Raf

I've mentioned repeatedly that I'm waiting for publication of research on SIT and phonemic inventory. Didn't want anyone to think I had forgotten about it since it still hasn't been published four years later. I didn't resurrect this thread, and I did need to be reminded about certain vocabulary terms -- a handy thing to do when you're engaging in a discussion about language

"Serves the same purpose/achieves the same benefits" is subjective. If it gives you the warm and fuzzies, so be it. But that's not the Biblical claim. The Biblical claim is speaking in languages, not merely promoting warm and fuzzies.

By the way, chockfull, your self-reporting of distinct phonemes in your SIT that cannot be accounted for in languages you know or sounds you have been exposed to would be a lot more impressive coming from a disinterested third party who analyzed your SIT and identified a language, rather than someone trying to win a debate on the internet who claims to be keeping up with the studies we're discussing but does not recognize a word that came up dozens of times in each of those studies. Just sayin.

Really? Because if you're actually producing languages now, then you're doing something that cannot be explained naturally, thus confirming the supernatural. But if you're doing something any schmoe in an acting class can do regardless of religious belief, then you're not doing anything that cannot be explained naturally, so the question reverts to you: Why are you impressed at your ability to do what anyone can do?

Where did I pick up the word phonemes? You critique and dismiss the research I cited repeatedly, research YOU ALSO CITED to defend your position, and you wonder where I picked up that word?Bruh, if you really reviewed the research the way you claim you have, you would have picked up that word too. It's all over everything we reviewed.

Trolling trolling trolling, keep the nonsense rolling Contributing nothing, RAWHIDE!

That post added nothing to the discussion. I'm not saying you're being a troll. Because I can't prove it. But you can't prove you're not.

I am starting to find it hilarious, the judgmental attitude with which GSC is condemned as judgmental. It's old, though.

In plain English... I think to answer the question is to be in his heart and judge accordingly. I am not qualified to answer the question in the title of this thread. I am qualified, we all are, to have suspicions based on the available evidence. Here's mine: Remember how Wierwille said he was in those theological cemeteries... errr, seminaries, and they talked him out of God's Word until he no longer believed the words "holy" or "bible" on the cover? (Honestly, why wouldn't he believe "bible"? But I digress). I believe that is the last honest thing Wierwille said. Everything that comes after that moment is consistent with a con man using people's hunger and thirst for righteousness for his personal gain. EVERYTHING. Victor Paul Wierwille, in my opinion, was no more a Christian than I am today, no more confident in Genesis through Revelation than L. Ron Hubbard was in Dianetics. He sold a product he did not buy.

Oh, that's different. If you continued after you knew it was B.S, yeah. That's another story. And I tried to be clear that lying was a bad word choice FOR ME. I did not intend to extend it to you. "Talked ourselves into what we wanted to be true" would be more accurate for me.

I made a conscious decision to stop using variations of the word "lying" in connection with this topic. I think the desire was sincere and the belief was sincere. I think we were encouraged to continue from the moment the first sounds came out of our mouths, and we were explicitly told that doubts about whether this was real were devilish. We reinforced ourselves and each other by sharing the experience in public. We were deceived. We received ourselves. And we WANTED it to be true. Some of us still do, to the point of redefining the experience beyond all biblical bounds, throwing up obstacles to make the biblical claim untreatable when it is quite testable. No one is lying. But no one is producing a language. No, you're not. No, you're not. No, sorry, you're just not. Yes, you do have to prove it. No, I do not have to disprove it. I am not the one making a claim. I am denying yours. "Lying" is a poor word choice (for me, as I've used the term). Hence, I ceased using it. I'm not disagreeing with Bolshevik. I'm just choosing a different vocabulary and explaining why. But the emperor is naked. There's no dragon in the garage. There were no wiretaps. Is means is. There were no WMD. The evidence is more than just absent.

What can the dragon do? You don't have a Dragon. Is it something unique? You don't have a dragon. Why is that question not asked? Because you don't have a dragon. If something is done that only a dragon in the garage can do... Then you will have established that you have a dragon. But you f-ing don't, and this is getting boring. That is actually this whole discussion in a nutshell. You claim this dragon can do something, I'm saying prove it, and you're saying I can't disprove it. I have no obligation to disprove it. Prove it can, or there's nothing to discuss.

I can't contain my exci.... oops. Almost spoke too soon. It's contained. In a broken Ziploc. No danger of spills though

It's neither incomplete nor faulty. You have not even ATTEMPTED to make a case that it is incomplete or faulty. The evidence refutes your false position, so you reject the evidence. That is "evidence be damned," whether you choose to phrase it that way or not.

And frankly i think youre predisposed to question my intentions in the first place, which would concern me if i had an ounce of respect for your discussion methods. That not being the case, "La Vie!"

The attribution is a GSC glitch, the accidental result of highlighting the quote from your post. I did not address any statement at you personally, but at the content of the quote.

I never said you'll get spiked. And what you perceive to be the trith is objectively false. It's made up b.s. But you can't see that because you declare it to be true, evidence be damned. That's not discussion. That's trolling. And I can't imagine a more vivid example of it. No one needs to spike your comments. I'd much rather keep them on display so everyone can see the bowl sheet I have to put up with in arguing my position against your wishful thinking.

Don't get me wrong. You're entitled to believe what you want and to express it, but this is a discussion forum, and if your position is "I have my beliefs, evidence be damned," that's not a discussion. That's trolling. And you've made it clear on THIS thread, that's what you're doing. As a participant in this thread (not as a moderator), I'm saying it's not welcome. As a moderator, I can say it violates no rules.

This discussion is over. Your judgment is invalid. Your remises are false and your continued presence on this thread, barring a change in your appreciation of evidence, is trolling.

Delightful how you get to say it happened even though the evidence points against it. To quote or paraphrase Sam Harris, if someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to show them to show they should value evidence? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument are you going to make to show they should value logic? It is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to have a rational discussion with you, TLC, because a rational discussion requires two participants who value reason, logic and evidence, and you do not.

Good to see where the sudden interest in my deconversion originated. For what it's worth, even if I were still a Christian, I don't know that I would stand by everything I wrote in the Blue Book thread. I do stand by the process and sentiment, which is,a healthy way to approach any such material.

You know, the one thing worse than the "cult of GSC" is the paranoid delusional cult of anti-GSC that seems to think it's got some profound insight into our groupthink. You're being ridiculous, especially those of you who have never had a post altered or deleted, yet you think all we do is identify cliques and punish dissenters. I PERSONALLY MADE SURE SOME OF YOU COULD REGISTER ON THIS SITE when it was closed to new registrations, and not once did I subject ANYONE to a litmus test for what you believed. If i wanted to keep you out, i could have. Easily. If i wanted to shut you up, i could have, easily. You know, the post that got people so riled up here WAS reported. It was reviewed. It has not been removed. But you self-righteous know-it-alls who have GSC all figured out seem to know that you know that you know we're going to rally around our favored clique at the expense of dissent. Stuff it. I'm sick of it. You are demonstrably wrong and I am SICK of your judgmental attitude. People are going to disagree. People are going to fail to get along. Get over it. You're all welcome here. And you're welcome to second guess "cliques." And you're welcome to second guess moderators. And I am free to tell you that your assessment in that regard is full of s***. I'm doing so now. Please wear only if the shoe fits. End rant.

I can already see how exactly one line from WW's post will be exalted as the rest is ignored.

You mean like everyone knows Rome was founded by Romulus and Remus?

The critique of my one point was itself pointless, as it failed to refute the one point I was making. The Christian God makes historical claims that fail. This proves that those who claimed to be speaking for Him were not (assuming Him to be a God of truth). Changing his historical claims to intentional myths and fables designed to teach lessons is ad hoc revisionism. If you want to go in that direction, fine. Let's. The Christian God is Himself an intentional myth and fable, created by the authors (plural) of those stories to teach lessons, not to convey historical truth. He exists as surely as Superman, The Ants and the Grasshopper, and Bilbo Baggins exist.