« Saving Monkeys, or Why Fundies Hate the Fact of Evolution | Main | Rescued from God, or How Rob Bell Reveals the Unavoidable, Fatal Paradox »

February 20, 2011

Comments

Charles Curtis

Great writing Greg. But weak on any real arguments. More prescriptive than persuasive. Let me know if you'd be interested in a debate.

Greg Horton

I've made the arguments exhaustively elsewhere, so no real need to make them again. Just finishing up the list. Debate? To what end? We both agree that we speak fundamentally different languages, especially in terms of epistemology. What sort of venue? What topic? What's the upside? I seem to have nothing to gain from a conversation that usually leaves me frustrated, so offer me a reason for doing it. Seriously, not being evasive, just have no idea what the point is.

Charles

What's the point of posting these blogs? Only difference is that it's tandem. LOL.

I haven't read any cogent or coherent arguments against Christian belief from you yet. I read some very well written and well expressed opinions about Christianity, with an occasional brush with a familiar argument name, but no real arguments developed.

Not expecting either of our minds to change. Just thought it's always more interesting when two people on opposite sides discuss things than cheerleading our own causes.

People get their heels dug in with their beliefs. But then if we were obedient determinists, we wouldn't bother blogging anything but recipes. So we both think furthering a conversation has possibilities. At least that's how we act.

Not a big deal, if there's no interest.

greg

I'm not sure what qualifies as a coherent or cogent argument against Christianity in your mind, Charles. Most of my arguments are opposed to theism in general, not a specific version of theism. However, I'm equally sure you've not read every post I've written and every response since 2002. Odds are good you missed some cogency somewhere in the mix. As for coherence, I'm comfortable with my level of coherence. I suspect it has more to do with your epistemological and metaphysical assumptions, such that (almost?) nothing disqualifies Christianity on the grounds of irrationality. I've written extensively about my objections to theism. Most of the arguments aren't new, and as I've come to understand, aren't easily refuted, so those are pushed aside as matters of faith. It's an interesting shell game wherein faith and reason play the role only as necessary and only when convenient. Consistency is not the grammar of theism. As I said, we speak two different languages. Without being derisive (seriously), I find "conversations" with you incredibly tedious and a shad painful, since much of your conversation is filled with the level of toxic certainty that drove me from evangelicalism long before I left theism behind.

As for why I post these blog entries, I'm guessing it's because I want to. It's equally true that along the way I've collected a group of real and virtual friends from various backgrounds and diverse places who challenge me to think more clearly, write more clearly, and refine what it is I believe. That's an invaluable service. After one of my "conversations" with you on fb, I forwarded the transcript to five of those friends. Their comments were very helpful for me in putting your philosophical and rhetorical methods into perspective, as well as helping me see that I'm not as unclear, uncogent, or incoherent as you imply. That too is an invaluable service. I'm happy to forward you their replies with their names redacted. Sometimes people provide a wonderful mirror.

I would agree to a debate, but only in a panel style, and I'd like some input into a moderator. I actually have a Christian in mind! I see no value in me arguing with you, but I do see value in four or six having a genuine conversation.

MyQuest

Thanks for posting your own answers as well. It has been fun to read what you wrote.

Charles

With regards to missing your full position on theistic arguments, you're right. I am far from having read all your stuff and from knowing your positions on the array of topics.

I did read some of your friend's responses with the names redacted in our prior message threads. To be honest, one of them was good, albeit emotionally charged, and the other was....escoteric, to be as generous as I can be about it. In the end, us writing to each other in a public forum would be cool. Blog format would permit scads of panel discussions, if they were worthy of comments.

Narrowing down the topic would be a challenge, but sure we could come up with something between us that wasn't too broad. I would attempt to fight off my A.D.D. as much as possible to keep it on the road :-)

What do you think?

Greg Horton

Probably the best idea we've come up with together, Charles. I do have one request, and please humor me on this. I'd prefer the uber-knucklehead Reverend Green not be involved. He pokes all my "I loathe douchebag" buttons. He is in all sincerity the only "friend" I've ever unfriended from fb, and I've kept some loons on my list. Other than that, I have no requirements. Let me know what you think in terms of topics, and we can start trimming.

Charles

LOL. If we do the blog format, not sure that could be effectively regulated. Besides, I am sure you know some button pushers that would tempt to set me off as well. We'll figure out a way to try to keep it as civilized as possible.

Give me a few days to get through some work deadlines and in the meantime I'll mull over some ideas. If you have any, send them my way.

BTW, I supply my email for these comments but never recieve updates. Not sure if that's how it works. It would be cool to recieve updates here on my email,since I can be absent minded at times :-) Is there something I can do here to start recieving them?

Greg Horton

Not sure on that one. I get updates, but it's my blog, so there is an option button for me. I'll check the TypePad faq page and get back to you.

The comments to this entry are closed.