Peanut Gallery

I miss Wumpini.

Why can't we have more than one sane intelligent creationist at a time?Who was that guy doing missionary work in Africa? I liked him too ...

Can anyone remember the name of that ingenious poster who tried to solve the problem of life on the Ark by suggesting that God miraculously made it bigger on the inside than the outside?Thanks.ETA: Never mind, I found it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Petrophysics, who declares himself a deist, wishes to debate RAZD, also a deist.Fair enough.But in his OP petrophysics does not quarrel with anything at all that RAZD has ever said. Instead, petrophyiscs says:* "the atheists here, who have no evidence for their position"
* "strong or absolute atheists are hidding behind their keyboard"
* "I have looked for months here where the atheists could present no evidence."If he has a beef with atheists, then he should man up and pick an intellectual fight with atheists. Instead, he has used the "Great Debate" forum as a way to hit at atheists where we are not allowed to answer back.And having hidden behind the forum rules, he tops this off by accusing atheists of "hidding behind their keyboard".This is an abuse of the "Great Debate" format.Suppose that Straggler and I asked for a "Great Debate" where we should discuss whether creationists are knaves or fools. Suppose that you allowed that. I think that the moderators should not allow that, but even if they did it would be an abuse of that privilege for me to say that creationists were "hiding behind their keyboards" because they did not answer me on a thread on which the moderators forbade them to answer me.

But wouldn't you take that to be a valid way of thinking if we were talking about anything else?If I present the theory: "There are no pigs with wings", then the only way to falsify it is to find a real pig with wings and prove it. That's what it means to falsify the theory. Well, it's a question of the burden of proof. I think you and I have discussed this before.If one person says: "There are no pigs with wings. Prove me wrong by finding one"; and another person says: "There are pigs with wings. Prove me wrong by examining every pig in the universe and showing that there isn't", then the advantage lies with the first person. You yourself don't regard the two arguments as equally valid, do you?And there is a reason for this. If there really were winged pigs, it would be reasonable to ask to see one; but if there really were no winged pigs it would be unreasonable to ask to see every pig in the universe to check that they were all wingless.All people are doing here is applying the same sort of reasoning to supernatural beings as they do to everything else. If you don't like them doing so, then what does that tell you about supernatural beings? I believe in the existence of giraffes, and if someone held this belief of mine to the same standard I'd have no problem with it. I'd start producing photographs and video and eyewitness accounts. If all else failed, I'd buy them tickets to the zoo. But when the same doubt is raised about supernatural beings you wish to monkey with the burden of proof. Perhaps you should spend a few minutes thinking about why you find this necessary.

Which is exactly why the burden of proof is on you to produce one provably genuine experience of the divine, and not on bluegenes to show that millions of experiences were not genuine.Again, I would point out that you yourself wouldn't adopt the mode of reasoning you suggest if it came to anything else. Do you believe in Santa Claus? I suppose not. Have you investigated every child who claims to have seen Santa Claus and proved that every such case is false? I am certain that you have not. And in that case you're happy to leave the burden of proof where it belongs. But you want supernatural beings in general to be afforded the special treatment that you yourself won't extend to poor old Saint Nick in particular.

Er ... yes. Yes it does. What with the brain being natural.And really, I hardly know what to say to people who think that glossolalia is miraculous. Apparently the Christians of these latter days don't have the ability to heal the blind or raise the dead ... but they do have the miraculous power to talk gibberish. The only less impressive miracle is the Toronto Blessing, where people are gifted with the miraculous power to fall over. It seems that while useful miracles are left undone, God busies himself with making the devout behave like stroke victims.If you really believe that this is the way in which a supposedly omnipotent God has chosen to manifest his power and his glory, then does this not raise some awkward questions? Such as: "Seriously, God, what the fuck?"Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well yes. This is because what they are producing is not language, as was stated by the article: So, they're not using the language centers of their brain to produce something that is not language.I missed the point where this suggests a miracle rather than being bleedin' obvious.

But you're just trying to shift the burden of proof, again.I've explained this to you in this post. Feel free to answer it.

Well, it's like the Emperor's New Clothes. The people who admit that he's naked can all agree even down to small details like how many pimples he's got on his butt. But the people who pretend that they can see his clothes will one of them be saying that they're made of blue velvet and another saying that they're made of orange satin.