HRG

[quote]Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
[QB]HRG,

Why assume an actor with supernatural powers and a dubious deceptive motive???
[quote]
I don't assume anything. I'm pointing out that your conclusions are invalid.

BTW, several people (including myself) have presented a plausible motive for Loki to fake the resurrection. Once you admit supernatural explanations, all bets are off.
How do you know this alleged "law of economy" holds when supernatural explanations are allowed ?

Actually, I submit that any natural explanation is more economical that any supernatural one.

And my presuppositions are exactly what, IYO ? I'd like to know myself ...

We are not talking about facts, but about different interpretations of alleged observations. "Facts" is a term which is restricted to the natural domain, since the reliability of our perceptions requires naturalism. All we observe, we observe through natural mechanisms (photon propagation, photon absorption, nerve impulses etc..

"I observed it, therefore it probably happened" is a conclusion which is not valid when you admit the supernatural.

Regards,
HRG.

hinduwoman

Ojuice, agnosticism is working fine for me. My father is 70 and has been an atheist since he was 14. Atheism is still working fine for him, since he doesnot suffer from any psychological problems that makes him anxious to believe that there is 'Someone to watch over me'. That is a long time wouldn't you say, for a worldview not to work?

Koyaanisqatsi

No, only cult members do. Weren't you reading?

Bullshit. Children with Down's syndrome do not "assume" a philosophy and they act in the world just fine.

If you must stuff straw men, use a better grade of straw.

Please.

No, you do not. Your brain is perfectly capable of acting without any form of prior applied thought.

You've just demonstrated it.

If you're trying to stuff a presuppositional straw man then don't, unless you're prepared to argue for pre-conscious presupposition, because i'm tired of defeating the same fallacies over and over and over again.

Reflective cognition has nothing whatsoever to do with reactive or proactive (aka, instinctive) behavior; acting on or responding to cognitive input, likewise, does not require any form of presupposed assumption on anyone's part so to argue that it does is only to piss in the wind.

You certainly may, but I suggest you aim down stream.

Maybe "grays" control your consciousness from the dark side of the moon and maybe the Earth's center is a gooey chocolate crust.

No, you do not. You do not have to do a goddamned thing, if you like, in order to live your life. If you want to pretend this is not true, by all means, but don't for one second think your proclamations make it so.

The human body requires absolutely no presuppositions whatsoever to function. Let me repeat that, the human body requires absolutely no presuppositions whatsoever to function.

Discussing cognitive presuppositions is nothing more than a cult member's wet straw dream, unless you are prepared to discuss preconscious presuppositions (or, more correctly, suppositions), which is fine work if you can get it, but likewise pointless mental masturbation.

I require absolutely no cognitive assumptions to function nor do I rely upon any cognitive assumptions. What you are doing is merely describing what some cognitive processes can deconstruct to, but that by no means mandates the process for any individual to perceive or otherwise act upon cognitive input.

If I punch you in the throat, you do not require the assumption of the "concept of pain" in order to feel the pain, talk about the pain or desire the pain to go away. Likewise, you require no god or otherwise external determining agent to mandate either yoruself or the "concept of pain" in order to feel the pain, talk about the pain, or desire the pain to go away.

Take precise note of the word "require" throughout.

Only cult members act upon "beliefs." Pretending "everyone" has beliefs in this manner is part of your indoctrination, not our reality.

Deal with it.

My consciousness requires absolutely no presuppositions in order to either be conscious or experience consciousness; only the cult member's does, since theirs is a false consciousness artificially implanted. This is why cult members always attempt what you're attempting and it never washes.

Ever.

Bullshit. Naturalistic atheists have no need to rationalize their false belief system, since they have neither.

Only the cult member requires this straw man (like the trinity) in order to maintain their self-delusion. From birth, cult members are conditioned to constantly retrigger cognitively dissonant constructs such as this, so that their thinking can never be clear enough to see through the smokescreen.

In other words, the minute anyone comes along and states, "Atheism is the default reality requiring no assumptions" cult members immediately torch their straw men so the smoke fills up the room.

Capt_Drakes

SOMMS -
Taking the bible as a historical record is wrong. At best, the bible has distorted the past to give credence to their ideology. Outside of the last 150 years, there is no era which has more documents and records than the time of the Romans. Every noble fancied himself a historian or a poet, and so they wrote numerous letters or books. Only 5% of the poor could write, yet still we have a multitude of records. This gives us a pretty accurate account of what happened during those times, and guess what, the bible doesn't quite hold up.

So if by 'most supported' you mean 'twisted truth' you probably are correct.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Capn,
Blind assertion...merely saying something doesn't make it true.
It would be much more persuasive if you SHOWED this rather than simply SAID this.

How does it not hold up?


Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Malaclypse the Younger

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Take a walk through BC&A. Just because you have closed your eyes to the evidence does not mean it isn't there.

Obtaining a basic education on the historical accuracy of the bible would be useful. A good place to start is in BC&A.

Your (apparently willful) ignorance is not a particularly compelling argument.

GunnerJ

Pot, kettle, black.

Sweet zombie Jesus, you're just like Dead Head Ed! I'm tempted to think this is a common strain among cult members.

The question is: how does it hold up?

Pitshade

Have you forgotten about the whole 'signs of belief' thing already?

Furthermore, you've already been asked to support your claim that, "The gospels weren't the gospels first. They are historical documents of the first century. Historical documents that are extremely well supported especially considering the era and culture. They are more supported than any other classic document. Period." You have also failed to respond to anything else in my post from (March 08, 2002 02:08 PM)

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Malaclypse,
I have. A bunch of it is stuff like...
'You stupid Xian how cum yer so stoopid?! Dont
ya know its all a bunch o lies?! It's all fake!
Yew stoopid cult membar!'...and similiar garbage.

The few good (read thoughtful) posts there are are anything but convincing. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me?

Thoughts and comments,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Malaclypse the Younger

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

As opposed to your logically rigorous and well-researched arguments?

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> You're an idiot.

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>