Lya Kahlo, an admitted atheist, recently completed an experiment in which she visited online Christian discussion forums to determine if “an understanding can be reached, ideas exchanged and preconceived notions validated or annihilated” between the theist and atheist camps.  She admits this is by no means a truly scientific experiment given its scope, but it certainly provides some interesting anecdotal evidence of the rift between believers and non-believers.  Also, it should be noted, much as The Secular Outpost points out, that reversing the experiment (having a Christian visit atheist forums under the same premise of searching for sincere and common dialog) “no doubt [would produce] examples of fallacious argument […] in any unmoderated forum.”  Essentially, were the roles reversed, we would undoubtedly experience some level of the same insincerity and bigotry.

For those who think Lya’s intent was to hijack the forums and/or start philosophical battles with those who believe differently than she, nothing could be further from the truth.  She “outed” herself in each forum to ensure there was no confusion on her point of view.  She also “made it a point to be as friendly, respectful and patient as [she thinks] guests should be.”  The results of her experiment are interesting and telling, although they are not surprising.

Common throughout her experience were the following (top ten) misconceptions about atheists:

1. Atheists hate god/are jealous of theists
2. Atheists are arrogant and don’t want anything “superior” to them
3. Atheists have never experienece religion
4. Atheists have never read/don’t understand the bible
5. Atheists just don’t want to receive the truth
6. Atheists are bitter/angry
7. Atheists just don’t want to admit they sin
8. All atheists support abortion/evolution/liberal politics/communism/fascism/etc
9. Atheists are gay
10. Atheists want to destroy/limit religion

Also of interest are the five most common reasons for a lack of evidence that a deity exists:

1. god doesn’t need to prove himself to his creations
2. the bible says {insert nonsense here}
3. the evidence is all around us – (meaning existence is proof of god)
4. Faith is all we need
5. Pascal’s Wager

While originally hoping that bridges could be built (there are many shared concerns betwixt theists and atheists, therefore any bridge between the two could serve both interests), her results demonstrate that there exists significant obstructions.  Still, her conclusion is as thoughtful as it is hopeful.

The entire experience can be summed up fairly easily. Generally speaking, they know next to nothing about atheists, they are extremely emotionally attached to their deities, and they are just people looking for truth as we are. The animosity that sparks between atheists and theists seems to stem from the two camps speaking two different languages – atheists speak in terms of empirical evidence and logic; theists speak in terms of faith, emotion, and the unknown. An atheist expects proof before acceptance, a theists sees acceptance as proof.

Do I see it as a waste of time? On some of the boards (*cough*HolyCultureRadio*cough*) it was a waste of time. On boards frequented by a large teenage population or a way-out-there new-agey element, it was a waste of time. But this is not the case overall -surprisingly some of the more useful conversations happened on some fairly conservative forums.

Lastly, I think there are some allies to be made out there in the fight against an impending American Theocracy (okay, that’s a little dramatic), women’s rights and anti-war activism. There are plenty of good, decent xtians out there. However, we are never going to understand each other. We speak different languages.

There would certainly be common ground in many secular concerns.  Her identification of a language barrier, however, is the most critical of considerations.  Significant difficulty arises when attempting to find a shared language in which ideas may be freely expressed.  For the faithful, it is necessary to understand and share the faith in order to understand and share intelligent discourse on any issue (why we think this should happen, why we believe our country should respond in that way, and so on).  The rift created by this dialectal difference may never be overcome; a mutual disinterest in learning each other’s language will be extremely difficult — if not impossible — to overcome.

[via Pharyngula]