"A faith that makes losing a sin will make cheating a sacrament." This was said, recently, regarding politics of recent campaigns and adminstrations. It should have been applied, long ago, to Evangelism and Apologetics.

I haven't gotten into matters of logical fallacies. The internet is full of places you can go to see those. I bring them up because, as easy as they are to fall into by accident, they represent cheating. So can the bulk of the subjects of previous tips in this series.

For the most part, people who cheat don't cheat for its own sake. They cheat in order to win. In conversation and debate, often times, "win" takes on the functional definition of "not lose." And, the way to not lose is to organize your points and the effective rules so that your position doesn't have to be right in order to avoid losing.
Read more... )
This experience was relayed to me by an online friend. The person who said this to her had already made efforts to convert her to Christianity. Those efforts were reported to HR who made sure that said person knew that this was not acceptable work-place behavior. Still, upon a temporary move of office, said person, knowing that my online friend had recently lost a dear pet, said this.

"God wants me to tell you that if you accept him as your Lord and Savior you'll go to heaven after you die. You'll see your lizard again. She'll be there to greet you with him when you first get to the gates."


There's a great deal to be said about time and place. But, I'll focus on this.
Read more... )
I've heard the following line once, but I've heard the basic idea more times than I care to count.

"I don't want to this to be a conversation, but..."

There are other ways to do this. To respond to things I say with complaints that, they'll later insist, are not about me but are simply universal to... groups that include me. Of course, it's my fault for responding to make what was once a simple statement of position (be it on topic of politics, religion, or other high-emotion topic) and trying to turn it into some kind of divisive argument. And, of course, there is the tried and true method of pushing back against someone who is trying to take away your freedom of speech by bullying you with their disagreement.

From your perspective, when you say something like that or engage in such a tactic, it seems like you're being quite reasonable. After all, you don't want to get into this huge debate. You don't want to have to deal with disagreements that will only raise tensions and blood-pressure.
Read more... )
With the events of this past Saturday, I feel there are things that I should not have to say. I should not have to speak opposition to white supremacy, white nationalism, or the Nazis. I would hope that can be taken as a given. But, there is an element of many responses to the riot and violence, including one man ramming a car into a crowd of people injuring many and killing one, that I feel important to address. And, I'll address it in this series, because I hear it in these arguments, too.

When you discuss conflicts, particularly ones wherein your side or the side with which you empathize has done wrong, there will be a temptation. It will be tempting for multiple reasons. You might enjoy the feeling of being detached and above the conflict. You might seek a solution in which both sides are equally pleased. You might want the sense of having an advanced, complex understanding of the issues at hand without needing to go through the effort of understanding said issues.
Read more... )
Last week's tip referenced someone who approached, nigh out of the blue, and asked me "have you found Jesus Christ as your savior?" Others have reported similar experiences with the message being the same, but the wording varies. "Have you been washed in the blood of The Lamb!?" "Have you been saved?" "Do you recognize Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior?" "Have you been saved from the fires of damnation!?"

Each of these questions asks the exact same thing. "Are you a Christian?" But, they each communicate something else as well.
Read more... )
No, this isn't really the opposite of my earlier focus on not leaning heavily on a script. Consider this the balance to that.

Recently, while out for a walk, someone noted that they'd seen me on several walks prior. (I play Pokemon Go and I tell myself that the reason is that it gets me out walking.) Said someone then asked me if I was okay. That was... a strange thing to ask. It didn't seem to be based on anything. Potentially, he might have thought I was in financial difficulty and in need of a job? (Something I'd give serious consideration.)
Read more... )
Yes, I harp on listening skills quite a bit. It turns out more complex a concept than the initial focus on "listen". It has parts. It involves listening to what's being said, not over-relying upon a pre-defined script or formula, keeping context, both social and specific, in mind. It also involves being ready to hear what you don't expect to hear.

By example, some years back, in a conversation with a conservative Christian, I made the point of an issue I took with Christianity. (Christianity as I saw it at the time, to be honest. Though, my view of Christianity did, in case, match up with that of the Christian with whom I was discussing.) I took issue with a moral theory that reduced morality to rules that existed for the sake of rules. This, I felt, took all matter of actually caring about people out of issue of morality, leaving just a set of rules to be adhered to just because that's how one gets closer to "good".
Read more... )
In the Bush era, there was a consulting firm for Republicans that helped with communications. It had a slogan that read "It's not what you say. It's what they hear." Whatever your political position or your opinion on the influence of that firm, there is some truth to that slogan. What is said and intended isn't always going to be what's heard.

That slogan will be the basis of at least two different tips.

Here, the tip is about context. Way, way back at the beginning of this series, I made the point about passing the Turing Test. That was about keeping the conversational context in mind. What had been said throughout the conversation, not just the last line. Take that same basic idea and extend it to cover social context.
Read more... )
No, I'm not saying you're a secret Christian any more than I appreciate others saying that I'm a secret theist. I am asking you to examine what beliefs would make sense in light of certain actions and motivations. We, the non-believers, do that examination. And, it doesn't always work out like you want.

By analogy, imagine you're new at a job working under one of two supervisors. One supervisor, the supervisor everybody claims is the supervisor, is a great supervisor. This supervisor knows who's being productive, cares to get to know ground-level employees as individuals, plays no favorites and is not susceptible to smarm or flattery. This is the supervisor everybody talks about.

Then, there's the supervisor that everybody seems to respond to. Most everybody is careful to, at any moment, look busy. Your fellow employees actually take this as a priority over productivity. Your fellow employees are so careful to avoid being caught saying something critical or insulting of the supervisor that they even refuse to acknowledge that obvious abuses of power or failures of management would be such abuses or failures if the supervisor did them.
Read more... )
Just a couple weeks ago, a new commenter over on the Slacktivist comments section offered up forgiveness as the cure-all for social ills. The response was quick and... not to the commenter's expectation. Even backing their claims with the words of Jesus, in the comments of a Christian blog, didn't garner the positive response they had expected. The immediate response involved accusations of oppression and evil.

A while back, in Tip #46, I noted the commenter who, throughout the comments section of an atheist blog responding to my not finding their website convincing on the matter of the Shroud of Turin, repeatedly said "Your (insert something here) is, at best, flawed."
Read more... )
At the end of the Nye/Ham debate, a few years ago, when the moderator was presenting audience questions, one telling question came up. What would it take to convince you that the other side was correct? In this debate, the question wasn't God versus not, but evolution versus Young Earth Creationism.

Nye, the proponent of evolution, gave a quick list of potential evidences that would contradict the evolutionary model of Earth's history. Ham, the proponent of Creationism, insisted that, being a Christian, nothing could sway him.
Read more... )
A frequent conversation I've had with Christians in that subset of Christianity that comprise my target reader in this series...

Christian: You/they have to know that X*.
Me: I/they am/are already quite aware that there are people who believe X*. So, telling them won't change anything.
Christian: But, you/they have to know that X*.

"X", in this case, is a stand-in for any number of claims. This can refer to the claim that Hell awaits one who hasn't been saved from their sins via faith, to the claim that God hates homosexuality, to the claim that believing that the theory of evolution accurately describes the history of life on Earth, etc.
Read more... )
This past Easter, Ed Stetzer wrote an opinion piece for CNN. The basic premise of this opinion piece was an explanation, to non-Christians, of what motivates Christians to proselytize. He's not alone in this effort or the mistaken idea upon which its based. But, to be clear, we know why you do this.

Stetzer's piece mentions the Great Commission. Others mention the desire to save souls, to help us evade Hell, etc. And, we get that part.
Read more... )
A couple times in this series I have accused you, the general community of conservative Christians who most find it your mission to change my mind, of hating non-believers. To an extent, that does match up to the behavioral evidence. You might claim to hold no antipathy, but a willingness and eagerness to engage in measures of cruelty in order to push someone into a desired response, particularly one born of frustration suggest hatred.

There is another interpretation. The opposite of love, so the old saying goes, is not hatred, but indifference.
Read more... )
This one's going to take a while to get to the point. Sorry in advance.

A while back, I talked about how, when you talk about non-believers in movies, books, magazines, and websites that are by and for conservative Christians, the rest of us are, effectively, in the room. We know what you're saying about us. We're right here and we can hear you.

That wouldn't be a problem if what you were saying was a part of an advancing conversation. But, from what I can tell, that conversation you have amongst yourselves about us isn't moving forward. It's stagnated.

In the late 90s, when I enjoyed the internet hangout of alt.atheism, we faced a number of Christians attempting to convert us. They would speak, often in very general terms as they wouldn't follow-up or even read responses, about how sorry they were for the tragedies that befell us to make us atheists. They would express empathy for our nihilistic depression. They would explain that our desire to sin without consequence would be for not and we should just admit that we already know that they're right and we're wrong. They would inform us that God would forgive us for hating him.

None of it was accurate. None of it was new or had been new for a long time. And, in the time since then, none of it has changed.
Read more... )
I've been gone a long time from this blog (and from this series). A large part of the reason has been Pokemon Go. But, another part has been my difficulty in getting my thoughts together on this promised topic. What labels are rather than what they're not. I've both oversimplified and over-complicated it in my mind.

So, I'll keep it simple, perhaps more simple than I promised. If so, that's my error. Labels are descriptions. They can be accurate descriptions or inaccurate descriptions. But, they're descriptions, nonetheless. They can be influenced by the intent of those who adopt the labels as well as those who would seek to assign the labels, but they can't proscribe anything onto the labeled.
Read more... )
A tactic that resurfaces every so often is the argument by which the apologist or evangelist claims that an atheist isn't an atheist, but actually an agnostic. This seems to happen more in popular theist claims of arguments they did make than in actual arguments, these days. The argument usually employs a dot and a much larger circle, representing total possible knowledge and total knowledge known by humankind on Earth respectively. The point of the argument is that one cannot claim to falsify a nonfalsifiable concept, like God, without knowing everything, therefore one cannot be an atheist.

This fails for multiple reasons, all surrounding how labels work, as a concept.

The first thing you should understand about labels is that they aren't magic.
Read more... )
This example didn't happen to me, but someone else. In the comments section of an article about the ways nonChristians view Christians, one atheist mentioned the story of someone who tried to befriend them and invite them to church. At the time of the story, the nonChristian was a Buddhist and the invitation to church got the reply of an invitation to Buddhist activities. The nonChristian made clear that they weren't interested in converting, but would be interested in mutual learning. The Christian then cut off all contact.

Here is part of one of the responses.

I get why she cut off contact if she had been witnessing and there was no evidence of interest. It isn’t that anyone is a project – I know how bad life is without the Lord as I was there once. I also know some are so won over by false gods that they are not open to the true and living God – it’s not any different than what I feel for the Lord. As far as being friends – Proverbs tells a Christian that Iron Sharpens iron – so if you are not a Christian – how are you going to affect a Christian? Odds are not in a godly manner and as such they need to befriend those that believe the same way.


Among evangelists and apologists, there can be a tendency to treat nonbelievers as made of bad parts. The professed love and concern for the person is about taking the bits and pieces of the person that makes this person a different person from yourself (or a different person from that which you would recognize as a member of your faith) and replacing them. The result is to remove the person in front of you and replace them with someone you do love.
Read more... )
This is another tip that goes to your motivations for your attempts at evangelism and apologetics. Are you trying to convince people of the truth of your faith? Are you trying to win the conversation? You can't do both.

In a recent face-to-face conversation, I listened to a case made... and made and made at high speed. No breath was taken and no space was left for response. Finally I just straight up asked the person to let me respond and I got an explicit rejection. This person didn't want a conversation. They said "everybody has an opinion and you can keep yours to yourself." To the idea that that applies as readily to themselves, there was the response "I've already given you my opinion."
Read more... )
"I don't have a prejudiced bone in my body."

You might have said those words and believed them. It's a certainty that you've heard that phrase. It's a likelihood that, at least a few of those times you heard the phrase, you immediately knew it not to be true.

It's one of those claims that are easy to believe when you make them. Claims to being humble, to being loving and not hateful, to being kind, to not letting bad information lead you to false conclusions based on popular understandings. These are all easy claims to make. And, among those who most feel it their duty to turn me into a Christian, there's a tendency to believe those claims.

If you find yourself about to make such a claim ("I don't have a prejudiced bone in my body." "No, I'm really being loving to gay people." "I don't hold myself as superior to anybody.), stop. Do not make that claim and do not believe that claim.

I have not just called you a bigot or accused you of being an egotist.
Read more... )
Page generated Oct. 22nd, 2017 10:14 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios