Why are flat earthers so dishonest?

the mormons were right

Tell me what other ways do we have of discovering things but through scientific endeavour?
What alternative would you suggest?
It’s not always going to provide the correct answer but it stands a much better chance than just making stuff up.

And yet more deflection.
Again, this isn't really about how we find out. It is if you were justified with your claim that all religions are wrong regarding life after death.
If you don't know what happens after you die, how do you know that all relgions are wrong?

Regarding this latest bit, that is only if science is actually capable of testing the hypotheses it makes.
Which for something non-physical like a consciousness existing independent of the body it is unclear if it would be able to at all.
Just how do you propose science investigates what happens after people die?

In fact, your claim here is also rather circular.
You need your claim to be correct, to justify it.
If instead there was some god, which knows of life after death, who told humanity about it and was truthful, then that religion would be far more likely to be correct regarding life after death than science. Even if that religion was later corrupted by man.
Likewise, if there is life after death, and someone from the afterlife communicated with someone living, who started a religion based upon that, they would be more likely to be correct.

And before you accuse me of using circular reasoning, the distinction is that I am not saying any of these are correct, while you are saying SCIENCE ALL THE WAY, EVEN WHEN IT CAN"T!!!

The track record of science should offer sone clue.

Yes, with that track record sticking to the physical world, and understanding the limitations of applying something to outside its scope.

The modern world we live in and all the tech and infrastructure you use is not a produce of religion or random guesswork.

Well no. Plenty of the medications used are the product of the random guesswork (combined with subsequent disposal of bad guesses) of evolution.

Why should I retract anything?

Because you have made claims that refuse to justify.

Name one point I have made that is factually incorrect.

Again with the false dichotomy.
You have made claims which you have no way to know are right or wrong. You have effectively admitted that you do not know.
But instead of trying to justify those claims you demand we prove you wrong.

What’s up with you people?
Do you not know the meaning of implied?

Yes. Do you know the difference between something being implied by someone's statement, and blatantly misrepresenting that statement to pretend it is something it is not.

JB objected to what I said. True or false?

True.

The fact he objected implied that his view was opposed to what I had stated!

This depends on what you mean by "opposed".
Again, it comes down to your false dichotomy.
I objected to your claim that there is no way for any religion to be correct.

That doesn't mean I think that some religion is correct.
It means there is the possibility that one is correct.

This was explained to you numerous times and you just ignored it and again pretended that I said that a religion is correct.

You can easily understand what I meant by looking at how I objected, what I said when I objected, especially in the context of it:

Quote from: Timeisup on October 13, 2022, 12:18:08 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on October 09, 2022, 12:20:03 PM

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on October 09, 2022, 12:14:22 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on October 09, 2022, 12:00:42 PM

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on October 08, 2022, 10:23:59 PM

Flat earthers are dishonest in the same way Christians or other religions are. They believe in their heart of hearts what they say is true. That their world view and thoughts of the afterlife is true. But it's wrong

How do you know their view of what happens in the afterlife is wrong?

Every single religion or faith - and there have been thousands if you count all the different factions - all claim something different. Given death is most certainly one place humans have never been to and come back from (I'm not talking about resuscitation) - we can safely say that everything we think we know is just a guess to relieve our fears of the inevitable death
...
No one knows. But I'll wager everyone who thinks they know, only knows jack shit

So as no one knows, you can't say they are wrong.  It doesn't matter what you believe, what happens after death is unknown, and as such, you can't say that one's belief in what happens is wrong.

If a belief is based on no more than a whim or flight of fancy the chances of any of them being right are almost non existent as they are all based on…… zero facts and a ton of BS.

So the chance that the ancient Greek philosopher that believed Earth was round because a sphere is a perfect shape is almost non existent?

If someone were to roll a standard 6 sided dice, and I believe it will land on 6, the chance of me being right is almost non-existent?

Again, from both how I objected and the context, it is clear that I am saying we don't know and that means your claim that they are wrong is just as unfounded as their claims.

He implied that some religion, by virtue of a throw of a dice could have arrived at an answer!

Pure BS.
I said that a religion might be correct. Not that one was.
I used a dice throw as an example.

Again, the religions are like the 5 people claiming a digit from 1 to 5.
You are the person coming in and saying they are all wrong because they don't know.
You say even though you don't know, and thus have no way to know that they are wrong.

I'm objecting to that BS instead saying that you don't know and thus don't know if they are wrong.
You are misrepresenting this and instead saying that is me claiming one of them is correct.

The simple fact is we don't know who is correct.
It could be one of the 5 or it could be you.
In this specific case, the 5 collectively have a 5/6th chance of being correct, you have a 1/6th chance, with your statement implying that the result is 6.

This is not trolling as you SAID. It’s offering a view different to your own based on historical records and current scientific understanding.

No, it is based upon completley misrepresenting what has been said.

Regarding evidence I don’t  see a single shred or question addressed either  by yourself or. Jack.

And I am yet to see you provide any evidence that the moon is made of cheese.
If you are unwilling to do that why should I provide evidence for your strawmen? Why should I answer questions directed at your strawmen?

Try responding to what I have said and asking questions about that.

Jock Block, is this the type of scientific study on experiences during clinical death you asked me to dig up for you? It appears you have to pay to read the full article, so I guess we'll find out how committed to this debate you are. Tiemeup may even pay to read it, after getting excited seeing it was written by the only ones words he values - scientists.

Or you can get it from the author's site:
http://sonjalyubomirsky.com/files/2022/02/Parnia-et-al.-Shirazi-2022.pdf

"Although such recalled experiences of death can lead to a positive transformative change in individuals, rigorous empirical studies of them remain limited."
Which highlights my point.
Most studies are not rigorous.

"We propose that any report or recollection that purports to describe an experience in relation to death—whether referred to as a so-called NDE or otherwise—should include the following six components: (1) a relation with death, (2) a sense of transcendence, (3) ineffability, (4) positive transformative effects (related to meaning and purpose to life), and a (5) severity of illness that leads to loss of consciousness (LOC), together with the (6) absence of features of other coma-related experiences (such as conventional dreams, delirium, and delusions, in the intensive care unit (ICU) or elsewhere)."
This is problematic.
It is unclear here if it is saying that objective studies should only discuss these, making it confirmation bias where they only consider things which will support the view of a life after death in studies and ignore everything that indicates otherwise; or if they are saying these need to be the criteria to be considered evidence of life after death.

So in contrast to your "short synopsis of the findings", it isn't actually a collection of findings. It is how they have chosen to define recalled experiences of death.
Some other points:
"There are insufficient data to support the theory that EVA and autoscopy, somatosensory, and visual illusions are the same. Systematic studies are needed to determine whether stimulation of a focal point or multiple foci in the brain may trigger the occurrence of an EVA (classical or authentic so-called OBE)." i.e. more study is needed.
"A variety of potential intermediaries have been proposed to account for recalled experiences in relation to death as either hallucinations, delusions, or illusions in response to a disordered brain; however, data from high-quality studies are missing to support these theories." (note: this is not saying there are data from studies to refute these theories)
"New research measures are needed to distinguish experiences recalled in relation to death from other coma-related experiences" - i.e. currently they can't tell if it is genuinely they have died and recalled things from when they have died or not.


But perhaps the most important:
"Although systematic studies have not been able to absolutely prove the reality or meaning of patients’ experiences and claims of awareness in relation to death, it has been impossible to disclaim them either."
i.e. we have no idea.

Quote from: boydster on October 20, 2022, 05:29:52 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on October 20, 2022, 01:32:07 AM

Quote from: boydster on October 19, 2022, 06:50:22 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on October 19, 2022, 06:34:44 AM

Are you saying because a religion says something it should be taken seriously?

Quote where that was said or get back under your bridge. Enough with these stupid games already. This blatant trolling in the debate section is going to stop.

Why is it every time I’m obviously right you decide it’s trolling. Why is making a valid point Trolling?
Go ahead and refute what I’ve said  by all means but some facts to back up what you say would be the way to go rather than admitting defeat by playing your trolling card.

So you can't quote where anyone said something should be taken seriously simply because a religion says so. Got it. You can go ahead and retract every single post you've made in this thread now.

Why should I retract anything? Everything I have to said is in line with both historical facts and our current knowledge of post death.

Name one point I have made that is factually incorrect.

What’s up with you people?
Do you not know the meaning of implied?

Just because the actual words are not used it does not take away from the attached sentiment.

JB objected to what I said. True or false?

The fact he objected implied that his view was opposed to what I had stated!

He implied that some religion, by virtue of a throw of a dice could have arrived at an answer!

I said given when most religions emerged that was impossible given the historical period and all that entails.  The fact that no one at those  times had the knowledge required or would have been able to carry out the procedures or experiments to discover the answers is pretty self evident.

It’s way beyond ludicrous to imagine that someone 2000 years ago with  basic technology would have had the knowledge and  capacity to discover something we don’t as yet have the capacity to discover, despite dice being rolled!

This is not trolling as you SAID. It’s offering a view different to your own based on historical records and current scientific understanding.

Regarding evidence I don’t  see a single shred or question addressed either  by yourself or. Jack.

You're not trolling at all. Boystrous declares you're not allowed to reference outside a thread.

If you want to provide evidence that all the major religions and their derivatives are the same basic story, which is made up, recommend the book, "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours, or Christianity Before Christ", by Lydia M. Graves. It's an old book, from the 1800s but Lydia does a splendid job justifying why not one deity is more divine than the others. It's the same basic story repeated.

No religion rolled a dice and ended up with the correct answer over all the others, as Jock Block speculated. Religion is a game of copy cat. Each is as great or as dumb as the other.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 20, 2022, 10:18:12 AM

Tell me what other ways do we have of discovering things but through scientific endeavour?
What alternative would you suggest?
It’s not always going to provide the correct answer but it stands a much better chance than just making stuff up.

And yet more deflection.
Again, this isn't really about how we find out. It is if you were justified with your claim that all religions are wrong regarding life after death.
If you don't know what happens after you die, how do you know that all relgions are wrong?

Regarding this latest bit, that is only if science is actually capable of testing the hypotheses it makes.
Which for something non-physical like a consciousness existing independent of the body it is unclear if it would be able to at all.
Just how do you propose science investigates what happens after people die?

In fact, your claim here is also rather circular.
You need your claim to be correct, to justify it.
If instead there was some god, which knows of life after death, who told humanity about it and was truthful, then that religion would be far more likely to be correct regarding life after death than science. Even if that religion was later corrupted by man.
Likewise, if there is life after death, and someone from the afterlife communicated with someone living, who started a religion based upon that, they would be more likely to be correct.

And before you accuse me of using circular reasoning, the distinction is that I am not saying any of these are correct, while you are saying SCIENCE ALL THE WAY, EVEN WHEN IT CAN"T!!!

Quote from: Timeisup on October 20, 2022, 10:18:12 AM

The track record of science should offer sone clue.

Yes, with that track record sticking to the physical world, and understanding the limitations of applying something to outside its scope.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 20, 2022, 10:18:12 AM

The modern world we live in and all the tech and infrastructure you use is not a produce of religion or random guesswork.

Well no. Plenty of the medications used are the product of the random guesswork (combined with subsequent disposal of bad guesses) of evolution.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 20, 2022, 10:43:33 AM

Why should I retract anything?

Because you have made claims that refuse to justify.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 20, 2022, 10:43:33 AM

Name one point I have made that is factually incorrect.

Again with the false dichotomy.
You have made claims which you have no way to know are right or wrong. You have effectively admitted that you do not know.
But instead of trying to justify those claims you demand we prove you wrong.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 20, 2022, 10:43:33 AM

What’s up with you people?
Do you not know the meaning of implied?

Yes. Do you know the difference between something being implied by someone's statement, and blatantly misrepresenting that statement to pretend it is something it is not.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 20, 2022, 10:43:33 AM

JB objected to what I said. True or false?

True.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 20, 2022, 10:43:33 AM

The fact he objected implied that his view was opposed to what I had stated!

This depends on what you mean by "opposed".
Again, it comes down to your false dichotomy.
I objected to your claim that there is no way for any religion to be correct.

That doesn't mean I think that some religion is correct.
It means there is the possibility that one is correct.

This was explained to you numerous times and you just ignored it and again pretended that I said that a religion is correct.

You can easily understand what I meant by looking at how I objected, what I said when I objected, especially in the context of it:

Quote from: JackBlack on October 13, 2022, 01:47:41 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on October 13, 2022, 12:18:08 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on October 09, 2022, 12:20:03 PM

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on October 09, 2022, 12:14:22 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on October 09, 2022, 12:00:42 PM

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on October 08, 2022, 10:23:59 PM

Flat earthers are dishonest in the same way Christians or other religions are. They believe in their heart of hearts what they say is true. That their world view and thoughts of the afterlife is true. But it's wrong

How do you know their view of what happens in the afterlife is wrong?

Every single religion or faith - and there have been thousands if you count all the different factions - all claim something different. Given death is most certainly one place humans have never been to and come back from (I'm not talking about resuscitation) - we can safely say that everything we think we know is just a guess to relieve our fears of the inevitable death
...
No one knows. But I'll wager everyone who thinks they know, only knows jack shit

So as no one knows, you can't say they are wrong.  It doesn't matter what you believe, what happens after death is unknown, and as such, you can't say that one's belief in what happens is wrong.

If a belief is based on no more than a whim or flight of fancy the chances of any of them being right are almost non existent as they are all based on…… zero facts and a ton of BS.

So the chance that the ancient Greek philosopher that believed Earth was round because a sphere is a perfect shape is almost non existent?

If someone were to roll a standard 6 sided dice, and I believe it will land on 6, the chance of me being right is almost non-existent?

Again, from both how I objected and the context, it is clear that I am saying we don't know and that means your claim that they are wrong is just as unfounded as their claims.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 20, 2022, 10:43:33 AM

He implied that some religion, by virtue of a throw of a dice could have arrived at an answer!

Pure BS.
I said that a religion might be correct. Not that one was.
I used a dice throw as an example.

Again, the religions are like the 5 people claiming a digit from 1 to 5.
You are the person coming in and saying they are all wrong because they don't know.
You say even though you don't know, and thus have no way to know that they are wrong.

I'm objecting to that BS instead saying that you don't know and thus don't know if they are wrong.
You are misrepresenting this and instead saying that is me claiming one of them is correct.

The simple fact is we don't know who is correct.
It could be one of the 5 or it could be you.
In this specific case, the 5 collectively have a 5/6th chance of being correct, you have a 1/6th chance, with your statement implying that the result is 6.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 20, 2022, 10:43:33 AM

This is not trolling as you SAID. It’s offering a view different to your own based on historical records and current scientific understanding.

No, it is based upon completley misrepresenting what has been said.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 20, 2022, 10:43:33 AM

Regarding evidence I don’t  see a single shred or question addressed either  by yourself or. Jack.

And I am yet to see you provide any evidence that the moon is made of cheese.
If you are unwilling to do that why should I provide evidence for your strawmen? Why should I answer questions directed at your strawmen?

Try responding to what I have said and asking questions about that.

Your defence goes like this:-

If no one knows how can you say these groups who say they know don’t know!

As I’ve said many times is it credible that people 2000 years ago or more managed to solve a complex scientific problem that we currently don’t know the answer to?

They, 2000 years ago had no means by which an answer could be found it’s as simple as that!

If you are unable to understand that hard fact then that’s your problem.

If you were to find out by consulting expert historical references you will discover that ancient people knew almost nothing about the inner workings of the human body let alone how consciousness is produced and it’s fate after physical death.

Ancient people just made stuff up based on what they could see. They thought the world was made from earth, air, fire and water!

They believed in a whole assortment of nonsense to make sense of the world. Go look it up as there are plenty of books
written by  expert historians on that very subject.

The track record of religions being right about anything scientific is zero. How could it not be?

Religions were and are never about the truth. They are about belief. Is the Mormon Church one of the more recently founded religions, though them being termed a religion is open to some debate, correct about:-

‘The Earth is just one of many inhabited worlds, and there are many governing heavenly bodies, including the planet or star Kolob, which is said to be nearest the throne of God.’

Science currently has found no evidence of life anywhere in the Cosmos let alone a planet called Kolob! Is it credible that some 19th century non scientist miraculously discovered a distant inhabited planet with intelligent life without the aid of any scientific equipment? The same can be said of them having anything relevant to say about post death as like questions about the cosmos they had no means by which answers to these questions could be discovered.

Religions don’t care about presenting evidence it’s not their bag. They care more about how good their story is!

If you believe that then you are open to believing anything even that there is such a thing as flat earth theory!

This thread is about dishonesty and once more you have shown that facts to you don’t  matter, what’s more important to you is your own cack handed internal crazy logic and imagining yourself to always be right.

Your past dishonesty includes you in a similar case arguing that such a thing as flat earth theory existed!
despite having it explained to you that as flat earth belief rests on no more than an elaborate conspiracy and as a result can’t claim to have any theory. Take away the conspiracy and they are left with nothing!

We can put the images of Saturn to one side but they were another issue where you were both wrong and dishonest about as you are more intent on believing your own personal world view is correct rather than the actual truth.

As for your stance on experts that was another where your capacity for ignoring reality and the truth and being outright dishonest was clearly illustrated.

The subject of the thread, dishonesty, is clearly illustrated by all of your posts as you have shown yourself not to be interested in the facts or the truth and will do whatever it takes to feel that you are right.

On the theme of dishonesty.

Jack Black maintains I am wrong by saying I can’t  prove all religions are wrong about death and it’s aftermath, because how would I know!

His illogic does not stop him from saying this:-

“And before you accuse me of using circular reasoning, the distinction is that I am not saying any of these are correct, while you are saying SCIENCE ALL THE WAY, EVEN WHEN IT CAN"T!!!”

He is saying science can’t provide the answer and that religion possibly already has?

What he has stated is that science can’t and will never provide an answer! How can he possibly know that?

I’m saying religion had not provided an answer as they do not and have never possessed the means to do so. What magical artefacts did they possess that allowed them to make that discovery?

What does Jack Black think these ancient clerics possessed that science never will that enabled them to solve the mysteries of death?

It sounds like he believes in some mumbo jumbo if you are asking me.

Your defence goes like this:-
If no one knows how can you say these groups who say they know don’t know!

And right from the start you get it wrong.
My objection to your claim goes like this:
"If no one knows how can you say that all these groups are wrong about what happens in the afterlife".

When you get it wrong right from the start, how can you expect to make any progress?

As I’ve said many times is it credible that people 2000 years ago or more managed to solve a complex scientific problem that we currently don’t know the answer to?

Again, why say it is a scientific problem?
As it deals with non-physical things, why should it be scientific?
As a reminder, science deals with the physical world.

If you are unable to understand that hard fact then that’s your problem.

The hard fact which someone in this thread doesn't seem to be able to understand is that if you don't know, you cannot know the religions are wrong.

If you are unable to understand that hard fact then that’s your problem.

If you were to find out by consulting expert historical references you will discover that ancient people knew almost nothing about the inner workings of the human body

As this consciousness that lives on after death is not meant to be a part of the physical body, why should that matter?

This thread is about dishonesty and once more you have shown that facts to you don’t  matter, what’s more important to you is your own cack handed internal crazy logic and imagining yourself to always be right.

And there you go with the pathetic projection.
Again, the fact in question here is if the religions are certainly wrong, or if there is a chance that they may be correct.
Not if they know they are right or wrong, not if they performed experiments or the like to try and discover the truth, and so on.

Yet instead of focus on this fact which you dispute, you instead continually misrepresent my position and deflect, setting up strawmen to knock down and trying to move the goalposts away from your initial claim to something much different.

Your past dishonesty includes you in a similar case arguing that such a thing as flat earth theory existed!

You mean an example of YOUR dishonesty is this false claim of yours.
What I was arguing for was the existence of FE models, which you were unable to refute, which leads to your prior dishonesty of claiming there could never be a flat Earth model.

We can put the images of Saturn to one side but they were another issue where you were both wrong and dishonest

How?
You don't think it is far more likely to be atmospheric turbulence distorting the view?

as you are more intent on believing your own personal world view is correct rather than the actual truth.
As for your stance on experts that was another where your capacity for ignoring reality and the truth and being outright dishonest was clearly illustrated.

Again, that would be you.
In that thread someone spouted pure nonsense, which you chose to defend, and even ended up admitting they were wrong, just not directly.
I clearly demonstrated why their statement was wrong, and you were unable to show any fault with my reasoning.

You also didn't seem to understand a proof by contradiction and didn't realise that by objecting to the premise you were saying the statement you chose to defend was wrong.

And in that thread, just like this one, you choose to continually strawman me, pretending I claimed things I never have, just like you do all over the place.

So the wonderful example of dishonesty in this thread, and on this board, is you.

Now again, care to tell us how you know that all religions are wrong?
Or are you willing to admit that that prior claims was unfounded and that religions do have a chance to be correct, with that chance entirely unknown?

On the theme of dishonesty.

Very much on the theme, yet again showing your own dishonesty.

His illogic does not stop him from saying this:-
“And before you accuse me of using circular reasoning, the distinction is that I am not saying any of these are correct, while you are saying SCIENCE ALL THE WAY, EVEN WHEN IT CAN"T!!!”
He is saying science can’t provide the answer and that religion possibly already has?

You mean logic.
You not liking it doesn't mean it is illogic.

I am saying science has not been able to provide an answer, as science deals with the physical world. This means science can't answer it now, so you take that to mean anyone who claims to have an answer must be wrong.

I would say that science will never be able to, as this is non-physical while science deals with the physical.

I’m saying religion had not provided an answer as they do not and have never possessed the means to do so. What magical artefacts did they possess that allowed them to make that discovery?

Did you bother reading what I said?
I gave 2 possibilities.
I don't agree with either of them, but I'm not the one saying there is no chance for them to be correct.

And that is the important part, you aren't simply saying that religions can't know. You are saying that they have no chance of being correct.
Now again, care to tell us how you know that they have no chance of being correct, rather than just not knowing if they are correct?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 20, 2022, 06:45:20 AM

Jock Block, is this the type of scientific study on experiences during clinical death you asked me to dig up for you? It appears you have to pay to read the full article, so I guess we'll find out how committed to this debate you are. Tiemeup may even pay to read it, after getting excited seeing it was written by the only ones words he values - scientists.

Or you can get it from the author's site:
http://sonjalyubomirsky.com/files/2022/02/Parnia-et-al.-Shirazi-2022.pdf

"Although such recalled experiences of death can lead to a positive transformative change in individuals, rigorous empirical studies of them remain limited."
Which highlights my point.
Most studies are not rigorous.

"We propose that any report or recollection that purports to describe an experience in relation to death—whether referred to as a so-called NDE or otherwise—should include the following six components: (1) a relation with death, (2) a sense of transcendence, (3) ineffability, (4) positive transformative effects (related to meaning and purpose to life), and a (5) severity of illness that leads to loss of consciousness (LOC), together with the (6) absence of features of other coma-related experiences (such as conventional dreams, delirium, and delusions, in the intensive care unit (ICU) or elsewhere)."
This is problematic.
It is unclear here if it is saying that objective studies should only discuss these, making it confirmation bias where they only consider things which will support the view of a life after death in studies and ignore everything that indicates otherwise; or if they are saying these need to be the criteria to be considered evidence of life after death.

So in contrast to your "short synopsis of the findings", it isn't actually a collection of findings. It is how they have chosen to define recalled experiences of death.
Some other points:
"There are insufficient data to support the theory that EVA and autoscopy, somatosensory, and visual illusions are the same. Systematic studies are needed to determine whether stimulation of a focal point or multiple foci in the brain may trigger the occurrence of an EVA (classical or authentic so-called OBE)." i.e. more study is needed.
"A variety of potential intermediaries have been proposed to account for recalled experiences in relation to death as either hallucinations, delusions, or illusions in response to a disordered brain; however, data from high-quality studies are missing to support these theories." (note: this is not saying there are data from studies to refute these theories)
"New research measures are needed to distinguish experiences recalled in relation to death from other coma-related experiences" - i.e. currently they can't tell if it is genuinely they have died and recalled things from when they have died or not.


But perhaps the most important:
"Although systematic studies have not been able to absolutely prove the reality or meaning of patients’ experiences and claims of awareness in relation to death, it has been impossible to disclaim them either."
i.e. we have no idea.

Correct, we have no idea and never have had.

How do you suggest these ancient clerics conducted all those experiments you suggest need doing?

On the basis that these ancient clerics did not possess either the knowledge nor the wherewithal to allow them to investigate death and find a definitive answer. All that was left to them was offer an explanation that satisfied both their beliefs and their very  limited understanding of the world and all its processes.

Are you suggesting that they used some form of magic?

On the theme of dishonesty.

Jack Black maintains I am wrong by saying I can’t  prove all religions are wrong about death and it’s aftermath, because how would I know!

Well, I mean, right?
How would you know?

Believers have faith. We can know in our hearts that our faith is justified but we don't know it like we know that unsupported objects fall directly down at 9.8m/s²

If you insist you know things that you can't prove people won't listen to you even when you do have good arguments.

How we behave and conduct ourselves is Testament to our faith and living example for others, like Jesus is a living example for me.

No one who isn't dead can tell you what it's like to be dead and we can't ask them because they are dead.

Jack is very bright, unironically very bright not like how I say it to sokarul. Well it's obvious anyway. Getting into silly debates with him on things you can't prove is a losing exercise.

I still can't figure you out.

How do you suggest these ancient clerics conducted all those experiments you suggest need doing?

Why do you keep pretending I have said they did?

On the basis that these ancient clerics did not possess either the knowledge nor the wherewithal to allow them to investigate death and find a definitive answer.

Again, this just shows they don't know, not that they are wrong.

Again, back to the dice analogy.
Are you saying those 5 people who say the digits 1 to 5 are wrong, as they didn't have the means to investigate what the answer was and thus couldn't obtain a definitive answer?

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 02:14:14 AM

How do you suggest these ancient clerics conducted all those experiments you suggest need doing?

Why do you keep pretending I have said they did?

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 02:14:14 AM

On the basis that these ancient clerics did not possess either the knowledge nor the wherewithal to allow them to investigate death and find a definitive answer.

Again, this just shows they don't know, not that they are wrong.

Again, back to the dice analogy.
Are you saying those 5 people who say the digits 1 to 5 are wrong, as they didn't have the means to investigate what the answer was and thus couldn't obtain a definitive answer?

Its what YOU have inferred!

BY objecting to what I said you must have information that leads you to say that.

What. I would like you to explain is how do you know that science will never provide the answers about death and its process?

this is what you said :- "while you are saying SCIENCE ALL THE WAY, EVEN WHEN IT CAN"T!!!”

How do you know that?

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 02:14:14 AM

How do you suggest these ancient clerics conducted all those experiments you suggest need doing?

Why do you keep pretending I have said they did?

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 02:14:14 AM

On the basis that these ancient clerics did not possess either the knowledge nor the wherewithal to allow them to investigate death and find a definitive answer.

Again, this just shows they don't know, not that they are wrong.

Again, back to the dice analogy.
Are you saying those 5 people who say the digits 1 to 5 are wrong, as they didn't have the means to investigate what the answer was and thus couldn't obtain a definitive answer?

What???

If you or anyone answers incorrectly it implies they don't know the correct answer OR in other words they don't know what the answer is otherwise they would have given it.

The ancient clerics who made up all the stuff they wrote about obviously didn't know the correct answer they just provided an answer to satisfy both their beliefs and the current state of knowledge.

The fact that they were all incorrect or wrong is what I have been saying from the outset. In regards to what you have been saying, or meaning who knows!

You go on a about dice rolling and thats about it imagining that its illogic actually says anything relevant.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 02:04:10 AM

On the theme of dishonesty.

Jack Black maintains I am wrong by saying I can’t  prove all religions are wrong about death and it’s aftermath, because how would I know!

Well, I mean, right?
How would you know?

Believers have faith. We can know in our hearts that our faith is justified but we don't know it like we know that unsupported objects fall directly down at 9.8m/s²

If you insist you know things that you can't prove people won't listen to you even when you do have good arguments.

How we behave and conduct ourselves is Testament to our faith and living example for others, like Jesus is a living example for me.

No one who isn't dead can tell you what it's like to be dead and we can't ask them because they are dead.

Jack is very bright, unironically very bright not like how I say it to sokarul. Well it's obvious anyway. Getting into silly debates with him on things you can't prove is a losing exercise.

I still can't figure you out.

Faith is what it is no more no less.

Faith has nothing to do with the truth it's about belief and acceptance and thats it.

Members of the 3000 or so religions that have existed all had faith, faith that was opposed to all the other 2999 religions mainly because they all believed in different gods! So what does having faith prove?

All those religions cant be right, so so much for faith being an indicator of anything.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 01:50:58 AM

Your defence goes like this:-
If no one knows how can you say these groups who say they know don’t know!

And right from the start you get it wrong.
My objection to your claim goes like this:
"If no one knows how can you say that all these groups are wrong about what happens in the afterlife".

When you get it wrong right from the start, how can you expect to make any progress?

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 01:50:58 AM

As I’ve said many times is it credible that people 2000 years ago or more managed to solve a complex scientific problem that we currently don’t know the answer to?

Again, why say it is a scientific problem?
As it deals with non-physical things, why should it be scientific?
As a reminder, science deals with the physical world.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 01:50:58 AM

If you are unable to understand that hard fact then that’s your problem.

The hard fact which someone in this thread doesn't seem to be able to understand is that if you don't know, you cannot know the religions are wrong.

If you are unable to understand that hard fact then that’s your problem.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 01:50:58 AM

If you were to find out by consulting expert historical references you will discover that ancient people knew almost nothing about the inner workings of the human body

As this consciousness that lives on after death is not meant to be a part of the physical body, why should that matter?

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 01:50:58 AM

This thread is about dishonesty and once more you have shown that facts to you don’t  matter, what’s more important to you is your own cack handed internal crazy logic and imagining yourself to always be right.

And there you go with the pathetic projection.
Again, the fact in question here is if the religions are certainly wrong, or if there is a chance that they may be correct.
Not if they know they are right or wrong, not if they performed experiments or the like to try and discover the truth, and so on.

Yet instead of focus on this fact which you dispute, you instead continually misrepresent my position and deflect, setting up strawmen to knock down and trying to move the goalposts away from your initial claim to something much different.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 01:50:58 AM

Your past dishonesty includes you in a similar case arguing that such a thing as flat earth theory existed!

You mean an example of YOUR dishonesty is this false claim of yours.
What I was arguing for was the existence of FE models, which you were unable to refute, which leads to your prior dishonesty of claiming there could never be a flat Earth model.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 01:50:58 AM

We can put the images of Saturn to one side but they were another issue where you were both wrong and dishonest

How?
You don't think it is far more likely to be atmospheric turbulence distorting the view?

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 01:50:58 AM

as you are more intent on believing your own personal world view is correct rather than the actual truth.
As for your stance on experts that was another where your capacity for ignoring reality and the truth and being outright dishonest was clearly illustrated.

Again, that would be you.
In that thread someone spouted pure nonsense, which you chose to defend, and even ended up admitting they were wrong, just not directly.
I clearly demonstrated why their statement was wrong, and you were unable to show any fault with my reasoning.

You also didn't seem to understand a proof by contradiction and didn't realise that by objecting to the premise you were saying the statement you chose to defend was wrong.

And in that thread, just like this one, you choose to continually strawman me, pretending I claimed things I never have, just like you do all over the place.

So the wonderful example of dishonesty in this thread, and on this board, is you.

Now again, care to tell us how you know that all religions are wrong?
Or are you willing to admit that that prior claims was unfounded and that religions do have a chance to be correct, with that chance entirely unknown?

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 02:04:10 AM

On the theme of dishonesty.

Very much on the theme, yet again showing your own dishonesty.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 02:04:10 AM

His illogic does not stop him from saying this:-
“And before you accuse me of using circular reasoning, the distinction is that I am not saying any of these are correct, while you are saying SCIENCE ALL THE WAY, EVEN WHEN IT CAN"T!!!”
He is saying science can’t provide the answer and that religion possibly already has?

You mean logic.
You not liking it doesn't mean it is illogic.

I am saying science has not been able to provide an answer, as science deals with the physical world. This means science can't answer it now, so you take that to mean anyone who claims to have an answer must be wrong.

I would say that science will never be able to, as this is non-physical while science deals with the physical.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 02:04:10 AM

I’m saying religion had not provided an answer as they do not and have never possessed the means to do so. What magical artefacts did they possess that allowed them to make that discovery?

Did you bother reading what I said?
I gave 2 possibilities.
I don't agree with either of them, but I'm not the one saying there is no chance for them to be correct.

And that is the important part, you aren't simply saying that religions can't know. You are saying that they have no chance of being correct.
Now again, care to tell us how you know that they have no chance of being correct, rather than just not knowing if they are correct?

Only according to YOU.

Who gave you the right to say what is right or wrong?

Just as you were totally wrong about the possibility of their being a flat earth theory you are totally wrong on this.

How on earth can something based on no more than an elaborate and unbelivable conspiracy say it has a theory? It has made up stuff and thats about as far as it goes.

How on earth could any of those ancient clerics from any of those 3000 religions have come up with the correct answer in regard to death given the next to nothing medical and scientific knowledge they posseseed at that time?

I don’t get it. People have faith, belief systems. They may be “right” or they may be “wrong”. No one really “knows” either way. Simple as that. Literally no one in this thread is saying otherwise. So what’s the problem? 

Separate from that is science and empiricism where we can actually “know” things to a much greater extent.

The only issue is when someone uses a faith-based belief system to say they are right and you are wrong.

When it comes to afterdeath, zero people know right or wrong regardless of fairh/belief or science.

It’s that simple.

I don’t get it. People have faith, belief systems. They may be “right” or they may be “wrong”. No one really “knows” either way. Simple as that. Literally no one in this thread is saying otherwise. So what’s the problem? 

Separate from that is science and empiricism where we can actually “know” things to a much greater extent.

The only issue is when someone uses a faith-based belief system to say they are right and you are wrong.

When it comes to afterdeath, zero people know right or wrong regardless of fairh/belief or science.

It’s that simple.

Isn't that how religion works? Religion capitalises on the very fact that nobody really knows what happens to your consciousness or life essence, post death - biological death. So it provides a comforting narrative and can also use that fact, as a deterrent, like there being two options of either the gates of heaven or the gates of hell. Not to mention giving a full account of your life, to keep it's followers in line.

In the case of 4 year old children with clear unbroken memory of the life of someone else who has passed, I imagine it would be very difficult trying to tell that child that child does not know what happens after biological death. To have a memory, often implies that memory is of something you did or experienced first hand. How could someone end up with another person's memory, aside from first hand experience, is the question.

This is where religion, may be of use. Religion often teaches we each have a soul or an overseer. Let's speculate, or imagine, or employ a thought experiment here. What if the soul is like a puppeteer pulling the strings of multiple puppets at any one time? What if the four year old child who remembers a past life, is merely accessing the accumulated memory from his or her soul?

Science doesn't yet have the means to test and explore the concepts of a soul or the afterlife, so this is where religion steps in, and why religious belief is so extremely diverse and broad. Perhaps it's also why religion still serves a purpose for humanity, in offering answers to questions science cannot answer - yet.

BY objecting to what I said you must have information that leads you to say that.

Yes, the knowledge that science does not have an answer, and that we currently have no way to know.

That means you cannot know that all religions are wrong.

I would like you to explain is how do you know that science will never provide the answers about death and its process?

Go and read what I have said.

If you or anyone answers incorrectly

In order to determine if they have, you first need to know what the correct answer is.

they don't know

Again, this is not about if they know or not. Stop pretending it is.
You can take a guess and be right without knowing.

Again, the dice analogy demonstrates this quite simply.
Yet you keep on needing to flee because of just how easily it demonstrates the problem with your position.

The fact that they were all incorrect or wrong is what I have been saying from the outset.

And that is what was objected to, as you have no way of knowing that they are wrong.

Again, back to the dice.
We can do the one with 6 people or 5.

A standard 6 sided dice is rolled while covered so no one can see or know what it landed on.
Each of the 5 people claim it landed on a different number from 1 to 5. (The 6th person would claim it landed on a 6).
You then come in and say that because they have no way of knowing, that they must be wrong.
The issue is that that is just as baseless as their claims.

Just like they have no way of knowing, you have no way of knowing that they are wrong.
In the case of the 5 people, you saying they are all wrong is equivalent to you claiming the dice landed on a 6, making you just like them.
In the case of the 6 people, you saying they are all wrong is equivalent to saying the dice magically grew another side and landed on that.

You go on a about dice rolling and thats about it imagining that its illogic actually says anything relevant.

Again, you not liking it because of how trivially it demonstrates the flaw in your claim is your problem, not mine.
Notice how you refuse to even engage with it, because it is such a simple example that you cannot try to weasel out of it.
Instead all you can do is attack it outright to try and dismiss it outright.

If you think it is illogical, then clearly point out which part of it you object to.

Only according to YOU.

You mean only not according to you.

Just as you were totally wrong about the possibility of their being a flat earth theory you are totally wrong on this.

Where?
Again, you make up pure BS to try and pretend I am wrong, because you can't refute what I actually said.
I didn't say there was a flat Earth theory. I said there were flat Earth models. Quite different.
Stop just lying about what I said to pretend I was wrong because you can't demonstrate when I have actually been wrong.

Now again, address the dice.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 07:15:31 AM

BY objecting to what I said you must have information that leads you to say that.

Yes, the knowledge that science does not have an answer, and that we currently have no way to know.

That means you cannot know that all religions are wrong.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 07:15:31 AM

I would like you to explain is how do you know that science will never provide the answers about death and its process?

Go and read what I have said.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 07:21:40 AM

If you or anyone answers incorrectly

In order to determine if they have, you first need to know what the correct answer is.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 07:21:40 AM

they don't know

Again, this is not about if they know or not. Stop pretending it is.
You can take a guess and be right without knowing.

Again, the dice analogy demonstrates this quite simply.
Yet you keep on needing to flee because of just how easily it demonstrates the problem with your position.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 07:21:40 AM

The fact that they were all incorrect or wrong is what I have been saying from the outset.

And that is what was objected to, as you have no way of knowing that they are wrong.

Again, back to the dice.
We can do the one with 6 people or 5.

A standard 6 sided dice is rolled while covered so no one can see or know what it landed on.
Each of the 5 people claim it landed on a different number from 1 to 5. (The 6th person would claim it landed on a 6).
You then come in and say that because they have no way of knowing, that they must be wrong.
The issue is that that is just as baseless as their claims.

Just like they have no way of knowing, you have no way of knowing that they are wrong.
In the case of the 5 people, you saying they are all wrong is equivalent to you claiming the dice landed on a 6, making you just like them.
In the case of the 6 people, you saying they are all wrong is equivalent to saying the dice magically grew another side and landed on that.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 07:21:40 AM

You go on a about dice rolling and thats about it imagining that its illogic actually says anything relevant.

Again, you not liking it because of how trivially it demonstrates the flaw in your claim is your problem, not mine.
Notice how you refuse to even engage with it, because it is such a simple example that you cannot try to weasel out of it.
Instead all you can do is attack it outright to try and dismiss it outright.

If you think it is illogical, then clearly point out which part of it you object to.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 07:36:28 AM

Only according to YOU.

You mean only not according to you.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 21, 2022, 07:36:28 AM

Just as you were totally wrong about the possibility of their being a flat earth theory you are totally wrong on this.

Where?
Again, you make up pure BS to try and pretend I am wrong, because you can't refute what I actually said.
I didn't say there was a flat Earth theory. I said there were flat Earth models. Quite different.
Stop just lying about what I said to pretend I was wrong because you can't demonstrate when I have actually been wrong.

Now again, address the dice.

If you've ever met a religious person, they will use the same analogy, but tweak it that only one religion CAN be right. It always happens to be whatever religion that person happens to follow. A touch of bias anyone?

From an impartial viewpoint however, if most religions contain all the same main ingredients, then they might all be partly right. A splinter religion might offer to be closer to the truth, but generally because they wind up being cults, you could argue they more than likely stray farther from the truth.

Jock Block, it's a very long bow to draw that one of these religions is closer to the truth than all of the others, or that any one of them "has it right." There are also teachings that deal with these matters of the spirit mechanically, which are not religious in flavor.

The best a person can do is pick one teaching or religion, which resonates most strongly with them, and accept it won't be 100% right.

Are you just completely giving up on even attempting to maintain your cover?

If you've ever met a religious person, they will use the same analogy, but tweak it that only one religion CAN be right. It always happens to be whatever religion that person happens to follow. A touch of bias anyone?

From an impartial viewpoint however, if most religions contain all the same main ingredients, then they might all be partly right. A splinter religion might offer to be closer to the truth, but generally because they wind up being cults, you could argue they more than likely stray farther from the truth.

Jock Block, it's a very long bow to draw that one of these religions is closer to the truth than all of the others, or that any one of them "has it right." There are also teachings that deal with these matters of the spirit mechanically, which are not religious in flavor.

The best a person can do is pick one teaching or religion, which resonates most strongly with them, and accept it won't be 100% right.

Yes, Timmy is quite like the religious, and appears to be trying to turn science into a religion, a religion where no one is allowed to question his prophets (which most people would just call scientists).

Personally, I prefer the choice of discarding all religions, as I have no reason to think any of them are right (which is technically distinct from thinking they are all wrong).
I also see plenty of common elements as a result of stories passed between them, or caused by the human condition or nature; or elements to make the religion work.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 21, 2022, 05:23:00 PM

If you've ever met a religious person, they will use the same analogy, but tweak it that only one religion CAN be right. It always happens to be whatever religion that person happens to follow. A touch of bias anyone?

From an impartial viewpoint however, if most religions contain all the same main ingredients, then they might all be partly right. A splinter religion might offer to be closer to the truth, but generally because they wind up being cults, you could argue they more than likely stray farther from the truth.

Jock Block, it's a very long bow to draw that one of these religions is closer to the truth than all of the others, or that any one of them "has it right." There are also teachings that deal with these matters of the spirit mechanically, which are not religious in flavor.

The best a person can do is pick one teaching or religion, which resonates most strongly with them, and accept it won't be 100% right.

Yes, Timmy is quite like the religious, and appears to be trying to turn science into a religion, a religion where no one is allowed to question his prophets (which most people would just call scientists).

Personally, I prefer the choice of discarding all religions, as I have no reason to think any of them are right (which is technically distinct from thinking they are all wrong).
I also see plenty of common elements as a result of stories passed between them, or caused by the human condition or nature; or elements to make the religion work.

Yes. Tiemeup passionately follows science and looks to science for all his answers. But even Tiemeup accepts that science has it's limits, especially when considering the afterlife.

The more science moves into quantum mechanics, perhaps the closer science will come to treading on religion's toes regarding afterlife concepts.

Who are you talking to about giving up maintaining a cover, Boydsterous?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 21, 2022, 05:23:00 PM

If you've ever met a religious person, they will use the same analogy, but tweak it that only one religion CAN be right. It always happens to be whatever religion that person happens to follow. A touch of bias anyone?

From an impartial viewpoint however, if most religions contain all the same main ingredients, then they might all be partly right. A splinter religion might offer to be closer to the truth, but generally because they wind up being cults, you could argue they more than likely stray farther from the truth.

Jock Block, it's a very long bow to draw that one of these religions is closer to the truth than all of the others, or that any one of them "has it right." There are also teachings that deal with these matters of the spirit mechanically, which are not religious in flavor.

The best a person can do is pick one teaching or religion, which resonates most strongly with them, and accept it won't be 100% right.

Yes, Timmy is quite like the religious, and appears to be trying to turn science into a religion, a religion where no one is allowed to question his prophets (which most people would just call scientists).

Personally, I prefer the choice of discarding all religions, as I have no reason to think any of them are right (which is technically distinct from thinking they are all wrong).
I also see plenty of common elements as a result of stories passed between them, or caused by the human condition or nature; or elements to make the religion work.

You stick to your illogical beliefs if it makes you happy.

I disagree with you and I’ve explained why.

The fact that you need to take on board is your opinion is just your opinion and that’s as far as it goes.

You have to dissuade yourself from the notion that what ever you say has godly overtones. It doesn’t.
All what you say s just what you say and that’s about it.

Calling people liars at every opportunity does not automatically make what you say true truth. Much as you would love to believe it.

Go ahead and roll your dice.

You stick to your illogical beliefs if it makes you happy.

No thanks.
I'll stick to logic, with arguments you are incapable of refuting and need to dismiss as "illogic".

You can stick to your illogical BS.

I disagree with you and I’ve explained why.

No you haven't. Instead you have repeatedly strawmanned my position, made demands for me to answer questions based upon those strawmen, and dismissed my counter-arguments as illogic.
You disagree with those strawmen you set up, and have explained why you disagree with them. But those strawmen aren't me.

The fact that you need to take on board is your opinion is just your opinion and that’s as far as it goes.
You have to dissuade yourself from the notion that what ever you say has godly overtones. It doesn’t.
All what you say s just what you say and that’s about it.

Have you considered following your own advice and accepting that yourself?

Again, can you demonstrate any logical issue with the argument I presented, or can you just dismiss it as "illogic"?
Can you explain how you know that all religions are wrong with regards to what happens after death; not simply that they don't know, but that what they claim happens is incorrect?

Quote from: Timeisup on October 23, 2022, 02:01:07 AM

You stick to your illogical beliefs if it makes you happy.

No thanks.
I'll stick to logic, with arguments you are incapable of refuting and need to dismiss as "illogic".

You can stick to your illogical BS.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 23, 2022, 02:01:07 AM

I disagree with you and I’ve explained why.

No you haven't. Instead you have repeatedly strawmanned my position, made demands for me to answer questions based upon those strawmen, and dismissed my counter-arguments as illogic.
You disagree with those strawmen you set up, and have explained why you disagree with them. But those strawmen aren't me.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 23, 2022, 02:01:07 AM

The fact that you need to take on board is your opinion is just your opinion and that’s as far as it goes.
You have to dissuade yourself from the notion that what ever you say has godly overtones. It doesn’t.
All what you say s just what you say and that’s about it.

Have you considered following your own advice and accepting that yourself?

Again, can you demonstrate any logical issue with the argument I presented, or can you just dismiss it as "illogic"?
Can you explain how you know that all religions are wrong with regards to what happens after death; not simply that they don't know, but that what they claim happens is incorrect?

As I said thats YOUR opinion. Nothing more.

Quote from: JackBlack on October 22, 2022, 02:54:50 PM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 21, 2022, 05:23:00 PM

If you've ever met a religious person, they will use the same analogy, but tweak it that only one religion CAN be right. It always happens to be whatever religion that person happens to follow. A touch of bias anyone?

From an impartial viewpoint however, if most religions contain all the same main ingredients, then they might all be partly right. A splinter religion might offer to be closer to the truth, but generally because they wind up being cults, you could argue they more than likely stray farther from the truth.

Jock Block, it's a very long bow to draw that one of these religions is closer to the truth than all of the others, or that any one of them "has it right." There are also teachings that deal with these matters of the spirit mechanically, which are not religious in flavor.

The best a person can do is pick one teaching or religion, which resonates most strongly with them, and accept it won't be 100% right.

Yes, Timmy is quite like the religious, and appears to be trying to turn science into a religion, a religion where no one is allowed to question his prophets (which most people would just call scientists).

Personally, I prefer the choice of discarding all religions, as I have no reason to think any of them are right (which is technically distinct from thinking they are all wrong).
I also see plenty of common elements as a result of stories passed between them, or caused by the human condition or nature; or elements to make the religion work.

Yes. Tiemeup passionately follows science and looks to science for all his answers. But even Tiemeup accepts that science has it's limits, especially when considering the afterlife.

The more science moves into quantum mechanics, perhaps the closer science will come to treading on religion's toes regarding afterlife concepts.

Who are you talking to about giving up maintaining a cover, Boydsterous?

No passion involved its just being pragmatic.
How else would you suggest trying to find answers if not through the scientific method?

Science never proclaims it know everything, the opposite is true, unlike Jack Black, though how he imagines he knows thing with out the hard work and endeavour of all the past and present scientific experts is beyond me. You would think reading what he has to say he discovered bloody everything when in reality his contribution to world knowledge has been nil, nothing, zero.

He gives the impression however that everything he knows has come through his own efforts! delusional or what?

Apparently he has devised a novel experiment to prove the world is  spherical, though he prefers to keep that one secret!

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 22, 2022, 05:28:48 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 22, 2022, 02:54:50 PM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 21, 2022, 05:23:00 PM

If you've ever met a religious person, they will use the same analogy, but tweak it that only one religion CAN be right. It always happens to be whatever religion that person happens to follow. A touch of bias anyone?

From an impartial viewpoint however, if most religions contain all the same main ingredients, then they might all be partly right. A splinter religion might offer to be closer to the truth, but generally because they wind up being cults, you could argue they more than likely stray farther from the truth.

Jock Block, it's a very long bow to draw that one of these religions is closer to the truth than all of the others, or that any one of them "has it right." There are also teachings that deal with these matters of the spirit mechanically, which are not religious in flavor.

The best a person can do is pick one teaching or religion, which resonates most strongly with them, and accept it won't be 100% right.

Yes, Timmy is quite like the religious, and appears to be trying to turn science into a religion, a religion where no one is allowed to question his prophets (which most people would just call scientists).

Personally, I prefer the choice of discarding all religions, as I have no reason to think any of them are right (which is technically distinct from thinking they are all wrong).
I also see plenty of common elements as a result of stories passed between them, or caused by the human condition or nature; or elements to make the religion work.

Yes. Tiemeup passionately follows science and looks to science for all his answers. But even Tiemeup accepts that science has it's limits, especially when considering the afterlife.

The more science moves into quantum mechanics, perhaps the closer science will come to treading on religion's toes regarding afterlife concepts.

Who are you talking to about giving up maintaining a cover, Boydsterous?

No passion involved its just being pragmatic.
How else would you suggest trying to find answers if not through the scientific method?

Science never proclaims it know everything, the opposite is true, unlike Jack Black, though how he imagines he knows thing with out the hard work and endeavour of all the past and present scientific experts is beyond me. You would think reading what he has to say he discovered bloody everything when in reality his contribution to world knowledge has been nil, nothing, zero.

He gives the impression however that everything he knows has come through his own efforts! delusional or what?

Apparently he has devised a novel experiment to prove the world is  spherical, though he prefers to keep that one secret!

Our entire life's journey is experienced from within our body, looking out and receiving and interacting with the physical world. Science is exclusively concerned with the physical world of which our body is a part of. What science cannot do, but you can do, is look inward for answers.

My work is primarily concerned with the physical world, but I've had my moments of looking inwards and getting physical results.

Admittedly, I haven't followed Jock Block long enough to form an opinion, except he is one of the most prolific posters on this site.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 23, 2022, 04:19:38 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 22, 2022, 05:28:48 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 22, 2022, 02:54:50 PM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 21, 2022, 05:23:00 PM

If you've ever met a religious person, they will use the same analogy, but tweak it that only one religion CAN be right. It always happens to be whatever religion that person happens to follow. A touch of bias anyone?

From an impartial viewpoint however, if most religions contain all the same main ingredients, then they might all be partly right. A splinter religion might offer to be closer to the truth, but generally because they wind up being cults, you could argue they more than likely stray farther from the truth.

Jock Block, it's a very long bow to draw that one of these religions is closer to the truth than all of the others, or that any one of them "has it right." There are also teachings that deal with these matters of the spirit mechanically, which are not religious in flavor.

The best a person can do is pick one teaching or religion, which resonates most strongly with them, and accept it won't be 100% right.

Yes, Timmy is quite like the religious, and appears to be trying to turn science into a religion, a religion where no one is allowed to question his prophets (which most people would just call scientists).

Personally, I prefer the choice of discarding all religions, as I have no reason to think any of them are right (which is technically distinct from thinking they are all wrong).
I also see plenty of common elements as a result of stories passed between them, or caused by the human condition or nature; or elements to make the religion work.

Yes. Tiemeup passionately follows science and looks to science for all his answers. But even Tiemeup accepts that science has it's limits, especially when considering the afterlife.

The more science moves into quantum mechanics, perhaps the closer science will come to treading on religion's toes regarding afterlife concepts.

Who are you talking to about giving up maintaining a cover, Boydsterous?

No passion involved its just being pragmatic.
How else would you suggest trying to find answers if not through the scientific method?

Science never proclaims it know everything, the opposite is true, unlike Jack Black, though how he imagines he knows thing with out the hard work and endeavour of all the past and present scientific experts is beyond me. You would think reading what he has to say he discovered bloody everything when in reality his contribution to world knowledge has been nil, nothing, zero.

He gives the impression however that everything he knows has come through his own efforts! delusional or what?

Apparently he has devised a novel experiment to prove the world is  spherical, though he prefers to keep that one secret!

Our entire life's journey is experienced from within our body, looking out and receiving and interacting with the physical world. Science is exclusively concerned with the physical world of which our body is a part of. What science cannot do, but you can do, is look inward for answers.

My work is primarily concerned with the physical world, but I've had my moments of looking inwards and getting physical results.

Admittedly, I haven't followed Jock Block long enough to form an opinion, except he is one of the most prolific posters on this site.

This looking inwards  sounds rather woo based and open to extreme bias. It’s possibly what Jack Black uses.

Joking aside what you propose is I think very limiting and in reality is just going to deliver answers about how you feel about things as opposed to providing definitive and objective answers.

The reason why I think, it’s just what I think I’m not saying it’s true, is that people have no control over its process and it’s so far removed from everyday life that they feel threatened. Just look what happens if you mention experts around here. Many people don’t like the idea that people with certain professional expertise can do things or know things way beyond what they can do or know. It freaks them out.

It’s difficult to almost impossible for individuals to make new discoveries. It’s all about big groups with lots of funding and high tech gear and lots of time that make significant discoveries. Could any single person take images such as the JWT has taken or contribute to advances in quantum computing? I don’t think so which is why certain people feel distrustful of science.

As I said thats YOUR opinion. Nothing more.

No, that is just your opinion. Nothing more.
You not liking the arguments that clearly demonstrate the problem with your position does not magically make them just my opinion.
You not liking me calling you out on strawmanning doesn't magically make that just my opinion.

Again, if my arguments were just my opinion, rather than a clear demonstration of the problems with your claim, you would be able to demonstrate the problem with my argument, rather than continually deflect or dismiss it as "illogic"
It was just my opinion that you were strawmanning me, you would be able to provide quotes to clearly back up your false claims about me, rather than continually deflect and repeat the same false claims.

So no, it isn't just my opinion.

Science never proclaims it know everything, the opposite is true, unlike Jack Black, though how he imagines he knows thing with out the hard work and endeavour of all the past and present scientific experts is beyond me.

He gives the impression however that everything he knows has come through his own efforts! delusional or what?

Apparently he has devised a novel experiment to prove the world is  spherical, though he prefers to keep that one secret!

You sure do love repeating this pure BS don't you.
Again, where have I ever proclaimed to know everything?
Where have I ever indicated everything I know I have learnt myself without any help from others who have come before?
Where have I ever indicated I have devised a novel experiment to prove the world is spherical?

Again, these are just your pathetic strawmen where you need to blatantly lie about me because you have no chance of refuting what I have actually said.
You need to invent a pure fantasy for you to attack because of how absolutely pathetic your position is.
Grow up.
Start providing quotes for these BS claims of yours or stop making them.

You would think reading what he has to say he discovered bloody everything when in reality his contribution to world knowledge has been nil, nothing, zero.

No, you wouldn't think that at all.
If people just read your pure BS, then they might. But if they read what I said, they would think nothing of the like.
And you are still yet to substantiate your BS claim of my contribution to world knowledge being 0.
You know virtually nothing about me, but because I dare object to your BS, you lash out with all sorts of garbage, garbage which you have absolutely no justification for.

What I find really hilarious is how you praise and elevate scientists, until they call you out on your BS, at which you point you just attack them and lie about them.

This looking inwards  sounds rather woo based and open to extreme bias. It’s possibly what Jack Black uses.

No, I use the scientific method.
And that includes admitting when we don't know.
As opposed to you that seems to think if you/science don't know the answer, no one else possibly could and anyone who presents an answer must be wrong, with that answer being wrong.

Joking aside what you propose is I think very limiting and in reality is just going to deliver answers about how you feel about things as opposed to providing definitive and objective answers.

And the issue with this is that you will likely never get a definitive answer.
It remains to be seen just how science would ever be able to answer this question.
This question is about the non-physical world, while science deals with the physical.
Not having a definitive answer, not being able to prove their answer, does not mean their answer is wrong.

But their answer being wrong is exactly what you to pretend it means.

And that's the big issue here.
You go from not knowing what the answer is, to claiming everyone who has provided an answer is wrong and their answer is wrong.
But that requires you to know at least enough about what happens to be able to know their answer is wrong; while you admit you don't know.

Just look what happens if you mention experts around here.

The issue is how it is misused.
Often experts can be misrepresented, where someone claims they say something that they don't.
Just look at how Tom Bishop misuses experts to pretend that the solar system could never be stable as it is an n-body problem.

How do you respond to that?
Do you just accept these "experts" and conclude that the solar system couldn't possibly be a model of reality?
Or do you realise that they are misusing experts, and that the conclusion doesn't actually come from the experts?

Likewise, there are issues when you want to treat people like complete imbeciles who are entirely incapable of testing things for themselves and who must instead just accept whatever an expert says without thinking or questioning.

I don’t think so which is why certain people feel distrustful of science.

Are you sure people like you aren't to blame for that? Where you demand that people just accept whatever these "experts" say without thinking or questioning?
If I didn't that you were spouting pure BS, it would make me distrustful of the entire system.
No system based upon actual evidence and knowledge would require that.
That is what religious systems need, systems which are based upon nothing more than believing authority.
It probably also helps fuel other paranoid conspiracies with people thinking the government must be lying to everyone.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 23, 2022, 04:13:27 AM

As I said thats YOUR opinion. Nothing more.

No, that is just your opinion. Nothing more.
You not liking the arguments that clearly demonstrate the problem with your position does not magically make them just my opinion.
You not liking me calling you out on strawmanning doesn't magically make that just my opinion.

Again, if my arguments were just my opinion, rather than a clear demonstration of the problems with your claim, you would be able to demonstrate the problem with my argument, rather than continually deflect or dismiss it as "illogic"
It was just my opinion that you were strawmanning me, you would be able to provide quotes to clearly back up your false claims about me, rather than continually deflect and repeat the same false claims.

So no, it isn't just my opinion.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 23, 2022, 04:19:38 AM

Science never proclaims it know everything, the opposite is true, unlike Jack Black, though how he imagines he knows thing with out the hard work and endeavour of all the past and present scientific experts is beyond me.

He gives the impression however that everything he knows has come through his own efforts! delusional or what?

Apparently he has devised a novel experiment to prove the world is  spherical, though he prefers to keep that one secret!

You sure do love repeating this pure BS don't you.
Again, where have I ever proclaimed to know everything?
Where have I ever indicated everything I know I have learnt myself without any help from others who have come before?
Where have I ever indicated I have devised a novel experiment to prove the world is spherical?

Again, these are just your pathetic strawmen where you need to blatantly lie about me because you have no chance of refuting what I have actually said.
You need to invent a pure fantasy for you to attack because of how absolutely pathetic your position is.
Grow up.
Start providing quotes for these BS claims of yours or stop making them.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 23, 2022, 07:20:45 AM

You would think reading what he has to say he discovered bloody everything when in reality his contribution to world knowledge has been nil, nothing, zero.

No, you wouldn't think that at all.
If people just read your pure BS, then they might. But if they read what I said, they would think nothing of the like.
And you are still yet to substantiate your BS claim of my contribution to world knowledge being 0.
You know virtually nothing about me, but because I dare object to your BS, you lash out with all sorts of garbage, garbage which you have absolutely no justification for.

What I find really hilarious is how you praise and elevate scientists, until they call you out on your BS, at which you point you just attack them and lie about them.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 23, 2022, 07:03:00 AM

This looking inwards  sounds rather woo based and open to extreme bias. It’s possibly what Jack Black uses.

No, I use the scientific method.
And that includes admitting when we don't know.
As opposed to you that seems to think if you/science don't know the answer, no one else possibly could and anyone who presents an answer must be wrong, with that answer being wrong.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 23, 2022, 07:03:00 AM

Joking aside what you propose is I think very limiting and in reality is just going to deliver answers about how you feel about things as opposed to providing definitive and objective answers.

And the issue with this is that you will likely never get a definitive answer.
It remains to be seen just how science would ever be able to answer this question.
This question is about the non-physical world, while science deals with the physical.
Not having a definitive answer, not being able to prove their answer, does not mean their answer is wrong.

But their answer being wrong is exactly what you to pretend it means.

And that's the big issue here.
You go from not knowing what the answer is, to claiming everyone who has provided an answer is wrong and their answer is wrong.
But that requires you to know at least enough about what happens to be able to know their answer is wrong; while you admit you don't know.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 23, 2022, 07:03:00 AM

Just look what happens if you mention experts around here.

The issue is how it is misused.
Often experts can be misrepresented, where someone claims they say something that they don't.
Just look at how Tom Bishop misuses experts to pretend that the solar system could never be stable as it is an n-body problem.

How do you respond to that?
Do you just accept these "experts" and conclude that the solar system couldn't possibly be a model of reality?
Or do you realise that they are misusing experts, and that the conclusion doesn't actually come from the experts?

Likewise, there are issues when you want to treat people like complete imbeciles who are entirely incapable of testing things for themselves and who must instead just accept whatever an expert says without thinking or questioning.

Quote from: Timeisup on October 23, 2022, 07:03:00 AM

I don’t think so which is why certain people feel distrustful of science.

Are you sure people like you aren't to blame for that? Where you demand that people just accept whatever these "experts" say without thinking or questioning?
If I didn't that you were spouting pure BS, it would make me distrustful of the entire system.
No system based upon actual evidence and knowledge would require that.
That is what religious systems need, systems which are based upon nothing more than believing authority.
It probably also helps fuel other paranoid conspiracies with people thinking the government must be lying to everyone.

So tell us Jack what is your contribution to world knowledge I for one can’t wait to be dazzled!

Though I predict you’ll want to keep that a secret!

Where have I praised anyone or elevated them! That is 100% pure Jack Black bull shit!

“Likewise, there are issues when you want to treat people like complete imbeciles who are entirely incapable of testing things for themselves and who must instead just accept whatever an expert says without thinking or questioning”

Who treats people like imbeciles? Your the one who imagines they can test all sorts of things out for themselves! 

Ok Jack how about you testing the validity of the following explaining how you would do it.

The existence of the Higgs.

The existence of gravity waves

Is a proton really composed of quarks?

Is the universe really 13.8 bn years old? Can you confirm it?

Have you confirmed continental drift?

Have you confirmed the atomic  weights of all the elements?

Have you confirmed the orbits of all the planets and moons in our solar system?

Have you confirmed the composition of our atmosphere and isolated each of the gases?

Have you yourself confirmed the existence of Antarctica?

Have you yourself confirmed the existence of Mount Everest?

Have you yourself confirmed the internal structure  and workings of all the organs of the human body?

Have you yourself checked the chemical composition of all the drugs you take?

I could go on.

So tell me just what have  you checked and confirmed. It would be good to know.

I noticed you ignored the dice yet again.

Once more, a standard 6 sided dice is rolled with the result hidden.
5 people each say it is a different integer from 1 to 5, even though they have no way to know.
You come in and claim that because they don't know, they must be wrong, and thus the dice could not be on any digit from 1 to 5.
That is effectively you claiming it must be 6, even though you don't know, and thus by your own "reasoning" you must be wrong.

Care to address what is wrong with this yet?
Either what is logically wrong with it, or why it shouldn't apply?

So tell us Jack what is your contribution to world knowledge I for one can’t wait to be dazzled!

Why would I want to dox myself, just to prove myself to you?
You would likely dismiss it as a lie anyway, so what's the point?

How about you stop deflecting (now trying to shift the burden of proof), and start trying to justify your BS?

If you want to claim I have contributed nothing to science, the burden is on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it.

Where have I praised anyone or elevated them! That is 100% pure Jack Black bull shit!

How about in the thread where you chose to defend the claim that the only way anyone can determine the shape of Earth is by accepting what an expert says it is.
That sure sounds like elevating them.

Here is another example:

Our complete reliance on experts is totally fundamental to our lives. You wish to live without experts then go live a solitary life naked on a desert island with no tools other than what you can make for yourself.

Here is another:

Would you not rather learn from a proven expert rather than from someone who has no more than a notion combined with a uniformed opinion? Give me an informed proven expert every time rather some half baked idiot on Youtube.

Here you are implying that if they aren't an expert then they are some half baked idiot.
Again, praising experts as the source of all knowledge and acting like anyone who isn't an expert is a complete imbecile.

Who treats people like imbeciles?

You.
And then when you get called out on it you resort to the same old dishonest BS of appealing to some of the latest experiments, all so you can pretend normal people are completely incapable of figuring out anything themselves so all they can do is ask an expert.

This is even exemplified by your strawman of my position:

Your the one who imagines they can test all sorts of things out for themselves!

I have never suggested anyone is capable of testing everything out by themselves.
But you want to pretend that people cannot figure out anything themselves. The only thing can do is go and read what an expert had said.
And this is another example of you attacking regular people and elevating and praising experts.