Had to snip for brevity
At 6/14/2012 10:29:30 AM, jharry wrote:
At 6/14/2012 10:07:44 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/14/2012 9:49:11 AM, jharry wrote:
So posting an argument for God is "not even trying"?
It's not trying to convince me, which is the topic here CONVINCING atheists.
In the OP you posted the statement about producing evidence, and explaining it. And then you go on to say Christians use the excuse that it is not their responsibility to convince atheists. In the statement you posted the author has done everything possible to try and convince you of the truth. I think you are either taking the statement out of context or misreading what the author is saying.
Really? You interpret that as the author having done everything possible? I don't especially considering the author would later go one to say:"You can't convince anyone of anything. It is absolutely impossible."
In the context of the statement the author has explained that he has produced arguments and evidence for his case. The person has rejected his pleading. He is saying that at this point it is no longer necessarily to continue pleading his case. The person has heard the case and has decided to continue walking forward. Should he keep pleading his case without end? Should he go askbob and find his facebook and email to send endless streams of data pleading his case?
Well, you see, an argument would be a form of convincing and the author eschews convincing in lieu of mere presentation. I really can't address this point further until we put the whole inform/convince issue to bed.
Right, but in the case of hell, I am not afforded the opportunity to learn from my mistake, EVER. Hence the extreme difference.
You have been afforded every second of your life. If you live to be 90 that is a lot longer then most children need to learn. The point that I'm trying to make is the fact that I can tell my children the truth and then can and do reject it, the comment about them realizing it was just a tongue in cheek jab at atheists in general. But you seem to be focusing in on it to avoid the simple fact that humans can deny the truth no matter what degree of "convincing" others may try.
I'm not avoiding that at all. As I said, and will repeat, AGAIN,
The issue here is not whether or not you are successful, the issue is the effort put into trying
And again, should I stalk you until you convert or die?
Since I'm not the atheist, I don't assert that you should focus specifically on me. I imagine some sort of triage method would be in order. But generally convincing atheists, by whatever methods, yes.
I don't recommend responding until you read, acknowledge, and accept this.
Check, check and check.
You keep going back to physical actions and I keep trying to remove it. It isn't about being able to physical stop me.
Then the blind man and the cliff is even less relevant. If we are just looking at the degree of "convincing" what more can a person tell a blind person that there is a cliff in front of them besides tell them?
You tell me. This is the question and scenario I'm posing to you. You are tied to a tree facing a cliff. You see a blind man walking toward it, and believe he will walk off and die unless warned.
What do you do?
Do you simply say, "Hey, there is a cliff." And that's it? Is that an accurate representation of the level of effort you'd put in here? He can either take it and leave it and you wipe your hands of the consequences?
No, that is not an accurate representation of the statement you posted in the OP or the verse from which it comes from.
It's an accurate representation of the scenario I invented myself. Which I note you still avoid answering.
That's the question. That's always been the question. And not a SINGLE person has bothered to answer it. You're the only person that has either bothered to respond to it, but all you've done is whine about how it's possible for you to try and not succeed, despite my repeated insistence that it isn't a question of how you can succeed, but a measure of how you will try.
All you have done is duck every attempt I have made to discuss this with you.
You're not attempting to discuss this with me. I've addressed all of your concerns with this scenario and you still refuse to answer the questions involved with it.
If I establish that the blind man can hear and has a brain then telling them their is a cliff in front of them should do the trick.
And if he says that he doesn't believe you? What then? You just shrug your shoulders and stop trying?
If he refuses to believe me then what else can I do. I can tell you that if I was in that situation I might regret my convincing skills but I would know that did what I could to save him.
Really? So, "Hey, you're about to walk off a clif" is the extent of your convincing skills?
The problem here is you are not honestly representing the statement you posted in the OP.
That's a pretty serious accusation. It's not just an accusation of inaccuracy (which merits its own burden) but that I am doing so knowingly and deliberately.
I'd be interested in hearing your case for this.
Drafter, you seem intelligent enough to understand that I'm telling you that you will go to Hell if you do not believe. You can "hear" me because you are responding to my posts. You are blind because you can not see the cliff, but what else can I do?
Try to convince me. I've asked previously if you understand that there is a difference between "informing" and "convincing." Do you?
I do not,please tell me.
Informing - to state that a fact is true.
Convincing - to explain why a fact is true in such a manner as to alter the target's disposition as to accept that the fact is true.
Relevant here are Aristotle's ethos (the disposition of the speaker to incite respect and trust in the audience); pathos (persuading the audience by appealing to emotion); logos (persuading the audience by appealing to reason).
I think it goes without saying that the mere presentation
of a fact can alter the probability in which it is accepted.
If I show you a picture of my cat and then say "I am rich." you are probably less likely to accept that as true than if I showed you a picture of my stash of Gold Bars and then say "I am rich."
The author of the quote (which you say I am being dishonest about) has literally said that a presenter of information can do absolutely nothing to convince another person and has outright dismissed the concepts of ethos, pathos, and logos as invalid. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are the only relevant concepts in terms of persuasion, they are the concepts I am most familiar with.
Do you agree with this assessment, that whether or a person is convinced of a fact has absolutely nothing to do with how that fact is presented by another individual?