Honest Christian

[theatheistguy]

[You missed the word "stupid" didn't you? :lol:

You can object to a name calling thread without joining in. If you call it a STUPID name calling thread, you're joining in on the name calling.

Tell me, Neo-Nazi's come onto your streets ranting and raving about getting rid of the Jews and other ethnic minorities, do you sit at the side and shake your head or do you call them what they are, Nazi's, racists and fascists and any other term that may spring to mind? In the same vein, this was a ignorant topic, poorly explained, in fact not at all, and a justifiable response is to call it stupid.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Tell me, Neo-Nazi's come onto your streets ranting and raving about getting rid of the Jews and other ethnic minorities, do you sit at the side and shake your head or do you call them what they are, Nazi's, racists and fascists and any other term that may spring to mind? In the same vein, this was a ignorant topic, poorly explained, in fact not at all, and a justifiable response is to call it stupid.

I'm not taking a side on whether or not this thread is "stupid" as much as pointing out the silliness of calling a thread a name while complaining about name calling. That's it. It would be like holding a "no more protests" protest.

 

[Zylstra]

If you mean honest in relation to their beliefs, I don't believe I have. Often I find people who claim to question what they believe, but evidently don't.

Like War Ranted forums?

 

[TheFearmonger]

A lot of christians I know are fundamentalists, so maybe not the most qualified speaker here,... but, most of them try to be honest. We all have things in our closets, and if I learned anything from christianity, it's that no one is perfect. But yeah, most lie in a debate, but not knowingly. Hovind, behe, ham, comfort are all exceptions, and infact are so because they are the ones who propagate the skydaddy myth. Most truly believe what they are telling you, even if it is obvious they are wrong.

 

[borrofburi]

A lot of christians I know are fundamentalists, so maybe not the most qualified speaker here,... but, most of them try to be honest. We all have things in our closets, and if I learned anything from christianity, it's that no one is perfect. But yeah, most lie in a debate, but not knowingly. Hovind, behe, ham, comfort are all exceptions, and infact are so because they are the ones who propagate the skydaddy myth. Most truly believe what they are telling you, even if it is obvious they are wrong.

This is, from my experience, generally correct. Again, like I said, most honest christians won't choose to engage in a debate (and if they do, it's likely they will not be christians for long), but that is not at all the same thing as there being no honest christians.

I should note, that the definition of honest I am using above includes honesty with self. Mental gymnastics would not be included in the definition I used above. If mental gymnastics is included, I've met a few honest christians in debate, they say false things and commit stupid feats of irrationality, but they are not, ultimately, liars, they are, ultimately, honest but irrational.

 

[dr_esteban]

A lot of christians I know are fundamentalists, so maybe not the most qualified speaker here,... but, most of them try to be honest. We all have things in our closets, and if I learned anything from christianity, it's that no one is perfect. But yeah, most lie in a debate, but not knowingly. Hovind, behe, ham, comfort are all exceptions, and infact are so because they are the ones who propagate the skydaddy myth. Most truly believe what they are telling you, even if it is obvious they are wrong.

This is, from my experience, generally correct. Again, like I said, most honest christians won't choose to engage in a debate (and if they do, it's likely they will not be christians for long), but that is not at all the same thing as there being no honest christians.

I should note, that the definition of honest I am using above includes honesty with self. Mental gymnastics would not be included in the definition I used above. If mental gymnastics is included, I've met a few honest christians in debate, they say false things and commit stupid feats of irrationality, but they are not, ultimately, liars, they are, ultimately, honest but irrational.

This exactly

I just don't see how threads like this are helpful as they demonise the religious in the same way that the religious do to others. It almost falls into the cult way of thinking that all those that think differently are automatically liars and therefore cannot be trusted.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I just don't see how threads like this are helpful as they demonise the religious in the same way that the religious do to others. It almost falls into the cult way of thinking that all those that think differently are automatically liars and therefore cannot be trusted.

Well, if they ARE lying, they it isn't unfair to say so. It is also wrong to describe what we are saying as being based on the fact that they "think differently."

For instance, I disagree with you. You are "thinking differently" from me, and yet I am magically not calling you a liar. I just think you're wrong.

 

[dr_esteban]

I just don't see how threads like this are helpful as they demonise the religious in the same way that the religious do to others. It almost falls into the cult way of thinking that all those that think differently are automatically liars and therefore cannot be trusted.

Well, if they ARE lying, they it isn't unfair to say so. It is also wrong to describe what we are saying as being based on the fact that they "think differently."

For instance, I disagree with you. You are "thinking differently" from me, and yet I am magically not calling you a liar. I just think you're wrong.

yes but in that way of thinking I am part of your "cult" and therefore not part subject to the automatic branding as a liar.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

yes but in that way of thinking I am part of your "cult" and therefore not part subject to the automatic branding as a liar.

I don't even know you... you could be a SPY!

Seriously, though... the sort of dishonesty I referenced earlier is self-deception, which doesn't necessarily mean that someone cannot be trusted about anything ever. I had a friend for years and years who was always honest and trustworthy with me, but he also cheated on his girlfriend. I could trust him with my car or my wallet, but if I had a sister I wouldn't have let her be in the same building as him.

I say that "professional" Christians are all liars, and the "flock" is engaged in self-deception and intellectual dishonesty. That doesn't mean they would steal my car or lie to me about anything else. What you're trying to do is say that we're doing what Ray Comfort does with his whole "if you've ever lied, you're a liar" nonsense.

 

[borrofburi]

the "flock" is engaged in self-deception and intellectual dishonesty.

I think even this sweeping generalization is inaccurate; I've met truly honest christians who were well indoctrinated when young and dislike debate so they never really hear the challenges to what they believe. They are neither deceiving themselves nor intellectually dishonest, just uninformed and unaware of their own lack of understanding.

 

[Zylstra]

A lot of christians I know are fundamentalists, so maybe not the most qualified speaker here,... but, most of them try to be honest. We all have things in our closets, and if I learned anything from christianity, it's that no one is perfect. But yeah, most lie in a debate, but not knowingly. Hovind, behe, ham, comfort are all exceptions, and infact are so because they are the ones who propagate the skydaddy myth. Most truly believe what they are telling you, even if it is obvious they are wrong.

This is, from my experience, generally correct. Again, like I said, most honest christians won't choose to engage in a debate (and if they do, it's likely they will not be christians for long), but that is not at all the same thing as there being no honest christians.

I should note, that the definition of honest I am using above includes honesty with self. Mental gymnastics would not be included in the definition I used above. If mental gymnastics is included, I've met a few honest christians in debate, they say false things and commit stupid feats of irrationality, but they are not, ultimately, liars, they are, ultimately, honest but irrational.

So in other words, they're so inherently dishonest they won't even admit to themselves how stupid they must realize they sound?

 

[Zylstra]

the "flock" is engaged in self-deception and intellectual dishonesty.

I think even this sweeping generalization is inaccurate; I've met truly honest christians who were well indoctrinated when young and dislike debate so they never really hear the challenges to what they believe. They are neither deceiving themselves nor intellectually dishonest, just uninformed and unaware of their own lack of understanding.

It's near impossible to exist in a civilized nation and not be aware of atleast some common refutations, even if it's just 'there's zero evidence'

 

[Dusty341]

Anyone ever met one? Is it an oxymoron?

I have never met a Christian that didn't think of themselves as honest. Guess it all depends on the perspective. No Christian would think of themselves as being dishonest for fudging a few facts to make their points. It's all for the greater good.

 

[borrofburi]

I should note, that the definition of honest I am using above includes honesty with self. Mental gymnastics would not be included in the definition I used above. If mental gymnastics is included, I've met a few honest christians in debate, they say false things and commit stupid feats of irrationality, but they are not, ultimately, liars, they are, ultimately, honest but irrational.

So in other words, they're so inherently dishonest they won't even admit to themselves how stupid they must realize they sound?

I think to label the mental gymnasts as dishonest is incorrect, and can only be done so with such a watered down definition of "dishonest" as to make it apply to 99.99% of all people, and, effectively, useless. Mostly, they simply don't realize they sound stupid because they don't realize their lack of logic; they're simply bad at critical thinking and victims of the dunning-kruger effect, to call them dishonest over that is just silly.

I think even this sweeping generalization is inaccurate; I've met truly honest christians who were well indoctrinated when young and dislike debate so they never really hear the challenges to what they believe. They are neither deceiving themselves nor intellectually dishonest, just uninformed and unaware of their own lack of understanding.

It's near impossible to exist in a civilized nation and not be aware of atleast some common refutations, even if it's just 'there's zero evidence'

This is just plain incorrect. Or you could say the USA is not civilized... One of the two (though to do the latter requires a poor definition of "civilized"). Either way, I lived for many years without having my "faith" challenged at all (at the very least, not in any meaningful manner), and indeed only eventually did when I purposefully sought out debate (because I like to argue). While anecdote is not acceptable large scale evidence, it certainly does serve to dismiss absolute statements like "it's near impossible"; I certainly did not have a secluded childhood, and the people around where I grew up weren't all fundies (they were all really normal people), and yet I made it all the way into college before I met any "refutations", and even then I only did so because I actively sought them out.



As far as "zero evidence" as a refutation: it doesn't work. Namely, you will never give a christian pause with that statement because they simply see it as false. It'd be like me telling you there's zero evidence you're capable of reading, you simply would just dismiss it as stupid and not bother to truly think it through, because it's so obviously false (indeed a significant part of my "deconversion" was because I honestly wanted to refute "atheists", so I had to pretend I was a skeptic and convince my skeptical self (and I knew personal experience and anecdote wouldn't count); indeed I am strongly of the opinion that you will never convince anyone unless you first understand them, this goes for us needing to understand christians).

If you want a christian to engage "zero evidence", you have to do so as "I have seen zero evidence" and never as "you have zero evidence to believe what you believe", otherwise anecdote and personal "feeling" and "I just know' count as evidence in their minds and their minds will be perfectly at ease with those answers; if you can truly get them to try to convince you and see that their anecdotes and their feelings and their "I just know" don't count as evidence, you will have got them to engage the "zero evidence" idea for (likely) the first time in their lives.

 

[Nogre]

It's near impossible to exist in a civilized nation and not be aware of atleast some common refutations, even if it's just 'there's zero evidence'

I agree with borrofburi here. It's certainly not impossible, especially where extreme tolerance is a social norm, as it is where I live. I feel very strongly about this issue and discuss it a lot online, but I probably would never be very aggressive about it in my day-to-day life, because it'd make me a social outcast. Basically, questioning any religion but Islam is frowned upon more than anything else. Of course, whether this respect is extended to disbelief depends on the person... But people here are even more indoctrinated with "respect religion and faith, just because it's faith" than they are with their individual religions, and the result is never having your beliefs challenged. :facepalm:

 

[Jiminy Jankenship]

I live close to Liberty University; a Christian college founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. My beliefs being different than the majority of the students at Liberty (or at least the students with which Liberty represents itself in the the media), I have talked and debated with Christians believing a multitude of varying "flavors" of Christianity. Most of them are relatively limited, as expected from current Christian institutions. I have realized that the majority of these students think themselves to be more intelligent and informed about topics regarding their religion and its implications. However, they know very little about the religion itself. While this seem like an oxymoron, what I mean to say is that they practice debate tactics and study things like apologetics. Although they can seemingly explain away aspects of accepted science, they cannot justify irregularities within their own religious text. People like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron pitch this "common sense" Christianity as a way to counteract things that I am unsure if they are actually capable of understanding. The true dishonesty is held by people, like the aforementioned examples, that through their own dishonesty lead others to lie to themselves and to society. While I try to treat everyone as an intelligent individual that can make their own decisions regarding religion, I find it is very hard to reason with sheep.







"Intellectual growth should commence at birth and cease only at death" Einstein

 

[borrofburi]

Although they can seemingly explain away aspects of accepted science, they cannot justify irregularities within their own religious text.

Oh they very much can explain their own texts, at the very least, to their own satisfaction. That they fail to explain them to your satisfaction is immaterial to them, they simply don't care: it's just proof of your own closed-mindedness or tenacious rejection of the truth. The problem here is a lack of empathy, on both sides: you fail to understand them and why they think they are successful, and they utterly and entirely fail to understand why their "explanations" are entirely insufficient for anyone who doesn't already agree with them.

The true dishonesty is held by people, like the aforementioned examples, that through their own dishonesty lead others to lie to themselves and to society.

Again, I don't think the "others" or the "sheep" lie to themselves nor to society; do they say stupid irrational things that fail critical evaluation? Absolutely, but they honestly and truly think what they're saying is valid. Stupidity does not equate to dishonesty (stupidity/ignorance/idiocy/lack-of-goodqualityhere, whatever you want to call it, is not dishonesty).

While I try to treat everyone as an intelligent individual that can make their own decisions regarding religion, I find it is very hard to reason with sheep.

Use the socratic method to try to get them to think... I dunno, basically you're try to get them to use critical thinking on their own religion, it's a very very tricky and difficult thing to do (especially when some don't posses critical thinking skills).

I have realized that the majority of these students think themselves to be more intelligent and informed about topics regarding their religion and its implications. However, they know very little about the religion itself. While this seem like an oxymoron ... People like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron pitch this "common sense" Christianity as a way to counteract things that I am unsure if they are actually capable of understanding.

Err, it's not that weird actually, it's a well known effect named after dunning-kruger:

Of course the scary thing about this is that *you* might be the one who's incompetent and doesn't even know it...

 

[Nightmare060]

This all depends on what they are being honest about, and what you define as honest.

Somone like Geerup is honest about his belifes, but a liar when it comes to facts and reality.

On the other hand, somone like Djarm is honest about his christian faith, yet is also honest enough to admit it's a personal belife and is totaly honest about all scientific facts!

And then there are those in the middle who accept science, are honest about their faith but don't realy discuss their faith very much. Instead, they prefer to focus on other things in life to get along with people and so are the sorts of people that you wouldn't know were christian unless they told you.

Thus, Honest christians do exist, and actualy could be considerd to be in the majoraty. Keep in mind, we as a free thinking comunity tend to listen to the loudest voices the most, and so we often tend to overlook average joe christian who doesn't try and enforce things like Prop 8 or Inteligent Design.

 

[Wayne]

When you get to the part where he is being honest you will know. :facepalm:

 

[DeistPaladin]

I'll never forget a Christian former-friend who read the draft of my book. I asked him if there were any points he'd argue, trying to anticipate counter-arguments. He had nothing to offer. So I asked him if he was still a Christian. He said "yes". Confused, I asked him why. He said he "found no comfort" in deism.

One can understand how Nature's God seems cold and distant next to the personal love of Jesus (Nature's God aint gonna carry you on the beach) but it was so odd how candid he was about his rationalizations.

At least he was honest with me about the way he lies to himself. 0_o