(May 18, 2016 at 11:56 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: After you answered, stating with no memory of the event, I did begin thinking that "confess" was a poor choice in my wording on my part. I don't think that I could confess to what I do not know. I would also agree, in that instance, I would plead no contest (if it was allowed).
I do find it interesting, that many would abandon what they know, because of what a scientist says. I can understand with the way that memory works, if details or what I thought I saw, could be better explained by someone with more knowledge or additional evidence. However if what they are describing doesn't resemble at all, what I know to be true, then I am going to heavily question their assumptions. I think that I would need good direct evidence or some reason to question what I remember to make a leap of that extent.
Agreed! You would have to consider the many things we do know (amnesia, blackouts, etc.) about the fallibility of human brains, and not assume that what we think we know is the whole truth. You would also be right to be highly skeptical of conclusions that differ from your own recollection. But when it comes down to it, memories can be, and typically are, not accurate, for a gigantic number of reasons.
And it's not "because some scientist says so", it's about what methodology (including assumptions, testing by multiple means, etc.) that scientist used to come to the conclusions he or she did. It's why I'd demand independent evaluation of the results, in order to eliminate potential bias, and why I would want to skeptically review those methods and tests myself.
We see many examples of scientists who are employed by the state subconsciously tainting evidence, in criminal cases, such as the FBI and state investigatory labs, resulting in wrongful convictions. A classic example is where DNA testing at the police labs were contaminated and improperly analyzed, resulting in a rape conviction of innocent people until outside analysis revealed the methodological errors being committed by the lab.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...bt/480747/
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.