ElDiablo wrote:

Nicko wrote:

John Platko wrote:I make no extraordinary claims about these words, I use a dictionary!

The words "circular" and "square" can be found in any English dictionary.

That does not make a "circular square" a plausible possibility. Or even a coherent idea.

The absurdity.
Many times I've read people stretch or reinterpret the definition of a word to defend their concepts or claims. John is the first person I've read to make an extraordinary claim, deny it, make some more claims, deny them and then say he is simply making an argument by comparing dictionary definitions.

What extraordinary claim do you think I made? If you can't quote this extraordinary claim, just state it and I'll either confirm my belief in in or deny it. You can make this very crisp. I'll even respond to yes or no questions, although I may add a bit of follow up clarity. I am not playing shell games. I have no interest in moving peas around. My interest is in crisp rational thought.

More absurdity.
One of the claims that he infers and then attempts to back out of, which shows that he is not arguing dictionary definitions, is claiming the Dali Lama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in part because he was reincarnated. Claiming that they must have confirmed this because the bio had a bit about reincarnation.

I made no such claim. I think Lama got the Nobel Peace Prize because of actions he did in this lifetime of his. I just pointed out that the Nobel folks included "facts" about reincarnation in his bio.

John, your words show what you think regardless of how you want to dress them up for us.

My words do indeed show what I think- although I sometimes make mistakes. Understanding them without personal veils of bias is another matter. However, I respond as truthfully as I can to questions so there's no need for misunderstandings to remain.

John Platko wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:Obviously you know very little about schizophrenia.

The only people who REALLY know about schizophrenia do so from first hand experience of it. Me? I know nossink!

I mostly agree with that but I imagine anyone who had a psychotic experience could relate to what schizophrenia might be like. In fact if you had any discussion you could get a good idea of what it's like, I think.

For example. If you insists a word has such and such a meaning despite obvious evidence to the contrary- you may know more about what it's like to be schizophrenic than you think you know. Of course, words have their meanings and there are precise requirements that must be met to be classified schizophrenic.

I differentiate common usage from meaning, because meaning is subjective. I don't insist on locating the meanings of words, John, the way you do, in the pages of dictionaries and online encyclopedias as authorities that should inform people about 'meaning'. I do use dictionaries to inform me about common usage, in the course of which common usage meaning will depend on context. You propose the sign evidence to signify in a context-free process, which is a moronic and unsubtle approach to communicating what you want to say.

Agrippina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Agrippina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

And it would be a very bad psychiatrist that you took them to if they immediately conclude your child was schizophrenic.

It would be a good starting point for enquiry. Obviously you also know very little about how medicine works. When you tell the doctor you have a pain in your chest, does he tell you that he'll rule out heart attack because you were able to walk into his rooms?

Obviously you know very little about schizophrenia.

Oh lord, why do I bother?

I only spent about 6 years of my life at university making a study of psychology, and I have a degree in the discipline, so I think I probably know a little more on the subject than you do. Granted I gave it up in favour of Ancient History, but the knowledge is still there.

Here are some of the early signs (hallucinations), among others:

--Hallucinations are as real as any other experience to the person with schizophrenia. As many as 70% hear voices, while a lesser number have visual hallucinations.
--Auditory hallucinations can be either inside the person's head or externally. When external, they sound as real as an actual voice. Sometimes they come from no apparent source, other times they come from real people who don't actually say anything, other times a person will hallucinate sounds.
--When people hear voices inside their heads, it is as if their inner thoughts are no longer alone. The new voices can talk to each other, talk to themselves, or comment on the person's actions. The majority of the time the voices are negative.
--Visual hallucinations operate on a spectrum. They start with the overacuteness of the senses, then in the middle are illusions, and on the far end are actual hallucinations.

There are a whole lot of other symptoms as you can see from Early Signs of Schizophrenia

The following list, compiled by one mental health consumer, contains some of the typical early warning signs of schizophrenia... The disorder can come on over a period of years (called insidious onset) or be very rapid.

Religious delusions- that you are Jesus, God, a prophet, or the antichrist.
--Delusions of grandeur- the belief that you have an important mission, special purpose, or are an unrecognized genius, or famous person.

Note these are "early signs."

I don't expect an apology, I'm sure all I'll get will be condescension anyway.

Please post the actual requirements for a diagnosis and well take it from there.

Agrippina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Agrippina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

I wouldn't be to sure about that, they have much experience dealing with unbelievers.

Her story had a certain resonance with people in power because it helped reinforce some doctrine on the Immaculate Conception which they were keen on at the time.

So her made up shit satisfied their confirmation bias. Excellent.

This doctrine was a source of conflict within the Church because it went against what the good Doctor of the Church, Thomas Aquinas said.

I'm surprised they didn't burn him at the stake for disagreeing with them.

Perhaps this would be a good time to brush up on the timeline of certain historical events.

A bit of confirmation from the BVM herself was just what was needed to put an end to that.

As I said, satisfied their confirmation bias. Imagine if she'd said that the mother told her she'd been raped by a centurion, and he was really Jesus's father. That would've been the end of her as a visionary.

I'm thinking you don't really know what the Immaculate Conception means.

Yes, I do, it means that someone conned her family into believing she was impregnated by a god.

Not even close. Please do a bit of research and get back to me.

While Mary swore she was a virgin, there's no way to prove such a claim, as hymens can break from non-sexual activity and sexual intercourse doesn't always break them. A 2004 study published in the Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine found that “[s]ubjects who admitted having past intercourse still had non disrupted, intact hymens in 52% of cases.”

Read it here.

Fallible wrote:The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary, not of Jesus.

Thankyou!

John Platko wrote:

Fallible wrote:The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary, not of Jesus.

Thankyou!

It's very important to get the details right when analysing the characters in works of fiction, as we do here with 'Mary'.

Agrippina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Agrippina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Please show where I claimed the supernatural exists.

Only all the way throughout this thread.

Then it should be easy for you to post a quote or two demonstrating it is so.
Please supply the evidence for what you say is true. Or do you believe your stating it is so should suffice as evidence?

hmmm. a new term: Agrippina_evidence

I'm not going to spam the thread (or waste bandwidth searching) with a copy of every one of your posts where you claim that people are reincarnations of other people. Your nonsense about why the Dahlia Llama was given a Nobel prize is enough evidence. Go find it it's a few pages back.

So you have no quote from me that you can supply as evidence to support your claim that I said the supernatural exists.

Regina wrote:

Agrippina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Agrippina wrote:
Only all the way throughout this thread.

Then it should be easy for you to post a quote or two demonstrating it is so.
Please supply the evidence for what you say is true. Or do you believe your stating it is so should suffice as evidence?

hmmm. a new term: Agrippina_evidence

I'm not going to spam the thread (or waste bandwidth searching) with a copy of every one of your posts where you claim that people are reincarnations of other people. Your nonsense about why the Dahlia Llama was given a Nobel prize is enough evidence. Go find it it's a few pages back.

Not quite, Aggie. Johnny has a habit of making it look like he supports a certain position. But he makes sure there's always a little room left to wiggle out of it when his shite is being exposed. In the case of the Dullard Llama, he made it look like the Nobel folks were presenting "evidence" of the Llama's magic tricks. Those were then presented as if he was convinced of their robustness.

I take no responsibility for what the personal biases of others leads them to believe. I do on the other hand, recommend clear questions as a fine method for clearing up misunderstandings. I also suggest that standard definitions of words from generally accepted sources be considered valid for human communication, along with whatever follow up communication is needed to remove word meaning ambiguity.

Paul wrote:

John Platko wrote:Please supply the evidence for what you say is true. Or do you believe your stating it is so should suffice as evidence?

Well you quoted the Nobel website stating the Dalai Lama was reincarnated as evidence for reincarnation

What exactly do you think the definition of the word evidence is?

John Platko wrote:A reincarnated being got a Nobel. At least that's what the Nobel people say

A paraphrase of what they have posted and I also provided a link to their exact words. Do you think I'm misreading it?

Born to a peasant family, His Holiness was recognized at the age of two, in accordance with Tibetan tradition, as the reincarnation of his predecessor the 13th Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lamas are the manifestations of the Bodhisattva of Compassion, who chose to reincarnate to serve the people.

John Platko wrote:

ElDiablo wrote:

Nicko wrote:

John Platko wrote:I make no extraordinary claims about these words, I use a dictionary!

The words "circular" and "square" can be found in any English dictionary.

That does not make a "circular square" a plausible possibility. Or even a coherent idea.

The absurdity.
Many times I've read people stretch or reinterpret the definition of a word to defend their concepts or claims. John is the first person I've read to make an extraordinary claim, deny it, make some more claims, deny them and then say he is simply making an argument by comparing dictionary definitions.

What extraordinary claim do you think I made? If you can't quote this extraordinary claim, just state it and I'll either confirm my belief in in or deny it. You can make this very crisp. I'll even respond to yes or no questions, although I may add a bit of follow up clarity. I am not playing shell games. I have no interest in moving peas around. My interest is in crisp rational thought.

More absurdity.
One of the claims that he infers and then attempts to back out of, which shows that he is not arguing dictionary definitions, is claiming the Dali Lama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in part because he was reincarnated. Claiming that they must have confirmed this because the bio had a bit about reincarnation.

I made no such claim. I think Lama got the Nobel Peace Prize because of actions he did in this lifetime of his. I just pointed out that the Nobel folks included "facts" about reincarnation in his bio.

John, your words show what you think regardless of how you want to dress them up for us.

My words do indeed show what I think- although I sometimes make mistakes. Understanding them without personal veils of bias is another matter. However, I respond as truthfully as I can to questions so there's no need for misunderstandings to remain.

Here's where I point out your extraordinary claim. Your only excuse may be that you are sloppy with your words but you do this too frequently to make it a mistake.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/religions-belief/reincarnation-myth-or-possible-t3689-680.html#p1986933

About the Dali Lama see large text. "not simply being reincarnated..." means "it wasn't only because he was reincarnated"

John Platko wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:
From Wikipedia

John, please. Find something from the Nobel committee website, or we're hard-pressed to take you seriously on how the Nobel Prize committee awarded someone a prize for being reincarnated.

He didn't get the prize for being simply being reincarnated. I can't even imagine how many prizes they would have to give out if every time a being reincarnated they got a Nobel prize.

He got the prize for promoting peace on earth. It's just that in his bio when they talked about his credentials they listed that he also held the post of Dalai Lama in a past life.

Agrippina wrote:Yeah, they gave one to Mother Teresa as well.

I hope this doesn't mean that you're going to take back your promise to read my "The science of why I'm a Theist" paper if I win a Nobel Prize for it.

John Platko wrote:

Paul wrote:

John Platko wrote:Please supply the evidence for what you say is true. Or do you believe your stating it is so should suffice as evidence?

Well you quoted the Nobel website stating the Dalai Lama was reincarnated as evidence for reincarnation

What exactly do you think the definition of the word evidence is?

John Platko wrote:A reincarnated being got a Nobel. At least that's what the Nobel people say

A paraphrase of what they have posted and I also provided a link to their exact words. Do you think I'm misreading it?

Born to a peasant family, His Holiness was recognized at the age of two, in accordance with Tibetan tradition, as the reincarnation of his predecessor the 13th Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lamas are the manifestations of the Bodhisattva of Compassion, who chose to reincarnate to serve the people.

No, I think you were misrepresenting it.

John Platko wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Yeah, they gave one to Mother Teresa as well.

I hope this doesn't mean that you're going to take back your promise to read my "The science of why I'm a Theist" paper if I win a Nobel Prize for it.

I'll probably be dead before that happens.

John Platko wrote:What exactly do you think the definition of the word evidence is?

It doesn't matter what I think the definition of the word is, what matters is the context in which it is used (or in your posts, so often, abused).

I'm growing tired of your pretentious wibble and incredibly silly word games. I'm more and more convinced that you are just pissing all of us about.

Regina wrote:

Paul wrote:

John Platko wrote:Please supply the evidence for what you say is true. Or do you believe your stating it is so should suffice as evidence?

Well you quoted the Nobel website stating the Dalai Lama was reincarnated as evidence for reincarnation

John Platko wrote:A reincarnated being got a Nobel. At least that's what the Nobel people say

Look, that's a wonderful example of John's tactics. He's a tricksy one. Probably a lawyer.

There's no need for insults.

I'm not sure how you lot can keep going so long. Been obvious to me for a long time that John has just been pissing about.

I think you're right.

Regina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Paul wrote:Funny how the Dalai Lama never travels much between incarnations and always conveniently seems to pop up again as a male, fairly promptly, in Tibet. Yet Anne Frank, a Dutch girl, dies in 1945 in Germany and (allegedly) pops up again in 1954 in Sweden.

Never did get an answer to this

Paul wrote:So please do tell us, what has Ian Stevenson established about reincarnation other than investigate claims about it.

Can he tell us exactly how does it works? How exactly does one become reincarnated?
What rules apply? Interspecies? Male to Female? Immediate reincarnation upon death, or into some sort of limbo first?

Although I've found for myself that Stevenson has documented several claims of reincarnation involving changes in gender, religion, nationality, ethnicity, political affiliation. Seems entirely random. Seems entirely fuckwitted.

edit: removed superfluous word

I have no interest in supporting the claims of Ian Stevenson as he strikes me to be a delusional idiot. However, his credentials as a legitimate scientist have been well established by his peers, despite what I and others may think of him.

By his peers in reincarnationism?

I suppose that would be an accurate description of his colleagues at University of Virginia School of Medicine.

They seem to be still participating in an experiment with him even though he died.

From Wikipedia:

In the 1960s, Stevenson set a combination lock using a secret word or phrase, and placed it in a filing cabinet in the department, telling his colleagues he would try to pass the code to them after his death. Emily Williams Kelly told The New York Times: "Presumably, if someone had a vivid dream about him, in which there seemed to be a word or a phrase that kept being repeated—I don't quite know how it would work—if it seemed promising enough, we would try to open it using the combination suggested." The Times reported that, as of February 2007, the lock remains unopened.[

Regina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:That's just not how the word evidence works.

John, why don't you forward the long list of your refereed publications on the concept of evidence to someone who gives a flying fuck what your level of expertise on woo is?

Why don't you simply do a google search and learn what the word actually means. That's what a smart well educated person would do.

You are sailing dangerously close to a FUA violation, John. The last resort of those floundering in a discussion with educated people, in my experience.

And here I thought I was asking an obvious question followed by a what I consider to be a fact.

There is no evidence of any fish like behavior on my part in this thread.

Fallible wrote:I'm not sure how you lot can keep going so long. Been obvious to me for a long time that John has just been pissing about.

The Rainbow school of posting.