So that's it for the election.

[Ravager]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Praise the primordial ooze, Ravager of P99 not only knows what happens after death but also before birth. Booger-eaters around the globe rejoice.

Who's being hostile and irrational now? Think about it. Based on everything that's observable about being unconscious it stands to reason that death is nothing more than permanent unconsciousness. You're nothing more than a sack of chemicals and when the reactions stop, so do you and there's 0 evidence to suggest otherwise. And fairytales passed down for generations is not evidence.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Who's being hostile and irrational now? Think about it. Based on everything that's observable about being unconscious it stands to reason that death is nothing more than permanent unconsciousness. You're nothing more than a sack of chemicals and when the reactions stop, so do you and there's 0 evidence to suggest otherwise. And fairytales passed down for generations is not evidence.

It does stand to reason. It is a rational belief. But that doesn't make it factual.

Much like saying "god exists" or "no god exists", you are expressing a rational opinion with less than compelling supporting evidence. If you believe, pre-birth and post-death, that there is no degree of consciousness and you simply cease to exist, you are very possibly correct. However it is reasonable to consider that you are not correct.

[Ravager]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It does stand to reason. It is a rational belief. But that doesn't make it factual.

Much like saying "god exists" or "no god exists", you are expressing a rational opinion with less than compelling supporting evidence. If you believe, pre-birth and post-death, that there is no degree of consciousness and you simply cease to exist, you are very possibly correct. However it is reasonable to consider that you are not correct.

Of course it's reasonable to consider I am not correct. There are an infinite number of possibilities that can be considered, but only the ones that come with verifiable evidence are worth considering. What is unreasonable is ignoring evidence for one argument in favor of another argument that has no evidence or anecdotal evidence which is the same as no evidence since it is not verifiable.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Of course it's reasonable to consider I am not correct. There are an infinite number of possibilities that can be considered, but only the ones that come with verifiable evidence are worth considering. What is unreasonable is ignoring evidence for one argument in favor of another argument that has no evidence or anecdotal evidence which is the same as no evidence since it is not verifiable.

"A subject being worth considering" and "a subject being wrong because of lack of evidence" are two different things.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"A subject not being worth considering" and "a subject being wrong because of lack of evidence" are two different things.

Stupid no edit.

[Ravager]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"A subject being worth considering" and "a subject being wrong because of lack of evidence" are two different things.

I think I can safely put a subject with no evidence in the category of wrong. Especially when time and again evidence shows up that supports other theories while the wrong theory has to twist the facts to suit itself.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think I can safely put a subject with no evidence in the category of wrong.

That's how come I know you're not a scientist. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Ravager]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's how come I know you're not a scientist. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Because a rational scientist wouldn't consider an unprovable hypothesis with no evidence backing it that by it's very nature requires nothing short of magic to be possible as wrong.