Talk:Christian evangelism

	This Christianity related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Question

Should RatWiki be dry and uninteresting? Should readers plough through erudite stuff because they feel a duty to educate themselves? We risk turning many of our readers away. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

How many? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Uncountable! Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

& How great is the risk? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So saying half-truths, attacking people simply because they are religious, and making broad generalizations is a better format for an article? I'm sorry if you think this shit I wrote is erudite. Most people here probably don't think I'm exactly erudite, but rather at an upper 8-12th grade level. It's hardly "academic". for god's sake, PC. Godot 19:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say we we risk driving readers away by having badly-written hit pieces that a schoolchild could find errors in. Unless, of course, our readers are all "herp derp Christians are stoopid." Sophie^{because liberals} 19:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've looked again at the article as I left it here. The article said many Christians evangelise in bad ways but didn't make it clear enough that not all Christians do that. That brief point can easily be overlooked. I'll try and do better next time, sorry teacher. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand that the entire tone you presented was that evangelism and evangelists are BAD!!!! As if it's any different that being a fan of your favorite breed of cat, or Brian Cox. When you start with that perspective, you cannot show the real world, what's really being done. WE can sit around and beat up straw men all day long, but what does that get us? Rather, we should show the real world, with all the shades of grey, and even color, then point out the reality of egregiousness, and how to combat it, if necessary. You just want to combat it, period. to what end? Godot 19:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to complement me when you compare me to Brian Cox? Brian Cox is far more successful than you or I can ever hope to be . The late Christopher Hitchens was also far more successful than you or I can ever hope to be .

I’m making an effort to imagine what could have happened if Hitchens had appeared under a pseudonym on a website that Godot uses in 2006 before he published his most successful book and the idea frightens me. I imagine Godot would have slammed into Hitchens for the title, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. I imagine Godot would have argued the title Hitchens chose lacks academic credibility. After all any child can see that groups like the Quakers, the Methodists and the Salvation Army do a great deal that is good and not so much that is poisonous.

You accuse me of focusing too far on the bad side of Christianity and ignoring its good effects. Please don’t do something similar yourself and ignore the good that popular writing can achieve. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear god, you have problems with reading comprehension. Is English your first language? If it's not, I'll back down. But where in the hell do you think I'm comparing you to Brian Cox. What would I have done, in 2004 if I'd met hitch under a different name? Depends. 1) does he write like you? 2) Is he the annoying, pedantic, religion attacking, generalizing, factually incorrect, ignorant, religionist jerk that he was in his books and interviews? I love that the idea "frightens" you. Makes me shiver with the power I have to derail idiot anti-religions screeds for more soundly academic, logical, truthful work. ah, POWER IS MINE!Godot 14:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

First rate authors like Christopher Hitchens aren't likely to turn up on websites that second rate writers like you or I use. Hitch knew what was a good title and used it, he ignored silly critics if he bothered to read them. The idea frightens me because you'd have slammed into a good title that later became a best seller. When it became clear that the book was succeeding you'd have lost credibility. Then other academics would have argued as forcefully as they could that they are more sensible than that woman who couldn't recognise a good title when she read it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Twilight sold more copies than Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. That doesn't make it a good book. I'm just glad you admit that what you want out of Rational Wiki, is a place for immature idiots to come and find half truths, stereotypes, and slash attacks to fulfill their newly formed idea that "religion is bad". Godot 17:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know "Twilight", I looked it up and found out it's some type of vampire series. I do know "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" I think Hitchhiker is a very funny series and if we can make the fun sections of RationalWiki as funny as Hitchhiker we'll be succeeding. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I have now come across the RationalWiki article on Twilight and I most certainly don't want to be popular the way Twilight is popular. I consider myself a moderate feminist. I care when men are corrupted by power and are misogynist. I also care when women are corrupted by power believing they are on a mission from God. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn’t set out to write half-truths and stereotypes, though many people can write stereotypes without intending to. For example stereotyping Richard Dawkins as a jerk ignores his internationally recognised standing as an evolutionary biologist. Christians aren’t as keen as you are to show both sides, radio and television stations, newspapers and journals, Christian websites all tell people how good Christians think their religion is. Priests and pastors delivering Sunday sermons, Sunday school teachers, ordinary school teachers also give the, ‘Christianity is wonderful’ message. That happens even in relatively secular countries like the UK and the Bible Belt of the United States is worse. I assumed my readers already know the good side of Christianity as that is so vigorously promoted. With hindsight I probably should have written something more balanced. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Your readers? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

PC - you might want to look up the word "sterotype". Just sayin...Godot 13:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Stereotype means among other things, "A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image". [1] Calling Richard Dawkins a jerk is certainly oversimplified, it's not necessarily conventional and not necessarily formulaic. I was partly correct. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image" sounds like everything I've seen you contribute. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

What it is to do with

What does this have to do with anything? Omar (gibber) 16:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Godot is accusing me of writing in a non-academic way and asks what I hope to achieve. I pointed out that Hitch also wrote in a non-academic way, readers could see he was overgeneralising but still bought his books. Perhaps some people read the book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything because they wanted to argue with his over generalisations. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop comparing yourself to Hitchens, Cox, etc. There really are no similarities, either in terms of expertise, style or context. It's insufferably arrogant and a really bad association fallacy. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

^ +1 Тyrannis^{An iron, but caring, fist} 21:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You're not being criticized for writing in a non-academic way. You're being criticized for tilting at windmills. Omar (gibber) 22:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I get the impression Godot is very keen to ensure believers especially Christians aren't unfairly maligned. At the same time preventing unfair criticism of atheists is less important. Here Godot wrote,
"If you read the link that you gave, you'll see one of the individuals writing say "I have read all (emphasis mine) of the sophisticated theology and none of it makes any sense". "
I read and reread carefully Myth: Atheist Critiques are Simplistic, Don't Understand Sophisticated Theology which was the link I gave. I couldn't find, "I have read all (emphasis mine) of the sophisticated theology and none of it makes any sense". "
I'm tired of Godot holding opponents of religion to higher standards than se herself follows, that's called hypocrisy. Godot's edits need careful checking to ensure there aren't mistakes like her misquote above in articles. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh shut up you incompetent hack. The unbusinesslike^{man of business} 21:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Pointing this out is competent. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Because an incident on the Theology talk page really needs to be pointed out across multiple other talk pages 10 days after it happened, right?--Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 07:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It needs to be pointed out repeatedly because it shows Godot is an unreliable witness and her authority shouldn't be accepted without challenge. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Pot... kettle. Where is your authory? What makes you a reliable witness? All you do is regurgitate bits of atheism.about, for the most part. Sophie^Wilder 19:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I am so tired of you calling me out as a "liar" prox. again, you seem to insist I meant something i did not say. I said "one of the commentators at your atheist site". not about.athest. YOUR site. please cease and desist. or grow up. that would be even better.GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 19:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)