A hypothetical question, especially for the atheists and skeptics in the audience...

[lacktheknack]

I get the question but still find it worded poorly.

Basically, what event in history is most likely only explainable by supernatural force.

the problem with this question is that skeptics and usually atheists represent a way of thinking. That way of thinking involves not making a decision without proper evidence. The very answer of "I don't know" is valid, excepted and outright expected from a true skeptic when asked about something they do not have proper evidence on in order to make a judgement.

So what you have done is asked someone who wont give an answer just to fill in the blanks which question they would most likely just fill in the blanks of just to have it answered.

When talking about a supernatural solution to a skeptic, what you are doing is literally asking them to forgo the honest "I do not know" and instead give an answer they know to be contrary to their fundamental philosophies just to fill in the blank.

So, what question exists that I would rather lie to myself to answer then honestly just say "I do not know"? Well, I don't know what question I would do that about. I suppose I might throw out the "why do bad things happen to good people" or some such crap just for the sake of an answer there. Blaming a dick of a god for the evils in the world is partially tolerable if I am forbidden to otherwise answer "I don't know" or give an answer based in personal thoughts rather then evidence.

Actually, a good alternative to the question would be "What historic event fills you with the most amount of 'I Don't Know'?"

The "insert supernatural here" aspect is just a hook, a hook that seems to be breaking a lot of peoples' brains (to hilarious results). The question is best answered specifically with a situation that makes you shrug.

For instance, in my first post, I suggested the park ranger who was struck by lightning seven times. Sure, there's always the explanation of "positively tragic luck" or the dude just flagrantly disregarding all safety rules, but it's unlikely to the point that I could see an irritated god trying to get his attention by hurling lightning bolts.

It's not hard, and it's not a compromising of your ethical/logical fibre to imagine bizarre circumstances and the idea that a god could have enforced them.

I mean, you play games, right? Those are positively brimming with scientific failures and supernatural WTFery...

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

The lack of Jim Sterling mentions in this thread is disheartening.


*thank god for Jim and whatnot*

 

[Vigormortis]

I get the question but still find it worded poorly.

Basically, what event in history is most likely only explainable by supernatural force.

the problem with this question is that skeptics and usually atheists represent a way of thinking. That way of thinking involves not making a decision without proper evidence. The very answer of "I don't know" is valid, excepted and outright expected from a true skeptic when asked about something they do not have proper evidence on in order to make a judgement.

So what you have done is asked someone who wont give an answer just to fill in the blanks which question they would most likely just fill in the blanks of just to have it answered.

When talking about a supernatural solution to a skeptic, what you are doing is literally asking them to forgo the honest "I do not know" and instead give an answer they know to be contrary to their fundamental philosophies just to fill in the blank.

There's a difference between a hypothetical question and a non-sensical one.

Yours is the equivalent of "If blue didn't exist, what would be blue? And you can't say nothing, because the point is to make you choose".
It's idiotic.

Shame a fair number of posters don't realize this and are, instead, taking it upon themselves to brow-beat those that are pointing it out.

But then, I imagine most of the atheists and skeptics are used to being the punchline of a joke or the target of animosity. I know I am, at this point. I've actually had friends and family, of whom I was very close with, actually "shun" me because I don't believe in their version of the Christian deity.

Some even going so far as claiming I worship/work for Satan.

The extinction of the Dinosaurs. That was clearly caused by Q when he was bored.

Ah, but the question is: Which Q?

Actually, it's more like "If the colour 'weskel' DID exist, what do you think you have tinges of it?"

He asked you to implement something you believe does NOT exist, not remove something you know exists...

No, it's more like he's asking:
"I know you don't believe in faeries and leprechauns, but which model of car is made by unicorns?"

Sure, you can just make something up, but in the end the answer is just as nonsensical as the question. We know who made the car, or can at least find out, so discussing which one is made by fairytale critters is silly.

Not that one can't be silly. But, to outright deny posters the right to answer "I don't know, and here's why." is too silly.

If you were forced to choose some person, place, thing, or event throughout all of human history as "most likely to have been the result of supernatural or divine influence (christian or otherwise)", what would it be?

All evil, wicked, grotesque, and otherwise nasty things in the world. Because an "all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful" deity allowing that kind of shit to not only exist but to plague his own creations can only mean that that deity is NOT all-loving and is, instead, a complete dick. And, more likely, she/he/it/they are the source of that evil.

 

[HardkorSB]

If you were forced to choose some person, place, thing, or event throughout all of human history as "most likely to have been the result of supernatural or divine influence (christian or otherwise)", what would it be?

No, you aren't allowed to choose "nothing, because I don't believe in that shit" as the whole point is to see what people end up picking when forced to actually choose, and that isn't an answer, it's a refusal to answer.

Can I choose "Nothing because I haven't seen anything that would classify as a supernatural/divine influence"?

How come all of these psychic powers/ghosts/possessions/exorcisms/whatever always seems to disappear the moment people with professional measuring equipment appear?
Why do people keep pretending that we still don't now how things like the pyramids were built when there are documentaries showing how it could be done?
Why does all the evidence for every religion consist of old books and a list of things that haven't been explained scientifically yet?

Show me something that will convince me and I'll start believing. I can't just pick one because I can't think of any.
Even things like how the universe was created have many explanations that make more logical sense.
If it was indeed a conscious process then it was most likely a scientific experiment. The so called big bang was essentially a form of explosion. We are capable of creating many forms of explosions ourselves. How can you be sure that we haven't created universes ourselves but they're so small that we can't even see it or that they appear and disappear so fast that to us, it's like they never existed?
How can you be sure that the universe isn't just one giant creature and the planets and solar systems, maybe even galaxies, are just cells in the body of that creature?
How can you be sure that this universe isn't just a computer program? That would make it all pure science.

Even though I don't have any proof for any of those theories, they seem more probable than a magic man using magic, don't you think? A magic man using magic isn't an explanation to me, it's giving up at trying to find an explanation.

 

[runic knight]

I get the question but still find it worded poorly.

Basically, what event in history is most likely only explainable by supernatural force.

the problem with this question is that skeptics and usually atheists represent a way of thinking. That way of thinking involves not making a decision without proper evidence. The very answer of "I don't know" is valid, excepted and outright expected from a true skeptic when asked about something they do not have proper evidence on in order to make a judgement.

So what you have done is asked someone who wont give an answer just to fill in the blanks which question they would most likely just fill in the blanks of just to have it answered.

When talking about a supernatural solution to a skeptic, what you are doing is literally asking them to forgo the honest "I do not know" and instead give an answer they know to be contrary to their fundamental philosophies just to fill in the blank.

So, what question exists that I would rather lie to myself to answer then honestly just say "I do not know"? Well, I don't know what question I would do that about. I suppose I might throw out the "why do bad things happen to good people" or some such crap just for the sake of an answer there. Blaming a dick of a god for the evils in the world is partially tolerable if I am forbidden to otherwise answer "I don't know" or give an answer based in personal thoughts rather then evidence.

Actually, a good alternative to the question would be "What historic event fills you with the most amount of 'I Don't Know'?"

The "insert supernatural here" aspect is just a hook, a hook that seems to be breaking a lot of peoples' brains (to hilarious results). The question is best answered specifically with a situation that makes you shrug.

For instance, in my first post, I suggested the park ranger who was struck by lightning seven times. Sure, there's always the explanation of "positively tragic luck" or the dude just flagrantly disregarding all safety rules, but it's unlikely to the point that I could see an irritated god trying to get his attention by hurling lightning bolts.

It's not hard, and it's not a compromising of your ethical/logical fibre to imagine bizarre circumstances and the idea that a god could have enforced them.

I mean, you play games, right? Those are positively brimming with scientific failures and supernatural WTFery...

Yes, but I have never played a video game that did not exist. Fiction exists, and the rules and limitations within fiction exist as the result of the fiction itself existing. If I write a story, the story exists. The characters in the story exist in so far as being parts of the story (not that they are true beings).

The way this question is asked though, seems to be "what events in reality would most likely be explained by supernatural"? Since nature is just reality, it comes off like asking "what happened in reality most likely to not have been caused by reality."
If you view the world along a common skeptical vein (support claims with evidence), it seems like I am being asked for the answer to a nonsensical question. What even in history is better explained by nothing then an actual attempt at an answer? What color would be blue if blue never existed? If god was real, what color would his sandals taste like?

I get it, it is a stupid question and all that, but taking it at face value, I can understand why people are tearing the question apart. It would have been better to ask "If you were not a skeptic, what question would you most likely replace the answer for with "god did it"?"

Actually, I think I will repeat that one.

If you were not a skeptic, what question would you most likely replace the answer for with "god did it"?

 

[shrekfan246]

I mean, fucking magnets, how to THEY work?

Come now, Zachary.

Spoiler: We all know the answer to that.

Also, ponies are always the answer. Even when science disproves it.

OT: I'm going to go with... the phenomena by which I can spot threads that will erupt into flames by their titles alone, accurate approximately 98% of the time.

 

[Vigormortis]

Nope, I got one! the fact that Half Life 3 never happened.

Must be a curse of some kind...

Maybe a gypsy.

And Lo! He and His Noodly Goodness appeared before the Gaben, and spoketh to him, "Thou shalt not release Half-Life 3 lest ye desecrate the sanctity of the internet meme! No, thou shalt first fill thine coffers with the wealth made through the exchange of hats and Workshop content. Only once thine thirst for riches is slaked, and thine well of holiday event ideas runs dry, may thou and thine ilk release the third installment. Upon which much praise and adulation will be heaped!

Know, too, that much ire and ridicule thou will face at that time. This will be your test. Your mountain to climb. You foe to face. And, should ye overcome this hatred, thou shalt rise to become a god among men!

His Noodly Appendage has spoken!"

 

[lacktheknack]

Yes, but I have never played a video game that did not exist. Fiction exists, and the rules and limitations within fiction exist as the result of the fiction itself existing. If I write a story, the story exists. The characters in the story exist in so far as being parts of the story (not that they are true beings).

The way this question is asked though, seems to be "what events in reality would most likely be explained by supernatural"? Since nature is just reality, it comes off like asking "what happened in reality most likely to not have been caused by reality."
If you view the world along a common skeptical vein (support claims with evidence), it seems like I am being asked for the answer to a nonsensical question. What even in history is better explained by nothing then an actual attempt at an answer? What color would be blue if blue never existed? If god was real, what color would his sandals taste like?

I get it, it is a stupid question and all that, but taking it at face value, I can understand why people are tearing the question apart. It would have been better to ask "If you were not a skeptic, what question would you most likely replace the answer for with "god did it"?"

Actually, I think I will repeat that one.

If you were not a skeptic, what question would you most likely replace the answer for with "god did it"?

As far as I can tell, it's the same question. It's just that people are taking the first one sooooooo seriously... it was hilarious, but now it's becoming worrying.

Do people really need "If you weren't a skeptic" stapled to the front of questions like this? I thought it went without saying...

As an aside, guys... As the local crazy fundamentalist religion fanatic, I'm somewhat confused by all the assertions that the supernatural "does not exist". Is that how skepticism works? I'm pretty sure that "I see no evidence, ergo it does not exist" is not quite how skepticism works. I thought more valid statements were "I see no reason for it to exist" or "there's no point in assuming it exists", but that's not how people in this thread are treating it.

 

[mascotbeaver]

At least one thing in "Chariots of the Gods" must be true. Like those massive boulders villagers in China moved across a massive lake on "bamboo rafts" (which, as far as I know, aren't capable of carrying several ton rocks), or those random stone orbs that appeared around the world several thousand years ago that scientists can't explain.

Feel free to look this up yourself, I'm too lazy to provide links for internet sceptics but these things are very much real.

 

[SinisterDeath]

As an aside, guys... As the local crazy fundamentalist religion fanatic, I'm somewhat confused by all the assertions that the supernatural "does not exist". Is that how skepticism works? I'm pretty sure that "I see no evidence, ergo it does not exist" is not quite how skepticism works. I thought more valid statements were "I see no reason for it to exist" or "there's no point in assuming it exists", but that's not how people in this thread are treating it.

Than link some phenomena that you believe to be of divine/supernatural origins?
Perhaps if you post something, perhaps us skeptics can counter it with facts/logic?

 

[SinisterDeath]

At least one thing in "Chariots of the Gods" must be true. Like those massive boulders villagers in China moved across a massive lake on "bamboo rafts" (which, as far as I know, aren't capable of carrying several ton rocks), or those random stone orbs that appeared around the world several thousand years ago that scientists can't explain.

Feel free to look this up yourself, I'm too lazy to provide links for internet sceptics but these things are very much real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9w-i5oZqaQ

Chariots of the Gods, is complete hogwash.

 

[rednose1]

Probably the first person to see a lightning strike. Seriously, how do you explain it to cavemen? It comes from the sky, sudden flash followed by giant boom, can start a fire, and split anything it hits in twain (btw, we really need to use twin more often. cool sounding word).

What else could do that but an all powerful being that is angry for some reason?

 

[lacktheknack]

As an aside, guys... As the local crazy fundamentalist religion fanatic, I'm somewhat confused by all the assertions that the supernatural "does not exist". Is that how skepticism works? I'm pretty sure that "I see no evidence, ergo it does not exist" is not quite how skepticism works. I thought more valid statements were "I see no reason for it to exist" or "there's no point in assuming it exists", but that's not how people in this thread are treating it.

Than link some phenomena that you believe to be of divine/supernatural origins?
Perhaps if you post something, perhaps us skeptics can counter it with facts/logic?

That's not the point. I'm not claiming that I have personally witnessed events that aren't explainable by common science. The point is that skepticism works on a basis of agnosticism.

Many of the "skeptics" in this thread are not skeptics, they're textbook thumpers.

 

[Charli]

Socks + Washing machines. And yes that is all the answer I can give you, for more info refer to answer number two on page 1.

But seriously whatever parallel dimensions exist when a washing machine is running, I want my socks and 2 pairs of missing underwear back please.

 

[Hugh Weiss]

Chocolate and cocaine come from the same plant
God = proven

 

[lacktheknack]

Chocolate and cocaine come from the same plant
God = proven

I love you. Welcome to the Escapist.

I mean, it's not true (coca != cocoa), but still, I love you for that reply anyways.