How not to start a conversation with a skeptic...I think

[Simon Moon]

---

I got a PM from someone who had some frankly very immature ideas about how to open a dialogue with someone about their faith and the other's skepticism. Let me start with a list of some things I think are critical for theists to understand before they open their mouths with the intention of trying to convert someone or, at the very least, convince them that faith isn't the worst thing to befall humanity since pathogens. This may be just my own opinion and I'd really like to hear what other atheists and/or skeptics think, if you agree, vehemently disagree, and of course, why or why not, since we should theoretically like justifying beliefs, right? I'm going to frame it as a letter to a theist, even though I doubt any of them would care to read it. I've got something of a reputation, apparently.

Firstly, you cannot start with the presumption that there is any truth in your holy book. That has already been proven false scientifically in so many cases, and has failed to overturn this determination, and for obvious reasons. Do not make the claim that your holy book contains any truth, you make yourself look like either an ignoramus or a liar, and that's never a good impression to give. You're already going in with the label of 'deluded' to anyone who doesn't share your beliefs, so think twice about how you want to bring your holy book into the discussion, if you bring it in at all, which probably won't help. If there is no information in a holy book that can't be determined through the scientific method or common sense, even what little truth it does contain is irrelevant. Prophecy is also right out, though I'm not going to go into why, but it's easy enough to find why on youtube.

Secondly, show us that you respect facts and information so it doesn't give us the impression that you are just going to stonewall every point WE make, otherwise it's a one-way conversation and neither side benefits. It doesn't help anyone to ignore scientific findings or things that are simply blindingly obvious, and again, gives you a bad impression in the eyes of skeptics. One of the main problems we have is the denial of or discounting of the value of the scientific method. You don't have to deny that you still believe what is in your holy book despite what science says, but you better have a damn good reason or you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.

Thirdly, please consider that statistically speaking (this goes to point 2) skeptics know more about your holy books than you do. Be prepared to acknowledge when we point out things that you may not know (most of us have been there before deconversion) and not outright deny them, but either agree to look it up later or do it on the spot if you so happen to be where you can do that. This point comes with three seemingly insurmountable obstacles that you need to address for there to remain any reason to bring a holy book into the discussion at all:
-The holy book contains contradictions, outright falsehoods and numerous signs of deliberate tampering in most cases
-Morality based on a carrot-and-stick reward-and-punishment system is to fail to understand what is moral and thus morals do not come from any holy book, authority figure, and are not in any way absolute nor objective
-If you attempt to discount or discard parts of your holy book because of how they fail to appeal, or have been proven misleading, your attempts to give validity to the rest are completely pointless; if you aren't sure why that is, I'm really not sure what to tell you. Something about flipping a coin comes to mind.

Fourth (and I'm running out of main points; not sure if that's because I'm tired and/or sick), you do not get to exempt yourself from the fundamentalism of other believers if you claim that you get your worldview and morals from your holy books. There is no moral difference between a fairweather Christian and a Muslim suicide bomber when the way they arrived at their conclusions (as different as those conclusions may be) because both positions are equally defensible from the standpoint of each holy book, as well as the opposite interpretation in each book. Let me explain why this is, if you think this is unreasonable: If a person gets behind the wheel of a car drunk and makes it home safely, how are they morally any different from someone who hit and killed someone during their drunk drive home? Same method of arriving at a conclusion (irrationality), different results. No moral difference. Not until you acknowledge that you are really using your own internal moral compass to reject the bad parts of your holy book. It will do wonders for your self-esteem, too. This will also save you the trouble of attempting to justify atrocities in your holy books, as this is something we have probably all completely lost our taste for. As well as the failed, morbid moral lessons those books teach and yet you reject. If you are at the very least willing to say that there is no excusing some of these all-too-human (and evidently NOT divine) writings, once again, you do nothing but give off an air of dishonesty or at least naivete.

Fifth...if there is no evidence other than anecdotal, philosophical word sludge and all of the other dishonest approaches outlined about, why would you expect any of us to take you seriously? Without the threat of a terrible afterlife, the bribe of a wonderful one (though this is impossible in principle anyway), other emotional appeals, can you give a single good reason why we should not look at you like you are someone in desperate need of psychological assistance?

I think that's about all I can come up with. Really, you've got a tremendous uphill battle from the very beginning, so think about this: Why is it that your arguments have not changed, nor succeeded, in thousands of years? They uniformly fail just as hard today as they always did. Do you not think there's something to this lack of success that comes from following the same script? Adaptation (evolution, baby) is key, and it's one of the hallmarks of the rational mind. Learning new facts, adjusting one's beliefs accordingly rather than stubbornly remaining in one place despite all the implications. Not saying that something is always absolutely moral or immoral 100% of the time or that it is so because someone 'said so'. You can't really expect anything that you have to offer to be more tempting than that if you can't actually deliver on those promises because they naturally can't have the same success rate as science, for one of the biggest reasons we reject faith in the first place.

Phew...so, am I being too hard? Too defensive and sensitive? I just feel like it's impossible not to feel like my intelligence is being insulted when someone approaches me with whatever seemingly friendly intent they might have. Since most of us have been where theists are and have the benefit of being on the inside looking out and the outside looking in, for them to not consider this and meet us half-way is already pretty condescending, in my opinion. But like I said, I'm sick, I'm tired and that PM really pissed me off, so maybe I'm wrong all over. But let's hear it, what do you guys think?

---

I like how you atheists seem to think you know the bible, but can't seem to grasp that the Bible wasn't originally written in English and therefore what you perceive as a contradiction is not so in the context of the original language.

Yeah, leave it to an omnipotent, omniscient deity to have his 'word' (allegedly the most important message ever):

Be written decades or longer after the alleged events.

In languages he would know are sure to die, be susceptible to copy error, misinterpretations, human manipulation.

On little pieced of parchment, that are known to be easily destroyed.

To only a very small group of people in one very small geographical area on the planet, leaving the rest of humanity to 'invent' religions, that this deity would know would displease him.

Such great planning.

And none of this hints at Christianity being just another human 'invented' religion... Nope, not at all.