nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Do people's parents still get thick about eating meat on Ash Wed/Good Friday?

whisky_galore

Well?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Hotblack Desiato

pone2012 wrote: »

You asked a question you got an answer...

There's a rather large difference between an answer and a logical answer.

jigglypuffstuff

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There's a rather large difference between an answer and a logical answer.

There's nothing illogical about the answer I gavw....

it was asked "why God made people gay"

I explained that it's a complex combination between both nature and nurture

Considering that, if we followed the line of argumentation HE/SHE put forward it would be equally valid to say people make people gay

I then explained that I don't think such an approach is valid at all as I don't think the variables involved from both sides are easily separated, rather id guess that it's an interplay between both sides ( genetics and environment)

Now would you care to tell me what's so illogical about what I said ?

housetypeb

pone2012 wrote: »

There's nothing illogical about the answer I gavw....

it was asked "why God made people gay"

I explained that it's a complex combination between both nature and nurture...

... ( genetics and environment)

Now would you care to tell me what's so illogical about what I said ?

You gave your opinion on the "how" rather than the "why".

nozzferrahhtoo

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

As a non practicing atheist I didn't eat any pancakes on Shrove Tuesday.

Dunno why but this reminded me of the time in the Q&A after a talk someone said to Christopher Hitchens "My friend styles himself as an allegorical pagan. He finds the least obnoxious religions he can, and then proceeds to fail to practice following them to the best of his ability" to which Hitchens merely replied "Ah yes, they used to called that Church of England".

Was funny at the time. Can't quite remember why

Probably Hitchens' delivery which tended to make things a lot funnier than they ever actually were.

splinter65 wrote: »

Who on earth would lie about their religion on a census form and why?

Probably a rhetorical question, so my apologies if I answer it anyway

I have a tendency to answer rhetorical questions literally

I am probably on the spectrum somewhere.

Well I think "lying" is probably not the right, or wrong, word. There is a whole science behind questionnaires in fact and what influences people to give answers that are not entirely accurate.

One example of this is "prompted answers". Such as giving check boxes for the most common answers. It is found that when you do this... answers that were on the decline in each subsequent census suddenly make a resurgence. For example.

Quite often too people filling in such a document will give the answers they believe the people asking WANT to hear. There is a whole methodology in some studies therefore in hiding the true agenda of a study to mediate for that effect. It likely has something to with, for example as it was mentioned on this thread, why people claim to speak Irish when they can really only say "Can I go to the toilet" and "I like cake" and "who owns this?". Which is about the only three things I remember how to say in Irish myself. You can reliably MAKE people "lie" in a document of this sort merely by contriving to ask the questions in the wrong way.

"Lying" imputes some willful goal to deceive and I do not think that is what is in play. But that people are not always filling out such things entirely honestly or accurately I do not think can be easily questioned. There is all kinds of psychology in play.

The balance that has to be sought when constructing a census...... or any study in things like epidemiology for example where the results are self reported........ is that between making it easy to understand and complete........... and getting the accurate information. And quite often a benefit to one side of that equation brings with it a detriment to the other. And there is a level of complexity there that I do not think is really fair to call merely "lying".

splinter65 wrote: »

You seem to be permanently upset that so many other humans do have a faith or belief. Why is that? Do you ever ask yourself why you don’t just get on with your own life and let other people get on with theirs?

I do. And I have an answer. The answer is, I am simply not let.

I would love to wake up tomorrow in a world where I NEVER have to deal with religion again. That people private faith is just that, private. And I am no more exposed to that particular hobby than I am to their tendency to masturbate.

But the reality is I am heavily interested in, and very active in some of, many things like politics, sexuality, education, science, medicine, artificial intelligence, reproductive autonomy, and much more. And in not some but ALL of these areas I am confronted on a daily basis not just by the religious, but by the religious espousing ENTIRELY religious views in those subjects.

So I am forced to deal with those views in the same way as if I walked into a forum where you were debating some point of interest and I presented you with a page of statistics against your view. You would want, I trust, to know that the statistics were valid, applicable, relevant, and how they were compiled.

Imagine instead I refused to do ANY of that. I refused to substantiate the statistics in ANY way at all. But I demanded that my faith or belief in those statistics not only be respected, but deemed relevant to the discourse at hand.

That is EXACTLY how my experience with religion is. People espousing entirely unsubstantiated views and refusing to engage in ANY level of validation of them. For all the faith you claim to have, I do not think you can argue with the notion that there is no reason to expect that you have ANY arguments.... evidence.... data.... or reasoning you can offer that validated the core of them (such as the possible idea you may hold that our universe was created by a non-human intelligent and intentional agent) in any way whatsoever.

It does not matter one jot whether you are in the 1Bill people who think you are right or the 5Bill who think you are wrong. At the end of the day the claims you espouse are either substantiated a lot, a bit, or not at all. And if you think the universe was created by an intentional agent who later gave birth to itself to manifest itself in human form..... then "not at all" would appear to be the category such a person lies in.

splinter65 wrote: »

For some strange reason the vast majority of our species believe that there is some higher power then ourselves.

I do not think it is strange at all. I think there is a very well thought out, and well substantiated, set of notions that explain it quite well. Although there is no good reason on offer for the beliefs, there are many good reasons on offer for people HAVING them. And I have written at some length about many of those reasons before. I can do so again on request.

splinter65 wrote: »

Once again, what makes you so infuriated with people of faith?

I can only speak for myself while suspecting I might be speaking for others too. But it is not really "people of faith" that gets me "out of shape". Rather it is living in a world where any level of time or respect or in fact anything but ridicule is afforded to entirely unsubstantiated notions and claims. Religious faith is only a member of that set, not the totality of it. And more and more in a "my truth your truth" and "fake news" world we are losing our grip on what should be our conversational intolerance to the unsubstantiated.

I am all for a world where people can and do believe whatever nonsense they want. But I am ALSO for a world where the moment such beliefs are espoused in a public forum, let alone a public forum of any actual import (such as our halls of power, education and science).......... the speaker pays an instant price in unconcealed laughter and the request to withdraw from the forum of discourse anything they refuse to substantiate or lend credence to.

The notion that our universe was created and/or is being maintained by a non-human intelligent and intentional agent is..... at this time.......... an unsubstantiated notion with no credence to it's name. Simple as.

nozzferrahhtoo

pone2012 wrote: »

Tell us more about your travels, trinity degrees and factual evidence to refute all religious claims please

I do not think one needs to "refute" what others have refused to substantiate however. Both in science and many of the approaches to the dialectic in philosophy have concepts of the onus of proof.

Not "all" but many religious claims are based on the core notion that a non-human intelligent and intentional agent exists and is responsible for the creation of the universe and/or life within it.

This core claim is at this time not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated by even a modicum of argument, evidence, data or reasoning. Least of all on this thread.

That is all the rebuttal many such claims require.

pone2012 wrote: »

I am enquiring as to why you bothered...other then what appears as a self ego stroke

Speaking for myself I "bother" because quite often I have no choice. But I also bother because I think the more people exercising rational "conversational intolerance" in our world the better. I can not change the world, but I can ensure I lend my voice to that discourse.

People should be challenged on fallacies and unsubstantiated notions. For example a claim you ran away from a thread on once that a magic trick many people (myself included) perform where we set fire to news paper seemingly just with the power of our mind.

We know this is a trick, we know how it is done. Yet you find a video of someone you personally are into doing that trick and then pretend that the onus is on us to prove he is doing the trick and is NOT actually using the power of his chi to do it.

No. That is a fallacy. The onus of evidence is on you, not the viewer, to show the trick was actual magical powers. And why we "bother" speaking out in threads such as this one is to highlight such fallacies and resist their application in any way we can.

pone2012 wrote: »

Dont answer the question about your hypocrisy or attempt to argue with an actual professors work.

The problem is when someone DOES argue with a professors work you get somewhat haughty and abandon the thread. For example you once posted a video of a scientist or two "studying" a guy claiming some paranormal ability or other.

I watched the video and the scientist did very little at all to "test" the claims. Mostly they watched and did nothing. Even in the first 2 minutes of the video I identified to you a NUMBER of things that should have been and could have been done by a scientist worth their salt.

You stormed off and did not return.

You can not have it both ways. You can not moan at people who refuse to engage with such "scientists" and then in another location moan when we DO do so.

jigglypuffstuff

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not think one needs to "refute" what others have refused to substantiate however. Both in science and many of the approaches to the dialectic in philosophy have concepts of the onus of proof.

Not "all" but many religious claims are based on the core notion that a non-human intelligent and intentional agent exists and is responsible for the creation of the universe and/or life within it.

This core claim is at this time not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated by even a modicum of argument, evidence, data or reasoning. Least of all on this thread.

That is all the rebuttal many such claims require.

Speaking for myself I "bother" because quite often I have no choice. But I also bother because I think the more people exercising rational "conversational intolerance" in our world the better. I can not change the world, but I can ensure I lend my voice to that discourse.

People should be challenged on fallacies and unsubstantiated notions. For example a claim you ran away from a thread on once that a magic trick many people (myself included) perform where we set fire to news paper seemingly just with the power of our mind.

We know this is a trick, we know how it is done. Yet you find a video of someone you personally are into doing that trick and then pretend that the onus is on us to prove he is doing the trick and is NOT actually using the power of his chi to do it.

No. That is a fallacy. The onus of evidence is on you, not the viewer, to show the trick was actual magical powers. And why we "bother" speaking out in threads such as this one is to highlight such fallacies and resist their application in any way we can.

The problem is when someone DOES argue with a professors work you get somewhat haughty and abandon the thread. For example you once posted a video of a scientist or two "studying" a guy claiming some paranormal ability or other.

I watched the video and the scientist did very little at all to "test" the claims. Mostly they watched and did nothing. Even in the first 2 minutes of the video I identified to you a NUMBER of things that should have been and could have been done by a scientist worth their salt.

You stormed off and did not return.

You can not have it both ways. You can not moan at people who refuse to engage with such "scientists" and then in another location moan when we DO do so.

To refute or prove anything you first need to understand it. Based on the vast amount of metaphors, analogies and whatnot littered throughout the Bible, I'd hazard a guess pretty much nobody understands it...let alone is in a position to prove or disprove anything. Assuming it's literal without actually knowing it is a false position to start from, because any conclusion is then an assumption.

The alchemy example is a perfect ones. We have an individual in the previous post attempting to understand exactly what was going on. Clearly not unsubstantiated nonsense by any means. The language and method of description used is highly different to what we use today...that does not make it nonsense. We need to understand something before we challenge it. But by all means, do go ahead

Regards the video...I never ran away. What I told you was it is documented video of a person performing seemingly paranormal feats in front of scientists. I then ended discourse with you because of my view that your constant complaining about religious institutions and how they tell people what to believe is ironic given you engage with organisations who do the the exact same thing.

I have checked into the backstory of said character, and find no reason as to what trickery might be at play. Hes a famous healer in Indonesia, never charges anyone for it. He took a few western students who have all written extensively on him and his abilities. He has been plagued with people visiting his personal home address ever since that video (which was 30 years ago). And most importantly, that video was never supposed to be aired as it was again..a misunderstanding in language ( scientifically document as opposed to documentary)

So in short I'm happy to say I don't know what's at play there , but what I can say is I don't see any motive for trickery. Nothing anybody has ever documented about that individual would suggest so. By all means do start to read up on the guy and see if you can find one . Please, I am all ears

It is you who claimed otherwise so then it is you who needs to back up your claims. I'm sure you understand that. You will notice I remain mysterious to the phenomena because I admit to not understanding it . But for your claim of "magic trick" , you'll need to go seek out Mr Chang and run all your tests to substantiate that. Again it's you who made a claim...not me

Considering your often demonstrated ability to claim bu****** on everything but rarely, if ever actually empirically follow up on it (don't worry, I remember your bread experiment) I assume you won't be doing that, but someday you might surprise me.

In any event..let's not derail too far. Actually I was not asking about why anyone bothered to discuss such topics . No, I asked why he bothered to mention he had two degrees and claim he was an" expert" as it was wholly irrelevant and at best a self ego stroke

Care to explain for the poster?? I don't see you doing this.. otherwise I'd ask why you did

nozzferrahhtoo

pone2012 wrote: »

To refute or prove anything you first need to understand it. Based on the vast amount of metaphors, analogies and whatnot littered throughout the Bible, I'd hazard a guess pretty much nobody understands it...

Sure which is why I did not move to discuss the contents of the Bible. Instead I exampled a very clear and easy to understand concept. The concept that the universe was created and/or is being maintained by a non-human intelligent and intentional agent. There is simply no evidence of any kind, least of all on this thread, on offer for such a concept. Yet it is the core concept behind a MULTITUDE of religious claims. So if you want to refute those religious claims, you just have to point out their core premise is itself unsubstantiated nonsense.

Your point was about refuting "all" religious claims remember. And I am just showing that not all, but a hell of a lot of them, can be similarly refuted based on the unsubstantiated nonsense they are premised upon. Nothing more is required. That is how the burden of proof works.

I see little to "refute" in the bible outside the wanton unsubstantiated supernatural claims. Without those the Bible is essentially a text of moral philosophy by means of parables. Moral opinion basically. Nothing to refute there. But those are not religious claims, but claims being made in the context of religion. Two very different things.

pone2012 wrote: »

Regards the video...I never ran away. What I told you was it is documented video of a person performing seemingly paranormal feats in front of scientists.

Yet the thread sits there begging to differ as you simply abandoned it. But I do not want to bring the content of that thread into this one. You can return to it any time you want to substantiate your idea that some guy has magic chi powers.

The point being made by reference to it is that you seem to want it both ways. You complain when someone does not engage with the work of a scientist, yet you abandon the conversation when someone DOES do so. So to quite the eminent philosopher Bart Simpson (see I can quote scripture too) "Dammed if you do, Dammed if you don't" really.

But the fact remains that you seem to put stock in someone simply BEING A scientist without any evaluation of the methodologies they do (or in the case of your chosen video do not) employ. There is not just one but MANY tests such scientists can (and often do) perform in such scenarios and your "scientist" of choice simply did not deign to do them. Nor are they complex tests. They should be tests as natural to a decent scientists as merely breathing is to you.

And rather than admit that you are instead shifting to reverse-ad-hominem where I am now expected to character assassinate the guy. Once again you have misunderstood ENTIRELY the concept of burden of proof. Whether or not there is any motivation found for the guy to be tricking you/them......... the fact is A) there is no evidence he has powers and

there was no robust scientific testing of his claims performed.

And to return to the point I was making about why we bother........ the reason is to highlight and resist the fallacies in our discourse that you so roundly demonstrate here. We NEED that level of conversational intolerance in our society where when someone fragrantly applies fallacious thinking and claims as you have.... that we stand up and say "hang on a minute...." and explain the fallacy. That is why we bother.

jigglypuffstuff

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sure which is why I did not move to discuss the contents of the Bible. Instead I exampled a very clear and easy to understand concept. The concept that the universe was created and/or is being maintained by a non-human intelligent and intentional agent. There is simply no evidence of any kind, least of all on this thread, on offer for such a concept. Yet it is the core concept behind a MULTITUDE of religious claims. So if you want to refute those religious claims, you just have to point out their core premise is itself unsubstantiated nonsense.

Your point was about refuting "all" religious claims remember. And I am just showing that not all, but a hell of a lot of them, can be similarly refuted based on the unsubstantiated nonsense they are premised upon. Nothing more is required. That is how the burden of proof works.

I see little to "refute" in the bible outside the wanton unsubstantiated supernatural claims. Without those the Bible is essentially a text of moral philosophy by means of parables. Moral opinion basically. Nothing to refute there. But those are not religious claims, but claims being made in the context of religion. Two very different things.

Yet the thread sits there begging to differ as you simply abandoned it. But I do not want to bring the content of that thread into this one. You can return to it any time you want to substantiate your idea that some guy has magic chi powers.

The point being made by reference to it is that you seem to want it both ways. You complain when someone does not engage with the work of a scientist, yet you abandon the conversation when someone DOES do so. So to quite the eminent philosopher Bart Simpson (see I can quote scripture too) "Dammed if you do, Dammed if you don't" really.

But the fact remains that you seem to put stock in someone simply BEING A scientist without any evaluation of the methodologies they do (or in the case of your chosen video do not) employ. There is not just one but MANY tests such scientists can (and often do) perform in such scenarios and your "scientist" of choice simply did not deign to do them. Nor are they complex tests. They should be tests as natural to a decent scientists as merely breathing is to you.

And rather than admit that you are instead shifting to reverse-ad-hominem where I am now expected to character assassinate the guy. Once again you have misunderstood ENTIRELY the concept of burden of proof. Whether or not there is any motivation found for the guy to be tricking you/them......... the fact is A) there is no evidence he has powers and there was no robust scientific testing of his claims performed.

And to return to the point I was making about why we bother........ the reason is to highlight and resist the fallacies in our discourse that you so roundly demonstrate here. We NEED that level of conversational intolerance in our society where when someone fragrantly applies fallacious thinking and claims as you have.... that we stand up and say "hang on a minute...." and explain the fallacy. That is why we bother.

Well considering that have seen pretty much all humans from all sectors have a "creation story" I'll ask you the following

Can you prove they did or did not have any contact with anything "other worldly" at the time when these stories were formed?? Can you prove they are fabricated?

Also, can you prove that perception has or has not changed over time? We know we can only see and explore a tiny fraction of the universes. Was it always this way? Or have things changed

I'll Keep from commenting on the above as I haven't a notion, and I'll gladly say that ..now let's see you pretend that you do.

Again you'll notice i never made any claims...I tend not to present myself as someone who "knows" unlike yourself...it was you who made the claims that both that gentleman is a fraud and those scientists are incompetent. It's their claims of unusual phenomena were talking about. I just stated I cannot find a motive for fraudulent activity...and I invite you to try

So I ask you now substantiate your claims. But you won't. You won't investigate the man, you won't contact the scientists in question. To quote another famous philosopher Mr Conor McGregor " You'll do nothing". But that's absolutely typical of a skeptic anyway so I'm not surprised

And I am not asking you to character assassinate anyone. Because I'm sure pigs will fly before you attempt to pursue an inquiry into that man. And your assumption (you love those) that you have the capability and capacity too is indicative of the fact you've already written this off in your head.

Interesting approach for a man who claims to be about understanding mysteries of the universe isn't it? . Of all the pi** poor qualities in investigation...it's that type of thinking that narrows our knowledge base further. To write something off you must first investigate it....so to your claim I say....put up or shut up

Now seeing as your observation skills are lacking , based on the fact you twisted my question....I will ask A THIRD time

Why did the person feel the need to flaunt his degrees and claim expertise? Besides an ego stroke

jigglypuffstuff

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sure which is why I did not move to discuss the contents of the Bible. Instead I exampled a very clear and easy to understand concept. The concept that the universe was created and/or is being maintained by a non-human intelligent and intentional agent. There is simply no evidence of any kind, least of all on this thread, on offer for such a concept. Yet it is the core concept behind a MULTITUDE of religious claims. So if you want to refute those religious claims, you just have to point out their core premise is itself unsubstantiated nonsense.

Your point was about refuting "all" religious claims remember. And I am just showing that not all, but a hell of a lot of them, can be similarly refuted based on the unsubstantiated nonsense they are premised upon. Nothing more is required. That is how the burden of proof works.

I see little to "refute" in the bible outside the wanton unsubstantiated supernatural claims. Without those the Bible is essentially a text of moral philosophy by means of parables. Moral opinion basically. Nothing to refute there. But those are not religious claims, but claims being made in the context of religion. Two very different things.

Yet the thread sits there begging to differ as you simply abandoned it. But I do not want to bring the content of that thread into this one. You can return to it any time you want to substantiate your idea that some guy has magic chi powers.

The point being made by reference to it is that you seem to want it both ways. You complain when someone does not engage with the work of a scientist, yet you abandon the conversation when someone DOES do so. So to quite the eminent philosopher Bart Simpson (see I can quote scripture too) "Dammed if you do, Dammed if you don't" really.

But the fact remains that you seem to put stock in someone simply BEING A scientist without any evaluation of the methodologies they do (or in the case of your chosen video do not) employ. There is not just one but MANY tests such scientists can (and often do) perform in such scenarios and your "scientist" of choice simply did not deign to do them. Nor are they complex tests. They should be tests as natural to a decent scientists as merely breathing is to you.

And rather than admit that you are instead shifting to reverse-ad-hominem where I am now expected to character assassinate the guy. Once again you have misunderstood ENTIRELY the concept of burden of proof. Whether or not there is any motivation found for the guy to be tricking you/them......... the fact is A) there is no evidence he has powers and there was no robust scientific testing of his claims performed.

And to return to the point I was making about why we bother........ the reason is to highlight and resist the fallacies in our discourse that you so roundly demonstrate here. We NEED that level of conversational intolerance in our society where when someone fragrantly applies fallacious thinking and claims as you have.... that we stand up and say "hang on a minute...." and explain the fallacy. That is why we bother.

nozzferrahhtoo

pone2012 wrote: »

Well considering that have seen pretty much all humans from all sectors have a "creation story" I'll ask you the following Can you prove they did or did not have any contact with anything "other worldly" at the time when these stories were formed?? Can you prove they are fabricated?

AGAIN you are making the EXACT same error that you make with the Chi Videos. Which is exactly why I risked derailing the thread by mentioning those videos. You take something and then pretend that the onus is on someone else to prove it false. Even when the thing itself is not substantiated in any way.

This is the fallacious misunderstanding of the burden of proof I am referring to since the start of this conversation. It is like I draw a chalk outline of a dead body and you happily come down and lie in it for me.

SO I go back to the first sentence I wrote to you. "I do not think one needs to "refute" what others have refused to substantiate however.".

There is absolutely no reason to believe any of the creation myths I have heard. And people espousing those myths do so without any substantiation. There is nothing there TO refute or prove fabricated therefore. It is just unsubstantiated claims. Nothing more. Nothing less. And the onus of evidence is ENTIRELY on them.

Be it a creation myth or videos of some guy waving his hands at news paper that subsequently goes on fire......... there is no onus whatsoever on me to prove magic was not in play. All I have to do is point out A) there is nothing substantiating any idea there was and

we know how many of these "magic" things are done generally.

And as for my claims that the scientists in your video were incompetent, that I HAVE substantiated by pointing out the very simply things they simply did not bother to do. Things so simple and fundamental and basic that they either are incompetent (as I suspect) or they are "in on it" as part of the act. Because no one who presumes to call themselves a scientist should have FAILED to do those very simple things I already listed.

So the "put up or shut up" still lies on your side, not over here where you pretend.

pone2012 wrote: »

Now seeing as your observation skills are lacking , based on the fact you twisted my question....I will ask A THIRD time

I did no such thing. That you do not like or understand an answer to your question does not mean I did not offer one. However the question is better asked of yourself. Because the one more impressed by someone having credentials (which are irrelevant) rather than what they actually DO..... is you. You are the one with the fetish for credentials generally. You need to ask yourself why that is. Why are you more impressed by "These things were done in front of a scientist" than you are by the fact he did not appear to DO any science at the time??? Because that is a question genuinely worth answering and the only one "twisting" things therefore is you.

jigglypuffstuff

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

AGAIN you are making the EXACT same error that you make with the Chi Videos. Which is exactly why I risked derailing the thread by mentioning those videos. You take something and then pretend that the onus is on someone else to prove it false. Even when the thing itself is not substantiated in any way.

This is the fallacious misunderstanding of the burden of proof I am referring to since the start of this conversation. It is like I draw a chalk outline of a dead body and you happily come down and lie in it for me.

SO I go back to the first sentence I wrote to you. "I do not think one needs to "refute" what others have refused to substantiate however.".

There is absolutely no reason to believe any of the creation myths I have heard. And people espousing those myths do so without any substantiation. There is nothing there TO refute or prove fabricated therefore. It is just unsubstantiated claims. Nothing more. Nothing less. And the onus of evidence is ENTIRELY on them.

Be it a creation myth or videos of some guy waving his hands at news paper that subsequently goes on fire......... there is no onus whatsoever on me to prove magic was not in play. All I have to do is point out A) there is nothing substantiating any idea there was and we know how many of these "magic" things are done generally.

And as for my claims that the scientists in your video were incompetent, that I HAVE substantiated by pointing out the very simply things they simply did not bother to do. Things so simple and fundamental and basic that they either are incompetent (as I suspect) or they are "in on it" as part of the act. Because no one who presumes to call themselves a scientist should have FAILED to do those very simple things I already listed.

So the "put up or shut up" still lies on your side, not over here where you pretend.

I did no such thing. That you do not like or understand an answer to your question does not mean I did not offer one. However the question is better asked of yourself. Because the one more impressed by someone having credentials (which are irrelevant) rather than what they actually DO..... is you. You are the one with the fetish for credentials generally. You need to ask yourself why that is. Why are you more impressed by "These things were done in front of a scientist" than you are by the fact he did not appear to DO any science at the time??? Because that is a question genuinely worth answering and the only one "twisting" things therefore is you.

There's no error whatsoever there

hypothetically if perception was different or "visits" were made and said stories were documented as proof in texts then you have claims substantiated for the time period they actually happened documented the only way these people knew how....you just weren't around to witness it... Moreover, it doesn't fit in with your current understanding of reality anyway so it's easily written off as nonsense in your eyes. Or would you like to argue that as well

are you suggesting that might not be the case?

you appear to have your two feet firmly planted....There's a vast amount of existing ancient literature left by all civilizations... For one you probably don't even understand it and two have decided to write it off.

But in order to claim anything as unsubstantiated you need to understand it . Also since you cannot do that because the language codes used are often beyond comprehension...you are left to either have no comment or attempt to refute or back it to prove your position ( hint you do neither)... THAT is why they call it faith and not scientific fact

The biggest problem here is the idea of repeatability... because if these events did happen and they are not repeatable... automatically they fall out of the narrow barriers you cling to. You understand that right?

Now regards Mr Chang...the evidence is there....and many people are satisfied they cannot explain it . You seem to think you can....you've been asked to follow that line of enquiry. You fail to

He has nothing to prove to anyone because he's already done so to anyone who has encountered him. Whether you like that or not is irrelevant...your skepticism does not match up to countless individual's experiences and testimonials (including countless skeptics) . I hate to break that to you . Unless of course you can find motive for fraud which I'm still waiting for you to do

The fact that you are not satisfied means it's up to you . I'm happy to say I don't understand it and everyone else is happy that the individual in question has some unusual things going on. If you think you know better...by all means prove that.

After all, you are the one who is claiming that you can perform the same thing he did..so go side by side with him check him and he'll check you...and when you're both satisfied nothing external is at play...you can demonstrate. I hazard a guess you'll fail miserably

pilly

Quickly unfollow thread/

nozzferrahhtoo

pone2012 wrote: »

There's no error whatsoever there

None, except the one I pointed out which does not go away merely by being ignored. The simple fact is that creation stories are just that, stories. And unless there is substantiation offered for them, which no one is doing least of all you, then stories they will remain.

And the error you are making is in acting like that onus of evidence is the opposite of what it actually is. There is NO onus on ANYONE to prove the negative of unsubstantiated fairy stories. None. At. All.

As a lay person to science and philosophy perhaps this stuff is new to you, there is nothing wrong with that any more than there is anything wrong with my complete ignorance of huge swaths of law for example where I am a lay man, but where the burden of proof actually lies is pretty much 101 stuff in both subjects. So rather than ignore it, perhaps take some of it on board from those educated in those arenas.

The rest of your post is then just excuse making. Oh its all not repeatable. Oh I will just pretend you do not understand the language you actually do. Oh if it happened we were not there to witness it. Oh I just want to pretend your "barriers" are all so "narrow".

Excuse after excuse after excuse none of which changes A) The fact the stories are still unsubstantiated in any way and

The onus of proof does not lie with the people who notice this fact.

And the problem with things like "Mr Chang" that you are ignoring is there is nothing there TO explain. It is a video of a man doing a trick many of us not only know how it is done, but can and often do do it ourselves. Simple as. If you want to presume there is more going on in such a video than that then again.... the onus of evidence lies with you not me. I see nothing in a video of a piece of paper catching fire that requires explaining. You seem to think there is. But you can not say why.

"Many people are satisfied" tells me nothing. Your argumentum ad populum fallacy is just that, fallacy. Firstly I do not think all that many people ARE convinced. But even if they were, so what? Many people are convinced of a flat earth. Many people are convinced aliens abduct are citizens in order to probe their anus. That many people are "satisfied" they know something is true is unremarkable par for the course white noise.

Argument ad populum, ad hominam, reverse ad hominem, appeals to authority.......... you really do like to play fallacy bingo and never present any actual evidence alas. But evidence that some dude somewhere has "Chi" magic.... is just not forthcoming... least of all from you.

Huntergonzo

My parents are habitual catholics so they still generally eat fish on a friday but our upbringing wasn't particularly religious and whether or not their children abstained from meat on a friday wasn't much of a priority.

Now personally I despise the catholic church....but on the other hand, battered cod, chips, mushy peas, tartar sauce and a squeeze of lemon juice is surely one of the greatest meal's (or just one of the greatest things full stop) on earth......so I'm quite happy to be a good 'catholic' every friday :-)

nozzferrahhtoo

Yeah in our house Friday was literally FRY day when it came to dinner. The Fried equivalent of a mixed grill. Rashers. Eggs. Sausages. Liver usually beef I think. Chicken meant. A variety of dead animals on a plate. "Good" Friday was just another Friday for us and then, as I continue now in my own family, the meal did not change with the catholic calendar. It stayed Fry Day.

So I can safely assume it never bothered my parents either.

branie2

Huntergonzo wrote: »

My parents are habitual catholics so they still generally eat fish on a friday but our upbringing wasn't particularly religious and whether or not their children abstained from meat on a friday wasn't much of a priority.

Now personally I despise the catholic church....but on the other hand, battered cod, chips, mushy peas, tartar sauce and a squeeze of lemon juice is surely one of the greatest meal's (or just one of the greatest things full stop) on earth......so I'm quite happy to be a good 'catholic' every friday :-)

You despise the church for the horrendous actions of a minority of priests?

JupiterKid

I wouldn't imagine many people in Ireland under the age of 55 would still follow that archaic religious diktat. Growing up my family observed the no meat Ash Wed/Good Friday but this was dropped at some stage in the 90s. Coincided with me effectively leaving the church and my dad not going to Mass every Sunday (though he still went most Sundays).

I think up until Vatican 2 Catholics could only eat fish on a Friday. I heard that's how McDonald's introduced the Filet O Fish burger in 1966 - to cater to its RC clientele. Another useless bit of trivia!

nozzferrahhtoo

branie2 wrote: »

You despise the church for the horrendous actions of a minority of priests?

That seems a bit random? The user did not indicate any reasons at all? Why did you pick that one? And what "actions" in particular do you mean?

Hotblack Desiato

JupiterKid wrote: »

I think up until Vatican 2 Catholics could only eat fish on a Friday. I heard that's how McDonald's introduced the Filet O Fish burger in 1966 - to cater to its RC clientele. Another useless bit of trivia!

Late 70s when McDonalds were just getting started here, they had an ad specifically made for the Irish market, showing us poor savages their newfangled products. Burgers! Milk shakes (whatever they are!) Fries! etc. Then one of the actors says something like "You can even get fish on a Friday" and cut to a priest sitting at a table tucking into a Filet-O-Fish.

Doesn't seem to be on Youtube unfortunately.

Hotblack Desiato

branie2 wrote: »

You despise the church for the horrendous actions of a minority of priests?

Speaking personally, no not that, but rather for the bishops who moved known abusers to hush up 'scandal' and enable them to find fresh victims, the despicable coverup by the hierarchy going from bishops right to the top, and the RCC's continued denial of responsibility and evasion of financial restitution.

Huntergonzo

branie2 wrote: »

You despise the church for the horrendous actions of a minority of priests?

Well that and their whole mythical creation story, not a big fan of that nonsense.

jigglypuffstuff

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

None, except the one I pointed out which does not go away merely by being ignored. The simple fact is that creation stories are just that, stories. And unless there is substantiation offered for them, which no one is doing least of all you, then stories they will remain.

And the error you are making is in acting like that onus of evidence is the opposite of what it actually is. There is NO onus on ANYONE to prove the negative of unsubstantiated fairy stories. None. At. All.

As a lay person to science and philosophy perhaps this stuff is new to you, there is nothing wrong with that any more than there is anything wrong with my complete ignorance of huge swaths of law for example where I am a lay man, but where the burden of proof actually lies is pretty much 101 stuff in both subjects. So rather than ignore it, perhaps take some of it on board from those educated in those arenas.

The rest of your post is then just excuse making. Oh its all not repeatable. Oh I will just pretend you do not understand the language you actually do. Oh if it happened we were not there to witness it. Oh I just want to pretend your "barriers" are all so "narrow".

Excuse after excuse after excuse none of which changes A) The fact the stories are still unsubstantiated in any way and The onus of proof does not lie with the people who notice this fact.

And the problem with things like "Mr Chang" that you are ignoring is there is nothing there TO explain. It is a video of a man doing a trick many of us not only know how it is done, but can and often do do it ourselves. Simple as. If you want to presume there is more going on in such a video than that then again.... the onus of evidence lies with you not me. I see nothing in a video of a piece of paper catching fire that requires explaining. You seem to think there is. But you can not say why.

"Many people are satisfied" tells me nothing. Your argumentum ad populum fallacy is just that, fallacy. Firstly I do not think all that many people ARE convinced. But even if they were, so what? Many people are convinced of a flat earth. Many people are convinced aliens abduct are citizens in order to probe their anus. That many people are "satisfied" they know something is true is unremarkable par for the course white noise.

Argument ad populum, ad hominam, reverse ad hominem, appeals to authority.......... you really do like to play fallacy bingo and never present any actual evidence alas. But evidence that some dude somewhere has "Chi" magic.... is just not forthcoming... least of all from you.

I'll try to make it very simple for you, because you have fabricated the idea that I claim a position.. which is a false misrepresentation

Let us consider # as the video in question, my words as A and your words as B

Both individuals observe #

A : I do not understand this...and I lack a belief that there is currently any scientific explanation for what this specific individual did in this video at this time witnessed by these people. I invite you to investigate this to turn my opinion, but until you do I'll remain lacking a belief, but NOT rejecting that science can explain it (after all, one of his engineer students did make an attempt to )

B : I can replicate this, and it is a fake magic trick I cannot prove there was any external factors at play, but I will use them and assume he did also. I cannot prove that, but that isn't important anyway. I also don't feel the need to investigate. I can do science better than the scientists did, but I won't.

Now for the people who met said individual, they also lack same belief. I don't see anyone rejecting or claiming anything except you. The man himself claims something... you'll have to take that up with him (which I keep asking you to) but you won't.

Again we apply the same logic to all creation stories. You label them fairy stories due to a CURRENT absence of evidence. But your inability to be present at the time if their conception and inability to prove OR disprove any of possibilities I mentioned makes your opinion practically and theoretically useless. I'm still here saying I lack a belief these are merely fabricated events...you however claim they are

Also having identified repeatability limitation already... we can deduce that if any of these events did occur as once off anomalies in space and time, we'd have no way to know except if it was written down or documented. Whether we can understand or deduce what said documents could possibly mean is for another thread

So I'm pretty sure the burden of proof lies with the person who makes a claim, which as illustrated above is not me. Given that you made a claim, whereas I did not..it's on you. Im still sitting here saying I don't know. You however are not.

Now if you want to tell me you're not claiming anything perhaps you should revise the use of the words fairy stories, magic and the other terms you use as an attempt to ridicule others beliefs...

nozzferrahhtoo

pone2012 wrote: »

I'll try to make it very simple for you, because you have fabricated the idea that I claim a position.. which is a false misrepresentation

I have fabricated nothing, you have as your summary of my position is not even remotely what I have said. You made it all up.

But as I said I have no interest in bring the debate from that thread into this one. You can return to the thread you ran away from any time you want, I am there for you.

The point of referencing it here was not to derail the thread, but to example your lack of understanding of where the burden of proof lies. Both there AND here with your narrative about falsifying creation stories.

When someone fails to substantiate their claims, about chi fires, creation myths, religious claims.......... there is nothing TO falsify. Noting TO rebut. Nothing TO do. Yet you are acting like there is. And that is the error I am attempting to highlight here.

pone2012 wrote: »

Again we apply the same logic to all creation stories. You label them fairy stories due to a CURRENT absence of evidence. But your inability to be present at the time if their conception and inability to prove OR disprove any of possibilities I mentioned makes your opinion practically and theoretically useless.

Again that is simply not how it works. That is just petty excuse making. Oh we were not there. Oh we have no access to events. Oh the workings of science might have been different at a different time. Oh it is not repeatable.

All just excuses painting over one very clear and simple fact: There is simply no substantiation for ANY claims that such stories are true or accurate. It really is that simple, and you have not refuted that position in any way.

So the burden of proof, once again so I can make it simple for you, is with the people claiming any truth in such stories. No where else does it lie. Simple as. And as long as a belief being espoused is being espoused without ANY substantiation, then I reserve the right to ridicule.

Chrongen

pone2012 wrote: »

I'll try to make it very simple for you, because you have fabricated the idea that I claim a position.. which is a false misrepresentation

Let us consider # as the video in question, my words as A and your words as B

Both individuals observe #

A : I do not understand this...and I lack a belief that there is currently any scientific explanation for what this specific individual did in this video at this time witnessed by these people. I invite you to investigate this to turn my opinion, but until you do I'll remain lacking a belief, but NOT rejecting that science can explain it (after all, one of his engineer students did make an attempt to )

B : I can replicate this, and it is a fake magic trick I cannot prove there was any external factors at play, but I will use them and assume he did also. I cannot prove that, but that isn't important anyway. I also don't feel the need to investigate. I can do science better than the scientists did, but I won't.

Now for the people who met said individual, they also lack same belief. I don't see anyone rejecting or claiming anything except you. The man himself claims something... you'll have to take that up with him (which I keep asking you to) but you won't.

Again we apply the same logic to all creation stories. You label them fairy stories due to a CURRENT absence of evidence. But your inability to be present at the time if their conception and inability to prove OR disprove any of possibilities I mentioned makes your opinion practically and theoretically useless. I'm still here saying I lack a belief these are merely fabricated events...you however claim they are

Also having identified repeatability limitation already... we can deduce that if any of these events did occur as once off anomalies in space and time, we'd have no way to know except if it was written down or documented. Whether we can understand or deduce what said documents could possibly mean is for another thread

So I'm pretty sure the burden of proof lies with the person who makes a claim, which as illustrated above is not me. Given that you made a claim, whereas I did not..it's on you. Im still sitting here saying I don't know. You however are not.

Now if you want to tell me you're not claiming anything perhaps you should revise the use of the words fairy stories, magic and the other terms you use as an attempt to ridicule others beliefs...

You're pitifully out of your league.

According to you anything that can't be disproved must be true and that right there is cretinous.

jigglypuffstuff

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have fabricated nothing, you have as your summary of my position is not even remotely what I have said. You made it all up.

But as I said I have no interest in bring the debate from that thread into this one. You can return to the thread you ran away from any time you want, I am there for you.

The point of referencing it here was not to derail the thread, but to example your lack of understanding of where the burden of proof lies. Both there AND here with your narrative about falsifying creation stories.

When someone fails to substantiate their claims, about chi fires, creation myths, religious claims.......... there is nothing TO falsify. Noting TO rebut. Nothing TO do. Yet you are acting like there is. And that is the error I am attempting to highlight here.

Again that is simply not how it works. That is just petty excuse making. Oh we were not there. Oh we have no access to events. Oh the workings of science might have been different at a different time. Oh it is not repeatable.

All just excuses painting over one very clear and simple fact: There is simply no substantiation for ANY claims that such stories are true or accurate. It really is that simple, and you have not refuted that position in any way.

So the burden of proof, once again so I can make it simple for you, is with the people claiming any truth in such stories. No where else does it lie. Simple as. And as long as a belief being espoused is being espoused without ANY substantiation, then I reserve the right to ridicule.

Actually no...you cannot even for one second claim that any of those stories are unsubstantiated....you can sit there and tell me that narrow limited materialistic reductionist lens you view the world through can find no current evidence in its paradigm to confirm these stories yes. I never once denied that...as much as you like to think I have. But I've already pointed out why such claims are not exactly compatible with the scientific method

Let me reiterate

I can tell you that you have

no access to data,
nothing to observe,
no knowledge of whether or not these events occurred.
No knowledge of whether or not perception changed.
No knowledge of whether or not there was any "visitors" at any stage in history
no knowledge of whether or not you even understand fully the use of language both in its use and in its context.
No way to repeat any of this

In short, you have absolutely nothing. But you cannot tell me with proof that those who are responsible for these documents didn't. You may tell me current people who espouse that these documents are factual do not...but that statement does not hold temporally and you of all people should know that

The people who believe these things base them on the accounts detailed in said documents. At the very least if they are wrong they had something to base their opinion on however potentially anecdotal they MIGHT be.

You have precisely zero except a plethora of cognitive biases and an ongoing religious vendetta . You have absolutely nothing for all your claims of fairy stories and whatnot. And let me be clear...YOU DID CLAIM these as fairy stories. I DID NOT CLAIM anything

You have conjecture just as those people who you ridicule, yet how are you yourself any better? ... because you ridicule them, yet present an even greater empty , non factual argument.. which is a near professional display of hypocrisy, and in my brief interactions with you I've found myself using that word more than once

Regards Mr Chang... any time he's been asked to substantiate to the best of my knowledge he has... including in front of scientists. You of course are not satisfied..so I invite you to challenge him on his claims...I HAVE NOT claimed anything except stated I cannot explain it. YOU HAVE CLAIMED it is fake magic and you say you can prove it . In order for you claim to hold weight... you'll need to do I stated. Not your pathetic little party trick

But alas, you'll do the same thing youve always done. Throw walls of text around and scream that people are making excuses when in fact ...as I've pointed out your entire position is bases on one big excuse, that itself is a result of limitations of the paradigm you desperately cling too.

jigglypuffstuff

Chrongen wrote: »

You're pitifully out of your league.

According to you anything that can't be disproved must be true and that right there is cretinous.

The "expert" has returned.

How was your holiday? Did Trinity fund your travels?

Sorry to have to criticise your reading, observation and interpretation skills...but point out exactly where I said anything was true? I think you'll find that that is something you fabricated

Chrongen

pone2012 wrote: »

The "expert" has returned.

How was your holiday? Did Trinity fund your travels?

Sorry to have to criticise your reading, observation and interpretation skills...but point out exactly where I said anything was true? I think you'll find that that is something you fabricated

At this point all you have is waffle.
Focussing deeper and deeper on the minutiae of the verbiage rather than addressing the core flaw in your position.

You can't substantiate anything in your stories/beliefs yet try to shift the onus on others to prove you wrong.

If this was a valid argument then defence lawyers would have the easiest job in the world.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client didn't rob and kill the victim. It was in fact done by a ghost. If you can't disprove that then my client walks as there is reasonable doubt regarding his involvement."

jigglypuffstuff

Chrongen wrote: »

You can't substantiate anything in your stories/beliefs yet try to shift the onus on others to prove you wrong.

I guess the "expert" really does need reading, observation and interpretation lesson's

I'll put this in capitals not because of aggression or anything of the sort...only because you are missing something

WHERE EXACTLY ARE MY STORIES/BELIEFS MENTIONED?

Now after that sinks in, you might revise the previous posts and realise Ive not espoused anything regards my beliefs.

I simply interjected because you appear to think you're in some position to ridicule somebody when your position is little more than an hypocrisy doused, non factual, non evidence based opinion based on precisely nothing...and you think you're in a position to ridicule someone's belief based on your biased interpretation of a document you may not even know how to interpret correctly

What's more you felt justified to call someone arrogant in a post that was littered throughout with nothing but arrogance and peppered with narcissism.. which I asked you to explain and you didn't

nozzferrahhtoo

pone2012 wrote: »

Actually no...you cannot even for one second claim that any of those stories are unsubstantiated....

Amazing that you can tell me I can not do something I just actually did. Look I will do it again for you: Those stories are unsubstantiated.

pone2012 wrote: »

you can sit there and tell me that narrow limited materialistic reductionist lens you view the world through can find no current evidence

No current evidence or, to put it another way, "unsubstantiated". Great, yes that is indeed what I do say.

But YOU are inventing the limitations. Not me. I never indicated any limitations, so the ones you are discussing are of yoour own invention not mine. Read slowly and carefully what I DO say about such claims. Take my discussion of the claim there is a god for example.......

"No one has provided any arguments, evidence, data OR reasoning to substantiate the claim our universe was created by a non-human intelligent or intentional agent."

................ where you will find NO WORDS AT ALL that demand a "limited lens" of any sort. It is actually a very wide open, inclusive sentence that does NONE of the things you pretend it does.

pone2012 wrote: »

I can tell you that you have

no access to data,
nothing to observe,
no knowledge of whether or not these events occurred.
No knowledge of whether or not perception changed.
No knowledge of whether or not there was any "visitors" at any stage in history
no knowledge of whether or not you even understand fully the use of language both in its use and in its context.
No way to repeat any of this

So basiscally you opened your post with a claim I could not say the stories are unsubstantiated, yet here you are giving a list that basically AGREES with me that the stories are unsubstantiated. There is no data on offer to me. You are offering nothing we can observe. You have no knowledge about the events, perceptions, visitations or language around the events, and no way to repeat any of it.

So basically...... the claims are unsubstantiated. And you just explained exactly that. Well done you. In short, you have absolutely nothing.

pone2012 wrote: »

But you cannot tell me with proof that those who are responsible for these documents didn't.

Well the moment I DO tell you that, you can pull me up on it. But since I never said any such thing I suspect you just included it as filler to beef out an otherwise empty and substantiation devoid post. In fact if you bothered to read my posts at all, rather than simply quoting them entirely for no reason (not back seat modding here, but just a friendly heads up so please take it in the spirit intended..... but doing that really annoys a lot of people including those using the Touch version of this site) you will find I used SEVERAL times the phrase "at this time". Go check if you do not believe me.

In other words when I say the claims are unsubstantiated I mean NOW. Because I can only consider and work with the data set that exists NOW. If you want to imagine people in the past MIGHT have had substantiated in the past..... then have at it. Imagination is a wonderful thing. But it will not be addressing, rebutting, or even replying to anything I have actually thus far said.

And yes stories of magic that are not in any way substantiated at this time can validly be called "Fairy stories" and Fiction. There is no more (or less) reason to take stories about the magical works of a Bronze Aged Carpenter seriously than there is to take the X-Men seriously. They are both enjoyable (and sometimes morally informative) fictions with no current substantiation upon which to consider the events real. After all what evidence could YOU ever offer to show that the Bourne Identity books are not real? I warrant zero. But that is not where the onus of evidence lies so no one here would be dumb enough to ACTUALLY ask you to do so.

pone2012 wrote: »

Regards Mr Chang... any time he's been asked to substantiate to the best of my knowledge he has... including in front of scientists. You of course are not satisfied..

And once again you say "in front of scientists" as if this is in any way useful, relevant, informative or a provision of credence. Your reliance on the argument from authority fallacy is palpable and damaging to your credibility.

The fact they are a scientist could not be less relevant. What WOULD be relevant is what science they actually performed. You for the most part A) Do not even know, you just know they were meant to be scientists and

Do not even know what science they SHOULD have performed.

Having made myself appear to set news paper alight with merely the power of my mind, I know EXACTLY what scientific test should be done on such a fraud. The first is a simple swab of the paper and the hands of the man both before AND after the event. And then the swabs should be tested for chemical traces.

And what you might not know as a lay person to science is that PREDICTION is a huge thing in science. So what such a scientist should do is not merely test the swabs. He should predict BEFORE he does so what he expects to find. And what he should expect to find are any one of a small list of chemical agents. And when he finds those chemicals as predicted on the first swabs, he will then predict what chemicals will turn up on the second swab.

THAT is science. Very simple science. And science that your "scientists" were to incompetent to perform. But of course using the kind of narrative you have used on the thread so far you would probably (very unscientifically I might add) come out with something like "Well just because the chemicals YOU use to do the trick were present when HE made it happen, that does not mean HE was using those chemicals too and was not in fact using the power of his mind which you can not refute or disprove!!!!".

pone2012 wrote: »

you'll do the same thing youve always done. Throw walls of text around and scream that people are making excuses

Well now you are getting both desperate and petty given the length of your posts are very much comparable to my own. Pure hypocrisy on your part here. Probably why you feel the need to use that word so often (as you yourself observed). Mere projection really.

Chrongen

pone2012 wrote: »

I guess the "expert" really does need reading, observation and interpretation lesson's

I'll put this in capitals not because of aggression or anything of the sort...only because you are missing something

WHERE EXACTLY ARE MY STORIES/BELIEFS MENTIONED?

Now after that sinks in, you might revise the previous posts and realise Ive not espoused anything regards my beliefs.

I simply interjected because you appear to think you're in some position to ridicule somebody when your position is little more than an hypocrisy doused, non factual, non evidence based opinion based on precisely nothing...and you think you're in a position to ridicule someone's belief based on your biased interpretation of a document you may not even know how to interpret correctly

What's more you felt justified to call someone arrogant in a post that was littered throughout with nothing but arrogance and peppered with narcissism.. which I asked you to explain and you didn't

Let's see if you can bring up "expert" for a fourth time in your retorts.

The Trinity thing must also be another arrow in your erstwhile rather flimsy quiver.

You can't give even the slightest evidence to back up your stories, None. Not a shred, No more so than I could give about a dragon living under the compost heap. Yet you insist on others having consideration for your fantastic dreams.