Can one be an atheist and a skeptic? [Archive]

DialecticMaterialist

10th December 2003, 10:05 AM

This depends on what you consider disproof.

Technically I can say just about everything is not able to be disproven, if by that I mean absolute disproof.

Santa Claus for example, I can argue that He exists. That high technology allows him to go FTL. That the fact of your seeing others buy gifts is not proof all gifts come from people at Christimas, etc.

Or for example, I could argue that the universe is doubling in size each moment. With accompanying changes in the fundamental forces of nature required to retain stability. I really can.

And you could not absolutely disprove all the above. What you can do, is show them, given rational epistemic standards to be unreasonable and unlikely to be true.

This is what the atheist does. Very few atheists I know argue that God is logically impossible, not all Gods anyways. What they do argue for is physical i.e. provisional impossibility.

So not only can one be a skeptic and an atheist, but it appears as though the latter is a logical consequence of the former.

Keziah Mason

10th December 2003, 10:05 AM

Any thoughts?

Your initial setup is incorrect.

As an atheist I lack a belief in a god or gods. As a skeptic I see no compelling evidence for a god or gods (or for unicorns, elves, etc). Until such compelling evidence is presented, I see no reason to believe in such creatures.

Chanileslie

10th December 2003, 10:07 AM

whitefork

10th December 2003, 10:10 AM

I think you call them "Rosenkål", actually.

Charlie Monoxide

10th December 2003, 10:33 AM

atheist - someone who lacks belief in gods. Nice definition. Atheists "deny" the existence of god(s). Also being a skeptic, you must follow the tenet "you cannot prove the non-existence of something".

The next big skeptical tenet is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". You'd think after all these years of man-made religeons there's be some tangible proof to justify their beliefs.

Being an atheist and a skeptic, I will keep my tithing to myself and wait patiently for the proofs (and enjoy the debunks along the way as well).

Charlie (dang, I'm hoping for SETI to come through, no intelligent life here) Monoxide

CFLarsen

10th December 2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Kullervo
I think you call them "Rosenkål", actually.

Jaja, men jeg ville godt undgå at oversætte :)

Tricky

10th December 2003, 11:27 AM

An atheist is just a special subdivision of skeptics. All of us are skeptical about some things (like the honesty of politicians) and not about others (gravity will always work).

A movie critic is skeptical about what is entertaining.

A bookie is skeptical about the abilities of athletes/teams to perform.

An atheist is skeptical about religion.

10th December 2003, 12:22 PM

Samus

10th December 2003, 12:43 PM

I think you're asking if someone can be a theist and a skeptic. I would say yes, they can. I don't think it is possible to be a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim and be a skeptic, because those religions' dogmas tend to require life-encompassing leaps of faith.

Let's take the start of the universe, for example. No one has the answer as to how the universe started, or what triggered the start. Someone might conclude that something cannot be triggered from nothing, hence there had to be a catalyst for the universe. Something that had the consciousness and ability to trigger it. They might call that something a god, as it had the ability to trigger the creation of a universe.

Also, I think a true skeptic would understand that they don't have all the answers. One can assert that there is not sufficient evidence to support the belief in or worship of a god, and I would agree. However, I cannot assert that a god is impossible, because in theory, that god would be capable of things I can't understand. In those cases, it is best to accept the most practical stance, which is what jj said (I conclude there is no god).

On a side note, I think too many people confuse theism with Christianity, and tend to lump the two together. Not everyone that studies/accepts the possibility of god believes in Jesus, the resurrection, and all that other stuff.

Corey

10th December 2003, 01:08 PM

Skepticsm, in my view of it, is not believing something unless it can be reasonably proven to you. That can mean a lot of different things, but that's a loose definition. I haven't read, seen, heard or experienced anything that leads me to believe there is a god, therefore I'm an atheist. Keep in mind there are different variation of skepticism and atheism (the strong/weak explanations). I don't consider this to be by a pure scientific criteria either. If I experienced something that, to me, seemed to justify a belief in a deity, even in the most vague sense...I would entertain the idea. That being said, I've never felt any overwhelming emotional or "spirtual" event that I could chalk up to my own emotional or psychological bias for seeing events as being connected or divine when they were simply convenient or coincidental.

Simply put, there are a wide varitey of criteria for what could be considered a skeptic as well as an atheist, they're no mutually exclusive or inclusive...you could easily be one and/or the other within those variables. Whether or not it would be purely logical or consistent depends on the case and how it's evaluated.

T'ai Chi

10th December 2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by jj

I CONCLUDE, based on the EVIDENCE, that there is NO NEED TO HYPOTHESIZE any such "god". I am, therefore, due to my conclusion that there is no more need for a god hypothesis than there is for a moon-is-green-cheese hypothesis, an atheist.

We have studied the entire moon. There is no cheese there.

We have not studied the entire universe or beyond (if there is such a thing as beyond, such as higher dimensions), therefore god(s) could be there, I dunno.

Clancie

10th December 2003, 01:29 PM

Posted by Commander Cool

I think you're asking if someone can be a theist and a skeptic. I would say yes, they can. I don't think it is possible to be a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim and be a skeptic, because those religions' dogmas tend to require life-encompassing leaps of faith.
Why wouldn't theism -also- require a leap of faith?

By "life encompassing" are you making a distinction that some leaps of faith (theism) are okay for skeptics and others (fundamentalist Christian) aren't, depending on the degree of faith? :confused:

epepke

10th December 2003, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
Atheist = someone who believes god does not exist.

proving god does not exist is a logical fallacy...

believing something without evidence requires blind faith

skeptics and blind faith do not mix...

Any thoughts?

I've always called myself a skeptic and an atheist...

My first thought is that you do not seem to have availed yourself of the materials on atheism that are commonly available. The following is available from the Secular Web (www.infidels.com):

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.

There is also a comparison with dictionary definitions at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-definitions.html. Summary: both the OED and Webser's cover the entire spectrum of atheist beliefs. Your definition does not; it only covers "strong" atheism.

The only question remaining is whether a strong atheist(shorthand for "adherent of strong atheism," not to be taken literally as an atheist who is strong) can be a sekptic. It is my view that it depends on the nature of that belief. There is a small subset of strong atheists whom I like to call "mathematical atheists" who think they have some sort of proof that a god or gods cannot exist. I tend to think that they cannot be skeptics, because the belief is unfalsifiable. However, the majority of strong atheists form their beliefs based on the way people form most of their beliefs, not on "proof" per se, but on the preponderance of evidence. This, as another poster has put it, is a judgement call. To me, for example, the preponderance of evidence is that god-concepts are much better explained by clear and obvious characteristics of human psychology, anthropology, and culture than they are by hypothesizing an actual god or gods behind them.

So long as a belief is provisional and uncertain; I do not see that it conflicts with skepticism.

Aussie Thinker

10th December 2003, 03:16 PM

Thatguywhojuggles,

Don’t fall into the trap of defining an atheist on theistic terms.

We only USE the term atheist because it is thrust upon us by a world that mostly believes in God.

There has to be a definition for someone who DOESN’T believe as they are the unusual ones.

But think about it..

Do you call your self an abunnyist because you do NOT believe in the Easter Bunny ?.. do you call yourself an asantaist for lack of belief in Santa ??

Off course not…

Yet we have to label ourselves atheist for not accepting another fantasy.. when asked if we believe in God it should be quite acceptable to say “NO.. I am logical !”

Yahweh

10th December 2003, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
We have not studied the entire universe or beyond (if there is such a thing as beyond, such as higher dimensions), therefore god(s) could be there, I dunno.
It isnt necessary to study the entire universe (an impossible task) to conclude the non-existence of god(s).

At least with you statement, the best you can call yourself is agnostic.

At least in Philosophy, all possibilities are possible (redundant tautology?). Of course, step out of Happy Philosophy World, and into the Real World, a great number of those possibilities are wiped out.

For instance, in Happy Philosophy World, there is the possibility the molecular bonds in all my body will suddenly snap apart, and I'll fall to the ground a viscous pile of goo. In Real World, that isnt a possibility.

In Happy Philosophy World, its possible that everything and everyone around me is merely a figment of my imagination, I may in fact be the Solipsist. In Real World, that isnt a possibility.

In Happy Philosophy World, everything Franko says could in fact be the absolute truth, or maybe Lifegazer's Philosophy is absolute truth, maybe in one "dimension" Franko's Philosophy rules everything, in another "dimension" Lifegazer's Philosophy rules everything, in another "dimension" monkeys are crawling out of my ass! In Real World, none of those are even remote possibilities.

Happy Philosophy World allows the possibility for the existence of god(s). Real World, there is no such possibility.

I've never liked mixing Philosophy with Science, those two just never seem to play nice with each other at all...

Soapy Sam

10th December 2003, 05:19 PM

I'm a "Neither know nor careist". I don't mind gods, really. It's just the folks who talk to them that get up my nose.

I do however, firmly believe in Santa Claus. Not so sure about the Easter Bunny, but I once saw some photos of tracks in snow, shot by a famous mountaineer. Could have been a bunny.
At 19000 feet yet.

T'ai Chi

10th December 2003, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

It isnt necessary to study the entire universe (an impossible task) to conclude the non-existence of god(s).
[/quopte]

Yes, it is, unless you argue against the 'paper god(s)' contained in religion's books. Arguing against those doesn't exclude the possibility of god(s) from the actual universe though.

[quote]
Happy Philosophy World allows the possibility for the existence of god(s). Real World, there is no such possibility.

You might believe that, but have yet to show why one should consider it true.

Samus

10th December 2003, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
By "life encompassing" are you making a distinction that some leaps of faith (theism) are okay for skeptics and others (fundamentalist Christian) aren't, depending on the degree of faith? In fact, I am making a distinction. Those who unconditionally accept a dogma that is handed to them are different then those that have pondered, and concluded that there must exist some sort of god, even if they can't put their finger on an exact definition.

People who tend to answer "because that's what the holy book says" to a lot of questions are not critical thinkers. That is why I don't think it is possible for fundementalists of any given religious dogma to be skeptics as well.

Jeff Corey

10th December 2003, 07:47 PM

I had pondered that for over 30 years. Then I heard a song.

Imagine there's no heaven.

It's easy if you try.

No hell below us.

Above us only sky.

Imagine all the mole people,

Nibbling on our tender parts,

OOW ! ...

You may say I'm a screamer,

Butt I'm knot the only one.

Chanileslie

10th December 2003, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide
Nice definition. Atheists "deny" the existence of god(s). Also being a skeptic, you must follow the tenet "you cannot prove the non-existence of something".

The next big skeptical tenet is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". You'd think after all these years of man-made religeons there's be some tangible proof to justify their beliefs.

Being an atheist and a skeptic, I will keep my tithing to myself and wait patiently for the proofs (and enjoy the debunks along the way as well).

Charlie (dang, I'm hoping for SETI to come through, no intelligent life here) Monoxide

I have never understood how one can deny something for which no evidence exists? And that does not exist? Atheists simply don't believe.

Also, I have no desire to prove the non-existence of any being. I will continue not to believe until such time as any evidence is shown that such a being(s) does exist.

Now it would be irrational if say, one strange day the universe when all wacky, and suddenly their was quantifiable, verifiable evidence for a supernatural being, and I as an atheist, still did not believe in the supernatural. That then would be denial.

Chanileslie

10th December 2003, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

We have studied the entire moon. There is no cheese there.

We have not studied the entire universe or beyond (if there is such a thing as beyond, such as higher dimensions), therefore god(s) could be there, I dunno.

You would think after all the millenia that people have been worshipping, that some shred of evidence would show up. It is absurd to believe in something that has no evidence. Do you believe in Giant Purple Dragons? Or are you going to reserve judgement on the existence of those also until the entire universe can be scoured for non-existent evidence?

Chanileslie

10th December 2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

You might believe that, but have yet to show why one should consider it true. [/B]

Please allow me to add to your sentence.

You might believe Giant Purple Dragons don't exist, but you have yet to show why one should consider it true.

Both statements yours and my modified statement are both claims on something that has no evidence other than "that guy over there said it's so, and that is good enough for me."

Why believe in something for which there is no evidence?

Why withhold judgement if there is no evidence?

epepke

10th December 2003, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

We have studied the entire moon. There is no cheese there.

We have not studied the entire universe or beyond (if there is such a thing as beyond, such as higher dimensions), therefore god(s) could be there, I dunno.

Prove it.

I hereby claim for the sake of argument that about 75 kilometers northwest of Mare Imbrium, there is a 3 cm patch of Green Cheese. Prove I'm wrong.

We partake in communion of the High Church of Luna of this celestial green cheese, which despite its humble origins of water, garbanzo bean flour, and a little asafoedita transubstantiates into Green Cheese.

I further assert that whatvever the physical makeup of the moon, it is spiritually Green Cheese, of the one true Green Cheese that by its very nature is beyond milk and bacteria, self-creating and self-perpetuating.

Prove that's wrong.

Aussie Thinker

10th December 2003, 09:05 PM

Epepke,

Tai Chi will just say.. we know (and you know) you are making that up… but people who don’t know they are making stuff up may be right.. REGARDLESS of how ridiculous their assertion is..

Tai Chi gives credence if someone isn’t lying.. ludicrousness doesn’t enter into his world view !

thaiboxerken

10th December 2003, 09:07 PM

It isnt necessary to study the entire universe (an impossible task) to conclude the non-existence of god(s).

Yes, it is, unless you argue against the 'paper god(s)' contained in religion's books. Arguing against those doesn't exclude the possibility of god(s) from the actual universe though.

This is a foolish appeal to ignorance. Simply because we haven't explored the entire universe doesn't mean that it's possible a god exists. Also, since you make a distinction between "paper god" and other gods........... you should provide us with a clear and precise definition of what you are calling gods.

epepke

10th December 2003, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Tai Chi will just say.. we know (and you know) you are making that up… but people who don’t know they are making stuff up may be right.. REGARDLESS of how ridiculous their assertion is..

Amusing, isn't it?

Tai Chi gives credence if someone isn’t lying.. ludicrousness doesn’t enter into his world view !

I can see why not. It's too crowded in there already.

corplinx

10th December 2003, 10:18 PM

Instead of being an atheist, be apathetic. Makes you not spend so much time thinking about bs conundrums like this. Works for me.

Grommitt

11th December 2003, 12:14 AM

Don’t fall into the trap of defining an atheist on theistic terms. Good advice from Aussie Thinker.

Some years ago, thanks to Carl Sagan, I stopped using the word 'believe'. I replaced it with the word 'confident' as in "Based on past observations, I am confident that the Sun will rise tomorrow".

The word 'believe' has become so difficult to define that it muddles the issue. This thread being evidence of that. The word 'confident', on the other hand, seems to convey a virtual certainty as well as clarity of expression.

I have found that many 'believers' take my arguments more seriously when I avoid the word 'believe'.

Based on my personal experience, I am confident, to the point of virtual certainty, that God does not exist. I express this confidence by behaving as though it were a fact.

While I acknowledge that replacing one word with another may be characterized as trivial and mere quibbling, my experience has proven otherwise. Clarity of expression has been the benefit.

I have confidence that the first full Moon of 2004 will occur on January 7th in the Eastern Time Zone.

I believe that the Detroit Tigers will take the American League pennant in 2004.

See the difference?

Yahweh

11th December 2003, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You might believe that, but have yet to show why one should consider it true.

In the real world, all things can be described in terms of matter and natural phenomena, nothing can exist beyond the natural laws which "govern" the universe. (Of course, it takes a good false premise to suggest "well... God exists in terms of matter and natural phenomena"... or even worse "God doesnt have to exist in terms of matter or natural phenomena"...) Its not an entirely difficult concept to grasp.

In the 2000 years of scientific progress (most of which from the last 100 years), nothing has been shown to exist that violates the Laws of Physics. This is not a description of absense of evidence, instead its a description of the abundance of evidence of things behaving as they should.

Then there is the obvious reasoning that should not describe things in terms of "God does it".

And again, its never good to mix your Philosophy with your Science.

Suezoled

11th December 2003, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by epepke

Prove it.

I hereby claim for the sake of argument that about 75 kilometers northwest of Mare Imbrium, there is a 3 cm patch of Green Cheese. Prove I'm wrong.

We partake in communion of the High Church of Luna of this celestial green cheese, which despite its humble origins of water, garbanzo bean flour, and a little asafoedita transubstantiates into Green Cheese.

I further assert that whatvever the physical makeup of the moon, it is spiritually Green Cheese, of the one true Green Cheese that by its very nature is beyond milk and bacteria, self-creating and self-perpetuating.

Prove that's wrong.

Mare Chrissium as well... there's a load of cheese under that river on the moon.

The Don

11th December 2003, 07:20 AM

I think that the whole moon/cheese thing has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt in the Wallace and Grommit documentary "A Grand Day Out"

Vitnir

11th December 2003, 07:35 AM

From Merriam-Webster Online
/quote
One entry found for atheist.

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
Date: 1571
: one who denies the existence of God
/end quote

I don't believe or know that God does not exist. I reject him regardless simply because he doesn't seem like a nice guy and I want nothing to do with him. Can't I still be an atheist and an sceptic as well?

Samus

11th December 2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by The Don
think that the whole moon/cheese thing has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt in the Wallace and Grommit documentary "A Grand Day Out" Gromit, that's it! Cheese! We'll go somewhere where there's cheese!

[Looks at "Cheese Holidays" magazine, then out window]

Everybody knows the moon is made of cheese...

Clancie

11th December 2003, 01:35 PM

Posted by Commander Cool

In fact, I am making a distinction [between theistic leaps of faith and Christian ones]. Those who unconditionally accept a dogma that is handed to them are different then those that have pondered, and concluded that there must exist some sort of god, even if they can't put their finger on an exact definition.
Hmmm....so, iyo, a theist can be a skeptic if, after careful consideration, he accepts an idea for which there is no evidence?

Hazelip

12th December 2003, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
Atheist = someone who believes god does not exist.Wrong.

Atheist = Someone who does not believe that a god exists.

The distinction is important. An absence of belief is not a belief unto itself.

Hazelip

12th December 2003, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
We have not studied the entire universe or beyond (if there is such a thing as beyond, such as higher dimensions), therefore god(s) could be there, I dunno. According to that stunning logic, there could also be dragons, Easter Bunnies, vampires, unicorns, Santa Claus, faeries, and reputable used car salesmen.

You are wrong.

Hazelip

12th December 2003, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
This is a foolish appeal to ignorance. Simply because we haven't explored the entire universe doesn't mean that it's possible a god exists. Also, since you make a distinction between "paper god" and other gods........... you should provide us with a clear and precise definition of what you are calling gods. That actually makes it a combined fallacy. Pretty impressive, really. It's an appeal to ignorance, and a true scotsman all wrapped into one ignorant post.

Hazelip

12th December 2003, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by Grommitt
The word 'believe' has become so difficult to define that it muddles the issue. This thread being evidence of that. The word 'confident', on the other hand, seems to convey a virtual certainty as well as clarity of expression.

[snippity snip]

While I acknowledge that replacing one word with another may be characterized as trivial and mere quibbling, my experience has proven otherwise. Clarity of expression has been the benefit.Thank you for posting this!

I do not consider the word usage trivial. Language is a tool, and the more precise its use, the more accurate the results.

My brother and I were recently arguing the existence of god. He arguing pro. I had to disabuse him of the notion that my atheism was a belief in itself.

I was becoming frustrated with my inability to convince him of the use of the English language ('a' prefix meaning, simply, 'without') when he paused and shot me a look. "Yeah?" I asked. He then replied by saying that he understood completely, and that he would not refer to atheism as a belief. I asked why.

"Because," he said, "I don't ever say, 'I'll go home and believe about it. I'd say 'I'll go home and think about it.' They're not interchangeable."

I'm sorry for the creative writing description, but this early, I can't really think of a way to deliver the information.

Samus

12th December 2003, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Hmmm....so, iyo, a theist can be a skeptic if, after careful consideration, he accepts an idea for which there is no evidence? The assumption that you are making here is that the atheist is correct. That a conclusion you might have reached is obviously the right one, and anyone else who reaches a different conclusion after careful consideration is somehow less of a critical thinker.

Clancie

12th December 2003, 11:15 AM

Clancie: Hmmm....so, iyo, a theist can be a skeptic if, after careful consideration, he accepts an idea for which there is no evidence?

Commander Cool

The assumption that you are making here is that the atheist is correct. That a conclusion you might have reached is obviously the right one, and anyone else who reaches a different conclusion after careful consideration is somehow less of a critical thinker.
That's a "yes", right?

I ask because my understanding is that skepticism is an -approach- to thinking, not a litmus test of particular beliefs.

I think your comments in the thread above are inconsistent with skepticism. For example, I don't think someone who examines his belief carefully....finds no compelling evidence in support of it (as in the case of theism)....and decides it is better to believe anyway, because he wants to....

Well, I don't think that person is being a skeptic at all, no. And I see no significant difference between that thinking process and the critical process of the fundamentalist that you mentioned--at least on that particular issue.

Samus

12th December 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
That's a "yes", right? Negative, ghostrider.

Originally posted by Clancie
I ask because my understanding is that skepticism is an -approach- to thinking, not a litmus test of particular beliefs. You are absolutely correct.

Originally posted by Clancie
For example, I don't think someone who examines his belief carefully....finds no compelling evidence in support of it (as in the case of theism)....and decides it is better to believe anyway, because he wants to.... No, this is not what I am saying. Here again, you are making the assumption that every critical thinker (a.k.a. skeptic) will arrive at the same conclusion you do. In your previous statement, you said that skepticism is an approach to thinking, and not a belief system litmus test. Yet here, you are trying to imply that a skeptic is unable to reach a conclusion different than your own. In other words, you're using (a)theism as a litmus test for skepticism. Or am I mistaking your argument?

You assume that there is no compelling evidence to support a belief in god. I am saying you should not make that assumption. But I don't want this discussion to degrade into some sort of proof of god's existence. After all, I am an atheist. :)

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, I don't think that person is being a skeptic at all, no. And I see no significant difference between that thinking process and the critical process of the fundamentalist that you mentioned--at least on that particular issue. To reiterate: someone who relies solely on their dogma as a source of information is not inspecting their own beliefs or sources very well, and is hence not a skeptic. If I asked someone why they thought certain behaviors were right or wrong, and their answer to every question was "because the bible says so", then they are clearly not thinking for themselves. Someone who is taught to not think and simply rely on the holy book is different from someone that does think and arrives at their own conclusions.

12th December 2003, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

We have studied the entire moon. There is no cheese there.

You assert, then, that there is no green cheese, even 1 gram's worth, 1.6 cm toward the north rotational pole of the moon from the gravitational center of the moon?

Please show me where this has been materially observed.

Please show me how it wasn't regenerated after you were there to make this observation.

Please show me how it didn't teleport away when you tried to look at it, and back afterwards.

I think you've shown conclusively that you don't understand what proof of a negative statement entails.

12th December 2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by epepke

Prove it.

I hereby claim for the sake of argument that about 75 kilometers northwest of Mare Imbrium, there is a 3 cm patch of Green Cheese. Prove I'm wrong.

We partake in communion of the High Church of Luna of this celestial green cheese, which despite its humble origins of water, garbanzo bean flour, and a little asafoedita transubstantiates into Green Cheese.

I further assert that whatvever the physical makeup of the moon, it is spiritually Green Cheese, of the one true Green Cheese that by its very nature is beyond milk and bacteria, self-creating and self-perpetuating.

Prove that's wrong.

Oh, sorry, you rolled up the chipper-shredder before I got there.
Sorry to repeat your comment!

12th December 2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Hazelip
According to that stunning logic, there could also be dragons, Easter Bunnies, vampires, unicorns, Santa Claus, faeries, and reputable used car salesmen.

You are wrong.

I know of at least one reputable used car salesman.

But I'm with you on the rest.

T'ai Chi

12th December 2003, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Chanileslie

You would think after all the millenia that people have been worshipping, that some shred of evidence would show up. It is absurd to believe in something that has no evidence. Do you believe in Giant Purple Dragons? Or are you going to reserve judgement on the existence of those also until the entire universe can be scoured for non-existent evidence?

Could you please show me in history or in present times, where adults seriously considered the notion of "Giant Purple Dragons", (or green cheese on the moon, invisible blue Smurfs, invisible pink unicorns, or Santa) ?

CFLarsen

12th December 2003, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Could you please show me in history or in present times, where adults seriously considered the notion of "Giant Purple Dragons", (or green cheese on the moon, invisible blue Smurfs, invisible pink unicorns, or Santa) ?

No problem.

Unicorns (regardless of color), gryphons, angels, demons, leprechauns, fairies, goblins...

All creatures, seriously being considered by adults to be very real.

You are not going to make a distinction between whether the unicorn is purple or white, are you?

Why is Santa not believable? He is witnessed by many thousands of kids each year.

Hazelip

12th December 2003, 02:32 PM

T'ai Chi

12th December 2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by epepke

Prove it.

I hereby claim for the sake of argument that about 75 kilometers northwest of Mare Imbrium, there is a 3 cm patch of Green Cheese. Prove I'm wrong.

Cheese is made a certain way. The lack of atmosphere, water, and raw materials and equipment that go into making cheese are absent on the moon. Perhaps the astronauts smuggled some cheese with them and placed it on the moon's surface? NASA details what the astronauts take with them and what they do with it. It turns out that some astronauts have taken cheese in a variety of forms (http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/astronauts/food-history.html), but there is no record of them placing cheese on the surface of the moon. It just didn't happen.

Last, and most obviously, the moon made of cheese myth has a long and clear history. No adult person has seriously entertained the idea; just like invisible pink unicorns, invisible blue Smurfs, Gigantic Purple Dragons, or whatever.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a990723a.html

Another interesting link:
http://www.its.themoon.co.uk/mooncheese.html

Unless...you consider... space cows! http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/zone/c/o/collnee/spacecow.jpg.html

T'ai Chi

12th December 2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by jj

You assert, then, that there is no green cheese, even 1 gram's worth, 1.6 cm toward the north rotational pole of the moon from the gravitational center of the moon?

No cheese on the moon there, no cheese on the moon anywhere.. I declare.

Please show me where this has been materially observed.

Um how can I show you where it has been observed if no cheese has been observed.

Please show me how it wasn't regenerated after you were there to make this observation.

Cheese is made a certain way. The lack of atmosphere, water, and raw materials and equipment that go into making cheese are absent on the moon. It couldn't have been regenerated. Plus, I don't even know what the heck regenerated means in this case, or who or what would have done the regeneration.

Last, and most obviously, the moon made of cheese myth has a long and clear history. No adult person has seriously entertained the idea; just like invisible pink unicorns, invisible blue Smurfs, Gigantic Purple Dragons, or whatever.

Unless...you consider... space cows! http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/zone/c/o/collnee/spacecow.jpg.html

Please show me how it didn't teleport away when you tried to look at it, and back afterwards.

Teleportation only exists on Star Trek, unless there is some massive cover-up.

I think you've shown conclusively that you don't understand what proof of a negative statement entails.

I doubt it. In the case of 'green cheese on the moon', 'invisible pink unicorns', 'invisible blue Smurfs', etc., they are pretty easy to show aren't real, and no adult has seriously considered any of them.

God(s) on the other hand...

T'ai Chi

12th December 2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

In the real world, all things can be described in terms of matter and natural phenomena,

You are defining "real world" to be that which is matter and natural phenomena, so no surprise there. Some would say that consciousness cannot be described adequately in terms of matter.

In the 2000 years of scientific progress (most of which from the last 100 years), nothing has been shown to exist that violates the Laws of Physics. This is not a description of absense of evidence, instead its a description of the abundance of evidence of things behaving as they should.

The laws of physics (I will not resort to TLOP) themself misbehave at singularities. The laws of physics (the equations and the 'constants' involved with them) aren't perfect and could be changing very slowly.

T'ai Chi

12th December 2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Tai Chi gives credence if someone isn’t lying.. ludicrousness doesn’t enter into his world view !

No, I like that rapper a lot. :D

Shame on me for paying more attention to people who aren't lying! That doesn't mean necessarily I agree with the non-liars' premises though.

thaiboxerken

12th December 2003, 02:55 PM

Teleportation only exists on Star Trek, unless there is some massive cover-up.

Gods only exist in the minds of the believers, unless there is some massive campaigne to cover up the empirical evidence.

My statement is equivalent to yours, logically.

TLN

12th December 2003, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Gods only exist in the minds of the believers, unless there is some massive campaigne to cover up the empirical evidence.

TBK, you cannot unequivocally prove that God doesn’t exist. Claiming he unequivocally doesn’t exist because there’s no evidence is piss-poor skepticism.

Hazelip

12th December 2003, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by TLN
TBK, you cannot unequivocally prove that God doesn’t exist. Claiming he unequivocally doesn’t exist because there’s no evidence is piss-poor skepticism. You took it out of its context, and altered the meaning. The statement was made in the same fashion of an IPU statement.

thaiboxerken

12th December 2003, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by TLN

TBK, you cannot unequivocally prove that God doesn’t exist. Claiming he unequivocally doesn’t exist because there’s no evidence is piss-poor skepticism.

I was merely showing the fallacy of Tai Whodini's argument by giving 2 examples of the same type of argument.

TLN

12th December 2003, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Hazelip
You took it out of its context, and altered the meaning. The statement was made in the same fashion of an IPU statement.

No, TBK's original sentiment is that there's no God because there's no evidence.

Correct or no?

Nyarlathotep

12th December 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Could you please show me in history or in present times, where adults seriously considered the notion of "Giant Purple Dragons", (or green cheese on the moon, invisible blue Smurfs, invisible pink unicorns, or Santa) ?

What does whether or not people have seriously considered the notion of something have to do with proof of somethings existance or non-existance. The whole point of the "giant Purple Dragon" argument (or any of its cousins such as the Invisible Purple Unicorn) is to show that just because you can't disprove something, that doesn't mean you should presuppose that it does exist. That being the case, the more ludicrous the item in question, the more clearly it makes its point.

Further CFLarson makes a good point. You could just as easily use something that some people do (or at least have at one time) believe in. If I claim that I am a Leprechaun, should you take it at face value that I am? After all, you can't prove that I am not.

T'ai Chi

12th December 2003, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

No problem.

Unicorns (regardless of color), gryphons, angels, demons, leprechauns, fairies, goblins...

I said invisible pink unicorns.

You are not going to make a distinction between whether the unicorn is purple or white, are you?

Well, yeah. It is important for you to not argue a strawman. Oh, and they didn't say purple or white, they said invisible and pink (somehow at the same time!).

Why is Santa not believable? He is witnessed by many thousands of kids each year.

I also said "adults".

T'ai Chi

12th December 2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

What does whether or not people have seriously considered the notion of something have to do with proof of somethings existance or non-existance.

So you can or can't show me in history or in present times, where adults seriously considered the notion of "Giant Purple Dragons", (or green cheese on the moon, invisible blue Smurfs, invisible pink unicorns, or Santa) ?

:)

T'ai Chi

12th December 2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Teleportation only exists on Star Trek, unless there is some massive cover-up.

Gods only exist in the minds of the believers, unless there is some massive campaigne to cover up the empirical evidence.

My statement is equivalent to yours, logically.

Not quite.

Fortunately, we know for an absolute fact that transportation exists only in sci-fi. With god(s), we don't know, and that is what the difference is, so they aren't equivalent logically; they are qualitatively different.

Cheers

Nyarlathotep

12th December 2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

So you can or can't show me in history or in present times, where adults seriously considered the notion of "Giant Purple Dragons", (or green cheese on the moon, invisible blue Smurfs, invisible pink unicorns, or Santa) ?

:) [/B]

I can't, but that fact is irrevelant to the argument.

T'ai Chi

12th December 2003, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

I can't, but that fact is irrevelant to the argument.

I don't think so. If no adult has ever seriosuly considered them to be real, they are hardly relevant to a serious discussion about their non/existence. For example, if you are asking me to prove peoples' claims they exist as wrong, that is easy, because no adult has ever seriously considered them to be real in the first place.

Asking me to prove some never-ever-considered-real thing as nonexistent is some type of strawman argument on your part.

Nyarlathotep

12th December 2003, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I don't think so. If no adult has ever seriosuly considered them to be real, they are hardly relevant to a serious discussion about their non/existence. For example, if you are asking me to prove peoples' claims they exist as wrong, that is easy, because no adult has ever seriously considered them to be real in the first place.

Asking me to prove some never-ever-considered-real thing as nonexistent is some type of strawman argument on your part.

Nope. As I said once before, the whole point of the Invisible Purple Unicorn (I'll just save typing and call it the IPU from now on) argument is to show that the fact that you can not disprove something does not mean that the thing in question exists. From a logical standpoint it does not matter if you are talking God, UFO's, IPU's, widgets, or anything else.

If you prefer one could just as easily substitute anything. I claim that I have a Cousin Ruth. She is psychic and can cloud your mind so you can't see her. People named Ruth definately exist, many people seriously maintain that psychics exist and have powers like I described. You cannot prove that my psychic cousin Ruth does not exist, does that mean that you should take it on face value that she does?

thaiboxerken

12th December 2003, 04:20 PM

I don't think so. If no adult has ever seriosuly considered them to be real, they are hardly relevant to a serious discussion about their non/existence.

Why does age matter? Are you saying that kids are wrong in any claim they make?

For example, if you are asking me to prove peoples' claims they exist as wrong, that is easy, because no adult has ever seriously considered them to be real in the first place.

False logic, the age of a believer has nothing to do with reality.

Asking me to prove some never-ever-considered-real thing as nonexistent is some type of strawman argument on your part.

No, it's an illustration of how stupid your argument and logic is. Your god claim is unfalsifiable and carries no logic or evidence. The existence of IPU's is also unfalsifiable and carries no logic or evidence. Who believes and how many doesn't matter.

RichardR

12th December 2003, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
I want to say I "believe" there is no god, but saying so means that I have evidence of something not existing

Having no evidence for God, if you have looked for that evidence, can be the same as saying there is evidence for no God. But that doesn't mean you have proof of no God, and perhaps that's where the confusion lies.

If you have no evidence God exists, then you have no reason to believe God exists. It is therefore unreasonable to believe in God, and reasonable to believe that God does not exist. Of course, the intellectually honest atheist would say he doesn't know there is no God. He just says it is foolish to believe in that for which there is no evidence.

Edited to correct error in first sentence.

RichardR

12th December 2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by TLN
No, TBK's original sentiment is that there's no God because there's no evidence.

Correct or no? You are correct. Both in the above and in your comment about "piss-poor skepticism".

epepke

12th December 2003, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Suezoled

Mare Chrissium as well... there's a load of cheese under that river on the moon.

Mare Chrissium to you, too! And a happy Knockando.

epepke

12th December 2003, 08:27 PM

T'ai Chi

12th December 2003, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

I don't think so. If no adult has ever seriosuly considered them to be real, they are hardly relevant to a serious discussion about their non/existence.

Why does age matter? Are you saying that kids are wrong in any claim they make?

No, I'm not saying that kids are wrong in any claim they make. I am saying kids are more capable of being wrong because they are, in general, not as exposed to the world, not as smart, and have more imagination, than adults.

No, it's an illustration of how stupid your argument and logic is. Your god claim is unfalsifiable and carries no logic or evidence. The existence of IPU's is also unfalsifiable and carries no logic or evidence. Who believes and how many doesn't matter.

Sure it does. You are asking me to discuss something which we already know doesn't exist for certain. We don't know for certain that god(s) don't exist. Although you might believe you know, who knows.

T'ai Chi

12th December 2003, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by epepke

Ayup. And this is substantially similar to the arguments that strong atheists give for not believing in gods.

Means for making gods: Well, no known means for making them, so no evidence that there are means for making them in this universe.

No records of astronauts placing gods here.

Gods as a myth have a long and clear history.

Although, for some support of the god(s) theory as actually being real, we have a universe that somehow got here and have things that happen in it. Some would say that that is at least suggestive evidence.

Darat

13th December 2003, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Although, for some support of the god(s) theory as actually being real, we have a universe that somehow got here and have things that happen in it. Some would say that that is at least suggestive evidence.

No it isn't and why do I say that? Because all you do is remove "creation" one point backwards; if something by the fact it exists leads to the conclusion that a "creator" i.e. god created it then the next question has to be "And who or what created god?".

Darat

13th December 2003, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
...snip...

Cheese is made a certain way. The lack of atmosphere, water, and raw materials and equipment that go into making cheese are absent on the moon. It couldn't have been regenerated. Plus, I don't even know what the heck regenerated means in this case, or who or what would have done the regeneration....snip...

...snip...

Teleportation only exists on Star Trek, unless there is some massive cover-up.
...snip...

How do you know that is the only way cheese can be made? How do you know that cheese can't be formed any other way?

You've made a bold categoric statement of "knowledge" so you must have the proof for saying this?

The same with teleportation - how do you know this?

It seems you are very certain of certain things - I am wondering how this can be so?

Darat

13th December 2003, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

No problem.

Unicorns (regardless of color), gryphons, angels, demons, leprechauns, fairies, goblins...

All creatures, seriously being considered by adults to be very real.

You are not going to make a distinction between whether the unicorn is purple or white, are you?

Why is Santa not believable? He is witnessed by many thousands of kids each year.

Regarding fabulous beasts and adults' beliefs about creatures a good on-line read is the digitised version of The Aberdeen Bestiary (http://www.clues.abdn.ac.uk:8080/bestiary_old/alt/comment/best_toc.html) .

Just found a reference to a dragon:

f9r Text: The panther.

Illustration: A many coloured animal, handsome and gentle, whose only enemy is the dragon. When he roars, he exhales a sweet odour which draws all animals to him except the dragon. The dragon retreats to his hole and lies stiff with fear, as if dead

T'ai Chi

13th December 2003, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Darat

How do you know that is the only way cheese can be made? How do you know that cheese can't be formed any other way?

Certain processes and materials make what we call cheese, by definition. These processes and materials are entirely absent on the moon, and this we know.

The same with teleportation - how do you know this?

Currently teleportation is only on Star Trek-type shows and movies and doesn't exist in reality.

It seems you are very certain of certain things - I am wondering how this can be so?

I'm just that intelligent.

T'ai Chi

13th December 2003, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by Darat

No it isn't and why do I say that? Because all you do is remove "creation" one point backwards; if something by the fact it exists leads to the conclusion that a "creator" i.e. god created it then the next question has to be "And who or what created god?".

Ah. Note that I covered my bases and said "god(s)". I include the possibility that the 'closest' god could have been created by another god, etc. etc.

However, postulating that there is a god or many gods doesn't remove the fact that postulating god(s) seems at least somewhat reasonable for some people.

T'ai Chi

13th December 2003, 01:26 AM

CFLarsen

13th December 2003, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Certain processes and materials make what we call cheese, by definition. These processes and materials are entirely absent on the moon, and this we know.

Define "cheese".

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Currently teleportation is only on Star Trek-type shows and movies and doesn't exist in reality.

But how do you know it?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'm just that intelligent.

Your reason for knowing something to be true is because you are "just that intelligent".

Right.

I can't believe you are actually going to argue whether a unicorn is white or pink, in order for either to exist....http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/smilies/slap.gif

Hazelip

13th December 2003, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by TLN
No, TBK's original sentiment is that there's no God because there's no evidence.

Correct or no? TLN, I normally enjoy every post of yours. I'm not sure why you're just not getting it this time.

He quoted another's post about Star Trek and teleportation. He then used the same logic in that Star Trek sentence to write one about god to illustrate a logical fallacy.

You seem to be responding to it as if it were TBK's intent to prove that a lack of evidence is proof of no god, when in fact, he is making such a ludicrous claim to prove it is a fallacy. You're trying to argue about something over which you, I, and TBK agree.

Seriously, go back and read it. The post contained this:

Bolded Star Trek quote from another poster.
TBK's god sentence to prove the fallacy of the Star Trek statement by example of fallacy.
TBK's summary statement.

Hazelip

13th December 2003, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Not quite.

Fortunately, we know for an absolute fact that transportation exists only in sci-fi. With god(s), we don't know, and that is what the difference is, so they aren't equivalent logically; they are qualitatively different.

Cheers Appeal to ignorance, and Argument from Special Exception.

Edited to add the special exception after further reflection.

T'ai Chi

13th December 2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Hazelip
Appeal to ignorance, and Argument from Special Exception.

Edited to add the special exception after further reflection.

Appeal to listing appeals.

The fact is, is that we know for an absolute fact that transportation currently exists only in sci-fi, and that there is no green cheese on the moon, invisible pink unicorns don't exist, and neither do invisible blue Smurfs. With god(s), we don't know for an absolute fact, and that is what the difference is, so they aren't equivalent logically; they are qualitatively different.

T'ai Chi

13th December 2003, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Define "cheese".

Here is a common definition (avoiding the slang and other uses of the word "cheese"): The curd of milk, coagulated usually with rennet, separated from the whey, and pressed into a solid mass in a hoop or mold.

But how do you know it?

It currently doesn't exist. It is a sci-fi concept. 'Nuff said.

Your reason for knowing something to be true is because you are "just that intelligent".

Right.

Yeah, well, I guess some people can't possibly understand humor. But in any case, I am intelligent enough to know teleportation currently doesn't exist, there is no green cheese on the moon, no invisible pink unicorns, no invisible blue Smurfs, but there might be god(s).

I can't believe you are actually going to argue whether a unicorn is white or pink, in order for either to exist....http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/smilies/slap.gif

http://skepticreport.com/resources/smilies/redherring.gif

I can't believe you are actually going to argue that arguing over things people never considered to exist in the first place is a smart thing? And to correct you, yet again, I am arguing that it is stupid to consider the commonly used "invisible pink" unicorn, since no adult anywhere at anytime has seriously considered one to exist.

CFLarsen

13th December 2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
The fact is, is that we know for an absolute fact that transportation currently exists only in sci-fi

Actually, you should ask Tez about that. He has some very interesting facts for you about teleportation.... As it looks now, it is no more a sci-fi concept.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
and that there is no green cheese on the moon

I have asked you to define "cheese", which you just gave:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Here is a common definition (avoiding the slang and other uses of the word "cheese"): The curd of milk, coagulated usually with rennet, separated from the whey, and pressed into a solid mass in a hoop or mold.

I was not asking for a "common" definition. I was asking for the final, unanimously agreed-upon definition of "cheese".

Please define "cheese".

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
invisible pink unicorns don't exist

How do you know?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
and neither do invisible blue Smurfs.

Smurfs are not invisible (if they were, how could you tell they were blue?). And they do exist. Their adventures have been chronicled in publications.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
With god(s), we don't know for an absolute fact, and that is what the difference is, so they aren't equivalent logically; they are qualitatively different.

Really? What is the difference between a smurf and a god?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I can't believe you are actually going to argue that arguing over things people never considered to exist in the first place is a smart thing? And to correct you, yet again, I am arguing that it is stupid to consider the commonly used "invisible pink" unicorn, since no adult anywhere at anytime has seriously considered one to exist.

Do you understand the concept of an example? Are you so above everybody else in IQ that you fail to grasp this otherwise commonly used concept to explain something?

Can only things somebody have considered to exist be real?

I know that you have dodged some of these points by referring to your superior intelligence, but could you stoop so low as to explain it to us slobbering imbeciles?

RichardR

13th December 2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Hazelip
TLN, I normally enjoy every post of yours. I'm not sure why you're just not getting it this time.

He quoted another's post about Star Trek and teleportation. He then used the same logic in that Star Trek sentence to write one about god to illustrate a logical fallacy.

You seem to be responding to it as if it were TBK's intent to prove that a lack of evidence is proof of no god, when in fact, he is making such a ludicrous claim to prove it is a fallacy.I think if you read this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870177225#post1870177225) you may decide that TBK does indeed believe that lack of evidence proves there is no God.

T'ai Chi

13th December 2003, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Actually, you should ask Tez about that. He has some very interesting facts for you about teleportation.... As it looks now, it is no more a sci-fi concept.

Well that's great. Unfortunately, "ask Tez" is not scientific evidence. Currently, teleportation doesn't exist. If it does, Tez or anyone who invented it would easily be a multi-billionairres+.

I was not asking for a "common" definition. I was asking for the final, unanimously agreed-upon definition of "cheese".

Please define "cheese".

You have your 'outs', as there is hardly ever unanimously agreed-upon anything in this world.

I mentioned that there are several defintions, just as there are with any word. However, a typical standard defintion of the edible food called "cheese" (the same "cheese" that people are referring to when they say 'cheese on the moon') is the one I gave.

How do you [I]know?

See previous post.

Smurfs are not invisible (if they were, how could you tell they were blue?). And they do exist. Their adventures have been chronicled in publications.

Someone, Ken I think, referred to "invisible blue Smurfs", and that is what I was referring to. Although I agree with you with the 'if they are invisible, how could you tell they are blue?' reasoning. If you would have read my posts to Ken, you'd find that I asked him that same thing. If you would have read my posts to you, you'd find that I pondered that same thing with the 'invisible pink unicorn' ("somehow at the same time!").

The history of Smurfs is quite clear. They were invented around in the late 1950's I believe, and made into figurines, books, and later on, television shows and merchandise for children. No adult has ever seriously considered them to exist in reality as they are created fiction, created for entertainment/education/fun/imagination. Try again.

Really? What is the difference between a smurf and a god?

We know invisible blue Smurfs don't exist. We don't know about god(s) existence/nonexistence.

Do you understand the concept of an example?

Yes, thanks for inquiring.

Are you so above everybody else in IQ ..

I do have 2 degrees, so maybe I am.

..that you fail to grasp this otherwise commonly used concept to explain something?

No, thanks for inquiring.

Can only things somebody have considered to exist be real?

Those things are the only things we should talk about in discussions of the reality of certain objects. It makes no sense to seriously consider the reality of objects that people have never ever considered real in the first place.

I swear... In these discussions it sometimes sounds like:

"What about the 4-eyed hairy gigantic, yet agile, half moth half elephant, named Mr. Dillyho from the planet Prognack, that shoots fireballs from its armpits, candybars from its nostrils, fungus from its toes, and grape cola from its eyes, and dines on nothing but fine mustard?? Huh, what about him too? HUH!!?? Prove he doesn't exist! This argument is logically equivalent to talking about the existence of god(s)!!!"

I know that you have dodged some of these points ...

You know incorrectly then.

..by referring to your superior intelligence, but could you stoop so low as to explain it to us slobbering imbeciles?

Slobbering imbeciles? Hmm.. I never used that phrase. If you use that to describe yourself and others, be my guest.

I'll repeat because you either purposefully or by accident overlook the fact that I already mentioned I was using humor:

"Yeah, well, I guess some people can't possibly understand humor. But in any case, I am intelligent enough to know teleportation currently doesn't exist, there is no green cheese on the moon, no invisible pink unicorns, no invisible blue Smurfs, but there might be god(s)."

Disbeliever

13th December 2003, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Tai'chi
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you so above everybody else in IQ ..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do have 2 degrees, so maybe I am.

Education bears no marking on intelligence. Anyone with a work ethic and a lot of time on their hands can get a Ph.D. Don't try to compare your intelligence with your acheivments... some of the most misguided people in this world are the most educated.

CFLarsen

13th December 2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Well that's great. Unfortunately, "ask[ing] Tez" is not scientific evidence. Currently, teleportation doesn't exist. If it does, Tez or anyone who invented it would easily be a multi-billionairres+.

Oh, I am not saying they are moving Xmas presents from New York to Hong Kong. I am saying that there are indications that teleportation - on a very small scale - is possible.

Thereby rendering your assertion that it is a "sci-fi concept" invalid.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You have your 'outs', as there is hardly ever unanimously agreed-upon anything in this world.

I mentioned that there are several defintions, just as there are with any word. However, a typical standard defintion of the edible food called "cheese" (the same "cheese" that people are referring to when they say 'cheese on the moon') is the one I gave.

No, no, now you are moving the goalposts. You said you knew there was no "cheese" on the moon. I asked you to define it, and you came up with what some people think constitutes "cheese".

There is not "several" definitions of the meaning of "one", I believe. If there is, please show me.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
See previous post.

What, that you are "intelligent"???

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Someone, Ken I think, referred to "invisible blue Smurfs", and that is what I was referring to. Although I agree with you with the 'if they are invisible, how could you tell they are blue?' reasoning. If you would have read my posts to Ken, you'd find that I asked him that same thing. If you would have read my posts to you, you'd find that I pondered that same thing with the 'invisible pink unicorn' ("somehow at the same time!").

The history of Smurfs is quite clear. They were invented around in the late 1950's I believe, and made into figurines, books, and later on, television shows and merchandise for children. No adult has ever seriously considered them to exist in reality as they are created fiction, created for entertainment/education/fun/imagination. Try again.

That's not my point. I asked why the existence of a smurf is not comparable to the existence of god.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
We know invisible blue Smurfs don't exist. We don't know about god(s) existence/nonexistence.

How?? You can't just dogmatically state that "This Is So!"

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I do have 2 degrees, so maybe I am.

Maybe you are not. A degree is certainly not an indication of a high IQ.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Those things are the only things we should talk about in discussions of the reality of certain objects. It makes no sense to seriously consider the reality of objects that people have never ever considered real in the first place.

Oh, come on, now you are being a snob. Why should your lofty ideas of what is real be decisive on what we should talk about? You don't set the agendum here.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I swear... In these discussions it sometimes sounds like:

"What about the 4-eyed hairy gigantic, yet agile, half moth half elephant, named Mr. Dillyho from the planet Prognack, that shoots fireballs from its armpits, candybars from its nostrils, fungus from its toes, and grape cola from its eyes, and dines on nothing but fine mustard?? Huh, what about him too? HUH!!?? Prove he doesn't exist! This argument is logically equivalent to talking about the existence of god(s)!!!"

I see that you do not, contrary to your own words, understand the concept of example.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You know incorrectly then.

Absolutely not. Your own posts show this.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Slobbering imbeciles? Hmm.. I never used that phrase. If you use that to describe yourself and others, be my guest.

I did. You have referred to yourself as being intelligent enough to decide what is real and what is not, solely based on your intelligence. Ergo, I must deduct that you see yourself as someone way above the rest of us.

Since you have not explained, but just stated, I asked for an explanation. This, you still don't provide.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'll repeat because you either purposefully or by accident overlook the fact that I already mentioned I was using humor:

"Yeah, well, I guess some people can't possibly understand humor. But in any case, I am intelligent enough to know teleportation currently doesn't exist, there is no green cheese on the moon, no invisible pink unicorns, no invisible blue Smurfs, but there might be god(s)."

Repeating fallacies does not make them true.

Now, please tell us why god might exist, but smurfs do not.

Don't just repeat that it is so, you must explain it.

T'ai Chi

13th December 2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Disbeliever

Education bears no marking on intelligence. Anyone with a work ethic and a lot of time on their hands can get a Ph.D. Don't try to compare your intelligence with your acheivments... some of the most misguided people in this world are the most educated.

Heh, I know. At that point, since he couldn't understand humor the first time, I'm letting Claus/Cantata/whoever egg himself on.

CFLarsen

13th December 2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Heh, I know. At that point, since he couldn't understand humor the first time, I'm letting Claus/Cantata/whoever egg himself on.

Do I take it that you will not explain why god might exist, but smurfs do not?

Disbeliever

13th December 2003, 12:34 PM

It's a lot easier for other people to understand that you're being humorous when you realize you're on a message board and people can't hear the sarcasm/giggling/chortling emitted from your vocal chords. :rolleyes:

It's not as obvious as you might have yourself think.

T'ai Chi

13th December 2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Oh, I am not saying they are moving Xmas presents from New York to Hong Kong. I am saying that there are indications that teleportation - on a very small scale - is possible.

Thereby rendering your assertion that it is a "sci-fi concept" invalid.

"Indications".. hehe, great. Have any evidence to show that it is not a sci-fi concept? Let us know.

No, no, now you are moving the goalposts. You said you knew there was no "cheese" on the moon. I asked you to define it, and you came up with what some people think constitutes "cheese".

There is not "several" definitions of the meaning of "one", I believe. If there is, please show me.

A definition was presented, twice. Read it, love it, get over it.

Oops, I did it again:

"Here is a common definition (avoiding the slang and other uses of the word "cheese"): The curd of milk, coagulated usually with rennet, separated from the whey, and pressed into a solid mass in a hoop or mold."

What, that you are "intelligent"???

Sure, thanks for the inquiry.

That's not my point. I asked why the existence of a smurf is not comparable to the existence of god.

Can you be more clear? Thanks.

I'll repeat:

"The history of Smurfs is quite clear. They were invented around in the late 1950's I believe, and made into figurines, books, and later on, television shows and merchandise for children. No adult has ever seriously considered them to exist in reality as they are created fiction, created for entertainment/education/fun/imagination. Try again."

How?? You can't just dogmatically state that "This Is So!"

Yes, one can in many cases because there is nothing dogmatically going on- just going by the clear, obvious history and data. In cases where we know for a fact the history of a thing (in this case the Smurfs), you certainly can.

Maybe you are not. A degree is certainly not an indication of a high IQ.

See previous post.

Oh, come on, now you are being a snob. Why should your lofty ideas of what is real be decisive on what we should talk about? You don't set the agendum here.

No snobbery on my part, just being realistic. "Those things are the only things we should talk about in discussions of the reality of certain objects. It makes no sense to seriously consider the reality of objects that people have never ever considered real in the first place."

You must believe it makes sense to talk about the reality of objects that no adult has ever considered to be real? You might want to worship Mr. Dillyho from Prognack from now on.

I see that you do not, contrary to your own words, understand the concept of example.

Yes, I do, thanks for the comment.

You have not shown why my silly example of Mr. Dillyho from Prognack is any different than lame arguments about invisible pink unicorns, invisible blue Smurfs, or green cheese on the moon (unless you consider "That's not my point". an adequate refutation).

Absolutely not. Your own posts show this.

At least one of yours does too, so you are in good company. :D

You have referred to yourself as being intelligent enough to decide what is real and what is not, solely based on your intelligence. Ergo, I must deduct that you see yourself as someone way above the rest of us.

Ergo, you have concluded that yourself and others are "slobbering imbeciles", something which I have not ever said or thought. Brilliant.

Since you have not explained, but just stated, I asked for an explanation. This, you still don't provide.

You still don't make sense.

Repeating fallacies does not make them true.

You have not explained why you believe it is a fallacy.

Now, please tell us why god might exist, but smurfs do not.
Don't just repeat that it is so, you must explain it.

If I don't "set the agendum", neither do you:

"The history of Smurfs is quite clear. They were invented around in the late 1950's I believe, and made into figurines, books, and later on, television shows and merchandise for children. No adult has ever seriously considered them to exist in reality as they are created fiction, created for entertainment/education/fun/imagination." God(s), on the other hand have been considered seriously as existing by rational adults, even in a scientific age.

T'ai Chi

13th December 2003, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Do I take it that you will not explain why god might exist, but smurfs do not?

Claus/Cantata/whoever,

"The history of Smurfs is quite clear. They were invented around in the late 1950's I believe, and made into figurines, books, and later on, television shows and merchandise for children. No adult has ever seriously considered them to exist in reality (let alone the canard of "invisible blue Smurfs) as they are created fiction, created for entertainment/education/fun/imagination." God(s), on the other hand have been considered seriously as existing by rational adults, even in a scientific age."

T'ai Chi

13th December 2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Disbeliever
It's a lot easier for other people to understand that you're being humorous when you realize you're on a message board and people can't hear the sarcasm/giggling/chortling emitted from your vocal chords. :rolleyes:

It's not as obvious as you might have yourself think.

That could be true. Although, you might not have been exposed to me for long. After a while, with frequent posters, depending on context, it is fairly simple to note when they are using humor, even without smileys, etc.

Disbeliever

13th December 2003, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Tai'Chi
"The history of Smurfs is quite clear. They were invented around in the late 1950's I believe, and made into figurines, books, and later on, television shows and merchandise for children. No adult has ever seriously considered them to exist in reality (let alone the canard of "invisible blue Smurfs) as they are created fiction, created for entertainment/education/fun/imagination." God(s), on the other hand have been considered seriously as existing by rational adults, even in a scientific age."

This really doesn't give a grounds for thinking God exists and Smurfs don't. You're using popular conception as your reasoning.

T'ai Chi

13th December 2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Disbeliever

This really doesn't give a grounds for thinking God exists and Smurfs don't. You're using popular conception as your reasoning.

Sure it does. It gives me tons of reasoning for why Smurfs (and definitely "invisible blue Smurfs") don't exist.

God(s) might exist because in addition to adults seriously considering them, even in a scientific age, they serve to as an explanation for how the universe came about to some people. It is not clear (as it is with the Smurfs), that God(s) are fiction. Therefore, god(s) might exist.

Disbeliever

13th December 2003, 01:16 PM

Just because Smurfs were conceived publicly through fiction doesn't mean they don't exist. After all, you have no proof they do or do not exist, just as you have no proof God does or doesn't exist.

T'ai Chi

13th December 2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Disbeliever
Just because Smurfs were conceived publicly through fiction doesn't mean they don't exist. After all, you have no proof they do or do not exist, just as you have no proof God does or doesn't exist.

We know they were invented fiction. Their history is clear. Therefore, they never have existed in reality, not then, not now.

CFLarsen

13th December 2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Claus/Cantata/whoever,

Why on earth are you bringing up my nick at TVTalkshows?? Why on earth are you referring to me as "whoever"?

If this is some lame attempt of ridiculing me, so you won't have to take my questions seriously, I got news for you:

It ain't gonna work.

It's nothing but a cheap shot, T'ai Chi. It only shows that you are in deep s**t, and that you will try anything - even this kind of character assassination - to get out of it.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
"The history of Smurfs is quite clear. They were invented around in the late 1950's I believe, and made into figurines, books, and later on, television shows and merchandise for children. No adult has ever seriously considered them to exist in reality (let alone the canard of "invisible blue Smurfs) as they are created fiction, created for entertainment/education/fun/imagination." God(s), on the other hand have been considered seriously as existing by rational adults, even in a scientific age."

Male bovine manure. The history of god was invented thousands of years ago, I believe, and made into figurines, books and later on, television shows and merchandise for children. No adult has ever seriously considered them to exist in reality (let alone the canard of "god" God(s), on the other hand have been considered seriously as existing by rational adults, even in a scientific age.

What is the difference between this, and the smurfs?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
We know they were invented fiction. Their history is clear. Therefore, they never have existed in reality, not then, not now.

How do you know that smurfs have never existed in reality? Because they are in a comic book? I have seen comic books about Columbus, does this mean that he never existed either?

These questions will not go away. According to forum rules, please either:

address the questions, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claim, or
state that you refuse to answer.

Darat

13th December 2003, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

We know they were invented fiction. Their history is clear. Therefore, they never have existed in reality, not then, not now.

How do you not know that the "creator" of the Smurfs as fiction didn't base them on reality?

Again it seems that you can know a lot of things with a certainty that few others can.

CFLarsen

13th December 2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Darat
Again it seems that you can know a lot of things with a certainty that few others can.

That's because T'ai Chi is "that intelligent".

Hazelip

13th December 2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Appeal to listing appeals.

The fact is, is that we know for an absolute fact that transportation currently exists only in sci-fi, and that there is no green cheese on the moon, invisible pink unicorns don't exist, and neither do invisible blue Smurfs. With god(s), we don't know for an absolute fact, and that is what the difference is, so they aren't equivalent logically; they are qualitatively different. You're just using the same fallacy combo-punch again.

Why do you remind me of Franko so much?

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

13th December 2003, 04:03 PM

[i]Originally posted by CFLarsen

What is the difference between this, and the smurfs?

Maybe you should consider a career in the exciting new field of a smurfsandgodarethesamemotherfu**ingthingologist!

T'ai Chi

13th December 2003, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Why on earth are you bringing up my nick at TVTalkshows?? Why on earth are you referring to me as "whoever"?

Ok, I won't bring up your other nick again. Sheesh! Why on earth do people bring up past nicks of mine, call me T'roll Chi, Lil' Pup, Woodini, etc.? Hardly "character assasination" though, just some good natured ribbing among friends; spare the dramatics please. If you really think it is, bring it up as a possible forum violation to Hal's attention and I'll go along with what he says about it, mmm'kay? The word "whoever" was meant in place of whatever other nicknames you could possibly have on other boards.

And please do everyone a favor and quit pretending that I said the thing about my intelligence in a serious tone when my humor was obvious intended, as I already pointed out to you.

Male bovine manure. The history of god was invented thousands of years ago, I believe, and made into figurines, books and later on, television shows and merchandise for children. No adult has ever seriously considered them to exist in reality (let alone the canard of "god" God(s), on the other hand have been considered seriously as existing by rational adults, even in a scientific age.

What is the difference between this, and the smurfs?

Some (many!) adults do believe in god(s) as real and existing in reality. They don't do that with "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue Smurfs", or "green cheese on the moon". You also don't know that god was invented. We do know that Smurfs were invented. --those two points are the differences.

How do you know that smurfs have never existed in reality? Because they are in a comic book? I have seen comic books about Columbus, does this mean that he never existed either?

Nope, never said it does.

The convergence of the history of Columbus is clear; he existed. We also have a convergence of the history of the Smurfs, "invisible pink unicorns", and "green cheese on the moon", which clearly shows they were invented as fiction.

These questions will not go away. According to forum rules, please either:

address the questions, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claim, or
state that you refuse to answer.

Here are the forum rules: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17422

Can you show us all where your bulleted points above come from these forum rules? I'd really like to know, thanks.

But that's great that they won't go away. Neither will my copy and paste answer that I already gave serveral times:

""The history of Smurfs is quite clear. They were invented around in the late 1950's I believe, and made into figurines, books, and later on, television shows and merchandise for children. No adult has ever seriously considered them to exist in reality (let alone the canard of "invisible blue Smurfs) as they are created fiction, created for entertainment/education/fun/imagination." God(s), on the other hand have been considered seriously as existing by rational adults, even in a scientific age.""

Please either:

Acknowledge I answered you and you are satisfied with it
or
Acknowledge I answered you and you are dissatisfied with it
or
State that you refuse to acknowledge that I answered you
or
Planet X

Do let us know your choice.

Disbeliever

13th December 2003, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Tai'chi

Uh, some (many!) adults do believe in god(s) as real and existing in reality. They don't do that with "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue Smurfs", or "green cheese on the moon". You also don't know that god was invented. We do know that Smurfs were invented. --those two poins are the differences.

This really rings of your conceptions depending on other people's. I think it's better to never let anyone else's conceptions dictate your own.

KelvinG

13th December 2003, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

"invisible blue Smurfs", or "green cheese on the moon". You also don't know that god was invented. We do know that Smurfs were invented. --those two poins are the differences.

What do you mean you don't know that god was invented. What is that supposed to mean? Of course god was invented. It was the creation of human minds. If you don't think god was "invented", please enlighten us how the concept of god came about.

T'ai Chi

13th December 2003, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Disbeliever

This really rings of your conceptions depending on other people's. I think it's better to never let anyone else's conceptions dictate your own.

Well, since I didn't originally come up with those ideas, I'll have to settle for hearing them from other people/resources. :) I don't let them dictate my conceptions though, only inform me.

T'ai Chi

13th December 2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by KelvinG

What do you mean you don't know that god was invented. What is that supposed to mean?

I mean that we don't know for sure if god(s) is fiction or not.

It was the creation of human minds.

You don't know if man created god(s) or god(s) created man, for certain. --whereas we obviously do know with "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue Smurfs", and "green cheese on the moon".

If you don't think god was "invented", please enlighten us how the concept of god came about.

Not the concept of god(s), the actual god(s). I'm undecided on the issue. In fact, it really doesn't matter to me either way; I just like learning about it and keeping an open mind either way.

T'ai Chi

13th December 2003, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Hazelip
You're just using the same fallacy combo-punch again.

Why do you remind me of Franko so much?

In one recent thread by Stereolab on possible 'ESP' experiences, Thaiboxerken brought up Lucianarchy twice, and Clancie twice, even though they had nothing whatsoever to do with the specific issues. You are doing the same thing here. I'd have hoped you'd actually have something better. :(

You've yelled fallacy and listed two that I have supposedly committed, but haven't elaborated any further.

KelvinG

13th December 2003, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I mean that we don't know for sure if god(s) is fiction or not.

We cannot know with absolute certainty that many things are fictional or not. God is simply one more supernatural entity in a long line of many. I certainly don't totally disregard the possibility of there being a god(s), but I give it the amount of attention I think it deserves. Very little. The utter lack of evidence for the existence of God makes the arguments about as plausible as the arguments for "invisible pink unicorns."

You don't know if man created god(s) or god(s) created man, for certain. --whereas we obviously do know with "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue Smurfs", and "green cheese on the moon".

And there is no way you can say with 100% certainty that there are no invisible pink unicorns. I mean, how could you ever really know. They are invisible. And you have no definitive proof that invisible pink unicorns were invented soley in a fictional realm with no basis in reality.

Not the concept of god(s), the actual god(s). I'm undecided on the issue. In fact, it really doesn't matter to me either way; I just like learning about it and keeping an open mind either way.

I don't know. You don't seem to be giving invisible pink unicorns a fair shake. How open is your mind really?

epepke

13th December 2003, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Although, for some support of the god(s) theory as actually being real, we have a universe that somehow got here and have things that happen in it. Some would say that that is at least suggestive evidence.

Some would say, yes. Some would say many things. Atheists, depending on the atheist, may not say that. I do not say it. I find cosmology a big enough mystery without postulating a god, which would be an even bigger mystery, as a source.

Some would say, as D.H. Lawrence is reputed to have said, "Don't tell me the moon is just a dead rock in the sky. I [i]know[i] it's not."

epepke

13th December 2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Here is a common definition (avoiding the slang and other uses of the word "cheese"): The curd of milk, coagulated usually with rennet, separated from the whey, and pressed into a solid mass in a hoop or mold.

"How dare you besmirch the holy nature of The Cheese by reducing it to eartlhy Cheey forms?"

"Cheese of that order is self-creating and needs no milk or rennet."

"Cheese is not physical, it's spiritual, with a shape and substance like cheese. Cheese created cheese in its own image."

"How do you know that Cheese is always made like this? Have you been to Alpha Centauri?"

These rejoinders are no sillier than the ones theists present.

And I can't resist:

"Blessed are the cheesemakers, for they shall inherit the Earth."

Apologies to Monty Python.

T'ai Chi

13th December 2003, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by epepke

"Cheese of that order is self-creating and needs no milk or rennet."

"Cheese is not physical, it's spiritual, with a shape and substance like cheese. Cheese created cheese in its own image."

:D

MoeFaux

13th December 2003, 09:18 PM

I don't know how you can NOT be an atheist skeptic. But many disagree.

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

13th December 2003, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by MoeFaux
I don't know how you can NOT be an atheist skeptic. But many disagree.

You are fighting a war against quackery!

CFLarsen

14th December 2003, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Ok, I won't bring up your other nick again. Sheesh! Why on earth do people bring up past nicks of mine, call me T'roll Chi, Lil' Pup, Woodini, etc.? Hardly "character assasination" though, just some good natured ribbing among friends; spare the dramatics please. If you really think it is, bring it up as a possible forum violation to Hal's attention and I'll go along with what he says about it, mmm'kay? The word "whoever" was meant in place of whatever other nicknames you could possibly have on other boards.

What is the relevance? We are discussing this here.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
And please do everyone a favor and quit pretending that I said the thing about my intelligence in a serious tone when my humor was obvious intended, as I already pointed out to you.

Then use a smiley the next time you try to be funny. That's what they are there for.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Some (many!) adults do believe in god(s) as real and existing in reality. They don't do that with "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue Smurfs", or "green cheese on the moon". You also don't know that god was invented. We do know that Smurfs were invented. --those two points are the differences.

God was not invented??? Are you saying that there is a god, outside the mind of man?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Nope, never said it does.

The convergence of the history of Columbus is clear; he existed. We also have a convergence of the history of the Smurfs, "invisible pink unicorns", and "green cheese on the moon", which clearly shows they were invented as fiction.

Really? What about unicorns? People have believed that unicorns were very real. Same with leprechauns, fairies, goblins, etc.

The convergence of the history of unicorns is clear; They exist. We have so many pictures and stories and historical references from various bestiari, even physical evidence, that we know they exist.

If you really let other people/resources inform you, then you must acknowledge that unicorns exist.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Here are the forum rules: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17422

Can you show us all where your bulleted points above come from these forum rules? I'd really like to know, thanks.

Hal/Randi has stated that we can ask for evidence, if a claim is made.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
But that's great that they won't go away. Neither will my copy and paste answer that I already gave serveral times:

""The history of Smurfs is quite clear. They were invented around in the late 1950's I believe, and made into figurines, books, and later on, television shows and merchandise for children. No adult has ever seriously considered them to exist in reality (let alone the canard of "invisible blue Smurfs) as they are created fiction, created for entertainment/education/fun/imagination." God(s), on the other hand have been considered seriously as existing by rational adults, even in a scientific age.""

Repeating your claim and calling it an answer does not make it an answer. It is clear, however, that you do not have an answer.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Please either:

Acknowledge I answered you and you are satisfied with it
or
Acknowledge I answered you and you are dissatisfied with it
or
State that you refuse to acknowledge that I answered you
or
Planet X

Do let us know your choice.

You repeated your claim and said it was an answer. If that is all you have, so be it.

Hazelip

14th December 2003, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
In one recent thread by Stereolab on possible 'ESP' experiences, Thaiboxerken brought up Lucianarchy twice, and Clancie twice, even though they had nothing whatsoever to do with the specific issues. You are doing the same thing here. I'd have hoped you'd actually have something better. :(

You've yelled fallacy and listed two that I have supposedly committed, but haven't elaborated any further. I've figured it out! You remind me of him through your inability to adhere to basic logic, and your constant thread-drifting. Deflection and misdirection. Accusation and subject-clouding.

I have no need to elaborate on fallacies. You're doing a splendid job of it.

T'ai Chi

14th December 2003, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

What is the relevance?

Yes, I agree, us talking about each other has no relevance to the topic at hand.

Then use a smiley the next time you try to be funny. That's what they are there for.

The point was that after I told that it was humor it was still talked about it as if I used it in seriousness. I'll use a smiley next time though.

God was not invented??? Are you saying that there is a god, outside the mind of man?

No, I am not saying. I am saying that many people think that. I am also saying that there might be god(s).

Really? What about unicorns? People have believed that unicorns were very real. Same with leprechauns, fairies, goblins, etc.

So you finally agree that "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue Smurfs", and "green cheese on the moon" are not worth talking about their existence because no adult has ever seriously considered them to exist in the first place?

As far as unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, and goblins, I agree; adults have considered them seriously. However, most of the belief was in an age where people did not know about the rest of the world through travel and science. In our modern age, where we've mapped the Earth and have a lot of science and knowledge, many people still believe in god(s), but not very many do in unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, and goblins.

If you really let other people/resources inform you, then you must acknowledge that unicorns exist.

Nope, I must do no such thing. In fact, as mentioned they inform me, not dictate me.

Hal/Randi has stated that we can ask for evidence, if a claim is made.

Well sure, but that hardly comes from forum rules, but just common sense.

Repeating your claim and calling it an answer does not make it an answer. It is clear, however, that you do not have an answer.

Calling my answer a claim or a non-answer does not make it that I didn't answer. In fact, I answered you over three times now:

"The history of Smurfs is quite clear. They were invented around in the late 1950's I believe, and made into figurines, books, and later on, television shows and merchandise for children. No adult has ever seriously considered them to exist in reality (let alone the canard of "invisible blue Smurfs) as they are created fiction, created for entertainment/education/fun/imagination." God(s), on the other hand have been considered seriously as existing by rational adults, even in a scientific age.

There is no claim there at all, just fact.

You repeated your claim and said it was an answer. If that is all you have, so be it.

I guess that you chose either the "State that you refuse to acknowledge that I answered you" or the "Planet X" option. :P

T'ai Chi

14th December 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Hazelip
I've figured it out! You remind me of him through your inability to adhere to basic logic, and your constant thread-drifting. Deflection and misdirection. Accusation and subject-clouding.

I have no need to elaborate on fallacies. You're doing a splendid job of it.

I've offered you a soapbox to elaborate on my fallacies... and ...you... declined!!!

That proves there is no way you are a skeptic. ;) ;) ;)

Anyway........................

Back to the topic I guess!

CFLarsen

14th December 2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yes, I agree, us talking about each other has no relevance to the topic at hand.

Stop obfuscating. You were referring to what nick I use on another board, which has absolutely no relevance to this discussion.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
The point was that after I told that it was humor it was still talked about it as if I used it in seriousness. I'll use a smiley next time though.

Thank you. Not that a smiley will make it funny.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
No, I am not saying. I am saying that many people think that. I am also saying that there might be god(s).

But you are rejecting the idea that there might be Smurfs, too, for the very same reasons that you accept the possibility of there are gods. Is it the number of people who believe in a phenomenon that warrants the possibility of the phenomenon to be real?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So you finally agree that "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue Smurfs", and "green cheese on the moon" are not worth talking about their existence because no adult has ever seriously considered them to exist in the first place?

No, that's not that I was saying. I was pointing out that there is absolutely no reason to reject the idea of smurfs, while not rejecting the idea of god.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
As far as unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, and goblins, I agree; adults have considered them seriously. However, most of the belief was in an age where people did not know about the rest of the world through travel and science. In our modern age, where we've mapped the Earth and have a lot of science and knowledge, many people still believe in god(s), but not very many do in unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, and goblins.

Oops, now you are being a snob. What makes you think that we know "about the rest of the world"? Sure, we know more, but how can you say that we have reached a point where we can rule out goblins?

If you want to look at more recent examples, fine with me: Some pople still believe that we never went to the moon. Some people still believe that the planets rule our lives. Some people still believe that a substance can be diluted so much that there is nothing left, yet still have an effect.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Nope, I must do no such thing. In fact, as mentioned they inform me, not dictate me.

So, what do you think of the evidence for unicorns? Is it possible that unicorns exist?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Well sure, but that hardly comes from forum rules, but just common sense.

Perhaps, but "common sense" is not absolute.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Calling my answer a claim or a non-answer does not make it that I didn't answer. In fact, I answered you over three times now:

Yes, I know, and there is no reason to repeat it. You have made it clear that you have no answer. Fine.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
There is no claim there at all, just fact.

"No adult has ever seriously considered them (ed: Smurfs) to exist". That's a claim.

Please show your evidence that no adult on this planet has ever "seriously" considered Smurfs to be real.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I guess that you chose either the "State that you refuse to acknowledge that I answered you" or the "Planet X" option. :P

Not at all. I chose the "You answered with a non-reply."

T'ai Chi

14th December 2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

But you are rejecting the idea that there might be Smurfs, too, for the very same reasons that you accept the possibility of there are gods. Is it the number of people who believe in a phenomenon that warrants the possibility of the phenomenon to be real?

Nope. It is simply the fact that people have considered and do consider god(s) to be very real, and their reality status is uncertain. With "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue Smurfs", "green cheese on the moon", "Mr. Dillyho from Plagnack", etc., there is no documentation that people have because they are purely invented fiction; their reality status is 0.

No, that's not that I was saying. I was pointing out that there is absolutely no reason to reject the idea of smurfs, while not rejecting the idea of god.

We know the history of "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue Smurfs", "green cheese on the moon", "Mr. Dillyho from Plagnack"; we don't know the history or the reality status of god(s).

Oops, now you are being a snob. What makes you think that we know "about the rest of the world"? Sure, we know more, but how can you say that we have reached a point where we can rule out goblins?

Sentence 1: Personal jab. Response: Laughter and immediately forgot it.

The remaining sentences: Response: Yes, exactly, we know more. We also know, through historical convergence of many sources, that a lot of things were invented fiction (for example, if they don't show up before a certain date, the same date where an author put pen to paper, imagine that!), fancy notions, stories, myths, and therefore their reality status is 0. It is really that simple. With "invisible pink unicorns", "green cheese on the moon", "invisible blue Smurfs", and "Mr. Dillyho from Prognack" we can easily do this. Some stuff, like with god(s) and other things, we cannot do this because the historical and reality status is uncertain.

...how can you say that we have reached a point where we can rule out goblins?

I didn't say we can "rule out". In fact, I clearly said "not very many do in ...", so obviously some people consider them not able to be ruled out.

[b]
If you want to look at more recent examples, fine with me: Some pople still believe that we never went to the moon. Some people still believe that the planets rule our lives. Some people still believe that a substance can be diluted so much that there is nothing left, yet still have an effect.

We moved from talking about the reality status of "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue Smurfs", "green cheese on the moon", to "Mr. Dillyho from Plagnack" (my diversion), to Smurfs, to unicorns, leprechauns, gryphons, fairies, and now to anti-moon landing, astrology, and homeopathy. Why don't you want to talk about hypothetical invisible things, and cheese on the moon anymore? Is it because no adult has ever seriously considered their existence? :)

As I've already mentioned, it is absurd to talk about the possible existence of things we already know (and is documented) were invented for fiction.

But some things, like god(s) for starters, we don't know for sure.

Perhaps, but "common sense" is not absolute.

I don't disagree with that.

Yes, I know, and there is no reason to repeat it. You have made it clear that you have no answer. Fine.

How can my answer be a "no answer"? I guess not playing basketball is a sport. :) (note the smiley!) I will repeat or post a link to it exactly as many times as if it is claimed it is not an answer.

"No adult has ever seriously considered them (ed: Smurfs) to exist". That's a claim.

Please show your evidence that no adult on this planet has ever "seriously" considered Smurfs to be real.

First, you have to show that adults have seriously considered "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue Smurfs", and "green cheese on the moon" to be real. My position is the default here since the history and reality status of these things is well-known.

Not at all. I chose the "You answered with a non-reply."

So above you said what I posted was a "no answer". But here you say I "answered". (insert eyeroll and big sigh sound here)

CFLarsen

14th December 2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Nope. It is simply the fact that people have considered and do consider god(s) to be very real, and their reality status is uncertain. With "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue Smurfs", "green cheese on the moon", "Mr. Dillyho from Plagnack", etc., there is no documentation that people have because they are purely invented fiction; their reality status is 0.

You are still ignoring the issue of just how many people need to believe in something, before you will accept their belief to be valid.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
We know the history of "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue Smurfs", "green cheese on the moon", "Mr. Dillyho from Plagnack"; we don't know the history or the reality status of god(s).

We do?? Why??

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Sentence 1: Personal jab. Response: Laughter and immediately forgot it.

Don't point fingers. That might be detrimental.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
The remaining sentences: Response: Yes, exactly, we know more. We also know, through historical convergence of many sources, that a lot of things were invented fiction (for example, if they don't show up before a certain date, the same date where an author put pen to paper, imagine that!), fancy notions, stories, myths, and therefore their reality status is 0. It is really that simple. With "invisible pink unicorns", "green cheese on the moon", "invisible blue Smurfs", and "Mr. Dillyho from Prognack" we can easily do this. Some stuff, like with god(s) and other things, we cannot do this because the historical and reality status is uncertain.

Sorry, but that is a thoroughly unskeptical approach. You have to accept the possibility of both smurfs and god(s). You cannot rule out one, in favor of the other, simply because of what you personally consider ridiculous.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I didn't say we can "rule out". In fact, I clearly said "not very many do in ...", so obviously some people consider them not able to be ruled out.

So, why should we not consider their claims?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
We moved from talking about the reality status of "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue Smurfs", "green cheese on the moon", to "Mr. Dillyho from Plagnack" (my diversion), to Smurfs, to unicorns, leprechauns, gryphons, fairies, and now to anti-moon landing, astrology, and homeopathy. Why don't you want to talk about hypothetical invisible things, and cheese on the moon anymore? Is it because no adult has ever seriously considered their existence? :)

Not at all. It's because there is absolutely no difference between a belief in a god, a belief in astrology and a belief in smurfs. You claim that there is, but you fail to argue why.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
As I've already mentioned, it is absurd to talk about the possible existence of things we already [b]know (and is documented) were invented for fiction.

Is it?? What is the difference between a unicorn and a smurf?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
But some things, like god(s) for starters, we don't know for sure.

We don't know for "sure" about unicorns either. Do we?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I don't disagree with that.

Then, I fail to see why you feel it is not necessary to have it pointed out. Ah, well...

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
How can my answer be a "no answer"? I guess not playing basketball is a sport. :) (note the smiley!) I will repeat or post a link to it exactly as many times as if it is claimed it is not an answer.

It still doesn't make it an answer.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
First, you have to show that adults have seriously considered "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue Smurfs", and "green cheese on the moon" to be real. My position is the default here since the history and reality status of these things is well-known.

No, I do not. You have to show - because you are the one who makes the initial claim - that people have not believed that smurfs are not real.

You made the claim, you provide the evidence.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So above you said what I posted was a "no answer". But here you say I "answered". (insert eyeroll and big sigh sound here)

You "replied", then. You did not "answer".

T'ai Chi, you have so many unanswered questions. I suggest that we suspend our "exchange" and concentrate on you answering at least some of the many unanswered questions you have hanging.

Chanileslie

14th December 2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Could you please show me in history or in present times, where adults seriously considered the notion of "Giant Purple Dragons", (or green cheese on the moon, invisible blue Smurfs, invisible pink unicorns, or Santa) ?

I am not asking what people believe, I am asking for evidence other than, "some guy over there said so."

I can show you historical evidence of when people believed Dragons were real. I can even present fosil evidence for which people based their belief on. You can't even do that with a god belief.

Also, there are those who, full grown adults who seriously believed, in unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, and all sort of nonsense which I am sure you would dismiss as silly or unreal. Heck, I still know many adults who believe in such things.

My point is that you need to show evidence for what you claim to exists if you wish to sway people to believe. To believe without evidence and to insist others accept that as a fact is not rational nor acceptable.

Now, if you want to believe in something because you "feel it is true," then by all means, but be honest and admit that you have no evidence to show it is true, and that you believe because you want to believe.

Chanileslie

14th December 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Cheese is made a certain way. The lack of atmosphere, water, and raw materials and equipment that go into making cheese are absent on the moon. Perhaps the astronauts smuggled some cheese with them and placed it on the moon's surface? NASA details what the astronauts take with them and what they do with it. It turns out that some astronauts have taken cheese in a variety of forms (http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/astronauts/food-history.html), but there is no record of them placing cheese on the surface of the moon. It just didn't happen.

Last, and most obviously, the moon made of cheese myth has a long and clear history. No adult person has seriously entertained the idea; just like invisible pink unicorns, invisible blue Smurfs, Gigantic Purple Dragons, or whatever.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a990723a.html

Another interesting link:
http://www.its.themoon.co.uk/mooncheese.html

Unless...you consider... space cows! http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/zone/c/o/collnee/spacecow.jpg.html [/B]

And yet, you would have us believe some invisible being of extrodinary power and ability exists. Why is that? Maybe this being of yours put the cheese on the moon. Maybe this being of yours hides the cheesey aspect of the moon when examined by scientists, rather like your being itself that hides from all evidence.

If you accept one thing without rational evidence to be true, how can you dismiss other irrational possibilities out of hand because you don't want to believe in them as well?

Chanileslie

14th December 2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Cheese is made a certain way. The lack of atmosphere, water, and raw materials and equipment that go into making cheese are absent on the moon. Perhaps the astronauts smuggled some cheese with them and placed it on the moon's surface? NASA details what the astronauts take with them and what they do with it. It turns out that some astronauts have taken cheese in a variety of forms (http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/astronauts/food-history.html), but there is no record of them placing cheese on the surface of the moon. It just didn't happen.

Last, and most obviously, the moon made of cheese myth has a long and clear history. No adult person has seriously entertained the idea; just like invisible pink unicorns, invisible blue Smurfs, Gigantic Purple Dragons, or whatever.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a990723a.html

Another interesting link:
http://www.its.themoon.co.uk/mooncheese.html

Unless...you consider... space cows! http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/zone/c/o/collnee/spacecow.jpg.html [/B]

In addition, if the who surface and interior of the moon has not been searched down to the last femtometer, how can you claim that cheese does not exist on the moon?

Is this not similar to your argument about how can we know god doesn't exist if we haven't examined every aspect of the Universe. You can not make that claim unless you are willing to admit that you believe simply because you want to believe and not because there is any overwhelming evidence (or any evidence for that matter) to support your belief.

Also, you quote evidence of people not having found cheese, but where is your evidence that cheese does not exist on the moon?

You have used the very arguments, such as lack of evidence of cheese on the moon, that we have been using all along with believers such as yourself. If there is not evidence to support such a thing, then why would you continue to believe it is true?

thaiboxerken

14th December 2003, 02:52 PM

This thread shows that Tai Chi is a creduloid pseudo-skeptic. He only applies skepticism to those things that he feels deserve it. God, ESP, certain superpowers and homeopathy are all "worthy" of research to him. Smurfs, unicorns and goblins are not. His reason is simple.......... the things he deems unworthy just seem ridiculous to him. He offers no logical reason for that judgement, he only appeals to popular belief. All of the things mentioned above are equally valid ideas/claims, for none of them have credible scientific evidence associated with them.

But hey, if Tai Chi wants to think God is less ridiculous than goblins..... he must be right. :rolleyes:

Chanileslie

14th December 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I doubt it. In the case of 'green cheese on the moon', 'invisible pink unicorns', 'invisible blue Smurfs', etc., they are pretty easy to show aren't real, and no adult has seriously considered any of them.

God(s) on the other hand... [/B]

Is also pretty easy to show isn't real using the same manner of evidence that you used to show that there is not green cheese on the moon.

CFLarsen

14th December 2003, 02:57 PM

TBK,

I agree.

It seems very much like T'ai Chi will argue from personal preferences, not what is logically consistent.

The true hallmark of a creduloid.

Chanileslie

14th December 2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I don't think so. If no adult has ever seriosuly considered them to be real, they are hardly relevant to a serious discussion about their non/existence. For example, if you are asking me to prove peoples' claims they exist as wrong, that is easy, because no adult has ever seriously considered them to be real in the first place.

Asking me to prove some never-ever-considered-real thing as nonexistent is some type of strawman argument on your part.

Adults have seriously considered many things real over the history of mankind. Including Dragons. As to their color, well that is open to interpretation. Some were obviously giants. People have believed in many a unrealistic thing over the millenia. Some have fallen out of favor, some are still in favor, and some just have dropped because their was no evidence to support that belief.

Watch it or Thor or Zeus will lob lightening bolts at you.

T'ai Chi

14th December 2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
This thread shows that Tai Chi is a creduloid pseudo-skeptic. He only applies skepticism to those things that he feels deserve it. God, ESP, certain superpowers and homeopathy are all "worthy" of research to him. Smurfs, unicorns and goblins are not. His reason is simple.......... the things he deems unworthy just seem ridiculous to him. He offers no logical reason for that judgement, he only appeals to popular belief. All of the things mentioned above are equally valid ideas/claims, for none of them have credible scientific evidence associated with them.

But hey, if Tai Chi wants to think God is less ridiculous than goblins..... he must be right. :rolleyes:

Personal jabs. Coming from someone who said that god doesn't exist and that is a fact, yet doesn't present anything, is truly funny, especially when I'm saying the less unbelievable claim that invisible pink unicorns, green cheese on the moon, and invisible blue Smurfs don't exist. :)

I have said that with things we know the history and reality status of, we can certainly say they don't exist. With things we don't know the history and reality status of, we cannot say either way, and things that have some evidence to it and some research to it (homeopathy, anomalous cognition/perterbation) do deserve further exploration. --and that is not just my opinion, as many people do consider those topics worthy.

Things like the existence of god(s) is qualitatively different than the existance of invisible pink unicorns and my Mr. Dillyho. We know for certain invisible pink unicorns and green cheese on the moon and Mr. Dillyho came from fiction. We don't know for certain about the history or reality status of god(s).

I'm always willing to be shown good arguments for why invisible pink unicorns and Mr. Dillyho should be taken seriously.

thaiboxerken

14th December 2003, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Things like the existence of god(s) is qualitatively different than the existance of invisible pink unicorns and my Mr. Dillyho. We know for certain invisible pink unicorns and green cheese on the moon and Mr. Dillyho came from fiction. We don't know for certain about the history or reality status of god(s).

I'm always willing to be shown good arguments for why invisible pink unicorns and Mr. Dillyho should be taken seriously.

Because the authors of that "fiction" only called it fiction so as not to be ridiculed. They are really things that the authors witnessed in reality.

Also, do you believe the existence of white unicorns, goblins, leprechauns and pixies to be worthy of investigation?

T'ai Chi

14th December 2003, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You are still ignoring the issue of just how many people need to believe in something, before you will accept their belief to be valid.

It isn't an issue. The numbers don't matter; the evidence or lack of does.

Sorry, but that is a thoroughly unskeptical approach. You have to accept the possibility of both smurfs and god(s). You cannot rule out one, in favor of the other, simply because of what you personally consider ridiculous.

We know the history of smurfs. We know who invented them. What year. We know they were invented on Earth, and in what country. How. Why. What they look like. Their names. We know they were an cool idea, put on paper, made into figurines, books, kids shows, etc.. We know their entire history. Therefore, we know their reality status is 0. We know the history of the "invisible pink unicorn", can find who said it first, the history of the "green cheese on the moon", who said it first, the history of the "invisible blue Smurf", who said it first, etc. We know those things with god(s)... except we don't know many details, or if they exist in reality or not. Their reality status is still open; it could go either way.

So, why should we not consider their claims?

I never said we shouldn't. At least I don't think I did.

It's because there is absolutely no difference between a belief in a god, a belief in astrology and a belief in smurfs. You claim that there is, but you fail to argue why.

Concepts like "invisible pink unicorns", "green cheese on the moon", and "invisible blue Smurfs" are easily shown to be invented. Their reality status is 0. With god(s), we don't know for sure. Second, no one has shown me any examples of adults who do believe in the existence of "invisible pink unicorns", "green cheese on the moon", and "invisible blue Smurfs", or evidence for their actual existence, so it doesn't even make sense to consider their existence, especially when there is evidence of their fictional status.

It does make sense for some to consider things that have at least some evidence or plausibility to them.

Is it?? What is the difference between a unicorn and a smurf?

Who knows, I don't believe in either. :)

We don't know for "sure" about unicorns either. Do we?

No, we don't, but I wasn't talking about unicorns. I was talking about "invisible pink unicorns", "green cheese on the moon", and "invisible blue Smurfs".

Then, I fail to see why you feel it is not necessary to have it pointed out. Ah, well...

I am able to acknowledge that I agree or disagree with something one may say to me. That is part of communication. :)

It still doesn't make it an answer.

You can call not playing basketball a sport all you want, it still won't make it one. :)

You made the claim, you provide the evidence.

My claim of "invisible pink unicorns", "green cheese on the moon", and "invisible blue Smurfs" being fiction is the default position. You have to provide evidence if you expect us to take the existence of these things seriously.

T'ai Chi, you have so many unanswered questions. I suggest that we suspend our "exchange" and concentrate on you answering at least some of the many unanswered questions you have hanging.

If you have defined my already given answers to be non-answers, as you have done above, I don't doubt that I have a lot of unanswered questions. :)

You're always free to ask me your questions, and I'll ask you some too. :)

T'ai Chi

14th December 2003, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Chanileslie

Adults have seriously considered many things real over the history of mankind. Including Dragons.

Sure, I don't dispute that.

But we are talking about whether it is a good idea to even consider the reality status of "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue smurfs", "green cheese on the moon", and "Mr. Dillyho from Prognack", things which are clearly shown to be fictional.

Watch it or Thor or Zeus will lob lightening bolts at you.

I'm not scared of lightning while inside my house. :) Now while playing golf, that is a different story!!

T'ai Chi

14th December 2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Because the authors of that "fiction" only called it fiction so as not to be ridiculed. They are really things that the authors witnessed in reality.

So where's the evidence that they did this?? I can't find it. I won't consider it plausible.

Moreover, why would they call it fiction and be afraid of ridicule if it really existed?

KelvinG

14th December 2003, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

No, we don't, but I wasn't talking about unicorns. I was talking about "invisible pink unicorns", "green cheese on the moon", and "invisible blue Smurfs".

Alright then, lets talk about unicorns. Is it possible they exist? I guess so. There is no evidence that they don't exist other than the fact that we have no evidence. Pretty much the same story with God.
So, we can sit here and agree that unicorns, werewolves, dragons, wind spirits, God, etc. are all possibly real.
But I'm not holding my breath that God exists, nor am I holding my breath that werewolves exist. Again, it's possible. And hec, if we really want to expand our horizons, it's possible that smurfs exist as well. How do you know that the guy who created smurfs didn't do so because he encounted them on a trip to a foreign land. Perhaps he chose not to tell the truth, but decided to fictionalize them instead. Why are you pretending you have some special knowledge that allows you to determine without a hint of uncertainty that smurfs are entirely fictional.

Now, I'm not arguing in favour of the existence of smurfs. When it comes right down to it, I don't think they actually exist. But, if I'm forced to apply the same criteria to them as I do to the existence of God, (or at least the criteria you would have me apply), then one must keep an open mind that Smurfville might exist somewhere.

T'ai Chi

14th December 2003, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by KelvinG

How do you know that the guy who created smurfs didn't do so because he encounted them on a trip to a foreign land. Perhaps he chose not to tell the truth, but decided to fictionalize them instead. Why are you pretending you have some special knowledge that allows you to determine without a hint of uncertainty that smurfs are entirely fictional.

From the official Smurfs page: "But Peyo created a number of other characters too, some of whom turned up in Smurf stories..."

So he created them.

Second, "At first, the Smurfs were just secondary characters. But they soon became stars in their own right."

You think if he merely put real things into a story that he'd make them the main characters from the start?

Third, "The world became a Smurfier place to live exactly 40 years ago."

So there was no mention of Smurfs before he created them. You think if they were real, someone would have seen them before he did?

Fourth, is there any evidence of him going anywhere and seeing Smurfs? Not as far as I know.

Like I said, we have a convergence of evidence.

We don't have all of these points of convergence with god(s). We do have some, however.

But anyway...Thaiboxerken brought up "invisible blue smurfs". That is what I was originally talking about as fiction.

I have no problem saying I might be wrong. Sure, all of this stuff is my opinion. It is my opinion that I and others know that "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue smurfs", "green cheese on the moon", and "Mr. Dillyho from Prognack" don't exist.

It is also my opinion that I have enjoyed the Smurfs since the 80's! :)

BillHoyt

14th December 2003, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I have no problem saying I might be wrong. Sure, all of this stuff is my opinion. It is my opinion that I and others know that "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue smurfs", "green cheese on the moon", and "Mr. Dillyho from Prognack" don't exist.

It is also my opinion that I have enjoyed the Smurfs since the 80's! :) [/B]

No, it is not your opinion that you know. You know with a degree of certainty. There is no more opinion about that than about the fact of gravity. You can't have an opinion about facts. There is a sun. That is a fact. No opinion to it. I think that sun is too hot today. Opinion. Smurfs don't really exist. Fact. I have enjoyed the little smurf dolls. Opinion.

KelvinG

14th December 2003, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I have no problem saying I might be wrong. Sure, all of this stuff is my opinion. It is my opinion that I and others know that "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue smurfs", "green cheese on the moon", and "Mr. Dillyho from Prognack" don't exist.

It is my opinion that I and others know that God does not exist.

Really it all just comes down to speculation and personal opinion because evidence is totally lacking in any of the scenarios that have been explored in this thread, be it smurfs, unicorns, God, or other.

thaiboxerken

14th December 2003, 05:09 PM

So where's the evidence that they did this?? I can't find it. I won't consider it plausible.

Until there is evidence of ESP, afterlife or god, I won't consider it plausible. There is no credible evidence of these things.

Moreover, why would they call it fiction and be afraid of ridicule if it really existed?

Because only true believers can see them.

thaiboxerken

14th December 2003, 05:13 PM

It looks like T'ai Whodini has been beat down with logic and has finally admitted defeat. T'ai, you really should work on being consistent with your "skepticism" instead of just picking and choosing which claims are absurd based on your personal preferences. Gods and Smurfs are the same, they are both nonevident beings that were created from the minds of humans.

T'ai Chi

14th December 2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It looks like T'ai Whodini has been beat down with logic and has finally admitted defeat.

You might view communication and discussion of skeptical issues as a zero-sum game; I don't.

T'ai, you really should work on being consistent with your "skepticism" instead of just picking and choosing which claims are absurd based on your personal preferences. Gods and Smurfs are the same, they are both nonevident beings that were created from the minds of humans.

Nope. With "invisible pink unicorns", "green cheese on the moon", "invisible blue smurfs" and "Mr. Dillyho", we know for certain they are fiction. We have absolute convergence of evidence. With god(s), we don't know for certain.

If I just create a Mr. Dillyho from Prognack who shoots soy sauce from his eyeballs, eats only pickles, is able to swim in the air, is 200ft tall, 1inch wide, and lives in soccer balls on Venus, the issues of its existence is not anywhere near considered in the same area as the existence of god(s). Mr. Dillyho simply doesn't exist because his origin is clear. No adult has ever considered his existence seriously. God(s) might exist, and adults have considered his/her/its/their existence seriously. Mr. Dillyho is responsible for nothing of consequence. God(s) are reported to be responsible for the universe.

While we're on the topic of nonexistance, are you going to ignore proving your "fact" of "god doesn't exist" yet again? I don't necessarily disagree with it, but I'd love to see the proof of this amazing "fact".

Aussie Thinker

14th December 2003, 08:14 PM

Tai writes,

If I just create a Mr. Dillyho from Prognack who shoots soy sauce from his eyeballs, eats only pickles, is able to swim in the air, is 200ft tall, 1inch wide, and lives in soccer balls on Venus, the issues of its existence is not anywhere near considered in the same area as the existence of god(s). Mr. Dillyho simply doesn't exist because his origin is clear. No adult has ever considered his existence seriously. God(s) might exist, and adults have considered his/her/its/their existence seriously. Mr. Dillyho is responsible for nothing of consequence. God(s) are reported to be responsible for the universe.

Just because “God” is an acceptable mass lunacy you think as an idea it has more credence than Mr Dillyho ???

Lets take the Christian God for example…

A God that always existed and created the Universe from Nothing and knows what will happen and what has happened, a God who lives in a Heaven that is above us, a God who created us in his own image and listens to all of us with equal Gusto. A god who sent his own son (who was also himself) to sacrifice himself to save humanity from a sin that was committed by his first creation…

My Dillyho is starting to sound more and more realistic !!!

ALL GODS are human inventions JUST Like MR Dillyho.. can you name me one that wasn’t ???

Aussie Thinker

14th December 2003, 08:17 PM

Tai,

I forgot..

While we're on the topic of nonexistance, are you going to ignore proving your "fact" of "god doesn't exist" yet again? I don't necessarily disagree with it, but I'd love to see the proof of this amazing "fact".

How many times does it have to be said…

NO ONE CAN PROVE SOMETHING THAT DOESN’T EXIST DOESN’T EXIST.

It is up to the person making the extraordinary claim of existence to PROVE its existence..

Or should we HAVE to disprove MR Dillyho too ???

Chanileslie

14th December 2003, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Sure, I don't dispute that.

But we are talking about whether it is a good idea to even consider the reality status of "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue smurfs", "green cheese on the moon", and "Mr. Dillyho from Prognack", things which are clearly shown to be fictional.

I'm not scared of lightning while inside my house. :) Now while playing golf, that is a different story!! [/B]

I'm sorry, but you have yet to show how they have been shown to be fictional. You haven't given any evidence that shows these things to not exist. You have given evidence to show why you don't believe they exist, but you have not shown they don't exist. And yet, you won't accept the same type of evidence to show that your god is fictional as well.

People claim a lot of things, and there are anectodotal stories that abound about lots of different things, including your god, but alas, one has a hard time providing evidence showing that these things do exist outside of the minds of men.

Please provide evidence showing these things don't exist, if you want us to provide evidence why your god doesn't exist.

I would be afraid of lightening as well if I were holding lightening rod in one hand during a thunder storm. :-)

thaiboxerken

14th December 2003, 09:05 PM

Nope. With "invisible pink unicorns", "green cheese on the moon", "invisible blue smurfs" and "Mr. Dillyho", we know for certain they are fiction. We have absolute convergence of evidence. With god(s), we don't know for certain.

No we don't. But if you want to play the "know for certain" game, which gods don't we know the history of origin for? The monotheistic Jewish/Christian/Muslim god came from a pantheon of gods. It's history is well documented, this "god" evolved from other mythologies. So we "know for certain" that this god, at least, is fictional based on your logic.

Mr. Dillyho simply doesn't exist because his origin is clear. No adult has ever considered his existence seriously.

Origin might be evidence, but if so.. then "god" doesn't exist.. not the christian/jewish/muslim one at least. Adult consideration/beliefs have no bearing at all on whether a thing exists or not. Your appeal to adult opinion is a fallacy.

God(s) might exist, and adults have considered his/her/its/their existence seriously. Mr. Dillyho is responsible for nothing of consequence. God(s) are reported to be responsible for the universe.

Mr Dillyho created the universe. There, I said it. So does that mean the Mr Dillyho is now more likely to exist? You say that "gods" might exist, which ones are you talking about? Are you talking about all of them?

While we're on the topic of nonexistance, are you going to ignore proving your "fact" of "god doesn't exist" yet again? I don't necessarily disagree with it, but I'd love to see the proof of this amazing "fact".

The origin of the current gods can be traced to earlier god myths. By your logic, this means that these current gods must not exist because we know they are just a modification of early mythology.

T'ai Chi

14th December 2003, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

Just because “God” is an acceptable mass lunacy you think as an idea it has more credence than Mr Dillyho ???

I don't know about the "mass lunacy" part, but yes, much more credence. As mentioned, we know the exact history of Mr. Dillyho. I created him yesterday. He doesn't exist in reality for certain. God(s), on the other hand, have an unclear history.

A God that always existed and created the Universe from Nothing and knows what will happen and what has happened, a God who lives in a Heaven that is above us, a God who created us in his own image and listens to all of us with equal Gusto. A god who sent his own son (who was also himself) to sacrifice himself to save humanity from a sin that was committed by his first creation…

I am talking about a actual god(s) existing in reality, not the words that were written about it/them.

My Dillyho is starting to sound more and more realistic !!!

I do like the soy sauce shooting out of the eyes part. :)

ALL GODS are human inventions JUST Like MR Dillyho.. can you name me one that wasn’t ???

No. In fact, I can't say either way--precisely because we don't know their history! :) But we do know with Mr. Dillyho; he doesn't exist in reality, while god(s) might exist in reality.

T'ai Chi

14th December 2003, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

How many times does it have to be said…

NO ONE CAN PROVE SOMETHING THAT DOESN’T EXIST DOESN’T EXIST.

Then I guess TBK shouldn't have said that god's nonexistence is a fact.

How many times does that have to be said, eh? :)

T'ai Chi

14th December 2003, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Chanileslie

Please provide evidence showing these things don't exist, if you want us to provide evidence why your god doesn't exist.

My position is the default position. The onus is on you to show why it is reasonable to even seriously ponder the existence of "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue Smurfs", "Mr. Dillyho", "green cheese on the moon", and other made-ups, especially considering no adult ever has seriously considered them to exist in reality, whereas people have seriously considered god(s) to exist in reality!

I would be afraid of lightening as well if I were holding lightening rod in one hand during a thunder storm. :-)

I've had a couple of close calls in the past when I really wanted to finish the 9th hole, but it started to pour rain. :) Now I always get the heck off the course as soon as possible as I should have done to begin with! Plus getting off the course faster makes my score lower. :)

Aussie Thinker

14th December 2003, 10:01 PM

Tai,

Then I guess TBK shouldn't have said that god's nonexistence is a fact.

How many times does that have to be said, eh?

What we are trying to tell you is that the non-existence of God is as much a FACT as the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy.

So he is quite ENTITLED to say it is a FACT ! as much as we can state anything is a fact.

Stritcly speaking NOTHING is a fact.. we might all be living in Interesting Ians strange immaterial Matrix world..

But speaking realistically.. there is NO GOD.. FACT !

thaiboxerken

14th December 2003, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

My position is the default position. The onus is on you to show why it is reasonable to even seriously ponder the existence of "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue Smurfs", "Mr. Dillyho", "green cheese on the moon", and other made-ups, especially considering no adult ever has seriously considered them to exist in reality, whereas people have seriously considered god(s) to exist in reality![/b]

The default position of the god question is that there is no god. It doesn't matter how many, and how old the people are that believe in gods.

T'ai Chi

14th December 2003, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Nope. With "invisible pink unicorns", "green cheese on the moon", "invisible blue smurfs" and "Mr. Dillyho", we know for certain they are fiction. We have absolute convergence of evidence. With god(s), we don't know for certain.

No we don't.

Yes, we do I think.

But if you want to play the "know for certain" game, which gods don't we know the history of origin for? The monotheistic Jewish/Christian/Muslim god came from a pantheon of gods. It's history is well documented, this "god" evolved from other mythologies. So we "know for certain" that this god, at least, is fictional based on your logic.

We don't know who originally invented the god(s) notion, or when, or if it was first written of as fiction or as a news report. :)

Your appeal to adult opinion is a fallacy.

Not in the context in which I brought it up originally I believe. I asked something like why should I even consider the existence/nonexistence of "invisible pink unicorns", "invisible blue smurfs", and "green cheese on the moon", if no adult anywhere has ever seriously considered them in the first place?, and that we should consider talking about the existence/nonexistence of god(s) because adults have seriously considered the existence of it/him/her/them.

Mr Dillyho created the universe. There, I said it. So does that mean the Mr Dillyho is now more likely to exist? You say that "gods" might exist, which ones are you talking about? Are you talking about all of them?

That won't work because we all already know that I created Mr. Dillyho as fiction yesterday. Therefore, Mr. Dillyho doesn't exist in reality for certain.

The origin of the current gods can be traced to earlier god myths. By your logic, this means that these current gods must not exist because we know they are just a modification of early mythology.

We don't know who originally invented the god(s) notion, or when, or if it was first written of as fiction or as a news report. The point is, with Mr. Dillyho, we can trace every peice of pertinent information all the way back. With god(s), we cannot, so ultimately, the existence/nonexistence of god(s) is unclear, even with them being associated with myths.