Monday, December 20, 2010

The Stupid! It Burns! (worldview edition)

the stupid! it burns! Supposed Atheistic Neutrality...
When my atheist friends ask me to step out of my worldview what is happening is simply atheistic evangelism. Let me explain. My worldview consists of having God as Creator of the universe and all that is within it, this God is a personal God and not one like the deist view holds, this God exists eternally in 3 distinct persons but yet are One in nature, one of them became a man named Jesus, was born, lived, died, and rose again for the salvation of His people, and the third person is who compels His people toward Jesus by the power of His grace and love, that the record of the life of Jesus and the life of the people of God has been recorded in the Bible and that the Bible is the word of God, therefore the Bible should be held to as truth and the source of truth since all truth come from God. This is my world view, and for me to step out from it it is to say::

* There is no God (therefore He cannot exist in 3 persons)
* The Bible is not the word of God, since God does not exist

You see how this is getting the Christian away from their worldview and already into the realm of atheism? Tricky, isn't it?

16 comments:

  1. hmm. this is interesting. whoever wrote this is a genius! haha. jk jk.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ...honestly, just curious. are you saying this is stupid or those who are atheists are stupid. I haven't read any of your posts nor checked out your blog. This is the first time I've seen it, so could you just give me your take on what you believe real quick.

    ReplyDelete
  3. could you just give me your take on what you believe real quick.

    Not really, no. If want to find out what I believe, read the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can say: I'm an atheist, and in my The Stupid! It Burns! series, the stupidity refers to the quoted material, which usually (but not always) consists of theists attempting to argue (ineptly) against atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Gotya. yea, that's all I was asking. much appreciated.

    If you could, would you attempt to argue this piece. you never actually argued it but claimed its stupidity and left it at that, which if a Christian did that to an atheist argument people would be all over him for not actually arguing. I'm not gonna jump all over you, just curious, what is wrong with it?

    and also, i'm not really attempting to argue for the existence of God...not yet at least haha. this is more of a stance that people cannot jump out of their worldview (whether Christian or Atheist or Buddhist or Muslim...etc.) to interpret facts but rather must compare the reality of the facts with their worldview...and worldviews do change, I used to be an atheist...whoops haha.

    but yea, i'm actually working on a series piece right now that I have been working on since March about the historical Jesus. lots and lots of information to sort through! lol

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you could, would you attempt to argue this piece.

    I could. I spent years actually arguing with theists about these points, especially presuppositional apologetics. I burned out completely on the endeavor. Here's one piece I wrote several years ago: Presuppositionalism and Metaphysics.

    The bottom line is that religious apologists are not honest seekers after the truth; they are, rather, defenders of a position who will try to win by any means necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  7. hmm. I would agree with you with some people, but if I can be honest with you, which is what you want I'm sure, I used to be an atheist and I became a Christian because of the facts about the resurrection of Jesus. but if that's not your cup of tea, I can't force that on you nor would you take it if I did.

    yea, I dabble in presuppositional apologetics, I'm not too good at it haha. I'm more of a historian so I like the historical nature of things and especially of Christianity. i think its pretty cool. nevertheless, whether Christian or not, one cannot deny the massive effect Christianity has placed on the world from a historians standpoint.

    this post was really only to point out that we cannot deny our worldview in reading anything, much less religious truth/opinion. i do like what Mike over at the Apologetics Front has stated, http://www.theapologeticfront.com/2010/12/atheists-are-not-neutral.html is a video up about his argument (kinda where I get my statements from), basically it was that atheists are not neutral whereas I went further in saying that no one is neutral.

    btw...how did you find my blog anyway?!? just curious lol, I don't have many followers nor am I that famous haha, just a regular undergraduate college kid that likes to dabble in apologetics. so, curious, how did you find me?

    ReplyDelete
  8. if I can be honest with you...

    You can.

    I used to be an atheist and I became a Christian because of the facts about the resurrection of Jesus.

    I find this line of inquiry dubious at best: It seems insensible that a god would hide its existence in two-thousand-year-old historical evidence. But DagoodS is your man, having considerable skill and experience in historical investigation.

    We cannot deny our worldview in reading anything, much less religious truth/opinion.

    Well, you can, you simply choose not to. And calling Christianity a metaphysical system seems to do violence even to those few standards of honest inquiry that remain in philosophy. It's just a cheap dodge.

    how did you find my blog anyway?!?

    I have a standing Google blog search on "atheist" or "atheism" to my RSS reader.

    ReplyDelete
  9. for the historical investigation, I'll take a look. I'm not sure if you have or haven't read up on any....I would though. It's really interesting stuff (whether Christian or not...its cool! haha).

    hmm, I am not sure if I am in agreement on you that we can deny our worldview so that we may let the facts interpret themselves...even simple psychology shows that we cannot deny our own presuppositions unless our presuppositions are changed by falling apart and having a new one erected in its place. as for Christianity being a worldview, it easily is...there is no way that it is not. sorry, i cannot agree with you on that one.

    as for finding my blog, awesome!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am not sure if I am in agreement on you that we can deny our worldview so that we may let the facts interpret themselves...

    You're mixing up several ideas here. One can deny any part of of one's worldview, or the whole thing. You do, of course, have to restrict or substitute a different worldview. And the point of "denying" one's worldview is not to "let the facts interpret themselves." It is true that a worldview consists of how we interpret the facts.

    Very briefly, most religions are "ontologically prior" worldviews: they take a specific view of reality a priori and intepret the facts in that light. Science is an "epistemically prior" worldview: it consists of a method for interpreting the facts, and a view of reality emerges from that method.

    I wrote my recent post A neutral worldview? with your comments in mind.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ahh. i get what you're saying. i thought you were saying to be neutral as in ultimate neutrality. sorry about that.

    even if that, Science is still not superior to everything. you have math the science depends on, you have history that science researches.....if anything math and history are superior, but i might just take the all are equal for the benefit of the doubt.

    i'll definitely take a look. i saw it before but hadn't had time to read it. i'll probably read it tomorrow since it's Christmas and i'm chillin with the family. hope you have a great Christmas!

    ReplyDelete
  12. If anything math and history are superior [to science], but i might just take the all are equal for the benefit of the doubt.

    Well, you should read Number: The Language of Science by Tobias Dantzig to get a sense of the pragmatism and contingency that underlies mathematics. To the extent that science is itself evolves, history is of course important; metaphysically, though, in terms of systems of thought, history is just another subject area.

    ReplyDelete
  13. yea for sure. I'll pick that up sometime. I'm unfortunately doing a lot of reading right now- I have 16 books checked out of my school library right now haha. Some theology readings, some spirituality readings, but mostly historical Jesus readings.

    That's really what I'm about, what is the main claim of Christianity...Jesus rose. Did that happen, yes or no? And that's all I'm trying to do, get to the answer of that. I'm sure a lot more would be answered if I could just get that answer. Though, I already have my presupposition, I don't want to waste my life, you know what I mean? If Jesus did, then I'm good. If not...well....I guess things need to change with me haha.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jesus rose. Did that happen, yes or no?

    Um... No. ;)

    If Jesus did, then I'm good. If not...well....I guess things need to change with me haha.

    Indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  15. lol. alright, alright.

    well, i do encourage you to read Michael Licona's new book on the resurrection of Jesus. i hear it's pretty spectacular. i have it, but no time to read it yet. lol


    only 2 things get in the way of my education....school, and time haha.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm not strongly motivated to read Licona's book. According to my friend Dagood (who is a far better historian than I am), Licona's book is "not really groundbreaking"; According to Dagood, Licona concludes that if you are a non-theist, then you are too biased to be persuaded by the evidence. Since I am indeed a non-theist, Licona apparently does not believe I will be persuaded. It is an open question whether I am indeed "too biased" or the evidence is simply insufficient to be persuasive; I find the claim of "too biased" to be defensive and disingenuous.

    ReplyDelete

Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.

With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.

No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.

See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.

Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.

I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.

Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.

I've already answered some typical comments.

I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.