Merged The razor of Hitchens and the Spirits!

[Cosmic Yak]

Is anyone else reminded of when some fundy Christian schools were handing out assignments to students telling them to go to an 'atheist' site and convert people. IIRC we didn't get many of them because, I suspect, we were a pretty good guarantee of a failing grade!

As I recall, we had a couple here, back in the day. They did not fare well.

 

[Pixel42]

just because something seems extraordinary today doesn't mean it's impossible or false, just that our current understanding may be limited
Einstein's theory of relativity was initially seen as extraordinary and counterintuitive but is now widely accepted

Einstein's theory of relativity explained observations that the previous theories could not (e.g. the orbit of Mercury and the result of the Michelson Morley experiment). The existence of spirits does not explain anything that cannot be more plausibly explained in other ways.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

the absence of direct perception does not prove the non-existence

And it most certainly does NOT prove the existence.

More wibble.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

just because something seems extraordinary today doesn't mean it's impossible or false, just that our current understanding may be limited
Einstein's theory of relativity was initially seen as extraordinary and counterintuitive but is now widely accepted

Are you capable of actually addressing any point? As all you do is spout non-sequiturs and (pre-programmed? Pre-selected?) bits of wibble, seasoned with mild insults and repeatd mentions of Carl Sagan. Have you heard of any other scientists or science theorists?

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Believing in spirits is a matter of faith or intuition, not scientific evidence. This does not make the belief any less valid, just different

No-one has disputed that you "believe"; what is being disputed is your insistence on a reality devoid of any evidence, backed up only by special pleading.

Believe what you want, but don't expect me to follow suit or give your beliefs credence if I can see no reason to do so.

 

[Calderaro]

Einstein's theory of relativity explained observations that the previous theories could not (e.g. the orbit of Mercury and the result of the Michelson Morley experiment). The existence of spirits does not explain anything that cannot be more plausibly explained in other ways.

Millions of people report personal experiences with spirits, whether through visions, dreams, mediumship or paranormal phenomena. These experiences are subjective evidence, but are widely shared. It can be argued that, given the volume of these accounts, the denial of the existence of spirits requires a convincing explanation to discard all these experiences as illusions, frauds or errors of interpretation. Thus, the burden of proof would fall on skeptics.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Millions of people report personal experiences with spirits, whether through visions, dreams, mediumship or paranormal phenomena. These experiences are subjective evidence, but are widely shared. It can be argued that, given the volume of these accounts, the denial of the existence of spirits requires a convincing explanation to discard all these experiences as illusions, frauds or errors of interpretation. Thus, the burden of proof would fall on skeptics.

Nope. That isn't how the burden of proof works. The positive claim of spirits always has the burden of proof no matter how many individual claims you stack up.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Stop running away and answer the question Calderaro.

 

[Calderaro]

Nope. That isn't how the burden of proof works. The positive claim of spirits always has the burden of proof no matter how many individual claims you stack up.

why ?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

why ?

Because they are making the positive claim, that spirits exist and that these encounters were spirits. Do you seriously not understand how the burden of proof works?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Because they are making the positive claim, that spirits exist and that these encounters were spirits. Do you seriously not understand how the burden of proof works?

He doesn't even seem to know what words in his own posts mean. Answer the question Calderaro.

 

[steenkh]

Millions of people report personal experiences with spirits, whether through visions, dreams, mediumship or paranormal phenomena. These experiences are subjective evidence, but are widely shared. It can be argued that, given the volume of these accounts, the denial of the existence of spirits requires a convincing explanation to discard all these experiences as illusions, frauds or errors of interpretation. Thus, the burden of proof would fall on skeptics.

Millions of people believe in a single god, and many have experienced conversations with their god. Other millions of people believe that there are many gods, and many of the believers have experienced conversations with their gods.

Is it up to the skeptics to prove them all wrong?

 

[Calderaro]

Because they are making the positive claim, that spirits exist and that these encounters were spirits. Do you seriously not understand how the burden of proof works?

the sagan pattern and hitchens razor can be refuted

 

[P.J. Denyer]

the sagan pattern and hitchens razor can be refuted

You're spouting meaningless rubbish. Stop acting like a child, take ownership of your own words and answer the question.

 

[Calderaro]

Is it up to the skeptics to prove them all wrong?

The Sagan Standard and Hitchens' Razor are not infallible

 

[P.J. Denyer]

You're spouting meaningless rubbish. Stop acting like a child, take ownership of your own words and answer the question.

 

[Calderaro]

You're spouting meaningless rubbish. Stop acting like a child, take ownership of your own words and answer the question.

is that I don't know English!

 

[MarkCorrigan]

the sagan pattern and hitchens razor can be refuted

Meaningless gibberish.

Deal with the fact that the burden of proof is on you and provide some.

 

[Calderaro]

Meaningless gibberish.

Deal with the fact that the burden of proof is on you and provide some.

The fact that we do not have sufficient scientific evidence today does not mean that we should rule out the possibility of spirits; it may only be a matter of time until new methods or technologies allow their investigation.
I don't know English!

 

[JayUtah]

the absence of direct perception does not prove the non-existence

Irrelevant straw man. You can't show us anything except people's speculative attributions.

Believing in spirits is a matter of faith or intuition, not scientific evidence. This does not make the belief any less valid, just different

The difference is that one belief is supported by evidence and the other is not. That is an important difference if you want to claim that something is factually true.

just because something seems extraordinary today doesn't mean it's impossible or false, just that our current understanding may be limited
Einstein's theory of relativity was initially seen as extraordinary and counterintuitive but is now widely accepted

Einstein's theory is accepted because there is evidence for it that we can see and measure.

Millions of people report personal experiences with spirits, whether through visions, dreams, mediumship or paranormal phenomena. These experiences are subjective evidence, but are widely shared. It can be argued that, given the volume of these accounts, the denial of the existence of spirits requires a convincing explanation to discard all these experiences as illusions, frauds or errors of interpretation. Thus, the burden of proof would fall on skeptics.

The convincing explanation is that people get together and speculate. Misinterpretation, imagination, and malfeasance are sufficient explanations. Skeptics do not have any further burden of proof. The burden of proof is on those who claim spirits are real.

the sagan pattern and hitchens razor can be refuted

Asked and answered. You are not be asked for extraordinary evidence.

is that I don't know English!

Irrelevant at this point. Either improve your translation solution or find people who speak your language. Your constant repetition is not explained by a language problem.