So you believe everything that is read on the papers and on the internet. How can you say that was is published on here is 'evidence'. You only have evidence if it is in real life and is in front of you. Not on a screen. How do you know that someone hasn't tampered with anything. You would care if someone created a thread about you and started publishing malicious and untruths about you believe me, I've had to put up with this for 4yrs and it gets on your nerves especially when you and your family have been put at risk.
Perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned peer reviewed journals? Unlike you, I do not accept everything I find on a Google search as the absolute truth, but that is not what the question was about. You asked how you could present evidence on an internet forum. The fact is that there are many reliable sources that publish on the internet and links to these are a very good form of evidence. Do you trust everything written in books? Print is no more trustworthy than the internet. Does this mean you don't think it is possible for anyone to have evidence of anything, ever?
And trust me, if some anonymous person writes something about me on the internet, I really wouldn't care. I don't care what people say to my face, why would I care what someone who has never met me says to other people I will never meet? It just doen't matter.
Well, I think that if you say a well known respected geologist then you should have known his name. He can't be that well known if you didn't. Again I say why shouldn't anyone stick to their own beliefs. Each person has a right to believe what they want to believe in without being ridiculed.
What does me knowing his name have to do with anything? He was a world famous geologist, that is a simple fact. I am not a geologist and was not alive at the time plate tectonics was being discussed, so I have never had any reason to know his name. There are lots of famous I don't either know or care about. That does not magically make them not famous.
And again, no. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they like. Everyone else has the right to ridicule the for it. Especially with the example of Jefferys, who was a scientist studying a field and should therefore have accepted the evidence rather than claiming his belief was correct even after it was proven wrong. Just because you have the right to believe does not make the belief right.
Well, I'm a stubborn person and I don't have to have evidence in front of me to believe. You just have to feel it in your heart.
That was not relevant to the point you replied to. I asked if you really believe it is better to stubbonly believe in something even after it has been proven wrong. That has nothing to do with needing evidence to believe and everything to do with you apparently thinking denial of reality is something to be proud of.
Have you got any proof that ghosts and a mystical "life force" are wrong? You can neither prove nor disprove. There have been too many eye witness accounts of ghosts for them not to be believed in. Yes in books and on the internet, on TV etc etc.
A million lemmings can't be wrong? Not really the strongest argument ever.
Why should any religion be wrong? Whether you believe in Buddah or whatever each person has to have that respect.
As I said, they often contradict each other (not to mention themselves), therefore they can't all be right. Since they all have the same amount of evidence supporting them (ie. none), how do you choose between them? At the very least, all except one are wrong. What is so special about that last one?
Look on the internet, read books, watch TV. There is far too many for me to post up on here it would be a lifetimes work. Google in "Historical Evidence for Jesus" and you'll see what I mean.
I didn't ask for all of it. You said the evidence exists. That means you must have seen some of it and know where to find it. If you can't tell us where to find it then I can only assume that you are lying about it.
Well that is the difference I have not got blind faith. I make up my own mind on religion and other things. I don't need anyone to tell me what not to believe in or what to believe in. I'm quite capable of making my own mind up. Scientology I guess came from a previous post sorry. No religion is more crazy then the other, it depends on the person involved.
You earlier said that you do not need any evidence to believe in something. That is pretty much the definition of blind faith. It has nothing to do with people telling you what to believe.
Scientology did not come from an earlier post, because I have never said anything that would suggest I am a Scientologist. And yes, some religions are crazier than others. I would say that a religion that tells everyone to be nice to each other and just happens to include an imaginary friend is a lot less crazy than one that says hyperintelligent aliens are in charge of humanity and therefore you should give all your money to a dead author.
Never said you were a scientologise it was just the impression you wree giving. I agree Scientology is ridiculous (no offence meant to anyone who is one).
Well, given that I said all crazy beliefs and religions are wrong, I really can't see how you could possibly assume that I am a member of one of the craziest religions around. Interesting that you claim no religion is more ridiculous than another, and yet you say Scientology is ridiculous while believing in god youself. Either you must have been lying with the first statement or you think you are ridiculous.
My claim of living in the real world is indeed entirely true why on earth should it not be. I am not living in cloud cuckoo land expecting God to walk through the door at this very minute although I wouldn't complain if he did. You have to have belief to stop yourself from going insane. I can support my beliefs. Just look on the internet for evidence if that is where you are claiming evidence comes from.
In what way does belief stop you going insane? Care to back this one up with evidence? Telling people to search the entire internet does not constitute evidence.
Again look at the internet and google in. Too many to mention, I would be here all night.
So just mention one of them. You say you already have this evidence. I am not going to waste my time looking for something I don't think exists. If you have evidence you should be able to show it, if you can't, stop claiming you have any.
No I thought not but why bring him up anyway.
Because he was a good example of someone continuing to believe things not just without evidence, but in direct contradiction to the evidence. What I apparently failed to realise is that some people are so beyond help that they actually see that as a good thing.
Of course I have an idea what Science is all about. Science is finding out about evidence. Evidence is what is put in front of you to show that Science and knowledge. If it's you're theory and you believe in it then again it's upto you to what you believe even if it's wrong.
As I said, you have no idea what science is. If you believe in something that is wrong, it is not science, that's the whole point of it. You look at the evidence and accept the answer, whether you like it or not. Continential plates do move, whether you believe in them or not. If you accept this, changing your ideas if you have to, then that is science. If you don't, it is blind faith and you will be remembered as that crazy old guy who refused used to be a scientist but then fell off the rails.
Of course people see homeopaths instead of a real doctor but at the end of the day if they are old enough to make that decision then the onus is on them and they can't blame anyone else. If that is their belief then so be it.
So, wait, your saying that someone should go and see a homeopath,
even if they know that homeopathy doesn't work? You didn't just say that people are free to do what they believe in, you actually said that they should do so, even if they know it is wrong. That really is beyond stupid. In any case, they certainly can blame other people. The homeopath who lied about what they could do, the government that allowedd them to do so, the people who spout nonsense about it being better to do that just because they believe it. It is their own fault in the end, but lots of other people share responsibility.
So are you saying then that if you think Religion is wrong then you have not got the right to believe in Relgion (say just because there is no evidence).?
No, as I have said over and over again, you have the right to believe anything. However, believing something that you know to be wrong is so far beyond stupid it's just not funny.
Well there isn't is there? You prove to me that there is any evidence for or against a tooth fairy or indeed any fairy for that matter. That is like asking David to prove or not to prove his belief in 'vampires'
OK, once I lost a tooth and put in under my pillow for the tooth fairy to take. I stayed awake all night and saw my parents take the tooth and put a pound coin in its place. This is evidence that on at least one occasion where the theory of the tooth fairy predicts that there should have been a fairy it was wrong. This is only anecdotal evidence, but since there is no evidence in favour of the tooth fairy I was correct that there is more evidence against the tooth fairy than for it. In many cases absence of evidence
is evidence of absence.
Now, about that proof of "vampires".
