Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-04-2015, 11:05 AM
RE: Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
(22-04-2015 10:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Evidence is whatever one uses in support of an assertion. This support may be weak or strong but that's besides the point.

Do you disagree?

Nice try. I totally disagree. "Whatever" mans that absolutely ANYTHING could be used to support ANYTHING. The fact that something is "used" does not make it evidence. There IS no evidence that people saying they hear voices that are not witnessed by anyone else, are real. YOU are the one that has no coherent definition of "evidence" and tried to slip your little dishonesty by, in the discussion.

Quote:Being convinced of something does not constitute "evidence". If it did, every delusional psychopath, or psych patient who is "hearing voices" would have legitimate evidence.

See, there you go using a qualifier, like "legitimate". So does he have illegitimate evidence?
[/quote]

And there YOU go attempting your verbose deflection, as you have no real response. Leave out the word "legitimate" and my statement stands perfectly well, and your dishonest attempt to deflect from that fact is "evidence" you are an idiot.

(22-04-2015 10:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Can the same "evidence" used by your psychopath, or psych patient, be used by someone else to determine that this individual is mentally ill, suffering from auditory hallucinations?

You really are a fool. The ACT of claiming that something is there, which isn't, and the absence of the claimed reality, are two entirely different things. Critical thinking is really not your strong suit, is it ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
22-04-2015, 11:19 AM
RE: Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
(22-04-2015 11:05 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nice try. I totally disagree. "Whatever" mans that absolutely ANYTHING could be used to support ANYTHING. The fact that something is "used" does not make it evidence. There IS no evidence that people saying they hear voices that are not witnessed by anyone else, are real. YOU are the one that has no coherent definition of "evidence" and tried to slip your little dishonesty by, in the discussion.

Actually, it's exactly "use" that makes something evidence.

If you don't think that's the case, please provide your definition of evidence, since you clearly disagree with mine. I noticed you avoided doing so when previously asked.

Quote:And there YOU go attempting your verbose deflection, as you have no real response. Leave out the word "legitimate" and my statement stands perfectly well, and your dishonest attempt to deflect from that fact is "evidence" you are an idiot.

You're the one that used the term "legitimate evidence", and if this were the case what would "illegitimate evidence" be? I'm guessing something like inadmissible evidence, like hearsay? But is hearsay just unreliable/illegitimate evidence for a court of law, or is not evidence at all? If a person believed something based on hearsay, would this mean this person believed in something based on no evidence at all, or just not very reliable or good evidence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2015, 11:36 AM
RE: Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
(22-04-2015 08:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-04-2015 07:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, this is just people misunderstanding and misinterpreting how their minds work. We all think thoughts and mentally form sentences - but attributing those thoughts to an outside agency requires belief in an outside agency for which there is no evidence.

Except of course the voice one hears, serving as evidence of an outside agency.

If it's not evidence of an outside agency, than it would be evidence for something like an auditory hallucination, etc.

There is no evidence that it is anywhere but in your head.

It is not evidence of an outside agency. It may simply be you misinterpreting your own thoughts.

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
22-04-2015, 11:36 AM
RE: Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
(22-04-2015 11:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Actually, it's exactly "use" that makes something evidence.

If you don't think that's the case, please provide your definition of evidence, since you clearly disagree with mine. I noticed you avoided doing so when previously asked.

Don't be rediculous. Anyone can CLAIM anything, relevant or irrelevant as "evidence" for anything. You, as usual are "obfuscating" as that's your MO. You think if you throw out all sorts of irrelevant questions, that somehow deflects from the fact that your POINT is invalid. It's not going to work here.

"ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/
noun
noun: evidence
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation
"they found evidence of his plotting"

By your definintion, anyone USING anything, constitutes "evidence". You're full of shit, Tomasia, and we all know it. Someone claiming they heard a voice, is not a "fact". It's a claim, and quite possibly metaphorical.

Quote:And there YOU go attempting your verbose deflection, as you have no real response. Leave out the word "legitimate" and my statement stands perfectly well, and your dishonest attempt to deflect from that fact is "evidence" you are an idiot.

You're the one that used the term "legitimate evidence", and if this were the case what would "illegitimate evidence" be? I'm guessing something like inadmissible evidence, like hearsay? But is hearsay just unreliable/illegitimate evidence for a court of law, or is not evidence at all? If a person believed something based on hearsay, would this mean this person believed in something based on no evidence at all, or just not very reliable or good evidence?
[/quote]

Irrelevant. I just told you to drop the word "legitimate" and yet you continue to try to deflect using that, instead of replying to the POINT.

YOU have no EVIDENCE that religionists actually hear anthing from an external agent, (and their claiming they do is not "evidence"), and I submit, they more than likely don't really mean they "heard a voice". It's a metaphor. If you don't get that, you're worse off than we thought.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2015, 11:39 AM
RE: Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
(22-04-2015 08:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-04-2015 08:35 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no evidence for an outside agent. Whatever the explanation, it's not ydhereour woo-woo. There remain some things that are not explained. Some may be coincidence. Whatever the explanation, without ANY evidence for a woo-agent, woo-agency can be ruled out.

So you say, following the dictates of your rule book, rules which seemingly only apply to conclusions that don't echo materialism.

It's clearly evidence to the individual hearing these voices. Rev. King hearing that voice, led him to believe it was a real, from some external spiritual source, assuring him of the worthiness of his cause, granting him confidence and assurance in the face of danger.

The voice itself, served as evidence that it was a real thing, that there was some divine providence at play here.

You can doubt this of course, that his account doesn't lead you to believe these things are real, but just because you fail to be convinced, doesn't mean that it's not evidence, for the person convinced of it.

Who gets to decide what is and what's not evidence? Who made you the judge and jury here?

You need to learn what constitutes evidence. If no one else can experience it, it is not evidence of anything other than something in your head.
There is no reason to believe it is an outside agency when there is no evidence of an outside agency.

There is evidence, however, for the mind tricking itself.

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
22-04-2015, 11:43 AM
RE: Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
(22-04-2015 11:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  You need to learn what constitutes evidence. If no one else can experience it, it is not evidence of anything other than something in your head.

What constitutes as "evidence" is not dependent on if other's can experience it or not.


Quote:There is no reason to believe it is an outside agency when there is no evidence of an outside agency.

There is evidence, however, for the mind tricking itself.

So is Rev. King hearing a voice, evidence of the mind tricking itself?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2015, 11:50 AM (This post was last modified: 22-04-2015 12:00 PM by Chas.)
RE: Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
(22-04-2015 11:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-04-2015 11:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  You need to learn what constitutes evidence. If no one else can experience it, it is not evidence of anything other than something in your head.

What constitutes as "evidence" is not dependent on if other's can experience it or not.

Yes, it does. Unless it can be confirmed, it does not qualify as evidence.

Quote:
Quote:There is no reason to believe it is an outside agency when there is no evidence of an outside agency.

There is evidence, however, for the mind tricking itself.

So is Rev. King hearing a voice, evidence of the mind tricking itself?

Yes.

However, we don't know that he heard a voice. He may have been speaking in terms he felt would affect his audience.

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
22-04-2015, 11:53 AM
RE: Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
(22-04-2015 11:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-04-2015 11:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  You need to learn what constitutes evidence. If no one else can experience it, it is not evidence of anything other than something in your head.

What constitutes as "evidence" is not dependent on if other's can experience it or not.


Quote:There is no reason to believe it is an outside agency when there is no evidence of an outside agency.

There is evidence, however, for the mind tricking itself.

So is Rev. King hearing a voice, evidence of the mind tricking itself?

So you say. You have your own idiocyncratic definition of "evidence" that no one else agrees with, that does not in any way match the dictionary definition of "evidence". Evidence has to be able to be evaluated, objectively. When someone claims to hear a voice that no one else can hear, is not subject to any sort of scrutiny. Give it up Tomasia. Your "evidence" is not evidence of anything, (except that you are delusional).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
22-04-2015, 11:57 AM
RE: Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
(22-04-2015 10:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I know, Rev. King was such an uneducated and childish mind.

No one said that you idiot troll. I said he was speaking meaphorically. You chose to ignore that, as you are an intellectually dishonest childish fool who NEEDS to make points as you have no REAL substance to anything you say.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
22-04-2015, 12:03 PM
RE: Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
(22-04-2015 11:36 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  By your definintion, anyone USING anything, constitutes "evidence". You're full of shit, Tomasia, and we all know it. Someone claiming they heard a voice, is not a "fact". It's a claim, and quite possibly metaphorical.

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Your defintion is more align with the meaning of strong evidence, rather than evidence itself. In fact your definition wouldn't even work with qualifiers used to speak of weak evidence. In fact it would mean that "weak evidence" is not evidence at all. That's like saying an absent father, is not a father at all, or an illegitimate child, is not really a child.

Quote:YOU have no EVIDENCE that religionists actually hear anthing from an external agent, (and their claiming they do is not "evidence"), and I submit, they more than likely don't really mean they "heard a voice". It's a metaphor. If you don't get that, you're worse off than we thought.

Let's translate what you mean here: "There is no strong evidence, the sort that would pass the muster of being scientifically rigorous, the testable, repeatable sort, that would convince you that this was the case. "

But let's consider something else here. Are you suggesting that Rev. King meant it metaphorically? Why do you believe that? Is it because he seems too sharp of a mind, too good of an orator, too educated of a person, to be hearing voices? Why do you consider it a metaphor? A metaphor for what exactly?

Are you basing this view of yours on evidence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: