Why does God >insert your grievance here<....?

[Sunmaster]

On 1/23/2024 at 5:21 AM, save the frogs said:

And you know what?

Not one of you tossers has mentioned The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pastafarianism yet, 700 pages into this.

Shame on you.

 

A lot of tossers have mentioned this several times. We didn't mention it because 1) we aren't tossers and 2) because it's a childish argument that appeals to childish minds.

[Tippaporn]

3 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

There are many unknowns about how consciousness works but you have not proven conclusively that there are non physical forces - not even close.

 

Well, is that truly a shocker considering that the unknowns about consciousness are not "many" but rather that what most people, including science, know about consciousness is precious, precious, very scant little?  Because of that fact, and due to so many accepted ideas of science which I would say are false, any claims of non physical forces would be viewed with massive skepticism.  Also, given the vast ignorance about consciousness, combined with erroneous scientific "truths," then would it also be a shocker that obvious connections aren't being made which link to non physical forces?  Dear Fat, this "shocking" revelation is, in the words of the great Sherlock Holmes who had exceptional deductive reasoning skills, elementary.  What else can one expect as a result???

 

4 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

We all have thoughts and a consciousness but there is no evidence that it is not reliant or a product of our physicality.

 

Reread the above and neither is there definitive proof that it is reliant on or a product of our physicality.  It's what's called "up for debate."  I'm debating it and taking up the counter position using reason and logic.  I've not invoked the word "faith" as a convincer ever.

 

4 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

One of your key claims seems to be that non physical forces can control the physical world and that an individual can influence their life and or surroundings through these non physical means. As I have noted, if direct physical evidence is not possible, you should seemingly be able to provide statistical secondary evidence to back up your claims.

Followers or adherents of your doctrine or ideas, could show specific and possibly unusual or surprising outcomes in their physical lives, that came from these non-physical concepts e.g. we are not sure why there is a link between A and B, or what forces are at play, but clearly A leads to B.

 

Not to poke fun at you, Fats, or to be condescending but your suggestion for how to show a connection between non physical forces and real world physical outcomes via statistical data collection and analysis is highly amusing - it produced a smile on my face.  I consider it so because the idea you suggest has such little thought put into it that the fatal flaws of such an approach are immediately apparent to those who have an understanding of these non physical forces.

 

Now this is a highly important point.  I've written before about folks who haven't, as I put it, "thought things through."  People all too often give their opinions on subject matter of which they have little knowledge, experience, or have not put a great deal of thought into.  They usually repeat only the scant ideas which they've come across in their journey through life, ideas which they've accepted as "true" for themselves.  Take the idea which fusion58 and I are arguing about.  fusion58 claims that everything which exists can be proven via evidence of it's existence.  That is an idea which is heavily promoted by science.  Most have heard it.  Most trust science.  And since they do not want to spend the time and effort to validate the idea for themselves, and since they trust science and trust that science has done the heavy lifting for them - and concluded correctly, then most people simply accept the "truth" of it uncritically and unexamined.  And they then repeat it themselves as "truth."  This is simply a truth of the way people "pick up" ideas through life which then become their beliefs; beliefs held as "true."  That is without dispute - at least if you give pause long enough to think it though.

 

By no means do I judge you now, but I would say you are such a one on this topic.  To prove me correct I would only need to ask you how much thought you've given to the subject of what consciousness is, what ideas are, where they come from, what their effects are, what beliefs are, how they work, what thoughts are, etc., etc., and ask you how many books on these subjects you have not only read but studied.  And how much effort you've then put in to testing the ideas out in the real world to validate them yourself.

 

Believe it or not there are people in the world, Fats, who delve to great depths on this subject matter.  On the subject of consciousness it is simple fact that science and people in general are wholly ignorant on that subject.  I do not imply any judgement whatsoever in my use of the word 'ignorant'.  I use it in the strict sense of the dictionary definition:

1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact

Yet those who have studied it, some for a lifetime, are treated as idiots who don't know what they're talking about.  An apt analogy, which happens in real life, is an individual who has spent an entire lifetime in his business and knows it inside and out.  He hires a newbie, someone who perhaps had taken some classes taught by teachers who may well have taught him correctly at times but also much which is backwards, and this newbie on his first day then decides to "educate" this individual with a lifetime of real experience on how the business needs to run.

 

I've said this many times:  people love to pretend they know it all.  They approach subject matters as if they were experts despite the fact that they are less than novices.  They tend to believe that everything which they believe is correct and true and when challenged get upset and feel prideful indignation.  Do show some respect.

 

5 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Next steps may be to see if you can gather evidence or alternatively live your life happily in your faith that to you these are self evident truths.

 

It has nothing to do with faith, sir.  Reading the faith part of it into it is strictly due to your personal interpretation, your personal perception.

 

5 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Next steps may be to see if you can gather evidence or alternatively live your life happily in your faith that to you these are self evident truths. But in my opinion criticism of those that doubt, on the basis that they don't have your faith or that they can't comment without 10000 hours meditating or reading 1000000 words, is not a fair way to make an argument. You need evidence. 

 

I've already addressed the 'faith'.  I've never, ever suggested meditation.  Be accurate.  As to reading a million words it works this way:  if one has no interest in a subject matter my posts are verbose, long-winded.  If one has settled on their convictions and are immovable then my arguments are verbose, long-winded.  If one has interest in the subject matter then my posts are too short.  If one has no set convictions and possesses curiosity then my posts are too short.

 

It all hinges on ones position.  So, do you still want to contend that I am being unfair?  I guess that would depend on what position you take, correct?

[Tippaporn]

3 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

A lot of tossers have mentioned this several times. We didn't mention it because 1) we aren't tossers and 2) because it's a childish argument that appeals to childish minds.

 

I told you a long time ago, Sunmaster, that save the frogs isn't worth your time.  My 11-year-old shows more common sense.  And respect.

[beautifulthailand99]

Belief in God usually arises as a fear of something besides which the existence of God is unprovable and therefore speculating on their existence or non-existence is unprofitable. So your grievance if it exists is due to natural phenomena therefore there is no need to bring "God" into it.

Edited January 26 by beautifulthailand99

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Well, is that truly a shocker considering that the unknowns about consciousness are not "many" but rather that what most people, including science, know about consciousness is precious, precious, very scant little?  Because of that fact, and due to so many accepted ideas of science which I would say are false, any claims of non physical forces would be viewed with massive skepticism.  Also, given the vast ignorance about consciousness, combined with erroneous scientific "truths," then would it also be a shocker that obvious connections aren't being made which link to non physical forces?  Dear Fat, this "shocking" revelation is, in the words of the great Sherlock Holmes who had exceptional deductive reasoning skills, elementary.  What else can one expect as a result???

 

 

Reread the above and neither is there definitive proof that it is reliant on or a product of our physicality.  It's what's called "up for debate."  I'm debating it and taking up the counter position using reason and logic.  I've not invoked the word "faith" as a convincer ever.

 

 

Not to poke fun at you, Fats, or to be condescending but your suggestion for how to show a connection between non physical forces and real world physical outcomes via statistical data collection and analysis is highly amusing - it produced a smile on my face.  I consider it so because the idea you suggest has such little thought put into it that the fatal flaws of such an approach are immediately apparent to those who have an understanding of these non physical forces.

 

Now this is a highly important point.  I've written before about folks who haven't, as I put it, "thought things through."  People all too often give their opinions on subject matter of which they have little knowledge, experience, or have not put a great deal of thought into.  They usually repeat only the scant ideas which they've come across in their journey through life, ideas which they've accepted as "true" for themselves.  Take the idea which fusion58 and I are arguing about.  fusion58 claims that everything which exists can be proven via evidence of it's existence.  That is an idea which is heavily promoted by science.  Most have heard it.  Most trust science.  And since they do not want to spend the time and effort to validate the idea for themselves, and since they trust science and trust that science has done the heavy lifting for them - and concluded correctly, then most people simply accept the "truth" of it uncritically and unexamined.  And they then repeat it themselves as "truth."  This is simply a truth of the way people "pick up" ideas through life which then become their beliefs; beliefs held as "true."  That is without dispute - at least if you give pause long enough to think it though.

 

By no means do I judge you now, but I would say you are such a one on this topic.  To prove me correct I would only need to ask you how much thought you've given to the subject of what consciousness is, what ideas are, where they come from, what their effects are, what beliefs are, how they work, what thoughts are, etc., etc., and ask you how many books on these subjects you have not only read but studied.  And how much effort you've then put in to testing the ideas out in the real world to validate them yourself.

 

Believe it or not there are people in the world, Fats, who delve to great depths on this subject matter.  On the subject of consciousness it is simple fact that science and people in general are wholly ignorant on that subject.  I do not imply any judgement whatsoever in my use of the word 'ignorant'.  I use it in the strict sense of the dictionary definition:

1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact

Yet those who have studied it, some for a lifetime, are treated as idiots who don't know what they're talking about.  An apt analogy, which happens in real life, is an individual who has spent an entire lifetime in his business and knows it inside and out.  He hires a newbie, someone who perhaps had taken some classes taught by teachers who may well have taught him correctly at times but also much which is backwards, and this newbie on his first day then decides to "educate" this individual with a lifetime of real experience on how the business needs to run.

 

I've said this many times:  people love to pretend they know it all.  They approach subject matters as if they were experts despite the fact that they are less than novices.  They tend to believe that everything which they believe is correct and true and when challenged get upset and feel prideful indignation.  Do show some respect.

 

 

It has nothing to do with faith, sir.  Reading the faith part of it into it is strictly due to your personal interpretation, your personal perception.

 

 

I've already addressed the 'faith'.  I've never, ever suggested meditation.  Be accurate.  As to reading a million words it works this way:  if one has no interest in a subject matter my posts are verbose, long-winded.  If one has settled on their convictions and are immovable then my arguments are verbose, long-winded.  If one has interest in the subject matter then my posts are too short.  If one has no set convictions and possesses curiosity then my posts are too short.

 

It all hinges on ones position.  So, do you still want to contend that I am being unfair?  I guess that would depend on what position you take, correct?

 

Claims that science now has a lot of things wrong, and that scientists would likely disregard evidence of non physical forces if there was evidence are your claims, are unproven red herrings and do not help in backing up your theory. Science by definition never says it is undisputedly right of course. 

 

You have used as an example of your mistrust in science claims about the covid vaccine being a cure. Early on maybe the odd scientist, and a few politicians, misspoke and said it would prevent covid rather than lessening it's effects. I never had the impression the vaccine was a cure. So, because things were learnt on the run, and the messaging was not perfect, you seem to throw the baby out with the bathwater and somewhat put aside the clear scientific success of the vaccine. So let's set aside what others are doing or not doing or who is immovable and stick to your theory. 

 

The comment on meditation related to other posters. 

 

I have not studied consciousness. Your reading and personal experiences have led you to a theory - but that theory can't be explained succinctly similar to how a business could be explained as per your example - and apparently can't be proven, by direct or indirect evidence, at this time.

The notion that evidence might come from followers of your ideas, possibly having objectively similar outcomes, is not acceptable to you.  Maybe some other form of secondary evidence is acceptable. 

 

Faith is not a dirty word. I think we all have a type of faith at times in this and that to get through the day. You could one day be proven correct. If you have a theory that works for you based on readings and subjective experiences, but accept it may be wrong, then to me that's fine. Some of your writing though indicates you are sure it is correct which by definition requires faith. 

 

Edited January 26 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Claims that science now has a lot of things wrong, and that scientists would likely disregard evidence of non physical forces if there was evidence are your claims, are unproven red herrings and do not help in backing up your theory.

 

". . . if there was evidence . . ."  That's your red herring. 

 

7 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Science by definition never says it is undisputedly right of course.

 

BS.  Covid and climate change.  Let's be honest, Fat.  There's science as an ideal and then there's science as it's practiced.  The two are vastly different these days.  You don't interact with an ideal world, do you?  The ideal world doesn't exist and neither does the ideal science.

 

21 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You have used an example, of your mistrust in science, claims about the covid vaccine being a cure. Early on maybe the odd scientist, and a few politicians, misspoke and said it would prevent covid rather than lessening it's effects.

 

Okay, you've gone off the rails, Fat.  What you wrote has no truth in it.  I can jam the real truth right down your throat but the evidence is not acceptable here.  Early on?  That's an out and out lie.  The odd scientist?  That's an out an out lie.  A few politicians?  That's an out an out lie.  Misspoke my ar$e.  That's an out an out lie.  It boggles my mind that people can so easily forget what really happened and then deny that what really did happen didn't happen.

 

There's one thing about any exploration of consciousness.  It requires absolute self honesty.  Without that you'll only be fooling yourself and the truth will remain hidden from you because the dishonesty is that which will hide it.  Your choice there, Fat.

 

25 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I have not studied consciousness.

 

And thus your uninformed and misinformed opinions carry very little weight.  I've studied consciousness for decades.

 

27 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Your reading and personal experiences have led you to a theory - but that theory can't be explained succinctly similar to how a business could be explained as per your example - and apparently can't be proven, by direct or indirect evidence, at this time.

 

Explained succinctly?  You're being unreasonable.  The subject matter of consciousness includes multiples upon multiples of subject matter.  It is far more complex than you can begin to imagine.  How many books would you need to read to get your PhD in astrophysics?  What, you can't learn astrophysics in a succinct manner.  Can you reasonably expect to understand what consciousness is with a few one liners?  A paragraph or two?  A couple of posts?

 

As has been said many, many times.  Some things can only be proven by yourself to yourself.  If physical evidence doesn't exist so then what?  Statistical data collection and analysis the points to A being responsible for B?  You have no idea how many variables there are to consider.  As you admitted, you have not studied consciousness.  Therefore you are not in any position to demand how it needs to be proven.

 

Analogies are useful in conveying a point.  But they are never meant to be used to make unfitting points.  When that happens it's said that the analogy doesn't fit.  And it doesn't fit the point you're trying to make with my analogy.

 

42 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

The notion that evidence might come from followers of your ideas, possibly having objectively similar outcomes, is not acceptable to you.

 

Huh?  Again, you have not studied what consciousness is and therefore can't begin to opine on what possibilities exist for producing evidence.  As to "followers of your ideas" that's like saying that if I taught someone the mechanics behind an automotive engine then they would be followers of my ideas.  Consciousness is what it is, like an engine is what it is.  Both work according to definite principles and are governed by laws.  It's not "my idea."  It's the simple fact of the way it is.

 

49 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Faith is not a dirty word. I think we all have a type of faith at times in this and that to get through the day. You could one day be proven correct. If you have a theory that works for you based on readings and subjective experiences, but accept it may be wrong, then to me that's fine.

 

I agree.  Faith is not a dirty word.  Those who do not believe in faith have little idea of how often they operate on faith throughout every day of their lives.  My reference to faith, though, was that I'm not about to employ it as a method of accepting anything I say as being "true."

 

53 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Some of your writing though indicates you are sure it is correct which by definition requires faith.

 

That's your personal interpretation and it's wrong.  Anything one learns needs to be validated.  I validate, to the extent I can, what I learn via testing it out in the real world.  I can provide you with endless anecdotes that are proof for me but will never be accepted as proofs by those who fail to understand that proofs for anything and everything in existence must come in the form of "hard" evidence.

 

Let's face it, Fat, you have no interest in understanding any of this.  You have your beliefs and they suit you just fine.  You don't want to change them, nor are you ready to change them.  It's fun for you to argue for your beliefs but that's really about as far as it goes.

[jvs]

On 1/7/2024 at 12:13 PM, retarius said:

On the contrary, my huge penis is a drawback for some of the smaller Thai girls. 

Maybe you should try adult women?

someone would say only over 40 kg!

[Fat is a type of crazy]

37 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

". . . if there was evidence . . ."  That's your red herring. 

 

 

BS.  Covid and climate change.  Let's be honest, Fat.  There's science as an ideal and then there's science as it's practiced.  The two are vastly different these days.  You don't interact with an ideal world, do you?  The ideal world doesn't exist and neither does the ideal science.

 

 

Okay, you've gone off the rails, Fat.  What you wrote has no truth in it.  I can jam the real truth right down your throat but the evidence is not acceptable here.  Early on?  That's an out and out lie.  The odd scientist?  That's an out an out lie.  A few politicians?  That's an out an out lie.  Misspoke my ar$e.  That's an out an out lie.  It boggles my mind that people can so easily forget what really happened and then deny that what really did happen didn't happen.

 

There's one thing about any exploration of consciousness.  It requires absolute self honesty.  Without that you'll only be fooling yourself and the truth will remain hidden from you because the dishonesty is that which will hide it.  Your choice there, Fat.

 

 

And thus your uninformed and misinformed opinions carry very little weight.  I've studied consciousness for decades.

 

 

Explained succinctly?  You're being unreasonable.  The subject matter of consciousness includes multiples upon multiples of subject matter.  It is far more complex than you can begin to imagine.  How many books would you need to read to get your PhD in astrophysics?  What, you can't learn astrophysics in a succinct manner.  Can you reasonably expect to understand what consciousness is with a few one liners?  A paragraph or two?  A couple of posts?

 

As has been said many, many times.  Some things can only be proven by yourself to yourself.  If physical evidence doesn't exist so then what?  Statistical data collection and analysis the points to A being responsible for B?  You have no idea how many variables there are to consider.  As you admitted, you have not studied consciousness.  Therefore you are not in any position to demand how it needs to be proven.

 

Analogies are useful in conveying a point.  But they are never meant to be used to make unfitting points.  When that happens it's said that the analogy doesn't fit.  And it doesn't fit the point you're trying to make with my analogy.

 

 

Huh?  Again, you have not studied what consciousness is and therefore can't begin to opine on what possibilities exist for producing evidence.  As to "followers of your ideas" that's like saying that if I taught someone the mechanics behind an automotive engine then they would be followers of my ideas.  Consciousness is what it is, like an engine is what it is.  Both work according to definite principles and are governed by laws.  It's not "my idea."  It's the simple fact of the way it is.

 

 

I agree.  Faith is not a dirty word.  Those who do not believe in faith have little idea of how often they operate on faith throughout every day of their lives.  My reference to faith, though, was that I'm not about to employ it as a method of accepting anything I say as being "true."

 

 

That's your personal interpretation and it's wrong.  Anything one learns needs to be validated.  I validate, to the extent I can, what I learn via testing it out in the real world.  I can provide you with endless anecdotes that are proof for me but will never be accepted as proofs by those who fail to understand that proofs for anything and everything in existence must come in the form of "hard" evidence.

 

Let's face it, Fat, you have no interest in understanding any of this.  You have your beliefs and they suit you just fine.  You don't want to change them, nor are you ready to change them.  It's fun for you to argue for your beliefs but that's really about as far as it goes.

OK. Leave it there. You say you validate to the extent you can - so you're either not totally sure and you accept the theory is a theory only or you say it is definitely true and then faith is involved. Simple point. I am not sure why it is important for you to seem so sure of yourself that your theory is correct. 

The covid point, which in the big picture is not a lie, is that you used it as an example of science not working when science is by definition a self correcting mechanism and the vaccine had been clearly ultimately successful backed by scientific studies and not simply by someone's subjective notions.  

Edited January 26 by Fat is a type of crazy

[brianthainess]

How can someone who doesn't exist give you grieve? 

[Gottfrid]

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Not my job to provide you with any proof of anything. You are a conscious being (I think), so you have all the tools to find truth all on your own. 

Either do that or take responsibility for not wanting to know. As simple as that.

Wanting to know what? What responsibility? You can´t show me any proof. Just say like it is. I can show you proof of evolution through times.

What do you want me to do? Read a fiction story and believe it?

[Sunmaster]

2 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

Wanting to know what? What responsibility? You can´t show me any proof. Just say like it is. I can show you proof of evolution through times.

What do you want me to do? Read a fiction story and believe it?

I honestly don't care one way or another. Do what makes you happy as long as it makes you happy. Fine by me. 

[Gottfrid]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

I honestly don't care one way or another. Do what makes you happy as long as it makes you happy. Fine by me. 

Yeah, but I care. Making up threads in an open forum you can´t stand up for. Show me some proof you fantasy character exists now.

[Sunmaster]

38 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

Show me some proof you fantasy character exists now.

....or else! 

😅😂😂😂

[fusion58]

18 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

You fail to understand that it's impossible to place the onus of providing evidence on someone when that evidence does not exist in physical terms.

LOL.

 

What other kind of evidence (besides that which “exists in physical terms”) is there?

 

“Hey fellas: there’s a purple unicorn in the next room! BTW, I have no evidence that *exists in physical terms* so you’ll just have to take my word for it.”

 

Also “because my evidence *doesn’t exist in physical terms,* that means I have no burden of proof.”

 

It’s a bizarre alternate intellectual reality you inhabit.

[Sunmaster]

5 hours ago, fusion58 said:

LOL.

 

What other kind of evidence (besides that which “exists in physical terms”) is there?

 

“Hey fellas: there’s a purple unicorn in the next room! BTW, I have no evidence that *exists in physical terms* so you’ll just have to take my word for it.”

 

Also “because my evidence *doesn’t exist in physical terms,* that means I have no burden of proof.”

 

It’s a bizarre alternate intellectual reality you inhabit.

He tried to explain it to you in 5 different ways and you still don't get it. Or don't want to get it. Or pretend not to get it. On the contrary, you like to parade this lack of understanding as if it were a matter of great pride. 😄

 

Hopefully you'll be blessed with more understanding in the next life. Good luck 😉

[Gottfrid]

7 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

....or else! 

😅😂😂😂

Nothing! It just shows you can´t back it up. Just a fairytale.

[Tippaporn]

12 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

OK. Leave it there. You say you validate to the extent you can - so you're either not totally sure and you accept the theory is a theory only or you say it is definitely true and then faith is involved.

 

When I said that I validate to the extent that I can I'm obviously making that statement in reference to my below quote.

 

13 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

The subject matter of consciousness includes multiples upon multiples of subject matter.

 

I've certainly validated much for myself.  And of course, as with anything in science, there's always something that remains to be validated and some things which are almost impossible to validate.

 

13 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Simple point. I am not sure why it is important for you to seem so sure of yourself that your theory is correct.

 

Because it has massive practical applications in the real world.  But you have no way of knowing about that.  If you did then you wouldn't ask the question.  The proof is always in the pudding, isn't it?

 

13 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

The covid point, which in the big picture is not a lie . . .

 

The way you framed each and every point you made then each and every point was a blatant lie.  Remember what I said about honesty being an indispensable prerequisite for uncovering the real truth of ourselves and the world?  You're dispensing with it.  It is true to say that the only one anyone really fools is themselves.  You, sir, are fooling yourself as all of the evidence needed to prove your assertions to be wrong are readily available if only you were willing to look.

 

But just as you are unwilling to look for any contrary evidence to your beliefs about Covid so you are unwilling to look for any contrary evidence to your beliefs regarding this subject matter.  You may not like the truth but there it is.

 

“You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”

— Ayn Rand

 

[Gottfrid]

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I've certainly validated much for myself.  And of course, as with anything in science, there's always something that remains to be validated and some things which are almost impossible to validate.

Did you just call your belief a science? If there is science involved, then the must be evidence. Where are they? So, in reality, what have you validated? What stands in a book that is partly put together out of old rolls found a little bit here and there. So, what? Maybe people wanted to write bed time stories before they invented the real paper and the art of printing. However, half of the book is unsupported by any kind of documents. 

 

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

But just as you are unwilling to look for any contrary evidence to your beliefs about Covid so you are unwilling to look for any contrary evidence to your beliefs regarding this subject matter.  You may not like the truth but there it is.

Where should we look? Please point us in the right direction. Again, where is the evidence?

 

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

“You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”

— Ayn Rand

True, you can´t ignore reality if it is supported by facts. However, if the said reality in question is made up be a bunch of people who believe and unsupported by facts. In other words, just a theory. Then you can ignore that, as it is no reality. I guess both you and Ayn Rand forgot to think about that.

Edited January 27 by Gottfrid

[Tippaporn]

9 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

5 hours ago, fusion58 said:

LOL.

 

What other kind of evidence (besides that which “exists in physical terms”) is there?

 

“Hey fellas: there’s a purple unicorn in the next room! BTW, I have no evidence that *exists in physical terms* so you’ll just have to take my word for it.”

 

Also “because my evidence *doesn’t exist in physical terms,* that means I have no burden of proof.”

 

It’s a bizarre alternate intellectual reality you inhabit.

He tried to explain it to you in 5 different ways and you still don't get it. Or don't want to get it. Or pretend not to get it. On the contrary, you like to parade this lack of understanding as if it were a matter of great pride. 😄

 

Hopefully you'll be blessed with more understanding in the next life. Good luck 😉

 

Aw, let fusion58 take his empty victory lap, Sunmaster.  He certainly deserves a passing grade for 'participation' and maybe even a Bozo the Clown trophy.

  

On 1/21/2024 at 4:05 PM, fusion58 said:

You simply pounded your fist on the table and cried "he's really, really wrong! He's wrong in more ways than I can count!"

 

Always accuse the other of what you yourself are doing.

— fusion58

[Tippaporn]

14 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

Did you just call your belief a science? If there is science involved, then the must be evidence. Where are they?

 

Where should we look? Please point us in the right direction. Again, where is the evidence?

 

True, you can´t ignore reality if it is supported by facts. However, if the said reality in question is made up be a bunch of people who believe and unsupported by facts. In other words, just a theory. Then you can ignore that, as it is no reality. I guess both you and Ayn Rand forgot to think about that.

 

Sorry to see you waste time and effort replying to me, Gottfrid.  I've read your posts here.  I'm sure you've read mine.  Since they haven't rung a bell yet anywhere inside your cranium then my pronouncement is that your understanding is terminal.  Where shall I send the flowers?

 

Insanity is attempting to move an immovable object.  I'll take a pass.

[Gottfrid]

11 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Sorry to see you waste time and effort replying to me, Gottfrid.  I've read your posts here.  I'm sure you've read mine.  Since they haven't rung a bell yet anywhere inside your cranium then my pronouncement is that your understanding is terminal.  Where shall I send the flowers?

 

Insanity is attempting to move an immovable object.  I'll take a pass.

Why don´t you place the flowers together with your imaginary friend.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

49 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

When I said that I validate to the extent that I can I'm obviously making that statement in reference to my below quote.

 

 

I've certainly validated much for myself.  And of course, as with anything in science, there's always something that remains to be validated and some things which are almost impossible to validate.

 

 

Because it has massive practical applications in the real world.  But you have no way of knowing about that.  If you did then you wouldn't ask the question.  The proof is always in the pudding, isn't it?

 

 

The way you framed each and every point you made then each and every point was a blatant lie.  Remember what I said about honesty being an indispensable prerequisite for uncovering the real truth of ourselves and the world?  You're dispensing with it.  It is true to say that the only one anyone really fools is themselves.  You, sir, are fooling yourself as all of the evidence needed to prove your assertions to be wrong are readily available if only you were willing to look.

 

But just as you are unwilling to look for any contrary evidence to your beliefs about Covid so you are unwilling to look for any contrary evidence to your beliefs regarding this subject matter.  You may not like the truth but there it is.

 

“You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”

— Ayn Rand

 

I think you are getting a bit excited about the covid stuff. Your point was specifically the following:

 The mRNA shots will prevent you from catching Covid.  That was billed and heavily promoted as a scientific "truth." 

I don't recall ever being told in Australia that getting the vaccine would mean I would not get covid. I was always told, and had known from previous vaccines, that it means if you catch it, and have had the vaccine, it is a lot less worse. It may have been also said that there is LESS likelihood of catching it but I do not recall hearing it would actually prevent you getting it. As I said maybe it was said in the early period. 

I do recall the controversial issue being around whether a person should have to get vaccinated as it made it safer for others but that is a separate issue. 

If you can show me that all the major medical bodies made your claim throughout the covid epidemic, and not just early on as I stated where errors were made, then I will accept what you are saying. Please do and I can learn something. 

Fun fact: I was a big fan of Ayn Rand at one time. Her direct and somewhat extreme right wing economic views and opinions on personal freedoms and approach to life were refreshing in The Fountainhead. Atlas Shrugged got a bit much and I saw that you need a heart and being so hardcore is in the end not a good way to treat fellow humans. Ask yourself : if you showed her the Seth stuff what would have she said. Doesn't mean it's wrong but see how it appears to others when by your own admission the evidence is subjective at best. 

Edited January 27 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Sunmaster]

@Tippaporn
Whatchadoin here? Breakfast is waiting in the other thread...

[Tippaporn]

17 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

Why don´t you place the flowers together with your imaginary friend.

 

You see now why I take a pass.  Right off the bat you perpetuate and insist on a lie that's been debunked.

 

If it's not an old axiom then it should be:  You can never debate with dishonest people.

[save the frogs]

21 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

A lot of tossers have mentioned this several times. We didn't mention it because 1) we aren't tossers and 2) because it's a childish argument that appeals to childish minds.

how many god threads will it take?

[Sunmaster]

20 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

how many god threads will it take?

(n+1)²

Edited January 27 by Sunmaster

[fusion58]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

He tried to explain it to you in 5 different ways and you still don't get it. Or don't want to get it. Or pretend not to get it. On the contrary, you like to parade this lack of understanding as if it were a matter of great pride. 😄

 

Hopefully you'll be blessed with more understanding in the next life. Good luck 😉

 

He didn’t explain anything.

 

In fact, he denied right from the outset that the burden to prove the existence of a god or a supernatural realm was his - even though he was the one making the claim.

 

You should be asking yourself why you’re casting your lot with such an intellectually dishonest person.

 

 

[Sunmaster]

25 minutes ago, fusion58 said:

 

He didn’t explain anything.

 

In fact, he denied right from the outset that the burden to prove the existence of a god or a supernatural realm was his - even though he was the one making the claim.

 

You should be asking yourself why you’re casting your lot with such an intellectually dishonest person.

 

 

Clearly it all went over your head. 

[Gottfrid]

13 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

You see now why I take a pass.  Right off the bat you perpetuate and insist on a lie that's been debunked.

 

If it's not an old axiom then it should be:  You can never debate with dishonest people.

How has it been debunked? With what proof?

[Tippaporn]

6 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

20 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

You see now why I take a pass.  Right off the bat you perpetuate and insist on a lie that's been debunked.

How has it been debunked? With what proof?

 

20 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

Why don´t you place the flowers together with your imaginary friend.

 

You're not following along, Gottfrid, because you don't listen.  You don't listen because you're too busy coming up with your next response.

 

What's been debunked is that I don't have the imaginary friend you that you claim I have in your above quote.  I've stated that many, many times and yet still posters attribute a belief in God to me.  Which is why I said:

 

20 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

If it's not an old axiom then it should be:  You can never debate with dishonest people.

 

When I say I don't believe in God and yet people insist that I do then they're being dishonest.  There's no way you can debate anyone who will simply insist on lying whenever it suits them.