Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 969 of 1725 (603979)
02-09-2011 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 963 by Adminnemooseus
02-09-2011 2:35 AM


Re: What "Great Debate" topic is this related to?
The Great Debate that keeps getting referred to is the one between bluegenes and RAZD over bluegenes proposed theory:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
Forgot to add:
See EvC Forum: the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)
Message 1
Edited by xongsmith, : link to Great Debate

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 963 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-09-2011 2:35 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 970 of 1725 (603981)
02-09-2011 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 964 by Straggler
02-09-2011 7:07 AM


Re: The issue is settled?
Straggler writes:
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 behavior? And that demonstrations of human capabilities and proclivities are therefore very much on topic - Do you "get" this?
Of course.
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?
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.
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?
Of course not.
Meanwhile, DANG it....there I was, getting closer to Straggler's triple-digit posts in this thread...and just when I felt like I was going to overtake him, he comes back and *blink* builds up a 40 post lead again. *sigh*

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by Straggler, posted 02-09-2011 7:07 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 985 by Straggler, posted 02-10-2011 10:07 AM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 988 of 1725 (604154)
02-10-2011 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 985 by Straggler
02-10-2011 10:07 AM


Re: The issue is settled?
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. Anyway, I doubt that you & I have a different value attached to such "evidence" in the matter at hand: zero.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 985 by Straggler, posted 02-10-2011 10:07 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 996 by Straggler, posted 02-10-2011 1:12 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 1010 of 1725 (604240)
02-10-2011 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 996 by Straggler
02-10-2011 1:12 PM


Re: The issue is settled?
Straggler writes:
...[deletia]...are you and RAZD going to demand a peer reviewed paper on the ability to walk on water or raise people from the dead?
Now don't be silly. At some point this will be bluegenes' problem, not ours.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 996 by Straggler, posted 02-10-2011 1:12 PM Straggler has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 1011 of 1725 (604241)
02-10-2011 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1006 by Straggler
02-10-2011 2:26 PM


Re: Literacy
Straggler writes:
Is there a thread on deities where he hasn't mentioned subjective evidence at all?
Well, you have a pretty good batting average on that yourself.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1006 by Straggler, posted 02-10-2011 2:26 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1029 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2011 1:43 PM xongsmith has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 1017 of 1725 (604270)
02-10-2011 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1009 by Straggler
02-10-2011 2:47 PM


Re: Subjective "Evidence" - Surely Not?
Straggler writes:
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.
"Cannot"? What does "cannot" have to do with anything? You never did grasp the idea of lacking absolute certainty in science did you?
Agreed. And this is falling into the pit of proving a negative. Bad, bad, bad way to word this, brother RAZD.
RAZD writes:
You cannot ignore these documents and then assume that your conclusion has any validity.
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.....
True dat...but now I wonder: is this EvC forum considered to be a good place to publish things and get the proper peer reviews? I am thinking "NOT".
Your conflation of religious experiences with things like courtroom testimony continues to be untenable.
Immaterial "Evidence" awaits you........
RAZ writes:
And don't call me, Shirley.
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?
bluegenes does not have RAZD by the bollocks. RAZD may have his faults, but the point remains - we have yet to see "hands getting dirty" aspects from bluegenes to support "plenty of evidence". I do like his YEC evidence (the age of earth > 6000yrs, ruling out the YEC Yahweh, an argument so thoroughly pulverized by RAZD himself over these years & threads here). But the predominant type of evidence presented thus far is nothing more than the lovely philosophical conjecture of a post-dinner drawing room discussion - in those famous comfortable armchairs, coupled with mankind's current forays into the knowledge of logic. Sitting in a room without windows and telling us the weather outside by relying on equipment mounted miles away and extrapolating that it is the same outside without actually getting up and looking outside is Shirley (poor girl) walking naked into a huge embarrassment.
Again, may I remind you of the Van Gogh painting scenario I brought up eons ago...an exhibit of Van Gogh paintings....one of the paintings is of the moon landing by Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin. Armchair aficionados sitting on the opposite side of the exhibit room will quickly latch onto the fact that Van Gogh was very dead by the time the moon landing was made and therefore he would have had to have been Clairvoyant Beyond Belief or Lucky or something that BASICALLY could not have really really happened and that THEREFORE the painting is a fake. They smugly smile and nod around to each other "yup - a fake". But wait - here's a chemist examining the painting under scientific equipment actually at the painting and finding out it isn't even dry yet. Heck, here's the town drunk lurching into it and smearing the paint. The difference? Enormous difference. In these cases we have have to rely on some kind of probability assessment in our heads. In the 1st case we have a weatherman seated in a windowless room reading his out-of-town barometer & such, which sent remote electronic signals over telephone lines received and then portrayed on his PC screen in livid color - all state of the art equipment & software - and concluding it's not raining outside. In the 2nd case we have a weatherman actually getting up out of his chair and going outside and looking up at the sky and, not completely relying on his eyes and his skin, holding out, say, a huge sheet of something like ordinary litmus paper for a few minutes looking for drops upon this sensitive paper and concluding it's not raining. In the 3rd case we have philosophers arguing that the odds on clairvoyance or sheer coincidental hallucinatory flat-out dumb luck rule against it being anything more than a fake, while not being able to drive the chance completely to 0.0. In the 4th case we have clear & present objective evidence that the painting is a fake that drives it orders of magnitude closer to 0.0. Who has the greater probability of being wrong? Isn't science all about getting the best evidence possible? Isn't science about getting your hands dirty (or at least wet)? (Or maybe getting some paint on your shirt?) Science is not done from an armchair.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1009 by Straggler, posted 02-10-2011 2:47 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1018 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2011 7:40 PM xongsmith has replied
 Message 1021 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2011 8:36 AM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 1019 of 1725 (604303)
02-11-2011 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1018 by Modulous
02-10-2011 7:40 PM


Re: peer review of bluegenes theory
Nice stuff.
But I cannot view that movie. I have 56k dial-up and a 54-minute video would never download.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1018 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2011 7:40 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 1030 of 1725 (604386)
02-11-2011 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1021 by Straggler
02-11-2011 8:36 AM


Re: Subjective "Evidence" - Surely Not?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1021 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2011 8:36 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1032 by Straggler, posted 02-12-2011 3:41 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 1042 of 1725 (606094)
02-23-2011 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1041 by Straggler
02-23-2011 11:07 AM


Re: Furniture Makers
Straggler writes:
Does anyone understand the point RAZ is trying to make in Message 111 with the whole furniture maker thing?
I would wager that it is a variant of the blind men and the elephant story to demonstrate that despite some contradictory versions of furniture making, that furniture nonetheless gets made. This one came out of the Hindu Hypothesis arguments. Mutually exclusive versions of the creation of the earth and the sun and mankind do not rule out a Supernatural Being (a Creator in this case). bluegenes does argue that at most 1 of them can be true, but RAZD is arguing they could all be such imperfectly drawn versions of the same thing that on face value each one is false, yet they are all an attempt to describe the same Creator which could be true.
BTW the Declaration of Independence has that beautiful part. "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights", which applies to me because my Creators were my mom & dad. Actually this statement is even more powerful than that, for the adjective "inalienable" - these right CANNOT be taken away. Off topic....nevermind.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1041 by Straggler, posted 02-23-2011 11:07 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1043 by Straggler, posted 02-24-2011 3:32 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 1046 of 1725 (607103)
03-02-2011 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1045 by Coyote
03-01-2011 5:28 PM


Great Debate between RAZD & bluegenes
We have seen months and months of RAZD asking bluegenes where is the evidence he promised?
bluegenes may not have realized it, but the best dagger is the supernatural being commonly known as the Lord God of the Old Testament, the god of Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses. This supernatural being is claimed to have created everything in 6 days. Then he took a nap on the 7th day. He is not the Deist God of RAZD and others. No - this is a specifically different entity. He is not a trunk or tail of some incompletely seen Heffalump.
Scholars throughout history have studied this old testament dude and a huge amount of homo sapiens sapiens still believe the writings therein that these scholars have concluded means the Earth is only some 6000 years old. The YEC people are a vibrant living sector of the current world and have been around for about as long as anyone would care to measure. This YEC God is not a comic book character, not a caricature in the sense that RAZD is talking about.
Who here in EvC has provided the most objective scientific evidence that this YEC God cannot be correct? Who has more completely demolished the YECs that dare venture into this discussion board?
In short, who has most provided bluegenes with the evidence RAZD is asking for?
The answer is: RAZD, himself.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1045 by Coyote, posted 03-01-2011 5:28 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1047 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2011 6:21 AM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 1048 of 1725 (607174)
03-02-2011 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1047 by bluegenes
03-02-2011 6:21 AM


Re: Great Debate between RAZD & bluegenes
bluegenes writes:
xongsmith writes:
bluegenes may not have realized it....
Of course bluegenes realizes.....
Here in Message 59 and elsewhere.
Ah - thank you. That must have been in one of those places in the Debate where my eyes were again in a glazed-over state...

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1047 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2011 6:21 AM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1049 by Straggler, posted 03-02-2011 12:19 PM xongsmith has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 1052 of 1725 (607303)
03-03-2011 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1050 by Straggler
03-02-2011 2:49 PM


Re: Great Debate RAZD and Subbie - Ignosticism
Straggler writes:
Refusing to define things and then taking the inability to refute a non-concept is NOT an argument in favour of RAZ's agnostic conclusion.
He has tried this rather deceitful approach previously......
Dammit Straggs!
It would help our case if you didn't make up what RAZD is saying.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1050 by Straggler, posted 03-02-2011 2:49 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1053 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2011 9:14 AM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 1054 of 1725 (607449)
03-03-2011 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1053 by Straggler
03-03-2011 9:14 AM


Re: Great Debate RAZD and Subbie - Ignosticism
Straggler writes:
So RAZ wasn't implying that Subbie's inability to refute something undefined was somehow confirmation of the validity of RAZ's relentless pursuit of the agnostic position?
You don't think?
No. Not exactly.
The term that is being sought here is ignosticism. You cannot be agnostic towards the existence of something without knowing what it is. Whatever RAZ tries to assert.
I would agree with this...but,
RAZD: Do you believe god exists?
Never asked that question.
Unsuspecting Person: Well it depends what you mean by god.
RAZD: No. That doesn't matter. Do you believe god exists?
Never said that, never asked that question.
Unsuspecting Person: Well um... I don't know.
RAZD: Aha! Good answer. Very rational. Well done. You are agnostic.
Unsuspecting Person: Am I?
RAZD: Yes.
Unsuspecting Person: Agnostic towards what?
RAZD: I cannot tell you.
Unsuspecting Person: Why?
RAZD: Because if I tell you then you probably won't be agnostic towards it.
*sigh*......again - not at all what was going on. You are assuming RAZD would be that way without evidence that he would.
Unsuspecting Person: But how do you know if I am agnostic. Don't you want to know my actual opinion on your concept of god?
subbie never asked that. Again, you conjured that up yourself.
RAZD: Noooooooo. That would kind of ruin my argument.
RAZD never said that.
Unsuspecting Person: Oh. That seems kind of misleading.
RAZD: Not at all. You have said "I don't know". Thus you are agnostic. That is the answer I wanted. Now move along. Next.
not what was said.
Refusing to define things and then taking the inability to refute a non-concept is NOT an argument in favour of RAZ's agnostic conclusion.
He has tried this rather deceitful approach previously......
Your whole caricature of the conversation went off base.
The line of argument was not about what RAZD believed or what subbie believed, but about what humans in general were capable of believing and knowing. subbie wanted a definition of god(s) that they could agree on and use in the later arguments, but was couching it in terms that were not general enough. RAZD did at one point note that a Deist God would not have to care anything at all about humans and tied it into the concept of being unable to understand what a god is.
RAZD wasn't being obstinate - he was admitting that he couldn't define god(s) well enough. He was looking for help. Defining it only by what it is not wasn't going to get anywhere, but it seemed that was all they had between them - just what it was not.
They had begun to hammer out a workable definition of Evidence.
Just as well it ended.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1053 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2011 9:14 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1057 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 6:33 AM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 1070 of 1725 (607532)
03-04-2011 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1057 by Straggler
03-04-2011 6:33 AM


Re: Great Debate RAZD and Subbie - Ignosticism
Straggler writes:
Were you reading the same debate that I was?
X writes:
Straggler writes:
So RAZ wasn't implying that Subbie's inability to refute something undefined was somehow confirmation of the validity of RAZ's relentless pursuit of the agnostic position? You don't think?
No. Not exactly.
Have you read Message 28?
I like Message 30 better.
My whole post was to make a point about RAZ's idiotic approach. It wasn't supposed to be point by point summary of the conversation with Subbie. It never occurred to me that you (or anyone else) would take it so literally.
But we need to be carefull. WE CANNOT ASSUME ANYTHING.
X writes:
Straggler writes:
The term that is being sought here is ignosticism. You cannot be agnostic towards the existence of something without knowing what it is. Whatever RAZ tries to assert.
I would agree with this
Then you agree with the point of the post. Try not to be so fucking literal.
Not exactly accurate. I agree with ignostic, but I also agree that RAZD's agnostic discussion is appropriate as well.
X writes:
RAZD wasn't being obstinate - he was admitting that he couldn't define god(s) well enough.
RAZ takes whatever approach to this is required to blockade the debate from directions and questions he cannot cope with. When I last engaged him on this exact same issue he insisted that no definition of god was necessary because we all knew what was meant anyway.
RAZD writes:
"Curiously, most people have no problem understanding what the concept god means". Message 445
He can't have it both ways can he now?
But did he include himself in "most people"? No. Rather, I see he is having major problems trying to come to grips with a god concept. I see agonizations. I see a look for help, as in the "DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT I'M TAKING ABOUT??!!??!!" sorts of things. I see admissions at the get-go that a god concept would necessarily mean we could never understand what a god is. I see RAZD resorting to the leanest, stripped-down formal logic he can find, in order to eliminate as much as possible the bullshit that humans have injected into this whole issue, in order to learn as much as possible about what such a thing would be. He is test-flying the various versions of logic he has come up with so far to cast off wrong roads and find anything of value that moves the answer closer.
What have we seen so far? He is a 3, agnostic leaning towards a belief in a Deist God who created the universe and then went off elsewhere to do other things. The subsequent results are both beautiful and humorous (The Silly Design Institute). Now, for me, the humorous instances would be only a natural filling in of histogram bins in any natural gaussian curve's envelope.
Seems to me one of his primary objectives is to move people, such as readers of this forum and himself, from the Ignostic to the Agnostic to the hopeful goal (like any scientist's goal) of Gnostic.
But then, that is all pure conjecture on my part and not a theory.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1057 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 6:33 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1073 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 12:57 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 1071 of 1725 (607533)
03-04-2011 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1067 by New Cat's Eye
03-04-2011 11:50 AM


Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
Catholic Scientist writes:
So you agree that all scientific concepts are figments of the human imaginations, right?
TOUCHE' !!!
This is why I opined that bluegenes theory really wasn't of much value.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1067 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-04-2011 11:50 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1072 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 12:51 PM xongsmith 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