Materialist Bias?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-01-2014, 10:07 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(06-01-2014 09:44 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 09:15 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Including Lukes?

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

Yep - that one

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 11:28 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(06-01-2014 09:59 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  OTF?
Outsider test for faith.
(06-01-2014 07:37 AM)alpha male Wrote:  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?
You have quite a knack for straw men.
Quote: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?
When did I say that you should?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 01:18 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(06-01-2014 11:28 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 07:37 AM)alpha male Wrote:  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?
You have quite a knack for straw men.
Quote: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?
When did I say that you should?

If you're going to cite "materialistic bias" as a source of error, how is any of that a strawman?

Seriously. I've noticed that once you spouted off that gem in the Luke thread, you've refused to actually talk about it or redact it. It's utter, and literal insanity; as in, you have to be actively insane to promote the type of view that basing things on observations is biased and a potential source of error.

If I were to replace "matrix" with "Jesus", would it still be a strawman? It seems like you'd believe it super hard if I did that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
06-01-2014, 04:48 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(06-01-2014 01:18 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Seriously. I've noticed that once you spouted off that gem in the Luke thread, you've refused to actually talk about it or redact it. It's utter, and literal insanity; as in, you have to be actively insane to promote the type of view that basing things on observations is biased and a potential source of error.
I agree. That's not my position. Automatically rejecting observations of the supernatural is biased and a potential source of error. So is rejecting the mundane observations or reports of someone because they do not similarly make a knee-jerk rejection of the supernatural.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 05:03 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(06-01-2014 04:48 PM)alpha male Wrote:  I agree. That's not my position. Automatically rejecting observations of the supernatural is biased and a potential source of error. So is rejecting the mundane observations or reports of someone because they do not similarly make a knee-jerk rejection of the supernatural.

No. Here's the problem with that.

Recognizing something as supernatural is already making a huge and unjustifiable leap. Supernatural does not actually mean anything useful. It means "not amenable to naturalistic investigation or understanding". That is incoherent; anything which happens is observable anything which happens for a reason is explicable.

The only honest way to approach an unexplained phenomenon is just that - to consider it as-yet unexplained. You may recognize this as the definition of skepticism. The only people to accuse skeptics and skepticism in general of "bias" are those who don't like the conclusions they reach because they already know a priori what's what. Sound familiar?

In considering so-called supernatural "observations" (observations? really? I'd say "third-hand hearsay", but even that's generous when it comes to any major modern religion) the only honest way to investigate is to not go in already accepting at face value and to not rely on subjective personal experience. Through such means as determining what, if anything, a putative source actually says; determining what, if anything, might serve as an explanation for said observation; and - oh, yes! - determining what, if anything, lends the source itself any weight.

But, uh, you keep doin' your thing, man.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
06-01-2014, 05:27 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(06-01-2014 05:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  No. Here's the problem with that.

Recognizing something as supernatural is already making a huge and unjustifiable leap. Supernatural does not actually mean anything useful. It means "not amenable to naturalistic investigation or understanding". That is incoherent; anything which happens is observable anything which happens for a reason is explicable.
I agree. I use supernatural because others do, but I don't find it very useful. If Jesus can explain the mechanics of how he healed someone, then it's really natural, but unexplained from our POV.
Quote:The only honest way to approach an unexplained phenomenon is just that - to consider it as-yet unexplained. You may recognize this as the definition of skepticism. The only people to accuse skeptics and skepticism in general of "bias" are those who don't like the conclusions they reach because they already know a priori what's what. Sound familiar?
Yes. Atheists frequently know a priori that the seemingly supernatural is impossible. Like most people, they're skeptical of some things, but don't give the same level of skepticism to things which fit into their worldview.
Quote:In considering so-called supernatural "observations" (observations? really? I'd say "third-hand hearsay", but even that's generous when it comes to any major modern religion)
See? Josephus was also reporting hearsay, but since his report opposes the Bible, it gets a pass from atheists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 05:36 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(06-01-2014 04:48 PM)alpha male Wrote:  ....observations of the supernatural....

[Image: 20120622052737!Rofl.gif]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
06-01-2014, 05:45 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(06-01-2014 05:27 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 05:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  No. Here's the problem with that.

Recognizing something as supernatural is already making a huge and unjustifiable leap. Supernatural does not actually mean anything useful. It means "not amenable to naturalistic investigation or understanding". That is incoherent; anything which happens is observable anything which happens for a reason is explicable.
I agree. I use supernatural because others do, but I don't find it very useful. If Jesus can explain the mechanics of how he healed someone, then it's really natural, but unexplained from our POV.

No, that isn't how it works.

"Healing" involves several well-known natural processes. If an account contradicts literally everything else, the fault is either in the account or in literally everything else. I know which way I'd bet.

You are here, hilariously and with no apparent self-awareness, ignoring the questions I literally just suggested - what, if anything has been claimed, and what, if anything, might explain it.

(06-01-2014 05:27 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:The only honest way to approach an unexplained phenomenon is just that - to consider it as-yet unexplained. You may recognize this as the definition of skepticism. The only people to accuse skeptics and skepticism in general of "bias" are those who don't like the conclusions they reach because they already know a priori what's what. Sound familiar?
Yes. Atheists frequently know a priori that the seemingly supernatural is impossible. Like most people, they're skeptical of some things, but don't give the same level of skepticism to things which fit into their worldview.

No, that isn't how it works.

A skeptic does not a priori know anything.

But when confronted with an unsubstantiated and unverifiable event, inconsistent with all known science and natural philosophy, you can bet your ass they'll need a little more than "the guy telling me says it's true".

But as it happens, I've got a bridge to sell you. You can believe this is true because I am telling you it's true. QED.

(06-01-2014 05:27 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:In considering so-called supernatural "observations" (observations? really? I'd say "third-hand hearsay", but even that's generous when it comes to any major modern religion)
See? Josephus was also reporting hearsay, but since his report opposes the Bible, it gets a pass from atheists.

And he was furthermore merely recording that it was hearsay. As in, "some people have these beliefs".

That could hardly be less compelling. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but all kinds of unfortunate people believe all kinds of wacky shit on this planet of ours. That they believe them means as little as it is even possible to mean without being meaningless.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
06-01-2014, 05:47 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(06-01-2014 04:48 PM)alpha male Wrote:  observations of the supernatural

Let's hear it................ Blink

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, 10:19 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(06-01-2014 05:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 05:27 PM)alpha male Wrote:  I agree. I use supernatural because others do, but I don't find it very useful. If Jesus can explain the mechanics of how he healed someone, then it's really natural, but unexplained from our POV.

No, that isn't how it works.

"Healing" involves several well-known natural processes. If an account contradicts literally everything else, the fault is either in the account or in literally everything else. I know which way I'd bet.

You are here, hilariously and with no apparent self-awareness, ignoring the questions I literally just suggested - what, if anything has been claimed, and what, if anything, might explain it.

(06-01-2014 05:27 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Yes. Atheists frequently know a priori that the seemingly supernatural is impossible. Like most people, they're skeptical of some things, but don't give the same level of skepticism to things which fit into their worldview.

No, that isn't how it works.

A skeptic does not a priori know anything.

But when confronted with an unsubstantiated and unverifiable event, inconsistent with all known science and natural philosophy, you can bet your ass they'll need a little more than "the guy telling me says it's true".

But as it happens, I've got a bridge to sell you. You can believe this is true because I am telling you it's true. QED.

(06-01-2014 05:27 PM)alpha male Wrote:  See? Josephus was also reporting hearsay, but since his report opposes the Bible, it gets a pass from atheists.

And he was furthermore merely recording that it was hearsay. As in, "some people have these beliefs".

That could hardly be less compelling. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but all kinds of unfortunate people believe all kinds of wacky shit on this planet of ours. That they believe them means as little as it is even possible to mean without being meaningless.

Well, you just won the thread. I'm going home now... Thumbsup

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: