MAMEWorld Forums - The Loony Bin

Science or skeptics shouldn't be saying this...that it's not true since there is no evidence. They should instead be saying that unless evidence can be presented to prove the theory, then it can not be CONSIDERED true.

One of my favorite clips ever is of James Randi exposing a guy that claimed he could move objects with psychic power. What James did wasn't even scientific, it was just logical...and watch the guy squirm when he knows he's been had.

Now this is where religious arguments start to crumble. Religious people put the burden of proof on the non-believers, or in other words "Prove to me God DOESN't exist". You cannot prove ANYTHING to be true without evidence to support it. Sorry "faith" or "beliefs" won't convince anyone, at least in the scientific community.

I can tell you I BELIEVE or have FAITH that a walrus stole my car keys this morning, but without proof or some kind of evidence (signs that the walrus entered my house and took my keys) of said walrus I'm going to find it hard to convince anyone else the walrus is real.

This is also why people should not be allowed to use religious texts to try and prove their beliefs. Telling someone that "it's in the bible" doesn't make it true, and because the Bible was written and modified by several different people makes it even less credible IMO.

Have you ever heard of an account of a crime that had several witnesses? Each statement is different, even if a lot of the facts are consistent with each account. You'll still get witnesses who didn't have a good eye on the crime, or exaggerated to make it more dramatic. That makes the original, TRUE story of what happened more diluted.