Standards of Evidence

Original upload date: 27 September 2009

Responding to these two buddies, who both desperately need a lesson in civil discourse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXv1Nf901r4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7RavuxMKVU

Enjoy the extra attention.

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/mochapeach
Subscribe to my BlogTV: http://www.blogtv.com/people/the-peach

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• xxxthepeachxxx
• the
• peach
• xxxpeachxxx
• responds
• j42002
• derekhowardm
• who
• both
• have
• attitude
• problems
• standards
• for
• evidence
• gods
• and
• supernatural
• claims
• talk
• speech
• interview
• atheism
• atheist
• bible
• haunted
• paranormal

[trekfan92]

Whether you're right or wrong you have a lousy attitude. Every one of your videos is arrogant and just you acting like the world revolves around your opinion. You're not solving anything here, just wasting your time. If people want to believe in god then let them, if they don't then fine. You're only doing this for your own personal amusement.

[xxxThePeachxxx]

@trekfan92 "You're only doing this for your own personal amusement."

Duh! Thank you for playing the "State the Obvious" game.

Show me one person on Youtube who isn't making videos for his/her own personal amusement.

On second thought, just piss off.

[xXBukkycookiexX]

You are right the reasons for me so be pagan and believe in the goddess are not based on logic. more so that i can live life with a positive paradigm. I will admit that. That is why i don't claim my god/goddess is more real than any other persons. Also the quoting on the bible thing is EXACTLY how i feel.

[prschuster]

@AMomentOfClarity2011 That's right.

[AMomentOfClarity2011]

@prschuster "convey feelings of awe" Yes I agree there.

"reverence for our connection with nature." There is no connection. We ARE nature. A connection gives the impression we are outside looking in, or something.

We are as much part of nature as a tree or a cloud. Man is nature too. Its hubris to place ourselves outside of nature, since it is us too.

[prschuster]

@AMomentOfClarity2011 Don't take my metaphorical language too literally. Nature is wonerous in all its forms and religious language, devoid of its superstition, can convey feelings of awe and reverence for our connection with nature.

[AMomentOfClarity2011]

@prschuster "because nature itself is divine" What do you mean by divine. I too am an agnostic atheist, but I see nothing divine or holy about nature. Its a primal indifferent force.

Perhaps I require your clarification on the words definition in your eyes.

[dashinch]

@xxxThePeachxxx Hahahahaha oh god.. your great.. But you know that. So i guess i was playing the "state the obvious" game.

[prschuster]

@AMomentOfClarity2011 I'm agnostic about the existence of a Supreme Being beyond nature brcause there is no way to know about such things. I'm an atheist with respect tp religion bcause I don't believe in Jehovah or Allah or Jesus. I'm a pantheist with respect to what I believe about the nature of the divine because nature itself is divine. But I have no illusions about experiencing an afterlife. I believe I'm alive and I will enjoy the experience as long as it lasts.

[AMomentOfClarity2011]

@prschuster sorry if I misunderstood you. I agree with you about theists and their claims.

IF you are not a theist precisely, what are you?

[prschuster]

@AMomentOfClarity2011 I'm not a theist precisely because they typically state their beliefs or opinions as if they were facts. Then they have the audacity to use "revelation" from their holy books as evidence, or else come up with bogus pseudoscientific explanations for their beliefs. This gets even more arrogant when they make moralistic judgements based on their beliefs. I guess we agree on this... don't we?

[prschuster]

@AMomentOfClarity2011 Do you have any idea that you responded to something I did not say. I am not making claims about how to verify the existence of something. I have a good understanding of empirical methods. I'm only making a distinction between methodological empiricism in sience and philosophical empiricism (which claims that all reality can be subject to empirical methods). Can you reread my original post and see what I'm really saying?