…and this is a 
Atheist, here's God
Category: Godlessness • Humor
Posted on: July 7, 2008 8:06 AM, by PZ Myers
We seem to be having a light incursion of evangelical Christians. Here's some advice for them, on how to convert an atheist. It's a very silly article, I'm afraid, because while it says all these sensible things about being polite and getting to know them and leading them gently to church, it never addresses the key stumbling point for atheists: that their religion is wacky, nutty, insane, internally inconsistent, and illogical. The very elements that Christians think makes their faith unique and special and powerful are the pieces that make us wonder what damaged Christian brains.
For instance, here's what we're told is going to happen to us when we die:
I don't know. I don't see how any response, no matter how polite and friendly, is going to overcome the inherent goofiness of the religion.
Comments
That's one mean-looking God!
Posted by: Paholaisen Asianajaja | July 7, 2008 8:23 AM
Finally! An explanation that makes sense! Now I see why so many people believe in Christianity.
Posted by: Zeno | July 7, 2008 8:28 AM
I think this is a satire, check out the guy's other videos
Posted by: Jared | July 7, 2008 8:35 AM
Hey, I just noticed that the linked article on "How to convert an atheist" comes from a site that also includes "How to become an atheist." How useful! (Do you think the same person wrote both articles?)
Posted by: Zeno | July 7, 2008 8:35 AM
Also at WikiHow:
How to Become an Atheist
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 7, 2008 8:35 AM
Hey! Reginald is copying me! Strike him down, God! Strike him down now!
Posted by: Zeno | July 7, 2008 8:37 AM
Edward Currant is excellent.
Yeah, come on! How un-christian would that be... Hehe..
Posted by: Ale | July 7, 2008 8:38 AM
I have totally seen the light! Sorry guys, I guess I won't be visiting this site anymore... looks like you're all screwed for eternity.
But seriously, hilarious.
Posted by: LisaJ | July 7, 2008 8:39 AM
That animation is remarkable on two levels.
An astounding lack of creativity
Remarkably humorless
Posted by: scooter | July 7, 2008 8:44 AM
"Most Atheists are highly intelligent. Probably better educated than you are and have spent a lot of time thinking about reasons TO believe. You have to give the a real reason - not just an emotional one! You need to read and think a lot too. They usually don't care about your beliefs or want to be bothered with them. It is best to leave them alone. Don't be surprised if they manage to persuade you to give up your beliefs."
They've hit the nail on the head there!
Posted by: MF | July 7, 2008 8:47 AM
From the "How to Convert an Atheist" article
Let me guess: Pascal's Wager?
The next logical argument (that isn't flawed) we hear will be the first.
Posted by: Pablo | July 7, 2008 8:47 AM
MF@10 quoting wikiHow
"Don't be surprised if they manage to persuade you to give up your beliefs."
That made me wonder whether the advice was intended seriously.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 7, 2008 8:54 AM
"Am I in Heaven?"
"For the moment. . ."
Thanks for starting the week off with a good laugh.
Posted by: Nan | July 7, 2008 8:56 AM
Is there a name for the inverse of Poe's Law? e.g. "Satire that is sufficiently cunning will always be mistaken for real fundamentalism." If not, I lay claim to "Donnie's Corollary".
Either way, that video qualifies. "Brought to you by Christians for praising and worshipping the God of the Bible, or else." Heh.
Posted by: Donnie B. | July 7, 2008 9:00 AM
"According to my all-knowing knowledge."
LOL
Posted by: garyb50 | July 7, 2008 9:08 AM
From the 'Persuade-an-Atheist-to-Become-Christian' link:
Here is a short list of people who have (or had) a wonderful appreciation for nature, and wrote stunning books about it:
Carl Sagan (Cosmos,Pale Blue Dot,Billions and Billions)
Richard Dawkins (The Ancestor's Tale,Climbing Mount Improbable)
Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea)
Isaac Asimov (too many books to list)
Learn from their examples ...
Posted by: llewelly | July 7, 2008 9:09 AM
The "How to persuade an atheist" article is misleading. Never in the history of the world has an atheist been persuaded to convert. Rather, like Paul but with lesser fanfare, they are snatched. "Persuading an atheist" violates theological causality.
That said, it contains some decent rules of behavior. The evangelist just should keep in mind that the priority is on the message, not the response. They should realize that they will never accomplish the impossible; they will never persuade a single atheist to become a Christian.
Posted by: heddle | July 7, 2008 9:10 AM
I don't think I'd argue with the guy, as this one did. If the Hebrew sky king exists, I'd rather spend eternity in a burning pit than telling a sadistic megalomaniac how wonderful he is all the time.
If I wanted to live that way, I'd still be married to my first husband.
I also think it would be sheer torture to spend eternity with a bunch of people I wouldn't spend time with unless I had to when I as down here.
And, yeah, you might get Mozart's Requiem or some Vivaldi in heaven, but you'd probably also have to listen to christian rock.
Trust me, burning flames eating away at me for all time is preferable to enduring any of that.
Posted by: Aquaria | July 7, 2008 9:27 AM
That was amazing.
Posted by: Kcanadensis | July 7, 2008 9:27 AM
Oh, some atheists do end up converting, I don't doubt. However, all indications are that these are pretty dumb or otherwise silly atheists to start with. Whenever I see someone mention that they used to be an atheist, in addition to checking into what made them think they were atheist, I always have to find out what changed their mind. Sadly, it is always something really lame like Pascal's Wager or a first cause or God of the Gaps lunacy. At that point, I figure, they may or may not have been atheist, but if they were, they were pretty stupid atheists. As such, I don't see their conversion as much of a selling point (so persuasive, we can convert stupid people!).
Then there are those famous atheists who start sounding like deists when they get old, clearly out of a fear of mortality. I don't put a lot of stock in that, either, the almost-on-my-deathbed conversion.
Posted by: Pablo | July 7, 2008 9:27 AM
Re #17,
Oh no! It's Super-Calvinist! More pompous than a college of cardinals! More tedious than a ten-hour sermon! More ludicrous than the doctrine of the Trinity! Run for your sanity!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 7, 2008 9:28 AM
The guys voice sounds like Ed Current, I wonder if it's by him.
Posted by: Lightnin | July 7, 2008 9:30 AM
Oh...maybe I should have waited till the end of the video before commenting. Now I feel like a knob.
Posted by: Lightnin | July 7, 2008 9:33 AM
Jumpin' Jeezus. That's the feckin' god as portrayed in the feckin' bible book, down to a T. Jehovah is an asshole - why can't the religiots see this?
Posted by: Richard Harris | July 7, 2008 9:37 AM
Eddie does it again - hilarious!!
Posted by: Greg | July 7, 2008 9:40 AM
I ask them to define atheist first. That's where the trouble usually starts. A stunning number of people confuse apatheism with atheism. And a disturbing number think atheism is that time when they attended another, probably mainstream, church--i.e., if you're not a True Christian™ you're an atheist.
Posted by: Aquaria | July 7, 2008 9:45 AM
Typical of the Christian sort I get around here is the moment in the video where the god say something like 'According to my all-knowing knowledge you didn't believe in me in life. Why? I need to know.'. Never once parsing that if the god was indeed omniscient, there wouldn't be any need for the dialogue at all. The god could not possibly learn anything it did not already know. That's why I still didn't know at that point of the animation that it wasn't actually a serious (!) attempt at witnessing.
Let me second Pablo's wonderment whenever he phrase "I used to be an atheist" is uttered. Usually I can take it as fair warning that stupidity follows. Actually I'm not sure I can remember an incident in which stupidity did not follow.
Posted by: Ray S. | July 7, 2008 9:48 AM
From the WikiHow article:
"Simply stated, anyone who does NOT say "I believe a god/gods exist," is, by definition, an atheist."
Or, as the recent Pew survey found out, 21% of American atheists claim to believe in god...
Strange people, you Merkins! :oP
Posted by: Gareth | July 7, 2008 9:50 AM
@#11 (Pablo)
Apparently, the article point to the Kalam cosmological argument as 'logic', which states that an actual infinite can not exist, and therefore the universe can also not have existed forever. The irony is, of course, that christians believe that their god DID exist forever.
I have yet to see any argument for religion in general, let alone any specific religion, that can stand up to even basic scrutiny.
Can anyone think of any argument for religion that isn't so fragile?
Posted by: Vidar | July 7, 2008 9:52 AM
I think it's quite fun to watch how all these Christians just don't know anymore what to believe. They all seem kind of completely lost.
You have basically two big opposing trends happening now.
On one side, the fundies who believe in the kind of stuff in that satiric video (unbelievable but they do seem to exist) and on the other side the kind of universalist / spiritualist. It's like a pendulum, and now the pendulum is swinging more towards the universalists / spiritualists.
You see it clearly with people like Oprah who basically give up on the notion of uniqueness of their faith, and pretend that all paths lead to God. With her Church of O and a congregation of 22 million viewers, she does have a huge influence.
"There's this assumption [in Oprah's spirituality] that whatever is really true can be found in many different paths," says Elliot Miller, author of A Crash Course on the New Age Movement (Baker, 1999) and editor in chief of Christian Research Journal. "Out of that, there is an effort to create a contemporary spirituality that is suitable to the postmodern temperament."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/april1/1.38.html?start=6
I think, over the long term, that's where the bigger risk is, all this mish mash of spirituality.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 7, 2008 9:59 AM
You are an insufferable ass.
Posted by: Greg Krehbiel | July 7, 2008 10:00 AM
Who are you referring to?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 7, 2008 10:05 AM
Well, God is an exception, not bound by logic, right?
I pointed this out a couple of months ago: you can't one one hand discuss "proofs" (or "disproof") of God and simultaneously claim God is not bound by logic. Proof is a logical concept.
Posted by: Pablo | July 7, 2008 10:06 AM
Loved that video! Thanks! The conversion article also was hilarious - the most important thing was to be prepared to be converted to an atheist, lol :-)
Posted by: Bjoern Brembs | July 7, 2008 10:07 AM
I think this post is rather unfair; this is the most honest and reasonable articles of the sort I've seen, and promotes intelligent dialogue without polarization. If atheists and theists are ever to discuss the subject, this is exactly the approach that I would approve of. It explicitly says that discussion could convince a theist to become an atheist, and it even endorses friendship despite philosophical differences. I think we can appreciate efforts like this one without actually agreeing with any of the arguments.
Posted by: Caio | July 7, 2008 10:08 AM
Ah, but Aquaria, if you somehow did end up in heaven, you would be perfectly happy to wash yahweh's feet and sing his praises for eternity (or whatever), even if, up until the moment you arrived there, that would have been indistinguishable, to you, from hell.
There is, apparently, mind control involved. Or maybe pheromones. Or they make you watch a hypnotic tv program. Maybe it's some kind of brain slug? Ah, dammit, now I lost track of whether I'm talking about god or Dr. Claw. It's surprisingly easy.
Posted by: Fox1 | July 7, 2008 10:09 AM
This coming from someone who apparently believes that divinely-commanded slaughter can be morally justified.
Posted by: MartinM | July 7, 2008 10:09 AM
You could see these people as the arse-kissing employee who snickers when their boss scolds someone else. In other words, evangelists are the Smithers to God's Mr. Burns.
Posted by: Flea Snobbery | July 7, 2008 10:10 AM
If every path leads to god then god must be death since that is the common lot of us all.
Posted by: tsig | July 7, 2008 10:10 AM
Greg Krehbiel@31,
Consult a good psychiatrist: talking to yourself can be a sign of serious mental disturbance.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 7, 2008 10:10 AM
It came to me reading these comments that, for most folks, the purpose of converting an atheist is not to have him become a theist but a specific brand of Christian.
As an example would the author of the "How to Convert an Atheist" be happy if the atheists eyes would suddenly open, in the metaphysical sense, as he announces "Yes! I have been wrong! There is an afterlife, there is a higher power that I will worship forever - HAIL LORD SATAN!"
(or Ba'al, Loki, Zeus)
Posted by: Woodwose | July 7, 2008 10:10 AM
Vidar, #29
I am not a fan of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, but where is the irony? The argument asserts that anything that begins has a cause. So why is it manifestly ironioc to then assume that God is eternal? Wouldn't the irony, such as were, be if you used Kalam to "prove" God and then claim God was not eternal?
Not that I know of. As Paul wrote (paraphrasing): if we are wrong we are the most foolish and miserable of creatures. That is the very antithesis of a fault-tolerant system. Error means catastrophic failure. Quite fragile indeed.
Posted by: heddle | July 7, 2008 10:11 AM
God knows all, sees all, tells nothing.
Posted by: tsig | July 7, 2008 10:13 AM
Hi 42
Why would Paul know anything more about god than you or me?
Posted by: tsig | July 7, 2008 10:19 AM
Whoa, deja vu.
- Prepare yourself
- Think about your relationship
- Start off casual
- Invite your friend to ...
- Wait
- Be open minded
- Know when to ease up
When I was a teenager, I read an article in one of "those" magazines about "How to get two women into bed at once." I swear this advice came straight from that other article, and they just adjusted a few details.
Kne
Posted by: Kne | July 7, 2008 10:20 AM
Gareth, "Merkins"? You're assuming a lot of playfulness in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkin
Posted by: Tim | July 7, 2008 10:23 AM
LOL, Kne! Now we know it won't work.
Posted by: Pablo | July 7, 2008 10:24 AM
I made it to 0:59 before clicking away. (File under: Not In The Mood.)
"The God of The Bible", as portrayed, has a cross on his
tiaracrown-thingie. A cross. The God of the Old Testamant is promoting Christianity full-time now? I wonder how the "Judeo" part of the "Judeo-Christian tradition" feels about that.Speaking of which: The ethics of the conquest of Canaan.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 7, 2008 10:26 AM
Greg Krehbiel: PZ (who I suspect you were referring to) may well be an insufferable ass. I happen to rather like him, myself, but there you go. Anyway, at least he wouldn't attempt to justify genocide:
Apart from the justification of genocide, you must see the irony in that last paragraph? No? Ah, well.
Posted by: Damian | July 7, 2008 10:27 AM
Is it just me, or does god sound an awful lot like Ben Stein?
...it's all coming together now.
Posted by: Nadine | July 7, 2008 10:34 AM
I realize that this is satire, but this is exactly how it was explained to me as a kid.
Posted by: Oliver | July 7, 2008 10:38 AM
#42, heddle
The irony is that the first basic premise of the kalam cosmological argument is that an actual infinite can not exist, yet the christian god is such an actual infinite, and can therefore, not exist, yet is still the cause of the universe. The argument is in essence, self-foiling.
Read the wikipedia page on the kalam argument here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
It explains things further than I just did.
And now for something completely different:
The site that has the 'how to convert an atheist' article, also has a article on 'how to believe in god' right here: http://www.wikihow.com/Believe-in-God
It explains something about why religious people can be such incredible wackaloons.
Also, a little something that might amuse some people: conservapedia has no article on scrutiny. Apparently, scrutiny does not exist in the mind of a religious fundamentalist.
Posted by: Vidar | July 7, 2008 10:45 AM
Well, Nick. If nothing else, you have to give him a bit of credit for being honest with himself.
Posted by: Capital Dan | July 7, 2008 10:52 AM
Meanwhile, they're spreading the idiotic idea that creationism is patriotic, because -- get this! -- the Founders were all creationists. Now Chuck Norris is babbling about it in WorldNetDaily,: America's founding creationists. I've blogged about it (in my humble way) but this kind of thing needs to be bashed about by lots of others. PZ? You listening?
Posted by: PatrickHenry | July 7, 2008 10:55 AM
#52 Vidar,
I'm no philosopher so I may be wrong, but I think the Kalam Cosmological Argument only states that caused infinites cannot exist. And the precluded "actual infinity" is an infinite chain of causes and effects. Again, this is not inconsistent with the notion of an eternal, uncaused deity. An eternal deity is not an "actual infinity" if I understand that correctly, which perhaps I do not. Maybe some of the many gifted philosophers on this site can comment. I stand by my comment that there is no irony here.
Posted by: heddle | July 7, 2008 10:55 AM
Patrick Henry@54
Hmm, given the zeitgeist of the time, and the constitution they devised, we can reasonably assume they were mostly if not all, racists and sexists; and quite a few were slaveowners. Where is Norris heading with this, I wonder?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 7, 2008 10:59 AM
I was calling the author of the post an insufferable ass. Sorry for the confusion.
If he thinks any progress is made by calling a belief "wacky, nutty, insane, internally inconsistent, and illogical," he's an ignorant ass. And if he thinks showing stupid little videos is the way to portray somebody else's position, he's doubly so.
Those of you who think I was justifying genocide in my post on my blog need to learn to read more carefully.
I've dropped in on this forum from time to time and am consistently impressed with this -- it's mostly inhabited by somewhat angry ideologues who preach to their own choir and flatter themselves that they're so very fair and intelligent.
Keep on fooling yourself.
Posted by: GregK | July 7, 2008 11:01 AM
Capital Dan@53,
True - but you have to be concerned for someone who finds himself insufferable - he might "do something silly" as the euphemism has it.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 7, 2008 11:03 AM
That "how to convert an atheist" site was actually not so bad. Nice and polite. Would that all fundamentalists act this way.
Some of the suggestions are actually pretty reasonable, on the face of it. For some reason, though, they just won't take that one extra, obvious, logical step....
Posted by: amphiox | July 7, 2008 11:05 AM
The truly scary thing is, while this is an obvious satire, each and every argument it makes was actually presented to me by a group of Christians trying to prove to me how their faith is obviously correct. We even had the child molester conversation, it went so far as to have them agree that had Hitler, in the bunker, in the last moments before he died, actually realize he had been evil, etc., etc., and embraced Jesus, he would go to heaven. To these guys, Hitler could be saved, but an atheist (or even agnostic) who had never harmed anyone, helped hundreds or even thousands, but didn't believe in their specific dogma, straight to hell.
Truly an uncomfortable discussion.
Posted by: dogmeatib | July 7, 2008 11:07 AM
Oh yeah, just give a real reason.
You know, guys, you ought to supply the poor saps with an actual real reason for once. Because it would go a long way to destroying atheism altogether if it existed.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 7, 2008 11:07 AM
Those of you who think I was justifying genocide in my post on my blog need to learn to read more carefully.
Those who can readily be interpreted as justifying genocide need to learn to write more clearly.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 7, 2008 11:08 AM
Truth sometimes hurts.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 7, 2008 11:11 AM
For a person who's first comment here was "You are an insufferable ass" to then criticise PZ for posting in a tone that will not lead to progress suggests that person has a remarkable lack of self-awareness. One would be tempted to accuse them of hypocrisy, but I suspect they lack the intellect for that accusation to hold up.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 7, 2008 11:16 AM
#55, heddle
I'm not a philosopher either, so maybe I misunderstood the concept of an 'actual infinite'. I just skimmed over the wiki page of actual infinites (I'll read it more in-depth when I get home from work), so I may still be wrong in my view of an actual infinite.
My understanding of an 'actual infinite' was something that is in some way, well, infinite. aka, having existed forever, or something having infinite size would make something an actual infinite. This would make god an 'actual infinite'.
I'm not sure how an infinite chain of causes and effects would relate to an eternal god, however.
Can anyone enlighten us in our little conversation here?
Posted by: Vidar | July 7, 2008 11:19 AM
I believe hypocrisy requires one to be aware of the deficiencies in one's own position/activity first.
Posted by: amphiox | July 7, 2008 11:19 AM
The "explain why...I need to know" from a supposedly omniscient god had me chuckling too!
I also appreciated the subtle dig at the end about God's inability to heal amputees, which I assume was referencing: http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/
I'll bet whoever writes for that site/blog must be a regular here, no?
Posted by: chgo_liz | July 7, 2008 11:20 AM
GregK said:
But you haven't explained why? It is within the realms of possibility that what you consider to be sensible, rational, sane, consistent, and logical, I consider to be the opposite. And you don't give any reasons why religion is either what you (supposedly) consider it to be, or why it isn't what most people here would consider it to be.
I will grant you that PZ hasn't justified his statement, either, but this is just meant to be a fun post, you know?
And the video is satire. Lighten up, you might like it.
GregK said:
Well, what did you mean by, "you begin to suspect that [...] annihilation was the only practical answer", then? Admittedly, you did go on to say that it was only your perspective, and that there are probably no real answers to this problem, but that doesn't get you off the hook. Why even attempt to answer the problem if you have to justify the annihilation of so many people, regardless of their crimes?
GregK said:
Given that you have already shown yourself to be a rather poor judge, why should we care what you think about a diverse group of people? Once again, you are just making statements, and not really arguing anything.
Posted by: Damian | July 7, 2008 11:24 AM
You showed in the second quote what is wrong with the first one. Of course it's pretty much preaching to the choir. It's a means of rallying the troops, neither profound nor particularly meaningful. But some like it, and it can be entertaining.
The anti-religion posts aren't especially to my taste. Unfortunately for the blog, however, there isn't much happening in countering IDists, etc., so it's moving back more toward stock anti-religious posts. I doubt anyone is really trying for any progress here with them, just a bit of rabble-rousing and entertainment.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 7, 2008 11:30 AM
From the article:
The author ignores the possibility that the atheist may simply not think in those terms at all. If you are steeped in naturalism as I am, you do not wonder "who or what made it all" bur rather "how did it all come about". See? The former has intentionality as a built-in assumption, whereas the other does not (although it does not exclude the possibility).
Thus, the existence of the universe does not seem to me to be in any way evidence for the existence of a creator, since I do not make an immediate unconscious connection between the two. I need evidence for the creator itself before I will accept it, but the evidence is not forthcoming.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | July 7, 2008 11:48 AM
If you want to convert me, you will have to pry my sane brain from it's impervious skull. And even then it will still be impossible from my dead body.
Posted by: Holbach | July 7, 2008 11:58 AM
Great vid, but I see the wikihow.com stuff as less of an argument against religion (it already has enough against it to convince most rational people not to believe) and more as an argument against wikihow.com.
Wikihow.com is a patronizing, mostly useless site, which offers 'how to's on everything, including things that the authors obviously know nothing about. Further, it includes bullshit, like "how to enjoy a movie" - I mean come on, what idiot out there was like 'shit, i've been doing it wrong all this time!'
The only useful articles seem to be directed at homemakers with cooking suggestions and craft ideas for the kids, all of which are easily and freely available elsewhere.
Posted by: Jason | July 7, 2008 12:12 PM
PZ wrote:
Indeed. Thinking there is or isn't something like an abstract notion of god is a rather metaphysical thought that has little personal or political consequences.
But thinking that you know what God thinks and thinking God gives a shit about our sex lives has never struck me as sane. And that does seem to have some negative personal and political consequences.
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 7, 2008 12:22 PM
What nonsense. If there is no life after death then whether someone was a Christian or not is way down the list when measuring the success of someone's life. Many Christians have accomplished great things in their lives even if it turns out their religious faith was just a delusion.
Posted by: tacitus | July 7, 2008 12:24 PM
".....Trying to use logical arguments may not work, as it may have been logical enquiry which originally convinced them to become Atheist......"
In other words you'll have to come up with an illogical reason
Hmmmm....
Lets see, illogical reason.....
Hmmmmmmmmm....
I know......!!!!
INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO2n3GHGK7c
Posted by: Rowan | July 7, 2008 12:27 PM
I've developed this wonderful pill that converts atheist to christianity, but selling it to christians had been hard. Apparently, they don't like the "makes you gay" side effect.
Posted by: Jose | July 7, 2008 12:34 PM
This is a spoof.
The toast comment gave it away.
It's kinda funny.
Posted by: Inky | July 7, 2008 12:39 PM
Pretty good vid on youtube called Christianity to Atheism in less than 5 minutes
Posted by: Tophe | July 7, 2008 1:09 PM
I don't like the "goofy, nutty," meme, primarily because I think one ought to reach atheism (if one starts from elsewhere) through logic, and it is only after you've reached it that "goofy, nutty" becomes obvious.
I much prefer the "illogical," "self-inconsistent" theme or meme.
I think there are two forensic, if not exactly logical, arguments that one can use on oneself or on others one is trying to convert to atheism.
First is that somewhere (I've lost the reference) Eusebius (sp?), an early, pre-biblical, Church Father (Bishop) said that it was ok to lie for Christ. If Eusebius said that, then no one who wants to claim to be a Christian can claim the TRUTH, especially of the Bible, which was put together after Eusebius. The bible was put together by folks who thought it ok to lie for Christ, ergo no part of the bible can be accepted as TRUE without external evidence from non-Christians.
Second, The Roman Catholics, at least, (Anglicans, Lutherans, too??) claim that, since the Church antedates the Bible, the various, changing, changeable, interpretive, etc., etc. "teachings" of the church are superior to anything in the Bible. This point is glossed over by many Christians! Thus the Trinity, the sinlessness of Mary (and perhaps of her mothers on back to Eve), etc., none of which are biblical teachings. One must ask any professed Christian (a) Is there any other source than the Bible that is necessary to faith? (1a) (If yes, what is it or what are they? and why do they qualify?) (1b) (If not, why are you wasting my time when I could be reading the Bible, the ONLY TRUE SOURCE of Christianity?)
Granted, these arguments don't logically establish atheism versus faith, but I'm the sort of atheist who claims "no evidence of gods," rather than "no gods."
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | July 7, 2008 1:11 PM
In the interest of providing full disclosure for Pascal's gamblers, I see a whole series of Wikihow articles in the future:
How to convert a Baha'i to Atheism
How to convert a Baha'i to Buddhism
How to convert a Baha'i to Christianity
How to convert a Baha'i to Confucianism
How to convert a Baha'i to Hinduism
How to convert a Baha'i to Islam
How to convert a Baha'i to Jainism
How to convert a Baha'i to Judaism
How to convert a Baha'i to Shintoism
How to convert a Baha'i to Sikhism
How to convert a Buddhist to Atheism
How to convert a Buddhist to Baha'ism
How to convert a Buddhist to Christianity
How to convert a Buddhist to Confucianism
How to convert a Buddhist to Hinduism
How to convert a Buddhist to Islam
How to convert a Buddhist to Jainism
How to convert a Buddhist to Judaism
How to convert a Buddhist to Shintoism
How to convert a Buddhist to Sikhism
How to convert a Christian to Atheism
How to convert a Christian to Baha'ism
How to convert a Christian to Buddhism
How to convert a Christian to Confucianism
How to convert a Christian to Christianity*
*Includes such favourites as:
-How to convert an Anglican to Orthodoxy
-How to convert an Anglican to Protestantism
-How to convert an Anglican to Roman Catholicism
-How to convert an Orthodox Christian to Anglicanism
-How to convert an Orthodox Christian to Protestantism
-How to convert an Orthodox Christian to Roman Catholicism
-How to convert a Protestant to Anglicanism
-How to convert a Protestant to Orthodoxy
-How to convert a Protestant to Roman Catholicism
-How to convert a Roman Catholic to Anglicanism
-How to convert a Roman Catholic to Orthodoxy
-How to convert a Roman Catholic to Protestantism
How to convert a Christian to Hinduism
How to convert a Christian to Islam
How to convert a Christian to Jainism
How to convert a Christian to Judaism
How to convert a Christian to Shintoism
How to convert a Christian to Sikhism
How to convert a Confucian to Atheism
How to convert a Confucian to Baha'ism
How to convert a Confucian to Buddhism
How to convert a Confucian to Christianity
How to convert a Confucian to Hinduism
How to convert a Confucian to Islam
How to convert a Confucian to Jainism
How to convert a Confucian to Judaism
How to convert a Confucian to Shintoism
How to convert a Confucian to Sikhism
How to convert a Hindu to Atheism
How to convert a Hindu to Baha'ism
How to convert a Hindu to Buddhism
How to convert a Hindu to Christianity
How to convert a Hindu to Confucianism
How to convert a Hindu to Islam
How to convert a Hindu to Jainism
How to convert a Hindu to Judaism
How to convert a Hindu to Shintoism
How to convert a Hindu to Sikhism
How to convert a Jain to Atheism
How to convert a Jain to Baha'ism
How to convert a Jain to Buddhism
How to convert a Jain to Christianity
How to convert a Jain to Confucianism
How to convert a Jain to Hinduism
How to convert a Jain to Islam
How to convert a Jain to Judaism
How to convert a Jain to Shintoism
How to convert a Jain to Sikhism
How to convert a Jew to Atheism
How to convert a Jew to Baha'ism
How to convert a Jew to Buddhism
How to convert a Jew to Christianity
How to convert a Jew to Confucianism
How to convert a Jew to Hinduism
How to convert a Jew to Islam
How to convert a Jew to Jainism
How to convert a Jew to Shintoism
How to convert a Jew to Sikhism
How to convert a Muslim to Atheism
How to convert a Muslim to Baha'ism
How to convert a Muslim to Buddhism
How to convert a Muslim to Christianity
How to convert a Muslim to Confucianism
How to convert a Muslim to Hinduism
How to convert a Muslim to Jainism
How to convert a Muslim to Judaism
How to convert a Muslim to Shintoism
How to convert a Muslim to Sikhism
How to convert a Shintoist to Atheism
How to convert a Shintoist to Baha'ism
How to convert a Shintoist to Buddhism
How to convert a Shintoist to Christianity
How to convert a Shintoist to Confucianism
How to convert a Shintoist to Hinduism
How to convert a Shintoist to Islam
How to convert a Shintoist to Jainism
How to convert a Shintoist to Judaism
How to convert a Shintoist to Sikhism
How to convert a Sikh to Atheism
How to convert a Sikh to Baha'ism
How to convert a Sikh to Buddhism
How to convert a Sikh to Christianity
How to convert a Sikh to Confucianism
How to convert a Sikh to Hinduism
How to convert a Sikh to Islam
How to convert a Sikh to Jainism
How to convert a Sikh to Judaism
How to convert a Sikh to Shintoism
How to convert an Atheist to Baha'ism
How to convert an Atheist to Buddhism
How to convert an Atheist to Christianity
How to convert an Atheist to Confucianism
How to convert an Atheist to Hinduism
How to convert an Atheist to Islam
How to convert an Atheist to Jainism
How to convert an Atheist to Judaism
How to convert an Atheist to Shintoism
How to convert an Atheist to Sikhism
How to convert a(n)....
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 7, 2008 1:22 PM
I just visited GregK's blog (he of #31 & 57) - and it was not pleasant. The guy seems to be delusional about many things - and writes as if he is fair and balanced - but always skeptical about criticism of religion. Seems to be a DI slave.
Maybe he needs some meds?
Posted by: tony | July 7, 2008 1:23 PM
@ Vidar, #65:
I believe that the concept of an "actual" infinity (as opposed to a "potential" infinity) is that an actual infinity actually exists - if I remember my Aristotelian philosophy. Kalam states that this is not possible.
Take into account the Xtian assertion that their god exists, and is infinte, the self-contradiction is readily apparent, if not unexpected.
Posted by: mrchaoss | July 7, 2008 1:27 PM
At first I thought this was a Poe:
It starts with
and then goes into an explanation of how cult inductions work.
#45, It's also similar to the process that is used to recruit people to become spies.
Posted by: qbsmd | July 7, 2008 1:32 PM
#82 mrchaoss,
I have no philosophy training, and you seem to have had some training in "Aristotelian philosophy," but I'll bet dollars to donuts that the concept of an "actual infinity" is a bit more substantive than an infinity that "actually exists."
Your declaration that "the self-contradiction is readily apparent" is based on this premise, that Aristotle mean nothing more than "an actual infinity is one that actually exists," and so I rather suspect that your conslusion is hanging, logically speaking, on a shoogly