Questionable Motives

April 9, 2012

Who knew?

Filed under: geography — tildeb @ 10:17 pm


  1. This changes everything. 🙂

    Comment by Cedric Katesby — April 10, 2012 @ 8:36 am | Reply

  2. Great I will have mine deep fried with chips.

    Comment by misunderstoodranter — April 10, 2012 @ 4:44 pm | Reply

  3. Sorry for being off-topic but I just had to share:
    So someone drags out the old chestnut of the “ontological argument” as proof of their brand-name god.
    Naturally, I laugh at it and point to the Internet.
    The the host of the blog jumps in and says…

    I agree with you that assertions do not dictate the ontological status of anybody, and human words do not poof anybody into existence either. Claims are worthless except inasmuch as they align themselves with the truth of the matter. Since timnerk and others like him seem to be in the wrong, and hence a bad position, and really do want to know the truth of the matter, I’m sure we all would be grateful if you were to show us your position seeing as how it is the better one. Tell us, how are we to know how some things exist and others do not?

    Quite a stumper, eh? Hmm, what to do, what to do. Hey, I know! What about providing evidence? (shock, horror)

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
    If someone claims the existence of something then they have to provide evidence.

    Then, in reply, the host dumps this crap:

    Then I would ask you to follow your own rule and provide evidence that the principle– “If someone claims the existence of something then they have to provide evidence”– does indeed exist in reality. Where is your evidence that this principle is actually real and not something you made up?

    Isn’t that sweet? It’s a wonder these people can tie their own shoe-laces.

    So I said:

    No, that won’t help you.
    You are the one making a claim. The burden of proof is on you.
    I don’t have to provide evidence for anything at all.
    Word games will get you nowhere.
    Even if I collapsed in a quivering pile of jelly, totally unable to explain to you the idea that claims require (gulp) evidence…that would not poof your god into existence.
    Your claim must stand on it’s own merits. It cannot “win by default”.
    Seriously, aren’t you even just a little bit embarrassed by trying this on? Is this an intellectually honest way to conduct yourself in an argument?

    Fun for the whole family in a dismal, low-rent manner.

    Comment by Cedric Katesby — April 12, 2012 @ 10:22 am | Reply

  4. BTW – I am having difficulty emailing you… keeps getting rejected….

    Here i the link I wanted to send…

    Comment by misunderstoodranter — June 19, 2012 @ 3:25 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: