How Christians Should Approach Atheists

[Mathilda]

Christians should approach atheists downwind without any sudden movements.

[pattylt]

Atheists, just like any in group, can be snarky and unpleasant to outsiders. Believe me Christian’s, Jews and Muslims are the same. The impersonality of the interwebs removes the primary layer of civility…something that isn’t likely to happen face to face.

While I can’t speak to Christian’s (and it’s almost always Christian’s) reasons for coming to an atheist forum, it usually is to tell us how we’re wrong and don’t understand the Bible. Rarely does someone come that just wants to dialog. Whether that’s Dave or not, time will tell but he’s made a better start than so many others. It will be interesting, and I hope he eventually will, dialog about his views of the Catholic Church. He’s openly stated that he’s an apologist so kudos for initial honesty.

I can only speak for myself but when any Christian willingly discusses topics in a mostly civil manner, I not only appreciate it, I enjoy it. I like figuring out exactly where there head is at and I don’t object being challenged as long as it can be reciprocated. I also realize that there will be times a quote from scripture will be needed for one to make a point. That’s a lot different than constant quoting of the Bible at me like that’s meaningful or actually gets their point across. Charlie and his Bible spewing is a perfect example of someone not willing to engage in discussion but just old fashion Bible bashing. It’s annoying.

To Dave, each of us have a story and deep reasons why we’re atheists. It isn’t until recently that people have grown up with atheist parents…most were some religion first if they’re over 50. You weren’t a cradle Catholic and that gives you a little bit wider perspective on Christian views but all were still within Christianity. I doubt you grew up with any outspoken relatives that were atheists? It’d be unusual if you were.

One thing I discovered when leaving Judaism behind is how surprised Christian’s were to my total inability to even consider that Jesus was a god. It’s so far outside my wheelhouse to almost border on absurdity. Christian’s grew up with the Trinity concept. Even those that aren’t trinitarians still have Jesus as a god. I’m still wrapping my head around Christian’s using the OT but ignoring the various statements in it that man can not be god…yet, here we are! I’ll have questions for you at some point…so be ready.

[mordant]

Also remembered the website linked on those tracts: https://www.whydidigetthis.org/

Ah yes, you're good, but not nearly good enough; "he who has offended in one point is guilty of all". Nice.

[mordant]

https://armstronginstitute.org/239-uncovering-the-truth

Well bugger me!

Hm, the "Armstrong" in the name comes from Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God, which IIRC was originally named the Radio Church of God or something to that effect ... he was an early pioneer in evangelism via radio. He split with the 7th Day Adventists over doctrinal disputes and ended up teaching a variation of "British Israelism". Widely considered a heretical cult by evangelicals. There was also a big touche-kicking contest between Herbert and his son, Garner Ted, I forget what about, but the son kind of took over the joint at some point.

I'm kind of surprised any part of that organization is still up and running.

I have no real idea how credible they are. Offhand I would say, "not very" since their stated methodology for assessing the truth or falsity of archeological discoveries involves "comparing the discovery to what the Bible says" which is code words for "any interpretation that harmonizes with the Bible is an indication you're on the right track".

Another indication of the reliability of Armstrong's thought process comes from his prediction of a world war in 1939 ... that would be centered around Jerusalem ... and end with the Second Coming. Not a great batting average, there.

[Chas]

First of all, handing out leaflets is a douche move. Period.

But what difference does it make if a Christian believes what the bible says?

None, as long as they don't proselytize like this twit is.

What if you meet a Christian who believes in eternal damnation and doesn't shove it down your throat?

Don't care, but we won't likely be good friends as we don't have a relatable world view.

They just happen to believe it, and maybe they even think you're going to hell but they don't harp on you about it. How do you handle that kind of Christian?

No 'handling' required.

Proselytizing to an atheist is rude and inconsiderate. It certainly has no place here.

I often forget that you're a theist, Aliza.

[Chas]

Are there some atheists who know that God exists and reject Him? In my opinion, yes; they exist.

And your opinion is wrong,
An atheist is one who does not believe that a god exists. Full stop.

[Chas]

Most atheists are atheists and agnostics, such as Richard Dawkins. I don't believe in gods, but I'm not 100% sure, just as I'm not 100% sure a coffee machine won't materialise over my desk out of thin air, or that Leprechauns and the lock ness monster exist.

This confirms what I contended for above. Thanks.

No, it does not.

[Dave Armstrong]

Your god, like every other one, is make believe. Nonsense dreamed up by silly little hoomans who did not understand how anything worked, so they attributed it to magic.

The buybull, like every other religious text, is a crock of shit.

Thanks for the vote of confidence!

[Dave Armstrong]

Alright, this part of the reply is to the atheists in the room.
 
Y’all listen. I KNOW some of you are going to get your panties in a knot over this post because Dave here is justifying his position with the bible. -But that really should not matter. Dave’s position is that we should treat each other civilly and we frankly get a lot of apologists here who do *not* treat us civilly. He acknowledges that this occurs and feels badly about it.

Maybe *don’t* gnaw on Dave unless and until he does something actually offensive (and politely disagreeing or presenting one’s position when invited to do so shouldn’t be considered offensive!)
 
And Dave, NGL there is a twinge of condescension in your post that I’m sure you don’t mean to convey given that you have been entirely civil based on what I’ve read so far (which admittedly is limited) and you seem to be pro-tolerance of others. Giving atheists the benefit of the doubt because you can’t know with certainly that they reject your deity or simply don’t understand your deity can be perceived as offensive. Be civil and kind because that’s the modus operandi you should adopt with all people. Their belief system should be immaterial if they are conducting themselves appropriately according to the social norms of their society.

Thanks for your words and you make a good and valid point. I will further clarify what my intentions were, though, if I may. The reason I included the Bible was because my post was half-intended to be a critique of my fellow Christians, insofar as they behave hypocritically towards atheists and agnostics. So at the end I say to rub this in their face. THEY believe in these passages, and so they (and I) should live by them.

Your other point about perceived condescension I anticipated too. People know what Christianity believes about unbelief itself (though I think I am highlighting some things that are not often considered). I am working within Christian belief to seek as charitable view as I possibly can take towards atheists. I think I succeeded. And I think this follows the partial analogy to biblical passages about "outsiders" that I also recently write about. The agnostic says he or she doesn't know God exists. So that is clear-cut. We must extend the assumption of good faith and not insincerity. That's simple.

The harder case is the self-professed literal atheist, who says God doesn't exist, period. The two choices of interpreting that are to say the person truly believes this (and from our perspective it is from a lack of knowledge or experience with Christianity), or that he or she believes a God exists, but rejects this God, and is playing games in pretending He doesn't exist. I choose, in extending the benefit of charity and good faith, to accept the atheist at his or her word, rather than make an accusation of equivocation and deception.

Either way it's charitable. I'm delighted to see that at least some people here see this post for what it is. 

Thanks again.

[vulcanlogician]

Humanity has invented thousands of gods over the  millennia but this moron is just positive that his is the real deal.

You cannot reason with people like this.

You can sometimes. I've seen you yourself do it.

I think what you meant to say is that it's hard... cuz some of these folks had stupidity training. And how do you argue against stupidity? But not all of them are lost.

[no one]

Not just stupidity. But the willfully ignorant variety.

[Dave Armstrong]

https://armstronginstitute.org/239-uncovering-the-truth

Well bugger me!

No relation. 

[Dave Armstrong]

Are there some atheists who know that God exists and reject Him? In my opinion, yes; they exist.

What is that supposed to mean?

Do you mean that they believe your deity exists, but rejects it's divine status like in the following examples: "Jesus existed, but he was not a God" or "Your god is too weak/petty/evil/stupid/small to be real God".


Or do you mean something akin to the following examples: "God exists; he is real; he is a true God; but I don't like him so I reject his existence to spite him" or "God exist; he is real; he is a true God; but I don't like him so I try to convince myself he doesn't exist to feel better about me disobeying him".

I would say that the first set of example does represent actual atheists, but the second does not. They represent what we call misotheists not atheists.

The second thing. Both exist. I wasn't saying how many believe these things. I did make it clear that I think it is a small number and that we can't know for sure who thinks like that.

[no one]

Did we win the circus jackpot?

Why do we have 2 clowns at the same time?

[Dave Armstrong]

Atheists, just like any in group, can be snarky and unpleasant to outsiders.  Believe me Christian’s, Jews and Muslims are the same.  The impersonality of the interwebs removes the primary layer of civility…something that isn’t likely to happen face to face.

While I can’t speak to Christian’s (and it’s almost always Christian’s) reasons for coming to an atheist forum, it usually is to tell us how we’re wrong and don’t understand the Bible.  Rarely does someone come that just wants to dialog.  Whether that’s Dave or not, time will tell but he’s made a better start than so many others.  It will be interesting, and I hope he eventually will, dialog about his views of the Catholic Church. He’s openly stated that he’s an apologist so kudos for initial honesty.

I can only speak for myself but when any Christian willingly discusses topics in a mostly civil manner, I not only appreciate it, I enjoy it.  I like figuring out exactly where there head is at and I don’t object being challenged as long as it can be reciprocated.  I also realize that there will be times a quote from scripture will be needed for one to make a point.  That’s a lot different than constant quoting of the Bible at me like that’s meaningful or actually gets their point across.  Charlie and his Bible spewing is a perfect example of someone not willing to engage in discussion but just old fashion Bible bashing.  It’s annoying.

To Dave, each of us have a story and deep reasons why we’re atheists.  It isn’t until recently that people have grown up with atheist parents…most were some religion first if they’re over 50.  You weren’t a cradle Catholic and that gives you a little bit wider perspective on Christian views but all were still within Christianity. I doubt you grew up with any outspoken relatives that were atheists?  It’d be unusual if you were.

One thing I discovered when leaving Judaism behind is how surprised Christian’s were to my total inability to even consider that Jesus was a god.  It’s so far outside my wheelhouse to almost border on absurdity.  Christian’s grew up with the Trinity concept.  Even those that aren’t trinitarians still have Jesus as a god.  I’m still wrapping my head around Christian’s using the OT but ignoring the various statements in it that man can not be god…yet, here we are!  I’ll have questions for you at some point…so be ready.

Great comment again. You've been so kind and I like reading your posts a lot. I know they will be edifying and informative. I can honestly say that I like you already.

I didn't grow up with any known atheists around. But I was only nominally Christian up to age 9 and then a practical atheist till 18. Various experiences led me to "convert to Christ" in 1977 and become an evangelical. A big influence was the movie, Jesus of Nazareth, that came out that year. I had also had a severe existential crisis in the form of a six-month bout of clinical depression (which I have never had at all since). I'm glad I did, though, because I can relate to those who struggle with depression. All the members of my family have at one time or another. I've written at length about my conversion. I was involved in all sorts of occultic things, out of my intense curiosity about mysterious stuff. I used to love, e.g., the show One Step Beyond (which claims to present all true stories).

I never stopped believing in God; I simply lived for those ten years as if He didn't exist or had any effect on one's life. As I said before, I lived the secular life two generations before it was cool and fashionable, as it is now, rarely going to church, except a few times at my brother's church. He became an evangelical six years before I did. I was so ignorant at age 17 that I didn't even know that Christians believed that Jesus was God. My first girlfriend at that time was a Catholic, and asked me once if I would go to church with her. I politely but firmly declined, but said, "tell your mother I believe in God." LOL I'm still friends with her. She and her husband live about eight miles from us, in rural southeast lower Michigan. I attended a Mass, iirc, one time in my life until I was 25: at a cousin's wedding.

I first encountered an outspoken atheist in college, particularly one outspoken anthropologist professor who found it difficult to conceal his atheism. Then I started noticing more and more the latent hostility of professors against Christianity and that made me determined to look into apologetics and a reasoned defense of what Christians believed. I began serious apologetics research in my senior year in college. Before that I had only read a few C. S. Lewis books.

[Dave Armstrong]

https://armstronginstitute.org/239-uncovering-the-truth

Well bugger me!

Hm, the "Armstrong" in the name comes from Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God, which IIRC was originally named the Radio Church of God or something to that effect ... he was an early pioneer in evangelism via radio. He split with the 7th Day Adventists over doctrinal disputes and ended up teaching a variation of "British Israelism". Widely considered a heretical cult by evangelicals. There was also a big touche-kicking contest between Herbert and his son, Garner Ted, I forget what about, but the son kind of took over the joint at some point.

I'm kind of surprised any part of that organization is still up and running.

I have no real idea how credible they are. Offhand I would say, "not very" since their stated methodology for assessing the truth or falsity of archeological discoveries involves "comparing the discovery to what the Bible says" which is code words for "any interpretation that harmonizes with the Bible is an indication you're on the right track".

Another indication of the reliability of Armstrong's thought process comes from his prediction of a world war in 1939 ... that would be centered around Jerusalem ... and end with the Second Coming. Not a great batting average, there.

Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God is fairly unique in that it is an example of what we called a "cult": a group that claimed to be Christian but wasn't because it denied the Trinity, that actually changed its position and adopted trinitarianism.

[no one]

Because only christibois can persecute. The absolute worst kind of persecution is a christiboi being unable to persecute.

[Dave Armstrong]

Did we win the circus jackpot?

Why do we have 2 clowns at the same time?

Because you're here! If you split Minimal Logic will have the sole distinction . . .

[epronovost]

What is that supposed to mean?

Do you mean that they believe your deity exists, but rejects it's divine status like in the following examples: "Jesus existed, but he was not a God" or "Your god is too weak/petty/evil/stupid/small to be real God".


Or do you mean something akin to the following examples: "God exists; he is real; he is a true God; but I don't like him so I reject his existence to spite him" or "God exist; he is real; he is a true God; but I don't like him so I try to convince myself he doesn't exist to feel better about me disobeying him".

I would say that the first set of example does represent actual atheists, but the second does not. They represent what we call misotheists not atheists.

The second thing. Both exist. I wasn't saying how many believe these things. I did make it clear that I think it is a small number and that we can't know for sure who thinks like that.

I don't think the second one actually exists as in a person subscribing to such beliefs would call themselves "atheists". It's seems really dumb to me. If you think some rules imposed by your religion are dumb, why hold on to the belief that the rule is legitimate? Why not simply reject the religion and move on to something else or, even more common, claim that the rule is actually illegitimate and not actually a divine command; that it's something so priest added for their own benefit while pretending it's the will of their god. You see this type of behavior extremely commonly amongst Christians to reject misogyny, homophobia, child beatings, material poverty, dietary requirements and a variety of other traits or values espoused by their religion. I have met a whole lot of atheists, almost half of my society is composed of non-believers, nobody really qualify as genuine misotheists. This idea that the people who claim to not believe in a deity are angry at it's rules or "actions" seems to me be born out of some sort of "religious realism"; that is the belief that it's impossible not to believe in God and that those who claim otherwise must by deceiving themselves or seeking to offend.

[mordant]

I wasn't saying how many believe these things. I did make it clear that I think it is a small number and that we can't know for sure who thinks like that.

Some of us will extemporize that we'd rather go to hell as the company would be more interesting, but seriously I can't imagine why, if for the sake of argument one could know that the tri-omni Christian god exists and the whole thing is true, AND we were somehow wrong about him being this petty monstrous personality, why they wouldn't embrace it. Because they want to secretly eat babies?

I mean the Christian fantasy that all atheists are libertines and perverts and god haters (how do you hate someone you're convinced is imaginary?) is so ridiculous that I am loathe to entertain the notion that there are even a handful of atheists somewhere who would reject something that's true just because they want to be naughty.

But if it makes you feel better I'm willing to stipulate that it's theoretically possible.

[Dave Armstrong]

The second thing. Both exist. I wasn't saying how many believe these things. I did make it clear that I think it is a small number and that we can't know for sure who thinks like that.

I don't think the second one actually exists as in a person subscribing to such beliefs would call themselves "atheists". It's seems really dumb to me. If you think some rules imposed by your religion are dumb, why hold on to the belief that the rule is legitimate? Why not simply reject the religion and move on to something else or, even more common, claim that the rule is actually illegitimate and not actually a divine command; that it's something so priest added for their own benefit while pretending it's the will of their god. You see this type of behavior extremely commonly amongst Christians to reject misogyny, homophobia, child beatings, material poverty, dietary requirements and a variety of other traits or values espoused by their religion. I have met a whole lot of atheists, almost half of my society is composed of non-believers, nobody really qualify as genuine misotheists. This idea that the people who claim to not believe in a deity are angry at it's rules or "actions" seems to me be born out of some sort of "religious realism"; that is the belief that it's impossible not to believe in God and that those who claim otherwise must by deceiving themselves or seeking to offend.

Aldous Huxley might be an example of this (rare) sort of atheist, and he was honest enough to admit it:

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”

--- Ends and Means

[mordant]

I don't think the second one actually exists as in a person subscribing to such beliefs would call themselves "atheists". It's seems really dumb to me. If you think some rules imposed by your religion are dumb, why hold on to the belief that the rule is legitimate? Why not simply reject the religion and move on to something else or, even more common, claim that the rule is actually illegitimate and not actually a divine command; that it's something so priest added for their own benefit while pretending it's the will of their god. You see this type of behavior extremely commonly amongst Christians to reject misogyny, homophobia, child beatings, material poverty, dietary requirements and a variety of other traits or values espoused by their religion. I have met a whole lot of atheists, almost half of my society is composed of non-believers, nobody really qualify as genuine misotheists. This idea that the people who claim to not believe in a deity are angry at it's rules or "actions" seems to me be born out of some sort of "religious realism"; that is the belief that it's impossible not to believe in God and that those who claim otherwise must by deceiving themselves or seeking to offend.

Aldous Huxley might be an example of this (rare) sort of atheist, and he was honest enough to admit it:

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”

--- Ends and Means

Where here does he say, "I believe in god, but reject him anyway"?

I don't agree with the weirdly specific hill he chooses to die on here -- maybe he's being deliberately provocative --- maybe he's serious. But I think it is a distinctly Christianity-mediated prudishness that would associate a desire for sexual freedom with rejection of god. What I think he's actually claiming is that conventional notions of meaning are antithetical to personal freedom generally. IDK if I necessarily buy that ... but I don't think this is a clear rejection of a belief in god.

[Dave Armstrong]

Aldous Huxley might be an example of this (rare) sort of atheist, and he was honest enough to admit it:

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”

--- Ends and Means

Where here does he say, "I believe in god, but reject him anyway"?

I don't agree with the weirdly specific hill he chooses to die on here -- maybe he's being deliberately provocative --- maybe he's serious. But I think it is a distinctly Christianity-mediated prudishness that would associate a desire for sexual freedom with rejection of god. What I think he's actually claiming is that conventional notions of meaning are antithetical to personal freedom generally. IDK if I necessarily buy that ... but I don't think this is a clear rejection of a belief in god.

I stated that it "might be an example." So I'm not gonna have a big discussion about this because it's not a strong argument to go to battle over. It seems that everything I say becomes another huge discussion, and soon, we're off on tangents that have little to do with the threads I originated.

[epronovost]

I don't think the second one actually exists as in a person subscribing to such beliefs would call themselves "atheists". It's seems really dumb to me. If you think some rules imposed by your religion are dumb, why hold on to the belief that the rule is legitimate? Why not simply reject the religion and move on to something else or, even more common, claim that the rule is actually illegitimate and not actually a divine command; that it's something so priest added for their own benefit while pretending it's the will of their god. You see this type of behavior extremely commonly amongst Christians to reject misogyny, homophobia, child beatings, material poverty, dietary requirements and a variety of other traits or values espoused by their religion. I have met a whole lot of atheists, almost half of my society is composed of non-believers, nobody really qualify as genuine misotheists. This idea that the people who claim to not believe in a deity are angry at it's rules or "actions" seems to me be born out of some sort of "religious realism"; that is the belief that it's impossible not to believe in God and that those who claim otherwise must by deceiving themselves or seeking to offend.

Aldous Huxley might be an example of this (rare) sort of atheist, and he was honest enough to admit it:

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”

--- Ends and Means

Except that's not the case of a atheists thinking that God exist and is real. Huxley himself was not even an atheist; at least not in the modern sense of the term since he was fascinated by mysticism and by Eastern religious traditions specifically Buddhism and, even more so, Hinduism in his case. He even participated actively and recruited others in Vedic societies and clubs. He could be best describe as one of the founder of the New Age movement or as an orientalist. 

What Huxley is talking about in this paragraph is how he rejected Christian notions of morality because he found it suffocating and interfered with his sexual freedom. He posited a form of moral nihilism to confound his critique, but he himself was deeply interested in finding meaning beyond that of the suffocating Christianity and social conservatism he lived in and sought it through experimentation with LSD, psychedelic substances and Buddhist philosophy, but explaining and justifying those choices to bigots seemed to him pointless he thus preferred to goad and mock them by playing nihilism.

This is not at all the same thing as what was described earlier; far from it. Aldous Huxley did not believe in the Christian version of a deity.

[1Sam15]

Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God is fairly unique in that it is an example of what we called a "cult": a group that claimed to be Christian but wasn't because it denied the Trinity, that actually changed its position and adopted trinitarianism.

Yea you have to believe yahweh raped and impregnated a child/young virgin to be a legitimate cult.