Raf

Oh, that's different. If you continued after you knew it was B.S, yeah. That's another story. And I tried to be clear that lying was a bad word choice FOR ME. I did not intend to extend it to you. "Talked ourselves into what we wanted to be true" would be more accurate for me.

I made a conscious decision to stop using variations of the word "lying" in connection with this topic. I think the desire was sincere and the belief was sincere. I think we were encouraged to continue from the moment the first sounds came out of our mouths, and we were explicitly told that doubts about whether this was real were devilish. We reinforced ourselves and each other by sharing the experience in public. We were deceived. We received ourselves. And we WANTED it to be true. Some of us still do, to the point of redefining the experience beyond all biblical bounds, throwing up obstacles to make the biblical claim untreatable when it is quite testable. No one is lying. But no one is producing a language. No, you're not. No, you're not. No, sorry, you're just not. Yes, you do have to prove it. No, I do not have to disprove it. I am not the one making a claim. I am denying yours. "Lying" is a poor word choice (for me, as I've used the term). Hence, I ceased using it. I'm not disagreeing with Bolshevik. I'm just choosing a different vocabulary and explaining why. But the emperor is naked. There's no dragon in the garage. There were no wiretaps. Is means is. There were no WMD. The evidence is more than just absent.

What can the dragon do? You don't have a Dragon. Is it something unique? You don't have a dragon. Why is that question not asked? Because you don't have a dragon. If something is done that only a dragon in the garage can do... Then you will have established that you have a dragon. But you f-ing don't, and this is getting boring. That is actually this whole discussion in a nutshell. You claim this dragon can do something, I'm saying prove it, and you're saying I can't disprove it. I have no obligation to disprove it. Prove it can, or there's nothing to discuss.

I can't contain my exci.... oops. Almost spoke too soon. It's contained. In a broken Ziploc. No danger of spills though

It's neither incomplete nor faulty. You have not even ATTEMPTED to make a case that it is incomplete or faulty. The evidence refutes your false position, so you reject the evidence. That is "evidence be damned," whether you choose to phrase it that way or not.

And frankly i think youre predisposed to question my intentions in the first place, which would concern me if i had an ounce of respect for your discussion methods. That not being the case, "La Vie!"

The attribution is a GSC glitch, the accidental result of highlighting the quote from your post. I did not address any statement at you personally, but at the content of the quote.

I never said you'll get spiked. And what you perceive to be the trith is objectively false. It's made up b.s. But you can't see that because you declare it to be true, evidence be damned. That's not discussion. That's trolling. And I can't imagine a more vivid example of it. No one needs to spike your comments. I'd much rather keep them on display so everyone can see the bowl sheet I have to put up with in arguing my position against your wishful thinking.

Don't get me wrong. You're entitled to believe what you want and to express it, but this is a discussion forum, and if your position is "I have my beliefs, evidence be damned," that's not a discussion. That's trolling. And you've made it clear on THIS thread, that's what you're doing. As a participant in this thread (not as a moderator), I'm saying it's not welcome. As a moderator, I can say it violates no rules.

This discussion is over. Your judgment is invalid. Your remises are false and your continued presence on this thread, barring a change in your appreciation of evidence, is trolling.

Delightful how you get to say it happened even though the evidence points against it. To quote or paraphrase Sam Harris, if someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to show them to show they should value evidence? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument are you going to make to show they should value logic? It is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to have a rational discussion with you, TLC, because a rational discussion requires two participants who value reason, logic and evidence, and you do not.

Good to see where the sudden interest in my deconversion originated. For what it's worth, even if I were still a Christian, I don't know that I would stand by everything I wrote in the Blue Book thread. I do stand by the process and sentiment, which is,a healthy way to approach any such material.

You know, the one thing worse than the "cult of GSC" is the paranoid delusional cult of anti-GSC that seems to think it's got some profound insight into our groupthink. You're being ridiculous, especially those of you who have never had a post altered or deleted, yet you think all we do is identify cliques and punish dissenters. I PERSONALLY MADE SURE SOME OF YOU COULD REGISTER ON THIS SITE when it was closed to new registrations, and not once did I subject ANYONE to a litmus test for what you believed. If i wanted to keep you out, i could have. Easily. If i wanted to shut you up, i could have, easily. You know, the post that got people so riled up here WAS reported. It was reviewed. It has not been removed. But you self-righteous know-it-alls who have GSC all figured out seem to know that you know that you know we're going to rally around our favored clique at the expense of dissent. Stuff it. I'm sick of it. You are demonstrably wrong and I am SICK of your judgmental attitude. People are going to disagree. People are going to fail to get along. Get over it. You're all welcome here. And you're welcome to second guess "cliques." And you're welcome to second guess moderators. And I am free to tell you that your assessment in that regard is full of s***. I'm doing so now. Please wear only if the shoe fits. End rant.

I can already see how exactly one line from WW's post will be exalted as the rest is ignored.

You mean like everyone knows Rome was founded by Romulus and Remus?

The critique of my one point was itself pointless, as it failed to refute the one point I was making. The Christian God makes historical claims that fail. This proves that those who claimed to be speaking for Him were not (assuming Him to be a God of truth). Changing his historical claims to intentional myths and fables designed to teach lessons is ad hoc revisionism. If you want to go in that direction, fine. Let's. The Christian God is Himself an intentional myth and fable, created by the authors (plural) of those stories to teach lessons, not to convey historical truth. He exists as surely as Superman, The Ants and the Grasshopper, and Bilbo Baggins exist.

DRAGO!

My point was that it's easier to disprove the Christian God than it is to disprove the deist God because unlike the deist God, the Christian God makes testable claims. That fail. Genesis flood was ONE EXAMPLE. I listed a handful, and there are literally dozens more. My argument was cumulative. Your critique of my argument isolated one point I made, failed to debunk it, and then proceeded as though some rhetorical point had been made when it had not.

Out of politeness, I changed my vocabulary from "They are not producing languages" to "they cannot prove they are producing languages." This is out of deference to the argument that they could be speaking a pre-Tower of Babel (fictional incident) language that has not been heard since the days of Nimrod. If I have been imperfect in my articulation, I am sorry. I continue to wait for one single solitary documented incident of producing a known human language that was not performed or observed thirdhand involving anonymous participants who are no longer on the same side of the planet as those of us saying "prove it." One more time for the people in the back. I don't have to prove it's not a language. You have to prove it is. But all you do is declare that it is and then try to shift the burden to me to prove it's not based on something you heard yourself say in the shower. If I were calling B.S. on a Muslim using the same argument, you would be standing right beside me Truth be told, I am being overly polite in making the concession that these could be undetected languages. They're not. But there's no way to prove it and, more to the point, there's no need. "They are producing a language" is an affirmative claim, and the burden of proof for an affirmative claim lies with the person making it, not the person denying it. It boils down to the major weakness of my thesis, which is still stronger than its antithesis: because my claim is that ALL SIT is fake, I can be proved wrong BY ONE person producing a language. ONE. Hasn't happened, except in your shower and among anonymous Asians and Africans conveniently unavailable for verification. Nothing in this resurrected discussion is new. If someone's GOT some evidence to share, I'm down. But this incessant "you can't prove it's not a language" directed at people who do not have the burden of proof in the FIRST place has begun to bore me. Produce a language, prove it, or nothing you say is new. This isn't faith. Faith is believing it's a language without a scrap of evidence to prove it, while making excuse after excuse after excuse why the results we detect are completely consistent with my thesis and not consistent with yours. Calling it "faith" doesn't make it so. And calling it "not disproven" doesn't make it a language.

No one is arguing that the writers of the Bible did not exist. The characters in it are another story. Yertle the turtle does not exist. Turtles do. A god may exist. But it's not the fictional character who performed the fictional deeds of Genesis and Exodus. And Joshua. And Jonah. And especially Job! Yeah, someone wrote those stories. Never claimed otherwise. But you're claiming a character in those stories is the Author of them. There is no reason to believe that.

You're very nice, but I can't take this seriously as a defense of Christianity. You're making a better case against it than I am, comparing the writers of the Bible to Dr. Seuss.

Holy cow.

Mocking my comments does not discredit them. If you're familiar with a phoneme, you can incorporate it into SIT without a supernatural explanation. That is perfectly sound logic, and to treat it as a "gotcha" makes no sense. Of COURSE you can incorporate phonemes you're aware of, even if they're part of a language you don't speak. The issue is you're aware of them, and this is in the literature. It's not "made up" to account for anything. If two languages share a phonemic inventory, and a sample of SIT fits that inventory, then it should be a piece of cake to determine whether the SIT matches any of those languages. So far, hasn't happened. Still waiting. Not holding my breath. Assuming you are correct and there are languages that share phonemic inventories, dandy! We still have ZERO documented examples of SIT producing a known language (barring unverifiable anecdotes whose participants are conveniently a. anonymous and b. half a world away). You can ask for the checklist that you've already reviewed many times, if you'd like. I don't see why you're arguing with me on a point on which we agree: the "what makes it a language" checklist did not apply to our discussion. You are correct. Now you want me to prove that you're right? Why? For you to accuse me of "making it up..." damn, bro, that's false and you KNOW it. Especially after I just agreed with you on the subject. I didn't make up jack, and I can't help it if you don't remember the very checklists we discussed and agreed were irrelevant to our discussion. That's YOUR faulty memory, not mine. Do not accuse me of making s* up just because your memory failed. Convenient. Cop out, though. Sorry, it is. It is exactly the kind of explanation you expect from someone trying to explain why you should not expect to find evidence for your claim. It's the dragon in the garage principle. "I have a dragon in my garage." Oh yeah? Let me see it. "It's invisible." Ok. Let me feel it. Let's throw a blanket over it or something. "It's incorporeal. That won't work." Fine, let's use infrared. "That won't work either. It's non-thermal." Joo no, I's starting to sink joo no has a dragon in joo garage. [Concept stolen from Carl Sagan]. Look, you make a testable claim, and then when someone tests it, you start going through logical somersaults to avoid the test. It's not a human language. The connection is shut off when people are watching. It's non-thermal. Meanwhile, the people being recorded don't think they're faking it when they're doing it "while you are filming," which means by your definition they are faking it without realizing they are faking it, which is exactly my thesis in the first place. I say we all did that and you're all doing it! Not that you lack sincerity. Not that you're bad people. You're just not doing anything supernatural. If you were, you'd be producing languages. You're not, because you're not. So, to mix humor from another thread, maybe it's time for people to get out of the Nile!

See if I've got this right. The Bible can say "THIS HAPPENED!" And when we look for the evidence that this happened and see quite clearly that it did not (there was no global flood, there was no exodus of 2 million plus people from Egypt), we can say definitively THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. And that doesn't undermine the credibility of the Bible's central thesis? Wha-wha-what? Are you for real? I can understand Jonah and Job, but Genesis and Exodus are kind of crucial. If they didn't literally happen, Israel has no articulated claim to be "chosen" and man has no need for a redeemer. In the context of testing the God hypothesis, if a claim is made that God did ABC, and we are able to definitively determine that ABC never happened, then the hypothesis fails. So yes, that DOES disprove the existence of the Christian God. At the very least, it disproves that the people who made the claims were speaking for Him. Without those claims, there is nothing to support the assertions of the later people who claim to be speaking for Him, all of whom relied on the authority of the of those who spoke for Him before. Moses never existed. He's as much a part of Israeli history as Paul Bunyan is a part of American history. This isn't some trivial distinction.

"The Bible says there is a river Nile in Egypt." Seriously? SFW!? The Hobbit says there were men on earth. That doesn't make it a history textbook, nor does it mean Sauron exists!