Comments on: The Rampler #330 (6/30/09) 13.28

By: dale

dale — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:06:39 +0000

“walking the line between ‘interesting guy’ and uninformed wacko’…………….aint we all????? i dont agree with some of what frank says either, why let it bother you so much?

By: Brad G

Brad G — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:06:59 +0000

That’s the kind of circular response I was expecting. Firstly, I’m not offering a counter argument, I don’t consider your views worthy of debate, so I shan’t attempt to counter them.

Secondly, you’ve both made the logical fallacy of insisting that it’s somehow up to anyone to disprove you, which is false, it’s up to you to prove it.
You’ve both argued that your ideas are valid simply because I can’t disprove them, and I can’t measure them. You’re wrong, you disprove your own ideas by failing to provide evidence of them.

And the reason we (materialistic atheists, as you insist on calling us)insult you, because we find your views ridiculous, and we are forced to live in a world where they are given credence, however obscure, and however unproven.

As I’ve said, it’s not up to me to prove you wrong, it’s up to you to prove what you say, otherwise you’re deluded.

By: YannickJoker

YannickJoker — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:06:15 +0000

Well Phrank, I’m an atheist too but I’m not gonna complain about what other people think. Everyone should figure out what they believe for themselves and only then can we leave in harmony (lalala).

By: Neal

Neal — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:16:56 +0000

Hi Brad, I find the use of the word “uninformed” interesting.

Is there anybody in this world who has, for definite, been “informed” as to what the true nature of everything is? I don’t think so.

That’s why six billion of us spend our seventy-something years looking at clues and trying to figure it all out.

By: SnowDog

SnowDog — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:00:35 +0000

It’s not possible in any open system, to disprove any assertion. Therefore the burden of proof is on those who make the assertion. To assert that you have a sixth sense, requires proof on your part.

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:15:49 +0000

I find it interesting that anytime I criticize materialist atheism (and this show was very mild, compared to other “rants” I’ve had), the response I get from those who embrace materialist atheism almost inevitably involves “ad hominem” name calling as a response.

uninformed wacko

That is not a rational, intellectual response. It is the response you give when you don’t really have a counter-argument.

I believe there is a mystical nature of reality because I have “sixth sense” and I perceive it myself.

You cannot disprove this perception by measuring things on the material plane using material measurement devices.

This has nothing to do with religion. I am not into any religion. You can bash away at the straw man “Christianity” all you like, it doesn’t address larger spiritual and mystical issues.

By: Brad G

Brad G — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:57:48 +0000

You had me right up until the rant about what you call ‘materialist” atheism.
You said “isn’t it clear that there’s a hell of a lot more going on in this world, than we can see”.
Well, no Frank, it isn’t clear, because we can’t see it.

“Don’t you realise the mystical nature of reality”

No. I realise the ‘real’ nature of reality, and if it can’t be proven by empirical means, I’m not willing to give it the time of day.

Other than that I think you’re a pretty interesting guy, but you’re walking the line between ‘interesting guy’ and ‘uninformed wacko’.