Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    talk.philosophy.humanism    |    Humanism in the modern world    |    22,193 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 21,888 of 22,193    |
|    Malte Runz to All    |
|    Re: What if atheists could somehow be pr    |
|    05 Oct 14 14:23:38    |
      XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic       XPost: alt.christnet       From: malte_runz@forgitit.dk              "felix_unger" skrev i meddelelsen news:c9buv6F3hbsU1@mid.individual.net...       >       > On 05-October-2014 11:20 AM, Malte Runz wrote:       >              (snip)              > > We gain nothing by rendering definitions meaningless, and that's what he       > > is doing.       >       > I do nothing of the sort. ...              If a grainy image of an out of focus blob in sky and the testimony of       tormented souls is 'evidence that Aliens have visited Earth' in the same way       that DNA constitutes evidence for evolution, then it is exactly what you are       doing.              > ... I simply use the normal definition of evidence, as I have told you       > repeatedly, so you should bloodywell know by now!              A strange 'footprint' and the bloody carcas of deer in the forrest is not       evidence for Bigfoot. It's evidence of peoples vivid imagination, if nothing       else.                     > > He ends up having to defend the possible existence of Dog-Heads       >       > Lets suppose that we want to discuss the existence of your dogheads. What       > are we going to say we will do? will we say.. "Let's discuss the reports       > of/about, the sightings of, any testimony about, the writings about, any       > documents relating to, the oral tradition about, any known interactions       > with, any artifacts of, the habitats of, and anything else we can think of       > relating to, the dogheads." of course not! ...              We should, though, because it would show us that there really isn't any       evidence at all.              > ... we would simply say "Let's examine the EVIDENCE for the dogheads"       > which would encompass all of that! duh!              And we would be wrong. Grainy blobs and smears in the mud can be       /interpreted/ to be evidence of pretty much anything. I see confirmation       bias everywhere!                     --       Malte Runz              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca