Posts: 3226
Threads: 244
Joined: April 17, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
January 7, 2013 at 7:53 pm
(This post was last modified: January 7, 2013 at 8:00 pm by Tea Earl Grey Hot.)
(January 7, 2013 at 7:47 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yes tegh, you aren't addressing the problem. You just repeated what Ryft demonstrated was flawed thinking. ie you're failing to grasp what you say you want to grasp. Go back a step and address the problems squarely. Mockery = you giving up.
Mockery? What mockery?
(January 7, 2013 at 7:47 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The problem you think irrelevant is the question you're asking for the answer to.
Oh, I hate riddles.
Can I just get a non-fallacious answer to the question "how do you know the Bible's extraordinary claims are true?" I can't see any possible way asking that question would be me begging the question by assuming my worldview is true.
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
Re: RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
January 7, 2013 at 7:57 pm
(This post was last modified: January 7, 2013 at 8:16 pm by fr0d0.)
(January 7, 2013 at 7:53 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Mockery? What mockery?
I just removed that before seeing this post.
The bible makes no extraordinary claims AFAIK. Thus your remarks seem unnecessarily provocative. Perhaps you are desensitised to your own bias (and I don't mean that disrespectfully).
See you taking a high handed approach again.
What I don't see, is Ryft making unsubstantiated accusation of fallacious logic. I see him meticulously backing up and proving accurate to the reader his observations. You, on the other hand, call fallacy together with a get out of jail ignorance card. "You are wrong if what I don't know is right" seems to be your logic anchor.
What I want to say is... please don't give up with such a weak standpoint. It leaves people like me with the impression that you have no argument.
Posts: 3226
Threads: 244
Joined: April 17, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
January 7, 2013 at 8:01 pm
(This post was last modified: January 7, 2013 at 8:08 pm by Tea Earl Grey Hot.)
(January 7, 2013 at 7:57 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: (January 7, 2013 at 7:53 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Mockery? What mockery?
I just removed that before seeing this post.
(January 7, 2013 at 7:57 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: ...
The bible makes no extraordinary claims AFAIK. Thus your remarks seem unnecessarily provocative. Perhaps you are desensitised to your own bias (and I don't mean that disrespectfully).
See you taking a high handed approach again.
Two questions:
1. Do you think me claiming to own an interstellar spaceship is an extraordinary claim?
2. Do you think the Bible claiming heaven exists is an extraordinary claim?
If you answered yes to 1, and no to 2, why? What is different about the two?
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
Re: RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
January 7, 2013 at 8:14 pm
(January 7, 2013 at 8:01 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: What is different about the two?
Go read Ryfts very clear answer to you, and progress.
Posts: 3226
Threads: 244
Joined: April 17, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
January 7, 2013 at 8:16 pm
(This post was last modified: January 7, 2013 at 8:17 pm by Tea Earl Grey Hot.)
(January 7, 2013 at 8:14 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: (January 7, 2013 at 8:01 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: What is different about the two?
Go read Ryfts very clear answer to you, and progress.
He asserted that the Bible's claims are about "non-empirical" things but he didn't back that up.
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
Re: RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
January 7, 2013 at 8:25 pm
(This post was last modified: January 7, 2013 at 8:34 pm by fr0d0.)
(January 7, 2013 at 8:16 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: He asserted that the Bible's claims are about "non-empircle" things but he didn't back that up.
He stated what is known and accepted should you seriously consider the subject. Are you claiming that God, angels, heaven etc are empirically provable? ie do you contest the stand point?
I'm sure that Ryft could furnish you with a humiliating avalanche of supporting evidence.
What of course you mean to address is the conflict with your own strictly empirically derived assumption that the non empirical cannot be true... which Ryft is already addressing.
(January 7, 2013 at 1:14 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: And then you win when they put you on "ignore" and search for an easier target.
36 And lo the butt hurt will wail and moan as they wander blindly in pain. AF 19:36
Posts: 3226
Threads: 244
Joined: April 17, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
January 7, 2013 at 8:35 pm
(This post was last modified: January 7, 2013 at 8:37 pm by Tea Earl Grey Hot.)
(January 7, 2013 at 8:25 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: (January 7, 2013 at 8:16 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: He asserted that the Bible's claims are about "non-empircle" things but he didn't back that up.
He stated what is known and accepted should you seriously consider the subject.
That's simply an appeal to consensus fallacy. Simply because it is commonly accepted that these things are non-empirical objects does not mean they are so.
Quote: Are you claiming that God, angels, heaven etc are empirically provable? ie do you contest the stand point?
I never made the claim that they are empirically provable. I just want to know why you guys think they're "non-empirical" whilst apparently dismissing other extraordinary claims for empirical reasons. So far I've been only been given appeal to definition and consensus fallacies in response.
Quote:I'm sure that Ryft could furnish you with a humiliating avalanche of supporting evidence.
That would be awesome.
Quote:What of course you mean to address is the conflict with your own strictly empirically derived assumption that the non empirical cannot be true... which Ryft is already addressing.
I never said the non empirical cannot be true.
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
Re: RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
January 8, 2013 at 4:36 am
(This post was last modified: January 8, 2013 at 4:43 am by fr0d0.)
(January 7, 2013 at 8:35 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: That's simply an appeal to consensus fallacy. Simply because it is commonly accepted that these things are non-empirical objects does not mean they are so.
The OED is an example. This is annoying. You're saying just because a concept is accepted, it should also be known before you understand it. You're testing my patience, and what you need to be doing here is addressing the question rather than wasting time like this.
(January 7, 2013 at 8:35 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: [quote='fr0d0' pid='382878' dateline='1357604704']Quote: Are you claiming that God, angels, heaven etc are empirically provable? ie do you contest the stand point?
I never made the claim that they are empirically provable. I just want to know why you guys think they're "non-empirical" whilst apparently dismissing other extraordinary claims for empirical reasons. So far I've been only been given appeal to definition and consensus fallacies in response.
And it is being explained to you. More arm waving. I expected more from you.
(January 7, 2013 at 8:35 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Quote:I'm sure that Ryft could furnish you with a humiliating avalanche of supporting evidence.
That would be awesome. You would like to be humiliated?
(January 7, 2013 at 8:35 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I never said the non empirical cannot be true. Good. Now continue your conversation with Ryft. Adieu.
Posts: 3226
Threads: 244
Joined: April 17, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
January 8, 2013 at 5:01 am
(This post was last modified: January 8, 2013 at 5:23 am by Tea Earl Grey Hot.)
(January 8, 2013 at 4:36 am)fr0d0 Wrote: (January 7, 2013 at 8:35 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: That's simply an appeal to consensus fallacy. Simply because it is commonly accepted that these things are non-empirical objects does not mean they are so. The OED is an example. This is annoying.
I'm not sure what you're saying. OED? You mean The Oxford English Dictionary? Is a dictionary being appealed to again?
Quote:You're saying just because a concept is accepted, it should also be known before you understand it.
Can you explain why it should be accepted that angels and the like be classified as non-empirical objects without resorting to logical fallacies? Appealing to a dictionary as proof is a logically fallacy similar to appealing to authority.
Quote: (January 7, 2013 at 8:35 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I never made the claim that they are empirically provable. I just want to know why you guys think they're "non-empirical" whilst apparently dismissing other extraordinary claims for empirical reasons. So far I've been only been given appeal to definition and consensus fallacies in response.
And it is being explained to you. More arm waving. I expected more from you.
I don't see it. What are you talking about?
Quote: (January 7, 2013 at 8:35 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I never said the non empirical cannot be true.
Good. Now continue your conversation with Ryft. Adieu.
He seems to have gone into hibernation.
Side-note: After reviewing my posts in this thread, I definitely need to learn to spell "empirical" correctly.
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
Re: RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
January 8, 2013 at 6:02 am
(January 8, 2013 at 5:01 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Can you explain why it should be accepted that angels and the like be classified as non-empirical objects without resorting to logical fallacies? Appealing to a dictionary as proof is a logically fallacy similar to appealing to authority.
Except I am not pointing to any authority as empirical proof of existence. Merely of accepted definition. If you were to quit trying to jump the gun we might get somewhere. "We" meaning yourself and Ryft. Carry on...
|
