Here's a Link to My Interview on The Narrow Mind
Link here. Pastor Gene was respectful, professional, and intelligent. His assumptions make him say bizzare things, though. Anyone who wants to comment one way or another, can do so here. I sure said "Uh" a lot. I know better than that.
After hearing it just now, I realized there were some statements Gene made that I could've jumped on that I didn't. I probably misunderstood Gene and Paul a couple of times, too. It's tough being in the heat of battle. It's also really strange that I didn't realize Paul Manata and I were talking at the same time, again. But I hope I got some of my points though.
What I wanted to convey was that when it comes to explaining why something--anything--exists, we all run into improbable absurdities, so Christians have a misplaced confidence level when they think our arguments are silly. Such a confidence level reminds me of Holocaust deniers and Muslim suicide bombers. It's their confidence level that I think is silly. I ask them questions that I think are tough and they turn around and riddicule those questions. That's what I vehemently object to! I also wanted to convey that history is a very poor medium for God to reveal himself, if he exists, because all of us judge history from our present experience--all of us! Lastly, when it comes to the arguments of Christians who think it's absurd that we use logic and act on our moral notions without an ultimate foundation, that those same types of arguments can be leveled at their God, if he exists. Did God create the laws of logic and morality, or does he have to abide by a logic and morality he didn't create? Can he, as a spirit, move a material object? How? Can he think? Thinking demands weighing temporal alternatives. Is he free to choose his nature? How could he have decided who he would be if he always and forever had his nature?
I wasn't trying to convince them their world-view was wrong so much as I was trying to show that the atheist arguments are not silly. If I could just get them to admit that, then it was worth the effort. If they would just admit this we could have a decent, civil and respectful discussion. My point wasn't that their position alone is absurd, but that both sides of this debate start with brute facts which cannot be sufficiently and totally explained. They won't admit this because they need to be confident, hopeful, and full of faith to please their God, who who will reward them because of their faith.
People mention the title to this blog as if I am hostile to Christianity. If I am hostile to anything, I am hostile to the attitudes of Christians who would treat atheists like me with disrespect, distain, and laughter. The Blog title is to attract attention, and that's its main function. And yes, I do think Christianity is false for so many reasons. But I have always wanted to have a respectful discussion, as much as possible. It appears that the only way this can be done is to help them see that they do not have a corner on the truth. But I probably argued in vain....
After hearing it just now, I realized there were some statements Gene made that I could've jumped on that I didn't. I probably misunderstood Gene and Paul a couple of times, too. It's tough being in the heat of battle. It's also really strange that I didn't realize Paul Manata and I were talking at the same time, again. But I hope I got some of my points though.
What I wanted to convey was that when it comes to explaining why something--anything--exists, we all run into improbable absurdities, so Christians have a misplaced confidence level when they think our arguments are silly. Such a confidence level reminds me of Holocaust deniers and Muslim suicide bombers. It's their confidence level that I think is silly. I ask them questions that I think are tough and they turn around and riddicule those questions. That's what I vehemently object to! I also wanted to convey that history is a very poor medium for God to reveal himself, if he exists, because all of us judge history from our present experience--all of us! Lastly, when it comes to the arguments of Christians who think it's absurd that we use logic and act on our moral notions without an ultimate foundation, that those same types of arguments can be leveled at their God, if he exists. Did God create the laws of logic and morality, or does he have to abide by a logic and morality he didn't create? Can he, as a spirit, move a material object? How? Can he think? Thinking demands weighing temporal alternatives. Is he free to choose his nature? How could he have decided who he would be if he always and forever had his nature?
I wasn't trying to convince them their world-view was wrong so much as I was trying to show that the atheist arguments are not silly. If I could just get them to admit that, then it was worth the effort. If they would just admit this we could have a decent, civil and respectful discussion. My point wasn't that their position alone is absurd, but that both sides of this debate start with brute facts which cannot be sufficiently and totally explained. They won't admit this because they need to be confident, hopeful, and full of faith to please their God, who who will reward them because of their faith.
People mention the title to this blog as if I am hostile to Christianity. If I am hostile to anything, I am hostile to the attitudes of Christians who would treat atheists like me with disrespect, distain, and laughter. The Blog title is to attract attention, and that's its main function. And yes, I do think Christianity is false for so many reasons. But I have always wanted to have a respectful discussion, as much as possible. It appears that the only way this can be done is to help them see that they do not have a corner on the truth. But I probably argued in vain....