SPLIT: From The terrifying afterlife thread

[Voter]

You are being difficult on purpose.

Yes, the purpose being that you're trying to disavow saying that most Christians aren't smart. If you'd just admit it and retract it, we'd be done.

An eye witness account of an event (someone trying to remember something that happened) is not the same as someone relaying information claimed to come from a tangible source.

True, it's not the same. The eyewitness account could be better or worse. I'll bet you accept eyewitness accounts without corraborating evidence all the time. I do. If a friend says they ran into a mutual friend the other day, I don't ask for a picture. That's accepting eyewitness testimony without hard evidence. Does that mean I'm not smart?

[Whitney]

You are being difficult on purpose.

Yes, the purpose being that you're trying to disavow saying that most Christians aren't smart. If you'd just admit it and retract it, we'd be done.

I'm not going to allow you to decide what I think.  Most Chrsitians are smart, most chrsitians aren't fundamentalists, most chrsitians aren't young earthers, and most chrsitians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims.  So most christians are smart...whether you are one of them is a whole other question.

(Note that "smart" here is refering to not dumb....obviously they can't all be smart that would be statistically impossible.)

[Voter]

I'm not going to allow you to decide what I think.  Most Chrsitians are smart, most chrsitians aren't fundamentalists, most chrsitians aren't young earthers, and most chrsitians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims.  So most christians are smart...whether you are one of them is a whole other question.

That's fine on its own, but again, it contradicts your earlier statement.

[Whitney]

That's fine on its own, but again, it contradicts your earlier statement.

No, it doesn't.

[Davin]

I'm not going to allow you to decide what I think.  Most Chrsitians are smart, most chrsitians aren't fundamentalists, most chrsitians aren't young earthers, and most chrsitians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims.  So most christians are smart...whether you are one of them is a whole other question.

That's fine on its own, but again, it contradicts your earlier statement.

No, it does not contradict her earlier statement: "Smart people also don't trust eye witness accounts unless they are collaborated by hard evidence...people lie, people misremember; if we share a story with a fellow observer we tend to adapt their views into our own remembered experience, in fact our brains fill in memories if we are missing pieces,...a sort of glitch due to other processes."

Unless you're speaking for all Christians by saying that every single Christian trusts all eye witness accounts without evidence. So which is it: are you speaking for Whitney, speaking for all Christians or are you just wrong? I think you're just wrong.

[Voter]

I'm not going to allow you to decide what I think.  Most Chrsitians are smart, most chrsitians aren't fundamentalists, most chrsitians aren't young earthers, and most chrsitians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims.  So most christians are smart...whether you are one of them is a whole other question.

That's fine on its own, but again, it contradicts your earlier statement.

No, it does not contradict her earlier statement: "Smart people also don't trust eye witness accounts unless they are collaborated by hard evidence...people lie, people misremember; if we share a story with a fellow observer we tend to adapt their views into our own remembered experience, in fact our brains fill in memories if we are missing pieces,...a sort of glitch due to other processes."

Unless you're speaking for all Christians by saying that every single Christian trusts all eye witness accounts without evidence. So which is it: are you speaking for Whitney, speaking for all Christians or are you just wrong? I think you're just wrong.

I was just going to let this die, but anyway...

1. Smart people don't trust eyewitness accounts unless they're corroborated by hard evidence - Whitney
2. Most Christians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims - Whitney
3. Most Christians don't know if the accounts which form the basis of Christianity are corroborated by hard evidence - follows from 2
4. Christians trust such accounts - definition of Christian
5. Christians are not smart people - follows from 1, 3 & 4
6. Most Christians are smart people - Whitney

Yes, it contradicts her earlier statement.

[Whitney]

1. Smart people don't trust eyewitness accounts unless they're corroborated by hard evidence - Whitney
2. Most Christians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims - Whitney
3. Most Christians don't know if the accounts which form the basis of Christianity are corroborated by hard evidence - follows from 2
4. Christians trust such accounts - definition of Christian
5. Christians are not smart people - follows from 1, 3 & 4
6. Most Christians are smart people - Whitney

Yes, it contradicts her earlier statement.

 

I have half a mind to just agree with voter on his proof that Christians are all retarded.

[McQ]

1. Smart people don't trust eyewitness accounts unless they're corroborated by hard evidence - Whitney
2. Most Christians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims - Whitney
3. Most Christians don't know if the accounts which form the basis of Christianity are corroborated by hard evidence - follows from 2
4. Christians trust such accounts - definition of Christian
5. Christians are not smart people - follows from 1, 3 & 4
6. Most Christians are smart people - Whitney

Yes, it contradicts her earlier statement.

 

I have half a mind to just agree with voter on his proof that Christians are all retarded.

[Voter]

1. Smart people don't trust eyewitness accounts unless they're corroborated by hard evidence - Whitney
2. Most Christians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims - Whitney
3. Most Christians don't know if the accounts which form the basis of Christianity are corroborated by hard evidence - follows from 2
4. Christians trust such accounts - definition of Christian
5. Christians are not smart people - follows from 1, 3 & 4
6. Most Christians are smart people - Whitney

Yes, it contradicts her earlier statement.

 

I have half a mind to just agree with voter on his proof that Christians are all retarded.

Faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions. In this case, premise 1 is faulty. You skipped over my point that we accept eyewitness testimony without corroborating hard evidence all the time, because it's true. Emoticons and pictures don't change that. (There should be a rule that when someone jumps into a discussion just to post a faceplant or other funny picture, his opponent's position is sound.)

[McQ]

1. Smart people don't trust eyewitness accounts unless they're corroborated by hard evidence - Whitney
2. Most Christians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims - Whitney
3. Most Christians don't know if the accounts which form the basis of Christianity are corroborated by hard evidence - follows from 2
4. Christians trust such accounts - definition of Christian
5. Christians are not smart people - follows from 1, 3 & 4
6. Most Christians are smart people - Whitney

Yes, it contradicts her earlier statement.

 

I have half a mind to just agree with voter on his proof that Christians are all retarded.

Faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions. In this case, premise 1 is faulty. You skipped over my point that we accept eyewitness testimony without corroborating hard evidence all the time, because it's true. Emoticons and pictures don't change that. (There should be a rule that when someone jumps into a discussion just to post a faceplant or other funny picture, his opponent's position is sound.)

Actually, there should be a rule that when someone is so undeniably wrong and keeps going on and on, that the only thing he is worthy of receiving in response are cartoons and facepalms. Maybe we should just enact that rule now? Or you can just drop it.

[Voter]

Actually, there should be a rule that when someone is so undeniably wrong and keeps going on and on, that the only thing he is worthy of receiving in response are cartoons and facepalms. Maybe we should just enact that rule now? Or you can just drop it.

Where am I wrong?

[McQ]

Actually, there should be a rule that when someone is so undeniably wrong and keeps going on and on, that the only thing he is worthy of receiving in response are cartoons and facepalms. Maybe we should just enact that rule now? Or you can just drop it.

Where am I wrong?

Not up to me to show you, because it has already been pointed out in this thread and you ignored it. Re-read it yourself. Don't derail the thread by arguing this in the forum. Don't even respond to this post in the thread. You've wasted everyone's time already by not dropping this and moving on. PM another mod if you think you're having an issue.

[Davin]

Trolling is a art.

[Inevitable Droid]

In the real world miracles themselves are extraordinary claims that need extraordinary evidence.

I can't believe you even had to say that.  Yet Voter is the second Christian in recent weeks who came on this message board and offered miracles as proof of something, instead of offering something as proof of miracles.

Miracles make the bible less credible, not more credible.  The Quran has far fewer miracles in it than the bible, and the miracles the Quran has are mostly repeated from the bible.  The Quran (at least the vast bulk of it) was also written by one man, a fact no one seriously disputes; nor does anyone seriously dispute the identity of that man, or that he really existed, or that he did the things his followers say he did.  Nor does the Quran, its author, or the disciples of its author, claim special divine status for any human, least of all the Quran's author.  All in all, Islam is far more credible than Christianity.  Why anyone would be an Abrahamist and not be Muslim is a mystery to me - unless the person is Jewish.  Why anyone would be an Abrahamist at all is a separate mystery, of course.

[Voter]

As an atheist I perceive no religious group as closer to holding the truth than any other.

It interests me how obvious this is, yet the faithful shrug it off.  All the reasons a Greek Orthodox could give for holding onto faith, a Muslim could give, in precisely the same words.

Miracles make the bible less credible, not more credible. The Quran has far fewer miracles in it than the bible, and the miracles the Quran has are mostly repeated from the bible. The Quran (at least the vast bulk of it) was also written by one man, a fact no one seriously disputes; nor does anyone seriously dispute the identity of that man, or that he really existed, or that he did the things his followers say he did. Nor does the Quran, its author, or the disciples of its author, claim special divine status for any human, least of all the Quran's author. All in all, Islam is far more credible than Christianity. Why anyone would be an Abrahamist and not be Muslim is a mystery to me - unless the person is Jewish. Why anyone would be an Abrahamist at all is a separate mystery, of course.

While I disagree with your criteria and weighting, you now seem to agree that your initial position was wrong. Good work, so far as it goes.