LLLLLL...no no no...there are not enough L's nor can I make them LARGE enough to express how LOUD I am Laughing right now. I don't even know if this is supposed to be funny. But @ 42secs I think the father even smirked. He was like, "Bitch I live in the Suburbs." Thanks a lot guy. Now I have to continue watching this disaster that is Silvia Browne.
2 points about this video: Psychics do not need to be 100% correct all the time. Saying so is like a creationist saying that macro-evolution doesn't exist because they don't understand evolution. Psychic ability is varied and can cover many different things.
And there is no proof that there is no afterlife. Saying that there 100% no afterlife whatsoever is impossible (currently) to prove or disprove, same with people saying that there is one.
i like randi but if i was born a midget and then the double whammy being gay and living in a state where anita briant felt comfortable, well i can relate to his angry views.
I have had experiences that cannot be described using any nominalist model.
I believe in God and gods unequivocally, but I think most peoples' ideation about them is unsophisticated. God exceeds the 3-D. Images of Deity are necessarily inadequate because images are 3-D
If I look at a music CD, do I thereby know the music? God is more real than us. We don't know what "real" means. It's logically unsound--but forgivable--to deny that for which we've no evidence
I don't know if Sylvia is a fraud or not, all I know is that Anderson Cooper is a fucking idiot, and that there is a doctor whose whole life has been dedicated to investigating near death experiences from an strictly scientific point of view, and his conclusion is that there is absolutely and afterlife. So people like Randi, to me, are pathetic.
It doesn't matter what religion (or any non-religion) one espouses. Sylvia is totally full of crap. If she is so religious, how does she dabble in supposedly talking to the dead and doing the rest of that stupidity?(which is against the Christian faith she says she holds) How about her constant lying and cruelty in order to get money from vulnerable people? She is a miserable fake who doesn't believe in or act with any kind of goodness at all.
No, Sylvia Browne, I feel sorry for you, as you are the one who feels that life is so shit that you need to believe in magic and fairy-tales in order to cope. The fact that you can't appreciate life without superstition in no way hinders my ability to do so. And, by the way, your nihilistic whining about this life not being enough has nothing to do with whether or not you are psychic.
Love is love. Boyfriend or Husband she loved that man and these fucking psychics are just the worse. The reason they get such support is because she gets the christian/catholics on her side. Die and comeback as a real (if they exists) psychics messenger boy.
im actaully for sylvia browne. people with this gift dont even understand what they see and hear themselves sometimes so they cant be right all the time. but your commentary was actaully really entertaining and funny! so good job!
when sylvia tells them she wants money, and its been proved that she wants payment for eveything, she does not classify as a real deal. they do it to help people not make money.
WOW, Anderson Cooper there showing what a real journalist should do, calling out that bad debating tactic. Just about anyone else in news would just treat that as a perfectly legitimate point against Randi
and i love how sylvia browne claims to be christian but the bible says psychics are against god, and i love how they are using reverse predijuice when they attack randy. trying to use psychology to get in his head, what a bitch...or saying that if you are an atheiest obviously that makes you wrong. he isnt anti religion. he is anti fraudism.
I'm not sure if it was because the way she pitied or spoke to your hero that set you off but, be cool man. Don't go 'attacking' those that believe in the afterlife.
Love all your vids so far but, this one kind of left a bad taste in my mouth. I mean I agree on the whole vid saying that she is a fake and doesn't know when to quit thing, its just the ending that bothers me a bit.
I don't know what Sylvia Brown thinks (I suspect she is a fraud) but why assume religious people in general are making up BS just to comfort people? Granted, you obviously think it's BS, but religious people don't. For all we know, your own metaphysical view of reality (ie. naturalism/atheism) is a fantasy and therefore your own views of death and life after death is wrong. If you think not, then please provide evidence for the contrary.
All the research that has ever been done on the matter shows that memories, emotions, thoughts, etc. are dependent on the material brain. When you die, your material brain ceases activity and then rots away - thus, all of your memories, emotions, thoughts, etc. are gone with it.
If you think there is some immaterial soul that retains all of these memories and personality traits, then the burden of proof is on you to present evidence for it.
The burden of proof is equally on both of us who make claims. That's the way claims works. If you make a claim to knowledge, regardless of what it is, you must justify it.
It's not at all obvious that there could not not be some sort of dualism or dualism-interactionism where the brain functions as gateway for the expression of the mind. Therefore, it would not be at all surprising that all of those things you mentioned seem dependent on the brain. Many philosophers hold to this position.
I've provided evidence for my claim, you have not. You have simply asserted a possibility.
Even ignoring this staggering lack of evidence, this "gateway" idea makes little to no sense when you look at it more closely: Why do people's behaviors and personalities change when chemicals are introduced to the brain? Why does there seem to be no "entrance" point for this out-of-body mind? Etc.
No, I haven't provided evidence, but neither have you in this video or in you last comment. If a supernatural realm exists then again it should not be surprising that things like a mind appears somewhat dependent on the brain. Moreover, it's not actually as clear as you think it is. Mental phenomena isn't itself physical but rather subjective like, which any physical object like the brain isn't. Thoughts don't have any weight or structure to them which makes the physicalism view difficult Cont..
I'm not going to drag this on any longer, but I want to clarify this for you:
We know for a fact that the mind is dependent of the physical brain. If you have a stroke, you will lose brain function. At the end of your life, we know the physical brain is dead. It is then logical to conclude that the mind is also gone.
There is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to suggest that there is any supernatural realm at all. I realize that burden shifting is a convenient way out, but it will not work here.
We don't know for a fact that the mind is dependent on the brain. If that were the case then there wouldn't be any sort of dualist position that many academics would take. I'm guessing you mean that without the brain, no one could think or survive here on Earth, which of course I and everyone else on the planet agrees with. That's indisputable. But that's a big difference from saying that the mind itself cannot exist at all without the brain in some other realm. Cont...
Finally, I think there is, despite what you said, arguments to suggest that there is a supernatural realm. I didn't provide reason for this earlier, but I would also add that arguments for the existence of God (ie. cosmological argument, teleological argument, etc) provide support for this as well as dualism.
And I didn't shift the burden of proof. I'm just correctly recognizing that both of us have it, not just me.
Anyways thanks for the discussion. I appreciate that you've been respectful.
....I can't speak for other sorts of dualist positions but interactionism states that beliefs and desires interact with physical states and hence of course physical states like chemicals could conceivably effect the mind. Again, many professional philosophers hold to this position which explains very well how physical events interact with our brains and consequently our minds. The evidence in favor of this is once again the differences between mental processes and actual physical processes.
That's not entirely true. The burden of proof lies on the positive claim over the negative one. If you have one person claiming something does happen with the other saying it doesn't happen, the first person has the initial burden of proof. Once they provide evidence, then it goes to their opponent.
The burden of proof is not equally split between opposing sides. It just doesn't make sense to do so.
In actual reality, the burden of proof lies with both sides. Epistemologists (theorists of knowledge) all recognize this fact. If I say "Barak Obama doesn't exist" is it really up to you or somebody else to prove first that he does? If you think so then why? You have to give some justification for why the burden of proof lies with one over the other. It's' not enough to just say "it makes sense" (in this case it would seem quite the opposite).
I say it would make sense because it's nigh impossible to disprove something that hasn't yet been proven.
If I make the claim that something isn't the case, first it'd have to be defined just what the case is before it can be disproven. This definition is developed with the burden of proof originally staying with the positive claim that it does exist.
The burden of proof lies with both sides but not simultaneously. It switches back and forth.
The burden of proof lies with both sides on equal claims to knowledge. Forget about secondary issues concerning how the burden of proof shifts (ie. you present evidence x and then I have a burden to now refute x). That's another topic.
You can disprove something that hasn't yet been proven. One of the ways you can do so logical or mathematical. 2+2 does not equal 5 has not been proven true. It is, however, proven false by logical necessity. Cont...
1. 2+2 does not equal 5 is a negative claim that is already proven false by the established positive claim that 2+2 equals 4. I don't see how this goes against my point. The positive claim is first established and the negative claim fails to defeat it.
2. Arguing that God doesn't not exist is a double negative and thus is equivalent to a positive; "God does exist" = "God doesn't not exist" -> both are positive claims.
You're original claim was that it was impossible to disprove something that hasn't yet been proven. You seemed to be suggesting that you must have the ability to prove the thing in question first in order to disprove it, which is of course false.
If all you're arguing ,however, is that you need some other positive proof in order to prove a negative then it seems you haven't made a point at all, since you need this for both positive and negative claims.
You have to have the ability to offer some evidence or at least an argument for the positive claim before you can begin to prove the negative. Again, if I make the claim Xenu does not physically exist and the burden of proof is on me without any positive argument to exist alongside it, it's impossible of me to fulfill the burden of proof because there's always the possibility I've missed a particular factor.
If the positive claim that Xenu does physically exist become present though, I would--
"You have to have the ability to offer some evidence or at least an argument for the positive claim before you can begin to prove the negative"
I think you mean that you have to define what it means for something to be true. You don't have to literally provide evidence of the positive before disproving it. If that were the case then you couldn't disprove the claim at all, since you would have proved it first.
--have to analyze the evidence given for that claim. If absolutely no evidence or argument is given, I again have nothing to go off of to prove my own point as I'm still at square one. If the burden of proof was left to them though and they offered even a shred of potential evidence (e.g. mysterious tracks left on Mars), then I could disprove that and support my own claim by showing counter evidence that something else caused the tracks.
You said that if there is no evidence given, you "have nothing to of off of" in order to prove your point. I don't see how
Imagine that I claim that Aliens have visited Earth. I, however, have no evidence for this claim and instead just tell you that I have faith that this claim is true (kind of how many religious people operate). Does that mean you can't disprove it or provide reason against it? No. You could suggest that the sheer lack of evidence for their visit is itself evidence against it
The point is you don't need evidence first in order to refute it. You just need a conception. I have not seen nor heard of any such evidence for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster. Despite no reasons for it, I can think of a number of good reasons against such a being. Like (1) being ridiculously adhoc, (2) It's extraordinarily unlikely that such a being could exist with that biological makeup. Spaghetti will not, as hard as you try, get you to fly nor does it support life etc etc etc
...And a definition is defined for both cases. If I say "God does exist", obviously I'm defining that proposition in terms of a negative as well (ie. against God's nonexistence). I don't see your point here. Besides, all positive statements can be logically made into negative statements and vice versa with negative statements made into positive statements.
If I were to argue that Xenu does not physically exist (if I were to attempt to make that a positive claim by stating it as "Xenu does have a physical nonexistence," that "non" suggests a negative claim instead), and the burden of claim was on me, it'd be impossible for me to meet it without omniscience or omnipotence since Xenu could potentially be anywhere in the universe. I cannot prove my side without a positive claim to work against (e.g. Xenu resides on Earth).
To use a relevant example though, say I made the claim that Sylvia Browne does not have supernatural powers. It'd have to be defined what would make up supernatural powers (which goes with a positive claim that such powers are possible to begin with) before I could argue she doesn't have them. If the burden of proof started with me in any sense without any established positive claim, then I could say that there is an absence of proof and thus proof of absence, which isn't necessarily true.
"It'd have to be defined what would make up supernatural powers ...before I could argue she doesn't have them"
You have to define something in any statement of knowledge, positive or negative. I don't get your overall point. I mean, I get what you're saying here, but I don't see how this at all takes the burden of proof away from the negative side. So what if you must prove something else. The positive side does this as well. Every claim does this, which is why the burden if anything is equal.
My point is that the positive claim has to offer an argument before the negative claim can make any sort of counter. Again, both sides have a burden of proof but the positive claim must confront it first before the argument can produce any results.
You're confusing a lot of issues together. It is true that you need to define a negative in terms of a positive. But this goes for a positive as well. It is also true that you need to establish or make positive claims in virtue of the negative. But that goes for everything. A positive claim has to establish other positive claims that are derivative of the claim. The negative will have to do this as well. So what? How does that change the overarching shift of the burden of proof. IT DOESN'T.
For example, say I were to argue that the United States is not the greatest country in the world. In order to prove this, it'd have to be determined just what would make a country the greatest in the world (which involves proving a positive claim) in order to compare that definition with America.
It's similar to statistics where there is the presence of both a null and alternate hypothesis. In order to test a claim (alternate), it's compared to a defined opposing claim (null).
In terms of your example, your claim already proves first that he does because if he didn't exist then he wouldn't have an identity. Your claim presupposes he already exists in some form, even if intangible.
Dude wtf, if you are really trying to make her look bad at least use better examples. This shit is all the POPULAR "evidence" used to declaim her. Dude, you are pitiful and dont know anything about the future. FWI the future is not constant, its always changing. ohh and Randi shit can suck your shit for all i care byw just so you know
You know whats funnier! James Randi fucking YOUR ear and i hope you get lost in water you bitch. I hope you apologize for insulting her. ohh and the 700 dollars i paid for her readings and psychic tips was well worth it. Meeting her was more than enough to suffice for the money i paid. so Fuck you "You Dumb Fucken bitch."
I'm psychic! I don't know everythin'. When you die. I don't know what to say because I'm not dead. What I do know is I take a personal offense to that bitch puttin' down other people's religious belief. The only way a religion becomes true; if that person believes it to be true. If one finds emptiness in religion. Who's to say that their way of thinkin' is wrong. My father doesn't believe in a supreme bein'. Whose to say that he'll be damn. She doesn't know shit.
Treat others how you wish to be treated. Show some peace, tolerance, & understanding towards one another. Hell, I bet this crappie world would be a much better place. :c/
Does that not make her a bit of a witch? I am a bit hazy on the subject but I am pretty sure that the kind of thing she is doing is a burning/hanging offense where is her lynch mob?
Great vid. I don't know how Sylvia gets away with this or how anyone could possibly believe her. I see right through her lies without even having to think about it.
I think the key here is that she claims to be psychic. THAT'S why you see right through her lies without having to think about it! :D
What I want to know is, how is she allowed to claim she acts through God if she can't get it right 100% of the time? Is God fucking with her or something?
HAHAHAHAHA why the ear? :D but seriously, I understand your passion and I hate that fucking cunt, that heartless bitch should be but in prison just for a month so she could feel the real world!
She agreed to take Randi's million dollar challenge and then has been ducking it for years. She's not "mistaken" about being a pyschic, as I think some people are, she's a pure scam artist. That she specializes in tricking people who are mourning makes her slightly below the maggots on year old shit.
It's fun to pick on the fundies. Especially if you're an atheist & skeptic. It's like playing a shoot-em-up game in god mode. Not very FAIR but fun nonetheless.
Crap, did you already say that? Sorry, I am lacking creativity right now. And I don't know who that other stupid bitch is at the end of the video, but she's a stupid bitch too.
By the way, these godly bitches should know that Deuteronomy 18:11 forbids contacting the dead.
To steal a quip from Hitchens, it's a pity there isn't a hell for these people to go to.
Let's all butcher this hog and make a meal out of her! Her fat ass can feed many starving people in Africa! Fuck this bitch!
kasouyumi 3 weeks ago
LLLLLL...no no no...there are not enough L's nor can I make them LARGE enough to express how LOUD I am Laughing right now. I don't even know if this is supposed to be funny. But @ 42secs I think the father even smirked. He was like, "Bitch I live in the Suburbs." Thanks a lot guy. Now I have to continue watching this disaster that is Silvia Browne.
OfSunFlowers 1 month ago
I am not supporting Silvia Brown. I also think she is a fraud. I am just address two of your points that you made in this video.
AvalonDraconis 2 months ago
2 points about this video: Psychics do not need to be 100% correct all the time. Saying so is like a creationist saying that macro-evolution doesn't exist because they don't understand evolution. Psychic ability is varied and can cover many different things.
And there is no proof that there is no afterlife. Saying that there 100% no afterlife whatsoever is impossible (currently) to prove or disprove, same with people saying that there is one.
AvalonDraconis 2 months ago
I HATE HER!
markhatter 3 months ago
i guess, sylvia browne play too much warcraft =p
jiangjimbo2010 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i like randi but if i was born a midget and then the double whammy being gay and living in a state where anita briant felt comfortable, well i can relate to his angry views.
scott053 4 months ago
i wonder why they made a south park episode about john edward without including sylvia browne
iloveniggers1000 6 months ago
actually, your opinions expressed also share those of mine. what a b*tch...
thatomi 7 months ago
I have had experiences that cannot be described using any nominalist model.
I believe in God and gods unequivocally, but I think most peoples' ideation about them is unsophisticated. God exceeds the 3-D. Images of Deity are necessarily inadequate because images are 3-D
If I look at a music CD, do I thereby know the music? God is more real than us. We don't know what "real" means. It's logically unsound--but forgivable--to deny that for which we've no evidence
But, yeah, Brown is a con artist
JesusDillinger 9 months ago
Comment removed
JesusDillinger 9 months ago
and montell should be ashamed she believes in the almighty dollar
phildirt3 11 months ago
and montell should be ashamed
phildirt3 11 months ago
THANKS TO WHO EVER PUT THIS VIDEO UP IS AWSM.......THERE IS NO REASON ANY "MAGICIAN" SHOULD PREY ON THE UNKNOWING
vernonclassic 1 year ago
In the bible....it says the psychics talk to demons....not gods.....LOL Just thought I'd tell you ppl that.
kasouyumi 1 year ago
"In reality she's just a dumb bitch." #LOL lmao
Modacolorist 1 year ago
james randi expose those lies
oxygenmax1 1 year ago
I don't know if Sylvia is a fraud or not, all I know is that Anderson Cooper is a fucking idiot, and that there is a doctor whose whole life has been dedicated to investigating near death experiences from an strictly scientific point of view, and his conclusion is that there is absolutely and afterlife. So people like Randi, to me, are pathetic.
LaSerpentaCanta 1 year ago
There is only ONE Truth.
ALPHAandOMEGA44 1 year ago
SILVIA EAT VAGINA!!!!!
thedeathinmyblood 1 year ago
Love the title
firewallx 1 year ago
well, atleast she still has her good looks
MajorasFlask 1 year ago
N your a cunt fucking hater lol. stop hating. if you dont care, why waste your time wid all these vids.
kvocalist 1 year ago
"she was shot"
i love the father's "wut bitch?!?" look on his face.
this fucking taloned cow. ugh. magic dosent exist.
TheDeistAngle 1 year ago
It doesn't matter what religion (or any non-religion) one espouses. Sylvia is totally full of crap. If she is so religious, how does she dabble in supposedly talking to the dead and doing the rest of that stupidity?(which is against the Christian faith she says she holds) How about her constant lying and cruelty in order to get money from vulnerable people? She is a miserable fake who doesn't believe in or act with any kind of goodness at all.
pitcalco 1 year ago
"I feel sorry for you".
No, Sylvia Browne, I feel sorry for you, as you are the one who feels that life is so shit that you need to believe in magic and fairy-tales in order to cope. The fact that you can't appreciate life without superstition in no way hinders my ability to do so. And, by the way, your nihilistic whining about this life not being enough has nothing to do with whether or not you are psychic.
sam51092 1 year ago
00:18 or she is fucking insane ;)
SleepsAvatar 1 year ago
Love is love. Boyfriend or Husband she loved that man and these fucking psychics are just the worse. The reason they get such support is because she gets the christian/catholics on her side. Die and comeback as a real (if they exists) psychics messenger boy.
Manoichan 1 year ago
Haha. Your older videos are much more raw than your newer ones. They all kick ass though.
BrutalGrindCoreMetal 1 year ago
Lol, Cooper owned that bitch at the end.
Cheshirecat55 2 years ago 2
"Aw that Dumb Fucking Bitch"
LMFAO
jayperron69 2 years ago
im actaully for sylvia browne. people with this gift dont even understand what they see and hear themselves sometimes so they cant be right all the time. but your commentary was actaully really entertaining and funny! so good job!
jeweledbridge75 2 years ago
when sylvia tells them she wants money, and its been proved that she wants payment for eveything, she does not classify as a real deal. they do it to help people not make money.
cucucachu21 2 years ago
Gift?
Manik2Magik 2 years ago
WOW, Anderson Cooper there showing what a real journalist should do, calling out that bad debating tactic. Just about anyone else in news would just treat that as a perfectly legitimate point against Randi
IMelkor42 2 years ago
SERIOUSLY, i love you man.
that was awesome.
and i love how sylvia browne claims to be christian but the bible says psychics are against god, and i love how they are using reverse predijuice when they attack randy. trying to use psychology to get in his head, what a bitch...or saying that if you are an atheiest obviously that makes you wrong. he isnt anti religion. he is anti fraudism.
TheSaralysette 2 years ago
This is a comment specific to the family that asked about their daughter...
THE CORONER DIDN'T GIVE THEM A POSSIBLE CAUSE OF DEATH?!
And how DARE she try to insist to the 9/11 woman that "no you dumb fuck, he died how I SAID he died".
That is all.
ragingdevi 2 years ago
I'm not sure if it was because the way she pitied or spoke to your hero that set you off but, be cool man. Don't go 'attacking' those that believe in the afterlife.
Love all your vids so far but, this one kind of left a bad taste in my mouth. I mean I agree on the whole vid saying that she is a fake and doesn't know when to quit thing, its just the ending that bothers me a bit.
SkullMech 2 years ago
Why can't you attack someones position on an afterlife?
I can challenge any delusion i think i see - and no one has ever shown a siiingle fact on the afterlife.
No need for assumptions, its useless.
lord69z 2 years ago
"Fuck you Sylvia, Fuck you in the EAR!"
Probably one of the best sound-bites on Youtube.
HatlessLemming 2 years ago 2
Lol what a stupid bitch!
YogiToad 2 years ago
You were votebotted
This video should be at 5 stars
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
Yeah, happened awhile ago. Now I have that anti-votebot software, so it shouldn't happen again.
antybu86 2 years ago
shouldn't montel be a little guilty for keep putting this bitch up?
herpessores 2 years ago
I don't know what Sylvia Brown thinks (I suspect she is a fraud) but why assume religious people in general are making up BS just to comfort people? Granted, you obviously think it's BS, but religious people don't. For all we know, your own metaphysical view of reality (ie. naturalism/atheism) is a fantasy and therefore your own views of death and life after death is wrong. If you think not, then please provide evidence for the contrary.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
All the research that has ever been done on the matter shows that memories, emotions, thoughts, etc. are dependent on the material brain. When you die, your material brain ceases activity and then rots away - thus, all of your memories, emotions, thoughts, etc. are gone with it.
If you think there is some immaterial soul that retains all of these memories and personality traits, then the burden of proof is on you to present evidence for it.
antybu86 2 years ago
The burden of proof is equally on both of us who make claims. That's the way claims works. If you make a claim to knowledge, regardless of what it is, you must justify it.
It's not at all obvious that there could not not be some sort of dualism or dualism-interactionism where the brain functions as gateway for the expression of the mind. Therefore, it would not be at all surprising that all of those things you mentioned seem dependent on the brain. Many philosophers hold to this position.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
I've provided evidence for my claim, you have not. You have simply asserted a possibility.
Even ignoring this staggering lack of evidence, this "gateway" idea makes little to no sense when you look at it more closely: Why do people's behaviors and personalities change when chemicals are introduced to the brain? Why does there seem to be no "entrance" point for this out-of-body mind? Etc.
antybu86 2 years ago
No, I haven't provided evidence, but neither have you in this video or in you last comment. If a supernatural realm exists then again it should not be surprising that things like a mind appears somewhat dependent on the brain. Moreover, it's not actually as clear as you think it is. Mental phenomena isn't itself physical but rather subjective like, which any physical object like the brain isn't. Thoughts don't have any weight or structure to them which makes the physicalism view difficult Cont..
Christianjr4 2 years ago
I'm not going to drag this on any longer, but I want to clarify this for you:
We know for a fact that the mind is dependent of the physical brain. If you have a stroke, you will lose brain function. At the end of your life, we know the physical brain is dead. It is then logical to conclude that the mind is also gone.
There is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to suggest that there is any supernatural realm at all. I realize that burden shifting is a convenient way out, but it will not work here.
antybu86 2 years ago
We don't know for a fact that the mind is dependent on the brain. If that were the case then there wouldn't be any sort of dualist position that many academics would take. I'm guessing you mean that without the brain, no one could think or survive here on Earth, which of course I and everyone else on the planet agrees with. That's indisputable. But that's a big difference from saying that the mind itself cannot exist at all without the brain in some other realm. Cont...
Christianjr4 2 years ago
Finally, I think there is, despite what you said, arguments to suggest that there is a supernatural realm. I didn't provide reason for this earlier, but I would also add that arguments for the existence of God (ie. cosmological argument, teleological argument, etc) provide support for this as well as dualism.
And I didn't shift the burden of proof. I'm just correctly recognizing that both of us have it, not just me.
Anyways thanks for the discussion. I appreciate that you've been respectful.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
@antybu86 Sir, the burden of proof is not on YOU it is on THEM to prove the supernatural.
Excellent video.
FixedNewsChannel 1 year ago
....I can't speak for other sorts of dualist positions but interactionism states that beliefs and desires interact with physical states and hence of course physical states like chemicals could conceivably effect the mind. Again, many professional philosophers hold to this position which explains very well how physical events interact with our brains and consequently our minds. The evidence in favor of this is once again the differences between mental processes and actual physical processes.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
That's not entirely true. The burden of proof lies on the positive claim over the negative one. If you have one person claiming something does happen with the other saying it doesn't happen, the first person has the initial burden of proof. Once they provide evidence, then it goes to their opponent.
The burden of proof is not equally split between opposing sides. It just doesn't make sense to do so.
SeruQuik 2 years ago
In actual reality, the burden of proof lies with both sides. Epistemologists (theorists of knowledge) all recognize this fact. If I say "Barak Obama doesn't exist" is it really up to you or somebody else to prove first that he does? If you think so then why? You have to give some justification for why the burden of proof lies with one over the other. It's' not enough to just say "it makes sense" (in this case it would seem quite the opposite).
Christianjr4 2 years ago
I say it would make sense because it's nigh impossible to disprove something that hasn't yet been proven.
If I make the claim that something isn't the case, first it'd have to be defined just what the case is before it can be disproven. This definition is developed with the burden of proof originally staying with the positive claim that it does exist.
The burden of proof lies with both sides but not simultaneously. It switches back and forth.
SeruQuik 2 years ago
The burden of proof lies with both sides on equal claims to knowledge. Forget about secondary issues concerning how the burden of proof shifts (ie. you present evidence x and then I have a burden to now refute x). That's another topic.
You can disprove something that hasn't yet been proven. One of the ways you can do so logical or mathematical. 2+2 does not equal 5 has not been proven true. It is, however, proven false by logical necessity. Cont...
Christianjr4 2 years ago
1. 2+2 does not equal 5 is a negative claim that is already proven false by the established positive claim that 2+2 equals 4. I don't see how this goes against my point. The positive claim is first established and the negative claim fails to defeat it.
2. Arguing that God doesn't not exist is a double negative and thus is equivalent to a positive; "God does exist" = "God doesn't not exist" -> both are positive claims.
Cont.
SeruQuik 2 years ago
You're original claim was that it was impossible to disprove something that hasn't yet been proven. You seemed to be suggesting that you must have the ability to prove the thing in question first in order to disprove it, which is of course false.
If all you're arguing ,however, is that you need some other positive proof in order to prove a negative then it seems you haven't made a point at all, since you need this for both positive and negative claims.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
You have to have the ability to offer some evidence or at least an argument for the positive claim before you can begin to prove the negative. Again, if I make the claim Xenu does not physically exist and the burden of proof is on me without any positive argument to exist alongside it, it's impossible of me to fulfill the burden of proof because there's always the possibility I've missed a particular factor.
If the positive claim that Xenu does physically exist become present though, I would--
SeruQuik 2 years ago
"You have to have the ability to offer some evidence or at least an argument for the positive claim before you can begin to prove the negative"
I think you mean that you have to define what it means for something to be true. You don't have to literally provide evidence of the positive before disproving it. If that were the case then you couldn't disprove the claim at all, since you would have proved it first.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
--have to analyze the evidence given for that claim. If absolutely no evidence or argument is given, I again have nothing to go off of to prove my own point as I'm still at square one. If the burden of proof was left to them though and they offered even a shred of potential evidence (e.g. mysterious tracks left on Mars), then I could disprove that and support my own claim by showing counter evidence that something else caused the tracks.
SeruQuik 2 years ago
You said that if there is no evidence given, you "have nothing to of off of" in order to prove your point. I don't see how
Imagine that I claim that Aliens have visited Earth. I, however, have no evidence for this claim and instead just tell you that I have faith that this claim is true (kind of how many religious people operate). Does that mean you can't disprove it or provide reason against it? No. You could suggest that the sheer lack of evidence for their visit is itself evidence against it
Christianjr4 2 years ago
The point is you don't need evidence first in order to refute it. You just need a conception. I have not seen nor heard of any such evidence for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster. Despite no reasons for it, I can think of a number of good reasons against such a being. Like (1) being ridiculously adhoc, (2) It's extraordinarily unlikely that such a being could exist with that biological makeup. Spaghetti will not, as hard as you try, get you to fly nor does it support life etc etc etc
Christianjr4 2 years ago
I can see your point and agree with you for the most part, but absence of proof is not necessarily proof of absence.
SeruQuik 2 years ago
...And a definition is defined for both cases. If I say "God does exist", obviously I'm defining that proposition in terms of a negative as well (ie. against God's nonexistence). I don't see your point here. Besides, all positive statements can be logically made into negative statements and vice versa with negative statements made into positive statements.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
If I were to argue that Xenu does not physically exist (if I were to attempt to make that a positive claim by stating it as "Xenu does have a physical nonexistence," that "non" suggests a negative claim instead), and the burden of claim was on me, it'd be impossible for me to meet it without omniscience or omnipotence since Xenu could potentially be anywhere in the universe. I cannot prove my side without a positive claim to work against (e.g. Xenu resides on Earth).
SeruQuik 2 years ago
To use a relevant example though, say I made the claim that Sylvia Browne does not have supernatural powers. It'd have to be defined what would make up supernatural powers (which goes with a positive claim that such powers are possible to begin with) before I could argue she doesn't have them. If the burden of proof started with me in any sense without any established positive claim, then I could say that there is an absence of proof and thus proof of absence, which isn't necessarily true.
SeruQuik 2 years ago
"It'd have to be defined what would make up supernatural powers ...before I could argue she doesn't have them"
You have to define something in any statement of knowledge, positive or negative. I don't get your overall point. I mean, I get what you're saying here, but I don't see how this at all takes the burden of proof away from the negative side. So what if you must prove something else. The positive side does this as well. Every claim does this, which is why the burden if anything is equal.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
My point is that the positive claim has to offer an argument before the negative claim can make any sort of counter. Again, both sides have a burden of proof but the positive claim must confront it first before the argument can produce any results.
SeruQuik 2 years ago
You're confusing a lot of issues together. It is true that you need to define a negative in terms of a positive. But this goes for a positive as well. It is also true that you need to establish or make positive claims in virtue of the negative. But that goes for everything. A positive claim has to establish other positive claims that are derivative of the claim. The negative will have to do this as well. So what? How does that change the overarching shift of the burden of proof. IT DOESN'T.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
For example, say I were to argue that the United States is not the greatest country in the world. In order to prove this, it'd have to be determined just what would make a country the greatest in the world (which involves proving a positive claim) in order to compare that definition with America.
It's similar to statistics where there is the presence of both a null and alternate hypothesis. In order to test a claim (alternate), it's compared to a defined opposing claim (null).
SeruQuik 2 years ago
In terms of your example, your claim already proves first that he does because if he didn't exist then he wouldn't have an identity. Your claim presupposes he already exists in some form, even if intangible.
SeruQuik 2 years ago
Well done video!!
theleftymonster 2 years ago
gods, are so many theist just projecting their loneliness & depression when they think that atheist must be lonely and depressed?
brutus149 2 years ago
DAMMIT antybu86!
This is the last straw.
Im subscribing.
No! Dont try to stop me!
I think is video is FUCKING AWESOME, and you cant do a thing about it.
God dammit.
-_-
IDontCareSoSTFU 2 years ago
ohh AND i praise the lady that used Ad Hominem because that bitch "Atheist" deserved it.
ipLelouch 2 years ago
Dude wtf, if you are really trying to make her look bad at least use better examples. This shit is all the POPULAR "evidence" used to declaim her. Dude, you are pitiful and dont know anything about the future. FWI the future is not constant, its always changing. ohh and Randi shit can suck your shit for all i care byw just so you know
ipLelouch 2 years ago
eloquently put
antybu86 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dont even reply to me you fucker, how dare you even insult Sylvia Brown...I hate you dude..."That dumb fucken bitch" how dare you..."Her shit" wtf
ipLelouch 2 years ago
Too funny.
antybu86 2 years ago
You know whats funnier! James Randi fucking YOUR ear and i hope you get lost in water you bitch. I hope you apologize for insulting her. ohh and the 700 dollars i paid for her readings and psychic tips was well worth it. Meeting her was more than enough to suffice for the money i paid. so Fuck you "You Dumb Fucken bitch."
ipLelouch 2 years ago
Damn, if I paid 700 bucks for a Sylvia Browne reading, I'd probably be pissed off like you too.
antybu86 2 years ago
"eloquently put" NOT
ipLelouch 2 years ago
Your wit is paralyzingly sharp.
antybu86 2 years ago
Your sarcasm was pitiful, i actually expected more from you but what can i expect from a "Dumb fucken Bitch"
ipLelouch 2 years ago
Pitiful? Maybe. But at least it got you to respond... and that helps the video get seen by more people.
Thanks!
antybu86 2 years ago
epic win
barbarajmay 2 years ago
ur voice is yummy lol
britaniclaus 2 years ago
"Facts are one thing"..? LOL. Yes, Ms. Brown.. facts, truth, what's the difference??
happycappy723 2 years ago 2
James Randi is the coolest mofo eva!!!!!
julianking93 2 years ago
FUCK YOU SILVIA BROWN !!
systh7 2 years ago
OWNED!!!
ay824 2 years ago
FUCK YOU .... IN THE EAR! HAHAHAHA
Spot on, no god. 87% of Americans are retards :)
alastair78 2 years ago
I'm psychic! I don't know everythin'. When you die. I don't know what to say because I'm not dead. What I do know is I take a personal offense to that bitch puttin' down other people's religious belief. The only way a religion becomes true; if that person believes it to be true. If one finds emptiness in religion. Who's to say that their way of thinkin' is wrong. My father doesn't believe in a supreme bein'. Whose to say that he'll be damn. She doesn't know shit.
RuaGreenwood 2 years ago
Here's my message to the world...
Follow the Golden Rule!
Treat others how you wish to be treated. Show some peace, tolerance, & understanding towards one another. Hell, I bet this crappie world would be a much better place. :c/
RuaGreenwood 2 years ago
Does that not make her a bit of a witch? I am a bit hazy on the subject but I am pretty sure that the kind of thing she is doing is a burning/hanging offense where is her lynch mob?
craigjs 2 years ago
Excellent Video- How does Sylvia wipe her ass with those big freaky fingernails?
OrangeSunshine2 2 years ago
I don't blame the victims at all. If I were them I'd sue the bitch.
FreePrometheus 2 years ago
Subscribed.
Wolliom 2 years ago
Holy fucking shit that larry king clip was so sick and ur comment after it was great and I can say i felt EXACTLY the same way! Nice vid!
sureup 2 years ago
Nancy Grace exploits people on CNN. Dead people.
1gregmichael 2 years ago
Sylvia Brown is a terrible human being.
mesparza1 2 years ago 18
Anderson Cooper called her shit tactic. lol
southparkgtaca 2 years ago 4
yes
cruxbucket 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
sylvias the real deal!!!!
thedanielsecklershow 2 years ago
There is a sucker born every minute.
marneedear 2 years ago 15
Ok now I got a problem with her, attacking him because his an athiest what does his non-belief have to do with it..
Azurju 2 years ago 2
Great vid. I don't know how Sylvia gets away with this or how anyone could possibly believe her. I see right through her lies without even having to think about it.
She's a scammer and a liar.
Locustfiretree 3 years ago 2
I think the key here is that she claims to be psychic. THAT'S why you see right through her lies without having to think about it! :D
What I want to know is, how is she allowed to claim she acts through God if she can't get it right 100% of the time? Is God fucking with her or something?
Revoltingsheeple 2 years ago
HAHAHAHAHA why the ear? :D but seriously, I understand your passion and I hate that fucking cunt, that heartless bitch should be but in prison just for a month so she could feel the real world!
medallish 3 years ago 4
you took the words outa my mouth lol
jvilla21 3 years ago
She agreed to take Randi's million dollar challenge and then has been ducking it for years. She's not "mistaken" about being a pyschic, as I think some people are, she's a pure scam artist. That she specializes in tricking people who are mourning makes her slightly below the maggots on year old shit.
sevlevboss 3 years ago
lmaoooo @ her wrong predictions. Theyre soooo wrong.
brokencrayolazs 3 years ago
hi antybu86. somebody has jealousy . mother god asna and father god are awesome. thank you. have a good day.
hollywuud8 3 years ago
...What?
antybu86 3 years ago
My thoughts exactly...
I think he was being satirical.
TheReasonWhyGuy 3 years ago
hi antybu86. somebody has jealousy . mother god asna and father god are awesome. thank you. have a good day. Um wtf anty?
Zinthius22 3 years ago
True. She charges something like 700 dollars for a 30 min reading. What a con.
antybu86 3 years ago
Yep, 1400 dollars an hour.
Think about it, in one hour she makes as much as a person working 5&1/3 hours a day making 8.75 an hour would make over a full month.
TheReasonWhyGuy 3 years ago 2
Oh my god that's fucking hilarious.
KnittyGrittyNatch 3 years ago 2
Yeah, I think there are even more videos of her just straight-up getting it wrong, but I tried to pick the best ones for this vid.
antybu86 3 years ago
It's fun to pick on the fundies. Especially if you're an atheist & skeptic. It's like playing a shoot-em-up game in god mode. Not very FAIR but fun nonetheless.
NearVSMello 3 years ago 3
Right on to this dude
IliketheTitanic1 3 years ago
Sylvia Browne is a Stupid Bitch.
Crap, did you already say that? Sorry, I am lacking creativity right now. And I don't know who that other stupid bitch is at the end of the video, but she's a stupid bitch too.
By the way, these godly bitches should know that Deuteronomy 18:11 forbids contacting the dead.
To steal a quip from Hitchens, it's a pity there isn't a hell for these people to go to.
dgdfhfghgfhgfgffjhj 3 years ago 6
very true
antybu86 3 years ago