The Esoteric Knowledge Gambit

[Chesterton]

What doctrine would that be?

The belief in the falsity of Christianity and/or religion and/or the supernatural in general.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The belief in the falsity of Christianity and/or religion and/or the supernatural in general.

That's not a doctrinal obligation of mine.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You've mentioned two "if"'s. If you can demonstrably discredit him that's one thing. If you merely disbelieve him because he can't prove his claim, that's another.

Neither is mere lack of belief, or disbelief.

I take it you agree then?

 

[Chesterton]

That's not a doctrinal obligation of mine.

I notice you're a Humanist; honestly I don't know what that means or what you specifically believe.

I take it you agree then?

Agree about what?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I notice you're a Humanist; honestly I don't know what that means or what you specifically believe.

That's why it's always best to ask.

Agree about what?

That it would not be absurd to doubt that the Christian genuinely knows what he claims to know.

 

[Chesterton]

That's why it's always best to ask.

In this thread I'm talking to an atheist, a humanist, a seeker, and a U.S. Democrat who all seem to agree I'm wrong. I suppose it's possible I could be wrong for 4 different reasons.

That it would not be absurd to doubt that the Christian genuinely knows what he claims to know.

I don't think I ever said it would be absurd.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In this thread I'm talking to an atheist, a humanist, a seeker, and a U.S. Democrat who all seem to agree I'm wrong. I suppose it's possible I could be wrong for 4 different reasons.

You do understand that those are not mutually exclusive categories? I am an atheist, for example.

I don't think I ever said it would be absurd.

Good, so we are agreed.

 

[Chesterton]

You do understand that those are not mutually exclusive categories? I am an atheist, for example.

Yes I understand that, and I assumed you were, but sometimes people get snippy on here when you wrongly assume things about them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

As I mentioned there are other terms for what your beliefs are based on, like atheisim, materialism, naturalism, what have you. I don't want to label you, but there must be something to describe your position.

It's possible that "something" describes my worldview...but I haven't found anything that does yet. That's why I tend to avoid such labels when describing my views on anything.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Christian doctrine.



But you're complaining that EKG is not demonstrable to you, aren't you?

I'm not complaining that the EKG isn't demonstrable...the EKG never gets to the point where it makes any claims about external reality. It makes only one claim about internal reality (specifically perception) and then avoids any possible examination of that claim. It's like claiming that your view from atop your high horse allows you to see things much more clearly than those of us on the ground...but never actually giving an example of what you can see from up there lol. Does that make sense?

As for your doctrines...what if someone made a claim that disagreed with your christian doctrine and then managed to demonstrate it's validity?

What would happen to your doctrines then? Would you abandon them? Alter them? Would you deny the demonstration is truth?

 

[quatona]

Then on what grounds do you disbelieve it?

It´s not like I don´t believe your statement:
"If a Christian says he has esoteric knowledge you believe you should disbelieve that fact."
It´s that I tell you it´s untrue. Simply because I know better than you what I believe or don´t believe.
You are overstepping your boundaries when trying to tell me what I believe or don´t believe.

It's a belief, likely part of a set of beliefs.

Wrong.

 

[Chesterton]

Well... Yeah. Rejecting a claim does not carry with it a burden of proof. If I say

Okay, where's your evidence that:

• Allah
• Shiva
• The Flying Spaghetti Monster
• Pixies
• Invisible Unicorns
• Skull-juggling telepathic walruses on Pluto
• Any number of other bizarre or supernatural claims

Are not real/true?

The burden of proof is not that hard to understand.

You've lumped different types of things together.

 

[The Cadet]

You've lumped different types of things together.

I'm sure I have. But my point is that these are all things you don't agree are true, and you do not have any evidence that they aren't. But you don't need evidence. Because that's not how the burden of proof works.

 

[Chesterton]

I'm sure I have. But my point is that these are all things you don't agree are true, and you do not have any evidence that they aren't. But you don't need evidence. Because that's not how the burden of proof works.

How do you know I agree? And it matters that they're not all the same type of thing. But it's a little off-topic because we're talking about people's knowledge claims. I don't think I've ever had anyone make knowledge claims to me about any of those, except the telepathic Plutonian walruses, but that was from one of my LSD friends I mentioned earlier.

 

[Chesterton]

It's possible that "something" describes my worldview...but I haven't found anything that does yet. That's why I tend to avoid such labels when describing my views on anything.

Your worldview? Yo cuz, you be all like heethin and stuff.

I'm not complaining that the EKG isn't demonstrable...the EKG never gets to the point where it makes any claims about external reality. It makes only one claim about internal reality (specifically perception) and then avoids any possible examination of that claim. It's like claiming that your view from atop your high horse allows you to see things much more clearly than those of us on the ground...but never actually giving an example of what you can see from up there lol. Does that make sense?

Yes it makes sense.

As for your doctrines...what if someone made a claim that disagreed with your christian doctrine and then managed to demonstrate it's validity?

What would happen to your doctrines then? Would you abandon them? Alter them? Would you deny the demonstration is truth?

If my doctrines were demonstrated to be untrue I guess I would abandon them.

 

[Chesterton]

It´s not like I don´t believe your statement:
"If a Christian says he has esoteric knowledge you believe you should disbelieve that fact."
It´s that I tell you it´s untrue. Simply because I know better than you what I believe or don´t believe.
You are overstepping your boundaries when trying to tell me what I believe or don´t believe.

Wrong.

Well if I'm wrong, I asked you a question so you could correct me but you didn't answer.

 

[quatona]

Well if I'm wrong, I asked you a question so you could correct me but you didn't answer.

I did several times: I do not believe that I should disbelieve him.
That´s not hard to understand, is it?
Your mind-reading attempt mislead you. What else about it needs to be explained?

 

[Chesterton]

I did several times: I do not believe that I should disbelieve him.
That´s not hard to understand, is it?
Your mind-reading attempt mislead you. What else about it needs to be explained?

You don't have to get hung up on the word "believe". You can use think, or feel, or hold, or other synonyms.

 

[quatona]

You don't have to get hung up on the word "believe". You can use think, or feel, or hold, or other synonyms.

Same result.
Btw.: This whole thing started as your attempt to picture it as my doctrine. Since you now my feelings would be good enough to save your false statement about my mindset, I conclude your initial point is out the window.

 

[Chesterton]

Same result.
Btw.: This whole thing started as your attempt to picture it as my doctrine. Since you now my feelings would be good enough to save your false statement about my mindset, I conclude your initial point is out the window.

Yeah it's the same result. And since you won't answer I'll just put you down as one who accepts each and every esoteric truth claim, as you said in an earlier post.