YES, VIRGINIA, THERE ARE SUCH THINGS AS ANGELS
By: F. Forester Church
Christmas is a great time of the year. We recognize that yes, there is a God. Yes, there is a Jesus, and that yes, angels are real. We see ourselves as sinners needing a savior and we see Jesus through his virgin birth, sinless life, death, and resurrection as the sole source of salvation and approaching God. Christmas and Easter are two days we can show appreciation and Thanksgiving for our future existence.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Nearly a century ago, Francis Church, editor of the New York Sun and a shoestring ancestor of mine, received a letter just before Christmas from a little girl who did not believe in Santa Claus. His response, published as an editorial, has since become a classic. ''Yes, Virginia,'' he wrote, ''there is a Santa Claus.''
''He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! How dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.''
Though Francis Church was not a theologian, this is quite commendable theology. I doubt if any editor today would go out on the same limb for angels, but the logic can hardly be improved upon. Admittedly, it is an odd sort of logic, but Christmas is an odd sort of holiday: an angel appearing to shepherds by night as they watch over their flocks; a brilliant star illuminating the heavens; a pilgrimage of Magi; the birth of a child.
At Christmastime all rationalists are grinches. They are thieves of mystery and joy. They forget that this is not a historical record to stand or fall on its facts, but a story. Like every story, its truth depends entirely upon its listeners. It will prove as true as love and hope are true, but only if it awakens us to possibilities for love and hope within our own lives. No wonder it is shot through with angels.
We are back in the fields surrounding Bethlehem. Suddenly, the sky shines with a great light, an angel of God. We are terrified, but the angel says,
''Fear not, for, behold I bring you glad tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you this day a child is born.'' As Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, ''In fancy is the perpetual Messiah, which comes into the arms of fallen men and women and pleads with them to return to paradise.''
In the infancy narrative in Luke, angels not only appear to announce Jesus` birth, but his conception as well. And even before this, Gabriel, ''the hero of God,'' tells Zacharias that his wife, Elizabeth, like Sarah a woman advanced in years, will give birth to a son, whose name will be John--John the Baptist.
Mothers and angels often appear together in the Bible. Sarah, Hagar, Elizabeth, and Mary all have this in common. Their delivery is announced by a messenger of God. And with each delivery comes not only a child but also the promise of deliverance for other children.
With every birth something of eternity is made incarnate in that which is bound by time. In this sense, Jesus` birth in the manger is archetypal. Not only does it prefigure our own, but also, in the bloom of its promise, the birth of the baby Jesus reawakens us to the limitless nature of our own possibilities. Placed within our arms, it pleads with us to remember that life is not a given but a blessed gift, not to be taken for granted and occasionally begrudged, but something holy and mysterious to be pondered with awe.
In this sense, my accidental namesake and great-great-grand cousin, Francis Church, really was a theologian. ''You tear apart the baby`s rattle,'' he wrote, ''and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest person, nor even the united strength of all the strongest people that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view--and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. It is all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.''
Or, as my friend Roy Phillips puts it, ''Christmas is real. It`s the rest of the year that`s a myth.''
Tags
Who is online
115 visitors
[Deleted]
The fact that one is compelled to make these claims illustrates that these claims are not factual.
Imagine the following claims:
These are all established facts. There is no need to constantly restate these to people. Facts stand on their own.
But all of these are trivial factual claims that do not hold a candle to the claim of certain existence of a sentient creator. These claims are all supported by solid evidence, yet when dealing with probably the grandest possible claim (existence of God) —where one would expect evidence commensurate with the grandeur of the claim— the factual basis is mere human claims — not a shred of evidence in all of recorded human history. That is why people, even now, must constantly repeat these claims as if they were factual ... the only thing keeping these claims propped up is endless proselytizing.
Are they though?
I can think of situations where you could restate some of these facts a thousand times and people would still not believe it. Especially,
Nothing one can do about those who deny established facts. The key, though, is that the facts can be objectively verified. Even though opinions differ (on almost anything: there are flat-Earthers our there) the facts stand independent of the bias and perspective failings of individuals.
That's nice. Prove it!
Do you really think it adds anything to the conversation to make this same post in every article like this? Are you threatened by this seed?
That is such a strange way to look at things. Science-oriented, secular individuals typically are not claiming we know it all. Indeed, you have often read us speak of scientific findings and the 'best explanation thus far' but when do you hear claims that science is truth?
In contrast, it is the religious folks who claim certain truth. And what is fascinating about that is that the claim is based on nothing at all. Not a shred of evidence. Just what other human beings have claimed.
So science, with mountains of empirical evidence and demonstration of an effective method, does not claim truth but religions (with nothing but human claims) have the temerity to claim truth. And truth about the grandest possible claim — the existence of a sentient creator.
To say that is 'ironic' seems to be an understatement.
As opposed to someone making baseless claims as fact to begin with and offers nothing to support said claims?
Is that supposed to be a joke?
Why would I want mere belief over actual evidence or proof?
Which question is that?
I am unaware of anyone denying that religious beliefs exist.
Wow, like who cares? Do you? Are you supposed to the site's great police of "baseless claims?" Do you run around from seed to seed making sure all claims are well supported? And if they were, what is the yardstick? The Gordy book of proper internet arguing?
No, I don't think so. I don't think you care about making people "prove it" on any seed except where someone might make some reference to God and then it's your sacred mission to jump all over it and demand proof.
The really ridiculous thing is that it's not even the point of the article. To get anything out of the article you just have to accept (even if only for the sake of argument) the "claim" that has you choking so hard and then get on to the actual discussion. If you can't do that, maybe you should just skip the discussion.
No. I see nothing funny in your need to angrily demand proof every time there's the most fleeting reference to the existing of God in a seed. I asked it in all seriousness so that you might consider actually pondering why you respond like this to these seeds. It's like a dog who barks at everyone who walks by his yard even though no one walking by has ever proved to be a threat.
Understood. My comment was referring to secular individuals in general and to the subset of those represented here on NT.
The 'know-it-all' label applies best to those who claim they hold truth and cannot back that up. For example, there is a profound difference between:
'The Christian God exists and ...'
vs.
'Thus far there is no evidence that the Christian God (or any god, for that matter) exists.'
How did Gordy, personally, become the topic?
Just when I thought your comments couldn't get any more absurd.
This is a fine example of making a statement of certainty (truth - 100%) based on nothing but what other human beings have merely claimed.
When someone comments on content (as Gordy has done) that is the opposite of making themselves the subject. Why make ridiculous proclamations that are flat out wrong??
Here is the key. Do not talk about the other member. Focus on the content. Rebut the logic, the claims of fact, etc. Steer clear of psychoanalyzing other members, presuming to know what is in their minds, etc. and you will most likely avoid making things personal.
To wit ... focus on what is written, not on the author.
This reveals the problem with they way you are thinking about this. This is not about an argument over whether or not God exists. This is about claims of certainty being made based solely on religious belief.
For example, when Ken Ham uses his organization —Answers In Genesis— to promote the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that dinosaurs coexisted with human beings, that evolution is pseudoscience, etc. he is making claims of certainty based solely on his religious beliefs. Do you not see the fundamental societal problem of having tens of millions of Americans buying this nonsense and teaching it to their kids?
And this is why such statements are summarily challenged, and such intellectual dishonesty is exposed. You make an affirmative claim like that, then then simply (and cowardly) ignore any challenge to your claim.
How does challenging certain claims made make me the topic of discussion exactly? If I become the topic, then that shows some try to shift the topic to deflect away from challenges made.
Except that he wasn't, and simply proclaiming correctness does not make it so.
When someone has to shift focus on the author instead of the topic, it shows the inherent weakness of their arguments, claims, and logic. They can't support their claims or refute and challenge, so they try to attack the author instead. It's quite the intellectually dishonest and cowardly tactic.
said the person who had just written:
I love the self-righteousness of this. The person who says this:
then goes on to hypocritically declare:
hoping that everyone will buy into the false dodge that calling the tactic "dishonestly and cowardly" is not the same as calling the person "dishonest and cowardly." But sensible people know better.
Without supporting evidence, a claim of truth is no different than bullshit. One can claim a past abduction by extraterrestrials or having dinner with a band of leprechauns. Mere claims are irrelevant; what matters is what can be demonstrated. Beyond that, it is arrogant to claim to know the intentions of what would be the grandest possible entity.
On another note, there is a profound difference between a claim of certainty and a belief:
This is a claim of certainty. Contrast it with this:
(humility) ☞ 'And I believe that many of those demanding proof will get it from the other side impersonating the real thing just before the end...'
The above is expressing a personal belief. It does not claim truth but simply offers (admits to) a belief. One can admit that one believes in leprechauns but it is a very different thing entirely to claim certain knowledge that they exist.
The harm from holding beliefs as truth (certainty) shows up when people act on those beliefs as if they were truth. It results in everything from bigotry (e.g. homosexuality held as an abomination) to terror (e.g. killing infidels).
I call it what it is. I didn't specify a person. But if that's how you want to interpret it, then perhaps it's hitting a little close to home?
People can believe in whatever they want. But belief does not equal fact. And if belief is posited as fact, then expect claims based on belief to be rightfully challenged and exposed. I noticed you ignored TiG's other points, instead focusing on his last one. Interesting.
Just another empty claim based on nothing but mere belief.
If there were a god, there would be no such thing as free will or choice.
That's because you can't prove it,(Deleted)
"Rational faith" is an oxymoron. Faith by definition is irrational.
Nice try, but that doesn't work on me either.
Nope, I was just shining a light on the bullshit. But you knew that and tried another one of the games. Fail.
Stating that Texan's comment reveals that he is reading my words wrong is not psychoanalyzing him.
And I will explain why.
Texan wrote this:
This comment claims that we (Gordy and I, et. al.) are engaging in an argument over whether or not God exists. Well, I happen to know that this is not at all what I am doing and I am confident Gordy would state that this is not his intent either. And there is solid evidence to support my claim. I routinely note that a sentient creator is possible. I never argue against the possibility of a sentient creator.
So Texan's view is demonstrably wrong and I noted that in my comment:
The 'problem with the way you are thinking about this' refers to Texan's explicit words that we are arguing over whether or not God exists. Obviously (right?) I am not suggesting that I am reading Texan's mind nor am I engaging in anything personal about his psychology. Unless of course one is engaging in a very poor 'gotcha', I suspect most people would understand that I am responding to what he wrote and noting that his presumption of my intent is wrong.
Note that the rest of my comment then goes on to correct Texan's misconception of my intent:
This should be crystal clear for those who are trying to engage in intellectual honesty.
How can you not see the difference?
If someone states that your comment is a lie, is that the same as claiming you, personally, are a liar? The former is an accusation of willfully stating a falsehood (of lying; of stating a lie). The latter is an attack on a person's character. If you do not recognize the difference then logically you must consider everyone on the planet to be liars because we have all lied at least once in our lives.
A tactic used in comments, and the criticism of same, is different than criticism of the author. So when someone engages in intellectually dishonest tactics (like playing superficial word games and pretending an unlikely interpretation to raise a strawman) that does not mean that the individual is an inherently dishonest person.
As before, if you do not see the difference then you logically must consider everyone on the planet to be dishonest because we have all been dishonest in our lives.
In short, criticism of a tactic is not ipso facto criticism of the author as an individual. It is criticism of an act, not the person who engaged in the act.
Your interpretations seem quite off.
What you just wrote is the point. First of all, nobody here is denying that people have faith. The argument is that faith —believing something to be true without evidence— is logically unsound and can be detrimental (I have offered many examples in the past).
And, as you have noted, we have zero evidence that any of the religious claims are true. Note that in Islam, there is a belief that Allah welcomes terrorist martyrs and grants them rewards for engaging in suicide bombing. There is, as you note, not a shred of evidence that this is true yet people believe it and that belief supports engaging in these acts of terror.
Well Ken Ham believes on faith that the Bible should be interpreted literally. Accordingly, he uses the resources of his enterprise to push utter nonsense into the minds of the next generation. Nonsense such as biochemical evolution being pseudoscience, Earth being less than 10,000 years old, Noah's ark carrying dinosaurs, Grand Canyon being formed by a worldwide flood, etc. All of these fly directly in the face of well-established science — findings based on a plethora of well-founded evidence and objective challenges to same.
It is one thing to believe that there must be a higher power — a supreme creator. That belief, if recognized as speculative, is rational. But all the nonsense that people have historically wrapped around the notion of a creator, all the embellishments and the contradictions that naturally result from human minds inventing notions are counter-productive. Teaching kids that homosexuals are abominations, that evolution is pseudoscience, etc. based on faith alone will be challenged (and should be challenged).
TiG, you make excellent, logical points. All of which will probably fall on deaf ears here. I'm sure you can see the irony here
Deaf ears ... absolutely. But the comment was not really for HA but for readers in general to see the counterpoint to a point.
( thanks )
You waste your time. We see you and we also see the spinning and twisting. You're only fooling yourself and those who want in advance to agree with you.
You see (or at least publicly claim to see) what you wish to see Tacos!. I had no expectation that you would consider facts or reason and that you would ever admit to your mistake (or charade).
Oh, look who's telling me how I think again. The guy who said:
Some people can't help themselves.
Of course not, since you can't prove anything anyway! You also lack credibility then and your claims are utterly baseless and without merit. But at least you acknowledge them as belief. And that's all they are.
Another mere belief.
Then there's no evidence forthcoming and no reason to "believe" or accept any claims regarding god as factual or true.
What "clues?" Be specific!
Mere belief.
See first statement!
You can believe whatever you want.
And we see the same old baseless claims day after day: god is real, angels are real, creation is real, blah blah blah.
So any affirmative claim made deserves a proper prove it challenge.
Note that there is not even an attempt to engage in a debate on content by those who would naturally take the pro-religion side of a debate. Rather than attempt even a semblance of debate, all we see are emotive personal comments founded on juvenile tactics.
I agree that it is pointless to debate about the existence of a sentient creator. Nobody knows one way or the other. And you do not see Gordy or I bring that up as a topic. You do not seem to realize that it is you (et. al.) who posit the certain existence of a sentient creator and then, go well beyond that and posit that the creator is none other than the extremely well-attributed God of the Bible (and thus bring in all the contradictory baggage).
Maybe stop making claims of your certain knowledge of God and of God's plans and expectations and you would not see rebuttals of same. Stop making ridiculous claims like 'evolution is pseudoscience — a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists' or threaten eternal damnation of those who do not believe as you do and you would not see harsh rebuttals to that inexplicable nonsense.
In short, if one posits that which one cannot defend one will of course find it frustrating when the posits are rebutted. The solution is to not make certain claims unless one can effectively back them up.
I've noticed. It's just the same emotionally based rhetoric. Not even a semblance of logical discourse. But that comes as no surprise.
Burying your head in the sand won't make the logical challenges to BS claims go away. But it does speak volumes about you.
If your Xmas was ruined by a mere discussion, then perhaps you shouldn't have posted it in the first place.
The issue isn't about belief. It's about claims made as fact based on nothing but belief. Apparently some cannot see the distinction.
That's not what was claimed. Read. The statement was:
And it's true. Mission accomplished. Congratulations.
My statement still applies
Considering you post something on a public discussion forum, why would you be surprised or outraged if others comment?
Amazing. You proudly pat yourself on the back as the arbiter of proper argument and guardian of facts, but you think that leaving out key words doesn't change the meaning of what is written.
You failed to see that HA's statement used "seed" as the subject and "Christmas" as an adjective describing that subject.
In contrast, you treated "Christmas" as the subject.
You can't even admit your error. But sure, keep telling yourself how "logical" your arguments are. Wow!
Here's what I said: If your Xmas was ruined by a mere discussion, then perhaps you shouldn't have posted it in the first place." We were having a discussion. So if someone is complaining of a seed being ruined because of the discussion, then my statement still applies. Just replace "Xmas" with "seed."
My initial post was a challenge to a claim made. I simply followed subsequent posts and comments made.
See first statement.
Sure, don't let little things like the actual meanings of completely different words deter you from shoveling out copious amounts of horseshit.
Hey, if it makes you feel better just replace "horseshit" with "truth" because same thing right?
Like I said. Wow!
Grammar-police nit-picking and over-the-top victimization. Looking at your comments I could not find one that dealt with the content of the seed. They all seem to be personal and emotive. Basically you seem to be (that is: how it appears to me) trying to pick a fight, but with pebbles. I am reading exaggeration and faux outrage with points that are at best irrelevant nits.
While I certainly understand why you disagree with those of us who challenge declarations of truth based on religious belief, you chose to go personal rather than rebut the challenges. In result (given help from friends), much of this seed was consumed with personal meta comments and the (content-focused) defense from Gordy and I which followed.
That established ...
The very experienced, seasoned seeder obviously knew that seeding a religious article on NT and then proclaiming absolute truth ...:
... would invite a challenge to those claims of certainty. The challenge itself @4 ("That's nice. Prove it!") was succinct, mild and impersonal. It is also known to most people here on NT as Gordy's trademark. If you do not recognize that Gordy is simply stating: "your claim of certainty bears the burden of proof" then you are now so informed.
Given the seeder must by now (years of experience here) know that his intentional claim of truth (similar to his oft claimed: 'evolution is pseudoscience; a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists') would almost certainly bring forth a challenge, the subsequent victim pretense is a transparent tactic.
Wow! Is that ever dishonest. Pointing out that someone has deliberately changed someone else's words for the purpose of mocking them is hardly nit-picking about grammar. Seriously, to have both of you defend such a tactic - especially after self-righteously patting yourselves on the backs (repeatedly) for your fidelity to facts and logic - is truly disgusting.
My comments have been entirely aimed at Gordy's usual approach to seeds like this where rather than discuss the content of the article, he just wants to demand that people justify their underlying belief system to his personal, yet arbitrary and impossible-to-satisfy standard. This is done entirely for the purpose of attacking the seed and other people's beliefs. It's obnoxious. Nobody owes Gordy - or you - "proof" for their beliefs.
It's not about disagreeing with your opinion on religion. I disagree with what I see as a "dick move." i.e. it's just rude. These seeds are not about trying to convince you to believe in something. You introduce that argument all by yourself to derail the seed.
You guys love to do this, too. i.e. claim that you have established something as irrefutable fact. All you have established is how proud you are of your own opinion.
Here's a crazy idea: Stop doing it! It costs you nothing to just let a person post a seed and discuss the content of that seed. It should be clear to you by now that the seeder was not interested in inviting that particular challenge in this seed. This has been stated repeatedly.
You don't actually need to challenge someone's religious beliefs every time they post something based on those beliefs. If you think those beliefs are nonsense, leave it alone and take part in a seed that does interest you.
I don't see you guys going in to the movie discussion seeds to say that movies are a poor form of entertainment, for example. Those seeds though, are based on the very simple foundational belief that movies are worth being enthusiastic about. There are plenty of people who disagree with that, but they don't go into those seeds to crap all over the conversation.
In fact, I don't see you or Gordy going into any other topic of seed to attack basic assumptions underlying enjoyment and interest of the seed. Not even the political ones! But you guys are obsessed with attacking other people's religious beliefs.
Well, I disagree. I think it's not mild at all. I think it's trolling. It's bullying. And "that established," I think it should be treated as such.
Wow, way to completely miss the mark. I'm not demanding people justify their beliefs. It's when they posit their beliefs as fact or truth, especially when logically inconsistent or contradicted by establish scientific facts and evidence, that demands proof. Big difference.
If there was a derail, it's when someone made an affirmative claim and refused and/or failed to back it up.
Hardly an "opinion" when there are facts or evidence to back it up.
That works both ways too. If someone wants to post something as true they can't support, then it's not unreasonable to expect challenges to the claim.
And someone doesn't actually need to post their religious beliefs either, especially posting them as matter fact.
No one is trying to establish movies as fact or reality either.
And some seem obsessed with whining when challenged.
You're entitled to your opinion.
If that's what you think, then report it as such. Let's see what happens or if someone agree with you. It's like you think affirmative claims made shouldn't be logically challenged? That anything be allowed to pass unchallenged, no questions asked?
No it doesn't. No one owes you proof of anything.
It is fascinating watching you make a big deal over the phrase 'ruin your Xmas' instead of 'ruin your seed'. Gordy even acknowledged the complaint and in effect stated that ...:
'If your
Xmasseed was ruined by a mere discussion, then perhaps you shouldn't have posted it in the first place.'... also applies. Your complaint is running on fumes ...
That is correct; the proof only applies to a statement of certainty. I have explained this once so I will be succinct:
[Claim of Certainty vs. Expression of Belief] 'I believe X' bears no burden of evidence or proof. In contrast, the claim of certainty: 'X is true' bears the burden of proof (or at least evidence). So, to be crystal clear, the statement: 'I believe God, Jesus and angels exist' bears no burden of proof or evidence whereas the claim: 'We recognize that yes, there is a God. Yes, there is a Jesus, and that yes, angels are real.' does bear the burden.
A claim of certainty bears the burden of proof (or at least evidence). The challenge of: 'that's nice, prove it' is quite appropriate.
Okay, you do not consider these seeds to be proselytization. Opinions vary. Even so, my focus (which you either ignore or miss) has been on making claims of certainty; not on mere expression of belief.
I see what is all too common. When some cannot offer a logical rebuttal on content, some play intellectually dishonest games.
See above: [Claim of Certainty vs. Expression of Belief] (you continue to misrepresent what is taking place).
You do not need to challenge political views when you see them; but you do. And people challenge your political claims. This is a discussion / debate forum that HA knowingly participates in. He could have seeded into a religious forum (different site) or even a private group on NT. We are all adults (at least chronologically) so no excuses. If someone writes something in a public forum they should expect to be challenged if someone disagrees.
Glad you noticed that. I suppose if someone were to claim that magic is real because of the Harry Potter films that would invite a challenge.
Again, glad you realize that. Personally, I generally steer clear of partisan articles, but I have, recently, participated in a few on Bloomberg. Gordy seems to participate in the political articles IMO. I prefer the topics of science, religion, philosophy, technology, etc. Of these, religious seeds seem to dominate here on NT (and this is predominantly from HA). You do not have to participate if you cannot stomach the notion that people making claims of certainty without a shred of evidence will be routinely challenged on the claim. I assure you, if HA continues to make claims of certainty like this: 'evolution is pseudoscience; a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists' the challenges will be there.
And that, Tacos!, given the exaggerated, emotive claims in this thread, is truly ironic.
You have still offered nothing on the content.
To illustrate:
Yeah, Tacos!, it does. A claim of certainty (a claim of truth ) bears the burden of proof (at least evidence):
Uh yeah, it does! Affirmative claims require proof (or evidence at the very least). Otherwise, such claims are baseless and lack any validity. Or do you simply accept any claim made, no questions asked?
Then they don't have any credibility and are being intellectually dishonest!
Except they're not stating it's just a mere belief. Some state their beliefs as matter of fact. That's when the demand for proof subsequently arises. See the difference yet?
Oh BS! The seeder has a history of proselytizing statements, as well as previously stating trying to reach the "undecided" is a mission or "divine mandate," or some nonsense like that.
Or some just get too emotional and defensive and cannot formulate a rational or logical argument/rebuttal. Instead, some start to whine about it.
Is it? Prove it.
Prove it
Prove it
Prove it
Prove it
Prove it
Prove it
Prove it
Prove it
Prove it
Prove it
Prove it
Annoyed? Hey, it's your rule, not mine. I'm just following the rule:
You let me know when the stupidity and childishness of demanding proof for the same thing over and over and over again starts to become evident to you.
Says who? You? Who died and made you God of self-expression?
The only reason there might be a burden of proof would be if someone were asking you to accept the same thing as truth that they accept. That didn't happen here. HA wasn't trying to convince you personally that God exists, so HA does not have a burden of proof relative to you, Gordy, or anyone else.
That's the whole thing Gordy. No one has asked you to accept shit. If you don't want to believe in God, then don't. No one here cares.
The only "claim" here was that HA (and some unidentified "we") recognizes the existence of God, Jesus, and so on. HA is the person best qualified to declare what HA recognizes.
Calm down.
This is logic Tacos!, I did not invent it. But I am amused that you are publicly declaring that you are unaware of this very basic notion of logic:
A statement of certainty (truth) bears the burden of proof.
An interesting rule; did you just make it up? Well let's not make up rules. If someone makes a claim of certainty (truth) that claim bears the burden of proof. One cannot simply claim: 'exolife exists here on Earth' and not back that up with at least some evidence.
In short, if one declares: 'X is true' then they should expect to be challenged to show why. And if they cannot, an emotional fit is not going to solve the problem.
Looks like you are trying to interpret the word 'recognize' to mean 'believes'. 'Recognize' in this context usually means to 'acknowledge the validity' or 'affirm as true'. So HA's operative statement of:
typically means: We affirm as true that yes, there is a God. Yes, there is a Jesus, and that yes, angels are real.
rather than: We believe that yes, there is a God. Yes, there is a Jesus, and that yes, angels are real.
The former is a claim of certain truth. The latter is simply an expression of belief. And, think this through, it makes no sense to respond to an expression of belief with 'prove it'.
To be crystal clear:
The 'prove it' is demanding that Amy prove that she believes in God. ( Makes no sense. )
Here Bob is asking Amy to prove her positive assertion of absolute truth.
I see you dodged the question.
Here's what he claimed: "We recognize that yes, there is a God. Yes, there is a Jesus, and that yes, angels are real." That's an affirmative claim where the expectation of proof is not unreasonable.
Subjective and anecdotal, with no basis in fact or evidence, and no validity.
It's simple logical discourse. Ever take a high school English or philosophy course? The concept of attaching a burden of proof to an affirmative claim is (or should be) covered.
Wrong. An affirmative claim alone requires a burden of proof. Without proof, there is no reason to accept a claim and a claim is not established as factual or true. HA made an affirmative claim. So he bears the burden of proof. Whether he's out to convince us or not is not the issue. If he had simply said "this is just my belief...," that would have not required a burden of proof. But that's not the case here.
Says the one getting emotional and defensive, while rejecting logical discourse.
omg you don't even hear yourself, do you?
Are you really this lacking in self-awareness?
You ignored my point. Your questions of me are not genuine inquiries. You are not seeking information. Your questions are attacks.
Prove it. Prove it's reasonable for you demand proof in every seed that assumes the existence of God. If you didn't get it to your satisfaction the first 100 times you demanded it, why is it "not unreasonable" for you to keep demanding it - particularly in seeds that are otherwise uninteresting to you. Why does HA owe Gordy a proof?
Again, Tacos!, you are pretending that I am making up a fundamental rule of logic. Do you truly not understand that this ...:
If someone makes a claim of certainty (truth) that claim bears the burden of proof.
... is not my invention? I gave you one quote and link already to demonstrate that this is not my invention. How many quotes and links are required for you to understand that this is fundamental logic?
How odd that you are not only unaware of this fundamental notion of logic, but that you are actually denying it (and doing so blindly since you clearly did not even bother to look this up).
I mean, after all, what is the point of pretending to not understand something so basic?
He does not owe Gordy anything. Gordy has challenged HA's claim of truth. HA can ignore the challenge or he can stand up and address it.
My question is why do you think Gordy should listen to your edicts that he not issue his challenges? Why should Gordy abide by your insistence that he self-censor?
And you completely missed mine.
I am not responsible for your own erroneous interpretions. That sounds more like an excuse to dodge the questions by levying accusations. Not to mention a purely emotional response too.
There's no assumption being made. There are actual declarations of certainty being made of the existence of god. So yes, demanding proof to support such claims is quite reasonable. Again, would you merely accept a claim made, no questions asked?
It's unreasonable to make the same affirmative claim 100 times without supporting proof or even evidence. Funny how you don't see that as unreasonable. But demanding proof for a claim made is unreasonable?
It's not about me. He made a claim of certainty, so he bears the burden of proof. I simply challenged his claim. It's the refusal to address the challenge that speaks volumes. As does the defense of unsubstantiated claims by rejecting the need for a challenge.
Not at all. I am observing that you are making up rules for this site and the ways in which people post articles and comments.
I have made no attempt to discuss the ins and outs of logic. I have been discussing how Gordy and you respond to comments made by other members on this website in a very specific context.
It's clear to me at this point that you are unwilling to examine your behavior and be critical of it. So, you want to change the subject to talk about philosophy and logic.
That's a circular argument. You still haven't explained why it's reasonable to demand that HA prove to you that God exists.
We haven't been discussing whether or not it's reasonable and I haven't claimed that it is. We are discussing how you respond to it.
Yes. Because it always leads to arguments and strife, but you are never satisfied with the response. It's the classic definition of insanity to keep asking the same question and expect a different response. And if you don't expect a different response, there can be no point to demanding the proof except to troll because you already know it will disrupt the thread. That's what trolling is.
It's about your behavior.
Why? To whom?
How about simple good manners? Do you guys believe in that?
How so? X makes a claim, Y wants proof for the claim. How is that circular? Or unreasonable?
Because he made the affirmative claim. How is expecting proof, or at least evidence unreasonable?
An affirmative claim is made, I challenge it. That's how I respond and it's a proper response.
Then perhaps certain individuals should not make claims that cannot back up.
That's because I don't get a response. I get smokescreens and diversionary tactics.
As opposed to repeating the same claim over & over again?
Maybe I have higher expectations, like my challenge and questions actually being addressed. Of course, if some wish to avoid answering them, that's more reflective of them than it is of me.
No, asking for proof of a claim isn't trolling. It's logical discourse.
What behavior? I have been calm and rational. But there are individuals who have been quite emotional and defensive. What about their behavior?
Do I need to explain to you the concept of the burden of proof? It's a concept that permeates law, philosophy, science, and just general discourse.
So challenging claims and posing questions is now poor manners? Are some individuals so sensitive that they can't take a challenge/question?
The bully blames his victim for his black eye. Have you considered just letting it go?
Then stop asking for one. If you keep asking for something when you have been repeatedly denied, that's harassment. I have said this before, but it clearly bears repeating: HA does not owe you any proof.
That's not what I said. You have repeatedly used this straw man tactic on me in this thread. It's dishonest. You love to tell yourself and everyone else that you deal in facts and logic, but you don't. Not really.
No. Harassment and trolling is poor manners. So is misrepresenting the comments of people you are talking to. This has been explained to you.
You clearly aren't open to self-examination on this topic and I expect you will continue to stalk religious people and seeds with demands of "prove it" when you actually aren't interested in doing anything but arguing.
You can listen and try to learn to get along with people or not. Just know that for someone who likes to make comments like this,
and this:
Your unwillingness to even consider the points that have been made here speaks to your willingness to be challenged and it speaks volumes about you. But maybe you don't care about that when it applies to you.
Show me where I am making up rules for the site. When I note that a claim of certainty bears the burden of proof that is a fundamental point of logic. It is not a rule of the site, it is a universal truth of logic. It is definitional. People can express opinions with no evidence. But claims of certain truth (absolute fact) come with the burden of proof (or at least good evidence). I suspect that is inconvenient, but that is reality.
Understood. And I am not asking you to do so. I am asking you to recognize the concept of claims of truth bearing the burden of proof. I gave you one of many examples to see a third party view. This is extremely easy to find.
With quite a bit of exaggeration. And, in summary, when someone makes a claim of certainty they should expect to be challenged. If one cannot deal with the fact that their claims are challenged, one should consider posting in an echo chamber.
Also, in summary, I do not see things as you do. So when I come across someone arguing that evolution is pseudoscience, that all those who do not believe a certain way will suffer eternal consequences, that geology, genetics, biology, cosmology, etc. are incorrect when they contradict what is written in the Bible, that the creator of everything considers homosexuals to be abominations, etc. I will almost certainly weigh in with a challenge.
You can exaggerate disagreement over content and challenges to content as an affront to one's religious beliefs, etc. I will in response rebut your exaggerations. And we can do this endlessly, but it is not going to change the fact that claims of certainty that appear to be faulty will be (and I submit should be) challenged.
Absolutely. I prefer cordial discourse. But if someone engages in intellectual dishonesty or gratuitous aggression I have no problem stepping into the ring.
Correct, you do not owe Gordy anything. You made a claim of truth and Gordy challenged you to back it up. That can be the end of it. And, if that is the end, your claim goes unsupported even after being challenged.
Your claim, ipso facto, becomes opinion (which, frankly, is the wise way to present it).
Says the one seemingly throwing tantrums over this. That works both ways.
Why? A claim is made, I ask for proof. Don't want to be challenged, then don't make the claim to begin with. Simple.
Repeatedly refusing to address challenges and questions is intellectual dishonesty and cowardice.
He does if he (or anyone) makes an affirmative claim. Otherwise, see previous statement!
How exactly is asking for proof a strawman? Do you even know what a strawman is?
I'd wager I utilize logic and reasoning far more than you or others. It's illogical to make unsubstantiated claims and then ignore challenges to those claims.
And posing questions and challenges to statements someone made isn't harassment. That has been explained to you too.
Spare me your comedic psychoanalyzing! Because it's not working and is only a smokescreen.
I've made no affirmative claims that bears challenge. You can challenge me all you like, but my points and questions still stand, as they have not been addressed and have only been deflected or ignored. That speaks volumes about those who engage in such tactics, or defends them. So before you try to analyze me, perhaps you should take a good look at yourself first!
Then you have no credibility for your claims and your subsequent intellectual dishonesty shines through!
Indeed. Can you believe this is all because of ' That's nice; prove it '?
I know, right? And somehow, that simple challenge to a declaration of certainty magically makes me a bully, troll, insane, unreasonable, a stalker, a harasser, poor mannered, and whatever else. Go figure.
Although I dont think a site like Newstalkers benefits from articles, on virtually a daily basis, that proselytize Christianity, I also dont think it is right to turn every article about religion into a debate about the existence of God. Its like Groundhog Day.