Peanut Gallery

It started here: Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist? and then went on.... Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argumentIs My Hypothesis Valid???Immaterial "Evidence"and on......Once you have read all of the above I'll post links to the next set of threads........

Straggler replies: You surely are not using the misdirection of RAZD's Houdini Hypothesis to bolster your argument? I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot rope rising out of a woven straw basket.Do you, for even one second, think that I claim the theory must be false because a lot of homo sapiens specimens think so? I mean, I know a lot of USA citizens buy McDonald's hamburgers - it doesn't mean they are the best hamburgers. Zillions of flies eat shit...etc....I don't think you do think this at all, so......No - what bluegenes has is this: when, in the history of mankind, there is an issue of whether or not something supernatural has occurred, he brings in, for State's Evidence Exhibit A, the most unscientific data known to mankind! He brings in Stories of close to the wildest imaginations ever known to occur in the species, homo sapiens, handed down with descent and modification to such an extent that the original testimony of any of these wild crazy ideas is GONE. This Evidence is simply INADMISSIBLE! So would rule the court. It is all hearsay. It is all worse than 2nd-hand. He puts this flimsy evidence up against the Strong Logical Objective Scientific Testimony of learned experts in zillions of fields. He is making so many strawmen out of these "stories" and then shooting the fuck out of them. INADMISSABLE!!!! Order in the court! pounding on the gavel! Sternly admonishing the audience to sit back and STFU - to no avail!......the newspaper boys, climbing over each other to get closer, revel in the excitement. Little kids in dungarees run rapidly back to their homes, busting open the screendoors and knocking over Mom's ironing, exclaiming loudly in their kid-voices "Wow Mom - wow! Guess what!" Etc. Hey - Did you see the classic movie, Animal House? When they walked out of the collective fraternity meeting claiming that it was the fault of the system rather then themselves?Do you think that I claim the theory is false?Straggler asks: No - but that's all been obvious Stupid Human Trickery, hasn't it?....Another: I don't see what this can add to bluegenes' theory other than confirmation bias....Straggler also notes: WOW i never saw that! Something wrong with my dial-up, methinks. April 26th! Long time ago....lemme reply over there later.Or not.Or...you are familiar with Arthur C. Clarke's statement, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Magic." This would be the time-retroverted equivalent of proposing that the earth went around the sun rather than the sun going around the earth. So - your phantasmagorical scenario of the 2nd coming of Christ would initially be perceived as Magic, but upon the extensive scientific studies initiated instantaneously, these observations would, if allowed to complete, be folded into the whole thing as a natural process. This is BECAUSE:The Xongsmith Analemma is actually MEGASTRONGER than the proposed bluegenes theory.Stragglers offers: If you, yourself, cannot recognize the self-referential pitfalls and the inevitable singularity in the spatial geometry of this issue, then I advise a closer reading of the applicable tensor equations.I repeat:The Xongsmith Analemma is actually MEGASTRONGER than the proposed bluegenes theory.Where were you? Where was I? *raises glass* *still one left*

Where there is an evidenced naturalistic explanation for a given phenomenon is it ever rationally justifiable to invoke an unevidenced supernatural explanation for that same phenomenon? And you conclude this on the basis that the only known source of crop circles is human construction? Aside from the widespread belief that supernatural concepts are something other than human inventions can you explain where you see the difference? So concrete evidence that humans can and do invent supernatural beings is inadmissable when considering a theory about humans inventing supernatural beings. It's nothing more than a restatement of bluegenes theory imbued with your own silly personal definition of the term "supernatural".

Thanks for the links, i'll check them out. I've already glanced at the "Percy is a diest" thread before tonight. I'll read more.So, Percy's thread is where this WHOLE thing started? You, bluegenes, Mod, RAZD etc etc ??

I don't get your "Analemma". Can you break it down in laymans terms? Does it also deal with the SN?

Break down: anal Emma. She's a great lay, man, but I don't know her terms.

I think RAZ had some short and relatively uncontentious (Oh let's just agree to disagree - sort of thing) discussions with Mod, Crashfrog and others previously. But - Yes - This is where the current never ending saga effectively started.After those threads already mentioned came the following: How does one distinguish faith from delusion?Pseudoskepticism and logicFaith vs Skepticism - Why faith?If it can be, how can the "Absence of Evidence" be "Evidence of Absence?".An Exploration Into"Agnosticism"And from that last one the bluegenes challenge was born.....Since then there has been: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed? and Inductive AtheismHallelujah. Or something like that.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Cash up front.
No refunds.

It is Xongsmith's contention that bluegene's theory is unfalsifiable because the mere act of scientifically investigating something makes it natural rather than supernatural.So something such as the second coming of Christ combined with biblical Armageddon would not constitute evidence of the supernatural if a team of highly qualified white coated experts observe and document the event or entities in question.Christians are exhalted into raptuous heavenly paradise, the dead come bodily back to life, giant scorpions drag people into a great fiery abyss, Angels start decreeing various plagues on the unfaithful and the fornicators all around you - But as long as a team of white coated experts are there to observe and document Xongsmith will sit there saying "Nothing to challenge any atheistic attitudes to the supernatural to mention here".Even as the white coated experts in question hastily publish their results in a peer reviewed journal, even as our white coated experts are cast into the abyss to be tormented for all eternity by demons they can (according to Xongsmith) congratulate themselves on their rational rejection of the supernatural..........Anal Emma is as ridiculous as she sounds.

Thanks for all the links and the history behind the whole debate on atheism and agnosticism. I think RAZd would consider me as foolish as the pure Atheist as I believe in absolutes on the opposite end, for what it's worth.If I were an innocent bystander I would think RAZD's postion is probably the most logical. So, Straggs, what's the beef then? So, you're agnostic when it comes to god(s) or atheistic? Nothing to do with weather patterns or banks, just god(s)...And why wasn't it the "Straggler challenge"? Was it you who argued this first or bluegenes? ???????? So what's the fracking problem? Dammit, nevermind. That was short lived.bluegenes, if ANY of the God(s) sound made up THIS God is the least! He created things that produce after their own kind, atleast..."horus" and "osiris" and "mithraism" etc etc...God makes more sense...to me So you're agnostic towards the Christian God? I told Straggler that I was healed by that God, from a specific prayer in the Bible, isn't that good evidence? Subjective at best? Match up all the God(s)...I think the God of the Bible is the most plausable.I realize of course, that im taking a #1position on the "dawkins" "RAZD" scale, as an absolutist, so for me to question a #7 would be dishonest I suppose. As a #1 (absolute) certainty a #7 (absolute) is comparable in relation only but not logically or evidentially IMO And there it is folks! In the beggining, there was RAZD and bluegenes...Both of you guys give seem to give somewhat conflicting reports on your agnosticism and atheism. Since im a #1, I can't say anything about you being a #7, so shouldn't it work both ways? If you're a #7 (absolute certainty that god(s) don't exist), how can you question me for when I believe the SAME thing, only in reverse?Is it so bad to keep and open mind about the existance of God?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Ok, so basically if Scientists were to actually witness the rapture themselves,(according to x's annalemma) since they the scientists witnessed it, it wouldn't be evidence because it must be natural if they themselves who are natural saw it?IOW, if scientists were to scientifically investigate the SN and found something it can't be SN because they... found something...who they themselves happening to be natural...found it, so, it can't be SN if natural people found...it...got it.I think it just means if it's SN we who are natural will never detect it cause well, were not supposed to because well, were natural.So since bluegenes theroy requires a SN explanation it will never happen because we are natural.That's like saying we cannot experience God since he is supernatural and we are natural. I knew I disagreed with him I just wasn't sure how, now I know.Thanks Straggler.Atleast bluegenes leaves the door open, geeeez....

Myself and bluegenes and Mod etc. are 6 on the Dawkins scale.RAZ says that being a 6 is pseudoskeptical to any unfalsifiable entity.Just think of all the unfalsifiable entities you consider to be more likely human constructions than real entities.According to RAZ you are a psudoskeptic with regard to all of them.It's insane.......

Straggler says: Not exactly.....you seem to have missed me in your aim and have then proceeded to hyperbolically characterize the Analemma as something it is not.But go ahead and misconstrue me anyway, as I wouldn't be able to stop you.

Straggler says: 6.0d or more means it is now incumbent upon you to provide evidence for your position - which you guys have been attempting to do.My snarky 5.7d means I hold enough agnosticism to avoid this problem.

Chuck77 says: Not exactly.If scientists investigate something (assuming they have enough time to investigate this something) they will come to two kinds of results. They either will have a scientific explanation that is a natural explanation OR they will say they don't have enough data to find what it is and will leave it unexplained. What they will not ever do, however, is say it is supernatural or magic. If they do have a scientific explanation, it may require the overall totality of the scientific description of the universe to be changed, such as it was when it was demonstrated that the Earth orbits around the Sun instead of the other way around.An example of something they still have to leave unexplained so far is abiogenesis. No scientist in that field will ever claim that there must have been magic, to poof life out of no life.