hypo, you are my bud, but whenever you get excited, you get dogmatic, careless with what others say, long-winded, and, to be direct, a trifle arrogant.
There are NO theological papers or material on the belief system of reincarnation that relates to gynecomastia
no, but they say plenty -
irrespective of their merits - on the subject of visited consequences, a point you deliberately ignore. straw man argument, invalid.
This is just someone making it up as they go along hence my mocking humour.
how would you know? you haven't heard a word of his promised ideas on the subject, again irrespective of merit. all you did was mock him for proposing anything unorthodox, which is why people say that science advances one funeral at a time.
Should we all act with deference and never challenge people making such statements if they are quasi-religious?
i said exactly the opposite. please read my post before flying off the handle next time. straw man argument, invalid again.
Do you have a University of Virginia paper on this connection/context? I Think not!!!!
distortion of argument, i simply referred to material on the subject of reincarnation which i have read out of there and you have not, not that you are sufficiently undogmatic or impartially minded to read any link i provided you on the subject, you prefer to dismiss things without a hearing. but as much as i used to scoff at it, unlike you, i do independent research into things i even disagree with and am willing to allow it when the evidence trumps my preconceptions. strangely, this and not dogma is what is worthy of the name scientific method.
If I say something that is complete and utter rubbish you would have no trouble telling me so, are you trying to tell me that changes if I put on a pointy hat on and start chanting over cows?
So if I say that I believe in voodoo and that part of my belief system will allow me (no evidence provided mind) to cure athletes foot or dandruff then no one can dare mock?
see preceding rebuttal to the sottishness regarding believing anything without challenge. again, your failure to read carefully.
Dear me Head you have let political correctness muddle you.
a deduction from a premise demonstrated flawed, therefore itself flawed. anybody who knows me knows that is one thing i am not.
why not roll in a jab about believing in ufo's too, since you know what's kooky and what's not? the thing is, i won't give a fig, because i in fact know from direct experience that they are real, and unlike you do not reject the unusual out of hand and am willing to give it a listen, no matter how improbable (as here) i consider it.
i have no interest in the kind of long breast-for-tat (sorry for the expression, guys
) that you're famous for. but you could save us both more time by reading carefully before flying off the handle into bombastic diatribes by reading my post carefully first next time.
for those with hasty attention spans, therefore, i will boil this thread to its easier-to-grasp basics:
shefe: i've got a really unorthodox theory for this and will give you more detail soon.
hypo et al: your claim challenges my preconceptions. that makes you a stupid kook. shut up and don't post again.
h3: shefe, i doubt you can convince me, but i'll listen to you when you post again.
hypo: head, you credulous fool, you must believe anything that comes down the road.
h3: *sigh* no, hypo, that's not what i actually said. please go back and read my post first next time.
thanks in advance. me, i see no future for this thread untill the guy actually gives the details, which we can THEN subject to falsifiability all we want.
Topic: Alternative Solution (Read 5721 times)
Similar Topics
