Why do Christians become Christians?

[RoadRunner79]

Oh, and by the way I wasn't indicating a "conspiracy theory"... I'm not even sure how such a thing would work.

It's not exactly a surprise that people who are driven by the motive (indeed, the mandate) to attain convictions as a prerequisite to their continued advancement in their career would attain a bias that often blinded them to the unsound practices they were employing to do so.

Again, read the Innocence Project's stories, and see how often the police misled the defendants into false confessions, or manipulated witnesses directly (or accidentally), and how many times the DA resisted overturning the convictions despite the scientific information showing the person they put in prison could not be guilty. It's not a conspiracy, it's human weakness... the very thing the scientific method was invented to counter, but which has been slow to enter the justice system.

I'd say the problem, then, is that they rely too much on the human element (such as eyewitness testimony, despite its now-well-understood flaws) and not enough on "scientism", just as religious people tend to do. And that was my whole point.

Look up the definition of conspiracy theory.... that is exactly what you are describing in regards to Church History. I'm skeptical without further evidence, and find what you implying to be largely untenable and unsupported.


I would guess, that if the scientific evidence pointed to you for a crime, and yet witness testimony describes someone completely different, that you wouldn't be singing the same tune. Or would you confess based on the scientific evidence, not trusting your own memory?

[The Grand Nudger]

Why are we discussing witness testimony at all?  Do we have any witness testimony in the particular subject of interest?  If not, then the strength of witness testimony would be entirely irrelevant.

[RoadRunner79]

You are, in effect, trying to shame us for not believing in the magic your cult accepts as real.

I would point out, that you brought up the subject. But yes, I do think it is bad to evaluate the evidence (or dismiss it entirely) based on a priori assumptions.

Or am I allowed to do so with evolution.

[abaris]

Or am I allowed to do so with evolution.

No, you ain't, unless you want to make a fool of yourself. For the simple reason that it's accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Which is not the case with christian or any religious believes.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Oh, and by the way I wasn't indicating a "conspiracy theory"... I'm not even sure how such a thing would work.

It's not exactly a surprise that people who are driven by the motive (indeed, the mandate) to attain convictions as a prerequisite to their continued advancement in their career would attain a bias that often blinded them to the unsound practices they were employing to do so.

Again, read the Innocence Project's stories, and see how often the police misled the defendants into false confessions, or manipulated witnesses directly (or accidentally), and how many times the DA resisted overturning the convictions despite the scientific information showing the person they put in prison could not be guilty. It's not a conspiracy, it's human weakness... the very thing the scientific method was invented to counter, but which has been slow to enter the justice system.

I'd say the problem, then, is that they rely too much on the human element (such as eyewitness testimony, despite its now-well-understood flaws) and not enough on "scientism", just as religious people tend to do. And that was my whole point.

Look up the definition of conspiracy theory.... that is exactly what you are describing in regards to Church History.  I'm skeptical without further evidence, and find what you implying to be largely untenable and unsupported.

I would guess, that if the scientific evidence pointed to you for a crime, and yet witness testimony describes someone completely different, that you wouldn't be singing the same tune.   Or would you confess based on the scientific evidence, not trusting your own memory?

What you're describing here is pseudoscience, in which people (in this case, the FBI "experts") claim to speak with the authority of a scientific methodology, but are in fact ignoring it. That's why they rely on people to say, "In my expert opinion".

If I had no memory of an event, and DNA (for instance) evidence provided unequivocal (meaning it was clearly, objectively not tampered with) proof that I was the culprit, then yes I would plead guilty, or at least Nolo contendre, to the crime.

Because of their bias in how they apply science, the prosecution teams will often use pseudoscience to bolster their case (it's part of the reason I said the scientific method was slow to reach the courts), such as Arson "experts" who ignore the scientific consensus on how fire spreads and use their personal version to explain that the fire must have had an accelerant, or that the hair follicles "definitively" point to the suspect. In those cases, the police "experts" ignored the consensus of science on the subject in favor of their personal biases-- as you too often do with issues like common descent. Sadly, juries tend to believe police experts over the actual scientists brought in by defense lawyers (assuming you even have such a lawyer-- Public Defenders rarely have the time or resources to even do that), resulting in false convictions. "After all," they [the jury] think, "why shouldn't I trust that man with a Badge of Authority?" I'm not simply making this up; it has been extensively studied by outside groups, but largely ignored by the justice system and the politicians who form it.

Finally, while a finding of Not Guilty by a jury doesn't mean the person is actually innocent of the crime, the Innocence Project deals primarily/overwhelmingly in overturning "Manifest Injustice" cases (following failure by the Defendant in appealing the case), in which the Courts will only accept what is called "evidence of actual innocence". In other words, 99% of the cases you'll read about in that section involve Actual Innocence, and the way they proved the person could not have possibly been the perpetrator, despite all the eyewitness testimony and police "expert" testimony that they were.

[RoadRunner79]

Or am I allowed to do so with evolution.

No, you ain't, unless you want to make a fool of yourself. For the simple reason that it's accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Which is not the case with christian or any religious believes.

I see.... and these scientists have special privileges, where we accept what they write without question, as long as it's within orthodoxy?

[abaris]

I see.... and these scientists have special privileges, where we accept what they write without question, as long as it's within orthodoxy?

Maybe a question of methodology and peer review? Just saying.

[RoadRunner79]

Look up the definition of conspiracy theory.... that is exactly what you are describing in regards to Church History.  I'm skeptical without further evidence, and find what you implying to be largely untenable and unsupported.

I would guess, that if the scientific evidence pointed to you for a crime, and yet witness testimony describes someone completely different, that you wouldn't be singing the same tune.   Or would you confess based on the scientific evidence, not trusting your own memory?

What you're describing here is pseudoscience, in which people (in this case, the FBI "experts") claim to speak with the authority of a scientific methodology, but are in fact ignoring it. That's why they rely on people to say, "In my expert opinion".

I would agree, that is a majority of the cases referred to as "bad science" others may be misinterpretation of what the scientific evidence says, or the result of contamination (although this would likely result in a false negative rather than false positive).

If I had no memory of an event, and DNA (for instance) evidence provided unequivocal (meaning it was clearly, objectively not tampered with) proof that I was the culprit, then yes I would plead guilty, or at least Nolo contendre, to the crime.

And if you did remember differently as I had asked in the original question? Which are you going to go with then (your memory or science)?

[abaris]

Or would you confess based on the scientific evidence, not trusting your own memory?

There are numerous experiments pointing to eyewitness testimony being unreliable. These can be easily found by doing a google, so I'm not linking to any specific one. Suffice to say that my own memory played tricks on me repeatedly as I found out by talking to people having witnessed the same event. Just to give one tiny example, since it was one of the first major cuts in my life. The death of my first grandmother, when I was but two years old. I remembered correctly that I was dropped off at the house of some friends of my parents, but I was sure, it was adjacent to a certain park. Turned out, I was wrong on that, since 40 years later I talked to the person where I was dropped off and she had lived at an entirely different place at the time. Another memory had interfered, since I very much liked that park where I thought her house was located.

[Polaris]

I was not raised as a Christian nor did I attend Church, but I always had some inclination to the spiritual. I believe spirituality is hard-wired in our being; some people are more open to exploring their spirituality, but we all have the urge to explore our beliefs.

When I was in college, examining who I really was for the first time, I looked towards Islam because I was studying it and became intrigued by it's more strict lifestyle because I had very rarely encountered Christians who seemed as intense. I can say this about Moslems....they are really friendly and open to you when you are pursuing Islam; brick wall develops when you decide it's not for you.

But at the same time, I found a group of Christian young adults that I would pray with on Thursday nights (I was still not willing to go to Church with them because I would party the night before and sleep in until the afternoon), but one November night during prayer, I encountered the Holy Spirit and I have been a Christian ever since. It just happened like that, which surprised me since I had been very much against the belief in the Holy Spirit before that (I may have even argued with a pastor's son in high school about Him).

I guess to sum it up is I was looking to find out who I was and that's how I became a Christian. Many of my friends likewise were in the same boat...we did not grow up as Christians, but found a community that was worth being a part of...