Argument from personal revelation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2017, 03:36 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(31-08-2017 03:30 AM)Angra Mainyu Wrote:  
(31-08-2017 03:26 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  [Image: 445376.jpg]

I know you have an evidence fetish, but you're not getting your fix here.

Oh joy, you mean you got nothin' bitch?

How original...

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2017, 07:29 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(31-08-2017 03:30 AM)Angra Mainyu Wrote:  
(31-08-2017 03:26 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  [Image: 445376.jpg]

I know you have an evidence fetish, but you're not getting your fix here.

What was it like working with Jack Nicholson?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2017, 07:35 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(31-08-2017 03:30 AM)Angra Mainyu Wrote:  I know you have an evidence fetish, but you're not getting your fix here.

This might be the wrong forum for you. Looking at your rep score, it's probably the case.

No one here cares about unbacked claims. They're easy to make and they're pointless. Leprechauns actually prefer to wear blue, not green. See? It's easy! Also, nobody cares.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RobbyPants's post
31-08-2017, 07:36 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(30-08-2017 01:07 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  1. God := universe
2. Universe := totality of being
3. "totality of being exists" is tautological
=> 4. "God exists" is tautological

1 and 2 are definitions, they are not claims that need justification.

To clarify my point further,
X := 2
"X is prime" is tautological.

X=2 is merely a definition, it's not a claim that needs justification. Similarly, "God is the existence/self/universe" is merely a definition, not a claim. One can dismiss the definition of course, but if one accepts the definition, the existence of that God will be tautological, I think.

That makes enough sense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2017, 07:38 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(31-08-2017 07:35 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(31-08-2017 03:30 AM)Angra Mainyu Wrote:  I know you have an evidence fetish, but you're not getting your fix here.

This might be the wrong forum for you. Looking at your rep score, it's probably the case.

No one here cares about unbacked claims. They're easy to make and they're pointless. Leprechauns actually prefer to wear blue, not green. See? It's easy! Also, nobody cares.

I guaran-fucking-tee that the only opinions you'll agree with, are mainstream ones with dubious credentials (meaning they could've fabricated the "proof/evidence" out of thin air), and you'd still probably believe it, right? Because it's trendy?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2017, 07:46 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(31-08-2017 07:38 AM)Angra Mainyu Wrote:  I guaran-fucking-tee that the only opinions you'll agree with, are mainstream ones with dubious credentials (meaning they could've fabricated the "proof/evidence" out of thin air), and you'd still probably believe it, right? Because it's trendy?
Are you aware of how scientific theory works? Like how it becomes "popular/mainstream" ?

Ok, generally, a person(s) will have a hypothesis on how something may/may not work. They will conduct tests that rule out as much interference/outside influences as possible to confirm/deny the original hypothesis. This can can years to do correctly, to make sure all data is correct and that things can be controlled/recreated/proven in a scientific environment. Once this is done, the findings are published to the scientific community, who are free to criticize/run their own tests to also confirm this information. At that point when it is proven, via the majority, to be accurate it becomes a theory:

Quote:A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.


As such, Atheists and anybody with a rational mind, subscribes to the same method. At this point I would like to mention this is why we don't condone this sort of garbage, but you have NOTHING to say other than "GOD DID IT LOLOLOLOLOL" and when we ask for the evidence, the thing that will prove it to us all, and the only thing we require to actually become believers in this "god" you follow, all you can say is "LOL evidence? who needs that LOLOLOL" and it's just backwards bullshit.

Once you understand how these things work, with you supposedly being "intelligent", then come back with what we're asking for, and if you're correct you'll a have A) converted teh forum and B) [should you evidence be correct and factual] possible converted the entire world in the process.

Go ahead and prove me wrong. That's all Atheists are asking.

The Helpful Atheist - An Information Blog
Last updated: 08/11/2017 - Want to contribute, drop me a PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like OakTree500's post
31-08-2017, 08:02 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(31-08-2017 07:46 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  
(31-08-2017 07:38 AM)Angra Mainyu Wrote:  I guaran-fucking-tee that the only opinions you'll agree with, are mainstream ones with dubious credentials (meaning they could've fabricated the "proof/evidence" out of thin air), and you'd still probably believe it, right? Because it's trendy?
Are you aware of how scientific theory works? Like how it becomes "popular/mainstream" ?

Ok, generally, a person(s) will have a hypothesis on how something may/may not work. They will conduct tests that rule out as much interference/outside influences as possible to confirm/deny the original hypothesis. This can can years to do correctly, to make sure all data is correct and that things can be controlled/recreated/proven in a scientific environment. Once this is done, the findings are published to the scientific community, who are free to criticize/run their own tests to also confirm this information. At that point when it is proven, via the majority, to be accurate it becomes a theory:

Quote:A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.


As such, Atheists and anybody with a rational mind, subscribes to the same method. At this point I would like to mention this is why we don't condone this sort of garbage, but you have NOTHING to say other than "GOD DID IT LOLOLOLOLOL" and when we ask for the evidence, the thing that will prove it to us all, and the only thing we require to actually become believers in this "god" you follow, all you can say is "LOL evidence? who needs that LOLOLOL" and it's just backwards bullshit.

Once you understand how these things work, with you supposedly being "intelligent", then come back with what we're asking for, and if you're correct you'll a have A) converted teh forum and B) [should you evidence be correct and factual] possible converted the entire world in the process.

Go ahead and prove me wrong. That's all Atheists are asking.

It's all just theory. Nothing solid. Nothing solid at all. Stop treating theories and hypotheses as if they are indisputable fact, I can't even tell you how stupid that is. Humans are so ridiculously primitive, they really will believe anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2017, 08:06 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(31-08-2017 08:02 AM)Angra Mainyu Wrote:  It's all just theory. Nothing solid. Nothing solid at all. Stop treating theories and hypotheses as if they are indisputable fact, I can't even tell you how stupid that is. Humans are so ridiculously primitive, they really will believe anything.

More equivocations. You know nothing about science, Angry Man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thoreauvian's post
31-08-2017, 08:08 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(31-08-2017 08:06 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(31-08-2017 08:02 AM)Angra Mainyu Wrote:  It's all just theory. Nothing solid. Nothing solid at all. Stop treating theories and hypotheses as if they are indisputable fact, I can't even tell you how stupid that is. Humans are so ridiculously primitive, they really will believe anything.

More equivocations. You know nothing about science, Angry Man.

Don't make me laugh. I know more about (real) science than you'll ever know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2017, 08:15 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(31-08-2017 08:02 AM)Angra Mainyu Wrote:  It's all just theory. Nothing solid. Nothing solid at all. Stop treating theories and hypotheses as if they are indisputable fact, I can't even tell you how stupid that is. Humans are so ridiculously primitive, they really will believe anything.

That's not what scientific Theory is though. What that means is we have enough evidence to be 99.9% sure. And whilst that makes you scream "WELL ITS NOT 100% IS IT", but NOTHING is 100%, thats the good part about science, because nothing will ever be 100%, it's about how certain we are on a subject.

We DONT treat is as indisputable, thats the point. If you can provide evidence to prove something wrong, science welcomes it. That's why certain things like the theory of gravity haven't been proven wrong yet....because it's correct.

Being 99% certain on something is better than have 0% evidence on something else. In this case the something else is "GOD"

Quote:It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".

In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis; such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.

The Helpful Atheist - An Information Blog
Last updated: 08/11/2017 - Want to contribute, drop me a PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like OakTree500's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: