Hi, Roundguy.

As I said earlier, MANY people have found the evidence in the books compelling. You and many others were not convinced by the evidence presented.

I understand that to YOU the evidences in the books was false. Evidence as a rule doesn't "speak for itself", so to speak. Evidences are evaluated by each individual based in part of what even constitutes "evidence" for each individual. In my opinion, it was not unreasonable for Aaron to ask you what "evidence" is in your view.

Two scientists, for example, can look at the same evidence putatively supporting some scientific theory, and have an honest disagreement about whether or not the so-called evidence supports or does not support a given theory.

Among other things, it would cause one to question the concept of evidence and consider it more carefully. Or it may be worth noting that there's a psychological impact of evidence, which tends to be reinforcement of beliefs even if the evidence is *against* those beliefs.

Because that's what humans actually do.

Edit: At the bare minimum, you seem to be demonstrating a common aspect of some common conceptualizations of evidence, which is that evidence is often interpreted information. But you will not often find that in the "definition" of evidence (see below).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27578843

I'm assuming that your ignorance of this commonly cited example is due to simply being ignorant in general? Do you really think that all good ideas are completely grounded in facts and rigorous logic?

You could. But you would be missing a larger context of RoundGuy's style of exposition. Words are more than a definition, but a conceptualization of ideas. It's not even clear that a category of "false" evidence exists outside of outright falsification of data. Most definitions of "evidence" would treat it in that way, though I suppose it's possible that he's using it in a different way. So I await his explanation of his use of the term to understand more.

Wow, so many words, but the question remains: What is your point?

I know reading comprehension is a skill that not everyone developed in elementary school. So I'm okay if you don't understand the words that I'm using.

Oh, a classic: Blame the other person for not understanding your sophisticated lingo.

What did your doctor say? Is it narcissism, borderline or both?

And when you are done hurling childish insults, will you explain your point or.......?

At least you can admit that you're not sophisticated enough for this conversation. Admitting it is the first step.

Maybe if you actually demonstrated an attempt to understand you would get a different type of response.

Here. I'll spoon feed you for a bit.

Clearly, there's an entire spectrum of ideas that go into how one decides to value or devalue pieces of evidence. On what basis do you decide on how you interpret "evidence"?

Now read this transcript or listen to this podcast:

"Why facts Don't Always Change Minds"
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/743195213

Reflect back on your answer. Does the new information change your answer, or do you still hold the same ideas as before?

More childish insults, you really should see a doctor about this.



I did not ask you "Aaron, could you please quibble over unimportant semantics?" I asked you to expain your point. Now get going, how hard could this be (for a smart guy like you )

The point has already been explained. I'm sorry you missed it. Maybe if you had been focused on reading the words I was typing instead of trying to determine my mental health, you might have actually read it. Oh well.

Oh well indeed. Ok, I get it, it was never your intention to explain anything, it was quibbling over semantics all along. Your posting history confirms that.

Have fun with that and you should really consider talking to your doctor about that borderline disorder.

It's funny how post #102 literally explains exactly the point I'm making, complete with an example to reflect on and a link for further information, but somehow you think that by ignoring it you've accomplished something. Congratulations on demonstrating the height of willful ignorance.

UT: What's the point?
A: Here's the point.
UT: I'm not going to read this. What's the point?
A: I told you the point.
UT: So, you're not going to tell me the point?

In my experience, I've found that the people that think those particular books you listed are convincing, are already Christians (or Christian adjacent). In fact the most common type to bring them up are evangelicals-types.

I think I might have mentioned this in the thread where you had claimed to be able to prove Christianity (now seemingly abandoned): apologetics seems to be the practice of a Christian providing lists of reasons to accept Christianity, none of which were the reason why they actually became one.

If these lists of reasons take the form of empirical evidence (like with those books), and if those lists of reasons are not why they became a Christian, then what is the purpose of these lists? Could they be to add something more concrete than the otherwise subjective "personal experience"?




(The most aggravating thing to me about apologetics though, is propagating the 'word' evidences, when evidence is already plural)

I already explained it to you: Semantic quibbling is not a point. Talk about willful ignorance.

Evidence leads to truth -> Well, duh, look at flat earthers! is like "Medicine heals" -> Well duh, look at homeopathy!

You never had a point, you are stuck in your old, lonely man contrarian-routine, I went through the ordeal of looking at your posting history and of course: You may call yourself the "King of Contrarians" without a doubt. Years of "I want to be against it, I want to argue even if I don't have a point".

Very very sad. Well, i already gave you sound advice: See a doctor for your numerous mental disorders.

It's almost as if you're using the phrase "semantic quibbling" as a stand in for "I'm not smart enough to understand what you're saying."

It's funny because post #102 is in no way about semantics, but about human psychology. It's a direct, factual response to the concept that evidence leads to truth (which was the original statement being challenged).

But nah. Just continue to play armchair psychoanalyst because it's the best you can do. I get it that you have particular intellectual and emotional limitations, and I'm glad to be amusing you during this time. The more time you spend posting, the fewer opportunities you have to inject yourself with bleach.

Hi, BF!

Until recently I was AWOL from this forum due to personal stuff, like my job, moving twice since late February (a third time is looming) and some health issues.

I will get back to the apologetics stuff soon.

I actually kinda agree with you on the "evidence after the fact" (I'll call it) point.

Evidential apologetics typically re-enforces already existing Christian belief.

Although a friend of mine became a Christian largely as a result of reading a book called "EVOLUTION CRUNCHER."

Ultimately, salvation is a soverign act of God, and vehicles (tools) God often uses are Theistic Arguments and Evidence.

Edit: Thanks for the Grammar pointer. I shan't use "evidences" in the future.

"Psychological reductionism is the last refuge of someone without an argument" - Dennis Prager

I'm using it as "your semantic quibbling is unimportant and worthless".

Looks like you use your continuous aggression as a stand in for "I have severe inferiority complexes"

It's funny that just because your worthless quibbling did not explicitly contain the word "semantics" you think it could not have been semantic quibbling. How old are you, 12?

Woah, more BPD. Did you show your therapist the abusive, manipulative bs you post here? I guess not, otherwise you would have stopped posting a long time ago. Padded cells don't have internet access

Think about it, at least. No one wants to read "Confused man from Henderson stabs innocent person because he was being called out on the web for being a manipulative psychopath"

As far as I know, RoundGuy has no "larger context" in his exposition. In fact, RoundGuy rarely has an exposition. It just is what it is.

As far as my statement that "evidence leads to truth", I think you guys all missed the key word.

I'll let you figure out which one it is.

Yes, it's poorly thought out statements asserted confidently.

Pretty much.

But it is fun to watch you guys try to analyze it. What was my key word?

"Psychological reductionism is the last refuge of someone without an argument." - Dennis Prager

Yeah, I read it the first time (and of course I ignored it )

Now that you are insisting, I looked your hero up and of course I was not surprised.

Are you as homophobic as he is? I bet you are.

No, I am not afraid of sodomites. I do pray that they will turn from their wicked ways, however.

Edit: I have no reason to believe that Mr. Prager is "homophobic."

Yes, I have been an admirer of Dennis Prager for about 30 years.

As an atheist, I have no "inner struggle" and don't have to wrestle with artificially constructed philosophical conundrums ("why did a benevolent god allow the plague" etc).

I have real things to worry about....