POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Getting Kenned Ham, without paying. : Re: Getting Kenned Ham, without paying. Server Time
18 Nov 2024 20:32:06 EST (-0500)
  Re: Getting Kenned Ham, without paying.  
From: Phil Cook
Date: 19 Nov 2007 05:23:20
Message: <op.t11a5bfyc3xi7v@news.povray.org>
And lo on Sat, 17 Nov 2007 23:40:59 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> In article <473dd775@news.povray.org>, war### [at] tagpovrayorg says...
>>> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>> No not really, feel free to doubt it. if you do then you must have a   
>>>> reason to do so, which implies you have another theory
>>>   Once again, that is completely flawed logic.
>>>
>>>   There's no law in science which says that you must have an  
>>> alternative
>>> theory in order to reasonably doubt an existing theory.
>>>
>> Quite true. He got that much wrong.
>
> Well, he was right in the sense that if you doubt the theory is true  
> without any reason to do so, then you're behaving irrationally. Not  
> necessarily a bad thing, but not exactly scientific.

Well even an irrational reason is a reason, but what I did say was that it  
implies you have another theory not that you must have one.

>> If they stopped with, "I don't know, lets find an answer.", no one  
>> would have a problem with them, at least with respect to their position  
>> on science.
>
> I think if they asserted their views and actually had a willingness to  
> change their mind based on reality, people wouldn't ridicule nearly as  
> much. It isn't the creationism being ridiculed. It's the pigheaded  
> refusal to evaluate whether it might be wrong, even in the middle of a  
> scientific debate.
>
> I honestly think creationists would get far less ridicule if they just  
> said "our opinions differ, and I can't convince you, and you can't  
> convince me, so let's just each do our own thing." But they often try to  
> argue you into believing it for some reason.

Which was my second point regarding conflicting systems. You can't use an  
evidence-based structure to debate a faith-based one it's like taking a  
speedometer out of a car and debating over why it won't weigh potatoes.

>> Imho, if it wasn't given absurd levels of respect,
>
> Only some of it. Try taking off every thursday from work on the grounds  
> that you need to go worship Thor, and see how much slack you get from  
> your boss.

Become an atheist and declare every day to be special :-P

> And apparently Australia now has more write-in Jedi Knights on the  
> census than many of the other religions. Yet, oddly enough, Australia is  
> reluctant to recognise it as an official religion. Wonder why....

Too much broken grammar it would result in yes?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.