╌>

YES, VIRGINIA, THERE ARE SUCH THINGS AS ANGELS

  
Via:  XXJefferson51  •  5 years ago  •  203 comments

By:   F. Forester Church

YES, VIRGINIA, THERE ARE SUCH THINGS AS ANGELS
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...

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

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.''

Copyright © 2019,  Chicago Tribune


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1  seeder  XXJefferson51    5 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    5 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3  TᵢG    5 years ago
We recognize that yes, there is a God.  Yes, there is a Jesus, and that yes, angels are real. 

The fact that one is compelled to make these claims illustrates that these claims are not factual.

Imagine the following claims:

  • Yes, there are professional football players.
  • Yes, snow is ice crystal precipitation.
  • Yes, the US Constitution established a bicameral government.
  • Yes, the moon orbits our planet.
  • Yes, arithmetic is a formal system.
  • Yes, Abraham Lincoln was a driving force to pass the 13th amendment.
  • Yes, Christianity is the dominant religion in the USA.
  • Yes, Apple passed the $1T capitalization mark.
  • Yes, Trump is PotUS.
  • Yes, bananas contain potassium.

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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.1  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @3    5 years ago
These are all established facts.

Are they though? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif  I can think of situations where you could restate some of these facts a thousand times and people would still not believe it. Especially,

Trump is PotUS and  the moon orbits our planet
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @3.1    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @3    5 years ago

Well Merry Christmas to you.  May God richly bless you on this holy evening.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.2    5 years ago

Merry Christmas, HA.   

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.2.2  Drakkonis  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.2    5 years ago

Merry Christmas

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @3    5 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.1  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3    5 years ago
They forget that this is not a historical record to stand or fall on its facts, but a story.

Yes, it is a story: claims of truth by human beings sans supporting evidence.

Like every story, its truth depends entirely upon its listeners. 

No, truth has nothing to do with perception.   Truth stands on its own.   People (listeners) of a story may believe it but that belief does not make it true.   Children believe in the Santa Claus story and clearly that is not truth.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
3.3.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.1    5 years ago

Well, maybe there isn't a Santa Claus - after all he never brought ME any presents when I was a little kid even though I was a good little boy, but I do know that there IS a Tooth Fairy.  There is irrefutable proof of it.  I put a baby tooth that fell out of my mouth under my pillow before I went to sleep, and when I woke up in the morning, lo and behold, there was a shiny dime under my pillow in place of the tooth.  So THERE!!!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.3  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.3.2    5 years ago

Empirical evidence!  jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.4  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3    5 years ago
Like every story, its truth depends entirely upon its listeners.

Truth depends on supporting evidence or facts. Not individual preference or wishful thinking. Believing a story to be true doesn't automatically make it true.

At Christmastime all rationalists are grinches.

Nice sweeping generalization. Also interesting that you view rationality to be something negative.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.5  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.3    5 years ago
Empirical evidence!

That seems to be an anathema to certain individuals who prefer the emotional comfort of belief over reality or fact.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.3.6  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.1    5 years ago
No, truth has nothing to do with perception.   

Actually, that isn't true. It is all perception. For example, before Hubble, most believed the universe was always the size it was and always would be. This was based on perception. Based on what they perceived, they believed it was static. Later, with new perceptions, we now believe it had a beginning from an infinitesimally small point and is expanding as time progresses. A hundred years from now, due to new perceptions, we may perceive something different. 

Truth stands on its own.

Again, not really. It must be perceived as truth. If one cannot perceive truth, then what use truth? How many times has science believed a thing only to have that thing disproved later? The people who believed the later disproved thing percieved that thing to be truth. Now something else is percieved to be the truth, yet it remains that some new experiment may reveal some other perceived truth that disproves the earlier yet again, and so on. It's all perception. 

People (listeners) of a story may believe it but that belief does not make it true.

Belief and perception aren't the same thing. People can believe without perceiving. They like the idea of a thing so they decide to believe in it. Others believe out of perception. What you believe to be true of science, for instance, is based on your perceptions. 

Children believe in the Santa Claus story and clearly that is not truth.

Which is why it isn't really a relevant example. It is clearly not the truth. One cannot say the same concerning God or the Bible. I know your position is that the Bible is clearly untrue as a communication from God, but that is based on your perceptions. I, of course, hold the opposite view and that is also based on my perceptions. 

So, again, perception is actually everything. Perception doesn't create truth, but without it we cannot recognize it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.7  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.6    5 years ago
Actually, that isn't true. It is all perception. For example, before Hubble, most believed the universe was always the size it was and always would be. This was based on perception. Based on what they perceived, they believed it was static. Later, with new perceptions, we now believe it had a beginning from an infinitesimally small point and is expanding as time progresses. A hundred years from now, due to new perceptions, we may perceive something different. 

Perceptions change, but the truth does not.   What you wrote perfectly makes my point.    I cannot imagine how you interpreted my words given this.

Again, not really. It must be perceived as truth. If one cannot perceive truth, then what use truth?

I did not state a use of truth nor did speak of the accuracy of perceptions;  I stated that truth stands on its own.   What is true IS TRUE regardless of perceptions.

Belief and perception aren't the same thing. People can believe without perceiving. They like the idea of a thing so they decide to believe in it. Others believe out of perception. What you believe to be true of science, for instance, is based on your perceptions. 

I stated that belief of something does not make it true.    What does the above have to do with what you quoted?   Merely believing X is true does not mean that X is true.   Do you disagree with that?

Which is why it isn't really a relevant example. It is clearly not the truth.

LOL   Drakk, it is a perfect example of how belief in X does not mean X is true.   

Perception doesn't create truth, but without it we cannot recognize it. 

I completely agree that perception does not create truth.   I did not make that point, but I agree with it.   And of course we cannot recognize truth unless we have a means to perceive it;  that is obvious.   But, now going past my original point, even if we perceive truth we may have no way to know that what we have perceived is indeed truth.   That is, we could hold truth and not realize that we have done so.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.8  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.7    5 years ago
 Merely believing X is true does not mean the X is true.   Do you disagree with that?

There are those who seem to think belief (or more specifically, their belief) equals fact or truth.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.9  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.8    5 years ago

True.

I am surprised though that someone would disagree (while agreeing, by the way) with the notion that truth stands on its on — that truth is not a function of perception.   (The point I made.)

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.10  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.6    5 years ago

Good points.  Well said.  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.3.11  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.7    5 years ago

You said, "Truth has nothing to do with perception." While what is true is true regardless of perception it is a meaningless distinction because without perception the truth cannot be known. My point is that perception is not divorced from truth as you stated. If one cannot perceive truth, truth may as well not exist. 

To be clear, I'm not arguing against the idea that truth stands on it's own. It should be obvious that I believe it does. What I am addressing is your statement that truth has nothing to do with perception. It should be clear that the two are inextricably entwined. Without perception, it doesn't matter if truth stands on it's own because no one will ever see it. 

LOL   Drakk, it is a perfect example of how belief in X does not mean X is true. 

Yes, but you apparently ignore what I had said immediately before this. We are talking about perception and it's relation to truth, not belief and it's relation to truth. As I stated, belief and perception are not the same thing.  One can believe something without perception. People sending "seed money" to a prosperity gospel preacher, for instance. There is little or no real perception behind such an act. Rather, the sender of the "seed money" wants to believe that their "gift" will return greater financial rewards later. No perception, only desire. 

But, now going past my original point, even if we perceive truth we may have no way to know that what we have perceived is indeed truth.

Well, yes. That was my point behind Hubble and the static vs expanding universe. Generally speaking, we can never be sure our perceptions lead us to what is actually true but without them we can't even address truth. 

I completely agree that perception does not create truth.   I did not make that point, but I agree with it.

Actually, I think this was the point you meant to make. That perception doesn't create truth rather than truth having nothing to do with perception. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.12  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.11    5 years ago
While what is true is true regardless of perception it is a meaningless distinction because without perception the truth cannot be known.

That is an entirely different discussion.    My point was expressed.   You are agreeing with what I wrote but disagreeing on a position I did not even weigh in on ('the knowability of truth').

What I am addressing is your statement that truth has nothing to do with perception. It should be clear that the two are inextricably entwined. Without perception, it doesn't matter if truth stands on it's own because no one will ever see it. 

And I have explained what I meant and here you go again refusing to accept an explanation.   Same old stupid game Drakk.   My point is that truth is not a function of perception.   Truth exists even if there are no beings alive to perceive it.   Truth is INDEPENDENT of perception.   And I did not make any comment on whether or not it matter is truth can be perceived.   

It is amazing how such an obvious statement:  "Truth has nothing to do with perception" can be a) misunderstood and b) repeatedly misunderstood even after clarified.

Actually, I think this was the point you meant to make. That perception doesn't create truth rather than truth having nothing to do with perception. 

Well Drakk, I am not sure people can phrase things exactly how you wish them to be phrased.   Sometimes you have to just read what people write and apply common sense.   In this case, you did not ask for clarification.   You simply assumed an interpretation (an unlikely one at that) and proceeded to debate me on it.   


Here is my full comment and the quote (I included from HA) to establish the context.

HA @3.3Like every story, its truth depends entirely upon its listeners
TiG @3.3.1 ☞ No, truth has nothing to do with perception.   Truth stands on its own.   People (listeners) of a story may believe it but that belief does not make it true.   Children believe in the Santa Claus story and clearly that is not truth.

And you could not tell that I was stating to HA with 'truth has nothing to do with perception' that the truth of a story does not depend upon its listeners?   That truth itself stands on its own?

That tight, specific context was not sufficiently clear??

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.3.13  Drakkonis  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.8    5 years ago
There are those who seem to think belief (or more specifically, their belief) equals fact or truth.

I don't think that's true. That is, I don't think anyone thinks something is true because their belief makes it true. I think they simply believe in what they think is true. That's true of everyone concerning anything. For instance, I believe God is a fact. He isn't a fact because I believe He is. He is a fact I believe in. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.14  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.13    5 years ago

Do you think that everyone holds a belief because they think it is truth?

For example, are you not aware of individuals who believe in God but recognize that their belief might be wrong (i.e. might not be truth)?

(I just described most of my friends and family.)

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.3.15  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.12    5 years ago
Well Drakk, I am not sure people can phrase things exactly how you wish them to be phrased.

There is a huge difference between...

truth has nothing to do with perception

... and

truth is not a function of perception

Do not blame me for your poor word choice. I took your words at face value. 

that the truth of a story does not depend upon its listeners?

But it does depend on the listeners. HA was obviously saying whether one finds a story true or not depends on the listener. Whether or not one believes a story true or false depends on one's perception. Take Jonah and the whale. He's hardly stating this story is true or false because of a listener's perceptions. He is stating that one's perceptions determine whether that one believes or disbelieves a story. 

You are trying to misdirect what he said to be about truth not standing on it's own but, rather, being established by perception. That is, truth being a function of perception. Pretty sure that isn't what he was saying. Hence my issue with your saying truth has nothing to do with perception. Concerning the context of the point HA seemed to be making, perception is, as I said, everything in determining whether one finds a story true or not. Because I understand what he was saying he is right in saying the truth of a story depends entirely on the listener.

You quote him for context but seem to have missed what the context was entirely and instead make it about whether truth stands on it's own or is a function of perception. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.3.16  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.12    5 years ago
My point is that truth is not a function of perception.

This is not super important, I suppose, but according to quantum theory, it literally is. Observation affects reality.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.3.17  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.14    5 years ago
Do you think that everyone holds a belief because they think it is truth?

Can you give me an example of anyone who holds a belief in something they think is not the truth?

Everything you believe is true you believe because you think it's true. Doesn't matter whether you have empirical evidence for your belief or not. You know that even though you have empirical evidence for a particular belief about a truth, you recognize that it's possible that it could still be wrong. That it's possible that some new data may come along, no matter how unlikely, that disproves what you had believed in as truth previously. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.18  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.16    5 years ago
This is not super important, I suppose, but according to quantum theory, it literally is. Observation affects reality.

You are conflating observation with perception.   Observation is an action.

My point (again) is that truth IS TRUE even if there is nobody who can perceive it.    Truth stands on its own.    The truth of a story, as HA notes, is NOT a function of its listeners.   The perceived truth of each listener is a function of the listener, but the truth of a story (i.e. truth itself) is independent of their perceptions.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.19  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.13    5 years ago
I don't think that's true. That is, I don't think anyone thinks something is true because their belief makes it true. I think they simply believe in what they think is true.

The problem is, some tout their beliefs as truth. Some even go so far to reject or ignore anything that contradicts their beliefs. Just because one believes something to be true doesn't mean it is. 

That's true of everyone concerning anything. For instance, I believe God is a fact. He isn't a fact because I believe He is. He is a fact I believe in. 

Belief does not equal fact.

Everything you believe is true you believe because you think it's true. Doesn't matter whether you have empirical evidence for your belief or not. 

Some people can believe something to be true, but acknowledge they could be wrong. 

That it's possible that some new data may come along, no matter how unlikely, that disproves what you had believed in as truth previously. 

Acknowledging that and accepting one is in error when it's demonstrated is the intellectually honest response. But some people become so entrenched in their beliefs, they will not even consider their beliefs could be wrong, much less accept anything which might contradict or refute those beliefs.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.20  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.17    5 years ago
Can you give me an example of anyone who holds a belief in something they think is not the truth?

I did not say that they believe something that they think is 'not truth' as in 'false'.   Rather, that people routinely believe that which they do not hold as necessarily true.

Amy was brought up as a Christian and today, at 35, she still believes there is a God.    When asked if she could be wrong, she notes that her belief is based on faith and that, sure, her faith could be wrong.   Yes, it is possible that there is no God who has our back, but Amy prefers to believe that there is.

I suspect Amy (above) is more common than you might be willing to acknowledge.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.21  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.15    5 years ago
Do not blame me for your poor word choice. I took your words at face value. 

Oh I blame you entirely.   If you ignore the context and cherry pick a single sentence, my word choice is not the problem.  It is entirely obvious to me that you are playing a game.    You just cherry-picked again after I made it crystal clear by showing the entire context:

Here is my full comment and the quote (I included from HA) to establish the context.    Repeating:

HA @ 3.3  ☞ Like every story, its truth depends entirely upon its listeners
TiG @ 3.3.1  ☞ No,  truth has nothing to do with perception.   Truth stands on its own.    People (listeners) of a story may believe it but that belief does not make it true.   Children believe in the Santa Claus story and clearly that is not truth.

And you could not tell that I was stating to HA with   'truth has nothing to do with perception ' that the truth of a story does not depend upon its listeners?   That truth itself stands on its own?

That tight, specific context was not sufficiently clear??

No, Drakk, I do not believe your claim that you so misunderstood the above.    

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.22  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.15    5 years ago
But it does depend on the listeners. HA was obviously saying whether one finds a story true or not depends on the listener.

And if HA would have responded with something like: 'no, you misunderstood, I meant to say that each listener determines their own version of truth of a story' then I would have accepted that.   See, unlike you Drakk, I do listen to a correction from an author.   If I misunderstand something and the author corrects me, I do not then tell the author that s/he is lying about their own intent and then continue to argue (absurdly) against every explanation.

Whether or not one believes a story true or false depends on one's perception.

Of course.  Now retire this strawman.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.3.23  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.21    5 years ago
 If you ignore the context and cherry pick a single sentence, my word choice is not the problem.

I did not ignore the context. You changed the context, or attempted to. I commented within the context provided by HA's statement. You attempted to portray HA as stating perception creates truth. Then blame me for noticing. 

And you could not tell that I was stating to HA with   'truth has nothing to do with perception ' that the truth of a story does not depend upon its listeners?   That truth itself stands on its own?

And you could not tell that, as I have repeatedly stated, truth must be perceived for truth to be recognized, which is what HA was referring to? It doesn't matter a bit, not in the slightest way, unless someone can perceive it. The full context of what HA was referring to in the statement you quote from him is something like...

What one believes to be the truth about a story depends on the perception of each person who hears it.

The sub-context appears to be something like...

What you believe to be true or false about a story may be a product of limited perception. 

I commented on your statement because contextually, HA was talking about perception. You stated perception has nothing to do with truth. Within the context in which HA was speaking perception has everything to do with truth. He was saying that what one gets out of a story is a function of perception. For some reason you chose to make it seem he was saying that truth is created by perception. 

The only thing I can think of is that you know you are wrong, so you are trying to insist that I have misunderstood you and refuse to admit it. That I am refusing to admit that you are clearly talking about truth not being created by perception. I am not confused about this in the slightest. I know very well that this is your point. Your point has nothing to do with the context of the discussion, which you either can't see or refuse to recognize because it would mean error on your part. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.3.24  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.20    5 years ago
I did not say that they believe something that they think is 'not truth' as in 'false'.   Rather, that people routinely believe that which they do not hold as necessarily true.

You missed the point of the question. No one believes in something they do not think is true. Even in your example...

For example, are you not aware of individuals who believe in God but recognize that their belief might be wrong (i.e. might not be truth)?

Even though they recognize that it might not be true, regardless whether it concerns God or gravity, they still believe what they believe. That it might not be true is not, in and of itself, not a reason not to believe whatever they believe. It is possible that what we believe about gravity is completely wrong. We don't understand how it could be wrong but it's possible. That is hardly a reason to stop believing what we do about gravity. 

To answer your question, however, yes, I'm aware of individuals who believe in God but recognize that their beliefs may be wrong. I am one such person myself. That the possibility that I could be wrong about God may exist, that is hardly a cogent reason not to believe in God. 

I'm sure there's some sort of point you are trying to make. Care to share it? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.25  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.24    5 years ago
No one believes in something they do not think is true.

How do you know? Some people might believe in something not because they think it's true, but because they wish it to be true.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.26  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.23    5 years ago
You changed the context, or attempted to.

Is this the only game you play now?   You interpret my words in an unlikely fashion, I correct you and then you just keep insisting your interpretation is correct.   

And you could not tell that, as I have repeatedly stated, truth must be perceived for truth to be recognized, which is what HA was referring to?

I really doubt that anyone needs to be told that truth cannot be recognized unless it is first perceived .   That is as information bearing as:  one must place food in one's mouth in order to taste it .     

The only thing I can think of is that you know you are wrong, so you are trying to insist that I have misunderstood you and refuse to admit it.

Now that would be funny if it were not so despicably dishonest.    


You stated perception has nothing to do with truth

First of all, I did not state that ' perception has nothing to do with the truth '.    I stated ' truth has nothing to do with perception ' :

TiG @   3.3.1   ☞ No,    truth has nothing to do with perception .   Truth stands on its own.     People (listeners) of a story may believe it but that belief does not make it true.   Children believe in the Santa Claus story and clearly that is not truth.

I also stated this several times:

TiG @ 3.3.12 My point is that truth is not a function of perception .   Truth exists even if there are no beings alive to perceive it .    Truth is INDEPENDENT of perception

In short, truth IS TRUE even if there are no perceivers.

Within the context in which HA was speaking perception has everything to do with truth.

Not with truth, Drakk, but with perceived truth.   Do you understand the difference between truth and perceived truth?   The former is TRUE independent of anyone's perception whereas the latter is a function of perception.   The adjective ' perceived ' makes big difference.

He was saying that what one gets out of a story is a function of perception.

What he wrote and what he meant to say might be two different things.   Until he clarifies all one has is what he wrote.   And, as I have noted, I would not hold him to those words if he weighs in.   Because I never tell an author who has clarified his words that only his original words matter.   That would be intellectually dishonest (and slimy).    Take note.

For some reason you chose to make it seem he was saying that truth is created by perception. 

The reason is a direct reading of his words.   As I have repeatedly stated, if HA wishes to clarify as to what he meant I would accept it.   Unlike you, when an author corrects my interpretation of his words I will go with that.   See, unlike you, I do not presume to know the mind of the author.  I hold that each individual is the sole authority on what is in one's mind.   Unlike you, I will not presume an intention, repeatedly ignore corrections and continue presuming to know the author's mind better than the author himself.   

But I will continue to call out your tactics, endlessly .

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.27  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.25    5 years ago
Some people might believe in something not because they think it's true, but because they wish it to be true.

Well you and I have both given Drakk fine examples.   Wanna bet he ignores both?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.28  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.27    5 years ago
 Wanna bet he ignores both?

No bet there, lol

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.29  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.24    5 years ago
No one believes in something they do not think is true.

Here we go again.   I write something and then spend multiple posts trying to get you to acknowledge direct language.

TiG @3.3.20 I did not say that they believe something that they think is 'not truth' as in 'false'.   Rather, that people routinely believe that which they do not hold as necessarily true.

Do you not realize that people are quite capable of believing things to be more true than not?   That they can hold a belief that something is likely true or is desirable to be true but realizing that it is not necessarily true?

I even gave an example of this with Amy:

TiG @3.3.20 ☞ Amy was brought up as a Christian and today, at 35, she still believes there is a God.    When asked if she could be wrong, she notes that her belief is based on faith and that, sure, her faith could be wrong.   Yes, it is possible that there is no God who has our back, but Amy prefers to believe that there is.   

I suspect Amy (above) is more common than you might be willing to acknowledge.

Seems like a fine example to me.

Even though they recognize that it might not be true, regardless whether it concerns God or gravity, they still believe what they believe. That it might not be true is not, in and of itself, not a reason not to believe whatever they believe. It is possible that what we believe about gravity is completely wrong. We don't understand how it could be wrong but it's possible. That is hardly a reason to stop believing what we do about gravity. 

Yes.   So clearly people are quite capable of believing things to be more true than not.    Right?

To answer your question, however, yes, I'm aware of individuals who believe in God but recognize that their beliefs may be wrong. I am one such person myself. That the possibility that I could be wrong about God may exist, that is hardly a cogent reason not to believe in God. 

Correct.   So now hold that thought.   Note the progression:

Drakk @3.3.13 I don't think that's true. That is, I don't think anyone thinks something is true because their belief makes it true. I think they simply believe in what they think is true. That's true of everyone concerning anything.

TiG @3.3.14 Do you think that everyone holds a belief because they think it is truth?

Drakk @3.3.17 Can you give me an example of anyone who holds a belief in something they think is not the truth?

TiG @3.3.20 I did not say that they believe something that they think is 'not truth' as in 'false'.   Rather, that people routinely believe that which they do not hold as necessarily true.

Drakk @3.3.24 You missed the point of the question. No one believes in something they do not think is true

This is like an Abbott and Costello skit.   It ends with you making a statement that ignores the nuance I just explained.   Here is how I would adjust your last sentence to reflect an understanding of what I wrote:

No one believes in something they do not think is [most likely or is desirably] true.    [Some, if not many, hold beliefs while realizing that their belief might not be true].

In short, one can hold:

  • their belief is 100% truth; certainty; no possibility that they are mistaken (gnostic arrogance)
  • their belief is more likely true than false (most common IMO)
  • their belief is more desirable than the alternative  (wishful thinking, kidding oneself)

I cannot think of a situation in which one believes that which s/he knows to be false other than someone with mental illness.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.3.30  Drakkonis  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.19    5 years ago
The problem is, some tout their beliefs as truth.

Well, who wouldn't? Does anyone believe in something they think is untrue?

Some even go so far to reject or ignore anything that contradicts their beliefs.

Um, when it's ignore or rejecty it's mostly because they don't agree with what's presented as a contradiction. That is, while you may see a contradiction they see you not understanding the concept. 

Belief does not equal fact.

Yes, that's been pretty well established. One wonders why you keep bringing this up since no one argues that it is otherwise. 

Some people can believe something to be true, but acknowledge they could be wrong. 

I have to wonder why this point seems so important to you and TiG. Most people I know understand that it's possible to be wrong about anything. Acknowledging this doesn't mean uncertainty concerning what a person believes in, be it God or evolution. 

Acknowledging that and accepting one is in error when it's demonstrated is the intellectually honest response. But some people become so entrenched in their beliefs, they will not even consider their beliefs could be wrong, much less accept anything which might contradict or refute those beliefs.

This is true. However, it is also often the case that the one attempting to demonstrate the error only thinks they have demonstrated error because of a lack of understanding concerning the subject. When it's explained why error hasn't been demonstrated, they can be just as reluctant as you state above in considering they could be wrong. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.31  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.30    5 years ago
Does anyone believe in something they think is untrue?

Literally and simplistically, that would be irrational.    The subtlety that you will not acknowledge is that one can believe something is true but not hold that they have a handle on truth.   For example, the agnostic theist is one who believes in a God but who recognizes that the belief might be incorrect (as in untrue).    This is a person who believes in something but holds that it might not be true.

Might not be true (or might be untrue) is different from untrue.

Put it all together:

  • gnostic theist:      God exists.        ( Period.  No way I am wrong.   I hold truth. )
  • agnostic theist:    I believe God exists; but I recognize that I could be mistaken.
  • agnostic atheist:  I am not convinced any god exists;  but I recognize that one could exist.
  • gnostic atheist:    No god exists.   ( Period.  No way I am wrong.   I hold truth. )

The gnostic theist and the gnostic atheist make claims of truth and thus bear the burden of proof.   If a gnostic atheist told you that no god exists (it is impossible; period) you would be well justified to respond with:  'That's nice; prove it'.    I betcha Gordy would support you on that.   And similarly, a gnostic theist claim should be met with a similar challenge.

The agnostic theist and the agnostic atheist are rational positions.   Neither claim certainty (and that is good because nobody knows either way).

Finally, it is the claim that matters; not the personal certainty of the belief.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.32  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.30    5 years ago

The differences between Believers in God and those in denial that He is as we described, if we are wrong are immense.  If they are somehow right, they won’t even be able to let us know all about it.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.33  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.30    5 years ago
Well, who wouldn't? Does anyone believe in something they think is untrue?

If someone were intellectually honest enough, they would acknowledge that their beliefs is just that, a belief and nothing more, and can very well be untrue, especially if that belief is not empirically supported.

Um, when it's ignore or rejecty it's mostly because they don't agree with what's presented as a contradiction. That is, while you may see a contradiction they see you not understanding the concept. 

That shows an emotional attachment or a bias to the belief. They cannot handle their beliefs being contradicted or exposed as false, especially if there is evidence or proof doing so. So in their minds, it's the evidence which must be rejected, not the belief. Again, it's an intellectually dishonest reaction.

Yes, that's been pretty well established. One wonders why you keep bringing this up since no one argues that it is otherwise. 

Because you even state people will state a belief as if it's true or believe in something they think is true. Therefore, it's important t make the distinction that belief does not equal fact. Or truth. 

I have to wonder why this point seems so important to you and TiG. Most people I know understand that it's possible to be wrong about anything.

TiG & I can probably name certain individuals who are convinced, or convinced themselves, that their beliefs are factually true, to the point of  flat out denying established facts and science. They do not acknowledge they could be wrong. But instead, state or at least imply everyone else is wrong.

However, it is also often the case that the one attempting to demonstrate the error only thinks they have demonstrated error because of a lack of understanding concerning the subject. When it's explained why error hasn't been demonstrated, they can be just as reluctant as you state above in considering they could be wrong. 

This is why objective, empirical evidence and logical, critical thinking becomes so important. It's the best means for establishing actual truth, and not what one personally wants or feels to be true. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.34  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.32    5 years ago
The differences between Believers in God and those in denial ...

It is not believers vs. 'in denial'.   It is believers vs non-believers.   A non-believer state can exist simply by not being convinced.   You seem to think (no matter how many times this is explained) that non-believers are in denial.

... that He is as we described, if we are wrong are immense.  If they are somehow right, they won’t even be able to let us know all about it.

Well Pascal's wager is just silly.   How does one fake belief?   After all, that is what is involved.   If someone is not convinced that the Christian God exists and decides to fake it to 'hedge his bets' do you really think the Christian God (omniscient and all) would not know this?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.35  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.32    5 years ago
The differences between Believers in God and those in denial that He is as we described, if we are wrong are immense.  If they are somehow right, they won’t even be able to let us know all about it.

That's just a Pascal's Wager, which anyone knows is a logical fallacy and the sign of a flawed argument.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.3.36  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.26    5 years ago
Is this the only game you play now?   You interpret my words in an unlikely fashion, I correct you and then you just keep insisting your interpretation is correct.

Why do you insist I can't see what you are attempting to do? HA said...

Like every story, its truth depends entirely upon its listeners.

You responded with...

No,    truth has nothing to do with perception .   Truth stands on its own.     People (listeners) of a story may believe it but that belief does not make it true.   Children believe in the Santa Claus story and clearly that is not truth.

How can you possibly be claiming that HA's intent was to state that truth is created by perception? Yet that is exactly what you do here by stating this. You trot out a meaningless fact as if someone has argued against it. No one, not me, not HA said that truth doesn't stand on it's own. No one has said that perception creates truth. Yet you try to argue as if that is what this discussion is about. Worse, you claim that I am misunderstanding, intentionally, your point. I haven't misunderstood your point at all. I'm saying your point has no bearing on what HA said because it misrepresents what HA said. 

I explained this by demonstrating that truth is inextricably linked to perception because one cannot get to truth but by perception. That truth stands on it's own is great and all, but it is meaningless unless that truth can be perceived. There is no other human method of holding a truth but through perception. HA's point was quite obviously that what one thinks of the truth of a story is a function of their perception. 

Not with truth, Drakk, but with perceived truth.

What other kind of truth do humans have access to other than perceived truth? What purpose behind asking if one could be wrong about what one believes unless the question is asked recognizing that humans have no other access to truth other than perceived truth? Is not the question "is it possible you are wrong" not a question of incorrect perception? 

See, unlike you, I do not presume to know the mind of the author.

You're boring the hell out of me. You think I have misinterpreted what you have said. I haven't. I know exactly what your point is. I never needed it to be explained. Yet you continue to explain it as if this discussion is about whether or not perception creates truth. Perhaps the problem is that you do not understand what the discussion is about in the first place so you just keep repeating yourself, hoping it's relevant? Not sure what to think at this point.  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.3.37  Drakkonis  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.33    5 years ago
If someone were intellectually honest enough, they would acknowledge that their beliefs is just that, a belief and nothing more, and can very well be untrue, especially if that belief is not empirically supported.

Um, no. A belief that is just belief would be "just a belief and nothing more", but that isn't what we're really talking about. We're pretty much speaking about a belief in God. While I'm sure there are those who "just believe it", that is, have no reason for their beliefs, the fact is that most people have a reason for their beliefs.  Therefore, it isn't "just belief." To put it another way, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who, when asked why they believe in God, would respond "Oh, no reason. I just believe."

That they cannot give you the kind of evidence you demand doesn't make it "just a belief" either. That's simply a condition you demand as a requirement for your belief. If you could demonstrate that there is no God and people still believed then that would be a case of "just a belief" and nothing more. 

That shows an emotional attachment or a bias to the belief. They cannot handle their beliefs being contradicted or exposed as false, especially if there is evidence or proof doing so. So in their minds, it's the evidence which must be rejected, not the belief. Again, it's an intellectually dishonest reaction.

Apparently you can't see the irony of this. 

Because you even state people will state a belief as if it's true or believe in something they think is true. Therefore, it's important t make the distinction that belief does not equal fact. Or truth. 

True, but what you don't seem to understand is this is true of everything anyone thinks about anything. You only think your beliefs are more valid because of your perceived truths concerning empirical evidence. You believe that evidence supports your beliefs about a particular subject. 

You believe that evolution is true. You believe it because of the truth you perceive concerning what you consider empirical evidence. Yet, just as it is a valid question to ask, could I be wrong about God, it is equally valid to ask, could you be wrong about evolution? Is it possible that empirical evidence is being misinterpreted? Since none of us are omnipotent, we must rely on our perceptions. That we must do so doesn't invalidate our beliefs. That is, make them "just a belief." 

TiG & I can probably name certain individuals who are convinced, or convinced themselves, that their beliefs are factually true, to the point of  flat out denying established facts and science.

So could I. Ken Ham comes to mind. Yet, the best anyone can honestly do is state that what we think we understand from the science is that Ham is wrong. As I pointed out earlier, how many times has science gotten it wrong? Yes, yes. I know, our understanding evolves as new info comes in but that just illustrates the point. What we believe to be the truth is a function of perception concerning what we believe we know at the time.

This is why objective, empirical evidence and logical, critical thinking becomes so important. It's the best means for establishing actual truth, and not what one personally wants or feels to be true.

I agree as far as it goes. Where we differ is that you refuse to consider the spiritual and supernatural. Things that cannot be examined by science or what you think of as empirical evidence. Some other method is necessary to determine truth in those areas, something you reject. That you reject it doesn't mean those who don't aren't employing valid methods. There is no cosmic force that makes people have to adhere to your criteria. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.3.38  Drakkonis  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.35    5 years ago
That's just a Pascal's Wager, which anyone knows is a logical fallacy and the sign of a flawed argument.

If you think so then you do not understand Pascal's argument. It wasn't an attempt to prove God. It was a risk assessment. Essentially, the argument is, if one cannot reason out whether or not God exists it is logically better to believe God exists and do what He wants than to risk the consequences of believing He doesn't and be wrong. Basically, a risk vs reward calculation. 

Believing God exists and being right... Eternal reward.

Believing God exists and being wrong...Nothing.

Believing God does not exist and being right... nothing

Believing God does not exist and being wrong... eternal punishment

It should be noted that Pascal never published this argument. It was posthumously presented, along with other unpublished writings. I do not know if it was because he didn't have the chance to publish it or because, although logical, it isn't a very good reason for believing in God as it is basically made on the idea of self interest and not an actual desire for God. I like to think it was the second. Even so, it is logically sound, in my opinion. 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go sink the Yamato. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.39  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.36    5 years ago
Why do you insist I can't see what you are attempting to do?

Because I am not attempting to do anything.   Why do you insist on constantly misrepresenting what I write and ignoring me when I correct your misrepresentation?   That would solve the problem right there.

How can you possibly be claiming that HA's intent was to state that truth is created by perception? 

I have never claimed to know HA's intent nor have I even offered my view on his intent.   Indeed, I have repeatedly stated that HA can explain his intent and I would accept it.  HA is the only one who knows his intent.   He never clarified his intent after I responded to his words.   That would have been then time to do it.   You, in contrast, have written a book on the fact that I dared respond to the only words that he wrote .   Read my prior posts for further details.

... not HA said that truth doesn't stand on it's own

Correct!   He did not make that claim.   Fabricating a new petty strawman Drakk?    Here is what took place:

HA @  3.3   ☞ Like every story, its  truth  depends entirely upon its listeners . 

Truth depends entirely upon ....   Not perceived truth or belief depends entirely upon ...    If HA had said that belief depends entirely upon its listeners I would have agreed without comment.

TiG @  3.3.1   ☞ No,   truth has nothing to do with perception .    Truth stands on its own .    People (listeners) of a story may believe it but that belief does not make it true.   Children believe in the Santa Claus story and clearly that is not truth.

In response to ' Like every story, its truth depends entirely upon its listeners ', I stated that ' truth has nothing to do with perception ' .   You immediately tried to argue that everything is perception (totally ignoring or missing the point I just made about truth itself): 

Drakk @ 3.3.6 -  Actually, that isn't true [ truth has nothing to do with perception ].  It is all perception . For example, before Hubble, most believed the universe was always the size it was and always would be. This was based on perception. Based on what they perceived, they believed it was static. Later, with new perceptions, we now believe it had a beginning from an infinitesimally small point and is expanding as time progresses. A hundred years from now, due to new perceptions, we may perceive something different. 

In short you argue that belief that something is true is based on perception.   Well no kidding.   A fine rebuttal if I had claimed that perceived truth or belief was not based on perception.   But I am talking about truth because that is the word HA used.    As it stands, your 'rebuttal' was a strawman.

Next you tried this:

Drakk @ 3.3.6 - Again, not really [ that truth stands on its own ].   It must be perceived as truth. If one cannot perceive truth, then what use truth? How many times has science believed a thing only to have that thing disproved later? The people who believed the later disproved thing percieved that thing to be truth. Now something else is percieved to be the truth, yet it remains that some new experiment may reveal some other perceived truth that disproves the earlier yet again, and so on. It's all perception. 

Now you want to debate the nature of truth?   In short you argue that our perceptions do not necessarily mean truth.   Well congratulations, you have just stated the equivalent of my opening:  ' truth has nothing to do with perception '.   Yet instead of realizing this you conclude with 'it is all perception' as if that somehow rebuts the obvious fact that truth stands on its own ... that it is not a function of perception.

It is exactly like you purposely ignore the obvious meaning of my words, find a meaning (even if odd) and then argue against it.   No attempt on your part to resolve any misunderstanding of ambiguity.   You just jump in with strange twists on my words and being with your strawman arguments.   That is all I ever see from you nowadays.   Looking for ways to reinterpret my words into a fabricated claim that you can then argue.   And when I correct you, you ignore me and continue with the same nonsense.    And when you finally cannot continue on one line of tactics you switch to something else.

I explained this by demonstrating that truth is inextricably linked to perception because one cannot get to truth but by perception. That truth stands on it's own is great and all, but it is meaningless unless that truth can be perceived.

Irrelevant.   Truth existed before there were human beings around to perceive it.   You agree that truth stands on its own but argue that it does not matter if we are not here to perceive it.   Write an article on that Drakk.   That philosophical view does not change my point that truth is not the product of perception.   So why are you arguing about it other than to argue for the sake of argument? 

What other kind of truth do humans have access to other than perceived truth? What purpose behind asking if one could be wrong about what one believes unless the question is asked recognizing that humans have no other access to truth other than perceived truth? Is not the question "is it possible you are wrong" not a question of incorrect perception? 

Truth exists whether or not we can access it.   All we ever have is perceived truth.  And that is why we cannot declare truth.   Truth stands on its own.   Human beings have perceived truth but we have (except with formal systems) no method of verifying with absolute certainty that any of our perceived truths are indeed truth.   Is this not obvious to you?

You're boring the hell out of me. 

Just plain ironic.   You are the one engaging in an endless fishing expedition, fabricating strawman arguments and ignoring my corrections to your misrepresentations and you now claim (as you routinely do when you are tired of being rebutted) that I am boring you .   Well, Drakk, be my guest to hit the road.   This has been another dialogue with you that has been nothing but me responding to accusations from you.   Nothing interesting, just repeated misrepresentation and repeated correction.   It is another waste of my time and the only reason I respond to you (and will continue to do so) is that I refuse to allow you to engage in these tactics without calling you out.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.40  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.38    5 years ago

Illustrating your tactics.   You quoted Gordy entirely:

Gordy @3.3.35 ☞ That's just a Pascal's Wager, which anyone knows is a logical fallacy and the sign of a flawed argument.

And then you 'rebut' with this:

Drakk @3.3.38 ☞ If you think so then you do not understand Pascal's argument. It wasn't an attempt to prove God.

Where do you see Gordy even implying that Pascal's Wager was an attempt to prove God?

It was a risk assessment.

Yes it was.   Pascal suggested that one has nothing to lose by believing but everything to lose by not believing.   So he effectively is arguing that it is smart to believe.

Essentially, the argument is, if one cannot reason out whether or not God exists it is logically better to believe God exists and do what He wants than to risk the consequences of believing He doesn't and be wrong. Basically, a risk vs reward calculation. 

So here you are explaining Pascal's wager (correctly) as part of your 'rebuttal' to what Gordy wrote.   Yet you claim Gordy does not understand the argument.   How did you come to this conclusion?   His words are spot on and you have not demonstrated anything wrong in what he wrote.

The fallacy of Pascal's Wager as an argument is that it presupposes a) that you choose the correct God to believe in and b) that the correct God would be fooled by someone faking belief.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.3.41  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.39    5 years ago
Correct!   He did not make that claim.   Fabricating a new petty strawman Drakk?

No. I'm factually speaking of what you yourself said. You just stated that it was correct that HA did not claim that truth doesn't stand on it's own. Yet what you say here...

No,   truth has nothing to do with perception .    Truth stands on its own .    People (listeners) of a story may believe it but that belief does not make it true.   Children believe in the Santa Claus story and clearly that is not truth.

...makes less than zero sense unless you are claiming that he did exactly that. That he was saying perception creates truth. It's about English comprehension, TiG. When you said "No," you are rejecting what HA said as wrong and offering what you consider correct in it's place. Saying truth has nothing to do with perception indicates that the opposite is that perception drives truth. You even give an example of this. Children believe in the Santa Clause story and clearly this is not the truth. That only makes sense unless you are saying that HA was saying that perception creates truth. 

Figure it out, TiG. Until you do, I'm not wasting any more time with this. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.3.42  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.40    5 years ago
Where do you see Gordy even implying that Pascal's Wager was an attempt to prove God?

Nowhere. I said it for clarity to get the idea disposed of immediately and move on to what it actually has to do with. It isn't something I need him to bring up first in order to address it. 

Yet you claim Gordy does not understand the argument.   How did you come to this conclusion?

Because of "which anyone knows is a logical fallacy and the sign of a flawed argument." Pascal's reasoning is pretty simple, straightforward and logical. Do you see a flaw in the logic? Where's the fallacy? How is it a sign of a flawed argument? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.43  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.41    5 years ago
You just stated that it was correct that HA did not claim that truth doesn't stand on it's own. Yet what you say here...

This is basic English Drakk.   How low are you going to stoop in this charade?

Again:

HA@3.3 ☞ Like every story, its  truth  depends entirely upon its listeners . 

Truth depends entirely on its listeners is the claim.   Now pay close attention to my first sentence:

TiG@3.3.1 ☞ No,   truth has nothing to do with perception .    

See how that counters what HA wrote?   Now do I stop here?   No, I actually want to explain myself so I continue with the explanation that starts with:

TiG @3.3.1Truth stands on its own .   

That is the opening statement of my explanation.   I made no claim that HA explicitly stated Truth does not stand on its own.   I established the key idea of my subsequent explanation which continues with:

TiG @3.3.1  ☞ People (listeners) of a story may believe it but that belief does not make it true.   Children believe in the Santa Claus story and clearly that is not truth.

Real simple.   Counter the claim and then offer an explanation.   I suspect most people can figure that out.

...makes less than zero sense unless you are claiming that he did exactly that.

As I have noted, you work extremely hard to read words wrong.   

I'm not wasting any more time with this. 

Good.   Hit the road.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.44  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.42    5 years ago
Nowhere. I said it for clarity to get the idea disposed of immediately

And you cannot understand how I started my explanation to HA with:  'Truth stands on its own.' ?   At least my comment was relevant to what was said.   Here you dispose of an idea that is not even in context.   Hypocrisy is a nice touch.

Okay, so you really did not mean to imply that Gordy's mistake was in thinking Pascal's Wager was an attempt to prove God.  So I will ignore that.

Because of "which anyone knows is a logical fallacy and the sign of a flawed argument." Pascal's reasoning is pretty simple, straightforward and logical. Do you see a flaw in the logic? Where's the fallacy? How is it a sign of a flawed argument? 

Did you not read my post?   I answered these questions:

TiG @3.3.40 The fallacy of Pascal's Wager as an argument is that it presupposes a) that you choose the correct God to believe in and b) that the correct God would be fooled by someone faking belief.

I cannot read it for you.   You have to put forth the effort on your own.   Use of the fallacious Pascal's Wager is a red flag that an argument is flawed.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.3.45  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.40    5 years ago
The fallacy of Pascal's Wager as an argument is that it presupposes a) that you choose the correct God to believe in and b) that the correct God would be fooled by someone faking belief.

Pardon. I overlooked this part. 

If you think this is valid then I don't think you understood Pascal, either. First, it doesn't matter which God or god you choose. It works with all of them. If whatever God or god you care to mention desires something from you and something happens if it doesn't get it the logic still applies. True, Pascal was thinking of the Christian God but it makes no difference. That is, the argument isn't for any particular God or god. 

Second, the concern as to whether God would be fooled goes beyond the intent of the argument as the argument isn't really about God but about man in his uncertainty concerning the question of God. The argument concerns the person who cannot decide one way or the other. It simply states that someone in that position logically should choose the option with the less risk. It doesn't address the theology of choosing God ( or god) on such a basis. It is nothing more than a risk assessment between two choices. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.46  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.45    5 years ago
I overlooked this part. 

Yeah, I know, my post was so long and complex ...

If you think this is valid then I don't think you understood Pascal, either. 

Ever occur to you that you might not understand this concept?  No?   Well I suggest you do a little research.

First, it doesn't matter which God or god you choose. It works with all of them. 

So one is to believe in all the Gods?    ( Think this through. )

If whatever God or god you believe in desires something from you and something happens if it doesn't get it the logic still applies. True, Pascal was thinking of the Christian God but it makes no difference. That is, the argument isn't for any particular God or god. 

That presupposes that the God of your choosing is the right God.   Do you not see that?    If you pick the wrong God to believe in then Pascal's wager gives you no advantage.   Not only must you pick the correct God, you have to convince that God that you actually believe and are not pretending.   From your interpretation, all Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc. are all going to fail since they are not going to pick the Christian God.

You clearly do not understand the fundamental problem with Pascal's Wager.   Do some research.   This is easily found.

Second, the concern as to whether God would be fooled goes beyond the intent of the argument as the argument isn't really about God but about man in his uncertainty concerning the question of God. The argument concerns the person who cannot decide one way or the other. It simply states that someone in that position logically should choose the option with the less risk. It doesn't address the theology of choosing God ( or god) on such a basis. It is nothing more than a risk assessment between two choices. 

Another failure of logic.   The whole point of the wager is to minimize risk.   So faking belief with a God (who presumably can figure that out) gives you no advantage. 

Again, do some research; you think you understand Pascal's Wager but clearly you do not.   Since you will not accept as valid what we write I suggest you sit down with Google and educate yourself before accusing others of ignorance.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.3.47  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.46    5 years ago
That presupposes that the God of your choosing is the right God.   Do you not see that?

Still not necessary for the argument. The question of the argument is, is their less risk in believing in God, or to make it simpler to understand, believing in a deity or not believing in a deity. Which deity only becomes a concern once the decision to believe in a deity is made. Trying to figure out which before that decision is putting the cart before the horse. It also goes back to trying to reason out whether there is a deity in the first place, which is outside the bounds of the argument. 

Such an objection was raised in Pascal's day but he rightly rejected it as an excuse not to address the argument at all. His counter was that such an objection simply left it at "ah, but which God?" and simply left it there. A lazy and superficial argument where the adherent couldn't be bothered to think any further. For those who were sincerely asking, which deity, his answer was obvious. If one has decided that it is more rational to believe in a deity then examine which seems to be the most likely. 

So one is to believe in all the Gods?    ( Think this through. )

Uh, yeah. That's what I'm saying /s 

Another failure of logic.   The whole point of the wager is to minimize risk.   So faking belief with a God (who presumably can figure that out) gives you no advantage. 

No, a failure on your part to understand Pascal's reasoning. He didn't think faking it was the solution. He felt that behaving as if one believed would naturally lead to true belief. He advised...

But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.

He felt that behaving as if one believed would naturally lead to true belief. He advised the one who decided to believe in a deity to learn from those who began as they did but now actually believed. He wasn't advising them to learn how they faked it. He was saying learn how others came to actually believe.

Further, the "faking it" argument assumes a deistic, rather than theistic, deity. If the deity is theistic, as we Christians claim, then that deity will have a personal interest in helping the unbeliever to come to believe. In fact, that's one of the tenets of Christian faith. That none of us can come to belief unless God brings us to it. It isn't something we can bring about by our own will or resources. If I have a problem with Pascal's reasoning it is that he appears to approach the question from a deistic point of view. 

Again, do some research; you think you understand Pascal's Wager but clearly you do not.   Since you will not accept as valid what we write I suggest you sit down with Google and educate yourself before accusing others of ignorance.

I have. A long time ago. And I'm sure you'll understand I prefer what Pascal himself said over what you write. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.48  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.47    5 years ago
The question of the argument is, is their less risk in believing in God, or to make it simpler to understand, believing in a deity or not believing in a deity. Which deity only becomes a concern once the decision to believe in a deity is made.

Believing in an abstract deity or not misses the very concept of Pascal's wager.   There is no risk to not believing in an undefined creator because there is no penalty for lack of belief in an undefined creator.   The risk of Pascal's Wager is tied directly to the penalty for not believing in the true god with the presumption that the true god exacts a penalty for this lack of belief.

PROBLEM ONE:   Gotta choose the right god

In terms of the Christian God (the operative example for Pascal's Wager) the logic presupposes that the Christian God is the true god and that there is a penalty associated with not believing in said god.   Thus, under that presupposition, it is surmised that it is better to just believe because if the presupposed god ...

  • does exist, you have done what it requires of you (no penalty)
  • does not exist, you never were under risk so your belief was simply an insurance policy

When you generalize to remove the presupposition of the Christian God (and move simply to a deity or a 'sentient creator') you lose the concept of a penalty for lack of belief.   There is no risk (or, at least, the risk is entirely unknown) when dealing with an abstract notion of 'sentient creator'.   The penalty comes from the edicts of a particular god.

But when you recognize that you must cater to the one true god, and return to choosing to believe (as if that were possible), you must now find the one true god.   So Abdul (an agnostic Muslim who is worried) might employ Pascal's Wager and will likely go with Allah as the one true god and follow the religion so as to appease Allah.  And, per the wager, Abdul will now try to believe just in case Allah exists and is the true god.

But what if Allah is not the true god?   What if the Hindu Brahma or the Jade Emperor or Jesus (trinity) ... is the true god?   Abdul's use of Pascal's Wager fails because he chose Allah instead of the true god.   So he fails if he believes and fails if he does not believe.

PROBLEM TWO:   The true god probably knows when you are faking it

Let's say that Abdul chose Allah and that Allah turns out to be the true god.   Dodged that bullet!  (But all those Christians, et. al. using Pascal's Wager are screwed.)   Abdul still is an agnostic Muslim (ergo his use of Pascal's Wager) so he must now comply with the terms of the wager and actually believe in Allah as the true god.   If he can somehow trick his mind into true belief then he is good.   But if he just pretends to believe he better hope that the true god is unable to tell that he is putting on a pretense.

Now (as you have outlined in your response) you can believe (one can believe anything) that pretending to believe will lead to true belief,  that the true god will help you achieve true belief (another presupposition), etc.   And, if Abdul somehow finds true belief he is golden with the wager.   But, and this is the point, if he does not, merely faking it will likely not work with (the true) god.


If we net down your response, you are essentially stating that Pascal's Wager is an encouragement for people to actively try to find the true god and to then try to genuinely believe in this god.   The logic is that if there is a true god, it is safer to believe in it than to not.   

My (and common) criticism of that logic remains and your response does not rebut this.   For Pascal's Wager to work you must select the one true god and must achieve genuine belief.   And if you just believe in an abstract sentient creator (where this is no specific requirement of you) then that is the same as not believing in the true God.   To put things in your terms, you believe the true god is the Christian God.   Thus anyone who believes in another god (e.g. Brahma) or believes in a sentient creator deity (in the abstract) loses.  And, again from your perspective, your own use of Pascal's Wager fails if the Christian God is not the true god.   


Now pulling this back into the original context, we have HA (of course) making a statement:

HA @3.3.32The differences between Believers in God and those in denial that He is as we described, if we are wrong are immense.  If they are somehow right, they won’t even be able to let us know all about it.  

Well, if Allah (or any of the uncountable possibilities) is the true god then Christians are the ones 'in denial' and Christians must endure these (presupposed) immense consequences.   And the Muslims, who turned out to be correct, will not even be able to let the Christians know 'see we told you to believe in Allah'.

The best one can get out of Pascal's Wager is that it is better to pick a god (hoping you get the right one) and seek true belief (as best as one can pull this off) rather than not based on the presupposition that there is a true god who will punish you if you do not believe in it.   And note that anyone who buys into Pascal's Wager necessarily presupposes the likelihood of a god who will punish non-believers.

So if you were to follow Pascal's Wager, you should be spending your life reviewing all of the historical religions in an attempt to select the one true god so that you can begin the process of trying to achieve true belief.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.49  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.47    5 years ago

I side with Pascal as well. The belief in God must be a genuine one based on a real relationship with Him.  Some try to build a superficial relationship more as fire insurance while living pretty much as before. The basis of his wager as to the consequences of being wrong is sound.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.51  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.49    5 years ago
The belief in God must be a genuine one based on a real relationship with Him.

You do not realize that this is my second point?   My first point being that one must somehow pick the right god to believe in.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.52  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.49    5 years ago

The wager is still not sound or logical because even if one has a genuine belief in a god, there is no way to objectively determine if the god one genuinely believes in is the true god. One might think or actually believe it is, but that is still just a belief based opinion, with nothing to establush as fact. Now given the number of religions and gods, both currently and/or throughout history, a wager in what one believes is the true god becomes much more of a longshot. So any wager is no longer sound, and quite illogical as one places the supposed highest bet possible: one's own soul on that wager.  You might be better off playing lotto or something. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.53  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.52    5 years ago

Both Drakk and HA seem to be certain that the true god is the Christian God and that there is indeed a penalty for disbelief (eternal damnation).    Given that certainty of belief, Pascal's Wager should make logical sense to them.    The problem is that the logic is based on two key presuppositions:

  1. The Christian God (Jesus as the Son hypostasis of the trinity) is the true god
  2. Lack of belief in the Christian God results in eternal damnation

Neither supposition has supporting evidence.   

What if Allah is the true god and (thus) Jesus is just a prophet (an ordinary human being)?   Christians engaging in the Wager all lose big.

If one were to follow the principle underlying Pascal's Wager, one would explore all the gods and all the religions to help ensure one chooses the true god.   There is only one bullet so when the shot is fired (the choice made) it has to count.   But realistically, nobody is going to do that.   And practically, nobody can do it because none of the gods human beings have invented have any supporting evidence.   At the very best, one can eliminate the gods that are self-contradictory and then guess which one of those remaining is the true god.   Ultimately this is an exercise in futility (given thousands of gods).

So in practice, I think people use Pascal's Wager as a comfort.   They have a convenient god in mind (typically Jesus) that they presume to be the true god so it is easy to assure themselves that it is a very good thing indeed that they believe in Jesus.    I suspect they never even entertain the possibility that Allah, et. al. is the true god and thus never recognize the fundamental flaw of Pascal's wager.   

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.54  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.49    5 years ago

There is only one God.  There are three world religions that follow Him in some form to some degree.  All people who live their lives according to the best light they have been shown will find themselves saved.  People who see light and reject it knowingly have no chance at that outcome.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.55  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.54    5 years ago
There is only one God.  There are three world religions that follow Him in some form to some degree.  All people who live their lives according to the best light they have been shown will find themselves saved.  People who see light and reject it knowingly have no chance at that outcome.  

If you follow Judaism or Islam (the other Abrahamic religions of which Christianity is the third) you cannot consider Jesus to be divine.   

All people who live their lives according to the best light they have been shown will find themselves saved.

That is a vague statement.   But you appear to be suggesting that all Muslims who believe in Allah are actually believing in the true god and that all Christians who believe in Jesus are actually believing in the true god.

The immediate logical problem with that notion is that Islam, Judaism and Christianity contradict each other.  Indeed, sects / denominations within those categories of religions contradict themselves.   To deal with the contradiction one must hold that the religions are not divine and that the believers should simply believe in the god and be done with it.   So in Judaism one simply believes in YHVH (with other aliases);  in Islam, one simply believes in Allah and in Christianity, one simply believes in the Holy Trinity with Jesus as the characteristic hypostasis.    This in itself is strange due to the profound difference of the trinity vs. the pure monotheistic god of Judaism and Islam.   But it gets increasingly problematic as one considers how the different religions define their gods and other details (history, intent, plans, etc.).


In general, I sort of agree with you.    It makes sense actually (if one is predisposed to believe in a sentient creator rather than believe only when there is suitable evidence to justify the belief) to simply consider all the various gods of all the various religions to be ultimately the one true god (including Brahma, Zeus, Jade Emperor, Odin, etc.).   Then if one were to honestly recognize that nobody knows anything about this one true god, one would view all the various religions to simply be man-made inventions.   The religions are all invented by human beings with very different perspectives to try to give more meaning than simply 'sentient creator'.

That way of thinking means that one believes in a sentient creator but is honest enough to recognize that any details about this creator are mere fiction.   That, seems to me, is rational.

Now, applying this to Pascal's Wager, the Wager is now meaningless.   Nobody knows if there is a penalty for not believing in an abstract supreme creator.   For all we know, the sentient creator might judge people based on their altruism or based on their contribution to the betterment of society or how they use the planet, etc.    Given we do not know what, if anything, the sentient creator demands, the Wager offers no guidance.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.56  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.38    5 years ago
If you think so then you do not understand Pascal's argument.

I understand it quite well.

 It wasn't an attempt to prove God.

I never said it was. So I'm not sure where you got that idea from.

It was a risk assessment. Essentially, the argument is, if one cannot reason out whether or not God exists it is logically better to believe God exists and do what He wants than to risk the consequences of believing He doesn't and be wrong. Basically, a risk vs reward calculation.

In other words, it's about hedging one's bets. But HA made a similar type of statement, which I correctly called out as a Pascal's Wager. So explain again how I don't understand it!

It should be noted that Pascal never published this argument. It was posthumously presented, along with other unpublished writings.

So? 

I do not know if it was because he didn't have the chance to publish it or because, although logical, it isn't a very good reason for believing in God as it is basically made on the idea of self interest and not an actual desire for God. I like to think it was the second. Even so, it is logically sound, in my opinion. 

It wasn't about genuine belief in a god. 

 belief that is just belief would be "just a belief and nothing more", but that isn't what we're really talking about.

That's what I'm talking about.

We're pretty much speaking about a belief in God.

Maybe you are.

While I'm sure there are those who "just believe it", that is, have no reason for their beliefs, the fact is that most people have a reason for their beliefs. Therefore, it isn't "just belief." To put it another way, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who, when asked why they believe in God, would respond "Oh, no reason. I just believe."

No doubt people can have various reasons for belief. That doesn't change the fact that it's still just a belief, regardless of why someone believes.

That they cannot give you the kind of evidence you demand doesn't make it "just a belief" either. That's simply a condition you demand as a requirement for your belief.

The only evidence I "demand" is the same for any claim made: objective and empirical. Neither have I mentioned my beliefs.

If you could demonstrate that there is no God and people still believed then that would be a case of "just a belief" and nothing more. 

Naturally I could not demonstrate there is no god, as that is also a logical fallacy. One cannot prove the non-existence of something. It's also a shifting of the burden.

Apparently you can't see the irony of this.

 No irony. Just simple fact.

True, but what you don't seem to understand is this is true of everything anyone thinks about anything. You only think your beliefs are more valid because of your perceived truths concerning empirical evidence. You believe that evidence supports your beliefs about a particular subject. 

This is why I "demand" objective empirical evidence. I go by what can be objectively demonstrated rather than just belief or what someone thinks is "truth." The evidence stands on its own regardless of belief.

You believe that evolution is true. You believe it because of the truth you perceive concerning what you consider empirical evidence.

No, I don't believe it's true. I accept evolution as a valid scientific theory and explanation because it has supporting empirical evidence with nothing to discredit it. It's also the most logical explanation and doesn't rely on mere belief or feelings.

Yet, just as it is a valid question to ask, could I be wrong about God, it is equally valid to ask, could you be wrong about evolution?

Of course those are valid questions. But again, it's all about the evidence. Science is willing to say it's wrong when error is demonstrated and it reevaluates its position. The same cannot be said for religion. People often are unwilling to concede their beliefs (especially about god) are wrong.

Is it possible that empirical evidence is being misinterpreted?

Of course it's possible. That's why evidence is evaluated for validity and reliability in the findings, being verified and falsified. Additional evidence is gathered if possible to affirm or refute previous findings. That's the scientific process.

Since none of us are omnipotent, we must rely on our perceptions. That we must do so doesn't invalidate our beliefs. That is, make them "just a belief." 

Accepting something or thinking something is true or fact without evidence is just a belief.

So could I. Ken Ham comes to mind.

That is one such individual.

Yet, the best anyone can honestly do is state that what we think we understand from the science is that Ham is wrong.

We can most certainly say Mr. Hamm is wrong, based on all the evidence collected thus far.

As I pointed out earlier, how many times has science gotten it wrong? Yes, yes. I know, our understanding evolves as new info comes in but that just illustrates the point. What we believe to be the truth is a function of perception concerning what we believe we know at the time.

 No one is saying science is never wrong. But the scientific method gives us the best chance to establish higher degrees of validity and credibility about a given "truth."

I agree as far as it goes. Where we differ is that you refuse to consider the spiritual and supernatural. Things that cannot be examined by science or what you think of as empirical evidence.

The spiritual/supernatural are abstract and/or emotive concepts which has no supporting evidence to establish them as fact or truth. Those are examples of people going by feelings over logic.

Some other method is necessary to determine truth in those areas, something you reject.

What "method" would that be exactly?

That you reject it doesn't mean those who don't aren't employing valid methods. There is no cosmic force that makes people have to adhere to your criteria. 

Rejection or acceptance is based on evidence, not what one merely claims, feels, or believes. The intellectually honest and logical "criteria" is evidence. Those who cannot or will not adhere to that "criteria" or cannot provide evidence to support their assertions demonstrate a lack of credibility, resulting in no logical or rational reason to accept their "perceptions" or claims.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.57  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.54    5 years ago
There is only one God.

Still waiting for you to prove that.

 There are three world religions that follow Him in some form to some degree.

And yet, those forms can be vastly different.

 All people who live their lives according to the best light they have been shown will find themselves saved.  People who see light and reject it knowingly have no chance at that outcome.  

And you base that on what exactly? How do you know what god will do or who he will save? Are you suggesting you know what god is thinking?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.58  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.53    5 years ago
Both Drakk and HA seem to be certain that the true god is the Christian God and that there is indeed a penalty for disbelief (eternal damnation).   

As I've pointed out before, that is just a belief. Also quite a sanctimoniously arrogant one too.

Neither supposition has supporting evidence.  

Exactly. And notice how neither of them put forth and evidence whatsoever. Just the opposite really, they go out of their way to avoid providing evidence and dismiss any challenge to do so.  But we're expected to believe it like it's true? I doubt they're willing to even consider their beliefs are wrong, which is the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty.

What if Allah is the true god and (thus) Jesus is just a prophet (an ordinary human being)?   Christians engaging in the Wager all lose big.

But in their minds, they're convinced they're right.

If one were to follow the principle underlying Pascal's Wager, one would explore all the gods and all the religions to help ensure one chooses the true god.  

Or if one were willing to be intellectually honest about their belief.

There is only one bullet so when the shot is fired (the choice made) it has to count. 

Kind of like theistic Russian Roulette.

Ultimately this is an exercise in futility (given thousands of gods).

Indeed.

So in practice, I think people use Pascal's Wager as a comfort.   They have a convenient god in mind (typically Jesus) that they presume to be the true god so it is easy to assure themselves that it is a very good thing indeed that they believe in Jesus.  

I think that describes religious belief in general.

 I suspect they never even entertain the possibility that Allah, et. al. is the true god and thus never recognize the fundamental flaw of Pascal's wager.   

I doubt they would entertain the possibility of any god other than their own, or logical contradictions regarding their god. Again, it's intellectual dishonesty at play. Or emotional comfort preventing them from doing so. I suppose questioning one's own beliefs might put them out of their comfort zone.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.59  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.58    5 years ago

I hope that you two are enjoying your little conversation talking about us dirty and unwashed believers in the One True God on my fine and true seed.  Happy New Year and may God find another way to speak to you both.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.60  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.59    4 years ago
I hope that you two are enjoying your little conversation

Thank you

talking about us dirty and unwashed believers

Try taking a shower then.

in the One True God

You say that but fail to prove it.

on my fine and true seed.

I wouldn't go that far. But keep patting yourself on the back if it makes you feel better.

 Happy New Year

Thank you, and to you as well.

and may God find another way to speak to you both.  

What's stopping god from doing so now? But I didn't realize god was participating in this discussion. Can you point out where god spoke to either of us? I don't see god as a member here.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.61  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.47    4 years ago

But the know it all logic of the two skeptical deniers of all the we believe in trumps all else.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.62  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.60    4 years ago

Your unwillingness to listen is all that’s stopping you from hearing Him in your life.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.63  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.61    4 years ago
But the know it all logic of the two skeptical deniers of all the we believe in trumps all else.  

Skepticism can be a good thing, especially when baseless claims are made. And logic is even better, as it keeps information and discussions rational and based more on critical thinking rather than emotional and irrational.

Your unwillingness to listen is all that’s stopping you from hearing Him in your life. 

No, it's your unwillingness to provide empirical evidence that is stopping me. Surely if a supposed omnipotent deity "speaks" to me, I should be able to hear it, right? I figure a god is difficult to ignore. But I'm not going to pretend or delude myself into thinking or believing some deity is "speaking" to me or actually exists when that is clearly not the case. At best, that is merely convincing my self of something (possibly to satiate some emotional need or desire) and at worst, the sign of a psychological condition.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.64  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.63    4 years ago

How Christian History Demonstrates That Christianity Has Always Been Evidential

In this video, recorded as part of the Cold-Case Christianity Course at Southern Evangelical Seminary, J. Warner Wallace describes the rich evidential history of Christianity.

Did Jesus think evidence was important? Are we warranted in reinterpreting our traditional notions of “blind faith” and aligning them toward a Biblical definition of “forensic faith”?

You can find more information about Southern Evangelical Seminary on their website.

Spiritual-Readiness-Logo-400-300x146.jpg

Part of an ongoing series on spiritual readiness.   

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.65  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.64    4 years ago

Does the term "confirmation bias" mean anything to you? What is the objective, empirical evidence for god? Or that Jesus was resurrected? Or angels/demons? Or that some of the events/claims in the bible actually occurred? Mere belief is not evidence (or fact), and simply accepting the words and claims of ancient men doesn't make it truth either (although that might make one gullible). 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.66  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.65    4 years ago

The Main Plot of the Bible 

written by Dr. Kyle Keltz

JAN2 

At usually over 1,000 pages long (depending on the translation and format), the Bible contains many details that can be confusing to put together. Believers and unbelievers alike are often familiar with major Bible characters and events, such as the stories about Cain and Abel, Moses and Pharaoh, and David and Goliath. However, many people do not realize that all of these famous stories are parts of an overarching biblical plot. Having a good understanding of this plot can give more insight into the smaller stories and help avoid confusion. In this initial post, I want to provide a birds-eye view of the Bible’s plot.

In the Beginning

A good consideration of Genesis is crucial for understanding the main story of the Bible and many of its subplots. Genesis 1-3 contains a miniature version of the plot of the Bible. In Gen. 1-2, God is shown creating the universe and preparing the earth on which humankind will live, represent, and serve Him. God places the first human, Adam, in the Garden of Eden and commands him to spread across and subdue the earth. However, Adam and Eve do not fully obey God, and they instead give in to the suggestions of a serpent. Because of this disobedience, God banishes Adam and Eve from the Garden. They are told that their actions have resulted in several curses on the earth and humanity, but God promises that a descendant of Eve will eventually crush the head of the serpent, although the descendant’s heel will be bruised in the process. As mentioned, this story in Genesis contains the seeds of several subplots that together comprise the main plot of the Bible.

Creation

One major theme found within Genesis, and repeated throughout the Bible, is the theme of creation. This theme repeats at major intervals in the main storyline of the Bible. In Gen. 1-2, God creates the earth and humanity and declares them to be good. However in Gen. 3, Adam and Eve sin by eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Because of this, God pronounces curses on the serpent, humanity, and the earth. Yet God promises that redemption for humanity will come through a descendant of Eve.

The theme of creation (often accompanied with a fall, judgment, and promise of redemption) occurs at least two more times in the Bible. After God floods the earth, He causes the waters to recede and starts over with Noah and his family (creation). God commands them to multiply and spread across the earth, but almost immediately, Noah falls short by getting drunk on wine and getting naked in his tent (fall). Noah’s sin results in further curses, specifically on the descendants of his son Ham. Afterward, humanity is found building a tower in Babel to make a name for themselves and to avoid being scattered across the earth (which was a rejection of God’s command to multiply on the earth). As a result, God confuses the language of humanity and scatters humans across the earth (judgment). Eventually, God promises Abraham that all the nations of the earth will be blessed through Abraham’s descendants (promise of redemption).

This theme is seen a third time when God calls the Jews out of Egypt. In Gen. 35, God renames Jacob to Israel, tells him a great nation will come from him, and commands him to be fruitful and multiply (creation). The Israelites obey God’s command to multiply and enter the land of Canaan, but they fail to completely subdue the land and quickly turn to serving other gods (fall). In fact, before they even enter their promised land, they grumble against God and worship a golden calf. As a result, the Israelites are ultimately removed from the land, and their temple is destroyed (judgment). Throughout this process, God promises David that he will have a descendant who will sit on the throne of Israel forever, and God gives His prophets visions of a restored Israel that will last forever (promise of redemption).

The theme of creation is seen again in the New Testament. Jesus commands His apostles to go and make disciples of all nations (reminiscent of God’s commands to be fruitful and multiply). Afterward, with His Spirit, God creates the Church at Pentecost. With Jesus as its head, the Church never falls, but it continues the struggle that began in Genesis between the followers of the serpent and the followers of the promised descendant of Eve. This struggle is prophesied to end when the earth, humanity, and the serpent will all be judged. At this time, it is said that God will create one last time when He brings down heaven and creates a new heaven and new earth.

Covenant

In addition to creation, another theme that helps shed light on the biblical epic is the theme of God’s covenants. Beginning with Adam and Eve, God makes and reconfirms covenants many times throughout the Bible. As mentioned, God made promises to Adam and Eve and Abraham, but God makes several more covenants than these.

The first covenant is the Edenic Covenant. This began as a conditional arrangement between Adam and God in which Adam was to lead humanity as it spread across the earth with God’s help. However, after the fall, Adam and Eve are cast out of God’s presence and are to spread across the earth under the influence of the curses and in light of the resistance of the serpent and his followers. Yet God makes an unconditional promise that one day a descendant of Eve will crush the serpent’s head.

God also makes a covenant with Noah and commands his family to replenish the earth, but regarding the plot of the Bible, the next important covenant is the Abrahamic Covenant. God makes an unconditional covenant with Abraham and promises him his descendants will make a great nation that will possess the land of Canaan. Eventually, Abraham’s name will be made great, and all nations will be blessed through Abraham’s descendants.

Another important covenant is the Mosaic Covenant. In this conditional covenant, God promises the Israelites blessings in the land of Canaan as long as they serve as a priestly nation that is supposed to demonstrate God’s glory to the nations. If Israel follows God’s commands and worships Him only, Israel will be blessed. If it does not, then it will experience hardship and exile.

God makes another important covenant with King David. After he becomes king, God promises David that he will have one of his descendants on the throne in God’s kingdom forever. David is promised that his name will become great, his line will be established forever, and his line will rule in God’s kingdom forever. This unconditional covenant basically clarifies how portions of God’s promises to Adam and Abraham will be fulfilled.

Finally, God promises through the prophets Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and others that He will eventually bring His people, the Israelites, back into the land He promised them and, through His Spirit, make it possible for them to obey and love Him. This is another covenant that clarifies how God’s promises to Adam and Abraham will be fulfilled specifically.

God’s Presence

The last major theme that helps clarify the plot of the Bible is the theme of God’s presence. Noting God’s special manifestations of His presence on earth throughout the biblical stories often makes sense of events and statements that would otherwise be confusing. As the most important character in the biblical epic, it is crucial to track God and His presence throughout the Bible.

First, God is seen “walking” in the Garden of Eden in Gen. 3. As mentioned, Adam and Eve were cast out of God’s presence after they disobeyed God and sinned by eating fruit from the forbidden tree. As it stands, it seems that humanity, at least Adam and Eve, would have been able to enjoy being in God’s presence as they attempted to carry out His command to spread across and subdue the earth.

While humanity is exiled from God’s presence, God occasionally manifests Himself to the patriarchs including Abraham and Moses. However, it isn’t until God brings Israel out of captivity in Egypt that God’s presence is manifested in a big way again. In particular, God is manifested as a pillar of smoke and fire as He leads the Israelites into the land of Canaan. God’s presence also indwells the tabernacle during and after the wilderness wanderings.

Eventually, Solomon builds a temple for God, and God indwells the temple after it is completed. Yet as Israel spiritually degenerates, God’s presence leaves the temple and Jerusalem. By the time of the intertestamental period, not only does God cease speaking to the Jews, but God’s presence is nowhere to be found in Israel.

When Jesus is born, obviously, God’s presence is back on earth and in Israel. During Jesus’ ministry, He often referred to His body as a temple. This is because the temple had been the special place where God’s presence had been manifested, but now it is in Jesus.

After Jesus’ ascension, the Holy Spirit comes down to form the Church. Now in the Church Age, God indwells believers and is specially manifested on earth by their actions and witness. God indwells believers individually and is also present in a special way when believers gather together.

Finally, after the Church Age, it is said that God will bring heaven down to the earth, and God’s presence will be everywhere in the new heaven and new earth. God will finally dwell among His people on earth again. The entire creation will finally maximally reflect God’s glory as His eternal plan comes to fruition.

Putting It All Together

As can be seen, there is an overarching plot to the Bible that begins in its first chapters. Piecing together the themes of creation, covenant, and God’s presence helps the plot emerge. God has a plan from the very beginning that is played out through the thousands of years of human history.

  • Creation of the world
    • Edenic Covenant – humanity is commanded to subdue the earth and multiply on it
    • Fall – Adam and Eve eat some forbidden fruit and are exiled from the Garden of Eden
    • Promise of redemption – a descendant of Eve will crush the head of the serpent and remove the curses
    • God’s presence – God dwells with Adam and Eve before they disobey Him
  • Creation of the post-flood world
    • Noahic and Abrahamic Covenants – humanity is commanded to replenish the earth and multiply on it; Abraham’s name will be made great; he will have many descendants who will possess the land of Canaan
    • Fall – humanity builds a tower to prevent spreading across the earth
    • Promise of redemption – all nations will be blessed through Abraham’s descendants
    • God’s presence – God occasionally appears to the patriarchs
  • Creation of the nation Israel
    • Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenants – Israel is to act as a nation of priests; they will be blessed in the land as long as they obey God’s commands and worship God only; David will have a descendant on the throne of Israel forever
    • Fall – Israel does not completely remove the inhabitants of Canaan, continually worships other Gods, and disobeys God’s commands
    • Promise of redemption – the New Covenant stipulates that God will eventually empower the nation Israel to follow and love Him; this will ensure that Israel blesses the nations as promised
    • God’s presence – God dwells among the Israelites in the tabernacle and Solomon’s temple
  • Creation of the Church
    • Great commission – the Church is commanded to make disciples of all nations
    • Promise of redemption – the Church will suffer as they witness to the world, but Jesus will return to destroy the serpent and judge the living and the dead
    • God’s presence – God takes on flesh and comes to the earth as Jesus of Nazareth
  • Creation of the new heaven and new earth
    • Redemption – the serpent and his demons are cast in the lake of fire; Jesus, the promised descendant, reigns over the earth forever; Israel and the nations are reconciled to God
    • God’s presence – God’s plan comes to fruition as He finally dwells among His people; the new heaven and new earth is filled with God’s glory and redeemed humanity

In the coming weeks and months, I plan on going into detail on the themes of creationcovenants, and God’s presence. I also want to discuss the theme of the seed conflict, which I didn’t have enough space to mention in this post. By the end, I hope to give readers a detailed picture of the themes that comprise the main plot of the Bible.

For visual learners, here is a companion video regarding the plot of the Bible created by Timothy Mackie and Jonathan Collins of The Bible Project:

Here is another Bible Project video that discusses the importance of recognizing plots in the Bible: 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.68  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.66    4 years ago

I guess you didn't bother reading, much less comprehending, my previous post.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.69  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.68    4 years ago

Not sure why you keep responding to my posts.  I can’t and or don’t see them and my posts here aren’t meant for you but for open minded people and neutral guests who read here.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.70  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.69    4 years ago
Not sure why you keep responding to my posts.

You are REPLYing to Gordy.   Your replies keep showing up on his tracker.   If you are not intending to speak with Gordy (especially per your 'claim' that you have him on ignore) then REPLYing to him is a juvenile tactic.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
3.3.71  al Jizzerror  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.69    4 years ago
Not sure why you keep responding to my posts.  I can’t and or don’t see them and my posts here aren’t meant for you

LMFAO!

The quotation above is a response to something you claim, "I can’t and or don’t see them".  And then you said, "my posts here aren’t meant for you".

3.3.69 seeder Heartland American replied to  Gordy327 @ 3.3.68

Wow!  I guess you didn't post that, huh?

Don't worry, I'm not here to deny the existence of your invisible friend, I just noticed your ridiculous comment on the Front Page in the Recent Comment section.

I just wanted to thank you for the laugh.

If you reply to this, I will consider it an invitation to rejoin this discussion.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.72  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.69    4 years ago
Not sure why you keep responding to my posts.  

Uh, you replied to me. And this is a public discussion forum.

I can’t and or don’t see them

Sound like you're the one being closed minded to challenge and scrutiny then. Ironic how you infer I'm closed minded too.

and my posts here aren’t meant for you but for open minded people and neutral guests who read here

Then post in a private discussion chat! Like I said, this is a public discussion forum where anyone can reply to anyone.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4  Gordy327    5 years ago
We recognize that yes, there is a God.  Yes, there is a Jesus, and that yes, angels are real. 

That's nice. Prove it!

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @4    5 years ago
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?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @4.2    5 years ago

I think that he may well want to believe, but just can't without enough of the right kind of proof.

Maybe THAT'S why he asks the same question on virtually every seed with anything to do with religion?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @4.2    5 years ago

It is the bah humbug syndrome of Christmas spirit lost.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.1    5 years ago

The Christmas story with lots of angels and the literal virgin birth and the fulfillment of so many Old Testament prophecies and all the Miracles performed would be rated a conspiracy theory and pseudoscience by those that think they know it all.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.3    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.5  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @4.2    5 years ago
Do you really think it adds anything to the conversation to make this same post in every article like this? 

As opposed to someone making baseless claims as fact to begin with and offers nothing to support said claims?

Are you threatened by this seed?

Is that supposed to be a joke?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.6  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.1    5 years ago
I think that he may well want to believe, but just can't without enough of the right kind of proof.

Why would I want mere belief over actual evidence or proof?

Maybe THAT'S why he asks the same question on virtually every seed with anything to do with religion?

Which question is that?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.7  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @4.2    5 years ago

They must feel seriously threatened by the free expression of religious beliefs they deny even exists

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.7    5 years ago
... the free expression of religious beliefs they deny even exists

I am unaware of anyone denying that religious beliefs exist.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.9  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.5    5 years ago
As opposed to someone making baseless claims as fact to begin with and offers nothing to support said claims?

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.

Is that supposed to be a joke?

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.9    5 years ago

It isn't enough for him to not believe. He doesn't want anyone else to believe either.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.11  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.10    5 years ago

And that is the bottom line here...

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.12  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.4    5 years ago

my comment was primarily aimed at a nameless 3rd party and like minded others out there not at any particular members here. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.13  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.12    5 years ago

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.'

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.14  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.10    5 years ago

How did Gordy, personally, become the topic?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.15  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.10    5 years ago

Just when I thought your comments couldn't get any more absurd. jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.16  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.13    5 years ago

And many of those demanding proof will get it from the other side impersonating the real thing just before the end...

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.17  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.14    5 years ago

He is one of a handful here who make themselves the subject whenever God, origins, religion, religious holidays are seeded about.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.18  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.15    5 years ago

He was right on in every way.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.19  Texan1211  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.18    5 years ago

Some simply can't accept others who believe.

It isn't worth arguing with them. You will never change their mind. God Himself might have a hard time convincing them He exists.

They will never change your mind, either.

Live and let live, and just realize that every single time a religious aspect is brought into a discussion, round and round you'll go until finally they simply say "Prove it".

They know we can't prove it, so they think they have won the argument.

Let them think it--it costs us nothing and allows them to feel good about themselves, at least until the next religious article is posted.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.20  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.16    5 years ago
And many of those demanding proof will get it from the other side impersonating the real thing just before the end...

This is a fine example of making a statement of certainty (truth - 100%) based on nothing but what other human beings have merely claimed.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.21  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.17    5 years ago
He is one of a handful here who make themselves the subject whenever God, origins, religion, religious holidays are seeded about.  

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.22  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.19    5 years ago
They know we can't prove it, so they think they have won the argument.

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?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.23  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.16    5 years ago
And many of those demanding proof will get it from the other side impersonating the real thing just before the end...

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.

He is one of a handful here who make themselves the subject whenever God, origins, religion, religious holidays are seeded about.

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.

He was right on in every way.  

Except that he wasn't, and simply proclaiming correctness does not make it so.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.24  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.21    5 years ago
To wit ... focus on what is written, not on the author.

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.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.25  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.19    5 years ago

That’s why I say what I want to express and then largely ignore the prove it types when they show up.  It doesn’t bother me that I believe by a rational faith and they demand signs and wonders.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.26  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.20    5 years ago

And....?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.27  Texan1211  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.25    5 years ago

Much saner decision.

Personally, I never care what anyone else believes regarding religion.

I wonder why it bothers some folks so much?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.28  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.22    5 years ago
This reveals the problem with they way you are thinking about this.

said the person who had just written:

Steer clear of psychoanalyzing other members, presuming to know what is in their minds
 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.29  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.24    5 years ago

I love the self-righteousness of this. The person who says this:

When someone has to shift focus on the author instead of the topic, it shows the inherent weakness of their arguments, claims, and logic.

then goes on to hypocritically declare:

It's quite the intellectually dishonest and cowardly tactic.

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.30  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.26    5 years ago
And....?

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:

HA @4.2.16 And many of those demanding proof will get it from the other side impersonating the real thing just before the end...

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).

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.31  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.22    5 years ago

That last point is not for you to decide or dictate for or to anyone else.  You have absolutely zero say in whether other Americans believe in literal one week creation or not.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.32  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.29    5 years ago

True.  Objectively honest people will see it as you described.  Thanks for pointing it out for all to see. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.33  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.30    5 years ago

The fact is that not one single person one the face of the earth that has ever lived, is living, or ever will live will ever get to Heaven denying faith or demanding signs and wonders/proof.  That’s the bottom line.  Believe by faith the best light one is shown in their life time or not.  Everyone has that free will choice.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.34  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.29    5 years ago
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.

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?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.35  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.31    5 years ago
That last point is not for you to decide or dictate for or to anyone else.  You have absolutely zero say in whether other Americans believe in literal one week creation or not.

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.

The fact is that not one single person one the face of the earth that has ever lived, is living, or ever will live will ever get to Heaven denying faith or demanding signs and wonders/proof.  That’s the bottom line.  Believe by faith the best light one is shown in their life time or not.

Just another empty claim based on nothing but mere belief.

 Everyone has that free will choice.

If there were a god, there would be no such thing as free will or choice.

That’s why I say what I want to express and then largely ignore the prove it types when they show up.

That's because you can't prove it,(Deleted)

 It doesn’t bother me that I believe by a rational faith and they demand signs and wonders.

"Rational faith" is an oxymoron. Faith by definition is irrational. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.36  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.34    5 years ago
But if that's how you want to interpret it, then perhaps it's hitting a little close to home?

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.37  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.28    5 years ago

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:

Texan @4.2.19God Himself might have a hard time convincing them He exists. ... They know we can't prove it, so they think they have won the argument.

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:

TiG @4.2.22 ☞ 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.   

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: 

TiG @4.2.22 ☞ This is about claims of certainty being made based solely on religious belief.

This should be crystal clear for those who are trying to engage in intellectual honesty.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.38  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.29    5 years ago
... 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."

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.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.39  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.36    5 years ago
Nope, I was just shining a light on the bullshit. But you knew that and tried another one of the games. Fail.

Your interpretations seem quite off.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.40  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.33    5 years ago
The fact is that not one single person one the face of the earth that has ever lived, is living, or ever will live will ever get to Heaven denying faith or demanding signs and wonders/proof.  

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.

That’s the bottom line.  Believe by faith the best light one is shown in their life time or not.  Everyone has that free will choice.  

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).

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.41  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.40    5 years ago

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

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.42  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.41    5 years ago

Deaf ears ... absolutely.   But the comment was not really for HA but for readers in general to see the counterpoint to a point.

( thanks )

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.43  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.37    5 years ago
And I will explain why.

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.44  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.43    5 years ago

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).

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.45  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.44    5 years ago
You see (or at least publicly claim to see) what you wish to see Tacos!

Oh, look who's telling me how I think again. The guy who said:

Steer clear of psychoanalyzing other members, presuming to know what is in their minds

Some people can't help themselves.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.46  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.34    5 years ago

It was addressed and directed to me but he called you out on it.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.47  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.35    5 years ago

I have no intention of proving anything about my beliefs to you.  We are saved by faith through grace.  Period.  We aren’t saved by a miracle show we witness or by our own works lest we boast.  There will be no signs or wonders from God before the second coming.  God has left clues in nature and in writing that will lead a desiring person to Him, thus there is rational faith.  Bottom line though is that people today will believe by faith and be saved or they won’t.  Their choice, not anyone else’s.  I have no intention whatsoever of trying to prove anything such as what yesterday was all about or any other such thing.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.48  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.47    5 years ago
I have no intention of proving anything about my beliefs to you.

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.

 We are saved by faith through grace.  Period.  

Another mere belief.

We aren’t saved by a miracle show we witness or by our own works lest we boast.  There will be no signs or wonders from God before the second coming.  

Then there's no evidence forthcoming and no reason to "believe" or accept any claims regarding god as factual or true.

God has left clues in nature and in writing that will lead a desiring person to Him, thus there is rational faith.

What "clues?" Be specific!

 Bottom line though is that people today will believe by faith and be saved or they won’t.  Their choice, not anyone else’s.

Mere belief.

   I have no intention whatsoever of trying to prove anything such as what yesterday was all about or any other such thing.

See first statement!

It was addressed and directed to me but he called you out on it.

You can believe whatever you want.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.49  Texan1211  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.47    5 years ago

Save your breath. It  just isn't worth the time. Same old arguments day after day after day.

"Prove it!"

SMH

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.50  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.49    5 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.51  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.50    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.52  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.49    5 years ago

There’s really nothing more that can be said to some here on these matters.  I’m simply going to put them on ignore and address the wider readership. They got what they wanted by ruining a perfectly nice Christmas time seed for everyone else.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.53  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.50    5 years ago

That will no longer be seen by me.  Good day.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.54  Texan1211  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.52    5 years ago
There’s really nothing more that can be said to some here on these matters.  I’m simply going to put them on ignore and address the wider readership. They got what they wanted by ruining a perfectly nice Christmas time seed for everyone else.  

Like I said, sometimes it isn't enough for them not to believe, they wish to convince all who do believe that they are ignorant and wrong.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.55  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.51    5 years ago

Remember the seed about the towers?  About how pointless and a waste of time to debate with willful and deliberate skeptics over proof that God exists?  He’s right.  It’s time to ignore the unwilling to believe and move on to others who are more receptive.  That time has come in this instant.  We can only hope that one day everyone will be right with God in their lives.  There are some who chose to be unreachable.  Just as we are unreachable to your point of view. You calling us juvenile because we won’t bend to your point of view is enough reason to no longer communicate directly.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.56  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.55    5 years ago
About how pointless and a waste of time to debate with willful and deliberate skeptics over proof that God exists?

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.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.57  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.51    5 years ago

I've noticed. It's just the same emotionally based rhetoric. Not even a semblance of logical discourse. But that comes as no surprise.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.58  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.53    5 years ago

Burying your head in the sand won't make the logical challenges to BS claims go away. But it does speak volumes about you.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.59  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.52    5 years ago

If your Xmas was ruined by a mere discussion, then perhaps you shouldn't have posted it in the first place.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.60  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.54    5 years ago

The issue isn't about belief. It's about claims made  as fact based on nothing but belief. Apparently some cannot see the distinction.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.61  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.59    5 years ago
If your Xmas was ruined by a mere discussion

That's not what was claimed. Read. The statement was:

They got what they wanted by ruining a perfectly nice Christmas time seed for everyone else.  

And it's true. Mission accomplished. Congratulations.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.62  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.61    5 years ago

That’s the bottom line.  Some here  pretty much gang banged the seed.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.63  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.61    5 years ago

Also, I hope that those who did read the seed itself if not the “discussion” that followed found something uplifting for them within the words expressed. I hope everyone is having a happy and joyous Christmas and Hanukkah season.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.64  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.61    5 years ago

My statement still applies

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.65  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.62    5 years ago

Considering you post something on a public discussion forum, why would you be surprised or outraged if others comment?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.66  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.64    5 years ago
My statement still applies

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.

HA: ruining a perfectly nice Christmas time seed

In contrast, you treated "Christmas" as the subject.

Gordy: If your Xmas was ruined by a mere discussion

You can't even admit your error. But sure, keep telling yourself how "logical" your arguments are. Wow!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.67  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.66    5 years ago
You failed to see that HA's statement used "seed" as the subject and "Christmas" as an adjective describing that subject.

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."

In contrast, you treated "Christmas" as the subject.

My initial post was a challenge to a claim made.  I simply followed subsequent posts and comments made.

You can't even admit your error. But sure, keep telling yourself how "logical" your arguments are. Wow!

See first statement.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.68  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.67    5 years ago
my statement still applies. Just replace "Xmas" with "seed."

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! jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.69  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.68    5 years ago

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 ...:

We recognize that yes, there is a God.  Yes, there is a Jesus, and that yes, angels are real.

... 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.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.70  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.66    5 years ago

As usual here, you are right.  In no way did other posters here ruin my Christmas Day. The seed on the other hand is another matter.  It takes a small minded person to spend Christmas Day telling observers of it that what it is and the event we celebrate isn’t real.  Nothing better to do on a day meaningless to them I guess.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.71  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.68    5 years ago

Can you imagine my sheer audacity of in posting a  seed about a holiday so many observe and stating that the reason for the season we celebrate is real.  It takes a real degree of complete and total arrogance and intolerance to gang bang a seed about that holiday and why it’s celebrated on that Holy Day. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.72  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.69    5 years ago
Grammar-police nit-picking and over-the-top victimization.

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.

They all seem to be personal and emotive.

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.

While I certainly understand why you disagree with those of us who challenge declarations of truth based on religious belief

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.

That established ...

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.

The very experienced, seasoned seeder obviously knew that seeding a religious article on NT . . . would invite a challenge

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.

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.

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. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.73  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.72    5 years ago
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.

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.

These seeds are not about trying to convince you to believe in something. You introduce that argument all by yourself to derail the seed.

If there was a derail, it's when someone made an affirmative claim and refused and/or failed to back it up.

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.

Hardly an "opinion" when there are facts or evidence to back it up.

Stop doing it! 

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.

You don't actually need to challenge someone's religious beliefs every time they post something based on those beliefs.

And someone doesn't actually need to post their religious beliefs either, especially posting them as matter fact.

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. 

No one is trying to establish movies as fact or reality either.

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.

And some seem obsessed with whining when challenged.

Well, I disagree. I think it's not mild at all.

You're entitled to your opinion.

I think it's trolling. It's bullying. And "that established," I think it should be treated as such. 

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?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.74  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.72    5 years ago

👍👏

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.75  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.73    5 years ago
that demands proof

No it doesn't. No one owes you proof of anything.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.76  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.72    5 years ago
Pointing out that someone has deliberately changed someone else's words for the purpose of mocking them ...

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 Xmas seed 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 ...

 Nobody owes Gordy - or you - "proof" for their beliefs.

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.  

These seeds are not about trying to convince you to believe in something. 

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.

All you have established ...

I see what is all too common.   When some cannot offer a logical rebuttal on content, some play intellectually dishonest games.  

You don't actually need to challenge someone's religious beliefs every time they post something based on those beliefs.

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.  

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.

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.    

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! 

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.   

I think it's ["that's nice, prove it"] trolling. 

And that, Tacos!, given the exaggerated, emotive claims in this thread, is truly ironic.


You have still offered nothing on the content.    

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.77  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.75    5 years ago

To illustrate:

Gordy @ 4.2.73 - 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.
Tacos! @ 4.2.74 - No it doesn't.

Yeah, Tacos!, it does.   A claim of certainty (a claim of truth ) bears the burden of proof (at least evidence): 

An   assertion   carries a burden of proof.  If you clearly assert that a certain statement is true, then you have a burden of proof to demonstrate that this is indeed the case, meaning that you must either prove that your assertion is true, or retract it.
 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.78  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.75    5 years ago
No it doesn't.

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?

No one owes you proof of anything.

Then they don't have any credibility and are being intellectually dishonest!

Nobody owes Gordy - or you - "proof" for their beliefs.

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?

These seeds are not about trying to convince you to believe in something. 

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.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.79  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.76    5 years ago
I see what is all too common.   When some cannot offer a logical rebuttal on content, some play intellectually dishonest games.  

Or some just get too emotional and defensive and cannot formulate a rational or logical argument/rebuttal. Instead, some start to whine about it.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.80  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.76    5 years ago
It is fascinating watching you make a big deal

Is it? Prove it.

Gordy even acknowledged the complaint

Prove it

Your complaint is running on fumes

Prove it

I have explained this once

Prove it

A claim of certainty bears the burden of proof

Prove it

Even so, my focus (which you either ignore or miss) has been on making claims of certainty;  not on mere expression of belief.

Prove it

When some cannot offer a logical rebuttal on content, some play intellectually dishonest games.

Prove it

you continue to misrepresent what is taking place

Prove it

We are all adults

Prove it

I generally steer clear of partisan articles

Prove it

given the exaggerated, emotive claims in this thread

Prove it

You have still offered nothing on the content

Prove it

Annoyed? Hey, it's your rule, not mine. I'm just following the rule:

A claim of certainty bears the burden of proof

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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.81  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.77    5 years ago
A claim of certainty (a claim of truth ) bears the burden of proof (at least evidence): 

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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.82  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.78    5 years ago
Otherwise, such claims are baseless and lack any validity. Or do you simply accept any claim made, no questions asked?

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. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.83  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.80    5 years ago

Calm down.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.84  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.81    5 years ago
Says who? You? Who died and made you God of self-expression?

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.

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. 

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.85  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.82    5 years ago
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. 

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:

We recognize that yes, there is a God.  Yes, there is a Jesus, and that yes, angels are real.

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:

  • Amy:  I believe in God
  • Bob:   Prove it

The 'prove it' is demanding that Amy prove that she believes in God.   ( Makes no sense. )

  • Amy:  God exists
  • Bob:   Prove it

Here Bob is asking Amy to prove her positive assertion of absolute truth.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.86  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.82    5 years ago
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.

I see you dodged the question.

The only "claim" here was that HA (and some unidentified "we") recognizes the existence of God, Jesus, and so on.

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.

HA is the person best qualified to declare what HA recognizes. 

Subjective and anecdotal, with no basis in fact or evidence, and no validity.

Says who? You? Who died and made you God of self-expression?

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.

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.

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.

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 the one getting emotional and defensive, while rejecting logical discourse.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.87  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.84    5 years ago

omg you don't even hear yourself, do you?

You: Well let's not make up rules. Also you (immediately after, in fact): 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.

Are you really this lacking in self-awareness?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.88  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.86    5 years ago
I see you dodged the question.

You ignored my point. Your questions of me are not genuine inquiries. You are not seeking information. Your questions are attacks.

That's an affirmative claim where the expectation of proof is not unreasonable.

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?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.89  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.87    5 years ago

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).   

PettyAdventurousCutworm-small.gif

I mean, after all, what is the point of pretending to not understand something so basic?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.90  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.88    5 years ago
Why does HA owe Gordy a proof?

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?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.91  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.88    5 years ago
You ignored my point.

And you completely missed mine.

Your questions of me are not genuine inquiries. You are not seeking information. Your questions are attacks.

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.

Prove it. Prove it's reasonable for you demand proof in every seed that assumes the existence of God. 

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? 

 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.

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?

Why does HA owe Gordy a proof?

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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.92  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.89    5 years ago
you are pretending that I am making up a fundamental rule of logic

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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.93  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.91    5 years ago
There are actual declarations of certainty being made of the existence of god. So yes, demanding proof to support such claims is quite reasonable.

That's a circular argument. You still haven't explained why it's reasonable to demand that HA prove to you that God exists.

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.

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.

But demanding proof for a claim made is unreasonable?

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 not about me.

It's about your behavior.

He made a claim of certainty, so he bears the burden of proof.

Why? To whom?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.94  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.90    5 years ago
Why should Gordy abide by your insistence that he self-censor?

How about simple good manners? Do you guys believe in that?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.95  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.93    5 years ago
That's a circular argument.

How so? X makes a claim, Y wants proof for the claim. How is that circular? Or unreasonable?

You still haven't explained why it's reasonable to demand that HA prove to you that God exists.

Because he made the affirmative claim. How is expecting proof, or at least evidence unreasonable? 

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.

An affirmative claim is made, I challenge it. That's how I respond and it's a proper response. 

Yes. Because it always leads to arguments and strife,

Then perhaps certain individuals should not make claims that cannot back up.

but you are never satisfied with the response. 

That's because I don't get a response. I get smokescreens and diversionary tactics.

It's the classic definition of insanity to keep asking the same question and expect a different response. 

As opposed to repeating the same claim over & over again?

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.

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.

That's what trolling is.

No, asking for proof of a claim isn't trolling. It's logical discourse.

It's about your behavior.

What behavior? I have been calm and rational. But there are individuals who have been quite emotional and defensive. What about their behavior? 

Why? To whom?

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.

How about simple good manners? Do you guys believe in that?

So challenging claims and posing questions is now poor manners? Are some individuals so sensitive that they can't take a challenge/question?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.96  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.94    5 years ago

Clearly not it seems. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.97  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.87    5 years ago

So it would seem to be...

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.98  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.95    5 years ago
Then perhaps certain individuals should not make claims that cannot back up

The bully blames his victim for his black eye. Have you considered just letting it go?

That's because I don't get a response.

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.

asking for proof of a claim isn't trolling

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.

So challenging claims and posing questions is now poor manners?

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,

Are some individuals so sensitive that they can't take a challenge/question?

and this:

But it does speak volumes about you.

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.99  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.92    5 years ago
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.

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.

I have made no attempt to discuss the ins and outs of logic. 

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.   

I have been discussing how Gordy and you respond to comments made by other members on this website in a very specific context.

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.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.100  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.88    5 years ago

I owe him nothing whatsoever.  I have no intention of proving something that requires a rational faith to accept into our lives or gain any blessing at all from.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.101  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.94    5 years ago
How about simple good manners? Do you guys believe in that?

Absolutely.   I prefer cordial discourse.   But if someone engages in intellectual dishonesty or gratuitous aggression I have no problem stepping into the ring.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.102  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.100    5 years ago
I owe him nothing whatsoever.

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).

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.103  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.98    5 years ago
The bully blames his victim for his black eye. Have you considered just letting it go?

Says the one seemingly throwing tantrums over this. That works both ways.

Then stop asking for one.

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.

If you keep asking for something when you have been repeatedly denied, that's harassment.

Repeatedly refusing to address challenges and questions is intellectual dishonesty and cowardice.

I have said this before, but it clearly bears repeating: HA does not owe you any proof.

He does if he (or anyone) makes an affirmative claim. Otherwise, see previous statement!

That's not what I said. You have repeatedly used this straw man tactic on me in this thread. It's dishonest.

How exactly is asking for proof a strawman? Do you even know what a strawman is?

You love to tell yourself and everyone else that you deal in facts and logic, but you don't. Not really.

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.

No. Harassment and trolling is poor manners. So is misrepresenting the comments of people you are talking to. This has been explained to you. 

And posing questions and challenges to statements someone made isn't harassment. That has been explained to you too.

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.

Spare me your comedic psychoanalyzing! Because it's not working and is only a smokescreen.

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.

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!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.104  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.100    5 years ago
I owe him nothing whatsoever.  I have no intention of proving something that requires a rational faith to accept into our lives or gain any blessing at all from.  

Then you have no credibility for your claims and your subsequent intellectual dishonesty shines through! 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.105  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.103    5 years ago
Says the one seemingly throwing tantrums over this.

Indeed.   Can you believe this is all because of ' That's nice; prove it '?      jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.106  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.105    5 years ago
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. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  JohnRussell    5 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  JohnRussell @6    5 years ago

I have to say that I heard about the popes position restated about opposition to proselytizing.  I guess his Church is losing too many members to smaller Protestant denominations still.  Anti proselytizing laws are often passed to protect the position of a local religious majority regardless whether it’s orthodox or Catholic or Muslim or Hindu. Otherwise it’s done by atheist regimes to protect itself from future opposition.  As to theChristian groups above, how do they expect to get the gospel to the whole world per the great commission if they don’t do outreach? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1    5 years ago

You should, after years of experience seeding here and elsewhere, expect logical and factual challenges in response to proselytizing — especially when claims of certainty (truth) are made with no supporting evidence.  

If your intent is to have a religious discussion / celebration about Christianity without challenges you could post to religious sites or post to a private group devoted to Christian discussions.   You have options.   Seed in a public forum and you certainly know you will get responses from the community of that forum.   It is pointless to pretend that you do not know this.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
6.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1    5 years ago
 As to theChristian groups above, how do they expect to get the gospel to the whole world per the great commission if they don’t do outreach? 

There is a thing called the internet. It's also foolish to think that in this day and age, no one has heard about Christianity, one of the major religions of the world. Otherwise, that's your problem. Ever consider no one wants to hear about your "gospel?" It's quite sanctimonious to think anyone should or needs to here it! It's essentially telling someone of a different religion that their religion/beliefs is wrong.

 
 

Who is online




80 visitors