Argument I don't understand
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-10-2014, 03:50 PM (This post was last modified: 22-10-2014 03:57 PM by Chas.)
RE: Argument I don't understand
(22-10-2014 02:22 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(22-10-2014 01:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh, look! Equivocation!

No, champ, that isn't anecdotal evidence, because it isn't considered in isolation. The fact that, among other things, she (presumably) chooses to continue to be married to you would strike an honest person as rather significant corroborating evidence.

Would you take the same claim at face value from a stranger on the street?

Would you take the same claim at face value from a stranger on the street if there were anything significant at stake?

Excellent. So we agree that evidence is ENHANCED by those whom we TRUST. Or if you like, corroborating evidence. Since you accept repeated interaction with the same person as corroborating evidence, let me testify, I know God and I trust Him.

Thanks.

That is not at all what he said. Do you do this shit on purpose? Consider

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
22-10-2014, 05:06 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(22-10-2014 02:22 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(22-10-2014 01:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh, look! Equivocation!

No, champ, that isn't anecdotal evidence, because it isn't considered in isolation. The fact that, among other things, she (presumably) chooses to continue to be married to you would strike an honest person as rather significant corroborating evidence.

Would you take the same claim at face value from a stranger on the street?

Would you take the same claim at face value from a stranger on the street if there were anything significant at stake?

Excellent. So we agree that evidence is ENHANCED by those whom we TRUST. Or if you like, corroborating evidence. Since you accept repeated interaction with the same person as corroborating evidence, let me testify, I know God and I trust Him.

Thanks.

Indeed; the key word there might be person, as in an externally verifiable interaction, instead of a simulacrum indistinguishable from hallucination or self-delusion.

Do you see the difference?

But of course it's still disingenuous equivocation. What would you say to an individual who swears absolutely confident testimony as to efficacy of healing crystals? Let us further say that they are otherwise an intelligent, trustworthy individual. Would you accept the claim? Why or why not?

Their trustworthiness is no more than circumstantial; it does not have any bearing on the validity of their claim. I find it extremely hard to credit that you could be so ignorant of how knowledge and evidence work. If you have a point, please get there faster.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
28-10-2014, 12:31 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(22-10-2014 05:06 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-10-2014 02:22 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Excellent. So we agree that evidence is ENHANCED by those whom we TRUST. Or if you like, corroborating evidence. Since you accept repeated interaction with the same person as corroborating evidence, let me testify, I know God and I trust Him.

Thanks.

Indeed; the key word there might be person, as in an externally verifiable interaction, instead of a simulacrum indistinguishable from hallucination or self-delusion.

Do you see the difference?

But of course it's still disingenuous equivocation. What would you say to an individual who swears absolutely confident testimony as to efficacy of healing crystals? Let us further say that they are otherwise an intelligent, trustworthy individual. Would you accept the claim? Why or why not?

Their trustworthiness is no more than circumstantial; it does not have any bearing on the validity of their claim. I find it extremely hard to credit that you could be so ignorant of how knowledge and evidence work. If you have a point, please get there faster.

Great points. I would likely be skeptical and question whether they have a confirmatory bias, same as you. But what would you do (or I do) if over 90% of people said the crystals had healing properties, including intelligentsia and scientists, and then we did some historical research and discovered that, well, 90% of people who ever lived ascribed healing powers to these crystals...

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
28-10-2014, 12:43 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(28-10-2014 12:31 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(22-10-2014 05:06 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed; the key word there might be person, as in an externally verifiable interaction, instead of a simulacrum indistinguishable from hallucination or self-delusion.

Do you see the difference?

But of course it's still disingenuous equivocation. What would you say to an individual who swears absolutely confident testimony as to efficacy of healing crystals? Let us further say that they are otherwise an intelligent, trustworthy individual. Would you accept the claim? Why or why not?

Their trustworthiness is no more than circumstantial; it does not have any bearing on the validity of their claim. I find it extremely hard to credit that you could be so ignorant of how knowledge and evidence work. If you have a point, please get there faster.

Great points. I would likely be skeptical and question whether they have a confirmatory bias, same as you. But what would you do (or I do) if over 90% of people said the crystals had healing properties, including intelligentsia and scientists, and then we did some historical research and discovered that, well, 90% of people who ever lived ascribed healing powers to these crystals...

We would test them As has been done with intercessory prayer, and if they all came up as having no better than placebo effect would conclude that the argumentum ad populum you just tried to use is still a fallacy.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
28-10-2014, 01:55 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
Yeah, as Rev pointed out, you still don't have a good analogy, Q. Something is either observable in a verifiable way, or it isn't.

If it is, then it can be tested and we can use it to make useful predictions and decisions. If it's not, then who cares? Seriously. What possible use is a rubric for making decisions that involves asking God and then saying "I don't know" when you're asked what the answer was? Your best two cases for using prayer to predict things are:
  1. A post hoc justification after you get your results to confirm you were right all along (0 predictability)
  2. Going on gut feelings because you think that's God's answer (unreliable predictability)

You don't need prayer to accomplish either of those things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RobbyPants's post
28-10-2014, 02:36 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(28-10-2014 01:55 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Yeah, as Rev pointed out, you still don't have a good analogy, Q. Something is either observable in a verifiable way, or it isn't.

If it is, then it can be tested and we can use it to make useful predictions and decisions. If it's not, then who cares? Seriously. What possible use is a rubric for making decisions that involves asking God and then saying "I don't know" when you're asked what the answer was? Your best two cases for using prayer to predict things are:
  1. A post hoc justification after you get your results to confirm you were right all along (0 predictability)
  2. Going on gut feelings because you think that's God's answer (unreliable predictability)

You don't need prayer to accomplish either of those things.

But neither is so in my case. I have prayed thousands of times for help, and have personal examples and the examples of others of help that supersedes natural law. For example, people who tithed and gave money to the church when they needed grocery money instead, and then being awarded food without asking any human for food for the table...

...Again, the Bible is consistent here as to persons and class. Jesus said YOU followers ask in my name, not "skeptics who pray will surely be answered..."

The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD, But the prayer of the upright is His delight. - Proverbs 15:8

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
28-10-2014, 02:38 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(28-10-2014 02:36 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(28-10-2014 01:55 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Yeah, as Rev pointed out, you still don't have a good analogy, Q. Something is either observable in a verifiable way, or it isn't.

If it is, then it can be tested and we can use it to make useful predictions and decisions. If it's not, then who cares? Seriously. What possible use is a rubric for making decisions that involves asking God and then saying "I don't know" when you're asked what the answer was? Your best two cases for using prayer to predict things are:
  1. A post hoc justification after you get your results to confirm you were right all along (0 predictability)
  2. Going on gut feelings because you think that's God's answer (unreliable predictability)

You don't need prayer to accomplish either of those things.

But neither is so in my case. I have prayed thousands of times for help, and have personal examples and the examples of others of help that supersedes natural law. For example, people who tithed and gave money to the church when they needed grocery money instead, and then being awarded food without asking any human for food for the table...

...Again, the Bible is consistent here as to persons and class. Jesus said YOU followers ask in my name, not "skeptics who pray will surely be answered..."

The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD, But the prayer of the upright is His delight. - Proverbs 15:8

How does that example violate natural law? It doesn't.

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
28-10-2014, 02:59 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(28-10-2014 02:36 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  For example, people who tithed and gave money to the church when they needed grocery money instead, and then being awarded food without asking any human for food for the table...

I remember a woman when I went to church that instead of using money to put gas in her car, she went to church and gave it in tithes. Someone at church gave her money and she was up front giving her testimony about how god "miraculously" worked.

Let's see, she gives a sob story to people that go to the same church as her and then someone gave her money. At no point was any deity involved in that transaction, it was simple empathy among a close-knit group of peers.

It was this appeal to woo that turned me off to the whole experience, I realized all that woman had to do was take actions of her own volition to improve her life to where she didn't have to beg and cry at church for gas money, it was pathetic really, but all she knew to do was go begging because of the "miraculous power of her Jesus" reinforced by like-minded people.

She'll probably go the rest of her life locked into her severely limited world view while she lives on hand-outs brought about by her almighty god.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
28-10-2014, 08:35 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(28-10-2014 02:36 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  and then being awarded food without asking any human for food for the table...

How were they "awarded" food?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2014, 01:21 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
The bags of groceries showed on their porch without either of the couple soliciting aid from anyone else. This occurred twice. That would be a minor miracle. Major ones are around as well...

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: