WrongPlanet.net an anti-christian site?

Page 6 of 43 [ 680 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 43 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 Apr 2011, 10:36 am

XFilesGeek wrote:

I hear James Randi is still offering a million dollars to who ever can prove a paranormal event.

If I had a million dollars to put up, I would make the same offer to anyone who could prove there is absolutely no such thing as "a paranormal event". Point: James Randi appears to be offering nothing more than disingenuous rhetoric.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

Last edited by leejosepho on 23 Apr 2011, 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

23 Apr 2011, 10:37 am

leejosepho wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

... in science, there's something called peer review.

Religion and witchcraft both don't have that ...

I do not know about witchcraft, but plenty of "peer review" actually does take place within religion all the time or there would not be so many sects and denominations made up of people continually talking about each others' beliefs and practices ... and it is from there that others of us can make then make our own non-peer reviews such as any possible scientific investigation.

People with unsubstantiated beliefs getting together to talk about their unsubstantiated beliefs doesn't really count as a scientific "peer review."

_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)

XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

23 Apr 2011, 10:39 am

leejosepho wrote:

XFilesGeek wrote:

I hear James Randi is still offering a million dollars to who ever can prove a paranormal event.

If I had a million dollars to put up, I would make the same offer to anyone who could prove there is absolutely no such thing as "a paranormal event".

The onus to provide "proof" is on the individual making the positive claim. It's your job to prove yourself right first before I prove you wrong.

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 Apr 2011, 10:39 am

XFilesGeek wrote:

People with unsubstantiated beliefs getting together to talk about their unsubstantiated beliefs doesn't really count as a scientific "peer review."

I never said it was scientific, and there is no more reason to expect religious folks to investigate their stuff scientifically than there is to expect scientific folks to investigate their own stuff within any religious context.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 Apr 2011, 10:42 am

XFilesGeek wrote:

The onus to provide "proof" is on the individual making the positive claim. It's your job to prove yourself right first before I prove you wrong.

If I have no reason to even think about trying to prove myself right, then the onus is on the one who is insisting I am wrong.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

23 Apr 2011, 10:52 am

leejosepho wrote:

XFilesGeek wrote:

The onus to provide "proof" is on the individual making the positive claim. It's your job to prove yourself right first before I prove you wrong.

If I have no reason to even think about trying to prove myself right, then the onus is on the one who is insisting I am wrong.

If you claim that "X" exists, than the onus is on you to provide the evidence that "X" exists. Your intentions are irrelevant. If you don't care about proving "X" exists, then that's your choice, but it doesn't shift the burden of proof.

And there's a deal of difference between claiming someone is "wrong" and pointing out that there is no evidence that they are "right." That there is currently an absence of evidence for the paranormal is not the same as saying the paranormal doesn't exist. The million dollars is for anyone who can provide evidence that it does.

Quote:

You said it was a "type of peer review." I said it didn't count as a scientific peer review.

You are under no obligation to investigate your beliefs scientifically, but, likewise, I am under no obligation to take your claims seriously without any scientific backing, nor does my inclination to take non-scientific beliefs with a grain of salt make me "arrogant" or "closed-minded."

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 Apr 2011, 11:09 am

XFilesGeek wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

XFilesGeek wrote:

The onus to provide "proof" is on the individual making the positive claim. It's your job to prove yourself right first before I prove you wrong.

If I have no reason to even think about trying to prove myself right, then the onus is on the one who is insisting I am wrong.

If you claim that "X" exists, than the onus is on you to provide the evidence that "X" exists.

I understand that, and I agree ... but the question was about proving myself right, not proving any claim ... and here is how all of that actually plays out over and over again in my own life:

Report/Claim: I have permanently recovered from chronic alcoholism.

Some people would first challenge "permanently" there (to be proved or disproved), but we can leave that matter aside here.

Next, people typically say things like, "Congratulations! Great job! I commend you for 'helping yourself' as greatly as you have!"

At that point, I typically say something like, "Oh no, I can take no credit there. Rather, God has done for me what I could never do -- and I had certainly tried -- for myself."

Question: Who has made the "positive statement" there that needs to be proved?

Here it is: "Congratulations! Great job! I commend you for 'helping yourself' as greatly as you have!"

Nope. that is just not what happened.

Note: Let us please not turn this into any discussion about my recovery or how I recovered. Rather, just let someone/anyone prove I did that myself, as they allege and I happen to know quite differently.

XFilesGeek wrote:

I am under no obligation to take your claims seriously without any scientific backing ...

Agreed, and neither am I obligated to accept any psuedo-science saying my own report is untrue.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

MidlifeAspie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Nov 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,016

23 Apr 2011, 12:32 pm

As this has evolved into a debate about religion, not the site, I am moving it to PPR.

_________________
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 Apr 2011, 12:34 pm

MidlifeAspie wrote:

As this has evolved into a debate about religion, not the site, I am moving it to PPR.

Oops. I had forgotten where we were ... :oops:

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 Apr 2011, 12:40 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:

Quote:

Yes, or maybe arrogance!

EGO = Edging God Out

No.
...
Honestly, I'll never understand folks who seem to want to paint scientists as a group of cackling mad people who hand down dogmas, squash any and all dissent, and conspire to conceal ...

I had missed your post ...

You have missed the context of what you had quoted:

leejosepho wrote:

hale_bopp wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

we agnostics and atheists chose to believe that our human intelligence was the last word, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and end of all

Well said. In one word; Ignorance.

Yes, or maybe arrogance!

EGO = Edging God Out

Nothing was being said about scientists.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

23 Apr 2011, 12:43 pm

leejosepho wrote:

The first part of that is quite backwards and in direct conflict with the OP question. "Believers" are the ones primarily receiving the thrashings here, not the atheists.

Example?

If I say that the Christian religion is based almost entirely on lies and that the bible promotes hatred and also practices that are incompatible with our current society, I am stating my opinion and not insulting believers.

_________________
.

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 Apr 2011, 12:49 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

The first part of that is quite backwards and in direct conflict with the OP question. "Believers" are the ones primarily receiving the thrashings here, not the atheists.

My comment was about a cartoon someone had presented and not about how any one person here says anything on WP. Having been here for a couple of years or so longer than me, you would be the one far more qualified to say whether or not more Christians here receive more thrashings or trashings or whatever from atheists than do atheists from Christians.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

23 Apr 2011, 12:54 pm

Let me just say that the OP displays a complete disregard for intellectual debate. Religion ought not be barred from the same critical scrutiny that politics is, to do otherwise is disgusting special pleading. Besides, doesn't Christianity idolize suffering passively in the name of the Faith? Why is it that Fundamentalist Christians are so thin skinned when their fantasy world of being an "firm standing minority" is actaulized? Is it not disgusting that Christian Fundamentalists who praise firm faithfulness above any worldly constraints just can't stand to be in the minority like their "heroic forebarers"?

_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Apr 2011, 12:56 pm

leejosepho wrote:

There is nothing that can be said against an atheist (per se). All a believer can do is reiterate his belief in things for which there is no empirical evidence. If people want to believe in spooks, ghosts, souls, gods, and other Unseen Things for which no evidence exists, they will do so.

There is nothing an atheist can say that will dissuade the irrational from their foolishness. It is futile to even try.

ruveyn

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,692
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

23 Apr 2011, 1:06 pm

This is what I think it is - and yes, I'm stepping on toes here so be warned, its a cocky assertion :twisted: :wink:

I think 'strident atheism' and the need to rick-roll religion's existence is certain atheists acknowledging that they understand that there's no meaning, at their core they can't deal with it, they need a mission in life and they end up finding that mission in being anti-religion. Once religion's gone, they're going to be between a rock and a hard place over what to wake up in the morning for next.

_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 Apr 2011, 1:10 pm

ruveyn wrote:

There is nothing that can be said against an atheist (per se). All a believer can do is reiterate his belief in things ...

Other than the occasional slur that might actually get tossed toward an atheist without regard for WP rules: Agreed ...

... and then the remainder of your post was exactly the kind of thing the OP was asking/talking about ...

superboyian wrote:

WrongPlanet.net an anti-christian site? (thread title)

For real? Just have a look at PPR and everytime a person mentions about Christianity or anything associated, there always seems to be a lot of bashing and fighting going on over there?

Is there really a need for a PPR at a site like WrongPlanet?

Should it just be PP instead?

Isn't WrongPlanet supposed to be a site accepting people who they are regardless of anything? It doesn't seem like it?

What are you views on it?

... and such is the way of this world, wrong planet or not, as it presently is! :wink:

Master_Pedant wrote:

Let me just say that the OP displays a complete disregard for intellectual debate.

I do not see any such disregard there at all, and his post is just above right here in this post if you might care to take another look.

Master_Pedant wrote:

Religion ought not be barred from the same critical scrutiny that politics is, to do otherwise is disgusting special pleading.

Agreed ... and thanks to that kind of thing here in PPR, I think more Christians are now beginning to realize Christendom no longer rules.

Master_Pedant wrote:

Besides, doesn't Christianity idolize suffering passively in the name of the Faith?

Some people say it does and I think some Christians do actually do that, but no, the "Christianity" of Scripture certainly does not idolize that.

Master_Pedant wrote:

Why is it that Fundamentalist Christians are so thin skinned when their fantasy world of being an "firm standing minority" is actualized?

Just an opinion here: Many of them just have too much "vested interest" to be able to handle much rattling of the cage.

Master_Pedant wrote:

Is it not disgusting that Christian Fundamentalists who praise firm faithfulness above any worldly constraints just can't stand to be in the minority like their "heroic forebarers"?

Sad, at least.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

Last edited by leejosepho on 23 Apr 2011, 1:16 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Page 6 of 43 [ 680 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 43 Next

Jump to:

WrongPlanet.net an anti-christian site? Post Reply New Topic

WrongPlanet.net an anti-christian site?