Fine. Not delusional. You’re a liar. Liar liar pants on fire. You can’t even come up with a compelling story for your propaganda.
1 Like
It’s not a belief standpoint it is an experience standpoint. It is different. Not lying but I guess that is all you can say
Liar liar pants on fire. Everytime you post all I hear is made up bullshit.
No. You have offered zero evidence for your claims. That is not my problem. That is your problem. I swear you’re worse than a little kid who gets mad at their parents when they don’t buy into their little lies when they get wrote up at school.
So? I’ve experienced more than what I’ve written about Kyle (the ginormous invisible blue universe-creating bunny), and you choose not to believe me.
1 Like
No. It’s bullshit! 'Bullshit!"
1 Like
Oh, contraire, madam. I have you know that every waking moment of my life is now spent in contemplation of my glorious atheism worldview mindset, and in how I can better strengthen my atheistic beliefs. Ever since my mind has been set free of those nagging Christian values, I have finally found peace and clarity of mind in worshiping the nothing in which I now believe. Without my blessed atheism, my life is worthless. Therefore, the entirety of my days are spent in not singing the praises of those gods in which I no longer believe. PRAISE ATHEISM!
2 Likes
I don’t believe it. …
1 Like
Slight problem with this trite assertion of yours. Namely, that several million peer reviewed scientific papers document in exquisite detail, the evidence that testable natural processes are sufficient to explain the vast body of observational data obtained over the past 350 years, and as a corollary, that cartoon magic men from pre-scientific mythologies are superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.
As for the assertion that there exists something other than the material, this assertion has never been supported by mythology fanboys with genuine evidence. The problem being, of course, that any reliably repeatable evidence for the so-called “supernatural” would render it observable and measurable, at which point it would fall within the remit of science, and become merely another part of the natural.
No you haven’t. The only people who peddle assertions of this sort are creationists.
As for the fantasy “global flood”, here are several cogent reasons why it never happened:
[1] The complete absence of a deep, globally present sedimentary stratum, unequivocally dating to a young age, that would have been left in the wake of this. Instead, geological strata are varied, many are ancient, and several important strata are igneous, not sedimentary, such as the Deccan Traps (dating back to the Cretaceous era) and the Canadian Shield (which is of Precambrian age - some of its rocks date back to over 1,200 million years before present);
[2] Archaeological evidence that several important human civilisations from the era of Classical Antiquity, maintained continued activity at the very same time that they were supposed to be drowned under an extra 9,000 metres of water;
[3] Continued existence of vast swathes of aquatic taxa that would have been exterminated wholesale by the fantasy “global flood”. This includes numerous species of tropical fish that I have kept and bred over a 35 year period, which have stringent water chemistry requirements, and die if those requirements are not met.
Indeed, all of the world’s stenohaline fishes (both fresh and salt water) would have been wiped out due to osmoregulatory shock in around 24 hours - the species that inhabit specialist biotopes would have been exterminated in less than 8 hours.
Likewise, the world’s higher aquatic plants would all have been exterminated, courtesy of being buried under millions of tons of silt stirred up by the monstrously turbulent waters that would have been present, and cut off from the sunlight needed for photosynthesis by an extra 9,000 metres of water.
The world’s reef building corals would likewise have been exterminated, in addition due to their living in obligate mutualist relationships with special algae known as zooxanthellae, which would have been killed off along with the higher aquatic plants.
Aquatic invertebrates would also have been exterminated by osmoregulatory shock, and in the case of sessile invertebrates, would have died from the same “kill mechanisms” that would have destroyed the aquatic plants. But there’s more;
[4] Any competent marine architect will tell you, that it’s impossible to build a seaworthy wooden ship twice the size of a Ticonderoga Class guided missile cruiser. Even in calm seas, hogging and sagging would have induced terminal structural failure in minutes. This is the reason we build aircraft carriers out of high tensile steel alloys, not wood.
[5] Rampant physical and biological unreality present in every attempt by creationists to treat science as a branch of apologetics. The ludicrous “vapour canopy” nonsense peddled by Kent Hovind, would have seen thermodynamic exchanges that would have sterilised the planet (I’ve run the numbers on this). The heat extracted from the atmosphere to form the “vapour canopy” would have caused ambient temperature to plummet to those associated with Pluto, and the breathable atmospheric gases would have liquefied or even turned to solid ices under such conditions.
Then, the conversion of the kinetic energy of the rainfall into heat, would have raised the ambient temperature of the planet to that of molten copper. Good luck seeing your floating petting zoo survive this.
Then we have the “hydroplate” idiocy peddled by Walt Brown, who couldn’t even state the Gas Laws correctly. And whose fantasies about meteorite bombardment would have annihilated the fantasy floating petting zoo courtesy of the giant tsunamis this would have unleashed.
Then we have Russell Humphreys and his “accelerated nuclear decay” drivel. Which, if it had ever happened, would have heated the Earth’s core to such high temperatures, that helium fusion would have been ignited therein, even if one uses conservative numbers. In the more farcical version thereof, the planet’s temperature would have risen to something like 10^35 Kelvins, at which point it would be emitting a gigantic shower of supersymmetric particles that are even out of the reach of the Large Hadron Collider.
[6] Once the “flood waters” had receded, the planet’s terrestrial ecosystems would have been erased from the planet’s surface, and the inhabitants of the fantasy floating petting zoo would be condemned to extinction through famine and starvation in pretty short order.
[7] Thousands of organisms have life cycles that would be impossible to maintain aboard a Bronze Age boat crewed by biologically ignorant nomads. Such as ichnueumon wasps, Amplulex compressa and relations, various gall-forming insects, and of course, cicadas, which spend 17 years as larvae before emerging as adults for a brief flurry of reproductive activity.
Oh, and which of the crew of this fantasy livestock vessel carried all the parasites? Malaria, trypanosomes, schistosomes, Loa Loa, Dracunculus medinensis and various filiarial worms, to mention but a few?
No one who paid attention in actual science classes can treat this infantile gibberish seriously. Only someone palsied to a truly encephalitic extent, can treat the “global flood” fantasy as something other than bad fiction scribbled by piss-stained Bronze Age incels. Who, in addition, were too stupid to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses.
This excremental farce is a steaming pile of cortical faeces that the bacteria in my aquarium gravel would point and laugh at, let alone any properly functioning human beings. While pre-scientific goat herders might have had an excuse for making this shit up, no one with access to 21st century scientific knowledge and a properly constructed scientific curriculum in school, should treat this mythological slurry with anything other than scorn and derision.
Oh you mean this paper?
Which is problematic for several reasons. Let’s take a look at the absrtract, viz:
Statement [2] is almost certainly false. Any civilisation capable of reaching a “post-human” stage, however that is defined, will have taken science much further than we have, and will almost certainly have expended effort on the requisite research. For that matter, scientists are performing research now that falls into this category, ranging from prebiotic chemistry experiments to evolution experiments with a range of different life forms. Furthermore, almost all of those experiments aren’t “simulations”, but live experiments with actual molecules or living organisms.
As for [3], the amount of energy and resources required to prop up a simulation of this sort are far in excess of the energy and resources required for reality to operate. As a corollary, we can dismiss the requisite assertions as speculative fantasy.
3 Likes
- Which deity do believe is real?
- What objective evidence can you demonstrate to support the belief?
This is a debate forum, and you have as yet not offered any objective evidence for your claims. Instead of preaching and reeling off claim after claim, start by explaining which deity you believe is real, and what objective evidence (if any) you can demonstrate for it.
2 Likes
It has been explained to you how meaningless such unevidenced anecdotal claims are, we would have to accept all such claims prima facie, and inevitably this would involve contradictory claims. Most posters here try to be rational, and you parroted logical proof yourself, yet didn’t realise the axioms it was based on were very dubious, and had failed to even examine critical examinations of it, and of course you are demonstrably happy to use known logical fallacies relentlessly.
1 Like
The bible is filled with errant nonsense, and no one is going to simply accept unevidenced claims based anecdotal or personal experience ALONE. The bible harks from an era of extreme ignorance and superstition, why would I lend it’s unevidenced claims any credence at all?
Claim to have had Naga, claim to have had. We are not obliged to simply accept anyone’s bare claims, indeed it would be nonsensical to reason that way.
Disbelieving your claims has less to do with our view of reality, than it has to do with the fact you can offer not one shred of objective evidence for them, though it would be odd not to point out that some of the claims contradict known scientific theories and laws. Since those can be supported by overwhelming objective evidence, it’s not a choice which claims to believe. Unevidenced superstition can’t challenge objectively evidenced facts.
No, you are claiming you can see it, but can’t offer anything approaching objective evidence to support the claim, and you’re hardly the first, what about all the other religions and deities people believe are real, who make identical unevidenced anecdotal claims, to disbelieve them and believe you would be obviously biased. The rational approach is to withhold belief from them all.
So are all manner of errant nonsense, again why would we lend any credence to such claims or religious texts, when they are entirely unsupported by any objective evidence, and even in some instances contradict known scientific facts?
Nope, I don’t make assumptions without evidence. I would simply not believe such claims, who is making them is not really relevant.
It’s a bare claim standpoint, we have no evidence you have experienced anything, and even if we knew you had, why would we make the unevidenced assumptions it is a supernatural or religious experience, just because you have leaped to that conclusion?
What kind of drugs did you have a problem with? Strong hallucinogenics by any chance? Some substances can cause lasting problems with people’s perception of reality, this explanation would at least have the merit of being objectively possible.
“He asserts that the coma resulted in brain death, that consciousness is not only a product of the brain and that this permits access to an afterlife.”
Now follow the hyperlink for the definition of brain death in the first lines of his Wikipedia entry:
“Brain death is the permanent, irreversible, and complete loss of brain function which may include cessation of involuntary activity necessary to sustain life. It differs from persistent vegetative state, in which the person is alive and some autonomic functions remain. It is also distinct from comas as long as some brain and bodily activity and function remain, and it is also not the same as the condition locked-in syndrome. A differential diagnosis can medically distinguish these differing conditions.”
So not brain dead then, but in a coma. More here, prima facie we have a claim that cannot be substantiated, but even assuming it were 100% genuine, it just seems like another of the relentless appeals to mystery theists love to pretend is evidence.
It isn’t.
It isn’t.
It isn’t
1 Like
While not a geologist, this guy certainly isn’t a young earth creationist
-
Many deities are real, not just one.
-
Only what I’ve already given
“what about all the other religions and deities people believe are real, who make identical unevidenced anecdotal claims”
I don’t disbelieve in them either. I’m sure there are many gods as Bible says
“what about all the other religions and deities people believe are real, who make identical unevidenced anecdotal claims,”
I was addicted to Opioids and cocaine
Dr Alexander said his neofrontal cortex was dead while in coma which is what he called brain dead
“One of the great unresolved scientific mysteries”
Now lets compare that opening line from your link with your claim.
“I have seen geology people talk about something that could be a world flood with water levels rising dramatically after ice age ended.”
What I read talked of an unsolved scientific mystery, and it doesn’t suggest a global flood either, certainly nothing like the one described in the Noah flood myth. You’re adding 2 and 2 and leaping to 5, yet again.
- You shall have no other God’s before me.
- Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images. …
- Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. …
1 Like
That doesn’t mean other gods don’t exist. Bible says they do