Peanut Gallery

I think this may need to be settled in a cage match. 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

Nice!!! If it wasn't in the Peanut Gallery this would deserve a Post of the Month nomination.- Oni

Hi Straggler, 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. 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 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. 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

Hi RAZD, Really? And when the person you're debating feels the same about your position, then you both are misrepresenting each others argument. But neither is a liar, IMO.I think you fail to see that Straggler has the same feelings about your argument that you do for his, and many feel he is right in doing so. I'm not saying one is right and the other is wrong, but lets see it for what it is; two people who feel the other is misrepresenting their individual positions. Perhaps you needed to do a better job in explaining how it was false. *Curiously* this may be why many feel you are being ambiguous. In your eyes perhaps, but to many of us watching the debate it has not been clear how you exposed it. And if the evidence cannot be tested, and therefore is unfalsifiable, what then? The original premise, that it was evidence to begin with, doesn't it fall apart at that point?If it does, if the premise falls apart, could we then take that example and use it for all claims that are un-testable?Or for things that have already been established as false?You have stated that if it contradicts known facts then it's rejected.Example: Say I had an "experience" from which I claimed that the earth was flat. As you say, this is a starting point to investigating, however, after investigating we find out that it is not flat and is in fact spherical (this happened already in history).Could we then reject any and all "experiences" that claim something other than the earth is spherical, right of the bat? And not treat the claim that it's a square, or a rectangle, as any form of evidence just because someone experienced it?I think you can agree that we can.But what about claims in which no evidence to the contrary exists? Well, that depends on what we consider evidence against certain claims. Here's where faith plays a role in leading people to think that their beliefs may not as of yet been proven false, and that is where I feel that misunderstandings begin to play a role.Certain things are false and yet people believe they exist, like god(s). Every single known testimony for god(s) has been proven false, supernatural accounts are false, and yet it seems as though you're saying that if someone has an *experience* that they attribute to god(s) it should be considered evidence until it is, yet again, proven false.But how many times do supernatural claims have to be shown to be false before we can start rejecting all experiences that claim something supernatural exists?I agree that most claims should be held as tenetive until they are shown to be false, but how many times does a particular premise have to be exposed as false before we can start rejecting similar premises right from the beginning? Fair enough, and I agree.- OniEdited by onifre, : Clarified a bit.

---

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

I feel you on this, being hispanic myself and obviously my daughters and most of my friends are as well. Plus the comedy group I run with is made up of a diverse group (arabic, black, white, hispanic), I've just been able to see past such ignorance in people and just deal with what they're saying, at the moment. Don't know if you read about the story I wrote on Phats "drug" thread, about the Klan member I ended up having a few drinks with. It's like this when I travel most of the time. I'm in places where no other hispanics are around except for the gardners and cooks. Their overall ideology is irrelevant, at least to me. What they bring to the table in that specific discussion is all I truly concern myself with.But I feel you, and I respect that you'll ignore him on that basis.- 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

While I'm half enjoying my conversation with ICANT at the KCA thread, it's getting a bit frustrating repeating myself.This reminds me of a funny episode from Lucky Louis, enjoy. This is a good explanation for Smooth Operator, too. - OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

I know that situation all too well. Their curiosity is inspiring though, we should all question everything.But get your 4yr old signed up, I'm sure he'll present much more logical arguments than many here...including me. - Oni

You, Hannity, OReilly and Limbaugh... Hiding from the liberal left, who wants to take your guns and turn you gay, with the same blue pill.- Oni

Well, what did horses do before humans had guns?Lets just go back to that.- Oni

In Message 103 of the species/kind thread, Mr. Jack shows ICANT just how ignorant he is on the subject.ICANT actually, in a way, is defending evolution. Well done Mr. Jack.- Oni

Dude I was gonna send you a message that you were probably dying to get involved! LolI love Blue's argument in this debate. I liked it before in the other threads on this topic. His logic is spot-on.I'm waiting for RAZD's giant banners and flashing light displays when his argument fails and he has to resort to glamourous attractions to keep us interested.I still can't see how one can have a debate about an answer to a question that is completely meaningless. But I'll keep tuning in.- Oni

Hi Bluejay, Yes But you don't see the potential!Look at the difference: Boooo... Boringggggg... No one cares....But look at this: Hellz yeah!!!!You make the call, but I think the 2nd one is the coolest. And should be the way science announces any discovery. - Oni

Ah ha! So bunnies can come from somewhere other than rabbits! Btw, I think your debate with RAZ is slowly turning into an Abbott and Costello routine.Blue: All supernatural beings come from the human imagination.RAZD: That's an extraordinary claim, do you have evidence?Blue: Do you have evidence for another source?RAZD: No, no, you show me the evidence for yours?Blue: My what? I just proposed a theory.RAZD: That's not a theory.Blue: What's not a theory? Supernatural beings come from human imagination? Sure it is, just as all baby rabbits come from adult rabbits.RAZD: Nope.Blue: What do you mean no? Show me another source.RAZD: You show me evidence first.Blue: For what?RAZD: Your extraordinary claim.Blue: What claim, about the rabbits?RAZD: No, about the supernatural beings.Blue: Just show me one that doesn't.RAZD: Doesn't what?Blue: ...doesn't come from the human imagination.RAZD: I don't have to.Blue: Then my theory isn't falsified.RAZD: Sure it is, cause you haven't shown evidence.Blue: Evidence for what? I'm asking you to show me it doesn't come from the human imagination. Just as baby rabbits come from adult rabbits.RAZD: I need evidence from you first.Blue: For the rabbit?RAZD: No, for your claim.Blue: Dude, just show me one source other than the human imagination.RAZD: Nope...you first.Blue: Me first what?RAZD: Evidence...Blue: For what?!?!?!?!RAZD: Your claim.Blue: What claim? I just proposed a theory! Like the one about the rabbits.RAZD: Cognitive dissonance...Blue: What the fuck are you talking about???RAZD: Confirmation bias...Blue: For fuck sake, just show me one source other than human imagination!!!RAZD: I'm gonna go ride my bike.../the end- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

What I have always taken issue with is, how is saying "supernatural being X is a concept" actually make it a concept? That's not a concept at all, it just a word salad.Then, to have the arrogance to expect someone to demonstrate, with objective empirical valid evidence, that these concepts are unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention and not a supernatural being, is absurd.- Oni

Hi xongsmith, But xong, the fact that supernatural beings are only conceptually referenced, by definition, make it a by-product of the human mind/imagination? Nothing else can come up with a concept, supernatural or otherwise, other than the human mind, right?- Oni