Christian philosopher explains atheism

Christian philosopher explains atheism

There are 81 comments on the Examiner.com story from Mar 19, 2010, titled Christian philosopher explains atheism. In it, Examiner.com reports that:

James S. Spiegel , Christian philosopher and professor of philosophy at Taylor University , has written a book entitled, 'The Making of an Atheist.' He suggests that the atheist standpoint is the result of rebellion against God and not merely arguments that evil exists or that man is here by pure accident.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
P Smith

Taipei, Taiwan

#1 Mar 20, 2010
"Suggests that the atheist standpoint is the result of rebellion against the mythical god"?

I could easily and equally state that christianity is a rebellion against judaism, an idolatrist religion started so people could molest children and commit mass murder. And just like Spiegel's spiel, it would be untrue, a straw man non-argument and character assassination.

I and most atheists would not define christians using words like "mass murdering pedophilic cult" despite all the news items about catholic priests or Scott Roeder. I and most atheists define christians as "someone who believes there was a yeshua ben nazareb and claims to follow him", which is a definition that christians in general would accept, except perhaps for extremists.

An honest person - which Spiegel is not - describes a group using the group's own terms, not the speaker's own. What Spiegel is doing is no different than what jews call "blood libel".

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#2 Mar 20, 2010
P Smith wrote:
"Suggests that the atheist standpoint is the result of rebellion against the mythical god"?
I could easily and equally state that christianity is a rebellion against judaism, an idolatrist religion started so people could molest children and commit mass murder. And just like Spiegel's spiel, it would be untrue, a straw man non-argument and character assassination.
I and most atheists would not define christians using words like "mass murdering pedophilic cult" despite all the news items about catholic priests or Scott Roeder. I and most atheists define christians as "someone who believes there was a yeshua ben nazareb and claims to follow him", which is a definition that christians in general would accept, except perhaps for extremists.
An honest person - which Spiegel is not - describes a group using the group's own terms, not the speaker's own. What Spiegel is doing is no different than what jews call "blood libel".
These people are merely damaging themselves. The harder Christians push us, the more we push back. This then, incenses them, hence "militant atheism," which is code for uppity. And we just seem to keep winning in that arena, hastening the decline of theism in the West.

Someday, perhaps soon, Christians will have dwinf=dled in number and clout to the level that the Druids are today. And perhaps in some later day, Jesus' last idolator will die, and he can be cast on the trash heap of forgotten and unmourned gods, right beside Zeus and Quetzalcoatl. Ta-ta!

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#3 Mar 20, 2010
P Smith wrote:
"Suggests that the atheist standpoint is the result of rebellion against the mythical god"?
I could easily and equally state that christianity is a rebellion against judaism, an idolatrist religion started so people could molest children and commit mass murder. And just like Spiegel's spiel, it would be untrue, a straw man non-argument and character assassination.
I and most atheists would not define christians using words like "mass murdering pedophilic cult" despite all the news items about catholic priests or Scott Roeder. I and most atheists define christians as "someone who believes there was a yeshua ben nazareb and claims to follow him", which is a definition that christians in general would accept, except perhaps for extremists.
An honest person - which Spiegel is not - describes a group using the group's own terms, not the speaker's own. What Spiegel is doing is no different than what jews call "blood libel".
May I just say, you and IANS are correct...isn't it strange that on other boards like,'Why should jayzus love me?" is positively innundsted with posts, while we quiet rationalists talk to one another? It may not be as strange as I find it...

“His noodlyness astounds!”

Since: Feb 09

You tell me

#4 Mar 20, 2010
I love it when "philosophers" attempt to pigeonhole atheism. I was born to a Protestant family, attended church about every OTHER Sunday, and don't remember EVER buying into that b.s. The natural, cosmological and evolutionary explanations of our being ALWAYS rang truer to me. It is just so plain to see! Ther is NO god!

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#5 Mar 20, 2010
I really need to get out more, apparently there are people out there who know more about how my mind works than I do. With absolutely no personal data to factor into the equasion, I have been mapped. Not only myself but countless others have been reduced to a line or two of insignificant prattle.
There is only one little problem with this mold the Christard philo-soaper is trying to pack us all into, not a one of us fit.
rabbit

Parramatta, Australia

#6 Mar 20, 2010
?

“we do sarcasm and irony here”

Since: Aug 07

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#7 Mar 22, 2010
From the article:

"He believes atheism in its most basic foundation is simply a matter of the will choosing to reject God despite evidence to the contrary."

Personally, I've not seem any evidence that would cause me believe in the supernatural.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Maryville, TN

#8 Mar 22, 2010
Within the Christian world view, the article makes sense. You just have to put on your Christ-collered glasses when you read it, a little like the suspension of disbelief that is necessary to enjoy any work of fiction. It's a perfect example, really, of why we go around in circles when Christins like PaulWV and his ilk pretend to dialogue with us (really, most Christians who write here are capable only of monologue).

Not that we make it easy. We prod, poke, and provoke with epithets like "christards" and "buybull." People tend to express themselves poorly when they are angry, and some here work to keep those who disagree with them in a constant state of piss-off. That may be fun, but I don't think it's very useful.

Those with whom we contend here could easily be our coworkers, friends, and relatives. How would we know? Why not treat our adversaries with the same respect that you would want another writer to show to your own mother? Let's raise the standards here if we can.
nina

Surrey, Canada

#9 Mar 22, 2010
wow, how disappointing that "rebellion against God" is the best that a "philosopher and professor of philosophy at Taylor University"

can come up with

atheists, no matter how old they are, are secretly teenagers.

that reminds me of my aunt who insisted that I went to gay bars to feel superior to other people was the obvious reason for going there.

seriously.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10 Mar 23, 2010
NightSerf wrote:
[1] Within the Christian world view, the article makes sense. You just have to put on your Christ-colored glasses when you read it, a little like the suspension of disbelief that is necessary to enjoy any work of fiction.

[2]It's a perfect example, really, of why we go around in circles when Christins like PaulWV and his ilk pretend to dialogue with us (really, most Christians who write here are capable only of monologue).
[1] I understand that, and I suspect most other atheists do as well. What you are saying is that if I choose to systematically filter and distort perception, it looks irrational.

They do it to escape seeing what frightens them and to replace it with a comfortable lie. It's an irresponsible thing to do, with reprehensible consequences.

[2] Yes. That's part of what makes reality creation reprehensible. Paulie indulges his fantasy to comfort himself because he is frightened and too weak to deal with those fears responsibly as we all once did.

And one of the filters removes our message back to him from his perceptual stream. That is what makes it a monologue.

[cont]

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11 Mar 23, 2010
Seconds after completing the post above, I switch to another atheist thread and find it filled with scripture from the Book of Ecclesiastes, less than half an hour old and the ink not yet dry:

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

What fills my mind is, "fuck you!" But I don't post that. Instead, I posted some similarly helpful prose of equal value in the next post - from Green Eggs and Ham.

Was that ridicule? Most certainly, although lampoon might be a better term.

Was it rude? Perhaps. It depends how the Christian in question chooses to receive it. But even if he is deeply offended, so what?

Has my comment derailed the conversation? Has it made it go from fruitful to something less? LOL. You be the judge.

In case you're not, I'm quite familiar with this poster by now. He's Helen Keller when it comes to reaching him. And I'm no Annie Sullivan.

My audience, if any, is a different story. I'm sure that I reached them.

How would you suggest handling this matter, NightSerf? Ignoring the post? Commenting gently and respectfully that I don't accept the authority of the source? That seems weak and pointless to me.
nina

Ottawa, Canada

#12 Mar 23, 2010
It aint necessarily so wrote:
...
How would you suggest handling this matter, NightSerf? Ignoring the post? Commenting gently and respectfully that I don't accept the authority of the source? That seems weak and pointless to me.
I find mockery is the best

responding to their so called points is pointless

& explainations of reality are lost on them
Epicurus

Winter Park, FL

#13 Mar 23, 2010
NightSerf wrote:
Within the Christian world view, the article makes sense. You just have to put on your Christ-collered glasses when you read it, a little like the suspension of disbelief that is necessary to enjoy any work of fiction. It's a perfect example, really, of why we go around in circles when Christins like PaulWV and his ilk pretend to dialogue with us (really, most Christians who write here are capable only of monologue).
Not that we make it easy. We prod, poke, and provoke with epithets like "christards" and "buybull." People tend to express themselves poorly when they are angry, and some here work to keep those who disagree with them in a constant state of piss-off. That may be fun, but I don't think it's very useful.
Those with whom we contend here could easily be our coworkers, friends, and relatives. How would we know? Why not treat our adversaries with the same respect that you would want another writer to show to your own mother? Let's raise the standards here if we can.
OK... Fair enough. Please answer the following question.
WHY do theists post to atheist threads? To proselytize? Purpose?
Atheist point of view...
There is a common perception that there must be something more to atheism than simply disbelief in gods because of the fact that atheists are so often engaged in debates with theists. The important thing is not to focus simply on their erroneous belief, but instead upon what has ultimately brought them to that belief, and then helping them to adopt a methodology which relies more upon skepticism, reason, and logic.
Simply tearing down religious dogma usually fails because theists feel threatened. The key is to get them to think reasonably, rationally, logically, and critically about beliefs in general. Rather than focus on their erroneous belief, focus instead upon what has ultimately brought them to that belief. With that, religious dogma will eventually crumble of its own accord.
&fe ature=sub
Please be honest enough to view the video. It does not insult any religion or diety. Then let us discuss your questions.
Ubi dubium ibi libertas
Epicurus

Winter Park, FL

#14 Mar 23, 2010
NightSerf wrote:
Within the Christian world view, the article makes sense. You just have to put on your Christ-collered glasses when you read it, a little like the suspension of disbelief that is necessary to enjoy any work of fiction. It's a perfect example, really, of why we go around in circles when Christins like PaulWV and his ilk pretend to dialogue with us (really, most Christians who write here are capable only of monologue).
Not that we make it easy. We prod, poke, and provoke with epithets like "christards" and "buybull." People tend to express themselves poorly when they are angry, and some here work to keep those who disagree with them in a constant state of piss-off. That may be fun, but I don't think it's very useful.
Those with whom we contend here could easily be our coworkers, friends, and relatives. How would we know? Why not treat our adversaries with the same respect that you would want another writer to show to your own mother? Let's raise the standards here if we can.
Previous reply intended for all on the thread regardless of belief or non belief. Not specifically NightSerf

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#15 Mar 23, 2010
Epicurus wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Hj9oB4zpHwwXX&feature=sub
Please be honest enough to view the video. It does not insult any religion or diety. Then let us discuss your questions.
Ubi dubium ibi libertas
Like you, NightSerf is a good guy. He's bright and honest, and not a theist to my knowledge. He's certainly never defended theism.

FYI, you didn't need to ask him to view the video or to be honest. Nor would he likely have taken offense at it whatever its content (I haven't seen it yet because there are people still sleeping here, and I can't have any audio yet).

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#16 Mar 23, 2010
Epicurus wrote:
<quoted text>
Previous reply intended for all on the thread regardless of belief or non belief. Not specifically NightSerf
OK. I wish that I had seen that before I responded the your immediately previous post.
Epicurus

Winter Park, FL

#17 Mar 23, 2010
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. I wish that I had seen that before I responded the your immediately previous post.
NO PROBLEM! Servers are slow sometimes

BTW - The site is excellent!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#18 Mar 23, 2010
Epicurus wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Hj9oB4zpHwwXX&feature=sub
Thanks, very good. I hadn't heard Sam Harris before. I intend to post this on Facebook.

But you want to hear from theists. Our responses are predictable.
Epicurus

Winter Park, FL

#19 Mar 23, 2010
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, very good. I hadn't heard Sam Harris before. I intend to post this on Facebook.
But you want to hear from theists. Our responses are predictable.
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/

Sam Harris is the author of the New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. The End of Faith won the 2005 PEN Award for Nonfiction.

Mr. Harris' writing has been published in over fifteen languages. He and his work have been discussed in Newsweek, TIME, The New York Times, Scientific American, Nature, Rolling Stone, and many other journals. His writing has appeared in Newsweek, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Times (London), The Boston Globe, The Atlantic, The Annals of Neurology, and elsewhere.

Mr. Harris is a Co-Founder and CEO of Project Reason, a nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. He received a degree in philosophy from Stanford University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA.

http://www.samharris.org/

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#20 Mar 23, 2010
Epicurus wrote:
<quoted text>
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/
Sam Harris is the author of the New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. The End of Faith won the 2005 PEN Award for Nonfiction.
Mr. Harris' writing has been published in over fifteen languages. He and his work have been discussed in Newsweek, TIME, The New York Times, Scientific American, Nature, Rolling Stone, and many other journals. His writing has appeared in Newsweek, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Times (London), The Boston Globe, The Atlantic, The Annals of Neurology, and elsewhere.
Mr. Harris is a Co-Founder and CEO of Project Reason, a nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. He received a degree in philosophy from Stanford University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA.
http://www.samharris.org/
Sorry if I was unclear. I am very familiar with Harris, as I am with Dawkins, Hitchens and Myers. I have admired him, his work, and that of the others for some time.

I merely meant that I had only read him, never seen him speak. i guess that I'm too proud to have you think that I hadn't heard of him. I hadn't heard him.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Taylor University Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Robert Dean Taylor found guilty in 1993 1st deg... (Jul '08) May '15 Reba 7
News Female squirrels never turn down sex (Dec '10) Jun '13 unknown term 2
News New charter met with opposition at meeting (Feb '13) Mar '13 velogeezer 4
News Today, Fri., March 6, 2009: Pre-school sign-ups... (Mar '09) Mar '09 I love barren county 1
News Island Ghost Investigations' Erica Popino and M... (Nov '08) Nov '08 Alice 1
News Doepke and Dykstra (Aug '08) Aug '08 Andrei T 1
News Culture Vulture: Parody blog truly 'Blessed' (Jul '08) Jul '08 Nicki 2
More from around the web