Apostates versus converts

[Ross Dolan]

You talk yourself up non-stop. You are always the sharpest person and you have the high ground and everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and spouting bullshit.

Funny how I'm the only one here who has backed up his claim with actual references.

Gimme a break. YOU are the one doing the "I am the sharpest person here." You consider yourself a genius...and anyone who disagrees with you is instantly labeled as ignorant.

In any case, my bet is that the reason you label yourself "atheist" is that you BELIEVE there are no gods...or that you BELIEVE it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. That is to say that you KNOW the REALITY of existence.

You do not.

Grow the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that. You'll be much the better for it.

 

[Cypress]

Quite of few of them when I’m looking around for NT stuff. And, they can cite scripture like nobody’s business.

I try to stick with the academics, but some of them are also deconverts.

I like Bart Ehrman, and several others. I think Bart styles himself somewhere between an agnostic and an atheist.

The bar I like to see cleared is when they have graduated from a reputable seminary, like the Harvard, Yale, or Princeton seminaries, and are publishing and actively employed by an established university. Then I can be confident they have studied theology and Christian literature critically with the best minds in the field, and have been trained to read Greek and Hebrew so they are literate in primary source material.

 

[domer76]

I like Bart Ehrman, and several others. I think Bart styles himself somewhere between an agnostic and an atheist.

The bar I like to see cleared is when they have graduated from a reputable seminary, like the Harvard, Yale, or Princeton seminaries, and are publishing and actively employed by an established university. Then I can be confident they have studied theology and Christian literature critically with the best minds in the field, and have been trained to read Greek and Hebrew so they are literate in primary source material.

Ehrman is my favorite because he’s seen both sides and has the creds.

There’s a practicing Jewish woman, Amy Levine I think, that’s also very good. A young guy at UNC that works with Ehrman is good, but gets into the weeds a bit.

 

[Kafka]

Gimme a break. YOU are the one doing the "I am the sharpest person here." You consider yourself a genius...and anyone who disagrees with you is instantly labeled as ignorant.

Perhaps if you wouldn't simply decree those things you don't like as "bullshit" or "horseshit" you would get further in the conversation.

In any case, my bet is that the reason you label yourself "atheist" is that you BELIEVE there are no gods...or that you BELIEVE it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. That is to say that you KNOW the REALITY of existence.

I have clarified my position. I'm sorry you are unable to accept it. I accept yours, but you are not as generous since you think so highly of yourself and your "interpretation" of something you don't really understand.

 

[Cypress]

Ehrman is my favorite because he’s seen both sides and has the creds.

There’s a practicing Jewish woman, Amy Levine I think, that’s also very good. A young guy at UNC that works with Ehrman is good, but gets into the weeds a bit.

I watched a video course on the Old Testament by Amy Jill Levine. She was pretty good. I also like Luke Timothy Johnson, who although he is a practicing Catholic and former Benedictine monk, has a top tier theological education and is very fair in biblical exegesis.

 

[domer76]

I watched a video course on the Old Testament by Amy Jill Levine. She was pretty good. I also like Luke Timothy Johnson, who although he is a practicing Catholic and former Benedictine monk, has a top tier theological education and is very fair in biblical exegesis.

I’ll look him up

 

[Into the Night]

Agnosticism is the belief that knowledge is not possible.

Redefinition fallacy. An agnostic believes that it is not possible to know the 'first cause'. It is almost atheism, but it is a religion.


The word first appeared in the English lexicon around the mid 1800's.

 

[Kafka]

Redefinition fallacy. An agnostic believes that it is not possible to know the 'first cause'. It is almost atheism, but it is a religion.

That is an overlimited definition. The definition is much broader than simply "the first cause". It is Huxley's generalized means of evaluating truth claims:

“In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other considerations…do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if any man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face…” (SOURCE)
As such it can, technically speaking, be applied to any claim.

"Huxley’s principle says that it is wrong to say that one knows or believes that a proposition is true without logically satisfactory evidence (Huxley 1884 and 1889)." (SOURCE)

Now, obviously, it has been and was initially posited in relation to theological matters but it appears to be a more generalized epistemic position to take. That in the absence of sufficient evidence one should defer to an agnostic position.

This is fair enough as it goes. But it is also why I have asked the board's various agnostics how they test truth claims in their lives. None so far have been willing to define the means by which they assess the validity of claims. My position is one that appreciates the agnostic position but also realizes that it is possible to test truth claims like verdicts in jury trials without perfect knowledge and still come to a claim which is not "agnostic".

The difference appears to lie in how we individually constrct our test statistic or criteria of assessing whether making a decision will commit an error such as a Type I (False Positive) error.

Whether one takes a view that knowledge must be perfect or they will defer to agnositicism or if one is, like me, willing to draw an inference from the testing of the hypothesis or claim is probably a matter of degree. I suspect that many agnostics reserve their agnosticism exclusively for matters of faith/theology rather than attempting to universalize the means of testing the veracity of claims in their everyday lives.

Even though it can be utilized in that manner.

 

[Into the Night]

The etymology of atheist is well established. It comes to us from the Greek through the French. Essentially it is: "a" (without) + "theos" (a god) and equals "someone without a god."

It has been changed in recent times (post 1950, for the most part) to erroneously mean "a" (without) + "theism" (a belief in a
God) equals "someone without a belief in a god."

Wrong. The meaning is 'without theism', in other words no belief at all. No religion.
The atheist doesn't care whether a god or gods may or may not exist.

Science, mathematics, and logic, for examples are completely atheistic. None of these even goes there. All of them still work regardless of whether any god or gods exist or not.

 

[Into the Night]

That is an overlimited definition. The definition is much broader than simply "the first cause". It is Huxley's generalized means of evaluating truth claims:

“In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other considerations…do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if any man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face…” (SOURCE)
As such it can, technically speaking, be applied to any claim.

"Huxley’s principle says that it is wrong to say that one knows or believes that a proposition is true without logically satisfactory evidence (Huxley 1884 and 1889)." (SOURCE)

Now, obviously, it has been and was initially posited in relation to theological matters but it appears to be a more generalized epistemic position to take. That in the absence of sufficient evidence one should defer to an agnostic position.

This is fair enough as it goes. But it is also why I have asked the board's various agnostics how they test truth claims in their lives. None so far have been willing to define the means by which they assess the validity of claims. My position is one that appreciates the agnostic position but also realizes that it is possible to test truth claims like verdicts in jury trials without perfect knowledge and still come to a claim which is not "agnostic".

The difference appears to lie in how we individually constrct our test statistic or criteria of assessing whether making a decision will commit an error such as a Type I (False Positive) error.

Whether one takes a view that knowledge must be perfect or they will defer to agnositicism or if one is, like me, willing to draw an inference from the testing of the hypothesis or claim is probably a matter of degree. I suspect that many agnostics reserve their agnosticism exclusively for matters of faith/theology rather than attempting to universalize the means of testing the veracity of claims in their everyday lives.

Even though it can be utilized in that manner.

I used Huxley's definition, dummy.
It is a religion. It is not atheism. It is Huxley's form of Zen.

 

[Into the Night]

Atheism is the belief that no gods, or in my case, the Christian god, exist.

WRONG. Atheism is no religion. Any god or gods may or may not exist. The atheist simply doesn't care.

The Church of No God is a religion. This fundamentalist style religion often tries to prove itself True.

Agnostic refers to knowledge.

A specific kind of knowledge only.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes and no.

Agnostic can mean both unknown OR unknowable.

Redefinition fallacy. Agnosticism is not atheism.

 

[Into the Night]

How would a scientist answer the question I just asked Ob?

Depends on the scientist. People have different religions.

Do any sentient beings live on any of the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol?

Unknown. This is not a question of science. No theory of science is mentioned here.
As of yet, no evidence has been found of any such beings on any other planet.

 

[Into the Night]

as recently as 1998 this was everyone's definition.......



your approach is often referred to as New Atheism and didn't even begin until the first decade of the 21st Century.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

Atheism means the same thing and the meaning has not changed.

It is the only non-religion. It simply doesn't care whether any god or gods exist or not.
It does not subscribe to any nonscientific theory that has become a religion.

Atheism means 'without theism', which is to say without religion.

Science is atheistic. It does not care whether a god or gods exist or not. It simply doesn't go there.

 

[IBDaMann]

Atheism means the same thing and the meaning has not changed.

It is the only non-religion. It simply doesn't care whether any god or gods exist or not.
It does not subscribe to any nonscientific theory that has become a religion.

Atheism means 'without theism', which is to say without religion.

Science is atheistic. It does not care whether a god or gods exist or not. It simply doesn't go there.

Very well put.

Atheists, having no theism, do not have any religious beliefs that are somehow threatened by other religions, i.e. there are no "competing religions." An atheist can discuss The Word of God with a Christian without issue. An atheist can discuss Islam with a Muslim without there being any conflict.

The problem materializes when an atheist tries to discuss Global Warming or Climate Change with religiously devout warmizombies, whose dogmatic faith requires the denial of science, math and logic while insisting that they are somehow not religious, that they are somehow atheists themselves, and that their science denial is actually thettled thienth. This leaves them so confused right out of the starting gate that they can't even begin to engage in any meaningful discussion.

Kudos to you. Your post is spot on.

 

[Mason 22]

Your assuming your tortured, introspective, soul searching divorce from Christianity is a widespread experience.

I think most adults who stop going to church do it for more mundane or intangible reasons. And those who become more intensely religious started out as at least weakly religious.

According to the review I read, these authors looked at a population of 18-22 year old Canadians, and found that intense, soul searching conversion and deconversion experiences were rare and exceptional.

That's good enough for me. It's not the kind of question we need a two million dollar NSF grant to investigate more comprehensively.

Most hardcore religious people don't go near a church

 

[Ross Dolan]

Perhaps if you wouldn't simply decree those things you don't like as "bullshit" or "horseshit" you would get further in the conversation.

I'm already getting far.

And why would I want to stop calling bullshit and horseshit...bullshit and horseshit?

I have clarified my position. I'm sorry you are unable to accept it. I accept yours, but you are not as generous since you think so highly of yourself and your "interpretation" of something you don't really understand.

But Obtenebrator, I HAVE graciously accepted your rationalizations as the rationalizations they are. And I do understand your rationalizations...I just happen to disagree with them.

Why do you so constantly charge people who disagree with you with being "uninformed" or "not understanding what you say?"

So tell me, young man (or woman if you happen to be a woman)...are you actually saying that you DO NOT BELEIVE that it is more likely that there are no gods...than that there is at least one??? Are you actually saying that to your way of thinking it is just as likely (or more likely) that there is a god...as it is likely that there are no gods?

Or how about this: There are people who assert, "There are no gods." (A POSITIVE CLAIM) If you test that the way you say you test things (oh, so scientifically) and find that you cannot reject the null hypothesis of "there is a god"...do you then adopt the descriptor "theist?"

 

[Ross Dolan]

That is an overlimited definition. The definition is much broader than simply "the first cause". It is Huxley's generalized means of evaluating truth claims:

“In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other considerations…do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if any man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face…” (SOURCE)
As such it can, technically speaking, be applied to any claim.

"Huxley’s principle says that it is wrong to say that one knows or believes that a proposition is true without logically satisfactory evidence (Huxley 1884 and 1889)." (SOURCE)

Now, obviously, it has been and was initially posited in relation to theological matters but it appears to be a more generalized epistemic position to take. That in the absence of sufficient evidence one should defer to an agnostic position.

This is fair enough as it goes. But it is also why I have asked the board's various agnostics how they test truth claims in their lives. None so far have been willing to define the means by which they assess the validity of claims. My position is one that appreciates the agnostic position but also realizes that it is possible to test truth claims like verdicts in jury trials without perfect knowledge and still come to a claim which is not "agnostic".

The difference appears to lie in how we individually constrct our test statistic or criteria of assessing whether making a decision will commit an error such as a Type I (False Positive) error.

Whether one takes a view that knowledge must be perfect or they will defer to agnositicism or if one is, like me, willing to draw an inference from the testing of the hypothesis or claim is probably a matter of degree. I suspect that many agnostics reserve their agnosticism exclusively for matters of faith/theology rather than attempting to universalize the means of testing the veracity of claims in their everyday lives.

Even though it can be utilized in that manner.

Oh, horseshit AND bullshit.

One can simply say about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...I DO NOT KNOW.

And because that does not do that with all things one encounters that one does not know...DOES NOT INVALIDATE DOING SO.

I do not know who will win the next Super Bowl. NO ONE DOES. It is a mystery that is unknowable presently...but which will be knowable and KNOWN on the day after the next Super Bowl is contested. But I am going to make a guess on it...when I place my annual bets on the Super Bowl.

So either stop your bullshitting...or stop being offended when someone calls bullshit on your bullshit.

 

[Litmus]

Makes sense, I hate to say it but Mormonism seems a little bit like a cult to me.

you're laud catholicism and they're the biggest cult of all, complete with child rape.

 

[Litmus]

Oh, horseshit AND bullshit.

One can simply say about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...I DO NOT KNOW.

And because that does not do that with all things one encounters that one does not know...DOES NOT INVALIDATE DOING SO.

I do not know who will win the next Super Bowl. NO ONE DOES. It is a mystery that is unknowable presently...but which will be knowable and KNOWN on the day after the next Super Bowl is contested. But I am going to make a guess on it...when I place my annual bets on the Super Bowl.

So either stop your bullshitting...or stop being offended when someone calls bullshit on your bullshit.

totalitarianism requires an all knowing God replacement on earth, who must know everything. they can't say I DON"T KNOW.

similar to the made up Rock Peter Pope God head papal perversion. <-- too much dancindave