XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 13:49:04 +1000, felix_unger  wrote:   
      
   >On 29-September-2014 11:04 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >> On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:23:27 +0200, "Malte Runz"    
   wrote:   
   >> ..   
   >>> "grabber"  skrev i meddelelsen news:CAEVv.595807$7b1.280829@fx01.am4...   
   >>>   
   >>> (snip)   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>> And I don't think there's a disagreement between you [felix_unger] and   
   >>>> Malte about whether that material represents good grounds in believing in   
   >>>> Nessie/BF/UFOs. ...   
   >>> I believe there's a huge disagreement. f_u regards any and every kind of   
   >>> hearsay as evidence: 'I was abducted and probed!!!' is evidence for UFO's   
   >>> having visited Earth. 'Millions of people believe in God and there is this   
   >>> book...' is also valid evidence for the existence of God. In my book none   
   of   
   >>> that is evidence.   
   >>>   
   >>>> ... And if there is, that's clearly not what you're interested in arguing   
   >>>> about, either.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> All you're interested in arguing about is whether that stuff meets your   
   >>>> particular chosen sense of the word "evidence". ...   
   >>> I agree, and I ask myself why he is willing to accept that hearsay about   
   >>> Dog-Heads is valid, sensible and reliable evidence for their existence.   
   >>>   
   >>> I know that 'common sense' very commonly doesn't make any sense, but you   
   >>> have to use your brains once in a while and discard the most obvious   
   >>> nonsense. Hearsay, ancient books and biased witnesses' testimony is not   
   >>> reliable and should never be regarded as useful evidence.   
   >>>   
   >>> (snip)   
   >>      LOL!!! So people you have never met and don't know a damn thing about   
   say   
   >> they were abducted by aliens. To begin with we have no strong reason to   
   >> disbelieve them not knowing the people or whether or not aliens ever abduct   
   >> anyone. But then YOU say no they were not, and then we're supposed to put   
   faith   
   >> in that and consider YOU saying "no" as "evidence" against what they said   
   >> happened to them...LOL.........and also feel that it's "common sense" to   
   put all   
   >> our faith in YOUR claim...LOL... As usual, just describing you peoples'   
   position   
   >> is AGAIN HILARIOUS!!!!   
   >   
   >LOL! you make it clear how silly they can be   
      
       We should really have a list by now, since so often just describing the   
   position they ARE IN is very amusing.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)