6
   

Is The Bible Just a Good Book?

 
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2016 03:35 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
In responding to Brandon's remark, quoted here, you made the following statement:

oralloy wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
It is not rationally justified to believe things with no evidence that they're so.
There is no evidence that people's minds cease to exist when they die, and do not go on to any sort of afterlife.

Perhaps you did not intend to promulgate an argument from ignorance--in which case i'd advise you to be more careful about what you write, especially in light of the remark of Brandon's which you quoted.

More careful how? My statement does not claim that anything must be true. It merely points out that there is no evidence to back up the idea that we cease to exist when we die.

The truth is, none of us know what will happen to us upon death.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2016 03:37 am
@oralloy,
Your statement, coming after Brandon's statement which you had quoted, certainly had the air of contradiction. But i've forgotten, you're never wrong, are you?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2016 03:49 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Your statement, coming after Brandon's statement which you had quoted, certainly had the air of contradiction.

Yes. I do not agree that it is definite that we cease to exist when we die. I see no basis for accepting this as established fact.


Setanta wrote:
But i've forgotten, you're never wrong, are you?

It happens on rare occasions, usually on issues that are tangential to my main points, which I had not fully considered due to their tangential nature.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2016 03:57 am
You are wrong far more often than you are indisputably right, and you don't learn from your errors, either. I feel certain that the next time the subject of the crusades comes up, as an example, that you'll repeat that old bullsh*t that the crusades were carried out to protect Europe from a Muslim invasion--despite the fact that no Muslim group attempted to invade Europe in the period of the crusades. You constantly offer your opinions, and claim that they are fact. Your opinions are apparently all based on your polemical position, without regard for evidence.

Brandon had not made any statement to the effect that we cease to exist when we die.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2016 04:17 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
You are wrong far more often than you are indisputably right,

What does indisputably right mean? I find that people often dispute me even when I am completely correct.

I am seldom wrong, and hardly ever wrong about one of my main points.


Setanta wrote:
and you don't learn from your errors, either.

Sure I do. When they actually happen.


Setanta wrote:
I feel certain that the next time the subject of the crusades comes up, as an example, that you'll repeat that old bullsh*t that the crusades were carried out to protect Europe from a Muslim invasion--despite the fact that no Muslim group attempted to invade Europe in the period of the crusades.

The Crusades were a response to the destruction of the Holy Sepulcher, which greatly inflamed public opinion, and a response to the invasion of the Byzantine Empire, which subsequently requested military help from Western governments.

The Muslims could not invade Europe at the time because the Byzantine Empire still stood in their way. And even after the fall of Byzantium, the excellent Vlad Dracula stood in their way as Prince of Wallachia.


Setanta wrote:
You constantly offer your opinions, and claim that they are fact. Your opinions are apparently all based on your polemical position, without regard for evidence.

I offer facts. And generally I have plenty of evidence on hand if a fact ever needs to be backed up.


Setanta wrote:
Brandon had not made any statement to the effect that we cease to exist when we die.

It was implied in this post:
http://able2know.org/topic/317382-2#post-6161717
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2016 04:32 am
Brandon's post has nothing to say about the probability of an afterlife. As for the rest of that claptrap you posted, one word will answer that--bullshit.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2016 04:58 am
@TomTomBinks,
TomTomBinks wrote:

" It is not rationally justified to believe things with no evidence that they're so."

I think these beliefs are NOT rational, and so can't even be discussed in this way.

They are not rational, but they can certainly be discussed this way. I am doing it now.

Any experiment which tests whether believing without evidence leads to correct conclusions will show that it does so only randomly. Only rationality and reason are effective methods for determining facts.

Believe what makes you happy, if you like, but the answers you obtain that way will rarely be correct.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2016 05:02 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Physicists have figured out a lot. We don't have much to work with in figuring out what set the big bang in motion. Maybe physics will figure it out some day or maybe we're not smart enough
. Not only has science said we have not found the answer to the big bangs cause, but it has said the answer is very likely unknowable.

Not only was all the matter in the universe created in that instant, but every law of physics as well. As you say, we appear to be ill equipped to wrap our heads around the concept that time itself was created and did not exist before that moment, an event alluded to in the bible - 'In the Biginning...'.

Setanta was quick to point out Oralloy's argument from ignorance' but let yours pass, No surprise there. You make the ultimate example of that here by saying that if we are not smart enough to ever figure it out, that is no reason to consider an alternative. If you are going to stick with that argument then nothing anyone could possibly say would ever convince you.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2016 05:04 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
It is not rationally justified to believe things with no evidence that they're so.

There is no evidence that people's minds cease to exist when they die, and do not go on to any sort of afterlife.

There is also no evidence that there is not an alien spacecraft at the fringes of the solar system containing 23 beings monitoring us as the vanguard of an invasion, but it isn't very likely to be true. The absence of evidence against a proposition is a very weak indicator that it is true.

Actually, there is a little evidence that people's minds cease to exist. When you damage someone's brain, he usually doesn't think as well. When you damage it a lot, he barely things at all. There is some indication that thinking is the result of physical processes in the brain. Certainly, these physical processes cease upon death.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2016 05:10 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Physicists have figured out a lot. We don't have much to work with in figuring out what set the big bang in motion. Maybe physics will figure it out some day or maybe we're not smart enough
. Not only has science said we have not found the answer to the big bangs cause, but it has said the answer is very likely unknowable.

Not only was all the matter in the universe created in that instant, but every law of physics as well. As you say, we appear to be ill equipped to wrap our heads around the concept that time itself was created and did not exist before that moment, an event alluded to in the bible - 'In the Biginning...'.

Setanta was quick to point out Oralloy's argument from ignorance' but let yours pass, No surprise there. You make the ultimate example of that here by saying that if we are not smart enough to ever figure it out, that is no reason to consider an alternative. If you are going to stick with that argument then nothing anyone could possibly say would ever convince you.

What I actually said was that every bit of verifiable evidence we do have about the universe has been obtained by reason and describes physical processes. No magical mechanism in the universe has ever been demonstrated veritably. If you know of one, please correct me. If you wish to assert that the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence, you will need a few scraps of evidence.

I have asked you over and over again to give me some evidence that the universe was created by a supernatural being and you have consistently ignored the question. If you are the one in the right, then why do you need to run from my question?
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2016 05:20 am
@Brandon9000,
What you said is now on record so I won't argue the point.

But what I said is that science has no answer as to the creation of the universe and likely never will, in that case you can't rule out supernatural causes. You are trying to use ignorance as a reason to do so. I have nothing to offer in light of that kind of argument.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2016 05:26 am
Brandon has not employed an argument from ignorance. The inability to understand and articulate that fallacy on the part of anyone posting here is a flimsy excuse to accuse Brandon of employing that fallacy.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2016 05:55 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
It is not rationally justified to believe things with no evidence that they're so.

There is no evidence that people's minds cease to exist when they die, and do not go on to any sort of afterlife.

There is also no evidence that there is not an alien spacecraft at the fringes of the solar system containing 23 beings monitoring us as the vanguard of an invasion, but it isn't very likely to be true.

The only thing that really argues against it is the speed of light combined with the great distances between the stars.


Brandon9000 wrote:
The absence of evidence against a proposition is a very weak indicator that it is true.

OK.


Brandon9000 wrote:
Actually, there is a little evidence that people's minds cease to exist. When you damage someone's brain, he usually doesn't think as well. When you damage it a lot, he barely things at all. There is some indication that thinking is the result of physical processes in the brain. Certainly, these physical processes cease upon death.

That doesn't mean that there can't be something happening that we don't understand.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2016 05:56 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Brandon's post has nothing to say about the probability of an afterlife.

That is incorrect. It strongly implied that it is an established fact that there is no afterlife.


Setanta wrote:
As for the rest of that claptrap you posted, one word will answer that--bullshit.

Your denial of facts does not make them any less factual.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2016 05:57 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
Setanta was quick to point out Oralloy's argument from ignorance'

No such argument.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2016 06:22 am
@oralloy,
You don't say which post "it" was, but the post you linked had nothing to say about the concept of an afterlife> Your alleged implication does not qualify as a statement.

You are so stupid as to call the Roman Empire the Byzantine Empire. There was never, in fact, a Byzantine Empire. The Emperor called it the Roman Empire, his people called themselves Romans. So did the Pope, so did the rest of Europe, so did the Turks. Urban II called for a crusade at the request of the Roman Emperor, Alexios I Komnenos--the Seljuk Turks had invaded Anatolia. References to the so-called "Holy Sepulchre" were just a casus belli, an excuse for war to round up the suckers. Only historians more than seven hundred years later babbled about a Byzantine Empire.

It was a big mistake on the part of the Emperor, though. The Franks, with a few German volunteers (most were to busy slaughtering Jews in the Rhineland massacres) and thousands of ignorant and unprepared peasants, plundered their way across Europe to Constantinople. They sacked Semin and Belgrade in the Roman Empire, and Imperial troops were forced to retreat to Nis, which, however, they successfully defended against the Franks. The Franks then plundered their way to the gates of Constantinople, and Alexios hurried to provide them transport across the Bosporus, to spare his people. Once landed in Anatolia, they paid no attention to the Turks, and marched south. They captured some Turkish patrols along the way, and hapless Armenian christian peasants--whom they killed and ate, because their logistical measures were non-existent. We know this because Catholic friars and priests who accompanied them reported it. Arriving in what we call Syria, they carved out territory for themselves, which is the only reason they had come there in the first place--the county of Edessa, the Country Tripoli and the principality of Antioch. Eventually, in 1099, they took Jerusalem, and promptly slaughtered thousands of inhabitants, Muslims, Christians and Jews--they didn't care, they were out for plunder. The so called crusaders of the fourth crusade sacked Constantinople.

You live in a fantasy world informed by your bigotry, and hate for Muslims is one of its most noticeable features.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2016 06:35 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
You are so stupid as to call the Roman Empire the Byzantine Empire. There was never, in fact, a Byzantine Empire. The Emperor called it the Roman Empire, his people called themselves Romans.

The Empire when it surrounded most of the Mediterranean was quite different from the Empire when it had borders similar to modern day Turkey. Most historians see that as justification for using a different term for the later, smaller empire.


Setanta wrote:
It was a big mistake on the part of the Emperor, though.

True. He must have been really unhappy with the response.


Setanta wrote:
You live in a fantasy world informed by your bigotry, and hate for Muslims is one of its most noticeable features.

No, I live in a world of facts.

Is it hate when I wish that Muslims would stop trying to murder me and steal my land?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2016 06:52 am
As usual, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Opinions are not facts. What Muslims are trying to murder you and steal your land? You are so twisted.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2016 06:52 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Setanta says: "Brandon has not employed an argument from ignorance."

But Brandon said:
Quote:
"Physicists have figured out a lot. We don't have much to work with in figuring out what set the big bang in motion. Maybe physics will figure it out some day or maybe we're not smart enough"

Not only was it an argument from ignorance, but he went further and made it an argument from stupidity.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2016 06:54 am
@Leadfoot,
You're an ignorant jackass, and, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about. Don't address any posts to me, you low-life scumbag.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/22/2019 at 12:39:39