Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Re: [AvC] Re: W H A T I S I T L I K E T O B E DE A D ?


On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:39:51 AM UTC-4, e_space wrote:


On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 10:38:38 AM UTC-4, Answer_42 wrote:

On Monday, July 28, 2014 7:36:03 PM UTC-4, e_space wrote:


On Monday, July 28, 2014 11:19:25 AM UTC-4, Answer_42 wrote:

On Sunday, July 27, 2014 2:01:03 PM UTC-4, LL wrote:


On Jul 27, 2014, at 6:56 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

because of my extremely sheltered upbringing, with no TV, movies, boy scouts, sports teams, etc, my entertainment was my mind ... from a very early age it became my main playground ... small feelings of disorientation started at about age 10, always just before sleep, with eyes closed ... these were positive experiences that i was fully involved in ... i put out the welcome mat for such "visitations" and eventually, when i was about 20, i felt a pulling sensation, like for my "conscience" or whatever, was being invited to leave my body ... i resisted allowing such to happen since i was afraid that my body would be taken over by an "evil spirit" ... i kept thinking that this was probably the "big one" that i had actually been looking for for a number of years .... after several of these denied invitations, i eventually acquiesced saying "mr devil, you are not allowed in this body while i am gone" ... i then relaxed and allowed whatever it was that was pulling at me to "take me" ... i had 3 such "excursions" before i put an end to them ... i was so excited about these "events" that they became the only thing i could talk about to my friends ... i could see that they had no idea what i was talking about, and i became like a freak ... so i said to "whatever" ... look, i love you, i am you, but you are turning me into an alien on my own planet ... i have never been approached since ... but the major effect on my life continues to this day ...  

It sounds like fertile ground for an OBE.
 
Exactly what I was thinking, this part is especially telling:
"my entertainment was my mind ... from a very early age it became my main playground ... "
He basically unknowingly (because he was too young) trained his brained to entertain him, which, under the harsh circumstance he described, seems natural enough.

i didn't find solitude to be harsh ...
 
My bad, you said "extremely sheltered ", that seems harsh and unnatural for a kid, and it did come off as slightly negative.

your ability to come to cognizant opinions about the situation of others needs a tune up ...
 
Why are you still going on about this? I wrote "My bad" and then simply explained why I had said what I did. Case closed.
 
if i said i was extremely in love with someone, would that be harsh?
 
It was not the "extremely" that led me to use the word harsh, rather it was "extremely" in the context of being sheltered when you were a young child, is all.
As I said, case closed.
 
in fact, all of the time i was in solitude, my twin brother was in the room ... we never had a meaningful relationship in the whole time i lived at home ... in many ways, i wanted to be alone ... i enjoyed it and really didn't miss the things that i never had anyway ... i thought it would be better to spend my time in positive ways, such as paying attention to anything that somehow entered my mind ...
 
I think it is worth pointing out that things do not "enter" in a person's mind as if they came from without, they are generated by the mind itself. Most stuff that comes to mind we basically ignore and forget. Of course, being alone, because you preferred it that way, means you had more time to spend with and to focus on whatever popped into your mind.
 
i feel more kids would benefit from some extended introspection rather than watching tv and playing video games ...
 
Yes and no, socializing is a very important skill to learn; and "introspection" is such a vague term, what does it mean, excatly?
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: How Francis Collins found faith


On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:26:45 AM UTC-4, dillan wrote:


On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 7:58:22 AM UTC-7, Answer_42 wrote:


On Monday, July 28, 2014 6:04:12 PM UTC-4, dillan wrote:

<snip>
 
 
 
Wow.. now we're into facts about facts. hehe..
okok.. I'll stop being facetious . Well, I did understand what he's saying, and even John didn't claim I didn't understand it.
 
Yes he did. Your reading skills are still abysmally low.
 
You said:
"So you're saying the fluctuations happened with time symmetry, and one fluctuation caused time to be asymmetric at the same time that one fluctuation stopped all other fluctuations from happening?"
 
Clearly you did not understand what he had been writing about, which is why John replied with:
"No. That isn't what physicists are saying. We have time asymmetry inside our bubble universe."
 

Well, it looks like you don't understand what either of us said. He's not saying I'm wrong,
 
Yes, he is.
 
or I didn't understand..
 
You did not.
 
When someone explains "Physics tells us X"
And then you respond with something like "Oh, are you saying that X means Y?"
then the first person replies "No, this is not what Physics says" then you clearly did not understand X.
 
<snip>
 
lol.
Nice selective snip job. How is this not being dishonest A42?
 
Everything is still in the thread, so, no I am not being dishonest, I was just snipping for brevity, like we often do.
 
Ok, let's address your general comment.
First of all, he said. "Physicist" not "Physics" Physics don't talk.
 
I was, obviously, paraphrasing, not quoting. That's why there were X's and Y's in there. I am surprised you are not objecting to that by saying "No, we did not talk about X, we were talking about bubble universes."
 
 
Secondly, there is no one answer. That's why they say it;s speculative.
Thirdly, you're being dishonest here by deleting my actual post and responding with a general comment.
 
Again, and I think anyone saw that, I was paraphrasing.
 
Fourthy, Bubble universe model is not the only model, so he could be wrong.
 
Yes, of course, you understood everything. This why you got response that started with:
"No. That isn't what physicists are saying." 

overall, you were just being an ass A42. Just stop responding, if you think you've got bested. These antics of selectively snipping comments is unbecoming. 
 
Snipping for brevity is not "antics", just common practice in newsgroups.
 
 
 
Fine, What did I write, specifically, that made you say that I SEEM to have all the answers and understand everything?
 

When you said that you know what I mean, inspite of what I said.
 
Even if (which is not the case as demonstrated above)  I had been wrong about what you had meant, how does that translate to "I seem to have all the answers and understand everything"?
Well, It's kind of funny that you took it literally.  hehe
 
No, I did not.
The point is that you often complain that other are using Ad Hominem. I was trying to get you to show me that you actually had a valid point. Now it is obvious you did not.
 
The valid point was made with sarcasm. 
 
When the entire point is nothing but an insult, however light, painted with sarcasm, it is hardly valid.
 
<snipping irrelevant part>
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: W H A T I S I T L I K E T O B E DE A D ?



On Sunday, July 27, 2014 6:56:17 AM UTC-7, e_space wrote:
because of my extremely sheltered upbringing, with no TV, movies, boy scouts, sports teams, etc, my entertainment was my mind ... from a very early age it became my main playground ... small feelings of disorientation started at about age 10, always just before sleep, with eyes closed ... these were positive experiences that i was fully involved in ... i put out the welcome mat for such "visitations" and eventually, when i was about 20, i felt a pulling sensation, like for my "conscience" or whatever, was being invited to leave my body ... i resisted allowing such to happen since i was afraid that my body would be taken over by an "evil spirit" ... i kept thinking that this was probably the "big one" that i had actually been looking for for a number of years .... after several of these denied invitations, i eventually acquiesced saying "mr devil, you are not allowed in this body while i am gone" ... i then relaxed and allowed whatever it was that was pulling at me to "take me" ... i had 3 such "excursions" before i put an end to them ... i was so excited about these "events" that they became the only thing i could talk about to my friends ... i could see that they had no idea what i was talking about, and i became like a freak ... so i said to "whatever" ... look, i love you, i am you, but you are turning me into an alien on my own planet ... i have never been approached since ... but the major effect on my life continues to this day ...  


The major effect of what?  Alienation? Schizophrenia? Narcissism? Mysticism? Subjective-idealism? Which? & it doesn't appear that none of the above is an option, though all may be. 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: Russian girls are sluts. They love money and sex. ... think Polish women have some class, know their religion and respect themselves more than russkies.



On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 10:33:06 AM UTC-7, LL wrote:


On Jul 29, 2014, at 8:21 AM, Answer_42 <ipu.be...@gmail.com> wrote:


On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 10:06:39 AM UTC-4, LL wrote:


On Jul 29, 2014, at 6:40 AM, Answer_42 <ipu.be...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And, remember, If I called someone a bigot, even if I did it 10 times in one post, if the person is actually a bigot, then there is no abuse or vilifying taking place, I was just stating a fact.

Calling someone a bigot, even if an argument can be made that it's true, is still an ad hominem, attack.
 
No it is not, unless you say something like "You are a bigot so what you said is wrong." Clearly I never did that. Please, Lois, by now you should know what an Ad Hominem is.

1:  appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2
:  marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Attacs on an opponent's character can be subtle, such as, "Even you should know . . ."

 
For example, the following is not an Ad Hominem. There are insults involved, sure, but no Ad Hominem.
----
A: Rainbows are caused by pixies.
B: No, you stupid nitwit, rainbows are caused by solar light being refracted by water droplets in suspension in the atmosphere"

B is certainly an ad hominem. 
----
 
In the case of yarrido, time and time again we clearly demonstrated rationally and with logical  justification that he is a bigot,

That's an opinion about his character and not a response to his argument. 


so it was not even simply a gratuitous insult..

Yes, it was. 

I called him a  bigot because he was one,

That does not make an attack on a person's character any less than an ad hominem. 


and, meanwhile, I still addressed whatever he said using reason and valid arguments.

Then stick to reason and valid arguments and leave your opponent's character out of it. If you are using actual reason and valid arguments and have confidence in them, no ad hominem attack is necessary or warranted.  It's only when someone  has no confidence that his arguments are reaonable and carry weight that he resorts to ad hominems. Concentrate on the issue at hand. 

True dat! :)

 
LL
 
 
It shows no decency or creativity at all.
 
Unless it is true. Is calling a goat a goat a demonstration of a lack of decency and creativity?
 
We can all do better than that.  We should all test ourselves to be sure we say things in a more sophisticated, diplomatic way.
 
Oh, trust me, I gave him the befit of th doubt for a long time. I did not start calling him a bigot until long after I knew he was one. I first tried to make him see how his comments (such as "gay marriage will lead to bestiality") were so bigoted it was disgusting. But not only did he refuse to admit he was wrong and that his data sources were unreliable, he kept piling on the bigoted comments.
 
 
A raw, head-on attack
 
It was not an attack.
 
simply raises hackles and ends reasoned debate. It also annoys, not just the target ofthe attack,but the onlookers.  
 
I am sorry, but comments like "children of gay parents are more likely to end up in prison" are way more disgusting, offensive and annoying than reading the word "bigot" when it used to address an actual bigot.
 
Claiming that something is "true" to justify a blatant attack is a coward's tactic in debate.
 
For instance, would calling someone who, without one shred of doubt, had been demonstrated to be a liar a liar be an attack and a cowardly thing to do? I think not.
 
There are better ways to say something negative. Criticism delivered with grace and wit will bring one much more respect.
 
Trust me, we went down that road for a long time before I had no choice but call a duck a duck.
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: Russian girls are sluts. They love money and sex. ... think Polish women have some class, know their religion and respect themselves more than russkies.



On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:33:06 PM UTC-4, LL wrote:


On Jul 29, 2014, at 8:21 AM, Answer_42 <ipu.be...@gmail.com> wrote:


On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 10:06:39 AM UTC-4, LL wrote:


On Jul 29, 2014, at 6:40 AM, Answer_42 <ipu.be...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And, remember, If I called someone a bigot, even if I did it 10 times in one post, if the person is actually a bigot, then there is no abuse or vilifying taking place, I was just stating a fact.

Calling someone a bigot, even if an argument can be made that it's true, is still an ad hominem, attack.
 
No it is not, unless you say something like "You are a bigot so what you said is wrong." Clearly I never did that. Please, Lois, by now you should know what an Ad Hominem is.

1:  appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2
:  marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Attacs on an opponent's character can be subtle, such as, "Even you should know . . ."

 
For example, the following is not an Ad Hominem. There are insults involved, sure, but no Ad Hominem.
----
A: Rainbows are caused by pixies.
B: No, you stupid nitwit, rainbows are caused by solar light being refracted by water droplets in suspension in the atmosphere"

B is certainly an ad hominem. 
----
 
In the case of yarrido, time and time again we clearly demonstrated rationally and with logical  justification that he is a bigot,

That's an opinion about his character and not a response to his argument. 


so it was not even simply a gratuitous insult..

Yes, it was. 

I called him a  bigot because he was one,

That does not make an attack on a person's character any less than an ad hominem. 


and, meanwhile, I still addressed whatever he said using reason and valid arguments.

Then stick to reason and valid arguments and leave your opponent's character out of it. If you are using actual reason and valid arguments and have confidence in them, no ad hominem attack is necessary or warranted.  It's only when someone  has no confidence that his arguments are reaonable and carry weight that he resorts to ad hominems. Concentrate on the issue at hand. 

aye aye

 

LL
 
 
It shows no decency or creativity at all.
 
Unless it is true. Is calling a goat a goat a demonstration of a lack of decency and creativity?
 
We can all do better than that.  We should all test ourselves to be sure we say things in a more sophisticated, diplomatic way.
 
Oh, trust me, I gave him the befit of th doubt for a long time. I did not start calling him a bigot until long after I knew he was one. I first tried to make him see how his comments (such as "gay marriage will lead to bestiality") were so bigoted it was disgusting. But not only did he refuse to admit he was wrong and that his data sources were unreliable, he kept piling on the bigoted comments.
 
 
A raw, head-on attack
 
It was not an attack.
 
simply raises hackles and ends reasoned debate. It also annoys, not just the target ofthe attack,but the onlookers.  
 
I am sorry, but comments like "children of gay parents are more likely to end up in prison" are way more disgusting, offensive and annoying than reading the word "bigot" when it used to address an actual bigot.
 
Claiming that something is "true" to justify a blatant attack is a coward's tactic in debate.
 
For instance, would calling someone who, without one shred of doubt, had been demonstrated to be a liar a liar be an attack and a cowardly thing to do? I think not.
 
There are better ways to say something negative. Criticism delivered with grace and wit will bring one much more respect.
 
Trust me, we went down that road for a long time before I had no choice but call a duck a duck.
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: Russian girls are sluts. They love money and sex. ... think Polish women have some class, know their religion and respect themselves more than russkies.



On Jul 29, 2014, at 8:21 AM, Answer_42 <ipu.believer@gmail.com> wrote:


On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 10:06:39 AM UTC-4, LL wrote:


On Jul 29, 2014, at 6:40 AM, Answer_42 <ipu.be...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And, remember, If I called someone a bigot, even if I did it 10 times in one post, if the person is actually a bigot, then there is no abuse or vilifying taking place, I was just stating a fact.

Calling someone a bigot, even if an argument can be made that it's true, is still an ad hominem, attack.
 
No it is not, unless you say something like "You are a bigot so what you said is wrong." Clearly I never did that. Please, Lois, by now you should know what an Ad Hominem is.

1:  appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2
:  marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Attacs on an opponent's character can be subtle, such as, "Even you should know . . ."

 
For example, the following is not an Ad Hominem. There are insults involved, sure, but no Ad Hominem.
----
A: Rainbows are caused by pixies.
B: No, you stupid nitwit, rainbows are caused by solar light being refracted by water droplets in suspension in the atmosphere"

B is certainly an ad hominem. 
----
 
In the case of yarrido, time and time again we clearly demonstrated rationally and with logical  justification that he is a bigot,

That's an opinion about his character and not a response to his argument. 


so it was not even simply a gratuitous insult..

Yes, it was. 

I called him a  bigot because he was one,

That does not make an attack on a person's character any less than an ad hominem. 


and, meanwhile, I still addressed whatever he said using reason and valid arguments.

Then stick to reason and valid arguments and leave your opponent's character out of it. If you are using actual reason and valid arguments and have confidence in them, no ad hominem attack is necessary or warranted.  It's only when someone  has no confidence that his arguments are reaonable and carry weight that he resorts to ad hominems. Concentrate on the issue at hand. 

LL
 
 
It shows no decency or creativity at all.
 
Unless it is true. Is calling a goat a goat a demonstration of a lack of decency and creativity?
 
We can all do better than that.  We should all test ourselves to be sure we say things in a more sophisticated, diplomatic way.
 
Oh, trust me, I gave him the befit of th doubt for a long time. I did not start calling him a bigot until long after I knew he was one. I first tried to make him see how his comments (such as "gay marriage will lead to bestiality") were so bigoted it was disgusting. But not only did he refuse to admit he was wrong and that his data sources were unreliable, he kept piling on the bigoted comments.
 
 
A raw, head-on attack
 
It was not an attack.
 
simply raises hackles and ends reasoned debate. It also annoys, not just the target ofthe attack,but the onlookers.  
 
I am sorry, but comments like "children of gay parents are more likely to end up in prison" are way more disgusting, offensive and annoying than reading the word "bigot" when it used to address an actual bigot.
 
Claiming that something is "true" to justify a blatant attack is a coward's tactic in debate.
 
For instance, would calling someone who, without one shred of doubt, had been demonstrated to be a liar a liar be an attack and a cowardly thing to do? I think not.
 
There are better ways to say something negative. Criticism delivered with grace and wit will bring one much more respect.
 
Trust me, we went down that road for a long time before I had no choice but call a duck a duck.
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: Which deity should Pascal worship?

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:12:21 PM UTC-4, e_space wrote:


On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:04:30 PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:


On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 12:25:02 PM UTC-4, LL wrote:

On Jul 29, 2014, at 8:26 AM, OldMan <edjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 20:26:35 UTC-7, LL wrote:

On Jul 28, 2014, at 7:59 PM, OldMan wrote:

It would appear from your response so far that if it is something that supports a deity, when it is not objective.  Is there any evidence you would would be willing to accept that would point to the existence of God?

Well, that's not a good way of putting it. If objective evidence were ever produced for a diety, I would accept claims regarding that deity. But that is not what we're working with here. 

If a deity would present itself to me in a way that I and others could see it, touch it, question it

You can't see, touch or question X-rays. Do you believe in X-rays?

you can see x-ray images ... they are proof that the x-ray machine works ... so why not believe in the technology?
 
Were there no x-rays before x-rays could be imaged? If Herschel who discovered infrared had told you 2 centuries back that there might also be light beyond the violet end of the visible spectrum, would you have disbelieved him because he couldn't image such light?
 
and if said deity could demonstrate its powers and allow the results to be examined by a team of respected scientists who would examine the evidence for tricks and false claims and agree that it was an actual deity as far as they could determine,  I would probably agree that a deity exists and has superhuman powers.  You might think that this kind of investigation is going overboard, but we are talking about an extraordinary claim that breaks the rules of logic we have learned about the universe and how it works. Such a claim would require an extraordinary amount of supported evidence from all angles. We have all been misled by many such claims many times before that have been shown to have nothing but tricks behind them. Of course, we would be very careful about all such claims of the supernatural. You might be careful, too, if it were a deity that is completely different from the one you have believed in so far, let's say one that's sadistic, shows no grace and rejects your prayers and faith.  I doubt you would automatically accept any old "deity" that comes down the pike. It's just that I am skeptical about all deities, just as you would be skeptical, I assume, about all but the one you already believe in. 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.