I belong to a poetry forum over at the poet sactuary. And it's ful of people who love to throw out wild "theories" about mysticism fitting into reality...somehow.

I'm debating with guy at the moment who reckons that the afterlife exists at the same time as our current life but over in the eleventh dimension, and somehow manages to squeeze string theory in there to back up his claim. (Goal-post shift on steroids).

So I informed him about the scientific method and how there is absoltly no scientific basis for asserting such a claim whatsoever. Yet he dontinues to claim that all the unknowns of science are reason to believe in... whatever. I countered by claiming that the Earth's core is made of marshmallows and that my claim has just as much scientific support (none) as his.
Of course, he counters with the fact that "every civilization ever believe in the afterlife, but none believe in a marshmallow core."

And so on.

So the question is: am I correct in saying that that the the earth's marshamallow core has equal evidence as the afterlife? Or am I being a jerk?






Of course if I'm wrong, then I can easily move the goal-posts and say that what I actually mean is that the earth is a metaphor for our mind and our spiritual connections with the planet and how we are slowly roasting and melting away our minds and the planet at the same time...

Bretski wrote:I belong to a poetry forum over at the poet sactuary. And it's ful of people who love to throw out wild "theories" about mysticism fitting into reality...somehow.

I'm debating with guy at the moment who reckons that the afterlife exists at the same time as our current life but over in the eleventh dimension, and somehow manages to squeeze string theory in there to back up his claim. (Goal-post shift on steroids).

So I informed him about the scientific method and how there is absoltly no scientific basis for asserting such a claim whatsoever. Yet he dontinues to claim that all the unknowns of science are reason to believe in... whatever. I countered by claiming that the Earth's core is made of marshmallows and that my claim has just as much scientific support (none) as his.
Of course, he counters with the fact that "every civilization ever believe in the afterlife, but none believe in a marshmallow core."

And so on.

So the question is: am I correct in saying that that the the earth's marshamallow core has equal evidence as the afterlife?

And it's viscous caramel mantle.

There's only one way to find out - we have to get digging!
Once we find the marshamllow core we can get you back to debating over warm Krispie Squares. I'm fairly certain he would still have no evidence whatsoever for an afterlife.

I would first start by correcting him on his assertion that "every civilization ever believe in the afterlife, but none believe in a marshmallow core.". There have been many civilizations which did/do not believe in the afterlife and although I can't think of any "marshmallow core" believing civilizations there are plenty that have/had even crazier beliefs about the nature of earth/universe/existence.

Guy's I can't win. Apparently now I've been "too indoctrinated in to science" (ie: critical, rational, skeptical thinking) to understand the evidence of metaphysics and ... how it is evidence for ... the afterlife. Nope, can't win.

Now he's talking about ancient civilisations being more scientifically knowledgeable because we have nuclear bombs that kill people and they didn't. Anyone want to join me in a facepalm?

He seems to be suggesting that the belief of mankind causes a change in reality. "Every civilization ever believed in the afterlife" Not provable, first of all, but even if you were to cede the unfounded point, so fucking what?

Does reality pay attenting to the whims of humankind? No. If everyone believed that the middle of the earth were marshmallow, he'd be claiming that "Every civilization ever believed in marshmallow core, but none believe in the afterlife."

I blame the school systems for the insane amount of people who are incapable of rational thought.

I must suck at debating, because all I've done so far (elaborately) is demand evidence other than "Plato said this, Darwinism is evil." And some how now the type of evidence I'm demanding is wrong... because it's scientific. AND now all of a sudden the burden of proof is somehow upon me to disprove his claims...

And to add insult to injury, apparently I can't be a poet and a rational skeptic, I need to me some sort of wooing mystic, according to him.

It isn't marshmallow. Any idiot knows it's jelly, like a Jaffa cake.

Really, people. Get a grip.