Religulous

[vanlatte]

Exactly. Vanlatte, I haven't claimed that your conclusion is incorrect, only that you err in reaching that conclusion based on insufficient evidence. I am not saying that causation is not present, only that correlation does not prove it to be. There are other possible causes, which you seem unwilling to consider (and which Emprov has explicitly rejected).

Fair enough.

There may be other causes, I will grant that. And maybe it makes me gullible to believe that so many coincidences might just point to something else. I can live with that.

[Emprov]

Of course. The difference is that I'm not basing a conclusion on mine, so much as I'm rejecting conclusions based on possibly deficient evidence.

And the evidence that you see and the evidence that he sees may be two completely different things, correct?

[isaac42]

You both understand what you're saying and believe the result happened in different ways. You two can argue this until you're blue in the face but I don't see either side giving in... Might as well just move onto the next point.

 

 

No, this is not the case at all. Vanlatte has presented a situation, and a conclusion based on insufficient evidence, at least as presented. I have simply pointed out that his evidence is insufficient for his conclusion. I have not claimed that his conclusion is, itself, incorrect. There is not enough evidence for me to make that claim, either.

 

Do you see the difference? Vanlatte is saying that he knows how the result came about. I am not. All I'm saying is that he really doesn't, either, even if he believes that he does.

[Craig Vecchione]

This thread is awful.

[isaac42]

Ok, he got one head smack, you get two! :facepalm: ( I still love ya tho in that smack-ya-in-the-shoulder-non-erotic sorta way) I didn't mean it as me presenting some sort of case and being dissapointed that it was not accepted. t3ch said it better than I did: In fact I don't believe it is my place to have to prove anything. Just relating some life experience and my take on it.

So you have the right to express your take on things, but I do not? You get reasonable discussion, I get a derisive facepalm. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Not here. Once you post something, it's fair game for discussion and dissection.

[Emprov]

This thread is awful.

And I'm glad to have been a part of making it that way.

[vanlatte]

So you have the right to express your take on things, but I do not? You get reasonable discussion, I get a derisive facepalm. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Not here. Once you post something, it's fair game for discussion and dissection.

Meh: derisive facepalm, thoughtful presentation, life experience.

What's the difference? You respond to them all the same way.

[ThudMaker]

This thread is awful.

This thread is about religion and ridiculous. This thread is religulous!!

[isaac42]

 

So what's the causation of Bill Maher correlate to?

 

 

It goes back to my saying that, when Mr Maher was at the Vatican, they had a perfect opportunity to present evidence to him supporting their position. Instead, the threw him out. From there, it was implied that Maher would not change his position regardless of evidence, and correlation was presented as evidence of causation.

[Emprov]

So you have the right to express your take on things, but I do not? You get reasonable discussion, I get a derisive facepalm. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Not here. Once you post something, it's fair game for discussion and dissection.

 

Not everyone posts here to have their words dissected though.

[isaac42]

So lets say it did happen; what would be the determining factor that it is something supernatural or explained by natural causes? You said yourself: It could just be new evidence of natural causes.

Indeed it could. That's why such evidence must be investigated very carefully.

The Roman Catholic Church claims to have bona fide miracles. If they do, then it follows that they could produce the evidence which proves that they are miracles, yet they do not. that sort of behavior makes me suspicious.

[vanlatte]

This thread is about religion and ridiculous. This thread is religulous!!

That's a perfectly crommulent word!

[Kindness]

Quite so. I'm sure that, even in patent law, Kindness could provide examples of instances where prior beliefs constrain observations and conclusions.

 

 

Of course. It is rare to find examples to the contrary.

[Emprov]

Indeed it could. That's why such evidence must be investigated very carefully. The Roman Catholic Church claims to have bona fide miracles. If they do, then it follows that they could produce the evidence which proves that they are miracles, yet they do not. that sort of behavior makes me suspicious.

I saw a guy to a miracle with a deck of cards the other day.

[isaac42]

Just because something can be explained doesn't necessarily mean that it's correct. I've read on a few occasions how you trash on the Biblical interpretations of others. Does that mean that you're right and they're wrong? Maybe, maybe not.

 

 

I have never claimed otherwise. Again, the difference is that I'm not basing any conclusions on it. I'm rejecting the conclusions of others which are based, in my opinion, on insufficient evidence.

[vanlatte]

Indeed it could. That's why such evidence must be investigated very carefully. The Roman Catholic Church claims to have bona fide miracles. If they do, then it follows that they could produce the evidence which proves that they are miracles, yet they do not. that sort of behavior makes me suspicious.

Makes me suspicious too.

My aforementioned friends are, on the other hand, walking miracles.

( in my Non-Provable opinion, of course )

[t3ch]

No, this is not the case at all. Vanlatte has presented a situation, and a conclusion based on insufficient evidence, at least as presented. I have simply pointed out that his evidence is insufficient for his conclusion. I have not claimed that his conclusion is, itself, incorrect. There is not enough evidence for me to make that claim, either. Do you see the difference? Vanlatte is saying that he knows how the result came about. I am not. All I'm saying is that he really doesn't, either, even if he believes that he does.

 

 

You don't need to 'break it down' for me. I COMPLETELY and perfectly understand what both sides are saying. What I said remains true.

[isaac42]

Fair enough. There may be other causes, I will grant that. And maybe it makes me gullible to believe that so many coincidences might just point to something else. I can live with that.

And I could not.

[Emprov]

I have never claimed otherwise. Again, the difference is that I'm not basing any conclusions on it. I'm rejecting the conclusions of others which are based, in my opinion, on insufficient evidence.

Are you saying then that you have no official position in life? I'd say that you're looking at some of the same info that has influenced many others and reached a different conclusion. And why do you care about the conclusions that others have reached?

[Roger in the sky]

I'm glad you're at least starting to come around. :lol: Some litmus tests for relationship equality: See if the same girl is willing to go to the gun club and shoot x-times a year ("x" = number of chickflik's you see in the same time period), or to a cigar club and smoke stogies for 90 minutes. You'll trail behind her through the mall while she shops, but will she follow you around Home Depot or Guitar Center without the "can we go now?" stare?

welllll................

after considering your test there i'd have to rate my realtionship as being: AWESOME

[isaac42]

And the evidence that you see and the evidence that he sees may be two completely different things, correct?

 

 

Almost certainly. I'm always willing to look at any evidence others present. The reverse seems to me to be often untrue. The evidence I present is dismissed out of hand, and when I question the evidence others present, I'm the bad guy.

 

That's my perception, anyway, and I think it has been borne out in this thread.

[vanlatte]

welllll................ after considering your test there i'd have to rate my realtionship as being: AWESOME

I don't believe a relationship can be awesome.

Can you prove it to me?

[isaac42]

Meh: derisive facepalm, thoughtful presentation, life experience. What's the difference? You respond to them all the same way.

With logic and rational discussion?

I try.

[Roger in the sky]

I don't believe a relationship can be awesome. Can you prove it to me?

going to the strip club last weekend was HER idea

[isaac42]

Not everyone posts here to have their words dissected though.

 

 

Nevertheless, it is inherent in the medium. It is a risk one takes in posting here. If one wants to post religious views without that happening,- or any other views, for that matter - then another type of forum might be better. There are lots of Christian fora where such statements would go unchallenged.