It's been roughly three months since I've joined this site now, and I now have had a much more consistent exposure to high quality rhetoric, debate, and thinking in general. I don't know how much I've gotten better though. Have I improved at all, or I am still the same level I was when I started? What do you guys think? Any categories people think I need to work on in general? Any categories you think I've done a good job at improving in? Input would be appreciated.
Have I improved?
Posts
Total:
27
-->
@Theweakeredge
I haven't read your new abortion debate yet but I would say so yes.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'd say generally debaters improve with each debate they take. Sometimes the improvement is negligible, but it's still improvement... and eventually the improvement will be noticeable. If you want an example, just look at my first 3 debates on the site... they make me cringe nowadays. Both in resolution choice and argument structure
-->
@Theweakeredge
I haven't read your debates yet but let me say this...I'm jealous you're on the atheists side lol. I think you're a very smart young man, I like the way you think. You have a dynamic quality, which is what I am attracted to (intellectually speaking). I wish you would engage with me more though, I think you would find spirituality very dynamic as opposed to rigid and one-dimensional. But I know what you feel about that subject. We need more dynamic thinkers on our side, too many religious die-hards when God is not rigid or one-dimensional, rather extremely creative and extremely dynamic.
I'm sure you will improve with every step you take, just don't devote yourself to any ideology just yet. Be free and adventurous, don't limit what could be possible.....atheism can be a ball and chain if you're not careful. Don't take that as an insult, I just don't want to see such a potential wasted on a rigid mentality when there is so much to invest in. Be open to any possibilities, is my only advice. If you're willing to look into whatever we talk about I'd be happy with that.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Well thank you for the compliments, but just for clarification.
I didn't particularly choose to be an atheist, nor do I choose to continue to be one. That is all up to the evidence. If there is an argument that fulfills the BoP of a god then I will believe in that god. I employ a worldview of skepticism, though, a more modern interpretation than my early philosophic takes of the idea. That worldview is: Until something has been demonstrated to be true, we hold skepticism of it, and, even after something proves true, we be as precise with criticism of it. Essentially, to have your confidence in a particular proposition be equal to the evidence you have of it.
I am not chained by atheism, and never will be, instead, I have the opposite PoV, I believe those off theistic positions to be chained and tethered by their immortal oppressor. I think that the necessary morality that such a theistic being would employ to be bankrupt and void of all value to consider. As I have said before, if there was a god, and what that god was considered "moral" I would not have any interest in being a moral creature. If certain gods were proven to exist and I could meet them someday? They would get nothing but a rightful condemnation and I would spit on them.
You should very much limit what is possible by the rules of possibility. I will not entertain a notion true that has not been demonstrated except for the sake of discussion. Now, should you disclude a position by yours alone? Absolutely not, as I have also said, you should consider each proposition with the evidence provided. Whenever a new scientific idea is proposed, a lot of people think that you need to throw yourself out there, and believe in the end result of unproven-ness in order to even have the experiment. This is false. You can propose an idea, and test it, without ever be convinced of it.
I hope this clarified some things about my position. And I do thank you for the flattery and kind words.
-->
@Theweakeredge
You should very much limit what is possible by the rules of possibility.
That's true, which is why I attempt to show you how things fit together and work, what is possible. If I have no explanation (that makes sense), then you can say I haven't done that. What is possible will always make sense, will have an explanation, it will always follow through in logic. This is why I insist you pay attention to spirituality (at least entertain) because while it is incredibly dynamic everything fits together and follows in rationale. What doesn't work we can throw out, what works we keep...but once you label yourself I feel you have made a decision prematurely.
I didn't particularly choose to be an atheist, nor do I choose to continue to be one.
That is the label you've given yourself not me. I only feel you've limited yourself to that label (maybe you haven't), and at a young age where many things are still possible.... I get worried. But I'm just being me, I see your potential and I hate to see you define yourself to a label that might not be necessary.
I have the opposite PoV, I believe those off theistic positions to be chained and tethered by their immortal oppressor.
Maybe you have a legit POV...I guess that all would depend on whether or not God exists, and whether you are talking about God or talking about religious sources. I've been trying to convey to you that you don't have to go through religion to get to God, we can get to God without any religion involved, pure logic, rationale and reason and believe it or not evidence. There's as much freedom in God as freedom itself, that is where you originated and that is what you exist within.
One of the things that concerns me is that it's religious people and religion that turn people away from God or discovering God. I hope to change that.
I think that the necessary morality that such a theistic being would employ to be bankrupt and void of all value to consider.
What did you think about my contributions in your topic of morality?
I employ a worldview of skepticism
I think you will find that both Theists and Atheists can apply skepticism, if you had any idea how much emphasis I put in sifting through what is useful and what is not, what is true and what is not it would blow your mind lol. Unfortunately I think a lot of Atheists assume Theists lack healthy skepticism and again, I hope to change that opinion. Maybe with such a dynamic system of information it may seem like we just accept anything and everything without any consideration but you have to know that is baloney, that's not true. In the Theistic arena there is a wealth of knowledge and a huge data base of information. Not all of it is accurate and yet a good portion of it is. Some things are useful and some things aren't, it takes participation and experience to know how to sift through it.
It doesn't help that many religious people confine themselves to particular belief systems with no regard for what is true and what is useful. But just remember that if God exists God exists independent of both people and religious sources, so try not to judge Theism (or God) based on that alone. I think there is plenty of reason for you to consider that God exists, or that there is a Creator. When considering that concept don't let anything else influence your consideration but that alone.
-->
@EtrnlVw
I consider all propositions the same, with the weight and amount of evidence behind the claim, therefore any proposition of god would be met with the same standard. I do not judge the proposition of god on the arguments, I judge religion based on the people. But I would object to the notion that good portion of theists use skepticism, I would argue that the minority employ it, they are most certainly the exception to the rule. Considering that a notion of "faith" is so popular and all... I realize some call it "trust" however I whenever a christian says faith, I assume they are talking of their holy book's definition of faith.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I consider all propositions the same, with the weight and amount of evidence behind the claim, therefore any proposition of god would be met with the same standard. I do not judge the proposition of god on the arguments, I judge religion based on the people. But I would object to the notion that good portion of theists use skepticism, I would argue that the minority employ it, they are most certainly the exception to the rule. Considering that a notion of "faith" is so popular and all... I realize some call it "trust" however I whenever a christian says faith, I assume they are talking of their holy book's definition of faith.
Well I'm assuming you're going to point out that Hebrews verse, but even that verse is misunderstood and worded poorly. If you read through the Gospels though faith is used to produce results, and the basis of those results relies on a persons confidence (trust) it really had nothing to do with the acceptance of religious doctrines...The kind of faith Jesus taught was more of an action, like the more confident a person becomes the more "faith" they would obtain and so the more effective it would become in their life.
In this light, it's more of a universal tool rather than a belief in doctrines.
This is why Jesus describes a persons faith as either "little" or "great", because it's based on the trust factor, or confidence. To have trust and confidence in something that entails reason and evidence, experience and such. This idea about believing in things for no reason and with no evidence is not useful for anything. That Hebrews passage is widely misinterpreted, as it follows in that chapter it supports the idea of faith with examples of trust and confidence. But more importantly, read how Jesus exemplifies faith in the Gospels if you want a real understanding of what spiritual faith is.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I consider all propositions the same, with the weight and amount of evidence behind the claim, therefore any proposition of god would be met with the same standard.
I would ask no less and I agree completely. I'm starting from a bit of a different position than most people. I've had several spiritual encounters in my life of different kinds. I've had encounters with spiritual beings before I was 10 years of age.
So I know spirits exist, it's not a matter of do I believe it, I know it and have observed it. So that kept me quite fascinated with the subject, so rather than having the extra burden of having to prove that life exists outside the physical known world I've simply cross examined my own experience with others. This way, I don't have to just trust my own observation I have endless references I can cross examine both with just average people and also with religious sources.
Since then I've participated in spirituality and have applied many things to myself so I have a lot of observations to share and for others to listen to.
So if I were to get you to consider that spiritual entities exist for example I would get you to focus more on spiritual experiences as a whole. I would never expect you to accept them or believe in them with no regards for skepticism but I would just suggest they are indeed a form of evidence. NDE's for example, support the proposition of the soul existing independent of the physical body. Again, this is something you should just consider at face value rather than just fluffing it off because you happen to be an atheist. If the soul exists we should be able to show it somehow, and we can with people having experience with leaving the body.
I know I know..."anecdotal" evidence is unreliable lol, I know what you're going to say. But you have to consider the nature of what we are dealing with in terms of considering it and that anecdotal evidence is still evidence, whether you classify it as weak or strong is irrelevant. Why make the assumption that it's unreliable rather than reliable? it's 50/50...you can of course assume it's unreliable but why? other than you being influenced by your own bias?
Testimonial evidence is used widely as a means to evaluate claims, with spirituality it should be considered the same process. Because we have first hand observations that something may be true, and that's better than nothing or simply guessing right?
When you combine the amount of spiritual based experience and observations including NDE's and OBE's as well as religion that's quite a hefty package of evidence. Religion is a decent source to consider information because it is based upon observance of a fact or situation, it's not just based off of ideas and assumptions. It begins with an observation and collectively grows. That's part of the reason I study religion as a whole because I can gather a ton of useful information, kind of like putting together a puzzle with many various pieces.
But I've been reading all kinds of spiritual literature and examining testimonies for a long time, so I have a huge data base I pull from. I can imagine as an atheist who really has spent very little time even considering such a thing that it probably comes across as silly, I get that. But, if any this is true or that God exists you want to know about it because the implications for you are dynamic. This should be something every soul is very serious about, that's why I frown upon atheism as a mentality that could damper a persons potential.
So when you talk about the amount of evidence behind a claim, don't forget Theistic propositions are not deficient in evidence. It just comes down to will you consider the type of evidence that correlates with that nature.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Anecdotal evidence is not reliable, period. No, they have falsely been used to propagate several false claims throughout all of human history. I could go into the peer-reviewed studies about why anecdotal evidence is not reliable, but that would be me being a broken record at this point. Talking by the laws of physics, something that is supernatural is definitionally impossible. The lack of empirical evidence, the amount of those who have claimed to see ghosts, only to admit later that it was a ploy, or that it was a trick of x, y, or z. I do not doubt that you had an experience that you considered to be supernatural. I doubt that you were correct in ascertaining it's origin. Another point of this sort, for a long while, there was a 1 million dollar prize open for anyone to take, if they could demonstrate the supernatural and for them to test it, no one ever could pass or demonstrate it. You see, until you have demonstrated your claim, you claim is only that, an assertion. I do not biasedly assume this of your position alone, I do this to all positions. My level of confidence lays with the level of evidence provided. And you claim to have had a spiritual experience and met other people who had, is not strong evidence of anything. People claim to have seen big foot, or been captured by aliens, these can line up in details, yet why not assume them true as well? Because everyone has been influenced by similar phenomena in this regard, and therefore the human brain, which is obsessed with forming patterns (even when there are none there) will make a connection.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I think you've improved a bit. Hard to tell since you went up against me, and I'm barely competent when playing devil's advocate lol. I'd have to know how bad your economic knowledge is for comparison lol.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Just like you have a theistic ball and chain....It works both ways.
The time one wastes with religion could be just as well spent doing something else...... Or vice versa...Depending upon which particular ball and chain you were shackled to.
-->
@zedvictor4
Just like you have a theistic ball and chain....It works both ways.
Not at all because it's not restrictive to any limiting ideology or any singular conception. Rather it is open to the dynamics of what might exist. I'm not limited or restricted to any particular religious ideas either regardless of what you may assume, I'm open to whatever might be possible but that's because I'm not tied down to a materialist worldview or atheist mentality.
The time one wastes with religion could be just as well spent doing something else...... Or vice versa...Depending upon which particular ball and chain you were shackled to.
You're assuming I'm shackled to some particular claim, not so. Just because I'm a Theist doesn't mean I'm tied down by religion, not the same thing. And had you been paying attention to what I write you would probably know that by now. Jeesuz, I've been in this forum since its conception and at DDO for ten years lol. I know everyone's beliefs and worldviews because I pay attention.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm not approaching this with great insight at the moment and I think my feedback might be irrelevant to the topic but I do enjoy your philosophy posts. I think they are interesting.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Anecdotal evidence is not reliable, period.
Sorry but you're being narrow minded here. It can be unreliable BUT.....notice the but....it CAN be reliable as well. It's not just one or the other which is why I said testimonials CAN be used to support the truth of an assertion. This is why they should be considered along with any proposition, however they should be considered intelligently not just accepted or rejected there is a middle ground here. To take one stance over another is not useful either. It's funny how atheists always take one side when it comes to spiritual or religious propositions and it's always the "unreliable" side lol. Any bias here??
No, they have falsely been used to propagate several false claims throughout all of human history.
Again, you decide to ignore the fact that it goes both ways why? testimonials are defined not only as evidence but also used in law as a useful tool in supporting the truth or falsity of claims. It should be the same with spiritual concepts, and not saying they should be accepted without a rigorous process of sifting information but they should be considered as evidence that correlates with the nature of what we are studying. If you want to be intellectually honest you can't just take one side over another.
If someone hit your car while you were driving and someone witnessed the event, you would want that person to testify on your behalf correct? that testimony (observation of an event) would be useful in determining what actually took place. Why you decide when a testimonial is not useful could be just due to your own bias of a subject, not knowing that the same testimonial could be unbiased itself and could possibly support a conclusion that opposes your assumptions. That's why they ARE useful, to determine what could be possible outside of what you personally believe.
I could go into the peer-reviewed studies about why anecdotal evidence is not reliable, but that would be me being a broken record at this point.
Yes it would, because you're also ignoring the other side of the coin. The reality that a testimonial COULD be unreliable changes nothing of the fact they can be reliable. See how that works? If you wish to sweep them under the rug because somewhere someone gave an unreliable account that's your decision of course. There's many factors to consider when looking into witness accounts but surely to reduce them to only untruths is somewhat absurd TBH.
Talking by the laws of physics, something that is supernatural is definitionally impossible.
That's something we would have to discuss, and something I don't agree with. But I appreciate the opinion. And yes, I know how it is defined but I'm the one who gets to define my own observations and beliefs how I see them. Everything within creation happens within a matrix of laws though the dynamics of what may be possible may change, nothing happens that's impossible that is nonsensical. There's a distinction between what we normally perceive as physically possible within our known laws and that of spiritual encounters but it's only to make that distinction between what we normally perceive through the immediate physical senses. However, everything that tales place within creation is possible because it must be by necessity. Only possible things can happen.
The lack of empirical evidence, the amount of those who have claimed to see ghosts, only to admit later that it was a ploy, or that it was a trick of x, y, or z.
There may be a lack of a type of evidence you accept but not a lack of evidence because a first hand observation IS evidence. Whether someone lied about an event does not make certain propositions untrue, it just means someone lied about what they personally claimed. All kinds of things exist people have lied about that they personally witnessed. Again the fact you take one side so rigidly tells me a lot about your beliefs.
I do not doubt that you had an experience that you considered to be supernatural. I doubt that you were correct in ascertaining it's origin.
Lol sure, I wonder why that is?
Another point of this sort, for a long while, there was a 1 million dollar prize open for anyone to take, if they could demonstrate the supernatural and for them to test it, no one ever could pass or demonstrate it.
Because a person can not create a spiritual event, rather they must observe one. I can't conjure up a tornado obviously, they have to be witnessed and the fact I can't create one does nothing to the reality they exist. Keeping in mind this is just being used as an analogy.
You see, until you have demonstrated your claim, you claim is only that, an assertion.
However you want to ascertain it is your choice, it does not change my observation of an event.
I do not biasedly assume this of your position alone, I do this to all positions.
You mean you biasedly categorize all testimonies as unreliable? I see that lol
My level of confidence lays with the level of evidence provided. And you claim to have had a spiritual experience and met other people who had, is not strong evidence of anything.
It is defined as evidence is what my whole point was despite how you feel it needs to be labeled. The amount of evidence is what makes it compelling and something to be considered.
People claim to have seen big foot, or been captured by aliens, these can line up in details, yet why not assume them true as well?
They certainly need to be considered obviously, why assume them true or false? each claim needs to be carefully handled intelligently, it neither makes them true nor false rather it lends itself as support of an assertion or proposition. Do you have any idea how many documentaries there are for Bigfoot and alien encounters by normal people? Bigfoot testimonials and alien encounters are overshadowed by spiritual ones but that's really besides the point. When a person makes an observation of an event, given they aren't a liar and they are somewhat intelligent their observation should count for something of consideration.
Keeping in mind alien encounters could be several possibilities if we understand how that term is used. These could be spiritual observations but the one observing it may not know that, there could be creatures that exist in other parts of creation...why not? I don't have limits that tie down my personal views of the world, so I'm always open to possibilities. I'm not dumb either, I don't just accept things to accept them I am very careful about my approach. In spirituality cross referencing is a very useful and powerful tool. The important thing would be not to just decide observations are unreliable just because you're queasy about a particular idea.
Because everyone has been influenced by similar phenomena in this regard, and therefore the human brain, which is obsessed with forming patterns (even when there are none there) will make a connection.
You can speculate all you want as long as you know you're speculating.
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm skeptical of skepticism.
-->
@EtrnlVw
that's because I'm not tied down to a materialist worldview
ATHEIST =/= MATERIALIST - - https://youtu.be/P-2P3MSZrBM?t=1910
-->
@Theweakeredge
Why "theweakeredge"? Humility or lack of philosophical competence, for whatever reasons?
You offer an edge of stability but not enough others can count on you?
Edge of cliff where others best not stand or you will drop them like a lead balloon to their doom?
-->
@ebuc
It's supposed to be a oxymoron, not a very good one, but unfortunately my calling card, "DarkestLight" wasn't something that came to mind then, if I were to rename my account it would be Darkestlight
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm skeptical of skepticism.
Lol, actually I'm a very skeptical person maybe people wouldn't know that about me. It's funny how typically the atheist is considered the "skeptical" guy but I'm skeptical of the skeptical guy. I'm an extreme introvert and highly hypervigilant, as you noted in our PM's my personality is a logician of types and fixated on finding solutions to problems. I think my resolve probably comes across as more wild and random to other readers but that's unfortunate because they don't know the time and effort I've spent rehearsing and bouncing ideas around to create very clear and direct answers (that are probably true).
If you're anything like me I feel your pain. It's probably better to just be the kind of guy that claims he's skeptical and simply ignores any possibilities. But I'm too skeptical to do even that. I'm obsessed with evaluating angles and searching for what works efficiently, and because I'm a spiritual guy obviously that makes it all the more daunting!
-->
@3RU7AL
I like that video, actually I concur with a lot of what they're saying (I'll have to watch the whole thing). Would love to get into that sort of dialogue with that guy but there's not too many folks around ready to go into that. Especially on forums like these lol, this goes into how creation is put together and this is something that highly interests me. Are you a Theist? not in the traditional sense of the term but do you believe in a higher conscious Creator? more like a simulation of types in regards to creation where we are the players that are generated by an infinite Consciousness? I don't think I've ever asked you what your philosophical stance is...
-->
@EtrnlVw
Joscha Bach is the only person I've heard speak that I can't find a way to disagree with.
I have no problem calling myself a DEIST.
And I like to point out that DEISM is functionally indistinguishable from ATHEISM.
I also call myself a TAOIST and a GNOSTIC.
Sorry but you're being narrow minded here. It can be unreliable BUT.....notice the but....it CAN be reliable as well.
Correct, however whenever looking as testimonial evidence as a claim, as with all things, we should only accept something whenever that things reaches the level of evidence considered. Testimonial evidence can not be reliable or consistent, for it to be the sole evidence of a claim, is not enough to prove that something whenever that something is as massive of a claim as your is, which is that an entire other dimension exists.
It's not just one or the other which is why I said testimonials CAN be used to support the truth of an assertion. This is why they should be considered along with any proposition, however they should be considered intelligently not just accepted or rejected there is a middle ground here.
Again, incorrect, you would be correct if we accertaining, say: whether you had 30 dollars in your wallet. That is a relatively small claim, where we have lots of testable, concrete examples of that happening. Of course that can incorrect, but the level of the claim has enough external evidence or reasons why this could be true, where your word, or anecdotal/testimonial evidence would be enough. The claim you are making is not comparable, and the lack of any empirical evidence is telling.
To take one stance over another is not useful either. It's funny how atheists always take one side when it comes to spiritual or religious propositions and it's always the "unreliable" side lol. Any bias here??
Again, it is unreliable, the actual accuracy of a specific claim of testimonial does not matter whenever testing the reliability of the claim, just whether it is consistently true or false whenever navigating a large number of claims and anecdotal evidences. There is no bias here, this is you not understanding what reliability is.
END First paragraph rebuttal
Again, you decide to ignore the fact that it goes both ways why? testimonials are defined not only as evidence but also used in law as a useful tool in supporting the truth or falsity of claims.
The fact of courts is that:
"Research has found that eyewitness-identification testimony can be very unreliable. Law enforcement and the courts should follow the recommendations of social scientists when using and assessing eyewitness techniques, such as lineups, in criminal cases"
The reason why eye witness is used in some cases is because in a lot of cases - first of all - it is not the only evidence being used here. The eye-witness testimony is secondary evidence, supporting details, to the primary evidence, the main idea. When used in conjunction with more powerful or more convincing evidence, it isn't a bad source, as other pieces of information can correlate eye-witness testimony. The other reason is that eye-witness testimony is the only evidence that the court has to work on, and in that case, that is because of the situational crimes that can happen, and isn't at all applicable to "an entire other dimension".
Your point isn't one.
It should be the same with spiritual concepts, and not saying they should be accepted without a rigorous process of sifting information but they should be considered as evidence that correlates with the nature of what we are studying.
Without other, empirical, evidences of such a claim, the testimony can be ruled unreliable, or more accurately, misrepresented by the "experiencer" itself. As not only can people lie, but they can misconstrew things, they can make illogical deductions, they can think they are convinced whenever they are not, they can be tricked by a any number of things, etc, etc.. without any other evidence to support this, and evidence against it's existence, I see no convincing reason why we should accept this as "evidence" well, it is evidence, I mean compelling evidence.
If you want to be intellectually honest you can't just take one side over another. If someone hit your car while you were driving and someone witnessed the event, you would want that person to testify on your behalf correct? that testimony (observation of an event) would be useful in determining what actually took place.
Except for a couple things - this is not at all comparable to the situation with spirits and such, where that would literally be the claim of an entirely different sort of matter. You can actually prove that cars and people are things, and that people can be in car accidents, and that car accidents happen. None of the same things can be empirically proven of any supernatural claim. If, that was the only way that any evidence could be obtained, sure, but if there were other ways to accertain the truth, you would bet that I would rather only have my testimony and not involve other people that could have (and this is a large possibility) say I was the one who hit the other driver.
Why you decide when a testimonial is not useful could be just due to your own bias of a subject, not knowing that the same testimonial could be unbiased itself and could possibly support a conclusion that opposes your assumptions. That's why they ARE useful, to determine what could be possible outside of what you personally believe.
Except that doesn't matter, because just as much as that testimonial could be true, it could be untrue, and whenever the likelyhood that is untrue is greater, the level of convincing that that claim has is lowered. This is all built on a lot of assumptions, that the my claim is untrue, whenever there is a mountain of evidence that supports my own view, and.... only testimonials that supports your own. This is a standard that is literally built to substantiate untrue claims. If there is little possibility that the claim is true, counteracting evidence, and only testimonials to support that claim, you can bet that it is the one who makes the claim to prove that their claim is unbiased. The literal definition of claim is an disputed assertion, and someone who makes a claim has to provide evidence to support it, that is their literal burden. Testimonial evidence just means that more people are claiming something, but more people claiming something does not mean that thing is necessarily true. An appeal to populum wins you nothing but a fallacy.
END Second Paragraph Rebuttal
Yes it would, because you're also ignoring the other side of the coin. The reality that a testimonial COULD be unreliable changes nothing of the fact they can be reliable. See how that works? If you wish to sweep them under the rug because somewhere someone gave an unreliable account that's your decision of course. There's many factors to consider when looking into witness accounts but surely to reduce them to only untruths is somewhat absurd TBH.
This is not true, testimonials as a whole are unreliable whenever they are the only source of evidence. Again, the individual validity of these claims do not reflect on the whole, which is unreliability. Yes they can be true, but that's akin to saying: "I know the probability says that it is not very likely to happen, but it could happen." Sure, but that doesn't prove that it does, and the other person is reasonable in saying that it doesn't. This is fueled from a fundamental misunderstanding of not only how the burden of proof works, but also how evidence works, and how claims work.
End Third Paragraph Rebuttal
That's something we would have to discuss, and something I don't agree with. But I appreciate the opinion.
I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating a fact. Something that is supernatural or something that happens outside of the laws of physics, is not physically possible of existing. You would have to prove that some other realm exists, that that realm has some sort of ability to appear in the natural world, etc. This is how the world works, if you were to demonstrate another reality, it would not be, but you haven't done that.
And yes, I know how it is defined but I'm the one who gets to define my own observations and beliefs how I see them.
I could care less how you define it, according to the definitions of natural and supernatural, something happening supernaturally is literally impossible in the world of natural, if you were to prove that there was more than the natural, you would have some sort of grounding to stand on. This is akin to someone saying, "I know that homophobia is bigoted, but I define my own behavior and how I see it, and it isn't bigoted!" You can say that, but you would be factually incorrect.
Everything within creation happens within a matrix of laws though the dynamics of what may be possible may change, nothing happens that's impossible that is nonsensical.
"Though the dymanics of what may be possible may change." Prove that assertion, yes, our understanding of what is possible may change, and certain situations may change what we can possible do or not do, but the actual overall of that, you haven't proven that, nor have you proven that there is a situation that would make the supernatural possible in a natural world. So.. again, this means nothing, and is a claim into itself.
There's a distinction between what we normally perceive as physically possible within our known laws and that of spiritual encounters but it's only to make that distinction between what we normally perceive through the immediate physical senses.
You would have to A) Prove that spiritual encounters happen in actuality, and B) Prove that there is any distinction, you are claiming both, but you have proven neither, and again, given the entire impossibility situation, I would be inclined to not believe your claims. What other senses are their beside our physical ones? I know of no examples, do you have A) an example of that other sense, and B) proof that it exists?
However, everything that tales place within creation is possible because it must be by necessity. Only possible things can happen.
That actually proves my point, supernatural encounters are impossible, therefore they cannot happen. What a way to summarize my own response here. If you disagree, prove it.
END Fourth Paragraph Rebuttal
-->
@EtrnlVw
BEGINNING Fifth Paragraph Rebuttal
There may be a lack of a type of evidence you accept but not a lack of evidence because a first hand observation IS evidence.
The type of evidence presented are practically the same as claims without other forms of evidence, as I explained earlier. The type of evidence should matter whenever we are talking about the probability of the claim in question, and testimonial evidence is lacking in that regard.
Whether someone lied about an event does not make certain propositions untrue, it just means someone lied about what they personally claimed.
Whenever that is the only evidence of that thing? Then it is practically untrue, perhaps it is true, but I would have no logical reason to accept that as true. That would be you getting it right out of luck or chance, and that is not an acceptable level of evidence.
All kinds of things exist people have lied about that they personally witnessed. Again the fact you take one side so rigidly tells me a lot about your beliefs.
The fact I take one side shows that I am not being obtuse, it shows that these claims are either true or untrue, and unlike you I am not only relying on the notoriously unreliable evidence, as the only evidence that x or y is true.
END Fifth Paragraph Rebuttal
Lol sure, I wonder why that is?
Because as I have explained, supernatural occurrences are physically incapable of happening, therefore it comes down to an A or B option: The laws of the universe are true, and this person simply did not accurately deduce what their experience was, something that is ripe for happening to humans, or B - the laws of the universe are untrue, and this person accurately deduced what was happening. So... the greater probability is that you simply did not ascertain what wash happening. Construing it as something I simply assumed, is not logical, nor is it arguing in proper faith, something you have criticized me of.
END Sixth Paragraph Rebuttal
Because a person can not create a spiritual event, rather they must observe one. I can't conjure up a tornado obviously, they have to be witnessed and the fact I can't create one does nothing to the reality they exist. Keeping in mind this is just being used as an analogy.
Except we can witness and analyze the results of that tornado, we can record evidence that can be verified, we can still test and find out that they happen theoretically, none of the above can be applied to spiritual matters. There is more evidence to a tornado happening than just the actual tornado. One does not have to witness a murder to know that a murder occurred, there is other evidence. It is suspect to me, that no one was able to provide any verifiable evidence of spiritual matters.
END Seventh Paragraph Rebuttal
However you want to ascertain it is your choice, it does not change my observation of an event.
That doesn't actually respond to my point.... you have made a claim, you have not provided enough evidence (or proper evidence) enough to fulfil your claim, until you have provided this, you are making an assertion. Those are the facts of this case right here, again, this is comparable to someone saying: "I know I have no evidence that Bill ate the cake, but that doesn't change the fact that Bill ate the cake." Which isn't untrue, if it happened, but why should anyone accept that if there is no evidence that Bill ate the cake? Sure it's possible (not in the case of supernatual things, but in the case of the cake) but that is no where near enough evidence to conclude that it happened.
END Eighth Paragraph Rebuttal
You mean you biasedly categorize all testimonies as unreliable? I see that lol
Obviously you have taken this statement in bad faith, and close-mindedly (again - Ironic that you have claimed that I have been close minded this entire time) I meant that the action of specifically criticizing your evidence is not biased, I criticize all claims like this. Also, it is untrue that I biased claim this, they all are unreliable, even if something happens to be true, that does not change the fact that testimonies are categorically unreliable. You are making a joke out of a serious claim, without any evidence to back your side.
END Ninth Paragraph Rebuttal
It is defined as evidence is what my whole point was despite how you feel it needs to be labeled. The amount of evidence is what makes it compelling and something to be considered.
The evidence is uncompelling, and isn't evidence in the regard of being "evidence that points to something of truth", it is evidence, yes, but that means nothing. It doesn't prove anything, nor even make the claim considerable, as you seem to be insinuating. Your "whole point" was not only that it is evidence, that is part of your point, but that is definitely not your whole point.
END Tenth Paragraph Rebuttal
They certainly need to be considered obviously, why assume them true or false? each claim needs to be carefully handled intelligently, it neither makes them true nor false rather it lends itself as support of an assertion or proposition.
It does not support the assertion, it raises it from the "No one would even claim it true" to the "Someone claimed this happened" category, that is really only removing negative numbers, not necessarily adding any truth to the claims. Whenever there is no supporting evidence for these assertions that are in any regard true, then these are assertions, nothing more. Each testimony is a claim, that x happened in y way, that claim is an assertion. All testimony is, is a wide spread assertion of x or y, so without evidence regarding those assertions, they aren't true. Especially whenever, the claim itself is that aliens visited, the default position is that, "whenever there is no evidence of visitation no logical person would be convinced of visitation." Perhaps there might have been, but there is no reason for any person to believe that statement.
Do you have any idea how many documentaries there are for Bigfoot and alien encounters by normal people? Bigfoot testimonials and alien encounters are overshadowed by spiritual ones but that's really besides the point.
None of which provide any solid support of big foot or aliens? Yes, again, those do not really prove anything. It proves that people can mess around with shadows, lighting, and wrongly deduce what caused x or y, but it doesn't support their existence. You seem to think that the frequency at which something happens somehow increases the likelyhood of it being true, this is a combined appeal to ad populum and the gamblers fallacy. This is an error in your thinking, not proof of anything.
When a person makes an observation of an event, given they aren't a liar and they are somewhat intelligent their observation should count for something of consideration.
Whenever the claim is small, then yes, if there is other evidence of that, then yes. You would be correct, if there is no other evidence of a large claim, then no, that doesn't count for consideration.
END Eleventh Paragraph Rebuttal
Keeping in mind alien encounters could be several possibilities if we understand how that term is used. These could be spiritual observations but the one observing it may not know that, there could be creatures that exist in other parts of creation...why not?
Because spiritual encounters are literally impossible, as I have said, so many times. Again, all of your arguments go, "They could exist, why not?" And you fail to consider that the burden of proof lays on the one who made the assertion, not the other way around, but again, there are reasons.... as I already said, I swear if I have to say that again I will be a little frustrated.
I don't have limits that tie down my personal views of the world, so I'm always open to possibilities
Then you are being the definition of unreasonable. There is evidence that there are limits to what happens, therefore things that are claimed to have happened outside of those limits are not evidence that the limits are untrue, the limits are evidence that the claim is untrue. You make it sound like I'm arbitrarily assigning a limit here, when the reality is that you are arbitrarily removing limits, with no reason behind your action.
I'm not dumb either, I don't just accept things to accept them I am very careful about my approach.
You have provided no evidence that you are careful of your approach, and I never claimed you to be dumb. Wrong? Yes, but not dumb, there is a difference.
In spirituality cross referencing is a very useful and powerful tool. The important thing would be not to just decide observations are unreliable just because you're queasy about a particular idea.
Again, you have literally no evidence that I am quote "queasy" you are dismissing my entire argument out of a misunderstanding of my own position. There has been no evidence of either claim, you are pulling things out of your mouth at this point. Prove your assertion, or it holds no barring , thats how assertions work.
END Twelfth Paragraph Rebuttal
You can speculate all you want as long as you know you're speculating.
There is no speculation going on here, that is what happens in brains:
"Humans have a tendency to see patterns everywhere. That’s important when making decisions and judgments and acquiring knowledge; we tend to be uneasy with chaos and chance (Gilovich, 1991). Unfortunately, that same tendency to see patterns in everything can lead to seeing things that don’t exist."
This is a literal scientific fact, whether you like it has nothing to do with the actual point at hand.
END Thirteenth Paragraph Rebuttal
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'll say this to make this make any sense at all. This type of evidence is not useful to you because you have no way of knowing whether such things exist, I get that, and so they can't get you any closer to taking a stance from not believing to believing. All I'm really trying to point out is that people's observations lend credit to something being the case, in this scenario I'm only asking that you take it into consideration as a means of identifying a possibility. Now if I point out the numbers involved throughout human history you will just counter that by reminding me of "ad populum fallacy", but this isn't about beliefs this is about observations. Beliefs and observations are two distinct things so in this case looking at the massive amount of experience within the spiritual arena is somewhat useful, because again it lends credit where we wish to know if something is true or if something exists. If one or two people in human history made claims of experiences then we could say it's probably a waste of time, but that's nowhere even close to the truth.
With NDE's it's the same thing....we're not talking about beliefs but about observations even though we are dealing with testimonials. For example, if it is true that the soul exists independent of the physical body we should have examples of the soul leaving the physical body at least through someone's personal observations. We have plenty of this type of observation, through NDE's, spiritual experience, paranormal encounters along with religious claims. And so we can't prove anything of course but as this adds up it would indicate that it's possible or even probable and so we have evidence that lends credit to that proposal.
We can't take these observations and duplicate them or demonstrate them because we have no physical base to examine but we have to at least consider such observations as evidence, because that is how testimonials are defined. As a matter of fact I can point out that a testimony is defined as "evidence or proof provided by the existence or appearance of something" and that we have more evidence for this topic than any other phenomenon. Would it change your mind? doubtfully because you don't find it a reasonable possibility within your personal evaluation of the world. But by pointing this out to you hopefully you might be willing to consider that your personal evaluation of the world could be limited or restricted, and so don't be so sure about that.
This is all in attempt to get you to consider possibilities in a convincing manner. Variations of course are a feature of creation so variations of experiences should not prevent anyone from seriously considering them. After all, if nothing exists then no one could experience it but if something does exist then there should be correlating observations and we have that by the boat loads.
Again, since I don't have the burden of having to prove something to myself I can take my own experience and cross reference them through many other sources. Even if I never had an experience or observation I could do the same thing and make an estimation of probability. This is how testimonials are used and really it's no different with spiritual experience other than the nature of what we're dealing with. I understand that most people scoff at such experiences but I'm hoping to get people more interested, there's a huge data base of documentaries and records of events that should be considered when considering if anything exists outside the normally perceived physical experience.
"Research has found that eyewitness-identification testimony can be very unreliable. Law enforcement and the courts should follow the recommendations of social scientists when using and assessing eyewitness techniques, such as lineups, in criminal cases"The reason why eye witness is used in some cases is because in a lot of cases - first of all - it is not the only evidence being used here. The eye-witness testimony is secondary evidence, supporting details, to the primary evidence, the main idea.
This is correct, only we are restricted here by the nature of the events.. that's the ONLY stipulation. We're dealing with a phenomenon outside of what science and scientists can demonstrate or support. So that's why I mentioned cross referencing as a means of support, which means we have the added benefit of not considering one source but many.
The fact you can use examples that would suggest testimonies to be unreliable (at times) again....does NOTHING to the reality that they CAN be reliable. Either someone observed something or they did not, if we had no testimonial evidence we would have nothing to consider but if we do have testimonial evidence then we DO have something to consider whether you accept that or not. I'm not trying to convince you of anything here other than getting you to understand we have more than just ideas and concepts in Theism/spirituality, we have observations (rather than beliefs) about those ideas and concepts and where they originate. Spirituality is really based upon observation and not beliefs, whether that be yours or someone else's observation.
-->
@3RU7AL
And I like to point out that DEISM is functionally indistinguishable from ATHEISM.
I know why you're saying that but it is contradictory. I disagree with that but I'm not up to arguing over what atheism entails anymore lol. Two totally contrasting definitions of meaning to begin with. A Deist is specifically one who accepts the existence of a Supreme Being, the other does not. I like simplicity. I get that someone who rejects the conception of a particular religious idea about God but not the concept of God on it's own would be considered an "atheist" of that particular conception but if we stick to the immediate articulations of the terms they are in contrast to one another, so there is a distinction. If you disagree with that then fine, make your argument but I'm not responding to it ;D
-->
@EtrnlVw
A THEIST tries to convince non-believers in order to get them to comply with their particular interpretation of "the rules" (based on their favorite old book).
A DEIST doesn't subscribe to a specific "rule book".
An ATHEIST also doesn't subscribe to a specific "rule book".