Materialist Bias?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-01-2014, 08:04 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(05-01-2014 07:39 AM)alpha male Wrote:  It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
(05-01-2014 07:39 AM)alpha male Wrote:  It seems to me that you guys pose the question when you're losing on unrelated topics and want to get back to what you consider to be more solid ground.
Chippy's question has nothing to do with the topic at hand either and yet you answered it. Obviously this is not the reason why you refuse to answer my question. Drinking Beverage

(05-01-2014 07:39 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Seems likely.
And why is that?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 08:25 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
Chippy Wrote:... But everyone else was required to use faith.
Thomas didn't. And he was an apostle.

"If you're going my way, I'll go with you."- Jim Croce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Kestrel's post
05-01-2014, 09:07 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(05-01-2014 07:58 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Why would a benevolent God organise reality such that something as important as the doctrine of salvation could be reasonably doubted but some mundane things couldn't be reasonably doubted?

That doesn't answer my questions. It doesn't explain why reasonable doubt regarding the salvific doctrine of Christianity is possible. I can accept that an unreasonable doubt need not be prevented, but a reasonable doubt? How is that fair?

Another issue that relates to equity is that those that witnessed Christ's alleged miracles did not need to recruit any faith since they had first-hand experience. But everyone else was required to use faith. How is that fair? Surely a just God would not privilege anyone in this way.
Salvation is an issue of mercy and grace, not justice. God can give it to whom he wants. The Bible says he has mercy on whom he chooses. Haven't you read that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 09:33 AM (This post was last modified: 05-01-2014 09:41 AM by alpha male.)
RE: Materialist Bias?
(05-01-2014 08:04 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Chippy's question has nothing to do with the topic at hand either and yet you answered it. Obviously this is not the reason why you refuse to answer my question. Drinking Beverage
I disagree. Bias and reasonableness are related.
Quote:And why is that?
Because it's not uncommon. I'll give you a pass on the past, but in the future, if you've been involved in a thread and someone doesn't respond to one of my points, I expect you to call them out on it. TIA for your support! Angel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 12:10 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(05-01-2014 09:33 AM)alpha male Wrote:  I disagree. Bias and reasonableness are related.
And the same goes for bias and Creationism.

In any case, I started a thread in which my question is as on-topic as possible; feel free to respond there.

(05-01-2014 09:33 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Because it's not uncommon. I'll give you a pass on the past, but in the future, if you've been involved in a thread and someone doesn't respond to one of my points, I expect you to call them out on it. TIA for your support! Angel
Yeah, well, about that... that doesn't make any sense. If I "like" a post in which one of your points is not addressed, then you might have a valid case.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 02:43 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(05-01-2014 07:39 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:It seems to me that the actual reason why you refuse to answer the question is because you are too embarrassed to admit that you have such outlandish beliefs.
It seems to me that you guys pose the question when you're losing on unrelated topics and want to get back to what you consider to be more solid ground.

What topic exactly did we "lose on" in this thread? You posted a big "agree to disagree" on the related topic. And even then, that was really a response to this topic in context of the Luke topic.

If you want to be a real stickler and stick only to this thread, how do you feel about materialistic bias in and of itself? Is it somehow a problem when compared to supernatural bias (or whatever you'd call that)?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 07:37 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(05-01-2014 02:43 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  What topic exactly did we "lose on" in this thread?
That Luke is wrong on Quirinius, and the OTF.
Quote:If you want to be a real stickler and stick only to this thread, how do you feel about materialistic bias in and of itself? Is it somehow a problem when compared to supernatural bias (or whatever you'd call that)?
Any bias can be a cause of error. I thought that was the obvious problem with bias.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 09:15 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(06-01-2014 07:37 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Any bias can be a cause of error. I thought that was the obvious problem with bias.

Including Lukes?

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
06-01-2014, 09:44 AM (This post was last modified: 06-01-2014 10:27 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Materialist Bias?
(06-01-2014 09:15 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 07:37 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Any bias can be a cause of error. I thought that was the obvious problem with bias.

Including Lukes?

You mean the unknown, anonymous, and most certainly not an eye-witness author who wrote (at the earliest) decades after the supposed fact and had at best second and third hand hearsay (and plagiarizing the Gospel of Mark) to work from? That Luke? Weeping

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
06-01-2014, 09:59 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(06-01-2014 07:37 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(05-01-2014 02:43 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  What topic exactly did we "lose on" in this thread?
That Luke is wrong on Quirinius, and the OTF.

OTF?


(06-01-2014 07:37 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Any bias can be a cause of error. I thought that was the obvious problem with bias.

So, per my OP, you're acknowledging that assuming that I'm not in the matrix could be a cause for error, and I should take that into account every time I do anything?

While what you say is technically true, it also seems to be completely meaningless. If I had to simultaneously make an infinite number of assumptions when making a decision, it seems like it would be completely crippling.

Why should I assume non-falsifiable, unproven assumptions when I make my decisions?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: