A Notice to Christians Visiting the Lions Den

[Edgarcito]

Just now, florduh said:

 

Understanding people's behavior is not at all like understanding scientific facts. I can understand that some people truly believe weird things and sometimes I can even figure out why they do. The fact that someone believes in Allah and the fact that they believe they have good reasons has no bearing whatsoever on the literal existence of Allah.

Pick a side....you can't have it both ways.  We are a function of circumstances/compiled facts.  A yes or no answer would suffice here.

[florduh]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Pick a side....you can't have it both ways.  We are a function of circumstances/compiled facts.  A yes or no answer would suffice here.

Yes or no to what question? We act on what we have concluded to be true. Our beliefs about what is true have no bearing on what is actually true independent of anyone's opinion. The beliefs humans hold are often at odds with each other and mutually exclusive. This is not a path to reality.

[midniterider]

Hmmm, this website is neither a court of a law nor a scientific laboratory.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I don't fully understand Ms. Professor.  Think I'll go back to my ex.

[Edgarcito]

13 minutes ago, florduh said:

Yes or no to what question? We act on what we have concluded to be true. Our beliefs about what is true have no bearing on what is actually true independent of anyone's opinion. The beliefs humans hold are often at odds with each other and mutually exclusive. This is not a path to reality.

Our conclusions are by a sum of facts I gather. What I hear Walter saying is, in your words, "actually true", is sufficient knowledge where we may apply this to knowing the sum of facts that brought the person to their conclusion.  Very simply, you can't know someone by simply being an expert in physiology.  This terribly violates the idea of science anyhow.  It's like saying we sufficiently understand cultures meshing, or the climate, or space.   You know it, I know it, Walter knows it, but it's convenient so we can remain right... 

[Edgarcito]

16 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I don't fully understand Ms. Professor.  Think I'll go back to my ex.

exactly sir....which is why it's vows, not chemistry. 

[WalterP]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

But we are talking about people.....knowing people, understanding people.  If we employ limited methods of understanding, we will have limited knowledge.  I don't want to do that with people.  One of the larger complaints here back in the day was, "they don't know our story, nor take the time to understand".  Betting this forum was set up TO know, TO understand.  So by all means Walter, let's limit it to chemistry and physics.....if we can tell the difference.  And to add....the Bible most definitely addresses knowing others.   

 

Edgarcito,

 

This notice is an advisory and not a ruling made with authority that carries with it any kind of penalty.  It's here to advise visiting Christians about what they can expect in the Lion's Den.

 

Most likely some Christians will either fail to understand what's written here or will just choose to ignore it.

 

Hence Florduh's pithy two word comment, 'Good luck'.

 

Anyway, its up to the Moderators how they want to interpret and use the advice written here.  Not me. Take it up with them.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[WalterP]

39 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Our conclusions are by a sum of facts I gather. What I hear Walter saying is, in your words, "actually true", is sufficient knowledge where we may apply this to knowing the sum of facts that brought the person to their conclusion.  Very simply, you can't know someone by simply being an expert in physiology.  This terribly violates the idea of science anyhow.  It's like saying we sufficiently understand cultures meshing, or the climate, or space.   You know it, I know it, Walter knows it, but it's convenient so we can remain right... 

 

I really wish you would refrain from claiming to know what I know, Edgarcito.

 

Your stated position is that each of us are so unique that we can never know what another person knows and never understand what they understand.

 

So, by your own everyone-is-unique standard, you should NOT be able to know what I know.

 

Yet, somehow you do?

 

 

 

 

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

Hmmm, this website is neither a court of a law nor a scientific laboratory.

 

Just so.

 

But this notice is pertinent only to the Lion's Den, an area of this forum for lively debate and discussion.

 

In these debates and discussions the issue of evidence is very relevant and occurs very often.

 

Since the principles of evidence-gathering (science) and evidence-giving (law) are known to work why shouldn't they be adopted for use here?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

 

Just so.

 

But this notice is pertinent only to the Lion's Den, an area of this forum for lively debate and discussion.

 

In these debates and discussions the issue of evidence is very relevant and occurs very often.

 

Since the principles of evidence-gathering (science) and evidence-giving (law) are known to work why shouldn't they be adopted for use here?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Sure, as long at Christians are not required to respond in a similar fashion. The Den rules dont' require people to use (physical) evidence. But I've seen people whine that the Christian isnt being logical and demand a thread be closed. (Not lately, no.) 

 

I understand you are writing a guideline, not a rule. 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

exactly sir....which is why it's vows, not chemistry. 

Hey, way to miss the point there, End3.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Sometimes the best response is no response. I am out of here for the time being.

[WalterP]

9 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Sure, as long at Christians are not required to respond in a similar fashion. The Den rules dont' require people to use (physical) evidence. But I've seen people whine that the Christian isnt being logical and demand a thread be closed. (Not lately, no.) 

 

I understand you are writing a guideline, not a rule. 

 

 

 

 

 

That's right, midniterider.

 

This notice is an advisory, not a requirement.  

 

One that will may well fall on deaf ears, be misunderstood or just be ignored.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WalterP]

For the sake of transparency, clarity and the understanding of my fellow members I'd just like to explain the purpose this notice.

 

If you go to the Lion's Den main page you'll see that the list of threads is topped with six pinned threads.  Three of them were initiated by me, WalterP.  I can say nothing much about the other three, but I can say this about mine.  The Failed Cosmology of William Lane Craig and William Lane Craig and the BGV were pinned by the Moderators because their content was deemed to have an ongoing relevance to the members of this forum.  The Notice to Christians Visiting the Lions Den was pinned because its content was also deemed to have an ongoing relevance to the members.

 

As I have been at pains to explain, the notice is simply an advisory and nothing more.  Even though it was pinned with the blessing of the Moderators it does not give them (or me) any special power or authority to limit or control anything written by anyone in the Den.  

 

I hope this is now clear.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Joshpantera]

On 5/6/2020 at 12:49 PM, florduh said:

 

Exactly the same way we conclude there are no fairies, unicorns, flying cows or wizards due to the lack of evidence. "Oh, but it's GOD we're talking about! Different rules must apply!!!" Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. Assertions that a thing actually exists, especially a quite improbable and fantastic invisible thing, cannot be seriously entertained without accompanying evidence. To not believe something because of lack of evidence is not the same thing as asserting positively it does not exist; there's just not a reason to believe it does.

 

This is it! The point is that we will not entertain "special pleading." Instead we will call it out for what it is. Be warned and be advised.

 

Furthering that point, it will be made clear that christianity amounts to all variety of special pleading and assorted fallacies of logic. We are people who were once blind and / or fooled about these realities and now live eye's opened to the details. If christians come posting here acting in blind ways that we are quite familiar with, we will shine a bright light in their faces outlining the problems. Be warned and be advised.

 

The idea here is to bring to light how much special pleading and logically fallacious reasoning is required in order maintain belief this FALSE religion. A demonstrably false religion. The demonstrations involve the content of the OP. Among many other points.

 

On 5/6/2020 at 6:08 PM, Edgarcito said:

But we are talking about people.....knowing people, understanding people.  If we employ limited methods of understanding, we will have limited knowledge.  I don't want to do that with people.  One of the larger complaints here back in the day was, "they don't know our story, nor take the time to understand".  Betting this forum was set up TO know, TO understand.  So by all means Walter, let's limit it to chemistry and physics.....if we can tell the difference.  And to add....the Bible most definitely addresses knowing others. 

 

It's not about limiting everything to chemistry and physics. That's only part of it.

 

But it's the part which is relevant in order to establish that people incorrectly claiming that god is an "objective fact" of life and existence can not substantiate such a claim with credible evidence. And this filters in to philosophy. Hard and soft sciences are relevant here. If someone can not establish through the hard sciences that god is an 'objective fact', as is claimed, then THEY HAVE NO CLAIM!!! The claim is flaccid from the very foundation, from the very outset. Luth-ifer went so far as to make that claim and failed miserably. And that debate is pinned for all to ponder. 

 

My advice. Keep belief and religion personal. Shouting it from the town square is both ill advised and ill logical in this day and age, regardless of how many people agree with the ill logic. The fallacy of appeal to popularity, is a fallacy of logic. There's enough people out there willing to put you on the spot and question your beliefs until they fold like a sack of potatoes in front of everyone. Regardless of who or how many people share the 'ill conceived' belief, idea, or opinion.

 

Why do this to yourselves? Take a long hard look at the available outcomes. Proselytizing is a dangerous business these days in terms of egos getting blasted as a real possibility, if not inevitable. You guys are fighting battles that can not be won by any stretch of the imagination. You can't prove god is an 'objective fact' by appeal to subjective experience. It doesn't work that way. 

 

Subjective experiences and opinions do not prove the existence of: 

 

Nessy

Ghosts

Fairies

Aliens

Yeti

Chupacabra

Angels

Demons

GODS

 

This is the reality of the situation stripped free and clear of "special pleading." 

 

People are free to believe any of the above listed based on subjective reasons. But they are at the same time limited to a belief which are not substantiated at the same time. Promotion or proselytization of such unsubstantiated beliefs, is just that. Don't cry and whine when people call you out on what you're doing! And if you do, once again, you'll be making yourself look silly in front of everyone. That's how the cards fall. That just is what it is.

 

If someone doesn't like how the cards fall, well, you're free to either evolve, adapt, and change according to the circumstances or crawl off and hide from everyone. It's entirely up to you. Freedom, liberty, etc., etc. You choose your own path. But be advised of the consequences that accompany each path.....

 

 

[Joshpantera]