(May 18, 2016 at 5:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(May 18, 2016 at 4:49 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Isn't this begging the question?

No.

Quote: Just because the story you imagined didn't work, don't blame me.

I'd actually be inclined to thank you, I could have never expected that you would respond the way you did...which turned a thought experiment only meant to show the work-a-day reality of those situations into something more amusing, and much more informative.  

Quote:I see... is thinking through what you proposed a problem?   If I was suppose to start with the assumption that the memory was false, then doesn't that negate the point of you demonstrating it through your story?  

Not at all, you provided a great example of what we might do when we don't simply say "hmn, guess I was wrong".  It was insight into the way -you- think, at the very least.  

Quote:Is this why atheist always say that there is no evidence for God.... They just forget it?

There are plenty of people who claim to have had an experience of the divine...but fail to recall the details or inaccurately remember what details can be ascertained about their stories.  I think you'll find that most of these people are not atheists....which is unsurprising.

I only have a little bit of time at the moment; but I would like to offer you some advice (you can do with it what you will). I'm not taking an absolute or extreme position here. I don't think that these scenarios you are presenting are going to turn out very useful.... You presented a story, which had some flaws (and seem to blame me for them). If you point, was that the person wasn't standing over the hog in the picture; I don't think that it was very clear, and you would also have to include in the story that there was only one picture.

However to save us both some time; I admit, You will be able to come up with a better scenario, in which I will agree, that other evidence is stronger than the witness testimony in that case. And it won't matter, because my position, is that it is not any type of particular evidence which always trumps all other evidence. I'm going to look at all the evidence, collectively, and see where it agrees, or if it disagrees (contradictory evidence). I'm going to look at what is the best explanation for all the evidence. I also do not thinking that getting me to admit this helps the case I believe you are making. I'll agree, that memory is fallible to a certain extent, and within limits.

Right, again, showing us the many ways that people can rationalize a way in which their "knowledge" is still true, despite evidence to the contrary....even in the hilarious situation where their "knowledge" seems to be threatened by a thought experiment about a picture of a pig.

Fight the good fight.

(May 18, 2016 at 12:42 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't have a very good memory.   And perhaps this makes me more attune and able to recognize what I do remember and do not. What is fuzzy, and what is clear.  I also think that it attributes to making me better in my occupation as a troubleshooter of machine controls, because I don't follow a memorized script, but figure it out each time.  However I don't think that I have ever simply inserted an entire story into memory, as you are attempting to describe.  So, I cant relate.  

If this is more common than I thought in others though, perhaps it explains a lot of what I see here.

Confirmation bias doesn't make your memory better roadrunner, it makes it worse. And that is exactly what you describe here to "help" improve your memory, taking the bits you are prejudiced into feeling are right as true and discarding the ones that conflict your worldview. We "remember" episodes which agree with our worldview much better and with more frequency than we remember episodes which conflicts with it, and from you post you've fallen right into that trap.

Oh and if you've never inserted a whole false memory into your life, then you are abolutely unique in human history and should submit yourself for testing. However I'm going to say that this statement is another case of you fooling yourself due to a lack of understanding of your brain's fallibility.

What's all this about anyway?

Is about a "personal experience" on which someone's faith is balanced?

I've been thinking about this thread, and wouldn't a better question be "why do chrestians become christians?"

(May 18, 2016 at 6:16 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Sorry I've taken so long to answer. Had stuff to do, this afternoon. I'll do my best to pick up where we left off.

(May 18, 2016 at 12:35 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: If I have no recollection, such as the case of amnesia or blackouts, then I would also have no knowledge to argue with.   I also wouldn't have any knowledge to the contrary.  A few weeks ago, I had a pretty bad flu on the weekend.  As a result my memory of the previous week, is fairly sketchy and I don't recall many details.  However, If accused, I would still be pretty confident, that I didn't kill anyone during that time.

Possibly. But I hope you're not ruling out the possibility that you, in a fever-induced haze, had done something that your conscious brain didn't record, when multiple, independently tested lines of evidence point to you.

Depends on what the claims are saying.... If they say that I killed someone in Australia, I feel it is reasonable to rule that out.

Quote:But that's not really what we're talking about, here. What we're really talking about are stories people tell, which (like a game of Telephone--or Rumor, depending on where you're from) build up over time and acquire "details" from the retelling and from interactions with others, even when the person is trying to truthfully tell the story. It's especially difficult to recall something accurately that occurred years before, even when it was a monumental thing to remember, and you're trying your best. What often occurs is that you pick up "details" that are different from the facts, and your brain assimilates them into the version of the story you "recall", even though much of it is now bogus. You might think you perfectly remember your senior Prom, but I'd be willing to bet that if we went back in a time machine and watched that night, you'd have a terrible time accurately recounting what actually happened, and we'd discover that your brain had taken parts of other stories, or stuff you heard from other people about their Prom nights, and incorporated it into your memory.  

I think this comparison shows that you need to look into a little more what you are talking about. It is not like the game of telephone at all. For one, the information is not passed one at a time in series, without the others knowledge. Much like here, if I where to make a mistake in a quote I made of you, others could chime in, and correct me. There is corrective feedback.... Anthropologist, have shown, that cultures who rely strictly on oral traditions /transmission, can be very accurate, even in very long stories that take quite some time to tell.

Quote:In this specific case, the retelling of the legend of Jesus the Rabbi, it's not hard to grasp how in only 5-10 years, enough people telling stories of this wondrous teacher could build up. Judy says, "My uncle Jim says he turned water into wine" to Susan, who says "Judy's uncle Jim saw him turn water into wine at Cana" to Ralph, and then later when Ralph retells the story, he decides to up the ante by saying HE saw (since stories work better in first person) Jesus turn water into wine at Cana... and so on it goes. By the time 20 years have gone by, enough legends have grown up around the man that there's a plethora of versions from which to choose, and people think "we should write all this down with the best coherent story we can".

2000 years later, we have the story of a Prom where space aliens landed and played techno music.

They could have always asked Mary the mother of Jesus.
Also, I don't think what you imagine, corresponds to history, and the disciples of Jesus geographic dispersion after Jesus's death. Not to mention, the studies, that show that it takes generations for legend to replace the facts of a culture. I'm also finding it difficult, that these separate groups would so quickly go from the rapidly changing stories that you propose, to come to an agreed upon version and rejecting that which differed so quickly.

Quote:

(May 18, 2016 at 12:35 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I can agree with that, and not only that, but scientist not employed by the state, can have motivation to push and agenda..... which is why I look at the arguments being made, and don't paint them all with broad strokes.

I'd be curious to know what agenda you think the other scientists would have.

It could be monetary, peer pressure, acceptance by peers.

Quote:I often hear this claim made against evolutionary biologists, as if there's some Global Ivory Tower Scientific Conspiracy™ to promote godless evolution. Which is not only ridiculous on its face (because of the extremely competitive nature of science work) but would require coordination between the scientists of nations who dislike one another, or have personal grudges against one another, and yet for NO ONE to break the silence and point to the unifying factor. It's just not real.

Yes.... conspiracy theories are difficult to maintain (especially over large groups who are not in constant contact. Which is also why I don't buy many of the conspiracy theories, put forth by those who try to insert them into the history of Christianity.

(May 19, 2016 at 5:01 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: Confirmation bias doesn't make your memory better roadrunner, it makes it worse. And that is exactly what you describe here to "help" improve your memory, taking the bits you are prejudiced into feeling are right as true and discarding the ones that conflict your worldview. We "remember" episodes which agree with our worldview much better and with more frequency than we remember episodes which conflicts with it, and from you post you've fallen right into that trap.

Oh and if you've never inserted a whole false memory into your life, then you are abolutely unique in human history and should submit yourself for testing. However I'm going to say that this statement is another case of you fooling yourself due to a lack of understanding of your brain's fallibility.

I find that those that don't fit, stand out more. And could you elaborate more on what you mean, by inserting a whole false memory. I take this to mean, something which in no way resembles the reality of the experience (not just minor details). How did you come to this conclusion?

I would just like to understand the principle being put forth in this view.... I don't see a way, in which it doesn't self destruct or result in special pleading. Anything and everything, can be questioned, if we can simply dismiss testimony as stories, when our "confirmation bias" is rejecting a differing worldview.

(May 20, 2016 at 12:23 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I find that those that don't fit, stand out more.

Do you...as opposed to the ones that do "fit" and are thusly more reliable?  I'm gonna go ahead and guess you don't see the irony here, in the context of the discussion.

(May 20, 2016 at 12:16 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think this comparison shows that you need to look into a little more what you are talking about.   It is not like the game of telephone at all.  For one, the information is not passed one at a time in series, without the others knowledge.  Much like here, if I where to make a mistake in a quote I made of you, others could chime in, and correct me.   There is corrective feedback....  Anthropologist, have shown, that cultures who rely strictly on oral traditions /transmission, can be very accurate, even in very long stories that take quite some time to tell.  

I think you're quibbling more than a bit with the details of how storytelling works, here. Yes, there is corrective feedback, but there's also input from so many sources, as the story is told and retold by the traveling men (the "Disciples"), and spread by those they told.

And the phenomenon you're discussing, which "anthropologists have shown", is more to do with how the Genesis stories survived, relatively intact, in the oral tradition prior to the invention of Canaanite writing and/or the actual writing of Genesis. Specialists (priests, shamans, etc) would memorize the stories, intact, and repeat them with surprising fidelity. That has little to do with the type of myth-building we see active in the Mormons, for instance, wherein several variant stories (with each retelling) get "corrected" back to a coherent whole only after myriad permutations emerge, and by comparing the result to actual records, we can plainly see and trace the trail of bullshit-- yet many people, including recent Presidential candidates, are Mormon.

(May 20, 2016 at 12:16 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: They could have always asked Mary the mother of Jesus.  
Also, I don't think what you imagine, corresponds to history, and the disciples of Jesus geographic dispersion after Jesus's death.   Not to mention, the studies, that show that it takes generations for legend to replace the facts of a culture.  I'm also finding it difficult, that these separate groups would so quickly go from the rapidly changing stories that you propose, to come to an agreed upon version and rejecting that which differed so quickly.

You don't think it's plausible that, in an attempt to sell others on the legend of their teacher, they began to rely more heavily on the "signs and wonders" claims, which start out rather tame in James (and possibly Q), which are simply collections of his sayings (little to no magic), then increasingly added to the legend through Mark, Matthew, and Luke/Acts, until blowing up out of proportion a generation later, with John? You really don't see how the game to win converts to their new ideas might have altered the story somewhat?

We can follow the alterations made to the legends, through time, now. It's as plain as the nose on your face.

Allow me to spin a tale.

That's how it begins.

Simple as that.

We're not arguing physics here.