Just one comment:

You keep quoting me as saying that reincarnation is consistent with skepticism (with a lower-case "s").

What I said was that reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism (with an upper-case "s", because I'm referring to the metaphysics that I propose).

That's a misquote--a common troll-tactic.

But, as i already said, I emphasize that Skepticism is skepticism, as I showed earlier, from the dictionary definitions, so the misquote isn't so inaccurate.

But it's still a misquote. Your consistent use of the misquote-tactic shows your troll-intent.

Michael Ossipoff

It seems to me that the reality of reincarnation, as well as anything else, would be consistent with skepticism. Belief in anything at all, though, would not seem to be consistent with skepticism.

The only one who's been misquoting is you. So, you are the common troll

And you, yourself, said your definition of skepticism went along with the official first one of going against assumptions, so I quoted and addressed you perfectly.

Now, you're moving away from that and are trying to attach your "metaphysics" to the already established and defined word Skepticism that would not allow reincarnation.

So, you're being an irrational troll.

Ps. You said we were done. So I guess you lied, too

There is no more reality of reincarnation as there is reality of God or Satan. So, no, the supernatural concept reincarnation is not compatible with skepticism.

Quite so. Though a belief in, or assumption of, reincarnation would be inconsistent with skepticism, reincarnation, itself, isn't ruled-out by skepticism.

(And, here, I'm using "skepticism" with a lower-case "s", the common noun)

I've discussed, at the reincarnation topic, how reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism, the metaphysics that I propose.

Thanatos thinks that there's something lacking or incorrect in what I said in that discussion, but he can't quite say what it is.

So he's huffing, puffing, hissing, and making other angry-noises.

Michael Ossipoff

I've made very clear what is lacking and incorrect about what you said about reincarnation being inconsistent with skepticism. You just run away like a scared child every time and fail to show how it is not...as you do above.

And the only one making angry noises--out of many orifices-- has clearly been you...:)

Ps... you make your loudest, most ridiculous noise when you crazily scream that you can add your own "metaphysics" to a pre-existing word.

the already established and defined word Skepticism that would not allow reincarnation. — Thanatos Sand

You're confusing separate statements. Yes, a belief in, or an assumption of, reincarnation would be contrary to skepticism.

But no, you haven't shown that reincarnation, itself, is ruled out by skepticism.

("skepticism", with a lower-case "s", the common-noun)

There is no more reality of reincarnation as there is reality of God or Satan.

Thanatos is making assertions, unsupported ones, of course. But that's typical for Thanatos.
— Thanatos Sand

So, no, the supernatural concept reincarnation

Translation of "supernatural": Not part of Physicalism.

No doubt you have your beliefs about what's "natural". I'll just guess that, for you, "nature" means "the physical world", and reality consists of the physical world.

...is not compatible with skepticism.

As I said, a belief in, or assumption of, reincarnation would be un-skeptical. ...as would any unproved belief or assumption.

But you haven't shown that skepticism rules out the possibility of reincarnation itself.

(...and that's what it would mean to say that they're incompatible)

Michael Ossipoff

the already established and defined word Skepticism that would not allow reincarnation.
— Thanatos Sand

You're confusing separate statements. Yes, a belief in, or an assumption of, reincarnation would be contrary to skepticism.

But no, you haven't shown that reincarnation, itself, is ruled out by skepticism.

("skepticism", with a lower-case "s", the common-noun)

I never said that reincarnation was ruled out by skepticism, again you misquote me like a troll. I showed the definitions of the word skepticism and how they are incompatible with reincarnation. You, however still have failed to show how reincarnation is consistent with skepticism, as you erroneously claim. It's gotten comical.

There is no more reality of reincarnation as there is reality of God or Satan.

Thanatos is making assertions, unsupported ones, of course. But that's typical for Thanatos.]

No, I was telling a reality intelligent people have already figured out. Of course, you haven't. But that's typical for Ossipoff-his-rocker. Since there is as little evidence of reincarnation as there is existence of God and Satan, my statement was true. You're just slow on grasping that.

— Thanatos Sand
So, no, the supernatural concept reincarnation

Translation of "supernatural": Not part of Physicalism.

No doubt you have your beliefs about what's "natural". I'll just guess that, for you, "nature" means "the physical world", and reality consists of the physical world.

LOL, more like no doubt you have no idea what "natural" or "supernatural" means. You have well shown words are difficult for you.

...is not compatible with skepticism.

As I said, a belief in, or assumption of, reincarnation would be un-skeptical. ...as would any unproved belief or assumption.

But you haven't shown that skepticism rules out the possibility of reincarnation itself.

So, you agree reincarnation is not consistent with skepticism. Good. And skepticism isn't about ruling things out. Again, your struggle with words is astonishing.

if you were a skeptic you would not make such an assertion. The skeptic proper contends that we cannot know anything at all. We have no knowledge, all we have are beliefs. And since beliefs, in the absence of any actual knowledge, are supported only by other beliefs, the skeptic says we have no warrant even for thinkig one possibility is more likely than another. so all imaginable states of affiras are equally compatible, and all beliefs equally incompatible. with pyrrhonian skepticism.

if you were a skeptic you would not make such an assertion. The skeptic proper contends that we cannot know anything at all.

I am a skeptic and you are clearly not. Since that is not what the skeptic proper contends at all. I think you mean the Socratic.

And since beliefs, in the absence of any actual knowledge, are supported only by other beliefs, the skeptic says we have no warrant even for thinkig one possibility is more likely than another so all imaginable states of affiras are equally compatible, and all beliefs equally incompatible. with pyrrhonian skepticism.

No, the skeptic does not say that at all, and you haven't given any evidence that that's what real skeptics think.

Go and do some study; I'm not here to educate you. :-}

The only one who needs study and education--and lots of it--is clearly you...:)

So, get on it.

You're either a troll or a fuckwit, dude, and I'm not at all skeptical about that.

No, clearly the only troll or fuckwit, is you. And you've well proven that.

And you said skeptics believe you can know nothing, so you just contradicted yourself, no matter how wrong you are...:)

No, clearly the only troll or fuckwit, is you. And you've well proven that. — Thanatos Sand

I bet you say that to all the boys and girls! And no, I haven't contradicted myself since I never said I was a skeptic. Apparently in your trollish excitement or state of fuckwitted confusion you forgot to read carefully! >:O

Of course you contradicted yourself since you used "skeptic" in a manner completely countering the erroneous definition you gave. So, in your trollish excitement and fuckwit confusion, you've just humiliated yourself...:)

Really? Please indicate where I did that by qoting what I said and explaing exactly how it contradicts something else I said.

The skeptic proper contends that we cannot know anything at all.

So, as you said in your ridiculously inaccurate definition, "the skeptic proper contends that we cannot know anything at all.

You're either a troll or a fuckwit, dude, and I'm not at all skeptical about that.

But in the quote above, you clearly indicate a skeptic would know it is doubtful that I am a "troll" or a fuckwit. So, while the smart skeptic would doubt that, you embarrassingly contradicted yourself.

It is I think self-evident that we are not merely material beings. This is because of many reasons but mostly do to the fact that we actually have analytic proofs for the soul. for example: There are things that are true of me but are not true of my brain and body. So "I" am not identical with my body and thus I must be non-material substance called the soul.

Well I am not so sure that it is self-evident what is meant by "material beings". It seems clear that we share a very close affiliation with our material aspect. I think all life differs from inert material, yet all life evolves out of material. I think that life, spirituality and "soul" must be possible states of matter. States which can become actual, a kind of panpsychism. Not as a theory of universal consciousness attributable to all matter, but as a property of matter that has been configured by evolution in a certain manner, so it can be a separate, self replicating, and mortal being.

No contradiction there because although a skeptic may doubt you are a fuckwit (or quite likely both since trolls are fuckwits by definition) I am under no such obligation since, I never claimed to be a skeptic. A skeptic could certainly affirm that you seem to be a fuchwit, in any case. Since you are a fuckwit either way (whether troll or not) I am guessing you will make the same objection again.

if you were smart you would look at the way most of your exchanges with others end up and take note. But perhaps you are enjoying yourself trollishly. If you don't say something interesting this time you will be ignored.

No contradiction there because although a skeptic may doubt you are a fuckwit (or quite likely both since trolls are fuckwits by definition) I am under no such obligation since, I never claimed to be a skeptic.

And now, nobody will be skeptical of your being a fool as well, since I never said anything about your obligation to be a skeptic. I correctly showed how your usage of "skeptic' countered each other. So, the fuckwit is clearly you, and no intelligent person would be skeptical of you.

if you were smart you would look at the way most of your exchanges with others end up and take note. But perhaps you are enjoying yourself trollishly. If you don't say something interesting this time you will be ignored.

If you were smart, and you're clearly not, you'd get an actual education before you engaged intelligent, educated people like myself. And the only one who has been trolling has been you. So, you should really take note of that.

... I said that if evolution is blind and random force without any end in sight we have no rational justification to trust our cognitive faculties. I don´t believe that evolution is blind and unguided process but that our cognitive faculties are designed to aim at true beliefs. — nixu

This is so typical of someone who hasn't educated themselves on the subject they are talking about - or only educated themselves by reading and listening to theists who don't know what they are talking about when talking about evolution by natural selection.

Natural selection isn't random. It is a lawful process that filters out random mutations that can't compete against better methods of navigating your environment, finding food and mates, distinguishing between predators and non-predators, etc. the better you are at making distinctions and mentally representing the environment, the more offspring you will have that have those same capabilities. Eventually, the compounding of new, better mutations on top of what organisms already have adds even more accuracy to knowledge of the world. This is how a mindless, yet lawful, process, brings about improved accuracy of organisms mental representations of their world. It isn't perfect (like seeing a bent straw in the water when the stick is actually straight and seeing mirages) and that is the hallmark of natural selection. It is what we would expect from a mindless, purposeless process. It isn't what we would expect if God did it. So the imperfections are actually evidence for natural selection and evidence against God doing it.

Natural selection isn't random. It is a lawful process — Harry Hindu

Natural Law, the God of atheism that has made scientists the chosen ones. Where do I go to pay homage? Science seeks homage, doesn't it? The holders of Truth?

you'd get an actual education before you engaged intelligent, educated people like myself. — Thanatos Sand

Might I suggest a course on Greek drama with emphasis on hubris.

Sophomoric retort at best.

Sophomoric retort at best. — Thanatos Sand

The simple truth, as spoken to me by Natural Laws.

You're either a troll or a fuckwit, dude, and I'm not at all skeptical about that. — John

Thanatos Sand is both of those things. I'd bet that even the most skeptical of the Greek Skeptics would unequivocally assert that.

The forum guidelines say that trolls will be banned. Thanatos Sand is the most typical, standard, obvious and consistent textbook example of a troll.

There's a widening consensus about that.

So why is he still allowed to post here?

Michael Ossipoff

Sophomoric retort at best.
— Thanatos Sand

The simple truth, as spoken to me by Natural Laws.

You're right, it is the simple Truth you made a sophomoric retort. As to my education, I am well educated. So, you're sophomoric and hubristic, quite an accomplishment.

You're either a troll or a fuckwit, dude, and I'm not at all skeptical about that. — John
Thanatos Sand is both of those things. I'd bet that even the most skeptical of the Greek Skeptics would unequivocally assert that. — Michael Ossipoff

No, the ones who are both of those things are you and John, as proven by trolling statements like the one below:

Thanatos thinks that there's something lacking or incorrect in what I said in that discussion, but he can't quite say what it is.

So he's huffing, puffing, hissing, and making other angry-noises.

This is pure trolling on your part and you do it a lot.

The forum guidelines say that trolls will be banned. Thanatos Sand is the most typical, standard, obvious and consistent textbook example of a troll.

And the post of yours I just re-posted shows the most typical, standard, obvious and consistent textbook example of a troll is you, and no consensus is needed for that.

Ok, one last time.

When Thanatos would post something that could be considered a reasonable question, I'd decided to return to answering him. But that always turns out to be a bad idea, and just encourages a troll.

But I'll reply just this one last time:

I never said that reincarnation was ruled out by skepticism, again you misquote me like a troll. I showed the definitions of the word skepticism and how they are incompatible with reincarnation. — Thanatos Sand

Oh, excuse me, Your Troll-ness.

So you're saying that skepticism doesn't rule out reincarnation, but reincarnation is incompatible with skepticism. :)

Actually, you haven't shown that. You've merely been continually repeating it--not quite the same thing.

You, however still have failed to show how reincarnation is consistent with skepticism, as you erroneously claim.

I discussed that in the Reincarnation topic. There, I told why and how reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism (capital "S", the metaphysics that I propose.

Because Skepticism's rejection of assumptions perfectly matches the dictionary definition of skepticism, then yes, you could also say that reincarnation is consistent with skepticism (lower-case "s", the common noun).

Now, if Thanatos wants to say that I didn't really show that, how could I be expected to answer that claim? Should I repeat everything I said at the Reincarnation topic? No, more realistically, I just refer Thanatos to that discussion in that topic.

But if Thanatos wants to claim that, in that discussion in that topic, I didn't really show that reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism, then he needs to say where the error or mis-statement is, among my statements and conclusions in that topic. Surely there'd be at least one error or mis-statement, if Thanatos is right.

I addressed the matter. Any claim that there's something wrong with what I said needs to specify a particular fault or error in my statements or conclusions.

And then, having many-times repeated that I didn't show what I claimed to show, Thanatos takes it another step and says that he showed that the opposite is true.

There is no more reality of reincarnation as there is reality of God or Satan.

No, I'm not going to discuss religion with a troll.

But the matter of whether or not there's direct experiential evidence for reincarnation is irrelevant to the matter of whether it's consistent with Skepticism. (or skepticism).

As I've already explained (to no avail) to Thanatos, a belief or assumption would be unskeptical. But Skepticism doesn't make an assumption of reincarnation, or assert a belief in reincarnation.

And, as a matter of fact, there is evidence for reincarnation:

Reincarnation is consistent with, or even implied by, the uniquely parsimonious and skeptical metaphysics.

Why did I post to the Reincarnation topic?

There was obviously interest in reincarnation. So, for that reason, the fact that reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism would count in Skepticism's favor, and might attract favorable attention to Skepticism.




I'd said:

As I said, a belief in, or assumption of, reincarnation would be un-skeptical. ...as would any unproved belief or assumption.

But you haven't shown that skepticism rules out the possibility of reincarnation itself.

His Troll-ness replies:

So, you agree reincarnation is not consistent with skepticism.

No, I said that a belief or assumption of reincarnation would be uin-skeptical.

At the Reincarnation topic, I've told how and why reincarnation is consistent with, and even implied by Skepticism. The metaphysics that I call Skepticism is skepticism itself.

So yes, reincarnation is consistent with skepticism.

I've been inviting you to specify what, in particular, was wrong with what i said at the Reincarnation topic, and I've been offering to answer any well-specified objection to a specified statement or conclusion.

I now withdraw that offer

Though I've repeatedly forgiven, and given Thanatos another chance, when he posted what could be construed as a reasonable question, the futility of answering that troll at all has become too evident to ignore.

No more replies to Troll Thanatos.

Michael Ossipoff