Anecdotal Evidence

[robvalue]

I used to find all this very annoying, but now it's just kind of fascinating. This is turning "not having a position" into an art form. If I had to guess, I'd say RR is one of a small number of theists we have here who are self-aware enough to realise that if they stated their beliefs plainly, they would sound very stupid and would be indefensible. So instead they only vaguely hint at their position, while attacking the "opposition" to this unknown position. (Try and get him to say how he thinks creationism actually works.)

The range of tactics on display here is quite astonishing. I think my favourite is getting other people to define your terms, then getting them to make your argument for you, then disagreeing violently with this position without saying how yours actually differs. I wonder how much cognitive dissonance this kind of thing causes a person. It must be exhausting to have to constantly shield one's points and beliefs. I suppose the strategy is that no one can shoot at a target if you never hold it up.

I'm not trying to be mean. I'm just discussing the very interesting psychology on display here. What I think we're actually seeing, as is often the case, is religious beliefs polluting methodology. In order to maintain the illusion that such beliefs are based on credible methods, the same methods must be presented as credible with respect to non-religious situations. But of course, they are not; as is demonstrated every single time an actual example is mentioned. If the religious person really did use the same methodology they would be either insane or just completely vulnerable as a very gullible person.

Anecdotes might be true. Really? Never considered that. I doubt anyone here would ever argue with this statement, so again, what is the point of this? If a person is not convinced by a particular anecdote or set thereof, is this an attempt to batter them into submission?