tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2377713085867005992..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: On a wing and a prayerRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85160014361965600052011-02-25T15:33:41.752-05:002011-02-25T15:33:41.752-05:00BYRON SAID:
"...especially when your own opi...BYRON SAID:<br /><br />"...especially when your own opinion contradicts the one recounting the personal experience first-hand."<br /><br />For reasons I've given, your personal, firsthand experience doesn't contradict the Bible. <br /><br />"Just out of curiosity, are you as critical concerning evidence from Christian believers in support of the Christian religion as you seem to be with personal experience that seems to contradict that religion? Somehow I doubt it."<br /><br />That's an IOU, not an argument. <br /><br />"...defenses of Scriptural inerrancy seem overly generous in their assumptions and allowances, compared to how any other text is treated, especially one critical of our own beliefs (or lack of beliefs)."<br /><br />That assumes the very point at issue–is it comparable to just any other text? <br /><br />"...apparently I had higher standards than your own expectations."<br /><br />What you have are confusions rather than standards.<br /><br />"I am amazed at what you manage to dismiss apparently without a second or third thought."<br /><br />You have nothing original to say. Nothing that hasn't been said before. So, yes, it's easy to dismiss.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38756950911558961012011-02-24T21:42:46.561-05:002011-02-24T21:42:46.561-05:00No, actually all you did was give some good defini...No, actually all you did was give some good definitions of evidence, inevidence, and counterevidence, explain their relationship to each other, then proceed to offer your opinion on which terms applied to my personal account and how well according to your own personal opinion. And there's nothing wrong with that. But terms with such objective definitions don't apply so neatly to subjective discourses of personal experience, especially when your own opinion contradicts the one recounting the personal experience first-hand. This could best be seen in action when changes in perspective could easily define the resulting interpretation using your own terms from individuals with different value systems (since we are judging subjective experience after all). For example, all that experience of believers you reference could be interpreted radically different using the very same defined terms you offered by skeptics, but you'd probably discount that, just like you discount my own personal experience. Just out of curiosity, are you as critical concerning evidence from Christian believers in support of the Christian religion as you seem to be with personal experience that seems to contradict that religion? Somehow I doubt it. We are all biased, especially towards our value systems and world views. And I understand you are not specifically trying to defend Christianity or answer every possible objection to it. Yet I am amazed at what you manage to dismiss apparently without a second or third thought. I want to mention one more thing about objections to believing in the inerrancy of Scripture, as well. Again, I am not completely close-minded, but defenses of Scriptural inerrancy seem overly generous in their assumptions and allowances, compared to how any other text is treated, especially one critical of our own beliefs (or lack of beliefs). It's not that I've made up my mind to dismiss any explanation out of hand, but that those explanations have to be not only well thought-out and reasonable, but also more likely than the opposing explanations which generally is not the case. That ties into the last bit of our discussion here. You accuse me of moving the goalposts and trying to give you a moving target, but actually all I am doing is trying to find ways to translate "unlikely", "improbable", and "disappointing" into whatever language you would be willing to accept as valid, and I have failed to do so. Whatever, I guess. I don't even have to prove that Christianity is impossible. All I have to do, or so I thought, was try to explain why I feel that it is unlikely or improbable, but apparently I had higher standards than your own expectations.Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26651815505034478292011-02-24T12:39:17.703-05:002011-02-24T12:39:17.703-05:00Actually, you're the one who's moving the ...Actually, you're the one who's moving the goalpost. I didn't demand that you prove Christianity is impossible. <br /><br />Rather, I cleared the underbrush by showing that many of your basic objections flounder on false, unrealistic, unreasonable expectations. <br /><br />I also pointed out that you fail to draw a proper distinction between evidence, inevidence, and counterevidence. Inevidence is not a type of counterevidence. Inevidence is neutral. <br /><br />Finally, I didn't attempt to make a positive case for Christianity, or address every ancillary objection. I've done a lot of that elsewhere.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20378529711608046902011-02-24T12:01:14.685-05:002011-02-24T12:01:14.685-05:00Steve, first of all I appreciate the friendly tone...Steve, first of all I appreciate the friendly tone of voice and that actually interact with what I am saying. But I feel like we could go back and forth for ages and not get anywhere. The reason I expect prayer to operate differently than everything else in life (well, other than religion) is that prayer involves an omniscient, omnipotent deity who has acted miraculously in the past, so believers claim, while other activities in life, such as purchasing cereal at the grocery store, presumably don't. Incidentally, I do not claim that it is impossible for God to exist. I simply do not believe in the Christian God currently, though I have Deistic moments. But, back to prayer. Our positions on this really should be reversed. I should be the believer in this scenario arguing for the efficacy and trusted witness of prayer, while you take the skeptical position and try to convince me (much as you're doing despite your apparent intentions) that prayer should operate no differently than would observing the results of blind chance and coincidence, interpreted religiously. So I give up.<br /><br />I would direct you to one of the latest posts by John Loftus at Debunking Christianity, which says it all better than I ever could.<br /><br /><a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/02/christians-demand-that-i-must-show.html" rel="nofollow"><br />Christians demand that I must show their faith is impossible before they will see that it is improbable.</a><br /><br />Cheers!Byroniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14946794635613455210noreply@blogger.com