| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/10/2010 11:16:58 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
These conversations always turn into some bizarro world where suddenly I need to prove that water is "wet" because someone tromps out some "fallacy" that shows it isn't. |
Perhaps they mean the reasons that Christians consider the bible to be authoritative are circular, no? |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 11:17:18 PM · #177 |
Doc's not trying to convince us the Bible is an authority, people; he's saying it's a fact that Christians BELIEVE it is. Why is that so hard to grasp? He's trying NOT to go down the rabbit hole of tautology, he's avoiding that altogether.
R. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 11:21:42 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I still don't know what thesaurus you're using. I checked Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com and neither one has preach listed as a synonym of proselytize. |
Maybe because those aren't thesauri? I was using my computer's built-in thesaurus because it's handy. Try Thesaurus.com:
Main Entry: evangelize
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: preach
Synonyms: homilize, preachify, proclaim, proselytize, sermonize |
Maybe I don't know how to read a thesaurus... but isn't that saying that proselytize is a synonym of evangelize? Evangelize is the entry word so wouldn't the synonyms relate to the entry word, not the definition of the entry word? |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 11:44:22 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Doc's not trying to convince us the Bible is an authority, people; he's saying it's a fact that Christians BELIEVE it is. Why is that so hard to grasp? He's trying NOT to go down the rabbit hole of tautology, he's avoiding that altogether.
R. |
Sorry, but he's the one engaging, and it was simply pointed out, correctly, that his faith is based on the text that describes itself as authoritative on his faith. It doesn't matter who believes what about it, it remains a tautological problem. It may be plain to you, but only the sticking points matter in worthwhile conversations. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 11:59:37 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Doc's not trying to convince us the Bible is an authority, people; he's saying it's a fact that Christians BELIEVE it is. Why is that so hard to grasp? He's trying NOT to go down the rabbit hole of tautology, he's avoiding that altogether. |
Nobody asked him to prove that Christians believe what they believe.
Similar example: "I personally believe that the Heaven's Gate cult claimed that an alien spacecraft trailing comet Hale-Bopp would take humans to another level of existence." See? I could produce all sorts of "evidence" that cult members themselves would have considered proof (thereby proving my "belief that they made such a claim"), but it's a red herring that completely dodges the question of proving the belief itself without resorting to fallacy.
Message edited by author 2010-09-11 00:01:14. |
|
|
|
09/11/2010 12:00:50 AM · #181 |
|
|
|
09/11/2010 12:06:17 AM · #182 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Doc's not trying to convince us the Bible is an authority, people; he's saying it's a fact that Christians BELIEVE it is. Why is that so hard to grasp? He's trying NOT to go down the rabbit hole of tautology, he's avoiding that altogether. |
Nobody asked him to prove that Christians believe what they believe.
Similar example: "I personally believe that the Heaven's Gate cult claimed that an alien spacecraft trailing comet Hale-Bopp would take humans to another level of existence." See? I could produce all sorts of "evidence" that cult members themselves would have considered proof (thereby proving my "belief that they made such a claim"), but it's a red herring that completely dodges the question of proving the belief itself without resorting to fallacy. |
Let's keep it simple: here's what we're referring back to, verbatim:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Well you could go on but this is starting to look like a list of things that Christians are taught rather than proof of your own personal faith. |
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean unless you are claiming some epistemologic solipsism. Are you saying I make a poor argument or you are unsure whether I really believe this? |
The latter. Prove that you believe that. Prove *your* faith. |
Richard has specifically and unequivocally challenged the good Doc to "prove", not the truth of what he believes, but that in fact he actually does believe it.
Now that's a tall order, and the man's doing his best to tackle it, and you folks are trying to shoot him down with irrelevancies. For the purpose of this so-called "proof", the self-referential nature of the Christian Bible and Christian beliefs are not at issue, only whether or not he actually holds these beliefs.
It's a BS challenge, if you ask me, but so it goes...
R.
Message edited by author 2010-09-11 00:07:19. |
|
|
|
09/11/2010 12:11:47 AM · #183 |
| I personally don't see the relevancy of asking someone for proof that they believe. Only proof of their beliefs is relevant, if they're going to argue all kinds of positions around them. Don't go telling me that's irrelevant. |
|
|
|
09/11/2010 12:21:05 AM · #184 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Richard has specifically and unequivocally challenged the good Doc to "prove", not the truth of what he believes, but that in fact he actually does believe it. |
Let's see if Richard agrees... |
|
|
|
09/11/2010 12:50:43 AM · #185 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I've posted that challenge many times (several directly to Achoo). |
Over 300 of them. Check and mate, read 'em and weep, atheist. >:-{ |
#24 is the best argument so far. But these are really quite entertaining! :-) |
|
|
|
09/11/2010 01:17:58 AM · #186 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I've posted that challenge many times (several directly to Achoo). |
Over 300 of them. Check and mate, read 'em and weep, atheist. >:-{ |
#24 is the best argument so far. But these are really quite entertaining! :-) |
lol... I love how the "Why Atheism?" section has nice long explanations of the arguments, while the reasons for God arguments are brief. This is like reading a list of Obama's achievements on Fox news. |
|
|
|
09/11/2010 02:11:54 AM · #187 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This ought to be engraved at the portal or something; it's absolutely correct. Hardly anybody in this thread ever feels, in their heart-of-hearts, that they are getting personal. But to a reasonably neutral observer, it would be obvious that the thread's a long ways away from rigorous debate, that it is enmired in innuendo and low-end name-calling at a fundamental level.
R. |
Please, do point out where I have engaged in "low-end name-calling at a fundamental level". :) |
|
|
|
09/11/2010 02:28:18 AM · #188 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Doc's not trying to convince us the Bible is an authority, people; he's saying it's a fact that Christians BELIEVE it is. Why is that so hard to grasp? He's trying NOT to go down the rabbit hole of tautology, he's avoiding that altogether. |
Nobody asked him to prove that Christians believe what they believe.
Similar example: "I personally believe that the Heaven's Gate cult claimed that an alien spacecraft trailing comet Hale-Bopp would take humans to another level of existence." See? I could produce all sorts of "evidence" that cult members themselves would have considered proof (thereby proving my "belief that they made such a claim"), but it's a red herring that completely dodges the question of proving the belief itself without resorting to fallacy. |
Let's keep it simple: here's what we're referring back to, verbatim:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Well you could go on but this is starting to look like a list of things that Christians are taught rather than proof of your own personal faith. |
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean unless you are claiming some epistemologic solipsism. Are you saying I make a poor argument or you are unsure whether I really believe this? |
The latter. Prove that you believe that. Prove *your* faith. |
Richard has specifically and unequivocally challenged the good Doc to "prove", not the truth of what he believes, but that in fact he actually does believe it.
Now that's a tall order, and the man's doing his best to tackle it, and you folks are trying to shoot him down with irrelevancies. For the purpose of this so-called "proof", the self-referential nature of the Christian Bible and Christian beliefs are not at issue, only whether or not he actually holds these beliefs.
It's a BS challenge, if you ask me, but so it goes...
R. |
Easy enough for me... If I did believe then I would never dare to say the things I say, for to say them is to face eternal damnation. Does that sufficiently satisfy the previously requested proof of a lack of faith?
Message edited by author 2010-09-11 02:28:37. |
|
|
|
09/11/2010 05:51:28 AM · #189 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This ought to be engraved at the portal or something; it's absolutely correct. Hardly anybody in this thread ever feels, in their heart-of-hearts, that they are getting personal. But to a reasonably neutral observer, it would be obvious that the thread's a long ways away from rigorous debate, that it is enmired in innuendo and low-end name-calling at a fundamental level.
R. |
Please, do point out where I have engaged in "low-end name-calling at a fundamental level". :) |
Never said you had. Don't think you have. Was referring to the thread itself, not any individual, and really, more properly, to these "religious" threads as a whole, going back several years.
R. |
|
|
|
09/11/2010 05:58:45 AM · #190 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Easy enough for me... If I did believe then I would never dare to say the things I say, for to say them is to face eternal damnation. Does that sufficiently satisfy the previously requested proof of a lack of faith? |
Lovely disconnect in that one, LOL.
****************
"I don't believe in God"
"Prove it!"
"If I believed, I wouldn't dare SAY that I didn't believe."
"Why"
"Because to say it would be to condemn myself to eternal damnation."
"So, basically, you're saying that denying the existence of God is proof that you don't believe, because to deny His existence, IF He existed, would be a deadly sin?"
"Pretty much, yes."
"Then explain to me how my affirmation that I believe He exists is not likewise, in and of itself, proof that I believe He exists."
**********
I'm not sure how Yanko came up with this "requirement" that Doc prove he believes what he believes. I'm probably misreading the whole thing, I think...
R.
Message edited by author 2010-09-11 05:59:05. |
|
|
|
09/11/2010 10:43:51 AM · #191 |
But... but... (stamps feet).. Cory called me over dramatic!!! (said in a very whiny voice) Fundamental low-end name-caller!
Sorry to add levity. Please do return to the usual bickering. :-) |
|
|
|
09/11/2010 10:47:46 AM · #192 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
But... but... (stamps feet).. Cory called me over dramatic!!! (said in a very whiny voice) Fundamental low-end name-caller!
Sorry to add levity. Please do return to the usual bickering. :-) |
Name: Overly Dramatic
Username: Melethia
Type: Member Location:
Cameras: Canon EOS-7D
Canon EOS-30D
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3
PMSL
|
|
|
|
09/11/2010 11:04:17 AM · #193 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Yanko:
Ridiculing indefensible positions isn't the same as ridiculing one's personal beliefs. |
He can make that distinction all he wants, but ridicule is ridicule and there is no real place for it here.
|
Smarter people than me have pointed out that this is a particularly American failing in the understanding of casual argument. No, ridicule is not ridicule irrespective of its form. There is a place for it here. One's inability to separate one's position from one's character is the fault only of -- erm -- one. |
|
|
|
09/11/2010 11:17:22 AM · #194 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Yanko:
Ridiculing indefensible positions isn't the same as ridiculing one's personal beliefs. |
He can make that distinction all he wants, but ridicule is ridicule and there is no real place for it here.
|
Smarter people than me have pointed out that this is a particularly American failing in the understanding of casual argument. No, ridicule is not ridicule irrespective of its form. There is a place for it here. One's inability to separate one's position from one's character is the fault only of -- erm -- one. |
If someone thinks it's beneficial to the discussion of issues that participants mock and denigrate any position with which they're not in agreement, and if they want to blame any umbrage taken on the individuals who share this "particularly American" inability to separate their positions from their characters, they will go right ahead. Nothing I can say is going to change their mind.
But, at the same time, we have, apparently, angry mobs of the Islamic persuasion, definitely NOT American mobs, ready to wage holy war on infidels who depict their prophet, so these people seem to share the failing. And even here in America, we have large numbers of citizens reacting with outrage at Rev. Loony's proposed burning-of-the-Koran, many of them specifically because they believe/d ti will/would have led to even greater Islamic outrage against the West...
I donno. I concede that5 sharp, biting satire has always been a part of Western intellectual discourse. Of course it has! But even so, my point is it seems counter-productive to rile up the very people you're trying to sway, in these threads.
Unless, of course, you have no interest in influencing them, but just want to mock and ridicule them and feel real sharp and pointed and slick about yourself.... I don't see a lot of difference between sarcastic, demeaning put-downs and schoolyard bullying, myself.
And BTW, Louis, I don't include you in the category, particularly. You have mostly favored the side of civility as far as I can remember. Admittedly, that ain't far anymore, but...
R.
Message edited by author 2010-09-11 11:18:22. |
|
|
|
09/11/2010 11:40:28 AM · #195 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
But... but... (stamps feet).. Cory called me over dramatic!!! (said in a very whiny voice) Fundamental low-end name-caller!
Sorry to add levity. Please do return to the usual bickering. :-) |
LOL.. HUGZ Melethia :) |
|
|
|
09/11/2010 11:43:03 AM · #196 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Easy enough for me... If I did believe then I would never dare to say the things I say, for to say them is to face eternal damnation. Does that sufficiently satisfy the previously requested proof of a lack of faith? |
Lovely disconnect in that one, LOL.
****************
"I don't believe in God"
"Prove it!"
"If I believed, I wouldn't dare SAY that I didn't believe."
"Why"
"Because to say it would be to condemn myself to eternal damnation."
"So, basically, you're saying that denying the existence of God is proof that you don't believe, because to deny His existence, IF He existed, would be a deadly sin?"
"Pretty much, yes."
"Then explain to me how my affirmation that I believe He exists is not likewise, in and of itself, proof that I believe He exists."
**********
I'm not sure how Yanko came up with this "requirement" that Doc prove he believes what he believes. I'm probably misreading the whole thing, I think...
R. |
Ahh, but I see that as insurance against a possibility out of potential fear of repercussions, not, as we say, "proof" :)
You see, one is a "safe bet" that proves nothing, the other is viewed by the religious as a "HUGE risk" so it should hold more value as proof, since it clearly has a cost associated should one be wrong... The safe bet has no cost associated should one be wrong. :) |
|
|
|
09/11/2010 11:57:40 AM · #197 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... You have mostly favored the side of civility as far as I can remember. Admittedly, that ain't far anymore, but...
R. |
I seem to recall someone recently calling me juvenile and sophomoric, and some time ago, racist. Yet here you seem to be elevating yourself into some sort of living martyrdom. Slick. |
|
|
|
09/11/2010 12:16:18 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I seem to recall someone recently calling me juvenile and sophomoric, and some time ago, racist. Yet here you seem to be elevating yourself into some sort of living martyrdom. Slick. |
I'm not elevating myself to anything. I'm preaching a little restraint. I haven't always lived up to my own standards. Have any of us?
R. |
|
|
|
09/11/2010 12:20:57 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I seem to recall someone recently calling me juvenile and sophomoric, and some time ago, racist. Yet here you seem to be elevating yourself into some sort of living martyrdom. Slick. |
I'm not elevating myself to anything. I'm preaching a little restraint. I haven't always lived up to my own standards. Have any of us?
R. |
I set my bar pretty low. I just wanted to remind you that your horse may not be as high as you think. |
|
|
|
09/11/2010 12:32:57 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If someone thinks it's beneficial to the discussion of issues that participants mock and denigrate any position with which they're not in agreement....Unless, of course, you have no interest in influencing them, but just want to mock and ridicule them and feel real sharp and pointed and slick about yourself... |
Both presumptions, and both incorrect, in that I have never seen either on display here by anyone. The most interesting thing to me is the way people are willing to present their characters in even so informal a venue as this. |
|
