(April 17, 2014 at 10:44 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 17, 2014 at 9:53 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: So, you claim your deity cannot have transferable evidence (a characteristic of completely imaginary entities), and then want me to disprove it's existence without you first defining what you are asking me to disprove. You claim to have rational evidence for said entity, but are unable to provide anything, again, because it's conveniently "non-transferable." Not unlike someone who believes in leprechauns, which you reject as "something you never said," so I'll ask you again:

(April 17, 2014 at 10:44 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I never said that I want you to disprove it's existence. Once again with the imagination.

Uh huh...

(April 17, 2014 at 6:54 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Is this a joke?

So do you admit defeat that you cannot actually prove the non existence of something supernatural?

Thanks. That's great.

I never have refused to explain how my faith is rational.

(April 17, 2014 at 10:44 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I can provide plenty evidence. Are you sure you can resist being a complete jerk and not demand natural evidence of the supernatural?

You keep saying that, and yet you never do. You restore to name-calling, accusations, and eventually sniveling that people are "being mean to you." We're now on the 3rd response in this thread alone where I have asked you to provide said evidence, yet all you have provided is "I can provide plenty [of] evidence."

(April 17, 2014 at 10:44 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I'm not superstitious at all.

Definition of "superstition":

Quote:su·per·sti·tion
ˌso͞opərˈstiSHən/
noun
noun: superstition
1.
excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings.
"he dismissed the ghost stories as mere superstition"
synonyms: unfounded belief, credulity, fallacy, delusion, illusion; More
a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief.
plural noun: superstitions
"she touched her locket for luck, a superstition she had had since childhood"
synonyms: myth, belief, old wives' tale; More

Google is your friend.

(April 17, 2014 at 10:44 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Reason rules my beliefs. If you're easily convinced by fairy stories, then that's great. I use reason to discern those things. You should try it.

I have expressed no belief in supernatural beings. Please refrain from lying. The question posited to you was whether you, yourself, believe in supernatural beings other than the one you specially plead for, and what gives you the ability to dismiss their existence if not.

After all, unicorns are in the bible. Why do you disbelieve in unicorns? On what criteria do you reject their existence? Do you have any evidence they do not exist?

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-monsters-in-the-bible.php

(April 17, 2014 at 10:44 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: [quote='Rampant.A.I.' pid='652923' dateline='1397786017']

I don't know what you believe in, you haven't outlined what you believe in, and yet you want me to provide you evidence of its absence. For all I know, your God could be a giant leprechaun, who goes by another name. Perhaps you could lay out some characteristics.

Quite. You're completely ignorant yet here you are slagging off something that you know bugger all about. The standard of your scepticism is severely lacking.

How so?

Quote:Main Entry: skep·ti·cism
Pronunciation: \ˈskep-tə-ˌsi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1646
1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object 2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics 3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)
synonyms See Synonym Discussion at uncertainty

I do not think that word means what you think it means. Perhaps you could give us the alternative definition you are using here.

(April 17, 2014 at 10:44 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 17, 2014 at 9:53 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Repost or link this explanation. I have yet to see it.

It's a bit fucking late don't you think?

Why yes, many people have asked you to provide the argument or other support rational belief in your specific deity you continually claim to have. I myself have asked you multiple times to produce it. So yes, you are indeed rather late on the delivery.

(April 17, 2014 at 10:44 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 17, 2014 at 9:53 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: How can anyone "confront" an opponent who won't respond to the content of a post?

Google the meaning of the term "skeptical," I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Thanks. Now I've seen everything.

The person who singularly fails to address anyone. Who has such a clichéd view and never ever bothers to make a point relevant to the conversation... accuses others of not responding.

Wow

What did I fail to address? Please outline what you would like addressed, and if it isn't too much trouble, perhaps you could address some of the points raised instead of pooh poohing them and repeating "my beliefs are rational, I can provide evidence" and actually make an argument, support a claim, or at least keep both hands on the keyboard long enough to directly address any of the above posts directly.

---

(April 17, 2014 at 10:44 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 17, 2014 at 10:15 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: The rate of supernatural claims that have positively correlated to reality remains at 0%.

If you have examples to the contrary, you can shut me up nice and easy.

Haha !

You just can't stop yourself being a complete dick can you?

This is an example of what to avoid. Please try to participate, and provide more compelling arguments in the future.

---

(April 17, 2014 at 1:07 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 16, 2014 at 9:44 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Can you demonstrate proving a negative? Do making the claims "unicorns, leprechauns and elves don't exist" require extensive evidence, or is rejecting their existence "burden reversal" as well?

I refer to the multitude of threads claiming to show problems with various doctrines, claiming that believers are delusional etc. For example...

Believer: I believe in God.
Atheist: You're wrong.
Believer: Why am I wrong?

In this case the burden of proof is actually on the atheist.

That's true, Chad. "You're wrong" is a statement from emotion, and one that should be backed up. The trouble is, it's a broad statement coming from a diversity of backgrounds. There are those who are "seekers" discovering new faith, those indoctrinated from birth questioning beliefs that were beyond question into adulthood, and those who fell out of faith and fell back in. The reasoning behind those kind of declarative statements varies wildly depending who you're having the conversation with.

(April 17, 2014 at 1:07 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: That's very different from the following...

Believer: I believe in God.
Atheist: Why?

The problem is that some of you flip flop between the two pretending not to know the difference.

And that is indeed a fair criticism. On the other hand, there are theists who flip flop and suddenly become ignorant of the basic definitions of words when it suits their purposes, or reinforces their biases.

And then there are annoying people like me, who like to play devil's advocate and speed up the process, and see who has compelling arguments to trot out.

(April 18, 2014 at 4:10 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(April 17, 2014 at 10:44 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I never said that I want you to disprove it's existence.

So do you admit defeat that you cannot actually prove the non existence of something supernatural?

Uh huh...

Try looking at that again imbecile. I don't want you to prove something that you cannot. Only a fucking idiot would do that. You and your idiotic compadres keep insisting on that.

(April 18, 2014 at 4:10 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: You keep saying that, and yet you never do. You restore to name-calling, accusations, and eventually sniveling that people are "being mean to you." We're now on the 3rd response in this thread alone where I have asked you to provide said evidence, yet all you have provided is "I can provide plenty [of] evidence."

What the fuck are you on about? I swear you're seriously deranged. You have an imaginary friend all of your own you're talking to don't you?

I have plenty of evidence that I'm very happy to provide. All I need from you is a specific request that's actually logical. You don't seem to be able to ask one.

(April 18, 2014 at 4:10 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: I have expressed no belief in supernatural beings. Please refrain from lying. The question posited to you was whether you, yourself, believe in supernatural beings other than the one you specially plead for, and what gives you the ability to dismiss their existence if not.

After all, unicorns are in the bible. Why do you disbelieve in unicorns? On what criteria do you reject their existence? Do you have any evidence they do not exist?

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-monsters-in-the-bible.php

You said that you don't know the difference between fairy stories and rational beliefs. Therefore you have no reason to dismiss fairy tales. You said this.

I don't plead anything. I state that I believe in God and with good reason.

Your unicorn example again proves your imbecilic understanding. Take a look at what your link says:
"In fact, a whole bunch of ‘mythical creatures’ in the King James Bible are simply additions by medieval translators who were more interested in being poetic than in making sure their creatures existed. The cockatrice, a rooster-headed dragon mentioned in the book of Isaiah, has been scaled down in more recent translations to ‘viper.’ Lilith, a female demon, has been downgraded to ‘screech owl’, and mentions of satyrs (half-man, half-goat creatures) have been changed to ‘goats.’ More linguistically accurate, maybe, but nowhere near as fun."

(April 18, 2014 at 4:10 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

Quote:Quite. You're completely ignorant yet here you are slagging off something that you know bugger all about. The standard of your scepticism is severely lacking.

How so?

Quote:Main Entry: skep·ti·cism
Pronunciation: \ˈskep-tə-ˌsi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1646
1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object 2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics 3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)
synonyms See Synonym Discussion at uncertainty

I do not think that word means what you think it means. Perhaps you could give us the alternative definition you are using here.

If you're saying that skepticism = ignorance I have no quarrel with you. You confirmed what I said above.

Personally I need reason to dismiss something. Otherwise my opinion is neutral.

(April 18, 2014 at 4:10 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(April 17, 2014 at 10:44 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: It's a bit fucking late don't you think?

Why yes, many people have asked you to provide the argument or other support rational belief in your specific deity you continually claim to have. I myself have asked you multiple times to produce it. So yes, you are indeed rather late on the delivery.

I provide reasoning every time it is requested. Address something and I'll respond. Take cheap shots with meaningless bullshit and you'll get the response that you deserve. In your case that's probably for the best.

(April 18, 2014 at 4:10 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(April 17, 2014 at 10:44 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Thanks. Now I've seen everything.

The person who singularly fails to address anyone. Who has such a clichéd view and never ever bothers to make a point relevant to the conversation... accuses others of not responding.

Wow

What did I fail to address? Please outline what you would like addressed, and if it isn't too much trouble, perhaps you could address some of the points raised instead of pooh poohing them and repeating "my beliefs are rational, I can provide evidence" and actually make an argument, support a claim, or at least keep both hands on the keyboard long enough to directly address any of the above posts directly.

How can I make an argument in response to nothing? From what I can see, you have nothing.

I've asked you 3 times to stump up and every time you've failed.

I'm not about to cast my pearls before swine. You offer nothing and I offer you nothing in return.

(April 18, 2014 at 4:10 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(April 17, 2014 at 10:44 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Haha !

You just can't stop yourself being a complete dick can you?

This is an example of what to avoid. Please try to participate, and provide more compelling arguments in the future.

Do you ever take your own advice?

Ffs... This is still going on?

Frodo, unless you believe in ALL Gods, all mythical creatures and characters, every character from every fictional book ever written then you are being a big hypocrite here.

Supernatural is something outside of scientific ability to understand.

Since science has the ability to study everything that actually exists calling something supernatural is the same as admitting its non-existence. At least it does to me.

(April 18, 2014 at 5:46 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: unless you believe in ALL Gods, all mythical creatures and characters, every character from every fictional book ever written then you are being a big hypocrite here.

That's such a nonsense statement

---

(April 18, 2014 at 5:55 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Since science has the ability to study everything that actually exists calling something supernatural is the same as admitting its non-existence. At least it does to me.

You conflated natural with existence there. Please show me the link.

What you can say is: everything that naturally exists can be studied using science.

(April 18, 2014 at 6:40 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 18, 2014 at 5:46 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: unless you believe in ALL Gods, all mythical creatures and characters, every character from every fictional book ever written then you are being a big hypocrite here.

That's such a nonsense statement

---

(April 18, 2014 at 5:55 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Since science has the ability to study everything that actually exists calling something supernatural is the same as admitting its non-existence. At least it does to me.

You conflated natural with existence there. Please show me the link.

What you can say is: everything that naturally exists can be studied using science.

How so? You seem to be implying that you should believe in anything you cannot prove the non-existence of, right? Therefore, you have no good reason not to believe in everything ever imagined.
Or does your rule only apply to the particular mythical beings you want to believe in?

(April 18, 2014 at 6:52 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: How so? You seem to be implying that you should believe in anything you cannot prove the non-existence of, right? Therefore, you have no good reason not to believe in everything ever imagined.
Or does your rule only apply to the particular mythical beings you want to believe in?

Common sense/ simple reasoning is sufficient.

Imagine something to explain anything seriously and you can work out quite easily if your imaginings have any viability.

What you're suggesting is that humans have no ability to reason.

(April 18, 2014 at 7:03 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 18, 2014 at 6:52 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: How so? You seem to be implying that you should believe in anything you cannot prove the non-existence of, right? Therefore, you have no good reason not to believe in everything ever imagined.
Or does your rule only apply to the particular mythical beings you want to believe in?

Common sense/ simple reasoning is sufficient.

Imagine something to explain anything seriously and you can work out quite easily if your imaginings have any viability.

What you're suggesting is that humans have no ability to reason.

No no. I'm suggesting that you have only limited ability to reason. Common sense/simple reasoning leads to atheism. The reasons you know that leprechauns aren't real are the same reasons we know Gods aren't real. Due to either brainwashing, or plain gullibility, you seem completely unable to apply reason to your particular God, but can conveniently apply it to the other few thousand Gods. Funny that...

When did enrico get a second account?

It's always the same thing with fr0d0, here...
A: What's your position?
F: Just think about it and you'll get there.
A: That's not an answer. How about you answer the question?
F: It's obvious if you think about it.
A: WTH?!?!? Answer the question!!
F: What question?

lol

Fr0f0 believes that something metaphysical can have no physical representation, hence there can be no physical evidence, pertaining the metaphysical. Fair enough.
Of course the question arises: how has mankind come across any information about any god?, specially given that it seems like it came to us at a time when human ignorance was extremely high; and at a place... well... the most common seem to have all emanated from roughly the same place.

I guess he's into one of those reasonings where "I think, therefore, I am". I think about god, therefore he is!