Re: Objective Anti-Intellectualism

On Aug 30, 8:22 pm, wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 30, 7:10 pm,billconner<b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 30, 11:10 am, Free Lunch <lu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This shows your failure to understand a basic argument. If I say that I
do not accept claim A because no evidence supports claim A, I am _not_
saying that I will reject all evidence supporting claim A. Your
inability to distinguish the two arguments, or intentional conflation of
the two, makes your point meaningless.

There are hundreds of claims made that are generally accepted with no
evidence supporting them. SETI is one of the better known sources but
sociobiology and anthropology regularly spawn all manner of hypotheses
based on nothing more than the subjective biases of the "observers".

he's correct and you are wrong. i posted a response pretty similar to
his about your sloppy use of language.  in addition, are you saying
intelligent life does not exist in the universe and therefore SETI
isn't science?

Yeah, so far. You can't call something science just because scientists
are doing it.



you keep making this kind of garbage up then get annoyed when  you're
shown to be a sloppy thinker.



Evidence is what confirms our previously believed beliefs.

really? then how did einstein overturn newton? that fact alone
disproves your view. again you're a sloppy thinker who thinks cliches
are evidence of profound thought.  what you're showing is merely you
read cliches

There are genuine and useful insights from time to time and they're
usually separated by long periods of dogmatic certainty. Even
scientists tend to be pretty conservative when new ideas are proposed,
especially if their own work is challenged. In fact they are pretty
much like regular human beings most of the time. Which means, we
(everyone) will filter new evidence through their current set of
beliefs, they will resist novelty. Human nature strikes again.



We obviously can study the affects on nature a creator would have. We
don't even have to believe in a creator. Nature would look the same
either way. Saying that you don't accept the evidence for the
existence of a creator is not the same as proving there is none. We
all have the same empirical data at hand to wonder about, the problem
is how we choose to understand it. My guess is that we're all
mistaken.

the real problem you god believers have is that your view of god, and
evidence of his existence, is so plastic that it's useless. when this
is pointed out, you bust your capillaries and huff that no one
believes you

the problem is on your end.

You reveal you own motives in criticizing mine. You assume I post
because of religious motive so that what you see. You can envision no
other reason for my remarks. You're inventing a strawman (me) and
pretending your comments apply to anything I've said. That;s exactly
what I meant when talking about evidence: first we believe, then look
for validation. I have no claims for the existence (or not) of
deities. I have only pointed out the "arguments" (the no evidence
refrain) have no value.

Bill


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... the large predators found in treeless savanna habitat is inconsistent ... Are you saying that a community of Apiths that wished to keep ... data consistent with the evidence. ... Is there any evidence that they did not have gardens, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A Millington critique(fairly long)
    ... Millington is also used as evidence that these 'CC' rules existed. ... Millington's game that I questioned was from Ly Yu Sang, ... understand what it is you're saying. ... provide support for the existence of your 'CC' rules in the 1920's? ...
    (rec.games.mahjong)
  • Re: You Owe Creationists an Apology (Re: Dyson Sphere detection and...)
    ... people keep saying this to you and YOU JUST IGNORE THEM. ... Maybe when it exceeds the likelihood of the Santa Claus Hypothesis ... you say, "existing evidence for ID hypotheses are weak", I won't ... Maybe Behe *also* owes an apology, but bring that up with him. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Three old rules of journalism that should be changed
    ... he hasn't tried to disprove it. ... because he seems to think that Alan Hope saying it isn't so is enough. ... evidence, point to it. ... the evidence for the existence of the man Jesus in the first century ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: OT...Singularity in the cosmos
    ... Inventing a creator and ignoring the evidence ... That's a rather long winded away of saying "I don't know". ... Actually, shit for brains. ... He was just illustrating the point that God created man. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)