No True Scotsman
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-04-2012, 12:12 AM (This post was last modified: 20-04-2012 12:15 AM by Tiberius.)
RE: No True Scotsman
(19-04-2012 08:25 AM)whateverist Wrote:  I know that site. That's the one where Tiberius banned me for saying that his site -yes he owns it- is corrupt and a loony bin run by the inmates. Some people just don't take criticism well.
No, you were banned for continually lying about staff action (claiming repeatedly that we were deleting your posts - we weren't), and trying to start a flame war. If you'd actually raised the criticism in an open way and discussed your concerns, you would not have been banned. Instead, you ignored our responses where at least two of the staff denied deleted your posts (and even tried to help you refresh your browser cache in case you actually weren't seeing them), and then you decided to paste your assertions all over your profile.

As I've said time and time again, if we honestly don't take criticism well, why is it that only you have been banned? FFS, even reverendjeremiah is still unbanned over there, and he's complained more than most about some of our policies.

Quote:Moderators at Atheist Forums.org not only read what are called 'Private' messages sent between members, a moderator named Shell B even quoted one which wasn't sent to her on a public thread. To be fair when one signs up to post on that website there is a disclaimer that says private messages can be read by moderators. Still it is kind of surprising that they would actually want to.
"Private" messages are messages that are not public, simple as that. FYI, all forums running MyBB (including this one) can read your PMs, and probably do. We are just open about it. We do it because it's easier to catch spammers and "malicious" users, since they usually abuse the PM system.

Quote:Oh, if you really care to know Shell B and Tiberius have a little thing going on which helps explain how criticizing her can be such a banning offense there.
Yeah, I'm sure that's the reason why all the other staff members backed her as well.

I might add that I find this "rant" very strange, considering you sent me an email the other day asking to be unbanned and that you might want to post at AF in the future.

reverendjeremiah Wrote:Now tiberius will spend the next 7 pages arguing over this.
As I said before, I'll respond as long as people will continue to make up crap about AF. I refuse to start things over here, but I will defend myself if someone else decides they want to write screeds against me and the site.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2012, 10:21 AM
RE: No True Scotsman
(19-04-2012 09:15 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  What's the big deal? Lucradis reads our pm's all the time.

Hell, he writes mine for me.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
20-04-2012, 10:29 AM
RE: No True Scotsman
(20-04-2012 10:21 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(19-04-2012 09:15 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  What's the big deal? Lucradis reads our pm's all the time.

Hell, he writes mine for me.
That explains aboot your silly accent, eh?

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
28-04-2012, 05:56 PM
RE: No True Scotsman
(09-04-2012 10:09 PM)whateverist Wrote:  
(02-04-2012 04:45 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  Yes, I understand why your conclusion would be such as you must from your vantage point consider my view to be subjective also. I confess that one can only begin to research the bible from a subjective viewpoint as that is all he has to begin with but upon receiving the Holy Spirit and sharpening ones hearing to tune into his voice, one's truth becomes objective and not subjective. Of course you cannot believe that as you are an atheist.

Gary
Gary I fear I must play devil's advocate here and ask how exactly you discriminate between the Holy Spirit and a demon? Have you experience of both? How is one different from the other I wonder. I can see where you would want to believe you were in touch with the Holy Spirit but wouldn't someone who is sometimes called "the great deceiver" be capable of taking you in?

I'd suggest that you can't possibly tell them apart. In the end, you are in no better or worse position to judge the worth of any claims than I am. I can't disprove God but I know and accept that. You can't prove God but I wonder if you know that. While you are obviously convinced from your subjective experience that God exists, do you realize you have no objective proof to offer?

This is not to say I think you should abandon your belief if you lack such proof. I have nothing invested in what you believe one way or the other. I do think it would be cool if you were able to hold on to your beliefs even while copping to the same limited epistemic foundation that all men share.
Sorry it took so long for me to reply. I don't receive replies though I always have the subscription box checked. I had thought that maybe no one was responding.

You bring up some excellent points. How does one tell exactly what spirit it is that is guiding them? Yes, I have had experience with both good and evil spirits. Evil spirits never speak truth outside of speaking it to move you to thinking to do that which is evil. Good spirits never speak lies but only guide you into truth. All humans have dealt with both but most are unaware of what is truly going on inside of their bodies and have seamless conversations with spirits while merely thinking that they are 'reasoning' within themselves by themselves. Satan's best defense is to make others believe he doesn't exist and that everything that goes on in your head is just you.

I once had an experience where I was given over to an evil spirit that gave me delusions and all kinds of false ideas to chase after. Most atheists would probably dismiss what I experienced as some form of mental illness, especially since it can probably be scientifically proven that my brain chemistry was out of whack while I was delusional. Just because there is a physical effect that takes place when the spiritual world is interacting with the physical realm doesn't mean that it isn't spiritual in nature. It only gives those studying such events reason to come to conclusions to base the DSM IV off of.

I don't expect anyone here to believe a word I say. I only expect 'logical' arguments against what I say from a purely carnal position that doesn't allow for the spiritual realm to exist.

Gary
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 06:01 PM
RE: No True Scotsman
(28-04-2012 05:56 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  I don't expect anyone here to believe a word I say. I only expect 'logical' arguments against what I say from a purely carnal position that doesn't allow for the spiritual realm to exist.

Not gonna get them from Girly. Girly's carnal position is quite receptive to psychedelic reinterpretation. Wink

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
28-04-2012, 06:51 PM
RE: No True Scotsman
(28-04-2012 05:56 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  I don't expect anyone here to believe a word I say. I only expect 'logical' arguments against what I say from a purely carnal position that doesn't allow for the spiritual realm to exist.
Science operates on an assumption of methodological naturalism, and skepticism is rational. Call it carnal if it makes you feel better, but science can be a double-edged sword that cuts us all down --- it doesn't allow us to hold on to beliefs without testable evidence, no matter how those beliefs make us feel.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
28-04-2012, 08:05 PM
RE: No True Scotsman
(28-04-2012 06:51 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(28-04-2012 05:56 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  I don't expect anyone here to believe a word I say. I only expect 'logical' arguments against what I say from a purely carnal position that doesn't allow for the spiritual realm to exist.
Science operates on an assumption of methodological naturalism, and skepticism is rational. Call it carnal if it makes you feel better, but science can be a double-edged sword that cuts us all down --- it doesn't allow us to hold on to beliefs without testable evidence, no matter how those beliefs make us feel.
Absolutely. I can agree with those words used to describe it as well. But you have to agree that Science in its present state does not allow for anything to have a spiritual cause but seeks the cause to be carnal in nature therefore if the spiritual exists then science cannot grasp it.

Gary
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 08:51 PM
RE: No True Scotsman
(28-04-2012 08:05 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  
(28-04-2012 06:51 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Science operates on an assumption of methodological naturalism, and skepticism is rational. Call it carnal if it makes you feel better, but science can be a double-edged sword that cuts us all down --- it doesn't allow us to hold on to beliefs without testable evidence, no matter how those beliefs make us feel.
Absolutely. I can agree with those words used to describe it as well. But you have to agree that Science in its present state does not allow for anything to have a spiritual cause but seeks the cause to be carnal in nature therefore if the spiritual exists then science cannot grasp it.

Gary
This is absolutely and undeniably true. If there is a supernatural world, we can't use science to come up with traits belonging to it, entities existing in it, or even its influence on the natural world. It is, by its nature, outside of what we can measure or prove.

One of my favorite philosophers, David Hume, demonstrated that natural causes are always more likely than supernatural causes by their very definition, and therefore we should always look for natural causes. If you take any supernatural event, such as the President of the United States coming back to life after an assassination, is there a greater chance that his resurrection --- a purely supernatural event that can't be grasped by science --- is more likely than a hoax played on the American people? Is it more likely than our having a limited grasp of what constitutes "death"? No matter how convinced we are that we've witnessed something supernatural, we can't even measure the probability of its occurrence because what makes it miraculous /supernatural is the fact that it is extremely rare. Any natural explanation that we can offer will be more probable.

Worse, if we actually did see a supernatural event, our inability to measure it also hinders our ability to draw causation. In my previous example, if the President did come back to life, there's no way to verify that any god was behind it. If we could demonstrate how a god resurrected the President, then it would fall into the realm of science and would no longer be supernatural. Even if the President claimed that he spoke to God and says that God did it, our skepticism would lead us to compare him to people who actually believe they've been abducted by UFOs or claim that they've had experiences with Djinns --- the human brain can be fooled, and his eyewitness testimony is still to be balanced with the likelihood of his claims (which again are more improbable than any natural claim we could make, such as that he was genuinely mistaken).

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Starcrash's post
28-04-2012, 09:53 PM
RE: No True Scotsman
(28-04-2012 08:51 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(28-04-2012 08:05 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  Absolutely. I can agree with those words used to describe it as well. But you have to agree that Science in its present state does not allow for anything to have a spiritual cause but seeks the cause to be carnal in nature therefore if the spiritual exists then science cannot grasp it.

Gary
This is absolutely and undeniably true. If there is a supernatural world, we can't use science to come up with traits belonging to it, entities existing in it, or even its influence on the natural world. It is, by its nature, outside of what we can measure or prove.

One of my favorite philosophers, David Hume, demonstrated that natural causes are always more likely than supernatural causes by their very definition, and therefore we should always look for natural causes. If you take any supernatural event, such as the President of the United States coming back to life after an assassination, is there a greater chance that his resurrection --- a purely supernatural event that can't be grasped by science --- is more likely than a hoax played on the American people? Is it more likely than our having a limited grasp of what constitutes "death"? No matter how convinced we are that we've witnessed something supernatural, we can't even measure the probability of its occurrence because what makes it miraculous /supernatural is the fact that it is extremely rare. Any natural explanation that we can offer will be more probable.

Worse, if we actually did see a supernatural event, our inability to measure it also hinders our ability to draw causation. In my previous example, if the President did come back to life, there's no way to verify that any god was behind it. If we could demonstrate how a god resurrected the President, then it would fall into the realm of science and would no longer be supernatural. Even if the President claimed that he spoke to God and says that God did it, our skepticism would lead us to compare him to people who actually believe they've been abducted by UFOs or claim that they've had experiences with Djinns --- the human brain can be fooled, and his eyewitness testimony is still to be balanced with the likelihood of his claims (which again are more improbable than any natural claim we could make, such as that he was genuinely mistaken).
I can't and won't argue with a single point you made, except one. That which pertains to the frequency of the cause being that which is not natural. I propose that the spiritual and the natural are so interwoven that they are constantly affecting one another and science is focused solely on the affects that they are attributing the cause to the first rational explanation that can be seen, heard, smelt etc.

If I am to be consistent then I have to seek to understand things biblically. According to scripture, that which causes me to go against the natural desire of my body is my spirit, which by definition is part of the spiritual realm. It teaches that the two, flesh and spirit, are contrary one to the other. When we get into discussing this portion of the human being we enter into the realm of the psyche, which science has proven to be able to manipulate using chemicals added into the blood stream to affect the brain. That said, just because you can manipulate the physical body to prevent the spirit from controlling it in a certain manner, no way negates the spirit from being. Only like putting handcuffs on him or rendering him incapable of using the vehicle of the body to achieve his means.

So it is as we have discussed, impossible to detect one using the other. The bible either is true and there are two realms which are not truly independent of each other but yet unable to be detected by the other through physical means or it is false and there is simply one realm and all scientific evidence is whole and not lacking in fullness of interpretation of the facts. Due to the evidence I have had that the spiritual truly controls and dominates the carnal, I agree with the bible and side with the God of it.

Gary
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes gdemoss's post
28-04-2012, 10:17 PM
RE: No True Scotsman
(28-04-2012 08:51 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  \One of my favorite philosophers, David Hume, demonstrated that natural causes are always more likely than supernatural causes by their very definition, and therefore we should always look for natural causes.

Hume, the destroyer, properly posed the question of induction.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: