Ebola Nurse Leaves The Building

[Seth]

The thing is, the Bible is not an historical record of any validity.

And you know that how, exactly? Were you there?

He might have been. How do you know he wasn't?

I don't. So I'd either like to see his critically robust scientific evidence that he was or see him STFU.

[Seth]

The thing is, the Bible is not an historical record of any validity.

And you know that how, exactly? Were you there?

He might have been. How do you know he wasn't?

I don't think Seth understands the very simple and basic principle, that exceptional claims need exceptional verification evidence.

Sez who? You? And who gets to define what "exceptional claims" are and impose your arbitrary standard of "verification?"

So if the bible was just claiming that jim begat fred who begat george, then nobody would give a fuck if it was true or not.

Right.

But a book that claims to be inspired by the creator of the universe, and even more crazily, has as a character who claims to be the ONE AND ONLY SON of the creator of the universe, well that needs to be treated as fiction, until it can be confirmed as true with 99.999% confidence.

Why? What gives you the power to determine what truth is, how it is evidenced and to what degree of certainty?

At which point, you can start saying that it's possible.

Just because you are ignorant of the truth doesn't mean that it's not the truth.

Which makes the principle of religious tolerism a fools principle. It's giving respect to loonies.

And yet it's religious intolerance that has caused the worst examples of human rights abuse and genocide in recorded history.

I'd much rather tolerate the peaceable expression of religious belief than be an advocate of religious intolerance and bigotry like you are.

[pErvinalia]

The thing is, the Bible is not an historical record of any validity.

And you know that how, exactly? Were you there?

He might have been. How do you know he wasn't?

I don't. So I'd either like to see his critically robust scientific evidence that he was or see him STFU.

We want to see your critically robust evidence that the bible is an historical record of any validity.

[piscator]

The thing is, the Bible is not an historical record of any validity.

And you know that how, exactly? Were you there?

He might have been. How do you know he wasn't?

I don't. So I'd either like to see his critically robust scientific evidence that he was...

Where? When?

[mistermack]

Sez who? You? And who gets to define what "exceptional claims" are and impose your arbitrary standard of "verification?"

Absolutist fallacy. There is no absolute standard. Arbitrary is all there is.

Why? What gives you the power to determine what truth is, how it is evidenced and to what degree of certainty?

See above. Same mistake.

Just because you are ignorant of the truth doesn't mean that it's not the truth.

False witness fallacy. I didn't say that I knew the truth.

And yet it's religious intolerance that has caused the worst examples of human rights abuse and genocide in recorded history.

I'd much rather tolerate the peaceable expression of religious belief than be an advocate of religious intolerance and bigotry like you are.

False comparison fallacy. I don't, nor never have, advocated the oppression of religious people.
Nor is there any danger of my views leading to any oppression by others.
It's religious people who like to do that shit. As in Israel, or Christian nazi Germany. Or Iraq or Syria.

I just like to express my contempt for the religious beliefs, and say how gullible I find the adherents.

[JimC]

piscator, this is a reminder that this post: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1584350
contains a personal attack against another member, and, as such, is against our rules. Please desist in future.

[piscator]

...it's religious intolerance that has caused the worst examples of human rights abuse and genocide in recorded history.

Most religious intolerance is religiously inspired. The rest is political. Jedem das seine, but Gott mit uns.

I'd much rather tolerate the peaceable expression of religious belief than be an advocate of religious intolerance and bigotry like you are.

That's real sweet, but your subjective feelings are meaningless unless you show how you properly arrived at them. Bald asseveration and carroteating win you no points here, son.

[Seth]

The thing is, the Bible is not an historical record of any validity.

And you know that how, exactly? Were you there?

He might have been. How do you know he wasn't?

I don't. So I'd either like to see his critically robust scientific evidence that he was or see him STFU.

We want to see your critically robust evidence that the bible is an historical record of any validity.

I'm under no obligation to provide anything to you since it is not I who has made an assertion regarding the accuracy of the Bible as a historical record, either pro or con.

[Seth]

Sez who? You? And who gets to define what "exceptional claims" are and impose your arbitrary standard of "verification?"

Absolutist fallacy. There is no absolute standard. Arbitrary is all there is.

Which means that your demand can be summarily dismissed as arbitrary. So be it.

Why? What gives you the power to determine what truth is, how it is evidenced and to what degree of certainty?

See above. Same mistake.

IOW, nothing whatever gives you any power or authority to determine anything at all and therefore may be utterly ignored. Thanks for confirming that.

Just because you are ignorant of the truth doesn't mean that it's not the truth.

False witness fallacy. I didn't say that I knew the truth.

I didn't say you did, I said you don't know what is the not-truth, which is true.

And yet it's religious intolerance that has caused the worst examples of human rights abuse and genocide in recorded history.

I'd much rather tolerate the peaceable expression of religious belief than be an advocate of religious intolerance and bigotry like you are.

False comparison fallacy. I don't, nor never have, advocated the oppression of religious people.
Nor is there any danger of my views leading to any oppression by others.
It's religious people who like to do that shit. As in Israel, or Christian nazi Germany. Or Iraq or Syria.

I just like to express my contempt for the religious beliefs, and say how gullible I find the adherents.

And I like to express my contempt for ignornat, intolerant religious Atheist bigots who like to express contempt for things they neither understand nor have a mandate to render judgment upon.

So there.

[pErvinalia]

And you know that how, exactly? Were you there?

He might have been. How do you know he wasn't?

I don't. So I'd either like to see his critically robust scientific evidence that he was or see him STFU.

We want to see your critically robust evidence that the bible is an historical record of any validity.

I'm under no obligation to provide anything to you since it is not I who has made an assertion regarding the accuracy of the Bible as a historical record, either pro or con.

You obviously don't understand the concepts of proving negatives. Not surprising as you have almost zero understanding of science and evidence.

[piscator]

I...made an assertion...

You asserted that quarantine was the first and foremost power of government, then quoted some ratty translation of Leviticus like it was some sort of historical evidence your claim is true...

[mistermack]

Which means that your demand can be summarily dismissed as arbitrary. So be it.

Of course it can, you silly fucker. Everything I write is an opinion. You might notice, if you look carefully, that I give my reasoning to explain why I think something. But at the end of the day, you can dismiss anything you like. Didn't you know that?

IOW, nothing whatever gives you any power or authority to determine anything at all and therefore may be utterly ignored. Thanks for confirming that.

See above. I'm amazed that you were under the impression that ANYONE has power or authority to determine anything.
Would you care to explain who or what you mean by that?

And I like to express my contempt for ignornat, intolerant religious Atheist bigots who like to express contempt for things they neither understand nor have a mandate to render judgment upon.

Feel free. I've had a full Catholic upbringing, and I know very well what Christians are taught, and the "reasoning" and "evidence" that exists for that shit.
So I do know as well as most Christians what I'm talking about. Better than most actually, which doesn't say a lot.

Surveys and tests regularly find that atheists know and understand more about religion than believers. That's a statistical fact established by testing.

[rainbow]

You obviously don't understand the concepts of proving negatives.

What are the concepts of proving negatives?

Not surprising as you have almost zero understanding of science and evidence.

Can you prove this?

[pErvinalia]

You obviously don't understand the concepts of proving negatives.

What are the concepts of proving negatives?

You can't prove a negative of the kind: Prove that there isn't an invisible teapot floating around the earth. You can't only prove that there is. Searching for one and not finding it doesn't prove that it isn't there.

Not surprising as you have almost zero understanding of science and evidence.

Can you prove this?

Yes. Read anything he has to say on science and evidence. It is objectively wrong. Sciences and scientific evidence follow the principles of the scientific method. Seth shows no inkling that he understands the scientific method.

[mistermack]

You can't prove a negative

Can you prove that.... ?