The Purple Dragon

[bobhikes]

Im thinking I should have put this in a joke section.

By what means does a purple dragon exist outside what is written or seen on t.v. about it?

By the way I'm Agnostic.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

By the way I'm Agnostic.

To the purple dragon?

 

[blü 2]

Do you believe there could be a purple dragon if you had proof from a disney movie?

If you mean a purple dragon out there in reality, no. A cartoon is unabashedly a work of imagination, hence not satisfactory evidence, within the story frame, of anything about reality.

Do you believe a fire breathing purple dragon could exist if you have proof from a disney movie?

If Disney made a movie about hard science, defined what a dragon is, and what 'fire-breathing' means, for scientific purposes, and showed lab work that had successfully produced a creature which satisfied the criteria, then (a) I'd expect to have read about it in reputable science reports before I saw the movie, and (b) if I hadn't, I'd take the movie with a large grain of salt, not regarding it as having yet persuaded me that it was correct.

But going back to your question whether such a creature could exist, then if those definitions were in place (so that we could tell whether and when we'd succeeded), I wouldn't rule it out as impossible just yet.

 

[bobhikes]

To the purple dragon?

Probably not but to Dragons yeah.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Probably not but to Dragons yeah.

Okay Then. Thanks.

How are they different? The dragon and god

Dragon (disney and kid)
God (say sacred scripure and believer)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There are a lot of Ifs. Disney imagination can go on for years way after Walt Disney passed.

If you mean a purple dragon out there in reality, no. A

Thats what I meant.
But I was asking about being agnostic to a dragon existing. Can one be agnostic (is it logical) to say we dont know dragons exist without proof; or chuck the proof because dragons dont exist in reality?

If Disney made a movie about hard science,

But thats not disney. Maybe Bill Nye the science guy.

But going back to your question whether such a creature could exist, then if those definitions were in place (so that we could tell whether and when we'd succeeded), I wouldn't rule it out as impossible just yet.

Without the science part, could you be agnostic to dragons or is it cut and dry dragons dont exist (Sword and the Stone dragon; Madaam Min)

 

[Twilight Hue]

Really, its a pretty neat book. My son likes Dinosaurs and Dragon's and I encouraged him. He now realizes that the Dragon's are probably just miss named fossils of Dinosaurs but like me he still likes Bigfoot, Jersey Devil and Ghost stories so he probably still believe's in Dragon's somewhat.

God that reminds me of myself when I was a kid. I couldn't get enough of monsters and creatures and flying things. Wolfman, The Mummy, Dracula.. .. I remember rushing home where I was out of breath from school just to watch Godzilla rampaging through Japan fighting the monster of the week.

Those were the days. Keep those memories alive for your son as I'm sure he will love you for years down the road for that. :0)

 

[Sir Doom]

hmm


So would or can you be agnostic with this conclusion?

Not me, no. I mean, if someone came across this video 1000 years from now without the same frame of reference that I have, I suppose I could understand someone taking an agnostic position. I'm not really capable of that since I am aware that it was intended as fiction.

Can you be agnostic to this?

Or are you taking a strict atheist position?

I am agnostic on the existence of purple dragons. The universe is too big to say there is no such thing and we have no scientific data to say they do. The creature is not exactly impossible by the physical laws we are aware of, so I can't really say there can't be such a thing somewhere. I haven't seen anything to suggest such a creature ever existed on Earth. At least nothing convincing.

I have no idea if there are purple dragons. Disney doesn't move the scrimmage line one way or another.

 

[Twilight Hue]

When you leave the theatre, i assume youd be atheist to it?

Well I would have that ability for discernment between reality and fiction.

For all practical intents and purposes I would not propose purple fire breathing dragons exist on the basis of watching a Disney film in a theater.

 

[blü 2]

Without the science part, could you be agnostic to dragons

Given we mean very large winged reptiles who literally breath fire, no, my start position is that we have no reason to think they exist.

But if you have a real one to show me, I can always be persuaded.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Not me, no. I mean, if someone came across this video 1000 years from now without the same frame of reference that I have, I suppose I could understand someone taking an agnostic position. I'm not really capable of that since I am aware that it was intended as fiction.



I am agnostic on the existence of purple dragons. The universe is too big to say there is no such thing and we have no scientific data to say they do. The creature is not exactly impossible by the physical laws we are aware of, so I can't really say there can't be such a thing somewhere. I haven't seen anything to suggest such a creature ever existed on Earth. At least nothing convincing.

I have no idea if there are purple dragons. Disney doesn't move the scrimmage line one way or another.

Hmm. You can be agnostic for just about anything then.

If we dont know everything, to what means does science excape this logic without us claiming we know life just because we agree to the science we discover?

Now since we cant predict anything would not change (or is science so static like theist beliefs) we wont nudge if we find something contrary to what our studies and experiments tell us?) ten years from now.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Given we mean very large winged reptiles who literally breath fire, no, my start position is that we have no reason to think they exist.

But if you have a real one to show me, I can always be persuaded.

A kinda agnostic (there could true be if you showed me)?

Are there any topics you know is not true (without going sci-fi on me) no matter how much proof a person gives you?

 

[Sir Doom]

They are mammals in some stories >.>

 

[Sir Doom]

Hmm. You can be agnostic for just about anything then.

Technically, yeah. I think there is such a thing as pseudo-agnostic when a person is just refusing to take a stance for whatever alternate motive they may have. But when I say agnostic I mean "I don't really know so I'm not going to pretend to". I can give you a tentative answer if 'the chips are down' in most cases, but with all the time in the world? I can always find a question to ask no matter what the assertion. I'm agnostic about most things because I'm cynical, skeptical and pessimistic as a rule.

If we dont know everything, to what means does science excape this logic without us claiming we know life just because we agree to the science we discover?

Scientific experiments are required to be repeatable for lots of reasons. One of those reasons is to make sure it still works as expected. Another is to make sure we interpret the data from every angle and 'get it right' for lack of a better phrase. The scientific method is agnostic by design, really.

Now since we cant predict anything would not change (or is science so static like theist beliefs) we wont nudge if we find something contrary to what our studies and experiments tell us?) ten years from now.

See above. Its hell trying to reformat on my phone

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Technically, yeah. I think there is such a thing as pseudo-agnostic when a person is just refusing to take a stance for whatever alternate motive they may have. But when I say agnostic I mean "I don't really know so I'm not going to pretend to". I can give you a tentative answer if 'the chips are down' in most cases, but with all the time in the world? I can always find a question to ask no matter what the assertion. I'm agnostic about most things because I'm cynical, skeptical and pessimistic as a rule.



Scientific experiments are required to be repeatable for lots of reasons. One of those reasons is to make sure it still works as expected. Another is to make sure we interpret the data from every angle and 'get it right' for lack of a better phrase. The scientific method is agnostic by design, really.



See above. Its hell trying to reformat on my phone

ha yeah. I used to use my phone now I upgraded to a tablet with its own keyboard. Someone stole my laptop, so I saved over a two or three hundred with a handy, dandy computer piano.

Id assume there are some things one knows is true without holding a skeptic position. Just because I say the sun is orbiting the moon (taking out science) that doesnt make it true. I can say I dont know, but that means nothing really. I can be agnostic all I want but that doesnt change facts. So, I mind as well cut to the chase and say Im atheist or Im not.

On the flip side, the purple dragon doesnt exist. I can say I dont know all I want but that doesnt change facts. With god its much easier to take a side and not be agnostic. A lot of observations and making ones own conclusions.

But some of yall use the spegetti monster. That always give me a start if one can be atheist about the SM but not about god, I raise a eye brow.

 

[Sir Doom]

Something designed as fiction is pretty easy to call unreal.

God's got a bit more baggage.

FSM has nearly as much, but again... Designed as fiction.

I am agnostic about god in general, but if you start listing gods to see if I believe in this one or that I'm going to start looking very atheistic. Conversely, if you tell me this or that God can't exist I'm probably going to show you how they might. I don't even trust my own opinion on the matter, the rest of you have no chance!

Honestly, I don't think anyone has any idea and every answer has an agenda attached. No judgment on that, we're only human.

 

[blü 2]

A kinda agnostic (there could true be if you showed me)?

Simply standard skeptical behavior.

Are there any topics you know is not true (without going sci-fi on me) no matter how much proof a person gives you?

A satisfactory demonstration is a satisfactory demonstration, and at any given time that's all I can ask for, even if next week, or year, or century it turns out to be fake, wrong, misleading or misunderstood in some way. There are no absolutes outside of this sentence.

The situation with gods is one remove from that, though. It'd be possible that real gods exist IF (and only if) someone will put on the table a definition of a real god such that if we found one we could determine that it was a real god. At present there's no such thing, or certainly none that I'm aware of.

So right now the expression 'real god' doesn't denote anything real, and the question is meaningless.

 

[bobhikes]

Okay Then. Thanks.

How are they different? The dragon and god

Dragon (disney and kid)
God (say sacred scripure and believer)

There not different in whether you can prove their existence or not. There are supposed artifacts of each found throughout history, There are stories of each throughout history and there are depictions of them throughout history. Every country has some sort of description of what each should be.

They are different in what they mean to people and what they can do.

 

[bobhikes]

God that reminds me of myself when I was a kid. I couldn't get enough of monsters and creatures and flying things. Wolfman, The Mummy, Dracula.. .. I remember rushing home where I was out of breath from school just to watch Godzilla rampaging through Japan fighting the monster of the week.

Those were the days. Keep those memories alive for your son as I'm sure he will love you for years down the road for that. :0)

The 4:30 movies on ABC, Monster week, Godzilla week, plus Kung fu week and the comedy weeks. Loved them. My kids are Big Godzilla fans we are all looking forward to the Godzilla/King Kong 2020 remake.

 

[stvdv]

Do you believe there could be a purple dragon if you had proof from a disney movie?
Not god. A big, fire breathing, Sword in the stone, purple dragon.

Consciousness (or God) is as the screen in a movie on which the movie is superimposed

So purple dragon is the movie superimposed on the screen. Coming and going (after 90 min). Screen stays.