How to be a non-believer in a believing world

[Carrot Flower King]

Unless I missed something, it seems we are still left with the situation being that the Christian (of whatever stripe they are) can raise the issue of their beliefs and try to convert or convince someone else, but it isn't acceptable to say anything agin their fantasies.

That's just mad. And I speak as one who once told his oldest friend to "Sod right off if you ever pull a stroke like that again!" after said friend, knowing fine well that i'd escaped my churchy up-bringing a few years before, invited me to an evangelical meeting (Navigators if anyone is bothered) under false pretences so the twunts could pray for me and try to convert me.

Friend sodded off and never spoke to me again, so I guess I know who or what was more important to him and it wasn't me.

 

[theprestige]

Unless I missed something, it seems we are still left with the situation being that the Christian (of whatever stripe they are) can raise the issue of their beliefs and try to convert or convince someone else, but it isn't acceptable to say anything agin their fantasies.

That's just mad. And I speak as one who once told his oldest friend to "Sod right off if you ever pull a stroke like that again!" after said friend, knowing fine well that i'd escaped my churchy up-bringing a few years before, invited me to an evangelical meeting (Navigators if anyone is bothered) under false pretences so the twunts could pray for me and try to convert me.

Friend sodded off and never spoke to me again, so I guess I know who or what was more important to him and it wasn't me.

You missed something. You're thinking of this as an adversarial relationship between an atheist and a theist. It seems like acbytesla's actual situation is more of a collaborative relationship between two friends with a principled disagreement.

It's not entirely your fault, though. acbytesla fell into the same trap, framing it as an atheist vs theist problem. It's not really that, though. It's a problem of preserving a friendship in the face of principled disagreement. That's a totally different problem.

Some atheists don't object to going along to get along in a theistic community. Others rankle at the thought. How you choose to handle that is up to you. How other people choose to handle it probably isn't something you can advise on. They know better than you their boundaries and comfort levels. Some atheists would rather lose their job and take the next bus out of town, than nod and smile at the god-botherers. Others wouldn't. Who are you to say?

But that's not acbytesla's situation. His situation is functionally equivalent to maintaining a friendship with someone who's at a different place on the political spectrum. And that kind of thing has some simple guidelines: First, you have to want to maintain the friendship. Second, you have to want to not be a dick about your point of view. Once you've been honest with yourself about what you really want, the rest tends to fall into place quite easily. Either your friend wants the same things you do, and the thing sorts itself out with no further trouble. Or your friend doesn't want the same things you do, and you grow apart.

And that's my recommendation to acbytesla. Don't think of this as being a non-believer in a believing world. Think about this as being a non-believer who wants to preserve a friendship with a believer, and doesn't want to be a dick about their disagreement.

 

[ahhell]

Unless I missed something, it seems we are still left with the situation being that the Christian (of whatever stripe they are) can raise the issue of their beliefs and try to convert or convince someone else, but it isn't acceptable to say anything agin their fantasies.

That's just mad. And I speak as one who once told his oldest friend to "Sod right off if you ever pull a stroke like that again!" after said friend, knowing fine well that i'd escaped my churchy up-bringing a few years before, invited me to an evangelical meeting (Navigators if anyone is bothered) under false pretences so the twunts could pray for me and try to convert me.

Friend sodded off and never spoke to me again, so I guess I know who or what was more important to him and it wasn't me.

Not at all. Folks can say whatever they like about someone's deeply held beliefs but they shouldn't be surprised if others take offense when someone wants to destroy their deeply held beliefs. That's just reality, take or.....

You were well with in your rights to tell someone off when they brought you somewhere under false pretenses. If they just said, "hey want to come to my church?" up front and honestly that's a different story in my opinion.

ETA, I think Prestige's last post was quite good on the subject. I've had christian friends that routinely but kindly debated on the subject and others that we just didn't talk about it on account of it straining the relationship and others that drifted away. It depends is the answer.

 

[acbytesla]

If you meet an obnoxious proselytizer, you've met an obnoxious proselytizer. If you meet obnoxious proselytizers everywhere you go...

... Is your neighbor, whose friendship you cherish and wish to preserve, one of these "evangelicals" who are "really the problem", and thinks "only their values are traditional or family values" and feels "compelled to to share their good news"?

I mean, look man. If this friendship is burdening you too much with pressure to pretend, you have to be direct. If they can't gracefully accept your directness, then it's not really a friendship worth preserving anyway.

It sounds like maybe you're concerned that your "direct approach" has historically been good at burning bridges, and you're wondering if there are other ways to broach the subject without coming across as hatefully anti-theist?

Maybe it will help if you look at this as less a question of how to tell a theist you think they're misguided and wrong without offending them, and more a question of how to have a principled disagreement with a friend, without souring the friendship. The basic problem is not unique to atheists in a theistic community.

Actually no. My experience is that it is easy to deal with an obnoxious proselytizer. You just don't. They aren't the people I want to be friends with anyway. No, it's the person you can depend on and can depend on you that you want as friends.

My neighbor is a good guy. He is unlikely, IMV, to be the kind of person to ever mistreat anyone. My experience is that the evangelicals just limit their associations with non-believers. You go from being invited to a BBQ or ball game to someone they just say hi to while mowing the lawn.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

There are so many holes in Christian dogma. You could drive a truck through it. This starts with original sin. Which in a way I can accept. As none of us are perfect. We all make mistakes and could be better.

But I cannot accept that the punishment has to be death. Or worse, eternal torture.

Getting beyond the impossible miracles the biggest hole has to be substitutionary
atonement. That a being that is unfathomably powerful can't just forgive without the elaborate scheme. A scheme where he rapes a Jewish girl so he can become his own son so he can be tortured and executed just so he can forgive man.

I mean according to their theology, this being created the universe simply by talking. Really, why is forgiving so damn ridiculous?

One that particularly mystifies me when I attend a burial serve (I go because my wife is a mildi believer) is how you both get to heaven the next day but also get resurrected at the End of Times. Which is it?

 

[Steve]

One that particularly mystifies me when I attend a burial serve (I go because my wife is a mildi believer) is how you both get to heaven the next day but also get resurrected at the End of Times. Which is it?

It is, as you note, a mystery that mystifies people. You have to just believe, not question.

 

[acbytesla]

It is, as you note, a mystery that mystifies people. You have to just believe, not question.

Aye, there is the root of the problem. I question EVERYTHING.

 

[Steve]

Aye, there is the root of the problem. I question EVERYTHING.

Questioning religion in an attempt to find logic will drive a person mad. A case where the correct response is to laugh and walk away. Life is just too short.

 

[acbytesla]

Questioning religion in an attempt to find logic will drive a person mad. A case where the correct response is to laugh and walk away. Life is just too short.

Or drive them away from the church.

"Because" wasn't acceptable to my parents or any teacher I have ever had.

 

[The Atheist]

Or drive them away from the church.

"Because" wasn't acceptable to my parents or any teacher I have ever had.

I had a brother to whom I didn't speak for around 20 years prior to his death, because he couldn't shut up about religion and I'd never shut up about how selfish, deluded and pathetic his beliefs were.

 

[acbytesla]

I had a brother to whom I didn't speak for around 20 years prior to his death, because he couldn't shut up about religion and I'd never shut up about how selfish, deluded and pathetic his beliefs were.

That would do it.

 

[arthwollipot]

That's not necessarily true either. It may be among the devoutly religious but not in the world as a whole.

Of course, that doesn't stop hypocrites from exploiting religion for their own ends.

According to my research (a quick question to Copilot) according to recent estimates approximately 84% of the global population identifies with a religious group.

One that particularly mystifies me when I attend a burial serve (I go because my wife is a mildi believer) is how you both get to heaven the next day but also get resurrected at the End of Times. Which is it?

Okay, strap in, because this one actually has an answer.

When you die, your spirit goes to heaven but your body is left behind to be buried or cremated or whatever. When you get resurrected in the End Times you are bodily restored so that you get to spend the rest of eternity embodied in the presence of God, and not just as a spirit.

Make sense?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

According to my research (a quick question to Copilot) according to recent estimates approximately 84% of the global population identifies with a religious group.

Okay, strap in, because this one actually has an answer.

When you die, your spirit goes to heaven but your body is left behind to be buried or cremated or whatever. When you get resurrected in the End Times you are bodily restored so that you get to spend the rest of eternity embodied in the presence of God, and not just as a spirit.

Make sense?

Sure. But you don't mind if I back away slowly?

 

[arthwollipot]

Sure. But you don't mind if I back away slowly?

Seems an appropriate response.

 

[Minoosh]

IMV, this is the no true Scotsman fallacy.

I wrote a lot - which specific part is the No True Scotsman fallacy?

(If you don't want to get too much into the weeds here I don't blame you.)

It's not up to me, a non-Christian, to say who is or isn't a Christian. So why would I differentiate between different eschatology and the dogma?

Conversely, why would you lump them all together? The way I interact with "believers" is going to be affected by their beliefs. If I invite someone who keeps kosher over for dinner I'm not serving ham. If my co-worker strongly believes in the reality of demons, I'm not wearing my devil horns to work on Halloween.

The differences interest me. That's just me. But ... I wasn't talking about your or I differentiating to begin with; I was talking about Christians disavowing each other.

I personally have roots in Catholic, evangelical, and non-evangelical churches.

You say it's not up to you, *as a non-Christian*, to say who is or isn't a Christian. I contend it's not up to Christians to make that determination either. So it's not your non-Christianity that disqualifies you.

Having said that, to me you seem better qualified to judge than the perky blonde Fox personality who said, "We all know Mitt Romney is not a Christian." I think he is. I don't have to be a Christian to have an opinion.

The small town I live in now has 9 different churches. Pentecostal, Baptist, Catholic, 7th Day Adventist, Jehovah Witness and a few non-denominational churches.

That sounds like elections in Iran. There might be 9 candidates, but they're all to the right of Newt Gingrich.

 

[acbytesla]

Conversely, why would you lump them all together? The way I interact with "believers" is going to be affected by their beliefs. If I invite someone who keeps kosher over for dinner I'm not serving ham. If my co-worker strongly believes in the reality of demons, I'm not wearing my devil horns to work on Halloween.

You're right. I shouldn't. And the differences can be substantial. The real issue is the evangelicals. Because they are pushed to evangelize. Although the Jehovah's Witnesses do as well.

There are just a lot less of the JWs. Although shunning atheists and other denominations is pretty common with them.

The Catholics might invite you to mass, but they're not going to try and convert you. I've never found them to be a problem. Although I know a few Catholic loonies. Still, I know a lot of liberal Catholics that are very good people and easy to get along with.

The differences interest me. That's just me. But ... I wasn't talking about your or I differentiating to begin with; I was talking about Christians disavowing each other.

You say it's not up to you, *as a non-Christian*, to say who is or isn't a Christian. I contend it's not up to Christians to make that determination either. So it's not your non-Christianity that disqualifies you.

Yet they do. I remember Evangelicals in church often say that Catholics aren't Christians. I've also heard Catholics say that while Protestants might be Christians, they are not practicing the true faith.

Having said that, to me you seem better qualified to judge than the perky blonde Fox personality who said, "We all know Mitt Romney is not a Christian." I think he is. I don't have to be a Christian to have an opinion.

This isn't saying much.

That sounds like elections in Iran. There might be 9 candidates, but they're all to the right of Newt Gingrich.

 

[Puppycow]

The small town I live in now has 9 different churches. Pentecostal, Baptist, Catholic, 7th Day Adventist, Jehovah Witness and a few non-denominational churches.

Have you ever considered moving to a large city? There may be different problems in a large city, but finding other non-religious people probably isn't one of them. Of course, cities also have religious people but I think fewer per capita.

 

[arthwollipot]

Sometimes "just move somewhere else" isn't a realistic option.

 

[Puppycow]

Sometimes "just move somewhere else" isn't a realistic option.

Perhaps not. But I don't know what options are realistic. People do sometimes move.

 

[psionl0]

According to my research (a quick question to Copilot) according to recent estimates approximately 84% of the global population identifies with a religious group.

Did your research distinguish between people who are devoutly religious (follow all of the teachings of their religion as far as possible) and those who merely give lip service to their religion?