Peanut Gallery

I hadn't seen this before. I appreciate the link again. Thanx, bluegenes.

Hi bluegenes - I finally got the document you wanted me to see. Forget the troubles I had...suffice it to say that I think you wanted me to see this: Is this the passage you wanted me to see?

Stile writes: I certainly do not want to be construed as mean-spirited. I think I need to apologize to the community here for allowing such a feeling emerge.Perhaps "phrasing" is not the exact way I wanted to characterize the problem with the original wording.Maybe another stupid analogy:Every day the planet Earth is bombarded by meteors. These are predominantly tiny things that vaporize in a streak of light that we, down on the planet's surface, see. Sometimes the orbit of the Earth takes us all through the debris of some past event, like comet debris for things like the Leonids or Perseids. None of these meteors represents a threat to the Earth. Yet.But then we also have NEAR and other organizations looking for the big boys that could cause major damage....In my mind, things like Thor or the IPU or Santa Clause are but mere meteors. The big boys have not been addressed. Why? Well, the evidence needed for these to be dismissed as human imagination is notably lacking in strength. Is Jesus a figment of human imagination? Probably! - but proving it is nigh to impossible. Inductive reasoning leads us to the sorts of premature conclusions like the Earth will not be destroyed by a killer asteroid, since this has not occurred yet.It is the fallacy of putting all supernatural concepts on the same level. I mean - come on, bluegenes' elf on RAZD's shoulder getting him to type in a different language is on the same level of supernaturalness as Jesus?Supernatural concepts are NOT all on the same level. Now...you might notice here that I am using the term "concepts". This is directly what you have to do here. If there were several different supernatural beings or events in reality (IF), then, from the point of view of science, any one of them would be up on so much of a fundamentally different plane - that from science's point of view they would look so nearly equidistant from the world as we have so far detected it to be. So I refer down here on earth to the human concepts, to clearly delineate the differences between them.So it's easy to shoot down the meteors. In fact, bluegenes cited a number of meteors in his "Mutually Exclusive" argument.Next, with the help of Modulous's psychological evidence and supportive encouragements, we are presented with the well-known tendency of humans to invent supernatural explanations for what they see. Certainly one cannot deny that this occurs. But...to extrapolate this through inductive reasoning to include all mental discernments is a leap of faith in the inexact science of psychology, making a bold extraordinary claim. Is it not? To say that all human religion is based on delusion, as much as you or I might agree with this premise, is an extraordinary claim. ....Sagan, etc.I mean, let's not pull punches here - bluegenes is making an extraordinary claim.But I do apologize for appearing to be mean-spirited.

Straggler asks: Actually...the more I think about it, . . . NO....only because you used the adjective "genuinely".....How about I ask you - are you still insisting that the Rapture/Armageddon scenario is even in the game? What about something so much more likely, on a molecular scale?What is the simplest supernatural entity you would need to convince you that supernatural things are real?I guess, in my own way, your Rapture/Armageddon is so cartoonish & laughable that I cannot take it as a real scenario. Sorry. It is, to me, on the same level of unlikeliness as having all the participating molecules rush into such a formation, thermodynamically, because it would be such a huge event, that a supernatural explanation would be just as silly as the current scientific explanation. Do you think not? Would you, as an admitted 6.0d and thus less believing than my 5.7, think it was more likely it was supernatural?Argh - maybe this means I'm more of a 6.7d!!!!!
Except that I can believe it is possible for all the atoms in my room to suddenly exit the room. Or do your shitstorm.It is *possible*......But I'm not going to hold my breath or live my life as if it would happen.Edited by xongsmith, : clarity

Then it is no wonder you are incapable of properly comprehending bluegenes theory. It is no wonder that you erroneously think it is innately unfalsifiable. The entire basis of your nonsensical anal Emma becomes clear. It is based on your own incredulity.This whole time you have been confusing what you personally are capable of believing with what constitutes "supernatural". I, nor Bluegenes nor Mod, believe in the actual existence of (as commonly conceived) werwolves, vampires fairies, leprechauns, gods, Thor, Zeus, Voldermort, Christ, Vishnu, Apollo, ghosts, demons, Djinns, genies, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.........But we, unlike you, understand that if any of these things, as commonly conceived, do genuinely exist then they are supernatural and thus do falsify bluegenes theory. Don't tell RAZ of your pseudoskeptical conversion..........

Not really. The scientific evidence suggests both that the Earth can and will be hit by such things and that life destroying meteors are a distinct possibility given enough time. In fact isn't that what put paid to the dinos? What comparable evidence is there that the "big boys" of the supernatural concept world are a genuine possibility rather than a complete fiction? Your anology is as flawed as all your other arguments. Is it though? If so why? Be specific?I suspect that the only answer posible here is something along the lines of "Because lots of people believe it".Since when did mass human belief in something alone constitute any reliable reason to consider it anything other than a feature of human psychology? Lots of people believed in the actual existenc of Thor. If belief alone were an indicator then Santa would be as real as any other entity. So what is your point?Which supernaural entities do actually deserve our serious consideration? And on what basis? Please be very specific.

Well, then whats the problem? Why do you disagree with bluegenes? Im trying to see your point of contention with bluegenes theory. If you don't believe in ANY SN entity, then where did all the ideas about SN entities come from?MY answer to that is satan himself. People have a good imagination BUT satan is out to decieve and can use very real things to persuade people. The answer to this is reading your Bible to weed out the fakes.

No Straggler, not quite. It's only a PART of it and it's very convincing none the less. A feature of human psychology is emotinally connecting with your dog wibbedo, NOT Jesus.Healings, miracles, real lives changed, deliverance from drugs, alchohol, etc etc is not psychological, it's real. Santa never healed anyone did he? Is anyone claiming they are going to heaven because of santa? There is only one truth not 5000 truths.Santa isn't the one truth nor is tron or thor or oden.Belief arises from faith and faith is what it takes to get there, once there it's evidence. If you want to see what im talking about ask me how anytime and i'll walk you thru it.THEN we can celebrate your new found freedom in Christ and you can share it with your mates. God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the angels, the devil, demons. The Bible, testimony, witnesses for starters.

Let's see, here.Bible, written by various men (and badly at that) based on and showing differences within their individual human psychologies.Testimony, firmly ensconced in human psychology.Witness, indistinguishable from testimony thus human psychology.If that is the evidence then Straggler is correct.

So, the ideas we have about supernatural entities come from a supernatural entity?How does that make sense?Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Don't be so sure, Chuck. The devil can't resist anagrams, and he wants the hearts and minds of our children. The Great Imposter

Then this means that satan created god, and Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, and the angels?

Chuck when are you going to learn that lots of people having deep conviction that something is true neither makes it true nor is evidence of it's truth? Belief that the bible is true. Belief that some subjective experience is caused by Jesus. It's all just belief. Claims made on the basis of belief are not evidence of anything but human belief. Believing that Jesus is real doesn't make him anything other than an imaginary friend. The effects of psychology are very very real. The belief that certain events are caused by Vishnu or Allah or Jesus is just belief. I have no doubt that you are utterly convinced of the truth of your beliefs. But your belief isn't evidence. If you were a Hindu it would be Vishnu etc. If you were a Scientologist it would be Thetans or whatever. The things that people find utterly subjectively convincing are varied and many.But it's all just belief.

Who are "the big boys" and what makes them so?With meteors, it's pretty easy. If they're under 5m diameter, they're clearly not a threat. If they're over 500 miles in diameter... they're clearly a "big boy".But what about Gods?If only children believe in them, then they're little boys?
If half the world believes in them... does that make them big boys?
Are they big boys because of the imaginary powers they may or may not actually have? Kind of like The Blob isn't a big-boy mutant like Wolverine just because of their different imaginary powers?If you're going to say that blugenes needs to address the big boys scientifically... don't you have to scientifically define what makes (and what doesn't make) a "big boy"? Are you sure you want to ask me this? Because, really, no... I don't see a difference at all (except in levels of social acceptance... is that your criteria?). Perhaps bluegenes genuinely sees things the same way I do. Perhaps, to you, your feelings of "big-boy-ism" makes certain figures seem different to the point of being special. However, these factors (as far as you've explained so far) are only based on your feelings that these certain figures actually are big boys. Is it that hard to believe that some folk just plain don't feel the same way as you about their status?"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-Stehpen Robertsor, with more context:"When you understand why blugenes dismisses elves on RAZD's shoulder, you will understand why blugenes dismisses what you label 'the big boys'"
-StileBasically, it sounds like you want blugenes to give special attention to the big boys because you give special attention to them. You are demanding that blugenes give extra-scientific-scrutiny towards some figures that you contend as being more important... while at the same time you have yet to provide any extra-scientific-scrutiny as to why these same figures should be considered more important in the first place.

The elf was used as evidence that humans do invent supernatural beings, since RAZD stated there was no evidence they really did. Bluegenes provided primary evidence of humans inventing supernatural beings for RAZD.If you wish to suggest that different supernatural beings are more likely to be real than others - the onus is upon you, as Stile points out, to explain why you aren't special pleading. The only thing that separates them is that the yellow elf is falsifiable and falsified.Of course, some supernatural concepts are more believable than others. And the inexact science of psychology has identified at least one of the characteristics that these entities have that makes them memorable and perhaps even believable: if they are minimally counterintuitive. It is next to impossible to prove that a certain chimpanzee living in 1567 shares common ancestry with Henry VIII. Theories aren't about proofs. You are in agreement with blugenes. Bluegenes does not suggest that it is proven that superJesus is a figment of the human imagination. He is much closer to the opinion that superJesus is probably a product of human imagination, not that it is a proven fact. Really?