₦airaland Forum

wanna ask some more questions to huxley?

OLAADEGBU:
Can you show me from the posts below where you have admitted ignorance to any of the questions I asked you and your bedfellows?

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-154685.0.html

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=254145.0

Look at this one for starter: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=254145.0#msg3653501

OLAADEGBU:
You do not have the monopoly to asking questions without answering back in return.  I opened a whole thread asking Atheists and Evolutionists pertinent questions, all you did was to divert attention by asking unrelated and irrelevant questions without answering any.  I responded there to your challenge about creationists in your so called peer reviews articles and you failed miserably to acknowledge or even respond to it.  You even shot yourself in the foot by opening a post challenging us to ask questions where noetic, davidylan and others as well as myself asked you some questions that we are still expecting you to answer till today.  So, when will you start to answer questions and I don't mean answering back with irrelevant questions of your own?

Well, I attempted ALL of your questions. Where I did not know, I said so, "I don't know". Do you expect me to have answers to every question in the universe? I thought that was an honest admission of my limited knowledge in some areas.

Tell me, Why don't you guys accept "I don't know" answers? Do you expect me to know everything?

noetic2:
my ignorance? lmao

The problem has not been u asking questions or me answering them. The problem has always been u answering the questions I and others ask u. Daviddylan and Olaadegbu are victims of ur inability to answer questions/queries.

whenever u start a thread and I contribute to it, I always make an effort to answer ur op questions. You have never done this in the thread I start. all you do is to attempt to change the topic of discussion to a comfortable zone. I consider this a shameful act.

Why don't we make a fresh start? You start a thread with your 20 questions and see whether I am not gonna answer them?

noetic2:
Huxley will NEVER answer any of ur questions, but believes he alone has the right to ask some.
mazaje enjoys running round in circles . . . . .never addressing the issue at hand.
toneyb is another version of mazaje.
bawomolo is in Greece looking for the scientific evidence that establishes the non-existence of God.
KAG loves playing with words. . . . .never answering ur question, pure semantics in display. (though he/she along with tudor are the most objective atheists on board)
Tudor is probably the best atheist on nairaland, simply because he never attributes all knowledge to himself and is always objective regardless of the differences, quite unlike huxley and mazaje.
wirinet is a wonder on his own I wonder if he actually reads some of his posts sometimes.

was it not you who agreed to go into a 20-20 question debate-athon but shamedfacedly pulled out after some warning from Davidylan about how I was going to exposed your ignorance?

I Have still got my question, Shall we do it now?

Looks like this is going well thus far. Half way thru the year, looks like we have had 3 or 4 new rationalists members to make the case for reason and rationalism.

Pastor AIO:
Atheism is a worldview and babies cannot be born Atheist.  To be an atheist you must first have a concept of God before you can disbelieve in his existence.

I agree (but with a little reservation). The key word here is "disbelieve".


My reservation is to do with would you define atheism or theism. If you define them as disbelief or belief in God, then babies are not in a position to disbelieve or believe in God. So babies have not made a cognitive rejection or acceptance of the god concept.

Pastor AIO:
I also do not believe that one needs to have a concept of God in order to be close to God.   If anything it puts a wedge between a man and God.

Pastor, you know better than to make statement like this and leave totally unjustified and unsupported. How can we tell if this statement is true? What does it mean to be close to God?

NO, I think it was in this POST , when you said the following;

First, empirical verification and falsifiability have nothing to do with anyone's worldviews or "belief system" - such an idea is the very crass that informed enquiry does away with. That being so, what is left of your fallacious logic?

Whichever, I still apologise.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley2,

As you can see from my reply in #316 above (previous page), I was not the one who "introduced" that in this thread (please see quotes from dalaman, bindex, William_C). I would greatly appreciate if you got your acts together and refrain from recycling the same misconception over and over again. Many thanks.

I think this is the post in which your introduced "empirical verification and falsifiability" into the thread, when you said the following:

There's no need to word it differently - because it is self-defeating. Why? Because I already made clear that "empirical verification and falsifiability have nothing to do with anyone's worldviews or belief system".

If it wasn't you who introduced them into the debate, then I apologise profusely for making a false charge against you.

wirinet:
We seem to have a basic misunderstanding or disagreement of my position as above
You should be aware i was talking about belief as opposed to scientific knowledge. First let me give you a definition of belief;

Source - Wikipedia

What i was trying to explain is that our belief system is a culmination the interpretation of all our past experience, experience of people we trust, the information we have stored from books and other sources and from information from trusted sources ( parents, pastors, gurus, etc).

Let me give one example, a person born in Tibet would find it difficult to believe that his salvation lies with a "convicted criminal" who was sentenced to capital punishment (hand on a cross) for "treasonable offense" in Palestine, by Roman authorities more than 2000 yrs ago. It will even be more absurd for him to believe this person was a God and was Killed because of the sin he had committed by being born before he was born or the sins he was about to commit. Now would you blame him no, because he had accumulated a different belief system which made those propositions absurd.

[size=16pt]So Huxley was right in saying exactly what i mean.[/size]

Let me go further.

Let me tell you how a person come into his beliefs.

When a child is born, he has no beliefs or belief system, he is basically an atheist. He is then Christened, baptized, named and given the religious instructions of his parents. He then starts to take on the belief systems of his parents. ( you can often hear one to two year olds singing praise songs). Then the child goes to school and given further indoctrination by teachers the child comes in contact with. By the time the child goes through secondary school, the belief system of the child would have been a mosaic of the beliefs of his parents, his teachers, his friends( the dominants ones) and the books he had read. By the time he finished university his belief system will be almost complete and set. It could only be broken by either traumatic event of other equally strong emotional disturbances or disappointments. That is why it is almost impossible for someone to change religion after the age of 30.

Let me also digress by telling you how the Europeans manage to convert Africans to Christianity.

When the missionaries first came to Africa, they found the task of converting the people virtually impossible, the natives were happy and satisfied with their traditional religions. My people the Itsekiris and the Ijaws were about the first to come in contact with the missionaries, but they refused to convert for a very long time. Even the binis had to be converted at gun point. Anyway what the missionaries did was to set up schools, which went on to teach western education and values along with their religion. So by the time the child finishes school, he would be mentally European and Spiritually Christian. So by the time the stubborn elders pass away, we were left western educated Christianized Africans. So the missionaries tied education to Christianity. That was how black Africa was Christianized through the back door.

The Mohammedans did not have time for that, they used brute force to convert the adults and set up schools for their children after.

Now when you talk of scientific knowledge, then you can talk of "empirical verification and falsifiability". Belief systems holds no such standard.

[size=16pt]I hope Huxley understands my arguments now.
[/size]

With respect, you will see that I in fact understood your original statement ( I think I said I agreed with it 95% ), but I had a little reservation because I thought the comment could be made more general (although I know you were referring specifically to the acquisition of beliefs.)

If you had read my comments, you would have seen me questioning the relevance of "empirical verification and falsifiability" in this post. This was introduced by Pilgrim and I thought it had no place in this debate.

SeanT21,

SeanT21:
What does the age of the earth has to do with the bible??

Anyway, I must confess, [size=14pt]I dont think for myself.[/size] NOW ITS UR TURN TO ADMIT IT!!

I like your simple honesty, but I think you have given up too soon, something typical of those who don't think for themselves. The more fundamental point is this - Why would so simple a question be enough to press you into admitting the obvious - that you are not able to think for yourself?

How typical is this flight to dogma in your life and in your community?

SeanT21:
Are U guyz not following the atheist movement How are U thinking 4 yourself??

What is the atheist movement and what is there to follow about it?

SeanT21:
Black and Atheist sounds like an oxymoron.I think we all have noticed that there are a few black atheist.Blacks around the world,especially Africa and the US, seems to all be religious.All the blacks I met believed in a higher power. I never knew there was a thing known as "BLACK ATHEIST" until I came across some on cyberspace.An atheist Jamaican friend once told me that being an atheist in Jamaica is very depressing.They look at her with disgusted looks on their faces when she explains to them her beliefs.They even go as far to insult her and use words like "lost", "satanic", etc.

"Going To church" in the black community is more like a tradition.Everyone is entitled to do so.For all my years living in the US, I have not heard of a black Atheist. I think the reason that there are so few African American atheists is because African Americans, in general, have a stronger sense, of community and being associated and attached to their communities and families. This of course can be a good thing in certain situations, but with the religion thing, they don't want to question their belief in God because they don't want to think of themselves as different than and therefore less attached to their community and family.

In Liberia and everywhere across Africa God is everywhere. Phrases like "Thank God", "God is Good", "The Devil is a Liar", "Praise God" are commonly used.Even witchcrafts belive in God. In My country Liberia, If U dare insult Jesus or God, U better hide in the tree. These people will literally murder you with their words.

Why are BLACKS IN GENERAL such huge believers in GOD? Is it because of Whites who brought christianity with them to africa that some africans deemed it the "White Mans religion"? Did White Slave owners force Christianity on their slaves?? Was Christianity in Africa before the whites arrived??

As for all the Nairalanders out there that are Atheist, what reactions do U get from Blacks in general??

SeanT21,

What is the age of the earth?  Since you claim to be able to think, how you you go about investigating the age of the earth?  

Let us leave aside who is following whom and test out our various positions here.  It is only with such tests that we will find out whose thinking is constrained by dogma.

SeanT21:
So because I am a christian I don't think for myself??

Your thinking is circumscribed by the Christian dogma, which means you would necessarily reject anything that does not satisfy the Christian doctrine.  This statement is not hard to verify.  In fact, lets put it to the test right here;

How old do you think the earth is?  C'mon, show us the level of your think on this subject.

Any new ideas?

Any new ideas?

toneyb:
It has a lot to do with our ability of not being able to think for ourselves. Black people hardly ever think for themselves(That is why we are never inventors only followers), We are NEVER encouraged to ask questions or challange constituted authorities(follow and never ask questions). We are raised to swallow everything and take it as it is being presented to us without asking why it is so or how it came about. I am mixed race, my mum is white but my dad was a yoruba man. When I first got to Australia I was very supprised at the way the white people here bring up their kids and always encourage them to think for themselves and have a mind of their own in almost every aspect of life including religion.

That is completely absent in Africa. You just have to take what is thrown at you without questioning it. And one other thing is that we are too fearful. Fear is what drives the black man in almost everything that he does, that is why we so much believe in things that have no meaning and do not contribute in any way to our societies, things like witches, demons, wizards. (These things mostly exists only in Africa much more than other places)

If you read the bible and see things that do not make sense to you like the Noah's flood where it says that the water rose 15 cubits at its highest and ask your sunday school teacher in a place like Nigeria to explain to you why the bible says the water rose 15 cubits at its peak when there are so many mountains that measure up to 100 cubits in the world, you might recieve a slap and be told that who are you a man to question god or the word of god. If you ask why there are so many contradictions in the bible you might be lucky if you go away without a slap. If you visit the koranic schools in Nigeria, Children and thought to memorize the koran with a whip, if any of them dares to ask why he should pray in arabic and not his native language, he will be lucky if he doesn't have scars on his back from the horsewhip of the koranic teacher. So we are left with nothing but fear, unnecessary fear that has been instilled in us since childhood to guide our lives.

This fear is what controls us and how we live our lives our lives. The fear of the unknown, we are too fearful, we can't question any form of constituted authority be it our parents, teachers, rulers and religious leaders. The black man does not really believe in freedom and individual thought we all like thinking and living as a community. Individual thoughts are not usually welcomed at all, that is why you see adult men and women living with their parents and having their parents, members of their families or communities thinking and deciding for them.

This inability to sit and critically evaluate things and circumstances is the reason why we are always following while other races have advanced and are moving forward while we are stagnant and unable to move forward where ever we seem to find our selves as a people. Another reason is poverty and ignorance, poor people who are always in need help are more likely to believe in god(as a source or means of lively hood or provider) than a rich person who has almost everything available to him.

Very well said.  In fact I have raised a number of thread here with a view to addressing just this lack of intellectualism in the African (in Africa and the diaspora) community.  If we Africans, do not start to redress this defficit in our community, we shall forever be the beggers and poor people of the world.

Let me see if I can find some of the threads that discuss this.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-124283.0.html

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-110955.0.html

wirinet:
Atheism is not necessarily science, but Science is Atheism.

OK, I see what you mean, but I think the phrasing is rather unfortunate. Atheism is NOT science, and Science is NOT atheism. However, science is guided by the principle of methodological naturalism (MN). MN is the principle that, in the conduct of science ONLY natural means and explanation will be provided, sought and accepted.

NOTE that MN does NOT say that the supernatural does not exist. MN is silent about the supernatural - it neither accepts nor denies the supernatural.

Now, to discuss the supernatural or the natural, one needs to invoke a different doctrine, that of Philosophical Naturalism (PN) or Metaphysical Naturalism (MPN). PN (or MPN) is in the business of addressing the question of natural and supernatural.

pilgrim.1:
This is a non-starter. How many pages ago did I first make reference to "Empirical verification and falsifiability"? And why are you complaining as if you only just woke up and saw it? I made that reference in reply to wirinet's, why didn't you object and complain back then - why now?!? None of your diversionary tactics will work in this thread, trust me. You've played that game far too long that is already weathered now. Think of a new hat-trick.

Well, the reason I have been insisting that you explain why you introduced a concept (ie "Empirical verification and falsifiability" that had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion are these:

1) Your technique of argumentation consists of making fatuous claims and charges, especially against atheists and atheism, with little or no evidence to support your claims/charges. You have this very annoying habit of using big and impressive sounding words/concept, maybe with the hope of bamboozling the readers, the weak ones of whom maybe be intimidated by your apparent "knowledge" of the concept.

I have repeated asked you to explain your understanding of these concepts and how they relate to the debate at hand, but you have been uniquely incapable to providing any explanation and reasons as to why you introduced these words/concept. That speaks a lot for your dishonesty and the sheer vacuity of your person.

Next time you wish to introduce a word/concept, please make sure you have a good grasp of it, as you will be held to account for it, especially if you use such words/concept to calumniate atheists or atheism.

2) Unwarranted and unmeritted triumphalism in the course of a debate. In the course of a discussion, you annoyingly and childishly shreak out expressions like "any comments/post will be thrown out", "I have won", "you lose", etc, etc. This is exceedingly infantile. The mature way to debate is to leave the content of your post to speak for themselves, or do you think your post cannot speak for themselves and you have to add these annoying phrases to aatempt to sway the debate.

3) You think "Because you say something, then it must be so". This is particularly annoying because you make such adhoc statements with little or no supporting evidence. For instance, I asked you to provide the conditions under which Randi would run his investigating of mediums, since you claimed that the conditions were unfair. How could you make a judgement that they are unfair when you do not know what they are?

4) You are particularly wont to make arguments based on personalities, rather than the facts or concepts expounded by the personalities.

5) You are very dishonest and deceitful. For instance, you charge Dawkins with being a 100 % there-is-no-god atheist (level 7 on the Dawkins's scale). And although I gave you Dawkins's own postion from his own book (The God Delusion), you dismissed it off-hand and will probably still regard Dawkins as a level 7 atheist.



You are just like all the Christian apologist of the past and in modern days - dishonest. From the likes of Martin Luther, Lee Strobel, McDowell, etc, etc. The one single thread that pervades you all is one of dishonest.

Now, put that in your cup and drink it.

pilgrim.1:
I didn't 'admit' your misinterpretation. This was what I threw out as immaterial -

[list][/list]

Like I said:
'The options open to you now is either move beyond this doodling recurring decimal in your failed logic; or keep repeating the very same boring moil and confirm the hollowness in your logic. I bet the latter would be more appealing to you, but I won't buy.'

Why did you introduce "Empirical verification and falsifiability" in a thread that has nothing whatsoever to do with these concepts? Was it not you who introduced them in this thread? Were you attempting to divert the thread? If that was your goal, then you succeeded, because we have spent a lot of post discussing something which should not be here in the first place.

Answer this simple question - Why did you introduce it?

pilgrim.1:
@huxley2,

Please don't cheapen this discussion - it's already gravitated to needless boredom.

What's the difference, really? You endorse it . . . were endorsing it . . . had endorsed it - whatever the position, you did so - with some reservation; or more correctly as in your quote: "a position I endorsed (with a little reservation)." My question was: why the reservation? You did NOT have reservations while endorsing it just strikes out the "little reservation" you expressed in having "endorsed" it, kwo?

Please, enough of all these games. It is immaterial whatever you endorsed or did not endorse with or without reservations however expressed.

[>pilgrim.1 rolls eyes< ] "Correct . . . Independent objective standard. . "? Was that not the very thing I had been pointing out for ages?? What was the point of your turning round and round to bore the discussion with such needless exercises only for you to come back to the same thing I've been saying all along?!? It's a bit annoying to read you circling round like this in discussions, and I do hope we can move on beyond this gamble.

I have no quarrels about your understanding of wirinet's post as I've made my point already. I asked how that deviated in any wise from the normative (or objective standard(s)) and I haven't got any answers as yet; so please let's move beyond this point.

I didn't play any games nor smuggled in anything strange as the dog-chasing-his-tail pranks you've been playing all along. Empirical verification and falsifiability have absolutely NOTHING to do with anyone's "belief system" - put in another way: "The validity of any claim should not be based on anyone's belief system." You've called that "Correct", so what's the matter? If you thought otherwise, please show how; and since you're unable to show such, what's the mental crass you've been arguing over and over since?

This is the namby-pamby logic in atheist-discussions that I long anticipated in your style - make long boring arguments, seek diversionary antics (which repeatedly fall flat on their face), scuttle round your self-defeating premise . . and when you've tired yourself out, you accuse others of any number of smoke-and-mirrors games. This evidently has not worked in your favour, nor will it do so. The options open to you now is either move beyond this doodling recurring decimal in your failed logic; or keep repeating the very same boring moil and confirm the hollowness in your logic. I bet the latter would be more appealing to you, but I won't buy. Cheers.

As you have admitted, if "Empirical verification and falsifiability" are not pertinent to the discussion WHY was it introduced into the discussion?

pilgrim.1:
Why do you have reservations while endorsing it? How is the validity of any claim based on anyone's worldviews?

No I did NOT "have reservations while endorsing it", as you said. I endorsed it while having some little reservation about the wording. Note the difference.

For instance, if you asked me to quantify how much I endorsed it, I would say 90%. With my re-phrasing, I would endorse it 98%. The other 2% is for someone else to come along and improved upon it.

pilgrim.1:
The validity of any claim should not be based on anyone's belief system.

Correct. One should hope that the validity of a proposition is rated against some independent objective standard. But this was NOT the point Wirinet was making. He was commenting on how people accept or reject candidate beliefs. When one accepts/rejects a belief it does not mean that the belief is true(valid)/false. It simply means that one has check it against some "standard" system, and one accepts or rejects it based on that one's already established "standard" (or belief system, to use Wirinet's words).

Now, how did "empirical verification and falsifiability" got smuggled into this discussion is still beyond us. All I can say is that you are trying to play smoke-and-mirrors, as is your wont.

Are you afraid ( or scared ) of God? Does he instill fear into you? Are you afraid of his infamous wrath? WHY?

Can god create an object that is too heavy for him to lift?

pilgrim.1:
I quite understand analogies and your point just doesn't cut it - hence, my asking the correlation between both words (parsimony and falsifiability) - these two ideas even in analogies are at opposite ends and irrelevant.

Why do you even need to ask when NO correlation was made or implied. I was making a higher level analogy, not anything specific about parsimony. For "Parsimony", I could have used any number of other words/concept such as "reciprocity, double-jeopardy, exclusion, etc, etc. Please, please, don't go thinking that I am correlating these to falsification again, as you seem to have difficulties with analogy.

pilgrim.1:
Did I say wirinet said that, hmm? Are you even reading at all or just doodling around? Read again:

[list][/list]

At any rate, please stop doodling around and show me how the validity of any claim depends on one's "belief system". That's all.

I posted you the link so often when I mentioned falsifiability - do you have any other ideas? Whatever example one may use to discuss falsifiability, what does it have to do with anyone's "belief system"?

If Wirinet did not use these terms, why was it relevant to the discussion? Nothing in Wirinet's post suggest the relevance of these terms. All he said was the cross-checking of a candidate belief against one's already established belief system, a position I endorsed (with a little reservation). Now, how does this warrant the introduction of "empirical verification and falsifiability"

I await to see why these concept were relevant to the debate.

pilgrim.1:
What is the correlation between parsimony and falsifiability, huxley2? Are you so desperate to divert this thread with such weak antics that you're finding it falling flat on its face repeatedly?

OK, I see your problem. You don't understand analogy. This is an ANALOGY, as indicated by the used of the phrase "It is a bit like ". Hurrrm, for goodness sake.

pilgrim.1:
When wirinet opined that the basis of accepting something as valid was whether or not it fitted one's 'belief system', my response pointed out the fallacy of that idea from the onset - that was when I mentioned falsifiability:

empirical verification and falsifiability have nothing to do with anyone's worldviews or "belief system"

Who said "empirical verification and falsifiability" were related to one's worldview? I don't think wirinet even said that. You are charging him for something he did not say or imply. Hence, the superfluity of the point.

pilgrim.1:
This discussion is not about TTE, and I'm not going to waste my time with you on that diversionary tactic.

No, I an not tryin to divert the thread, but simple giving an example of how falsification is used in science, as you have not shown that you understand the concept. Another example where falsification can be demonstrated is the "principle of the conservation of energy".

What do you understand by falsification? Still waiting!

The problem is much more fundamental that the pastors. The problem is with religion and the notion of belief and faith. This trio (religion, belief & faith) is a dangerous disease which the corrupt like Adeboye, Pastor Chris, TBJ, etc, etc use to exploit the stupid, credulous, gullible, weak-minded and idiotic.

Nigeria and most of the poor world has a huge class of stupid, credulous, gullible, weak-minded and idiotic people, hence the reason such pastors are propering in Nigeria and the poor world. As long as there are stupid people, the pastors will exploit them.

Solution - Educate the populace and make them less gullible and stupid.

pilgrim.1:
Reacting with such hell-cries is very unintelligent and self-defeating indeed. If in all possible worlds you alone in the universe do not understand what every intelligent mind can easily decipher, what in the world are you crying "what the hell" is this, that and the other for? But let me help your amusement:

1. Falsifiability does not depend on one's worldview. if it does, please show me.

2. Are you arguing that one should base falsifiability on their worldview?

Who said "falsification" depends on one's worldview? Why does it need say in this debate? It is a bit like say "The Principle of Parsimony does not depend on one's worldview". Not only does it not make any sense, it is superfluous to the discussion.

pilgrim.1:
Tsk-tsk. The first lesson you've got to learn is this: 'That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false' - miss that, miss everything! Your mind boggles with the idea that something "could be shown to be false" without the understanding of conditions on which that very thing could be falsifiable. Even so, falsifiability does not depend on anyone's worldview. QED.

Ah, nice try - are you running out of gas that you're seeking to deflect this thread to an argument about TTE? You're sounding very cheap! The point at present is not about TTE, but about the very thing that you seemed to be peeved about: that falsifiability has nothing to do with any worldview. If you believe it has to be, please show me and stop whinging about what the hell is this, that and the other.

Who said "falsfification" means that it is false. These are my words;

It is generally accepted that most "good" scientific theory must be capable of being falsified and if you formulate a theory you must state under what condition it could be shown to be false.

If a theory cannot in principle be shown to be false, then the theory is deemed unfalsifiable and more that likely rejected. With respect to The Theory of Evolution, it can be shown to be false in a number of ways. Because it can be shown to be false, it is considered a "good" scientific theory.

What, in your own words, do you understand by the term "falsification"?

pilgrim.1:
@huxley2,


In 'principle' - I do not deny your premise, nor am I in any position to oppugn your rights to appealing to such an approach for arriving at your position. The point in mine is this: broadly speaking, it is a self-defeating premise for falsifiability (which is not contingent on someone's worldview). If, on the other hand, you're saying that I should base falsifiability on someone's worldview, would you be happy for me to reject your claims based on my own theistic outlook or rather consider your statements on their own merit independent of anyone's worldviews?

What the hell does this paragraph mean? What the hell is this?

it is a self-defeating premise for falsifiability (which is not contingent on someone's worldview).

And what does this means?

should base falsifiability on someone's worldview

How does falsifiability relate to this debate? Are you referring to the concept of falsifiability that is used in science to test for the "goodness" of a scientific theory or principle?


It is generally accepted that most "good" scientific theory must be capable of being falsified and if you formulate a theory you must state under what condition it could be shown to be false. For instance Karl Popper once thought that The Theory of Evolution was not a scientific theory because it was incapable of being falsified. But upon being told about how TTE could be falsified he withdraw his opposition to TTE.

Can you think of a way in which TTE could be falsified?

How is falsification relevant in this debate?

mactao:
This is where you atheists get it wrong. You don't believe in the supernatural. Well, there are people who do. And they have supernatural evidence. Therefore, it'll take supernatural evidence to make them "change their position with regards to the resurrection of Jesus". Not a bunch of scientific papers that anyone can cook up.

You can keep saying things, but there are people who know what they've heard, seen and felt. They've heard things you havent, and seen things you havent, and felt things you havent. Therefore it's not by coming here and saying that the Bible is full of contradictions or religion addles the mind or all those things that you make people "change their positions with regards to the resurrection of Jesus." Some people won't, because they're sure.

@seyenko
They'll also give you some carbon-dating jazz, I promise you.

Have you lost you mind or what? Are you unable to address the question? If you are, why bother to post such nonsense?

pilgrim.1:
Edit:

I don't know if resorting to such tact is helping the discussion. Perhaps it may be more helpful to state precisely where you're going.

For the latest above, I would still arrive at any inference in the same way as discussed previously - such an asssertion would be considered independent of anyone's worldview. Whether or not anyone peremptorily rejects or affirms it, is not the issue.

I may come back later in the p.m. to see developments in the thread - if not, then tomorrow.

Well the point I was making was that the statement is by and large what everyone does and and standard procedure everywhere:

Let me tell to the process of believing in anything. First you get a piece of information, either directly ( first hand account) or indirectly, you compare the information with your own store of information (what you accept to be possible) and personal experience (belief system). If the said information agrees largely with your own belief system, you take the story as true, but if the information given is either insufficient or contradicts with your own store of experience and stored information, you reject the whole story.

I said I accepted it in principle, except for some minor terminological looseness. But your position was that it is blatantly wrong, which I oppose. My problem with the statement was the use of the words "own belief system".

The statement, as it stand is generally true for most people. For instance, if I said to you that I just saw a ghost or and angel, you would be minded to believe me because in your "own belief system" ghosts and angels exists. But if I said, "I just saw Mohammed or a Jinn" you are most unlikely to believe me.

Now, how did you arrive at your position? Obviously, by referring to "your own belief system".

When Pastor Adeboye claims that Jesus spoke to he, do you think a moslem is likely to believe him?


My only quibble with the comment was the use of the words "own belief system", which as I have admitted is generally true is not very "objective" and therefore lacks generality. To make is more precise and therefore objective, I would tend to use the phrase;

a universally accepted standard system

Much as you hate to admit, that is why you found it hard to address my last question above. It is universally accepted that light particles are not capable of penetrating through layers of solid objects. How do we know this? - Because, solids objects reflect light. So you would intially reject the claim based on the universally accepted standard "that solid objects reflect light particles"

Note: to have a "universally accepted standard system" does not mean that one has the TRUTH. Everyone uses one of standard, or they may use their private or some communal one. For instance, When I said;

I have just seen Jesus walking on the street past my front door.


You are likely to reject this base on your "own belief system" which is Christianity, according to which Jesus is currently not on earth. But did you admit that? Far from it. This is what you said:

It is different from the above because that is a statement that has not materialized into an argument. If I were to then take it as an argument, I would first have to ask if it was "constructed along the lines" of the same weakness I observed earlier - basically, just because I have not experienced 'Jesus walking on the street past my front door' does not make your claim a "false" or an "impossible" one. Nor can I say that it is "true" - and independent of anyone's worldview(s) (mine included), your claim stands on its own merit and not on whether or not you're an atheist or I am a Christian theist.

What the hell was that? Is there an sense in that comment at all? Some honesty would go a long way, my dear.