Unbeliever culpability with Tony English

[Emery]

You've heard that there are no atheists in foxholes. Well how about this: there are no atheists period, meaning that all you atheists out there know that God exists, but for some reason are just unwilling to admit it. Though this may seem like an aggravating argument, it is one that evangelical Christians bring up a lot. And who better to defend it than our own Tony English? Air your comments on show 46. Atheists, tell us what you really know (or don't know) about God. And Christians, tell us if you believe atheists are really being dishonest, and if not, then on what basis does God punish their unbelief?

[JustJim]

Outstanding podcast! One of the best you've had!

Only a few comments....

Tony claims he refrains from lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, torturing babies for fun, etc. because God either said not to do those things, or God has implanted in every human being an innate understanding of what’s good and evil, right and wrong, and so on. IOW, if there was no God, there’d be no morals?

It’s been said on the forum that Christians only love because they’re commanded by God to love, while others have said Christians (and everyone else) love because God has implanted an innate “loving nature” in all humans. IOW, if there was no God, there’d be no love?

Tony says when he was an atheist he “knew” there was a God who created the universe and loved him and died for him (whose definition of “atheist” is that?). IOW, if there was no God, no one would believe in God?

And this stuff is sufficient reasoning to believe not only in God, but also that the Christian God is the “correct” description and understanding of God? Well, not for me. I need more. A lot more.

I must applaud Tony for his way out of the culpability problem by using the “God is fair” argument. No matter what the outcome of God’s judgment, it will not only be fair and just, everyone will know that it’s fair and just (and, I assume, therefore be content with it). That position allows for “kind and gentle” punishments like annihilation, different levels or types of punishments, a “range” of kinds of hell (rooms with no view, ocean view, partial ocean view, garden view, etc.) Pretty slick…

I have to say, though, I have a much more positive opinion of Tony now that I’ve heard him on the podcast. I think most of his “world view” as he explains and justifies it is on very shaky (il)logical ground and is quite blind to many other possibilities – even within Christian belief – but I also now find him actually somewhat pleasant as a human being. Let’s just say I used to think of him differently….

I would truly love to hear a podcast that continues on with Tony regarding predestination. Maybe you could pit Tony against another Christian who does not believe in predestination. A Calvinist vs. an Arminian on predestination – moderated by an atheist (Emery). That might be really interesting….

Jim

[The_Winds]

Hi. I have listened from the 1st podcast but this was the only one that provoked me to join the forum (I had refrained as I thought the opinions to be predictable.) I was brought up a christian and even talked to god, before I was cured by science/philosophy/history (in that order).

I understand the arrogance tony showed as I was the same once, but what was cringe inducing was the suggestion that science was a belief set. This to me seems dangerous as it leads to "I only 'believe' not 'know' that the chair I'm sitting on exists" territory at which point conversation breaks down.

It seems to me that the notion of unbeliever culpability provides a nice psychological crutch to hold up the idea to believers that it is easy to lose the favour of God so you better obey.

Thanks.

[nogods]

Have not posted here for a while and have not heard this podcast yet, though it is downloaded and I hope tio listen tomoroow, I have along train journey, but want to respond to some of the thing Jim says in this thread.

If Tony argues, that God has but an inate sense of 'morality' in all of us, then it would seem he argues too much, because such a claim would be impossible to prove, and an argument that is set up in such away that there is no way to argue for the opposite, is by itself invalid. Any valid argument would have premisesw that, if true, would prove the argument false. An argument that lacks shuch premises, making it inpossible to prove false (If certain things are true), is not an argument based on reason, but a mere claim based on authroity.

Again for example, if God is fair, no matter what he does - then what meaning does the word 'fair' have, absolutely none, which means the claim 'God is fair, no matter what he does' is invalid.

nogods

[NH Baritone]

• After listening to the podcast, the strongest impression I have is the consummate smallness of Tony's perspective. Often Christians accuse Atheists of being arrogant and self-absorbed. Tony's attitude makes us look like self-effacing monks; he places the human species at some apex of creation, given a divine gift of discernment of his existence & will. To Atheists, on the other hand, the human species carries no significance at all except to ourselves and the critters that we impact.
  
  
• And what an interestingly absurd notion that objective morals exist beyond human beings because God implanted them within us. It's true that the source of all morals can be traced to humans (or as he puts it, to "human hearts"), but not because God implanted morals there, but because humans ARE the source of all human morals. We live in society, and we want ourselves & our families & loved ones to thrive. I wish Tony would look around. Humans, other apes, dolphins, and other highly evolved social creatures create norms that are socially enforced and lead to greater cohesion.
  
  
• I have always found it comical that the Christians use the example of the crime that someone got away with as the example of why morals have to exist beyond humans and justice exist after death. Somehow (through logic that escapes me), if there was no judgment, there was no offense. Would they say that if there were no pregnancy, there was no sex? They simply have not thought this example through, which is amazing since it is so common as to have become cliche.
  
  So here we go: The person who steals an iPod (as the example was given) gets an iPod. This is a self-reinforcing behavior. Guy wants object, guy takes object, guy has object to enjoy. Ugh!
  
  But as an individual, the guy has learned only to be a parasite. He is dependent on other people feeding him, although they may not do so willingly. Even if you're (mis)using the "survival of the fittest" framework, this is not a formula for even describing the fittest. Instead it describes the laziest. And although it may provide for him (and maybe his family) in the short-term, long-term dependence on theft does not lead to producing more surviving offspring. It seems interesting that one way of avoiding a murder conviction is to claim that you were protect your property from a thief.
  
  So thievery is not "wrong" because some divinity declared it to be so ... it's "wrong" because WE'VE declared it to be so. And yes, some people will get away with it, escape judgment through deceit, and perhaps go on to live publicly virtuous lives sucking on the collective tit. We usually refer to these people by their proper names: Politicians.
  
  
• Natural selection (often misrepresented as "survival of the fittest") refers to a species, not an individual. And overall, social functioning has shown itself to be a dynamic and effective form of helping a species survive, reproduce, and thrive.

[rexjamo]

Another good podcast Emery. You have incredible patience, I don't know how you sit and talk so calmly in the face of incredible irrationality. While your efforts with the podcasts and the forum are commendable I sometimes feel its all a bit futile. Giving such an irrational belief such as religion (all of them, not just christianity) a forum seems to lend their arguements and belief system some sort of legitimacy that it doesn't deserve. To me it is the same as debating with flat earthers whether the earth is round or not. That is a pointless excercise and giving them a forum to argue with geologists would only encourage them and give their views some (very small) sort of credibility. That said, keep up the podcasts, I'll still listen.

Listening to this and many of your podcasts reminds of a saying that goes something like "Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

As for Tony, well what can I say. You are a typical evangelical American christian. No thoughts for yourself, just back to the good old bible when you need to rebut a point. Many of Emery's excellent points were ignored for another quote from the bible. You live in a fantasy land and need to open your eyes. You say you were an atheist but believed there was a god at the time you were an atheist. If you believed in god you were not an atheist. Its amazing how many believers claim to have been atheists in their past when obviously they were not. I respect your right and your choice what to believe but I can't respect what you believe. I could go on for hours but I won't. I'm sure its been discussed here countless times.

As for the morals arguement, what a joke to think that without Christianity there would be no morals. The system of morals predated Christianity by thousands of years and developed from the fact that humans are social animals and without morals the fabric of society would fall apart and the human race would not continue to thrive and prosper. Lions and Gorillas have social morals in their groups and they have no concept of religion. Much has been written about the arguement from morals so I won't repeat it here. Have a read of Sagan, Dawkins, Dan Barker etc...

If Jesus was the prophet he was supposed to be he would have preached for the abolition of slavery, the introduction of democracy and womens rights etc... Instead he just reflected the social norms of the time. Woohoo, what a champion.

What about the thousands of other religions out there? They have their own versions of the moral code. Are they all wrong and Evangelical Christianity is right? No, more like they're all wrong.

Well, there you go. I've done it. I've joined the discussion and added legitimacy to the Christian view. Oh well, I had to put in my 2c worth.

Keep up the good work Emery, sometimes though it would be nice to hear you get stuck in to your guests and not let them get away with some of their weaker arguements.

By the way, there are atheists in foxholes and most atheists have excellent morals. Its very interesting to look at the percentages of atheists in american jails.

[tirtlegrrl]

Congrats to Emery and Tony for a fascinating and memorable exchange of ideas!

That said, I find Tony's "Atheists are really Christians in denial" allegation one of the more repugnant and bizarre positions that allegiance to Evangelical Christianity requires of its adherents. One could also argue that Christians are Muslims in denial, or Buddhists are Hindus in denial. Or one could argue that Christians believe in Jesus because it gives them an excuse not to follow the 613 mitzvot of Orthodox Judaism.

Tony, as long as you're questioning people's motives, why would you admit that "God is fair, but you don't want fair, you want to live in a perfect world in a glorified state" (if I've paraphrased you correctly), and that's why you believe in Jesus? Doesn't that make Christianity a religion that rewards spiritual cowardice or laziness? Likewise, if Christians honestly believe an eternal Hell is actually a just penalty, why are they so desperate to avoid it?

[Rian]

Listening to this and many of your podcasts reminds of a saying that goes something like "Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Hey, don't insult Emery like that! He's a nice guy, and very thoughtful and intelligent.

Oh wait, perhaps you meant to call Christians idiots with your very first post on this forum (where I came from, n00bs are taught to have better manners)

Well, in that case, since I'm a Christian, I'm sure you think I'm delusional, too, since that's another common atheist non-argument lemming line *yawn*. So I hereby declare you to be a delusion of mine, and will not answer your posts, and I urge all other here Christians to follow my lead.

(but if you get off your high horse and actually engage in polite, thoughtful discussion, I'll change my mind Come on, you can do it! Most of the atheists here do!)

[rexjamo]

Listening to this and many of your podcasts reminds of a saying that goes something like "Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Hey, don't insult Emery like that! He's a nice guy, and very thoughtful and intelligent.

Oh wait, perhaps you meant to call Christians idiots with your very first post on this forum (where I came from, n00bs are taught to have better manners)

Well, in that case, since I'm a Christian, I'm sure you think I'm delusional, too, since that's another common atheist non-argument lemming line *yawn*. So I hereby declare you to be a delusion of mine, and will not answer your posts, and I urge all other here Christians to follow my lead.

(but if you get off your high horse and actually engage in polite, thoughtful discussion, I'll change my mind Come on, you can do it! Most of the atheists here do!)

True. Should have been a bit nicer with my first post. I have been listening to the podcast for a long time though so I feel as though I've spiritually been here for a while! Pun intended, there's no such thing as a spirit except for Jim Beam of course. I don't believe Christians are idiots. Many of my relatives are Christian and my Grandfather and his brother were both Christian Ministers. My Grandfather was an amazing man who achieved more in his life than most people could dream of doing. However I still believe he was wrong in his theistic beliefs.

If you're Christian then yes I think you're probably mistaken in your beliefs but so are Jews, Muslims, Hindu and the countless other religions out there. Christians are nothing special. I just believe in one less god than you do.

As for calling me a lemming, I won't even bother with a reply. Ok, I will. You're attacking the person. I notice no comment refuting the points I raised. Now what was that about lemmings?

Emery is so good at the polite, thoughtful discussion I felt that something a bit more blunt was needed. Unfortunately though I've learnt over the years that nothing can be said to change the mind of a believer. It has to come from within. Emery realised it. Maybe someday you will too. Probably not though. Have a read of Dan Barkers book Losing Faith in Faith. You might learn a thing or two.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

Obviously, I can’t follow the podcasts, but going by Emery’s introduction alone, the thing which bothers me the most is this claim that atheists are dishonest; it seems to be an inversion of principle and/or logic.

It is the evangelist that makes the claim that God exists and if they left it at that, I would probably not see a problem. However, if they insist on unloading the baggage that comes with that claim onto other people, then I think it falls to them to substantiate that claim, especially if they take on the heavy moral responsibility of saying that non-subscription will result in eternal punishment.

Instead of providing solid evidence, however, evangelists expect people to simply believe something and hold them culpable for failing to do so! Is that dishonest? I’m not sure, but it reminds me of a good quote:

It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.

-- Abraham Lincoln

So who is being dishonest here? The position that Tony takes is the sort of thing I tried to touch on in my thread ‘Truth and the bible.’ Are the things that some evangelists use to establish “culpability” on the part of atheists or unbelievers dishonest? I think some of them are.

[Rian]

True. Should have been a bit nicer with my first post.

I have been listening to the podcast for a long time though so I feel as though I've spiritually been here for a while!

I know what you mean; I read posts for several months before joining my first board. We forget we're "invisible" to the board members when we do that! I felt like I had been around for awhile when I made my first post, but of course, the people there hadn't seen me.

Pun intended, there's no such thing as a spirit except for Jim Beam of course.

Tsk, tsk You should know that you can't prove a negative, esp. one as outrageous as that one

I don't believe Christians are idiots. Many of my relatives are Christian and my Grandfather and his brother were both Christian Ministers. My Grandfather was an amazing man who achieved more in his life than most people could dream of doing. However I still believe he was wrong in his theistic beliefs.

I'm glad you feel that way, and that you had such a great grandfather! And just so you know, I don't think atheists are idiots or amoral or the other knee-jerk, lemming things that some Christians think (see, I think both sides can act as lemmings).

If you're Christian then yes I think you're probably mistaken in your beliefs but so are Jews, Muslims, Hindu and the countless other religions out there. Christians are nothing special. I just believe in one less god than you do.

Hmm, I don't buy that position, and neither do others here, including some atheists, IIRC. IOW, it's not a matter of "one less"; it's a matter of A) don't believe in supernatural beings, or B) do believe in supernatural beings. If you believe in B), then you go from there and look at each case. But many people here agree with your position, too.

As for calling me a lemming, I won't even bother with a reply. Ok, I will. You're attacking the person. I notice no comment refuting the points I raised. Now what was that about lemmings?

I didn't respond to the points in your post because I was waiting to see if you would change, and you did. And your first post contained a few more insults than my response. Anyway, I think we're sorted out now, though, with your gracious second post, so I can work on responding.

Emery is so good at the polite, thoughtful discussion I felt that something a bit more blunt was needed. Unfortunately though I've learnt over the years that nothing can be said to change the mind of a believer. It has to come from within. Emery realised it. Maybe someday you will too. Probably not though. Have a read of Dan Barkers book Losing Faith in Faith. You might learn a thing or two.

I don't mind blunt as long as it's polite and thoughtful, but starting off the way you did was just too much, IMHO.

Anyway, welcome to the board!

[mikedsjr]

I think Tony did a great job. I have come in here with a different approach than Tony, but I agree with much of what he stated. I am not sure what atheist were expecting. Emery gave Tony the freedom to answer the questions honestly. I don't hear any arrogance in what he stated. Maybe too much honesty.

[stickmangrit]

I think Tony did a great job. I have come in here with a different approach than Tony, but I agree with much of what he stated. I am not sure what atheist were expecting. Emery gave Tony the freedom to answer the questions honestly. I don't hear any arrogance in what he stated. Maybe too much honesty.

i heard the arrogance the first time tony opened his mouth to state how proud he was of the derision he receives for his bullshit posts. to be honest, i didn't make it too far in, but have dealt with tony enough over the years to have a pretty solid idea of where he goes with his arguments(besides off of a logical cliff). my problem with tony is that he's the type of person who operates under the presupposition that he's got the world completely figured out, that he's found all the answers that matter, and that anyone who disagrees with him is automatically wrong. you'll note his tendency to hit and run post these days, posting one incendiary comment of pure christian rhetoric and then run away, offering no defense or clarification of his points. as someone who has had their entire worldview flipped upside-down, and operates on the assumption that it could happen again, i tend to feel that i really don't know jack about shit in the big picture, and as a result have little business guiding others outside of selected fields in which i possess an abundance of specialized knowledge. as such, it's especially grating on the nerves to deal with somebody who wants to show me their handy little instruction manual for life and then cluck in despair for my soul as i point out that chapters 1:1 and 1:2 are in complete contradiction where they don't repeat each other, and that that's only the beginning.

[NH Baritone]

I think Tony did a great job. I have come in here with a different approach than Tony, but I agree with much of what he stated. I am not sure what atheist were expecting. Emery gave Tony the freedom to answer the questions honestly. I don't hear any arrogance in what he stated. Maybe too much honesty.

Advocating a bit more Christian deceit, are we? Exactly how much is too little, and how much too much?

[NH Baritone]

i heard the arrogance the first time tony opened his mouth to state how proud he was of the derision he receives for his bullshit posts. to be honest, i didn't make it too far in, but have dealt with tony enough over the years to have a pretty solid idea of where he goes with his arguments(besides off of a logical cliff). my problem with tony is that he's the type of person who operates under the presupposition that he's got the world completely figured out, that he's found all the answers that matter, and that anyone who disagrees with him is automatically wrong. you'll note his tendency to hit and run post these days, posting one incendiary comment of pure christian rhetoric and then run away, offering no defense or clarification of his points. as someone who has had their entire worldview flipped upside-down, and operates on the assumption that it could happen again, i tend to feel that i really don't know jack about shit in the big picture, and as a result have little business guiding others outside of selected fields in which i possess an abundance of specialized knowledge. as such, it's especially grating on the nerves to deal with somebody who wants to show me their handy little instruction manual for life and then cluck in despair for my soul as i point out that chapters 1:1 and 1:2 are in complete contradiction where they don't repeat each other, and that that's only the beginning.

Here's an interesting self-observation:

I'm most disturbed by the illogic of people whose thinking I admire more. Therefore, when people like Scott or Wonders drift off into illogical lah-lah land, I want them to go back to making sense rather than leaning on a 4000-year-old mythology. I think I'd enjoy having dinner with those guys.

Tony, however, leaves me with the impression that I wouldn't enjoy his company even if he agreed with me on religion, politics, and dog training. So I really don't get revved up over his nutsiness. If he becomes an atheist, I don't believe I would gain a friend.