Peanut Gallery

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)

RADZ seems to think that this is the Great Debate thread.
But it isn't, which makes his arguments untenable.

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)

Where is it stated that supernatural beings created by human imagination have to be unintentionally created by human imagination?
Where is it stated that intentionally fabricated supernatural beings are not supernatural beings created by human imagination?
Where is it stated that Pinhead is a caricature?{abe}
To summarise: I have named a supernatural being created by human imagination, and you have simply waved your hands about, claiming that it was created on purpose and therefore doesn't count - because you say so.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : plural stuff

Dodge and weave.Either you have evidence for the supernatural or you don't.Clearly you don't.In that you join a long line of shamans probably stretching back hundreds of thousands of years who made claims they couldn't support and who made promises they couldn't guarantee.Same 'ol, same 'ol, eh?.I think the "supernatural" is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in human history, and that you are supporting it with your posts.This to me is sad because most of your other posts have been strictly rational.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Dupe post deleted.Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hey RAZD,In the Great Debate thread you said: I don't accept it on anyone's say so. That's the same conclusion I come to by myself using my own logic, too. I also use the same evidence that bluegenes' uses and that Panda presented here. Just logical, based on the history of mankind, to come out with abstract concepts to explain their reality.What evidence are you using to come to a different conclusion? What am I missing? I really don't see how supernatural things can't be.- Oni

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)

Hi RADZ. You asked for examples of supernatural beings created by the human imagination, which were presented.
Your assertion that Pinhead is a caricature and that caricatures are not supernatural beings is currently baseless.
Care to support your claim with something more than "because I say so"? Luckily, what someone believes has no effect on reality (which I am sure that you already know).
Your assertion that belief affects whether an imagined supernatural being is an imagined supernatural being is currently baseless.
Care to support your claim with something more than "because I say so"? Yes, an intentional, fictional supernatural being. People believing in ghosts is unconnected to Casper being a supernatural being invented by human imagination. An imaginary ghost would be an imaginary supernatural being, which Casper is.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Hi Panda Yes, Casper is a caricature of a ghost. The difference between Pinhead and Casper is ... ?It's your assertion that Pinhead is really a supernatural being rather than a caricature like Casper --- so the onus is on you to demonstrate this.A caricature is not intended to be taken as real.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)

{Content hidden due to missed comment from RADZ} Please explain what relevance this has.
This sounds a lot like your previous baseless assertion "People need to believe in an imaginary supernatural being before it counts".
(I questioned this in my previous post, but I notice you have avoided addressing that issue.){abe}
(Not sure if you added this after I had replied.) Cariacature is not a synonym for fictional (nor imaginary).
That would explain why your comments were not making sense.Fictional is a synonym for imaginary though.
But that would mean that your objection to Pinhead (as an example of an imaginary supernatural being) is that he is imaginary.
That doesn't make sense.If you insist on continuing to use the word 'caricature' then please explain what you think it means and how it applies to Pinhead.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

RAZD, do you agree that there is any evidence for anything supernatural?Don't whine about the fact that that isn't the topic of your thread, I would like a simple yes or no answer.

You're dodging again.I still want you to provide evidence for the supernatural.You have failed to do so in spite of repeated requests. Instead you keep prattling on about fictional ghosts or something. Is that the best you have for the supernatural? Fictional characters?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You seem confused. We're the ones that hold that are no beings that are really supernatural, hence them all being figments of the imagination.