Ouija board etc

Dades

There is a simple reason why some religious people claim that the question of God's existence is subject to different rules of evidence - because there is no evidence.

But just because your contention requires a special dispensation from the rules in order to not fall at the first hurdle - doesn't mean it gets it. The rules apply to every other facet of life so you need to show (1) why your contention is outside of these rules, and (2) why you even believe another set of rules exist.

And I don't think you'll be able to answer either without reverting back to my first point.

Lastly, circular logic such as: "God exists without scientific evidence therefore other rules of evidence much exist..." make Baby Jesus cry.

Northclare

As you said before Dades, Science doesn't have all the answers and probably never will...

Sarky

That's no excuse for discounting everything science HAS answered.

oldrnwisr

Northclare wrote: »

As you said before Dades, Science doesn't have all the answers and probably never will...

As Dara O'Briain once said:

"Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop. Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean that you can fill the gap with whatever passing fairytale most appeals to you."


Of course science doesn't have all the answers because there are questions we haven't even discovered yet. Our ongoing progress in understanding ourselves, the planet we live on and the universe we inhabit is never likely to cease which means that there will always be questions to answer. However, science has provided us with incalculable knowledge about such things already, far more so than religion, for example. As AronRa so succintly put it:

"Science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything."

Northclare

Sarky wrote: »

That's no excuse for discounting everything science HAS answered.

I never discounted every thing science HAS answered.

I never made any excuses for anything in this discussion.

Sarky is able to do my thinking for me now...

Sycopat

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Really? All you did was tell us in most general terms that subjective evidence is is not evidence of something because it's subjective, easily falsifiable & unverifiable (which you should really tell any doctor, psychologist, social scientist etc...) & then tell us that objective evidence would constitute evidence without a tap of specifics... Furthermore you haven't even bothered to tell us why, say, a lamp isn't evidence for the existence of god. Just because you're hilariously obvious biases don't apparently lead to you concluding that a lamp is evidence for a deity (nor do I have any way to conclude that about the lamp) it may very well be the only evidence that will ever exist & our own biases are responsible for us not seeing the light... Repeating slogans about objective, verifiable, is fine but can you go any further without giving an inherently flawed & biased example that somehow nullifies the very fact that the evidence could potentially be totally & utterly wrong despite being repeatedly verifiable to the furthest extent of human cognition & further somehow accounts for the fact that there's no reason why a deity could not make contradictory evidence be evidence for it's existence.

A lamp isn’t evidence for the existence of god because every lamp I’m aware of has been created by humans. They can exist without a god. Humans are not evidence for the existence of god, observation tells us they have been created by a mixture of chemistry and random permutation out of elements formed from stars. They can exist without a god. Stars are not evidence of god, observation tells us they are vast balls of simple elements fusing under their own massive weight.

Correct the record because the very first thing I asked was:

"what kind of evidence could there possibly be?"

If you're going to argue that asking what "kind" of evidence is



& not asking for a definition then frankly I see this as going nowhere.

The first question you asked which I addressed, and which I have consistently referred to as 'your first question' since, was ‘what constitutes evidence?’.

Even playing this rhetoric game, if you could give a definition of the particular kind of evidence that wouldn't leave open the mindfcuk possibilities that this conversation creates then it would be an immediate consequence of the definition to be able to give an example - if you can't even come up with an example you have an inherently flawed definition of what constitutes evidence. If you could give me an example of evidence then we'd be able to derive a good definition quick enough. Quite frankly either way would be enough but thus far you're only attempt - objective or scientific evidence can't be taken seriously, it would not show the existence of a god who has allowed contradictory evidence to be evidence for it's existence, so if that is really the only true deity then you're form of evidence would mean we would be forever without the means to deduce the evidence necessary to know our creator

I could come up with speculative, fictional and imaginary examples of acceptable evidence easily. That’s why I asserted that a deity could easily prove it’s own existence if it so wished. Example: The deity could manifest an avatar capable of performing miracles at whim. A talking lamp with the ability to redefine reality around it would be fine.

Your claims implicitly assume the concepts of logic & rationality even apply - a constraint I think you're having a hard time shaking yourself of - when there's absolutely no need for this to be the case.

I don't have a hard time accepting the concept of an argument devoid of logic or rationality, I encounter them all the time. I have a hard time accepting such arguments though, because they are nonsense.

This is very simple, someone makes the claim that belief in a deity is inherently irrational because there is no evidence for it, I ask them what kind of evidence could there possibly be & then you tell me I'm shifting the burden of proof? Someone else has formed a crystalline opinion based on their conclusion of the lack of evidence & when I ask them how they got to that conclusion suddenly I'm shifting the burden of proof?

People are going to tell you you're shifting the burden of proof, because asking for anything other than imaginary, non-currently existing examples is shifting the burden of proof. And imaginary non-currently existing things are not evidence.

The thing you said necessity doesn't mean is synonymous with what you said it does mean if you actually read it in the context it was posted, namely the context where necessity obviously means you necessarily follow where you're led in order to be rational. I can't see how to interpret that any other way & have it make sense in light of the conversation...

The thing you said necessity doesn't mean is synonymous with.

What does this actually mean?

Again, to repeat the question again, what in the universe could possibly consist of evidence? How can you justifiably tell us that the lack of evidence is reason enough to call the out-group irrational when you're own definition of scientific, objective evidence is so ridiculously flawed, so insanely biased as to what a deity should be like that it's laughable?

They are irrational because they make an assumption without any evidence to support the assumption. That is poor reasoning. That is, by definition, irrational. You don't assume no gods exist because there is no evidence. Because there is no evidence you cannot rationally assume gods exist.

Why do you just assume, without a morsel of a tap of justification as to why, rationality or logic applies to a deity? Can you really not comprehend how major an assumption that is to make, let alone how bereft of serious justification it could possibly be?

Unlike you I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume a deity has to fit any preconceived mold [especially, though not exclusively, since this inherently assumes concepts such as rationality, logic etc... even apply (oh the unstated assumptions...) & the fact that you'd invoke such concepts really shows you weren't following what I'm saying]. I'm not interested in discussing a specific deity since knocking that one down (to use your words) just shifts the goalposts to the next possibility & on we go in this roundabout indefinitely all the while thinking concepts such as logic & rationality necessarily apply to the discussion, something I'm still waiting for a justification for...

I honestly don't know why you set this example up, it's blatantly obvious that this would be possible for the extremely anthropomorphic deity you've created but for some unjustified reason you
a) think rationality even applies,
b) think a deity would care whether people believe in it,
c) still fail to even begin to justify your use of the word irrational.
I don't know why you'd cite an example of an anthropomorphic deity as some kind of rebuttal to someone arguing that the very concepts of logic & rationality themselves have no justifiable reason for even applying to the concept of a deity...

I have consistently tried to point out that evidence applies to rationality and rationality applies to human thought, not the existence of a deity. You have consistently ignored that point and instead lambasted and derided my reasoning for trying too hard to be reasonable.

One more time: A deity doesn't have to be logical or rational. The people arguing for it's existence do.

What did I say?

"In fact, why should evidence even apply to a deity?"

If you seriously & honestly took this question as me saying that a lack of evidence for a deity would mean the deity doesn't exist then yes what I've said appears meaningless, however you'd really have to wonder how I'd have the mental capabilities to get on the internet if I said something like that with a straight face.

I’m not sure what this even means. I do however wonder if your making your arguments with a straight face.

[/b]My entire argument is that the very concepts of logic & rationality have no justifiable reason for even applying to this discussion.[/b]

Logic and rationality apply to Discussion. Not ‘this’ discussion, not ‘a’ discussion.
Discussion.

Thank you for repeating what I've already said, are you sure you're arguing with the right person here? The people (including yourself) here arguing that it is inherently irrational to pick the out-group side over the in-group side in this debate. Using your own words it implies you all have some form of consistent reasoning you're using. Could you please be the first person in the history of humanity to consistently argue for why choosing one side over the other is done so out of consistent reasoning & not as part of an inherently unjustifiable faith-based choice, especially using scientific evidence as justification for such elitism.

I have demonstrated the consistency of my reasoning, you have just ignored it. I also didn't repeat what you had claimed. You claimed if the rational necessity for not believing in a deity was widely accepted it would have historically permeated human thought sometime in our past.

I claimed if there had been evidence of a deity this discussion would not be possible. And we are a young species. The corollary is there are still a lot of people who consider subjective, biased books written thousands of years ago by people whose education was little more comprehensive than a primary school infant's and whose imaginations were about as vivid, to be 'good enough'. As a result of that, the rational necessity for not believing in god hasn't been around long enough (without being suppressed) to have permeated human thought. Yet.

If it's still not clear, I was disagreeing with you.

Dades

Northclare wrote: »

As you said before Dades, Science doesn't have all the answers and probably never will...

I really don't know what this soundbyte has to do with my post.

Science doesn't have all the answers in the same way painting doesn't have all the pictures.

sponsoredwalk

Sycopat wrote: »

A lamp isn’t evidence for the existence of god because every lamp I’m aware of has been created by humans.

Spot the insanely obvious unjustifiable assumptions... Why in the world can a lamp made by humans not be evidence for a deity? I can't put up with you just stating things matter-of-factly as if they're unquestionable obvious when I've continually tried to point out how such things are in no way obvious. You're not listening to me at all if you're going to say something like this so brazenly, it's not worth my time...

Sycopat wrote: »

They can exist without a god. Humans are not evidence for the existence of god,

Spot the unjustifiable assumptions...

Sycopat wrote: »

observation tells us they have been created by a mixture of chemistry and random permutation out of elements formed from stars.

Spot the unjustifiable assumptions...

Sycopat wrote: »

They can exist without a god.

Said as if this had any relevance to what I'm saying...

Sycopat wrote: »

Stars are not evidence of god, observation tells us they are vast balls of simple elements fusing under their own massive weight.

Spot the unjustifiable assumptions...

Sycopat wrote: »

The first question you asked which I addressed, and which I have consistently referred to as 'your first question' since, was ‘what constitutes evidence?’.

You said:

"For the record though, you didn't ask for a definition of acceptable evidence, you asked what would constitute such evidence."


I correct you by telling you the very first thing I asked was

"what kind of evidence could there possibly be?"

which if you go back to my second post you'll see this is the very first thing I asked (I asked a rhetorical question first if you want to be pedantic but that actually wasn't a question, though for some reason I expect to be shown to be contradicting myself because of this irrelevant triviality for some reason...). Notice that at no point of this are we referring to the "first question" you asked me, & further I was unaware that you asking me questions somehow meant everything suddenly referred to you even if it makes absolutely no sense interpreting things that way.

Sycopat wrote: »

I could come up with speculative, fictional and imaginary examples of acceptable evidence easily. That’s why I asserted that a deity could easily prove it’s own existence if it so wished. Example: The deity could manifest an avatar capable of performing miracles at whim. A talking lamp with the ability to redefine reality around it would be fine.

But they are examples of specific gods, they don't provide evidence for any of the gods I've mentioned repeatedly & wont repeat again. Why not take one of the hard examples I mentioned at the start of my last post to you that you've ignored, or the earlier ones thus far ignored?

Sycopat wrote: »

I don't have a hard time accepting the concept of an argument devoid of logic or rationality, I encounter them all the time. I have a hard time accepting such arguments though, because they are nonsense.

Yes this has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying...

Sycopat wrote: »

People are going to tell you you're shifting the burden of proof, because asking for anything other than imaginary, non-currently existing examples is shifting the burden of proof. And imaginary non-currently existing things are not evidence.

Notice how not once have you even bothered to mention what burden of proof was on me, as if it's just obvious what the burden of proof on me is.
But still, what you've said in no way characterizes what I asked, & the rest of what you said is too much of a strawman to even bother...

Sycopat wrote: »

The thing you said necessity doesn't mean is synonymous with.

What does this actually mean?

It means that what I said is exactly the same thing you said if you were paying attention to the conversation & following the context in which I quoted what I quoted. Further I told you how I don't see how you could interpret what I said in any other way than the way in which I meant it so I'd say you're not even reading what I'm saying if you're just repeating what I'm saying as if it's some sort of rebuttal to me, i.e. you make the argument to me that I just made against you as if you were somehow rebutting what I was saying even though I'd just said what you said.

Sycopat wrote: »

They are irrational because they make an assumption without any *evidence* to support the assumption. *That is poor reasoning*. That is, *by definition*, irrational. You don't assume no gods exist because there is no evidence. *Because there is no evidence* you cannot rationally assume gods exist.

Spot the unjustifiable assumptions...

Sycopat wrote: »

I have consistently tried to point out that evidence applies to rationality and rationality applies to human thought, not the existence of a deity. You have consistently ignored that point and instead lambasted and derided my reasoning for trying too hard to be reasonable.

I would only be repeating myself quoting unaddressed sentences if I responded to this...

Sycopat wrote: »

One more time: A deity doesn't have to be logical or rational. The people arguing for it's existence do.

Spot the unjustifiable assumptions...

Sycopat wrote: »

I’m not sure what this even means. I do however wonder if your making your arguments with a straight face.

Okay.

Sycopat wrote: »

Logic and rationality apply to Discussion. Not ‘this’ discussion, not ‘a’ discussion.
Discussion.

Oh god, you know what I meant, this is a perfect example of this debasing into grammar/save-face games, you win...

Sycopat wrote: »

I have demonstrated the consistency of my reasoning, you have just ignored it.

So every time above I've mentioned "Spot the unjustifiable assumptions..." you seriously think you've demonstrated even a morsel of reasoning? Let alone the consistency of it? I can't waste my time dealing with this, I'm sorry...

Sycopat wrote: »

I also didn't repeat what you had claimed. You claimed if the rational necessity for not believing in a deity was widely accepted it would have historically permeated human thought sometime in our past.

I claimed if there had been evidence of a deity this discussion would not be possible. And we are a young species. The corollary is there are still a lot of people who consider subjective, biased books written thousands of years ago by people whose education was little more comprehensive than a primary school infant's and whose imaginations were about as vivid, to be 'good enough'. As a result of that, the rational necessity for not believing in god hasn't been around long enough (without being suppressed) to have permeated human thought. Yet.

If it's still not clear, I was disagreeing with you.

noddyone2

Northclare wrote: »

Have any Atheists tried the Ouija Board does that kind of game or being on your own in isolated so called haunted locations or hearing ghost stories and watching satanic movies etc freak any of you out ?

Ouija is French (oui - yes) and German (ja - yes). Enough said.

Northclare

Dades wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

As you said before Dades, Science doesn't have all the answers and probably never will...

I really don't know what this soundbyte has to do with my post.

Science doesn't have all the answers in the same way painting doesn't have all the pictures.

I re read your post I get it now....

kylith

I used a ouija board once in primary school, and got well freaked out because, out of nowhere, someone called my name. Thinking back though, the fact that my house was around the corner from the school and I was late home because I was mucking about with a ouija board, hearing someone call me probably wasn't that paranormal.

Some years later my cousin tried to convince me that they were 'totally real' because she'd used one and the glass had moved by itself and 'everyone swore they didn't move it'. I remember thinking that she was obviously an idiot, being a rather cynical youth.

I played with the Ouija board about eight years ago when I was fifteen or so. Over the course of about two weeks, myself and two friends went to various abandoned, eerie places, during the height of winter, with a home made board: we went to an abandoned convent, to a five hundred year old ruin of an abbey, at midnight, with thick fog all around, and to a supposedly haunted house. Over the two weeks we must have gone almost every evening, so we'd plenty of time with the board.

Nothing happened the first time we tried. The glass (a small shot glass) wouldn't move however much we willed it, so we gave up. But, on the second night, and all nights following that, something strange happened. The glass began to move, and with some speed. It could traverse the two foot wide board in a little over a second. We met an individual named Roberta, who told us she'd died in a well known fire at our local castle a few hundred years ago. She worked in the castle gardens, apparently. We got to know her better and better: she was funny, quite knowledgeable, witty, and, for the first week or so of encounters, pleasent to talk to.

After we'd gotten to know her fairly well, after about five or six "sessions", she began to become more and more sinister. For example, I once asked what was the name of the woman I'd marry. She gave her own name. She told me she'd make sure we'd meet in the not-so-distant future. If asked if she was joking she'd often reply "yes", then immediately go to "no", back to "yes", then to "no", repeating this movement indefinitely--until we removed our fingers from the glass. Another time she spelt death, repeating the word over and over: d-e-a-t-h-d-e-a-t-h, etc. We told her to feck off, and she did. She wouldn't return that night, or the next. We were left with a "broken" board (she returned two nights from then, though, even more sinister than when she left).

I've always been very sceptical. I didn't believe in the Ouija board before I played, and don't believe in it now. But, when you're a fifteen year old, in a dark, eerie abbey, with thick fog all around on a still winter's night, you tend to lose your ability to think rationally. All cracks and bangs and noises become portents of an evil spirit's incoming wrath, even if you don't believe in such a thing.

While playing with the board over those two weeks I did my best to suppress any emotional response which might cloud my ability to reason about what it is that's actually occuring. I devised some simple tests to test what kind of abilities Roberta had. For example, if the three of us were touching the glass, and one of us thought of a 6 or 10 or 20 digit number, Roberta could give us that number without any hassle. But, if somebody thought of a number who wasn't touching the glass, the test failed. Likewise, I was the only person who knew about the history of our local castle, so when we questioned her while I was touching the glass it appeared as if she was giving us facts. When I removed my hand and asked similar questions, she just spoke nonsense.

I have to say it was absolutely fascinating. At the time I knew nothing of the ideomotor effect. I remember spending hours postulating how our subconscious or unconscious thoughts could control our actions without our conscious knowledge, and how the collective subconsious of the group playing could delegate movement, so that in some instances my subconsious had control (when it was a question I knew the answer to), or another subconsious took control, when that individual had the answer to a question, and mine became subservient to it for the duration of that answer. I loved how, as time passed, the "spirit" became more and more deviant and sinister and foreboding, and how this related to our own minds: our own minds were trying to scare us. Our subconscious or unconscious mind(s) became adament it would spook our conscious minds, sometimes in quite a horrible way.

I'd highly recommend that everybody try it. There are no ghosts or spirits or anything of the sort. You won't be haunted or harmed. But, what you will gain, is an insight into the workings of both your own inner mind, and the collective inner mind of the group you're playing with. When you see your own unconsious mind out to get you you'll gain a new respect for it.

Sycopat

I'm sorry sponsored walk, I must have imagined you asking what constitutes evidence for the existence of a deity.

Oh wait:

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

What constitutes evidence for the existence of a deity?

Let me guess, you meant that rhetorically, after all I'd have to think you're an idiot to think you were asking the questions you actually wrote and not the obvious super-derp and cool question you want me to assume you asked.

You ever considered maybe I just don't think you're very bright?

Also, how are my assumptions unjustifiable? Thats a strong claim and as most of the ones you've disagreed with are based on scientific observation of the universe around us by minds much greater than mine, you're going to have to do a bit more work than just dismissing them out of hand every time I make a point just because you don't like it.

Also:

So every time above I've mentioned "Spot the unjustifiable assumptions..." you seriously think you've demonstrated even a morsel of reasoning?

Yes, I do. And other than to accuse me of the contrary, you have never demonstrated or given an argument as to why you disagree. You've just claimed it's obvious.

Also also: You mentioned one god at the beginning of the post you refer to. A god which gave contradictory evidence. That seems to be about as close as you've come to defining a deity. If a deity provided contradictory evidence, it would be rational to either believe in it's existence or not believe in it's existence because there would be evidence supporting both. However, whether you believed or not, you'd pretty much have to admit such a god would be a bit of an asshole for being such a deliberate prick about it.

Turtwig

Topics like this scare because I really badly want to reply yet I'm not happy with any reply I draft.

Sycopat wrote: »

You ever considered maybe I just don't think you're very bright?

Also, how are my assumptions unjustifiable? Thats a strong claim and as most of the ones you've disagreed with are based on scientific observation of the universe around us by minds much greater than mine, you're going to have to do a bit more work than just dismissing them out of hand every time I make a point just because you don't like it.

I genuinely lolled at this. I've no doubt that in a few years time, if he doesn't become one, Sponsored will at least understand the observations and theories of those great minds. Minds, you admitted are greater than yours. So, uh yeah, actually, he is very bright.

Northclare

Some of ye are obsessed with Deities,can ye not stick to the OP with out bringing deities in no

robindch

Sycopat wrote: »

[...] I'd have to think you're an idiot [...] obvious super-derp [...] maybe I just don't think you're very bright?

Sycopat - a bit less of the ad-hominem ranting, please.

Dades

Northclare wrote: »

Some of ye are obsessed with Deities,can ye not stick to the OP with out bringing deities in no

The problem arose here.

The Ouija board thing was petering out, and then someone was wrong on the Internet.

Sycopat

robindch wrote: »

Sycopat - a bit less of the ad-hominem ranting, please.

Sure thing, I was merely attempting to parody an earlier passage by sponsoredwalk. Specifically:

you'd really have to wonder how I'd have the mental capabilities to get on the internet if I said something like that with a straight face. I mean really, what kind of person would make that argument? Putting aside the fact you'd think I'd make such a ridiculous argument, if you were following anything I was saying you'd see that this was the very last thing I could be saying... My entire argument is that the very concepts of logic & rationality have no justifiable reason for even applying to this discussion

If any offence was caused I apologise, and I will refrain from such in future.:)

Edit to avoid double posting:

Northclare wrote: »

Some of ye are obsessed with Deities,can ye not stick to the OP with out bringing deities in no

On topic, I never tried a Ouija board, but I love horror films and games. I never found the idea of a ouija board scary. Other things have freaked me out since, and I enjoy the emotional response of fear.

I've recently been reading through some of the stuff at http://www.scp-wiki.net/

Some of that is quality.

robindch

Sycopat wrote: »

If any offence was caused I apologise, and I will refrain from such in future.:)

No worries -- pray, continue!

Sycopat

Jernal wrote: »

Minds, you admitted are greater than yours

Eh, not like I have a choice. Apparently I can't explain why her/his ability to imagine hypotheticals does not give him/her license to reject logic and reason, nor that while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the absence of evidence does prevent rationally assuming the presence of something.:(

And when you don't assume the presence of a deity you are an atheist. (Given the forum I think this last statement is superfluous, but the thought feels incomplete without it.)