02-22-2020, 03:35 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-22-2020, 03:37 PM by Bucky Ball.)
What is the best possible approach a missionary could take on an atheist website?
What is the best possible approach a missionary could take on an atheist website?
They're both very poor at communication.
If they were actually seriously interested in convincing others that their positions have some value, they would learn how to *listen*.
Neither of them listen. They're not actually interested in understanding what makes people of non-belief tick.
They are both here for combat. Combat is not how conversion happens, so I take neither of them seriously.
I "poke" at them disrespectfully, as neither of them deserve more, and really don't know as much about religion (as taught in main-line university centers) as some here do (ie Cheerful Charlie), and I respect neither of them. An actual religious person would be appalled by both of them. Neither of them care about understanding anyone here. They are not here to be a part of a community or try to understand and listen to others. They're both the same as the old campus shouting preacher yelling at people as they walk by. The fact that Steve appears to "wear a suit" does not help him.
I have a lot of friends in religion and out, and none of the religious would take the approach they do.
I have this suspicion that Steve is trying to convince himself that his "rational" approach is actually true. The entire approach is flawed for many reasons, including religious ones ... but he is the product of American Fundamentalism ... which is unique in world religions, due I suspect, to his exposure to the WLC/Biola sect of US Fundamentalist religion where presuppositionalism rules. They worship at the altar of "Reasonable Faith", but in the end they abandon reason, (and never actually justify the approach in the first place). Jesus didn't walk around preaching about logical arguments. It was an age where everyone in the culture accepted the common assumptions, and those included a deity. That is no longer true.
Either here or on AF Steve announced his purpose was to "not let atheists get away with their usual ("misguided"..according to him) arguments". It's very clear in the "soul" thread, he would cook up anything to defend his "world-view" / "personal experience" position to prove the validity of his position. "My logic tells me there must exist my particular god, ..... therefore it MUST be out there". That's not how reality works. Drich is an internet troll who needs to tell himself he's an "expert" on something ... (anything actually), and he's going to shove that down your throat, like it or not. Neither are here to understand anything or listen to anything. They need to tell themselves they are the ones from whom true knowledge comes. Both have often remarked on how long they have been doing their shtick. As poor as it is, they think doing something badly for a long time makes it more valuable.
A change in someone's position or understanding of anything is a long slow complex process. While it is not where I came from, these two fail to comprehend the abusive histories many people who left religion came from. Instead of trying to understand these histories, they present simplistic "tripe" ("arguments"). No one is converted by arguments. There is something very suspicious about people who need to try to make you agree with them. I can't get past that.
The best approach I know are the nuns I know, who teach English to immigrants, attend Native American drumming ceremonies as a "supportive presence", run their free clinics ... and accept people from where they come from and let their actions speak for them ... they preach with their actions, and rarely if ever even talk about religion.
If they're not a part of the community, their "testimony" will never be taken seriously. No one *hears* what is being shouted at them from the nutcase on the corner. If there remains any value in understanding why ancient people accepted their cultural myth systems, it flies WAY over the heads of these ignorant preachers.
If they were actually seriously interested in convincing others that their positions have some value, they would learn how to *listen*.
Neither of them listen. They're not actually interested in understanding what makes people of non-belief tick.
They are both here for combat. Combat is not how conversion happens, so I take neither of them seriously.
I "poke" at them disrespectfully, as neither of them deserve more, and really don't know as much about religion (as taught in main-line university centers) as some here do (ie Cheerful Charlie), and I respect neither of them. An actual religious person would be appalled by both of them. Neither of them care about understanding anyone here. They are not here to be a part of a community or try to understand and listen to others. They're both the same as the old campus shouting preacher yelling at people as they walk by. The fact that Steve appears to "wear a suit" does not help him.
I have a lot of friends in religion and out, and none of the religious would take the approach they do.
I have this suspicion that Steve is trying to convince himself that his "rational" approach is actually true. The entire approach is flawed for many reasons, including religious ones ... but he is the product of American Fundamentalism ... which is unique in world religions, due I suspect, to his exposure to the WLC/Biola sect of US Fundamentalist religion where presuppositionalism rules. They worship at the altar of "Reasonable Faith", but in the end they abandon reason, (and never actually justify the approach in the first place). Jesus didn't walk around preaching about logical arguments. It was an age where everyone in the culture accepted the common assumptions, and those included a deity. That is no longer true.
Either here or on AF Steve announced his purpose was to "not let atheists get away with their usual ("misguided"..according to him) arguments". It's very clear in the "soul" thread, he would cook up anything to defend his "world-view" / "personal experience" position to prove the validity of his position. "My logic tells me there must exist my particular god, ..... therefore it MUST be out there". That's not how reality works. Drich is an internet troll who needs to tell himself he's an "expert" on something ... (anything actually), and he's going to shove that down your throat, like it or not. Neither are here to understand anything or listen to anything. They need to tell themselves they are the ones from whom true knowledge comes. Both have often remarked on how long they have been doing their shtick. As poor as it is, they think doing something badly for a long time makes it more valuable.
A change in someone's position or understanding of anything is a long slow complex process. While it is not where I came from, these two fail to comprehend the abusive histories many people who left religion came from. Instead of trying to understand these histories, they present simplistic "tripe" ("arguments"). No one is converted by arguments. There is something very suspicious about people who need to try to make you agree with them. I can't get past that.
The best approach I know are the nuns I know, who teach English to immigrants, attend Native American drumming ceremonies as a "supportive presence", run their free clinics ... and accept people from where they come from and let their actions speak for them ... they preach with their actions, and rarely if ever even talk about religion.
If they're not a part of the community, their "testimony" will never be taken seriously. No one *hears* what is being shouted at them from the nutcase on the corner. If there remains any value in understanding why ancient people accepted their cultural myth systems, it flies WAY over the heads of these ignorant preachers.
Test
