Winners and Losers

Claiming victory huh RAZ? You've still got a sense of humour at least I see. If you feel that you keep being misrepresented maybe you should try maintaning a consistent and unambiguous position?Having failed to mention non-empirical evidence in an entire thread about the evidential differences between atheists and deists, another entire thread about the evidential difference between the IPU and other similar concepts and a then a currently ongoing 300+ post thread about the nature of evidence you suddenly raise non-empirical evidence as the bedrock of your position. Maybe I am alone in finding this evasive?In the latest thread you even went so far as unequivocally state that you did not consider non-empirical experiences to be valid forms of evidence. Before later stating that in fact you do. maybe I am alone in finding this inconsistent? Again you misunderstand. I don't care what you think as such. You can personally believe whatever you damn well please. I do however care whether you are actually right or not with regard to what the rational position is regarding belief. I am not attempting to change your mind. I am trying to definitively establish whether or not your arguments provide a rational basis on which I should change my own position. Are gods actually evidenced? You say yes. I say no. This inevitably leads me to attack your opposing position but you really shouldn's take it so personally.Anyway now that we have got to the heart of your real position on the evidential basis for belief in gods it is "Game On" as far as I am concerned. So let's get to it!! If you actually think that you can defend this position then do so. I don't think you can but I genuinely want to find out. Let's find out?EvC Forum: Is My Hypothesis Valid???

Hi Straggler, no I am not claiming victory ...Nor am I obsessed with "winning or losing" the way you seem to be: you are the only one who has claimed victory several times now, all for naught. You started this thread after all, and you have also gloated over brow-beating another member into silence, so it seems you have an abnormal need to prove yourself to be right. Except that I can't defend a position that is not mine. Go do you homework, read the posts, search the posts, and see if you can find any inkling that what you think my position is can actually be found in my posts.Please stop thinking that your fantasy is reality - instead of relying on your faulty subjective memory of what has been posted, look at the empirical evidence.All I want to see is an admission from you that you did indeed misrepresent my position. The evidence for this is pretty clear, and pretty indicative of your consistently dishonest approach to my position:This is my message before your latest (pathetic) claim of victory (Message 326):

quote:

---

Other concepts where there currently is no empirical evidence, and no evidence of validity other than the experience by a conscious and aware individual, may be indicative of reality, or they may just be a mockup shell of a concept.

​

As long as we both agree that no form of non-empirical evidence is valid ...

​

For verifying concepts, however we can also agree that non-empirical evidence can form a logical basis for further investigation.

​

Given that we totally agree about the need for evidence to be empirical it seems that we can logically have no argument regarding this point.

​

Given that we totally agree about the need for validation to be empirical it seems that we can logically have no argument regarding this point.

---

Clearly talking about the evidence of an experience by a conscious and aware individual.Here is your (rather pathetic) attempt to shoehorn this into your perception of my position (Message 327):

quote:

---

Straggler writes:

​

As long as we both agree that no form of non-empirical evidence is valid ...

​

For verifying concepts, however we can also agree that non-empirical evidence can form a logical basis for further investigation

​

Finally. At long long last the true nature of your flawed position is revealed. How many times have I told you that you are seeking to include non-empirical evidence by means of conflation and ambiguity and how many times have you twisted and contorted you argument in order to evade conceding this fact?

---

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that you agreed that using the specific kind of singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual to form a basis for further investigation was a valid approach (Message 304): So we see that you have previously concurred with precisely the argument that you have characterized as a "flawed position" that tries to "include non-empirical evidence by means of conflation and ambiguity" ... you then go on to use "conflation and ambiguity" to try to connect this position with another argument that is not related to the issue (Message 327):

quote:

---

Straggler writes:

​

Now imagine that this witness is a blind, deaf, quadriplegic with no sense of touch from the neck down and who also has no sense smell or taste.

​

RAZD writes:

​

If it helps the situation any (and I come to despair of every enlightening you on what my argument entails) I will concede that anything that occurs wholly within the mind - such as dreams or the experiences of your bewilderingly bizarre example of a person incapable of sensation - I will concede that these kind of "experiences" do not constitute evidence of any kind of interest to me. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

​

I would think that should have been clear by now, but obviously this false impression is causing a sever lack of communication of ideas and meaning, so let's eliminate it from the discussion pro and con eh?

​

So non-empirical evidence that cannot be experienced by an empirically challenged insensate witness is in fact a feature of RAZD's argument. Are we now clear of RAZD's position? Enlightened?

---

Except that the evidence in question was the experienced by a conscious and aware individual previously agreed to and not your ridiculous insensate construct or dreams ... and then, not content with that twisted logic, you go on to post a silly blatant fabrication of my position using a rather pathetic quote-mine misrepresentation, typical of creatortionistas.

quote:

---

Rather than be tempted to make any derogatory comments that RAZD will no doubt respond to as a means of evading confronting the flaws and contradictions in his position I will leave it to others who have witnessed our 3 thread (and counting) battle on the nature of evidence to judge for themselves whether his position is rational and consistent or not. But I must say that I am experiencing the really rather warm (and very non-empirical) glow of vindication at the moment.

​

RAZD on non-empirical experiences writes:

​

I will concede that these kind of "experiences" do not constitute evidence of any kind of interest to me. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

​

So now you are implying (falsely) that my position on dreams applies to ALL unconfirmed subjective experiences of conscious and aware individuals -- this is the extent to which you are willing to lie about my position? Here's the real RAZD position:

​

Message 102

As I've said many a time, you misunderstand my argument. I am not interested in dreams and unconscious experiences, I am interested in experiences that occur while conscious and aware.

​

RAZD Concedes (does this even the score?)
If it helps the situation any (and I come to despair of every enlightening you on what my argument entails) I will concede that anything that occurs wholly within the mind - such as dreams or the experiences of your bewilderingly bizarre example of a person incapable of sensation - I will concede that these kind of "experiences" do not constitute evidence of any kind of interest to me. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

​

There you have the full context of my statement. With empHAsis and the link to the post added for absolute clarity.

​

You are caught in a lie. Shame on you. Sad really.

---

So do we see a mea culpa from you, or are you so blinded by your obsession that you cannot see the error in your representation?Do you really fail to see that there is absolutely no connection between my argument on the validity of using a singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual, as a basis for further investigation -- as you have previously agreed with -- and your fatuous and puerile idee fix regarding what you THINK is my position? Are you that blind to reality? I've done better - I've shown that you have in fact misrepresented my position and (shocking I know) backed it up with the evidence. Something you have yet to do.If what you claim is so, then you should be able to document it. Making such claims off-hand is just an easy way to avoid the fact that you have yet to substantiate either (a) a single argument of mine that compares to your representations of it OR (b) a change in position on my part.I note that I have also provided evidence that also shows I have been consistent for at least 4 years, and that this is documented in my posts.Man-up Straggler: you made a mistake, you posted a falsehood. It's documented in blue and white. Own up.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : /Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Dude you have taken this way too personally.If you believe in deities on faith then good luck to you and all who sail in you. I don't, and have never at any point, disputed anyones right to believe in whatever they want for whatever personal reasons they want. My understanding is that faith is independent to evidence. No? Any argument I have put forward has been to attack the validity of believing in deities (or any other non-empirical entity for that matter) on the basis of evidence. Not anyones faith in such things. You would seem to provide a unique take on this by claiming both to have faith in deities whilst also claiming that, by happy co-incidence, there are rational positive evidence based reasons to believe in the validity of some god concepts over others. It is this "evidence" I attack. Not your faith. This really isn't the place for this.... You seem to have currently taken over the mantle of fanatic in this relationship....... But as one fanatic to another I will say that I have never at any point accepted any evidence that is not empirical as valid evidence. Singualr isolated and "subjective" or otherwise.As for the rest of your post.... Well it seems a little hyperbolic and desperate to me. But others can judge that for themselves. I have posted my summation to the topic in question, including the passages you cite below, here Message 344(How do I provide a link that shows forum, topic and message title? - The syntax seems to have changed while I was away?)If you are willing to definitively state what you do and do not include as evidence for the existence of gods by providing explicit and unambiguous examples of such experiences (No not your own if you don't want to, I am sure the internet is full of adequate examples) and by unequivocally stating whether or not the evidence in question is empirical or not........ Then I would be more than happy to carry on our little discussion. I have no doubt at all that the notion of non-empirical evidence is demonstrably flawed. Perhaps we could do this in a great debate topic where we don't have to bother anyone else with our silliness.But if you don't want to that is fine........ I can close my eyes and consciously experience all manner of things. Personally I think your definition of evidence needs a little work but if you are happy with it then that's fine too. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well Straggler, it looks like your intellectual dishonesty will continue. You have lied about me Straggler, several hundred times, and you don't seem to have the intellectual fortitude to either fess up that you were wrong, or even to look at the evidence to see that you are wrong. Which will continue to be a red herring to the general discussion of what classes of valid evidence exist for forming hypothesis.It will continue to be a dodge for you to avoid the issues, specifically your false claims about my position.There is a small number of people on this forum that I generally do not respond to, because it is pointless to do so. I can count them on the fingers of one hand. You are number four.Congratulations -- looks like you win the weinie prize.You get this prize for lying about my position and failing to exhibit an iota of intellectual honesty to even attempt to validate your position when challenged to do so, and provided a simple method that should take no more than 1/2 hour MAX of reading.I predict that this behavior of yours will continue, and not just with me.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : iEdited by RAZD, : still accept?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Message 147Message 150I accept. I am genuinely honoured.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

My impression of this topics intent is such as those messages at the very beginning of the topic.Feel free to link back to this topic.Adminnemooseus

That's a nice honest answer. I feel the same way myself. Sometimes just being honest about things is a victory in itself.I've gotten myself involved in some debates here where I feel/look silly to the point where I feel inadaquate to even comment anymore.Some people take adavantage of that precieved "weakness" to admit things and they pounce all over it. It kind of reveals in them what the losing debater feels but instead of being honest themselves they take advantage of it to make themselves look good.I can't worry about how people will respond to my admissions even tho some might take advantage.Anyway, it's refreshing to see this comment.

RAZD, is this true? Who is/was Holmes btw? Is he still around?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Well, I wouldn't say that Stragg, you don't have to look that far back at all Subjective experience? It's fair to say you "probably" lost a couple debates along the way?So it would look like what, this? Yes, beacon of hope for all to come to if they have a question or problem that needs fixing. Stragg, how DO you look at things now?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Hi Chuck77, Yes. I was arguing that morals could be developed from logic alone. A friend I met on this forum. Last time I saw him was a while ago, but he was lurking at the time and may be lurking yet.Enjoy.

Holmes hasn't posted since 2008. He's currently going by the ID Silent H.MooseAdded by edit: The What the H - Holmes is back! topic (started 11/14/07).Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.

I miss Holmes--he stretched and challenged my perspective as only a few have.In some ways, Straggler reminds me of Holmes: to paraphrase Gracie Slick, never argue with either of them when you're tired. I'd donate $50 to Holmes' favorite charity to learn that he is alive and well enough to say so.

Wow, quite the thread. Thanks for sharing, it was fun to read.

Reading through this I'd like to ask another question. Is this a debating forum or is it a forum to express ideas, learn from being forced to argue our position and learn from what others respond? Personally I think it's the latter which is a good thing because I don't figure I'm much of a debater, and so I only pick subjects in which I know I'm right.It does occur to me from Straggler's OP that he views this to be about the debate which got me thinking. I think that Straggler really enjoys a good debate, and so he takes an absolutely untenable position such as atheism and then defends it in order to sharpen up his debating skills. Our friend Straggler has been outed. He is in actuality the fundiest of the fundamentalist Christians on this forum.These Brits are so clever. Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Sure, who doesn't? I disagree GDR. I think Straggler is representing himself exactly the way he believes. The problem is, he refuses to accept someone elses position if it refutes his (impossible) position.For a good summation of this read Holmes' comment here to Crashfrog Message 47From Holmes: Welcome to the club Stragg