The Esoteric Knowledge Gambit

[quatona]

Yeah it's the same result.

Yes, indeed: Your assertion about me was wrong.

And since you won't answer

Your question has been answered. Upon you altering the question, the modified question has also been answered.

I'll just put you down as one who accepts each and every esoteric truth claim, as you said in an earlier post.

Please be so kind and show me where I did that, or retract your claim.

 

[Chesterton]

Yes, indeed: Your assertion about me was wrong.

If you don't answer, I don't know if I'm wrong.

Your question has been answered. Upon you altering the question, the modified question has also been answered.

You have not answered. I asked: Then on what grounds do you disbelieve it?
You said:
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.

I'm not sure what you're saying there, but it's not an answer to the question.

Please be so kind and show me where I did that, or retract your claim.

In post # 50 you said:
At this point I see only two options:
Either accept each and every esoteric truth claim, or reject them all.

 

[quatona]

If you don't answer, I don't know if I'm wrong.

You know that you are wrong with your mind-reading when I tell you that you are wrong.

You have not answered. I asked: Then on what grounds do you disbelieve it?

I don´t even have grounds for evaluating it, in the first place.

You said:
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
I'm not sure what you're saying there, but it's not an answer to the question.

Ah, I thought you still were at the point where it was about the inaccuracy of your initial statement. Where I come from, when we are called upon a false statement about someone else, we first acknowledge our mistake - and then move on to the next question.

In post # 50 you said:
At this point I see only two options:
Either accept each and every esoteric truth claim, or reject them all.

So you altered this quote significantly, in that you removed one of the two options.
And, come to think of it, there´s even a third option: Just ignore them.

 

[Chesterton]

You know that you are wrong with your mind-reading when I tell you that you are wrong.

But you're just saying it. It's esoteric. I have no grounds for evaluating it.

I don´t even have grounds for evaluating it, in the first place.

Why are you in this thread then?

Ah, I thought you still were at the point where it was about the inaccuracy of your initial statement. Where I come from, when we are called upon a false statement about someone else, we first acknowledge our mistake - and then move on to the next question.

Where I come from, "called upon" means being shown you're wrong, not just being told you're wrong. And I've twice given you the chance to show me but you don't.

So you altered this quote significantly, in that you removed one of the two options.
And, come to think of it, there´s even a third option: Just ignore them.

I didn't alter anything. If one option is wrong, the other must be right.

 

[quatona]

But you're just saying it. It's esoteric. I have no grounds for evaluating it.

Well, it was you who made an unasked for positive truth claim about this "esoteric" issue (i.e. my mind set), in the first place.
I´m glad to see that you have learned and admit by now that you overstepped your boundaries in doing so.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

To the OP:

Is there then no such thing as what its "like" to be religious?

 

[Ana the Ist]

To the OP:

Is there then no such thing as what its "like" to be religious?

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

To the OP:

Is there then no such thing as what its "like" to be religious?

Are you asking if there are commonalities between the experiences of religious people...that are different from the experiences shared by non-religious people?

The answer would seem to be a rather obvious "yes".

 

[Breckmin]

I can absolutely relate to this OP, but I wouldn't call it a gambit.

Fact One: A Christian's relationship with God (their Heavenly Father) is (can be/should be) a very personal one.

Fact Two: God does certain miracles and gives signs to a very exclusive small percentage of born-again Christians.

Fact Three: It's not fair...meaning it's not equal.

Fact Four: Because of fact one, the Christian is often NOT going to share fact two...for good reason. Even if Someone rose from the dead it would not be enough to change some people's hearts and skepticism... telling you about their very personal esoteric experiences that God has graciously done in their lives is not going to necessarily change your mind. The end result will often be that the skeptic will just claim the Christian has mental illness.

Fact Five: Many Christians believe that the things God has done for them are holy and special...so of course they are not going to put these things on the table...out in the open for the skeptic to ridicule. They are NOT going to share life changing events which are sometimes extremely rare for the born-again Christian(s) to behold/experience (let alone the unbeliever) because they believe that it probably won't make any difference AND they are LOYAL to the Holy Creator for doing such an act.

Fact Six: I've had God do things for me which I will absolutely NOT share. Not with my wife...not with my sons or daughters...not with anybody... because of Fact Five.

Fact Seven: Personal experiences which are not testable to an interlocutor do not usually make persuasive arguments. The theist can know factually that there is a Creator while the skeptic/atheists makes the claim that they only "believe" that there is a Creator... and the whole interaction is a red herring from/to producing a persuasive argument.

An eyewitness to an event or a person with an experience is 'never' at the mercy of a person with a mere opinion.

Question everything.

 

[ScottA]

We are fishers of men. You are fish who won't evolve. Perhaps I'll start another thread by that name.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We are fishers of men. You are fish who won't evolve. Perhaps I'll start another thread by that name.

You are a fisher of bad analogies.

Seriously though...I have no idea what you mean by this.

 

[ScottA]

You are a fisher of bad analogies.

Seriously though...I have no idea what you mean by this.

The idea of evolution is that fish evolved and came forth from the sea as higher forms of life. Most atheists embrace the concept when it comes to fish and every other species...but Noooo...not for themselves, that would be delusional, crazy talk!

So, they're like fish who just chose not to come out, not to evolve.

Whatever.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We are fishers of men. You are fish who won't evolve. Perhaps I'll start another thread by that name.

I don't want you to take this thread personally Scott. While I'm aware that you're one of the posters who uses the EKG from time to time...it was actually another poster who used it that prompted me to create this thread.

When you say that you have spiritual knowledge that atheists (or other non-believers) don't have...you're making a very specific claim. It's not as if it's impossible for you to have knowledge that I don't have...I'm sure you do. I have knowledge that you don't have. Everyone knows something that someone else doesn't know. Here's where it gets tricky though...

You're claiming that I can't have this knowledge that you have until I believe as you do. To be sure....you're not saying that it's knowledge that I simply won't understand or agree with....its knowledge that I cannot possess until I believe as you do, correct? Some posters, like the last guy who posted before you, seem to be mistaken about this. They seem to think that the EKG is just knowledge that you're reluctant to share...knowledge of your personal experiences that's very personal and important and not something that you share lightly.

That's not what you're talking about though, is it? You think that your beliefs have given you some special knowledge which you can only possess once you believe as you do.

Right?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The idea of evolution is that fish evolved and came forth from the sea as higher forms of life. Most atheists embrace the concept when it comes to fish and every other species...but Noooo...not for themselves, that would be delusional, crazy talk!

So, they're like fish who just chose not to come out, not to evolve.

Whatever.

I see. In this analogy, you're the "evolved fish" who walked onto land...and I'm the basic fish still swimming in the sea, is that it?

 

[ScottA]

I see. In this analogy, you're the "evolved fish" who walked onto land...and I'm the basic fish still swimming in the sea, is that it?

Well...maybe...I'm a cowboy and you're a mermaid , but yeah, something like that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well...maybe...I'm a cowboy and you're a mermaid , but yeah, something like that.

Cute. You know...there's something that I've always wanted to ask you...

Why call your book "Walking like Einstein"? Surely you realize that the way Einstein walked isn't of interest to anyone...what's interesting is the way he thought. Why not "Thinking like Einstein"?

I realize that your book isn't actually about the way he thought, it appears to be more about your personal misunderstanding of science, but it doesn't seem to be about the way he walked either. At least with "Thinking like Einstein" you could've sold a few copies to people who didn't look into what the book is about before buying.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well...maybe...I'm a cowboy and you're a mermaid , but yeah, something like that.

I love evolution!

 

[The Cadet]

Seriously though...I have no idea what you mean by this.

@ScottA please don't take this the wrong way, but this seems to be a fairly common and prevalent problem in discussions with you. I don't think it's just us.

 

[ScottA]

Cute. You know...there's something that I've always wanted to ask you...

Why call your book "Walking like Einstein"? Surely you realize that the way Einstein walked isn't of interest to anyone...what's interesting is the way he thought. Why not "Thinking like Einstein"?

I realize that your book isn't actually about the way he thought, it appears to be more about your personal misunderstanding of science, but it doesn't seem to be about the way he walked either. At least with "Thinking like Einstein" you could've sold a few copies to people who didn't look into what the book is about before buying.

Einstein "thought" science, but he walked "evolution". His science advanced his generation, but his walk advance his species. He discovered the error of his work: science advances, but truth does not.

 

[ScottA]

@ScottA please don't take this the wrong way, but this seems to be a fairly common and prevalent problem in discussions with you. I don't think it's just us.

Confusion is the order of the day. Genesis 11:9 But truth is a mystery worth seeking.