Agnostic.com
  1. Agnostic
  2. Posts
  3. General & Hellos

4 9

I must say that a non-religious website should be the last place people undermine the truth by making factual claims without supporting evidence and yet it happens here frequently. The cons are by far the worst offenders because as a general comment of my experience they have no regard tor the truth even refusing to provide evidence when asked yet maintaining the truth of their unsupported claims and faulting me for asking them to prove their claims.

Anyone can say anything but the significance of evidence can not be overstated because it is the only way to distinguish fact from fiction. To anyone who values the truth, this is not controversial and anyone who fails to support their factual claims with evidence impugns their own credibility.

#nonreligious #TheTruth #evidence #truth
LovinLarge 8 Oct 20
Share
Submit

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

4 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

Level 9

Precisely why most of those groups and their members have me blocked.
Apparently, they don't like being challenged to provide factual evidence of their claims.

0

Level 8

Oh, here it goes again... There was a giraffe that spouted poetry while an avalanche went by reciting Bixby.

2

Level 9

Have you got a specific case that you can show us?

Sure. Here is a prime example from earlier today. Member cuts and pastes and edits, fails to provide a source even when asked and then I cite evidence that proves the flaws in the claim.

"Someone, independently, should check this out."

@LovinLarge Yes, just a lot of rambling as far as I can tell there.

@Jolanta In posting the info, the onus was on him to provide the source of the info so we could review it ourselves. He didn't for the very reason that the info was not credible. Thanks for asking.
3

Level 8

It is controversial. It is the maker of existential claims upon whom the requirement for evidence resides, not the cynic who rejects the claim. Logic 101.

Lol, maybe try rereading my post. You're trying too hard to create a nonexistent argument. Also, "Logic 101" is hardly a legitimate source.
Write Comment

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

Share this post

Copy Link

Categories

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:545198
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.