We don't really have those kinds of people here. Closest to that are Jehova's Witnesses knocking on doors and asking if you want to talk about Jesus, and even then, I think, not that we've let any in, they are still polite.
Believe in God or you got to ... hmmmm, pancake mix. Let's go make pancakes.
In other words, wake me up when they finally decide which God is the right one afterall.
You guys aren't the only ones who get annoyed by that kind of thing, but the pancake mix approach was also obnoxious.
I think the pancake approach is so funny for me because it just mirrors how those religious people are impervious to logic, so you might as well spout nonsense back.
I generally think that humour is a good way to deal with these kinds of issues. I'm against violence, suppressing freedom of speech is not my idea of fun either, and regulation is not likely to help any time soon.
The guy did nothing but be obnoxious, though, which is why I would prefer discourse. It was basically just trolling. It's good for giggles and the "hurr, durr, you're wrong" effect, but it doesn't really accomplish anything.
I agree that some people are impervious to logic, at least at certain points in their thought process, but the difference is in the approach. You're better off leaving them with something to mentally chew on than you are by ridiculing, shaming or insulting. (which, ironically, is what many people criticize "those kinds" of Christians for doing) The one method requires people to either address or ignore an important question, while the other just shuts down the thought process altogether.
Last edited by Zalis; 02-03-2012 at 16:14.
Ridiculing them is more for the crowd than the fanatics. Everyone is concerned about converting the fanatics back, but meanwhile we also need to make sure no more fanatics are created. It's a losing battle otherwise.
If you wanted to deconvert the fanatics, you're better off apparently discrediting their leader by showing examples where his actions go against his teachings.
Like how the church built the Vatican instead of spending that money helping poor people, or how believers actually go around harassing gaays and such instead of having compassion and forgiveness (even if they still believe it's wrong).
I still think they'd be better off holding their own non-trolling counter-demonstration within sight of the opposition. Walking into someone's free speech and doing the discussion equivalent of the most annoying sound in the world is good for very little. The obvious example of this would be if a Christian walked into an atheist demonstration and began loudly reciting "I do not like green eggs & ham!" in the face of the speaker. They would just be considered a troll, whereas this pancake fellow is commended.
The examples of discreditation wouldn't stick when the Biblical response is "they're doing it wrong." I don't think every atheist has to answer for everything another atheist (or agnostic) has done, for example, especially when you'd disagree with them. It's much easier to fire off shots when the only unifying distinction is not believing in something (or not believing that we can know for sure).
Anyway, this decaf coffee isn't half bad. Heck... It might even be half good.
Last edited by Zalis; 02-03-2012 at 17:23.
Like I said, I walk by these people every day and it is annoying as sin (LMFAO~~) to hear them on their loud speakers talking about how I'm going to hell for some reason or another. Even when they're not talking about hell and they're just preaching about god, it's as annoying as the mariachis who get on the subway and play between stops.