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
Yesterday, I called it a

Yesterday, I called it a principle and people tried to convince me that it was not. LOL.

In order to sum up my thought processes I reworded it for you at the very end: You just debunked half of my theories based on this logic.... So basically you are proofless (Wanting sufficient evidence to induce belief; not proved) Atheists misrepresenting agnosticism.

But yeah, I'm sure this was too hard for you to comprehend. I can believe that. LOL

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


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

Quote:

Yesterday, I called it a principle and people tried to convince me that it was not. LOL.

They are wrong.

Quote:

But yeah, I'm sure this was too hard for you to comprehend. I can believe that. LOL

Yes it was. The sentence is so convoluted I cannot understand it. Please write it in syllogistic form. Also, drop the pronoun. It's too vague ("this logic" ).

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:Yesterday, I

Arj wrote:

Yesterday, I called it a principle and people tried to convince me that it was not. LOL.

In order to sum up my thought processes I reworded it for you at the very end: You just debunked half of my theories based on this logic.... So basically you are proofless (Wanting sufficient evidence to induce belief; not proved) Atheists misrepresenting agnosticism.

But yeah, I'm sure this was too hard for you to comprehend. I can believe that. LOL

You did supply a reference  that called Occam's Razor a principle, but what you then did in the same post is show a set of definitions/usages of the word 'principle', and claimed that this showed that OR was therefore a whole bunch of other things which the word 'principle' can also be used for, which is what people were objecting to. 'Principle' is a word applied to a number of different specific things, and only one of those definitions was applicable to the concept of 'Occam's Razor'.

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
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Yesterday, I called it a principle and people tried to convince me that it was not. LOL.

They are wrong.

Quote:

But yeah, I'm sure this was too hard for you to comprehend. I can believe that. LOL

Yes it was. The sentence is so convoluted I cannot understand it. Please write it in syllogistic form. Also, drop the pronoun. It's too vague ("this logic" ).

People say ignorance is bliss.

If this is not a prime example of an atheist playing dumb when it's convenient... then I don't know what is.... you've been able to debate with me for over 400 posts NOW "all of a sudden" I'm speaking another language that's beyond comprehension.... LOL. You're good with words so I'm confident that you will be able to figure it out. Try reading it aloud. LOL.

 

 

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


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If this is not a prime

Quote:

If this is not a prime example of an atheist playing dumb when it's convenient... then I don't know what is....

Your sentence was fucking meaningless! Look at it:

You just debunked half of my theories based on this logic.... So basically you are proofless (Wanting sufficient evidence to induce belief; not proved) Atheists misrepresenting agnosticism.

This is what it looks like to me:

P1: I have debunked half of your theories based on a particular logic (what particular logic are you referring to?)

C: Therefore I do not have proof (proof of what?)

This is fucking gibberish! It is a non sequitur, contains a missing premise (in other words, is an enthymeme) and uses unclarified terms. Write out the argument in full (and read what I gave you wrote. It's the least you could do). 

You make the most meaningless and convoluted comments (not even complete sentences) and then dance around as if you "won" and laugh at our opposition because they do not respond. The reason I didn't respond to that comment until now is because it doesn't make any goddamned sense.

"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


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I'm surprised that you

I'm surprised that you didn't mention nothing she proposed comes even close to qualifying as a "theory. "

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


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

MattShizzle wrote:

I'm surprised that you didn't mention nothing she proposed comes even close to qualifying as a "theory. "

I don't think he wants to make this distinguish because that's what I've been trying to say about Atheism in regards to my supernatural beliefs.

Nothing any of you have said, in regards to, disproving the existence of an afterlife and "god" comes close to qualifying as a scientific theory.

‘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:Nothing any of you

Quote:

Nothing any of you have said, in regards to, disproving the existence of an afterlife and "god" comes close to qualifying as a scientific theory.

How the hell would you know? You havent read what I have argued against Life after death. The pieces are grounded in scientific theory. Try reading them. The proposition I am establishing is that the mind, identity and mental states are all contingent upon particular physical states and when the physical machinary necessary for existence is destroyed, so too are the mental states and identity. This is testable and scientifically verified. Please read the following:

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

Problems with the "out of body" model of consciousness

"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


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:People say

Arj wrote:
People say ignorance is bliss.

If this is not a prime example of an atheist playing dumb when it's convenient... then I don't know what is.... you've been able to debate with me for over 400 posts NOW "all of a sudden" I'm speaking another language that's beyond comprehension.... LOL. You're good with words so I'm confident that you will be able to figure it out. Try reading it aloud. LOL.

It is clearly the responsibility of the communicator to make pellucid their idea for others to understand - as it is only the communicator of that idea who knows what the idea is.

Having finally read the thread, I'm still not sure what your point is.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


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

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Nothing any of you have said, in regards to, disproving the existence of an afterlife and "god" comes close to qualifying as a scientific theory.

How the hell would you know? You havent read what I have argued against Life after death. The pieces are grounded in scientific theory. Try reading them.

To use theoretical evidence or a philosophy grounded in scientific principles is not the same thing as DEBUNKING the myth. That's what I was trying to illustrate earlier. Fly asked, how can we disprove something that has not been proven yet? You can't. Therefore, DG you have not. Not unless in your universe you eclipse reality. In this respect Atheism is misconstrued agnosticism. The proof is in the pudding. LOL

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


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

Quote:

To use theoretical evidence or a philosophy grounded in scientific principles is not the same thing as DEBUNKING the myth.

Do you even understand the meaning of the term theory? A theory is a hypothesis which has been experimentally verified. The idea that our brains are necessary for the continuity of minds and mental identity is experimentally verified. Please, I again direct you to the pieces.

Quote:

You can't.

Yes you can. In fact, this is necessarily true by the law of non contradiction. This is what you have just said: For a particular thing to be disproven, a necessary condition is that it is proven. This is a contradictory sentence. There is (a) No antecedant to state that proof is a necessary condition for disproof. and (b) if a particular thing is disproven, it necessarily follows that it cannot be proven and vice-versa.

So, me offering disproof of your proposition is not contingent upon your attempts to prove it. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? You've just uttered the following sentence "For P to be the case, not P must be the case". I put it to you that you are trolling. No one could possibly be so lacking in the most basic of logic and reading comprehension skills.

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

-Me

Books about atheism


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

deludedgod wrote:

So basically you are proofless Atheists misrepresenting agnosticism.

Good Lord, does that make it better?

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


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

Arj wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Nothing any of you have said, in regards to, disproving the existence of an afterlife and "god" comes close to qualifying as a scientific theory.

How the hell would you know? You havent read what I have argued against Life after death. The pieces are grounded in scientific theory. Try reading them.

To use theoretical evidence or a philosophy grounded in scientific principles is not the same thing as DEBUNKING the myth. That's what I was trying to illustrate earlier. Fly asked, how can we disprove something that has not been proven yet? You can't. Therefore, DG you have not. Not unless in your universe you eclipse reality. In this respect Atheism is misconstrued agnosticism. The proof is in the pudding. LOL

Arj,

Is your whole premise "because X hasn't been proven to not exist - X must exist"? That's how it reads.

Agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism with belief. Agnosticism is not a position. It's a qualifier to a position.

You claim to have firsthand knowledge of the spirit world - please elucidate. Otherwise, your "knowledge" is merely a belief that has been debunked since Harry Houdini (and earlier for all I know).

"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


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Good Lord, does that

Quote:

Good Lord, does that make it better?

No. If I was simply denying that there was evidence for life after death (taking a negative claim position) then it would be true. But I am not. I am making the positive claim that life after death cannot be the case and offering evidence for it which you have not examined.

To disprove something is entirely different than to deny that there is evidence for it. A disproof is not contingent upon nor does it require the opposition to have attempted to prove something. A disproof need only begin by examining the premises that the opposition has begun with. The premise you have begun with is that life after death is possible. If I was merely denying that there was any evidence for life after death, then the only thing I would need to do is defeat arguments in support of life after death. I would have no burden to create arguments against it (which is an entirely different matter). But I am creating arguments agains it. Now listen carefully. If I had just said there is no evidence for it then I would need to take an agnostic position. To deny it on such a basis would be an ad ignorantium fallacy. But if I said there is evidence against it THEN I could take a stronger position and deny it. Do you understand now? 

"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


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:To use theoretical

Arj wrote:
To use theoretical evidence or a philosophy grounded in scientific principles is not the same thing as DEBUNKING the myth. That's what I was trying to illustrate earlier. Fly asked, how can we disprove something that has not been proven yet? You can't. Therefore, DG you have not. Not unless in your universe you eclipse reality. In this respect Atheism is misconstrued agnosticism. The proof is in the pudding. LOL
Theism and atheism are statements of belief.

Gnosticism and agnosticism are statements of knowledge.

One does not need proof or disproof for belief.

Most of the atheists on this board are Agnostic Atheists. That means they know that proof or disproof for "god" is essentially impossible, but as there is no evidence for a god or gods, there's not much point in believing in deities and so they are atheists.

This applies to the afterlife as well. By its definition it is essentially unprovable. There is no evidence for an afterlife, so there isn't much point in believing in it. (note that in this case, it can be easily argued that there is much evidence that there is no afterlife, depending on how you define "soul". It's the soft definitions for 'supernatural' ideas that make them unprovable.)

Same with spirits and souls and ghosts and telekinesis and water divining and leprechauns and unicorns...

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


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

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Nothing any of you have said, in regards to, disproving the existence of an afterlife and "god" comes close to qualifying as a scientific theory.

How the hell would you know? You havent read what I have argued against Life after death. The pieces are grounded in scientific theory. Try reading them.

To use theoretical evidence or a philosophy grounded in scientific principles is not the same thing as DEBUNKING the myth. That's what I was trying to illustrate earlier. Fly asked, how can we disprove something that has not been proven yet? You can't. Therefore, DG you have not. Not unless in your universe you eclipse reality. In this respect Atheism is misconstrued agnosticism. The proof is in the pudding. LOL

Arj,

Is your whole premise "because X hasn't been proven to not exist - X must exist"? That's how it reads.

Agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism with belief. Agnosticism is not a position. It's a qualifier to a position.

You claim to have firsthand knowledge of the spirit world - please elucidate. Otherwise, your "knowledge" is merely a belief that has been debunked since Harry Houdini (and earlier for all I know).

That's how it reads? I don't ever remember stating a claim remotely similar to this: "because X hasn't been proven to not exist - X must exist". If I have then please provide the link. I would think that statement would oppose the very  definition of agnosticism which ACTUALLY happens to be the claim I've made in this post. I'm getting sick of addressing/defending bullshit arguments/claims I've never made. You atheists will dig for any loop hole and are too prideful to admit defeat. My point is you can not disprove my spiritual beliefs through this atheistic rational of OR and science so stop demanding that I NEED to prove mine. I was merely pointing out, that as it stands right now you don't have any valid measures to debunk my beliefs yet you pretend to. Atheists need to stop pretending like they have hardcore evidence and facts to dispute the claim of God and the afterlife when all they ACTUALLY are are deluded, psychopathic, ill tempered, egotistical AGNOSTICS.

And they are too dense to see this yet claim everyone else is lacking common sense. LOL. Yeah right.

 

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


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

JillSwift wrote:

Arj wrote:
To use theoretical evidence or a philosophy grounded in scientific principles is not the same thing as DEBUNKING the myth. That's what I was trying to illustrate earlier. Fly asked, how can we disprove something that has not been proven yet? You can't. Therefore, DG you have not. Not unless in your universe you eclipse reality. In this respect Atheism is misconstrued agnosticism. The proof is in the pudding. LOL
Theism and atheism are statements of belief.

Gnosticism and agnosticism are statements of knowledge.

One does not need proof or disproof for belief.

Most of the atheists on this board are Agnostic Atheists. That means they know that proof or disproof for "god" is essentially impossible, but as there is no evidence for a god or gods, there's not much point in believing in deities and so they are atheists.

This applies to the afterlife as well. By its definition it is essentially unprovable. There is no evidence for an afterlife, so there isn't much point in believing in it. (note that in this case, it can be easily argued that there is much evidence that there is no afterlife, depending on how you define "soul". It's the soft definitions for 'supernatural' ideas that make them unprovable.)

Same with spirits and souls and ghosts and telekinesis and water divining and leprechauns and unicorns...

This is completely fine and rational and also the point I'm making in this thread however DG is under the illusion that he just ACTUALLY debunked my beliefs

I am making the positive claim that life after death cannot be the case and offering evidence for it which you have not examined.

....so maybe you should take this argument up with him. People seem to have a hard time at taking my word for it.

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


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

Quote:

DG is under the illusion that he just ACTUALLY debunked my beliefs

How do you know I haven't? You still have yet to read what I have written on the matter. I refuse to speak to you until you do.

"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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I asked:  What do you

I asked:  What do you actually mean by spirit or afterlife? ~~~

Arj replied: 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. ~~~

  My writing skills are also lacking, but lets keep trying to improve, with some corrective help from our caring friends here at RRS.

I mentioned 'anti-matter' to show the amazing depth of our current science, which is way over my science knowledge. Seems you are romancing the Positive/Negative matter with a "before/after", life/afterlife, as one before the other.

Also all energy matter is in "transition". From my understanding,  if the positive we are is mirrored in a negative the process leading to what we call "death of a living body with attached consciousness", also dies on the negative side. The collection of matter energy that enables an individual conscious entity as ourselves is no longer possible, on either side of the plus/minus. Therefore "afterlife" as in a "spirit" sense, makes no scientific sense. Regarding this, I am not agnostic.

If I may paraphrase ancient intuitive metaphor: To know we are ONE with the eternal, is to know we, our energy/matter never dies, as in the modern sense of "thermodynamics". I translate this in an ironic sense as also saying there is no such thing as an individual. For what it's worth Alan Watts, and eastern philosophy will say, we are all that is, that our bodies don't end at our skin, as we are the earth, sun, and all that existence is. 

We all imagine in "awe", but let's not let our romantic emotions keep us from objectivity. 

Sorry. Communication is hard for me. Please fix my words and concepts. I am in constant "awe". Geezz damnit gawed, what's the deal???      

 


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

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

DG is under the illusion that he just ACTUALLY debunked my beliefs

How do you know I haven't? You still have yet to read what I have written on the matter. I refuse to speak to you until you do.

Is that a promise?

‘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: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:Fly asked, how can

Arj wrote:
Fly asked, how can we disprove something that has not been proven yet? You can't. Therefore, DG you have not.

Damn it Arj, How many times have I gone over this?! Yeah, since I don't have any evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster and haven't established its characteristics and implications, you can't disprove it. However, the part you're missing is that this does NOT mean that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

Unless you can provide real evidence that spirits exist and talk to your mother, then the obvious conclusion to make is that spirits don't exist. 

Arj wrote:
Not unless in your universe you eclipse reality.

This is not an argument. You're just doing more mental backflips and throwing more insults.

Arj wrote:
In this respect Atheism is misconstrued agnosticism.

We've already discussed this a hundred times too! Atheism and agnosticism are not even in the same category. Look up these words up in the dictionary and study their etymology. 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

How the fuck is atheism a misconstrued version of agnosticism?

 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:If I have then

Arj wrote:
If I have then please provide the link.

What? You haven't even read the scientific articles that he's posted so far. 

Arj wrote:
I would think that statement would oppose the very  definition of agnosticism which ACTUALLY happens to be the claim I've made in this post.

You don't know the definition of agnosticism, Arj.

Arj wrote:
You atheists will dig for any loop hole and are too prideful to admit defeat.

You're an atheist!

Arj wrote:
My point is you can not disprove my spiritual beliefs through this atheistic rational of OR and science so stop demanding that I NEED to prove mine.

That's another non-sequitur, Arj!

We can't disprove the existence of unicorns, so you have no obligation to prove that they exist? Oh God.....*shakes head*

Arj wrote:
Atheists need to stop pretending like they have hardcore evidence and facts to dispute the claim of God and the afterlife when all they ACTUALLY are are deluded, psychopathic, ill tempered, egotistical AGNOSTICS.
 

Considering how many times we've explained this distinction to you, it's painfully obvious that you're simply not going to step away from your fundamentalism. But, nevertheless, this is an extremely impressive sentence. Here. 

 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 Arj wrote:Atheists need to

 

Arj wrote:
Atheists need to stop pretending like they have hardcore evidence and facts to dispute the claim of God and the afterlife when all they ACTUALLY are are deluded, psychopathic, ill tempered, egotistical AGNOSTICS.

Wait, I just have to look at this sentence again.

-The word "actually" in this sentence implies that whatever comes afterwards is true while whatever came before is false. 

-Thus, Atheists don't have any evidence or facts to dispute claims of God and the afterlife.

-All atheists are delusional.

-All atheists are psychopathic. 

-All atheists are ill-tempered.

-All atheists are egotistical.

-Atheism is a mostly inconsequential term, since atheists are "actually" just mad and stupid agnostics.

-Unfortunately, it doesn't offer an explanation as to what agnosticism means. 

 

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:
Fly asked, how can we disprove something that has not been proven yet? You can't. Therefore, DG you have not.

Damn it Arj, How many times have I gone over this?! Yeah, since I don't have any evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster and haven't established its characteristics and implications, you can't disprove it. However, the part you're missing is that this does NOT mean that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

Unless you can provide real evidence that spirits exist and talk to your mother, then the obvious conclusion to make is that spirits don't exist. 

Arj wrote:
Not unless in your universe you eclipse reality.

This is not an argument. You're just doing more mental backflips and throwing more insults.

Arj wrote:
In this respect Atheism is misconstrued agnosticism.

We've already discussed this a hundred times too! Atheism and agnosticism are not even in the same category. Look up these words up in the dictionary and study their etymology. 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

How the fuck is atheism a misconstrued version of agnosticism?

 

Right idiot. When you spewed this nonsense the first time what did I say about the burden of proof? If the man who believes in the monster MUST prove it then he evidently wants you to believe in the monster too because he's already acquired his proof. Right? Again, I don't give a damn if YOU don't believe in the afterlife or god. Damn it, this point keeps on going over YOUR head. So stop demanding proof for something which you admittedly can't disprove and which I admittedly don't care to prove. GODDAMN IT WHEN WILL YOU LEARN that part??? Now you could take this argument up with Ray Comfort and I wouldn't complain because he is actively trying to convert you. However, with me I just wish you ignorant, redundant atheists would shut up. In actuality, you are defying logic yet pretending to use it. And stop generalizing my statements I heard that BS before too. Let's make it simple. Let's just use plain ole common sense.

Give me yes or no answers.

I believe in the after life. Do you?

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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
NO

NO


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

butterbattle wrote:
Thus, atheism is an insignificant term. Atheists are just mad and stupid agnostics.

Oh I definitely agree here.

As far as unicorns go, I am under no obligation to prove it if I'm not trying to prove it. That's correct.

‘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


peppermint
Superfan
peppermint's picture
Posts: 539
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
LOL are you guys still

LOL are you guys still debating this guy?


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Correct, yet I feel

Correct Arj, yet I feel obligated too. I will not appease ideas from any source I disagree with. That's my choice, correct?


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

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Nothing any of you have said, in regards to, disproving the existence of an afterlife and "god" comes close to qualifying as a scientific theory.

How the hell would you know? You havent read what I have argued against Life after death. The pieces are grounded in scientific theory. Try reading them.

To use theoretical evidence or a philosophy grounded in scientific principles is not the same thing as DEBUNKING the myth. That's what I was trying to illustrate earlier. Fly asked, how can we disprove something that has not been proven yet? You can't. Therefore, DG you have not. Not unless in your universe you eclipse reality. In this respect Atheism is misconstrued agnosticism. The proof is in the pudding. LOL

Arj,

Is your whole premise "because X hasn't been proven to not exist - X must exist"? That's how it reads.

Agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism with belief. Agnosticism is not a position. It's a qualifier to a position.

You claim to have firsthand knowledge of the spirit world - please elucidate. Otherwise, your "knowledge" is merely a belief that has been debunked since Harry Houdini (and earlier for all I know).

That's how it reads? I don't ever remember stating a claim remotely similar to this: "because X hasn't been proven to not exist - X must exist". If I have then please provide the link. I would think that statement would oppose the very  definition of agnosticism which ACTUALLY happens to be the claim I've made in this post. I'm getting sick of addressing/defending bullshit arguments/claims I've never made. You atheists will dig for any loop hole and are too prideful to admit defeat. My point is you can not disprove my spiritual beliefs through this atheistic rational of OR and science so stop demanding that I NEED to prove mine. I was merely pointing out, that as it stands right now you don't have any valid measures to debunk my beliefs yet you pretend to. Atheists need to stop pretending like they have hardcore evidence and facts to dispute the claim of God and the afterlife when all they ACTUALLY are are deluded, psychopathic, ill tempered, egotistical AGNOSTICS.

And they are too dense to see this yet claim everyone else is lacking common sense. LOL. Yeah right.

 

Admitting defeat? I thought you weren't debating Smiling

I've never tried to debunk your beliefs - I'm going after your claim of firsthand knowledge. Strange how you make this knowledge claim and fall back on "it's my belief" when called on it. Is your claim of the existence of the spirit world knowledge or belief? If it's knowledge, please state how you know what you know. If it's a belif, stop calling it firsthand knowledge.

Most folks here are agnostic atheists. All we ask of the theists and other folks who claim knowledge of the supernatural/paranormal is evidence. You say you have firsthand knowledge so it should be a simple task for you to provide evidence.

Or is your firsthand knowledge a way of covering up being suckered by your mom the medium?

"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


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:This is completely

Arj wrote:
This is completely fine and rational and also the point I'm making in this thread however DG is under the illusion that he just ACTUALLY debunked my beliefs

I am making the positive claim that life after death cannot be the case and offering evidence for it which you have not examined.

....so maybe you should take this argument up with him. People seem to have a hard time at taking my word for it.

Well, I've actually read what DG had to say, and he has indeed brought a cogent argument in favor of rejecting the idea of an afterlife.

I've read what you have said and you have offered no evidence at all.

You have, on the other hand, offered a great deal of angry rhetoric, ad hom fallacy, circular reasoning, re-definition fallacy and a great deal of snark. Your communications skills are not serving you at all well.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


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

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Nothing any of you have said, in regards to, disproving the existence of an afterlife and "god" comes close to qualifying as a scientific theory.

How the hell would you know? You havent read what I have argued against Life after death. The pieces are grounded in scientific theory. Try reading them.

To use theoretical evidence or a philosophy grounded in scientific principles is not the same thing as DEBUNKING the myth. That's what I was trying to illustrate earlier. Fly asked, how can we disprove something that has not been proven yet? You can't. Therefore, DG you have not. Not unless in your universe you eclipse reality. In this respect Atheism is misconstrued agnosticism. The proof is in the pudding. LOL

Arj,

Is your whole premise "because X hasn't been proven to not exist - X must exist"? That's how it reads.

Agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism with belief. Agnosticism is not a position. It's a qualifier to a position.

You claim to have firsthand knowledge of the spirit world - please elucidate. Otherwise, your "knowledge" is merely a belief that has been debunked since Harry Houdini (and earlier for all I know).

That's how it reads? I don't ever remember stating a claim remotely similar to this: "because X hasn't been proven to not exist - X must exist". If I have then please provide the link. I would think that statement would oppose the very  definition of agnosticism which ACTUALLY happens to be the claim I've made in this post. I'm getting sick of addressing/defending bullshit arguments/claims I've never made. You atheists will dig for any loop hole and are too prideful to admit defeat. My point is you can not disprove my spiritual beliefs through this atheistic rational of OR and science so stop demanding that I NEED to prove mine. I was merely pointing out, that as it stands right now you don't have any valid measures to debunk my beliefs yet you pretend to. Atheists need to stop pretending like they have hardcore evidence and facts to dispute the claim of God and the afterlife when all they ACTUALLY are are deluded, psychopathic, ill tempered, egotistical AGNOSTICS.

And they are too dense to see this yet claim everyone else is lacking common sense. LOL. Yeah right.

 

Admitting defeat? I thought you weren't debating Smiling

I've never tried to debunk your beliefs - I'm going after your claim of firsthand knowledge. Strange how you make this knowledge claim and fall back on "it's my belief" when called on it. Is your claim of the existence of the spirit world knowledge or belief? If it's knowledge, please state how you know what you know. If it's a belif, stop calling it firsthand knowledge.

Most folks here are agnostic atheists. All we ask of the theists and other folks who claim knowledge of the supernatural/paranormal is evidence. You say you have firsthand knowledge so it should be a simple task for you to provide evidence.

Or is your firsthand knowledge a way of covering up being suckered by your mom the medium?

  Yeah. Sure. That's it. LOL.

You generalize everything. I'm not debating afterlife's existence but you tend to want to group everything together, so ok. How does knowledge differ from beliefs yet all debates and all spiritual beliefs are grouped together and treated the same? That's odd. Compartmentalizing maybe? So you believe that you have disproved the existence of god and the after life even though you admit WE haven't proven it yet? Wow. Ok. I admit it, that's completely logical.

 

 

‘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
JillSwift wrote:Arj

JillSwift wrote:

Arj wrote:
This is completely fine and rational and also the point I'm making in this thread however DG is under the illusion that he just ACTUALLY debunked my beliefs

I am making the positive claim that life after death cannot be the case and offering evidence for it which you have not examined.

....so maybe you should take this argument up with him. People seem to have a hard time at taking my word for it.

Well, I've actually read what DG had to say, and he has indeed brought a cogent argument in favor of rejecting the idea of an afterlife.

I've read what you have said and you have offered no evidence at all.

 

That's the point. I wasn't providing any because I have nothing to prove. This hasn't dawn on anyone yet and its been over 400 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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:which I admittedly

Arj wrote:
which I admittedly don't care to prove.
 

Oh, I get it now. The fundamentals of philosophy changes when you refuse to support your irrational beliefs. Silly me! How could I have not understood that?

edit:

Arj wrote:
I wasn't providing any because I have nothing to prove.

Arj changes the rules of formal debate so that she doesn't have to do shit. By stating that she doesn't want to debate, (but is debating anyways) she grants us the burden of proving that unicorns don't exist. If we offer proof, she refuses to read it. If we can't prove it, this strengthens her belief that unicorns do exist. 

 

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


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:That's the point.

Arj wrote:
That's the point. I wasn't providing any because I have nothing to prove. This hasn't dawn on anyone yet and its been over 400 posts.
Ironic that you've managed to keep up the argument without a thing to prove for 400 posts now.


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


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:

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Nothing any of you have said, in regards to, disproving the existence of an afterlife and "god" comes close to qualifying as a scientific theory.

How the hell would you know? You havent read what I have argued against Life after death. The pieces are grounded in scientific theory. Try reading them.

To use theoretical evidence or a philosophy grounded in scientific principles is not the same thing as DEBUNKING the myth. That's what I was trying to illustrate earlier. Fly asked, how can we disprove something that has not been proven yet? You can't. Therefore, DG you have not. Not unless in your universe you eclipse reality. In this respect Atheism is misconstrued agnosticism. The proof is in the pudding. LOL

Arj,

Is your whole premise "because X hasn't been proven to not exist - X must exist"? That's how it reads.

Agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism with belief. Agnosticism is not a position. It's a qualifier to a position.

You claim to have firsthand knowledge of the spirit world - please elucidate. Otherwise, your "knowledge" is merely a belief that has been debunked since Harry Houdini (and earlier for all I know).

That's how it reads? I don't ever remember stating a claim remotely similar to this: "because X hasn't been proven to not exist - X must exist". If I have then please provide the link. I would think that statement would oppose the very  definition of agnosticism which ACTUALLY happens to be the claim I've made in this post. I'm getting sick of addressing/defending bullshit arguments/claims I've never made. You atheists will dig for any loop hole and are too prideful to admit defeat. My point is you can not disprove my spiritual beliefs through this atheistic rational of OR and science so stop demanding that I NEED to prove mine. I was merely pointing out, that as it stands right now you don't have any valid measures to debunk my beliefs yet you pretend to. Atheists need to stop pretending like they have hardcore evidence and facts to dispute the claim of God and the afterlife when all they ACTUALLY are are deluded, psychopathic, ill tempered, egotistical AGNOSTICS.

And they are too dense to see this yet claim everyone else is lacking common sense. LOL. Yeah right.

 

Admitting defeat? I thought you weren't debating Smiling

I've never tried to debunk your beliefs - I'm going after your claim of firsthand knowledge. Strange how you make this knowledge claim and fall back on "it's my belief" when called on it. Is your claim of the existence of the spirit world knowledge or belief? If it's knowledge, please state how you know what you know. If it's a belif, stop calling it firsthand knowledge.

Most folks here are agnostic atheists. All we ask of the theists and other folks who claim knowledge of the supernatural/paranormal is evidence. You say you have firsthand knowledge so it should be a simple task for you to provide evidence.

Or is your firsthand knowledge a way of covering up being suckered by your mom the medium?

  Yeah. Sure. That's it. LOL.

You generalize everything. I'm not debating afterlife's existence but you tend to want to group everything together, so ok. How does knowledge differ from beliefs yet all debates and all spiritual beliefs are grouped together and treated the same? That's odd. Compartmentalizing maybe? So you believe that you have disproved the existence of god and the after life even though you admit WE haven't proven it yet? Wow. Ok. I admit it, that's completely logical.

 

 

Gotcha.

Your firsthand knowledge is really nothing more than a fervent belief so you were lying when you made the claim.

I haven't said a word about disproving anything - another lie. You're good at that.

What I've said is that I can't believe without evidence. You seem to be saying the lack of evidence is what solidifies your belief.

Knowledge is a stonger standard than belief. If one has knowledge about something, belief is no longer necessary.

"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
butterbattle wrote:Arj

butterbattle wrote:

Arj wrote:
which I admittedly don't care to prove.
 

Oh, I get it now. The fundamentals of philosophy changes when you refuse to support your irrational beliefs. Silly me! How could I have not understood that?

 

Irrational???

So you believe that you have disproved the existence of god and the after life even though you admit WE haven't proven it yet? Wow. Ok. I admit it, that's completely logical.

Right. Atheists proclaiming to debunk a belief that hasn't been proven OR debated (by me) isn't irrational??? Isn't this like claiming the answer's 10 before knowing the mathematical equation??? That's fucking illogical.

‘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: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I believe in the

 

Quote:
I believe in the after life. Do you?

No.

 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Atheists proclaiming

 

Quote:
Atheists proclaiming to debunk a belief that hasn't been proven OR debated (by me) isn't irrational???

Do you even realize that this sentence makes no fucking sense whatsoever? We can't debunk something because it hasn't been proven? You love those non sequiturs, don't you?

Let's suppose that I told you there was a horse in my closet. Obviously, you would be skeptical and probably ask to look inside my closet. Now, if you ended up discovering that there is no horse in my closet, what have you just done? You would have just debunked something that hasn't been proven.

By the way, thanks for backing up my point. You just said that this belief "hasn't been proven." Yet, you believe in it. You believe in something that hasn't been proven. 

 

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


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:Irrational???So

Arj wrote:
Irrational???

So you believe that you have disproved the existence of god and the after life even though you admit WE haven't proven it yet? Wow. Ok. I admit it, that's completely logical.

Right. Atheists proclaiming to debunk a belief that hasn't been proven OR debated (by me) isn't irrational??? Isn't this like claiming the answer's 10 before knowing the mathematical equation??? That's fucking illogical.

Can you re-write that using symbolic logic for me? I ask becasue I'm not following you rlogic here. Too many pronouns.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


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

butterbattle wrote:

 

Quote:
Atheists proclaiming to debunk a belief that hasn't been proven OR debated (by me) isn't irrational???

Do you even realize that this sentence makes no fucking sense whatsoever? We can't debunk something because it hasn't been proven? You love those non sequiturs, don't you?

Let's suppose that I told you there was a horse in my closet. Obviously, you would be skeptical and probably ask to look inside my closet. Now, if you ended up discovering that there is no horse in my closet, what have you just done? You would have just debunked something that hasn't been proven.

By the way, thanks for backing up my point. You just said that this belief "hasn't been proven." Yet, you believe in it. You believe in something that hasn't been proven. 

 

Yes. And you love those generalizations.  You keep trying to portray  psychical examples as ACCURATE supernatural scenarios and they are not. This is like equating religion to spirituality but they are two different arguments. You are the one that seems to love those non sequiturs. A horse in your closet can BE scientifically proven and easily ruled out. The same can not be said about the after life and everyone here has admitted this much. You don't seem to recognize the contradictions in your beliefs. 

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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Worth repeating from

Worth repeating from jcgadfly, "I've never tried to debunk your beliefs - I'm going after your claim of firsthand knowledge. Strange how you make this knowledge claim and fall back on "it's my belief" when called on it. Is your claim of the existence of the spirit world knowledge or belief? If it's knowledge, please state how you know what you know. If it's a belif, stop calling it firsthand knowledge.

Most folks here are agnostic atheists. All we ask of the theists and other folks who claim knowledge of the supernatural/paranormal is evidence. You say you have firsthand knowledge so it should be a simple task for you to provide evidence." ~~~

      Yeah, exactly.

As for me Arj,  from both evidence and lack of evidence I don't believe as you. Simple.


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Something else that's also

Something else that's also worth repeating:

Arj wrote:

butterbattle wrote:


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 AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Most folks here are agnostic atheists. All we ask of the theists and other folks who claim knowledge of the supernatural/paranormal is evidence. You say you have firsthand knowledge so it should be a simple task for you to provide evidence."

Fly, I don't see anything wrong with this rational....I told Swift, this seems very logical.... All I'm saying is ASK this of someone who's got something to prove. This has never been one of my objectives and I stated from the beginning that I'm not trying to convert anybody. It's ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONAL for self-professed  AGNOSTIC atheists to FORCE this task on anybody when they also lack in proof and evidence. That's a double standard, isn't it? Another contradiction, perhaps?

 

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

As for me Arj,  from both evidence and lack of evidence I don't believe as you. Simple.

Exactly. It is just that simple. Common sense could've told you that instead of this 400 posts debate. But, hey, whenever I said it people wanted to act like they were hard of hearing...... Like they went deaf in one ear.

Oh well. You live and you learn.

 

 

‘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


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:Fly, I don't see

Arj wrote:
Fly, I don't see anything wrong with this rational....I told Swift, this seems very logical.... All I'm saying is ASK this of someone who's got something to prove. This has never been one of my objectives and I stated from the beginning that I'm not trying to convert anybody. It's ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONAL for self-professed  AGNOSTIC atheists to FORCE this task on anybody when they also lack in proof and evidence. That's a double standard, isn't it? Another contradiction, perhaps?
No, it's perfectly fair and reasonable to place the burden of proof on the one making a claim of any sort.

No task was forced on you here. You can walk away from this thread any time you wish with no significant repercussions. That was the irony I was referring to before - you could have ended this thread any time you chose to by simply saying "my assertions about an afterlife are just that, I have no evidence and can't expect anyone to reasonable believe those assertions."

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


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

JillSwift wrote:

Arj wrote:
Fly, I don't see anything wrong with this rational....I told Swift, this seems very logical.... All I'm saying is ASK this of someone who's got something to prove. This has never been one of my objectives and I stated from the beginning that I'm not trying to convert anybody. It's ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONAL for self-professed  AGNOSTIC atheists to FORCE this task on anybody when they also lack in proof and evidence. That's a double standard, isn't it? Another contradiction, perhaps?
No, it's perfectly fair and reasonable to place the burden of proof on the one making a claim of any sort.

No task was forced on you here. You can walk away from this thread any time you wish with no significant repercussions. That was the irony I was referring to before - you could have ended this thread any time you chose to by simply saying "my assertions about an afterlife are just that, I have no evidence and can't expect anyone to reasonable believe those assertions." 

...This is another prime example of going deaf in one ear....

I did say that. In fact, I made several comments like that throughout. Reread the thread. They were creating ALL of these "assertions" out of thin air. Not me.....Just like you, right now, they weren't accepting this answer and were ignoring it whenever I did say it. You said so yourself. "You don't have any evidence." I replied, "I wasn't providing any." That should have been the end of the dispute. In my eyes, it becomes a double standard after that point.

This is what I mean about utilizing common sense. If we could all just do this we could cross the finish line together. LOL.

I only come back to mock the mediocrity. 

‘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


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:...This is another

Arj wrote:
...This is another prime example of going deaf in one ear....

I did say that. In fact, I made several comments like that throughout. Reread the thread. They were creating ALL of these "assertions" out of thin air. Not me.....Just like you, right now, they weren't accepting this answer and were ignoring it whenever I did say it. You said so yourself. "You don't have any evidence." I replied, "I wasn't providing any." That should have been the end of the dispute. In my eyes, it becomes a double standard after that point.

I suppose it isn't worth trying to get you to see that your communications skills are at fault for that being less than clear.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 Arj wrote:You said so

 

Arj wrote:
You said so yourself. "You don't have any evidence." I replied, "I wasn't providing any." That should have been the end of the dispute.

I don't understand why you would not want to debate and then debate for over 400 posts. Nobody is forcing you post to on this thread, and nobody is forcing you to post on the suggested topics. Sorry, I just don't get it.

Am I stupid? It looks like you're still debating and trying to argue for your worldview.  

Arj wrote:
Yes. And you love those generalizations.  You keep trying to portray  psychical examples as ACCURATE supernatural scenarios and they are not.

*sigh*

The metaphor was only in reference to your claim that a belief that isn't proven can't be disproven.

Quote:
This is like equating religion to spirituality but they are two different arguments.

No, as I stated, it's a response to your retarded assertion. 

Furthermore, I think religion is just spirituality with dogma tacked on. The beliefs are usually equally ridiculous. 

Quote:
You are the one that seems to love those non sequiturs.

You have not shown where I have committed a non sequitur.

Quote:
A horse in your closet can BE scientifically proven and easily ruled out.

Um, yeah?

Quote:
The same can not be said about the after life and everyone here has admitted this much.

My metaphor does not apply to the supernatural. It was a reference to your claim. You assumed that I was also applying it with religion and spirituality. This is a miscommunication.

Quote:
You don't seem to recognize the contradictions in your beliefs.
 

What contradiction?

 

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
JillSwift wrote:Arj

JillSwift wrote:

Arj wrote:
...This is another prime example of going deaf in one ear....

I did say that. In fact, I made several comments like that throughout. Reread the thread. They were creating ALL of these "assertions" out of thin air. Not me.....Just like you, right now, they weren't accepting this answer and were ignoring it whenever I did say it. You said so yourself. "You don't have any evidence." I replied, "I wasn't providing any." That should have been the end of the dispute. In my eyes, it becomes a double standard after that point.

I suppose it isn't worth trying to get you to see that your communications skills are at fault for that being less than clear.

It's not. I think the title of the thread says a lot and the fact that since post one this has been my entire argument in a nutshell. You could've done some more reading before posting. This 400-500 posts debate should speak volumes about the IRRATIONAL effects of prejudice and intolerance. In life, it always seems as though these two things far outweighs common sense even though it can get you a lot further. 

‘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: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:You said so

Arj wrote:

You said so yourself. "You don't have any evidence." I replied, "I wasn't providing any." That should have been the end of the dispute. In my eyes, it becomes a double standard after that point.

That is not really a intelligible response to the statement "You don't have any evidence". It is simply a statement of fact, which we have already noticed - you stated what you believe, but not what, if any, evidence you based that belief on, ie, you haven't provided any evidence, which is precisely why we make that observation in the first place. IOW your response is not a RATIONAL or LOGICAL response to our statement. It conveys no information whatsoever.

You could have said "i don't intend tell you whether or not I believe I have evidence",

or

"I believe I do have evidence, but I'm not going to show it to you"

or

"I may not have evidence that would satisfy you, but I don't care"

or

"I have no interest in telling you why I hold my beliefs"

etc, any of which would have actually clarified your position.

It's like asking someone a question, and them responding with "I haven't answered your question", instead of "I am not going to answer your question". We are not sure whether you have actually intend to answer later, and are just stalling for time, or until some other more appropriate point in the discussion, or have no intention of answering.

Many of your responses are like this - they don't seem to make a lot of sense as a response to our questions and comments.

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:

You said so yourself. "You don't have any evidence." I replied, "I wasn't providing any." That should have been the end of the dispute. In my eyes, it becomes a double standard after that point.

That is not really a intelligible response to the statement "You don't have any evidence". It is simply a statement of fact, which we have already noticed - you stated what you believe, but not what, if any, evidence you based that belief on, ie, you haven't provided any evidence, which is precisely why we make that observation in the first place. IOW your response is not a RATIONAL or LOGICAL response to our statement. It conveys no information whatsoever.

You could have said "i don't intend tell you whether or not I believe I have evidence",

or

"I believe I do have evidence, but I'm not going to show it to you"

or

"I may not have evidence that would satisfy you, but I don't care"

or

"I have no interest in telling you why I hold my beliefs"

etc, any of which would have actually clarified your position.

I have said all of these variants at one point or another and it's made no difference. Apparently, all of you are too dense to comprehend it no matter how I word it.

 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:That is not really a

BobSpence1 wrote:
That is not really a intelligible response to the statement "You don't have any evidence". It is simply a statement of fact, which we have already noticed - you stated what you believe, but not what, if any, evidence you based that belief on, ie, you haven't provided any evidence, which is precisely why we make that observation in the first place. IOW your response is not a RATIONAL or LOGICAL response to our statement. It conveys no information whatsoever.
 

Arj wrote:
I have said all of these variants at one point or another and it's made no difference. Apparently, all of you are too dense to comprehend it no matter how I word it.

You're hurting my brain.

 

 

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