Albert Pike: A Man Misunderstood

Originally posted by piboy
So far I don't see proof against Pike worshipping Lucifer.

You won't find any. Not to your level of satisfaction anyway. Whilst your at it see if you can prove Jesus isn't a luciferian either.

Originally posted by piboy

So far I don't see proof against Pike worshipping Lucifer.

Pike was a member and Communicant of Christ Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. His personal religious beliefs were therefore Anglican in nature, as he was in communion with the Holy Catholic Church of England. His religious worship centered around the Anglican Liturgy, from the Book of Common Prayer, and his religious beliefs were those issued in the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by Trinityman

You won't find any. Not to your level of satisfaction anyway. Whilst your at it see if you can prove Jesus isn't a luciferian either.

huh? To my satisfaction? This is just an ad hominem. What this says is that proceeding to discuss this topic is pointless because I could never be convinced anyway. That doesn't help anything, and isn't true anyway.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Pike was a member and Communicant of Christ Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. His personal religious beliefs were therefore Anglican in nature
[edit on 21-12-2005 by Masonic Light]

So does belonging to a church override anything else you do or say? Can I, for example, be a Nazi but then claim to be a Jew and deny being a Nazi? Or, can I belong to a Christian church, but yet do things that are major sins to that church (like adultery, murder, etc)? Does church membership automatically or necessarily preclude a person from doing things that go against that church's teachings?

Here are the two claims that I would like to challenge:

1) The fact that Pike was a member of an Episcopal Church about the time he was heavily involved in Masonry. (What evidence do you have that he was a member, that he was active, that he did believe the tenets of this belief while or about the time he was heavily involved in Masonry)

2) That by being a member of this Episcopal Church precludes him from having beliefs in opposition to this church's tenets.


[edit on 21-12-2005 by piboy]

Originally posted by piboy


So does belonging to a church override anything else you do or say? Can I, for example, be a Nazi but then claim to be a Jew and deny being a Nazi? Or, can I belong to a Christian church, but yet do things that are major sins to that church (like adultery, murder, etc)? Does church membership automatically or necessarily preclude a person from doing things that go against that church's teachings?

No to all of the above. However, all of the above is completely besides the point. We weren't talking about what we can and can't do in regard to church membership, we were instead addressing Pike's religious beliefs.

Here are the two claims that I would like to challenge:

1) The fact that Pike was an Episcopal Church about the time he was heavily involved in Masonry. (What evidence do you have that he was a member, that he was active, that he did believe the tenets of this belief while or about the time he was heavily involved in Masonry)

Pike was baptized in the Episcopal Church as an infant. He and his family were members of Holy Trinity Episcopal Church in Little Rock, Arkansas when he became a Mason, before the Civil War. After the war, Pike moved to Washington, D.C., where he opened a law practice. Soon afterward, he transferred his Church membership to Christ Episcopal, and also was instrumental in moving the headquarters of the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite to his new home (he had already been elected Grand Commander of the Supreme Council years before).

Pike's daughter Lilian moved to D.C. with him, and also joined the same Church (Pike was by this time a widower).

Pike taught senior adult Bible School at the church until his health prevented him attending services in 1890, at which time the clergy visited him twice a week in order to administer the Sacraments. When Pike died in 1891, funeral services were performed by the clergy of Christ Episcopal, with Masonic Rose Croix Funeral Rites given by the Supreme Council. He was buried in the Church cemetary, but his coffin was later excavated and reinterred in a tomb behind the Pillars of Charity at the Supreme Council's Temple.

2) That by being a member of this Episcopal Church precludes him from having beliefs in opposition to this church's tenets.

Pike was a dedicated Episcopalian his entire life, and was always active in the Church. The Episcopal Dioceses of both Arkansas and the District of Columbia have contributed to the Albert Pike Memorial because of the services he rendered them. Week after week, for his entire life, he recited the Creeds during the Holy Liturgy, each of which are statements of belief. There is absolutely no reason to think he would have done this for almost 90 years if he didn't really believe what he was saying. Such a thing simply would not have been in Pike's character.

Masonic Light,

Ok I see the info about his church activities. Where did this information come from?

And it is not beside the point regarding whether this means he couldn't worship Lucifer and be a church goer. If you are using it as evidence that because he was an Episcopalian he could not have been a Luciferian, then we have to establish whether they are mutually exclusive. Can you be a church goer and be a Luciferian?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
There is absolutely no reason to think he would have done this for almost 90 years if he didn't really believe what he was saying. Such a thing simply would not have been in Pike's character.

Quite a claim. What is your support

[edit on 21-12-2005 by piboy]

Originally posted by piboy
huh? To my satisfaction? This is just an ad hominem. What this says is that proceeding to discuss this topic is pointless because I could never be convinced anyway. That doesn't help anything, and isn't true anyway.

Of course it's true... it's almost impossible to prove a negative. The only evidence that I am aware of that Pike may have been a luciferian is his reference to Lucifer, the Light Bringer in his book 'Morals and Dogma'. There have been many discussions on ATS about the meaning of Lucifer in this context which are worth searching for.

Then there is the Leo Taxil hoax which has fired up no end of people on the subject, perhaps most notably Jack Chick in his now infamous cartoon The Curse of Baphomet, which is debunked here.

Probably the best answer I can give you is that Pike was unlikely to be a traditional luciferian and a freemason at the same time as the two are fundamentally incompatible IMO.

Originally posted by piboy
Ok I see the info about his church activities. Where did this information come from?

Various biographies of Pike. Probably the best is "A Life of Albert Pike" by Dr. Walter Lee Brown, a history professor at the University of Arkansas. Brown wrote his doctoral dissertation on Pike, and had access to Pike's private letters and documents via Pike's descendents (whom Brown interviewed at length). Dr. Brown is considered the world's leading authority on Albert Pike.

And it is not beside the point regarding whether this means he couldn't worship Lucifer and be a church goer. If you are using it as evidence that because he was an Episcopalian he could not have been a Luciferian, then we have to establish whether they are mutually exclusive. Can you be a church goer and be a Luciferian?

Again, the question was not one's status as a churchgoer, but of one's religious beliefs. Of course, one could go to church while disagreeing with everything the church was about, but going to church under such circumstances would certainly be a huge waste of time.

Pike was not the type to give lip-service to something he didn't believe in, and was certainly a man of principle, if nothing else. He had a tendency to not give a hoot what others thought about him so long as he believed he was in the right, and would not have remained in the Church, let alone be an active teacher in it, if he disagreed with it.

Furthermore, Pike was a member of several Christian organization within Freemasonry, that require members to not be only Master Masons, but also Trinitarian Christians. These include the Masonic Rosicrucian Society (Pike had served as Supreme Magus of the High Council), the Royal Order of Scotland (Pike had served as Provincial Grand Master), and the Order of Knights Templar (Pike was a founding member and first Grand Captain General of the Grand Encamptment of Knights Templar of the United States). Each of these are Christian fraternal orders within Freemasonry.

Furthermore, the claim that Pike worshiped "Lucifer" has its basis in the infamous "Taxil Hoax" that was debunked long before either of us were born. Pike lived and died a dedicated Christian.

Quite a claim. What is your support

A knowledge of Pike's life through the study of history, as well as years of intense study of Pike's writings themselves. I would challenge anyone to carefully and seriously study Pike, and honestly reach a different conclusion.

Masonic Light,

Ok. first let me say that I didn't claim Pike was a Luciferian. I am trying to set the stage of how we can know whether he was or not.

If you have read a lot about Pike, that is good, but doesn't do much to convince. I understand that your assessment is that he was not a Luciferian. But I can't just take your word for it. That would be just relying on authority.

So if we state that Albert Pike was a member of various societies, what can we conclude if those societies conflict with each in terms of their beliefs? If one organization believes X and the other Y, and X and Y seem to be opposites, what do we conclude?

What if one of the groups can be shown to be Luciferian? Would he be guilty by association? Or would he be innocent by association because of a membership in, say, the Episcopal Church? In other words, if one group is "bad" and all the others "good", which wins?

So you say that Pike was a member of these groups:
- Holy Trinity Episcopal Church
- Masonic Rosicrucian Society
- Royal Order of Scotland
- Order of Knights Templar

You claim that all these are non-Luciferian and are Christian. If some other members of these groups are Luciferian, does it make the whole group Luciferian? What would make a group Luciferian?

Why does all this matter? Because we need to decide if association with these groups indicates his beliefs or not. If it does, than we need to characterize the groups. If not, then discussing the groups doesn't help us reach a conclusion and we have to turn to something else.

Originally posted by piboy


If you have read a lot about Pike, that is good, but doesn't do much to convince. I understand that your assessment is that he was not a Luciferian. But I can't just take your word for it. That would be just relying on authority.

Then I'm not sure what you want. If we want to know what Pike believed, I can think of no better source than Pike himself. Granted, Pike passed on to his reward long ago, but thankfully, he left a huge body of writing behind, on all types of different subject.

First, he was a poet, and left several volumes of poetry. Edgar Allen Poe, who was not a fan of Masonry, once referred to Pike as the greatest living American poet. Pike's poetry, again and again, touches upon his personal beliefs, including not only religion, but also love, the horrors of war, etc.

Secondly, he was a scholar of the law, and a noted attorney who often argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court following the Civil War. Immediately before the war, he had served as a justice on the Confederate Supreme Court. He wrote many volumes on the history and philosophy of law, and much of Pike's personal beliefs can be seen here.

Thirdly, he was a philosopher, and it was in his philosophical role that he is best known as a Masonic author. His many Masonic books on philosophy include "Morals and Dogma", the Liturgies, the Legendas, "The Book of the Words", "Symbolism of the Blue Degrees", etc. His non-Masonic books on philosophy include his Lectures on the Indo-Aryans, and on the Irano-Aryans.

Fourthly, he was Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite when Pope Leo XIII issued the bull "Humanum Genus", condemning Freemasonry. Pike replied with his brilliant "A Response of Freemasonry To Humanum Genus In Behalf of Mankind", which leaves no doubts as to Pike's character and integrity. I sincerely recommend this Pike work to you, which can be read in full here

So if we state that Albert Pike was a member of various societies, what can we conclude if those societies conflict with each in terms of their beliefs? If one organization believes X and the other Y, and X and Y seem to be opposites, what do we conclude?

I am a member of the abovementioned Masonic societies, as well as the Episcopal Church. They are not in conflict.

Originally posted by piboy
2) That by being a member of this Episcopal Church precludes him from having beliefs in opposition to this church's tenets.

Wouldn't it just make more sense to demonstrate that he was a 'luciferian'???

Do you actually doubt that he was a member of the church? And since it doesn't matter if he was or wasn't, because anyone can do one thing and say another, whats the point?

Also, if pike was a kkker, as some would have it, then he couldn't be a non-christian no? Since they don't accept even catholics, let alone jews, muslims, or luciferians.

Also, one could allways say 'pike was lying when he said he was a church member, etc', but, for what its worth, why couldn't he have just been lying when he wrote about 'lucifer being the light bringer' and knowledge and wisdom being important to him???

Ok, then it sounds like we should place more emphasis on what he wrote rather than the groups he belonged to. So belonging to an Episcopal Church would not prove he wasn't Luciferian.

This is where I am going: I am challenging the claim that Pike is misunderstood, ie that he actually was not a Luciferian. In order to do that, I am trying to find out first, is the claim falsifiable, and second, if so what would falsify it? Then all we have to do is address the things that would falsify it (assuming it can be falsified). If we fail to falsify it, then we must accept the claim to be true. However, if we do falsify it we must accept it to be false.

What I mean but falsifiable is this: can we obtain evidence that would in fact make the claim false? An example of a claim that is unfalsifiable is that the second planet from the star Polaris has green rocks 2 feet below the surface. We have no way to get evidence for that so there is no way we can falsify the claim. No discussion. We could guess for fun, but that would be it. We can't accept it as true just because we can't prove otherwise. It currently is unproveable.

But assuming the claim is falsifiable, all we need to do is focus on the evidence that would falsify the claim. For example, did Lee Harvey Oswald by himself kill President Kennedy? If there were 10,000 testimonies supporting this claim, they would not matter if it could be proved that a second bullet hit Kennedy from the front. That would be it. Of course the evidence for that second bullet would be rigorously examined but if it indeed was accepted as true, then we must accept the claim the Oswald acted alone was false, regardless of all the other evidence supporting the claim.

Forgive me if I am preaching to the choir. I just don't want the discussion to digress into "you are beating around the bush", "that doesn't matter", "you have an agenda", etc.

So, for Pike, I am trying to find out first is it even possible to falsify the claim (I believe that is possible which is why I decided to join the discussion in the first place), and second, what would falsify the claim that Pike was not a Luciferian?

All the things in the affirmative give credence and evidence (like his church membership) but it would not be part of falsifing the claim. That's why I have been trying to weed out all the other evidence that isn't going to get us to what could falsify the claim.

So maybe I should ask what you think would falsify the claim? This isn't asking whether the claim is true or not, it is asking "what things would have to be true in order for the claim to be false."

To me it would be if Pike ever was part of a group that included the revering of Lucifer, if he ever wrote anything revering of Lucifer, or if he ever participated in anything "Luciferian" (which would have to be defined). Other evidence doesn't really matter. He could be the Pope, but if he ever prayed to Lucifer or something, that's it.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by piboy]

[edit on 21-12-2005 by piboy]

I think the subject is getting confused by your wanting to falsify a negative: you give the proposition "Pike was not a Luciferian", and then ask how this could be shown to be false.

I think it would logically be simpler to do what we've been doing here for years: have someone, an anti-Mason, propose the positive "Pike was a Luciferian", then show that to be false.

To begin with, we have to ask "What's a Luciferian?". Unbeknownst to our conspiracy theorist friends, "Luciferianism" is actually a theological movement within the early Roman Church, and refers to the doctrines of St. Lucifer of Cagliari. Lucifer, a prelate in the Church, had made several comments about the Trinity that St. Jerome considered heretical. When Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate, he did not squander the opportunity, and inserted Lucifer's name into the text of the Book of Isaiah.

Pike, a Bible scholar who knew both Hebrew and Latin, was aware of this, and he comments on it twice in "Morals and Dogma": once, in Chapter 3, where he refers to the "false Lucifer of the legend", and again in Chapter 19, where he quotes Levi in saying that this was a "strange and mysterious name" for the Church to give to the devil.

In all of Pike's thousands of pages of written work, that's pretty much all he ever said about any "Lucifer".

The story that Pike believed that "Lucifer is God" has been discredited so many times that I have no interest to repeat it again. I have commented on the Taxil Hoax about a million times on this forum, and you can easily find those comments by running a search here.

Originally posted by piboy
So, for Pike, I am trying to find out first is it even possible to falsify the claim...and second, what would falsify the claim that Pike was not a Luciferian?

How about looking at the claim that he was luciferian and seeing what evidence supports it. What do you see as strongly supporting the claim that he was luciferian?

We can't examine these claims like a scientific claim about nature. They're historical claims. We can look at them like other historical claims, like, say, that washington was a federalist. But we're not going to be able to have the same sort of certainty we'd like to have.

Having said that, what clearly marks pike out as a Luciferian? Here is a page on luciferianism
noctuliusworks.satanicwebsites.com...

How much of that jives with pike and how much of it stands in contrast to him? Assuming we are accepting that as moderately representative of luciferianism.

Also, do you think its relevant that there is, say, a quote from crowley on that page, but not one from Pike?

Masonic Light
and inserted Lucifer's name into the text of the Book of Isaiah.

WHAT? So this business about it being the light bearer, known to the romans, etc etc, is bs? That its just some guys name? Where'd you hear this?

Morals and Dogma

How many of you masons have actually read his book? Usually but not always this book is given to those who are promoted to the 32nd or 33rd degrees. I suppose it depends on the lodge and whether or not the Mason is ready for such knowledge of the Occult.

As for me I have. I borrowed it from a 32nd Mason who was a friend of my grandfather (33rd) . I will even put the page numbers down so that you can obtain a copy and confirm (It's imperative that you actually obtain an original copy from when it was first published. It's hard but not impossible to find one. If you are a true advocate for truth this quest will definately seperate the men from the boys.

I wasn't able to keep the book however I wrote these quotes down DIRECTLY from an original copy. Don't believe me? Find an original copy, read it for yourself and be in awe and disgust.

"Fictions are necessary to the people, and the Truth becomes deadly to those who are not strong enough to contemplate it in all its brilliance. In fact, what can there be in common between the vile multitude and sublime wisdom? The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason." (Pg. 103)

“The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahveh reversed; for Satan is not a black god, but the negation of God. The Devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry. (Pg. 102)

For the Initiates, this is not a Person, but a Force, created for good, but which may serve for evil. It is the instrument of Liberty or Free Will. They represent this Force, which presides over the physical generation, under the mythologic and horned form of the God PAN; thence came the he-goat of the Sabbat, brother of the Ancient Serpent, and the Light-bearer or Phosphor, of which the poets have made the false Lucifer of the legend.”


"Every Masonic Lodge is a temple of religion; and its teachings are instruction in religion." (Pg 213)

"It is the universal, eternal, immutable religion, such as God planted it in the heart of universal humanity." (Pg 219)

"Masonry is a search after Light. That search leads us directly back, as you see, to the Kabalah." (Pg. 741)

"All truly dogmatic religions have issued from the Kabalah and return to it: everything scientific and grand in the religious dreams of all the illuminati, Jacob Bœhme, Swedenborg, Saint-Martin, and others, is borrowed from the Kabalah; all the Masonic associations owe to it their Secrets and their Symbols." (Pg. 744)

"The Blue Degrees are but the outer court or portico of the Temple. Part of the symbols are displayed there to the Initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he shall understand them; but it is intended that he shall imagine he understands them. Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry."
(Pg 819)

* * * If Location serves I suggest visiting a national archive so you can find the original copy in the Daily Appeal. April 16, 1868

The Daily Appeal was a paper in Tennesee. If my information is correct Pike actually had some hand in the operation of this newspaper although I would have to confirm it.

"With negroes for witnesses and jurors, the administration of justice becomes a blasphemous mockery. A Loyal League of negroes can cause any white man to be arrested, and can prove any charges it chooses to have made against him. ...The disenfranchised people of the South ... can find no protection for property, liberty or life, except in secret association. We would unite every white man in the South, who is opposed to negro suffrage, into one great Order of Southern Brotherhood, with an organization complete, active, vigorous, in which a few should execute the concentrated will of all, and whose very existence should be concealed from all but its members."

* * * Letter written from Pike to fellow 33rd Mason Grand Master Guiseppie Mazzini. 15 August 1871

The original letter can be found in the Archives in London England. You can contact the British Museum Archives and request for a copy of the original.

"We shall unleash the Nihilists and Atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effects of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will be from that moment without compass, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view, a manifestation which will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."

* * * Additional Reading * * *

My Life: The Rise and Fall of a Dictator by Leon Trotsky

It was during that period that I became interested in freemasonry. ... In the eighteenth century freemasonry became expressive of a militant policy of enlightenment, as in the case of the Illuminati, who were the forerunners of the revolution; on its left it culminated in the Carbonari. Freemasons counted among their members both Louis XVI and the Dr. Guillotin who invented the guillotine. In southern Germany freemasonry assumed an openly revolutionary character, whereas at the court of Catherine the Great it was a masquerade reflecting the aristocratic and bureaucratic hierarchy. A freemason Novikov was exiled to Siberia by a freemason Empress.

I discontinued my work on freemasonry to take up the study of Marxian economics. ... The work on freemasonry acted as a sort of test for these hypotheses. ... I think this influenced the whole course of my intellectual development. (Pg. 124-127)

* * *

Lectures on Ancient Philosophy and Introduction to the Study and Application of Rational Procedure.

Manly P. Hall - 33rd

“FREEMASONRY is a fraternity within a fraternity — an outer organization concealing an inner brotherhood of the elect. Before it is possible to intelligently discuss the origin of the Craft, it is necessary, therefore, to establish the existence of these two separate yet interdependent orders, the one visible and the other invisible. The visible society is a splendid camaraderie of 'free and accepted' men enjoined to devote themselves to ethical, educational, fraternal, patriotic, and humanitarian concerns. The invisible society is a secret and most august fraternity whose members are dedicated to the service of a mysterious arcanum arcanorum. Those Brethren who have essayed to write the history of their Craft have not included in their disquisitions the story of that truly secret inner society which is to the body Freemasonic what the heart is to the body human.”

(Pg. 397 )

The Lost Keys of Freemasonry - Manly P. Hall

“When a mason learns the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply energy.”

(Pg. 48)

The Phoenix: An Illustrated Review of Occultism and Philosophy.

Manly P. Hall.

"The Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled are Madame Blavatsky's gifts to humanity, and to those whose vision can pierce the menacing clouds of imminent disaster it is no exaggeration to affirm that these writings are the most vital literary contribution to the modern world. No more can they be compared with other books than can the light of the sun be compared with the lamp of the glowworm. The Secret Doctrine assumes the dignity of a scripture..."
(Pg. 122)


* Truth comes in three stages.
First it is ridiculed.
Then it is violently opposed.
Finially it is accepted as self evident...and the truth shall set you free.



[edit on 21-12-2005 by Huabamambo]

[edit on 21-12-2005 by Huabamambo]

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I think the subject is getting confused by your wanting to falsify a negative: you give the proposition "Pike was not a Luciferian", and then ask how this could be shown to be false.

I think it would logically be simpler to do what we've been doing here for years: have someone, an anti-Mason, propose the positive "Pike was a Luciferian", then show that to be false.

No, by figuring out how to falsify the claim, you avoid confusion. Then you don't spin your wheels, throw out all sort of evidence that doesn't help prove or disprove the claim.

Turning around and making the claim "Pike was a Luciferian" doesn't really change what evidence helps it falsify the claim. Same thing applies: if he does anything Luciferian, or with a group that is Luciferian...etc (what I wrote in my previous post).

Originally posted by Nygdan
We can't examine these claims like a scientific claim about nature. They're historical claims.

I am getting at what things would have to be true in order to falsify the claim. It's just logic. We haven't even gotten to quality of evidence, which I think it was you were referring to with scientific claims.

No, the claim is that "Pike is not a Luciferian." Let's try to falsify it. If we can't, then that claim is true.

I presented the fairest, most logical (and common) way to prove or disprove claims. Lots of people on this discussion complained that no one wanted to challenge the claim. I am proposing how it can be proved or disproved. Otherwise we yell past each other and get nowhere, while everyone wants to flood the discussion with "evidence" that doesn't help us get to a conclusion.

Originally posted by Huabamambo
The original letter can be found in the Archives in London England. You can contact the British Museum Archives and request for a copy of the original.

"We shall unleash the Nihilists and Atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effects of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will be from that moment without compass, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view, a manifestation which will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."

The letters are fakes:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by piboy
the claim is that "Pike is not a Luciferian." Let's try to falsify it. If we can't, then that claim is true.

That doesn't make sense. YOu can't demonstrate that I am not a luciferian, that hardly makes it true. I can't demonstrate that you are not a luciferian, that doesn't mean that its true.

I presented the fairest, most logical (and common) way to prove or disprove claims. Lots of people on this discussion complained that no one wanted to challenge the claim.

We can't falsify the claim that Pike isn't a luciferian. Its not a sort of claim that is falsifiable.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by piboy
the claim is that "Pike is not a Luciferian." Let's try to falsify it. If we can't, then that claim is true.

That doesn't make sense. YOu can't demonstrate that I am not a luciferian, that hardly makes it true. I can't demonstrate that you are not a luciferian, that doesn't mean that its true.

I presented the fairest, most logical (and common) way to prove or disprove claims. Lots of people on this discussion complained that no one wanted to challenge the claim.

We can't falsify the claim that Pike isn't a luciferian. Its not a sort of claim that is falsifiable.

It's easy. If it is POSSIBLE to falsify something, then that means it is possible for evidence to be obtained that would all by itself show the claim to be untrue. Either the claim is falsifiABLE or it is not. If it is, then you try to falsify it.

If it is falsifiable but yet you fail to falsify it, then you have to accept the claim as being true.

Claim: you are not Polish.

Attempt to falsify: I can't find any evidence that says you are Polish, therefore I accept the claim that you are not Polish.

It's easy.

Or take this example in a court:
"The defendant does not know the murder victim."

Would you say that because I cannot give evidence that the defendant DID know the murder victim that we should still go ahead and believe that he DID know the victim? (it's true because I said so without any evidence. Innocent until proven guilty?). Turning it around and making the claim "the defendant did know the victim" would use the same evidence to falsify.

If it is possible to provide evidence to contradict, then it is falsifiABLE. And if no contradicting evidence if found, then the claim must be accepted as true (at least until there is some evidence to the contrary)

More on the claim: "You are not Polish"

Maybe some evidence would be that you visited England once, you have a friend who is Polish, you live in a Polish part of town, but none of this is evidence that CAN falsify the claim, regardless of whether the evidence is true or not. So why waste time with this evidence? It gets you nowhere,

But then suppose I submit evidence that you are of Japanese descent. Boom. All over. Claim supported. I just "proved a negative".

More on the "not Polish" claim.

This relies on "either - or, but not both", meaning we assume (or could prove if need be) that one can EITHER be Japanese, OR Polish but not BOTH. So by proving the one, we disprove the other.

This works whether the claim is stated in the negative or positive.

Claim: You ARE Polish
Evidence: Evidence shows you are Japanese.
Claim proved false.

Claim: You ARE NOT Polish
Evidence: Evidence shows you are Japanese.
Claim proved true.

But now what if we are not dealing with "either - or, but not both"? What if the two facts are not mutually exclusive?

Claim: I am a man.
Evidence: Evidence shows you are Japanese.

Then the evidence doesn't help in attempting to falsify the claim, and probably should be set to the side.

What about this:
Claim: He masterminded the bank robbery.
Evidence: He is a truck driver.

So would being a truck driver preclude someone to being the mastermind of a bank robbery? Or course not, so the evidence does not help in falsifying the claim.

See why finding out what would falsify the claim saves a whole lot of time and gets us to a resolution?