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


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Are you telling me you

Quote:

Are you telling me you really can't comprehend how subjective reasoning (especially spiritual and  philosophical) can be multi-interpretable???

If you peruse the links, you'll actually find that philosophy is quite objective in the nature of the arguments employed. I suspect you have never studied the subject formally. What I am trying to tell you is that your argument is invalid. Even if we were to accept a premise that a particular concept can be "multi-interpretable" (which isn't a word), there is no conclusion which can be drawn from that premise which could be used to defend any one particular belief about the nature of reality. You cannot use it to defend your beliefs. I cannot use it to defend mine. It is a vacuous premise. The other thing I am trying to tell you is that two people having different positions on a particular issue does not necessarily imply that the two individuals have equally valid but subjective reasoning of the situation. To say that would be a fallacy of false dichotomy. Your argument is broken. It contains three fallacies and a vacuous premise.

"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:deludedgod

Arj wrote:

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. If that's the case, you are out of touch with reality.

Oh, you said you needed proof that your reasoning is subjective....for instance, (I don't think you said it exactly) but when I mentioned my mother is a medium (THAT"S PROOF to ME) someone else said well that doesn't prove anything! That's a good example of what I am referring to.

‘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:Quote:Are

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Are you telling me you really can't comprehend how subjective reasoning (especially spiritual and  philosophical) can be multi-interpretable???

If you peruse the links, you'll actually find that philosophy is quite objective in the nature of the arguments employed. I suspect you have never studied the subject formally. What I am trying to tell you is that your argument is invalid. Even if we were to accept a premise that a particular concept can be "multi-interpretable" (which isn't a word), there is no conclusion which can be drawn from that premise which could be used to defend any one particular belief about the nature of reality. You cannot use it to defend your beliefs. I cannot use it to defend mine. It is a vacuous premise. The other thing I am trying to tell you is that two people having different positions on a particular issue does not necessarily imply that the two individuals have equally valid but subjective reasoning of the situation. To say that would be a fallacy of false dichotomy. Your argument is broken. It contains three fallacies and a vacuous premise.

google it.

‘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:Oh, you said you

Quote:

Oh, you said you needed proof that your reasoning is subjective....for instance, (I don't think you said it exactly) but when I mentioned my mother is a medium (THAT"S PROOF to ME) someone else said well that doesn't prove anything! That's a good example of what I am referring to.

He's right. There is objective evidence to suggest (from the various disciplines of psychology) that anecdotal evidence is fundamentally untrustworthy. Any proposition about the nature of reality based on anecdotal evidence usually contains something called a post hoc fallacy. Sort of like claiming that a particular drug works because after you ingested it, your symptoms disappeared. Because anecdotal evidence never contains a method for determining the mechanism behind some phenomenon under discussion, it runs into a problem called underdetermination. To test whether a medium is telling the truth, for example, is quite easy. In The Enemies of Reason, Richard Dawkins went to talk to a medium. He easily tricked him into revealing the fact that his communication was a scam. For example, he allowed the medium to run on with the notion that he was communicating with Dawkins dead father, despite the fact that Dawkin's father is still alive. The medium had merely inferred that Dawkin's father is dead from Dawkin's age. This sort of test is immediate and objective proof that the medium in question was a scam. It would require similar testing conditions (double blind) to test whether a medium is actually telling the truth.

 

"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:google it.Hmm. I

Quote:

google it.

Hmm. I suppose it is word. I stand corrected.

Doesn't change the fact that your argument is invalid.

"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:Are

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Are you telling me you really can't comprehend how subjective reasoning (especially spiritual and  philosophical) can be multi-interpretable???

If you peruse the links, you'll actually find that philosophy is quite objective in the nature of the arguments employed. I suspect you have never studied the subject formally. What I am trying to tell you is that your argument is invalid. Even if we were to accept a premise that a particular concept can be "multi-interpretable" (which isn't a word), there is no conclusion which can be drawn from that premise which could be used to defend any one particular belief about the nature of reality. You cannot use it to defend your beliefs. I cannot use it to defend mine. It is a vacuous premise. The other thing I am trying to tell you is that two people having different positions on a particular issue does not necessarily imply that the two individuals have equally valid but subjective reasoning of the situation. To say that would be a fallacy of false dichotomy. Your argument is broken. It contains three fallacies and a vacuous premise.

It's not broken. You don't see the hypocrisy or contradictions in your beliefs. That's also considered a logical fallacy.


Petitio Principii or Begging the question - This is a common fallacy wherein your evidence in support of an argument presupposed that you have already accepted the argument, or requires that you have. Example: The case example of begging the question is arguing the validity of the bible using evidence contained within the bible. In order for the evidence to be acceptable, you have to have already concluded that the bible is valid.

I'm trying to tell you that I recognize this so I don't see the point in PROVING myself and I don't see the point in you trying to PROVE something to me either. It's purely subjective. You're assuming that YOUR evidence is gonna readily eclipse my beliefs but you are not taking into account subjectivity. You showed me some of your evidence and I still don't agree because of my own experiences. How is this so hard to comprehend???

‘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 don't see the

Quote:

You don't see the hypocrisy or contradictions in your beliefs.

You have yet to outline precisely what these are. Nor do you need to copy and paste. I studied logic as a formal subject and a branch of mathematics. I know what begging the question is. You have yet to show me where I have assumed a particular thing is true in order to prove it is true.

Quote:

How is this so hard to comprehend???

I am not trying to explain to you why you should have to prove yourself to me. I am trying to explain to you why a propositition cannot be defended on the grounds that two people draw different conclusions about the same issue of contention. I'm also trying to explain to you why this does not necessarily lead to the idea that the two people in question have equally valid albeit subjective views. I have already outlined why this is fallacious. Why is this so difficult to comprehend? Your argument:

Premise: It is possible, in an issue of contention, to have two people draw differeing conclusions, where both people cite differing evidence

Conclusion: It follows that both forms of reasoning are equally valid albeit subjective

I'm trying to explain to you why this is a fallacy of false dichotomy and an ad hoc fallacy. This is extremely simple. What can I do to get you to see this?

 

"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:Oh,

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Oh, you said you needed proof that your reasoning is subjective....for instance, (I don't think you said it exactly) but when I mentioned my mother is a medium (THAT"S PROOF to ME) someone else said well that doesn't prove anything! That's a good example of what I am referring to.

He's right. There is objective evidence to suggest (from the various disciplines of psychology) that anecdotal evidence is fundamentally untrustworthy. Any proposition about the nature of reality based on anecdotal evidence usually contains something called a post hoc fallacy. Sort of like claiming that a particular drug works because after you ingested it, your symptoms disappeared. Because anecdotal evidence never contains a method for determining the mechanism behind some phenomenon under discussion, it runs into a problem called underdetermination. To test whether a medium is telling the truth, for example, is quite easy. In The Enemies of Reason, Richard Dawkins went to talk to a medium. He easily tricked him into revealing the fact that his communication was a scam. For example, he allowed the medium to run on with the notion that he was communicating with Dawkins dead father, despite the fact that Dawkin's father is still alive. The medium had merely inferred that Dawkin's father is dead from Dawkin's age. This sort of test is immediate and objective proof that the medium in question was a scam. It would require similar testing conditions (double blind) to test whether a medium is actually telling the truth.

 

I think I just proved my point. It's anecdotal to you but it's concrete to me. Am I getting through to you yet??? Also I've had visions, spoken to loved ones who have passed away etc. You might still consider it anecdotal. And I still wouldn't care. Get it. I don't have to prove anything to you. That's been my point from the beginning.

‘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:Am I getting through

Quote:

Am I getting through to you yet???

I already grasp the concept. I am trying to communicate to you that any argument which takes this form "I have my evidence, and you have mine, so we have subjective reasoning and equally valid interpretations" is invalid. There is a basic axiom of bivalent formal logic called the law of non-contradiction, which states that a proposition cannot be simultaneously true and false. So, either I am right, or you are. From a purely psychological standpoint, the evidence I offer is more trustworthy, because subjective experiences have an untrustworthy component, whereas the evidence I offer is entirely based on things which can be confirmed independantly and falsifiably, independant of such experiences. Additionally, we still run into the problem of underdetermination. That is, the problem of drawing conclusions about reality on the basis of anecdote.

"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:You

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

You don't see the hypocrisy or contradictions in your beliefs.

You have yet to outline precisely what these are. Nor do you need to copy and paste. I studied logic as a formal subject and a branch of mathematics. I know what begging the question is. You have yet to show me where I have assumed a particular thing is true in order to prove it is true.

Quote:

How is this so hard to comprehend???

I am not trying to explain to you why you should have to prove yourself to me. I am trying to explain to you why a propositition cannot be defended on the grounds that two people draw different conclusions about the same issue of contention. I'm also trying to explain to you why this does not necessarily lead to the idea that the two people in question have equally valid albeit subjective views. I have already outlined why this is fallacious. Why is this so difficult to comprehend? Your argument:

Premise: It is possible, in an issue of contention, to have two people draw differeing conclusions, where both people cite differing evidence

Conclusion: It follows that both forms of reasoning are equally valid albeit subjective

I'm trying to explain to you why this is a fallacy of false dichotomy and an ad hoc fallacy. This is extremely simple. What can I do to get you to see this?

 

But I'm trying to explain to you that because TWO different conclusions are HIGHLY possible due to subjectivity then I don't see the point in proving myself.

‘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:But I'm trying to

Quote:

But I'm trying to explain to you that because TWO different conclusions are HIGHLY possible due to subjectivity then I don't see the point in proving myself.

I understand that it is possible for two people to draw differing conclusions. But it does not follow that the sets of opposing arguments are equally valid or true. Neither side of the argument can argue that their proposition is just as valid as the other because people are subjective! That's a form of ad hoc fallacy.

"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


enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
Specifically, what are those

Specifically, what are those experiences? and how do they refute evidence?


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

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Am I getting through to you yet???

I already grasp the concept. I am trying to communicate to you that any argument which takes this form "I have my evidence, and you have mine, so we have subjective reasoning and equally valid interpretations" is invalid. There is a basic axiom of bivalent formal logic called the law of non-contradiction, which states that a proposition cannot be simultaneously true and false. So, either I am right, or you are. From a purely psychological standpoint, the evidence I offer is more trustworthy, because subjective experiences have an untrustworthy component, whereas the evidence I offer is entirely based on things which can be confirmed independantly and falsifiably, independant of such experiences. Additionally, we still run into the problem of underdetermination. That is, the problem of drawing conclusions about reality on the basis of anecdote.

I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm dealing with reality and the truth is subjectivity plays a factor when it comes to "defining proof". No matter how you want to dress it  up. For instance, I could tell you my firsthand account stories about my life but because of YOUR schooling and training these would automatically shape your opinion and mentally you would immediately discount my stories for anecdotes.  That's not being objective in the face of "evidence" either. Get it? So what's the point of begging the question?

‘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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3706
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Logically, DG's opinion is

Logically, DG's opinion is undoubtedly stronger because it relies on objective evidence and testable observations. Arj's subjective evidence is undoubtedly sufficient to convince him of his beliefs, but they are not valid from a scientific standpoint.

However, if Arj truly believes he has communicated with people in the afterlife, it would be insane for him change his opinions due to an Internet forum. Thus, it is irrational to hold that these two perspectives are equally valid; however, it is not irrational for Arj to hold his beliefs at this time. He should thoroughly investigate these experiences for their validity.  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


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

enzoconti wrote:

Specifically, what are those experiences? and how do they refute evidence?

Let me think of one. I had so many. I had a vision in which my grandmother came to me right after my uncle had gotten remarried. She said this would lead to his downfall. On Valentine's Day he was murdered by his son because of this marriage.

‘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'm dealing with

Quote:

I'm dealing with reality and the truth is subjectivity plays a factor when it comes to "defining proof".

True but irrelevant. There are rational criteria for deciding what is a rational basis for deciding whether some proposition is true. These include correspondence theory, coherence theory, etc. Ultimately, these are based on purely logical argument, and purely logical argument (ie a priori) are based entirely on formal statements which are necessarily true. Anything which can be defend on purely logical grounds has no subjective component whatsoever, because it derives from purely analytical statements. Furthermore, "objective" does have a precise definition. For example, something which cannot be independently verified is by definition less objective than something which can. That's what the word "objective" means. Something which is "objective" is irrespective of individual people or their particular experiences which other people cannot have.

Quote:

For instance, I could tell you my firsthand account stories about my life but because of YOUR schooling and training these would automatically shape your opinion and mentally you would immediately discount my stories for anecdotes.

So? That wouldn't constitute a defense of your arguments or an attack on mine. You've commited a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. T

Quote:

So what's the point of begging the question?

You haven't clarified where, precisely, I am begging the question.

"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
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

Logically, DG's opinion is undoubtedly stronger because it relies on objective evidence and testable observations. Arj's subjective evidence is undoubtedly sufficient to convince him of his beliefs, but they are not valid from a scientific standpoint.

However, if Arj truly believes he has communicated with people in the afterlife, it would be insane for him change his opinions due to an Internet forum. Thus, it is irrational to hold that these two perspectives are equally valid; however, it is not irrational for Arj to hold his beliefs at this time. He should thoroughly investigate these experiences for their validity.  

That's all I'm saying.

‘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:enzoconti

Arj wrote:

enzoconti wrote:

Specifically, what are those experiences? and how do they refute evidence?

Let me think of one. I had so many. I had a vision in which my grandmother came to me right after my uncle had gotten remarried. She said this would lead to his downfall. On Valentine's Day he was murdered by his son because of this marriage.

I've seen clouds of white and black smoke appear out of nowhere. And I've heard voices from the other side and of course I've dreamt of those who passed away coming back to visit me. If you want to know about my mom ask.

‘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:That's all I'm

Quote:

That's all I'm saying.

Fine. At this point I'm not trying to convince you that life after death doesn't happen etc. I am trying to convince you that the fact that two people draw differing conclusions does not necessarily mean that the two opinions are equally valid, which is pretty much what you argued.

"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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3706
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:I'm not trying to

Arj wrote:
I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm dealing with reality and the truth is subjectivity plays a factor when it comes to "defining proof". No matter how you want to dress it  up.

First of all, we don't care if you've arrived at this forum to debate or not. I think someone stated this earlier. A quick glance at the main page will verify that the main objective of this forum is to dispel irrational beliefs. If you're intention is to engage in a pleasant, informal gossip, then this is not the website for you.

Arj wrote:
For instance, I could tell you my firsthand account stories about my life but because of YOUR schooling and training these would automatically shape your opinion and mentally you would immediately discount my stories for anecdotes.

No, you still don't understand DG's explanation of the difference between his objective and your subjective evidence. His "schooling" and "training" caused him to arrive at his conclusions, but that doesn't mean it's subjective. Neuroscience is falsifiable, observable, testable, everything "able." 

-I have seen a ghost. This is subjective. What if it was shadow created by a passing car? What if it was somebody was playing a prank on me? Etc.

-There is no reliable scientific evidence that ghosts exist. This is objective, not personal experience.

Arj wrote:
That's not being objective in the face of "evidence" either. Get it? So what's the point of begging the question?

No, you have ample reason for your beliefs, but it would be ludicrous for us to consider them when they contradict objective evidence.  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


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

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

I'm dealing with reality and the truth is subjectivity plays a factor when it comes to "defining proof".

True but irrelevant. There are rational criteria for deciding what is a rational basis for deciding whether some proposition is true. These include correspondence theory, coherence theory, etc. Ultimately, these are based on purely logical argument, and purely logical argument (ie a priori) are based entirely on formal statements which are necessarily true. Anything which can be defend on purely logical grounds has no subjective component whatsoever, because it derives from purely analytical statements. Furthermore, "objective" does have a precise definition. For example, something which cannot be independently verified is by definition less objective than something which can. That's what the word "objective" means. Something which is "objective" is irrespective of individual people or their particular experiences which other people cannot have.

Quote:

For instance, I could tell you my firsthand account stories about my life but because of YOUR schooling and training these would automatically shape your opinion and mentally you would immediately discount my stories for anecdotes.

So? That wouldn't constitute a defense of your arguments or an attack on mine. You've commited a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. T

Quote:

So what's the point of begging the question?

You haven't clarified where, precisely, I am begging the question.

It's NOT irrelevant. This is my reason for feeling as though I do NOT need to prove myself. DG yes I have. I can't believe I'm not making sense to you. Butter put it best IMO. If your more caught up in how they CAN'T be EQUALLY valid then I will concede to that fact just to end this debate. The majority of people would readily accept scientific proof over supernatural but I personally DO KNOW there IS an After Life. That's been my whole point from the very beginning. Does that make it better?

‘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


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

Arj wrote:

enzoconti wrote:

Specifically, what are those experiences? and how do they refute evidence?

Let me think of one. I had so many. I had a vision in which my grandmother came to me right after my uncle had gotten remarried. She said this would lead to his downfall. On Valentine's Day he was murdered by his son because of this marriage.

You know Arj, I've had similar experiences (one or two) where outcomes seemed to be projected to me, but I had to put it down to wishful thinking or just sheer coincedence. But like I said, very few experiences to warrant any other conclusion. If, on the other hand this happens to you regularly you should subject yourself to some sort of study. Aren't you curious? don't you want to know why?Don't you want to understand and harness the power?


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

Quote:

It's NOT irrelevant. This is my reason for feeling as though I do NOT need to prove myself

That doesn't make it relevant.

Quote:

DG yes I have

Where?

Quote:

If your more caught up in how they CAN'T be EQUALLY valid then I will concede to that fact just to end this debate.

Fine.

Quote:

The majority of people would readily accept scientific proof over supernatural

If only that were true.

"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

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

That's all I'm saying.

Fine. At this point I'm not trying to convince you that life after death doesn't happen etc. I am trying to convince you that the fact that two people draw differing conclusions does not necessarily mean that the two opinions are equally valid, which is pretty much what you argued.

No. I wasn't arguing this. I was talking about the role of subjectivity in Life. This is what you were assuming I was saying.

‘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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3706
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:The

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

The majority of people would readily accept scientific proof over supernatural

If only that were true.

Amen. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:No. I wasn't arguing

Quote:

No. I wasn't arguing this

It certainly sounded like you were. You clearly stated that I was employing subjective reasoning, despite the fact that I was not. The reasoning I was employing was grounded in forms of evidence that are testable, falsifiable, and can be verified independantly, thus they are objective forms of reasoning.

"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
butterbattle wrote:Arj

butterbattle wrote:

Arj wrote:
I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm dealing with reality and the truth is subjectivity plays a factor when it comes to "defining proof". No matter how you want to dress it  up.

First of all, we don't care if you've arrived at this forum to debate or not. I think someone stated this earlier. A quick glance at the main page will verify that the main objective of this forum is to dispel irrational beliefs. If you're intention is to engage in a pleasant, informal gossip, then this is not the website for you.

Arj wrote:
For instance, I could tell you my firsthand account stories about my life but because of YOUR schooling and training these would automatically shape your opinion and mentally you would immediately discount my stories for anecdotes.

No, you still don't understand DG's explanation of the difference between his objective and your subjective evidence. His "schooling" and "training" caused him to arrive at his conclusions, but that doesn't mean it's subjective. Neuroscience is falsifiable, observable, testable, everything "able." 

-I have seen a ghost. This is subjective. What if it was shadow created by a passing car? What if it was somebody was playing a prank on me? Etc.

-There is no reliable scientific evidence that ghosts exist. This is objective, not personal experience.

 

Arj wrote:
That's not being objective in the face of "evidence" either. Get it? So what's the point of begging the question?

No, you have ample reason for your beliefs, but it would be ludicrous for us to consider them when they contradict objective evidence.  

 

I've already made this point about how "defining evidence" is in part due to subjectivity. What are you adding to the conversation here Butta? I think subjectivity goes both ways. No matter how much scientific evidence you use. No you missed my point, It can make you just as dense as it does educated IMO. There wasn't a car in my living room. 

‘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
Ok, DG, Ezc, and Butter, let

Ok, DG, Ezc, and Butter, let me ask you a question. Since yall are here. Why do you desire to completely rule out supernatural plausibility??? I'm curious. 

‘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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3706
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 I'm getting the feeling

 I'm getting the feeling that Arj has already accepted our explanations, but he tends to avoid expressing it explicitly because it puts his perspective on shaky ground. 

Arj wrote:
For instance, I could tell you my firsthand account stories about my life but because of YOUR schooling and training these would automatically shape your opinion and mentally you would immediately discount my stories for anecdotes.  That's not being objective in the face of "evidence" either.
 

Clearly, he's implying that we discount his experiences because of our personal bias.

However, when I said.

Quote:
Logically, DG's opinion is undoubtedly stronger because it relies on objective evidence and testable observations. Arj's subjective evidence is undoubtedly sufficient to convince him of his beliefs, but they are not valid from a scientific standpoint.

However, if Arj truly believes he has communicated with people in the afterlife, it would be insane for him change his opinions due to an Internet forum. Thus, it is irrational to hold that these two perspectives are equally valid; however, it is not irrational for Arj to hold his beliefs at this time. He should thoroughly investigate these experiences for their validity.

He agreed.

Arj wrote:
That's all I'm saying.
 

??????????????

Apparently, the matter has already been settled, and the entire second half of the thread is only a matter of miscommunication due to the fact that Arj will not admit his fallacies on nature of evidence.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:Ok, DG, Ezc, and

Arj wrote:

Ok, DG, Ezc, and Butter, let me ask you a question. Since yall are here. Why do you desire to completely rule out supernatural plausibility??? I'm curious. 

As for me, it is not a desire. It is simply not evident! Your experience is just not enough.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Ok, DG, Ezc, and

Quote:

Ok, DG, Ezc, and Butter, let me ask you a question. Since yall are here. Why do you desire to completely rule out supernatural plausibility??? I'm curious.

Because I don't consider it to be conceptually meaningful. The reasons for this are outlined in this thread below. Have a read of this link, and note the discussion between me, Topher, Hamby and Thom on the first page:

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

"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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3706
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:Ok, DG, Ezc, and

Arj wrote:
Ok, DG, Ezc, and Butter, let me ask you a question. Since yall are here. Why do you desire to completely rule out supernatural plausibility??? I'm curious.

Supernatural

1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.

4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

By definition, supernatural is something that is "unexplainable by natural law or phenomena." If we could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that something is true, then, almost by definition, that event or process wouldn't be supernatural. 

But, then, I'm just playing with semantics.

My answer is, I don't rule out supernatural plausibility. I just haven't observed any good reason to believe in anything that is considered supernatural.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


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

enzoconti wrote:

Arj wrote:

Ok, DG, Ezc, and Butter, let me ask you a question. Since yall are here. Why do you desire to completely rule out supernatural plausibility??? I'm curious. 

As for me, it is not a desire. It is simply not evident! Your experience is just not enough.

That's fine. I wasn't trying to convince you remember? Anyway, now I'm curious. Did any of yall at one point in time have different beliefs? And if the question is not too personal I would like to hear your stories. From the moment you let that philosophy completely go.

‘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
butterbattle wrote: I'm

butterbattle wrote:

 I'm getting the feeling that Arj has already accepted our explanations, but he tends to avoid expressing it explicitly because it puts his perspective on shaky ground. 

Arj wrote:
For instance, I could tell you my firsthand account stories about my life but because of YOUR schooling and training these would automatically shape your opinion and mentally you would immediately discount my stories for anecdotes.  That's not being objective in the face of "evidence" either.
 

Clearly, he's implying that we discount his experiences because of our personal bias.

However, when I said.

Quote:
Logically, DG's opinion is undoubtedly stronger because it relies on objective evidence and testable observations. Arj's subjective evidence is undoubtedly sufficient to convince him of his beliefs, but they are not valid from a scientific standpoint.

However, if Arj truly believes he has communicated with people in the afterlife, it would be insane for him change his opinions due to an Internet forum. Thus, it is irrational to hold that these two perspectives are equally valid; however, it is not irrational for Arj to hold his beliefs at this time. He should thoroughly investigate these experiences for their validity.

He agreed.

Arj wrote:
That's all I'm saying.
 

??????????????

Apparently, the matter has already been settled, and the entire second half of the thread is only a matter of miscommunication due to the fact that Arj will not admit his fallacies on nature of evidence.

LOL. Never that. You were simply being objective in my opinion so I agreed. You said so yourself, it would be asinine to think an internet forum could shake my beliefs. LOL. That's true.

‘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
butterbattle wrote: I'm

I'm starting to have a greater appreciation for the way people think in this forum. It's different.


 

‘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'm starting to have a

Quote:

I'm starting to have a greater appreciation for the way people think in this forum. It's different.

Interesting. When you say different, what is this forum different to? What way of thinking are you used to?

"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


enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
In response to Arjs' ?

Of course, as a child I was told there was a god, a devil, a heaven and a hell an everything else in between (catholics). Needless to say I spent a great deal of my childhood in abject fear of not being able to please this insaitable god. Thankfully when the time came, as it does with everyone, where my powers of reason could challenge my powers of belief, it became a no brainer. I simply could no longer hold on to Dogma. It was a liberating experience to say the least, from that point on it's been a journey of discovery. A tenable understanding of my place in this world.


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
I will be honest DG. My

I will be honest DG. My preconceived notion was, with knowledge comes maturity I see I was wrong. Atheists feel they have just as much to prove as the religious zealots. It takes wisdom to see differently.

‘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
I will be honest DG. My

I will be honest DG. My preconceived notion was, with knowledge comes maturity I see I was wrong. Atheists feel they have just as much to prove as the religious zealots. It takes wisdom to see differently.

y r my posts posting twice?

 

I will add scripture nor science can teach you that.

‘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:My preconceived notion

Quote:

My preconceived notion was, with knowledge comes maturity I see I was wrong

And what did you see which contradicted that notion?

Quote:

atheists feel they have just as much to prove as the religious zealots.

What on earth are you talking about? Religious zealots don't feel like they have to prove anything. That's why they're called religious zealots! Because they hold to their beliefs without proof (or in many cases, in spite of proof to the contrary). Feeling that you have something to prove can be a good trait, and is certainly not mutually exclusive to maturity.

Quote:

It takes wisdom to see differently.

Pray tell, what is this wisdom of which you speak?


 

 

"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:Your

deludedgod wrote:

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.

Now, how has what people concluded from the "evidence" I presented "sound reasoning"??? I said I've seen ghosts Butter said maybe it was a shadow from a car. I replied, "There was no car in my living room." I said I was told my uncle would die, several months later he did and Ecz called it "wishful thinking"....Yeah...O...K. I think this illustrates my point perfectly. Science maybe objective but REASONING is not. Scientifically it's called Observer Bias. Now go ahead and pretend like that don't exist. 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


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I said I've seen

Quote:

I said I've seen ghosts Butter said maybe it was a shadow from a car. I replied, "There was no car in my living room."

*Facepalms*

He was giving a hypothetical example about the problematic nature of anecdotal evidence.

Quote:

Now, how has what people concluded from the "evidence" I presented "sound reasoning"???

I don't think anyone could meaningfully draw any evidence from the claims you presented. They are too subjective to be meaningfully evaluated by anyone else. It would be like if I told you I saw a ghost. This would require a major upheaval in one's understanding of the nature of reality. From an epistemological standpoint, such an upheavel cannot be rationally made on the basis of someone else's highly subjective anecdotal experience.

"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
Are you overlooking my point

Are you overlooking my point about Observer bias?


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

deludedgod wrote:

It would be like if I told you I saw a ghost. This would require a major upheaval in one's understanding of the nature of reality. From an epistemological standpoint, such an upheavel cannot be rationally made on the basis of someone else's highly subjective anecdotal experience.

DG wouldn't it be irrational to assume anything else???

‘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:

It would be like if I told you I saw a ghost. This would require a major upheaval in one's understanding of the nature of reality. From an epistemological standpoint, such an upheavel cannot be rationally made on the basis of someone else's highly subjective anecdotal experience.

DG wouldn't it be irrational to assume anything else???

Definitions of observer bias on the Web:

  • The researcher's own subjectivity may influence the objectivity of the data. In ethnographic research, the people being studied are described ...
  •  

    ‘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:

    It would be like if I told you I saw a ghost. This would require a major upheaval in one's understanding of the nature of reality. From an epistemological standpoint, such an upheavel cannot be rationally made on the basis of someone else's highly subjective anecdotal experience.

    DG wouldn't it be irrational to assume anything else???

    This also makes another point. Then why in the hell would YOU ask ME to PROVE myself to YOU???? DUH!!!!!

    ‘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

    Arj wrote:

    Arj wrote:

    deludedgod wrote:

    It would be like if I told you I saw a ghost. This would require a major upheaval in one's understanding of the nature of reality. From an epistemological standpoint, such an upheavel cannot be rationally made on the basis of someone else's highly subjective anecdotal experience.

    DG wouldn't it be irrational to assume anything else???

    This also makes another point. Then why in the hell would YOU ask ME to PROVE myself to YOU???? DUH!!!!!

    You do realize that this has been my only point??? 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


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

    deludedgod wrote:

    Quote:

    I said I've seen ghosts Butter said maybe it was a shadow from a car. I replied, "There was no car in my living room."

    *Facepalms*

    He was giving a hypothetical example about the problematic nature of anecdotal evidence.

    Quote:

    Now, how has what people concluded from the "evidence" I presented "sound reasoning"???

    I don't think anyone could meaningfully draw any evidence from the claims you presented. They are too subjective to be meaningfully evaluated by anyone else. It would be like if I told you I saw a ghost. This would require a major upheaval in one's understanding of the nature of reality. From an epistemological standpoint, such an upheavel cannot be rationally made on the basis of someone else's highly subjective anecdotal experience.

    I tried to tell you. I'm not the one that's irrational here. YOU ARE.

    ‘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:But I'm trying to

    Arj wrote:


    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.


    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.


    Arj wrote:


    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.


    Arj wrote:


    I'm trying to tell you that I recognize this so I don't see the point in PROVING myself and I don't see the point in you trying to PROVE something to me either. It's purely subjective. You're assuming that YOUR evidence is gonna readily eclipse my beliefs but you are not taking into account subjectivity. You showed me some of your evidence and I still don't agree because of my own experiences. How is this so hard to comprehend???


    Arj wrote:


    I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm dealing with reality and the truth is subjectivity plays a factor when it comes to "defining proof". No matter how you want to dress it  up. For instance, I could tell you my firsthand account stories about my life but because of YOUR schooling and training (observer bias) these would automatically shape your opinion and mentally you would immediately discount my stories for anecdotes.  That's not being objective in the face of "evidence" either. Get it? So what's the point of begging the question?


    Arj wrote:


    No. I wasn't arguing this. I was talking about the role of subjectivity in Life. This is what you were assuming I was saying.

    Arj wrote:

    But I'm trying to explain to you that because TWO different conclusions are HIGHLY possible due to subjectivity then I don't see the point in proving myself.


    Arj wrote:


    Science maybe objective but REASONING is not.

    Arj wrote:

     It takes wisdom to see differently.......scripture nor science can teach you that.

     

    ‘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
    Even Butta said it:Arj

    Even Butta said it:

    Arj wrote:

    butterbattle wrote:

    Clearly, he's implying that we discount his experiences because of our personal bias.

     LOL. Never that. You were simply being objective in my opinion so I agreed. You said so yourself, it would be asinine to think an internet forum could shake my beliefs. LOL. That's true.

    Realistically, that mentality goes BOTH ways. I ALREADY KNOW that.

    ‘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