Karma reasons for concrete message



    Posts: 1998
  • Darwins +360/-8

So...you do accept the claim that the Catholic church is led by Satan?  What in seven hells are you doing still being Catholic then?  I'm confused.
Maybe I wrote something wrong. I do NOT believe that the Catholic church is led by Satan.
Yes, you certainly did write something wrong.  This abysmal failure of a post:
Is the story legit though?  Did a Basillian hieromonk say a prayer with doubt in his heart, at which point “God” turned the bread into flesh and the wine into blood?
Yes, it has yet to be proven wrong.
The implication is that a story is legit until it is proven wrong.  Do you happen to have convincing evidence that the Basillian hieromonk's prayer did, in fact, instigate god turning bread into flesh and wine into blood?  Saying that you have convincing evidence that the claim is correct, and, if necessary, supplying that evidence, is what your response should have been.  But no - your first response[1] was because it hadn't yet been proved wrong.

That is a poor method for seeking truth Lukvance.
That is a poor method for seeking truth Lukvance.
That is a poor method for seeking truth Lukvance.

It is idiotic - that is, it is a stupid way (or, in other words, the methodology that morons use[2]) - to declare that some claim is true, or even likely true, based solely on whether or not that claim has been proven false.  Now, I will grant you, from a believability standpoint, the fact that a claim has not been proven as false does mean that the claim is more believable than if the claim has been proven as false.  I will not deny you that, nor do I deny myself that.  But it does not increase the believability of a claim.  The non-existence or removal of the proof of falseness of the claim is what increases the believability, or in other words, the existence of a proof of falsehood of a claim reduces the believability.

We're at a stage of a claim that is not proven false and only not proven false, and the level of believability of a claim at that stage should be rather small and pragmatically zero.  This is primarily due to the fact that the number of claims that satisfy the conditions of "not proven false and only not proven false" is essentially infinite.  And aside from your subjective feelings regarding the claim, there is no way for you to differentiate the relative truth or falsehood of one claim over any other claim in that subset.  And that's...fine for crap that describes strictly subjective things.  But that isn't fine for establishing what is or is not true in our shared, objective reality.  You can't assert the validity of an arbitrary claim regarding objective reality that leaves no evidence (goddidit!  No, you can't detect anything.  He doesn't leave behind that kind of evidence.  You know, the detectable kind of evidence) and dismiss the validity of another arbitrary claim regarding objective reality (flying saucers, that can sweep away evidence that they may otherwise leave behind, are watching everyone masturbate).

You need to start providing evidence of claim in that stage in order to increase it's believability.  And, mark my words, this is not a binary process - it needs to be sufficiently compelling evidence to reach past a particular threshold.  Some bits of evidence increase the believability more than others, some bits of evidence work in concert with other bits of evidence to increase believability even more, and yes, some bits of evidence decrease believability.  Our thresholds are going to be different - each and every one of us.  Exactly where you establish that threshold is a subjective 'thing'; however, I think that we, as a collective group of sentient creatures with, presumably, an interest in understanding reality can agree on a rough ballpark of where this threshold is, and my friend, your shit is set WAAAAAAYYYYYY too low.  Bullshit-on-a-dinnerplate too low.

Do you understand this?

Great way to avoid answering the question. Accusing that other don't know what he is talking about. What do you call that again when someone avoid addressing points raised against their arguments.
Yeah that's totally what I'm doing.  Obviously you know what the Higgs Boson is, and just how bosontastic it is.  Might as well believe that complete and utter bullshit on top of the flying saucer pervs, right?
 1. ...and I think we can all agree that one's first response to a question regarding the truth of a claim would likely (but not always) be their most compelling reason for accepting legitimacy of the claim in question.
 2. Another way to put this is that it is what one would expect to observe in the thought and behavior patterns of an imbecile.
Changed Change Reason Date
nogodsforme Bosontastic. Indeed. July 17, 2014, 07:45:46 PM
SevenPatch LMAO, great post. Well done, bravo! July 17, 2014, 07:29:26 PM