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.
Article linked here..
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...
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.
I agree with your sentiment about the fact that if the theist follows this guide, they may actually get to be heard at some point, but completing the conversion of a true atheist? No, I don't think they would be at all successful. It would be amusing, however, to be the target of such. One factual piece would be that atheists definitely can refute everything with scientific fact and evidence. How do you disagree with actual fact, that has been proven time and again? It's not possible. Rational minds would never attempt conversion of an atheist due to this alone. Christianity is based on faith, and faith alone. If it makes my christian family member feel better to try and convert me, I say, go for it. Try as hard as you would like, but in the end, (and they know this because they stopped trying years ago) factual scientific proof will win out every time. That's all there is to it.
That being said, very interesting article. I do wonder if this format has ever been successful in converting someone who has studied the bible and its fairy tales, and found the scientific answers for each of the scenarios the bible lists?
The article has so much bad advice, I almost couldn't tell if it was real or if it was a parody.
I think I could respect someone who took this approach. I liked that the article encourages readers to read more or research more, to understand or dispel some misconceptions they may have about atheists, to set up a two way street, and to accept that in the end you may still disagree. I don't know how often it would actually work, but if a genuine friendship forms then maybe that's besides the point. As Gallup's Mirror pointed out, there are definitely some problems in the article (e.g., the idea that scientists are atheist or christian, the idea that atheists twist science in their favor), but in the end I think the good outweighed the bad.