Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,050 Year: 5,307/9,624 Month: 332/323 Week: 176/160 Day: 12/38 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Straggler
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 650 of 1725 (594442)
12-03-2010 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 649 by xongsmith
12-03-2010 11:37 AM


Re: I got it!
Why? Semantic pedantic bollocks. Science can and does answer "why questions" all the time.
But if you are referring to a specific sort of nonsensical "why question" here is Dawkins on that subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSZ_fsG5uMg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 649 by xongsmith, posted 12-03-2010 11:37 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 652 by Panda, posted 12-03-2010 6:12 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 653 of 1725 (594519)
12-03-2010 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 652 by Panda
12-03-2010 6:12 PM


Re: I got it!
Panda writes:
Can I ask both yourself and Xongsmith to agree that 'why' and 'how' are interchangeable in common parlance.
Yes.
And very often in scientifc parlance too.
Panda writes:
I think that you both agree that science doesn't answer 'why?' in the 'meaning of life' sense.
Indeed. But what does? Philosophy maybe....? Theology? I don't think so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 652 by Panda, posted 12-03-2010 6:12 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 654 by Panda, posted 12-03-2010 7:07 PM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 711 of 1725 (601950)
01-25-2011 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 709 by Panda
01-24-2011 7:56 PM


Panda writes:
I think the discussion will head towards ignosticism next...
Oh we have been there with RAZD before. Message 453
Those of us who have been round the houses with RAZD are also very familiar with the idea of the god that has no description. Otherwise known as the ultimate god of the ultimate gap. Where the gap in question is the human notion of god itself.
It is (apparently) "unknowable". Although how anyone could know this remains a mystery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 709 by Panda, posted 01-24-2011 7:56 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 712 by Panda, posted 01-25-2011 3:30 PM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 795 of 1725 (603268)
02-03-2011 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 791 by New Cat's Eye
02-03-2011 2:22 PM


CS writes:
Sure, but the theory that that is all there is, is unfalsifiable. Too, if a supernatural source could be shown, then it wouldn't supernatural.
At the end of the day, its a non-theory.
The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural concepts known to science.
That some other un-evidenced alternative might conceivably exist is irrelevant to this.
Evolution from common descent is the only source of different species known to science.
That some other un-evidenced alternative (e.g. omphalism) might conceivably exist is irrelevant to this.
When are you going to grasp the idea that un-evidenced alternatives have no bearing on the strength or validity of scientific theories whatsoever?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 791 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2011 2:22 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 948 of 1725 (603841)
02-08-2011 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 813 by RAZD
02-03-2011 10:20 PM


Subjective "Evidence" - Surely Not?
RAZD writes:
One of the problems that I have is that I cannot see a way to distinguish imagination from an unverified subjective experience (if you remember the discussions with Straggler) of the supernatural, particularly where one does not fully understand the experience....
I remember the discussions with Straggler very well. I remember your multi-thread "liar liar" tirade equally well.
Once again it seems you feel the need to raise the issue of subjective "evidence" in the context of a discussion about deities. I find it remarkable that you keep feeling the need to raise such "evidence" in the context of discussions about supernatural beings given your rather forthright stance on the absence of any link between the two. Not to mention the rampant accusations of "lying" that were made by you when it was suggested you might be making just such a connection to support your pro-supernaturalist arguments.
RAZD rather beligerently writes:
NEWS FLASH:
RAZD ARGUMENT ON THE VALUE OF SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEITIES!!!
.... for more on a logical argument regarding the value of subjective evidence that has nothing to do with deities stay tuned for more of my posts ....
Message 402
In the context of the great debate at hand the question of course is whether or not supernatural beings can legitimately be concluded to be the cause of such experiences.
To conclude supernatural causes for such human experiences is in itself an evidentially baseless conclusion. And one that flies in the face of all of the historical and psychological evidence regarding mankinds tendencies in this area.
In fact the whole "subjective evidence" argument amounts to nothing more than citing belief itself as a form of evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 813 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2011 10:20 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 955 by Blue Jay, posted 02-08-2011 3:59 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 956 by Jon, posted 02-08-2011 5:11 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 1005 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2011 2:25 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 949 of 1725 (603843)
02-08-2011 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 923 by New Cat's Eye
02-07-2011 3:07 PM


Re: possibilities and probabilities
CS writes:
Its not that we simply have an absense of evidence for the pen, its that we have evidence of the empty desk.
Its not that we simply have an absense of evidence for supernatural beings, its that we have positive evidence of the human ability and inclination to invent such things.
Do you understand the difference between the theory that all supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination and the assertion that no supernatural beings exist?
Can you see how Bluegenes is talking about positive evidence for the former rather than playing the silly 'disprove' one god at a time that RAZ and Xongsmith seem determined to impose as necessary?
Can you see why the former approach is based on inductive scientific reasoning whilst the latter is just a debate tactic that amounts to nothing more than demanding that unfalsifiable beliefs be disproved?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 923 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-07-2011 3:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 950 of 1725 (603844)
02-08-2011 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 819 by xongsmith
02-03-2011 11:15 PM


Re: The issue is settled?
X writes:
That is why Straggler's and bluegenes' hypothetical imagined beings are off topic.
Would you like to give us an example of a being that is not hypothetical or imagined and therefore is 'on-topic'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 819 by xongsmith, posted 02-03-2011 11:15 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 957 by xongsmith, posted 02-08-2011 5:49 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 964 of 1725 (603950)
02-09-2011 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 957 by xongsmith
02-08-2011 5:49 PM


Re: The issue is settled?
Straggler writes:
Would you like to give us an example of a being that is not hypothetical or imagined and therefore is 'on-topic'?
X writes:
Jesus Christ
I am certain there are some here in EvC who would argue that he is not hypothetical or made up.
Firstly do you understand that bluegenes theory is first and foremost a theory about human behaviour? And that demonstrations of human capabilities and proclivities are therefore very much on topic - Do you "get" this?
Secondly - Is there a shred of evidence to suggest that any supernatural element of the Jesus concept is anything other than derived from human imagination?
X writes:
But there are some here who disagree with us.
Do you consider belief itself to be a form of evidence for that which is believed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 957 by xongsmith, posted 02-08-2011 5:49 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 970 by xongsmith, posted 02-09-2011 12:16 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 965 of 1725 (603951)
02-09-2011 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 956 by Jon
02-08-2011 5:11 PM


Re: Literacy
jon writes:
If not, what makes you think his 'subjective evidence' talk has anything to do with 'deities'?
Can you tell us what RAZD's current discussion with Bluegenes is about if not deities?
I know you love your definitions Jon:
Link
link writes:
deity (d-t, d-)
n. pl. deities
1. A god or goddess.
2.
a. The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity.
b. Deity God. Used with the.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 956 by Jon, posted 02-08-2011 5:11 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 968 by Jon, posted 02-09-2011 11:53 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 966 of 1725 (603952)
02-09-2011 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 955 by Blue Jay
02-08-2011 3:59 PM


Re: Peanut Gallery of the Peanut Gallery
BluJ writes:
But, ignoring the fact that this is incidentally just such a case, I still declare you guilty.
As charged.
BluJ writes:
Side Note: When stuff that happens in the Peanut Gallery thread draws gallery-style commentary itself (e.g., this post), maybe it's time to consider the possibility that the Peanut Gallery is no longer acting as a peanut gallery.
I think this peanut gallery needs a peanut gallery. And so we crack shells in a orgy of infinite regress with no peanut to sate us at the end of our quest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 955 by Blue Jay, posted 02-08-2011 3:59 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 972 by Blue Jay, posted 02-09-2011 1:37 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 985 of 1725 (604139)
02-10-2011 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 970 by xongsmith
02-09-2011 12:16 PM


Re: The issue is settled?
X writes:
I have not seen any myself. Now - note that right there you did NOT specify objective scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed journals, so, for example, Iano's subjective evidence would qualify for him.
How does Iano's subjective "evidence" for the existence of Jesus (or whetever) differ from Iano's belief that Jesus caused this expereince?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 970 by xongsmith, posted 02-09-2011 12:16 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 988 by xongsmith, posted 02-10-2011 11:24 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 986 of 1725 (604140)
02-10-2011 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 972 by Blue Jay
02-09-2011 1:37 PM


Re: Peanut Gallery of the Peanut Gallery
10 out of 10 for art appreciation......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 972 by Blue Jay, posted 02-09-2011 1:37 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 987 of 1725 (604142)
02-10-2011 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 968 by Jon
02-09-2011 11:53 AM


Re: Literacy
Jon writes:
What does their current discussion have to do with whether or not RAZDs comments on 'subjective evidence' were meant to relate to 'deities'?
The fact that in his current discussion (which this peanut gallery is following) RAZD is quite indisputably citing subjective evidence of deities. Duh!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 968 by Jon, posted 02-09-2011 11:53 AM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 993 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-10-2011 12:19 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 995 of 1725 (604182)
02-10-2011 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 993 by New Cat's Eye
02-10-2011 12:19 PM


Re: Literacy
Actually I think you will find it is the continual references to subjective evidence in threads debating the existence of deities that is the clue here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 993 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-10-2011 12:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 999 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-10-2011 1:58 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 996 of 1725 (604183)
02-10-2011 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 988 by xongsmith
02-10-2011 11:24 AM


Re: The issue is settled?
X writes:
Straggler writes:
How does Iano's subjective "evidence" for the existence of Jesus (or whatever) differ from Iano's belief that Jesus caused this experience?
I have no idea, but I would venture to guess that there is no difference.
Then he is to all intents and purposes citing his belief as evidence upon which to justify his belief. As is the case with all this "subjective evidence" nonsense.
X writes:
Anyway, I doubt that you & I have a different value attached to such "evidence" in the matter at hand: zero.
Then the evidence that any supernatural aspects to the Jesus concept are more likely to originate in the minds of men than be real would seem to be an obvious conclusion.
Or are you and RAZ going to demand a peer reviewed paper on the ability to walk on water or raise people from the dead?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 988 by xongsmith, posted 02-10-2011 11:24 AM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1010 by xongsmith, posted 02-10-2011 3:45 PM Straggler has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024