Goldenmane wrote:

satis5d wrote:The righteous are said to "never die" (John 11:26) which means that the non-physical spirit being that animates their bodies never dies.

What fucking non-physical spirit?

Your first task is to demonstrate the existence of such a thing.

Your time starts... now.

Here's a TED talk by someone who thinks much the same way you do here at RatSkep. I think you'll all find this interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhRhtFFhNzQ

For fuck's sake.

satis5d wrote:

Goldenmane wrote:

satis5d wrote:The righteous are said to "never die" (John 11:26) which means that the non-physical spirit being that animates their bodies never dies.

What fucking non-physical spirit?

Your first task is to demonstrate the existence of such a thing.

Your time starts... now.

Here's a TED talk by someone who thinks much the same way you do here at RatSkep. I think you'll all find this interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhRhtFFhNzQ

Satis5d, Chalmers does not "think much the same way we do here at RatSkep" on the issue of consciousness, at least, because he thinks that it is of non-physical cause.

Fallible wrote:For fuck's sake.

Quoted for truth.

Here's a TED talk by someone who thinks much the same way you do here at RatSkep. I think you'll all find this interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhRhtFFhNzQ

Satis5d, Chalmers does not "think much the same way we do here at RatSkep" on the issue of consciousness, at least, because he thinks that it is of non-physical cause.

Thank you for correcting me. It's good to know that RatSkeps aren't scientific materialists who enjoy philosophy. I guess I was all wrong about you, as I am about everything. Classic response though... always dodge the real issue-- the content.

Like you've dodged scores of responses?

satis5d wrote:

Here's a TED talk by someone who thinks much the same way you do here at RatSkep. I think you'll all find this interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhRhtFFhNzQ

Satis5d, Chalmers does not "think much the same way we do here at RatSkep" on the issue of consciousness, at least, because he thinks that it is of non-physical cause.

Thank you for correcting me. It's good to know that RatSkeps aren't scientific materialists who enjoy philosophy. I guess I was all wrong about you, as I am about everything. Classic response though... always dodge the real issue-- the content.

The video totally irrelevant to this thread but is being discussed in another one under the appropriate title - WOO! A bit like you. You wanna get back to the point of this thread and address even a few of the issue that have been addressed to you?

satis5d wrote:

Goldenmane wrote:

satis5d wrote:The righteous are said to "never die" (John 11:26) which means that the non-physical spirit being that animates their bodies never dies.

What fucking non-physical spirit?

Your first task is to demonstrate the existence of such a thing.

Your time starts... now.

Here's a TED talk by someone who thinks much the same way you do here at RatSkep.

You haven't the faintest clue what people around here think, unless they've explicitely stated their thoughts. So you can stuff the pathetic psycho analysing attempts.

satis5d wrote:I think you'll all find this interesting.

I think most of us would find it far more interesting to stay on topic, instead of engaging you in your straw-man attempts.

satis5d wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhRhtFFhNzQ

There's already a thread on that video and if you'd bothered to check it, you'd know a lot of us don't agree with Chalmers.

satis5d wrote:

Here's a TED talk by someone who thinks much the same way you do here at RatSkep. I think you'll all find this interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhRhtFFhNzQ

Satis5d, Chalmers does not "think much the same way we do here at RatSkep" on the issue of consciousness, at least, because he thinks that it is of non-physical cause.

Thank you for correcting me. It's good to know that RatSkeps aren't scientific materialists who enjoy philosophy. I guess I was all wrong about you, as I am about everything. Classic response though... always dodge the real issue-- the content.

Such a biblical response satis5d, Jesus would be proud.
Well at least the cat's out of the bag now...

Fallible wrote:Like you've dodged scores of responses?

This one being one of many, along with this ...

satis5d wrote:

Here's a TED talk by someone who thinks much the same way you do here at RatSkep.

A tip from the top. Speak for yourself. No one else will, and speaking for others without their approval is insulting. On second thoughts, don't bother, because you don't appear to know what you yourself think as when we ask you tell us what others think or quote the bible. You seem very reluctant to engage in this delightful activity we call having a life.

You have a bad case, satis5d. I really don't think you will get this sorted before you die.

It is wonderful to be wrong satis5d. And better to be disatis5d as then you are open to discovering what is all around you. There you are, soaking in life's bounty, yet starving to death, because you eat for others and not for yourself.

Go ahead. Make my day. Make me wrong.

satis5d wrote:

Goldenmane wrote:

satis5d wrote:The righteous are said to "never die" (John 11:26) which means that the non-physical spirit being that animates their bodies never dies.

What fucking non-physical spirit?

Your first task is to demonstrate the existence of such a thing.

Your time starts... now.

Here's a TED talk by someone who thinks much the same way you do here at RatSkep. I think you'll all find this interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhRhtFFhNzQ

Bollocks.

That malarkey goes nowhere toward demonstrating the existence of your claimed 'non-physical spirit'. And simply posting a link to a video like that is lazy bullshit at best.

Steve wrote:

satis5d wrote:

Here's a TED talk by someone who thinks much the same way you do here at RatSkep.

A tip from the top. Speak for yourself. No one else will, and speaking for others without their approval is insulting.

But presuming that one's caricatures of another's thought constitutes the reality thereof, is an essential part of supernaturalist apologetics. Without it, supernaturalists would have to deal with what we actually think, which means that they wouldn't be able to manufacture strawman targets so easily.

Steve wrote:On second thoughts, don't bother, because you don't appear to know what you yourself think as when we ask you tell us what others think or quote the bible.

That's the whole problem with the entire process of apologetics. It encourages incoherence of this very sort.

If one has been taught that fabricating whatever tickles one's ideological erogenous zones, followed by pretending that said fabrications dictate how reality operates, without bothering to check even elementary facts with regard to this, constitutes a valid approach, then incoherence of this sort is an inevitable consequence. Basic checking of the accord one's ideas have with the available data, is a basic foundation not only of proper discourse, but of maintaining even an elementary ability to distinguish between fantasy and fact.

Once again, we're back to the problems inherent in prescriptive ideas rather than descriptive ideas.

satis5d,

If God exists, what is God?





N.B. For surely an extant god must be a thing of some some sort? A something-or-other, moreover, a something-in-particular? What particular kind of thing is God?

Calilasseia wrote:

Fallible wrote:Like you've dodged scores of responses?

This one being one of many, along with this ...

After having had a brief look at some other threads, Calilasseia, it seems obvious to me that the prevailing definition for what counts as "science" in this forum is too narrow to squeeze any response to your questions in. I wouldn't be surprised if you ridiculed Hawking and Dawkins here as well.

I have discovered that what this site is about is NOTHING like what I hoped it would be when I arrived. Having found that most Christians are uninterested in any truth but their version, I thought that, perhaps, you would be a bit more "open-minded." My experience is that there is even less interest in open, honest discussion here than at a church. Having found myself no more welcome here than an openly gay man at Westboro Baptist Church, I will leave you all to the peace and happiness you enjoyed before I entered your lives. I wish you the best.

Meh. Don't let the door hit you in the ass!

He flounced? But he never explained how he linked the Fall to the Bible!

Departed with a severe rustle of taffeta eh? Ah well.

He never answered my question, is he still a devil-dodger?

satis5d wrote:
I have discovered that what this site is about is NOTHING like what I hoped it would be when I arrived. Having found that most Christians are uninterested in any truth but their version, I thought that, perhaps, you would be a bit more "open-minded." My experience is that there is even less interest in open, honest discussion here than at a church.

I'm sorry, were we presented with some sort of "truth"? We are pretty open minded here, just not so open that our brains fall out. Your ideas were presented, received, dissected and eviscerated. That you dislike the outcome to the point of ducking out of any further discussion perhaps says more about your willingness to be open minded than ours. Hey hum.