erm, neutrinos were hypothesised to explain away a momentum defect in the observed particles in certain reactions. I don't think Newton would have had a problem with that, if he'd been shown the other particles.
How do we know that places like Narnia do not exist?
- Thread starter Interesting Ian
- Start date
-
- Tags
- exist narnia richard dawkins
erm, neutrinos were hypothesised to explain away a momentum defect in the observed particles in certain reactions. I don't think Newton would have had a problem with that, if he'd been shown the other particles.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
No.
If you told him about it, he would think you were crazy.
If I told him about it, he would be very excited indeed, because I would actually be able to explain it in a way that made sense based on his existing knowledge.
And how many times has this happened to you, or to anyone?
Induction, Ian.
Depends on the time-traveller.
If we lived in the 17th century and a 21st-century Ian-analogue came back and told us about computers and supersonic aircraft and NDEs and telepathy and the immaterial nature of the world, we would probably have him committed to Bedlam. (Err, did that institution exist in the 17th century?)
On the other hand, if the 21st century Pixy-analogue came back and explained how to build internal combustion engines and generators and transformers and carbon-arc lamps and relays and radios - all possible with 17th century engineering, but not with 17th century science - then we would be well advised to accept his other statements.
Indeedy-doodly.
Strawman.
If presented with evidence of the existence of Narnia, or if whisked away in a magic portal to another dimension, then skeptics would most certainly rethink the position "There is no Narnia."
Which is why, if you contend that the statement "There is no Narnia" is wrong, you would have to then present evidence of Narnia's existence.
Belz...
Fiend God
How much time before Ian's suspended again ?
Interesting Ian said:
That you don't WANT to accept someone's argument does not make that argument bad.
Belz...
Fiend God
Yes. Damn that logic!
Interesting Ian said:
So stop.
You mean you haven't read ANY of the posts on this thread ?
You. Go away.
Iacchus might, actually.
You mean like those of the Pah Wraith cult ?
Don't you just hate it when those things happen ? I mean, there's the pain, and the operation, and the swelling's pretty... oh... you said Narnia. Ok.
You mean, exactly like that invented, fictional world ?
Engage!
Let'em.
Score ONE point for Ian.
Because you want them to.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
The skeptic answer is that they know that such worlds/Universes don't exist because *I* cannot prove they do exist!
Here one witnessess the intellectual superioty of skeptics!
Yeah right
How can you possibly ridicule someone by saying that they think they're superior when you exhibit so little respect for anyone else, here ? You keep calling people idiots and ignoring everything they say, and then you have the gull to use that kind of sarcasm ?
You, Ian, are anything BUT "interesting".
sweetkb713
Scholar
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2004
- Messages
- 115
Oh dear Lord.
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
I've had my limit of Ian on this thread. He is either not paying attention or is just dancing the dance of trolls.
Might as well make use of the bandwidth. Kitty posting time!
Might as well make use of the bandwidth. Kitty posting time!
Antiquehunter
Degenerate Gambler
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2005
- Messages
- 5,088
What have I been blathering about?? I've been blathering about skeptics mysterious knowledge on this issue.
I don't know whether Narnia type Universes exist. I don't know whether any other Universes exist. I said I believe not, but that's purely guesswork! It's just a guess on my part. I simply don't possess the knowledge of skeptics on this issue.
However I was anxious to learn so this is why I asked how you know that Narnia type worlds do not exist. Their answer? Your answer? (you all speak with one voice as if you're just one entity with one mind!)
The skeptic answer is that they know that such worlds/Universes don't exist because *I* cannot prove they do exist!
Here one witnessess the intellectual superioty of skeptics!
Yeah right
Ian - 5 pages ago I asked if you were heading down the path of an atheist vs agnostic argument.
This is ridiculous. Take a step back and look at what you are suggesting. You are saying that I (a skeptic) cannot disbelieve in the non-existence of ANYTHING unless I can DISPROVE it? That a true skeptical position has to be one of 'Well, I can't disprove that there is no Santa, no Tribbles or Vulcans, no hobbits etc..." so I have to be open to the idea that they exist?
Where do you draw the line, Ian, and decide - 'OK, until I see some evidence that these things exist I'm just going to sit back and watch the movie.'
-AH.
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,234
His legs in Shameless are done with CGI.
Bone_Vulture
Appealing and hollow
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 499
In honor of Ian's preference for fantasy worlds.
Hey, that's Iacchus's cat! He took the pic to prove his cat "can" roll the dice and play Advanced "Dungeons" and Dragons!
If I wandered through a doorway into a magical world filled with talking animals and fauns, I'd be worried about who'd spiked my coffee this morning.
"Putz"?? What the hell is a "putz" when it's all at home?? Tell her that I have less than zero interest in the opinions of retards.
That goes for the people on here too. Virtually no one has made any worthwhile arguments which justifies their position that we know that Narnia type Worlds do not exist.
I'm being a twat am I? Why? Because I'm not impressed with drivel and vacuous unsubstantiated assertions? Well, excuse me!
(Dictionary.com)putz:
1. Slang. A fool; an idiot.
2. Vulgar Slang. A penis.
Take your pick.
And one thing retards have over you is that they listen when you talk to them. And also, "...when it's all at home?" What exactly do you mean there? (Not being snarky with the last question. I really can't figure it out. And I was actually at work when I made that observation.)
Honestly I'm not sure why anyone started to try to talk you out of your own drivel and vacuous unsubstantiated assertions...
sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,234
You know, many people in their day to day lives try to engage with as little outside their own personal circle as possible... They walk along, head mostly down, ears slightly detuned to the world... they assume the mantle of self effacement, for their own reasons, what ever they may be. But sometimes, they see something so offensive to all sense of human dignity, so outrageously wrong, Someone beating a child for asking for a lollipop perhaps, or abusing the elderly, that even those who would normally remain detached from it all will step up and say something...
And now here's Interesting Ian again. And his usual offensive and morally disgusting behaviour has drawn me out of lurking once more. And this is just one of his behavioural equivalencys of punching babies that did it:
Interesting Ian once accused me of enjoying cruelty towards animals. When pressed on where he got the evidence for that from, he refused to provide it. Then he tried to claim that he was a far more ethical person than I was, and would only eat endangered species, such as certain fish, "when they were on special offer". When I pointed out to him that fish were not only one of the most unethically farmed products around (they wouldn't be nearing extinction otherwise), and that fish get a far worse death than mass produced red meat (suffocation and gutting alive, where as cows and pigs take a quick clean bolt-gun to the head) Ian insisted that fish were a "lower form of life"...
...Here's where it shows the true disgusting hypocrisy of the man shows, beating Old Lady Morality over the head and riffling through her purse...
... he insisted that it was obvious that fish weren't as complex as red blooded animals. And no amount of asking to see the evidence of this comparitive lacking would encourage him. He just got angry, and abusive, and insulting... Just as he's doing here, in fact.
Look at him go... he hasn't read Dawkins, doesn't even know what his real name was, but assumes based upon a prejudicial set of beliefs and a few passing times he's seen the man, what exactly his argument against a "Narnia" type world is. He then refuses to listen to anyone pointing out why, with the known definition of "Narnia", Dawkins actually may feel the current laws of physics as they are known preclude such a world (the Universe may be close to infinite in size, but it doesn't have an infinite set of physical laws. It has just the one set, which allows for a (perhaps one day) definable range of reality.). Nope, instead he just gets belligerant and offensive and insists every one is an idiot because they can't say something which makes Ian and his Metamind feel special.
Let's see now: What else is he up to these days... well, he's got this lovely thread over here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50006
Yes folks... The facts that Ian resents anyone being able to identify him when he makes purchases, and that he also can't get any credit, even in this age where the credit card companies hold all the other cards and can almost always screw the money back out of you one way or another, are completely unrelated. And the fact that Ian has a history of alcholism, is clearly unable to relate to anyone else in a rational or responsible manner, and wants to be a (ahaha) Professional Gambler has got no bearing at all on the facts why he can't get a credit card. None what so ever. Can't you just imagine how happy you would be, as one of the approached bankers, to get a letter from Interesting Ian demanding you give him one?
"Dear Idiot,
You clearly know nothing about the way reality works if you don't understand how the laws of gambling allow someone to make a fortune. If it weren't for you skeptical materialistic bankers, many more people like me would have wonderful and interesting lives... as it is, I'll just take my money to someone who appreciates me, and doesn't turn me down for dates just because I do something with my hands, yes that's the reason, nothing else at all, I hate you all...
Signed:
I refuse to sign my name"
You'd just hand money over by the truckload, wouldn't you?
Now in my situation, I've found that talking to people as people, having a sense of humility and decency, and yes, shamelessly appealing to their own desire to feel decent too, has got me credit I_I can only ever dream of. Because this is how the real world works. But you are all idiots if you don't try and make it work how Special_Ian demands that it should.
Indeed, the whole world is made so much better by us all being beaten over the head by a foul tempered and aggressive Ian, told we are monsters and cruel and destroy all of worth in life because we believe in such things as Science and Biology and Logic... Just because from his own experience of life is that there doesn't seem to be much love for people like him. And it's all our fault that this is so. Just as it's society's fault that you mug old ladies and eat endangered species. Yes it is.
Now watch as he declares me the stupidest person on the Earth again. But as I've got both credit and people who like "what I do with my hands", so perhaps I'm not, eh? As no doubt have the vast majority of you SKeptics, including Mr Dawkins and family. And this is, deep down, why he's really such an Angry Ian, and why he's not listening to anything you are telling him... Because he doesn't want to hear why he's alienated himself from reality, he wants to blame you because he is.
And his own individual Narnia just refuses to pop out of the wardrobe and save him.
And now here's Interesting Ian again. And his usual offensive and morally disgusting behaviour has drawn me out of lurking once more. And this is just one of his behavioural equivalencys of punching babies that did it:
Interesting Ian once accused me of enjoying cruelty towards animals. When pressed on where he got the evidence for that from, he refused to provide it. Then he tried to claim that he was a far more ethical person than I was, and would only eat endangered species, such as certain fish, "when they were on special offer". When I pointed out to him that fish were not only one of the most unethically farmed products around (they wouldn't be nearing extinction otherwise), and that fish get a far worse death than mass produced red meat (suffocation and gutting alive, where as cows and pigs take a quick clean bolt-gun to the head) Ian insisted that fish were a "lower form of life"...
...Here's where it shows the true disgusting hypocrisy of the man shows, beating Old Lady Morality over the head and riffling through her purse...
... he insisted that it was obvious that fish weren't as complex as red blooded animals. And no amount of asking to see the evidence of this comparitive lacking would encourage him. He just got angry, and abusive, and insulting... Just as he's doing here, in fact.
Look at him go... he hasn't read Dawkins, doesn't even know what his real name was, but assumes based upon a prejudicial set of beliefs and a few passing times he's seen the man, what exactly his argument against a "Narnia" type world is. He then refuses to listen to anyone pointing out why, with the known definition of "Narnia", Dawkins actually may feel the current laws of physics as they are known preclude such a world (the Universe may be close to infinite in size, but it doesn't have an infinite set of physical laws. It has just the one set, which allows for a (perhaps one day) definable range of reality.). Nope, instead he just gets belligerant and offensive and insists every one is an idiot because they can't say something which makes Ian and his Metamind feel special.
Let's see now: What else is he up to these days... well, he's got this lovely thread over here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50006
Yes folks... The facts that Ian resents anyone being able to identify him when he makes purchases, and that he also can't get any credit, even in this age where the credit card companies hold all the other cards and can almost always screw the money back out of you one way or another, are completely unrelated. And the fact that Ian has a history of alcholism, is clearly unable to relate to anyone else in a rational or responsible manner, and wants to be a (ahaha) Professional Gambler has got no bearing at all on the facts why he can't get a credit card. None what so ever. Can't you just imagine how happy you would be, as one of the approached bankers, to get a letter from Interesting Ian demanding you give him one?
"Dear Idiot,
You clearly know nothing about the way reality works if you don't understand how the laws of gambling allow someone to make a fortune. If it weren't for you skeptical materialistic bankers, many more people like me would have wonderful and interesting lives... as it is, I'll just take my money to someone who appreciates me, and doesn't turn me down for dates just because I do something with my hands, yes that's the reason, nothing else at all, I hate you all...
Signed:
I refuse to sign my name"
You'd just hand money over by the truckload, wouldn't you?
Now in my situation, I've found that talking to people as people, having a sense of humility and decency, and yes, shamelessly appealing to their own desire to feel decent too, has got me credit I_I can only ever dream of. Because this is how the real world works. But you are all idiots if you don't try and make it work how Special_Ian demands that it should.
Indeed, the whole world is made so much better by us all being beaten over the head by a foul tempered and aggressive Ian, told we are monsters and cruel and destroy all of worth in life because we believe in such things as Science and Biology and Logic... Just because from his own experience of life is that there doesn't seem to be much love for people like him. And it's all our fault that this is so. Just as it's society's fault that you mug old ladies and eat endangered species. Yes it is.
Now watch as he declares me the stupidest person on the Earth again. But as I've got both credit and people who like "what I do with my hands", so perhaps I'm not, eh? As no doubt have the vast majority of you SKeptics, including Mr Dawkins and family. And this is, deep down, why he's really such an Angry Ian, and why he's not listening to anything you are telling him... Because he doesn't want to hear why he's alienated himself from reality, he wants to blame you because he is.
And his own individual Narnia just refuses to pop out of the wardrobe and save him.
Interesting Ian
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 7,675
Lying bastard.
Interesting Ian
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 7,675
No I am not saying that, or indeed anything remotely like it.
This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. Of course you can bloody disbelieve things without proving they don't exist!
Are you crazy??
Is anyone on this thread arguing against me able to comprehend simple English sentences??
No wonder people think I'm stupid if they imagine I'm saying anything of the sort!