|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD (and you) need to decide what it is you are asking for. Are you asking for peer reviewed literature that refutes specified god concepts? Concepts such as Scarab the ancient Egyptian godly dung beetle that pushes the Sun across the sky. Or Thor as the source of thunder and lightning. Or Yahweh the young Earth creationist creator god. Etc. There is indisputably "mountains" of this evidence available and much of it has indeed been cited by Bluegenes already. To cite all of it would take decades.
Or are you asking for peer reviewed literature that unfalsifiable gods cannot exist? Which is it? It remains a fact that the only known source of supernatural concepts is the human imagination. In any other area less riddled with precious beliefs this would be enough of a basis on which to make the inductive scientific conclusion that all such concepts are derived from this same source. Only because of the strength of belief in such concepts are we faced with this relentless horseshit about proving they "cannot" exist and claims that "subjective experiences" somehow demonstrate that they do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Personaly I don't see how this image could be anything other than a person "worshipping" a calf. Could be a person butchering a cow. Could be a person standing next to a cow. Could be a horse. Could be something completely different. Could be worshiping. Could not be. It's a frakking stick figure with a vaguely bovine outline divided into sections, which may be part of the "design" or may just be an attempts at shading. Guessing at specifics like what the stick figure is doing with the vaguely bovine outline requires more context than this photograph. Saying "I don;t know what else it could be" is ridiculous and a clear sign of confirmation bias - the picture in no way clearly demonstrates "worshiping." Not by itself. "I don;t know what else it could be" only requires that someone else have a better imagination than you. Don't believe things because the evidence allows you to, believe what the evidence compels you to believe. In no way does this drawing compel a conclusion involving worship. We'd need to know a lot more to determine whether this stick figure is worshiping this vaguely bovine outline. When is the artwork dated? Are there other cultural clues aside from this one drawing that would support the hypothesis that the culture worshiped cows? Where was the drawing found? Are there other drawings nearby that add relevant context?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Um, I realize there's no smiley, but he shopped the picture so the guy is blowing the calf....
Another confirmation of Poe's Law!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Um, I realize there's no smiley, but he shopped the picture so the guy is blowing the calf.... Another confirmation of Poe's Law! ...wow. I thought it was a scan of a photograph and had been smudged. I have been Poe'd.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
See, that's why I don't go to Conservapedia, even for laughs. The stupid, combined with the irony and the fact that the article on Poe's Law could potentially be a Poe itself threatens to make my head explode.
It's not worth the funnies. I like my head unexploded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The possibility of Poe's within Poe's is as head implosion worthy as RAZD's latest posts in this thread regarding the lack of absence of evidence not being evidence of the absence of lack of evidence that may or may not be lacking if absent.
(**BOOM**)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
rueh Member (Idle past 3691 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined: |
LOL I have always thought that unintentional humor is the best type of humor and your post is filled with it. I have not laughed so hard in a while and for that I thank you. That being said......
Rahvin writes:
I can't help but feel that you may also be falling prey to not critically examing the evidence before arriving at a predetermined conclusion. However, I believe I can forgive that seeing as how your post not only brought humor but also knowledge for me (concerning Poe's law). Humor and knowledge that's a win, win in my book. "I don’t know what else it could be" only requires that someone else have a better imagination than you. Don't believe things because the evidence allows you to, believe what the evidence compels you to believe. In no way does this drawing compel a conclusion involving worship. Edited by rueh, : No reason given. 'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat' The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
X writes: Well, you have a pretty good batting average on that yourself. It is RAZ not me that is claiming that subjective "evidence" has "NOTHING" to do with deities. But like any good batsman I play each ball on it's merits. See Message 1021 and let's take this discussion to Inductive Atheism Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Straggler writes: RAZD (and you) need to decide what it is you are asking for. Are you asking for peer reviewed literature that refutes specified god concepts? Concepts such as Scarab the ancient Egyptian godly dung beetle that pushes the Sun across the sky. Or Thor as the source of thunder and lightning. Or Yahweh the young Earth creationist creator god. Etc. There is indisputably "mountains" of this evidence available and much of it has indeed been cited by Bluegenes already. To cite all of it would take decades. RAZD seems to have added that the supernatural being in question must have a current following of believers.... I think there are still quite a few current followers of Yahweh, the young Earth creationist creator god, but your other 2 examples fail to impress me that way. Those other 2 are supernatural beings that don't matter anymore. but I will give credit to bluegenes for the YEC Yahweh - especially tasty to use RAZD's own formidable litany of posts dispelling this supernatural being with objective scientific evidence. If he backpedals to saying something like "Well, they were misinterpreting a still possible Yahweh who dates back to the current scientific model of the universe.", then I would regard that Yahweh as a different supernatural being.
Or are you asking for peer reviewed literature that unfalsifiable gods cannot exist? Not me. I haven't seen anyone here clinging to that.
It remains a fact that the only known source of supernatural concepts is the human imagination. Can I make a small mod to this?
It remains a fact that the only known source of supernatural concepts is the imagination of self-aware beings. As for the point,
In any other area less riddled with precious beliefs this would be enough of a basis on which to make the inductive scientific conclusion that all such concepts are derived from this same source. Only because of the strength of belief in such concepts are we faced with this relentless horseshit about proving they "cannot" exist and claims that "subjective experiences" somehow demonstrate that they do. I agree....except that the very word "supernatural" breaks up into "above" and "natural" and science only attempts to describe the natural world - so right away we are in a very different situation than - say - the precious beliefs held by Steady State Cosmologists. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I like that the guy from Everybody Loves Ramond introduced Andy Thomson. I was wondering what he was doing for work these days.
- Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Where a well evidenced naturalistic explanation for a given phenomenon exists is it ever reasonable to invoke an unevidenced supernatural explanation as superior or even comparable?
X writes: RAZD seems to have added that the supernatural being in question must have a current following of believers.... Yes RAZ likes to make up the rules as he goes along. I am all too familiar with that trait.
X writes: I think there are still quite a few current followers of Yahweh, the young Earth creationist creator god, but your other 2 examples fail to impress me that way. Thor and Scarab have been rejected exactly because storms and the Sun are understood naturally. Thus refuting their godly explanations. Which is kinda the point.
X writes: Can I make a small mod to this? "It remains a fact that the only known source of supernatural concepts is the imagination of self-aware beings". Are there any evidenced examples of supernatural concepts derived from non-humans?
X writes: I agree....except that the very word "supernatural" breaks up into "above" and "natural" and science only attempts to describe the natural world... Then you are STILL missing the entire fucking point. The existence of, and human belief in, supernatural concepts is a very real phenomenon. And perfectly able to be explained naturalistically. You continue to blatantly conflate the tentative theory that all supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination and the assertion that no supernatural beings can exist. Can you see how Bluegenes is talking about positive evidence for the former? Not playing the silly 'disprove' one god at a time that RAZ and you seem determined to unjustifiably impose as necessary. Can you see why the former approach is based on inductive scientific reasoning whilst what you and RAZ are doing is just a debate tactic that amounts to nothing more than demanding that unfalsifiable beliefs be disproved? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: Straggler will be amused (or should be by this time) to see another atheist citing the absence of evidence as evidence of absence. It will no doubt amuse you when I point out that you have previously agreed that the whole "absence of evidence" thing is a giant red herring. No claim is made in a vacuum of all objective evidence. All human claims are made in the highly objectively evidenced context of human history, pschology and culture. With regard to god concepts and their source of origin there is no "absence of evidence". There is a wealth of evidence. A wealth of evidence strongly favouring the (tentative) conclusion that such concepts originate to fulfil very human needs for explanation, comfort, companionship etc. etc. Conversely there is no objective evidence to suggest such things might actually exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi onifre, let's try again Hi RAZD, and yes, lets try again.
I could experience communication from a supernatural entity without experiencing the entity in question Again, experience or imagination. However you want to derive that experience, for sake of your position, is acceptable with me. Don't feel like you have to be clever here, it boils down to two, and not because I say so, but because humans can only come to know ANYTHING in these two ways.
We do this everyday when posting here: we experience the communication without experiencing the communicator. That's fine, you can know of the communicator by communicating with the communicator. It is an experience of said communicator thru a means of communication. I have not argued differently.
This would be like the meteor event, you have evidence of the event, but not of the cause. It could be a meteor or it could be "Thor's hammer, Mjollnir" smiting the earth. Can it really be Thor's hammer? Would that be equal to suggesting a meteor?
But we already have plenty of evidence of the supernatural, or there would not be religions, it is just not scientifically validated. We have zero evidence of anything supernatural. All we have are claims made by humans. That is shit as far as evidence is concerned. But in any case, if someone is claiming to know the supernatural, there are only two ways in which that person came to know of it: either thru experience or imagination. If they heard of it thru stories, then they don't know the supernatural, they have only then heard of it. Like every Christian today has only heard of Jesus, but they don't know of anything supernatural about him. That is such a fact that they admittedly add faith to the matter because of the lack of evidence.
Again, it would be possible to experience communication without experiencing the source. And yet it remains an experience, so what, if anything, is your point? When you said, "lets try again," did you mean, "let me confirm exactly what you have been saying, Oni, but in a way that makes it look like I disagree with you?" Because you nailed it. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: Religious documents and reports of supernatural experiences. These religious documents and reports are abundant, they are objective empirical evidence that should be considered in any discussion of supernatural beings. RAZD writes: Once you make this claim, then it is incumbent on you to show that existing religious documents, and reports of religious experiences documenting supernatural sources, cannot be due to supernatural communications. Hello RAZ you old rascal. We need to know what it is you mean by this. Can you give us some examples (some links or extensive quotes would be nice) of some documented "religious experiences" that constitute this "objective empirical evidence" of yours? Can you also tell us what you think these documented religious experiences are evidence of exactly? Please reply to Inductive Atheism Thanks in advance. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024