocrisy might just be, as the quote goes, the greatest single cause of atheism in the world today, in a very pitiable way. Yet it is an intrinsically unsolvable problem. I mean, even brief observation of the world leads to an easy conclusion: people suck. Though we have our bright moments, a good portion of each person's life is devoted to trying to take care of himself, not others. We kind of miss that whole self-sacrifice bit.

    Unfortunately, being Christian doesn't make you perfect. And it certainly doesn't make you morally invincible. I think to most Christians, it means to have an unshakeable comfort in the sacrifice of Christ Jesus. I'm a Christian and I fail daily in more ways than I could possibly describe here. Christianity, if nothing else, gives me hope.

    Maybe right now you're thinking "kid, you have no idea what you're saying. I don't need hope. I can accept life as it is, and I don't need any unicorns or back massages to make me feel better." That's fine. I understand. I try really hard to at least realize your position. Of course, because I am in my position, I certainly don't believe you. I would ask if you have actually considered the moral and eternal ramifications of that statement. And of course you would tell me that you have, and that I should back off and stop yelling into the megaphone. Fair enough.

    I guess the point of this ramble is that miscommunication goes both ways. I, as a Christian, fully accept the responsibility to follow Christ both in my actions and my words, yet I also realize the monstrous impossibility of my fulfilling that responsibility.

    I guess the point is that, where Christians should try to understand the perspective of the atheists, atheists should realize that Christians honestly believe what they say. I will speak from experience (it's all I have; I must sing a song of myself - thank you Walt Whitman) and say that I don't want to irritate you. I certainly don't want to condemn you. I do, out of the love given me, want to help you.

    I hope I have made myself clear. My intentions are to insult no one. God Bless.

    Feel free to e-mail me with hate/input/agreement/discussion - I probably won't come back to this page, but I always like to talk to people...thanks.
    ReplyDelete
  18. that was good tom.

    and really good, not like I was making fun of the real douchebag.

    go us.
    ReplyDelete
  19. Excellent and intelligent. You appeal to logic.
    I'm a Christian Buddhist. My boyfriend is a Atheist Buddhist (he follows the practices for their benefits while not actually believing in the deities, etc). We differ opinions on the role and need of religion, and why it persists. Religions can have a huge and negative hold on people. Wars are fought over beliefs. Some doctrines contradict common sense. Why would people do this? They are vulnerable and need to make sense of their existence. In some parts of the world, people don't have their basic needs met and religion is their only comfort, as illusionary as it may seem to you or I. It may be the thing that keeps a community together and is the vehicle that provides them support, not just emotionally but on day-to-day needs.
    Yes, you and I know better. So why can't they finally "get" it? Much more of a complicated answer that we like to acknowledge.
    I realize you weren't stating "This is how you turn an Christian into an Atheist". But wanted to point out...there are so many reasons people refuse to give up religion. I won't go into what would be a very, very long comment post. But only ask atheists to remember the reasons people persist in their own beleifs are complicated and varied, and that religion serves a purpose in their lives. Just as them asking you to believe in unicorns will never convert you, appealing to their logical side will not convince them.
    ReplyDelete
  21. marc and i just read this and we have determined that it is really insightful and deliciously written. what inspired you to write it? do tell!

    m&g
    ReplyDelete
  22. Just a quick note:

    By "go us," I'm going to assume that "Jacob" means Christians... Which would put him in league with Christians - fair assumption, right?

    So, it would seem that a Christian with a viewpoint different from my own (which, I will gladly say, I took GREAT measure to ensure was fair, honest and uninsulting) found it necessary to call me both a fucking retard and a douche. And another "Anonymous" Christian decided to tell me "screw you" because I'm not one.

    Now, unless I'm absolutely mistaken, this would be the first transgression toward Jacob (and almost all of you) I've made, since we've never met before. So, by Jesus's math, I've got 489 more forgivings to go before you're allowed to go insulting me (Matthew 18:22).

    Way to win me over by following the teachings of your savior, guys. Glad to see you guys got so much from my article :)
    ReplyDelete
  23. ** an atheist’s unapologetic apology **

    “Theology is a subject without an object.”

    Don’t forget belief is not only optional, it’s really unfit for human consumption.

    There is no supernatural realm — from which it follows that there are not two worlds (the “spiritual” one superordinate to nature), eternity is a fiction, no god whatsoever exists.

    Xianity, like its murderous near eastern brother islam, its idiot father judaism, and its hate-based grandfather zoroastrianism, arose late in recorded history and it has been decaying at an increasing rate since 1600.

    Enough of this heresy born of Paul’s perverse twist on hellenistic judaism and overlaid with rites and symbols gleaned from the back alleys of slums in the eastern roman empire. Batman is more real than “Christ” ever was . . .

    Enough xian intellectual nihilism and perversion of sexuality and hatred of woman and self-righteous revenge seeking. (1Cor1 1:end)

    “God’s only excuse is that he does not exist.” — Stendahl

    What a relief!

    I feel better now, thanks.

    celsus2
    © 2008
    ReplyDelete
  24. I would rather die believing and find out I'm wrong than die not believing and find out I'm wrong.
    ReplyDelete
  25. Jeez Joe, can we please separate the 13-year-old forum flamers whose parents drag them to church and bible study every week from the Christians that actually live their lives trying to emulate their/our Savior. I'm really trying to figure out why this article was written in the first place, was it to get a bunch of Diggs for your site? Or were you just looking to provide a forum for Christian-bashing? Our religion is attacked daily, by the non-religious, or radical extremists, but I can see why you would want to pile on. Thanks
    ReplyDelete
  26. If you see what I wrote as "piling on", you've either misread it or have some obsession with being the martyr.

    The entire point of the article was to help the whole of your faith from repelling folks, which it's doing. Christianity isn't being "attacked" - it's being reacted to negatively.

    It's like that kid in the classroom who keeps talking to everyone while they're trying to do what they're doing and wonders why everyone avoids him at the playground.

    And I run no ads on my site, and this is just my journal - a place for me to throw up what I think and feel. There's no real reason for this thing to be popular on digg or reddit or (insert social whatever site here). That stuff is for Mentally Incontinent :)
    ReplyDelete
  27. I'm going to put it out there for all of those who do not understand what it means to be a "Christian". It does not mean that we think we are perfect, holier than thou, or better than anyone. Christian means that the person is a believer in Christ and nothing more. Very well written post and you are right. There are some holy rollers out there that all they do is preach hellfire and damnation and that reaches noone. God is love and that's what they should be preaching. Love thy neighbour as thyself. Peace....One Love...

    Marshall E. Smith II (A Believer)
    ReplyDelete
  28. Well, Written! Though, I think that for some reason those that are agnostic are lumped in with atheists. I believe that a good portion of people who are categorized this way Believe it is arrogant to believe you have the answer without empirical data. They are looking, but they also believe it to be foolhardy to pass judgment either way without tangible evidence. So most of what you are saying applies to this group also.
    ReplyDelete
  29. A post that unapologetically explains the divide without indulging in juvenile religion-bashing. I'm quite impressed.
    ReplyDelete
  30. Thanks Joe, except for causing me to piss my pants from laughter. I will send you the dry cleaning bill.

    I will reply to the atheist/agnostic by anonymous:

    From my experience all atheists that I have ever met are agnostic and most agnostics are also atheists. A lot of agnostic just don’t like to use the term or and some don’t understand it’s meaning. People are either believers in a god or they don’t think there is one. Even if you call yourself an agnostic (you don’t think there is evidence to KNOW if there is a god or not), you still either believe that there probably is or is not a god. If you think there probably is a god, you are a theist. If you don’t think there is, than you are an atheist. That is it, you are either one or the other.

    The only way that you can be an agnostic without being an atheist, is to realize that there is no reasonable evidence for a god, but still choose to believe. That position makes little sense from my perspective. I am an agnostic atheist towards god for the same reason that I am an agnostic non-believer towards unicorns… there is no evidence to “prove” the existence of unicorns either way, so the logical stance is to remain an unbeliever until reasonable evidence comes forth.

    When someone asks you about the existence of unicorns, do you tell them you are agnostic?
    ReplyDelete
  31. First off, I want to say I didn't read through all of this. BUT I did read through the main points.

    Secondly, as a Christian, I must say that I fully and completely agree with everything you've pointed out.

    Even in different church groups there's this "human spam"; if you're not part of MY division (i.e. Catholic, Baptist, etc.) then you're going to hell because you're not a true Christian.

    I have many atheist friends, and many other friends who don't share my beliefs. And I think it's great. Religion/beliefs/faith whatever you want to call it is always a topic to talk about with us and I find other views absolutely intriguing.

    Anyway, the reason I wanted to post a comment is to say how much respect I have for you for not attacking the Christian faith and simply stating your point without being offensive. The unicorn thing was brilliant. And it shows that even though you may not share the Christian beliefs you still respect a person's choice to that religion.

    I have one atheist friend who does nothing but attack what I believe in and does it in a mean, spiteful way. He calls me ignorant for believing in what I believe and I call him ignorant for not respecting my faith when I fully respect his beliefs.

    Ah. I wish more people could be like you.

    Cudos.
    ReplyDelete
  32. I'm a Christian from the UCC, Barak's church. I would just like to say that all those proselytizing fucks annoy the hell out of me even. I just think jesus said to love thats all. No political bullshit, just love everyone. I just wish more people viewed the Bible as a good source for metaphors for life rather than hard fucking fact. Well, I think people need to believe, or not believe what makes them happy. Diversity makes this world what it is. We need to love each other.
    ReplyDelete
  33. I swear that I had read this post before some place, and even commented such someplace else. Nearly everything stated has been something pointed out by moderates, used as examples (unicorn arguments are common some places as examples of why, "let me tell you about X", just annoys people, etc.

    The only flaw in the whole thing, as someone pointed out already, is that such witness won't help in what is presumably the underlying goal of suggesting to people that god is worth believing in. We, i.e. those who mostly don't, or completely don't, believe already know people can do good deeds and that many things can drive them to do so. That your source of such is in some qualitative fashion better, and therefor should be considered is a) built of premises already rejected, in at least 70-80% of the cases of atheists I know of, by people that rejected religion, having started from *your* perspective in the first place and b) not supportable by the evidence of history, again, both from the perspective of outsiders *and* those that rejected the inside perspective.

    You will get respect for your *personal* actions, possible respect for the group you belong to breaking the usual mold, and a lot more friends, all around, but.. you are not going to get respect for the underlying ideology. Not from those who have never experienced it, and absolutely not from the those that finally took the leap from your side, and instead of finding cause, found relief, amazement and freedom to question things that they never previously had.

    Still, I commend the ideas, if not the expected outcome. The other sort are making themselves extinct, even among other believers, by being pests, predators and parasites to everyone, including other faithful.
    ReplyDelete
  34. "finding cause,"

    should have been: "finding chaos,"

    Long day at work, not enough sleep, and a bad habit of not proof reading. lol
    ReplyDelete
  35. Absolutely spot on!

    Napalm Evangelism has completely destroyed Christianities credibility in most of the world, especially here in the west.

    As a Christian who grew up in a form of Napalm Christianity, I can state that it not only negatively affects those you're supposed to come in contact with, it also negatively affects you, and shrinks your horizons dramatically.

    This is a breath of fresh air in a society that seems to be Christians VS. Atheists when it doesn't need to be that way.

    Great, great article.
    ReplyDelete
  36. Joe, I believe you have now missed my point. While I have some quarrel with your original post content-wise, I have no problem with your act of posting it. I wish I could turn my thoughts into words that I myself could understand, not to mention a segment of the outside population. But you must know that by allowing comments to be made on such a post you allow others to bash both my religion and those of us that follow it. We've been called hypocritical greedy adulterous jerks and proselytizing fucks, and with these comments being on your website you are alloted a sort of ownership over them all.

    What I don't get is that most Christians of the missionary kind don't preach or attempt to convert out of some sort of superiority complex, they do it because they truly want you to be happy, not only physically, but eternally. No one yells at people who work at soup kitchens for shoving food down homeless people's throats. No one berates doctor's for taking the hypocratic oath. We all as Christians have taken a spiritual hypocratic oath so to speak, and I don't believe that's such a bad thing.
    ReplyDelete
  37. The people who really need to digest your message are, unfortunately, the people saying "screw you" and "f-ing retard", and the people not bothering to read these types of messages at all.

    Christians are not necessarily offensive, it's the jingoistic way some of them assume that everyone else needs Jesus shoved down their throats.

    The pendulum is starting to swing in the other direction.
    ReplyDelete
  38. No one yells at people who work at soup kitchens for shoving food down homeless people's throats. No one berates doctor's for taking the hypocratic oath. We all as Christians have taken a spiritual hypocratic oath so to speak, and I don't believe that's such a bad thing.

    Some people *might* get a bit annoyed about the people feeding the homeless, if all evidence tends to suggest that a great many of those people choose to be, and that building such a place will just attract more of them (having that argument in my own city, and its just as stupid imho as giving out needles to prevent drug addicts from passing diseases to each other, which lacking the higher morals that would *require* curing the problem, instead of just fixing a symptom. And yet, all we do is fix the symptoms, by jailing the ones we catch, without treatment on one hand, while helping them stay vaguely healthy on the other. Its just too "expensive" and, the one I really don't get is, "somehow *wrong* to help them quit using medical means..." Huh?!? Guess who makes that argument the most often..

    As for doctors, sure, but part of their oath isn't just "do good", its "harm no one while doing it". The Hippocratic oath of religion (and ironically your spelling may be more accurate) for religion is *usually*, do what I think will be good, and damn the real consequences. Doctors that tried that would be fired and their licenses revoked.

    Its not enough to think you are doing what will benefit society, you need to be right too. Otherwise, the unintended consequences will almost always make the cure worse than the disease. And the one thing generally common to "all" missionaries is that they start with the premise that what they bring is "always" best, and ignore all evidence they may be wrong. Its hasn't exactly produced great successes in foreign countries, and its created a mess in the US too, often with two *missionary* groups siting on opposite sides of the same street, both convinced without one shred of reason to be such, that they are right, and the other people over there are screwing up the world. The only time they do agree is if someone that thinks they are both wrong comes along, and then all differences, temporarily, dissolve, so they can challenge their common enemies.

    As one website that specializes in denialism and its examples, this is one of the traits of cranks, not clear thinkers. And some of the examples can be positively absurd. Like the two bozos, one insisting on Biblical literalism, and the other on theistic evolution, who also can't agree on how old the world is, but both of which are just happy as clams to help each other attack some completely made up version of the real theory, which bares the same resemblance to the real thing as Lego Star Wars does to Star Trek.

    Again, thinking you are right is not the same as being right, and if you are wrong, the effect may be either immediate, or long term, and the worst problems arise when the advocates are long dead when the chickens finally come to roost. Better to be at *somewhat* skeptical of your own certainties, instead of just taking oaths to uphold things, which most of those which do so will never examine.
    ReplyDelete
  39. Xaviermuskie, I believe that Kagehi said pretty well what I intended to say in reply.

    Christianity does have it's own oath of sorts. Witnessing is ingrained into the practice of the religion (for the most part).

    The problem with your analogy is that your decision to undertake that responsibility is your decision - not mine. Who knows - maybe I've been a Christian before and now I no longer choose to be. Maybe I have no knowledge of Christianity as a faith, but things are working just fine for me. Maybe I just plain don't feel like talking to strangers today... In any case, I repeat my point from my article:

    Just because YOU need to say it does not mean that I want or need to hear it. Knowing that I might not, if you choose to go forward with talking to me about it, you've just shown a rather immodest concern for my feelings on the subject.

    Whether or not being disrespectful is "right" or "wrong" on a grand spiritual scale is a topic for another discussion. THIS discussion pertains directly to the result of doing that, and how it's hurting the adoption rates of the tenets of your faith.

    Your actions are driving people away. If that's alright with you / your minister / your church / the faith as a whole because "hey, we tried," then I must not understand the intended purpose of witnessing.
    ReplyDelete
  40. (aka Robert) Joe and Kagehi, I'm obviously overmatched here intellectually, and I applaud your cleverness in taking my misspelling and turning it around to suit your own argument. But lets cut the bull here and understand that your comments go deeper than just "if Christians were a little less forward with their message, perhaps we would receive it better." We both know that's not the case. I think the root of this argument is the feeling that Christians are stupid for believing in something they can't see or prove, and atheists don't want to listen to that stupidity. Fine, don't.

    What I have a problem with is the lumping of Christians together as if we're not a collection of individual parts. If I get robbed by a black man, am I correct in calling all black people niggars? Then why if you witness people who call themselves Christians acting not-so Christ-like, do you have the right to say that all Chrisians are hypocrits who sin all week and are forgiven on Sunday. I would venture that Atheists have as many sinners as we do, even if you call them something else. Our religion never claims perfection, either as a whole or individually. Being Catholic, I get to see first-hand the fallacies and failings of our leaders. That being said, Christ has given us a template with which to mold our lives, as impossible as that may be. Would you tell me that if everyone in the world tried to live more like Jesus (without taking into account religion, but just actions) that the world wouldn't be a better place?

    Someone said they would prefer being a good person over a Christian who gets weekly forgiveness and acts like an asshole. I'm sorry, but we believe that neither of these are good enough. If heaven is our ultimate goal (it is) then we must strive not only to be a good person, but to do so in a manner that emulates Jesus. Since Joe, you claim to have read the bible, you will know that Jesus was not only our savior, but a prophet as well. Our religion and beliefs require us to walk in His footsteps, and be a prophet for Him.

    I don't really know what else to say, I know that this is an argument that has endured for 2000 years, and won't likely be solved on a blog such as this. What I feel can be fixed is the misrepresentation of Christians as a group of hypocrits, when really what we are is a group of peaceful people who strive for Heaven, and want to see as many people there with us as possible.
    ReplyDelete
  41. @ The Jen *everyone else needs Jesus shoved down their throats.*

    i don't know much about Christianity but wouldn't that be some kind of sin ... ;)

    immature humor aside, on the point of the 'Christian Hippocratic oath' being at its heart a good intention i can't help but be reminded of a quote from a book i once read 'the greatest harm comes from the kindest intentions...' then going on to describe a person who broke his leg and slowly because his friends did so much to help him let his leg rest to speed recovery he permanently lost use of both due to atrophy.
    which is kind of what you have described with over prosterisation (sp?) causing a drop in conversions to Christianity and a rapid increase in smaller faiths such as paganism and Atheism (though i think that the large number ale, cake and nudity may have something to do with paganism's popularity...*joke*).
    keep up the good posts
    ReplyDelete
  42. Umm. Ok. First off, living like Jesus presents a number of odd positions. It could mean, "allowing destiny to happen, because you think the long term result of allowing harm to yourself will help others.", it may mean the goofy, "render unto Caesar what is his", but then you have to work how *who* that is, and what precisely is theirs, instead of yours. Does it mean casting out demons? Umm, yeah, that has worked.. How about making things happen by *believing* strongly enough that you can heal, walk on water, etc. The only people even claiming to do that stuff in the last 2,000 years have all been frauds and charlatans. It has to either be considered a lie, an exaggeration, or something make up later, then inserted into the story to make the whole thing sound more plausible.

    The point being, you can't talk about Jesus without dragging all the baggage along for the ride, much of which is questionable, absurd, or obviously fabricated. But, here is the odd thing. You can divorce the principles themselves from the supposed stories they come from, and then you find that they are shared by a vast number of faiths, all of whom have their own silly claims as to what "produces" them and how its somehow impossible for them to be derived without knowledge of that set of fables. You also find that even people that reject the fables, or never heard of them, manage to derive the same ideals and moral frameworks. There are any number of answers to this, but its **pure** hubris to presume that because you think your answer is the right one, when you can't even effectively provide evidence of the myth and fable behind it, never mind provide a solid and irrefutable connection between the belief system and the moral frame works.

    Frankly, if you really want an answer to if the world would be better if everyone was like Jesus, I would say no. Rational people don't curse out of season fruit trees for refusing to bear fruit for them, for just one example. And anyone that thinks Caesar should get to tell you what *is* Caesars, without any challenge to that declaration, isn't democratic. And those are just two interpretations that could be applied to what "being like Jesus" could mean. Who gets to say those are "wrong" interpretations, and having made such a proclamation, how are they any different than the sort of "preach first and do good works second" people we are talking about?

    I also wish you would stop doing two things - 1. Presuming, while arguing that we shouldn't, that atheists are some uniform group. Ever hear the phrase "herding cats"? Its commonly used to describe precisely why, until recently, atheists have have *no* organized effort to speak of, while trying to defend their general views (which are not always even agreed on). 2. Putting words in our mouths by automatically presuming that we are a) talking about *all* Christians when we point out some behavior we dislike, or b) that because we comprehend satire and irony, any use of it means we are calling Christians stupid.

    You are hardly stupid. There is however a term that is sometimes applicable to believers, "willfully ignorant". This is the opposite of stupid. It implies a concerted effort by a very smart and intelligent person to invent justifications, apologetics and explanations for what they believe in, which *they* find reasonable, in the face if things that the *choose* not to see, recognize, accept or acknowledge. Einstein had fits when we realized that quantum physics was a consequence of *his* ideas, and despite being genius, spent much of his remaining life trying to come up with reasons why it *couldn't* be what his own theories suggested. He didn't however have 2.85 billion people all going, "Gosh! Our faith also says that's impossible, so you're right, God really doesn't place dice with the universe!" That is the reality with faith. There are 2.85 billion people in the US, convinced that some form of theology "must" be correct. Its kind of hard to escape that, just as it was damn near impossible to escape every other "belief" that 95% of the people in the known world agreed with, at one point or another.

    As, to the last Anon post.. I would love to here what supernatural ideas and or presumptions atheists cling to as a whole that makes it a faith... The very definition of the word implies *belief* in things that atheists reject, either based on there being no point in believing in them, or the odds being so small that there isn't much chance of them existing. Worse, the fact that you can actually get some atheists that believe in things like ghosts, but reject gods... also kind of undermines the idea that it qualifies as a "faith". The only reason its legally considered one is because it would be perverse to suggest, for example, that one should protect someone's right to free speech, but not their right to shut up, or their right to wear bow ties, but not their right to dislike, and not choose to wear one, etc. If you are going to lend any sort of special protection to someone's *right* to a thing, the default position is to *also* protect their right to "not" have it.

    As for your contention about paganism.. You are wrong, there are Christian nudist/naturist groups that make a good case for the Bible not being against nudity, so long as its done in humility, and not to show off. You may be right about the beer and cake, and since the nudity often involved sex... lol
    ReplyDelete
  43. You know, part of me wishes that I could go back and fix my original post to read...

    TL.. DR

    lol
    ReplyDelete
  44. I gotta say that I appreciate the original posting. It was insightful. I think it also indicates, possibly, a lack of understanding of Christian motives. I, as a Christian, only broach the subject of my faith when it is obvious that I am welcome to do so. This being said, all Christians have a responsibility (the Great Commission, ie, Mt 28:18-20) to tell of the faith that we have. We are not directed to exactly how to do so, so I choose to use methods that have shown to be reasonable, such as getting to know a person before discussing the subject, unless specifically invited to do so.

    I think another thing that seems to have been missed by many who posted comments is this. I have the faith that I claim for real, valid reasons. Others, Atheists included, often have reasons as well. That's a good thing. Simply because God cannot be "whirred up" in a test tube does not mean that there is no evidence. Imperical evidence is not the only form of evidence. Our western culture puts way too much emphasis on measurable data. There are many things that cannot be measured, but are very real despite that fact. (emotions, for instance)

    A point that many Christians seem to miss is that it isn't the man that causes anyone to be "saved" anyway. God (through action of the Holy Spirit) convicts, enlightens and draws people to God. Man has the right of free will to accept the offer of relationship or not. God respects the free will of man, so why shouldn't I? The ultimate point is this...no matter what I say to a person who isn't a believer, that person has free will and God is the one who actually does the work anyway. My part is to simply be a part of the process, which can be very humbling and rewarding. Finally, not everyone will accept Christ's offer of a relationship. That's just the way it is.

    Finally, there are many, many good people in the world who do great things, and they aren't Christians. There are many Christians who do reprehensible things. God does not request me to judge anyone, but to love people and serve people as I believe Christ did on the cross of Calvary. If I stick to Loving God, and loving others, I'll be doing what God asks of me. I don't believe that loving someone means trying to force them to believe me (which can't actually be done), but I also do believe that part of loving people is to find a way to tell them that I truly believe that without a relationship with Christ, they are in great danger.

    No insults to people of any faith (or lack of faith in God) is intended. I only wish to try and share my thoughts on a subject that happens to be very important to me, and should be important to Christians in general.

    Thanks for reading my ramblings.

    TT
    ReplyDelete
  45. I would just like to address the one comment made in which it was stated that "being an agnostic theist is irrational." This statement is completely false.

    Being a gnostic is always completely irrational, since there is no evidence for either side. Most atheists are gnostic, saying that they think that they do know whether or not a god exists, and that the answer to that fundamental question is no. Most Christians too are gnostic, citing things like the bible as evidence for the existence of God. However, these are both irrational stances.

    The only viable ones are those of agnosticism. Whichever way you then choose to lean is completely alright. Now, agnostic theism is the only rational defensible form of faith. At the point where you honestly acknowledge the lack of evidence for God, but emphasize rather the effect that your faith has had/has on your life, your belief in the existence of God is justifiable.

    A belief in a factual basis for God is dangerous, because it undermines faith. I have to paraphrase Douglas Adam here, and mention his story about God disappearing in a poof of logic when he proves his own existence. Faith is what really does the trick, not knowledge.
    ReplyDelete
  46. "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
    For it is written:
    "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
    Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe."
    1 Corinthians 1:18-21
    ReplyDelete
  47. Thanks Joe for a well thought out post. As a Christian, it does give me food for thought. I do have a message that I believe in and that is that "Jesus Christ died to save sinners of whom I am chief"

    However, I cannot believe that no commentor pointed this out. If you are a Bible believing Christian (which would imply that you are a reading one too) you would know that the unicorn is/was an extinct species that was difficult or impossible to domesticate.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=unicorn&qs_version=9
    ReplyDelete
  48. This is an excellent post, and I couldn't agree more.
    ReplyDelete
  49. Well, Sir Padfoot. You are correct, one could be a gnostic, and faithful. I find it slightly absurd thought, since you have to reach that conclusion without *any* data, or with a lot of *bad* data. I.e., you have to, on some level, ignore the fact that *every* case that has been tested, by every person that has "allowed" themselves to be tested, as well as pretty much all phenomena, have either been debunked, or explained without the supernatural. That kind of just leaves you with what is called goal post moving, i.e., "Yes, well, all 'those' cases where debunked or explained, but what about --this one--? Huh, huh... Answer that one!" Its also the same goofy method ID tries to use to suggest irreducible complexity, when they are not a) busy using already shredded examples, or b) ignoring all evidence that irreducibility "can" develop randomly. Or, alternatively, the other "source" for belief becomes entirely personal, and no honest person would call that credible, not even the believer.

    Beyond that, one atheist on PZ's site, during a discussion of just what the terms really mean, stated, "I am agnostic about the existence of god, since its not possible for me to prove such a thing *can't* exist, but I am also 100% agnostic about every goody made up description of what god is that man ever came up with." As near as I can tell, the only difference between gnostics and atheists is that the former figure that, maybe, sort of possibly, *one* of the descriptions we have *might* describe the real thing, while atheist take the view that there is jack in any of them that isn't solely human, and usually by the religions own rules on the subject, also logically inconsistent with the faith, since almost all of them that insist on some definition being "right" also babble about god being unknowable, indescribable, and a whole list of other things he/she/it can't be *if* any of the existing descriptions for god come even vaguely close to being accurate.

    A theists is an atheist with one god they don't reject. A gnostic is a theist that hopes one of them is real, or actually hasn't seen Homer Simpson's glorious rebuttal to Pascal's Wager. An agnostic is a gnostic that just isn't sure which god might be the right one, or there is one, or how close to true that description is. An atheist is someone whose view ranges from, "None of them can be the right one, even of there *is* one", to, "And besides, if you want to claim there is one, you need **some sort** of evidence for it, or otherwise, its not necessary to explain anything. Claims that it doesn't explain stuff like love, which are just as 100% human derived concepts, which describe behaviors, and which 'can' differ in expression by a fair margin, don't count as evidence, especially when there *are* emotionally unsatisfying, but which do describe why they exist, and what they are."

    So, to put it simply, until/unless someone digs up the note books of Moses, or some writings from an ancient priest, or, in modern terms, someone forgets to burn the notes and papers of the current pope, then accidentally lets them into the hands of the public, and one of those documents provides a clear description of the "invention" of religion... Once you have something that people believe as a reasonable answer, the only way it gets abandoned is if its replaced. And, since everyone, including atheists, are stuck with a world where a lot of people believe, and someone invented the whole mess, *everyone* is agnostic, just with varying degrees of how much disbelief they are willing to suspend to fit in to the group (or how much understanding they have to help them suspend it).

    Oh, and Annon... Corinthians 1:18-21 speaks to a time where the "knowledgable" would be considered special ed students in our time. Religion had no problem confounding such people, because such people had almost no understanding of *anything*. They where scholars because they wrote more, read more, and knew a bit more of the prevailing wisdom of the time. But, they knew almost nothing compared to today, or 200 years ago, or even 2,000. We are talking about the equivalent of if the professor from Gillagin's Island where frozen in time, then rescued from the island in Futurama's year 3,000. Most of the stuff they *knew*, all but the brain damaged, would consider foolish, absurd, or just plain wrong, today.

    In modern times, its **far** more common for the faithful to be confounded by things the knowledgeable and wise manage to come up with. Its precisely with Luddite sects, literalists and others like them are panicked, paranoid and desperate at this point.
    ReplyDelete
  50. so let me get this straight.
    you're saying the crazy right wing evangelical people don't know how to convert people... so you give them pointers...

    how about this as a pointer... "stop trying to convert people... ever"

    i actually am offended about your comments on the unicorn, you've trivialized it and left out important details... first. it's invisible... and second: it's pink.
    ReplyDelete
  51. I think the Bible should come with a bonus book: "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie. To oversimplify the book we can say that it is all centered around one ideal that we've all been taught our whole lives and that Christ himself said to follow over all other commandments. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The essence of this "golden rule" is present in, and in my opinion, the nucleus of every religion.

    In Judaism - "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a

    In Islam - "Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself." Mohammed, Hadith

    In Buddhism - "Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5.18

    The list goes on, they're all the same.

    So what happens when we force our beliefs on others? We are met with circumstances in which others force their opinion on us. I won't speak for everyone but I know I'm much more eager to listen to someone who has genuinely listened to me. To be respected we must respect. My first roommate in college used to play the victim and say, "Why do people always complain about Christians being intolerant? Christianity is an intolerant religion! That's just the way things are."

    He was 100% right.

    Anyone who pays attention to the magnitude of wonderfully informative bumper stickers that we are so lucky to have in such abundance knows that Gandhi once said, "I like your Christ but your Christians are so unlike him." I'm paraphrasing of course.

    Jesus wouldn't have been a very big deal if he had run around condemning everyone he felt wasn't living his or her life correctly. He walked the walk and he got peoples attention.

    This is probably really long and so in closing. EXCELLENT article. And correct me if I'm wrong, the point of Atheism was never intended to be an opposition to Christianity, right? And at the same time, those who fight and seek to stamp-out groups of people and ways of thinking must be met with like forces. None of this is new. :)

    awelsh@utk.edu
    ReplyDelete
  52. Another poster suggested copying this and printing it out to hand to people on occasion. I intend to do just that. (unless you contact me and ask me not to) This is probably the best written, most to-the point article on the subject I've ever read. Bravo, man, just bravo. Intelligent and witty, inforative without being condescending or insulting.
    ReplyDelete
  53. Hey, if you think there's value in it, feel free to print and distribute this all you want :)
    ReplyDelete
  54. Sadly, I can't join Christianity - my testicles were ripped off in a bizarre boating accident, and I can't get into the kingdom of heaven (Deuteronomy 23:1).

    I guess my point is that you had it so right with the unicorn analogy, why doesn't that carry through to Christianity?
    ReplyDelete
  55. While we're being honest, another question: Suppose you are to live with love and integrity, and that life of love and integrity was intriguing to an atheist. How much of what is appealing is a bi-product of faith, and how much is the work of the Holy Spirit?

    A Christian will SAY, "Every good thing you see in me is God." But there are people of all faiths (and no faith) who live optimistic lives of loving service. Is this really God, or is this the power of living for others and the winsomeness of being happy, content and focused?
    ReplyDelete
  57. The unicorn sounds more likely than a Christian following their own example. I am sure there is one in this world (Christian with jesus like qualities, not unicorn) however I have yet to meet one.
    ReplyDelete
  58. A large part of the anger and resentment that gets portrayed to Christians from atheists is from the very real repercussions of our lack of faith within society. As the majority, Christians in positions of power can reward other Christians because, naturally, being a Christian makes you more trustworthy, kind, etc. This is at least what Christians like to believe of themselves, so they do. I consistently do not reveal my true beliefs because I receive rude and insensitive comments that would not be acceptable against minorities even of other faiths.

    For example, can you imagine a Presidental candidate claiming to be an atheist? No. Do you know why? Because the majority of Christians would not believe that an atheist would have their interests at heart. This despite the fact that most Christians and atheists live very similar lifestyles (charity-giving, golden rule, etc).

    Also, the "New Atheism" is largely overblown. I always hear about this from Christians and it's so weird. You are a HUGE majority in the US. Your lobbies have huge control over congress. Just because the most conservative of you don't get your way on every piece of legislation, does not mean that you are being attacked? This is merely a fear tactic employed by churches to rally followers and fill the coffers.

    Joe, I used to try to be as accepting and apologetic as you, but I have stopped. I will respect those who respect me (immensely), but not those who do not. But as even many of the Christians on this post admit, it is a part of their doctrine to be disrespectful. We probably aren't going to get along.

    If I could say one thing to Christians, it would be:
    I think you are just as stupid as you think I am. You probably already know why you think I am stupid. It has been highlighted with the unicorn argument. Why not believe in the unicorn? I don't just believe in the unicorn not because there is no proof. I don't believe in the unicorn because I can see right through it. I can see what went into making it. I can see the purpose that it served then and now. I can see human bias in it that proves that it was created by humans. The best analogy to the unicorn argument for Christians would be aliens. Plenty of people believe they exist. There is documented evidence. There is actually every reason in the world to believe in them. But if aliens are supposed to be foreign, why do they look so familiar?
    ReplyDelete
  60. I'm sorry, I really don't want to be base about it, but when I read the comments left here by the obviously nice and friendly Christian faithful I get absolutely FREAKED OUT!!!

    How the hell can these people 'live' their lives with their eyes glazed over in the BELIEF that they'll have a BETTER LIFE that lasts forever AFTER THEY DIE????? How can they be prepared to take that risk with the undeniable reality that is the here and now??

    If you believe in a god then FOR GOD'S SAKE, forget all of your imaginary friends and concentrate on having real life grown up relationships with the people standing right in front of you! Religion is nothing more in REALITY than some common ground for the faithful to bond on that is an easy source of endless hours of animated discussion, but FOR CHRIST'S SAKE discuss some real modern life conundrums that society needs help in solving and MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE HERE AND NOW!

    That way you don't need to thank the lord for a miracle, you can thank yourself for creating a better world.
    ReplyDelete
  61. I, personally, think there's something wrong about marketing any belief in any way(annoying or not). You're basically telling them the most effective way to spread their "good" word(Have you seen what's written in that damn book?). Here's a new comparison: It's like your helping people selling machines that brainwashes people back into the Dark Ages. Yes, I am an atheist and I also respect whatever crap people choose to believe in, but whenever someone is spreading their faith(no matter how annoying they are)it's wrong. That's right, wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't religion's got a bad enough grip on our world? Someone(obviously a smart guy) once said(and I quote): "Religion once ruled the world. It's called the Dark Ages."

    So, to sum up my incoherently written heretical ramblings: I'm not telling you to stop believing... I'm asking you to take a look at our history and maybe figure out that spreading belief well and effectively isn't such a good idea after all.
    ReplyDelete
  62. Joe,

    You get it.

    Here's a little story...there once was a spring where the water was sweet and had the ability to heal any ailment that plagued any human. Some people found this spring and they told others of it. Soon after, many more people would visit this well in order to get a drink or just to satisfy their own curiosities. Soon after that, some people saw that the distribution of the water and the access to it was very chaotic. They decided to write rules and laws regarding how one should and should not use the water. After everything has been organized, they took it even further and started charging for access to the water. They built walls and buildings and installed security systems to ensure that the laws were being obeyed, and they punished those who disobeyed. As the years passed, they water has been receding. The people in charge did not want to cause a panic and so, they did not tell anyone that the water was completely gone. They have been secretly bottling water from another spring, one that did not have the same qualities as the water from the spring, and sold it as one that was from the spring. Many more years had passed. The well is now completely empty...yet, the walls, the buildings, the laws and the people in charge still existed - selling fraudulent water to the masses who still continue to come to get a drink from the well.

    the end.



    This is what happens when people find something good; regardless if they are Atheists or Theists. Whenever something is good, people want to bottle it, distribute it, and incorporate it - for the sole reason of wanting to control the rights to that particular good.

    The funny thing about God is that He would never infringe upon anyone's right to choose. This is why bad things happen in the world. God doesn't cause things to happen, He allows them to because He cannot take away anyone's power to choose.

    This is not to say that Christians or Xtians are blameless. They are just people too...they can also choose to do terrible things, same as the Atheists and the Muslims and the Agnostics.

    The point is that God is the only one who is perfect.

    In terms of doing good deeds, there are two types. a) People do good deeds for selfish reasons - so that they may be viewed by everyone present as a good person. b) People do good deeds for unselfish reasons - someone has done good things to them and they want to emulate that person out of gratitude. All in all, good deeds do happen. Whatever the reason may be, it is good that it does happen.

    In terms of churches, there is absolutely no indication in the Bible, whether explicit or implied, that churches need to be Incorporated so that they can take advantage of the Non-Profit tax breaks. Neither was it mentioned that a believer should Win Souls for Christ in ways that is comparable to corporate or military tactics. Neither was there anything about Judgment - whether one was qualified to judge themselves as going to heaven or to judge others as going to hell.

    One thing was clear, however. Anyone can fulfill the entire requirements of the Judaic Law by loving God above all things, and loving his/her neighbor as himself/herself.

    The main thing that people miss about the Bible is that it is neither proof or lack there of of the existence of God. One only need to look as his rectum and wonder how fecal matter comes out of it without any prompting and how nothing comes out most of the time. the rectum is a wonder of bio-engineering that cannot be explained by science. The fact of the matter is, shit comes out and shit stays in whether we like it or not.

    The point of all points is that only the desperate people find a need for God. Everyone else is doing fine on their own and should not be evangelized.

    Christians - do not do futile things by trying to convince someone who clearly does not need God to believe.

    Atheists - Do not disprove the existence of God to those who need Him to exist.

    ...somehow, I don't think that things will happen to change anything...
    ReplyDelete
  63. dear anonymous poster above me,

    sure things will change, once people use their brains as well as you have

    excellent post, excellent.
    ReplyDelete
  64. This is what happens when people find something good; regardless if they are Atheists or Theists. Whenever something is good, people want to bottle it, distribute it, and incorporate it...

    Well, yes and no. Atheists, for the most part, just want people to think. There was a comment some place about one Christian apologists take of Jesus reappearing. He stated, "Oddly, atheists would all see it happen, see the evidence that it was Jesus, think, 'Ah, well. Guess I was wrong.', and go on from there, but name_here would witness it happening, and insist, despite all evidence, that it hadn't, it was all a trick, and that this person couldn't possibly be Jesus." We are only adverse to blind faith, which is damn hard to justify as anything other than, "La la la! I can't hear or see anything suggesting I am wrong, because I *must* believe or I would be unhappy without it!"

    Or, to put it in PZ Myers', the chiwawa of atheism (rottweiler has been taken by some british guy), own words, more or less, "Our only goal is to become irrelevant, while the goal of religions is to be the one that 'everyone' follows."

    This doesn't mean that there are not some morons that try to turn atheism into something like a religion. But, we shred their arguments with almost as much glee as the creationists that come along with the latest non-argument against biology.

    BTW, what is it with Behe? If you look at the stuff he *writes* he is almost, but not quite, in the "maybe god started the whole thing, so it would happen the way it did", camp, but his most recent court appearance tried to defend books that a school tried to use for science courses, which **specifically** stated that only Biblical literalist YEC *must* be taught, and that the students where *required* to believe it to pass. As the judge put it, "There is no religious litmus test requiring you *believe* anything in existing text books, despite the claim that scientists are trying to make you believe in evolution, however *your* books explicitly doing the very thing you accuse others of." Doh!!! How did the judge figure it out?!

    Sigh...
    ReplyDelete
  65. ...Jesus reappearing. He stated, "Oddly, atheists...

    Should be:

    ...Jesus reappearing. The commenter stated, "Oddly, atheists...

    Sorry, it sounded like it implied the apologist said it. He rather vehemently insisted that it could only be true if it happened when, how, where and under the circumstances "he" thought it could/would. Basically, in other words, he wouldn't accept it at all, without a rather absurd set of conditions, which where all part of his own wacky interpretations, and not one probably any but him thought made any sense.
    ReplyDelete
  66. the rectum is a wonder of bio-engineering that cannot be explained by science.

    First, engineering has jack to do with it. Engineers have some clear goal in mind, and try to minimize stupid designs. There is a lot of stupid in human biology, and far more than you get in anything engineered. Second, every mechanism in intestinal tract is explainable, including precursors, and that includes the small circular muscles, which exist in "both" the rectum, as well as the stomach, and the throat, and other places. Its a basic mechanism that evolved ages ago, back when there was nothing but an open end for stuff to go into, and one for things to go out of, and some critter lived longer and prospered better because a few of those rings pushed it all in one direction, instead of just letting water wash in and out, in the hope it went the *right* direction.

    Point being, please stop claiming "science" doesn't explain things, unless you are willing to have someone like be point out you being wrong, or risk someone with 500 times the knowledge I have, and might even specialize in sphincter muscles and there evolution, cleans your clock over it. ;)

    Oh, and leave off calling in "engineering", unless you are referring to what a "person" is doing to insert genes in a critter, to "engineer" it to do something it didn't evolve to do normally. It confuses the issue, blurs the lines in the language, and creates confusion of the sort that leaves ID people constantly pointing at stuff they can't imagine being explainable, so that someone has to *then* explain why it is explainable, has already been explained, or isn't what they think it is. I swear, its like having a five year old run up to you ever few minutes to show you iron pyrite and declaring, "Look, look! I found gold!" After a while you just want to tell them to go play in traffic, so you can get actual work done.
    ReplyDelete
  67. Religious people scare the crap out of me. It is a form of brainwashing, and to believe in any higher power than what you and your fellow man/woman can do, is a slap in the face of all that mankind has accomplished. Every time I see some dumb idiot thank God/Jesus for his accomplishments, I just want to slap them upside the head and point out that THEY did it, not God/Jesus. Great article though, although I think if you are trying to get the message through to religious cults, you will fail, as their ears and eyes are closed, but their mouths are wide open.
    ReplyDelete
  68. That is the thing about messages. It is just what it is. A person who hears it doesn't have to listen or truly understand what the message says. One could just choose to understand parts of the message but not the whole thing. One could also choose to merely understand and not heed the message. While others might take it so literally that the message itself is entirely lost.

    Messages suck when seen in this humanistic, chaotic and random way of how it is normally received. But, there are a few that do get it...

    Therefore, it is not the message at fault. It is in us who filter the message through our wants and needs that make the mistake.

    Keep on messaging...I'm sure one out of every one hundred thousand will get it, and everyone else will get it eventually, over time.
    ReplyDelete
  69. Everyone filter's the message through their wants and needs. It is **physically impossible** for the brain to do otherwise. It can only process what it experiences in the context of past experience, and under enough stress, it can and does revert to simpler earlier experiences, or even to primitive instincts, neither of which provide *useful* explanations, even if they can provide short term survival.

    The message however "can" be the problem. We don't put messages like, "May contain peanuts.", on containers because we "expect" people to magically "get" the message that people allergic to nuts could die from eating it, we do it because its no sufficient to say, "some factories may also process peanuts". If the message is unclear, vague, easy to misinterpret, insufficient to describe the situation, etc., its not very good message. Its the reason that Hebrew made a clear distinction between murder and killing, while the vague version we have now doesn't. Its also why *both* versions are useless. One is so broad *any* death you cause, indirect or not, even if the victim isn't human *may* fall under it. The older version you could just declare *your* killing someone else as just, but them killing you unjust, therefor one murder, and one acceptable.

    Clear messages are short, precise, nearly impossible to misinterpret, and everyone agrees the words all mean the same thing. Nothing in religion tends to be a) short, b) precise, c) clear, d) 100% agreed on, or even e) the same message from one congregation to the next. How is the problem *not*, at least in part, the message?
    ReplyDelete
  70. GODISNOWHERE

    In my opinion the atheist is not all knowing and any educated man knows that he doesn't know.

    My point is to change the conversation to "if God existed..." what would you expect or what would your beliefs about God would be.

    The difference between fun loving unicorns and "creator" I would think would be a fair start, but what I usually ask is if God does exist would God desire to be known.

    If the answer is "no" well then we have success.

    If the answer is "yes" then we would begin the deliberation by attempting to identify how would he make himself known.

    This ultimately leads to the uniqueness of God and if we can provide descriptive attributes that eliminate as many "false positives" as possible then perhaps the King of Kings, Master, Designer of the Universe actually has the opportunity to introduce himself to the atheist.

    Remember God doesn't believe in atheists.
    ReplyDelete
  71. Grr. You know, I hate this comment system. Too many ways to log in, no way to "keep" the text if you have to back up, because you used the wrong account data, etc.

    Ok, Daniel. Lets do a run down of this. Every religion ever created lists "attributes" there god is supposed to have. All of them have **failed** to show any evidence beyond personal experience to claim that **anything** possesses such attributes. Worse, when claims are made about something *having* been found, it *always* has those attributes that the believer knew it would, no matter what they where, which God they where applied to, or how many other people applied other attributes to the search, and also concluded they have "found" evidence.

    Like most atheists, my position is, "If you want to go looking for god, first get rid of all the silly lists of things other people have insisted define their gods, and try to come up with something new." I also think this is a) impossible, b) would require reducing god down to something so pointless that "finding" it wouldn't mean anything most believers "want" it to be, and c) since no one has found any "prior" sort of god, using the prior lists of attributes, I find it highly unlikely that *any* such list will ever be useful, or that evidence could be found, which is believable to anyone but the finder, and others convinced it had to be valid to start with, to prove such a thing.

    The problem I have seen in all such "searches/searchers" is that they invariably reach their conclusions via revelation, not evidence, they can't "present" anything testable, never mind verifiable as having happened at all, nor do they ever seen to, for some odd reason, find evidence of *any* god other than the ones they started with. One would think that, if such a search where valid, the evidence wouldn't be vague, confusing, personal experience, derived from looking at books written by people *presenting* arguments, without facts, or that "someone" making such a search, without resorting to the last one, would find that someone *else's* god was the correct one.

    The only unique aspect of any of the attributes I have ever seen "anyone" use to describe what God should be like is that it a) invariably reflects the believers *own* values 100%, and b) the method of showing evidence of the presence of such a thing is *exactly* the same as the math trick where you confuse people into dividing by zero, in order to prove than 2=3, 1=359, or pretty much any other silly result you want. If you break a rule of logic half way through your "collection" of supposed evidence, all you get is what in computer parlance is called GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out.

    But, as O'neil said in Stargate SG-1, "If first you don't succeed, try, try, try, TRY, try again." You might manage to come up with something that isn't either so absurdly limited that its existence is meaningless to us, or which hasn't (I doubt it, but then I am not the one that believes in miracles) been tried before. At worst, you will give atheists, agnostics, and probably about 50% of the Christians in the world a real good laugh.
    ReplyDelete
  72. Bio Engineered RectumApr 4, 2008 10:16 PM
    Has anyone seen the BBC documentary series "The Century Of The Self"?

    Xtians: after watching the four docs, ask yourself how much christianity has really affected our current society.

    Athiests: after watching, ask yourself if people are really ihnerently good or inherently evil when they are not happy.
    ReplyDelete
  73. Good article....

    Let me put another slant on the idea though. If I went to a Christian home, as a gay Wiccan, wearing a pentagram and started my own "witnessing", how would the Christian take it. After all being gay and not believing in God has made me happy, and all I'm trying to do is pass that along.

    Point made?
    ReplyDelete
  74. Article is well written in many ways.
    Unfortunately to broad of a judgement is being passed on "christians", because so many claim this faith, but few practice it. The bible is the center piece of all Christian faith and commands all Christians to spread their faith. You can be a witness in many ways without words and should, but it is part of the Christian faith to vocally express, witness and invite others. These are acts of love. You have the right not to take the invitation, but because of our faith we must offer.
    Read Mark 16:15-16, Mathew 28:19, Luke 10:1-17

    If you remember nothing else from this blog and all the comments posted remember this;
    JESUS LOVES YOU!!!!!!!!!!
    ReplyDelete
  75. Thank you for this wonderfully written piece. I am not a Christian, and not an Atheist, but my grandfather was a preacher for his entire life. This ideal, of witnessing by example, he preached from the pulpit, pretty restrained for a southern baptist! During his life, he was a beloved man to all who met him because he lived a Christian example to others. Thank you for your words of wisdom and peace, they mirror the words of another great man.
    ReplyDelete
  76. Google did it to me again.. Lets see if I can recreate the post...

    Jude, your comment reminds me of the absurd add that some local church paid to have run over and over at the theater. It stated near the end, "remember, even if you don't believe in god, he believes in you!" Sure, and my socks still exist, because even though some of them don't believe in the great Groldobs of Ceti Alpha 5, those illustrious beings believe in my socks.

    You seem to have read, but not understood, Joe's article. I place, "Jesus loves you!", right in the same category. Nonsense *unless* you start from the premise that such a being "still" exists and is some sort of god, never mind that he ever existed in the first place. And there isn't exactly universal agreement on the later, due to archeology and historical studies, either.
    ReplyDelete
  77. I didn't make it through the entire rant, as it is just that. You are not a Cultural anthropologist, a Theologist, Philosopher, nore a Historian of any type that I know of, so I have little interest in what you have to say about the topic. However, being a believer, I did skim through it. I was a little upset about the unicorn compairison, but as I read on... I Loved it! It makes sense. Also, when people of Christian faith spray paint righteous messages on the side of their vehicle, or wear signes and act like fanatics, it is the wrong way to go.
    ReplyDelete
  78. There's a saying in Paganism, "An it harm none, do what thou wilt."

    I think its ridiculous for someone to assume that you have to be a Christian to be a good person. I've known many good people, of all religions.

    I consider myself agnostic. I'm not vain enough to assume I understand the workings of the universe. I believe in a creative energy, but that's all know.

    I enjoy being able to change my beliefs. I don't like being told what to believe. I like ideas, not religion. It's as simple as that.

    I don't believe in sin. I don't believe in an afterlife. I may not know what comes next, and I'm fine with that. At least I'm not worshiping a cloud in the sky.

    I don't try to push my views on others; that would be arrogant and rude.

    I don't need a "god" to tell me what is right and what is wrong. I can think for myself, thank you.
    ReplyDelete
  79. It is endlessly interesting that there is an objection to the grouping of all Christians as a mass, when it has not been suggested that you are also grouping all atheists together with the same beliefs. All atheists are not respectful people who would like you to think harder about the choices you are making. Atheists also follow a belief, the belief that there is no god and (usually) that science holds the answers. Science, though less faulty than a 2 century old book, has its problems and is not one hundred percent accurate. This post was well thought out and executed whatever side of the debat