Peanut Gallery

Hi Modulus, it seems you've joined the ranks of Straggler et al in making up things about my position based on their misunderstanding it. If you don't quote what I actually say, then the likelihood is high that you are misrepresenting my position. Badly.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi Modulus, yes my personal view is different from my position in the debate, and irrelevant to it.My position in the debate is to act as an open-minded skeptic, and show that bluegenes has not considered the other possibilities, especially those that lead to contrary positions to his personal concept, but rather has just ignored them.This would be like a scientist ignoring contrary evidence and alternate hypothesis when stating that he had a valid theory. Indeed.But it is precisely bluegenes' claim - not mine - that HE has ruled out supernatural truth in determining that all supernatural entities are the product of human invention, and his claim that the human mind is the only source of information.All I am doing is demonstrating that he has absolutely failed thus far to show this to be so in any way shape or form.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Modulus, please.The difference between discussing evolution and supernatural entities is that supernatural entities are a necessary part of the discussion of supernatural entities, but not of biology.If you are going to argue that supernatural entities do not exist, then you logically must include discussion of whether supernatural entities do in fact exist or not.To intentionally dismiss and disregard any discussion of supernatural entities is like talking about a population of swans, and saying that in any population of all white swans that black swans do not exist.While this may be true for a pure population of white swans, it is not true when all the known information about swans is included.Your analogy of a biologist would be more accurate it involved a biologist that claimed that black swans do not exist, and then ignores the evidence in published literature that black swans do exist.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi xongsmith, Yep, that's pretty much how I see the basic fallacies of the bluegenes argument. Ah, but what about the name of the artist formerly known as prince?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi Bluejay,Not that it will make a difference to some ... OriginsNet Publications
http://www.originsnet.org/chimpspiritdatabase.pdfNor do I think that this is the only example of such behavior in animals.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi xongsmith. Where do subatomic particles go as they flip flop between states of being and not being? If dark stuffs do not cause the anomalous behavior in galaxy spin, could this be evidence of this energy field? Now integrate those concepts into one overall concept, that the elephant exists in the energy field outside normal experience as well, extending to the vast reaches of the universe, "to infinity and beyond", that what is seen is our flatlander vision of the elephant, that it is constantly changing, flowing, so that no one observation can be repeated.Just an idea.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi xongsmith, ... but which only perpetuates the confused conflation of how with why, rather than the distinction.

quote:

---

Why Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
why
-adverb
1.
for what? for what reason, cause, or purpose?: Why did you behave so badly?
-conjunction
2.
for what cause or reason: I don't know why he is leaving.
3.
for which; on account of which (usually after reason to introduce a relative clause): the reason why he refused to go.
4.
the reason for which: That is why he returned.
-noun
5.
a question concerning the cause or reason for which something is done, achieved, etc.: a child's unending hows and whys.
6.
the cause or reason: the whys and wherefores of a troublesome situation.
-interjection
7.
(used as an expression of surprise, hesitation, etc., or sometimes a mere expletive): Why, it's all gone!

---

vs

quote:

---

How Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
how
-adverb
1.
in what way or manner; by what means?: How did the accident happen?
2.
to what extent, degree, etc.?: How damaged is the car?
3.
in what state or condition?: How are you?
4.
for what reason; why?: How can you talk such nonsense?
5.
to what effect; with what meaning?: How is one to interpret his action?
6.
what?: How do you mean? If they don't have vanilla, how about chocolate?
7.
(used as an intensifier): How seldom I go there!
8.
by what title or name?: How does one address the president?
9.
at what price: How are the new cars going, cheaper than last year's models?
10.
by what amount or in what measure or quantity?: How do you sell these tomatoes?
11.
in what form or shape?: How does the demon appear in the first act of the opera? How does the medication come?
-conjunction
12.
the manner or way in which: He couldn't figure out how to solve the problem.
13.
about the manner, condition, or way in which: I don't care how you leave your desk when you go. Be careful how you act.
14.
in whatever manner or way; however: You can travel how you please.
15.
Informal . that: He told us how he was honest and could be trusted.
-noun
16.
a question concerning the way or manner in which something is done, achieved, etc.: a child's unending whys and hows.
17.
a way or manner of doing something: to consider all the hows and wherefores.
18.
a word formerly used in communications to represent the letter H.
-Idioms
19.
and how! Informal . certainly! you bet!: Am I happy? And how!
20.
Here's how, Informal . (used as a toast).
21.
how come? Informal . how is it that? why?: How come you never visit us anymore?
22.
how so? how does it happen to be so? why?: You haven't any desire to go? How so?

---

One of the things we strive for here is clarity of meaning in order to enhance understanding.How things are done is not why things are done.Why things are done is not how things are done.How things happen is explained by science.Why things happen is not explained by science. When you can use how, then that is the proper choice.Why do I say that? because that is the way the words should be used.How do I say that? In english typing on my computer.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi bluegenes, you're getting to be like Straggler, making up stuff and claiming it is my position. Nope, I want objective empirical evidence that supports your claims.You can't seem to provide it, so I though maybe someone else could help you.I also have the impression that Great Debate participants are not supposed to participate in the Peanut Gallery discussion.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

actually, all I am doing is asking bluegenes for his evidence. Curiously, I don't need such evidence: it is bluegenes that made the assertion that needs to be supported. He seems totally incapable of providing the evidence he claimed he had.Amusingly, nobody here seems to be able to help him by suggesting some ... Yours? Do you know what the actual thread is about?enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

again, NOT what the thread is about.read the OP

Hi Coyote, thanks but Then you have absolutely no basis for complaining about my posts in the thread. Why? because, curiously, the OP defines the topic of the thread, not what you want it to be.Bluegenes made an assertion (actually several, including that he had "plenty of evidence" - see Message 4) and needs to provide objective empirical evidence to support it.He hasn't. Can you help him?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : mid

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi Panda

quote:

---

Pinhead is a fictional character from the Hellraiser series. Created by Clive Barker and portrayed by Doug Bradley,

---

Amusingly, you don't seem to understand that starting with a known to be fiction story does not mean you are talking about a supernatural being, but are using an intentionally fabricated caricature instead. Irrelevant. Curiously, failure to meet your rather simplistic request does not mean that his concept has any objective validity: it is just opinion.Before one can begin to discuss falsification, one needs to establish that there is actually a theory in the scientific sense, based on objective empirical evidence.This is the standard you hold people to that make claims, yes? They need to substantiate their claim.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi Coyote, thanks for trying. In other words, no, you do not have any objective empirical evidence that can be presented to support any of bluegenes assertions.See Message 78 for clarification on the claims that need to be supported. Curiously, if YOU have evidence that supports bluegenes' assertions I'd like to see it. HE made the claim. HE needs to support it: Can you help him?Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi Coyote, lets cut to the chase,An open-minded skeptic, imho, is one who is willing to consider the possibility of a(ny) claim but skeptical of accepting it as anything more than just a possibility on faith alone, without any kind of supporting objective, empirical, testable, evidence, and is willing to be undecided until that evidence is presented. Then perhaps you should look at revising your opinion of one or the other. If the other posts have all been strictly rational, then why would I embark on a non-rational binge?Look again at the definition/s of skeptic/ism:

quote:

---

Contemporary skepticism (or scepticism) is loosely used to denote any questioning attitude,[1] or some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted.[2] Usually meaning those who follow the evidence, versus those who are skeptical of the evidence (seeenier) Skepticism is most controversial when it questions beliefs that are taken for granted by most of the population.

​

The word skepticism can characterise a position on a single claim, but in scholastic circles more frequently describes a lasting mind-set. Skepticism is an approach to accepting, rejecting, or suspending judgment on new information that requires the new information to be well supported by evidence.[3] ...

​

A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions beliefs on the basis of scientific understanding. Most scientists, being scientific skeptics, test the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation using some form of the scientific method.[6] As a result, a number of claims are considered pseudoscience if they are found to improperly apply (or else completely ignore) the scientific method. Scientific skepticism often does not address paranormal, or religious beliefs, since these beliefs are, by definition, outside the realm of systematic, empirical testing/knowledge. A scientific skeptic will usually be agnostic towards paranormal or religious beliefs.

---

bold and italic added for emphasis.Note the reliance on empirical evidence to support a position. The scientific method requires objective empirical evidence to support the hypothesis. What have I been asking for from bluegenes? ... objective empirical evidence that shows his claims are more than wishful thinking.Is it irrational to ask for objective empirical evidence to support these claims ... or should I just take them on faith alone?As a skeptic, especially one willing to remain undecided unless there is objective empirical evidence, I do not need to show that his position is false per se, just that it is not supported by objective empirical evidence.It amuses me that some people that can be vociferous skeptics of various theist claims cannot apply the same degree of skepticism to the claims of some atheists, such as:

quote:

---

All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination ...

---

and

quote:

---

The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings ...

---

These are positive claims, as yet unsupported by objective, empirical, testable, evidence. I'm willing to be undecided until I can see some objective empirical evidence that supports these claims, are you?Do you think claims like these should not be challenged?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi Panda, let's try this again. It is accepted that humans can create fictions and fictional characters, however the claim is that ALL supernatural beings are fictional, not just the characters in fiction, written to be fiction, using caricatures of supernatural beings. Because you have not shown them to be actual believed by someone to be supernatural beings. It amazes me that so many people seem to be blind to this rather obvious -to me- distinction. Casper the Friendly Ghost is intentional fiction, but that does not mean that people who believe in ghosts would or should consider Casper a real ghost. A real ghost would be a real supernatural being, but Casper cannot be. Where it says he is a fictional character "Created by Clive Barker". No, what I am saying is that you have not shown that it really is actually a supernatural being, and you cannot just claim that it is ----- you need to demonstrate it: extraordinary claims require evidence, objective empirical evidence, to support them.Fiction is fiction. Fiction does not claim to include all of human knowledge, but is based on it in some form or other. The problem is going from "Casper the Friendly Ghost is fiction" to "ALL ghosts are fiction" solely on the basis of Casper.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : more clruty

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)