RE: Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?
September 12, 2017 at 1:58 pm
(This post was last modified: September 12, 2017 at 2:05 pm by Pat Mustard.)
(September 12, 2017 at 12:12 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:(September 12, 2017 at 12:10 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Hugster is easily impressed! Then again, most religious fucktards are. What else have they got?
Toast that looks Jesus is on it? A dog's anus that resembles the Messiah?
A bit of dead wood cut deliberately to look like Mary mother of Jesus.
(September 12, 2017 at 1:29 pm)Astreja Wrote:(September 12, 2017 at 11:48 am)Huggy74 Wrote: If you actually took the time to read the report his conclusion is that there had to be a light there to strike the negative.
Huggy, in the final analysis all you have there is an unexplained bit of light contaminating some film. The light could have been a reflection off the camera lens by some transient illumination, or some other natural source. Calling it the Holy Spook is a massive, utterly unsupported jump to a patently ridiculous conclusion.
I cannot and will not say for certain that your god is fictional; however, I am strongly of the opinion that it almost certainly is fictional and simply not worth serious consideration. I am utterly appalled by the trivial and ambiguous things that you present as evidence.
(September 12, 2017 at 1:28 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Actually that's wrong, placebos work even if you are told outright its a placebo. The brains funny like that.
I'm still shaking my head at how weird and counter-intuitive that effect is -- and wondering how one could go about exploiting and enhancing that brain glitch for overall better health.
You should buy yourself Ben Goldacre's Bad Science he delves into placebo quite deeply in an engaging and accessible way.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home
Home