On Nov 8, 3:17 am, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> [snips]
>
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:28:48 -0500, rockymt wrote:
> > I can understand that many of you who frequent these newsgroups
expect
> > scientific proof/evidence and no less.
>
> "Scientific evidence" is a pointless phrase.
Not as distinct from "testimonial evidence" and other such non-
scientific evidence accepted in courts of law.
> > A lot of
> > what I'm hearing, at a much deeper level is that it is just too
> > painful... impossible for me to listen to you let alone believe in a
god
> > with the state this world is in.
>
> Then you're hearing the wrong thing. The issue is not and never has
been
> "it's too painful" or "how can God let X happen" - although the latter
may
> well be a legitimate question.
>
> No, the issue is much simpler: if someone comes along and makes a claim,
> we say "Show me."
>
> We do this when someone claims they have a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge,
> which they're willing to sell, cheap: really? Show me. Show me it is
> legit, that you are the legal owner.
>
> We do this when someone claims they have discovered cold fusion. We say
> show me. Show us the details of the experiment, that we can duplicate
and
> validate it.
>
> We do this when someone claims they've created a perpetual motion
machine.
> We say show me. Show us the details of the machine, the designs. Let
us
> examine it to verify there's no magnets or midgets involved. Or other
> sources of input energy.
>
> We do this when someone claims to have a miracle cure for cancer, or
AIDS,
> or some other disease. We say show me. Show us the medicine, the
> clinical trials. Let us test it independently, to ensure it actually
> works as claimed.
>
> And we do this when someone claims gods.
And we do this when someone claims "Bin Laden Determined to Attack
Inside U.S.". Your point?
Jeff
|
