Let us ALL be humble

[liamconnor]

I wonder whether many of us are being a bit...presumptuous.

It seems a good many arguments are based on highly technical details...details which scholars themselves would regard as "tenuous".

I give an example: A lot of arguments in this forum bring up dates for the biblical documents. For instance, one argument I just read was entirely based on the assumption that the fourth gospel was written around 110 AD; as he/she said, "most scholars date..."

This brought a laugh from me. "Most scholars...". MOST SCHOLARS!

I have read quite a bit; but by no means do I claim mastery of this issue. However, the scholars that I have read (not on wikepedia, but real books by scholars at big universities: E.P. Sanders; Shaye Cohen; Helmut Koester etc. etc.) all admit that the dating of biblical composition is not an exact science. Every single one admits it is GUESSWORK.

And yet such guesswork makes its way online, and from online to us, the public. And we drink it in as if it were...pardon the pun...gospel.

So a question...

How do we check ourselves against mimicking online claims that we haven't researched? How do we exercise a little "self-consciousness" or even humility when making arguments; how do we ask "wait, do I really know that, say, wikipedia, or, "this blog writer" is claiming, is true; should I look into this a little more"?

[oldbadger]

And what should we conclude by this growth?

It's not for me to say..... your conclusions are your own.

[marco]

So a question...

How do we check ourselves against mimicking online claims that we haven't researched? How do we exercise a little "self-consciousness" or even humility when making arguments; how do we ask "wait, do I really know that, say, wikipedia, or, "this blog writer" is claiming, is true; should I look into this a little more"?

Hi, Liam; in days before the ubiquitous Internet people were called "well-read" and got their information from the libraries in their head. I am always suspicious of "experts"; education is plagued with them, full of fine theories that fall down in practice.

When we argue about dates of Biblical documents or events mentioned, then we are seeking plausibility, not actual truth. As you say, it is foolish to think a perfect argument can be built on scholars' guesswork. By the same token it seems equally foolish to build an iron-hard belief on events of dubious provenance.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 27 by Blastcat]

Particularly Catholic, or they used to because the church forbade birth control.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Agreed. There are probably at least as many phony facts, fake news, and fictitious claims on the internet as there is legitimate information. Maybe the best way to stifle it is to call the blogger out on what they post in the debate forum.

However, one might have used some facts in his post that he read somewhere but can't recall where. I can see where it could get quite tedious to research everything and document every claim before posting.

I think some posters just want to make their point without too much effort. And others, perhaps, just want to rack up posts - they won't take the time to fact-check.

I understand that the debate forum requirements are stricter than the discussion forums. I suppose the moderators could crack down more but I think they realize that if they're too strict it would run many away, and I agree.

Somewhere in this, there's a happy medium. If one's opponent in the debate makes a claim that is pertinent to the issue he should have something to back it up. Little issues should be let go in the interest of facility.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 21 by JehovahsWitness]
In your post, you did not say this was your personal experience. You stated that "it is a demonstratable fact."

Yes and if you go back and read carefully, you'll see WHAT I said is demonstratable.

Well I can't speak for the other religions but it is a [demonstratable] fact that "Catholics, devout Southern Baptists, devout Amish as well as people from any number of religions have, following their contact with Jehovah's Witnesses see that JWS do indeed have the truth and changed religions.

I never made the claim that Jehovah's Witnesses don't get converts. I even stated that all beliefs get converts in a previous post. That isn't the issue here.

What is becoming clear now is that you made an ambiquitous statement. And that is easily forgiven since you're having to use your phone to text with. I would probably do much worse.

I really don't think you realized that what you wrote could be interpreted differently from what you intended. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if you had said what I now think you meant to say: That SOME Catholics, SOME Southern Baptists, et al change religions when they come into contact with Jehovah's Witnesses. Although you didn't explicitly say that ALL converted, I contend that it appears implicit in the statement.
I concede that I should have asked you to clarify that point.




and again here ...

As for whether it is a demonstratable* fact that individuals from other religions, have become Jehovah's Witnesses, we also have the records of their firsthand testimonies.

You're making an argument here from a false premise since I never claimed that Jehovah's Witnesses haven't persuaded anyone to join them.

and you have Tim's research...here

Now for a national survey because of course why take our word for it right? The Pew Researchers found that 65% of all JWs come from other religions.

...about two-thirds (65%) of current adult Jehovah’s Witnesses are converts –

That statistic isn't pertinent to the debate. 65% isn't 100%. And the stat doesn't even claim that 65% of those who come into contact with JW's see the truth and change religions. It only shows that 65% of the members have converted from other religions. So, it has nothing to do with the issue.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 33 by amortalman]

Particularly Catholic, or they used to because the church forbade birth control.

Right.
It may be that Catholics had more babies than the Protestants.

You might not be aware of how other religions promote breeding.
Try this one, it's not Cathoilic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull


"Women between the ages of 15 and 44 who attend religious services at least weekly have 1.42 children on average, compared with the 1.11 children of similar-age women who rarely or never attend services. More religious women said they also intend to have more kids (2.62 per woman) than nonreligious women (2.10 per woman), the survey found."

http://www.livescience.com/38743-religi ... abies.html

And this:

Muslim women in UK have FOUR times as many kids as non-Muslims
http://pamelageller.com/2015/08/muslim- ... lims.html/

http://pamelageller.com/2015/08/muslim- ... lims.html/