Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
34 online now:
Aussie, Captcass, jar, PaulK, Tangle, Theodoric (6 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,654 Year: 16,690/19,786 Month: 815/2,598 Week: 61/251 Day: 14/24 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery 2012
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15372
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 31 of 83 (672181)
09-04-2012 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Modulous
09-04-2012 2:13 PM


Re: The Guernica conjecture
I think that you are right about the point RAZD is trying to make. But he would have to provide an argument that there are real supernatural beings behind the myths. I don't think that he can do that, which may be why he is dragging things out.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 09-04-2012 2:13 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 32 of 83 (672193)
09-04-2012 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Modulous
09-04-2012 2:13 PM


Re: The Guernica conjecture
Mod writes:

Remember the Hindu Hypothesis?

Yep.

Mod writes:

RAZD, I believe, is trying to say that religious myths are to supernatural beings what Guernica is to the horrors of war. An intermediary through which we have to do some interpretation.

OK. That seems fair enough as far as it goes. I would accept that some interpretation is required in order to extract the wisdom that might be entailed in religious texts (or any other literature) for example.

Mod writes:

He seems to be talking about information being transmitted in non-scientific ways, presumably religious notions are proposed to contain non-literal information like various art does.

OK. But (and I appreciate this isn't your argument but rather your take on RAZ's argument so my question is somewhat rhetorical) how does this get us to evidence of actual supernatural eings rather than evidence of human belief in the existence of supernatural beings (which is the observable phenomenon bluegenes theory seeks to somewhat explain).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 09-04-2012 2:13 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by xongsmith, posted 09-06-2012 12:29 AM Straggler has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1968 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 33 of 83 (672250)
09-05-2012 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Modulous
09-04-2012 2:13 PM


Re: The Guernica conjecture
Modulous writes:

RAZD, I believe, is trying to say that religious myths are to supernatural beings what Guernica is to the horrors of war. An intermediary through which we have to do some interpretation.


And this would be evidence of the invisible pink unicorn?

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 09-04-2012 2:13 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7067
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 34 of 83 (672276)
09-05-2012 6:15 PM


I think I may have to give up on this one - it's two people trying not to get anywhere the slowest without losing face. Worse than watching those volleyball teams in the Olympics trying to lose.

Get a grip guys, stop posturing and get off the pot.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by onifre, posted 09-05-2012 9:05 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1206 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 35 of 83 (672279)
09-05-2012 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tangle
09-05-2012 6:15 PM


I think I may have to give up on this one - it's two people trying not to get anywhere the slowest without losing face.

Bluegenes has no need to take the debate anywhere. Is there really a question that supernatural beings aren't the creation of human beings? It's a silly debate, but Bluegenes has demolished any point RAZD has tried to make.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tangle, posted 09-05-2012 6:15 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by xongsmith, posted 09-06-2012 12:35 AM onifre has acknowledged this reply

    
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1897
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 36 of 83 (672285)
09-06-2012 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Straggler
09-04-2012 5:00 PM


Re: The Guernica conjecture
Straggler asks:
But (and I appreciate this isn't your argument but rather your take on RAZ's argument so my question is somewhat rhetorical) how does this get us to evidence of actual supernatural beings rather than evidence of human belief in the existence of supernatural beings (which is the observable phenomenon bluegenes theory seeks to somewhat explain).

Remember: it is not the job of RAZD to provide evidence of any single Supernatural Being yet.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Straggler, posted 09-04-2012 5:00 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Straggler, posted 09-06-2012 5:33 AM xongsmith has acknowledged this reply
 Message 39 by Straggler, posted 09-07-2012 12:19 PM xongsmith has acknowledged this reply

    
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1897
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 37 of 83 (672286)
09-06-2012 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by onifre
09-05-2012 9:05 PM


Oni, trying to shrug it off:

Bluegenes has no need to take the debate anywhere. Is there really a question that supernatural beings aren't the creation of human beings? It's a silly debate, but Bluegenes has demolished any point RAZD has tried to make.

Ah, my friend, it was a much more complicated question. So be it. As Rose Rosanna Danna would say: "Nevermind."


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by onifre, posted 09-05-2012 9:05 PM onifre has acknowledged this reply

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 38 of 83 (672292)
09-06-2012 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by xongsmith
09-06-2012 12:29 AM


Re: The Guernica conjecture
Throughout the thread RAZ has repeatedly raised evidence of human belief in the existence of supernatural beings (e.g. religious texts) as if this is somehow indicative of there being a source of SBs other than human imagination. The idea seems to be that if lots of people genuinely believe such things to be real then there must be some real supernatural basis for such beliefs even if none of the specific beliefs are particularly accurate. Belief as a form of evidence upon which to justify belief in the supernatural. Circular. This whole Guernica thing seems to be (rather obliquely) heading along the same lines….

If the whole Guernica thing isn’t intended to make some point about interpretation and there being a real supernatural basis for such beliefs – What is the point of it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by xongsmith, posted 09-06-2012 12:29 AM xongsmith has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 39 of 83 (672365)
09-07-2012 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by xongsmith
09-06-2012 12:29 AM


Re: The Guernica conjecture
I see you have "acknowledged" my reply. Fair enough I spose.

Is anyone (hello RAZ) going to definitively explain the relevance of this Guernica thing....?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by xongsmith, posted 09-06-2012 12:29 AM xongsmith has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by herebedragons, posted 09-10-2012 10:27 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 40 of 83 (672678)
09-10-2012 2:31 PM


Cut the CD - Off Topic?
I'm still following and enjoying the bluegenes Vs RAZD great debate.

But I wish the relentless accusations of cognitive dissonance could be deemed off-topic. They aren't adding anything except a way of sidetracking from the issue at hand.

There is even a whole thread about CD to which these accusations and the basis for making them can be legitimately discussed: Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs


  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 41 of 83 (672732)
09-10-2012 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Straggler
09-07-2012 12:19 PM


Re: The Guernica conjecture
I ran across this quote by Picasso himself that I think may help clarify what RAZD is getting at

quote:
Art is a lie that makes you realize the truth. - Picasso

It could be said that since these myths are "lies", there is no truth in them. I think RAZD is using Guernica to suggest or illustrate the point that even though these stories may not be "true" they can point a person to the truth or help them realize the truth.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Straggler, posted 09-07-2012 12:19 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 09-11-2012 1:17 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15372
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 42 of 83 (672743)
09-11-2012 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by herebedragons
09-10-2012 10:27 PM


Re: The Guernica conjecture
The problem with that answer is that it raises the question "what truth" ? If RAZD is merely speculatign that myths point to some other meaning AND that that meaning involves real supernatural beings then he hasn't really got a point. Speculation piled on speculation is a poor way to argue.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by herebedragons, posted 09-10-2012 10:27 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1206 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 43 of 83 (672754)
09-11-2012 8:13 AM


ICANT maybe?
Anyone else suspect the "new" memeber TheRestOfUs in the Big Bang thread is ICANT?

Both emails are verizon.net. Don't know how coincidental that is.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Panda, posted 09-11-2012 8:57 AM onifre has not yet responded
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 09-11-2012 9:13 AM onifre has not yet responded
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2012 10:15 AM onifre has responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1968 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 44 of 83 (672757)
09-11-2012 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by onifre
09-11-2012 8:13 AM


Re: ICANT maybe?
onifre writes:

Anyone else suspect the "new" memeber TheRestOfUs in the Big Bang thread is ICANT?


It is not conclusive, but there are some subtle (but significant) differences in their posting styles.

onifre writes:

Both emails are verizon.net. Don't know how coincidental that is.


Verizon are a multi-billion dollar telcom - I expect their customer base is quite large.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by onifre, posted 09-11-2012 8:13 AM onifre has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15372
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 45 of 83 (672762)
09-11-2012 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by onifre
09-11-2012 8:13 AM


Re: ICANT maybe?
I don't think that at all likely. Their postings are too different.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by onifre, posted 09-11-2012 8:13 AM onifre has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019