Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Add Reply RSS Feed

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Group LYN Buddhism Retreat - SERIOUS TALK, No trolling please

views
     
SUSDeadlocks
post Aug 16 2010, 04:01 PM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
QUOTE(SpikeMarlene @ Aug 16 2010, 03:49 PM)
I would somewhat disagree with carl sagan. Why? Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you are expecting it. If you would apply this quote on something that is completely unknown, which you cannot anticipate the outcome from absence of evidence, then it is reasonable to say we do not know what this means, hence we cannot rule out it's existence.

However for example, a suspect was found bleeding with cut wound on his finger and he was accused of fighting with the victim which he denied. You expect to find traces of the suspect's blood at the crime scene and on the victim's bloodied clothing but you found none that belongs to the suspect. In this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you are expecting it.
*
But according to your example, wouldn't it also mean that the suspect may have cleaned all his traces to avoid suspicion?
SUSDeadlocks
post Aug 16 2010, 04:47 PM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
QUOTE(SpikeMarlene @ Aug 16 2010, 04:42 PM)
Yes, but how do you know? What do you expect to find to prove your suspicion is valid? If you cannot find it what should you conclude?
*
But that's the reason why there are criminal experts like the CSI right? The point is not to ASSUME that there's no evidence. It simply means that the absence of evidence is as good as the concealment of evidence.
SUSDeadlocks
post Aug 16 2010, 06:35 PM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
QUOTE(SpikeMarlene @ Aug 16 2010, 05:57 PM)
So what would the CSI conclude? That he is still guilty because they suspect he is hiding some evidence? If you expect the evidence to be there but you cannot find, what can you conclude? On top of that how do you know your suspicion is correct, that he is hiding evidence. You don't know, so as far as we are concern, as long as there is an absence of evidence, it is the evidence of absence when you expect it. Of course this is an example in principle of how investigation of reality proceeds and science does it a lot better because science can take it's time to grill the suspect to death and test it hundreds of times to make sure it is correct.
*
Exactly why the investigation has to take place you see. Back in the days when there is no intellect to trace down evidence hidden by criminals, people simply assume that the crime simply has no evidence at all to take place.

But what happened now? Why is there a need to look for truth, that there ARE actually many cases of criminals being smart enough to hide traces of evidences? Have you heard how old, closed cases can be reopened because someone manages to find out the evidence that people didn't use to find?

And it is because of those incidents, people realized that the absence of evidence, is really not the evidence of absence. The idea is not to jump into conclusion without knowledge, it is to investigate for hidden evidences because THEY CAN BE HIDDEN.

QUOTE(joe_mamak @ Aug 10 2010, 06:27 PM)
Ironically, Buddhism can be considered a way of life and not a religion.  smile.gif 

So technically a way of life thread can exist in /k/.
*
Wouldn't that make Buddhism similar to atheism? Atheist too, is not a religion, and they have their own way of lives too.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Aug 16 2010, 06:41 PM
SUSDeadlocks
post Aug 16 2010, 06:42 PM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
QUOTE(ayamkambing @ Aug 16 2010, 06:42 PM)
Reported this thread for mods to take action.

I dont see a purpose of this thread as its a duplicate of All About Religion thread.

You fellas should stop debating.

All religions are bollocks.  tongue.gif
*
But then Buddhism isn't really a religion right?
SUSDeadlocks
post Aug 16 2010, 06:47 PM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
QUOTE(ayamkambing @ Aug 16 2010, 06:45 PM)
If this is a GROUP thread, then it should be to GROUP people who call themselves as Buddhists, regardless if its anything to do with religion or not.

The thread titled LYN BUDDHISM RETREAT....now why the word "RETREAT" is being there?

for you bollocks to debate about what buddhism really is, or for buddhists to lounge and hang out?

you trollers pls take your debates elsewhere.
*
But like you asked earlier, why should it be in RWI in the first place, right? Shouldn't it be a Kopitiam thread then?

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Aug 16 2010, 06:47 PM
« Next Oldest · Serious Kopitiam · Next Newest »
 

Add ReplyOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
 0.0666sec    0.99    7 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 28th November 2025 - 02:53 PM
All Rights Reserved © 2002- 2025 Vijandren Ramadass (~unite against racism~)
Removal Request
Powered by Invision Power Board © 2025  IPS, Inc.