Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-02-2013, 03:39 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:Eye witness testimony is just barely classified as an admissible form of evidence; Eye witnesses have been shown to tend toward inaccuracy in criminal and civil trails, this deviation occurs for several reasons.
Understood, how about when those eyewitnesses go on to write a several-hundred page (papyri) book?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 03:40 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:Nope, just more deflecting. As I thought.
So you recant of having special knowledge, then?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 03:42 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-02-2013 03:39 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Eye witness testimony is just barely classified as an admissible form of evidence; Eye witnesses have been shown to tend toward inaccuracy in criminal and civil trails, this deviation occurs for several reasons.
Understood, how about when those eyewitnesses go on to write a several-hundred page (papyri) book?

Then they're wordy unreliable evidence.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
27-02-2013, 03:44 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-02-2013 03:37 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Since when? What the fuck are you on about? What, did you move the goalposts again? Fuck you. Answer my original question, tard.
I clearly asked you, first, and several times since. How do you apply skeptical peer review to a mystery revealed to initiates? Thanks.

I don't recall you bringing this shit up until after the discussion of how to test the idea that "opening your heart" and being converted is proof of god. Which is what we were talking about. Then you brought up this shit...

So you're asking how to scientifically test secret knowledge? If it's secret, then how could science test it? Stop wasting my time.

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, 03:45 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:It is you who has the burden of proof because you are the one who claims to possess evidence to support his position. I am honest enough to admit that I do not know whether or not there are several supernatural deities and that I know of no empirical evidence to support either side.
Not at all. You claim you possess auditory and visual items of evidence that prove you exist. The original thread was that if you could prove you exist, I'd move on to prove God's existence. Regarding the burden of proof, you are claiming no empirical things in this universe that you know of either are evidence for a God or evidence against a God. If that is so, Agnosticism and not Atheism is your true position. Thanks.
Quote:But of course I am. I was born as an agnostic atheist, not knowing whether or not there are supernatural deities, thus lacking a belief in them. I acquired such a belief during my childhood since I was raised in a Christian household. It was only a few years ago that I examined my beliefs critically for the first time in my life, that I came to the conclusion that I could no longer support them and that I reverted back to my natural state, that of an agnostic atheist.
Um, what is the difference between a newborn and an a amoeba in their knowledge of God or no God? Nothing. You were not born an Atheist, a Deist, or a Theist, or an Agnostic. Now we're really claiming unusual knowledge for you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 03:57 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-02-2013 03:45 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Not at all. You claim you possess auditory and visual items of evidence that prove you exist.
You are correct, although it should be noted that I have provided you with both visual and auditory evidence for my existence just a couple of pages ago.

(27-02-2013 03:45 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The original thread was that if you could prove you exist, I'd move on to prove God's existence.
Indeed. Since I have already proven my existence, it is now your turn to prove the existence of your god.

(27-02-2013 03:45 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Regarding the burden of proof, you are claiming no empirical things in this universe that you know of either are evidence for a God or evidence against a God. If that is so, Agnosticism and not Atheism is your true position. Thanks.
Please reread my description of agnostic atheism; it very much seems like you have yet to understand what it is. Also, don't hesitate to ask me for clarification if you still don't understand it after reading it a second time.

(27-02-2013 03:45 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Um, what is the difference between a newborn and an a amoeba in their knowledge of God or no God? Nothing. You were not born an Atheist, a Deist, or a Theist, or an Agnostic. Now we're really claiming unusual knowledge for you.
I'm sorry that I have to say this, but proof by assertion does not constitute a valid argument. You can disagree with my usage of the word "atheist", but that doesn't make it any less valid. Your own dictionary defines the term "atheist" as "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods".

[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, 04:26 PM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2013 08:57 PM by Adenosis.)
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.
(23-02-2013 01:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
I DO, IN FACT, EXIST
And I know how to use a computer and YouTube!





Also, SleazyJesus remind me a LOT of the guy 'debating' AronRa in this video...




(23-02-2013 02:23 PM)The Talking Goat Wrote:  I want to join in the picture and video parade, so here goes nothing.





I'm not sure if I should add a video with anything useful to this debate or just continue showing the world my food selection.




EvolutionKills: Your voice sounds like it should be on a podcast somewhere.
(23-02-2013 03:29 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  


How's this PJ, good enough evidence?

Decided a video would be better.

Not fun, but totally worth it!
(23-02-2013 03:39 PM)Near Wrote:  [Image: bcf93737-5f2b-4bdc-b7aa-dc9b2c3db43f_zps75f26c1d.jpg]


Why yes, I always open my eyes that wide. Shocking Blink Tongue
(23-02-2013 04:08 PM)Hobbitgirl Wrote:  O.O


[Image: hobbigrirl.png]
(23-02-2013 04:57 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Keep 'em coming. Sleepy


We met your request to see evidence of our existence. You have ignored it by holding an unreasonable standard of evidence. While at the same time your standard of evidence for the existence of god, not only a god but your god, is very low. You tried to compare this with our standard of evidence for the bible, this is a failed attempt. We know people other than ourselves exist, we routinely run into hundreds or thousands of people daily (depending on where you live). In our day to day macro world, when we see something occur in the physical world, it had a cause. The effect we see on a forum; threads, posts, and topics. The cause is either a series of complex programs posting very specialized opinions (for which I have no evidence exist in that complexity), or other people (for which I know there are over 6 billion of). Then we go on to send you photos with messages written on papers that could only come from people that are aware of this topic, and videos (like Vosurs) which confirm that individuals access to a specific account on the forum.

Your outlandish standard of evidence proves no point. We have never been able to observe a god, detect him in the laboratory, reach a dead end in science that requires a supernatural explanation, or anything else that supports the existence of something beyond the natural world.

The bible, that originated around 2000 years ago (new testament at least, a bit longer for the old testament) is evidence of the strange beliefs that those people held at that time, and there is no reason to believe it is anything more. Nothing in that book shouts divine intervention. There is no mention of anything that could not have been known by individuals at that time. Perhaps if it mentioned the shifting in radiant energy from most galaxies that shows the universe is expanding, but it doesn't even tell you the earth orbits the sun, and some parts make the earth out to be flat. Where is the divine intervention in that? The earth was created before the universe had light? this directly contradicts well known scientific understanding of big bang cosmology. Stars appeared before the earth. They had to undergo fusion for billions of years, then explode to supply secondary star systems with heavier elements, such as oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, the elements required for our form of life. Light came before the earth.

(27-02-2013 03:40 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Nope, just more deflecting. As I thought.
So you recant of having special knowledge, then?

There is no claim on my part of special knowledge, just a conclusion based on observation of your avoidance of coming forward and giving the proof you claim to have, and deflections of questions we ask. Deluded minds aren't that hard to read you know.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 11:25 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
[Image: mhXRj.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 11:51 PM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2013 11:54 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-02-2013 03:39 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Eye witness testimony is just barely classified as an admissible form of evidence; Eye witnesses have been shown to tend toward inaccuracy in criminal and civil trails, this deviation occurs for several reasons.
Understood, how about when those eyewitnesses go on to write a several-hundred page (papyri) book?


In that case, the book, no matter how long it is (length of the book is irrelevant to the content), will be highly suspect and deserving of criticism until, of course, their claims can be substantiated by evidence not relating to hearsay or opinion. Some might even consider it a jump into hearsay or opinion.

Depending how long it took for the book to be written, the more the witness will become convineced of what they think they saw and become more convinced of the public opinion regarding the matter. If it took a couple decades or more, that the witness's opinions are should be considered very suspect and should be only read with a highly critical eye and mind. The amount of evidence they should present to support their arguments would be staggering.

As a closing comment regarding the use of eyewitness testimony, I will take a small portion out of Levin and Cramer's Problems and Materials on Trail Advocacy:


Eyewitness testimony is, at best, evidence of what the witness believes to have occurred. It may or may not tell what actually happened. The familiar problems of perception, of gauging time, speed, height, weight, of accurate identification of persons accused of crime all contribute to making honest testimony something less than completely credible.



(Assuming of course, the witness is being honest.)

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 12:53 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
I don't even know what this is suppose to mean ?

[Image: 1Cz6HB9.jpg?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co]


Well ya, every rational person should have a problem with a talking snake.
If snakes are talking to you, you might wanna get that checked out.

As our early ancestors evolved, our brains developed to the point that a full spoken language developed.
I'm sure before that point, people communicated, just not as well.

Was the point of this poster suppose to say
"We have no problem with talking snakes but we do have a problem with believing that the human race began talking" ?

[Image: sense-it-makes-none.jpg]

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: