Guardian angel saves baby

[Pizza]

@ Chadwooter and friends
See my sig: It is not dialectically apt merely to repeat that the metaphysical principle in question is true. - Wes Morriston

[LastPoet]

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

[Cyberman]

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.

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.

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?

[Ravenshire]

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?

[Drich]

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.

[Pizza]

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.

[Esquilax]

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

[Pizza]

People confuse explanandum(thing to be explained) and explanans(the thing that does the explaining) a lot and it is annoying as hell.

[Thumpalumpacus]

But you aren't in an intractable asshole contest [...]

No contest at all, when I'm posting.

---

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.