(June 19, 2023 at 12:02 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Asserting that it's a confirmation bias doesn't make it one.the assertion made was confirmed by the methodology that you admitted in using when purposing to test for the existence of "buddhist hell" which had nothing to do with anything written in buddhist canon. I compared and explained how this was a confirmation bias in several different ways. Testing my formula for turning lead to gold, by using a formula you know did not work, or baking banana bread with apples then complaining the recipe I gave was garbage/did not taste like bananas at all.
If you will not test a subject like buddhist hell with the methodology prescribed in canon, then you know there is no reason for whatever you do to work.
Quote: I can as easily claim that you have a confirmation bias because you won't accept a comparison with observable reality as a standard for what's true.you can make that claim all day long, but you can not cite an example of it. As this is not true.
Quote:Your recipe is more like 'I can't tell you the recipe, but if you try hard enough to believe it tastes like bananas, it will'. Or maybe 'the recipe IS to convince yourself it tastes like bananas'?Actually no. The formula for buddhist Hell (*reminder YOUR Example not mine) is defined with in their holy text. all you need do is read it. Whether you can access it or not will be determined by their canon.
again this is not a discussion on the legitimacy of a given subject but the methodology used to research and study a NON SCIENTIFIC/Theological subject. Everything isn't or doesn't fall under the category of 'science' if you insist that it does I'm afraid there is nothing more I can discuss with you here.
