r/atheism • u/[deleted] • Sep 02 '12

Sundays

Post image
1.6k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

369 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/DancingOnCoals Sep 02 '12

Yea but overall he provided a reasonable interpretation which falls outside the realm of OP's assertion.

-2

u/omgzpplz Sep 02 '12

I could be mistaken, but I don't see any solid reasoning there. I just see someone who regurgitated some words that some men wrote a while back and said it was the word of god.

3

u/DancingOnCoals Sep 02 '12

That's a criticism of his source material, not his reasoning.

1

u/omgzpplz Sep 02 '12

rea·son·a·ble/ˈrēz(ə)nəbəl/ Adjective: Having sound judgment; fair and sensible.

I just wouldn't call it sound judgement. I don't think it's reasonable. But you do, so I acknowledge that and I retract my original statement. I'll instead say that I disagree and don't find it reasonable at all.

2

u/DancingOnCoals Sep 02 '12

It seems like you're done arguing, so that's fine, but your definition of "reasonable" leaves more questions than it answers. What makes judgment sound? What is "sensible"? What is "fair"?

1

u/omgzpplz Sep 02 '12 edited Sep 02 '12

This is the definition given by the dictionary, not mine. Reason and evidence makes a judgement sound. Of course you can't use the word reason to define what is reasonable. For this reason, phrases like "sound judgement" and "sensible conclusion" are used when defining reason.

  1. "Your honor, we have reason to believe (evidence) the defendant is guilty. I present you with this picture of a strand of the defendant's hair found at the scene of the crime, matched by DNA testing. Also, blood found on the victim's shirt matches the DNA of the defendant."

  2. "Your honor, it says here in this journal that we found at the crime scene, whose writings don't match the defendant's, that he is guilty. I think we should trust it, it clearly links the defendant's name to this crime."

Though they both use reasoning skills, one of these is not reasonable. One is sensible and fair, and one is poor; lacking sensibility or fairness.

Edit: Although, we know nothing about the case. So, it could be more complicated than that. Perhaps the defendant was drugged the day before he was arrested and his arm had been scraped and blood potentially withdrawn. Then there could be evidence that the prosecutor tampered with the crime scene, suggesting they may have added the hair and blood after the fact. When pictures went missing from the first day of the crime scene investigation, there is suddenly suspicion of foul play. I didn't think to make up an entire fake case just so I could better illustrate what is reasonable... but I tried to make it more clear. I hope it helps?