The paranormalz

[Junkhead]

I sure do believe. I prefer being in a ghost after death than lolheaven.

[Esau of Isaac]

I sure do believe. I prefer being in a ghost after death than lolheaven.

I'd prefer to be Superman than an everyday guy. That doesn't mean I believe I'm Superman.

[Phoenix]

Datia, you are one fun read, girl

Hmm... now, to find out if that's a compliment or not =D

I like being strange =) I make myself laugh at myself (lol silly sentence!!!)

EDIT: Oh yeah should I say something on topic?

All alien invasions I think are fake. As for UFO I side more on the non-believing side but idk for sure if I can doubt it 100%

It's a compliment. I don't even care what you post about anymore, I just want to see what you posted

Does that make me a subscriber?

I sure do believe. I prefer being in a ghost after death than lolheaven.

Believe in ghost because it's a preferred reality? Yeah, that's being normal alright. I think we all do a little bit of this on some level. I personally would hate being a ghost, and my idea of Heaven is more like Esau's aforementioned version of the Lose-Lose afterlife... where heaven and hell both suck. I simply define death as what it looks like, unconscious, and pretty much a total lack of conscious ability/existence.

I sure do believe. I prefer being in a ghost after death than lolheaven.

I'd prefer to be Superman than an everyday guy. That doesn't mean I believe I'm Superman.

SuperMan has it pretty bad, Esau. Ignoring your actual reason for posting that, why would you want to be the one SuperHero, that can't ever take a vacation?

[Freohr Datia]

Datia, you are one fun read, girl

Hmm... now, to find out if that's a compliment or not =D

I like being strange =) I make myself laugh at myself (lol silly sentence!!!)

EDIT: Oh yeah should I say something on topic?

All alien invasions I think are fake. As for UFO I side more on the non-believing side but idk for sure if I can doubt it 100%

It's a compliment. I don't even care what you post about anymore, I just want to see what you posted

Does that make me a subscriber?

oh ok...

imaknow

Am I really supposed to add something that's on topic or is replying to someone on-topic in a way?

Doez anybodyz believez in thoz special "z"'s that appear after FD'z wordz that I mentioned? I have a strange suspicionz that they're realz. My eyez are trying to tell me stuffz but idk whether to believe in them or notz

[Der Kommissar]

Someone choosing to believe in ghosts because they like them better is no less idiotic than Christians (or Muslims, or Jews, or Hindus, or...) believing in their imaginary friend over Odin or Zeus or Ra or Quetzalcoatl or the God-Emperor of Mankind.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Der Kommissar

[Phoenix]

oh ok...

imaknow

Am I really supposed to add something that's on topic or is replying to someone on-topic in a way?

Doez anybodyz believez in thoz special "z"'s that appear after FD'z wordz that I mentioned? I have a strange suspicionz that they're realz. My eyez are trying to tell me stuffz but idk whether to believe in them or notz

It's your topic

(BTW... what's an FD'z?)

Someone choosing to believe in ghosts because they like them better is no less idiotic than Christians (or Muslims, or Jews, or Hindus, or...) believing in their imaginary friend over Odin or Zeus or Ra or Quetzalcoatl or the God-Emperor of Mankind.

Ironic that you mention this as if you're not doing the same thing.

No one is really looking for proof of God/Gods, they simply do a little research(if any), and then "choose" to believe or not.

Atheists do the same thing. The only reason YOU'RE not the idiotic one is because of the times we live in, where a God who would not "show" himself is simply non existent. The age of technology cannot acknowledge a God with no cameos. That's all there is to it.

[Der Kommissar]

Ironic that you mention this as if you're not doing the same thing.[...] Atheists do the same thing.

Wrong. This has been explained to you before, so I've got to assume you're either borderline retarded, willfully ignorant, butthurt, or a combination thereof. Lack of belief in the absence of evidence is rational thought in motion. It's absurd to assume the existence of a sapient, all-powerful invisible man of whom no evidence has or does exist, but who magically created everything. Based on your line we should take the hallucinations and delusions of schizophrenics seriously.

That's all there is to it.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Der Kommissar

[Phoenix]

Ironic that you mention this as if you're not doing the same thing.[...] Atheists do the same thing.

Wrong. This has been explained to you before, so I've got to assume you're either borderline retarded, willfully ignorant, butthurt, or a combination thereof. Lack of belief in the absence of evidence is rational thought in motion. It's absurd to assume the existence of a sapient, all-powerful invisible man of whom no evidence has or does exist, but who magically created everything. Based on your line we should take the hallucinations and delusions of schizophrenics seriously.

*sigh* Like I said, you're doing the same thing. What is evidence? Since you can't answer that question, I will do it for you. Evidence is personal proof, and everyone handles it differently. You're ignoring what could be evidence of a God, just like Christians ignore the evidence that there might not be a God. You're doing the same damn thing. The only difference here is your conclusion. You're defending your mindset(the mindset that leads to atheism) almost like a religion. You're no different from the idiots you're mocking. You're simply coming up with beliefs that are more acceptable in the age we live in. Cling to the absence of evidence all you want. "CLING" to it, just like a religious person "CLING"s to their "truth". Defend it with intellectual bs, and personal proof all you want, just like religious folks defend theirs. You're no different. Whether true or not, your beliefs in general are just a fad of the age.

Now look, I understand how you guys feel. I don't believe in Santa Claus because he's simply over the top improbable in my opinion. But do I need to hop on a high horse every time someone who does believe in him shows up? What if the jolly fat man was real? How stupid would me and my horse look after all our preaching of "He's impossible!"? Pride has no place in our belief structure. How can we learn what's true if we're too proud to look at other perspectives?

[Junkhead]

I simply define death as what it looks like, unconscious, and pretty much a total lack of conscious ability/existence.

Thats sucks...I would hate death if it were like that.

[Esau of Isaac]

Ironic that you mention this as if you're not doing the same thing.[...] Atheists do the same thing.

Wrong. This has been explained to you before, so I've got to assume you're either borderline retarded, willfully ignorant, butthurt, or a combination thereof. Lack of belief in the absence of evidence is rational thought in motion. It's absurd to assume the existence of a sapient, all-powerful invisible man of whom no evidence has or does exist, but who magically created everything. Based on your line we should take the hallucinations and delusions of schizophrenics seriously.

*sigh* Like I said, you're doing the same thing. What is evidence? Since you can't answer that question, I will do it for you. Evidence is personal proof, and everyone handles it differently. You're ignoring what could be evidence of a God, just like Christians ignore the evidence that there might not be a God.

No. Evidence is objectively verifiable. You're acting as though evidence of, say, the world's roundness is equal to that of evidence pointing to the existence of God. It's an invalid argument that futilely attempts to place personal belief on the level of rational and replicable proof.

You're doing the same damn thing. The only difference here is your conclusion. You're defending your mindset(the mindset that leads to atheism) almost like a religion. You're no different from the idiots you're mocking. You're simply coming up with beliefs that are more acceptable in the age we live in. Cling to the absence of evidence all you want. "CLING" to it, just like a religious person "CLING"s to their "truth". Defend it with intellectual bs, and personal proof all you want, just like religious folks defend theirs. You're no different. Whether true or not, your beliefs in general are just a fad of the age.

Secular viewpoints and procedures aren't a fad, they've been slowly building up and becoming more popular since the inception of most major nations. And even if they were, it wouldn't change the validity of his position, which isn't one of baseless belief or illogical neediness, as you continue to imply.

Now look, I understand how you guys feel. I don't believe in Santa Claus because he's simply over the top improbable in my opinion. But do I need to hop on a high horse every time someone who does believe in him shows up? What if the jolly fat man was real? How stupid would me and my horse look after all our preaching of "He's impossible!"? Pride has no place in our belief structure. How can we learn what's true if we're too proud to look at other perspectives?

You probably would mock another if that someone actually believed that he existed and told you such, because you would find it so monumentally stupid and without evidence that the idea of vesting belief in him would be outrageous.

You would look pretty damn stupid if he turned out to be real, but then the entire scientific community would look pretty damn stupid if evolution turned out to be false, or the planet turns out to be flat. That doesn't mean that any validly educated biologist or geologist is going to suddenly think that the theory is equatable with any crackpot idea out there, because the possibility of them being false is about as likely as the universe being a pair of copulating muffins; it's ridiculously unlikely enough that dismissing right out isn't unreasonable or unfair.

[Der Kommissar]

It seems Esau has sadly beaten me to the punch yet again, so I'll make my reply brief.

sigh* Like I said, you're doing the same thing. What is evidence? Since you can't answer that question, I will do it for you. Evidence is personal proof,

Wrong. Evidence is objectively verifiable phenomena. Personality does not enter at any point.

You're ignoring what could be evidence of a God, just like Christians ignore the evidence that there might not be a God.

Provide objective data (you know, evidence) that is directly linked to god or GTFO. You and others have been challenged with this before, only to sidestep or beg the question. It is ridiculous to defend blind faith as at all reasonable, and equally ridiculous to equate logical dismissal of something for which no evidence exists with blind faith.

You're simply coming up with beliefs that are more acceptable in the age we live in.

I'm choosing not to put faith in something for which no objective evidence exists, and which is on its face absurd.

What if the jolly fat man was real?

What if birds flew out of my ass?

Edited October 1, 2009 by Der Kommissar

[Phoenix]

Maybe I should have worded that a little differently...

I have to come back by immediately saying that I don't mock anybody unless I've been mocked first. That's just who I am. I don't care how crazy someone seems to me. And yes, I do know some people with some "out there" beliefs that make no sense to me.

German Man, if birds flew out of your ass, it'd be one strange sight, that's all I have to say about that, dude.

Now onto your objectivity which like every other "no evidence" argument, comes from a very small perspective. You think evidence has to be objectively verifiable?! That's not going to get you the answers. Let me give you an example. The universe for starters is pretty damn marvelous wouldn't you agree? Well how did it get here? There are only two possible ways based on what we know about physics, either it came about naturally, or something greater than it spawned it.

There's no REAL EVIDENCE pointing to either scenario. There's no proof that either is true, only theories, and we can't truly go out there and figure it out with 100% certainty. But which one do atheists latch onto? Natural creation. And which one do Christians latch onto? Divine Creation.

Now once again, EVIDENCE IS PERSONAL PROOF. Write that down because it's true. Why is it true? Because human beings aren't computers! We're bias. We don't think unbiasly naturally! Personal proof is what we want to believe, mixed in with what we already know, and what is most likely true according to our own point of view. All of those create our perspective on life and everything else gets shaped by that perspective. Sometimes it turns into God, other times it turns into atheism. In other words. It's something that fits into our view of the world. How WE see it. Our perspective. You can't prove that the universe created itself, and therefore God doesn't exist. You can't prove that God created it either. So since there's no real evidence here, what will you CHOOSE to believe? You'll choose the only thing you can choose as an atheist. You'll choose to believe that the universe came about naturally, because it'll threaten your belief structure to consider anything else.

So you don't believe in Gods because there's no evidence? Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but I don't think that's the reason at the core. I think that both religious and non religious folks believe what they believe solely based on their perspective, and not the intellectual garbage they'll push trying to make their ideas come alive. I've got plenty of objectively verifiable evidence that points to what I already mentioned, and that's this:

PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE.

And you two, while more logical in your analysis, are no exception. You believe there's no God because that's where your perspective has lead you. You can keep bringing up hard facts, like colors or the shape of the earth, but that's not the problem. Asking for verifiable data in this is like asking a student to do an autopsy on a real star and tell the teacher what the textures feel like. When what we want to understand goes beyond our grasp, people get theoretical and those theories become facts with little resistance and then pride in those "facts" sets in. After that, new learning, new knowledge is repressed. Is that logical, or just downright insane? What's more important to you guys? Being right? Or actually keeping your eyes open for the truth?

I'm not saying go to church just in case!

I'm not saying read up on all religions!

I'm not saying build some kind of spirit detecting device!(Probably won't work anyway)

I'm just saying that there's no sense in you shouting for objective proof when on the flip side, you lack the same thing, objective proof. You think you've got objective proof? You doooon't

[Fox]

Oh Jesus, shit like this is why we took you out of the Serious Discussion board.

[Der Kommissar]

You think evidence has to be objectively verifiable?!

Evidence is, by definition, objectively verifiable.

The universe for starters is pretty damn marvelous wouldn't you agree? Well how did it get here?

I just called you out on begging the question in lieu of evidence, and you're going to do it anyway?

There's no REAL EVIDENCE [...]

Concession accepted.

But which one do atheists latch onto? Natural creation.

The theories which atheists turn to to explain the universe are irrelevant to creationist "theories" lacking any sort of objective evidence whatsoever, which is the whole point of this discussion.

Now once again, EVIDENCE IS PERSONAL PROOF.

Using caps lock will not make you correct.

I'm just saying that there's no sense in you shouting for objective proof when on the flip side, you lack the same thing, objective proof.

I'm considering putting in a support ticket for the auto-suspension of anyone who fails to understand that the person making the claim presents the evidence. You can't prove a negative, you moron, this has been explained to you probably over a dozen times and yet you persist. It's magnificent, in a laugh-at-the-retard sort of way.

[Jyosua]

As the length of a conversation goes on, the probability of the conversation devolving into a religion debate becomes 1.

That said, God is an inherently immprovable being that may or may not exist. The fact of the matter is, you can't prove God, any more than I can prove that there's a giant invisible flying cat that zips around the world at the speed of light, causing wind. Could it be true? Sure. Is it likely? No. Anything that's mere existence would completely defy numerous scientific laws doesn't have the greatest probability of actually existing. As a result, many people are beginning to choose athiesm. At the same time, there are those like me who would choose agnosticism, because we realize the futility of the argument, and if you're like me, you know of plenty of good reasons to live a moral life without being tethered to "because the invisible sky magician told me so in his book that was apparently written by humans".

That said, if I were to choose a faith, it would totally be pagan with Norse Gods. Fuck that pansy religion shit, WE'RE WARRIORS DAMNIT!

On that note, I suggest anyone who wants to debate the existence of God makes another thread in the serious discussion forums, as this is definitely the wrong place for it.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Just going to point out that you know, real evidence that Scientists use is the type of thing that can be verified and helps us do things like cure diseases and build computers. Imagine how fucked our species would be if scientists used "personal evidence".

"Oh, you have a broken arm? I believe that chopping it off and having your friend piss on it will make it way better!"

[Phoenix]

Just going to point out that you know, real evidence that Scientists use is the type of thing that can be verified and helps us do things like cure diseases and build computers. Imagine how fucked our species would be if scientists used "personal evidence".

"Oh, you have a broken arm? I believe that chopping it off and having your friend piss on it will make it way better!"

When did we cure a disease? ... anyway... you're missing my point. Hard core facts, or verifiable evidence has its place! But not in every aspect of life! Don't misunderstand me. What you're trying to do is apply one type of analysis to EVERYTHING in life. When's the last time a dogmatic approach to all aspects of life worked? If that's your thing, then I won't try and stop you guys.

As the length of a conversation goes on, the probability of the conversation devolving into a religion debate becomes 1.

Arguing religion? Not a chance. I don't adhere to any religion these guys have ever heard of, so they don't have any decent ammo to use in a debate to discredit it other than atheism itself, which hasn't worked to well so far. Not that they didn't ever try... Point is I'm trying to point out something on topic. The belief in God based on someone's own perspective, is the same as someone else's disbelief, or belief in ghosts, or aliens. It's all pretty much the same.

Lastly, German Man... I checked up on the definition of evidence. It's not what you pass it off as.

1 a : an outward sign : indication b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

^^ It is submitted to a tribunal, or in other words, the thing or person that must compile the evidence... Hm... interesting...

^^^ I guess the second one is more hard core legal stuff. This one fits into my former posts too though... slightly.

Basically, it only says that it proves. It doesn't say that it proves it to everyone, or even two people, which means it can be just you and your evidence, aka personal proof and perspective, just like I mentioned, or something bright in the sky that everybody can see. The former being what we all use to determine our beliefs, and the latter we all use to create facts and theories.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Phoenix, let me give you a very simple explanation:

If you are making an objective or absolute claim (that is a claim about the nature of reality, or a claim that something is true), it is patently absurd to use anything other than scientific evidence.

If you are NOT making an objective or absolute claim, and instead are doing something subjective, then scientific evidence may not be so necessary.

Belief in aliens, ghosts, god, or any other similar phenomenon, in essence, belief that something EXISTS, is an objective claim. If they exist, they exist. If they don't, they don't. There is no way around that. Therefore, any sane (lol) person will require scientific evidence to acknowledge their existence.

[Der Kommissar]

Lastly, German Man... I checked up on the definition of evidence. It's not what you pass it off as.

1 a : an outward sign : indication b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

^^ It is submitted to a tribunal, or in other words, the thing or person that must compile the evidence... Hm... interesting...

^^^ I guess the second one is more hard core legal stuff. This one fits into my former posts too though... slightly.

Playing semantic children's games with a googled dictionary definition lends no credence to your idiotic claim that evidence is something "personal." I'm sure even you can tell the difference between evidence presented to a judicial tribunal, which is often obviously ambiguous and readily manipulated by lawyers to support their position, from evidence for things such as natural selection or the force of gravity, which involve objective phenomena and mathematics. I'm pretty sure you're being intentionally disingenuous at this point.

I'm not interested in continuing this discussion with you in this thread, because unlike yourself, I'm not going to nitpick with Jyosua's post in an attempt to continue what passes for debate with you ad infinitum. I invite you to create a discussion centered around this elsewhere, if you want, so that I can continue stomp on your balls at my leisure without feeling like I'm directly shitting on a staff ruling.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Der Kommissar

[Jyosua]

Locking because topic is derailed and nobody seems to actually care.