Wait. I'd like to add to expand on my previous post as I am thinking back on Steve's threads.
First, he tried to argue that extraordinary claims shouldn't need extraordinary evidence to be reasonably accepted. When that approach failed, he then tried arguing that the crappy non-evidence for his extraordinary claims is actually good, reliable evidence. After that one sank, now he's here saying that at least his religion has more crappy non-evidence than everybody else, as though bad evidence in high enough quantities somehow magically transforms itself into good evidence. Awesome.
First, he tried to argue that extraordinary claims shouldn't need extraordinary evidence to be reasonably accepted. When that approach failed, he then tried arguing that the crappy non-evidence for his extraordinary claims is actually good, reliable evidence. After that one sank, now he's here saying that at least his religion has more crappy non-evidence than everybody else, as though bad evidence in high enough quantities somehow magically transforms itself into good evidence. Awesome.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
