I’m not “turning from God”. I do not believe he/she/it exists. And no one is required to believe something, or even to try and believe something, prior to it being proven with some kind of evidence. Otherwise we might all spend our entire lives, for example, trying on every single religion that exists or has existed in history, as well as every other claim ever made, prior to rejecting it. To withhold belief of a claim until evidence is presented is not some kind of arrogant angry-at-God attitude. It is basic logic. And no, I have no responsibility to run around providing the evidence for every claim that can be made by other people. If you make the claim, you need to bring the evidence to support it. I simply do not believe until I have seen convincing evidence–and I’m sorry, but a book that identifies itself as holy, perfect, and infallible is not evidence.

By the way, to say “we shouldn’t turn away from god, whether or not we believe he exists” is bullshit. If I don’t believe god exists, I’m not “turning away” from god any more than I’m “turning away” from leprechauns or unicorns, and why on earth would I turn toward a god I don’t believe exists? This makes no sense. This makes you sound a bit fishy and dishonest to me, as if you were a Christian pretending to have some kind of doubter-chops in order to gain some kind of foothold to evangelize atheists. You may not be such a Christian, but that’s what this line makes you sound like.

On that note, it is at least nice and refreshing that Matthew has enough respect to acknowledge that atheists are atheists because they do not believe it is true, which is something we constantly say because it is constantly being ignored in favor of a myriad of excuses like “atheists are just angry at god” or “atheists have been hurt by non-representative unTrue Christians”, and he at least admits that it is absurd to expect someone to submit to a religion they do not find to be true. At least this guy seems to have listened to and absorbed one thing we’ve said about our point of view, which is more than I can say about many others!

Maybe I’m going on a bit, but this has been a huge pet peeve. If I’m telling you I don’t believe and that I don’t think your religion is true, then please do not try to come up with some hidden reason that I do not find your arguments convincing, or that I somehow “know” you’re “right” but don’t want to admit it. If I’m telling you what I believe or disbelieve, please take me at my word. You wouldn’t like it if people didn’t take you at your word that you are Christian, and came up with all sorts of mental twister arguments trying to make you a Hindu or Wiccan or Muslim, or just an atheist who is mad at some mean atheist who hurt you when you were young and now you’re just lashing out at atheists everywhere by pretending to be a Christian. It’s insulting and dishonest and certainly not conducive to any kind of productive conversation.

It’s also nice that he rejects coercive threatening arguments like “you’ll go to hell” or that wonderfully mafia-don-like “god sometimes does terrible things to get your attention–maybe even to your wife!” Sounds a lot like that religious nut who wrote to PZ during Crackergate telling him to watch his kids carefully-and then proceeded to name each one of them! I’ve heard enough purportedly nice christians bend over backward to defend this kind of attitude to appreciate when one of them makes an effort to avoid it, and for the right reasons (it’s creepy, threatening, and a dishonest attempt at coercion rather than convincing) rather than the wrong reasons (they might turn me off and then I’ll never get to convert them!)

Also, assuming “Ell” isn’t a Poe, there is one person who might benefit from watching Venomfangx videos and observing how not to appear insane.

And “if you don’t like it, go home!!!” Home from where? What is that even supposed to mean? Are you saying that if I don’t like being harassed by religious fanatics I should leave the country? Or simply remain locked inside my house and never leave it? That one should live the life of a recluse if one does not like to be constantly harangued about Jesus? Even if that is what you are saying and even if it was possible, many religious fanatics bring the harassment to people’s very doors, so how would that “solve” anything?

Also, Sonya:

“Last time I checked the US consitution was unchanged…freedom of speech is for everyone yes, even Christians. Your ten tips cross the border into a form of cenorship and suppression of the bible”

This list is not an infringement of your Constitutional rights. Can you point out where this is being enforced in any way on Christians anywhere, by law or company policy or anything else? No? I thought not. This is simply a list of things that atheists find off-putting about your approach, and is more advice than anything else–advice that you are free to ignore, keeping in mind you will just continue to look like a jackass by utilizing evangelizing techniques on us that we do not find convincing. Let’s not pretend to be making some kind of principled stand against a civil rights violation, because your rights are not being violated by the fact that atheists are telling you what kind of evangelistic behavior they don’t care for.

And BTW, there is nothing in the Constitution that protects any individual from criticism, including religious people. Your argument is tantamount to Sarah Palin’s claim that it is an infringement of her 1st amendment rights that people are laughing at the stupid things she says. Yes, you have the right to free speech, but you do not have the right to have your speech protected from challenge, ridicule or opposing viewpoints.

And that goes for us too–how often do religious people pitch a big public fit every time an atheist expresses their views in public? When Obama–himself a believer–simply included the non-religious as viable and valuable citizens of this country in a speech–which we ARE–there was a huge religious uproar! How dare he suggest that nonbelievers are American in any way! How dare he acknowledge nonbelievers in a non-derogatory way! Nonbelievers are supposed to be invisible except when you bash or belittle them! You’re never supposed to publicly validate them as human beings!

Yet not once did any atheist suggest that their uproar was an infringement of Obama’s first amendment rights. Nor has any atheist suggested that the Christian uproar over the very mild atheist billboards is an infringement of first amendment rights either. Nor does the vocal displeasure of Christian commenters on this atheist blog constitute any kind of suppression of free speech. Someone not liking what you have to say is not a violation of your free speech!

Why is there always one believer in each conversation who will claim that their free speech is being censored or suppressed because an atheist criticized their views, as if someone disagreeing with a viewpoint was some kind of binding law? Is the concept of free speech so difficult to understand?

Or am I? For rational reasons, I am an agnostic; for other, less subjective rational reasons, I am a Christian.
That means I hold all of the beliefs stated above, yet I also believe that those are my opinions, and that if Jesus really is God, then He is sovereign and my opinions don’t matter.

First of all, I strongly relate to this list! I deny Christ everyday on the grounds of what I see – in the behavior of “His people,” the tragedy of Hell‘s existence, the apparent lack of action on Christ’s part to change situations, the fact that I cannot control what I do and do not believe in, etc.

However, who am I to have an opinion that should be heeded to….and allowed to influence a worldview!?
No, my opinion is not worthy of altering my – or anybody else’s – worldview. Nobody’s opinion, or “beliefs,” are worthy of that authority! Evangelists included.

Yes, Christians make mistakes – especially when it comes to witnessing. Thank you for writing a “what not to do” list. I, with the little grain of faith that I have, believe that all of you were used to touch my heart.

But, friends, we have to look past that! Just because the bag checker at Disneyland is a jerk doesn’t mean it’s a horrible place to go. Just because a few Christians rubbed us the wrong way doesn’t mean we should turn from God – whether or not we believe He exists.

The Bible makes a clear case for the depravity of mankind. It does not make a case for the depravity of non-Christians only, but for EVERYONE. I’m not going to quote any verses, but Romans 3, for example, uses anything but fluffy language to describe humanity.

So, the mistakes of Christians – and the mistakes of all others – shouldn’t stroke our disbelief in God, but it should make us think twice before brushing off the Bible as something that was merely written for political reasons… I don’t imagine that putting the human race down with such derogatory language would coerce them to behave (as the rumor goes.)

Anyway, all in all, I’m wrong, you’re wrong, Christians are wrong, we are all wrong sometimes. But if we give up on insisting that we always be right, we will experience a reward. Harmony can’t exist between people who value their own opinions alone. We HAVE to let go of our opinions in order to move forward, and stand on a worldview that is solid with reason.

No, Christianity is not the only means to a fulfilling life. But, it is the only belief system in which 1. God made Himself human 2. He rose from the dead 3. We are forgiven by grace and not by merit. Those are humongous claims! Anybody who wields the Gospel around carelessly is doing serious damage.

Now, if the Bible was nothing but philosophy, folk tale and rules, I wouldn’t read it. But there’s a ton of promises in this thing! I take that as an invitation… Now, I may not have the morality of Christianity down, nor do I have the dynamite faith that some of the people who follow it have. However, I have learned that when I actually trust God with situations (money, relationships, time, etc.) things go right. Now, when I say “trust” I mean, I give it up and say “It’s in Your hands, God.“ You could say that is a mere coincidence. But what if it isn’t?

It sounds cheesy but the adage “don’t let the fear of striking out keep you from playing the game” comes to mind. Let’s say “the game” is stepping back and saying “God, do something. Take over. My hands are empty.” That means, we don’t put our faith in the church, or in getting our heart’s desire. That means we give things up to this “God,” whether or not we believe He exists.

My opinion? It is worth finding out if God exists, and whether or not Christianity is true. Therefore, I will place absolute trust in it, and put the Bible into practice, before I decide not to believe in it.

Just a couple of points I feel like addressing – but I’m mindful of not perpetrating the irony pointed out by Atomjack where Christians come in an break all the rules identified in the post…

Asking Christians to make a case for faith without the Bible is futile given that the Bible is the basis of our faith – the evidence. Choose to do with the evidence whatever you might – but don’t try to separate a Christian from their beliefs and ask them to defend them… I know you’d like to move the goalposts to a discussion of the merits of theism v atheism rather than Christianity v atheism – but the logic for being a believer is lost without a specific belief. This incidentally is why the flying spaghetti monster is such a poor rhetorical tool.

I’d suggest when it comes to the argument of first cause you may as well flip a coin – either the universe is infinitely big and created itself, or God is really big and created the universe. The fact that you flip the coins and get one result and me another does not render my beliefs illogical or irrational.

Now, to some of the points raised by my fellow commenters…

“Your god…which I do not believe in…commands you to annoy me to try to make me believe in him. LOL Do you not see why we make a list like the one above? Do you not see how disengenuine it all really is when it really comes down to this being a task your fairy tale god gave you? “Annoy others in my name!” Your god is not too bright.”

I would suggest it’s disingenuous to lump all evangelism in together at this point – when I talk to my non-Christian friends it is out of concern for their eternal well-being – not because God tells me to. But because I care. I also care about people I don’t know. Why would I, believing in Hell, wish it upon anybody? You may disagree with me about the existence of Hell – but if I believe it then I have an imperative to present the case to people who may be heading there.

Just because you do not believe in God doesn’t mean he’s not there. I’ve never been to North Korea, I’ve never met a North Korean, does this mean they don’t exist? No, should I choose not to believe in them? Perhaps, on the basis of the evidence… The whole premise that evidence is somehow the best basis for knowledge is always assumed without question – which I don’t understand. Surely evidence is only as objective as the person positing it in the first place?

“Your God is not so bright…” well perhaps, assuming for a moment that he exists, he is the arbiter of bright, not you? Perhaps he gets to choose how things transpire… that would seem to be the natural order of things if a supreme deity exists. Why should we instruct said deity?

And then, this old chestnut…

“If you guys actually studied the history of the bible instead of the actual (you know it’s been badly translated many times, right?) book, you’d know when the gospels were really written. Because most of you hold an ideal, and say the rest aren’t “True Xtians””

Atomjack, I have studied the history of the Bible. Yes, there have been times where it has been badly translated, though most, if not all, of the currently popular versions are translations of the oldest available manuscripts, where there are an abundant number of legible copies with consistent wording – it’s fair to say that the standard versions of the bible used by most churches are, in the best understanding of translators, close to the originally written documents.

The question of when the gospels were really written is a little more up in the air than you’d care to admit. I suggest it only takes a few voices with their own agenda to call into question any form of consensus… I’m not sure the wikipedia articles on the matter are ever going to be the best source on such a contentious topic. But perhaps that’s naive of me…

Also, the “human” creation argument, and arguments based on the forming of the canon (and the choosing of the books) are a different matter – and I’d be happy to talk through those with you further.