Thread: Religion
View Single Post
Old November 12th, 2013, 05:55 PM  
Globalist Shill
Vlerchan's Forum Picture
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 21
Gender: Cisgender Male
Default Re: Religion

Originally Posted by darthearth View Post
One thing I don't see any justification for is calling these possibilities irrational. They are perfectly reasonable possibilities if one is not laden with preconceived materialism bias.
It's a possibility, I'll admit to that. But it's certainly not a likely or even reasonable one. Your argument suffers some rather major faults, such as:

It's based on Anecdotal Evidence (AE): It's built up entirely on anecdotal - i.e., word-of-mouth - evidence. You can't pass off anecdotal evidence as proof. You especially can't pass it off as proof when only 30% of individuals who 'died' actually reported any sort of Life Review - from basic to complex - when surveyed.

It involves Special Pleading: The most glaring example of this concerns ones inability to retain memories without a functioning brain. Your explanation - "[...]allow the memory of it either to be implanted in the physical brain or allow the spirit to access the information from some other storage area outside of the brain." - is simply unfounded - and has no rational or logical basis at that - given the dearth of evidence supporting the claim that it's possible for a brain to retain - or access - memories that it was not alive to experience. It'd be like dying, and still functioning as an active member of society.

Another Appeal to Ignorance: I'll admit that any argument concerning the unknown is going to suffer from this fallacy to some degree. However, your argument seems to be entirely based on the fact that since we don't have an explanation - only theories - that all theories are equally reasonable - see: the Balance Fallacy for an expansion on what I mean here.

I'm not laden with 'materialism bias', I'm simply analysing your argument from a rational - and, I'd add, decidedly sceptical - perspective. In short: it simply doesn't add up, like most theories concerning spirituality and the occult.

Originally Posted by Coprocephalus View Post
God does not bring harm? Who destroyed the Sodom and Gomorrah? Im pretty sure it was god who destroyed those cities and also...
Originally Posted by comicgeeknerd101 View Post
I am doubtful of the stories of Adam and Eve, and Noah`s Ark, but I think if you believe a part of the bible, you have to believe it all.
Most of the Old Testament - particularly Genesis and Exodus - are metaphorical and entirely open to interpretation. It'd be wrong to take the stories at face value.

".... the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth, and truth be defamed as lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world - and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end - is being destroyed ... [H.A.]"

Last edited by Vlerchan; November 12th, 2013 at 06:36 PM. Reason: Fixed some of the bad spelling and grammar.
Vlerchan is offline   Reply With Quote