Peanut Gallery

So the validity of subjective evidence is a rather key component of RAZD's arguments regarding the supernatural then?

Is there a thread on deities where he hasn't mentioned subjective evidence at all?

He has proposed the falsifiable theory that human imagination is the only source of supernatural beings. This is based on inductive scientific reasoning (of the sort you have demonstrated your inability to comprehend) and the fact that the human imagination is the only known source of such concepts. "Cannot"? What does "cannot" have to do with anything? You never did grasp the idea of lacking absolute certainty in science did you? He hasn't ignored them. Bluegenes theory predicts that where the source of a particular supernatural concept becomes known it will be the human imagination. Do you know of any instance where this has not been the case? A theory with 100% success prediction rate seems like a rather strong theory..... And the validity of that form of evidence is absolutely key to your anti-atheistic arguments. You owe me an apology you stubborn old goat you. Your conflation of religious experiences with things like courtroom testimony continues to be untenable. Immaterial "Evidence" awaits you........ Surely you aren't really going to great debate petrophysics are you? What is that about? Bluegenes has you by the bollocks so you are going to go and shoot some fish in a barrel to boost your ego?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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.

Poe's Law

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**)

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 AtheismEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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? Yes RAZ likes to make up the rules as he goes along. I am all too familiar with that trait. 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. Are there any evidenced examples of supernatural concepts derived from non-humans? 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.

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.

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 AtheismThanks in advance.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

RAZ- Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them?Please reply here Inductive Atheism

I see you now have three Great Debate topics running concurrently. All 3 regarding the existence of gods. All 3 relating to the evidence for and against. How strange that "subjective evidence" is the key feature of your position in all 3 of them. Given that you said your argument on subjective evidence had "NOTHING" to do with such entities. Message 402How prescient am I?

I'm just saying that as a form of evidence that has "NOTHING" to do with deities it crops up an awful lot in your arguments about the existence of deities.And you are still conflating things like courtroom testimony with Immaterial "Evidence"Next time you have one of these much vaunted subjective experiences could you just whip out your mobile phone and snap a god for us? You have been repeatedly invited to reply to questions here Inductive Atheism. Feel free to join us.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

Does anyone understand the point RAZ is trying to make in Message 111 with the whole furniture maker thing?

See Message 126