People say that there is a monster in Loch Ness. ... Is it not the more credible stance to conclude that the beastie does not exist? While, at the same time, acknowledging my limitations in proving this non-existence?
No. The most credible and honest stance is to 'not conclude he does exist.'
By what you`ve been saying in this thread, we all must conclude that you`re agnostic about the tooth fary, santa claus, the easter bunny, the loch ness monster, UFOs, the invisible pink unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster, the one eye on horn flying people eater, and the christian god. If that`s really the most credible, honest, and logic stance, as you say, then I would rather be insane.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.Take comments to the
Moderation Thread.
AdminPD
Edited by fallacycop, : typos
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning