|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery | |||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Yea, well you smell bad.
"I really like the Peanut Gallery. we've got to make more use of it." - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
The way I remember it, I thought I grew up a Mormon.
Yet, lately, Traste has proposed a new hypothesis to explain my belief system: Bluejay is a Muslim who believes in Intelligent Design! (Source: Post #380 in Transition from chemistry to biology). And, his hypothesis might actually have some merit. Look at his evidence:
He read Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?. In Message #3 of that thread, I clearly state that I believe in a naturalistic Intelligent Designer, one that uses evolution to "design." Throughout the thread, I present my beliefs as tentative speculation. In the same thread, the fact that I am a Mormon is mentioned several times (e.g., Messages #5, #7 and #343). Sounds like a foolproof hypothesis to me. I think Traste should submit it for publication in the Journal of Bluejayology (impact factor: 1.3E-42): they've been looking for a new hypothesis to reinvigorate the field. Edited by Bluejay, : Apparently, I've lost my link-to-individual-posts privileges. Edited by Bluejay, : More individual posts linked. Edited by Bluejay, : Indents, and important preposition added. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I assume you'll now be watching Little Mosque on the Prairie?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bailey Member (Idle past 4370 days) Posts: 574 From: Earth Joined: |
Hope things are goin' well ...
Percy writes:
~ rotfl ~ Bluejay writes:
I assume you'll now be watching Little Mosque on the Prairie? The way I remember it, I thought I grew up a Mormon. Yet, lately, Traste has proposed a new hypothesis to explain my belief system: Bluejay is a Muslim who believes in Intelligent Design! First, dark chocolate Reeses peanut butter cups & now this ?! What'll they think of next ... One Love
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
At first I was enjoying this debate, but at this point neither is helping the other come to an agreement on what the real issues are. One claims to be misrepresented and that lies are being told, the other can't seem to understand where the lies and misrepresentations are, and neither seems willing to bend on the matter. I'm not calling a winner or loser, I'm calling for an end to the dead end debate. For the love of "supernatural inherently non-empirical entities," please, I beg of you, walk away to your neutral corners fellas. - Oni If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. ~George Carlin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CosmicChimp Member Posts: 311 From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland Joined: |
Although I gave up hundreds of posts ago on their debate, I have read the last few posts on that never-ending saga. BORING. Seems to be a stalemate as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
It's a perpetual stalemate. The debate has gone on for so long (and at this point it's gotten so downright nasty) that it's difficult to point to what some positions actually state at this point.
All I know is that I agreed with Straggler at the beginning, and none of the posts I've seen from RAZD have been at all convincing that Straggler's position is fallacious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
OK OK. I will stop.
Well.... If he will stop I will stop too. Promise. Obviously I am biased but I think Percy's wisdom in spotting this outcome months in advance is the most obvious winner in all of this.
Message 114
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
OK OK. I will stop. Well.... If he will stop I will stop too. Promise. I think this may need to be settled in a cage match.
Obviously I am biased but I think Percy's wisdom in spotting this outcome months in advance is the most obvious winner in all of this. I'd forgotten about Percy's prediction. Shit, he nailed it on the head. I guess the EvC guru has lots of experience in these debates to know what direction they'll take. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
I'd forgotten about Percy's prediction. Shit, he nailed it on the head. I guess the EvC guru has lots of experience in these debates to know what direction they'll take. Perhaps the prediction came to him as a non-empirical "experience" while he was awake and conscious. This shows that non-empirical "experiences" of an undefined nature can have predictive qualities, and can be used to draw conclusions about objective reality! They don't count as a sixth sense, though. Definitely not that. Or, maybe Percy just made an incredibly accurate assessment of where the debate would wind up. Who can say? In the absence of evidence, I suppose I'm forced to be agnostic on the matter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Perhaps the prediction came to him as a non-empirical "experience" while he was awake and conscious. This shows that non-empirical "experiences" of an undefined nature can have predictive qualities, and can be used to draw conclusions about objective reality! Nice!!!
Who can say? In the absence of evidence, I suppose I'm forced to be agnostic on the matter If it wasn't in the Peanut Gallery this would deserve a Post of the Month nomination. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard Townsend Member (Idle past 4732 days) Posts: 103 From: London, England Joined: |
Perhaps the prediction came to him as a non-empirical "experience" while he was awake and conscious. This shows that non-empirical "experiences" of an undefined nature can have predictive qualities, and can be used to draw conclusions about objective reality! They don't count as a sixth sense, though. Definitely not that. . Or, maybe Percy just made an incredibly accurate assessment of where the debate would wind up. Who can say? In the absence of evidence, I suppose I'm forced to be agnostic on the matter Don't, please!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Look I know everyone is sick of this but I have actually been called a liar Message 34. I have been accused of repeated intentional misinterpretation and downright dishonesty with regard to RAZD's position on non-empirical evidence. But.......
RAZD responds writes: Thanks again Percy,
Percy writes to Straggler writes: To me the point you made with the aware but otherwise insensate intellect seems obvious. You established this as a baseline for the type of experiences that cannot constitute valid empirical evidence, and RAZD agreed with it. Eventually, but by gosh what a wrangle to get there from where he started. I find it humorous that he had to go to the point where perception of any external experience was impossible before he could get to a point where subjective perception was not possible evidence. All intermediate positions had some level of credibility that evidence so provided could be true Message 150 My emphasis. RAZD specifically agrees that an "aware but otherwise insensate intellect" is in a situation where "perception of any external experience was impossible". How can this possibly be construed as anything other than an absolute statement that empirical evidence is the only means of experiencing reality external to ones own mind? Nobody has to answer this. I am not asking for people to take sides. I just felt that being called a dishonest liar demanded at least an explanation as to why I repeatedly described RAZD's position as I did. Anyway the important thing is that we have now unequivocally established RAZD's true position which is that non-empirical evidence is indeed valid and that it is by means of this non-empirical evidence that we can distinguish between those non-empirical concepts that are evidenced and those that are not. Unless of course I have got it wrong yet again..? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi Straggler,
Look I know everyone is sick of this but I have actually been called a liar Message 34. I have been accused of repeated intentional misinterpretation and downright dishonesty with regard to RAZD's position on non-empirical evidence. My only point was that in not helping further the debate to a point of concession, on both your parts, the debate became ridiculous. But I for one am not sick of the overall points you are making.
How can this possibly be construed as anything other than an absolute statement that empirical evidence is the only means of experiencing reality external to ones own mind? In my opinon, this gets confussed in 2 ways. Philosophically speaking, there is no reality experienced external to ones own mind, therefore "empirical" seems illogical as a pre-qualifier for evidence. However, scientifically speaking, we have established a set of ground rules for what we call empirical evidence that has a set of pre-existing conditions for it. And because of these 2 positions, the argument, especially in a forum, is almost impossible to bring to a point of concession.
I just felt that being called a dishonest liar demanded at least an explanation as to why I repeatedly described RAZD's position as I did. I personally felt that RAZD was not justified in calling you a liar, that, in my opinion, especially for someone like yourself that has been a great poster in this forum, was unwarrented. I felt there was misunderstanding one both of your parts, because I feel that the argument has an inherent quality that will lead to people to misunderstand each other.
Unless of course I have got it wrong yet again..? I'm sure you are probably wrong again in RAZD's opinion, maybe not, but it seems unlikely that you'll fully comprehend each other given the nature of the subject being debated. I have a good idea for a thread that I will likely propose later today...stay tuned. - Oni If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. ~George Carlin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Philosophically speaking, there is no reality experienced external to ones own mind, therefore "empirical" seems illogical as a pre-qualifier for evidence. However, scientifically speaking, we have established a set of ground rules for what we call empirical evidence that has a set of pre-existing conditions for it. And because of these 2 positions, the argument, especially in a forum, is almost impossible to bring to a point of concession. The other problem being RAZD's ambiguity. As Straggler has pointed out, RAZD has never told us what "non-empirical evidence" is. He's only said what it isn't (dreams don't count, for instance, and he agreed that a conscious and aware but totally insensate individual would be able to gain no actual information about the world). I've seen Straggler's conception of what RAZD has been saying as justified, but the ambiguity of RAZD's position (by not specifically and directly stating what he is talking about, rather than pointing out what he is not) means that misunderstandings are virtually inevitable. It also doesn't help that half of their posts could each fill a small novel. I'd love to see the debate continue, with emotions running less high. Neither Straggler or RAZD strike me as immobile zealots for their respective causes - both are among the best posters we have on this board. I don't see a stubborn refusal to concede after being refuted. I don't see dishonesty. I see aggravation, frustration, and some partially-defined concepts that are causing miscommunication.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024