everything else does .....

Chumly wrote:

It's not a question of earning the "entitlement" to post beliefs on this forum it's the fact that some beliefs have much more of a factual basis than others thus by default there is more merit to factual based beliefs than to fantasy based beliefs.

Who does the fact-checking?

Quote:

Your fantasy based belief "Consciousness withdraws into the astral body." has no automatic entitlement.

My statement is based on a number of mystical traditions such as Vedanta, Yoga, Rosicrucian, and Theosophist traditions, as well as some schools of Christian mysticism, and Hindu theology. As a reminder, this is a spirituality and religion forum, not a science forum.

Quote:

Your fantasy based belief "Consciousness withdraws into the astral body." is not deserving of some particular reward or benefit.

Nor am I asking for any particular reward or benefit, beyond that allowed anyone else.

Quote:

As to who determines the relative merit of each person's beliefs let me ask you a simple question:

Which is more likely?
a) the dark side of the moon is made of Jell-O every 1000 years for 1 second
b) the local grocery store has navel oranges

Is this a Buddhist koan?

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

Who does the fact-checking?

In the context of my Jell-O question to you be my guest, honorary fact checker.

IFeelFree wrote:

My statement is based on a number of mystical traditions such as Vedanta, Yoga, Rosicrucian, and Theosophist traditions, as well as some schools of Christian mysticism, and Hindu theology.

This is nothing more that an argumentum ad populum logical fallacy and not a measure of viability.

IFeelFree wrote:

As a reminder, this is a spirituality and religion forum, not a science forum.

Simply because your claims are ensconced in the pretext of belief and you post them in the spirituality and religion forum does not exempt you from the logical fallacy of special pleading.

IFeelFree wrote:

Nor am I asking for any particular reward or benefit, beyond that allowed anyone else.

If so then as discussed the logical fallacy of special pleading applies and there is no automatic entitlement as discussed.

IFeelFree wrote:

Is this a Buddhist koan?

Answer the question and all will be revealed.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:
Chumly uses his own laugh meter. Of course, he set the parameters himself.
Check this out http://www.answers.com/topic/anti-humor

Thanks for the link. Is this a dodge to my question; "What flavor is the Jell-O?"

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
Who does the fact-checking?

In the context of my Jell-O question to you be my guest, honorary fact checker.

I wouldn't know how to check on the status of the dark side of the moon, except to rely on the testimony of scientific experts. However, that would be an appeal to authority.

Quote:

IFeelFree wrote:
My statement is based on a number of mystical traditions such as Vedanta, Yoga, Rosicrucian, and Theosophist traditions, as well as some schools of Christian mysticism, and Hindu theology.
This is nothing more that an argumentum ad populum logical fallacy and not a measure of viability.

Perhaps, but at least it indicates that my statement is not based on a personal fantasy. Apparently, other have shared this delusion. Furthermore, I have had direct internal experiences of chakras, or energy centers, which are phenomena associated with the astral body. So, at the very least, it can be said that I have some personal subjective experience upon which to base my statements. This is not objective proof, nor was I aiming to produce objective proof. The topic is spirituality. Anything goes.

Quote:

IFeelFree wrote:
As a reminder, this is a spirituality and religion forum, not a science forum.
Simply because your claims are ensconced in the pretext of belief and you post them in the spirituality and religion forum does not exempt you from the logical fallacy of special pleading.

I may be guilty of the logical fallacy of special pleading, but I'm happy.

Quote:

IFeelFree wrote:
Nor am I asking for any particular reward or benefit, beyond that allowed anyone else.
If so then as discussed the logical fallacy of special pleading applies and there is no automatic entitlement as discussed.

I'm not asking for automatic entitlement and I don't need it. I can post here as easily as anyone else, provided that I abide by forum rules.

Quote:

IFeelFree wrote:
Is this a Buddhist koan?
Answer the question and all will be revealed.

See my reply above. I am unable to answer this question to a scientific certainty with the available data.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:
neologist wrote:
Chumly uses his own laugh meter. Of course, he set the parameters himself.
Check this out http://www.answers.com/topic/anti-humor
Thanks for the link. Is this a dodge to my question; "What flavor is the Jell-O?"

Green.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:
Chumly wrote:
neologist wrote:
Chumly uses his own laugh meter. Of course, he set the parameters himself.
Check this out http://www.answers.com/topic/anti-humor
Thanks for the link. Is this a dodge to my question; "What flavor is the Jell-O?"
Green.

Green Lime?

or

Green Slime?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:
neologist wrote:
Chumly wrote:
neologist wrote:
Chumly uses his own laugh meter. Of course, he set the parameters himself.
Check this out http://www.answers.com/topic/anti-humor
Thanks for the link. Is this a dodge to my question; "What flavor is the Jell-O?"
Green.
Green Lime?

or

Green Slime?

This is a case where the better part of wisdom is the part left to the imagination.

0 Replies

Ahh. Yes. The endless possibilities of LunarJell

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

I wouldn't know how to check on the status of the dark side of the moon, except to rely on the testimony of scientific experts. However, that would be an appeal to authority.

Nope, it's not an appeal to authority logical fallacy because this consists on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. There is immensely more evidence than simply "the testimony of scientific experts" thus your claim is false. You can see numerous photos of the dark side of the moon. Further ignorance is not a merited augment when it comes to demonstrability and plausibility.

IFeelFree wrote:

Perhaps, but at least it indicates that my statement is not based on a personal fantasy.

Here you re-apply the straw man logical fallacy because I did not assert that your claim was based on a personal fantasy, and you again apply the logical fallacy argument ad populum with your use of the phrase "at least" because your claim has no greater merit simply simply because it may be widely shared.

IFeelFree wrote:

I am unable to answer this question to a scientific certainty with the available data.

More of the straw man logical fallacy as I did not ask you to answer the question to a "scientific certainty".

0 Replies

Fallacium ad nauseum

0 Replies

Chumly, IFF DID say present the thesis that " "Consciousness withdraws into the astral body." as one among other theories. He was not insisting on it as (proven) fact.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
I wouldn't know how to check on the status of the dark side of the moon, except to rely on the testimony of scientific experts. However, that would be an appeal to authority.
Nope, it's not an appeal to authority logical fallacy because this consists on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. There is immensely more evidence than simply "the testimony of scientific experts" thus your claim is false. You can see numerous photos of the dark side of the moon. Further ignorance is not a merited augment when it comes to demonstrability and plausibility.

I think the photos are doctored. Besides, under the right lighting and at the right distance, Jello can look a lot like the lunar surface. I'm not convinced, and since you said that I was the "honorary fact checker", I give a thumbs down!

Quote:

IFeelFree wrote:
Perhaps, but at least it indicates that my statement is not based on a personal fantasy.
Here you re-apply the straw man logical fallacy because I did not assert that your claim was based on a personal fantasy, and you again apply the logical fallacy argument ad populum with your use of the phrase "at least" because your claim has no greater merit simply simply because it may be widely shared.

Absolutely true. My claim has no merits based solely on it being widely shared. However, my claim does have merit for me personally because the recorded descriptions in the spiritual literature agree with my own subjective experiences (of the astral body). My claim may also have merit to others here if they have had similar experiences. Apparently, you have not had similar experiences, so I wouldn't expect my arguments supporting my claim to be persuasive to you. (Don't feel bad. I'm sure you have had lots experiences that I never had.)

Quote:

IFeelFree wrote:
I am unable to answer this question to a scientific certainty with the available data.
More of the straw man logical fallacy as I did not ask you to answer the question to a "scientific certainty".

What level of certainty would be sufficient?

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Chumly, IFF DID say present the thesis that " "Consciousness withdraws into the astral body." as one among other theories. He was not insisting on it as (proven) fact.

OK but even as one among other theories the tenets of rationality and plausibility can still have sway. For example since the original question was "does a soul 'age'?" and if I take a bit of liberty with that question (since many others have already) I could presuppose it to bring to question our origins / purpose.

If I presuppose it to bring to question our origins / purpose then I propose that the belief that we have been seeded by aliens for the purpose of propagating life and are thus merely and simply mortal holds a higher level of rationality and plausibility than does "Consciousness withdraws into the astral body."

Why do I claim it holds a higher lever of rationality and plausibility?

Because earth is an example of a planet with life, the universe has a massive number of stars and planets, and when we die we decompose. The claim "Consciousness withdraws into the astral body." cannot provide any such substantives.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

I think the photos are doctored. Besides, under the right lighting and at the right distance, Jello can look a lot like the lunar surface. I'm not convinced, and since you said that I was the "honorary fact checker", I give a thumbs down!

Firstly when all else fails conspiracy theories abound, secondly you would need to give an in context plausibility argument against Occam's Razor at the very least. You're pooping out here.

IFeelFree wrote:

Apparently, you have not had similar experiences, so I wouldn't expect my arguments supporting my claim to be persuasive to you.

You make an argument without evidence: that being I have not had similar experiences thus more straw man logical fallacy. Then you presume that if had similar experiences they would tend to make your claims persuasive, but provide zero plausibility or rationality as to why I would find your claims persuasive simply on the basis of a subjective (presumably) similar experience.

IFeelFree wrote:

What level of certainty would be sufficient?

The level of certainty that would satisfy you that the grocery store is more likely to have naval oranges than the moon is to have Jell-O on the dark side of the moon for one second every 1000 years.

You asked the question "who determines the relative merit of each person's beliefs" now all you do is dodge the implications of the answer...........weak..........dude

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

The claim "Consciousness withdraws into the astral body." cannot provide any such substantives.

Yeah, and the ancient sages didn't know a damn thing. Only science and logical analysis leads to truth. That's getting a little old. There are other ways of knowing besides the scientific method. Direct cognition through intuition and spiritual experience is also valid, provided that it is consistent with empirical evidence and has explanatory or predictive power. The totality cannot be known only by learning about the world. You must also participate in it. To apply the scientific method, one must be a dispassionate observer in order to evaluate the evidence objectively. Science is not participatory. It is limited to what can be known objectively. The intuitive, spiritual, psychic modes of knowing are excluded. As such, the scientific method is incomplete. We must acknowledge our own connectedness with the totality and investigate alternative ways of knowing. If you limit discussion to objective evidence, any discussion of spirituality will be lifeless and sterile. We must explore the spiritual dimension through our own intuitive and psychic capabilities. There are truths that can be revealed by spiritual awakening. I will not be intimidated by materialism and the new religion of scientism. I am free to discuss my experiences and alternative views of spirituality and religion with those who are interested. If my views don't meet your standards of credibility, I just don't really care.

0 Replies

Argumentum ad nauseam followed by the false claim of indifference. Very predicable indeed. You fail to prioritize your beliefs in terms of rationality and plausibility and therefore you make no sense in that regard.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
I think the photos are doctored. Besides, under the right lighting and at the right distance, Jello can look a lot like the lunar surface. I'm not convinced, and since you said that I was the "honorary fact checker", I give a thumbs down!
Firstly when all else fails conspiracy theories abound, secondly you would need to give an in context plausibility argument against Occam's Razor at the very least. You're pooping out here.

I thought it was obvious that I was making a joke. I don't really believe the photos are doctored, or that Jello looks like a lunar surface.

Quote:

IFeelFree wrote:
Apparently, you have not had similar experiences, so I wouldn't expect my arguments supporting my claim to be persuasive to you.
You make an argument without evidence: that being I have not had similar experiences thus more straw man logical fallacy.

Have you had similar experiences? (That would be really interesting to discuss instead of all this logic stuff.)

Quote:

Then you presume that if had similar experiences they would tend to make your claims persuasive, but provide zero plausibility or rationality as to why I would find your claims persuasive simply on the basis of a subjective (presumably) similar experience.

You're right. Even if you had had the exact same experience that I had, you might have a completely different interpretation of it. Thankfully, we don't all think alike. Isn't the human mind amazing?

Quote:

IFeelFree wrote:
What level of certainty would be sufficient?
The level of certainty that would satisfy you that the grocery store is more likely to have naval oranges than the moon is to have Jell-O on the dark side of the moon for one second every 1000 years.

The level of certainty that would satisfy me? This is a trick question, right? Besides, which grocery store? How many navel oranges? Also, what type of Jell-O? What concentration? This is so confusing.

Quote:

You asked the question "who determines the relative merit of each person's beliefs" now all you do is dodge the implications of the answer...........weak..........dude

What answer? You answered my question with a question. That's not an answer. The answer is "Each one of us does". There is no ultimate authority. Some answers are more plausible than others (to some people). There is no final answer for everyone for all time. Even in science knowledge is falsifiable. In the 19th century scientists knew that time was a constant and that electromagnetic waves traveled via the aether. Until they found out that both beliefs were false.

0 Replies

I oftentimes am smiling while I write this stuff, so I get your jokes, only I might not respond in kind, in any case it's my view that heliolatry has a higher level of rationally and plausibility as does alien seeding compared to your claims.

I should point out that you are incorrect when you say "You answered my question with a question. That's not an answer." The answer to your question was implicit in my question posed.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I oftentimes am smiling while I write this stuff, so I get your jokes, only I might not respond in kind, in any case it's my view that heliolatry has a higher level of rationally and plausibility as does alien seeding compared to your claims.

Not from where I'm sitting.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Argumentum ad nauseam followed by the false claim of indifference. Very predicable indeed.

I apologize if my answer induced nausea in you. I assure you that was not my intention. Also, I didn't mean to claim indifference, but then again I don't really care.

Quote:

You fail to prioritize your beliefs in terms of rationality and plausibility and therefore you make no sense in that regard.

I also failed to prioritize my beliefs in terms of freshness and zestiness. What a lazy bum I am.

0 Replies

everything else does .....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know