Ask Richard: Christian “Comes Out” and is Treated Poorly by His Atheist Friends

I don’t understand why someone would think that saying “I’m a Christian” exempts him from giving evidence for his claims.  People need to take epistemic responsibility for their claims and beliefs and I’m
glad that his atheist friends are forcing him to do that.  Treating him as an agent responsible for his beliefs is part of what it means to treat him like a human agent.  Not being a proselytizer doesn’t give him a pass either.  The days when people were supposed to just sit there quietly while religionists made completely unsupported claims are over.  He should get used to it.

This is stupid advice.  If the idiot has fallacious beliefs, your advice to him should be for him to educate himself and rid himself of such foolishness, so THEN he won’t be mocked! It’s never good to give advice to tell him how to try to get other people to treat him better WITHOUT attending to the problem! The problem is that he is a theist, and THAT needs to change because it’s mentally unhealthy and bad for mankind. THAT’S why they mock him!  Fuck.

He’s wants to be treated like  a human? Does that mean listening to his personal baloney as if it is beyond reproach? Otherwise I am “boorish, uncivil, or rude”? Did I just wander into the Twilight Zone?

I think this is excellent advice, Richard, especially for people who value meaningful relationships and who understand that even friendships require work sometimes. (Given his anger issues, I’d be very surprised if Mushuukyou has many of those.)

“If he wanted to not be bullied, he should just act less gay!” is what I am equating your argument to.

Richard, I like this advice. Weather or not you think what someone believes is wrong, there is nothing useful in being a jerk about it-that is the bottom line. If someone is your friend you should treat him as such even if you disagree with his views. Jonathan is willing to do that and we need more of his bridge building and less bridge burning.

This guy sounds like the kind of Christian I don’t mind too much: The quiet one. Not that Christians should be gagged (blah, blah, 1st amendment rights and all), but I don’t go around disclosing to everyone that I’m an atheist, only doing so only when in the presence of utter religious douchery. As idiotic as this guy’s beliefs may be, at least he’s being respectful and not trying to shove them down everyone’s throats, so I think he has a right to be aggrieved. I can only hope that there’s a chance he can be reasoned with too if he’s reading Richard’s blog.

 you are wrong, exactly the treatment he is describing is what shook me out of my theism. No one approach works for everyone, but that doesn’t mean you can dismiss an approach just because it wouldnt work for you.

It doesn’t sound like he’s the kind of Christian who goes around willy-nilly sharing his beliefs with anyone and everyone. I say as long as he keeps his nonsense to himself, let him be.

Just to make sure we understand each other, people calling you an idiot for believing in a god got you to stop believing? That sounds a hell of a lot more like folding to peer pressure than discovering atheism on your own…

 People challenged me “do you really believe this or that?” and in trying to answer them I needed to actually examine the beliefs I’d held without thinking about them.

If you want to call that “folding to peer pressure” knock yourself out.

However, whatever you call it, it *did* work.

Jonathan,

Just as some Christians view atheists as hell-bound immoral beasts, some atheists view Christians as bigoted assholes that want to tell everybody what to do.  Both characterizations are, of course, not generally true.  It is quite possible to be an atheist and also be quite moral, compassionate, and caring.  It is also quite possible to be a Christian and be respectful of other beliefs (or lack thereof) and not try to control everybody else’s behavior.  I would advise you to educate your friends that “Christianity” covers a lot of territory and for them not to paint all Christians with the same brush.  Perhaps you can agree with them that there are good Christians and bad Christians… and you are of the good kind. 

If it applies, perhaps you can tell them that your version of Christianity is a tool to help you be humble and a better person…and you view the bible is a collection of metaphorical stories to help you live a better life – not as a literal accounting of history.    If you do believe the bible is a literal recounting of history, then that may be a subject you might want to avoid with them.

One thing that bugs many atheists is Christians that go around saying who is going to hell or not.  I personally respect Christians who say the decision is up to God and leave it at that.  I’ve known Christians that have said that God could and may send atheists to heaven because it is in His power.  I’ve also known other Christians, though, that have said that all atheists must go to hell because it is impossible for an unrepentant sinner to be in God’s presence.  Your friends could be associating all Christians with the latter group.  Perhaps convince them that you are of the former group.

Also, remember that people in their early 20’s sometimes tend to be a bit over-confident in the opinions they hold.  Your friends will probably mellow some with age.  🙂

To be fair, it’s not necessarily a central tenet of Christianity that unbelievers are damned. When I was a Christian I didn’t believe in hell and there were many like me.

The not associating with unbelievers thing is fundamentalist thing, not a Christian thing. I grew up steeped in Evangelical Christianity and was never taught this.

It’s generally a bad idea to draw all your conclusions about a given group based on how the loudest and most obnoxious in that group behave.

 There was definitely an air of mockery to her disbelief though.

There was a clear subtext of “I thought you were smarter than this” and in fairness I thought so too.

I always thought the fight was against fundamentalists who aren’t able to even breathe without shoving some god in our faces, not against people who bother no one. If he is not bothering people, who cares what he believes? What does it change? We want people to leave us alone, so why should we not leave him alone if he’s harmless? He said he only talks about religion when specifically asked. Live and let live.

The problem isn’t that he’s a theist, but that his friends are being dicks.   They are mocking him, not his beliefs, they assume things about him (like you just did) based on nothing more than the fact he is christian.  That is bigotry.

He deserves better, we all do.  

Incidentally, please tell me how one persons personal belief not being forced on anyone else is bad for mankind?

 wait, all I was saying is that I was glad someone shook me out of my theism. Personally I count that as one of the kindest most compassionate things they could have done for me.

The difference is that being gay isn’t a choice, while being religious is. That doesn’t mean he deserves to be mocked – as long as he isn’t an asshole like so many Christians – but it’s hardly the same

A lot of this talk smacks of, “we’re right and he’s wrong (read:stupid, ignorant, or blind), but he’s a nice one so we’ll give him some leeway.” It’s sort of like saying, “we’re white and he’s black, but he’s a nice one so we’ll give him some leeway.” Or insert “straight” and “gay.” Or “men” and “women.” 
I don’t care who’s right and wrong here. He does not get leeway or begrudging tolerance because he’s a “nice Christian” any more than you would dream of liking your black neighbor because he “acts white.” Bigotry can happen on both ends, especially when we insist on seeing each other as “atheist” and “Christian” rather than “people with different opinions on religion who can engage in open discussion.” He gets the right to honest compassion and respect because he is a human being. End of story.Dawkins has brought this whole debate about the effectiveness of ridicule to new levels with his Reason Rally speech, and I’ve read convincing arguments in all directions. But, like Richard says in his advice, you don’t reach someone by trying to bring them to your thinking first. You talk on their terms and work towards middle ground. Belittling someone just to do so is never appropriate, and not what I think Dawkins meant. 

Jonathan: I would add to Richard’s advice an attempt to understand what your friends are thinking. I agree with their worldview, but I suggest you do this as a way to harmonize. If they can see that you have thoroughly examined their viewpoint, but chosen your own, there is little they can say against you. Insist that they give you the same courtesy of non-judging understanding (even if they think  you’re wrong, they can still understand an appreciate your motivations for belief). I would, however, suggest thoroughly reading the Bible first; chance are these friends know the Bible fairly well. I suggest “Human Faces of God” for some good, Christian Biblical criticism and responses. What they are doing seems to me like what atheist frequently accuse Christians of doing: yelling and mocking to avoid real discussion. It is an unfortunate reflection on the “rational” atheist community that those we accuse of being the most close-minded must remind us to engage in respectful dialogue. If they continue to ridicule you after you have attempted a reasonable discussion, find new friends. 

Richard: re-read the letter, but make Jonathan an atheist and his friends Christians. Would you have given the same advice? I will strongly suggest that you would not have. 

Some Christians do think that everyone is saved. Some Christians think that you shouldn’t impose your beliefs on others, including me when I still believed. The difference between an atheist and a very liberal Christian is basically that the latter believes in the divinity of Jesus.

When you say “I can’t believe you actually think that” when they’re minding their own business, you’re imposing your judgement based on a stereotype. You can ask someone about what they believe and why, which can even be constructive. If you really want to deconvert people, you have to make them think about their faith, you cannot bash your ideas into their heads. I don’t really see how being mean to a person is constructive.

Attack ideas, not people.

Sounds like a bunch of narrow-minded, bigoted, proslityzing atheists. I thought we were supposed to be the intelligent, logical good guys. Not a herd of fanatics. Maybe we have a few moles trying to bring back the Inquisition?

I think that’s a good assessment of the moral dilemma here. There is no way for someone outside of a group to understand how each individual in a group applies the group label to himself differently, and you could argue that it’s not the outsider’s responsibility to do so. Being Christian implies belief in at least part of the Bible. The Bible says that it is the correct word of god, and must be believed entirely for salvation. It is fair to assume that a Christian believes all of the Bible, because his holy book tells him to, unless he tells you otherwise. If he tells you he only believes part of the book, it is fair to ask him what makes him believe the other part (usually the Jesus bit) is true. If he cannot defend its truth, it is fair to ask him why he is a Christian in the first place. If he claims faith, it is fair to ask him, now that we know his holy book may be wrong, what he has faith in. (This chain can go on.) It is fair and ethical to respectfully question what he believes and why he believes it in an attempt to better understand him, and to allow him to better understand you. If this results in “converting” him, so be it. If not, so be it. But treating a friend, who I assume you know well, as lesser than yourself because of beliefs you have not attempted to understand *from his perspective* is not fair, and never will be. Otherwise, saying “I’m an atheist,” becomes about as good as saying, “I’m a practicing Christian.”

I was struck that the writer referred to his friends’ use of the sentence, “Oh, we’d better not talk about this- it would probably offend him.”  As an atheist, there are DEFINITELY things I don’t discuss with religious friends, because I know, based on their previous reactions, that the discussion won’t go well.  It doesn’t matter to me how open you are to others’ beliefs if you get defensive when something is questioned.  If you don’t think you’ve reacted that way in the past, ask why they feel you would be offended.

The problem is that many Christians still vote for the fire-breathing fundies. That needs to change.

But no, we don’t have to be jerks about it.

THAT said… the way he lists all of the minority religions he’s gotten along with, a-la “I don’t hate gays, some of my best friends are gay, I just don’t want them to get married!” seems a little circumspect. He says he doesn’t proselytize, but perhaps he doesn’t actually understand how some of his statements are taken. There’s a large amount of indoctrination that happens with Christianity, so much so that a lot of people don’t actually understand when they’re speaking “Christianese”. Perhaps his friends are reacting to that. Or they’re just being dicks.

These are only somewhat rhetorical. You in particular seem to know what Jonathan means when he says he’s a Christian. I am fully aware of the range of responses Christians have. Are you saying that the label Christian is meaningless? That is NOT a rhetorical question. How is saying “I can’t believe that you actually think that” or “Oh, we’d better not talk about this- it would probably offend him.” worse than saying  whatever  “I am a practicing Christian” means ? That is NOT a rhetorical question. Do you believe there is such a thing as a sectarian bigot? Do you think it’s just fine if someone believes you are going to burn in Hell? Is that not bigotry? What I object to is bigotry and hate. I’m sure Jonathan is a “nice guy” but are you sure you know enough about what he believes to know that he doesn’t believe that being a Christian makes him, in some small way at least, better that non-Christians? If Jonathan is some sort Universalist Christian could he not say so?

My mother is an evangelical Christian who became born again around the time I finished high school. One of her atheist friends (who was always very dear and close to her when I was growing up) has responded to my mother’s conversion by pretending to believe in alien abductions and other conspiracy theories in some kind of twisted attempt to “out-ridiculous” my mother. It’s obnoxious, rude, and unloving of her, and mom doesn’t understand that she is being trolled; she just thinks her friend has gone off the deep end. It just makes me feel sad and tired.

I think I’m like the vast majority of atheists: most of my friends and family are believers of some sort. So I don’t understand these atheists who are rude or disrespectful to believers. How do you end up having any frends?

If you were one of Jonathan’s atheist friends, these are the kinds questions that I would advise you direct to him, delivered in a respectful tone, and only if they are fully information-seeking questions.  Your statements to him should be phrased as statements.

I’m not saying that the label Christian is “meaningless,” I’m saying that it does not have to fit as narrow a criteria as you seem to think it must in order to have meaning, and I’m saying that one Christian’s sincere and well-considered self-definition does has to fit what you decide is the “right” definition.

I’m saying that taking the care to talk respectfully to the individual in front of you is far more important, far more productive, and far more intelligent than grasping for shorthand definitions so you can “know” them instantly and pigeon hole them without further investigation.

 I have a friend like that, he once said that he was religious, I asked him if he really believed in that bullshit, he said “Yep, not you?” I answered “Nope” he followed by “Well, whatever” and we never mentionned this stuff again. Just to say that as long as people don’t wave crucifixes and bibles in front of my face I’m fine with them believing in whatever they want (but i’m not against occasional reality hints).

I think Jonathan experienced something more along the lines of “I CAN’T BELIEVE YOU *ACTUALLY* THINK THAT!!!” but was consciencious about being sensationalist.  There is more to communication than word choice, and I can see inflection being used where this statement was just a vehicle for projecting outrage towards him.

“I don’t proselytize, and I generally only talk about my faith when asked directly.”

I call bullshit on this.

 Why? I know people just like this. I’ve had friends I was utterly unaware were Christian until religion came up as a topic, and then only when their beliefs became relevant to the conversation.

Lots of religious people are almost as passive about their faith as many atheists are about their non-belief. Even many more “active” theists are no more overt than mentioning that they will be at church on a given day or that it’s their kids 1st communion this weekend, which is hardly shoving it down anyone’s throat (to borrow a phrase from homophobes who think mentioning your spouse while gay is some sort of activism).

srsly

Can we say Jonathan Arthur is just like the atheists described by our christian Jonathan?  Nothing more than an atheist who hates with big words.  He probably calls it ‘reason’ or some other holy cow of his…

How can you be sure of the tone with which “I can’t believe that you actually think that” unless you had an audio recording?  Tone is a description of sound actually, and very little tone can be conveyed accurately through text (source of “arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics” joke).

What if the phrase in question was screamed at Jonathan?  You can’t tell from a quotation (YOU COULD QUOTE IT IN ALL CAPS BUT THAT STILL ISN’T CLEAR) unless Jonathan said his friend screamed this at him.  I don’t think it was screamed, personally, but how do you signify a sarcastic tone or a snobbish tone through text?  It is really difficult.  I find it really telling how posters like yourself almost always argue as if they are really confident that it was the christian who was mistaken, not the atheist.

There is such a dilemma of confirmation bias in this community!  It is really ridiculous since so many of these people are such vocal believers in science and the scientific method!

 “People challenged me “do you really believe this or that?” and in trying
to answer them I needed to actually examine the beliefs I’d held
without thinking about them.”

No doubt, That’s how Dusty (Cult of Dusty on youtube) got over his dilutions. Logic!

Having been in the atheist “sphere” for about 8 years, I HONESTLY believe there are disproportionately more jerks in the ranks of atheism than in any other demographic I belong to.  

That’s not my experience, unless by “jerk” you mean people who are willing to speak their mind without extreme concern for the sensitivities of others… sort of the opposite of the saccharine niceness sometimes found amongst the religious. I prefer the former, and don’t consider it to be a fault at all.

First of all, I’m assuming that Richard chose this email as vehicle to make a point to a larger audience and it doesn’t really matter if Jonathan is even real.  I think you are missing the point: semantics are what is at issue here. There are other aspects to communication but I don’t have access to the context and tone of Jonathan’s conversations with his friends. I just have his short email. The reason I’m not giving Jonathan the benefit of the doubt are the examples he gave. “I can’t believe that you actually think that” is a phrase that is very dependent on context. If that was the response to “I’m a christian” then I would think that is  to much generalization but Jonathan called this “mocked, belittled, and talked down to”. I think that is ridiculous. It could even be a compliment. If they had responded by saying “Oh, now I understand” that would be mocking. The phrase “Oh, we’d better not talk about this- it would probably offend him.” as  “mocked, belittled, and talked down to” is even more ridiculous. Are these supposed to be examples of going to far?

 Yeah, nothing like a little hate filled atheist bigotry for ya.

Whenever I read something written like that my immediate thought is “this was written to under fictitious premise with the intent of creating derisive situation” and I still stand by my original assessment. 

Grammar, content and recollections are a basic run through of the turnabout tactic and frankly this one would have gone into the recycling and anyone claiming this to be authentic is going to be hard pressed to substantiate it as written.

Send them back a note – letting them know we are on to their “gambit” and enlighten them a little bit in rational thinking.

Carla, much of your remarks seem to be based on what you think you would do if you were me, and what you think you would do if you were Jonathan, and then insisting that I and he would do what you think you would do if something were different, such as if the atheist/Christian roles were reversed. I cannot argue against your projection; I can only say that projection is not a reasonable argument.

The post that I linked to is not an atheist/Christian mirror image of the letter here. I referred you to it to illustrate that the main themes that I listed are present in both.  As I said in my first reply to you, if the basic nature of the relationships are different, then the details of what I would suggest will probably be different. The quotation that you cited is an example of one of those.

In Jonathan’s letter, he presently has friendships that he wants to preserve if he can, and that is what directed the thrust of my advice to him. In the linked post, the letter writer  is not trying to preserve a friendship, but is trying to engage in debates with a level of decorum that will possibly increase his persuasiveness, and not simply get him dismissed as a “jerk.” So these two letter writers share some  similar challenges, but they have different goals.

You seem to  assert that Jonathan’s friends should already be able to navigate the complexities of a friendship like this without any errors, that they should already be able to sort out the differences between person and belief, and if they cannot,  then he should drop them and get new friends. Perhaps that is the demanding standard that you hold for your friends, but that is not for me, nor do I think it is for Jonathan.  I think that friends can teach each other many valuable things about friendships as they stumble along, and they can help each other become better at it.

Finally, your assumption that Jonathan would immediately refuse to accept my differentiation between respect of his beliefs and respectful treatment of him as a person I think is you projecting how you would feel. To actually know, you would have to ask him if he found that unacceptable or not. I have seen both atheists and theists be able to accept that, so it is certainly possible. Although I have met some Christians who strike the posture that they are their beliefs, making it impossible to criticize their beliefs without them claiming personal insult, that is not universal among Christians, or among holders of any sorts of beliefs, for that matter. That kind of assumption seems to be part of the stereotype that I’m asking people to stop lending credence to.

Well, then again, not my experience.

In fact, I don’t know very many jerks at all, of any philosophical persuasion.

I want to be clear that talking respectfully to the individual in front of you is of critical importance. What I’m unclear on is why it is wrong to criticize someone for giving themselves a label  that has a meaning. When someone calls themselves a Christian I don’t assume I know what they believe or what kind of person they are. But I have found that, most of the time, I know more about the history of Christianity and the dogma of the main denominations than the people who call themselves Christian and don’t believe in hell. Talking about what it means when you call yourself a Christian is a good way to bring those things up and explain why the  label Christian may not be the wonderful thing they think it is. When I’m confronted with a Christian that doesn’t believe in hell the label they are giving themselves is the main issue I have with them and if they’re willing to qualify it by saying Universalist Christian or something like that then I’m done.  They have dissociated themselves from bigots. Do you think it’s reasonable to argue that calling yourself Christian means you believe atheists are eternally damned?  Do you believe there is such a thing as a sectarian bigot? Do you think it’s just fine if someone believes you are going to burn in Hell? These are not rhetorical questions and I’m asking you Richard.

Yeah, I think the choice distinction is a bit more muddy than you’re making it out to be here. I never felt like I was choosing to be a Christian, now that I’m not, I don’t feel like I chose that either. Belief is less of a choice than some make it out to be.

What does that even mean? Knowing that someone is a theist tells you nothing about the way they vote. When I was a Christian I was extremely progressive precisely because of my faith. Others will draw from their faith to become conservative or libertarian or moderate…same as atheists.

But see, when I hear atheists say things like “I understand the Christian faith better than most Christians” I’ve learned to be a little skeptical. Usually it means that they know the fundamentalist interpretation. They interpret the Bible and Christianity like a fundamentalist does: basing the entirety of it on their own modern understanding of an English translation of an ancient text.

It only takes a little bit of humility to recognize that perhaps a Christian who has spent years refining and study their own beliefs might have a different understanding than your likely cursory attempts. There is church history and tradition, relational and individual experience, all of which hare taken into account differently and to different degrees depending on the strain of Christianity and individual in question.

Are many Christians pretty ignorant about what they believe? Of course, but so are many atheists, and your comments about hell leads me to believe that you might be one of them.

I’m sorry, but when I was a Christian if I would have heard a fellow Christian telling an atheist “I can’t believe you don’t believe in God!” I would have called him out as an asshole. There’s just no need to get so combative over a personal belief so easily. I don’t care who you’re talking to, there are better ways to approach the situation.

Oh, so I suppose that bisexuals, should only choose to be in different sex relationships since for them, it’s a “choice”?

Do you think it’s reasonable to argue that calling yourself Christian means you believe atheists are eternally damned?

It is reasonable to ask them for clarification. It is not reasonable to then insist or imply that they’re “wrong” to call themselves a Christian if their set of beliefs do not include all the beliefs that you think must be included in some kind of universal and uniform definition of “Christian.” Your knowledge of the history of Christian theology might be extensive, and theirs might be lacking, but your knowledge of  them and their particular beliefs is what needs to be strengthened if you want to understand them as the individual in front of you.  If as your respectful conversation goes along, someone  says that he’s a Christian who does not believe that atheists are necessarily damned, or he doesn’t believe in hell at all, then that’s the kind of Christian he is. He’s a not-believing-in-hell Christian. Is he “right” or “wrong” to use the C word? Who but he can be the judge of that?

Yes, the sets of beliefs that you’ll encounter are inconsistent. Yes, the ideas of people who call themselves “Christian” have broad variety and loose parameters.
But to say then that the term “Christian” is therefore completely devoid
of meaning is an unnecessary and counterproductive dismissal. The
vagueness and uncertainty of someone’s self-label is an
opportunity to ask open questions and to increase your
understanding of that person.

Do you believe that there is such a thing as a sectarian bigot?

Bigotry is in the actions, not in the orientation. Automatically considering a whole category of people to be inferior, or despicable, or stupid, or untrustworthy, or whatever loathsome quality, can be built with religious ideas, race, nationality, age, gender, and so on, even the ideas that some atheists have. Sectarians are not necessarily all bigots. Only sectarian bigots are sectarian bigots. It’s their bigoted actions that make them bigots, not their sectarian membership. Again, if you’re going to insist on some definition of your own, then they might all be bigots to you if that is included in your definition.

Do you think it’s just fine if someone believes you are going to burn in Hell?

Frankly, Scarlet, I don’t give a damn. That’s their superstitious beliefs.  What goes on between their ears does not make or spoil my day. I find those ideas ugly and bizarre, and full of the potential for self-righteousness and full of the potential for spurring hateful behavior, BUT until that behavior is actually committed, there’s not much I can do about it. I will respond strongly to hateful behavior in ways that I hope will lawfully put a stop to it.

You are just as penniless of evidence that the letter is a fraud as I am penniless of evidence that the letter is genuine. I respond to the letters as they are, taking them at face value, hoping that my response might help a real person on the other end.  If there is no real person on the other end, oh well.

So for you it is all about advertisers getting  hits and having something to write today. 

http://bluecentauri.com/tools/writer/sample.php  puts at an eighth grade level – yet it refers to “high school” in the past tense.  

This is in opposition to the level of commas used unless indicating a mixed hand in writing. 

The use of  “I” and first person is creating leaves the author as the sole source of information – pre-weakening any challenges.

It did everything to scream out lie other than spell out an actrostic message for you.

Why?

So for you it is all about advertisers getting  hits and having something to write today.

What a dismally cynical thing to say. You should have that looked at before it grows into a tumor. The most self-defeating error that cynics make is to assume that everyone else is secretly as cynical as they are. If you fancy yourself a skeptic, then consider that cynicism is a leap to belief in the worst possible motives in someone without acceptable evidence.

I might be insulted by your contorted interpretation of my motives if it was less silly than it is, but all I feel toward you is sadness.

I would in no way consider a Christian who said that an asshole. I don’t consider it even slightly combative. I would consider it an opportunity to educate. 

You are right there are better ways to approach the situation.

Do you think it’s reasonable to argue that calling yourself Christian means you believe atheists are eternally damned?It is reasonable to ask them for clarification. It is not reasonable to then insist or imply that they’re “wrong” to call themselves a Christian if their set of beliefs do not include all the beliefs that you think must be included in some kind of universal and uniform definition of “Christian.”I would agree that it is not reasonable to insist that they’re wrong. But that’s not what I asked. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to imply, advocate, or even argue, that a person who calls themself a Christian adhere to some basic definition of the word. I think it’s reasonable to say that calling yourself a Christian is about what you believe not what you do. I think there’s a tremendous difference between a person who thinks God will eternally damn someone for not having the right beliefs and someone who believes in a God that judges people based on their actions and punishes them appropriately. I respectfully advocate that people who don’t believe in eternal damnation at least qualify their label for themselves. Universalist Christian or not-believing-in-hell Christian are both good. But if you don’t believe God is going to torture people forever then calling yourself a Christian is idiosyncratic and likely to be misunderstood. Your knowledge of the history of Christian theology might be extensive, and theirs might be lacking, but your knowledge of  them and their particular beliefs is what needs to be strengthened if you want to understand them as the individual in front of you.My ultimate goal is reducing hatred, bigotry, and fear. How much I know about what they believe can vary greatly depending on the situation. What I need to know is what they believe about eternal damnation. That’s a big issue for me. Whether a universalist calls themself a Christian or a Universalist Christian isn’t a big issue but it is a discussion worth having, and a case worth making. My wife is a Universalist Christian but she doesn’t always call herself that especially when she’s talking to the decidedly non-universalist Christians. Equivocation to avoid conflict or getting fired can be a good thing.  If as your respectful conversation goes along, someone  says that he’s a Christian who does not believe that atheists are necessarily damned, or he doesn’t believe in hell at all, then that’s the kind of Christian he is. He’s a not-believing-in-hell Christian. Yep.Is he “right” or “wrong” to use the C word? It’s not about who is right or who is wrong. It’s about accuracy and understanding and hopefully being willing to disassociate yourself with people who believe something radically different. I’ll say it again – believing in a God that tortures people forever and believing in a just God are radically different.Who but he can be the judge of that?Everybody, history, probability, the Bible. When you’re trying to communicate you don’t use words in ways only you can be the judge of.Yes, the sets of beliefs that you’ll encounter are inconsistent. Yes, the ideas of people who call themselves “Christian” have broad variety and loose parameters. But to say then that the term “Christian” is therefore completely devoid of meaning is an unnecessary and counterproductive dismissal. The vagueness and uncertainty of someone’s self-label is an opportunity to ask open questions and to increase your understanding of that person.It’s also an opportunity to educate and increase their understanding of me and why I believe calling yourself an unqualified Christian has negative connotations.Do you believe that there is such a thing as a sectarian bigot?Bigotry is in the actions, not in the orientation. I think we might disagree on this. Is calling a black person “the N-word” action or orientation? Is telling someone they will burn in Hell an action? Wikipedia says “Bigotry is the state of mind of a “bigot,”“I think what a person believes is what makes them a bigot.Automatically considering a whole category of people to be inferior, or despicable, or stupid, or untrustworthy, or whatever loathsome quality, can be built with religious ideas, race, nationality, age, gender, and so on, even the ideas that some atheists have. That’s a definition of bigotry I agree with. But is considering an action or orientation?Sectarians are not necessarily all bigots. Only sectarian bigots are sectarian bigots. Absolutely agree.It’s their bigoted actions that make them bigots, not their sectarian membership. I would say it’s their bigoted beliefs that make them bigots, not their sectarian membership.Again, if you’re going to insist on some definition of your own, then they might all be bigots to you if that is included in your definition.Do you think it’s just fine if someone believes you are going to burn in Hell?Frankly, Scarlet, I don’t give a damn. That’s their superstitious beliefs.  It goes beyond superstition. Someone who holds those beliefs is a bigot.What goes on between their ears does not make or spoil my day. I find those ideas ugly and bizarre, and full of the potential for self-righteousness and full of the potential for spurring hateful behavior, BUT until that behavior is actually committed, there’s not much I can do about it. Hateful speech is hateful behavior. Once someone makes it known that they believe “a whole category of people to be inferior, or despicable, or stupid, or untrustworthy, or whatever loathsome quality” or going to burn in Hell, that’s hateful speech and I respond to it by speaking out, by not letting it go unchallenged. Of particular relevance to this conversation is the reply “I can’t believe that you actually think that”.I will respond strongly to hateful behavior in ways that I hope will lawfully put a stop to it.Me too.

 Personally, I would not want to be badgered at great length by my “friends” regarding my religious beliefs just to satisfy their idle curiosity or to satisfy some desire of theirs to pigeon-hole me. I would much prefer them to take me as I am and evaluate my character over time. The fact that I believe or don’t believe, or that I am Jewish or Christian or Muslim or Wiccan or whatever shouldn’t really matter to them. If I am hanging out with them because I like them, that’s a pretty good indication that I am not hostile or dangerous. If I, because somebody asked, wanted to know what religion I am, I might very well cautiously answer “Christian” simply to give them a very, very general sense of where I fit in the religious world. But to assume anything else about me because of my chosen label, or to badger me about it when I have freely chosen to associate with them on a friend-to-friend basis is stepping over the line IMO.

It’s not that they should never ask me about my beliefs (in a respectful, non-pushy, non-combative, style, of course), but the friendship relationship should come first. If they cannot regard me as a friend when our relationship was started on that basis, but instead insist on treating me in a political way as though I were an outsider or some sort of stranger (What? You’re one of them!), then something is wrong.

People are people and should really only be judged by their actions, not by their labels (whether chosen by themselves or by others). The whole point of Jesus’ parable about the good Samaritan was to illustrate that actions towards others, not affiliation with others, is what counts. (To Jesus’ Jewish audience, the priest and the Levite were “insiders” and thus would be considered as “good”, whereas the Samaritan was a reviled “outsider” and would therefore be considered as “bad”. However, the actions of each person in the story showed just who was the best example of “neighbor”.)

Some guy once said that the way was narrow.

 That’s a good point.  Some of the things he said made me think that maybe his atheist friends are trying to pinpoint what sort of believer he is and what the parameters are (so to speak), which can be important if you’re going to continue to associate with a believer.  And, in some cases, being completely devoid of tact while doing so.  “We can’t talk about this, we’ll probably offend him”–I’ve avoided certain discussions with/around Christian friends before because I wasn’t sure what would offend that person, but I wouldn’t say something like that right in front of them either.  That’s just rude.

I don’t know if this guy expects people to listen to his personal baloney as if it’s beyond reproach either.  He doesn’t indicate it or mention it, but few believers include that sort of detail–hell, most people don’t include that sort of detail if it’s something they do without realizing it.  No, I’m not suggesting outright deception here, or to read things in that he never said, but I’ve known believers in various things who do broach the subject constantly and then get upset when the reaction isn’t what they’d like.  I’ve had successful friendships with believers, but usually when we left
that aspect out of the realm of discussion, and the only times I get
called “mocking” or “bullying” tend to be when they keep bringing it up
and I eventually express my own views.

Once again, like my mom, who keeps bringing up all her various supernatural and religious beliefs as if they are established scientific fact, while knowing that I am on the opposite side of that fence and have requested that we just avoid that subject because we always get into fights and I would like to keep our time together pleasant by focusing on what we both enjoy, and then getting angry with me and accusing me of “mockery” and “bullying” if I don’t listen as if it is beyond reproach and actually challenge her assertions.  And if she wrote a letter about this situation she would never include her own pushy behavior, because I think it’s a bit subconscious and because we live in a society where that behavior is seen as acceptable but challenging those beliefs is seen as “strident” and “militant” (particularly if your position is “none of the above” as opposed to “I believe some other supernatural thing”.)

So while I can’t logically insist this is how the guy is acting just from what he wrote, I can’t entirely rule out the possibility that this is how he could be acting, albeit subconsciously, just from my own personal experience with believer friends.  It’s impossible to know for sure from a letter like this.

I suppose I must apologize again for making you angry with things I didn’t say. It’s very difficult to predict how you’re going to take what I say when your interpretations have little basis in actual words. 

I have no distrust of Jonathan based on his religion (please, show the quotes that make you think so), and am arguing that he is being shown respect here *in spite of* his religion, not because he is a human deserving of it, and that this is disrespectful. It’s a fine distinction, but an important one. I AM saying the he deserves respect and compassion because he is another human seeking help, and completely ignoring his religious affiliations in my judgement of him. Please stop accusing me of projections while yelling about things I haven’t said. You are making up motivations for me based on what you want to yell about, not what I’m actually saying. Slow down and read. I am not “playing” the racist card. I’m a white female; it’s not exactly a card I have to play. I am using race as a more common, noticeable example to illustrate a phenomenon found in other areas of human psychology. I’m sorry that you find is so far-fetched that this phenomenon could spread elsewhere; the research does not support your assumption. It is not that I think poorly of the other commenters. It is that I think they are humans who make human errors, and I have attempted to point these out. I understand that it is uncomfortable to have your implicit prejudices pointed out, but they do not make anyone a bad person. Being aware of the process can help to make you a better person, but not being aware of it never makes you a worse person. I’m also not certain how you’ve decided that I think the other commenters are motivated by hate. You seem to be revealing an ignorance of human psychology more than an insight into what I’m thinking. Please calm down before spouting off another answer, and make sure you’ve actually read what I’ve said. 

Jim, I think the discrepancy is that you approach Christianity from a different perspective than Christians. This discrepancy is why many of us left the church. We couldn’t reconcile what the Bible and the dogmas said with what we actually thought was right to believe. We qualified our Christianity away into atheism (to speak very generally). Your deeper understanding of the religion without the “faith” aspect puts you in a different place than Christians.

I think that if the label holds a strong importance to you, then you should ask a few questions. If an acquaintance says, “I’m going to the Ash Wednesday service, so I can’t go out,” then it’s probably fair for you to respond, “Ok. I’m really interested in religion, and since you seem to value your religion, could you explain to me sometime what Christianity means to you? I’m not interested in converting you, just learning more about you.” If they say no, move on and find other criteria to judge this person by. I had this same conversation with my boyfriend. Because of the nature of our relationship, I could be a little more pointed with my questions, but it was a very productive conversation that lead us to a deeper understanding of each other. We found that we had many more compatible ideas about life and faith than we thought.

Caring about making true claims makes you a “fundamentalist”? WTF?  Are scientists fundamentalists when they challenge each other on claims?  You’re making an absurd false equivalence.

This is complete nonsense.  I don’t know of any atheist who claims that you are under an obligation to ask for evidence for people’s claims in any context.  I wouldn’t raise or respond to any discussion of religion in a workplace, but I would certainly respond to one among my friends.  Why the hell not?  Religionists have tried to make asking for evidence forbidden and we are rightly challenging that social taboo.  It’s really odd idea that Christians have that they can raise the subject of Christianity and then control how we choose to discuss the matter.  Believing something for which you have no evidence is irresponsible behavior and so I have no problem with being disrespectful to someone who does so, no more or less than I would to someone who flouted moral obligations.  Believing that Jesus Christ rose from the dead is to epistemic responsibility what hitting old ladies on the street is to moral responsibility.

Did Stev84 or anyone else here make that claim?

“Since I can’t be a jerk at work, I’ll be a jerk to my friends and mock them until they think just like I do”

Here’s a thought, unpopular: if the friend in question isn’t being a jerk about their beliefs, maybe you don’t have to be a jerk about it either. If the WORST thing you can say about someone is they believe in something you don’t, and other than that, they’re not jerks, or even close to it, maybe try this:

let it go.

I have a lot of friends who believe things I don’t. They know how I feel, I know how they feel. They aren’t jerks about the beliefs we don’t share, nor am I. We Let It Go. I don’t celebrate zombie jesus day, but I don’t call them stupid or make them prove shit to me, because a) that’s being a jerk and b) they don’t OWE me fuck-all anything in terms of proving their beliefs.

As long as they aren’t jerks about their beliefs, I don’t give a fuck. They want to believe in Jesus, Unicorns, and Voltron, I don’t care, because unless they’re actively, PERSONALLY doing stupid shit in the name of Jesucorntron, it neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.

Do I wish religious people as GROUPS were less jerky? Sure, but it’s not like atheists are just as capable, willing, and even eager to be a giant asshole collective as theists, albeit along SLIGHTLY different lines. (NEVER FORGIVE THE GELATO GUY! FUCK HIM INTO THE GROUND! IF YOU’RE ANY KIND OF ATHEIST, YOU MUST AGREE WITH THIS!!!OMGWTFKHAAAAAN!!!!!  only the wtfkhaaaaaaan bit is made up.)

People as individuals encompass the full range of human behavior, and if someone’s willing to take the effort to be a decent dude, I don’t give a fuck if she goes home and fellates a furby because she was raised as a Pentacostal AF and that’s how you get into furby heaven. Just don’t be a jerk about furbatio, and we’ll get along just fine.

If you’re going to reject people solely because other people in the groups they belong to may be assholes, you’re going to find yourself rather alone, or being a raging hypocrite. 

The presence religious beliefs do not give you a right to be a jerk.

I don’t understand these atheists who are rude or disrespectful to believers

It’s a response to the real, crippling pain of social ostracism. It’s probably not effective or productive, but it’s natural.

Stev84 said:

The difference is that being gay isn’t a choice, while being religious is.

The justification “but it isn’t a choice” is used widely as a means of justifying homosexuality. It’s akin to saying, “Since those gay folks simply can’t help themselves, we can allow them to do their thing.” Although Stev84 has the best intentions, I’m sure, this justification has annoyed me for ages.

Being someone who is attracted to both women and men, I could choose to date one or the other. Does my choice to date a member of the same sex then become immoral because I could choose to date the other sex instead?

Who I date doesn’t matter because it hurts no one.

This is a pet peeve of mine and has been for ages. It’s also not the best response to make to homophobes because many of them are as aware of bi people existing as I am. Heck, I’m sure some of the bigots have their own bi tendencies and it freaks them out to the point of being haters.

And, because the sex one dates can be chosen by some queer people, it weakens Stev84s line of reasoning. (Bi people can “act gay” too if they happen to show visible interest in people of the same sex.)

”
The days when people were supposed to just sit there quietly while religionists made completely unsupported claims are over.”

So does that make it so that the days when people are allowed to harass religious people have begun?  What authority declared these days where you were supposed to sit quiet anyways?  Sounds like you are using that made up rule as a convenient reason to invent a moral high ground from which you are allowed to spew your distaste for religion with free license.

Harassment and argument are not at all the same, yet you are so confident that Jonathan is trying to deny his friends the right to argue and differ on opinion.  He is claiming he is being harassed, and I have no reason to believe he started it first.  I think you blame any christian for having started things first, regardless if they have prostelytized or harassed you personally.  Go use Pat Robertson as your verbal punching bag, not this guy who is genuinely interested in being friends with atheists even if he’s a little confused.

Haha, brilliant!  You should write for Hemant, or do you write somewhere else?  I don’t think your perspective gets much airtime on the atheist hate-o-sphere

I know quite a lot, since I make the effort to know people from various philosophical backgrounds.  I don’t believe in many of these philosophies, but I try to understand why these people might think so.  And unfortunately some philosophies have a strong draw amongst people who feel the same way.  One of the strongest glues that hold groups together is hatred of some common enemy, and whole philosophies draw from that. =/  I have known quite a few people who associate themselves with atheism out of hatred for religion, Christianity specifically

I don’t think you understood my point.

But see, most of them are just sitting around being religious in their homes and churches. You just don’t realize it because you don’t hear from them. That’s why I take issue with all of this. You’re painting the entire bunch as if they are fully represented by the loudmouths. This is a mistake.

well we don’t know. As you point out we have a single source for information, so we’re stuck with that. I’m disinclined to read too much into it, that way lies conspiracy theory. 

Given my experience with the asshole minority of Atheism, I don’t find his story unbelievable at all. that doesn’t make it accurate, just not unbelievable. If his atheist friends are all hardcore FTB commenters/readers, for example, i can easily see this. 

Since we don’t have any, yet, reason to doubt his story, and it’s not unbelievable, I’m going with it until better data is offered. I also don’t read him as being offended as much as being either hurt that his friends now treat him differently, or puzzled by it and trying to figure out how to handle it. Either way, if is story is accurate, his friends are kind of being jerks about it.

“Meanwhile, EVERYWHERE ELSE ON THE PLANET, his non-religious friends feel
like hell-bound misfits not suitable for public office, jesus
wafers+wine, and countless other things.”

I’m sorry, this is simply not true. Maybe you live in the Bible Belt so it feels true, but not everywhere in the world is like that.

This thread is irrelevant to the topic. However, I think Stev84 means that you didn’t choose to be attracted to both men and women as a “fuck you” to the church or something like that. You are bi, so you can choose which gender you feel like dating, but you did not choose the biology that allows you to be attracted to both sexes. My biology keeps me attracted to one gender. I didn’t choose it, but I can choose who to date when attracted to them. Although if we get into it, attraction is all chemical processes that we don’t choose to initiate anyways….

I agree with you, Nicki. The choice distinction delves into an area that is not well defined. I’ve know people who have said they couldn’t make themselves believe if they wanted to and I’ve known people who have said they couldn’t choose to not believe that there was something more to the universe than atoms and energy states.

The human race is broad and diverse. You are inevitably going to have a mix of those who are predisposed toward exclusively materialist perceptions, those who are predisposed toward spiritualist perceptions, and those who could swing either way. I don’t think these kinds of perceptions are as universally mutable as some atheists and some religious people claim they are.

However, the bias in an environment such as this blog is to think that everybody can perceive and think of the world exactly as non-believers do. The analogous belief on many Christian blogs is to believe that everyone is capable of embracing their particular supernatural beliefs. Interestingly, both of these bias are useful to the project of evangelism.

I suspect that both bias are untrue.

Tom, there is frequent harassment of many people who are not members of the dominant religion/philosophy in many countries, including the US. (It effects everyone from Pagans and Muslims to atheists and agnostics in the US.) Consequently, there’s a lot of anger in minority religious/philosophical groups toward those of the dominant belief system and rightfully so. This is where the mistrust arises that you are seeing on this thread. I know it’s uncomfortable seeing this kind of mistrust,but unfortunately, at this juncture in history, these kinds of tensions are probably inevitable. (Personally, I hope that calmness on all sides will prevail as time passes.)

Having said that, I’m still quite willing to believe that the Christian guy in the letter was telling the truth. I’ve seen a fair chunk of ill-tempered attitudes directed from atheists toward theists and consequently, I believe the letter writer. Why? Those behaviors are most likely to occur in settings where non-believers are in the majority and feel safe. This appears to be the conditions presented in the letter.

Every group is capable of behaving as jerks, given the opportunity to do so.

Besides, if one’s biology does permit choice, then one has a choice. I don’t see how you can get around that. Consequently, it still renders the “you don’t have a choice who you have a relationship with” justification inaccurate.

And, as someone who is bi, I’m tired of having my life’s reality erased by common responses to the issue of homosexuality that simply do not fit my lived experience.

Agreed.  I’m married to a Christian and if any atheists started treating my wife like this they’d soon finde themselves confronted and if nonrepentant they would end up non-friends.  

A current example is that conservative woman in Wisconson being bullied because she worked as a waitress in Hooters.    Apparently it’s OK to do this to a conservative, whereas it would be taboo otherwise.   

The people on r/atheism are self selected.  Also you can’t tell who is or who is not a real atheist.    You are making some of the same mistakes that Skepchick did.   I’ve never met an actual jerk atheist in person.  I’ve met plenty of jerks on the internet of all persuasions.   Anonymity brings out the worse in people.   Care to start using your real name like me because you are starting to sound like a jerk?  Which I guess supports your claim in a way seeing how you claim to be an atheist.  But how does anyone know for sure?   

I don’t even understand how these Christian guy ended up clustering with so many atheist friends.   I’m not even in touch with any of my atheist friends on any sort of regular basis.   I’m not even sure I have a plurality of atheist friends.   At the moment I can think of only one and I see him like once every five years.  In fact, we’ve had a falling out over his hatred of rich people, and my disagreement with him over it.   I do have atheist relatives however.   I don’t screen my friends on the basis of belief.

It is just fine to criticize specific beliefs, and do so as a criticism of the religion.   It is not correct to assume that every person to self identifies as being a member believes every dogma.

If someone says the bible is literally true and inerrant then have at them personally via criticism of bible stories.  That is if they bring it up.   However, don’t just assume that “I’m Christian” is an invitation to make false assumptions of what that means to them.

“Oh, we’d better not talk about this- it would probably offend him.” worse than saying  whatever  “I am a practicing Christian” means ?”

Because one is a positive statement about self, and the other is a negative claim about someone else.    One assumes the other persons beliefs and assumes they are overtly sensitive.   Another is merely a broad labeling of self.

The difference between saying “I’m white” or “I’m black” and saying “Ooo, I better be careful you might just take me as a slave” or” “We better not eat watermelon around you”.

Sorry, I have to disagree.   If they actually believe I’m going to hell for no other reason than not believing as they do then they are bigots.  It requires no action on their part.  Just like people who think other races are inferior (in any way) without actually taking action are still bigots.

Yep, just like you probably cherry pick from whatever ideology you aspire to, if you do.   Communists do it, libertarians do it, objectivists do it,  liberals do it, etc.    Atheism isn’t an ideology so it’s not something you can “cherry pick” from.

That wasn’t fair.  The examples aren’t really a big deal, so Jim does have a point.

“This is like a white guy complaining that all of his black friends make fun of him for being white. ”

This is supposed to be an example of acceptable behavior?

Damn, my training with Godel’s theorem immediately put me in the mind to run his comment through like you did.  A kind of iterative self refutation. You beat me to it.   Plus I’m pretty sure I probably write at the 8th grade level not in comprehension but in writing skills, yet I’m way way out of college.

Kudos.

Oh, wait.  My mistake that was two different commenters, both uncharitable.   Again non-ironic since they agree.

Wow, Mr. Atheist Sherlock Holmes.    Your (and others) nasty behavior in this comment thread actually provides credence to the idea that it is possible this guys letter is real.  You are behaving like the people in the letter.

Plus you can’t seem to reason you way out of a wet paper bag.

Once again, I’m at a loss. I needn’t consider any harebrained ‘conspiracy’ nonsense, for the letter contains little telltale signs denoted by quotation marks. No speculation whatever is required to resolve the caliber of questions he gets inasmuch as examples are given by him. Had his friends been saying worse things, I’m hard-pressed to know why he didn’t cite those instead of these very mild exchanges.

Again, the fact that he’s seeking advice on how to cope with emotional turmoil of having his friends asking him if he really believes that stuff – stuff one notes that amounts to nothing more than allegedly real people reciting magical incantations to get a powerful wizard to cast magical spells on their behalf – doesn’t persuade me to think he’s a person one shouldn’t expect to take offense quite easily. And, as a matter that might look pedantic but really isn’t, you draw a distinction between hurt feelings and offended that is entirely imaginary, for having one’s feelings injured entails being offended. They are synonyms.

Your psychic powers must be better than mine.

 Thank you. Bisexuals are often brushed away as “fence sitters.” I’ve even been told that since I’m with a man now, I’m no longer bi. I always have to point out that my bisexuality is about attraction, not necessarily who I’m with at the moment. If I was not in a relationship and not having sex, would that make me asexual?

In fact, I don’t like the choice argument anyway. Even if it was a choice, so what? Just because you choose a way to live, doesn’t mean it’s not your right to make that choice.

You seem to not be realizing the sort of prejudice that Carla is trying to point out. She’s saying that when you make the claim, “We like you even though you’re X because you don’t act like the rest of X.” you’re still making a prejudice comment. Whether X is Christian, atheist, black, Korean, woman, what have you, claiming you like someone or tolerate someone because they don’t act like their “classification” is still acting on prejudice – you’re still including the prejudice remark against the group, stating it’s wrong to be like the group.

What she was saying is that people should be treated as people, not by their classifications. We shouldn’t like Jonathan because “even though he’s a Christian, he doesn’t act like a typical one” or he’s a “nice Christian” – we should  like Jonathan because he’s a nice person. (Not saying he is, but to explain the argument.)

 Planet was a bad word choice. However, in the USA, the vast majority of our citizens are Christians. I have wrongly assumed the author of the letter was from the USA, which isn’t fair.

From the letter: I get remarks like, “I can’t believe that
you actually think that” or “Oh, we’d better not talk about this- it
would probably offend him.”

I think that Jonathan’s feelings are valid. He wants to be treated as an indivdual, not as a faceless representative of a group. Fine. I’m on board with that.But look what his friends are saying. People are calling them jerks for that? For asking him questions or trying (and failing) to avoid hurting his feelings?Maybe they are jerks, or maybe they are just ordinary and unaware how much this upsets him

 Experience.

 Wow, re-read the comments, please. That’s not what people are saying at ALL.

Maybe you should without the lens of “anyting atheist say about theists is always right”. It’s kind of obvious to me.

Well put.  What you describe is not skepticism, but cynicism.  Instead of representing a lack of faith as a function on the part of the observer, it demonstrates a complete denial of “good faith” on the part of the observed.

a.k.a. anecdote.  

I don’t know the letter writer, but we don’t know what kind of Christian he is. He could belong to a “normal” denomination that doesn’t go around talking about God and Jesus and hellfire and brimstone. Not all Christians proselytize. Catholics certainly don’t, and if he’s a Protestant, he could be something relatively tame, like Quaker, United Church of Christ, or United Methodist.

After 10 years of writing to Marylynne Vos Savant I can tell you that questions are screened this particular one in reeking of fraud should have been ash-canned.  

More like:

“my day at NASA where we’ve sent three men to mars and back on a rocket powered by an old bicycle pump and three left footed sandals sucked because my boss was just an asshole all day about the colony on the sun wasting all the tang and took it out on my department by releasing super-intelligent wasps into the airducts and they formed little tornadoes that wrecked all the card-houses on my ceiling.” 

Which I would ignore and ask if his car still needs an alignment.

jonny,
thanks for defending dick’s methods of not screening his advise while overlooking dick has a great chance to be the most credible source on this issue. my take is – “he screens”.

my point is – current practice or not – this letter was pure garbage material.

failing to ashcan it detracted from the credibility of dick as a beacon for reason.

as for my personal method of dealing with the religious, your projections have scant  basis for such categorical assertions – and is because this is not the topic i opted reject based on the original post – not will not be part of my discussion.

jonny,
thanks for defending dick’s methods of not screening his advise while overlooking dick has a great chance to be the most credible source on this issue. my take is – “he screens”.

my point is – current practice or not – this letter was pure garbage material. failing to ashcan it detracted from the credibility of dick as a beacon for reason.

as for my personal method of dealing with the religious, your projections have scant basis for such categorical assertions – and is because this is not the topic as i opted reject based on the original post – not will not be part of my discussion.