I don't find his reaction surprising at all. Have you read Penn Jillette's essay about his beliefs?

Atheist respects Christian as an individual, film at eleven.

Why is this surprising?

I guess because much of the online interaction I have had with atheists has been rather...rough. And no, I hadn't read that essay. All I knew about him was that he was a pretty staunch atheist and so I assumed anyone trying to hand him a Bible would probably have a pretty rough time of it.

Those darn assumptions will bite 'cha in the butt every time.

Confirmation bias.

With one exception (my friend who I only have jokingly refer to as a "fundamentalist atheist") pretty much all the atheists and agnostics I know consider it central to their beliefs to assess/judge/respect people based on their actions and intentions, not on whether they share the same belief system regarding the supernatural.

(grr...should be "only HALF-jokingly")

I would venture a guess that most of the online interaction you have had with atheists was so not rough you didn't even realize you were interacting with atheists.

I guess because much of the online interaction I have had with atheists has been rather...rough.

I'm going to suggest that during most of the online interaction you have with atheists, you're unaware that they're atheists.

(Hi! I'm an atheist! I don't know if I've even mentioned that at MetaChat before, because it's not a central component of my life. It just is.)

If that's the case, your observation could be reframed as a tautology: "The most vocally charged atheists I've interacted with have been vocally charged." And if that's the case, I sympathize: that kind of interaction happens to everyone, and leads us to suppose that the most vocal (or least uncivil) members of a given group are actually representative of said group.

Or, hey, what Wolfdog said!

Well, first, I would have definitely considered Penn to be the vocal type of atheist...I'm not really referring to everyday interaction, I am referring to his comment that he respects the guy for proselytizing and has no respect for believers who don't even tho he does not share their beliefs. I have had the experience of being jumped on by what I suppose I could call fundamentalist atheists (of which, forgive me, I had always thought he probably was) who would think that me mentioning anything about Christianity was totally out of line and obnoxious.

My respect for Mr. Penn has increased exponentially, altho I could wish he'd reconsider his beliefs. ;-)

Although I immediately rejected the existence of a god when the concept was first introduced to me at the age of 5, I still eventually read the christian bible in its entirety. Like most morals systems based in faith, I found that it has its good points and its bad. Humans are inherently imperfect, and many need a crutch. If giving me a book improves the life of another person, so be it. For myself, other questions about existence are far more interesting to ponder.

Penn is a poor thinker, and this is just one example. He can only be talking about believers in original sin, not believers in god.

The one thing that stuck out while watching the video is how often he stressed that the guy claimed, and Penn seemed to believe, how sane he is, with the inferred default that all believers are raving lunatics. I mean, why was it so important to note the guy's sanity? Is it so odd that Penn would come across a sane Christian?

Dookickie, not at all. I AM a Christian and I admit there are a lot of kooky seeming Christians out there. And a lot of folks who ARE kooks, honestly.

I forwarded that link to a couple of pastor friends of mine. What I liked about the description of what the guy did was that a) it was straightforward and nonmanipulative and b) he treated Penn with respect and as a person, not just another prospective notch on the old Bible gun.

Too often I think "evangelism" and "outreach" is treated more like trying to bait fish and less like simply sharing the good news of Jesus Christ and what He did. No gimmicks necessary. Salvation is an internal process, not a sales technique.

Birdie, there can only BE sin if there is a God.

I wish bunnyfire would reconsider her beliefs. And her decision to come back here after quitting so dramatically.

Well it's bunnyfire's thread, she started it to discuss this, and I am glad to see her here!

On topic: Is it just me or did Penn look stoned in his little vlog there? Such a cutie with his poorly formed stoney thoughts! I have a soft spot for Penn.

Penn Gillette seems more and more pleased with his own voice. I found him pretty inarticulate in this clip. A fan gave him a gift of a Bible; a gift that is rather unexpected, given Gillette's well-publicized lack of belief in any god. He repeats that this was a good person, though he has no particular knowledge of the man.

If Penn Gillette were reviewing that clip, he'd make mincemeat of it. And, yes, he did seem stoned to me.

on a related related note (these are nutters and I think bunnyfire would agree): Santa Claus Will Take You... To HELL!!

Siiigh. I am familiar with Mr. Jillette's "This I belive" essay, amd tought it was well done. The man himself, the interview linked - meh. Anyway, hi,I'm an atheist too. Like Andril, from very early. I really like that my workplace is realxed and not stridently pollitically corret. But. While people at work can advertise their church activites, wear apparel procliming their Christinity, the flip side of this is that atheists can't. I mean we could, but it would be offensive to the general belief system of my peers, so I don't. Out of respect. I am totally cool with whatever people believe. Really. Whatever works. But I am in a place of silence. In my State, liscence plates such as "8theist" are not allowed as offensive. Faith liscense plates are allowed. So I think atheists get militantized because there is the tactit assumption that the minority should be silenced for the general comfort of the group at large. And when there is silence, there is no dialoge, and a group, ok a smaller group, us, is put underground, and some of them try, often times not well, to fight back. This bothers me, but I don't know or choose what to do about it. Like I said, I'm cool with people's belief systems. Except when once in a great while, someone tries to save someone. I mean, Stop. Please. I am defensive, it offends. And I have no voice of my own to express opposite views. Personally, I would never, ever, attempt to turn a person of faith to my way of thinking. But. . . it's norm, ok, rare, but accepted, to talk religion to your co-workers and try to turn them around. I would NEVER do that, so it bothers me that the other team does that to my team. And we don't do the converse. I guess what I'm saying is please, people, keep your faith your fatih, your private faith. If part of your faith is to evangelicalize, please please don't in a professional setting, at least. Come knock on my door. I'll politely shut you out, but thank you for being in the neighborhood. What the heck, it's a good thing to have church peeps walking around, keeping an eye on things.

And honestly, what rainbaby said is exactly what I would have expected Penn to say. And why I was so surprised at what he DID say. I cannot imagine that the typical atheist would have put it the way he did.

I guess what I appreciated is he understood that the man was coming from a place of love and caring. And I also appreciated the fact that the man was not an obnoxious jerk in the way he chose to talk to Penn.

BTGoG, yup, nutters. I could only stomach a couple of seconds of that video!

the typical atheist

This phrase is meaningless.

No, dude, bunnyfire, I just articulated why someone would NOT say that - it's just going to come off somehow doomed to rant and someone who is in the majority that possesses the god gene. I wouldn't say that in the situation. I would play it respectful and cool. I was trying to articulate my frustration and difficulty in moving through the world.

It's not that bad, it's maybe like being left handed and having to sit at the end of a group table so you don't bump other people. You can make a point of it, but why do that? Just sit at the end of the table or quietly ask someone to change places. The differnce is if someone asks why, one can say "I'm left handed." You say "I'm an athiest, actually" and one opens oneself up to a whole world of shock and shun.

*throws gas on fire and wonders why it flares up*

or what mullacc said

rainbaby, I wasn't saying you weren't respectful, etc. I AM saying I was surprised at HIM saying that people of faith are supposed to proselytize. I have never heard another atheist say that.

Terrapin, nothing is flaring up here. Folks are having a respectful discussion of Penn and his particular viewpoints.

I think a lot of us find it hard to maneuver thru this world, depending on the people who are surronding us. At my job there are a lot of people of faith, so those conversations are easy. In other places I may find myself, I would be in more of a situation like rainbaby describes. Elsewhere I am participating in a (local) discussion on the topic of race, where similar points are coming up. I long for places where people of whatever belief can feel comfortable discussing whatever they like in the confidence that they would encounter only respect and good conversation.

I cannot imagine that the typical atheist would have put it the way he did.

*sighs*

This statement kind of shows that you are missing the point, and are proving how few atheists/agnostics you realize you know, and how little you're paying attention to what we atheists/agnostics in this thread are actually saying.

But, you know, carry on. By all means, please keep telling me how I
(not to mention the lion's share of my own friends/family/colleagues) think and behave.

You say "I'm an athiest, actually" and one opens oneself up to a whole world of shock and shun.

Comments like this really remind me that America is a foreign country; in my workplace it's considered (if people consider it at all, which nobody ever seems to) no-one's business what your take on religion is. It's private. Proselytizing to your co-workers would be dealt with quickly and quietly, behind closed doors, as an annoyance. I'm always puzzled by the vehemance with which people here or on Mefi, Americans, assert their atheism, until I remember that atheism in America is, at least in part, a political position. The atheist/believer bebate, if I can call it that, doesn't seem to be about religion at all, but about entire worldviews and cultures.

What's it been? Eight, nine days?

[sorry...that was me, Miko. Damn furrin computer]

"Hello! I am a typical Christian.", "and I am a typical atheist!"
≡ Click to see image ≡

It doesn't matter whose character you put in what role as it still works! And, it doesn't matter what role you identify with or what character you identify with as you can be sure you are irritating the F*@k out of me.

That's OK.

I hug you anyway.

To put it in a less-grumpy way: what may be surprising about Penn's response is not that he responded that way because despite the fact that he is an atheist; he responded that way because he frequently acts like an obnoxious, loudmouthed know-it-all. One has nothing to do automatically with the other.

(grr... cancel the "because" before "despite." A week off from work and I can't edit to save my life.)

Although Penn is an athirst, i cant speak to his beliefs as he's a different denomination to me.

IF he's athirst, wouldn't a big glass of water solve the problem?

Oh, and scody, maybe THAT is what is causing the cognitive dissonance. In the back of my head I guess I did think of Penn as rather a loud abrasive individual...we all have our assumptions and that was mine about him. Of course entertainers have public and private personas, and there's nothing that strange about his private persona being different than his public one, if that is indeed the case.

Anyway, I hope all the bunnies know I love them, whether or not I annoy them by talking about God or not.


(arse_hat, I saw a commercial with those two last night and the Microsoft guy knocked a snowman head over on a cute bunny. Enough to make me wanna run out and buy a Mac Right.Now.

Too often I think "evangelism" and "outreach" is treated more like trying to bait fish and less like simply sharing the good news of Jesus Christ and what He did.

How is this not trying to sell someone something? I'm most familiar with outreach in terms of businesses trying to get the word out about their products [so you can, you know, buy them] or non-profits like say libraries or food banks letting people know they exist so that people can get help there.

So, in one case, there is a subtle sales maneuver happening. In the other case, there's generally a NO STRINGS "hey in case you didn't know about this, I just wanted to let you know" approach.

I personally see religious evangelism seeming much much more like the first alternative than the second. I think in the US it's much more likely that someone knows about Jesus and just made different choices about how to relate to him than you did.

So, my appreciation for Jesus and his excellent carpentry has caused me to go date someone who looks a lot like him [though shorter] and have the type of intimate, perhaps carnal, relationship that I'd really like to be able to have with my lord and savior. It takes all kinds.

(cortex? zomg!)

I'm much taller than Jesus, btw. He just looks tall because he's usually hung way up there close to the ceiling.

I think in the US it's much more likely that someone knows about Jesus and just made different choices about how to relate to him than you did.

Well put.

I've always been bothered by this aspect, the presumptuousness of proselytizing - that the proselytizer thinks the thing to do is to try to re-create his or her relationship with the divine in everyone else he or she meets, because the proselytizer assumes that relationship is the best possible one. It doesn't allow for the enormous variety of individual and unique approaches to matters of spirit that actually do exist and are strongly felt.

I like how Quakers handle it. No proselytizing (everyone already has equal access to the divine, no two people conceive of it in exactly the same way), and you don't 'get converted', you become convinced.

As an athiest, this thread feels like church. I love you guys!

I've always been bothered by this aspect, the presumptuousness of proselytizing - that the proselytizer thinks the thing to do is to try to re-create his or her relationship with the divine in everyone else he or she meets, because the proselytizer assumes that relationship is the best possible one. It doesn't allow for the enormous variety of individual and unique approaches to matters of spirit that actually do exist and are strongly felt.

Not only is it presumptuous, but it's narcissistic, condescending, smug, and just plain rude. But hey, like a lot of other really repugnant facets of religious zealotry, it can be excused by a "God told me to," and how can you effectively argue against that?

The movie Jesus Camp has been on cable a few times during the past week. I watched parts of it last night and *literally* smacked my forehead at some of it. As it turns out, Satan likes to infect PowerPoint presentations about Jesus.

Well, to me, the following is "evangelization."

Where we lived before, here in town, we had a neighbor. We loved her to pieces. She swore like a sailor but had (and has) a heart of gold. She doted (and still does ) on a herd of adorable Yorkies who she treats better than most folks do their kids.

We watched out for her place, she watched out for ours, we swapped Christmas goodies, and had many an interesting yack across the fence.She knew we went to church, and she herself was a Catholic who afaik didn't always make it to Mass, but oh well. Oh, and she was divorced-she used to be married to a man up north who beat her. I'm talking severely. Broken bones and the whole bit. She stuck it out for years, then finally fled with her children, worked two jobs to survive, then eventually moved back here.

Fast forward to now. We had bought a house and moved across town, and meanwhile my husband put in a good word for her and she was hired to work as a rental manager for the company he works at (She'd been laid off from her previous job thru no fault of her own.)

At the company Christmas party a couple of weeks ago, I went to go give her a hug and a hello. She grabbed me like I was a life preserver in a stormy sea and blurted out "When is your husband gonna give me the address to your church?"

I looked a bit confused. She then proceeded to explain to me what had happened the last time she'd gone to Mass.

The priest had somehow found out that ten years previously, she got that divorce. He proceeded to tell her that she was going to hell. Not only that but her CHILDREN were going to hell. Period.

This is a woman who is afraid to miss Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve because she is afraid God will send her to hell for it.

She told me that whole story and I wanted to cry. She and I are gonna get together and talk, because she wants to. She wants to know how not to go to Hell. She needs to know that God is not mad at her for that divorce. She needs to know that God is not up there with a big stick ready to knocke her into Hell for leaving a man who probably would have eventually killed her if she'd stayed. She needs to know that God loves her, and she needs to know just how much God loves her.

All we did in the past was live our lives, love her, and treat her accordingly. We never hid the fact we go to church but we didn't make a major deal out of it. Nor did we have a cow when she cussed in front of us.

She knew we were safe to talk to.

THAT is evangelism.

I personally see religious evangelism seeming much much more like the first alternative than the second. I think in the US it's much more likely that someone knows about Jesus and just made different choices about how to relate to him than you did.

Well, Jessamyn, you would think that, but surprisingly enough, there are a ton of people who either don't have a clue what Jesus is really about (and I was one of them for a time) OR know next to nothing, period.

If someone already knows the accurate version, and isn't interested, then I have no problem with simply leaving them alone.

But again, my neighbor needs to know that she is not consigned to Hell. If I don't tell her, that particular priest sure ain't gonna do it.

But again, my neighbor needs to know that she is not consigned to Hell.

Or better yet, that there is no hell but the one we make for ourselves and others right here, right now.

If someone already knows the accurate version, and isn't interested, then I have no problem with simply leaving them alone.

You see, the problem is that you consider your version to be the accurate one. A person may not be interested in your version, but they are not necessarily rejecting an accurate version. Your version may be the inaccurate one. My version may be entirely accurate and may not agree with yours.

But again, my neighbor needs to know that she is not consigned to Hell. If I don't tell her, that particular priest sure ain't gonna do it

You aren't the arbiter of this. Your neighbor came to a decision on her own and it's nice that you can talk with her about things you have come to agree on spiritually. But you are absolutely not in charge of whether or not she is going to hell, whether there is a hell, what a priest once did, the Catholic Church, hell itself, her spiritual life, the countless other Catholics out there with perfectly fine and loving priests who are all dead certain YOU are going to hell (and have every bit as much ground to stand on there as you do), etc.

Let's say she told her Priest she was Gay. He tells her she is going to hell (unless she changes her ways). She is upset. Tells you. In that situation you say what, exactly?

I mean, you think people are going to hell for various reasons, right? I cannot comprehend what makes one set of reasons right and the others wrong, (much less there being an afterlife at all, but that's off-topic for the moment).

Or, as usual, what Miko just said.

You aren't the arbiter of this.

Well, like the apostles in the book of Acts, all I know is what I have seen, heard and experienced.

I know what God did for me. I know how abruptly He did it. I know how believing He IS the Way the Truth and the Life has literally saved MY life. Literally.

I know what He has done for others. I know a person who was literally raised from the dead. I know another person who was addicted to cocaine and crack and who spent years in federal prison who is now clean, sober, and been so for years-and in a profession where he had to PROVE it in order to practice it.

I know people who have been set free from the power of just about every sin you can think of. Specific people. Specific sins.

Even the job I now have was the result of a specific prayer I made to a specific God on a specific day-driving down the road-and how the criteria I asked for were all met. Days later.

Jesus said that all the laws and commandments hinge on two. One was to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. The other was to love your neighbor as yourself. Left to ourselves all we can look forward to is hell because none of us can keep even those two seemingly simple commandments. God made a way to rescue us. He had compassion on us. He has compassion on my neighbor. He had compassion on another of my friends who for years and years and years stuggled in a particular sin area. God never ever gave up on him or took HIs love away from him. He did eventually allow him to be set free from the particular sin. But He didn't love him any less before, or any more afterward. His love knew and knows no limitations.

I think that kind of love is pretty good news, myself.

UNSUBSCRIBE.

Let's say she told her Priest she was Gay. He tells her she is going to hell (unless she changes her ways). She is upset. Tells you. In that situation you say what, exactly?

I mean, you think people are going to hell for various reasons, right?

Everything you said is about you and pertains to you. Others' mileage definitely varies. That's why all this gets so goddamn tiresome for people. I'm glad you found a spiritual life that works for you; others have, too. They don't necessarily need or want a carbon copy of yours, which many people have legitimate ethical problems with.

bunnyfire:
I know a person who was literally raised from the dead.

I've literally risen from the dead twice, once when I was five and again last year. Not that uncommon these days.

rainbaby:
Let's say she told her Priest she was Gay. He tells her she is going to hell (unless she changes her ways). She is upset. Tells you. In that situation you say what, exactly?

bunnyfire:
I know people who have been set free from the power of just about every sin you can think of. Specific people. Specific sins.

So basically she would say: stop being gay, follow my God, or your going to burn in hell for eternity.

I know what God did for me

Millions and millions of the adherents of all the world's religions believe this just as fervently.

Confirmation bias and prayer.

your going to burn in hell for eternity.

YOU'RE. Burn the grammar heathen!

AAAnnnnd having thought about this thread on the way to the grocery store to pick up milk and eggnog, I realize that just about every post on it underscores the reason I posted the youtube link to begin with.


Interesting.

...that is, interesting in that I feel even more strongly that his is a unique perspective from one of his persuasion.

just about every post on it underscores the reason I posted the youtube link to begin with.

Why is that? It looks like a lot of the people posting in it aren't athiests, and don't have anything to do with fulfilling your expectations.

What was your reason for posting it?

I think bunnyfire expected Penn to over-react to the gift of a bible from a fan, and was surprised that he didn't. Simple as that, and I found it interesting (her experience, I mean... I am not too surprised at Penn's reaction, though yeah, he's totally baked while trying to explain it. Heh.)

I've enjoyed this post and the thread that came after, FWIW.

Also, message to Penn Jillette: dude, a lot of guys look GREAT with long hair. You're not one of them. Please, tame that mop.

What BoringPostcards said.
(to include-yes, dude, haircut might be a good thing.)

I accept Bibles from Christians, and tracts from 7th Day Adventists, and Mormon bibles from Mormons, and so on and so on. I don't see why my beliefs preclude me (or Penn, for that matter) from being polite. As Emily Post said, etiquette is about smoothing over awkwardness and making people feel comfortable in their own habits.

Take James Randi, for instance. He's a vocal and outspoken atheist and skeptic, perhaps more recognized than even Penn Jillette, and yet he has many friends of all faiths. I see no contradiction there.

Yep--itś usually polite to try to humor people, or anyway not to make your points of disagreement a big issue. My favorite thing to accept is Chick tracts. Imagine how sure that guy must be in his beliefs.

So wait, how does the thread underscore the reason for posting it, which was bunnyfire's suprise at Jillette's reaction? Does the thread underscore the reason because bunnyfire is also surprised at the reaction of people in the thread? Because like I said, a lot of them aren't athiests, so I don't think what they say can underscore the reason for posting the thread, which was the surprise. Bunnyfire would presumably be unsurprised if athiests reacted badly to proselytizing, surprised if they act well. What in the thread is the surprise?

I've enjoyed it too and gotten some new ways to think about proselytizing. But, in general, given the history of this type of thread, I think it could have been introduced with a tone that left a lot of the personal assumption and judgement out of it. Like, "Here's Penn Jillette on proselytizing. How do you feel about it?" Instead, there was a posited typical athiest who would give a "rough time" to anyone proselytizing to him. The readers of the post were invited to share in bunnyfire's surprise, yet a lot of readers are unsurprised by this, either because they are polite athiests or because they are not athiests but don't think athiests are all assholes any more than Christians are all assholes.

I'll probably be perceived as making a federal case out of a minor thing, but since the thread hasn't devolved badly, I just wanted to note that this could be kind of a good moment to learn what flies and what's perceived as offensive. An open-ended discussion about Jillette's reaction is totally intersting. A discussion beginning, essentially, 'OMG he's polite unlike most mean nasty athiests amirite' is less likely to result in a thoughtful and respectful thread.

Proselytizing, to me, is thoughtlessly insulting. People may mean well, like in Jillete's bus analogy. But, on the other hand, sometimes they actually don't mean that well - they're doing it because they have to to fulfill an obligation, or because they have an obsessive personality, or because they are very very sure they have found something to be right about and enjoy what power that may bring. Not all proselytizers mean well, which is Jillette's logical error. It sounds like the person he encountered was lovely and was clearly demonstrating a kind nature and concern for Jillette - by the description, no doubt about it. But proselytizing, like most human endeavors, can come from many places, not all of them good. It is certainly easy to be polite if you don't want to hear the sales pitch, but like much politeness, it is called upon in response to the initial rudeness. It's polite to ignore rude remarks and the sounds of body functions and mean social slights, but that doesn't mean that there was no rudeness prompting the polite response. Uninvited proselytizing does seem very rude to me. But I can't recall ever having been rude to a proselytizer. My responses range from a quick "all set, thanks" to a short engagement about why I'm happy in my own faith and not really looking for theirs.

Recently I heard a wonderful interview on NPR with some pastor or other who talked about the onus of proselytizing, and how wonderful it was when he came to a spiritual understanding that he could lift this burden on himself. He talked about the exhaustion of getting on a plane, sitting down, looking at his seatmate and realizing that once the plane took off he would have to look at this person next to him and ask "Do you know where you're going to spend eternity?" and then either spending the plane ride hearing the person's tribulations and sharing the Good News or risking offense to the person. It felt like a sentence to him.

I agree with bunnyfire that the very best sort of witnessing is just living your faith. If others need it, they'll be drawn to it by seeing your happiness and the good things that come of it.

Religion without enough humility to admit that different beliefs just might be all right is terrifying to me. Humility (above almost everything except Do Unto Others) is something Christianity calls for. Absolutism is for emperors. Jesus was pretty clear on his thoughts about praying in public for people to see.

Miko, a lot, and by that I mean most, of the Typical Christians© I know around here would be surprised by this essay. It's accepted dogma that atheists are really just Anti-Christian, and really don't have anything positive to believe in. And as noted upthread, since they really can't speak in "understandable" terms about their beliefs, they keep quiet. So others who don't go to church or who are just curious don't hear from them - they just hear that Atheists Are Bad.

So the surprise in unsurprising, if that makes sense.

Those who know don't say.
Those who say don't know.

The readers of the post were invited to share in bunnyfire's surprise, yet a lot of readers are unsurprised by this,

That was what I liked, and found interesting to watch unfold.

It wasn't always pretty, but this is an unstructured place; the fact that it stayed civil meant I didn't have to bail out from reading it, and so I enjoyed it. That was all I meant. I have low demands. :)

"I have low demands." I've heard that said of you. ;p