Ep. 81: The Switch

[Redpower]

I do not respect Christians intellectually

Do you automatically respect athiests intellectually?

No.

But all people that I consider to have a high intellect happen to be atheists.

You, Emery and NH obviously have a pretty high intellect. I can't say the same for any Christian that's been on the podcast (I guess Scott would be the winner if I had to choose)... But I do not think Scott has a low intellect, as I've already stated in other areas: I think he's lying.

[Pseudonym]

But I do not think Scott has a low intellect, as I've already stated in other areas: I think he's lying.

Do you have any evidence for this belief?

[Brad]

Red,
"Lying" is a very freighted word.
I, too, have accused Scott of, or simply pointed out, depending on one's viewpoint, various forms of intellectual inconsistency, not least the playing of an ever-shifting "shell game" of convenience, similar to that of most if not all Bible-believers.
And my tone has sometimes been purposely provocative in an attempt to stimulate thought about these sorts of things among the believers here (maybe an unproductive tack, again depending on one's viewpoint).

Howevahhh, at no time have I ever thought that Scott was not entirely sincere and entirely honest - as he sees it - in the views he expresses. And I hope I've never sounded as though I thought otherwise.

Can you see the difference between the two notions?
I think Scott's inconsistencies are unintentional and well-meaning, while you see them as purposeful.
Maybe the difference between us is that I have another dear and thoroughly honest friend in the real world who reminds me very, very, much of Scott and who is a minister, too, so I relate to where Scott is coming from.

Certainly there are many, many, examples of "Liars for Jesus" (TM) such as politicians, professional apologists, televangelists, ID proponents, and so forth, so when encountering what seems like purposeful religious subterfuge it's tempting to jump to that conclusion.
I just don't think Scott is in that camp.

Last, in my experience even Scott's willingness to consider, and to admit possible validity of, ideas and concepts that run counter to his life-long immersion in superstitious dogma places him waaayyyyyy above most of the Christians, not to mention pastors, that I've ever run across.
So for that I'm very grateful.

[Brad]

I read a news article a few days ago about some Christian groups who are determined to put politics and division aside and focus more on helping people and promoting caring and compassionate behaviors. I had no luck in finding a link, but the story is only a few days old, so some others may have seen it as well. Movements like this, if successful, would go a long way towards reforming errant religious groups that do more harm than good.

Sponge,
Could the article you read be about what has become known as the "Emerging Church?"
This is an interesting phenomena that is causing some controversy among more traditional sorts of believers. Although no less nutty on the whole, it may comprise something of an "advance" from the perspective of general social progress and sanity. It seems to be sort of a melding of '60s Jesus-freak-ness with UU attitude and sentiments.
One of the better known and most controversial people within this group was interviewed recently on the Reasonable Doubts program, episode 68. Worth a listen, as are all the RD podcasts, IMHO.

[NH Baritone]

One of the better known and most controversial people within this group was interviewed recently on the Reasonable Doubts program, episode 68. Worth a listen, as are all the RD podcasts, IMHO.

I hadn't heard Reasonable Doubts recently, and when you cited a recent episode, I was puzzled. So I went onto my iTunes feed to see what you were talking about.

Apparently they or their podcast hosting service dated one of their "extra" podcasts as released on "12-12-2010." That's right. I have heard a podcast from THE FUTURE ! ! !

But with iTunes set to download only the most recent episode, everything dated before that future date sat waiting to be cued manually. I therefore have missed 5 podcasts, beginning in mid-March.

Others may be in the same boat, so check your iTunes for wonders yet unrevealed.

[Redpower]

Red,
"Lying" is a very freighted word.
I, too, have accused Scott of, or simply pointed out, depending on one's viewpoint, various forms of intellectual inconsistency, not least the playing of an ever-shifting "shell game" of convenience, similar to that of most if not all Bible-believers.
And my tone has sometimes been purposely provocative in an attempt to stimulate thought about these sorts of things among the believers here (maybe an unproductive tack, again depending on one's viewpoint).

Howevahhh, at no time have I ever thought that Scott was not entirely sincere and entirely honest - as he sees it - in the views he expresses. And I hope I've never sounded as though I thought otherwise.

Can you see the difference between the two notions?
I think Scott's inconsistencies are unintentional and well-meaning, while you see them as purposeful.
Maybe the difference between us is that I have another dear and thoroughly honest friend in the real world who reminds me very, very, much of Scott and who is a minister, too, so I relate to where Scott is coming from.

Certainly there are many, many, examples of "Liars for Jesus" (TM) such as politicians, professional apologists, televangelists, ID proponents, and so forth, so when encountering what seems like purposeful religious subterfuge it's tempting to jump to that conclusion.
I just don't think Scott is in that camp.

Well we just disagree then. As I've posted on this forum before, I can't take enough credit away from Scott after listening to all of his shows and reading his writings to think that he actually believes the mythology of the bible. He can articulate at least part of or some of the MAJOR problems atheists have with Christians, yet he doesn't refute them very well. At least not without first redefining "Christian" to suit himself and disregarding pretty much all of the old testimate and some of the new testimate.

It's like saying "I understand all of the science, math, and reason behind thinking the Earth is a sphere, but I still think it's flat."

Last, in my experience even Scott's willingness to consider, and to admit possible validity of, ideas and concepts that run counter to his life-long immersion in superstitious dogma places him waaayyyyyy above most of the Christians, not to mention pastors, that I've ever run across.
So for that I'm very grateful.

I agree, Scott's ability to understand SOME of the problems with his religion is impressive, as almost no other Christian that I've come across in real life or on this forum can. But I think (again), that he is lying about it.

Scott's career revolves around insisting that Christianity is valid. I don't know if he gets a salary, but with that incentive (if it is for him, I don't know) plus the fact that Scott takes (while a fairly accurate) a pretty depressing view an atheist's perspective on life, it probably leads him to think that the ends justify the means, and he will just continue to defend Christianity as he knows the game fairly well and gets a bunch of practice with Emery.

That is my analysis, sorry if you don't like it. But it makes a lot of sense to me.

[Redpower]

But I do not think Scott has a low intellect, as I've already stated in other areas: I think he's lying.

Do you have any evidence for this belief?

Just personal experience and Scott's own words (inconsistency)...

And to answer your next assertion, no, that is not the same as being religious because of personal experience.... Not even close... If that's where you were going with this it's pretty lame, but perhaps you weren't. If not, sorry. I'm trying to save time.

[mitchellmckain]

But I do not think Scott has a low intellect, as I've already stated in other areas: I think he's lying.

Do you have any evidence for this belief?

Just personal experience and Scott's own words (inconsistency)...

Yes this accusation of lying is one of the ultimate means that people can lie to themselves. I have enountered this quite often in regards to these super irrational beliefs by atheists that religious people cannot be scientists and that the only religious people are those brainwashed/indoctrinated as children. You wonder how they can support such beliefs in contradiction to the evidence all around them, well I have seen the answer first hand. You tell them that you are were not raised in any religion and that you are scientist and they just decide that you must be lying. I imagine that this is the way that other super-irrationals like the Flat Earth Society maintains their beliefs -- they just decide that all media people and astronauts are all just lying. But this demonstrates the obvious truth that atheists are no less susceptable to deluding themselves in support of their beliefs than anyone else -- this is a product of human nature and not religious belief.

[spongebob]

Sponge,
Could the article you read be about what has become known as the "Emerging Church?"
This is an interesting phenomena that is causing some controversy among more traditional sorts of believers. Although no less nutty on the whole, it may comprise something of an "advance" from the perspective of general social progress and sanity. It seems to be sort of a melding of '60s Jesus-freak-ness with UU attitude and sentiments.
One of the better known and most controversial people within this group was interviewed recently on the Reasonable Doubts program, episode 68. Worth a listen, as are all the RD podcasts, IMHO.

That could be what I heard. It seems like a reasonable reaction from non-hardliners to the hard and fast position of fundies. Where it actually goes, I have no idea.

[spongebob]

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.

Gee, Mitch. Your vast intellectual superiority is overwhelming....

[ScottBarger]

Just my $.02 about the "Emergent Church" moniker mentioned above.

The term sprung from a conversation about Christian culture/mission/ideals/polity/function etc. that started about 10 years ago. Essentially there was a growing dissatisfaction with the way we were "doing church" back then. Younger (often "postmodern") Christians simply didn't like what the Christianity and the church had become here in North America.

As more and more people joined the conversation and began to try to put into practice some of the implications of the ideas being discussed, it was observed that there was a definite cultural shift taking place within the church in America. The church that was "emerging" was in some ways VERY different than the church that had been functioning more or less the same way over the previous 60-70 years.

Of course, just about as soon as the phrase was coined (by whom I don't know, I guess you could Google it) it was branded and marketed. It soon became just another label to describe a flavor of Christianity that some people loved, some people hated, and by which MANY people made money.

[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 is what many atheists look for in debates with Christians. If only they can find Christian who is not quite so good at 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.

Gee, Mitch. Your vast intellectual superiority is overwhelming....

Where does that come from? Nothing I say in this post you quote is about this. So where in your brain is this connection to "intellectual superiority being made"???

What in fact is your objection to what I said? Is it that you like this mutual admiration society activity I was talking about and want to defend it finding no better way to do so? Do you resent that other people may have had observations of the behavior in many different religious groups? Or could it simply be the use of the term "confirmation bias" when the fact is that it was NHB who introduced this term in the previous post? Hey, I had to look the term up on the internet.

OH! I bet I know. It is that you cannot stand the fact that there are people who can see through amateurish pretentions to intellectual superiority. But your feelings of inferiority do not equal any feeling of superiority on my part -- mine is only contempt for this incredible rhetoric that people who do not share your opinions must be intellectual inferiors. The fact is that the more one knows, the more one understands ones own limitations and it is only the ignorant who are foolish enough to try that sort of nonsense. What is simply ludicrous is to imagine that one is more intellegent simply because of ones religious opinions.

[spongebob]

Gee, Mitch. Your vast intellectual superiority is overwhelming....

Where does that come from? Nothing I say in this post you quote is about this. So where in your brain is this connection to "intellectual superiority being made"???

What in fact is your objection to what I said? Is it that you like this mutual admiration society activity I was talking about and want to defend it finding no better way to do so? Do you resent that other people may have had observations of the behavior in many different religious groups? Or could it simply be the use of the term "confirmation bias" when the fact is that it was NHB who introduced this term in the previous post? Hey, I had to look the term up on the internet.

No, actually it's just that your psychoanalysis gets really annoying and boorish, which is why I ignore you most of the time. Your continued efforts to pigeonhole others is nothing short of hilarious. And you may not feel intellectually superior, but your posts certainly present the impression that you do.

OH! I bet I know. It is that you cannot stand the fact that there are people who can see through amateurish pretentions to intellectual superiority. But your feelings of inferiority do not equal any feeling of superiority on my part -- mine is only contempt for this incredible rhetoric that people who do not share your opinions must be intellectual inferiors. The fact is that the more one knows, the more one understands ones own limitations and it is only the ignorant who are foolish enough to try that sort of nonsense. What is simply ludicrous is to imagine that one is more intellegent simply because of ones religious opinions.

Nothing you stated here applies to me. I don't try to sound superior; that's your own echo you are hearing.

[spongebob]

Just my $.02 about the "Emergent Church" moniker mentioned above.

The term sprung from a conversation about Christian culture/mission/ideals/polity/function etc. that started about 10 years ago. Essentially there was a growing dissatisfaction with the way we were "doing church" back then. Younger (often "postmodern") Christians simply didn't like what the Christianity and the church had become here in North America.

As more and more people joined the conversation and began to try to put into practice some of the implications of the ideas being discussed, it was observed that there was a definite cultural shift taking place within the church in America. The church that was "emerging" was in some ways VERY different than the church that had been functioning more or less the same way over the previous 60-70 years.

Of course, just about as soon as the phrase was coined (by whom I don't know, I guess you could Google it) it was branded and marketed. It soon became just another label to describe a flavor of Christianity that some people loved, some people hated, and by which MANY people made money.

How was money made off of it?

[ScottBarger]

It became the new buzz word in Christian publishing. For a while there, you couldn't walk through a Christian bookstore without seeing a book with the word "Emergent" somewhere on the cover.

Of course I have no idea how many people made money off of it, or how much they made. But given all the hype, I assume SOMEone was making that dollar.