A Christian with a question/concern

[WalterP]

LmtO,

 

I notice that when it comes to the burden of proof, you maintain that the person making the claim is not obliged to justify their claim.  Instead, the onus is upon others to investigate the claim.  You wrote as much to Ficino.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

To @ficino.

 

When I say something is a religious experience I am doing more then just slipping in a claim for God.  I am acknowledging that God exists, and slipping in a claim to the person's religion.  As for the burden of proof, I disagree with the idea of a burden is placed on anyone except the person who is invested in seeking if there is truth or merit behind it.  The burden is not on a Christian sharing their faith, nor on a Hindu or a Buddhist sharing their faiths.  If what a person says is important enough for you to consider, then the burden is on you.  If it's not important enough for you to consider it and look into it then, then that isn't some extra weight someone else should carry for you.

 

The philosophy of burden of proof has become a philosophy of laziness to not look into a matter on your own.  Since most of you say you've looked into the matter of your beliefs on your own and have stopped being Christianity because of that, I don't think any of you should hold on to a lazy philosophy that demands others to do the search for you.

 

My evidence is from my own search.  Yours should be from your own investigation.  Unless it's not worth looking into.  Then don't.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Since you are proposing that the burden is upon us to investigate your truth claims, please tell us how we should go about this. 

 

Our goal being to discover the truth or falsity of things that only you have experienced.  

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I think I will step off this merry-go-round for a while.

[Lost_more_then_Once]

9 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I can rule out spiritual as I see no evidence anything spiritual apart from a colloquial sense where people are actually describing an emotional state rather than some spirit influencing them.

 

I also rule out political as I'm not sure how that can be foundational. 

 

I don't know what you mean by practical, but it is the closest to what I might consider foundational. So when I was a Christian the foundation was God, and faith in God. It was drilled in that we had to have a good foundation built on rock, not sand. That rock was Christ. Sadly it appears that foundation doesn't even exist. 

 

I try and assume at a foundational level as few things as possible so that as many things that I believe as possible are supported by evidence. We were actually talking about these things in this thread: 

 

A political foundation in the way I meant it would be certian perspectives that are active in the political circles and effect how you things should be, regardless how they are or not.  For instance if a person holds a political foundation that is centered around immigration (that it should be open because the country was started by immigrants; or that it should be further restricted to keep terrorists and other bad people out), then that foundation is the base on several other views they have, on actions they might take to support those views, and affect who they vote for.  If it's important to them or it's something that other decisions are based on I'd count it as a foundation.

 

A practical foundation on the other hand would be based on what works, and what works well.  Instead of concerning about what is true, or what is moral, or any other attribute of right and wrong, the scope is based on "is this the best choice," or "does this work". What works and what works best would be the application of a practical foundation.  I'd compare a practical foundation to a carpenter with a set of tools he can rely on.  They get the job done without caring  how the tools were made or if the tools are the real truth or the moral compass.  I've look at that topic now, so thanks for pointing it out.  Sill reading the posts in that discussion.  Looks interesting.

 

9 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Such a foundation might look like:

 

Axiom 1: I exist, and am capable of thought.

Axiom 2: There exists a natural world external to me, of which I exist as a part, and which contains many parts other than myself. Some of these other parts are capable of thought, just as I am.

Axiom 3: Things in the natural world have definite properties, and natural processes occur in definite ways. That is to say, there exist certain brute facts about the natural world.

 

You and I probably mostly agree on these, except you want to insert God into your foundation at some point and I don't think that's justified.

 

Does this answer your question or have I misunderstood what you mean by foundational perspectives?

 

I think you've answered the question on a foundational perspective very well.  No misunderstanding going on there.  These three axioms look like they cover the ground on the topic of reality and what is real.  And they look like a good sturdy foundation to stand on.  

 

As as for my questions, here would be my answers.

 

• regarding intelect or humor, it's open ended on how you measure both.  But for me on the few ways I could measure both they both seem hard pressed to choose one over the other.  Therefore truthful my answer might change on this question more then once even before I finish answering it.

 

•Regarding trust or understanding, again I think both are important and close in their importance.  But in this case I'd say trust is more important.  You trust a lot of people even if you don't understand them.

 

•most impressive man made thing.  This s might not be the most impressive to look at but society is built on having clean drinkable water readily available.  So I'd say our infrastructure of clean water to any house built to recieve a line to the tap water is pretty impressive.

 

•Most impressive in nature.  I like your answer of life, but I think looking at the stars impresses me so much when I go outside at night and look up at the sky.  So the stars are my answer.  For now anyways.  Thanks for answering, and thanks for asking in return.  

[Lost_more_then_Once]

11 hours ago, WalterP said:

Thank you for the above reply, LmtO.

 

I would like to respond by making two points, in two separate posts. The first being that you have rephrased the question that I put to you and then answered your rehash of my question - not my question itself.  We can see this by comparing my actual question with the question you substituted it with.  I wrote...

 

On the back of your truth claims I then asked how Josh could choose between your truth claims and identical ones made by a Muslim.  This was my one question to you. 

 

But you rephrased my question like this...

 

(The hypothetical situation is that a Christian and a Muslim say the identical claim that God did something in their life.  The question being which one did God  actually do something so you know which god to follow).

 

The question (my question) concerns only the decision JoshPantera should make on the back of identical truth claims made by a Christian and a Muslim.  I didn't ask anything about which God actually did something.  Nor did I ask about God's ability to work in the lives of believers and unbelievers.  The only point I would like you to address LmtO is the decision that Josh is going to make.  All he has to go on are two sets of identical truth claims, nothing more.  

 

Please answer my question, as it is written.  

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Sorry if I missed the intent of the question or phrased it incorrectly.

 

my practical advice for Josh would be to suspend both doubt and belief until more information is available.  If both myself and a Muslim say the same claim concerning what God's done I. Our life, then it's quite possible that there is merit in that claim.  After all this claim comes from two different perspectives.  Neither one agrees with the other when it comes to religion.  So if they both agree to an identical claim, that bolsters the merit of that claim.

 

Again what Josh should to is suspend both doubt and belief until he has more information to assess it with.  Think of it on the grounds that it's possible without committing to a stance of believing the claim or disbelieving the claim.

[Lost_more_then_Once]

11 hours ago, WalterP said:

My second point LmtO concerns the last line of your reply.

 

My observations are not subjective.  They are observations.  

 

 

 

11 hours ago, WalterP said:

You ask about how claims should be tested and you affirm that how a claim is tested is important.  So, will you stand by your own words and allow your own truth claims to be tested?  

 

Like this one?  "My observations are not subjective."

 

Please tell me if you are willing to have your truth claims tested in this forum.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

How would you test my claims?  What measure would you use?  As far as I can tell the experiences I've observed are one time events.  You can't reproduce them to test them.  Or if you can reproduce them to text them I'm unaware how.

 

In that aspect my claims must be rejected outright, or the must be considered as possible.  If there's no way to test it then these are your alternatives.

 

Again my observations are not subjective, they are observations.  They either happened or they didn't.  My conclusions based on my observations that can be argued and debated, but whether I have the facilities to know what's real and what isn't when I observe anything in life, that goes to the next level of suspecusion.  That has been my constant point.

[WalterP]

Sorry if I missed the intent of the question or phrased it incorrectly.

 

my practical advice for Josh would be to suspend both doubt and belief until more information is available.  If both myself and a Muslim say the same claim concerning what God's done I. Our life, then it's quite possible that there is merit in that claim.  After all this claim comes from two different perspectives.  Neither one agrees with the other when it comes to religion.  So if they both agree to an identical claim, that bolsters the merit of that claim.

 

Again what Josh should to is suspend both doubt and belief until he has more information to assess it with.  Think of it on the grounds that it's possible without committing to a stance of believing the claim or disbelieving the claim.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Once again LmtO, you are changing the wording and intent of my question to you.  It doesn't matter if you didn't intend to do so or not.  The fact remains that you have done so.

 

I asked you how Josh should decide ONLY on the basis of the two identical truth claims before him. 

 

I did not ask you to add the possibility that Josh can wait until more information is available.

I did not ask you about the merits of your claim vs the Muslim one. 

I did not ask you the different perspectives that the two claims come from.

I did not ask you about any agreements or disagreements between these two religions.

 

These are four things that you have added to my question, changing the nature and intent of my question.

 

Please confine yourself solely to my question without adding, subtracting or changing any part of its content or intent.

 

Here it is again, in illustrated form.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lost_more_then_Once]

8 hours ago, WalterP said:

LmtO,

 

I notice that when it comes to the burden of proof, you maintain that the person making the claim is not obliged to justify their claim.  Instead, the onus is upon others to investigate the claim.  You wrote as much to Ficino.

 

And that stance is the one I will stand by.  Consider it along the lines of "buyer beware" when someone is out shopping.  If it's important enough for that person to know the product does what it claims to do, then they should look into it on their own.  It's great if the sales person is honest and shows evidance that the product is actually good.  However there are conmen and there are charlatans out there.  If you really want to know if something is true or not it'll have to come down yo your own investigation anyways. If it doesn't matter enough though to investigate it that's also your call.  Why investigate whether a blender can really help your health if you aren't going to buy it anyways (too expensive or just don't care).

[Lost_more_then_Once]

8 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Sorry if I missed the intent of the question or phrased it incorrectly.

 

my practical advice for Josh would be to suspend both doubt and belief until more information is available.  If both myself and a Muslim say the same claim concerning what God's done I. Our life, then it's quite possible that there is merit in that claim.  After all this claim comes from two different perspectives.  Neither one agrees with the other when it comes to religion.  So if they both agree to an identical claim, that bolsters the merit of that claim.

 

Again what Josh should to is suspend both doubt and belief until he has more information to assess it with.  Think of it on the grounds that it's possible without committing to a stance of believing the claim or disbelieving the claim.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Once again LmtO, you are changing the wording and intent of my question to you.  It doesn't matter if you didn't intend to do so or not.  The fact remains that you have done so.

 

I asked you how Josh should decide ONLY on the basis of the two identical truth claims before him. 

 

I did not ask you to add the possibility that Josh can wait until more information is available.

I did not ask you about the merits of your claim vs the Muslim one. 

I did not ask you the different perspectives that the two claims come from.

I did not ask you about any agreements or disagreements between these two religions.

 

These are four things that you have added to my question, changing the nature and intent of my question.

 

Please confine yourself solely to my question without adding, subtracting or changing any part of its content or intent.

 

Here it is again, in illustrated form.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then this is a false hypothetical and why I said it would be better to have an actual case study and real situation to consider.  I gave my answers, you didn't like them.  Tough beans.

[WalterP]

How would you test my claims?  What measure would you use?  As far as I can tell the experiences I've observed are one time events.  You can't reproduce them to test them.  Or if you can reproduce them to text them I'm unaware how.

 

I cannot test your claims, LmtO.

There is no measure I can use to do this.

Because they are one-off events that cannot be reproduced, nobody can test them.

I'm also unaware how they could be reproduced.

 

In that aspect my claims must be rejected outright, or the must be considered as possible.  If there's no way to test it then these are your alternatives.

 

Yes.  That's exactly right.  I have no choice but to reject your claims - because they cannot be tested.

Yes again.  Your claims must be considered possible.  But what's that to me?  The fact that something is possible doesn't mean that it is real or true or actual.

 

Again my observations are not subjective, they are observations.  They either happened or they didn't.  My conclusions based on my observations that can be argued and debated, but whether I have the facilities to know what's real and what isn't when I observe anything in life, that goes to the next level of suspecusion.  That has been my constant point.

 

No sir!  You are wrong. 

To you, your own observations are not subjective.  But to me and to anyone else they are.  That is true for everyone.  One man's subjective experiences are closed and off-limits to anyone else but himself.

 

However, if you can argue that other people should accept your experiences as objective, then please do so.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

22 minutes ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

 

And that stance is the one I will stand by.  Consider it along the lines of "buyer beware" when someone is out shopping.  If it's important enough for that person to know the product does what it claims to do, then they should look into it on their own.  It's great if the sales person is honest and shows evidance that the product is actually good.  However there are conmen and there are charlatans out there.  If you really want to know if something is true or not it'll have to come down yo your own investigation anyways. If it doesn't matter enough though to investigate it that's also your call.  Why investigate whether a blender can really help your health if you aren't going to buy it anyways (too expensive or just don't care).

 

Then you are committing the informal logical fallacy of Special Pleading.

 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/search

Description: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification.  Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle (without justifying the special exception) This is the application of a double standard.

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Special pleading (or claiming that something is an overwhelming exception) is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption. Usually this is because in order for an argument to work, a proponent needs to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency — in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that the argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, proponents introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules. While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a fallacy when a person doesn't adequately justify why the case is special.

The fallacy is a conditional fallacy, because special cases do exist; in other cases, the fallacy is circular ad hoc.

 

Your given reasons for rejecting the principle of burden of proof are unjustified.

You'll note that in all three cited descriptions, exemption from a standard or principle requires sufficient justification.  Your personal disagreement with the principle of burden of proof is insufficient justification for you to be exempted.  Really?  You won't abide by the principle of burden of proof... because you disagree with it?

 

Your disparagement of the principle as philosophical laziness is also insufficient justification for you to be exempted from it.  Name calling does not equal justification.

 

Caveat emptor has no place in reasoned debate, so, once again that is insufficient justification for you to be exempted from the principle of burden of proof.

 

Like it or not, the burden of proof does apply to you and thus far you have given no substantial reason as to why you should be exempted from it.

 

But, your insufficient objections are duly noted.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

Then this is a false hypothetical and why I said it would be better to have an actual case study and real situation to consider.  I gave my answers, you didn't like them.  Tough beans.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

An actual case study?  Of what?  You've presented nothing but unsupported truth claims.

 

When asked to justify your claims you have refused, declaring that the burden of proof doesn't lie with you. 

 

So, even if a Muslim were present in this thread to make the same claims as you and even if they presented their justification for their claims, this thread would still go nowhere. 

 

Because you refuse to accept that the burden of proof applies to you.

 

No comparative case study can be made because you offer up nothing except your bald claims.

 

Therefore, this logjam is not a result of any dislike of your answers on my part.

 

You refuse to play ball on the level playing field of reasoned debate.

 

That's why.

 

Walter.

 

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Lost, your reply to me was incoherent. Don't try to discuss philosophical topics about which you lack training.

 

Tell us your experiences, if you think that worthwhile, but don't be surprised if we don't conclude general truths from your experiences as you interpret those.

[older]

5 hours ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

Consider it along the lines of "buyer beware" when someone is out shopping.

   

But we are not out shopping. We have chosen to leave the store. You are the sidewalk barker, beckoning us to come in. If you want us to come back inside, you will have to provide tangible, independently verifiable, logically consistent, reasons why we should do so.

[Joshpantera]

I think that a lot of christians come here with no previous experience in where this sort of discussion will lead. Then get agitated that they're facing impossible situations. Because they didn't already understand that their positions and claim making are just that, impossible. If they are only familiar with preaching to the choir with confirmation biases, then a conversation like this will come as an abrupt surprise.

 

'What do you mean subjective experience doesn't equal hard, objective evidence?' 

 

They may wonder to themselves, 'what would these people do if they were put into an impossible situation like this?' I've already disclosed it in so many words. But the simple answer is that we simply WON'T make untenable claims that are impossible to substantiate. We won't, for instance, make the claim that we know god does or does not exist. It's untenable either way. Given the evidence that does exist it's highly unlikely and that's good enough for me to lack positive belief. I have no burden of proof requirement to substantiate the non-existence of god, nessy, big foot, fairies or anything similar. Therefore I face no impossible situation. 

 

Let's take another example. What if I believe in something? What if I believed in something like mind over matter? 

 

1) Unless I could demonstrate it consistently making the claim factual and objective, I wouldn't make the claim to begin with. 

2) I would be honest about the untenable nature of the claim, but then chime in that I believe it myself despite the lack of hard evidence. 

3) I would leave it entirely up to others as to whether or not they agree with the claim, even though it's well known that the claim itself is untenable. 

4) I would never refer to threats or bullying those who do not choose to believe the untenable claim! 

 

There's no good reason to breach 1) and try making such a positive claim. It's an impossible claim, so why make it? It boils down to learning how to be smarter than that. Some of the smarter theistic thinkers do understand this. It's very unintelligent to run head long into untenable claim making, it's ill advised, and completely unnecessary. 

 

Christians, pay close attention!!!

 

You come at us like this, you will lose ground. And most likely tuck tail and head for the hills with embarrassment. One after another, this trend continues. All the while with none of them, "getting it." I hope that maybe at least a few of our passing visitors will think on these issues more in their lives and perhaps come around to "getting it" someday, and making the necessary adjustments in how they approach others with untenable claims and untenable claim making. 

[LogicalFallacy]

On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2020 at 11:49 AM, Lost_more_then_Once said:

 

And that stance is the one I will stand by.  Consider it along the lines of "buyer beware" when someone is out shopping. 

 

Well I hope you all come to my place and investigate my invisible unicorn. Seems like I don't have to give support to my claim, you guys have to investigate it. 

 

However, in the case of members here, we here have investigated the Christian claim, and to use a phrase from a biblical story, it has been weighed in the balances and found wanting.

[florduh]

1 minute ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Well I all hope you come to my place and investigate my invisible unicorn.

 

I want to see your invisible unicorn! Uh, wait.......

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The burden of proving the non-existence of the invisible unicorn rests squarely upon my shoulders.  Thor, don't fail me now!

 

 

[midniterider]

50 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Well I all hope you come to my place and investigate my invisible unicorn. Seems like I don't have to give support to my claim, you guys have to investigate it. 

 

I think we're making progress here. Not just doubting for doubt's sake. I'll bring the girls (Hecate and Aphrodite) over to ride the unicorn. 

 

What do you guys drink over there? 

[♦ ficino ♦]

20 hours ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

 

Then this is a false hypothetical and why I said it would be better to have an actual case study and real situation to consider.  I gave my answers, you didn't like them.  Tough beans.

People did not suggest false hypotheticals to you.

 

Nevertheless, here is a real situation. Our brother in the Lord, Rod (28), was found to have cancer. EVERYONE prayed. Little children prayed. Everyone laid hold of NT promises.

 

Rod died anyway.

 

Conclusion: the NT promises about answered prayer are bogus.

 

You will want to say, "But that doesn't mean...  you all must have just not ... " ETC.

 

Rod died anyway. NT promises about answered prayer are bogus. When we get failure on the verifiable level, the unverifiable level is left with no credibility. 

 

That event started my journey out of the cult. 

[LogicalFallacy]

21 minutes ago, ficino said:

People did not suggest false hypotheticals to you.

 

Nevertheless, here is a real situation. Our brother in the Lord, Rod (28), was found to have cancer. EVERYONE prayed. Little children prayed. Everyone laid hold of NT promises.

 

Rod died anyway.

 

Conclusion: the NT promises about answered prayer are bogus.

 

You will want to say, "But that doesn't mean...  you all must have just not ... " ETC.

 

Rod died anyway. NT promises about answered prayer are bogus. When we get failure on the verifiable level, the unverifiable level is left with no credibility. 

 

That event started my journey out of the cult. 

 

And this is not an isolated event - there are millions of cases like this where prayers go unanswered. Once in a while a person will beat cancer, or whatever illness they have... and suddenly the lord answers prayer. This has also been my personal experience watching Christian family members praying for all manner of ills. It's telling that the place they run to when shit gets really bad is the doctor.

[TEG]

“Pray for so-and-so, who is recovering from surgery.”
If prayer worked, she wouldn’t have needed surgery.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

"By his stripes we are healed..."  This has to be one of the biggest lies in the entire bible.  It's never his will to heal us; because he's testing us, or because we don't have enough faith, or because we have hidden sin in our lives, or because whatever.  It's not his will.  He endured 39 lashes with a cat o' nine, specifically for our healing, only to change his mind when it was all said and done.  Only to change his mind when it really matters most.  When a broken hearted ten-year-old is begging for his grandpa to come out of the coma.  It's a lie and god is a liar.  

 

He kept the stripes, though; because they make his ass look slimmer. 

[WalterP]

Hmmm...

 

I do wonder if we could let people like LmtO down a bit more gently when it comes to issues like burden of proof.  When I was deeply committed to evangelical Christianity I certainly had no idea that if I made a claim, the onus was upon me to substantiate that claim with evidence.  In fact I didn't even realize that I was making these unsupported claims.  That understanding only came later, after many years of difficult struggle and heartache.   

 

So, how about this idea?  Rather than have Christian after Christian come here and learn this lesson the hard way, as LmtO did here, why not make our lives and their lives a little bit easier and less confrontational?

 

Neither this page... https://www.ex-christian.net/forum/6-the-lions-den/ nor this one... https://www.ex-christian.net/guidelines/ mention anything about the concept of burden of proof.  Therefore, a Christian entering the Den could rightly claim that they had no idea that we all agree with and adhere to the principle of burden of proof.  If they haven't encountered it in their lives (as I didn't) then being asked by us to justify their claims with evidence will probably come as a complete surprise and a shock to them.  If they are anything like I was they'll be completely unprepared and unable to justify anything they believe in.  

 

But how about this suggestion?

 

When a new Christian shows up perhaps it would help to direct them here?   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)  A few words of explanation from us might help too.  So that they realize that when they make a claim they become the Holder of the Burden of Proof.  If they begin to disagree at this early juncture, then we will know from the outset what to expect from them.  Imho, discovering their position re the burden of proof like this, from get go, is surely better than doing so painfully and at length, as happened with LmtO.

 

Ok, I 'm that some of you will just shrug and say tough ****, it's no skin off our noses if Christians turn up here, not even having heard of the burden of proof.

 

But I'm still curious as to your thoughts.  Please let me know.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[florduh]

31 minutes ago, WalterP said:

When I was deeply committed to evangelical Christianity I certainly had no idea that if I made a claim, the onus was upon me to substantiate that claim with evidence.

 

Even the Bible states it plainly:

 

I Peter 3:15- "to sanctify the Lord God in your hearts and be ready always to give an answer to every man that ask you a reason of the hope that is in you."

 

That, they do not do.

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, florduh said:

 

Even the Bible states it plainly:

 

I Peter 3:15- "to sanctify the Lord God in your hearts and be ready always to give an answer to every man that ask you a reason of the hope that is in you."

 

That, they do not do.

 

That's the verse I was looking for the other day to explain why a Christian should give "reasons". I was going to say because the bible says so in verse.... then I couldn't remember the verse.