Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-02-2013, 03:07 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-02-2013 03:02 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'd almost accept that except you deconverted. You have changed your mind or repented regarding a former tenet of belief. An amoeba has no apparent belief as to whether there is a God or not, and holds no opinion on the subject. You have a belief and are trying to shift the burden of proof. Do you believe in Peter Pan? Of course not, you find this an outlandish positon. You're claiming neutrality of position regarding whether there is a God after deconversion? Surely not.


He came to understand that rational thinking requires evidence for accepting the truth of something.
There is no evidence for the existence of gods, so he gave that up.
I give him the credit that is his due, while you try to mock reason.

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
27-02-2013, 03:09 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:The level of stupidity in the replies is hurting my head. I might have to stop reading this thread.

PleaseJesus, does your god like deceitfulness? You claimed you had evidence for god and that Jesus was the messiah. I can say with absolute certainty that you do not have this evidence. Prove me wrong?
Your first paragraph and your second stand in clear opposition to each other. In the words of the Lord... Sidious... "I feel the conflict within you."

If I felt catty, which I don't, I'd ask how you can "say with absolute certainty that you do not have this evidence." Where do you get this special knowledge from?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 03:09 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-02-2013 02:17 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:I can easily determine how such a study should be done. Let's see if you have good enough reasoning skills to figure it out too.
By the way, this isn't some uber difficult special level of rigor. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of psychological studies are done each year to the same level of rigor or even stricter. Man up or piss off.
It absolutely is different, because I'm asking yet again for you to explain how you'd do the test using SKEPTICS on a mystery religion claiming special powers/evidence for initiates only...
Since when? What the fuck are you on about? What, did you move the goalposts again? Fuck you. Answer my original question, tard.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 03:12 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:He came to understand that rational thinking requires evidence for accepting the truth of something.
There is no evidence for the existence of gods, so he gave that up.
I give him the credit that is his due, while you try to mock reason.
Well, you and poor Vosur have a literal Kobayashi Maru, then, don't you? Suppose I was to agree with you that "There is no evidence for the existence of gods..."? We thus have the following conundrum:

1. There is no evidence for the existence of gods
2. There is no evidence for the non-existence of gods

Maybe we should reframe this discussion to:

Let's pool our evidence and have a discussion. Y'all present as much towering, empirical evidence as you like that there is no God, and then I'll do the same, presenting my scant and pathetic evidence that there is a God. Ready, set, go! [Thunderous silence.] [Theists may now applaud.]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 03:14 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-02-2013 11:25 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:The peer review process, when done properly, will include those who are likely to have opposing or different biases then the researcher(s). It is supposed to be a critical process.
Where does this happen today in the scientific community with Evolution research and advances? Where are those with different or opposing biases in the peer review? Thanks.


Part of the Peer Review system is redoing and testing against a given hypothesis to ensure that the proposer did not fudge the results in their favour or otherwise outright lie about the testing method or results etc. When you enter peer review, your hypothesis will be tested in every way each reviewer can think of, and every single scientist in the field relating to your hypothesis is invited to can help feed it into the proverbial meat grinder.

Creation "Scientists" (and everyone else who opposes with the research) are more than welcome, assuming they actually have degrees. they are well within their rights, (and they should be within their capabilities if they actually have a degree), to devise their own tests and publish their own findings to the grinder. However, I am unaware of one such instance, and I've a good idea why.
(27-02-2013 11:25 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:The point about experience vs. evidence that I am making is not one of eye-witness testimony, but of internal vs. external experience. Someone's internal state is not objective, reproducible, or even communicable. All the experiencer can do is talk aboutit, he can't actually share it.
Well, that makes sense to me. However, eyewitness testimony can be valid in a court of law for condemning or acquiting the accused... without physical evidence. That's what bothers me about the NT discussions here... it's 27 authors, not one, with testimonies about Jesus Christ. I understand skewering the Qu'ran for being the transmitted experience of one "author". Thanks.

Eye witness testimony is just barely classified as an admissible form of evidence; Eye witnesses have been shown to tend toward inaccuracy in criminal and civil trails, this deviation occurs for several reasons.

The longer a person goes without giving a testimony, the greater the probability of giving a false testimony. Not to say this is a deliberate act, but simply how our inefficient brains work:

1. Popular Opinion
As time goes on, the greater a persons likely exposure to things such as media, personal and popular opinion. We humans tend to be easily convinced of things regard other people, our subconscious absorbs almost everything that our conscious mind does not receive, or shuts out. This tendency causes all witnesses to be subject to extreme scrutiny, increasing the longer a person has been exposed as they will have likely inadvertently adopted the views of mass media or those of the people in their lives, which usually go toward condemning the presupposed criminal without hearing the evidence or arguments.
This is easy, unrealised convincing or otherwise inadvertent corruption of a persons ideas leads to biases, which is why juries are insulated for the entirety of a trial so that them may pass relatively unbiased judgements.

2. Faulty Memory
The human brain can store a massive amount of memory and other sensory data, which likely puts some of the super computers to shame. However, unlike the shamed super computers, we humans can be mistaken, and every single day, we are. Every single human being receives incoming data from hundreds, perhaps thousands of sources every single day, and their brain cannot store it all for long. It all has to be shifted through and all the junk information, such as the face of the guys and gals who walked past you on our way into work or their body structure, will likely be put into the trash bin and deleted to save space. Unless of course they have something interesting about them and you focus on them. Nobody will remember everything. If traumatised (in the event of witnessing a murder or assault for example), remembering the face and body of a person is even less likely than before, especially if you do go into shock wherein you may as well have simply shut down during the event at that point.
People's brains will likely mould the experience to what it thinks it saw, usually due the sensory overload and temporary failing of one's faculties. This creates a portrait which is all too often incorrect. It's not the witnesses fault, it's entirely unintentional, but it is almost entirely unavoidable too.
A persons memory alone is almost never enough to convince a judge or properly educated jury. Physical evidence, such as forensic evidence, video or photo footage, audio recording and such would need to accompany and corroborate the witnesses testimony.


3. Time
As time goes on, the less likely a person will remember an event vividly or correctly. The longer it takes for a witness to come forward, the more their recollection will be suspect. Not to mention the honestly for reasons previously state.




4. Biases
Well, I think we can all figure this one out for ourselves, don't you?

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 03:18 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-02-2013 03:12 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:He came to understand that rational thinking requires evidence for accepting the truth of something.
There is no evidence for the existence of gods, so he gave that up.
I give him the credit that is his due, while you try to mock reason.
Well, you and poor Vosur have a literal Kobayashi Maru, then, don't you? Suppose I was to agree with you that "There is no evidence for the existence of gods..."? We thus have the following conundrum:

1. There is no evidence for the existence of gods
2. There is no evidence for the non-existence of gods

Maybe we should reframe this discussion to:

Let's pool our evidence and have a discussion. Y'all present as much towering, empirical evidence as you like that there is no God, and then I'll do the same, presenting my scant and pathetic evidence that there is a God. Ready, set, go! [Thunderous silence.] [Theists may now applaud.]


Look, PJ, instead of fucking around, present your goddamn scant evidence. Or shut the fuck up.

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
27-02-2013, 03:20 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-02-2013 03:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-02-2013 03:12 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Well, you and poor Vosur have a literal Kobayashi Maru, then, don't you? Suppose I was to agree with you that "There is no evidence for the existence of gods..."? We thus have the following conundrum:

1. There is no evidence for the existence of gods
2. There is no evidence for the non-existence of gods

Maybe we should reframe this discussion to:

Let's pool our evidence and have a discussion. Y'all present as much towering, empirical evidence as you like that there is no God, and then I'll do the same, presenting my scant and pathetic evidence that there is a God. Ready, set, go! [Thunderous silence.] [Theists may now applaud.]


Look, PJ, instead of fucking around, present your goddamn scant evidence. Or shut the fuck up.
But you haven't proven you exist yet. You might still be him.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 03:20 PM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2013 03:25 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-02-2013 03:02 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'd almost accept that except you deconverted. You have changed your mind or repented regarding a former tenet of belief. An amoeba has no apparent belief as to whether there is a God or not, and holds no opinion on the subject. You have a belief and are trying to shift the burden of proof.
It is you who has the burden of proof because you are the one who claims to possess evidence to support his position. I am honest enough to admit that I do not know whether or not there are several supernatural deities and that I know of no empirical evidence to support either side.

(27-02-2013 03:02 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Do you believe in Peter Pan? Of course not, you find this an outlandish positon. You're claiming neutrality of position regarding whether there is a God after deconversion? Surely not.
But of course I am. I was born as an agnostic atheist, not knowing whether or not there are supernatural deities, thus lacking a belief in them. I acquired such a belief during my childhood since I was raised in a Christian household. It was only a few years ago that I examined my beliefs critically for the first time in my life, that I came to the conclusion that I could no longer support them and that I reverted back to my natural state, that of an agnostic atheist.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
27-02-2013, 03:27 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(27-02-2013 03:09 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:The level of stupidity in the replies is hurting my head. I might have to stop reading this thread.

PleaseJesus, does your god like deceitfulness? You claimed you had evidence for god and that Jesus was the messiah. I can say with absolute certainty that you do not have this evidence. Prove me wrong?
Your first paragraph and your second stand in clear opposition to each other. In the words of the Lord... Sidious... "I feel the conflict within you."

If I felt catty, which I don't, I'd ask how you can "say with absolute certainty that you do not have this evidence." Where do you get this special knowledge from?

Nope, just more deflecting. As I thought.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
27-02-2013, 03:37 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:Since when? What the fuck are you on about? What, did you move the goalposts again? Fuck you. Answer my original question, tard.
I clearly asked you, first, and several times since. How do you apply skeptical peer review to a mystery revealed to initiates? Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: