My Beliefs [Trollville]

Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
My Beliefs [Trollville]

I'm new here and I just wanted to introduce myself. I do not adhere to the belief of Karma, any "perilous missions" to rescue humanity on behalf of a particular deity, superstitions, dogma, Law of Attraction, Ego, Satan, Christ, or God; yet I do believe in the existence of an After Life, reincarnation, and spirit beings. All the drama, chaos, and violence in the world can be attributed to the unawareness of one's own subjectivity. I later discovered that Albert Ellis, grandfather of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), illustrated this philosophy through his work so I am also a big fan of his.

 

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Please explain why you

  Please explain why you find belief in Jesus, Satan, God etc as untenable and yet reincarnation, the existence of spirit beings,  is acceptable.   As an atheist I accept neither scenario ( lack of compelling evidence ) but I am curious as to your reasoning.  

   PS, welcome to the forum.


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
This sucks. I can't figure

This sucks. I can't figure out how to quote a person. Do we just copy and paste?

"Please explain why you find belief in Jesus, Satan, God etc as untenable and yet reincarnation, the existence of spirit beings,  is acceptable.   As an atheist I accept neither scenario ( lack of compelling evidence ) but I am curious as to your reasoning."  

 

Yes. I'm a free thinker. I'm not an atheist. But while you feel there is a lack of compelling evidence in your life there is NO lack of compelling evidence in my life in regards to the after life, reincarnation, and spirit beings (strictly referring to people who have past away....NOT angels or demons....things like that). My mom is a medium. So I know firsthand that the spirit world exists I just don't think there's purgatory,  a caste  system, or the traditional sense of heaven and hell. Does that make sense?

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quick and short instructions

Quick and short instructions on how to use the quote function.

Click the word "quote" at the bottom of the post to which you want to reply.

An edit window will open. At the beginning of the text you will see: [ quote={person's name} ] (without the spaces).

At the end of the post you will see [ /quote ] (with the slash - again, without the spaces)

Enclose everything you want to reply to within the quote code.

If you want to reply to multiple parts of the post, be sure you have matching beginning and ending quotes, i.e. [ quote ] and [ /quote ]

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:I'm new here and I

Arj wrote:

I'm new here and I just wanted to introduce myself. I do not adhere to the belief of Karma, any "perilous missions" to rescue humanity on behalf of a particular deity, superstitions, dogma, Law of Attraction, Ego, Satan, Christ, or God; yet I do believe in the existence of an After Life, reincarnation, and spirit beings. All the drama, chaos, and violence in the world can be attributed to the unawareness of one's own subjectivity. I later discovered that Albert Ellis, grandfather of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), illustrated this philosophy through his work so I am also a big fan of his.

 

I figured it out. I also wanted to add. I don't believe in soul mates/ twin flames either.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


DamnDirtyApe
Silver Member
DamnDirtyApe's picture
Posts: 666
Joined: 2008-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote: My mom is a

Arj wrote:

 My mom is a medium. So I know firsthand that the spirit world exists I just don't think there's purgatory,  a caste  system, or the traditional sense of heaven and hell. Does that make sense?

First off, welcome to the boards.  Glad to have you, just so long as you aren't a kid playing a trick (we've just had one of those come through).  

You have to qualify the "firsthand" thing for all of us.  We don't know your mom.  We're not going to take her word for it that she communicates with spirits.  For anything to be firsthand, the spirits would have had to have contacted you personally; anything else is hearsay.  If they have, please share.  Also, please understand that you've just purchased a bright, shiny new 2009 model Burden of Proof for yourself.  It doesn't belong to us.  If you're okay with that, then you may be able to have some fun here, but please don't think that just because you aren't a traditional religious believer anyone's going to think you're any more credible than a traditional religious believer.

"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell


enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:This sucks. I

Arj wrote:

This sucks. I can't figure out how to quote a person. Do we just copy and paste?

"Please explain why you find belief in Jesus, Satan, God etc as untenable and yet reincarnation, the existence of spirit beings,  is acceptable.   As an atheist I accept neither scenario ( lack of compelling evidence ) but I am curious as to your reasoning."  

 

Yes. I'm a free thinker. I'm not an atheist. But while you feel there is a lack of compelling evidence in your life there is NO lack of compelling evidence in my life in regards to the after life, reincarnation, and spirit beings (strictly referring to people who have past away....NOT angels or demons....things like that). My mom is a medium. So I know firsthand that the spirit world exists I just don't think there's purgatory,  a caste  system, or the traditional sense of heaven and hell. Does that make sense?

Makes no sense to me! Your mum being a medium is no more proof for the spirit world, than a christian is proof of god.


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
DamnDirtyApe wrote:Arj

DamnDirtyApe wrote:

Arj wrote:

 My mom is a medium. So I know firsthand that the spirit world exists I just don't think there's purgatory,  a caste  system, or the traditional sense of heaven and hell. Does that make sense?

First off, welcome to the boards.  Glad to have you, just so long as you aren't a kid playing a trick (we've just had one of those come through).  

You have to qualify the "firsthand" thing for all of us.  We don't know your mom.  We're not going to take her word for it that she communicates with spirits.  For anything to be firsthand, the spirits would have had to have contacted you personally; anything else is hearsay.  If they have, please share.  Also, please understand that you've just purchased a bright, shiny new 2009 model Burden of Proof for yourself.  It doesn't belong to us.  If you're okay with that, then you may be able to have some fun here, but please don't think that just because you aren't a traditional religious believer anyone's going to think you're any more credible than a traditional religious believer.

Quote:

Makes no sense to me! Your mum being a medium is no more proof for the spirit world, than a christian is proof of god.

No I did not read all that into it but y do I own a car I never purchased? LOL. The burden of proof only comes into play when I'm trying to actively convince you of something that I myself believe which you don't. I don't recall that being a part of my motives. I clearly stated in the title of this thread that these are MY beliefs and I'm introducing myself. That should be a HUGE indicator as to whether or not I am truly concerned with what OTHER people think of MY beliefs. Right?

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Welcome.  There do tend to

Welcome.  There do tend to be a number of people that posts on these boards with strong beliefs in the supernatural that do want others to also believe.  Please don't take it the wrong way if someone pushes for proof.  It will be interesting to see what you have to say on the various topics that get posted here.   

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:DamnDirtyApe

Arj wrote:

DamnDirtyApe wrote:

Arj wrote:

 My mom is a medium. So I know firsthand that the spirit world exists I just don't think there's purgatory,  a caste  system, or the traditional sense of heaven and hell. Does that make sense?

First off, welcome to the boards.  Glad to have you, just so long as you aren't a kid playing a trick (we've just had one of those come through).  

You have to qualify the "firsthand" thing for all of us.  We don't know your mom.  We're not going to take her word for it that she communicates with spirits.  For anything to be firsthand, the spirits would have had to have contacted you personally; anything else is hearsay.  If they have, please share.  Also, please understand that you've just purchased a bright, shiny new 2009 model Burden of Proof for yourself.  It doesn't belong to us.  If you're okay with that, then you may be able to have some fun here, but please don't think that just because you aren't a traditional religious believer anyone's going to think you're any more credible than a traditional religious believer.

Quote:

Makes no sense to me! Your mum being a medium is no more proof for the spirit world, than a christian is proof of god.

No I did not read all that into it but y do I own a car I never purchased? LOL. The burden of proof only comes into play when I'm trying to actively convince you of something that I myself believe which you don't. I don't recall that being a part of my motives. I clearly stated in the title of this thread that these are MY beliefs and I'm introducing myself. That should be a HUGE indicator as to whether or not I am truly concerned with what OTHER people think of MY beliefs. Right?

Huh?


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
My response to you was gonna

enzoconti wrote:

Huh?

My response to you was gonna be the same thing I said to Ape so I just added your comments to that post in order to keep it short.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
anniet wrote:Welcome. 

anniet wrote:

Welcome.  There do tend to be a number of people that posts on these boards with strong beliefs in the supernatural that do want others to also believe.  Please don't take it the wrong way if someone pushes for proof.  It will be interesting to see what you have to say on the various topics that get posted here.   

That's cool. I'm more curious about the link between subjectivity and irrational beliefs. I wondered if there was a thread on that. If not, I was gonna start one.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Believing that consciousness

Believing that consciousness can survive death and the destruction of the brain is in fact an irrational belief.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:Yes. I'm a free

Arj wrote:

Yes. I'm a free thinker. I'm not an atheist. But while you feel there is a lack of compelling evidence in your life there is NO lack of compelling evidence in my life in regards to the after life, reincarnation, and spirit beings (strictly referring to people who have past away....NOT angels or demons....things like that). My mom is a medium. So I know firsthand that the spirit world exists I just don't think there's purgatory,  a caste  system, or the traditional sense of heaven and hell. Does that make sense?

All you have is personal experience which isn't evidence.  I too have personal experience, I tend to leave it as "unknown" not call it magic or supernatural.  What evidence do you have to support your ideas?   If you cannot present it to us it isn't evidence.  It is mean speculation and belief systems should not be based on speculation.


 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
No. Irrationality lies

No. Irrationality lies within thinking that your inductive, subjective reasoning should also be MY reality. This forum sucks. This is more like a battle ground not a community of welcome open mindedness. I'm out.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:No. Irrationality lies

Quote:

No. Irrationality lies within thinking that your inductive, subjective reasoning should also be MY reality.

This makes no sense. You are the one who has made claims on the basis of subjective and anecdotal evidence. Such evidence is poor. It's difficult for you to call our reasoning "subjective"" when the form of evidence we are demanding is objective in nature (double blind testing) and that which you are accepting is subjective.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Sorry you feel the need to

Sorry you feel the need to abandon the forum.  Most people, either atheists or theists, come here to debate, make an argument, respond to that argument, make a counter-argument, and so on.   Having someone challenge you to defend your beliefs is not meant to be taken as an insult or a put down.


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
I just saw this post.Magus

I just saw this post.

Magus wrote:

If you cannot present it to us it isn't evidence.

I wasn't trying to provide any.

Magus wrote:
It is mean speculation and belief systems should not be based on speculation.

LOL. How does your opinion turn MY beliefs into speculation???? That's an irrtional belief if I ever heard of one.

 

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:This is more like a

Quote:

This is more like a battle ground not a community of welcome open mindedness. I'm out.

Of course it's a battleground. We are calling you out on an unsubstantiated belief. What did you expect? That you could walk in and get away with making outlandish claims about the nature of reality based on highly subjective and questionable evidence.  If you are so thin-skinned that you cannot stand a little backbiting, then this is the wrong place for you. People will call you out here. It doesn't matter that you are not trying to convince us of your proposition. You've still made a claim about the nature of reality and not substantiated it well. You can't get away with that just because you adopt the live and let live approach.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Sorry

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Sorry you feel the need to abandon the forum.  Most people, either atheists or theists, come here to debate, make an argument, respond to that argument, make a counter-argument, and so on.   Having someone challenge you to defend your beliefs is not meant to be taken as an insult or a put down.

I don't think it is. I don't think people are actually LISTENING to me. I am NOT trying to prove myself. PERIOD. I said this from the very beginning. It's asinine to think I have something, anything to prove to you or anybody else. It's laughable to me that this is all going over everybody's head.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


DamnDirtyApe
Silver Member
DamnDirtyApe's picture
Posts: 666
Joined: 2008-02-15
User is offlineOffline
 Just saw Prozac's new

 Just saw Prozac's new avatar in this thread.  That shit is disturbing.  Keep it up till the election, please.

"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I am NOT trying to

Quote:

I am NOT trying to prove myself. PERIOD.

We understood you perfectly well. We just don't care. You made a claim about the nature of reality. It doesn't matter that you aren't trying to prove it to us, we'll still put the claim to the test. That's what people do here. Unsubstantiated beliefs get ripped apart very fast. First and foremost, this is a debating forum.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
DamnDirtyApe wrote: Just

DamnDirtyApe wrote:

 Just saw Prozac's new avatar in this thread.  That shit is disturbing.  Keep it up till the election, please.

  A new political avatar should be popping up in a few minutes.....( I get bored easily )


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote: It's laughable

Arj wrote:

 It's laughable to me that this is all going over everybody's head.

   Then what is the point of continuing to post here ?   Just log off and have a nice life.....sheesh!!!


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:I am

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

I am NOT trying to prove myself. PERIOD.

We understood you perfectly well. We just don't care. You made a claim about the nature of reality. It doesn't matter that you aren't trying to prove it to us, we'll still put the claim to the test. That's what people do here. Unsubstantiated beliefs get ripped apart very fast.

LOL!!!!!!!! Deluded, your name fits you. I'm about to start having too much fun with this....."link between subjectivity and irrational beliefs".....obviously no one's made this connection here in this forum yet..........Rationally explain to me what will happen to MY beliefs if I get you to agree with me? Rationally explain to me what will happen to MY beliefs if you disagree with me?

I'll wait. LOL

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Arj

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Arj wrote:

 It's laughable to me that this is all going over everybody's head.

   Then what is the point of continuing to post here ?   Just log off and have a nice life.....sheesh!!!

I was logging out. Deluded made me laugh.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:deludedgod

Arj wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

I am NOT trying to prove myself. PERIOD.

We understood you perfectly well. We just don't care. You made a claim about the nature of reality. It doesn't matter that you aren't trying to prove it to us, we'll still put the claim to the test. That's what people do here. Unsubstantiated beliefs get ripped apart very fast.

LOL!!!!!!!! Deluded, your name fits you. I'm about to start having too much fun with this....."link between subjectivity and irrational beliefs".....obviously no one's made this connection here in this forum yet..........Rationally explain to me what will happen to MY beliefs if I get you to agree with me? Rationally explain to me what will happen to MY beliefs if you disagree with me?

I'll wait. LOL

In ACTUALITY your comments are unsubstantiated beliefs NOT the other way around.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:"link between

Quote:

"link between subjectivity and irrational beliefs".....obviously no one's made this connection here in this forum yet..

Actually, most people here are familiar enough with basic psychology, evidence evaluation and logical argument format to understand that beliefs based on subjective and anecdotal evidence tend to be irrational. That is the link between subjectivivity and irrational beliefs. In general, I would strongly advise against forming any serious beliefs on the basis of evidence that depend on things which are overly subjective.

Quote:

Rationally explain to me what will happen to MY beliefs if I get you to agree with me?

Nothing. That isn't the point. You made a claim. This is debating forum, so if you're here, you probably want to defend the claim. If you don't want to defend the claim, people will still tear it apart, it will just be easier for them since you offer no resistence.

Quote:

Rationally explain to me what will happen to MY beliefs if you disagree with me?

Well, if the basis of my disagreement is sufficiently rational, then the only rational thing you could do (provided that the basis for my disagreement was more rational than the basis for your belief) would be to agree with me. Of course, if you didn't think I had a rational basis for my disagreement, then you could try something novel like defending your bloody knowledge claim!

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:In ACTUALITY your

Quote:

In ACTUALITY your comments are unsubstantiated beliefs NOT the other way around.

You have not provided any evidence for this claim. In constrast, I have given reason why your beliefs are unsubstantiated. Now I suggest you calm down. You are clearly new to basic argumentation. The main point of my argument was that the basis of your belief is shoddy. It is anecdotal and subjective (which is poor evidence), thus, there is a high probability that the knowledge claim based on this "evidence" is faulty. You have yet to respond to this line of argument, making the only one here with unsubstantiated beliefs you.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:"link

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

"link between subjectivity and irrational beliefs".....obviously no one's made this connection here in this forum yet..

Actually, most people here are familiar enough with basic psychology, evidence evaluation and logical argument format to understand that beliefs based on subjective and anecdotal evidence tend to be irrational. That is the link between subjectivivity and irrational beliefs. In general, I would strongly advise against forming any serious beliefs on the basis of evidence that depend on things which are overly subjective.

Quote:

Rationally explain to me what will happen to MY beliefs if I get you to agree with me?

Nothing. That isn't the point. You made a claim. This is debating forum, so if you're here, you probably want to defend the claim. If you don't want to defend the claim, people will still tear it apart, it will just be easier for them since you offer no resistence.

Quote:

Rationally explain to me what will happen to MY beliefs if you disagree with me?

Well, if the basis of my disagreement is sufficiently rational, then the only rational thing you could do (provided that the basis for my disagreement was more rational than the basis for your belief) would be to agree with me. Of course, if you didn't think I had a rational basis for my disagreement, then you could try something novel like defending your bloody knowledge claim!

You are NOT listening to me. In ACTUALITY the reverse of subjectivity what can you possibly do to my beliefs without a Communist regime?

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


DamnDirtyApe
Silver Member
DamnDirtyApe's picture
Posts: 666
Joined: 2008-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:No. Irrationality

Arj wrote:

No. Irrationality lies within thinking that your inductive, subjective reasoning should also be MY reality. This forum sucks. This is more like a battle ground not a community of welcome open mindedness. I'm out.

I suddenly feel like a farmer who's just ordered some unruly kids off his land.  Either that or a Scooby Doo villain in a glowy Sasquatch costume.

Arj, if you're still checking this thread out, don't be so damn sensitive, okay?  The front page of this site states the dedication of the RRS to exposing irrational beliefs of all stripes--did you really expect that yours would get a pass?  There are plenty of places you can go where people won't be critical of your beliefs; it just so happens that we're pretty sure you won't learn anything there.  Subjecting your impressions of reality to questioning is healthy--even the Christians who make a half-assed attempt to engage in discussion here know that much (usually).  

Nobody's saying you aren't welcome, but you just walked into a Jewish Anti-Defamation League meeting in a Holocaust Deniers of America T-shirt and thought nobody would give a shit.  That's just a bit naive, man. 

"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell


DamnDirtyApe
Silver Member
DamnDirtyApe's picture
Posts: 666
Joined: 2008-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote: You are NOT

Arj wrote:

 You are NOT listening to me. In ACTUALITY the reverse of subjectivity what can you possibly do to my beliefs without a Communist regime?

Wait, who forced you to sign up, exactly?  

"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:In

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

In ACTUALITY your comments are unsubstantiated beliefs NOT the other way around.

You have not provided any evidence for this claim. In constrast, I have given reason why your beliefs are unsubstantiated. Now I suggest you calm down. You are clearly new to basic argumentation. The main point of my argument was that the basis of your belief is shoddy. It is anecdotal and subjective (which is poor evidence), thus, there is a high probability that the knowledge claim based on this "evidence" is faulty. You have yet to respond to this line of argument, making the only one here with unsubstantiated beliefs you.

That's what I'm trying to get you to see. Your reasoning is purely SUBJECTIVE.  In ACTUALITY it makes no difference what you think or assume about MY beliefs.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You are NOT listening

Quote:

You are NOT listening to me. In ACTUALITY the reverse of subjectivity what can you possibly do to my beliefs without a Communist regime?

Well, if you were a rational person (a title which is slipping away from you) then it might be possible for me to convince you that your particular belief is false, provided I gave I sufficiently strong argument to convince you that these beliefs are false. If you so desired, we could easily debate the truth or lack thereof of life after death.My expertise is actually in cell biology, but that covers enough neuroscience for me to be familiar enough with the nature of thinking minds to be able to defend the claim that life after death is impossible.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Your reasoning is

Quote:

Your reasoning is purely SUBJECTIVE.

How so? Come to think of it, what does this even mean? Sound reasoning, by definition, is objective. Sound reasoning is usually grounded in evidence which is objective in nature. Formal reasoning is necessarily objective, and informal reasoning can also be objective, provided that the method of gathering evidence is objective.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:In ACTUALITY it makes

Quote:

In ACTUALITY it makes no difference what you think or assume about MY beliefs.

But that would be an irrational position for you to hold. If I thought a particular thing about your beliefs, and argued for that particular position with a sound argument, then it would be irrational for you to continue to retain that position in the face of a more rational argument against it.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:I just saw this

Arj wrote:

I just saw this post.

Magus wrote:

If you cannot present it to us it isn't evidence.

I wasn't trying to provide any.

So you came to this forum of discussion and debate to say that you belief something just to say you believe something without trying to defend it?

Arj wrote:

Magus wrote:
It is mean speculation and belief systems should not be based on speculation.

LOL. How does your opinion turn MY beliefs into speculation???? That's an irrtional belief if I ever heard of one.

 

  WOW do you even know what the definition of speculation is.  If you cannot prove your belief system is founded on reality then it is speculation.  That is the definition. Unless you are saying you have evidence for claims.

 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:You

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

You are NOT listening to me. In ACTUALITY the reverse of subjectivity what can you possibly do to my beliefs without a Communist regime?

Well, if you were a rational person (a title which is slipping away from you) then it might be possible for me to convince you that your particular belief is false, provided I gave I sufficiently strong argument to convince you that these beliefs are false. If you so desired, we could easily debate the truth or lack thereof of life after death.My expertise is actually in cell biology, but that covers enough neuroscience for me to be familiar enough with the nature of thinking minds to be able to defend the claim that life after death is impossible.

I have to disagree with you here because I have seen plenty of evidence to the contrary.  Therefore, one's OPINION of evidence is purely SUBJECTIVE.  A rational minded person would be able to see that.  That's  what's so  funny to  me. 

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
This guy might not believe

This guy might not believe in any gods, but he's still a goof.

 


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
I don't feel like this is

I don't feel like this is turning into a cohesive discussion. It's just all over the place. I'm trying to explain the difference between subjectivity and actuality. Not objectivity.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I have to disagree

Quote:

I have to disagree with you here because I have seen plenty of evidence to the contrary. Therefore, one's OPINION of evidence is purely SUBJECTIVE.

This is a fallacy of false dichotomy. You've excluded a possibility. If two people have differing evidence to show contrary positions on the same subject, it does not necessarily follow that both sets of reasoning are equally valid. The good thing about logical soundness is that it is purely objective in nature. If there is a logical fallacy in a particular argument, then it necessarily follows that the conclusion cannot be drawn from the premises.

The possibility you have excluded is that one set of arguments might be faulty. This is where you've made your non sequitur. In this case, it is quite easy to see who is superior:

You: Anecdotal, person evidence=subjective

Me: Scientifically gathered, logicall argued evidence, does not rely on personal experience=objective

Quote:

A rational minded person would be able to see that.

You've got to be fucking joking. This is the syllogistic form of your argument:

P1: In any issue of contention, it is possible for there to be two sides presenting evidence in argument for contrary positions

P2: If such a case is possible, then there is no grounds for saying that one particular side is correct

C: Thus, evidence is purely subjective in nature

We can clearly see this is invalid reasoning because:

1) It excludes possibilities and therefore commits a false dichotomy fallacy.

2) It commits a non sequitur by moving from "people can present differing evidence" to "evidence is purely subjective". This is a consequence of having introduced the false dichotomy.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:I don't feel like

Arj wrote:

I don't feel like this is turning into a cohesive discussion. It's just all over the place. I'm trying to explain the difference between subjectivity and actuality. Not objectivity.

In actuality the evidence might be the same but subjectively everyone will arrive at different conclusions.  And the drama only comes into play when one person mistakenly ignorantly assumes that you SHOULD reach the same conclusion that they did. That's in ACTUALITY IRRATIONAL.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:Arj wrote:I don't

Arj wrote:

Arj wrote:

I don't feel like this is turning into a cohesive discussion. It's just all over the place. I'm trying to explain the difference between subjectivity and actuality. Not objectivity.

In actuality the evidence might be the same but subjectively everyone will arrive at different conclusions.  And the drama only comes into play when one person mistakenly ignorantly assumes that you SHOULD reach the same conclusion that they did. That's in ACTUALITY IRRATIONAL.

And I'm not talking about physical matters but philosophical and spiritual.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
This commits an ad hoc

This commits an ad hoc fallacy. Anyone could defend a faulty and poorly argued conclusion on the basis of the assertion that "reasoning is subjective" and people reach different conclusions. In other words, you've made a vacuous statement, which cannot be used to defend any form of justification. At the same time, philosophical discussions are often grounded in very objective arguments. If you want to see a real philosophical discussion, look at this thread and observe the nature of the arguments employed:

Does incoherence/meaningless lead to strong atheism, or non-cognitivism?

This (below) is a philosophical paper I wrote on this site. The reasoning employed is objective in nature.

Problems with the "out of body" model of consciousness

Additionally, I should point out that your previous assertion contained two logical fallacies which I have outlined and which  you have yet to address.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:Arj wrote:Arj

Arj wrote:

Arj wrote:

Arj wrote:

I don't feel like this is turning into a cohesive discussion. It's just all over the place. I'm trying to explain the difference between subjectivity and actuality. Not objectivity.

In actuality the evidence might be the same but subjectively everyone will arrive at different conclusions.  And the drama only comes into play when one person mistakenly ignorantly assumes that you SHOULD reach the same conclusion that they did. That's in ACTUALITY IRRATIONAL.

And I'm not talking about physical matters but philosophical and spiritual.

This is what I think accounts for a lot of religions too. Indoctrination is misconstrued subjectivity.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:This

deludedgod wrote:

This commits an ad hoc fallacy. Anyone could defend a faulty and poorly argued conclusion on the basis of the assertion that "reasoning is subjective" and people reach different conclusions. In other words, you've made a vacuous statement, which cannot be used to defend any form of justification. At the same time, philosophical discussions are often grounded in very objective arguments. If you want to see a real philosophical discussion, look at this thread and observe the nature of the arguments employed:

Does incoherence/meaningless lead to strong atheism, or non-cognitivism?

Additionally, I should point out that your previous assertion contained two logical fallacies which I have outlined and which  you have yet to address.

How is this a fallacy when this is what u and a lot of ppl in this thread are guilty of? LOL. You keep trying to tell me I need to prove myself to you with whatever YOU deem as evidence..... then you ignorantly and mistakenly ASSUME that your subjective reasoning will automatically eclipse MY beliefs and you don't see the irrationality of that mentality??? LOL

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:deludedgod

Arj wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

This commits an ad hoc fallacy. Anyone could defend a faulty and poorly argued conclusion on the basis of the assertion that "reasoning is subjective" and people reach different conclusions. In other words, you've made a vacuous statement, which cannot be used to defend any form of justification. At the same time, philosophical discussions are often grounded in very objective arguments. If you want to see a real philosophical discussion, look at this thread and observe the nature of the arguments employed:

Does incoherence/meaningless lead to strong atheism, or non-cognitivism?

Additionally, I should point out that your previous assertion contained two logical fallacies which I have outlined and which  you have yet to address.

How is this a fallacy when this is what u and a lot of ppl in this thread are guilty of? LOL. You keep trying to tell me I need to prove myself to you with whatever YOU deem as evidence..... then you ignorantly and mistakenly ASSUME that your subjective reasoning will automatically eclipse MY beliefs and you don't see the irrationality of that mentality??? LOL

Again your name suits you.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:How is this a

Quote:

How is this a fallacy

Because you have dichotomized a situation with more than two possible outcomes. If two people cite sources to claim contrary positions, it does not necessarily follow that both positions are equally valid.

Quote:

when this is what u and a lot of ppl in this thread are guilty of?

Even if that were true, it would be a tu quoque fallacy to assert that your argument is not fallacious merely because other people have commited the same error. However, you have not pointed out where other people in this thread have commited such a fallacy, so I see no reason to take this claim as true.

Quote:

LOL. You keep trying to tell me I need to prove myself to you with whatever YOU deem as evidence

You are still commiting the same fallacy, merely implictly this time.

Quote:

..... then you ignorantly and mistakenly ASSUME that your subjective reasoning

Once again, you have yet to establish precisely what parts of my reasoning are subjective. I assembled your propositions into a set of connected sentences and then established where the non sequiturs were. You are deferring from your epistemic responsibilities by the meaningless ad hoc of claiming that my criteria are subjective. But they are not. The form of logical evaluation I am employing is entirely objective.

Quote:

will automatically eclipse MY beliefs and you don't see the irrationality of that mentality??? LOL

Why is it irrational to suppose that a person could be swayed by a well-argued proposition? I suppose in the case of you, you may be a lost cause, but hopefully you are not the norm. The fact of the matter is that I have broken down your arguments, established the non sequiturs in them, and all you do is repeat the same meaningless ad hoc fallacy (I have already explained why your line that reasoning is subjective constitutes an ad hoc fallacy), and otherwise insult me. You are clearly incapable of rational thought.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:This

deludedgod wrote:

This commits an ad hoc fallacy. Anyone could defend a faulty and poorly argued conclusion on the basis of the assertion that "reasoning is subjective" and people reach different conclusions. In other words, you've made a vacuous statement, which cannot be used to defend any form of justification. At the same time, philosophical discussions are often grounded in very objective arguments. If you want to see a real philosophical discussion, look at this thread and observe the nature of the arguments employed:

Does incoherence/meaningless lead to strong atheism, or non-cognitivism?

This (below) is a philosophical paper I wrote on this site. The reasoning employed is objective in nature.

Problems with the "out of body" model of consciousness

Additionally, I should point out that your previous assertion contained two logical fallacies which I have outlined and which  you have yet to address.

This was ALWAYS my point. That I have NO reason to prove myself to you and YOU still have NOT given me a reason. LOL. You committed the fallacy.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:YOU still have NOT

Quote:

This was ALWAYS my point.

In that case, what was "always your point" constituted a fallacy of ad hoc. As I have established, the assertion that reasoning is subjective is:

1) Incorrect. Sound forms of reasoning are based on the structure of logical sentences and objective evidence which is not intrapersonal.

2) The claim is vacuous. The form the argument can be used to defend false claims, and thus by definition must be invalid (because it is not possible for a valid argument to contain all true premises but a false conclusion)

Quote:

YOU still have NOT given me a reason

I'm not giving you a reason to defend your claim. I'm trying to explain to you why your argument contains a fallacy of ad hoc.

Quote:

. You committed the fallacy.

I suspect you are unaware of what a fallacy even is (given the casual use of the term). In any connected set of sentences, a formal fallacy occurs when there are a set of truth-values for premises in a truth table, and there is a line where the premises are all true and the conclusion is false. An informal fallacy is not an error of reasoning structure, but rather on the soundness of the premises (either the original premise or the connecting premise). In this case, I have established precisely where your premises are unsound (or do not support your conclusion). I have broken your line of reasoning into a connected sentence set and explained where the fallacy occured by demonstrating the error in your reasoning. You have not done the same, and are clearly unfamiliar with basic argumentation.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:How

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

How is this a fallacy

Because you have dichotomized a situation with more than two possible outcomes. If two people cite sources to claim contrary positions, it does not necessarily follow that both positions are equally valid.

Quote:

when this is what u and a lot of ppl in this thread are guilty of?

Even if that were true, it would be a tu quoque fallacy to assert that your argument is not fallacious merely because other people have commited the same error. However, you have not pointed out where other people in this thread have commited such a fallacy, so I see no reason to take this claim as true.

Quote:

LOL. You keep trying to tell me I need to prove myself to you with whatever YOU deem as evidence

You are still commiting the same fallacy, merely implictly this time.

Quote:

..... then you ignorantly and mistakenly ASSUME that your subjective reasoning

Once again, you have yet to establish precisely what parts of my reasoning are subjective. I assembled your propositions into a set of connected sentences and then established where the non sequiturs were. You are deferring from your epistemic responsibilities by the meaningless ad hoc of claiming that my criteria are subjective. But they are not. The form of logical evaluation I am employing is entirely objective.

Quote:

will automatically eclipse MY beliefs and you don't see the irrationality of that mentality??? LOL

Why is it irrational to suppose that a person could be swayed by a well-argued proposition? I suppose in the case of you, you may be a lost cause, but hopefully you are not the norm. The fact of the matter is that I have broken down your arguments, established the non sequiturs in them, and all you do is repeat the same meaningless ad hoc fallacy (I have already explained why your line that reasoning is subjective constitutes an ad hoc fallacy), and otherwise insult me. You are clearly incapable of rational thought.

 

Are you telling me you really can't comprehend how subjective reasoning (especially spiritual and  philosophical) can be multi-interpretable???? That's what it sounds like I'm hearing.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178