[Edit: Ugh. And this is why I hate getting into the mix with religious debates. Most people are willing to put the type of energy into them that I just can stand up to, for long. Lol.]
Becomingagodo:
Other then that all other detail our selection biased as pointed out back in the post. I bet if you look more into his DNA their proberly is some unknown arrangement of triplet codes in his eyes that our passed on because of some evolution advantage.
[/b]
That's a stretch of an assumption, in light that there is no evidence of that being the case. Or does that extraordinary (no evidence to suggest) claim not require extraordinary evidence?
The simplest anwser is he proberly lying.
[/b]
Please. Don't quote Ockham's Razor to me - especially while denouncing confirmation bias. I believe O.R. to be fundamentally flawed anyway, but those two views, together, are philosophical contradictions.
He prayed to a nun instead to god but then that selection biased try and avoid it that how people get hooked on the JFK assination by looking at thing that agree with them.
[/b]
Being nearly dead-center between atheist and theist, what view "agrees with me," that I'm only looking at?
spoon:
If what people now consider as divine intervention by god was proved to exist and have a natural source, it would just be intervention, from something that is not god. So science still restricts its domain to naturalistic explanations.
[/b]
Ugh. Spoon. We're running off into a battle over terminology, here. Let's not. If the man's sight was healed by something God/Angels/Whatever, then it was. If it wasn't, then it wasn't. That's about the scope of my argument. I don't believe that science can only examine what we now consider natural. To be able to study, effectively, the "supernatural," (should it exist) I think it would take more of a change in perception rather than a deviation from the scientific method - I'm speculating though, of course, so it's just my opinion and should be taken with a grain of salt. None of this is really the focus of our discussion, though.
And I'm not disregarding it because the video, which I haven't seen, doesn't fit my standards - it is because fantastic claims require fantastic evidence.
[/b]
I believe this to be a contradiction.
However, if you're saying you will only look at "fantastic evidence," setting such a subjective standard may lead you to disregarding other "evidence" for the a priori assumption that it is not "fantastic." Shouldn't one learn to take in all evidence from a fresh perspective? The unbiased mind of a child (to loosely quote someone on the same subject. Can't remember who it was, though.) I don't think it's logical to count anything you have not seen as "not fantastic." Hell, maybe it's not, but how would you know if you haven't seen it?
I have no way of knowing how many prayers for people in need of miracle healings are made each year. Millions? Billions? A lot of people pray, often. Even taking something low like a million, 1/100000 is statistically insignificant number. There is no correllation there - the number is so low to be an effective argument against correllation.
[/b]
I agree. It makes no sense to me, either. But I'm not the type that believes that not understanding it, for the moment, means it must not be true.
As I said, people tend to focus on the positive - it is called confirmation bias.
[/b]
Easy, killer.
I'm agnostic and very confident of the logic behind my reason for being so. Your implication that I'm only "focusing on the positive" (if that's possible for a solid agnostic) is unfounded. On the other hand, though, I've never met a solid atheist that doesn't have as vested an interest in their belief as the theists, and we're all kidding ourselves if we don't think confirmation bias works on both sides of the spectrum.
There is a difference between "one without a belief in God" and "one that believes God does not exist."
There is also a difference between "one who does not believe that God does not exist" and "one who believes in God."
You're beginning to sound like you're attacking me for being a theist, because I've found some elements of video amazing. I've seen nothing that counters the video though, in this discussion, besides a bunch of speculation on why the information could all be a hoax. Just as I don't believe a story like this to be proof of a miracle, I don't believe that possibility is effectively dispelled by the speculations that have been presented so far. If you want to strike me for confirmation bias simply because I'm impressed by the story and it's possible validity without starting off with the a priori assumption that it's a hoax, then I guess there isn't much I'm going to be able to say to stop you.
becomingagodo:
I totally agree. Confirmation biased too have you seen how it said most popular story this could be confirmation biased as people go on line and search for a miracle. CNN has gone down hill anyway i remeber watching a story about is the rapture coming whitch was a load of crap.
[/b]
Hmm. Never saw that story (which would make that an anecdote, eh?) Not saying it's not true, of course.
Judging by the subject though, it looks like they would be presenting both sides of the arguement. Enough people believe in the rapture, I think, to warrant CNN doing such a story. So far, I have nothing to suggest that the focus of the story was to tell us the rapture is coming but, rather, to speak to people on both sides, and cover the subject from the believers and non-believers. But, of course, that's speculation as well, but I'm sure you see my point.
|
|
Bookmarks