Heads up advice for atheists.

[Cyberman]

That's where the evidence is needed. You can't simply posit the assertion as evidence for the assertion and then claim the end of the investigation.

Jack the Ripper killed Madeline McCann. There you go, investigation over. Invoice enc.

[Mystic]

That's where the evidence is needed. You can't simply posit the assertion as evidence for the assertion and then claim the end of the investigation.

Jack the Ripper killed Madeline McCann. There you go, investigation over. Invoice enc.

I can claim it. Just like you can claim there is no effect of God and we can't witness it. Just like you can claim we don't know if we are a soul or not. Sure, we both are allowed to claim it, it's another thing if we say we won an argument over or have proven the case by our claim.

[Chas]

You can not justify that assertion. If it exists then either it or its effects are detectable.

If we know the soul exists, then it's effects are detectable, but it's effects would be us. We are the Soul. We can see ourselves. Seeing your a soul or not seeing your a soul is not up to scientific debate. If we don't have knowledge we are a soul, scientific method says nothing about it. And if we do have knowledge, it says nothing about that.

---

Indeed. We have no way at present to detect gravity (afaik), yet we infer the force by its effects and label it gravity. Do the same for gods of any flavour and we will never have these sorts of discussions again, while someone will walk away with the biggest Nobel Prize in history.

Your non-existence (creation) showing existence (God). You are the effect of God emitting his own existence to being. If you can't witness yourself being a spiritual emission, then it's not the fault of God. This something a lot people become aware of through reflection. Mystics of all type of faiths talk about it. And it's a witnessed effect of God.

Lots and lots of word salad. Would you like some pepper on that?

[LastPoet]

Jack the Ripper killed Madeline McCann. There you go, investigation over. Invoice enc.

No evidence was ever produced that was I. Oh shit, it's a TRAP!

[Cyberman]

Aha - I knew if I waited long enough my quarry would expose himself!

Control yourself sirrah, there's a lady present!

[Jenny A]

No, it's not a misunderstanding. I understand perfectly that you believe without demonstrative evidence. I just find believing without evidence irrational and stupid.

I don't lack evidence. I just lack that evidence. My evidence resides in the realm of intellect. I find it odd that you think what you need your brain to deduce, you find irrational. Yet what you don't need your brain to deduce, you find rational. I suspect we'd have to go a long way back in evolutionary history to find an ape with as limited capabilities as yourself.

Deducing things from fact requires intellect. Some things, like mathematical truths can be deduced without facts. But I've yet to see anyone demonstrate god either factually or by a priori proof.

I understood you to mean you had knowledge of god without either. Are you now claiming a priori proof and if so, what is it?

[Esquilax]

I can claim it. Just like you can claim there is no effect of God and we can't witness it. Just like you can claim we don't know if we are a soul or not. Sure, we both are allowed to claim it, it's another thing if we say we won an argument over or have proven the case by our claim.

Oh, so now you're in the business of equivocating, that rejections of your claims as unsupported are claims in and of themselves? Not gonna fly; without evidence to suggest the existence of the soul- and merely pointing at a thing that already exists, apparently sans soul, and claiming that that is evidence based on an ad hoc rationalization won't work- then not accepting the claim that there is such a thing is perfectly rational.

Much as you might like to pretend it's otherwise, this is not some even playing field where you have your assertions and atheists have theirs, and none of us have any advantage. No, what's happening is that you're making ontologically positive claims- the kind that entail a burden of proof- and we're pointing out that there's no reason to believe them.

[Mystic]

I can claim it. Just like you can claim there is no effect of God and we can't witness it. Just like you can claim we don't know if we are a soul or not. Sure, we both are allowed to claim it, it's another thing if we say we won an argument over or have proven the case by our claim.

Oh, so now you're in the business of equivocating, that rejections of your claims as unsupported are claims in and of themselves? Not gonna fly; without evidence to suggest the existence of the soul- and merely pointing at a thing that already exists, apparently sans soul, and claiming that that is evidence based on an ad hoc rationalization won't work- then not accepting the claim that there is such a thing is perfectly rational.

Much as you might like to pretend it's otherwise, this is not some even playing field where you have your assertions and atheists have theirs, and none of us have any advantage. No, what's happening is that you're making ontologically positive claims- the kind that entail a burden of proof- and we're pointing out that there's no reason to believe them.

This burden of proof is non-sense. I am allowed to share why I believe a soul exists. The reason why I believe a soul exists doesn't have to formal argument or something verified by scientific evidence.

I didn't say you aren't allow to reject my claims, you can do what you want. Nor did I say my claims are proven arguments that can't be dismissed or that it's proven by scientific method.

I am allowed to state what I believe is part of the human experience and my experience.

My experience tells me I can see myself as a soul existing as a soul. This is an obvious truth to me.

There is a spiritual dimension to us.

Sure you can disagree, and I won't be able to prove you are wrong for disagreeing through formal argument.

A lot of human beings believe in spiritual experience and witnessing. A lot of people believe in faith.

Not everything is about being a debate proven in a court of law. People are allowed to share their experiences.

You believe we can't see our souls existing and I believe we can see that.

I don't bother you to prove your claim...so why do you have to bother me?

When it's stated over and over again that it's the scientific method we must rely upon...all I do is state my disagreement and believe we have a spiritual eye that can witness soul/god/morals.

[Esquilax]

Why would you come into a forum where these debates often happen and present a claim like that if you had no intention of formally defending it, then?

Besides, whether or not you feel inclined to justify your claim, the point still stands that you've offered no reason to believe in it, and that this logic you've presented where rejecting your claim on that basis is in itself a claim to the contrary is specious at best.

[LastPoet]

Because, Wooo! I will cast a spell on Esquilax, how was it? Clatu, verata, ahemtchoo!!