(November 5, 2013 at 9:09 am)Rationalman Wrote: I'm not talking as an atheist. I'm talking as a scientist. There is no evidence that life is infinite and there is no evidence for reincarnation.

You MAY be a scientist studying PHYSICAL science.
I find a bit arrogant that someone studying physical science can pretend to understand intuitional science.
As far as intuitional science is not affected by the law of cause and effect it is logical that you can not understand a bit of it with the physical science tool

Quote:So why then, do you continue to argue for infinite life and reincarnation when there is no evidence for it?

Again. You will never find a bit of evidence using the wrong tool.

Quote:No no no, you aren't getting out of this one, we were arguing over whether life is infinite, its nothing to do with reincarnation. Theists believe in an afterlife, heaven etc. So you would think they would be backing you up on this, but they aren't. It has quite a few implications.

You are in a total mental mess.
Not all the theist believe in reincarnation.
Christian believe in only one physical life while other theist believe in physical reincarnation.
How the hell you think that a Christian would back me up???

Quote:The hypocrisy here is just incredibly. I have never known anyone to be so delusional. You have no grasp on reality at all. You are an insufferable, arrogant, ignorant fool. You are paying no attention to what anyone has been saying this whole time. No matter what evidence we present, no matter what arguments we present, you don't listen and merely dismiss them because they sound absurd to you.

You present no evidence of whatsoever.
All you present are theories and theories alone are like farts.

(November 5, 2013 at 10:45 am)enrico Wrote: You MAY be a scientist studying PHYSICAL science.
I find a bit arrogant that someone studying physical science can pretend to understand intuitional science.
As far as intuitional science is not affected by the law of cause and effect it is logical that you can not understand a bit of it with the physical science tool

So please tell us all how you used 'intuitional science' to determine that reincarnation is real

(November 5, 2013 at 10:45 am)enrico Wrote: You are in a total mental mess.
Not all the theist believe in reincarnation.

I never said they did

(November 5, 2013 at 10:45 am)enrico Wrote: Christian believe in only one physical life while other theist believe in physical reincarnation.
How the hell you think that a Christian would back me up???

No, Christians believe in heaven e.g. infinite life. Or do you think that heaven is not infinite life?

(November 5, 2013 at 10:45 am)enrico Wrote: You present no evidence of whatsoever.

I don't have to. The scientific consensus is with me. It is up to you to provide evidence.

(November 5, 2013 at 10:45 am)enrico Wrote: All you present are theories and theories alone are like farts.

And again, I shall ask: Why do you continue to press for infinite life and reincarnation then? There is no evidence at all. All you present is theories.

Just for clarification - and for Rico, education - theories without evidence are not like farts. Farts exist. A theory without evidence does not, because theories have to be based on evodence in order to be awarded the title of theory. Random spoutings of whatever unfiltered crap enters one's head does not equal a theory.

Besides which, it's hysterically ludicrous and downright hypocritical to complain of a lack of opposing evidence when you, Rico, have consistently presented zero evidence to support your insane burblings.

Now, take the condescending arrogance your reply is going to display and stick it where your mouth is.

(November 2, 2013 at 10:59 am)Walking Void Wrote: At first, Enrico's posts were poop, but over time He has improved his "writing" and is more legible now.

Even though his messages still have silly intentions behind them, I say kudos to Enrico for improvement.

Better English skills is good, but his need for better cognative skills is far, far more pressing.

(November 5, 2013 at 1:05 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Just for clarification - and for Rico, education - theories without evidence are not like farts. Farts exist. A theory without evidence does not, because theories have to be based on evodence in order to be awarded the title of theory. Random spoutings of whatever unfiltered crap enters one's head does not equal a theory.

It seem that you are contradicting one of the most important truth that even many atheist stick to and that is that real science is proven evidence.
How the hell can a theory be real stuff when has not been proven yet?
Now you say that theories must be based on evidence but that is not always the case.
There are million and million of theories that are coming out every single day and these theories are not follow by evidence.
So how can you say that theories come with evidence?

Quote:Besides which, it's hysterically ludicrous and downright hypocritical to complain of a lack of opposing evidence when you, Rico, have consistently presented zero evidence to support your insane burblings.
Now, take the condescending arrogance your reply is going to display and stick it where your mouth is.

Me arrogant?
That is a good one.
I try to ask you guys for the last several month the meaning of philosophy, the difference between spirituality and religion, how can you say that the life is finite considering that you bring no evidence of whatsoever and then you say that i am arrogant!!!
I would thought that people who criticize theists and have a philosophy forum going on would know these things.
Are you joking Stimbo?

(November 6, 2013 at 12:52 am)enrico Wrote:

(November 5, 2013 at 1:05 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Just for clarification - and for Rico, education - theories without evidence are not like farts. Farts exist. A theory without evidence does not, because theories have to be based on evodence in order to be awarded the title of theory. Random spoutings of whatever unfiltered crap enters one's head does not equal a theory.

It seem that you are contradicting one of the most important truth that even many atheist stick to and that is that real science is proven evidence.
How the hell can a theory be real stuff when has not been proven yet?
Now you say that theories must be based on evidence but that is not always the case.
There are million and million of theories that are coming out every single day and these theories are not follow by evidence.
So how can you say that theories come with evidence?

Quote:Besides which, it's hysterically ludicrous and downright hypocritical to complain of a lack of opposing evidence when you, Rico, have consistently presented zero evidence to support your insane burblings.
Now, take the condescending arrogance your reply is going to display and stick it where your mouth is.

Me arrogant?
That is a good one.
I try to ask you guys for the last several month the meaning of philosophy, the difference between spirituality and religion, how can you say that the life is finite considering that you bring no evidence of whatsoever and then you say that i am arrogant!!!
I would thought that people who criticize theists and have a philosophy forum going on would know these things.
Are you joking Stimbo?

Yes and you have had it explain to you time and time again and we have shown you evidence, read through this thread I gave you some myself, yet you stick your habds in your ears and going LALALALALA!!! And then you ask us to give your rediculous babbling the same weight. SHow us evidence of a un dying part without saying you have to fucking believe first. That is what a scam artist says.

Whenever I hear the oxymoronic 'intuitional science' I always wonder .. how does one guard against confirmation bias when the 'evidence' is gathered intuitionally. Pretty silly.

(November 6, 2013 at 12:52 am)enrico Wrote: It seem that you are contradicting one of the most important truth that even many atheist stick to and that is that real science is proven evidence.

I'm not responsible for what "seems" to you. If you read what I actually wrote and not what your arrogance blinds you to pretend I did, you might just see that I actually espoused the notion of real science consisting of proven evidence. How you can take that and read it as contradicting that "most important truth" is one of those mysteries best left in the hands of therapists.

Incidentally, none of that is fundamentally atheist.

(November 6, 2013 at 12:52 am)enrico Wrote: How the hell can a theory be real stuff when has not been proven yet?

Then they are not theories and might never be. Most ideas never get to that level; even rigorously scientific ones.

(November 6, 2013 at 12:52 am)enrico Wrote: Now you say that theories must be based on evidence but that is not always the case.

Oh, so it's fine for you to contradict yourself, then? You just agreed with what I wrote that you said was a contradiction of what you just said (is anyone keeping score here? I think I'm getting a headache).

(November 6, 2013 at 12:52 am)enrico Wrote: There are million and million of theories that are coming out every single day and these theories are not follow by evidence.

Then they are not theories. Look it up; this stuff shouldn't be this hard.

(November 6, 2013 at 12:52 am)enrico Wrote: So how can you say that theories come with evidence?

Because that's what a theory is - an explanatory model of some aspect of reality which best fits the evidence. No evidence? No theory. An hypothesis at best; a wild guess at worst.

(November 6, 2013 at 12:52 am)enrico Wrote: Me arrogant?

Yes, you.

(November 6, 2013 at 12:52 am)enrico Wrote: That is a good one.
I try to ask you guys for the last several month the meaning of philosophy, the difference between spirituality and religion, how can you say that the life is finite considering that you bring no evidence of whatsoever and then you say that i am arrogant!!!

I thought we weren't doing evidence? Do you see, you sad little prick, why nobody can follow a damn thing you're saying? Even you don't know where you're going half the time. Are there two of you in there?

(November 6, 2013 at 12:52 am)enrico Wrote: I would thought that people who criticize theists and have a philosophy forum going on would know these things.

Perhaps if you tried separating the forum from the people in it, you might find yourself treating us like real individuals instead of talking down to us. That's why we call you arrogant.

(November 6, 2013 at 12:52 am)enrico Wrote: Are you joking Stimbo?

Not to you, not about this. Again your arrogance blinds you to any viewpoint besides your own.

Enrico, I find it very hard to believe that you haven't been told before what a real theory is, in the scientific context. A theory describes a group of facts/evidence/phenomena. It is the highest level an idea can reach in science. It is like someone with a doctorate. For example, the theory of evolution is the equivalent of me walking away from university with a Doctorate in Animal behaviour. You would then have to call me Dr Rationalman. Its a done deal.

Right. Sorry if this has already been explained, but what the hell is intuitional science???