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
OK. I will read it, then get

OK. I will read it, then get back to you to see what you are talking about.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:OK. I will read it,

Quote:

OK. I will read it, then get back to you to see what you are talking about.

Most of it is discussing the incoherence of the concept of God, but pay particular attention to the parts (most of it) discussing why the notion of "supernatural" is meaningless.

Actually, there is a more relevant thread whose first page you should also read:

Is materialism self-evident?

"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
This isn't about the "proof"

This isn't about the "proof" subject anymore. This is about the thread I just went to.

Should I start a new thread?

Ok. I skimmed through it. Question: everyone's reasoning was so methodical, do you really believe the majority of people THINK/rationalize like that?

Is there something wrong with the fact that they don't?

What I took from it, a few guys were sitting around the table, trying to crack the "code" of Life....That's all I sensed....Like y'all were in your brainstorming state....LOL or were y'all just obsessed with words and their double-meanings??? 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


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Should I start a new

Quote:

Should I start a new thread?

I don't think it's a problem to keep in here.

Quote:

Question: everyone's reasoning was so methodical, do you really believe the majority of people THINK/rationalize like that?

Well, no. But I think it's important to do what we did. We took the time to sit down and work it out in a really precise fashion.

Quote:

Is there something wrong with the fact that they don't?

Depends on the context. For example, there are creationists who come here and display ghastly levels of ignorance on basic biology.

Quote:

What I took from it, a few guys were sitting around the table, trying to crack the "code" of Life....That's all I sensed....Like y'all were in your brainstorming state....LOL or were y'all just obsessed with words and their double-meanings??? I'm curious.

I think we were all just concerned with the fact that terms that many people take for granted are not necessarily meaningful, even though by conditioning we are used to 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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:This isn't about

Arj wrote:

This isn't about the "proof" subject anymore. This is about the thread I just went to.

Should I start a new thread?

Ok. I skimmed through it. Question: everyone's reasoning was so methodical, do you really believe the majority of people THINK/rationalize like that?

Is there something wrong with the fact that they don't?

What I took from it, a few guys were sitting around the table, trying to crack the "code" of Life....That's all I sensed....Like y'all were in your brainstorming state....LOL or were y'all just obsessed with words and their double-meanings??? I'm curious.

 

 

The problem that I've noticed is that most people do think in a methodical manner, using evidence to form conclusions, except whn it comes to matters of religion.

Why does religion always get a pass?

"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
IMO it's bc indoctrination

IMO it's bc indoctrination is misconstrued subjectivity....and I'm not trying to go back to the "proof" discussion (I like where this is headed)...I was just answering Fly's posts.

‘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
It's instilled as though

It's instilled as though it's tangible when in actuality it is not.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote: Are you telling

EDIT: Wow!  Didn't realize all that had been posted.  I retract my post so that I can respond to a more current and relevant part of the discussion.

EDIT: There's actually nothing to respond to.  Anyone care to tell me what this is supposed to be about?  Particularly, Arj. -Do you care to explain what the purpose of this thread is for you?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:Now, how has what

Arj wrote:
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.
 

Sigh, so this is why Poe's Law is so difficult.

I was not referring to your personal experiences, dumbass! I was utilizing a hypothetical example to explain the subjectivity of anecdotal evidence.

However, just to illustrate my point even more, if you knew anything about supernatural investigations, you would know that the car doesn't have to be in your room, nor did I suggest that it was in your room. Imagine that it is 11:00 pm and there is a window in the room. A car drives by and its headlights shine through the window. This kind of scenario has been the basis for a plethora of claims of "hauntings."

Arj wrote:
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
 

Wrong! Stop referring to my explanations until you can show that you have understood them.

Arj wrote:
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."

Your experiences are important to you, but they are meaningless in an academic context.

Arj wrote:
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????

What is supernatural evidence?

There is subjective and objective. Subjective varies. Objective does not. So, my answer to your question would be yes on subjective 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
butterbattle wrote:Arj

butterbattle wrote:

Arj wrote:
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.
  

Sigh, so this is why Poe's Law is so difficult.

I was not referring to your personal experiences, dumbass! I was utilizing a hypothetical example to explain the subjectivity of anecdotal evidence.

However, just to illustrate my point even more, if you knew anything about supernatural investigations, you would know that the car doesn't have to be in your room, nor did I suggest that it was in your room. Imagine that it is 11:00 pm and there is a window in the room. A car drives by and its headlights shine through the window. This kind of scenario has been the basis for a plethora of claims of "hauntings."

Arj wrote:
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
  

Wrong! Stop referring to my explanations until you can show that you have understood them.

Arj wrote:
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."

Your experiences are important to you, but they are meaningless in an academic context.

Arj wrote:
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????

What is supernatural evidence?

There is subjective and objective. Subjective varies. Objective does not. So, my answer to your question would be yes on subjective evidence.

You are the dumbass and you are slow. First, that second quote did NOT have shit to do with you.... get your facts straight.....Second, you are arguing the EXACT same point I've been making in this thread from jump and that's y I was using your hypothetical examples in the first place.....Third, we have moved on from this part of the discussion....so how are you contributing here???

I think I just might start a new thread to cut down on the confusion....I don't know what to call it or where to go......I'm more interested in what DG was showing me....I will admit. It's interesting.

‘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: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 Hahaha, alright, alright,

 Hahaha, alright, alright, apparently the thread has moved on.

 

Arj wrote:
Ok. I skimmed through it. Question: everyone's reasoning was so methodical, do you really believe the majority of people THINK/rationalize like that?

No.

Eh, it would also depend on what they are thinking about. Typically, when we start discussing a person's religious convictions, the light turns off. 

Arj wrote:
Is there something wrong with the fact that they don't?

If people cling to their beliefs, then they're not open to new ideas. This is the basis for many problems with humanity.  

Arj wrote:
What I took from it, a few guys were sitting around the table, trying to crack the "code" of Life....That's all I sensed....Like y'all were in your brainstorming state....

Yeah, it's kind of like that.

Arj wrote:
LOL or were y'all just obsessed with words and their double-meanings??? I'm curious.

Well, it's important for us to dissect the meaning of words to clarify certain topics.  

Hmm, interesting threads.

 

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
butterbattle wrote: Hahaha,

 That's the better word for it....dissecting life....I thought it was pretty cool....


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Evidence does not have to be

Evidence does not have to be 'tangible', something that can be touched, visible, or whatever, to be analysed scientifically. Psychology does have problematic aspects as a science, in that most of its evidence is 'intangible' and based on personal accounts of experiences and perceptions. But with enough carefully designed studies across many individuals, consistent and useful patterns can be found, and used to develop hypotheses and then tested in further studies.

And of course we have a lot of very useful data from things like fMRI studies which are allowing us to relate mental phenomena to physically measurable phenomena, providing much valuable new insight into the nature of consciousness, mind, and perception.

'Evidence' does need to be testable or verifiable in some way, typically by being independently and consistently replicated by other people, and subject to scrutiny by other people knowledgeable in the relevant field of knowledge, to minimise the effects of personal biases and errors.

When reports of some general phenomenon or experience vary widely from individual, that is a strong indicator that there is a very high subjective element, IOW it most likely is connected with or generated by something in the individual mind, rather than some common external reality, although some aspect of the individuals external environment or life history is very likely involved, so we should investigate for some common background or history among the different people reporting it.

That tendency for people to believe many things which are totally incorrect is an objective, verifiable fact. So when we demand something more than personal anecdote before we take seriously accounts of stuff which cannot readily be either proved or disproved directly, we are making a perfectly RATIONAL decision.

NOTE: we are not questioning your accounts of these experiences, just the certainty with you cling to your interpretation of them.

The approach is justified by the massive evidence that people can become totally convinced by such mental experiences, whether dreams or sights and sounds, that only they can detect or that they cannot explain, which have been shown by careful studies to be totally generated by there mind, having no external reality. Remember this includes cases where what they believe in is some physical fact or happening which can be shown in the most explicit and incontrovertible sense to be mistaken.

When the belief is supernatural, you are on far shakier grounds, with no physical evidence, IOW pure fantasy and/or speculation. Even when you can point to some sort of matching of the experience with some actual real-world event, you cannot rule out coincidence, which tends to be far more likely than most people without a background in statistics and probability are not well equipped to assess. Apart from anything else, to put any such event in context, you would need to have recorded every dream or vision which had similar feelings associated with it, and noted later whether or not some event happened which unambiguously related to it.

IOW without noting all the times a vision or dream did NOT predict anything, your 'evidence', while still being evidence, is extremely weak.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote: yet I do believe

Arj wrote:
 yet I do believe in the existence of an After Life, reincarnation, and spirit beings.

 

So then I ask, after our sun, as predicted, becomes a Red Giant and consumes all the planets, where will this thing you think gets reincarnated go???

 

The bottom line then is that you construe your existence to be important and you refuse to acknowledge that all memory and trace of you will be ultimately obliterated.

 

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


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:I'm new here and I

Arj wrote:

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

Welcome! A bit late greeting, but... Well, it's gonna be a long time before I read such a... 164 posts now.
I have a similar opinion as you, because I saw a few of my past lives myself thanks to a regression therapy, and I saw it work for like 200 people as well, this is why it convinced me. That's it, simple, huh? Does it count as a belief too?
Btw, my mom is not a medium, but besides a regression therapy, she does the unattaching of spirits from the people, so technically, she makes a mediums of her clients for a while Smiling
I had seen a lot of strange things, paranormal phenomena perhaps, on my own eyes and skin, so I don't demand a proof from you, I already have mine. But we can share experiences and learn something new.

Arj wrote:
All the drama, chaos, and violence in the world can be attributed to the unawareness of one's own subjectivity.
That's too vague. I've seen said it much more precisely, and with exactly defined methods to fix all the world's problems. These methods will be applied when the world will stop riding on the already dead horse of speculative economics.

So, let's start reading these 164 posts, so I can join in.
As you see, this forum is a den of subjectivity. It's perfectly working with it's primary purpose, which is a fight against a threat of Christianity and other dangerous religions, (which is very real) but it's competence doesn't reach to the area we know.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Since when is  'experience'

Since when is  'experience' evidence of anything, yours mine anyone count as evidence

If a person feels a ghost/god/evolution/gravity exists is it evidence NO!

If a million people feel a ghost/god/evolution/gravy exists its still not evidence!

If a person says 'i've been shot' is that evidence of someone being shot guess what the answer is NO!, a bullet hole, a bullet in you good evidence, personal feeling of 'ouch' no evidence at all

 

Or to put it bluntly the personal feelings of any individual are absolutely no evidence for anything.

It's like annoying christians claiming the evidence that god exists is that they feel it in their heart, like that counts for anything.

 

 

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
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 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?

OOOh, that's my dream, that's why I'm doing this all!!! I don't want fame, I don't want worshippers, I want aura vision goggles at every doctor's office, I want cars, aircrafts and spacecrafts running on Tesla's "cold electricity", and I want all this and more to work for the benefit of all humanity. And I don't mind if scientists will get the fame. It's the only way, actually. I'd better be more polite to DG, and maybe on Xmas I'll get a message, that he discovered the system of nadis, and on my birthday, that he found the etheric body, which is connected by nadis to physical body, and which is the missing link between mind-spirit causality he's (actually not) looking for, and for which he'd surely get a Nobel. That would have to be celebrated.
(meant very seriously, only with a slight flavour of personal, non-offensive sarcasm)



deludedgod wrote:
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 upheaval cannot be rationally made on the basis of someone else's highly subjective anecdotal experience.

You'd be surprised. Arj's claims are similar, if not identic, to many, many other people's claims, some of whom I know, or my family knows, or our friends knows... We unite people with such a similar interests. This gives us a certain degree of objectivity, Arj is certainly not the one who invented mediumship, and I can say with absolute certainity, that he refers to a very frequent phenomenon. I can evaluate what he says according to a certain standard and a vast theoretical basis. I certainly do have some objections, but these are of a technical character and not related to an existence of his experiences.
Epistemology doesn't contradict this, a frequent subjective phenomenon becomes a basis for it's objective model of explanation. The scientific methods brings a light of understanding even here, though without an official blessing.

This also means that I disagree with Arj that's there's no objectivity in there. It certainly is, but to know that, Arj would have to read at least several more books, and some of them aren't easy to read. This is a part of nature, a playground for future technology, and as such, it's damn extensive and complicated. Our primitive glimpses of that part of nature may be subjective, but the real scientific work will uncover everything about it, step by step. Of course, a "discovery" of nadis comes first, then for many years nothing, then etheric body, then even more years nothing and then will be discovered the astral body, which Arj uses primarily for his psychism. Arj, you're gonna be old, when they'll apologize to you. Maybe dead. Scientists takes it always the longer way.
Btw, care to edit the 1st post and add some personal data?

aiia wrote:

Arj wrote:
 yet I do believe in the existence of an After Life, reincarnation, and spirit beings.

So then I ask, after our sun, as predicted, becomes a Red Giant and consumes all the planets, where will this thing you think gets reincarnated go???

 

How can he know this? Even if yes (I do) how can he or me answer in a way meaningful for you? This knowledge I'd have to refer to is extensive, and to you, it would look like I can just pull out of my sleeve an "explanation" for everything. But my main interest is in the most basic entry point for this knowledge, the existence of etheric-physical matter. This is immediately relevant, which your question isn't.


We psychics must stand our ground and defeat the evil skepticists, who just defeated the evil Christians, who defeated the evil Roman polytheists!
No, seriously, we need some standards for discussion, and mainly a mutual respect on both sides. I tried to demonstrate this here.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:aiia wrote:Arj

Luminon wrote:


aiia wrote:

Arj wrote:
 yet I do believe in the existence of an After Life, reincarnation, and spirit beings.

So then I ask, after our sun, as predicted, becomes a Red Giant and consumes all the planets, where will this thing you think gets reincarnated go???

 

How can he know this?

It is not known that the sun will turn into a red giant. It is a theoretical forecast based on science.

Quote:
Even if yes (I do) how can he or me answer in a way meaningful for you?

 You can't because there is nothing to base it on. There is no evidence of reincarnation.

Quote:
This knowledge

There is no knowledge of reincarnation.

Quote:
I'd have to refer to is extensive, and to you, it would look like I can just pull out of my sleeve an "explanation" for everything.

Because there is no evidence.

Quote:
But my main interest is in the most basic entry point for this knowledge, the existence of etheric-physical matter.

There is no knowledge of reincarnation.

Quote:
This is immediately relevant, which your question isn't.

The inability to answer my question is significant in that it points out the absurdity of the idea.


Quote:
We psychics

You are not a psychic. You might be...um...what's that other word?

Quote:
must stand our ground

You have nothing to stand on.

Quote:
and defeat the evil skepticists

You demonstrate a lack of objectivity.

Quote:
who just defeated the evil Christians, who defeated the evil Roman polytheists

Reason has demonstrated that these beliefs are without basis.


Quote:
No, seriously, we need some standards for discussion, and mainly a mutual respect on both sides. I tried to demonstrate this here.

 

I refuse to respect an empty naked assertion.

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


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:It is notknown

aiia wrote:
It is not

known

that the sun will turn into a red giant. It is a

theoretical

forecast based on science.


The subject of your question wasn't the sun. It was 'where will this thing you think gets reincarnated go???' Please stay on topic.

 

aiia wrote:
There is no knowledge of reincarnation.
Because there is no evidence.
There is no knowledge of reincarnation.
The inability to answer my question is significant in that it points out the absurdity of the idea.

What? The answer on your question is "reincarnation on outer planets, in etheric-material bodies."
The absurdity of this idea is ony your personal feeling, just as absurd was flying, 200 years ago.
The evidence is - only you don't have it, and according to the theory of discussion on metaphysical topics, that's your fault and your problem. Why, I demonstrated it on that link in my signature. I've lived for all my life in a house full of evidence (hundreds of regression therapy clients were here) and full of books describing the reincarnation into detail, theoretically and practically, so don't make a fool of yourself. Isn't it like sticking your fingers into your ears and humming loudly? Anyway, it's silly.

aiia wrote:
You are not a psychic. You might be...um...what's that other word?
You have nothing to stand on.
You demonstrate a lack of objectivity.
Reason has demonstrated that these beliefs are without basis.
You probably didn't notice that ROFL smiley next to this. Man, it was a fuckin' intellectual joke. But you're now in your childish mode.
Every new idea must overcome a resistence, and so the revolutionaries may find themselves on the place of obscurants they had overthrown. This is the point of this joke.

aiia wrote:
Quote:
No, seriously, we need some standards for discussion, and mainly a mutual respect on both sides. I tried to demonstrate this here.
I refuse to respect an empty naked assertion.
Me too. This is why I gathered a plenty of personal evidence, but I did it by myself, and so must you, if you ever want any evidence.
The theory of discussion on metaphysical topics says so.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Man, I left this discussion

Man, I left this discussion in the dust several days AND several posts ago...Lum...I said science makes them just as dense as it does educated...Butter admitted, "Clearly he's saying we should discount his experiences because of OUR PERSONAL BIAS...." And I readily agreed.

I thought the discovery of non-theism would be a more freeing experience...instead it sames as though everyone is held captive by their own self-destructive, temperamental, maladjustment.

 

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


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:The subject of

Luminon wrote:

The subject of your question wasn't the sun. It was 'where will this thing you think gets reincarnated go???' Please stay on topic.

Ok I'll change it. Here you go:
aiia wrote:
Luminon wrote:
aiia wrote:
Arj wrote:
yet I do believe in the existence of an After Life, reincarnation, and spirit beings.
So then I ask, after our sun, as predicted, becomes a Red Giant and consumes all the planets, where will this thing you think gets reincarnated go???
How can he know this?
Arj DOES NOT KNOW SHIT!
IS THAT BETTER?

Quote:
aiia wrote:
There is no knowledge of reincarnation.
Because there is no evidence.
There is no knowledge of reincarnation.
The inability to answer my question is significant in that it points out the absurdity of the idea.

What? The answer on your question is "reincarnation on outer planets, in etheric-material bodies."
The absurdity of this idea is ony your personal feeling, just as absurd was flying, 200 years ago.
The evidence is - only you don't have it, and according to the theory of discussion on metaphysical topics, that's your fault and your problem. Why, I demonstrated it on that link in my signature. I've lived for all my life in a house full of evidence (hundreds of regression therapy clients were here) and full of books describing the reincarnation into detail, theoretically and practically, so don't make a fool of yourself. Isn't it like sticking your fingers into your ears and humming loudly? Anyway, it's silly.

Show us the evidence, otherwise you're just talking out of your ass.

Quote:
aiia wrote:
You are not a psychic. You might be...um...what's that other word?
You have nothing to stand on.
You demonstrate a lack of objectivity.
Reason has demonstrated that these beliefs are without basis.
You probably didn't notice that ROFL smiley next to this. Man, it was a fuckin' intellectual joke.

I ignored the rofl icon because I do not see anything to laugh about except your ignorance and thats not funny; its sad.

Quote:
Every new idea must overcome a resistence

Your delusional ideas are not new. They've been around for centuries and there is no basis for the persistance of these ideas other than delusion.

Quote:
and so the revolutionaries may find themselves on the place of obscurants they had overthrown. This is the point of this joke.

The joke is you.

Quote:
aiia wrote:
Quote:
No, seriously, we need some standards for discussion

We have standards:  reason and evidence. You employ neither.

Quote:
and mainly a mutual respect on both sides. I tried to demonstrate this here.
I refuse to respect an empty naked assertion.
Me too.

You too? You're lying because you are trying to promote pschic paranormal superstitious hogwash. I'm imagining you traveling town to town in a covered wagon pulled by a team of horses to set up your palm-reading tents with the crystal ball and a big sign out front that says: "Your future told here. Magic performed in front of your very eyes"

Quote:
This is why I gathered a plenty of personal evidence, but I did it by myself, and so must you, if you ever want any evidence.

Personal experiences is not evidence of your pschic paranormal superstitious hogwash. Your personal experiences are evidence that you are having delusions.

Quote:
The theory of discussion on metaphysical topics says so.

What is the ontology of reincarnation? Of pschic "abilities"? Of "etheric-material bodies"? HUH? You don't know what you're talking about.

I'll give you a clue: SCIENTIFIC METHOD Read about it.

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


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:Arj DOES NOT KNOW

aiia wrote:
Arj DOES NOT KNOW SHIT!
 

Hey, LOL, I will gladly pretend like I don't know shit just so you can say "you won this "debate" (in which we were all in agreement about subjectivity). I've made this argument from the beginning, it seemed like that's all you really wanted to accomplish anyway.


 

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


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Please remove the link to

Please remove the link to your site from your signature, unless you want to pay to advertise it

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:Man, I left this

Arj wrote:
Man, I left this discussion in the dust several days AND several posts ago...Lum...I said science makes them just as dense as it does educated...Butter admitted, "Clearly he's saying we should discount his experiences because of OUR PERSONAL BIAS...." And I readily agreed.

Context. Context.

You misinterpreted my comment again. When I stated that, I was referring to your claim. Your perspective on this issue was that DG and others were ignoring your subjective evidence because of their personal bias.

Although this always occurs to a certain extent, for a scientist like DG, this is simply negligible. This conclusion can be reached through observation and analysis of 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
butterbattle wrote:Arj

butterbattle wrote:

Arj wrote:
Man, I left this discussion in the dust several days AND several posts ago...Lum...I said science makes them just as dense as it does educated...Butter admitted, "Clearly he's saying we should discount his experiences because of OUR PERSONAL BIAS...." And I readily agreed.

Context. Context.

You misinterpreted my comment again. When I stated that, I was referring to your claim. Your perspective on this issue was that DG and others were ignoring your subjective evidence because of their personal bias.

Although this always occurs to a certain extent, for a scientist like DG, this is simply negligible. This conclusion can be reached through observation and analysis of objective evidence. 

If that's the case, then YOU misinterpreted me. I never said ignored. I think it's absolutely rational to be skeptical in lieu of this environment. It's dumb to think otherwise (but it is irrational to be consumed with so much hostility and rage). However, I said what's the point in begging the question when the same conclusion will not be reached BECAUSE this is just considered anecdotal evidence. Meaning, like I made plenty of examples in the posts prior, someone else will just say it's a shadow from a car, or a coincidence, or wishful thinking. That's not ignoring the evidence that's just seeing a different point of view. That's been my point from the VERY beginning. 

Please remember, (I've said this ALL along 2) I don't and have NEVER cared to "prove" shit to you or DG or anyone else. I don't give a fuck about what you consider "objective evidence". LOL. When will this dawn on you people? Because it seems as though it STILL hasn'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


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
I understand that just like

I understand that just like religion science can turn you into fanatical skeptics but does it also make you hard of hearing too?

‘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


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:I understand that

Arj wrote:

I understand that just like religion science can turn you into fanatical skeptics but does it also make you hard of hearing too?

 

What the hell is a fanatical skeptic?

Or is that just someone who doesnt consider 'experience' as evidence which I sure you will find covers 99% of rational people.

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
mrjonno wrote:What the hell

mrjonno wrote:
What the hell is a fanatical skeptic?

Or is that just someone who doesnt consider 'experience' as evidence which I sure you will find covers 99% of rational people.

A fanatical skeptic is a person who doesn't approve an emotional arguments, which is good, but is unable to work mentally with abstract ideals and also intuitively, which is a handicap.
- A fanatical skeptic knows who you are, what you do or don't do or think, better than you. So much, that you've got no idea, that you'd ever do or think something like that. He also knows what is possible and what isn't and never will be. Ever.
- A fanatical skeptics believes in powerful gods of Sensoric deception, Coincidence, and a Meteorologic balloon. Those gods are responsible for everything between Heaven and Earth, including Heaven.
- A fanatical skeptics doesn't trust himself and his senses, but that's a sign of hypocrisy, because every time he sees UFO or has a mystical vision, his senses lies to him, and yet they are good enough to save his life every time every day on traffic lights.
- A fanatical skeptic will not do obvious and important things, before he's able to logically prove them first, or if they're not said precisely enough for a scientific work. For example, you can't warn him "that big cat is gonna eat you, run!" because he will only refute your ridiculous statement, based on your poor knowledge of zoology. You've got to say "There's a malnourished panthera tigris tigris,  northwest from you, relocate quickly!" But honestly, you've got better to not say anything.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Wildest thread I remember

Wildest thread I remember reading at RRS.

Bob Spence summed it up pretty well for me. The mind creates imagination, understanding how is science. Let's get a hold of ourselves, and test our ideas, regardless of how emotional.

"Reincarnation", now so perverted by imaginative folklore, has been abandoned as a useful word of communication by many eastern philosophers, which was simply an early intuition of thermodynamics, and was not a belief that consciousness would stay assembled as an individual.

"Karma", same thing. Project and receive, good or bad, basically true and simple.

Keep the "awe", get rid of magical beliefs and dogma by understanding how our minds and the cosmos works. Go science.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:mrjonno

Luminon wrote:

mrjonno wrote:
What the hell is a fanatical skeptic?

Or is that just someone who doesnt consider 'experience' as evidence which I sure you will find covers 99% of rational people.

A fanatical skeptic is a person who doesn't approve an emotional arguments, which is good, but is unable to work mentally with abstract ideals and also intuitively, which is a handicap.

Don't see that one. In fact, I think many of the errors of the religious/psychic mindset are due to a failure to appreciate that 'abstract ideals' are very crucial aspects of the 'naturalistic' world-view, but really are abstract, and don't somehow float around as ' things' in some 'higher plane', like the ancient fallacy of Platonic Idealism. This error is seen every time someone accuses us of 'materialism', and of believing there is nothing but 'matter'. It is related to the concept of the 'soul', where I accept it as a truly abstract idea, almost a metaphor, as a way to refer to a certain collection of aspects of an individual's personality, and approach to life. Whereas commonly a soul seems to be thought of as a 'thing' composed of some astral 'stuff', which really can float away from our ordinary physical bodies. There was even that classic attempt to find the mass of the soul, alledgedly found to be 21 grams, by weighing the body before and after the moment of death. That, to me, demonstrates that many people are more 'materialistic' than many who reject the super natural 'realm', which is another version of the failure to grasp the concept of the truly abstract.

Intution is a essential part of our mental processes, the error is in  failing to recognise how it can be profoundly mistaken at least as much as it can be a conduit for some great insight. Until tested in some way against actual rigorous reasoning based on some evidence separate from the intuitive process itself, there is no way to judge, at least when it does not fit in with current experience and knowledge. Some intuitions are immediately verifiable, as when we suddenly think of a new way to approach some problem we are wrestling with, and it works when we try it.

A big lesson we gain from the history of science is just how often some aspect of reality is shown by rigorous testing to be utterly counter-intuitive. Quantum Mechanics is the most obvious example of this.

Quote:


- A fanatical skeptic knows who you are, what you do or don't do or think, better than you. So much, that you've got no idea, that you'd ever do or think something like that. He also knows what is possible and what isn't and never will be. Ever.

A fanatic is someone who holds to opinions rigidly and will not question them - that is hard to apply to a skepticism, its almost an oxymoron.

Although we have to recognise that someone else may well understand some aspect of your thinking and personality better than you do. That is quite common.

Quote:

- A fanatical skeptics believes in powerful gods of Sensoric deception, Coincidence, and a Meteorologic balloon. Those gods are responsible for everything between Heaven and Earth, including Heaven.

It may be possible to go overboard in insisting on such classic explanations for reported paranormal phenomena, but the steadfast refusal of the committed believer to consider a whole slew of plausible mundane explanations seems far more common.

Quote:

- A fanatical skeptics doesn't trust himself and his senses, but that's a sign of hypocrisy, because every time he sees UFO or has a mystical vision, his senses lies to him, and yet they are good enough to save his life every time every day on traffic lights.

Now is a just a silly caricature. Someone who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge all the ways our senses are limited is the one with the problem.

This sounds like a classic false dichotomy, a failure to acknowledge a spectrum of states. Just because we acknowledge that our senses are imperfect, that does not mean we believe they are useless.

The intelligent person realizes that while our senses are not perfect, they do convey reasonably reliable information about the external world in normal circumstances, as with traffic lights, but when confronted with unfamiliar sights, sounds, etc can be very misleading, as our brain tries to subconsciously find some way to match it with existing experience and ideas. Get back to me when you can give as solid physical verification for an external reality behind mystical visions and UFO's as for traffic lights.

Your 'argument; in that statement is not worthy of you, seriously.

Science has devoted much effort to allowing us to compensate for and augment our direct physical senses.

Quote:

- A fanatical skeptic will not do obvious and important things, before he's able to logically prove them first, or if they're not said precisely enough for a scientific work. For example, you can't warn him "that big cat is gonna eat you, run!" because he will only refute your ridiculous statement, based on your poor knowledge of zoology. You've got to say "There's a malnourished panthera tigris tigris,  northwest from you, relocate quickly!" But honestly, you've got better to not say anything.

That is just a feeble attempt at humor. You seem to be giving vent to a deep frustration at our refusal to take your ideas very seriously. Your attempt to insist that we need to revise our methods of logic and reasoning sounds tediously similar to the Theist's assertion that you can't use science and logic to disprove 'God'....

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:A fanatical

Luminon wrote:
A fanatical skeptic is a person who doesn't approve an emotional arguments, which is good, but is unable to work mentally with abstract ideals and also intuitively, which is a handicap.

Being skeptical is a handicap? How does downplaying the validity and importance of an emotional argument prevent one from working with abstract ideals? 

Quote:
A fanatical skeptic knows who you are, what you do or don't do or think, better than you.

I don't know if I'm a fanatical skeptic, but I certainly don't know you as well as you do. How did you come up with this definition?

Quote:
So much, that you've got no idea, that you'd ever do or think something like that. He also knows what is possible and what isn't and never will be. Ever.

I assume what is plausible based on what I know. 

Quote:
A fanatical skeptics believes in powerful gods of Sensoric deception, Coincidence, and a Meteorologic balloon. Those gods are responsible for everything between Heaven and Earth, including Heaven.

I was under the impression that a fanatical skeptic wouldn't believe in heaven. Am I interpreting this incorrectly?

It must feel fulfilling to depict our senses and logic as Gods, but that doesn't change what they are. Humans must depend on these things because these are the only reliable methods by which we can explore the world. 

A fundamentalist type belief in coincidence would suggest that we must cling to any unlikely succession of events as a coincidence. I don't think this is case with most of the people on this forum. You have to carefully observe such happenings and make logical conclusions based on your investigations to determine whether or not it is a coincidence. 

Quote:
A fanatical skeptics doesn't trust himself and his senses, but that's a sign of hypocrisy, because every time he sees UFO or has a mystical vision, his senses lies to him, and yet they are good enough to save his life every time every day on traffic lights.

Okay, now this is getting ridiculous. 

We can all travel to the nearest traffic light and watch it. We can take pictures and record its changes. On the other hand, I doubt I you could show me one reliable video of a UFO sighting. Am I saying there are no UFOs? Of course not, but based on what I know now, I think it is rational for me to, by default, doubt the veracity of any claims of confrontations with extraterrestrials. The main problem is that claims of the supernatural are the anomaly, not the norm. Furthermore, these claims are virtually always debunked after careful analysis. Just like with religion, the proponents have the obligation to submit evidence, not the skeptics. 

Quote:
A fanatical skeptic will not do obvious and important things, before he's able to logically prove them first, or if they're not said precisely enough for a scientific work. For example, you can't warn him "that big cat is gonna eat you, run!" because he will only refute your ridiculous statement, based on your poor knowledge of zoology. You've got to say "There's a malnourished panthera tigris tigris,  northwest from you, relocate quickly!" But honestly, you've got better to not say anything.

Huh? So a fanatical skeptic will just stand there and let the tiger eat him? I don't understand your point.

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
A skeptic is a person that

A skeptic is a person that doubts and questions. Yet, in your definition, a fanatical skeptic is a person that rigidly follows a set of beliefs, "powerful gods of Sensoric deception, Coincidence, and a Meteorologic balloon." This doesn't seem to follow.

Perhaps "skeptic" is the wrong word to use.

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If I could be said to a

If I could be said to a 'rigid' belief, it is that for something to be treated as very likely to be true, it should be supported by independent evidence, evidence not just originating in my own mind, and not based purely on 'authority', although sources with a good relevant 'track record' will score more highly. What my own thoughts contribute is examining the evidence and arguments for consistency and coherence.

Not quite sure how you could provide 'evidence' that this is an invalid belief...

So I am happy to be called 'fanatical' for refusing to change this belief.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Being

butterbattle wrote:

Being skeptical is a handicap? How does downplaying the validity and importance of an emotional argument prevent one from working with abstract ideals?

By thinking that there is nothing better than so-called rational thought. For this thinking, thoughts are things.
Let me remind you of the division of human thinking. Emotionality doesn't care about being justified or not and good for us, or not, it controls us. The rational thought differs the logically false thoughts from true, thus an emotional argument doesn't have any weight here. The idealistic thinking is very abstract compared to that, and works with abstract ideals like the good or evil, which a strictly logical thinking doesn't know. Next, there is an intuition, which has no rational basis, but still may be true, it doesn't use a rational process at all, and yet it's an important thing in research, for example.
The rational thought is a good thing, but it also makes it diffcult to employ also the higher qualities in the process of thinking, because it's so good, that it tempts to think that there is nothing better we can do. For example, an intelligent scientist may create a deadly weapon, not caring if our war-ridden world actually needs that.

butterbattle wrote:
I assume what is plausible based on what I know. 
Good, this means you're not a fanatical skeptic. He would assume that I can't possibly know more than him, so what I say has no rational basis.

butterbattle wrote:
I was under the impression that a fanatical skeptic wouldn't believe in heaven. Am I interpreting this incorrectly?
He would believe that all kinds of visions or impressions of Heaven and related things are made by one  of gods, the Sensoric deception. Even if he's having the visions by himself. I knew such a man. Regardless if it's Heavenly work or not, such an approach doesn't lead to finding out anything more about the subject.

butterbattle wrote:
  It must feel fulfilling to depict our senses and logic as Gods, but that doesn't change what they are. Humans must depend on these things because these are the only reliable methods by which we can explore the world. 

A fundamentalist type belief in coincidence would suggest that we must cling to any unlikely succession of events as a coincidence. I don't think this is case with most of the people on this forum. You have to carefully observe such happenings and make logical conclusions based on your investigations to determine whether or not it is a coincidence.


That's a good sign, they might be not a fanatical skeptics, but still, it doesn't make anybody nearly prepared to when someone breaks the coincidence. I observe amazing things for all my life, and yet they have an impression that I must have missed something, that I observed carelessly, or that it's only me who can see what I see. Actually I fixed these flaws long ago, but nobody accepts that.
 

butterbattle wrote:
Okay, now this is getting ridiculous.
Of course it is, it should by now. The first sentence was deadly serious, the next are getting increasingly satiric.

butterbattle wrote:
  We can all travel to the nearest traffic light and watch it. We can take pictures and record its changes. On the other hand, I doubt I you could show me one reliable video of a UFO sighting. Am I saying there are no UFOs? Of course not, but based on what I know now, I think it is rational for me to, by default, doubt the veracity of any claims of confrontations with extraterrestrials. The main problem is that claims of the supernatural are the anomaly, not the norm. Furthermore, these claims are virtually always debunked after careful analysis. Just like with religion, the proponents have the obligation to submit evidence, not the skeptics.
The proponents are truly obliged to submit an evidence, but to themselves, in the first place. In a conversation with Christians, it's obvious they doesn't have any evidence, just an emotional clinging to a book. But everyone else, if they have an evidence (though personal) then they're obliged to act according to it, even if the rest of world is opposed to it. For the first time in history, it looks like the claims about the anomaly actually becomes a norm. (it certainly is where I live) If there are any norms in there, any regular occurence of it, we're obliged to take it as evidence for something. The point is, that if a rational person speaks of anomalous events, then these events are substantial enough to pass through the rational scrutiny. I wouldn't speak of unsure glimpses of a ghost, low-level coincidences, or irregular feelings. All this can be ignored, because it's not substantial, but I always mean events, which are so substantial, that they can't be ignored. I'd like to see a fanatical skeptic how he would deal with that.
 

butterbattle wrote:

Huh? So a fanatical skeptic will just stand there and let the tiger eat him? I don't understand your point.

It's a purely satiric metaphor, demonstrating an unpracticality of strictly rational thinking. In our lives we must cope with many circumstances we don't have a rational understanding of. It is, because a normal skeptic knows, that there are things he doesn't know, but for which he must be prepared nonetheless. A real life doesn't speak in latin, or in mathemathic formulas. If a person knows everything, then he would understand that everything is logical, but with an imperfect knowledge, some things seems illogical, and yet they exists. We must thus work with imperfect knowledge when we don't have any better, because it's a beginning for a real knowledge, and it's more rational than to do nothing at all.


 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Don't see

BobSpence1 wrote:

Don't see that one. In fact, I think many of the errors of the religious/psychic mindset are due to a failure to appreciate that 'abstract ideals' are very crucial aspects of the 'naturalistic' world-view, but really are abstract, and don't somehow float around as ' things' in some 'higher plane', like the ancient fallacy of Platonic Idealism. This error is seen every time someone accuses us of 'materialism', and of believing there is nothing but 'matter'. It is related to the concept of the 'soul', where I accept it as a truly abstract idea, almost a metaphor, as a way to refer to a certain collection of aspects of an individual's personality, and approach to life. Whereas commonly a soul seems to be thought of as a 'thing' composed of some astral 'stuff', which really can float away from our ordinary physical bodies. There was even that classic attempt to find the mass of the soul, alledgedly found to be 21 grams, by weighing the body before and after the moment of death. That, to me, demonstrates that many people are more 'materialistic' than many who reject the super natural 'realm', which is another version of the failure to grasp the concept of the truly abstract.

By abstract ideals I mean things like justice, freedom, brotherhood, public benefit (though this is a bit sinister ideal) and so on. These are abstract thoughts, and to employ them in reality, they must be expressed in a specific, rational thoughts, which is often a problem. Justice for who, who first, who will judge and how, and who will pay him and watch him? These are the practical questions which arises.
Indeed, to this abstract category also belongs things like a soul, this is why many mystics speaks of it. This is the initial idea, but if this idea should be practically manifested in physical form, then it takes a form of esoteric teachings about spiritual 'realms'. You're correct, many such people are materialists, they just differ three states of dense physical matter, four kinds of etheric matter, seven kinds of astral matter, and so on. For them, there's nothing supernatural about it. Fortunately I am sensitive to a part of the influences on the etheric level, so I know that at least this part is a functional model. Maybe what I describe as the etheric matter, is nothing else than a dark matter, known from astrophysics, and I'd welcome an evidence for that. But for other people, it takes a great deal of idealism to come to the same conclusion. It's amazing how they can find out that there is 'something', even if they can't touch or see it. Note that it contains no emotional persuasion, like a fear or a reward.
It's also good if someone else, like you, is able to hypothetically consider this idea, without squirming by an uncomfortable irrationality of this thought.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Intution is a essential part of our mental processes, the error is in  failing to recognise how it can be profoundly mistaken at least as much as it can be a conduit for some great insight. Until tested in some way against actual rigorous reasoning based on some evidence separate from the intuitive process itself, there is no way to judge, at least when it does not fit in with current experience and knowledge. Some intuitions are immediately verifiable, as when we suddenly think of a new way to approach some problem we are wrestling with, and it works when we try it.

Right. However, an intuition can be trained. There's a futurologic theory, that rational processes, like computing a numbers, or a logical processes will become natural and sub-conscious, and we will consciously work with intuition as a main tool of the mind.

BobSpence1 wrote:
A big lesson we gain from the history of science is just how often some aspect of reality is shown by rigorous testing to be utterly counter-intuitive. Quantum Mechanics is the most obvious example of this.

I think this is a bad example, because it seems very natural that people like Erwin Schröedinger or Niels Bohr had drawn a parallels from quantum mechanics to mysticism, which nowadays resulted in the quantum mysticism. This seems like a very intuitive act.

BobSpence1 wrote:
 
Quote:
  - A fanatical skeptic knows who you are, what you do or don't do or think, better than you. So much, that you've got no idea, that you'd ever do or think something like that. He also knows what is possible and what isn't and never will be. Ever.

A fanatic is someone who holds to opinions rigidly and will not question them - that is hard to apply to a skepticism, its almost an oxymoron.

Although we have to recognise that someone else may well understand some aspect of your thinking and personality better than you do. That is quite common.

You're correct. But in my experience, so far, the only precise observations about me were how well I'm doing at an office work. (not well, actually) But practically all evaluation of my hobby were rather primitive appeals to illusion, faith or a lack of criticism. If it would be a correct evaluation, I would either accept it, because it's so precise, or get angry, because it's so precisely pointing out the flaws. I often accept a more perfect formulations, so I'm able to recognize if someone actually has the point about this topic, but most of the skeptic evaluations works only with me and dozens of people around who lives, works and has families, as being utterly crazy. This is not the case, so this evaluations fails.

BobSpence1 wrote:
 

It may be possible to go overboard in insisting on such classic explanations for reported paranormal phenomena, but the steadfast refusal of the committed believer to consider a whole slew of plausible mundane explanations seems far more common.

Well, possibly. But if I think that the group U.F.O.'s I saw didn't look like a meteorological ballon, then I must say it. The balloons aren't that big, doesn't glow, doesn't change colors, doesn't stay at one place for many minutes, and doesn't disappear.
 

BobSpence1 wrote:
 

Now is a just a silly caricature. Someone who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge all the ways our senses are limited is the one with the problem.

This sounds like a classic false dichotomy, a failure to acknowledge a spectrum of states. Just because we acknowledge that our senses are imperfect, that does not mean we believe they are useless.

The intelligent person realizes that while our senses are not perfect, they do convey reasonably reliable information about the external world in normal circumstances, as with traffic lights, but when confronted with unfamiliar sights, sounds, etc can be very misleading, as our brain tries to subconsciously find some way to match it with existing experience and ideas. Get back to me when you can give as solid physical verification for an external reality behind mystical visions and UFO's as for traffic lights.

Your 'argument; in that statement is not worthy of you, seriously.

Surely, a faint glimpses of something strange can't be really compared to a normal function of senses. What I mean are clear observations in normal state (like not drunk), which deserves the same evaluation, as a normal observation of any other thing. I had met a skeptics, who tried to bend or  omit an important details of my descriptions so that it would fit to some trivial explanation of theirs.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
 

That is just a feeble attempt at humor. You seem to be giving vent to a deep frustration at our refusal to take your ideas very seriously. Your attempt to insist that we need to revise our methods of logic and reasoning sounds tediously similar to the Theist's assertion that you can't use science and logic to disprove 'God'....

Surely it is a satire.  But I'm not threatening theistically anyone with an eternal suffering in Hell, or God forbid, by eternal boredom in Heaven. I live with being consciously aware of a certain aspects of reality, which a majority of other people isn't aware of. This gives me a certain responsibility to those who wants their model of reality to be perfect. I have  one of many pieces missing in their mosaic of the world, and I search where it fits in there. Maybe somewehere, where the mosaic isn't built yet, but hopefully will be soon. It surely sounds like a reference to one book of the Strugacki Brothers, where one of characters spoke about a philosophic idea how every generation builds a beautiful temple of human knowledge, which is here for all the humanity.

As for the methods of logics and reasoning, these are OK, but the scientific institution might use some kind of deep shock, a paradigm shift, because they neglect a very valuable methods and resources which could make the scientific work more sophisticated and faster. Some of esoteric teachings (like the existence of etheric matter) are a functional models, they only need do be proven by science, expressed in scientific terms.
As for the science as such, there is an exaggerated rate of specialization. A specialist is maybe good at his particular sub-branch of his genre of his field, but the true nature of the reality is, that everything is connected to everything, and a specialist fails to see these clues for his work in other areas of knowledge. If the scientific practice will improve, it will also be in a greater universality of the scientists themselves.

 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Abstract ideas and

Abstract ideas and imagination are in no way a bar to being a rational person. In the fact the best scientists must possess it. You become irrational when you fail to follow your imagination and ideas with logic and reason

Einstein inspiration is what lead to Relativity hardly a non-abstract idea but it was his genius that lead to evidence of it.

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Luminon, re UFO's, I hope

Luminon, re UFO's, I hope you are aware that weather balloons are hardly the only explanation presented for UFO sightings. I was curious when I first read your reference to weather balloons in your list of skeptic's Gods, since I hadn't seen you talking about UFO phenomena before. Took me a while to realize you may have lumped UFO's in to your grab-bag of topics that you see being unfairly attacked by skeptics.

There is significant evidence that the classic Roswell stuff may have been connected with US military reconaissance balloons aimed at monitoring Russian nuclear activities - I have actually seen the re,ains of one of these things in a Moscow museum.

Then there are militarty aircraft, reflections from formation of high flying birds when the sun is at certain low angles and relative directions, etc, etc.

I was prepared to allow your use of 'weather balloon' as a stand-in for mundane explanations of UFO's, but your apparent assumption that that was the only alternative explanation for your personal sighting is a bit disappointing. It suggests you have not read enough of the writings of the more reasonable skeptics to fully grasp the 'other side'. Have you listened to/read much of Joe Nickell or Phil Plait?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
I can't believe this is all

I can't believe this is all of a sudden a debate. Everybody knows what I mean by FANATICAL SKEPTIC. If you don't, then you  are the one that is playing dumb.

...Basically, you can have a- it's you AGAINST the world (pure speculation and a bit paranoid and superstitious)..... my knowledge is superior to their knowledge (even though you just stated there is a "large growing body of [evidence]" that might even eclipse yours one day)... You are either an atheist or your "dumb" (false dichotomy)- mentality; But it's just AS primitive, trivial and POINTLESS as you stated. That was my point.....

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15775

I should re title this thread to Fanatical Skepticism.  Then everyone could stop playing dumb when they claim to know so much more then 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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:I can't believe

Arj wrote:
I can't believe this is all of a sudden a debate. Everybody knows what I mean by FANATICAL SKEPTIC. If you don't, then you  are the one that is playing dumb....I should re title this thread to Fanatical Skepticism.  Then everyone could stop playing dumb when they claim to know so much more then me.

For a non-theist, you're an extremely arrogant little kid aren't you? Don't get your panties in a knot again.

If you can cite an official definition for fanatical skeptic, that would be helpful, but you haven't. In fact, I doubt there is any official definition since it's a phrase instead of one word, and I've never even come across this term before. As a result, it is certainly up for subjective interpretation, especially given its virtually oxymoronic connotations. The action of clinging to a set of beliefs simply doesn't match up with the definition of the word skepticism itself. Thus, I'm terribly sorry, but your words are not the law, no matter how many times you underline and capitalize them. You need to refer to evidence or construct logical arguments instead of debating from the authority of yourself.   

In essence, you are insinuating that we are dumb because we didn't automatically read your mind and spout exactly what you would say. Obviously, you are already making the assumption that your interpretation is 100%, HIV positively, correct. Is it possible, Arj, that not everything in language is absolute?

1) You automatically jump to infallible positions.

2) You repeatedly contradict yourself and then you claim that you had been spouting the opinions of the people you are debating all along. Even though you originally called them deluded, irrational, dumbasses, morons, etc.  

3) You utilize a kind of strange doublethink where you admit that people are smarter than you while claiming that you are superior to everyone else. 

4) You refuse to admit it when you make a mistake. When you disagree with many of the posters with college degrees, the natural conclusion is that you are right and they are stupid.

Finally, many of the people on this forum have been extremely respectful to you, (I'm not included) yet you will not hesitate at any opportunity to call everyone an idiot. Yup, you're the kind of person that is very susceptible to religion. The only reason you're not completely religious is because of the influence of your family and environment. Well, at least you believe in an afterlife. 

 

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
Ok. Since you don't

Ok. Since you don't understand "fanatical skepticism" (I was being nice) how about the term radical atheism? The brutality, partiality, and animosity in this forum could mirror the bigotry of the KKK.... easy.

‘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:Finally,

butterbattle wrote:

Finally, many of the people on this forum have been extremely respectful to you, (I'm not included) yet you will not hesitate at any opportunity to call everyone an idiot. Yup, you're the kind of person that is very susceptible to religion. The only reason you're not completely religious is because of the influence of your family and environment. Well, at least you believe in an afterlife. 

 

This is a DAMN lie. I can count on all of two fingers how many people have been respectful of other people's beliefs. And I agree. You are not included. And I haven't made a mistake in my beliefs. I said I'm not here to prove myself and it seemed like no one could hear me. So who made the error here? Especially when you concluded that that would be nonsense.

‘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
And, the evidence is there.

And, the evidence is there. Way back on post 7. I made this claim.

Arj wrote:

DamnDirtyApe wrote:

Arj wrote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

And that has been what we were arguing about this ENTIRE time. To try and force someone to "prove themselves" at the moment they say "Hello" is completely asinine.  I thought I posted this thread in the "Good Conversation, Introduction, and Humor" section.  This wasn't a debate and you can't deny that you and other RRS members turned it into one. 

 

But yet again, I'm the one who is suppose to be illogical here.... yeah. right. I buy that just like you buy into the theory of god.

‘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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ahh I see Arj, you are

Ahh I see Arj, you are equating 'not respecting a person's beliefs' with 'not respecting the person'.

Well, we do make that distinction, and will make no apologies for not taking your belief seriously.

You seem to regard our pointing what we honestly believe are the mistakes and errors in your beliefs as 'not treating you with respect'.

You in reponse not only make clear that you do not accept our beliefs, which is fine with us, we want people to come on and tell us exactly what they see as wrong with our beliefs and world-views, we don't expect everyone to 'respect' our beliefs.

What we don't approve of is straight out insults, 'ad hominem' attacks, which you have made at at least as much as anyone from this 'side'.

Are you really that insecure in your beliefs that you react so violently to any questioning of them? Is that why you aren't intereating in actually debating them? You afraid you may not be able to defend them? Because that is at least a reasonable conclusion to draw from your behaviour here.

Were those examples supposed to justify your claim that the "brutality, partiality, and animosity in this forum could mirror the bigotry of the KKK." ?

Oh, and 'radical atheist' is more intelligible label and less offensive (at least to me) than 'fanatical skeptic'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Out of caring, atheist

  Hey Arj, Out of caring, atheist story Jesus called his friend Peter Satan, and the temple church people blind hypocrites, vipers and snakes etc ....

Expect that which is ridiculous to be ridiculed.

"The trouble with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves and wiser people are so full of doubts" -- a modern christ , Bertrand Russell.  

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. ~ George Orwell

  Get pissed at religion, please please ......

      What do you mean "Mean Atheists" ??? , see the list at left, down a bit, and home page, "Positive Atheism"

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/qnavfiltop.htm

  I love you more ....   Me god, earth name , Mark, atheist.   

 


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Ahh I see

BobSpence1 wrote:

Ahh I see Arj, you are equating 'not respecting a person's beliefs' with 'not respecting the person'.

No I'm not. You don't know me as a person so how could I get those two confused? First, I'm a woman and everybody's been calling me a dude and I have yet to address that because I'm not OFFENDED by that obvious PERSONAL assumption. That contradicts your theory. I am strictly talking about how my beliefs are being disrespected in the introduction section.

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

Well, we do make that distinction, and will make no apologies for not taking your belief seriously. 

That's my point. I don't recall asking you to.

BobSpence1 wrote:
You in reponse not only make clear that you do not accept our beliefs, which is fine with us, we want people to come on and tell us exactly what they see as wrong with our beliefs and world-views, we don't expect everyone to 'respect' our beliefs.

If that were the case, then this debate wouldn't be 200 posts deep. PERIOD.

BobSpence1 wrote:
What we don't approve of is straight out insults, 'ad hominem' attacks, which you have made at at least as much as anyone from this 'side'. 

Ok. So defending myself is the same thing as being the aggressor??? No wonder this plea rarely stands up in court.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Are you really that insecure in your beliefs that you react so violently to any questioning of them?

Arj wrote:
I never said ignored. I think it's absolutely rational to be skeptical in lieu of this environment. It's dumb to think otherwise (but it is irrational to be consumed with so much hostility and rage). However, I said what's the point in begging the question when the same conclusion will not be reached... Please remember, (I've said this ALL along 2) I don't and have NEVER cared to "prove" shit to you or DG or anyone else. I don't give a fuck about what you consider "objective evidence". LOL. When will this dawn on you people? Because it seems as though it STILL hasn't.

Skepticism and disrespect are TWO different things.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Is that why you aren't intereating in actually debating them? You afraid you may not be able to defend them? Because that is at least a reasonable conclusion to draw from your behaviour here.

No. This is why. "The trouble with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves and wiser people [APPEAR TO BE] so full of doubts" -- a modern christ , Bertrand Russell.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Were those examples supposed to justify your claim that the "brutality, partiality, and animosity in this forum could mirror the bigotry of the KKK." ?
No. I thought the fact that this debate is NOW 200 posts deep would prove that point.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Oh, and 'radical atheist' is more intelligible label and less offensive (at least to me) than 'fanatical skeptic'.
Great. I was hoping you would FINALLY get my point. For Atheists who claim to know so much, they sure like to play dumb when it's convenient.

Arj wrote:
  I understand that just like religion science can turn you into radical atheists but does it also make you hard of hearing too?
Just for 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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 Arj wrote:Ok. Since you

 

Arj wrote:
Ok. Since you don't understand "fanatical skepticism" (I was being nice)

No, I don't understand the meaning of this term at all. It might as well be gibberish. Or, perhaps, speaking in tongues?

Quote:
how about the term radical atheism?

This is the part where MattShizzle posts the cat image with the comment, "not this shit again."

Quote:
The brutality, partiality, and animosity in this forum could mirror the bigotry of the KKK.... easy.

Sure, this is what we do to theists.

http://www.prometheus6.org/files/lynch1.gif

Quote:
I can count on all of two fingers how many people have been respectful of other people's beliefs.

Lol, now we're debating semantics in mathematics. How many people does it take for it to count as "many?"

Quote:
I said I'm not here to prove myself and it seemed like no one could hear me.

Oh, they heard you loud and clear. The problem was that you were arguing that DeludedGod and others doubted your beliefs based on their personal experiences when their most crucial reasons for this skepticism were based on objective, testable evidence. Unbelievable miscommunication. However, you then argued that interpretation of objective evidence is subjective, to which DG responded...

deludedgod wrote:
This commits an ad hoc fallacy. Anyone could defend a faulty and poorly argued conclusion on the basis of the assertion that "reasoning is subjective" and people reach different conclusions. In other words, you've made a vacuous statement, which cannot be used to defend any form of justification.

But, then, you said...

Arj wrote:
How is this a fallacy when this is what u and a lot of ppl in this thread are guilty of? LOL.

Okay, so if other people commit the same fallacy, then it's no longer a fallacy.

Arj wrote:
You keep trying to tell me I need to prove myself to you with whatever YOU deem as evidence..... then you ignorantly and mistakenly ASSUME that your subjective reasoning will automatically eclipse MY beliefs and you don't see the irrationality of that mentality??? LOL

Okay, now you just made the same argument again without even actually addressing DG's response, which has already shown this to be a fallacy.  

Quote:
So who made the error here?

You.

Quote:
Especially when you concluded that that would be nonsense.

I stated something along the lines of, if you truly had impressive personal experiences, then it would be ludicrous for you to change your beliefs because of an Internet forum. Eh, something like that.

Quote:
This wasn't a debate and you can't deny that you and other RRS members turned it into one.
 

Well, of course we turned it into a debate. You came in with a slew of supernatural beliefs completely unsupported by objective evidence so we took it apart. True, you didn't want it to be a debate, but many people just didn't care. People on RRS tend to do that. If you're going to call us Nazis for expressing our opinion, then, by all means, fire away. We'll just have more material to debunk. 

By the way, if you really don't want to debate, then why are you still debating?

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
But that was my point. I'm

But that was my point. I'm not debating shit. Period. And y'all are mad at me for this very reason. What's not getting through to you here?????????????????????????????? I feel like I'm starting back at post one with all of this circular reasoning.

‘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:Well, of

butterbattle wrote:

Well, of course we turned it into a debate. You came in with a slew of supernatural beliefs completely unsupported by objective evidence so we took it apart. True, you didn't want it to be a debate, but many people just didn't care. People on RRS tend to do that. If you're going to call us Nazis for expressing our opinion, then, by all means, fire away. We'll just have more material to debunk. 

By the way, if you really don't want to debate, then why are you still debating?

And you didn't debunk ANYTHING. ONLY in your own minds. That's what I'm telling you. That's y you said this, "I stated something along the lines of, if you truly had impressive personal experiences, then it would be ludicrous for you to change your beliefs because of an Internet forum. Eh, something like that."

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Now when are YOU gonna realize this? I'll wait.

 

"The trouble with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves and wiser people [APPEAR TO BE] so full of doubts" -- Bertrand Russell.

‘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: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:"The trouble with

 

Quote:
"The trouble with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves and wiser people [APPEAR TO BE] so full of doubts" -- a modern christ , Bertrand Russell.

I am intrigued by the fact that you have posted this quote. I love this quote; in fact, I have it in one of my blogs on myspace. However, I am extremely suspicious as to why you typed "APPEAR TO BE" and enclosed it with brackets since this phrase is not in the original quote and changes the entire meaning of the sentence. 

I am also puzzled by the descriptor, "a modern christ," since he is non-theist.

Bertrand Russell wrote:
We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.

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
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:  Hey

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

  Hey Arj, Out of caring, atheist story Jesus called his friend Peter Satan, and the temple church people blind hypocrites, vipers and snakes etc ....

Expect that which is ridiculous to be ridiculed.

"The trouble with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves and wiser people are so full of doubts" -- a modern christ , Bertrand Russell.  

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. ~ George Orwell

  Get pissed at religion, please please ......

      What do you mean "Mean Atheists" ??? , see the list at left, down a bit, and home page, "Positive Atheism"

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/qnavfiltop.htm

  I love you more ....   Me god, earth name , Mark, atheist.   

 

I just copied and pasted it from IAMGOD's post. I just felt it was saying everything I had to say.

‘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