Life, death and everything: a skeptic, a psychic and a Christian discuss
Dick Gross (The Godless Gross), Greg Riley (winner of Channel 7’s ‘The One’) and Rev Ian Powell talk about death, life after death and life before death.
7pm, Thursday 6 June
Coopers Inn (282 Exhibition St)
This event is part of the series of events: 'Shhh, don't talk about them: conversations on death, religion and politics'.
Come and join in our free discussions. There will be plenty of opportunity for questions.
"BE THERE OR HAVE FOUR CORNERS"
ReplyDeleteBe there and miss the Footy Show?! :}}
You should go mallypoos.
DeleteYou and Dick can hold hands and sing kumbaya, then afterwards head down to the CES and sign up for the dole together
is that Kumbaya with a capital K?
DeleteWhy am I not surprised you watch the Footy Show?
Delete8x
ReplyDeleteLife, death and everything: a skeptic, a psychic and a Christian discuss
x8
Let me guess: You're the psychic. Right?
Nice try but wrong. Unlike the psychic who is never wrong...
DeleteIt would be good to have someone on the panel like Bertrand Russell, who is actually dead to give a first hand perspective on the matter.
ReplyDeleteI am sure that Greg Riley could help organise that.
I will ask him for you Robin. Dick (at a strange computer)
Delete"It would be good to have someone on the panel like Bertrand Russell, who is actually dead to give a first hand perspective on the matter." (Robin4:48 PM)
ReplyDeleteOr next best (and doable) thing Robin, someone who has experienced an NDE. e.g. Dr Eben Alexander
Was it the butterflies and beautiful girls in peasant dress that appealed to you Ralph?
DeleteDon't believe everything they tell you. You may be disappointed.
Or even better, Jesus, who had an actal death experience, and lived to tell?
DeleteYou think Jesus "lived to tell"?
DeleteSheesh! See where scepticism leads you!
Mal: You think Jesus "lived to tell"?
DeleteIf Jesus is not alive then who is Elvis, dummy?
Hearing about death from someone who has experienced an NDE would be like taking advice on sex from a virgin who almost got lucky once.
ReplyDeleteLOL May I borrow that one?
DeleteNah, but you can NEARLY borrow it :)
Delete"Hearing about death from someone who has experienced an NDE would be like taking advice on sex from a virgin who almost got lucky once." (Long John silver9:11 PM)
DeleteYou've been a long time at sea Long John and now you're 'all at sea'. Obviously no comparison but why let that get in the way of a good laugh.
I see you posted at 9.11
I will pinch this analogy Pirate. DICK
DeleteI am afraid I will have to be a rhombus, being interstate and all.
ReplyDeleteHello Dick,
ReplyDeleteThis is a subject I feel strongly about. So many are not prepared to confront the reality of their own mortality. I'm so pleased the subject is being discussed. It's a issue people tend to avoid or make jokes about, so serious discussion can be difficult to come by. Hope it goes well.
Wish I could come but my health is less than average at present.
Please get better soon my lovely Tricia. You will be missed. DICK
DeleteTonight's the night Dick. I'd come if I could but it's a long hike from Sydney. The most interesting aspect of your discussion must be life after death. If there weren't any speculation about this what would there be to talk about?
ReplyDeleteAs a theist/Christian I just take the extension of life after the death of the physical body for granted. I grew up with that knowledge/truth and have never encountered any argument to make me seriously question it. I know that NDE's are not 'proof' of life after death but there have been no rational arguments to explain them other than that life continues.
My first experience of NDE's was attending a talk by Dr Raymond Moody (in the 70's) who was promoting his recently published book 'Life after Life'. Moody did not have a religious background or motivation, he was/is a scientist.
There's an interesting section in the book called 'Parallels' where he lists other four other sources of similar knowledge – the Bible, Plato, 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead' and an experience of the scientist/philosopher/theologian Emanuel Swedenborg who claimed to have been taken through the experience of dying so that he (as a scientist) could record it.
Enjoy your discussion.
Ralph:
DeleteI hadn’t heard of Swedenborg till you mentioned him. What caught my eye is your reference to him as both a scientist and a theologian. I wondered if he was an early IDer. And so I checked out his Wiki entry. It says there that he turned to theology after he started having strange dreams. He came to think that his scientific insights were being given to him by angels.
Some people reckon what happened is that he lost his marbles. That seems like a plausible theory to me. You, no doubt, wouldn’t agree. But, you must admit, it would have been more helpful to your cause if he had made the transition from scientist to theologian without the help of those strange dreams.
"Emanuel Swedenborg who claimed to have been taken through the experience of dying so that he (as a scientist) could record it."
DeleteHe also claimed to have been told by alien spirits that cattle are from Mercury. Horses are from Jupiter, so I wouldn't put too much faith in him.
Still haven't heard a convincing response to the problem of Uranus.
"Some people reckon what happened is that he lost his marbles"
DeleteCut it out Terry.
This is a family blog.
Your response was anticipated Long John (Silver6:35 PM). The story keeps changing and being embellished with each telling. Now cattle and horses actually come from outer space. I'm sure at least one of the cows 'jumped over the moon' on her way here.
DeleteThere are sensible explanations for Swedenborg's claim of speaking with spirits from other planets but I suppose it's more fun for a simple pirate to use ridicule. Maybe you could try thinking of plausible scientific explanations when the effect of the grog wears off.
Just to get you started - are we confined to carbon based life-forms? Could the multi-verse speculation provide some possibilities?
“Some people reckon what happened is that he lost his marbles. That seems like a plausible theory to me. “ (Terry6:21 PM)
DeleteMany people who have done no more than a surface skim or a cherry-picking read of his work think that way but no one who has done a proper sampling or in-depth study would. I'll just mention that he didn't make a transition from scientist to theologian. Many people wear those two hats quite comfortably. It was his grounding as a scientist and philosopher and the ability to view and understand the whole spectrum that led to his rational explanation of theology.
I doubt very much that Moody who is a serious contemporary scientist would have included him in his list if he thought he'd “lost his marbles.”
Ralph: Many people wear those two hats quite comfortably.
DeleteI’ve just looked at Wiki’s list of religious scientists and found some of my all-time favourites on it. Which proves that no matter how smart you are, you can’t rely on your brain to be rational. And if even the best brains in the world can’t stave off religious infection and strange dreams, what chance the rest of us?
Next time an atheist criticises you for your religion, point to that list and say ‘careful, mate, it’s infected better people than you’.
Terry: ".. you can’t rely on your brain to be rational"
DeleteNo, you must use your mind.
Dear Ralph, the City Bible Forum is based in Sydney. They are worth a visit as they are highly intellectual, highly transparent and afraid of no one. I recommend them to you. Dick
Delete" I grew up with that knowledge/truth"
DeleteNo Ralph you grew up with that belief.
"and have never encountered any argument to make me seriously question it. "
Yes you have, you just don't want to accept them.
" I know that NDE's are not 'proof' of life after death but there have been no rational arguments to explain them other than that life continues."
There have been plenty of rational attempts to explain them, and we have discussed them Why do you keep making things up?
"There are sensible explanations for Swedenborg's claim of speaking with spirits from other planets"
DeleteNo there aren't or you would have mentioned them by now.
"Maybe you could try thinking of plausible scientific explanations when the effect of the grog wears off."
You've been given one, Swedenborg went insane.
"Just to get you started - are we confined to carbon based life-forms? Could the multi-verse speculation provide some possibilities?"
None of that has anything to do with spirits talking to someone about cattle on mercury.
Terry wrote: "..it’s infected better people than you"
DeleteWhat is your basis for claiming that religion is an "infection"?
“Next time an atheist criticises you for your religion, point to that list and say ‘careful, mate, it’s infected better people than you’.” (Terry11:49 PM)
DeleteJust saw Robin's latest comment and was reminded that I had also intended to comment on this. I find your proposed statement quite illogical Terry. It's an arrogant put-down of atheism in general and the individual in particular which contradicts the suggestion that those choosing religion are better people (because a better person wouldn't act that way).
Saying someone is “infected” by religion is, of course, using an analogy. The interesting thing is that the Bible/Word of God is written using this type of analogy – using physical things and processes to illustrate the workings of the mind/spirit. For an example read the 'parable of the sower' (Matthew 13:3-23, also in Mark and Luke) where the physical act of sowing seed is used to demonstrate how the mind can respond differently to the influx of ideas/truths.
Robin: What is your basis for claiming that religion is an "infection"?
DeleteAccording to Webster’s New World College Dictionary, an infection can mean a belief that’s transmitted from one person to another. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, it means a moral corruption or contamination.
Take your pick.
Ralph: It's an arrogant put-down of atheism in general and the individual in particular which contradicts the suggestion that those choosing religion are better people (because a better person wouldn't act that way).
DeleteIt may be arrogant. But it’s not a comment on atheism. It’s a comment on religion, specifically its power to corrupt. As the Wiki list shows, even the sharpest brains in the world are not immune.
Terry - in which sense did you mean it?
DeleteAlso atheism is a belief that can be passed from one person to another.
Is atheism, then, an infection?
"Is atheism, then, an infection?"
DeleteNo, it is the default position.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteStranger wrote: "No, it is the default position."
DeleteWhy, exactly?
Is there some stone tablet I should know about?
8x
Delete"Is atheism, then, an infection?"
x8
lol
Would you prefer cowpox or smallpox? ;)
Robin: ... in which sense did you mean it?
DeleteBoth.
Robin: Is atheism, then, an infection?
I suppose you could infect someone with the idea that there is no god. But it would be a very mild infection compared to Christianity or Islam, don’t you think? I know I'd much rather be injected with a little atheistic scepticism in me than a full syringe of religious certainty.
Robin: Also atheism is a belief that can be passed from one person to another.
DeleteOn second thoughts, I don’t think it can, at least not in the same way that religion is transmitted. If it were, then you’d see whole swathes of land covered in rashes of atheists, in the same way you see Saudi Arabia covered in a rash of Muslims or Italy covered in a rash of Catholics. Instead, there seems to be no pattern to the distribution of atheists except that they occur most frequently in populations with higher education.
Comparing atheism to religion may be a case of comparing apples to oranges. Religions are clearly ideologies and ideologies propagate by means of infection. I don’t think atheism is an ideology and if if it does propagate it does so by some other means.
"Both"
DeleteNice linguistic precision.
Robin: "Is there some stone tablet I should know about?"
DeleteThere you go being obtuse again.
Atheism is simply the assertion that theists cannot validate their position. Full stop. Amen.
Robin we aren't born believing in anything, especially gods
Delete8x
DeleteRobin we aren't born believing in anything, especially gods
x8
Ahhh but;
Once "we" DO "believe in gods", what is it that could make us "unbelieve"?
Hmmmm? Food for fat gutted thought?
or:
"Piss off subtle distinctions, I'm busy"
;)
Stranger wrote: "Robin we aren't born believing in anything, especially gods"
DeleteThen the word you are looking for is "agnostic".
MalcolmS wrote: "Atheism is simply the assertion that theists cannot validate their position. Full stop. Amen."
DeleteSo the default position is "theists cannot validate their position"?
Zed wrote: "Would you prefer cowpox or smallpox? ;)"
DeleteIn general I think that metaphors are an invitation to vagueness and should be avoided whenever possible in favour of saying what you actually mean.
"In general I think that metaphors are an invitation to vagueness and should be avoided whenever possible in favour of saying what you actually mean."
DeleteLike the Bible?
"Then the word you are looking for is "agnostic"."
DeleteNo it isn't Agnostic is not the same as 'hasn't heard of God'
Neither is "atheist"
Delete“No, (atheism) is the default position.” (Stranger7:43 PM)
DeleteHow could that possibly be Stranger. One has first to have a concept of God before one can reject and/or deny it. Atheism is a rejection of theism so theism is and must be prior.
We have a creation – there must be a creator. What or who that creator is is a further question but the obvious first intuition is a being who creates just as we create. Any child is happy with the explanation, God did/created it.” Rejection if it comes, comes later when other agendas arise.
“Robin we aren't born believing in anything, especially gods” (Stranger12:48 AM)
DeleteWhy did you find it necessary to add that qualifier Stranger? All it does is display your prejudice. Obviously if someone didn't yet believe in anything there would not be anything in particular that they didn't believe in.
"Why did you find it necessary to add that qualifier Stranger?"
DeleteIt's not a qualifier, it's an explanation for you as to why atheism is the default position.
" All it does is display your prejudice."
All that does is display your lack of intelligence
"In general I think that metaphors are an invitation to vagueness and should be avoided whenever possible in favour of saying what you actually mean.” (Robin2:35 AM)
Delete“Like the Bible?” (Stranger2:37 AM)
No, not “like the Bible” Stranger. The Bible is a special case because it's talking about the unseen world within/the world of the mind which can be exposed and understood by the parallelism that exists between the things of the mind and the things of the body.
" Atheism is a rejection of theism so theism is and must be prior."
DeleteNo Ralph, if one has never heard of God one is an atheist as atheism is disbelief in gods, not a rejection of the idea.
"We have a creation – there must be a creator."
No we don't have a creation, we have a universe that so far has not yielded any evidence as to whether it was created by an outside intelligence.
"Any child is happy with the explanation"
No they aren't, you might have been dumb enough to swallow what your parents told you but not all of us are happy with 'god did it'.
"Neither is "atheist""
DeleteIf one hasn't heard of God how does one believe in him?
By the same logic, if one hasn't heard of God how does one know if he exists or not.
DeleteBut I am nevertheless fascinated to learn that "atheist" is the same as "hasn't heard of God".
I recall that recently there was that Global "haven't heard of God" conference.
They seemed to talk a lot about God for people who hadn't heard of him.
"By the same logic, if one hasn't heard of God how does one know if he exists or not."
DeleteOne doesn't but that is not agnosticism.
"But I am nevertheless fascinated to learn that "atheist" is the same as "hasn't heard of God"."
I bet you're fascinated by other simple concepts too.
8x
DeleteIn general I think that metaphors are an invitation to vagueness and should be avoided whenever possible in favour of saying what you actually mean.
x8
??
What are you trying to say?
"Atheism is a rejection of theism so theism is and must be prior. "
Delete"But I am nevertheless fascinated to learn that "atheist" is the same as "hasn't heard of God"."
If someone had never been told that some people eat animals, could they still be a vegetarian?
"Comparing atheism to religion may be a case of comparing apples to oranges. "
DeleteOr it may be a case of comparing people who eat apples to people who don't eat apples. Would it matter if they didn't know about apples?
"Dear Ralph, the City Bible Forum is based in Sydney. They are worth a visit as they are highly intellectual, highly transparent and afraid of no one. I recommend them to you. Dick" (Anonymous/ {Dick - at a strange computer})12:43 AM)
DeleteThanks for the info Dick. I looked it up was interested and may be able to get to the Krauss/Craig event coming up in August.
I've decided to try a little experiment Dick. Since you seem to be too busy or don't know how to date individual posts, I'm going to try including the date with my name.
LJS: He also claimed to have been told by alien spirits that cattle are from Mercury. Horses are from Jupiter, so I wouldn't put too much faith in him.
ReplyDeleteThen 'lost his marbles' would appear to be a fact rather than a theory.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteRobin: "So the default position is "theists cannot validate their position"?"
DeleteI made no claim for a default position.
However, theists cannot validate their position.
RalphH: "We have a creation – there must be a creator"
DeleteFallacy of begging the question.
RalphH: "Any child is happy with the explanation, God did/created it.”
DeleteI wasn't!
"We have a creation – there must be a creator" (RalphH)
DeleteFallacy of begging the question. (MalcolmS8:54 AM)
Please explain how that statement 'begs the question' Malcolm
"Any child is happy with the explanation, God did/created it.” (RalphH)
DeleteI wasn't! (MalcolmS8:55 AM)
Why am I not surprised Malcolm. I didn't specify an age you know. What about before you were too young to form your own ideas and look for an alternative agenda. My guess is that you wouldn't even be able to rember back that far.
RalphH: ""Any child is happy with the explanation, God did/created it.” (RalphH)
DeleteI wasn't! (MalcolmS8:55 AM)
Why am I not surprised Malcolm. I didn't specify an age you know"
You specified "any child" though!
And many are not happy with such a dopey "explanation"!
"Now cattle and horses actually come from outer space."
ReplyDeleteRalph, you know perfectly well that I quoted those passages from Swedenborg in the blog a long time ago. Are you going to try to pretend that he didn't claim to have been told of interplanetary horses and cows? Are you going to back away from the assertion that the reason why these animals can survive on Mercury is because the climate is so mild? Do I really have to go to all the trouble of reading that drivel again just so I can prove that you are lying, or will you just concede that the reason why I ridicule Swedenborg's claims is because they are ridiculous?
“Are you going to try to pretend that (Swedenborg) didn't claim to have been told of interplanetary horses and cows? Are you going to back away from the assertion that the reason why these animals can survive on Mercury is because the climate is so mild? “ (Long John Silver4:59 AM)
DeleteLong John, I'm not going to back away from anything. The problem is that your intent is not to pursue the truth or to understand but to ridicule and as always 'where there's a will a way will be found'. You've done a bit of cherry-picking, found something that appears to you to be ridiculous and blown it up to completely obliterate everything else and claim “(Swedenborg) was a raving loony”.
Nothing could be further from the truth when one considers the full compass of his life's work in many fields of science, philosophy and his own extensive and rational interpretation of theology right up to the day of his death. The man was obviously a colossal intellect (check out any website that looks at geniuses from the past). But why let the truth get in the way of your fun. Once you had collected your tools for ridicule the embellishments (cattle ranching, interplanetary livestock) started also.
I explained to you that 'Earths in the Universe' is not core teaching (that's all about loving God/good and our fellow beings and learning how loving ourselves and worldly, temporal things should serve that end). EU is demonstrating the extent of the Kingdom of God. Terry said he read the Wiki article. It might be an idea if you read it too and try to take in more than just a few words that 'prove' your prejudice and serve you intent (to ridicule). In other words try to act like a scholar.
"The man was obviously a colossal intellect"
DeleteThe man was obviously a raving loony by the time he wrote of cattle on mercury.
"I explained to you that 'Earths in the Universe' is not core teaching . . ."
DeleteCore teaching or not, the fact remains that Swedenborg described interplanetary spirits telling him about the livestock enjoying the mild climate on Mercury. Of course that seems ridiculous to me - it would be difficult to find someone outside your cult who did not consider that claim to be ridiculous. I am also a bit sceptical of the assertion that he spoke with various other famous people (I forget the list, but quoted the passage back when this blog was in its previous incarnation).
Swedenborg also asserts that these spirits travelled around the universe in search of knowledge, but somehow they only visited planets which were known to scientists in Swedenborg's time. If his imaginary friends had mentioned the existence of other planets which an interplanetary traveller would be expected to see, and the existence of these planets were subsequently shown to be true by developments in earthling technology, then his writings could be taken seriously. It would have been hard to explain how he anticipated future discoveries (rather than, for example, offering a completely erroneous description of Mercury which provides a strong indication that he was not gathering information from visiting spirits but was describing a hallucination which seemed real to him). I will continue to dismiss his theological writing as the incoherent rantings of a mentally ill person (no matter how brilliant a scientist he may have been before losing his sanity) until you are able to offer a coherent response to the Problem of Uranus.
8x
Deleteit would be difficult to find someone outside your cult who did not consider that claim to be ridiculous.
x8
- Shrug - ... I dunno, seems reasonable enough to me
http://www.poee.org/documents/Other_Religions/Church_of_the_SubGenius/Dictionary_of_the_Gods.htm#bleeding head
OK, I stand corrected. So anyone outside Ralph's cult or zed's cult would probably think that claims of Mercurian cattle (and attempts to suggest that they might be non-carbo based cattle) was implausible.
Delete"... the fact remains that Swedenborg described interplanetary spirits telling him" (Long John Silver6:48 PM)
DeleteThis shows how little you have understood what you read Long John. Although Swedenborg claimed to be reporting things told him about certain other planets there was nothing "interplanetary" going on.
The mental/spiritual world that he explored is beyond all time and space. It's a connectedness of minds just as they can be connected by phone or Internet. Swedenborg was well aware of the ridicule his statements would bring but he made them anyway because he believed they had spiritual significance. He was not addressing the world of science or claiming to have esoteric scientific knowledge.
I don't believe we know enough about our solar system (let alone the universe beyond) or the range of material possibilities for life-forms yet to rule our what he has said. One of the biggest mistakes of a scientist is to believe that he/she has all the answers (illustrated by Anthony Standen's book, 'Science is a Sacred Cow").
You can believe (or disbelieve) whatever you want. That's your prerogative. But ridiculing others because you think you know it all is not a good look. I do not belong to a cult and as you suggested there are reams of famous intellects and humanitarians through the last few centuries who have gratefully acknowledged their debt to the man you want only to ridicule (over a trivial matter) because you have no real interest in perusing the truth of his considerable achievements.
" He was not addressing the world of science or claiming to have esoteric scientific knowledge."
DeleteYes he was and did. Claiming things about reality is addressing the world of science.
"I don't believe we know enough about our solar system (let alone the universe beyond) or the range of material possibilities for life-forms yet to rule our what he has said. "
That's because you are totally ignorant of what we do know and will ignore anything we do know in favour of your delusion.
" One of the biggest mistakes of a scientist is to believe that he/she has all the answers ..)."
But it's okay for you to think you have all the answers. Typical deluded hypocrite.
"I do not belong to a cult "
Yes you do.
"Although Swedenborg claimed to be reporting things told him about certain other planets there was nothing "interplanetary" going on."
DeleteSwedenborg states quite clearly that the spirits were from another planet, and they travel the universe learning about what spirits from various planets are like. Do you have a different meaning for the word "interplanetary"? He claims that these spirits have been to Mercury, Jupiter and various other planets (although apparently they didn't know about what came from Uranus). When someone travels from Mercury to Earth, their travels can reasonably be described as "interplanetary".
"I don't believe we know enough about our solar system (let alone the universe beyond) or the range of material possibilities for life-forms yet to rule our what he has said. "
Check the NASA website. You may discover that scientific knowledge has now gathered sufficient evidence to rule out the possibility of Mercurian cattle having existed at the time when Swedenborg was writing..
"One of the biggest mistakes of a scientist is to believe that he/she has all the answers"
DeleteCan you provide evidence that this is a common belief among scientists?
"Terry said he read the Wiki article. It might be an idea if you read it too and try to take in more than just a few words that 'prove' your prejudice and serve you intent (to ridicule). In other words try to act like a scholar."
DeleteA scholar would know that wiki articles are not necessarily reliable sources. I consulted the primary source - I read a book by Swedenborg. I also looked at a few articles on a Swedenborgian website.
Just for you, Ralphy, I checked wikipedia.
Delete"The contactee movement is a rich treat for anthropologists, sticky with sincere and sincerely deluded individuals. Were the contactees in touch with anything other than their own internal fantasies?"
"As early as the 18th century, people like Emanuel Swedenborg were claiming to be in psychic contact with inhabitants of other planets. 1758 saw the publication of Concerning Earths in the Solar System, in which Swedenborg detailed his alleged journeys to the inhabited planets. J. Gordon Melton notes that Swedenborg's planetary tour stops at Saturn, the furthest planet known during Swedenborg's era — he did not visit Uranus, Neptune or Pluto."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contactee
"Long John Silver 7:08 PM"
DeleteROFLMAO Classic!
"Any child is happy with the explanation, "God did/created it.” "
ReplyDeleteSome children are smarter than others. Unfortunately there are some kids who don't have the sense to question what they are told. What is even more depressing is the fact that some people never grow out of that.
"Some children are smarter than others. Unfortunately there are some kids who don't have the sense to question what they are told. What is even more depressing is the fact that some people never grow out of that." (Long John Silver5:08 AM)
DeleteJust because some people stick with a good idea doesn't mean they haven't questioned it even though some others may not have. Many have questioned the idea of God, studied it and accepted it as adult rational beings. Many who have rejected it have done so on insufficient evidence, from prejudice and worldly ambition.
" Many who have rejected it have done so on insufficient evidence, from prejudice and worldly ambition."
DeleteYes Ralph people who don't believe in God are prejudiced. Prejudiced against bullshit.
Yep, and I rejected Santa Claus because I was ambitious to give my children cooler presents than they'd have got from Santa.
Delete"Many who have rejected it have done so on insufficient evidence . . ."
DeleteDo you have any surveys of atheists available to demonstrate that this is the case? Are you able to demopnstrate how much evidence would be sufficient for someone to reject an unproven assertion? If not, you have insufficient evidence of our insufficient evidence.
RalphH: "Many who have rejected it [the idea of God] have done so on insufficient evidence, from prejudice and worldly ambition"
DeleteThat's utter nonsense. There is no such thing as *evidence for the nonexistence of God.* There is no such thing as evidence for the nonexistence of anything. There is only evidence for an existent.
How could a nonexistent produce any evidence?
The onus of proof rests with he who asserts the positive [the theist] and we're still waiting Ralph.
8x
DeleteThere is no such thing as evidence for the nonexistence of anything. There is only evidence for an existent.
x8
So true.
I doubt that anyone anywhere can find a shred of evidence that you arent a twerp either
"Yes Ralph people who don't believe in God are prejudiced. Prejudiced against bullshit." (Stranger12:54 AM)
DeleteFrom dictionary.com :-
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
Stranger, the essence of prejudice is that it is formed without having properly examined whatever is under consideration. It's a knee-jerk reaction to blind feelings based on who knows what. I believe many (but not all) people who reject the concept of God do so from such a process.
"That's utter nonsense. There is no such thing as *evidence for the nonexistence of God.* There is no such thing as evidence for the nonexistence of anything. There is only evidence for an existent.
DeleteHow could a nonexistent produce any evidence?
The onus of proof rests with he who asserts the positive [the theist] and we're still waiting Ralph." (MalcolmS2:10 AM)
Nice litttle 'slight of hand' there Malcolm – subtly changing "insufficient" into "nonexistent". The insufficiency is in the mind of the observer. There is actually heaps of evedence for God but not of the sort that the non-believer has decided is the only type of evidence he/she will accept.
The "onus of proof" exists with the individual. If he/she's not willing to accept something one might as well go 'whistle Dixie'.
Thanks for all that Ralph but... er... but we're still waiting... er... waiting, waiting...
Delete"There is actually heaps of evedence for God"
DeleteStop lying Ralph. There is only subjective experience, which is not evidence of external entities.
"Stranger, the essence of prejudice is that it is formed without having properly examined whatever is under consideration."
DeleteYou don't even bother reading what you quote, or are too stupid to understand it. "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand"
Ralph you are prejudiced against reality, anything that goes against your beliefs is wrong even though you are totally ignorant about any form of science.
“Stop lying Ralph. There is only subjective experience (for God), which is not evidence of external entities.” (Stranger3:17 PM)
DeleteThere is actually heaps of “evidence of external entities” - everything God has created but ,of course, you need to believe that He created it to see/understand that it is “evidence”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p3zTTu8Y4mI
Ralph, it is not necessary to "believe" before assessing evidence. I don't need to have faith in the theory of gravity - I can observe things falling to the ground. If something requires us to believe in it before we examine it, then it isn't "evidence".
Delete"There is actually heaps of “evidence of external entities”
DeleteThe external entity in context of the statement is God. You are so stupid you can't handle simple sentences.
"you need to believe that He created it to see/understand that it is “evidence”."
If you believe that a giant invisible immaterial pixie called Gavin created the universe than the universe is evidence that Gavin exists. Belief is not evidence of something existing, but I doubt you have the ability to understand that.
I just wasted over 8 minutes of my life sitting through that stupid video Ralph. 7 minutes of things for which we have EVIDENCE (wrapped up in a lame story with bad animation) leading to a conclusion which has been thoroughly discredited and a straw man argument. You really need to get an education in clear thinking and logic if you expect a video like this to convince anyone. I know that I will be wasting my time trying to explain this to you, but I hope that I can save others the trouble of wading through that video. To summarise the argument - as scientific knowledge has advanced, people have gradually learned more about the world around them. Therefore we can make shit up and pretend that it's true. Most people would see through the flaw in that logic without too much trouble, but I will attempt to explain it to you -
Delete(1) Nobody asserts that because they know a lot about something, therefore they know everything. This is a "straw man" argument. There is always the possibility that scientists will discover new things about trees. They will do it by conducting proper research and producing evidence for their theories. When there is EVIDENCE for new theories about trees, we will change our ideas.
(2) The fact that we have not (yet?) found any reason to believe that God created trees is not a reason to assume that at some unspecified point in the future we will find that evidence. It is just as likely that the tree was made by the Flying Spaghetti Monster (notice how the roots of some plants look a bit like spaghetti? It's a miracle!). Maybe there is an invisible teapot in the branches, but there is no reason to confuse "speculation" and "evidence". We have evidence for the atoms in a tree. We do not have evidence for God creating the tree.
(3) This discussion about trees from someone who suggests googling Swedenborg as "food for thought") does point towards my original theory - Swedenborgians are barking mad.
Long John Silver: "I just wasted over 8 minutes of my life sitting through that stupid video Ralph"
DeleteSmall price to pay.
Ralph has wasted his entire life believing in God.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23674-nuclear-pasta-may-stabilise-pulsars-spins.html
Deleteproof that the FSM created the universe.
Mal: Ralph has wasted his entire life believing in God.
DeleteThat's a bit rich coming from you.
"proof that the FSM created the universe"
DeleteBlessed be his noodly appendages. Take that, zed and your blasphemous subgenius unbelievers!
Hmmm
DeleteAnd it came to pass that while excremeditating on this EVIL FILTHY LIE in the chapel of thunderous echoes, I was overcome with a great gust of insight.
It. doesnt. matter...
Because youre livin' in the past man - Yes - You - Living - In - the - past.
!!QUIT LIVING IN THE PAST MAAAN!!
You see heretic, the future is all that matters, specifically one day in the very near future - July 5th
X-DAY - The end of the world .... for you that is --- For me though - Interstellar Sex godesses
HA!
Enjoy your worms heretic
http://rdn-consulting.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/spaghetti.jpg
"!!QUIT LIVING IN THE PAST MAAAN!!"
DeleteThey can take our land. they can take our freedom. But they can NEVER take our Jethro Tull albums!
BTW you missed a "d" from "godesses" - intergalactic spirit wenches are very pedantic about spelling and typographical errors.
"They can take our land. they can take our freedom. But they can NEVER take our Jethro Tull albums!"
DeleteDidn't figure you as a Tull fan Longers.
http://youtu.be/rnWx8iDwVUs
DeleteToo funny.
Delete"Just to get you started - are we confined to carbon based life-forms? "
ReplyDeleteSwedenborg described them as being similar to the cattle on our earth, and I would expect a scientist to have mentioned the existence of non-carbon based cattle. His explanation for them surviving on Mercury was not because there was something unusual about the cattle, it was because the climate on Mercury was hospitable to animals of that type. Unless you would like to demonstrate that I have misquoted Swedenborg (for example, by citing a passage which suggests that there is something special about Mercurian animals which I missed when I read about his interplanetary visitors) then I will continue to hold to my original response - he was a raving loony.
Still waiting, Ralph. Can you quote a passage from swedenborg's book which suggests that the Mercurian cattle are able to survive the conditions there because they are non-carbon based? Can you explain why Swedenborg's descriptions of the Mercurian climate are so different from the conditions which NASA describe?
DeleteThis is a bit late but I thought I'd re-post it anyway. Been having Internet problems and it mustn't have got through.
Delete“I just wasted over 8 minutes of my life sitting through that stupid video Ralph.” (Long John Silver6:39 PM)
If I'd known I was going to mess up your incredibly busy life Long John I'd have put some sort of disclaimed (maybe 'Not recommended for anyone slow of wit – especially fake pirates and other miscreants') on it.
I think it's great. All the different ascending levels through time believed that they had the full story. I doubt if anyone with such an attitude would go looking for new knowledge or new evidence.
“(1) Nobody asserts that because they know a lot about something, therefore they know everything. This is a "straw man" argument.”
Richard Dawkins for one (and he's only one of many) – knows a lot about biology and basically nothing about religion yet pontificates about it as if he was an authority. Bang goes your straw-man suggestion.
“ There is always the possibility that scientists will discover new things about trees. They will do it by conducting proper research and producing evidence for their theories. When there is EVIDENCE for new theories about trees, we will change our ideas.”
The “evidence” in the cartoon was about God. Atheists have closed their minds to God, believing that life/existence is totally of Nature and therefore have no hope/chance of discovering anything outside that limited, close-minded view. Your (2) point demonstrates this with your silly nonsense of FSM. That's what I call a “straw-man argument”. As if there's any comparison between an infinite and eternal being of love and the power that springs from love and a blob of spaghetti.
"“(1) Nobody asserts that because they know a lot about something, therefore they know everything. This is a "straw man" argument.”
DeleteRichard Dawkins for one (and he's only one of many) – knows a lot about biology and basically nothing about religion yet pontificates about it as if he was an authority. Bang goes your straw-man suggestion."
Ralph you do know what assert means don't you? It is not the same as pontificate, which is also what you do. Your straw-man is still there.
Ralph your mind is closed to reality, preferring to believe in made up bullshit.
"As if there's any comparison between an infinite and eternal being of love and the power that springs from love and a blob of spaghetti."
The comparison is they are both made up.
Robin: In general I think that metaphors are an invitation to vagueness and should be avoided whenever possible in favour of saying what you actually mean.
ReplyDeleteI would have thought the exact opposite is true.
The talk with the psychic and the Christian has been run and won. I will post the link to the talk soon for those with tolerance for three boring pontificators.
ReplyDeleteDick
Dick,
DeleteI'm so pleased I shall get to see the discussion. Looking forward to the link.
""We have a creation – there must be a creator" (RalphH) Please explain how that statement 'begs the question' Malcolm"
ReplyDeleteGlad to Ralph!
The child of your example has no way of knowing whether the world he perceives is created/uncreated but [at least implicitly] he knows that the world he perceives *exists.*
As he develops cognitively he discovers that no existent comes from nothing.
Which means that existence [as a whole] is *eternal,* i.e., has always existed [in some form].
In other words you claim a "creator" for the eternal, i.e., the *uncreated.*
That's begging the question Ralph.
"The child of your example has no way of knowing whether the world he perceives is created/uncreated but [at least implicitly] he knows that the world he perceives *exists.*
DeleteAs he develops cognitively he discovers that no existent comes from nothing.
Which means that existence [as a whole] is *eternal,* i.e., has always existed [in some form].
In other words you claim a "creator" for the eternal, i.e., the *uncreated.*
That's begging the question Ralph." (MalcolmS12:36 AM)
I think you might be getting your "existence" and "existents" mixed up Malcolm. You've said, "existence [as a whole] is *eternal". Obviously there's no need for a creator for 'eternal existence' but what you've called "existents" are not eternal and therefore need a creator i.e. the eternal existence. No question begging that I can see.
There is no "mix up" except in your tiny little mind Ralph. An existent *is* a thing or an entity - they are synonyms. *Only* things, entities or existents exist. The sum of all things, entities or existents *is* existence as a whole - there is nothing else.
DeleteChange from a prior entity/s to a new entity is *caused* by the nature of the prior entity/s which changed, an entirely natural phenomenon -
no "creator" required.
Oh, you're still begging the question and now, I suspect, obfuscating and equivocating.
On the subject: Author Iain Banks died yesterday, a great loss to the literary world.
ReplyDeleteWhy is Iain Banks "on the subject"?
DeleteWhy is Iain Banks "a great loss to the literary world"?
"Why is Iain Banks "a great loss to the literary world"?"
ReplyDeleteIf you had a skerrick of intelligence, I'd tell you why.
"If you had a skerrick of intelligence, I'd tell you why"
DeleteI don't need to know why. I already know.
The point of the question was that I suspected you didn't.
I now know :)
Thanks for your reply.
"The point of the question was that I suspected you didn't.
DeleteI now know :)"
You only believe what makes you feel better. You are stupid enough to think that I don't know because I gave you a glib answer.
Stranger aka AndrewR, why is Iain Banks "on the subject"?
ReplyDeleteIf you had a skerrick of intelligence, I'd tell you why
Delete"If you had a skerrick of intelligence, I'd tell you why"
DeleteI don't need to know why. I already know.
The point of the question was that I suspected you didn't.
I now know :)
Thanks for your reply.
You only believe what makes you feel better. You are stupid enough to think that I don't know because I gave you a glib answer.
Deleteglib: lacking depth and substance : superficial
Deletewww.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glib
Yep, that's you alright.
"glib: lacking depth and substance : superficial
Deletewww.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glib
Yep, that's you alright."
So you'll accept the dictionary definition of sense now?
Though not.
"So you'll accept the dictionary definition of sense now?"
DeleteSure dopey.
"The senses are usually spoken of as being five in number, namely, sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch" - - Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary - Unabridged
So, when will you accept it?
usually spoken of?
DeleteR.O.F.L.M.A.O
Are we gonna' have some fun with that now .. or what?
What??
Delete"Usually spoken of" not *usual* enough for you?
Seems all dictionaries arent created equal.
DeleteInterestingly that definition seems to have been lifted verbatim from "A commentary on the shorter catechism"
http://archive.org/stream/commentaryonshor00whytuoft/commentaryonshor00whytuoft_djvu.txt
A commentary on the shorter catechism ([19--?])
Author: Whyte, Alexander, 1836-1921
Here it is in its original context
The senses are those faculties by which man, and in their measure the lower animals also, perceive
external objects by means of impressions made on certain organs of the body.
The senses are usually spoken of as being five in number, namely, sight,
hearing, taste, smell, and touch. And that is called sensible which possesses
properties or attributes that affect the senses. Thus water in the one sacrament,
and bread and wine in the other, are sensible, that is, they are capable
of being perceived and apprehended through the senses and organs of the
body.
No matter how you try, you just cant escape from the intellectual limitations imposed by your particular Christian upbringing can you mallypoos?
;)
===
ps
lol catchpa: institutio represo
Oh, and additionally there mallypoos:
DeleteIf you had any "respect for original sources" AND learned to read beyond a kindergarten level(note correct spelling of kindergarten), you would have known that.
Robbsybobbsy
Is this an adequate "citation of a primary text" for you?
Please let me know if I need to provide anything else; say the GPS coordinates of a copy of the physical book itself, or the authors bibliography.
Dont want to get me no reputation as a bullshitter do I? ;)
"Interestingly that definition seems to have been lifted verbatim from "A commentary on the shorter catechism""
DeleteEven more interesting the quote in the format Mal supplied only seems to appear in "A commentary on the shorter catechism" and not in Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary - Unabridged
zedinhisbigloonyflyinghead: "Seems all dictionaries arent[sic] created equal"
DeleteNo kidding dopey!
"(note correct spelling of kindergarten)... Dont[sic] want to get me no[sic] reputation as a bullshitter[sic] do I?[sic] ;)[sic]"
Er... please attend to syntax and grammar.
"Even more interesting the quote in the format Mal supplied only seems to appear in "A commentary on the shorter catechism" and not in Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary - Unabridged"
DeleteNo doubt you have read the 24[at least] previous editions of that dictionary - my copy is the '49th edition, belonged to my grandfather and is over 2000 pages. It includes my above quote as one of the many meanings of 'sense.'
Your claim that that meaning is "not in Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary - Unabridged," unfortunately, is simply one of your numerous lies. That's the problem with making stuff up to suit your false position instead of accessing the original source.
On the issue of the "catechism" I have no knowledge, or interest, in who they choose to plagiarise. Please pass information on to fellow idiot Z.
"my copy is the '49th edition, belonged to my grandfather"
DeleteAh so you are using an outdated definition.
"Your claim that that meaning is "not in Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary - Unabridged," unfortunately, is simply one of your numerous lies"
If you had any sort of intelligence you would have noticed I said 'seems', as I did a google search of teh quote and it is not listed as being in the inline version of Websters.
" That's the problem with making stuff up to suit your false position instead of accessing the original source."
You are the one making stuff up about senses and relying on obsolete information. As susual
8x
Deletezedinhisbigloonyflyinghead
x8
Who?
8x
Er... please attend to syntax and grammar.
x8
Sorry: Too busy laughing my arse off to care.. ;)
8x
DeleteThat's the problem with making stuff up to suit your false position instead of accessing the original source.
x8
x8
On the issue of the "catechism" I have no knowledge, or interest, in who they choose to plagiarise.
x8
Wrong way round ya goofball.
That's the problem with making stuff up to suit your false position instead of accessing the original source. ;)
loonyhead: "That's the problem with making stuff up to suit your false position instead of accessing the original source"
DeleteMy quote *was* from the original source which still sits on my bookshelf. FYI, in my edition, under sense[noun] it lists 10 meanings plus numerous synonyms and I quoted the one appropriate to my context.
It still sits on my bookshelf now - even as you get an acquaintance to read this post to you :}}
8X
Deleteloonyhead
X8
who?
8x
My quote *was* from the original source
x8
Well leaving aside for a moment the fact that I'm as certain as I need to be that the phrase WAS originally lifted from "A commentary on the shorter catechism"...
8x
It still sits on my bookshelf now
x8
... theres ya problem right there goobly-gobbler. Ya gotta OPEN the book and [get your mother to] LOOK inside. ;)
"No doubt you have read the 24[at least] previous editions of that dictionary - my copy is the '49th edition."
DeleteIf you are unsure of how many editions might have preceded the 49th edition, then your mathematical skills are clearly not good enough to figure out how many senses you have.
". . . I quoted the one appropriate to my context."
DeleteTranslation - ignored anything which contradicted you (just as you ignored the 2 dictionary definitions that I provided)
"In addition to the “five senses”—sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch—humans have senses of motion (kinesthetic sense), heat, cold, pressure, pain, and balance. Temperature, pressure, and pain are cutaneous (skin) senses; different points on the skin are particularly sensitive to each. " http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sense
DeleteIdiot Pirate: "If you are unsure of how many editions might have preceded the 49th edition.."
DeleteThere were 24 listed in my 49th edition. What's "unsure" about that?
Idiot Pirate repeating: "". . . I quoted the one appropriate to my context" Translation - ignored anything which contradicted you (just as you ignored the 2 dictionary definitions that I provided)"
The different meanings[often numerous] given in dictionary definitions of a word cannot be conflated. They have different meanings! To do so is to commit the fallacy of equivocation. That is what's meant by *context.* I set the context of this discussion which you transgressed. Please cease your continual violations of this venerable law of logic.
8x
DeleteI set the context of this discussion
x8
False: You dont get to set the context, ya twerp.
That would be like letting a toddler decide when and what to have for dinner.
Your "sense argument" is senseless and retarded. Thats why you lost.
Grow up and deal with it.
This conversation is now terminated. lol
Idiot Pirate: "In addition to the “five senses” - sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch - humans have senses of motion"
ReplyDelete"Sense[s :)] of motion" is not a primary sense - it's derivative.
Idiot Pirate repeating: ".. heat, cold, pressure, pain, and balance. Temperature, pressure, and pain are cutaneous (skin) senses"
All are examples of the sense of 'touch' with the exception of 'balance' which is not a sense.
Handy hint to idiot Pirate: please eat nutritious foods, take a vitamin supplement and get more early nights.
This conversation has now concluded - hope it helped.
"All are examples of the sense of 'touch"
DeleteNo they aren't. Your stupidity is a choice.
8x
Deletewith the exception of 'balance' which is not a sense.
x8
Sorry twerplet, but the vestibular system is indeed a sense - in every "sense" of the word. ;)
You on the other hand are a retarded adolescent gerbil.
Hope that helps - lol
"This conversation has now concluded - hope it helped."
DeleteConcluding this conversation is extremely helpful. Attempting to explain simple concepts to you is apparently not helpful _ my apologies for underestimating your stupidity.
"There were 24 listed in my 49th edition. What's "unsure" about that?"
DeleteThose with a more advanced concept of numbers would tend to wonder what happened to the other editions that would be needed to progress from 24 editions all the way up to number 49.
If your edition lists the first 24 editions, then we can reasonably expect that there should be edition 25, edition 26, edition 27, edition 28, edition 29, edition 30, edition 31, edition 32, edition 33, edition 34, edition 35, edition 36, edition 37, edition 38, edition 39, edition 40, edition 41, edition 42, edition 43, edition 44, edition 45, edition 45, edition 47 & edition 48. Or maybe your book only mentions the odd numbers and we have to assume that the even numbers were implied? It is a shame that this conversation has been terminated, as it would have been fascinating to find out that either Rand or Aristotle have somehow changed the definiton of counting (or maybe you missed a page in the book?).