Christian Objectivists: Dialog with Atheist Objectivists? No.

I got this question today from a Christian.

Should Objectivists and Christians talk? Do reasonable [people] disagree, and if so, is it profitable for them to understand one another?

--M


Dear M:

I don't believe there is any other kind of Christian but a Christian Objectivist. If there is, he is saying that the tenets of Christianity are not objectively true. 

Ridiculous.

Sadly, though: I don't think many Christians would know what "objectively true" even means.

Even more ridiculous.

So maybe the question is, "Should Christian Objectivists and atheist/agnostic/skeptic/apatheist (AASA) Objectivists talk?".

It seems like the answer should be "yes," but I actually believe it's often better if it's "no." 

The vast majority of atheist individuals I've posted with or seen post are so vitriolic about Christianity that I think their emotions get in the way of their ability to be rational. At that point, no meaningful dialog is possible. 

There are websites by ex-atheists that explain this phenomenon. Those were helpful to me in understanding why Christianity drives atheists into a frenzy, and helped me understand why some atheists are driven to spend--report the ex-atheists--virtually all their free time learning arguments with which to attack Christians on the Internet.

But what's new? Non-Christians have wanted to rip Christians apart since the beginning, as evidenced by the resulting torture and murder of Christians on a huge scale.

Beg to differ with that allegation? Save it. I have the statistics.

So yeah. The idea for the non-Christians is that you kill/hate/attack--not PEOPLE who come to different conclusion--but CHRISTIANS who do that. Now THERE'S tolerance, o ye "good guy" atheists. No. Wait. Did I say, "tolerance"?

What? Were you going into the little speech about "Alllllll the killings perpetrated by Christians?" HA! Let's end that crap once and for all. Check your premises. Atheist regimes hold the FIRST 30 SLOTS in the world history of number of people killed under their authority. So pack up that crap and see if you can sell it on ebay. Don't try shoving it off on any educated Christian.

Granted, 99 percent of Christians are, frankly, idiots on stilts when it comes to understanding what they themselves purport to even believe in, and the nature of it, and the empirical proofs of it.

Not necessarily their fault.

But Christian teachers who spent their time teaching their classes how to make Christmas ornaments for the handicapped instead of teaching them what the hell metaphysics and epistemology are and the proofs of their faith--don't get me started--are going to have some 'splainin to do on the Big Day.

Nonetheless, there are so many logical contradictions in atheist/agnostic/skeptic Objectivists feeling that Christians don't have a right to their own rationally deduced value choices that I don't even have time to get into that.

Today.

At the bottom, isn't the act of "talking" actually the act of each person asserting his position? And in a conversation where each is strongly motivated to dissuade the other, isn't that too toxic an atmosphere for dialog? What progress could either make that wouldn't make the other's emotional state ramp up?

But the CHRISTIANS! Oh, I'm shaking my head with a "Tsk, tsk, tsk" at them.

Until Christians wake up and get their minds working about what Jesus actually taught, and about the definitions of the words they use, and about the existing proofs, I actually think it is detrimental to the cause for those Christians to open their mouths.

Their illiteracy just gives more ammunition to atheists, and causes the poor atheists to put in so much silly work rejecting a straw man--a straw man that the Christians built by alleging teachings that are NOT the teachings.

I completely exclude apatheists from the above description. Apatheists (apathy + theist = apatheist) simply don't care whether there is or isn't a God, so they aren't even going to engage in any dialog beyond letting you know they don't care.

I find THAT position to be the scariest of all. 

Then again, maybe that's one common ground for atheist Objectivists and Christian Objectivists--to form an alliance to at LEAST bring back the caring. :)

Hot or cold, people!

Beth

Welcome to Christian Brights

Greetings from Tralfamadore.

Just kidding. Let me start over.

Greetings. I'm Beth, and I'm a Christian Bright (apologies for the use of the word "bright," but I didn't get a vote--more on that below.) I have a post graduate degree--a doctorate in law from a top 10 university--am a former columnist for The New York Times Syndicate, founder of the philosophical system of Christian Objectivism (book soon to be published), founder and former CEO of a 501(c)(3) corporation, former New York model, author of 3 books, wife of a University Professor of English, mother of two Objectivists, and a firm believer in John 3:16 and all that is appurtenant thereunto.

This blog is part of the network of Christian Objectivist materials on the net. Christian Brights is a parallel group to Christian Objectivists. Click here to see my blogs CHRISTIANOBJECTIVIST and CHRISTIANOBJECTIVISTS.

While we regret that "Brights" was the name chosen by its founders to refer to this "community of reason"--regret it in the sense that the term stereotypes rational people as being elitist (I'd say arrogant, but some Brights deserve to be proud of being bright, while others wouldn't so qualify)--nonetheless, the name is set by its founders.

In case you are new to the idea of Brights--and I doubt you would be here if you were new to it--Brights (to let you know) need not be atheist, humanist, apatheist, agnostics, skeptics, etc. There is, thankfully, no such tight definition of who qualifies to be a Bright.

To be a Bright, you must be a naturalist, a person who believes in what is real, and who does not subscribe to the unreal, where "unreal" is called "the supernatural." You must be a person for whom reason is the interface with reality. You must be a person who is intelligent enough to have researched the ancient Greek and found out that the word "pistis" means to believe based on evidence--and that that word "pistis" was most sadly translated into two different English words--faith and belief--with NO reason for breaking it into two different words. And you must also have discovered--or are discovering as you read this--that "faith" as the translation of "pistis" actually means believing BASED ON EVIDENCE. 

Most of all, you must have realized, or realize now, that the term "blind faith" is ridiculous. It is virtually impossible to believe something for which there is no evidence. Furthermore, it is the highest insult to Jesus for you to allege that you believe in him and his teachings by "blind faith"--meaning that you believe "for no reason whatsoever."

And how is the name "Christian Bright" not an oxymoron?

Like this: If you are a Christian who believes that the essential foundation of what Jesus taught was strictly reality, and that he referred solely to things that were real--quick test: Can you say, "I believe that what Jesus taught was strictly real, and strictly concerned actual reality, and that he was real, and that everything he talked about fell into the category of 'real'?"--then you are not a believer in the idea that there are some parts of Christianity that are NOT real. Therefore, since you believe only in Christianity as being real, and based on strict reality, then you are a Christian naturalist, and you can be a Christian Bright.

Methodological naturalism: check.

Ontological naturalism: check.

Metaphysical naturalism: check. And I don't care who tells you that makes you an atheist. If anyone alleges that, they are simply wrong, and need to do their homework.

Quick test again: True or false? "Some parts of Christianity aren't real."

If you said false, then you're a metaphysical naturalist, an ontological naturalist, and a Christian naturalist, and--you win: you're a Christian Bright.

Good thing, too. Because if you think you're a Christian, and you also think that a bunch of its teachings aren't real or have nothing to do with reality, then you've got bigger problems than figuring out what is a Bright and whether you are one.

And so it goes.

Come back, soon!