Onyx8 wrote:You know ray, this habit of yours of using these one-liner metaphors is extremely counter-productive to rational discourse, so what are you doing here? Why don't you drop the abstruse "I am wiser than you" crap, say what you mean so that all can understand it. Want to give that a try?

That's the joy of mystical tosh. It doesn't need to have any content and you can still pretend you are saying something.

If he ever bothers to make a positive statement with actual content I'll consider responding.

z8000783 wrote:

ray wrote:

One man's science can be another man's junk.

I don't quite follow this, do you have an example?

Why else do you think 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit was a failure ?

One some issues the scientists simply dont agree.

.

posting error

dyet-b wrote:

You are technically right that a tooth-ache is not necessarily evidence only for a hole.
But you are not disputing my point that hating to have evidence for something has nothing to do with what the evidence implies. So do you agree then that hating the evidence doesn't invalidate it?

Yes, I agree.

Proof is on the roof even if all Cellar Dwellers hate it.

So according to you, on one hand emotions ("really loving to see Him") are required to see the evidence,
and on the other hand critical inquiry without emotions is the way to gather the evidence?

So are emotions required, or not?

Emotions are not required for evidence to exist. They are required to see it.

Did you know prejuidced jury are dismissed by the Judge.

Ray: "Scientists who are not keen often fail to see, or evaluate correctly, the evidence right in front of them."

The same is valid for people who think they stand on roofs and are looking at stars...

Yes, you are right. Good point. Conflict of interest does make you see evidence that is not there.

I take that you cannot answer the simple question of what stars have to do with your deity.

Its about how you guys in the Cellor know only about some stars and not about others.

I assumed that your "bingo" means that you agree that you need to explain what ljhgiafvyfjtbgn is.
Or isn't that what your "bingo" should be interpreted?
What does is mean?

Bingo meant that you agreed that once you made it to the roof, I would set up the telescope for you.

You brought up your deity, and you haven't told us what it is and how to differentiate from anything else.

I have done both. Its been explained already. Please read previous replies.

Are you going to ever start giving any evidence that it exists at all?

Yes. Come on up.

Even in the meantime you can start sharing with us what should we be looking for.

Its a Big Star.

But you are not in the position to look at the Galaxy. You are in the Cellor. Sky is not visible from there.

You should be able to explain what ljhgiafvyfjtbgn looks like to you.

It looks Massive. Very Big. Very Bright.

You can do that now, no need to wait. Are you saying that your deity is visible with a telescope?

With the right scientific equipment, you can see anything. Even scientists admit that.

Ray: "When good cops want to see the evidence they dont blame bad cops for bad investigation. They just get up and look at it for themselves."

Have you done any investigation? What evidence did you find?

Yes, a thorough Scientific observation was carried out, and the Star was finally discovered.

UnderConstruction wrote:

ray wrote:

Its laid out in all its glory. But you just dont want to come to the table.

OK, I'm confused.

We all get confused sometimes.

Am I supposed to be climbing to the roof or coming to the table?

One thing is for sure, you will have to get out of the cellor. No exist. No sighting.

Should I perhaps come out of my shell while I am at it?

You can bring your "shell" along. Everybody is welcome is Stargazer's Table.

Would it help it I also reach for the stars?

You can go for whichever stars you see through your telescope.

Can you say anything in this thread without hiding behind pointless metaphors?

Such as what?

Do you think it is pointless getting out of the cellor? Oh boy, you must really like it there.

Here's the thing, you clearly do not understand the scientific method in the slightest.

You mean cellor science?

Science works best when the practitioner does not force themselves into a position of presupposition, whatever metaphor you wish to use to describe this. Furthermore, scientific results can be shared with people, regardless of their presuppositions. If you are saying we have to impose these presuppositions before we can see the results, you are not doing science.

I totally agree.

Which is why you guys in the cellor need to see the Star to believe it. You just have to point you telescope at it. Thats the scienctific method at its most basic.

So if you claim that any part of your argument is scientific, how about you behave as if it is?

Already done.

How about you present your findings?

What do you think is being done here?

Write them up.

All this text and you still see no writing?

Tell us your starting hypothesis and how it was tested.

The Cellor Argument is it. Its tested on the roof.

Explain the methods you used and the results you received.

Method involves climbing to the roof and pointing the telescope at the sky.
The result was discovery by me of the Grand Star by direct viewing.
And other members of the scientific team also confirmed the discovery.
The findings have been validated by peer review.

I think you know what that is. For those who dont, here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Explain your conclusions.

Astronomers have discovered the Largest Stars in the Universe. Research of its exact composition is still on going.

It is not necessary to "climb to the roof" to read your argument, much as you might try to convince us that we must do this to see it as valid.

Oh, thats new to me.

Do you assume you might be able to see the Star from the cellor?

No wonder you are not coming up.

.

Spearthrower wrote:

What 'choice' of scientific methods?

Please elucidate in your next post, not just add more obfuscation.

You can take the elevator, or the stairs. Both are scientific ways of climbing.

If you can think of other methods, then by all means use them.

.

Celler argument in a nutshell:

You'll only believe it when you are completely brainwashed to do so!

Ahhh, ain't that fascinating!

But guess what, I fell for that once. I was told, I had to try. So I did. I left with a worse opinion of religion than ever before.

Luis Dias wrote:

Celler argument in a nutshell:

You'll only believe it when you are completely brainwashed to do so!

Ahhh, ain't that fascinating!

It would be fascinating it that was indeed the Cellor Argument.

Its not.

god is in the celler? Never thought to look there.

ray wrote:

Luis Dias wrote:

Celler argument in a nutshell:

You'll only believe it when you are completely brainwashed to do so!

Ahhh, ain't that fascinating!

It would be fascinating it that was indeed the Cellor Argument.

Its not.

No it wouldn't be. It would be called indoctrination.

And yes, that is the Celler argument in a nutshell: you'll only believe it if you try it for months, who knows, years. If you really convince your brain that this path is valid. Only then you will "see it".

Problem is, this is indistinguishable from brainwashing. So even if you "see it", you can't really know if you are in fact seeing something true, or just the product of brainwashing.

If you convince yourself that the world around you has divine sparks, or something, then you'll be convinced that the world around you has divine sparks.

It is circular.

Alnilam wrote:god is in the celler? Never thought to look there.

God isn't, but I have a damn fine bottle or two of shiraz in there. And unlike ray's imaginary friend, these bottles are real.

Could god be in one of the bottles.

I know of a green fairy that is inside of one...

Alnilam wrote:Could god be in one of the bottles.

Perhaps. Drop over with a few friends and let's find out.

ray wrote:

Luis Dias wrote:

Celler argument in a nutshell:

You'll only believe it when you are completely brainwashed to do so!

Ahhh, ain't that fascinating!

It would be fascinating it that was indeed the Cellor Argument.

Its not.

It would be fascinating if your "Cellar argument" was not a teleological argument.
As it is, we're not really that fascinated.

Luis Dias wrote:I know of a green fairy that is inside of one...

Are you completely certain? In this case you should have a look at the first line of my sig

katja z wrote:

Luis Dias wrote:I know of a green fairy that is inside of one...

Are you completely certain? In this case you should have a look at the first line of my sig

Aren't we all mad anyway?

Luis Dias wrote:

katja z wrote:

Luis Dias wrote:I know of a green fairy that is inside of one...

Are you completely certain? In this case you should have a look at the first line of my sig

Aren't we all mad anyway?

Maybe, but some are even madder

I am going now.

I was given the red card.

islam/i-am-muslim-part-2-t2264-840.html#p62407

Take care. Bye.