How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[Immanuel Can]

...what test Ic? what test?

Basic logic. Same test for all.

We're on a philosophy forum. That means that all of us are held to the same test: "Does it actually make sense?"

[uwot]

Also, I've noticed when he is faced with the really hard questions about reality..he just ignores them. He has certainly adopted a mechanism of selected hearing.
No offence IC..but you really do like to put others down in a class lower than yourself.

Not at all, actually. I speak of what I know, and imagine others to be doing likewise. I have no stake in seeing anyone put down. But I understand that it's a threat to some people when their ideology is put to the test and fails...and they lash back. I understand it, but feel no need to reciprocate.

I do have "selective hearing," as you put it. In fact, there are particular things you'll note I've chosen routinely not to hear. And they are as follows:

1. Blasphemy in which the speaker is calling Divine Judgment down upon himself. To encourage that would be hostile beyond belief, as it would mean I was encouraging the speaker to harm himself. What kind of person would do that?

2. Personal insults...what's the point? They're irrelevant to any question at all, and they only demean the speaker.

3. Gratuitous contradiction -- contradicting without providing good reasons or rationale. For what's the value of getting into a "Yes it is" / "No it isn't" kind of exchange? Where does such a thing go?

4. Things that could unnecessarily embarrass the speaker if drawn to public attention -- such as missing an all-too-obvious obvious point in some way, or saying something overly stupid that refutes itself. Sometimes it's just better to ignore a very ill-judged remark or argument than to point out its faults.

5. Useless rhetorical flourishes, like swearing, bullying, grandstanding, typing in big font, posting irrelevant pictures or memes...and so on.

There are a few other times I will ignore something, but I choose (I trust) for good reasons in each case.

The key is that I try to respond to issues and ideas, not personalities or gestures of rhetoric.

My axiom is simply that conversation is a privilege on all sides, not a right for anyone; so anyone has a right to choose when and if they respond to anything. When someone engages you, they're doing you a favour (unless they're just doing one of the above things), and it seems reasonable to me to keep it civil. Anybody has a right at any time to decide what they will and will not talk about.

Of course, by email it can be no other way. Anybody who does any of the five above is clearly just blustering about in impotent rage, not focusing on the issues at hand.

I'm also not thin-skinned, if you hadn't noticed; it doesn't bother me a bit what anybody says about me personally. For in the first place, that's nothing to the issue; and in the second, who the heck has any idea here who or what I really am?

Carry on as you see fit. I shall do likewise.

This is exactly why people with your mindset, Mr Can, should be resisted. It is entirely your business with whom you do, or do not argue, but to justify it by claiming that it is an act of kindness, is a dangerous excuse for totalitarianism. How else would you treat us for our own benefit? That you will not tolerate dissent is the intellectual cowardice of fascism.

[ken]

I have asked you well over 20 open-ended clarifying questions just to try and get some idea of what it is you are trying to do here. Yet you have not shown any decency by answering just 1 of My questions.

Yes.

I did not ask a question here. By saying, "Yes" are you saying that you did not show any decency on purpose?

Those questions looked pretty murky to me.

Interpretaton/projection

Are you unable to answer My previous questions?

I'm advising to avoid the quagmire jungle of interpretation.

Judgement/interpretation/projection

Would you be willing to put your questions in closed form, yes/no would be best.

Yes.

Would that make you more happy?

Was that easier for you?

Stick to facts of the world and phenomenology, and requests for doable actions, that's about the limit of meaningful discussion for me.

The facts of the world and phenomenology, and requests for doable actions, is about the limit of meaningful discussion that you can stick to.

I feel sorry for you. Being stuck at a limited shallow level of meaning must leave one feeling very constricted, and confused about a lot of issues. Do you feel this way sometimes?

There is no limit of meaningful discussion for Me, so there is no limit of understanding for Me either. If you want to understand far more than what you are limited to, such as just the "facts" of this world and discover, see, and understand a far better and more richer world, then I am willing to discuss that with you. But if you believe you are limited to only some things, then so be it. I guess you will just stay there.

If I were to approach this issue of why atheists convert to Christianity, I'd collect up at least a hundred first person accounts.

Is that what you would really do?

I certainly would not do that.

Then I'd take what the converts say at face-value initially and tally up the emergent categories from the overview.

There are no "converts" because a human being can not just decide to change from one thing into another thing. A human being is a human being. If you want to ever understand what that truly is, then you will ask Me clarifying questions. "Converts" is just another label placed on the person.

Then I'd comb over it psychoanalytically and look for any deeper themes. There might also be a body of literature to review on conversion, atheist conversion, conversion to Christianity, and specifically atheists conversion to Christianity.?

Would you expect to make any new discoveries and thus make new "facts" of "this world" by doing that? Or, by just reading what has already being written about a topic, would you just expect to find the already known "facts" of "this world"?

...

I just did a two second look through academic journals, looks like Yang (2005) has come at this topic already.

Does that make you feel excited?

The author takes a much more heavily macro- and meso- level approach, somewhat different from the micro-level ethnographic approach I had suggested.

I feel bored reading what you write now.

I'm not saying Yang is right or I'm right,

Really?

evidently there is way more big data available on this than I'd realized.

Does that amaze you?

Either way, a literature review, a macro-, meso- and micro-ethnographic level analysis is pretty much what you get.

No, that is what 'you' got.

I don't have the time to get deeply into this, but reading Yang Lost in the Market, Saved at McDonald’s: Conversion to Christianity in Urban China plus the first ten personal accounts to come up on google would give you a decent start into this issue.

But I have absolutely no interest in that at all.

Did you assume that I had some sort of interest in this?

I hope I did not make things to hard for you this time, did I?

I feel satisfied that I successfully only asked you closed yes/no questions. I feel satisfied now because you could not answer My open-ended questions. Those questions look pretty murky to you. Can you see clearly? If you could, then they would not look "murky".

By the way, the facts of "this world" is it IS a place of greed, wars, and pollution. Another fact is "this world" is a result purely of human beings doing.
I feel saddened that human beings just continue on creating this kind of world and that children have to witness it and are the ones who have to bear it. I feel angry that children are always telling adults how to behave in ways that are truly right but adults ignore those teachings. Children guide adults, all the time, to all the doable actions that will turn "this world" into a much better world but adults refuse to listen and take notice. I will stop now because according to you you are stuck at this level of meaningful discussion.

All the frequently asked questions, like the what, the where, the when, the why, and the how can and will be answered if any one wants to continue on with and in a truly meaning-FULL discussion.

Sticking to facts;

I know this question would be to 'murky' for you, but it is for any person to ponder, think about, and/or answer, How, and why, does any person expect another to "convert" to what they themselves believe is true?

Are people so insecure within and about themselves, and that is why they continually try to get others onto "their side"? Do they do this just so they feel better about themselves and/or more secure in a "bigger" group?

Surely some human beings are not that stupid to actually believe that 'christianity', atheism, (or even 'islam') is an actual thing and that one has to, or could even choose to, belong to one of them, do they?

Human beings can NOT "convert" to a thing that does not even exist. Human beings, however, can choose to believe (in) any thing that they want to believe in. And, surely by now the stupidity of believing (in) absolutely any thing is becoming obviously clear.

No human being can be a "atheist", "christian", nor even a "muslim", so how and why do some human beings even think there could even be a "conversion" or that they could "convert" another?

[Seleucus]

The author takes a much more heavily macro- and meso- level approach, somewhat different from the micro-level ethnographic approach I had suggested.

Is that what you would really do?

I'm not making any claim about why atheists convert to Christianity, that would be a big job. I would suggest meanwhile that a literature review, grassroots bottom-up ethnographic interviews with sorting and tallying of trends, combing for deeper psychoanalytic interpretation, and a collection of bigger trends as Yang (2005) did would be a pretty solid methodological come at it. You could probably get that published in a good journal, or present at a high-level conference, or take a graduate or doctoral degree.

No human being can be a "atheist", "christian", nor even a "muslim", so how and why do some human beings even think there could even be a "conversion" or that they could "convert" another?

Yes, Sartre talked about that kind of thing a lot in Being and Nothingness.

Did you assume that I had some sort of interest in this?

I hope I did not make things to hard for you this time, did I?

Are you feeling angry about something?

[Science Fan]

IC: The words are the words, and the quoted section expressly states, without any ambiguity, that the condemnation applies to all atheists and agnostics, and presumably, other religious people who do not accept Jesus. While you claim that the words must be interpreted in context, there are several problems with this assertion of yours: 1. Throughout the Bible, there are numerous places where atheists are demonized, so my interpretation of the passage is certainly consistent with the larger context of the Bible's treatment of atheists and agnostics. 2. If we limited this specific passage against atheists as only applying to ancient Jews, then that creates the moral issue of why should the Christians treat the ancient Jews so horribly and not modern-atheists? Why the double standard? Why should ancient Jews have been considered not worth saving, while mass murderers and rapists were considered worth saving? Along with modern non-believers? That alone raises its own set of moral issues, against Christian claims of being moral. 3. If the passages are so easily subjected to misreading, then that alone makes the Bible an imperfect work.

The very fact that the Bible demonizes atheists tells me that Christianity is false. While it is certainly true that some atheists are immoral, it is equally true that not all are and by demonizing all atheists, I see Christianity as a bigoted movement, hardly moral, and not worth considering from a moral standpoint.

[Immanuel Can]

IC: The words are the words, and the quoted section expressly states, without any ambiguity, that the condemnation applies to all atheists and agnostics, and presumably, other religious people who do not accept Jesus.

The business of studying a text in context is key. If you find a paper with the words, "Your wife is cheating," then your first question should be, "Does this mean MY wife?" What would be absurd would be just to assume, without a context like why it was said and to whom, that it was YOUR wife that was being indicated, and act accordingly.

That's an example of why a reasonable interpreter takes stock of the context, and does not just say, "The word are the words."

But you can believe as you choose, of course.

atheists are demonized

Which Biblical passage did you have in mind? I know of no such at all.

why should the Christians treat the ancient Jews so horribly and not modern-atheists?

You really need to read more carefully, SF. There is absolutely no mention in the passage of what Christians ought to do to "treat" anybody. Rather, it is an explanation of how God Himself will treat those First Century Hebrews who might be inclined willfully and knowingly to reject His Son by choosing to revert to the Old Covenant.

Look again: the passage in Hebrews contains no instruction on how Christians are to treat Jews or Atheists. It speaks only of how God regards the people in question. But Matthew 5: 44 does give Christians instructions for how to treat people who disagree with them. It says, "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." So that is what we do.

Why the double standard?

As above, there is none there. We are not told to be unkind to Jews or Atheists.

Why should ancient Jews have been considered not worth saving, while mass murderers and rapists were considered worth saving?

Who is saving mass murderers and rapists? And who says Jews are not worth saving? That's not merely wild extrapolation, it's a reading that no part of the text or context will bear. I might remind you that that doesn't even make sense. Messiah Himself is a Jew, as were all of his disciples, and the entirety of the first church...look it up, if you doubt it. And as for Atheists, the term is unknown in all of the Bible. It's pretty hard to "demonize" anybody you don't even name.

3. If the passages are so easily subjected to misreading, then that alone makes the Bible an imperfect work.

Misreading is a fault of the reader, particularly in this case. As the old saying among exegetes goes, "Reading without context is a pretext." It's like I said about the note about somebody's wife: if you jump wildly to the conclusion that it has to be your own wife who is being named, and it turns out not to be, then the fault would be your own.

The very fact that the Bible demonizes atheists

Again, where? The word doesn't even appear in the Bible anywhere. Check out any concordance program, and you'll see I'm right.

[Dontaskme]

The business of studying a text in context is key. If you find a paper with the words, "Your wife is cheating," then your first question should be, "Does this mean MY wife?" What would be absurd would be just to assume, without a context like why it was said and to whom, that it was YOUR wife that was being indicated, and act accordingly.

That's an example of why a reasonable interpreter takes stock of the context, and does not just say, "The word are the words."

But you can believe as you choose, of course.

The words are the words though...God in the flesh is the word / logos..God becoming known in the word itself...the unknown no thing believed to be thing as it becomes known through the word. Drop the word and it's attached meaning/belief and what is actually there ...??

The interpreter is just a thought process that's already past tense as a dead and gone memory... Knowledge aka words inform illusory reality of what appears to be happening - but is not actually happening to any thing but the word itself.

But who would believe this?

[Immanuel Can]

But who would believe this?

Nobody but a Gnostic, I expect. But that's pretty much true of Gnosticism in general.

[uwot]

The business of studying a text in context is key.

If he said it, he said it.

So which is it, Mr Can? Do you study texts in context; or do you take people at their word?

[thedoc]

Christians don't convert Atheists or anyone else, Christians just live their lives according to what they believe and set an example for everyone else.

[Dontaskme]

But who would believe this?

Nobody but a Gnostic, I expect. But that's pretty much true of Gnosticism in general.

So the believer is a word like I said.

Thanks for the clarification that words are the words.

[uwot]

Christians don't convert Atheists or anyone else, Christians just live their lives according to what they believe and set an example for everyone else.

You're in good company, doc. Well, if you call the pope 'good': https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2 ... pe-francis

[Science Fan]

Immanuel Can: You asked for references to passages in the Bible that demonize Jews. In addition to the one that I opened this post with there are many such passages in the Bible. For example, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14). In this passage, believers are prevented from marrying atheists, precisely because, it is claimed, atheists are "wicked." Do you need me to cite to even more of these Biblical passages that demonize atheists, people like me?

[Science Fan]

Immanuel Can: When you claim that these Biblical passages are not Christians claiming how to treat Jews and atheists, but rather, the passages come from God, I need to explain to you that God never wrote any such Biblical passages. They were written by Christians, and they are the ones who decided to write such hateful passages about Jews, atheists, and agnostics, not God, even if we assume that such a God exists.

Christianity is condemned by its own hateful comments. It cannot possibly be true while demonizing non-believers.

[Immanuel Can]

For example, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14).

So your assumption would be that "unbeliever" and "Atheist" are the same term? I disagree. "Unbelievers" would include a lot more people than that. Agnostics don't believe. Nor do Hindus, Muslims, Zoroastrians...let's fill out the list. And plenty of them are, in name at least, "Theists" too.

In fact, "Atheist" is a word that doesn't really enter use until the 16th Century A.D. So there's no way that "unbeliever" means "Atheist." But the verse you quote is a prohibition not just on Atheists, but on the prescribers of everything less that the truth.

In this passage, believers are prevented from marrying atheists, precisely because, it is claimed, atheists are "wicked."

Well, not JUST Atheists, if such had been known back then, but, as I say above, absolutely anyone who does not believe in the truth, actually.

...demonize atheists...

Ha. Atheists don't believe in demons.

They also have no grounds for any belief in morality (in spite of the fact that many, irrationally, continue to defy their own suppositions by doing so). So whatever we imagine that the Bible is "doing" to "Atheists," it cannot -- in a consistent Atheist's world -- be "bad." "Badness" itself is nothing but a contingent construct in which, according to Atheism itself, we have no obligation to believe.

Or do you now believe that "demonizing" any "Atheists" would be (in some sense you'll have to justify) "wrong"?

Oh, you moral objectivist, you!