(January 25, 2010 at 8:55 am)fr0d0 Wrote: LOL same thing really Evie. Rather a sweeping generalised (and baseless) assertion. Theological Noncognitivist me thinks you are.
It's completely baseless for you to assume it's baseless. How do you know it's baseless?
My claim is not an absolute one. I claim that it is highly probable that both 'methods' - if they're worthy of that word! - are absolute bullshit due to the fact both have no evidence supporting them whatsoever as far as I know. I consider them baseless methods because I haven't seen either of them provide evidence. So what exactly is baseless about my claim?
Yours on the other hand.... you assumed that my claim was baseless even though it's entirely based on the fact that both methods are (as far as I know) completely lacking support (and my claim is not an absolute one either). You claim that my claim is absolutely baseless but as far as I know yours is... oh the irony.
EvF
