Reasoned Logic Pearlist Comment

RRSAlabama Says:

Mar 12, 2009 - TFP = Dishonest.

MrKneller Says:

Mar 12, 2009 - Coherent? Consistent? Listen, the scientific method is firm. Sometimes theories are proven wrong, other times they are affirmed. There is consistency and coherence in the method, dude. What is NOT consistent, nor coherent on the other hand is the supposed INEFFABLE WORD OF A PERFECT ENTITY. How many times has your God changed his mind? Why was your perfect, all-knowing God unable to convey to His will to His subjects in a manner that wasn't vague, historically incorrect, and... (cont)

MrKneller Says:

Mar 12, 2009 - morally corrupt? This should not happen. Perfection means without error. If your perfect God wanted His will dictated exactly how He wanted it... why wasn't he able to? Forget the folly of man. An all powerful God should be able to over come man's tendency for bias or misunderstanding wtih a magical ju-ju spell. He supposedly sanctioned miracles all the time, and can do anything He wants to, yes? There's MUCH more inconsistency and incoherence in The Bible than in the Scientific Method.

Perrine234 Says:

Mar 13, 2009 - Explain why Jesus has multiple genealogies. Why didn't you get rid of the false ones? Is it hard to do because Jesus was a ficticious character based on a mishmash of other religious figures?

siciliano29 Says:

Mar 13, 2009 - I love how some of you more "intelligent" theists hide behind all this bullshit philosophical/theoretical nonsense in order to avoid the real facts! You still have NO evidence for the existence of any god(s). The bible is just a book, and if you say it's all true, then it's no different than any other non-fictional book. If an outrageous claim is made, it shouldn't be believed unless there is sufficient EVIDENCE to back up the claim...

siciliano29 Says:

Mar 13, 2009 - i.e. If the history books had claimed George Washington could fly, no one would believe it, and rightly so! The bible is no different my friend... are you not intelligent enough to see this?

yoshino72 Says:

Mar 13, 2009 - Are you a fool TFP? Are you saying that the scientific method is inconsistent, and incoherent? You clearly don't know what the scientific method is. Scieftific Method: 1.Make a hypothesis based on known laws and theories. 2.Through intense observations/experiments that can be repeated by other scientist, try to disprove the hypothesis, find any inconsistency, and revise the hypothesis. cont.

yoshino72 Says:

Mar 13, 2009 - continued from previous comment. 3. Present the experiment, results, and hypothesis to the scientific community. If the hypothesis could be disproven by other scientist. You have to repeat process #2. 4. If it passes, congratulations, you could publish your experiment and results. Your hypothesis is now credible and acceptible to be taught in school. This is a simplified version, but this shows that the scientific method is not incoherent and inconsistent.

hellavadeal Says:

Mar 13, 2009 - What experament proves Macro -evolution?

yoshino72 Says:

Mar 13, 2009 - Well, my bad I over-simplified the explanation. You experiment is not the only way to prove things. You see, we know that macro-evolution occurs through observation. We may not be able to see it happen, but we see records of it happening. By using the fossil records and various instruments we could prove beyond the shadow of doubt that life did evolve and is still evolving.

adgandd Says:

Mar 13, 2009 - waiting around several thousand years. the point is that there is NO reason to support any counter-argument suggesting that micro evolutionary changes would not continue further into speciation.

Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1 Says:

Mar 14, 2009 - EVERY experiment regarding micro evolution. If you believe micro evolution happens, then you believe in macro evolution. It's true, its a fact, end of story.

Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1 Says:

Mar 14, 2009 - I think the premise of this video is wrong. Most intellectual atheists don't say there is NO god. Most will say that there's no evidence for you to believe it. That's the thesis. Nobody is genuinely trying to say that there isn't a god. Most people are open to the possibility of god, but the issue is that there isn't evidence of it. It's fine to believe in God. But it's not fine to claim you have evidence, because by definition there can't be physical evidence of non-physical beings.

hellavadeal Says:

Mar 14, 2009 - What a load of crap.

Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1 Says:

Mar 14, 2009 - Which part? That statement doesn't help knowledge in any arena. If I'm wrong about something I'd like to know what it is.

Norgano Says:

Mar 15, 2009 - You're ignorance on everything related to the matter and you're complete misunderstanding of PEARL does not offer a real argument of that the argument from personal incredulity.

Azantul Says:

Apr 24, 2009 - I agree with Norgano. Furthermore, if you follow PEARL in your everyday life, you accept it and take pleasure in using all of it's accomplishments, like you stated yourself you do, and then at the same time you accept a belief based solely on faith and completely inconsistent with PEARL, then you are not a PEARL-ist, you are simply a hypocrite. I can't see how such an intelligent person does not understand this.

yoshino72 Says:

Apr 30, 2009 - hellavadeal, stop being so childish. Make your comments meaningful, what you just did was prove that you are an ignorant child.

hellavadeal Says:

Apr 30, 2009 - yep a 60 year old child , that has heard and disproven arguemenyts like yours for years.

yoshino72 Says:

May 1, 2009 - Hey don't blame me for not realizing that you are 60 years old. The only thing you said was, "What a load of crap." You did not give any counter-argument, of any sort. If you can disprove my argument, why didn't you?

ThePeacefulAtheist Says:

Jun 14, 2009 - yeah, it is a scientific argument. If there is a rock, then we can believe there are rocks. What else is there jackass. I might even believe that since there are pebbles that rocks may turn into pebbles, but i wont believe that a god made that rock.

rhysepoos Says:

Jun 17, 2009 - First of all, there is, by definition, nothing reasonable about believing in a god. Believing in a god involves believing in something for which there is no evidence - how is that, in any way, reasonable? Secondly, science involves, under various definition, a general gathering of knowledge using physical evidence, through observation or experiments. Believing in a god involves none of this; it involves making an assumption based on no evidence.

SoftwareEngineer3 Says:

Jun 22, 2009 - Scientific criteria is agreed upon, and not imagery or invented by a lone poster. It tells us what can be scientifically considered as true/fact/real. It is fair to assume that someone who believes in fairies or any other mythical creature, is less rational than someone who believes only in things that are backed up by PEARL and the scientific method. If you want to defend the faith based beliefs, fine, but acknowledge they are, by definition, different from the ones who relay on PEARL.

Rockster969 Says:

Jul 9, 2009 - You don't have to "believe" in science but understand it.

Infinitpossibilities Says:

Sep 22, 2009 - What is consistant about religion? I cannot imagine a theory more splintered or subject to crackpot interpritations!! Science is BASED on reasoning, it is the foundation of its mechanics and the reason it is expressed as "Theory" rather than "The word" or the "Truth". Science evolves with humanity, not stifles it with rhetoric and theories claimed to be unshakable fact for fear of your being judged by the "Pie in the sky". In science, people embrace a questioning mind, religion silences it.