maxmaximus Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Indeed, and interpreting evidence requires logic and intelligence. No it doesn't, anyone can do it; I don't think they check people logic and intelligence before appointing them to jury service, and people lives depend on their interpretation of evidence, they also very rarely agree 100% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Sorry for any misunderstanding. We'll leave it there then, and I apologise if I have come across as attacking you personally, it was not my intention. *friendly offer of handshake smiley* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 No it doesn't, anyone can do it; I don't think they check people logic and intelligence before appointing them to jury service, and people lives depend on their interpretation of evidence, they also very rarely agree 100% of the time. Interpreting it to draw the correct conclusion does. And that is of course the danger of being tried by a random jury, they may not be very clever and may be completely illogical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Interpreting it to draw the correct conclusion does. And that is of course the danger of being tried by a random jury, they may not be very clever and may be completely illogical. Some very clever people disagree with each other despite both being very clever so who decides what the correct conclusion is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 We'll leave it there then, and I apologise if I have come across as attacking you personally, it was not my intention. *friendly offer of handshake smiley* No problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Some very clever people disagree with each other despite both being very clever so who decides what the correct conclusion is. If they're being scientific they form disprovable hypothesis and use them to make predictions, they gather more evidence and one or the other interpretation is proven to be less likely than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 If they're being scientific they form disprovable hypothesis and use them to make predictions, they gather more evidence and one or the other interpretation is proven to be less likely than the other. But that wouldn’t stop them having different opinions until such time they find enough common ground to reach an agreement, and I’m not sure how they would go about proving that nothing is possible or that creating something from nothing is possible. All the evidence they have now suggests that matter and energy can change places but neither can be created without the other, they can make energy from matter or matter from energy, and they can’t make either of them cease to exist without creating the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 The lack of evidence is precisely why there is no scientific consensus on the likely origin of the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Fortunately Atheism does not try to convert other religeons to christianity, islam, buddism or anything. We are quite happy to believe in nothing so we have no axe to grind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Its a pity your Lockjaw condition hasn't had any restriction on your vehement and sarcastic posting comments. Hi Janie. I think the "vehement" and "sarcastic" parts are in the eye of the beholder, I'm afraid. If you look from a slightly different angle, perhaps one less restricted by anger, resentment and uncertainty, you'll see that I simply respond directly to each post I am addressing. In addition, and unlike yourself, I always answer questions directed at me, regardless of whether I think the poster is: talking nonsense. or if the poster: HAVE AN "AXE TO GRIND" AND ARE FINDING IT DIFFICULT TO MOVE ON.!!!!!!!!! or if the poster is, indeed a: MILITANT atheist rascal. I've mentioned mirrors to you in the past, Janie, and a I seriously suggest you take a good hard look in one because in all cases, the angry accusations you make towards me, in the latest case "vehement" and "sarcastic" fit you perfectly. This is, of course, highly relevent to the thread because there appears to be, in general, a tendency for believers to feel that "atheists" have an agenda and are out to get them. They are unable to accept that this isn't the case and that the vast majority of non-believers are simply that. Because of this, they ascribe some sort of "attacking" personality to the "atheist" and cannot see beyond that, even when reading simple, clear statements and questions on an internet forum or when faced with an eleven year old who wants to join their camping club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.