Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-02-2013, 11:41 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-02-2013 11:37 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
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...
I've seen Lions in person, I've heard Lions.. I know Lions exist in Africa. I have no reason to doubt their claims... If you change the scenario to being in Mexico and they tell me the chupacabra is coming... I would stand and expect atheist. (A skeptic would be a better term anyway)

You made a challenge with no qualifications. You still refuse to give qualifications.. People have given attempts you ignored or rejected. In reality, you've not actually given a challenge that can be quantified by your criteria.

"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, 11:42 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:I was under the impression that we have already done that. I have defined the terms of what I accept as true and you have said that you are willing to admit that I and others have proven our existence by meeting the specified criteria.
I said if you can explain to me so I better understand. We haven't defined anecdotal. We haven't yet described how we will we test and verify using skeptically minded/opposite pole peers, a mystery religion that reveals to initiates only, etc. We haven't yet described how it is that Evolution, which is not held up to skepticism among scientific peers, passes these benchmarks. Etc.
Quote:As I and many others on this forum have said numerous times, we are agnostic atheists, since a/gnosticism and a/theism are in no way mutually exclusive. While the former is a position concerning knowledge, the latter is a position concerning belief. The following image illustrates this distinction neatly:
Fine, you're a Gnostic Atheist. Rather than merely having a belief by faith, you have knowledge. And while I don't ask you to prove a negative, there must be some good evidence that God doesn't exist--therefore your knowledge. You see, if we were in court, you're asking me to witness my evidence of God and then saying, "We don't believe it, it isn't testable or verifiable," does not close your case. PLEASE GO AHEAD AND TELL US ALL YOUR EVIDENCE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST, so we can properly quantify you as having knowledge and not mere blind belief. Please do so now so I can deconvert before this charade of a thread continues. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 11:56 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
He said he was agnostic, idiot...

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Phaedrus's post
27-02-2013, 12:05 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
You made the claim earlier that a person who opens their heart will receive god and become convinced of his existence. You say this is because god is real.

Ok, here's my hypothesis: people raised in a religious environment maintain emotional ties to that religion. Even if lapsed of if they leave the religion, if you put them in an environment that reminds me of that upbringing and say things that remind them of that upbringing, it will cause strong emotions. You're just capitalizing on those emotions and calling it god.


I don't know if that's the case; it's a hypothesis. So let's test it. Remember those procedures for a psychological experiment?


In a psychological experiment, there are MASSIVE possible biases that
can act as variables to radically alter the results. Because of this,
psychological experiments require a great deal of rigor, and even then
have a great degree of uncertainty.



Psychological tests require a large sample size, to try to average out
individual variances. A sample size of *one* literally cannot prove
anything. In addition, there are many variables which must be taken into
account: age, sex, education, socioeconomic class, job, religious
upbringing and beliefs, relationship with family, what was eaten for
breakfast, etc. The researcher must look at all possible variables and
biases and try to account for the ones most likely to interfere with the
experiment. The researcher can do this a number of ways, depending on
the experiment: limiting the study to a group of individuals who have a
given factor all in common; dividing major influencing variables into
different experimental groups; getting an even mix and applying
statistical weighting; or a combination of all three. The experiment
must also compare against a control group. Finally, the researcher must
remove themselves from the experiment, because it has been established
(through careful experimentation...) that a researcher's actions and
demeanor can influence the results of an experiment.



Once all variables are removed or controlled to the satisfaction of all
researchers in the field, the results of the experiment are accepted as
tentatively true: a fact, until proven otherwise.




I can easily determine how such a study should be done. Let's see if you have good enough reasoning skills to figure it out too.

By the way, this isn't some uber difficult special level of rigor. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of psychological studies are done each year to the same level of rigor or even stricter. Man up or piss off.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 12:12 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(19-02-2013 03:31 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Of course, this was ignored elsewhere, so why not a new thread?

I'll prove to anyone on this forum that God exists--and go one better, Jesus is the Messiah and God, if they can prove that they exist.

Thumbsup Thumbsup Thank you in advance.
Why? What possible advantage would any of us have in getting into this with you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 12:14 PM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2013 12:19 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-02-2013 11:42 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I said if you can explain to me so I better understand. We haven't defined anecdotal.
I have provided you with a definition of the term "anecdotal" in my last post. In fact, the definition I posted was taken from the same dictionary that you used in this thread (Oxford Dictionaries).

(27-02-2013 11:42 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  We haven't yet described how we will we test and verify using skeptically minded/opposite pole peers, a mystery religion that reveals to initiates only, etc.
You'll have to elaborate on this further. What exactly is a "mystery religion" and what is it that is only revealed to initiates? Secret knowledge?

(27-02-2013 11:42 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  We haven't yet described how it is that Evolution, which is not held up to skepticism among scientific peers, passes these benchmarks. Etc.
Apart from the fact that this is only your unsupported opinion, this is entirely irrelevant to our discussion. Please avoid committing the red herring fallacy in the future and stay on topic.

(27-02-2013 11:42 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Fine, you're a Gnostic Atheist. Rather than merely having a belief by faith, you have knowledge. And while I don't ask you to prove a negative, there must be some good evidence that God doesn't exist--therefore your knowledge. You see, if we were in court, you're asking me to witness my evidence of God and then saying, "We don't believe it, it isn't testable or verifiable," does not close your case. PLEASE GO AHEAD AND TELL US ALL YOUR EVIDENCE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST, so we can properly quantify you as having knowledge and not mere blind belief. Please do so now so I can deconvert before this charade of a thread continues. Smile
Your assertions are without merit, as I have clearly stated that I'm an agnostic atheist who doesn't claim to have special knowledge in the very post that you responded to.

As I have also repeatedly stated, I do not believe that there are no gods, I lack a belief in supernatural deities.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
27-02-2013, 12:19 PM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2013 01:21 PM by WeAreTheCosmos.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-02-2013 11:34 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
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!
I don't want to hurt you, or anyone else. However, I could meet you on my road trip this September, if you're along my planned route. I could pick up copies of this auditory and visual evidence you have.

Also (completely unrelated and not a threat), hypothetically, IF something like the slap in the face scenario did happen, would you stubbornly refuse to accept it as valid evidence for that persons existence? If you pressed charges, how would you convince the police of the perpetrators existence? How about hugs? Do you accept hugs as evidence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 12:28 PM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2013 12:33 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-02-2013 11:42 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Please do so now so I can deconvert before this charade of a thread continues. Smile
If you actually think that my goal in this thread is trying to deconvert you, you are greatly mistaken. I'm doing this for the sole sake of practicing both the usage of the English language as well as my conversation abilities. You can believe whatever you want to for all I care.

Given the fact that you have shown to be prone to lying and intellectual dishonesty, I doubt that you would deconvert even if you were provided with evidence that proved the non-existence of your god beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
27-02-2013, 12:35 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
PleaseJesus Wrote: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...

Well then, why are you running into strangers' tents at all? Just piss off and life will be just fine. 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, 01:10 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-02-2013 11:25 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Chas Wrote: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.

If you mean are papers on evolution peer-reviewed by creationists, then, no, that doesn't happen. Creationists have nothing to add to the discussion.

(27-02-2013 11:25 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Chas Wrote: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.

Eyewitness testimony alone will not usually result in a conviction without supporting physical evidence. It is recognized that the eyewitness could be mistaken or lying.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: