skepticdude

One error most of us skeptics make when dealing with Christians is our stubborn belief that consistent wins in the intellectual/historical arguments will wear down Christianity and Christians.

That is a lie. A few people who are far less committed to Jesus than they pretend to be, may be sufficiently impressed with skeptical arguments that they give up the faith, but true believers only welcome such doubts because it "tests" their faith.

People do not ask Jesus into their heart because they examined the evidence and decided that Jesus truly did rise from the dead.

People ask Jesus into their heart because they prioritize emotion above intellect, and because they are gullible enough to believe the "warning" of a preacher or some cartoon "tract", and they decide that being wrong about this choice would be too costly, so they turn to belief.

I wrote a paper some years back on the exact reason or reasons people ask Jesus into their hearts. If you listen to all the stories, that change always takes place because of gullibility.

Since that is all true, us skeptics should realize that, even when a Christian cannot answer our historical/intellectual arguments, their inability to answer does not deter them a single bit. How many times have we heard "God's mysterious ways" to paper over arguments and evidence that contradicts them? Only Christians would say the fossil evidence for evolution was put in the ground by the devil to test Christians and their adherence to biblical inerrancy. Obviously their committment is not to honest discourse but conspiricy and emotion.

How stupid is it really to debate the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon with Mormons, once you find out that their committment to it springs from the burning in their heart, not that books' divine authenticity?

Finally, it is very rare for a generally successful person to become a Christian. People who own a home, raise a family, have good jobs, and generally love life, do not normally become Christians. That's because, even as the bible says, Christianity was designed to appeal to begger, homeless, desperate, and outcasts. The Christianity that attracts people that were and are successful in life, is a far cry from its original form. Christianity was created to fill an emotional need, and generally the only people who have this emotional need are those who have been unable to find fulfillment in "worldly" pursuits such as love, job stability or peace of mind.

If we wish to keep people from becoming Christians, shouldn't we attack the reasons they become Christians? Such as the idea that "my life changed for the better when I accepted Jesus" ?

Anybody have any bright ideas on how a more psychological approach would help us "win souls", given that we all agree that true believers care very little whether they get "stumped"?

Carrier should entertain no fantasies that his good arguments will get through to any true believers, unless he also points out the flaws in their TRUE reasons for believing. The evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is a smokescreen, not the true reason people give in to this stuff.

skepticdude

The first approach I'd recommend is the ridiculousness of the idea that adhereing to some belief will change the way your mind originates thoughts.

If a man with an overabundance of testosterone becomes a Christian, he will either struggle unsuccessfully to rid himself of lustful thoughts toward woman, or will probably be one of those fake "weight-lifter" Christians who break handcuffs in front of cheering teenagers to teach them that the power of the lord is not physical.

The physical basis for a sense of well-being are directly tied to the brain's dopamine and serotinin levels.

If you have adult ADHD, how does your religious outlook help normalize these chemical imbalances?

If a person says their lives were changed for the better after they recieved Jesus, and now they have peace of mind, could it be that they are just very good at suppressing how they really feel, perhaps even from themselves?

The psychological approach would force Christians to realize that their "experience" with Jesus is no more certain than they would think the Mormon's experience was. Self-delusion is everywhere, and "bible believers" are no exception, as manifested by the fact that all bible believers point the finger at each other and cry "heretic".

If everybody else can be sincerely mistaken about their own religious experience, why can't the bible believer also be sincerely mistaken?

show_no_mercy

If the intellectual/historical approach doesn't work, then the only thing left, I feel, is emotional manipulation. Which if used wouldn't make us any better than the street preachers/apologists who use them.

thedistillers

Atheistic evangelism is just as annoying as Christian evangelism. Why don't you worry about your own "soul" instead?

If the intellectual approach doesn't work for some people, c'est la vie :huh:.

kcdad

The only approach that works is to teach them History, Anthropology and Judaism... once they realize that everything they think they know about Jesus is wrong, they can start over.

openlyatheist

Good points in the OP. I think the sad truth is that people adopt religions because they want to be part of a collective.

It is pointless to argue intellectually with people who, deep down, know that losing their religion actually means losing friends and family.

gentleexit

If you consider newer Christian centers and broaden the discussion to include newer cults of "rebirth", it's not true that "getting religion" is the last refuge of the disappointed or inadequate. Colorado Springs and Orange county are hardly tenements. And Mormons et al rank high in education and technical prowess.

That said, I agree that arguing logic with the reborn is wasted (though for many enjoyable) breath. Most are "reborn" to community, not doctrine.

In Europe, it's not unusual to stay where you grew up, your grandfather just down the street, your school his school, your team his too. This sense of community leaves churches empty as wealth grows.

Jump to the US, particularly the west and you see movement, reinvention, new communities with options but no roots. The community center of such new places is "the church", sometimes a mega-one, one that combines can-do, "family-values", self-help, "prosperity doctrines" with just a tinge of old fashioned Church. This has nothing to do with an itinerant Jewish preacher and the ascetic life. "Christ" etc. is just a dress of antiquity for self-hope programs.

So when you meet a "family", "community", "positive", "Christian", let her be. She's not into doctrine or history. She just likes the cookies, the day-care and the career guidance.

Arch

That approach does indeed work. It worked on me when I took a world religions class at university. History is vitally important, as is science, I think the fact that the two almost always agree and that the bible does not fit in very well, is also a wake up call for a lot of people.

Joan of Bark

The intellectual approach only works as a way of putting doubt in the backs of their minds. Eventually the mustard seed might grow into a tree of doubt (and yes, that's a horrible metaphor).

Emotional arguments work faster and better. That's why I like to use TEGA (The Evil God Argument). If the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God exists, he's a monster. Why should we worship a baby-torturing mass murderer? Better to believe he doesn't exist.

(And this thread should be in General Religious Discussions).

Clivedurdle

May I strongly recommend William Lobdell Losing my Religion?

If you want emotional reasons, what about abusing priests being moved away to be missionaries in Alaska...