Peanut Gallery

Or I'm right, and you're the one playing semantic games so that you can claim that the absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.But really, is there any use in speculating one another's motives rather than arguing the positions like we're s'posed to?I don't really care about the semantic argument, but if someone asked me if there was a pen on the desk, the desk tells me the answer, not the non-evidence of a pen. Seems you would've went ahead an demonstrated you're correct rather than attacking my character... I don't know. What's it feel like to be such a douche?

Which doesn't show that yours is the correct one.If you want to call it "slowing down" and I want to call it "negetive acceleration", then you showing how they're the same doesn't mean that one is better than the other. And to then speculate about my motives and feeling about calling it the way I do is just pathetic. Speculating on my motives and feelings is not arguing the position. And there's good reasons why its against the rules. If there's no difference in describing it as an absence of evidence or describing it as evidence of an absence, then neither one of us is wrong.But whatever, if you'd rather be a jerk than explain yourself then I'll just stop responding to you.

Perhaps. But why phrase it so it looks like an absence of evidence other than to make that argument? But it does become evidence of absence. Its not an absence of evidence.There's more to it than the lack of evidence for a pen. A lack of evidence for a pen doesn't really allow us to conclude that there's no pen. We need to have the whole desk having been searched and showing signs of no pen.I don't see a good reason to twist it up into an absence of evidence, other than to make the argument.

Classic converse error...If he talks about deities, then he talks about subjective evidence.
He is talking about subjective evidence.
Therefore he is talking about deities.

Huh? What does that have to do with the value of subjective evidence thread not pertaining to deities?

Right. You don't conclude that there's no pen on the desk just simply from not seeing one. You conclude it from seeing that the desk if free of pens. No, I don't see that. I see: "A is not evidence of B. Instead, C is evidence of B."You're saying there's no differece between A and C. A is 'not seeing a pen on the desk' and C is 'seeing a penless desk'. A is non-evidence, C is evidence. Are they different or not? You are the one saying non-evidence is evidence, not me. As I origianlly said, I think there's more to it than your scenario provides.And you haven't really addressed that. You'd rather assume your right and I'm crazy, and argue about my motivations.Troll on, troll.

Not necessarily.

Um, I realize there's no smiley, but he shopped the picture so the guy is blowing the calf....Another confirmation of Poe's Law!

What did Bluegenes measure and where is his data? What, exactly, would he publish?

How is it undying if the moment you revealed what the concept was I immediately dropped the agnosticism?And I still don't see how I could possibly know if something exists or not without knowing what it is we're considering...

Are the concepts the beings? Aren't all concepts from human imagination? How else do you get a concept?How about this super awesome theory: All scientific concepts are figments of the human imagination.Agree?

Sure, whatever. I was busy the last week or so and not reading much here. I got some shit to do, and I suppose I could catch up a bit, so I'll get back to you in that thread later this afternoon, Concept-Y willing.

Okay, so the original theory, that the beings themselves have been shown to be imagined has been abandoned.The concepts of those beings, like any concept, must come from the human imagination.So you agree that all scientific concepts are figments of the human imaginations, right?That a tree can be demonstrated and a god cannot, and the problems that arrise from that, doesn't really have anything to do with the concepts of those things necesssarily being imagined, does it?

In Message 31, Subbie writes: I thought that was RAZD's point, to not make a claim about gods, and that Subbie agreed that he would support the position that they don't exist

Whatever he had in mind when he claimed that he could support that it doesn't exist.