Honesty with believers

[nobspeople]

In particular, this site focuses, at least partly, on asking questions about one's faith. We rely on the responders to be honest with their responses. Some makes you wonder if they're being honest, some seem honest to a fault (oft times causing one to question their sanity in a way). Then there are those that, well, we can't tell if they're being honest or not.
Granted, in most cases about what one thinks, feels, or any other intangible means, we have to accept what these people 'say' as true (to them, anyway).

I have a family member that lies. Constantly. We know this because his stories change, others refute what he says with proof, and or we know the actual truth. He has lied so much, he starts believing his lies - he will fight you tooth-n-nail (as they say) to 'prove' he's right. And when shown proof, he either ignores it or comes up with excuses which would allow him to be right. I oft wonder if there is some sort of mental problem, but that's another topic altogether.

Take this example:
Rosie is asked a question. Her answer seems, to most everyone, to be a lie. Yet, she appears to honestly think her response is correct and, due to the nature of the asked question, she has zero way of proving it true (just like you have zero way of proving it false). Good ol' Rosie never relents her claim.
Ever.
Should you take her for her word and go on about life, or continuously challenge her? And does her inability to change her answer change your POV of her?

For discussion:
If a believer says XYZ, and you KNOW it's not true, does that hurt their credibility in future encounters?
Why or why not?
And should christians (believer if you prefer) be expected to show their beliefs are true when they're asking about their beliefs, or is simple lip service enough? Why or why not?

[TRANSPONDER]

We are happy to be corrected. I have seen some Atheist (or Bible critical) objections that I don't care for. The taking of the end of the parable of the Talents I believe, in Luke's version...hang on.. Yep Luke 19.27 is I think overdone in trying to make Jesus advocate killing non -believers. I prefer to point out that in Matthew they are cast into the darkness to gnash their teeth. It's put into the context of the predictions on the mount of Olives whereas Luke has it told on the trip from Jericho to Bethany. Which tells us that it is 'Q' material common to Matthew and Luke (and not to be found in Mark - prediction that gives scientific credibility if it pans out) and they both put it where they thought it belonged in the gospels (different places - a characteristic of "Q" material as well as not being in Mark.

Well you see the point - I think there are better arguments than trying to trying to make Jesus look bad for instance with the simile of the bread thrown to the dogs. Even though the metaphor paints the non -J ews and being the dogs under the table (less than God's people, the Jews, but even they can snap up the scraps of teaching dropped by the Jews) (1) and the iconic 'one angel or two' which is too easily dismissed by the Bible apologists. I look for heavier weaponry. Though in fact One donkey or two is one of the best polemical claymore - charges I have ever seen.

(1) also in Mark 7.24 but Not in Luke. So Not 'Q' Material, but not Synoptic original material or Luke would also have it.

[Jose Fly]

For discussion:
If a believer says XYZ, and you KNOW it's not true, does that hurt their credibility in future encounters?
Why or why not?

No, not by itself. The real reveal is how they respond after being made aware of their error.

If I'm honest with myself, that's my main motivation in debating creationists. I'm fascinated by how people react to situations like being shown examples of things that they'd previously insisted don't exist or happen, or being presented with a question that they'd not ever considered. Those who respond openly, objectively, and with curiosity I usually end up respecting. Those who flail around making one ridiculous excuse after another in a desperate attempt to maintain their original position OTOH I quickly lose respect for.

And should christians (believer if you prefer) be expected to show their beliefs are true when they're asking about their beliefs, or is simple lip service enough? Why or why not?

Only if they are attempting to make others abide by them.

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank you. There is a tightrope for the atheist debator in that it's really awkward if they make a bad mistake. The opponent will harp on that (The 'one shot win'. (see also 'Atheist - stumper' ).The Theist side will tend to be slippery. They will slide off to another point without conceding any others, and when pressed can often resort to denial 'Science has been wrong before (appeal to hoped for evidence that will turn up one day (1) appeal to not understanding. This is frustrating enough when done with the Bible, where one can go translation -shopping or, if that fails, 'they wrote differently back then', which you'd think that nobody can know know what it actually means. But no, they know On Faith. 'Interpretation' means having Faith that what they think about it is divinely inspired, and you pay invest in that safer than Bitcoin.

This is what's behind 'quoting out of context'. The passage often has nothing to do with their argument, but it sounds like it does and carried Biblical Authority. But I've seen it done with secular sources. Ok, they may not understand, but I've seen a passage on evolution taken out of context. But when it's explained to them, the explanation is rejected and it is insisted that it means what they want to believe. Is it that they are sure they are right overall even if they are wrong on this? Or is it the one shot win, which can be understood in the context of Divine Inspiration; if they admit they had it wrong, the can no longer believe in divinely - Inspired knowledge, which comes through Faith. I don't know, but it's quite fascinating.

(1) which is of course faith that they are right even if all the evidence is against. They have faith that the confirming evidence is out there whether or not it ever turns up.

[POI]

Great questions BTW...

For discussion:
1. If a believer says XYZ, and you KNOW it's not true, does that hurt their credibility in future encounters?
Why or why not?
2. And should christians (believer if you prefer) be expected to show their beliefs are true when they're asking about their beliefs, or is simple lip service enough? Why or why not?

1. I think it depends. First, I would need to know A) if they are earnestly mistaken, or B) deliberately being deceptive?

A) If it's the former, then we could attempt to 'flesh out' the mistake, which may or may not sway the interlocutor's mind to the correct conclusion about that mistake. But usually, I have found that even if I were to change the believer's mind about the prior mistaken claim, it usually does nothing to change their core beliefs in Christianity.

B) If it's the latter, then maybe they are just another apologist?

2. If they participate in this forum arena, I would hope so. But often times, it seems not to be the case. And often times, I would like to ask, why the heck do you hang out here? Is to to try and convert skeptics/unbelievers/atheists, or other or other or other?

[Athetotheist]

Thank you. There is a tightrope for the atheist debator in that it's really awkward if they make a bad mistake. The opponent will harp on that (The 'one shot win'. (see also 'Atheist - stumper' ).The Theist side will tend to be slippery. They will slide off to another point without conceding any others, and when pressed can often resort to denial 'Science has been wrong before (appeal to hoped for evidence that will turn up one day (1) appeal to not understanding. This is frustrating enough when done with the Bible, where one can go translation -shopping or, if that fails, 'they wrote differently back then', which you'd think that nobody can know know what it actually means. But no, they know On Faith. 'Interpretation' means having Faith that what they think about it is divinely inspired, and you pay invest in that safer than Bitcoin.

This is what's behind 'quoting out of context'. The passage often has nothing to do with their argument, but it sounds like it does and carried Biblical Authority. But I've seen it done with secular sources. Ok, they may not understand, but I've seen a passage on evolution taken out of context. But when it's explained to them, the explanation is rejected and it is insisted that it means what they want to believe. Is it that they are sure they are right overall even if they are wrong on this? Or is it the one shot win, which can be understood in the context of Divine Inspiration; if they admit they had it wrong, the can no longer believe in divinely - Inspired knowledge, which comes through Faith. I don't know, but it's quite fascinating.

(1) which is of course faith that they are right even if all the evidence is against. They have faith that the confirming evidence is out there whether or not it ever turns up.

One mistake I've noticed atheists making is refuting something in, say, the Bible and claiming it as their own "one shot win" over all theistic belief.

[Avoice]

Christians don't respond according to the truth.

Their truth only cones by using a mistranslated version of the Hebrew. Or doing acrobats with verses to answer.

And it all begins on the first page of their testament. The virgin birth prophecy.

There is no such prophecy

[Tcg]

One mistake I've noticed atheists making is refuting something in, say, the Bible and claiming it as their own "one shot win" over all theistic belief.

Well, perhaps you can provide an example of this. You of course wouldn't make a claim you can't support.


Tcg

[Athetotheist]

One mistake I've noticed atheists making is refuting something in, say, the Bible and claiming it as their own "one shot win" over all theistic belief.

Well, perhaps you can provide an example of this. You of course wouldn't make a claim you can't support.


Tcg

.......

There is a tightrope for the atheist debator in that it's really awkward if they make a bad mistake. The opponent will harp on that (The 'one shot win'. (see also 'Atheist - stumper' ).The Theist side will tend to be slippery. They will slide off to another point without conceding any others....

It is the Claimant has to validate their case, not the doubter to disprove it. Yet theists constantly seem to think their claims stand as credible until disproven.

As I told you, from the get-go, "the resurrection" is not falsifiable. Just like Muhammad flying to Heaven on a white horse is not falsifiable. Just like Joseph Smith's discovery is not falsifiable. Hence, theists can be secure in the belief, that their belief(s) cannot be truly challenged....

The objective here is to demonstrate that if you believe in such (said creator - YWHW), you are bound to rationalize all their moral dictates respectively. This is where I see that theists are, as "Venom" would state, 'disingenuous' to a degree.

Sadly, this is too often what happens when theists get their claims / beliefs put to the simple test of truth. Instead of dealing with problematic notions, it's just ignore, make excuses, or anything other'n to deal with

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank you. There is a tightrope for the atheist debator in that it's really awkward if they make a bad mistake. The opponent will harp on that (The 'one shot win'. (see also 'Atheist - stumper' ).The Theist side will tend to be slippery. They will slide off to another point without conceding any others, and when pressed can often resort to denial 'Science has been wrong before (appeal to hoped for evidence that will turn up one day (1) appeal to not understanding. This is frustrating enough when done with the Bible, where one can go translation -shopping or, if that fails, 'they wrote differently back then', which you'd think that nobody can know know what it actually means. But no, they know On Faith. 'Interpretation' means having Faith that what they think about it is divinely inspired, and you pay invest in that safer than Bitcoin.

This is what's behind 'quoting out of context'. The passage often has nothing to do with their argument, but it sounds like it does and carried Biblical Authority. But I've seen it done with secular sources. Ok, they may not understand, but I've seen a passage on evolution taken out of context. But when it's explained to them, the explanation is rejected and it is insisted that it means what they want to believe. Is it that they are sure they are right overall even if they are wrong on this? Or is it the one shot win, which can be understood in the context of Divine Inspiration; if they admit they had it wrong, the can no longer believe in divinely - Inspired knowledge, which comes through Faith. I don't know, but it's quite fascinating.

(1) which is of course faith that they are right even if all the evidence is against. They have faith that the confirming evidence is out there whether or not it ever turns up.

One mistake I've noticed atheists making is refuting something in, say, the Bible and claiming it as their own "one shot win" over all theistic belief.

I'm not sure that atheists do that. Rather I see atheists critique the Bible all the way through. They list hundreds of contradictions, not just one. Rather it's the Theist apologists try the one shot win against atheists, and sometimes on something that isn't even relevant, (like grammar) or true (like treating science as a religion) or honest (Like everything happened for no reason - there were definite reasons, but not Planned reasons) or relevant (Like Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists. Even if that was a valid criticism, it doesn't make Christianity true and atheism false).

No, I think the one shot win is something that Christian apologists do (because they know, deep down, that if they accept something they believe on Faith is wrong, Faith fails as a validation) and they Project it onto atheists, who don't do it.

[TRANSPONDER]

One mistake I've noticed atheists making is refuting something in, say, the Bible and claiming it as their own "one shot win" over all theistic belief.

Well, perhaps you can provide an example of this. You of course wouldn't make a claim you can't support.


Tcg

.......

There is a tightrope for the atheist debator in that it's really awkward if they make a bad mistake. The opponent will harp on that (The 'one shot win'. (see also 'Atheist - stumper' ).The Theist side will tend to be slippery. They will slide off to another point without conceding any others....

It is the Claimant has to validate their case, not the doubter to disprove it. Yet theists constantly seem to think their claims stand as credible until disproven.

As I told you, from the get-go, "the resurrection" is not falsifiable. Just like Muhammad flying to Heaven on a white horse is not falsifiable. Just like Joseph Smith's discovery is not falsifiable. Hence, theists can be secure in the belief, that their belief(s) cannot be truly challenged....

The objective here is to demonstrate that if you believe in such (said creator - YWHW), you are bound to rationalize all their moral dictates respectively. This is where I see that theists are, as "Venom" would state, 'disingenuous' to a degree.

Sadly, this is too often what happens when theists get their claims / beliefs put to the simple test of truth. Instead of dealing with problematic notions, it's just ignore, make excuses, or anything other'n to deal with

If I get your point correctly, this is not going for the one shot win. It is applying the burden of proof (a logical rule) to ALL the arguments put forward by Theist apologists. Each claim has to make its' case, and that it should conform to logic is just the rules of logic (or one cannot claim to be using logic at all, which is a one shot loss) and applies to all the arguments. I've even argued that the Bible itself isn't prima facie a claim that has to be validated; it is, prima facie, a record of events that has to be evaluated.

The point there is that, after evaluation, there are enough doubts and questions about its' validity that the burden of proof now does fall onto the Bible - believer to explain these doubts and questions so that the Bible is credible, and that, I argue, is just what they have failed to do.