Gary, I must disagree with you! Note’s blog is about finding truth. If that involves leaving Christianity for some, then so be it. But I firmly believe Nate is more interested in helping others see religion for what it is and then let each person decide what to do with that information.
Gary, I’m glad to hear that you’re in favor of tolerance 🙂
That is my point here. UnkleE wants us to concede that his supernatural world view is compatible with reason, logic, and science.
That’s not exactly how I see it. If you’re honest you’d have to admit that science has not yet filled in all the gaps of knowledge that exist. We don’t know why the big bang happened or what if anything came before it. We don’t know how consciousness works. Abiogenesis still needs more work done on it and there are still mysteries within the theory of evolution that need to be solved. So, we are not yet in a position to dismiss the theory of intelligent design just yet IMHO. I agree that it seems like jumping the gun to posit an invisible mind working in the background, but I can also relate to why people think it must be so. I don’t think this deems them worthy of ridicule.
I was once a Christian on this site trying to understand where Nate was coming from in his conversion because it was such a shock. I was already a pretty Liberal Christian though, I have never been Fundamentalist and even though this site alone did not deconvert me, it had a small part in it. So some Christians are coming here to try and understand Nate, those with an open mind may change theirs over time. Some may be trying to come on here in hopes to convert him back or to convert others, but I often find that a lot of times deep down those people are the most insecure in their beliefs anyways, so whether it is immediate or not, maybe the site will have a positive influence on them in some way, probably more so than them being on here will affect any nonbelievers. Another reason, that being civil and moral about things might help if you do actual care about changing anyone’s opinions.
“And if we dismiss the idea of the supernatural or miracles a priori, it will seem like we’re afraid to have an open discussion about them.” – Yet if we don’t, we lend credibility to them, and enable the believer.
Sure, unkleE has been condescending at times, but that’s not how he typically comes across. At least, not to me.
And Nan’s right — I’m more interested in the free exchange of ideas than anything else. I do write against Christianity frequently because I think it’s false and I spent many years under its sway.
Ark said (about unkleE):
He, like many who hold similar beliefs, is careful to avoid any sense of overt bias and will hammer on about scholarly consensus til the cows come home, yet when confronted with an even greater consensus for the Pentateuch, for example, carefully sidesteps any direct commitment and/or does not acknowledge it has a bearing on his Christianity.
Yes, but when this kind of thing happens, it’s apparent to the reasonable people watching from the sidelines, whether the person giving those arguments ever concedes it or not.
A ”live and let live” policy is all that is necessary for fundamentalism to thrive.
Actually, I think a “live and let live” policy is the opposite of fundamentalism. Maybe it does give them some cover in that they’re able to say what they think — but they quickly show themselves to be jerks with an outmoded form of thinking. That’s why public opinion tends to shift toward the progressive end of the spectrum as time goes on.
Those who have any sort of religious bent they wish to take into the public domain as truth should be obliged to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that what they believe is based upon a foundation of sound, irrefutable evidence.
“And if we dismiss the idea of the supernatural or miracles a priori, it will seem like we’re afraid to have an open discussion about them.” – Yet if we don’t, we lend credibility to them, and enable the believer.
That’s a good point, arch. I think there’s a fine line in there somewhere, and I don’t pretend to know where it is. But I think any claim fits along a trajectory of believability. If I say I had toast for breakfast, that’s very believable (even though it isn’t true). It also isn’t of much consequence.
A miracle claim is another thing entirely, and the person making such a claim should recognize that. They should acknowledge that a lot of extremely good evidence is going to be required to show their claim believable. So if someone just makes that claim with no evidence, then it can be dismissed without evidence, just as Hitchens said. But I think there’s a difference when a person claims to have evidence for a miracle. If they present what they think is good evidence, I think we should examine the evidence before rejecting the claim. If we refuse to consider the evidence, then our credibility is diminished among those we’re trying to convince, even if we’re right.
“And sorry everyone that I am not doing a good job of actually replying to individual comments and people” – No, no – do NOT apologize! Every other WP blog I post on has “stacked” comments – the replies appear beneath the original comment. Nate chooses not to use that option, consequently each comment sinks to the bottom and we either quote a passage at the beginning, to indicate which comment we’re replying to, or readers can simply guess. I once forgot that this blog was that way, and just replied directly, without referencing the comment to which I was replying, and was accused of being drunk, as my comments seemed to be random, out of the blue, and reference nothing. Of course I was, but that had nothing to do with it.
Amanda, I don’t think there is anyone here who would want to force anyone to convert no. Unless you could name any one such person.
Dave no one is denying
If you’re honest you’d have to admit that science has not yet filled in all the gaps of knowledge that exist.
but relying on revelation isn’t going to bring us any closer to the solutions.
How can you even call intelligence design a theory? What are the hypothesis? How can it be tested? How would we know anything about the designer?
Nate you write
If they present what they think is good evidence, I think we should examine the evidence before rejecting the claim. If we refuse to consider the evidence, then our credibility is diminished among those we’re trying to convince, even if we’re right.
and I must ask what type of evidence would this be? If miracles are repeatable that evidence is readily available, can they still be miracles? Or rather to put the question differently, what is your understanding of miracles and what would you consider as evidence of one?
Yes, but when this kind of thing happens, it’s apparent to the reasonable people watching from the sidelines, whether the person giving those arguments ever concedes it or not.
Even I was unaware that Moses was not an historical figure until a few years back and I have been an atheist most of my life, thus many people of all stripes might well not realise.
It would beneficial if unklee would ( pop over and) actually state his position openly, (and without ambiguity).
I wonder if he would?
Mak, I think it would depend on the type of claim. I agree with the same objections you would likely raise: how do we know there’s not a natural explanation that we haven’t found yet? etc.
But most claimed miracles today are rather mundane. Now if I could have witnessed Moses crossing the Red Sea, or watch an amputee regrow a limb, or see a long dead person come back to life, then I’d likely accept those as true miracles. I would certainly consider whatever message is being presented by the person who could do such things.
“UnkleE wants us to concede that his supernatural world view is compatible with reason, logic, and science.” – That’s the same ploy that Brandon [anaivethinker] attempts – they seem to believe that if they can only get us to admit to the possibility that there’s a supernatural world somewhere or scientific laws that somehow supercede our own, then they at least have their foot in the door.
But what’s wrong with conceding the possibility? To me, it just seems honest. We can’t know that the supernatural doesn’t exist. Instead, we can argue why it’s unlikely, or talk about what “supernatural” even means when discussing reality. We can also talk about the problems with having a mind without a brain, as Howie often brings up. But why claim more than we can demonstrate?
Actually, I think a “live and let live” policy is the opposite of fundamentalism.
Not be be too facetious
And how many children must be abused by the clergy?
How many must die because of the church’s stance on contraception, abortion etc?
What about homosexuality?
And where should we start with Creationism, ID or Islam?
Even I was unaware that Moses was not an historical figure until a few years back and I have been an atheist most of my life, thus many people of all stripes might well not realise.
And we should definitely point out things like that. If unkleE (or whomever) never addresses it, then that sort of makes its own point…
And how many children must be abused by the clergy?
How many must die because of the church’s stance on contraception, abortion etc?
What about homosexuality?
And where should we start with Creationism, ID or Islam?
”In God we Trust”
Serious?
You believe this?
Of course not. I’m talking about the kinds of Christians (or followers of any other kind of -ism) who would be just as outraged at those atrocities as we are. We can’t paint them all with the same brush and still be taken seriously.
“Amen, Ark.” – Interesting you should say that, GaryM – I just posted this yesterday on another blog, and it might be of interest here:
Amen/Amun/Amon (several spellings) was an Egyptian god, who was finally combined with the Egyptian god, Ra, and became known as Amen-Ra. The names of Egyptian pharoahs were compound names, much as you will find that Hebrew names are in the original Hebrew, and so, “Tutankhamun,” or as the Egyptians would have phrased it, “Amen-tut-ankh” [the god’s name, out of respect, is placed first], meant “Living Image of Amen.” What most Judeo/Christian theists never realize, is that when they say, “Amen,” they are swearing by the Egyptian god that what they say is true.
For one thing, Amanda, having to lay out all of their beliefs in a debate – explain them in such great detail that one in the opposite camp will understand them – often expresses the thoughts of the believer to a greater extent than he/she has ever examined them before, and CAN lead to their seeing just how ridiculous they sound to others.
I have no problem with people who consider the existence of a Creator a possibility. It is a possibility because we have not yet figured out the origin of the universe.
My issue is with miracle claims. UnkleE wants us to accept his claims of a virgin birth, walking on water, and the resurrection of a first century dead man as reasonable and respectable. They are not. They are no more reasonable and respectable than the belief of some villager in the jungle that his giant gum tree is Lord and Master of the planet.
Of course not. I’m talking about the kinds of Christians (or followers of any other kind of -ism) who would be just as outraged at those atrocities as we are. We can’t paint them all with the same brush and still be taken seriously.
Any normal person who be revolted by these actions, yet …. they still continue.
Whether we accept it or not there is a tacit acceptance.
It must be pointed out and demonstrated that, all god belief is based upon a foundation of lies
It is that simple.
Where one Christian is vehemently intolerant of discrimination against homosexuality for example, they will vehemently defend their right to indoctrinate their children, and others with the belief that someone called Jesus of Nazareth was born to a Virgin and God had the right to slaughter millions in a global flood.
Finding Truth 
lol thanks Nate
LikeLike
Amen, Ark!!
LikeLike
Gary, I must disagree with you! Note’s blog is about finding truth. If that involves leaving Christianity for some, then so be it. But I firmly believe Nate is more interested in helping others see religion for what it is and then let each person decide what to do with that information.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary, I’m glad to hear that you’re in favor of tolerance 🙂
That’s not exactly how I see it. If you’re honest you’d have to admit that science has not yet filled in all the gaps of knowledge that exist. We don’t know why the big bang happened or what if anything came before it. We don’t know how consciousness works. Abiogenesis still needs more work done on it and there are still mysteries within the theory of evolution that need to be solved. So, we are not yet in a position to dismiss the theory of intelligent design just yet IMHO. I agree that it seems like jumping the gun to posit an invisible mind working in the background, but I can also relate to why people think it must be so. I don’t think this deems them worthy of ridicule.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was once a Christian on this site trying to understand where Nate was coming from in his conversion because it was such a shock. I was already a pretty Liberal Christian though, I have never been Fundamentalist and even though this site alone did not deconvert me, it had a small part in it. So some Christians are coming here to try and understand Nate, those with an open mind may change theirs over time. Some may be trying to come on here in hopes to convert him back or to convert others, but I often find that a lot of times deep down those people are the most insecure in their beliefs anyways, so whether it is immediate or not, maybe the site will have a positive influence on them in some way, probably more so than them being on here will affect any nonbelievers. Another reason, that being civil and moral about things might help if you do actual care about changing anyone’s opinions.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“And if we dismiss the idea of the supernatural or miracles a priori, it will seem like we’re afraid to have an open discussion about them.” – Yet if we don’t, we lend credibility to them, and enable the believer.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sure, unkleE has been condescending at times, but that’s not how he typically comes across. At least, not to me.
And Nan’s right — I’m more interested in the free exchange of ideas than anything else. I do write against Christianity frequently because I think it’s false and I spent many years under its sway.
Ark said (about unkleE):
Yes, but when this kind of thing happens, it’s apparent to the reasonable people watching from the sidelines, whether the person giving those arguments ever concedes it or not.
Actually, I think a “live and let live” policy is the opposite of fundamentalism. Maybe it does give them some cover in that they’re able to say what they think — but they quickly show themselves to be jerks with an outmoded form of thinking. That’s why public opinion tends to shift toward the progressive end of the spectrum as time goes on.
I tend to agree.
LikeLike
That’s a good point, arch. I think there’s a fine line in there somewhere, and I don’t pretend to know where it is. But I think any claim fits along a trajectory of believability. If I say I had toast for breakfast, that’s very believable (even though it isn’t true). It also isn’t of much consequence.
A miracle claim is another thing entirely, and the person making such a claim should recognize that. They should acknowledge that a lot of extremely good evidence is going to be required to show their claim believable. So if someone just makes that claim with no evidence, then it can be dismissed without evidence, just as Hitchens said. But I think there’s a difference when a person claims to have evidence for a miracle. If they present what they think is good evidence, I think we should examine the evidence before rejecting the claim. If we refuse to consider the evidence, then our credibility is diminished among those we’re trying to convince, even if we’re right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“And sorry everyone that I am not doing a good job of actually replying to individual comments and people” – No, no – do NOT apologize! Every other WP blog I post on has “stacked” comments – the replies appear beneath the original comment. Nate chooses not to use that option, consequently each comment sinks to the bottom and we either quote a passage at the beginning, to indicate which comment we’re replying to, or readers can simply guess. I once forgot that this blog was that way, and just replied directly, without referencing the comment to which I was replying, and was accused of being drunk, as my comments seemed to be random, out of the blue, and reference nothing. Of course I was, but that had nothing to do with it.
It is NOT you!
LikeLiked by 4 people
Amanda, I don’t think there is anyone here who would want to force anyone to convert no. Unless you could name any one such person.
Dave no one is denying
but relying on revelation isn’t going to bring us any closer to the solutions.
How can you even call intelligence design a theory? What are the hypothesis? How can it be tested? How would we know anything about the designer?
I agree with Ark and Gary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nate you write
If they present what they think is good evidence, I think we should examine the evidence before rejecting the claim. If we refuse to consider the evidence, then our credibility is diminished among those we’re trying to convince, even if we’re right.
and I must ask what type of evidence would this be? If miracles are repeatable that evidence is readily available, can they still be miracles? Or rather to put the question differently, what is your understanding of miracles and what would you consider as evidence of one?
LikeLike
Even I was unaware that Moses was not an historical figure until a few years back and I have been an atheist most of my life, thus many people of all stripes might well not realise.
It would beneficial if unklee would ( pop over and) actually state his position openly, (and without ambiguity).
I wonder if he would?
LikeLike
Blast … forgot to close the comment..sigh.
LikeLike
Mak, I think it would depend on the type of claim. I agree with the same objections you would likely raise: how do we know there’s not a natural explanation that we haven’t found yet? etc.
But most claimed miracles today are rather mundane. Now if I could have witnessed Moses crossing the Red Sea, or watch an amputee regrow a limb, or see a long dead person come back to life, then I’d likely accept those as true miracles. I would certainly consider whatever message is being presented by the person who could do such things.
LikeLike
“UnkleE wants us to concede that his supernatural world view is compatible with reason, logic, and science.” – That’s the same ploy that Brandon [anaivethinker] attempts – they seem to believe that if they can only get us to admit to the possibility that there’s a supernatural world somewhere or scientific laws that somehow supercede our own, then they at least have their foot in the door.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave-
Just wanted to say I continue to appreciate your comments and level head. Yours, too, Nate 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
But what’s wrong with conceding the possibility? To me, it just seems honest. We can’t know that the supernatural doesn’t exist. Instead, we can argue why it’s unlikely, or talk about what “supernatural” even means when discussing reality. We can also talk about the problems with having a mind without a brain, as Howie often brings up. But why claim more than we can demonstrate?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not be be too facetious
And how many children must be abused by the clergy?
How many must die because of the church’s stance on contraception, abortion etc?
What about homosexuality?
And where should we start with Creationism, ID or Islam?
”In God we Trust”
Serious?
You believe this?
LikeLike
And we should definitely point out things like that. If unkleE (or whomever) never addresses it, then that sort of makes its own point…
LikeLike
Of course not. I’m talking about the kinds of Christians (or followers of any other kind of -ism) who would be just as outraged at those atrocities as we are. We can’t paint them all with the same brush and still be taken seriously.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Amen, Ark.” – Interesting you should say that, GaryM – I just posted this yesterday on another blog, and it might be of interest here:
LikeLiked by 1 person
For one thing, Amanda, having to lay out all of their beliefs in a debate – explain them in such great detail that one in the opposite camp will understand them – often expresses the thoughts of the believer to a greater extent than he/she has ever examined them before, and CAN lead to their seeing just how ridiculous they sound to others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree Mak, especially when the revelation has men’s fingerprints all over it.
The same way I consider naturalism a theory. Not a scientific theory, but more of a worldview theory.
LikeLike
Dave,
I have no problem with people who consider the existence of a Creator a possibility. It is a possibility because we have not yet figured out the origin of the universe.
My issue is with miracle claims. UnkleE wants us to accept his claims of a virgin birth, walking on water, and the resurrection of a first century dead man as reasonable and respectable. They are not. They are no more reasonable and respectable than the belief of some villager in the jungle that his giant gum tree is Lord and Master of the planet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Any normal person who be revolted by these actions, yet …. they still continue.
Whether we accept it or not there is a tacit acceptance.
It must be pointed out and demonstrated that, all god belief is based upon a foundation of lies
It is that simple.
Where one Christian is vehemently intolerant of discrimination against homosexuality for example, they will vehemently defend their right to indoctrinate their children, and others with the belief that someone called Jesus of Nazareth was born to a Virgin and God had the right to slaughter millions in a global flood.
LikeLiked by 1 person