God without Religion?

[WalterP]

I see that Edgarcito has logged out of Ex-C and seeing that its turned midnight here, I'm going to do the same.

 

Later.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

You and I have differ on evidence...on what is definitive.

 

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

 

Of course we do.

 

You seem to think that permissible evidence is a matter of personal choice.

 

That standard is unworkable in law, in science, in reasoned argument and in logic.

 

Care to tell us why that is? 

 

 

Certainly.... your evidence is limited to what has been defined and measurable I gather.  Even a small expansion of what is accepted but cannot yet be measured really makes your standards woefully incomplete.... 

 

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

 

You've misread my question Edgarcito.

 

I asked you why personal choice of evidence is unworkable in law, in science, in reasoned argument and in logic.

 

The question has nothing to do with either you or me.

 

You need to explain why none of those four things can function if people allow themselves complete freedom to define evidence in their own way.

 

Please answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personal choice of evidence IS at this point, unworkable.  It’s limited and is utilized to its limits I’m certain.  That doesn’t mean that it is AT its limits.  We both know this.  We know we are subjects... there is no other choice, but must define reality objectively due to limitations.  I may be wrong, but don’t believe so.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Hey, didn't those goalposts used to be back there a ways? 

[Joshpantera]

12 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

This is so much horse shit....and you too TS.  If each of you were truly able to see people for who they really are, there would be no in or out of the cave.....you would be able to connect anywhere.

 

And then explain please how your circumstances are superior.....thx. 

 

What do you mean? Do you suppose that being blind to reality and stuck in a cave is something other than inferior to existing outside of the cave? 

 

Please explain the details of how that would work. 

 

Thanks. 

[Joshpantera]

The real kicker here, folks, is where those of us who left "the cave" came to understand that there's another cave outside of the smaller cave we crawled out of!!!! 

 

The christian cave is but a small niche within the wall of a much larger complex. The larger complex being material existence and physical reality. We don't have a clue what it actually is. But we know and understand that we don't know exactly what it is. We know that our senses are limited. We know that we are not perceiving reality as it actually is, we're merely perceiving representations within our minds that represent whatever the external world actually is. We may refer to that as cave complex #2. 

 

Now here's the thing, christians. 

 

We are not rabid towards the possibility of breaking through cave complex #2. Nor are we in denial that we exist within cave complex #2, having already broken the confines of small cave niche #1. And we aren't pissed off at the possibility of 'anyone else' existing in a cave complex #3 for that matter! It's more a case of good on any one who may be able to get there. Excellent job!!! Let's hope that we all get there to greater and greater understanding someday. 

 

Meanwhile the ego freaks of small cave #1 represent the smallest of available human mind sets and comprehensive ability. Close minded, cut off from exploration and cut off from seeking adventure and advancement forward towards greater understanding. Content to sit in the dark acting 'as if' there's no further discovery to be made and rabid towards anyone who may suggest otherwise. Always looking to try and put down anything that suggests otherwise. Transparent as the day is long, from a psychological perspective. 

 

The truth is that we have no idea how many cave complexes exist out there. If we shut down and stop trying we'll never know the extent of it. Luckily for humanity, organized political oriented religion is in rapid decline. Leaving humanity a good sporting chance at advancement. Free and clear of the usual ass hurt ego's who would stop all advancement given the chance.......

[older]

Excellent comment, Josh.

 

When I posted the allegory of Plato's cave, I knew we'd get some hostile responses. Edgarcito's posts just prove my points: that Christians would see the allegory as condescending and that they do not realize that they are in the cave. Edgarcito insists that he's outside the cave, but we know he isn't. He says it's bullshit but we know it's true. And arguing with Edgarcito is futile (but perhaps fun for some of you) as his mind simply cannot embrace outside-the-cave thinking. And I apologize, as I did in the original cave post, to Edgarcito for sounding condescending, but there is no other way to address it. We don't disrespect his intellect or his sincerity, although he will probably see it that way. The Christian mind is hardwired to a certain way of thinking and it is almost impossible to reach. It's sort of like two people speaking to each other in different languages. If you've studied languages you know that there are idioms that are culturally based and that can't be fully translated into another language without the listener having an understanding of the originating language's culture. I think we could call it "cultural dissonance."

 

Of course, the Christian can make the same claim of hardwired thinking in reverse, but many of the folks here have been both in and out of the cave and can see the thinking from both perspectives. The problem is when translating in the other direction since the Christian does not have the understanding of the secular culture even though he or she may insist that he or she does.

 

And, once again, that sounds arrogant and condescending but I don't know of any other way to put it.

[TruthSeeker0]

24 minutes ago, older said:

Excellent comment, Josh.

 

When I posted the allegory of Plato's cave, I knew we'd get some hostile responses. Edgarcito's posts just prove my points: that Christians would see the allegory as condescending and that they do not realize that they are in the cave. Edgarcito insists that he's outside the cave, but we know he isn't. He says it's bullshit but we know it's true. And arguing with Edgarcito is futile (but perhaps fun for some of you) as his mind simply cannot embrace outside-the-cave thinking. And I apologize, as I did in the original cave post, to Edgarcito for sounding condescending, but there is no other way to address it. We don't disrespect his intellect or his sincerity, although he will probably see it that way. The Christian mind is hardwired to a certain way of thinking and it is almost impossible to reach. It's sort of like two people speaking to each other in different languages. If you've studied languages you know that there are idioms that are culturally based and that can't be fully translated into another language without the listener having an understanding of the originating language's culture. I think we could call it "cultural dissonance."

 

Of course, the Christian can make the same claim of hardwired thinking in reverse, but many of the folks here have been both in and out of the cave and can see the thinking from both perspectives. The problem is when translating in the other direction since the Christian does not have the understanding of the secular culture even though he or she may insist that he or she does.

 

And, once again, that sounds arrogant and condescending but I don't know of any other way to put it.

I think that's an excellent way to put it.  Likely almost all of us ex xtians here are familiar with "cultural language". In terms of religion, it's almost like code speak. The words carry messages that only someone who grew up in the church would understand. I'm sure there's variety in the code we all experienced but the key thing is that we were immersed in the code/ language and can see the messages and cultural references. And to those still in the cave, the speech of those who have learned a new language, with points of reference that they don't understand, can sound alien. 

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

What do you mean? Do you suppose that being blind to reality and stuck in a cave is something other than inferior to existing outside of the cave? 

 

Please explain the details of how that would work. 

 

Thanks. 

Seems like the lady came in here and everyone asks her about her evidence.  Her evidence is based on her being unique and under certain conditions, instantaneously and historically.  Then somehow if her response isn’t your response, then hers isn’t accurate?  Her results say cave 1 and yours say cave 2.  I want to see your science that says she should come up with the same results!

[TruthSeeker0]

17 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Seems like the lady came in here and everyone asks her about her evidence.  Her evidence is based on her being unique and under certain conditions, instantaneously and historically.  Then somehow if her response isn’t your response, then hers isn’t accurate?  Her results say cave 1 and yours say cave 2.  I want to see your science that says she should come up with the same results!

She can't come up with the same results, unless she agrees on what constitutes evidence. You've already said you can't agree on that, and likely she cannot either. 

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

She can't come up with the same results, unless she agrees on what constitutes evidence. You've already said you can't agree on that, and likely she cannot either. 

I’m saying that science supports her coming up WITH a different response.  Her conditions would have to change for her to respond differently.  

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Seems like the lady came in here and everyone asks her about her evidence.  Her evidence is based on her being unique and under certain conditions, instantaneously and historically.  Then somehow if her response isn’t your response, then hers isn’t accurate?  Her results say cave 1 and yours say cave 2.  I want to see your science that says she should come up with the same results!

 

She did. And they did. But there's a deeper dimension to what's going on with the exchange. There's literally no where for any one to take these belief claims. They do not amount to strong or compelling objective evidence. They just don't. It doesn't matter if we're talking christianity, esoteric rituals, pagan nature worship or any subjective issue. They are not objective. They are outside of proving as hard fact. 

 

The most obvious way of dealing with this, in my opinion, is to simply refrain from trying to argue something that's impossible to argue. Simply don't go there. Going there tends to reveal a lack of experience and / or comprehension of the limits involved in trying to go there. This is the point! 

 

But head strong christians don't get the point. And can't get the point in some cases. They're too partisan to christianity to step back far enough to get it. They feel the need to get preachy and make moves towards taking the higher ground. The goal is domination and dominion. That's locked into your psyche's whether you like to admit it or not. So leaving it be doesn't gel with the belief. It's egocentric. You're right, you know that you're right, even though when pressed to prove it you can not. But by gollies, never mind any of that. You're right anyways. 

 

That's christian apologetics 101

 

I say you, but I realize that you're actually a heretic to christianity with many not so well thought out ideas about pantheism mixed with monotheism - without carefully considering of the implications and inherent contradictions. Georgia is another version of yourself, a christian heretic off on her own path of not so well thought out beliefs and ideas, all tossed together with little to no consideration as to how they all fit together. The church is out, the bible is wrong, but the christian god is absolutely true. 

 

Here's a complimentary road map of the complex 1 - 2 cave layout: 

 

Very back of the cave-----------------------mid way out------------------------day light---------------------------(the beyond)

(partisan christians)--------------------(christian heretics)-----------------(ex christians)-------------(freethinking community at large)

 

*shouts back into the darkness*

 

Maybe I'll see you around out here sometime. You're always welcome and it's all inclusive...........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, older said:

Excellent comment, Josh.

 

When I posted the allegory of Plato's cave, I knew we'd get some hostile responses. Edgarcito's posts just prove my points: that Christians would see the allegory as condescending and that they do not realize that they are in the cave. Edgarcito insists that he's outside the cave, but we know he isn't. He says it's bullshit but we know it's true. And arguing with Edgarcito is futile (but perhaps fun for some of you) as his mind simply cannot embrace outside-the-cave thinking. And I apologize, as I did in the original cave post, to Edgarcito for sounding condescending, but there is no other way to address it. We don't disrespect his intellect or his sincerity, although he will probably see it that way.

 

Hey, don't feel too bad about it. You're right. And the facts are what they are. 

 

2 hours ago, older said:

The Christian mind is hardwired to a certain way of thinking and it is almost impossible to reach. It's sort of like two people speaking to each other in different languages. If you've studied languages you know that there are idioms that are culturally based and that can't be fully translated into another language without the listener having an understanding of the originating language's culture. I think we could call it "cultural dissonance."

 

You're correct again. Good insights. 

 

I couldn't understand much when I was in their shoes. I was pretty much blind to the outside world of religion and other cultures. The only thing I knew about other religions (or even other christian denominations for that matter) were straw men that our religious leaders strung up to knock down in bible class. I was a smart kid, but ignorant to the world around me. I had the potential to be more than that, though. And I followed that potential right out of the cave. And people were there to welcome me aboard when I found my way out to them. 

 

2 hours ago, older said:

Of course, the Christian can make the same claim of hardwired thinking in reverse, but many of the folks here have been both in and out of the cave and can see the thinking from both perspectives. The problem is when translating in the other direction since the Christian does not have the understanding of the secular culture even though he or she may insist that he or she does.

 

You see the landscape with a lot of clarity. 

 

It's dam near impossible to translate in the 'other direction' when the christian does not have the understanding or comprehension of the secular culture in question. You have to be open to learning, which, is usually not the case. Just look at this thread. She waive of the hand dismissed nearly everyone that tried to communicate something to her. 

 

I said that there can be more than just two ways - more than just random meaninglessness chance or an intelligently designed universe. It's a false dichotomy for several reasons. That was lost in translation. And ignored. The world could be repeated over and over again. This may not be the first time that this world, or any of us in this world has existed, or will exist, or IS existing separate to our experience here right now. There's a ton of conceivable ways in which none of this is just an accident. We could go on. And possibly conceive of even more ways. 

 

And intelligent design has little to no leg to stand on in terms of the available evidence. We're surrounded by poorly designed aspects of nature which reveal 'trial and error processes' more so than well designed and well thought out omniscient craftsmanship. Florduh was carefully ignored and waive of the hand dismissed on that valid point. And it was lost in translation. 

 

But just those two examples tend to outline her false dichotomy way of thinking. Heretical towards the church, out beyond christian partisanship into an independent part of the cave, but no more than mid way out of the christian cave by my estimation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Wow!  Reading all the above has my head swimming.

 

I am concerned that Georgia disappeared after telling us she was going to lay it all out (something like that) and be prepared to be ripped to shreds. In a way it sounded like she was looking forward to it. 

[WalterP]

You've misread my question Edgarcito.

 

I asked you why personal choice of evidence is unworkable in law, in science, in reasoned argument and in logic.

 

The question has nothing to do with either you or me.

 

You need to explain why none of those four things can function if people allow themselves complete freedom to define evidence in their own way.

 

Please answer.

 

Personal choice of evidence IS at this point, unworkable.  It’s limited and is utilized to its limits I’m certain.  That doesn’t mean that it is AT its limits.  We both know this.  We know we are subjects... there is no other choice, but must define reality objectively due to limitations.  I may be wrong, but don’t believe so.

 

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

 

Once again you haven't answered the question that was put to you Edgarcito.

 

Giving you the benefit of doubt (in the light of TRNP's goalpost comment) you seem to be struggling to understand my question.

 

Therefore I'll simplify it for you and give you a clue.

 

Here's the simplified question.

 

Why is personal choice of evidence unworkable in law?

 

Here's the clue.

 

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

 

Please answer the question, 'Why is personal choice of evidence unworkable in law?'

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

Here are my contentions...

Like 'em or leave them, I don't care.

 

Humans are unique and subjective through historical and instantaneous conditions.

We should expect different results/answers/output because of this. (science approved)

 

Thanks....this PSA is brought to you in part by Serta Perfect Sleeper....

 

 

[WalterP]

Thank you for your contentions Edgarcito.

[WalterP]

 

Q.  Why is personal choice of evidence unworkable in law?

 

A. 

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

For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and "not excluded by the rules of evidence", which generally means that it must not be unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability.

 

The key points here are relevance and reliability.

 

It is not up to the person giving evidence to decide what evidence is relevant and what is reliable.  That is not their choice.  Their role is to answer questions under cross-examination as honestly, truthfully and transparently as possible.  It is up to the court to decide what evidence is relevant and to what degree that evidence is reliable.  This is why personal choice of evidence is unworkable in law.

 

 

[WalterP]

Relevance

 

In this forum Christians are requested to provide evidence to support their beliefs. 

 

However, if they submit only personal and private thoughts, feelings and experiences, then their evidence is not relevant.

 

Why?  Because nobody else in the world is party to these things and nobody else can test, check or examine these things.

 

Therefore, this kind of evidence is irrelevant to others.  

 

If a Christian submits only this kind of evidence, then that evidence fails the test of relevancy and is therefore considered to be inadmissible.

 

Here the word inadmissible means, not supporting their beliefs.

[WalterP]

Reliability

 

https://legaldictionary.net/indicia/

 

Indicia is the legal term for items of evidence that indicate reliability.

 

The listing below consists of physical objects that can be seen, tested, checked and examined.

 

What is absent from this list is anything private and intimate to the person giving evidence.

 

Thoughts, feelings and personal experiences cannot be seen, tested, checked or examined, therefore they do not qualify as 'independent indicators of reliability' in a persons testimony.

 

If Christians submit only personal and intimate evidence, then that evidence is considered to fail the test of reliability and is taken to be inadmissible.

 

Here the word inadmissible means, not supporting their beliefs.

 

 

Examples of Indicia

Fact to Be Proven	Supporting Indicia
The defendant stole the goods	* Possession of goods that were recently stolen   * The defendant was in the vicinity of the crime * The defendant suddenly changed his daily routine
A partnership exists	* Certificate of partnership   * Letters sent on a business letterhead from the partnership * Documentation that both individuals put money toward the business endeavor
Ownership of property	* Deed, title, or other certificate of ownership   * Evidence of a mortgage or deed of trust on the property * Evidence of interest in the property through assignment or foreclosure
U.S. Citizenship	* Place of birth   * Current residence address in the U.S. * Current mailing, in-care-of, or hold mail address in the U.S. * Current U.S. telephone number * U.S. bank account that is used regularly
An item was mailed	* Official postmark on the item   * Officially stamped, return receipt * Signed certified mail receipt

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

10 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Relevance

 

In this forum Christians are requested to provide evidence to support their beliefs. 

 

However, if they submit only personal and private thoughts, feelings and experiences, then their evidence is not relevant.

 

Why?  Because nobody else in the world is party to these things and nobody else can test, check or examine these things.

 

Therefore, this kind of evidence is irrelevant to others.  

 

If a Christian submits only this kind of evidence, then that evidence fails the test of relevancy and is therefore considered to be inadmissible.

 

Here the word inadmissible means, not supporting their beliefs.

No no no no.... science supports allowable differences.  I don’t see any evidence that you’ve accounted for the extremely varied conditions...

[WalterP]

Relevance

 

In this forum Christians are requested to provide evidence to support their beliefs. 

 

However, if they submit only personal and private thoughts, feelings and experiences, then their evidence is not relevant.

 

Why?  Because nobody else in the world is party to these things and nobody else can test, check or examine these things.

 

Therefore, this kind of evidence is irrelevant to others.  

 

If a Christian submits only this kind of evidence, then that evidence fails the test of relevancy and is therefore considered to be inadmissible.

 

Here the word inadmissible means, not supporting their beliefs.

No no no no.... science supports allowable differences.  I don’t see any evidence that you’ve accounted for the extremely varied conditions...

 

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

 

The key point you seem to be missing Edgarcito is this.

 

Regardless of allowable differences and varied conditions, what happens inside another person's head is irrelevant to anyone else.

 

But if you can argue that we can be party to your thoughts, feelings and experiences, then please go for it.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

14 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Relevance

 

In this forum Christians are requested to provide evidence to support their beliefs. 

 

However, if they submit only personal and private thoughts, feelings and experiences, then their evidence is not relevant.

 

Why?  Because nobody else in the world is party to these things and nobody else can test, check or examine these things.

 

Therefore, this kind of evidence is irrelevant to others.  

 

If a Christian submits only this kind of evidence, then that evidence fails the test of relevancy and is therefore considered to be inadmissible.

 

Here the word inadmissible means, not supporting their beliefs.

No no no no.... science supports allowable differences.  I don’t see any evidence that you’ve accounted for the extremely varied conditions...

 

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

 

The key point you seem to be missing Edgarcito is this.

 

Regardless of allowable differences and varied conditions, what happens inside another person's head is irrelevant to anyone else.

 

But if you can argue that we can be party to your thoughts, feelings and experiences, then please go for it.

 

 

A jury system?

[WalterP]

Relevance

 

In this forum Christians are requested to provide evidence to support their beliefs. 

 

However, if they submit only personal and private thoughts, feelings and experiences, then their evidence is not relevant.

 

Why?  Because nobody else in the world is party to these things and nobody else can test, check or examine these things.

 

Therefore, this kind of evidence is irrelevant to others.  

 

If a Christian submits only this kind of evidence, then that evidence fails the test of relevancy and is therefore considered to be inadmissible.

 

Here the word inadmissible means, not supporting their beliefs.

No no no no.... science supports allowable differences.  I don’t see any evidence that you’ve accounted for the extremely varied conditions...

 

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

 

The key point you seem to be missing Edgarcito is this.

 

Regardless of allowable differences and varied conditions, what happens inside another person's head is irrelevant to anyone else.

 

But if you can argue that we can be party to your thoughts, feelings and experiences, then please go for it.

 

 

A jury system?

 

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

 

Sorry, but no.  

 

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

For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and "not excluded by the rules of evidence", which generally means that it must not be unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability.

 

In a court of law it is the judge who decides what is admissible evidence and what is inadmissible. Not the witness.

 

Even though a witness can speak about their inner thoughts and feelings, a judge will direct the jury to take into account that such evidence doesn't meet the necessary standards of relevance and reliability.

 

So, as I mentioned earlier, the personal choice of the evidence-giver is subject to the rulings of the court.

 

That is why personal choice is unworkable in law.

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

9 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Relevance

 

In this forum Christians are requested to provide evidence to support their beliefs. 

 

However, if they submit only personal and private thoughts, feelings and experiences, then their evidence is not relevant.

 

Why?  Because nobody else in the world is party to these things and nobody else can test, check or examine these things.

 

Therefore, this kind of evidence is irrelevant to others.  

 

If a Christian submits only this kind of evidence, then that evidence fails the test of relevancy and is therefore considered to be inadmissible.

 

Here the word inadmissible means, not supporting their beliefs.

No no no no.... science supports allowable differences.  I don’t see any evidence that you’ve accounted for the extremely varied conditions...

 

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

 

The key point you seem to be missing Edgarcito is this.

 

Regardless of allowable differences and varied conditions, what happens inside another person's head is irrelevant to anyone else.

 

But if you can argue that we can be party to your thoughts, feelings and experiences, then please go for it.

 

 

A jury system?

 

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

 

Sorry, but no.  

 

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

For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and "not excluded by the rules of evidence", which generally means that it must not be unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability.

 

In a court of law it is the judge who decides what is admissible evidence and what is inadmissible. Not the witness.

 

Even though a witness can speak about their inner thoughts and feelings, a judge will direct the jury to take into account that such evidence doesn't meet the necessary standards of relevance and reliability.

 

So, as I mentioned earlier, the personal choice of the evidence-giver is subject to the rulings of the court.

 

That is why personal choice is unworkable in law.

 

 

 

You certainly know what I am asserting.  They do not put 12 jurors together to exclude testimony.  This all speaks to the conditions of humanity.  Science supports this.  You know this. 

[midniterider]

Does Edgar get a jury of his peers?