Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hokulele said:
1) Not that it really matters, but for the record, I am a she.
2)No, based on past history, you want to present a neutered version of "the other side" to make your argument look better. That is the main reason I do not want my comments included.
Click to expand...
Hokulele,
#1. Sorry about that. I wasn't sure.
#2. No. I would like to quote so as to present a non-neutered version. Everybody knows that I'm biased. I think that by using the exact language of the other side, any neutral audience we can stir up will quickly recognize the bias in your side.
 
Jabba said:
LL,
- I recognize what you're saying. So far, I think these different unknowns complement each other towards weakening H.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. Your brain exists, and we can alter your sense of self through damaging your brain, or chemically altering your brain. So no matter how unlikely it is, the existence of your brain needs to be accounted for in H as well as ~H. Do the math, H is always going to be more likely. You know this but you refuse to let go of this silly notion that our existence is so unlikely that we must be immortal.
 
Jabba said:
#2. No. I would like to quote so as to present a non-neutered version. Everybody knows that I'm biased. I think that by using the exact language of the other side, any neutral audience we can stir up will quickly recognize the bias in your side.
Click to expand...

Your history shows otherwise, as you well know.
 
Argumemnon said:
So why don't you learn and change?

All you have to do is drop the idea of putting this on your blog, listen to the people here, realise that you're entirely wrong and start over with an open mind. Had you done this right off the bat this would've been over three years ago.
Click to expand...
Argumemnon,
- Try this. To a large extent, I do listen. Most of what I hear is uncomfortable, so I do skip some of it. But so far, I honestly think that I'm mostly right, and that you guys are more biased than me.
 
Jabba said:
Argumemnon,
- Try this. To a large extent, I do listen. Most of what I hear is uncomfortable, so I do skip some of it. But so far, I honestly think that I'm mostly right, and that you guys are more biased than me.
Click to expand...
I don't believe you. It would be impossible for anyone to know that they are having to steadfastly ignore literally hundreds of posts explaining in the simplest possible terms the many mistakes they are making, and still cling to the belief that their arguments have any merit whatsoever.

You know perfectly well that you lost this argument years ago, Jabba. Why you are pretending otherwise I have no idea, but it reflects no credit on you.
 
Pixel42 said:
I don't believe you. It would be impossible for anyone to know that they are having to steadfastly ignore literally hundreds of posts explaining in the simplest possible terms the many mistakes they are making, and still cling to the belief that their arguments have any merit whatsoever.

You know perfectly well that you lost this argument years ago, Jabba. Why you are pretending otherwise I have no idea, but it reflects no credit on you.
Click to expand...
Pixel,
- That simply isn't true.
 
Jabba said:
Pixel,
- That simply isn't true.
Click to expand...
Then where are your rebuttals of the criticisms that have been made of your arguments? You simply ignore them. You know it, and we know it. Because you have no rebuttals. Because you know that your critics are correct; your arguments are riddled with blatant errors and are utterly worthless.
 
Jabba said:
Try this. To a large extent, I do listen. Most of what I hear is uncomfortable, so I do skip some of it. But so far, I honestly think that I'm mostly right, and that you guys are more biased than me.
Click to expand...

Do you know how that sounds to sane people reading your post? You flatly say that you ignore posts that disagree with you (which would be all of them), and then go on to claim that we're more biased than you?

How would you know, given what you just said?
 
Jabba said:
To a large extent, I do listen. Most of what I hear is uncomfortable, so I do skip some of it.
Click to expand...

Got it. You pay attention only to the parts you like. That's what people here have been telling you for years. You don't seem to connect the reception of "uncomfortable" criticisms with the objective failure of your idea.

But so far, I honestly think that I'm mostly right, and that you guys are more biased than me.
Click to expand...

Oh really? You're the one who poured out your angsty heart, telling us how emotionally invested you were in the notion of an immortal soul and how additionally invested you were in proving it mathematically. You told us flat-out you couldn't bear the thought that you wouldn't be able to come up with an objective proof for immortality.

You admitted an insurmountable bias.
 
Jabba said:
That simply isn't true.
Click to expand...

Of course it's true. Before your latest short hiatus you told us you couldn't prevail, but that you still thought you were right. You don't get to admit losing the argument and then challenge other people when they say the same thing.

Now you're doing the same thing you did when you admitted you lost the Shroud argument -- you're prolonging it as long as possible by stonewalling and blaming your critics.
 
The accusation that we are more biased than Jabba really is preposterous. Who here would not want to believe they were immortal? I know I'd be delighted if Jabba actually had the proof he claims, so my bias is in the same direction as his. But the more I would like to believe something, the more careful I know I need to be to ensure the argument in its favour stands up to scrutiny. Jabba's arguments do not.
 
Jabba said:
No. I would like to quote so as to present a non-neutered version.
Click to expand...

Just put a link to this debate. Let people read your claims in your words and your critics' responses in their words.

Everybody knows that I'm biased.
Click to expand...

Yes, you've admitted a strong bias and you've proven yourself to be a highly biased editor when making your "maps," so much so that you were finally persuaded to abandon the one you started on the Shroud debate.

I think that by using the exact language of the other side, any neutral audience we can stir up will quickly recognize the bias in your side.
Click to expand...

If you feel so confident that a neutral reader will see bias against you, then simply provide them with a link to this debate. But the last time you tried this, you cherry-picked and edited the debate to make it seem like your critics were wrong, biased, or had no answers. You have a proven track record of lying in order to create the illusion that the debate went better for you than it actually did. You don't really believe a neutral reader will see bias against you, otherwise there'd be no need to edit. Don't pretend otherwise.
 
In my humble opinion, this has become a sad farce.

Jabba, it's fine to be uncomfortable with criticism. If you're emotionally invested in something, no matter what it is it will be uncomfortable to see people argue against that position. That holds true whichever side of the argument is correct, incidentally. It's totally OK to feel that way.

What is not OK is pretending that those uncomfortable arguments don't exist. You cannot say simply ignore things you don't like or don't want to address. What you should do is show why these uncomfortable statements are wrong and you are correct.

It's fine to not understand certain arguments. Hell, I have no idea how most of the maths in this thread works, it was never my strongest subject, and I freely admit it. The maths people are using against you could be utter hogwash as far as I know. However what you need to do with an argument against you that you don't understand is not sweep it under the rug and hope it goes away but actually understand what the argument is. You could read up on it, or even ask for it to be simplified for you a little or break it down into more manageable chunks but you must address it.

It's fine to not respond to every single piece of minutiae put in front of you, no one has unlimited time after all, and if it's one against several there will be repeated statements among the throng of posts.

What you don't get to do is ignore everyone, or just as bad all but the least critical of your opponents. Even if your argument is solid, and I am by no means agreeing with you that it is, this is a weak defence of it. You must deal with the most vigorous of your opposition, who present the best arguments against you because you will only convince those you wish to by meeting challenges head on.

Think of the moon landings. Would it be more persuasive, and therefore more likely to be accurate for those of us who accept the landings to deal with people who highlight technical points and argue the physics of the event, or someone who says it can't have happened because the moon is a fixed point of light on the dome of the heavens?

Running away from debate and ignoring all replies to your posts is fine if that's what you want to do, but you do not get to make the claims you have been making for the last five years if you do so. If you think we are wrong fine, but show it. Think JayUtah is mistaken? Think argumemnon doesn't know what he's talking about? Think Hokulele can't see the wood for the trees? Fine, but you show that by dealing with what they have said, not by ignoring them because their posts make you feel sad.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
In my humble opinion, this has become a sad farce.

Jabba, it's fine to be uncomfortable with criticism. If you're emotionally invested in something, no matter what it is it will be uncomfortable to see people argue against that position. That holds true whichever side of the argument is correct, incidentally. It's totally OK to feel that way.

What is not OK is pretending that those uncomfortable arguments don't exist. You cannot say simply ignore things you don't like or don't want to address. What you should do is show why these uncomfortable statements are wrong and you are correct.

It's fine to not understand certain arguments. Hell, I have no idea how most of the maths in this thread works, it was never my strongest subject, and I freely admit it. The maths people are using against you could be utter hogwash as far as I know. However what you need to do with an argument against you that you don't understand is not sweep it under the rug and hope it goes away but actually understand what the argument is. You could read up on it, or even ask for it to be simplified for you a little or break it down into more manageable chunks but you must address it.

It's fine to not respond to every single piece of minutiae put in front of you, no one has unlimited time after all, and if it's one against several there will be repeated statements among the throng of posts.

What you don't get to do is ignore everyone, or just as bad all but the least critical of your opponents. Even if your argument is solid, and I am by no means agreeing with you that it is, this is a weak defence of it. You must deal with the most vigorous of your opposition, who present the best arguments against you because you will only convince those you wish to by meeting challenges head on.

Think of the moon landings. Would it be more persuasive, and therefore more likely to be accurate for those of us who accept the landings to deal with people who highlight technical points and argue the physics of the event, or someone who says it can't have happened because the moon is a fixed point of light on the dome of the heavens?

Running away from debate and ignoring all replies to your posts is fine if that's what you want to do, but you do not get to make the claims you have been making for the last five years if you do so. If you think we are wrong fine, but show it. Think JayUtah is mistaken? Think argumemnon doesn't know what he's talking about? Think Hokulele can't see the wood for the trees? Fine, but you show that by dealing with what they have said, not by ignoring them because their posts make you feel sad.
Click to expand...


Very well said, and I would add that it is also not OK to paraphrase the debate elsewhere in a sad attempt at reframing the debate to reinforce one's own biases and shore up one's faith in a belief.
 
Jabba said:
LL,
- I recognize what you're saying. So far, I think these different unknowns complement each other towards weakening H.
Click to expand...


Your existence, as an observable event, requires your body to exist. This means that according to your own argument these different unknowns also weaken H to the same degree if we define H as the hypothesis that you have an immortal soul.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom