Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Answering Street Epistemology

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Hornet View Post
    I agree. I would like to add that discussing things online is a lot different than discussing things in person. When discussing things online, one can take some time to formulate an answer before making a post. Talking to people in person is like impromptu speaking. One is put on the spot.
    Which is why having had the same arguments over and over online () we should all have this stuff memorized.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Hornet View Post
      I agree with your idea of challenging them on whether there is a reliable method for knowing anything. Someone can say that he or she definitely knows something because he or she experienced it with one of their five senses, but one can ask, "How do you know that your senses are reliable?" Someone else could claim that they know things because he or she figured something out with their reasoning skills, but someone could ask about how their reasoning is reliable. A person can ask "How do you know that?" every time he hears a knowledge claim. In order to avoid the infinite regress of justifying one's truth claims, there must be some belief that does not require a justification or a belief that is impossible to deny its truth.

      What do you think of the presuppositionalist's claim that without the Christian God, one cannot justify their belief that their senses and reasoning are reliable?
      I would ask the Atheist since there cannot be evidence for a lack of a God, how can they be sure there isn't one? Lack of evidence isn't evidence of a lack. The only logical position without any positive evidence for there being no God would be agnostic, and there is can be no positive evidence that there is no God, but there is a lot of evidence that there IS a God. Even if they don't accept it, or think it is good evidence, it is a lot better than the NO Evidence they have that there isn't a God.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        I would ask the Atheist since there cannot be evidence for a lack of a God, how can they be sure there isn't one?
        Some atheists say, "I'm not claiming that God does not exist. I just lack a belief in God." My response to this is that they claim that the origin of the universe, moral values, laws of logic, and so on can be explained without God. They do make the positive claim that they don't need God as an explanation for anything.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by David Hayward View Post
          Taking a step backwards to get an overview, why bother?

          Presumably your post asks (in effect) how to "win" such an exchange. That's unlikely: your Street Epistemologist is going to be a super-atheist; what you see in the videos is them picking the low-hanging fruit, the people easily swayed, the over-willing to please -- for a start, they stopped for a stranger; they themselves will be hardened in their attitudes, lost causes not open to much if any doubt, they'll have an atheist support group, and in a week they'll be unchanged and you forgotten -- so were you to "win" you've still lost; and you haven't "won" in the eyes of onlookers because the modus operandi of the, er, interview is to be one-on-one, there normally aren't any onlookers. So how do you suppose you might win, in any worthwhile sense?

          I suppose you can chalk up wasting fifteen minutes of their time, but they have also wasted fifteen minutes of yours, I'd call that a loss. Walk by, why even bother with them!
          Why bother? I think it is an opportunity to talk about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
            It may help for churches to have some basic answers to issues raised by these extremists.

            1. Christianity isn't an intellectual exercise but a relationship with God.
            2. But people have come via intellectual study of scripture and even when trying to oppose Christianity. C.S. Lewis came through study of scripture.
            3. The scriptures document history and are reliable as other historical accounts. To deny scriptures is similar to denying all other historical accounts.
            4. "I" may not be able to deal with questions of trustworthiness of knowledge. But people who have studied questions of 'knowledge' can deal with your atheist questions
            5. The interviewer only has maybe 30 years of experience ... and now wishes to overturn two thousand years of understanding?

            I saw parts of the video with Tia. The atheist was disingenuous in his line of questioning -- he was not just wanting to hear people's ideas. His goal was of one-upmanship rather than saving people.

            This may not be the best list of ideas but it is a start.
            I agree that churches and individual Christians need to have answers to their questions.

            Suppose someone is talking with a street epistemologist and he says that he believes in Christianity because there is good evidence outside of the Bible that Christianity is true. What do you think of the claim made by certain apologists that if you believe in Christianity because of some evidence outside of the Bible that you are standing as a judge over the Bible?

            Comment


            • #21
              I have only dabbled in apologetics.

              The external evidence would serve as a bridge to accepting the gospel. It would be like crossing a brook via a felled tree. When you are on the right side of the brook, it is okay if the tree is washed away.

              The change that a person has toward the Bible is spiritual and transcends the understanding gained through logic. Would this be agreeable to such apologists?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Hornet View Post
                Some atheists say, "I'm not claiming that God does not exist. I just lack a belief in God."
                Just "lacking a belief in God" without at the same time believing God does not exist is not possible unless you have no knowledge of the concept of God in the first place. If you "lack a belief in God" while being aware of the concept of God and what it means then you automatically believe God does not exist. Either that, or you're an agnostic (in the original "whether God exists is unknowable" sense, and not the newish "I don't believe God exists, but I'm not sure" sense, i.e weak atheism).

                "I just lack a belief in God" is just an excuse cowards use in order to avoid having to defend their position.
                Last edited by JonathanL; 07-16-2019, 04:59 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                  Just "lacking a belief in God" without at the same time believing God does not exist is not possible unless you have no knowledge of the concept of God in the first place. If you "lack a belief in God" while being aware of the concept of God and what it means then you automatically believe God does not exist. Either that, or you're an agnostic (in the original "whether God exists is unknowable" sense, and not the newish "I don't believe God exists, but I'm not sure" sense, i.e weak atheism).

                  "I just lack a belief in God" is just an excuse cowards use in order to avoid having to defend their position.
                  Yep. As I said earlier, while the evidence for God might not be convincing to them, they have to admit that there IS evidence, and that there is no positive evidence for there not being a God, so the only logical stance they could have is agnosticism. If they claim atheist, then they are not only lacking a belief in God, they are making the affirmative statement that there IS no God.

                  Same with UFOs being aliens visiting us. I personally don't believe the various reports and evidence, but I can't say positively they are not real. I have to remain agnostic on the matter, if I want to be honest about it.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Yep. As I said earlier, while the evidence for God might not be convincing to them, they have to admit that there IS evidence, and that there is no positive evidence for there not being a God, so the only logical stance they could have is agnosticism. If they claim atheist, then they are not only lacking a belief in God, they are making the affirmative statement that there IS no God.

                    Same with UFOs being aliens visiting us. I personally don't believe the various reports and evidence, but I can't say positively they are not real. I have to remain agnostic on the matter, if I want to be honest about it.
                    Wait, I thought you were alien?

                    download.jpg
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Wait, I thought you were alien?

                      [ATTACH=CONFIG]38378[/ATTACH]
                      I just had too much grog.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Wait, I thought you were alien?

                        [ATTACH=CONFIG]38378[/ATTACH]
                        That's Johnny Depp.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Hornet View Post
                          I agree with your idea of challenging them on whether there is a reliable method for knowing anything. Someone can say that he or she definitely knows something because he or she experienced it with one of their five senses, but one can ask, "How do you know that your senses are reliable?" Someone else could claim that they know things because he or she figured something out with their reasoning skills, but someone could ask about how their reasoning is reliable. A person can ask "How do you know that?" every time he hears a knowledge claim. In order to avoid the infinite regress of justifying one's truth claims, there must be some belief that does not require a justification or a belief that is impossible to deny its truth.

                          What do you think of the presuppositionalist's claim that without the Christian God, one cannot justify their belief that their senses and reasoning are reliable?
                          Do you know, that's just the sort of leading response I would expect of a Street Epistemologist. I noticed when you were new that many of your responses fitted the Street Epistemologist pattern, and on looking at your recent posts I see that pattern continues.

                          Most Street Epistemologists are atheists, it's part of the ethos, part of the DNA, it's part of Peter Boghossian's 'deconvert a million' strategy of using a target 10,000 Street Epistemologists to deconvert a ball-park 100 each. While I am sure it is no offence against TheologyWeb rules to be a Street Epistemologist, it is against the rules to claim to be a Christian when you are not and post where you may not.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            My usual response to the typical atheist epistemological trainwreck is to say that I'm not looking for absolute certainty, only reasonable certainty.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              My usual response to the typical atheist epistemological trainwreck is to say that I'm not looking for absolute certainty, only reasonable certainty.
                              If I had to guess, they'd go and argue that Hebrews 11:1 requires absolute certainty. But that seems to be an abuse of the context there.
                              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                "Reasonable certainty" and "high degree of confidence" are not mutually exclusive.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                                35 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                                4 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                                10 responses
                                119 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                                14 responses
                                71 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                                13 responses
                                59 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X