A Serious Question For Theists

[Bob Kelso]

If you love your neighbor as yourself, you will always treat others with love and respect.

And if you don't love yourself?

"If you love your neighbor as yourself..." said the sado-masochist.

[John V]

Funny how you don't see fit to provide any examples.

If you want one...
You called him out for making a bare assertion:

I'll be interested to know how you gained the telepathic powers necessary to know what other people whom you don't know are thinking. Do tell.

And then did the same yourself in your next point:

No, you wanted to disparage everyone else in your typical passive aggressive way, let's not bullshit around here.

You also have a burden of proof fallacy. When someone claims that they used to be a Christian, that claim necessarily includes the claim of knowing what a Christian is. You attempted to shift the burden of proof to GC.

[Esquilax]

Funny how you don't see fit to provide any examples.

If you want one...
You called him out for making a bare assertion:

I'll be interested to know how you gained the telepathic powers necessary to know what other people whom you don't know are thinking. Do tell.

And then did the same yourself in your next point:

No, you wanted to disparage everyone else in your typical passive aggressive way, let's not bullshit around here.

Fair enough I suppose, though I do have the entirety of GC's posting history pointing to how he'll behave, whereas I called GC out on his bare assertion on the motivation of other people. And I'd also like to point out that GC's response to me was... disparaging, aggressive bullshit!

A prediction of actions is not the same as an assertion on motivation.

You also have a burden of proof fallacy. When someone claims that they used to be a Christian, that claim necessarily includes the claim of knowing what a Christian is. You attempted to shift the burden of proof to GC.

Not at all; what I did was note that "Christian" is a highly subjective label, as the thousands of denominations of that religion attests. What GC was proposing was that proof be provided sufficient to satisfy his conception of what a christian is- which isn't necessarily the same thing as what the person providing the proof thinks- and he wants to do that without providing what conditions are present in his version of christianity. This is, obviously, very vulnerable to the No True Scotsman fallacy, and when asked to provide some criteria that one might measure this with, he refused. It's not up to GC to prove that everyone else wasn't a christian, but what does need to happen is we either need to accept that his definition of a christian is not binding to everyone else, or if he's unwilling to do that he needs to provide his set of criteria ahead of time so we can be sure that success is actually possible. As I said in the initial post, I don't think adding some accountability to the interrogator is too much to ask for, and frankly I think it's strange how willing you guys seem to be to scrabble away from that.

More importantly, the question is ill formed! "Tell me what you did when you claim you were a christian so that we can see if you really were one," isn't an applicable test, because christianity isn't an attribute, it's a set of beliefs and actions, a title. If a soccer player scores the lowest percentage of goals in his whole team, that doesn't make him not a soccer player, it just makes him a bad soccer player. Likewise, a christian, even if they fail all of GC's criteria, just makes them bad at being a christian, it doesn't somehow take that status away from them.

[John V]

Fair enough I suppose,

This is more of your bullshit - say "fair enough," then make aq defense. Was it a fair charge or not?

though I do have the entirety of GC's posting history pointing to how he'll behave,

And I have my experience with you.

whereas I called GC out on his bare assertion on the motivation of other people. And I'd also like to point out that GC's response to me was... disparaging, aggressive bullshit!

It was disparaging and aggressive, but it wasn't bullshit.

Not at all; what I did was note that "Christian" is a highly subjective label, as the thousands of denominations of that religion attests. What GC was proposing was that proof be provided sufficient to satisfy his conception of what a christian is- which isn't necessarily the same thing as what the person providing the proof thinks- and he wants to do that without providing what conditions are present in his version of christianity.

No, GC did not propose that. You read that into a very brief post of his. If he had had a taker they might have had little difference in opinion regarding the actions of a Christian. We don't know. You engaged in elephant hurling - you asked for a laundry list of specific unambiguous details regarding a subject which you now admit is highly subjective.

This is, obviously, very vulnerable to the No True Scotsman fallacy,

And if he had committed that fallacy (although I think the fallacy itself is fallacious) it would have been appropriate to call him on it. He doesn't need to provide an exhaustive laundry list of details because you're afraid of what he might do.

and when asked to provide some criteria that one might measure this with, he refused.

And why not? Again, someone who claims to have been a CHristian is presumed to have a good idea of what a Christian is. If there are differences they can be discussed and supported Biblically. If GC were then to move goalposts, you could have called him on it.

More importantly, the question is ill formed! "Tell me what you did when you claim you were a christian so that we can see if you really were one," isn't an applicable test, because christianity isn't an attribute, it's a set of beliefs and actions, a title.

He was properly responding to CD's statement, "it always comes down to "you were doing it wrong". How the holy fuck would you know?"

CD made it about actions ("doing it"). CD properly noted that we wouldn't know if he were doing it wrong or not, so GC asked him what he was doing.

If a soccer player scores the lowest percentage of goals in his whole team, that doesn't make him not a soccer player, it just makes him a bad soccer player. Likewise, a christian, even if they fail all of GC's criteria, just makes them bad at being a christian, it doesn't somehow take that status away from them.

And maybe they would have come to that conclusion. you keep reading minds despite disparaging others for supposedly doing so.

[Esquilax]

This is more of your bullshit - say "fair enough," then make aq defense. Was it a fair charge or not?

Oh, I can see why that would confuse you: it's called a "nuanced position," and what it means is that I accept that you're partly right, but I disagree with the severity of your charge, as I at least have supporting evidence for my position, making my stance not comparable to GC's.

I'll try to go simpler in future for you.

And I have my experience with you.

And the fact that you think they're at all similar is very amusing.

It was disparaging and aggressive, but it wasn't bullshit.

You think there was anything truthful in that childish insult-barrage? I think that says a lot about what you're trying to do, here.

No, GC did not propose that. You read that into a very brief post of his. If he had had a taker they might have had little difference in opinion regarding the actions of a Christian. We don't know. You engaged in elephant hurling - you asked for a laundry list of specific unambiguous details regarding a subject which you now admit is highly subjective.

The subject in general is highly subjective, but GC's beliefs about it aren't; he set himself up as the judge for this case, the least he could do is let us see the metric by which he'd be judging before he rendered judgment.

Actually think about what you're proposing here; if GC wasn't going to use his own criteria to judge who is and isn't a christian then the conversation becomes completely pointless. "Oh, well I did this and this and this when I believed, and that makes me a christian." "I don't think that makes you a christian, but I'm not going to judge you according to my standards." "Oh... okay then. So, does that mean anyone's a christian?"

If he wasn't going to judge by his standards then there's no failure state for the test he's proposing, only different kinds of personal success, and that's pointless. He isn't challenging anyone in that case.

And if he had committed that fallacy (although I think the fallacy itself is fallacious) it would have been appropriate to call him on it. He doesn't need to provide an exhaustive laundry list of details because you're afraid of what he might do.

Well, he kinda does, as it stops him moving the goalposts, as I think any atheist who has had any experience with this line of questioning suspects will happen. Don't you think it's weird, being asked to take a test without knowing what the questions are?

And why not? Again, someone who claims to have been a CHristian is presumed to have a good idea of what a Christian is. If there are differences they can be discussed and supported Biblically. If GC were then to move goalposts, you could have called him on it.

So, you basically wanted the conversation to devolve into exactly the sort of thing I was trying to prevent, and that the other atheists who responded were uninterested in: a lengthy argument about biblical interpretations that one side of the argument no longer believes to be true, and that neither side has any evidence for one way or the other, in terms of what the original intention was. If you wanted that, maybe you could go to any of the other threads in the christianity section; excuse me for trying to head off a shitshow before it begins and maybe get a different kind of conversation going.

He was properly responding to CD's statement, "it always comes down to "you were doing it wrong". How the holy fuck would you know?"

CD made it about actions ("doing it"). CD properly noted that we wouldn't know if he were doing it wrong or not, so GC asked him what he was doing.

Yeah, so then CD was wrong too, I guess. Cool? Or at least, he was perpetuating the wrong answers to the wrong question.

And maybe they would have come to that conclusion. you keep reading minds despite disparaging others for supposedly doing so.

Yeah, asking someone for a detailed explanation of their position before an argument starts is totally reading his mind.

Good thing you were here, though: to someone who was actually paying attention, it might look like I was trying to avoid making assumptions about someone else's position!

[Whateverist]

A little while back on this thread, I asked GC directly whether he thought it was possible for someone who once felt and thought as a xtian to become an atheist. I was surprised that he said he did think so, that some atheists had truly been xtians but lost their faith. Had to give him props for that given how common it is for xtians to pull out the "no true xtian' objection.

[Eye of God]

I think I will take some time away and let you all calm down a bit. Esquilax made a couple good points about threatening hell which I may consider. It seems reasonable that threatening others with hell could further push away non believers from the real love of God.

Someone called me a Poe. I looked it up and I'm not a Poe. I'm the real messenger of God here to bring you to your master.

[Silver]

I'm the real messenger of God here to bring you to your master.

A messenger you may be, albiet a misguided one, but I am my own master.

[Lek]

Yes, seriously, a little over the top. Maybe not even that. If the same things were said by an atheist toward a theist, no one would have blinked.

I though Christians held themselves to a "better" standard.

We do.

[Bad Writer]

I'm the real messenger of God here to bring you to your master.

You're a messenger from yourself if you can't first provide evidence of the existence of your "master". For all we know, this "master" may as well be the invisible monkey king or the immutable hovering blob.