Peanut Gallery

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.

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?

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.

Hello RAZ. In Message 127 you say: So here I am asking you. Can you explain how this objective empirical evidence doesn't falsify the existence of the very specific supernatural concept that is the YEC god who formed the universe less than 10,000 years ago, formed humans from dirt and all the rest of it.The specific concept of God that millions of people actually believe in. How can you possibly claim that the evidence doesn't falsify this particular concept of God?

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?

{Content hidden - As per the Great Debaters not taking part in the Peanut Gallery, this material has gone to the "Inductive Atheism" topic, here. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

Were you reading the same debate that I was? Have you read Message 28? I didn't say he did explicitly ask it here. I said that this is not the first time RAZ has taken to using people's bewilderment at the non-concept he is insisting they somehow consider as some sort of confirmation of the agnostic position he is promoting. He has done it before too: Message 406. You have to read upthread from that to get to the source of this where Catholic Scientist hilariously declares his undying agnosticism towards the existence of cheese (this continues to make me chuckle to this day). 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. Then you agree with the point of the post. Try not to be so fucking literal. 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. He can't have it both ways can he now?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

A huge (enormous) list of all of the known and documented supernatural concepts that people have claimed to exist at one time or another along with references to the physically evidenced scientific theories which effectively refute those concepts as being real.

How can you give any answer at all if you don't know what is being considered? Let's try again:I am thinking of concept Y. I know what concept Y is. I have an opinion regarding the actual existence of concept Y myself because I know what concept Y is. Concept Y may or may not pertain to a real thing. But I am not going to define what concept Y is to you.Do you believe concept Y actually exists?Answer the question I asked you as it pertains to the thing or entity that is concept Y. Please do not to confuse the question "Do you believe concept Y exists?" with the question "Do you know what concept Y is?" They are not the same question. Answer the question I asked you as it pertains to the thing or entity that is concept Y. Is this clear?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think we can all agree that the concept of a tree is derived from the demonstrable existence of trees.Can the same be said for the concept of an omnipotent being who created the universe and had a thing against his creations eating apples?

BTW - If you wanna pursue this let's take it here: Inductive AtheismYou should probably read the OP of that if you are still confused about the fact that we are talking about concepts here. Reading Bluejay's epiphany with MOd in this thread also might help.

Well as I said to Xongsmith in the Inductive Atheism thread - Bluegenes theory is all about supernatural CONCEPTS and their naturalistic source of origin.If you are still unclear about this then it might well be part of your ongoing comprehension problem in these threads.Maybe see you in Inductive Atheism later.

See Message 133I will answer you in that thread.Edited by Straggler, : Fix link

You twit. Message 135It is about the naturalistic source of concepts and always has been.

RAZ has produced an astonishing array of colourful charts, scales, flow charts etc. Based on these what position is he saying it is rationally justified to take towards a concept which is unable to be defined? My answer is this: Are those who proclaim themselves to be deists with regard to something which cannot be defined exhibiting "incoherent and thus non-cognitive" beliefs? I would say they are.What do you think?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.