Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/9/09 08:13 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

You're not all knowing either.

Rather than make another long ass reply I'll wrap it all into one.

I never said I was all knowing, you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

At 5/10/09 11:37 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: I never said I was all knowing, you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

"I have been in all the other rooms, meaning I have experience whereas a person who hasn't does not have the experience"

Even if you're not ALL knowing, you're making the argument that you've had more experience, rather than different experience. You say you've seen all the rooms, when the more accurate analogy would say:

There are 15 rooms all together. I've seen 5 rooms. Bob has seen 5 rooms. I've seen 2 rooms that Bob hasn't, and Bob's seen 2 rooms that I haven't. We share experience with 3 rooms.

In any case... you've yet to tackle the following issues I tried to bring to your attention...
1) dealing with a different set, rather than a necessarily wider set, of experiences
2) whether the experience in each room is self-evident of a fact besides itself
3) the value of anomalies
4) the value of anecdotes
5) consistency vs consequence in effective truth
6) that you too have expressed ill-wishes toward atheists
7) that some aforementioned things about VFX may have been made up

... and I list these because simply clarifying that you do not consider yourself all knowing, does not answer any of them.

At 5/10/09 01:37 PM, CadillacClock wrote: I am the messenger of Peace. I bring to you the word of the Clock.

I really fucking hate you..... And it hurts me inside because I know that I don't but I want to...lol

Um... alright shaggy... I'll remove from the list anything extraneous to the point you're trying to make with your analogy.

You've yet to tackle the following issues...
1) dealing with a different set, rather than a necessarily wider set, of experiences
2) whether the experience in each room is self-evident of a fact besides itself
3) the value of anomalies
4) the value of anecdotes
5) consistency vs consequence in effective truth

And yes, these factors do effect what can be considered a reasonable conclusion from the analogy.

At 5/12/09 03:27 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Um... alright shaggy... I'll remove from the list anything extraneous to the point you're trying to make with your analogy.

And yes, these factors do effect what can be considered a reasonable conclusion from the analogy.

Just forget the analogy, I can't go over the same thing that many times....

The point blank is, you don't have experience of something, so you simply don't believe in it, I'll bet you've never riden on an elephant before, do you believe you could? You would sya yes because you've seen people riding one, they have the experience on one and you know that, how is that any different from having a kind of spiritual whatever experience other than you not being able to see it first hand, people claim to have had an experience or experiences, why would you or anyone just brush the idea of it off n just ignore the possibility of it actually happening to you?

(I've got a bit of a headache so I'm not too happy about typing this....)

On a totally different note, you've never seen a fairy before, does that mean they don't or can never exist?.....lol, a pretty radical idea but not too much, as a person who might actually believe that there are galexies beyond ours n places that are likely nowhere near our physical understanding of reality, you would think things that we would never be able ti imagine would exist there right?

I'm really trying to do you guys a favor but you're not making is easy lol

At 5/12/09 03:53 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Just forget the analogy, I can't go over the same thing that many times....

You wouldn't be going over the same thing. You'd be covering new ground with respect to the analogy... but ok...

The point blank is, you don't have experience of something, so you simply don't believe in it

It's not that simple.

I'll bet you've never riden on an elephant before, do you believe you could? You would sya yes because you've seen people riding one, they have the experience on one and you know that, how is that any different from having a kind of spiritual whatever experience other than you not being able to see it first hand

Well I'm glad you asked! Allow me to answer this following each of the five contexts you didn't consider...

1. Different vs Wider Set

Rooms...
Wide - Narrow: You have ridden an elephant - I have not. This was the extent of your room analogy. This is the extent of the expression, "you don't have experience of something, so you simply don't believe in it."

Elephants...
Different - Different: You have ridden an elephant - I have ridden a horse. From my different experience, I can make a better judgment of whether an elephant can be ridden.

2. Self-Evidence

Rooms...
Hearing a disembodied voice (that calls itself God) in a room is not self evident of the axiom: God can speak to me.
Hearing a disembodied voice (that calls itself God) in a room is self evident of the axiom: there is a voice (that calls itself God) in this room with no visible source.

Elephants...
Riding an elephant is self-evident of the axiom: elephants can be ridden.

3. Value of Anomalies (Novelty)

Rooms...
You have experienced something "spiritual" in a room that I have not. Your experience is an anomaly to me, and dismissible, as it holds an irrelevant nature with regard to my other experiences. It does not violate my experiences, but proposes an expansion of their context with little to no similar utility beyond a clarification of "truth."

Had I the means to rigorously examine the anomaly, or had available to me credible/rigorous/numerous 3rd party examinations, it would not be dismissible, as it would hold an antagonistic nature with regard to my other experiences. It could potentially violate my experiences, and potentially expand their context with similar utility beyond a clarification of "truth."

Elephants...
You have ridden an elephant and I have not. Elephant riding is an anomaly to me, but not dismissible, as it holds a conciliatory nature with regard to my other experiences. It does not violate my experiences, but expands their context with similar utility beyond a clarification of "truth."

4. Value of Anecdotes (Hearsay)

Rooms...
You tell me you have seen God. I have never seen God. This situation requires more information if I'm to judge your story.

Elephants...
You tell me you have ridden an elephant. I have never ridden an elephant. This situation requires more information if I'm to judge your story.

But why judge these stories rather than accept them at face value? Read items 1,2,3, and 5. And remember, these stories purporting supernatural occurrence are always either made for those that already believe, or made so that others will start believing. They are persuasive in nature, seeking to realign my beliefs.

5. Consistency vs Consequence in Effective Truth

You sort of departed from the analogy to take a shot at science for this one. So I'll answer this one straight...

Science is a matter of utility. It changes because reality is of direct consequence to it. Science and reality reconcile (as well as challenge) each other.

I am in a room. The only exit is a door with a funky doorknob. In the room, there are working models of each component of the door and ample light to study the models. Upon gaining an understanding of the dynamics of each of the models, I apply this knowledge to the funky doorknob. I find which models apply and which do not. I operate the knob and open the door. I leave the room.

Religion is a matter of "truth." It does not change because reality is not of direct consequence to it. Reality is only reconciled with religion.

I am in a room. The only exit is a door with a funky doorknob. In the room, there are working models of each component of the door and ample light to study the models. I get on my knees and pray that the door open. 15 years later the janitor unlocks the door from the other side and I praise God for letting me out.

(Ok. That one was kind of mean.)

On a totally different note, you've never seen a fairy before, does that mean they don't or can never exist?

No it doesn't. However, it also doesn't render fairies the ultimate answer to everything.

as a person who might actually believe that there are galexies beyond ours n places that are likely nowhere near our physical understanding of reality

We generally hold that the entire universe adheres to the same constants. That's why they're called constants.

you would think things that we would never be able ti imagine would exist there right?

What is their utility? What is their consequence to us?

I'm really trying to do you guys a favor but you're not making is easy lol

Don't give up on us.

Expanding on point 5...

It aught to be a clue that the religious use science purely to prove a high level truth, and then from that high level truth derive utility of no empirical value. You use science to prove God, and then God mysteriously does all these other things for you.

Science on the other hand, involves a transparent/direct/practical relationship between what it proves and the utility derived from it. Science proves opposite magnetic poles attract, and uses that "fact" to design an electric motor.

Shaggy, the reason why people's 'personal experiences' aren't accepted with no scepticism is because they're anecdotal. You can confirm someone has ridden an elephant because it's documented.

At 5/12/09 09:14 AM, Brick-top wrote: Shaggy, the reason why people's 'personal experiences' aren't accepted with no scepticism is because they're anecdotal.

It is an assy thing that it is in fact a fallacy if a person brings it up in a discussion.

Example, someone claims that nurses these days don't care about their patients and let them die or purposely pay no attention to their calls because they are just lazy and lack motivation. The second person, who works at a hospital knows that the nurses are constantly busy and are constantly away attending to other people, so people who need help often just have to wait until someone is available. She knows that this is so, because she is in fact a nurse and does care about patients.
Yet, she can't provide this intel in the discussion because she can not provide factual objective proof. Hence, she just has to take the accusations like a good bitch does. What proof can she provide, internal worksheets proving no one was there at the time, although this is private and internal information?

At 5/12/09 09:14 AM, Brick-top wrote: Shaggy, the reason why people's 'personal experiences' aren't accepted with no scepticism is because they're anecdotal. You can confirm someone has ridden an elephant because it's documented.

The fun thing about religious people is that all personnal experiences and anecdotal evidence that points to THEIR beliefs are valid, but all the ones that don't are either lies, made-up or misinterpreted.

It's hilarious. You'll have a christian and a muslim both swearing that they saw miracles and angels and all that crap, each convinced that the other saw proof of his God.

Nutbars.

At 5/12/09 10:23 AM, poxpower wrote: The fun thing about religious people is that all personnal experiences and anecdotal evidence that points to THEIR beliefs are valid, but all the ones that don't are either lies, made-up or misinterpreted.

It's hilarious. You'll have a christian and a muslim both swearing that they saw miracles and angels and all that crap, each convinced that the other saw proof of his God.

Nutbars.

Not to mention personal experiences of UFOs, ghosts, spirits, goblins, magical forces or other "presences".

So according to Shaggy's logic, I shouldn't denounce UFO abductions, because I haven't experienced a UFO abduction myself!

At 5/12/09 09:25 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: Yet, she can't provide this intel in the discussion because she can not provide factual objective proof.

Actually she can provide evidence.

There would be signs indicating the level of work they're doing in the hospital and analysis of their work stations and responsibilities will show what they're doing. Not to mention any security cameras if any hospitals have them.

Anecdotal accounts are not conclusive accounts unless they can be verified with evidence.

At 5/12/09 10:28 AM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 5/12/09 10:23 AM, poxpower wrote: The fun thing about religious people is that all personnal experiences and anecdotal evidence that points to THEIR beliefs are valid, but all the ones that don't are either lies, made-up or misinterpreted.

Not to mention personal experiences of UFOs, ghosts, spirits, goblins, magical forces or other "presences".

;;;;;
I've come across this before, & might have posted it here...but why is it that those who believe in an invisible all powerful being ,are considered normal & their religious belief's are normal .
But if you believe in UFO's or Aliens from another part of space or time...your a nutbar ?

Shouldn't one group of proofless wonders, be considered exactly the same as the other group ?

(actually I believe the UFO people have a better chance of being proven right ) At least the odds of life on another planet is much more plausible than an invisible all knowing omniputent power (who just happens to have picked US ! ! ! as his chosen species...isn't that lovely ! )

At 5/12/09 10:35 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

I've come across this before, & might have posted it here...but why is it that those who believe in an invisible all powerful being ,are considered normal & their religious belief's are normal .

Cause there's a lot of them.

Shouldn't one group of proofless wonders, be considered exactly the same as the other group ?

See this is why I say they're idiots but apparently that's mean. Woops.

At 5/12/09 10:31 AM, Brick-top wrote:

Actually she can provide evidence.

There would be signs indicating the level of work they're doing in the hospital and analysis of their work stations and responsibilities will show what they're doing. Not to mention any security cameras if any hospitals have them.

In court, yes. But are those items up for debates amongst common people.
I doubt a superior or security officer would allow these stuff to be distributed everywhere.

At 5/12/09 11:13 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: In court, yes. But are those items up for debates amongst common people.
I doubt a superior or security officer would allow these stuff to be distributed everywhere.

You never said in court.

The point is in the example you provided people CAN prove or disprove whatever claims are presented. If they cannot it's regarded as unknown and further investigation will continue.

At 5/12/09 12:42 PM, Brick-top wrote:
The point is in the example you provided people CAN prove or disprove whatever claims are presented. If they cannot it's regarded as unknown and further investigation will continue.

My point is just that experience should count for something. If peoples experience is just thrown away because of a fallacy, then people just have to follow the know-it-all with the bigger ego.
Obviously the person who throws the first claim should substantiate his claim with sufficient evidence so that the experience card is not really worth that much. But if this is not done sufficiently, I still feel that experience is bigger.
I find this aspect is often neglected.

At 5/12/09 12:54 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: I find this aspect is often neglected.

It's an invalid point. Any anecdotal claim does not stand up unless it can be proven. If it cannot the claim does not hold water.

But regarding to 'personal experiences' with the supernatural, it's either it's anecdotal (with a list of fallacies following it) or it has a perfectly logical explanation.

At 5/12/09 01:06 PM, Brick-top wrote:
It's an invalid point. Any anecdotal claim does not stand up unless it can be proven. If it cannot the claim does not hold water.

Any claim against it, does not stand up to it if not substantiated.

In my example, the first person must, I feel, show that there were in fact nurses present that purposely ignored the patient. Then the experience-alone argument is no longer valid.

At 5/12/09 01:15 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 5/12/09 01:06 PM, Brick-top wrote:
It's an invalid point. Any anecdotal claim does not stand up unless it can be proven. If it cannot the claim does not hold water.

Any claim against it, does not stand up to it if not substantiated.

I never said there were any claims against it. I said (many times) any anecdotal claim means nothing if it cannot be proven.

In my example, the first person must, I feel, show that there were in fact nurses present that purposely ignored the patient. Then the experience-alone argument is no longer valid.

Check time cards (or whatever system they have for where they work and what times)
Check the patient.
Examine the surroundings.

Job done.

At 5/12/09 01:20 PM, Brick-top wrote:
I never said there were any claims against it. I said (many times) any anecdotal claim means nothing if it cannot be proven.

I can agree with this.
But there are a lot of experience claims that could be proven anyhow. It doesn't mean that any proof should be provided.

Just always go with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

You can't expect me to believe God speaks TO YOU DIRECTLY without some really insanely good evidence.
Which reminds me of how Bill Maher was on The View and the fat black chick told him to talk to God and he would talk back. Nutbar. Made me think "wow she'd probably kill herself if she ever admitted to that God doesn't speak to her".

At 5/12/09 01:41 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: I can agree with this.
But there are a lot of experience claims that could be proven anyhow. It doesn't mean that any proof should be provided.

If evidence does not or cannot be provided, how can the claim be proven?

At 5/12/09 02:58 PM, Brick-top wrote:
If evidence does not or cannot be provided, how can the claim be proven?

By forcing it. As long as the other party doesn't make any substanciated efforts to prove the first claim, it is unfair to demand wriiten formal prove of the second claim.
Like I said, experience can be proven by actually going out there and talk to people who experience it or experience things yourself.
They are verifiable, the proof's out there. Only not as easy to reproduce on paper.

At 5/12/09 03:15 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: They are verifiable, the proof's out there. Only not as easy to reproduce on paper.

However there are ample amounts of ways to get it on paper.

At 5/12/09 01:47 PM, poxpower wrote: Just always go with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

You can't expect me to believe God speaks TO YOU DIRECTLY without some really insanely good evidence.

Also perfectly reasonable. This idea that some of your arguing on the side of God have that "Because I used the word God, it's automatically correct, real, and unchallengeable". Really? I mean, what if I said to you right now "Joe Peschi speaks to me directly in my head". You'd do one of two things:

1. Assume I'm insane and that my claim cannot possibly be real or credible.

2. You'd demand that I provide you with substantial evidence that Joe Peschi is speaking to me.

Although in this case it's more verifiable because we could just ask Mr. Peschi. But I think the point still stands that if you make a claim that does not reconcile with every day reality or what we commonly accept as "real" or "possible" then you better be able to really really justify and convince people that your claim is both real and possible. That's all.

Which reminds me of how Bill Maher was on The View and the fat black chick told him to talk to God and he would talk back. Nutbar. Made me think "wow she'd probably kill herself if she ever admitted to that God doesn't speak to her".

Ah, but what if she believes God does? This is a problem in a lot of your arguments pox. You take the stance that God is complete fiction (which is fine and your right and all that good stuff) but it seems like you assume that even those that claim a belief are on some level aware of this fact and just lying or whatever for thier own ends. What if the fat black chick really DOES BELIEVE, that God is speaking to her? Don't get me wrong, that's proof of not a blessed thing. It's not proof that God exists, it's not proof that God speaks to her. But neither of these things invalidates that SHE BELIEVES God speaks to her. So I think you had a fine point up to that last sentence, the one that began "Made me think..." because it seems like you're saying she doesn't actually believe in what she's saying. I don't see a reason to feel she isn't serious, unless you have some information I don't here.

Honestly though, I don't understand why theists and atheists are so contentiously arguing this, you're not going to convince each other that your beliefs are superior or inferior, or really change anything. Just don't blow up the world or impede anybody else's quality of life and we could all be ok right?

At 5/12/09 09:25 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: Yet, she can't provide this intel in the discussion because she can not provide factual objective proof. Hence, she just has to take the accusations like a good bitch does. What proof can she provide, internal worksheets proving no one was there at the time, although this is private and internal information?

Difference: I can go to a hospital. They're big buildings made out of steel and concrete.

At 5/12/09 07:36 PM, Elfer wrote:
Difference: I can go to a hospital. They're big buildings made out of steel and concrete.

I'm arguing basically that experience can't always be proven that easily and if experience is just neglected for a claim made in the wild, it could have sad results. Something like

speculation < experience < evidence < proof.

I took it out of context actually.

At 5/12/09 07:48 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 5/12/09 07:36 PM, Elfer wrote:
Difference: I can go to a hospital. They're big buildings made out of steel and concrete.

I'm arguing basically that experience can't always be proven that easily and if experience is just neglected for a claim made in the wild, it could have sad results. Something like

speculation < experience < evidence < proof.

I took it out of context actually.

Yes you did, and while I agree with you to some extent, your point doesn't really apply to the 'natural vs supernatural' debate.

In common debate, when there is not means to judge beyond an anecdote, then the best thing to do is agree to disagree. However, in common debate, most people will end up contradicting themselves before they're at the point where all they have is anecdotal evidence.

At 5/12/09 07:48 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: I'm arguing basically that experience can't always be proven that easily and if experience is just neglected for a claim made in the wild, it could have sad results. Something like

I guess. The issue is that we can't analyze experience since it's incredibly subjective. Experience is mainly useful when it can be used to suggest/construct an experiment.