Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
This is a slight of hand here, Daniel. You say you are not interested in proving the BOMM, I suspect to sound neutral, when in fact you want to prove that the BOMM has not been disproved. Funny how all the pro-Moron web sites cover their ass with the same disclaimer, “it hasn’t been disproved”.
It hasn’t, and that’s all I’m here to show.
And anything that hasn’t been disproved is proved, right?
This is a slight of hand here, Daniel. You say you are not interested in proving the BOMM, I suspect to sound neutral, when in fact you want to prove that the BOMM has not been disproved. Funny how all the pro-Moron web sites cover their ass with the same disclaimer, “it hasn’t been disproved”.
It hasn’t, and that’s all I’m here to show.
And anything that hasn’t been disproved is proved, right?
Only in religion. That’s an important distinction to make. You don’t want to go around believing in Klingons or Spider-Man just because they haven’t been disproven, but for some reason it’s different with Jesus, God, and Jewish Native Americans.
And anything that hasn’t been disproved is proved, right?
Of course not. I have explained numerous times I’m not here to try to prove anything. I don’t care if you believe it or not, but I will correct you when you try to insist it’s precluded by anything.
Confirmation bias. You have previously chosen to believe it hasn’t been disproven. Time to twist and spin facts and evidence and look for anecdotes to support your preconceived ideas.
The reactionary ‘meme’ in action. It’s quite obvious that DNA science has really got true believers in despair, thus people like Danny O are produced.
The flying spaghetti monster has not been disproven. Does that mean it exists?
Danny O just needs a good lesson in skepticism, the scientific method, critical thinking, self evaluation and reason.
And anything that hasn’t been disproved is proved, right?
Of course not. I have explained numerous times I’m not here to try to prove anything. I don’t care if you believe it or not, but I will correct you when you try to insist it’s precluded by anything.
No, there’s not, but Daniel needs to shit or get off the pot, either he is a Mormon because he believes it is true or he is a Mormon despite it being untrue, this “but it hasn’t been disproved” is bullshit.
Bruce believes and is committed to the NT because of a personal experience. Daniel believes and is committed to the BOM because of a personal experience.
This should be an obvious clue that personal experience is completely subjective and invalid as proof of the divine. But they will both no doubt argue that theirs is the correct personal experience, well Bruce anyway, Daniel will claim his personal experience “hasn’t been disproved”.
Confirmation bias. You have previously chosen to believe it hasn’t been disproven. Time to twist and spin facts and evidence and look for anecdotes to support your preconceived ideas.
Point to facts that I’ve spun or anecdotal evidence to which I’ve appealed.
eudemonia - 02 January 2010 08:34 AM
The reactionary ‘meme’ in action. It’s quite obvious that DNA science has really got true believers in despair, thus people like Danny O are produced.
Is it? Based on the evidence I’ve presented, that’s not the case at all. You’ve presented nothing relevant to the contrary, so how can you conclude it’s “quite obvious”?
eudemonia - 02 January 2010 08:34 AM
The flying spaghetti monster has not been disproven. Does that mean it exists?
Not necessarily, but the “flying spaghetti monster” is just a sophomoric appeal to ridicule. I really don’t care whether it’s plausible or not. That has no bearing on the plausibility of deity, it’s just intended to make people sputter and get embarrassed. If you wanted me to take you seriously as an intellectual then you just shot yourself in the face.
eudemonia - 02 January 2010 08:34 AM
Danny O just needs a good lesson in skepticism, the scientific method, critical thinking, self evaluation and reason.
No, what I need is someone who will actually engage my concerns rather than just ejaculate a bunch of sophomoric internet atheism at me.
Bruce believes and is committed to the NT because of a personal experience. Daniel believes and is committed to the BOM because of a personal experience.
This should be an obvious clue that personal experience is completely subjective and invalid as proof of the divine. But they will both no doubt argue that theirs is the correct personal experience, well Bruce anyway, Daniel will claim his personal experience “hasn’t been disproved”.
I would never denigrate another person’s claim to spiritual experiences. Having a personal experience with the New Testament does not necessarily conflict with my experiences, either. Don’t put words in my mouth.
I’d love it if someone could respond to my OP, as well.
No, there’s not, but Daniel needs to shit or get off the pot, either he is a Mormon because he believes it is true or he is a Mormon despite it being untrue, this “but it hasn’t been disproved” is bullshit.
No, there’s not, but Daniel needs to shit or get off the pot, either he is a Mormon because he believes it is true or he is a Mormon despite it being untrue, this “but it hasn’t been disproved” is bullshit.
Oh, well crafted.
Oh, well deflected, again.
Whats it going to be. Are you a Mormon because you believe “it is true/proved” or are you a Mormon “despite it being untrue/unproved”?
Daniel O. McClellan, to eudemonia - 02 January 2010 09:01 AM
. . . If you wanted me to take you seriously as an intellectual then you just shot yourself in the face.
Eudemonia, you’ll no doubt take this as a compliment. Someone who sees a bunch of magic-oriented fairy tales as being journalistic or better in reliability insults your intelligence. What fun.
RSS Feed