(November 17, 2013 at 8:47 am)enrico Wrote: I was talking about your cherry picking policy.
On one side you guys say that (physical) science is the benchmark for evaluate whether theories are good or not but when you are presented with a scientist that say that God exist then you say that this is no evidence.

I don't think you understand what the phrase "cherry picking" means. Your comment is actually accusing "you guys" of having a double standard. In any event, those statements do not contradict. If physical science is the method by which claims are evaluated, then the claims of a scientist would be evaluated by those methods. If he cannot produce a compelling case, then there is no reason to believe his claims. That is not a double standard.

enrico Wrote:Whatever case i would present you wouldn't believe anyway.

The case you have presented so far is not compelling, and I have yet to see you present anything other than a "science" defined in such a way to make clear that it isn't science. Based on your posting history, I would agree that whatever case you present will likely fall flat, and I am unlikely to believe it. That's what happens with bad arguments.

(November 17, 2013 at 10:16 am)Kitanetos Wrote: Wisdom tends to come with age and from one's personal life experience.

Not necessary.
If in the previous life you build up wisdom then you carry it with you in this life.

Quote:What may be wisdom for one may not be wisdom that universally applies to everyone.

Not necessary.
Suppose that all roads lead to Rome as the old saying.
In the beginning the different roads give you a different vision but as you get close to Rome then the vision is more and more similar until it become the same as you and everybody else enter Rome.
Considering that the divine seed is the same for everybody is easy to understand that the core of the seed exclude any differences.

Quote:Knowledge comes from studying associated with collective experimentation. What can be categorized as knowledge will always be recognized as a universal truth.

I am afraid that you are making a hell of a confusion.
Knowledge can come from an understanding in physical science but this science is limited and change continuously like a panorama seen while you travel in your car so can not possibly be regarded as universal truth.

Quote:Religion claims to have knowledge, but what it really has is false wisdom.

I agree that religion have nothing to do with wisdom but what this has got to do with the issue.

---

(November 17, 2013 at 11:40 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Everytime you refuse to justify your claims you make yourself look like more of a liar, which of course, you are.

Show me where enrico ever claimed that he can see inside a box!
You see how cretin you are!!!
I never claimed such a thing yet you say that i claimed.
It would be like if i keep on asking you why you are not give me evidence that you have been on the moon when in reality you never said that you went there.
Just look yourself in the mirror and see how idiotic you are.

---

(November 18, 2013 at 10:50 am)Tonus Wrote: I don't think you understand what the phrase "cherry picking" means. Your comment is actually accusing "you guys" of having a double standard. In any event, those statements do not contradict. If physical science is the method by which claims are evaluated, then the claims of a scientist would be evaluated by those methods. If he cannot produce a compelling case, then there is no reason to believe his claims. That is not a double standard. The case you have presented so far is not compelling, and I have yet to see you present anything other than a "science" defined in such a way to make clear that it isn't science. Based on your posting history, I would agree that whatever case you present will likely fall flat, and I am unlikely to believe it. That's what happens with bad arguments.

There has been enough evidence.
People who had NDE once they leave their bodies saw through walls and once back into their bodies describe what was inside those rooms which they never been while physical alive.

(November 18, 2013 at 11:13 am)enrico Wrote: There has been enough evidence.
People who had NDE once they leave their bodies saw through walls and once back into their bodies describe what was inside those rooms which they never been while physical alive.

Anecdotes are not evidence.

I don't think enrico understands that the whole 'box scenario' is being used to try and prove a point. Maybe if someone could explain it to him. Though I don't envy the person that does

(November 18, 2013 at 11:13 am)enrico Wrote: [

(November 17, 2013 at 11:40 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Everytime you refuse to justify your claims you make yourself look like more of a liar, which of course, you are.

Show me where enrico ever claimed that he can see inside a box!
You see how cretin you are!!!
I never claimed such a thing yet you say that i claimed.
It would be like if i keep on asking you why you are not give me evidence that you have been on the moon when in reality you never said that you went there.
Just look yourself in the mirror and see how idiotic you are.

You're touting intuitional science [??? - nonsense claim] but refuse to give anything that would substantiate it or give us pause to consider it. The whole box scenario is an attempt to elicit that. Or are you too stupid to even comprehend that?

And no, it wouldn't be akin to asking me of evidence that I have been to the moon when I haven't (claimed to have) been there. There's no fucking similarity between you being utterly bat shit insane and me being not bat shit insane. You're claiming something exists - fucking prove it. Plus let's not gloss over all the other unsubstantiated nonsense you've posted in this and other threads. Unsubstantiated because they can't be...because you're insane.

Tell us what's in the box, fool. Tell us, or take your intuitional [sic] BS and shove it up your lying, fraudulent ass.

And stop referring to yourself in the third person. Ain't nothing great about you to warrant such. You aren't fucking Poirot, dipshit.

I just skipped to the end, I just had a good one that I bet nobody thought of yet...

The best reason to be an Atheist?

No God

The whole point of the box, since I brought it up, is to illustrate that a person making guesses - even intuitional ones - about what may be inside it is in no better position than anyone else throwing out guesses. You might say it contains chocolate; I say it contains the planet Callufrax. Which of us is correct? Doesn't matter, because all opinions are equally valid and equally useless without independant verification, ie opening the box and looking.

Unfortunately for Rico, physically investigating a phenomenon in this way is called - science.

Sitting on your arse and guessing about the nature of the Universe, however you want to dress it up as philosophy or intuition, gets you nowhere if you won't bother to check how it compares to that reality. Neither will complaining that reality doesn't match up to the expectations of your guesswork. Because even if your guesses turn out to be right, you still had no justified reason to know that. You merely happened to be accurate.

(October 8, 2013 at 1:45 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote: That's perfectly fine but only works when you're assuming materialism to begin with, there isn't a good reason why you have to assume that to begin with though it's just you're own opinion really.

Whose "opinion"?

We don't have an invisible friend. Not to mention you have a problem with infinite regress. Not to mention you would not buy your own argument here if someone with a different pet deity claim used the same argument.

You are starting with a naked assertion with no evidence. You can shout from the rooftops all you want that your god exists, take a number, humans throughout history have made all sorts of stupid bullshit claims about invisible sky heros.

You'd seriously have us believe that thinking can occur without a material structure like a human brain? And that this "thinking" invisible super friend put us on this tiny hostile dot in the middle of nowhere in a gigantic universe? FOR WHAT?

It never occurs to you, or muslims or Jews or Hindus or humans in general that all these god claims are nothing but our own childish reflections of our own desires.

You "Look I believe in invisible brains" sounds like "Yea, despite knowing Santa isn't real, I like believing it".

You have a pet god, ok, get in line, take a number.

(November 18, 2013 at 11:36 am)Tonus Wrote:

(November 18, 2013 at 11:13 am)enrico Wrote: There has been enough evidence.
People who had NDE once they leave their bodies saw through walls and once back into their bodies describe what was inside those rooms which they never been while physical alive.

Anecdotes are not evidence.

Anecdotes my foot.
Witness went to check and found the things described by the person who had NDE.

---

(November 18, 2013 at 3:14 pm)Stimbo Wrote: The whole point of the box, since I brought it up, is to illustrate that a person making guesses - even intuitional ones - about what may be inside it is in no better position than anyone else throwing out guesses. You might say it contains chocolate; I say it contains the planet Callufrax. Which of us is correct? Doesn't matter, because all opinions are equally valid and equally useless without independant verification, ie opening the box and looking.

Unfortunately for Rico, physically investigating a phenomenon in this way is called - science.

Sitting on your arse and guessing about the nature of the Universe, however you want to dress it up as philosophy or intuition, gets you nowhere if you won't bother to check how it compares to that reality. Neither will complaining that reality doesn't match up to the expectations of your guesswork. Because even if your guesses turn out to be right, you still had no justified reason to know that. You merely happened to be accurate.

You haven't got a clue about what intuitional science can and yet you pretend to know and judge it.
I have met the real masters during my staying in India between the 70 and the 80 and i have seen what these people can do.
What you think about reality is no reality at all but a passing panorama that you can not keep as the law of the two opposite make sure that the progress in this arena is just a dream.
You have no pillar in which to stand and no evidence that life is finite.
You only stand on the false believe that physical science can solve your problem but this science never offer any real progress and never will.

Enrico, you are making assertions about beliefs that I have never claimed to hold. Maybe when you're finished playing wqith your strawman toy we might have a grownup discussion.