A Christian/Atheist Dialogue in Texas

Seems like these things are often held in churches.

Humanistdad, I think that the advantage for atheists is obvious. Most Christians don’t know any (non-closeted) atheists, so they regard atheists as this bizarre “Other” that they simply can not comprehend, and this makes it easy for them to believe any wild claims they hear about atheists (they have no morals, they’re all communists etc.) Just meeting atheists will remove the mystique and make it possible for them to see atheists as normal human beings who just happen to have different religious beliefs.

Anonymous, in a word, yes. Although fundies are taking over the denomination, traditionally there have been a wide range of beliefs among different Baptist churches. I know of Baptist churches which have presided over gay marriages (in states that don’t recognize gay marriage), and one that had an openly gay pastor. Furthermore, even if the particular Baptist church here doesn’t accept such things, that doesn’t mean every single member of the congregation agrees. The purpose of such meetings is to view people as individuals, not walking stereotypes. That works both ways.

Having a way to communicate between the two is always better than NOT communicating at all. Many Christians don’t realize that atheists are all around them, and they think of atheists as something akin to space aliens. If for no other reason, to get the two sides at least acknowledging the other as people, this is a good thing.

Here’s an excellent example of an effort already begun, also in the DFW area. This is between the pastor of the church that hired that silly truck (I still love you – God) to follow around the bus (Millions are good without god) in Fort Worth, and the Executive Director of the Fellowship of Freethought. I was shocked at the level of misunderstanding that the Christians had about the atheists. (Since most atheists were Christian at one time, atheists do have a better understanding of Christians, I think.) (Link follows)

Inside the Lamb’s Den

I like how there’s going to be a discussion about religion, inevitably including discussion about problems caused by Christianity, all done inside of a Christian church, while a few dozen Atheists will be there, to help make it all happen. More free and open communication is what spoils the plans of organized deception, and yes, a great many Christians still don’t know squat about us. So this is good.

No need to try to convert anyone. I think that should come from within anyway. It’s more of a few hours of education for everyone there. For many, it’ll be the first time they’ve heard these arguments. Surely some young Christians will be there.

Open, friendly and above all, honest communication between our camps is something that can only help improve understanding between us.

It’s a trap!

Ben:

I don’t think that merely being a defined group is the criteria by which one capitalizes words. But the formal name of a specific group is capitalized.

So,

“stamp collectors, ”

but not “Stamp Collectors,”

but “Stamp Collectors United of East Bumble-F***.”

Sorry to get all grammatical . . . .

there is a possibility, with good will, to identify the things that we have in common, including the nebulous “aspirations” for a peaceful world maybe, while putting the significant differneces in the “not for the voyage” box

fundamentally we are all members of the same species with the same aspirations, hopes and fears. If we can find a way to address the commonalities in a non-beleif-oriented way (i.e. purely empirically) then that is a step forward. If we can show the religious that we aren’t “other”, especially gay atheists, then we will shine light into their lives

this sort of thing is a fun waste of time for all who can participate. it could be more, too! which is to say, some believers could become otherwise as a result. having been to many of these types of events, i’ll say that there is little chance that atheists will ‘convert’ to a religion as a result. mostly, this sort of event is for the titillation of believers. “ooooh, look at us! we spent time with people who don’t believe! how exciting!” to most of us, it’s not really that big of a deal. we shrug and roll our eyes and otherwise try to act patiently when they say, during the ‘debate,’ “but the BuyBull says…” and they variously use text to justify otherwise ridiculous assumptions. in my experience, “interfaith” dialogue b/w believers & non-believers is good for about 30, maybe forty five minutes of entertainment. after that, it’s about as useful as queers listening patiently to the arguments of “ex” gays. ymmv, of course.

personally, i’m much more interested in multi-faith/agnostic/atheist dialogue. much more fun, for me at least. sure, we can bring xtians and atheists together and they can make arguments that are 2,000 years old and hashed. but so much more fun (i speak as someone who has hosted many such successful parties and gatherings) is when one brings xtians, atheists, agnostics, hindus, jews, and zen practitioners together (etc). a “two way” dialogue is almost as useless as if this were only a conversation between, say, muslims and baha’i.

what the hell. it’s texas. i’m sure people down there have a hard time understanding that there really is more than “both kinds” a la the Blues Brothers scene in which the restaurant owners declaimed “we have both kinds here, country and western!” sorry to be such a regionalist, but TX is after all the home of the school board busy redesigning the national textbook curriculum to reflect the ‘fact’ that evolution is disputed and Jefferson was a baptist republican. and getting away with such lies.

I think this is the type of outreach both sides need to have more of — it’s not a debate; it’s just dialogue. And if a few stereotypes go by the wayside as a result of all this, then all the better for those involved.

I’m with Humanistdad, Anonymous, PsiCop and chicago dyke on this one – I’m not sure what the point is.

Where do the atheist stereotypes come from in the first place, if not the First Baptist Churches of Whatever? If you want to rid the world of stereotypes, the best place to start is where they originate – in the church sermons when the atheists are not there.

Debate at least gives people reasons for thinking one way or the other. It gives people an idea of why you think what you do even if they still don’t change their mind.

I can’t really see any point to dialogue at all. If we’re going to dialogue with fundamentalists, will we dialogue with Scientologists, too? What about crystal power New Agers? Or does it only make sense to dialogue when larger numbers embrace the madness?

Like chicago dyke said, your mileage may vary, but when I hear ‘dialogue’ I ask ‘What for?’

I’m a little surprised by the “all or nothing” stance that many on this thread have taken.
If one atheist can have a positive influence on just one fundie, then progress has been made.
Just having someone represent atheists as flesh and blood people is a good thing.
By communicating with these folks, we become less of an abstraction. We become their neighbors. Individually speaking, it’s harder to pull a trigger on a neighbor whom you’ve met and truly interacted with.

The Godless Monster said:

If one atheist can have a positive influence on just one fundie, then progress has been made.

I’m not sure what the others think, but the reason I am skeptical of this sort of meeting is that I am very skeptical of what you said in that very sentence.

I think it is much more likely that the atheists in attendance will be preached at incessantly, that horrendous lies will be told about them, and that when those very atheists attempt to counter those lies they will be chided for being so very rude.

Don’t get me wrong; I fully support the people who want to go there for 2 reasons:

1) It’s not my place to tell them what meetings they can or cannot attend.
2) I’d like to see if my suspicions are correct, and I’m glad that someone else is willing to undergo the pain involved in the experiment.

But, I do believe it will be painful (except for those who get a kick out watching fundies and their wacky antics).

Plus, if it turns out I’m wrong I’ll get to be pleasantly surprised. That’s the best kind of surprise!

@Valhar2000,
Fear of possible nastiness isn’t a good enough reason to decline meeting with fundies.
I’m sure you are familiar with the saying, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
If a specific group of fundies demonstrates that they are not sincere in their desire to dialogue, then future interactions with that particular group of individuals should be stopped…unless you are a masochist.
That being said, there is a reason that most scientists will not and do not debate evolution with creationists. Creationists, however, are a hardcore subset and shouldn’t be confused with all Christians. Besides, the exchange taking place here is not described as a debate, but as a dialogue. If this was a debate, I’d most likely decline to participate.

@BrettH,
Well put.

Dr. Marty Akins was my smalltown high school pastor. Knew him very well. Played b-ball many a time and even camped with him at church camp. I always had a high level of respect for him. Even if he wasn’t, ahem, perfect.

Am very interested in this if I can swing it.