What’s the Best Method for Evangelism?

The worst forms of evangelism ever – the suicide belt, the iron maiden…

If it weren’t so predictable, I might listen.

I also might listen if they took a more philosophical approach rather than a definitive/authoritative one. Religion doesn’t need to explain anything. Re-write the bible to make it much more modern and morally reliable, and stop relying on it for explanations about “why we’re here”.

Stop wasting time on the unprovable stuff, get to the heart of the message!

Ultimately their evangelism is futile, but the part that annoys me about it, even when it’s framed as a genuine desire to help me (which I know that a lot of people have; few are the angry religious folks trying to whack me on the head with their religion. Most, I think, honestly believe that they’re working so save my soul), is a lack of respect. The town I live in (Kitchener, ON) seems to have a good number of mormons walking the streets, and they’re all loudly asking you if you’ve been saved by Jesus Christ. There’s a quality to their approach that’s very off-putting, and I imagine it would be even if I was religious. Why the presumption that I’m a lost sinner? Why read from the canned speech? Why not talk to me respectfully, and assume that I have my belief — or my lack of belief — because I’ve given it some thought? Whatever their opinions on god, the state of my soul et al, they must be aware of human nature.

What’s the worst that can happen, in that case? If they treat me respectfully, I’ll tell ‘em no thank you. If they treat me like I’m a jerk, I might yell at them. Nothing is gained for them in either case, and if they’re rude, they increase the chances that one of the people they approach is going to pop ‘em in the mouth.

As far as I’m concerned, they’re all useless and embarrassing since they all ignore the one thing that should be front and centre: evidence.

That said there are tactics that can actively alienate the right-thinking members of society. Acting like a hate-filled coward, spewing threats and retreating under your master’s skirts whenever challenged personally evokes revulsion and contempt, not interest. Acting like a vacuous bubblehead, offering platitudes without a glimmer of comprehension appears harmless but reinforces the stereotype of thoughtless, ignorant theists.

In a way, I appreciate when an evangelist recognizes that they don’t have what I’m looking on and move on. If they aren’t evangelizing and want to talk peacefully and respectfully as between two adults, that’s a totally different story.

No form of evangelism would work for me. I grew up a Christian and even went to bible college and converted a few people myself. But now I am a completely disillusioned atheist and nothing will convice me to go back. I know from experience it’s not true and it doesn’t work and I’m a little bitter about being lied to my entire life.

I’ve had a newly-converted muslim try to proselytize me (he said he wasn’t, but he really was), and I think that’s about it. But I think any kind of method of “oh here, let me save you” is presumptuous and also represents the tendency for religion to feed on proselytizing and the idea that once you believe in it, you’re stuck, because of the cyclical logic involved. Kind of makes me sick.

The worst form that I’ve seen actually happened recently.

I was babysitting my niece, at my sister’s place, which is kind of in a rough neighborhood. It’s beside a housing project.

So, I was in the middle of feeding her, when some Jehovah’s came to the door. Now, previously when I’ve come in contact with Jehovah’s, they’ve just handed me a disguised copy of The Watchtower, and left. This time was different.

So, immediately, they brought out this book, and said to me “Here are some pictures that illustrate God’s promises for us. Which picture would you like to learn more about?”

Nice. No literature or anything. They just assumed that because my sister lives in a rougher neighborhood, that I must have been illiterate. Picture book ministry.

Anything that insults a person’s intelligence is generally a bad way to spread around ideas.

The ONLY thing that works for me (in the absence of evidence) is genuine, open conversation, particularly with a friend. I’m not sure I would even call this evangelism since nobody’s trying to convert anyone, but it’s the only way I will listen to religious discussion.

Some of my religious friends and I talk all the time about the meta-issues surrounding religion–how do we “know” things, whether personal experiences should be convincing, etc. In the process we both learn about each other’s worldview, and have an opportunity to test our own.

If a theist wants to convert me and is not willing to sit down and have a frank and open conversation where we each listen to each other, then it just isn’t going to work.

I think a very simple way to describe the best way to talk to an atheist about religion is with this simple comparison.

If two atheists are having a disagreement or argument about something, it will generally be resolved by one person conceding that the other’s evidence or proof is better supported and that they are probably correct. That, or that there is insufficient proof and they’ll agree to revisit it later when more is available while each holding onto their own theories for the meantime.

With religious people there is no point in such a discussion because the possibility that they are wrong does not exist to them. This is a severe turnoff to most atheists because it isn’t how we function.

If a Christian somehow had verifiable proof of the existance of god, we would all stop and listen but most of the time it comes down to “the bible says” and not to generalize, but most of us (atheists) know more about the bible than the devout. At least from my experience.

I recently had a Baptist couple come up my driveway (past the TRex eating a Jesus Fish on my car) and to my door. I’m not sure what possessed me, but in response to the man’s question of, “Are you at peace?” I answered that my family had recently lost the two remaining elders, and that peace was hard to find these days.

He then asked me if I believed that they were in heaven. I tend to skirt questions like this, and said something along the lines of being sure than any good and loving God would have accepted them with open arms. His response (I’m not kidding!) was, “Well, if they weren’t born again, they are in hell today, but they wouldn’t want that for you, so will you accept Jesus Christ into your heart right here on the front stoop?”

When relaying this story to my (Episcopalian) mother, she asked me if the man was OK. I didn’t lay a finger on him, but I would have liked to. It was certainly the most distasteful conversion attempt I’ve run into.

I would think that the people who hang around here would not be particularly vulnerable to any kind of evangelism. I mean, most every one of us has seen the whole deal. Sorry to say, I think it’s a futile effort, unless the objective is merely discussion.

But we here on the internet are not necessarily representative of atheists/freethinkers in general. I know one atheist who started vaguely believing in “something”. Guess what happened? There was a traumatic experience around the same time. I think emotional appeals and experiences are in fact effective. But I also think it’s ethically wrong to rely on them.

What would I at least be willing to listen to? First of all, I’d limit it to personal friends. I like to hear people’s thoughts on religion, since most everyone has different thoughts. As far as actual “evangelism” goes, I’d be willing to listen if I have opportunity to reply. But I’d probably get annoyed if the subject was brought up over and over, especially if it consisted of emotional appeals.

The best kind of evangelism, IMHO, is just people living their lives well, treating people with a common humanity, and letting people see the influence of [insert belief system here] in your life.

However, most evangelists get this wrong, because they realize that this is a “good” kind of evangelism. I was raised in the Mormon Church, and people never talked about being kind to non-members and treating them as fellow humans just to be good. They always encouraged such behavior as a strategy, a tool to get more converts.

The best way to evangelize is not to evangelize. “Evangelize”, to me, has a connotation of monologue, not dialogue. If we’re going to have a conversation about belief, you need to be just as open to criticism as I am, or else I’m completely disinterested.

Roar,

Good question, and I like and appreciate the effort involved in coming here to ask.

I think a lot of people have given very thoughtful responses. I couldn’t answer better than what people have already said.

I’d like to turn this question on its head to see if it provokes any thoughts, though.

Is there an approach that you would most like to see if an atheist was trying to get you to abandon your faith? What method of talking about atheism has made you at least open to talking to the other person about atheism?

I don’t actually need an answer here. I just think that sometimes turning the tables (BIBLICAL REFERENCE! W00T!) on a question can help illuminate it.

I was actually presented the “Are you a good person?” test.

I responded with “Say, isn’t that the same “Way of the Master” episode where Kirk Cameron presents a banana as the Evolutionists Nightmare?”

there is no such thing as benign evangelism

I think I’d have to agree. There’s always a subtext of “I’m right, you’re wrong – and the consequence of that wrongness is eternal damnation “. I’ve never encountered an exception.

On all of the various atheist and deconverted Christian blogs I visit, there’s a scenario that plays itself out, repeatedly. A Christian will appear spouting off about hellfire and damnation. Then, shortly after, another Christian will arrive on the scene, apologize, and talk about how badly he feels when Christians of the former sort give non-believers the “wrong idea” about Christianity (I swear, it seems choreographed at times, like a “good cop, bad cop” routine). Jesus wouldn’t approve, blah, blah. In other words – it’s all in the presentation.

The things is – the newcomer’s belief system is the same as the other guy’s. He still thinks we’re all going to hell; he just doesn’t make as much noise about it.

I used to visit and post comments on the de-conversion blog. They’ve got a couple of young guys from a conservative evangelical seminary who post comments regularly. They’re both Calvinists; they believe that God has created the vast majority of human beings for the sole purpose of damning them for all of eternity – and, of course, that this doesn’t make God a bad guy. The really ludicrous thing is that they pride themselves on being “civil”, and, when I’ve made some snappish remarks, they’ve made a couple of wry comments about my lack of “civility”. Their attitude is, “Why, of course you’re going to hell – but we can at least be polite to one another in the meantime!” They’re waving me off cheerfully on my way to eternal perdition, and congratulating themselves for it. This is an attitude that I find manifesting increasingly in those circles, and I can’t tell you how much it offends me.

Even when evangelism involves meeting people’s material needs – food, shelter, clothing – it’s still being done from a proselytizing perspective. They aren’t Buddhists; they aren’t doing it solely for the purpose of alleviating suffering. There’s always the subtext of, “If you don’t believe, you’re going to hell”. I’ve been hearing it all of my life, and I’m sick of it.

Damn it, now I’ve made myself angry!

Is there an approach that you would most like to see if an atheist was trying to get you to abandon your faith? What method of talking about atheism has made you at least open to talking to the other person about atheism?

I don’t think that most of them can answer this sort of question. This was being talked about on one of the secular blogs, recently – PZ Meyers or Ed Brayton, I can’t remember. Someone suggested that that is the main difference between an atheist and a staunch theist. An atheist (or agnostic) can envision a scenario in which he/she could change his/her mind. Try asking this of a conservative Christian; either you won’t get a straight answer, or the answer will be “no” – and they don’t see the dissonance. There is no dissonance, because they have the TRUTH™.

I did this with my Hasidic nephew the other day. He had to admit that he couldn’t even conceptualize any set of circumstances under which he’d be able or willing to say, “I could be wrong.”

How to evangelize? Don’t.
I will talk to anyone and everyone about their religion. I’m fascinated by people and so also their beliefs. But the second the evangelism starts, the conversation is over. It is no longer a discussion but a lecture- which brings the undertone that I have done something wrong for choosing not to believe the tenants of whatever dogma the follower is espousing.
You can talk to someone about religion or you can evangelize. You can’t do both.

Reconsidering –

Honestly, if you want to convert nonbelievers, you’re best off catching them when they’re down and when irrational appeals work for them. Periods of serious drug addiction, divorce, the death of a child, upon learning that they have a terminal illness, periods of extreme debt… around the same time they would be open to entering an abusive relationship or joining a cult.

In other words, the only time you’re really gonna catch a good deal of us is when you’re being sneaky, and dishonest, and preying on people when their defenses are down. I know that this is a nasty way to put it, but I’ve seen it happen and it’s usually the first thing that makes me suspicious of religion.

As I said above, open dialogue without the goal of conversion and simply leading a good life are the best ways to foster relationships with nonbelievers in which religion isn’t the elephant in the room. They’ll probably end up with a more positive view on religion and religious people, and you’ll have a common ally in the causes of your faith and church that happen to ally with secular causes. And when it comes time for them to make life decisions, they may end up turning to the institutions to which you’ve introduced them. Their children will probably grow up with a more positive attitude towards faith by having non-proselytizing, good, religious people as role models.

It’s long-term, it’s less effective, and you probably won’t net as many conversions. But you’ll be converting honestly and openly without preying on people who are so far gone that they can’t rationally make the decision (and if you think that religion is “saving” them from their problem, it isn’t – people get free of their problems with and without religion, and I’ve noticed that those who get free by way of religion tend to carry an awful lot more shame and have a harder time moving on).

The crowd at this blog is probably the wrong group to ask since I think the folks here are probably a lot less susceptible to evangelism than the average non-Christian.

I agree. I mean pragmatically why change what’s been successful… overwhelmingly successful in sweeping in members? Isn’t it a bit like Coca-Cola saying “what should we change in our formula that will cause people who don’t like cola to drink it?”

At some point, there will be people who aren’t swept in by whatever you’re selling… why give up your dominating strategy in the marketplace just to sweep in the malcontents?

I know this isn’t the question you were asking, but I would like to share it anyway. The absolute worst conversion attempt I have ever experienced was in a hospital following a car accident that my brother was killed in and my sister was in the hospital recovering from a spinal cord injury. I was in the hospital for 4 days, but had been out for a week or so and was visiting my sister… taking a break in the family room and some LDS folks started in on me, I was in no mood but they wouldn’t leave me alone.

I shut them down, but it just bugged the hell out of me that they would attempt to convert people in the hardest time of their lives. At that point in my life I was agnostic, I think I would have handled it differently now.

How can someone convince me to not only believe in their personal imaginary friend, but that only they have the RIGHT imaginary friend? Heavy drugs.

NO, NO NO!! You people have it all wrong! Evangelicals, listen up! The very best way, in fact the only way to win converts is to do what the guy on the street corner with the bullhorn does. That guy does it right. He stands on the street corner, on a soap box surrounded by posters with quotations of scripture written in magic marker so densely that they are basically illegible, and screams into his bullhorn about love, hell, salvation, hell, God, hell, Jesus, hell, the Holy Spirit, hell, the Bible, hell, Adam and Eve, hell, Noah’s Flood, hell, oh and once in a while he mentions hell.

This method is the only method that works!

Forget all that stuff about classes and training for converting through soft, persuasive conversation, forget all that hooey about using powerful psychological ploys to worm your way into a person’s psyche, forget all that nonsense about preying upon people when they’re vulnerable, most of all forget all that bullshit about actually living a life that would be an attractive example of your faith in action. NO! Get a magic marker, a soap box and a bullhorn and get started!

Imagine the effect: Not just one guy on the street corner but hundreds of thousands of people on soap boxes lined down the streets of our cities everywhere, all about four feet apart, all surrounded by their magic marker posters, all screaming, screaming, screaming into their bullhorns about love, hell, salvation, hell, God, hell, Jesus, hell, the Holy Spirit, hell, the Bible, hell, Adam and Eve, hell, Noah’s Flood, hell, oh and of course hell.

The sound will be amazing the vision will be astonishing and the effect will be irresistible. Millions of unbelievers will be rushing into stores to buy magic markers, soap boxes and bullhorns. Quickly they will join you on the sidewalks, even into the streets, blocking what little traffic is left, standing on their soap boxes with their posters and screaming, screaming, screaming about love, hell, salvation, hell, God, hell, Jesus, hell, the Holy Spirit, hell, the Bible, hell, Adam and Eve, hell, Noah’s Flood, hell, and every so often they talk about hell. Within just a few ear-bleeding days the whole world will be at a standstill, six and a half billion people standing still on billions of soap boxes with their billions of posters and screaming into billions of bullhorns or whatever makeshift cardboard megaphones they were able to put together, all screaming, screaming, screaming about love, hell, salvation, hell, God, hell, Jesus, hell, the Holy Spirit, hell, the Bible, hell, Adam and Eve, hell, Noah’s Flood, hell, and oh yeah, hell.

And the world will be saved.

I

had an atheist friend living on my floor of the dorms last year. Some members of Campus Crusade for Christ asked for a few minutes of his time to speak with him. They asked if he was interested in attended church services and Christian events. He said he has no interest in religion. They asked if he’s curious about God, and he said no, he’s pretty sure he has things figured out pretty well. One of the Cru guys said, “Well, there was this one group of people who thought they had things pretty well figured out, and they ended up killing millions of Jews during World War II.”
That approach to evangelism is no good.

Wow. I agree. No good.

Two things:

First, people who ask this kind of question don’t care about my opinion, they’re just doing market research–what methods are effective for selling the product. I don’t like being treated like an economic factor when advertisers only want my money, and I really resent being market tested when Churches want my money and my soul. And, by the way, doesn’t it disturb you folks that you’re commodifying your Saviour?

Second, the utter failure of evangelism to stem the tide of secularism is why the most rabid evangelizers–the fundies–have resorted in the last 30 years to forcing religion on us by political means. Doesn’t this demonstrate that they’ve really already given up on the whole idea? Do they really think they’ll find a new 21st-Century mode of advertising that’s going to turn the trend around? Christians are the subculture most lacking in imagination, so I doubt they’ll succeed, which is ironic since they put so much stock in imaginations.

Ron in Houston said:

In a way evangelism is a form of violence. It is an unwillingness to accept another as they are. If is the desire by the evangelist to change the other. It is a lack of respect for the dignity and autonomy of the other.

Ron sums it up well for me. I have been on the receiving end of some deep Christian hatred. At the time, my feelings were still mixed but the pain inflicted on me by these “Christians” was actually what I needed to realize that, yes, I am an atheist.

Since that time, I have encountered many Christians who are polar opposites. We discuss our beliefs, but none of us tries to force the other to come over to their “side.” Still, I remain firm in my own belief and comfortable within myself.

I see so many experiences that others have had that echo my own experiences with evangelism. As a young adolescent a friend of mine encouraged me to “get saved” one day. I was enthusiastic about it because he was my friend and I wanted to do what he does. Only later did I realize that I was nothing more than a “customer”. After not taking the bait, our friendship basically ended after he realized I wasn’t in his club. You know those sales guys that go around trying to convince you to join a pyramid scheme? They’re reeeeally nice guys when they’re making their pitch, but the instant they realize you’re serious about not buying it, they give you the cold shoulder fast.

I can’t go along with those kind of people anymore, because I don’t think they’re trying to be my friend. I’m just a goal for them to conquer. Even if I were to go along with it, I’d be ill at ease, because the friendship would come with conditions: “You can be my friend if you are a Christian. If not, get lost.” There is always an ulterior motive. I like people to like me for “me”. There are too many fake smiles in this day and age.

Honestly though, I don’t think direct evangelism works. In my life, I would say that I change because of personal experience. It’s an internal process. However, I agree that preying upon vulnerable and sad people works great. When I was at my lowest years ago I even considered several irrational notions about God. In the end, I decided that I was being a pussy and I needed to pull my life back together and be responsible. And I did. Individuals have amazing self-potential when they put their minds too it. If I had converted at that point in my life, everyone would have said “God did it”. Funny that.

i think evangelicism will only work on the kind of atheists that visit here once you have substantial proof that either
#1 god not only exists, but it’s the god of the christian bible, in the way that you choose to interpret it, or
#2 being ‘your’ type of christian has provable benefits, not only to the individual, but to the world at large.

i consider such proof lacking, therefore am unlikely to be susceptible to any evangelical methods.

however, you can still convince me that you’re a worthwhile person who i should value interacting with; this would be acheived not through false platitudes and shallow condescention, rather by demonstration of your moral integrity and commitment to your fellow man in practical application.

on a side note…due to my geographical location (England) i find that in most religious conversations with friends, i have to play the christian. this gives me a valuable insight to the world of apologetics, but i always lose the argument due to 2 reasons;
#1 i’m not convinced by said arguments, therefore i can only pay lip service
#2 i’m not willing to ever claim superior or alternately ‘discovered’ knowledge that means i can prioritise my point of view over someone else’s. this may be where the most grating flaw of evangelicalism rears it’s head for me.

To me it’s the same moronic drivel in different clothing.

A reasonable approach will get a polite, pleasant response. If I have time, I might even debate a while.

But if it’s the usual delusional yelling but not listening dork, expect short shrift.

What would get my interest: An all in brawl – two strapping young Mormons vs a largish family of Jehovahs Witnesses, and let’s just see whose side god is on, eh? Now that’s evangelism I’d sit still for!

@Ron in Houston wrote

In a way evangelism is a form of violence. It is an unwillingness to accept another as they are. If is the desire by the evangelist to change the other. It is a lack of respect for the dignity and autonomy of the other.

That’s why an evangelist should only talk about what their faith has done for them. They should never be so arrogant as to claim authority or knowledge over other people. There are many sad little people in religion today who know that their opinions don’t matter to anyone else so they “convert” to a religion and try to claim they speak for God in a desperate attempt to make themselves feel more important. There is a special place in hell reserved for these liars.

Red Wine Gums said,

By using this definition isn’t a person attempting to solicit your vote in engaging in violence?

I have never been told by a vote solicitor that they speak for God and that God would send me to hell if I don’t vote the way he tells me to vote.

I have had a few tell me that the COUNTRY will go to hell if I don’t vote the way I’m told to vote.

Sounds like you came upon some liars who claimed to be Christians but were fakes.

Oh please. What an old, tired argument. What gives one Christian the right or authority to say that someone else is a false Christian? Every Christian group constantly proclaims that the rest are not “real” Christians.

I think the existence of “bad” Christians just proves that Christianity doesn’t work. There are some good and some bad people who are born again and some good and some bad people who are not. Getting saved doesn’t do anything. It’s a joke.

P.S. Yes, I get your ironic twist. Just sayin’.

I went to a charismatic Christian camp two years ago with my parents. I stayed away from the services as I was just interested in the camping experience. Anyway, I was having a camp fire and this lady comes walking up the path toward me. She asks me if I’m a Christian. I say No. She then starts telling me some silly story about a young man who apparently died or had a dream that he went to Hell and how terrible it was. She knew nothing about me but started going on about how she knows I like to sleep around with girls, party and get drunk and be a man of the world, but that’s no way to get to Heaven. (I was laughing inside because I’m still a virgin, I’m not a party person, and I’ve never even been drunk or taken drugs.) I tell her that I’m happy with my own beliefs, thank you, and she hands me one of these annoying “Smile, Jesus Loves You” booklets and walks off. I threw it into straight the fire. (I felt guilty about doing that because I could’ve taken it home for recycling!)

I wasn’t mad though. I found it amusing because I used to be believe just like her, especially the part about non-believers being promiscuous, etc. I was “saved” (for the second time – just to be sure) at that very camp and baptized in the lake so I knew exactly the time of teachings she was exposed to. I did sneak into the back of the service one night just to have a peep and it felt so liberating that I was no longer a part of that judgmental, close-minded mindset. It was a breath of fresh air.

So, no, evangelism won’t work on me. Been there, done that. No thanks.

I think the existence of “bad” Christians just proves that Christianity doesn’t work. There are some good and some bad people who are born again and some good and some bad people who are not. Getting saved doesn’t do anything. It’s a joke.

Well, it’s not that simple. There is no question that some people who are real jackasses are still jackasses after their conversion. They use the negative side of religion because it agrees with them. And I think it’s true that some people who are real nice people are still nice people after their conversion. They use the positive side of religion because it appeals to them. But, I think it’s also the case, and can be demonstrated, that religion helps some people to be better people. There are those that will credit their faith with saving their lives, or turning it around when it was going down a bad road.

For instance, if someone who has been living a selfish life, taking no thought for the poor or marginalized or oppressed, converts to a faith that preaches that one ought to feed the poor, and visit those in prison, and care for those who suffer, etc., and that one begins to do those things out of a sense of duty, and having begun to do them finds them deeply rewarding experiences, and gains compassion and empathy for those less fortunate, and becomes concerned about justice and peace, and gains a peace of mind therefrom, knowing that these things are good, hasn’t that person’s faith “worked” for them? Hasn’t it turned them from a lesser to a greater path, speaking from an ethical point of view?

This is the salutary part of religion. This is the justification for liberal theologies. So long as the ethical component of religion is emphasized, albeit stripped of its archaisms, prejudices, and irrationalities, it inhabits the sphere of the truly moral, and ethical, and, I dare say, ‘spiritual,’ sharing this sphere will all ethical philosophies.

If a habit can be induced in the common person to take a part of one day out of seven to reflect upon one’s own shortcomings as well as one’s ethical obligations to the world, knowing how empty and absurd the rest of life can be, isn’t this a positive thing? Though I would prefer that people would not carry the extra baggage of religion’s negatives along with its ethical component, it would be dishonest of me not to note its good points.

Not that you need my vote, but I’d side with Mike C on this one – the existence of “bad” (however you define it) Christians doesn’t mean Christianity is wrong. If there’s no discernible difference between Born Again Christians and others, then that would argue the transformative value of Christianity is overstated, especially since any social grouping will tend to lead to some personality changes.

Ultimately however, I think the claims of Christianity are much broader than making personal transformations. I think a critique of Jesus or the existence of God would be necessary, if not sufficient. Personal changes would just disprove some of the weakest of postmodernist liberal Christianity, which says the truth of Christianity is irrelevant, and all that matters are how we feel. I think this is such a disingenuous position that no critique is necessary.

The guy with the bullhorn and Bible is supremely ineffective. One of that type hangs out in the grove in the middle of campus where everybody who comes near the grove—which just about everyone has to, as most of the academic buildings are there—and is roundly ignored except for the occasional joke at his expense.

The teenage girl on fire for Jesus and eagerly awaiting the Rapture is also ineffective. I’m working on converting one of this type to a less insane flavor of Christianity. However, she has said flat out that since obviously non-Christians (read, not-special-enough Christians, since most people who self-identify as Christian are excluded whenever she says ‘Christian’) don’t do good deeds at Jesus’s instruction, and equally obviously the good deeds a non-Christian does have no effect on the afterlife (good deeds Christians do determine the extent of their reward in heaven, but non-Christians are all doomed to hell) and are thus ultimately pointless, she can’t see why non-Christians do good deeds at all. So this may take a while.

The mother wailing about “Where did we go so badly wrong with you?” is excellent at laying on a guilt trip about being an atheist but otherwise accomplishes nothing.

The young woman quietly living by Christian values as best she can is rather more effective. The one of this type I know is ineffective mostly because she can’t disentangle one of her sect’s beliefs from another any more than the above-mentioned teenager can, and certain of her sect’s beliefs are tearing her apart. (For example, she’s told me she feels she’s betraying her faith to believe several of her friends are not wrong to engage in homosexual activity, but she’s betraying those friends to believe homosexual behavior is sinful.) She and I have agreed that the difference between theism and atheism is that between “Ceiling Cat: do want” and “Ceiling Cat: do not want” and tacitly agreed to disagree on further points.

SexySecularist makes a good point about the somewhat deceitful way some religions gather followers, that is: catching them when they are ‘down’. The Scientologists were/are particularly good at this.

The Scientologists even managed to get Australia’s wealthiest man when, as the SMH put it:

He was overweight and depressed, his marriage to his first wife, Jodhi Meares, had ended and he was reeling from the humiliating and very public collapse of One.Tel, losing $350 million from the family business on the way.

Un-Surprisingly now Packer is ‘back on his feet’ he has realised he doesn’t need the cult any more.

I don’t mind the idea that

They’re really following Christ even if they don’t know it

To me, it’s just a different way of acknowledging that there is a common agreement on what moral behavior is, whether you think it comes from a higher power or from your own conscience/genes/whatever. Many religions, cultures, etc. have the same agreement on what basic moral behavior is, whether they apply it to only members of their group or to a wider circle of humanity.

Thx for explaining, Mike.

My friend at work would do anything for me. She has already done some incredible things that no one else I know would do. This woman is also capable of discussing the challenging questions I have for her about faith without becoming defensive, and with a totally open mind.

That’s interesting. I too have a friend at work like this. He’s also an atheist.

I don’t think most well-meaning Evangelicals—at least not the low-level ones—are purposefully arrogant, threatening, or manipulative. I think the reality is more like seeing a person in imminent danger and “knowing” they can and/or should do something to help.

I hear this often, and I don’t agree with it. I think that a lot of evangelicals secretly relish the idea of our impending perdition. It’s a power fantasy, ego boost, makes them feel validated, etc. I also think there are sublimated erotic feelings involved, but lets not even go there.

I came across this over the weekend: http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=38891. Someone in the group quoted someone else asking how a loving god can send anyone to hell. Peruse the answers; they speak for themselves.

My two favorite gems:

The world is lucky that I am not God. I would not be gracious at all. I would start everyone out with a time out in hell just so all would know not to disrespect me.

He can do it without pity or mercy. When judgment day comes, there won’t be a tear shed by the saved for the unsaved, because we will see and understand as our God does.

I read Matt Taibbi’s book (the one Hemant interviewed him about) over the weekend. I recommend it highly. It alternates between his experiences as a reporter in Washington and as an undercover fundie in Texas. His anecdotes demonstrate the greed and corruption in Washington, the hatefulness and stupidity that characterize the evangelical subculture, and how they feed one another.

Well, speaking as a former Evangelical Christian, I can assure you that at the time this was not so, at least in my case and among other Christians I knew at the time

You saved me from having to type that exact sentence!

Cipher,

I’m not knocking your opinion in any way and I am certainly aware of why you would come to this conclusion.

However, while I understand anecdotal evidence is shaky discussion fodder, for all intents and purposes, you’ve dismissed my witness by accusing me of letting my former addictions cloud my present judgment of past events. This is, in my mind, the same kind of re-interpretive casting that angry Christians use to “prove” that I was never a Christian in the first place, and frankly that bullshit rhetoric irks me no matter who uses it.

Yes, there are absolutely Christians who love to use their religion to feel superior, love that the people they dislike are all going to hell, and love to spread hate and resentment. They were easy to spot and, again, they were mostly ignored. And, from the outside, they appear a lot more prevalent.

This was not me, and it was not the majority of Christians I knew and trusted. I want to be absolutely clear to you: my beliefs about hell were an embarrassment to me about what I otherwise regarded as a beautiful faith and I was ashamed and began fumbling and stuttering every time I brought it up, and I felt like a huge asshole doing it. I felt the indignant reactions it sparked were totally justified. I truly wished I could “speak the gospel” without having to mention eternal damnation, but I felt to do so would be abandoning people to hell, disobedient to God, and would “prove” I wasn’t “truly saved”.

I know you don’t buy it and that’s certainly your prerogative, and I presume you will quickly tire of rehashing old arguments. So with that I apologize for accidentally imposing my woefully ignorant views on you. As a former Christian, I clearly am still partially brain-damaged and not capable of interpreting past events in my life correctly.

I apologize for my emotional reaction earlier. I guess as a late twentysomething I’m still young and often reactive.

I’ll pick up the books you are citing as I’m sure it will give me a better perspective of people who have never been insiders. However, that’s not to say I wasn’t aware of the “problem” of violent, angry Christians sullying our good name. The problem was, much of the time when I spoke about it with church leaders I got these kinds of “we don’t talk about that” reactions, which were extraordinarily frustrating. However, when talking with fellow Christians outside church authority, the story was quite different and many people agreed with me and shared my frustration.

“As long as I’m safe, as long as I feel secure, that’s all that matters.” If a few billion people have to burn in hell for eternity for them to have that- well, it’s a price they’re willing to pay!

Well, again, I will say that coming from the perspective of a former “concerned Christian” as it were, we were certainly not happy that this was the case (although we never blamed God of course) and we felt it our biblical duty to try and save as many as possible.

I realize that they’re victims, but please don’t ask me to feel sorry for them.

I don’t. But understanding is a big part of reconciliation and since we share a nation with them I think it’s better to try and extend the olive branch no matter how rabid some of their constituents get.

es, there are absolutely Christians who love to use their religion to feel superior, love that the people they dislike are all going to hell, and love to spread hate and resentment. They were easy to spot and, again, they were mostly ignored. And, from the outside, they appear a lot more prevalent.

This was not me, and it was not the majority of Christians I knew and trusted.

Cipher mentioned the relation between Evangelicals and government. This is where things get messy. It may be that the majority of Christians are nice folks, but it is undeniable that they act at times monolithically in social and political affairs in negative ways.

My mother, for example, is a nice Christian, a friend to everyone, self-sacrificing, and all the rest. Yet, she believes homosexuality is an abomination to God, attends a church that preaches against homosexuals, and is inclined to vote for ballot initiatives that discriminate against them. She had neighbors once that were a gay couple. She liked them both, but believed they were both going to Hell. “She hated the sin, but loved the sinner.” This is how Christians can be nice people, and yet do great damage to others.

If most Christians are nice, then a whole lot of nice people are against gay marriage, and stem-cell research, and are for overturning Roe vs. Wade, and amending the Constitution to reflect ‘Biblical principles,’ and were in favor of going to war in Iraq, and voted for George Bush twice. I don’t care what your politics are, there has to be at least one item in that list that is not “nice.”

She liked them both, but believed they were both going to Hell.

I often want to ask them, but I so rarely have the opportunity – how do they see their own behavior on the Day of Judgment? Will they beg God for mercy on behalf of friends and loved ones – poor, benighted sinners who were too blind and ignorant to know any better? Or will they wave goodbye cheerfully, as the damned are being dragged off to hell? Do they even think about this at all?

Last year, I was told by a fundie that his reward in heaven would be commensurate with the number of people he tried to save; he’d get extra crowns to wear, or some damn thing. And, years ago, during his heyday, I heard Jimmy Swaggart say (in admonishing his flock to be more proactive in their evangelism), “On the Day of Judgment, the blood of the unsaved will be on our hands!” What does a statement like that even mean? They’re going to heaven anyway! What does he think is going to happen – that God is going to cast all of the unsaved into hell, ignoring all of the begging and pleading, then turn to the assembled crowd (all dozen or so) and say, “This was all your fault! If you’d done as I told you, none of this would have been necessary! Oh well, that’s all behind us now. Off to Heaven!”?

My patience with all of this is just about nil.

The only way I can make that make sense to me is if there’s a timeskip—people die and go straight to Judgment Day alongside their ancestors and eight-great-grandkids. But that doesn’t compute with the common idea that one’s sweet old aunt who attended church daily till she died yesterday is in heaven today, or that one’s no-good cousin who lied and stole and had wild crazy sex till he died yesterday is in hell today, because neither the aunt nor the cousin would exist on any level at this point along the yesterday-tomorrow axis, because they died yesterday and won’t reenter the time dimension till Judgment Day, which is obviously in the future because we haven’t gotten there yet.

And I’m currently hearing the voice in my head who sounds like my roommate tell me to stop using Earth logic on this. Except she says that when we’re talking about Zelda or something. She wouldn’t say it when we’re talking about religion.

I think we’re getting sidetracked here. My original point was simply that many Christians who evangelize do so out of genuineness, sincerity and concern, and had little to do with the disposition of individual Christians or their sociopolitical influences.

It has everything to do with it. Besides, it’s not individual Christians, but groups of them, acting together, that I am speaking about. Evangelizing us out of “genuineness, sincerity and concern” is to irritate and denigrate us for a good reason. This is my point. By this line of thinking just about any negative can be forgiven because of the motivation. Christians will always find a rationalization for what they do that is self-serving. How can you be a nice, sincere Christian and not take responsibility for your actions and their consequences?

Derek, no reaming intended.

If Jesus wasn’t God then he’s just another naive idealist who got himself killed. Inspiring maybe, but not someone I’m going to risk patterning my life after.

Mike, if I may hazard a question, you frequently describe yourself as agnostic of the “Weak Theist” flavor. If this and the preceding are indeed the case, how can one justify staking such a decision on something that may or may not actually be true?

To me, it really starts to feel like a Schrödinger’s Cat problem. There’s no way of knowing until the end of the experiment, so to speak, whether or not the poison has deployed; it seems a tad odd to build a worldview on the basis of trusting that Fluffy is still alive, if you get my analogy, especially if you feel this worldview is meaningless in the alternative case.

If all evangelical Christians acted “monolithically” abortion would be illegal by now and they’d have already passed their “marriage amendment”. The fact that they’ve made almost no progress on their two biggest agenda items (some would say their only agenda items) demonstrates that they’re not as monolithic as the fear-mongers and pundits like to assume.

It’s not that they’re not trying. It’s that they simply don’t have the numbers compared to the total U.S. population, even when they vote in a monolithic bloc (which I think they do, particularly on the issues you mentioned). I was a Democrat while I was an evangelical and I was in a tiny (I think less than 10%) minority of regular evangelical churchgoers. (I was also anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage, which made me at least marginally acceptable to my Sunday school class.)

In terms of not making progress – what? I think they have made huge progress. They’ve restricted abortion hugely in many states, gotten their “partial birth abortion” laws passed, and put two new conservative justices on the Supreme Court who would reverse Roe v. Wade in a heartbeat.

They got a bunch of states to outlaw gay marriage and they continue trying to push that too. In my state, California, I just heard that FotF will be putting yet another anti-abortion restriction on the ballot this year. They just never quit.

and put two new conservative justices on the Supreme Court who would reverse Roe v. Wade in a heartbeat.

And they accuse us of supporting activist judges…

Actually, Mike, the trouble I have with that is that “not someone I’m going to risk patterning my life after (if Jesus is not God)” feels like such a definite statement and “get on with your life and choose to live a certain way according to what seems best to you” seems like the exact opposite, seeming to say “it might not be so, but I’ll do it anyway because that seems right”. Those really seem like mutually contradictory statements to me.

Mike, I agree with Karen and Cipher. A lot of damage has been done, and what have been the opportunity costs of an alliance between conservative Republicans and the Christian Right?

I’ve been so angry about this for so long; they really have, in large measure, ruined so much of life for me. I’m deeply resentful.

I understand. I have had a lot of anger and resentment also. I spent the majority of my life completely and totally devoted to something I now believe is a fairy tale. I made crucial life decisions based on that fantasy, and my trusted friends, family and mentors encouraged me to do so. Some of those decisions may have been totally wrong but I didn’t realize it because I was blinded by idiotic doctrine like “the rapture is going to happen any day now.”

All that aside, I’ve found it helps to get on with my life and try to put the anger and resentment behind me. It is maybe easier for me because I’m a natural optimist, but I’ve realized that I can look back and find the good things as well as the bad in my past.

Plus, I can’t change things so I’m more likely to be happy accepting my past for what it’s worth and moving forward in a positive direction.

So according to you Darryl personal actions and choices don’t matter? It doesn’t matter if someone never supported Bush or his policies? If they share the label “Christian” or “evangelical” with someone who does, they’re just as culpable?

No.

Well, I unfortunately can’t respond to the question as I can’t recall the worst experience I’ve had with an evangelist – but I can respond to it’s opposite, my best experience. Asking for the best experience I think would actually be revealing to a lot of people, and is, in my opinion, a better question to ask.

I was brough up in the unitarian universalist church, as was a close friend of mine(whom I had no clue was brough up in my church, albeit 2 years after me). We were confronted in a mall at a monthly meeting we held there by some evangelists as we were leaving around christmas. We both gave long explanations of why we had doubts, the base being a)people who , in good faith, have believed things we now as a culture know to be wrong(such as slavery and the inquisition) were despite their ‘faithh, despite their ‘personal relationship to God’, wrong. If they, in all good faith were wrong, how could these evangelists know they were right in their -interpretation- of what they believed. And b) I had just read ‘Who Wrote the Bible’ by Richard Friedman, and recounted to the evangelists the real story behind the golden calf & the breaking of the tablets of the ten commandments. We ended up leaving with no real resolution, as with all confrontations with evangelists.

But a year later, again at our monthly meetings, we were confronted by evangelists. Again, we engaged them in conversation, again offering similar statements which tried their faith – and eventually, after about half an hour, they asked if we were there a year previous. A group from their church had come to prosoletize the mall at christmas, and in the end, they all left their church – some entirely, some to less evangelical churches. We had deconverted them by getting into their worldview, and creating serious problems – it wasn’t by streight out telling them they were wrong, it was our core argument that we both could be wrong. I can handle the fact I could be wrong – their worldview couldn’t.

The real challenge is not to bash heads with the religious, but to convince them of the error of their ways.
The way to do this is not from our view, but from theirs.
The question we need to be asking is not ‘what is the worst experience you’ve had’ but ‘how can we effect real change’ – because as much as conversations with evangelists can feel like smashing your head against a brick wall, it can work, and we as a group need to figure out how to do that on a larger scale. It can be done.

Bagheera clearly knows nothing about what we’re talking about or where we’re coming from and just wants to grab a few souls.

Come off it, parrot. Take your copy-paste gibberish somewhere else.