quas wrote:

John Platko wrote:Ok. How about?

Only a fukwit would expect scientific evidence for a supernatural phenomenon which by definition precludes such evidence.

But as long as you are talking about evidence, then you are talking about an observable phenomenon and that's empirical data.

Yes. And we can count the number of eyes on the cow. We can observe supernatural phenomenon however we just can't expect to find scientific evidence to support it.

hackenslash wrote:

John Platko wrote:Ok. How about?

Only a fukwit would expect scientific evidence for a supernatural phenomenon which by definition precludes such evidence.

Who actually expects scientific evidence for supernatural phenomena? I certainly don't, not least because there's absolutely no good reason to suppose that any such entities exist. What I do expect is that, when somebody asserts the existence of something, they support it. If they can't do that other than by blathering on until everybody gets bored or by erecting yet more unevidencde blind assertions, then there's simply no case to answer, and any belief in said entities or phenomena is asinine.

But in the case in question the evidence does support their argument. Shiva has a third eye, the cow has a third eye. As they weigh the evidence, they see Shiva in the cow. Your mileage may vary.

Observable by whom? If they're observable, they're testable, thus not supernatural. Well done, you just killed your own idiotic position by failing to understand it.

In any event, supernaturalist assertions always have the same deep flaw, namely that they fail the test of the shaving implement of the late, lamented cleric of Surrey. There are many explanations far more parsimonious than ghosts to explain what observations have been asserted, namely delusion, hallucination, inculcation into fuckwitted belief systems, drugs and indeed all manner of idiocy, all of which constitute better explanations and, moreover, we have evidence in support of them.

The status of the supernatural is, in my working hypothesis, the empty set. This is an easily falsifiable hypothesis. Yours isn't. It's worthless and stupid.

hackenslash wrote:Observable by whom? If they're observable, they're testable, thus not supernatural. Well done, you just killed your own idiotic position by failing to understand it.

In any event, supernaturalist assertions always have the same deep flaw, namely that they fail the test of the shaving implement of the late, lamented cleric of Surrey. There are many explanations far more parsimonious than ghosts to explain what observations have been asserted, namely delusion, hallucination, inculcation into fuckwitted belief systems, drugs and indeed all manner of idiocy, all of which constitute better explanations and, moreover, we have evidence in support of them.

The status of the supernatural is, in my working hypothesis, the empty set. This is an easily falsifiable hypothesis. Yours isn't. It's worthless and stupid.

Well, that's one way to weigh the evidence. Obviously others, in this case, those that see Shiva in the cows third eye, weigh the evidence differently. However, how we weigh evidence should not be conflated with what is evidence.

hackenslash wrote:Observable by whom? If they're observable, they're testable, thus not supernatural.

Just because something is observable, doesn't mean they are testable. In order to carry out tests, you have to know what's causing those occurrences. Here you are probably dealing with entities whose motivations are not necessarily congruent with yours. You want that ghost to appear on camera, but the ghost is feeling shy today. Maybe tomorrow. Or maybe when you are not around.

There are many explanations far more parsimonious than ghosts to explain what observations have been asserted, namely delusion, hallucination, inculcation into fuckwitted belief systems, drugs and indeed all manner of idiocy, all of which constitute better explanations and, moreover, we have evidence in support of them.

What if none of those possible explanations apply? Because you know drugs are not involved, you know it's not hallucination, you know it's not delusion, because it happened to you when you are wide awake in the middle of the day.

"We can observe supernatural phenomenon ..."
I think you would need a definition of "observe" that falls between:
a) basic observation which is highly prone to human perception (which can be crap) and/or confirmation bias.
b) scientific observation which is testable a la Hack.

Can you come up with that?

Strange that ghosts never seem to appear to ANY skeptic. I've slept in several "haunted inns", where all manner of spooky goings on have supposedly occurred. Never saw a thing out of the ordinary. I've heard people say "well, you have to be sensitive to the entities in order to see them". Now, color me cynical, but what's the difference in "sensitive" and "gullible" or "deluded"? Only those people predisposed to see ghosts, spooks and goblins ever see ghosts, spooks and goblins. Therefore, as a skeptic, they do not exist in my reality, so I can safely ignore them and live my life as if they do not, in fact, exist. Funny, but that's exactly the same situation with god.

God, ghosts, demons, leprechauns, unicorns, silkies, werewolves, vampires, goblins, orcs, hobbits, elves, fairies, banshees, homeopathy, reiki, acupuncture, chemtrails, Bigfoot, Nessie, yeti, alien abductions, past life experiences, telekinesis, telepathy, spoon bending - what do all these have in common? They are never seen or experienced or occur to skeptics. Ever. Conclusion? They do not exist in reality.

laklak wrote:Strange that ghosts never seem to appear to ANY skeptic. I've slept in several "haunted inns", where all manner of spooky goings on have supposedly occurred. Never saw a thing out of the ordinary. I've heard people say "well, you have to be sensitive to the entities in order to see them". Now, color me cynical, but what's the difference in "sensitive" and "gullible" or "deluded"? Only those people predisposed to see ghosts, spooks and goblins ever see ghosts, spooks and goblins. Therefore, as a skeptic, they do not exist in my reality, so I can safely ignore them and live my life as if they do not, in fact, exist. Funny, but that's exactly the same situation with god.

God, ghosts, demons, leprechauns, unicorns, silkies, werewolves, vampires, goblins, orcs, hobbits, elves, fairies, banshees, homeopathy, reiki, acupuncture, chemtrails, Bigfoot, Nessie, yeti, alien abductions, past life experiences, telekinesis, telepathy, spoon bending - what do all these have in common? They are never seen or experienced or occur to skeptics. Ever. Conclusion? They do not exist in reality.

Phew! Glad to know pixies really do exist!

John Platko wrote:

quas wrote:

John Platko wrote:Ok. How about?

Only a fukwit would expect scientific evidence for a supernatural phenomenon which by definition precludes such evidence.

But as long as you are talking about evidence, then you are talking about an observable phenomenon and that's empirical data.

Yes. And we can count the number of eyes on the cow. We can observe supernatural phenomenon however we just can't expect to find scientific evidence to support it.

And you continue with ridiculous conclusions.

A phenomena is an observable occurrence. The observable occurrence may very well be an illusion, like the image Jesus in a tortilla. To deem it supernatural you have to show that it has a supernatural cause and not merely state that what you're observing appears to be similar to a story about supernatural entities. But, as I remember, hearsay is good enough for you, and you continue an intentional error to deem it evidence so you can satisfy that part in your brain that wants to keep hiding from the fact that your supernatural beliefs are nothing more than wishful thinking.

quas wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

John Platko wrote:Ok. How about?

Only a fukwit would expect scientific evidence for a supernatural phenomenon which by definition precludes such evidence.

Who actually expects scientific evidence for supernatural phenomena? I certainly don't, not least because there's absolutely no good reason to suppose that any such entities exist. What I do expect is that, when somebody asserts the existence of something, they support it.

Supernatural occurences are never supported by mere reason alone. It's always observable. Someone saw an apparition or heard weird noises. No one who believed that those things exists do so by mere reasoning. Supernatural phenomenons are talked about because of their observable interactions with the natural world.

...oh, you were serious.

quas wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Observable by whom? If they're observable, they're testable, thus not supernatural.

Just because something is observable, doesn't mean they are testable. In order to carry out tests, you have to know what's causing those occurrences. Here you are probably dealing with entities whose motivations are not necessarily congruent with yours. You want that ghost to appear on camera, but the ghost is feeling shy today. Maybe tomorrow. Or maybe when you are not around.

There are many explanations far more parsimonious than ghosts to explain what observations have been asserted, namely delusion, hallucination, inculcation into fuckwitted belief systems, drugs and indeed all manner of idiocy, all of which constitute better explanations and, moreover, we have evidence in support of them.

What if none of those possible explanations apply? Because you know drugs are not involved, you know it's not hallucination, you know it's not delusion, because it happened to you when you are wide awake in the middle of the day.

Oh god, well in that case the obvious answer is that it's the spirit of a dead person, clearly. Just admitting you don't know what it was is definitely right out, it's far more honest to just rush to some pre-formed cultural more as an explanation. Honestly quas, the whole thing about a delusion is that you don't know it as such, and there is nothing to stop it happening in the middle of the day when you're a wake.

Seriously, just what kinds of issues can a person have going on so that one is actually led to offer the explanation of 'the spirit of a dead person' when they see something they can't readily explain? Are they honestly so fucking clueless that they don't understand they only come up with that because of the history of the culture they're living in? In some places there is no history of ghost sightings to speak of. How do you imagine 'it was a ghost' would fly there? Go on, have a guess.

ElDiablo wrote:

John Platko wrote:

quas wrote:

John Platko wrote:Ok. How about?

Only a fukwit would expect scientific evidence for a supernatural phenomenon which by definition precludes such evidence.

But as long as you are talking about evidence, then you are talking about an observable phenomenon and that's empirical data.

Yes. And we can count the number of eyes on the cow. We can observe supernatural phenomenon however we just can't expect to find scientific evidence to support it.

And you continue with ridiculous conclusions.

A phenomena is an observable occurrence. The observable occurrence may very well be an illusion, like the image Jesus in a tortilla. To deem it supernatural you have to show that it has a supernatural cause

And exactly how do you expect one to go about showing that an observeable occurance has a supernatural cause?

and not merely state that what you're observing appears to be similar to a story about supernatural entities. But, as I remember, hearsay is good enough for you, and you continue an intentional error to deem it evidence so you can satisfy that part in your brain that wants to keep hiding from the fact that your supernatural beliefs are nothing more than wishful thinking.

And please don't misrepresent my statements. Like Hackenslash, I hypothesize that the set of all that is supernatural is empty.

John Platko wrote:

hackenslash wrote:How is that evidence for reincarnation?

From:
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/cow-born-3-eye ... deo-609226

The logic is:

One villager, Sharmila, explains the logic behind worshipping the calf, "This calf is born with the third eye, so we believe Shiva, a god who has three eyes, has been born here."

So it seems to be, shiva is a God which has three eyes, so a cow with a third eye = holy cow.

I think we're dealing with evidence of metensomatosis here.

Or we are dealing with a hox gene for "An eye goes here" misfiring. What about all the five legged calves, pigs, and sheep who were they reincarnations of? What about two headed snakes, turtles, and other animals? Who where they reincarnations of? Genetic scientist have implanted active hox genes for a number of things in embryos at places where these things shouldn't grow, but they do.

Science is the great myth buster.

Oh, by the way religious evidence is not any kind of evidence.

John Platko wrote:

ElDiablo wrote:

John Platko wrote:

quas wrote:

But as long as you are talking about evidence, then you are talking about an observable phenomenon and that's empirical data.

Yes. And we can count the number of eyes on the cow. We can observe supernatural phenomenon however we just can't expect to find scientific evidence to support it.

And you continue with ridiculous conclusions.

A phenomena is an observable occurrence. The observable occurrence may very well be an illusion, like the image Jesus in a tortilla. To deem it supernatural you have to show that it has a supernatural cause

And exactly how do you expect one to go about showing that an observeable occurance has a supernatural cause?

The same way when someone claims that a monkey made out of oreo cookies performed brain surgery on an elephant using a magic banana.

And please don't misrepresent my statements. Like Hackenslash, I hypothesize that the set of all that is supernatural is empty.

Oh, that's your position now? No more dough balls as evidence of the supernatural?

Dough balls are the only thing mullet with bite on. You have to use a small hook and let it lie on the bottom for a bit. Often get catfish, though, which you have to throw back because salt water cat is not particularly tasty.

Fallible wrote:Oh god, well in that case the obvious answer is that it's the spirit of a dead person, clearly. Just admitting you don't know what it was is definitely right out, it's far more honest to just rush to some pre-formed cultural more as an explanation.

Never said it was the spirit of a dead person. There are many explanations for apparitions. Jinn, demon, doppelganger, genius loci, shapeshifter, familiar, etc. Some, or even all, of these are probably false explanations, or all of it are true. Who knows. Point is, unexplained events have been witnessed by reliable witnesses.

Honestly quas, the whole thing about a delusion is that you don't know it as such, and there is nothing to stop it happening in the middle of the day when you're a wake.

If you can't trust yourself, who are you going to trust?

quas wrote:

Fallible wrote:Oh god, well in that case the obvious answer is that it's the spirit of a dead person, clearly. Just admitting you don't know what it was is definitely right out, it's far more honest to just rush to some pre-formed cultural more as an explanation.

Never said it was the spirit of a dead person. There are many explanations for apparitions. Jinn, demon, doppelganger, genius loci, shapeshifter, familiar, etc.

No quas, those are not explanations. Those are make-believe entities which people whose need for an answer outweighs their need to make sure they're correct shove into the gap of ignorance. In any event, you are shifting the goalposts. Your comment was a direct response to one of hack's where he was very clearly talking about ghosts. The usual definition of a ghost is that it is the spirit of a dead person.

Some, or even all, of these are probably false explanations, or all of it are true. Who knows. Point is, unexplained events have been witnessed by reliable witnesses.

Yeah - you're taking an unexplained event and conflating it with the sighting of a ghost or other supernatural entity. An unexplained event is exactly that - unexplained - no matter how 'reliable' the witness. You fall into the same trap as the credulous by running straight for your cultural mores to shove into the gap caused by lack of knowledge.

Honestly quas, the whole thing about a delusion is that you don't know it as such, and there is nothing to stop it happening in the middle of the day when you're a wake.

If you can't trust yourself, who are you going to trust?

What kind of shitty response is that? You seem to think that delusions (and hallucinations) can't happen in the daytime. I pointed out that they can. Delusion is an actual thing. Hallucination is an actual thing. The distortion of reality by the mentally ill is an actual thing. Misapprehending what you've seen is an actual, incredibly common thing. Even when you're looking at perfectly real happenings like crimes and natural disasters, eye witness testimony is notoriously inaccurate and unreliable. But why do you need to 'trust' anyone at all? What the actual fuck is wrong with admitting you don't have a clue what happened and just walking away? Again, how do you think 'it was a ghost!' would fly in a culture with no history of ghost sightings?

John Platko wrote:Well, that's one way to weigh the evidence. Obviously others, in this case, those that see Shiva in the cows third eye, weigh the evidence differently. However, how we weigh evidence should not be conflated with what is evidence.

You're missing the point entirely. When we talk about what evidence is, it's implicit in the definition that it's evidence for something. Where a datum allows for multiple interpretations, it isn't evidence for any of them over any other. Where a perfectly parsimonious and well-established explanation for a datum exists, parsimony rules. Since we already have a well-established explanation for the third eye, positing additional entities is unparsimonious.

Other than that, all of this is dealt with quite nicely in Cali's excellent 'Creationists: Read This' thread, specifically the section on the 'interpretations canard'.

quas wrote:Just because something is observable, doesn't mean they are testable.

Yes it does.

In order to carry out tests, you have to know what's causing those occurrences.

What total fuckwitted bollocks. You carry out the tests to determine what's causing said occurrences, apart from anything else.

Here you are probably dealing with entities whose motivations are not necessarily congruent with yours.

Actually, here I'm dealing with entities that I have no good reason to suppose are in any way real, other than their manifestation in the minds of fuckwits.

You want that ghost to appear on camera, but the ghost is feeling shy today. Maybe tomorrow. Or maybe when you are not around.

Or doesn't exist, which is the more parsimonious explanation.

What if none of those possible explanations apply? Because you know drugs are not involved, you know it's not hallucination, you know it's not delusion, because it happened to you when you are wide awake in the middle of the day.

How do you rule out delusion or hallucination?

This is among the thickest posts I ever came across. 1/10; must try harder.

hackenslash wrote:What total fuckwitted bollocks. You carry out the tests to determine what's causing said occurrences, apart from anything else.

The tests will not yield anything if you're totally clueless. You must have some general idea of the probable causes. In order to carry out tests, you need to have the right test conditions set up. The proper test settings and the proper instruments to obtain and measure test results. Here, you are totally clueless.

Actually, here I'm dealing with entities that I have no good reason to suppose are in any way real, other than their manifestation in the minds of fuckwits.

How do you know that EVERY single case of unexplainable events must have been witnessed by fuckwits?

Or doesn't exist, which is the more parsimonious explanation.

And you determine that how?

How do you rule out delusion or hallucination?

Because you know you are not on drugs. You know that hallucinations only occur in very rare circumstances. Sleepiness, drugs, medication, unstable psychological condition (severe depression? mental illness? who knows?), brain trauma or injury, etc. If every single case of unexplainable events ever witnessed must have been hallucination or delusion, then you are probably hallucinating as you are reading this post now. Maybe you are asleep as you are reading this. It's some sort of sleepwalking thing going on. You think you are awake, but you are not. You can't trust yourself. Ever.

There's also been events that have been witnessed by more than one person. Must have been mass hallucinations, because we all know how commonly that occurs, which is to say all the time.