kcdad

I always wondered why Jews teach their children Hebrew in order for them to read their own scriptures, while Christians are spoon fed everything... how is it any different to give them translated scriptures, then to give them scriptures in Latin and tell them what they mean?

storytime

I agree, this is the best approach, getting to the "root" of the problem and elements of Jesus in his Judaism.

skepticdude

Incorrect, we skeptics may assume the role of the psychologist, and the Christians are the battered wives that don't wanna give up on their deadbeat abusive husband in spite of the abuse.

Such counseling works all the time, and does not involve emotional manipulation.

No, it isn't perfect, but lack of perfection plagues everything and thus consitutes no barrier to utilization.

skepticdude

Ok, then I was addressing skeptics who care more for other human beings than you do.

skepticdude

You did not answer my observation, that true believers just don't care if you prove them wrong.

How do you approach a Christian who views any and all evidence that Christianity is fake, as a "test" from the devil, allowed by God, to sharpen them to be even more resilient in the fight against the powers of darkness?

The same way you approach Mormons, whose basis for belief in the book obviously has nothing to do with its archaeological confirmation (non-existant). How then do they still believe it? Because of the burning in their hearts.

You have not suggested how an atheist should speak with a "true believer" whose reasons for believing are entirely separate from apologetics.

skepticdude

But i said later in the same post that the Christianity of today is a far cry from the original, which was designed to appeal to beggers and homeless and stupid, etc.

Furthermore, the "new" versions of Christianity, for example, the prosperity gospel and the Casey Treat utter bullshit, are little more than weekly pep rallys. People are not coming to these "new life" centers because they dedicated a year or so of their life to examining apologetic arguments for Jesus' bodily resurrection from the dead, and concluded that skepticism is unwarranted...

...they go there to join with friends in a common cause, fulfilling evolution's purpose for group survival. Pick any random member of Casey Treat's church....they couldn't refute skeptical arguments to save their lives. Their purpose for believing is NOT intellectual, but emotional.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I agree with you that most of today's Christians are in it for the benefits, and Christianity would lose several billion members if they were convinced that "take up your cross" means something more sacrificial than loaning the neighbor a cup of sugar.

However rooted in our genes the religious drive may be, I still see it as counter-productive, because Christianity will continue to hammer against critical thinking as long as its adherents continue to make Jesus the "Lord" of their life. Mankind has a better chance of long-term survival if they give up the fairy tales and use their brains for the betterment of society.

skepticdude

Then you are still refuted by my OP, where I pointed out that historical facts are not the reason most Christians become or stay faithful.

That being the case, they can hardly care whether you can prove that Jesus never intended the Gentile mission to exist, or that his predictions of a 2nd coming failed.

Your current ability to draw Christians out of Christianity ceases when they tell you "arguments go on forever, but the Lord reigns."

The main reason most Mormons remain unphased by attacks on the Book of Mormon's archaeological claims is because the reliability of that book is not what caused them to be a Mormon.

If you wish to deconvert Mormons, you must instead attack the TRUE reason they became Mormons....that "burning in the bosom".

The same goes for Christians. Yes, some Christians are impressed enough with skeptical arguments to quit the faith. But you must first explain why most Christians simply don't care about refutations of their faith, and then you will see what really drives their desire to serve Jesus, and you may then attack more efficiently.

Doesn't do you a lot of good to respond to bb-guns with your .357 Magnum, if you ain't pointing it in the right direction, eh?

bacht

Another approach is encouraging believers to really explore their tradition. A Christian who actually takes the trouble to study their Bible and know what's in it, and consult reliable commentaries etc may end up disappointed by the inaccuracies and inconsistencies.

For me my ticket out was the realization that most of the people around me in the Evangelical world didn't really follow the rules of Christian life, and didn't exhibit the "fruits of the spirit" much more than the average non-Christian.

A person with serous emotional problems may simply move on to some other fringe group. When a house has been "swept clean" of evil influence then other influences may enter and reside...

Elijah

I think maybe being a little more direct in what you are trying to accomplish would probably be the most helpful. If you are trying to reform religion of certain unwanted aspects like supernaturalism or its authoritative aspects then it’s probably best to do that from within the system. If you are wanting to get rid of all religions in some type of conformity breeds peace angle then that’s what you should be pitching to them.

andrewcriddle

The UK at least is definitely not a country of stable community in this sense.
I agree that the Western USA does have unusually high geographical mobility but IIUC it is somewhat less religious than other (more settled) parts of the USA.

Andrew Criddle