|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 1, 2018 20:55:33 GMT
Now, Bryce, you're telling barefaced lies again. As for round earth/flat earth I keep an open mind. As for chemtrails, it isn't a matter of belief. The evidence is self-evident. So therefore what I said was in fact TRUE. Thanks for clearing that one up Erjen!  Note: The evidence for a round earth is self-evident to anyone who has flown an airplane. Yet you still remain skeptical. So clearly your judgment of what constitutes evidence is questionable. You'll never get to Heaven that way. Work on it.  Not necessary since I don’t believe in heaven in the first place. That’s more of a concern for someone like you. Clearly, does the pilot have to angle his flaps down every few minutes to keep from gaining altitude as the earth curves underneath him? Or does gravity keep him in line? So Heaven and Hell don't exist if you simply refuse to believe in them? Is that what you're saying? Is this what passes for "logic" now?  |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 1, 2018 21:58:22 GMT
So therefore what I said was in fact TRUE. Thanks for clearing that one up Erjen! Note: The evidence for a round earth is self-evident to anyone who has flown an airplane. Yet you still remain skeptical. So clearly your judgment of what constitutes evidence is questionable. Not necessary since I don’t believe in heaven in the first place. That’s more of a concern for someone like you. So Heaven and Hell don't exist if you simply refuse to believe in them? Is that what you're saying? Is this what passes for "logic" now? No, pilots are too busy adjusting for the huge load of chemicals for the chemtrails in the holds of their planes to be doing anything that fancy. It takes ages to arrange the cameras to show the nozzles on the wing tips, judge when to turn them on over your house and other chemtrail believers and still somehow make sure the plane doesn't fly off the edge of the earth into eternal hell if the pilot is a homosexual. Their protractors are way overworked! |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 1, 2018 23:26:23 GMT
So therefore what I said was in fact TRUE. Thanks for clearing that one up Erjen! Note: The evidence for a round earth is self-evident to anyone who has flown an airplane. Yet you still remain skeptical. So clearly your judgment of what constitutes evidence is questionable. Not necessary since I don’t believe in heaven in the first place. That’s more of a concern for someone like you. Clearly, does the pilot have to angle his flaps down every few minutes to keep from gaining altitude as the earth curves underneath him? Or does gravity keep him in line? You started the statement with “clearly”, and ended it with a question mark. So I have no idea what you want me to do right now. Are you making a claim or asking a question? So Heaven and Hell don't exist if you simply refuse to believe in them? Is that what you're saying? Is this what passes for "logic" now? No, your assumption is not logical; it’s asinine. Just like it would be for me to say that just because you don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. Your logic would seem to suggest that he does until his existence is proven false! What I’m actually saying is that I don’t believe in heaven or hell. You have to prove they exist in order for me to believe in them. THAT is logical! Burden of proof is always on the one making the affirmative claim.[/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 1, 2018 23:29:52 GMT
Clearly, does the pilot have to angle his flaps down every few minutes to keep from gaining altitude as the earth curves underneath him? Or does gravity keep him in line?So Heaven and Hell don't exist if you simply refuse to believe in them? Is that what you're saying? Is this what passes for "logic" now? No, pilots are too busy adjusting for the huge load of chemicals for the chemtrails in the holds of their planes to be doing anything that fancy. It takes ages to arrange the cameras to show the nozzles on the wing tips, judge when to turn them on over your house and other chemtrail believers and still somehow makes sure the plane doesn't fly off the edge of the earth into eternal hell if the pilot is a homosexual. There protractors are way overworked! 😂 Nice!  |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 1, 2018 23:42:50 GMT
Clearly, does the pilot have to angle his flaps down every few minutes to keep from gaining altitude as the earth curves underneath him? Or does gravity keep him in line? You started the statement with “clearly”, and ended it with a question mark. So I have no idea what you want me to do right now. Are you making a claim or asking a question? So Heaven and Hell don't exist if you simply refuse to believe in them? Is that what you're saying? Is this what passes for "logic" now? No, your assumption is not logical; it’s asinine. Just like it would be for me to say that just because you don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. Your logic would seem to suggest that he does until his existence is proven false! What I’m actually saying is that I don’t believe in heaven or hell. You have to prove they exist in order for me to believe in them. THAT is logical! Burden of proof is always on the one making the affirmative claim. I'm not making an affirmative claim. I'm just saying that if something exists you can't blink it out of existence by telling yourself it doesn't exist. It's basically the same thing I said on the Pascal's Wager thread. Hope that helps. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 1, 2018 23:53:29 GMT
You started the statement with “clearly”, and ended it with a question mark. So I have no idea what you want me to do right now. Are you making a claim or asking a question? No, your assumption is not logical; it’s asinine. Just like it would be for me to say that just because you don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. Your logic would seem to suggest that he does until his existence is proven false! What I’m actually saying is that I don’t believe in heaven or hell. You have to prove they exist in order for me to believe in them. THAT is logical! Burden of proof is always on the one making the affirmative claim. I'm not making an affirmative claim. I'm just saying that if something exists you can't blink it out of existence by telling yourself it doesn't exist. It's basically the same thing I said on the Pascal's Wager thread. Hope that helps. It helps me understand just how much of a nutcase you are. I’m not making a negative claim, because I don’t have to. It doesn’t make sense to act as though something exists when there is no reason to believe in its existence in the first place. Pascal’s Wager has already been invalidated as completely illogical by the way. Hope that helps! |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2018 23:55:32 GMT
Clearly, does the pilot have to angle his flaps down every few minutes to keep from gaining altitude as the earth curves underneath him? Or does gravity keep him in line? You started the statement with “clearly”, and ended it with a question mark. So I have no idea what you want me to do right now. Are you making a claim or asking a question? So Heaven and Hell don't exist if you simply refuse to believe in them? Is that what you're saying? Is this what passes for "logic" now? No, your assumption is not logical; it’s asinine. Just like it would be for me to say that just because you don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. Your logic would seem to suggest that he does until his existence is proven false! What I’m actually saying is that I don’t believe in heaven or hell. You have to prove they exist in order for me to believe in them. THAT is logical! Burden of proof is always on the one making the affirmative claim. You believe there is no heaven or hell, he believes there is. Neither of you has to "prove" anything. There is no burden of proof (so far). Neither view is more "logical" than the other. If you claim your view is more "logical" than his then you do incur a burden of proof. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 1, 2018 23:59:53 GMT
You started the statement with “clearly”, and ended it with a question mark. So I have no idea what you want me to do right now. Are you making a claim or asking a question? No, your assumption is not logical; it’s asinine. Just like it would be for me to say that just because you don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. Your logic would seem to suggest that he does until his existence is proven false! What I’m actually saying is that I don’t believe in heaven or hell. You have to prove they exist in order for me to believe in them. THAT is logical! Burden of proof is always on the one making the affirmative claim. You believe there is no heaven or hell, he believes there is. Neither of you has to "prove" anything. There is no burden of proof (so far). Neither view is more "logical" than the other. If you claim your view is more "logical" than his then you do incur a burden of proof. That my position is more logical than his IS proven by the fact that I make no claims about whether god exists or not while he does! Since neither of us has proof either way, and he makes the affirmative claim without evidence, HIS position is illogical. Especially if he wants to convince anyone else that his opinion is based on “reason” and should be adopted. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 2, 2018 0:16:20 GMT
You believe there is no heaven or hell, he believes there is. Neither of you has to "prove" anything. There is no burden of proof (so far). Neither view is more "logical" than the other. If you claim your view is more "logical" than his then you do incur a burden of proof. That my position is more logical than his IS proven by the fact that I make no claims about whether god exists or not while he does! Since neither of us has proof either way, and he makes the affirmative claim without evidence, HIS position is illogical. Especially if he wants to convince anyone else that his opinion is based on “reason” and should be adopted. I have already explained to this board how the burden of proof actually works. The party (or parties) supporting the status quo has (have) no burden of proof. The those challenging the status quo do have the burden of proof. A common mistake and yours is to assume that the status quo means some "original" state. In your case your assumption is that "no" heaven or hell qualifies as the "original" state. You have no such privilege. "Status quo" means the state of things as they are, not were. Religion is "established." Being established it might claim status quo privileges in debate, but usually does not. It's generous that way. It is no less established though. There is considerable testimony regarding quite much in religion, including the existence of heaven and hell. Literally millions of people accept or at least consider noteworthy much of that testimony. You have no right to dismiss all that with your twisted views of logic. Don't make me turn this car around. I will if need be. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 2, 2018 0:19:42 GMT
Sorry, I don't get where you're coming from or what that has to do with me saying vast swaths of people believe in life after death. I didn't watch the whole interview. Did Shelly start advocating for some laws based on her contention that Robin Williams is still alive? That would sound odd to me. But most Christians probably believe Williams IS alove...or at least they believe he along with all others who are "dead," will arise again to be judged. But that aside, technically, at least in the US I certainly MAY (am allowed to by law) say we must pass some law based on what Napoleon said. It's just that no one has to agree/heed me when I make that claim, and many might think me a bit daft unless I refer to some obscure argument he made about leash laws and am able to relate it to current situations and convince others it's a good argument. I'm sorry I'm going off on tangents. I do that a lot. The belief that Napoleon is alive and a shape shifter is not comparable to the belief that there is life after death. It is terribly unfair for anyone to suggest there is a comparison. Comparison or not though it is necessary to respect the opinions of others whichever side you happen to be on. Just as they must ask politely for you to believe there is life after death, you must not forget your manners in asking them to believe there is not. The reason you may not say that some law must be passed because Napoleon said so is that the United States does not recognize any authority outside it. We are "sovereign" in that sense. It does not recognize any titles of nobility. It does not recognize the authority of any church to dictate any law. It may consider laws on the advice of anyone, church or Napoleon Shape Shifter. It is comparable in that the same proof exists for both cases...life after death and (for all intents and purposes) reincarnation. And I bet Trump could get away with saying we should pass a leash law because Napoleon. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 2, 2018 0:22:10 GMT
You believe there is no heaven or hell, he believes there is. Neither of you has to "prove" anything. There is no burden of proof (so far). Neither view is more "logical" than the other. If you claim your view is more "logical" than his then you do incur a burden of proof. That my position is more logical than his IS proven by the fact that I make no claims about whether god exists or not while he does! Since neither of us has proof either way, and he makes the affirmative claim without evidence, HIS position is illogical. Especially if he wants to convince anyone else that his opinion is based on “reason” and should be adopted. Your "position" is that heaven and hell don't apply to you because you don't believe in them. If they don't exist, you're fine. If they do exist, you're in trouble. So your "position" is predicated on the notion that it doesn't apply to you......because I can't prove heaven and hell exist......which has nothing whatsoever to do with their actual existence or lack thereof. Hope that helps. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 2, 2018 0:44:17 GMT
That my position is more logical than his IS proven by the fact that I make no claims about whether god exists or not while he does! Since neither of us has proof either way, and he makes the affirmative claim without evidence, HIS position is illogical. Especially if he wants to convince anyone else that his opinion is based on “reason” and should be adopted. Your "position" is that heaven and hell don't apply to you because you don't believe in them. If they don't exist, you're fine. If they do exist, you're in trouble. So your "position" is predicated on the notion that it doesn't apply to you......because I can't prove heaven and hell exist......which has nothing whatsoever to do with their actual existence or lack thereof. Hope that helps. That's not his position. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 2, 2018 1:21:16 GMT
It is comparable in that the same proof exists for both cases...life after death and (for all intents and purposes) reincarnation. Reincarnation maybe, shape shifting maybe not so much. Yes there are "proofs" of the spirit and by extension various phenomena associated with the spirit. It's just that it is not widely available. You have to "be there" when it happens or you can easily assume it was faked. Consider the case of Akiane Kramarik, the women who at about age four began painting with a skill as advanced as legendary master painters. To you or me it might be just an elaborate hoax. We might assume adults painted those art works then claimed the child did. There is no convincing evidence to you or me. Her own mother however would certainly know whether there was any hoax. She would know where her daughter was and what abilities she really had at every time and age. There might well be then (I don't know) very scientific proof of abilities and senses quite beyond the ordinary. By the way, there are (short) home movies of the child painting and discussing her work at an obviously very young age. Although I have not seen any modern miracles myself, I have highly trusted relatives and friends who claim they have. None of them however feel any need to convince the rest of the world of their extraordinary experiences. Why bother when the wide world will just assume it's all mistakes or lies? They and I hope that the wide world will get its own proofs in good time. There are "authorities" maybe not ours who attempt to catalog, understand and if possible validate the various proofs of the spirit. I suspect psychokinesis is extremely rare and there might be no shape shifters all. What "lesson" would a shape shifter bring? The communication of needful news to various persons or groups dominates the data. |
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Apr 2, 2018 1:55:09 GMT
You can't. All you can do is say things like this woman is clearly mentally ill and it's nothing mysterious because the entertainment industry leaves a lot of people messed up. I don't think Dr. Phil is taking her story at face value, whereas I try to keep an open mind. Dr. Phil says people are giving her problems. I say spirits are giving her problems. They may be in human bodies and do all of the things that humans do, but it's the spirit that makes the difference, and not so much the vessel which it occupies. EDIT -- Haven't seen Proggy around lately. If he's still here I'm expecting a list of all the movies he's seen her in. <iframe width="10.600000000000023" height="6.899999999999977" style="position: absolute; width: 10.6px; height: 6.9px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 0px; top: 0px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_12438565" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="10.600000000000023" height="6.899999999999977" style="position: absolute; width: 10.6px; height: 6.9px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 469px; top: -362px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_21810024" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="10.600000000000023" height="6.899999999999977" style="position: absolute; width: 10.6px; height: 6.9px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 0px; top: -74px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_72279985" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="10.600000000000023" height="6.899999999999977" style="position: absolute; width: 10.6px; height: 6.9px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 469px; top: -74px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_16309734" scrolling="no"></iframe> Whose spirits? |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 2, 2018 1:57:37 GMT
I would hope it would occur to you to think me nucking futs... if you don't already think that anyway. I can only imagine you think the majority of people are nucking futs then, right? Because with the same "proof" Ms Duval provided for believing Robin Williams is still alive, vast swaths of people believe life goes on after death. People believing in an afterlife has more to do with the human mind being innately irrational and having innately bad epistemology that can form beliefs that, despite being unfalsifiable, are comforting and helps people get along with living life. Believing not only that there's an afterlife, but that people come back and shape-shift is irrationality and bad epistemology cranked up to 11. It's adding (bizarre) complexity to an already needlessly complex concept. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 2, 2018 1:58:21 GMT
You can't. All you can do is say things like this woman is clearly mentally ill and it's nothing mysterious because the entertainment industry leaves a lot of people messed up. I don't think Dr. Phil is taking her story at face value, whereas I try to keep an open mind. Dr. Phil says people are giving her problems. I say spirits are giving her problems. They may be in human bodies and do all of the things that humans do, but it's the spirit that makes the difference, and not so much the vessel which it occupies. EDIT -- Haven't seen Proggy around lately. If he's still here I'm expecting a list of all the movies he's seen her in. <iframe width="10.600000000000023" height="6.899999999999977" style="position: absolute; width: 10.6px; height: 6.9px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 0px; top: 0px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_12438565" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="10.600000000000023" height="6.899999999999977" style="position: absolute; width: 10.6px; height: 6.9px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 469px; top: -362px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_21810024" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="10.600000000000023" height="6.899999999999977" style="position: absolute; width: 10.6px; height: 6.9px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 0px; top: -74px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_72279985" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="10.600000000000023" height="6.899999999999977" style="position: absolute; width: 10.6px; height: 6.9px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 469px; top: -74px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_16309734" scrolling="no"></iframe> Whose spirits? How the hell should I know, in a world with so many spirits? |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 2, 2018 2:00:22 GMT
You started the statement with “clearly”, and ended it with a question mark. So I have no idea what you want me to do right now. Are you making a claim or asking a question? No, your assumption is not logical; it’s asinine. Just like it would be for me to say that just because you don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. Your logic would seem to suggest that he does until his existence is proven false! What I’m actually saying is that I don’t believe in heaven or hell. You have to prove they exist in order for me to believe in them. THAT is logical! Burden of proof is always on the one making the affirmative claim. You believe there is no heaven or hell, he believes there is. Neither of you has to "prove" anything. There is no burden of proof (so far). Neither view is more "logical" than the other. If you claim your view is more "logical" than his then you do incur a burden of proof. Incorrect. Simpler hypothesis are innately more likely to be true than more complex ones. I explained this to you elsewhere. You may not believe it or understand it, but that's your problem. |
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Apr 2, 2018 2:01:03 GMT
How the hell should I know, in a world with so many spirits? In that case, you are talking out your ass. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 2, 2018 2:06:44 GMT
How the hell should I know, in a world with so many spirits? In that case, you are talking out your ass. Your question was stupid. My house was burglarized once. Stuff was moved around. Items were missing. I didn't find out who did it until days later, but I knew enough to know that someone had broken into my house and committed thievery. Or, did I need to know the names of the persons who broke into my house in order to know that my house was broken into? You need to think before you type. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 2, 2018 2:14:37 GMT
Simpler hypothesis are innately more likely to be true than more complex ones. I explained this to you elsewhere. You may not believe it or understand it, but that's your problem. Perhaps the simpler hypothesis is "more likely" to be true if it also explains all the evidence. Yours doesn't explain all the evidence as I have shown you at least fifteen times now. |
|
