Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 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
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1528 of 1725 (631432)
09-01-2011 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1525 by Panda
08-30-2011 11:02 PM


The Parroting continues
Maybe it would help if you looked up what an example is, because what you posted is not it.
The words "Anything" and "Something" conflict with the specificity required for an example.
This has confused me for the longest time, and only now has the lightbulb gone off. I can't believe it took me so long to figure this out. My god, I feel, sheepish.
Thread after thread, post after post, comment after comment, and it finally occures to me that "Panda" actually meant to call himself "Parrot" but was too late to fix after realizing the error.
Not wanting to register again he simply stuck with "Panda".
Well, not to worry Panda, we get that you meant Parrot. It only takes a few threads and comments to see that. Happy commenting Parrot...Panda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1525 by Panda, posted 08-30-2011 11:02 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1530 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2011 6:07 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 1531 by Panda, posted 09-01-2011 6:17 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1537 of 1725 (631623)
09-02-2011 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1529 by Straggler
09-01-2011 5:56 AM


Re: "detectable but not in an empirical manner"
Straggler writes:
And why do you think what people claim/believe has any bearing on the matter?
It is just as evidentially valid to claim that such experiences are indicative of fluctuations in the matrix as indicative of supernatural causes isn't it?
Fine, as long as we agree they are SN.
You and RAZ seem to have this strange idea that if people believe that a particular phenomena is caused by something then that phenomena is evidence in support of their belief.
Wow, well me a RAZD will soon be appearing on Oprah as RAZD and myself are the only one's to have ever claimed this phenomena. Im sure people are talking about it.
Straggler, do you ever leave the house?
This is the 'cart before horse' approach to evidence.
Not for you it isn't. I've been giving you information for a while now and you refuse to look at the cart AND the horse. You refuse to take anyones word for anything.
Straggler, are you the type that buys the land THEN asks questions? Or no questions at all?
ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION? BY NICK BOSTROM Department of Philosophy, Oxford University
So were back to philosophy now? Fine, did you share this link with bluegenes too or just me?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1529 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2011 5:56 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1548 by Straggler, posted 09-03-2011 9:23 PM Chuck77 has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1538 of 1725 (631627)
09-02-2011 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1534 by Panda
09-01-2011 12:51 PM


Same ole'
Panda writes:
So...you drag us all this way to finally say that religious experiences and brain activity are linked,
and you have no reason to suppose that they are "anything but a product of the internal workings of the human mind".
So you are misrepresenting RAZD's argument and twisting what he's saying? Panda, that's dishonest. You have the whole page to read what RAZD is saying and this is ALL you can come up with. Geeez, when I said you were a parrot I didn't mean for you to lash out like this.
Don't worry Panda, the feelings and emotions you are experienceing now are not real, and not the cause of anything real, they are all your imagination and NOT the result of anything emperical.
So, disregard this comment as it is a figment of your imagination.
Well, you got there in the end.
Not really. It seems YOU got there in the end tho.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1534 by Panda, posted 09-01-2011 12:51 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1539 by Panda, posted 09-02-2011 6:21 AM Chuck77 has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1545 of 1725 (631785)
09-03-2011 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1539 by Panda
09-02-2011 6:21 AM


Re: Same ole'
Panda writes:
I am enjoying watching you supporting RADZ.
I am sure that RADZ appreciates this support from an EvC member of your standing.
My Standing? I wasn't aware we had standings here? Is this a good ole' boys club or a debate forum?
RAZD doesn't need my support or anyones for that matter, He does just fine on his own. He's been at it a long time here and is about as rational as they come.
I on the other hand am probably not that rational being I do "know" God exists. Being a #1 on the "revered Dawkins" scale is irrational.
That is my experience tho and can't deny it. So if I come off as irrational at times it's my passion getting the best of me.
Although you can come off as arrogant your dog pile thread shows some humility. Maybe im wrong but you seem like a busy body to me and a whiner. I don't consider myself arrogant, you on the other hand only seem to parott everything Straggler says here and nothing new to add from your own perspective.
You remind me of a Chihuahua. A loud annoying bark with no bite hiding behind his master.
The only time you show up at the peanut gallery is to bark at someone. Last time it was Jar, who you barked at for pages ruining any debate that was taking place. And now, your doing the same thing again. No substance just parotting.
BTW Gidget (The Taco Bell chihuahua) you havn't been here that long either, so settle down chum. Go get fixed and go for a walk.
Again tho, I may be wrong, I only go by what I see, and you seem to be everywhere. The whine list, responding for admins when I ask one a question,critiqing PNT's etc etc.
Your a mole arent you? You remind me of a Parott, a chihuahua and a mole all in one. Goodness dude, relax already and stop being the sites little errand boy, although, every site needs one.
Your Percy's son aren't you? Admit it. Does he know your on here?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1539 by Panda, posted 09-02-2011 6:21 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1552 by Panda, posted 09-04-2011 11:03 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1572 of 1725 (632153)
09-06-2011 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1562 by Straggler
09-05-2011 1:48 PM


Wrong Church wrong pew
Straggler writes:
I'm still fascinated as to the basis upon which you special plead "religious" experiences as warranting supernatural explanations but not other subjective experiences.
Are you confusing this thread with another thread on another site? Here, we are talking about SN/religious experiences/explanations.
If you can't tell if there is a supernatural presence\beings then how can you tell if mundane dream experiences are caused by them or not?
I had dreams that were SN. For example:
When I first was "saved/bornagain" I had a dream that I broke a window at the house while my dad was at work. In the dream I was a young lad and worried my dad would be pissed and i'd get in trouble. In the dream I was praying to God that He would Supernaturally just fix the window. Instead he caused my dad to be late coming home and I went and bought a new window grabbed some tools and put it in myself. When my dad arrived home the window was fixed. Problem solved.
It was God showing me in my born again infancy that He is not just a SN God but a practical God also. That He can be just as practical as SN. So yeah, dreams can be a result of the SN.
If you can't tell if there is a supernatural presence\beings then how can you tell if sexual fantasy experiences are caused by them or not?
Sexual fantasy is us using our imaginations and what's deep down in our hearts. It has a SN connection being that God gave us our sexual desires. Sex is a good "evidence" for the existance of God(s) IMO.
What basis is there to conclude that some subjective experiences are caused by supernatural entities whilst others aren't. How are you making the distinction?
Have you asked anyone? All you have to do is atleast have an open mind about certain things and this question becomes irrelevant. You throw the baby out with the bath water concerning anything SN and affects your ability to see clear.
You have tunnel vision when it comes to the SN and want everything that pops into your imagination answered no matter how irrational it seems. It's what happens when one is so skeptical.
Or are ALL subjective experiences potentially evidence of the supernatural?
Potentially yes. Certainly no. That's what subjective means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1562 by Straggler, posted 09-05-2011 1:48 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1577 by Straggler, posted 09-06-2011 1:46 PM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1573 of 1725 (632155)
09-06-2011 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1548 by Straggler
09-03-2011 9:23 PM


Straggler, the strong arm of the Law
Straggler writes:
Why would the Matrix be supernatural?
Well, it seemed to me that the Matrix was a world in which Neo was plugged into a certain machine, this escaping reality or not? The real world was the one outside the Mind.( It seemed). The Matrix was in his mind influenced by a machine.
The machine he was hooked up to represents the SN. The mind is affected by the SN world AND the natural world. If you accept the natural world affecting our minds and wan't to argue in case for the martix then you should conclude our minds are affected by the SN also.
Yes lots of people have claimed the phenomena. But what do their beliefs have to do with establishing the actual cause of that phenomena?
Well Straggler, you could always find out ya know? Do a little investigating? Or as I asked before, do you buy land then ask questions after? With the SN it seems you make you conclusions THEN ask questions. Im not sure how you plan to find out any "truth" when you're so opposed to the very subject your discussing.
You keep telling me about your beliefs if that is what you mean. And it is true that I no more take your "word" with regard to your beliefs than you take the word of Hindus or scientologists or Moslems etc.
Why should I?
Why shouldn't you. If I was sceptical about buying a Ford and you had good experiences with Ford and I never owned one and only heard how bad they were and you told me different as you've owned one for the last 20 years and I said you are full of it which of us would be acting irrational and why?
You want questions? OK. Why do you think RAZ won't give a straight answer to questions such as the following:
If one has a waking 'vision' in the presence of others that none of those others can see does this qualify as the sort of "detectable but not in an empirical manner" evidence you are talking about or not?
Maybe because he's answered it 900 times already. Why do you try and strong arm RAZD into seeing things the way YOU see them? He's not doing that to you, He's simply asking you to see the rational argument behind His argument and you want him to be atheistic towards it. That's why He cites the "RAZD concepts scale" so often, because he needs to with you. And still, you don't see it.
I'm sure bluegenes will be happy to discuss the matrix with you if you ask him nicely.
Bluegenes has His hands full in the The Great Debate
forum. He's fallen mightily behind. See for youself the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)(bluegenes and RAZD only)[/color]
Start here:Message 1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1548 by Straggler, posted 09-03-2011 9:23 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1578 by Straggler, posted 09-06-2011 1:59 PM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1602 of 1725 (632459)
09-08-2011 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1601 by Straggler
09-08-2011 6:17 AM


Straggler defines Jesus
Straggler writes:
Jesus Christ is defined (as I understand it) as the miraculously conceived, miracle capable, eternal son of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of all that is seen and unseen who is not just his dad but also an aspect of himself.
If this isn't supernatural what is?
Oh good, we get to talk about Christ some. That's not bad Straggler.
I would also add that the SN is even more real that the natural world. If only we could see beyond the natural everyones answers would be answered.
For now, we just have to go on peoples experiences and hope they listen and actually experience it for themselves.
Straggs, start in the Gospel of John. Read the whole thing and we'll discuss it at a later time God willing.
This is exciting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1601 by Straggler, posted 09-08-2011 6:17 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1605 by Straggler, posted 09-08-2011 6:38 AM Chuck77 has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1603 of 1725 (632461)
09-08-2011 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1600 by xongsmith
09-08-2011 4:50 AM


Re: Atheism By Numbness
Xsmith writes:
Fictional things are not supernatural things. They are but representations of supernatural CONCEPTS. Anyone can create a fictional supernatural being (as you & bluegenes have abundantly done already) - that does not make it a supernatural phenomenon.
Go Xongsmith GO!!
Xsmith writes:
Fictional characters DO NOT COUNT. Now, you threw in some ringers there. The THOR - is it the Marvel Comics fictional THOR? Then you throw in Christ, Allah, Vishnu as if they were on the same level....bzzzzt. Try again.
Xongsmith is rolling!!
Can you show me specifically where Jesus Christ (for example) is so defined???? Nightmare - sure, Harry Potter - sure...but Christ?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1600 by xongsmith, posted 09-08-2011 4:50 AM xongsmith has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1614 of 1725 (632632)
09-09-2011 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1605 by Straggler
09-08-2011 6:38 AM


Sometimes faith is all there is
Straggler writes:
But more helpful to this discussion would be a method by which we could differentiate fictional supernatural entities from real ones......?
One that will satisfy you? None dude. I cannot make any better arguments than RAZD has and yet you still fight him tooth and nail.
My logic is impared by my experience.
How to become a Christian:
I acknowledge I am a sinner in need of a Savior - this is to repent or turn away from sin
I believe in my heart that God raised Jesus from the dead - this is to trust that Jesus paid the full penalty for my sins
I confess Jesus as my Lord and my God - this is to surrender control of my life to Jesus
I receive Jesus as my Savior forever - this is to accept that God has done for me and in me what He promised
Here's a prayer: Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner and I do not deserve eternal life. But, I believe You died and rose from the grave to make me a new creation and to prepare me to dwell in your presence forever. Jesus, come into my life, take control of my life, forgive my sins and save me. I am now placing my trust in You alone for my salvation and I accept your free gift of eternal life."
That is all I know to do. If you do that sincerly you are guarenteed an experience that will change your life forever and you will finally meet the ever elusive God and you know that you did.
You will be expedited up to the #1 position on the Dawkins scale that so many believe to be delusional.
If I come across any future ways that will detect the SN I will let you know. For now, this is all I got.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1605 by Straggler, posted 09-08-2011 6:38 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1616 by Straggler, posted 09-09-2011 7:08 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 1639 of 1725 (632768)
09-10-2011 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1628 by RAZD
09-09-2011 5:39 PM


The Straggler Challenge
RAZD writes:
This is your analema: that scientists will only be able to see\observe the "natural" elements and that their explanations will necessarily be limited to the "natural" elements by what they see\observe.
It's sort of like asking, why do we dream?
wiki:
During REM sleep, the release of the neurotransmitters norepinephrine, serotonin and histamine is completely suppressed.[22][23][24] As a result, motor neurons are not stimulated, a condition known as REM atonia. This prevents dreams from resulting in dangerous movements of the body.
According to a report in the journal Neuron, rat brains show evidence of complex activity during sleep, including the activation in memory of long sequences of activity.[25][26] Studies show that various species of mammals and birds experience REM during sleep,[27] and follow the same series of sleeping states as humans.[25]
And, God certainly may have designed us to dream and can/does influence our dreaming. Detecting God per say is not possible right now emperically but it doesn't rule out the possibilty that God created us to dream just because something has a natural explanation.
I think Straggler is trying to misrepresent Xongsmith's position too(on top of yours). Or, he is just ignorant and doesnt quite understand it.
It's amusing to see Straggler call Xongsmith a militant atheist in almost every comment he makes now when he himself demonstrates it here everyday.
He is best at twisting what everyone says to suit his argument.
If he actually had to read and understand someones position being more logical than his own he surley wouln't have over 300 posts in this thread.
Straggler, as long as you go along with bluegenes theory (still of which he has not come up with a test to test what it is he claims to know) you are as militant as they come.
I wouldn't say it's ignorance but seeing what he wants to see (making things up) rather than seeing what people actually say.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1628 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2011 5:39 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1687 by Straggler, posted 09-13-2011 5:36 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1641 of 1725 (632780)
09-10-2011 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1640 by PaulK
09-10-2011 3:54 AM


Brain function
PaulK writes:
RAZD, we are discussing a case where we have quite thoroughly tested for "evidence of the other", to the point where we have eliminated the possibility.
That's good. So you are a #7 on the "Dawkins scale" I take it? After a comment like this no other option fits.
This is astonishing, quite literally. Listen, im no one to talk about someone being a 7 on Dick's scale because im the total opposite (although I do believe it's more logical and reasonable to be a #1 than a #7 as you cannot have an "experience" NOT detecting the presence of God but you CAN have a positive one).
Just because there is no detection doesn't mean that something does not exist. See RAZD and Thomas Jefferson.
Im still not sure how you can be sure that one's experience can be tested to not be SN? Brain funtion shows it's due to natural causes? Lets see.
PaulK writes:
To be precise, by watching brain function we have no inputs that are unaccounted for and all point to a natural origin of the experience, thus we can say that the experience is the product of natural causes, and it does not detect supernatural beings
Which experience? Let's look at speaking in tongues.
Brain scans of people speaking in tongues:
A group of researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine used Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) to analyze brain activity within individuals as they spoke in tongues. It was the first study of this kind. During this technique, a small quantity of a radioactive drug is injected into a person's vein. The scanner then makes detailed images of tissues as cells take up the drug.
During an interview on 2006-SEP-20 by Steve Paulson, Andrew Newberg -- Associate Professor of Radiology, Psychiatry, and Religious Studies and Director for the Center for Spirituality and the Mind, at the University of Pennsylvania -- said that the region of the brain involved in language is not activated when a person speaks in tongues. He said:
"Speaking in tongues is a very unusual kind of vocalization. It sounds like the person is speaking a language, but it’s not comprehensible. And when people have done linguistic analyses of speaking in tongues, it does not correspond to any clear linguistic structure. So it seems to be distinct from language itself. That’s interesting because we did not see activity in the language areas of the brain. Of course, if somebody is a deep believer in speaking in tongues, the source of the vocalizations is very clear. It’s coming from outside the person. It’s coming through the spirit of God. 11
They found decreased activity in the brain's frontal lobes, an area associated with self-control. One of the researchers, Andrew Newberg, said: "It’s fascinating because these subjects truly believe that the spirit of God is moving through them and controlling them to speak." The data partly confirms the subjects' beliefs. In fact, the subjects are not in control of their usual language centers as they spoke in tongues.
It seems not all tests are being reported, well, read I mean. Let's just place you at a #6 on Dicks scale for right now.
Newberg, who is Principal Investigator in the study, was later interviewed about his team's article in the journal Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging. He stated:
"We noticed a number of changes that occurred functionally in the brain. Our finding of decreased activity in the frontal lobes during the practice of speaking in tongues is fascinating because these subjects truly believe that the spirit of God is moving through them and controlling them to speak. Our brain imaging research shows us that these subjects are not in control of the usual language centers during this activity, which is consistent with their description of a lack of intentional control while speaking in tongues."
Reference:SPEAKING IN TONGUES: Glossia and Xenoglossia. scientific studies
Good enough for me. Doesn't seem at all a closed case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1640 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2011 3:54 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1642 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2011 5:51 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 1643 by Wounded King, posted 09-10-2011 5:56 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 1644 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2011 6:06 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 1646 by fearandloathing, posted 09-10-2011 6:37 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1645 of 1725 (632786)
09-10-2011 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1643 by Wounded King
09-10-2011 5:56 AM


Re: Brain function
Wounded King writes:
On the contrary it seems they are being reported and twisted to fit the preconceived beliefs of the religious.
Good one. Here from the Pdf
3. Results
The data between the glossolalia and singing state
revealed several significant rCBF differences (see Table
1 and Fig. 1). There were significant decreases in the
prefrontal cortices, left caudate and left temporal pole
while there were increases in the left superior parietal
lobe (SPL) and right amygdala. There was a significant
negative correlation (R=−0.90, P=0.03) between the
singing and glossolalia thalamic LI, indicating that the
more the thalamic activity was asymmetric to begin with,
the more the asymmetry reversed during glossolalia.
It seems you are twisting it, not the researchers.
Wounded King quotes writes:
It’s fascinating because these subjects truly believe that the spirit of God is moving through them and controlling them to speak.
How about the rest of your cherry pick now:
Our brain imaging research shows us that these subjects are not in control of the usual language centers during this activity, which is consistent with their description of a lack of intentional control while speaking in tongues."
Fail
The fact that there is a lack of intentional control is in no way any confirmation that God is moving through them and controlling them.
Wow, you got me. Yes, good point. See PaulK for further experiments/studies which disprove beyond all doubt that the SN does indeed not exist.
That says more about you than it does about this research.
Wow, again, you are not making a case by simply saying "your wrong chuck".
It was a simple study that says
Our brain imaging research shows us that these subjects are not in control of the usual language centers during this activity
Wounded King writes:
The actual paper is available in pdf form here.
Yes, that is ummm, the actually paper. And?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1643 by Wounded King, posted 09-10-2011 5:56 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1653 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2011 5:48 PM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 1655 by Wounded King, posted 09-11-2011 3:56 AM Chuck77 has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1647 of 1725 (632789)
09-10-2011 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1642 by PaulK
09-10-2011 5:51 AM


Re: Brain function
PaulK writes:
the question is whether religious experiences should be considered detections of supernatural beings or not.
Detections or reigious experiences? The next time im praying and God speaks to me what would you like me to do?
How about when the holy spirit speaks to me in my spirit what test should we conclude that I am lying and in no way is it really happening and im just imagining it?
Given that even someone who was considered a 1 on Dawkins scale could reasonably accept my argument your conclusion is seriously divorced from reality.
Of course it's possible I missed it. What did i miss?...what does this mean
To be precise, by watching brain function we have no inputs that are unaccounted for and all point to a natural origin of the experience, thus we can say that the experience is the product of natural causes, and it does not detect supernatural beings
??
PaulK writes:
The question of whether supernatural beings exist or not is not part of my argument at all
I understand Paul. The religious experiences have to be brought about by a specific being of the SN. Religious experiences are not just eureka moments of enlightenment. They are meetings with God. Who is....SN.
Your report is interesting,
Well thanks
but not really relevant.
Well, I thought it would add to the experiements that are hypothetically disproving the SN as simply brain funtion.
The absence of language function is a little more interesting,
Well, thank you again. You should help Wounded King learn how ro read like you do.
but tends to support the idea that the "speech" is meaningless babble
Indeed it is."Tongues" as it were, is a Heavenly language and doesn't make any sense to our natural minds. It's a gift from God for us to be able to communicate with him from our spirit man.
Romans 8:26 says:
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
It's not meant to be understood. Unless you have the gift of interpretation Seriously tho.
PaulK writes:
You can't rate someone on Dawkin's scale by simply considering the situations they are prepared to entertain for the sake of argument
My bad. So what are you on the scale if you don't mind me asking?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1642 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2011 5:51 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1649 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2011 9:19 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1654 of 1725 (632893)
09-11-2011 1:27 AM


Still Delusional
bluegenes writes:
If my theory is 100% correct, then we should not have found a method of positively detecting their presence, because detecting the presence of non-existent entities would be impossible. And so far, this is the case.
This gem Message 162 is the most recent comment in the the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)(bluegenes and RAZD only)[/color]
Goodness gracious god almighty. First off it's incredible that he thinks this is HIS theory. Come on dude. You know how many people think the same exact thing and can't back it up? ***See Richard dawkins and his diciples***
I'll also point out (for the umpteenth time) that scientific theories are not weakened by unsupported propositions that contradict them.
Yeah, no kidding. Similarily, they are strengthened with evidence and are able to actually test the hypothesis too. Something that has obviously not taken place in this instance.
If some people on the peanut thread believe that some neurological phenomena or spectacular meteorological phenomena (like hurricanes and tornadoes) are caused by supernatural beings, their Faith alone does not support a claim that my theory is weak
I think bluegenes actually IS Richard Dawkins. Just because bluegenes says " SN beings don't exist because I said so, so just show me one and it will falsify MY claim, you can't I win" doesn't make it so.
He actually NEEDS to demonstrate that what he says is true just like a Tornado doesn't neccesarily prove the existance of the SN. How can he test this? He Can't.
Why is bluegenes excluded from coming up with any evidence or support for his claims? Why is he so special?
Those extraordinary claims require considerable support in order to weaken the theory, and extraordinary support in order to falsify it.
Incredible.
bluegenes writes:
Those extraordinary claims require considerable support
YEAH NO KIDDING.
bluegenes writes:
and extraordinary support in order to falsify it.
LOL. Yep, leave all the hard work to us. Sit back, enjoy a cold one, while we're left to do your work for you.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1657 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 9:46 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 1659 by bluegenes, posted 09-11-2011 11:09 AM Chuck77 has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1656 of 1725 (632903)
09-11-2011 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1655 by Wounded King
09-11-2011 3:56 AM


Re: Brain function
No problem. I'll explain it to you. The point of the article was not to show that God is behind this phenomena(even tho I believe He is) it was to demonstrate that brain function tests work both ways. Not only for the hypothetical non-existance of the SN when it comes to religious experiences.
Have you asked PaulK to cite any hypothetical Science studies on the brain that prove all religious experiences are due to natural functions?
Or are you just critiqing the ones you don't agree with?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1655 by Wounded King, posted 09-11-2011 3:56 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1658 by Wounded King, posted 09-11-2011 11:03 AM Chuck77 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