tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post114062549684907288..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Lampooning, Puncturing, and Deflating the Self-Debunking Debunkers of ChristianityRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1140652785181661562006-02-22T18:59:00.000-05:002006-02-22T18:59:00.000-05:00EM,You asked: "would I be fair in stating that wit...EM,<BR/><BR/>You asked: "would I be fair in stating that with the 'Outsider Test,' Debunking Christianity has thus far yet to do anything but explain its own perspecitve on the world?"<BR/><BR/>From my perspective, the Outsider Test has shown that the state of world religions is exactly the state one would imagine it to be if there were no "true" religion. In my understanding, the geographic and cultural distribution of religions is "more comfortable" in an atheistic worldview than it is from a Christian worldview. The geographic and cultural distribution of religions causes one to be cautious about one's own beliefs (religious or non-religious).<BR/><BR/>But that is my perspective, which probably differs from John's as I mentioned above. John, I think, has a stronger idea in mind. <BR/><BR/>I don't think the Outsider Test is a stinging indictment of religious belief, but it does show that the the world is how we would expect it to be if there was no true god.<BR/><BR/>Christians approach every "new" belief skeptically. No one has studied every possible religion, but because of the Christian's commitments, they will naturally approach other religious beliefs skeptically.<BR/><BR/>Atheists do the same thing, but for every religion. We are skeptical of every religion you are skeptical of plus one (yours).<BR/><BR/>Many of us (i.e. atheists) are even skeptical of our own beliefs. We say that we have yet to be convinced if there is a god or not (I believe this, but refer to myself as an atheist and not an agnostic because I am "without a theistic belief," hence <I>a</I> ("without") theistic belief, hence "atheistic.")<BR/><BR/>I do take a skeptical stance about my atheistic beliefs. It is, however, the position that best explains the world I live in--i.e. a world in which terrible things happen all the time; in which logic varies according to language, culture, and brain development; in which morals vary culturally and individually; in which things happen "chaotically"; in which the Christians I meet do not seem to manifest a <B><I>SUPERNATURAL</B></I> capacity for love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (even though the Holy Spirit is supposed to be within them performing these acts through them); etc.<BR/><BR/>To me, this world looks like a world would look if there were no god in control of it. I may be wrong. I am willing to be proven wrong. This would require, however, a lot of explanation about this world, and after having considered Christianity's explanations for almost my whole life, I have found them to be lacking.exbelieverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1140645876931626832006-02-22T17:04:00.000-05:002006-02-22T17:04:00.000-05:00Exbeliever:So would I be fair in stating that with...Exbeliever:<BR/><BR/>So would I be fair in stating that with the "Outsider Test," Debunking Christianity has thus far yet to do anything but explain its own perspecitve on the world?Evan Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287475721156396697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1140645316448987722006-02-22T16:55:00.000-05:002006-02-22T16:55:00.000-05:00Paul,A few brief points:1) You wrote: "This argume...Paul,<BR/><BR/>A few brief points:<BR/><BR/>1) You wrote: "This argument has been used to imply that the religious adherents’ belief is false."<BR/><BR/>This isn't what the "argument" is at all. John has stated all along that his argument demonstrates that "the proper method to evaluate your religious beliefs is with a healthy measure of skepticism."<BR/><BR/>John's argument does not say anything about the validity of any religious belief. It is not an argument against Christianity. If John convinced you of his argument, you would not have to give up Christianity, you would only have to treat it skeptically.<BR/><BR/>As I stated in the outset of my post that you quoted from, I am not convinced whether this argument is completely valid. While I obviously believe that it is best to be skeptical about religious beliefs, I am not sure that John's argument proves that one MUST evaluate their beliefs skeptically. I would hardly say that I have "taken up the cause" of the argument, but rather I have pointed out that the reasons he gives for his argument accurately relate my feelings about the issue personally.<BR/><BR/>This is why I prefaced my views by saying, "From an atheist's perspective . . ." I did this because I'm not convinced that the argument proves one MUST be skeptical. The argument gives <B>ME</B> reason to be skeptical, but I don't have the same theological presuppositions that you do.<BR/><BR/>2) You wrote: "Now, the outsider test was originally set up as being something objective, but now it appears that it only has force within an atheist view of things."<BR/><BR/>No one is being duplicitous here. John said the test was objective, I say that it is relative. I don't speak for John, he doesn't speak for me. We have never met one another and have only exchanged a few emails. We have never discussed our differing views on the outsider test.<BR/><BR/>Atheism is a "big tent." John and I will have different views on atheism. We will have different views about what arguments are effective. It isn't appropriate to use one of us against the other as if we were making the same argument.<BR/><BR/>3) What it seems that you missed in my post is that I present the "outsider test" not as an objective test, but as an internal one. It is an internal method of justification for atheism. <B>If</B> there is no true God, then it makes sense that religions are cultural and psychological inventions attempting to make sense out of a senseless universe. The fact that these religions are geographically based supports the belief that religions are cultural and, therefore, supports the belief that there is no God.<BR/><BR/>At the same time, I recognized that the test involves asking Christians to take on presuppostions that they see as sinful. That is why I have not endorsed the conclusion of John's argument--i.e. that "<I><B>the proper method</I></B> to evaluate your religious beliefs is with a healthy measure of skepticism." (emphasis added)<BR/><BR/>4) You are incorrect to say, "We must note that the outsider test is supposed to be a test which determines if a religion is true," and you have misread my statement, "it is not unreasonable for us to conclude that religions are products of culture and geography, not products of 'truth' and 'falsehood'"<BR/><BR/>John's argument is that "the proper method to evaluate your religious beliefs is with a healthy measure of skepticism." <BR/><BR/>It is this skepticism that he believes will lead to the conclusion that Christianity is untrue. He believes (and I join him) that Christianity does not stand up under criticism. The only reason Christians continue to be Christians is because of their Kuhnsian tendencies to accomodate glaring anomalies [an assertion, not an argument].<BR/><BR/>Further, my statement is simply that most people adopt his or her particular religion because of geographic and cultural influences, not because they have examined all of the other religions on the planet and have concluded that the one they believe is the best one. In other words, they aren't picking the religions because they are "true" or "false," but rather because they are there and culturally reinforced.<BR/><BR/>Do you disagree that most people follow their religious beliefs because it is cultural and not because they have tested every other faith on the planet and have found theirs to be the best?<BR/><BR/>5) Your "nail in the coffin" seems anything but. John addresses this concern in his latest post on the subject.<BR/><BR/>It makes no difference if someone adopts atheism because their parents or their culture is atheistic. That doesn't affect the validity of the argument.<BR/><BR/>6) To sum up: <B>John</B> believes that the fact that religions are divided geographically and culturally <I>dictates</I> that "<I><B>the proper method</I></B> to evaluate your religious beliefs is with a healthy measure of skepticism." <B>exbeliever</B> isn't sure he can say that this fact <I>necessitates</I> that the Christian adopts skepticism. <BR/><BR/>Instead, exbeliever says, "Hey, while your doing your internal critique of my worldview, notice how well the absence of a true religion explains the geographic and cultural distribution of world religions." For exbeliever, this geographic and cultural distribution of world religions isn't necessarily a case <I>against</I> the Christian worldview, but rather a case <I>for</I> his [just like he believes <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/02/understanding-presuppositionalism.html" REL="nofollow">his explanation</A> of the foundations of laws of logic and morality are better explanations of the state of the world than the Christian's views]. The distribution of world religions geographically and culturally are <I>best</I> explained within an atheistic worldview.<BR/><BR/>7) A question to leave you with: John and I have both expressed this thought. Isn't it true that Christians share our belief that most Hindu's become Hindu because of their culture? Isn't it true that Christians believe that most people of faith hold that faith because of their culture and not because they have tested every other religion on the planet?<BR/><BR/>Given this shared belief, do you believe it is unreasonable for an unbeliever to be skeptical of any religion that asks that unbeliever to follow it? Isn't it reasonable for an unbeliever to be skeptical of the truth claims of any one religion when it seems that religions are cultural and geographic?<BR/><BR/>John's point in his latest post is a good one. He states that atheists have only rejected one more god than the rest of you religious people. We agree with you in all of your criticisms of other gods. The only difference is that we agree with the critics of your god as well.<BR/><BR/>***<BR/><BR/>Paul,<BR/><BR/>I feel that you did not understand my post. Perhaps, I was unclear. From the way you quote me, it seems that you are attributing beliefs to me that I neither hold or argued for. I hope what I have written here helps you understand <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/02/from-atheists-perspective.html" REL="nofollow">my original post</A> better.exbelieverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1140643967821473372006-02-22T16:32:00.000-05:002006-02-22T16:32:00.000-05:00So Paul, is unbelief the same as being skeptical a...<I>So Paul, is unbelief the same as being skeptical about beliefs? To be neutral is not the same as choosing not to believe.</I><BR/><BR/>To be supposedly "neutral" or "skeptical" is to <I>not</I> believe. If I am supposedly "neutral" towards Christianity, that also means that I am not a <I>believer</I> in Christianity. To supposedly lean neither way does not negate the fact that I am not leaning <I>towards</I> Christianity. And if I am not a <I>believer</I> of Christianity, then I am an <I>unbeliever</I> of Christianity. Your neutrality is a myth. It is very simple. Really, it is.Evan Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287475721156396697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1140641974728550952006-02-22T15:59:00.000-05:002006-02-22T15:59:00.000-05:00What about it? Are you suggesting that because Go...What about it? Are you suggesting that because God did not destroy Ninevah, this makes Jonah a false prophet.<BR/><BR/>Hmm, let's see here:<BR/><BR/>God says he will destroy Ninvevah for the wickedness of the people.<BR/><BR/>They repent.<BR/><BR/>God relents.<BR/><BR/>What is the problem here? Jonah is not coming as predictor. He comes as a proclaimer of a lawsuit from God.<BR/><BR/> Jer. 18:7-10 -- <BR/>If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.<BR/><BR/>Are you arguing that, since Jonah got angry that God did not destroy Ninevah this proves that since he perceived his words as a foretelling of the future and not as a conditional statement, this is proof that the prophecy is false?<BR/><BR/>Hmmm, well the ending of Jonah highlights the contrast between the ways of God and the expectations of Jonah. Jonah's perception of his work was incorrect, ergo his disputation with God. There is nothing out of place here; that's the whole point of the narrative. <BR/><BR/>Jonah announced the city would be overturned. This is a warning. If they repent, God will not overturn the city. The judgment has been made, but an implicit offer to relent is included. The promise is actually a salutary incentive. There is no exegetical presumption that all promises of this nature are not conditional, even if the condition is not explicitly stated, unless the warning/promise comes with an explicit statement to the contrary. In the text itself, we see the recipients assumed the conditional nature of Jonah's words.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.com