Skeptics I no longer have any respect for.

[KichigaiNeko]

The only one who wants to argue seems to be fr0d0...so no one then??

[Shell B]

No, you are confusing a presuppositional argument with a presupposition, Frodo.

[leo-rcc]

Meanwhile, Rebecca Watson has been awarded the title of most influential female atheist of 2011.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012...t-of-2011/

[Shell B]

I'm going to piss off feminists around the world right now, but is anyone surprised that the diky looking feminist's blog awards resulted in a diky feminist being named an influential atheist? They can both go make penis voodoo dolls and stare at their vaginas with mirrors for all I care.

[thesummerqueen]

ROFL

Thank you, Shell. I didn't want to be the one to say it.

[Shell B]

Meh. You know how I feel about it. I'm not anti-feminist or feminist. Extremism is fucking weird.

[thesummerqueen]

You treat us all with equal Bostonian disdain. But it's why I love you.

[Norfolk And Chance]

It's no secret that a lot of philosophy is complete bullshit

Yeah, I said that too!

Whether or not Santa can be known to be not real depends entirely on what you mean by 'knowledge', and defining knowledge in a consistent way is extremely difficult - or maybe I'm just a "tedious cunt".

Anybody that will sit there and debate that they don't know that Santa is not real, is a tedious cunt, because I'm talking about the earth based story about an earth based being, that of course we know is made up.

And the reason they are tedious cunts is because they come up with ever more improbable and tedious crap to stay in the debate - and you eventually end up talking about something else hardly even connected with the original point, such as possible real santas in an infinite universe which might match up to the Earth based story, which the philosobabbler then classes as a "win".

[leo-rcc]

You still did not get the point did you?

No evidence of X is not the same as X does not exist. You made the equation "No evidence for X = X does not exist". It is incorrect. That is what I responded to. You then wanted to argue that your equation is correct by bringing up Santa Claus as an example and the equation still is incorrect. "No evidence for Santa Claus" does not equate to "Santa Clause does not exist". There are other arguments you can make to make a case that Santa does not exist, but "No evidence for X = No X" is not it. It has nothing to do with whether or not I believe X to be real or not, or whether or not I know X to be real or not, it is simply a matter of your equation being incorrect.

You want to argue this pet peeve of yours go ahead, but if you are too stubborn to see the error in your reasoning, that is not philosophy's fault.

[Tiberius]

She got 233 votes in a poll...an online poll...on the same website PZ Myers blogs from. That's not really anything to be proud of.

I honestly think I should create an online female persona and start an atheist feminist blog, just to see how many mindless drones I can get following me.