Objective Evidence.

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
SteveD
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 11:40 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SteveD » Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:46 pm

You’ve been corresponding with KtR for years?

You have the patience of Job, dear Claire, and the gift of mercy I think.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by SEG » Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:15 pm

Claire wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:33 am

Existence has nothing to do with whether or not something can be defined.
Show me anything that can't be defined or having a clear outline. If gods can't be clearly defined, their existence should be doubted. How does your favourite god fare? Does it have any clear definitions?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Keep the Reason
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:17 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Keep the Reason » Sun Apr 08, 2018 6:38 pm

SEG wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:15 pm
What are gods? If you can't reasonably define them, they can't reasonably exist. It can't get any simpler than that. What is your definition?
You're right of course. The entire god-argument is based on the idea that suddenly when it comes to a topic that defines all of existence, and if true affects every living being for all eternity, we have to switch off our standards on what facts are.

If we don't switch off that mechanism that we use to make judgments about just about everything else, WE, as the people who reject the failed premises of theists, are magically obligated to prove THEIR assertions are not true.

This is madness, but since religion always gets a pass, we have to revisit this topic time and time again.

Example:

Me: I want to sell you a car. The car is "someplace else". I cannot show you the car. I cannot explain to you the car. I get to say, "Well, how this car works is mysterious; it's sovereign of cars, and thus I cannot explain to you how it works or why it does what it does." I point to a book that says the car is the car and is the car of ALL cars. All I can say is I hear inside of me a voice saying if I buy the car my life will be awesome, and since my life is awesome, the car is real and right and you should buy it too.

You: As the recipient of this message you get to ask questions like, "Now wait a moment. I'd like you to demonstrate this car exists. Can you?"

Me: Now I get to tell you, "Well I can't. Can you tell me how I can show you a car that actually exists but you cannot see it or drive it or interact with it any way other than what I say it says in this book? I already told you it can't be done. Now please buy the car (oh, and if you don't-- wellll that's YOUR problem and you'll see what happens if you don't!)

You: You know, you haven't come up with a reasonable case for buying this car. I'll pass. In fact, I don't even believe this car exists, given all these excuses you're coming up with to convince me it does, especially when you yourself admit you can't even demonstrate the car exists to yourself. I mean even YOU haven't actually seen this car like we're seeing this tree over here, or those other cars that DO exist over there.

Me: What?! How dare you! Basically you're calling me a liar for not being able to prove this car exists! You know, in earlier times, I could run you through with a sword for not accepting that the car exists, and in some places, like India and in the Middle East, non-car believers DO get executed. So consider yourself lucky.

Here's what you do. since you are POSITIVELY ASSERTING my car doesn't exist based on me not being able to make a sensible case that it does, then YOU have to prove it doesn't exist!

Ha! Gotcha! I win either way. If I can prove my car exists, well I win. If I cannot, and you don't believe anyway, I change that into you insisting the car can't possibly exist, hence YOU have to now prove your claim the car DOESN'T exist! Because that's how we sell cars to people.

====

As anyone could see, not a single person with a brain in their heads would ever buy a car this way, and if they do, they deserve the screwing they'll get for doing so. I am ONLY responding to the claim that a god exists once someone floats the idea, like SteveD did, and I will always listen to that first round of assertion, with the expectation that any person making such a claim can support their claims with evidence or demonstration.

If they fail, that's on them, I am obligated to reject their claim, and only dishonest nincompoops flip it around to pretend I'm suddenly the one conjuring the reversal of the claim. Go look at my first interaction with SteveD and you'll see I specifically said to him, "Maybe you have something new to offer." (Being so closed minded as I am).

Did he come up with something -- anything -- new? Noooo. Can he provide basic evidence of his claims? Noooo. Do I then have the right to reject his claim as untenable? Yessss. Do I further have to then PROVE why I reject his claim by demonstrating the same things he says can't be demonstrated to exist, as not existing? Nooo. And only dishonest nincompoops try this gambit.

Hence, Claire.

Keep the Reason
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:17 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Keep the Reason » Sun Apr 08, 2018 6:42 pm

SteveD wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:46 pm
You’ve been corresponding with KtR for years?

You have the patience of Job, dear Claire, and the gift of mercy I think.
You'll find out, lol.

We almost to a person come from an earlier Forum that crashed. We've been arguing for years, back and forth. Claire's thoroughly dishonest as you'll learn. Chapabel's a total hypocrite (he's a conservative Supply Side Jesus Christian -- you know, everything 180 degrees opposite of what the Jesus in the bible is), I'm the "take no prisoners" political guy --

And I'll explain the political side of my take on this: People's beliefs affect their votes and their votes affect MY LIFE. So when a right wing lunatic like Chapabel helps elect a shitheel like Trump, based on his perverted nonsensical religion and his sweeping ignorance and gullibility on who Trump really is, THAT AFFECTS MY WELL BEING.

I had health care for a very low price while I was out of work for when I got laid off (after 30 years of contributing to the system as a duly employed and productive member of society), but shitheels like Chapabel don't give a fuck about other's struggles (you know, like Jesus said people were supposed to?) so I lost my health insurance thanks to Trump's election which was largely a backalsh agianst Obama who was... GASP! A Knee-Grow!

For the record, I have since become reemployed and all is well, but I had to pay through the nose for health insurance while I was out of work. Nearly impossible. And my case was like a #2 on a scale of 1-100 for what other people suffer.

The election of someone like Trump who knows how to play idiots like Chapabel (guns, racism, walls, etc) affects real live human beings. Millions have now lost their health care and will DIE.

You want to know why Chapabel doesn't care? It's not me pretending to know it-- he TELLS us, in this post right here:
I seem to recall a conversation you and I had about death in which you admitted fearing the process of death. Here your primary concern is a painless death. There is no way of knowing for certain you will die a painful death. You are fretting over an uncertainty. You may pass away peaceably in your sleep at a very old age surrounded by your loved ones. But, even if your death does include pain, the pain of death is temporary. I can't say I'm looking forward to a painful death, but I am looking forward to the life of eternal joy in the presence of Jesus Christ after physical death. That is the difference between you and me. Because of Jesus, I can look past a painful death to the eternal joy of Heaven...and all you have is the fear of death.
Chapabel's religious beliefs short circuits his caring for the suffering of other human beings. And that translates into practice, and that affects me, you, my family, your family, everyone.

Do I blame "all Christians"? Of course not. I do however blame Christianity because that's what Christianity teaches.

One16unashamed is Chapabel light. SEG likes the historical part and Moonwood the Hare is easily the best read with the most sophisticated arguments around.

I do this here and elsewhere as well, and in Real Life as they say. I'm politically active. I don't care if a person believes any religion as long as they apply it to themselves, and not others because there's far too many schmucks who ruin what could be a much better world.

Claire
Posts: 1230
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:06 am

Keep the Reason wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 6:42 pm
SteveD wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:46 pm
You’ve been corresponding with KtR for years?

You have the patience of Job, dear Claire, and the gift of mercy I think.
You'll find out, lol.

We almost to a person come from an earlier Forum that crashed. We've been arguing for years, back and forth. Claire's thoroughly dishonest as you'll learn.
That's kind of you to say, Steve. And, in regards to KTR's post, on the old forum I created and briefly handled a sock puppet account for an experiment, but then publicly admitted to it, and apologized. Nothing else comes to mind, but I encourage KTR to list any other acts he considers to have been dishonest. If he does and they're true, I'll admit to and apologize for those as well.
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:He was saying God(s) do not exist and he has said this for years. And, for reasons explained, he is liable to prove that claim.
What are gods? If you can't reasonably define them, they can't reasonably exist. It can't get any simpler than that. What is your definition?
Existence has nothing to do with whether or not something can be defined. If you're fond of science as much as you'd like people to think you do, then you would realize that science is not a static source of information where nothing new is ever learned, discovered, or defined. And, whether or not you can personally understand or describe something has nothing to do with whether or not that thing you can't describe exists. For example, say there is an amazon tribe that you came into contact with who has no concept of the internet, and you're trying to tell them what a GIF is, and the tribe's people say that you can't properly define it to them, or describe it, so it doesn't exist.
SEG wrote:Show me anything that can't be defined or having a clear outline. If gods can't be clearly defined, their existence should be doubted. How does your favourite god fare? Does it have any clear definitions?
I provided an example of why definition does not precede existence. If you want more examples of things that aren't clearly defined, and sometimes not even objectively proven, go bury yourself in some quantum physics articles for awhile. And, see how scientists at times have to follow the clues that are left by some principal or particle that have not yet been defined or discovered, yet they can see the affect that it has on reality. Now, despite what you and KTR may think, KTR is responsible for proving his claim God does not exist if he wants to assert it as fact. And, that claim is not always in response to a believer claiming God does exist.

Helpful link:
https://strangenotions.com/who-has-the- ... ssing-god/
Last edited by Claire on Mon Apr 09, 2018 4:17 am, edited 2 times in total.

Keep the Reason
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:17 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Keep the Reason » Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:13 am

That's kind of you to say, Steve. And, in regards to KTR's reply, on the old forum I created and briefly handled a sock puppet account for an experiment, but then publicly admitted to it, and apologized. Nothing else comes to mind, but I encourage KTR to list any other acts he considers to have been dishonest. If he does and they're true, I'll admit to and apologize for those as well.
Going back and deleting or changing posts, which caused us to have to enact a whole cut off time that was never necessary until dishonest you came around.

You've done it here too. I noticed a post that said one thing and then I went back and it was totally different. I can't recall which one it is because I don't bother to reply to you generally and I didn't bother responding to it.

Oh, and the relentless quoting of previous posts, over and over again, which you are also already doing here.

I don't trust you and don't believe you and consider you dishonest. Intellectually and with internet etiquette. And I don't care about your lame explanations for it or your apologies since they all ring hollow.

You'll do it again. It's who you are.

Claire
Posts: 1230
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:33 am

Claire wrote:
Keep the Reason wrote:
SteveD wrote:You’ve been corresponding with KtR for years?

You have the patience of Job, dear Claire, and the gift of mercy I think.
You'll find out, lol.

We almost to a person come from an earlier Forum that crashed. We've been arguing for years, back and forth. Claire's thoroughly dishonest as you'll learn.
That's kind of you to say, Steve. And, in regards to KTR's post, on the old forum I created and briefly handled a sock puppet account for an experiment, but then publicly admitted to it, and apologized. Nothing else comes to mind, but I encourage KTR to list any other acts he considers to have been dishonest. If he does and they're true, I'll admit to and apologize for those as well.
Keep the Reason wrote:Going back and deleting or changing posts, which caused us to have to enact a whole cut off time that was never necessary until dishonest you came around.

You've done it here too. I noticed a post that said one thing and then I went back and it was totally different. I can't recall which one it is because I don't bother to reply to you generally and I didn't bother worrying it.

Oh, and the relentless quoting of previous posts, over and over again, which you are also already doing here.

I don't trust you and don't believe you and consider you dishonest. Intellectually and with internet etiquette. And I don't care about your lame explanations for it.

You'll do it again. It's who you are.
On the old forum KTR and several other members repeatedly accused me of intentionally changing the context of discussion by editing/deleting my posts. Eventually I created a thread where I linked every post of mine where I had replaced what I had with the word *Deleted*, since I was unable to delete the post entirely. I gave reasons under each post as to why I did that, and showed how those posts either had not been replied to yet, or they had been but the deletion of my post in no way impacted the discussion at hand. That took time to do and not one of my accusers replied. Other times when I edited posts it was to correct typos and add/remove content, etc, and I didn't always notice changes needed to be made until after someone already replied. That will happen on a forum. As for me quoting previous posts over and over again, I don't see how that's dishonest behavior either. I would say my "offenses" are rather modest when compared to years of watching you lie, twist, misrepresent, etc without shame, KTR.

Keep the Reason
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:17 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Keep the Reason » Mon Apr 09, 2018 4:46 am

Replying to you is like bending over backwards to munch on one's own ass.

There were tons of replies to you, back and forths for days if not weeks, and you consistently played the same tactics. So of course people stopped replying to you-- you acted atrociously and you kept quoting and re-quoting previous replies until a single one of your posts required a good 10, 15 full scrolls and people kept asking you to stop it and you kept doing it and then using those requests to make it even longer.

None of this had squat to do with me. I stopped replying to you months previously, and let you duke it out with anyone else who cared to deal with your dishonest ways. You lost because you lied, and you kept using the lamest of tactics and you're already doing it now again.

Anyway, enough of you. Have your last say. Remember how I told you elsewhere I would watch and see if you were worth the effort? I have my answer. I'm not replying to you anymore you, dishonest dingbat.
Last edited by Keep the Reason on Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Claire
Posts: 1230
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Mon Apr 09, 2018 8:06 am

Claire wrote:
Keep the Reason wrote:
SteveD wrote:You’ve been corresponding with KtR for years?

You have the patience of Job, dear Claire, and the gift of mercy I think.
You'll find out, lol.

We almost to a person come from an earlier Forum that crashed. We've been arguing for years, back and forth. Claire's thoroughly dishonest as you'll learn.
That's kind of you to say, Steve. And, in regards to KTR's post, on the old forum I created and briefly handled a sock puppet account for an experiment, but then publicly admitted to it, and apologized. Nothing else comes to mind, but I encourage KTR to list any other acts he considers to have been dishonest. If he does and they're true, I'll admit to and apologize for those as well.
Claire wrote:
Keep the Reason wrote:Going back and deleting or changing posts, which caused us to have to enact a whole cut off time that was never necessary until dishonest you came around.

You've done it here too. I noticed a post that said one thing and then I went back and it was totally different. I can't recall which one it is because I don't bother to reply to you generally and I didn't bother responding to it.

Oh, and the relentless quoting of previous posts, over and over again, which you are also already doing here.

I don't trust you and don't believe you and consider you dishonest. Intellectually and with internet etiquette. And I don't care about your lame explanations for it or your apologies since they all ring hollow.

You'll do it again. It's who you are.
On the old forum KTR and several other members repeatedly accused me of intentionally changing the context of discussion by editing/deleting my posts. Eventually I created a thread where I linked every post of mine where I had replaced what I had with the word *Deleted*, since I was unable to delete the post entirely. I gave reasons under each post as to why I did that, and showed how those posts either had not been replied to yet, or they had been but the deletion of my post in no way impacted the discussion at hand. That took time to do and not one of my accusers replied. Other times when I edited posts it was to correct typos and add/remove content, etc, and I didn't always notice changes needed to be made until after someone already replied. That will happen on a forum. As for me quoting previous posts over and over again, I don't see how that's dishonest behavior either. I would say my "offenses" are rather modest when compared to years of watching you lie, twist, misrepresent, etc without shame, KTR.
Keep the Reason wrote:Replying to you is like bending over backwards to munch on one's own ass.

There were tons of replies to you, back and forths for days if not weeks, and you consistently played the same tactics. So of course people stopped replying to you-- you acted atrociously and you kept quoting and re-quoting previous replies until a single one of your posts required a good 10, 15 full scrolls and people kept asking you to stop it and you kept doing it and then using those requests to make it even longer.

None of this had squat to do with me. I stopped replying to you months previously, and let you duke it out with anyone else who cared to deal with your dishonest ways. You lost because you lied, and you kept using the lamest of tactics and you're already doing it now again.

Anyway, enough of you. Have your last say. Remember how I told you elsewhere I would watch and see if you were worth the effort? I have my answer. I'm not replying to you anymore you dishonest dingbat.
On the old forum I created and briefly handled a sock puppet account as an experiment, but then publicly admitted to it, and apologized. You said my apologies "ring hollow" but you never bothered to explain why.

On the old forum you and others accused me of having edited/deleted my posts to intentionally change the context of discussions. But, I took the time to prove you all wrong and none of you bothered to apologize.

My posting style of re-quoting more than one previous reply in a single post at times wasn't/isn't dishonest or atrocious, and you never bothered to explain how it is. Tip: Rather than using the scroll wheel, just left-click the scroll bar and hold, then move the mouse quickly downward - it'll save you more time.

Again, I would say my "offenses" are rather modest when compared to years of watching you lie, twist, misrepresent, etc without shame, KTR.

Claire
Posts: 1230
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Objective Evidence.

Post by Claire » Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:26 am

Claire wrote:
SteveD wrote:You’ve been corresponding with KtR for years?

You have the patience of Job, dear Claire, and the gift of mercy I think.
That's kind of you to say, Steve.
I'll add that I understand a lot as to why he is the way he is. But, I also think it's a possibility that what we see is partially just an amplified persona that is himself. Outside of the forum I'm sure, or hope, he's a much more tolerant, decent human being, who at times is a harmless old grump. And, in regards to his personal vendetta against me, in truth he knows I've never done anything to him, or anything in general on the old/new forum that's grievous, but he wants there to be problems, hence why you see him make mountains out of molehills. Why? Well, I noticed he only started in on me after I would repeatedly call him out on his crap. So, that's my guess. There's no need to take anything he says or how he says it personally, and I can tell you don't. He just has some old demons causing major hatred, and while hatred isn't good, maybe at certain things his anger is justified, but a lot doesn't seem like it.

Post Reply