Peanut Gallery 2012

I think RAZD is saying that people may or may not have imprecise information about reality.
He wants us to understand how these cultures know things about their reality.Well, the current way we understand our reality is by looking and thinking.
>Sometimes we make stuff up: "The Sun orbits the Earth!"
>Sometimes we learn stuff: "The Earth orbits the Sun!"I think RAZD is suggesting that there is a 3rd option -
>Sometimes god tells us stuff: "..."
But he hasn't provided an example of this.I could easily be wrong about this because all he provided to explain his point was a painting.
Does he think the painting contains information about god?TBH it is difficult to know what RAZD means.
I think it is because the closer he comes to casting doubt on his deity, the less specific he can be.
I think he relies on "We can never disprove something 100%", but is uncomfortable (CD anyone?) with the fact that we have spent millennia making up supernatural beings.How else would you explain why he can't even name a single supernatural being.
Being vague is the only defence RAZD seems to have on this subject.

And the reason we know detectives exist is because there is empirical, objective evidence of detectives.
But RAZD is not even able to identify a single non-imaginary SB.Let's reword it: Hmmm....I think I see a flaw with RAZD's argument: it is bollocks.
He jumped the step where we have empirical, objective evidence of detectives (but not of dragons nor supernatural beings).
The dragons in the stories are just supernatural beings created by the imagination of the authors, whereas detectives are not.
And since there are no counter-examples of real supernatural beings, Bluegenes' theory stands.When it comes to answering what should be a really simple question (i.e. "Name a non-imaginary supernatural being"), RAZD's silence is deafening. And yet he is adamant that they exist.RAZD believes in something which has no evidence to support its existence.
This flies in the face of his "Show me the evidence" stance on all other subjects.
I am thinking that his subconscious started the Cognitive Dissonance thread.
It was trying to tell us why he is unable to name even 1 supernatural being while continuing to claim they exist. No need.
We don't have the CD you have, RAZD.
We can see bluegene's answer.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

And this would be evidence of the invisible pink unicorn?

It is not conclusive, but there are some subtle (but significant) differences in their posting styles. Verizon are a multi-billion dollar telcom - I expect their customer base is quite large.

I agree with you regarding bluegenes' statement, but I think bluegenes' statement is wrong.I think the theory predicts that we 'will not' detect SBs, but it doesn't predict that we 'can not' detect SB's.