Thread: Religion
View Single Post
Old November 12th, 2013, 07:26 PM  
Join Date: June 16, 2012
Location: Not here. Later :-)
Gender: Male
Default Re: Religion

Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.
I never used the word "proof", this is your invention. But in short I don't believe it is lost on anyone (accept perhaps other materialists) reading our discussion how pitiful the atheist is in clinging to so-called "fallacies" in the hopes of avoiding what's clearly obvious (gee, aren't those random chemicals floating around so magnificently intelligent to organize such complex and personal interaction, WOW!). I'll just let what we have said here stand on its own. You demonstrated the ridiculousness quite well.

Everyone, read our entire discussion, objectively decide for yourselves.
darthearth is offline   Reply With Quote