Calling Ironhorse!

[bornagainathiest]

 

Want some help with that skeptical appraisal of your faith?

 

You've been looking right thru me and walking right past me...

[bornagainathiest]

Hello Ironhorse.  

 

I have the time, so I thought I'd give you something to think about regarding your skeptical appraisal of your Christian faith.

A skeptical appraisal begins from a position of non-belief and examines the evidence to see if it justifies a given belief.  So, what is the evidence to justify a belief in Jesus Christ?  Before you can try to answer this question, it's first necessary to define what is meant by the word, 'evidence'.  With this in mind, please examine the following passage from the gospel of John.  In it, we can read about two kinds of evidence.  The first is the personally verifiable evidence that was presented to the disciple Thomas by the risen Jesus.

 

 

24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 

25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”  But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 

27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

 

The second kind of evidence is second-hand or testimonial evidence, which cannot be personally verified but which must be accepted on trust as being true. 

 

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 

31 But these are written that you may believe  that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

Verses 30 and 31 follow the same format as the opening verse of Luke's gospel.

Here, the author writes to Theophilus, asking him to trust his written words.  This is because for Theophilus, doing what Thomas did (verifying for himself that Jesus rose from death) was impossible and seeing what Luke saw (Jesus restored to life after his death and burial) was equally impossible.  

 

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 

2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 

3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 

4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

 

The best (and only) option Luke can take is to give Theophilus a written account of the events and ask him to trust it.

Luke's testimony couldn't be directly verified by Theophilus, so if he did believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then he did so on the basis of trust and not directly verifiable evidence.  Thomas had available evidence upon which to believe, but Theophilus did not.  Now, please consider which of these two people was justified in believing that Jesus had risen from death.  Which of these two could move from skeptical non-belief to belief, only on the basis of evidence they could directly verify for themselves?

 

You can also apply this question to yourself.

When you first became a Christian, did you directly verify Jesus' resurrection for yourself, as Thomas did?  Or did you accept the written accounts of his resurrection on trust, as Theophilus did?  Please note that acceptance on trust from any authority figure is equivalent to the second option.  This is because direct verification was not involved in the decision-making process.  Please also note that acceptance on the basis of anything other than the first option is still equivalent to the second option.  For exactly the same reason.  I hope this message prompts you to skeptically examine how and why you chose to first believe in Jesus Christ, Ironhorse.  I also hope that if you can be honest with yourself about that answer, you can be equally honest with us and write your answer here, for all of us to see.  We will respect you more if you face up to the true answer to this question, than if you don't.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

There was someone on here, I forget who - maybe Steve Bennett - who said that Theophilus was either a Jewish priest or of a priestly family and therefore knew many of the things from contemporary witnesses or by observation. I don't remember whether that person gave evidence for this identification of Theophilus.

[bornagainathiest]

Thanks, F!

 

Here's SteveBennett's reasoning.  

 

In post #2.  http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/60730-basic-methodology-for-dating-ancient-documents/page-1#.VqUnH_mLRD8

 

And he has Theophilus down as Paul's...  lawyer.

 

[bornagainathiest]

Just PMed a copy of #2 to Ironhorse.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Thanks, F!

 

Here's SteveBennett's reasoning.  

 

In post #2.  http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/60730-basic-methodology-for-dating-ancient-documents/page-1#.VqUnH_mLRD8

 

And he has Theophilus down as Paul's...  lawyer.

 

In our own day we have William Lane Craig as God's lawyer.  Same sophistries, different centuries.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello.

 

For the sake of efficient record-keeping, the threads relating to Ironhorse's understanding of skepticism and his claim to have skeptically appraised his faith can be found on pages 3 and 4 of the archived Lion's Den threads.

.

.

.

Page 4, begun by Fweethawt on 09/28/15, "On The Dishonest Engagement Of Doubt -- (Excellent Read!)"

.

.

.

Page 3, begun by Ironhorse on 10/18/15, "Baptists" 

#76, posted by Ironhorse on 10/25/15.

"As I have said here more than once, I have already been thru the process of skeptically appraising God, the Bible, and the Christian faith.  I spent several years doing that and I have spent all my life trying to get to the truth of things."

.

.

.

Current page of the Den, begun by Fweethawt on 01/11/16, "With God All Things Are Possible!"

#22, posted by Ironhorse on 01/14/16.

"I am however, at present, working on an essay of how I took a skeptic's view of the Christian faith and still found it the belief system I was going to accept for my life.  I only have an outline and a first draft so far.  I will post as a new thread as soon as I get to a final copy."

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[duderonomy]

.

Current page of the Den, begun by Fweethawt on 01/11/16, "With God All Things Are Possible!"

#22, posted by Ironhorse on 01/14/16.

"I am however, at present, working on an essay of how I took a skeptic's view of the Christian faith and still found it the belief system I was going to accept for my life.  I only have an outline and a first draft so far.  I will post as a new thread as soon as I get to a final copy."

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

BAA, it would be nice if IH would post his reasoning, wouldn't it? Even if for conversation. I'm thinking though that all we'll get is a post full of other people's quotes and song lyrics.  I hope I'm wrong.  

[bornagainathiest]

 

.

Current page of the Den, begun by Fweethawt on 01/11/16, "With God All Things Are Possible!"

#22, posted by Ironhorse on 01/14/16.

"I am however, at present, working on an essay of how I took a skeptic's view of the Christian faith and still found it the belief system I was going to accept for my life.  I only have an outline and a first draft so far.  I will post as a new thread as soon as I get to a final copy."

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

BAA, it would be nice if IH would post his reasoning, wouldn't it? Even if for conversation. I'm thinking though that all we'll get is a post full of other people's quotes and song lyrics.  I hope I'm wrong.  

 

 

Me too, Dude.

 

If you read thru the Baptists thread, he seems to think that a historical comparison between his belief system and other belief systems constitutes skeptical thinking.  Which, of course, it doesn't.  

 

IH must examine the available evidence for his beliefs and because none is available (see the examples of Thomas and Theophilus above, in #2) then he should give reasons why he still chose to believe.

 

Believing without directly available evidence, as per Theophlius, isn't being skeptical.  

 

Believing because of directly available evidence, as per Thomas...is.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

[mymistake]

2 user(s) are reading this topic

2 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

 

• mymistake, ironhorse

 

 

 

 

Nice to see you again, Ironhorse.

[ironhorse]

Hello.

 

For the sake of efficient record-keeping, the threads relating to Ironhorse's understanding of skepticism and his claim to have skeptically appraised his faith can be found on pages 3 and 4 of the archived Lion's Den threads.

.

.

.

Page 4, begun by Fweethawt on 09/28/15, "On The Dishonest Engagement Of Doubt -- (Excellent Read!)"

.

.

.

Page 3, begun by Ironhorse on 10/18/15, "Baptists" 

#76, posted by Ironhorse on 10/25/15.

"As I have said here more than once, I have already been thru the process of skeptically appraising God, the Bible, and the Christian faith.  I spent several years doing that and I have spent all my life trying to get to the truth of things."

.

.

.

Current page of the Den, begun by Fweethawt on 01/11/16, "With God All Things Are Possible!"

#22, posted by Ironhorse on 01/14/16.

"I am however, at present, working on an essay of how I took a skeptic's view of the Christian faith and still found it the belief system I was going to accept for my life.  I only have an outline and a first draft so far.  I will post as a new thread as soon as I get to a final copy."

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

And to add to the record keeping, a future thread with more detail on my story

of trying to take apart the Christian faith might take a bit longer. I  have a few folders

written. I'm not sure if I will revise and edit these or just go with my first rough draft.

 

My answer to the first question in this thread:

 

“You can also apply this question to yourself.”

 

I have applied this question to myself. My “true answer” is not what you think is a true answer.

I accept the scripture testimony by faith. 

 

Since I joined this community a little over two years ago, I have tried to not only represent the Christian faith but also to tell my story and how I finally came to accept the Christian faith and why I remain a Christian.

 

I said when I first came to the Lion’s Den that I am here to stay and that I plan to do as long as I can.

You and others here must understand that I am not here because I question my faith. I’m here just to present my take on it and to participate in these discussions.

 

I’m here because I choose to be in the Lion's Den. I enjoy being here.

 

I much prefer discussing things with members here in the Lion’s Den than on the Baptist Board or the Rapture Ready boards. I enjoy reading different or opposing views.

 

On the scale listed below I’m a 2. I’m a 2 because I cannot put God in a test-tube and prove it by verifiable science.

 

That said, I have faith that it is true.

 

 

Dawkins Belief Scale:

 

1.Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.

 

2.De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.

 

3.Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.

 

4.Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.

 

5.Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.

 

6.De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.

 

7.Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

And to add to the record keeping, a future thread with more detail on my story

of trying to take apart the Christian faith might take a bit longer. I  have a few folders

written. I'm not sure if I will revise and edit these or just go with my first rough draft.

 

My answer to the first question in this thread:

 

“You can also apply this question to yourself.”

 

I have applied this question to myself. My “true answer” is not what you think is a true answer.

I accept the scripture testimony by faith. 

 

Yes, we know that.  You told us that, IH.

But you've also told us that you've also made a skeptical appraisal of your Christian faith over a period of years.  

How can you still accept scripture by faith if you've skeptically appraised your faith?  Skepticism and faith are mutually exclusive opposites. Unbelief and belief cannot coexist.  No house divided against itself can stand!

 

How do you resolve this paradox, IH?  

How is your "true answer" not a self-contradicting paradox?

Why hasn't your skeptical appraisal of Christianity caused you to NOT accept (i.e., reject) the testimony of scripture by faith?

 

Since I joined this community a little over two years ago, I have tried to not only represent the Christian faith but also to tell my story and how I finally came to accept the Christian faith and why I remain a Christian.

 

I said when I first came to the Lion’s Den that I am here to stay and that I plan to do as long as I can.

You and others here must understand that I am not here because I question my faith.

 

Yes.  Exactly.  You don't question your faith, IH.

And if you were being honest with yourself and honest with the evidence (or lack of it) you should question your faith.

 

I’m here just to present my take on it and to participate in these discussions.

 

I’m here because I choose to be in the Lion's Den. I enjoy being here.

 

I much prefer discussing things with members here in the Lion’s Den than on the Baptist Board or the Rapture Ready boards. I enjoy reading different or opposing views.

 

On the scale listed below I’m a 2. I’m a 2 because I cannot put God in a test-tube and prove it by verifiable science.

 

That said, I have faith that it is true.

 

 

Dawkins Belief Scale:

 

1.Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.

 

2.De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.

 

On what evidential basis do you strongly believe?

 

3.Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.

 

4.Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.

 

5.Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.

 

6.De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.

 

7.Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

 

[bornagainathiest]

It's really very simple, Ironhorse.

 

If you've performed your skeptical appraisal of Christianity correctly, you'll have concluded that you cannot do what Thomas did and directly verify things for yourself.

 

You'll have concluded that like Theophilus, you can only read the testimony of others and like him, you have no way to verify what you are reading.

 

Your admission that you accept scriptural testimony on faith confirms this.

.

.

.

Which now leads to the $1,000,000 question!

 

Since you tacitly admit there's no evidence for you to test and check for yourself, please now reply to this post, saying specifically and exactly why you still believe.

 

We will respect you more if you are totally and completely honest with us and fess up to believing... because you want to.

 

Or because you've been conditioned to.

 

Or for some other personal and subjective reason.

 

Since there's no evidence available for you to test for yourself, your reason for still believing MUST lie within you.

 

What is it?

 

 

 

 

[Jeff]

You grew up with Jesus so it's Jesus all the way down. Nothing more complicated to it than that.

[Thought2Much]

You grew up with Jesus so it's Jesus all the way down. Nothing more complicated to it than that.

 

I'm sure he was an atheist during that one year in college.

[sdelsolray]

Ironhorse appears to have his own special definitions of words like skeptical, evidence and analysis.

[midniterider]

BAA: Yes, we know that.  You told us that, IH.

But you've also told us that you've also made a skeptical appraisal of your Christian faith over a period of years.  

How can you still accept scripture by faith if you've skeptically appraised your faith?  Skepticism and faith are mutually exclusive opposites. Unbelief and belief cannot coexist.  No house divided against itself can stand!

 

So the one and only conclusion that can possibly exist after doing a skeptical appraisal is that Christianity is BS?

 

How do you resolve this paradox, IH?  

How is your "true answer" not a self-contradicting paradox?

Why hasn't your skeptical appraisal of Christianity caused you to NOT accept (i.e., reject) the testimony of scripture by faith?

 

Maybe skepticism comes in different degrees of importance to a person. Not really black or white.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA: Yes, we know that.  You told us that, IH.

But you've also told us that you've also made a skeptical appraisal of your Christian faith over a period of years.  

How can you still accept scripture by faith if you've skeptically appraised your faith?  Skepticism and faith are mutually exclusive opposites. Unbelief and belief cannot coexist.  No house divided against itself can stand!

 

So the one and only conclusion that can possibly exist after doing a skeptical appraisal is that Christianity is BS?

 

How do you resolve this paradox, IH?  

How is your "true answer" not a self-contradicting paradox?

Why hasn't your skeptical appraisal of Christianity caused you to NOT accept (i.e., reject) the testimony of scripture by faith?

 

Maybe skepticism comes in different degrees of importance to a person. Not really black or white.

 

Context, rider.

 

IH's skeptical appraisal (if he's done it right) should have told him that the way in which Thomas came to believe and the way in which Theophilus came to believe were different.

Thomas was able to personally test and examine the evidence of Jesus' resurrection for himself, whereas the apostle Luke was asking Theophilus to believe on the written testimony of others.  Taking this difference and applying it to himself (as I said earlier in this thread that IH can do) the only possible conclusion Ironhorse can skeptically and rationally arrive at is that he believed as Theophilus did, NOT as Thomas did.  There is no evidence of Jesus' resurrection that IH can directly test for himself.  Therefore, he believes by the written testimony (The Bible) of others.

 

So, in the context of this thread, Yes... that is the one and only conclusion that IH can possibly draw after skeptically appraising his faith.

Not that Christianity is bs.  But that he came to believe without evidence he could test for himself... as per Theophilus.  And this is the paradox I refer to.  How can IH say that he accepts scripture by faith IF he's made a proper skeptical appraisal of his faith.  A properly-performed skeptical appraisal should have told him that he believes without any evidence he can test for himself.  Yet he still believes.  But if he's being honestly skeptical (as he claims he has been), then he shouldn't believe.

 

Do you see the line of argument now?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[midniterider]

BAA:  How can IH say that he accepts scripture by faith IF he's made a proper skeptical appraisal of his faith.  A properly-performed skeptical appraisal should have told him that he believes without any evidence he can test for himself.  Yet he still believes.  But if he's being honestly skeptical (as he claims he has been), then he shouldn't believe.

 

After spending time with us non-believers he probably has a really good idea of what, where, when, why and how of our non-belief of Jesus, of the bible, of religions. He chooses to believe anyway.... probably just to piss you off. ))))))))))))

[Jeff]

True. If you've skeptically come to belief through evidence then faith is not necessary.

 

So you're either saved through faith or saved through convincing evidence to accept your birth chosen diety.

 

But I'd guess the real answer is that there isn't enough convincing evidence so you believed what little there is by faith and then just kept believing in all the rest by faith as well... So it's lucky you grew up Jesus oriented. Or you'd be hell bound with your Muslim, Buddhist, whatever neighbors.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA:  How can IH say that he accepts scripture by faith IF he's made a proper skeptical appraisal of his faith.  A properly-performed skeptical appraisal should have told him that he believes without any evidence he can test for himself.  Yet he still believes.  But if he's being honestly skeptical (as he claims he has been), then he shouldn't believe.

 

After spending time with us non-believers he probably has a really good idea of what, where, when, why and how of our non-belief of Jesus, of the bible, of religions. He chooses to believe anyway.... probably just to piss you off. ))))))))))))

 

Rider,

 

Ironhorse is far too polite to put such a response in writing.

 

But he should still answer the question.   A process of elimination reveals that his reason for believing MUST be personal.   

 

His skeptical appraisal of Christianity should have yielded the inescapable conclusion that there is no evidence to support scripture.  Yet he still... "accepts the testimony of scripture by faith".

 

So his reason for believing can't be the Bible, because he should have skeptically discarded that book as unsupported by evidence. 

 

And he can't say his reason for believing the Bible is because he has faith in it's testimony - that's just a circular argument.

 

Also, despite my many patient requests, he still hasn't declared exactly and specifically what the evidence is in the universe that he sees as the hand of the Christian God of the Bible.

 

So, his reason for believing can't be anything from nature or the natural universe.

 

Which leaves only one place his reason for believing can come from.

 

Himself.

.

.

.

But he rejects this.

 

He rejects it ...but never says exactly why he still believes.

 

[sdelsolray]

BAA,

 

On several occasions in the past two years, we have identified IH's "reasoning" behind his religious beliefs.  That reasoning is generally fallacious.  His "resoning" includes (i) circular reasoning (the Bible says it so therefore I believe it as true), (ii) argument from incredulity (the universe and life on Earth are complex, wondrous and special so therefore Goddidit (iii) projection of indoctrination (others say it is true so therefore it is), among others.

 

Of course, the true reasons he believes are childhood and adult religious indoctrination, peer pressure, need for comfort and hope (e.g., death of loved ones), all coupled with stifled curiosity, intellectual dishonesty and general laziness.

 

IH is aware enough, though, to realize he cannot satisfy or answer other's questions about this.  Hence, his over-riding rationalization is that he accepts his religious beliefs on faith and faith alone.    His claim that he skeptically analyzed his religious faith is just something he made up (probably quite some time ago to help him with his proselytizing).  He doesn't understand how skepticism, rational thought and evidence-based analysis work, at least when it comes to inspecting his religious beliefs. End of story.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA,

 

On several occasions in the past two years, we have identified IH's "reasoning" behind his religious beliefs.  That reasoning is generally fallacious.  His "resoning" includes (i) circular reasoning (the Bible says it so therefore I believe it as true), (ii) argument from incredulity (the universe and life on Earth are complex, wondrous and special so therefore Goddidit (iii) projection of indoctrination (others say it is true so therefore it is), among others.

 

Of course, the true reasons he believes are childhood and adult religious indoctrination, peer pressure, need for comfort and hope (e.g., death of loved ones), all coupled with stifled curiosity, intellectual dishonesty and general laziness.

 

IH is aware enough, though, to realize he cannot satisfy or answer other's questions about this.  Hence, his over-riding rationalization is that he accepts his religious beliefs on faith and faith alone.    His claim that he skeptically analyzed his religious faith is just something he made up (probably quite some time ago to help him with his proselytizing).  He doesn't understand how skepticism, rational thought and evidence-based analysis work, at least when it comes to inspecting his religious beliefs. End of story.

 

Sdelsolray,

 

I don't dispute a single word of your incisive evaluation of Ironhorse's "reasoning" and behavior.  

However, there are two other factors in play here.  These explain why I persist in engaging with him, even though I've concluded that what you write about him is quite likely true.  

 

The first is the silent presence of the lurkers.  

They see the rottenness at the heart of Christianity in what Ironhorse's says and (more importantly) in what he doesn't say and what he tries to avoid admitting to.  

All I have to do is keep on shining the spotlight... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1895587/ ...on these things for Ironhorse's behavior to be the last straw that kills their Christian faith for good.

 

The second factor is that even taking the first one into account, I still have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

If you'd asked me twenty years ago if I'd ever reject Jesus and deconvert, I'd have said, "Never!"  So, if I can see the light of honest skepticism and escape the darkness of self-delusion, then I've got to offer that chance to Ironhorse as well.  

 

And for these two reasons, I persist with him.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

BAA,

 

This link will hopefully clear up any confusion you have over Tin Pony's skeptical appraisal of his beliefs:

http://www.angelfire.com/on/dylan/bio.html

 

I hope this helps,

TRP