street epistemology

[drfuzzy]

---

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.  
 

---

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Well, if the religionist brings up religion (and many of them do with great frequency), you will just be discussing a subject they chose to bring up.  How is that rude?  If they don't want to talk about religion, they should not bring it up.  And obviously they have no right to expect you to agree with whatever their opinion is on the subject.

It would be different if you start the subject.


As for your principle that it is disrespectful to try to change someone's mind, if you follow that idea, you will never want to say much of anything to anyone about anything.  Otherwise, you might change their mind about something.  You also won't want to listen to what others say, or they might change your mind about something.

What's wrong with changing people's minds?  I only see it as a problem if one uses improper methods or if someone's mind changes from being correct to being in error.

People never change their minds.  They just phrase the problem differently so that they can reach an acceptable alternate opinion.

[Delicate]

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.  
 [/hide]

Faith is an unreliable epistemology.  It is a study of "knowledge" (the definition of epistemology) that doesn't exist.  It is a study of fairy tales and lies, and giving belief in something that doesn't exist "virtue" because you're being a good obedient little sheeple.  Faith is saying you know something that you cannot know.  It is lying and calling it holy.

These are myths perpetuated by the secular priests teaching atheistic dogma. 

You're in a dream world buddy. Let's go into the real world.

Faith is not an epistemology period. If you want to criticize faith as Christianity understands it, you have to look at how Christianity understands the concept of faith.

And you (just like Bogo the clown) don't understand it.


The question is, are you willing to educate yourself or are you content to wallow in your ignorance?

Pick education. Pick reason.

[The Grand Nudger]

There is no compulsion to first accept chritianity's understanding of faith to comment on faith, or christianity, or indeed christian faith.  To demand that others must first agree or accept your pov before they can begin to comment upon it is absurd.  Typical christian entitlement. You can probably make whatever point you have in mind without making such a claim. Accepting that someone believes something lends it no further credibility, no further implication.

[Delicate]

There is no compulsion to first accept chritianity's understanding of faith to comment on faith, or christianity, or indeed christian faith.  To demand that others must first agree or accept your pov before they can begin to comment upon it is absurd.  Typical christian entitlement.  You can probably make whatever point you have in mind without making such a claim.  Accepting that someone believes something lends it no further credibility, no further implication.

There is no compulsion to understand something before you criticize it. Sure.

But you'll look like an idiot if you don't. 

That's why, to be perfectly honest, many intelligent people think you "village atheists" are an embarrassment.

[drfuzzy]

Faith is an unreliable epistemology.  It is a study of "knowledge" (the definition of epistemology) that doesn't exist.  It is a study of fairy tales and lies, and giving belief in something that doesn't exist "virtue" because you're being a good obedient little sheeple.  Faith is saying you know something that you cannot know.  It is lying and calling it holy.

These are myths perpetuated by the secular priests teaching atheistic dogma. 

You're in a dream world buddy. Let's go into the real world.

Faith is not an epistemology period. If you want to criticize faith as Christianity understands it, you have to look at how Christianity understands the concept of faith.

And you (just like Bogo the clown) don't understand it.


The question is, are you willing to educate yourself or are you content to wallow in your ignorance?

Pick education. Pick reason.

What's a "village atheist"?    And, it's "Bozo the clown".  Bogo means "buy one, get one".  And "secular priests"?  Are you implying that atheists follow some . . . preacher?  We don't.   

Your insults are infantile and unnecessary.  And surely you don't believe they add effectiveness to your "witness".

Faith, definition:  (Google)  "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."  (Merriam-Webster) belief and trust in and loyalty to God; belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion; firm belief in something for which there is no proof".  Now, how, exactly, do you think someone who does not believe any deities exist is going to view "faith"?  I do not accept something which cannot be measured, studied, and clearly identified.  I require concrete data.
 
      I do live in the real world.  The real world without any imaginary friends, ghosts, demons, or angels.  And I was xtian for over 40 years, I have most of the wholly babble memorized.  
     I am educated.  I read constantly.  I have two Master's degrees and a Ph.D.  I think that education and religion are mutually exclusive terms.  I believe that you can't study something that doesn't exist.  We can study human mythology, as it relates to history and culture - now that's fascinating.   
     We do agree on one point:  faith is not an epistemology.  The definition of epistemology is the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Knowledge is provable data, not flights of fancy. Faith is by its very definition, falsehood.  It is delusion.  When you say "I have faith that god is watching", the implication is "I know god is watching".  This is an un-provable,  and therefore false, statement.  If you say that you believe god is watching, that's fine.  Belief doesn't have the same weight as "faith".  That's why the term is praised in song and scripture.  The church HAS to insist that people accept what they are told without question, so they turn gullibility into a virtue. If they encouraged people to question, they wouldn't have a congregation.    
     Like most atheists, I will defend your right to believe anything you want.  Just as long as you don't try to change my mind, or insult me for not believing what you believe.

[Delicate]

Bogo = Boghossian.

Village atheist is the atheist equivalent to a village idiot, as opposed to an atheist who is well-informed and educated, capable of nuance and distinction in their atheism.

And secular priests are those people, be they on youtube, or who write books, or what have you, that teach atheists the kind of beliefs and ideas (fallacious though they may be) that they learn.

Not everything you believe is based on concrete data. As someone who actually has to study epistemology, I can tell you that much. You, and everyone else, all possess various beliefs that are held on faith, or trust. Or that are believed without evidence. That's a discussion worth having in its own right with people who seem to be operating under this scientistic caricature of the real world (no doubt a mainstay of atheistic dogma) that is the subject of refutations time and time again.

So no, knowledge is NOT (all) provable data. Religion is certainly not unique in asking people to place trust. And this idea that the only kind of worthwhile knowledge is provable data.

As someone who actually has done my share of reading in epistemology, would you want to have a discussion about this?

[drfuzzy]

Bogo = Boghossian.

Village atheist is the atheist equivalent to a village idiot, as opposed to an atheist who is well-informed and educated, capable of nuance and distinction in their atheism.

And secular priests are those people, be they on youtube, or who write books, or what have you, that teach atheists the kind of beliefs and ideas (fallacious though they may be) that they learn.

Not everything you believe is based on concrete data. As someone who actually has to study epistemology, I can tell you that much. You, and everyone else, all possess various beliefs that are held on faith, or trust. Or that are believed without evidence. That's a discussion worth having in its own right with people who seem to be operating under this scientistic caricature of the real world (no doubt a mainstay of atheistic dogma) that is the subject of refutations time and time again.

So no, knowledge is NOT (all) provable data. Religion is certainly not unique in asking people to place trust. And this idea that the only kind of worthwhile knowledge is provable data.

As someone who actually has done my share of reading in epistemology, would you want to have a discussion about this?

Huh whut??? 
No, I have had enough of fairy tales and apologetics trying to "prove" those fantasies are real, thank you very much.  I'll place my trust in science and provable data.

[Alex K]

From the Shoutbox for better preservation

excitedpenguin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4ixyjdc0os This is awesome

Something bothers me about it. It's a bit too clean-cut. The guy just agrees with everything the interviewer says, and sometimes is manipulated a bit rhetorically - like when the interviewer says "and does *that* allow the conclusion that the belief is true" and he is forced to answer "no" to this specific point. That's a nice rhetoric trick to make your opponent look as if he is admitting defeat while only conceding one particular point you yourself have led them towards - this makes it look as if he could have no *other* better reason whatsoever for his belief.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Delicate, are you really not tired of repeating the same lie, over and again?

Most of the board members here are former Christians, and we understand the religion quite well, especially now that we're on the outside looking back at the reasons we once chose to believe. I would suggest, then, that it is you who fails to understand, because you blind yourself with the culture and thought-limitations imposed by any system of belief.

Atheism has no system of belief; it is the absence of a belief. You too are an atheist, with regard to all the other religions that we also don't believe in (e.g. Islam), and that lack of faith in the other religions is not a thing, for you, either. How hard is this to understand?

It is true that, as atheists, there are things we commonly accept, such as the findings of science, because we have no preset reason to reject those findings as tentatively true, and we believe them only to the degree that they are actually proved (or suspected of being true, based on inferences from data, a much lower level of acceptance... an example would be Dark Matter/Energy). But we do not have leaders, or even a true group identity-- we are as likely to disagree on every other subject as we are with you.

The one thing we do agree on is that your ideas about God are as transparent and false as all those other religions you already reject. You just can't see that the same thing applies to your own, and the mental programming you have installed on your operating system protects itself by keeping you from seeing it. One day, you may gain a greater understanding, as we did when we left Christianity behind.

You should also really work harder at not trying to tell us that faith is knowledge, when it is already defined in Hebrews 11:1 as "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." In other words, you simply believe it's a fact even though it's not detectable, and is actually just the product of your hope. That's pretty much the definition of imaginary.

In the meantime, by all means, keep insisting that it is we who have a lack of understanding. I'd be curious to know what part of Christianity you think I (and most of us here) fail to grasp. Vicarious atonement? Original (and heritable) sin?