On The Dishonest Engagement Of Doubt -- (Excellent Read!)

[Fweethawt]

"The way that Christians engage with doubt is dishonest." -- from the article

 

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/excommunications/2015/09/on-the-dishonest-engagement-of-doubt/

[ironhorse]

Selected from the link:

 

So in theory at least, testing everything and doubting outrageous claims was perfectly acceptable.

But in practice, the story looked completely different.

When I began to question the claims my religion made, my doubt became a sickness that had to be treated. I was called insane and crazy, told I was suffering madness, accused of being possessed by demons, and begged to seek spiritual healing for my malady.

 

My desire for evidence and proof of the Bible’s claims was phrased as a symptom of my sickness and as evidence that I didn’t have enough faith in “God.”

Why such a stark difference between the theory of doubt’s essential presence and the reality of what happened when I actually doubted?

Simple.

I didn’t doubt approved topics, allow myself to be guided by approved leaders and talking-points, or come to the conclusions my religion had decided in advance that doubters must soon come to.

 

_____________________________________

 

 

So many "red flags" here, it tell me this person was never "free" to doubt.

 

He was under control of religious leaders who burdened him with guilt. 

[bornagainathiest]

Selected from the link:

 

So in theory at least, testing everything and doubting outrageous claims was perfectly acceptable.

But in practice, the story looked completely different.

When I began to question the claims my religion made, my doubt became a sickness that had to be treated. I was called insane and crazy, told I was suffering madness, accused of being possessed by demons, and begged to seek spiritual healing for my malady.

 

My desire for evidence and proof of the Bible’s claims was phrased as a symptom of my sickness and as evidence that I didn’t have enough faith in “God.”

Why such a stark difference between the theory of doubt’s essential presence and the reality of what happened when I actually doubted?

Simple.

I didn’t doubt approved topics, allow myself to be guided by approved leaders and talking-points, or come to the conclusions my religion had decided in advance that doubters must soon come to.

 

_____________________________________

 

 

So many "red flags" here, it tell me this person was never "free" to doubt.

 

He was under control of religious leaders who burdened him with guilt. 

 

But your attempts to justify why Pilate released Barabbas in the '40 Problems With Christianity' thread tell us that you aren't free to doubt either, Ironhorse.

 

If you were free to doubt, then your position on that issue should be one of skepticism.

 

Yet you are driven by your faith to try and justify the truth of Gospels by whatever means you can.

 

So your burden isn't guilt - it's faith.

 

Faith prevents you from looking at the Bible ...skeptically.

[ironhorse]

BAA,  

 

Any explanation or reply I have posted here, you have never agreed with.

 

Yet, can't you see that by constantly accusing me of not being sincere or honest,

you are making the mistake cited in the posted essay: My answers are not acceptable(viewed as dishonest,not sincere) because they do not agree with your conclusions.

[mymistake]

BAA,  

 

Any explanation or reply I have posted here, you have never agreed with.

 

Yet, can't you see that by constantly accusing me of not being sincere or honest,

you are making the mistake cited in the posted essay: My answers are not acceptable(viewed as dishonest,not sincere) because they do not agree with your conclusions.

 

 

 

No, silly.  Your answers are viewed as dishonest because you ignore facts that do not fit your world view and you keep your beliefs even when they are at odds with all of reality.  You are not even being honest with yourself, let alone with anybody else.  

[bornagainathiest]

BAA,  

 

Any explanation or reply I have posted here, you have never agreed with.

 

Firstly Ironhorse, I formally challenge you to justify and make good on the above assertion.  

 

It's your assertion, so the burden of proof falls on you to clearly demonstrate that, 'any explanation or reply that you have posted here you have never agreed with'.

If you can't do that, then I consider your assertion to unsupported by evidence.

Unsupported assertions can be summarily dismissed.

 

I could assert that you are nineteen (19) feet tall.

But if I can produce no corroborating evidence to that effect, then you are entirely justified in dismissing my assertion.

In the same way, unless you can produce corroborating evidence to support the assertion you've made about me, then I can simply dismiss it.

 

So, justify and corroborate or or I shall dismiss your assertion as unsupported by evidence.

 

.

.

.

Yet, can't you see that by constantly accusing me of not being sincere or honest,

you are making the mistake cited in the posted essay: My answers are not acceptable because they do not agree with your conclusions.

 

Secondly, I'd only be making the mistake you describe... IF ...your assertion is true.

So the onus is now on you to support your assertion with evidence, demonstrating that I have never (not even one instance) agreed with any explanation or reply that you have posted here.

If you fail to do that, then your accusation is baseless and can also be dismissed.

.

.

.

Over to you.

[Guest Furball]

 

BAA,  

 

Any explanation or reply I have posted here, you have never agreed with.

 

Yet, can't you see that by constantly accusing me of not being sincere or honest,

you are making the mistake cited in the posted essay: My answers are not acceptable(viewed as dishonest,not sincere) because they do not agree with your conclusions.

 

 

 

No, silly.  Your answers are viewed as dishonest because you ignore facts that do not fit your world view and you keep your beliefs even when they are at odd to the rest of reality.  You are not even being honest with yourself, let alone with anybody else.  

 

Maybe he like all the rest suffers from cognitive dissonance.

 

 

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

BAA,  

 

Any explanation or reply I have posted here, you have never agreed with.

Ironhorse, from years now of what I can remember, the above boils down to: Ironhorse asserts X; BAA asks for an argument or evidence; Ironhorse doesn't supply those.

 

But you act as though the dynamic is:  Ironhorse believes P;  BAA just believes not-P.

 

Negative.

 

We have all been waiting for a long time for evidence that justifies faith-assertions of yours;

arguments that hold up logically ...

 

Instead we get Bible verses, quotations from other people, assertions. When you think you are supplying evidence, it is a rehash of claims that have been debunked more than once, with no refutations of the debunkings. At most, you'll defend your Christian websites merely with another assertion, like "I think it's persuasive."

 

I think everyone on here is OK with your believing whatever you want.  No one or almost no one is OK with being persuaded to follow your faith commitments. The more you post on here, the farther away you move from credibility.

[bornagainathiest]

Good post, F.

 

And if I may follow up with this...

 

Ironhorse is on record as saying for him, faith is all.

 

But in this forum, evidence is all.

.

.

.

Until he produces the evidence...?  

[midniterider]

.

[bornagainathiest]

I see what you're saying BO.

 

However, Ironhorse is on record as saying that he sees evidence of the hand of God in the universe.

 

By saying this he can't use Hebrews 11 : 1, which deals only with a Christian's faith in things not seen.

 

So, it's not a case of the two of us operating on completely different premises.

 

He's forfeited the right to use Hebrews 11 : 1.

 

Therefore, I persistently ask him for the evidence of the things he does see.

 

And he persistently refuses to give it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mymistake]

 

 

 

 

Therefore, I persistently ask him for the evidence of the things he does see.

 

And he persistently refuses to give it. 

 

 

You are never going to get what you want from Ironhorse.  He evaluates ideas based on how much they satisfy his emotional needs.  Facts and logic do nothing for him so they mean nothing to him.  On the other hand, he desperately needs for Jesus to be real so anything that supports a real Jesus is powerful stuff.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore, I persistently ask him for the evidence of the things he does see.

 

And he persistently refuses to give it. 

 

 

You are never going to get what you want from Ironhorse.  He evaluates ideas based on how much they satisfy his emotional needs.  Facts and logic do nothing for him so they mean nothing to him.  On the other hand, he desperately needs for Jesus to be real so anything that supports a real Jesus is powerful stuff.

 

 

It's not about what I want, MM.

 

I keep pressing Ironhorse to declare the evidence he sees for God, for another reason altogether.

 

I do it as a service to the lurkers, to the newbies and to my fellow members of this forum.

 

By seeing his continuing failure to deliver, they see Christianity exposed for the sham it really is.

.

.

.

I even PMed him about this, years ago.

 

I wrote to him saying that he would end up carrying out a kind of negative Christian ministry - driving people away from Christ by the way he conducts himself here.

.

.

.

And sure enough...

[sdelsolray]

Ironhorse is used to saying things like:

 

"God created sex."

"God created the universe."

"God created Adam and Eve."

"God caused the Great Flood that killed all humans except eight."

 

These are mere assertions.  They are gnostic claims.  Ironhorse is used to speaking like this for several reasons - his father did the same thing, he often speaks to others with similar religious beliefs, etc.  But here, as with many other places, he is called to support his claims.  This is something or which he is not familiar, and cannot do, even though he tried, kinda-sorta, a 1/16th effort, to do so.

 

I will continue to challenge Ironhorse's mere assertions, as will others.

 

If Ironhorse were to precede each of his bald assertions with a honest and actual qualifier, I would have no problem with his statements.  Taking the statements above, and adding such qualifiers, would result in something like this:

 

"I believe God created sex." 

"I have faith that God created the universe."

"I believe the Scriptures and the Scriptures say God created Adam and Eve."

"I was taught that God caused the Great Flood that killed all humans except eight and so I believe it."

 

Note how diluted, provincial and myopic these claims become once they are accurately and honestly made (not that the bare claims had any weight to begin with).  Ironhorse believes X, Y and Z.  Whipdee Do, How Nice, So What?  In Ironhorse's defense, he occasionally prefaces his claims with "I believe" or "I think", but when he does so, the response changes from, "Please provide evidence to support your claim" (ala BAA's posts above) to, "What are the reasons for your beliefs and/or religious faith?"  As many know, Ironhorse has responded to this later question with (and I'm paraphrasing), 'I don't understand how things are so GODDIDIT' or 'It makes the most sense to me'.  In short, he doesn't know the reasons why he believes or has religious faith, he merely pretends to know.  Of course, the real reasons for his beliefs and religious faith are childhood religious indoctrination from trusted adults, maintenance of that indoctrination through self-imposed peer pressure and cowardly comfort, but Ironhorse will have nothing to do with that list of reasons....he won't even discuss them.

 

Ironhorse's posts (and related responses) are a good example of how the internet is eroding the emotional and intellectual hold religions have had on people for millenia.  As already pointed out, Ironhorse's behavior is accelerating this process.  He is a poster child for a clueless theist.

[Fweethawt]

Maybe I should change the thread title to, 'Let's Gangbang Ironhorse!'?

[ironhorse]

I see what you're saying BO.

However, Ironhorse is on record as saying that he sees evidence of the hand of God in the universe.

By saying this he can't use Hebrews 11 : 1, which deals only with a Christian's faith in things not seen.

So, it's not a case of the two of us operating on completely different premises.

He's forfeited the right to use Hebrews 11 : 1.

Therefore, I persistently ask him for the evidence of the things he does see.

And he persistently refuses to give it.

 

~BAA

 

 

 

I think I have answered the question before, but I will try it again.

 

In this world, this life, this universe, and all that I can see is, to me, evidence there is a God.

 

God’s glory is on tour in the skies,

God-craft on exhibit across the horizon.
Madame Day holds classes every morning,
Professor Night lectures each evening.

 

Their words aren’t heard,

their voices aren’t recorded,
But their silence fills the earth:
unspoken truth is spoken everywhere.

 

~Psalm 19:1-4

[bornagainathiest]

Inadmissible evidence, Ironhorse!

 

Inadmissible because you're using a circular argument.  

 

The words of the Bible (which you believe by faith to be true) cannot be used to argue that the Bible is true. 

 

You must present extra-Biblical evidence that supports your belief that the Bible is true.

 

Circular arguments are always invalid.

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

I see what you're saying BO.

 

However, Ironhorse is on record as saying that he sees evidence of the hand of God in the universe.

 

By saying this he can't use Hebrews 11 : 1, which deals only with a Christian's faith in things not seen.

 

So, it's not a case of the two of us operating on completely different premises.

 

He's forfeited the right to use Hebrews 11 : 1.

 

Therefore, I persistently ask him for the evidence of the things he does see.

 

And he persistently refuses to give it.

 

~BAA

 

 

 

I think I have answered the question before, but I will try it again.

 

In this world, this life, this universe, and all that I can see is, to me, evidence there is a God.

 

God’s glory is on tour in the skies,

God-craft on exhibit across the horizon.

Madame Day holds classes every morning,

Professor Night lectures each evening.

 

Their words aren’t heard,

their voices aren’t recorded,

But their silence fills the earth:

unspoken truth is spoken everywhere.

 

~Psalm 19:1-4

 

No.

 

You haven't answered this question before, Ironhorse.

 

You may believe (by faith) that you have, but faith is not evidence.

.

.

.

Applying the same rule to myself...

 

I submit that you haven't answered this question before.

 

This is not a statement of faith on my part - it's a claim based upon my powers of recall.

 

If you had answered this question, I'd remember it.

 

If you had answered this question, I wouldn't still be asking you to answer it.

 

If you had answered this question, that would be BIG NEWS in this forum and the likes of MyMistake, Duderonomy, Sdelsolray, Fweethawt, the Midniterider, Ficino, Ravenstar, amateur, Astreja, BDP, Disillusioned, MWC, Thought2Much, Florduh, buffetphan and TrueFreedom would remember it.

[bornagainathiest]

 

BAA,  

 

Any explanation or reply I have posted here, you have never agreed with.

 

Firstly Ironhorse, I formally challenge you to justify and make good on the above assertion.  

 

It's your assertion, so the burden of proof falls on you to clearly demonstrate that, 'any explanation or reply that you have posted here you have never agreed with'.

If you can't do that, then I consider your assertion to unsupported by evidence.

Unsupported assertions can be summarily dismissed.

 

I could assert that you are nineteen (19) feet tall.

But if I can produce no corroborating evidence to that effect, then you are entirely justified in dismissing my assertion.

In the same way, unless you can produce corroborating evidence to support the assertion you've made about me, then I can simply dismiss it.

 

So, justify and corroborate or or I shall dismiss your assertion as unsupported by evidence.

 

.

.

.

Yet, can't you see that by constantly accusing me of not being sincere or honest,

you are making the mistake cited in the posted essay: My answers are not acceptable because they do not agree with your conclusions.

 

Secondly, I'd only be making the mistake you describe... IF ...your assertion is true.

So the onus is now on you to support your assertion with evidence, demonstrating that I have never (not even one instance) agreed with any explanation or reply that you have posted here.

If you fail to do that, then your accusation is baseless and can also be dismissed.

.

.

.

Over to you.

 

 

Bump!

.

.

.

Care to make good on your assertion, Ironhorse..?

 

That is, care to pick up the gauntlet I've thrown at your feet?

 

You've been challenged... the next move is yours.