Jump to content

Counterapologetics- And Me!


Recommended Posts

I love the The Thinking Atheist podcast, and Seth had some awesome speakers all at once in the last few weeks. Matt Dillahunty, Tracie Harris, AronRa and JT Eberhard all in one show! They did the first segment last week and then followed up with viewer calls/questions this week.

 

I've NEVER called into any type of show in my life, but I figured what the hell and went for it, and surprisingly I got through! I was pretty nervous, but I don't think I sounded too shaky or nerdy (hopefully). I'm around the 51 minute mark, area code 208.

 

 

The entire show was awesome, and the first segment was even better, so I encourage you to listen to them if you have the time. I follow the TTA podcast and the Atheist Experience podcast every week and they never disappoint!

 

I just wanted to share with someone, since I no one in my normal life knows or would care about it. I figured you guys would understand. smile.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

They provided sound advice.  My wife would not have gone for that two-way street initially (I tried), but I think that most guys that I know would.  I'm interested to hear how it goes if you take that approach with your husband.  1. Caring about him and his views, 2. Caring about truth, 3. Willing to change your mind.  Good luck!  *hugs*  :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

bfuddled, you are doing just fine.  You don't need to be an expert in counter-apologetics to be effective.  Not just with your husband, but with anybody.  From your posts here, I can tell that you are a thoughtful, thorough, and respectful person.  You have all you need to handle what comes your way.

 

And I agree with the statement that people don't choose what they believe.  You can use that to your advantage.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hey Bfuddled! I listened to your segment, and yeah, that was some good advice. I'm in agreement. It's not about being antagonistic (as you know), it's about really caring about people and caring about truth. What they said about beliefs not being a "choice" is completely true. I told my wife that I didn't wake up one day and chose not to believe. I woke up one day and realized that I already didn't. Belief/non-belief is not a choice, but the product of dealing with new information you aquire. I'm right there with you; my wife believes as well. I respect the fact that she does because I know how comforting it is to stick to the way you were taught and the doctrines that have meaning to you. But for me (and you), my paradigm shifted from thinking about what makes me comfortable to thinking about discovering what is actually true. I'm very interested in counter apologetics too because they lead to my deconversion as well, so I'm with you. They are effective! But to me, as Matt said, you don't have to know anything about the bible, although it's helpful. I think it all comes down to faith vs. evidence. Christian beliefs are based in faith which lack evidence by definition. Faith has consistently been an unreliable path to what is good and true. People have, and do, believe all sorts of false things based on faith, and some of the worst human atrocities have been committed because of faith. Because faith has such a bad track record and is so unreliable, I am disinclined to base my beliefs on it. I enjoyed your segment. You always have an ear here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished "Deconverted: A Journey from Religion to Reason" by by Seth Andrews, who produces the The Thinking Atheist podcast.  I really enjoyed the book, which I listened to as an audio book on Audible.  Seth Andrews himself does the voice of the book, which made it particularly enjoyable.  I've never listened to the podcast, but I highly recommend the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neverlandrut wrote:

"Belief/non-belief is not a choice, but the product of dealing with new information you aquire."

I understand what deconverts mean about belief not being a choice. However, on the surface, such a statement appears to imply that humans do not have free-will in what they believe. Could you elaborate further, and in doing so, distinguish between the concepts of believe, agree, assent, choosing or not choosing to believe, believing versus knowing, and so on. On the surface, the quoted statement above almost seems to imply that the information rules over a person's mind and that autonomous thinking is not possible. Thanks in advance.

 

+ Human

Great question! I am not sure I have a fully formed answer as of yet, but will start by saying that I am not convinced that we do have the power of autonomous thought, at least not in the way we like to think. Humans have this extraordinary tendancy to think of ourselves as separate from our environment. When it comes to the nature vs. nurture debate, it is a misconception to think of nature and nurture as completely separate things. It is literally impossible to talk about something's nature outside of the context of it's environment. Applying this to our thought processes, we are undeniably influenced by new information we aquire. I wish to amend my previous post by saying that I don't intend to imply that there is no element of choice in deconversion. The actual choice I made was to research and inquire about inconsistencies I noticed in the bible. I did choose to pursue answers to those questions rather than sit in the comfort of my spiritual beliefs and ignore the inconsistencies. So yes, that was a choice. I'm not sure I can, at this time make distinctions between everything you asked, but I think I can distinguish between believing and knowing. In a strict, absolutist, epistemological sense we don't "know" anything. Absolute knowledge is a red herring. Everything we give mental assent to is a belief/opinion. But the question is which opinions are best independently validated by evidence. I came to understand that my Chriatian beliefs were unfounded and in a few important cases directly contradicted by evidence. My paradigm shifted from holding on to faith for comforts sake to a desire to believe as many true things as possible and to avoid believing as many false things as possible, to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, regardless of how my comfort is affected. As I said, I did not wake up one day and consciously decide to stop believing in Christianity. I woke up one day and realized, as a result of diligently searching for answers, I already did not believe. My lose of belief was not, in itself, a choice. It was the end result of searching for answers and, yes, choosing to evaluate the information as objectively as possible. I sought answers for the purpose of reaffirming my faith and, in the process, I lost it against my will. Notice that my will was to reaffirm my belief. Therefore my choice was to believe, but I ended up in unbelief despite my willful intention to find validation for what I wanted to believe. I apologize that this is not a compete response, but I hope it explains my point a little more clearly. Thanks for asking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.