Then why did you choose one of the others as your example, any of which would have been more intelligible?

Actually, looking back to the start of this thread, you did say you had 'compelling evidence', and that you didn't care what we think about it. So no. 2 would seem to be closest to your position, and no.1 would not match your position at all.

So logically, that means you should have no problems telling us, if you really are not going to care what we said or thought about it. But you gave angry responses to our suggestions that whatever evidence you thought you had, we doubted it could be valid. Which seems to indicate you DO care about what we think of your evidence. You keep contradicting yourself, like when you continually come back to debate us about how we don't understand that you aren't interested in debating us....

"You don't have any evidence". It is simply a statement of fact, which we have already noticed - you stated what you believe, but not what, if any, evidence you based that belief on, ie, you haven't provided any evidence, which is precisely why we make that observation in the first place. IOW your response is not a RATIONAL or LOGICAL response to our statement. It conveys no information whatsoever.

Tell me, what's wrong with this picture?

"I am not going to answer your question"

I said this precise thing in an earlier post. I said, "I am not going to answer ANY questions in regards to my supernatural beliefs....."

That's as plain as day.

Syllogistic reasoning is considered a false truth.

Beware of making linked assertions that seem reasonable but in fact are logically incorrect.... You can, of course, make such assertions deliberately, using logic that seems valid to persuade. If you do this, of course, you run the risk of the other person exposing your false logic.

This is what I'm arguing against.

I.E. The example of the spaghetti monster and the horse in the closet......

I.E. Occam's razor's principle....

I.E. Agnostic atheists demanding proof......

I.E. Declaring/implying that OR and science can legitimately disprove god and the after life.....

The definition of God and the afterlife varies. So which version did you use?

I.E. Proclaiming that you have the facts which prove "You don't have any evidence" ..... "I am not going to answer your question".

Then you turn around and  continue to debate this issue. I said both of these things earlier on and suggested that we switch topics. That would be the ONLY logical move had I felt the same way as you do. But, of course, this did not happen either.

you run the risk of the other person exposing your false logic.

That's all I'm calling out here. I'm NOT trying to convert anybody, prove the existence of an afterlife or requesting that you debunk my beliefs instead. I am simply pointing out an undetected ( apparently) subconscious  pattern of contradictions and inconsistencies that appear in your logic. I call this lacking common sense.

And she made it to trollville...

Continually posting and refusing to defend what you post is trolling.

Google "burden of proof. "

I have not done this. What I have done is put together arguments against your propositions. These are not contingent upon you attempting to prove your propositions. That is a seperate matter. However, since you refused point blank to read them, you cannot possibly claim that I have yet to bring such arguments to the table.

This is a very basic error which (beginner) students of mathematical logic make sometimes. Formal logic (which is a discipline of mathematics) is concerned only with the logical structure of the sentence, not the actual truth of the propositions. The purpose of formal structure is to ensure that the premises link correctly to the conclusion. It doesn't matter if the premises are true or not. That is the domain of empiricism and informal logic. A valid argument in formal structure is one where the conclusion is necessarily true if the premise is. The purpose of the formal syllogism is not to display the correct answer every time. It is to display the answer which necessarily follows from the premises. So, for a correct formal structure, we need only to show that the premises are true to show the conclusion is true . For a bivalent formal logic (like quantifier logic) the premises are considered to be discrete variables. They can take the values of 0 or 1 in any combination. Thus, for n premises, we have 2ⁿ possible sentences. "Syllogistic reasoning is considered a false truth" doesn't actually mean anything. A lot of students of mathematical logic at first make the mistake of thinking you can prove anything with syllogistic reasoning because you can construct valid arguments that deliver incorrect conclusions (or the reverse, because you can construct wrong premises and derliver the right conclusion). However, this is only because the inputs were incorrect in the first place. Formal structure is not concerned with the input values. There are only three types of sentences in formal structure. Those which are contingent, those which are contradictory, and those which are tautologies. The fact that we can deliver the right conclusion from the wrong premises is a reflection of that. The easiest way to demonstrate this principle is with a truth table:

This particular truth table is for a contradictory sentence. The main logical operator is always false. The truth of the sentence is given by the value for the main operator. For a contingent sentence, however, this is not the case (when I say "this" I mean that the main logical operator will not always be false. The truth value of a contingent sentence is still given by its main operator).

What you should note here is that A and B can take on a range of values. The particular combination is of no concern to logicians. What matters is only the output. 

A valid syllogism is perfectly reliable in terms of its ability to deliver conclusions which follow from their premises. That's the purpose of a syllogism. If the syllogism is valid, then you can be sure that the conclusion is true if the premises are. That is the only purpose of the syllogism. There are other combinations where the conclusion is true, but that doesn't matter. The formal structure is only concerned with the proper outputs resulting from the proper inputs. In other words, in attempting to demonstrate that your conclusion is necessarily correct (this word "necessarily" is extremely important in formal logic. For an invalid syllogism, there are combinations with correct conclusions, but the conclusion is not necessarily correct when the premises are) is to establish that your argument is valid. This is a relatively simple mathematical exercise. Once that is done, one needs only establish their premise are correct. That is the domain of informal logic and empiricism.

Then kindly do not claim that such arguments have not been brought to the table.

Insofar as "theoretical" refers to an explanation based on theory, which is a testable and experimentally verified description of reality, then there is every reason to suppose that a "theoretical explanation" could very well pose serious problems for particular beliefs. However, as I said, I employed a mix of a priori reasoning (which is not theoretical) and empirical reasoning (which is).

I've been following this thread for sometime and I a bit confused why so many seemingly intelligent people are even trying to have a meaningful debate with a person who starts a thread on a forum of RATIONAL thinkers about his belief in things that most sane people will consider irrational and then goes on to say he wasn't looking for a debate :S What the hell was he intending...I don't think he even knows? This guys starts of with saying I don't believe in santa claus but I believe in the toothfairy and then later goes on to say he saw the toothfairy but since reasoning is subjective his beliefs are valid :S He also talks about Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy..he either doesn't know what it is or isn't getting enough of it. I don't know if you guys are actually trying to save this guy from himself but really can't you see that he is a hopeless case and just give up. Continuing an argument with him is pointless since his logic processor is broken. He needs a psychaiatrist or a mental institution.

 {fixed aiia}

Working on it right now. Not sure if its Firefox.

edit:It looks like in my first attempt to fix it I put the unedited version and now the edit option is missing from that post. A moderator will probably have to check why I can't edit it.

Yeah I was thinking about that...got a good idea about you guys from reading these posts. I know what you mean by the "saving" passion but I rather try to save people with cuts and bruises rather than those who have a failing liver, heart and brain at the same time...but then I'm  lazy

Thanks dude I'll make an appointment right away.

Yep ....what's yours?

I think it rests in the fact that if you had legitimate proof then my evidence and my beliefs would've been the same as yours. This scientific evidence would've been in the history books.... Like, gravity. And, as a result, that's all I would've ever known. So until then ALL we both have are EXPLANATIONS.... and to each his own. I'm being realistic here and, apparently, you are not. You can't expect to take over the planet with nothing but syllogistic reasoning.... It didn't work for Christians and it's not going to work for you now. Common sense could've told you this.

Arj, call it a victory for yourself. Your evidence overwhelms me. You win. Have a great after life.

Breaking the Ice: A Message For All - 3 min

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7TI-OzhZts

Arj my friend, we atheists generally are doing those "thinking" things as we presented our reasons, of evidence and lack of evidence, and a lot of atheists even say they are agnostic atheists, as they await proof of such things as an afterlife spirit world, as it is not even been universially defined. That is open minded, where no faith or belief in such things has yet been established. Calling it antimatter isn't a satisfactory definition.

Realize that freethinking and being atheistic (rejecting theology as you) is not well tolerated socially, as we can't even much get elected to public office etc ... so yeah, there is indeed a shared frustration among most all atheists. We refuse claims without evidence that go against our best testable evidence. Yet science is open to hypothesizes.   

The "burden of proof" is seeking the truth over emotional wishes and cultural traditional up bringings. We are skeptics.

This thread was probably tossed into trollville because you basically refused actually debate, by not offering the way you analyze your perceived reality, by not offering any evidence or method to arriving at your claim of afterlife "knowledge" ... Had you simply called it a hunch or a feeling that would had been much better.

Heck I'm I am in 24/7 awe regarding the nature of consciousness on a atomic level, the will to survive on a cellular level and trying to understand the nature of time. Wow, the concepts of eternal and infinite are such brian twisters! WE are all condemned to this awe. Science is our passion to know what we honestly admit we don't know, where all claims demand evidence. Science is the first to admit what it doesn't know. Go science!

It's obvious that we care about you Arj,  with all the posts dedicated to you. Hey, that's caring atheist love for ya. Supernatural claims as being truth demand evidence ... that's all ... Simple.

Welcome to the educational RRS.

Virtually all science ... what's yours?

It wasn't suppose to be. I was using OR to prove how ineffective it is.

This is a goddamn lie. I provided MY evidence and everybody in here said it did not qualify as such...... funny, look how the tables have turned.... Now, you can see why it's pointless to debate an issue after this point....... I could've pointed out that there have been extensive paranormal investigations which can testify to my beliefs but I didn't use them on myself so I didn't see the point in bringing them up here. I was simply supplying MY evidence and I don't care if that's not good enough..... Like in the quote above it's been demonstrated that your evidence doesn't prove shit at all in this case.

Wow, you guys are still debating her. 

4 years old kids all trust each other, but when the world slams down on them over and over, they lose that natural, unwarranted trust and learn to evaluate objectively. If we trust everyone unconditionally, what can we believe in? What do we have to gain? What progress can we achieve?  

edit:

You are not analyzing your views. You refuse to because a belief in an afterlife is comfortable. 

I loved that video and now you've warped the meaning beyond recognition to fit your perverted perspective. Disgusting. 

What debate butterfield? 

Cross post for our friend Arj. Check out this thread, where you are noted.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15754#comment-206309

The theory of discussion on metaphysical topics [ Luminon, on paranormal ]

19 - IAGAY -  The amazing chemical mind. A real pure LSD trip is so very telling as to understanding our own minds. It makes you realize how our minds can really play tricks on us. On LSD I have gone deeply into the world of the paranormal. I will never forget those experiences 25 years ago, as they happened to me. One heck of a mind lesson.

Ever literally see music coming out of the speakers in vivid colors .... ever been in a cosmic windless hurricane as the trees bend to the ground as silent fireworks light the sky, watch a young man age to old and gray before your eyes, see your dancing friends body parts detach, hear a godly voice reverberating on 10, stretch your arm across the yard, bicycle down the street as in a tunnel where the curds are 15 feet above you , laugh as you realize you are completely retarded and helpless, see yourself from the ceiling, go flying thru space when you close your eyes, hang out in a cloud, spiral in and out of light and darkness ...... ????    WELL I have, and it was all as real as I sit here now calmly sipping a beer. That taught me a whole lot about the human brain.