• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Heaven is Real... Newsweek 10-15-12

Resume said:
It's not a lie if you believe it.

New thread please.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but I have no desire to be part of it. Just stopped by here 2 add my 2cents and it grew.

I like a lot of you guys, but realize sometimes never the twain shall meet. Well, I shouldn't say never. With an open mind, who knows?

Peace.

And thank you.
 
kerikiwi said:
The nastiest person in the world could make a perfectly logical, convincing argument.
The nicest person in the world could be totally incapable.

In short: nice and nasty have absolutely no relevance to reality
Click to expand...
And yet, I think I could tell the difference. I'm not good at a lot of things.
But, I am good at that.
 
Robin1 said:
We both do. I can't wait to see your proof that there is no life after death.

That there is no God.

Or, is it a stalemate?
Click to expand...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one./
(emphases added by Slowvehicle)

Since you are the one making the claim that there is "life after death" (which beggars the definition of both "life" and "death"), you have the burden of proof.

Anecdotes are not proof. Embellished anecdotes are not proof. Deeply-cherished superstitions are not proof.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
RandFan said:
Nearly everyone I know and love is a theist. I have no malice towards theists. But that is all beside the point. A.) This is a skeptics forum. B.) I want to know as many true things as I can. C.) I believe in the power of dialog to overcome superstition and instill in more and more people the desire to be skeptical and to think critically.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
Robin1 said:
And I am open to evidence that there is no life after death.

Or God.

Do you have any?

And by evidence I don't mean wish-thinking or fairy tales or stories that make us feel better on a cold, lonely night.

Checkmate?
Click to expand...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one./
(emphases added by Slowvehicle)

Since you are the one making the claim that there is "life after death" (which beggars the definition of both "life" and "death"), you have the burden of proof.

Anecdotes are not proof. Embellished anecdotes are not proof. Deeply-cherished superstitions are not proof.
___
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Stomatopoda said:
Anecdotes are evidence that a claim is worth investigating further, not evidence for the claim.
Click to expand...
Let's make clear that we all accept anecdotes all of the time. If my sister tells me her daughter fell and scraped her knee I'm happy to accept that anecdote as a fact. It's the extraordinary claims or claims that will cost us something that we should be skeptical of.
 
Resume said:
Geez, no. I'm trying to help you understand the mechanics of a logical argument. And why yours aren't logical, so far.
Click to expand...

Robin1 said:
Blah, blah, blah...
Click to expand...
Robin, you're doing the equivalent of trying to play chess without first learning how the pieces move. If you were playing chess with someone who moved a bishop horizontally and, when you pointed out that bishops can only move diagonally, replied "blah, blah, blah", what would you think of them?

Constructing a logical argument is not something you instinctively know how to do, it's a skill that needs to be learned. Not only do you not possess that skill you are rude to the people who are kind enough to attempt to teach it to you. This is why people get so impatient with you.
 
Pixel42 said:
Robin, you're doing the equivalent of trying to play chess without first learning how the pieces move. If you were playing chess with someone who moved a bishop horizontally and, when you pointed out that bishops can only move diagonally, replied "blah, blah, blah", what would you think of them?

Constructing a logical argument is not something you instinctively know how to do, it's a skill that needs to be learned. Not only do you not possess that skill you are rude to the people who are kind enough to attempt to teach it to you. This is why people get so impatient with you.
Click to expand...
Point taken. Not trying to be rude. Just funny. And make a point. Sorry.

OK let me put it this way....I think all of the Spocks on this forum need to let a little bit of Kirk into their way of thinking. Just a little, though, 'cause you definitely need to think like Spock. And Kirk. Both.

Wasn't Kirk better because of Spock?

Wasn't Spock better because of Kirk?

I think so.
 
Last edited:
Robin1 said:
Point taken. Not trying to be rude. Just funny. And make a point. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Apology accepted.

OK let me put it this way....I think all of the Spocks on this forum need to let a little bit of Kirk into their way of thinking. Just a little, though, 'cause you definitely need to think like Spock. And Kirk. Both.
Click to expand...
What makes you think the posters here aren't guided by their emotions (I assume that's what you mean) when it's appropriate? It just isn't appropriate when trying to ascertain the truth of outlandish claims.

The difference between the rules of chess and the rules of logical argument, of course, is that getting the rules of chess wrong doesn't result in you being fooled by the likes of Joseph Smith and John Edward.
 
Pixel42 said:
Apology accepted.


What makes you think the posters here aren't guided by their emotions (I assume that's what you mean) when it's appropriate? It just isn't appropriate when trying to ascertain the truth of outlandish claims.

The difference between the rules of chess and the rules of logical argument, of course, is that getting the rules of chess wrong doesn't result in you being fooled by the likes of Joseph Smith and John Edward.
Click to expand...
When it comes to seeing "truth," I think Kirk is better at it than Spock.

So long as he doesn't ignore Spock.
 
Last edited:
Robin1 said:
Point taken. Not trying to be rude. Just funny. And make a point. Sorry.

OK let me put it this way....I think all of the Spocks on this forum need to let a little bit of Kirk into their way of thinking. Just a little, though, 'cause you definitely need to think like Spock. And Kirk. Both.

Wasn't Kirk better because of Spock?

Wasn't Spock better because of Kirk?

I think so.
Click to expand...

Religion is a fantasy too.
 
Robin1 said:
Point taken. Not trying to be rude. Just funny. And make a point. Sorry.

OK let me put it this way....I think all of the Spocks on this forum need to let a little bit of Kirk into their way of thinking. Just a little, though, 'cause you definitely need to think like Spock. And Kirk. Both.

Wasn't Kirk better because of Spock?

Wasn't Spock better because of Kirk?

I think so.
Click to expand...
Robin, please to get and read The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and religion. It explains very well why all of us rely on emotion more than reason and why it's important to develop skepticism and critical thinking to inform those decisions. Also, I strongly recommend the following video The Straw Vulcan, Julia Galef Skepticon 4. In it Julia explains how all decisions are predicated in part on subjective desires. Again, not a mystery. Many if not most of us skeptics actually understand the importance of emotion and subjective drives in our decision making. We don't advocate that people forgo their humanity. On the contrary, most of us are humanist and therefore place a high value on things like kindness, human dignity and treating others as we would like to be treated. These are de rigueur to the committed humanist.

Robin, IMO, you have an entirely false notion of atheists, skeptics and humanists. We are not spiritually or emotionally dead. We do not believe that decisions must be made in a spock like fashion. We know this because most of us tend to keep up with psychology, sociobiology, sociology and other science fields that make it abundantly clear that our emotions are the seat of our intelligence and they are not simply important to our intelligence but vitally crucial to it. There would not be intelligence as we know it without emotions.

I urge you to stop making assumptions and start asking questions. We aren't what you think we are. You need to hear both sides of the story. We've got a fantastic one I assure you. A story of wonder, well-being, happiness, joy, pleasure and of course the pain and pitfalls of being human. Which is how you should see atheists. Imperfect humans trying, much like you, to get along in this world.

Perhaps we are much more alike than you think.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Robin, please to get and read The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and religion. It explains very well why all of us rely on emotion more than reason and why it's important to develop skepticism and critical thinking to inform those decisions. Also, I strongly recommend the following video The Straw Vulcan, Julia Galef Skepticon 4. In it Julia explains how all decisions are predicated in part on subjective desires. Again, not a mystery. Many if not most of us skeptics actually understand the importance of emotion and subjective drives in our decision making. We don't advocate that people forgo their humanity. On the contrary, most of us are humanist and therefore place a high value on things like kindness, human dignity and treating others as we would like to be treated. These are de rigueur to the committed humanist.

Robin, IMO, you have an entirely false notion of atheists, skeptics and humanists. We are not spiritually or emotionally dead. We do not believe that decisions must be made in a spock like fashion. We know this because most of us tend to keep up with psychology, sociobiology, sociology and other science fields that make it abundantly clear that our emotions are the seat of our intelligence and they are not simply important to our intelligence but vitally crucial to it. There would not be intelligence as we know it without emotions.

I urge you to stop making assumptions and start asking questions. We aren't what you think we are. You need to hear both sides of the story. We've got a fantastic one I assure you. A story of wonder, well-being, happiness, joy, pleasure and of course the pain and pitfalls of being human. Which is how you should see atheists. Imperfect humans trying, much like you, to get along in this world.

Perhaps we are much more alike than you think.
Click to expand...
Methinks you are overthinking the Spock/Kirk thing.

WAY overthinking it.

And ironically your overanalyzing has , once again, led you to a wrong conclusion.

I already thought we were a lot alike.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom