"They weren't _real_ atheists" (and other thoughts on the recent TSR)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Having just gotten the July/August issue in the mail yesterday (Thanks
for mailing it out specially, Till) I take keyboard in lap and prepare
myself to write critically about what I read within.

No matter how much I like Till, or how right he usually is, I must
foremost take exception to the discussion on Page 14 re: "More about
Converted Atheists..."  Till has ranted in the past that some
Christians say of other Christians---particularly ones who converted to
another faith or to atheism---that he "wasn't a real Christian".
Now I read Till saying the same thing: They were not "committed
atheists." Till's whole reply reads just like a Christian explaining
how no real Christian has ever converted to Atheism.

I guess I don't understand even the point of trying to establish that
no "committed atheists" have ever reverted/converted to Christianity.
So what?  If nobody ever converted from Christianity to atheism, I
might argue that it was merely because Christians were so closed-minded
that such a thing was impossible, but that wouldn't really do anything
to prove atheism.  Similarly, a Christian could point at the lack of
atheist converts and say that it's because we're too closed-minded about
the idea of God or of "the supernatural".

Furthermore, when Till says he's never heard of these guys who were
said to be atheist but are now Christian, I don't know that he had ever
heard of Dan Barker the Christian before he had read/knew/heard of Dan
Barker the former-Christian atheist.  I certainly hadn't, and even
today I tend to think of Bob Barker (The Price is Right gentleman, I
believe) before I think of Dan.

So, Till, how is your dismissal of those who have converted from
atheism to theism as not "committed atheists" different from Christians
saying of others that they aren't or weren't real christians?  Even if
there is some relevant difference, what does this demonstrate about the
superiority of the atheist position?

Aside from this quibble---but what is left in the debate over errancy
_but_ quibbles---I found the issue as good as I have learned to expect
from the year and a half I've been a subscriber.  Particularly off
target was Roger Hutchinson's article, and his suggestion that
Adam:humanity::agent:player particularly laughable.  I would certainly
not have chosen him for my agent, but I had no choice in the matter.

One might make the claim that David's son died of "natural causes"
which were incorrectly understood by a primitive people to be an "act
of god", and while this reply gets one out of the woods on the
child-punishment issue, it practically admits biblical errancy.  I
doubt that the inerrantist readers of TSR would wish to do this.

One thing I itch to see in TSR is a non-inerrantist Christian defend
Christianity in light of an errant Bible.  I agree with Theodore Drange
when he said of his Argument from the Bible[1] (an argument against
Christianity from the errancy of the Bible) that some might say he was
knocking down a straw man, but that "I believe there are millions of
such "strawpeople" out there."  If it could be shown that the
establishment of biblical errancy was not such a blow to Christianity
everywhere, then things are great for Christians and they needn't
worry about this or that contradiction and they wouldn't appear so
foolish when they dismiss what TSR says as unimportant to their faith.

Just what is it that keeps still more millions of people from losing
their faith in the face of an errant bible?  Is it the claim that they
were inerrant in the original autographs (but god stopped caring after
that)?  Is it due to being taught happy-happy-joy-joy versions of
Christianity that are so pleasant that questioning them is like taking
a disgusting-tasting medicine?  Is it because of a personal religious
experience?  Or is it just a matter of being in a really deep rut?

Jeff
[1] http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html
-- 
\/ jepler@inetnebr.com http://www.auburn.net/~errancy/ (0|1(01*0)*1)+
Yes, but which self do you want to be?

• Previous message: Debate Proposal
• Next message: "They weren't _real_ atheists" (and other thoughts on the recent TSR)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]