Ep. 81: The Switch

[mitchellmckain]

Point of debate? None whatsoever. Niether side can prove their position -- there is indeed no proof for either side and attempts by either side to say that they win by default is just empty rhetoric.

This disagreement is about what one chooses to see as significant and about what one wants out of life and consequent effects on how one perceives the world and lives ones life -- and these are all just a part of ones subjective participation in life and have nothing to do with any objective observation of the world and pretenses to the contrary are what is really delusional. These are choices one makes for ones own life and attempts to fob these off on other people is just pathetic frankly.

Watching both sides come up with irrational subjective arguments to attempt to establish their superiority are rather amusing -- the playground antics of children playing games of pretend and trash talk. One of the more amusing games is the amaturish use of the terminology of logic, which to an academic sounds like the stream of meaningless technobabble on star trek. We should watch this unintentional comedy of the fundamentalists of both sides flaunting their cloaks of self-righteous "superiority" with detached amusement for one of the more silly absurdities of life.

Point of debate? None. The point of discussion is communication -- bridging the gap between minds in world where the diversity of human thought is an accepted reality much like the vast diversity of species in the world of biological life. It is an activity for those with the patience of an adult and an appreciation for the complexity of living systems rather than for those with a bully's ambition to dominate a simple playground. Some can see the world as a vast frontier to be explored for rare glimpses of understanding and some it seems just cannot help seeing the world as something to be conquered and controlled -- forcing everything to fit the square boxes that their simple minds have constructed ahead of time. But there is always hope with children that they may eventually grow up as long as they don't get stuck in the fundamentalist trap of convincing themselves that are grown up and already know and understand all that needs to be known and understood. As for me... I am too busy exploring... myself and the world.

[Redpower]

There are certain issues in which I can see and respect both sides of the argument - gun control for instance... I am for gun control personally but I can certainly see why a citizen might want to "bear arms". Gun control is a very complicated issue and there probably isn't a "right" answer, but we can find and perhaps agree upon a solution that is the lesser of two evils or extremes.

Religious belief should be a non-issue, as there are NO good arguments to support the religious persons claims. Of course there are intellectual fakes/bullies like Frank Turek who talk about TAG as if they've actually stumbled upon an argument that supports theism much less Christianity.

It's just all non-sense... Am I the only one who thinks that Scott has invested a lot of his life into being a pastor and likely has countless followers who would be DEVASTATED if Scott actually told them the truth (Christianity is a scam that intellectually dull people fall for) and that isn't something he thinks is worth doing. I don't know Scott's financial state and of course it's none of my business, nor do I think Scott would be the type of person to lie for his career or for money but perhaps he would for the sake of all of the people that have been naive enough to listen to him/others about "JESUS". This is why it is so frustrating for me, I'm either dealing with good hearted liars, absurd ignorance, or worst yet the ones who are just in it for the money (Frank Turek, 500 club, etc.) and it's become figuring out which type of "Christian" the person I'm debating is so I can know if I should run away from them or not. There is just no point.

There are never new arguments, it's usually the same line of horrific reasoning and a complete disregard for logic and a profound lack of evidence that drives this issue.

This should be a non-issue... It's 2010 and I just wish theists (especially Christians) would grow up. A third grader in this country (America) has the tools/resources to figure out on her own that Christianity and Islam are both ridiculous in their own right. Yet we have educated adults playing games and trashing the lives of people who are likely weaker minded than they are. It's just such a shame.

I appreciate your advice, it seems like you share the same discouragement I do.... If Christians wanted the truth, they wouldn't be Christians... It's as simple as that.

[Redpower]

Yeah, I'm a little off topic here Scott. Perhaps this should be moved.

[marcuspnw]

There has been 81 podcasts done on a variety of topics and none of the questions or objections that Emery raises are ever answered or reconciled. At most the co-host admits that "it's a tough question and I struggle with it" but that's where it ends...

I am getting increasingly discouraged and I'm starting to think more and more that the debate isn't worth having. It comes down to clumsy intellectual trickery or semantics games from the Christian side, always. Scott has begun trying to re-define the term Christian to have little to do with the text of the bible as a whole. Why Christians think it's okay to pick and choose what parts of the bible they deem worthy of their cause is beyond me...

Religious belief for the most part is geographic, just that fact alone should AT LEAST cause some skeptic analysis of what the religion in question has to offer, but it rarely does. The Christian starts with the conclusion that Jesus was God/God's son and died on the cross for my sins... This is not how an adult conducts an investigation, I'm sorry... You don't start with the narrative already in place and work to trick your way into actually believing it... It's just so lame...

There is NO proof. You have nothing. We are dealing with fact v fiction here and this debate has more than run its course. I understand that you've dedicated your lives to something that turned out to be a farce/scam but you can cut your losses... It's time to grow up and stop believing in the Tooth Fairy. No one has changed their mind after 81 hours of discussion on the podcast and countless more hours on the forums. The truth is obvious and yet no Christian EVER changes their mind.

What is the point of this? Unless someone can articulate a reason to have the discussion/debate anymore I think I'd equate debating Christians with beating my head against a brick wall. Scott, there is no way you believe this crack pot theory for our existence/purpose... I'm sorry, Scott, but you aren't fooling me.

Hi, Redpower. I don't think too many people come here looking for answers. It happens but I think it is the exception. Besides, "It's a tough question and I struggle with it" is an honest answer if also a frustrating one at times. Please look at the top of this web page: "A Christian and an Atheist" "Where differences and respect co-exist" "Discussion forum". That should give you an indication of what Scott and Emery are trying to accomplish here. Now either you find that approach appealing or you don't. If you desire to verbally spar "mano-a-mano" with abusive language and personal disdain, this probably isn't the place for you. At least, not in the general forum. If you are interested in understanding the variety of human emotions and the diversity of human thought or if you just want to figure out why people embrace Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, then you might find value in participating.

Who knows, maybe somebody might change your mind or at least give you something new to think about?

[ScottBarger]

Yeah, I'm a little off topic here Scott. Perhaps this should be moved.

Yes, I started a new thread responding to your post. I hope it is worth discussing, if not we can let it die a quick, response-free death. Thanks for your participation.

[mitchellmckain]

There are certain issues in which I can see and respect both sides of the argument - gun control for instance... I am for gun control personally but I can certainly see why a citizen might want to "bear arms". Gun control is a very complicated issue and there probably isn't a "right" answer, but we can find and perhaps agree upon a solution that is the lesser of two evils or extremes.

Yes. I think that most controversial issues like this are complicated and are controversial because there are merits to both sides. I count myself a radical moderate and that means that I strongly believe in compromise -- and I believe that compromises will eventually lead to progress towards whichever side is right (if either) in the end. As radical moderate what I absolutely detest are those with an uncompromising self-righteousness ideological approach willing to trample all over peoples lives because of their self-righteousness is unwilling to count the cost to real human beings. On the issue of gun control, it is obvious to me that the uncompromising self-righteous ideological side is that of the NRA and it is they who are unwilling to face up to the cost giving every human being the right and freedom to be able to quickly kill large numbers of people if that is their fancy.

But believe me, I KNOW very well the merits of their side of the argument -- to trust in gun control is to trust the government and to put in their hands all the ultimate power of violence. Nevertheless the tyranny of an individual wacko with a gun seems far worse to me. The only problem is that gun control in the gun culture that the USA has become, is kind of like trying to put the evil back into Pandora's box.

Religious belief should be a non-issue, as there are NO good arguments to support the religious persons claims. Of course there are intellectual fakes/bullies like Frank Turek who talk about TAG as if they've actually stumbled upon an argument that supports theism much less Christianity.

It's just all non-sense... Am I the only one who thinks that Scott has invested a lot of his life into being a pastor and likely has countless followers who would be DEVASTATED if Scott actually told them the truth (Christianity is a scam that intellectually dull people fall for) and that isn't something he thinks is worth doing. I don't know Scott's financial state and of course it's none of my business, nor do I think Scott would be the type of person to lie for his career or for money but perhaps he would for the sake of all of the people that have been naive enough to listen to him/others about "JESUS". This is why it is so frustrating for me, I'm either dealing with good hearted liars, absurd ignorance, or worst yet the ones who are just in it for the money (Frank Turek, 500 club, etc.) and it's become figuring out which type of "Christian" the person I'm debating is so I can know if I should run away from them or not. There is just no point.

There are never new arguments, it's usually the same line of horrific reasoning and a complete disregard for logic and a profound lack of evidence that drives this issue.

This should be a non-issue... It's 2010 and I just wish theists (especially Christians) would grow up. A third grader in this country (America) has the tools/resources to figure out on her own that Christianity and Islam are both ridiculous in their own right. Yet we have educated adults playing games and trashing the lives of people who are likely weaker minded than they are. It's just such a shame.

Wow, such an impassioned plea for everyone to think like children and for intellegent people to leave the simple minded alone. We have playgrounds for a reason -- and there will always be children. But the adults SHOULD step in and get involved when bully's try to turn the playground into their own private "empire".

If Christians wanted the truth, they wouldn't be Christians... It's as simple as that.

There are the seekers of truth and their are the pushers of truth and the above statement is a classic example of the latter.

[ScottBarger]

Good post, Mitch.

[Redpower]

I do not respect Christians intellectually, but that isn't a condition I'm obligated to fill to post on this forum. Just because the sites slogan is "Where differences and respect co-exist" doesn't mean I subscribe to it. And again, it doesn't mean I am nor should I be excluded because I refuse to respect lies.

My mind hasn't been changed, but this site has certainly given me a lot to think about... It's too bad that these podcasts/forums haven't persuaded me to become a Christian, I was really hoping I was missing something as all of you Christians would suggest I am.

It comes down to a matter of faith. And for some reason a lot of Christians consider faith a virtue... It's so stupid and I'm sick of it, so forgive me for not playing nice all of the time. Especially when half the time I'm dealing with dis-honest people.

Edit: Moving to a different thread.

[marcuspnw]

The warrior that underestimates the strength and nature of his opponent is easily conquered.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

Yes. I think that most controversial issues like this are complicated and are controversial because there are merits to both sides. I count myself a radical moderate and that means that I strongly believe in compromise -- and I believe that compromises will eventually lead to progress towards whichever side is right (if either) in the end. As radical moderate what I absolutely detest are those with an uncompromising self-righteousness ideological approach willing to trample all over peoples lives because of their self-righteousness is unwilling to count the cost to real human beings. On the issue of gun control, it is obvious to me that the uncompromising self-righteous ideological side is that of the NRA and it is they who are unwilling to face up to the cost giving every human being the right and freedom to be able to quickly kill large numbers of people if that is their fancy.

I hope you don't mind me picking up on this point alone, Mitch. I think perhaps you overestimate the value of compromise; it depends on where the two sides who disagree are at the beginning of negotiations. Richard Dawkins made this point, I believe, - one person may be totally right and his opponent totally wrong. The halfway point between their respective positions (or the 'compromise') would end up still being wrong, just less wrong. To give a simple example, somebody wants to commit a terrible crime and the police officer does not want him to commit any crime. The police officer is right and any compromise under which the man instead commits a less serious crime is not acceptable. Does that make sense?

[mitchellmckain]

Yes. I think that most controversial issues like this are complicated and are controversial because there are merits to both sides. I count myself a radical moderate and that means that I strongly believe in compromise -- and I believe that compromises will eventually lead to progress towards whichever side is right (if either) in the end. As radical moderate what I absolutely detest are those with an uncompromising self-righteousness ideological approach willing to trample all over peoples lives because of their self-righteousness is unwilling to count the cost to real human beings. On the issue of gun control, it is obvious to me that the uncompromising self-righteous ideological side is that of the NRA and it is they who are unwilling to face up to the cost giving every human being the right and freedom to be able to quickly kill large numbers of people if that is their fancy.

I hope you don't mind me picking up on this point alone, Mitch. I think perhaps you overestimate the value of compromise; it depends on where the two sides who disagree are at the beginning of negotiations.
...
To give a simple example, somebody wants to commit a terrible crime and the police officer does not want him to commit any crime. The police officer is right and any compromise under which the man instead commits a less serious crime is not acceptable. Does that make sense?

No I do not think so and there are serious problems with your analogy. Far worse than any criminal in a functional society are the self-appointed policemen that exist in places like Iraq and Afganistan. A real policemen just upholds the law that is legislated by another body incorporating compromise, and such policemen rarely can take such an self-righteous uncompromising approach except in their own adherence to the law -- they more than any legislator have to deal with the real world. The uncompromising self-righteous ideologue is more like the self appointed policemen imposing his own idea of what is right on other people and attributing his idea of what is right to a deity that he cannot prove exists makes no difference whatsoever.

There is no doubt in my mind that compromise will at very least serve to demonstrate the benefits of the side that is right (possibly by decreasing the damage by those who are wrong) and aleviate the irrational fears of the side that is wrong. If one side is really right then I think that compromise will only end up proving that this is so, but a refusal to compromise can only end in violence. Meanwhile I will remain HIGHLY suspicious an any uncompromising self-righteous position -- seeing it as most likely severly lacking in compunction and willfully imposing its own ideas and moral peculiarities on other people.

Richard Dawkins made this point, I believe, - one person may be totally right and his opponent totally wrong. The halfway point between their respective positions (or the 'compromise') would end up still being wrong, just less wrong.

Thank you for the demonstrating perfectly what a uncompromising self-righteous ideologue Richard Dawkins is. This is always the argument of such people. They are right and that is that so compromise is unthinkable. It is excellent proof that Richard Dawkins is indeed irresponsibly at fault for much of the irrationality of the New Atheists even if he doesn't actually spout most of their absurdly irrational claims.

[spongebob]

There has been 81 podcasts done on a variety of topics and none of the questions or objections that Emery raises are ever answered or reconciled. At most the co-host admits that "it's a tough question and I struggle with it" but that's where it ends...

I am getting increasingly discouraged and I'm starting to think more and more that the debate isn't worth having. It comes down to clumsy intellectual trickery or semantics games from the Christian side, always. Scott has begun trying to re-define the term Christian to have little to do with the text of the bible as a whole. Why Christians think it's okay to pick and choose what parts of the bible they deem worthy of their cause is beyond me...

Religious belief for the most part is geographic, just that fact alone should AT LEAST cause some skeptic analysis of what the religion in question has to offer, but it rarely does. The Christian starts with the conclusion that Jesus was God/God's son and died on the cross for my sins... This is not how an adult conducts an investigation, I'm sorry... You don't start with the narrative already in place and work to trick your way into actually believing it... It's just so lame...

There is NO proof. You have nothing. We are dealing with fact v fiction here and this debate has more than run its course. I understand that you've dedicated your lives to something that turned out to be a farce/scam but you can cut your losses... It's time to grow up and stop believing in the Tooth Fairy. No one has changed their mind after 81 hours of discussion on the podcast and countless more hours on the forums. The truth is obvious and yet no Christian EVER changes their mind.

What is the point of this? Unless someone can articulate a reason to have the discussion/debate anymore I think I'd equate debating Christians with beating my head against a brick wall. Scott, there is no way you believe this crack pot theory for our existence/purpose... I'm sorry, Scott, but you aren't fooling me.

This is a valuable observation, but you shouldn't be frustrated. Yes, Christians often are incapable of providing answers to difficult questions, or explaining why they believe certain things about the nature of god. I think there are two reasons for this. For one, they simply don't know because there is no way to know and no record of it in the only resource they know, the Bible. Second, even where some things that are taught as true, yet are clearly difficult to understand or accept, Christians accept these things on the faith that they will understand them later or that the question will eventually be unimportant. Either way, if they believe that they are true and come from their god, then really understanding it or being able to explain it is of little importance to them.

Despite what others here think, there is value (and thus a point) in this kind of conversation, discussion and even debate. Any sort of discourse opens up the possibility of learning something or discovering something you might not have considered yourself. If you close off your mind to the world, then the ideas of others will likely not permeate your own. And even for those not engaged in the debate; they may read and absorb some of what comes out of it. It doesn't mean you will always or even sometimes find value in it, but there is the possibility, however small. You know, people can talk all day long and produce lovely rhetoric, but debate forces you to be more honest and thus cuts through some of the bullshit. And even those who refuse to debate are swimming in their own bullshit.

[humanguy]

I do not respect Christians intellectually

Do you automatically respect athiests intellectually?

[NH Baritone]

I do not respect Christians intellectually

Do you automatically respect athiests intellectually?

I don't automatically disrespect Christians' intellect.

Heck! Christians are required each day to perform so many cognitive calisthenics and contortions, simply to maintain their cerebral balance, that they either fall ungraciously on their analytical asses or stand precariously (alongside a million angels) atop the head of a phantasmagorical pin.

Count me among those who eventually grew weary of bruising my ass.

The problem with those atop the pin is that they reach their conclusions long before they have evaluated the evidence. For the pinheads, confirmation bias rules supreme.

[mitchellmckain]

Looks like the atheist mutual admiration society is in full swing now. It is an activity that one sees performed quite often in exclusive religious groups under the title of "inspirational literature" when it is put in print -- you know the typical "aren't we so lucky to have the truth and it is a shame that those poor sods over there are so lost and deluded". Within the group it is merely childish but when they actually display this childish behavior for all to see, what kind of response do they expect? LOL Do they REALLY think that anyone going to think that this is a sign of their confidence or something? LOL

Can they imagine what someone who has heard this same boring routine in a dozen different religious groups is going think? I will tell you: (sigh) maturity is something people have learn as they grow up and gain more experience of a world so vast that eventually they realize that truth is something that only the most ludicrous and silly of human beings are going imagine that they could have a corner on the market.

Speaking of "confirmation bias", I think perhaps this what many atheists look for in debates with Christians. If only they can find Christian who is not quite so good a logic-babble as they are, then they can demonstrate to their own immense satisfaction that their conclusions "follow from rational observations of the world", while the fools who disagree with them are all "obviously" deluded.