Experiences with nonbelievers

[Reactionary]

OK, I've been thinking recently about this... Let's say that you meet someone new. And this person seems interesting at first - you find common topics to discuss, he/she seems to be easygoing, cheerful, insightful etc... You start to think that you may have found a potential friend, and then suddenly... the topic somehow reaches religion, and you find that this person has a hostile attitude towards Christianity and/or religion in general. In fact, all the positive traits that you had seen in this person suddenly vaporize, and you see another ones - derogation... mockery... even aggressiveness. You're (negatively) surprised and ask yourself where those emotions came from - you didn't believe this person possessed them.

Has this ever happened to anyone of you? Because to me, it has. In fact, very few nonbelievers that I've met have respect for my beliefs, although I never initiate philosophical/religious topics when I talk to them, nor do I try to convert them.

What do you think are the causes of such behaviour? How to deal with them? What are your experiences with nonbelievers?
Thank you.

[MarcusOfLycia]

I've had that experience, too. It is sad to say, but I think the mockery and aggressiveness is more closely tied with people's characters than the other things that we can have in common. Our worldviews define us, not our interests... and if our worldview involves the mockery of those that don't share it, it speaks of some pretty nasty things going on inside.

I say this because I used to do the same to people who didn't share my worldview back in high school and early college (six-seven years ago was the worst). I lost more friends than I made and I didn't know why. It's one thing to be blunt once in a while, but I took it to an extreme. I can see it in others and it just saddens me now.

[jlay]

Uhhhh,
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in heavenly places. (Eph. 6:12)

Everyone is a spiritual being. Those attitudes are at the core, evidence of that truth. Not to say that people don't have genuine reasons, or emotional scars. They can and do. But ALL OF THOSE are opportunities. That is why we need to care enought to ask questions. For example: "I never knew you felt that way. I'm genuinely interested, what led you to decide that?" Let em talk.

Then you can ask them, "Have you considered.....?" "Can I share with you some of my experiences?"

[Reactionary]

I've had that experience, too. It is sad to say, but I think the mockery and aggressiveness is more closely tied with people's characters than the other things that we can have in common. Our worldviews define us, not our interests... and if our worldview involves the mockery of those that don't share it, it speaks of some pretty nasty things going on inside.

Well, to be honest, I can't remember the last time I've seen Christians attacking atheists in a pack, but I've often seen the opposite situation, unfortunately. Regardless of that, Christians are often labelled as the ones who are intolerant. But we already know that, what I wanted to say is -

I live in a society that may be described as post-Communist. During the former regime, state atheism was promoted, yet Christians (a majority), despite being discriminated, remained organized. When Communism fell, and we finally got the freedom of religion, a wave of religious zeal occurred, even more fueled by the war (of course, when death is close to you, that you often think about the big questions of life). However, during the 2000s, as we've opened to the West, another thing occurred, perhaps as a reaction to previous events, or a will to become "Westernised". Atheism has started to become a fad, something progressive, and Christianity started to be labelled as a backward delusion followed by the uneducated. I guess it's some kind of a social phenomenon.

Uhhhh,
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in heavenly places. (Eph. 6:12)

Everyone is a spiritual being. Those attitudes are at the core, evidence of that truth. Not to say that people don't have genuine reasons, or emotional scars. They can and do. But ALL OF THOSE are opportunities. That is why we need to care enought to ask questions. For example: "I never knew you felt that way. I'm genuinely interested, what led you to decide that?" Let em talk.

Then you can ask them, "Have you considered.....?" "Can I share with you some of my experiences?"

Thanks for the quote. I guess the approach you mentioned is the best - I definitely think that we must always remain calm and polite, even when confronted with insults and mockery. It's not easy, but it's worth it.

Regarding emotional scars, well, I'll add up to what I responded to Marcus - in my country, a majority of people were raised in a Christian family, even those who nowadays proclaim themselves as atheists. Now, the question is, whether they were confronted with something that alienated them from Christianity - maybe the priest at their church held hypocritical sermons, maybe they were forced to go to church as kids, who knows...

Some of them reply that they studied philosophy and religion, but they finally concluded that they couldn't identify themselves with religion, or that it was false. How objective can such a conclusion be, is questionable, but it would be futile to start guessing. I'll definitely ask for good reasons next time I find myself in such a discussion.

Thank you for your replies.

[Canuckster1127]

MIght be coming from another direction but I've had something of the opposite experience (although certainly not exclusively so.)

As part of my hobby of reading and book reviewing (which I've been lax on and need to catch up) over time I've risen to the higher levels within Amazon in the US (where I live) and Canada (where I was born.) When I reached a certain level I was invited to participate on a community forum with other high rated reviewers. As you can imagine we come from very different backgrounds. A constant area of discussion included science and evolution and I was pretty much the only creationist who was a part.

I took a lot of heat from some, but over time most (not all) came to respect that I was not a fanatic and that I could hold my own in conversations. One of the better friends I came out with, who we've gotten together a few times to do things, is someone who grew up in a fundamentalist home and since has rejected Christ and the faith he was raised in. He's not an agressive new atheist and in some ways he's more of an agnostic, but we just clicked on certain levels and agreed to disagree on others but with a measure of mutual respect. He's told me several times that he wishes he could muster the faith to return to some form of faith but he can't quite get there yet. It's between him and God but I like to believe that the friendship we've developed (which includes sports, occassionally seeing each other at book reviewing community events, and continued association through facebook might prove instumental in some way to bring him to that point. But even though there's some limit to how deep the friendship can go in some areas it's not about me trying to proselytize him in every conversation. I just leave it to when it comes up in the normal flow of things and it doesn come up at times.

That's the most prominent experience for me and it's ongoing. I have several others that I've met in that way too and over time there's some level of mutual respect that develops and things aren't forced or artificial.

[Reactionary]

MIght be coming from another direction but I've had something of the opposite experience (although certainly not exclusively so.)

As part of my hobby of reading and book reviewing (which I've been lax on and need to catch up) over time I've risen to the higher levels within Amazon in the US (where I live) and Canada (where I was born.) When I reached a certain level I was invited to participate on a community forum with other high rated reviewers. As you can imagine we come from very different backgrounds. A constant area of discussion included science and evolution and I was pretty much the only creationist who was a part.

I took a lot of heat from some, but over time most (not all) came to respect that I was not a fanatic and that I could hold my own in conversations. One of the better friends I came out with, who we've gotten together a few times to do things, is someone who grew up in a fundamentalist home and since has rejected Christ and the faith he was raised in. He's not an agressive new atheist and in some ways he's more of an agnostic, but we just clicked on certain levels and agreed to disagree on others but with a measure of mutual respect. He's told me several times that he wishes he could muster the faith to return to some form of faith but he can't quite get there yet. It's between him and God but I like to believe that the friendship we've developed (which includes sports, occassionally seeing each other at book reviewing community events, and continued association through facebook might prove instumental in some way to bring him to that point. But even though there's some limit to how deep the friendship can go in some areas it's not about me trying to proselytize him in every conversation. I just leave it to when it comes up in the normal flow of things and it doesn come up at times.

That's the most prominent experience for me and it's ongoing. I have several others that I've met in that way too and over time there's some level of mutual respect that develops and things aren't forced or artificial.

I understand. I'm glad to read that there are forums in which debates that involve religious topics, can be led in an intellectual, respectful manner. Your friend is an example of what happens when one is raised in an excessively strict home - I've come across several such people, and I believe that there is hope for them to return to the right path. They just need someone like you've been in this example, to help them see certain facts, and then, as you said, it's between them and God onward.

EDIT: I'll just add that our experiences may differ, as we live in somewhat different societies.

[Danieltwotwenty]

My experience of talking to atheists is a bit of a mixed bag, I have had both negative and positive responses.
The negative responses seem to be like others have said from an experience with the church or religion that slanted their view into a negative light.
I have also had some good experiences with atheists, some close friends of mine are genuinely interested in what I believe and without mocking they ask genuine questions as I do of them.
I think this comes down to three things; personality type, past experience and spiritual influences and I have found that once I have seen their reaction I can then gauge on how to proceed with options; drop the subject like a hot potato, continue but with caution, or open and honest.
I also find it more productive like others have said to let them engage the subject first and let them talk and then ask them questions.
Where I fail is when it comes to my wife, I can't gauge the response as there are underlying issues that are at play which has an impact on the conversation also, we seem to have come to an understanding but it is still a work in progress.


Dan

[domokunrox]

I encounter a load of non believers. Its trendy these days to repeat the same nonsense over and over again from atheists or agnostics as if it was a well made argument against Christianity.

In my experience, it is 95% of the time an emotional problem and 95% of them claim its an intellectual problem. So, you always have to take a steady approach to how to respond to hostility to Christianity before you begin any sort of apologetics.

I usually start off with
"So, I am curious here. Do you hate Christians? Or hate Christianity? Or do you not believe it for varying reasons?"

They typically have no problem giving you all the run of the mill answers.

Sometimes you do get people who cite some kind of scientific evidence. But that's when you flip the switch to full on philosophy apologetics. You really need to drive it home that science cannot explain how the universe came into existence. They usually concede when you present the kalam cosmological argument if you present it correctly and spot all the fallacies they commit when trying to back out of it.

Its at this point where the discussion either turns into the chance or design, and it gets interesting there. One bit of advice though, don't let them off the hook for every single presupposition they have. You have to really drive it home that science has to be believed as true in order to be done. There is pretty much nothing they can do but concede that its not rational or right to conclude anything by science if you point out every single naturalist fallacy they commit.

Its all this point where you need to have some compelling arguments, and if there is anything I suggest. I would tell you guys to try out John lennox's arguments on intelligent design. I have had the most success with his and not so much with WLC's stuff.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I sort of take the opposite approach to you Dom, I try to become friends first; build a relationship and proceed from there.
I have always struggled with the idea of evangelism mainly because I suck at it and I find it counter productive when I attack their beliefs head on.
I think one ingredient that we sometimes miss is the love, if we love our enemy even when they are kicking us we can lead by example.
I think evangelism takes many forms, sometimes it is helping someone who is in need or even just providing an ear to listen but then some people just need to be told how it is and to wake up and smell the roses.


Dan

[Reactionary]

There is pretty much nothing they can do but concede that its not rational or right to conclude anything by science if you point out every single naturalist fallacy they commit.

Thanks Dom, for your answer and suggestions. I'd just like to ask, what is the best way to tear down the naturalist system of thinking - for instance, to respond to the statement that 'knowledge' is material, and stored in our brain? I know that there was a flaw in this, I just can't remember the best way to formulate the argument...?

I sort of take the opposite approach to you Dom, I try to become friends first; build a relationship and proceed from there.
I have always struggled with the idea of evangelism mainly because I suck at it and I find it counter productive when I attack their beliefs head on.
I think one ingredient that we sometimes miss is the love, if we love our enemy even when they are kicking us we can lead by example.
I think evangelism takes many forms, sometimes it is helping someone who is in need or even just providing an ear to listen but then some people just need to be told how it is and to wake up and smell the roses.


Dan

Well, I think it depends on your personality. It's good that you mentioned this, because when I debate, I usually think about how to win it, instead of how efficient my role has been in this person's spiritual path. A mistake by me.

But anyway, I've noticed that I often give an impression of being cold and impersonal, because I focus more on the facts than on the person. So when I debate on forums (where I'm usually outnumbered as a Christian), I often take a slightly aggressive stance, trying to put the atheist in the position that they have to defend their worldview, instead of me defending mine. Because frankly, I'm growing fed up with refuting prejudices about Christianity, and instead I look to hear/read why atheism is a better alternative. I never insult, nor use any other unfair tactic, in spite of them often being used against me (although I'm sometimes tempted to use them as well, but I resist). However, I do agree that in debates, we need to show love for our opponents, we need to show that we debate because we genuinely care about them, not for propagandistic reasons.

[domokunrox]

Wait, what naturalists are telling you that knowledge is material? That's not naturalist at all. They might as well admit they can cast fireballs out of their hands when they yell hadoken, lol.

That's really odd. Its a fatal flaw there to say knowledge is material in our brains. How does one conclude that? Its just so far out.

The best way to go about talking to the naturalist is to ask how the universe is ordered and has evidence of intelligence and power.

The answer should be that "we don't have the answer, we're doing the science right now to find out"

The answer back should be, well, you don't have an answer, so why is it rational or right to believe something that hasn't constitituded itself as knowledge with underlying assumptions that what you are observing isn't going to change tomorrow? Or the next day? Next year? You can never know it by scientific method. Can I suggest we move onto a philosophical observation and proof based on our impressions of reality?

[Canuckster1127]

A lot of times relating with unbelievers has to do a lot with our attitude. When people get the impression that we're proselytizing and that people are just another spiritual scalp for us to take, they turn off and it reinforces their impression of religious people as uncaring and manipulative. When people know that we love them and care about them first just as they are then often times they're more willing to consider what we have to say in other areas. The thing is, that's how God is toward us. He loved us first, just as we are before we make any changes. Christ died for sinners, not good religious people. What is more, Christ died for us while were still sinners and enemies of Him and God.

[Rob]

A lot of times relating with unbelievers has to do a lot with our attitude. When people get the impression that we're proselytizing and that people are just another spiritual scalp for us to take, they turn off and it reinforces their impression of religious people as uncaring and manipulative. When people know that we love them and care about them first just as they are then often times they're more willing to consider what we have to say in other areas. The thing is, that's how God is toward us. He loved us first, just as we are before we make any changes. Christ died for sinners, not good religious people. What is more, Christ died for us while were still sinners and enemies of Him and God.

Excellent post.

[Reactionary]

Wait, what naturalists are telling you that knowledge is material? That's not naturalist at all. They might as well admit they can cast fireballs out of their hands when they yell hadoken, lol.

That's really odd. Its a fatal flaw there to say knowledge is material in our brains. How does one conclude that? Its just so far out.

Well, I received such an answer once - that it was stored in the brain tissue as a result of electric discharges caused by our senses, if I remember it right.

You seem surprised - well, how do naturalists usually respond to the problem of knowledge? "If our thoughts are result of brain chemistry, how can we determine which of us is right, and how anyone can be right in the first place? How can we trust our thoughts to be true?" -that was my objection, how do they respond?

A lot of times relating with unbelievers has to do a lot with our attitude. When people get the impression that we're proselytizing and that people are just another spiritual scalp for us to take, they turn off and it reinforces their impression of religious people as uncaring and manipulative. When people know that we love them and care about them first just as they are then often times they're more willing to consider what we have to say in other areas. The thing is, that's how God is toward us. He loved us first, just as we are before we make any changes. Christ died for sinners, not good religious people. What is more, Christ died for us while were still sinners and enemies of Him and God.

Excellent post.

Indeed so.

[domokunrox]

Oh, I get what you're saying now.

You are heading in the right direction there. The objection I would put up would be of the similar type. Like, how can you confirm your memory is working correctly? How do you know you aren't viewing a completely different reality from everyone else? How do you know your education background has a correct view of reality? How would they know they are not mistaken? How would they confirm they are speaking in a language that can be understood? How would they confirm the communication they receive means anything?

You have to really hit hard that they are blindly believing something in order gain knowledge about something that is "random" or by "chance".

If everything happened by random or chance, you can't use science to confirm anything as knowledge because that knowledge could be randomly wrong or by chance wrong.

You have to come at the angle that there has to be intelligence or authorship in EVERYTHING.

I once had a guy say that everything that can be known can be reduced to chemicals. Obviously, he was a chemist major. So, I challenged him. I told him I love reduction. We can take a big problem, break them down into smaller problems, and we'll get insight into the big picture. So let's talk about DNA. He was glad to discuss it. So, I asked him for his chemistry book and let's take a look at what knowledge we can find there.

So I opened it, and immediately I told him, we got a problem. There are these symbols and they mean something. They are ordered in a very specific way, can you explain to me what it means in the terms of chemicals on this paper?

He couldn't say anything.

So I took the book, closed it. So this thing here has thousands of these symbols to tell you something by random about something else that has millions of symbolic chemicals that just so happened to be ordered in random way and our existence is the result? And somehow we can conclude that what we have can be safely called scientific fact and true and there was nothing intelligent behind any of it?

This fellow was an atheist, but he was an agnostic after that. Sometimes, this is enough to get people to really think more about what they believe is knowledge. Tho, I agree with you guys that it does take the right personality to talk about these matters. I think it makes it easier if we prepare ourselves for these discussions. It takes practice for sure and yes creating relationships does help. You do need to have the right attitude. I like Bart's post.