Raised to be religious.

[Enterprise-D]

Considering how much of empiricism has been overturned over the years, one would be hard put to understand what gives you so much faith in the evidence of your eyes. Besides you still have faith that whoever presents the evidence is being honest about it. :shrug:

Exactly how much of empiricism has been overturned SAM? I'd agree that a few empiric conclusions (out of many) have been disproven and they were very high profile...but exactly how much SAM? As opposed to the endless mass of unproven theistic assumptions?

How many examples did you find that makes you lose confidence in empiricism...that gives you fuel to fight in defence of religion?

 

[S.A.M.]

Exactly how much of empiricism has been overturned SAM? I'd agree that a few empiric conclusions (out of many) have been disproven and they were very high profile...but exactly how much SAM? As opposed to the endless mass of unproven theistic assumptions?

How many examples did you find that makes you lose confidence in empiricism...that gives you fuel to fight in defence of religion?

You'd have to research that on your own:

I'll give you one of the latest ones

Science 24 August 2007 Vol 317:

"Admittedly the strength of an observation...lies not only with the experimental design, but also with the ability of other investigators to reproduce the results"
-Judith Miller, kidney disease specialist in Ontario on the revelation by Ioannides, a Greek epidemiologist that out of 77 papers on genetic associations and gender differences analysed for accuracy, only 4 papers contained neither spurious nor insufficiently documented claims.

And this is not in defence of religion, but on the reliability of empiricism.

 

[iceaura]

And this is not in defence of religion, but on the reliability of empiricism.

It seems that empirically derived ideas or convictions can be reexamined and argued over, and mistakes caught, and caught mistakes removed from the category of established fact.

The key in that example being, of course, those four papers that had no obvious flaws.

How does that work with the faith-based establishment of belief?

 

[Enterprise-D]

Thank you iceaura...This reveals nothing of the chronology of the 77 papers. Perhaps the four learned from the mistakes from the other (past) 73?

SAM I asked you a question of how many examples you found, not which specific ones caused your own defiant adherence to religion. How exactly would you like me to research that myself?

Secondly, that is a quote from a single medical specialist about her opinion of any observation. This same quote can be redirected to question the credibility of many or even any theist claim because the 'proofs' offered by theists a la LG and Adstar for example cannot be reproduced!

 

[Roman]

You know, I imagine sinning would be more fun if it was a sin. Sometimes I wish I was raised religious.

 

[draqon]

You know, I imagine sinning would be more fun if it was a sin. Sometimes I wish I was raised religious.

but you were not, so suffer.

 

[Enterprise-D]

You know, I imagine sinning would be more fun if it was a sin. Sometimes I wish I was raised religious.

Nah, you'd have to deal with guilt, secrecy, shame, and if you were found out, ostracision and maybe even excommunication. Really think you wanna feel that?

 

[Roman]

Nah, you'd have to deal with guilt, secrecy, shame, and if you were found out, ostracision and maybe even excommunication. Really think you wanna feel that?

Ever date a fat chick?

 

[S.A.M.]

It seems that empirically derived ideas or convictions can be reexamined and argued over, and mistakes caught, and caught mistakes removed from the category of established fact.

The key in that example being, of course, those four papers that had no obvious flaws.

How does that work with the faith-based establishment of belief?

There is a qualifying statement in there; assuming all variables presently known, assuming the experimental design with all presently known variables, assuming the replication of those observations is possible.

In fact, when you say "caught a mistake" there is an assumption that the mistakes, which were overlooked in a past context, have been corrected in a present context; but no guarantee that in the future, the correction will still hold true, or no more mistakes will be found.

So in essence, when you defend a scientific paradigm, you defend the empirical evidence as you presently comprehend it. It has no truth value.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Ever date a fat chick?

*************
M*W: Quit picking on fat chicks!

 

[Orleander]

Ever date a fat chick?

ever had a date?

 

[lightgigantic]

Geezer

No there’s only one claim, yours, the one without any evidence.

you're wrong

this was cris's claim

Or of someone who makes a fantastic claim and has no means to demonstrate it is true - e.g. religionists.

do you want to take up the gauntlet of cris's claim that religionists are deluded?

Proving Existence or Non-Existence.
The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.
To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, this can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist
The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.
From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:
The thing exists.
It is unknown if the thing exists or not.
It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.
If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of its non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.
Thus it is more reasonable to take imaginary creatures out of the equation.

that's okay
if I say just as a qualified person can determine the nature of an electron, so to can a qualified person determine the nature of god, what then?

otherwise whatever we can imagine, can be deemed real. IE; the lesser spotted spiderbirdfish from the planet djfhegt, God, Allah, Zeus, Ra, fairies, orks, pink unicorns, flying teapots, spaghetti monsters, etc...

you realize that on the strength of empiricism all you can say (without running the risk of being deluded) is

"I have not seen a lesser spotted spiderbirdfish from the planet djfhegt, God, Allah, Zeus, Ra, fairies, orks, pink unicorns, flying teapots, spaghetti monsters, etc..."

as opposed to

"people who lay claim to the lesser spotted spiderbirdfish from the planet djfhegt, God, Allah, Zeus, Ra, fairies, orks, pink unicorns, flying teapots, spaghetti monsters, etc... are deluded"

just like if you have seen 10 000 black ravens all you can say is "I have seen 10 000 black ravens" as opposed to "anyone who claims to have seen a white raven is deluded" .... unless you can establish that a white raven is something like a 4 sided triangle (an albino could crop out of the gene pool, a can of white paint could fall on one, etc etc)

 

[Roman]

ever had a date?

No. I'm a hopeless fatty who spends all hist time jerking to internet porn and playing WoW.