Thomas The Skeptic - Something For Ironhorse

[SquareOne]

FFS, why are you trying to reason with him.  We all know that leaving the faith is a matter of emotion.  Recognising the emptiness of God's promises and the crushing loneliness of life in a church.

 

Yeah I know you like a debate, sorry to be such a mood killer.

[Ravenstar]

One can not honestly investigate any subject with preconceived notions. It doesn't matter what anyone says… if you already believe a certain thing then true study and consideration of differing positions is impossible. One must suspend any conclusion until thorough investigation is done.

 

This is the "I don't know" position.

 

Without a deep understanding of one's inner 'world view' and belief matrix from childhood and the confirmation bias one has, and the biases of your sources - including cultural and geographical bias, there is no possibility of making a true judgement of any position, on any subject.

 

Source: Me… and a lifetime of experience seeking for truth. (and education in social science statistics)

[DoubtingNate]

One important thing to point out is that each gospel represented its own separate faith community, and lots of theological debates are personified in some of the dialogue. This is really the 'John' Christians taking a cheap shot at the 'Thomas' Christians.

[mwc]

It seems that their view would qualify as agnosticism. "I cannot know" might carry at least the implication of applied inquiry, whereas "I do not know" might seem to imply having not tried.

 

On certain matters, I tend toward the position that "It seems that I cannot know" (after having made a reasonable attempt).

 

     The ancients didn't use agnosticism (or gnosticism) as we do.  We use a more modern definition.  Maybe a couple of hundred years old at best?  (Probably mid-1800's.)  The ancient gnostic was to have or possess a special knowledge of the divine.  We tend to use (a)gnostic as simply (not)knowing a thing or the ability of (not)knowing a thing.

 

     The ancient skeptics did have ideas that we might consider to be agnostic though I'm fairly confident they explained them in other terms (ie. they didn't use the term agnostic).

 

          mwc

[♦ ficino ♦]

A summary of ancient skepticism from an outsider's point of view is this by Lactantius in his Divine Institutes (early 300s CE): " ... Socrates' famous claim, when he said that he know nothing except for the one thing that he knew nothing, and that was the source of the Academy's teaching, if teaching is what to call it when only ignorance is taught and learned."

 

It's ironic that Lactantius says this in the midst of a long attack on the disagreements among philosophers, to which he contrasts the clear and unified teaching of the church.  I wonder how the good bishop would spin the 40,000 denominations we have today.  He ignores the disputes and differing groups that had existed in Christendom even up to his own time.

[ironhorse]

I have posted about my childhood and my parents several times here.

 

Yet, some still view me as brainwashed and indoctrinated. 

Did you really read my story? 

 

I've been hit with a ton of questions in this thread and comments on why

I don't qualify as a skeptic.

 

I will try to answer all them at some point.  

[bornagainathiest]

I have posted about my childhood and my parents several times here.

 

Yet, some still view me as brainwashed and indoctrinated. 

Did you really read my story? 

 

I've been hit with a ton of questions in this thread and comments on why

I don't qualify as a skeptic.

 

I will try to answer all them at some point.  

 

Deal with them chronologically.

[SquareOne]

I have posted about my childhood and my parents several times here.

 

Yet, some still view me as brainwashed and indoctrinated. 

Did you really read my story? 

 

I've been hit with a ton of questions in this thread and comments on why

I don't qualify as a skeptic.

 

I will try to answer all them at some point.  

 

If you can find me one person who concedes to being presently brainwashed against rational thought, your comment here may have more merit.  (What you seem to fail to appreciate is that most people here are former believers who did not think they were brainwashed when they were believers, but now recognise that they were.)

 

What would be more convincing is if you can supply evidence to support your beliefs.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I will try to answer all them at some point.  

Until proven otherwise, I will accept this statement to be a lie.  I base this position upon the historical evidence of Ironhorse making similar claims and then not following through.

[sdelsolray]

 

…

sdelsolray mentioned childhood indoctrination. As I have said here before, I was encouraged by my parents

to question everything. I was not brainwashed by my parents or a wild eyed preacher.

…

 

Childhood indoctrination need not involve brainwashing by parents to a wild eyed preacher.  It often simply involves (i) frequent exposure to certain religious dogma and (ii) expectations of trusted adults and peers.  In your case, since your father was a Baptist minister, and since you were raised and live in the Southern United States, the following sample questions would begin to explore your childhood indoctrination:

 

1)  Did you go to church regularly?  Sundays?  Wednesday nights?  Other times?  Were you expected to go?  Required to go?

2)  Did you attend functions organized by the church (other than worship services), such as Bible studies, prayer meetings, summer Bible camp, musical performances (as player or listener), etc.?

3)  Were you, as a youth, ever elevated to a position of power or control within the church, such as youth leader?

4)  Was there an event in your life (as a child) where you declared your were "saved" or "in the spirit" or some other similar pronouncement?  Was there an expectation that you would do this?  Was there a religious event or ceremony at which this was acknowledged?

5)  What percentage of the children you went to grade school with were Christians?  High school?  College?

6)  Did either of your parents, when disciplining you for perceived wrongful action on your part, invoked any form of religious dogma upon you, such as "God is watching you" or "You should pray to Jesus for forgiveness" or "If you continue down that path you will end up in Hell"?

7)  Did a member of your nuclear family say grace (or some other religious statement) before you were allowed to eat food at the dinner table?

 

I could list dozens of other questions, all focused on (i) frequent exposure to certain religious dogma or (ii) expectation of trusted adults and peers.

 

Your claim that you were not indoctrinated with a particular version of the Christian religion rings quite hollow, most likely because you have yet to realize the indoctrination to which you were exposed.

 

Ironhorse - Will you be answering these questions?

[ironhorse]

1)  Did you go to church regularly?  Sundays?  Wednesday nights?  Other times?  Were you expected to go?  Required to go?

 

As a child until the age of 13 I attended with my family on Sunday mornings, Sunday evening and Wednesday nights. Was I required to? I was a kid....I went with my parents. I actually enjoyed going. When I  driver's permit (age 14) my attendance became less regular and I would stay home or go out. By my high school years I was going about once or twice a month. My first year working before college I stopped going at all until I was in my late twenties. My parents would invite me to come or say they missed me, but I was never reprimanded by them for not attending. 

 

2)  Did you attend functions organized by the church (other than worship services), such as Bible studies, prayer meetings, summer Bible camp, musical performances (as player or listener), etc.?

 

Yes, the church where my father was pastor had a lot of activities: Bible studies on Sunday nights, prayer meetings, Vacation Bible School, church plays, camping trips, bowling, skating, swimming. The church had some great youth workers.

 

3)  Were you, as a youth, ever elevated to a position of power or control within the church, such as youth leader?

 

No, not as a youth. Later in my life mid thirties and on I taught high school students and a young adult class.

4)  Was there an event in your life (as a child) where you declared your were "saved" or "in the spirit" or some other similar pronouncement?  Was there an expectation that you would do this?  Was there a religious event or ceremony at which this was acknowledged?

 

I accepted Christ at the age of 12 during an invitation in a service by another pastor. I did not cry or get 

emotional. I remember being comfortable and at peace about the decision. My parents told me on the way home in the car they were happy. That was extent of their conversation with me on the event.  I was baptized about four weeks later.

5)  What percentage of the children you went to grade school with were Christians?  High school?  College?

 

 I guess most were Christians. In high school I had a few Jewish friends and a several friends

not into religion at all. College the same as HS except a few more.

6)  Did either of your parents, when disciplining you for perceived wrongful action on your part, invoked any form of religious dogma upon you, such as "God is watching you" or "You should pray to Jesus for forgiveness" or "If you continue down that path you will end up in Hell"?

 

My father came from a very poor family. He struggled and worked hard to care for us and get through college. He earned his Master's Degree from one of the toughest universities in the state and later on he earned his Doctorate. Besides being a pastor he also taught high school a few years and later taught psychology in college.

 

"God is watching you" or "You should pray to Jesus for forgiveness" or "If you continue down that path you will end up in Hell"?

 

My father and mother never said or threatened me with those words. 

 

7)  Did a member of your nuclear family say grace (or some other religious statement) before you were allowed to eat food at the dinner table?

 

At breakfast and lunch...I don't remember us saying grace at all. We did say grace before supper but it was not a big deal if I started

nibbling before the prayer. It was also not a big deal if people came over and we just forgot. My mom was great...she even

allowed me to eat the dessert first.

 

I just wanted to get the dessert out of the way to get to the fried chicken and potato salad.

[Ravenstar]

I will freely admit I was brainwashed, not by my family but by the culture I grew up in - christianity seethes through everything here in the west… it wasn't until I began to look at other cultural ways of thinking and examine my own mental and emotional map that I could break free of that.

[bornagainathiest]

Ironhorse wrote...

"I've been hit with a ton of questions in this thread and comments on why I don't qualify as a skeptic.  I will try and answer all of them at some point."

No problem, buddy! 

Here's mine.  Enjoy!  

.

.

.

 

1.  Answer this question truthfully. Did you get to see Jesus' wounds in his hands and in his side before BEFORE you believed?

 

2.  Did the Corinthians, the Romans, the Galatians or any of the believers in Jerusalem and Israel ever do what Thomas did and see the evidence of Jesus' resurrection BEFORE they believed?

 

3.  Did Damaris, at the Areopagus?

 

4.  Did Paul and Barnabus' jailer?

 

5.  Did anyone?

 

6.  You see how this works?  (Meaning, the default position for ALL skeptics is non-belief, not belief.) 

6a. So you agree that all of the people mentioned in # 2 were not skeptics?

6b. So you agree that you were not a skeptic when you came to believe in Jesus?

 

7.  Do you see what the Antonym (opposite of) skepticism is?

 

8.  And since you believed in Christ without seeing any physical evidence of his resurrection for yourself, was your decision to accept him as your savior and lord... a skeptical one?

 

9.  Your belief that the Protestant reformation allowed the rise of science in Europe.  Did you skeptically examine this claim and Kobe's assertions?

 

10.  You were encouraged by your parents to question everything.

So were you practicing this (skepticism) when you believed without seeing that Jesus was raised form the dead?

 

11. So what kind of skeptical thinking were you doing when you believed (blindly) that Jesus was raised from the dead?

 

12. So you didn't follow Thomas' process of skeptical thinking when you cam to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead?

 

13.  You're driven to find out the truth.

Except for when you choose to blindly believe the untestable 'truth' of the Bible regarding Jesus' resurrection?

 

14.  Quite sure you're a skeptic?

.

.

.

Ironhorse,

You also have william7davis' questions to answer as well.  He wrote...

 

1. 

Do you think you can objectively analyze the biblical claims for Xianity while still holding onto the belief that jesus was the son of god and rose from the dead?

 

2.

Could you suspend your belief just long enough to complete an honest analysis of the truth of those biblical claims?

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[directionless]

Ironhorse, you seem to be willing to answer questions honestly, so here are some more. (Sorry if you have already answered elsewhere.)

 

(1) What denomination are you?

 

(2) What evidence sustains your faith in Christianity?

 

(3) What would be your fears about admitting that you are an unbeliever? (I suspect many Christians aren't given a fair chance to be non-believers and then they are afraid to be skeptical of Christianity due to the fears that Christian belief implants.)

[directionless]

One can not honestly investigate any subject with preconceived notions. It doesn't matter what anyone says… if you already believe a certain thing then true study and consideration of differing positions is impossible. One must suspend any conclusion until thorough investigation is done.

 

This is the "I don't know" position.

 

Without a deep understanding of one's inner 'world view' and belief matrix from childhood and the confirmation bias one has, and the biases of your sources - including cultural and geographical bias, there is no possibility of making a true judgement of any position, on any subject.

 

Source: Me… and a lifetime of experience seeking for truth. (and education in social science statistics)

I thought this was a good description of skepticism.

 

I don't agree when atheists claim they simply do not believe whatever and therefore they are skeptics. It would be more accurate to say that the atheist or the Christian arrived at their belief through the skeptical process Ravenstar described above. Of course it is possible for an atheist or a Christian to arrive at their positions without skepticism.

 

So there is nothing inherently skeptical about atheism and there is nothing inherently unskeptical about Christianity. What makes skepticism is the process used to reach the belief and not the belief that results.

[bornagainathiest]

Ironhorse, you seem to be willing to answer questions honestly, so here are some more. (Sorry if you have already answered elsewhere.)

 

(1) What denomination are you?

 

(2) What evidence sustains your faith in Christianity?

 

(3) What would be your fears about admitting that you are an unbeliever? (I suspect many Christians aren't given a fair chance to be non-believers and then they are afraid to be skeptical of Christianity due to the fears that Christian belief implants.)

 

Well, I hope you don't mind waiting for Ironhorse to reply to your questions, Directionless.  

He's got over a dozen outstanding ones from me to deal with before he gets round to yours.

.

.

.

(Thinks.   )

.

.

.

Look Directionless, could I ask you a favor please?

 

Ironhorse seems to be able to answer everyone else's questions (he promised to answer ALL questions in this thread, back in post # 43, btw) but he seems to hit some kind of glitch when it comes to mine.  If he's having some kind of technical problem, could I please ask you to copy-n-paste my questions (listed in # 50) and post them here under your name?  They'd still be from me, but they'd appear in a dialog box under your name.

 

Is that ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[directionless]

 

Ironhorse, you seem to be willing to answer questions honestly, so here are some more. (Sorry if you have already answered elsewhere.)

 

(1) What denomination are you?

 

(2) What evidence sustains your faith in Christianity?

 

(3) What would be your fears about admitting that you are an unbeliever? (I suspect many Christians aren't given a fair chance to be non-believers and then they are afraid to be skeptical of Christianity due to the fears that Christian belief implants.)

 

Well, I hope you don't mind waiting for Ironhorse to reply to your questions, Directionless.  

He's got over a dozen outstanding ones from me to deal with before he gets round to yours.

.

.

.

(Thinks.   )

.

.

.

Look Directionless, could I ask you a favor please?

 

Ironhorse seems to be able to answer everyone else's questions (he promised to answer ALL questions in this thread, back in post # 43, btw) but he seems to hit some kind of glitch when it comes to mine.  If he's having some kind of technical problem, could I please ask you to copy-n-paste my questions (listed in # 50) and post them here under your name?  They'd still be from me, but they'd appear in a dialog box under your name.

 

Is that ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Somehow I don't think it would make any difference. He probably doesn't like the questions you are asking.

[bornagainathiest]

Directionless wrote...

 

"Somehow I don't think it would make any difference. He probably doesn't like the questions you are asking."

 

Well, maybe he should have thought a bit longer before committing himself to answering ALL of the questions in this thread?

.

.

.

You know what, D?

As I just pointed out to Miekko, Ironhorse seems quite happy to disagree with everyone, but I haven't seen him declare himself to being open to persuasion on anything, nor to having his mind changed about anything.

 

Do you think either of these things are possible?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Lucynia]

I don't think he can critically evaluate what he copies and pastes because he doesn't truly care what the facts are. He's happy to paste clips and bits of things that sound good on the surface, but might not even be accurate or pertinent!

 

It seems belief is more important than reality to him. He's only here to engage just enough to feel like a good little missionary, then dodge anything serious. At least that's what I've noticed. If iron horse answers some of the outstanding questions from BAA, I might change my mind. Currently I don't think he even has anything original or of substance.

 

I realize I'm being a little mean here, but I'm pretty disappointed in the caliber of christians here in the den. I spend a lot of time in the church world and even the 'casuals' I talk to in real life have better, more thought out material.

[directionless]

You know what, D?

As I just pointed out to Miekko, Ironhorse seems quite happy to disagree with everyone, but I haven't seen him declare himself to being open to persuasion on anything, nor to having his mind changed about anything.

 

Do you think either of these things are possible?

I finished reading Ironhorse's posts in the thread about women in the ministry. It's hard for me to understand how somebody with so much intelligence and knowledge could be so confident of his theology for no apparent reason. Maybe he has reasons for belief (like witnessing miracles), but I have to assume that he doesn't or he would have mentioned them. That's not skepticism IMO.

 

I doubt he can be persuaded, but anything is possible. There are many ex-Christians who were probably just as confident as Ironhorse at one time.

[bornagainathiest]

Ironhorse wrote...

"I've been hit with a ton of questions in this thread and comments on why I don't qualify as a skeptic.  I will try and answer all of them at some point."

No problem, buddy! 

Here's mine.  Enjoy!  

.

.

.

 

1.  Answer this question truthfully. Did you get to see Jesus' wounds in his hands and in his side before BEFORE you believed?

 

2.  Did the Corinthians, the Romans, the Galatians or any of the believers in Jerusalem and Israel ever do what Thomas did and see the evidence of Jesus' resurrection BEFORE they believed?

 

3.  Did Damaris, at the Areopagus?

 

4.  Did Paul and Barnabus' jailer?

 

5.  Did anyone?

 

6.  You see how this works?  (Meaning, the default position for ALL skeptics is non-belief, not belief.) 

6a. So you agree that all of the people mentioned in # 2 were not skeptics?

6b. So you agree that you were not a skeptic when you came to believe in Jesus?

 

7.  Do you see what the Antonym (opposite of) skepticism is?

 

8.  And since you believed in Christ without seeing any physical evidence of his resurrection for yourself, was your decision to accept him as your savior and lord... a skeptical one?

 

9.  Your belief that the Protestant reformation allowed the rise of science in Europe.  Did you skeptically examine this claim and Kobe's assertions?

 

10.  You were encouraged by your parents to question everything.

So were you practicing this (skepticism) when you believed without seeing that Jesus was raised form the dead?

 

11. So what kind of skeptical thinking were you doing when you believed (blindly) that Jesus was raised from the dead?

 

12. So you didn't follow Thomas' process of skeptical thinking when you cam to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead?

 

13.  You're driven to find out the truth.

Except for when you choose to blindly believe the untestable 'truth' of the Bible regarding Jesus' resurrection?

 

14.  Quite sure you're a skeptic?

.

.

.

Ironhorse,

You also have william7davis' questions to answer as well.  He wrote...

 

1. 

Do you think you can objectively analyze the biblical claims for Xianity while still holding onto the belief that jesus was the son of god and rose from the dead?

 

2.

Could you suspend your belief just long enough to complete an honest analysis of the truth of those biblical claims?

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

(Bump!)

 

Please hold good to your promise to answer ALL the questions in this thread, Ironhorse.

[ironhorse]

1.  Answer this question truthfully. Did you get to see Jesus' wounds in his hands and in his side before BEFORE you believed?

 

No

2.  Did the Corinthians, the Romans, the Galatians or any of the believers in Jerusalem and Israel ever do what Thomas did and see the evidence of Jesus' resurrection BEFORE they believed?

 

I really can't answer because I don't know the individual people and their experiences.

3.  Did Damaris, at the Areopagus?

 

I don't know.

4.  Did Paul and Barnabus' jailer?

 

Paul did record seeing Jesus in a vision. The jailer I guess not.

5.  Did anyone?

 

Again I can't really answer.

6.  You see how this works?  (Meaning, the default position for ALL skeptics is non-belief, not belief.)

 

No, as I have said this before that one cannot say that ALL SKEPTICS will come to a conclusion of non-belief.

 

 

6a. So you agree that all of the people mentioned in # 2 were not skeptics?

 

I don't know.

 

6b. So you agree that you were not a skeptic when you came to believe in Jesus?

 

When i came to accept Christ, I will agree I was no longer a skeptic but

I reached that point after approximately ten years of reading and studying

with the eyes of a skeptic.

7.  Do you see what the Antonym (opposite of) skepticism is?

 

Belief

8.  And since you believed in Christ without seeing any physical evidence of his resurrection for yourself, was your decision to accept him as your savior and lord... a skeptical one?

 

See my answer to 6b

 

9.  Your belief that the Protestant reformation allowed the rise of science in Europe.  Did you skeptically examine this claim and Kobe's assertions?

 

Yes

10.  You were encouraged by your parents to question everything.
So were you practicing this (skepticism) when you believed without seeing that Jesus was raised form the dead?

 

As I have said many times before, I have an attitude of questioning. Yes. my parents encouraged me.

Again see 6b

 

11. So what kind of skeptical thinking were you doing when you believed (blindly) that Jesus was raised from the dead?

 

Again 6b

12. So you didn't follow Thomas' process of skeptical thinking when you cam to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead?

 

I don't know all the processes Thomas used.

13.  You're driven to find out the truth.
Except for when you choose to blindly believe the untestable 'truth' of the Bible regarding Jesus' resurrection?

 

Jesus spoke in a prayer about those who will believe but never saw. I am one of them.

14.  Quite sure you're a skeptic?

 

I'm no longer a skeptic concerning the Christian faith. 

.
.
.
Ironhorse,
You also have william7davis' questions to answer as well.  He wrote...

1.
Do you think you can objectively analyze the biblical claims for Xianity while still holding onto the belief that jesus was the son of god and rose from the dead?

 

During the period in my life when I put Christianity to the test as to whether it was the truth

I wasn't holding on to anything. 

2.
Could you suspend your belief just long enough to complete an honest analysis of the truth of those biblical claims?

 

As I have stated before, I have already been down that road.
.
.
.
Thanks,

BAA.

(Bump!)

Please hold good to your promise to answer ALL the questions in this thread, Ironhorse.

 

 

Those are my answers bornagainathiest.

[RipVanWinkle]

"Jesus spoke in a prayer about those who will believe but never saw. I am one of them."  ironhorse

 

You are very clever in your evasiveness. But the problem is that at this site the only one fooled is yourself. What is admirable about believing without evidence? It is not strength; it's foolish.What is the reason that you think that a healthy use of skepticism, which apparently works for you with every other subject , does not work for faith in Xtianity? You know, reading all you can read about Xtianity and related subjects "skeptically" is useless unless you actually apply skepticism wisely and appropriately. You clearly haven't. It seems to me that you will probably never know it. That's ok as long as you don't spread Xtianity's venom all about you causing untold misery. bill

[RipVanWinkle]

Do you think you can objectively analyze the biblical claims for Xianity while still holding onto the belief that jesus was the son of god and rose from the dead?

 

During the period in my life when I put Christianity to the test as to whether it was the truth

I wasn't holding on to anything.  ironhorse

You didn't answer my question. The only true answer is either yes or no.  It is easy to see that some things in your responses simply don't fit. How old were you when you first believed in Xtianity? How old were you when you skeptically evaluated you faith in Xtianity. At that point had you deconverted? And at what level of education? Lastly, for how long  did you objectively study Xtianiy without any belief in it?  bill

 

[ironhorse]

"Jesus spoke in a prayer about those who will believe but never saw. I am one of them."  ironhorse

 

You are very clever in your evasiveness. But the problem is that at this site the only one fooled is yourself. What is admirable about believing without evidence? It is not strength; it's foolish.What is the reason that you think that a healthy use of skepticism, which apparently works for you with every other subject , does not work for faith in Xtianity? You know, reading all you can read about Xtianity and related subjects "skeptically" is useless unless you actually apply skepticism wisely and appropriately. You clearly haven't. It seems to me that you will probably never know it. That's ok as long as you don't spread Xtianity's venom all about you causing untold misery. bill

 

"It is not strength; it's foolish.What is the reason that you think that a healthy use of skepticism, which apparently works for you with every other subject , does not work for faith in Xtianity? You know, reading all you can read about Xtianity and related subjects "skeptically" is useless unless you actually apply skepticism wisely and appropriately. You clearly haven't."

 

You are making the assumption that skepticism applied to Christianity must always reach the conclusion that

Christianity is false. 

 

That is your opinion but it is not mine.