₦airaland Forum

TenQ:
You see how we came back to my initial deductions from your response to the questions

Can you unequivocally dismiss ALL UFO/NDE sightings and experiences as a Hoax?
There are two possible answers
a. YES, you WOULD dismiss ALL UFO/NDE sightings and experiences as a Hoax?
OR
b. NO, you WOULD NOT dismiss ALL UFO/NDE sightings and experiences as a Hoax?



By your latest Response, you mean that



1. YES, You WOULD unequivocally dismiss the experiences of people who claimed they had with NDE because If they understood what they saw it would no longer be an UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object.

2. YES, You WOULD unequivocally dismiss the experiences of people who claimed they had with NDE because An NDE is like a dream, it's occurring within a subjects mind and that subject cannot show us his mind to prove he had the experience so it is not hard to accept he had an experience since dreams and the like are pretty common place.


Except I don't understand the normal English usage of YES or NO in a sentence!

Apparently you don't understand English period.

I asked you specifically what part of those 3 statements was giving you trouble understanding but instead of answering the simple question you go on this weird BS you've being on since the beginning of this conversation. How the freak is NO tripping you up like this? How in Andromeda is UNIDENTIFIED unable to be understood by you?

UYEMDO35:
I got an urgent call and i left my phone at home on getting to were I was going, l later discover that I didn't go with my phone......
On returning home the were everyone at home were looking at me was kind of strange... I never knew my younger brother knows d pin on my phone... I was kind of shocked when he told me that mum wanted to make an urgent call and she has no airtime
on her phone so dey decided to make use of my phone.... I don't even know what prompt my younger brother to open my (vault) how he got the password of my phone is still strange to me....
Immediately he got access to the (Vault) he open all d porn video and shouted as soon as he saw it..... That prompt and called the attention of everyone and now everybody are on my neck.

My brother don spoil my package....... Me that dey all know as Pastor.

Though! I don't watch porn video, it has been on my phone for long perhaps I even thought I deleted it.

Right now, am still looking at my brother, I don't even know what to do to him.....

Be lying to yourself there. You put porn in vault and you saw you didn't know it was still there. Who vaults porn without knowing?

TenQ:
I have used exactly what you wrote: check!



Your response again broken down!

Your Initial Response;
NO!

Implication:
You WON'T unequivocally dismiss the experiences of people who claimed they saw/interacted with UFOs or experienced NDE with/without OBE!

The Question of WHY?
Should give us REASONS why you WON'T unequivocally dismiss the experiences of people who claimed they saw/interacted with UFOs or experienced NDE with/without OBE!

Your WHY you WON'T Dismiss the Experience of People who saw UFO?



Your Summary on UFO:
1. You WON'T unequivocally dismiss the experiences of people who claimed they saw/interacted with UFOs because the claims are often mundane. ....
2. You WON'T unequivocally dismiss the experiences of people who claimed they saw/interacted with UFOs because there's That's not very much information in determining anything significant about what the person saw

Please check if this makes sense to you


Your WHY you WON'T Dismiss the Experience of People who experienced NDE?


Your Summary on NDE:
1. NO, You WON'T unequivocally dismiss the experiences of people who claimed they had with NDE because they are also somewhat mundane claims
2. NO, You WON'T unequivocally dismiss the experiences of people who claimed they had with NDE because they cannot be verified as having occurred nor is there any way to find out if they are linked to real occurrences

Can you check the logic of this as correct?


Your general comments on both NDE and UFO


Your Summary on NDE and UFO:
NO, I WON'T unequivocally dismiss the experiences of people who claimed they had with NDE now what's special with that if they had such experiences (literally you said: so what!?)?

If you won't dismiss their experiences , doesn't it mean you respect the fact that their experiences may not be a hoax?
The now what statement actually trivialises their experience therefore, you probably mean YES rather than a NO!


Your conclusion:

1. It is understandable if you DON'T need evidence to accept that someone had an experience. However, If you didn't have the experience the SUBJECT had, how can you claim they don't understand what they've experienced?

2. Attempts to comprehend the Experience is in two parts
a. The SUBJECT:
Who has the Experience: it cannot be disproved that he doesn't understand his experience since his experience is SUBJECTIVE to him except he tells you he doesn't understand his experience
2. The SKEPTIC:
Who did NOT have the experience CANNOT claim to understand anything since he never experienced the SUBJECTIVE experience UNLESS he somehow personally receives the same Subjective experience.
2. Since you don't even have this SUBJECT'S experience, how can you require



Check Again!


1. Did you give me REASONS why you WON'T unequivocally dismiss the experiences of people who claimed they saw/interacted with UFOs or experienced NDE with/without OBE!?


2. Did you explain WHY you took the position THAT you WON'T unequivocally dismiss the experiences of people who claimed they saw/interacted with UFOs or experienced NDE with/without OBE when you don't have ANY compelling EVIDENCES?




I believe this is now explicitly clear!

If they understood what they saw it would no longer be an UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object.

An NDE is like a dream, it's occurring within a subjects mind and that subject cannot show us his mind to prove he had the experience so it is not hard to accept he had an experience since dreams and the like are pretty common place.

If either of these people what to make any further claims or make me understand what they saw they need to provide evidence.

Which of these statements is giving you trouble?

TenQ:
You said NO!

NO meaning that:
If I get you right, you WON'T unequivocally dismiss the experiences of people who claimed they saw/interacted with UFOs or experienced NDE with/without OBE!

If you had said YES!

YES meaning that:
You WOULD unequivocally dismiss the experiences of people who claimed they saw/interacted with UFOs or experienced NDE with/without OBE!


Since your answer was a NO, then your response to WHY ..?
Should give us REASONS why you WON'T unequivocally dismiss the experiences of people who claimed they saw/interacted with UFOs or experienced NDE with/without OBE!
AND
Explain Why you took such a position when But you don't have ANY compelling EVIDENCES?

1. Did you give me REASONS why you WON'T unequivocally dismiss the experiences of people who claimed they saw/interacted with UFOs or experienced NDE with/without OBE!?


2. Did you explain WHY you took the position THAT you WON'T unequivocally dismiss the experiences of people who claimed they saw/interacted with UFOs or experienced NDE with/without OBE when you don't have ANY compelling EVIDENCES?




I believe this is now explicitly clear!

I explained why and even simplified it so I dunno whatelse you want. You read what I said then declared that I wasn't saying no, that I was saying yes. Reread my posts giving the explanation, I am not going to repeat myself.

TenQ:
1. If your answer was An UNEQUIVOCAL NO,
Then
a. Why did you choose this position
b. Why take such position when But you don't have ANY compelling EVIDENCES?

2. If your answer was An UNEQUIVOCAL YES,
Then
a. Why did you choose this position
b. Why take such position when you don't have ANY compelling EVIDENCES?


It seem that Your response after the initial statement NO was not to strongly affirm it but to dilute or mabe even oppose your initial NO position!

You ask why and I tell you why and you interpret it as yes? LoLz. Ok.

TenQ:
Let me quote my post and highlight my position.


Here was my understanding of your post


And I asked you to clarify if my understanding was correct




So, it wasn't my conclusion if I had to ask you to clarify!


Why your post is NOT straight forward!
The questions were very specific.

1. Can you unequivocally dismiss ALL UFO sightings and experiences as a Hoax?
2. Can you unequivocally dismiss ALL NDE as Hoax?

The word UNEQUIVOCAL is important, that is why your response should be either very YES or very NO!

Your response after you said:

Seems to suggest that you were NOT very NO in your response:
Am I correct?

So it was not you who asked:

TenQ:
1. Why?
2. But you don't have ANY compelling EVIDENCES?

jaephoenix:
Well, I need the money to feed. I can't wait for Yahweh to get up off his fat ass to return my wallet. I'm taking it by violence. The kingdom of Yahweh suffered violence and only the violent taketh it by force

You are killing me with laughter!

LMFAO @ his fat ass.

TenQ:
Except if your write is meant to be deceitfully unclear. I asked you to clarify your position on what I could understand from your post. Otherwise, we don't have to continue with the conversation!

It is either I got you wrong or I got you correctly!

No you concluded instead of asking me a question. You previously asked why I said no and I told you the claims are mundane. Then you jump to "You don't mean no, you mean yes!".

My post was straightforward, claims of UFO sightings and NDEs are mundane, they do not usually contain sufficient information to make any further claim beyond accepting that a person had an experience. If you want to understand what the person experienced or make any further claims then you need more evidence. I am not sure where any of this is giving you trouble to understand.

jaephoenix:
Ok, since he's everywhere and puts his name everywhere, i guess he stole my money I left in my car. How can I get him to return it?

Bwahahahahahaha!

TenQ:
In other words, even though you said "NO" to both questions, you actually mean "YES"!

YES meaning that:
You WOULD unequivocally dismiss the experiences of people who claimed they saw/interacted with UFOs or experienced NDE with/without OBE!

Is this your final position?

Reread what I wrote without your freaking blinkers on.

TenQ:
Thanks.
I am hoping you are truthful on this!

If I get you right, you won't unequivocally dismiss the experiences of people who claimed they saw/interacted with UFOs or experienced NDE with/without OBE!

1. Why?
2. But you don't have ANY compelling EVIDENCES?

Thanks

Because the claims are often mundane. Someone saw something flying but they don't know what it is hence the Unidentified in the acronym. That's not very much information in determining anything significant about what the person saw. It could be any number of things.

As for NDEs they are also somewhat mundane claims much like dreams they cannot be verified as having occurred nor is there any way to find out if they are linked to real occurances outside of what is in our reality.

So I say OK somebody saw a UFO or had an NDE, now what?

I don't need evidence to accept that someone had an experience they didn't understand. It's the attempt at understanding that requires evidence.

TenQ:
Even though I don't feel responding to you, however you have used a terrible set of STRAWMAN questions. Why?
These are ALL fictitious and known examples.

How about this:
1. Can you unequivocally dismiss ALL UFO sightings and experiences as a Hoax?
Note:
-You've personally never seen a UFO
-No government has shown us any clear pictures of a UFO

Your answers should be YES or NO!

2. Can you unequivocally dismiss ALL NDE as Hoax?
Note:
-You've never experienced one
-Recorded Experiences seem to be slightly different
-some kind of OBE and NDE can be simulated with drugs

Your answers should be YES or NO!

This is closer to religion than your Unicorn and Mars STRAWMAN examples!

You may after stating YES or NO justify your position.

I'll bite.

No to both.

OLAADEGBU:
The US constitution, for instance, was written based on His Law.

His name nor his signature is not on the document period.

OLAADEGBU:
Jesus is the lawgiver of the land.

Why is his name and signature not on any law documents of the land?

donbachi:
But almost killed Kanye for what they tagged "anti-Semitism

Almost killed him how?

OLAADEGBU:
The law of the land recognises his fundamental human rights to pray publicly cannot be denied hence handsomely rewarding him with the damages.

Ha the law of the land is also superior to Jesus. Omo Jesus don turn houseboy o. LMFAO!

Kayouzka:
Stone don't exist except someone is aware of it, how can you describe a stone without your awareness

LoLz! By Andromeda, I am done. Bwahahahahahaha!

I cannot believe I am arguing object permanence with an adult. Something every toddler learns before they get into school.

jaephoenix:
If this guy is a lawyer, it would be a disaster defending a criminal. He'll indict the criminal in the first hearing and even tell the judge what kind of sentence to award

LMFAO!

OLAADEGBU:
It can only be virtual signalling if you're sure he was only praying publicly to be noticed of men.

Then why didn't he stop when he was offered a private place? Some people even got hurt because of the rush to see the spectacle and yet he didn't stop.

OLAADEGBU:
How did you know his was virtue signalling, did you follow him to his closet?

He came to the public that's how I know, exactly as you defind what virtue signalling is.

Kayouzka:
Neither can you have existence without consciousness
The two are not independent of there own.

You are funny. How does a stone need consciousness for it's existence?

jaephoenix:
Remember Emperor Constantine used the sword to spread christianity to the Anglo Saxons(present day Britain)

Exactly. They are the ones who made it possible for the junk to spread.

OLAADEGBU:
What Jesus was addressing was the hypocrisy of praying for public display and not in spirit and truth, what you call virtue signalling today. If you must pray in public you must have been praying privately.

Coach was massively virtue signalling. If someone offers you privacy for your religious observances and you refuse it means you are just virtue signalling.

jaephoenix:
Lol. I have given up on that dude. I wish to Flying Spaghetti Monster, he doesn't get his hands on semi automatics. There would be some tragedies. And problem is there are many Christians like him, waiting for opportunities to express their violence

He is truly appalling.

OLAADEGBU:
God is everywhere including your closet.

Jesus didn't know that when he purportedly said to go pray in secret right. LoLz.

jaephoenix:
There's this TenQ character I'm arguing with, he's using logic and science to prove Yahweh existence, and doing a poor job of it, using special pleading fallacies and poor application of science

He reminds me of myself when I was still a Christian but he avoids being honest with himself.

jaephoenix:
Careful bro. That's gastritis youre courting

I hope not, I don't take alcohol often.

jaephoenix:
35% alcohol. Bro, you sure say you go fit drink am
Me na regular beer I dey

I just took a shot, it blistering. It's raining here and e dey generate heat. LoLz.

Kayouzka:
You are correct it consciousness which is fundamental

Nope. You cannot have consciousness without existence.

Kayouzka:
Lol, that's the truth and the problem with modern science.

It's the limit of human beings.

HardMirror:
for real. Thanks baba.

Bought this to celebrate you and your babe. Salut!

Kayouzka:
How can you prove that?

Without your awareness

Ok this is my busstop. I don't jump into solipsistic traps.