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
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:I am

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

I am curious too, LOL ... Let's never assume.

I'm not assuming I said I want to hear this scientific proof against the after life that you speak of.

‘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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Not assuming is OUR science.

Not assuming is OUR science. Actually a most simple concept where proof is required.

   Here is a little science site I think is revealing. I recommend the "Kids Corner" first. The whole site I've enjoyed, the videos too. Hey,  it is us at our best ....

"Live from CERN" - Antimatter : Mirror of the universe
http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/index.html

>>> CERN Site Map -
http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/site-map.html

 


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Not

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Not assuming is OUR science. Actually a most simple concept where proof is required.

   Here is a little science site I think is revealing. I recommend the "Kids Corner" first. The whole site I've enjoyed, the videos too. Hey,  it is us at our best ....

"Live from CERN" - Antimatter : Mirror of the universe
http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/index.html

>>> CERN Site Map -
http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/site-map.html

 

Oh my goodness. Are you talking about the occam's razor theory? How does that SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE (which is what you said you had, scientific evidence) that spirits don't exist??? I'll look at the links but so far it doesn't sound like scientific proof but an explanation built on SUBJECTIVE observation like all the rest.

‘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 AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Not

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Not assuming is OUR science. Actually a most simple concept where proof is required.

   Here is a little science site I think is revealing. I recommend the "Kids Corner" first. The whole site I've enjoyed, the videos too. Hey,  it is us at our best ....

"Live from CERN" - Antimatter : Mirror of the universe
http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/index.html

>>> CERN Site Map -
http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/site-map.html

Ok. I read the kid's section of the CERN site (I felt that's about all I would understand... baby steps) so you're saying antiparticles exists because it's been scientifically proven but scientists are trying to invent "antimatter" which happens to annihilate itself upon contact with it's physical "matter" counterpart (I don't see how this is physically possible given the definition, but ok)... I didn't read anything about the nonexistence of spirits in that article so I'm not making a connection here. Bear with me, I don't know the exact words I should use but when antimatter exists and is considered our "photo negative" imprint and is also labeled as condensed balls of ENERGY (If you've every read a spiritual help book or talked to a medium they say that's exactly what they see....I know my mom has described her encounters like that and so have I) how does this not equate to our spiritual bodies or essence? And once we die how come we can not revert back into what is termed as "antimatter" especially since our physical bodies remain here? If antimatter merged with matter annihilates on impact then where is it stored in the meantime? Because we are all still here but according to what was read this antimatter exists here too. I'm open so talk to me and please don't make ANY assumptions when responding to these questions (you said this was against your religion). I would like to know the facts. Thanks.   

‘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
Anti-matter has been well

Anti-matter has been well demonstrated to exist, as by far the best explanation for a whole bunch of experimental results and observations.

A particle and its matching anti-particle can meet and be transformed into the equivalent quantity of energy s per Einstein's equation E = mc^2. They can be generated in the collisions of energetic particles, as happens in particle accelerators.

You seem to be assuming 'anti-matter' is some sort of non-matter, immaterial matter, or something like that, but that is not what the term 'anti-matter' refers to in Physics, although if you are not familiar with particle physics, that is an understandable mistake.

They are both 'matter' in the physical sense, but with certain opposite/complementary properties which allow this to happen.

Occam's razor doesn't prove anything, of course, but it is a useful guide to choose between two offered 'explanations' - the one that makes the least assumptions is generally most likely to be close to the truth, and is best to run with, until another theory can be shown to explain more and/or has stronger evidence going for it.

IAGAY was just saying that we don't assume the existence of something, such as life after death, or the soul, and then have to disprove it.

It's up to you to provide evidence FOR such ideas. And it is not about PROOF in the strict sense, it's about weighing the evidence, as you yourself actually said in an earlier post....

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
No. I am not assuming

No. I am not assuming anything. I just had some questions. Why do I have the burden of proof when no one's presented me with scientific proof that disavows the spirit realm? Maybe people are googling it now. LOL.

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:Are you talking

Arj wrote:
Are you talking about the occam's razor theory? How does that SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE (which is what you said you had, scientific evidence) that spirits don't exist??? I'll look at the links but so far it doesn't sound like scientific proof but an explanation built on SUBJECTIVE observation like all the rest.

Occam's razor simply states that we should prefer any line of thinking that requires us to make the least assumptions. It is purely logical conjecture.

I would put forth that we cannot prove that spirits don't exist in the same way that we can't prove God doesn't exist. These ideas, by their very nature, cannot be falsified. Furthermore, both beliefs possess virtually zero objective evidence, which is why they are laughed at in the general scientific community.

You'll probably hate this statement, but, just like with God and unicorns, we don't have an obligation to prove that spirits don't exist; the proponents must submit credible, peer-reviewed research that spirits do exist. So far, the mysticists haven't done this.....um...at all.     

Quote:
I just had some questions. Why do I have the burden of proof when no one's presented me with scientific proof that disavows the spirit realm?

Because this is how science works. If I claimed that unicorns exist, should I demand that you present empirical evidence that unicorns don't exist? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. The burden of proof always falls on the proponents. This makes the process simple and rational. 

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:
Are you talking about the occam's razor theory? How does that SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE (which is what you said you had, scientific evidence) that spirits don't exist??? I'll look at the links but so far it doesn't sound like scientific proof but an explanation built on SUBJECTIVE observation like all the rest.

Occam's razor simply states that we should prefer any line of thinking that requires us to make the least assumptions. It is purely logical conjecture.

I would put forth that we cannot prove that spirits don't exist in the same way that we can't prove God doesn't exist. These ideas, by their very nature, cannot be falsified. Furthermore, both beliefs possess virtually zero objective evidence, which is why they are laughed at in the general scientific community.

You'll probably hate this statement, but, just like with God and unicorns, we don't have an obligation to prove that spirits don't exist; the proponents must submit credible, peer-reviewed research that spirits do exist. So far, the mysticists haven't done this.....um...at all.     

Quote:
I just had some questions. Why do I have the burden of proof when no one's presented me with scientific proof that disavows the spirit realm?

Because this is how science works. If I claimed that unicorns exist, should I demand that you present empirical evidence that unicorns don't exist? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. The burden of proof always falls on the proponents. This makes the process simple and rational. 

No. We are not debating this. IAM said there was scientific proof that spirits don't exist and I thought he was providing this evidence. I NEVER made this claim about Spirits. In fact, I argued the opposite (when everybody called me crazy and a liar. It starting to seem like it's the other way around) and said due to subjectivity it's hard to validate this belief so the fact that science CAN'T disprove it and for Atheists the Occam's Razor theory replaces all supernatural notions (a.k.a Observer Bias) is MY proof for MY claim. You are the ones telling me I shouldn't believe this or that (Not the other way around) and now I'm saying prove it. Occam's razor might be considered a "logical conjecture" but it is still a speculation (centered around logical PLAUSIBILITIES) until it is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN that everything else can be ruled out. Until then, it is equivalent to the TEN COMMANDMENTS, THE GOLDEN RULE etc. in the sense that it's just a code of conduct for how to live life and has no scientific implications in this scenario. REBT by Albert Ellis involves more science then this rational.

If science can't disprove the existence of spirits or the afterlife then why do Atheists mistake it for evidence? I think it's crazy, unrealistic, wishful thinking to want complete annihilation of spiritual and supernatural beliefs (especially, when you consider the role that anecdotal evidence plays... which, apparently, I have but no one else has) in the face of such insufficient "proof". I mean, to me the Occam's Razor theory and the subject of antimatter sounds like anecdotal evidence for Atheism and the nonexistence of the after life. It hasn't proven or dis proven ANYTHING. Isn't that what people were saying about my beliefs? "Just because your mother's a medium doesn't prove anything...." I hate to be the one to break it to you, but neither does this. And, I'm being completely objective.

 

In all honesty, I might consider it scientific proof (Sapient can't argue you can't use the Bible as proof....who needs to?) FOR the existence of an afterlife. But I know this is a stretch for you nonbelievers. However, from what I read it's been scientifically proven that all matter emerged from balls of energy....naturally,  that leads me to wonder y can't we return to this state after we've passed away??? Science, at least the snippet that I read, didn't rule this out. In fact, it talked about an astral plane filled with nothing but antimatter which we can't see but IS (not after we die, not tomorrow, not in the past, but PRESENTLY) occupied by our carbon copy equals and can only be destroyed when the two opposites come in contact with each other. Basically, it's an eternal substance. Hmmmmm.......I don't know about you but that description sounds vaguely familiar to me.....

 

 

 

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


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote: To me

 

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
To me , to say "afterlife", just means the "thermodynamic principal" of never dying energy/matter transitions, but where our individual consciousness can not stay assembled.
 

is consciousness not matter? If so, then consciousness has an antimatter state as well.

But if our carbon-copy equal already exists on that plane because we exists here then it functions with an individual consciousness as well. It's not like you can magically add on to something that's already been manufactured. Correct? That would equate to supernatural intervention. If we are all one big, unified glob of antimatter and antimatter is our carbon copy equal then how come there are over 6 billion of us instead of just one of us? Let's not make illogical, non-sequitur assumptions here (that's against your religion) and let's utilize logical plausibilities (the Occam's razor) when answering these questions since we don't have ANY scientific proof that states the contrary.

How does antimatter KNOW to act independently of each other thus creating our diversified existence? How come we all just didn't decide to emerge as a chair instead of embodying these perishable bodies? How come we are not all animals that live in the wild? Where does our intellect and our ability to learn come from if consciousness is not matter? How come subjectivity exists if our individual consciousness does not? If we are all one unified body of antimatter then how come we die and are born at different rates?

If all MATTER in the physical realm emerges from anti matter then that means diversity and individual consciousness exists on the astral plane as well. I'm simply applying the Occam's Razor theory here. I think I'm gonna add an Atheism section to my forum. You people aren't so bad just a little misguided.

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


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

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

To be human is to be born screaming in shock, to then live a life in awe, knowing pain and joy, and that death awaits, which unfortunately can make for a sense of guilt, fear, despair, and so the confusion, as we communicate our plight, stuck in this awe, we seek to understand.

It is the on going battle we all share, life itself, the awe, which I call gawed. Yes, in the spirit of wanting world cooperation, I do yell in frustration. Yet I seek no forgiveness for my human-ness, but I do seek the truth of what all existence is, rejecting wishful thinking of an afterlife, as I dream and speculate of how we all could live this life of awe NOW, most peacefully. The children are my greatest mentors.

I've been thinking about this for a couple of days...Now I wonder who this boat load of emotion effects the most?

Life is a wonderful thing in and of itself - why mess it up by adding a spirit world?

Is this rhetorical?

Only if you wish it to be.

It doesn't effect me either way.

Ah, but it does. You can't seem to see the beauty of life without the addition of the spirits. How does that addition enhance your life?

What on earth are you talking about? Let's presume that you DON'T know me and can STOP thinking for me. Obama just won! I'm so happy.

I'm glad you and I share happiness because Obama won - now let's see if he can do what the country needs.

Now, you said you believe in the spirit world and you have firsthand knowledge that the spirit world exists. I ask again - how does believing in the spirit world benefit you?

Being an atheist and not believing in the spirit world helps me because I don't have the pressure of trying to live to the impossible standards of any god (standards that they are excused from measuring up to by their followers).

Now, you give me your reason. Or is this where you do a Christian imitation and deny your words?

"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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:No. We are not

Quote:
No. We are not debating this.
 

You're debating it right now. Stop saying that. 

Quote:
You are the ones telling me I shouldn't believe this or that (Not the other way around) and now I'm saying prove it.

I just covered this. Why won't you listen to me?

*sigh..."

Quote:
Occam's razor might be considered a "logical conjecture" but it is still a speculation (centered around logical PLAUSIBILITIES) until it is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN that everything else can be ruled out.

Yawn.

Quote:
Until then, it is equivalent to the TEN COMMANDMENTS, THE GOLDEN RULE etc. in the sense that it's just a code of conduct for how to live life and has no scientific implications in this scenario.

More bullshittery.

 

 

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
jcgadfly wrote:Arj

jcgadfly wrote:

I'm glad you and I share happiness because Obama won - now let's see if he can do what the country needs.

Now, you said you believe in the spirit world and you have firsthand knowledge that the spirit world exists. I ask again - how does believing in the spirit world benefit you?

Being an atheist and not believing in the spirit world helps me because I don't have the pressure of trying to live to the impossible standards of any god (standards that they are excused from measuring up to by their followers).

Now, you give me your reason. Or is this where you do a Christian imitation and deny your words?

When and WHERE (post please) did I ever say I believe in God? You have 412 chances.

‘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:Quote:No.

butterbattle wrote:

Quote:
No. We are not debating this.
 

You're debating it right now. Stop saying that. 

Quote:
You are the ones telling me I shouldn't believe this or that (Not the other way around) and now I'm saying prove it.

I just covered this. Why won't you listen to me?

*sigh..."

Quote:
Occam's razor might be considered a "logical conjecture" but it is still a speculation (centered around logical PLAUSIBILITIES) until it is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN that everything else can be ruled out.

Yawn.

Quote:
Until then, it is equivalent to the TEN COMMANDMENTS, THE GOLDEN RULE etc. in the sense that it's just a code of conduct for how to live life and has no scientific implications in this scenario.

More bullshittery.

DO you just like to utilize straw man fallacies because you want the last word? I'm referring to the burden of proof argument that you made in your previous posts. It doesn't need to be debated because IAM said he had the proof to debunk my claims. But I'm not seeing it from him or you. You totally ignored all of the significant points I made in this post and decided to dispute trivial matters. So I agree it is more bullshittery until you can prove otherwise.

That reminds me I need to add a rule against the Straw man argument if I'm gonna invite a bunch of atheists to posts in my forum. This shit gets us nowhere.

 

‘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
Arj wrote:I'm referring to

Arj wrote:

I'm referring to the burden of proof argument that you made in your previous posts. It doesn't need to be debated because IAM said he had the proof to debunk my claims.

Is this the statement from IAGAY you are referring to?

IAGAY wrote:

Not assuming is OUR science. Actually a most simple concept where proof is required.

You may have misread this, but I see him as saying we don't assume any positive proposition, such as a claim that some entity or phenomena exists, is true, and then demand disproof. We require 'proof', or at least strong unambiguous evidence that it is.

He certainly DID NOT claim to have proof that your claims were untrue.

This is the only rational stand, since there are virtually an infinite number of assertions that could be made about things which are not readily observed, it would be crazy to assume they were all true until disproved.

The only claims for non-existence which would reasonably require 'proof' are claims that deny readily observable things, like gravity, the existence of the Sun, etc.

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


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

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I'm glad you and I share happiness because Obama won - now let's see if he can do what the country needs.

Now, you said you believe in the spirit world and you have firsthand knowledge that the spirit world exists. I ask again - how does believing in the spirit world benefit you?

Being an atheist and not believing in the spirit world helps me because I don't have the pressure of trying to live to the impossible standards of any god (standards that they are excused from measuring up to by their followers).

Now, you give me your reason. Or is this where you do a Christian imitation and deny your words?

When and WHERE (post please) did I ever say I believe in God? You have 412 chances.

I never said you believed in God - stop lying and answer my question. Or are you going to act like other theists on this forum - Are you going to deny your words and dodge my question again?

 

"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
BobSpence1 wrote:Arj

BobSpence1 wrote:

Arj wrote:

I'm referring to the burden of proof argument that you made in your previous posts. It doesn't need to be debated because IAM said he had the proof to debunk my claims.

Is this the statement from IAGAY you are referring to?

IAGAY wrote:

Not assuming is OUR science. Actually a most simple concept where proof is required.

You may have misread this, but I see him as saying we don't assume any positive proposition, such as a claim that some entity or phenomena exists, is true, and then demand disproof. We require 'proof', or at least strong unambiguous evidence that it is.

He certainly DID NOT claim to have proof that your claims were untrue.

This is the only rational stand, since there are virtually an infinite number of assertions that could be made about things which are not readily observed, it would be crazy to assume they were all true until disproved.

The only claims for non-existence which would reasonably require 'proof' are claims that deny readily observable things, like gravity, the existence of the Sun, etc.

Arj wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
The only honest "choice" is acceptance, and the only way to the "truth" is science, which BTW includes all speculation.

I get y your saying there is no afterlife now. I want to hear this evidence and weigh it against what I know so far. I'm curious.

 This isn't proving or dis proving anything about the spirit realm. This is just an anecdotal explanation based on the concept of science and you are trying to convince me that my beliefs are illogical and not real. I'm not trying to convince you that they are. So you would be responsible for the burden of truth.  

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


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

 

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

how does believing in the spirit world benefit you?

I never said you believed in God - stop lying and answer my question. Or are you going to act like other theists on this forum - Are you going to deny your words and dodge my question again?

 

Oh, this is what you were asking me. I wouldn't say this belief has any direct effect to my well being. Like there aren't spirits watching over me to keep me from harm or anything like that. Y would there be? I just believe that once we die we go back to the spirit realm. And, I'm not trying to prove this to you. This is my belief. Don't deny that I've said this all along also. 

 

‘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
So basically, bob, your

So basically, bob, your saying Atheism's rational is based on a process of elimination....the occam's razor theory. Ok. I can't argue with you there. But that doesn't make it scientifically valid. Which is the point I'm arguing because that's the impression you gave 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


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

Arj wrote:

 

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

how does believing in the spirit world benefit you?

I never said you believed in God - stop lying and answer my question. Or are you going to act like other theists on this forum - Are you going to deny your words and dodge my question again?

 

Oh, this is what you were asking me. I wouldn't say this belief has any direct effect to my well being. Like there aren't spirits watching over me to keep me from harm or anything like that. Y would there be? I just believe that once we die we go back to the spirit realm. And, I'm not trying to prove this to you. This is my belief. Don't deny that I've said this all along also. 

 

No direct effect? any indirect ones? Otherwise, why believe it?

The only time I've ever asked for proof from you is when you claimed firsthand knowledge of the spirit world. Knowledge is a stronger standard than belief and I still hold you to it whether you choose to answer or not.

"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


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

Arj wrote:

 I just believe that once we die we go back to the spirit realm. And, I'm not trying to prove this to you. This is my belief. Don't deny that I've said this all along also. 

Sooooo hmmmm...

What exactly is a spirit?

What would be the purpose of a spirit?

Where is the spirit realm?

What is a spirit made of?

How do spirits communicate?

How do spirits move around?

Why hasn't the spirit been recorded by scientific instruments?

How does your spirit "stick" to your body? Is it like a magnet?

How does the spirit get back to the spirit realm and how did it get in you in the first place?

Can a spirit see? Does it have eyes? How does it detect light?

Can it hear? How does it detect sound vibrations?

How do spirit keep from going through each other? And if they would go through each other, why wouldn't they just absorb each other like 2 drops of water?

Soooooooooooooo many questions! Did you even bother to ask yourself any of these questions?

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:BobSpence1

Arj wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Arj wrote:

I'm referring to the burden of proof argument that you made in your previous posts. It doesn't need to be debated because IAM said he had the proof to debunk my claims.

Is this the statement from IAGAY you are referring to?

IAGAY wrote:

Not assuming is OUR science. Actually a most simple concept where proof is required.

You may have misread this, but I see him as saying we don't assume any positive proposition, such as a claim that some entity or phenomena exists, is true, and then demand disproof. We require 'proof', or at least strong unambiguous evidence that it is.

He certainly DID NOT claim to have proof that your claims were untrue.

This is the only rational stand, since there are virtually an infinite number of assertions that could be made about things which are not readily observed, it would be crazy to assume they were all true until disproved.

The only claims for non-existence which would reasonably require 'proof' are claims that deny readily observable things, like gravity, the existence of the Sun, etc.

Arj wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
The only honest "choice" is acceptance, and the only way to the "truth" is science, which BTW includes all speculation.

I get y your saying there is no afterlife now. I want to hear this evidence and weigh it against what I know so far. I'm curious.

??

That is NOT a promise to debunk your belief. It just states the same as before, that we only get to something approximating the "truth" about reality by the methods of science, which involve the testing of claims, hypotheses, etc. If we can't devise or imagine a test which could disprove a claim, then it must remain speculation, as per Carl Popper's principle.

If we come up with tests which would potentially disprove it, and it passes, then we give the idea conditional acceptance, partly dependent on the plausibility of alternative explanations and how well they have stood up to or failed tests.

Failure to disprove a claim never 'proves' it. Passing comprehensive tests which all alternative explanations clearly fail is about as far as we can go in 'proving' anything, and it doesn't exclude better explanations/theories displacing the claim in the future, if people come up with new tests and/or observations.

We skeptics have yet to see any good tests which give results which could only be explained by the reality of an afterlife or a soul, so in the absence of such evidence, we make the default assumption, which is that they are merely claims. That is our current position. If you are aware of any way of testing the truth of these claims which you think are valid, you will have to tell us before we can attempt any 'debunking'.

IOW we can't actually debunk the claim itself, as stated, we can only address your reasons for believing in them, and then only if those reasons involve some actual observable or measurable manifestation in the world outside your own thoughts. Otherwise we have no reason for giving the claims any special status over all the other supernatural claims we are presented with. You clearly don't accept all supernatural claims, so you must have reasons for the ones you do believe in.

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
BobSpence1 wrote:Arj

BobSpence1 wrote:

Arj wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Arj wrote:

I'm referring to the burden of proof argument that you made in your previous posts. It doesn't need to be debated because IAM said he had the proof to debunk my claims.

Is this the statement from IAGAY you are referring to?

IAGAY wrote:

Not assuming is OUR science. Actually a most simple concept where proof is required.

You may have misread this, but I see him as saying we don't assume any positive proposition, such as a claim that some entity or phenomena exists, is true, and then demand disproof. We require 'proof', or at least strong unambiguous evidence that it is.

He certainly DID NOT claim to have proof that your claims were untrue.

This is the only rational stand, since there are virtually an infinite number of assertions that could be made about things which are not readily observed, it would be crazy to assume they were all true until disproved.

The only claims for non-existence which would reasonably require 'proof' are claims that deny readily observable things, like gravity, the existence of the Sun, etc.

Arj wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
The only honest "choice" is acceptance, and the only way to the "truth" is science, which BTW includes all speculation.

I get y your saying there is no afterlife now. I want to hear this evidence and weigh it against what I know so far. I'm curious.

??

That is NOT a promise to debunk your belief. It just states the same as before, that we only get to something approximating the "truth" about reality by the methods of science, which involve the testing of claims, hypotheses, etc. If we can't devise or imagine a test which could disprove a claim, then it must remain speculation, as per Carl Popper's principle.

If we come up with tests which would potentially disprove it, and it passes, then we give the idea conditional acceptance, partly dependent on the plausibility of alternative explanations and how well they have stood up to or failed tests.

Failure to disprove a claim never 'proves' it. Passing comprehensive tests which all alternative explanations clearly fail is about as far as we can go in 'proving' anything, and it doesn't exclude better explanations/theories displacing the claim in the future, if people come up with new tests and/or observations.

We skeptics have yet to see any good tests which give results which could only be explained by the reality of an afterlife or a soul, so in the absence of such evidence, we make the default assumption, which is that they are merely claims. That is our current position. If you are aware of any way of testing the truth of these claims which you think are valid, you will have to tell us before we can attempt any 'debunking'.

IOW we can't actually debunk the claim itself, as stated, we can only address your reasons for believing in them, and then only if those reasons involve some actual observable or measurable manifestation in the world outside your own thoughts. Otherwise we have no reason for giving the claims any special status over all the other supernatural claims we are presented with. You clearly don't accept all supernatural claims, so you must have reasons for the ones you do believe in.

I already addressed this. "So basically, bob, your saying Atheism's rational is based on a process of elimination....the occam's razor theory. Ok. I can't argue with you there. But that doesn't make it scientifically valid. Which is the point I'm arguing because that's the impression you gave me." I was on another computer earlier so I was having problems posting.

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


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

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

 

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

how does believing in the spirit world benefit you?

I never said you believed in God - stop lying and answer my question. Or are you going to act like other theists on this forum - Are you going to deny your words and dodge my question again?

 

Oh, this is what you were asking me. I wouldn't say this belief has any direct effect to my well being. Like there aren't spirits watching over me to keep me from harm or anything like that. Y would there be? I just believe that once we die we go back to the spirit realm. And, I'm not trying to prove this to you. This is my belief. Don't deny that I've said this all along also. 

 

No direct effect? any indirect ones? Otherwise, why believe it?

The only time I've ever asked for proof from you is when you claimed firsthand knowledge of the spirit world. Knowledge is a stronger standard than belief and I still hold you to it whether you choose to answer or not.

I believe it because I have first hand experience with it. I don't care what category you put it in. Even though, I have first hand knowledge that still doesn't mean I have to prove it to you. That's your choice and it doesn't effect me either way.

‘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
Arj wrote:I believe it

Arj wrote:

I believe it because I have first hand experience with it.

Discribe what you experienced.

What happened?

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 wrote: I

aiia wrote:

Arj wrote:

 I just believe that once we die we go back to the spirit realm. And, I'm not trying to prove this to you. This is my belief. Don't deny that I've said this all along also. 

Sooooo hmmmm...

What exactly is a spirit?

According to scientific standards it would be defined as "antimatter" but I have no way to validate this.

What would be the purpose of a spirit?

Energy. It seems like this anti material had to exist before our material bodies did.

Where is the spirit realm?

What is a spirit made of?

How do spirits communicate?

How do spirits move around?

Why hasn't the spirit been recorded by scientific instruments?

How does your spirit "stick" to your body? Is it like a magnet?

How does the spirit get back to the spirit realm and how did it get in you in the first place?

Can a spirit see? Does it have eyes? How does it detect light?

Can it hear? How does it detect sound vibrations?

How do spirit keep from going through each other? And if they would go through each other, why wouldn't they just absorb each other like 2 drops of water?

Soooooooooooooo many questions! Did you even bother to ask yourself any of these questions?

I am using the occam's razor theory to answer these questions so I have no way to validate them and am not trying to pass them off as SCIENTIFIC proof (like other people have) but I can propose a logical answer.

What exactly is a spirit?

IMO, According to scientific standards it would be defined as "antimatter" but I have no way to validate this. It is said that anti-particles are an infinite substance which can only be destroyed if it merges with our physical half. When death occurs we do not evaporate into nothingness, which is said to happen when these two opposing particles immediately come into contact, so our antiparticles must still exists even though our physical bodies do not.

What would be the purpose of a spirit?

Energy. It seems like this anti material had to exist before our material bodies did.

Where is the spirit realm?

Probably in the same realm where antimatter housed.

What is a spirit made of?

antimatter.

How do spirits communicate?

 Telepathy. A spirit told me that my mom had this gift called transmuting something something and that's what enabled her to speak and see spirits. I forgot the name though.

How do spirits move around?

Energy

Why hasn't the spirit been recorded by scientific instruments?

I don't know. Antiparticles have been detected though. So maybe it's just a matter of time. As it stands right now, science can't disprove the existence of an after life either.

How does your spirit "stick" to your body? Is it like a magnet?

How does the spirit get back to the spirit realm and how did it get in you in the first place?

Can a spirit see? Does it have eyes? How does it detect light?

Do you believe in the existence of anti-particles? If you did this would answer those questions.

Can it hear? How does it detect sound vibrations?

I don't even know how I detect sound vibrations. LOL. It might have something to do with antiparticles. 

How do spirit keep from going through each other? And if they would go through each other, why wouldn't they just absorb each other like 2 drops of water?

If antiparticles KNOW how to act independently of each other in order to create matter for this diversified existence then I'm sure it knows how to tell itself apart from everyone else.

Soooooooooooooo many questions! Did you even bother to ask yourself any of these questions? Yes. And MY beliefs STILL make sense to me.

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


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

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

 

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

how does believing in the spirit world benefit you?

I never said you believed in God - stop lying and answer my question. Or are you going to act like other theists on this forum - Are you going to deny your words and dodge my question again?

 

Oh, this is what you were asking me. I wouldn't say this belief has any direct effect to my well being. Like there aren't spirits watching over me to keep me from harm or anything like that. Y would there be? I just believe that once we die we go back to the spirit realm. And, I'm not trying to prove this to you. This is my belief. Don't deny that I've said this all along also. 

 

No direct effect? any indirect ones? Otherwise, why believe it?

The only time I've ever asked for proof from you is when you claimed firsthand knowledge of the spirit world. Knowledge is a stronger standard than belief and I still hold you to it whether you choose to answer or not.

I believe it because I have first hand experience with it. I don't care what category you put it in. Even though, I have first hand knowledge that still doesn't mean I have to prove it to you. That's your choice and it doesn't effect me either way.

Great, but as aiia said, if you have knowledge of something you can articulate it. Please do.

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:BobSpence1

Arj wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Arj wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Arj wrote:

I'm referring to the burden of proof argument that you made in your previous posts. It doesn't need to be debated because IAM said he had the proof to debunk my claims.

Is this the statement from IAGAY you are referring to?

IAGAY wrote:

Not assuming is OUR science. Actually a most simple concept where proof is required.

You may have misread this, but I see him as saying we don't assume any positive proposition, such as a claim that some entity or phenomena exists, is true, and then demand disproof. We require 'proof', or at least strong unambiguous evidence that it is.

He certainly DID NOT claim to have proof that your claims were untrue.

This is the only rational stand, since there are virtually an infinite number of assertions that could be made about things which are not readily observed, it would be crazy to assume they were all true until disproved.

The only claims for non-existence which would reasonably require 'proof' are claims that deny readily observable things, like gravity, the existence of the Sun, etc.

Arj wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
The only honest "choice" is acceptance, and the only way to the "truth" is science, which BTW includes all speculation.

I get y your saying there is no afterlife now. I want to hear this evidence and weigh it against what I know so far. I'm curious.

??

That is NOT a promise to debunk your belief. It just states the same as before, that we only get to something approximating the "truth" about reality by the methods of science, which involve the testing of claims, hypotheses, etc. If we can't devise or imagine a test which could disprove a claim, then it must remain speculation, as per Carl Popper's principle.

If we come up with tests which would potentially disprove it, and it passes, then we give the idea conditional acceptance, partly dependent on the plausibility of alternative explanations and how well they have stood up to or failed tests.

Failure to disprove a claim never 'proves' it. Passing comprehensive tests which all alternative explanations clearly fail is about as far as we can go in 'proving' anything, and it doesn't exclude better explanations/theories displacing the claim in the future, if people come up with new tests and/or observations.

We skeptics have yet to see any good tests which give results which could only be explained by the reality of an afterlife or a soul, so in the absence of such evidence, we make the default assumption, which is that they are merely claims. That is our current position. If you are aware of any way of testing the truth of these claims which you think are valid, you will have to tell us before we can attempt any 'debunking'.

IOW we can't actually debunk the claim itself, as stated, we can only address your reasons for believing in them, and then only if those reasons involve some actual observable or measurable manifestation in the world outside your own thoughts. Otherwise we have no reason for giving the claims any special status over all the other supernatural claims we are presented with. You clearly don't accept all supernatural claims, so you must have reasons for the ones you do believe in.

I already addressed this. "So basically, bob, your saying Atheism's rational is based on a process of elimination....the occam's razor theory. Ok. I can't argue with you there. But that doesn't make it scientifically valid. Which is the point I'm arguing because that's the impression you gave me." I was on another computer earlier so I was having problems posting.

No, No, No...

What I was describing IS the method of Science, so it is precisely how Science establishes how much a claim deserves to be treated as 'scientifically valid'. It has nothing to do with Atheism as such, although atheists do tend to base their understanding of reality on the insights of science, naturally.

Occam's Razor is NOT a theory, it is a guide to decide between competing explanations which have otherwise similar level of plausibility.

While I'm at, it your previous post shows you have completely misunderstood what is meant by "anti-matter" - it is every bit as real as normal matter, just that it has positively charged 'positrons' where 'normal' matter has negatively charged electrons, and similar for all the other sub-atomic particles, anti-protons, anti-neutrons, all are mirror images in some way of the matching normal particle. It is theoretically possible that some of the galaxies we observe beyond our own could be composed entirely of anti-matter.

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
BobSpence1 wrote:Arj

BobSpence1 wrote:

Arj wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Arj wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Arj wrote:

I'm referring to the burden of proof argument that you made in your previous posts. It doesn't need to be debated because IAM said he had the proof to debunk my claims.

Is this the statement from IAGAY you are referring to?

IAGAY wrote:

Not assuming is OUR science. Actually a most simple concept where proof is required.

You may have misread this, but I see him as saying we don't assume any positive proposition, such as a claim that some entity or phenomena exists, is true, and then demand disproof. We require 'proof', or at least strong unambiguous evidence that it is.

He certainly DID NOT claim to have proof that your claims were untrue.

This is the only rational stand, since there are virtually an infinite number of assertions that could be made about things which are not readily observed, it would be crazy to assume they were all true until disproved.

The only claims for non-existence which would reasonably require 'proof' are claims that deny readily observable things, like gravity, the existence of the Sun, etc.

Arj wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
The only honest "choice" is acceptance, and the only way to the "truth" is science, which BTW includes all speculation.

I get y your saying there is no afterlife now. I want to hear this evidence and weigh it against what I know so far. I'm curious.

??

That is NOT a promise to debunk your belief. It just states the same as before, that we only get to something approximating the "truth" about reality by the methods of science, which involve the testing of claims, hypotheses, etc. If we can't devise or imagine a test which could disprove a claim, then it must remain speculation, as per Carl Popper's principle.

If we come up with tests which would potentially disprove it, and it passes, then we give the idea conditional acceptance, partly dependent on the plausibility of alternative explanations and how well they have stood up to or failed tests.

Failure to disprove a claim never 'proves' it. Passing comprehensive tests which all alternative explanations clearly fail is about as far as we can go in 'proving' anything, and it doesn't exclude better explanations/theories displacing the claim in the future, if people come up with new tests and/or observations.

We skeptics have yet to see any good tests which give results which could only be explained by the reality of an afterlife or a soul, so in the absence of such evidence, we make the default assumption, which is that they are merely claims. That is our current position. If you are aware of any way of testing the truth of these claims which you think are valid, you will have to tell us before we can attempt any 'debunking'.

IOW we can't actually debunk the claim itself, as stated, we can only address your reasons for believing in them, and then only if those reasons involve some actual observable or measurable manifestation in the world outside your own thoughts. Otherwise we have no reason for giving the claims any special status over all the other supernatural claims we are presented with. You clearly don't accept all supernatural claims, so you must have reasons for the ones you do believe in.

I already addressed this. "So basically, bob, your saying Atheism's rational is based on a process of elimination....the occam's razor theory. Ok. I can't argue with you there. But that doesn't make it scientifically valid. Which is the point I'm arguing because that's the impression you gave me." I was on another computer earlier so I was having problems posting.

No, No, No...

What I was describing IS the method of Science, so it is precisely how Science establishes how much a claim deserves to be treated as 'scientifically valid'. It has nothing to do with Atheism as such, although atheists do tend to base their understanding of reality on the insights of science, naturally.

Occam's Razor is NOT a theory, it is a guide to decide between competing explanations which have otherwise similar level of plausibility.

While I'm at, it your previous post shows you have completely misunderstood what is meant by "anti-matter" - it is every bit as real as normal matter, just that it has positively charged 'positrons' where 'normal' matter has negatively charged electrons, and similar for all the other sub-atomic particles, anti-protons, anti-neutrons, all are mirror images in some way of the matching normal particle. It is theoretically possible that some of the galaxies we observe beyond our own could be composed entirely of anti-matter.

Occam's razor might be considered a "logical conjecture" but it is still a speculation (centered around logical PLAUSIBILITIES)

I just said the same thing about anti-matter in my previous posts. From what I read that's how physical matter came to be. Through antimatter. If we didn't get here that way, then how did we get here? You are not adding anything new here.

‘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
the pot calling the kettle black

Regardless, all Occam's Razor boils down to is a theoretical explanation. It does not equate to scientific proof or data which you all readily admitted. So this whole 430 post dispute is like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+theoretical+&btnG=Search

Concepts that cannot be readily observable but are believed to be functional, such as atoms, force, and antimatter

of or pertaining to theoretic studies (abstract, not empirical)

 

ATHEISTS, YOU ALL HAVE DISPROVED JUST AS MUCH AS I HAVE PROVEN.

 

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


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

Arj wrote:

Regardless, all Occam's Razor boils down to is a theoretical explanation. It does not equate to scientific proof or data which you all readily admitted. So this whole 430 post dispute is like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+theoretical+&btnG=Search

Concepts that cannot be readily observable but are believed to be functional, such as atoms, force, and antimatter

of or pertaining to theoretic studies (abstract, not empirical)

 

ATHEISTS, YOU ALL HAVE DISPROVED JUST AS MUCH AS I HAVE PROVEN.

 

Except that atoms, force and antimatter (if I remember correctly) can be detected by instruments.

All we have for the spirit world is the word of a medium who has motivation to sell their point of view.

"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


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:ATHEISTS, YOU ALL

Arj wrote:
ATHEISTS, YOU ALL HAVE DISPROVED JUST AS MUCH AS I HAVE PROVEN.

 

I thought you said you were an atheist. Why are you now refering to us as if you weren't one yourself?

 

There's no need to disprove anything that has not yet been proven in the first place, in fact it is impossible to disprove that which has not been proven.

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
 Quote:DO you just like to

 

Arj wrote:
DO you just like to utilize straw man fallacies because you want the last word?

You did not show where I have used a straw man argument.

Quote:
You totally ignored all of the significant points I made in this post and decided to dispute trivial matters.

How is the burden of proof a trivial matter? This covers the entire topic that is currently being discussed. Regardless of whether IAGAY has evidence against the spiritual world, I have no obligation to prove that ghosts don't exist. You have to prove that they do. Is this really that hard to understand?

Quote:
So I agree it is more bullshittery until you can prove otherwise.

I'm bullshitting until I prove otherwise? 

How about this. --I claim that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti is true; I assume that you disagree. But, until you can prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, you are full of shit.-- This is your logic. Got it?

alia wrote:
I thought you said you were an atheist. Why are you now refering to us as if you weren't one yourself?
 

She's utilizing fundie think.

 

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
aiia wrote:Arj

aiia wrote:

Arj wrote:
ATHEISTS, YOU ALL HAVE DISPROVED JUST AS MUCH AS I HAVE PROVEN.

 

I thought you said you were an atheist. Why are you now refering to us as if you weren't one yourself?

 

There's no need to disprove anything that has not yet been proven in the first place, in fact it is impossible to disprove that which has not been proven.

If that's the case, then why are people on a mission to disprove and destroy other people's beliefs when they have NO EVIDENCE to argue the contrary in the first place? That seems illogical to me. 

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


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

butterbattle wrote:

 

Arj wrote:
DO you just like to utilize straw man fallacies because you want the last word?

You did not show where I have used a straw man argument.

Quote:
You totally ignored all of the significant points I made in this post and decided to dispute trivial matters.

How is the burden of proof a trivial matter? This covers the entire topic that is currently being discussed. Regardless of whether IAGAY has evidence against the spiritual world, I have no obligation to prove that ghosts don't exist. You have to prove that they do. Is this really that hard to understand?

Quote:
So I agree it is more bullshittery until you can prove otherwise.

I'm bullshitting until I prove otherwise? 

How about this. --I claim that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti is true; I assume that you disagree. But, until you can prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, you are full of shit.-- This is your logic. Got it?

alia wrote:
I thought you said you were an atheist. Why are you now refering to us as if you weren't one yourself?
 

She's utilizing fundie think.

 

This is not how it went. I started asking for proof (412 posts in) ONLY after I thought IAM said he had evidence that the spirit world doesn't exist.  That's y I made that comment. However, it appears that I read his response wrong which is what Bob was pointing out. I stated on page one, of course if I was trying to prove my beliefs then I would have the burden of truth but in this scenario that is not the case.

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:If that's the case,

 

Quote:
If that's the case, then why are people on a mission to disprove and destroy other people's beliefs when they have NO EVIDENCE to argue the contrary in the first place? That seems illogical to me.
 

We can disprove religions when their beliefs don't make any logical sense and when their beliefs contradict things that science does know.

However, when something is currently outside the scope of science, like the existence of an original "creator" or the existence of an afterlife, I can only only remain agnostic about the issue.

 

 

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

butterbattle wrote:

 

Quote:
If that's the case, then why are people on a mission to disprove and destroy other people's beliefs when they have NO EVIDENCE to argue the contrary in the first place? That seems illogical to me.
 

We can disprove religions when their beliefs don't make any logical sense and when their beliefs contradict things that science does know.

However, when something is currently outside the scope of science, like the existence of an original "creator" or the existence of an afterlife, I can only only remain agnostic about the issue.

 

Right. I told you this was your decision to make. Not mine. I've never once made an argument for religion ONLY supernatural beliefs which are, admittedly,  beyond the scope of scientific boundaries. Therefore, Atheists should stop mistaking/ acting like science and the OR principle are fool proof, valid, evidence that debunks  the theory of an afterlife. It doesn't. At it's best, the OR principle in regards to this notion could easily pass for:


Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility... otherwise lacks scientific status.

pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific or whose proponents state is scientific but nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement, or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method...

 Don't demand proof for something that you have yet to prove as well. This is like the pot calling the kettle black.

‘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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Arj, it's like someone

Arj, it's like someone saying they are an alien import from another world. While there is no way to disprove them, a LACK OF EVIDENCE, and current science evidence points to NOT.  


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Arj,

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Arj, it's like someone saying they are an alien import from another world. While there is no way to disprove them, a LACK OF EVIDENCE, and current science evidence points to NOT.  

No. You are generalizing my comments. If you see what I wrote I always said IN REGARDS TO THIS SCENARIO OR is pseudoscience . That means this discussion is strictly about the existence of spirits and the afterlife. Come up with one that mirrors this scenario in totality and I'll recant my statement. This might not prove he's an alien but Doctor's can use this example as proof that the person is going crazy. That amounts to something. OR and science utilized in debunking supernatural beliefs (the existence of spirits and the afterlife)- DO NOT.

Therefore, Atheists should stop mistaking/ acting like science and the OR principle are fool proof, valid, evidence that debunks  the theory of an afterlife. It doesn't. At it's best, the OR principle in regards to this notion could easily pass for

‘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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I prefer evidence. Science

I prefer evidence. Science is about evidence. Science works to understand what it don't know by using testable models using evidence proven true to the best of it's ability, and revises as it goes.

Science has found no evidence of immaterial free floating consciousness attached as an individual entity spirit something or dimension even hinting to an afterlife, BUT science is sure open to such a finding.

What do you actually mean by spirit or afterlife?


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:I

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

I prefer evidence. Science is about evidence. Science works to understand what it don't know by using testable models using evidence proven true to the best of it's ability, and revises as it goes.

Science has found no evidence of immaterial free floating consciousness attached as an individual entity spirit something or dimension even hinting to an afterlife, BUT science is sure open to such a finding.

What do you actually mean by spirit or afterlife?

I would call it antimatter in scientific terms based on what I learned the other day. So ur an agnostic as well (fly said he was)? Right? That's cool as long as atheists can stop acting like they can debunk my theories with what science is offering now.

‘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 AM GOD AS YOU wrote:I

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

I prefer evidence. Science is about evidence. Science works to understand what it don't know by using testable models using evidence proven true to the best of it's ability, and revises as it goes.

Science has found no evidence of immaterial free floating consciousness attached as an individual entity spirit something or dimension even hinting to an afterlife, BUT science is sure open to such a finding.

What do you actually mean by spirit or afterlife?

I would call it antimatter in scientific terms based on what I learned the other day. So ur an agnostic as well (fly said he was)? Right? That's cool as long as atheists can stop acting like they can debunk my theories with what science is offering now.

‘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:IMO, According to

Quote:

IMO, According to scientific standards it would be defined as "antimatter" but I have no way to validate this.

An antiparticle is merely the dual of a particle with the same mass and opposite charge.

Quote:

It is said that anti-particles are an infinite substance which can only be destroyed if it merges with our physical half.

As I said above, Antiparticles are merely the counterpart of a particle with an opposing charge and same mass. A positron is the antiparticle of an electron, for example.

Quote:

When death occurs we do not evaporate into nothingness, which is said to happen when these two opposing particles immediately come into contact

 This is a non sequitur. Whenever a particle and antiparticle come into contact, a particular amount of energy released. This depends on the mass-energy of the associated particle and hence antiparticle, given by the mass-energy equivalence E=mc2.

Quote:

, so our antiparticles must still exists even though our physical bodies do not.

Huh? You seem to think that "particles" are physical and antiparticles are not. Antiparticles are just as physical as particles are.

Quote:

What would be the purpose of a spirit?

Energy. It seems like this anti material had to exist before our material bodies did.

Once again, you fall into the same error above. Antiparticles are not antimaterial. They are just as physical as their counterpart particles, they merely have opposing charge. This is a purely electrostatic property.

Quote:

Where is the spirit realm?

Probably in the same realm where antimatter housed.

 Antimatter is physical. It is just as physical as matter is. Physical law can describe antimatter as perfectly as matter. If the situation we had now was reversed, and there was an excess of antimatter over matter during the initial stages of the Big Bang, we wouldn't notice. What we now call antimatter we would call matter and vice-versa. All physical properties except charge are completely invariant under such a switch.

In order to understand this principle better, we need a short course in the history of the universe and the mass energy equivalence. With this, you shall have a better understanding of what precisely antimatter is and the concept of annihlation (both of which you are confused about at present).

With respect to the mass-energy equivalence, it is inaccurate to say that energy is conserved. Only mass-energy is conserved. Consider fusion. At the point where the internal gravity of a protostar is such that the kinetic energy of protons in the proton-proton cycle is enough to overcome the mutual repulsion of protons, the nuclei fuse. At this point, they lose kinetic energy, at which point they gain potential energy from the transfer, and a small amount of mass is interconverted into energy when the nuclei fuse, called the mass deficit. The opposite effect occurs when the binding energy is input into a nucleus to break it into its constituency. Part of the work is converted into mass, and at the point where the strong nuclear force is broken, the protons have zero potential energy (which means they had a negative potential after fusing. This is called a well in physics). This means the sum of the constituents per se of any nucleus will always have more mass than the nucleus, which leaves us with a more accurate restatement of Einstein's equations:

The energy required to break every bond in the nucleus=[(Mass of sum of constituents)-(Mass of nucleus)]x(c^2)

So, the first principle we must understand is this: The Big Bang describes a transition event. The sum entropy of all the matter that formed from energy interconversion at the moment of the Big Bang was the lowest entropy, and hereafter has been steadily increasing. This has several consequences for the prior state of the Big Bang. Firstly, it has no entropy. How could it? Entropy is always with respect to temperature, by this formula: delta(G)=(delta)H-T(delta)S.

At the moment of transition, the interconversion of energy to mass spawned both matter and antimatter. As Einsten explained, there was an infintesmally larger amount of matter which, when the matter-antimatter pairs annihlated, was left, forming everything we see around us. The energy released by the annihlation is what is left today, and as explained, the sum entropy of the matter in the universe at the point where the annihlation released the energy in question would have been the lowest point in the history of the known universe.

Quote:

What is a spirit made of?

antimatter.

 It seems to me that you are (a) Committing a distinction without a difference fallacy. Antiparticles have exactly the same properties as their counterpart particles, except that their charge is reversed and (b) making a reductionist error. To claim that a property such as the continuity of a conscious process could occur on the basis of such a property would be a fallacy of composition.

Ultimately, any attempt to discuss the nature of consciousness and the mind (and whether or not it continues after death) on the basis of fundamental particle properties will commit a fallacy of composition. The argument put forth above was quite a bad case of fallacy of composition. Any discussion of this sort must move more into biology and the study of higher-order structures. The case against the idea that our conscious minds continue after biological death is extremely strong. Having studied neuroscience and philosophy of mind, I've written so much about this it's sort of hard for me to know where to start. This subject is so complicated. I strongly recommend you start with this essay, because it outlines the problems with the idea that there is a component of our mind which is not present in our physical brain:

Problems with the "out of body" model of consciousness

To me, the assertion that a particular conscious identity could continue after death falls into the same stolen concept fallacy as the idea of God does. In fact, many arguments I put forth in that vein against the notion of God can be transposed to argue against life after death, because they are both underpinned by the notion that particular mental identity can be preserved independant of a physical body. In the case of the existence of God, this raises the question of how it is possible to suppose of another being, of a separate ontological category, which has the property of consciousness tied to the material, 3D world, we inhabit, who created the very source of perception and introspection. If this is the case, then it appears to be shooting itself in the foot. It would be somewhat akin to claiming that atoms were invented by people (who are composed of atoms).

A word of warning. This can get very complicated very fast. This is a piece I wrote on the problems with the idea that there is a non-physical component to mental processes.

Problems with the notion of a non-material aspect of the conscious process

Quote:

Not mine. I've never once made an argument for religion ONLY supernatural beliefs which are, admittedly,  beyond the scope of scientific boundaries

Anything which begins by asserting that there is a particular knowledge that can be gained of external phenomenon outside of scientific investigations leads to tremendous problems from a purely a priori standpoint. It implicitly states that there is some world which can be accessed by the methodologies of another discipline. It seems that “metaphysics” is a label applied to something until scientific investigation demonstrates a meaningful model behind it. I stress that since it is the job of science to investigate phenomenon then it appears, from an epistemological standpoint, to be problematic to say that we can conclude in a phenomenon that cannot be investigated by science (in other words, that a phenomenon is "non-material". Why is this so? Consider it. When it is through some complicated causal chain, which via deduction, we can link some model or external object to some feature of our perceptual experience, then we are performing a scientific investigation. Solely by means of using our intuitive understanding based on our immediate perceptual experience, we wouldn’t get very far, but, by means of accumulating knowledge, we can effectively link causal chains of experienced phenomenon to an external world behind the experiences. Thus, for example, we would be unable to conclude in “dark matter” on the basis of our analysis of galactic motions through telescopes if we didn’t already have an understanding of what galactic motion should look like based on Relativity, which in turn, we wouldn’t have been able to conclude in if we didn’t have a set of equations describing our intuitive basis for relative motion, called “Newtonian mechanics”, which in turn we wouldn’t be able to conclude in unless we had…You get the idea. So, in effect, by asserting that some phenomenon is beyond the realm of science (or, equivalently, isn't material), we are, in effect, asserting that such a feature has no causal relationship, however complicated it may be, that is needed to explain our perceptual experience. Obviously, there is some confusion about this. We don’t perceive, for example, “electron density”, but through a complex causal chain employing deductive experiments and prior knowledge also based on experiments, we can link electron density to some feature of perceptual experience. If there was no way whatsoever to link some phenomenon to some feature of our perceptual experience, however complex the linking chain might be, then, in effect, we are making assertions about phenomenon that, through no amount of deduction or investigation, can we make conclusions about based upon our perceptual experiences, which are the source of all our knowledge (although, as Kant pointed out, not all our knowledge is derived from perceptual experience. There is a difference). So, you are on impossible ground, epistemologically speaking. To make your assertion, you must relinquish any knowledge claims you might make about this phenomenon at all.

"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


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote: What is a spirit

Arj wrote:
 

What is a spirit made of?

antimatter.

Arj, you've got a wrong assumption here. "Spirit" or anything finer-than-physical is everywhere. Physically, the universe is empty, but in fact, it's filled with unbelievable amount of energy per cubic micrometer. The "spirit" is everywhere, as our physical reality is only an artificial illusion, built of "spirit". Technically, there is no true spirit, there is no opposite, anti-material world, there is solid, liquid and gaseous world, and then similar four degrees of etheric matter, still finer than that, and it's still physical, though having literally ethereal quality. Then, there is similar, even more finer, even more "ethereal" sevenfold set of existences, called astral, this is what you and your mother (medium) are so familiar with. There is several more of such sevenfold "worlds", overshadowing our world, occupying the same space.
I'm almost sure that this state is described in the visible universe/dark universe ratio. We know 3 gradually finer states of matter, solid, liquid and gaseous, but there are esoterically known 46 more, still finer equivalents of matter and energy. This ratio, 3/49 is very similar to 5% / 95% as for the known universe, compared to the remaining missing dark matter + dark energy.


It is IMHO useless to discuss about a spirit, having no measurable link to it. I'm pretty sure we must discover a link between the physical body and etheric body first. On this I gave a recent report in my topic here. Shortly said, I personally repeatedly witnessed a non-random, meaningful changes of skin resistivity, as a reaction of being near a certain medicines. There was no physical contact with the medicine itself, and yet there appeared a  measurable effect. This effect is succesfully used when prescribing a medicine to a patient. There must be some sort of bioenergetic field around the body, which allows us to achieve a non-physical contact, and I call this field "etheric body".

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
Lumi and DG (I didn't waste

Lumi and DG (I didn't waste my time reading all of that) I made a disclaimer at the beginning of that post: I am using the occam's razor theory to answer these questions so I have no way to validate them and am not trying to pass them off as SCIENTIFIC proof (like other people have) .....

Occam's Razor principle: All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.

I was illustrating that this is what applying OR to the debate on the existence of an afterlife yields.... not very scientific or valid proof at all.  

That's why I followed up with why demand proof for something you have yet to prove also..... This is like the pot calling the kettle black....blah blah blah

 

So you are basically reproving my point.... that's fine.

 Anything which begins by asserting that there is a particular knowledge that can be gained of external phenomenon outside of scientific investigations leads to tremendous problems from a purely a priori standpoint.

This is what I was saying in the very beginning when I mentioned that particular logical fallacy first.... you were ignoring me then but don't try to steal my argument now and then quote it back to me.

 This is the point I am still trying to make but you Atheists like to play dumb whenever I say it yet you have all admitted there is no true scientific proof to argue the contrary....so stop asking people to prove themselves until you do it first. My point for the last 500 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


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:(I didn't waste my

Quote:

(I didn't waste my time reading all of that)

Well, maybe you should.

Quote:

All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.

That's not what Occam's Razor says. It says that the most parsimonous solution is usually correct. What you have stated here is by far the most commonly given incorrect version of Occam's Razor.

Quote:

This is what I was saying in the very beginning when I mentioned that particular logical fallacy first

What? Where? You were the one who said that you had particular beliefs which pertained to something outside the scope of scientific inquiry. I am the one who just said that it is there is no way to gain knowledge of external phenomenon if such phenomenon are outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Thus, you must relinquish your knowledge claims.

Quote:

whenever I say it yet you have all admitted there is no true scientific proof to argue the contrary

I've just pointed out to you that the scientific case against your propositions is quite strong. You have yet to read what I have written on the matter.

Quote:

.so stop asking people to prove themselves until you do it first

You are making no sense. Do you understand the concept of burden of proof? The burden of proof is a concept that is most often referred to in law. In a law case, the prosecutor must prove his case to be true. The defense counsel need only establish that there is reasonable doubt for the verdict of not guilty. In this case, you are the positive claimant. You must prove your case. I need only poke holes in it. This is, in fact, what I have been doing, if you read the articles I gave you.

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

-Me

Books about atheism


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Well if you do what you do,

Well if you do what you do, there is a way how to announce it...
For example, Ben Creme emphasizes an important part of his lectures, he basically says that:

- his work is simply to travel around the world and make these things known, not to convince people about them.
- if you agree with them, if your heart or intellect says so, if it feels right, then accept them.
- but if you disagree, don't accept them by any means.
- If you won't accept them, he won't feel the slightest bit disappointed.

However, he also answers questions. If you do things like that, you must expect some reaction. Or since you allow no discussion, would you rather like no reaction in this topic at all? Should we all ignore you? What kind of reactions from people do you expect and appreciate?

I am very skilled in esoteric topics and the problem is, that I don't value the mediumship of your mom's type very much. It's rather a primitive feature, it's being used by the astral type mediumship, rather than use it. All the false prophets, cult idols, madmen and primitive shamans are the astral mediums, there are very few cases of astral mediumship, which actually brought any good to humanity. There are much safer, cleaner and more powerful ways to deal with the astral world. They're also more complicated, but not more than the rest of scientifically known world. How your mom does it, is an anachronism, a thing which once helped a primitive people to survive, but today an anachronism nonetheless, which will be abandoned during a self-development. This is my objection of a technical character.

Btw, please try to read what I write, because I always try to write in an interesting and meaningful way, or nothing at all. I sometimes mark boring texts, so uninterested people doesn't have to bother with reading them. But it's a necessary sign of decency to read closely everything you respond to. I know, you're tired by now, it's a heroic effort after such a long topic, but I hope I write well enough even for that.

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
deludedgod wrote:Quote:(I

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

(I didn't waste my time reading all of that)

Well, maybe you should.

Quote:

All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.

That's not what Occam's Razor says. It says that the most parsimonous solution is usually correct. What you have stated here is by far the most commonly given incorrect version of Occam's Razor.

Quote:

This is what I was saying in the very beginning when I mentioned that particular logical fallacy first

What? Where? You were the one who said that you had particular beliefs which pertained to something outside the scope of scientific inquiry. I am the one who just said that it is there is no way to gain knowledge of external phenomenon if such phenomenon are outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Thus, you must relinquish your knowledge claims.

Quote:

whenever I say it yet you have all admitted there is no true scientific proof to argue the contrary

I've just pointed out to you that the scientific case against your propositions is quite strong. You have yet to read what I have written on the matter.

Quote:

.so stop asking people to prove themselves until you do it first

You are making no sense. Do you understand the concept of burden of proof? The burden of proof is a concept that is most often referred to in law. In a law case, the prosecutor must prove his case to be true. The defense counsel need only establish that there is reasonable doubt for the verdict of not guilty. In this case, you are the positive claimant. You must prove your case. I need only poke holes in it. This is, in fact, what I have been doing, if you read the articles I gave you.

That quote came from Wiki and was highly recommended by another RRS member.....Since you are demanding that I PROVE myself because your proof denies my claims..... I'm saying prove that OR (IAM said it was the science of NOT ASSUMING) is a valid form of evidence/science to dispute with (which everyone is agreeing that it's NOT. You just debunked half of my theories based on this logic....) before you try to use it to dispute my claims.... I'm NOT asking you to DISPROVE my claims... I'm asking you to validate your proof in regards to this matter. Remember, I said first we have to define proof and apparently that goes over deaf ears but when it comes down to it everyone seems to agree that Science hasn't ruled out this notion but hasn't proven it yet either. So basically you are proofless (Wanting sufficient evidence to induce belief; not proved) Atheists misrepresenting agnosticism.

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


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

 

Quote:

I'm asking you to validate your proof in regards to this matter.

As I said, my proof is based on a combination of a priori reasoning and experimental evidence. The former will establish a proposition which is necessarily true unless there is some logical flaw in the proof. The latter is heavily demonstrated to be highly reliable. Maybe you should first read what I have written.

Actually, I'm not talking to you until you start writing in a grammatically correct fashion. I cannot understand you. This (what you have written below) isn't even a sentence. It's a collection of fragments. Stop fucking writing in this way! It gives everyone a headache.

Quote:

That quote came from Wiki and was highly recommended by another RRS member.....Since you are demanding that I PROVE myself because your proof denies my claims..... I'm saying prove that OR (IAM said it was the science of NOT ASSUMING) is a valid form of evidence/science to dispute with (which everyone is agreeing that it's NOT.

 Believe me, whatever it is that you want me to do in relation to this discussion and my arguments against Life after death, I will do it. But your writing style is so incoherent that it is impossible to decipher you. I mean, just look at what you wrote above. That's just...ugh.

"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
OR. Occam's razor.

OR. Occam's razor. You didn't have a problem understanding me beforehand....how convenient.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:OR. Occam's razor.Yes,

Quote:

OR. Occam's razor.

Yes, I know that (your attempt at a sentence is still a fragment collection which I can barely understand). I'm not talking about Occam's Razor. Also, please stop referring to OR as a theory. It is a principle, not a theory. Please do not confuse these concepts.

Here is my condition for speaking to you. Do you notice that when I write, I tend to write out propositions in a form quite similar to syllogistic form? This makes it very easy to disseminate an argument. Either write in syllogistic form, or don't come back.

Quote:

You didn't have a problem understanding me before

Actually, I've consistently found you very hard to decipher because of the way you write. I've just taken the liberty of pointing it out again.

Quote:

Occam's razor might be considered a "logical conjecture" but it is still a speculation (centered around logical PLAUSIBILITIES)

This is flat out false. A conjecture is a mathematical term to refer to a statement which is highly likely to be correct but is not yet proved (this is purely a reference to a mathematical theorem). Examples include the Godlbach conjecture, or what used to be the Taniyama-Shurima conjecture. Occam's razor is neither conjecture nor speculation. It is a principle which was reccomended by William of Ockham. The formal reasoning behind OR is as follows:

1. In particular cases, it may be that competing explanations exist

2. Some of these explanations may be less parsimonous than others. A more parsimonous explanation contains the least unfounded assumptions.

3. Thus, it would follow, that all things being equal (these competing explanations all being equally successful in being applied to the thing they are meant to explain) that the explanation with the most parsimony would be the least unfounded, and therefore the best basis as a knowledge claim out of the competing explanations.

"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