Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
109 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 108 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,132 Year: 6,244/6,534 Month: 437/650 Week: 207/278 Day: 3/44 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Straggler
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1036 of 1725 (605316)
02-18-2011 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1007 by RAZD
02-10-2011 2:41 PM


Direct Question
RAZ- Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them?

Please reply here Inductive Atheism


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1007 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2011 2:41 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 1422 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 1037 of 1725 (605456)
02-19-2011 9:42 PM


Trolling?
After reading the direction of the current "Great Debate" tread two things are obvious:

--RAZD is being a troll

--This outcome was inevitable. That is why I declined the invitation to participate.

In spite of several whole threads devoted to sophistry, philosophy, artful dodging, obfuscation, hyper-definition, and applied "logic" things are still going around in circles. Or rather, because of ...

The issue is simple: is there evidence for supernatural critters or not?

RAZD is doing his best to avoid that simple question, and in doing so has been running this whole website around in circles.

(The woo is strong in that one!)


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 1056 by purpledawn, posted 03-04-2011 6:03 AM Coyote has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1038 of 1725 (605602)
02-21-2011 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1005 by RAZD
02-10-2011 2:25 PM


Re: Subjective "Evidence" - Surely Not?
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 402

How prescient am I?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1005 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2011 2:25 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1039 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2011 10:50 AM Straggler has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 721 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1039 of 1725 (605633)
02-21-2011 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1038 by Straggler
02-21-2011 4:27 AM


Reality Check, please.
Hi straggler, still struggling to understand or still just refusing to?

Given that you said your argument on subjective evidence had "NOTHING" to do with such entities.

First, note that my position on the value of subjective evidence does not depend on the existence one way or the other of god/s. That has not changed, and is not likely to.

In our discussion/s on the value of subjective evidence I specifically excluded god/s to focus on the universal value of subjective evidence, and thereby forced you to concede that it indeed had some value -- as a possibility that would require further investigation to be confirmed.

How strange that "subjective evidence" is the key feature of your position in all 3 of them.

Really?

It is presented in two out of three, as an example of the kinds of arguments other people have made. I am participating in those debates as devil's advocate against their various positions, not in any way in justification of my position or beliefs.

But you should also note that in those cases, all I am saying is that the subjective evidence is just as valid as other subjective evidence, AND that it cannot be used to make conclusions regarding the existence or not of god/s, just as a possibility that would require further investigation to be confirmed - for the pro stance - or that needs to be invalidated for the con stance.

Now, I have been asked to not participate on this thread, so you need to find another way to troll me. Or be civil and try to understand instead of leaping to false concussions.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : color


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1038 by Straggler, posted 02-21-2011 4:27 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1040 by Straggler, posted 02-21-2011 11:46 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1051 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2011 12:56 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1040 of 1725 (605649)
02-21-2011 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1039 by RAZD
02-21-2011 10:50 AM


Re: Reality Check, please.
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?

RAZD writes:

Now, I have been asked to not participate on this thread, so you need to find another way to troll me.

You have been repeatedly invited to reply to questions here Inductive Atheism. Feel free to join us.

Edited by Straggler, : Spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1039 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2011 10:50 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1041 of 1725 (606023)
02-23-2011 11:07 AM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 1042 by xongsmith, posted 02-23-2011 6:50 PM Straggler has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2242
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


(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

Straggler
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1043 of 1725 (606186)
02-24-2011 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1042 by xongsmith
02-23-2011 6:50 PM


Re: Furniture Makers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1042 by xongsmith, posted 02-23-2011 6:50 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1044 of 1725 (607036)
03-01-2011 2:08 PM


Blockade Up
Just been reading the latest in the Great Debates.

RAZD seems to have constructed a blockade of colourful posts in his debate with Bluegenes and a blockade of definitional dynamics in his debate with Subbie.


Replies to this message:
 Message 1045 by Coyote, posted 03-01-2011 5:28 PM Straggler has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 1422 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 1045 of 1725 (607065)
03-01-2011 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1044 by Straggler
03-01-2011 2:08 PM


Re: Blockade Up
I gave up reading those long ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1044 by Straggler, posted 03-01-2011 2:08 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1046 by xongsmith, posted 03-02-2011 1:10 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2242
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


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

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1793 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 1047 of 1725 (607117)
03-02-2011 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1046 by xongsmith
03-02-2011 1:10 AM


Re: Great Debate between RAZD & bluegenes
xongsmith writes:

bluegenes may not have realized it....

Of course bluegenes realizes.....

bluegenes writes:

That certainly is curious. Here's a specific concept. The god who created the world in six days less than 10,000 years ago, and fabricated the first two human beings during that period of creation. As I've pointed out, at least 100,000,000 of your compatriots believe in a god concept fitting this description.

There's overwhelming "objective empirical evidence" that such a creation never took place, and therefore that the "specific concept of a supernatural being" described cannot exist.

As I said, it certainly is curious. There's another guy on this forum who also calls himself "RAZD" and who spends a lot of time on science threads presenting evidence against this particular specific SB -concept.

Here in Message 59 and elsewhere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1046 by xongsmith, posted 03-02-2011 1:10 AM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1048 by xongsmith, posted 03-02-2011 11:33 AM bluegenes has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2242
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


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

Straggler
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1049 of 1725 (607182)
03-02-2011 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1048 by xongsmith
03-02-2011 11:33 AM


Re: Great Debate between RAZD & bluegenes
So how can RAZ continually claim that there is no evidence when (as has been pointed out) he has supplied plenty of evidence himself here at EvC over the years that specific concepts such as the Christian YEC God are human fictions?

Is he just being an arse? Or does he really not see it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1048 by xongsmith, posted 03-02-2011 11:33 AM xongsmith has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1050 of 1725 (607215)
03-02-2011 2:49 PM


Great Debate RAZD and Subbie - Ignosticism
RAZD writes:

Subbie writes:

I cannot prove the non-existence of an undefined entity.

Or in other words, you do not have sufficient information to make a logical conclusion one way or the other on whether god/s exist/ed.

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.

RAZD: Do you believe god exists?
Unsuspecting Person: Well it depends what you mean by god.
RAZD: No. That doesn't matter. Do you believe god exists?
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.
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?
RAZD: Noooooooo. That would kind of ruin my argument.
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.

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......

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 1052 by xongsmith, posted 03-03-2011 2:55 AM Straggler has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022