Science is inherently atheistic

[The Grand Nudger]

Mentioning a supposed "creature" doesn't mean I believe it exists.  I assume they don't exist, but maybe they do.  We don't use the scientific method to make claims about vampires, goblins, and ghouls. 

You might not, I would.  That's neither here nor there..though...it's that ghosts and vampires would be conceptual equals under the description you gave, wouldn't they be?  

The counter argument was that I must apply this equally to gravity because it may have a supernatural cause. 

It might.  I mean...it's putatively immaterial, ever present, ties all things together, and starts with a g...wouldn't it be fucking hilarious if gravity were the supernatural sauce in the universe?  

My argument to that is "it doesn't matter" because you can't negate gravity when the effect of it is easily testable, observable, and repeatable in the natural world. It's also applied as a scientific law in the form of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.  Unless Newton had law about vampires too, then no point making assumptions about testing them.  Even if they do exist, they would be considered supernatural and not bound by natural/universal laws.  Things like turning into bats, walking through walls, no reflection, and other such attributes would also be considered "supernatural."

Why wouldn't ghostly or vampiric effects be testable, observable, and repeatable in the natural world?  They might be considered things with a supernatural cause..but watching some eurotrash asshole turn into a bat would be a mighty compelling effect of whatever his supernatural sauce was.  

And from that, it was determined I was being a big meanie who must lie about everything, and the other person proclaimed a "win" by default.

More like that you're a simpleton, I think..but you can always win back hearts and minds round this joint!

So yeah, there ya have it.

But hey, if the prize is a pet vampire monster, I say "No thanks."

Regaining your dignity and/or credibility? 

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Mentioning a supposed "creature" doesn't mean I believe it exists.  I assume they don't exist, but maybe they do.  We don't use the scientific method to make claims about vampires, goblins, and ghouls. 

You might not, I would.  That's neither here nor there..though...it's that ghosts and vampires would be conceptual equals under the description you gave, wouldn't they be?  

The counter argument was that I must apply this equally to gravity because it may have a supernatural cause. 

It might.  I mean...it's putatively immaterial, ever present, ties all things together, and starts with a g...wouldn't it be fucking hilarious if gravity were the supernatural sauce in the universe?  

My argument to that is "it doesn't matter" because you can't negate gravity when the effect of it is easily testable, observable, and repeatable in the natural world. It's also applied as a scientific law in the form of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.  Unless Newton had law about vampires too, then no point making assumptions about testing them.  Even if they do exist, they would be considered supernatural and not bound by natural/universal laws.  Things like turning into bats, walking through walls, no reflection, and other such attributes would also be considered "supernatural."

Why wouldn't ghostly or vampiric effects be testable, observable, and repeatable in the natural world?  They might be considered things with a supernatural cause..but watching some eurotrash asshole turn into a bat would be a mighty compelling effect of whatever his supernatural sauce was.  

And from that, it was determined I was being a big meanie who must lie about everything, and the other person proclaimed a "win" by default.

More like that you're a simpleton, I think..but you can always win back hearts and minds round this joint!

So yeah, there ya have it.

But hey, if the prize is a pet vampire monster, I say "No thanks."

Regaining your dignity and/or credibility? 

I'm not going to tell someone what they want to hear just because they think I should. I also have no problem with someone wanting to believe in vampires.  That's their choice. Luckily, there are things like Facebook for people who want to join groups of "like-minded" individuals who will tell them exactly what they want to hear.  I'm sure there are vampire groups, and that they have thousands of "legit" photos they would love to show anybody joining their group.

[The Grand Nudger]

No ones asking you if you have a problem with other people believing in vampires.  I'm asking you about a seeming inconsistency..in your own account..of what science can and can't study, and what can or can't be rejected out of hand.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

No ones asking you if you have a problem with other people believing in vampires.  I'm asking you about a seeming inconsistency..in your own account..of what science can and can't study, and what can or can't be rejected out of hand.

There is no inconsistency. If you're going out of your way to look for something, you'll probably find it in one form or another.  That includes "inconsistencies" and "vampires."  The Internet is loaded with people who will swear Bigfoot exists. They have photos, and despite every last one of them either being blurry, or looking like a person in a costume, they'll swear they seen Bigfoot, despite living in a world where every modern phone has an HD camera. Same thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't recall wondering whether or not pictures of bigfoot existed.  I was asking about something in your posts, here, not some random nutters myspace page from back in the day.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I don't recall wondering whether or not pictures of bigfoot existed.  I was asking about something in your posts, here, not some random nutters myspace page from back in the day.

One of the traits of any forum such as this is it will be filled with people who like to go around telling people they are wrong.  If someone thinks I'm inconsistent, then that's their choice. They probably think a hundred other people are inconsistent too.  It would be tedious to try to sort all of this out, because even if I did, they would find something else to complain about.  On the other hand, there are some really nice people here who thoughtfully say things and try to learn from one another.  Those are the people I want to talk to.

[Angrboda]

And from that, it was determined I was being a big meanie who must lie about everything, and the other person proclaimed a "win" by default.

Now you're just a bald faced liar. Nobody proclaimed themselves the winner by default, or, at minimum, it wasn't me. I made a logical deduction based upon the premises which you yourself had asserted, and I explicitly described how I had done so. If you're saying now that I'm not allowed to make logical deductions based on the content of your assertions, then I'd say you've not only broken the ethical norms of rational debate, but rather willfully trampled upon them.

Now, in addition to being a cherry-picking miscreant, you've told multiple lies about me.

Pray tell me why we should tolerate or condone such behavior?

And I made clear my problems with your behavior and it had nothing to do with you being a big meanie.

I'll admit the reasons for my complaints are shifting. At first it was your abandonment of the norms of debate in the interests of a personal agenda, but now that you're demonstrating that you're a dishonest and unethical twat, I'm quite happy to expand the scope of my criticisms.

---

I don't recall wondering whether or not pictures of bigfoot existed.  I was asking about something in your posts, here, not some random nutters myspace page from back in the day.

One of the traits of any forum such as this is it will be filled with people who like to go around telling people they are wrong.  If someone thinks I'm inconsistent, then that's their choice. They probably think a hundred other people are inconsistent too.  It would be tedious to try to sort all of this out, because even if I did, they would find something else to complain about.  On the other hand, there are some really nice people here who thoughtfully say things and try to learn from one another.  Those are the people I want to talk to.

So in other words, if we're not willing to play your crooked game, you're simply not going to play? What God was it you said you belonged to?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't recall wondering whether or not pictures of bigfoot existed.  I was asking about something in your posts, here, not some random nutters myspace page from back in the day.

One of the traits of any forum such as this is it will be filled with people who like to go around telling people they are wrong.  If someone thinks I'm inconsistent, then that's their choice. They probably think a hundred other people are inconsistent too.  It would be tedious to try to sort all of this out, because even if I did, they would find something else to complain about.  On the other hand, there are some really nice people here who thoughtfully say things and try to learn from one another.  Those are the people I want to talk to.

Well, we all are, from time to time (inconsistent, that is).  I don't have much choice in when you're inconsistent.  That's actually your choice...for some values of choice, lol.  What am I supposed to learn from your inconsistency?

I'm not one of The Nice Ones™, so we can just not worry about that altogether.

[Angrboda]

And me, I'm just bad to the bone.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

One of the traits of any forum such as this is it will be filled with people who like to go around telling people they are wrong.  If someone thinks I'm inconsistent, then that's their choice. They probably think a hundred other people are inconsistent too.  It would be tedious to try to sort all of this out, because even if I did, they would find something else to complain about.  On the other hand, there are some really nice people here who thoughtfully say things and try to learn from one another.  Those are the people I want to talk to.

Well, we all are, from time to time (inconsistent, that is).  I don't have much choice in when you're inconsistent.  That's actually your choice...for some values of choice, lol.  What am I supposed to learn from your inconsistency?

I'm not one of The Nice Ones™, so we can just not worry about that altogether.  

Maybe it's your interpretations? As you can't control my "inconsistencies" I can't control how you comprehend things.  But hey, if you want to think I'm "inconsistent" then enjoy.  Not offended one way or another. Just please don't go making obnoxious claims that I'm other people, then I might get a bit edgy (not saying it was you).  That's not how I roll.