Sceptics beliefs ?

[The General]

you believe taht beliefs are opinions based on faith....if you type in "scientist believe" into google you get 256,000,000 hits...are you suggesting scientists base their beliefs on faith rather tahn evidence...your argument is patently absurd

Just considering how many logical fallacies one post can contain.

[Mr Gray]

Just considering how many logical fallacies one post can contain.

point out one....otherwise its just more spam from you

[The General]

point out one....otherwise its just more spam from you

All of your posts could be spam, it's just that most are undecipherable with the ranty keyboard mash in sheepskin mittens. (Ad hom)
You've tried the old straw man by attacking an almost irrelevant, unrelated point that you created (type 'scientist believe' in to Google?? What?
Then, as if that wasn't enough, you used this new, skewed point to use that as a bizarre attack on the original point, appeal to ignorance (as if anyone would know the result of this bizarre google search), by distilling the possible answers down to two  - yes or no (closed question), thus creating a false dichotomy.

[Mr Gray]

All of your posts could be spam, it's just that most are undecipherable with the ranty keyboard mash in sheepskin mittens. (Ad hom)
You've tried the old straw man by attacking an almost irrelevant, unrelated point that you created (type 'scientist believe' in to Google?? What?
Then, as if that wasn't enough, you used this new, skewed point to use that as a bizarre attack on the original point, appeal to ignorance (as if anyone would know the result of this bizarre google search), by distilling the possible answers down to two  - yes or no (closed question), thus creating a false dichotomy.

Try and be a little more precise and to the point...you are ranting and making little sense..

Gunit thinks beliefs are based on faith....my argument is 260 million posts by scientists relating to what they believe...scientific beleifs are based on evidence not faith,...

so wheres the straw man...wheres the appeal to ignorance....i know exactly where the BS is....

[The General]

Try and be a little more precise and to the point...you are ranting and making little sense..

Gunit thinks beliefs are based on faith....my argument is 260 million posts by scientists relating to what they believe...scientific beleifs are based on evidence not faith,...

so wheres the straw man...wheres the appeal to ignorance....i know exactly where the BS is....

Ad hom. I'm telling a sceptical mod off you.......

[Mr Gray]

Ad hom. I'm telling a sceptical mod off you.......

dou you mean ....of you..

 I post thousands of posts very quickly....I could go back and correct the mistakes...I really cant be bothered

[The General]

dou you mean ....of you..

 I post thousands of posts very quickly....I could go back and correct the mistakes...I really cant be bothered

No, it's a colloquialism.
You called me a bullshitter, I'm telling a sceptical mod. Honest.

[Mr Gray]

No, it's a colloquialism.
You called me a bullshitter, I'm telling a sceptical mod. Honest.

i think some of your posts are BS...particularly your recent accusations wshich you have meserably failed to support wiathany evidence...forum rules say its ok to attack your posts...which I have...not you persoanlly

[The General]

i think some of your posts are BS...particularly your recent accusations wshich you have meserably failed to support wiathany evidence...forum rules say its ok to attack your posts...which I have...not you persoanlly

No not good enough. I'm calling the police.
Nah, it's all good. I get it, no problem, I mainly post bullshit. Be lucky pal.

[Mr Gray]

No not good enough. I'm calling the police.
Nah, it's all good. I get it, no problem, I mainly post bullshit. Be lucky pal.

as you are obviously such  anice person Ill pm you the link re grime...it may be BS...it may be not...who knows

[The General]

as you are obviously such  anice person Ill pm you the link re grime...it may be BS...it may be not...who knows

Thanks.

[Brietta]

semantics ...believed are often based on evidence..
The stateemnts are not a record of what people told the PJ ..thats your belief....a more accurate stateemnt of fact is that the statement are a record what the interpreter beleived the mccanns said...they are not even verbatim so by definition are not a record of what teh mccanns said...


could you provide a cite where i have said the stateemnt are innaccurate....Ive said they may well be innaccurate...it is highly unlikely that they are accurate...it seems you read what you believe to be posted rather than what is actually posted

In Madeleine, Kate recounts 'choosing' an interpreter for her arguida interview I think (it could have been the marathon interrogation of the previous day) who to her astonishment roundly berated her for criticising interpreters when she tried to correct translation errors in her previous statement.

[Venturi Swirl]

I wonder if Erngath has the answer after almost 200 pages? Recent posts suggest some disappointment as these 'beliefs' still can't be properly identified. Perhaps the wtong question was asked? The supporters clearly believe that sceptics have beliefs, but maybe their belief is wrong.

In my opinion supporters do have identifiable beliefs, but sceptics don't have such firm convictions. For exanple;

Supporters believe Madeleine was abducted. Sceptics see it as just one possibility.
Supporters believe the parents were not involved in MBM's disappearance. Sceptics see it as a possibility.
Supporters believe Amaral is beyond the pale. Sceptics see him as imperfect, but not evil.
Supporters believe sceptic's doubt because of Amaral. Sceptics know that's not true.
Suppotyers believe what the police say publicly. Sceptics don't.

Can I ask why some/most sceptics never publicly seriously  explore the possibility that Madeleine was abducted and the parents not  guilty without at the same time making it patently clear that they think the idea is risible and virtually impossible?

[G-Unit]

In Madeleine, Kate recounts 'choosing' an interpreter for her arguida interview I think (it could have been the marathon interrogation of the previous day) who to her astonishment roundly berated her for criticising interpreters when she tried to correct translation errors in her previous statement.

Why, without knowing the interpreter's opinion, do you believe Kate's account of what happened?

[G-Unit]

Can I ask why some/most sceptics never publicly seriously  explore the possibility that Madeleine was abducted and the parents not  guilty without at the same time making it patently clear that they think the idea is risible and virtually impossible?

Is that meant to be an answer to my post? I don't see the connection, sorry.