Single biggest objection.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-05-2014, 09:29 AM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2014 09:38 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Single biggest objection.
(21-05-2014 08:34 AM)hotnostril Wrote:  
(21-05-2014 08:27 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  That is fine. Your responses will be put into my data pool.

Thank you.

"Data pool"...lol that's adorable!

Isn't it just?

I have a picture in my head of Jem just splashing around in the shallow end.

Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like DLJ's post
21-05-2014, 09:31 AM
RE: Single biggest objection.
(21-05-2014 08:35 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I stated why I was here. I am doing research.

Says the rat in the maze...

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
21-05-2014, 09:35 AM
RE: Single biggest objection.
(21-05-2014 06:37 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You fail and err in your judgement, any here who think I am intent on convincing anyone of anything.

That is not why I am here.


[Image: LIAR.gif]


Quote:I am researching the psychology of unbelief and am gathering data, forming hypotheses, and conducting thought experiments here.


Nice try, moron. Your "research" is as far away from scientific or impartial as it can get. You are only trolling. Badly.


Quote:I am fascinated at how the Bible speaks on unbelief and am comparing its views with what I experience and observe in reality.

[citation needed]


Quote:The accuracy with which the Bible speaks on this issue is astounding. I have quotes from atheists themselves that corroborate the Biblical view.
Quite doubtful.

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
[+] 4 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
21-05-2014, 09:35 AM
RE: Single biggest objection.
(21-05-2014 08:35 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-05-2014 08:02 AM)pablo628 Wrote:  1. You don't care? You still haven't answered the challenge. Prove it (nice christian attitude by the way).
2. You are not here to convince me of anything? Then why are you here at all? go away

I stated why I was here. I am doing research.

Do you know the definition of the word research?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Leo's post
21-05-2014, 09:38 AM
RE: Single biggest objection.
(21-05-2014 07:04 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(21-05-2014 06:34 AM)War Horse Wrote:  What is "atheist dogma" ?

The 'ma' or mother of a dog is a bitch...

therefore... atheist bitch!

I think it's a kinda like compliment

(21-05-2014 06:37 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  ...
I am fascinated at how the Bible speaks on unbelief and am comparing its views with what I experience and observe in reality.

The accuracy with which the Bible speaks on this issue is astounding. I have quotes from atheists themselves that corroborate the Biblical view.

I've seen managers and jealous lovers and politicians use the technique to which you refer ... or at least, one to which you might be referring.

The attempts to pre-discredit a rival or opponent.

It's particularly prevalent in office politics:
"Have you seen the new girl... I bet she only got the job because of her long legs.... how long before the boss gets to spread them, I wonder?"
"I bet if you ask her if she has slept with the boss, she'll deny it."
"Watch your back, I say. And don't trust anything she says."

Don't listen to false prophets, say I.

Y'know, like all of them.

Thumbsup

It's called "Poisoning the Well."

Yet another of Jermy's many failures in reasoning.

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
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
21-05-2014, 09:39 AM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2014 09:45 AM by rampant.a.i..)
Single biggest objection.
The same way he "researches" porn sites to "see how sinners think" and then goes on Craigslist to hire a male escort "to research how sinners live"

β€œIt is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
21-05-2014, 09:41 AM
RE: Single biggest objection.
(20-05-2014 05:06 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  As some of you may be aware, I am a Christian. I and many other Christians point to the Holy Bible as one of the primary sources of knowledge regarding the God we worship.

I am aware that there may be individuals here who have objections to the contents of the Bible. For instance, some one here may object to the Bible's claim to be the word of God.

Some may object to the Bible's views on homosexuality.

These are just two examples.

In this thread I invite anyone who has an objection to the Bible to tell me what their single biggest objection is and if one particular objection is found to be more prevalent than others, I will attempt to address it.

Please state the objection and why it is your single biggest objection.

Cos it's one of the worst books ever written. I am surprised at how many people are able to get past the 5th page before throwing it in the garbage. I would REALLY love to know how many christians have actually read the thing from cover to cover. I'm guessing, percentage wise, very few.

I have read the thing, cover to cover, but fuck was it a chore. I had tried many times before but found it near impossible. In the end it took a concerted effort because I had promised myself that I WOULD read it, but never again. This from a guy who LOVES reading.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like joben1's post
21-05-2014, 09:43 AM
RE: Single biggest objection.
(21-05-2014 09:39 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  The same way he "researches" porn sites to "see how sinners think"

No thanks. I do not watch pornography.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2014, 09:45 AM
RE: Single biggest objection.
(21-05-2014 09:43 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-05-2014 09:39 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  The same way he "researches" porn sites to "see how sinners think"

No thanks. I do not watch pornography.

Maybe you should. It would make you far less of an ignorant peckerhead.

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
21-05-2014, 09:48 AM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2014 10:47 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: Single biggest objection.
(21-05-2014 06:37 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I am researching the psychology of unbelief and am gathering data, forming hypotheses, and conducting thought experiments here.

From the American Psychological Association's Ethical publication, Principals of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, which is pretty much the discipline's ethical standard in the country where this forum's servers are located. (Bold emphasis in original, italic and underline emphasis added. EDIT: Any copyright symbols in quoted text were original the letter c bracketed by parentheses. They are rendered here as copyright symbols by forum software, and it is beyond my ability to suppress this "feature".)

Quote:3.10 Informed Consent
(a) When psychologists conduct research or provide assessment, therapy, counseling or consulting services in person or via electronic transmission or other forms of communication, they obtain the informed consent of the individual or individuals using language that is reasonably understandable to that person or persons except when conducting such activities without consent is mandated by law or governmental regulation or as otherwise provided in this Ethics Code. (See also Standards 8.02, Informed Consent to Research; 9.03, Informed Consent in Assessments; and 10.01, Informed Consent to Therapy.)

...

(d) Psychologists appropriately document written or oral consent, permission, and assent. (See also Standards 8.02, Informed Consent to Research; 9.03, Informed Consent in Assessments; and 10.01, Informed Consent to Therapy.)

At no point has JW sought or obtained consent from us, his purported test subjects.

Quote:8.02 Informed Consent to Research
(a) When obtaining informed consent as required in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, psychologists inform participants about (1) the purpose of the research, expected duration and procedures; (2) their right to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once participation has begun; (3) the foreseeable consequences of declining or withdrawing; (4) reasonably foreseeable factors that may be expected to influence their willingness to participate such as potential risks, discomfort or adverse effects; (5) any prospective research benefits; (6) limits of confidentiality; (7) incentives for participation; and (8) whom to contact for questions about the research and research participants' rights. They provide opportunity for the prospective participants to ask questions and receive answers. (See also Standards 8.03, Informed Consent for Recording Voices and Images in Research; 8.05, Dispensing with Informed Consent for Research; and 8.07, Deception in Research.)

It should be noted that JW's declaration that he is engaged in a psychological study is very recent. (At least it appears to be. If I'm in error on this point, please link an early post of his with this disclosure.) This means that he is either just now beginning his observations after dicking around with us for a bit, or he has been engaged in research absent the required consent.

Furthermore, he has not informed us of expected duration or procedures, as is required, nor about our right to decline or withdraw, nor the prospective benefits, nor any element of confidentiality, nor provided any contacts regarding rights or research. He has also shown a marked reluctance to answer questions. All of this is required under the Principles of Psychological Ethics.

Quote:8.05 Dispensing with Informed Consent for Research
Psychologists may dispense with informed consent only (1) where research would not reasonably be assumed to create distress or harm and involves (a) the study of normal educational practices, curricula, or classroom management methods conducted in educational settings; (b) only anonymous questionnaires, naturalistic observations or archival research for which disclosure of responses would not place participants at risk of criminal or civil liability or damage their financial standing, employability or reputation, and confidentiality is protected; or © the study of factors related to job or organization effectiveness conducted in organizational settings for which there is no risk to participants' employability, and confidentiality is protected or (2) where otherwise permitted by law or federal or institutional regulations.

Included to demonstrate that none of the standards for dispensing with consent are met. 1a does not apply because this is not an educational setting. 1b does not apply because the format of this "research" is not questionaire-based, because JW's interactions with us prevent his "experiment" from being considered naturalistic, and because it is most certainly not a simple archival examination. 1c does not apply because this is not an organizational setting. I am confident that 2 does not apply here, but if it does, I invite anyone to post a link to the relevant law or regulation.

Quote:8.07 Deception in Research
(a) Psychologists do not conduct a study involving deception unless they have determined that the use of deceptive techniques is justified by the study's significant prospective scientific, educational or applied value and that effective nondeceptive alternative procedures are not feasible.

(b) Psychologists do not deceive prospective participants about research that is reasonably expected to cause physical pain or severe emotional distress.

© Psychologists explain any deception that is an integral feature of the design and conduct of an experiment to participants as early as is feasible, preferably at the conclusion of their participation, but no later than at the conclusion of the data collection, and permit participants to withdraw their data. (See also Standard 8.08, Debriefing.)

I look forward to hearing JW explain the scientific, education, or applied value of deceptive techniques such as trying to convince us that the Old Testament does not condone rape, as well as why engaging in his research without this deceptive technique was infeasible. I look forward to him offering us the right to withdraw the data he has "collected" from us.

Quote:8.10 Reporting Research Results
(a) Psychologists do not fabricate data. (See also Standard 5.01a, Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements.)

(b) If psychologists discover significant errors in their published data, they take reasonable steps to correct such errors in a correction, retraction, erratum or other appropriate publication means.

In other words, quote mining (among other examples) is explicitly unethical behavior in psychological research. If the data that JW collects and then publishes is erroneous, he is ethically required to issue corrections. I am confident that he will adhere to this standard just as diligently as he adhered to the requirement to obtain consent.

Quote:8.11 Plagiarism
Psychologists do not present portions of another's work or data as their own, even if the other work or data source is cited occasionally.

I am glad to hear that he will be actually crediting the sources of his apologist arguments in the future. He's been a bit lax about this in the past.

.........

Bottom line, if JW is actually engaged in anything approaching research into psychology (rather than just spewing bullshit like he normally does), he's doing this in a manner that flies in the face of ethical conduct for the field.

Jeremy Walker, or whatever your real name is, I formally withdraw from your "research", and also demand the withdrawal of any data you have collected from me from your consideration. As required of any ethical individual engaged in psychological research under sections 8.02(a)(2) and 8.07( c ) (above), you are mandated to discontinue any further examination of me in this or any other setting, and to discard this data. My declination to participate is sufficient unto itself, and my reason for declining is irrelevant to my right to decline. With that said, my reason for withdrawing is your patently unethical treatment of myself and your other subjects to date, as documented above. I invite my fellow guinea pigs to similarly withdraw.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: