1 2
#254978
David B.
Yes. We do not believe these things because the evidence of them is contrary to the absence of the evidence of absence for their not being not proven to have evidence to the contrary to their being true. Clear now?
6/26/2007 4:49:32 AM
#254981
Zoe
All the evidence shows the evidence is wrong!!! :P
6/26/2007 4:59:48 AM
#254983
What atheist, and sane Christians like me for that matter, believe is that the current evidence shows the world as probably it is, not as shepperds from the bronze age thought it was and that your reasoning is a full bundle of nothing. What is truth, after all?. That snakes speak?, that people live 900 years?, that pi=3?
6/26/2007 5:05:10 AM
#254990
Robbie
My eyes crossed a little bit halfway through this mess.
6/26/2007 5:20:06 AM
#254994
ArmandT
Uh huh... Stop looking at your own reflection.
6/26/2007 5:26:34 AM
#255011
Panz
Now that's some good bullshit there.
6/26/2007 5:53:57 AM
#255027
anevilmeme
Gordian Knot of Logic Award?
6/26/2007 6:19:37 AM
#255030
Redhunter
"Delusion is believing in something in the face of contrary evidence
Correct and concise.
...all the evidence shows us that what the current evidence shows is not the actual truth,
I…what? So what is supposedly real is just an illusion? Like the Matrix? That was just a movie I don’t think you’re supposed to read…
it also shows us that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,
Which is just a cutesy way of saying you’re going to believe something no matter how impossible and improbable because things that are so bizarre couldn’t possible have proof for them, so we’ll assume that it’s yet to be discovered and hold on to the idea of dragons, satyrs and the cockatrice.
and that there are many things that are true that there is no evidence for
Saying this doesn’t make it so. There is evidence of some sort for everything outside of emotions and such, but even those can be shown on a CAT scan to cause a chemical and/or electrical reaction in the brain. Again, this statement is more of the “I’ll believe whatever absurdity I want because you can’t prove a negative” . You might think this is some groundbreaking statement but it is all bullshit wrapped in more bullshit.
....yet atheists do not believe these things anyway...."
No. I don’t believe in things that there is absolutely no evidence for. What constitutes evidence to you? Because it’s in an old book? Because your mommy and pastor said so? Because you heard it in Sunday school? There is no proof of the Loch Ness monster; do you specifically believe in that because of the lack of evidence? Most people don’t do that. Usually a person makes a rational and thought out decision based on the facts. But I guess you just bite whatever bait comes down the river first.
6/26/2007 6:21:40 AM
#255032
Prager
Dear VitalOne,
Your first sentence was absolutely true. The rest is mostly just garbage. Although you are correct in that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (The fact that there is no evidence for unicorns, dragons, leprechauns, Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, gnomes, etc. doesn't mean they aren't really out there somewhere.)
BTW: It was very brave and rational of you to acknowledge that there is no evidence for the existence of any kind of higher power.
6/26/2007 6:23:10 AM
#255073
NonProphet
"...all the evidence shows us that what the current evidence shows is not the actual truth..."
So, the evidence invalidates itself? Care to put that in terms that make sense, bub?
6/26/2007 7:54:38 AM
#255095
I read this about 10 times and I still don't really understand....
evidence is absence of evidence which is proof of evidence *head explodes*
6/26/2007 8:45:11 AM
#255098
Jezebel's Evil Sister
I give up! I've read through that six times and still have no idea what it's supposed to mean.
6/26/2007 8:47:34 AM
#255123
Osiris
Swing and a miss.
6/26/2007 9:41:58 AM
#255133
Viva
WTF Dosen't even begin to describe it.
6/26/2007 10:11:23 AM
#255156
Laurel
You keep using this word "evidence." I do not think it means what you think it does. And judging by this gobbledygook I could say the same about the words "us," "it," and "the."
6/26/2007 10:35:42 AM
#255185
flipper
I'm sorry I don't care if he is the fundiest fundie of all times, there is absolutely no way that you can convince me that those words were not written by someone who is on pschydelic drugs!
6/26/2007 11:18:13 AM
#255188
Professor M
all the evidence shows us that what the current evidence shows is not the actual truth
But if that's what the evidence shows, wouldn't that then not be the actual truth, so the actual truth would be that what the evidence shows is true?
6/26/2007 11:23:25 AM
#255198
poop725
This double helix of self-referential and sacredly erroneous logic makes me sick to my stomach!
I just hope this person is ***not*** a teach of ANYTHING!
6/26/2007 11:44:13 AM
#255216
Doctor Whom
Paging Lewis Carroll. Lewis Carroll, please call VitalOne's extension.
6/26/2007 12:19:54 PM
#255229
Jess
Gordian Knot of Logic Award seconded.
Seeing as 'all the evidence' and the 'current evidence' are the same thing in this context, it should say:
the evidence shows us that the evidence is not the actual truth
And by replacing 'it, 'that' and 'yet' with their implied meanings, we end up with this:
[i][the evidence] also shows us that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and [the evidence also shows us] that there are many things that are true that there is no evidence for....[In spite of there being no evidence] atheists do not believe these things."
6/26/2007 12:33:56 PM
#255246
Mister Spak
This sounds like something from the Monty Pyton Silly Party
6/26/2007 1:17:37 PM
#255251
agentCDE
All the evidence shows the evidence is wrong! This sentence is a lie! 2 + 2 = 5!!
6/26/2007 1:30:55 PM
#255276
Old Viking
I've never heard it put that way before. For which I'm grateful.
6/26/2007 2:11:59 PM
#255298
Papabear
"Delusion is believing in something in the face of contrary evidence..."
OK, I'm with you so far.
"all the evidence shows us that what the current evidence shows is not the actual truth,"
Huh? Do you have any idea what you just said? You're an idiot.
"it also shows us that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,"
Indeed, it is not PROOF of absence, but repeated lack of confirming evidence is EVIDENCE of absence.
"and that there are many things that are true that there is no evidence for...."
OK, if there are so many why don't you name a dozen or so?
"yet atheists do not believe these things anyway...."
I believe love can exist without evidence, but I do not believe the love of an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent being can exist without evidence.
6/26/2007 3:12:01 PM
#255300
moose
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!"
Where have I heard that before?
See, this is what happens when you take characters parodying ignorance and delusion and base your life off of them like they're doing the right thing.
6/26/2007 3:13:39 PM
1 2