Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

John Platko · **#821** by **John Platko** » Apr 24, 2014 3:37 pm

Paul wrote:
John Platko wrote:And despite the actual meaning of the word supernatural, atheists persist in asking people "what scientific evidence do you have of the supernatural?"

Just checked, and in my posting history here, I have never used the phrase 'scientific evidence' (other than when quoting someone else), or asked for 'scientific evidence'.
The only times the phrase has come up in any of my posts is a few times when quoting theists using it. Funny that.

Ummm very good! nice work! Give yourself a pat on the back for me.

I only wish atheists didn't persist in asking for scientific evidence of the supernatural.

And I wish atheists accepted the definition of evidence which refers to more than scientific evidence.

Sendraks · **#822** by **Sendraks** » Apr 24, 2014 3:39 pm

John Platko wrote:
And I wish atheists accepted the definition of evidence which refers to more than scientific evidence.

Basically evidence that we're not prepared to accept as evidence, because it cannot be tested or verified in any meaningful way.

Cito di Pense · **#823** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 24, 2014 3:45 pm

Why do you think we have that joke about 'the plural of anecdote'?

John's argument is about anecdotes that come in bunches. The first job with data is to clean it. It's too bad for John's argument that anecdotes about the supernatural are sponged up by concerns over reproducibility. Hence, anecdote. Every miracle unique.

Paul · **#824** by **Paul** » Apr 24, 2014 3:47 pm

John Platko wrote:Ummm very good! nice work! Give yourself a pat on the back for me.

Don't try to patronise me.

I only wish atheists didn't persist in asking for scientific evidence of the supernatural.

I only wish theists didn't persist in misrepresenting what others say to try to cover the paucity of their 'reasoning'.

And I wish atheists accepted the definition of evidence which refers to more than scientific evidence.

and I wish theists accepted that the sort of evidence they habitually present is worthless.

laklak · **#825** by **laklak** » Apr 24, 2014 3:50 pm

Paul wrote:
and I wish theists accepted that the sort of evidence they habitually present is worthless.

Sometimes it's good for a larf.

John Platko · **#826** by **John Platko** » Apr 24, 2014 3:58 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Regina wrote:
John Platko wrote:

And despite the actual meaning of the word supernatural, atheists persist in asking people "what scientific evidence do you have of the supernatural?"

WTF?

Again, "atheists" do no such thing.

Some atheists do, in fact many atheist, corrupt the meaning of words just as I describe.

Well, John, you didn't exactly say that earlier, did you? If you'd meant to say some atheists, you surely might have said what you meant to say. I think what you're avoiding doing at this point is making contact with the arguments of any individual you think is corrupting the meaning of a word, the better to argue with no one in particular, instead of mincing your words and making shoddy retractions.

I don't see why "atheists" needs to imply any more than more than one atheist.

John Platko wrote:In summary, we Catholics keep the lights on even if no one is in the pew.

Moses de la Montagne wrote:You can't say "we Catholics" unless you're willing to defend Catholicism in some substantial way. Or, if you can, then we Catholics think you're loony.

Moses greatly misrepresents the requirements for being a member of the set of all Catholics. I refuse to file a
Defectio ab Ecclesia catholica actu formali

And even though not required, I pledge my life and my immortal soul for 10 trillion years + in the defense of the Catholic Church, after all it's done for/to me, it's the least I can do. (Excuse me if I got some of that mixed up with the procedure of Scientology, it can be tedious keeping all these rules straight.)

Gee, John. The atheists don't stroke you, the Catholics don't stroke you.

I guess if there's any stroking that needs to be done then I'll just have to ...

Sure sign that you're onto something, such as aiming for martyrdom.

Actually, I'm just aiming at sanity.

Agrippina · **#827** by **Agrippina** » Apr 24, 2014 4:00 pm

There is no medical term "sanity."

Paul · **#828** by **Paul** » Apr 24, 2014 4:23 pm

John Platko wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Regina wrote:
Again, "atheists" do no such thing.

Some atheists do, in fact many atheist, corrupt the meaning of words just as I describe.

Well, John, you didn't exactly say that earlier, did you? If you'd meant to say some atheists, you surely might have said what you meant to say. I think what you're avoiding doing at this point is making contact with the arguments of any individual you think is corrupting the meaning of a word, the better to argue with no one in particular, instead of mincing your words and making shoddy retractions.

I don't see why "atheists" needs to imply any more than more than one atheist.

So exactly how many atheists persist in asking people "what scientific evidence do you have of the supernatural?"?

Two?

Three?

Is it more, or less than, the number of theists who like to refer to 'scientific evidence'?

Cito di Pense · **#829** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 24, 2014 4:28 pm

John Platko wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Regina wrote:
Again, "atheists" do no such thing.

Some atheists do, in fact many atheist, corrupt the meaning of words just as I describe.

Well, John, you didn't exactly say that earlier, did you? If you'd meant to say some atheists, you surely might have said what you meant to say. I think what you're avoiding doing at this point is making contact with the arguments of any individual you think is corrupting the meaning of a word, the better to argue with no one in particular, instead of mincing your words and making shoddy retractions.

I don't see why "atheists" needs to imply any more than more than one atheist.

You can always enumerate them, thereby completing the proof you identified more than one. And you'll quote them, too, you know, as evidence. But not until you've given us the dictionary definition of 'corrupt', in (you know) the context you need.

BlackBart · **#830** by **BlackBart** » Apr 24, 2014 4:32 pm

Personally, 'as an athiest', I don't ask for evidence of the 'supernatural' at all. I merely ask for evidence of whatever it is one happens to be claiming exists. I have no interest what super-adjective one plasters on it to gain special pleading privileges, if you haven't got evidence for it, jog on.

Sendraks · **#831** by **Sendraks** » Apr 24, 2014 4:36 pm

BlackBart wrote:Personally, 'as an athiest', I don't ask for evidence of the 'supernatural' at all. I merely ask for evidence of whatever it is one happens to be claiming exists. I have no interest what super-adjective one plasters on it to gain special pleading privileges, if you haven't got evidence for it, jog on.

Indeed, you can call the evidence whatever you like, but if it doesn't stand up to testing no amount of special pleading will save it.

John Platko · **#832** by **John Platko** » Apr 24, 2014 4:50 pm

Sendraks wrote:
BlackBart wrote:Personally, 'as an athiest', I don't ask for evidence of the 'supernatural' at all. I merely ask for evidence of whatever it is one happens to be claiming exists. I have no interest what super-adjective one plasters on it to gain special pleading privileges, if you haven't got evidence for it, jog on.

Indeed, you can call the evidence whatever you like, but if it doesn't stand up to testing no amount of special pleading will save it.

Save it for what? Scientific scrutiny?

Sendraks · **#833** by **Sendraks** » Apr 24, 2014 4:52 pm

John Platko wrote:Save it for what? Scientific scrutiny?

It won't be saved for any scrutiny, as it won't be evidence.

BlackBart · **#834** by **BlackBart** » Apr 24, 2014 4:53 pm

John Platko wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
BlackBart wrote:Personally, 'as an athiest', I don't ask for evidence of the 'supernatural' at all. I merely ask for evidence of whatever it is one happens to be claiming exists. I have no interest what super-adjective one plasters on it to gain special pleading privileges, if you haven't got evidence for it, jog on.

Indeed, you can call the evidence whatever you like, but if it doesn't stand up to testing no amount of special pleading will save it.

Save it for what? Scientific scrutiny?

No, John. The dustbin. No evidence, no lollipop.

John Platko · **#835** by **John Platko** » Apr 24, 2014 5:12 pm

Sendraks wrote:
John Platko wrote:Save it for what? Scientific scrutiny?

It won't be saved for any scrutiny, as it won't be evidence.

How can evidence not be evidence?

Cito di Pense · **#836** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 24, 2014 5:18 pm

John Platko wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
John Platko wrote:Save it for what? Scientific scrutiny?

It won't be saved for any scrutiny, as it won't be evidence.

How can evidence not be evidence?

If it isn't accepted. We'll always have Paris. Cry me a river.

Regina · **#837** by **Regina** » Apr 24, 2014 5:21 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
John Platko wrote:Save it for what? Scientific scrutiny?

It won't be saved for any scrutiny, as it won't be evidence.

How can evidence not be evidence?

If it isn't accepted. We'll always have Paris. Cry me a river.

Is this the beginning of a wonderful friendship? :ill:

John Platko · **#838** by **John Platko** » Apr 24, 2014 5:24 pm

Paul wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
John Platko wrote:

Some atheists do, in fact many atheist, corrupt the meaning of words just as I describe.

Well, John, you didn't exactly say that earlier, did you? If you'd meant to say some atheists, you surely might have said what you meant to say. I think what you're avoiding doing at this point is making contact with the arguments of any individual you think is corrupting the meaning of a word, the better to argue with no one in particular, instead of mincing your words and making shoddy retractions.

I don't see why "atheists" needs to imply any more than more than one atheist.

So exactly how many atheists persist in asking people "what scientific evidence do you have of the supernatural?"?

Two?

Three?

Is it more, or less than, the number of theists who like to refer to 'scientific evidence'?

Many more than three atheists ask for scientific evidence for the supernatural. And as this thread demonstrates, it is an unwise request to make where I can witness it as I do like the smell of atheists retreating in the morning.

I see nothing wrong with theists referring to "scientific evidence", some of the greatest scientists where Theists. However, if you meant they refer to Scientific Evidence of the supernatural then they too are mistaken and I trust will mend their ways once you point out their error.

Paul · **#839** by **Paul** » Apr 24, 2014 5:24 pm

John Platko wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
John Platko wrote:Save it for what? Scientific scrutiny?

It won't be saved for any scrutiny, as it won't be evidence.

How can evidence not be evidence?

Context again. :roll:

It won't be evidence for. It is rejected as evidence for whatever. The 'for' is implied, and only has to be stated for the benefit of nit-pickers.

Cito di Pense · **#840** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 24, 2014 5:24 pm

Regina wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Sendraks wrote:

It won't be saved for any scrutiny, as it won't be evidence.

How can evidence not be evidence?

If it isn't accepted. We'll always have Paris. Cry me a river.

Is this the beginning of a wonderful friendship?

It would take a miracle to get you out of Casablanca, and the Germans have outlawed miracles.

Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Re: Reincarnation Myth or Possible?

Who is online