Faith.

[Pineal]

Yes, you used the quote function correctly: I did not say I know.


I'm certain he's wrong;

So it would be fair to say you are not claiming to know, given the above.

Nope. But is it not also fair to state that if one resorts to blustering, insults and evasion when questioned then one is less than likely to be telling the truth?

I would tend to agree, but I don't think this is true for all individuals. But if I understand this correctly you think he is lying?

If one had any evidence whatsoever, or any support, then surely that would be offered rather than K91's typical response...

Unless one knew what would happen if one did offer what support one had. IOW given that when one offers such support it is taken as evidence the other person has to accept as compelling for them, which is very unlikely to be the case, while at the same time in fact being supportive to the one with the experiences.

Which have NOT been forthcoming. He has NEVER provided any support his position other than more unsupported claims.

Again, I would never put forward any anomalous experiences I have had, if I used them to support beliefs I knew would be considered irrational here, because people take them as
proofs
or claims to compelling evidence to others.

There seems to be little awareness that what can make a belief rational for one person with one set of experiences can at the same time carry no weight for others.

Okey doke. Although I have, on occasion, pulled up those who claim, for example, that they can prove god doesn't exist &c.

Godl star on your forhead.

 

[Dywyddyr]

So it would be fair to say you are not claiming to know, given the above.

I can't claim to know, but I'm certain. I'm not a betting man but I'd put money on it (that god isn't speaking to him).

I would tend to agree, but I don't think this is true for all individuals. But if I understand this correctly you think he is lying?

Hmm, lying? Not exactly. I think he's just getting carried away in his zealousness.

Unless one knew what would happen if one did offer what support one had. IOW given that when one offers such support it is taken as evidence the other person has to accept as compelling for them, which is very unlikely to be the case, while at the same time in fact being supportive to the one with the experiences.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here: what does make me suspicious is that he offers no rationale whatsoever for making his his claims.

Again, I would never put forward any anomalous experiences I have had, if I used them to support beliefs I knew would be considered irrational here, because people take them as proofs or claims to compelling evidence to others.

I can sort of see that: on the other hand, offering nothing as support (other than invective and boasts) doesn't help him much either...

There seems to be little awareness that what can make a belief rational for one person with one set of experiences can at the same time carry no weight for others.

Yet that tends to be the foundation of many of my arguments: just because X has had a certain experience doesn't necessarily make it a valid claim.
Subjective testimony remains just that...

 

[Arioch]

@Signal --

Or you don't understand his demonstration.

What demonstration? All Knowledge91 has done is say "this is the way it is" and when we ask how he knows he just says that god told him. There's been no demonstration. Given the fact that multiple posters have repeatedly asked him to demonstrate that god did indeed tell him as well as the fact that he hasn't done so while he's been deflecting and engaging in logical fallacy after logical fallacy is evidence that he can't demonstrate it.

 

[Pineal]

I can't claim to know, but I'm certain. I'm not a betting man but I'd put money on it (that god isn't speaking to him).

OK.

Hmm, lying? Not exactly. I think he's just getting carried away in his zealousness.

But at least you think he is not basing his beliefs on anything he would consider support, it seems. IOW his not coming forward with support seems to be taken by you as there not being any since he blusters, etc.

I can sort of see that: on the other hand, offering nothing as support (other than invective and boasts) doesn't help him much either...

No.

Yet that tends to be the foundation of many of my arguments: just because X has had a certain experience doesn't necessarily make it a valid claim.
Subjective testimony remains just that...

Right, but that's for the community. IOW one can be rational in a belief but not be able to demonstrate to others it is not merely based on misinterpreted subjective experience - a redundant term, I know. I would say we all are rational in this way on a number of things.

 

[Dywyddyr]

But at least you think he is not basing his beliefs on anything he would consider support, it seems.

I think his claims aren't based on anything other than his desire to be "right". Or, more accurately his desire to be seen as "right", and as some sort of prophetic messiah.

IOW his not coming forward with support seems to be taken by you as there not being any since he blusters, etc.

Absolutely.
If there was any support or rationale then surely, as back up for his claims, a rational sincere person would provide whatever evidence was available in order to be taken seriously.
K91 comes across as (sort of) sincere but highly irrational. He's close to crossing the line and being taken as a parody of a fundamentalist crackpot. (If he hasn't already crossed it).

 

[Pineal]

I think his claims aren't based on anything other than his desire to be "right". Or, more accurately his desire to be seen as "right", and as some sort of prophetic messiah.

While this could be true, you don't think it is likely that he read religious writing that seemed to fit his experience of the world, that something religious seemed to give insight and make clear something that was confusing to him before, that something seemed intuitively true - just as most (all?) of us accept certain things because they seem self-evidently true, if arguably on more banal levels.

Or do you really think this is ONLY about being seen as something special - and that nothing intuitive or at least seemingly rational or certain experiences contributed to the choice?

Absolutely.
If there was any support or rationale then surely, as back up for his claims, a rational sincere person would provide whatever evidence was available in order to be taken seriously.
K91 comes across as (sort of) sincere but highly irrational. He's close to crossing the line and being taken as a parody of a fundamentalist crackpot. (If he hasn't already crossed it).

OK.

And I realize we have gone off topic, but I became curious about how you viewed him. It seemed to indicate things I would have a hard time deciding: like that he was making claims purely to be seen in a certain way.

 

[Dywyddyr]

While this could be true, you don't think it is likely that he read religious writing that seemed to fit his experience of the world, that something religious seemed to give insight and make clear something that was confusing to him before

Then why the lack of support?
The only religious writing he appears to have mentioned so far is the bible - which he has declared to be "bullshit" and "written by liars" (besides displaying a profound lack of knowledge of what it actually says)?

that something seemed intuitively true - just as most (all?) of us accept certain things because they seem self-evidently true, if arguably on more banal levels.

And again we're back to his invective and vaingloriousness rather than offering even that as a (flimsy) rationale.

Or do you really think this is ONLY about being seen as something special - and that nothing intuitive or at least seemingly rational or certain experiences contributed to the choice?

Then I would question his honesty: why is nothing proffered as back-up?

And I realize we have gone off topic, but I became curious about how you viewed him. It seemed to indicate things I would have a hard time deciding: like that he was making claims purely to be seen in a certain way.

He does nothing but preach (despite having received bans for doing so). He appears to be locked into a pattern of behaviour - making "deep" pronunciations and claims without support or visible rationale and becoming offensive and dismissive when questioned.
"Accept my word without question" is rather egotistical, no?

 

[kx000]

How do I prove God speaks to me? Oh, he says "you don't." If you give me a good sugestion on proving his voice then I will test it.

 

[Pineal]

Then why the lack of support?
The only religious writing he appears to have mentioned so far is the bible - which he has declared to be "bullshit" and "written by liars" (besides displaying a profound lack of knowledge of what it actually says)?


And again we're back to his invective and vaingloriousness rather than offering even that as a (flimsy) rationale.


Then I would question his honesty: why is nothing proffered as back-up?


He does nothing but preach (despite having received bans for doing so). He appears to be locked into a pattern of behaviour - making "deep" pronunciations and claims without support or visible rationale and becoming offensive and dismissive when questioned.
"Accept my word without question" is rather egotistical, no?

We're coming at this from two directions. You are looking at the evidence in his posts for potential support at least in his own terms he might have. You find none and think there is none. I am thinking this is a person and that people have motivations, generally, beyond how they want to be seen, at least for that kind of person they want to be seen as. I am guessing that most people asserting things like he is have had experiences and insights that fit with his assertions. I think that is how we humans generally work.

 

[Pineal]

How do I prove God speaks to me? Oh, he says "you don't." If you give me a good sugestion on proving his voice then I will test it.

Given that you don't expect people like D to accept your assertions, what are your expectations and intentions for participating in Sciforums? What do you hope to accomplish?

If you could put forward arguments - on any topic - you could learn from defending these arguments.

But if you are simply going to assert it seems like you yourself will have a hard time getting anything out of being here.

What do you think other people will or might get out of it and how is it going so far?

 

[wynn]

Yet I haven't seen you question his claims (my apologies if you have done so and I missed it).

What I deeply, profoundly, frustratingly wonder is
why on earth are you talking so much to Knowledge91?

Why this masochism??

Do you believe that if God exists, God is an entirely mystical entity and the process of knowing Him is entirely mystical, or at least apophatic?

 

[wynn]

What demonstration? All Knowledge91 has done is say "this is the way it is" and when we ask how he knows he just says that god told him. There's been no demonstration. Given the fact that multiple posters have repeatedly asked him to demonstrate that god did indeed tell him as well as the fact that he hasn't done so while he's been deflecting and engaging in logical fallacy after logical fallacy is evidence that he can't demonstrate it.

There seems to be little awareness that what can make a belief rational for one person with one set of experiences can at the same time carry no weight for others.

Yet that tends to be the foundation of many of my arguments: just because X has had a certain experience doesn't necessarily make it a valid claim.
Subjective testimony remains just that...

There is a kind of reactive, passive victim/martyr mentality among some non-theists.

Someone, say, a theist, comes along, makes a bold claim, and the non-theists feel they need to defend themselves or attack that person - although the non-theists may do it with some sophistication.

Why this dynamics?

Why not shrug one's shoulders, why not reply with an all-knowing smirk, why not continue with one's ordinary duties?

Whence the confidence that the maker of that bold claim is worth talking to or able to meaningfully reply to one's inquiries and teach?

 

[wynn]

He does nothing but preach (despite having received bans for doing so). He appears to be locked into a pattern of behaviour - making "deep" pronunciations and claims without support or visible rationale and becoming offensive and dismissive when questioned.
"Accept my word without question" is rather egotistical, no?

One thing that I do know is that you rather talk to him than to me.
He is, apparently, more interesting than I am.

There are real people wanting to be friends with you, but instead of being with them, you prefer to spend your time on people you yourself consider to be woo-woos.


How come?


(And yes, I am aware of how hurtful and personal this comment is.)

 

[kx000]

Given that you don't expect people like D to accept your assertions, what are your expectations and intentions for participating in Sciforums? What do you hope to accomplish?

If you could put forward arguments - on any topic - you could learn from defending these arguments.

But if you are simply going to assert it seems like you yourself will have a hard time getting anything out of being here.

What do you think other people will or might get out of it and how is it going so far?

haha.

Im here to tell the truth. It has to be written somewhere. I understand why a lot of you don't accept me, but remember things are never as they seem... but then again dont say I didnt tell you so.

 

[Arioch]

@Signal --

I post here because I find debate, and consequently destroying another person's arguments, to be quite entertaining. You might say that it's something of a fetish of mine and it always has been, even back when I was a theist(I just didn't get to enjoy it as much when I was a theist). Beyond that, the approach I've taken with K91 in this and a few other threads is the only approach that seems to work. I tried the polite approach and all I got was a stone wall where he would either refuse to support his arguments or would engage in the fallacy of circular reasoning. No, the aggressive approach works much better with both him and LG.

@Knowledge --

How do I prove God speaks to me? Oh, he says "you don't." If you give me a good sugestion on proving his voice then I will test it.

I have a good suggestion for you, don't make arguments that you can't support.

Im here to tell the truth.

How do you know it's the truth if you don't have evidence to support it? Bottom line is that you don't know it's the truth, you just think it's the truth. Belief does not equal fact.

I understand why a lot of you don't accept me,

Oh I accept you for who you are, but I don't accept what you're saying as the truth because different explanations fit the evidence better than yours do.

but remember things are never as they seem...

Sometimes they are. A person who constantly makes declarations about "the truth" but always refuses to back them up is virtually always someone who doesn't know what the truth is and just makes up whatever sounds good to them.

but then again dont say I didnt tell you so.

Oh I don't think that we'll ever have to worry about you uttering those words here.

 

[wynn]

I post here because I find debate, and consequently destroying another person's arguments, to be quite entertaining. You might say that it's something of a fetish of mine and it always has been, even back when I was a theist(I just didn't get to enjoy it as much when I was a theist). Beyond that, the approach I've taken with K91 in this and a few other threads is the only approach that seems to work. I tried the polite approach and all I got was a stone wall where he would either refuse to support his arguments or would engage in the fallacy of circular reasoning. No, the aggressive approach works much better with both him and LG.

Works - how?
Accomplishes - what?

 

[Arioch]

@Signal --

It works much better to get a response wherein he either tries to support his arguments or admits that he can't. That's what it accomplishes.

 

[wynn]

To what end?

 

[Arioch]

@Signal --

Well for one admissions of that sort help us move past arguments that would threaten to derail the thread. And when he does attempt to defend his arguments, however poorly, it shows that he's maturing as a debater.

Of course my main goal in these threads is always my own entertainment, but since the parry and thrust of debate is very entertaining for me(seriously, sometimes I sit here with popcorn and just read), I fail to see how that could be a bad thing.

 

[wynn]

Oh.

I guess philosophical and theological sado-masochism can be "entertaining," yes ...