Podcast #118 - Clash From The Past
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-07-2013, 05:47 PM
RE: Podcast #118 - Clash From The Past
The graphic for this podcast needs to be revised so that the Christian profile is wearing a dunce cap. I'll grant that David may not actually be dumb, but his arguments certainly were.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2013, 09:53 AM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2013 09:58 AM by ChristianSoldier.)
RE: Podcast #118 - Clash From The Past

For any true atheist Mr. Stephens served as a vivid reminder of why we are skeptical freethinkers.

The tactics he used in setting forth his theocratic arguments are classic combination of illogical suppositions thrown together in a manner that most closely resembles listening to a schizophrenic. When confronted a the lack of facts or logic behind his statements he misdirects or ignores the question jumping to the next irrational argument.

One item I’d like to address in his assertions is the idea that there is a 2,000 year old (thus irrefutable) body of evidence that Christ and Christianity is real and truth.

If we are being asked to accept that Christ not only existed but, in fact did many things of consequence in his own time then historians and biblical scholars (I mean true scholars, not shills) would point to corroborative sources. In the case of the Romans, they were almost obsessive about recording their history. One would expect to see copious evidence in the Roman historical records alluding to Jesus, especially any effort overthrow imperial domination of any country they occupied. Yet there is virtually nothing in the Roman record about this major threat to Rome.

Perhaps the only historian who makes comments about Jesus at the time in which Jesus lived was Josephus. Even so Josephus work is full of holes that conflict with various biblical accounts.

The fact remains that secondary sources corroborating the existence of Jesus are paltry. So, Stephens assertion that his religion has validity because it has been there for 2000 years is at best absurd.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2013, 03:40 PM
RE: Podcast #118 - Clash From The Past
(18-07-2013 11:14 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  I feel like they have to know they are full of shit while they say it…right?

Nope, they believe what they say because that is the nature of self delusion. I find that Stephens type usually are filled with self projection. That is accusing others of the negative behavior you actually do.

For instance he constantly alluded to his love for his wife as being reinforced by religion. In projection that means that he is is probably very unhappy with his domestic situation. They use their religion as an enforcer to make them behave
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2013, 11:23 PM
RE: Podcast #118 - Clash From The Past
All I can say is, David's definition of religion has got to be seriously warped when according to him, atheism is a religion and Christianity is not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Katamari's post
26-07-2013, 08:49 AM
RE: Podcast #118 - Clash From The Past
Ugh... what a bunch of nonsense. There is a difference between cristianity and the christian religion? That's like saying there is a difference between "Russian" and "The language of Russia". There is a difference between "Food" and "That which you eat".

The difference between atheism and religion is that one requires faith, one requires evidence. Its as simple as that. If you have faith then you don't require evidence. If you have evidence then you don't require faith.

"Somtimes I just can't love my wife."
Sometimes you don't love your wife?
"I never said that!!!!"

WTF. What a waste of time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DingusVonWarhammer's post
03-08-2013, 08:48 AM
RE: Podcast #118 - Clash From The Past
I’m sorry, but 10:07 on Tuesday morning when your world is falling apart is exactly THE WRONG TIME to suddenly switch world views! Dave, the next time your world is falling apart, for example when your wife discovers you have a porn addiction, try this for me; I want you to head right over to the nearest Scientology facility, tell them that you are in great psychological pain. Don’t hesitate for a second to get your E-Meter reading done right away! I bet you’ll get a jolt out of that. I’ll tell you what; if you get a jolt out of that, you’ll know that it’s real.

Sorry to be so sarcastic, but telling people who suffer from alcoholism or depression to ask an imaginary deity into their hearts and that he’ll “deliver permanent victory” is like giving a sugar pill to a cancer victim. It kills people! I have seen this happen! I’ve seen born-again Christians recover from alcoholism, and I’ve seen them fail. I’ve seen atheists recover and I’ve seen them fail. The difference is that the ones who did the work in the real world recovered. The ones who only took the Jesus-sugar-pill did get a “jolt” for a couple of months, but if they didn’t do any work, not only did they crash and burn, but the “all or nothing”, “saved or damned” mentality of Evangelicalism kept them sick (one person even died) for decades. This is as harmful as homeopathy or any kind of woo. Please, if you’re suffering from alcoholism or depression, see a SECULAR professional. Alcoholism and depression have causes in the real world and the treatment of them must also be in the REAL WORLD.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvangelicalYouthCounselor's post
11-08-2013, 07:21 PM
RE: Podcast #118 - Clash From The Past
I won't dignify any of the guest's remarks with answers because there was nothing that really allowed much room for discussion. I've been there and done similar street preaching, witnessing, or whatever he would like to call it. If you busted him on being incomprehensible, I would expect a comeback involving the unsaved being unable to comprehend the deep meaning.

This was the WORST podcast I have listened to, but I used a couple of sittings and hoped to hear Seth have an opportunity to explain his viewpoint without constant interruption. It didn't happen. The only value was in Seth's demonstration of remarkable patience in the midst of this constant preaching with little evidence of listening from the guest.

It may be useful for the theist listeners at some point, but it was painfully frustrating for me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 01:55 PM
RE: Podcast #118 - Clash From The Past
(17-07-2013 12:24 PM)KHelf Wrote:  What an infuriating show. What was the point? Also, who is David Stephens having as his guest on The Thinking Atheist next week?

You know, I kinda have to agree. Seth gave his friend far too many passes. Very maddening, especially when Stephens would interrupt with a clearly stupid point he was trying to make, and I can hear Seth saying: "Okay, okay. Go ahead."
Hell no, don't 'go ahead'. I want this guy to come back, but hopefully next time, Seth will lay into him like I know he can do. Stephens got a TTA pass, and I hope he enjoys it, because it's one of the few anyone has ever gotten from Seth...

​-- DJ

Ask: It's not a sin.
Think: You won't go to hell.
Learn: You're supposed to.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 01:33 AM
RE: Podcast #118 - Clash From The Past
Wow, that was July 17th. I just heard the podcast in the archives. It's not quite a month later, and I feel like I'm addressing this comment to posterity...

So, having listened to that two hour interview, if I understand it correctly, David's entire claim to the truth of his religious worldview is rooted in his personal experience of living with his Christian worldview, vs. living with the Christian worldview of the church.

Early on, David defined "Christianity" as being different from "The Christian Religion", essentially inventing new terminology for the sake of the discussion.
His "Christianity" (which he purported to follow, or to live, or to have living inside him, or which was guiding him at any rate) sounded like a very personal, internal construct that he'd invented and adopted after deciding that the traditional dogma of "the Christian religion" offered by the institutional church wasn't working for him.

He used the language and images of Christian scripture, prayer, and sermon to build himself a story that helps him live a more fulfilling life.
This is exactly how Jungian psychoanalysis works.
The power of Jungian analysis is that the patient learns to "narratize" their life. In this analysis, you construct a story, a narrative, in which you are the hero and everyday activities have metaphorical meaning. Every day of your life is a chapter in the unfolding of an epic story. Within that framework, you can make sense of events and you have a structure to guide you, as the moral hero of the story, through the adversities of daily life.
Jung drew heavily on old, widely disseminated, and deeply culturally engrained stories for his archetypes. He literally used fairy tales.

David, in a similar way, seems to have used material from scripture and from his own religious experience. It worked for him, and it helped him to improve his life, in a subjective way that he's happy with.
Well, bully for him. Seriously. Good for him. I'm happy to hear that it worked for him.

Jungian analysis works for some patients. It helps them to find inner strength and live fulfilling lives.
But that doesn't make their interior narratives true in any sense.
It is a fundamental fallacy to offer his own subjective (though very real, personal, important, and positive) experience as proof of the ontological truth of the content in his own personal interior narrative.
At best, it's an argument from anecdotal evidence and an inappropriate generalization.
(I'll ignore the contradiction in his simultaneous dismissal of scriptural errors as inconsequential, and his requirement of scriptural truth to ground his framework.)

Again, I'm happy to hear that the narrative through which he perceives his interior life is useful for him.
But that utility doesn't mean there is any truth to the story he perceives himself to be living out.

I'll end with a quotation from someone unpopular, even among atheists:
Quote:The falseness of an opinion is not for us any objection to it...
The question is, how far an opinion is life-furthering, life-preserving...
[Friedrich Nietzsche. Beyond Good and Evil. Ch1. Paragraph 4.]

And THAT is, in this poster's opinion, the proper place of religion in the human psyche and in society.
Religion has been with us, in many forms, since the beginning (and maybe before) of what we would recognize as civilization. This collection of false opinions has enabled human societies to live and work together and survive in every environment on earth.
Today's global, industrialized, and highly pluralistic society may have finally outgrown the need for that particular crutch, and may need, instead, to understand the world, and ourselves, in more strictly rational terms.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2014, 04:28 PM
RE: Podcast #118 - Clash From The Past
I'm really late to the party here. Just listed to this podcast this week (Week of April 14, 2014), and it was pretty tough to take. I get really, really sick of the constant "What if God was like this" equalling "Therefore God is like this." It's just making it all up as you go along. Plus all of the denials, contradictions, and inability to state whether or not somebody has clearly echoed back to you your exact position. Really just painful! But an awesome listen. It is important to hear this kind of thing in order to process it and be ready for these same old lazy tactics you could hear from anybody.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shanghai's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: