Is this going to be another question you won't answer?
What is the "something" that you're referring to?
"Atheist proves god does exist"
- Thread starter universaldistress
- Start date
What is the "something" that you're referring to?
Dywyddyr,
No dude.
You're saying that.
No doubt to salvage something.
Oh! So now you've taken to jumping from one point to another
without giving notice.
Is there no end to your desparation?
Err, notice the question mark.
jan.
No dude.
You're saying that.
No doubt to salvage something.
Oh! So now you've taken to jumping from one point to another
without giving notice.
Is there no end to your desparation?
Err, notice the question mark.
jan.
If by personal perception you mean personal perception of God, then that's fine, I can't contradict your own experience as I'm not in your shoes. But this is far from valid evidence you could use in an argument or debate to convince others. It is not considered reliable evidence by any measure. That's not just a matter of opinion or perception, it's a fact. One that most religionists acknowledge.
Correct. I did say that. Because you're lying, trolling or, as I said, incapable of making your point clearly.No dude.
You're saying that.
No doubt to salvage something.
That would be "no, I'm not". If you read your quote "deal with the evidence" and my reply "there is none" then it was on-point. And simply brought us back to where you started evading, a couple of pages ago.Oh! So now you've taken to jumping from one point to another
without giving notice.
Is there no end to your desparation?
Err, notice the question mark.
It is not considered reliable evidence by you.
That is acceptable.
But you do not have the monopoly on what is evidence or not.
Your scope falls within a specific range.
jan.
Yes I can read. But you have already (more than) sufficiently displayed your inability to express yourself in a meaningful manner. So I'm asking for clarification.
What is the "something" you're referring to?
Dywyddyr,
Based on what evidence?
Your say so?
Learn to deal with the context of discussion.
Making stuff up is not counted as evidence.
You or spider still have the burden of backing up the claim that matter is not a product of consciousness.
jan.
Based on what evidence?
Your say so?
Learn to deal with the context of discussion.
Making stuff up is not counted as evidence.
You or spider still have the burden of backing up the claim that matter is not a product of consciousness.
jan.
As has been stated: there is no evidence to support that stance.
Yes:
Post 216.Jan said:
You're just wasting time again.
Which comes back to my original contention:
you're lying, trolling or incapable of making your point clearly.
Correction: it may be that you're incapable of understanding a point, of holding a genuine discussion.
Which is all nice, but is also dangerously close to solipsism. Every sane person fears solipsism.
People, theist or atheist, do not develop their stances (beliefs, convictions, whichever we call it) in a vacuum. Normally, they do so within a social context. And it is a social context where people have a bit more relevance than mere words on a screen.
But online, such a meaningful social context is generally absent.
Online, unless one makes a heroic effort and exerts extreme goodwill, openmindedness and invests a lot of resources in studying and understanding the topics discussed, what remains are all too often intellectual masturbations.
And many people nowadays are so used to this miserable state of affairs that they simply resign themselves to it.
I do think it is the theists who should make the first step in this regard in order to improve things.
I do not recall any theistic scriptures that would command adherents to "Go ye out among the unbelievers and have endless, fruitless, abstract, frustrating discussions with them."
Whatever happened to prasadam?
Do you really think it is possible to have a discussion on such a topic, if the participants are people who are strangers to eachother - and who, frankly, do not care about eachother?
You can't make up your own logic, Jan.
Signal,
Sometimes one has to bring ideas and concepts out into the open,
in order to illuminate these hiding places.
Atheists seem content to remain hidden, choosing to kill all discussion
with the same old hit and run tacticts.
These seemingly endless, pointless, and, fruitless discussions are generally
devicive techniques in order to frustrate, and distract, in an effort to subdue the theistic opponent.
Sometimes I like to see what is behind it, rather than play footsie.
As you can see, they have to resort to other means in order to maintain
somekind of credibility.
The question is simple; what is the evidence that states consciousness is a product of matter?
In order to make developmental progress in the discussion this should be clarified, not just accepted as dogma.
You mention prashadam. Why?
jan.
Sometimes one has to bring ideas and concepts out into the open,
in order to illuminate these hiding places.
Atheists seem content to remain hidden, choosing to kill all discussion
with the same old hit and run tacticts.
These seemingly endless, pointless, and, fruitless discussions are generally
devicive techniques in order to frustrate, and distract, in an effort to subdue the theistic opponent.
Sometimes I like to see what is behind it, rather than play footsie.
As you can see, they have to resort to other means in order to maintain
somekind of credibility.
The question is simple; what is the evidence that states consciousness is a product of matter?
In order to make developmental progress in the discussion this should be clarified, not just accepted as dogma.
You mention prashadam. Why?
jan.
You can't decide on your own that personal testimony is reliable evidence.
That's not what I'm saying.
Neither am I asserting that anyone is wrong.
But we should try and understand each other.
jan.
Yes we do! Or rather the entire thinking human community does. Is something true just because someone says it is? Your intellectual deficits are not my problem.
There seems to be a considerable amount of confusion and acrimony in this thread. Let's clear things up.
Jan Ardena:
Do you consider that matter is a product of consciousness? Yes or no.
If your answer is yes, please provide your justification for that belief.
If your answer is no, I think we can leave that as a settled issue in this thread.
Jan Ardena:
Do you consider that matter is a product of consciousness? Yes or no.
If your answer is yes, please provide your justification for that belief.
If your answer is no, I think we can leave that as a settled issue in this thread.