XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 05-October-2014 11:23 PM, Malte Runz wrote:   
   > "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!   
   >   
   >   
      
   I can see that no amount of reason or argument is going to change your   
   mind, so no point in continuing, and repeating myself over and over   
      
   --   
   rgds,   
      
   Pete   
   -------   
   It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png   
   Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com   
   http://pamelageller.com/   
   “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” -   
   Barack Hussein Obama   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)