Bill O'Reilly: No True Christian would kill Norwegians.

Genghiz Cohen · 29-07-2011 11:20PM

muppeteer wrote: »

Malty_T wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXFUUGeV1DI

To be fair there is a good bit of "we don't know yet" in relation to very low dose environmental radiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model

That said coulter is still as mad as a bag of badgers.

Ugh, my brain...
I'm agreeing with billy.....
*jdksa;ukdfl;sajkkl;fds

OBAMA RUINED THIS COUNTRY!

sponsoredwalk · 30-07-2011 01:15AM

MagicMarker wrote: »

I don't see any reason to believe that babies have an innate sense of grammar, no idea as far as morality is concerned.

And no, I don't think it's at least logically possible that a baby would have an innate knowledge of an external supernatural force that created the universe. I think such a thing is as logical as believing a baby has an innate knowledge of the andromeda galaxy, what peanut butter tastes like or whether or not Meryl Streep is worthy of her accolades.

I think the second part of your comment springs directly from the first
part so we'll focus on the first part first & then come back to the second.

Have you actually read up on anything as regards the concept of a baby
having an innate sense of grammar? Do you know what the theory of
universal grammar (UG) is? Do you understand the concept of a language
acquisition device (LAD)? Surely you have good reason to reject one of
the central theories in linguistics, or do you not have "any reason to
believe that babies have an innate sense of grammar" because you
haven't read up on such topics?

As far as children not being born with an innate sense of morality, do you
think morality is something that needs to be taught & forced into people
or do you think children have an inbuilt capability to distinguish between
right & wrong, understanding the difference when they first encounter
such environmental triggers (as was mentioned in the nativism link I
gave)? If it is the latter in any way, shape or form you're talking about
an innate ability, present from birth, to distinguish between what is moral
& what is not moral. Nobody is arguing for the caricature you keep trying
to pin on people, babies are born with the ability to control their arms
without actually being able to fully do so right away, they develop the
nerves & muscles in such a way so as to indulge in what was
evolutionarily predetermined as the consequence of such machinery.
They had an innate ability for this to occur. The same goes for the idea
of morality & grammar, a baby is born with the innate ability to develop
such things to their full consequences, there is something there which is
encouraged. If definitions have any meaning I think these examples hold.

So assuming you need to, and will, read up on this & can ignore the truth
or falsity of the claim, what is so difficult about the idea that humans
could have an innate knowledge of an external supernatural force in the
sense that is being discussed? If this is all old hat knowledge then please
give an actual argument as opposed to irrelevant comparisons (or do you
really think the concept of innate knowledge in the sense described above
is comparable to the quality of the acting in Sophie's Choice?)

Zombrex · 30-07-2011 02:24AM

raah! wrote: »

I can only say that that's very unfortunate. But yes, it's very difficult to be a christian, things like "love your enemy" are completely contradictory to our natural instincts, and , by your moral philosophy, impossible.

Well again I don't judge Christains on whether they actually live up to this standard or not, but whether they seem to be actively trying to live up to this standard or not.

raah! wrote: »

And if every christian you've met has actively pursued things like "hating their enemies" then your statement still amounts to "every christian I've met has been a nasty character", whatever kind of definition you are working under this is a strange thing to say. It's perhaps related to the nature of your interactions with them, or your perception of how they acted etc.

Well again that is a straw man (why that is unChristian I get to below). The opposite of trying to love your enemy is not hating your enemy. It is not trying to love your enemy. I don't met many Christians who hate me (though I have met a few), but all Christians I've interacted with for more than brief encounter, have had periods where they were actively not trying to love me when engaged in activity with me, be this simply social situations or debates on Boards.ie.

It is not that they were trying and failing. They weren't trying. As humans I don't find this particularly surprising, the notion of loving everyone is some what ridiculous. But again it is not my standard, it is the Christian one and the one you would expect Christians to at least be attempting to adhere to.

raah! wrote: »

Stereotyping is not unchristian. Neither are generalisations. I've discussed this with sponseredwalk.

Of course they are. They are attempts to demean persons or groups based on irrational thinking. That is not loving someone. It is not even attempting to love someone.

When you instantly go for an ad homien attack against me that maybe the problem is mind, not the Christians, that is not a loving act. That is a very human attempt at defensive posturing.

Let me clarify again, I don't think this is in anyway nasty or mean of you, but it is very unChristian. You are attempting to belittle my argument through a very mild insinuation that the problem is probably with me being a bigot.

You would not do that to someone you love. Your first instinct with your mother or you wife would not be Well she is probably only saying that because she is being bigoted.

Christians can't help exposing how unChrisitan they are through interactions with non-Christians, particularly non-Christians who attack Christianity and who get their backs up with the such attacks. They, and yourself, resort to the sort of stuff we all do from time to time.

The ironic thing of course is that is exactly who Jesus was talking about when he said this. It is easy to love those who agree with you, who are nice to you, who think as you do. It is hard to love those who don't agree with you, are not nice to you and don't think as you do. But he told you to love, or try to love them, anyway.

This is where all Christians I've met fall down. Not because they don't. But because they don't try to.

raah! wrote: »

Anyway, even if it was, you would have no reason to say that I "wasn't trying to forgive my neighbour", maybe I was just trying and failing.

I can tell right now from how you reacted to my posts that you are not trying to love me, or interact with me as someone you love.

Again this is not surprising, nor is it me calling you nasty. You are interacting with me exactly the way I would expect two strangers on the internet to interact with each other.

The issue is not that you are being nasty, since you aren't being nasty. They issue is that you are not being Christian.

raah! wrote: »

There's nothing unchristian about pointing out that almost every time some religious people are involved in some sort of terrible incident brights all across the internet jizz their pants in righteous indignation.

Again of course there is. That is an act of defensive retaliation, not love. You are not attempting to love these enemies of yours, people who attack your religion with such associations. You are attempting to belittle them and what they are saying as you are in a discussion and debate of ideology.

Again very human, not nasty or particularly unusual. But also not Christian.

Mance Rayder · 30-07-2011 03:09AM

Wicknight There is something called tough love

If you believe that a Christian should be loving you in your encounters in order to be striving to be Christ like then you are incorrect in your idea of what it is to be Christlike. Christ Scolded, Argued and Disowned people when he disliked their behaviour or intentions. Yet he would be willing to forgive them and also to pray for them.

For example, if a person loves another, he would want him to know the truth right? Well what if that truth would hurt the other person, and the Christian was aware of this? The loving Christian would of course hurt the other with the truth.

You see this is not a black and white world. A good and loving teacher does not have to be polite all the time, and the student does not have to like the teacher. A good student understands that the teacher, however difficult, has in the long run, the best interests of the student at heart.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 30-07-2011 04:33AM

http://atheists.org/blog/2011/07/29/fox-news-facebook-page-on-911-cross-generates-death-threats-against-atheists

i'd imagine these people consider themselves true christians.

--edit

obviously they're not talking about norwegians.. but it isn't that funny, and not much of a hazard..

gargleblaster · 30-07-2011 05:39AM

An innate sense of grammar?

Am I just not understanding what is meant by that phrase, or is it really just waaaaay the hell out there?

Is that supposed to be some kind of evidence of an inborn knowledge of god?

There seems to be no evidence beyond some people just having that gut feeling based on nothing in particular. Have I missed some evidence because so far that's all I'm seeing. Just that it's an opinion some people have and that's all there is to it.

sponsoredwalk · 30-07-2011 07:14AM

gargleblaster wrote: »

An innate sense of grammar?

Am I just not understanding what is meant by that phrase, or is it really just waaaaay the hell out there?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7K0vZ3PfbA

http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/capsules/outil_rouge06.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_Instinct

Here is an idea of how UG is applied to understanding feral children, which
you mentioned earlier.

gargleblaster wrote: »

Is that supposed to be some kind of evidence of an inborn knowledge of god?

No, I never said anything of the sort. The argument is that it's logically
possible for people with a belief in god to think that early belief in god
stems from some innate knowledge, I've just gotten bogged down in trying
to get people to first understand what is meant by innate knowledge.
If people do not understand what it means for something to be innate,
exemplified by UG in linguistics, then how can people understand what
it means for a concept they are biased against to be innate?

gargleblaster wrote: »

There seems to be no evidence beyond some people just having that gut feeling based on nothing in particular. Have I missed some evidence because so far that's all I'm seeing. Just that it's an opinion some people have and that's all there is to it.

The concept seems to be just so unintelligible in this thread that it's
impossible to have a conversation about the pro's & cons with such an
idea, we haven't even reached the stage where we can look at it's validity.

robindch · 30-07-2011 08:35AM

Wicknight wrote: »

It is not that they were trying and failing. They weren't trying. As humans I don't find this particularly surprising, the notion of loving everyone is some what ridiculous. But again it is not my standard, it is the Christian one and the one you would expect Christians to at least be attempting to adhere to.

Now that you bring up that point and thinking about the christians who do post on boards, I'd have said that only one who does make any effort in that respect is JC. Perhaps she's the only True Christian on boards?

Alternatively, christians could follow Jesus' instructions for a perfect life:

Jesus wrote:

“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

i don't recall any of the boards christians discussing all that deeply how best to stick to those rules. Especially the one about selling all they own and giving it to the poor.

Perhaps they think it's a step too far and something that Jesus got wrong, or perhaps they don't feel that they stick fully to the first group, so there's no point in even considering the second?

Mance Rayder · 30-07-2011 11:24AM

What sponsoredwalk is talking about is one of the first things people learn when studying developmental psychology. It is not "way out there" as has been suggested.

Here is a list of studies that have been done on the subject both on animals and humans.

http://studydroid.com/index.php?page=viewPack&packId=30587

As you can see the list is extensive. The idea of innate grammer and language being modular (Not a result of other natural cognative processes but an entirely natural one in itself) have been around for over 100 years. It is well researched and tested. Unlike the Simulacra and simulation theory which was pointed out earlier, which is philosophical and therefore speculative and not measurable.

Now please people don't say something like, "Oh so that means god MUST be real:rolleyes:". That line of debate is juvinile. This is not algebra gargleblaster, and it's not so simple.

Sponsoredwalk is a making a different point, not arguing for or against gods existence but rather trying to put across that it is entirely acceptable and plausible to understand that a person who believes in god may indeed be inclined to believe, and with understandable rational, that there is an innate element to this belief.

Sponsoredwalk's input does demonstrate though that until certain people update their knowledge on the theories surrounding innateness and what has been discovered to be true. Then they really should not be dismissing peoples ideas who extrapolate from this elements of their belief system. They can disagree, but they cannot state as fact that I am wrong to attach my beliefs to the theory of innateness when they simply don't understand the accepted concept of what is innate.

Mance Rayder · 30-07-2011 11:44AM

robindch wrote: »

Now that you bring up that point and thinking about the christians who do post on boards, I'd have said that only one who does make any effort in that respect is JC. Perhaps she's the only True Christian on boards?

Alternatively, christians could follow Jesus' instructions for a perfect life:

Originally Posted by Jesus
“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

i don't recall any of the boards christians discussing all that deeply how best to stick to those rules. Especially the one about selling all they own and giving it to the poor.

Perhaps they think it's a step too far and something that Jesus got wrong, or perhaps they don't feel that they stick fully to the first group, so there's no point in even considering the second?

How do you know that I am not poor? That I don't keep the commandments? How do you know I have possessions to sell?

How do you suppose it is ok for people to marry and raise children in Jesus eyes if they cannot have possesions? You think it is possible to raise children on thin air?

How do you know that I am not charitable?

Yes it would be a wonderful demonstration of faith if one were to sell all their possesions and give them to the poor, but what if that person has nothing worth selling and nothing to give? Would not his love and good works be enough?

You are taking a fundamentalist and literalist approach to Christ's words without taking into account context, His other teachings and also how everything is circumstantial and relative to ones situation. Each are judged individually.

A very very rich man, who has more then he will ever need, who has enough money to feed a starving nation for example, and who is aware of this. This man could never be Christian while he is rich.

MagicMarker · 30-07-2011 11:45AM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I think the second part of your comment springs directly from the first
part so we'll focus on the first part first & then come back to the second.

Have you actually read up on anything as regards the concept of a baby
having an innate sense of grammar? Do you know what the theory of
universal grammar (UG) is? Do you understand the concept of a language
acquisition device (LAD)? Surely you have good reason to reject one of
the central theories in linguistics, or do you not have "any reason to
believe that babies have an innate sense of grammar" because you
haven't read up on such topics?

As far as children not being born with an innate sense of morality, do you
think morality is something that needs to be taught & forced into people
or do you think children have an inbuilt capability to distinguish between
right & wrong, understanding the difference when they first encounter
such environmental triggers (as was mentioned in the nativism link I
gave)? If it is the latter in any way, shape or form you're talking about
an innate ability, present from birth, to distinguish between what is moral
& what is not moral. Nobody is arguing for the caricature you keep trying
to pin on people, babies are born with the ability to control their arms
without actually being able to fully do so right away, they develop the
nerves & muscles in such a way so as to indulge in what was
evolutionarily predetermined as the consequence of such machinery.
They had an innate ability for this to occur. The same goes for the idea
of morality & grammar, a baby is born with the innate ability to develop
such things to their full consequences, there is something there which is
encouraged. If definitions have any meaning I think these examples hold.

So assuming you need to, and will, read up on this & can ignore the truth
or falsity of the claim, what is so difficult about the idea that humans
could have an innate knowledge of an external supernatural force in the
sense that is being discussed? If this is all old hat knowledge then please
give an actual argument as opposed to irrelevant comparisons (or do you
really think the concept of innate knowledge in the sense described above
is comparable to the quality of the acting in Sophie's Choice?)

Yes, thanks for the ever so helpful link to the dictionary, it's all become so clear now. :rolleyes:

I have never said in this thread that babies have no innate senses from birth, it's pretty clear that pretty much all species on the planet have innate senses from birth. Does that mean it's logical to assume they all could have an innate sense of a deity? No, it isn't.

Mance Rayder · 30-07-2011 12:05PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Yes, thanks for the ever so helpful link to the dictionary, it's all become so clear now. :rolleyes:

I have never said in this thread that babies have no innate senses from birth, it's pretty clear that pretty much all species on the planet have innate senses from birth. Does that mean it's logical to assume they all could have an innate sense of a deity? No, it isn't.

Sponseredwalk never said that, He/She suggested that it is entirely understandable for a person who believes in a diety to also believe that they were born with an innate sense of this diety.

I said I believe we are born with an innate sense of a diety. My idea of God is very different to yours, so first we would have to agree on the nature of that being/force, a definition if you will, whether we agree it is real or not. Before we could argue whether or not it is plausible that someone could have an innate sense of such a being/force.

CerebralCortex · 30-07-2011 12:30PM

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Sponseredwalk never said that, He/She suggested that it is entirely understandable for a person who believes in a diety to also believe that they were born with an innate sense of this diety.

I said I believe we are born with an innate sense of a diety. My idea of God is very different to yours, so first we would have to agree on the nature of that being/force, a definition if you will, whether we agree it is real or not. Before we could argue whether or not it is plausible that someone could have an innate sense of such a being/force.

Well by all means define you're force/being.

MagicMarker · 30-07-2011 01:36PM

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Sponseredwalk never said that, He/She suggested that it is entirely understandable for a person who believes in a diety to also believe that they were born with an innate sense of this diety.

Of course, I never said otherwise, but that doesn't mean they're correct in believing that.

CiscoStudent wrote: »

I said I believe we are born with an innate sense of a diety. My idea of God is very different to yours, so first we would have to agree on the nature of that being/force, a definition if you will, whether we agree it is real or not. Before we could argue whether or not it is plausible that someone could have an innate sense of such a being/force.

Well give us your definition then.

raah! · 30-07-2011 04:29PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Well again I don't judge Christains on whether they actually live up to this standard or not, but whether they seem to be actively trying to live up to this standard or not.

As I pointed out, you seem rather over confident in being able to tell whether or not people are "trying to be nice". This is not something which is readily visible in peoples actions.

Well again that is a straw man (why that is unChristian I get to below). The opposite of trying to love your enemy is not hating your enemy. It is not trying to love your enemy. I don't met many Christians who hate me (though I have met a few), but all Christians I've interacted with for more than brief encounter, have had periods where they were actively not trying to love me when engaged in activity with me, be this simply social situations or debates on Boards.ie.

If a strawman is falsely construing your position, then that is not a strawman, but an improper inference from your statement. I.e an improper idea of what the opposite to "trying to be nice" is. Rather than misreading your sentences. There is no strawman because if there were any false stuff that would be additional false stuff added by me.

Now, tbh, this is a piece of terrible sophistry. They are "actively trying to not love their enemy". The opposite to love is hate, the opposite to trying to love is trying to hate. It's true that the opposite to trying is not trying, but when you combine it with something like love or hate the real opposite becoms clear.

I really hope you can recognise the dishonesty here, we both know what you meant by "the opposite of trying to love". Actively not trying is contradictory. You mean they actively engaged in hating you.

It is not that they were trying and failing. They weren't trying. As humans I don't find this particularly surprising, the notion of loving everyone is some what ridiculous. But again it is not my standard, it is the Christian one and the one you would expect Christians to at least be attempting to adhere to.

So you could tell by peoples posts on this board that they were trying not to love you? That's amazing. That's not something you can tell really. And is just an example of bigotted preconceptions about christians. One counter example of this would be if you were talking to a christan and they said something nasty, but then apologised. This would be an instance of forgiving, trying to love their neighbour etc.

Of course they are. They are attempts to demean persons or groups based on irrational thinking. That is not loving someone. It is not even attempting to love someone.

They are attempts to describe a group. An obvious counter example is when people use the word "brights" to describe atheists. I can say "there's a group of knackers over there, and I love them". Group labels can be used in an attempt to demean people, but they are not inherently demeaning. My saying that "atheists on the internet often jump on events like this to further their agenda" is just something true.

When you instantly go for an ad homien attack against me that maybe the problem is mind, not the Christians, that is not a loving act. That is a very human attempt at defensive posturing.

Again wicknight, I've given reasons why I think what you are saying is "bigotted" saying things like "I know the person on the interent is not even trying to love me, I know this from their posts" that is a prejudiced and bigotted thing to say. But feel free to let us in on your process of inference.

Let me clarify again, I don't think this is in anyway nasty or mean of you, but it is very unChristian. You are attempting to belittle my argument through a very mild insinuation that the problem is probably with me being a bigot.

It's not a mild insinuation Wickngiht, I openly said it. If I think that's true, my pointing it out to you is in no way "unchristian". You are coming to false conclusions that millions and millions of people actively try to hate people (and this is the opposite to trying to love them, as the ridiculus grammar of your middle case shows).

You would not do that to someone you love. Your first instinct with your mother or you wife would not be Well she is probably only saying that because she is being bigoted.

If she said what you said, then it's exactly what I would say. I'd say "Mom, I think perhaps your political position, or maybe some incidents in your past have bigotted you in your perception of christians. As it's rather absurd for you to say that every single christian you've met has actively tryed 'not to love you'.

Christians can't help exposing how unChrisitan they are through interactions with non-Christians, particularly non-Christians who attack Christianity and who get their backs up with the such attacks. They, and yourself, resort to the sort of stuff we all do from time to time.

The ironic thing of course is that is exactly who Jesus was talking about when he said this. It is easy to love those who agree with you, who are nice to you, who think as you do. It is hard to love those who don't agree with you, are not nice to you and don't think as you do. But he told you to love, or try to love them, anyway.

I am saying you are bigotted because of what you have said. You haven't defended it one bit. I think it is true that you are bigotted and that your inference into whether or not christians are "trying" to be nice is based not on reason. What you are doing now is not addressing the point. And I have to say this is the worst posts I've read from you

This is where all Christians I've met fall down. Not because they don't. But because they don't try to.

Ok, well just at this point there I'll give a summary:

-You haven't shown that speaking about a group in general tmers is unchrisitan (you wrote one sentence, before launching into the rest of this nonsense)
-Since that first step hasn't been filled this second one is useless, but even so. You haven't shown that: Even if I was egaged in "the opposite to trying to love you", you haven't shown that I was trying to resist these urges, or that you could over the internet.
- It's still bigotted to say that you know that every christian you have met has tried not to love you. Just as it would be bigotted for anyone to say that they can read the mind of any class of people and say that they are actively in pursuit of some nasty things. (I hope you understand that the term "actively in non pursuit" is barely grammatical)

I can tell right now from how you reacted to my posts that you are not trying to love me, or interact with me as someone you love.

Again this is not surprising, nor is it me calling you nasty. You are interacting with me exactly the way I would expect two strangers on the internet to interact with each other.

The issue is not that you are being nasty, since you aren't being nasty. They issue is that you are not being Christian.

Again, please let me in on your process of inference. This is how I would react to anyone who said what you said. And it does not show any nastiness. Personally, I think it is a good thing to rid a person this or that bigotted opinion.

Also, what'st hat last sentence about? Actively being unforgiving and holding grudges is being nasty. Going for the opposite of those christian values is being nasty. We've already said as much earlier.

Again of course there is. That is an act of defensive retaliation, not love. You are not attempting to love these enemies of yours, people who attack your religion with such associations. You are attempting to belittle them and what they are saying as you are in a discussion and debate of ideology.

Again very human, not nasty or particularly unusual. But also not Christian.

If you really want to phrase this in christian terms. Pointing out that someone is not loving their neighbour is not unchristian. That is what I have done. I have pointed out that one group of people is often unreasonably aggressive towards another in an attempt to show them the error of their ways.

And further more, what sense does it make to say I'm attempting to belittle them? Those things I've mentioned are true. They happen. Anyway, there's nothing unchristian about trying to make certain people be less nasty to certain other people.

Again I have supported why what I am doing is not an act of hatred, is not unchristian, and is something I would say to anyone (like my mother for example).

raah! · 30-07-2011 04:35PM

robindch wrote: »

Now that you bring up that point and thinking about the christians who do post on boards, I'd have said that only one who does make any effort in that respect is JC. Perhaps she's the only True Christian on boards?

Alternatively, christians could follow Jesus' instructions for a perfect life:i don't recall any of the boards christians discussing all that deeply how best to stick to those rules. Especially the one about selling all they own and giving it to the poor.

Perhaps they think it's a step too far and something that Jesus got wrong, or perhaps they don't feel that they stick fully to the first group, so there's no point in even considering the second?

There have been many discussions of this on the christian forum. I read one some time ago. This has also been mentioned in this thread already by sponseredwalk.

I'll reiterate, to say that every christian on the thread apart from JC is actively engaged in not trying to forgive and not trying to love their enemy is a bigotted and irrational statement. Again I would ask ye how ye gained these abilities of mind reading, and to address the commonly occuring counter example of any christian apologising after saying something nasty. Apologising is difficult and requires at least some effort.

Zombrex · 30-07-2011 05:38PM

CiscoStudent wrote: »

For example, if a person loves another, he would want him to know the truth right? Well what if that truth would hurt the other person, and the Christian was aware of this? The loving Christian would of course hurt the other with the truth.

True. They probably wouldn't do it sarcastically while calling the other person a moron though.

Zombrex · 30-07-2011 05:45PM

CiscoStudent wrote: »

How do you know that I am not poor? That I don't keep the commandments? How do you know I have possessions to sell?

What are you typing on?

CiscoStudent wrote: »

How do you suppose it is ok for people to marry and raise children in Jesus eyes if they cannot have possesions? You think it is possible to raise children on thin air?

Jesus was teaching that the end of the world was coming soon. He was not giving advice for future generations to follow, he was preparing those right now for meeting their maker.

It was only when, unsurprisingly, this didn't happen that future Christians had to cobble together some sort of non-apocalyptic interpretation of Jesus' teaching. Which is of course why there are contradictions. There are no contradictions in the context of judgement coming with-in the time of Jesus' initial teachings.

Saying something like Jesus would be happy with a billionaire who uses his money to help thousands of people for decades is missing the point. None of these people exist in Jesus' vision of the future, a future that should have ended within a generation of his birth.

Worrying about how Christians reconcile helping others with giving everything they own away is a problem not of Jesus' making since that was never supposed to be an issue in the first place.

Zombrex · 30-07-2011 05:49PM

raah! wrote: »

I'll reiterate, to say that every christian on the thread apart from JC is actively engaged in not trying to forgive and not trying to love their enemy is a bigotted and irrational statement. Again I would ask ye how ye gained these abilities of mind reading, and to address the commonly occuring counter example of any christian apologising after saying something nasty. Apologising is difficult and requires at least some effort.

You appreciate we can read their posts, correct?

Saying Robin is making bigoted statements, itself a huge over reaction even if you disagreed with, based on a straw man you invented to ridicule my position (that saying Christians do not try to love those they disagree with means saying they hate those they disagree with) is exactly what I'm talking about.

Right now you are not tying to love either me or Robin. We seem to be annoying you and you seem to be defaulting to your (perfectly normal) human instincts when dealing with you.

You are being very human and very unChrisitan.

Zombrex · 30-07-2011 06:31PM

raah! wrote: »

As I pointed out, you seem rather over confident in being able to tell whether or not people are "trying to be nice". This is not something which is readily visible in peoples actions.

I never said anything about trying to be nice. I said trying to love. Jesus does not say try and be nice to your enemies.

It is pretty simple to tell when someone is trying to love you, since love is such a high concept. Trying to be nice to someone could mean anything from holding the door open to counting to ten before you shout at them.

Again you appreciate that purposely misrepresenting what I'm saying in order to strengthen an argument against me is not an act of love, right?

raah! wrote: »

If a strawman is falsely construing your position, then that is not a strawman, but an improper inference from your statement. I.e an improper idea of what the opposite to "trying to be nice" is.

Can I ask why you are putting "trying to be nice" in quotes when I never used the term?

Then can I ask how you are doing this in the context of trying to love me?

raah! wrote: »

Rather than misreading your sentences. There is no strawman because if there were any false stuff that would be additional false stuff added by me.

Except you are quoting me as saying I've never met a Christian who has tried to be nice, when what I actually said is I've never met a Christian who has tried to love me, or more specifically if they tried they stopped trying a various points.

raah! wrote: »

Now, tbh, this is a piece of terrible sophistry. They are "actively trying to not love their enemy". The opposite to love is hate, the opposite to trying to love is trying to hate.

No, if that was the case then everyone I don't love I would hate, which is frankly ridiculous. There are billions of people I've never met yet alone love. By your logic I hate them. Which of course I don't. I just don't love them. Nor am I trying to.

raah! wrote: »

It's true that the opposite to trying is not trying, but when you combine it with something like love or hate the real opposite becoms clear.

I didn't combine it with hate, you mentioned hate. I said try to love. The opposite to trying to love someone is not trying to love someone. It is not hating them.

This is what I mean by straw manning.

raah! wrote: »

I really hope you can recognise the dishonesty here, we both know what you meant by "the opposite of trying to love". Actively not trying is contradictory. You mean they actively engaged in hating you.

You know that isn't true. Now the question then becomes why are you stating it. Well probably because you find me annoying and wish to belittle my argument, an argument which you also find annoying.

So the question then becomes are you doing this while at the same time attempting to love me. That to me seems impossible. Which is why I am confident in saying that right now you are neither following Jesus' teaching nor trying to follow Jesus' teaching.

raah! wrote: »

So you could tell by peoples posts on this board that they were trying not to love you? That's amazing.

Not particularly. Given that you have accused me of dishonesty and bigotry I would imagine you could say that I'm not trying to love you (something I would happily admit).

raah! wrote: »

One counter example of this would be if you were talking to a christan and they said something nasty, but then apologised. This would be an instance of forgiving, trying to love their neighbour etc.

It would also be an instance of them not. Which raises the question that at the time of the something nasty (and again you don't have to be actively nasty to someone to simply not love them) where were Jesus' teachings in their mind?

raah! wrote: »

They are attempts to describe a group. An obvious counter example is when people use the word "brights" to describe atheists. I can say "there's a group of knackers over there, and I love them".

Stereotypes are not group labels. They are group labels based on irrational often derogatory assumptions of those people.

Saying There is a group of 4th year transition students is not a stereotype. There is a group of black people, mind your wallets, is.

It is difficult to see that done in a loving context. :rolleyes:

You appreciate you are still straw manning my arguments. Are you going to apologize in a little bit to show that you were trying to love me all along?

raah! wrote: »

Again wicknight, I've given reasons why I think what you are saying is "bigotted" saying things like "I know the person on the interent is not even trying to love me, I know this from their posts" that is a prejudiced and bigotted thing to say. But feel free to let us in on your process of inference.

You appreciate that the "I know this from their posts" is precisely the thing that makes it not bigotted right?

For example it is bigotted to say that man might steal my wallet because he is black.

It is not bigotted to say that black man stole my wallet.

raah! wrote: »

It's not a mild insinuation Wickngiht, I openly said it. If I think that's true, my pointing it out to you is in no way "unchristian". You are coming to false conclusions that millions and millions of people actively try to hate people (and this is the opposite to trying to love them, as the ridiculus grammar of your middle case shows).

The unChristian bit, just to be clear, is taking what I said (I've never met a Christian who tried to love me and I can tell this from the way they interacted with me) to "You are coming to false conclusions that millions and millions of people actively try to hate people"

You know that isn't what I said. What you are doing is attempting to belittle my position by inventing something I didn't say and then representing that as what I am actually saying.

That is not trying to love me. It is though how most Christians I debate with behave. Why? Because that is how humans behave, and Christians are, shock horror, human.

raah! wrote: »

-You haven't shown that speaking about a group in general tmers is unchrisitan (you wrote one sentence, before launching into the rest of this nonsense)

That is probably because I didn't mention speaking about a group in general terms is unChristian.

raah! wrote: »

-Since that first step hasn't been filled this second one is useless, but even so. You haven't shown that: Even if I was egaged in "the opposite to trying to love you", you haven't shown that I was trying to resist these urges, or that you could over the internet.

Are you right now trying to resist these urges?

Every time I point out that you have straw manned my argument in an attempt to belittle it you simply argue you haven't, then continue to use the straw man argument (point being you still claim I said something about Christians hating other people).

You say a Christian can eventually apologize and this demonstrates that he is actually trying to love. Are you going to apologize?

See it is surprisingly easy to tell when a Christian is not trying to love you raah.

raah! wrote: »

- It's still bigotted to say that you know that every christian you have met has tried not to love you.

Not if this assessment was based on how each one interacted with me. That would be the opposite of bigotry.

raah! wrote: »

Just as it would be bigotted for anyone to say that they can read the mind of any class of people and say that they are actively in pursuit of some nasty things. (I hope you understand that the term "actively in non pursuit" is barely grammatical)

Again with the use of the term nasty, despite me already clarifying for you that the opposite of trying to love someone is not trying to be nasty to them.

Right now are you actively trying to love me, and if so how do you reconcile this with actively ignoring what I'm saying? :rolleyes:

raah! wrote: »

And it does not show any nastiness.

I never once claimed you were being nasty, did I?

Are you right now trying to love me?

raah! wrote: »

Also, what'st hat last sentence about? Actively being unforgiving and holding grudges is being nasty.

I don't think you are being nasty at all. I think you are being some what dishonest in your debating, but then most people do this.

What you aren't doing is trying to love me. But then why would you, I'm a stranger to you.

raah! wrote: »

Going for the opposite of those christian values is being nasty. We've already said as much earlier.

No actually, I said the opposite. The opposite of trying to love someone is not trying to love someone.

So again another misrepresentation. With no believable justification that you simply misunderstood.

Can you explain that in the context of you currently trying to love me?

Mance Rayder · 30-07-2011 06:44PM

Wicknight wrote: »

What are you typing on?

Jesus was teaching that the end of the world was coming soon. He was not giving advice for future generations to follow, he was preparing those right now for meeting their maker.

It was only when, unsurprisingly, this didn't happen that future Christians had to cobble together some sort of non-apocalyptic interpretation of Jesus' teaching. Which is of course why there are contradictions. There are no contradictions in the context of judgement coming with-in the time of Jesus' initial teachings.

Saying something like Jesus would be happy with a billionaire who uses his money to help thousands of people for decades is missing the point. None of these people exist in Jesus' vision of the future, a future that should have ended within a generation of his birth.

Worrying about how Christians reconcile helping others with giving everything they own away is a problem not of Jesus' making since that was never supposed to be an issue in the first place.

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." - Jesus Christ.

Zombrex · 30-07-2011 06:44PM

Newaglish wrote: »

Perhaps you should just turn the other cheek...

It is funny how the line has lost some meaning in the last 2,000 years.

It is generally taken these days to mean ignore and don't retaliate against those who hurt you.

But if you read what Jesus says, he basically says that is someone hits you on the side of the face turn your other side to be hit as well.

It is not simply walk away from those who hurt or insult you. It is go up to them to be further hurt and insulted. Let them beat you, let them insult you. Wear their hatred out on yourself.

Again I don't blame modern Christians for not really knowing how to understand these teachings, they make far more sense in a world about to end, where it didn't really matter if you died from a beating today, or died later at the Apocalypse.

MagicMarker · 30-07-2011 07:33PM

CiscoStudent wrote: »

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." - Jesus Christ.

''Can someone pass the salt?'' - Jesus Christ

sponsoredwalk · 30-07-2011 08:20PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Yes, thanks for the ever so helpful link to the dictionary, it's all become so clear now.

I included that to ensure you actually understood the meaning of the
word 'innate', since you keep equating innate knowledge of the kind
we're talking about to knowledge of Meryl Streep or Andromeda & you
don't seem to know what it means for babies to have an innate sense of
grammar (or were just denying it, haven't cleared that one up yet).

MagicMarker wrote: »

I have never said in this thread that babies have no innate senses from birth,

What you did say was:

MagicMarker wrote: »

I don't see any reason to believe that babies have an innate sense of grammar,

which is why I responded asking you to explain why you're denying a
large chunk of the field of linguistics (something this response doesn't
account for), if it's a willful denial then I would respond differently than
if you just don't know much about UG (which I suspect as I'd find it hard
to see you denying science without good reason). If you are just flat
denying something like UG then I see no point arguing as I find it very
doubtful that we'd convince you on a topic you're biased against.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Does that mean it's logical to assume they all could have an innate sense of a deity? No, it isn't.

Quite a mischaracterization, what I've been doing is trying to see do
you understand the concept of innate knowledge as you don't seem
to understand it due to the ridiculous comparisons & equivalences.
The reason I've argued it's at least logical is not because innate
knowledge exists, that merely is establishing you actually understand
the difference between innate knowledge & knowledge of Andromeda
(something you haven't shown the ability to distinguish between), the
reason it's at least logical stems from their religious dogma's & doctrines.
The only relationship that universal grammar has to an innate knowledge
of god in this thread is that they are both claims about innate knowledge.
Both claims rest on previous reasoning for their claims to even exist,
in the case of UG it's a shedload of evidence, in the case of god it's
religious dogma. Just google this counter-opinion, hard as it may be :P,
to find out how many theological "proofs" there are for the existence of
innate knowledge of god. This hasn't all sprung up because they read
about Universal Grammar & thought, "'baby knows x' implies that 'baby
also knows y'" :pac: Arguing against something like this is really ridiculous
frankly, I see no possible way to discount such a claim. It rests on
previous assumptions, it is based on the theoretical framework built up
by religious dogma, it's the kind of claim that can be justified by such
'evidence' as the preponderance of religion across all boundaries &
cultures, but if the evidence fails then it still relies on scripture.

It's like a scientist discounting the "barmin" categorization of species,
of course they're going to discount it because they discount the previous
assumptions that led to such nonsense, similarly it's like a creationist
discounting an evolutionary explanation for the diversity of species as
we all know the earth is only 6000 years old... Again, previous
assumptions.

The belief is predicated on the previous assumption of a deity, it's
correctness is predicated on whether or not this deity actually exists.
You can't possibly know whether such a claim is true of false, all you
have is your particular bias & he has his particular bias. It can't possibly
be shown to be true or false without discovering the existence (or lack
thereof) of god, & further that it's the particular god of this scripture. If
you have a problem with this your problem lies with the whole orifice of
dogma that spews out such claims. Arguing over something like this is
like arguing over whether god exists frankly, just as in mathematics you
quickly reduce things to the fundamentals of set theory here too we
should be reducing things to the absolute fundamentals of whether you
accept religious claims of not, everything else is fruitless frankly.

So do you have a good reason for thinking this is "not physically possible"
that has actual relevance & doesn't rely on irrelevancies like a babies
"cognitive capacity" (if you still think this is relevant you need to offer
up a good argument & also explain why the field of linguistics is in fact
wrong to make such claims about humans being born with innate
universal grammar despite the exact same lack of cognitive capacity
you've used as a justification in this thread)? If not, what's the problem?

raah! · 30-07-2011 08:41PM

Wicknight wrote: »

You appreciate we can read their posts, correct?

You can see what they do, you cannot discern whehter or not they were trying their hardest to resist the unchristian urges to post unchristian things. This was my point.

The rest of this post I'll adress along with your next post.

Gordon · 30-07-2011 09:32PM

Love thy Mexican neighbour - Bill O'Reilly

raah! · 30-07-2011 09:41PM

Wicknight wrote: »

I never said anything about trying to be nice. I said trying to love. Jesus does not say try and be nice to your enemies.

It is pretty simple to tell when someone is trying to love you, since love is such a high concept. Trying to be nice to someone could mean anything from holding the door open to counting to ten before you shout at them.

Again you appreciate that purposely misrepresenting what I'm saying in order to strengthen an argument against me is not an act of love, right?

Well first of all wicknight, recall that you mentioned various christian values. Loving your neighbour, being forgiving, etc. You said you've never met a christian who even tried to be forgiving. While you will be forgiving to people you love, you are also forgiving to people to whom you are nice. It is an act of "niceness" as well as love to be forgiving to someone. I explained this very clearly in my posts.

You mentioned many christian values, not only would one who doesn't uphold those values not love their enemies, but they would also fulfill the criterion of not being nice. I was very clear about this in my post.

You didn't say "nice" explicitly yourself, but I showed clearly how it was logically entailed in your post. If you are not willing to treat the logical expansion of your own points then I'm not going to continue this arugment.

Can I ask why you are putting "trying to be nice" in quotes when I never used the term?

Then can I ask how you are doing this in the context of trying to love me?

I was putting it in quotes because it is logically entailed in your position of "I've never met a christian who has even tried to uphold christian values". Now you didn't say exactly that sentence either, but what you said means the exact same thing as that sentence, and "trying to be nice" also is entailed logically in it.

In that context I am quoting your meaning, and avoiding sophistical and convoluted language like "actively not trying".

Except you are quoting me as saying I've never met a Christian who has tried to be nice, when what I actually said is I've never met a Christian who has tried to love me, or more specifically if they tried they stopped trying a various points.

And this is just a continuation of the kind of backtracking you've been doing since the start. You said you've never met a christian who has even tried to uphold christian values. "love your neighbour" was but one in the list you gave which ended in an etc. Being forgiving was another, now while you can say "not loving your neighbour is not necessarily an act of not-niceness" not being forgiving most certainly falls under that category.

Now if you'd like to recant your earlier statement, or perhaps qualify it to the lesser statement of "I've never met a christian who I thought tried to love me", then go ahead. I'm sure you can see this is a lesser statement than your former and certainly bigotted one. This is still something you can't say by the way.

No, if that was the case then everyone I don't love I would hate, which is frankly ridiculous. There are billions of people I've never met yet alone love. By your logic I hate them. Which of course I don't. I just don't love them. Nor am I trying to.

I was talking about where you say they have actively pursued behaviour contrary, and then you say that "the opposite to trying to love is not trying to love". The opposite to trying to love is trying to hate. It is not a strawman.

Your first statement was that all christians you've met "fell far from trying" to love thier neighbour, be forgiving etc.

So from this we can infer that they are not nice. From your use of "the opposite of trying to love" we can infer that you meant "trying to hate" because that is what the opposite is. If you think the opposite to trying to love is not trying to love then you are simply wrong.

So you are misinterpreting that paragraph there, and completely ignoring my segment int he last post where I corrected your nonsense about the opposite to trying to love being not trying to love.

I didn't combine it with hate, you mentioned hate. I said try to love. The opposite to trying to love someone is not trying to love someone. It is not hating them.

Again, this is wrong. I've explained to you why it's wrong, and you've just repeated it. The opposite to trying to love someine is trying to have them. Not trying would be midway between trying to love and trying to hate. Just as as not trying to hate someone would be also between them. It is the difference between multiplication by zero, or multiplication by (-1), which is what an opposite is.

This is what I mean by straw manning.

And i've already explained to you why it is not strawmanning and infact entailed in your position. I'm not going to continue this discussion if you do what you have done here again. Namely chop up my post , leave out parts with refute what you have said, and then merely restate your assertions without support.

You know that isn't true. Now the question then becomes why are you stating it. Well probably because you find me annoying and wish to belittle my argument, an argument which you also find annoying.

So the question then becomes are you doing this while at the same time attempting to love me. That to me seems impossible. Which is why I am confident in saying that right now you are neither following Jesus' teaching nor trying to follow Jesus' teaching.

There is no content here. You are just assuming you are right and then trying to find reasons for why I would be wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've shown you you used the word opposite wrong, the word contrary wrong. Even if you didn't use those words everything I've said could still be deduced from what you have said. You have not provided any actual arguments. All you have given are "you're just saying that becuase I've offended you", that's not an argument.

When you bring two opposites together they negate each other. When you bring trying and not trying together you get trying. When you bring trying to hate and trying to love together you get a 0. They are opposites.

Now furthermore, this is not a debate about whether I am trying to follow anything. It's about you saying that every christian you have ever met has "fell far from" "actively pursued behaviour contrary to " and done the opposite to jesus' teachings. This is bigotted and wrong.

Not particularly. Given that you have accused me of dishonesty and bigotry I would imagine you could say that I'm not trying to love you (something I would happily admit).

This completely disregards what I said in justification of my pointing out your bigotry, and what it is not an instance of unchristian behaviour. Perhaps it is because that was later in the post.

It would also be an instance of them not. Which raises the question that at the time of the something nasty (and again you don't have to be actively nasty to someone to simply not love them) where were Jesus' teachings in their mind?

It is an instance of them trying. You don't seem to be properly reading my posts. They may have tried and failed initially but then were successful in trying with their apology.

Stereotypes are not group labels. They are group labels based on irrational often derogatory assumptions of those people.

Saying There is a group of 4th year transition students is not a stereotype. There is a group of black people, mind your wallets, is.

It is difficult to see that done in a loving context.

That's not what stereotypes are.

You appreciate you are still straw manning my arguments. Are you going to apologize in a little bit to show that you were trying to love me all along?

Could you provide some reasons as to how I am misrepresenting you? So far you have not done so once.

You appreciate that the "I know this from their posts" is precisely the thing that makes it not bigotted right?

For example it is bigotted to say that man might steal my wallet because he is black.

It is not bigotted to say that black man stole my wallet.

Neither is it bigotted to say that "according to these statistics, black people commit a higher proportion of crime in this area, therefore, this black man is more likely to steal my wallet than someone of a different denomination".

If I were to say something like "every black person I've met has secretly wanted to rob me, even though I can't read their minds and have no reason to think this" or "all christians I've met were actively engaged in behaviours contrary to such teachings as - love your neighbour, don't kill , steal , be forgiving. And they weren't even trying to not do these things", then yes, you'd be a bigot.

As I've said before, you don't know from their posts that they were not trying and failing to be nicer or more forgiving. This is not possible to know.

The unChristian bit, just to be clear, is taking what I said (I've never met a Christian who tried to love me and I can tell this from the way they interacted with me) to "You are coming to false conclusions that millions and millions of people actively try to hate people"

You know that isn't what I said. What you are doing is attempting to belittle my position by inventing something I didn't say and then representing that as what I am actually saying.

That is not trying to love me. It is though how most Christians I debate with behave. Why? Because that is how humans behave, and Christians are, shock horror, human.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well this is an important part. First of all what you said was you've never met a christian you tried to uphold chrsitian values like "loving your niehgbour, being forgiving etc" and that those you have met have been actively engaed in pursuing behaviours contrary to this. And that they may have been engaged in the opposite to trying to love or forgive you.

These are all things you have said, and I showed you how it was easy to travel logically from these few statements to things like:

-Wicknight thinks every christian he's met has been unforgiving un loving. etc.
-Wicknight thinks all these people have not even tried to be forgiving or loving.
-These people have even actively pursued things contrary (opposite) to christian teachings. Given that christian teachings are what they are, this amounts to saying that all the christians you have met were not only not loving their neighbours, but actively engaged int he opposite to this, and the opposite to many other things. The opposite to triyng to love is trying to hate. The opposite to being forgiving is being begrudging, the opposite to not being covetous is being covetous. The opposite to lots of good things are bad things.
-Therefore, we can see that from wicknight's few bigotted statments, all these other even more bigotted ones can be derived.

There is no strawman, no misinterpretation. Those are the things you've said and that is what they mean.

That is probably because I didn't mention speaking about a group in general terms is unChristian.

Are you right now trying to resist these urges?

Every time I point out that you have straw manned my argument in an attempt to belittle it you simply argue you haven't, then continue to use the straw man argument (point being you still claim I said something about Christians hating other people).

You say a Christian can eventually apologize and this demonstrates that he is actually trying to love. Are you going to apologize?

See it is surprisingly easy to tell when a Christian is not trying to love you raah.

Again this is all based on your pretending that I have "strawmanned" you. I haven't and I've shown you there. If you want I could use exact sentences , but it's not necessary. If any of those ones up there are wrong, then address why they are wrong.

I have given you reasons why I have interpreted what you said in the way I did. It's all logically connected.

Not if this assessment was based on how each one interacted with me. That would be the opposite of bigotry.

The bigotry would be in your presuming to be able to read their minds. Unjustified predjudice about them is what that would be. I've also already gone into how mayn christians there are, and what you are saying amounts to.

Again with the use of the term nasty, despite me already clarifying for you that the opposite of trying to love someone is not trying to be nasty to them.

Right now are you actively trying to love me, and if so how do you reconcile this with actively ignoring what I'm saying?

I never once claimed you were being nasty, did I?

Are you right now trying to love me?

All of this is adressed in that above paragraph. Actively pursuing behaviours contrary to christian values is nasty.

I don't think you are being nasty at all. I think you are being some what dishonest in your debating, but then most people do this.

What you aren't doing is trying to love me. But then why would you, I'm a stranger to you.

No actually, I said the opposite. The opposite of trying to love someone is not trying to love someone.

So again another misrepresentation. With no believable justification that you simply misunderstood.

Can you explain that in the context of you currently trying to love me?

This two is not really relevent given the paragraph up there. The part about opposites in particular, and the part where I extrapolate your sentences to those things up there.

All your arguments about my not trying to love you are based on my apparent deliberate "strawmanning" of your position. If you can't support that then don't bother to go on. I've given many arguments to support aht interpretation, you have given none. You have done nothing but repeat that the opposite of trying to love someone is not trying to love them.

For one thing this is just another sophistical trick. What you are trying to do is draw attention away from your more broad use of the term "christian values" earlier. Nobody would have any problem if you said "all of the christians I've met didn't love me". They are not perfect, of course. But unfortunately you said much more than this.

For tl;dr, and I realise that that post will be hard to read, I'll just put a red mark at the important parts.

magicbastarder · 30-07-2011 09:49PM

the thread title has given me pause for thought - would a true christian be able to killl non-norwegian scandinavians?

MagicMarker · 30-07-2011 09:59PM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

which is why I responded asking you to explain why you're denying a large chunk of the field of linguistics (something this response doesn't
account for), if it's a willful denial then I would respond differently than
if you just don't know much about UG (which I suspect as I'd find it hard
to see you denying science without good reason). If you are just flat
denying something like UG then I see no point arguing as I find it very
doubtful that we'd convince you on a topic you're biased against.

Quite a mischaracterization, what I've been doing is trying to see do
you understand the concept of innate knowledge as you don't seem
to understand it due to the ridiculous comparisons & equivalences.
The reason I've argued it's at least logical is not because innate
knowledge exists, that merely is establishing you actually understand
the difference between innate knowledge & knowledge of Andromeda
(something you haven't shown the ability to distinguish between), the
reason it's at least logical stems from their religious dogma's & doctrines.
The only relationship that universal grammar has to an innate knowledge
of god in this thread is that they are both claims about innate knowledge.
Both claims rest on previous reasoning for their claims to even exist,
in the case of UG it's a shedload of evidence, in the case of god it's
religious dogma. Just google this counter-opinion, hard as it may be :P,
to find out how many theological "proofs" there are for the existence of
innate knowledge of god. This hasn't all sprung up because they read
about Universal Grammar & thought, "'baby knows x' implies that 'baby
also knows y'" :pac: Arguing against something like this is really ridiculous
frankly, I see no possible way to discount such a claim. It rests on
previous assumptions, it is based on the theoretical framework built up
by religious dogma, it's the kind of claim that can be justified by such
'evidence' as the preponderance of religion across all boundaries &
cultures, but if the evidence fails then it still relies on scripture.

It's like a scientist discounting the "barmin" categorization of species,
of course they're going to discount it because they discount the previous
assumptions that led to such nonsense, similarly it's like a creationist
discounting an evolutionary explanation for the diversity of species as
we all know the earth is only 6000 years old... Again, previous
assumptions.

The belief is predicated on the previous assumption of a deity, it's
correctness is predicated on whether or not this deity actually exists.
You can't possibly know whether such a claim is true of false, all you
have is your particular bias & he has his particular bias. It can't possibly
be shown to be true or false without discovering the existence (or lack
thereof) of god, & further that it's the particular god of this scripture. If
you have a problem with this your problem lies with the whole orifice of
dogma that spews out such claims. Arguing over something like this is
like arguing over whether god exists frankly, just as in mathematics you
quickly reduce things to the fundamentals of set theory here too we
should be reducing things to the absolute fundamentals of whether you
accept religious claims of not, everything else is fruitless frankly.

So do you have a good reason for thinking this is "not physically possible"
that has actual relevance & doesn't rely on irrelevancies like a babies
"cognitive capacity" (if you still think this is relevant you need to offer
up a good argument & also explain why the field of linguistics is in fact
wrong to make such claims about humans being born with innate
universal grammar despite the exact same lack of cognitive capacity
you've used as a justification in this thread)? If not, what's the problem?

Firstly, I'm not denying anything, you asked me a question and I gave my, granted, uninformed opinion. I'll gladly accept that babies have an innate sense of grammar if that's what the evidence points to. If a claim is made based on logical reasoning (evidence) then I will call that claim logical. If a claim is made based on illogical reasoning (religious dogma) with no evidence, then I will call that claim illogical. It's really as simple as that.

MagicMarker · 30-07-2011 10:01PM

There should be a limit to the amount of multi-quotes allowed in a post, I'm thinking 2 would be a good start.

Bill O'Reilly: No True Christian would kill Norwegians.

Comments