I think this quote so completely encapsulates their stance.  What's that rule about how you can't tell the difference between a parody and the real thing when it's soooo fudged up?

“To think that somehow the rules of evidence can lead you to the right answer is just not right,” said Jordan W. Lorence, a lawyer with Alliance Defense Fund and a member of the trial team for the people and groups who intervened to defend the ban after state officials would not.

Classic.  Simply classic. 

How could we possibly think that "evidence" could lead us to the right answer?  Us silly, sad critical thinkers.

The great thing is that Jordan's statement is at least self-consistent.  How does he know he is right you ask?  Well, we know he doesn't need any evidence to assert his statement is correct.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/us/23bar.html

Views: 5

Replies to This Discussion

Poe's Law
"Rules of evidence." What the hell is that? Where are these 'rules' written down? Unless he means that if the empirical evidence points to it, it must be true, in which case I don't think 'evidence' is on his side.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service