Scrutinizing Street Epistemology and Street Evangelism

2PhiloVoid · Sep 9, 2017

Non sequitur said:
I'd say it wouldn't matter and I don't see anything "wrong" with his questions or "mode of questioning".

I can empathize with some of your thought on this. However, the problem is that different frameworks and/or theories involving epistemology can harbor a variety of axiomatic assumptions, as well as various expectations for justification of ideas, arguments, etc. So, it kind of does matter as to what epistemological structure is “assumed” from the outset, i.e. whether it is Foundationalism or some other '-ism,' among other things.

I'm pretty sure that Tia, the young woman in the video, had little to no idea about how epistemology played into the overall interlocution she was involved in with Reid, the SE.

Not liking the results of questions, doesn't necessarily equate to them being poorly formed.

Right, but neither does 'liking' them necessarily equate to them being cogent and satisfactory.

As opposed to talking about hypothetical scenarios and discussing the discussion, can you give an example of a question he asked and how should could have responded "better"?

You may need to clarify your question. Are you wanting to know what I think Tia could have said in response to some particular question of my choosing which Reid posed?

eider · Sep 10, 2017

2PhiloVoid said:
For those of you who may not have heard, there's a more socially incisive method being used by [some] atheists these past few years in their attempt to deconvert people from religion (or from Christian faith specifically). It's called Street Epistemology, and it's the atheist's answer to Street Evangelism often promoted by various evangelical Christians.

Please see the next post........ thankyou.

eider · Sep 10, 2017

2PhiloVoid said:
For those of you who may not have heard, there's a more socially incisive method being used by [some] atheists these past few years in their attempt to deconvert people from religion (or from Christian faith specifically). It's called Street Epistemology, and it's the atheist's answer to Street Evangelism often promoted by various evangelical Christians.

Hi....... Epistomology is really all about 'being a perfect example' about any tenet, religion or culture, so if atheists have hijacked the word then that's sad.

Needless to say, the conversations which transpire during these casual public encounters involve mostly common people, but they are interesting to listen to even if they're obviously not as entrenched or academically inclined as are debates between professionals.

Of course most street conversations will be held with ordinary folks. I wouldn't use the word common because it suggests some kind of elitism? And..... Professionals? The trouble with pros is that they mostly have an agenda, such as protecting a comfy income.......... Ordinary folks produce a much more accurate survey result, imo.

As the video proceeds along, the atheist seems to gain the upper hand, but it also seems that mistakes in rational thinking are made on both sides of the conversation.

You cannot gain an upperhand by asking questions. It is the respondent's failing answers that have the affect.

What errors or false assumptions might characterize the atheist's mode of questioning?

The atheist was simply asking questions. He didn't assume anything, he just asked questions.

Is all of this a waste of time? What's good about this kind of encounter? What's bad about it? Then DISCUSS your evaluation of this Street Epistemology encounter:
Peace,
2PhiloVoid

In the three minutes that I watched, the young woman answered that God was 'love' and that Christianity was positive, etc without once explaining what Christianity is. As a proof (for her) she mentioned that the Babel Tower had been found so that was proof. When asked if it would affect her faith if it had not been found she answered 'No'.

From those first three minutes it looked as if this young woman did not have a clue about Jesus, his mission or his Covenant. She is what I would call a 'Small C Christian'. By that I mean that some people believe that it's nice and socially proper to be seen as Christian, without actually being very deep in the faith.

I'll bet that atheist knew in intimate detail about the life and Mission of Jesus, he just does not believe in it.

Adstar · Sep 10, 2017

Non sequitur said:
Disagreements about claims of gods, not with gods.

I find that the vast majority of atheists disagree with God's will as revealed in the Bible.And from that they claim to disbelieve Gods existence. I find very few who base their disbelief on non scriptural reasons.. Indeed the most vocal and passionate atheists are ex-Christians who where born into Christian families and came to hate the message of God.. Most ardent atheists are former believers in the existence of God..

2PhiloVoid · Sep 10, 2017

eider said:
Hi....... Epistomology is really all about 'being a perfect example' about any tenet, religion or culture, so if atheists have hijacked the word then that's sad.

Hello, eider. As a degreed student of philosophy, I wouldn't say that epistemology is all about being a perfect example. Rather, it has to do with how we construct and justify our claims of having knowledge. And I wouldn't really say that atheists have 'hijacked' the word as much as that these particular atheists--the Street Epistemologists--have over represented their own Foundationalist position on knowledge, especially as it pertains to the area of religious belief.

However, if I understand what you're attempting to tell me here, your idea about "being a perfect example" is still important, but it would probably fit better under another category of philosophy called Axiology rather than Epistemology.

Anyway, don't worry, I won't hold this against you. If you really meant to say that epistemology, as you see it, has something to do with having an ideal structure for justifying one's claims to knowledge--if this is what you meant--then please accept my apologies. It's just that I'm an Epistemological Relativist, and I don't see any epistemological position as "ideal."

Of course most street conversations will be held with ordinary folks. I wouldn't use the word common because it suggests some kind of elitism? And..... Professionals? The trouble with pros is that they mostly have an agenda, such as protecting a comfy income.......... Ordinary folks produce a much more accurate survey result, imo.

I see what you mean. The way in which I said this could be taken as elitist. However, I myself am not a professional, I'm an "ordinary folk" as well. I don't run any organizations or any websites, nor am I published. I'm just a regular 'joe' who still happens to be degreed. So, I'm sorry if people take my language as elitist, but it's not intended to be. What I really mean to convey by what I've said is for those who read my OP to understand that Street Epistemology is something undertaken by 'common people' on both sides who are not necessarily professionals, and it is unlikely that those whom the Street Epistemologists select to post on youtube in video format are the William Lane Craig's of society. In other words, those who are encountered and recorded are typical people, thinking typical things, with typical levels of proficiency, like most of us.

And as you've said, this can offer a better survey of where people 'are at' in this kind of interaction.

You cannot gain an upperhand by asking questions. It is the respondent's failing answers that have the affect.

Actually, I believe you very well can gain the upper hand by applying questions when they are framed in such a way as to bring about the epistemic incongruities that can reside in the thought processes of the average person, especially the average religious person. The problem is that the questioning itself typically goes unquestioned as to its epistemological framework. For instance, in the video I selected for the OP, it is very evident that Tia had little idea what epistemology was, how it works, or how to address it. She fell right into the Street Epistemologist's 'trap,' if you will.

The atheist was simply asking questions. He didn't assume anything, he just asked questions.

I can understand that you'd feel the need to say this from the perceptions you have, but there are background details that play into any Street Epistemologist's interaction on the streets as he (or she) walks around and casually takes up interaction with people about religious type belief.

In the three minutes that I watched, the young woman answered that God was 'love' and that Christianity was positive, etc without once explaining what Christianity is. As a proof (for her) she mentioned that the Babel Tower had been found so that was proof. When asked if it would affect her faith if it had not been found she answered 'No'.

Good point. Despite the fact that she 'said' she had taken bible classes, she wasn't really prepared for the application of the epistemological inquiry that was plied to her. She apparently didn't have a "Morpheus" to help her out as she interacted in "the Matrix"...............

From those first three minutes it looked as if this young woman did not have a clue about Jesus, his mission or his Covenant. She is what I would call a 'Small C Christian'. By that I mean that some people believe that it's nice and socially proper to be seen as Christian, without actually being very deep in the faith.

Yes, you're right. She was ill-prepared; however, I also think she didn't really understand the epistemological processes that were being directed at her and plied without her knowledge or consent. This last part wouldn't be her fault. In fact, it would show that Reid wasn't being transparent about his epistemological assumptions which frame his apparently "neutral" questions.

I'll bet that atheist knew in intimate detail about the life and Mission of Jesus, he just does not believe in it.

Oh, I'm sure you're right. And I'm sure Reid is a very intelligent guy.

Thank you for taking the time to comment on the OP, eider.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

RDKirk · Sep 10, 2017

HitchSlap said:
WTH are you even talking about?! Slaves didn't have to escape in the 1960's!

Halbhh said "total equal even full social equal, total equality." Legally, that didn't happen until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

eider · Sep 12, 2017

2PhiloVoid said:
Hello, eider.

Hello again, and thankyou for the time that you took to reply to my post.

As a degreed student of philosophy, I wouldn't say that epistemology is all about being a perfect example. Rather, it has to do with how we construct and justify our claims of having knowledge.

OK..... I have discovered that the more complex, sophisticated and intricate a process is, then more easily can the investigator become muddled and lost. I feel sure that for a degreed person in philosophy such as you, an epistomological approach to any belief or tenet would be productive and effective.
Presonally I would always view provenance of any claim, faith or tenet to simply be Evidence, that word reduced into degrees such as Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, Circumstancial etc etc
Some degrees of evidence are so faint that in disciplines such as archeology specialists may need to base their best professional estimates upon 'The balance of probabilities' , or possibilities, or even to fall back on the theory of 'Occams' Razor'
On the balance of probabilities both you and I would have given that atheist a most interesting 'question-answer' interview!

And I wouldn't really say that atheists have 'hijacked' the word as much as that these particular atheists--the Street Epistemologists--have over represented their own Foundationalist position on knowledge, especially as it pertains to the area of religious belief.

Of course.
All that young woman needed to do was stick to the basis of her particular Christian Creed, and she didn't.

Actually, I believe you very well can gain the upper hand by applying questions when they are framed in such a way as to bring about the epistemic incongruities that can reside in the thought processes of the average person, especially the average religious person.

For, a degreed philosoper versed in epistemology I feel sure you could pose questions to 'gain the upper hand', but a young law graduate seeking experience in questioning and polite cross-examination might be more effective? You see, a young defence lawyer has to learn how to draw answers that observers, juries or magistrates will take in, understand and build their own opinions upon.
That atheist could possibly have been a law student?

The problem is that the questioning itself typically goes unquestioned as to its epistemological framework. For instance, in the video I selected for the OP, it is very evident that Tia had little idea what epistemology was, how it works, or how to address it. She fell right into the Street Epistemologist's 'trap,' if you will.

She didn't need to understand anything about epistomology.... honestly. All she had to do was have a well founded faith, and if she didn't then she was 'sunk' as we would say here.

I can understand that you'd feel the need to say this from the perceptions you have, but there are background details that play into any Street Epistemologist's interaction on the streets as he (or she) walks around and casually takes up interaction with people about religious type belief.

I would surely love to observe and listen to such an atheist casually approach a JW elder! Now that would be a conversation! I mention this because I have debated with JWs for many years and they very rarely get stopped-dead.

Good point. Despite the fact that she 'said' she had taken bible classes, she wasn't really prepared for the application of the epistemological inquiry that was plied to her. She apparently didn't have a "Morpheus" to help her out as she interacted in "the Matrix
Yes, you're right. She was ill-prepared; however, I also think she didn't really understand the epistemological processes that were being directed at her and plied without her knowledge or consent. This last part wouldn't be her fault. In fact, it would show that Reid wasn't being transparent about his epistemological assumptions which frame his apparently "neutral" questions.

I would still think much more clearly about the subject in terms of question-answer-sequence and polite cross-examination. But that's me and my past.

Oh, I'm sure you're right. And I'm sure Reid is a very intelligent guy.

Thank you for taking the time to comment on the OP, eider.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

No Probs.....

quatona · Sep 13, 2017

2PhiloVoid said:
For those of you who may not have heard, there's a more socially incisive method being used by [some] atheists these past few years in their attempt to deconvert people from religion (or from Christian faith specifically). It's called Street Epistemology, and it's the atheist's answer to Street Evangelism often promoted by various evangelical Christians.

Needless to say, the conversations which transpire during these casual public encounters involve mostly common people, but they are interesting to listen to even if they're obviously not as entrenched or academically inclined as are debates between professionals.

In the particular *11 minute* video posted below, a fairly clear example of Street Epistemology is presented wherein, Reid, a cool, calm and collected atheist, delivers sustained questioning to a fairly young Christian woman by the name of Tia. Tia's demeanor is cheerful and peppy, and she appears somewhat confident even if maybe a just a bit nervous while giving her 'defense' of Christian faith.

As the video proceeds along, the atheist seems to gain the upper hand, but it also seems that mistakes in rational thinking are made on both sides of the conversation. As you listen in, let your own assessment of both persons spur your evaluation of how well you think each of them does in the overall discussion. What mistakes does she make in her thinking? What errors or false assumptions might characterize the atheist's mode of questioning? Is all of this a waste of time? What's good about this kind of encounter? What's bad about it? Then DISCUSS your evaluation of this Street Epistemology encounter:

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Interesting.
Couple of thoughts:
- To me, this doesn´t seem to be a discussion (so I don´t feel thinking in terms of "upper hand" applies here. It´s more like one person helping another finding out about her epistemological criteria by asking her question.
- It didn´t seem to matter much if the guy was an atheist or not. One would expect everyone to ask these sort of questions to themselves and others.
- It´s unfortunate that the girl hadn´t really put much thought into this before - so that she couldn´t come up with a consistent approach. (I felt a little bad for her when she had to consult her book in order to find out what she thinks.)
- Personally, if someone asked me about my metaphysical beliefs/faith, I´d go about it completely different than her. Maybe that´s because I believe differently than her.

I wish that the conversations here on CF would be as open and friendly as this one.

2PhiloVoid · Sep 14, 2017

Hey, quatona--I haven't heard from you in a while. I hope things are going well for you!

quatona said:
Interesting.
Couple of thoughts:
- To me, this doesn´t seem to be a discussion (so I don´t feel thinking in terms of "upper hand" applies here. It´s more like one person helping another finding out about her epistemological criteria by asking her question.

To some extent I agree. What the Street Epistemologists are 'presenting' to random people is an opportunity for interlocution, but they direct the conversation in a Socratic type way. They also do it with the specific purpose of undermining people's religious type beliefs, whether Christian or otherwise.

- It didn´t seem to matter much if the guy was an atheist or not. One would expect everyone to ask these sort of questions to themselves and others.

Sure. There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but on my part, I'm not much of uni-lateral conversation where I get asked all the questions and there isn't opportunity for me to ask similarly directed questions in return. For instance, if I was in Tia's position (i.e. the gal in the OP video), I'd be asking Reid, "Hey, what's your operative epistemological framework?"

- It´s unfortunate that the girl hadn´t really put much thought into this before - so that she couldn´t come up with a consistent approach. (I felt a little bad for her when she had to consult her book in order to find out what she thinks.)

You're right, it is unfortunate for her. But, in the US, her level of preparedness is typical. Christians don't really study Philosophy Proper, and if they touch it at all, they many times only do so through Christian Apologetics which is more like a philosophical half-way house; they're on the right path, but they haven't really reached the intended destination yet.

- Personally, if someone asked me about my metaphysical beliefs/faith, I´d go about it completely different than her. Maybe that´s because I believe differently than her.

Well............of course you'd go about it completely different.

You probably not only believe differently than her, but you also are probably a bit more "in the know" than her, too, quatona.

I wish that the conversations here on CF would be as open and friendly as this one.

...yeah, it would be nice.

Thanks for the comments!
2PhiloVoid

quatona · Sep 14, 2017

2PhiloVoid said:
Hey, quatona--I haven't heard from you in a while. I hope things are going well for you!

Yeah, life is pretty good to me.

I hope you get a lot of joy and inspiration, too.

To some extent I agree. What the Street Epistemologists are 'presenting' to random people is an opportunity for interlocution, but they direct the conversation in a Socratic type way. They also do it with the specific purpose of undermining people's religious type beliefs, whether Christian or otherwise.

Yes, it may have been his purpose, but I don´t think that really showed.
Personally, I tend more and more towards the notion that faith and doubt don´t interact, don´t communicate - they are two entirely different operational modes. I found this notion somewhat confirmed in the video: Even though the girl seemed pretty couldn´t come up with a consistent rational method/approach/framework (and she noticed that herself), this fact didn´t seem to worry her much.

Sure. There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but on my part, I'm not much of uni-lateral conversation where I get asked all the questions and there isn't opportunity for me to ask similarly directed questions in return.

Uhmm, I think I am quite flexible there: Sometimes I enjoy to be asked all the questions, sometimes I enjoy asking all the questions; but yes, an exchange suits me best, too.
I guess it all depends more on the purpose and attitude. Usually, I tend to establish some common ground first, before scrutinizing conclusions based on that common ground.

For instance, if I was in Tia's position (i.e. the gal in the OP video), I'd be asking Reid, "Hey, what's your operative epistemological framework?"

Yes, sure.

To me, it also seems important that different subjects may ask for different epistemological criteria.

2PhiloVoid · Sep 15, 2017

quatona said:
Yeah, life is pretty good to me.

That's great to hear! I suppose that being a musician has it's daily perks of inspiration all by itself...at least that's how my son seems to reflect his overall interest in music as a musician.

I hope you get a lot of joy and inspiration, too.

...oh, I get by fairly fine. If someone peeves me...I just grab a philosophy book or some Bee Gees music until all the bad feelings just flit away.

Yes, it may have been his purpose, but I don´t think that really showed.

I quite agree; he's got some composure, fur sur! That's impressive for an atheist....

Personally, I tend more and more towards the notion that faith and doubt don´t interact, don´t communicate - they are two entirely different operational modes. I found this notion somewhat confirmed in the video: Even though the girl seemed pretty couldn´t come up with a consistent rational method/approach/framework (and she noticed that herself), this fact didn´t seem to worry her much.

I'm sure that 'real' faith can only harbor just so much doubt within it confines, but sometimes (at least it has been the case in my experience), doubt provides the impetus for learning new things.

Uhmm, I think I am quite flexible there: Sometimes I enjoy to be asked all the questions, sometimes I enjoy asking all the questions; but yes, an exchange suits me best, too.
I guess it all depends more on the purpose and attitude. Usually, I tend to establish some common ground first, before scrutinizing conclusions based on that common ground.

Yes, you've always been good at that, I've noticed.

I wish all skeptics were a bit more like you.

Yes, sure.
To me, it also seems important that different subjects may ask for different epistemological criteria.

Yep, there's something to say for valuing some of the variety within our respective epistemic frameworks.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

quatona · Sep 16, 2017

2PhiloVoid said:
That's great to hear! I suppose that being a musician has it's daily perks of inspiration all by itself...at least that's how my son seems to reflect his overall interest in music as a musician.

Yes, it´s a great privilege, and so is teaching and being around children and junveniles...

I'm sure that 'real' faith can only harbor just so much doubt within it confines, but sometimes (at least it has been the case in my experience), doubt provides the impetus for learning new things.

Uhmm, yes. I guess it´s hard to explain what I meant: Of course, doubt and faith can co-exist, but they don´t interact with each other (in my experience). They are two different modi operandi that have no common "language". Just like, say, playing music and reasoning.
Personally, I notice that faith gets to play an ever greater role in the important areas of my life, whereas the modus operandi of doubt appears to get me nowhere.

Yes, you've always been good at that, I've noticed. I wish all skeptics were a bit more like you.

I wouldn´t identify myself as a skeptic (for the very reason I described above). Doesn´t mean that I have to have faith in each and every idea out there.

2PhiloVoid · Sep 16, 2017

quatona said:
Yes, it´s a great privilege, and so is teaching and being around children and junveniles...

Because I know you care about your subject (i.e. music) and you care about your students, I'm confident that you're a teacher whom many earnestly appreciate and respect.

Uhmm, yes. I guess it´s hard to explain what I meant: Of course, doubt and faith can co-exist, but they don´t interact with each other (in my experience). They are two different modi operandi that have no common "language". Just like, say, playing music and reasoning.
Personally, I notice that faith gets to play an ever greater role in the important areas of my life, whereas the modus operandi of doubt appears to get me nowhere.

I guess we'll just have to say that faith and doubt are subject to our individual conceptions and experiences, because I see things a little differently. Amidst my 30 years of religious faith, I've had many existential doubts regarding religion, both in feeling and outlook, but rather than tearing my faith apart, I found that this cognitive tension more often than not motivated me to explore new configurations of thought or to move beyond the bounds of what I had previously understood.

But, I think I also understand what you're saying. At least I hope I do. Maybe we want to categorize a very robust religious Faith as a concept identified by it's cognitive and emotional solidity and likewise, a robust Doubt (rather than sheer inquisitiveness) as another concept also identified by it's cognitive/emotional solidity. In such a case, you're probably right these are mutually exclusive, or mostly so. However, even with this in mind, I guess I'm still left wondering: Is the experience of Doubt the same for everyone?

I wouldn´t identify myself as a skeptic (for the very reason I described above). Doesn´t mean that I have to have faith in each and every idea out there.

.... no, and I wouldn't expect you to be gullible. All of which is probably a very good thing, too.

2PhiloVoid · Sep 20, 2017

eider said:
Hello again, and thankyou for the time that you took to reply to my post.

You're welcome.

OK..... I have discovered that the more complex, sophisticated and intricate a process is, then more easily can the investigator become muddled and lost. I feel sure that for a degreed person in philosophy such as you, an epistomological approach to any belief or tenet would be productive and effective.

Actually, my viewpoint on epistemology would hold that you're quite right about the possibilities of muddle and being lost amid the details.

Presonally I would always view provenance of any claim, faith or tenet to simply be Evidence, that word reduced into degrees such as Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, Circumstancial etc etc
Some degrees of evidence are so faint that in disciplines such as archeology specialists may need to base their best professional estimates upon 'The balance of probabilities' , or possibilities, or even to fall back on the theory of 'Occams' Razor'

And you're free to hold that viewpoint, which is in and of itself one epistemological viewpoint. Unfortunately, no viewpoint is without foibles.

On the balance of probabilities both you and I would have given that atheist a most interesting 'question-answer' interview!

I'm sure that both of us could and would.

Of course.
All that young woman needed to do was stick to the basis of her particular Christian Creed, and she didn't.

Oh....personally, I don't know that it is "enough" to stick to a particular Creed or even to the Bible itself if one wants to invite another person into the position of placing faith in Christ. There are some other, additional considerations, some of which the SE in the video hit upon with the young lady. However, a Christian Creed is always an excellent place to start in getting one's orientation as to what Christianity 'is'.

For, a degreed philosoper versed in epistemology I feel sure you could pose questions to 'gain the upper hand', but a young law graduate seeking experience in questioning and polite cross-examination might be more effective? You see, a young defence lawyer has to learn how to draw answers that observers, juries or magistrates will take in, understand and build their own opinions upon.
That atheist could possibly have been a law student?

...I'm sure I could turn the tables, but that is assuming that the SE's format is one that accommodates such turnabout. I'm under the impression that it is "his show," and he'll be "directing" it as he sees fit.

She didn't need to understand anything about epistomology.... honestly. All she had to do was have a well founded faith, and if she didn't then she was 'sunk' as we would say here.

Well, it is one thing to believe and have faith in God on a personal level---and in that context, I'm sure the Lord looks down as says, "Child, I love you even though you don't know the whole Truth about everything." But, in the context of inviting someone to come to believe in Christ, that other person may feel they need more specifics that address their emotionally felt needs and perceptions. And everyone is different on in this; no two people will have the same epistemological requirements, even if they say they do.

I would surely love to observe and listen to such an atheist casually approach a JW elder! Now that would be a conversation! I mention this because I have debated with JWs for many years and they very rarely get stopped-dead.

Yeah, that would be interesting, assuming the JW gives one the chance to be heard. Many times, they are taught to just 'walk away' from any counter arguments.

I would still think much more clearly about the subject in terms of question-answer-sequence and polite cross-examination. But that's me and my past.
No Probs.....

I think terms similar to yours on this....but I'd just want it to go both ways rather than one way.

Thanks again for your response.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

ShamashUruk · Sep 22, 2017

2PhiloVoid said:
For those of you who may not have heard, there's a more socially incisive method being used by [some] atheists these past few years in their attempt to deconvert people from religion (or from Christian faith specifically). It's called Street Epistemology, and it's the atheist's answer to Street Evangelism often promoted by various evangelical Christians.

Needless to say, the conversations which transpire during these casual public encounters involve mostly common people, but they are interesting to listen to even if they're obviously not as entrenched or academically inclined as are debates between professionals.

In the particular *11 minute* video posted below, a fairly clear example of Street Epistemology is presented wherein, Reid, a cool, calm and collected atheist, delivers sustained questioning to a fairly young Christian woman by the name of Tia. Tia's demeanor is cheerful and peppy, and she appears somewhat confident even if maybe a just a bit nervous while giving her 'defense' of Christian faith.

As the video proceeds along, the atheist seems to gain the upper hand, but it also seems that mistakes in rational thinking are made on both sides of the conversation. As you listen in, let your own assessment of both persons spur your evaluation of how well you think each of them does in the overall discussion. What mistakes does she make in her thinking? What errors or false assumptions might characterize the atheist's mode of questioning? Is all of this a waste of time? What's good about this kind of encounter? What's bad about it? Then DISCUSS your evaluation of this Street Epistemology encounter:

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Very irritating video, it's an atheistic answer to Christian street preaching, and vice versa. We see Ray Comfort videos doing the same thing on the opposite spectrum. For me, both street preaching and street atheism are both irritating, I generally avoid peddlers who proselytize.

I don't need to be told about "my sins" and I don't know need to be told about "evolution".

For me at least those aren't serious topics of discussion, evolution if you want to be technical we can see micro evolution, watch a baby grow, adapt and change in the womb. But, it doesn't conclude that we evolved from a common ancestor either, prior to 7000 BC all there are, is scattered groups of people. Even if those people were not as advanced as we are today, it only indicates evolution to a certain extent, but certainly not macro evolution in the strictest sense.

Sins, that is a belief as the oldest civilization on earth that comes out of Nippur, the Sumerians. At that time is a personal offense against one's God(s), later we see it as "missing the mark", and now it has some other theological implication, but "sin" isn't limited to the Christian school of thought at all.

Non sequitur · Sep 23, 2017

2PhiloVoid said:
I can empathize with some of your thought on this. However, the problem is that different frameworks and/or theories involving epistemology can harbor a variety of axiomatic assumptions, as well as various expectations for justification of ideas, arguments, etc. So, it kind of does matter as to what epistemological structure is “assumed” from the outset, i.e. whether it is Foundationalism or some other '-ism,' among other things.

I'm pretty sure that Tia, the young woman in the video, had little to no idea about how epistemology played into the overall interlocution she was involved in with Reid, the SE.

I was on vacation, so it's been a while since I saw the videos.

Seeing as how his questions dealt with "how", he didn't assume anything and she put the burden on herself to explain her reasoning for the things she thinks.

2PhiloVoid said:
Right, but neither does 'liking' them necessarily equate to them being cogent and satisfactory.

It does not, but I don't see them being not clear or illogical.

As far as satisfactory, that's up to the individual.

2PhiloVoid said:
You may need to clarify your question. Are you wanting to know what I think Tia could have said in response to some particular question of my choosing which Reid posed?

Both. How could he have "better" asked a questions and how could she have "better" answered it.

Non sequitur · Sep 23, 2017

Adstar said:
I find that the vast majority of atheists disagree with God's will as revealed in the Bible.And from that they claim to disbelieve Gods existence. I find very few who base their disbelief on non scriptural reasons.. Indeed the most vocal and passionate atheists are ex-Christians who where born into Christian families and came to hate the message of God.. Most ardent atheists are former believers in the existence of God..

People can't not believe in a thing, prior to it not being presented to them.

I think you are projecting about "hating the message of God" or something. There are some positive things in the Bible and some negative, but I can't think of any thing to "hate".

Also, your sample size can't accurately speak for the totality of atheists and how they arrived there.

Adstar · Sep 24, 2017

Non sequitur said:
People can't not believe in a thing, prior to it not being presented to them.

People can hate a message before that message is presented to them.... God already knows who shall hate His will and who will embrace His will,, even before they are born.. He can do that because He is God and has foreknowledge of all human beings in history

I think you are projecting about "hating the message of God" or something. There are some positive things in the Bible and some negative, but I can't think of any thing to "hate".

You are free to think i am projecting, So be it .. See you declare that there are things in the Bible that you hate.. you call them negative things.. I am very sure that if you acknowledged the Bible to be filled with ""positive"" things you would be a Christian today..

But as i said,, disagreement with the Word of God comes before disbelief..

Non sequitur · Sep 24, 2017

Adstar said:
People can hate a message before that message is presented to them.... God already knows who shall hate His will and who will embrace His will,, even before they are born.. He can do that because He is God and has foreknowledge of all human beings in history

That's new...

I'm about to tell you something (give you a message). Do you hate it or not?

Adstar said:
You are free to think i am projecting, So be it .. See you declare that there are things in the Bible that you hate.. you call them negative things..

Saying something has negative aspects does not equate to me hating it. I've never declared there are things I hate and now you are lying.

You, literally, just projected me hating something.

Adstar said:
I am very sure that if you acknowledged the Bible to be filled with ""positive"" things you would be a Christian today..

There you go, again. Well, lets play this out.

I acknowledge the Bible has positive things in it, yet I'm not a Christian.

You are either calling me a liar or you are wrong. Which is it?

ShamashUruk · Sep 24, 2017

Non sequitur said:
That's new...

I'm about to tell you something (give you a message). Do you hate it or not?

Saying something has negative aspects does not equate to me hating it. I've never declared there are things I hate and now you are lying.

You, literally, just projected me hating something.

There you go, again. Well, lets play this out.

I acknowledge the Bible has positive things in it, yet I'm not a Christian.

You are either calling me a liar or you are wrong. Which is it?

The Bible definitely has messages in it, whether positive or negative. But, those messages we see in earlier cultures such as Babylon, Hurrian, Sumerian, Akkadian and so on. So there is an early history of Polytheism that influences the Bible.

Here is a good example, the book of revelations oft talks about the rapture and return of Christians to their motherland (Heaven), but as archaeology points out

The King and I: Exiled To Patmos, Part 2

We can see one evidence that early Patmos had a Hippodrome on it which relates to horse racing, similarly Hippomancy relates to predicting the future via horses. And where do we see horses at in the book of Revelation? Revelation chapter 6, and all the other evidence points to John being on an Island with 3 pagan temples on it. Other evidence points to much of the "visions" he had due to weather patterns at the time. John seeing visions indicates he is a prophet of some sort, hence the visions of horses, the Hippodrome, which one could conclude Hippomancy.

I have an extensive collection of books on ancient Israelite divination, and this is one way the Israelite's would have predicted future events.

Yesterday on September 23, 2017 the world was supposed to end, via planet X (Nibru), conspiracy theorist and nut jobs alike asserted this theory and backed up what David Meade purported about the world ending this weekend. Well, it hasn't.

First off Nibru doesn't translate to anything but in Sumerian the word Nippur, which was translated and established by archaeologist and linguist John A. Halloran, and obviously before that archaeologists such as Leonard Woolley who founded the royal tombs in Ur also would have discovered the Epic of Gilgamesh in Nippur as well.

Just so we get an idea where these places are, Nippur or Nibru is located at Nuffar, Al-Qādisiyyah Governorate, Iraq

While Ur is located at Tell el-Muqayyar, Dhi Qar Province, Iraq

Somehow clowns like Zecharia Stitchen asserted that Nibru is a planet, Nibru is translated Nippur, so unless Nippur located at Nuffar, Al-Qādisiyyah Governorate, Iraq somehow broke off and floated into space there is no "planet X".

We can see older epics having influence on the Bible as well, such as the Epic of Ziusdura who faces a flood in Iraq between the rivers (Mesopotamia). Ziusudra is a Sumerian and he is pious, he worships his God Enki, and Enlil becomes enraged with humans. Enlil sends a flood, and Enki tells Ziusudra to build a boat to escape the flood, which he does.

We see a much younger version of this in the epic of Noah, as God sends a flood to destroy the earth and all its inhabitants. Yet, God working as a destroyer and giver of life, has Noah build an ark to escape the flood he will send. We see dualism with God in this sense, but in earlier Sumer we see two differing Gods working to achieve a goal, Enki is seen as a savior and wants to rescue Ziusudra, while Enlil sends a flood to destroy humanity.

The most likely explanation is that the Tigris, Euphrates, and there would have been at least two other rivers (hence Mesopotamia; land between the rivers) would have been subject to constant flooding, also during the time boats were made of inflated sheep bladders and reeds to cover the boats.

It's less likely even that there was a Noah who built an ark made of Gopher wood, the term Gopher wood is transliterated from Tevah, but Tevah doesn't mean Gopher wood at all:

Strong's Hebrew: 8429. תְּוַהּ (tevah) -- to be startled or alarmed

Hence, it is not likely at all there was a "Noah", as it is a West Semitic name, while Ziusdura is a Sumerian name and the epic is much older than the epic of "Noah".

Scrutinizing Street Epistemology and Street Evangelism

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Active Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hello

Wokest Bae Of The Forum

Wokest Bae Of The Forum

Well-Known Member

Wokest Bae Of The Forum

Hello

Similar threads