Forgivness in Christianity

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

If you go back to my posts prior to your posts - you will find that I mentioned many similar things to what you did - in a different way.

Then what we come to is a difference of opinion. I don't just attack to attack. It is always backed with some line of reasoning as to why I am using the attack. You personally object to the method but I don't but just because I have not stated a successful case does not mean it is ineffective. It only means I have not provided a case, but I know there are cases. Although you reject the case that I am one of them.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

But just what is being debated in between you guys ? if "attacks" or harsh judgements are a correct psychological frame to educate someone ? Well that is a very relative linear question in itself is n´t it ? It might be the case it might not be the case...if I where to honestly address that question at large I would assert that both in together, carrot and stick, are the best possible frame...

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Hi Fil - I'm not sure if Krumple realises - but the general nature of humanity in response to being attacked....and understanding your beliefs...and being consistent.

Krumple - backing up your 'attacks' with reasoning doesn't make a difference. When attacked, Human nature is to fight, flight, or freeze. How do any of those responses get one to 'use their brain'? The 'reasoning' then goes out the window as the 'attacked' focuses on the attack...and reacts to the attack accordingly (rather than the reasoning).

Part of that is to focus on the perceived 'negatives' or 'weak points' only (and ignore anything else). Have a look at how you dealt with what I asked you to justify and you will see this same pattern in your responses to me (there are multiple examples of this in spades arguments too)

To a person attacked - the 'logic' used to counter-attack the perceived 'negatives' or 'weak points' doesn't have to be particularly good - it just has to sound good in their own ears...and they then feel that they can then dismiss the entire 'argument' of the other person (which of course is illogical - feeling one part invalid does not invalidate the whole). There are multiple examples of this in spades arguments, and I can post quite a number of very clear examples in yours of the same.

And to any 'rule' of human behaviour, there are always exceptions.

Quote:

You personally object to the method but I don't but just because I have not stated a successful case does not mean it is ineffective. It only means I have not provided a case

Let's rephrase that to 'cannot' provide a case. Something that worked on you shows little to no sign of working on another, and you have difficulty accepting that.

Quote:

Although you reject the case that I am one of them.

You need to re-read my previous replies - this is in error.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

In the example you gave was Spademaster a theist and is no longer a theist?

If spademaster was not a theist during the discussion then your example is not a valid example.

If spademaster was a theist during the dicussion and is still a theist after the dicussion then your example is not a valid example.

If spademaster was a theist during the discussion but then became an atheist after the dicussion then it is a valid example.

I understand civil discussion with someone who is actually willing to use reasoning and logic. My point is a person who has abandoned or discards their reasoning and logic skills needs to be kicked to wake them up. If they are not using it then no civil discussion using logic or reasoning will mean anything.

So please validate your example. Was spademaster a de-conversion because of that discussion? If not then your example is not a valid one.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple - my example it not a valid example of what? Could you please articulate that.

This appears (though without knowing what topic your denial of an example is about...it's difficult to say)...a rather interesting denial of human nature. Do you not believe in fight, flight, or freeze? And do you not understand how that effects our logical/thinking capacity? (and you still cannot provide an example of how you have been effective).

It's odd to think that when asking you to show how attacking the the only effective way to 'break through'...you think I have provided an example that isn't valid (for what?)...when you cannot provide examples to back up your claim.

By the way, there's a chance you may be under a misunderstanding of my 'aims'. If you go back and look at what I think of both Christians, Aetheists, and anyone in general, you will (probably) understand that changing a persons mind isn't my actual goal, though that may sometimes happen.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

I understand civil discussion with someone who is actually willing to use reasoning and logic. My point is a person who has abandoned or discards their reasoning and logic skills needs to be kicked to wake them up. If they are not using it then no civil discussion using logic or reasoning will mean anything.

And yet I have posted examples where he has actually listenned to logic. You can't say the same...but you still say it is the only effective way. And you have no answer I take it for fight, flight, or freeze - and how it effects your position?

I doubt that 'getting them to use their brain' is the only reason. To me it appears you have a number of ulterior motives for feeling the need to use attacks. After all, you don't actually care about spade, so why are you want to change his mind using attacks? Why not the civil path - or not talk to him at all? What meaning does it hold that you feel the need to attack?

Now I would have thought that you just don't like people who don't use logic, but that is everyone in the world. Maybe it's just people who are willfully ilogical...but then you wouldn't like yourself...or anyone at some particular stage....so what is in it for you to attack?

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Krumple - my example it not a valid example of what? Could you please articulate that.

My whole argument was about dealing with theists specifically, not just any individual discussion. I don't always use the attack method, especially if I know that they are using reason and logic in the discussion. My point was with theists the method is necessary. Therefore your example is only valid if the person is a theist who converted because of your civil discussion. If the person was not a theist then your example is irrelevant to my over all point that the attack method is necessary.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

So what you are trying to do is convert them? That is a different position to the one you originally stated - that of getting them to 'use their brain'. It's a better position than your previous one, but not greatly better. See below.

Quote:

My point was with theists the method is necessary.

That is a complete failure of logic...for theists do 'convert' to agnostic or aethism without being attacked - so it can't be argued as 'necessary'.

It is obviously not 'necessary' as you claim, and it is obviously not 'the only effective method' - so again, you could ask yourself why you feel the need to attack.

And as you don't care about spade, you could choose to ignore him and his thread, but you don't...so again...you could ask yourself why you involve yourself and attack.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

So what you are trying to do is convert them?

No, the process is to get them to start using reasoning skills which will lead to a conversion over time. Planting the seed of logic if you will. You can't use logical reasoning with a theist to solve the problem of theism, it doesn't work. If it did work they wouldn't be theists in the first place.

vikorr wrote:

That is a different position to the one you originally stated - that of getting them to 'use their brain'. It's a better position than your previous one, but not greatly better. See below.

Actually I stated that there are natural tools that they use in their ever day lives with every other aspect of their lives. Yet when it comes to their theology they turn it off, so I made the comment about them not using their brains. It was just another way of saying they are not using reason or logic within their theology or their beliefs.

Quote:

My point was with theists the method is necessary.

vikorr wrote:

That is a complete failure of logic...for theists do 'convert' to agnostic or aethism without being attacked - so it can't be argued as 'necessary'.

It is "necessary" because reasoning with a theist gets you no where because they are not using reason to arrive at their theology to begin with. Another method is then required to get through to them, which is a forced approach by using mockery.

vikorr wrote:

It is obviously not 'necessary' as you claim, and it is obviously not 'the only effective method' - so again, you could ask yourself why you feel the need to attack.

As I have stated, you can't use reason with someone who is ignoring their reasoning skills. A new method is then required.

vikorr wrote:

And as you don't care about spade, you could choose to ignore him and his thread, but you don't...so again...you could ask yourself why you involve yourself and attack.

The method is to plant the seed of reason. To remind them to use their reasoning skills towards their theology. Pretty much all theists have been programed by their preachers and pastors to not ask questions of their theology but to just blindly accept it as factual. You can't come to a reasoned position with a person who has suspended their reasoning.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

No, the process is to get them to start using reasoning skills which will lead to a conversion over time. Planting the seed of logic if you will. You can't use logical reasoning with a theist to solve the problem of theism, it doesn't work. If it did work they wouldn't be theists in the first place.

The positions are different...but let's go by your reply : That reply completely contradicts your very recent statements

Quote:

Therefore your example is only valid if the person is a theist who converted because of your civil discussion.

In the example you gave was Spademaster a theist and is no longer a theist?

You cannot hold others examples to a standard you don’t hold your own examples to...and in this case you can not provide an example of either standard (getting them to use their brains, or conversion).

You could argue that (as you say) it is 'a seed' and yet even seeds show signs of germinating. I have shown you a number from the civil path...how about you show some to back up your position that attack is 'the only effective way'.

Quote:

It is "necessary" because reasoning with a theist gets you no where because they are not using reason to arrive at their theology to begin with.

This, and the multiple different ways you said it thereafter - I have already provided examples from this thread that show this to be false.

You pride yourself on logic and cannot see where your own logic falls down, but attack others for the same thing. Some failures in logic are purely errors, but most of them, and the ones we cling to the most, are do with emotional reasons. The same with attacking others.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

By the way - your position still ignores the fact that theists do become agnostic and atheists without being attacked. At the end of the day that is irrefutable, so however you argue it, attack can not be genuinely argued (as a generalisation) as necessary, and certainly not as the only effective method.

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

o.k. now I am going to show my faith in saying this, and this is not to boast about myself but rather God...you don't have to listen, but this started from me, and I appreciate the defending but honestly, if you 2 are both atheists, please do not fight about me any longer...rather accept that your BOTH brothers in Atheism...and agree in areas and disagree in other areas...

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

vikorr, you already agreed with me (so I don't understand the debate)

to krumble,

attacking someone, doesn't work on ANY level...because if anything all it is going to do is jade people away from what you are trying to speak of....people will rebel for almost ANY reason...simple fact...I came on here and preached boldly about God and the Bible etc...if ANYTHING people revolted, most likely because they don't like what they are hearing or the END result...but instead I learned that opening myself up to others understandings and wants, IS EXACTLY how Christ would do it himself if he was here....and others have already stated in here or other topics, that (again not to boast) but I am listening, and or being genuine....which I know is How Christ would do it, Is what a TRUE CHRISTIAN IS, and I know is making me a positive force in the world...even if I and others disagree I Still will ALWAYS accept them....and if some people out there actually have found that bashing others is an effective way of getting one to accept your views or beliefs....I am personally saying I don't want ANY part of that belief or world view where as I have to do these things to others so that they accept concepts....it quite literally is one step above forcing or persecution.....

0 Replies

Forgivness in Christianity

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know