Has any believer here ever called into the Atheist Experience?

[InChrist]

You should watch it then.

Why? It seems that would be repetitious since I can read the same stuff from you and others on this forum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why? It seems that would be repetitious since I can read the same stuff from you and others on this forum.

When one makes a contentious statement and then refuses to justify it that makes it look as if the person knows that his claim was false. To me it appears accurate. Are you saying that a sinner cannot see the light at the last minute and confess his sins to God and ask for forgiveness? How long before one dies does one have to come to Jesus?

 

[sayak83]

I've never called in, although I have envied Dillahunty his gig, and have learned several things from him that I still use here on RF.

He was the first one I heard use the phrase justified belief, and to comment that he wants to believe only correct ideas. I held similar opinions implicitly, but hearing them in words made it possible for me to see that more clearly, making the ideas explicit in my head and available to use in discussion.

He also introduced the idea that Christian morality is flawed to me with the loophole trope. I shorten and reword it when I write something similar:

"Let's say somebody goes around and rapes and murders somebody, and after they're done, they get saved. What's the punishment for them? This is the problem with Christian religion. It establishes unrealistic and irrational and immoral criteria by which to live. And then it creates a loophole so that you don't ever have to be responsible for those actions. Christianity is not a moral system. It is an immoral system. Because it specifically says that there aren't necessarily consequences that you have to pay because of a loophole. And what is the loophole? It has nothing to do with how good you are or how morally you act. It has to do with whether you are willing to be a sycophant to an idea. And if you are, then there is an exception by which you no longer have to suffer a penalty for this. The idea that secular morality offers no guarantee that people will ever pay for their crimes and their atrocities is not an argument against secular morality because that is a tenet of Christianity. The idea that the Christian god is just is directly contradicted by the idea that the Christian god is merciful. Perfect justice and any mercy are necessary directly in contradiction, because mercy is a suspension of justice. Do not pretend that your religion is moral and just." - Matt Dillahunty

The following idea, which I first heard on that show, appeared in an RF post I left this morning: "There's no good thing that a church or religion does that cannot be achieved by a purely secular means. And there is no positive benefit of churches and religions that necessarily demonstrates the truth of their supernatural claims." - Matt Dillahunty.

Here's another trope I first heard from Dillahunty. Later, I saw the famous Weinberg quote: "The fact that [the Catholic church] can do good is a testament to the fact that there are good people who will do good, but the organization is corrupt. It is poisoned to its core and it serves no essential good purpose, no true purpose, it is lie after lie, promoting harm to real people....the Catholic Church is not a force for good."- Matt Dillahunty.

Here's another linguistic turn of phrase that I have made my own: "Atheism is a single answer to the general question, "Do you believe in a God/god/gods?" For atheists, the answer is no. For theists the answer is yes. Apart from a position on the concept of God, there are no tenets, dogma, creed or code associated with atheism." - Matt Dillahunty

And another: "If there is a god, that god should know exactly what it would take to change my mind...and that god should be capable of doing whatever it would take. The fact that this hasn't happened can only mean one of two things: 1. No such god exists. 2. Whatever god exists doesn't care to convince me, at this time. In either case, it's not my problem and there's nothing I can do about it. Meanwhile, all of those believers who think that there is a god who does want me to know that he exists - are clearly, obviously, undeniably... wrong." ~Matt Dillahunty"

You can see that I've collected a lot from him for my files.

Regarding the video, I lasted ten minutes. Isn't that the way these discussions usually go? The hosts are clear thinking and articulate. Their comments are responsive and focused. The caller just stumbles. He can't make an argument. He can't answer a question asked to him even if asked to repeatedly. He appears to have no thesis. He refers to secular humanism, but there's no evidence in his words that he knows what that is. Yes, he's obviously not a native English speaker, but his vocabulary and grammar were fine. This isn't a linguistic issue. It's a cognitive one. It's a thinking problem. His thinking is disordered. Contrast his garbled content with the words of the hosts.

And that isn't a one-off thing. Isn't that what we see here on RF repeatedly - skilled critical thinkers in conversation with people with chaotic thinking like the one in the video? Many of the conversations here are just like that one.

That show is atheist school, just like RF. I consider the words of other critical thinkers the lecture part, and the parade of religious (and other) thought the lab, or field work. Dillahunty was a mentor for me 15-20 years ago, before I engaged in those types of discussions myself on the Internet, and I hope to pass along some of that kind of thought myself in this venue. It's always been my purpose to state explicitly for other skeptics to consider what I believe they agree implicitly with as I did Dillahunty, so that they can make better arguments using whatever appeals to and resonates with them as Dillahunty (and others - big Tracie Harris fan as well) did for me.

The moral argument you put forth is actually wrong. Just becoming a Christian does not let a person off the hook regarding divine judgement. One has to have genuine and lasting repentance for previous wrong and evil actions, must own up to it publicly and must accept whatever punishment is given by the justice system or the aggrieved party (though the aggrieved party is encouraged to forgive people who show genuine repentance). Christianity involves the total transformation and reform of the inner character through the miraculous action of the holy spirit which is basically described as turning towards christ or becoming christ-like. If a person is still hiding his crimes from the public or is afraid of facing whatever associated punishments...then the transformation has not actually happened. Without such a transformation, judgement remains. The basic argument is sound...since the point of judgement is not retribution but reform...once a person has reformed, true justice is mercy and forgiveness.

However, Christianity is still laden with problematic concepts of sin, hell etc. and so it does not go far enough as a complete and self-consistent moral philosophy.

 

[Tinker Grey]

quote from sometime host, Tracie Harris:

“You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, ‘When you’re done, I’m going to punish you.’ If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That’s the difference between me and your God.”​

ETA source: Tracie Harris Quotes (Author of Freethought Resource Guide)

 

[Subduction Zone]

The moral argument you put forth is actually wrong. Just becoming a Christian does not let a person off the hook regarding divine judgement. One has to have genuine and lasting repentance for previous wrong and evil actions, must own up to it publicly and must accept whatever punishment is given by the justice system or the aggrieved party (though the aggrieved party is encouraged to forgive people who show genuine repentance). Christianity involves the total transformation and reform of the inner character through the miraculous action of the holy spirit which is basically described as turning towards christ or becoming christ-like. If a person is still hiding his crimes from the public or is afraid of facing whatever associated punishments...then the transformation has not actually happened. Without such a transformation, judgement remains. The basic argument is sound...since the point of judgement is not retribution but reform...once a person has reformed, true justice is mercy and forgiveness.

However, Christianity is still laden with problematic concepts of sin, hell etc. and so it does not go far enough as a complete and self-consistent moral philosophy.

Where do you get the claim that the change has to be lasting? In fact that violates the thinking of beliefs of many Christians. There are many that believe "Once saved always saved". Those people if they kept living would have the traits that you mentioned. But even if that person had died right after he was " saved" he or she (there are no trans people in OSAS Christians) would go to heaven.

 

[sayak83]

Where do you get the claim that the change has to be lasting? In fact that violates the thinking of beliefs of many Christians. There are many that believe "Once saved always saved". Those people if they kept living would have the traits that you mentioned. But even if that person had died right after he was " saved" he or she (there are no trans people in OSAS Christians) would go to heaven.

The "once saved always saved " concept emphasizes the miraculous and final nature of the inner transformation that is claimed to have happened due to the action of the holy spirit. That there may be billions of people who falsely claim that such a transformation has happened for them when it patently has not is somewhat beside the point as far as the theological point is concerned.

I am merely stating what the nature of the faith seems to be based on the gospel and Pauline letters. That the usual practitioners of Christianity are quite far removed from this kind of "faith" is a somewhat different matter.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The moral argument you put forth is actually wrong. Just becoming a Christian does not let a person off the hook regarding divine judgement. One has to have genuine and lasting repentance for previous wrong and evil actions, must own up to it publicly and must accept whatever punishment is given by the justice system or the aggrieved party (though the aggrieved party is encouraged to forgive people who show genuine repentance). Christianity involves the total transformation and reform of the inner character through the miraculous action of the holy spirit which is basically described as turning towards christ or becoming christ-like. If a person is still hiding his crimes from the public or is afraid of facing whatever associated punishments...then the transformation has not actually happened. Without such a transformation, judgement remains. The basic argument is sound...since the point of judgement is not retribution but reform...once a person has reformed, true justice is mercy and forgiveness. However, Christianity is still laden with problematic concepts of sin, hell etc. and so it does not go far enough as a complete and self-consistent moral philosophy.

This isn't the Christianity with which I'm familiar. I spent a decade in the religion. It's just like Dillahunty says. You can commit an offense against somebody and pray for forgiveness, and it is always assumed to have been granted. Slate wiped clean. Each individual is the judge of whether he has sufficiently repented and been cleansed with the blood of the lamb, who has paid the price for your sins. In church, pastors give lip service to authentic repentance and transformation of the self through the Spirit, but that's not actually a part of the process for most adherents. It begins and ends with bringing the hands together, closing the eyes, bowing the head, and saying "Lord forgive me. I have sinned." Dillahunty's point is that that is not justice, but a loophole that allows one to essentially forgive himself.

You say that that is not enough, but your explanation is theology - your version of Christianity from a point of view that assumes that this deity exists, actually saves souls based on its criteria, and that those are the ones you named, rather than this entire enterprise being people saying and doing things with no input from any deity involved. Most Christians seem quite content that they are meeting the requirements for salvation as long as they say a prayer to God when they sin.

I don't think many see sins as being committed against people. When they sin, it's against God, and that is where they go for forgiveness. They'll generally tell you that their sins have been cleansed. When did you ever hear somebody say that they prayed for forgiveness and were turned down?

And what other "justice" system works like that? Even in grade school, it is expected that one will apologize to the offended party. Apologizing to the teacher or asking forgiveness from him or her for offenses committed against a third party is not justice or even kind. And I believe that that is Dillahunty's point: this isn't a justice, but rather, a loophole around it. One can be as loathsome a person as he likes as long as he has asked for forgiveness after his last sin.

Emo Philips, a comedian, quips that he used to pray for a bicycle, but none ever appeared, so he decided to steal one instead and pray for forgiveness. That's probably a joke, but it nicely exemplifies the sort of easy forgiveness-on-demand attitude to which Dillahunty alludes.

I am merely stating what the nature of the faith seems to be based on the gospel and Pauline letters. That the usual practitioners of Christianity are quite far removed from this kind of "faith" is a somewhat different matter.

Yes, it is. It's the matter of how Christianity works in the minds of adherents, not the higher standards of theologians. Your version is theory. Dillahunty's is practice.

 

[sayak83]

This isn't the Christianity with which I'm familiar. I spent a decade in the religion. It's just like Dillahunty says. You can commit an offense against somebody and pray for forgiveness, and it is always assumed to have been granted. Slate wiped clean. Each individual is the judge of whether he has sufficiently repented and been cleansed with the blood of the lamb, who has paid the price for your sins. In church, pastors give lip service to authentic repentance and transformation of the self through the Spirit, but that's not actually a part of the process for most adherents. It begins and ends with bringing the hands together, closing the eyes, bowing the head, and saying "Lord forgive me. I have sinned." Dillahunty's point is that that is not justice, but a loophole that allows one to essentially forgive himself.

You say that that is not enough, but your explanation is theology - your version of Christianity from a point of view that assumes that this deity exists, actually saves souls based on its criteria, and that those are the ones you named, rather than this entire enterprise being people saying and doing things with no input from any deity involved. Most Christians seem quite content that they are meeting the requirements for salvation as long as they say a prayer to God when they sin.

I don't think many see sins as being committed against people. When they sin, it's against God, and that is where they go for forgiveness. They'll generally tell you that their sins have been cleansed. When did you ever hear somebody say that they prayed for forgiveness and were turned down?

And what other "justice" system works like that? Even in grade school, it is expected that one will apologize to the offended party. Apologizing to the teacher or asking forgiveness from him or her for offenses committed against a third party is not justice or even kind. And I believe that that is Dillahunty's point: this isn't a justice, but rather, a loophole around it. One can be as loathsome a person as he likes as long as he has asked for forgiveness after his last sin.

Emo Philips, a comedian, quips that he used to pray for a bicycle, but none ever appeared, so he decided to steal one instead and pray for forgiveness. That's probably a joke, but it nicely exemplifies the sort of easy forgiveness-on-demand attitude to which Dillahunty alludes.



Yes, it is. It's the matter of how Christianity works in the minds of adherents, not the higher standards of theologians. Your version is theory. Dillahunty's is practice.

There is always a vast gulf between what the theory is and how it is actually practiced....be it democracy, law, policing, justice, religion, capitalism etc. In all these cases and more, how people usually do things is far far removed from what the theory says is the proper way to do them. But if you are criticizing that, you are criticizing the people and not the religion/political theory/philosophy and the ideas behind them. That needs to be clarified. Criticism of Christianity vs Criticism of how Christianity is actually practiced. I would have thought that in an atheist show the debate will be between the ideas and the worldview of atheism and Christianity.
By the way, the way people actually create these " easy and self-centered" hypocritical versions of religion/politics/nationalism etc. is also why I am not a humanist. People in general can make up great ideas but run for the hills when the time comes to follow them. So I do not have a very optimistic view of the human condition.

 

[Sheldon]

No, it’s not accurate.

Yes it is...

 

[Subduction Zone]

The "once saved always saved " concept emphasizes the miraculous and final nature of the inner transformation that is claimed to have happened due to the action of the holy spirit. That there may be billions of people who falsely claim that such a transformation has happened for them when it patently has not is somewhat beside the point as far as the theological point is concerned.

I am merely stating what the nature of the faith seems to be based on the gospel and Pauline letters. That the usual practitioners of Christianity are quite far removed from this kind of "faith" is a somewhat different matter.

We are not talking theological niceties. We are discussing Christians and what they believe. You may like to believe that your version of Christianity are the "true Christians" but there ain't no sich animal. Christians come in all shapes and sizes. And yes, I do agree that just about every OSAS Christian is in the bottom quarter of Christianity because their delusion allows them to excuse almost any bad acts that they perform, sadly they are still Christians.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

By the way, the way people actually create these " easy and self-centered" hypocritical versions of religion/politics/nationalism etc. is also why I am not a humanist. People in general can make up great ideas but run for the hills when the time comes to follow them. So I do not have a very optimistic view of the human condition.

That's an interesting comment. I DO call myself a humanist, but I have had to redefine what I mean by that as I too have lost faith in humanity and have a grim prognosis for the future of life on earth due to human failing. Once, I would have said that as a humanist, I consider man a noble creature capable of greatness, who will improve the human condition by replacing faith with reason as it did when it turned monarchies into egalitarian democracies with guaranteed individual rights, and sterile systems like alchemy, astrology, and creationism into chemistry, astronomy, and evolutionary science.

Now I believe that only a fraction of the human race is noble, that that contingent could accomplish those things if allowed to, but that they won't be allowed to. The human race will ignore its noble contingent, its decent and intelligent contingent, and continue damaging the world and introducing untold gratuitous suffering.

In short, I no longer respect humanity nor necessarily am its champion. Wouldn't the world be a better place if man disappeared? I think so. Not for man, but for all other life. With that attitude, can I still call myself a humanist? My naturalistic metaphysics and rational ethics haven't changed, nor my empirical epistemology, so it's basically the same world view, but after witnessing the last several years, I've lost faith in man. I think that still humanism. I still believe that if the human condition is to improve, it will be man that does it, even if I think it's unlikely to happen any time soon.

 

[InChrist]

When one makes a contentious statement and then refuses to justify it that makes it look as if the person knows that his claim was false. To me it appears accurate. Are you saying that a sinner cannot see the light at the last minute and confess his sins to God and ask for forgiveness? How long before one dies does one have to come to Jesus?

Or maybe I have haven’t responded because I’m dealing with an inflamed tooth issue and have been preoccupied with visits to the dentist and oral surgeon.


Here is a portion of It Ain’t Necessarily So’s post #33...

“Christianity is not a moral system. It is an immoral system. Because it specifically says that there aren't necessarily consequences that you have to pay because of a loophole. And what is the loophole? It has nothing to do with how good you are or how morally you act. It has to do with whether you are willing to be a sycophant to an idea. And if you are, then there is an exception by which you no longer have to suffer a penalty for this.”


While the scriptures offer forgiveness and eternal life through Jesus Christ to anyone who truly repents and turns away from their sinful behavior, no where is one given a pass to avoid the consequences of of their sin or law breaking. One may get saved by Christ and still go to jail or face whatever penalty is due for their crimes.

 

[InChrist]

That's an interesting comment. I DO call myself a humanist, but I have had to redefine what I mean by that as I too have lost faith in humanity and have a grim prognosis for the future of life on earth due to human failing. Once, I would have said that as a humanist, I consider man a noble creature capable of greatness, who will improve the human condition by replacing faith with reason as it did when it turned monarchies into egalitarian democracies with guaranteed individual rights, and sterile systems like alchemy, astrology, and creationism into chemistry, astronomy, and evolutionary science.

Now I believe that only a fraction of the human race is noble, that that contingent could accomplish those things if allowed to, but that they won't be allowed to. The human race will ignore its noble contingent, its decent and intelligent contingent, and continue damaging the world and introducing untold gratuitous suffering.

In short, I no longer respect humanity nor necessarily am its champion. Wouldn't the world be a better place if man disappeared? I think so. Not for man, but for all other life. With that attitude, can I still call myself a humanist? My naturalistic metaphysics and rational ethics haven't changed, nor my empirical epistemology, so it's basically the same world view, but after witnessing the last several years, I've lost faith in man. I think that still humanism. I still believe that if the human condition is to improve, it will be man that does it, even if I think it's unlikely to happen any time soon.

If you have lost faith in humanity maybe it’s time to reconsider having faith in the One who offers to save humanity.

 

[InChrist]

We are not talking theological niceties. We are discussing Christians and what they believe. You may like to believe that your version of Christianity are the "true Christians" but there ain't no sich animal. Christians come in all shapes and sizes. And yes, I do agree that just about every OSAS Christian is in the bottom quarter of Christianity because their delusion allows them to excuse almost any bad acts that they perform, sadly they are still Christians.

Or you may think they are Christians because they claim to be. Maybe they believe they can continue on in sin and are Christians, but only Jesus Christ really knows those who belong to Him. The scriptures are clear that we reap what we sow, but that freedom from the eternal consequences of sin is found only in Christ, turning from self’s sinful practices to become a new, born again person, living a transformed life where the old has passed away.
It is obvious you lack understanding concerning real repentance, a changed life and new direction in Christ.


“True repentance goes beyond merely saying you’re sorry for something. Indeed, true repentance results in changed behavior and attitude. When Christians sin, the Holy Spirit convicts the Christian, bringing remorse or “godly sorrow” for the act(s) they performed. Christians grieve over what they’ve done and desire to change their behavior. They want to be pleasing in God’s sight.
”How to Repent: 4 Steps for True Biblical Repentance


1) True repentance involves a sense of awareness of one’s own guilt, sinfulness, and helplessness (Psalm 51:4–10; 109:21–22).

2) True repentance apprehends or takes hold of God’s mercy in Jesus Christ (Psalm 51:1; 130:4).

3) True repentance means a change of attitude and action regarding sin. Hatred of sin turns the repentant person away from his or her sin to God (Psalm 119:128; Job 42:5–6; 2 Corinthians 7:10).

4) True repentance results in a radical and persistent pursuit of holy living, walking with God in obedience to His commands (2 Timothy 2:19–22; 1 Peter 1:16).

The focus of Jesus Christ’s mission was to call sinners to repentance: “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:32). His call of absolute surrender goes out to all people: “But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” (Luke 13:5).

What does the Bible say about repentance? What does it mean to repent? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or you may think they are Christians because they claim to be. Maybe they believe they can continue on in sin and are Christians, but only Jesus Christ really knows those who belong to Him. The scriptures are clear that we reap what we sow, but that freedom from the eternal consequences of sin is found only in Christ, turning from self’s sinful practices to become a new, born again person, living a transformed life where the old has passed away.
It is obvious you lack understanding concerning real repentance, a changed life and new direction in Christ.


“True repentance goes beyond merely saying you’re sorry for something. Indeed, true repentance results in changed behavior and attitude. When Christians sin, the Holy Spirit convicts the Christian, bringing remorse or “godly sorrow” for the act(s) they performed. Christians grieve over what they’ve done and desire to change their behavior. They want to be pleasing in God’s sight.
”How to Repent: 4 Steps for True Biblical Repentance


1) True repentance involves a sense of awareness of one’s own guilt, sinfulness, and helplessness (Psalm 51:4–10; 109:21–22).

2) True repentance apprehends or takes hold of God’s mercy in Jesus Christ (Psalm 51:1; 130:4).

3) True repentance means a change of attitude and action regarding sin. Hatred of sin turns the repentant person away from his or her sin to God (Psalm 119:128; Job 42:5–6; 2 Corinthians 7:10).

4) True repentance results in a radical and persistent pursuit of holy living, walking with God in obedience to His commands (2 Timothy 2:19–22; 1 Peter 1:16).

The focus of Jesus Christ’s mission was to call sinners to repentance: “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:32). His call of absolute surrender goes out to all people: “But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” (Luke 13:5).

What does the Bible say about repentance? What does it mean to repent? | GotQuestions.org

How else could you say who or who is not a Christian? You are only applying your standards as to who is and who is not a Christian. I can guarantee that other Christians will not agree with all of your tests and they will have their own. You are no more an authority of who is or who is not a Christian than any other Christian is. And apologist sites are the absolute worst sites to use. They are very unreliable. They almost always take themselves out of the game by being liars for Jesus. They are still Christians, but they really are not authorities.

 

[Koldo]

The moral argument you put forth is actually wrong. Just becoming a Christian does not let a person off the hook regarding divine judgement. One has to have genuine and lasting repentance for previous wrong and evil actions, must own up to it publicly and must accept whatever punishment is given by the justice system or the aggrieved party (though the aggrieved party is encouraged to forgive people who show genuine repentance). Christianity involves the total transformation and reform of the inner character through the miraculous action of the holy spirit which is basically described as turning towards christ or becoming christ-like. If a person is still hiding his crimes from the public or is afraid of facing whatever associated punishments...then the transformation has not actually happened. Without such a transformation, judgement remains. The basic argument is sound...since the point of judgement is not retribution but reform...once a person has reformed, true justice is mercy and forgiveness.

However, Christianity is still laden with problematic concepts of sin, hell etc. and so it does not go far enough as a complete and self-consistent moral philosophy.

1) How did you reach the conclusion that judgment is about reform and not retribution? How did you reach the conclusion that mercy and forgiveness is just?

2) There is one major point you are not taking in consideration: what transpired during Jesus' crucification. Jesus "saved" a criminal that was next to him just because he asked for it. Not because he underwent some kind of transformation. This is not to say that people shouldn't behave in a particular way, but rather that salvation is not about that. You can also find suport for this at Ephesians 2:8-9.

 

[InChrist]

1) How did you reach the conclusion that judgment is about reform and not retribution? How did you reach the conclusion that mercy and forgiveness is just?

2) There is one major point you are not taking in consideration: what transpired during Jesus' crucification. Jesus "saved" a criminal that was next to him just because he asked for it. Not because he underwent some kind of transformation. This is not to say that people shouldn't behave in a particular way, but rather that salvation is not about that. You can also find suport for this at Ephesians 2:8-9.

In that moment when the thief acknowledged his need for Jesus to save him he was transformed by Christ, by His love and grace. Salvation is a gift and occurs the instant one believes and accepts it from Christ.

 

[InChrist]

How else could you say who or who is not a Christian? You are only applying your standards as to who is and who is not a Christian. I can guarantee that other Christians will not agree with all of your tests and they will have their own. You are no more an authority of who is or who is not a Christian than any other Christian is. And apologist sites are the absolute worst sites to use. They are very unreliable. They almost always take themselves out of the game by being liars for Jesus. They are still Christians, but they really are not authorities.

As I said, God knows.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said, God knows.

You can't even say that. All you can say is that you believe that God knows. God might not exist. If that is the case he cannot know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In that moment when the thief acknowledged his need for Jesus to save him he was transformed by Christ, by His love and grace. Salvation is a gift and occurs the instant one believes and accepts it from Christ.

And now you are supporting Dillahunty's argument.