LISTEN, CHRISTIANS!

[Huggy Bear]

Leaving out pertinent parts of the exchange to make it seem like the person's position is something other than what it actually is is misquoting, Huggy. I don't care if you feel like you should be allowed to get away with it because the rules can be creatively interpreted in such a way as to preclude what you did, because you don't get to enforce the rules or decide the manner in which they were meant. We do, and we did. FaF admitted to his misunderstanding shortly after it was pointed out to him: you posted his original gaffe as though he had not, in order to make him seem stupid. This is a misrepresentation of the event in question, hence it is a quote mine, and only exists to taunt him, meaning it's also flaming.

I am literally looking at the report and the exchange that sparked it in the thread, in a pair of other windows. You fully acknowledge, in that thread, that FaF backtracked when found to be mistaken, and yet you still represented it as though he hadn't. If you quote someone fully in the knowledge of what they mean, for the purposes of making it seem like they meant something else, that is an inaccurate quote.

Wow, you really have a bizarrely skewed idea of what scientific evidence is.  Again, try to leave the courtroom analogy behind.  Evidence when talking about a factual or scientific claim does NOT include anecdote, I'm sorry it just doesn't.  Just like the anecdotal claims of people that have seen Bigfoot is NOT evidence that Bigfoot exists, claims about miracles or faith healing or Jaysus are NOT evidence that any of those are true.  

Eyewitness testimony can be admitted as evidence in a trial of someone's guilt in a courtroom, but we are not talking about a courtroom, we're talking about scientific fact.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-27805-po...#pid729650

Ok, answer this. What is the very first step in any scientific discovery?

What a strange question..  I would say the first step would be to verify the result.

The above is what I quoted

The next two exchanges are what you claim was purposefully left out in order to make FAF look dumb...

The first step is observation.

I kinda assumed he meant after that, since apparently a scientific discovery had been made.

No, you must first make an observation (eye witness), and from there you form your hypothesis and test it, and eventually come to your conclusion. that's how the scientific method works.

The initial observation is the evidence needed to form a question.

get it?

Alright, I thought you meant immediately post-observation, but that's fine.  Yes, observation is the first step.

No, you can't have evidence to form a question, that's nonsensical.  YOu record observations, and form a question that requires evidence to conclude.  That's how hypotheses are proven wrong, because they aren't supported by evidence.

Additionally, you're conflating observations and claims.  Scientific observations are recordings of events or data points, which are then investigated to find the cause of the observation.  Your faith healing/God-creator/etc claims are claiming an explanation right off the bat.

*emphasis mine*
FAF began making excuses aka backtracking

As you can clearly see, he states that he misunderstood the question and that "verifying the result" is the second step in the scientific method..... WHICH IS STILL WRONG, including that part makes him look dumber.

Is it your position that "verifying the result" is in fact the second step in the scientific method?  If not, how am I misconstruing faf giving an incorrect answer?

*edit*
Just saw the admin notice after I posted...

[The Grand Nudger]

Where are those rock crushing fanatics when you need them?

[Pyrrho]

How does everybody on the forum not have certain people permanently on the ignore list?

What are you, some kind of sissy?  Do you think your cat, whose account you have stolen, would be such a sissy about these kinds of things?  Look at your cat!  He (or she) will show you how to man up!

[Spooky]

How does everybody on the forum not have certain people permanently on the ignore list?

What are you, some kind of sissy?  Do you think your cat, whose account you have stolen, would be such a sissy about these kinds of things?  Look at your cat!  He (or she) will show you how to man up!

My cat would probably just piss in their laundry basket.  She can be vindictive that way. 

At least most of our theists are halfway entertaining.  Huggy74 is just boring and annoying to me.

[Pyrrho]

What are you, some kind of sissy?  Do you think your cat, whose account you have stolen, would be such a sissy about these kinds of things?  Look at your cat!  He (or she) will show you how to man up!

My cat would probably just piss in their laundry basket.  She can be vindictive that way. 

At least most of our theists are halfway entertaining.  Huggy74 is just boring and annoying to me.

Your female cat is more of a man than many who post online.

[Spooky]

My cat would probably just piss in their laundry basket.  She can be vindictive that way. 

At least most of our theists are halfway entertaining.  Huggy74 is just boring and annoying to me.

Your female cat is more of a man than many who post online.

Well, when my cat makes a claim, she at least presents evidence.

"Oh, so you didn't think I'd believe you'd killed the mouse, so you put it in my boot...great   "

The bottom line for theists: The burden of proof lies with those presenting the facts.

[Pyrrho]

Your female cat is more of a man than many who post online.

Well, when my cat makes a claim, she at least presents evidence.

"Oh, so you didn't think I'd believe you'd killed the mouse, so you put it in my boot...great   "

The bottom line for theists: The burden of proof lies with those presenting the facts.

And people believe they are more rational and better than nonhuman animals!  Dumb fucks!

[Randy Carson]

He did. His name was Jesus.

How convincing.   

Seriously though, Randy, if your Jesus was the best god could provide then he's an inept motherfucker. Has coming down and speaking for himself crossed his mind lately? I'm expecting a better answer than the whole free will shtick. 

Then perhaps you don't appreciate the importance of free will.

Are you familiar with the "Fine Tuning of the Universe" argument? The idea is that the universe has been finely tuned to support life, right?

I think there is a parallel to this which I'm calling the "Fine Tuning of the Evidence".

Scripture describes God as a hidden God. This means you have to make an effort of faith to find him, and there are clues you can follow. If that weren’t so, if there was something more or less than clues, we would not be free to make a choice about Him. If we had absolute proof instead of clues, then we could no more deny God than we could deny the sun. If we had no evidence at all, you could never get to faith. God gives us just enough evidence so that those who want Him can have while those that don’t want Him are not forced to do so. Those who want to follow the clues will.

The Bible says, Seek and ye shall find.” It does not say that everybody will find Him; it doesn’t say that nobody will find him. Some will find him. Who? Those who seek. Those whose hearts are set on finding Him and who follow the clues.

The evidence that God has established has been finely tuned to allow you to find it without overwhelming your free will and coercion.

[Esquilax]

Huggy, CD asked that we not turn this into another little sideshow for you to air your baseless persecution complex, and I'm inclined to agree. We get to enforce the rules, we did, you couldn't contain your rulebreaking, so you lost. I know it rustles your little jimmies that there are people here able to do things you don't like without your imprimatur, I know your pride is bruised that we made a decision and you weren't able to just wave a hand and undo it, but... deal with it. It's done, it's over, get over it.

We know what the rules mean. You do not. And for someone who whines about bias, for some reason you're unable to see your own; the way you interpret the rules has a clear conflict of interest present... and it also doesn't matter one bit. We were the ones picked to interpret the rules, not you.

I'm done here.

*Mic drop*

[The Grand Nudger]

The only thing that's been finely tuned is the matter between your ears Randy.  Had you not trusted witchdoctors with the wrench, perhaps you'd have avoided the breakdown?