Comments on: A Christian’s Guide to Converting Atheists (Part 1) http://www.anatheist.net/2008/09/a-christians-guide-to-converting-atheists-part-1/ Atheism & Religious Skepticism Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:44:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: aqa http://www.anatheist.net/2008/09/a-christians-guide-to-converting-atheists-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-2184 aqa Sat, 24 Jan 2009 07:20:30 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=706#comment-2184 you make it sound like atheism is a particular belief. it's not, it's the lack of a belief. I think most informed people, including atheists, are aware that atheists have no monopoly on logic, reasoned discourse, or basic grasp of epistemological concepts. In fact, a lot of that was explored first by people who where trying to get closer to god. My point is that unless somebody has a misguided view of (weak) atheism, then there is nothing categorically disrespectful in a proselytizer engaging an atheist, although a particular person may not be respectful while trying to get their point across. My reasoning is that there is no belief that they are attacking. They're just trying to convince somebody to adopt another belief. I ignore strong atheism, because it's pretty rare. From what I've noticed, strong atheists tend to be so sure based on their vast and cosmic knowledge of the universe and its laws that the existence of a god is impossible that it is unbearable to wait in the same line while they talk about it. I'm sorry if I've offended anybody from that camp and I'm sure it doesn't represent all of them, but you know what I'm talking about. you make it sound like atheism is a particular belief. it's not, it's the lack of a belief. I think most informed people, including atheists, are aware that atheists have no monopoly on logic, reasoned discourse, or basic grasp of epistemological concepts. In fact, a lot of that was explored first by people who where trying to get closer to god. My point is that unless somebody has a misguided view of (weak) atheism, then there is nothing categorically disrespectful in a proselytizer engaging an atheist, although a particular person may not be respectful while trying to get their point across. My reasoning is that there is no belief that they are attacking. They're just trying to convince somebody to adopt another belief.
I ignore strong atheism, because it's pretty rare. From what I've noticed, strong atheists tend to be so sure based on their vast and cosmic knowledge of the universe and its laws that the existence of a god is impossible that it is unbearable to wait in the same line while they talk about it. I'm sorry if I've offended anybody from that camp and I'm sure it doesn't represent all of them, but you know what I'm talking about.

]]> By: huh http://www.anatheist.net/2008/09/a-christians-guide-to-converting-atheists-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-2048 huh Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:40:03 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=706#comment-2048 sorry. i meant: "isn't trying to convert someone because you have acces to the 'word of god' inherently DISrespectful? sorry. i meant:
"isn't trying to convert someone because you have acces to the 'word of god' inherently DISrespectful?

]]> By: huh http://www.anatheist.net/2008/09/a-christians-guide-to-converting-atheists-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-2047 huh Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:39:08 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=706#comment-2047 isn't trying to convert someone because you have acces to the 'word of god' inherently respectful? isn't trying to convert someone because you have acces to the 'word of god' inherently respectful?

]]> By: Greg http://www.anatheist.net/2008/09/a-christians-guide-to-converting-atheists-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1725 Greg Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:00:02 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=706#comment-1725 I'm an athiest, but I have some family that are fairly religious and I just wanted to touch on the "Show by Conduct" point. The poster doesn't really get into it, but I the people in my family who are religious are genuinely nice, caring, generous people. Now I think they would be regardless, but seeing someone truly embraces the principles of the religion does send a powerful message. I've seen far too many people who claim to be religious but don't adhere to many of the core teachings. On a related note, I think the community aspect is one of the most powerful things religions have going for them. Whenever I go to a funeral, or even just to church with the family I see that interaction and how much it means to people. I sometimes wish there was an equivilent for Athiests. Sure, there are free thought groups, etc. but it's not the same dynamic. I'm an athiest, but I have some family that are fairly religious and I just wanted to touch on the "Show by Conduct" point. The poster doesn't really get into it, but I the people in my family who are religious are genuinely nice, caring, generous people. Now I think they would be regardless, but seeing someone truly embraces the principles of the religion does send a powerful message. I've seen far too many people who claim to be religious but don't adhere to many of the core teachings.

On a related note, I think the community aspect is one of the most powerful things religions have going for them. Whenever I go to a funeral, or even just to church with the family I see that interaction and how much it means to people. I sometimes wish there was an equivilent for Athiests. Sure, there are free thought groups, etc. but it's not the same dynamic.

]]> By: jamesatracy http://www.anatheist.net/2008/09/a-christians-guide-to-converting-atheists-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1730 jamesatracy Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:00:02 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=706#comment-1730 I think that the latter is the case. If you review the edit history you will notice that some pieces have been added, especially to the tips section, that are clearly not serious nor written by a Christian. For example, the whole part about "people embrace Christianity as a last resort" - it is a recent edit. I thought that this might happen, being a Wiki. What I will do is comment on the parts that seem closest to what I have actually experienced while speaking with Christians as examples of how they think they can convert us. I think that the latter is the case. If you review the edit history you will notice that some pieces have been added, especially to the tips section, that are clearly not serious nor written by a Christian. For example, the whole part about "people embrace Christianity as a last resort" – it is a recent edit. I thought that this might happen, being a Wiki. What I will do is comment on the parts that seem closest to what I have actually experienced while speaking with Christians as examples of how they think they can convert us.

]]> By: jamesatracy http://www.anatheist.net/2008/09/a-christians-guide-to-converting-atheists-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1731 jamesatracy Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:00:02 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=706#comment-1731 I understand what you mean, and I believe that religious people understand what you mean as well. The problem, of course, is that this is not persuasive evidence with regards to the truth of Christian claims. Christians could be the happiest and most fun-loving people in the world and this would make no difference as to whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. I understand what you mean, and I believe that religious people understand what you mean as well. The problem, of course, is that this is not persuasive evidence with regards to the truth of Christian claims. Christians could be the happiest and most fun-loving people in the world and this would make no difference as to whether or not Jesus rose from the dead.

]]> By: ixid http://www.anatheist.net/2008/09/a-christians-guide-to-converting-atheists-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1741 ixid Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:00:02 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=706#comment-1741 The Wikihow article is a satire or has been subtly satirized and gone unnoticed by Christian editors. Read it again with this in mind. The Wikihow article is a satire or has been subtly satirized and gone unnoticed by Christian editors. Read it again with this in mind.

]]> By: Neece http://www.anatheist.net/2008/09/a-christians-guide-to-converting-atheists-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1747 Neece Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:00:02 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=706#comment-1747 Excellent post, James. It's interesting to see the thoughts of christians on converting us heathen atheists. Unfortunately they forgot the main point, which of course they can't do, and that's logic, science and common sense! Excellent post, James. It's interesting to see the thoughts of christians on converting us heathen atheists. Unfortunately they forgot the main point, which of course they can't do, and that's logic, science and common sense!

]]> By: Brandon M. Sergent http://www.anatheist.net/2008/09/a-christians-guide-to-converting-atheists-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1760 Brandon M. Sergent Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:00:02 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=706#comment-1760 "But, you know, if you believe something to be true and actually have good and persuasive reasons for believing as much, then convincing other people of that truth should not be a tough job. " Uhhh, may I recommend a brief study of human history? "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck The bottom line is there is one question that rationalism cannot answer... Why. For example... "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for the model to describe." Stephen Hawking Atheists ignore the line between how and why. So do fundamentalists. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein I think you're both wrong. "But, you know, if you believe something to be true and actually have good and persuasive reasons for believing as much, then convincing other people of that truth should not be a tough job. "

Uhhh, may I recommend a brief study of human history?

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." – Max Planck

The bottom line is there is one question that rationalism cannot answer…

Why.

For example…

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for the model to describe." Stephen Hawking

Atheists ignore the line between how and why. So do fundamentalists.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

I think you're both wrong.

]]> By: jamesatracy http://www.anatheist.net/2008/09/a-christians-guide-to-converting-atheists-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1761 jamesatracy Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:00:02 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=706#comment-1761 Hi Brandon, "Uhhh, may I recommend a brief study of human history? " I am making a general observation. It is far easier to persuade others of the truth of your claims if you actually have compelling arguments and evidence to support it. Without that, your job becomes much more difficult. Again, this is a general observation. I am not saying that compelling evidence will necessarily and always convince everyone. "The bottom line is there is one question that rationalism cannot answer... Why." I do not disagree with that sentiment. Science is not equipped to understand the ultimate why questions of the universe. But neither, I believe, is anything else. These are unsolvable questions - we cannot hope to ever answer them definitively. So - I tend not to worry about it. And I am certainly not going to pretend to know the answer when in fact I do not. Which makes me wonder in what sense you believe I am "wrong" Hi Brandon,

"Uhhh, may I recommend a brief study of human history? "

I am making a general observation. It is far easier to persuade others of the truth of your claims if you actually have compelling arguments and evidence to support it. Without that, your job becomes much more difficult. Again, this is a general observation. I am not saying that compelling evidence will necessarily and always convince everyone.

"The bottom line is there is one question that rationalism cannot answer… Why."

I do not disagree with that sentiment. Science is not equipped to understand the ultimate why questions of the universe. But neither, I believe, is anything else. These are unsolvable questions – we cannot hope to ever answer them definitively. So – I tend not to worry about it. And I am certainly not going to pretend to know the answer when in fact I do not.

Which makes me wonder in what sense you believe I am "wrong"

]]>