Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello everyone
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 181 of 380 (712766)
12-06-2013 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Theodoric
12-06-2013 2:24 PM


Re: Some apology
Sure, you can hate Protestantism and I'm sure you do, though you may hate particular Protestants more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Theodoric, posted 12-06-2013 2:24 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by jar, posted 12-06-2013 2:39 PM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 182 of 380 (712768)
12-06-2013 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Faith
12-06-2013 2:20 PM


Re: 95 theses, Waldensians and Huguenots
Golly gee, you love those special exceptions, don't you? Comparing a spontaneous non-religiously-motivated riot over local conditions that didn't massacre anybody with the programmed religiously-motivated intentional and cruel massacres of heretics by the RCC. And you apparently did find a real "Protestant" uprising against the Jews, but you impose the term "Protestant" on it because it too was not religiously motivated as the Catholic pogroms were.
A miner I spoke to, Fred Hopkins, had been a child at the time, and he clearly recalled calls of 'let's get the Jews', and Welsh hymns being sung as they descended on the shops, suggesting a pointedly religious element to the attacks.
Afterwards the Baptists, resurgent after the Welsh Revival, refused to denounce the violence.
History debate over anti-Semitism in 1911 Tredegar riot - BBC News
OK, apparently you'd rather hate us Protestants than the RCC. I guess I'm getting used to it.
I don't hate either group, but I don't feel so indulgent to Protestants (or any other group) as to whitewash their history.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 2:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 2:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 183 of 380 (712769)
12-06-2013 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Faith
12-06-2013 2:28 PM


Re: Some apology
I cannot imagine hating particular Protestants; how could they rise to such significance?.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 2:28 PM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 184 of 380 (712770)
12-06-2013 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Faith
12-06-2013 2:27 PM


You can replicate evidence for interpretations of things IN the present. You can replicate how anything behaves in the present to prove a theory about something that is always observable in the present. That is the case with laboratory science, with physics and genetics and chemistry etc. You cannot test something that occurred in the past, meaning something historical, one-time events in the past, by evidence in the present.
So am I allowed to believe in last Wednesday? Simple question.
You can know the past only by witnesses who were there.
But how do I know whether the witnesses were there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 2:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 2:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 185 of 380 (712771)
12-06-2013 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Dr Adequate
12-06-2013 2:43 PM


If you have witnesses to last Wednesday, and it would seem you have millions of them, then you have good evidence for the existence of last Wednesday.
Maybe you DON'T know if witnesses were "there," in which case you don't have evidence do you?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2013 2:43 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2013 3:00 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 186 of 380 (712774)
12-06-2013 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Dr Adequate
12-06-2013 2:38 PM


Re: 95 theses, Waldensians and Huguenots
So good, you found some evidence of religious motivation. Good for you, Dr. A. You are a good researcher, I commend you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2013 2:38 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 187 of 380 (712776)
12-06-2013 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Faith
12-06-2013 2:47 PM


If you have witnesses to last Wednesday, and it would seem you have millions of them, then you have good evidence for the existence of last Wednesday.
"It would seem"? Sure, it seems that way, like it seems that the Earth is old. But how do I know?
Maybe you DON'T know if witnesses were "there," in which case you don't have evidence do you?
I do claim to know that the witnesses of last Wednesday were present. What I want you to think about is the basis on which I can reasonably claim to know this. How do I know?
---
Take another example. I see an apple in a supermarket. I can find no witnesses who claim to have seen it grow. Am I entitled to conclude that it grew on an apple tree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 2:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 3:27 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 188 of 380 (712783)
12-06-2013 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Dr Adequate
12-06-2013 3:00 PM


If you have witnesses to last Wednesday, and it would seem you have millions of them, then you have good evidence for the existence of last Wednesday.
"It would seem"? Sure, it seems that way, like it seems that the Earth is old. But how do I know?
By trusting the witnesses as well as your own experience. Which you can do with last Wednesday but not with the ancient earth.
Maybe you DON'T know if witnesses were "there," in which case you don't have evidence do you?
I do claim to know that the witnesses of last Wednesday were present. What I want you to think about is the basis on which I can reasonably claim to know this. How do I know?
How do you know the witnesses were present? Newspapers, television, people you talk to every day who were there, your own personal experience of events of Wednesday. Same answer as above: you know by trusting the witnesses plus your own experience. Is this a sophistic question or what?
Take another example. I see an apple in a supermarket. I can find no witnesses who claim to have seen it grow. Am I entitled to conclude that it grew on an apple tree?
[qs] Yes you are entitled to believe it grew on an apple tree because you trust the witnesses to apples growing on apple trees through your life who have told you so, and/or you believe your own experience of apples growing on that particular kind of tree. You might even be able, with diligent research, to find out which tree where, or at least which orchard, and even possibly which person or team of pickers picked it. Because all these things are traceable in the present within the range of personal observability in the present.
What you are NOT entitled to believe is that Moses didn't really live in Egypt because archaeology has used dating methods to prove that Egypt is way older than the time frame given for Moses. Dating methods exist in the present and all you have is your own guess as to what they mean about the past. You do have good evidence for the time frame from the Bible, however, and lots of witnesses therein to that time frame.
You also aren't entitled to believe that a particular fossilized impression of an apple is a certain age, because you have no way of verifying that, no witnesses to its burial, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2013 3:00 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2013 3:33 PM Faith has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 189 of 380 (712784)
12-06-2013 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Faith
12-06-2013 3:27 PM


How do you know the witnesses were present? Newspapers, television, people you talk to every day who were there, your own personal experience of events of Wednesday. Same answer as above: you know by trusting the witnesses plus your own experience. Is this a sophistic question or what?
No, I'm making a point. I don't have access to the past. What I have is access to people, in the present, claiming to be witnesses.
Yes you are entitled to believe it grew on an apple tree because you trust the witnesses to apples growing on apple trees through your life who have told you so, and/or you believe your own experience of apples growing on that particular kind of tree.
Welcome to uniformitarianism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 3:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 4:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 190 of 380 (712785)
12-06-2013 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Faith
12-06-2013 2:22 PM


Re: Some apology
Faith starts getting hysterical:
As I've said over and over and over I do not hate CATHOLICS, I'm talking about doctrines and systems of thought, ISMS, about CatholicISM, NazISM, etc etc. Puhleeze, you CAN read, can't you?
What difference does it make? You're still drinking poison expecting it to work on your hated ISM.
What difference does it make?

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 2:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 4:25 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 191 of 380 (712786)
12-06-2013 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Dr Adequate
12-06-2013 3:33 PM


No, I'm making a point. I don't have access to the past. What I have is access to people, in the present, claiming to be witnesses.
Yes, that's what you have, that's all you have, that's all any of us ever have. And what IS your point?
Yes you are entitled to believe it grew on an apple tree because you trust the witnesses to apples growing on apple trees through your life who have told you so, and/or you believe your own experience of apples growing on that particular kind of tree.
Welcome to uniformitarianism.
Don't think so. Uniformitarianism is a theory that applies to a completely unwitnessed situation, a time in the past before any human beings existed.
That's according to the theory that is. For me, I have lots of witnesses in the Bible, but all you have is your specuiations about an unwitnessed past, coupled with others' speculations, but all speculations, no witnesses, no testability, no replicability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2013 3:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2013 9:35 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 205 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-07-2013 12:43 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 192 of 380 (712787)
12-06-2013 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by xongsmith
12-06-2013 3:42 PM


Re: Some apology
I don't have an EMOTION of hatred about any of this, for pete's sake, despite some people's desire to slather me with such things. The hatred is in the judgment of some things as evil, inhumane, cruel, devious, plotting, malevolent etc. and a desire to see them exposed, resisted, stopped if possible. If you don't have that you aren't a human being. My actual emotion is more like anxiety for people to know about evils they don't know about.
And if I don't succeed it won't poison me though it will make me sad.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by xongsmith, posted 12-06-2013 3:42 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

scienceishonesty
Member (Idle past 3698 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 12-02-2013


(8)
Message 193 of 380 (712790)
12-06-2013 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
12-06-2013 4:33 AM


The fact that you think archeology and the study of past biological development is all pure speculation and no evidence whatsoever is simply an act of denial on your part, it doesn't change the actual evidence that has been and is being pieced together. You allude to the gaps in evidence in order to invalidate them but then you cling on to the biggest speculation of all, your religion.
You want to conveniently invoke the whole "no one can witness the past therefore no one can know", but little do you stop to think that by taking such a position you are declaring that there's no such thing as criminal justice and bringing criminals to justice,...because after all, how do we REALLY know that someone is guilty enough to go to jail? How can we REALLY say they are guilty when we weren't there to witness the crime? It all involves investigating the past and coming to the best conclusion that the evidence can give -- because you're right, we can't go back in time!
You suggest a lack of "verifiable evidence" for that which you want to reject but you've never needed verifiable evidence for your beliefs to begin with. This is why it's pointless even talking about "evidence" with you. You constantly argue with a double-standard. It's built right in to your whole stance.
Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.
Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.
Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.
Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.
Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 4:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 7:48 PM scienceishonesty has not replied

Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 194 of 380 (712791)
12-06-2013 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
12-05-2013 12:14 PM


Re: Evidence's role in belief vs. knowledge
I recognized the gospel of Christ as the truth given by God Himself and all the other religions as fallible human searching for God that could never get it right because we're fallen.
This is awfully reminiscent of Hugh Ross's laughable claim to have taken a year off at age 18 to read all the holy texts and in doing so determined that all religions except Christianity were false religions.
You keep going on about how we can't trust our interpretations of past events (despite the fact that they seem to line up with present observations) and how we must give precedence to the "eyewitness" testimony in the Bible. But don't the holy texts of all the other religions also contain eyewitness testimonies for their particular mythologies? Shouldn't you be giving those eyewitness testimonies as much credence as you do with your own mythology? If not, why not? If you feel the topic is too big to get into here, feel free to start a thread that proves why Christianity is the one true religion and all others are the product of human fallibility. I'm guessing you won't do this, however. It's much easier to assert that your mythology is the only correct one rather than proving it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 12-05-2013 12:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 7:55 PM Atheos canadensis has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 195 of 380 (712795)
12-06-2013 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by scienceishonesty
12-06-2013 5:25 PM


There are at least potential witnesses in the case of criminal justice and there is evidence that can be checked against other WITNESSED kinds of evidence because it all goes on within the span of time in which witnesses exist, unlike the UNwitnessed past which is what evolutionism et. al has the effrontery to think they can know about purely by standing around and looking at evidence that exists only in the present.. And I have thought about it, a LOT. Do try to follow the argument.
I consider the multiple witnesses reported in the Bible to be more than sufficient evidence myself, trustworthy human beings who were given by God to witness to unusual phenomena to testify to His reality and His word, I do think that's true verifiable evidence.
But if you don't like that, which you don't, how about this: Spiritual things are known spiritually, not through the senses. You do, however, have to believe the Bible witnesses to the extent of believing that you must be born again, meaning you must be born of the Spirit through belief in God's word in order to have that spiritual knowledge. So really, one way or the other you need the verifiable witness evidence given by the many many many witnesses in the 66 books of the Bible over about 1500 years.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-06-2013 5:25 PM scienceishonesty has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024