Not a very scientific response, Bradski.
Really? What were those causes?
Well, yes. It does suggest the supernatural. At a moment like that, it’s nice to think of it as dear ol’ grandad ‘being there’ at that special moment. There’s no need to deconstruct the whole thing into transistors and humidity levels and temperature curves and spoil the moment as it were. But no-one in their right mind (well, actually, quite a lot of people) would actually think that it WAS gramps reaching out from the grave at this special moment.
Only someone with a very closed mind wouldn’t think that, Bradski.
REally? So why was his skepticism shaken?
Annnnnd that, my friend, is the most telling statement about atheism that’s ever been made here.
Just did.
When I say that I don’t believe in God, what I am saying is that there has been no credible evidence put forward that I find acceptable. I assume that that is what Shermer means when he says, as I’m sure he does: ‘I don’t believe in the supernatural’.
Sure.
That’s what I always thought you meant…
And rejecting the supernatural is your default position.
I told you that I did.
No, that’s not correct. Lacking any evidence that any given supernatural event has taken place, I will not spend a great deal of my time investigating it so my default position would be that it did not take place. Any evidence put forward will be treated on its merit. You are not any different. Your default position on fairies, hobgoblins, trolls, unicorns, dragons etc is exactly the same.
Ah, yes. Good old Trent. I hope he’s not being held up as an example of cutting edge Christian thinking. I read his Answering Atheism and let’s just say I wasn’t impressed. In the least.
If you say, “I will go wherever truth leads, except if it leads to the supernatural”, then you are closed minded.
I am heartened to see that you recognize the circular argument that the atheist caller presented.
Fair enough.
This is exactly right.
Again, also exactly right.
It’s simply a statistical observation.
Careful, Bradski.
You are mistaken. It is not outright rejection, it is the null-hypothesis, which can be falsified, IF and ONLY IF there is proper, convincing evidence that warrants it. And the skeptic does not present “special” demands. The demand is always the same. Present your evidence.
Do you live according to this principle? Let’s not use “miracles” as an example. Or the alleged power of “prayers”.
I’ve studied such things for many years and scientists are simply silent about the paranormal or the supernatural or anomalies As the story goes, careers could be ruined or virtual exile would occur if a scientist spent any time studying these events, After all, we all already know that superstition and chance play a role, so why bother?
Quite right. But I mean, for heaven’s sake, with over two thousand posts on the board you will not find one where I have even said that God doesn’t exist, let alone the supernatural.
If no evidence is presented, then yes. If someone says that a particular miracle occurred in the 18th century in a little village in Peru, then, after a lifetime of being personally convinced that every supernatural event that has been presented to me has not taken place , then this little Peruvian event will be dismissed unless credible evidence is produced. Which, in this case, would be all but impossible.
I beg to differ. In the first instance you have no reason at all to believe they exist and in the second, you have no interest in investigating. I would be literally astonished if I heard you were seriously investigating a neighbours claim that he had seen a unicorn in the woods. You would, as would all reasonable people, discount it out of hand.
Most emphatically they do not. If someone keeps investigating something which proves to have not happened, then eventually they decide that unless there is some exceptionally compelling evidence to the contrary, all further examples will be discounted. If you have reached the decision that alien abductions have not taken place because all the available evidence that you have investigated points to that fact, then you most definitely do not investigate all further examples ‘just in case’. It’s called induction. It’s the basis for the scientific method.
Incorrect. There I no evidence for the supernatural that I HAVE accepted. If someone comes up with evidence that I find personally credible, then I will accept it. I won’t, actually, have a choice other than to do so.
No, Shermer (and I) don’t believe it was grandad because there are rather simplistic explanations for a radio starting to play after being dead for any length of time. The fact that it happened at a particular moment is coincidence and nothing more. These things happen all the time. They must. It’s the law of large numbers. There is absolutely no credible evidence whatsoever that it was someone reaching out from the dead other than it being a coincidence.
If thousands of claims are investigated and found to be false, increasing the number of claims does not increase the likelihood of any one of them being true. Every paranormal or supernatural event that is shown to be false (or where one is personally convinced is false) is a nail in the coffin. Adding more claims does not remove any of the nails.
This is not an opinion I have formed from a five minute discussion he had with someone who can’t form a reasoned argument. I’ve read a lot of what he writes. Blogs, article, books. His arguments are trite (Elvis lives!) and his style condescending. He annoys me as much as I imaging Dawkins annoys a lot of Christians.
If one can remain an Atheist,
Yes there can. A message from Grandad.