Topic: Atheism BS - page 2. (Read 5929 times)

I'm wondering at this point whether your dishonest argument is the result of intentional deception or that you are so conditioned that you actually cannot see the dishonesty in your fallacious 'reasoning'.

cryptodevil,
You never adequately addressed the evidence. That means that you do not deny it. In law, he who does not deny, admits; this maxim fits our debate nicely since you did not set forth a reasonable denial for any piece of evidence. Instead, you presumed that it was all worthless, with no regard for the burden associated with such a blanket denial. How are you able to deny documented research with mere presumptions and without a rational basis?

I typed up a reply to the rest of your post and have saved it in case I need to refer to it. Needless to say, your presumptions cause you to make numerous false and/or misleading statements.

Kindly refer to the evidence, or admit that it is too powerful for you to even attempt to explain.

Come up with an argument that does not rely on the notion of fallacy, purge yourself of presumptions, and open your mind if you want to have a discussion with me. Otherwise, your failure to observe any evidentiary fact whatsoever is proof of your intellectual bankruptcy.

You are simply not aware of the consequences of your claim that all psychic phenomena is a fraud. It is quite an extraordinary claim, and I suspect you will realize this once you evaluate the brief pieces of evidence that I linked to.

 

Typical desperate attempt to ignore the objectively reasoned position being presented and, instead, simply throw multiple stories of the ooky and the spooky in our direction, demanding we consider each and every case.

James Randi has a million dollar prize that nobody has ever successfully claimed.

No 'psychic' has ever been able to demonstrate a 'paranormal' ability under properly controlled conditions. Not one.

On the other hand, there are vast numbers of cases proving them to be narcissistic attention-seeking frauds. Or just greedy money grubbing frauds. Or . . .

Well, you get the idea, they are all frauds. Each and every one of them. Throwing a shit-ton of 'well what about this . . .' links at us isn't a reasonable way to present an argument, you are, instead, completely avoiding the reasoned positions being presented to you and reposting the same deflection/diversion statements that are generally meaningless.

The burden of proof for your claims lies with you. You cannot dishonestly ignore that fact by responding with questions and demands we debunk each and every one of your shonky stories that, were they to have any reasonable degree of evidential quality, would not dwell solely in the domain of the 'spiritual' community.

Typical dualism-believing behaviour, whether it be religion or it's shape-shifting twin 'spiritualism', you respond to requests for a valid objectively-reasoned argument to be presented, with that which is barely a degree above Bill O'Reilly "Tide goes in, tide goes out . . .you can't explain that" assertion.

Even if talking about something in nature we don't yet fully understand, science says, "we do not fully understand yet". You don't get to simply make crap up and claim it to be worth equal consideration as an explanation, which is what theists and 'spiritualists' do.

Learn to present an intellectually honest argument, absent fallacious reasoning or outright dishonest deflection or diversion.

That "golden rule" has a huge flaw!
I wouldn't risk say that to a masochist... you probably won't like to be treated the way he likes to be treated.
The corrected version should be around; "Do to others the equivalent in goodness you wish from them.", but you have to adapt what is goodness or not to others in a per case basis.

I'm glad you brought that up. People are complicated and since atheism only means a lack of belief in a God, there is no one atheism. I also have problems with abortion. Not because God wills it, but because it is a human life at stake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v8qtZ3I5AM

Any of them. The golden rule is the law and the rest is mere interpretation.

It's hard to believe that a man can be defined by nothing but atheism; talk about a lack of self-actualization!

Presumably,all atheists are humanists; also, all humanists reject the survival hypothesis.

What golden rule are you referring?

I think many people feels intimidated by atheists because they have no clue what atheists stand for. Atheism is not accepting God(s) or at least the ones described on the bullshi... Sorry... Holy books.
Absolutely nothing else.
I'm a "pro-life" atheist for an instance, I'm also more liberal than communist... And other atheists may be the exact opposite.

Let me get this right. Karl Marx is kind of a dick, So that means there is a God?

Do you think any of this theft, violence, slavery, deception, etc. would have happened if Zionist bankers had respect for the golden rule?

Do you think any of this would have happened if Zionist bankers were not greedy materialists?

The content of a communication can certainly aid in determining the source.

Your claim is both premature and inadequately-supported; no different from a presumption.


Again, here are 40 documented cases for which the fraud explanation fails to stand:
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

You should not prematurely make a conclusion prior to seeing the evidence. The evidence will always outweigh any presumption, no matter how well-justified.

Here are some cases to start off our discussion; I hope you will provide an adequate explanation that takes into account all of the facts, as would be expected in any investigation:
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/Cases_51-75/case56_soule-soul.pdf
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/Cases_8-25/case19_policeman-painter.pdf

Proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena unite in establishing the survival hypothesis. The Physical Universe Hypothesis does not address any of this anomalous phenomena.

I found some moar hard evidence here:
http://atransc.org/theory/survival_hypothesis.htm

There is no legitimate evidence whatsoever to believe this "survival hypothesis".

That's not materialism, that's theft!

"Atheism is actually a very humble claim, that there is no reason to conclude that there is any such thing as god(s) and therefore that it is inadvisable and impermissible to jump to such a conclusion."
--Atheism and Secularity, Chapter 1

There is no reason? I will give one:

A good reason to conclude god(s) is the strong evidence favoring the survival hypothesis, which is contrary to humanism, and indicates that all atheists (humanists) are wrong in their evaluation of the facts relating to human personality.

Better to believe in something speculative, than something which is false.
Eller has convincingly shown that atheists are humanists and I have already shown that humanism, which disputes the survival hypothesis, is inadequate and thus, contrary to evidence/facts; you do not even dispute this. Conclusion: Humanism/Atheism is a false idol.
Any questions?


How are you going to convince me that atheism/humanism is not contrary to the facts? Are you going to argue that a humanist can believe in reincarnation?

Indeed. Jesus was a socialist who gave free healthcare (healed the sick and resurrected some guy), fed the poor (the fish and bread), and discouraged exactly what the churches are doing (stealing).

The most of them maybe. However, significant part of modern socialists and communists are actually christian rather than secular socialists/communists. Gennady Zyuganov, the leader of CPRF, for example. He officially stated that his views on the communism were derived from the Gospel.

Christians are not wise enough to embrace socialism. They're stuck in Bronze Aged conservatism.