XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 08:36:13 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
      
   >On 08-December-2014 12:24 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 07:16:25 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
   >> ..   
   >>> On 01-December-2014 1:28 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 22:50:13 -0500, August Rode    
   wrote:   
   >>>> ..   
   >>>>> On 21/11/2014 9:28 PM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 07:26:25 -0500, August Rode    
   wrote:   
   >>>>>> .   
   >>>>>>> On 16/11/2014 12:00 AM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 16-November-2014 12:59 PM, August Rode wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> On 15/11/2014 4:43 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 16-November-2014 12:31 AM, August Rode wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Is there evidence for the Loch Ness Monster?   
   >>>>>>> No.   
   >>>>>>        When people investigate the evidence for it, what do you think   
   they really   
   >>>>>> are doing?   
   >>>>> Deluding themselves   
   >>>>       By investigating what?   
   >>> oh.. umm... gee whiz... that's a tough one. I'll hazard a guess.   
   >>> wouldn't be the evidence, would it??   
   >>      It does seem so obvious that even an atheist should be able to figure   
   it   
   >> out.   
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>>> do we know *IF* it exists?   
   >>>>>>> We do know that. It doesn't exist.   
   >>>>>>        Explain how you think YOU could possibly have found that out.   
   >>>>> The maximum life span of animals on this planet is on the order of 100   
   >>>>> years or so. There would have had to have been a breeding population   
   >>>>> within the last century. If you think one large organism is capable of   
   >>>>> evading the eyes of humans, it would be vastly more difficult for two or   
   >>>>> more to do it. And Loch Ness is landlocked, so the breeding population   
   >>>>> would have had to have been in the loch as well.   
   >>>>       Your guess is how you could have "found out" from your pov, but   
   from a   
   >>>> different pov it's just a guess you put faith in.   
      
   >>> so yet once again we see atheists wanting to discuss the validity of the   
   >>> evidence that according to them does not exist. It never seems to occur   
   >>> to them that we would not be discussing the existence of the LNM unless   
   >>> there was some evidence to support the claim it exists.   
      
   >>      Could they ALL honestly be that stupid and clueless?   
   >   
   >  they throw common sense out the window simply because they want to   
   >deny there's any reason to accept the possibility that a God exists,   
      
       A more direct answer seems that the answer is: Yes they ALL honestly could   
   be that stupid and clueless and maybe they necessarily must be, because if they   
   were not they would be at least weak agnostics, not atheists.   
      
   >>> I don't see   
   >>> anyone discussing the existence of the giant frog of the French Riviera   
   >>      A detail which no doubt is far beyond their ability to comprehend much   
   less   
   >> appreciate.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>        When people investigate the evidence for them, what do you think   
   they really   
   >>>>>> are doing?   
      
   >>>>> Engaging in confirmation bias. The people who "investigate the evidence"   
   >>>>> and come up with a positive result   
   >>> yeah right.. NASA, the USAF, etc, are engaging in confirmation bias by   
   >>> investigating reports of UFO's because they're organizations that   
   >>> believe in alien visitations. ok, got that!   
      
   >>      May be but so far I can't accept it. I again challenge any of them to   
   >> present their evidence.   
   >   
   >I was being sarcastic. there's no bias involved. any scientific   
   >investigation of such matters is only concerned with determining the facts   
      
       I knew you were being sarcastic, but the challenge was real and remains. It   
   will continue to remain because it's another one that they not only can't meet,   
   but apparently can't attempt to address at all.   
      
   >>>>       What are the people who come up with a negative result   
   investigating?   
   >>> there aren't any, apparently, according to him   
   >>      Again let them present their evidence.   
   >>   
   >>>>> are those who believe that UFOs are   
   >>>>> alien spacecraft to begin with. They aren't investigating the evidence;   
   >>>>       What are they investigating?   
   >>> his mom's recipe for bolognaise sauce?   
   >>      That makes as much "sense" as anything any of them have presented so   
   far.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)