Author Topic: Xavier's M.O.  (Read 2975 times)

Offline John Lamb

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thanked: 1617 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Xavier's M.O.
« Reply #45 on: September 04, 2018, 03:24:05 AM »
As I said, good luck with that.  The student will know you are just running your mouth, as will everyone else in the class, and as I know you are now.

But that's exactly how evolutionists appear in the eyes of creationists already. For example, I was in an AI class and the professor couldn't help bringing up the theory of evolution about once every lesson. He didn't really know what he was saying, he was just running his mouth. The university accepts the evolutionist ideology and he just follows along.

Quote
You lose the debates on the merits, so you have to resort to claiming how "unfair" everything is, how "oppressed" you are, and frankly admit you would attempt to punish anyone raising any uncomfortable questions if you were in charge.  That's the m.o. of ideologues.

We don't lose the debate on merit, we lose it because we don't have enough power.

Quote
I'm interested to hear your explanation of why it is rational to believe in a young earth with the evidence from Lake Suigetsu.  Just take that for starters.  If you feel so confident, that is.  Why should I believe that C-14 decay rates were much faster in the past, which coincided with lake varves being formed much faster than once per year?

Why are you asking me about over confidence? You're the one who thinks he can tell how old the earth is by analysing layers of dirt on the bottom of lake.

https://afdave.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/lake-suigetsu-no-help-for-old-earthers/
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/do-varves-tree-rings-radiocarbon-measurements-prove-old-earth/
http://www.icr.org/article/refuting-biologos-do-japanese-lake/
https://creation.com/national-geographic-plays-the-dating-game
http://creationwiki.org/Varve

Quote from: GloriaPatri
The difference being that there is ample evidence for both evolution and an old Earth/Universe, while the only evidence for a young Earth amounts to "the Bible says so, so it must be true!"

The evidence only shows evolution and OE if you interpret it that way.
As many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. (John 1:12)
 
The following users thanked this post: mikemac, Xavier, Blue Violet

Offline Greg

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12122
  • Thanked: 6748 times
  • Some sacrifices are WELL worth making.
  • Religion: Kung Fu
Re: Xavier's M.O.
« Reply #46 on: September 04, 2018, 05:50:36 AM »
As I understand that teaching, it means that in cases where reason and faith conflict (or appear to conflict), you would have to consider that the deficiency is with your reason.

Which is exactly what the leader of every false religious cult or brainwashing guru requires too.

Let's assume a time machine was invented and you went back to 33AD and witnessed the death of Jesus.  You hid by the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea and found several of the apostles sneaked in at night overpowered the guards (who were drunk) and stole the body away and buried it elsewhere.  The guards then lied to avoid being punished for being drunk on duty or too weak to stop some local religious lunatics.

You then returned to 2018 in the time machine.

By your logic, above, back in 2018 again you would have to consider that you had imagined the whole thing and that the time machine in your garage was a figment of your imagination.  After all you (plural) are just a deficient human being and your reason only has any value in so far as it affirms your faith.

I can only judge ANY claim or creed by my own intellect.  Rational thought MUST be at the root of ANY belief for that belief to be any more than an emotional response or desire for something to be true.

Cogito, ergo sum

Make rational thought play second-fiddle and you can be led to believe any old nonsense; simply with the carrot of 72 virgins or eternal bliss or drinking and whoring in Valhalla.  We know, there is AMPLE evidence, that humans are very susceptible to confirmation bias.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2018, 05:53:37 AM by Greg »
Retired to Rivendell.
 
The following users thanked this post: Pon de Replay, Daniel

Offline Quaremerepulisti

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3879
  • Thanked: 1268 times
  • Religion: Catholic (Byzantine)
Re: Xavier's M.O.
« Reply #47 on: September 04, 2018, 09:38:25 AM »
We don't lose the debate on merit, we lose it because we don't have enough power.

How would you know?  I mean, no matter what the evidence for the old earth, you would never accept it and attempt to discredit it by any means possible.  So there's no point at which you would ever admit you lost the debate on merit.

And that is the big difference here, which I do not think we will ever agree on.  For you, the most important thing is religious authority.  It is to be supported and upheld no matter what.  It's why you react to old earth in this way and why you react to reports of atrocities committed against children in a Vermont orphanage the way you did on that thread.  Its import would be weakened if these things turned out be true.  Therefore, they must be false, or at least exaggerated and blown way out of proportion.  The fact that very few agree with you shows that there is a "conspiracy" afoot.  It simply couldn't be that "evolutionist" scientists and "sensationalist muck-raker" journalists were actually correct.

For me, truth and human well-being come first over self-serving attempts to justify authority.


Quote
Quote
I'm interested to hear your explanation of why it is rational to believe in a young earth with the evidence from Lake Suigetsu.  Just take that for starters.  If you feel so confident, that is.  Why should I believe that C-14 decay rates were much faster in the past, which coincided with lake varves being formed much faster than once per year?

Why are you asking me about over confidence? You're the one who thinks he can tell how old the earth is by analysing layers of dirt on the bottom of lake.

IOW, you don't really have an answer, just rhetoric, and neither does anyone else.  Worse yet, you don't even care that you don't have an answer.
 
The following users thanked this post: GloriaPatri

Offline GloriaPatri

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2474
  • Thanked: 500 times
  • Religion: Platonic Realist
Re: Xavier's M.O.
« Reply #48 on: September 04, 2018, 09:52:31 AM »
John Lamb, you have been asked several times to provide your evidence for a young Earth. You have refused to do so, so I'm going to conclude that you have no evidence and are only talking out of your ass. You YECists are utterly incapable of an honest debate. All you have is Bible thumping, which is no evidence at all.
 

Offline Jayne

  • Mary Garden
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12753
  • Thanked: 4775 times
  • Comic Sans Frontières
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Xavier's M.O.
« Reply #49 on: September 04, 2018, 09:56:54 AM »
John Lamb, you have been asked several times to provide your evidence for a young Earth. You have refused to do so, so I'm going to conclude that you have no evidence and are only talking out of your ass. You YECists are utterly incapable of an honest debate. All you have is Bible thumping, which is no evidence at all.

It is both reasonable and honest to adopt YEC as a theological position without any science evidence whatsoever.  For those of us who believe that Scripture is inerrant, it logically follows that we can deduce truths about the world from it.

Just because you reject the underlying assumption concerning Scripture does not make your opponents dishonest.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.
 
The following users thanked this post: mikemac, nmoerbeek, Maximilian, Xavier, Blue Violet

Offline GloriaPatri

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2474
  • Thanked: 500 times
  • Religion: Platonic Realist
Re: Xavier's M.O.
« Reply #50 on: September 04, 2018, 10:10:23 AM »
John Lamb, you have been asked several times to provide your evidence for a young Earth. You have refused to do so, so I'm going to conclude that you have no evidence and are only talking out of your ass. You YECists are utterly incapable of an honest debate. All you have is Bible thumping, which is no evidence at all.

It is both reasonable and honest to adopt YEC as a theological position without any science evidence whatsoever.  For those of us who believe that Scripture is inerrant, it logically follows that we can deduce truths about the world from it.

Just because you reject the underlying assumption concerning Scripture does not make your opponents dishonest.

So you're going to accept the claims of any old text made about the physical world, without seeing if such claims are borne out by the physical world itself? What a load of garbage. And cultish behavior. You're just going to stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'LA LA LA' whenever anyone provides evidence that you are wrong.
 
The following users thanked this post: Greg

Offline GloriaPatri

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2474
  • Thanked: 500 times
  • Religion: Platonic Realist
Re: Xavier's M.O.
« Reply #51 on: September 04, 2018, 10:45:47 AM »
Furthermore, your own scriptures command you to "test the spirits," yet none of you give any critical thought to your acceptance of those very scriptures. You just accept it on blind faith and condemn as a heretic or an apostate or an infidel anyone who thinks differently from you. A few centuries ago, your Church even had the power to execute people for thinking differently.

Say what you want about the scientific community, but they never sought to execute someone for asking questions or arriving at a different conclusion than the one most widely accepted.
 

Offline Jayne

  • Mary Garden
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12753
  • Thanked: 4775 times
  • Comic Sans Frontières
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Xavier's M.O.
« Reply #52 on: September 04, 2018, 11:14:54 AM »
John Lamb, you have been asked several times to provide your evidence for a young Earth. You have refused to do so, so I'm going to conclude that you have no evidence and are only talking out of your ass. You YECists are utterly incapable of an honest debate. All you have is Bible thumping, which is no evidence at all.

It is both reasonable and honest to adopt YEC as a theological position without any science evidence whatsoever.  For those of us who believe that Scripture is inerrant, it logically follows that we can deduce truths about the world from it.

Just because you reject the underlying assumption concerning Scripture does not make your opponents dishonest.

So you're going to accept the claims of any old text made about the physical world, without seeing if such claims are borne out by the physical world itself? What a load of garbage. And cultish behavior. You're just going to stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'LA LA LA' whenever anyone provides evidence that you are wrong.

Science has been wrong many times on many subjects.  Science does not even claim to be inerrant. I have far more trust in Scripture than I do in science and that is a completely reasonable position to take.  Scripture is not "any old text". It is the Word of God.

You reject one of the most basic assumptions of Catholics and then act like there is something wrong with us for believing what Catholics have always believed.  If you object to Catholics being Catholics, what are you doing here on a Catholic forum?

Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.
 
The following users thanked this post: mikemac, Maximilian, PerEvangelicaDicta, Blue Violet

Offline Jayne

  • Mary Garden
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12753
  • Thanked: 4775 times
  • Comic Sans Frontières
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Xavier's M.O.
« Reply #53 on: September 04, 2018, 11:18:31 AM »
Furthermore, your own scriptures command you to "test the spirits," yet none of you give any critical thought to your acceptance of those very scriptures. You just accept it on blind faith and condemn as a heretic or an apostate or an infidel anyone who thinks differently from you. A few centuries ago, your Church even had the power to execute people for thinking differently.

Say what you want about the scientific community, but they never sought to execute someone for asking questions or arriving at a different conclusion than the one most widely accepted.

If scientists had the power to execute people for thinking differently, I'm sure they would.  They certainly do all that is within their power to prevent "unacceptable" ideas from spreading.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.
 
The following users thanked this post: Heinrich, mikemac, Maximilian, Blue Violet

Offline John Lamb

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thanked: 1617 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Xavier's M.O.
« Reply #54 on: September 04, 2018, 11:46:39 AM »
John Lamb, you have been asked several times to provide your evidence for a young Earth. You have refused to do so, so I'm going to conclude that you have no evidence and are only talking out of your ass. You YECists are utterly incapable of an honest debate. All you have is Bible thumping, which is no evidence at all.

You misunderstand my position. I'm not saying that I'm a YEC because I think the evidence decides in its favour. I lack the scientific expertise to interpret the evidence conclusively either way. What I'm saying is that, seeing as I am incompetent to decide it for myself, I default to YEC because it's the more obvious and consistent interpretation of the Bible, and I place greater weight in the authority of the Bible than in the authority of the scientific community. In other words, when I am in doubt and cannot rely on my own knowledge, and have to put my faith in an authority, I prefer the authority of God than of men, and it seems to me that God is saying that the earth is young. However, seeing as YEC is not the only valid interpretation of the Bible, and OEC is also a valid (though I think less probable) interpretation, I don't pretend to condemn OEC – I only say that I favour YEC, as the most probable interpretation.

To be quite honest, in regards to the purely scientific question I don't really care. The matter is so complex that I don't find it worth my time, especially seeing as I find the subject quite dull. All I'm asserting is that the scientific community over the last couple of centuries has had an obvious and strong naturalistic bias, especially now that their reputation has been staked on theories they committed to over a century ago (i.e. they can't let go of evolution now because if they did it would be too embarrassing; that's why they talk about space octopuses while the theory is coming apart at the seams). There's an entire class of professionals trained to interpret the data in a way that conforms to the naturalistic philosophy which has a tight grip on the scientific community; to demand that I go up against this entire class of professionals by myself is an unfair demand. That's why I prefer not to challenge them in their area of expertise, and leave off simply pointing out their bias and assumptions.
As many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. (John 1:12)
 
The following users thanked this post: Heinrich, Jayne, mikemac, Xavier, Blue Violet

Offline John Lamb

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thanked: 1617 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Xavier's M.O.
« Reply #55 on: September 04, 2018, 11:53:21 AM »
So you're going to accept the claims of any old text made about the physical world, without seeing if such claims are borne out by the physical world itself? What a load of garbage. And cultish behavior. You're just going to stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'LA LA LA' whenever anyone provides evidence that you are wrong.

The physical world does not clearly show itself to be over 10,000 years old. This is quite obvious, seeing as the best evidence being offered is layers of dirt at the bottom of a lake, and the assumption that light from the stars is millions of "light years" away.

I mean, maybe the lakes and stars do show that, but you can't pretend that this is "obvious". It relies on the judgement of a professional caste who are themselves not free of bias or corruption.
As many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. (John 1:12)
 
The following users thanked this post: Jayne, mikemac, Xavier, Blue Violet

Offline Quaremerepulisti

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3879
  • Thanked: 1268 times
  • Religion: Catholic (Byzantine)
Re: Xavier's M.O.
« Reply #56 on: September 04, 2018, 12:19:04 PM »
You misunderstand my position. I'm not saying that I'm a YEC because I think the evidence decides in its favour. I lack the scientific expertise to interpret the evidence conclusively either way. What I'm saying is that, seeing as I am incompetent to decide it for myself, I default to YEC because it's the more obvious and consistent interpretation of the Bible, and I place greater weight in the authority of the Bible than in the authority of the scientific community.

That's a fair position. 

However, if you're incompetent to decide the scientific evidence, and don't really care one way or another anyway and haven't really looked into it, you're also incompetent to decide that the scientific community is so warped by naturalistic philosophy as to be unable to decide it either, and that everything they do is based on assumptions pulled out of a hat.
 

Offline Pon de Replay

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3635
  • Thanked: 1767 times
  • Religion: Agnostic
ΑΓΝΩΣΤΩ ΘΕΩ
« Reply #57 on: September 04, 2018, 02:15:05 PM »
I can only judge ANY claim or creed by my own intellect.  Rational thought MUST be at the root of ANY belief for that belief to be any more than an emotional response or desire for something to be true.

Cogito, ergo sum

Make rational thought play second-fiddle and you can be led to believe any old nonsense; simply with the carrot of 72 virgins or eternal bliss or drinking and whoring in Valhalla.  We know, there is AMPLE evidence, that humans are very susceptible to confirmation bias.

I completely concur.  With your thought experiment of the time machine, you're quite right, a believing Catholic would have to consider that their own first-hand experience of a faked Resurrection must've been a demonic deception of some sort, because their faith would have to take precedence.  I'm sure you could imagine the familiar objections: allegations pertaining to scientific elites, virtual reality, holograms, Satan, Jews, the Antichrist, TPTB, and everything but the kitchen sink would be hurled at the phenomenon of time machines.  "We're definitely in the end times now," they'd say, until another forty years passed and something else became the signifier of the apocalypse, which always remains tantalizingly right around the corner.  "The future's uncertain and the end is always near."

But my point is that if you make rational thought the sole compass of your religion, how do you expect other people to remain Catholic at all?  What if they read Hume's essay Of Miracles and rationally conclude that the likelihood of the Resurrection itself being false is greater than the likelihood of its being true?  It's like the young man in The Way of All Flesh, when some old clockmaker tells him to go read all four gospel accounts of the Resurrection and see if they cohere.  I don't know if it's a spoiler to say this, but he loses his faith.  For those who don't lose their faith entirely, they basically end up with a checkerboard of doctrines, some of which they decide they can't believe in any more, and others which they can.  The minute you reject a religious authority, you become your own religious authority, as does everyone who decides to.  The endless splintering of Protestantism into myriad sects demonstrates where all this ends—with everyone becoming their own pope.  As I think you yourself once joked, "maybe I should go into the business of selling white soutanes."

So I don't disagree with your decision to go by your rational thought.  I just don't know how you (generic you) retain a coherent religion in that paradigm.  If everything is subject to reason, then anything can get jettisoned the minute it does.  As I've said, it would be a religion the truths of which are only provisionally true.  They would cease to be ultimately or irrevocably true.
 

Offline Jayne

  • Mary Garden
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12753
  • Thanked: 4775 times
  • Comic Sans Frontières
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: ΑΓΝΩΣΤΩ ΘΕΩ
« Reply #58 on: September 04, 2018, 02:24:14 PM »
The minute you reject a religious authority, you become your own religious authority, as does everyone who decides to. 

The rejection of authority is the key to the so-called "Enlightenment" and, in turn, modernism.  It is the antithesis of traditional Catholicism.

It is essential to traditional Catholicism to recognize that one's intellect is limited and to accept the authority of the Church.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.
 
The following users thanked this post: mikemac, Blue Violet

Offline Pon de Replay

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3635
  • Thanked: 1767 times
  • Religion: Agnostic
Re: ΑΓΝΩΣΤΩ ΘΕΩ
« Reply #59 on: September 04, 2018, 02:29:33 PM »
The rejection of authority is the key to the so-called "Enlightenment" and, in turn, modernism.  It is the antithesis of traditional Catholicism.

It is essential to traditional Catholicism to recognize that one's intellect is limited and to accept the authority of the Church.

I agree with you for the most part.  How can someone be a traditional Catholic if they're effectively saying "F.U." to the Syllabus of Errors?  And yet, as the existence of Greg proves, you can be a traditional Catholic and do that.  Unless you want to personally excommunicate him.  Get out the white soutane ...