Hypothetical Question for Christians

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Why are you recycling stuff I already responded to?
Your response in post #389 to my post #387 only mentioned a point about claims vs beliefs. I pointed out that the distinction between a claim and a belief was irrelevant, and that has gone unchallenged, but you still have not respond to the points from my post #387.

I did you the courtesy in my post #397 of quoting the specific questions and points I made to which I did not see you respond. You might do me the courtesy of specifying where you think your responses are that you've already made.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Your response in post #389 to my post #387 only mentioned a point about claims vs beliefs. I pointed out that the distinction between a claim and a belief was irrelevant,

No it's not. I have an obligation to prove my claims, not my beliefs.


I did you the courtesy in my post #397 of quoting the specific questions and points I made to which I did not see you respond. You might do me the courtesy of specifying where you think your responses are that you've already made.

In order to ground our epistemology in something objective, which then ensures that we actually know what we know. Which is the whole point of this discussion.

The presence of God is as objective to me as the computer screen in front of me.

. . . . If you don't have to verify your senses, you can claim that you have any sense whatsoever - I have a sense of magnetism! - and no challenge is possible.

I already "did you the courtesy" of responding to that.
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
No it's not. I have an obligation to prove my claims, not my beliefs.
Is this why you dance around so much and refuse to be upfront with your beliefs?
Because then you place yourself into a position wherein you are forced to defend them?

If your beliefs are that difficult to defend, doesn't this suggest that maybe your beliefs ought be reconsidered?

PS
Why can't you state your beliefs and then, when push comes to shove, just deny having ever done so?
You know, like you do with your claims!
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
No it's not. I have an obligation to prove my claims, not my beliefs.
How do you define "belief" such that you don't have an obligation to demonstrate that you have a spirit-sense?

The presence of God is as objective to me as the computer screen in front of me.
We're not talking about the existence of God, we're talking about whether your spirit-sense is real.


I already "did you the courtesy" of responding to that.
This hinges on your point about belief, so I'll let that play out. But that wasn't the courtesy I was talking about, I was talking about the courtesy of quoting previous posts so what you reference is clear.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Is this why you dance around so much

No, that's because, according to my ancestry.com results, I have a small % of Latin blood in me.

Because then you place yourself into a position wherein you are forced to defend them?

The position in which I often place myself is the lotus one in which I'm forced to defend myself from cramps.


If your beliefs are that difficult to defend, doesn't this suggest that maybe your beliefs ought be reconsidered?

I DO think I should reconsider my belief Dirk Blocker was a chip off the old block.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
How do you define "belief" such that you don't have an obligation to demonstrate that you have a spirit-sense?

I don't define it, with or without an obligation. I just believe.


We're not talking about the existence of God, we're talking about whether your spirit-sense is real.

OK. And ...?

This hinges on your point about belief, so I'll let that play out. But that wasn't the courtesy I was talking about, I was talking about the courtesy of quoting previous posts so what you reference is clear.

Uh, thanks you for that courtesy. I guess.
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
No, that's because, according to my ancestry.com results, I have a small % of Latin blood in me.



The position in which I often place myself is the lotus one in which I'm forced to defend myself from cramps.




I DO think I should reconsider my belief Dirk Blocker was a chip off the old block.
Why do you post here?
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
I don't define it, with or without an obligation. I just believe.
Now this is just sophistry, because I wasn't asking you to define your beliefs, I was asking you to define the word "belief." That is, what do you intend to communicate when you use the word "belief?" This is so basic and obvious that I can only assume you're being deliberately obtuse.


OK. And ...?
So don't bring up your belief in your god when we're talking about your belief in your spirit-sense. It's not relevant. Yet.

Uh, thanks you for that courtesy. I guess.
I wish I could thank you for your lack of a similar courtesy.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Waste of time
The problem, Tree, as I'm sure you'll agree, is that, while Stiggy has a real ability to think logically when he wants to (usually when he critiques an atheist's post), his arguments eventually have to twist themselves into a pretzel and become transparent word games, deflections, obtuseness, and other sophistry.

It's a real shame. I respect Stiggy's intellect and logic immensely, but it is inevitably - every single time in my experience - spoiled by sophistry.
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
The problem, Tree, as I'm sure you'll agree, is that, while Stiggy has a real ability to think logically when he wants to (usually when he critiques an atheist's post), his arguments eventually have to twist themselves into a pretzel and become transparent word games, deflections, obtuseness, and other sophistry.

It's a real shame. I respect Stiggy's intellect and logic immensely, but it is inevitably - every single time in my experience - spoiled by sophistry.
Agreed

And it IS a shame
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Now this is just sophistry, because I wasn't asking you to define your beliefs, I was asking you to define the word "belief."

That which I think is true.

So don't bring up your belief in your god when we're talking about your belief in your spirit-sense.

I wouldn't have the former without the latter.

I wish I could thank you for your lack of a similar courtesy.

That was quite discourteous.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
The problem, Tree, as I'm sure you'll agree, is that, while Stiggy has a real ability to think logically when he wants to (usually when he critiques an atheist's post), his arguments eventually have to twist themselves into a pretzel and become transparent word games, deflections, obtuseness, and other sophistry.

It's a real shame. I respect Stiggy's intellect and logic immensely, but it is inevitably - every single time in my experience - spoiled by sophistry.

I have noticed that most threads in which you engage myself and other Christians deteriorate into unfounded vague complaints on your part that your points are not being addressed, and even though next to Algor, you are my favorite atheist here, I find that very annoying. We usually start out quite well.
 
Top