Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Donnmathan · 04-24-2007, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFH

First off, if you didn't get the meaning of my question the first time, you definitely have some comprehension problems, it was about as clear as it could be. Your statement was quoted. My subsequent explanation added no new information, I simply connected the very closely space dots with a very blunt pencil so it was extremely obvious. There is also your admission you were expecting the very challenge to your claims which my question clearly represented. You are either disingenuous or not thinking clearly.

Thanks for the insults. It does a great deal to add to your credibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFH

Second, your allusions to Darwin and Einstein are irrelevant, they did not have 'experiences', their 'visions' (if you can call them that) didn't come out of the blue, they were the extension of work by others and themselves after substantial consideration of empirical and theoretical evidence. Their 'visions' resulted from there being perceived a serious problem with the state of knowledge, not just by themselves, but by others as well in a relatively broad community. Their 'visions' were not mystical, but rather very pragmatic. For you to even compare you 'experiences' with years of work built upon lifetimes of work by equally dedicated and brilliant minds is arrogant in the extreme.

Darwin was working from a number of sources to identify how species came into being. For it was abundantly clear that occurred, the fossil record, thin as if was then, included no modern animals yet had large numbers of animals and plants that were extinct. Fossils of marine origin were found high in the mountains. Isolated areas had their own explosions of species, often of otherwise very common types. There was a strong suggestion of change along typal lines. Darwin spent years and years collecting specimens, studying the works of others and considering the quandry all this presented. It wasn't a bolt out of the blue.

Similarly, Einstein (and the rest of physics) faced inherent problems with Newtonian space as revealed by Maxwell's equations and various experimental data. He didn't have an experience, it wasn't a bolt out of the blue. It was long hard hours of work, and not just by Einstein, that resulted in a startling concept of space and time, a concept which even now is difficult for many to truly appreciate.

One need not necessarily see the globe to realize its spherical. From even a moderately high mountain the curvature is visible. There is the fact the sun angle changes with latitude indicating a curvature in the N-S direction. The fact that as ships 'go over the horizon' its the hulls, the largest portion of the object, that disappears first, not the much smaller masts and rigging. Indeed, the ship disappears from the waterline up, which would mean either the ship was sinking or somehow the horizon was rising or ? The first two are obviously wrong. Curvature of the surface, a very common phenomenon on a ship, would answer nicely.

You missed the point completely, and I am quite tired of trying to talk to people who deliberately twist everything I say so they can make me sound like some kind of idiot. This is as bad as talking to a Creationist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFH

Lastly, you asked how did your delusions direct you to do simple things that helped both you and others in bigger ways than the task seemed to promise and stated you can't believe in that many coincidences. Those are assertions which are readily supported by physical evidence. Being directed to take actions which result in benefits is subject to inspection. While its true the being directed portion of the show would be difficult to evidence, that certainly does go on in the unreachable realms of your mind, the actions you were directed to take and presumably did take, presumably take place in the real world, as would be the benefits obtained. Or is this all also occurring in your mind or some inaccessible 33rd dimension?

I suspect you are dissembling to avoid having to pony up support for your assertions.

<sarcasm> Gee, let me check with the guy that follows me around with a video camera 24 hours a day and see...nope, you're right, the tapes from those days are missing. Yep, grand conspiracy to withhold evidence at work here. You're right. </sarcasm> Could it perhaps be because I don't document every minute of my life? I could, of course, tell you what happened, but you'd slap me with "anecdotal evidence" and claim total victory. That's what one gets out of debating with fanatics.

Donnmathan · 04-24-2007, 08:33 AM

I had a flash of insight, since that last post - this debate, just like the entire "existence of god(s)" subject of this forum, is absolutely, 100% POINTLESS. No one on either side has any substantial evidence to back them up - the theist side is all anecdote, blind assertion and circular reasoning (all fallacy) and the atheist side is blind assertion, question-begging, ad hominem, and appeal to probability (logical fallacies all). I know my argument isn't going to convince anyone who believes (yes, believes) as strongly as you do, any more than you trying to define my argument out of existence will work on me. We all fire horrible analogies at each other, snipe, and get rude, because unlike the evolution/creation debate, there is NO real evidence to discuss on either side.

And for those about to try to nail me on the question-begging bit - trying to define natural so as to make the supernatural by definition not exist, then asserting that the terms reflect reality, is indeed a logical fallacy. Question-Begging.

FatherMithras · 04-24-2007, 08:33 AM

Quote:

I'd say so too, but I'm coming with a PHOTO. I'm claiming this photo and imagery is from GOD and that that concept of the messiah as the black sleeping child, representing him as the prodigal son messiah is a concept held by others and I published proof of that in a photo of subliminal art showing clearly a black face with his eyes closed in the palm of Jesus with a cryptic bird figure implied right next to it. It can't be too obvious, right, it's supposed to be subliminal. So what about that?

HOLY SHIT!!!

That's silly as fuck. An ILLUSTRATION is your proof? Prove that was made by god. This is hilarious... omg...

FatherMithras · 04-24-2007, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnmathan

I had a flash of insight, since that last post - this debate, just like the entire "existence of god(s)" subject of this forum, is absolutely, 100% POINTLESS. No one on either side has any substantial evidence to back them up - the theist side is all anecdote, blind assertion and circular reasoning (all fallacy) and the atheist side is blind assertion, question-begging, ad hominem, and appeal to probability (logical fallacies all). I know my argument isn't going to convince anyone who believes (yes, believes) as strongly as you do, any more than you trying to define my argument out of existence will work on me. We all fire horrible analogies at each other, snipe, and get rude, because unlike the evolution/creation debate, there is NO real evidence to discuss on either side.

And for those about to try to nail me on the question-begging bit - trying to define natural so as to make the supernatural by definition not exist, then asserting that the terms reflect reality, is indeed a logical fallacy. Question-Begging.

The atheist side simply wants to see some evidence. We don't have to have evidence. It's inherent to the position. You're right that the argument is pointless. It's as pointless as arguing the existence of any number of make believe things, which have nothing going for them.

RAFH · 04-24-2007, 08:50 AM

I believe this thread has clearly answered the question in the OP, "What about people who have (allegedly) personally spoken with God?"

The 'people who have (alledgedly) personally spoken with God' have clearly painted their own self-portraits. Nothing more can or need be said.

sensiblesue · 04-24-2007, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Better to err on the side of doubt. Because if I truly am the messiah, then it is likely that it's not me that is under examination here, but you. Right?

If you're omniscient, why do you need to test a few people on an Internet forum? Can't you see directly into everyone's heart?

Seriously, it's time to stop with the psychedelic drugs and find a good psychiatrist. The messianic ideatiion is a symptom of psychosis. You're on a self-destructive path. Take the necessary steps to get off it.

EarlOfLade · 04-24-2007, 10:58 AM

And people are surprised that anyone would fall for the Nigerian 419-scams? Well, after reading about his holyness here, it can't be much of a mystery anymore. Some people are willing to believe whatever it is.

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-24-2007, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Larsguy47: For instance, I can assure you I indeed am the messiah. I'm not crazy.

Unfortunately, your second claim is contradicted by your first.

Quote:

MORE: Did you know there was more than one image that showed up in the clouds that day?

Did you know that there would be absolutely no reason whatsoever for such a "vision" to be deliberately ambiguous?

Quote:

MORE: So something they weren't exposed to before, or some miracle occurs, convinces them of the truth.

Except that seeing patterns in the patternless isn't a miracle; it is what all predators do.

A miracle is something that couldn't happen, happening; like a burning bush that does not incinerate, but speaks. That can't happen. So if it did, it would certainly fall under the "miraculous."

Seeing bunny rabbits in clouds, however, or, more to the point, seeing what you want to believe is true and have been operantly conditioned to believe is true in a cloud is patently obvious self-delusional wishfulfillment.

Quote:

MORE: Better to err on the side of doubt. Because if I truly am the messiah, then it is likely that it's not me that is under examination here, but you.

So your argument is Pascal's wager. Great. We should just err on the side of doubt that you're a mythical creature incarnate.

Well, I tell you what mishach, first of all, you can't be "the" messiah because there isn't just one; there are many. A messiah is nothing more than a messenger from god. As a messiah, you should know that.

Secondly, if you were a messiah, why are you mortal? Why were you born at all, let alone born of flesh? We already had a messiah born of flesh.

And third, if you were a messiah, why would you need to see any kind of sign in some clouds? Are you a "sleeper" messiah; waiting to be awakened by a special "bat" sign in the clouds? Why would you need that? Why wouldn't god simply blink you onto Earth and you'd be about god's business?

Messiah's aren't special; they aren't even unique if you believe the old testament; they simply are god's janitors, if you will, typically sent to do a messy job of murder and chaos to pave the way for the actual god to come on down and be the next contestant on the Price is Right.

You, on the hand, appear to be fascinated by your homosexuality that you have misinterpreted is equal to being a eunuch, skin pigmentation and delusions of cloud induced grandeur.

I can guarantee you that, even if you actually were a fictional character somehow magically come to life, you probably still could not convince us short of any actual miracle. And I mean something tangible, like appearing magically before all of us at the same time and handing us something like a button that reads, "Koyaanisqatsi Votes Larsguy for God" (only using my real name) before blinking out of existence again, leaving the buttons behind.

Saying you saw a bunny rabbit in a cloud proves you're a fictional character come to life, however? Never will that ever cut it with anyone here and the fact that it might with others only makes all of us weep.

And since the OT is pretty clear that one of the jobs of one of Daniel's messiah's anyway is to wipe all of us non-believers out with a massive flood, what's stopping you? Don't you have clear cut instructions from your god as to your job here? You'd best force all the Jews to start annointing their holiest of holies before you cut off sacrifice as a means to redemption, right?

Or are you just one of the messiahs whose sole job it is is to try and convince atheists that the pretty pictures seen in a bunch of clouds proves you're a messiah and that's all you're here for, because I must have missed that chapter and verse?

Cheerful Charlie · 04-24-2007, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Does that include photos of cloud imagery and subliminal art?

Of course. I note that simulacra were discussed in Cicero's Nature of the Gods,The greeks and Romans were always finding these things.This isn't new. here every stain is the Virgin Mary, in the Far East it's Buddha.

I recently saw a picture published in the NewYork Times a few weeks ago that was supposed to be a picture of Jesus, but it was an incredibally good likeness of Jeanne Harlow.

For years I subscribed to the Fortean Times. Simulacria like this was a
featured every issue.

Cheerful Charlie

Cheerful Charlie · 04-24-2007, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnmathan

I had a flash of insight, since that last post - this debate, just like the entire "existence of god(s)" subject of this forum, is absolutely, 100% POINTLESS. No one on either side has any substantial evidence to back them up - the theist side is all anecdote, blind assertion and circular reasoning (all fallacy) and the atheist side is blind assertion, question-begging, ad hominem, and appeal to probability (logical fallacies all).

See the thread omnigenesis.

"I'm not hot dogging you! This time I have proof!"
- Firesign Theater - Everything You Know Is Wrong!

Cheerful Charlie

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-24-2007, 08:33 AM	#112
Donnmathan Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 1,511	I had a flash of insight, since that last post - this debate, just like the entire "existence of god(s)" subject of this forum, is absolutely, 100% POINTLESS. No one on either side has any substantial evidence to back them up - the theist side is all anecdote, blind assertion and circular reasoning (all fallacy) and the atheist side is blind assertion, question-begging, ad hominem, and appeal to probability (logical fallacies all). I know my argument isn't going to convince anyone who believes (yes, believes) as strongly as you do, any more than you trying to define my argument out of existence will work on me. We all fire horrible analogies at each other, snipe, and get rude, because unlike the evolution/creation debate, there is NO real evidence to discuss on either side. And for those about to try to nail me on the question-begging bit - trying to define natural so as to make the supernatural by definition not exist, then asserting that the terms reflect reality, is indeed a logical fallacy. Question-Begging.

04-24-2007, 08:50 AM	#115
RAFH Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Kahaluu, Hawaii Posts: 6,400	I believe this thread has clearly answered the question in the OP, "What about people who have (allegedly) personally spoken with God?" The 'people who have (alledgedly) personally spoken with God' have clearly painted their own self-portraits. Nothing more can or need be said.

04-24-2007, 10:58 AM	#117
EarlOfLade Banned Join Date: May 2006 Location: Orlando, Fl Posts: 5,310	And people are surprised that anyone would fall for the Nigerian 419-scams? Well, after reading about his holyness here, it can't be much of a mystery anymore. Some people are willing to believe whatever it is.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.