Street epistemology has really started to impress me. Everyone should go check out Anthony Magnabosco's videos on youtube. He has a playlist with his favorite encounters, good place to start.

Btw, Bogghosian will be on Joe Rogan and Rubin report in the next week or two, I'm not sure exactly when. Be on the lookout.

(July 10, 2015 at 5:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The following passages from Swedenborg is relevant:

"...all intelligence and wisdom, are from the Lord; and that all shade, consequently all insanity and folly, are from that which is their own in man, spirit, and angel..." Arcana Coelesta 3341

"When man becomes a spirit this hostility is turned into hatred; and then he not only cannot endure to hear these truths and goods mentioned, he even burns with hatred against all who acknowledge and worship the Divine." Heaven and Hell 562

My comment on the above is that the insanity is all yours.

This only proves that Deepak Chopra is Swedenborg's intellectual heir.

(July 10, 2015 at 5:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(July 10, 2015 at 3:40 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: ...I dream of a day when religion is classified as a mental illness.

The following passages from Swedenborg is relevant:

"...all intelligence and wisdom, are from the Lord; and that all shade, consequently all insanity and folly, are from that which is their own in man, spirit, and angel..." Arcana Coelesta 3341

"When man becomes a spirit this hostility is turned into hatred; and then he not only cannot endure to hear these truths and goods mentioned, he even burns with hatred against all who acknowledge and worship the Divine." Heaven and Hell 562

My comment on the above is that the insanity is all yours.

Well, if anyone should know about insanity, it's Swedenborg. Raving fucking nutter.

Boru

Some theists are hooked into their delusion so deeply that the conversation is futile. If it makes them happy and they are not harming me or others to any significant degree I leave them alone.

Yep, I think Pyhrro got it. If your approached then discuss/defend/debate (pick which ever you're comfortable with) your belief. If you're attacked, attack back. If your approached in a civil manor, be civil back. If they don't want to have a rational discussion and dismiss every thing you say, walk away.

I don't want to be that angry, militant, confronting atheist. It's a waste of mental energy.

(July 10, 2015 at 3:40 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: If I try to "debate" a religious person away from their religion, am I not committing the same act of disrespect?       

It depends. If you go into it treating them the same way they taught you, telling them why they're wrong, then yes. If you, instead, treat them with respect and have a discussion with them, then no.

(July 10, 2015 at 3:40 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: From one of my new favorite authors, Peter Boghossian. (I rate him with Dawkins and Hitchens and Stenger and . . . all our favs.)
From "A Manual for Creating Atheists".   

But I'm a little torn. Sure, I dream of a day when religion is classified as a mental illness.  I would love to see 95% of my 9-year-old
cousin's HS graduating class claim to be atheist. I would love to see a day, before I die, when nobody kills each other over who has
the RIGHT imaginary friend.  BUT . . . 

I have told many Xtians who were trying to change MY mind that it was disrespectful. That they were treating me as if I was not an
intelligent adult, quite capable of choosing my own beliefs, and that those beliefs were none of their business.

If I try to "debate" a religious person away from their religion, am I not committing the same act of disrespect?       

Paul Boghossian is absolute garbage.

Doesn't know anything about epistemology, doesn't know anything about religion.

I'm embarrassed for him and the mindless drones he has managed to convince that he's doing something meaningful.

The atheist Deepak Chopra.

(December 14, 2015 at 2:46 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(July 10, 2015 at 3:40 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: From one of my new favorite authors, Peter Boghossian. (I rate him with Dawkins and Hitchens and Stenger and . . . all our favs.)
From "A Manual for Creating Atheists".   

But I'm a little torn. Sure, I dream of a day when religion is classified as a mental illness.  I would love to see 95% of my 9-year-old
cousin's HS graduating class claim to be atheist. I would love to see a day, before I die, when nobody kills each other over who has
the RIGHT imaginary friend.  BUT . . . 

I have told many Xtians who were trying to change MY mind that it was disrespectful. That they were treating me as if I was not an
intelligent adult, quite capable of choosing my own beliefs, and that those beliefs were none of their business.

If I try to "debate" a religious person away from their religion, am I not committing the same act of disrespect?       

Paul Boghossian is absolute garbage.

Doesn't know anything about epistemology, doesn't know anything about religion.

I'm embarrassed for him and the mindless drones he has managed to convince that he's doing something meaningful.

The atheist Deepak Chopra.

I actually had a slight objection to his use of "epistemology", although I understood that he was trying to present a parallel with the xtian terminology.  Actually, epistemology is the defined as the study, or understanding of knowledge, and it has been hijacked by xtians who think that their fairy tales are knowledge.   Boghossian's book, though, was actually a lot more about debating techniques, how to identify and zero in on logical fallacies.  While I appreciated the study of debate tactics, I could not see myself using them in real life.

I'm sure any xtian would think Boghossian was garbage.  After all, his take on "faith" is spot on: 

(December 14, 2015 at 4:13 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 2:46 pm)Delicate Wrote: Paul Boghossian is absolute garbage.

Doesn't know anything about epistemology, doesn't know anything about religion.

I'm embarrassed for him and the mindless drones he has managed to convince that he's doing something meaningful.

The atheist Deepak Chopra.

I actually had a slight objection to his use of "epistemology", although I understood that he was trying to present a parallel with the xtian terminology.  Actually, epistemology is the defined as the study, or understanding of knowledge, and it has been hijacked by xtians who think that their fairy tales are knowledge.   Boghossian's book, though, was actually a lot more about debating techniques, how to identify and zero in on logical fallacies.  While I appreciated the study of debate tactics, I could not see myself using them in real life.

I'm sure any xtian would think Boghossian was garbage.  After all, his take on "faith" is spot on: 

Wow. There's a lot you don't understand.

He isn't trying to parallel xtian terminology. Epistemology has not been hijacked by xtians (far from it most epistemologists are atheists).

And fundamentally, his definition of faith is false and doesn't correspond to what Christians define as faith. 

His "street epistemology" would fail with any moderately informed theist.

He's been called out on it, and a discussion between him and a theist resulted in him being absolutely destroyed. The guy doesn't even have a PhD in philosophy, but a degree in education or something of the sort.

For this reason, I think smart atheists (who are informed about things like religion and epistemology) don't look to him for guidance.

(December 14, 2015 at 6:21 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 4:13 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: I actually had a slight objection to his use of "epistemology", although I understood that he was trying to present a parallel with the xtian terminology.  Actually, epistemology is the defined as the study, or understanding of knowledge, and it has been hijacked by xtians who think that their fairy tales are knowledge.   Boghossian's book, though, was actually a lot more about debating techniques, how to identify and zero in on logical fallacies.  While I appreciated the study of debate tactics, I could not see myself using them in real life.

I'm sure any xtian would think Boghossian was garbage.  After all, his take on "faith" is spot on: 

Wow. There's a lot you don't understand.

He isn't trying to parallel xtian terminology. Epistemology has not been hijacked by xtians (far from it most epistemologists are atheists).

And fundamentally, his definition of faith is false and doesn't correspond to what Christians define as faith. 

His "street epistemology" would fail with any moderately informed theist.

He's been called out on it, and a discussion between him and a theist resulted in him being absolutely destroyed. The guy doesn't even have a PhD in philosophy, but a degree in education or something of the sort.

For this reason, I think smart atheists (who are informed about things like religion and epistemology) don't look to him for guidance.

It's interesting that a simple internet search on epistemology will bring up dozens of xtian sites . . . with names such as "The Institute of Bible Defense" and "The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry".   

Boghossian doesn't have to have a Ph.D. in Philosophy.  His focus is on pointing out cognitive dissonance within the confines of debate - something he does quite well.

Faith is described, by xtians, as a belief in things unseen and unknowable.  This is a belief in things that are not possible to prove by scientific means.  I hear about faith every Sunday, and I was raised Pentecostal.  Faith is belief in woo.  It's the adamant belief that something is true because the bible, or a pastor, or an organization says so, and it is considered special and holy and worthy and godlike.   Saying "I know god exists, because I have faith" is a lie.  You do not know god exists.  You simply choose to believe it.

(December 14, 2015 at 7:36 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 6:21 pm)Delicate Wrote: Wow. There's a lot you don't understand.

He isn't trying to parallel xtian terminology. Epistemology has not been hijacked by xtians (far from it most epistemologists are atheists).

And fundamentally, his definition of faith is false and doesn't correspond to what Christians define as faith. 

His "street epistemology" would fail with any moderately informed theist.

He's been called out on it, and a discussion between him and a theist resulted in him being absolutely destroyed. The guy doesn't even have a PhD in philosophy, but a degree in education or something of the sort.

For this reason, I think smart atheists (who are informed about things like religion and epistemology) don't look to him for guidance.

It's interesting that a simple internet search on epistemology will bring up dozens of xtian sites . . . with names such as "The Institute of Bible Defense" and "The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry".   

Boghossian doesn't have to have a Ph.D. in Philosophy.  His focus is on pointing out cognitive dissonance within the confines of debate - something he does quite well.

Faith is described, by xtians, as a belief in things unseen and unknowable.  This is a belief in things that are not possible to prove by scientific means.  I hear about faith every Sunday, and I was raised Pentecostal.  Faith is belief in woo.  It's the adamant belief that something is true because the bible, or a pastor, or an organization says so, and it is considered special and holy and worthy and godlike.   Saying "I know god exists, because I have faith" is a lie.  You do not know god exists.  You simply choose to believe it.

Somehow because an internet search on epistemology brings up xtian sites, therefore xtians have hijacked epistemology? What kind of defective reasoning is this? This is why I lack belief that there is anything rational about atheism. 

Also, any imagined cognitive dissonance is purely his own fantasy. It's predicated on a definition of faith that only works if you ignore the evidence and beg the question. And this can be demonstrated as true.

Quote:Dr. Boghossian: Faith is not a virtue. It is absolutely not a virtue. It is an unreliable epistemology and part of the problem is that people think that holding a belief tenaciously, being a person of faith, makes you a good person. Being a person of faith does not make you a good person. It just means that you have a process of thinking about the world that is less likely to lead you to the truth. Once we make that shift from faith as a morality to faith as an epistemology, I think the house of cards will crumble and everything that is built upon the house – religion, everything – will fall with it.
Dr. Craig: This is so fundamental. This is a watershed. He says that faith is an unreliable epistemology. He wants to make faith an epistemological category instead of a moral virtue. It is right there that we need to dig in our heels and say this is a misunderstanding of faith. Faith is not an epistemological category. It is not a way of knowing something. Faith is a way of trusting something. Faith is trusting in that which you have reason to believe is true. So it is once you have come to believe that something is true using reliable epistemological means that you can then place your faith or trust in that thing. To do so is a virtue. It is a virtue to have faith in God. For example, to trust in him. So Boghossian is wrong right out of the blocks here and what will happen now is the trajectories will increasingly diverge as we go on. So you’ve got to stop it right out of the blocks, at the beginning, and say, “No, you are incorrect. You are construing faith as an epistemological category.” It is not that. Faith is one of the many different virtues.


Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-manual-...z3uLL3n2xu