Posts: 1114
Threads: 28
Joined: June 13, 2011
Reputation:
18
RE: Guardian angel saves baby
March 15, 2015 at 3:31 pm
@ Chadwooter and friends
See my sig: It is not dialectically apt merely to repeat that the metaphysical principle in question is true. - Wes Morriston
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Posts: 18504
Threads: 79
Joined: May 29, 2010
Reputation:
125
RE: Guardian angel saves baby
March 15, 2015 at 3:41 pm
(March 15, 2015 at 11:02 am)ChadWooters Wrote: That's because the so-called free-thinkers are anything but. It is the same situation for NDE''s. The best evidence by the most serious researchers provides compelling proof, but they won't have any of it. There are more than a dozen natural "explanations" for NDEs and they are all inconsistent, speculative, and do not account for all the phenomena. When presented with evidence for something that doesn't fit their small minded box of how the world should work they will accept anything, however speculative, to deny that maybe, just maybe, the world is a little more rational than suggested by materialism. They're indigenous hypocrites at worse and willfully ignorant at best.
I never see a better portrait of religious belief as this. Oh Chad, are you acquainted with the idea of Psychological projection?
I had just bought a new irony meter 
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Guardian angel saves baby
March 15, 2015 at 3:43 pm
(March 15, 2015 at 11:02 am)ChadWooters Wrote: That's because the so-called free-thinkers are anything but.
Free thought simply means not stapling one's mind onto one intractable position; allowing oneself the freedom to explore a range of possibilities and eliminating the implausible ones.
(March 15, 2015 at 11:02 am)ChadWooters Wrote: It is the same situation for NDE''s. The best evidence by the most serious researchers provides compelling proof, but they won't have any of it. There are more than a dozen natural "explanations" for NDEs and they are all inconsistent, speculative, and do not account for all the phenomena.
All that means is that the phenomena being discussed is inconsistent itself, with contradictory anecdotal evidence. Present something tangible that can be investigated and stand well back.
(March 15, 2015 at 11:02 am)ChadWooters Wrote: When presented with evidence for something that doesn't fit their small minded box of how the world should work they will accept anything, however speculative, to deny that maybe, just maybe, the world is a little more rational than suggested by materialism. They're indigenous hypocrites at worse and willfully ignorant at best.
Anyone remember that bit in the OJ Simpson trial when the defence said that Martians did it and everyone said "oh, that explains it - case dismissed"? Because that's how evidence works, right? You merely present it and we all have to just accept it uncritically?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 7967
Threads: 38
Joined: March 18, 2014
Reputation:
54
RE: Guardian angel saves baby
March 15, 2015 at 4:18 pm
(March 15, 2015 at 11:02 am)ChadWooters Wrote: That's because the so-called free-thinkers are anything but. It is the same situation for NDE''s. The best evidence by the most serious researchers provides compelling proof, but they won't have any of it.
Why don't you present some of that evidence instead of talking out your ass?
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: Guardian angel saves baby
March 15, 2015 at 11:17 pm
So if 4 witnesses/police and firefighters all came together and said they witnessed ok do it, this would be considered as rock solid evidence in the on trial?
Don't look now stinky, but that is exactly what you have here.
Posts: 1114
Threads: 28
Joined: June 13, 2011
Reputation:
18
RE: Guardian angel saves baby
March 15, 2015 at 11:30 pm
(March 15, 2015 at 11:17 pm)Drich Wrote: So if 4 witnesses/police and firefighters all came together and said they witnessed ok do it, this would be considered as rock solid evidence in the on trial?
Don't look now stinky, but that is exactly what you have here. Not really. Since we can question their explanation(An angel did it) of the evidence.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Guardian angel saves baby
March 15, 2015 at 11:32 pm
(March 15, 2015 at 11:17 pm)Drich Wrote: So if 4 witnesses/police and firefighters all came together and said they witnessed ok do it, this would be considered as rock solid evidence in the on trial?
Don't look now stinky, but that is exactly what you have here.
Witnessing a phenomenon is not the same thing as knowing its cause. They heard the voice; they do not know where it came from, and neither do you, Chad, or any of the other theists who are attempting to cheat their way to evidence for their position, rather than actually providing some.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 21817
Threads: 24
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: Guardian angel saves baby
March 15, 2015 at 11:41 pm
(March 15, 2015 at 11:02 am)ChadWooters Wrote: They're indigenous hypocrites at worse and willfully ignorant at best.
You know, for all that fancy philosophicalese you talk at other times, this sentence reveals a lot about you linguistic limitations.
It's a goddamned shame you can't edit it now. 
Oh, and I think the "evidence" for shit like NDEs and guardian angels is anything but compelling. Feel free to demonstrate my error by presenting, you know, evidence.
Posts: 1114
Threads: 28
Joined: June 13, 2011
Reputation:
18
RE: Guardian angel saves baby
March 15, 2015 at 11:43 pm
People confuse explanandum(thing to be explained) and explanans(the thing that does the explaining) a lot and it is annoying as hell.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Posts: 21817
Threads: 24
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: Guardian angel saves baby
March 15, 2015 at 11:44 pm
(This post was last modified: March 15, 2015 at 11:48 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(March 15, 2015 at 11:37 am)Esquilax Wrote: But you aren't in an intractable asshole contest [...]
No contest at all, when I'm posting. 
(March 15, 2015 at 11:17 pm)Drich Wrote: So if 4 witnesses/police and firefighters all came together and said they witnessed ok do it, this would be considered as rock solid evidence in the on trial?
Don't look now stinky, but that is exactly what you have here.
Yeah, I missed the part where they swore under oath. So did you, but you're not honest enough to admit it.
|
