Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2013, 10:38 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
[Image: listerine.jpg]


Here you go SleazyJesus, to freshen up your mouth after you're done gargling Jesus' balls. Then maybe you can get around to providing some evidence after every dodge and smokescreen you've tried to erect has been demolished for the dishonest and empty sham that it is. Make with the evidence for your claim already, or GTFO.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
27-02-2013, 12:11 AM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2013 12:39 AM by kim.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 09:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Possibilianism is a word.

Yes, I know it's a word but not the way he used it.
He used: Possibilism not Possibilianism... maybe they are different things. It might be possibilianism but I'm not familiar with that term.
I can tell you that classic possibilism is considered distinct and directly opposed to determinism, which may be where he was going. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 02:09 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Since he's still going on about "proving you exist", here's a little thought experiment.

If a person cannot verify his own existence then that implies nothing in that person's universe is real (similar to solipsism).

If nothing in an atheist's universe is real, then theists aren't real. If theists aren't real then their claims cannot be real. Therefore god does not exist.

If nothing in a theist's universe is real, then their belief in god isn't real, therefore god does not exist.

Because OP claims to be able to prove god exists I'll assume his goal isn't to show us god isn't real, therefore he has to accept that we exist (or else disprove god).

Then again, all that is unnecessary because the premise that one cannot prove his own existence is a primitive version of solipsism in which only your own mind can be proven to exist. "I think therefore I am". To be sentient enough to ask this question means at least your own mind exists, which means you have proven your existence (at least to yourself).

And then solipsism is a highly discredited philosophy anyway, so I'd say you took some crappy idea and made it even crappier with absolutely no goal or resolution in mind, nor an answer to your own question or anything actually prepared to back up your own claims.

Science, logic and how they destroy religious arguments @ http://scepticalprophet.wordpress.com/

To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.
- Isaac Asimov.
Faith means not wanting to know what is true.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Sceptical Prophet's post
27-02-2013, 11:25 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:The peer review process, when done properly, will include those who are likely to have opposing or different biases then the researcher(s). It is supposed to be a critical process.
Where does this happen today in the scientific community with Evolution research and advances? Where are those with different or opposing biases in the peer review? Thanks.

Quote:The point about experience vs. evidence that I am making is not one of eye-witness testimony, but of internal vs. external experience. Someone's internal state is not objective, reproducible, or even communicable. All the experiencer can do is talk about it, he can't actually share it.
Well, that makes sense to me. However, eyewitness testimony can be valid in a court of law for condemning or acquiting the accused... without physical evidence. That's what bothers me about the NT discussions here... it's 27 authors, not one, with testimonies about Jesus Christ. I understand skewering the Qu'ran for being the transmitted experience of one "author". Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 11:32 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:And then solipsism is a highly discredited philosophy anyway, so I'd say you took some crappy idea and made it even crappier with absolutely no goal or resolution in mind, nor an answer to your own question or anything actually prepared to back up your own claims.
Perhaps, and based on your solipsism, if you cannot prove you are real your claim to special knowledge concerning God's lack of existence is likewise invalid. Wink I'll add this though--the infinite regression of "How do I know you posted that video?" to "How do I know that birth certficate isn't forged?" and etc. is my take on the "How do we know the 27 authors of the NT existed? How do we know that didn't collude?" and it's the same garbage except that the Bible gets handled different because it's making large claims, "special pleading claims" and etc. Right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 11:34 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:I wonder, if someone here physically assaulted PJ... Would he have a hard time believing their existence? Would he tell the cops that it might have been god who slapped him, or that he may have slapped himself?

I think it would be funny if PJ had to prove that WE exist.

Unfortunately, I can't do it, I'm non-violent.
Unfortunately, you cannot assault me?! Are physical threats appropriate to this forum where people have intellectual discussions? You didn't read the rules of the forum and you didn't see the "How come Theists think insults win debates?" thread. Also, you're "PJ feels pain therefore he is" is yet another cogito ergo sum argument. At least quote the Christian Descartes who coined it!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 11:35 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:Here you go SleazyJesus, to freshen up your mouth after you're done gargling Jesus' balls. Then maybe you can get around to providing some evidence after every dodge and smokescreen you've tried to erect has been demolished for the dishonest and empty sham that it is. Make with the evidence for your claim already, or GTFO.
Hi, EK. Feel free to put this thread or me or both on ignore. I made a challenge and no one has met it yet. End of story.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 11:37 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:Wait patiently? It's been 35 pages of you dodging. Why must you be intellectually dishonest and pretend you have evidence?

Anyone that doesn't believe a god exists is an atheist. Playing with the term agnostic doesn't change anything. Agnostic simply means we don't claim certainty that no god exists, which is the opposite of what you do. You claim a god exists, and you even claim to have evidence that supports that claim. So give the evidence and be done with it.

(several more pages of dodging)

and see, there is no evidence. Just a silly man trying to justify his unjustified supernatural nonsensical wishful thinking belief in a god. Intellectual dishonesty is a most repulsive trait.
I'd say the silliness is in your court. We're like visitors to Africa on a safari and I run into your tent and say, "Take cover, there's a lion outside!" and you respond, "There is no lion outside and when he comes into my tent and eats me, I'll respond." Now we understand better how Atheists expect evidence to come on their terms...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 11:39 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-02-2013 11:25 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:The peer review process, when done properly, will include those who are likely to have opposing or different biases then the researcher(s). It is supposed to be a critical process.
Where does this happen today in the scientific community with Evolution research and advances? Where are those with different or opposing biases in the peer review? Thanks.

Quote:The point about experience vs. evidence that I am making is not one of eye-witness testimony, but of internal vs. external experience. Someone's internal state is not objective, reproducible, or even communicable. All the experiencer can do is talk about it, he can't actually share it.
Well, that makes sense to me. However, eyewitness testimony can be valid in a court of law for condemning or acquiting the accused... without physical evidence. That's what bothers me about the NT discussions here... it's 27 authors, not one, with testimonies about Jesus Christ. I understand skewering the Qu'ran for being the transmitted experience of one "author". Thanks.
Do you understand the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas as evidence about Jesus?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 11:41 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-02-2013 11:35 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I made a challenge and no one has met it yet. End of story.
Actually, there are ten people who have met your challenge.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: