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


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

deludedgod wrote:

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.

I hope I don't need to answer that first question. And that last part is not true. Their "evidence" is just different from yours.

.....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:From an

deludedgod wrote:

From an epistemological standpoint, such an upheavel cannot be rationally made on the basis of someone else's highly subjective anecdotal [explanation such as wishful thinking, coincidence, and the shadow from a car in the middle of 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


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

Quote:

Are you overlooking my point about Observer bias?

No, and I would wager that I know more about that subject than you do. But observer bias only helps to demonstrate my point. The forms of evidence you use are heavily contaminated with observer bias. The forms of evidence I employ are filtered of it.

EDIT: Stop fucking quoting yourself! Don't you know how to edit your posts after you write them!

"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 overlooking my point about Observer bias?

No, and I would wager that I know more about that subject than you do. But observer bias only helps to demonstrate my point. The forms of evidence you use are heavily contaminated with observer bias. The forms of evidence I employ are filtered of it.

EDIT: Stop fucking quoting yourself! Don't you know how to edit your posts after you write them!

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:I hope I don't need to

Quote:

I hope I don't need to answer that first question

You do.

Quote:

And that last part is not true. Their "evidence" is just different from yours.

What? What precisely is this evidence of which you speak? You are still appealing to the same fallacious argument which I already dismantled. Some arguments for propositions are valid and sound. Others are not. You cannot defer to the fact that people have different beliefs as a form of justification for epistemological relativism. It is completely meaningless and ad hoc. Having had discussions with religious zealots, I can say that much of their argumentation is riddled with basic logical fallacies. This is a fact that cannot be sidestepped by appealing to subjectivity.

"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:Again, your name suits

Quote:

Again, your name suits you.

This is not a response. At this point you are merely being childish.

"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:I tried to tell you.

Quote:

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

I beg to differ. The nature of the evidence I employ in arguing against life after death and similar propositions is potable and independantly evaluable and falsifiable. As such, it is less tainted by the various human biases that the evidence you employ will by definition contain. I have already provided some of this evidence in the form of links articulating my beliefs and my reasons for them. These take the form of independantly evaluable arguments.

"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
We are talking about two

We are talking about two different things here. I'm purely talking about "defining evidence" here. NOT validity. That's what YOU keep talking about. You're skipping over the first step.

This is the Petitio Principii 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:highly subjective

Quote:

highly subjective anecdotal [explanation such as wishful thinking, coincidence, and the shadow from a car in the middle of my living room].

You idiot! He wasn't talking about your particular experience. He was referring to the problematic nature of anecdotal evidence by giving examples of problems that could arise.

"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:We are talking about

Quote:

We are talking about two different things here. I'm purely talking about "defining evidence" here. NOT validity. That's what YOU keep talking about. You're skipping over the first step.

This is the Petitio Principii fallacy.

Please don't get into an argument with me about formal logic. You will lose. THe first step is always validity. In any set of propositions, one can construct a truth table that relates the truth of the input values (which are arbitrarily assigned such that in a full truth table, every permutation of T and F is employed. For some truth table with n lines, then there will be 2n inputs) to that of the output (which depends on the logical operators). Any valid argument is one which contains no lines with all T inputs and an F output. Evidence is a concept in informal logic, which necessarily comes after the formal concept of validity (in other words: Formal logic is a priori whereas evidence is a posteriori). Additionally, I should add that if you accuse someone of begging the question, you should (by convention) construct their argument in syllogistic form to demonstrate where the premise relies on the conclusion.

"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
enzoconti wrote:Arj

enzoconti wrote:

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 coincidence. 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?

You DUMB ASS.  He was saying it was more then likely a MERE coincidence SIMILAR to what he experienced in the past...and I see you readily ignored Butter's explanation......... yet you erroneously claim to be free of observer bias.....LOL. Yeah. O...K. The "proof" is in the pudding. 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
deludedgod wrote:Quote:We

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

We are talking about two different things here. I'm purely talking about "defining evidence" here. NOT validity. That's what YOU keep talking about. You're skipping over the first step.

This is the Petitio Principii fallacy.

Please don't get into an argument with me about formal logic. You will lose. THe first step is always validity. In any set of propositions, one can construct a truth table that relates the truth of the input values (which are arbitrarily assigned such that in a full truth table, every permutation of T and F is employed. For some truth table with n lines, then there will be 2n inputs) to that of the output (which depends on the logical operators). Any valid argument is one which contains no lines with all T inputs and an F output. Evidence is a concept in informal logic, which necessarily comes after the formal concept of validity (in other words: Formal logic is a priori whereas evidence is a posteriori). Additionally, I should add that if you accuse someone of begging the question, you should (by convention) construct their argument in syllogistic form to demonstrate where the premise relies on the conclusion.

I already have. LOL. In order to argue logic you must first USE logic. Me thinks this is about pride. LOL. The fallacy is in thinking the first step is proving "validity" WHEN you presuppose the opposing party relies on the same evidence when they don't.

‘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:In order to argue

Quote:

In order to argue logic you must first USE logic.

No. This is completely incorrect. Formal logic (and mathematics) is grounded in a set of axiomatic propositions which are called retortional. That means they necessarily hold on the basis that denying them necessarily confirms them. Every statement in formal logic can be built from a set of retortional propositions.These propositions are underived meaning you don't need to employ a logical set of rules to confirm them (in fact, by definition, they cannot be denied, so they hold under all valuations).

"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
So are we trying to change

So are we trying to change subjects now? There's a fallacy for that too. LOL


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:So are we trying to

Quote:

So are we trying to change subjects now? There's a fallacy for that too. LOL

What the hell are you talking about? I directly responded to your post!

"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
LOL. You mean ONE sentence

LOL. You mean ONE sentence of my post. While you skipped over several others.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:LOL. You mean ONE

Quote:

LOL. You mean ONE sentence of my post. While you skipped over several others.

Very well. I suppose then you admit that the argument put forth in that one sentence was invalid. Care to admit that your knowledge of mathematical logic was insufficient for you to make such an argument?

The reason I did not respond to the other post was because when I was talking about "he", I was not referring to ezc, I was talking about butterbattle. He was the one who originally gave the example of the problematic nature of anecdotal experience.

Quote:

The fallacy is in thinking the first step is proving "validity" WHEN you presuppose the opposing party relies on the same evidence when they don't.

This doesn't really mean anything. Validity, as I said, is a formal concept. When there is a problem with the validity of an argument then there is a problem with the formal structure. These are quite rare errors. Usually, the errors people make are informal in nature. If a person holds a conclusion which is demonstratably false, then either the argument is invalid (the premises are true, but do not necessarily lead to the conclusion) or one ore more premise is false. Errors of validity only pertain to the first type. Formal logic is unconcerned with the actual truth of the premises. That is the domain of informal logic. Validity and evidence are totally different concepts. Validity is a formal concept which is a priori to evidence. Evidence is an informal concept. (Informal in the logical sense, not informal as in casual). The law of non-contradiction (which is true under any valuation) states if there are two propositions P and ~P then it necessarily follows that one of them is false. You hold to P and I hold to ~P. Both of us put forth arguments defending our respective propositions. This means that at least one of the following four must be true:

1. One of my premises is false

2. My argument is invalid

3. One of your premises is false

4. 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:LOL.

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

LOL. You mean ONE sentence of my post. While you skipped over several others.

Very well. I suppose then you admit that the argument put forth in that one sentence was invalid. Care to admit that your knowledge of mathematical logic was insufficient for you to make such an argument?

The reason I did not respond to the other post was because when I was talking about "he", I was not referring to ezc, I was talking about butterbattle. He was the one who originally gave the example of the problematic nature of anecdotal experience.

Quote:

The fallacy is in thinking the first step is proving "validity" WHEN you presuppose the opposing party relies on the same evidence when they don't.

This doesn't really mean anything. Validity, as I said, is a formal concept. When there is a problem with the validity of an argument then there is a problem with the formal structure. These are quite rare errors. Usually, the errors people make are informal in nature. If a person holds a conclusion which is demonstratably false, then either the argument is invalid (the premises are true, but do not necessarily lead to the conclusion) or one ore more premise is false. Errors of validity only pertain to the first type. Formal logic is unconcerned with the actual truth of the premises. That is the domain of informal logic. Validity and evidence are totally different concepts. Validity is a formal concept which is a priori to evidence. Evidence is an informal concept. (Informal in the logical sense, not informal as in casual). The law of non-contradiction (which is true under any valuation) states if there are two propositions P and ~P then it necessarily follows that one of them is false. You hold to P and I hold to ~P. Both of us put forth arguments defending our respective propositions. This means that at least one of the following four must be true:

1. One of my premises is false

2. My argument is invalid

3. One of your premises is false

4. Your argument is invalid

NOT in regards to the ghost story. He was quoting me and supplying explanations.

"-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."

Validity and evidence are totally different concepts. I already said that. Answer this question, can supernatural evidence for the existent or nonexistent of the spiritual world vary from person to person????

‘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
Mind you it's purely

Mind you it's purely intangible and can not be detected by science.


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

Quote:

Answer this question, can supernatural evidence for the existent or nonexistent of the spiritual world vary from person to person????

If such a world exists independant of us, then there would be no reason to suppose so. But I think the bigger problem is that you are using an incoherent term. One page ago you asked why we did not believe in such a world. I provided a link where all the participants reached the conclusion (including me) that the idea of a supernatural realm is meaningless. It would be in your interest to read the contents of that link to see how I am forming my propositions.

"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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Arj,I will admit to a

Arj,

I will admit to a cursory scan of your posts so I may have missed something.

It seems you came in saying "all beliefs are subjective but my subjective beliefs are correct because they are mine."

Then you moved to saying "I can prove my subjective beliefs are correct because <x> happened to me"

If I've missed something, please enlighten me.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


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

deludedgod wrote:

The majority of people would readily accept scientific proof over supernatural

If only that were true.

Well, in THIS existence anecdotal evidence DOES exists. You've made that claim one too many times in this thread alone. You can't deny that. The very definition states "Anecdotal evidence is unreliable evidence based on personal experience....." So the answer to my question is Yes. I know u just want to win this argument but you are nowhere close. LOL.

I rest my case.

‘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:Well, in THIS

Quote:

Well, in THIS existence anecdotal evidence DOES exists

What on Earth are you talking about? What does that have to do with anything? The claim I made is that many people do not accept scientific evidence and instead prefer supernatural explanations. I base this claim not on personal experience but rather on the overwhelming preponderance of foolish beliefs such as creationism/conspiracy theories/ new age nonsense etc. ad infinitum. From a purely syntactical point of view, I can barely understand you. Is English your first language? Are you still in junior high?

Quote:

You've made that claim one too many times in this thread alone

What claim? The claim that many people believe in supernatural garbage despite scientific proof? That's not anecdotally based. That comes from a whole truckload of scientific studies performed establishing the proliferation of certain belief systems.

Quote:

I know u just want to win this argument but you are nowhere close. LOL.

What argument? An argument implies two people defending respective and opposing propositions. As you have not done this, we are not having an argument. Why do you always go back in the threads and fish out old posts instead of continuing with the current line of discussion.

"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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:deludedgod

Arj wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

The majority of people would readily accept scientific proof over supernatural

If only that were true.

Well, in THIS existence anecdotal evidence DOES exists. You've made that claim one too many times in this thread alone. You can't deny that. The very definition states "Anecdotal evidence is unreliable evidence based on personal experience....." So the answer to my question is Yes. I know u just want to win this argument but you are nowhere close. LOL.

I rest my case.

As the supernatural is not proof of anything, DG's statement is true.

The supernatural is an excuse created by lazy intellects so they can stop working..

Anecdotes exist - doesn't make them evidence.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


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

Arj wrote:

enzoconti wrote:

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 coincidence. 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?

You DUMB ASS.  He was saying it was more then likely a MERE coincidence SIMILAR to what he experienced in the past...and I see you readily ignored Butter's explanation......... yet you erroneously claim to be free of observer bias.....LOL. Yeah. O...K. The "proof" is in the pudding. LOL

WTF are you on about?


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Arj,I will

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj,

I will admit to a cursory scan of your posts so I may have missed something.

It seems you came in saying "all beliefs are subjective but my subjective beliefs are correct because they are mine."

Then you moved to saying "I can prove my subjective beliefs are correct because <x> happened to me"

If I've missed something, please enlighten me.

 

No. That's not what I was saying at all. I was purely talking about spiritual  beliefs or beliefs in the supernatural and how everyone's beliefs in this regard are subjective because of anecdotal evidence and intangibility.

And I DEFINITELY NEVER said this: "I can prove my subjective beliefs are correct because <x> happened 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


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

Quote:

how everyone's beliefs in this regard are subjective because of anecdotal evidence and intangibility.

But my beliefs on this matter are not anecdotally based. Yet again I invite you to read this conversation, so you can understand how I and others formed our beliefs.

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


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
I wasn't talking to u ezc.

I wasn't talking to u ezc.


enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:I wasn't talking

Arj wrote:

I wasn't talking to u ezc.

Sorry!

Clearly Arj we do not agree, but the more time you spend on this forum the closer you will get understanding us. I can feel you change with every post!


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:jcgadfly

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj,

I will admit to a cursory scan of your posts so I may have missed something.

It seems you came in saying "all beliefs are subjective but my subjective beliefs are correct because they are mine."

Then you moved to saying "I can prove my subjective beliefs are correct because <x> happened to me"

If I've missed something, please enlighten me.

 

No. That's not what I was saying at all. I was purely talking about spiritual  beliefs or beliefs in the supernatural and how everyone's beliefs in this regard are subjective because of anecdotal evidence and intangibility.

And I DEFINITELY NEVER said this: "I can prove my subjective beliefs are correct because <x> happened to me"

 

First, the refusal to accept "anecdotal evidence" is because it's anecdotal and not evidence according to the objective standards. How is that subjective again?

Next - When you wrote this:

"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?"

and this:

"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?"

that is you trying to prove your subjective beliefs are correct - I merely summarized and condensed it.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


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

jcgadfly wrote:

As the supernatural is not proof of anything, DG's statement is true.

The supernatural is an excuse created by lazy intellects so they can stop working..

Anecdotes exist - doesn't make them evidence.

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

how everyone's beliefs in this regard are subjective because of anecdotal evidence and intangibility.

But my beliefs on this matter are not anecdotally based.

I didn't say they were. I was saying the existence of anecdotal evidence makes subjectivity in this regard feasible. You and fly proved my point just now.

Arj wrote:

Answer this question, can supernatural evidence for the existent or nonexistent of the spiritual world vary from person to person????

Turn around, enter a Christian forum and they would say the exact opposite. That's my only point.

 

 

 

‘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
enzoconti wrote:Arj wrote:I

enzoconti wrote:

Arj wrote:

I wasn't talking to u ezc.

Sorry!

Clearly Arj we do not agree, but the more time you spend on this forum the closer you will get understanding us. I can feel you change with every post!

You might be 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


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Turn around, enter a

Quote:

Turn around, enter a Christian forum and they would say the exact opposite. That's my only point.

So what? How is this relevant?

"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
jcgadfly wrote:Arj

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj,

I will admit to a cursory scan of your posts so I may have missed something.

It seems you came in saying "all beliefs are subjective but my subjective beliefs are correct because they are mine."

Then you moved to saying "I can prove my subjective beliefs are correct because <x> happened to me"

If I've missed something, please enlighten me.

 

No. That's not what I was saying at all. I was purely talking about spiritual  beliefs or beliefs in the supernatural and how everyone's beliefs in this regard are subjective because of anecdotal evidence and intangibility.

And I DEFINITELY NEVER said this: "I can prove my subjective beliefs are correct because <x> happened to me"

 

First, the refusal to accept "anecdotal evidence" is because it's anecdotal and not evidence according to the objective standards. How is that subjective again?

Next - When you wrote this:

"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?"

and this:

"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?"

that is you trying to prove your subjective beliefs are correct - I merely summarized and condensed it.

 

No Fly. You're incorrect. We are NOT talking about validity and clearly I just said I'm not here to prove myself so I don't see how you reached that conclusion from that post. We are talking about "evidence". And I'm not gonna re-dispute that arugement. You would just need to read back through the thread.

‘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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:jcgadfly wrote:As

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

As the supernatural is not proof of anything, DG's statement is true.

The supernatural is an excuse created by lazy intellects so they can stop working..

Anecdotes exist - doesn't make them evidence.

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

how everyone's beliefs in this regard are subjective because of anecdotal evidence and intangibility.

But my beliefs on this matter are not anecdotally based.

I didn't say they were. I was saying the existence of anecdotal evidence makes subjectivity in this regard feasible. You and fly proved my point just now.

Arj wrote:

Answer this question, can supernatural evidence for the existent or nonexistent of the spiritual world vary from person to person????

Turn around, enter a Christian forum and they would say the exact opposite. That's my only point.

 

 

 

How did my saying that "anecdotes are not evidence" prove yout point?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


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

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Turn around, enter a Christian forum and they would say the exact opposite. That's my only point.

So what? How is this relevant?

It proves my point that supernatural phenomena is subjective.

‘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:It proves my point

Quote:

It proves my point that supernatural phenomena is subjective.

No it does not. If you have two people who have differing opinions on a particular matter, it does not follow that we are discussing two subjective and equally valid views. This is the fallacy which I already pointed out numerous times in your previous post. It is a form of ad hoc, non sequitur and false dichotomy. If somebody puts forth a particular argument for a proposition, it cannot be defended on a basis of epistemological relativism.

For example, if you go to a Christian forum, you will find many people disagreeing with evolution despite the fact that evolution is overwhelmingly verified. Does this demonstrate that two differing beliefs in the truth or lack thereof of evolution are equally valid? No. This is preposterous.

"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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:jcgadfly wrote:Arj

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj,

I will admit to a cursory scan of your posts so I may have missed something.

It seems you came in saying "all beliefs are subjective but my subjective beliefs are correct because they are mine."

Then you moved to saying "I can prove my subjective beliefs are correct because <x> happened to me"

If I've missed something, please enlighten me.

 

No. That's not what I was saying at all. I was purely talking about spiritual  beliefs or beliefs in the supernatural and how everyone's beliefs in this regard are subjective because of anecdotal evidence and intangibility.

And I DEFINITELY NEVER said this: "I can prove my subjective beliefs are correct because <x> happened to me"

 

First, the refusal to accept "anecdotal evidence" is because it's anecdotal and not evidence according to the objective standards. How is that subjective again?

Next - When you wrote this:

"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?"

and this:

"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?"

that is you trying to prove your subjective beliefs are correct - I merely summarized and condensed it.

 

No Fly. You're incorrect. We are NOT talking about validity and clearly I just said I'm not here to prove myself so I don't see how you reached that conclusion from that post. We are talking about "evidence". And I'm not gonna re-dispute that arugement. You would just need to read back through the thread.

Yet you made claims that you believe show validity for you. If you didn't believe they were valid proofs for all cases, why did you mention them?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


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

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

As the supernatural is not proof of anything, DG's statement is true.

The supernatural is an excuse created by lazy intellects so they can stop working..

Anecdotes exist - doesn't make them evidence.

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

how everyone's beliefs in this regard are subjective because of anecdotal evidence and intangibility.

But my beliefs on this matter are not anecdotally based.

I didn't say they were. I was saying the existence of anecdotal evidence makes subjectivity in this regard feasible. You and fly proved my point just now.

Arj wrote:

Answer this question, can supernatural evidence for the existent or nonexistent of the spiritual world vary from person to person????

Turn around, enter a Christian forum and they would say the exact opposite. That's my only point.

How did my saying that "anecdotes are not evidence" prove yout point?

Well my only point is that supernatural phenomena is subjective. Well you may consider that "anecdotes are not evidence" there are those who believe the opposite. That's my point.

‘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
jcgadfly wrote:Arj

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

As the supernatural is not proof of anything, DG's statement is true.

The supernatural is an excuse created by lazy intellects so they can stop working..

Anecdotes exist - doesn't make them evidence.

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

how everyone's beliefs in this regard are subjective because of anecdotal evidence and intangibility.

But my beliefs on this matter are not anecdotally based.

I didn't say they were. I was saying the existence of anecdotal evidence makes subjectivity in this regard feasible. You and fly proved my point just now.

Arj wrote:

Answer this question, can supernatural evidence for the existent or nonexistent of the spiritual world vary from person to person????

Turn around, enter a Christian forum and they would say the exact opposite. That's my only point.

How did my saying that "anecdotes are not evidence" prove yout point?

Well my only point is that supernatural phenomena is subjective. Well you may consider that "anecdotes are not evidence" there are those who believe the opposite. That's my point. We are not arguing about validity here. Just "proof" or "evidence".

‘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
jcgadfly wrote:Yet you made

jcgadfly wrote:

Yet you made claims that you believe show validity for you. If you didn't believe they were valid proofs for all cases, why did you mention them?

They coerced me. I just suggest u reread the thread. It would answer a lot of your questions.

‘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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:jcgadfly wrote:Arj

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

As the supernatural is not proof of anything, DG's statement is true.

The supernatural is an excuse created by lazy intellects so they can stop working..

Anecdotes exist - doesn't make them evidence.

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

how everyone's beliefs in this regard are subjective because of anecdotal evidence and intangibility.

But my beliefs on this matter are not anecdotally based.

I didn't say they were. I was saying the existence of anecdotal evidence makes subjectivity in this regard feasible. You and fly proved my point just now.

Arj wrote:

Answer this question, can supernatural evidence for the existent or nonexistent of the spiritual world vary from person to person????

Turn around, enter a Christian forum and they would say the exact opposite. That's my only point.

How did my saying that "anecdotes are not evidence" prove yout point?

Well my only point is that supernatural phenomena is subjective. Well you may consider that "anecdotes are not evidence" there are those who believe the opposite. That's my point. We are not arguing about validity here. Just "proof" or "evidence".

Except that the view I espouse is based on objective standards - or are you saying that there is no objectivity at all?

If so, we'll have to disagree agreeably.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


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

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

It proves my point that supernatural phenomena is subjective.

No it does not. If you have two people who have differing opinions on a particular matter, it does not follow that we are discussing two subjective and equally valid views. This is the fallacy which I already pointed out numerous times in your previous post. It is a form of ad hoc, non sequitur and false dichotomy. If somebody puts forth a particular argument for a proposition, it cannot be defended on a basis of epistemological relativism.

For example, if you go to a Christian forum, you will find many people disagreeing with evolution despite the fact that evolution is overwhelmingly verified. Does this demonstrate that two differing beliefs in the truth or lack thereof of evolution are equally valid? No. This is preposterous.

LOL. Like you said you already made this claim before and I already aruged this point. This isn't about validity. It's about 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


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:LOL. Like you said you

Quote:

LOL. Like you said you already made this claim before and I already aruged this point. This isn't about validity. It's about subjectivity.

This time you are making a fallacy of equivocation. You should be able to tell that in this context, I am not using the mathematical definition of the term valid. I merely mean valid in the sense that the belief is founded on good evidence. But I have yet to see you address my counterexample. If you go to a Christian forum, you will find many people disagreeing with evolution despite the fact that evolution is overwhelmingly verified. Does this demonstrate that two differing beliefs in the truth or lack thereof are merely subjective and equally sound views? No. This is preposterous.

"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
jcgadfly wrote:Arj

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

As the supernatural is not proof of anything, DG's statement is true.

The supernatural is an excuse created by lazy intellects so they can stop working..

Anecdotes exist - doesn't make them evidence.

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

how everyone's beliefs in this regard are subjective because of anecdotal evidence and intangibility.

But my beliefs on this matter are not anecdotally based.

I didn't say they were. I was saying the existence of anecdotal evidence makes subjectivity in this regard feasible. You and fly proved my point just now.

Arj wrote:

Answer this question, can supernatural evidence for the existent or nonexistent of the spiritual world vary from person to person????

Turn around, enter a Christian forum and they would say the exact opposite. That's my only point.

How did my saying that "anecdotes are not evidence" prove yout point?

Well my only point is that supernatural phenomena is subjective. Well you may consider that "anecdotes are not evidence" there are those who believe the opposite. That's my point. We are not arguing about validity here. Just "proof" or "evidence".

Except that the view I espouse is based on objective standards - or are you saying that there is no objectivity at all?

If so, we'll have to disagree agreeably.

I mean if you'd read my response you'd be able to answer these questions yourself.

‘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:LOL.

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

LOL. Like you said you already made this claim before and I already aruged this point. This isn't about validity. It's about subjectivity.

This time you are making a fallacy of equivocation. You should be able to tell that in this context, I am not using the mathematical definition of the term valid. I merely mean valid in the sense that the belief is founded on good evidence. But I have yet to see you address my counterexample. If you go to a Christian forum, you will find many people disagreeing with evolution despite the fact that evolution is overwhelmingly verified. Does this demonstrate that two differing beliefs in the truth or lack thereof are merely subjective and equally sound views? No. This is preposterous.

No. DUH!!! But again I'm NOT arguing validity. As far as subjectivity goes, is evolution considered supernatural phenomena? Or is that creationism? If it's the former then you've got yourself a problem.

‘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. DUH!!! But again

Quote:

No. DUH!!! But again I'm NOT arguing validity.

You stated that you are arguing from evidence but this runs into the same problem. The problem with your argument is that you seem to be claiming that any issue of contention where anecdotal evidence is involved necessarily leads to subjectivity of argument (which doesn't really mean anything). The problem with this statement is that it is vapid. In any issue of contention where one side takes a particular stance and the other denies it, one of them must be incorrect. This cuts to pieces your entire argument, for it necessarily implies there is a flaw in at least one of the sets of evidential propositions. This cannot be skirted by appealing to relativism and ad hoc by asserting that your evidential basis is different. If I assemble a valid argument with true premises to demonstrate that a particular claim is false, then it necessarily follows that that claim is false. The arguments I have put forth are not anecdotal. That means they are evaluable interpersonally. Thus, if your particular proposition is correct, then my argument must either be invalid or contain a false premise. If you believe this to be the case, I invite you to point out this particular error.

Additionally, if you are going to claim that "supernatural phenomenon" are exempt from the normal process of objective evidential evaluation on the basis of the fact that some people have anecdotal evidence for it, then you are commiting something called a special pleading fallacy. Insofar as assertions about a "supernatural realm" pertain to a some sort of metaphysical reality independant of our experiences (in other words, not inside our heads), then it follows that there should be an interpersonal form of evaluable evidence for it. The fact that a particular issue of contention may revolve (at least for one side) around anecdotal evidence doesn't mean fuck-all. For example, a person could believe that alternative medicine works on the basis of various metaphysical beliefs, employ such medicine, and find their symptoms disappearing, but it does not follow that the particular metaphysical effect they believe in was responsible. That would be a post hoc fallacy. This is the problem with anecdotal evidence: It is open to the problem of underdetermination. One cannot postulate the mechanism behind a particular experience (like being cured of a disease after ingesting a drug) 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:No.

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

No. DUH!!! But again I'm NOT arguing validity.

You stated that you are arguing from evidence but this runs into the same problem. The problem with your argument is that you seem to be claiming that any issue of contention where anecdotal evidence is involved necessarily leads to subjectivity of argument (which doesn't really mean anything). The problem with this statement is that it is vapid. In any issue of contention where one side takes a particular stance and the other denies it, one of them must be incorrect. This cuts to pieces your entire argument, for it necessarily implies there is a flaw in at least one of the sets of evidential propositions. This cannot be skirted by appealing to relativism and ad hoc by asserting that your evidential basis is different. If I assemble a valid argument with true premises to demonstrate that a particular claim is false, then it necessarily follows that that claim is false. The arguments I have put forth are not anecdotal. That means they are evaluable interpersonally. Thus, if your particular proposition is correct, then my argument must either be invalid or contain a false premise. If you believe this to be the case, I invite you to point out this particular error.

Additionally, if you are going to claim that "supernatural phenomenon" are exempt from the normal process of objective evidential evaluation on the basis of the fact that some people have anecdotal evidence for it, then you are commiting something called a special pleading fallacy. Insofar as assertions about a "supernatural realm" pertain to a some sort of metaphysical reality independant of our experiences (in other words, not inside our heads), then it follows that there should be an interpersonal form of evaluable evidence for it. The fact that a particular issue of contention may revolve (at least for one side) around anecdotal evidence doesn't mean fuck-all. For example, a person could believe that alternative medicine works on the basis of various metaphysical beliefs, employ such medicine, and find their symptoms disappearing, but it does not follow that the particular metaphysical effect they believe in was responsible. That would be a post hoc fallacy. This is the problem with anecdotal evidence: It is open to the problem of underdetermination. One cannot postulate the mechanism behind a particular experience (like being cured of a disease after ingesting a drug) on the basis of anecdote.

Quote me please in entirety. I think I've only made claims about subjectivity in regards to supernatural phenomena. I have not argued about validity. Is medical intervention supernatural??? Do you know the definition of that word??? You keep comparing tangible to that which is usually intangible. First define supernatural for me then explain how this relates.

‘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'm not arguing from

I'm not arguing from evidence. I'm arguing about "defining evidence".


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

Quote:

Is medical intervention supernatural??

Some people believe that particular medical effects can result from "supernatural effects"

Quote:

Do you know the definition of that word?

It has no definition. It is meaningless. This was formally established in the link below. Read the entire first page of this thread before you talk to me again:

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

Quote:

first define supernatural for me then explain how this relates.

Supernatural has no definition. Please read the entire first page of the link I have presented to you to realize why this is the case.

"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