Jacob Spinney

[Skeptical Greg]

Wow.. Great article about young Atheist...


Great contrast regarding him being confronted with "Christianity is a thinking persons religion." and then being run out of town as an agent of Satan after presenting a rebuttal they couldn't handle..


Be sure not to miss the rebuttal.

An 18 year-old Atheist’s Rebuttal to “5 Crucial Questions about Christianity” (http://jacobandrews.com/tomshort.htm)

I will throw this out over at R & P for discussion if no one beats me to it..

[carlosthetackle]

Yeah, had to laugh at that 'tool of the devil' thing.

Great rebuttal too. I wish I could have expressed myself that well at 18.

[Skeptical Greg]

If I could pick one gem from the rebuttal...

Faith is based on belief in something with no evidence to support it. Trust is based on belief in something because of past experience.

There was so much more...

[Roadtoad]

Diogenes, this is why I'm convinced the Church is on it's way down. Let's face a few facts here as presented:

(1.) Jacob Spinney went in with an open mind, and did not prejudge those he was meeting with. He went in politely, and asking questions of those who were present, making few demands if any, and even willingly attended a retreat where he would be considered an "enemy of the Faith" in order to gather more evidence before he made a decision.

Spinney further went directly to the individual in question in this theodrama, presenting his rebuttal to the evangelist in writing,, offering him a chance to reply in kind (which he has not done, and probably will never do), while at the same time, maintaining a high degree of respect for those with whom he was dealing.

(2.) At no point was anyone willing to discuss why he chose to base his decisions on FACT rather than EMOTION, which should tell you even more about what's going on with this group. Sounds a hell of a lot like a cult to me when they play it that way.

(3.) In reading through Spinney's rebuttal, it became clear that Evangelist Short skipped over a lot of evidence, perhaps because it worked towards a contradiction of what he hoped would be a "hard hitting exposition of the evidence for theism," (as I've once heard such books referred to). That's dishonest, though Spinney never said that, if I recall. Instead, Spinney chose a more diplomatic route. If Short wasn't willing to respond PUBLICLY to what Spinney had to say, he should have at least been willing to reply in the promised e-mail.

At no point did Spinney embarass Short, or those who were hosting him, nor did he embarass his hosts. Seems to me Spinney was deserving of the same consideration.

(4.) No, I don't blame James Randi for his insistance that he be spared pious bleats. After what we've read from Spinney, I don't have much patience with it, either.

[Skeptical Greg]

What you said RoadToad...


Religion is a clear case of " The Emperor's New Clothes "...

I hope I live to see the day when more people have the nerve to bring it to the Emperor's attention the way Jacob has done.

[Chad Noles]

posted by Diogenes
If I could pick one gem from the rebuttal...
"Faith is based on belief in something with no evidence to support it. Trust is based on belief in something because of past experience."

I think this seems to be a main difference in how believers view their religions differently than skeptics view their beliefs.If that sentence made any sense?Religion seems to have no problem with "Faith" in the unknown.It's more or less the way Faith is defined."Trust" it seems is more palitable to the skeptic because it is based on past experience.The difference between what is known and that which is unknown obviously makes a difference in whether you are a believer or a skeptic.Do you venture a belief into an unknown,or that which has been proven.Why should anyone confuse the difference?I think it is an "apples and oranges"comparison.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Chad Noles


I think this seems to be a main difference in how believers view their religions differently than skeptics view their beliefs.If that sentence made any sense?Religion seems to have no problem with "Faith" in the unknown.It's more or less the way Faith is defined."Trust" it seems is more palitable to the skeptic because it is based on past experience.The difference between what is known and that which is unknown obviously makes a difference in whether you are a believer or a skeptic.Do you venture a belief into an unknown,or that which has been proven.Why should anyone confuse the difference?I think it is an "apples and oranges"comparison.
Did you read the rebuttal?

Yes, ' Faith and Trust ' are ' Apples and Oranges '..


The rebuttal was pointing this out with regard to the author's use of the word ' trust '...