The Spock principle

[vz71]

Why would you argue with someone who reject facts?

Indeed.

CAF is replete with examples of people that do not accept facts.
As to why continue the argument…the audience is listening.

Oh, and it did not go unnoticed that you ducked the question rather then handle it.

 

[Spock]

CAF is replete with examples of people that do not accept facts.
As to why continue the argument…the audience is listening.

Examples, please? I hope you are not just another Della who refuses to substantiate what she says.

Oh, and it did not go unnoticed that you ducked the question rather then handle it.

Which question?

 

[vz71]

Examples, please? I hope you are not just another Della who refuses to substantiate what she says.

Why substantiate someone that is not reading the posts?
As to why I believe this, see below…

Which question?

So if I am arguing with someone that rejects facts, I should also toss out facts as well?

Remember that question?
It would be odd if you did not. As is, it supports a belief that you are not reading the posts of your own thread.
As I recall, you ducked the question.
I trust you now have had sufficient time to come up with a response now.

 

[Spock]

Remember that question?
It would be odd if you did not. As is, it supports a belief that you are not reading the posts of your own thread.
As I recall, you ducked the question.
I trust you now have had sufficient time to come up with a response now.

You must be kidding. No, you should not discard the facts. Is that what you wanted to hear? I thought it is obvious. What are those facts that people refuse to accept?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Why not? You do believe in the Bible, the cathecism, the infallibility of the pope, etc… To argue based upon those is to use your playing field.

Yes, I realize I believe that stuff. I am not arguing that.
I am arguing this because 95% of my encounters with Bible-using atheists have were under the assumption that their interpretations were correct when they were completely wrong. It would be my playing field IF they were ASKING me about something. That is fine. But 95% of the time, they are TELLING me what it means. See the difference?

 

[tonyrey]

Spock:

You are begging the question by assuming that "rational, secular

You are begging the metaphysical question by assuming that “secular methods” are the most reliable guide to the nature of reality. You take it for granted that science is our highest form of knowledge even though it is based on metascientific principles.

You haven’t explained how you distinguish rational from secular…

My playing field (for better or for worse) is the one where no reference is made to faith, revelation, and authority - as an argument. If you can argue on that ground, you can convince me. Otherwise you cannot.

There is another ground you have forgotten: the metaphysical. Your reference to “secular” implies materialism or physicalism - which needs justification.

 

[Betterave]

Get real. You never refuted anything, you only claimed that you did, and always in a condescending and taunting fashion. Now I challenge you: come clean and actually refute these two specific arguments. Remember, post #27 was a parable, in response to a parable. The other one about the role of authority in science is clear and simple. Refute it. Go ahead, make my day.

“Get real”? Don’t be so silly and hypocritical. I *did *claim that you have been refuted many times and I gave you an example of where. Thus I did *not *only claim that I refuted you. (And in pointing this out, I have just refuted you yet again, albeit on a different point. ) The scientism thread is a lengthy one and I am certainly not going to repeat that thread here. Go refer to it yourself. You might have recognized this as the intellectually honest and responsible thing to do, and done it already, *if *you had been faithfully rehearsing the “anti-Spock principle,” as I recommended. You need to “make” your own “day” by learning to take good advice and opening your mind. I can’t do that for you.

 

[Spock]

Yes, I realize I believe that stuff. I am not arguing that.
I am arguing this because 95% of my encounters with Bible-using atheists have were under the assumption that their interpretations were correct when they were completely wrong. It would be my playing field IF they were ASKING me about something. That is fine. But 95% of the time, they are TELLING me what it means. See the difference?

Now, let’s see. The atheists say what they consider the correct interpretation. You say what you consider the correct interpretation. Who will be the judge? Is it the Catholic Church?

That would be nice if the church would create a “Catholic Annotated Bible”, where each verse would be spelled out with the proper interpretation attached to it (and if there are many possible correct interprtations, then it would list all). But there is no such book. Not even one where it would be stated, which verse is to taken literally and which one is to be taken allegorically, even if the allegorical part is not explained. So we have two opposing views, and that is all. Moreover, during the years I was around here, I have not seen one instance, where the Catholic poster would say: “hey, you are wrong. This is the correct interpretation: …”. Not once.

 

[Spock]

“Get real”? Don’t be so silly and hypocritical. I *did *claim that you have been refuted many times and I gave you an example of where. Thus I did *not *only claim that I refuted you. (And in pointing this out, I have just refuted you yet again, albeit on a different point. ) The scientism thread is a lengthy one and I am certainly not going to repeat that thread here. Go refer to it yourself. You might have recognized this as the intellectually honest and responsible thing to do, and done it already, *if *you had been faithfully rehearsing the “anti-Spock principle,” as I recommended. You need to “make” your own “day” by learning to take good advice and opening your mind. I can’t do that for you.

Just another Della, who refuses to come clean. No surprise there.

 

[Spock]

You haven’t explained how you distinguish rational from secular…

There is no difference. Secular means without referring to faith or theology. Rational is the same. If you have rational explanation for something, you don’t need faith. If faith is needed, it is no longer rational.

There is another ground you have forgotten: the metaphysical. Your reference to “secular” implies materialism or physicalism - which needs justification.

Metaphysics = speculation. And materialism does not need justification, or if you really want justification, look at its results. By their fruits you shall know them - says the Bible.

 

[Betterave]

If it comes to that, I certainly will. I will bring up the generic principle that “there can be no full responsibility if there is deficient information”. And only I can decide what is sufficient information for me. I make decisions based upon the information available to me. If you can make it clear on my terms that I am wrong, so be it. I will admit it. But I do not accept the method of snake-oil peddlers whose only “argument” is “trust meeee…”.

You are not God; you are just a fallible man like the rest of us. (And possibly even a great fool - I’m not asserting that you are, just that it is possible; and it’s interesting that you chose to ignore my questions on this point - your failure to respond to objections against your stated position indicates that your “playing field” is not a very rational one.) Thus you do not have any a priori right to assert “your terms” over against those of anyone else. And not one of us has a right to assert “our terms” over against those of God. We can certainly question God; but only a fool thinks it would be possible for him to correct God on judgment day. “God’s terms” are based on omniscience; as such they cannot possibly be deficient.

You seem to ignore the fact that what counts as “sufficient” information must be determined relative to the end or purpose of such information, in this case, its only partial role in the emergence of a “finished” (for better or for worse) human person, whose intellectual development - whether this is in the direction of flourishing or withering - is determined by both understanding and will, knowledge and love.

 

[Spock]

You are not God; you are just a fallible man like the rest of us. (And possibly even a great fool - I’m not asserting that you are, just that it is possible; and it’s interesting that you chose to ignore my questions on this point - your failure to respond to objections against your stated position indicates that your “playing field” is not a very rational one.) Thus you do not have any a priori right to assert “your terms” over against those of anyone else. And not one of us has a right to assert “our terms” over against those of God. We can certainly question God; but only a fool thinks it would be possible for him to correct God on judgment day. “God’s terms” are based on omniscience; as such they cannot possibly be deficient.

You seem to ignore the fact that what counts as “sufficient” information must be determined relative to the end or purpose of such information, in this case, its only partial role in the emergence of a “finished” (for better or for worse) human person, whose intellectual development - whether this is in the direction of flourishing or withering - is determined by both understanding and will, knowledge and love.

You know, what? Let God come down, and decide. I will accept his judgment.

 

[Betterave]

Just another Della, who refuses to come clean. No surprise there.

You’re a real joker, Spock. You prove my point yet again from my original post in this thread:

“If your opponent in an argument is really closed-minded, he’ll probably ignore whatever he possibly can, just because he can.”

"Here’s my proposal for a more aptly named “Spock principle”:

If you make a bad argument and someone explains your error, insult the person who pointed out your error * and go repeat the same error in some other thread [or in the same thread ], all the while patronizingly and publicly congratulating yourself for your stellar reasoning skills (for example, by starting threads like this one). Never admit your own ignorance or the fallaciousness of your own reasoning, even when these are clearly and publicly pointed out to you."

I certainly don’t mind the comparison to Della though - she is clearly an open-minded and intelligent person. Too bad you missed that.*

 

[Betterave]

You know, what? Let God come down, and decide. I will accept his judgment.

Of course you will! (Now you’re being reasonable. )

 

[jmcrae]

You know, what? Let God come down, and decide. I will accept his judgment.

He just might. Fear the day.

 

[Spock]

Of course you will! (Now you’re being reasonable. )

He just might. Fear the day.

I have nothing to fear. Either God is reasonable, and then we shall be good buddies, or God is the tyrannical, egotistical, self-centered being of the Bible. If he is reasonable, I have nothing to fear, and that is the bet I am making. If I am wrong, and you are right, then there will be some nice everlasting fire, but that is ok. I like warmth, and hate cold. Oh, and don’t try to scare me.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Is it possible to erase a post?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I have nothing to fear. Either God is reasonable, and then we shall be good buddies, or God is the tyrannical, egotistical, self-centered being of the Bible. If he is reasonable, I have nothing to fear, and that is the bet I am making. If I am wrong, and you are right, then there will be some nice everlasting fire, but that is ok. I like warmth, and hate cold. Oh, and don’t try to scare me.

Exactly my point about atheists using the Bible.

You forgot this option:
He is the reasonable, omnibenevolent of the Bible.

 

[tonyrey]

Secular means without referring to faith or theology.

In other words it presupposes the physical universe is the sole reality.

If you have rational explanation for something, you don’t need faith. If faith is needed, it is no longer rational.

All rational arguments are based on faith in the power of reason.

Metaphysics = speculation.

False! Meta-physics = that which is beyond physics, i.e. the principles on which physics is based. The logical positivists failed miserably in their attempt to dispose of metaphysics.

And materialism does not need justification, or if you really want justification, look at its results.

Your dogmatism reveals your ignorance. The theory of materialism was formulated by human minds. Our primary data are our thoughts and perceptions from which we infer the existence of material objects.

By their fruits you shall know them - says the Bible.

Indeed. The success of science demonstrates** the power of reason **- as opposed to blind processes…

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Not quite sure how you get this:

Now, let’s see. The atheists say what they consider the correct interpretation. You say what you consider the correct interpretation. Who will be the judge? Is it the Catholic Church?

That would be nice if the church would create a “Catholic Annotated Bible”, where each verse would be spelled out with the proper interpretation attached to it (and if there are many possible correct interprtations, then it would list all). But there is no such book. Not even one where it would be stated, which verse is to taken literally and which one is to be taken allegorically, even if the allegorical part is not explained. So we have two opposing views, and that is all. Moreover, during the years I was around here, I have not seen one instance, where the Catholic poster would say: “hey, you are wrong. This is the correct interpretation: …”. Not once.

From this:
Yes, I realize I believe that stuff. I am not arguing that.
I am arguing this because 95% of my encounters with Bible-using atheists have were under the assumption that their interpretations were correct when they were completely wrong. It would be my playing field IF they were ASKING me about something. That is fine. But 95% of the time, they are TELLING me what it means. See the difference?

Ok… You did NOT get my point or see the difference. I am not saying the Church’s interpretation is the correct one. I am just saying that an atheist should have no (name removed by moderator)ut on theological interpretation. They use the Bible’s interpretation for their Atheology, which is a contradiction. Just because I say someone has a wrong interpretation does not mean I have the right one. If I say you are wrong in your answer of 24.3 X 54.32, that does not even imply that I have the right answer. I just know the wrong ones. Gee… I wonder kind of unwarranted parallel you are going to gather from this. (I hope I am wrong)

You are reading way too much into my response. In concordance with formal argumentation with a Catholic and an atheist, the Bible should be used minimally, if at all. If it is used on the atheist side, then it should be used in an interrogative manner instead of TELLING the Catholic that a verse is inconsistent with this verse and therefore it is wrong. I have been told I was wrong BY AN ATHEIST on an interpretation of a verse. That is an oxymoron, or at least it should be. If it is used on the Catholic side, then it better be for a damn good reason. Personally, I rarely use it. To me, the Bible is not a textbook as some Protestants and most, if not all, atheists (understandably) claim it to be.

And I am NOT saying that the atheist should be warm and cuddly in their questions like “I lovingly ask you dearest Gregg, what do these two passages mean?” There are many ways they can ask without actually asking. Like “Ok then… Explain this inconsistency here…” or even “I do not believe what you say because it says this here…” Those are fine and many other ways… An atheist saying, “Nope, you are wrong… This is what this verse means” (and other various ways) is what I am talking about. Nothing more… as you seem to be assuming.