In social circles with a focus on evangelism and/or apologism for the Christian faith, you're likely to hear a number of two kinds of conversion stories. Atheists get to hear those, too, for reasons both of internet and of Christians telling us those stories. They come in the personal variety, in which the storyteller claims to have personally converted, and the third person variety in which the storyteller verifies their own success (or that of their strategy) in achieving conversions through the conversion of a usually unnamed third party.

They're also all on some level of dishonesty. I'm not saying each and every conversion story is a complete and utter, deliberate lie. But, they're certainly in there.
Read more... )
In the previous tip, I referenced a defense of biblical slavery. The love-based defense operated on the notion that a slave owner that loved his slave as himself could do all that the law of the time allowed, including the beatings and commanding sex from a slave woman, and not have wronged any slave in any way, because said slave owner would not have acted to harm the slave.

A single word to cover that and similar arguments is "intent."

Intent is invoked, if not named, in other arguments. Spanking children or eschewing medicine in favor of faith-based treatment are both claimed to be not abusive if done in love, not meaning to abuse. "Complementarian" is the self-adopted name of a cultural movement that believes that husbands and wives have natural positions within a marriage, in which the man is decision maker, yet both are equals. They, too, will say that a good, Christian husband would never abuse this position or do wrong to his wife, because, in keeping with Jesus's most important law, he would love her as himself.
Read more... )
Recently, I got into a discussion about the morality of slavery as it was practiced in the Old Testament. I took the position that it was immoral and that attempting to treat that as just requires treating the slaves in question as less than human. This was in the comments of a conservative Christian blog, so I got some arguments on that. The arguments I got are good examples of evangelists and apologists sacrificing important things in the name of winning.

One of the arguments was that the slavery, as it was practiced, was good on the basis of Divine Command Morality. The argument went that Divine Command was the only possible way that there could be an objectively true morality, therefore the slavery was good because it was according to the law as commanded by God. The other argument I'll focus on, here, is that God's commandment to love one another as you love yourself makes the slavery good, so long as it was practiced within the law.
Read more... )
Just recently, I learned of the movie "I'm Not Ashamed". It's a Christian movie about Rachel Joy Scott, one of the victims of the Columbine Massacre. Specifically, it's about now commonly told tale of how one of the shooters asked her if she was a Christian before shooting her. (Note: The actual surviving witness to that particular shooting says that didn't happen.) If the trailer is indicative, it'll show her being uniquely virtuous in her whole school.

Numerous previous tips already apply. Research your history first, as in Tip #6. Be very careful around tragedies, as in Tip #22. Don't overestimate your virtue, as in Tip #28. Look for the signs that you might be the bad guy, as in tip #8. There are so many reasons why making this particular movie isn't a good idea.

But, let's look at one more. As you read this tip, I encourage you to remember Tip #10 "Adjust Your Relationship With Curse Words".
Read more... )
Back in Tip 19*, I advised you to get used to the notion that you are, right now, wrong about many things.

In case you haven't checked it out, go look at the Crash Course Youtube Channel. One of the currently updating courses is Crash Course Philosophy. The most recent lesson was on the difference between Science and Pseudoscience**. The short of it is that science risks being wrong and pseudoscience avoids taking that risk.

This past Wednesday, I posted my answers to a list of ten questions that the website TodayChristian.net claims that I cannot "honestly and truly REALLY answer". Especially notable on that particular page is that it does not have a comments section, despite the fact that other pages do. I used the "Contact Us" link to email them my answers and they may or may not get that email, then may or may not read. Assuming they do have the access and the interest to read my answers, they can easily declare said answers not to be honestly answered, truly answered, or REALLY answered.
Read more... )
A few of the early tips could be summarized in one word "listen". In addition to being in love with the sound of my own text, I also think that the specific details are important. In addition to taking an active interest in what the people who disagree with you are actually saying, you should be doing the same with what you're actually saying.

By example, a significant number of years ago, back when I was still in college, I got into a conversation on the argument from First Cause. (The argument states that the universe having a beginning means that it had to be caused by powerful, conscious being with volition.) I could go into my position on that particular argument, but for the purposes of this tip, that doesn't matter.
Read more... )
It's occurred to me that there might be some reasonable objection to my use of Christian movies for examples for these tips. Their primary audiences are, after all, other Christians and usually other conservative Christians who already believe what the movies have to say at that. The notion that nonbelievers will watch these movies and become convinced is, even in intent, more fantasy than reality.

After all, in the 70s, the rapture movie, A Thief in the Night, was primarily watched in church basements on movie night. It was a part of a conversation among believers, not a part of attempting to convince non-believers. Why wouldn't more recent movies be the same?
Read more... )
Here's a tip I should probably have put at the beginning of this series.

It's a classic cliche. "If I can impact even just one person, then it's all worth it." It can be a heartfelt statement of desire to positively impact. It can also be a horrible excuse, as it is often when I hear it.

On Youtube, repeated on a few channels, there's a video depicting an open letter, from Hell, of a teen that died in a car crash to the teen Christian who didn't tell him about Jesus or Hell. In the comments of one such video, I asked the likelihood of finding someone who hasn't heard any of the claims of Christianity before. The response came back quick and certain that, even if there's only one...
Read more... )
In my previous tip, I mentioned the cult tactic of renaming someone. It's an effort to take control of someone else's identity. It's also something people do thinking that they're being friendly and polite. Some people will even take the refusal to accept a new name, such as a nickname based on one's name, as being standoffish or taking oneself too seriously.

If you prefer to be called Raymond or Rachel and dislike being called Ray, people don't understand. After all, they're just trying to be friendly.
Read more... )
In my time having conversations with evangelists and apologists, I have been called nicknames based on my online nick in online conversations, based on my real name in face-to-face conversations, and based on my real name in online conversations in which I haven't offered my real name. You might think that last one is the creepy one but, all of these are like the others.

It's always a name other than I have indicated my approval and it's always done without so much as a "do you mind if I call you...?" to seek that approval.
Read more... )
In discussing the issue of the Confederate Flag debate in South Carolina that followed the shooting, Mike Huckabee had the following to say...

"Actually, Ed, we don't need more conversations (about race), we need more conversions. Because the reconciliations that changes people is not a racial reconciliation. It's a spiritual reconciliation when people are reconciled to God. We saw it in those church members. When I love God and I know that God created other people regardless of their color as much as he made me, I don't have a problem with racism. It's solved!"

This is a part of the magical thinking involved in many a pitch given for Christianity. Last tip, I mentioned the movie Fireproof, in which a man's abusive behavior is mended and his marriage saved by his conversion to Christianity. A similar concept of movie, The War Room, has a woman in a marriage with an unfaithful and semi-emotionally-abusive husband that saves her marriage and transforms her husband with prayer.
Read more... )
Those Christians who feel themselves most obligated to try to convert me tend to have a very low opinion of nonbelievers. I've seen it in person. I've seen it in the movies made by Christians and that do well in a conservative Christian demographic.

In God's Not Dead, Kevin Sorbo's atheist professor character is a bully in a relationship that he started with someone when she was a student in his class. Dean Cain's successful businessman non-believer is so selfish that he doesn't care about his dementia-suffering mother or when his girlfriend says that she has cancer. In Fireproof, Kirk Cameron's husband character is dismissive, emotionally abusive, and even physically threatening at one point to his wife. Nick, the atheist character in the previously mentioned The Encounter, nearly runs down a teenage hitchhiker in his car and, when called on it, completely lacks for any kind of remorse.

If you're any kind of non-Christian, to these movies and to the audience that makes up a sizable portion of my target audience for this series, you can have professional virtues but not moral virtues.
Read more... )
Among the Christians who most feel it their duty to evangelize or practice apologetics, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what humility is and how it works. In some ways, this misunderstanding is understandable. In pure text, it's easy to think of humility as nothing more than not thinking too highly of one's self. But, it's a bit more complicated than that in practice.

Many of the mistakes I've dealt with in previous posts can be reduced to a lack of humility in practice. And, merely saying "be humble" wouldn't work for people who make some obvious mistakes in their understanding of humility in the first place.
Read more... )
A list of things that Christians have told me are created by Christianity and only used by non-Christians by borrowing from Christianity.

The Golden Rule.
An empathy based morality, in general.
Humanism (which is actually a moral focus on benefiting humanity as opposed to relations with deities or the divine)
The abolition of slavery.
Women's rights.
Any consideration for the less fortunate.
Charity as a concept.
Empathy as a concept.
Compassion as a concept.
Love as a concept.
Read more... )
I mentioned, last tip, about the demand that I prove that God does not exist. In part, this comes from the notion that my position, since I self-identify as an atheist, must be that I have absolute, incontrovertible knowledge that God does not exist. That's not my position.

Despite the fact that that is not my position, I am not an agnostic. Rather, I don't self-identify with that label. Yet, many an apologist, professionals in their books on how to talk to non-believers and people just trying to convert me, will tell me that I am an agnostic and that an agnostic is someone who hasn't taken a position on whether or not God exists.
Read more... )
In the comments of a video, one of Steve Shives's "An Atheist Reads" series, one commenter had this to say.

At first I thought this guy was serious in his intent to analyze Craig's work, but less than half way through the first video we see the same emotional, bitter and hateful display so common with atheists who really cannot answer back to Craig's work.

I had my own response.

Specify exactly what leads you to the conclusion that this is bitter or hateful?
Read more... )
Once upon a time, an atheist blog posted an article about Answers In Genesis, the creationist organization responsible for, among other things, the Creationist Museum. As a result, many frequenters of AIG's website commented on that article, some on topic others not. In an effort to encourage conversation rather than shouting back and forth, I tried to engage in conversation.

One of the comm enters from AIG, in this conversation, pointed me to their website. The website claimed to provide evidence that the Shroud of Turin really was Jesus's burial shroud. Not only that, using physics in examining the fibers, the commentator's web page claimed to be able to prove that the shroud *had* to have been on someone who was dead for a time and then returned to life.

My response was to say "Your evidence is, at best, flawed". Those were my exact words. I remember those being my exact words because, from that point on, the commenter repeated them back to me in response to every comment I made. Someone made a comment about how Jupiter was supposed to have lost all its heat by now, were the universe millions of years old, I responded that it generates its own heat, and I get, from someone not involved in that conversation "Your conclusion is, at best, flawed". No matter what the comment, there was always some element that could be put into place. "Your (insert something here) is, at best, flawed."
Read more... )
I object to the moral basis displayed by many Christians of a rules-for-rules-sake morality as reductionist and bounding compassion and I get told that I just don't want to have rules at all and that's why I'm an atheist. I say that a deity with the proposed characteristics could be reasonably predicted to do X and I get told that I'm putting God in a box.

Neither of these are then followed up with any argument as to why the morality of the Christian in the conversation isn't arbitrary rules-for-rules-sake or that X isn't a reasonable prediction. They're just given a characterization and dismissed. And, that's for occasions in which I'm fairly certain the respondents were attempting something of an honest conversation.
Read more... )
Different people attribute different levels of importance to the difference between "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays" and I'm not going to debate that level. I will use this as an example.

Note: There are many religions, most of which have adherents in the US, that have holy days around this time of year. They have their own rituals and holy remembrances. Legally speaking, the adherents of all are all equal members of the society.

That a greeting specifying the holiday of only one religion has become the standard says something more than just the wish for happiness and/or merriness. It says that the adherents of the specified religion have not just numerical superiority, but social power. It also means that the others have so little social power as to be easily rendered socially invisible.
Read more... )
We just talked about what you do when someone who believes like you do does something horrible. The short of it is that you accept that they believed as you did. Now, let's talk about what happens when other people do horrible things.

This is the flip side of that coin. Just as Christians will go out of their way to say that Christians who do horrible things aren't really Christians, some will also say that non-Christians who do horrible things are the only true non-Christians. Matt Barber, for instance, has an article in which he says the following*.
Read more... )
Page generated Jun. 25th, 2017 06:57 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios