Hey guys. First time listener. First off the guy in the middle looks and sounds like link from Rhett and Link. I'm a former Christian now atheist, I do a podcast with my brother who's a Christian. This is something I've been meaning to cover on my podcast. I started deconstructing because I no longer see God as good, that part really doesn't involve the church. BUT young earth creation played a big part of my deconstruction. I personally think the prosperity gospel, young earth creationism and IBLP are the big reasons why deconstruction is so big right now. Those movements got really big when I was a kid in the 90's. We are now adults having to choose what we really believe.
The problem with claiming one person can have legitimate "true, holy spiritual experiences" while all others are "mistaken" and are tapping into either "dark supernatural powers" or are "suffering from a psychosis of delusion"... is that the ONLY measure used to do so for such claims is the ideologies of those making the claim vs those hearing the claim. If Zack says he had a spiritual experience from God/Jesus at church camp or a men's retreat (both of which are DESIGNED to conjure up such experiences) and those to whom he is speaking share the same doctrinal ideals, then his "experience" is accepted, celebrated, giving praise to God for the deepening of his relationship. He then uses that "feeling/emotion" to fuel his tank of "expereinces that support my religious paradigm". However, if what he describes about his experience is out of line with the accepted biblical/religious understanding of those around him, he would be corrected as being "confused" or feel alienated and either doubt his expereince was "real", or doubt his experience was "from God" or hold onto it and look elsewhere for fellowship in a "brand" of Christianity where they DO accept that particulare type of experience as kosher. There are people who "feel" they have "spiritual experiences" and are REALLY "experiencing a feeling". Does that mean it is "spiritual" as in ... of supernatural origins? What about such "experiencial claims" by adherents of OTHER religions? The Christian de facto response to such claims outside of Christianity are categorized as "evil because they're demonic" or "delusional" or "lying". How convenient... and yet what EVIDENCE do we have in deciding the matter, other than because Holy book X supports it... or Holy leader X allows it? "Spiritual experiences" is just another term for "feelings subjectively felt by an individual". Good luck arguing for or against them.
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._* And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 10 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never encountered any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality. 5. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._ ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
First-time listener here. I'm not sure how my RU-vid algorithm brought me to you guys, but it was some combination of searching for an old Matt Chandler clip and finding out Mark Driscoll was thrown off a stage a few months ago. Before I knew it, I had come across this page and a RU-vid Short on biblical inerrancy creating atheists and knew I had to investigate. So, I am a former believer and, for all intents and purposes, an atheist. As one of the hosts mentioned he was an agnostic Christian, I like to describe myself as an agnostic atheist even though I feel like it makes me sound pretentious and requires a lot of effort from anyone asking for my current beliefs. I really enjoyed the show and had several thoughts I wanted to share. I don't think I necessarily blame the church for my becoming an atheist. My path to atheism happened about nine years ago. I grew up in a Christian home and went to some iteration of a Baptist church in Arkansas with my mom every Sunday. By 2015, I was 25 and wanted to learn more about why I believed in Christianity and desired a better understanding of why I believed in certain things (the creation story and resurrection as examples). However, the more I researched, the more it seemed the convincing arguments were on the other side. I encountered evidence for evolution that seemed more persuasive and believable than the creation narratives in the Old Testament, but what truly knocked me off my foundation was investigating the bible. It was a combination of learning about bible stories that were found in other cultures, contradictory gospel accounts, when and where the gospels were written, the fact scholars (even some Christian New Testament scholars) don't believe Paul wrote all of his letters that are in the bible, and the redemption story itself. For years, I had considered Christianity to be the bedrock of who I was and the world we live in, and all of a sudden it all seemed incredibly human and man-made. It became like trying to square a round whole and eventually, I lost my belief. But I don't blame the church. And while I agree with one of the hosts on his belief that biblical inerrancy creates atheists, I don't see any other way for the bible and the resurrection story and Jesus and the Christian faith to hold up without selling out on the bible as the complete and perfect word of God. Once you lose inerrancy and the inspired word of God, I feel it quickly becomes a house of cards. If man wrote it, how do I know this is what God wants or who God is or what God says or what God believes? It just no longer seemed convincing to me. Creating atheists is just a by-product of that tenet of faith. I don't think it's something the church should necessarily change. It's too critical to the belief system as a whole. Glad to find you guys on a whim. Looking forward to listening to your older stuff and new episodes to come.
Definitely had several thoughts, but I could definitely relate to the coming to faith through logic / reason (18:15 mark). Have you guys thought about sharing what you're each personally digging through / thinking through in the theology realm right now? Just found Andy's/Zach's mention of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral and the brief mention of inerrancy both interesting. That also made me think of a comment Andy made a few weeks/months back where he was going through Hebrews and was checking out all the cross references in the Old Testament. Was just curious as to how that went! As for the section on "Recent headlines damaging to the CHURCH", what're y'all's thoughts on 1 Timothy 3 being the outline for what qualifies pastors and deacons? And using that to determine what qualifies a pastor to be capable of being re-instated? I think there are qualifications about being faithful to their wives, being above reproach, and being worthy of respect... it seems like if we [the church] just kept those qualifications, those pastors should've been rightly removed... Are you really above reproach, worthy of respect, and being faithful to your wife if you're doing some of that horrific behavior... Sounds like you fail to meet the Biblical standard and should be unqualified... but that's dependent on the congregation / elder board / bishops (depending on church structure) to have the maturity to remove someone who should not be a pastor (per the outline in 1 Timothy 3).
1 Timothy 3 would exclude all men who are not married with children from being "episkope" (bishop, overseer) fat chance the totality of christendom is going to let a letter from Paul establish such constraints on their positions over others.
