Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Talking with God, through a hair dryer.

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 8:00:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive."

― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

Talking to God is good, talking to God through a hair dryer......is crazy.

God talking to you is good. God talking to you through a hair dryer is crazy.

Isn't it amazing that a small electrical appliance makes so much difference, the difference between sanity and insanity.

Say I hear once that some one claimed that God spoke to them in a burning bush.............Discuss.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 8:06:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 8:00:49 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
"The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive."

― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

Talking to God is good, talking to God through a hair dryer......is crazy.

God talking to you is good. God talking to you through a hair dryer is crazy.

Isn't it amazing that a small electrical appliance makes so much difference, the difference between sanity and insanity.

Say I hear once that some one claimed that God spoke to them in a burning bush.............Discuss.

Well this doesn't really say much since such a thing has never happened no one can gauge the reaction. Different people would react differently. The atheist left would cry foul, the Christians would ponder. The middlemen would find it amusing. This is a loaded topic pulled straight from an atheist letter.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 8:14:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 8:06:27 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/30/2011 8:00:49 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
"The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive."

― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

Talking to God is good, talking to God through a hair dryer......is crazy.

God talking to you is good. God talking to you through a hair dryer is crazy.

Isn't it amazing that a small electrical appliance makes so much difference, the difference between sanity and insanity.

Say I hear once that some one claimed that God spoke to them in a burning bush.............Discuss.

Well this doesn't really say much since such a thing has never happened no one can gauge the reaction. Different people would react differently. The atheist left would cry foul, the Christians would ponder. The middlemen would find it amusing. This is a loaded topic pulled straight from an atheist letter.

I am assuming even the most devout born again, bible believing, homosexuals are going to hell christian would regard some one who has dialogue with God through a hair dyer as crazy.

Does not the atheist and christian both agree on this point ?

The atheist in this case Sam Harris just goes one step further, take away the hair dryer its still crazy.....
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 8:27:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am assuming even the most devout born again, bible believing, homosexuals are going to hell christian

Wow thats a piece of work right there. So much scorn and dislike...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 8:39:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 8:27:07 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I am assuming even the most devout born again, bible believing, homosexuals are going to hell christian

Wow thats a piece of work right there. So much scorn and dislike...

Allow me to change that statement then............

I am assuming that the most devout, born again, bible believing, homosexuals may or may not be going to hell christian would regard some one who has dialogue with God through a hair dyer as crazy.

Does not the atheist and christian both agree on this point ?

The atheist in this case Sam Harris just goes one step further, take away the hair dryer its still crazy.....
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 8:43:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 8:39:32 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/30/2011 8:27:07 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I am assuming even the most devout born again, bible believing, homosexuals are going to hell christian

Wow thats a piece of work right there. So much scorn and dislike...

Allow me to change that statement then............

I am assuming that the most devout, born again, bible believing, homosexuals may or may not be going to hell christian would regard some one who has dialogue with God through a hair dyer as crazy.

Does not the atheist and christian both agree on this point ?

The atheist in this case Sam Harris just goes one step further, take away the hair dryer its still crazy.....

It's not a crazy as god talking through a burning bush.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 8:46:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sam Harris is well known for his fallacies in debate.
Craig owned him because of it.

This is the same thing we are discussing on the other post.

These claims of divine communication are not the same.

It is a misleading vividness fallacy first and foremost and then fallacously equivocating the two claims by ignoring the nature, quantity and quality of the two claims and saying a "claim is a claim" while shrugging.

Very disingenous on his part or revealing his massively limited intellect.

There are zero claims of hair dryers communicating with anyone.

There are millions of historical claims of God speaking to people. Not mention Angelic communication, illumination and visions.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 8:48:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 8:46:54 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Sam Harris is well known for his fallacies in debate.
Craig owned him because of it.

This is the same thing we are discussing on the other post.

These claims of divine communication are not the same.

It is a misleading vividness fallacy first and foremost and then fallacously equivocating the two claims by ignoring the nature, quantity and quality of the two claims and saying a "claim is a claim" while shrugging.

Very disingenous on his part or revealing his massively limited intellect.

There are zero claims of hair dryers communicating with anyone.

There are millions of historical claims of God speaking to people. Not mention Angelic communication, illumination and visions.

+1
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 8:57:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 8:00:49 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
"The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive."

― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

Talking to God is good, talking to God through a hair dryer......is crazy.

God talking to you is good. God talking to you through a hair dryer is crazy.

Isn't it amazing that a small electrical appliance makes so much difference, the difference between sanity and insanity.

Say I hear once that some one claimed that God spoke to them in a burning bush.............Discuss.
Sam Harris' example seems too alarmist. If one guy talks to God through his hair dryer, it is a sign of potential insanity. If most people talk to God through their hair dryers, it is a religion, and the irrational behavior is moderated by the religion. If the President of the United States then claims to be talking to God through his hair dryer like most people, you can bet he doesn't actually take it seriously.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 8:58:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 8:46:54 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Sam Harris is well known for his fallacies in debate.
Craig owned him because of it.

This is the same thing we are discussing on the other post.

These claims of divine communication are not the same.

It is a misleading vividness fallacy first and foremost and then fallacously equivocating the two claims by ignoring the nature, quantity and quality of the two claims and saying a "claim is a claim" while shrugging.

Very disingenous on his part or revealing his massively limited intellect.

There are zero claims of hair dryers communicating with anyone.

So if people did make claims about God speaking to them through the hair dryer than that would make it less crazy ?

There are millions of historical claims of God speaking to people. Not mention Angelic communication, illumination and visions.

And we have contradictory claims given by "God" as claimed by people. They all can't be right but they can all be wrong. Bring something more to the table than a person claiming God spoke to them.

PS: religious indoctrination + human mind = I think God is speaking to me.

You KNOW the point he is making Gil.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 9:06:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 8:43:17 PM, Physik wrote:
At 12/30/2011 8:39:32 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/30/2011 8:27:07 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I am assuming even the most devout born again, bible believing, homosexuals are going to hell christian

Wow thats a piece of work right there. So much scorn and dislike...

Allow me to change that statement then............

I am assuming that the most devout, born again, bible believing, homosexuals may or may not be going to hell christian would regard some one who has dialogue with God through a hair dyer as crazy.

Does not the atheist and christian both agree on this point ?

The atheist in this case Sam Harris just goes one step further, take away the hair dryer its still crazy.....

It's not a crazy as god talking through a burning bush.

Why ? Why does the burning bush get elevated on the crazyness scale compared to a hair dryer ? I think you are prejudiced towards bushes.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 10:58:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
@Illegal

This is the view on the four horsemen of Atheism:
Dennet is the crazy uncle knight who you really never want to visit.
Dawkins is the angry grandfather in the council room ranting how exceptional he is.
Hitchens is the vigorous barroom brawler.
Harris is the 10 year old 'princess' on her pony.

When they all mount up for battle who is clearly the most deficient?

Let's say I walk with you for a minute.
I stand on the pulpit on sunday morning and pull out a roll of TP and claim Jesus 'is' talking to me through the TP.
I would be removed from the pulpit.

The next pastor claims Jesus is speaking to him through the Bible and has a job for the next 20 years.

Why?
Because everyone naturally applies inductive logic here. Everyone will use a valid appeal to consensus of the authority, a consensus of historical claims and recognize the difference in the normative nature of these seperate claims.

They are obviously not the same in quality or by the authorities common consensus.

Lets now look at the concept of Moses and the burning bush.
Why does Moses get a pass and lead an entire nation?

He was backed up with 'quality of source'.
Obvsiously his burning bush speaking God backed him up.
Need I recount the hand, prophet, ten plagues, red sea parting, destruction of an entire army, water spewing rock, desert mountain beset by its 'own' thunderstorm etc.....

These concepts are NOTHING like a president's first and single claim of his hairdryer speaking to him.

Let's be clear, Monks, Theologians, the Pope are not making claims God speaks to you through a hairdryer. The quality of source are not present in these claims.

However, these 'laid on hands' authorities within the church are claiming God speaks to them through the Bible, through contemplative prayer, through Angels etc....
Michurro
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 2:44:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 8:00:49 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
"The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive."

― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

Talking to God is good, talking to God through a hair dryer......is crazy.

God talking to you is good. God talking to you through a hair dryer is crazy.

Isn't it amazing that a small electrical appliance makes so much difference, the difference between sanity and insanity.

Say I hear once that some one claimed that God spoke to them in a burning bush.............Discuss.

More stranger yet, is that quite often people have listened to this God of Hairdryers.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 5:17:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 10:58:28 AM, Gileandos wrote:
@Illegal

This is the view on the four horsemen of Atheism:
Dennet is the crazy uncle knight who you really never want to visit.
Dawkins is the angry grandfather in the council room ranting how exceptional he is.
Hitchens is the vigorous barroom brawler.
Harris is the 10 year old 'princess' on her pony.

I have seen you respond to personal attacks on theists as committing ad homiens, you then go and do it to these atheists.

When they all mount up for battle who is clearly the most deficient?


Let's say I walk with you for a minute.
I stand on the pulpit on sunday morning and pull out a roll of TP and claim Jesus 'is' talking to me through the TP.
I would be removed from the pulpit.

The next pastor claims Jesus is speaking to him through the Bible and has a job for the next 20 years.

Why?
Because everyone naturally applies inductive logic here. Everyone will use a valid appeal to consensus of the authority, a consensus of historical claims and recognize the difference in the normative nature of these seperate claims.

If religion had turned out differently, then talking to God through a hair dryer rather than the bible would of been the consensus. Taking refuge in numbers doesn't help. As Sam Harris says religion allow people to believe in the million which if a person believed just themselves would make them a lunatic.


They are obviously not the same in quality or by the authorities common consensus.

In the thought experiment, the claims are equal, the ONLY difference is the hair dryer.

The person making untestable claims that God spoke to them.............thats ok.

The person making untestable claims that God spoke to them, aided by a hair dryer............crazy person.

The only difference in this thought experiment is the hair dryer.

Ya know, I think God wants me to be...........PRESIDENT. Hey its ok, I am not crazy or anything, its not like God spoke to me through a hair dyer.




Lets now look at the concept of Moses and the burning bush.
Why does Moses get a pass and lead an entire nation?

He was backed up with 'quality of source'.
Obvsiously his burning bush speaking God backed him up.
Need I recount the hand, prophet, ten plagues, red sea parting, destruction of an entire army, water spewing rock, desert mountain beset by its 'own' thunderstorm etc.....

Well some one wrote down this story so it must be true, your gonna need more than that.

These concepts are NOTHING like a president's first and single claim of his hairdryer speaking to him.

What if he does it a few times ? What if other people also claim the use of the hair dryer, does the amount of people who believe in this view now make it less crazy ? No, that's the point.


Let's be clear, Monks, Theologians, the Pope are not making claims God speaks to you through a hairdryer. The quality of source are not present in these claims.

Yes Gil, we get that, the hair dryer is just to demonstrate a point.

However, these 'laid on hands' authorities within the church are claiming God speaks to them through the Bible, through contemplative prayer, through Angels etc....

You can claim anything you want, talk is cheap. Do they make testable claims ? no, do they make extraordinary claims ? yes, do they have a list of excuses a mile long against any scrutiny. you bet.

And lets not forget the religious indoctrination.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 9:03:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 5:17:29 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2011 10:58:28 AM, Gileandos wrote:
@Illegal

This is the view on the four horsemen of Atheism:
Dennet is the crazy uncle knight who you really never want to visit.
Dawkins is the angry grandfather in the council room ranting how exceptional he is.
Hitchens is the vigorous barroom brawler.
Harris is the 10 year old 'princess' on her pony.

I have seen you respond to personal attacks on theists as committing ad homiens, you then go and do it to these atheists.

When they all mount up for battle who is clearly the most deficient?


Let's say I walk with you for a minute.
I stand on the pulpit on sunday morning and pull out a roll of TP and claim Jesus 'is' talking to me through the TP.
I would be removed from the pulpit.

The next pastor claims Jesus is speaking to him through the Bible and has a job for the next 20 years.

Why?
Because everyone naturally applies inductive logic here. Everyone will use a valid appeal to consensus of the authority, a consensus of historical claims and recognize the difference in the normative nature of these seperate claims.

If religion had turned out differently, then talking to God through a hair dryer rather than the bible would of been the consensus. Taking refuge in numbers doesn't help. As Sam Harris says religion allow people to believe in the million which if a person believed just themselves would make them a lunatic.





They are obviously not the same in quality or by the authorities common consensus.

In the thought experiment, the claims are equal, the ONLY difference is the hair dryer.

The person making untestable claims that God spoke to them.............thats ok.

The person making untestable claims that God spoke to them, aided by a hair dryer............crazy person.

The only difference in this thought experiment is the hair dryer.

Ya know, I think God wants me to be...........PRESIDENT. Hey its ok, I am not crazy or anything, its not like God spoke to me through a hair dyer.




Lets now look at the concept of Moses and the burning bush.
Why does Moses get a pass and lead an entire nation?

He was backed up with 'quality of source'.
Obvsiously his burning bush speaking God backed him up.
Need I recount the hand, prophet, ten plagues, red sea parting, destruction of an entire army, water spewing rock, desert mountain beset by its 'own' thunderstorm etc.....

Well some one wrote down this story so it must be true, your gonna need more than that.

These concepts are NOTHING like a president's first and single claim of his hairdryer speaking to him.

What if he does it a few times ? What if other people also claim the use of the hair dryer, does the amount of people who believe in this view now make it less crazy ? No, that's the point.


Let's be clear, Monks, Theologians, the Pope are not making claims God speaks to you through a hairdryer. The quality of source are not present in these claims.

Yes Gil, we get that, the hair dryer is just to demonstrate a point.

However, these 'laid on hands' authorities within the church are claiming God speaks to them through the Bible, through contemplative prayer, through Angels etc....

You can claim anything you want, talk is cheap. Do they make testable claims ? no, do they make extraordinary claims ? yes, do they have a list of excuses a mile long against any scrutiny. you bet.

And lets not forget the religious indoctrination.

I will not respond to everything. If you wish me to respond to everything and have a conversation do not reply in bits and pieces but as a whole. (not ment in a mean way, but it is a huge time saver if you post a comprehension logically flowing response)

The claims are not equal. If an atheist cannot tell the difference in the quantitative nature and quality of a claim then I leave them to it. If they cannot understand a basic concept and live in a world of logical fallacy, I will giggle when I hear them rant on about it, but it only means certain defeat for them.

Everytime an atheist marginalizes EVERY supernatural viewpoint, it only marginalizes the atheist viewpoint. It is just makes them look like wimpy whiners.

Btw the four horsemen was analogizing their skills and intellect, relative to each other. An ad hominem is attacking them rather than their actual argument.

I already pointed out that a claim of a hairdryer god is not the same claim as reported by hundreds of millions of historical religions communication from God.

It is fallaciously equivocating and hiding in the ambiguity of the what defines a claim, it is also using a misleading vividness fallacy while appealing to ridicule all at the same time.
Three fallacies do not make a logically coherent argument.

The analogy should warn you to stay away from an ill equiped horsemen.

I will expand and add William Lane Craig as the Black knight on the edge of the forest challenging all comers and fighting the exact same style everytime.

I answered both challenges. I have given you the best well documented limb regrowth. Take it or leave it my naturalistic campaigner.

If you wish to witness healings, limbs regrowing in person please feel free to visit your local healing ministry.

There are tons of videos and documentation available and you have not believed yet. Asking me personally to do it when I did not claim that ability is just stretching.

But if you wish to work with my ministry for a few years feel free to, we can together petition God for that ability.

You did not answer if you were convinced by the well documented miracle at Calanda.

***
As to your challenge of trapping a demon, I told you where you could get them for free. Just go to your local excorcists and pick one up for free. You need not meet up with me for proof.

If you want a naturalistic device to do the trapping build one. I never claimed the naturalistic prowess to trap 4th dimensional energy beings as described by the Bible.

I will be more than happy to build it with you however, should you choose to guide me.

1: Except the fact the Miracle at Calanda was what you requested a regrown limb.
2: Work with my ministry and aid me petitioning God for that ability to regrow limbs and give you the proof in person.
3: Go and meet a demon for yourself and grab one at your local excorcist or you can come with me, your choice.
4: If you want a naturalistic device to catch a 4th dimensional being, you can direct me how to build and we can work together.

All of these are up to you on the follow through rather than blathering naturalistic drivel and illogical argumentation from showboating activists.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 9:20:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lets cut the crap, how are your claims vulnerable to disproof ? Without this vulnerability its just claim after claim, with excuse after excuse, story after story, assertion after assertion.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 9:32:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 9:20:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Lets cut the crap, how are your claims vulnerable to disproof ? Without this vulnerability its just claim after claim, with excuse after excuse, story after story, assertion after assertion.

I do not mind cutting to the heart

You can personally disprove any of the claims.
You go to excorcisms, do not stay at one as we are willing to admit that hucksters exist. Go to many. Try and get a demon to possess you.

Go to haunted houses. Stay the night. Go talk to Theologians. Faith Healers. Investigate these things on your own.

There is more than enough evidence, but you must put aside this ardent presupposition in naturalism and go with a more logical approach.

And realize everyone cannot be wrong but your few stalwart naturalists.....
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 9:48:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 9:32:24 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/31/2011 9:20:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Lets cut the crap, how are your claims vulnerable to disproof ? Without this vulnerability its just claim after claim, with excuse after excuse, story after story, assertion after assertion.

I do not mind cutting to the heart

You can personally disprove any of the claims.
You go to excorcisms, do not stay at one as we are willing to admit that hucksters exist. Go to many. Try and get a demon to possess you.

Explain to me how this is vulnerable to disproof. If I don't see a demon you will just say well it didn't turn up yet. Why do we have to be possessed by a demon ? Why not a chat ? I bet the demon if they exist is more honest than you. I have tea, I invite the demon to tea.

Go to haunted houses. Stay the night. Go talk to Theologians. Faith Healers. Investigate these things on your own.

How does this make your claim vulnerable to disproof ? explain please ?

There is more than enough evidence, but you must put aside this ardent presupposition in naturalism and go with a more logical approach.

Tell me how your claims are vulnerable to disproof then you can lecture me on logic.

And realize everyone cannot be wrong but your few stalwart naturalists.....

Your so fracking dishonest Gil. Nothing you said makes it vulnerable to disproof. If I come up negative you have an excuse available.

Hey Gil, I am thinking of a number between 1 - 10 billion. Ask God to tell you what the number is.

You won't of course, course this makes you vulnerable. If you claim God tell you the number, and you tell me a number and you get it wrong, I will know it.

Either you don't know what it means to be vulnerable to disproof, or you do and are evading it.

So no Gil, I don't want your excuses. Give me something that is vunerable to disproof, explain how it is vunerable to disproof. Enough is fracking enough.

Do it now, or let all of DDO see you for the fake you are.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 10:33:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 9:32:24 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/31/2011 9:20:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Lets cut the crap, how are your claims vulnerable to disproof ? Without this vulnerability its just claim after claim, with excuse after excuse, story after story, assertion after assertion.

I do not mind cutting to the heart

You can personally disprove any of the claims.
You go to excorcisms, do not stay at one as we are willing to admit that hucksters exist. Go to many. Try and get a demon to possess you.

Go to haunted houses. Stay the night. Go talk to Theologians. Faith Healers. Investigate these things on your own.

There is more than enough evidence, but you must put aside this ardent presupposition in naturalism and go with a more logical approach.

And realize everyone cannot be wrong but your few stalwart naturalists.....

How can you sit there and claim that an approach based on unfounded and unsupported claims is more logical than an approach based on evidence?

And stop making an appeal to popularity, it's such a blatant logical fallacy.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 10:51:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 10:33:09 PM, Physik wrote:
At 12/31/2011 9:32:24 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/31/2011 9:20:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Lets cut the crap, how are your claims vulnerable to disproof ? Without this vulnerability its just claim after claim, with excuse after excuse, story after story, assertion after assertion.

I do not mind cutting to the heart

You can personally disprove any of the claims.
You go to excorcisms, do not stay at one as we are willing to admit that hucksters exist. Go to many. Try and get a demon to possess you.

Go to haunted houses. Stay the night. Go talk to Theologians. Faith Healers. Investigate these things on your own.

There is more than enough evidence, but you must put aside this ardent presupposition in naturalism and go with a more logical approach.

And realize everyone cannot be wrong but your few stalwart naturalists.....

How can you sit there and claim that an approach based on unfounded and unsupported claims is more logical than an approach based on evidence?

Bad move, he does have "evidence" so too speak in the loose term. All psdueo science has "evidence" to back it up, its just that its is NOT vulnerable to disproof.

Please understand this, cause this just invites some one like Gil to then say hey I do have evidence, I have this, and that, and this etc etc. Psdueo science is all about confirmation never falsification. Evidence can only confirm the claim and can never refute it. Eg, can't be tested, can't be shown false, isn't vulnerable to disproof.

I hope this has been useful for you.


And stop making an appeal to popularity, it's such a blatant logical fallacy.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 10:59:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 10:51:49 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2011 10:33:09 PM, Physik wrote:
At 12/31/2011 9:32:24 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/31/2011 9:20:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Lets cut the crap, how are your claims vulnerable to disproof ? Without this vulnerability its just claim after claim, with excuse after excuse, story after story, assertion after assertion.

I do not mind cutting to the heart

You can personally disprove any of the claims.
You go to excorcisms, do not stay at one as we are willing to admit that hucksters exist. Go to many. Try and get a demon to possess you.

Go to haunted houses. Stay the night. Go talk to Theologians. Faith Healers. Investigate these things on your own.

There is more than enough evidence, but you must put aside this ardent presupposition in naturalism and go with a more logical approach.

And realize everyone cannot be wrong but your few stalwart naturalists.....

How can you sit there and claim that an approach based on unfounded and unsupported claims is more logical than an approach based on evidence?

Bad move, he does have "evidence" so too speak in the loose term. All psdueo science has "evidence" to back it up, its just that its is NOT vulnerable to disproof.

Please understand this, cause this just invites some one like Gil to then say hey I do have evidence, I have this, and that, and this etc etc. Psdueo science is all about confirmation never falsification. Evidence can only confirm the claim and can never refute it. Eg, can't be tested, can't be shown false, isn't vulnerable to disproof.

I hope this has been useful for you.

Thanks for clearing that up. I did actually mean to say legitimate evidence, but that was my fault for not thoroughly proof-reading.

So now, just waiting for his response...
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 11:11:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 10:59:40 PM, Physik wrote:
At 12/31/2011 10:51:49 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2011 10:33:09 PM, Physik wrote:
At 12/31/2011 9:32:24 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/31/2011 9:20:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Lets cut the crap, how are your claims vulnerable to disproof ? Without this vulnerability its just claim after claim, with excuse after excuse, story after story, assertion after assertion.

I do not mind cutting to the heart

You can personally disprove any of the claims.
You go to excorcisms, do not stay at one as we are willing to admit that hucksters exist. Go to many. Try and get a demon to possess you.

Go to haunted houses. Stay the night. Go talk to Theologians. Faith Healers. Investigate these things on your own.

There is more than enough evidence, but you must put aside this ardent presupposition in naturalism and go with a more logical approach.

And realize everyone cannot be wrong but your few stalwart naturalists.....

How can you sit there and claim that an approach based on unfounded and unsupported claims is more logical than an approach based on evidence?

Bad move, he does have "evidence" so too speak in the loose term. All psdueo science has "evidence" to back it up, its just that its is NOT vulnerable to disproof.

Please understand this, cause this just invites some one like Gil to then say hey I do have evidence, I have this, and that, and this etc etc. Psdueo science is all about confirmation never falsification. Evidence can only confirm the claim and can never refute it. Eg, can't be tested, can't be shown false, isn't vulnerable to disproof.

I hope this has been useful for you.

Thanks for clearing that up. I did actually mean to say legitimate evidence, but that was my fault for not thoroughly proof-reading.

He will reply his evidence is legitimate, he can then challenge you on what basis his "evidence" is not legitimate. If you have an argument with him on that, that's your business, I think I have thrown down my challenge very clear. I only say this cause I don't want to let him off the hook by allowing him to segway in your objection.


So now, just waiting for his response...

Yes I do want him to answer MY question.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 11:15:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 9:48:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2011 9:32:24 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/31/2011 9:20:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Lets cut the crap, how are your claims vulnerable to disproof ? Without this vulnerability its just claim after claim, with excuse after excuse, story after story, assertion after assertion.

I do not mind cutting to the heart

You can personally disprove any of the claims.
You go to excorcisms, do not stay at one as we are willing to admit that hucksters exist. Go to many. Try and get a demon to possess you.

Explain to me how this is vulnerable to disproof. If I don't see a demon you will just say well it didn't turn up yet. Why do we have to be possessed by a demon ? Why not a chat ? I bet the demon if they exist is more honest than you. I have tea, I invite the demon to tea.

Go to haunted houses. Stay the night. Go talk to Theologians. Faith Healers. Investigate these things on your own.

How does this make your claim vulnerable to disproof ? explain please ?

There is more than enough evidence, but you must put aside this ardent presupposition in naturalism and go with a more logical approach.

Tell me how your claims are vulnerable to disproof then you can lecture me on logic.

And realize everyone cannot be wrong but your few stalwart naturalists.....

Your so fracking dishonest Gil. Nothing you said makes it vulnerable to disproof. If I come up negative you have an excuse available.

Hey Gil, I am thinking of a number between 1 - 10 billion. Ask God to tell you what the number is.

You won't of course, course this makes you vulnerable. If you claim God tell you the number, and you tell me a number and you get it wrong, I will know it.

Either you don't know what it means to be vulnerable to disproof, or you do and are evading it.

So no Gil, I don't want your excuses. Give me something that is vunerable to disproof, explain how it is vunerable to disproof. Enough is fracking enough.

Do it now, or let all of DDO see you for the fake you are.

Tick tock.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 11:22:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
He will reply his evidence is legitimate, he can then challenge you on what basis his "evidence" is not legitimate. If you have an argument with him on that, that's your business, I think I have thrown down my challenge very clear. I only say this cause I don't want to let him off the hook by allowing him to segway in your objection.

Fair enough.

And for the record, any such argument of the legitimacy of unverifiable evidence would probably lead right back here.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 11:51:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 11:22:32 PM, Physik wrote:
He will reply his evidence is legitimate, he can then challenge you on what basis his "evidence" is not legitimate. If you have an argument with him on that, that's your business, I think I have thrown down my challenge very clear. I only say this cause I don't want to let him off the hook by allowing him to segway in your objection.

Fair enough.

And for the record, any such argument of the legitimacy of unverifiable evidence would probably lead right back here.

As soon as the last witness dies no evidence is truly verifiable.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 12:00:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 11:51:56 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/31/2011 11:22:32 PM, Physik wrote:
He will reply his evidence is legitimate, he can then challenge you on what basis his "evidence" is not legitimate. If you have an argument with him on that, that's your business, I think I have thrown down my challenge very clear. I only say this cause I don't want to let him off the hook by allowing him to segway in your objection.

Fair enough.

And for the record, any such argument of the legitimacy of unverifiable evidence would probably lead right back here.

As soon as the last witness dies no evidence is truly verifiable.

On the contrary, a witness is not verifiable at all without verifiable evidence. If a witness makes a claim, that in itself is not relevant unless there's verifiable evidence supporting said claim.

I know that sounds a little confusing, but a witness needs to be able to provide verifiable evidence of what they claim to be witnessing.

I honestly don't want to discuss anything else until Gil responds to that challenge.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 12:09:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 12:00:15 AM, Physik wrote:
At 12/31/2011 11:51:56 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/31/2011 11:22:32 PM, Physik wrote:
He will reply his evidence is legitimate, he can then challenge you on what basis his "evidence" is not legitimate. If you have an argument with him on that, that's your business, I think I have thrown down my challenge very clear. I only say this cause I don't want to let him off the hook by allowing him to segway in your objection.

Fair enough.

And for the record, any such argument of the legitimacy of unverifiable evidence would probably lead right back here.

As soon as the last witness dies no evidence is truly verifiable.

On the contrary, a witness is not verifiable at all without verifiable evidence. If a witness makes a claim, that in itself is not relevant unless there's verifiable evidence supporting said claim.

I know that sounds a little confusing, but a witness needs to be able to provide verifiable evidence of what they claim to be witnessing.

I honestly don't want to discuss anything else until Gil responds to that challenge.

So there really is no true way of discerning BS from the truth...

I've already known this which is why I triple check stories and facts but it really makes reality hard to agree with or disagree with because there are so many arguments against reality.

Info is false without witnesses, witnesses aren't valid without proof, proof isn't valid unless backed up by x,y or z etc etc until what we have in the end is so vague and dubious about what could be true or not that one is left to their own logic to decide which seems the least likely to be false...

Does that make sense? or am I rambling?
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 12:16:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 12:09:15 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/1/2012 12:00:15 AM, Physik wrote:
At 12/31/2011 11:51:56 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/31/2011 11:22:32 PM, Physik wrote:
He will reply his evidence is legitimate, he can then challenge you on what basis his "evidence" is not legitimate. If you have an argument with him on that, that's your business, I think I have thrown down my challenge very clear. I only say this cause I don't want to let him off the hook by allowing him to segway in your objection.

Fair enough.

And for the record, any such argument of the legitimacy of unverifiable evidence would probably lead right back here.

As soon as the last witness dies no evidence is truly verifiable.

On the contrary, a witness is not verifiable at all without verifiable evidence. If a witness makes a claim, that in itself is not relevant unless there's verifiable evidence supporting said claim.

I know that sounds a little confusing, but a witness needs to be able to provide verifiable evidence of what they claim to be witnessing.

I honestly don't want to discuss anything else until Gil responds to that challenge.

So there really is no true way of discerning BS from the truth...

I've already known this which is why I triple check stories and facts but it really makes reality hard to agree with or disagree with because there are so many arguments against reality.

Info is false without witnesses, witnesses aren't valid without proof, proof isn't valid unless backed up by x,y or z etc etc until what we have in the end is so vague and dubious about what could be true or not that one is left to their own logic to decide which seems the least likely to be false...

Does that make sense? or am I rambling?

Your just straying from the point. There are ways of discerning BS from the truth, our model of the universe is a testament to that.

I think the problem is your placing far to much emphasis on witnesses. We don't have witnesses for evolution or the big bang, but a massive amount of evidence leads us almost irrefutably to those conclusion.

What I'm saying is evidence does not necessarily need supporting witnesses, but witnesses always need supporting evidence.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 12:18:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 12:16:05 AM, Physik wrote:
At 1/1/2012 12:09:15 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/1/2012 12:00:15 AM, Physik wrote:
At 12/31/2011 11:51:56 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 12/31/2011 11:22:32 PM, Physik wrote:
He will reply his evidence is legitimate, he can then challenge you on what basis his "evidence" is not legitimate. If you have an argument with him on that, that's your business, I think I have thrown down my challenge very clear. I only say this cause I don't want to let him off the hook by allowing him to segway in your objection.

Fair enough.

And for the record, any such argument of the legitimacy of unverifiable evidence would probably lead right back here.

As soon as the last witness dies no evidence is truly verifiable.

On the contrary, a witness is not verifiable at all without verifiable evidence. If a witness makes a claim, that in itself is not relevant unless there's verifiable evidence supporting said claim.

I know that sounds a little confusing, but a witness needs to be able to provide verifiable evidence of what they claim to be witnessing.

I honestly don't want to discuss anything else until Gil responds to that challenge.

So there really is no true way of discerning BS from the truth...

I've already known this which is why I triple check stories and facts but it really makes reality hard to agree with or disagree with because there are so many arguments against reality.

Info is false without witnesses, witnesses aren't valid without proof, proof isn't valid unless backed up by x,y or z etc etc until what we have in the end is so vague and dubious about what could be true or not that one is left to their own logic to decide which seems the least likely to be false...

Does that make sense? or am I rambling?

Your just straying from the point. There are ways of discerning BS from the truth, our model of the universe is a testament to that.

I think the problem is your placing far to much emphasis on witnesses. We don't have witnesses for evolution or the big bang, but a massive amount of evidence leads us almost irrefutably to those conclusion.

What I'm saying is evidence does not necessarily need supporting witnesses, but witnesses always need supporting evidence.

Ah you see but without witnesses I see evolution and the big bang as made up theories since there are no hard facts supporting it.

What supports the big bang?
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 2:20:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 12:09:15 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

So there really is no true way of discerning BS from the truth...

So why do you believe anything at all then? What makes you get out of bed each morning?