Wilbur wrote:Thomas, you seem like you mean it, and that really says something.

It's called integrity and honesty. You might want to try that, if you plan to get out from under that bridge, that is.

Wilbur wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Really? So how is it you've contributed to 50 (or however many it is) pages of discussion without presenting anything useful at all?

I have been making an argument...

I've just been doing commentary, really.

Contradiction. It can't be both.

lame.

More peurile blind dismissal.

Wilbur wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:
No. But you are. It's literally circular. By saying it tells you something about God, you are necessarily assuming your conclusion before you start. Go and do a few shots and come back to this later. It's a bit inexplicable that you can't see how obvious this is.

Believe it or not this is the kind of shit that flies around here.

Believe it or not, your transparent, vapid attempts to dodge the points being made, won't fly.

Wilbur wrote:
Are you confusing supporting evidence for indisputable proof?

I don't want 'supporting evidence'; I want reproducible evidence. Sure, anecdotes are reproducible. People keep telling anecdotes. What am i supposed to glean from that? Fifty billion flies cannot possibly be wrong?

Wilbur wrote:Believe it or not this is the kind of shit that flies around here.

I don't care what flies around here, either, unless it's supported by reproducible evidence. Otherwise it's anecdote. Ask anybody.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Wilbur wrote:
Are you confusing supporting evidence for indisputable proof?

I don't want 'supporting evidence'; I want reproducible evidence. Sure, anecdotes are reproducible. People keep telling anecdotes. What am i supposed to glean from that? Fifty billion flies cannot possibly be wrong?

Wilbur wrote:Believe it or not this is the kind of shit that flies around here.

I don't care what flies around here, either, unless it's supported by reproducible evidence. Otherwise it's anecdote. Ask anybody.

You fucking with me over auto correct now? And who cares about your obscure and irrational evidentiary requirements. Nobody but you and the other denizens of the bubble.

Wilbur wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Wilbur wrote:
Are you confusing supporting evidence for indisputable proof?

I don't want 'supporting evidence'; I want reproducible evidence. Sure, anecdotes are reproducible. People keep telling anecdotes. What am i supposed to glean from that? Fifty billion flies cannot possibly be wrong?

Wilbur wrote:Believe it or not this is the kind of shit that flies around here.

I don't care what flies around here, either, unless it's supported by reproducible evidence. Otherwise it's anecdote. Ask anybody.

You fucking with me over auto correct now?

You're the first one to mention it.
You might want to try reading posts, before responding to them.

Wilbur wrote:And who cares about your obscure and irrational evidentiary requirements.

You mean his reasonable and common requests for evidence for extraordinary claims?

Wilbur wrote: Nobody but you and the other denizens of the bubble.

There you go, projecting again.

Wilbur wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Really? So how is it you've contributed to 50 (or however many it is) pages of discussion without presenting anything useful at all?

I have been making an argument...

I've just been doing commentary, really.

Contradiction. It can't be both.

lame.

Stop breaking my irony meter.

Wilbur wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:
No. But you are. It's literally circular. By saying it tells you something about God, you are necessarily assuming your conclusion before you start. Go and do a few shots and come back to this later. It's a bit inexplicable that you can't see how obvious this is.

Believe it or not this is the kind of shit that flies around here.

Less evasion, more shots!

Wilbur wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
It's precisely what you said, don't foolishly pretend you didn't.

Can you make a quote of that foolish post and walk me through your interpretation, because I honestly don't know what the fuck you could possibly be talking about here?

Yeah, I mean you didn't just compare someone who doesn't accept your claims to a psychopath or anything

No I didn't.

Surreal.

Not surreal, the word you're looking for to describe what you did in post 1217 is trolling. Really boring, obvious trolling.

Wilbur wrote:There's no assumption that the experience are veridical, the idea here is that the experience is evidence in itself.

Wilbur wrote:There's plenty of profound conceptions\insights\encounters within the human experience to legitimize the discussion.

Wilbur wrote:If I encounter God then I take that as evidence of God. Are you quibbling over "with"? That's the only thing I can figure, but if it's a convincing experience then "with" is the subjectively accurate.

Wilbur wrote:My secret is pretty simple, I don't have a fervent ideological bent.

Yes, you do. Your fervent ideological bent is identifying supposed 'experience' (or anecdotes about someone's supposed 'convincing experience') with 'evidence'. Where does 'convincing experience' terminate and uncritical acceptance, especially of someone else's stories, begin? Your fervent ideological bent leaves you yammering that even mere skepticism of anecdotes constitutes an 'ideological bubble'.

"Convincing experience" is an absurdity, when measured up against "convincing evidence", and you've entirely conflated the two. People obsessively tell anecdotes about something that supposedly happened to them, but reports of obsessive thoughts are not unusual at all. Brain chemistry often overcomes the process of rational evaluation of 'experience', to the point of producing extraordinary rationalization of ritualistic behavior, but our response is to 'legitimize the discussion' of brain chemistry.

Wilbur wrote:I'm always on something, tonight it's hash and a half pint of good bourbon.

Yeah, Wilbur. Let's have a big round of applause for brain chemistry.

Wilbur wrote:People have experienced God, they have experienced exactly and fully what most people mean by the word. The interesting thing here is given the quality and prevalence of the experience, even if it is a figment of the mind it at least shows that people do know what they mean by the word( it signifies!) at a profound life and death depth. So much for your verificationist stuff, eh Cito?

I don't know what people have 'experienced'. I know what they say they experienced, what they call whatever they think they experienced. When they can show it to me, I may experience it, too, but I hope it's something more than half a pint of supposedly 'good bourbon', the mark of which nobody seems to want to name. Anecdotes about bourbon are not uncommon, either, but at least there's the empty bottle to show at the end.

Wilbur wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

BWE wrote: What would it tell us about god?

What would a life altering flatlined dead OBE encounter with god tell us about the existence of God? I suspect nothing really

Assuming the conclusion? Really? And you profess to be in a position to make judgements around other people's lack of understanding? Take a seat.

Who's assuming the conclusion? There's no assumption that the experience are veridical, the idea here is that the experience is evidence in itself. You guys don't even know what evidence is, I'm just wasting my time. I want to say that it's like talking to fundamentalists but I have to keep remembering that I am talking to fundamentalist.

Yep, this comment tells me I made the right decision to stop posting in this thread. It's either a complete failure to recognise a simple logical fallacy, or such inept trolling that it provides no challenge whatsoever. Either way, there's literally no point addressing it. The only slight fun now is in guessing how long you'll last.

Bernoulli wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

What would a life altering flatlined dead OBE encounter with god tell us about the existence of God? I suspect nothing really

Assuming the conclusion? Really? And you profess to be in a position to make judgements around other people's lack of understanding? Take a seat.

Who's assuming the conclusion? There's no assumption that the experience are veridical, the idea here is that the experience is evidence in itself.

You are assuming it is God you are presented with during an OBE. How do you know it is God? You'd have to know what God was beforehand. In which case you wouldn't need an OBE as evidence of God.

Thanks for doing what I couldn't be arsed to do.

Wilbur wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

BWE wrote: What would it tell us about god?

What would a life altering flatlined dead OBE encounter with god tell us about the existence of God? I suspect nothing really

Fucking hell. If you're going to claim that people here have no clue, it would help if you didn't use every single idiotic mistake in existence. Assuming the conclusion? Really? And you profess to be in a position to make judgements around other people's lack of understanding? Take a seat.

See, my friend here knows exactly what's being said but she can't acknowledge it without losing a lot of ground(and face), so she goes for the sideways exit. I call that dishonest. It's clear that she's broken good faith, but hey I called that from the git go.

See, I could spend time going through this pile of shit bit by bit to point out all the lies and errors, but it would need to be typed in the English language first, then I would have to attempt to enter the same mind-state, which would probably require the consumption of large quantities of class A narcotics. Even if I did all that, this guy would just come back with either another pile of incoherent shit, or a blatant quote mine. Where's the fucking challenge?

Fallible wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

What would a life altering flatlined dead OBE encounter with god tell us about the existence of God? I suspect nothing really

Assuming the conclusion? Really? And you profess to be in a position to make judgements around other people's lack of understanding? Take a seat.

Who's assuming the conclusion? There's no assumption that the experience are veridical, the idea here is that the experience is evidence in itself. You guys don't even know what evidence is, I'm just wasting my time. I want to say that it's like talking to fundamentalists but I have to keep remembering that I am talking to fundamentalist.

a complete failure to recognise a simple logical fallacy

Now you're just posturing because what else could you possibly do at this point? What's the fallacy? Name it or explain it? You are the one begging the question with your obtuse denial. Evidence is anything that supports a proposition, you might want to say that the evidence is ambiguous, that's it's open to more than one interpretation, but a failure to grasp the concept here is either some kind of ludicrous tactic or maybe there's been too much kool aid consumption for you to see straight on this issue.

I don't know what the problem is , I do know that any rational people that happen across this thread will certainly reach the conclusion that while wilbur's a fucking idiot he's not wrong, and that those other people are a little out there./

Fallible wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Assuming the conclusion? Really? And you profess to be in a position to make judgements around other people's lack of understanding? Take a seat.

Who's assuming the conclusion? There's no assumption that the experience are veridical, the idea here is that the experience is evidence in itself.

You are assuming it is God you are presented with during an OBE. How do you know it is God? You'd have to know what God was beforehand. In which case you wouldn't need an OBE as evidence of God.

Thanks for doing what I couldn't be arsed to do.

So you're just pretending like that wasn't already addressed? ok.

Bernoulli wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

What would a life altering flatlined dead OBE encounter with god tell us about the existence of God? I suspect nothing really

Assuming the conclusion? Really? And you profess to be in a position to make judgements around other people's lack of understanding? Take a seat.

Who's assuming the conclusion? There's no assumption that the experience are veridical, the idea here is that the experience is evidence in itself.

You are assuming it is God you are presented with during an OBE. How do you know it is God? You'd have to know what God was beforehand. In which case you wouldn't need an OBE as evidence of God.

You should facepalm your own post, how are you not understanding "There's no assumption that the experience are veridical"? Is that too vague or complex or what? Maybe you don't know what veridical means? You don't get that if like someone experiences being abducted by aliens then they're going to take that experience as evidence for alien abductions? Could you provide your working definition of evidence so I can sort of gauge just where you're coming from?

Cito di Pense wrote:Your fervent ideological bent is identifying supposed 'experience' (or anecdotes about someone's supposed 'convincing experience') with 'evidence'.

Yeah, nobody in the field doubts that people are actually having these experiences, and nobody disputes that the experiences constitute evidence. You're like the only ones, this is new and bizarre territory you're all forging here.

Where does 'convincing experience' terminate and uncritical acceptance, especially of someone else's stories, begin?

That's a valid question, we do assess credibility and reliability all the time, what we don't do is dismiss all subjective experience outright because that would just be dense.

Your fervent ideological bent leaves you yammering that even mere skepticism of anecdotes constitutes an 'ideological bubble'.

No, I'm skeptical of the accounts, maybe they're overstated, embellished, etc. You guys are denying they constitute evidence at all and that's not even a controversy, you're all just very confused.

I don't know what people have 'experienced'. I know what they say they experienced, what they call whatever they think they experienced. When they can show it to me, I may experience it, too

All I can tell you is that your epistemology is defunct, it collapsed some decades ago and you should try to figure out a more coherent viable perspective.

Wilbur wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

Who's assuming the conclusion? There's no assumption that the experience are veridical, the idea here is that the experience is evidence in itself.

You are assuming it is God you are presented with during an OBE. How do you know it is God? You'd have to know what God was beforehand. In which case you wouldn't need an OBE as evidence of God.

Thanks for doing what I couldn't be arsed to do.

So you're just pretending like that wasn't already addressed? ok.

Oh, stop fucking about. It's not even mildly entertaining now.

Are there actually that many people with an Order of the British Empire that there are lots of anecdotes? I knew the Honours List was a bit less stringent than in days of yore, but I had no idea it was this bad.

Wilbur wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Assuming the conclusion? Really? And you profess to be in a position to make judgements around other people's lack of understanding? Take a seat.

Who's assuming the conclusion? There's no assumption that the experience are veridical, the idea here is that the experience is evidence in itself. You guys don't even know what evidence is, I'm just wasting my time. I want to say that it's like talking to fundamentalists but I have to keep remembering that I am talking to fundamentalist.

a complete failure to recognise a simple logical fallacy

wilbur's a fucking idiot

Wow, OK fella, try to be a bit kinder to yourself.