Sean Manchester - Vampire Hunter

[CatherineFearnley]

I didn't bring it up, you did, in response to Cuddles initially.

Maybe but I asked you a question of what you thought was wrong.


Well, as you appear to have done it again, you obviously have no idea.

So it's complete arrogance to believe in something that you know is historical and archeologically right and correct. Well, that's your problem not mine.


You might as well point to the British Library and say "it's in one of those books".

Why not if that is what you class as Evidence.


They don't know that, they believe it, there is insufficient evidence to say whether he was a real person or not, let alone where he came from.

We know because we have researched proper Court documents so surely these class as evidence.


The average person doesn't research every fictional character they come across, they read stories, watch TV or go to the movies, and acquire the generally accepted mythology of folk heroes.

Who said Robin Hood was fiction? I never did.


I will use Cuddles' previous quote again, in the hope that you may understand it this time: "there are many reliable sources that publish on the internet and links to these are a very good form of evidence".

I have already said that I am not going to repeat myself with this quote. I am perfectly capable of understanding the ridiculous quote. Why should I provide links.


If you won't produce any evidence, we cannot even begin to assess it's accuracy.

Go and look for your own evidence. Why should I provide it, it's all there.


My reference to accuracy was in response to your argument to allow sloppy use of language. However, with your evidence, accuracy could be assessed by, for example, checking for obvious errors in data, deliberate manipulation to allow favourable impressions, or conclusions not borne out by the facts.

And I presume that you've got brilliant use of language. Don't be so arrogant by making this claim.

 

[Cuddles]

So you believe everything what is put in front of you as evidence. It was you yourself who said that the internet was a provable source of evidence, I just gave one search engine as an example. Do you believe in anything full stop?

Please actually read my posts before replying to them. I said the exact opposite of what you are claiming I said. I did not say "the internet" is evidence, I said there are many respectable, peer reviewed sites on the internet. For example, PubMed provides a central location for many medical trials. A link to an abstract on there would be acceptable as evidence for medical issues, while a teenager's MySpace page saying "Quantum crystals healed my gerbil" would not be. The internet is a big place where anyone can write anything they like, but not everything written should be believed. And as I said before, I do not believe anything, the way you mean it. I accept things based on the evidence until better evidence comes along.

It would matter if they put your lives at risk, what people say is one thing but when your whole family is at risk because some jerk publishes your private details such as addresses, telephone numbers etc etc then unless you are totally selfish then it would matter.

Irrelevant. No-one on this site has done so. As I said, no-one forced either you or David to come here and no-one is forcing you to stay.

What are you babbling on about, you are contradicting yourself left right and centre here. Surely if someone were that world famous and you had a reason to quote him, then surely you would know his name.

Obviously not. As I quite clearly said, with no babling involved, just because someone is famous does not mean I know their name. As it happens, I mentioned him because I had seen him mentioned somewhere else recently and it was an appropriate example, but since I am not a geologist I don't really know much about him and had no reason to look it up just to provide a quick example. The fact that you read so much into this says an awful lot about your debating tactics and abilities.

No nobody has the right to ridicule anyones beliefs. I never said that to believe in something does make it right, but it is totally wrong for someone else to try and destroy that belief.

What is wrong with it? Free speech. You can believe and say whatever you like and I can believe and say whatever I like. If the things I say happen to contradict your beliefs that is your problem. If the things I say happen to be backed up by evidence from the real world that is your problem. If the things I say happen to prove that your beliefs are wrong, you should have a serious think about why you believe them.

Yes in other words I do tend to believe it's better to believe in something whether it's right, wrong or indifferent. It is upto the individual person as to choose what to believe or not to believe.

Well, I can think of nothing to say apart from that is completely and utterly insane. How can you possibly argue that it is better to believe something completely wrong than to know the truth? I can at least understand why most believe things because at least they think they are true. To say that belief is so special that you should believe absolutely anything just for the sake of believing is just about as stupid as it is possible to get.

What have lemmings got to do with it?

A million lemmings can't be wrong is a saying the refers to the (false) belief that lemmings throw themselves of cliffs in large numbers just because they see all the others doing it. It is sarcastic in that it actually means that a million lemmings certainly can be wrong. Just because lots of people do something or believe something does not make it correct, or even sensible. Just because lots of people believe in ghosts does not make it true.

You can easily choose between different religions. Look at me for an example. For many years I was a Pagan, but there was one point that I felt that it was not right for me, so I looked into all the other religions and finally chose one that is right.

I find this particularly amusing in light of your later comment "All religion is ridiculous to some degree as are people who choose to believe it". In any case, choosing between religions is, again, irrelevant to the actual point, which was that no religion has any more evidence than any other. As someone (possibly Dawkins) once said, everyone is an atheist, I am just atheistic for one more god. If you belive that all except one religion is wrong then you have to ask what is so special about that one. If you believe that all religions are right depending on who you are, you are just plain wrong. Most religions directly contradict each other and therefore cannot all be right, no matter what anyone believes.

Oh, hey up, you're accusing me of lying about things, just like you accused David of lying. Why should I give links to the many sites on the internet that give postive evidence. Go and search the internet yourself. I'm far to busy to do everyone elses work for them. You are a researcher of the truth are you not? Go out and research if you are that bothered.

Except I didn't just accuse him, I showed the evidence that proved he actually was lying. In your case I did not accuse you, I just said I had to assume you are lying if refuse to produce the evidence that you claim to have. You have said that you research these things and that the evidence is out there, yet you refuse to provide any such evidence. I can only assume that either the evidence does not exist or that you do not know where it is, either way your previous statements are false.

Again I have not got blind faith. I research everything and no you don't need evidence of anything to believe.

Believing without evidence = blind faith.

I wasn't on about your posts, you seem to think that this thread is all about you Cuddles, I was referring to someone elses post. And you think that it is wrong to try and be nice and civilized to each other and to create a better atmosphere? What is crazy about that?

It is generally a reasonable assumption that a reply to one of my posts, quoting that post, in the middle of a set of replies all of which were addressed to me about my post, would also be to me about my post. If you wish to avoid confusion in these matters, please address your replies to the appropriate post and poster. That said, I don't recall anyone else mentioning scientology, so perhaps you could provide a link to the post you actually were referring to.

Once again, the rest of your reply is utterly irrelevant to the point being discussed. I did not say anything about being nice to each other, or whether that was right or wrong. What I said was that scientology is one of the more ridiculous religions around. Of course I don't think that being nice to each other is crazy, but I do think that showing people how their beliefs are wrong and educating them about the real world is being nice.

Well if you have a belief in something, someone, or whatever you have that person to cling on to. You have something there for support and for knowledge. You are not just wandering around without any morals, without not knowing what is right or wrong.

Two points here. Firstly, people are what you should have to cling to for support. If you have to rely on imaginary friends instead of real ones then you have a problem. Secondly, you cannot get knowledge from beliefs. You can use knowledge to form your beliefs, but blind belief cannot give you knowledge.

Thirdly (nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition), this should probably be taken to the religion and philosophy forums, but it is impossible for religious people to be moral, only atheists can be. Moral means doing things because you think they are right, and generally treating other people as you would like to be treated. Most religions force you to do things either through bribery or threat. Doing something becaues you are threatened with enternal suffering or bribed with enternal pleasure is moral. In addition, many studies show that the proportion of religious people in jail is higher than that outside. Religious people are actually more likely to be criminals, and therefore less likely to be moral.

Again it was you yourself who said that to quote from the internet stands as evidence. All I'm saying is that it is upto you to go and look for it.

I never claimed anything of the sort. All I have said that there is plenty of evidence on the internet. Just google in "historical evidence for Jesus" and you'll find it. Plenty of sites.

No, I did not say that. I said that there are reliable sources on the internet. That means nothing for the internet as a whole. You claimed that there is evidence on the internet. There is no point denying that you said this, it is on this thread for all to see. You might think like David that whatever you say is the truth, but it is very clear that you did claim exactly that. You say that something is true and that there is evidence for it. Therefore you must have seen the evidence, or you would not claim it to be true. It is not up to me to find this evidence for you. If you want us to accept anything you claim, you are the one that must support your statements. Google is not evidence. Why can you not just provide a link to something you think is evidence so that we can see if it actually supports what you are saying?

That was upto him to decide. It is not anyone elses God given right to make people believe in anything they don't want to believe in whether evidence dictates otherwise or not.

Coming from someone who has already said that all religion is ridiculous, appeals to god seem just a little silly. In any case, whether he had the right to believe in anything is not the point. No-one here apart from you has ever tried to take away anyone's right to believe or say whatever they want. However, just because you have the right to do something does not mean you should, and it certainly does not mean other people cannot criticise you for exercising that right. If you are a scientist and you continue to believe in something despite being conclusively proved wrong, you will be ridiculed for it. You may have the right to believe, but that doesn't mean believing is always right.

You don't have to accept evidence of anything.

You don't have to, but you look pretty silly if you don't. How's that gravity working out for you?

Actually homeopathy does work in some cases. What I did say is if I remember rightly that it is upto the individual to choose whether or not to go to the homeopath. Nobody can tell people otherwise, but I'd recommend going to a doctor as well. Homeopaths don't have a habit of lying, they tend to tell people the truth apart from the odd cranks, just like doctors they get struck off the medical list.

No, homeopathy never works. Please search this forum for threads on homeopathy where this has been discussed to death. Hoemopaths cannot get struck off anything, because anyone who feels like it can call themselves a homeopath. In any case, I brought up homeopathy because it was a good example of something that has been proven wrong and which can hurt people if they believe in it. This was in response to your claim that believing in something that has been proven wrong does not hurt anyone. It may be up to the individual to choose, but it is also up to people with the relevant knowledge to protect others from fraud.

Why is believing in something you know to be wrong stupid. How can your belief system be WRONG? Again to quote Paul, there are nine different interpretations of the word WRONG? Depends which one you mean?

Becuase it's wrong. How can it possibly be sensible to believe in something that you know is wrong? It just doesn't make any sort of sense. The whole point of belief is that you believe it. If you don't believe your own beliefs there is something seriously wrong with you. As for the 9 different meaning, pick any one you like. I would recommend avoiding 8 and 9 because they are not relevant, but any of the other 7 will do nicely.

Yes maybe, but you might not be telling the truth. Have you got any better evidence? You said yourself that it's only anecdotal. I'm not buying that.

Thank you. That was exactly my point. It is completely unverifiable anecdotal evidence, but it is still more evidence than exists in support of fairies. Therefore I am happy with the anecdote until someone shows me something that suggest faries might actually be reasonable theory.

I've already said that I don't believe in "vampires" so how can I give you proof of something I don't believe in?

Firstly, the quote specifically mentioned David's belief in vampires, not yours. Secondly, as has been discussed over and over, the rest of us don't care that you both now define vampires as the classic Dracula-style thing, David initially used the word to describe whatever psychic entity he claimed to have witnessed, which is what we are discussing in his thread, so merely repeating David's mantra about not believing in vampires when they are really ghosts, or whatever, is really quite dishonest and not relevant in any way. Finally, I made that remark as a slightly sarcastic comment to point out that since you compared me providing evidence for fairies to David providing evidence for whatever it is he believes, given that I have now provided evidence for fairies it seems not unreasonable to expect him to now provide evidence of his beliefs.

 

[CatherineFearnley]

Please actually read my posts before replying to them. I said the exact opposite of what you are claiming I said. I did not say "the internet" is evidence, I said there are many respectable, peer reviewed sites on the internet. For example, PubMed provides a central location for many medical trials. A link to an abstract on there would be acceptable as evidence for medical issues, while a teenager's MySpace page saying "Quantum crystals healed my gerbil" would not be. The internet is a big place where anyone can write anything they like, but not everything written should be believed. And as I said before, I do not believe anything, the way you mean it. I accept things based on the evidence until better evidence comes along.





Irrelevant. No-one on this site has done so. As I said, no-one forced either you or David to come here and no-one is forcing you to stay.

It isn't irrelevant because you said that you would not care if anyone said anything about you on this site, but you would if someone published your private details on this site.



Obviously not. As I quite clearly said, with no babling involved, just because someone is famous does not mean I know their name. As it happens, I mentioned him because I had seen him mentioned somewhere else recently and it was an appropriate example, but since I am not a geologist I don't really know much about him and had no reason to look it up just to provide a quick example. The fact that you read so much into this says an awful lot about your debating tactics and abilities.



What is wrong with it? Free speech. You can believe and say whatever you like and I can believe and say whatever I like. If the things I say happen to contradict your beliefs that is your problem. If the things I say happen to be backed up by evidence from the real world that is your problem. If the things I say happen to prove that your beliefs are wrong, you should have a serious think about why you believe them.

There is too much 'Free Speech'. Free Speech has a habit of hurting people and disclosing private things about people which otherwise wouldn't be in the public domain. What you say does not prove that my beliefs are wrong. Why are my beliefs wrong? Can you give evidence of why my beliefs are wrong? And why should I have a serious think about why beliefs are wrong? I have not got a problem with what you say, I can either take it or leave it. In fact I generally leave it. Because what you say has no impact on me.


Well, I can think of nothing to say apart from that is completely and utterly insane. How can you possibly argue that it is better to believe something completely wrong than to know the truth? I can at least understand why most believe things because at least they think they are true. To say that belief is so special that you should believe absolutely anything just for the sake of believing is just about as stupid as it is possible to get.

Again the truth is what? What I believe in is true. And I would not go against my Church for anything or anyone. So what they say goes as far as I'm concerned, and you have to have faith to believe. Without this faith there is nothing.



A million lemmings can't be wrong is a saying the refers to the (false) belief that lemmings throw themselves of cliffs in large numbers just because they see all the others doing it. It is sarcastic in that it actually means that a million lemmings certainly can be wrong. Just because lots of people do something or believe something does not make it correct, or even sensible. Just because lots of people believe in ghosts does not make it true.

Yes and a million Christians can't be wrong either.

You can easily choose between different religions. Look at me for an example. For many years I was a Pagan, but there was one point that I felt that it was not right for me, so I looked into all the other religions and finally chose one that is right.

I find this particularly amusing in light of your later comment "All religion is ridiculous to some degree as are people who choose to believe it". In any case, choosing between religions is, again, irrelevant to the actual point, which was that no religion has any more evidence than any other. As someone (possibly Dawkins) once said, everyone is an atheist, I am just atheistic for one more god. If you belive that all except one religion is wrong then you have to ask what is so special about that one. If you believe that all religions are right depending on who you are, you are just plain wrong. Most religions directly contradict each other and therefore cannot all be right, no matter what anyone believes.

All religion has many doctrines and rules and regulations. But at the end of the day most religions do not contradict with each other because they all believe in ONE GOD, ONE CREATOR choose whatever you wish to call HIM.



Except I didn't just accuse him, I showed the evidence that proved he actually was lying. In your case I did not accuse you, I just said I had to assume you are lying if refuse to produce the evidence that you claim to have. You have said that you research these things and that the evidence is out there, yet you refuse to provide any such evidence. I can only assume that either the evidence does not exist or that you do not know where it is, either way your previous statements are false.

You didn't show any evidence which proved David was lying. Show me the evidence that you did. I have already stated where the evidence is. I cannot spend my life quoting the numerous websites that I've looked at and the books that I have read, as I said to Paul, life is too short for that.



Believing without evidence = blind faith.

Again I do not believe without evidence therefore I have not got blind faith.


It is generally a reasonable assumption that a reply to one of my posts, quoting that post, in the middle of a set of replies all of which were addressed to me about my post, would also be to me about my post. If you wish to avoid confusion in these matters, please address your replies to the appropriate post and poster. That said, I don't recall anyone else mentioning scientology, so perhaps you could provide a link to the post you actually were referring to.

I honestly can't be bothered to go through 17 threads to find one little sentence. It's out there somewhere.

Once again, the rest of your reply is utterly irrelevant to the point being discussed. I did not say anything about being nice to each other, or whether that was right or wrong. What I said was that scientology is one of the more ridiculous religions around. Of course I don't think that being nice to each other is crazy, but I do think that showing people how their beliefs are wrong and educating them about the real world is being nice.

What is nice about showing people their beliefs are wrong? That is immoral. If people want to belief in something providing that they are not hurting others then let them. And by belief, I mean religon and not the ridiculous claim of 'vampires'.



Two points here. Firstly, people are what you should have to cling to for support. If you have to rely on imaginary friends instead of real ones then you have a problem. Secondly, you cannot get knowledge from beliefs. You can use knowledge to form your beliefs, but blind belief cannot give you knowledge.

I don't rely on imaginary friends. You can get knowledge from beliefs. Beliefs do not spring up from nowhere.

Thirdly (nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition), this should probably be taken to the religion and philosophy forums, but it is impossible for religious people to be moral, only atheists can be. Moral means doing things because you think they are right, and generally treating other people as you would like to be treated. Most religions force you to do things either through bribery or threat. Doing something becaues you are threatened with enternal suffering or bribed with enternal pleasure is moral. In addition, many studies show that the proportion of religious people in jail is higher than that outside. Religious people are actually more likely to be criminals, and therefore less likely to be moral.

Why is it impossible for religious people to be moral. I don't see the Roman Catholic Church threatening or bribery. Religion may attract many cranks one only has to look at a certain person mentioned elsewhere on this forum without mentioning any names. But having said that it is upto you to correct your standards and to follow the correct


No, I did not say that. I said that there are reliable sources on the internet. That means nothing for the internet as a whole. You claimed that there is evidence on the internet. There is no point denying that you said this, it is on this thread for all to see. You might think like David that whatever you say is the truth, but it is very clear that you did claim exactly that. You say that something is true and that there is evidence for it. Therefore you must have seen the evidence, or you would not claim it to be true. It is not up to me to find this evidence for you. If you want us to accept anything you claim, you are the one that must support your statements. Google is not evidence. Why can you not just provide a link to something you think is evidence so that we can see if it actually supports what you are saying?



Coming from someone who has already said that all religion is ridiculous, appeals to god seem just a little silly. In any case, whether he had the right to believe in anything is not the point. No-one here apart from you has ever tried to take away anyone's right to believe or say whatever they want. However, just because you have the right to do something does not mean you should, and it certainly does not mean other people cannot criticise you for exercising that right. If you are a scientist and you continue to believe in something despite being conclusively proved wrong, you will be ridiculed for it. You may have the right to believe, but that doesn't mean believing is always right.

In what way have I tried to take away anyone's right to believe or say whatever they want. I approve all religions, just because I don't agree with their doctrines, etc doesn't mean that someone else can't believe in that. And I don't believe that I have tried to stop people from saying what they want either. That is false accusation. You have the right to do something providing it does not physically cause harm to others.


You don't have to, but you look pretty silly if you don't. How's that gravity working out for you?



No, homeopathy never works. Please search this forum for threads on homeopathy where this has been discussed to death. Hoemopaths cannot get struck off anything, because anyone who feels like it can call themselves a homeopath. In any case, I brought up homeopathy because it was a good example of something that has been proven wrong and which can hurt people if they believe in it. This was in response to your claim that believing in something that has been proven wrong does not hurt anyone. It may be up to the individual to choose, but it is also up to people with the relevant knowledge to protect others from fraud.

Sorry but I'm really not that interested in homeopathy, it was not myself who brought this into discussion. And again providing that person is over the age of consent then who are we to stop them from going to a homeopath if they believe that it is the right thing to do.


Becuase it's wrong. How can it possibly be sensible to believe in something that you know is wrong? It just doesn't make any sort of sense. The whole point of belief is that you believe it. If you don't believe your own beliefs there is something seriously wrong with you. As for the 9 different meaning, pick any one you like. I would recommend avoiding 8 and 9 because they are not relevant, but any of the other 7 will do nicely.

I believe in what I believe in 100% thank you. My belief is not wrong. Just because you think it is that is your pergoative.



Thank you. That was exactly my point. It is completely unverifiable anecdotal evidence, but it is still more evidence than exists in support of fairies. Therefore I am happy with the anecdote until someone shows me something that suggest faries might actually be reasonable theory.

I don't believe in fairies any more than I believe in 'vampires'.



Firstly, the quote specifically mentioned David's belief in vampires, not yours. Secondly, as has been discussed over and over, the rest of us don't care that you both now define vampires as the classic Dracula-style thing, David initially used the word to describe whatever psychic entity he claimed to have witnessed, which is what we are discussing in his thread, so merely repeating David's mantra about not believing in vampires when they are really ghosts, or whatever, is really quite dishonest and not relevant in any way. Finally, I made that remark as a slightly sarcastic comment to point out that since you compared me providing evidence for fairies to David providing evidence for whatever it is he believes, given that I have now provided evidence for fairies it seems not unreasonable to expect him to now provide evidence of his beliefs.

I have not defined 'vampires' in any shape or form. I just don't believe in them one iota. To do so would go against my own Church. David has never used the word 'vampire' to describe the psychic entity. He may have said 'vampire-like' but that is really up to David to discuss. You have not provided evidence for fairies one way or another. Just an anecdote which may or may not be true. So why should Dvaid provide evidence of his beliefs. Come to think of it why should anyone either here or elsewhere provide evidence for their beliefs. Belief is upto the individual.

 

[Cuddles]

I have already said that I am not going to repeat myself with this quote. I am perfectly capable of understanding the ridiculous quote. Why should I provide links.

Go and look for your own evidence. Why should I provide it, it's all there.

Oh dear. Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of this forum. It is a discussion board for skepticism. Many people claim all sorts of things, and no-one has the time to research everyone single one themselves. If someone presents a claim, of any kind, we expect them to be able to provide evidence to support it. You are not special. It is not reasonable to expect everyone to go and research your theories any more than they would research anyone other. If this really is the way you feel about evidence then there really is no point in you being here.

More to the point, many people here have already looked at the available evidence and come to their own conclusions. If you come here with a different opinion then they will, reasonably, want to know why you have reached a different conclusion and what led you to it. Simply telling them to go and look at every single thing that anyone has ever written is not in any way useful to anyone. Why are you not capable of simply letting us know exactly what this evidence you find so compelling is?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

All religion has many doctrines and rules and regulations. But at the end of the day most religions do not contradict with each other because they all believe in ONE GOD, ONE CREATOR choose whatever you wish to call HIM.

All religions are monotheistic are they?

What is nice about showing people their beliefs are wrong? That is immoral. If people want to belief in something providing that they are not hurting others then let them. And by belief, I mean religon and not the ridiculous claim of 'vampires'.

How do you discriminate between beliefs that it would be immoral to ridicule, and beliefs that are ridiculous. Who is the arbiter of what type of belief is ridiculous? Who do I consult before I ridicule someone? I wouldn't want to accidentally do something immoral, just because I ridiculed the wrong set of people...

 

[Paul]

Maybe but I asked you a question of what you thought was wrong.

Sorry, you can't just turn things round to avoid responsibility.

So it's complete arrogance to believe in something that you know is historical and archeologically right and correct. Well, that's your problem not mine.

You don't see that saying "Of course Jesus existed" in a discussion where you have been repeatedly asked to provide evidence for such a claim, might be considered arrogant?

Why not if that is what you class as Evidence.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your responses are becoming?

We know because we have researched proper Court documents so surely these class as evidence.

Have you examined all records for the entire region and discovered only one man with the correct name in the correct time period?

Who said Robin Hood was fiction? I never did.

No, you didn't, but, on the other hand, you said you were an 'ordinary' person and neglected to mention that you are Secretary of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society with the attendant vested interests.

I have already said that I am not going to repeat myself with this quote. I am perfectly capable of understanding the ridiculous quote. Why should I provide links.

If you understand, why do you repeatedly make statements which imply that you have no idea what we are talking about?

And I presume that you've got brilliant use of language. Don't be so arrogant by making this claim.

It's kind of you to say, but this isn't about how brilliant I am; my point is that when there are several possible definitions for a word, based on the context, it is sensible to know which is being used.

To use the current incumbent as an example:

religion could be incorrect¹, mistaken², not the intended or desired one³, not in accordance with law, morality, or with people's sense of what is acceptable behaviour⁵ or unsuitable⁶.

 

[Darat]

You said:

How can you "define" one person just knowing one fact about them - and not even any context for that fact (see below).

I did not intend to personalise it in that way.

All right, let me ask the question in a different way ;

Do you think that the a belief in 'blood-sucking vampires' is sane and rational? Or do you believe such a belief is 'dumb' and 'ignorant'? Perhaps I should have put the question that way instead; but it really requires the same answer.

Again you leave some context out that makes your question quite difficult to answer, however I would say on the whole the people that I know beleive in "blood-sucking vampires" either from personal experience or from evidence they have read and seen. So It seems a very a rational and sane to me to believe in "blood-sucking vampires".

I only generally use the colour or italic facility to seperate my quotes or references as I do not know how to use the 'copy' one.

...snip...

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/misc.php?do=bbcode#quote

And I would also ask you to stop using bold unless it is to emphasis something, bold fonts are harder to read then non-bold fonts.

 

[Paul]

but you would if someone published your private details on this site.

Has anyone published your private details here, has anyone even said more than is available to anyone on the rest of the internet? If not, stop making silly comparisons and actually answer some questions.

There is too much 'Free Speech'.

Really, and how would you like to limit free speech?

Free Speech has a habit of hurting people and disclosing private things about people which otherwise wouldn't be in the public domain.

Only if they are deemed to be of public interest.

What you say does not prove that my beliefs are wrong. Why are my beliefs wrong? Can you give evidence of why my beliefs are wrong?

You seem to be a little insecure in those beliefs.

And why should I have a serious think about why beliefs are wrong?

"If the things I say happen to prove that your beliefs are wrong, you should have a serious think about why you believe them."

Because what you say has no impact on me.

You invest a lot of time in something that has no impact on you.

Again the truth is what? What I believe in is true.

Just because you believe it, doesn't make it true.

And I would not go against my Church for anything or anyone.

Then you are a very dangerous brainwashed cultist.

So what they say goes as far as I'm concerned,

Really, you should try and develop a mind of your own.

and you have to have faith to believe.

If you mean faith in the evidence then yes, if you mean religious faith then that is an entirely different matter.

Without this faith there is nothing.

That must make for a very lonely existence.

Yes and a million Christians can't be wrong either.

What about the Christians with different beliefs to you, or the Muslims, Atheists, Chinese traditionalists, Hindus, Buddhists, indigenous peoples, African traditionalists, Sikhs, spiritists, Jews etc.?

 

[DavidFarrant]

For Darat

If I hesitate with this reply, Darat, it is because I am not quite sure if you are being serious.

Assuming that you are, you may be referring to 'vampieoids', real living cults involving involving very human people who emulate vampires (or what they mistakenly assume 'vampires' to be) and who actually drink one another's blood. If I am correct, even then the question remains. Would you say that this is sane or rational practice or belief? Personally, I would not, but maybe that is just me!

If you are replying literally (and I have my doubts), then I would have to strongly disagree with you. I would not say that a belief in the existance of real vampires (i.e. undead beings that leave their coffins by night to suck the blood of the living) is either sane or rational. Something tells me that you do not personally believe this. I might be wrong, in which case sorry.

David Farrant

 

[CatherineFearnley]

Oh dear. Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of this forum. It is a discussion board for skepticism. Many people claim all sorts of things, and no-one has the time to research everyone single one themselves. If someone presents a claim, of any kind, we expect them to be able to provide evidence to support it. You are not special. It is not reasonable to expect everyone to go and research your theories any more than they would research anyone other. If this really is the way you feel about evidence then there really is no point in you being here.

You don't say. Quite, no-one has the time to research everything including myself. I know I am not special but then again neither are you. I do not need evidence for my belief, I've already said so. I'm not going to go on repeating it. It is you who wants the evidence not myself.



More to the point, many people here have already looked at the available evidence and come to their own conclusions. If you come here with a different opinion then they will, reasonably, want to know why you have reached a different conclusion and what led you to it. Simply telling them to go and look at every single thing that anyone has ever written is not in any way useful to anyone. Why are you not capable of simply letting us know exactly what this evidence you find so compelling is?

If people come to their own conclusions then that is their perogative, that is what I've been saying all along. People have a right to their own beliefs (Religion that is). I have already told you where and how to find the evidence. I'm not repeating it again.

 

[CatherineFearnley]

Has anyone published your private details here, has anyone even said more than is available to anyone on the rest of the internet? If not, stop making silly comparisons and actually answer some questions.

I never said that anyone has posted my private details here, what I said was that Cuddles wouldn't like it if any members on here posted HER private details.


Really, and how would you like to limit free speech?

There really should be no such thing as free speech. If we were to be saying things without 'evidence' then we could be sued here in the UK.


Only if they are deemed to be of public interest.


You seem to be a little insecure in those beliefs.

I am not insecure about my beliefs. If anything people without beliefs are insecure.


"If the things I say happen to prove that your beliefs are wrong, you should have a serious think about why you believe them."

Why should I take your word for it.




You invest a lot of time in something that has no impact on you.

Likewise.


Just because you believe it, doesn't make it true.

Never said it did, did I?


Then you are a very dangerous brainwashed cultist.

Don't be silly. How can I be dangerous sat a computer? That is a claim where is your evidence.


Really, you should try and develop a mind of your own.

I have thank you.


If you mean faith in the evidence then yes, if you mean religious faith then that is an entirely different matter.

Not necessarily.


That must make for a very lonely existence.

Actually no it doesn't.


What about the Christians with different beliefs to you, or the Muslims, Atheists, Chinese traditionalists, Hindus, Buddhists, indigenous peoples, African traditionalists, Sikhs, spiritists, Jews etc.?

True Christians, should believe in one God nothing more nothing less and the rest don't really come into it. Atheists don't believe in anything and also Spiritualists believe in the Creator/God which amounts to the same thing.

 

[CatherineFearnley]

Sorry, you can't just turn things round to avoid responsibility.

I am not avoiding responsibility. You have asked me many questions and got answers so I'm asking you a simple question and I've still got no reply. It's all right for you to ask questions but not myself.


You don't see that saying "Of course Jesus existed" in a discussion where you have been repeatedly asked to provide evidence for such a claim, might be considered arrogant?

I'll repeat this again. My belief that Jesus existed is not arrogant, and I've already told you where to find evidence. I'm not going to keep repeating it.


Do you have any idea how ridiculous your responses are becoming?

Likewise, because you are asking the same things over and over again and I've already supplied you with the answers. If there is anyone who is sounding ridiculous it's yourself for repeating these same questions and for me to answer them.


Have you examined all records for the entire region and discovered only one man with the correct name in the correct time period?

We're still working on it but we have narrowed it down to one person yes.


No, you didn't, but, on the other hand, you said you were an 'ordinary' person and neglected to mention that you are Secretary of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society with the attendant vested interests.

Why should I mention that I am the Secretary of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society. I don't go around bragging about it. It still makes me an ordinary person, and I had an interest in Robin Hood long before I joined the Robin Hood Society.


If you understand, why do you repeatedly make statements which imply that you have no idea what we are talking about?

I do not make statements which imply that I have no idea. That is just your opinon.


It's kind of you to say, but this isn't about how brilliant I am; my point is that when there are several possible definitions for a word, based on the context, it is sensible to know which is being used.

You brilliant, I doubt it. If anything you are far from brilliant.

To use the current incumbent as an example:

religion could be incorrect¹, mistaken², not the intended or desired one³, not in accordance with law, morality, or with people's sense of what is acceptable behaviour⁵ or unsuitable⁶.

Don't be ridiculous. Now you are implying that I do not know what acceptable behaviour is? And that I am mistaken and I am not in accordance with the law. Whatever gives you that idea.

 

[CatherineFearnley]

All religions are monotheistic are they?

Please note that in my post I said most and not all.




How do you discriminate between beliefs that it would be immoral to ridicule, and beliefs that are ridiculous. Who is the arbiter of what type of belief is ridiculous? Who do I consult before I ridicule someone? I wouldn't want to accidentally do something immoral, just because I ridiculed the wrong set of people...

Belief in 'vampires' is not a religion. 'Vampires' do not even exist. What I said was that it is immoral to try and turn anyone away from their proper religion such as a belief in Christ, or such other person.

 

[Paul]

what I said was that Cuddles wouldn't like it if any members on here posted HER private details.

And you brought up this entirely pointless scenario because?

There really should be no such thing as free speech.

That religious morality is working well I see.

If we were to be saying things without 'evidence' then we could be sued here in the UK.

No we couldn't, we would have to say something defamatory which was heard by a third party first, and even then you would have to show that you had a reputation to damage.

I am not insecure about my beliefs. If anything people without beliefs are insecure.

You're not insecure but you found the need to mention it and disparage other groups.

Why should I take your word for it.

They weren't my words and I emphasised the appropriate word in the quote so that it answered your previous question.

Don't be silly. How can I be dangerous sat a computer? That is a claim where is your evidence.

It's silly to call you on it, but not silly to say that you "would not go against {your} Church for anything or anyone. So what they say goes as far as {you are} concerned" is not?

I have thank you.

Not if you think whatever someone else says goes and you would never oppose them just because they claim to represent your god.

True Christians, should believe in one God nothing more nothing less and the rest don't really come into it.

If only there was some kind of formal convention, a logical fallacy perhaps, that could be used here, we could always involve Scotsmen, that would make it more interesting.

Atheists don't believe in anything

Atheists believe in lots of things, just not deities.

and also Spiritualists believe in the Creator/God which amounts to the same thing.

Except I said spiritists, didn't I.

 

[CLD]

Can someone define "dickipoggy" for me?

 

[Paul]

I'll repeat this again. My belief that Jesus existed is not arrogant, and I've already told you where to find evidence. I'm not going to keep repeating it.

You can repeat what you like for as long as you like, it won't change the fact that you made a statement that jesus did exist. If you want to amend that to say that you believe jesus existed, that's fine, just don't get indignant over use of your own words.

you are asking the same things over and over again and I've already supplied you with the answers

If you had supplied the answers there would be no need for repeated questioning; the fact that you either cannot see or will not acknowledge that is part of the problem

Why should I mention that I am the Secretary of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society

We were discussing Robin Hood and you claimed to be an ordinary person with no special interest in, or knowledge of, the subject.

You brilliant, I doubt it. If anything you are far from brilliant

Careful, your halo is starting to slip.

Don't be ridiculous. Now you are implying that I do not know what acceptable behaviour is?

What on earth are you talking about? I merely showed how five of the definitions of wrong could be applied to religions, in the hope that you would see that your original question could have several meanings.

And that I am mistaken and I am not in accordance with the law.

Are you reading the same thread?

Whatever gives you that idea.

I might ask the same thing.

 

[Paul]

Can someone define "dickipoggy" for me?

'fraid not, and google is no help: there are only 75 hits and they all seem to lead back to our usual suspects somehow.

 

[DavidFarrant]

For Paul

Far be it for me to interfere in this conversation, Paul, but you did say:

You can repeat what you like for as long as you like, it won't change the fact that you made a statement that jesus did exist. If you want to amend that to say that you believe jesus existed, that's fine, just don't get indignant over use of your own words.

My question to you Paul, is really, can YOU produce evidence that Jesus did NOT exist? And can you do so here? Please let's forgive clever words and the like. But can you produce proof here that Jesus did not exist? And, if so, could you please show us your evidence?

Over to you . . .

David (Farrant)

 

[Paul]

My question to you Paul, is really, can YOU produce evidence that Jesus did NOT exist? And can you do so here? Please let's forgive clever words and the like. But can you produce proof here that Jesus did not exist? And, if so, could you please show us your evidence?

I cannot, nor do I seek to, prove the non-existence of a man called Jesus, in the same way that you cannot prove that a man called Horse did not exist. I, however, did not make a statement of fact about the existence of Jesus; do you see the difference in the two positions?

 

[Minarvia]

Far be it for me to interfere in this conversation, Paul, but you did say:

You can repeat what you like for as long as you like, it won't change the fact that you made a statement that jesus did exist. If you want to amend that to say that you believe jesus existed, that's fine, just don't get indignant over use of your own words.

My question to you Paul, is really, can YOU produce evidence that Jesus did NOT exist? And can you do so here? Please let's forgive clever words and the like. But can you produce proof here that Jesus did not exist? And, if so, could you please show us your evidence?

Over to you . . .

David (Farrant)

Not to be sarcastic to anyone here, but someone on this forum posted this link a couple of days ago that may address this very question -

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

That may be what you are looking for, David, as for what some of the folks here see as evidence to the contrary regarding the story of Jesus. And it may help you to understand some of the skepticism regarding the entire subject.

Sorry to intrude!