tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post6002081716439050595..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Open Thread - AE #685: The LeaversUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-90465872165800281902010-12-08T12:47:00.278-06:002010-12-08T12:47:00.278-06:00"my experience tells me... that everything ab..."my experience tells me... that everything about HIm in the Bible is true"<br /><br />Then I assume you're pro-abortion. Considering how often God kills children and babies after all.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33668250984354697872010-12-02T12:38:55.812-06:002010-12-02T12:38:55.812-06:00Mark wrote:
> "my experience tells me... t...Mark wrote:<br />> "my experience tells me... that everything about HIm in the Bible is true".<br /><br />No it doesn't. I'm at work so I can't come up with proper examples and references, but, off the top of my head: God refers to himself many times as an "angry god", a "jealous god", a "vengeful god". Do you believe he is this? Then how can you believe that he is all-good? Unless these are actually good adjectives.erauqssihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16219367018908376819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-66212568986877823392010-12-02T10:22:27.745-06:002010-12-02T10:22:27.745-06:00Mark wrote:
> If there is in fact that much tha...Mark wrote:<br /><i>> If there is in fact that much that is unknown in the universe, how can the atheist perspective know for sure that we crazy Christians are completely wrong?</i><br /><br />The point is that we atheists are not asserting that there is no god, we're simply observing that since there is no evidence for any god's existence, any belief you have is unjustified.<br /><br /><i>> ...all I can say is that my experience (not indoctrination, environment, or social group) tells me that God is real and that everything about Him in the Bible is true.</i><br /><br />While we can't say what experience you've had, the experience that most theists claim as their demonstration of a god's existence is better explained by simply how the brain works. I used to be a theist and had experiences too; it's just that after I learned more I realized that they weren't actually evidence for any external reality, just my brain doing normal brain stuff.<br /><br />And <i>everything</i> about him in the Bible is true?!? Like he has a physical rear end that humans can see?Curt Cameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08048312089881459521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-11582019619196753672010-12-01T18:43:33.887-06:002010-12-01T18:43:33.887-06:00@Mark
Afterthought_btw did a pretty good job of e...@Mark<br /><br />Afterthought_btw did a pretty good job of explaining the atheist stance but I would like to add one other bit to it that kind of expands on what kait82 said. How much we do know honestly doesn't matter. I've said before that the atheist position was as justified 2000 years ago as it is today despite all the knowledge we've gained over that period of time. That is because what we believe should be based not on what is possible to know but on what we actually do know. Whether that is a lot or a little it doesn't matter. If our current circle of knowledge (whatever it's size) happens to include evidence of a god then we should believe in it, if does not we should not, regardless of what possibilities may exists outside our circle of knowledge.<br /><br />That is why I, and I think many atheists don't find the argument that somewhere there might exist an as yet undiscovered god very persuasive.Jeremiahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06977623156609966553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-57788663150037906012010-12-01T16:37:30.764-06:002010-12-01T16:37:30.764-06:00"if a person can only come to a limited amoun..."if a person can only come to a limited amount of knowledge about all that is in the universe, how can they take a stance that specifically declares that there is no God?" <br /><br />My stance isn't that there is no god, I say I see no evidence that there's a god therefore I don't believe one exists. Just because "the width and breadth of what we don't know is staggering" doesn't mean that I should assume a god into the staggering portion of what I dont know when what I DO know doesn't point me in that direction at all.Penny Costlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14100523251079925953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-65922376256839670702010-12-01T16:23:19.978-06:002010-12-01T16:23:19.978-06:00Mark said:
If there is in fact that much that is ...Mark said:<br /><br /><b>If there is in fact that much that is unknown in the universe, how can the atheist perspective know for sure that we crazy Christians are completely wrong?</b><br /><br />First off - welcome! I'll do my best to answer; obviously I don't want to cause any heated discussion, either, but it's my experience that 90% of arguments and flame wars on the net are caused by misunderstanding through text, so I'll just get this disclaimer out there just in case! :) I think the quoted text above is the crux of what you're saying, so I'll try to deal with it below.<br /><br />Anyway, I think you're misunderstanding the atheist position. An atheist merely does not believe in gods, he or she doesn't claim that a god or gods do not exist.<br /><br />Well, atheists can believe that, but they don't have to.<br /><br />Most atheists are what we call '<b>agnostic atheists</b>' - that is, we do not believe in the existence of a theistic deity, <i>but</i> we do not claim to know for certain whether or not such a god exists. A '<b>gnostic atheist</b>' would both not believe in a god or gods, <i>and</i> claim certainty as to knowing it doesn't exist.<br /><br />(Incidentally, (a)theism deals with belief, and (a)gnosticism deals with knowledge - it is a common misunderstanding that 'agnosticism' is a separate answer to both theism and atheism on the god question, it isn't - it answers a different question, a theist is either gnostic or agnostic, as is an atheist)<br /><br />That being the case, there is no responsibility upon the atheist to show absolute cast iron proof that your god does not exist (they aren't claiming it!!). The ridicule that some atheists may give theists is rather like the ridicule people might show to people who believe in the Loch Ness monster, or the Tooth Fairy, or Santa, or any other creature that is proposed without good evidence backing it. We have as much proof that these mythological creatures do not exist as we have proof that your god does not exist - in all those mythological cases, the proof they do not exist is the <b>lack of proof</b> that they <b>do</b> exist. From an atheist's point of view (obviously not from a theist's, but we're talking about atheists here), a theistic god is just as much of a mythological being: an atheist doesn't (necessarily) claim any more certainty for one than the other.<br /><br />Now, it's certainly true that some atheists in fact do claim absolute certainty that your god does not exist - in fact, I would <i>possibly</i> go as far to say that I am certain that your god does not exist. However, I would have one caveat (so not absolutely certain ;)) - that being that both our understanding of logic is an accurate representation of reality, and also that your god is subject to the laws of logic.<br /><br />As far as I understand, you see, the attributes of your god are incompatible with logic, so either your god does not (and can not) exist, or else is not bound by those laws. Without going into great depth (because there are a number of reasons I find the definition of god incoherent), I would contend that any being which is proposed to have an 'infinite' amount of anything (be it power, knowledge, goodness, or anything else) can not exist since infinity is not an amount, but rather the concept of a never ending sequence of amounts. (You can't have infinity <i>of</i> something.)<br /><br />Hence so long as I am given a god with 'infinite X' amongst its attributes, I'm going to discard it unless there's an argument with some serious welly behind it which changes my understanding of the terms involved!<br /><br />(And if god is not bound by the laws of logic, then things get very, very messy when you continue that train of thoughts to its 'logical' conclusion.)Afterthought_btwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17758975616219512727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-83672159022112263452010-12-01T16:11:55.829-06:002010-12-01T16:11:55.829-06:00Skeptical atheists do not know for sure that there...Skeptical atheists do not know for sure that there is no god. We simply do not think that there is any evidence that there are gods so we do not believe in any. Sure, it is possible that there is some sort of a "prime mover" type god who started everything and stepped back, never to be seen again, but that isn't the kind of god most theists believe in.JAFisher44https://www.blogger.com/profile/09894511085072464057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-51973019968389597352010-12-01T15:16:34.463-06:002010-12-01T15:16:34.463-06:00First off, I would like to say that I enjoy listen...First off, I would like to say that I enjoy listening to your show because it gives me a different perspective on faith and the atheist point of view. I enjoy the opportunity to have my faith challenged and to dissect not just what I believe, but also why I believe it.<br /><br />It is not my desire to to cause any amount of arguing or "heated debate" - just intelligible conversation.<br /><br />I just wanted to comment on a quote from this specific show that took place at the end of the discussion about sexual re-production (I for one did not see where the guy was trying to come from or what point he was trying to make. He definitely did not have something strong to stand on.) Anyway, that quote is "the width and breadth of what we don't know is staggering".<br /><br />If there is in fact that much that is unknown in the universe, how can the atheist perspective know for sure that we crazy Christians are completely wrong? I know that the point can be turned around and directed at me, and I certainly do not claim to have all the answers or know everything there is to know about the universe or God - all I can say is that my experience (not indoctrination, environment, or social group) tells me that God is real and that everything about Him in the Bible is true. <br /><br />I don't want to shift the focus onto my experience who is right and who is wrong. I just wanted to bring up the thought that if a person can only come to a limited amount of knowledge about all that is in the universe, how can they take a stance that specifically declares that there is no God? <br /><br />I look forward to any future discussion from this post and related to future broadcasts.Mark Sparkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02320163941485966067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-90842705444854980672010-11-30T18:46:50.618-06:002010-11-30T18:46:50.618-06:00@markb
Gays are sinful, but forgiven through God&...@markb<br /><br />Gays are sinful, but forgiven through God's love?<br /><br />I always thought that christians started to sound gay when they professed their undying love for jesus. Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrhJT98IoaQ&t=2m27s (nsfw audio)erauqssihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16219367018908376819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-89640114628651562362010-11-30T17:52:45.658-06:002010-11-30T17:52:45.658-06:00@ Afterthought:
"Are they really claiming th...@ Afterthought:<br /><br />"Are they really claiming these people have consciously decided to send themselves to infinite torture after they die so they can do a finite amount of sins?"<br /><br />There are such people. They're called Christians, and they're banking on Salvation.<br /><br />What people need to remember is that ANY little sin is enough to damn you forever. The Moral Compromise theory is flawed in that Christians themselves believe they're all sinners too, they're just forgiven. Are you gay? God still loves you, and you'll get Salvation through Christ's love. Promiscuous? Go for it; Christ hung out with all sorts of sinners and as long as you're right with God when you die you'll be OK.<br /><br />Atheists have to live with the consequences of their "sins". If they harm anyone, we have to fix things with them. If not, why is it a sin at all?Mark Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12082856602483276803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1837586672327553092010-11-30T16:35:21.626-06:002010-11-30T16:35:21.626-06:00@ddyck
Oh, and Vladimir, above you wondered if I ...@ddyck<br /><br /><i>Oh, and Vladimir, above you wondered if I could read minds or if I was just an arrogant asshole...it's the latter, I'm afraid.</i><br /><br />You're a PsiCop.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-46506623476314687672010-11-30T16:15:47.991-06:002010-11-30T16:15:47.991-06:00Are they really claiming these people have conscio...<i>Are they really claiming these people have consciously decided to send themselves to infinite torture after they die so they can do a finite amount of sins?</i><br /><br />I concur. Those types of atheists would be sort of... dumb.<br /><br />The irony is that as a staunch atheist, I find myself being more moral on a more regular basis then basically all theists I know.<br /><br />Some of the most vocal christians I know do things like pirate movies/software like crazy. They cheat and lie on taxes, and otherwise are manipulative.<br /><br />I decided to be good because I want to be. Because I care about my fellow humans. I need no other motivation. It's just that some things that christians would <b>claim</b> are immoral... aren't. They can't even justify <i>why</i> these things are immoral, other than that some book says so for unknown, and apparently arbitrary reasons.<br /><br />That's one of the benefits of secular morality... it can be analyzed/discussed so that we can validate whether a claim of morality is <i>actually</i> valid.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-32538905244111917052010-11-30T14:27:25.068-06:002010-11-30T14:27:25.068-06:00The interesting thing about the Moral Compromise i...The interesting thing about the Moral Compromise idea, is that I would argue it makes more sense if viewed the other way around: i.e. rather than it being 'I want to sin', it's rather: 'I find these commands in the Bible morally repugnant'. As an aside, the 'I want to sin' idea is one of the more perplexing I've ever come across from theists. Are they really claiming these people have consciously decided to send themselves to infinite torture after they die so they can do a finite amount of sins? I just really struggle to get my head around that claim.<br /><br />Now, granted, growing up in a largely secular country, and never having been indoctrinated as badly as some people I've heard of, I had it relatively easy in my journey to atheism. However, one of the things that sparked off my eventual disbelief were things like the concept of heaven and hell. I have no qualms saying that I find the idea of a hell abhorrent, and I really wasn't comfortable when I was a Christian either. <br /><br />So I had a moral dilemma:<br /><br />I could stick to my morals, and conclude that the Christian god was a horrific character, and stop worshipping it, or I could compromise my morals and remain a Christian.<br /><br />(I admit, the fact I was starting to doubt that god's existence made it easier to stop worshipping it - it's easier to stick to your beliefs when you don't believe the threatened punishment of eternal torture is real... But you get my point.)<br /><br />The thing is, that's the one option that a theist trying to work out why people are leaving are likely to come to last (if at all) - namely that their god's commands/actions are <b>not</b> moral. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the possibility that de-converts are making the correct decision seems to never be mentioned by people wondering why they left their faith.Afterthought_btwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17758975616219512727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-40263887087502942462010-11-30T04:52:46.669-06:002010-11-30T04:52:46.669-06:00I have been trying to make some of the same points...I have been trying to make some of the same points all week long that were made brilliantly on this episode.(the detrimental effects of religion on intellectual development & societies values) Perfect timing for me & these topics! <br /> Much Thanks!Kyle Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11658205513964123641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-39897550456882749752010-11-30T00:07:33.519-06:002010-11-30T00:07:33.519-06:00erauqssi's comment that got eaten by Blogger:
...erauqssi's comment that got eaten by Blogger:<br />-----------------<br />@ddyck I would first like to say that I appreciate the fact that your posts here are quite calm, and well written. Many religious folk who post on atheist blogs tend to be quite confrontational, and I appreciate the effort on your end to dispel that stereotype.<br /><br />I would like to say that I'm not quite following the intimate details of what you mean when you're talking about epistemology. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're contrasting claims of (close to?) absolute truth with claims that "we just can't know". I'm going to continue assuming that I've understood, but if not, please correct me.<br /><br />If I'm following correctly, you're saying that you think/see that many atheists are quite sure of themselves on many subjects, and the only thing is that, while you claim to have reliable knowledge of God/Christianity, atheists will selectively turn off their agnosticism inhibitors (I made a funny!) and claim "well how could anyone know X about God"<br /><br />If this is what you're saying (I don't want to mistakenly straw man your position), I think you've either had bad experiences with the atheists you have encountered, or you have mistakenly interpreted what you have seen/heard.<br /><br />When atheists (or, at least, when I) make a statement along those lines, I am making two complementary comments.<br /><br />The first comment I'm making is somewhat along the lines of what you're saying, except that you're reading it wrong. The point I would make is that, since A) Christianity claims to possess an inerrant, absolute truth; and B) This inerrant, absolute truth is incredibly important, and has grave consequences if you get it wrong;, it is incredibly the-opposite-of-confidence-inspiring that so many people seem to be so bitterly in disagreement of what that truth is. I would hope that you would be able to see our perspective on this.<br /><br />The second comment I'm making is something that, in my experience, many Christians (whom I have encountered, anyway) either don't understand or willfully ignore. And that is that Christians and atheists tend to have different standards of evidence that they're willing to accept. As a Christian, you read your Bible, you see that it says X (for whatever definition of "says" you're willing to take; I don't know if you're a literalist, or what have you), and you accept that X is true, because you Bible, your religion, and by extension your God has said that it is true. However, <i>many</i> (but not all) atheists are also empirical skeptics, in that they require physical evidence proportional to the implausibility of the claim before they will accept it as true, and when they do this, they do it only provisionally, pending refined evidence. I don't want to lecture your ear off on the scientific method (mostly because Matt could do it better anyway), but I feel that this is the crux of the disconnect. An atheist says "how could you know that?". You say "see, it says in this book". An atheists says "I don't care what the book says, I want evidence". You say "But how could you have any better evidence than this book", and the cycle of talking past each other continues.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-46787854139047569572010-11-30T00:07:30.476-06:002010-11-30T00:07:30.476-06:00Cont’d
I actually think you are almost on the ri...Cont’d <br /><br />I actually think you are almost on the right track in your article, at least in so far as identifying a decrease in religiosity in the US. You speak of this Moralistic Therapeutic Deism and what I really identify that as being is simply a lack of religious indoctrination. In a religious society there are the true believers of course, but there are many more who are simply believers by circumstance. They believe not on any theological grounds but cultural ones. As secularism grows and religious pressures are eased (by removing religion from schools for instance) the believers of the second category dwindle. This is what I think you are labeling as your exodus. The point that I think you might be aware of, but skirted around in the article, is that hip catchy pastors aren’t the solution because the problem isn’t marketing, it’s religions waning cultural dominance. Of course few believers want to just come out a say that what their religion needs is a good theocracy, but really that is the truth of the matter. That without that theocracy (either explicitly or culturally) all you are left with is a minority of true believers.<br /><br />That IMHO is what the current battles are all about. Creating a culture where being an atheist is okay, where there are not pressures to conform, and by simply creating such a culture religion will naturally wilt like a plant without sun or water.<br /><br />One final point is that you say: <br /><br /><b>De-converts reported "sharing their burgeoning doubts with a Christian friend or family member only to receive trite, unhelpful answers."</b><br /><br />As an atheist of course I would argue that these kind of responses happen because Christianity simply has no answers to give. ~_-Jeremiahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06977623156609966553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-53994639261050191062010-11-30T00:02:23.380-06:002010-11-30T00:02:23.380-06:00Drew,
One problem with your parallel is that ath...Drew, <br /><br />One problem with your parallel is that atheism has the advantage of being extremely well defined. There is only one atheism; it means you don’t believe in god(s). Period. When you tackle religions you quickly run into literally countless variations and interpretations.<br /><br />Reading Curts comment above I don’t think he was implying that Cameron and Strobel were not ‘true atheists’, just that it is possible to arrive at atheism different ways and that arriving at it some ways would inoculate you against future belief better than others. I can understand how you could draw the parallel that certain kinds of Christianity could similarly inoculate a person against disbelief. I would even say you might be right on that count, that certain types of fundamentalism can make it almost impossible to ‘convert’ someone to atheism so to speak. <br /><br />Where we differ of course is that you see that as a good thing, whereas most of us would see it as a bad thing. We would say that evidence is on our side and that inoculating people against reason for the sake of faith is tantamount to brainwashing. Of course you see it differently and that is really where the rubber meets the road in the differences between us.Jeremiahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06977623156609966553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-84525798974044359512010-11-29T23:28:45.810-06:002010-11-29T23:28:45.810-06:00Well, if I were asked, I would answer honestly. Un...Well, if I were asked, I would answer honestly. Unfortunately the author of this article would likely spin my answer to fit his conclusion.<br /><br />I have to admit that one of the major shakers of my faith was the sins I couldn't stop committing. But I didn't leave because I wanted to keep sinning. I could have stayed and done that. I started questioning my beliefs in part because I couldn't understand why God would intentionally create us with biological imperatives to do certain things, then outlaw them. This opened the door to questioning all sorts of other "victimless sin."JAFisher44https://www.blogger.com/profile/09894511085072464057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-20716224126997484262010-11-29T23:25:44.712-06:002010-11-29T23:25:44.712-06:00I made a first comment before the one displayed ab...I made a first comment before the one displayed above, and it appears to either have been eaten up by your blog, or deleted by the mods. If the blog made it disappear, could one of you please work your crazy email magick to restore it? And if it was deleted, I'd love some feedback as to why.erauqssihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16219367018908376819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-40811161092271646102010-11-29T23:17:55.105-06:002010-11-29T23:17:55.105-06:00@ddyck I would also add that the easiest way to av...@ddyck I would also add that the easiest way to avoid being accused of the No True Scotsman fallacy, is to do the following three things before starting your arguments:<br /><br />a) Define what a true Christian is. Specifically. Detailed. <br /><br />b) Explain _WHY_ your definition is a true Christian, *and* why all other defintions are not. If other defintions are partially or completely correct, explain why as well. <br /><br />c) Explain how other people (most notably 'untrue' christians) could be reasonably expected to recognize your true christianity from all other untrue christianities. This is, strictly speaking, not necessary for your argument, but as a matter of practicality, if you've got the true christianity, and _nobody_ else does, it's really not going to do you much good. An idea you can't effectively communicate, is useless.erauqssihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16219367018908376819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-38239794129244634292010-11-29T23:12:07.812-06:002010-11-29T23:12:07.812-06:00@ddyck I would first like to say that I appreciate...@ddyck I would first like to say that I appreciate the fact that you're posts here are quite calm, and well written. Many religious folk who post on atheist blogs tend to be quite confrontational, and I appreciate the effort on your end to dispel that stereotype.<br /><br />I would like to say that I'm not quite following the intimate details of what you mean when you're talking about epistemology. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're contrasting claims of (close to?) absolute truth with claims that "we just can't know". I'm going to continue assuming that I've understood, but if not, please correct me.<br /><br />If I'm following correctly, you're saying that you think/see that many atheists are quite sure of themselves on many subjects, and the only thing is that, while you claim to have reliable knowledge of God/Christianity, atheists will selectively turn off their agnosticism inhibitors (I made a funny!) and claim "well how could anyone know X about God"<br /><br />If this is what you're saying (I don't want to mistakenly straw man your position), I think you've either had bad experiences with the atheists you have encountered, or you have mistakenly interpreted what you have seen/heard.<br /><br />When atheists (or, at least, when I) make a statement along those lines, I am making two complementary comments.<br /><br /> The first comment I'm making is somewhat along the lines of what you're saying, except that you're reading it wrong. The point I would make is that, since A) Christianity claims to possess an unerrant, absolute truth; and B) This unerrant, absolute truth is incredibly important, and has grave consequences if you get it wrong;, it is incredibly the-opposite-of-confidence-inspiring that so many people seem to be so bitterly in disagreement of what that truth is. I would hope that you would be able to see our perspective on this.<br /><br />The second comment I'm making is something that, in my experience, many christians (whom I have encountered, anyawy) either don't understand or willfully ignore. And that is that Christians and atheists tend to have different standards of evidence that they're willing to accept. As a Christian, you read your Bible, you see that it says X (for whatever definition of "says" you're willing to take; I don't know if you're a literalist, or what have you), and you accept that X is true, because you Bible, your religion, and by extension your God has said that it is true. However, *many* (but not all) atheists are also empirical skeptics, in that they require physical evidence proportional to the implausibility of the claim before they will accept it as true, and when they do this, they do it only provisionally, pending refined evidence. I don't want to lecture your ear off on the scientific method (mostly because Matt could do it better anyway), but I feel that this is the crux of the disconnect. An atheist says "how could you know that?". You say "see, it says in this book". An atheists says "I don't care what the book says, I want evidence". You say "But how could you have any better evidence than this book", and the cycle of talking past each other continues.erauqssihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16219367018908376819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-75235606191936307842010-11-29T18:54:00.457-06:002010-11-29T18:54:00.457-06:00@ddyke: "So when people say, "Well you ...@ddyke: "So when people say, "Well you say Xianty is X and someone else says it is Y, therefore it can't really be known," I disagree."<br /><br />@ddyke: "However, when I make a statement or assumption about true faith, you seem to switch epistemologies and take the "who can know anything" tack, which I find confusing. "<br /><br />Drew,<br /><br />Were the excerpted comments in an email conversation between you and Martin?<br /><br />I'm not sure who in this thread you are referring to. <br /><br />Who is saying, "you can't know?" <br /><br />I think it is more accurate to say , "There are many disparate strains of Christianity. Their views clash and there is no need to try to blend them all together using theological filler words to make it seem like there is one true, coherent Christianity. In fact, there is no one true, coherent view of the character Jesus Christ."dc1983https://www.blogger.com/profile/17225378137175602581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59605393012699920142010-11-29T18:09:22.435-06:002010-11-29T18:09:22.435-06:00Oh, and Vladimir, above you wondered if I could re...Oh, and Vladimir, above you wondered if I could read minds or if I was just an arrogant asshole...it's the latter, I'm afraid.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14507514675335402643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-84512877728855348432010-11-29T17:58:50.925-06:002010-11-29T17:58:50.925-06:00Drew's second comment:
----------------
Re: No...Drew's second comment:<br />----------------<br />Re: No Scotsman Fallacy charge, this probably entails a short discussion of our perhaps differing philosphical assumptions. I'm not a relativist, either when it comes to morality or epistemology. And neither are most of you atheists, which is one of things I really like about you. Generally we're not content to throw up our hands and say, "Who can really know anything, bedevilled as we are my frail human perceptions?" In other words, I have what you might call a high epistemology. Sure, recent developments in philosophy, and in linguistics, have made us rightly suspicious of the sort of one-to-one correspondence our perceptions have to reality. Still, I'm optimistic, comparatively, about what the human mind can apphrehend. So when people say, "Well you say Xianty is X and someone else says it is Y, therefore it can't really be known," I disagree. We can know with reasonable certainty what true Christianity is. Not completely of course, but we can adjudicate intelligently between different incarnations of it. For instance, I could make a compelling case that the faith practiced by Deitrich Bonhoeffer is truer to Jesus' teachings and example than the faith of say Fred Phelps. And I could employ some great tools to do that when I came to the biblical texts: historical criticism, authorial intentionality, etc. Yes, I'll never arrive at what a perfectly pristine faith, but I'll get closer to the faith modeled and taught by Jesus.<br /><br />In the comments above Curt intimated that folks like Kirk Cameron and Lee Strobel were never true atheists in the first place (which I suppose is evidenced by the fact that they became Christians). That may be true, but I haven't heard anyone of accusing him of a No Scotsman Fallacy. And maybe no one should--I don't know enough about their "atheism." Perhaps it was of a superficial variety that made them vulnerable to defection.<br /><br />The weird thing is, I think we're on the same page philosophically when it comes to epistemology. Atheists generally aren't shy about truth claims and the ability of the human mind to apprehend them. However, when I make a statement or assumption about true faith, you seem to switch epistemologies and take the "who can know anything" tack, which I find confusing.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-18522193299840862702010-11-29T17:57:22.404-06:002010-11-29T17:57:22.404-06:00I'm afraid I didn't save it, so if you do ...I'm afraid I didn't save it, so if you do have it in your email, I'd be very grateful if you could post if for me.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14507514675335402643noreply@blogger.com