The real religion?

[LadyForCamus]

RoadRunner, for the fun of it, let's follow your logical fallacy and see where it leads. Bear with my little experiment here, guys. I'm not sure it's worth anything, but here goes.

The fallacy: 'Scientific research and religious scripture are on par with each other in terms of their quality as evidence for things.'

So...accepting this as true, what are our options for a position going forward?

*Both scripture AND scientific research are equally insufficient evidence for things, and I don't accept either. (Not sure what practical value that position would carry, but I guess it's an option)

*I accept one and not the other. (Except, you'd have to provide reasons for why you accept one over the other if the evidence is equally inadequate for both)

*I accept some combination of both anyway. (Except, you're admitting you accept things without sufficient evidence, and you'd need to explain why)

Or...

*Both scripture AND scientific research are equally sufficient as evidence, and I accept some combination of both.

(Now you're faced with a dilemma, because there are many accountings in the scripture that blatantly contradict scientific research. So again, you'd have to provide your alternative reasons for why you accept some claims and reject others if the evidence is equally sufficient for both)

*I accept one over the other. (As stated, you'd need explain your reasons for your preferential choice)

Are any of the above positions rational or reasonable? I mean, no matter which way you slice it, you're still left with the responsibility of explaining how and why you accept/reject a claim. So how exactly do you benefit from making that fallacious charge? What does it get you, and how does it move the discussion purposefully forward?

[RoadRunner79]

RR, for the fun of it, let's follow your logical fallacy and see where it leads.  Bear with my little experiment here, guys.  I'm not sure it's worth anything, but here goes.

The fallacy:  'Scientific research and religious scripture are on par with each other in terms of their quality as evidence for things.'

So...accepting this as true, what are our options for a position going forward?

*Both scripture AND scientific research are equally insufficient evidence for things, and I don't accept either.   (Not sure what practical value that position would carry, but I guess it's an option)

*I accept one and not the other.  (Except, you'd have to provide reasons for why you accept one over the other if the evidence is equally inadequate for both)

*I accept some combination of both anyway.  (Except, you're admitting you accept things without sufficient evidence, and you'd need to explain why)

Or...

*Both scripture AND scientific research are equally sufficient evidence, and I accept some combination of both.  

(Now you're faced with a dilemma, because there are many accountings in the scripture that blatantly contradict scientific research.  So again, you'd have to provide your alternative reasons for why you accept some claims and reject others if the evidence is equally sufficient for both)
*I accept one over the other.  (As stated, you'd need explain your reasons for your preferential choice)

Are any of the above positions rational or reasonable?   I mean, no matter which way you slice it, you're still left with the responsibility of explaining how and why you accept/reject a claim.  So how exactly do you benefit from making that fallacious charge?!  What does it get you?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

From your comments in parenthesis I would say that you are still going with testimony in unreliable.   So then the only reasonable option would be 1.  That neither scripture or science  testimony provide sufficient evidence or reason to believe.  I do grant that we accept things without sufficient evidence, but I don't think that it is unreasonable for others to not do the same.

[GrandizerII]

RR, for the fun of it, let's follow your logical fallacy and see where it leads.  Bear with my little experiment here, guys.  I'm not sure it's worth anything, but here goes.

The fallacy:  'Scientific research and religious scripture are on par with each other in terms of their quality as evidence for things.'

So...accepting this as true, what are our options for a position going forward?

*Both scripture AND scientific research are equally insufficient evidence for things, and I don't accept either.   (Not sure what practical value that position would carry, but I guess it's an option)

*I accept one and not the other.  (Except, you'd have to provide reasons for why you accept one over the other if the evidence is equally inadequate for both)

*I accept some combination of both anyway.  (Except, you're admitting you accept things without sufficient evidence, and you'd need to explain why)

Or...

*Both scripture AND scientific research are equally sufficient evidence, and I accept some combination of both.  

(Now you're faced with a dilemma, because there are many accountings in the scripture that blatantly contradict scientific research.  So again, you'd have to provide your alternative reasons for why you accept some claims and reject others if the evidence is equally sufficient for both)
*I accept one over the other.  (As stated, you'd need explain your reasons for your preferential choice)

Are any of the above positions rational or reasonable?   I mean, no matter which way you slice it, you're still left with the responsibility of explaining how and why you accept/reject a claim.  So how exactly do you benefit from making that fallacious charge?!  What does it get you?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

From your comments in parenthesis I would say that you are still going with testimony in unreliable.   So then the only reasonable option would be 1.  That neither scripture or science  testimony provide sufficient evidence or reason to believe.  I do grant that we accept things without sufficient evidence, but I don't think that it is unreasonable for others to not do the same.

You just want to believe in Christianity. That's fine. Just don't think you're going to convince any of us with such poor reasoning that your beliefs are at the same level as acceptance of scientific facts in terms of strength and quantity of evidence.

[RoadRunner79]

From your comments in parenthesis I would say that you are still going with testimony in unreliable.   So then the only reasonable option would be 1.  That neither scripture or science  testimony provide sufficient evidence or reason to believe.  I do grant that we accept things without sufficient evidence, but I don't think that it is unreasonable for others to not do the same.

You just want to believe in Christianity. That's fine. Just don't think you're going to convince any of us with such poor reasoning that your beliefs are at the same level as acceptance of scientific facts in terms of strength and quantity of evidence.

I can speak for myself thank you. And I wouldn't make such a broad generalization. In both there are varying degrees of strength and weakness for individual claims.

[The Grand Nudger]

RR, for the fun of it, let's follow your logical fallacy and see where it leads.  Bear with my little experiment here, guys.  I'm not sure it's worth anything, but here goes.

From your comments in parenthesis I would say that you are still going with testimony in unreliable.   So then the only reasonable option would be 1.  That neither scripture or science  testimony provide sufficient evidence or reason to believe.  I do grant that we accept things without sufficient evidence, but I don't think that it is unreasonable for others to not do the same.

-snipped for brevity

Well, at least you tried, Camus.  Apparently, if the gospels aren't true.....then RR, and all of humanity.... is a know-nothing and just peachy on that count in spite of it.   

That's your standard theistic scorched earth policy in action, why do you humor this asshattery, have you learned your lesson? 

[Crossless2.0]

From your comments in parenthesis I would say that you are still going with testimony in unreliable.   So then the only reasonable option would be 1.  That neither scripture or science  testimony provide sufficient evidence or reason to believe.  I do grant that we accept things without sufficient evidence, but I don't think that it is unreasonable for others to not do the same.

-snipped for brevity

Well, at least you tried, Camus.  Apparently, if the gospels aren't true.....then RR, and all of humanity.... is a know-nothing and just peachy on that count in spite of it.   

That's your standard theistic scorched earth policy in action, why do you humor this asshattery, have you learned your lesson? 

Not a chance. The rock has simply rolled back down the incline. LFC will catch her breath, wipe her brow, and start pushing the damn thing again. It's her Sisyphean fate to engage the Christian rock, no matter how hopeless and meaningless the task may be.

Now, if she had been LadyForHume, she could take a break once in a while, have a cold stiff drink, and enjoy a game of billiards.

[RoadRunner79]

From your comments in parenthesis I would say that you are still going with testimony in unreliable.   So then the only reasonable option would be 1.  That neither scripture or science  testimony provide sufficient evidence or reason to believe.  I do grant that we accept things without sufficient evidence, but I don't think that it is unreasonable for others to not do the same.

-snipped for brevity

Well, at least you tried, Camus.  Apparently, if the gospels aren't true.....then RR, and all of humanity.... is a know-nothing and just peachy on that count in spite of it.   

That's your standard theistic scorched earth policy in action, why do you humor this asshattery, have you learned your lesson? 

I thought it was in there, but went back, and found it was not. But what I was referring to is that any science that is not from first hand experience, but is knowledge based on what others observed. Witnesses are unreliable right?

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that if more modern day theists understood the sisyphean reference we'd have fewer theists on these boards claiming that the world just doesn;t make sense, or isn;t rationally maintanable..in the absence of their specific religious viewpoints.  +10.

[The Grand Nudger]

-snipped for brevity

Well, at least you tried, Camus.  Apparently, if the gospels aren't true.....then RR, and all of humanity.... is a know-nothing and just peachy on that count in spite of it.   

That's your standard theistic scorched earth policy in action, why do you humor this asshattery, have you learned your lesson? 

I thought it was in there, but went back, and found it was not.  But what I was referring to is that any science that is not from first hand experience, but is knowledge based on what others observed.  Witnesses are unreliable right?

Wrong, science is based upon experimental observations that are replicable. It doesn;t matter whether or not someone else saw it, if no one else sees it when they do the same thing. In fact, it doesn't matter that almost everyone sees it...if a single person doesn't. That's the -entire- point of peer review and replication.

You're welcome.

[KevinM1]

Scientific observation != "I saw a thing!"