SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

Accusing me of stating my opinions as facts does not make your accusation true.

I think I've been so clear about what my opinion is that it insults our readers' intelligence for me to have to constantly label it my opinion.

Modern SIT does not produce human languages. Find a fact that refutes my opinion or shut up. And I said a fact. Not a distorted reading of studies that conclude the exact opposite of what you claim. A fact. Not a 40-year-old secondhand anecdote offered by someone who admits in that very offering that it doesn't prove what he wishes it did. A fact. You have none. All the testable facts refute you.

If two people claim to be doing different things and produce the same result, it is quite rational to suggest, in the absence of any other evidence, that they are doing the same thing.

Group A. Psychics who claim xenoglossia claim that they produce foreign languages without learning them in the traditional ways. Beyond that, they actually claim to have a working knowledge of the language in question. The only proof we have of their claims is what they say and what they write.

Group B. Christians who claim glossolalia claim that they produce foreign languages without learning them in the traditional ways. They do not claim any knowledge of the language in question. The only proof we have of their claims is what they say.

An analysis of what is produced by Group A and Group B, when such comparisons can be made, reveal that they produce the same damn thing.

Conclusions: neither is driven by spirit. Both are doing the same thing, which anyone can do without claiming to be spirit-driven.

Or: The linguists are stupid and have no idea what they're talking about.

I choose the first conclusion.

[chockfull]

Modern SIT does not produce human languages.

Find a fact that proves this. Not a study where the people involved didn't understand the language and thus concluded it was not a language. Not a medium talking to his spirit guide (which actually DID produce a human language). Not someone concluding that because it was "non-conversational" that it wasn't a language. A fact proving that it was not a currently used language or one that was used at some point on Earth. Until you do this, I guess all you've got is telling me to shut up.

Find a fact that refutes my opinion or shut up.

Pathetic. It seems all I ever do in an exchange like this is to get you to finally drop back to you calling it "your opinion" as opposed to stating it as fact one more time.

Edited October 26, 2012 by chockfull

[Raf]

I'm gonna cut my side of the conversation off here. I've made my point and answered every one of your silly accusations, no matter how ridiculous they have gotten. I've put up with distortion after distortion, lie after lie, misrepresentation after misrepresentation, absurd interpretation after absurd interpretation. Congratulations. You've outlasted me. Not with the facts. Not with the truth. But with raw determination.

I'm done.

[chockfull]

An analysis of what is produced by Group A and Group B, when such comparisons can be made, reveal that they produce the same damn thing.

And again, more opinion as fact. Please show me where there is incontrovertible proof that they are producing the same thing. The only thing observed SINCE NONE OF THE LANGUAGES WERE UNDERSTOOD (except in medium's cases), were that they phonetically sounded the same. Which you have already beat that point to death getting at your opinion that just because they were phonetically similar doesn't prove anything.

Edited October 26, 2012 by chockfull

[Raf]

Chockfull, it is impossible to have an honest argument with someone who argues dishonestly. You have access to the same information I do. The answers to your questions and challenges are all there.

Your methods of debate are dishonest. You have distorted every study and paper we've reviewed. I have documented this repeatedly. You've distorted what I've said. You continue to do so. You resurrect discredited arguments as if they have not been discredited. You are not honestly approaching this discussion and I no longer respect you as a debate opponent worth engaging.

You've chosen to be ignorant. I shall allow you to remain so.

Good day.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

Theatrical training frequently includes exercises in improvisation. In one type of improvisation, the actor invents a "language" (on the fly) and has his/her character use that language in a conversational context. I posted an example of Andy Kaufman doing this in one of my earlier posts. It's not Biblical, it's not spiritual, it's not evidence of anything other than a latent ability of the human mind. It's not difficult to do. It can, however , present a stumbling block for participants who have inhibitions that impair their ability to do it. That's why it's included in improvisation classes. I personally saw this being done by a wide variety of subjects, some of whom I am quite sure were not Christian. (Oy Vey! Am I being vague enough on this point?) Decidedly, not everyone can overcome their inhibitions to do it but, the possibility to do so is still there.

Edited October 26, 2012 by waysider

[chockfull]

I'm gonna cut my side of the conversation off here. I've made my point and answered every one of your silly accusations, no matter how ridiculous they have gotten. I've put up with distortion after distortion, lie after lie, misrepresentation after misrepresentation, absurd interpretation after absurd interpretation. Congratulations. You've outlasted me. Not with the facts. Not with the truth. But with raw determination.

I'm done.

Apparently, we have different objectives. Yours is "to make your point", and "to answer silly, ridiculous accusations".

Mine is to investigate this phenomena we call SIT, see what is out there scientifically on it, read it and analyze it, look at the doctrine and verses taught us in TWI and formulate a reasonable "post-TWI" stance on it, all to get a better grasp on a part of my private prayer life that has seemed to serve all right for me over the last 3 decades and more, and to see whether or not the accusation of me faking it and lying to myself had any basis to it or not, or if it was just someone spouting off hot air.

[waysider]

...

Edited October 26, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

Your goal has not been to investigate SIT, Chockfull. Your goal has been to defend it at any cost, to the point that you are now denying what is factually true and undisputed. It's dishonest and unworthy of my time.

[chockfull]

Chockfull, it is impossible to have an honest argument with someone who argues dishonestly. You have access to the same information I do. The answers to your questions and challenges are all there.

Your methods of debate are dishonest. You have distorted every study and paper we've reviewed. I have documented this repeatedly. You've distorted what I've said. You continue to do so. You resurrect discredited arguments as if they have not been discredited. You are not honestly approaching this discussion and I no longer respect you as a debate opponent worth engaging.

You've chosen to be ignorant. I shall allow you to remain so.

Good day.

And I acknowledge this as your admission that the things I am challenging you to either produce an incontrovertible fact on or stop stating it as fact when it is your opinion are things which you are unable to prove. And so rather than get honest about it you would rather call me names and leave.

[cman]

I don't see any diff in either approach.

Allow me to sound the same, :) .

Something as unprovable as some thing that is heard.

Would require listening as the primary target.

[Raf]

I shall be perfectly happy to continue the conversation with anyone else who agrees to handle the questions and answers honestly, including any remaining question posted by Chockfull that was not answered afterward (most of it has already been answered, but damn, 60 pages...).

But I am not willing to further engage anyone who distorts the information (documented repeatedly; not my opinion) and treats answered questions as if they've been left hanging.

[chockfull]

Your goal has not been to investigate SIT, Chockfull. Your goal has been to defend it at any cost, to the point that you are now denying what is factually true and undisputed. It's dishonest and unworthy of my time.

My goal is still to investigate SIT. And my opinion on the research changes the more I delve into the facts and the more I read. When my opinion changes, such as on the term "free vocalization", I explain the reasons why. Of course, that I keep stating it as my opinion makes it a whole lot easier to read than if I was trying to claim it as proven fact all the way down the line.

You keep saying it is "factually true and undisputed" that modern SIT doesn't produce a language. Yet you even yourself admit that it cannot be proven that the languages are not "existing living or dead human languages" as the most basic definition of SIT states they are. Now yes, I have to phrase that in a different way for you to admit - prove they "are not languages spoken today on Earth or that were spoken sometime in the past". But the underlying truth is still there. It is not proven that modern SIT doesn't produce a language.

And not disputed? Sheesh - there's been valid disputation going on for the bulk of this thread. It's completely dishonest to say undisputed.

Edited October 26, 2012 by chockfull

[Raf]

And I acknowledge this as your admission that the things I am challenging you to either produce an incontrovertible fact on or stop stating it as fact when it is your opinion are things which you are unable to prove. And so rather than get honest about it you would rather call me names and leave.

Must have escaped your reasoning, but I don't care what you do or how you take it. Your dishonesty and silliness has led me to stop taking your posts seriously. They are not serious and neither are you about this subject. You want to think you're approaching it seriously, but you're not. Your latest posts prove it.

You keep saying it is "factually true and undisputed" that modern SIT doesn't produce a language.

At this point, it should shock no one to hear that this is a dishonest distortion of what I actually said, a misrepresentation of my position. Again. And I'm done refuting your distortions.

[waysider]

I see we've returned to the "burden of proof" dilemma. There seems to be more energy wasted on meta discussion than the actual subject. Pity.

[chockfull]

Your goal has not been to investigate SIT, Chockfull. Your goal has been to defend it at any cost, to the point that you are now denying what is factually true and undisputed. It's dishonest and unworthy of my time.

I read your accusation "your goal has been to defend it at any cost" to be projection. You don't know my inner heart thoughts, desires, and goals. So you must be talking about your goals here.

You are so delusional about "factually true and undisputed" that you refuse to even acknowledge that the scientific method inherently acknowledges the difficulty of proving a negative. Proving SIT is not a language and never was a language such as the definition of it states even science says in general about that type of proof that it is difficult to impossible.

[waysider]

Proving SIT is not a language and never was a language such as the definition of it states even science says in general about that type of proof that it is difficult to impossible.

What the heck does this mean?

[chockfull]

I see we've returned to the "burden of proof" dilemma. There seems to be more energy wasted on meta discussion than the actual subject. Pity.

Yeah I know. There is a burden of proof dilemma - who's responsible to prove it. Then there's the actual proof dilemma, proving a negative. Both are dilemmas.

And it is a TON of energy wasted because Raf keeps using the "proven fact and undisputed" line.

The average reader can see the disputation of this in almost any page in this 60-page thread. I call this the "Iraq Minister of Defense" logical fallacy, where every sound bite you hear from the guy he was proclaiming how the Iraqi army was victorious over the invading Americans.

What the heck does this mean?

Proving a negative is hard to impossible?

At this point, it should shock no one to hear that this is a dishonest distortion of what I actually said, a misrepresentation of my position. Again. And I'm done refuting your distortions.

Geez. I guess you think the reader can't read the 100+ times you've written "modern SIT is not a language", and "that is a proven fact and undisputed".

Edited October 26, 2012 by chockfull

[waysider]

One documented example of someone producing what is presented in the Acts incident doesn't seem too unreasonable a request. That's my opinion.

[Raf]

Chockfull, you're a liar. Not once have I written that...

You know what, it's not worth it. Stop lying about what I said.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Raf

[WordWolf]

One documented example of someone producing what is presented in the Acts incident doesn't seem too unreasonable a request. That's my opinion.

It would certainly end the discussion and produce a slam-dunk for one side.

The other side, by definition, can't prove a negative, so they can't

produce a slam-dunk. What they CAN do is show that there's evidence for

the negative, and no evidence for the positive.

That's already happened here.

So,

we have one side saying

"modern CLAIMS of SIT are nothing of the kind.

They are free vocalization, and are produced by people who were taught

they're doing the original SIT, want to do the original SIT, and care

about godly things. So, they want to believe the 2 are the same, and

were taught they are the same. So, they believe they are the same.

However, there's no evidence to support this belief."

That side's shown that there's evidence to support this, and there

seems to be none supporting the claim that they ARE the same.

That means it's up to the other side to either say

"Based on the evidence, I'm forced to agree, or at least withdraw from

the discussion since I can't honestly refute them"

or

"They are the same, and I shall provide the proof as follows".

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[chockfull]

One documented example of someone producing what is presented in the Acts incident doesn't seem too unreasonable a request. That's my opinion.

Sure. It's not an unreasonable opinion. And we have a couple accounts of this even in our miniscule sample space on this forum.

The "documented" part is called into question, and there are legitimate reasonable unanswered questions in the accounts that we would want to see as documentation. The studies bring up some of these, like the language background of the speaker, individual accounts from the person themselves who heard the tongue in their native language, answers to questions like 'was it just a random word here and there, or were there fully formulated phrases and sentences in your native language' etc. etc. ad nauseum. Basically to try and get more detail showing facts and stories that would lead an average person to conclude the person wasn't lying and the speaker didn't have the previous exposure to the language to fake it.

One such account acknowledged as true proves it. It is difficult to impossible to disprove tongues are a currently or previously known language.

So what is "proven and incontrovertible fact" concerning the matter? Very little indeed.

[waysider]

Sure. It's not an unreasonable opinion. And we have a couple accounts of this even in our miniscule sample space on this forum.

The "documented" part is called into question, and there are legitimate reasonable unanswered questions in the accounts that we would want to see as documentation. The studies bring up some of these, like the language background of the speaker, individual accounts from the person themselves who heard the tongue in their native language, answers to questions like 'was it just a random word here and there, or were there fully formulated phrases and sentences in your native language' etc. etc. ad nauseum. Basically to try and get more detail showing facts and stories that would lead an average person to conclude the person wasn't lying and the speaker didn't have the previous exposure to the language to fake it.

One such account acknowledged as true proves it. It is difficult to impossible to disprove tongues are a currently or previously known language.

So what is "proven and incontrovertible fact" concerning the matter? Very little indeed.

Sorry, chockfull, that sounds like pretzel logic to my ears.

[Raf]

Stop using quotes to paraphrase what I said. In the space of a few short posts, you have turned what I DID say into something I did not, and you have applied it to a subject about which I was not speaking. So you are either being dishonest about what I said or incompetent about reading and applying it. I have found this to be consistent with your approach to just about every article, study and to a lesser extent, every post we have shared. It is impossible and unproductive for me to have to constantly correct your failure to comprehend what's written by LAYPEOPLE, to say nothing of experts in linguistics. I've tried to patiently steer you right, but my patience is exhausted.

For the record, what I said was you have now reached the point of denying what is factually true and undisputed. Clearly, I am referring to something you did today. To apply this statement, which somehow became, in quotes no less, "proven and incontrovertible fact," to my assertion that modern SIT does not produce human language, is either dishonest or incompetent. Either way, I'm tired of dealing with it.

The line refers to the patently and self-evidently ridiculous assertion that free vocalization is not an innate human ability that anyone, Christian or not, can do. You might as well deny the sky is blue. You're not arguing to get to the truth. You're not even arguing to win. You're arguing to outlast me. Well, congratulations. You have.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Raf

[WordWolf]

Yeah I know. There is a burden of proof dilemma - who's responsible to prove it. Then there's the actual proof dilemma, proving a negative. Both are dilemmas.

[Actually, by the rules of formal discussion and debate, this is simple.

The subject is as follows:

Side A: "Modern SIT is the same thing as Biblical SIT- a supernatural thing impossible to do without supernatural assistance."

(I might also call that "Pentecost SIT", or "original SIT.")

Side B: "Modern SIT is nothing like Biblical SIT- it is something any person can do, and those doing it THINK they are

doing something that requires supernatural assistance like Biblical SIT, when they are not."

Thus, Side B is stating, simply put, that Side A is making an extraordinary claim that has been unproven.

Side A is making an extraordinary claim that must be proven if it is to stand.

It's the same thing when some people claim Astronauts walked on the Moon. Side B claims they did not, so Side A

then has to prove the Astronauts DID. Claims about evidence being faked or news reports being faked are

secondary to the initial claim. (If they DID walk on the Moon and that's proven, nobody cares if someone

faked a news report about a real event.)

Therefore, Raf has provided evidence that supports the idea that all modern SIT is not what is claimed.

However, he doesn't HAVE to do that- his side can be represented just as well by saying

"Prove the claim."

However, he's shown why the claim should be doubted-as if any claim shouldn't be required to be proven

to some degree, partly because all of us at one time DIDN'T doubt it.

(snip)

Geez. I guess you think the reader can't read the 100+ times you've written "modern SIT is not a language", and "that is a proven fact and undisputed".

Perhaps I skipped over something.

Raf posted-over 100 times- that "modern SIT is not a language" AND "that is a proven fact and undisputed"?

I'd gotten the impression that he keeps asking for evidence TO dispute that, evidence that modern SIT

IS a language. That's your claim, I for one would be thrilled to see some hard evidence of it.

I really do WANT to agree with your position, but there seems to be nothing to support that stance.

I can't, in good faith, take a position when I can find evidence disputing it and no evidence supporting it.