Why do Christians become Christians?

[RoadRunner79]

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.

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.

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.

Agreed, the scientist can come to the wrong conclusion. Should I take these facts, and then conclude that scientific evidence is fallible, and not very good evidence (or not evidence at all)?

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/

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.