Amtrak
LOS ANGELES New York Israel Italy Chicago New Jersey Philly London San Fran

The God Blog

Email | Print | Text - Text +

April 30, 2009 | 9:48 am

Atheists offer ‘Ten Tips for Christian Evangelists’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

As I mentioned Tuesday, atheists have been more vocal about their godlessness in recent years. You would think this would make the work of Christians both easier and more difficult: While the unbelievers are more obvious, they’re also more committed to an antagonistic cause. So what is a Christian evangelist to do?

Here’s some advice from atheists. Sort of.

“It’s a list of the Top Ten Tips for Christian Evangelists,” Hemant Mehta wrote on his Friendly Atheist blog. “The purpose is not to make the conversion of atheists easier. Rather, it’s to make the Christians who do this sort of thing more tolerable (since we have to deal with them on a regular basis).”

Here are numbers eight through 10:

8. Don’t assume that we have “God-shaped holes in our hearts” and try to get us to admit it.

I certainly think that religion helps meet various psychological needs, and there are plenty of warm, fuzzy feelings (and deeper emotional experiences as well) that come along with it. But just because you have a proverbial hole-in-your-heart that only Jesus can fill doesn’t mean that all of us do.

Trying to convince us that our lives suck or are incomplete without God isn’t going to work. Stop insulting us and implying that we’re secretly miserable. We’re getting along just fine without any gods, so this line of strategy won’t work.

9. Don’t compare your past experiences to our present.

I cannot count the number of times I’ve heard Christians enthusiastically share their stories of horrible, sinful lives that left them feeling empty and lonely.

These “sinful” lives usually consisted of such shockers as swearing, going to R-rated movies, looking at porn, drinking, partying, smoking, and occasionally doing drugs. Oh — and having premarital sex.

The thing is, maybe these things made you feel guilty or empty; maybe you developed addictions or other problems relating to these activities, and maybe you’re much happier now that you don’t do them. That’s great. But it doesn’t mean that hearing your story is going to shock us or convince us to change our ways. There is such a thing as a healthy balance, and it can include some (or maybe all) of those “vices.”

This tactic seems especially silly when different Christians groups and denominations can’t seem to decide what’s sinful and what’s not.

10. Don’t talk down to us, as if we’re just not understanding something perfectly obvious.

Many of us have read the Bible, prayed, attended church for years, and still ended up as atheists. There’s no magic bullet that converts people to Christianity. Whatever experience led you to believe probably happened on a pretty personal level. We haven’t witnessed anything miraculous or heard any voices, and we don’t see anything self-evident about God in nature or humanity. So if you insist on trying to save us, at least familiarize yourself with our perspective before jumping in, because assuming we’re simply uninformed or dumb is only going to hurt your chances.

Read more, or see just what happens when you disregard this list, at the Friendly Atheist Forums.

23 Comments — Leave your comment

Share this post: del.icio.us Favicondel.icio.us Digg FaviconDigg Facebook FaviconFacebook Google FaviconGoogle Reddit FaviconReddit StumbleUpon FaviconStumbleUpon Technorati FaviconTechnorati YahooMyWeb FaviconYahooMyWeb

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

“8. Don’t assume that we have “God-shaped holes in our hearts” and try to get us to admit it.

...

10. Don’t talk down to us, as if we’re just not understanding something perfectly obvious.”


oh, i dunno, how would an atheist look at it?  maybe there is a “hole” of sorts that limits understanding.  if so, then how should we think of atheism?  even homosexuality we now understand to have genetic and/or developmental hormonal environment causes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

Comment by Proton Soup on 4/30/09 at 11:42 am

Talmud Kidushin 70a - He who condemns others, sees in them his own faults.

Talmud Bava Mezia 59a - Do not rebuke your fellow with your own blemish.

It is a riot that in the current ‘Atheists gone Wild’ environment that they reprove believers with their own faults. Atheism has no factual support in spite of their claims, which absolutely makes it a belief system. Fundamentalist Fanatic Atheists are guilty of all Ten Tips with minor modifications.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 4/30/09 at 8:54 pm

Folks, please allow me to be blunt: you’re not getting it. The tips offered are there to try to make it possible for you to understand how to interact with atheists in a manner that is less offensive to them. If all you can think to do is criticize the tips or use it as an opportunity to say nasty things about atheists, you’re demonstrating that you’re incapable of having a conversation with an atheist without being gravely insulting to them… and if you can’t talk to them without insulting them, you sure aren’t going to convert them, and you’re sure not acting like a Christian.

Comment by Tom on 4/30/09 at 10:08 pm

Tom, don’t talk down to us as if we’re just not understanding something perfectly obvious.  wink

anyhoo, the tips pretty much amount to “if you’re going to talk about God, then just f*** off”.  yes, i get it, and i find many of the methods employed by certain people annoying as well.  but it’s just the way evangelicals go about things and doesn’t have a whole lot to do with you being an atheist versus anything else.  besides, those things, as much as they annoy you, must work at least part of the time, else they wouldn’t be doing them.

Comment by Proton Soup on 4/30/09 at 10:35 pm

Good one, PS. Like the eternal Middle East negotiations, these kids of one-way ‘rules’ are designed to neutralize the opponent before the engagement. I just watched a long video with Christopher Hitchens in which he used his full arsenal of patronizing British ironic sneering, sarcasm, insult, ridicule and so on, all in a lackadaisical tone that seemed to say that if he wasn’t shouting he was being polite.

This post is not directly applicable to Jews, as Christians have what they call the ‘Great Commission’ to get other people to believe in Jesus, and Jews just say ‘Have a nice day, as long as you are not trying to kill me’. Certainly we can react any way that is called for but out of respect will not go around telling others they are wrong and why.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/01/09 at 3:39 am

Another way to put it: if you only have a few minutes to say your piece, you don’t want to waste those minutes on anything counter-productive. It’s like reading the FAQ before you get involved in a web discussion, learning from experience. Call these “one-way rules” if you like, but atheists are so used to being slighted and misrepresented that if you make any of those well-known mistakes, we can see you coming from a mile away. 8)

Comment by brian t on 5/03/09 at 5:08 am

I am an engineer, a scientist, an atheist, a humanist, a father, and a friend to many - I am also a person who is many other things I have not listed. I find it interesting that one poster equates the atheist position with homosexuality. Besides this equivocation being a category error, it is precisely what is wrong on both sides of the fence.
For example, there are those who state that belief in a god is a form of mental illness - and believers who claim the same concerning the atheist. Books are written (profit motive) pandering to either side of the religious arguments, with neither side convincing the other that it is correct to the exclusion of all other hypothesis.
I will start here, that an atheist does not have a burden to disprove a god (of any kind). Those who accept such a challenge do so at the peril of their own research and arguments. The theist does have a positive claim: “There is a god.” This positive claim does require evidence - even for the atheist to logically presume to argue against it. Otherwise, the claim of the theist is just that - a claim.
Here is my objections:
What I observe is that many use the notion of direct knowledge of god to justify almost anything imaginable. Flying planes into buildings - shooting those who do not believe as they do - even the Holocaust was rooted in the belief that there was justification by one religious group to hate another. I, as a human, cannot find justification for this unnatural separation of humanity, unless I look back to evolution - then it becomes clearer to me. As we evolved we learned to fear that which was different and to label this or that so that something was acceptable or not. What this naturally led to was bias and prejudice - reasons to exclude (if you will). I understand that religious beliefs are held in place by faith - and this is a sort of subjective glue, one that cannot be explained by science - nor refuted.
Invoking science as a justification for faith is irrational and by default leads to the idea that all of religious belief should be scrutinized by science and judged accordingly. As an atheist - I would not want to see that occur; too many need their faith to live day to day. Science is not concerned with morals; that is not what science does. Science starts with the question, and then attempts to destroy proofs (falsification), if one were to demand that science answers the questions of religion - applying science to religious claims - it is possible that many would be irreparably harmed.
However, I think that this is in the future; that science will be used to answer the questions. It will begin with the first claim – that there is a god. When that burden is answered in the negative, the rest of the arguments will be summarily dismissed. It is not science that is attacking religion – I see no evidence for this. I do see some who attempt a quasi-scientific rhetoric to attack religious position, or religious folk who challenge others (like atheists) with pseudo-science (like the god-gene), both to their own shame. As an atheist, I can say – I do not know if there is a god. I can look at the claims of those who believe in god(s) and examine those claims for truth value. As a humanist, I cannot make the distinction that a believer is crazy because they believe. As a person of dignity and intelligence I can be (and often am) offended by those of faith who claim I am somehow damaged because I reject subjective claims that are offered as evidence. I would like to believe that those of faith would not harm me for my lack of belief in their god or the god of the other fellow, but today I wonder. I wonder because of the footprint being left by many who believe – but also presume they can kill in the name of their god.

Comment by Jim Andersen on 5/04/09 at 8:55 am

Jim, are using “equates” in the engineering/scientific sense, or a rhetorical/irrational sense?  should i assume you’re equating religion with flying planes into buildings?

fwiw, you should know that (with christianity at least) non-proof is a requirement.  there is no need to prove anything.  faith is the requirement.

Comment by Proton Soup on 5/04/09 at 12:35 pm

Comment by Proton Soup: “faith is the requirement.”

Translation: Being stupid and gullible is the requirement.

Comment by bobxxxx on 5/05/09 at 5:07 pm

nothing like beating a straw horse bobxxxxxx…

Comment by Proton Soup on 5/05/09 at 7:33 pm

Proton soup: “Equate” might be a bit much, perhaps “attribute” would be better.  An excellent recent quote on the matter:

“Science flies men to the moon; religion flies them into buildings.”

Comment by Aveteran on 5/05/09 at 10:44 pm

eh?  Americans are some of the biggest bible thumpers on the planet, and thus far the only ones landing men on the moon.  neither the Brits nor the godless commies have yet achieved such.

maybe you could admit that religion has done some rather nice things for humanity, like maintaining some cultural continuity over the centuries so that we could actually progress as a species.  and if that doesn’t satisfy you, you might also consider that if there really is a genetic component to spirituality, that maybe it is an adaptation that is critical to our survival.

Comment by Proton Soup on 5/05/09 at 11:40 pm

Oh yeah, centuries of suppressing science and medicine, and torturing non-believers were really “nice” things for humanity.

Comment by Aveteran on 5/05/09 at 11:46 pm

hardly, monasteries make nice repositories.  and some of the godless commies like Pol Pot and Company murdered everyone that could read.

Comment by Proton Soup on 5/06/09 at 12:01 am

Only a few short centuries ago there were no atheists at all, maybe that’s why bad things were committed by those you call religious. But atheists are fast learners. In a short half century the atheists have brutalized, tortured, exterminated and enslaved far more people then in the rest of history combined.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/06/09 at 3:00 am

Americans are not believers - some believers are Americans; can you see the difference? “Americans are some of the biggest bible thumpers on the planet, and thus far the only ones landing men on the moon.” The implied premise that ‘Bible Thumpers’ put mankind on the moon is incorrect. Technology derived from science put mankind into space, not religion. (“Bible Thumpers” is not a term I use and was quoted from Comment by Proton Soup on 5/06/09 at 12:40 am)

Comment by Jim Andersen on 5/06/09 at 5:27 am

do you understand the false dichotomy of science versus religion?

Comment by Proton Soup on 5/06/09 at 10:11 am

Actually, I am familiar with the cliche’(false dichotomy of science), but subscribe to Gould’s - non-overlapping magesteria. This is reflected in the response I initially submitted. There are separate goals, applications, and disciplines that make scientific method and religious dogmas mutually exclusive. For example; science does not deal with the supernatural. And, science is not concerned with morals and truths in the same manner that those who espouse religious ideals grapple with. Ultimately, religion defers the the answer it begins with, “there is a god,” while science sets itself to falsifying ideas and observations - science seeks to prove any of its given premises or conclusions wrong. These examples demonstrate the profound differences in epistemological form that exist between science and religion. So, there is indeed a separation.

Comment by Jim Andersen on 5/06/09 at 11:28 am

yes, there is a separation, they are different subjects.  but there is no reason one can’t be a student of both, like say a guy who wants to know “which way Mecca?” from wherever in the world and invents spherical trigonometry.

Comment by Proton Soup on 5/06/09 at 12:47 pm

“Only a few short centuries ago there were no atheists at all, maybe that’s why bad things were committed by those you call religious. But atheists are fast learners. In a short half century the atheists have brutalized, tortured, exterminated and enslaved far more people then in the rest of history combined.”

I actually laughed out loud when I read this.  Look up Epicurus some time.  Or just do a search for “atheism in history”; while the term “atheist” isn’t very old at all, the ideas represented by it have existed for far longer than Christianity.
As to the list of crimes, there is a great article at http://nirmukta.com/2009/02/03/responding-to-the-atheist-crimes-of-the-20th-century/
He answers far better than I could.

As an atheist myself, one of my bigger pet peeves is misuse of science, logic, and facts to promote religion.  Quote mining, absence of fact-checking, strawman arguments, and just plain being told lies and believing them like you believe your holy book - all of these and more get way under my skin.  Even worse is trying to tell a Christian that they have got their facts wrong.

Summary: It took me longer to write this post than it did to look up the information showing you were wrong.  But at least I learned something.  Will you?

Comment by Ebzent on 6/28/09 at 12:20 pm

Congratulations on recognizing my post as the most cogent and penetrating one on the topic, and therefore the one most in urgent need of refutation from your point of view. My response was true although I didn’t support it, making it ripe for refutation.

I Googled “atheism in history” and got bupkis. Maybe you would be so kind as to be more specific.

I also actually read the article by Ajita Kamal. Of course he answers far better than you, because he at least pretends to pretends to answer it while you don’t even make the attempt.

Instead of just calling your big brother to fight for you, why not tell us in your own words how he refutes that “In a short half century the atheists have brutalized, tortured, exterminated and enslaved far more people then in the rest of history combined”. Hint - he doesn’t. What he does is play around with a few bits of jargon learned in Philosophy or Rhetoric class, in order to distract the reader from noricing that he is not refuting the major assumption.

As for Epicureanism, that is a good obscure ancient reference. What I said was “Only a few short centuries ago there were no atheists at all.” I could point out that Epicureanism was not influential as of a few short centuries ago, until the beginnings of what you call the entlightenment.. There is no continuity from the religion of the Greek Empire to today. The point I would really make is that the divide between religion and atheism today includes the moral component found in Western religions based on the Hebrew bible. I.E. from that point of view both the comic strip Greek pantheon and Epicureanism were atheistic. Kamal’s bragging about secular humanism begs for living proof.

It is true that Nazism and Communism drew upon non-theistic belief systems, making them the worst of both worlds. But Comminism is based on the conceit of being a rational, scientific, fact-based ideology. No one else claiming to be rational is immune from a Hawthorne Effect making objective observation imnpossible.

But let’s talk about why what I said is true. The reason I submit is hinted at in Kamal’s article. He says; “What folks often forget is that human rights is the product of centuries of rational thought… It was not any religion or any political dogma that achieved this recognition of human sentient value.” He is wrong. Human rights were introduced in the Old Testament. The first lesson there is that the world and its resources are more than adequate for people, all humans are descended from a common ancestor couple, and that all misery and suffering derives from the choices people make.

More to the point: The world is purposeful, humans are purposeful, their actions are to be guided by a higher authority than their limited reason or lack of it can assume. On that path, humans have the potential to transcend their physical animal limitations. It is this and not our bodies that define humanity. Your atheism has as its core a blindness as regards that transcendent aspect of humanity. That is why religious wars, as terrible as they were were about error, but atheistic movements spawned large-scale genocide by the very technique of dehumanization.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/28/09 at 8:17 pm

At the end of the article I noticed it said voices. Well I did hear voices after a not regretful benge of LSD. It was really annoying, the voices were people that I knew or used to know saying regilous and spiritual things. Like this one girl I know and hate saying I’m her soulmate. People saying they are watching me from heaven (they faked their deaths). It kept going on for 2 1/2 years, so I looked up paranoid scizophrenia on the internet it says spirtual hallucanations. Then I looked up LSD and found a website saying telepathic communication. After a while the voices stoped with the religous aspect since I knew about every large religion on the planet and could converse back. Then a felmale voice made me actually believe in Satan. She said that ever since man walked the earth, Satan walked the earth and invented every religion. He was the first caveman to draw in caves, the phroes of ancient Egypt, Ganges Khan, all the Caesars of ancient Rome, the first guru of India, Buddah, Muhammed described in the Qu’ran, Napolean Bismark, King Louis the 14th of the British royal family, Adof Hitler, Ronald Wilson Raegan, and right now he is Dick Cheny. Everytime he is in power he makes a monument to himself the pryamids, the spinx, the great wall of China, Stonehenge, etc…. He also says turn the other cheek, so people don’t defend themselves from evil. Started a satanic cult called the freemasions that every royal family, socialist facists (neo-con republicans in the U.S.A.) and dictator is apart of that is in power. They enjoy knowing that religion is satanic, torturing, making up properganda, incest orgies, pedaphillea and self multilation. I also found out that the anti-christ mentioned is the real messiah the world is waiting on and Satan just wants people to cause him or her harm. Are real maker is named Judah and she justs wants to people to live their lives rightous without worshipping her, the way atheists do.

Comment by Christopher Watts on 12/08/09 at 10:57 am

train wreck.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 12/09/09 at 3:45 am

Post a Comment

Name:  
Email:  
URL:  

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

RSS


Blog Archive

Newspaper

Serving a community of 600,000, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angles is the largest Jewish weekly outside New York City. Our award-winning paper reaches over 150,000 educated, involved and affluent readers each week. Subscribe here.

© Copyright 2010 The Jewish Journal and JewishJournal.com
All rights reserved. JewishJournal.com is hosted by Nexcess.net. Homepage design by Koret Communications.
Widgets by Mijits. Site construction by Hop Studios.

counter fake hit page