An Atheist's Critique of … some other current Atheists

[2PhiloVoid]

Hey Everyone-

Here we have an atheist youtube blogger who goes by the handle, “Genetically Modified Skeptic.”

In this short video, he delineates how he thinks some of his fellow atheists unneccessarily (and maybe unintentionally) legitimize a “correct” understanding of Christianity.

So, do you (whether as an atheist or as a Christian) agree with GMS's various criticisms about how his fellow atheists represent, or misrepresent, Christianity? If not, what's he wrong about?


Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Halbhh]

Because Christ's instructions are, if people find out about them,... all too clear!

"Love one another"
"forgive your brother from your heart"
"Love your enemy"
"So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you"

Let's face it. This is very clear.
That means what is "Christ like" is abundantly and sharply clear.

And yes, this clarity is a problem for certain atheist arguments.

His assumptions are interesting. What will happen for him if he finds out that what is Christ like is objectively sharply clear?

 

[HitchSlap]

This is why there are over 30,000 Christian denominations. People tend to pick and choose the one that they think makes them a “true Christian.”

 

[Halbhh]

This is why there are over 30,000 Christian denominations. People tend to pick and choose the one that they think makes them a “true Christian.”

That's roughly true. It's true like saying "Americans are bad drivers." About that true.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Because Christ's instructions are, if people find out about them,... all too clear!

"Love one another"
"forgive your brother from your heart"
"Love your enemy"
"So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you"

Let's face it. This is very clear.
That means what is "Christ like" is abundantly and sharply clear.

And yes, this clarity is a problem for certain atheist arguments.

His assumptions are interesting. What will happen for him if he finds out that what is Christ like is objectively sharply clear?

...but then again, if the Bible was that clear (or perspicuous) then wouldn't all of us Christians have a much easier time agreeing on what the Bible actually means on a number of issues presented within it and not break ourselves into various factions and/or denominations?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is why there are over 30,000 Christian denominations. People tend to pick and choose the one that they think makes them a “true Christian.”

So, do we want to say that there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that delineates some minimal [epistemic as well as moral] line that a person has to stay within in order to be considered a Christian?

 

[Halbhh]

...but then again, if the Bible was that clear (or perspicuous) then wouldn't be all of us Christians have a much easier time agreeing on what the Bible actually means on a number of issues presented within it and not breaking ourselves into various factions and/or denominations?

heh heh.... I think you mean this partly in humor. Or everything is funny to me this morning.

I haven't been able, in thousands of hours of very careful listening, or perhaps by now it's really more than 10,000, to find 2 human beings on Earth that truly see something nontrivial in precisely the same way! (that is in all details and aspects, a total congruence)

Has anyone else?

Sure, we can use a enormous simplification like: Is that car red? And we can agree on that! lol

It's not a bad thing!

It's not bad that every last human being has a truly individual and truly unique world view, that has likely never been before, and that only partially overlaps with that of others.

We can agree to agree that even if we are old enough to know that each individual human loves in a truly unique way, that nevertheless, we can agree that "Love one another" is indeed a commandment He emphasized to us, if we listen to the words He said. Of course, listening is volitional!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

heh heh.... I think you mean this partly in humor. Or everything is funny to me this morning.

I haven't been able, in thousands of hours of very careful listening, or perhaps by now it's really more than 10,000, to find 2 human beings on Earth that truly see something nontrivial in precisely the same way! (that is in all details and aspects, a total congruence)

Has anyone else?

Sure, we can use a enormous simplification like: Is that car red? And we can agree on that! lol

What if I'm spiritually 'color-blind'? Then what?

It's not a bad thing!

It's not bad that every last human being has a truly individual and truly unique world view, that has likely never been before, and that only partially overlaps with that of others.

We can agree to agree that even if we are old enough to know that each individual human loves in a truly unique way, that nevertheless, we can agree that "Love one another" is indeed a commandment He emphasized to us, if we listen to the words He said. Of course, listening is volitional!

Does this mean that those parts of the Bible that we disagree on are not important?

 

[razzelflabben]

Hey Everyone-

Here we have an atheist youtube blogger who goes by the handle, “Genetically Modified Skeptic.”

In this short video, he delineates how he thinks some of his fellow atheists unneccessarily (and maybe unintentionally) legitimize a “correct” understanding of Christianity.

So, do you (whether as an atheist or as a Christian) agree with GMS's various criticisms about how his fellow atheists represent, or misrepresent, Christianity? If not, what's he wrong about?


Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I'm gonna have to go with yes and no...let's tackle first the idea of multiple interpretations. The early church believed that there was one God thus One interpretation. Most believers today believe the same thing which is where the "fights" over which interpretation comes into play. That being said, no written lang. be it religious or otherwise is as subjective as this guy seems to want to make it out to be. There are rules for comprehension that we were taught in elementary school but apparently have been dismissed over the years as no longer important. For example, in written lang. if one wants to change the topic there are clues that the topic is being changed. IOW's context is important. Word meaning is another one that gets lots of people into trouble. Words have different meanings and how they are used in a sentence tells us what meaning is intended. It's all about using these common literary rules of comprehension to understand the intended meaning of the author/authors. I hope you all use them when you read this post or we are sure to get into some heavy disagreements because communication does NOT happen when we throw out the rules and pretend what someone said means something totally different.

When we apply these rules to the text, any text but in this discussion any religious text we only come up with one intended meaning most of the time. There are a few, minor times this isn't true but it is rare. For example we can say that let's say the Koran teaches X and we can show that using common literary rules for comprehension. Someone will say, no it means...that is the interpretation right there. I see it all the time in christianity (since I am on a christian forum) I will show using common literary rules of comprehension that the scripture says X and someone will inevitably say something like, "sure that is what it says but I believe Y"....the Y is the interpretation not the X. X is much more solid than we like to pretend or like this guy claims.

Now how that applies to the point being made. Yes he is right that making claims that cannot be substantiated is a huge problem. Likewise it is a problem to assume that (in this case) christians cannot make a mistake in how they live. Mistakes are part of life whether the mistake is in applying comprehension rules or living out what the text says. In fact, I would really hate to see (and do hate it when I see it) people living out what the Koran teaches (remember, not necessarily what they believe it says that is interpretation but what it really does say.

For example, according to a reading of scripture for comprehension, christians are to live out Love this is Biblical Love not worldly love which is different but I digress. There are specifics listed as to how to do that. So based on a reading for comprehension understanding of scripture we can determine whether or not someone is living out what they should based on scripture but since we as a people have decided that we don't have to read for comprehension then the guy is right in what he is saying. As I said, I have to go with yes and no.

 

[Halbhh]

What if I'm spiritually 'color-blind'? Then what?

Does this mean that those parts of the Bible that we disagree on are not important?

That last is a very interesting question itself. It means to me something like -- don't argue over small stuff. (I don't go quite to that saying "and it's all small stuff", but this can be helpful to remember! In a way, what we argue over is usually small stuff, because we are arguing over our mere understandings usually.)

Example: don't argue about what Paul meant by we are now under the "law of Christ", but just read it and be at peace!

lol

Maybe we need more discussions about the how of practicing "love one another" or "love your neighbor as yourself", to help us get out of the misunderstanding-each-other-based mere arguing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is why there are over 30,000 Christian denominations. People tend to pick and choose the one that they think makes them a “true Christian.”

So, I take it that you agree with GMS in that atheists should forgo accusing some Christians of hypocrisy?

 

[Tom 1]

Hey Everyone-

Here we have an atheist youtube blogger who goes by the handle, “Genetically Modified Skeptic.”

In this short video, he delineates how he thinks some of his fellow atheists unneccessarily (and maybe unintentionally) legitimize a “correct” understanding of Christianity.

So, do you (whether as an atheist or as a Christian) agree with GMS's various criticisms about how his fellow atheists represent, or misrepresent, Christianity? If not, what's he wrong about?


Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Sort of, although he is over-generalising to the point that he shows he doesn’t really know the material he’s discussing. I mean there’s a fair bit of the bible that is pretty unambiguous, some in comparison with other passages that provide clear context e.g

John 14:6 ...’I am the way, the truth and true life. No-one comes to the father except through me’

And others like 1 Cor 6:9-10

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

And similar passages e.g Jesus’ teachings on divorce. I think these are the kind of passages that people may choose to reject but I can’t see where the difficulty would be in actually interpreting what is being said.

Other longer passages that appear simple but aren’t are supported by enough research to get the essential meaning from them, with a bit of effort, e.g some of the Genesis narratives. These take a bit more effort but if a person chooses to makes themselves familiar with the research about historical context and meaning e.g Auerbach in Mimesis, John H Walton, David Rosenberg, maybe Jordan Peterson they can easily begin to understand what is going on.

There are bits of the NT and OT written to particular audiences at particular times that we’ll probably never really understand, as a modern audience, but that’s far from being the case with the whole book. I think this chap has become familiar with theories about the material without actually knowing anything much about the material itself.

Personally I think the spread of denominations is more about the huge scope for individuality and opinion God leaves space for. It’s far easier to go with what you feel is most important and stay focused on that than it is to try and figure out why other people don’t agree. In so far as a model for church practice is provided in the NT the basic framework is just a set of boundaries on which Godly relationships can be built. How’s that’s done exactly provided those boundaries aren’t transgressed doesn’t seem to be important.

 

[paul1149]

Insufferably trapped in his intellectualism.

 

[keith99]

Let's start with what he started with, calling out Christians for unChristlike behaviour. Scripture may be unclear on some points, but it is quite clear on others. Just because there are shades of gray does not mean black and white do not exist. Kicking widows and orphans is not Christlike and calling out supposed Christians for that kind of action is totally on.

Even when Scripture is unclear or disputed one can make calls regarding hypocrisy much of the. One can look to what the denomination a Christian belongs to or even what that individual Christian says and see hypocrisy.

He also seems to espouse the idea that anything subjective is something where any answer is as good as any other. That is flat out false. I used to bicycle a lot. I became interested in the history of professional cycling. Who was the greatest cyclist of all time may be subjective, but the list of possible answers is pretty short. If one uses any definition of greatest of all time that centers on how they did against available competition then there actually is a right answer. That can happen with subjective things, the gaps can be big enough that the answer is clear. In the same vein who is second is far from clear. Second and third too close. But the gap between 3rd and 4th is again huge. (First is Eddy Merckx, the next 2 are Fausto Coppi and Bernard Hinault. Raw numbers favor Hinaut, but Coppi is close and lost the heart of his career to WW II).

So Christianity is subjective in part, it does not provide a clear ranking of exactly where things stand in order of importance. But is is crystal clear on what is first and what is second. It is not always clear on how to express those first 2 commandments, but I'd argue there are many acts that clearly are not an expression of them.

 

[HitchSlap]

So, do we want to say that there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that delineates some minimal [epistemic as well as moral] line that a person has to stay within in order to be considered a Christian?

It would seem that people will self define what it means to be "Christian," hence 30,000 separate denominations.

As for what constitutes staying within the Christian lane, that's not for me to say. I can only discuss a person's notion of Christianity in terms of what it means to them. And if they're being hypocritical, then that should be pointed out as well.

 

[HitchSlap]

That's roughly true. It's true like saying "Americans are bad drivers." About that true.

Were you not aware of the number of Christian denominations?

(and for the record, I don't particularly care how many denominations there are, there could be only two, and my point would be made)

The Facts and Stats on 33000 Denominations: World Christian Encyclopedia (2001, 2nd edition)

List of Christian denominations - Wikipedia

And you're not wrong about American drivers, they can be pretty horrible.

 

[Halbhh]

Were you not aware of the number of Christian denominations?

(and for the record, I don't particularly care how many denominations there are, there could be only two, and my point would be made)

The Facts and Stats on 33000 Denominations: World Christian Encyclopedia (2001, 2nd edition)

List of Christian denominations - Wikipedia

And you're not wrong about American drivers, they can be pretty horrible.

I think of Christianity as being in some ways like math (not all ways!, heh heh).

Imagine you were young, and didn't have an opinion about math, and for the first time ever went to school and had a math class (or time), and experienced math in that way, as an experience of something new, right there and then -- as a class full of kids and some teacher.

Well, some of the kids would be interested in the math, many would not.

The teacher might be half way ok, or not at all!

Just like our actual math teachers over the years. I think I had exactly 1 really good teacher in math in K through 12. Maybe a 2nd teacher that wasn't all that bad, but not great, but sorta ok.

Right?

Now, I'm talented at math (that's why I'm using this example, hah hah; ok, more seriously I feel I have some perspective to offer via this analogy), and so perhaps my perception is somewhat affected by this, but I think there is a useful generalization or two to observe about the math class situation.

Regardless of how poorly so many of the students do, nevertheless, we objectively can know that math has both useful and real answers and principles that are valuable, aiding us very greatly in this life.

If one formed their opinion about math merely by the experience of teachers that don't seem to understand it much, and students who can't answer the problems....well, that wouldn't be a very insightful way to reach the most useful conclusions about math and what math can do for you.

 

[HitchSlap]

So what you're saying is, there are over 30K denominations because people have poor opinions of what it means to be Christian?

I think of Christianity as being in some ways like math (not all ways!, heh heh).

Imagine you were young, and didn't have an opinion about math, and for the first time ever went to school and had a math class (or time), and experienced math in that way, as an experience of something new, right there and then -- as a class full of kids and some teacher.

Well, some of the kids would be interested in the math, many would not.

The teacher might be half way ok, or not at all!

Just like our actual math teachers over the years. I think I had exactly 1 really good teacher in math in K through 12. Maybe a 2nd teacher that wasn't all that bad, but not great, but sorta ok.

Right?

Now, I'm talented at math (that's why I'm using this example, hah hah; ok, more seriously I feel I have some perspective to offer via this analogy), and so perhaps my perception is somewhat affected by this, but I think there is a useful generalization or two to observe about the math class situation.

Regardless of how poorly so many of the students do, nevertheless, we objectively can know that math has both useful and real answers and principles that are valuable, aiding us very greatly in this life.

If one formed their opinion about math merely by the experience of teachers that don't seem to understand it much, and students who can't answer the problems....well, that wouldn't be a very insightful way to reach the most useful conclusions about math and what math can do for you.

 

[Halbhh]

So what you're saying is, there are over 30K denominations because people have poor opinions of what it means to be Christian?

Yes, but to be clearer I'd word that 'have poor ideas of what it means to be Christian'. Remembering that even just 10% of Christians in the U.S. would number like tens of millions, we can say 'many' even when we talk about a relatively smallish portion of Christians. Then, 'many' grow up in a churches in a way akin in some ways to growing up in a public school, in that the math class is mandatory, and the teacher doesn't always even really appreciate math, but it's just a duty for them. A mere duty. Making math in a way seem so much less than it can be, or is. Put it this way -- if your math class wasn't that great, you still could later discover some day the wonder and beauty of math, if you wished.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes, but to be clearer I'd word that 'have poor ideas of what it means to be Christian'. Remembering that even just 10% of Christians in the U.S. would number like tens of millions, we can say 'many' even when we talk about a relatively smallish portion of Christians. Then, 'many' grow up in a churches in a way akin in some ways to growing up in a public school, in that the math class is mandatory, and the teacher doesn't always even really appreciate math, but it's just a duty for them. A mere duty. Making math in a way seem so much less than it can be, or is. Put it this way -- if your math class wasn't that great, you still could later discover some day the wonder and beauty of math, if you wished.

So, people who view Christianity as a "mere duty" would then be inclined to start a new denomination?