Re: I Believe My Beliefs Are Evidence Of That Which I Believe to be Evidenced
Straggler writes:
So apparently if people believe that they have evidence that gods exist this constitutes some sort of evidence that gods do indeed exist.
"Bluegenes, you pseudoskeptic, you don't have a strong theory because lots of people have religious beliefs that contradict it, and I typed this in color."
"Darwin, you pseudoskeptic, you don't have a strong theory because lots of people have religious beliefs that contradict it and I typed this in color."
Kids will be happy to know that there's evidence that their favourite cartoon characters really exist because people have subjective experiences of their presence and actually believe they're there. And we finally have evidence for the real existence of those evil spirits that cause disease, still widely believed in, and even for a real Harry Potter.
Good evidence for a geocentric universe too, as 20% of Americans believe in it. How could 60 million people all be wrong?
Re: I Believe My Beliefs Are Evidence Of That Which I Believe to be Evidenced
Bluegenes writes:
Kids will be happy to know that there's evidence that their favourite cartoon characters really exist because people have subjective experiences of their presence and actually believe they're there. And we finally have evidence for the real existence of those evil spirits that cause disease, still widely believed in, and even for a real Harry Potter.
No no no Bluegenes. You are still not getting it.
It's not just believing. It's documenting those beliefs. Because once documented the documented beliefs become "objective empirical evidence".
Re: I Believe My Beliefs Are Evidence Of That Which I Believe to be Evidenced
Straggler writes:
No no no Bluegenes. You are still not getting it.
It's not just believing. It's documenting those beliefs. Because once documented the documented beliefs become "objective empirical evidence".
I swear, I'm well up on the theory of documentation. Note my link to a (peer reviewed) document in a post further up the thread, in which a woman describes her subjective experiences of both cartoon characters and Christ. And venerable documentation (the best sort) is hardly a problem for a geocentric universe, is it? As for Harry Potter, millions have read of his adventures.
Re: I Believe My Beliefs Are Evidence Of That Which I Believe to be Evidenced
bluegenes writes:
Note my link to a (peer reviewed) document in a post further up the thread, in which a woman describes her subjective experiences of both cartoon characters and Christ.
So we have peer reviewed objective empirical evidence in the form of documented subjective experiences. Where does that put our confidence in the the actual existence of these cartoon characters (and less significantly Jesus Chris) if we apply the latest of RAZD's numerous confidence scales? Message 12
Re: Documented evidence of SB communication belief.
What about George Bush and his hotline to God? It seems that this "objective empirical evidence" in the form of documented experience is indeed abundant. We are fools to ignore it.
"I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."
"I feel God's words coming to me: 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God, I'm gonna do it."
Re: I Believe My Beliefs Are Evidence Of That Which I Believe to be Evidenced
Straggler writes:
Where does that put our confidence in the the actual existence of these cartoon characters (and less significantly Jesus Chris) 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.
Re: Documented evidence of SB communication belief.
Straggler writes:
What about George Bush and his hotline to God?
Good OE evidence. And we can discount the point that Osama Bin Laden was getting messages from a mutually exclusive different one true creator of the universe with the ever useful "Hindu hypothesis".
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....
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.
Do you concur that vampires, such as the one Dracula is portrayed as, are 'supernatural beings' in as far as 'if they really existed, we'd be perfectly happy to call them supernatural since they defy everything we know about biology.'
Yes. But it has already been established that they aren't real. However, I concede that this documentation isn't available to me.
Thank you for exposing my ignorance about Dracula.
Xongsmith how do you decide whether or not a concept qualifies as supernatuiral? Why can you not just answer that simple question without telling an individual long winded story for each example?
X writes:
Yunno? I think there is a problem here with using the word "concept".
Yunno I think that given that Bluegenes theory is all about supernatural CONCEPTS and their source of origin that this might be part of your ongoing comprehension problem in these threads.
Re: I Believe My Beliefs Are Evidence Of That Which I Believe to be Evidenced
Are you now saying that we can't apply RAZ's confidence scale to subjectively experienced and believed to exist cartoon characters because we will come out as pseudoskeptics towards the actual existence of these blatantly fictional entities?
Don't forget that RAZ himself has refused to discount the existence of the pink fluffy and magically undetectable Easter Bunny as a fiction with any greater confidence than that of a low confidence unevidenced personal opinion.
Personally I am pretty frikkin sure that the pink fluffy magical Easter Bunny does not exist. Call me a psudoskeptic if you will.
X writes:
Why waste our time trying to decide if Casper The Ghost is real?
Who but you is suggesting that being fictional precludes a concept from being classed as supernatural?
X writes:
Why waste time scientifically investigating whether Dracula is a supernatural being when we already know he doesn't truly exist?
Do you agree that the concept of Thor (the Norse God) is a supernatural concept? Do you think we need to send a team of men in white coats off to Valhalla to confirm this?
™ Version 4.2
(1)
