Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 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 1201 of 1725 (623609)
07-11-2011 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1180 by Chuck77
07-10-2011 3:19 AM


Re: More Arrogance
Chuck77 asks Team bluegenes:
How's it going with the Invisible\Imperceptible Pink Unicorn (IPU)? As RAZD pointed out
Modulous has eloquently pointed out long ago that we don't get to decide what experiment the author of the theory must perform.
See Message 458 and especially Message 460.
The IPU is a dead issue here.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1180 by Chuck77, posted 07-10-2011 3:19 AM Chuck77 has not replied

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


Message 1202 of 1725 (623613)
07-12-2011 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1194 by Straggler
07-10-2011 5:46 PM


Re: Literature as evidence....
fuplicated
Edited by xongsmith, : Straggler??? this is a reply to Chuck77..don't have have a clue how this got mangled....
Edited by xongsmith, : No reason given.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1194 by Straggler, posted 07-10-2011 5:46 PM Straggler has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1203 of 1725 (623624)
07-12-2011 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1200 by xongsmith
07-11-2011 10:11 PM


xongsmith writes:
I'm not with the Chuck77 camp, or even (GASP!) the RAZD camp! To put me in with those guys means you haven't been reading my stuff very closely.
If you're not for RAZD's position and have been debating Modulous, Straggler, even bluegenes here then whos position are you actually arguing in favor of?
You don't seem to realize that I am on your side.
No, they don't. Are you trying to polish their arguments for them? If so, what is it that you disagree with based on their comments that you feel aren't properly being expressed? What can you add to their postion that hasn't already been convered?
IOW, based on your comments, you are arguing from both sides of your mouth. Which is it? What has everyone here including RAZD and bluegenes so absurdly missed that you are having trouble conveying to everyone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1200 by xongsmith, posted 07-11-2011 10:11 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1204 of 1725 (623625)
07-12-2011 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1199 by xongsmith
07-11-2011 10:03 PM


Re: Tricks, are for kids
X writes:
I can fly a plane through some temperature inversion layers without any cloud in the sky and get condensation on my wings which the fall off and to the ground, landing as RAIN.
Taaaaddddaaaaaaa!!!!!!
This Xongsmith is how the theory that "ALL raindrops are sourced from clouds" would be falsified. You have provided a demonstrable alternative source of raindrops.
Now why are you objecting to similar falsification of "ALL supernatural concepts are sourced from human imagination".......?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1199 by xongsmith, posted 07-11-2011 10:03 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1220 by xongsmith, posted 07-16-2011 2:34 AM Straggler has replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 1205 of 1725 (623637)
07-12-2011 4:54 AM


Great Debate (Straggler & Chuck77 Only)
I can already see where this is going to go:
Chuck77 says that his evidence is that he 'knows' his god is real.
This is exactly the same argument as Iano's argument that he 'knows' his god is real and that 'knowing' over rides all other evidence.
I predict that this 'knowing' will become a stumbling point right off the bat.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1206 by Modulous, posted 07-12-2011 4:59 AM Larni has not replied
 Message 1207 by AZPaul3, posted 07-12-2011 8:35 AM Larni has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1206 of 1725 (623638)
07-12-2011 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1205 by Larni
07-12-2011 4:54 AM


Re: Great Debate (Straggler & Chuck77 Only)
I suspect it will be something of a rehash of the thread, Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)?.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1205 by Larni, posted 07-12-2011 4:54 AM Larni has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1207 of 1725 (623643)
07-12-2011 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1205 by Larni
07-12-2011 4:54 AM


Faith-Based Drudgery
I predict that this 'knowing' will become a stumbling point right off the bat.
Oh, Straggler can drag this out with continuing to poke and prod around "evidence" and the minutia of other definitions, but, I agree, this Great Debate has quickly hit the ultimate wall.
As Sam Harris noted, faith ends all useful discussion. If this debate continues it will just be circular and boring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1205 by Larni, posted 07-12-2011 4:54 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1208 by Dr Jack, posted 07-12-2011 9:27 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1211 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2011 10:13 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 1208 of 1725 (623647)
07-12-2011 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1207 by AZPaul3
07-12-2011 8:35 AM


Re: Faith-Based Drudgery
Straggler's mistake I think is to have let it go straight to discussing God. The way forward is to discuss proof in general and the failings of subjective evidence in general.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1207 by AZPaul3, posted 07-12-2011 8:35 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1209 by Larni, posted 07-12-2011 10:02 AM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 1210 by Modulous, posted 07-12-2011 10:10 AM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 1209 of 1725 (623650)
07-12-2011 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1208 by Dr Jack
07-12-2011 9:27 AM


Re: Faith-Based Drudgery
Straggler's mistake I think is to have let it go straight to discussing God.
But it will end up there what ever happens, I think, because of the righteous power of 'knowing'.
Arguing the definition of evidence won't affect 'knowing' (at least it did not in all of my conversations with Iano) one little bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1208 by Dr Jack, posted 07-12-2011 9:27 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1210 of 1725 (623652)
07-12-2011 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1208 by Dr Jack
07-12-2011 9:27 AM


Re: Faith-Based Drudgery
I dunno , I think that
Straggler writes:
Exactly how do you know that your friend Joe is real rather than imaginary?
Is a brilliant avenue of discussion which will force Chuck to discuss 'proof in general and the failings of subjective evidence in general.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1208 by Dr Jack, posted 07-12-2011 9:27 AM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 1211 of 1725 (623653)
07-12-2011 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1207 by AZPaul3
07-12-2011 8:35 AM


Re: Faith-Based Drudgery
AZ writes:
Faith-Based Drudgery
Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?
My name is Maximus Argumenticus Stragglerus, commander of the EvC beer lovers brigade, General of the late night posters alliance, loyal servant to the cause of truth justice and the EvC way. Father to a neglected son, husband to a EvC widow of a wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1207 by AZPaul3, posted 07-12-2011 8:35 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1212 by AZPaul3, posted 07-12-2011 11:06 AM Straggler has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1212 of 1725 (623657)
07-12-2011 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1211 by Straggler
07-12-2011 10:13 AM


Re: Faith-Based Drudgery
Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?
We have the greatest confidence, My Liege, that you will enthrall us all with your wit, intellect and charm. The name of Stragglerus will live forever in the archives of EvC. Please don't hurt me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1211 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2011 10:13 AM Straggler has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 1213 of 1725 (623677)
07-12-2011 1:31 PM


No Contest. No Game. No Fun
Luckily for Straggler he decided to challenge one of the newer fundie believers instead of one of the more long-standing and rational theists.
I suppose it's always easier to pick on the new guy than to actually fight it out with someone your own size.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 1214 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2011 1:48 PM Jon has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1214 of 1725 (623678)
07-12-2011 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1213 by Jon
07-12-2011 1:31 PM


Man of "Size"......?
Jon writes:
Luckily for Straggler he decided to challenge one of the newer fundie believers instead of one of the more long-standing and rational theists.
Huh? I decided to challenge? I just started a general thread on subjective evidence. Chuck wanted to turn it into a Great Debate between him and me. You can ask him why he made that decision.
I've offered RAZD a GB before and he declined. At the end of the day I am happy to GB anyone who prefers that format.
My only other GB was with a guy called Rob from ages back. I dunno if he qualified as a "long-standing and rational theist" but he certainly seemed so to me back then in my own noobie days.
Jon writes:
I suppose it's always easier to pick on the new guy than to actually fight it out with someone your own size.
I didn't realise I was a man of "size".... I'm flattered!!!
But Jon anytime you want to Great Debate with me (after the current one) just say so.
Assuming you consider yourself to be of sufficient "size" of course......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1213 by Jon, posted 07-12-2011 1:31 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1215 by Jon, posted 07-12-2011 2:41 PM Straggler has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 1215 of 1725 (623685)
07-12-2011 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1214 by Straggler
07-12-2011 1:48 PM


Re: Man of "Size"......?
Hopefully Chuck will learn something from all of this.
Chuck wanted to turn it into a Great Debate between him and me. You can ask him why he made that decision.
Yes; the little guy is always eager to prove himself. It's up to the bigger man to turn him down.
But Jon anytime you want to Great Debate with me (after the current one) just say so.
Like I said above. No thanks.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1214 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2011 1:48 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1216 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2011 2:47 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 1217 by DBlevins, posted 07-12-2011 7:19 PM Jon 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