They aren't actually "trick" questions, you know.

[remez]

Yes, you got it! The christians typically (#NotAllChristians, for those who only speak in absolutes, that’s what ‘typically’ usually means) present arguments constructed to show what they know. They do not tend to present arguments that are intended to be evaluated and collaborated and grown to discover. They think they already know everything there is to know. They don’t present arguments with questions and exploraions. They are merely declarations, as you realized.

Then let’s explore your inference there.

You are mixing up the ends and the means. If I argue for an end the does not infer that my means to that end did not include exploration and discovery.
The purpose of an argument is to provide evidence for what you believe. What you believe is reached through exploration and discovery.
Further……………
All arguments are open to debate and further exploration and discovery. Many an atheist on this board has offered an argument against the existence of God. I wouldn’t infer they were absolute dogmatists. I would address their arguments as evidence for the case they were trying to make for their discovered belief.

I certainly don’t think I know all there is to know. But I can provide evidence for the beliefs I have explored and discovered. That evidence would likely include formal arguments.

I have been on this board for over a decade defending my beliefs.

Yes, exactly. Christians defend heir beliefs, they don’t explore them. You’ve got it!

Then let’s explore that assertion.
Here is something interesting I discovered.

Your last post was an overt attempt to defend your belief against my protestations.
Thus should I assume you didn’t explore your belief?
Your OP was an attempt to provide evidence for what you believed should I also assume you did not explore that belief?

So how does any of my experience match the discourse of Yahzi”s delusion which you folks have blindly accepted as some kind of authority in this area of epistemology?

This is rather comical that you should say “you folks have blindly accepted” when likely no one had read this but me. As if you read somewhere that anyone thinks he is “some kind of authority” beyond being some dude on a message boad who said something that resonated. I am curious how you think you “know” this. How you feel it becomes certain enough to make the statements you just made.

Fascinating!

Fascinating indeed!

You offered Yahzi’s assertions on a message board as support for your beliefs. It’s comical that you wouldn’t you think anyone would read it.

Several others posts then followed with posts of supported agreement. Thus the logical, polite, gender neutral, plurality reference of “folks”.

To the issue of authority….. I assumed you offered it as support for your belief and others bought in and offered no objections. In it he complains of blind allegiance to authority. Thus through my exploration of your OP and the several that followed I discovered that you folks blindly agreed with him. And I reasoned the descriptive term "blindly" because he offered no real evidence for several of his assertions and yet you offered it as support of your beliefs.

I agree somewhat with Yahzi. It is all about epistemology. But that is where I diverge from his irrationality

You have a quaint tendency to toss out insults instead of just discussing topics. Why?

I confess that I agree with his rationality here and disagree there. Why is that an insult?
Also…….
I did discuss where I disagreed with him. You just dishonesty cherry picked your quote of me to infer fault. And yes I reasoned the descriptive term "dishonestly" because you latter commented on my discussing those precise topics.

Look at what actually followed should you have properly quoted me….…………

But note the conclusion sentence….. “One thinks truth derives from the world, and the other thinks the world derives from truth.” Are you all blind to the fact that one can derive truth from the world and reasonably conclude that the world must be derived from something beyond this world?
Why do you call that a fact? It seems unsupported for you to use the word “reasonably” in there. Can you expand on why it is reasonable to conclude otherworldly untestable things are responsible for the world?

First. I’m certain you would agree we can derive truths from this world.
So…………..
If the universe needs a cause then why wouldn’t you consider that its cause reasonably comes from beyond itself?
Also…..
Note that was a question of exploration.

Apparently so many of you have bought into the genetic fallacy here. It very well may be the case that many Christians are raised to believe without question. And I completely agree with you that is wrong. But that in no way leads to the conclusion the Christianity itself is wrong.

“So many” of us, he says, on a thread with nine posts at the time you say this. That may not be what others consider empirical, logical, inductive, deductive, abductive. It may not add up to be a claim you can make and call “reasonable.”

Let’s explore that.
Just to be clear…..
You’re reasoning that just because there were only nine posts for me to form that reason that I didn’t have enough data to make that reasonable inference. Seriously you are really trying to limit my reasoning to just those nine posts and to disallow my many years of exploration on this matter.

Well………if that is your game…….
then back at you………
Let me ask you……….
How many posts were here on this thread when you posted your OP disparaging Christian reasoning?

None!!!!!!
Then by the rules of your game………….Where does that leave your reasoning?

Yet so many of you point to the fallacy as proof that Christianity is wrong. Open your eyes to the genetic fallacy.

Is this a form of the NoTrueScotsman argument? “You can’t say Christianity is false because you haven’t heard about Christianity from a True Christian.”

No, not at all. I’m absolutely fine with counter viewpoints being offered against my reasoning. Just beware if your reasoning is fallacious it is going to be called out.

Secondly………….…….here is just a sample of the “reasoning” I was addressing there……

Now consider how Christianity operates. People are taught to accept God's word without question. Exactly like your 2 year old. People are taught that their reason cannot adequately understand God's rules. Exactly like your 2 year old cannot understand the reasons for your rules.

Let's explore that further.

Let’s concede for the moment that, that incredibly insulting analogy is reflective. Some dumb Christian was actually raised that way and remains that stupid.

Does it logically follow that the truth value of Christianity itself is changed?
Further…………
I have discovered in my explorations this nonsensical reasoning among atheists…………….
The existence of dumb Christians and the way they allegedly get indoctrinated means the Christianity itself is false and by default atheism true.

Yahzi’s dissertation is completely insulting and you promoted it as a support of your reasoning. So why should you be surprised and now play the victim when someone finds your beliefs about them insulting and fires back.

One who argues to declare a truth, not to discover one.

Then discover this ……..Didn’t you just argue a defense for the truth of your OP?

 

[Politesse]

Who is the “you” in this? Assuming it’s me as the OP, may I ask how you think you have a certain knowledge of my intent?

I have every intention of an honest conversation always. I resent your accusation that I don’t.
I don’t need to “admit” changes, I embrace them when they are warranted. Are you suggesting that I know I’m “wrong” about the topic but for some reason am “refusing” to “admit” it?

What does that even mean? Is that what you think of other people? (Of me?)



Let me tell you a little bit about me. I have no need or desire to be insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious; and I certainly have no reason to INTEND to be any of those. (Nor do I feel a need to report you for a “personal attack” because I am fine with finding out you think this way and talking to you about whether it is warranted.)

Some folks sort of reflexively accuse anyone who questions their religion of having those motives.

They just can’t fathom that someone is inspecting this idea of religion as a genuine curiosity of human behavior, and that if these people ever once offered actual evidence we would change our opinion as fast as we accepted relativity when we were shown evidence for that (Cosmic lensing, anyone?), and in the meantime, in the face of endlessly repeated non-convincing religious arguments, we reasonably treat it as a curiosity of human behavior.

They aren’t tricks. It’s not disingenuous. It’s someone questioning the stated premises of a topic that is daily brought up to us by Christians as a topic for discussion. And we are therefore put in a position to be wondering, daily, “why do they think that? How do they think that?”

If Christians don’t want their religion questioned, they might want to stop trying to force people to address it. But since they do, my mind will GENUINELY continue to wonder, “wait, what?” And I will talk about it here, where there is an on-purpose forum to do so, while taking the high road with my friends and family and allow them to not know that I’m hearing their weird assertions and wondering WTAF.

Starting a thread titled "Biologists! Are penguins really nocturnal?" is disingenuous if you believe the answer is "yes" and refuse to entertain any thoughts to the contrary.

Really. What better way would there be to find out if there is new information about the circadian rhythms of penguins? If I think they are diurnal, but someone has said they are nocturnal, I could start such a post to solicit this new evidence.

Your accusation that I am unwilling to change my mind, that I “refuse to entertain any thoughts to the contrary” is unfounded (it is a lie). I change my mind based on new information all the time. And this is the correct forum to ask exactly these questions whenever I have them.

Now. How many of the Christians here are willing to entertain thoughts to the contrary? Are you?
If so, don’t you benefit from the discussion?
Amusingly, this is the thought process discussed in the OP’s quotes. You are so sure that no one can genuinely ask questions that you appear to find it hard to imagine a genuine discussion.

Interesting.

You insist that you are straightforward, honest, and genuine. You started a thread about your posting behavior in which any disagreement with ypur claims about it is portrayed as a "personal attack".

 

[GenesisNemesis]

"Those atheists are always distorting things, therefore what x atheist said must be a distortion and it can't possibly ever be a misinterpretation on my part."

 

[Rhea]

Your OP was an attempt to provide evidence for what you believed
You offered Yahzi’s assertions on a message board as support for your beliefs.

Oh. No, yoou completely misinterpreted the OP.
Utterly.

Anyway, the discussion for this thread is,
IS it "disingenuous" to ask questions about a religion when that religion doesn't seem to make any sense at all? Or is that really logical manifestation of the curiosity that arises when some piece of evidence doesn't fit - one questions it.

I suggested a topic to explore. I asked a question to explore.
I even bolded it so that it wouldnt be too hard t understand what my intent in posting was.

Anyway, the discussion for this thread is,
IS it "disingenuous" to ask questions about a religion when that religion doesn't seem to make any sense at all? Or is that really logical manifestation of the curiosity that arises when some piece of evidence doesn't fit - one questions it.

And then I posted some quotes that might be interesting in the diiscussion.

You leapt to the conclusion that this was a belief that I was “arguing,” when I quite explicitly stated that it was a discussion that I was opening. You claim without support that I have already made a conclusion. And you even claim to know my conclusion.

It turns out that you are utterly wrong. I wrote this thread to read and hear the thoughts of others. That’s why I posed it as a question. That’s why I posed the question as “the topic for discussion is...”. You are free, of course, to spend your time assuming the worst of people and talking in ways that do not align with the questions under discussion. But it’s too disjointed for me to care to follow and it’s irrelevant to the discussion I’m engaged in, so I guess you are are in a different conversation - have fun with it.

 

[Rhea]

Remez, looking back at your replies – most of them! – in this thread, I can’t help but notice how you’ve exemplified one of the quotes in the OP, quite insistently.

Your OP was an attempt to provide evidence for what you believed
You offered Yahzi’s assertions on a message board as support for your beliefs.

Remez sees a post where someone is opening a topic for discussion. It’s even stated straight up, as a question.
Yet Remez sees that and assumes (projects?) with rock-solid certainty that I am, in fact, NOT asking a question, but asserting a claim. He cannot seem to put himself in the shoes of someone who is just asking.

Two Ways to look at Argumentation

I realized that my fundy at work thinks about arguments differently than I do. To him, arguments help you understand the truth: to me, argument helps you discover the truth.

He already knows the truth: he just wants to explain it. The whole idea of discovering the truth through argument doesn't even make sense to him.

I think this is how a lot of fundies work, which is why we find them so frustrating. Of course we want to ask, how did you discover this truth you are explaining, and they just look at you funny because they have no idea what you mean.

He thinks I believe that I already know the truth, too. Just like he does, perhaps?
Politesse adds on with the claim that s/he is certain that I “have no intention of admitting to any change in my point,” based on what data I cannot say. Perhaps again, s/he assumes I must think this way because it’s the only way s/he can imagine anyone would think.



Both seem completely incapable of understanding that someone might be genuine in asking a question for more discussion about a topic that they have discussed before. No comment that they have offered allows for the possibility that someone might discuss/debate/argue to actually hear more from the other side. It is more likely to them that I am lying, than I am curious. And they will cheerfully and righteously make that accusation, certain that it must be true.

 

[remez]

Oh. No, yoou completely misinterpreted the OP.
Utterly.

Then allow me the moment to give you my interpretation…..
I agreed with this……………

An interesting observation about debate and the scientific method...
When using logic, reason and the scientific method, no one can trick you into a corner. If they try, either your logic stands up, or it doesn't. If your logic is sound, their Columbo-questioning is exposed as not relevant or not within the boundaries of discussion. If the question, or "trick question" that forces you to make a stand or show your hand is within the boundaries of the original claim, then you, the original claimant, have the privilege of learning something new and realizing your claim is not valid.
It's amazingly powerful, and amazingly uplifting to know that your claim has withstood debate.
But I find it very often that faith-based claims will not subject themselves to this process. Faith -based lifestyles will not compete on this turf. The claimants want to make their claim and end the conversation right then and there.
It is very frequent in those faith-based discussions that claimants will refuse to answer questions that they feel are "tricks" or "traps" with complete lack of comprehension that no one is trying to "trick" or "trap" them, they are only trying to understand the basis for the claim and whether it stands up to logical inquiry.
And for some reason, faith-based people feel that logical inquiry is somehow a "trick" or a 'trap"
Curious, isn't it?

…..yes I agreed with that. I see that mostly as a neutral statement of good epistemology. Right down to this “But I find it very often that faith-based claims will not subject themselves to this process.” I completely endorse your notion that faith based claims should hold up to logic reasoning and the scientific method. But I have discovered over the decades that your camp can’t live up to those same standards and you are blind to the fact you have to. You just take it for granted that you are smarter which blinds you to your own areas of faith. That is what I set out to do as my part of the discussion. And yes evidence will be provided.
Thus you did set the table so nicely. So let’s rediscover what then followed?

Two Ways to look at Argumentation
I realized that my fundy at work thinks about arguments differently than I do. To him, arguments help you understand the truth: to me, argument helps you discover the truth.
He already knows the truth: he just wants to explain it. The whole idea of discovering the truth through argument doesn't even make sense to him.
I think this is how a lot of fundies work, which is why we find them so frustrating. Of course we want to ask, how did you discover this truth you are explaining, and they just look at you funny because they have no idea what you mean.

I have DISCUSSED where Yahzi was wrong.
I have DISCUSSED where you were wrong when you used his reasoning to judge me. Evidence to follow.
And worse than that……………….
You are being a coward. You want to continually hide from the burden of having to defend your own reasoning.

I know, I know, you have not declared any reasoning ….. you are just discussing. Which is a bunch of garbage. Because blind to you obviously, you have declared your reasoning several times to judge me guilty with Yahzi’s faulty reasoning.

Yes....you are guilty of forming a conclusion advancing Yahzi's reasoning......and here is my case.
Beginning with your facade for innocent question posing.......

You leapt to the conclusion that this was a belief that I was “arguing,” when I quite explicitly stated that it was a discussion that I was opening. You claim without support that I have already made a conclusion. And you even claim to know my conclusion.

And again …..

Remez sees a post where someone is opening a topic for discussion. It’s even stated straight up, as a question.
Yet Remez sees that and assumes (projects?) with rock-solid certainty that I am, in fact, NOT asking a question, but asserting a claim. He cannot seem to put himself in the shoes of someone who is just asking.

Reminder…..One of the MAIN beliefs in discussion was……Christians do not explore there beliefs they just know them, they just defend them without exploration. They are simple children only repeating what they were told. And you fully endorsed it……………..yes I said endorsed it.
Here ..........

I have been on this board for over a decade defending my beliefs.

Yes, exactly. Christians defend heir beliefs, they don’t explore them. You’ve got it!

YOUR quote of me was cherry picked.

But more importantly for right now.... your full response is an absolute CONCLUSION you expressed “EXACTLY” in line with Yahzi’s weak minded dissertation. I jumped to no conclusion. You clearly presented your conclusion right there, without room for further discussion. And should I venture to “defend” my position I would, by your warped sense of reasoning, only be providing more fuel to support your bad reasoning about those bigots who defend their positions. “TRAP?” "Disingenuous?" You tell me.

Better still let’s look again at what your what EXACT CONCLUSION looks like presented against my full quote.…….

BTW a small side point to Yazhi’s polemic…… an argument constructed to SHOW what you KNOW, it is not constructed to bring one who presents the argument to knowledge. It is in the defense of the argument where the presenter defends what he knows. Seriously Yazhi’s reasoning here is irrational.

My experience is one where science and philosophy brought me to the most reasonable conclusion that truth and God exist. I grew up in a nominally RC family. The only thing I believed in was baseball and other sports. As I progressed through school I greatly sided with skepticism over RC. But I was also learning how to think for myself. How did I know the things I knew? In high school and college I became and epistemic junkie. My love for math and science drove me that way. My non-existent RC background really had no influence at all. My pursuit of knowledge was strengthened most by philosophy. Which had the side effect to be open minded and consider everything. Yet I am a Christian today who rejects a great portion of RC doctrine. I have been on this board for over a decade defending my beliefs.
So how does any of my experience match the discourse of Yahzi”s delusion which you folks have blindly accepted as some kind of authority in this area of epistemology?

Yes, exactly. Christians defend heir beliefs, they don’t explore them. You’ve got it!

………ALL you quoted was the BOLD underlided sentence to make your weak CONCLUSION that I did not explore my beliefs. Thereby supporting my case that you indeed share Yahzi’s weak reasoning even though you are too much a coward to admit it openly.

….seriously how can you be so blind? Look at what you chose to close your eyes to in my full response. Also note I presented yet another question for discussion that you ignored yet again.

Here is what I have discovered thus far regarding you.....Your facade of "I only want to discuss this." extends only to wanting to hear from follow atheists who agree with you.

If you were really being genuine (also a discussion topic)….then….

-You would recognize and/or admit to promoting, supporting and defending Yahzi’s viewpoint is in complete alignment with your own. Or somehow present a case to explain or nullify the case and overt evidence I provided against you.

-You would stop hiding behind the ploy “I’m only innocently asking question for sake of discussion” and support your OVERT weak reasoning.

-You would answer my question regarding the universe.

 

[steve_bank]

Theists on the forum going back to the first incarnation always tend to view proffering of objective truths and clear contradictions in theology, such as science, as an effort to trick them.

 

[Rhea]

Remez, your style of discussion is difficult to interpret. It is marinated in insult and invective. It is unpleasant and I do not wish to invite that kind of unpleasantness into my life. Most times I’m okay working around someone’s screed to discuss what point they are actually making, but for this – my muck boots are not high enough.

• your camp can’t live up to those same standards and you are blind to the fact you have to.
• You just take it for granted that you are smarter which blinds you to your own areas of faith.
• You are being a coward. You want to continually hide from the burden of having to defend your own reasoning.
• Which is a bunch of garbage. Because blind to you obviously, you have declared your reasoning several times to judge me guilty with Yahzi’s faulty reasoning.
• Beginning with your facade for innocent question posing.......
• “EXACTLY” in line with Yahzi’s weak minded dissertation.
• I would, by your warped sense of reasoning, only be providing more fuel to support
• your bad reasoning
• the discourse of Yahzi”s delusion which you folks have blindly accepted as some kind of authority in this area of epistemology?
• even though you are too much a coward to admit it openly.
• ….seriously how can you be so blind?
• Your facade of "I only want to discuss this." extends only to wanting to hear from follow atheists who agree with you.
• You would stop hiding behind the ploy “I’m only innocently asking question for sake of discussion” and support your OVERT weak reasoning.

I do not consider Yahzi some kind of authority. I did not start this thread with a closed mind. I did not judge you guilty. I did not call all Christians children.

But if all you see, after 10 years of being here with me, is a cowardly, blind, warped, disingenuous, weak minded, garbage façade, then I do not suspect you will be able to discuss the question that I put on the table because I don’t think you and I speak the same language and your translation will be fraught with error and we’ll just spin our wheels in the mud with me trying to explain my position and you punching down a straw-man and spitting on it.

I’m sure other people will be interested to discuss pleasantly whether it is “disingenuous” (dishonest, deceitful) to ask questions about the aspects of Christianity that seem to make no sense.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Theists on the forum going back to the first incarnation always tend to view proffering of objective truths and clear contradictions in theology, such as science, as an effort to trick them.

That's not been my observation and I've been here a while.

If I had to generalize it seems to me they just like to argue, lack scientific literacy, and are overly emotional. A few have come along with a good knowledge of their sacred writings but not a good knowledge of their religion throughout history and how it has changed. They think it just dropped down from the sky magically. Of course, ontologically they're predisposed to believe such things because their emotions make a lot of their decisions when it comes to religious belief.

If you see them as thinking they're being asked trick questions maybe they're just hearing questions about their religious beliefs that they've not heard before. Those of us who grew up in religious environments know how that works. Religion is not an environment that welcomes hard questions and accepts dissent. It's an authoritarian STFU environment.

 

[remez]

Remez, your style of discussion is difficult to interpret. It is marinated in insult and invective. It is unpleasant and I do not wish to invite that kind of unpleasantness into my life.

You set the style and tone with your insulting OP. I responded directly and in kind. If you don’t like to deal with unpleasantness in your life then pay closer attention to the insults you throw around in the guise of conservation starters.

I did not judge you guilty.

I provided solid evidence to the contrary…….. in your own words. I also invited you to counter my case. A not guilty plea is not a case for innocence.

I did not start this thread with a closed mind.

You didn’t see that you started it close minded. Close minded people are perfectly capable of asking questions.
You still show no recognition of how insulting your quotes were. And here is the other bookend to that one…………….

I do not suspect you will be able to discuss the question that I put on the table because I don’t think you and I speak the same language and your translation will be fraught with error……

Close minded???? No way.

 

[steve_bank]

Theists on the forum going back to the first incarnation always tend to view proffering of objective truths and clear contradictions in theology, such as science, as an effort to trick them.

That's not been my observation and I've been here a while.

If I had to generalize it seems to me they just like to argue, lack scientific literacy, and are overly emotional. A few have come along with a good knowledge of their sacred writings but not a good knowledge of their religion throughout history and how it has changed. They think it just dropped down from the sky magically. Of course, ontologically they're predisposed to believe such things because their emotions make a lot of their decisions when it comes to religious belief.

If you see them as thinking they're being asked trick questions maybe they're just hearing questions about their religious beliefs that they've not heard before. Those of us who grew up in religious environments know how that works. Religion is not an environment that welcomes hard questions and accepts dissent. It's an authoritarian STFU environment.

It is more than just arguing.

Some years back theists came in waves one after the other. It turned out they were from a bible school on a class prokect to do battle with atheists.

Evangelicals I have known are not just enjoying a good argument, they are doing battle in the name of god. They live a kind of Star Wars fantasy doing battle against the bad guys, in this case atheists.

Objective refutation of the specifics of theology is seen as an existential threat to that which they base their lives on.

The RCC has suppressed challenges for over 1000 years when it conflicts with the basis of their theology. A theology that says the RCC is the single moral authority on Earth. Any accepted inconsistency in theology that would undermine the image of total moral authority would bring down the Vatican. The Office Of The Inquisition was responsible for rooting out counter arguments both in and out of the church. The office was renamed around 1900.

We see it in avoiding the sex abuse problem. Which by the way has weakened the image held by Catholics by all accounts.
On Christian forums questioning and pointing out inconsistencies in theology get you banned.

 

[abaddon]

Remez, your style of discussion is difficult to interpret.

Picture an admirer of William Lane Craig, angry about people disrespecting him personally by describing some Christians as blindfaith believers, so he's hot to score some points against the vile rude atheists, who are the true blind-faith believers.

He's put a lot of time memorizing theological apologism (it seems especially WLC's tactics), and so he's going to tell you all about what you don't know but need to know or you haven't reasoned your faith in atheism so well as he has reasoned his faith in theism. The glove is thrown down and you're expected to enter the debate or (in his mind) you automatically lose.

I've seen remez behaving congenially enough in discussions... For example, the KCA has been semi-formally debated in TFT, with some of the formal argumentation that remez likes. And if a person sticks closely-enough to remez' format, there'll be a reasonable-enough exchange. But get off track from that and remez is instantly lost. He makes guesses at, then over-analyzes, what the other person is saying and it ends up being a cluster-fuck. So the choice in the end is debate one of remez' favored arguments on his terms and, after too much of his repeated assertions, eventually ignore him. Or debate his incomprehension of other things until it's clear he won't stop raving (and so eventually ignore him).

It's unfortunate. The things he has asserted, dozens of times, as deadly problems for atheism (it's not well-reasoned) and empiricism/materialism/naturalism (they're "self-refuting") never really get addressed. Precisely because of his excess verbosity designed to score points, instead of to exchange ideas.

 

[remez]

Same ole abaddon.

We’ve had this talk several times.

Seriously, imparting+impugning motive and character assassination is not reasoning, it's whining. If you are going to assert that I’m wrong in some area then present a case and provide us with the evidence and reason. Your generalizations here of our past are biased because of your own floundering ability to keep up.

Look I even provided another example for you here in this thread (post13) on how you should properly challenge someone. CC said something I objected to…..

The "game" is to look at the propositions of supposed revelations of the Bible et al, the claims of theologians and believers, and then to examine them logically, taking them to their logical conclusions and noting how none of it really withstands careful scrutiny. For us skeptics, in the final analysis, Christianity doesn't make the grade. Carefully examined it isn't coherent and does not withstand careful scrutiny.

…..and I challenged his reasoning…….

It’s all about the epistemology. You don’t just get to assume your logic and scrutiny can deliver a final product worthy to be called knowledge. Your logic and scrutiny has been shown repeatedly in the past to be replete with fallacy.

…but I then provide evidence as well…….

One quick example….You claimed the Koukl presented an argument that concluded God must exist because evolution can’t explain morality. If I remember it correctly you even claimed it was WLC. Your logic and scrutiny were pure fallacy. And you know I can present more examples where you mixed up two different arguments (KCA& FTA) to create a conclusion that reduced the Christian position to absurdity. If you could put before us a piece of scrutiny that is actually fallacy free then I’ll give it consideration.

…….SEE?

Now………………………Your post, though somewhat flattering, was mostly an unfair and unsupported attack on me. Your assessment of my reasoning came off as you whining more about your ability to keep up……….

It's unfortunate. The things he has asserted, dozens of times, as deadly problems for atheism (it's not well-reasoned) and empiricism/materialism/naturalism (they're "self-refuting") never really get addressed. Precisely because of his excess verbosity designed to score points, instead of to exchange ideas.

….See?

Yes they are very deadly and well-reasoned and yet you fault me for your inability to understand.

Same ole abaddon!

 

[Rhea]

You didn’t see that you started it close minded. Close minded people are perfectly capable of asking questions.
You still show no recognition of how insulting your quotes were. And here is the other bookend to that one…………….

I do not suspect you will be able to discuss the question that I put on the table because I don’t think you and I speak the same language and your translation will be fraught with error……

Close minded???? No way.

Yes. Your translation of my words so far has been fraught with error. I have kept reading thus far, hoping for turn.
But after 50 posts so far it has been just you telling me what my intent is, that I am indeed "trying to trick you."
I will instead enjoy the contributions of those who might want to discuss the topic of whether it is always/only "disingenuous" to ask questions. I've gotten your answer; you think "yes." I get it. Thank you for your contributions. You do not need to repeat them now.

 

[Rhea]

In discussion of the actual topic at hand,

One of the reasons that I put those old quotes in this post is because they illustrate (to me) that sometimes when people get annoyed or agitated by a line of questioning, it’s not because they are weak or mean-spirited, but because their frame of reference is so different that they are not even in the same conversation. So exploring how people think is instructive in deciding which words and approaches to learn.

For example, Yahzi’s description of the importance to Christians of personal experience over data explains so much about why they approach us with “personal testimony,” which perplexes us, because we find it to be completely unreliable in our lives of science. So we don’t know what they mean. They feel they have given us the strongest, most firmly supported argument possible. And we don’t get it.

This is useful to acknowledge because when you are trying to communicate a complex science experiment with someone and you discover they speak Russian, it does not promote your cause to shout science louder at them in French. You need to learn some Russian, and teach them a little French. THEN you can talk about the experiment.

But in this case, we often just shout louder in French, not stopping to think that maybe they do not know French.

That’s why I found those quotes to be useful and interesting. I do believe I see in action that religionists in general and specifically Christians do find personal testimony to be very compelling evidence. Pretty much every Christian I have ever encountered in my life has tried to convince me of the truth of Christianity through personal testimony. “This happened to me. Can’t you see that my conclusions are true?” And then, inevitably, when I ask questions about that personal experience, they are surprised and defensive that I would question it. And I’m surprised and confused that they find this objectionable.

In this vein, I found Yahtzi’s exploration of why does this happen to be a useful exercise. To me, his quote is not an authority on this, it is a prompt. What-if. I think it’s a very interesting what-if. One worth exploring and discussing and discovering if there is more or less to it.

It has helped me personally because it has provided me with some insight to stop and realize that the Christian may not be speaking the same language as me, and if I want to be in a full two-way discussion, I may need to discuss the merits of evidence and how it has helped with many endeavors before I ask them what evidence they used to form their opinion.

And that when they accuse secularists of "tricking" them, that it really does feel like a bolt out of the blue to them for someone to ask for evidence.

 

[steve_bank]

In discussion of the actual topic at hand,

One of the reasons that I put those old quotes in this post is because they illustrate (to me) that sometimes when people get annoyed or agitated by a line of questioning, it’s not because they are weak or mean-spirited, but because their frame of reference is so different that they are not even in the same conversation. So exploring how people think is instructive in deciding which words and approaches to learn.

For example, Yahzi’s description of the importance to Christians of personal experience over data explains so much about why they approach us with “personal testimony,” which perplexes us, because we find it to be completely unreliable in our lives of science. So we don’t know what they mean. They feel they have given us the strongest, most firmly supported argument possible. And we don’t get it.

This is useful to acknowledge because when you are trying to communicate a complex science experiment with someone and you discover they speak Russian, it does not promote your cause to shout science louder at them in French. You need to learn some Russian, and teach them a little French. THEN you can talk about the experiment.

But in this case, we often just shout louder in French, not stopping to think that maybe they do not know French.

That’s why I found those quotes to be useful and interesting. I do believe I see in action that religionists in general and specifically Christians do find personal testimony to be very compelling evidence. Pretty much every Christian I have ever encountered in my life has tried to convince me of the truth of Christianity through personal testimony. “This happened to me. Can’t you see that my conclusions are true?” And then, inevitably, when I ask questions about that personal experience, they are surprised and defensive that I would question it. And I’m surprised and confused that they find this objectionable.

In this vein, I found Yahtzi’s exploration of why does this happen to be a useful exercise. To me, his quote is not an authority on this, it is a prompt. What-if. I think it’s a very interesting what-if. One worth exploring and discussing and discovering if there is more or less to it.

It has helped me personally because it has provided me with some insight to stop and realize that the Christian may not be speaking the same language as me, and if I want to be in a full two-way discussion, I may need to discuss the merits of evidence and how it has helped with many endeavors before I ask them what evidence they used to form their opinion.

And that when they accuse secularists of "tricking" them, that it really does feel like a bolt out of the blue to them for someone to ask for evidence.

The mistake some make is treating it as a debate in logic and reason when it is mostly about feelings, good point.

 

[abaddon]

Atheist says "Neuroscience indicates there's no soul separate from the brain and therefore no afterlife. The 'afterlife' is a superstition".

Theist hears "Your deceased mother is just rotting meat".

So, yeah, I think it's generally the case a theist starts with an answer ('my mother is not rotting meat nor will I be') and then seeks reasons for it.

'There's this book that tells the way to live forever!' And 'What else explains the universe but God?' What's needed is whatever makes the wish-based answers seem reasonable. Then the reasons found are presented as what led to 'God' as a plausible explanation for anything.

Everything is at stake for the theist. The meaning of his life. What his own fate and his loved one's fates are. His need to feel certain about how the cosmos is minded by something, so it's not a threat to his being. The moral order of society.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Everything is at stake for the theist. The meaning of his life. What his own fate and his loved one's fates are. His need to feel certain about how the cosmos is minded by something, so it's not a threat to his being. The moral order of society.

Very well said. No secondary defensive positions have been prepared in case they need to fall back. No defense in depth, no preparation for what happens if they are able to hurdle the initial defenses. It's all about emotional and personal feelings, nothing is there about reality and the awareness that others might not be able to appreciate their very personal experiences.

 

[Rhea]

Everything is at stake for the theist. The meaning of his life. What his own fate and his loved one's fates are. His need to feel certain about how the cosmos is minded by something, so it's not a threat to his being. The moral order of society.

Agree, and well said. This is an important consideration for understanding why they would react very differently from us. And perhaps why they often accuse us of being "angry" or having an "agenda". Because when we are questioning their everything, they expect it to be as momentous to us as it is to them? And perhaps it never occurs to them that we have nothing at risk in the conversation, because we are always open to new ideas so the option of a new idea doesn't change our foundation, and that looks like, I don't know; sacrilege, maybe false bravado, maybe aggression?

 

[steve_bank]

The last resort fallback when confronted by an irreconcilable conflict is that gpd is a mystery, we do not know god's intent and the like. I can't answer it but no matter, I believe.

Depends on what you mean by soul. There is no scientific evidence to support mind independent from body-brain. The old metaphysical conundrums of explain mind and thought without modern science, The 'mind body problem'.

To me we have a soul or spirit of sorts. The sum of culture, knowledge, experience, feelings, and emotion. Who you are as an individual.

Trump is a soulless person. An empty shell.

In Christian context sin is that which takes you out of a natural healthy mental and physical existence.



iN THE