And I would recommend you try not to make claims that are not supportable in the future.
You told him to prove his assertion that is 100% confirmed by empirical evidence, and then quoted a fairy tale to cast doubt on his assertion.
And yet, he didn't assert any such emprical evidence. He stated it as a given, but didn't mention that it was a given on his part, and used it as a comparision of his correctness. You can't make such an argument if there are dissenters, and at least all Catholics would dissent from the claim that "no one has gotten out of life alive, yet" would they not?
One person is making outrageous claims, and the other is making obvious empirical claims.
Which is which? I certainly made no claims at all, simply highlighted an example of a document that portends to dispute his position. Since your the one who claimed that Hitler's head was alive, I assume that your's were the outrageous claims that you refer to?
I really don't think that you understand what's going on here, and I find it rather depressing to imagine that you could be an educated adult.
So who should prove it; the person whom ALL empirical evidence supports, or the guy talking about fairies?
Both of you, as far as I am concerned. Again, he presented no evidence at all, and neither did you. I've made no claims to support, I expect the author to support his position, not the reader.
My series of examples was just mocking your choice of the bible as an empirical source. None of those is true, except for the Obama one.
Of course I know that you were attempting to mock me, and that is part of what makes your statements both sad and amusing. You
assumed that my referencing a document that contradicts his (and your's, presumedly) premise means that I was trying to argue that either position was correct. I was not. I was highlighting that there exists a large percentage of people who would disagree with his assertion, and that he left said assertion unsupported as if everyone would naturally agree that he was correct.
Please tell me you are still in high school.
I just don't understand people who play devil's advocate for ridiculous things. I mean, yes, some of us are currently alive and we cannot read the future and might never die, but when 100% of primary sources throughout history confirm a theory, doesn't that make it pretty goddamn sound?
That's just it, 100% of historical sources
do not confirm any such theory. There are many historical documents besides the one that I referenced that have referred to such things. Myths or not, not all sources support such a theorm. You don't get to just dismiss those documents as myth, that's not your call. It's also an intellectual cop-out.
I dunno dude, I thought the two things most "normal, common" people generally take as concrete truths were: 1) death and 2) taxes.
My sane side takes it as fact that 100% of real, non-fictional humans that have lived and are not alive anymore, have died. I think that's the 100% Randy was referring to.
Jeez, these forums, man... I thought *I* was fucking weird; my whole love of argument in general and transhumanism, and Uranus having a large influence in my chart causing me to think centuries ahead of my time. You people make me feel NORMAL, and I fucking LOVE you for that. :-D
It is REALLY goddamned nice that this thread has gone off topic, and it makes me feel extremely warm and fuzzy to know that I contributed to that.
I also want to add that I am a baptized and confirmed Catholic, and have many Catholic family members who would agree with me that they will most likely die someday.
