The Conversion Catalyst

I’ve interviewed a many notable atheists with great conversion stories. Ex-Baptist minister, Bruce Gerencser, one-time Catholic priest, Thom Burkett, and past Presbyterian pastor, David Hayward, to name a few. I’m aware of atheists who are now proud Christians, mostly because evangelists reshare such stories until my timeline is a flood of textual reruns. They must know that the narrative of someone discarding one life for another can be very compelling, but should it ever be compelling enough to convince you to change? Is there anyone whose conversion would be a catalyst for your own?

Not long ago I had a close college friend pass along his testimony of religious revelation. Unlike a door-to-door religious testimony, my friend’s meant something because I knew that he wasn’t mentally unstable. He wasn’t justifying the means of a lie to the end of saving my soul. Coming from a person who with I’ve spent the best and worst of over four years it meant what he was saying was very likely honest, but probably untrue. My trust in my friends doesn’t supersede my trust in the arrow of time or the laws of physics. I know that makes me the cynic who will eventually be proven wrong in the feel-good movie of the year, but I also know that my life isn’t a fantasy flick.

Still, my friend’s conversion was as an influencer on a personal level, but not on an intellectual level. We never spoke of theology or justified our beliefs. I merely knew he was an atheist. Inquiring further would have required a firmer interest, which I didn’t have at the time. Alcohol and video games seemed more interesting. Fast forward to present day and I wonder what if an atheist converted who based more of their life on their non-belief, like the aforementioned ex-pastors? What if, say, Dawkins accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior? I’d be very interested in that conversion story. The conversion itself would have less affect on me than my friend, but intellectually I’d be fascinated in what facilitated the change. A near-death experience, a personal revelation or some other one-off subjective event would hamper my interest. However, if the change was due to new evidence that Dawkins believes undermines the entirety of evolution in some way? I would probably research it until I was either a Christian or a biologist.

The appeal to authority or celebrity should never be enough to change your mind, but conversion stories can be a marker for information with real value. I’d be willing to bet that the Pope will convert before Dawkins will, but if that happens, I imagine the Church will retroactively revoke his infallible status quicker than you can say "transubstantiation."

Blogs to Check Out

I've become a regular reader of a few blogs that I don't think I've mentioned before. I thought I'd share.

Young Blogs

Big Bang God
I found this guy on Google+. His blog is only a month old at the time of this post, but I think he'll keep it up for a while. He obviously likes writing and notes that his posts shouldn't be taken too seriously, which I generally like about anyone--atheist or not.

Married An Atheist
Weighing in at only seven posts so far, this is another newbie. It's also the only non-atheist blog on the list. The author is a Christian who is chronicling her relationship and outlining her philosophy as the wife of an atheist. She might not think like us, but she is obviously friendly towards us (as long as you are friendly towards her.)

Godless In Dixie
This blog wins the most professional newb award. The posts are longer-form, well spoken and in some cases even researched. I'm hardly the first to mention this rising atheist voice, I found it via Atheist Revolution.

Secular Sunshine
We need more women voices in the atheist community, which is one of the reasons I have high hopes that this blog grows strong. Generally new blogs cover ground that has already been covered by everyone else, but this author has already found outside-the-box topics.

Established Blogs

A Particular Blog By A Particular Atheist
This is a great blog if you are interested in religion-related current events from an atheist perspective. Judging from the news cycle, I doubt he'll run out of stuff to say anytime soon. Good editorial work as well.

God Is A Myth
An ex-Pentecostal evangelist still has a lot to say 3+ years into blogging. I get the impression he's trying to make "ex"s of other religious types.

I Am An Atheist And This Is Why
If you like my blog, you'll probably like this one. We are bothered by and therefore cover a lot of the same topics and in no particular order. The author's name is Christian, which makes it worth reading just for the irony.

Atheism And The City
This is a great read if you are tired of apologetics...or if you want to become tired of it. The author covers all kinds of atheist topics, but often comes back to philosophy, logic and refuting theistic arguments.

My Secret Atheist Blog
This is one of the best atheist news and opinion blogs out there, but you might need a Canadian connection to get the most out of it.

Check these sites out and if you like what you see, let them know. Comment on their posts, write them an email, click through an ad, share to your social network, something. Especially for the younger blogs, it's hard to find motivation to keep writing if they don't know any one's out there. Same goes for all the great bloggers I've interviewed in the past. Hell, same goes for me. :-)

Apologetics, You're Doing It Wrong

Just Sayin'

Before.

God, if you exist, you could make a decent case for yourself if you strike me down in the next minute. Otherwise, I'm so going to mock you.
— Grundy (@deityshmeity) June 29, 2013

After.

Still alive. (See last tweet.) God, if you exist, you suck.
— Grundy (@deityshmeity) June 30, 2013

On the Transparency of Christian Apologetics

The following is a post to the Christian Apologetics Alliance's Google+ Community by Caleb Dickson, who is well worth a follow.

Apologetics is defined as:

1. Systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)
2. A branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

Of course there are reasons why opposition to Christianity has intensified, especially in recent decades. A flurry of new scientific observations, hypotheses, theories and the resulting philosophical implications that fly in the face of elementary Christian belief have raised more questions than ever in Christian history. These questions have forced Christians to rally support for their beliefs and provide answers for the growing number of inadequately answered questions and, as a result, growing number of atheists.

But to what end? How far are Christians willing to assert and defend themselves in the face of denial? It seems that too many of us all begin this argument with the presupposition that we are already absolutely and objectively right before a conclusion can even be met. But is this an intelligent assumption for those concerned about the social, political, scientific or overall intellectual legitimacy of their position? Or in any discussion for that matter? Are we willing to leave valid points unchecked simply to save our own arguments?

In the interest of intellectual honesty there must be a criteria purposefully defined and agreed upon for the religious themselves to admit that they have failed to win the debate. Otherwise, what's the point? It seems this would otherwise serve to encourage people to blindly oppose everything the counter-argument has to say without accountability.

With the burden of proof resting on the claimant the Christian criteria for disproof seems primarily important. Because the atheist argument isn't an assertion (a rejection of all religious assertion) criteria for disproof doesn't seem to apply there. Yet we atheists too should set our cards on the table. I have my understandings which are continually being revised and expanded based on new information. I will gladly explain them if asked.
I suggest we at least make an attempt to agree on this criteria before the discussion can resume.

1. What fundamental claims of Christianity do you personally think must be proven in order to claim success in proving your religion true, specifically to the atheist? Things that, unaccounted for, should result in failure.
2. By what standards, with what types of evidence and to what degree must your claims be proven?

I thought this was a very well-stated piece...that, of course, got Caleb kicked out of the community. If any on my apologetic readers have responses, please leave them in the comments and I'll make sure Caleb finds them.

Top Ten Authentic Biblical Miracles

10.

9.

8.

7.

6.

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

The Top Ten Ways to Tell That You’re Winning a Debate with an Apologist

10. The apologist projects qualities that apply to them onto you in hopes that it will equate all parties involved. They figure that they can’t lose the argument they are in fact losing because every one is relying on, say, faith. This ultimately ends the argument in a tie...if it were true, which it’s not.

9. Questions are worded as double or triple negatives in hopes that you agree to something that could easily be misread to mean the opposite. If you discover that you’ve made an error and correct it, the apologist labels you an inconsistent flip-flopper for the rest of your debate and/or life.

8. The apologist ignores common meanings of words and applies definitions that only other apologists accept as valid. They do this without telling you what their unorthodox definitions are until pressured. This method allows them to think atheists don’t know what we are talking about because, well, we don’t know what we are talking about. It's a breach of common vernacular in favor of coded, theological jargon.

7. The Gish Gallop tactic is used in which the apologist throws out as many different lines of argument or crack-pot studies as possible. This is an admission that they are unable to rationally discuss any one topic. It’s especially apparent after you ask them to contain the conversation to a particular set of ideas and they refuse.

6. The apologist, fully aware that you don’t believe in their holy book, quotes passages from their holy book.

5. When arguing in a public forum, the apologist responds to other people’s points but ignores yours. Chances are, this is because your points are the most difficult to address and therefore those with the least flaws to exploit.

4. The apologist plays dumb about the topic of debate when you explain how it might help your argument then suddenly becomes an expert when the same topic can possibly help their argument.

3. Instead of hashing out their own ideas and beliefs, they send links in the hopes that freshly Googled internet content can do the debating for them. (Protip: if an apologist hits you with a particularly well-worded argument, search a couple sentences in Google using quotation marks. I’ve found theists copy and pasting other people’s barely relevant arguments as their own. Talk about debating by syndication.)

2. The apologist gets defensive, flustered or angry. When ad hominems start flying from someone who normally preaches “turn the other cheek” you know that you’ve struck upon something unsettling to the apologist. Cognitive dissonance can be very frustrating.

1. You’re debating from a position founded on reality against someone who relies on assumptions of magic, the supernatural, and the divine.