Argument I don't understand
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2014, 11:30 AM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(20-10-2014 11:16 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I asked because I noticed Chas and others were very quick to both insist that I provide peer-reviewed evidence for anything metaphysical and very quick to discount anecdotal evidence, no matter how abundant.

That's because in that context, it's never repeatable or verifiable. What do you do when people claim to see leprechauns? Trust them cuz they said so? It's not like there isn't a plethora of evidence and studies to show that people can have very weird, and unreliable perceptions.

If you don't try to filter that out, your outputs become as reliable as the inputs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RobbyPants's post
20-10-2014, 04:56 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(20-10-2014 11:16 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(16-10-2014 04:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Certainly it's possible to find single examples of anything you can imagine and then some.
(but do note that it was you who supplied one and not a certain other participant in this, ah, conversation)

I then say "so what?"

"Scientism" is a word I, as a scientist, have never encountered outside disingenuous apologetics. So there's that.

I see, and that is very informative and helpful to me. What forms of knowledge do you all accept as valid other than what is scientifically researched? I asked because I noticed Chas and others were very quick to both insist that I provide peer-reviewed evidence for anything metaphysical and very quick to discount anecdotal evidence, no matter how abundant.

Thanks.

The key is the word knowledge. Revelation is not knowledge, hearsay is not knowledge, myth is not knowledge.

Knowledge is ultimately based on evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
21-10-2014, 11:51 AM
RE: Argument I don't understand
Are we defining anecdotal as one person's testimony rather than eyewitness verification? I'm not trying to be leading or dismissive here and I really am not in the mood for a TTA "look it up, stupid". I deserve a wee bit more than that, please.

What I'm saying here is why is scientific observation not anecdotal but Christian testimony is? I'm throwing the door wide open here 1) because I obviously don't understand here and 2) I don't want to use the word "scientism" but I feel it coming on... some scientists have been accused of falsifying records, etc. Remember that apologists have pointed out for ages that there is more than one eyewitness testimony of Jesus, more than one gospel writer, more than ten NT writers, etc.

Thanks!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2014, 11:58 AM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(21-10-2014 11:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Are we defining anecdotal as one person's testimony rather than eyewitness verification? I'm not trying to be leading or dismissive here and I really am not in the mood for a TTA "look it up, stupid". I deserve a wee bit more than that, please.

What I'm saying here is why is scientific observation not anecdotal but Christian testimony is? I'm throwing the door wide open here 1) because I obviously don't understand here and 2) I don't want to use the word "scientism" but I feel it coming on... some scientists have been accused of falsifying records, etc. Remember that apologists have pointed out for ages that there is more than one eyewitness testimony of Jesus, more than one gospel writer, more than ten NT writers, etc.

Thanks!

In short, scientific evidence can be replicated. Any number of people can do the same experiment and get the same result. If this doesn't happen, the scientific community doesn't accept the result.

Christian testimony is not repeatable. You're taking one person's word for it that they had a revelation, or their prayers were answered, or whatever. That's why it's considered anecdotal. You don't have to take anyone's word for it in science. You can repeat the experiment yourself.

Besides, as Chas pointed out, we don't have "more than one" eyewitness testimony of Jesus. Most biblical scholars agree that we have zero.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
21-10-2014, 12:02 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(21-10-2014 11:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Are we defining anecdotal as one person's testimony rather than eyewitness verification? I'm not trying to be leading or dismissive here and I really am not in the mood for a TTA "look it up, stupid". I deserve a wee bit more than that, please.

What I'm saying here is why is scientific observation not anecdotal but Christian testimony is? I'm throwing the door wide open here 1) because I obviously don't understand here and 2) I don't want to use the word "scientism" but I feel it coming on... some scientists have been accused of falsifying records, etc. Remember that apologists have pointed out for ages that there is more than one eyewitness testimony of Jesus, more than one gospel writer, more than ten NT writers, etc.

Thanks!

There is so much wrong with your post that it boggles the mind.

You really do need to go look up and learn about evidence. You clearly don't have a clue. Or you are a liar.


And then you throw in demonstrably wrong assertion (eyewitness), a straw man (scientism), an ad hominem (falsifying records), and do it in your usual smarmy, passive-aggressive style.

You really are an utter ass. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
21-10-2014, 10:29 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(21-10-2014 12:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  You really are an utter ass. Drinking Beverage

^^ Empirically derived theory which matches observation to alpha < 0.0001

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2014, 09:43 AM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(21-10-2014 12:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-10-2014 11:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Are we defining anecdotal as one person's testimony rather than eyewitness verification? I'm not trying to be leading or dismissive here and I really am not in the mood for a TTA "look it up, stupid". I deserve a wee bit more than that, please.

What I'm saying here is why is scientific observation not anecdotal but Christian testimony is? I'm throwing the door wide open here 1) because I obviously don't understand here and 2) I don't want to use the word "scientism" but I feel it coming on... some scientists have been accused of falsifying records, etc. Remember that apologists have pointed out for ages that there is more than one eyewitness testimony of Jesus, more than one gospel writer, more than ten NT writers, etc.

Thanks!

There is so much wrong with your post that it boggles the mind.

You really do need to go look up and learn about evidence. You clearly don't have a clue. Or you are a liar.


And then you throw in demonstrably wrong assertion (eyewitness), a straw man (scientism), an ad hominem (falsifying records), and do it in your usual smarmy, passive-aggressive style.

You really are an utter ass. Drinking Beverage

I'm sorry that we are clearly miscommunicating here. Please let me try to rephrase what I'm asking:

Chas, you seem to use "peer review" and etc. a lot. Some scientists, a very few of them, have falsified scientific evidence. All scientific research is to me--and I do tend to oversimplify--is people doing controlled experiments, using controls, and having others verify their results. I was taught when I was young to apply the hypothesis method to anything I took care to learn--I used it to test God before becoming a born again Christian.

When you quote to me one scientific study that prayer doesn't work, and I say there are tens of thousands of churches worldwide that have regular accounting of prayer requests and their fulfillment in the presence of dozens to hundreds of witnesses, and then you say ALL the testimony is anecdotal and the scientific study is not, and then I say "sounds like a scientism bend to me" or perhaps "anti-religious bias" you responded that scientism is an extreme viewpoint that you don't hold.

I'm asking you again to tell us what you give credence to OTHER than scientific research. I tend to place credibility with trusted friends and family when they give me eyewitness accounts, but per the Bible, I do like to confirm such things on the evidence of at least one or two other accounts/pieces of evidence.

I do accept anecdotal testimony at times (like my wife says "she really loves me"). I don't say, "where's the real evidence for that?" because in that instance, I accept her anecdotal testimony.

If you wouldn't mind, please tell me what you accept other than scientific research, since you say you don't hold to the extreme views of scientism.

I don't want to be passive-aggressive or sound left-handed, so I'll tell you my agenda. If you would please tell me what you accept as evidence, I would try to provide same for God. Thanks.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2014, 09:44 AM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(21-10-2014 11:58 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(21-10-2014 11:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Are we defining anecdotal as one person's testimony rather than eyewitness verification? I'm not trying to be leading or dismissive here and I really am not in the mood for a TTA "look it up, stupid". I deserve a wee bit more than that, please.

What I'm saying here is why is scientific observation not anecdotal but Christian testimony is? I'm throwing the door wide open here 1) because I obviously don't understand here and 2) I don't want to use the word "scientism" but I feel it coming on... some scientists have been accused of falsifying records, etc. Remember that apologists have pointed out for ages that there is more than one eyewitness testimony of Jesus, more than one gospel writer, more than ten NT writers, etc.

Thanks!

In short, scientific evidence can be replicated. Any number of people can do the same experiment and get the same result. If this doesn't happen, the scientific community doesn't accept the result.

Christian testimony is not repeatable. You're taking one person's word for it that they had a revelation, or their prayers were answered, or whatever. That's why it's considered anecdotal. You don't have to take anyone's word for it in science. You can repeat the experiment yourself.

Besides, as Chas pointed out, we don't have "more than one" eyewitness testimony of Jesus. Most biblical scholars agree that we have zero.

If I prayed to god 100 times and he answered me 100 times that is anecdotal, yes. That makes sense to me. Have you met any Christians who invited you to set up experiments for yourself, however?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2014, 09:47 AM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(22-10-2014 09:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  If I prayed to god 100 times and he answered me 100 times that is anecdotal, yes. That makes sense to me. Have you met any Christians who invited you to set up experiments for yourself, however?

Shouldn't they?
Didn't you just make this statement?
(21-10-2014 11:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Did you now? You are claiming special knowledge plus using a materialist's biases to "refute" eyewitness and prophetical evidence laid down before you were born. You have nothing. I'm not trying to sound mean-spirited but I'd love to see some logic or reason used here rather than a dismissive insult to the faith of hundreds of millions, a faith based on facts, reason and illumination.
Shouldn't they be interested in experimenting if their faith is based on fact and reason?

Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books. For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring, but to him they are but toys of the moment, to be overturned with the flick of a finger.”

― Gordon R. Dickson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Winterwolf00's post
22-10-2014, 01:02 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(22-10-2014 09:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(21-10-2014 11:58 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  In short, scientific evidence can be replicated. Any number of people can do the same experiment and get the same result. If this doesn't happen, the scientific community doesn't accept the result.

Christian testimony is not repeatable. You're taking one person's word for it that they had a revelation, or their prayers were answered, or whatever. That's why it's considered anecdotal. You don't have to take anyone's word for it in science. You can repeat the experiment yourself.

Besides, as Chas pointed out, we don't have "more than one" eyewitness testimony of Jesus. Most biblical scholars agree that we have zero.

If I prayed to god 100 times and he answered me 100 times that is anecdotal, yes. That makes sense to me. Have you met any Christians who invited you to set up experiments for yourself, however?

If you're claiming that God answers 100% of your prayers, I'm calling bullshit, unless you have an extremely broad definition of "answer" ("Sometimes the answer is no", lol). Untold millions of prayers have not been answered, and this is by far the more common experience. I have been a Christian myself, and known many many other Christians. Never once has any of them claimed that every one of their prayers was answered. And yes, I have done the "experiments" myself, with overwhelmingly negative results.

The "efficacy of prayer" is bullshit, from a logical standpoint as well as an experimental one. Why would an omniscient and omnipotent god change his mind just because I asked him to? He already knows everything that will happen to me, as well as what is best for me (and for anyone else that I might pray for). It would make no sense at all for him to alter that plan at my request. And what if I pray for a home run, and the pitcher is simultaneously praying for a strikeout? It is impossible for God to "answer" both prayers. At least one of us is guaranteed to be disappointed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: