Posted on 09/29/2009 6:00:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
No, I'm saying that just because you experienced doesn't make it objectively fact, especially on a subject that relies purely on your subjective view.
“Maybe, but since there’s not a God, the question is moot.”
No, that wouldn't be my reply. This doesn't mean that I'm right, it just means that you aren't speaking from a position of absolute authority either. Your perceptions don't create reality for the rest of us.
Sure you have.
Yes, I have. I still have the books. To others, Christianity was something that grew the more they studied it. To me the more I studied, the more it failed.
Just exactly that and nothing more noble, or even reputable.
I've noticed that it is almost always the "good Christian" who gets nasty and personal first around here. It's a good insight into the kind of people Christianity can produce, and another reason why I am no longer a Christian. You look down upon those who don't believe as you do (neither "noble" nor "reputable"), not even caring about the quality of the person.
You are Dawkins, just on the other side of the debate.
“No, I’m saying that just because you experienced doesn’t make it objectively fact”
Are you listening to yourself? Yes, that I experienced it most certainly does make it objectively fact. You may refuse to believe it, but that in no way affects the underlying reality.
“especially on a subject that relies purely on your subjective view.”
Can’t you hear yourself? A phenomenon experienced is not subjective, it is objective.
“This doesn’t mean that I’m right, it just means that you aren’t speaking from a position of absolute authority either. Your perceptions don’t create reality for the rest of us.”
*— You can’t tell me what to do! You’re not the boss of me! I’ll do what I want to do! —*
There speaks the authentic voice of adolescent rebellion.
I don’t claim to be speaking from a position of authority. I claim to be speaking the truth.
People are free to disbelieve, of course. It might even be reasonable to disbelieve me; however, it is utterly foolish to disbelieve all the people who have reported the same experience down the millennia. On other subjects, two or three eyewitness accounts make a proposition credible; on this one, tens of thousands, perhaps even millions, are dismissed out of hand.
“Yes, I have. I still have the books.”
Thousands and thousands of them, no doubt. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
“To others, Christianity was something that grew the more they studied it. To me the more I studied, the more it failed.”
The more you indulged in misguided study, the further into error you fell. “The devil is a better theologian than any of us, and is a devil still” A. W. Tozer
“I’ve noticed that it is almost always the “good Christian” who gets nasty and personal first around here.”
That you falsely call my remarks “nasty and personal” is so absurd that one struggles for a meaningful response. My remarks were not “nasty and personal,” and I’d put that before any jury of my peers. Do you really think that stooping to such tactics can lead to anything good?
“It’s a good insight into the kind of people Christianity can produce, and another reason why I am no longer a Christian.”
Perhaps if you were still a Christian, you wouldn’t be making groundless accusations.
Oh, well, it is as Thomas Sowell wrote: “It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.”
“You look down upon those who don’t believe as you do (neither “noble” nor “reputable”), not even caring about the quality of the person.”
Oh, come on, you couldn’t possibly believe that. It is quite clear that “noble” and “reputable” refer to a specific behavior, and not to a person or his character. It’s just not credible that anyone could miss that.
It has nothing to do with my looking down on people for disagreeing with me, although you God-haters are ever eager to lodge that nonsensical charge against those who know or believe that God exists. It is simply a description of behavior.
On the other hand, your comment regarding Dawkins below shows us just who is really looking down upon whom.
“You are Dawkins, just on the other side of the debate.”
How interesting. Still, an explication of what you imply but leave unsaid requires more subtlety than the substance of the comment warrants.
You, whether you deny it here or not, must be a great admirer of Richard Dawkins. A comparison to him is no insult in your book, but you (incorrectly) assumed that I would take it as an insult. What are the implications of that?
That you look down on me, and probably all believers, which is demonstrated by your apparent belief that you are bright enough to lay intellectual traps that will fool me. (And you must believe that, or why would you have tried?) You thought that I would be insulted and angered by a comparison to Dawkins, because you think that people of faith really are like the ludicrous caricature you described in your note. (Hardly flattering, that.)
You expected that I would be angered by a comparison to someone who disagrees with me, because you assumed that I “look down on” people merely for disagreeing. (Less flattering still.) You hoped that I would be baited into unseemly behavior, which you could use as Sowell described to create the false impression that you had made strong points.
Actually, Dawkins is bright, and very good at what he does. You thought I would be insulted by comparison to a bright, articulate, moderately famous, and rich author, just because he is wrong on this subject. Now that’s what I call looking down on someone.
Yes, it is true that he is wrong—obstreperously, obdurately wrong—but that just means that the splash when he ultimately bows his head and admits that God exists will be all the bigger.
From here, the only thing that will be seen is you becoming increasingly angry and insulting, and I don’t see any reason that I should pay attention to that. If you’re ever disposed to conduct an intellectually honest debate, I’ll probably be here.
And a Scientologist thinks Xeno is objectively fact. Doesn't make it real either. The Thetans he's dealing with are objectively fact. They have experienced the Truth too. At least according to you.
The more you indulged in misguided study, the further into error you fell.
The misguided study started with the Bible then. And it included apologetics suggested by Christians I knew who thought they would bring me back into the fold. They were wrong.
That you falsely call my remarks “nasty and personal” is so absurd
Perfectly grounded. You basically called me ignoble, unreputable and adolescent. Yes, you started with the personal insults. You even added foolish in this post. Yes, it reflects poorly on you and on all Christians. Yes, this nasty attitude is one thing that keeps me away. I simply don't want to be associated with such hateful people.
although you God-haters
There you go again with the lies. Well, you seem fond of quotes, so I'll leave you with this one:
"I like Jesus. It's his fan club I can't stand."
Okay, one more time, just out of a sense of duty. This is absolutely the last time I’m going to try to reason with you, so try to understand this time.
You are not rebutting my statements; you are addressing misunderstandings and distortions of what I have said.
“And a Scientologist thinks Xeno is objectively fact. Doesn’t make it real either. The Thetans he’s dealing with are objectively fact. They have experienced the Truth too.”
Back in note 38 I talked about the elephant in the living room that “skeptics” never, ever face, referring to my earlier statement that the existence of God has been empirically demonstrated to me. Now, days later, you still can’t even acknowledge the substance of the assertion, instead pretending that I am merely saying that I have a belief so strong that it assumes the character of knowledge.
That’s not what I am saying. You’ve had days to ask, but even after I repeated it and virtually rubbed your face in it, you’re still too scared even to let yourself understand the substance of my assertion.
Out of fear—not of me, but of what your intellect might discover if you took it off the leash—you equate what I am saying to a scientologist’s artificial belief in something he has never directly experienced. Scientologists have not “experienced the Truth,” because they have never physically been in the presence of a Thetan. They may believe, but they have not experienced.
“The misguided study started with the Bible then.”
It’s a poor workman who blames his tools. The problem is not with the Bible.
“and it included apologetics suggested by Christians I knew who thought they would bring me back into the fold. They were wrong.”
Of course. Anyone can “study,” but only those with open minds can learn. Scholarship is not easy, and theological scholarship is most difficult of all.
“You basically called me ignoble, unreputable and adolescent.”
Let’s be charitable and assume that you were actually…odd…enough to believe that on your first reading, unlikely as that prospect is.
Your error was subsequently explained to you, quite clearly. You have no excuse for thinking or saying that I “basically called” you those things. You are now aware that I referred to a behavior, a philosophical and theological position, and not to any person. And yet you continue to repeat the accusation, thereby transforming it from human error to groundless lie.
“Yes, this nasty attitude is one thing that keeps me away. I simply don’t want to be associated with such hateful people.”
Arrant nonsense. The only thing you find objectionable about my attitude is that I stand my ground and call fouls as they occur. It is because you can’t admit that—even to yourself—that you try to “win” the discussion by attributing bad motives to me, by inventing chimerical “insults” and trying on that basis to claim the moral high ground.
Yes, I am fond of quotations, particularly those of men more intelligent, wise, charitable, and/or holy than I. I think I’ll just throw in that Thomas Sowell quotation again, as it is so apt.
“It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.”
“I like Jesus. It’s his fan club I can’t stand.”
That particular theological error is so easily demonstrated that it’s actually a little embarrassing that you put it out there with a straight face.
And you know this how? You have quite a bit of hubris. You think only you and those of your religion can "experience" and have "objectively proved" the existence of the religious deities/beings/whatever. Your experience is subjective. The experience of a Hindu or Muslim is subjective. And you have absolutely no more logical authority to claim truth than any of those religions.
The problem is not with the Bible.
Actually, it is. Full of barbarism, contradictions and condoned immorality. That's why I looked to the apologetics, to see if maybe I was just getting it wrong. Turns out the apologetics have to use logic that is quite tortured to get around all of that. The use of tortured logic is a good sign you're supporting the unsupportable.
Of course. Anyone can “study,” but only those with open minds can learn.
I started reading because I had an open mind. Apparently I had a good enough one to be able to spot the BS.
And yet you continue to repeat the accusation, thereby transforming it from human error to groundless lie.
Don't try to downplay it.
"There speaks the authentic voice of adolescent rebellion." I'm adolescent.
"it is utterly foolish to disbelieve all the people who have reported the same experience" I'm foolish.
"Sure you have." A claim that I am lying.
"[me: no adolescent rebellion] Oh, yes. Just exactly that and nothing more noble, or even reputable." I'm ignoble and unreputable.
Your words, not mine. As I said, it is usually the Christian who gets nasty and personal first around here. You followed the trend quite well.
Sad, though. I actually have no problem with Christianity and most Christians. I identify less with the likes of Dawkins than I do with most Christians. I'm not your enemy, yet you try to turn me into one with insults and condescension. Nice job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.