• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged The razor of Hitchens and the Spirits!

There is no better!
Then why do you continue to insult your critics for preferring the best method to determine reliable fact? Why do you keep insulting them and calling them names?

The other methods only help the scientific method!
The only other method you've mentioned specifically is the historical-critical method, which is not relevant. The other methods you've alluded to seem to contradict the scientific method by emphasizing such things as cultural norms.

If you agree that the scientific method is the best method for determining reliable fact, and you agree that you don't have suitable evidence for the scientific method to work on, what is there left to do? Are we going to go around in circles starting tomorrow with another forty pages of AI spewage?
 
Then why do you continue to insult your critics for preferring the best method to determine reliable fact? Why do you keep insulting them and calling them names?
JayUtah, is a Genuine Skeptic, at no time did he have Pseudoskeptical manifestations! The people on this forum should take him as an example!
 
JayUtah, is a Genuine Skeptic, at no time did he have Pseudoskeptical manifestations! The people on this forum should take him as an example
Thank you, but personal flattery is irrelevant. You have been addressed by several people in this thread who have exemplified the process of skeptical inquiry. You have treated them very rudely. An apology to them would be in order, if you intend to proceed.
 
beliefs in spirits challenge the strictly materialistic view of pseudoskeptics by causing cognitive dissonance to reduce discomfort they react with aggression or disdain
In your case these reactions are based on your unwillingness, and inability to present evidence to support your claims. You've come here looking for a fight, and complain when you get one. The disdain comes from your unwillingness to defend your claims in any way. You're just a troll.

If you're not a troll, and genuinely believe in spirits then gather your evidence, and present it.
 
If I accept that spirits exist, I will have to admit that there are things I don't understand, and that makes me uncomfortable.
I do not understand why you would accept spirits exist. There is no evidence for them in any way. The proper thing to do is to take this total absence of evidence as meaning that spirits do not exist until presented with evidence that they do.

Why would you presume spirits exist?
 
If I accept that spirits exist, I will have to admit that there are things I don't understand, and that makes me uncomfortable.
There will always be things you don't understand, and things that we as a species do not understand. The proven path to success is not to simply assume certain things exist for which there is no evidence, and attribute to them whatever observation you can't explain. The proven path to success in understanding new things is to approach the questions methodically according to evidence and according to methods that guard against known wrong ways of reasoning, such as confirmation bias.

As to your discomfort over the unknown, that's really not something we can address with facts and reason. You'll have to work that out for yourself.
 
In what way do Jay's posts differ from mine in their content?

Thank you, but personal flattery is irrelevant. You have been addressed by several people in this thread who have exemplified the process of skeptical inquiry. You have treated them very rudely. An apology to them would be in order, if you intend to proceed.
Sorry to everyone on the forum! I have no prejudice against skeptics! I am only against pseudoskepticism but without prejudice against pseudoskeptics!
 
But you haven't explained adequately why you presume to insult many of us by labelling us "pseudoskeptics". You've attempted to, but your attempt was found lacking and the reasoning was pointed out to you. Instead of addressing those responses you simply restated your claim. A claim is not evidence.

You've also singularly failed to answer my question that you yourself have quoted.
 

Back
Top Bottom