| Home | Objections Answered | For Skeptics | Search | Links | Contact Me |
In July 2002 I took a highly unscientific poll of skeptics as to what annoyed them about Christian websites. 28 readers of atheist/agnostic newsgroups responded.
Contents of this article:
Survey contents
Overall results
Commentary
Numeric results
Comments from respondents
Respondents were asked to rate the annoyance level of the following things as not annoying, slightly annoying, moderately annoying, or greatly annoying (descriptions are those used in the survey):
Items were scored as follows: not annoying = 0, slightly = 1, moderately = 2, highly = 3. Items ranked in order from most annoying to least annoying:
Interesting facts about the results:
If you have a Christian site which you hope will have an impact on nonbelievers, you should think twice about using things like the above which are likely to annoy or offend non-Christian visitors.
Christian-themed backgrounds
These add no value to a site and are likely to be as distracting from a usability point of view to Christians as they are to nonbelievers (see the article on legibility).
Commercialism
Some organizations rely wholly or partially on website sales and/or donations to stay afloat. While this is understandable, the way in which it's done can be blatant or discreet. Personally, I prefer sites that place "if you found this helpful, please consider supporting us" messages at the bottom of articles rather than putting large ads or pleas for money on the home page. I particularly dislike sites that purport to be apologetics or evangelistic sites but are really online ads for someone's books.
Voting buttons
Voting buttons were considered the least annoying item of the bunch. However, one should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of using these buttons. How many people visit the directory the voting button is for? How many people actually vote for your site (particularly if you have more than one voting button)? Another consideration is that voting buttons give your site an amateurish appearance, much like hit counters (how many professionally-done sites have either?).
Use of "webservant"
I included this in the survey because it's something that I actually find mildly annoying. While I sympathize with the idea of keeping a servant mentality in one's work, "Contact the Webservant" links can come across as being cutesy or "humbler-than-thou." Servants don't typically wear badges that say, "Hi! I'm a Lowly Servant!"
Infighting
You should consider your target audience when you post articles on theological differences. Since my site is intended for nonbelievers, I focus on topics that are of interest to them and are potential barriers to Christ; I avoid commenting on theological issues that aren't outright heresies. If your site covers general theology, it may be appropriate for you to cover theological arguments within the church. But if your site is primarily for nonbelievers, highlighting disputes within the Church will only give them more reason to see the Church as fractured, divisive and dogmatic.
Bible verses and prayer
You should of course pray for your site and your visitors, but prayers don't need to be posted on your site in order for God to hear them. While reading your site's theme verses and prayers may encourage fellow Christians, it will almost certainly vex non-Christian visitors - written prayer was found to be the most annoying of all the items. (Cf. Mt 6:5.)
Typos
The important thing to note here is that only one of the respondents said typos didn't matter at all: at best, they were a distraction, and at worst they lowered the person's opinion of the site and its contents. Regardless of whether the latter is a fair judgment or not, it is the case that typing, spelling and grammar mistakes will prevent people from focusing on what you're saying.
Total respondents: 28
Breakdown of responses:
| Not at all | Slightly | Moderately | Greatly | |
| Christian backgrounds | 6 | 5 | 2 | 14 |
| Commercialism | 4 | 5 | 10 | 9 |
| Voting buttons | 9 | 8 | 4 | 5 |
| Use of "webservant" | 8 | 7 | 1 | 11 |
| Infighting | 7 | 3 | 5 | 13 |
| Bible verses | 7 | 4 | 7 | 10 |
| Written prayer | 4 | 6 | 4 | 14 |
Typos responses:
| Doesn't matter: | 1 |
| Distracting: | 5 |
| Author is lazy, site is likely broken: | 10 |
| Author is ignorant, likely uses poor logic: | 12 |
Interesting comments from respondents on other things they found annoying:
Interesting suggestions from respondents:Autoloading music; pop-up windows; rants against gays, liberals, atheists and non-Christians; appeals to faith (i.e. the site should attempt to use reason to support their theses); blatant lies; etc.
Overuse of color. White backgrounds and black text, or at the very least, black backgrounds and white text, facilitate reading of the site. Yellow text on a green background (for instance) just gives me a headache and I neglect to read the material.
I've never seen an apologetics site with the intellectual integrity to link to the unedited arguments that it selectively quotes for attempted rebuttal.
Please refrain from insults and categorical denials of others' beliefs. Sure, you believe that you're correct -- that's fine. But to insult others, to call people who don't believe as you do "idiots" or "morons" or "lost" or "hopeless", this does not achieve your goal of attracting others. You can't bully your way into someone's heart. If you have a welcoming, hopeful message, I'll at least take a look. If you insult me, I'm gone.
In general, I find religious (not only Christian) sites tend to destroy their own credibility almost from the get-go. There are verbal and visual clues, which may pass as normal and fitting among believers, but which inevitably set off mental alarms in those who happen to be of a different faith, or of none at all. Sometimes these are implied by the general tone of a site, such as one which focuses exclusively on scripture while completely ignoring its historical and cultural context. But often the clues are downright silly, like pictures of a (presumably Semitic) Jesus with distinctly European features, or of an infant Jesus embracing a crucifix. Though these apparently fail to provoke any sense of incongruity or conflict in the eyes of most true believers, they strike the outsider as patently absurd. Indeed, the non-believer, provoked to laughter instead of awe, immediately feels his contempt for religion justified and reinforced.
Always give references.
Don't steal material.
If an argument has been used before, discuss its reception history. Don't pretend it is the 1800s.
Don't assume that atheists have no morals.
Don't assume that everyone should want to believe in a god.
Don't assume that the only options are atheistic materialism and fundamentalist Christianity.
Don't assume that we believe that the Bible is the Word of God.
Don't assume much at all.
I'd like to see more arguments for Christianity than just Pascal's Wager and the ontological argument. Some counter arguments to some of the pointed out inconsistencies in the Bible would be good - I've never actually seen a xian even try to explain them... I haven't looked very hard, though, so there might be an explanation out there which I haven't seen. If it exists, I'd like to see more xian websites put it up.
I like the rare Christian site that actually tries to use *reason* to support its stance, and discusses things in a well-reasoned tone.
I think that the christian message can often be a positive one. When christians talk virtue instead of scream of sin, I think it makes the world a better place. Please speak of some virtue.
Try making xianity fit historical and scientific fact. If you can make your xian theory fit the evidence, as the big bang, plate tectonics, evolution, etc. already do, as well as prove there is a "god", then you'll have something worth putting on the WWW.
I like it when a Christian opens up and explains how they actually came to believe. I think it is honest to acknowledge subjective factors in belief formation. Atheists could learn the same thing. We are not epistemological robots.
If you're going to respond to material on an atheist site, link clearly and directly to that site, and more specifically link to the page that contains the material you're responding to. This is just common courtesy, and it fosters healthy debate by encouraging visitors to check out the other side for themselves. Making your visitors go through a convoluted series of links to get to the page you cite, or refusing to link to it at all, gives the impression that you're afraid of what atheists have to say (or at least afraid to allow others to read what atheists have to say).