What does atheism/skepticism have to offer?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Quoting partially again. Same old BS. Read the whole post; you tried to make assumptions that were totally without any reasonable basis and you know it.

I'm quoting partially because it's the key point you're making. The rest of your post is just a rehashing of this.

Here's an analogy (and, yes - it does include numbers): I'm saying it's reasonable to try to estimate the number of women in New York from the total population of New York. You're saying it's not - I need an exact statistic for the number of women or the total population of New York is meaningless. See what I mean?

12% of the American population claim to have seen "UFOs". It's reasonable to assume that only a fraction of these would have seen actual alien beings. 40% of the American population claim to have had "mystical experiences". It's reasonable to assume that only a fraction of these would've "seen" (or experienced in a direct, unambiguous manner) the [presence of] God. I'm saying it's reasonable to assume that those fractions (what I called "discount factor" ) are the same.

Common sense would tell me that the proportion of people who saw UFOs who also saw aliens would be less than the proportion of people who had mystical experiences who claim to have seen God (simply because of the religious nature and context of most mystical experiences). Nevertheless, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt there.

Originally posted by no1marauder
LMFAO!!!!!!! Your own post left no room for any middle. Just because someone read you a book on logical fallacies doesn't mean that you're not irrational and deceitful.

Your statement was every single claim of someone seeing God had to be comprehensively debunked or those who didn't believe any of the claims were "ignorant or arrogant". Since iddle group, so pretending you have some knowledge by misapplying a concept won't help.

Your statement was every single claim of someone seeing God had to be comprehensively debunked or those who didn't believe any of the claims were "ignorant or arrogant".

No, my statement was that every single claim etc. had to be comprehensively debunked or those who believed that none of those claims held merit (i.e. believe that "we have never met God" ) are ignorant or arrogant.

EDIT: The key point here is that stocken (I think) used a universal qualifier in his claim. My statement is a criticism of his using such a qualifier.

In other words, I never said you have to believe all (or some) of those claims - I just said you cannot automatically assume the opposite. That is the excluded middle.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Your statement was every single claim of someone seeing God had to be comprehensively debunked or those who didn't believe any of the claims were "ignorant or arrogant".

No, my statement was that every single claim etc. had to be comprehensively debunked or those who believed that none of those claims held merit (i.e. believe t ...[text shortened]... id you cannot automatically assume the opposite. That is the excluded middle.[/b]

No, you didn't.

LH: It is incorrect to authoritatively state that we have never met a God - plenty of people have claimed to do so throughout history. Unless every single claim has been comprehensively debunked, such a statement is, at best, ignorance and, at worst, arrogance.


Where are the words "automatic" or "a priori"?? And since NO CLAIM of any type can be comprehensively debunked in every single instance, the logical ramifications of your statement are that as to the claim that one person has "met God" NO ONE can disbelieve it without being "ignorant and/or arrogant". That's what you said; deal with it or retract it, but stop trying to claim you didn't say it.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'm quoting partially because it's the key point you're making. The rest of your post is just a rehashing of this.

Here's an analogy (and, yes - it does include numbers): I'm saying it's reasonable to try to estimate the number of women in New York from the total population of New York. You're saying it's not - I need an exact statistic for the num es). Nevertheless, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt there.

Don't be a nitwit; obviously we have sufficient general data to make an estimate of the number of women in a certain population. It's probably going to be around 50% based on universal experience over many years and in different areas. That's a reasonable extrapolation based on solid data.

On the other hand, you have NO data to conclude what percentage of people who have claimed to see UFO's have also claimed to see aliens in the flesh. I tried googling "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" but all I got was the Spielberg movie. You'd probably be surprised at the number of people who do claim such a thing. But still lacking any data at all, you can only say that the number will be something less than 12%.

It is obviously a gigantic stretch to go from someone saying they've had a "spiritual experience" to saying they've "met God". Unless you have some data to indicate that a reasonable number of people claim to have personally met God, I find the idea that it's any sufficient number hard to believe. At any rate, you were the one who raised the number of each by claiming far more people have claimed to have met God than have claimed to have met an alien. I think that claim requires more evidence from you then more people have said they've had "spiritual experiences" (a very vague term) than have said they've seen UFO's (a more specific term).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Yes. And you might want to read the paragraph following:

This conflict is often called the Fermi paradox, after Enrico Fermi who first publicised the subject, and suggests that our understanding of what is a "conservative" value for some of the parameters may be overly optimistic or that some other factor is involved to suppress the development of intelligent space-faring life.

"suggests"..."may be"..."some other factor"...This is enough to convince you that there's no chance of alien life existing? No amount of histograms or statistics can alter the fact that we simply do not know what is out there. (For this reason I find it impossible to categorically dismiss the possibility of aliens or God existing).

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, you didn't.

LH: It is incorrect to authoritatively state that we have never met a God - plenty of people have claimed to do so throughout history. Unless every single claim has been comprehensively debunked, such a statement is, at best, ignorance and, at worst, arrogance.


Where are the words "automatic" or "a priori"?? And s hat you said; deal with it or retract it, but stop trying to claim you didn't say it.

Where are the words "automatic" or "a priori"??

What do you think "unless" means in the context of a universal claim of the type stocken was making?

And since NO CLAIM of any type can be comprehensively debunked in every single instance, the logical ramifications of your statement are that as to the claim that one person has "met God" NO ONE can disbelieve it without being "ignorant and/or arrogant".

First, I've already pointed out that the agnostic position is logically compatible with my statement. Just because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Second, if no claim of any type can be comprehensively debunked in every single instance, then stocken shouldn't have made a universal statement of the type "We have never met God". I mean, how does he know?

That's what you said; deal with it or retract it, but stop trying to claim you didn't say it.

Listen, if I say something that is clearly false, I have no hesitation retracting my statement - I have done so unequivocally in other threads on this forum. But I'm not going to let you ram your own perceptions of what I said down my throat.

Deal with it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Don't be a nitwit; obviously we have sufficient general data to make an estimate of the number of women in a certain population. It's probably going to be around 50% based on universal experience over many years and in different areas. That's a reasonable extrapolation based on solid data.

On the other hand, you have NO data to conclude what ...[text shortened]... (a very vague term) than have said they've seen UFO's (a more specific term).

Both are vague terms. UFO-sightings include everything from twinkling lights in the night sky to full-blown space ships with green Martians waving from the window. It's no less vague than "mystical experiences". Nevertheless, the two figures are not irrelevant to the discussion here and I see no reason why we cannot extrapolate from them based on reasonable assumptions.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
"suggests"..."may be"..."some other factor"...This is enough to convince you that there's no chance of alien life existing?

Please read what I wrote earlier:

I am not dismissing the existence of aliens per se - they might very well exist in other galaxies.

Why is it you and no1 insist on attributing to me claims I never made?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Both are vague terms. UFO-sightings include everything from twinkling lights in the night sky to full-blown space ships with green Martians waving from the window. It's no less vague than "mystical experiences". Nevertheless, the two figures are not irrelevant to the discussion here and I see no reason why we cannot extrapolate from them based on reasonable assumptions.

You ignored almost the entire post; where are your "reasonable assumptions"? On what data are they based? Saying it is theoretically possible to make "reasonable assumptions" doesn't mean the ones you actually made are "reasonable".

Originally posted by no1marauder
You ignored almost the entire post; where are your "reasonable assumptions"? On what data are they based? Saying it is theoretically possible to make "reasonable assumptions" doesn't mean the ones you actually made are "reasonable".

Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that, from a Jungian perspective, alien sightings and mystical experiences are both forms of the same phenomenon. If true, you would naturally expect the discount factors to be the same.

In your previous post, you said that you could estimate the female population as around 50% based on "universal experience" (Question: how can you appeal to something as vague as "universal experience" and then demand that I present exact data points?) - use the same criteria to make an educated guess.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that, from a Jungian perspective, alien sightings and mystical experiences are both forms of the same phenomenon. If true, you would naturally expect the discount factors to be the same.

In your previous post, you said that you could estimate the female population as around 50% based on "universal experienc nd[/i] that I present exact data points?) - use the same criteria to make an educated guess.

WTF?????? Are you saying that alien sightings and mystical experiences are "both forms of the same phenomenon"???

Who asked for "exact data points"???? The percentage of females based on census data and other "universal experience" is "vague"????? I asked for the "reasonable basis" of the assumptions in your claim. You've yet to provide any.

This post is filled with the lamest BS you've come up with yet. Were you thinking at all when you wrote it?

EDIT: Does this sound "vague"??

It's probably going to be around 50% based on universal experience over many years and in different areas. That's a reasonable extrapolation based on solid data.