(July 4, 2017 at 10:36 am)Little Rik Wrote: The facts speak for themselves.

Atheists try to say that NDEs are not real.
Total fail.  
Atheists could not explain what philosophy is all about.
Total fail.
Argument after argument atheists fail to win a single argument.
Total fail so why should I be guilty of bias?  

Even if for the sake of argument your judgments above were true, that has zilch to do with whether or not you are engaging in confirmation bias.

"He did it first" or "they do it to" are middle school-level "arguments" that demonstrate nothing.

The question is, do you begin with a conclusion and cherry pick or interpret evidence to support the conclusion, not?

---

(July 4, 2017 at 8:42 am)Little Rik Wrote: Beside is more likely that a crowd of people that say the same thing is more reliable then a single person

No. It's a data point, of course, but only a minor one. And most people have been wrong about many things throughout history. Flat earth. Bleeding and leeches. Any number of things. You are engaging in argument from popularity here.

(July 9, 2017 at 11:22 am)mordant Wrote:

(July 4, 2017 at 10:36 am)Little Rik Wrote: The facts speak for themselves.

Atheists try to say that NDEs are not real.
Total fail.  
Atheists could not explain what philosophy is all about.
Total fail.
Argument after argument atheists fail to win a single argument.
Total fail so why should I be guilty of bias?  

Even if for the sake of argument your judgments above were true, that has zilch to do with whether or not you are engaging in confirmation bias.

"He did it first" or "they do it to" are middle school-level "arguments" that demonstrate nothing.

The question is, do you begin with a conclusion and cherry pick or interpret evidence to support the conclusion, not?

---

(July 4, 2017 at 8:42 am)Little Rik Wrote: Beside is more likely that a crowd of people that say the same thing is more reliable then a single person

No. It's a data point, of course, but only a minor one. And most people have been wrong about many things throughout history. Flat earth. Bleeding and leeches. Any number of things. You are engaging in argument from popularity here.

Please stop feeding the troll (and you're being far too charitable calling those arguments 'middle school level'). This is a human being incapable of understanding the infinite regress problem of 'who created the creator'. Like, they literally cannot even comprehend that this presents an issue with the logic they're saying we are ignoring.

(July 9, 2017 at 11:22 am)mordant Wrote:

(July 4, 2017 at 10:36 am)Little Rik Wrote: The facts speak for themselves.

Atheists try to say that NDEs are not real.
Total fail.  
Atheists could not explain what philosophy is all about.
Total fail.
Argument after argument atheists fail to win a single argument.
Total fail so why should I be guilty of bias?  

Even if for the sake of argument your judgments above were true, that has zilch to do with whether or not you are engaging in confirmation bias.

"He did it first" or "they do it to" are middle school-level "arguments" that demonstrate nothing.

The question is, do you begin with a conclusion and cherry pick or interpret evidence to support the conclusion, not?

Everything started with a joke when I said that my time is precious.
After that JackRussell wrote.......I don't know 'bout precious, but your time spent here is certainly pointless...........
That was not a joke so if someone can't get my jokes then I have the right to reply the way I feel and that way was..........Not at all Jack.

It is like hitting the center most of the time.
That is a real satisfaction..........

If from here you need to turn all in a serious intellectual lesson then I am afraid I will leave the last word with you.
Just not worth to continue.  

(July 4, 2017 at 8:42 am)Little Rik Wrote: Beside is more likely that a crowd of people that say the same thing is more reliable then a single person

Quote:No. It's a data point, of course, but only a minor one. And most people have been wrong about many things throughout history. Flat earth. Bleeding and leeches. Any number of things. You are engaging in argument from popularity here.

Sure, that however doesn't always apply.
As I already said in most cases when more people follow a certain way the more is likely that that is the best way to follow.
Likely doesn't mean 100% sure.
It just mean that the probabilities are stronger.  


There always are exceptions to the rule.
Winning against the odds bring a fortune but fortunes are a rarity.  

---

(July 9, 2017 at 11:27 am)Astonished Wrote: Please stop feeding the troll (and you're being far too charitable calling those arguments 'middle school level'). This is a human being incapable of understanding the infinite regress problem of 'who created the creator'. Like, they literally cannot even comprehend that this presents an issue with the logic they're saying we are ignoring.

             

Hhhhhhmmmm, someone talking about logic?

It sound like the guy who failed again and again with all the arguments that he presented.  

Fucking damn it. Is this not obvious trolling yet? Please, someone get rid of this fucking eyesore, for the love of all that is science.

(July 10, 2017 at 11:00 am)Astonished Wrote: God fucking damn it. Is this not obvious trolling yet? Please, someone get rid of this fucking eyesore

It sound like I am dealing with a little kid that after losing the contest go crying to mum.  

Quote:for the love of all that is science.

Well, well, well.........
After faking that he is an expert in logic now he is faking that he is an expert in science.  

(July 10, 2017 at 11:19 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(July 10, 2017 at 11:00 am)Astonished Wrote: for the love of all that is science.

Well, well, well.........
After faking that he is an expert in logic now he is faking that he is an expert in science.  

You'll have to forgive him, Rik. He probably doesn't even know what "intuitional science" is .. except that it is a contradiction in terms on a par with "braindead alertness".

(July 10, 2017 at 11:55 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(July 10, 2017 at 11:19 am)Little Rik Wrote: Well, well, well.........
After faking that he is an expert in logic now he is faking that he is an expert in science.  

You'll have to forgive him, Rik.  He probably doesn't even know what "intuitional science" is .. except that it is a contradiction in terms on a par with "braindead alertness".

What can I say Whatever?  
I can't really argue with an expert like you in intuitional science.  

You did not leave a place for agnostics.

There is nothing to believe in at all. Religion is fictional fairy tale bullshit.

I am not even agnostic. There is so much information and solid, rational argument out there against the existence of any god or religion, it should be considered a fact.

To believe in any god is stupid and delusional.

There is absolutely no evidence out there for the existence of any god.

Yet religion is a powerful force still, in a technologically advanced world of today. Perplexing is an understatement.

I thought that was clear.

No.


NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

Were you expecting something else?

Well, at least it was a question that didn't take much brain effort to answer.