Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inductive Atheism
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 42 of 536 (604713)
02-14-2011 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Straggler
02-13-2011 4:44 AM


Re: Inductive Atheism
Straggler writes:
Casper the Ghost is a supernatural concept...
No! Most emphatically, he is not. He's a fictional cartoon character.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Straggler, posted 02-13-2011 4:44 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by onifre, posted 02-14-2011 1:54 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied
 Message 52 by Straggler, posted 02-15-2011 2:59 AM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 44 of 536 (604718)
02-14-2011 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Adequate
02-11-2011 7:34 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
Dr Adequate writes:
Consider the case when we infer from abundant forensic evidence that John Smith murdered Fred Jones.
This is certainly inductive, and it is certainly not a repeatable event, since even if Smith was willing to repeat the slaying of Jones, Jones would not be able....[deletia]...
The forensic processes are repeatable. The fingerprints can be examined by others.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2011 7:34 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-14-2011 6:02 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 45 of 536 (604721)
02-14-2011 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Straggler
02-13-2011 4:37 AM


Re: RAZD and Documented Beliefs as Objective Evidence
Straggler writes:
Dr A writes:
Straggler writes:
To cite it as anything else is to engage in the circular argument of citing belief itself as evidence upon which to base beliefs.
No, of citing testimony.
People can testify to having experiences certainly. But what are these experiences evidence of exactly?
God only knows!
Why would we think that such experiences constitute evidence for supernatural causes rather than evidence for fluctuations in the matrix?
Because the experiencee believes it to be so?
{Parenthetically, I think you meant the "experiencER", not the "EE", who might have been killed in the process.)
I think the main point is that all of these sorts of evidences are only coming into play when the desired objective scientific evidence is simply not available.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Straggler, posted 02-13-2011 4:37 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by bluegenes, posted 02-14-2011 3:56 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied
 Message 53 by Straggler, posted 02-15-2011 3:07 AM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 54 of 536 (604854)
02-15-2011 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Straggler
02-15-2011 3:07 AM


Re: RAZD and Documented Beliefs as Objective Evidence
Straggler writes:
RAZD writes:
Religious documents and reports of supernatural experiences. These religious documents and reports are abundant, they are objective empirical evidence that should be considered in any discussion of supernatural beings.
More RAZ debate bollocks?
Seems that way. I would disagree with RAZD on this. The abundance of these documents and reports does nothing to move them from subjective evidence into the category of objective evidence, in my opinion.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Straggler, posted 02-15-2011 3:07 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Straggler, posted 02-15-2011 4:03 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 55 of 536 (604858)
02-15-2011 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Straggler
02-15-2011 2:59 AM


Re: Inductive Atheism
Straggler writes:
Why does being fictional or a cartoon character preclude it from being a supernatural concept?
It's a frikkin ghost!!!
I suppose it all comes down to semantics.
In my thinking, there is no way any person familiar with Casper The Ghost would ever believe there was anything actualized outside of the confines of the story line of the comic strip/cartoon that anyone would describe as truly "supernatural".
The concept of a ghost or ghosts believed to have been experienced in the world by a person or persons would tentatively fit my definition, until investigation showed it was only imagined after all. Then it would no longer fit my definition.
You are free to define a fictional character as such if you like, but I'd rather leave all those out of the issue at hand, to save time.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Straggler, posted 02-15-2011 2:59 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by bluegenes, posted 02-15-2011 4:06 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied
 Message 58 by Straggler, posted 02-15-2011 4:08 PM xongsmith has replied
 Message 59 by onifre, posted 02-15-2011 6:43 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 60 of 536 (604888)
02-15-2011 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Straggler
02-15-2011 4:08 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
Straggler writes:
X writes:
You are free to define a fictional character as such if you like, but I'd rather leave all those out of the issue at hand, to save time.
So as far as you are concerned there can be no such thing as an intentionally fictional supernatural concept? Then I have no idea how you are defining "supernatural". Can you enlighten me?
Films about vampires that can turn into bats? Magical dragons in fantasy novels? Stories about ghosts? Etc. None of these things are tales of the "supernatural" as far as you are concerned?
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I await your definition.
It's sort of the same thing that would make a school child, looking for the next prime number after some given large prime number P>>>>>2, disregard bothering to check any more even numbers.
A simplification: If something has been explained well enough scientifically, it cannot be unexplained. We can move on to the next thing.
You could thus propose:
The set of supernatural stuff (beings, things, events,...), whether it is an empty set or not, is contained inside the set of unexplained stuff.
bluegenes theory predicts that this set is empty as a result of inductive reasoning, correct?

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Straggler, posted 02-15-2011 4:08 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2011 8:24 AM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 61 of 536 (604892)
02-15-2011 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by onifre
02-15-2011 6:43 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
onifre writes:
In my thinking, there is no way any person familiar with Casper The Ghost would ever believe there was anything actualized outside of the confines of the story line of the comic strip/cartoon that anyone would describe as truly "supernatural".
I feel the same way about Jesus.
- Oni

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by onifre, posted 02-15-2011 6:43 PM onifre has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 62 of 536 (604893)
02-15-2011 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Straggler
02-15-2011 4:03 PM


Re: RAZD and Documented Beliefs as Objective Evidence
Straggler writes:
Could you tell RAZ this. He seems to be ignoring me.
Next time I see him.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Straggler, posted 02-15-2011 4:03 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2011 12:00 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 66 of 536 (605028)
02-16-2011 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Straggler
02-16-2011 12:00 PM


Re: RAZD and Documented Beliefs as Objective Evidence
Straggler writes:
Would you also ask him on what basis he concludes that these much vaunted "subjective experiences" are likely to have supernatural rather than natural causes?
Probably not.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2011 12:00 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Straggler, posted 02-17-2011 5:25 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 67 of 536 (605031)
02-16-2011 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by bluegenes
02-16-2011 9:20 AM


Re: Common ground.
bluegenes writes:
To me, the most interesting thing about fictional cartoon characters and other fictional beings is that people can actually have subjective experiences of them, and believe them to be real.
Can you imagine something so obviously a buffoonery as the numerous internet anecdotes of the supreme superpowers of Chuck Norris actually becoming a religion? LOL!
Here's a case where a real person gets conflated up into a fictional caricature of himself.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by bluegenes, posted 02-16-2011 9:20 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by bluegenes, posted 02-16-2011 6:38 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 68 of 536 (605041)
02-16-2011 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Straggler
02-16-2011 8:24 AM


Re: Inductive Atheism
Straggler writes:
I have no idea what you are talking about. And you seem to have some sort of definition in mind that no dictionary anywhere in the world would agree with.
As far as I can see by your definition the concept of a perpetual motion machine is "supernatural" but a bat transforming Dracula isn't.
How does that work?
Why is that so hard? Why waste time scientifically investigating whether Dracula is a supernatural being when we already know he doesn't truly exist? We have Bram Stoker as the author of the Dracula story. Dracula has been scientifically explained already, and therefore cannot be supernatural. Who was the author of the Buddha story? The Jesus story (I know . . . some guy or guys that later became known as Christians . . .)?
Meanwhile some crackpot garage engineer puts forth a claim that he has invented a perpetual motion machine. It appears to work according to some neighbors and a local news reporter and is as yet unexplained. What happens? He gets a visit by some investigative scientist or scientists and it gets debunked by a either an elementary scientific analysis or a not-so-elementary scientific analysis or an extensive scientific analysis. Note that he gets a visit - not some phone call from a scientist sitting in an armchair miles away. Was it ever a supernatural thing? I don't think so - just unexplained for a while. Not all things that are unexplained are supernatural. This case might be thought of as a trivial variant of The Cold Fusion Story, which resulted in a lot of visitations in the form of laboratory experiments around the world.
Another kind of thing that is unexplained, but later is explained, would be Hanny's Voorwerp. Was that ever thought of as being something supernatural? Maybe it was by a couple of the wacko kind of people bluegenes brings up in Message 57. But I don't think it was ever thought of as supernatural elsewhere.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2011 8:24 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 02-16-2011 6:02 PM xongsmith has replied
 Message 74 by Straggler, posted 02-17-2011 5:38 AM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 71 of 536 (605109)
02-17-2011 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Modulous
02-16-2011 6:02 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
Modulous writes:
Vlad Tepes, Vlad the Impaler,(the son of the Dragon, son of Dracul, aka Dracula) definitely existed and was Voivode of Wallachia and famous enemy of the Turks (along with some unfortunate political skirmishes with Hungary).
Yes, I am familiar with Vlad the Impaler, but he was not a fictional character with supernatural abilities in a book. If Straggler was referring to Vlad, then I would retract my viewpoint there.
It might be pointed out that you claimed 'he doesn't truly exist' based on the fact that the only source of vampiric Eastern European nobles you knew of was Bram Stoker and those that followed him...[deletia]....
No. I based my claim on the assumption that Straggler was only referring to the fictional character in Stoker's book, like when he was referring to the fictional cartoon character, Casper The Ghost.
So it goes.
I could ask you, as an aside, if you think Bram Stoker, himself, thought his character was based on someone who had any supernatural elements that were real? I have no idea. But that's another topic....

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 02-16-2011 6:02 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Modulous, posted 02-17-2011 4:18 AM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 85 of 536 (605330)
02-18-2011 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Straggler
02-17-2011 5:38 AM


Re: Supernatural Characters
Straggler writes:
X writes:
Why is that so hard?
Because the more you have said on this the less sense you have made. I only asked for a definition. In response you seem to be claiming that anything scientifically unexplained qualifies as supernatural except where you personally decide it’s not supernatural for some long winded reason.
WOW!
!!! How can you get it 180 degrees backwards!!!! In order for it to be considered "supernatural" there must be some "long-winded" supporting argument attesting to such, otherwise it merely falls back down into the long and tedious General Unexplained Until Further Notice category.
It's the set of Unexplained that entirely contains the set of the Supernatural. Being Unexplained does not in any way imply being Supernatural.
It's the other way around! If something is Supernatural, then that implies it is Unexplained. It's like: All platypuses are animals, not all animals are platypuses except where i state differently.
X writes:
Why waste time?...... Dracula has been scientifically explained already, and therefore cannot be supernatural.
What? A vampire is an undead being that craves human blood, has no reflection and can only be killed by mans of a wooden stake through the heart. Etc. This is a supernatural concept......
Yunno? I think there is a problem here with using the word "concept". I'm not talking about the set of all things that humans have ever considered in their imaginations, delusions, or whatever, that they could dream up. Those sorts of things can be made up on the spot by guys like you and me ad infinitum. No. Let's dismiss all the obvious fictions and address the stuff that isn't so obviously made up. Why waste our time trying to decide if Casper The Ghost is real? C'mon! I only want to be talking about that nebulous collection of things: beings and events that have been described, up until this fleeting moment, as having Supernatural characteristics - but haven't been refuted by science yet. I dont think this discussion is moved forward by a debate on Casper The Ghost.
X writes:
Another kind of thing that is unexplained, but later is explained..
By the terms of your nonsensical definition it would seem that quantum gravity and the Higgs Boson currently qualify as supernatural.
LOL - no no no. You have it backwards. These are as yet unexplained but not considered supernatural by the overwhelming majority of persons who study these sorts of things.
You are not making any sense. Can you just tell us what you mean by supernatural without the stories and furniture (to use your phrase).
Tentative approach to this:
The Supernatural is perhaps described as a subset of the set of those Unexplained Things we can still observe that are currently suspected never to be able to be explained by scientific investigation.
Currently I believe that this set is identical with the Empty Set.
However, I think Modulous has thrown me a bigger stab wound....
Time to get another beer!

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Straggler, posted 02-17-2011 5:38 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Straggler, posted 02-18-2011 8:20 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 86 of 536 (605332)
02-18-2011 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by bluegenes
02-18-2011 12:43 PM


Re: I Believe My Beliefs Are Evidence Of That Which I Believe to be Evidenced
bluegenes writes:
Straggler writes:
Where does that put our confidence in the the actual existence of these cartoon characters (and less significantly Jesus Christ) if we apply the latest of RAZD's numerous confidence scales?
Ask RAZD. As he would discount a theory that all cartoon characters are figments of the human imagination with unsupported unfalsifiable claims like "real ones might be communicating with the artists", I guess he'd consider the documented subjective experiences of them would make their existence just as likely as that of his deity.

You guys are just trying on ("like a mink coat") the feeling of what it would be like to try to be assholes.
Sorry....you haven't been impressing me at all.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by bluegenes, posted 02-18-2011 12:43 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Straggler, posted 02-18-2011 8:26 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 87 of 536 (605334)
02-18-2011 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by bluegenes
02-18-2011 12:10 PM


Re: Documented evidence of SB communication belief.
bluegenes writes:
Dear PZ... I spoke with God yesterday.... Do you want to know what he told me?
CLOBBERING TIME
Message 1
LOL!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by bluegenes, posted 02-18-2011 12:10 PM bluegenes 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