When does it become immoral to not concede a point?

[notachance]

My Are there Prophecies in the Bible has been online for almost 6 months, has received 327 responses, and has been read by thousands. Several other threads along the same lines also exist.

Dozens of theists tried to make the case that prophecies which are evidence of the supernatural exist in the Bible, or tried to contest the criteria by which the validity of the evidence is determined, and every single one has failed.

Yet, not a single one has conceded.

Everybody either abandons the thread when cornered into admitting his/her position is indefensible and is never seen again, or forgoes rational debate and descends into random proselytizing and Bible-quoting to the point that they are multiple times reprimanded by moderators.

Some will post a thread about prophecies, get utterly pulverized by the responses, ignore everything, and simply repost the same concept a few weeks or months later, again ignoring the responses destroying their arguments.

I understand stubbornness, and an emotional attachment to one's core beliefs, but at what point does refusal to admit you're wrong become immoral?

[Wootah]

Sure, one could argue that, but you'd only be able to do that if you were in the business of making fact-free arguments.

Heck you could argue that the earth is flat and that it's immoral for "global-earthers" not to concede. As long as we have an understanding that it's a counterfactual and illogical argument which fits none of the facts, you're allowed to argue whatever you want.

I just find you to be amazingly unreflective. Did you miss my posts? I was interested in your responses to them, if you wish.

[notachance]

You should know that prophesies are for those who believe

Oh, cool. Kinda like the Emperor's New Clothes. Made of magical cloth that only people who believe in them can see.

I hate to break it to you, but THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!

[notachance]

I re-read your first post and realised you didn't give any examples of prophesies that match your criteria. What works of text satisfied your criteria?

Hey Wootah, is this the post which I missed and you were upset about? Sorry bout that.

You are correct, I can find no prophecies that match my criteria, and can find no flaw in my criteria, which is why, subject to modification, my current belief is that there are no prophecies that meet my reasonable criteria.

If I could think of prophecies that fit my criteria, I wouldn't be babbling on about there being no prophecies that meet my criteria, now would I?

[fredonly]

One could argue that the theists have made their point and it is the non-theists who are acting immorally by refusing to concede the point.

Sure, one could argue that, but you'd only be able to do that if you were in the business of making fact-free arguments.

Heck you could argue that the earth is flat and that it's immoral for "global-earthers" not to concede. As long as we have an understanding that it's a counterfactual and illogical argument which fits none of the facts, you're allowed to argue whatever you want.

I'd go half way between you guys. If a theist makes a rational point, based on common ground, then the non-theist really should be willing to concede the point. While the theist has an excuse for failing to make a concession (i.e. he "knows" he's right, even if he can't figure out why), a non-theist has no such excuse. Non-theists have more at stake in striving for intellectual honesty.

[notachance]

One could argue that the theists have made their point and it is the non-theists who are acting immorally by refusing to concede the point.

Sure, one could argue that, but you'd only be able to do that if you were in the business of making fact-free arguments.

Heck you could argue that the earth is flat and that it's immoral for "global-earthers" not to concede. As long as we have an understanding that it's a counterfactual and illogical argument which fits none of the facts, you're allowed to argue whatever you want.

I'd go half way between you guys. If a theist makes a rational point, based on common ground, then the non-theist really should be willing to concede the point

I'm always open to conceding a rational point. It's fairy tales I have problems with.

[Jester]

Moderator Action
Topic moved to Right and Wrong subforum.

Everyone involved: please remember to remain on topic. This is not the place to discuss the validity of any particular view.

______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been moved, merged, or split. Such actions are taken at the discretion of a moderator.

[Wootah]

I re-read your first post and realised you didn't give any examples of prophesies that match your criteria. What works of text satisfied your criteria?

Hey Wootah, is this the post which I missed and you were upset about? Sorry bout that.

You are correct, I can find no prophecies that match my criteria, and can find no flaw in my criteria, which is why, subject to modification, my current belief is that there are no prophecies that meet my reasonable criteria.

If I could think of prophecies that fit my criteria, I wouldn't be babbling on about there being no prophecies that meet my criteria, now would I?

So the word is a nonsense word to you because you don't accept that a person can make a prophecy. Well played sir. Let me try, 'I don't believe books exist unless they are written in Elvan.'