Atheists under attack

[maxmaximus 10]

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.

[PaliRichard 10]

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*

[Cyclone 10]

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.

[maxmaximus 10]

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.

Edited October 26, 2012 by maxmaximus

[maxmaximus 10]

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.

[Cyclone 10]

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.

[maxmaximus 10]

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.

Edited October 27, 2012 by maxmaximus

[Cyclone 10]

The lack of evidence is precisely why there is no scientific consensus on the likely origin of the universe.

[Lucifer 10]

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.

[Lockjaw 11]

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.

[janie48 98]

I was so shocked by that post by Lockjawi had to drown my sorrows in a bottle of wine.I even had to cadge a cigarette from my neighbour,and i hadn't smoked for five years.

 

And i havn't recovered yet.

[Lockjaw 11]

I was so shocked by that post by Lockjawi had to drown my sorrows in a bottle of wine.I even had to cadge a cigarette from my neighbour,and i hadn't smoked for five years.

 

And i havn't recovered yet.

 

<<Holds up white flag, briefly>>

 

Hey Janie, didn't you already reply to this? I'm sure I saw a response having a go at me for referring to other threads. If so, do you have any idea why it disappeared - I certainly didn't report it?