Scrutinizing Street Epistemology and Street Evangelism

[Non sequitur]

By someone I assume you mean one of the opposing counsel' while I was on the stand.

My answer is:

"I do not recall at this time the color of Non Sequitur's car"

This was not a question about your recollection of Non Sequitur's car.

Please answer the question.

Is it possible Non Sequitur's car is green?

"I am not going to answer that on the grounds it is a leading question"

The witness's response would not confirm any information, therefore it is not leading.

Also, seeing as how this cross-examination, leading questions are allowed.

Please answer the question.

Is it possible Non Sequitur's car is green?

 

[ShamashUruk]

This was not a question about your recollection of Non Sequitur's car.

Please answer the question.

Is it possible Non Sequitur's car is green?

The witness's response would not confirm any information, therefore it is not leading.

Also, seeing as how this cross-examination, leading questions are allowed.

Please answer the question.

Is it possible Non Sequitur's car is green?

Okay so I included an "or" in my answer.

Your question "Is it possible Non Sequitur's car is green?" is actually an objection I can raise.

In court this called a leading question, you cannot lead the witness to answer that is suitable to what you want the answer to be. Unless I am a hostile witness or on cross examination, but not on direct examination. In other words you cannot coach my answers, which is what you are doing.

And even if it were cross examination or I was a hostile witness, there would have to be established that I was being hostile and even on cross examination your question could be unclear.

Reason why is that you are asking suggestive questions.

Keep in mind before we even go to the court room there are depositions, interviews, and so on that determine whether a person should go on the stand or not.

Generally counsels will object, and most objections are sustained. Questioning is very important to the credibility of the Plaintiff or Defendant, Prosecution or Defendant, etc.

The Witness John is asked whether or not he saw Jeff enter the grocery story to rob the store. The Witness John is a 62 year old male with poor eyesight and claims he saw Jeff enter the store. However, John wear prescription glasses, at this point an expert witness or a forensic ophthalmologist will be allowed to testify on the reliability of the glasses that allow John the ability to properly see and determine objects.

Keep in mind that it is the courts discretion as well local rules that determine what facilitates FRCP 611 and as to what purpose certain questions are allowed or not allowed.

What of course would be the objection on cross and would sustain is that your question could be objected to in that it is speculative.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay so let's do this backward, just to note, you being an atheist would have no choice but to reject such notions of "paranormal" and "supernatural" as atheism creates hypercritical thinking.

And critical thinking is... a bad thing, or something?

No as an atheist you cannot believe in anything that is considered "supernatural" or "paranormal" as you are limited by hypercritical thinking.

That is false.
An atheist only disbeliefs theistic claims.

Contrary to popular opinion, theism does not have a monopoly on "paranormal" and "supernatural" things. Especially not "paranormal" things.

But yes, I'll agree to the idea that more then likely, atheists won't believe in such things either, as they tend to be the same category of claims as theists make about the religion.

If one doesn't consider the claims of theism to be convincing, chances are rather huge that one will think the same about claims like paranormal stuff.

But make no mistake... there is nothing in atheism that stops an atheist from believing that a human can have paranormal abilities.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, like the comment about no evidence for historical Jesus, these claims can be researched by any 9th grader in 2 minutes.

Can you please leave your arrogance and condescension at the door? It's very tiring (not to mention insulting) and it adds nothing of value to the discussion. On the contrary, it is counter productive because all you are doing is creating an extremely negatively charged atmosphere. It's like it is your goal, or something, to create animosity and agitate people.

So please, engage the content and posts in a civilised manner and with respect, instead.

You have misrepresented an easy-to-understand post (strawman) that points out a category fallacies where Boghossian misrepresents what is true about the world with what can be justified.

Whenever you are done using buzzwords and ready to point out the supposed fallacy in plain english....

If I'm a 3-year old and am unable to explain why 2+2=4 how does that impact the truth value of the statement?

It doesn't. But it does impact the 3-year old's ability to evaluate/assess the truth-value of the statement. Which is the entire point.

X is factually either true or false. The question is, how do you find out which it is?

If a person can't justify their belief in God so what?

Then they hold unjustified beliefs.
"so what"? I don't know about you, but I like my beliefs to be as accurate as possible.

And when there is a belief that I can't justify... I won't hold that belief because...well... why would I?

That people like William Lane Craig can justify claims and the claims are valid demonstrates for all that it is reasonable to believe in God.

lol

WLC, aka mr "professional debater", is anything but convincing. I find his arguments to be extremely problematic and in other cases to be downright incorrect in every possible way.

I also find him to be a very arrogant, condescending, dishonest and immoral individual.
Not that being an arrogant, condescending, dishonest and immoral person excludes you from making a valid argument off course. But it certainly doesn't help.

A bit like what I told you in my first paragraphe... His, and your, style seem first and foremost to being centered around "I am smart and you are dumb and everyone should just listen to me"

Even your user name on this forum is completely in line with that arrogant attitude.

It seem much more likely that you have misrepresented my opinion due to propagandistic reasons rather than so fundamentally missing my points.

You're not giving me any reason to assume that I misrepresented you anywhere.

More zeightgeist.

More assumptions.
I've heared the term before. It's some documentary, right?
Never watched it and not really interested in it either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The minute you use a descriptor such as atheist, theist, agnostic you are invoking semantic rules that communicate necessary and sufficient conditions to fit the respective labels.

The point that Shamashuruk is making is that the "atheist" making a knowledge claim, while the "agnostic" is not.

Hi, I'm an agnostic atheist.

Please tell me what my claims and beliefs are, o mighty uber genius!

 

[ShamashUruk]

And critical thinking is... a bad thing, or something?



That is false.
An atheist only disbeliefs theistic claims.

Contrary to popular opinion, theism does not have a monopoly on "paranormal" and "supernatural" things. Especially not "paranormal" things.

But yes, I'll agree to the idea that more then likely, atheists won't believe in such things either, as they tend to be the same category of claims as theists make about the religion.

If one doesn't consider the claims of theism to be convincing, chances are rather huge that one will think the same about claims like paranormal stuff.

But make no mistake... there is nothing in atheism that stops an atheist from believing that a human can have paranormal abilities.

Okay so hypercritical thinking, hypercritical describes someone who is full of complaints. And why not, the atheist is good at this. One should critically think, but to outweigh the possibility "that if you cannot see something it must not exist" would also be foolish, you can't see the flu bug but we know it's effects. You cannot see the paranormal or supernatural but many have had or seen the effects of it, as well others claim they have not. If you were go to Iraq and drink the water in Iraq you may not be able to see what is in the water in Iraq, but you will probably feel its effects, while an Iraqi may not feel the effects of their drinking water system. Point being is, if you cannot see it, doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist. Of course I'm not here to convince you either of anything, you believe what you do and that has no bearing on me. But, if you were to convey that there is no paranormal or supernatural I'd certainly disagree with you.

No atheists won't think in terms of paranormal and supernatural explicitly, and I think it is the way that the theists (and I wouldn't categorize all theists the same) asset their ideologies, it comes off as offensive.

Example, John is a Christian and tells Jane she is going to hell. Seemingly John is not trying to offend Jane, he wants her to honestly believe there is a hell and that she is going there unless she calls out to Christ (Greek title for savior). However, knowing better, the term Hell really begins with the Jewish Gehinnom (a realm where unrighteous souls are punished in Jew mythologies), and is later translated with the Greek Hades (a God of the underworld). Of course now over time the word "Hell" is now an insult. So, we have some issues here, we have a Christian who honestly believes there is a hell and a individual (Jane) who knows better. But, the Christian is inadvertently offending, so the question is can you fault the Christians for being ignorant of their history?

Generally a person with paranormal abilities is possible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay so hypercritical thinking, hypercritical describes someone who is full of complaints. And why not, the atheist is good at this.

So, what is the difference between "critical thinking" and "hyper critical thinking"?

One should critically think, but to outweigh the possibility "that if you cannot see something it must not exist" would also be foolish, you can't see the flu bug but we know it's effects.

1. I never claimed that if you can't see something that that means it does not exist
2. we can't see the flu with the naked eye, but we can surely see it under a microscope
3. we knew about atoms way before we had the technology to see it. There was plenty of indirect evidence that supported their existance. Indeed, we managed to build nuclear bombs even before we could observe atoms directly.

So, no, I don't make that particular claim.

You cannot see the paranormal or supernatural but many have had or seen the effects of it, as well others claim they have not.

See, this is the difference.... With the supernatural/paranormal, we only have the anecdotes of the people who claim it is real.

Contrast that with atoms for example... There was a very clear testable model which could be verified and tested by anyone. At no point did it depend on "just believing" the claims.

So no, your comparision does not work at all.

If you were go to Iraq and drink the water in Iraq you may not be able to see what is in the water in Iraq, but you will probably feel its effects, while an Iraqi may not feel the effects of their drinking water system. Point being is, if you cannot see it, doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.

Again, you can test the water. There are other ways of objectively and independently verifying things beyond mere "seeing". You can't do anything of the sort with the paranormal or the supernatural.

Mr Randy has had an outstanding challenge of a million bucks since the 70s to anyone who can demonstrate the paranormal. Many have tried, all have failed. Why? Because it is simply unsupportable. You can not put it to the test.

If you would put up a similar challenge to prove the existance of ("invisible") germs in a glass of water, the million dollars would be claimed within the hour.

But, if you were to convey that there is no paranormal or supernatural I'd certainly disagree with you.

YOU are the one who's making claims about the paranormal/supernatural. I'm just responding to your claim. That response being: I don't accept your claims as true, on grounds of insufficient evidence to justify such belief.

That is not the same as claiming that it isn't real.
In practice, sure, it results in me living my life as if it isn't real. But that's just out of necessity, not because I actually claim such. Why would I keep into account those things that I don't even accept/believe to be real, right?

Example, John is a Christian and tells Jane she is going to hell. Seemingly John is not trying to offend Jane, he wants her to honestly believe there is a hell and that she is going there unless she calls out to Christ (Greek title for savior). However, knowing better, the term Hell really begins with the Jewish Gehinnom (a realm where unrighteous souls are punished in Jew mythologies), and is later translated with the Greek Hades (a God of the underworld). Of course now over time the word "Hell" is now an insult.

When a christian tells me I am going to "Hell", then that threat or the Hell word is not what offends me.

What actually offends me, is that the person saying that is off the opinion that I actually DESERVE to go to an eternal torture chamber. This person worships the entity that is supposedly going to send me there and considers it ethical, just, moral, good.

You could say that this person wants me to be safe and therefor "warns" me and preaches to me - sure, and I get that.

But consider what is happening at that point... the person is attempting to make me change my ways in order for me to not have to end up in an eternal torture chamber. This implies that my current ways will make me end up there. And since the entity that supposedly sends me there is called "moral" and "goodness" and "just"... then that means that my current ways make me DESERVE to end up there.

THAT'S what offends me. That someone is telling me that I am so deprived and so immoral and so bad that I actually DESERVE ETERNAL SUFFERING.

It's absolutely sickening. It's moral bankrupcy all the way down. That is what offends me: the total lack of a moral compass, the barbarity of such a worldview, the downright psychopathic nature of such a morally bankrupt system. And they even dare to call it "good". It's wildly unsettling.

So, we have some issues here, we have a Christian who honestly believes there is a hell and a individual (Jane) who knows better. But, the Christian is inadvertently offending, so the question is can you fault the Christians for being ignorant of their history?

I can certainly fault him/her for following such a barbaric, immoral, unethical, unjust model of reality and calling it "good".

Generally a person with paranormal abilities is possible.

Prove it.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So, what is the difference between "critical thinking" and "hyper critical thinking"?

"Hyper critical thinking" is a term for an argument that the speaker finds too intimidating to deal with...

 

[ShamashUruk]

So, what is the difference between "critical thinking" and "hyper critical thinking"?

The objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment and that is critical thinking, hypercritical thinking in the sense of being overly critical, so you are still drawing a judgment, just in some way it might be irrational.

1. I never claimed that if you can't see something that that means it does not exist
2. we can't see the flu with the naked eye, but we can surely see it under a microscope
3. we knew about atoms way before we had the technology to see it. There was plenty of indirect evidence that supported their existence. Indeed, we managed to build nuclear bombs even before we could observe atoms directly.

So, no, I don't make that particular claim.

I said one should critically think but not outweigh the possibility, I never said it was your claim. The point is either there is a supernatural world or paranormal, and one might conclude there is not a supernatural world or paranormal world that exists parallel to this "world", either way a person believes it or they don't, if they are confused about it, then they should explore it or remain in question.

See, this is the difference.... With the supernatural/paranormal, we only have the anecdotes of the people who claim it is real.

Contrast that with atoms for example... There was a very clear testable model which could be verified and tested by anyone. At no point did it depend on "just believing" the claims.

So no, your comparision does not work at all.

Then you have made my point exactly. You being an atheist cannot purport a supernatural or paranormal world if you will. My next point is that in such fields as parapsychology these phenomenons should be studied, hence the "testable" as you so aptly put. In the book hyperspace there is an assertion of other worlds existing, such as the 10th dimension, parallel worlds and such. Are you then stating the notion that these other worlds are worlds alone and that no other beings can inhabit them? The answer is, we don't know, because we have yet to test. Hence, my assertion that the paranormal and or supernatural should be tested.

Again, you can test the water. There are other ways of objectively and independently verifying things beyond mere "seeing". You can't do anything of the sort with the paranormal or the supernatural.

Mr Randy has had an outstanding challenge of a million bucks since the 70s to anyone who can demonstrate the paranormal. Many have tried, all have failed. Why? Because it is simply unsupportable. You can not put it to the test.

If you would put up a similar challenge to prove the existance of ("invisible") germs in a glass of water, the million dollars would be claimed within the hour.

Sure you can test the water, without testing the water one would not know. The idea is not to "demonstrate" the paranormal in the aspect of a scientific discovery, you'd then have to conclude that the paranormal can be controlled or contained, which would need to be tested. So the notion that the paranormal can be controlled or contained within itself might not "fit" the scientific model. Even the apple falling from the tree will demonstrate gravity, but that's all it does. The apple that falls from the tree and then floats, that's an anomaly and remains as such, no need for exploration if it were to only happen once. When it comes to paranormal events it happens so few and so far between normal events it would be hard to forecast when it should happen. The only certainty that can be made is that people have made claims of it happening, and if they have documented it, then that is what should be tested.

Some might conclude this is personal experience, my personal experience is not the same as yours. However, this doesn't mean it didn't happen, but whether the outcome is the same or not is differing between each individual.

YOU are the one who's making claims about the paranormal/supernatural. I'm just responding to your claim. That response being: I don't accept your claims as true, on grounds of insufficient evidence to justify such belief.

That is not the same as claiming that it isn't real.
In practice, sure, it results in me living my life as if it isn't real. But that's just out of necessity, not because I actually claim such. Why would I keep into account those things that I don't even accept/believe to be real, right?

No, you are incorrect. I'm the one stating that the paranormal or supernatural should be studied. I'm stating it is a possibility, for those who have not studied it. Whether you claim anything is irrelevant and has nothing to do with you refuting what I brought up as possibility. This goes back to my hypercritical thinking claim.

So I'll clraify, I am stating that the supernatural or paranormal is possibly real, that events in the supernatural and or paranormal should be studied.

You are stating the supernatural or possibility of paranormal is not real, and essentially should not be studied.

Hence, hypercritical thinking. You have made my points over and over again.

When a christian tells me I am going to "Hell", then that threat or the Hell word is not what offends me.

What actually offends me, is that the person saying that is off the opinion that I actually DESERVE to go to an eternal torture chamber. This person worships the entity that is supposedly going to send me there and considers it ethical, just, moral, good.

You could say that this person wants me to be safe and therefor "warns" me and preaches to me - sure, and I get that.

But consider what is happening at that point... the person is attempting to make me change my ways in order for me to not have to end up in an eternal torture chamber. This implies that my current ways will make me end up there. And since the entity that supposedly sends me there is called "moral" and "goodness" and "just"... then that means that my current ways make me DESERVE to end up there.

THAT'S what offends me. That someone is telling me that I am so deprived and so immoral and so bad that I actually DESERVE ETERNAL SUFFERING.

It's absolutely sickening. It's moral bankrupcy all the way down. That is what offends me: the total lack of a moral compass, the barbarity of such a worldview, the downright psychopathic nature of such a morally bankrupt system. And they even dare to call it "good". It's wildly unsettling.

Well if you know the history of hell it isn't an "eternal torture", in a Biblical sense it is, but we all know the Bible is derived from Polytheistic cultures.

Hence, "hell" is only a named God in the Greek Pantheon and earlier is Gehenna. Basically you'd have to be offended that a Christian is telling you, that you will be taken to a place to be beaten and tortured if this was about 3500 years ago and you had broken some Israelite law, which I seriously doubt you are a Jew.

That is all I am saying the person is warning you, but has no idea why of the history of what they believe.

Back to my point, if that is what offends you, it is because you have limited knowledge in what "hell" is historically. It's called surface knowledge of the Bible, and there is no study of anthropology, archaeology, assyriology, linguistics, and so on.

I don't even get offended when a Christian tells me that, but I know better.

I can certainly fault him/her for following such a barbaric, immoral, unethical, unjust model of reality and calling it "good". Prove it.

Anyone can be barbaric, immoral, unethical, unjust, evil, so on and so on. You're just offended and your only response is "prove it" without understanding the Christian. I on the contrary don't think such things, I think Christianity should be studied, much like a scientist would study a lab rat.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment and that is critical thinking, hypercritical thinking in the sense of being overly critical, so you are still drawing a judgment, just in some way it might be irrational.

What is "overly" critical? And in what way might it be irrational?
And can you give an actual example of such which directly relates to your initial mention of this concept?

I said one should critically think but not outweigh the possibility, I never said it was your claim. The point is either there is a supernatural world or paranormal, and one might conclude there is not a supernatural world or paranormal world that exists parallel to this "world", either way a person believes it or they don't, if they are confused about it, then they should explore it or remain in question.

You are heavily mistaken and somewhat confused it seems.

There are 2 claims possible:
1. There IS a supernatural realm
2. There is NO supernatural realm

Only the first claim is addressed. Theists are making that claim. Nobody is making the second claim. It's the first claim that is being discussed, not the second.

ANd it most certainly is NOT the case that you have to "believe" (=accept as true / correct) one or the other.

Then you have made my point exactly. You being an atheist cannot purport a supernatural or paranormal world if you will. My next point is that in such fields as parapsychology these phenomenons should be studied, hence the "testable" as you so aptly put.

What "fields"? What "tests"?

In the book hyperspace there is an assertion of other worlds existing, such as the 10th dimension, parallel worlds and such. Are you then stating the notion that these other worlds are worlds alone and that no other beings can inhabit them? The answer is, we don't know, because we have yet to test.

No idea what book you are talking about, but as far as string theorists and "multi-verse" ideas go, physicists - even those invested in those ideas - will be the very first to tell you that they have nice models and internally consistent math to express them, but that none of it can be verified empirically and that until it can, all this is really just intellectual masturbation.

That's not to say that these hypothesis are not worth exploring. But context, please....
Not a single self-respecting physicist will use the word "assert" for such things.

Hence, my assertion that the paranormal and or supernatural should be tested.

So how do you propose to do that?

Sure you can test the water, without testing the water one would not know.

And drinking it, might also be testing it, btw. Assuming germs that, for example, give you diarrea.

The idea is not to "demonstrate" the paranormal in the aspect of a scientific discovery, you'd then have to conclude that the paranormal can be controlled or contained, which would need to be tested. So the notion that the paranormal can be controlled or contained within itself might not "fit" the scientific model. Even the apple falling from the tree will demonstrate gravity, but that's all it does. The apple that falls from the tree and then floats, that's an anomaly and remains as such, no need for exploration if it were to only happen once.

Errr.... if an apple would float instead of falling to the ground, it would turn physics on its head dude...

When it comes to paranormal events it happens so few and so far between normal events it would be hard to forecast when it should happen.

To say such a thing, assumes that paranormal events even happen in the first place.
If the idea is to find out if the paranormal even EXISTS, then you can't be assuming/asserting such things. That would be ... assuming your conclusion.

The only certainty that can be made is that people have made claims of it happening, and if they have documented it, then that is what should be tested.

Are you aware that people claim a LOT of things and document these claims?
Alien abductions, supernatural stuff which is incompatible with your supernatural stuff, bigfoot,...

Some might conclude this is personal experience, my personal experience is not the same as yours. However, this doesn't mean it didn't happen, but whether the outcome is the same or not is differing between each individual.

Has it ever occured to you that there might be a difference between
a. what a person experiences
and
b. how that person explains / interprets that experience?

The stereotypical example being "I was sick, prayed and then I got better!! Miracle!"
While it was just his immune system that fought the germs. Or the meds he was taking.

What people experience and how they explain those experiences, are 2 vastly different things.

I don't doubt the experiences of a sincere alien abductee. However, I'm very sceptical of that sincere person's claim that his experience = alien abduction.

So I'll clraify, I am stating that the supernatural or paranormal is possibly real, that events in the supernatural and or paranormal should be studied.

How? How do you propose to study such?

You are stating the supernatural or possibility of paranormal is not real, and essentially should not be studied.

I'm saying there is no reason to believe it is real and that there is nothing there to study.

It could be real and completely hidden to us. Just like the Matrix.
The question is, how would we know?

Hence, hypercritical thinking. You have made my points over and over again.

Still not clear to me what this "hyper" means in "hypercritical".
So far, it seems to mean that I'm being "hyper" critical whenever I'm pointing out that the "supernatural" seems superstitious nonsense with no grounding in reality whatsoever.

Well if you know the history of hell it isn't an "eternal torture", in a Biblical sense it is, but we all know the Bible is derived from Polytheistic cultures.

Hence, "hell" is only a named God in the Greek Pantheon and earlier is Gehenna. Basically you'd have to be offended that a Christian is telling you, that you will be taken to a place to be beaten and tortured if this was about 3500 years ago and you had broken some Israelite law, which I seriously doubt you are a Jew.

That is all I am saying the person is warning you, but has no idea why of the history of what they believe.

None of that matters, when the person I'm talking to doesn't hold that view and instead thinks god is uber-just/moral/good and that hell is a real place of eternal suffering.

Back to my point, if that is what offends you, it is because you have limited knowledge in what "hell" is historically.

I explained clearly what part about hell-threats offends me.
Not sure how you managed to ignore or misunderstand that.

I don't even get offended when a Christian tells me that, but I know better.

That is your mistake.
That christian who tells you that really believes it.
It doesn't matter what (according to you) the "right" interpretation is. What matters is what the person YOU ARE TALKING TO actually believes, because that is his underlying motivation.
If you re-read my paragraphe where I explain what offends me concerning that subject, you will see that it is centered around the person I'm speaking to and his trail of thought. Not what "historically" is and isn't biblical. I couldn't care less about that. What matters is what people believe and what motivates them. Because that is what informs their actions.

I couldn't care less what "original christianity" had to say about these things. I'm not dealing with "original christianity" in every day life. There, I have to deal with real people holding real beliefs, regardless what incarnation those beliefs existed as some 1600 years ago.

Anyone can be barbaric, immoral, unethical, unjust, evil, so on and so on.

To borrow from 'The Hitch': "...but for a nice/good person to become barbaric, immoral, unethical, unjust,.... that takes religion"

Sorry, couldn't help myself...
But indeed. I'll add to that, that religion in general also has that very nasty side effect that when it produces such vile behaviour, those engaging in it even belief that they are being some kind of supreme moral knight. That's what I find most depressing, actually.

You're just offended and your only response is "prove it" without understanding the Christian. I on the contrary don't think such things, I think Christianity should be studied, much like a scientist would study a lab rat.

I don't think christianity, or any other religion, is worth spending any time or resources on to "study". Not in that sense anyway.

In historical cultural or linguistic sense, sure...
But in the sense of "let's see if this story is actually true"... nope. It's been done already. And it was decided that most of the bible is to be seen as "metaphorical" because the alternative was ridiculous.

And then there are also the YECs who happily engage in logic gymnastics and incredible apologetics, just to marry their outlandish beliefs with the evidence of reality.

Some even go so far, like AV, who simply say "when reality doesn't agree with my religion, then reality is wrong"

 

[ShamashUruk]

What is "overly" critical? And in what way might it be irrational?
And can you give an actual example of such which directly relates to your initial mention of this concept?

The person is over critical, which can be irrational. You will make this mistake throughout your posting, hence my example.

You are heavily mistaken and somewhat confused it seems.

There are 2 claims possible:
1. There IS a supernatural realm
2. There is NO supernatural realm

Only the first claim is addressed. Theists are making that claim. Nobody is making the second claim. It's the first claim that is being discussed, not the second.

ANd it most certainly is NOT the case that you have to "believe" (=accept as true / correct) one or the other.

Wrong, both claims are addressed. This goes to my example of being irrational due to critical thinking. Not all theists are alike, I'd like to know where you get that all theists are alike. For example, some neo-pagans who engage in worship of "demonic" entities or even "angelic" entities believe that they are mental constructs. Hence, not every "theist" believes the same, to them the mental construct is supernatural.
But, that isn't the issue either.
What you are confused on is what I have stated. Either someone will believe there is a supernatural, won't believe there is a supernatural, or questions whether there is a supertnatural.
This brings full cricle to my point, the point is the possibility should be explored, and when you ignore it you have ignored any possiblitiy at all. Also, it goes back to my point of being hypercritical.
I am unaware of any negative impact exploring the possibility of the supernatural would have on any atheist.

What "fields"? What "tests"?

The field of parapsychology would need to be greatly explored in order to establish a possiblity of the supernatural. Going back to my point of hypercritical thinking, most of the atheistic scientific community will heavily scrutinize such fields, oft making irrational conclusions.

No idea what book you are talking about, but as far as string theorists and "multi-verse" ideas go, physicists - even those invested in those ideas - will be the very first to tell you that they have nice models and internally consistent math to express them, but that none of it can be verified empirically and that until it can, all this is really just intellectual masturbation.

That's not to say that these hypothesis are not worth exploring. But context, please....
Not a single self-respecting physicist will use the word "assert" for such things.

I never stated the author is going to state they "assert" anything, they make assertions, going back to my example of hypercritical thinking.

It would be hard to prove time travel as no one has successfully been able to actually time travel, yet Albert Enstein asserts this, of course mathematically.

Also, math can be manipulated as well, for example 3+3=1, when expiramentation on how to siphon liquids from one container to another is conducted. Kind of funny because a scientist shows this (on a TV show nontheless), but it is shown that math "doesn't always add up".

From Hyperspace by Michio Kaku (p185-188) essentially he is talking about testing the untestable, essentially it is theoretical until it can be tested. He is also talking about certain theories such as Planck energy "unforeseen breakthroughs will make indirect experiments possible near the Planck energy".

I tend to think of the paranormal in the same way, we can take the case of Ed and Lorrain Warren and the doll that they have that is blessed as it has been noted that the doll will move. It is only a theory the doll is haunted, yet it has been noted that it will move on its own accord. This doesn't prove the supernatural (as it is not what my intention is), but shows that it can be a possibility.

So how do you propose to do that?

See my above statements.

Errr.... if an apple would float instead of falling to the ground, it would turn physics on its head dude...

Sure a physicists would not be able to explain it within the confines of physics. However, would a paranormal investigator then be able to explore the phenonmena?

To say such a thing, assumes that paranormal events even happen in the first place.
If the idea is to find out if the paranormal even EXISTS, then you can't be assuming/asserting such things. That would be ... assuming your conclusion.

Incorrect, I'm stating that I know them too happen. I'm also stating that you are unaware of such things. Hence, the only conclusion we can draw is that it should be studied. If I know about paranormal events happening and you don't, I can't convince you they happen, I can only suggest you study them, or remain in denial of them happening. This isn't a "judgment call", it has no impact on your life. If you recall I'm not a Christian, I'm not here to convert you, and I could careless whether you believe such events happen.

Are you aware that people claim a LOT of things and document these claims?
Alien abductions, supernatural stuff which is incompatible with your supernatural stuff, bigfoot,...

Sure, but they should be investigated to a satsifactory outcome (whether proving they do exist or don't exist) is the end result.

Has it ever occured to you that there might be a difference between
a. what a person experiences
and
b. how that person explains / interprets that experience?

The stereotypical example being "I was sick, prayed and then I got better!! Miracle!"
While it was just his immune system that fought the germs. Or the meds he was taking.

What people experience and how they explain those experiences, are 2 vastly different things.

I don't doubt the experiences of a sincere alien abductee. However, I'm very sceptical of that sincere person's claim that his experience = alien abduction.

This goes back to my point I have been making all along, my previous quote is "Some might conclude this is personal experience, my personal experience is not the same as yours. However, this doesn't mean it didn't happen, but whether the outcome is the same or not is differing between each individual."

In other words, documentation is needed.

Bad example, getting sick and getting better is only an example, let's say someone gets Dengue fever and pray's but doesn't see a doctor and dies, can we then state that person's fervent prayer saved them from the disease? No, we can state prayer didn't work, or we can state the person was not proactive about getting cured.

But, I would also never make or compare getting sick to an "alien abduction", it's not the same. It's like comparing baseball to going to Disneyland, makes no sense.

Back to my point, the alien abduction should be documented. But, you conclude that you don't doubt someone's claim of being abducted, yet you are skeptical, meaning you essentially do doubt their claim. Can you clarify this contradiction please?

How? How do you propose to study such?

How else does one study? With equipment, documentation, so on, so on.

I'm saying there is no reason to believe it is real and that there is nothing there to study.

It could be real and completely hidden to us. Just like the Matrix.
The question is, how would we know?

By not studying then it is denied automatically, imagine if scientist didn't study viruses.

There is a vaccine being studied in Europe now which can adapt to flu viruses throughout most of a human beings lifespan. Meaning you'd only need to get one shot in your lifetime.

Let's say we ignored claims of the paranormal made by people, let's say these are genuine claims. Should we not study their claims to either establish or debunk their claims? If we don't study it, then we can never know.

Still not clear to me what this "hyper" means in "hypercritical".
So far, it seems to mean that I'm being "hyper" critical whenever I'm pointing out that the "supernatural" seems superstitious nonsense with no grounding in reality whatsoever.

See my above examples of hypercritical thinking on your end (i.e. I never stated the author is going to state they "assert" anything, they make assertions, going back to my example of hypercritical thinking) which then clarity is provided.

None of that matters, when the person I'm talking to doesn't hold that view and instead thinks god is uber-just/moral/good and that hell is a real place of eternal suffering.

No it wouldn't matter to you, but it's really just then a debate of principle.

Debating on principle ends up being circular unfortunately and the conversation leads to a dead end.

Christian: God loves you wants you to go Heaven
Atheist: Prove it
Christian: The Bible
Atheist: Circular argument
Christian: You can't have morals without God
Atheist: This isn't true
Christian: Well, then the Nazis had morals without God, is what they did right?
Atheist: No, (objective or subjective) morality argument.
Christian: Blah, blah, blah I disagree with you
Atheist: Blah, blah, blah I disagree with you

That is generally the end result of those types of debates.

explained clearly what part about hell-threats offends me. Not sure how you managed to ignore or misunderstand that.

You stated that "What actually offends me, is that the person saying that is off the opinion that I actually DESERVE to go to an eternal torture chamber. " In other words why would a loving God send you to an eternal torture chamber?
I'm telling you that "hell" is not an eternal torture chamber, it is a reference to Gehenna.

You don't even know what "hell" is historically, yet you are offended? How, could you even think it is an eternal torture place? Please show me the history of the adoption of the word "hell" and please tell me how you come to the conclusion that hell is an eternal torture place?

That is your mistake.
That christian who tells you that really believes it.
It doesn't matter what (according to you) the "right" interpretation is. What matters is what the person YOU ARE TALKING TO actually believes, because that is his underlying motivation.
If you re-read my paragraphe where I explain what offends me concerning that subject, you will see that it is centered around the person I'm speaking to and his trail of thought. Not what "historically" is and isn't biblical. I couldn't care less about that. What matters is what people believe and what motivates them. Because that is what informs their actions.

I couldn't care less what "original christianity" had to say about these things. I'm not dealing with "original christianity" in every day life. There, I have to deal with real people holding real beliefs, regardless what incarnation those beliefs existed as some 1600 years ago.

And I'm telling you that their belief is based on older beliefs, they are misconstrued.

Sure, what they belief is off base.

But, I would never debate a Christian that there is no "hell", there is an actual "hell" it is called Gehenna. It is a small valley in Jerusalem and in the Hebrew Bible, Gehenna was initially where some of the kings of Judah sacrificed their children by fire.

1600 years? You are totally off.

It's senseless belief, but you are offended.

However, to stand your issue is: Why would a loving God send you to an eternal torture chamber? The Christian response should be that God is just and cannot allow "sin" to enter his Kingdom and that mankind fell from grace, so on and so on.

To borrow from 'The Hitch': "...but for a nice/good person to become barbaric, immoral, unethical, unjust,.... that takes religion"

Sorry, couldn't help myself...
But indeed. I'll add to that, that religion in general also has that very nasty side effect that when it produces such vile behaviour, those engaging in it even belief that they are being some kind of supreme moral knight. That's what I find most depressing, actually.

Religion is religion, crazy people are crazy people. I am not under the impression that "belief" should dictate a persons action in an immoral sense, yet it can. This is realm of psychology that needs interpretation.

I don't think christianity, or any other religion, is worth spending any time or resources on to "study". Not in that sense anyway.

In historical cultural or linguistic sense, sure...
But in the sense of "let's see if this story is actually true"... nope. It's been done already. And it was decided that most of the bible is to be seen as "metaphorical" because the alternative was ridiculous.

And then there are also the YECs who happily engage in logic gymnastics and incredible apologetics, just to marry their outlandish beliefs with the evidence of reality.

Some even go so far, like AV, who simply say "when reality doesn't agree with my religion, then reality is wrong"

There was an assertion made that humans long descended from Melon seeds (Waley 1954; pg 246) but this has been rejected by the scientific community, hence the theory didn't work. This is an example of not being overcritical but rejecting a theory (which is oft done in the scientific community), however, the rejection of such theories indicate that change is a necessary "evil" if you will.