Happy Atheist Forum

First off I apologize if this is already somewhere in the archives.  I searched for Preaching in our search feature and as you'd expect I had 52 pages that included the word preaching.  So I did a few ctrl +f searches and didn't see anything.  So if I missed it I apologize.

Why is it that people think preaching is an effective tool to show the validity of their world view?  Looking through a few somewhat recent posts has me thinking about this.  Why is it that they resort to preaching instead of presenting evidence to support their claim (yes I know they have no evidence but lets ignore that tidbit for a while)?  

When I hear preaching it always feels like the preacher has shut down all of their logic and critical thinking skills and is just regurgitating what they've heard in the past.  I don't ever see  a shred of credibility or genuine thought put forward.  I just hear the same incoherent and contradictory messages of love, hate with blatant and willing stupidity that entangles these people on a daily basis.  When someone preaches it is typically with a sense of undeserved superiority and loudness as if they are some authority figure on a subject and all should follow exactly what they say.

Now thats just in real life.  When I'm on the internet and see someone preaching I think even less of the person.  When I see someone preaching I typically think they are a copy/paste troll.  They have no interest in examining their beliefs just in shouting them as loudly as possible.  I typically see them as prepubescent children whose family is hyper-religious and is following in their footsteps.  They take it upon themselves to convert the heathens but when questioned on their beliefs (even for clarity purposes) they disappear to another corner of the internet to avoid thinking.

Now when someone preaches their message they start off at this disadvantage.  People like me (and I doubt i'm alone here) think little of them.  Just their presence makes it difficult for me to take them seriously.  Those of us who are willing to listen to them now have to be convinced of the validity of their claim.  How do these people show that their claims are valid?  Oh thats right they just repeat what they've heard their leaders regurgitate over the years.  Typically the messages are one of about three.  There is the argument from guilt (our deity made you and loves you how can you not even acknowledge his existence).  Then the argument from punishment (ignore everything you've ever known and drop to your knees or suffer the consequences).  And finally an argument from prophecy (Look how our book predicted these events [Christian] or Look how our book explains science we just didn't understand it until scientists discovered it and we attributed it to our book [Muslims]).  All of these are flawed and have been beaten to death in other threads so I won't go into detail here.  Let's just say we remain unconvinced of the messages after the preaching.

So once preaching fails why keep doing it?  It is unconvincing so why do they keep at it?  Could it be because they want to earn brownie points with their deity?  Or is it possible that they have deluded themselves so much to see that it doesn't work?  Or is preaching just made for believers and they have no idea what to do to convince atheists or they just don't want to?  What do you all think of preaching?  Besides it being annoying .

Oh and one last note.  Every time i've ever asked a believer/preacher is this the reason why you believe in your deity/religion I always get the same response ... no this isn't why I believe.  To which I ask why do you think this will convince me then if it didn't convince you?  Never get a good answer.

Preaching to atheists:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages53.fotki.com%2Fv439%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F2rvy1sn-vi.gif&hash=501fedf78dc413499942b585dceb3418f5fc3116)

Lots of effort; gets you nowhere.

Typically, that sort of preaching does not appeal on an intellectual level, people like WLC at least have a stab at using logic, most preachers just blurt it out there. While the latter approach is very unlikely to win over the educated, experienced and self assured atheists found here, to a young child of 4 or 5, or someone who has just lost their parents, the message hits home, and hits home hard. They are desperate for comfort, the message promises them that, a better life.

When people come here, quoting bible verses and the like, they are probably not very experienced in how this whole thing works. They have never undergone a critical self examination with regards to their faith, so do not put across their claims in a logically rigorous way, not realising, that for people like us, we require hard evidence.

So, the reason preaching exists, is because it works on the vulnerable, but the reason they try it here, is because they aren't too smart.

There are theists, who believe that each verse in their holy book has magical attributes, because it was written by their deity. With other word they are casting spells to us, in the believe that these spells are powerful enough to convert our minds. Some time ago I read an article about a Christian group that claimed a 100% success rate for converting atheists back to Christianity. All the atheist had to do was to repeat a "God inspired" text 10 times.

Quote from: "Tom62"There are theists, who believe that each verse in their holy book has magical attributes, because it was written by their deity. With other word they are casting spells to us, in the believe that these spells are powerful enough to convert our minds. Some time ago I read an article about a Christian group that claimed a 100% success rate for converting atheists back to Christianity. All the atheist had to do was to repeat a "God inspired" text 10 times.

And I thought there was hope for the human race -_-.  I bet these theists are blatantly lying when they say they have a 100% success rate.  Those who don't convert they find a way to exclude them from the rules.

If they did have a 100% success rate, we would be screwed.

I want to read one of these texts ten times, then email them and tell them they're all lying. Just to prove a point.

Quote from: "Tom62"Some time ago I read an article about a Christian group that claimed a 100% success rate for converting atheists back to Christianity. All the atheist had to do was to repeat a "God inspired" text 10 times.

This sounds sinister to me.  I'd like to know what criteria, if any, was used to decide who might be a good candidate for 'conversion?'  Is it like a Logan's Run thing where the jewel in your hand goes clear or what?

The point is, you can't prove a point to them. It wouldn't surprise me to learn this method had a 100% failure rate. Actually, it would surprise me to learn otherwise. Not that there has never been a case of an atheist converting, but...When that happens, it's only slightly less alarming to me than it would be if a modern human were to give birth to a baby Neanderthal.

The main reason is probably because they think everyone thinks like them, and are simply naive with regards to atheism.  I highly doubt that any preacher is trying to secure a "+1 upgrade for heaven."

Quote from: "SSY"If they did have a 100% success rate, we would be screwed.

It would also mean god is dangerously close to being real...

I have a religious guy who keeps messaging me on twitter and now he's moved on to my blog.  What he's doing isn't the same thing as just straight preaching at me, but his messages are peppered with comments about how I'm lost and Jesus died for me and all that nonsense.  It seems to me like this guy has very little understanding about atheists and the information he does have seems to be either false or somewhat true but tragically skewed.  

I feel like the guy is more having a conversation with himself where he's reaffirming his own conviction rather than actually talking to me, like every response I give him is a test of his faith and so he responds passionately and with religious devotion but with little reason or logic.  I can only really speculate as to what he's getting out of it, actually, but he seems to understand that I'm not getting anything out of it and he's not showing any indication of wanting to stop.

Makes me think that arguing about belief with a non-believer is a kind of proof of devotion through dedication to a pointless endeavor.

or pinkocommie perhaps its to reaffirm ones own belief. some would say you dont really grasp a concept or learn something until you teach it to someone else. so hearing it is just absorption, telling it to someone who believes is just repeating the message, but explaining it to someone who doesnt believe may be challenging. one has to break things down and really explain.
i would imagine that fundies who come one this website and projectile vomit allah, or i mean their god actually take something out of it. even if we laugh them off. they get to defend their faith and explain to a non believer how great their god is.

of course there is always the ego to. i think thats 90% of it honestly.

QuoteWhy is it that people think preaching is an effective tool to show the validity of their world view?

Why do any of us try to persuade others of our world view, whatever it may be?   Speaking of evidence and such, I see little evidence anybody ever persuades anybody of much of anything.   And often, usually, the harder we try to persuade, the behinder we get.

And yet, the persuasion experience has a pull on us, doesn't it?

My latest theory is that philosophical conversations have a value if they're fun in the moment.   The idea that we're accomplishing something larger than that may be mostly illusion.

That said, fun in the moment is good!

typist...conversations and philosophical discussions aren't preaching, they are simply an exchange of ideas.  Preaching is spouting off your particular belief set without providing a reasoned defense of that belief.  For instance, claiming that the bible is true and/or God is real by quoting the bible.

If simply exchanging ideas were preaching I'd have to ban every single member from this forum because preaching is against the rules  

Hi Whitney,

I understand.   I'm not quarreling with your definition of preaching, as a specifically religious procedure.  

To me, the concept of persuasion is more interesting, because it includes most forum users.   If we discuss our own persuasion, then we are talking about something we could do something about, if we chose to.   As example:

QuotePreaching is spouting off your particular belief set without providing a reasoned defense of that belief.

Lack of evidence of God is often used as a reasoned defense of the belief there is no God.   Stating this position is not judged to be preaching, but just "an exchange of ideas".

But where is the evidence that a lack of evidence proves anything?   Only 100 years ago we lacked evidence for 99% of the universe.  Did that prove that that 99% of the universe didn't exist?  Or did that lack of evidence prove nothing much beyond the extent of our ignorance?

As I see it, those who are adamant on both sides of the God question are making their proclamations based on a lack of evidence.  Both are thus preaching, or persuading, whatever we want to call it.   Whatever label fits best, both sides are doing it.

You seem to have missed some subtlety in the definitions we use here.

It does not matter what the professed belief is, as long as they back it up, and listen to critique on their ideas. If someone came along and outlined why the believe in god, and then discussed with us the evidence, we would not label it preaching. If an atheist came in, claimed no believe in god, and when presented with evidence simply said "lol!!!111 Th4Ts Sto0p1D!!!111oneone 0NlY NoO85 BElE1vE iN God!!!!11111oneoneoneeleven" therein refusing to defend the position, they would be preaching.

Also, you seem to have misunderstood the basics of evidence as well. Are you willing to seriously consider the possibility of everything that has not been conclusively disproved?

Quote from: "SSY"Also, you seem to have misunderstood the basics of evidence as well. Are you willing to seriously consider the possibility of everything that has not been conclusively disproved?

Hi SSY,

In regards to atheism/theism, the proposal under consideration is the concept God, proposed to be the creator and/or manager of all of reality.

If we feel that science will likely continue to develop new knowledge at an ever increasing rate for maybe thousands of years, upon what logical basis can the God concept currently be disproved?  Can we disprove something if we lack 95% of the data?

Surely each of us is entitled to our own personal inclinations, and have every right to share our perspective.   As this sharing becomes more adamant, on either side of the question, it seems to become ever more fairly labeled preaching, given how little data all of us currently have.  

Imho...