A Christian and an Atheist

Reviews For A Christian and an Atheist

I really like the the Format and the discussions on the selection of bible subjects. I hope you continue because as I am not a believer I really enjoy the give and take. Emory and Scott, you guys are great at making each episode enjoyable. Thank you
This was one of my go to podcasts for a long time. I don’t believe, but I’m open to it. I like hearing both sides. All the hosts seem very honest and come from a good place. I highly recommend.
This podcast helped me navigate through the loss of my religious faith years ago. I’m so glad they are making episodes again after a hiatus. Now that I’m no longer religious, I still find this podcast very insightful and helpful in informing a well-balanced worldview in myself.
In my opinion, the Christian here is a great guy, well spoken, and knowledgeable. However, he does a very poor job of explaining things from the Christian position. Of all the directions he could take a given conversation, he seems to pick the easy way out. Look guys... truth is hard to hear, but that doesn’t mean we should soften it’s blow on God’s behalf. Stand up for what the Bible says and give a good account for wha you believe. The Christian here is not the best example of these things. Just my opinion.
I stopped watching after the first 5 minutes when the atheist said heaven would be boring because we would only be limited to doing good things yeah heaven would be boring because there will be no more evil haha!! because evil is so much fun right. I was getting really frustrated with what he was saying because he didn't even understand basic theological concepts like for example how he thinks he can build a life for himself in hell. The absurdity. Understand the concepts before you debate them please.
I like how this feels like a conversation you might overhear at the local coffee shop, rather than a polished show that has to stay on schedule and end with a victor. Usually just two guys asking questions in an attempt to better understand each other. Some guests and easier to listen to than others, but this to is a lesson in how to have this difficult conversation with all personality types. Thank you to those who spent their time and energy on such an important project.
This is a great resource to begin to understand some of the logical issues amidst this debate. However, it must be acknowledged that Christianity is full of instances where these simple logical discussions cannot quite display the full magnitude of themes central to the Gospel. Paradoxes such as faith and the saving grace through Jesus Christ I beyond simple conversation... With that said is also seems the two hosts bounce around on a lot of issues, and often talk past the other's points. The Atheist is definitely a better speaker, but he often seems to change the subject, while the Christian needs more time to think about his response... I really like this format though. Thanks for a great podcast!
Thought provoking. This podcast helps me with articulating my thoughts in social situations.
This is a Christian program. The "atheist" on this program is a Straw man: poorly built arguments, never questions validity of Supernatural statements, allows fallacy after fallacy , and concedes every point. "Two Christians with one pretending to be an Atheist" should be the title.
These two are cordial and civl, which is great to learn and keep a friendship, but they do not prepare, edit or have a great biblical and philosophical background which makes for a clunky, rhythmless, podcast. They do raise interesting issues, but they don't seem to be very interested in asserting themselves or their beliefs, specially the Christian guy, who doesn't really take the Bible, or doctrine to task. For your time I'd suggest On Being, Philosophy Bites or Rationally Speaking, better timing, better production value and expertise.
I am looking forward to seeing what is up for discussion, what has changed, etc.
I was actually listening to old episodes today and figured I'd check and see if there were any new ones and sure enough. Thanks guys glad you're back.
It feels like they are in a wierd area where the atheist tries to challenge the christian but lets some comments and assumptions slide unchallenged that is very frustrating to listen to knowing the rest of the conversation is pointless due to the false premiss the conversation is based on and this happens repeatedly.
A lot of the negative reviews talk about how the atheist goes way too easy on the Christian. I confess to feeling this way myself from time to time - but I think it is important to understand that this isn't trying to be a debate. They are trying to understand each other and to that end they work hard at not mischaracterizing what the other says or launching unfair attacks. One thing I will say - not all of the Christians are equal. The primary Christian right now is Scott. Scott is nice and mainstream / progressive. There are other Christians who come on (Tony English for example) who are not nice and play by different rules. The Christians who are out to prove they are right make for very annoying shows because Emery (the atheist) maintains his - I just want to understand where you are coming from - approach even though the Christian has clearly decided to play a different game. I just skip those shows, and they are the reason for 4 stars rather than 5. It would be fine for Emery to have the evangelicals on - he just needs to realize that the show will have a different tone and react accordingly.
One of the more productive podcasts that argue topics in christianity and atheism. They conversation stays polite and concise. Both host spend time trying to come to real understanding instead of just wanting to "win" the argument.
I listen to at least 10 religious debates. This one is best.
Emery and his various guest do an excellent job of working through the mental exercise of understanding and evaluating religion and the human condition. It is not an extremly entertaining podcast but it is extremly enjoyable if you like to logically and sustematically work through complex issues in a civil debate.
Horrible, just horrible.
The Christian brings up horribly flawed arguments, and the atheist doesn't seem to be able to make any contradictory point. The atheist just asks questions and lets the Christian answer however he likes without challenging him. This doesn't sound like a discussion between an atheist and a Christian. It is nothing more than an interview of a Christian.
should be the name of this podcast. The Christian sounds like an uneducated rube and the atheist just lobs softballs and doesn't engage in serious argumentation.
I'm a former evangelical of 25 years-turned atheist. Love this show. I'm now a part of a local skeptical society and a member of the local Reasonable Faith chapter (Christian apologetics). I think both sides can get away with too much or form too narrow a view of the other when discussing issues solely amongst themselves. This format helps significantly and is quite interesting. For those who wish to participate, the topic is dealt with further on the podcast's online forum. My only gripe is that Scott, the Christian, is more liberal than the Christians I hang out with and thus his arguments don't represent the views I most commonly deal with. This is not a fault of Scott or the podcast, it just is what it is.
I've listened to 5 of these so far. I find them so interesting that I haven't been listening to anything else but them for the past week. I've definitely mulled over many religious issues in my life, but they bring up things I've never even contemplated such as if a Christian's goal is to save souls why don't they just kill babies before they have a chance to sin. Then there was the podcast about hell and would god really send someone there for eternity. The atheist argues that by god sending people to hell for rejecting him that god himself is not living up to basic christian morals. Very interesting and engaging!
Lame premise.
Like it has been said before an awesome concept, and it is an extremely civil discussion. The first one I listen to was the one with Frank Turek, which was horribly frustrating how much bad science he spewed and how ineffectively he was called out on it. I realize it is a theological podcast but if you are going to have some one who makes claims supernaturalism is completely scientificly reasonable, you should have been ready with good science instead of throwing out flimsy questions. The show needs a more scientifically(atheist or non-biased theist) capable host when they do have these type of guest. I have listened to other episodes which I believe were better and why I didn't give this podcast a one star. I think Scott is a very critical and skeptical Chistian, which was most surprising and refreshing about the show.I think it has good potential and hope the show attempts to progress in it's format, I am eager to change my rating in the future.
This is great concept... But it realy lacks substance. Seems like they are both trying to hard. If they would keep the conversations going in one direction it might be more interesting and easier to listen to. They make me want to pull my hair out...
I really respect how civil they are with each other, it is kind of inspiring and I hope that I can communicate with people that I disagree with in a similar manner. It is still really frustrating for me to listen to though, because (and I'm a christian) I think there are different ways that the questions could be asked, or it seems like the christian is headed in the right direction and then gets side tracked. If you want a really good understanding of the arguments, you'll have to dig deeper then this.
This is an overall worthwhile and thought provoking podcast. Emery and the various Christian hosts present meaningful arguments in a respectful and scholarly manner. I highly reccomend this podcast to Christians and non-Christians who are interested in learning about atheist\agnostic views and the Christian response to such views.
the show is just fair i like how they give each other time to speak and that u do get to see both sides of it and its not just a yelling match but it seems like emery is a little easy on christians or either isnt informed enough just listening i found many times where he could of stepped in and said something where the christian couldnt say anything back to him but he misses those chances and it kinda rambles on with no conclusion if u are a atheist you will still be atheist after listening and if u are christian u will still be christain after listening
I love this show; it really seems like the hosts and guests really click, their philosophies notwithstanding. Probably the most balanced religion podcast out there, and certainly thought provoking.
I disagree with the other reviewer. I think the hoist is very fair with the Christian on the program. It is an open discussion and goes both ways. This is not a debate but a sharing of ideology. It’s worth listening to for both the Christian and the Atheist listener.
Emery is the embodiment of solar power as displayed in Aesop's fable of the Wind and the Sun. While the more passionate atheists are trying to blow the coat of Christianity off of its believers, Emery (the atheist) listens with great respect and gently, glowingly asks about possible gaps and inconsistencies. His soft-spoken and secure manner make it safe for Christians to occasionally slip off their guard and begin to question their own theologies, and perhaps their core beliefs. The format is entirely based on a two-person dialogue, and it assumes listeners are somewhat familiar with Christian theology. But for those of us who appreciate the finer points of the argument, Emery is a master at presenting targeted Atheist challenges to theism. I look forward to every episode.
These two guys are fair to each other, and that's nice. But the podcast itself is "just fair," and that's not too good. The discussions meander quite a bit, and although I appreciate the civility of the conversation, I notice Emery occasionally taking it easy on Norton, which my skeptical mind rebels against. I suppose there are plenty of people on either side of the Christian/Atheist fence who don't really know what the other side thinks, but I'm not one of them. I think there are much better podcasts out there.
Norton and Emery challenge each other to articulate their beliefs and the reasons behind them, but respect each other at the same time. My only complaint is that they are sometimes unable to fully explore a topic before they move on. If you are interested in a thoughtful dialogue between a theist and an atheist, then this is the podcast for you.
As a Christian/former athiest I find this podcast to be very interesting... but I kind of feel at times that the Athiest guy is trying to make the Christian guy look like he is wrong. It is almost as if he is trying to catch him in his words. He even makes it sound as if Christianity is a joke at times, which is strange, because the athiest guy says that he was a former Christian.