the existence of god is a scientific fact

[Thief]

So fear of the grave/God is driving your narrative?

nope

 

[ecco]

If you were to say what I offered has no bearing on your reality, I would agree that is true.

Your fantasies are not anyone's reality.

Watch: Your Brain Hallucinates Your Conscious Reality

Why would I bother watching a video that you post a link to but are incapable of commenting on yourself?

I can say in my reality, I answered your questions and I know others would agree.

In your fantasy reality, you think you answered my question. But did you? Let's see. I asked...

How do you justify your comment about Godly motivated virtuous lives in light of the three examples I posted?
​

You answered...

As I said they are your thoughts.​

Did your answer address my question? No, it didn't. It said nothing about how you justified anything. You just did what you often do, you just evaded answering by posting more nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I showed you why. I linked you to the site with more than 100 links to research. ID scientist don't have that. I'm pretty sure you rejected it.

Dude... Creationists have also started their own "journals" to publish their "papers" in, because they can't get published in actual journals.

Ever been to a creationist site? You'll also find "hundreds of links" to "research".

 

[joe1776]

So all you have are "articles" that you won't even post. That is not very convincing. I could find articles praising the man and not post them. Would that convince you that you were wrong? The only attacks that I have seen against him are from woo woo sites. That does not mean that there are not any reliable sources that attack him, but if there were it would be nice to see them.

I've said this a few times already. You don't seem to grasp the idea that I'm not trying to convince debate opponents of anything in these internet debates. I write my posts for unbiased intelligent lurkers who might happen to get interested in this thread.

You betray your bias in nearly every post. For example, in your remarks here you admit to having read articles attacking Randi's character but you consider them woo woo sites. An unbiased reader would immediately wonder whether you consider them woo woo sites because they attack Randi or whether you consider all sites that oppose your "skeptical" beliefs to be woo woo.

 

[joe1776]

Ever been to a creationist site? You'll also find "hundreds of links" to "research".

No. I've never seen a creationist site that's similar to the site I posted. Will you link one please? Just one will be enough to prove that you aren't just wasting bandwidth with fantastic claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've said this a few times already. You don't seem to grasp the idea that I'm not trying to convince debate opponents of anything in these internet debates. I write them for unbiased intelligent lurkers who might happen to get interested in this thread.

You betray your bias in nearly every post. For example, in your remarks here you admit to having read articles attacking Randi's character but you consider them woo woo sites. An unbiased reader would immediately wonder whether you consider them woo woo sites because they attack Randi or whether you consider all sites that oppose your "skeptical" beliefs to be woo woo.

LOL, no you are trying to convince ignorant fools. Once again, the only anti Randi garbage that I have ever seen is from woo woo sites. You are the one that keeps trying to claim valid sites for your beliefs yet you cannot seem to find any. You have as of yet to link one single reliable source. And unbiased person will see this. As I said the only anti-Randi articles that I have seen are by crank sites such as this one:

James Randi's Skeptical "Challenge" » Skeptical About Skeptics

I did not say that there were not any valid anti-Randi articles only that loons are the only ones that seem to oppose him. Reasonable people would expect you to show me wrong by posting a link to an article by a valid source. That really should not be that difficult. Once again you do not seem to understand the burden of proof. If you claim that Randi was a fraud you need to support that. All I can say is that I have never seen any evidence that supports that claim.

 

[joe1776]

LOL, no you are trying to convince ignorant fools. Once again, the only anti Randi garbage that I have ever seen is from woo woo sites. You are the one that keeps trying to claim valid sites for your beliefs yet you cannot seem to find any. You have as of yet to link one single reliable source. And unbiased person will see this. As I said the only anti-Randi articles that I have seen are by crank sites such as this one:

James Randi's Skeptical "Challenge" » Skeptical About Skeptics

I did not say that there were not any valid anti-Randi articles only that loons are the only ones that seem to oppose him. Reasonable people would expect you to show me wrong by posting a link to an article by a valid source. That really should not be that difficult. Once again you do not seem to understand the burden of proof. If you claim that Randi was a fraud you need to support that. All I can say is that I have never seen any evidence that supports that claim.

I gave eight reasons why an unbiased mind should conclude that the Randi Prize should be thought of as very likely to be both a hoax and a brilliant publicity stunt. Those eight reasons comprised an argument made for unbiased minds. I'm willing to let your rebuttal stand because I think it obviously weak.

You made the claim early on that there was no evidence supporting the paranormal. I linked you to one site with over 100 links to research. I'm willing to let that site stand as evidence for unbiased lurkers that your "no evidence" claim is bunk.

I told you that I have a low opinion of James Randi's character based on articles I've read about him. You demanded evidence.even though you admitted reading negative articles about him. Why should I waste my time finding articles for you to ridicule as woo woo?

For any reader interested, a search of "dishonest James Randi" is a starting point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gave eight reasons why an unbiased mind should conclude that the Randi Prize should be thought of as very likely to be both a hoax and a brilliant publicity stunt. Those eight reasons comprised an argument made for unbiased minds. I'm willing to let your rebuttal stand because I think it obviously weak.

You made the claim early on that there was no evidence supporting the paranormal. I linked you to one site with over 100 links to research. I'm willing to let that site stand as evidence for unbiased lurkers that your "no evidence" claim is bunk.

I told you that I have a low opinion of James Randi's character based on articles I've read about him. You demanded evidence.even though you admitted reading negative articles about him. Why should I waste my time finding articles for you to ridicule as woo woo?

Your so called reasons were all laughable that only demonstrated your bias. You had nothing of substance.

And no, I did not say that there was not any evidence. I said there was no reliable evidence for the supernatural and you did not provide any. Providing a list of article that were a combination of glamour press and articles that refuted your claims is not providing evidence. You have not done your homework. You have not provided any evidence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I gave eight reasons why an unbiased mind should conclude that the Randi Prize should be thought of as very likely to be both a hoax and a brilliant publicity stunt. Those eight reasons comprised an argument made for unbiased minds. I'm willing to let your rebuttal stand because I think it obviously weak.

Your eight reasons were thoroughly debunked by multiple posters, and your clear anti-Randi bias is obvious. You're not regarding the man fairly because of your clear and evidenced pro-paranormal bias. Any unbiased lurker can see that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. I've never seen a creationist site that's similar to the site I posted. Will you link one please? Just one will be enough to prove that you aren't just wasting bandwidth with fantastic claims.

They have their own journals filled with articles.
I'm not going to bother looking if a page exists somewhere that lists a bunch of links to a bunch of articles that are published in such journals.

The fact that the journals exist, seems like enough evidence that they'll also have loads of articles.
I don't think that wheter or not a page exists that lists a bunch of such articles, adds or removes any credibility concerning said articles.

 

[joe1776]

They have their own journals filled with articles.
I'm not going to bother looking if a page exists somewhere that lists a bunch of links to a bunch of articles that are published in such journals.

The fact that the journals exist, seems like enough evidence that they'll also have loads of articles.
I don't think that wheter or not a page exists that lists a bunch of such articles, adds or removes any credibility concerning said articles.

OK, that's a valid argument. However, mainstream science also publishes journals. So, how does the fact that paranormal researchers publish journals make their endeavor analogous to creationists and not mainstream science?

 

[joe1776]

Your eight reasons were thoroughly debunked by multiple posters, and your clear anti-Randi bias is obvious. You're not regarding the man fairly because of your clear and evidenced pro-paranormal bias. Any unbiased lurker can see that.

I'll never understand why posters in debate consider their opinions on the arguments to be arguments.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'll never understand why posters in debate consider their opinions on the arguments to be arguments.

You mean like your argument that James Randi's challenge is suspect because of your opinion of him as a person?

If you're allowed to express the OPINION of who is biased and who isn't, then why is it suddenly not an argument when someone else uses that against you?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

OK, that's a valid argument. However, mainstream science also publishes journals. So, how does the fact that paranormal researchers publish journals make their endeavor analogous to creationists and not mainstream science?

Mainstream science and its journals are overseen and reviewed by qualified scientific peers. Private journals like the ID and paranormal ones aren't.

 

[joe1776]

You mean like your argument that James Randi's challenge is suspect because of your opinion of him as a person?

James Randi's moral character is, of course, a factor which unbiased minds should consider in judging whether the million dollar offer was likely to be bogus or not. I stated it as an opinion and how I arrived at it which would allow unbiased readers to search the web and make up their own mind.

 

[joe1776]

Mainstream science and its journals are overseen and reviewed by qualified scientific peers. Private journals like the ID and paranormal ones aren't.

I'm not familiar with the creationist journals. I've never seen one. However, the psi journals follow the same process as the mainstream journals. In fact, they have to be more careful because of the intense scrutiny their work is subjected to.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

James Randi's moral character is, of course, a factor which unbiased minds should consider in judging whether the million dollar offer was likely to be bogus or not. I stated it as an opinion and how I arrived at it which would allow unbiased readers to search the web and make up their own mind.

So you admit that you presented an opinion, not an argument, right?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm not familiar with the creationist journals. I've never seen one. However, the psi journals follow the same process as the mainstream journals. In fact, they have to be more careful because of the intense scrutiny their work is subjected to.

The creationist journal is called the Journal of Creation (they're not terrifically imaginative with names): Professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal - creation.com

If psi journals are under intense scrutiny, then please tell me what credentialed scientists are responsible for reviewing them and what processes are used to test their claims.

 

[joe1776]

So you admit that you presented an opinion, not an argument, right?

As stated, it was a relevant opinion. It was not an opinion on an argument made by my opponents or my opinion on how the debate was going.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As stated, it was a relevant opinion. It was not an opinion on an argument made by my opponents or my opinion on how the debate was going.

So you get to determine what counts as a "relevant opinion" or not? Let's tally your judgements so far:

"Relevant" opinions:
James Randi is a bad man because I read it on the internet somewhere.
I wouldn't do business with James Randi.
James Randi is a magician, therefore his tests are likely bogus.
Randi's tests were biased, despite the fact that I can't find any supporting evidence of this.
Anyone who agreed to Randi's test was foolish.
Anyone who is unbiased has good reason to believe Randi's tests were bogus because I say so.

"Non-relevant" opinions:
You have no evidence to support your claims that the tests were bogus.
Your evaluation of Randi as a person has no relevance to the success of his tests.
The tests were agreed upon by both parties and are therefore unlikely to have been biased on favour of Randi.
The only bias that exists on the part of Randi or us is in FAVOUR of supernatural claims.
The bulk of your argument is without evidence or merit and based on heresay, opinion and anecdote.
The fact that Randi's challenge has never been passed indicates that paranormal claims cannot be demonstrated to be real.

I'm not sure you're the best judge of "relevant" opinions.