Next time you run into a Christian proselytizer, consider giving them questions from the Christian Proselytizer Questionnaire. It asks questions like:
- If necessary, use this space to explain any unique or unusual beliefs your sect has about the nature of your god, heaven, hell, the Bible, the Holy Spirit/Ghost, Satan, or other theological matters.
- Explain why your god’s only son had to die so we can go to magic happy land when we croak.
- Explain why I should believe that your god is all-good when the only real information we have about him is the Bible, which clearly describes him as both good and evil. (See Isaiah 30:32, Luke 14:26, Numbers 31:17-18, Matthew 10:34, Amos 3:6, Deuteronomy 18:8, Deuteronomy 20:16, Exodus 20:5, Exodus 32:27, Isaiah 45:7, Psalms 52:5, Luke 22:36, and Jeremiah 18:11 for a small sample of Biblical passages which describe Jehovah as having an evil morality at times).
- Explain why, when racism is clearly wrong, Jesus was clearly a racist (see Mark 7:25-29). NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe that racism is morally acceptable.
- Explain why, when discrimination against women is clearly wrong, the Bible clearly supports the oppression of women. Answering this question entails refuting 1 Cor 11 and 1 Tim 2:11-15. NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe that discrimination against women solely on the basis of sex is morally acceptable.
- Explain why, when slavery is clearly wrong, the Bible clearly supports slavery. Answering this question entails refuting 1 Peter 2:18. NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe that slavery is an acceptable way to structure an economy.
- Explain why, if your god loves us all, more than half of us are going to Hell after we die. Specifically, refute or explain the following words of Christ, as presented in the New Testament: “Many are called but few are chosen,” and “Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way that leadeth unto salvation, and few there be that find it.” If your god loves all of us, couldn’t he find a better way?
- Explain what type of offense could possibly justify eternal, unbearable torture in Hell; if your sect does not believe in Hell, then refute every passage in the Old and New Testaments which describes Hell (such as 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 and Revelation 20:15). (Do not exceed 100 words.)
- Explain why possession by demons and/or other evil spirits was common during the time of Jesus, but hardly mentioned at all in the Old Testament, and apparently has been explained completely away today by things such as epilepsy and schizophrenia.
- Explain why original sin exists. Why should I be eternally tortured for something that a pair of naked fruit-munching simpletons did in a garden over six thousand years ago? If you believe that children are born stained because they were conceived sexually, explain why I would be punished for something my parents did by your merciful and just god. If this does not apply to your sect, explain why.
- Explain why getting dunked in or sprinkled with water will prevent me from being eternally tortured for the actions of the naked fruit-munching simpletons mentioned in #10.
- Explain why some people (James, Peter, Paul, Thomas, etc.) should get convincing physical proof of miracles, while the rest of us are supposed to take these happenings on faith.
There are 153 questions like that. Genius!
Excellent plan of action! Umm, nahhhhhhh……..
they’ll just keep posting broad sweeping generalizations that don’t make factual sense, and Opinions they can’t prove, refuse to support them, dodge and evade questions, and counter with hostility and yet more broad, sweeping Opinions.
This is too complicated. I just ask, “If I were to pick a religion, how would I know which to choose of the hundreds or thousands available?”
I have an issue with #4.
The passage cited:
25 Right away a woman who had heard about him came and fell at his feet. Her little girl was possessed by an evil[a] spirit, 26 and she begged him to cast out the demon from her daughter.
Since she was a Gentile, born in Syrian Phoenicia, 27 Jesus told her, “First I should feed the children—my own family, the Jews.[b] It isn’t right to take food from the children and throw it to the dogs.”
28 She replied, “That’s true, Lord, but even the dogs under the table are allowed to eat the scraps from the children’s plates.”
29 “Good answer!” he said. “Now go home, for the demon has left your daughter.”
Is actually more about how anybody can become a Christian through faith. Jesus challenged the Syrian woman by asking her to give him one good reason he should help her not his own clan. She obviously answered correctly.
“She obviously answered correctly.”
That’s the sticky part. Her answer doesn’t push the discussion towards universalism. Even if Jesus’ use of the word “dog” was rhetorical hyperbole, her response was basically “yes, I’m a dog, but dogs need love too.”
She doesn’t challenge him or turn his own teachings against him, (“Am I not then one of the least of these who will inherit the kingdom of heaven?”). Instead, she almost seems to debase herself further, and he rewards her for it.
I’m sure there are other interpretations, but I think this one makes complete sense of the text.
I’m sure there are other interpretations, but I think this one makes complete sense of the text.
First, the Chaistic structure of Mark is relevant. One can’t make complete sense of any text in Mark without having some basic understanding of chiasm and how it functions as a literary device in Markl E.g., http://www.preachingpeace.org/mark_chiasm.htm (The best internet description I could find at the moment; peer-reviewed journals would be better, but that should at least give an idea about what I mean).
Second, this passage is part of what is commonly referred to as “the bread section” of Mark, which has a unified literary theme. Ignoring the literary unity of of this section of Mark inevitably results in a truncated understand of how the passage is functioning in the bread section and in Mark as a whole.
Third, isn’t it just as possible that Jesus was being tongue-in-cheek or sarcastic here?
“First, the Chaistic structure of Mark is relevant”
Not convinced. Mark is written in blunt “street” greek. Not to insult the author, but it seems to me that if he really was aiming for an audience who would appreciate his subtle structuring to the text, he’d have pitched his language for a more educated readership.
It’s possible, of course, just as it’s possible that the Wizard of Oz is really a vast parable about populism and the silver standard. I remain skeptical.
“Third, isn’t it just as possible that Jesus was being tongue-in-cheek or sarcastic here?”
Like I said, rhetorical hyperbole.
Not convinced. Mark is written in blunt “street” greek. Not to insult the author, but it seems to me that if he really was aiming for an audience who would appreciate his subtle structuring to the text, he’d have pitched his language for a more educated readership.
I admit, the article I linked certainly wasn’t the best example. I just couldn’t find anything via a couple google searches … and I don’t have access to academic journals anymore.
But, Mark does use chiasm as a literary tool. Sorry I don’t have the links to back it up … you could take my word for it ;)
And then there’s the “Good Samaritan” which is sort of like Strom Thurmond telling a story about the “Good Black Man.”
These questions are fantastic, Daniel. While I don’t know very many christians with the patience to actually answer all of these questions, I plan to use these questions in discussions/debates with evangelical friends who I am actually still plagued with.
Keep it up, I love your blog.
Enh. There are easier, better ways to make the same point that questionnaire is trying to make.
If your goal is to get them to question their own beliefs (which is a good thing to do), try to remove the obvious bias and venom from your questions, and don’t be so leading. Also, if the question is important don’t limit anyone to 100 words or less. The “simplest answer to a question is usually the right one” mindset is for simpletons, and isn’t even remotely true in the real world.
If your goal is to get them to stop proselytizing to you, save some trees and instead of printing out a useless questionnaire, just tell ‘em to fuck off.
Where is this “venom” of which you speak, Jeremy?
You really don’t see it? When the second question says “so we can go to magic happy land when we croak”, you honestly think that’s a civil, sincere way to phrase things?
This sort of “questionnaire” is like a profanity-filled letter to the newspaper editor. It doesn’t matter how good the points are, it’ll be tossed aside and ignored by the intended recipient. There are better ways to present a good argument.
Demanding people respect absurdity is its own flavor of Venom.
Ah, the old argument from the “I demand utmost respect for my beliefs, no matter how absurd they appear to anyone else or the fact that I’m trying my hardest to convince you that they’re factually and historically true with nothing but my say-so” position.
Nice work if you can get it.
It’s interesting. I’m watching the documentary from the other thread on the Westboro cult, and seeing the reporter repeatedly asking “Do you think the way you’re presenting this message might actually be turning people off?” He’s not even talking about changing the message, but simply the presentation. And the people he’s talking to just don’t get it. They think if the message is “good”, the methods of presentation don’t matter.
And then I come in here and I see people on the other side of the fence also not be able to get it. It’s interesting how zealotry works, no matter what message you’re trying to spread.
Yeah, we seem to get caught up here sometimes in apples and oranges arguments about these specific topics. Whether something or someone is deserving of respect is a different question than what is the best strategy for off-tracking evangelizers. Since they are both complex and important questions it doesn’t make sense to conflate them.
What zealotry? We demand reasonable, well-constructed, well thought-out, evidence based answers to tough questions. How is that zealotry?
So all claims, no matter how risible, are deserving of equal respect, and to think otherwise is “zealotry”?
The fact is, respecting the person is different from respecting the ideas that that person holds, and conflating the two is disingenuous. To show a lack of respect for opinions is not the same as disrespecting the claimant, unless of course the person in question is determined within their own mind to take personal umbrage on behalf of their claims, has nothing to back up their claims but nevertheless represents their opinions as unquestionable “fact” and has (metaphorical) skin thinner than the pages of a Gideons’ bible.
Explain then why I should respect my atheist friends’ opinions when they are thin-skinned? Yes, respecting someone else’s ideas isn’t always a practical standard. The problem is that ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ works for atheists about as well as it works for theists– that is, not at all. Conflating a person and a person’s ideas may be disingenuous, but it is also practically inevitable. For example, I have seen religion referred to as a mental illness several times (by commenters on this site.) Sure, that is not a specific reference to the mental health of a religious person, but it almost always results in a conflation. One who ‘believes a delusion’ is very close to ‘delusional’ no matter what the original intent of the comment.
Do you see what I mean? While it isn’t absolutely necessary to respect an opinion, it is sometimes necessary to treat that opinion with undue respect in order to avoid being disrespectful of a the person holding that opinion.
Additionally, since a questionnaire like the one above requires the participation of people who hold a viewpoint which may or may not be respected, it is especially important that they feel respected so that they can be bothered to participate in such a discussion at all. That might mean that disrespect of a set of opinions might need to be ‘toned down’ or avoided in order to avoid giving people (who like to feel respected) the idea that disrespect of their ideas is linked intentionally or unintentionally to a disrespect of them.
I went to the site where the questionnaire is, and it is designed and says so in the introduction to the document, to be given to someone who has proselytized you. It is not for just asking people you know to be religious, it is this, “You might not think so, but you were annoying me. Here, fill this out and leave me alone.”
I don’t expect a proselytizer to take it very well – I don’t think it’s meant to open up the discussion either. It might lead to an argument you don’t even want. That might be because some of the words were too strong or whoever reads it might be too sensitive.
I don’t expect a proselytizer to go through and answer every question and return it to the person who gave it to them, they probably can’t adequately defend everything at least in conversational or conventionally accepted terms. I do not initiate conversations with the religious that I do not want to have, nor do I let strangers on the street come up to me, stick a pamphlet in my hand, and tell me about Jesus. I don’t stick around being smarty-pants telling them they are mentally ill.
I’m not Ms. Represent the Atheists by being on my best behavior, because I got shit to do, I don’t have time to play intellectual jesus tennis on the sidewalk. I’m as rude to them if I do get buttonholed (which I’m very practiced at avoiding) as a random freak who does think it’s ok to approach a pedestrian to tell them about jesus is, much less knock on doors.
The way I understand it, though, most of the people on this blog who comment are a lot closer to the problem than that, their families and co-workers are given the liberty to go on about jesus, while it’s mostly typical of atheists to keep our damn mouths shut. I mean, I’m honest when asked, but I don’t go around trying to talk people out of their hogwash beliefs. I’m not going to spend a lot of time trying to catch anyone up in their false rationalizations for biblical diarrhea either. If someone ever corners me with this type of crap, you can be damn sure I’ll be rude to them. It is not my job to tell them politely there’s no god, and meet them with open kindness and discuss this pleasantly while I try to “defend” myself and/or convince them out of their haze. I am not taking the time out of my day to respond to proselytizing by giving them the atheist “pat answers” Michael Honza thinks we all have. If you say I’m damned and I’m going to hell, well turnabout is fair play. Defend your silly religion, but actually my answer is I don’t care what you can come up with. I’m content if they would just STEP OFF.
Sure, and it isn’t my job to be polite either. I was just explaining that it doesn’t take a particularly thin skin to feel disrespected when only your ideas are.
Go ye therefore, and be as rude as you want. Just don’t then complain if people think you are rude.
I’m now going to sleep…
JonJon: Explain then why I should respect my atheist friends’ opinions when they are thin-skinned?
You shouldn’t. You should question those opinions just like every other opinion. Use your mind, use the world around you. Hold your own opinions only when reality, not fairy tales and whimsical wishes, matches them.
Hold no idea sacred.
@JonJon: “Go ye therefore, and be as rude as you want. Just don’t then complain if people think you are rude.”
Yeah, that’s such the kick, ain’t it? Don’t come up to me and get in my face about Jesus, and then turn and tell people I was the rude one when I tell you I don’t want none.
“Oh, atheists are sooooooo disrespectful!” Hypocrite!
“So we can go to magic happy land when we croak” is venom, to you? You are using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means, Jeremy.
Respect just doesn’t apply.. at least not in the general way that most people try to use the word. Respect for a particular belief might be realistic, but not to an entire belief system or to religion in general. One does not respect the practice of child sacrifice, for example… and no amount of religious belief would or should make the practice respectable. The way people use the word ‘respect’ it certainly implies that it should apply to any and all religions. Nobody actually respects all religions.. they take each individual belief and decide if they can respect that belief.
Judge the beliefs individually, decide if you respect them individually, and then put all the beliefs of a religion together and decide if you can respect the sum of the parts.
Though I don’t know for sure, my guess, Jeremy, is that you would use the word “venom” only to describe something you don’t like in an atheist argument. I’m hazarding a guess that christian posts can spew hate and drip vitriol, without getting a peep out of you.
I saw a similar post not long ago on this site, about gee, how is it that atheism is now getting so reactive and extreme? Not one eeentsy peep about the “religious right”.
Can you say “confirmation bias” and “selective blindness”?
Also, if the question is important don’t limit anyone to 100 words or less
I agree. The questionnaire cites passage after passage — often in the same question — about which there are mountains of scholarship and literature. The 100 words or less part seems to be condescending and dismissive.
I don’t see any venom, per se, but definitely a triteness and certainly some condescension at points. Although, I think that’s probably balanced by the fact that the questionnaire is a response to an unwanted attempt at evangelization.
Personally I saw the 100 word limit thing as a joke. Because people can write long winded rants about something that ends up meaning nothing.
Right John C? ;)
Or pretty much any theologian that’s ever put pen to paper (or more recent equivalent).
I guess whether or not it’s a joke depends on how you perceive the entire document.
On the one hand, he’s deadly serious — if s/he thought those questions could be answered, s/he’d be a believer.
But on the other hand, it’s obviously meant to be taken with a grain of salt and somewhat lightly.
I can see both sides.
“if s/he thought those questions could be answered, s/he’d be a believer.”
I won’t speak for this person, but that is certainly not true in my case.
A belief systems own internal consistency says nothing about its validity.
I have to say that my own former Christian beliefs were extremely internally consistent, with, as you put it, ‘mountains of scholarship and literature’. But their internal consistency is meaningless once you realize that the foundational claims are flatly untrue.
Tolkien wrote a self consistent masterpiece in his Ring novels. Doesn’t mean elves are real.
In my opinion, attacking a beliefs internal consistency is one of the weaker approaches to take. True believers have been shoring those cracks up for centuries.
I find the evidence arguments much more powerful.
I agree, Bellini’s masterwork, “On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat” cannot possibly be summarized in less than 200 words.
And Hale and McCafferty’s On The Virtues of Bronze for the Buttons of Imperial Outerwear is a concise stroke of genius that couldn’t fit in less than the four volumes it occupies.
If I were a believer, I would certainly be put off by this questionnaire. I think the statements about limiting the words is a request for conciseness poorly executed. The sentence about magic happy land and croaking shows bias leak and works against the purpose of the questionnaire unless the piece is actually sarcastic in nature or is itself poorly executed evangelism.
A 153 question sheet is obviously sarcasm.
Personally, within that framework, I try to follow the teachings and practices of Jesus Christ. I think when you pick up the label “Christian” that should define your beliefs. There’s good stuff in the Old Testament, but Jesus redirected much. Likewise for Paul’s writings, but they were written for specific groups.
Here’s question #1 & the first part of this answer.
I’ll continue this on a new blog I’ll set up for this.
1. If necessary, use this space to explain any unique or unusual beliefs your sect has about the nature of your god, heaven, hell, the Bible, the Holy Spirit/Ghost, Satan, or other theological matters.
I’m part of the United Methodist church, which began as a movement within the Anglican church in England that had split from the Catholic church. It was based on personal accountability, spiritual growth, and social justice. The theology is based on scripture, tradition, experience and reason.
ya know, that’s not answering question #1. He is demanding what’s different in your set of beliefs from the other christian sets of beliefs and “I follow Christ’s teachings” can be stated but any christian sect.
“There’s good stuff in the Old Testament, but Jesus redirected much”
So God wrote it wrong the first time? Or an eternal perfect being changed his mind over the years?
I’m specifying that I give greater weight to the teachings and practices of Jesus Christ.
Many do not.
God didn’t write it, humans did.
Assuming the idea of free will or the ability to choose by humans, you run into the possibility of problems with writings, even if you also assume the idea of a perfect God.
Answer for Questions 1-153: The Devil.
LOL! Right on!
2. Explain why your god’s only son had to die so we can go to magic happy land when we croak.
That’s tough and I’m not sure I fully understand it. The concept I have is that God has a plan for us all. When we follow the plan, we end up in heaven. We all make choices and apparently nobody could pull this off. So God became human and, since he’s the creator, is able to pay for all the sins that ever did and ever will happen. A loophole is that it’s not just a free ride; we have to actually be trying to follow the plan. Jesus said that the plan is to always act from love.
Please go back and read that again.
Does it make any sense to you at all?
More or less… He send His son to die in order He could forgive us for not obbeying Him everytime, so He has not to torture us for all the eternity…
I could only understand that with the assumption that all-powerfull God did not the rules, but he only found a hole on them.
So I’ll pray to whoever did those crazy rules…
I’m making the assumption that God created everything, including the rules.
No one seemed to be able to follow the rules so he becomes human to demonstrate that it is possible.
No–God sent His son to be killed for sins you and I hadn’t even comitted yet. As for His Plan–How is it that I can fail to follow the Plan invented by the All-mighty Creator? All he has to do is think about me doing something, and I’ll do it.
In which case free will is meaningless, and I’m a puppet, doing exactly what he wants me to do every day. Do you think he’s surprised when he finds out that everything I do wrong is his fault? Does he feel any guilt when he causes some dude to go postal and shoot a pack of his co-workers?
He’s all-powerful. Says so right on the label. So why’s the world in a mess? Does the Prime Directive prevent him from alleviating human suffering? Or is his earthly grace reserved only for those who believe in him without evidence? While the rest of us go about unsure or unwilling to believe in a god who’s perfectly willing to stroll out from behind door number four after you die and condemn you to suffer for e-friggin’-ternity because you a) had sex with your mother, b) killed your brother, or c) ate a ham sandwich?
How about a clear, simple, verifiable sign? How about some personal damn experience? He could make the Sahara run with clean water. Write a message in fire on the moon. Suddenly manifest on the steps of the US Capitol whilst taking over every single TV channel. All peanuts to him, so we’re told.
But he’d rather communicate by means of a 2000-year-old book. With beings who’ve just barely managed to top 100 years as a life span.
Great thinking there, God. Good job.
But answer comes there none.
Michael Honza and McHonza are the same person.
(there was some some confusions between 2 Michaels in a previous discussion)
All my answers are the way I understand my faith.
I’m not saying I’m right, this is just how I resolve the questions.
Metro: No–God sent His son to be killed for sins you and I hadn’t even comitted yet.
McHonza: Jesus is God in human form. God as the creator is not restricted by time and can address all sins.
Metro: As for His Plan–How is it that I can fail to follow the Plan invented by the All-mighty Creator? All he has to do is think about me doing something, and I’ll do it. In which case free will is meaningless, and I’m a puppet, doing exactly what he wants me to do every day. Do you think he’s surprised when he finds out that everything I do wrong is his fault? Does he feel any guilt when he causes some dude to go postal and shoot a pack of his co-workers?
McHonza: We all have free will. The details of the plan are not set. It’s not his fault we make poor choices. Example: Your goal in the morning is to get to work. What method you use or path you take is variable. It would not be God’s fault if you choose to run over children with your car instead.
Metro: He’s all-powerful. Says so right on the label. So why’s the world in a mess? Does the Prime Directive prevent him from alleviating human suffering? Or is his earthly grace reserved only for those who believe in him without evidence? While the rest of us go about unsure or unwilling to believe in a god who’s perfectly willing to stroll out from behind door number four after you die and condemn you to suffer for e-friggin’-ternity because you a) had sex with your mother, b) killed your brother, or c) ate a ham sandwich?
McHonza: Those are all examples of human choices.
Metro: How about a clear, simple, verifiable sign? How about some personal damn experience? He could make the Sahara run with clean water. Write a message in fire on the moon. Suddenly manifest on the steps of the US Capitol whilst taking over every single TV channel. All peanuts to him, so we’re told.
McHonza: Personally, I think the fact that we’re enjoying life on a pretty comfy little rock spinning around a flaming inferno a pretty good sign that we’re special (if you believe in God and/or evolution) or at the very least lucky (evolution alone).
Hm. I think this was likely written by wiccans, not atheists. Check out questions 35, 38, 39, 42, 45, 49, 72, 91, 97, 121, and 125.
Many of these questions are of poor quality. I like the questions Daniel picked out, though.
It also makes the claim that the person presenting it used to be a christian. This document is of no use to me.
A rephrase of # 10: We are all in deep do do because Adam and Eve raised Cain.
Free will
Sinful nature of humans
God is incomprehensible to us
Bible is intentionally cryptical
Bible uses analogy when appropriate for me
Afterlife makes everything bad of no consequence
All will be revealed in time
You must trust God
There you go, less than 100 words. Mix and apply as needed.
#5 is out of context…If you read the entire arch of the books, it is made pretty obvious that women should be placed above men in terms of care, and that women should have equal say in all matters. Of course a conservative reader could ignore that and say only men should have power (cough 99% of all churches). Its so sad that people take Paul’s opinions out of context. He was actually a pretty liberal person. In the books he DID write (not the fake ones like Timothy), he also says that discrimination against gays and any other different people is bad (again, you have to understand the whole story arch).
Have you heard the hypothesis that Simon Magus was actually Paul of Tarsus?
What about rib-woman, who condemned us all to hell? That’s also a wrong interpretation?
What about selling your daughter as a slave? In the bible, daughters are property of their fathers till they are property of their husbands
Umm, that’s pretty standard practice in a lot of the world today…
Not saying that makes it ok, but it *is* the way that the world worked for thousands of years…
Fransesc…
You’re thinking in the natural, physical realm only. That’s not what these verses mean my friend. The OT is God viewed thru the knowledge of good and evil, its a “veiled” lens while Christ is the true representation (when you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father) and likness.
So, what is Father’s true nature? Love, grace, truth and mercy. Come out of the shadows, the darkness into the Light.
So here’s the problem — any one of these questions could in theory create a really interesting and probably mutually beneficial discussion. But, in practice, what you’ve done is create a list of questions that arrogant people (who don’t want to take the time to seriously consider questions for and against Christianity) will half-remember in lieu of actually thinking about things.
How does this help anyone?
@ Michael
What a coward you are, why cant you just address some of the question. You dont have to address all of them, but its not like the god you believe in isnt the author or inspiration behind the so called holy book that Daniel used for his critism of god.
If your religion is true and you have god on your side then why wont you enlighten us with an answer to at least 1 or 2 of the questions.
Othewise you are full of crap, you criticize the article but you dont address Daniels issues. Funny how you believers have the almighty all knowing god on your side but you are still afraid to address specific questions and issues at hand.
How come your god (who supposedly loves you) dosent “inspire” you with the ability to make a convincing argument on his behalf if he actually exist.
If he actually created the world in the way the bible says he did and he wants all humans to follow the bible as thier guide then how come he dosnt inspire you and all the other christians who post and lurk at UF to come up with a more convincing argument.
An argument that isnt based on emotions but based on reality.
DUDE. Don’t you think that’s a little harsh? I don’t believe in God either, but aren’t people allowed to raise critical questions on this site?
No because instead of addressing even 1 point by Daniel Michael just made an obscure critism that dosent address Daniels issues at all.
Also dont forget Micheal has the smartest, most powerful dude ever backing him and even though his god supposedly inspired the bible in order for man to have access to gods truth.
He (god) wont inspire Michael or any other christian to make a non emotional argument on these issues.
I mean why would god send christians to an athiest site but not inspire them with the ability and skill to to make convincing arguments against atheism.
Thier are lurkers here who are alternating between belief and non belief. Why would an almighty god send christians here (especially when thier are souls in the balance lurking) with no legitimate and non emotional argument to his existence.
Especially since where are bieng sold the bill of goods that god does exist.
(First time commenter, medium-time reader, for what that’s worth.)
Markbey — I agree with Jeff: you are being unnecessarily critical of Mark’s comment. I don’t think that “the only way to have a respectful dialogue with a Christian is to make them answer this questionnaire first,” which you seem to be implying. (Or are you not interested in any respectful dialogue with Christians at all? If so, more pity for you. When you behave disrespectfully towards others, you lose a little bit of your own inherent right to respect.)
As for my own response to Michael’s original comment: I do think that these questions, with a little bit of housekeeping (e.g. removing clearly
venomousmocking and sarcastic phrases), could start an interesting dialogue with would-be proselytizers. And who knows? Maybe the both of you/us would learn something from the discussion.Or you could take my friend’s route: “Yes, I’ve already read your holy book. No, it’s really not right for me. Have a nice day!” :-)
DUDE. Try to avoid your one-sidedness and confirmation bias of calling only one side, atheism of course, harsh. Markbey has read some of the emotional, vitriolic, unsupported christian posts and has good points.
I suspect you and I aren’t really looking for the same kind of conversation. To wit, I’m interested in conversations with people who believe differently than I do (or not at all) where both sides are reasonable, calm, openminded, and open to learning from the other (I’ve actually learned as much about my faith from my non-Christian friends than I have my Christian ones). I’m not interested in us yelling at and one-upping the other.
Believing in the supernatural is not reasonable, so that means you cannot participate in those kinds of discussions.
>.>
<.<
O.o
You have just ruled out the possibility of all reasonable discussion between those who believe in the supernatural and those who do not. Who would you like to discuss this reasonably with, then? Only people who agree with you?
Doesn't seem that reasonable to me…
Reasonable has a definition. Please look it up instead of getting all defensive.
If you want to say that believing in the supernatural is reasonable, feel free.
P.S. I am a Christian and I agree with several of your implied criticisms of beliefs the contemporary American church has.
So as to not to clog up this post, I’ve started a blog to begin answering these questions:
http://faiththeory.wordpress.com/
I can’t see whatever it is the rest of you are looking at. The link just brings up a short list of religions with a summary about each. Did I miss something?
I’m having the same difficulty as Colleen. I’m just seeing a list of religious sects with brief summaries.
It looks like they redirected the url after everyone else looked at it.
Here is a place that recorded it on their website in case it will never be reposted at the source.
Hate when I forget to paste the url! http://godless.biz/2009/07/17/the-christian-proselytizer-questionnaire/
Hi,
This is a message for the webmaster/admin here at unreasonablefaith.com.
Can I use some of the information from this post right above if I provide a link back to this website?
Thanks,
Daniel