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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:BobSpence1

Arj wrote:

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.

So why did you not

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.

Then why did you choose one of the others as your example, any of which would have been more intelligible?

Actually, looking back to the start of this thread, you did say you had 'compelling evidence', and that you didn't care what we think about it. So no. 2 would seem to be closest to your position, and no.1 would not match your position at all.

So logically, that means you should have no problems telling us, if you really are not going to care what we said or thought about it. But you gave angry responses to our suggestions that whatever evidence you thought you had, we doubted it could be valid. Which seems to indicate you DO care about what we think of your evidence. You keep contradicting yourself, like when you continually come back to debate us about how we don't understand that you aren't interested in debating us....

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


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:It's not. I think

Arj wrote:
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. 
Yeah, that's what I predicted. Your failure to clearly communicate your ideas is other folk's fault.

It's the effects of prejudice and intolerance? What a martyr you are.

 

"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
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.

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.

I only intended to convey one thing-- MY beliefs. I didn't ask a single question in my introduction. Now, let's think with a little bit of logical common sense.

"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.

Tell me, what's wrong with this picture?

 

"I am not going to answer your question"

I said this precise thing in an earlier post. I said, "I am not going to answer ANY questions in regards to my supernatural beliefs....."

That's as plain as day.

‘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: 5814
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:BobSpence1

Arj wrote:

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.

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.

I only intended to convey one thing-- MY beliefs. I didn't ask a single question in my introduction. Now, let's think with a little bit of logical common sense.

And I didn't say you did. My example was comparing your response in YOUR example to someone, such as yourself, responding to a question from me by saying "I haven't answered your question".

Quote:

"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.

Tell me, what's wrong with this picture?

Ok maybe I should have said "it conveys no new information", but it certainly tells us nothing that isn't already obvious.

 

Quote:

"I am not going to answer your question"

I said this precise thing in an earlier post. I said, "I am not going to answer ANY questions in regards to my supernatural beliefs....."

That's as plain as day.

Then why did you not use that in the example, instead of "I wasn't providing any", which is what you quoted as your response to OUR statement that "You don't have any evidence".

The way you quoted and underlined things there looks like you are are implying that "statement of fact" is meant to apply to "You don't have any evidence " instead of to your response "I am not going to answer your question". I can see how you may have misread this, my apology.

 

 

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
Syllogistic reasoning is

Syllogistic reasoning is considered a false truth.

Beware of making linked assertions that seem reasonable but in fact are logically incorrect.... You can, of course, make such assertions deliberately, using logic that seems valid to persuade. If you do this, of course, you run the risk of the other person exposing your false logic.

This is what I'm arguing against.

 

I.E. The example of the spaghetti monster and the horse in the closet......

I.E. Occam's razor's principle....

I.E. Agnostic atheists demanding proof......

I.E. Declaring/implying that OR and science can legitimately disprove god and the after life.....

The definition of God and the afterlife varies. So which version did you use?

I.E. Proclaiming that you have the facts which prove "You don't have any evidence" ..... "I am not going to answer your question".

Then you turn around and  continue to debate this issue. I said both of these things earlier on and suggested that we switch topics. That would be the ONLY logical move had I felt the same way as you do. But, of course, this did not happen either.

 

you run the risk of the other person exposing your false logic.

That's all I'm calling out here. I'm NOT trying to convert anybody, prove the existence of an afterlife or requesting that you debunk my beliefs instead. I am simply pointing out an undetected ( apparently) subconscious  pattern of contradictions and inconsistencies that appear in your logic. I call this lacking common sense.

‘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
BobSpence1 wrote:Arj

 Because that's not the question she asked.  Before, someone had asked  me,"What do you want to discuss?" And that was my response.

 

The way you quoted and underlined things there looks like you are are implying that "statement of fact" is meant to apply to "You don't have any evidence " instead of to your response "I am not going to answer your question". I can see how you may have misread this, my apology.

 

That doesn't matter. RRS would qualify both statements as facts. Remember, someone else asked me, why do I deserve a pass? There were plenty of people who made both of these comments (staring at page one). So, you claim you have the facts in regards to MY beliefs..... Then why does this debate continue? what else is there to prove? If you  just apply a little bit of  common sense you will come to find out that YOUR rational doesn't effect me one way or the other.

 

"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"

All statements I've made numerous times before.

It just seems to always fall on deaf ears.

‘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


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
And she made it to

And she made it to trollville...


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:And she

MattShizzle wrote:

And she made it to trollville...

....with your help. People just don't like to face the facts. This is not my fault.

‘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


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Continually posting and

Continually posting and refusing to defend what you post is trolling.


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

MattShizzle wrote:

Continually posting and refusing to defend what you post is trolling.

Exactly. You all weren't explaining/defending how you could use science and OR to debunk my beliefs yet you all

expected me to defend/validate something you can't disprove. How dumb and ignorant is that? RRS = Trolls. If Ray Comfort asked the same question and Sapient didn't have a response then he's not defending his position at all and is actually challenging Comfort on a false premise. He's committing the fallacy  and would then lose the debate. Same rule applies 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


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Google "burden of proof. "

Google "burden of proof. "


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

MattShizzle wrote:

Google "burden of proof. "

This is what I mean. You all hate listening to the FACTS.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B.

I'm A you are B. You are all claiming that my lack of evidence is PROOF (Bob called them FACTS) that god or the afterlife doesn't exist yet you all have NOT PROVEN how science and OR can debunk these theories. You're an idiot. This is a fallacy that YOU committed.... not the other way around.

 

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


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You are all claiming

Quote:

You are all claiming that my lack of evidence is PROOF (Bob called them FACTS) that god or the afterlife doesn't exist yet you all have NOT PROVEN how science and OR can debunk these theories

I have not done this. What I have done is put together arguments against your propositions. These are not contingent upon you attempting to prove your propositions. That is a seperate matter. However, since you refused point blank to read them, you cannot possibly claim that I have yet to bring such arguments to the table.

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

-Me

Books about atheism


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

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

You are all claiming that my lack of evidence is PROOF (Bob called them FACTS) that god or the afterlife doesn't exist yet you all have NOT PROVEN how science and OR can debunk these theories

I have not done this. What I have done is put together arguments against your propositions. These are not contingent upon you attempting to prove your propositions. That is a seperate matter. However, since you refused point blank to read them, you cannot possibly claim that I have yet to bring such arguments to the table.

DG, it's not worth it. After 500 posts it's too long and not worth my energy. Secondly you can NOT legitimately disprove the existence of GOD and the afterlife with a THEORETICAL explanation. That just adds to the million and one different versions that are already out there. Get this through your head. I stated in the beginning that my beliefs are self-evident but I HAVE ALWAYS maintained that they are just that-- MY BELIEFS.... It is YOU and the rest of the board that is erroneously trying to prove differently. How dumb is that? You are defying logic instead of using it.

 

Beware of making linked assertions that seem reasonable but in fact are logically incorrect....

‘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:Syllogistic reasoning

Quote:

Syllogistic reasoning is considered a false truth.

This is a very basic error which (beginner) students of mathematical logic make sometimes. Formal logic (which is a discipline of mathematics) is concerned only with the logical structure of the sentence, not the actual truth of the propositions. The purpose of formal structure is to ensure that the premises link correctly to the conclusion. It doesn't matter if the premises are true or not. That is the domain of empiricism and informal logic. A valid argument in formal structure is one where the conclusion is necessarily true if the premise is. The purpose of the formal syllogism is not to display the correct answer every time. It is to display the answer which necessarily follows from the premises. So, for a correct formal structure, we need only to show that the premises are true to show the conclusion is true . For a bivalent formal logic (like quantifier logic) the premises are considered to be discrete variables. They can take the values of 0 or 1 in any combination. Thus, for n premises, we have 2n possible sentences. "Syllogistic reasoning is considered a false truth" doesn't actually mean anything. A lot of students of mathematical logic at first make the mistake of thinking you can prove anything with syllogistic reasoning because you can construct valid arguments that deliver incorrect conclusions (or the reverse, because you can construct wrong premises and derliver the right conclusion). However, this is only because the inputs were incorrect in the first place. Formal structure is not concerned with the input values. There are only three types of sentences in formal structure. Those which are contingent, those which are contradictory, and those which are tautologies. The fact that we can deliver the right conclusion from the wrong premises is a reflection of that. The easiest way to demonstrate this principle is with a truth table:

A

=>

~A

0

0

1

1

0

0

 

This particular truth table is for a contradictory sentence. The main logical operator is always false. The truth of the sentence is given by the value for the main operator. For a contingent sentence, however, this is not the case (when I say "this" I mean that the main logical operator will not always be false. The truth value of a contingent sentence is still given by its main operator).

A

B

(A&B)

V

(B&A)

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

What you should note here is that A and B can take on a range of values. The particular combination is of no concern to logicians. What matters is only the output. 

 

A valid syllogism is perfectly reliable in terms of its ability to deliver conclusions which follow from their premises. That's the purpose of a syllogism. If the syllogism is valid, then you can be sure that the conclusion is true if the premises are. That is the only purpose of the syllogism. There are other combinations where the conclusion is true, but that doesn't matter. The formal structure is only concerned with the proper outputs resulting from the proper inputs. In other words, in attempting to demonstrate that your conclusion is necessarily correct (this word "necessarily" is extremely important in formal logic. For an invalid syllogism, there are combinations with correct conclusions, but the conclusion is not necessarily correct when the premises are) is to establish that your argument is valid. This is a relatively simple mathematical exercise. Once that is done, one needs only establish their premise are correct. That is the domain of informal logic and empiricism.

     
     
     
     
     

"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
Arj , I think you should

Arj , I think you should carefully review this entire thread to understand why you are being scorned  by the caring members here. This is a debate forum. Anything anyone posts will get debated. If you just wanted to state you beliefs fine, but we do. Okay?

You could have quit posting after making your intial Opening Post. That actually happens here, where the Opening poster never replies again, as the thread continues into the 100's ..... So why have you been posting?

347 - Arj to me -  "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."

   We've given you our reasons, but you have not posted what you "know".

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

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

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

        Geezz Arj of contradictions, you are not assuming????? Show us your evidence then. If you don't want to then why say more? Our imperfect evidence is better than yours, nener nener ....    

  Maybe you should be a science fiction writer. Got any clues as to what are you going to do in the "afterlife" ???   

   BTW, I'm from the planet POIUYZT ..... just wanted you to know but I'm not going to prove it ....

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:DG, it's not worth it.

Quote:

DG, it's not worth it. After 500 posts it's too long and not worth my energy

Then kindly do not claim that such arguments have not been brought to the table.

Quote:

Secondly you can NOT legitimately disprove the existence of GOD and the afterlife with a THEORETICAL explanation.

Insofar as "theoretical" refers to an explanation based on theory, which is a testable and experimentally verified description of reality, then there is every reason to suppose that a "theoretical explanation" could very well pose serious problems for particular beliefs. However, as I said, I employed a mix of a priori reasoning (which is not theoretical) and empirical reasoning (which is).

 

 

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

-Me

Books about atheism


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

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Arj , I think you should carefully review this entire thread to understand why you are being scorned  by the caring members here. This is a debate forum. Anything anyone posts will get debated. If you just wanted to state you beliefs fine, but we do. Okay?

You could have quit posting after making your intial Opening Post. That actually happens here, where the Opening poster never replies again, as the thread continues into the 100's ..... So why have you been posting?

347 - Arj to me -  "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."

   We've given you our reasons, but you have not posted what you "know".

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

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

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

        Geezz Arj of contradictions, you are not assuming????? Show us your evidence then. If you don't want to then why say more? Our imperfect evidence is better than yours, nener nener ....    

  Maybe you should be a science fiction writer. Got any clues as to what are you going to do in the "afterlife" ???   

 

I already told you y i come back and I already told you I wasn't providing any evidence. Get this through your head. Now, how can an agnostic claim to have evidence? You don't have any evidence. This post proves it. If you did you'd post it. All you have is an explanation. Stop confusing the two.

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


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

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

DG, it's not worth it. After 500 posts it's too long and not worth my energy

Then kindly do not claim that such arguments have not been brought to the table.

Quote:

Secondly you can NOT legitimately disprove the existence of GOD and the afterlife with a THEORETICAL explanation.

Insofar as "theoretical" refers to an explanation based on theory, which is a testable and experimentally verified description of reality, then there is every reason to suppose that a "theoretical explanation" could very well pose serious problems for particular beliefs. However, as I said, I employed a mix of a priori reasoning (which is not theoretical) and empirical reasoning (which is).

 

 

Then this is the informal definition of a theory. I kinda figured that. As for your first post, I was speaking in regards to the majority. You can include yourself in that bracket or not.

‘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 , you really don't

Arj , you really don't belong here. I want evidence. Most all beliefs are common and need to be seriously debated. That's most of what we do here. Why are you still  posting? I am here to express my thoughts and to be analyzed. 

The way I read the evidence and lack of evidence I am not at all Agnostic regarding the common view of a "spirit afterlife" as a possibility. I could of course twist the common definition to make it fit with our science .... but I will leave that for you to do .... But yeah, you don't want to ????????? Sheezzz dude, why do you post? ..... I want you to say something. I wish you the best ....


IfThenElse
Posts: 4
Joined: 2008-11-02
User is offlineOffline
Hopeless Case

Arj wrote:

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

I've been following this thread for sometime and I a bit confused why so many seemingly intelligent people are even trying to have a meaningful debate with a person who starts a thread on a forum of RATIONAL thinkers about his belief in things that most sane people will consider irrational and then goes on to say he wasn't looking for a debate :S What the hell was he intending...I don't think he even knows? This guys starts of with saying I don't believe in santa claus but I believe in the toothfairy and then later goes on to say he saw the toothfairy but since reasoning is subjective his beliefs are valid :S He also talks about Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy..he either doesn't know what it is or isn't getting enough of it. I don't know if you guys are actually trying to save this guy from himself but really can't you see that he is a hopeless case and just give up. Continuing an argument with him is pointless since his logic processor is broken. He needs a psychaiatrist or a mental institution.

 {fixed aiia}


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Welcome, IfThenElse. For

Welcome, IfThenElse. For some reason, a lot of gibberish has shown up in your post before your actual comment. You should see an edit tab next to your post. Click on it, then open the tab on the left of the editing box called "source" (just below comment) to remove the lines of unncessary text.

"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


IfThenElse
Posts: 4
Joined: 2008-11-02
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Welcome,

deludedgod wrote:

Welcome, IfThenElse. For some reason, a lot of gibberish has shown up in your post before your actual comment. You should see an edit tab next to your post. Click on it, then open the tab on the left of the editing box called "source" (just below comment) to remove the lines of unncessary text.

 

Working on it right now. Not sure if its Firefox.

edit:It looks like in my first attempt to fix it I put the unedited version and now the edit option is missing from that post. A moderator will probably have to check why I can't edit it.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Welcome IfThenElse. Yeah,

Welcome IfThenElse. Yeah, but these are public forums with many silent readers, as you were. The atheist's have a "saving" passion.   


IfThenElse
Posts: 4
Joined: 2008-11-02
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Welcome IfThenElse. Yeah, but these are public forums with many silent readers, as you were. The atheist's have a "saving" passion.   

Yeah I was thinking about that...got a good idea about you guys from reading these posts. I know what you mean by the "saving" passion but I rather try to save people with cuts and bruises rather than those who have a failing liver, heart and brain at the same time...but then I'm  lazy


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

IfThenElse wrote:

Arj wrote:

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

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

I've been following this thread for sometime and I a bit confused why so many seemingly intelligent people are even trying to have a meaningful debate with a person who starts a thread on a forum of RATIONAL thinkers about his belief in things that most sane people will consider irrational and then goes on to say he wasn't looking for a debate :S What the hell was he intending...I don't think he even knows? This guys starts of with saying I don't believe in santa claus but I believe in the toothfairy and then later goes on to say he saw the toothfairy but since reasoning is subjective his beliefs are valid :S He also talks about Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy..he either doesn't know what it is or isn't getting enough of it. I don't know if you guys are actually trying to save this guy from himself but really can't you see that he is a hopeless case and just give up. Continuing an argument with him is pointless since his logic processor is broken. He needs a psychaiatrist or a mental institution.

 

You're an idiot if you think these people's responses equate to intelligent conversation, you're an even bigger dope if you've claimed to be following this thread yet misquote me (without any references) and ask questions that have already been answered at the same time, and lastly, in regards to REBT, if you can't see how their hostile prejudice, faulty logic, belligerent intolerance, and a lack of common sense is applicable here then you are the one that needs to see the doctor.... the EYE doctor... not 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


IfThenElse
Posts: 4
Joined: 2008-11-02
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:You're an idiot if

Arj wrote:

You're an idiot if you think these people's responses equate to intelligent conversation, you're an even bigger dope if you've claimed to be following this thread yet misquote me (without any references) and ask questions that have already been answered at the same time, and lastly, in regards to REBT, if you can't see how their hostile prejudice, faulty logic, belligerent intolerance, and a lack of common sense is applicable here then you are the one that needs to see the doctor.... the EYE doctor... not me.

Thanks dude I'll make an appointment right away.


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

IfThenElse wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Welcome IfThenElse. Yeah, but these are public forums with many silent readers, as you were. The atheist's have a "saving" passion.   

Yeah I was thinking about that...got a good idea about you guys from reading these posts. I know what you mean by the "saving" passion but I rather try to save people with cuts and bruises rather than those who have a failing liver, heart and brain at the same time...but then I'm  lazy

Then you're not cut out to save yourself. LOL.

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


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

IfThenElse wrote:

Arj wrote:

You're an idiot if you think these people's responses equate to intelligent conversation, you're an even bigger dope if you've claimed to be following this thread yet misquote me (without any references) and ask questions that have already been answered at the same time, and lastly, in regards to REBT, if you can't see how their hostile prejudice, faulty logic, belligerent intolerance, and a lack of common sense is applicable here then you are the one that needs to see the doctor.... the EYE doctor... not me.

Thanks dude I'll make an appointment right away.

I was gonna say you should make an appointment with Dr. Ellis also... but then he's dead.... oh well, any psychiatrist will do.... see if you can get squared away by Monday..... Then come back and post. LOL 

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


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

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
Our imperfect evidence is better than yours, nener nener ....

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

 I want evidence.

IAGAY why are you asking for something which you claim you already have?

This proves that ALL you TRULY do have right now is an EXPLANATION.

 

‘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
Yep ....

Yep ....what's yours?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I think we should just

I think we should just ignore this fucktard and let this thread die.


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

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Yep ....what's yours?

I think it rests in the fact that if you had legitimate proof then my evidence and my beliefs would've been the same as yours. This scientific evidence would've been in the history books.... Like, gravity. And, as a result, that's all I would've ever known. So until then ALL we both have are EXPLANATIONS.... and to each his own. I'm being realistic here and, apparently, you are not. You can't expect to take over the planet with nothing but syllogistic reasoning.... It didn't work for Christians and it's not going to work for you now. Common sense could've told you this.

‘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
MattShizzle wrote:I think we

MattShizzle wrote:

I think we should just ignore this fucktard and let this thread die.

I would prefer it that way. I wish fucktards like you would just ignore this thread. You are too damn retarded to say anything useful.

‘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, call it a victory for

Arj, call it a victory for yourself. Your evidence overwhelms me. You win. Have a great after life.


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
I think this forum should be

I think this forum should be given the same title as this thread.... That is until Atheists can back up all that (science/OR) bullshit they keep spitting.... LOL. Christians could see through this nonsense if they weren't so busy trying to convert people. That's never been my desire. I just like being right especially when I know you all are so wrong..... That's what makes it fun. LOL

Atheists, are you aware that your rational is basically, "My beliefs DISPROVE your beliefs..." That's bullshit unless you can tell me how. FYI Christians have the same mentality. Scary isn't 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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Breaking the Ice: A Message

Breaking the Ice: A Message For All - 3 min

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7TI-OzhZts

 


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

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Breaking the Ice: A Message For All - 3 min

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7TI-OzhZts

 

What matters most is that the conversation remain OPEN and active.... What matters most is that we are ANALYZING our views.... what matters most is that we are searching for TRUTH, instead of comfort....what matters most is that we are THINKING....

I agree. The problem is I didn't see anyone of you guys do any of these things before speaking. If they had this thread would be on a different level-- like my forum . If you were open you would not be intolerant and belligerent toward people with different views. If you had honestly, clearly evaluated your thought processes you wouldn't have committed the burden of proof fallacy, lacked common sense, or mistaken erroneous syllogistic reasoning (for over 400 posts and countless debates) for scientific evidence.

Btw, why is this thread in trollville?

...The vilification of those who would question YOUR beliefs needs to stop.....

The bottom line is, stop being a hypocrite and practice what you preach.

Please.

 
‘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

 

 

 

‘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 my friend, we atheists

Arj my friend, we atheists generally are doing those "thinking" things as we presented our reasons, of evidence and lack of evidence, and a lot of atheists even say they are agnostic atheists, as they await proof of such things as an afterlife spirit world, as it is not even been universially defined. That is open minded, where no faith or belief in such things has yet been established. Calling it antimatter isn't a satisfactory definition.

Realize that freethinking and being atheistic (rejecting theology as you) is not well tolerated socially, as we can't even much get elected to public office etc ... so yeah, there is indeed a shared frustration among most all atheists. We refuse claims without evidence that go against our best testable evidence. Yet science is open to hypothesizes.   

The "burden of proof" is seeking the truth over emotional wishes and cultural traditional up bringings. We are skeptics.

This thread was probably tossed into trollville because you basically refused actually debate, by not offering the way you analyze your perceived reality, by not offering any evidence or method to arriving at your claim of afterlife "knowledge" ... Had you simply called it a hunch or a feeling that would had been much better.

Heck I'm I am in 24/7 awe regarding the nature of consciousness on a atomic level, the will to survive on a cellular level and trying to understand the nature of time. Wow, the concepts of eternal and infinite are such brian twisters! WE are all condemned to this awe. Science is our passion to know what we honestly admit we don't know, where all claims demand evidence. Science is the first to admit what it doesn't know. Go science!

It's obvious that we care about you Arj,  with all the posts dedicated to you. Hey, that's caring atheist love for ya. Supernatural claims as being truth demand evidence ... that's all ... Simple.

Welcome to the educational RRS.


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

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Science is our passion to know what we honestly admit we don't know, where all claims demand evidence..... Supernatural claims as being truth demand evidence ... that's all ... Simple.

 

Then where is the evidence that debunks this supernatural 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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Virtually all science ...

Virtually all science ... what's yours?


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

Arj wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Science is our passion to know what we honestly admit we don't know, where all claims demand evidence..... Supernatural claims as being truth demand evidence ... that's all ... Simple.

 

Then where is the evidence that debunks this supernatural theory?

 

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Virtually all science ... what's yours?

Nothing's wrong with this. But (pay attention to the hypocrisy) you just said all such claims demand evidence-- So prove it..... A bunch of hypothetical EXPLANATIONS hardly qualifies as evidence which disproves the existence of god and the afterlife.... (pay attention to your contradictions) If you believe in the validity and evidence of science, then, after viewing this evidence, why would you call yourself a skeptic instead of "certain"?..... (Pay attention to your logical fallacy) Appeal to ignorance.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

There is no evidence for p. Therefore, not-p.

Whereas, this is my thinking.

Another type of reasoning is called "auto-epistemic" ("self-knowing" ) because it involves reasoning from premises about what one knows and what one would know if something were true. The form of such reasoning is:

If p were true, then I would know that p.
I don't know that p.
Therefore, p is false.

".....I think it rests in the fact that if you had legitimate proof then my evidence and my beliefs would've been the same as yours. This scientific evidence would've been in the history books.... Like, gravity. And, as a result, that's all I would've ever known....."

As with reasoning using the closed world assumption, auto-epistemic reasoning does not commit the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance.

The proof is in the pudding. My argument is a text-book example of LOGICAL, SANE rational yet yours has been PROVEN to be just the opposite.... time and time again. (pay attention to reality/common sense) I can tell you right now that I don't doubt any of my beliefs and, until science can prove otherwise, none of my beliefs require your approval for them to be valid and true to me. Honestly ask yourself, from the looks of things, why would I even want to adopt your brand of irrational logic? Post 489 didn't even address all the points I made in post 488. Talk about the hypocrisy. It was your youtube video.

 

‘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

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Calling it antimatter isn't a satisfactory definition. 

It wasn't suppose to be. I was using OR to prove how ineffective it is.

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

This thread was probably tossed into trollville because you basically refused actually debate, by not offering the way you analyze your perceived reality, by not offering any evidence or method to arriving at your claim of afterlife "knowledge"

This is a goddamn lie. I provided MY evidence and everybody in here said it did not qualify as such...... funny, look how the tables have turned.... Now, you can see why it's pointless to debate an issue after this point....... I could've pointed out that there have been extensive paranormal investigations which can testify to my beliefs but I didn't use them on myself so I didn't see the point in bringing them up here. I was simply supplying MY evidence and I don't care if that's not good enough..... Like in the quote above it's been demonstrated that your evidence doesn't prove shit at all in this 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


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:  I AM GOD AS YOU

Arj wrote:
 
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
 

This thread was probably tossed into trollville because you basically refused actually debate, by not offering the way you analyze your perceived reality, by not offering any evidence or method to arriving at your claim of afterlife "knowledge"

This is a goddamn lie. I provided MY evidence and everybody in here said it did not qualify as such...... funny, look how the tables have turned.... Now, you can see why it's pointless to debate an issue after this point....... I could've pointed out that there have been extensive paranormal investigations which can testify to my beliefs but I didn't use them on myself so I didn't see the point in bringing them up here. I was simply supplying MY evidence and I don't care if that's not good enough..... Like in the quote above it's been demonstrated that your evidence doesn't prove shit at all in this case.

All the evidence you provided, was a text... Just a letters put together by you. We are like closed in prison cells away from each other, having no other means to communicate, than the text. As you see, either we trust each other, or we will always end up demanding an evidence, which is practically impossible. All what gets through, are just little letters, and claims.
Why these glorious skeptics doesn't see this? We must trust each other, if we should defeat that barrier. We must trust that the other person speaks what he/she considers as a real experience, and that he/she had already verified that it's far beyond coincidence, hallucination, or any such a lame reason.
Does your forum have it? Where it is?

 

 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Wow, you guys are still

Wow, you guys are still debating her. 

Luminon wrote:
All the evidence you provided, was a text... Just a letters put together by you. We are like closed in prison cells away from each other, having no other means to communicate, than the text. As you see, either we trust each other, or we will always end up demanding an evidence, which is practically impossible. All what gets through, are just little letters, and claims.
Why these glorious skeptics doesn't see this? We must trust each other, if we should defeat that barrier. We must trust that the other person speaks what he/she considers as a real experience, and that he/she had already verified that it's far beyond coincidence, hallucination, or any such a lame reason.

4 years old kids all trust each other, but when the world slams down on them over and over, they lose that natural, unwarranted trust and learn to evaluate objectively. If we trust everyone unconditionally, what can we believe in? What do we have to gain? What progress can we achieve?  

edit:

Arj wrote:
What matters most is that the conversation remain OPEN and active.... What matters most is that we are ANALYZING our views.... what matters most is that we are searching for TRUTH, instead of comfort....what matters most is that we are THINKING....

You are not analyzing your views. You refuse to because a belief in an afterlife is comfortable. 

I loved that video and now you've warped the meaning beyond recognition to fit your perverted perspective. Disgusting. 

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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Cross post for our friend

D.P.

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
What debate butterfield? 

What debate butterfield? 

Cross post for our friend Arj. Check out this thread, where you are noted.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15754#comment-206309

The theory of discussion on metaphysical topics [ Luminon, on paranormal ]

19 - IAGAY -  The amazing chemical mind. A real pure LSD trip is so very telling as to understanding our own minds. It makes you realize how our minds can really play tricks on us. On LSD I have gone deeply into the world of the paranormal. I will never forget those experiences 25 years ago, as they happened to me. One heck of a mind lesson.

Ever literally see music coming out of the speakers in vivid colors .... ever been in a cosmic windless hurricane as the trees bend to the ground as silent fireworks light the sky, watch a young man age to old and gray before your eyes, see your dancing friends body parts detach, hear a godly voice reverberating on 10, stretch your arm across the yard, bicycle down the street as in a tunnel where the curds are 15 feet above you , laugh as you realize you are completely retarded and helpless, see yourself from the ceiling, go flying thru space when you close your eyes, hang out in a cloud, spiral in and out of light and darkness ...... ????    WELL I have, and it was all as real as I sit here now calmly sipping a beer. That taught me a whole lot about the human brain.

                           

 

 


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

butterbattle wrote:

Wow, you guys are still debating her. 

Luminon wrote:
All the evidence you provided, was a text... Just a letters put together by you. We are like closed in prison cells away from each other, having no other means to communicate, than the text. As you see, either we trust each other, or we will always end up demanding an evidence, which is practically impossible. All what gets through, are just little letters, and claims.
Why these glorious skeptics doesn't see this? We must trust each other, if we should defeat that barrier. We must trust that the other person speaks what he/she considers as a real experience, and that he/she had already verified that it's far beyond coincidence, hallucination, or any such a lame reason.

4 years old kids all trust each other, but when the world slams down on them over and over, they lose that natural, unwarranted trust and learn to evaluate objectively. If we trust everyone unconditionally, what can we believe in? What do we have to gain? What progress can we achieve?  

edit:

Arj wrote:
What matters most is that the conversation remain OPEN and active.... What matters most is that we are ANALYZING our views.... what matters most is that we are searching for TRUTH, instead of comfort....what matters most is that we are THINKING....

You are not analyzing your views. You refuse to because a belief in an afterlife is comfortable. 

I loved that video and now you've warped the meaning beyond recognition to fit your perverted perspective. Disgusting. 

You're deluded. You are proving how closed minded you are just by the erroneous assumptions you continue to make. You should actually listen to me instead of just quoting me. No we are not debating. IAGAY said I won the debate. After that I was just speaking my mind.  

‘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
Luminon wrote:Arj wrote: I

Luminon wrote:

Arj wrote:
 
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
 

This thread was probably tossed into trollville because you basically refused actually debate, by not offering the way you analyze your perceived reality, by not offering any evidence or method to arriving at your claim of afterlife "knowledge"

This is a goddamn lie. I provided MY evidence and everybody in here said it did not qualify as such...... funny, look how the tables have turned.... Now, you can see why it's pointless to debate an issue after this point....... I could've pointed out that there have been extensive paranormal investigations which can testify to my beliefs but I didn't use them on myself so I didn't see the point in bringing them up here. I was simply supplying MY evidence and I don't care if that's not good enough..... Like in the quote above it's been demonstrated that your evidence doesn't prove shit at all in this case.

All the evidence you provided, was a text... Just a letters put together by you. We are like closed in prison cells away from each other, having no other means to communicate, than the text. As you see, either we trust each other, or we will always end up demanding an evidence, which is practically impossible. All what gets through, are just little letters, and claims.
Why these glorious skeptics doesn't see this? We must trust each other, if we should defeat that barrier. We must trust that the other person speaks what he/she considers as a real experience, and that he/she had already verified that it's far beyond coincidence, hallucination, or any such a lame reason.
Does your forum have it? Where it is?

 

 

It doesn't matter. Call it that, see it how you want, just don't LIE and say I NEVER provided ANY. That's bullshit. The truth of the matter is, close-mindedly, you didn't accept it as such. I can't help that and I have no control over that.

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


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:4 years

butterbattle wrote:

4 years old kids all trust each other, but when the world slams down on them over and over, they lose that natural, unwarranted trust and learn to evaluate objectively. If we trust everyone unconditionally, what can we believe in? What do we have to gain? What progress can we achieve?  

What progress? Immense. By estabilishing a trust, we can negotiate even with the most agressive fanatics, we can resolve all conflicts in the world and gain a huge wealth for everyone, which kept getting lost in these conflicts. Furthermore, we can invite the people who claims to have a reliable paranormal perceptions or abilities, and allow them to participate on the research, as a test subjects. Many of them are afraid of being turned down, ridiculed or locked up in a nuthouse, if they come out with what they live every day. I would actually like to have my EEG and other values monitored when I meditate, or when I practice a constructive psychic exercises. It would help me and scientists to understand what really happens.
And finally, if the principle of trusting each other will become worldwide, you can let a stranger hold your suitcase for a while, or abandon your tent in nature out of a sight, return back, and it will remain there.


The mutual trust is one of important steps on our way to civilization. We are not yet civilized. Having a clothes, education or a science is not a civilization. Civilized people couldn't sleep if billions of their fellow men starves in the world of plenty, when they're killed in a constant warfare and die on banal diseases. We, uncivilized people are a cause of that suffering, in fact. The trust, of course, must be well earned. Take your brother's need as a measure for your action, as a certain wise man says. We must show that we care for others, that we want to share our plentiful, excessive resources with them, and you will see how even the extremists will anticipate and hope in the next load of cargo, sent by the heathens and white devils. Sharing is actually very easy and natural. It's not your hundred tons of wheat, or hundred tons of potatoes, which will be taken and sent over the sea. It belongs to a big corporation which would let it rot to increase a market price, so let's take the stuff and give it to someone who really needs it. If you can't have a profit from the 100 tons of potatoes, then the big corporation shouldn't have it as well! The voice of people to estabilish this international sharing will be a retribution for working for decades in factories. Now let's pump the corporation's vein for a change.

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