If you have been following along in my series on Street Epistemology  you will already know that the conclusion of Peter Boghossian, and any who follow him, is that Christianity is a delusion which has a “virus” of faith at its core.
The Street Epistemologist claims, at the beginning of the conversation (while creating a rapport with the couple as Boghossian advises), to be open minded to what the Christian couple have to share with him. He makes it sound like he could be convinced to believe what they do.
“Like I said before, I’m a skeptic and I’m really trying to believe as many things that are true and discard as many things that are false in my life.” [1:11-1:18]
@13:55 following Anthony says:
“I’m a skeptic – my mind is open… You folks might be the ones who convince me that your God exists…”
This is where the chap off camera takes issue with Anthony. This chap has clearly interacted with him before and heard what he has to say and he knows his agenda. When things get heated Anthony throws out the claim that there are no historical records for Jesus except for the Bible  because he’s already researched it and Anthony tells the other chap that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about!
Now, is it just me, or does this not sound very open-minded?
You can find the video at his Twitter account here.
So I think the question is: Why does Street Epistemology begin with an outright lie? I mean, Peter Boghossian has said many, many times that authenticity and honesty are really important ingredients of the Street Epistemology programme and yet Street Epistemologists themselves are being required to hide what they really think about Christianity to those they talk to. Instead of telling them that they think Christianity is a delusion and that they are suffering from a virus the Street Epistemologist (Atheist Apologist) actually pretends to be open to catching what they consider to be a virus!
You will notice the Street Epistemologist, in his Tweet to Peter Boghossian (who ‘retweeted’ the video), wonders why the man mostly off camera is getting annoyed with him. But the man explains. It’s not because Anthony (the Street Epistemologist) is an atheist – it’s because he’s not been up front and honest about where he’s coming from.
The methodology of Street Epistemology has been found out even by people on the streets who have not even read Boghossian’s book!
I would like to add this is not a personal attack on Anthony. In fact, I have offered to have a conversation with Anthony about Street Epistemology here on my blog and I hope he will still take me up on that offer because it is a genuine one.
Since writing this, Anthony has told me that he is genuinely open to evidence regarding Christianity. That would appear to be pretty tough to square with Boghossian’s book though. The whole attempt is to talk to people as an “intervention” – that’s even what it’s called. You don’t dialogue with infected people – you treat them.
Anyway – I think this raises some very important concerns regarding the methodology of Street Epistemology.
 If not then you’re very naughty and should immediately catch up by going here.
 Do I even need to suggest links to materials which demonstrate how misplaced this criticism is?