XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 06-October-2014 7:09 AM, grabber wrote:   
      
   > On 05/10/2014 01:20, Malte Runz wrote:   
   >> "grabber" skrev i meddelelsen news:CAVXv.618785$ZX5.240504@fx32.am4...   
   >>>   
   >>> On 01/10/2014 23:28, Malte Runz wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> (snip)   
   >>   
   >>> > If we broaden the definition enough to let Dog-Heads, sea monsters   
   >>> and   
   >>> > gods slip into the realm of reality, on a semantic technicality, we   
   >>> > might as well move back into the caves and start drawing on the   
   >>> walls.   
   >>>   
   >>> Broadening the definition does not alter the reality-status of any of   
   >>> those things. It is only a definition. ...   
   >>   
   >> Of course, but what I can see happening is that the new age psychics,   
   >> the woo doo crowd and the creationist will claim that their 'theories   
   >> are backed by evidence, too, just like the Theory of Evolution!!!' A lot   
   >> of well meaning, but ignorant, folks will get suckered back into the   
   >> bullshit, humanity left in the afore mentioned caves thousands of years   
   >> ago.   
   >   
   > I agree with you, at least to the extent that I think people generally   
   > understand "there is evidence for X" as meaning "there are reasonable   
   > grounds for believing X". For this reason - even if you don't suspect   
   > that impressionable members of the public are following the thread - I   
   > think that it is reasonable to refuse adopt felix's usage. But I don't   
   > think the answer is to get trapped in a cycle of mutual contradiction   
   > about the definition, either. Better just to talk about "good grounds   
   > for belief" instead.   
   >   
   >>> ... I think felix wants to understand "evidence" as having a very   
   >>> broad meaning, something like "any form of testimony or anything that   
   >>> could be construed as an indication". In that sense, he's right that   
   >>> there is evidence of all of those things.   
   >>   
   >> We gain nothing by rendering definitions meaningless, and that's what he   
   >> is doing. He ends up having to defend the possible existence of   
   >> Dog-Heads for Christ's sake (literally).   
   >   
   > I don't think that's right. If he is consistent, then he should accept   
   > that, if we follow his usage, "evidence for Dog-heads" has no strong   
   > relationship to "Dog-heads existed".   
      
   I find it amazing that you ppl need to engage in so much discussion to   
   finally arrive at such basic and obvious (to most ppl) things as the   
   fact that evidence does not have to constitute proof   
      
      
   --   
   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)