Argument from personal revelation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-08-2017, 06:14 AM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2017 06:21 AM by nosferatu323.)
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(25-08-2017 05:08 AM)morondog Wrote:  Well look at you nosferatu, getting all skeptical. You're not exactly keeping silent since Cthulu was used to justify taking your money, are you? So can we agree that it was a fucking dumb idea to suggest keeping quiet in the first place?

I didn't make any judgements about the original claim of "Cthulu told me to charge you more" so I remained quiet about it. I simply asked "Who is Cthulu?", the tax man starts to give me nonsensical answers and I'm pointing out that his answers are nonsensical and they cannot be a description of a being called Cthulu, as long as he has not given me a proper answer, I think it's not reasonable for me to make judgements about his original claim.

Back to the original discussion, I think when someone says something like "God talked to me", it's reasonable to ask who is God? If he cannot give us a proper and coherent answer of what God is, we can suggest him to avoid sharing his experience until he finds out who God is. Making judgements about his claim is not reasonable, I think.

BTW, I think I'm just repeating my position. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to express my thoughts about this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2017, 06:20 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(25-08-2017 05:04 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  When you starting getting into the area of: what does X mean? What does Y mean?, I think you can do that about every word/meaning of something forever and a day, so it's a bit of a waste of my time, If I'm being honest.
My whole point is that the area of "What does X mean?" is essential. The semantics of a claim must first be understood before any judgments can be made about it or any questions asked about it.

I don't agree that we can do this with every word. The terms that are commonly being used in scientific literature are quite clear for example, and I think if we want to have a serious and logical talk about something, we should have the same sort of commitment that scientists have when they want to talk about things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2017, 06:24 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(25-08-2017 06:14 AM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  
(25-08-2017 05:08 AM)morondog Wrote:  Well look at you nosferatu, getting all skeptical. You're not exactly keeping silent since Cthulu was used to justify taking your money, are you? So can we agree that it was a fucking dumb idea to suggest keeping quiet in the first place?

I didn't make any judgements about the original claim of "Cthulu told me to charge you more" so I remained quiet about it. I simply asked "Who is Cthulu?", the tax man starts to give me nonsensical answers and I'm pointing out that his answers are nonsensical and they cannot be a description of a being called Cthulu, as long as he has not given me a proper answer, I think it's not reasonable for me to make judgements about his original claim.

Back to the original discussion, I think when someone says something like "God talked to me", it's reasonable to ask who is God? If he cannot give us a proper and coherent answer of what God is, we can suggest him to avoid sharing his experience until he finds out who God is. Making judgements about his claim is not reasonable, I think.

BTW, I think I'm just repeating my position. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to express my thoughts about this.

... Exactly what qualifies as keeping silent then, according to you? If you choose to play semantic games but still push back against Cthulu belief, then it's the same as me who don't play those games and push back. So... enjoy playing word definition games I guess.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
25-08-2017, 06:36 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(25-08-2017 06:24 AM)morondog Wrote:  So... enjoy playing word definition games I guess.

That's like, part two of Scrabble. Blink

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2017, 06:54 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(25-08-2017 06:24 AM)morondog Wrote:  ... Exactly what qualifies as keeping silent then, according to you?
To avoid making any sort of judgments about something is what I mean by being silent about it.

Quote:but still push back against Cthulu belief, then it's the same as me who don't play those games and push back. So... enjoy playing word definition games I guess.
I don't push back Cthulu belief. I just ask who Cthulu is, and I would neither accept nor reject the Cthulu belief before I know what it means. I'd be in a state of complete uncertainty regarding the Cthulu belief, you would be in a state of relative certainty, these are clearly different.

I think what you call semantic games is essential in any logical endeavor. It's reasonable to make sure the symbols that one is using in his propositions are clearly defined before putting those propositions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2017, 09:06 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(25-08-2017 06:54 AM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  I'd be in a state of complete uncertainty regarding the Cthulu belief, you would be in a state of relative certainty, these are clearly different.

Uncertainty = not believing = disbelief
There is no certainty in belief. Either you do or you dont.
There is no middle ground between belief and disbelief Facepalm

Belief also has nothing to do with judgement, i frankly dont why you are repaeting this ad nauseum. If somebody makes a claim, any claim, you either accept it or you dont. You dont believe 90%, you arent certainly believing or uncertinly believing, bullshit artist.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2017, 09:12 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(25-08-2017 06:54 AM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  
(25-08-2017 06:24 AM)morondog Wrote:  ... Exactly what qualifies as keeping silent then, according to you?
To avoid making any sort of judgments about something is what I mean by being silent about it.

Quote:but still push back against Cthulu belief, then it's the same as me who don't play those games and push back. So... enjoy playing word definition games I guess.
I don't push back Cthulu belief. I just ask who Cthulu is, and I would neither accept nor reject the Cthulu belief before I know what it means. I'd be in a state of complete uncertainty regarding the Cthulu belief, you would be in a state of relative certainty, these are clearly different.

I think what you call semantic games is essential in any logical endeavor. It's reasonable to make sure the symbols that one is using in his propositions are clearly defined before putting those propositions.

Funnily enough, you're not the only clown who's studied logic, and definitions are circular. Therefore are left out of formal logic. All that matters is axioms. Of course the fuckers then go and tie themselves in knots about meta-logic and all that shit, thus demonstrating that the human brain built for finding hot girls and running away from things that want to eat us is not so hot on universe-comprehension.

You can carry on flapping about not judging people if you think it's helpful Smile I'll judge them quite happily. They're fuckin' eejits.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
25-08-2017, 09:13 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(24-08-2017 12:09 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  
(24-08-2017 08:42 AM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  Except you have so many different versions of the supposedly same god that it renders it all meaningless; there can be no "one true god" if there are millions of different versions of god that are all "right".

I think your conclusion does not necessarily follow, there can be inconsistent descriptions about a thing, yet the inconsistency can be merely due to the ignorance of those who describe it. There is a well known analogy called "Blind men and an elephant", which is used to illustrate this point.

It's about a group of blind people who learn about and conceptualize an elephant by touching it. Each man touches a specific part of the elephant and describes it based on that partial experience. They describe the elephant as something like a snake (trunk), rope (tail), spear (tusk) or tree (legs) depending on where they touched. All descriptions are in disagreement and all are wrong, but all of them are also partially right.

And as with most apologetic analogies, it doesn't fly. You know why.....we can prove elephants are real. You still can't prove a god is real.

Add that to the "prove you have a brain, the wind" and every other silly analogy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ResidentEvilFan's post
25-08-2017, 09:22 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(24-08-2017 12:07 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(22-08-2017 09:26 AM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  Same here; I was taught "feelings" were bad.....when they told you to do something that against their teachings, but they would turn around and use the "feelings" argument against atheism and we would regularly sing a song that had a line that said something like "I know Jesus lives because he lives within my heart".
I'll bet it's He Lives

Partial lyrics (from memory, emphases mine):

I serve a risen saviour
He's in the world today
I know that he is living
whatever men may say.

.... (Chorus)

He lives! He lives! Christ Jesus lives today
He walks with me and talks with me
along life's narrow way.
He lives! He lives! He lives within my heart!
You ask me how I know he lives?
He lives within my heart
.

This is a pretty good summary: no matter what "mere men" might contrive to say, Jesus lives, because I has good feels in my "heart".

This is the "proof" offered, sung about, rehashed and rehearsed by the faithful day in and out.

Yep, that the one. What a bunch of bullshit lyrics. Imagine if that were an actual conversation.

Believer: "He lives!"
Skeptic: "He does? How do you know?"
Believer: "You ask me how I know he lives?"
Skeptic: "Yeah that's what I just said..."
Believer: "He lives WITHIN MY HEART!"

[Image: Colin-Farrell-WTF.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ResidentEvilFan's post
25-08-2017, 09:33 AM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2017 11:29 AM by BikerDude.)
RE: Argument from personal revelation
I counter that God has revealed to me that they are full of shit.
That is my story and how dare they dismiss my revelation out of hand!
How dare they be so arrogant.

[Image: anigif_enhanced-26851-1450298712-2.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like BikerDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: