Bill Nye The Idiot Guy

[oxmixmudd]

There is no good reason why I should believe the personal testimony of others when there’s no verifiable evidence to substantiate it. But, you’re free to believe it if you so choose, just as Sparko seems able to find reasons to believe in the Blue Fairy.

Actually - there is.

Your 4 year old daughter comes to you and tells you your neighbor touched her private parts when he was babysitting her.

You have no way to verify that story. You have no way to substantiate it. But you will believe it.


Jim

[Teallaura]

I am also reminded that scientists believe that if the universe is infinite, or if their are infinite universes, then anything that can possibly exist or have happened will happen somewhere. So there could be a universe where Star Trek is real, where Blue Fairies exist, where magic works, where Tassman is the pope, etc.

And how would you know this universe isn't one with blue faeries?

[Sparko]

And how would you know this universe isn't one with blue faeries?

True. After all we do have a Tassman. How unlikely is THAT?

[Jedidiah]

AFAIK they are the same thing in that the notion of gods is just as “made up” as the fictional notion of the Blue Fairy.

Circular

Really! You think it's "foolish and presumptuous" not to believe stories unsupported by credible evidence? I disagree. Surely the reverse is true.

Except in this case we are talking about something supported by verifiable evidence and you still choose to doubt it.

[Tassman]

I believe because my life experience tells me I should. I have always, since I was very young, sensed the presence of God in a church service or a time of prayer. many of my life experiences incorporate direct answers to prayer that though they likely are not events you would find convincing due to your own belief all such events are not evidence of a God or Gods, are nevertheless very powerful testimony of God's presence and love for me and others.

I would put it down to social conditioning. If you had been born in Pakistan no doubt you would be a devotee of Allah. If you were born and bred in a highly secular environment, as I was, then you would probably be irreligious. Although, of course, 'conversions' do happen...either way.

Those events are not any less real than any other events in a person's life just because you could find a way to force fit them into your own realm of belief where there is no God or gods.

I'm sure they feel that way. But they also have the characteristics of a fixed delusion.

And I would not be better off to deny them. In fact, to deny them, I would have to first stop believing in God, and even then some of them would make no sense at all in a godless universe and would always stand before me as a challenge to such a decision to abandon belief in god.

AFAIK there’s no substantive evidence for the existence of the supernatural and therefor nothing in which to believe..

Consider if you were one who came to the empty tomb and witnessed the angels speaking to you. That later you saw Christ raised and reached out and felt the holes from the nails. And that you later saw Him ascend to heaven with 120 others. Could you then choose not to believe?

Your assumption is that the gospels are historically reliable, which most historians don’t consider to be the case when it come to their miraculous elements.

I could not, and so I can not, such are my experiences in life with God.

You’re entitled to believe in whatever divinity you want to.

Actually - there is.

Your 4 year old daughter comes to you and tells you your neighbor touched her private parts when he was babysitting her.

You have no way to verify that story. You have no way to substantiate it. But you will believe it.

There are potentially ways to verify stories in the material world in the event of such an occurrence.

[Tassman]

uh no. you just kept saying "the blue fairy" - feel free to show me wrong.

But I don't care if it was the blue fairy from Pinocchio. If the wicked witch from Oz appeared to me and did verifiable magic then she would be real. duh. You would need to find an explanation of how she ended up in the fictional story, not claim she is still fictional if there is verifiable evidence she is real.

The more productive approach would be to question the veracity of the verification process. Just as one does when it comes to the alleged miracles of a deity.

[Sparko]

The more productive approach would be to question the veracity of the verification process. Just as one does when it comes to the alleged miracles of a deity.

wow so now you won't even accept verification of anything you don't already believe in. There goes the scientific method!

[oxmixmudd]

The more productive approach would be to question the veracity of the verification process. Just as one does when it comes to the alleged miracles of a deity.

'blind faith' in 'there is no supernatural" is still 'blind faith' Tassman. You are engaging in the irrational assumption that your perception of 'the way it is' is necessarily 'the way it is'. This is no different than how Jorge thinks. It is just blind allegiance to an idea that does not actually care what the facts are. IF you are actually an objective person engaging in the process of rational discovery, then you must leave open the possibility that things you believe are not in fact are.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

There are potentially ways to verify stories in the material world in the event of such an occurrence.

Evasion. You would believe her whether you could verify it or not. And that was my point.


Jim

[Tassman]

wow so now you won't even accept verification of anything you don't already believe in. There goes the scientific method!

Wow, you’re so committed to the notion of miracles that you need to find ways to prove fictional figures like a miracle-working Blue Fairy actually exist to perform them. The scenario that the “miracles” may have a more likely explanation seems not to have occurred to you.

[Jedidiah]

Wow, you’re so committed to the notion of miracles that you need to find ways to prove fictional figures like a miracle-working Blue Fairy actually exist to perform them. The scenario that the “miracles” may have a more likely explanation seems not to have occurred to you.

Wasn't it you, in another thread or earlier in this one, who made some comment about hypotheticals?

[Tassman]

'blind faith' in 'there is no supernatural" is still 'blind faith' Tassman. You are engaging in the irrational assumption that your perception of 'the way it is' is necessarily 'the way it is'. This is no different than how Jorge thinks. It is just blind allegiance to an idea that does not actually care what the facts are. IF you are actually an objective person engaging in the process of rational discovery, then you must leave open the possibility that things you believe are not in fact are.

No it’s not. This has nothing to do with “blind faith”. You are claiming the existence of the supernatural and the one who makes the positive claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. It is you claiming that the supernatural exists, not I hence the burden of proof rests with you.

Evasion. You would believe her whether you could verify it or not. And that was my point.

Yes I would believe her but it's a false equivalence. Child molestation sadly occurs in our world. But I wouldn't believe her if she said it was done by an evil spirit, I would seek the bad man who did the deed and bring him to justice.

[Sparko]

Wow, you’re so committed to the notion of miracles that you need to find ways to prove fictional figures like a miracle-working Blue Fairy actually exist to perform them. The scenario that the “miracles” may have a more likely explanation seems not to have occurred to you.

Tassman, I just said that I would accept actual verifiable evidence for any claim. You just said you would not, no matter what.

Conclusion: you are close-minded and live on blind faith and reject the scientific method. You are a fundy.

[Sparko]

No it’s not. This has nothing to do with “blind faith”. You are claiming the existence of the supernatural and the one who makes the positive claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. It is you claiming that the supernatural exists, not I hence the burden of proof rests with you.

except you have said numerous times that you would reject any proof. That was his point. You blindly believe that any such proof must be wrong because you blindly believe your conclusion that there cannot be anything supernatural.


I find it fascinating that you admit you won't accept any evidence that goes against your beliefs yet you keep demanding evidence that you would not accept anyway. You are just like Jorge.

[oxmixmudd]

No it’s not. This has nothing to do with “blind faith”. You are claiming the existence of the supernatural and the one who makes the positive claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. It is you claiming that the supernatural exists, not I hence the burden of proof rests with you.

Tassman - your position on the supernatural not existing is a position of belief that you have over and over in this thread refused to admit could be influenced by any evidence. In each and every cases where you have been offered the chance to admit that some observation could convince you, you have chosen instead to say that you would not accept that evidence but instead would assume there was some other explanation. That is 'faith'. It is not faith in a God, but it is exactly what faith is described as being the Scriptures themselves:

"The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen".

'No supernatural' is your hope. 'No supernatural' is what you have determined believe to be true against any evidence, and as you have demonstrated in this thread, against all possible proof.


Perhaps your mistake is to have defined faith to mean ONLY belief in the supernatural. But faith is broader than that. It is the belief in that which you hope is true.

Yes I would believe her but it's a false equivalence. Child molestation sadly occurs in our world. But I wouldn't believe her if she said it was done by an evil spirit, I would seek the bad man who did the deed and bring him to justice.

That is irrelevant*. You would believe her because you have faith she would not lie about something like that. You would not believe she could make something like that up being as young as she is - even though theoretically it could be possible. And you would believe her because to not believe her would be to violate everthing a father should be. These are not things one can prove, but they are things one would tend to in almost all cases believe.

Tassman - part of the problem here is that you do not understand what faith is.


Jim

*But it does present an interesting question. Tassman, I bet if she could describe what happened clearly and could describe what no 4 year old could know on her own, you would at least be shaken, at least challenged. The reality is most would believe her but look first for a source of confusion thatwould cause her to describe it as a 'Spirit'. But exhausting all other possibilities? Most would at least wonder if their denial of such things could be wrong. I think you are not a very honest man on these issues Tassman, holding up a false front and not admitting you are human. Such a thing would shake most people to their core and at least cause them to wonder if there was not some truth to it. Perhaps you are this cold a person that could or would 'not believe her'. But I would guess it's more likely to be internet bravado.