Arouet
Member
We believe it is claimed to be strong because it is claimed to be strong?
Does not sound at all a reliable method!
[edited]
Give it a try, let me know how it goes. Then we can review the results!
We believe it is claimed to be strong because it is claimed to be strong?
Does not sound at all a reliable method!
[edited]
Probably my unreliable brain repeated its strange behavior. How can I trust it, if it produces results I like?Give it a try, let me know how it goes. Then we can review the results!
Probably my unreliable brain repeated its strange behavior. How can I trust it, if it produces results I like?
You cannot. Viva Agnosticism!But how can I be sure that I am not misunderstanding what you say?
Why, then, do skeptics ask for proofs all the time?You cannot. Viva Agnosticism!
We aren't asking for singular proof such as anecdote. But are asking for corroborated proof using multiple lines of evidence that converge.Why, then, do skeptics ask for proofs all the time?
Converge to what? 95% probability?We aren't asking for singular proof such as anecdote. But are asking for corroborated proof using multiple lines of evidence that converge.
Hmmm... I see it the other way around. Larkin has just challenged a new member to prove materialism in another part of the forum... Yet what drew me to Skeptiko was the certainty of its host (and some members of the forum) regarding aspects of consciousness etc.Why, then, do skeptics ask for proofs all the time?
Ok, I was thinking of twitter.Hmmm... I see it the other way around. Larkin has just challenged a new member to prove materialism in another part of the forum... Yet what drew me to Skeptiko was the certainty of its host (and some members of the forum) regarding aspects of consciousness etc.
Gosh, I can't speak for Twitter. ;)Ok, I was thinking of twitter.
I like the cartoon, but I don't think it is the atheists* who are proposing anything more than this...
(*I guess I mean agnostics, but agnostics tend to live their live atheisticallly...)
I never spoke of certainty. We're asking for the same level of confidence that different lines of empirical evidence converge to one best explanation. What is so difficult to understand about that?Converge to what? 95% probability?
That's not a certain proof!
I never spoke of certainty. We're asking for the same level of confidence that different lines of empirical evidence converge to one best explanation. What is so difficult to understand about that?
Explain your post.This thread...just kinda went insane,
Let us know when this comes up, won't you.I'm waiting for: ATHEISTS MEET GOD IN THE AFTERLIFE tv. That will be fun to watch.
I'm gonna have a right go at him. On balance, he's been an arse.I'm waiting for: ATHEISTS MEET GOD IN THE AFTERLIFE tv. That will be fun to watch.
I'm an arse?I'm gonna have a right go at him. On balance, he's been an arse.
Possibly.I'm an arse?