So I was looking for stats on how many atheists were once theists of some type or another (still haven;t found it-- so could use some help) and I found this page.
I thought it was interesting in the fact they try to keep Christians aware of logical fallacies..
I know how we feel about religion already, what I'm wondering are your views on this primer for converting atheists...
You know what's funny. Some christians will cite Antony Flew, the well-respected British philosopher who supposedly "converted to Christianity." Well, it's not that simple. He was so persuaded by a variation on the ontological argument that he became a deist. Most of today's Christians wouldn't count deism as any kind of Christianity (it's not at all necessary to have Jesus in the deist conception of Creation.
And of all of the 10's of billions of people who ever lived, to place so many eggs in this one basket. How sad!
You have to just love them, don't you? They read good stuff, qoute the material, find a message they think important, then forget to make sure it validates a dearly held position. So how many bad references does it take to kill an ideology? Lenght of memory-short, depth of study-1/3 cubit, and willingness to gloss over details(infinite), will save them....
what I could only describe as an Endarkenment.
What an excellent description! I'm adopting that.
I checked my Roget's, and under "adopting," I couldn't find "pilfering" - shouldn't it be there?
its one of those irregular verbs. I adopt, you pilfer, he robs them blind...
Ah, kinda like, bring, brang brung --?
I can see how some evangelical friends/acquaintances follow some of that, either by design or accidentally. Some of them can almost make some headway with me by being patient and knowing to whom they speak. One of my pet peeves is when Christians try to convert people they don't even know, completely dismissing the unique experiences, views, knowledge, and opinions of those individuals.
Over all, though, it seems like a more respectful and less obnoxious primer on how to begin to brainwash somebody.
They did not mention tieing someone down, water boarding, druging and issolation. I see this as an improvement...
I thought it was a wonderful article. It seemed to offer some rather nice insights into the atheist mind set, which theists seem to not fantom. In some way I thought it was mostly for theists, showing how atheists can be more 'with-it' than they, but fails to mention that the logic system that atheists operate in might offer deeper insights into nature and human practical issues than theism can reasonably mount. Much of the recommendations for theist exposure for atheists will not really work, and given the degree of 'false friendship' they seem to suggest, will only piss off the atheist, and cause an improvement in the atheist skill set.
I say, more power to the theists! Take your best shot.
And by the way, thank you for showing us one more reason to walk away, by informing the little bakery shop 'Sweet Cakes' in Gresham Oregon, why they should not make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. KATU channel 2 website. What a load of s--t.....
Actually Gallup it does offer some practical advice, a Xian following this is much less likely to be cordially invited to fuck off in the first thirty seconds... and any successful conversion of a person who is atheist and has some knowledge of the issues involved will take time. (I exclude those few who are atheist by default, because they've never even thought about the matter--those are easier to work.)
Actually Gallup it does offer some practical advice, a Xian following this is much less likely to be cordially invited to fuck off in the first thirty seconds...
That's true and in that sense it's good (if cynical and condescending) advice. But there's a wide gap between 'not being told to fuck off' and 'persuade an atheist to become Christian'.
I mean the article itself offered no specific 'persuasive' argument. It only advised the Christian of some arguments he might encounter from the atheist, and suggested he "use research from Christian scientists to rebut their arguments". No mention is made of which "Christian scientists" or what research is so persuasive.