The Nehor wrote:JAK wrote:The Nehor wrote:JAK wrote:The Nehor wrote:JAK wrote:Just an absence of intellectual integrity.
JAK
No, I'm true to myself which is what integrity really means. If you mean the modern laws of academia and scientific method in making all my choices, I will concede the point.
Nehor,
“Integrity” necessarily connects with others not only one’s self.
Some meanings:
Forthrightness, honesty, honorableness, incorruptibility, straightforwardness, cohesion, stability, truthfulness, steadiness, principle
Antonyms:
Dishonesty, division, incoherence, inconsistency, implausibility
Your perception of the word’s meaning is far too narrow. While once can be true to one’s self, the term
integrity is much more far-reaching than self-centered.
To the questions and analysis posed for your thinking, you lack integrity as the term is generally used and understood (definitions above).
If you were honest with those who pose questions for you on this forum, you would quote them accurately and respond.
You fail to do that. Hence, you lack integrity in discussion here. Substituting a flip comment or dodging questions fails integrity to others. If you do that here as an example of your conduct, I’m skeptical that you are different with those you see in person. Few people are so split.
JAK
I guess I fails integrity to others then and am not split.
I'll work on that.
Nehor,
It is somewhat puzzling that you enter so many posts on this bb, and yet you are unwilling to engage in dialogue, respond to questions, or present a rejoinder which is coherent and on issues.
JAK
I tried in the past to dialogue with you JAK. All you did was talk about God-claims and the diversity of religions and how knowledge means we should be skeptical. You also claimed I was mentally defective. When I shared my mental health history as evidence against this proposition, I then asked for yours. You never responded. Why should I engage in dialogue if you won't respond to questions?
Bored now.
---------------------------
Nehor,
You continuously made
God claims. And it was those claims which I challenge. In one brief comment you use the term
God four times. Each time you were making
assertions absent any evidence for the claims.
That’s the challenge. I pointed out to you that you had not established
God, yet you continued to use that term as if it were established as fact.
I also pointed out to you that more than 1,000
different Christian groups presently exist as a product of the Protestant Reformation. They each make various
claims which are generally incompatible with one another.
What’s the conclusion from that easily documented state for fractured Christianity?
The conclusion is that none of the claims is reliable --- not yours, not someone else’s.
Therefore, in
dialogue, it’s your
burden of proof to meet to establish that
your claims are somehow superior to those of others.
Thus far, you have not addressed any of the issues before you in these dialogues.
It is that which caused me to consider that you are incapable of rational discussion regarding the enormous diversity and contradiction within only one of the world’s religions today.
These are the points of focus.
You appear unable to understand that if a
God claim cannot tolerate the test of open, transparent, skeptical review, the claim
lacks merit.
Now the fact is, Nehor, you cannot successfully defend
one God claim against the
God claims which other make. None is reliable as none relies on the clarity of evidence required for
reliability.
I also said that
you make it up as you go. That is, you make one assertion piled upon another assertion as if the
first assertion were an established fact. Such is not the case in religion.
I also challenged you on the
way in which validity or reliability is established.
Religions substitute
truth by assertion over
arrived conclusion based on evidence (which is tested, open, transparent, and employs skeptical review.
You state here:
I tried in the past to dialogue with you JAK. All you did was talk about God-claims and the diversity of religions and how knowledge means we should be skeptical.
You are in part correct as I restated above. The problem is that
you continue to make any claim you wish and disregard the challenge set before you to
establish your claims. The rejoinder for you is to address the analysis. I repeated the challenge because you failed to respond to it.
The challenge to
establish any claim for gods or God is paramount.
I gave you multiple links demonstrating some of the various contradictions
Christians make in claims. That is evidence that those claims are unreliable.
You refused to address the issues raised. That’s why I restated them and pointed out that you had failed to address them.
In most of your posts (not only to me), you tend to be flip or attempt to be humorous, not serious. And when you get serious, you default to religious claims. And so, I ask you for
evidence.
Your personal
feelings are not relevant to the larger issues of evolution of life forms (which is in opposition to religious claims of
creation).
I also pointed out that you appear to rely on
ancient scripts over modern science (applied to make your computer work). The computer and the Internet are a common denominator which you and I share. That’s why I use it as example of modern applied science. I could use many thousands of examples of reliable conclusions based on accurate, reliable information.
And so, I said to you:
God claims are irrelevant. You made no effort to address that. On the other hand, I offered multiple examples and weblinks which demonstrate that
God claims are irrelevant. They are also unreliable in as much as they disagree with one another.
You made no effort to address that.
I concluded that you are unable to address it. You are sufficiently indoctrinated in a religious dogma to make it difficult (maybe impossible) for you to address
larger issues which are presented to you.
Nehor:
You also claimed I was mentally defective.
Let’s see the exact words in quotation and the date link to this statement. This is disingenuous. You see, here is where an exact quote would be beneficial. You’re paraphrasing, and you have it
wrong.
Nehor:
When I shared my mental health history as evidence against this proposition, I then asked for yours. You never responded.
The issues were as I have described above, not either of our “mental health history” as you state. You’re correct, I did not respond. It was generally off topic. I strongly suspect that you were attempting to divert the issue from those of
religious claims.
If you would like to send me a
private message (PM) and ask anything you like, I would be pleased to respond to your questions in that option which this forum offers.
Nehor:
Why should I engage in dialogue if you won't respond to questions?
One benefit for you is that responding to issues of substance and issues I raised is that it would give
you opportunity to think. It would give you opportunity to apply your mental prowess in a way that I suspect you never have.
Nehor:
Bored now.
You may be, but I suspect this is a way out, a way to avoid addressing your own religious bias in an intellectually honest way.
Throwing out claims is easy compared with addressing them with honest integrity in a dialogue.
Consider the discussion in the following thread:
Con Artists and Knowing the Source of Claims
In that there are a number of insightful comments regarding the topic.
JAK