"I am a fool. Only Longshot and Axe are right. They have a complete understaniding of the universe. Polanyi is a unicorn-believer. Hoyle is a unicorn-believer. Grasse is a myth-believer. Only Longshot and Axe are right. Only LOngshot and Axe are right."
666...the Devils Moving Average
- Thread starter crackhead
- Start date
"I am a fool. Only Longshot and Axe are right. They have a complete understaniding of the universe. Polanyi is a unicorn-believer. Hoyle is a unicorn-believer. Grasse is a myth-believer. Only Longshot and Axe are right. Only LOngshot and Axe are right."
"Let's take the case of Marine biologist Sir Alister Hardy (knighted in 1985). He began his life just like you: opposed to the supernatural. However, as he studied it for years, he completely changed his views and began to realize that the "paranormal" really did he exist. "
Whoopie... and Einstein was a non-believer, who cares, doesn't
mean a thing.
Is this how you determine truth?
By cherry picking scientists with views which match yours?
What are you trying to say here?
That this guy MUST be right because of his caliber??
"This guy is a complete non-Chrisitian who started out just like you. "
I started out a christian. He is not like me.
"Do you think for a minute that this caliber of individual could be deceived by simple "brain stimulation" and "psycologically-explained" situations? "
He obviously believes in something that our scientific
community, including some of our greatest minds reject.
But that simply doesn't matter.
What matters is, did Sir Hardy ever PROVE that the supernatural exists? Why don't you post his proof instead of an unsupported opinion?
"Now why am I supposed to beleve you as opposed to one of the foremost biologist in Britain's history? Was your two years of research supposed to make me believe that you're an expert on the subject?"
Your NOT supposed to believe me. Who claimed that?
You need to come to a conclusion on your own after
weighing the facts.
What do I have to do with this?
My 2 years of research revealed NADA about the supernatural,
and in that time was not able to find a single scientific study
that proved anything supernatural exists beyond a reasonable
doubt. My claim to my research was in response to someone
asserting I never studied the subject.
I do not offer it as proof that the supernatural does NOT exist.
The burden of proof is on YOU and Sir Hardy, and BOTH
have completely failed to prove it exists to my knowledge.
Show us Hardys proof for the supernatural, or yours for that matter.
"Of course not! You obviously know nothing about the supernatural and have little right to even talk about it much less assert that it does not exist anywhere on the globe or in history. "
1) Oh yes I know nothing.... lol... i'm not that one asserting
the extraordinary without a shred of evidence
2) I NEVER ASSERTED it does not exist...PERIOD
Drop the strawman fallacies already.
I simply do not believe based on the lack of evidence.
And stop appealing to authority, ( a fallacy ), and either provide
Hardys proof for the supernatural, or YOUR proof for the
supernatural, or admit that you don't have any.
It is a fallacy to claim something is true simply because
the majority say it is, or because some real smart guy
says it is.
In the past, I like to point out that the National Academy of Sciences
is 97% unbelievers.
But I cannot claim that god does not exist, or that the supernatural
does not exist JUST BECAUSE they dont believe in it.
This would be the fallacy of appealing to authority.
For the same reason, you cannot claim that some assertion
is true just because you can find some smart scientist
that also BELIEVED it.
You have to post their "proof", or its simply empty.
Here we are again.... after going round and round, we are
right back where we started.
An empty hypothesis of god, no better than a unicron hypothesis,
with zero supporting evidence.
Still waiting for the ID proof, the supernatural proof, or any evidence supporting either.
Tell ya what Shoeshine. If you really think you can replicate
ANY supernatural event, then just go here:
http://www.randi.org/research/
and claim your $1,000,000 prize from the amazing randi
under valid experimental conditions.
It's never been done.
peace
axeman
Whoopie... and Einstein was a non-believer, who cares, doesn't
mean a thing.
Is this how you determine truth?
By cherry picking scientists with views which match yours?
What are you trying to say here?
That this guy MUST be right because of his caliber??
"This guy is a complete non-Chrisitian who started out just like you. "
I started out a christian. He is not like me.
"Do you think for a minute that this caliber of individual could be deceived by simple "brain stimulation" and "psycologically-explained" situations? "
He obviously believes in something that our scientific
community, including some of our greatest minds reject.
But that simply doesn't matter.
What matters is, did Sir Hardy ever PROVE that the supernatural exists? Why don't you post his proof instead of an unsupported opinion?
"Now why am I supposed to beleve you as opposed to one of the foremost biologist in Britain's history? Was your two years of research supposed to make me believe that you're an expert on the subject?"
Your NOT supposed to believe me. Who claimed that?
You need to come to a conclusion on your own after
weighing the facts.
What do I have to do with this?
My 2 years of research revealed NADA about the supernatural,
and in that time was not able to find a single scientific study
that proved anything supernatural exists beyond a reasonable
doubt. My claim to my research was in response to someone
asserting I never studied the subject.
I do not offer it as proof that the supernatural does NOT exist.
The burden of proof is on YOU and Sir Hardy, and BOTH
have completely failed to prove it exists to my knowledge.
Show us Hardys proof for the supernatural, or yours for that matter.
"Of course not! You obviously know nothing about the supernatural and have little right to even talk about it much less assert that it does not exist anywhere on the globe or in history. "
1) Oh yes I know nothing.... lol... i'm not that one asserting
the extraordinary without a shred of evidence
2) I NEVER ASSERTED it does not exist...PERIOD
Drop the strawman fallacies already.
I simply do not believe based on the lack of evidence.
And stop appealing to authority, ( a fallacy ), and either provide
Hardys proof for the supernatural, or YOUR proof for the
supernatural, or admit that you don't have any.
It is a fallacy to claim something is true simply because
the majority say it is, or because some real smart guy
says it is.
In the past, I like to point out that the National Academy of Sciences
is 97% unbelievers.
But I cannot claim that god does not exist, or that the supernatural
does not exist JUST BECAUSE they dont believe in it.
This would be the fallacy of appealing to authority.
For the same reason, you cannot claim that some assertion
is true just because you can find some smart scientist
that also BELIEVED it.
You have to post their "proof", or its simply empty.
Here we are again.... after going round and round, we are
right back where we started.
An empty hypothesis of god, no better than a unicron hypothesis,
with zero supporting evidence.
Still waiting for the ID proof, the supernatural proof, or any evidence supporting either.
Tell ya what Shoeshine. If you really think you can replicate
ANY supernatural event, then just go here:
http://www.randi.org/research/
and claim your $1,000,000 prize from the amazing randi
under valid experimental conditions.
It's never been done.
peace
axeman
You really need to take a critical thinking course.
This is nothing but one big fallacious appeal to authority,
coupled with Ad Hominem attacks and strawmen.
Peoples OPINIONS are not the same as proof.
Being "a smart guy" does not make you right.
Providing a valid proof does.
I could give you a large list of geniuses who DONT believe
what these guys believe. SO WHAT. It is MEANINGLESS.
Using your method, I am free to believe just about anything
I want, as long as I can find a "smart scientist" who holds
the superstitious belief I am looking for.
Hint: This is NOT a proper method of finding truth.
peace
axeman
This is nothing but one big fallacious appeal to authority,
coupled with Ad Hominem attacks and strawmen.
Peoples OPINIONS are not the same as proof.
Being "a smart guy" does not make you right.
Providing a valid proof does.
I could give you a large list of geniuses who DONT believe
what these guys believe. SO WHAT. It is MEANINGLESS.
Using your method, I am free to believe just about anything
I want, as long as I can find a "smart scientist" who holds
the superstitious belief I am looking for.
Hint: This is NOT a proper method of finding truth.
peace
axeman
Another great proof that the supernatural does not exist! Do you see the gross assumption with these kind of contests? The underlying assumption is that the supernatural is a "force" that is controllable.Quote from axeman:
"Let's take the case of Marine biologist Sir Alister Hardy (knighted in 1985). He began his life just like you: opposed to the supernatural. However, as he studied it for years, he completely changed his views and began to realize that the "paranormal" really did he exist. "
Whoopie... and Einstein was a non-believer, who cares, doesn't
mean a thing.
Is this how you determine truth?
By cherry picking scientists with views which match yours?
What are you trying to say here?
That this guy MUST be right because of his caliber??
"This guy is a complete non-Chrisitian who started out just like you. "
I started out a christian. He is not like me.
"Do you think for a minute that this caliber of individual could be deceived by simple "brain stimulation" and "psycologically-explained" situations? "
He obviously believes in something that our scientific
community, including some of our greatest minds reject.
But that simply doesn't matter.
What matters is, did Sir Hardy ever PROVE that the supernatural exists? Why don't you post his proof instead of an unsupported opinion?
"Now why am I supposed to beleve you as opposed to one of the foremost biologist in Britain's history? Was your two years of research supposed to make me believe that you're an expert on the subject?"
Your NOT supposed to believe me. Who claimed that?
You need to come to a conclusion on your own after
weighing the facts.
What do I have to do with this?
My 2 years of research revealed NADA about the supernatural,
and in that time was not able to find a single scientific study
that proved anything supernatural exists beyond a reasonable
doubt. My claim to my research was in response to someone
asserting I never studied the subject.
I do not offer it as proof that the supernatural does NOT exist.
The burden of proof is on YOU and Sir Hardy, and BOTH
have completely failed to prove it exists to my knowledge.
Show us Hardys proof for the supernatural, or yours for that matter.
"Of course not! You obviously know nothing about the supernatural and have little right to even talk about it much less assert that it does not exist anywhere on the globe or in history. "
1) Oh yes I know nothing.... lol... i'm not that one asserting
the extraordinary without a shred of evidence
2) I NEVER ASSERTED it does not exist...PERIOD
Drop the strawman fallacies already.
I simply do not believe based on the lack of evidence.
And stop appealing to authority, ( a fallacy ), and either provide
Hardys proof for the supernatural, or YOUR proof for the
supernatural, or admit that you don't have any.
It is a fallacy to claim something is true simply because
the majority say it is, or because some real smart guy
says it is.
In the past, I like to point out that the National Academy of Sciences
is 97% unbelievers.
But I cannot claim that god does not exist, or that the supernatural
does not exist JUST BECAUSE they dont believe in it.
This would be the fallacy of appealing to authority.
For the same reason, you cannot claim that some assertion
is true just because you can find some smart scientist
that also BELIEVED it.
You have to post their "proof", or its simply empty.
Here we are again.... after going round and round, we are
right back where we started.
An empty hypothesis of god, no better than a unicron hypothesis,
with zero supporting evidence.
Still waiting for the ID proof, the supernatural proof, or any evidence supporting either.
Tell ya what Shoeshine. If you really think you can replicate
ANY supernatural event, then just go here:
http://www.randi.org/research/
and claim your $1,000,000 prize from the amazing randi
under valid experimental conditions.
It's never been done.
peace
axeman
Suppose just for a minute that is a God, angels, demons and the like. Do you really think that they are intersted in doing stupid tricks for a $1,000,000 contest?? C'mon - this is an example of another ridiculous "proof" that every one else on planet earth is wrong and you are right and you can therefore call every one else who does not accept your views of the universe as foolish "myth-believers."
And the burden of proof is not with me. I'm not the one calling you a unicorn believer. I'm not the one calling you a myth believer.
Prove to me the validity of such statments. Again, you cannot. And if cannot, then quit insulting me and the other researchers individuals who believe likewise.
Prove to me the validity of such statments. Again, you cannot. And if cannot, then quit insulting me and the other researchers individuals who believe likewise.
Sarcasm does not make for a good argument.
I just finished typing a long post, and then deleted it.
I could not find a way to propose something without
sounding completely pompous, which would surely
close your mind even further.
But it is clear to me that the vast majority of the
conflicts on this thread simply come from a
lack of logical tools required to properly assess a position.
I can only sincerely suggest a critical thinking course to
expand your ability to assess claims/positions correctly.
peace
axeman
I just finished typing a long post, and then deleted it.
I could not find a way to propose something without
sounding completely pompous, which would surely
close your mind even further.
But it is clear to me that the vast majority of the
conflicts on this thread simply come from a
lack of logical tools required to properly assess a position.
I can only sincerely suggest a critical thinking course to
expand your ability to assess claims/positions correctly.
peace
axeman
It's not a PROOF. Im not claiming that it is.
It's an open challenge to people who wish to PROVE it is real.
It has never been done.
"Suppose just for a minute that is a God, angels, demons and the like. Do you really think that they are intersted in doing stupid tricks for a $1,000,000 contest?? "
Are you asserting that god,angels, and demons are the
ONLY form of supernatural powers, and that you KNOW
for a fact that they would refuse to show themselves?
Sounds like your making excuses.
What about ESP?
How about telekenesis?
What about dowsing rods?
What about mind readers?
What about soul traveling?
What about remote viewing?
What about spoon bending?
Surely ONE of these can be shown on demand?
Just ONE.... one little itsy bitsy supernatural showing.
Does it strike you as funny that ALL CLAIMED SUPERNATURAL
powers mysteriously DISSAPPEAR under scientific conditions?
Hmmmmmmmmm
peace
axeman
It's an open challenge to people who wish to PROVE it is real.
It has never been done.
"Suppose just for a minute that is a God, angels, demons and the like. Do you really think that they are intersted in doing stupid tricks for a $1,000,000 contest?? "
Are you asserting that god,angels, and demons are the
ONLY form of supernatural powers, and that you KNOW
for a fact that they would refuse to show themselves?
Sounds like your making excuses.
What about ESP?
How about telekenesis?
What about dowsing rods?
What about mind readers?
What about soul traveling?
What about remote viewing?
What about spoon bending?
Surely ONE of these can be shown on demand?
Just ONE.... one little itsy bitsy supernatural showing.
Does it strike you as funny that ALL CLAIMED SUPERNATURAL
powers mysteriously DISSAPPEAR under scientific conditions?
Hmmmmmmmmm
peace
axeman
You are still avoiding my question: if you cannot even come close to disproving the supernatural, why do you call those who believe in the supernatural "unicorn believers" and "myth believers"?
Im not avoiding anything.
I am not required to disprove anything.
You consistently show us that you dont understand where
the burden of proof is.
I am not asserting that these things dont exist.
But if you are asserting that they DO, then YOU are required
to provide the proof.
Apparently, my little speech on the burden of proof, and proving
a negative, fell on deaf ears.
peace
axeman
I am not required to disprove anything.
You consistently show us that you dont understand where
the burden of proof is.
I am not asserting that these things dont exist.
But if you are asserting that they DO, then YOU are required
to provide the proof.
Apparently, my little speech on the burden of proof, and proving
a negative, fell on deaf ears.
peace
axeman