Justifying Your WorldView to an Impartial Onlooker.

IAmTheReign

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wasn't so much deriding as pointing out that self identification as a Christian doesn't necessarily make a Christian (if there is such a thing as a real Christian and a not real Christian).

You obviously feel that there is such a thing as a 'not real' Christian, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up. So tell me what exactly is it that you think does make someone a Christian?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure where the irony is supposed to occur here. Not following any fixed views set by a particular church wouldn't be the definition of a cultural Christian (which would seem to be required of me in order for there to be irony in my "deriding" cultural Christians

The irony is that in a thread about your worldviews you've continually dodged the question of what it is you believe. When I asked what to most Christians would be a relatively simple question of what denomination you belong to you couldn't even answer that. You said you were loosely evangelical and didn't follow fixed views from a central body. This is exactly the kind of handwavy response I would typically get from someone who claims to be Christian but never thinks too hard about it. You though do seem to be someone who has thought about it so I have to wonder why you are so reluctant to explain.

antiskeptic

Iamthereign wrote:

You obviously feel that there is such a thing as a 'not real' Christian, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up.

Obviously I do think there are real Chtistians and folk who identify as Christians but who aren't really.

You said I was deriding . Can we take it that wasn't shown by you. That that was an unsupported claim?

So tell me what exactly is it that you think does make someone a Christian?

They are born again by act of God. He takes that action when someone surrenders themselves to him a.k.a hoists the white flag on the rebellion against they were born into by very nature. The shape of that surrender will very tremendously from person to person, so there is no fixed formula for it, other than the person surrender. Surrender is the common ancestor as it were.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure where the irony is supposed to occur here. Not following any fixed views set by a particular church wouldn't be the definition of a cultural Christian (which would seem to be required of me in order for there to be irony in my "deriding" cultural Christians

The irony is that in a thread about your worldviews you've continually dodged the question of what it is you believe. When I asked what to most Christians would be a relatively simple question of what denomination you belong to you couldn't even answer that. You said you were loosely evangelical and didn't follow fixed views from a central body. This is exactly the kind of handwavy response I would typically get from someone who claims to be Christian but never thinks too hard about it. You though do seem to be someone who has thought about it so I have to wonder why you are so reluctant to explain.

Saying I'm loosely evangelical isn't a dodge. How can it be if thats what I am?

The reason I don't follow a mainstream or take my views from mission control is that I don't share the views of any central body. I don't see a particular problem with that whereas you do. Do you follow a mainstream belief system? Do you take your instruction from a central body (eg "the peer review journals says it, I believe it, that settles it" a la southern US Christians to think of but one section of Chrisitianity)

As for dodging the thread. Well, we've seen its not so straightforward. Indeed, handwavvy seems to be about the core of the response to the problem of this impartial onlooker.

antiskeptic

Nobelium wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

pointing out that self identification as a Christian doesn't necessarily make a Christian (if there is such a thing as a real Christian and a not real Christian).

I'm not sure where the irony is supposed to occur here. Not following any fixed views set by a particular church wouldn't be the definition of a cultural Christian (which would seem to be required of me in order for there to be irony in my "deriding" cultural Christians

What makes self identify as a "Christian", and which parts of scripture do you either either interpret to suit yourself, or ignore ?
You're one of those people who likes to preach all about what other people should be doing instead of what you should be doing.
- How's that plank in your own eye ?

Your question is a bit garbled so I can't answer it.

Your plank seems to rest on the view that all people who say they are Christians are Christians (contrary to my view). I doubt you can substantiate that.

antiskeptic

IAmTheReign wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm claiming the assertion that modern Christianity has moved on from the idea of total depravity (on which there are various views btw)isn't supported by citing the viewpoint of a specific branch of Christianity dating from the mid-1800's.

You claimed that total depravity, which seems to be part of your core worldview was a mainstream idea. Myself and others on this thread have pointed it out that it is not exactly a widely held belief, and the other posters quote supports that. Now unless you can show that it is a belief that is growing in popularity among Christians I think we can all agree that it is not in fact a mainstream belief.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The same justification you presumably have for believing what you believe to be the most accurate take on something upon which people differ in view. What makes best sense to you, from all the arguments made.

This probably isn't the best place to get into the theological specifics of how sin is thought to infect or influence people

This is exactly the place to get into those specifics! We're asking about YOUR worldview after all. Now you're saying this idea of total depravity makes best sense to you based on all the arguments. Can you explain what those arguments are, and why you feel they make the most sense to you specifically? Did you compare different Christian beliefs in order to come to your conclusion? What about the other Abrahamic faiths, did you consider those and their belief systems too?

I think you'll find you baited and switched. I didn't say that total depravity was a "mainstream idea". I did say it appeared in some recognised brands and in other subsets.

I countered the suggestion that modern (i.e. today's) Christianity had moved on from Total Depravity, since the suggestion was based on a quote from a branch of Christianity, dated mid 1800's

You would have to do something like find out how prevalent the view was then and how prevalent the view today in order to comment on what modern Christianity has done (whether moving on or otherwise). I'd emphasis 'you' since 'you' was making the claim about its fall from grace in modern times.

A little bit of rigour goes a long way in these discussions. It avoids accidental bait and switches.

As for your demand? Another bait and switch. I didn't enter this thread to address 'we're'. 'We're' is a group of atheists and agnostics with an antagonistic view towards all things theism. Pearls before swine (no offence but that's what I'd be doing since the evidence direction path demanded by "we're" would be .. drum roll ... empirical).

The offer of the OP was for an impartial onlooker. Remember. Producing that onlooker is a problem that lies in the OP's court. I've no need or desire for a 'we're' desired change of tack.

Rigour, my friend.

volchitsa

antiskeptic wrote: »

The offer of the OP was for an impartial onlooker. Remember. Producing that onlooker is a problem that lies in the OP's court. I've no need or desire for a 'we're' desired change of tack.

Rigour, my friend.

So would it be fair to sum up your response to the OP's question of how you would justify your world view as "I can't" then?

After all, you say that the reasons you've given apply to everyone, ie there is no impartial observer. Therefore you can't justify your views to ordinary mortals - is that it?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

The exact cause of death is largely moot. People live longer and healthier lives than they did in the past. You seem to think this is not progress and hence a bad thing but I'd suggest you're in a tiny minority there.

Wonder why that is.

That we now can consider this from a rational standpoint is also progress.

So let's consider, rationally, our ever increasing lifespan from the viewpoint of finite resources and the effect on those further down the line.

We have resource shortages because the amount of resources we consume, the amount of pollutants we create and our overall impact on the environment is largely function of the size of our population.

We have resource shortages because resources are finite and we constantly consume. Whether we consume at a slower rate or a faster rate isn't relevant. What's relevant is that resources are finite.

And a time will come (because it happens already) when someone will find their lives are a struggle for resources (and you know what that means, typically .. war) because ever longing living people wanted to, well, live ever longer.


I mean, folk are downtrodden,killed, impoverished and diseased as we speak .. so that we can enjoy comparatively lavish lifestyles. Add 10 years to my life and that goes straight to those peoples bottom line - since I consume more in those 10 years. They've to cough up, perhaps with their blood, because I live longer. It's like .. maths.

And you see longer life (for it is us in the West who are gaining the longer lives) as a good thing. Can you see the problem?

sustainable renewable resources.

Not all resources are sustainable renewable resources. Not by a long way. And whilst you might hope for a smooth, seamless transition to a brave new world the reality is that resource scarcity is a now-thing and means theft of resources - frequently involving enormous cost to the theftees.

In the context of current reality, adding ever increasing lifespan doesn't strike me as a good thing. Seeing it as a good thing whilst gazing longfully into a utopian future is bit too cake and eat it for me.

Not sure what your gripe with LGBT people is either, you might want to explain that one. They do seem to occupy the forefront of your mind rather a lot for some reason.

No particular gripe other than to point out that a human rights cause celebre du jour - posited as an example of great advancement kind of pales into insigificance when compared with the loss of the right not to be annihilated in a nuclear holocaust or drink unadulterated drinking water.

Far from it, I quite enjoy discussing these things. Not being in any way religious myself, I do struggle to find any logic in your line of argument but no doubt it is in there somewhere.

You're not the only one struggling. Like I say: the transition to a Utopian world where population balances resources that can't be consumed (since they are all renewable) strikes me as somewhat fairytale-ish. It relies on a forward trajectory (based on loose hopes regarding the progression (and application) of technology, politics, law, etc) that has zero historical precedent.

Reality has been (and can be expected to continue to be) is far messier than any such construction.

I see nothing new under the sun (and nothing new to come under the sun). You see miraculous transformation looming. We worship very different gods.

antiskeptic

volchitsa wrote: »

So would it be fair to sum up your response to the OP's question of how you would justify your world view as "I can't" then?



After all, you say that the reasons you've given apply to everyone, ie there is no impartial observer. Therefore you can't justify your views to ordinary mortals - is that it?

If the OP asked the question and I had to give a short, direct answer I would say "there are no impartial onlookers and the hypothetical device is a nonsense".

This counters, without explanation, his assumption (made without explanation) that there could be such a thing as an impartial onlooker. My answer stalemates the discussion. Which achieves balance. His undemonstrable assertion vs. my undemonstrable assertion.

When you're dealing with a worldview which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable, self-evident, you can't afford to ignore detail like this.

I'm quite content with stalemate. Stalemate undermines the strongly believed in certainty of the opposing worldview.

.

Timberrrrrrrr

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the OP asked the question and I had to give a short, direct answer I would say "there are no impartial onlookers and the hypothetical device is a nonsense".

This counters, without explanation, his assumption (made without explanation) that there could be such a thing as an impartial onlooker. My answer stalemates the discussion. Which achieves balance. His undemonstrable assertion vs. my undemonstrable assertion.

When you're dealing with a worldview which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable, self-evident, you can't afford to ignore detail like this.

I'm quite content with stalemate. Stalemate undermines the strongly believed in certainty of the opposing worldview.

.

Thats pretty much a cop out reply.

antiskeptic

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the OP asked the question and I had to give a short, direct answer I would say "there are no impartial onlookers and the hypothetical device is a nonsense".

This counters, without explanation, his assumption (made without explanation) that there could be such a thing as an impartial onlooker. My answer stalemates the discussion. Which achieves balance. His undemonstrable assertion vs. my undemonstrable assertion.

When you're dealing with a worldview which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable, self-evident, you can't afford to ignore detail like this.

I'm quite content with stalemate. Stalemate undermines the strongly believed in certainty of the opposing worldview.

.

Thats pretty much a cop out reply.

Thats pretty much a reply without any substance to it. Timberrrrr indeed.

Timberrrrrrrr

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thats pretty much a reply without any substance to it. Timberrrrr indeed.

Well that's pretty much every post you have written in this thread, you post an awful lot without actually replying to anything.

Keep avoiding the questions, it's plain fir all to see.

volchitsa

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the OP asked the question and I had to give a short, direct answer I would say "there are no impartial onlookers and the hypothetical device is a nonsense".

This counters, without explanation, his assumption (made without explanation) that there could be such a thing as an impartial onlooker. My answer stalemates the discussion. Which achieves balance. His undemonstrable assertion vs. my undemonstrable assertion.

When you're dealing with a worldview which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable, self-evident, you can't afford to ignore detail like this.

I'm quite content with stalemate. Stalemate undermines the strongly believed in certainty of the opposing worldview.

.

The OP posed a hypothetical situation, aka a thought experiment. It's a well known, and very useful philosophical technique. It doesn't actually have to be possible for it to work, In fact that's exactly what it's for, to remove real life constraints so as to see the underlying issues more clearly.

So no, I don't agree that your refusal to even consider such a hypothetical situation on the grounds that it is impossible does anything other than make you look unsure of your own views and disingenuous about acknowledging this. No stalemate IMO.

But sure, declare victory (or stalemate!) and run away if you wish - that's another well known technique too, albeit a less respectable one.

antiskeptic

volchitsa wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the OP asked the question and I had to give a short, direct answer I would say "there are no impartial onlookers and the hypothetical device is a nonsense".

This counters, without explanation, his assumption (made without explanation) that there could be such a thing as an impartial onlooker. My answer stalemates the discussion. Which achieves balance. His undemonstrable assertion vs. my undemonstrable assertion.

When you're dealing with a worldview which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable, self-evident, you can't afford to ignore detail like this.

I'm quite content with stalemate. Stalemate undermines the strongly believed in certainty of the opposing worldview.

.

The OP posed a hypothetical situation, aka a thought experiment. It's a well known, and very useful philosophical technique. It doesn't actually have to be possible for it to work, In fact that's exactly what it's for, to remove real life constraints so as to see the underlying issues more clearly.

So no, I don't agree that your refusal to even consider such a hypothetical situation on the grounds that it is impossible does anything other than make you look unsure of your own views and disingenuous about acknowledging this. No stalemate IMO.

But sure, declare victory (or stalemate!) and run away if you wish - that's another well known technique too, albeit a less respectable one.

I know what a thought experiment is and what it does by way of removing constraints.

Unfortunately however, Mark's hypothetical has been constructed to be bent - even if he, and you, have trouble graping that fact. It's not deliberate, just a reflection of how embedded your belief systems are.

Fact. His onlooker can reason. He must be able to, to make sense of what Mark says to him.

Fact. He can speak English - or a have access to Google Translate.

Fact. He has experience in the empirical world. He would be no use if he was 3 months old.

In short, he has 'eyes' to see, make sense of and evaluate Mark's case. All the basic elements required to arrive at Mark's belief system are contained within those characteristics. Mark has made him impartial - he hasn't formed a worldview. Great! But an onlooker has to be equipped to look on according to Marks requirements. An he is equipped thus.

Mark hasn't said a word about the 'eye's to see my case. They are different eyes - not the same ones Mark requires. Sure, I'd need the same characteristics in an onlooker - but just because those are sufficient to assess Mark's worldview doesn't mean they are sufficient to assess all worldviews.

To look on, the onlooker has not only to be impartial. He also has to have the right eyes.

-
"Abracadabra!" and a hypothetical impartial onlooker pulled out of a hat can't surmount the problem that Mark has granted eyes to suit his book.

I've pointed out that eyes to see my worldview mean born again and being able to see God. No other eyes fit. Box ticked for onlooker. But terminal damage to the impartial bit.



RIP thead.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

My answer stalemates the discussion.

That's over-egging your omelette by an egg or two.

On the contrary, your answers make discussion impossible as you are not taking part in a discussion, but delivering what could be a post-modernist sermon which would leave Deepak bewildered, but knowing he's in the presence of a master.

Your words circle each other like family members at a christmas dinner, an hour after the patriarch was found in the cold, damp and snowbound family pile, murdered. You join these innocent, but guilty words, into phrases with the specific gravity of lead and the crispness of porridge. Your phrases jostle against each other like logs in whitewater river, but without the energy or the spectacle, leaving only the clunking sounds and an air of damp. And these wooden phrases and damp flotsam merge into unhappy sentences, sad paragraphs and dismal posts - all with the penetrative power of a cream-cheese dildo.

Good heavens, do you speak to people in real-life like you do here?

volchitsa

antiskeptic wrote: »

I know what a thought experiment is and what it does by way of removing constraints.

Unfortunately however, Mark's hypothetical has been constructed to be bent - even if he, and you, have trouble graping that fact. It's not deliberate, just a reflection of how embedded your belief systems are.

Fact. His onlooker can reason. He must be able to, to make sense of what Mark says to him.

Fact. He can speak English - or a have access to Google Translate.

Fact. He has experience in the empirical world. He would be no use if he was 3 months old.

In short, he has 'eyes' to see, make sense of and evaluate Mark's case. All the basic elements required to arrive at Mark's belief system are contained within those characteristics. Mark has made him impartial - he hasn't formed a worldview. Great! But an onlooker has to be equipped to look on according to Marks requirements. An he is equipped thus.

Mark hasn't said a word about the 'eye's to see my case. They are different eyes - not the same ones Mark requires. Sure, I'd need the same characteristics in an onlooker - but just because those are sufficient to assess Mark's worldview doesn't mean they are sufficient to assess all worldviews.

To look on, the onlooker has not only to be impartial. He also has to have the right eyes.

-
"Abracadabra!" and a hypothetical impartial onlooker pulled out of a hat can't surmount the problem that Mark has granted eyes to suit his book.

I've pointed out that eyes to see my worldview mean born again and being able to see God. No other eyes fit. Box ticked for onlooker. But terminal damage to the impartial bit.


RIP thead.

This is just silly. Assuming that the two people can speak the same language is hardly a killer for a thought experiment. For instance.

Your claim that all this cannot exist because one has to already be "the same" as you in some undefinable way to understand your opinion makes no sense, unless you are an alien species.

You are in fact performing the "trick" that someone else was already mentioned as doing upthread, ie saying that he can prove that God exists to anyone who first takes the simple step of accepting that God exists.

And you think you've managed a stalemate? Really?
TBH I think realitykeeper, with fewer than half a dozen posts, has done a far better job. Because s/he has been willing to engage with the questions posed.

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fact. His onlooker can reason. He must be able to, to make sense of what Mark says to him.

It sure is easier to justify a religious world view to someone too young or uneducated to be able to reason.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the OP asked the question and I had to give a short, direct answer I would say "there are no impartial onlookers and the hypothetical device is a nonsense".

Why do you think that you are only person here saying the hypothetical device is nonsense? No one else sees an issue with it, another theist even answered the question posed by it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

When you're dealing with a worldview which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable, self-evident, you can't afford to ignore detail like this.

Because doing so undermines your worldview, which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable and self-evident?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've pointed out that eyes to see my worldview mean born again and being able to see God. No other eyes fit. Box ticked for onlooker. But terminal damage to the impartial bit.

But you early said:

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wouldn't need to convince someone if their eyes were already opened by God.

So what you are really saying, as volchitsa and others earlier said is that you cannot explain or justify your beliefs unless the person already believes in god.
So why wasn't this a problem in the "peak LGBT thread", when you were trying to convince robindch and smacl? Or any of the other times on this forum you argued your worldview?

Mark Hamill

Can I also remind you to to answer my post from the other day?

Particularly the following part, as it is a question not impacted by the plausibility of the existence of the hypothetical onlooker:

Why are you convinced? There are people who hold that their eyes were "opened" by the their god and their beliefs are inherently contradictory to yours. You can't both have had your eyes opened, one of your must be wrong. How do you know you are not wrong and everyone else is?

antiskeptic

volchitsa wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

I know what a thought experiment is and what it does by way of removing constraints.

Unfortunately however, Mark's hypothetical has been constructed to be bent - even if he, and you, have trouble graping that fact. It's not deliberate, just a reflection of how embedded your belief systems are.

Fact. His onlooker can reason. He must be able to, to make sense of what Mark says to him.

Fact. He can speak English - or a have access to Google Translate.

Fact. He has experience in the empirical world. He would be no use if he was 3 months old.

In short, he has 'eyes' to see, make sense of and evaluate Mark's case. All the basic elements required to arrive at Mark's belief system are contained within those characteristics. Mark has made him impartial - he hasn't formed a worldview. Great! But an onlooker has to be equipped to look on according to Marks requirements. An he is equipped thus.

Mark hasn't said a word about the 'eye's to see my case. They are different eyes - not the same ones Mark requires. Sure, I'd need the same characteristics in an onlooker - but just because those are sufficient to assess Mark's worldview doesn't mean they are sufficient to assess all worldviews.

To look on, the onlooker has not only to be impartial. He also has to have the right eyes.

-
"Abracadabra!" and a hypothetical impartial onlooker pulled out of a hat can't surmount the problem that Mark has granted eyes to suit his book.

I've pointed out that eyes to see my worldview mean born again and being able to see God. No other eyes fit. Box ticked for onlooker. But terminal damage to the impartial bit.


RIP thead.

This is just silly. Assuming that the two people can speak the same language is hardly a killer for a thought experiment. For instance.

Your claim that all this cannot exist because one has to already be "the same" as you in some undefinable way to understand your opinion makes no sense, unless you are an alien species.

You are in fact performing the "trick" that someone else was already mentioned as doing upthread, ie saying that he can prove that God exists to anyone who first takes the simple step of accepting that God exists.

And you think you've managed a stalemate? Really?
TBH I think realitykeeper, with fewer than half a dozen posts, has done a far better job. Because s/he has been willing to engage with the questions posed.

Two people speaking the same language is a prerequisite for this experiment. Ignore the simple stuff and your experiment doesn't get off the ground.

When building the hypothetical you start from the ground up. Sure, we can often leap forward without giving thought to the obvious. We take things for granted. Which is fine, so long as all parties are agreed on what's granted

Point was, "same language" is one of the 'eyes to see' that in intrinsic to Mark's hypothetical. In picking something apparently whimsical, I was underlining that 'eyes to see' is a base requirement in order to be able to 'look upon'. Taking it for granted doesn't mean it isn't critical.

You are absolutely correct as to "alien species" here. That happens when you encounter a class of person fundamentally different to you. The Bible does describe born agains as aliens in this world, as it happens.

Mark's presumption is that there is no fundamental difference between the folk holding different worldviews, therefore the eyes that serve him via the impartial onlooker will necessarily serve everyone. That take stems from his worldview and is projected onto his 'impartial onlooker'.

An impartial observer -on this point- wouldn't know whether the problem is me not being able to define (because there is nothing to define) or Mark not being able to see such as to understand the definition.

Contrary to your idea: I can't necessarily prove God exists to someone who accepts God exists. Plenty of people accept God exists but by way of mental/logical assent. That doesn't make them born again. They don't accept on the basis of spiritual eyes open. And are as lost and blind as the athiest.

-

The dilemma: a person with spiritual eyes open, i.e. suitably equipped, just as Mark's impartial has been equipped, won't be impartial. That's not my problem. It merely means Mark's experiment isn't possible.

If it can't be helped then it can't be helped. Not every experiment is doable.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Two people speaking the same language is a prerequisite for this experiment.

If it can't be helped then it can't be helped. Not every experiment is doable.

With respect, I think the only person speaking an alien language here is your good self. You would seem to have failed to effectively communicate your worldview to other posters here, yet at the same time, all other posters here seem to have no difficulty in comprehending and working with the hypothetical scenario in the opening post which you seem to struggle with. If you can't communicate your worldview to others here after endless pages of text it would seem unlikely you could do so to this imagined impartial onlooker.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Two people speaking the same language is a prerequisite for this experiment.

If it can't be helped then it can't be helped. Not every experiment is doable.

With respect, I think the only person speaking an alien language here is your good self. You would seem to have failed to effectively communicate your worldview to other posters here, yet at the same time, all other posters here seem to have no difficulty in comprehending and working with the hypothetical scenario in the opening post which you seem to struggle with. If you can't communicate your worldview to others here after endless pages of text it would seem unlikely you could do so to this imagined impartial onlooker.

There is no attempt to explain my worldview to anyone here (other than the impediment it causes to experiment progression).

Others can't seem to leap beyond the position that "hypothetical" is some sort of magic word. As if by mere mention of it every problem is solved. They are happy to assign it all kinds of characteristics to this hypothetical - without saying they do that.

You don't seem to be able to do much better than them. A few peanuts thrown in doesn't alter anything much.

The alien reference hit the nail on the head - quite accidently. Deal with the problem that presents to the assumption regarding the impartials characteristics?

Fat chance. But you're welcome to try.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no attempt to explain my worldview to anyone here

Ain't that the truth.

Nobelium

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no attempt to explain my worldview to anyone here

we haven't seen any yet, just pages of make it up as you go along waffle.

reminds me of those essay bots you can find online now . .just feed them with a few keywords, and they will compile pages of utterly meaningless prose for you.

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no attempt to explain my worldview to anyone here

Ain't that the truth.

A mod who can't read an OP. Progress.

Mod: Antiskeptic has received a yellow card for commenting on the poster not the post. Do not comment on this in-thread. If you wish to discuss it do so via PM

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fact. His onlooker can reason. He must be able to, to make sense of what Mark says to him.

It sure is easier to justify a religious world view to someone too young or uneducated to be able to reason.

An A&A who recognizes that an impartial onlooker needs to possess certain, developed characteristics.

Top of the class!

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

My answer stalemates the discussion.

That's over-egging your omelette by an egg or two.

On the contrary, your answers make discussion impossible as you are not taking part in a discussion, but delivering what could be a post-modernist sermon which would leave Deepak bewildered, but knowing he's in the presence of a master.

Your words circle each other like family members at a christmas dinner, an hour after the patriarch was found in the cold, damp and snowbound family pile, murdered. You join these innocent, but guilty words, into phrases with the specific gravity of lead and the crispness of porridge. Your phrases jostle against each other like logs in whitewater river, but without the energy or the spectacle, leaving only the clunking sounds and an air of damp. And these wooden phrases and damp flotsam merge into unhappy sentences, sad paragraphs and dismal posts - all with the penetrative power of a cream-cheese dildo.

Good heavens, do you speak to people in real-life like you do here?

I could ask you the same question. Trying out your new Thesaurus app or summit?

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've pointed out that eyes to see my worldview mean born again and being able to see God. No other eyes fit. Box ticked for onlooker. But terminal damage to the impartial bit.

But you early said:

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wouldn't need to convince someone if their eyes were already opened by God.

So what you are really saying, as volchitsa and others earlier said is that you cannot explain or justify your beliefs unless the person already believes in god.
So why wasn't this a problem in the "peak LGBT thread", when you were trying to convince robindch and smacl? Or any of the other times on this forum you argued your worldview?

There is no need to justify my position to a believer (obviously). I can't justify (although I can explain, a different threshold altogether) to a blind person.

We can say that you can't explain or justify your position unless the impartial hypo onlooker possesses a particular set of characteristics.

Clearly characteristics are important.

-

As to why elsewhere? I have no problem talking about my worldview elsewhere. I take account of the blindness and argue a particular way for a particular reason.

Typically the reason is as here, to drive things to stalemate. Stalemate is an end in itself.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why do you think that you are only person here saying the hypothetical device is nonsense? No one else sees an issue with it, another theist even answered the question posed by it.

I seem to be the only person who wants to look under hypo's bonnet. When I see he is powered by an empirical, rational engine... well that's why I won't get on board.

Because doing so undermines your worldview, which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable and self-evident?

True enough. All that's left is the argument.

Careful argument.

And your chief problems in argument are that:

a) your hypoman is stacked with characteristics that favour your view.

b) he can't have characteristics that permit him to look at my view without destroying his impartiality.

Now you either dismantle that or we stalemate.

antiskeptic

Nobelium wrote: »

..
reminds me of those essay bots you can find online now . .just feed them with a few keywords, and they will compile pages of utterly meaningless prose for you.

Can't say I've ever tried one. Can't say I ever needed to try one.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

I could ask you the same question.

As a matter of fact, yes, I do sometimes - when the occasion permits, as the company and wine allow, so too does the tone rise to meet the challenge.

Anyway, I've answered you - can you answer me? Do you speak in real-life as you do here?

I can't help but notice that the absent-minded, hand-wavey tone which you used a few years ago still allowed you at the time to answer the odd question. But in more recent months, the ghost of occasionally clear thoughts and comments of times past has departed, leaving waffle of the highest order, devoid of any discernible meaning, purpose or value.