where angels fear to tread

AV1611VET · Oct 9, 2014

bhsmte said:
Fundies hate probing questions, because they risk exposure and that is not pleasant.

I disagree.

I think "probing questions" is a tool of the devil to dilute the main point, and to keep the questioner from fully-understanding.

I'm certainly not against questions, as I love to give my POV about things.

But when I have to start repeating myself, and I suspect the questioner isn't being honest, I'll either go to READ ONLY mode or try and play the semantics card.

People can use the question mark as a way of doing a variety of things: from disagreeing to ridiculing to subtly changing the subject.

Putting a halt to a "John 9 inquisition" may look like he's throwing in the towel, but it's worth it.

bhsmte · Oct 9, 2014

AV1611VET said:
I disagree.

I think "probing questions" is a tool of the devil to dilute the main point, and to keep the questioner from fully-understanding.

I'm certainly not against questions, as I love to give my POV about things.

But when I have to start repeating myself, and I suspect the questioner isn't being honest, I'll either go to READ ONLY mode or try and play the semantics card.

People can use the question mark as a way of doing a variety of things: from disagreeing to ridiculing to subtly changing the subject.

Of course you think that. Questions are dangerous to the fundamentalist, so they must come from the devil.

When in doubt, blame the devil, it's like hitting the easy button.

AV1611VET · Oct 9, 2014

bhsmte said:
Of course you think that. Questions are dangerous to the fundamentalist, ...

Again, I disagree.

Questions are potentially "dangerous" to the questioner, not the questionee.

Again, it depends on the motive of the questioner.

SelfInflickted (sp?) is one of the few posters here I think asks questions out of a real desire to understand the fundamentalist POV; but there's another poster here, who takes his "question everything" user title way overboard, and I truly feel sorry for him.

bhsmte · Oct 9, 2014

AV1611VET said:
Again, I disagree.

Questions are potentially "dangerous" to the questioner, not the questionee.

Again, it depends on the motive of the questioner.

SelfInflickted (sp?) is one of the few posters here I think asks questions out of a real desire to understand the fundamentalist POV; but there's another poster here, who takes his "question everything" user title way overboard, and I truly feel sorry for him.

Examples?

AV1611VET · Oct 9, 2014

bhsmte said:
Examples?

I won't give any names, but in the past, two long drawn-out discussions I entered into with my whole heart stand out:

1. SN1987A
2. Jesus having to be born of a virgin, so as to bypass the Sin Nature

Both discussions were just run into the ground over a period of days, without I seeing a light bulb come on on the part of my interrogators.

I determined that would not happen again.

bhsmte · Oct 9, 2014

AV1611VET said:
I won't give any names, but in the past, two long drawn-out discussions I entered into with my whole heart stand out:

1. SN1987A
2. Jesus having to be born of a virgin, so as to bypass the Sin Nature

Both discussions were just run into the ground over a period of days, without I seeing a light bulb come on on the part of my interrogators.

I determined that would not happen again.

Not seeing a light bulb come on meaning they didn't see any credible support for your claim?

How are some questions dangerous to the person asking them?

AV1611VET · Oct 9, 2014

bhsmte said:
Not seeing a light bulb come on meaning they didn't see any credible support for your claim?

I don't think they entered the conversation expecting anything credible.

I think some goad us, looking for something to take to FSTDT.

bhsmte said:
How are some questions dangerous to the person asking them?

I think it creates a mental block in their mind that they can't get around.

Either that, or the mental block is already there.

Example:

Q: How did God magically poof this universe into existence?
A: He didn't ... He miraculously created it ex nihilo.
Q: What's the difference between a miracle and magic?
A: Magic requires smoke & mirrors; whereas miracles don't.
Q: According to XYZ dictionary, magic and miracles are the same.
A: If you're not interesting in learning how God did it, that's your prerogative.
Q: You still haven't explained how God poofed it into existence.
A: I said He did it "ex nihilo".
Q: What's "ex nihilo"? is that a fancy term for magic?
A: READ ONLY time.
Q: Fine, run away. That's what you guys do when you can't take your theology to its LCD.

Split Rock · Oct 9, 2014

AV1611VET said:
Again, I disagree.

Questions are potentially "dangerous" to the questioner, not the questionee.

Again, it depends on the motive of the questioner.

SelfInflickted (sp?) is one of the few posters here I think asks questions out of a real desire to understand the fundamentalist POV; but there's another poster here, who takes his "question everything" user title way overboard, and I truly feel sorry for him.

Questions are never dangerous to those who are open to the idea they may be wrong. Wrong ideas can never be overturned if they are never questioned. Thus, the only way to determine if an idea is wrong, is to question it.

bhsmte · Oct 9, 2014

AV1611VET said:
I don't think they entered the conversation expecting anything credible.

I think some goad us, looking for something to take to FSTDT.

I think it creates a mental block in their mind that they can't get around.

Either that, or the mental block is already there.

Example:

Q: How did God magically poof this universe into existence?
A: He didn't ... He miraculously created it ex nihilo.
Q: What's the difference between a miracle and magic?
A: Magic requires smoke & mirrors; whereas miracles don't.
Q: According to XYZ dictionary, magic and miracles are the same.
A: If you're not interesting in learning how God did it, that's your prerogative.
Q: You still haven't explained how God poofed it into existence.
A: I said He did it "ex nihilo".
Q: What's "ex nihilo"? is that a fancy term for magic?
A: READ ONLY time.
Q: Fine, run away. That's what you guys do when you can't take your theology to its LCD.

Great answers, now all you need is something to support them, when those who typically look for such support, are asking for it.

Certainly, you wouldn't expect everyone to believe such incredible claims on pure faith as you do AV?

AV1611VET · Oct 9, 2014

Split Rock said:
Questions are never dangerous to those who are open to the idea they may be wrong.

I know.

They're "dangerous" to those who are not open to the idea they may be wrong.

If a person has an open mind, don't you think you would see a light bulb come on?

bhsmte · Oct 9, 2014

AV1611VET said:
I know.

They're "dangerous" to those who are not open to the idea they may be wrong.

If a person has an open mind, don't you think you would see a light bulb come on?

Nothing wrong with an open mind, but to some, an open mind means being open to examining all evidence.

Typically, to those who like to examine all the evidence, there is a tad of logic that comes into play.

AV1611VET · Oct 9, 2014

Here we go, folks.

bhsmte said:
Great answers, now all you need is something to support them,

In over eight years here, I've yet to support any of my claims to you guys' satisfaction; and I'm not about to start now.

I support my beliefs in the following order: the Bible, basic doctrine, pet theories.

None of which are credible supports to you guys -- (I assume).

AV1611VET · Oct 9, 2014

bhsmte said:
Nothing wrong with an open mind, but to some, an open mind means being open to examining all evidence.

Thus my Apple Challenge, which I consider to be my single best post I ever made here.

bhsmte said:
Typically, to those who like to examine all the evidence, there is a tad of logic that comes into play.

You have to find evidence first.

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

You can't examine what you can't see.

Assuming, of course, you mean examine with the eyes, not the heart.

essentialsaltes · Oct 9, 2014

dysert said:
True or false: Several billion years ago there was a cataclysmic event (e.g., an explosion or rapid expansion) of the formation of mass and/or energy (from the previous question). This event resulted in the dispersion of all matter and energy that exists in the known universe today.

Yes, the entire contents of the universe originated in the Big Bang.

(Although it's conceivable that new matter or energy could enter the universe from 'somewhere else', there is no evidence for it, and no reason to believe it.)

bhsmte · Oct 9, 2014

AV1611VET said:
Here we go, folks.

In over eight years here, I've yet to support any of my claims to you guys' satisfaction; and I'm not about to start now.

I support my beliefs in the following order: the Bible, basic doctrine, pet theories.

None of which are credible supports to you guys -- (I assume).

Don't worry AV, even well known Christian apologists claims, do not hold up to objective scrutiny. No one and I mean no one, has been able to support faith beliefs with any type of verifiable objective evidence.

This is why, it is a faith belief. No problem with those who declare they believe on faith, as long as they don't pretend to be better than me, state I am being led by evil and or misrepresent well evidenced science. If any of those occur, expect questions.

dysert · Oct 9, 2014

essentialsaltes said:
Yes, the entire contents of the universe originated in the Big Bang.

(Although it's conceivable that new matter or energy could enter the universe from 'somewhere else', there is no evidence for it, and no reason to believe it.)

Interesting. I thought there was some Law that says matter/energy is neither added nor destroyed?

bhsmte · Oct 9, 2014

AV1611VET said:
Thus my Apple Challenge, which I consider to be my single best post I ever made here.

You have to find evidence first.

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

You can't examine what you can't see.

Assuming, of course, you mean examine with the eyes, not the heart.

I think you have your own definition of credible evidence AV, that works for you. That's fine, just don't expect it to be credible to others.

essentialsaltes · Oct 9, 2014

dysert said:
Interesting. I thought there was some Law that says matter/energy is neither added nor destroyed?

Yes, you're right.

I guess I should have been stronger and said that we have reason to believe that it's not true that new matter or energy comes into the universe.

But not knowing where these questions are going, I'm trying to answer broadly.

Historically, the Steady-State theory of the universe hypothesized that new matter entered the universe. But the evidence has since pointed to the Big Bang, and the Steady-State theory has been abandoned.

dysert · Oct 9, 2014

essentialsaltes said:
Yes, you're right.

I guess I should have been stronger and said that we have reason to believe that it's not true that new matter or energy comes into the universe.

But not knowing where these questions are going, I'm trying to answer broadly.

Historically, the Steady-State theory of the universe hypothesized that new matter entered the universe. But the evidence has since pointed to the Big Bang, and the Steady-State theory has been abandoned.

The questions aren't going anywhere, so there's no need to exercise caution. This is a learning exercise for me, and I appreciate everyone who is participating.

AV1611VET · Oct 9, 2014

bhsmte said:
Don't worry AV, even well known Christian apologists claims, do not hold up to objective scrutiny.

Nor should they, well-known or otherwise.

That's not how faith works.

bhsmte said:
No one and I mean no one, has been able to support faith beliefs with any type of verifiable objective evidence.

Good.

I've often said -- and this bears repeating:

If they found evidence, it would only make it worse.

bhsmte said:
This is why, it is a faith belief.

Yup.

bhsmte said:
No problem with those who declare they believe on faith, as long as they don't pretend to be better than me, state I am being led by evil and or misrepresent well evidenced science.

What should they do then? pretend both are just as viable?

Or should I subordinate creatio ex nihilo to science's CMB?

What if someone's belief system stipulates that today's science is leading many away from God?

Should they just keep their mouths shut if someone comes into the room spouting E=mc[sup]2[/sup]?

bhsmte said:
If any of those occur, expect questions.

Yes, I know.

Some use the interrogation point as a sword.

where angels fear to tread

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Conflation of Blathers

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Fact-Based Lifeform

Newbie

Member

Newbie

Fact-Based Lifeform

Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency