Dialogue with Christians?

[dystop]

As a former atheist and then later agnostic, I really never encountered many Christians who could at least articulate defenses of their faith.  Then again, I don't think I had any Christian friends until college =)  

Reflecting on my own experience, when I was atheist/agnostic, I never really took the time to even read the Bible or even get a handle on the different denominations and their theology.  Looking back, even if I wasn't intent on becoming Catholic, I think I would definitely value some of the moral teachings that I think most everyone can agree upon.

At the same time, I think it's also important for Christians to understand where non-believers are coming from in terms of the thinkers and writings that have influenced their beliefs.

Any atheists/agnostics out there who have had some positive experiences they can share relating to having open and constructive chats with Christians?

[AlP]

First of all dystop, welcome.

As a former atheist and then later agnostic, I really never encountered many Christians who could at least articulate defenses of their faith. Then again, I don't think I had any Christian friends until college =)

This is interesting. I rarely hear of athiests becoming theists. Would you be comfortable being more specific about why you became a theist? Also, you say that you did not encounter many Christians who could defend their faith. Are you implying that you can?

Reflecting on my own experience, when I was atheist/agnostic, I never really took the time to even read the Bible or even get a handle on the different denominations and their theology.

I can see why some atheists are not interested in reading religious texts. To a particular (justifiable) mindset it is irrelevant. Personally, I find religious writings fascinating. Since arriving at your new standpoint, have you read the religious texts of other religions like the Qur'an? I find them equally fascinating.

Looking back, even if I wasn't intent on becoming Catholic, I think I would definitely value some of the moral teachings that I think most everyone can agree upon.

I live in a society where people who identify as Christian are in the majority. Their ethics are largely compatible with mine. I am grateful for that. But my gratitude is not directed towards any deities. Can you be more specific about what you mean by "I think most everyone can agree upon"? That isn't evident to me.

At the same time, I think it's also important for Christians to understand where non-believers are coming from in terms of the thinkers and writings that have influenced their beliefs.

I may well do that when I am satisfied that your curiosity is sincere. It takes a long time to write a response of that sort. Please be more specific and I hope I can answer your questions.

Any atheists/agnostics out there who have had some positive experiences they can share relating to having open and constructive chats with Christians?

Yes.

[dystop]

Thanks for the welcome and responding!

Lol, I have been attempting to write a response to your first question for about 30 minutes, but I think it would be a unorganized and long mess =P  

As for my statement about not meeting any Christians who could articulate defenses of their faith, I wasn't trying to be condescending or anything.  I just honestly can't recall meeting any Christians who tried to lay out all they believed and why when I was atheist/agnostic.  But as I was making fun of myself in the next sentence, I don't think I made many attempts to seriously discuss Christianity with any Christians I might have known.

To some extent, yes I think I could answer some common questions an atheist/agnostic might ask to a Christian. Of course, when you have a full-time job and you don't keep up with Christian apologetics as much as you used to, it might be harder to give clear, concise answers.  But would I be as well-spoken or understandable as a priest or pastor who has had formal theological training....probably not =)

As for reading other religious texts, much of the ones I read was before I became interested in Christianity.  I read Buddhist scriptures and took a class at college on Islam where we read some fragments from the Qur'an. Lately, since reading through a book on Christians in China, I have been interested in learning more about Confucianism and Taoism.

As for some of the moral teachings I had in mind, I was primarily thinking of charity for the poor and love for one's neighbor.  I would like to think there are many others a majority of people could agree upon, but we'd probably have start looking at some specific passages and then just doing research on polls, etc.

As for the good experiences you have had talking to Christians, would you mind telling me a little more about what you think made the conversation go well?

[LARA]

I think I've definitely learned from my few interactions here with believers, but not usually in a positive way.  Mostly, though I haven't had a lot of conversations with Christians on religion outside of the net.  I tend to shy away from that  because the few conversations I have had involved literal interpretations of the Bible, hell and other aspects of dogma I find deeply offensive and the conversations were meant by the individuals to "save" me or get me to church.  The aspect of religion can make a nice pleasant conversation get ugly very quickly in my personal experience.

My standpoint is that people are completely free to choose a religion or not and dogma and dominionism always eventually works against whatever idea you are trying to promote.  I think if I were to talk to a  Christian about ethics and positive action without any debates on a higher power, things would go much better, but since religion is so absolute, I wonder.

[McQ]

As a former atheist and then later agnostic, I really never encountered many Christians who could at least articulate defenses of their faith.  Then again, I don't think I had any Christian friends until college =)  

Reflecting on my own experience, when I was atheist/agnostic, I never really took the time to even read the Bible or even get a handle on the different denominations and their theology.  Looking back, even if I wasn't intent on becoming Catholic, I think I would definitely value some of the moral teachings that I think most everyone can agree upon.

At the same time, I think it's also important for Christians to understand where non-believers are coming from in terms of the thinkers and writings that have influenced their beliefs.

Any atheists/agnostics out there who have had some positive experiences they can share relating to having open and constructive chats with Christians?

Welcome to the forum, dystop. Glad to have you here. I appreciate the background and introduction.

You're able to bring a unique perspective as a former agnostic turned christian believer. Kind of rare around the forum.  

[AlP]

As for reading other religious texts, much of the ones I read was before I became interested in Christianity. I read Buddhist scriptures and took a class at college on Islam where we read some fragments from the Qur'an. Lately, since reading through a book on Christians in China, I have been interested in learning more about Confucianism and Taoism.

Good for you. I've read some of the Buddhist texts, mostly the rules of conduct for Buddhist monks. I've read parts of the Bible and the Qur'an. My parents did not raise me to have any particular religious views and I find a religious world view quite difficult to understand. I think it's important to understand even if I don't agree because I live among religious people. So as part of trying to better understand it, I have read some religious texts. Personally, I draw from science, mathematics and existentialist philosophy.

As for some of the moral teachings I had in mind, I was primarily thinking of charity for the poor and love for one's neighbor. I would like to think there are many others a majority of people could agree upon, but we'd probably have start looking at some specific passages and then just doing research on polls, etc.

Yeah those are pretty common in both religious and non-religious morality. My own thoughts on morality are that it is relative to the standpoint of the observer. I see that there is no consensus of opinion on what we ought to do (in general, not just on moral issues). Though some people do claim that they know what we ought to do and that anyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong. Evidently, morality does not require religion. Nor does altruism appear to require morality. Nor do morality or religion always result in behavior or consequences that everyone finds agreeable.

As for the good experiences you have had talking to Christians, would you mind telling me a little more about what you think made the conversation go well?

I live among people who are predominantly Christian. Most of my day-to-day conversations are with Christians. I have one Christian roommate and one Jewish roommate. My last girlfriend was Muslim. The one before that was Buddhist. We got along just fine. In talking about religion with religious people my goal is to understand what they believe and why. I try not to force my ideas on people who are not interested though I will be critical of their beliefs if they are open to it.

[Lilbeth]

I once was in a heated debate with a bunch of Christians....and I was in the minority....but I brought up a point to them.....as some of them were hunters.....I said...."If you believe in the Bible..."Thou shall not kill..."....is one of the laws....Does that only apply to where you see fit?....They could not answer....just got angrier with me is all......I am not religious, but would never kill anything ........not in my nature.....and cannot understand it in other's natures...and they call themselves Christians....hmmmmm.....

[dystop]

Thanks again for all the great responses!

LARA, I definitely agree that conversations between a believer and non-believer should be handled delicately. I will be the first to admit that since converting, on occasions I can be provocative and aggressive in starting debates with family members or friends about Christianity.  But looking back, I think one starts to discern which of their family/friends is even open to discussing it, when one should hold their tongue, and making sure to not let emotions get the best of one. So yeah....it's a learning process =)

McQ, thanks for sharing your background!  After converting, I actually first ended up in a Presbyterian Church for 2 years, until feeling called to join the Catholic Church after reading up on their doctrines and theology.  In regards to the disingenuous Christian apologists you mentioned, could you give me an example of one of their arguments you would consider to be misleading/fallacious?  I guess I could describe my disillusionment with some of the philosophies/arguments I had learned about in college in the same way.  The more I started to reflect on how easy it was to use philosophical arguments to rationalize my own moral behavior or just thinking about some of the inane debates that rage in some subject areas of philosophy, the more I wanted to at least hear out and explore Christianity.  By the way, I am not saying that all philosophy is bad =)

AlP, what was your reaction to reading the rules of conduct for Buddhist monks?  I believe the book I had also covered that, but I think I skipped through that portion =P  At that time, I was more interested in just learning about the core teachings.  Yeah, my parents also did not raise me to have any particular religious views, but they were both pretty big book nerds who I think later cultivated a love of learning in me =)  Lol, as a child my Mom didn't read any books to me about Jesus.  In fact, I remember her showing me books that had stories from Roman/Greek mythology =) It's great that you have been proactive in seeking to learn about other religions so that you can better understand and relate to the people around you even if you don't share their views.  Lol, I'll be up front...I suck at math and science.  When I majored in Computer Science, I had to take three levels of Calculus, and for the most part it was like pulling teeth.  As for science, I enjoyed taking a simple freshmen-level class on Biology.  I have atheist/agnostic friends who love telling me about Carl Sagan and this and that, but I just never really had a passion or aptitude for learning about it.

As for existentialism, I took a great pilot class on that in senior year.  I remember we covered Kierkegaard, Sartre, Samuel Beckett, Dostoevsky, Kafka, and Nietzsche. You may notice there are some literary names in that list.  I thought it was cool how the professor said a definition of existentialism was hard to pin down, and that you could also classify some famous writers as existentialist.

Yes, the topic of whether there is a shared objective, morality is an interesting one.  I didn't mean to open a whole can of worms with those statements.  All I was trying to say is that I think a non-believer reading through religious texts such as the Bible wouldn't necessarily find everything so controversial.  For example, if a nonbeliever read Proverbs in the Old Testament, it's pretty much a list of moral maxims one can remember in their daily life.  Kinda like reading Confucius =)

It's great you are able to relate to so many people.  Sorry to keep harping on Philosophy, but I really do think it was one of the best decisions I made in my life.  It really gave me an appreciation of learning about what people believe and why.  As for evangelization, it's similar to how you describe how you approach debates.  In my view, it's sort of analogous to watching a great movie.  If one watches a movie that they absolutely love and it makes them think, they want to go out and tell their family/friends about it.  With Christianity, I feel it's constantly having a profound and positive impact on my life.  And if I wish to share that joy with others, it's ultimately up to them whether they accept it or not.  But as you said, you have to gauge where another person is at. And at this point in my faith, I think it's more about actions than words.  Sure I can try and list some arguments for the existence of God, but I don't necessarily think they're 100% airtight and immune from skepticism.  But I do think nonbelievers might give Christianity another chance if Christians were doing more to radically live out what Jesus says in the Gospels.  I forget where I heard the quote, but it says something like, "Everyone wants to change the world, but nobody wants to change themselves."

[AlP]

AlP, what was your reaction to reading the rules of conduct for Buddhist monks?

My reaction was fascination at how differently they thought and behaved to me. At the time I was investigating how widespread the moral concepts of right and wrong are. I wanted to find out if their rules of conduct were expressed in terms of right and wrong. I wasn't satisfied that I could draw a conclusion. For Buddhist monks and nuns, there is a concept of "ought" and there are consequences when a monk or nun does not do what s/he ought to do, which is called "defeat". The language is certainly different to that used by Christians but whether it is profoundly different I am not yet sure.

As for existentialism, I took a great pilot class on that in senior year. I remember we covered Kierkegaard, Sartre, Samuel Beckett, Dostoevsky, Kafka, and Nietzsche.

I am particularly interested in the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche, Gabriel Marcel and Jean-Paul Sartre, though my world view is not based on any one of their philosophies.

Yes, the topic of whether there is a shared objective, morality is an interesting one. I didn't mean to open a whole can of worms with those statements. All I was trying to say is that I think a non-believer reading through religious texts such as the Bible wouldn't necessarily find everything so controversial. For example, if a nonbeliever read Proverbs in the Old Testament, it's pretty much a list of moral maxims one can remember in their daily life. Kinda like reading Confucius =)

I think many aspects of morality can be objective. It is an objective fact whether someone is presently alive or dead. We can all make use of that fact in deciding moral issues. What we don't have is absolute morality. There is no absolute standard that says it is better for people to be alive than dead or vice-versa. 9/11 is an example where a minority of people might have thought it was moral for people to die. I won't pry the can of worms open any further if you don't want to .

Proverbs and Confucius tell us what we ought to do. When I read an "ought" in philosophy an alarm bell goes off in my head and I become deeply suspicious about how that "ought" is going to be justified. See Hume's Guillotine.

Nietzsche would sometimes slip "oughts" into his writing and I won't defend him for it but I thought it might be interesting to compare Proverbs and Confucius to some of Nietzsche's maxims from Twilight of the Idols.

37 You run ahead? Are you doing it as a shepherd? Or as an exception? A third case would be as a fugitive. First question of conscience.
38 Are you genuine? Or merely an actor? A representative? Or that which is represented? In the end, perhaps you are merely a copy of an actor. Second question of conscience.
40 Are you one who looks on? Or one who lends a hand? Or one who looks away and walks off? Third question of conscience.
41 Do you want to walk along? Or walk ahead? Or walk by yourself? One must know what one wants and that one wants. Fourth question of conscience.

I find these richer than anything in Proverbs or Confucius. I also like that he doesn't claim them to be revelation. My favorite philosophical works are those that, having read them, I know less and feel that much closer to the answer.

[Kodanshi]

I once was in a heated debate with a bunch of Christians....and I was in the minority....but I brought up a point to them.....as some of them were hunters.....I said...."If you believe in the Bible..."Thou shall not kill..."....is one of the laws....Does that only apply to where you see fit?....They could not answer....just got angrier with me is all......I am not religious, but would never kill anything ........not in my nature.....and cannot understand it in other's natures...and they call themselves Christians....hmmmmm.....

I can’t square that with hunting, but in reference to killing other humans, most Christians and Jews I’ve encountered have translated the passage as ‘Thou shalt not MURDER’ â€" so killing in a justified context (war, selfâ€"defence, etc) sits ok with them.

[Lilbeth]

Just to be clear, I was not speaking of people who kill in self defense of someone or something threatening their life...I might, too.......if I had to.......but ok...so this is the problem I always see with The Bible...no, it meant that only in this context...or no, this is what it meant.....not that.....It is too riddled and open for too much interpretation........my idea of someone or many someones being very clever in their wordings......In my opinion....be clear or don't say anything....I get annoyed with riddles......My father said that The Bible is the greatest piece of fiction ever written....OK....murder instead of kill....People still murder animals for the pure fun they get out of it.....and nothing else, and call themselves Christians.....Cheyney was in our area about two years ago to get his deer......Bush loves to hunt....He does not need to hunt to eat.....etc......
Anyway, I had digressed from the thread starter's original question...my apologies...but my answer is Yes, I have had plenty of wonderful conversations with Christians, but never while we were discussing religion....LOL! Kind of sad, really.
and war....I have my feelings here, but won't go there on this forum......my feelings are not favorable about wars.....nuff said.

[Sophus]

Actually, yes I have. A good friend of mine is a pastor. We both appreciate how our friendship came first and then the debating. If it weren't that way it normally would cause a lot of heat. The interesting thing was after every point I would make he would  nod and agree but of course his beliefs never changed. I think he, like most religious folks, gets so wrapped up with his religion serving as his identity that he's not open to change (that and his job depends upon his beliefs). Religion demands you craft ways to justify your beliefs rather than set out to think critically and discover the truth. So while there are a few that I can talk with about their religion usually I just get so frustrated b their close-mindedness.

[Kodanshi]

The interesting thing was after every point I would make he would  nod and agree but of course his beliefs never changed. I think he, like most religious folks, gets so wrapped up with his religion serving as his identity that he's not open to change (that and his job depends upon his beliefs). Religion demands you craft ways to justify your beliefs rather than set out to think critically and discover the truth.

Interesting. It reminds me of a time I spoke (over the phone) to a muslim journalist. She wanted to write a piece of views of Islâm in Britain, which of course includes views from exâ€"muslims. She told me that she had spoken to quite a few exâ€"muslims, and that she found herself agreeing with quite an overwhelming number of their points. Yet somehow it never challenged her own faith or belief.

[McQ]

McQ,... In regards to the disingenuous Christian apologists you mentioned, could you give me an example of one of their arguments you would consider to be misleading/fallacious?  I guess I could describe my disillusionment with some of the philosophies/arguments I had learned about in college in the same way....

Sure. The first and biggest for me was the particular brand of christianity that takes a more literal interpretation of the bible. Call them fundamental, evangelical, hard core, creationists, what have you. There are millions of them in all denominations of christianity from roman catholic to southern baptist. Literal interpretation of the bible by those who have studied it is at least fallacious and disingenuous, and at worst, a form of threatening control over the lives of people that strives to move toward theocracy.

Creation science/ID is the most egregious form of out and out lying willfully in order to frighten, control and manipulate others. To do so in the name of a sacred being (the ultimate trump card if you will) is sickening beyond belief.

Other biblical apologists use the same tactics to bully people into believing their version of the bible. I used to listen to a nationally syndicated radio show years ago, which was all about biblical apologetics. They two guys that hosted it were beyond shame in their outright lying and bullying callers to the program. They would use fallacious philosophical and debate techniques, running the gamut of ad hom attacks to argument from authority (only certain authority, of course) and others.

The more I studied the bible based on their teaching, the more obvious it became that not only were they simply wrong, but that they had to know they were wrong but had fallen into the conundrum of having gone too far with their stance and not being able to back out and admit their errors. That's the shame about religious dogma. There is no room to say, "Oh, you know what? This may not be the right thing." and then revamp your belief system to one based on reality. If you do that, it's no longer faith, and that ruins the whole point of christianity...the belief by faith alone.

Biblical apologists ignored one of christ's main teachings by trying to argue the bible from a scientific standpoint, or as an accurate historical record. John 20:29 - Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." Simply put, being an apologist means you are starting from a non-biblical tenet and everything that follows is just a series of compounding errors.

Hope that helps explain at least in part, what I mean.