The real religion?

[LadyForCamus]

From your comments in parenthesis I would say that you are still going with testimony in unreliable.   So then the only reasonable option would be 1.  That neither scripture or science  testimony provide sufficient evidence or reason to believe.  I do grant that we accept things without sufficient evidence, but I don't think that it is unreasonable for others to not do the same.

-snipped for brevity

Well, at least you tried, Camus.  Apparently, if the gospels aren't true.....then RR, and all of humanity.... is a know-nothing and just peachy on that count in spite of it.   

That's your standard theistic scorched earth policy in action, why do you humor this asshattery, have you learned your lesson? 

Lol, omg, Rhythm. I've been around these parts for almost a year now (which I know isn't a very long time compared to some of you), but stuff like this still shocks me. I can see how the veteran members get burn out after years and years. I wonder why it is that some people can come to the understanding on their own, and others...you can hit them over the head with it endlessly to no avail...[emoji848]

[RoadRunner79]

-snipped for brevity

Well, at least you tried, Camus.  Apparently, if the gospels aren't true.....then RR, and all of humanity.... is a know-nothing and just peachy on that count in spite of it.   

That's your standard theistic scorched earth policy in action, why do you humor this asshattery, have you learned your lesson? 

Lol, omg, Rhythm. I've been around these parts for almost a year now (which I know isn't a very long time compared to some of you), but stuff like this still shocks me. I can see how the veteran members get burn out after years and years. I wonder why it is that some people can come to the understanding on their own, and others...you can hit them over the head with it endlessly to no avail...[emoji848]

Well... After all this time, I would be impressed if someone could represent my point ion accurately instead of a straw man

[LadyForCamus]

-snipped for brevity

Well, at least you tried, Camus.  Apparently, if the gospels aren't true.....then RR, and all of humanity.... is a know-nothing and just peachy on that count in spite of it.   

That's your standard theistic scorched earth policy in action, why do you humor this asshattery, have you learned your lesson? 

Not a chance. The rock has simply rolled back down the incline. LFC will catch her breath, wipe her brow, and start pushing the damn thing again. It's her Sisyphean fate to engage the Christian rock, no matter how hopeless and meaningless the task may be.

Now, if she had been LadyForHume, she could take a break once in a while, have a cold stiff drink, and enjoy a game of billiards.

I couldn't imagine a more perfectly analogy; this discussion is the embodiment of absurd! Ah, but Camus insisted we MUST face it, and carry on![emoji57]

I'll be honest, I don't know much about Hume, but I DO know Camus was very fond of wine. I think we would have gotten along swimmingly. [emoji12]

[LadyForCamus]

Lol, omg, Rhythm.  I've been around these parts for almost a year now (which I know isn't a very long time compared to some of you), but stuff like this still shocks me.  I can see how the veteran members get burn out after years and years.  I wonder why it is that some people can come to the understanding on their own, and others...you can hit them over the head with it endlessly to no avail...[emoji848]

Well... After all this time, I would be impressed if someone could represent my point ion accurately instead of a straw man

Well, you could start by clearly articulating it.  That would certainly be helpful.

[Jesster]

Well... After all this time, I would be impressed if someone could represent my point ion accurately instead of a straw man

Well, you could start by clearly articulating it.  That would certainly be helpful.

And now we spin back to the start of the circle. It's like he plans this out or something.

[RoadRunner79]

Well... After all this time, I would be impressed if someone could represent my point ion accurately instead of a straw man

Well, you could start by clearly articulating it.  That would certainly be helpful.

I have a number of times, and people either aren't reading very carefully, or trying to read between the lines or just like to argue..... I'm tired and think I'm done, unless someone wants to start actually address what I said, instead of arguing against thei assumptions

[Jesster]

Well, you could start by clearly articulating it.  That would certainly be helpful.

I have a number of times, and people either aren't reading very carefully, or trying to read between the lines or just like to argue..... I'm tired and think I'm done, unless someone wants to start actually address what I said, instead of arguing against thei assumptions

Wow. Now you can feel what we feel.

[LadyForCamus]

Wrong, science is based upon experimental observations that are replicable.  It doesn;t matter whether or not someone else saw it, if no one else sees it when they do the same thing.  In fact, it doesn't matter that almost everyone sees it...if a single person doesn't.  That's the -entire- point of peer review and replication.  

You're welcome.

Moreover the observations tend to be incredibly detailed, usually after rigorous number crunching and double-checking even before anything is published for further scrutiny.  It is nothing like a layperson observing an event and attempting to remember it later.  And any attempts to equivocate the two stem from either gross ignorance or pure intellectual dishonesty.

That it's even a point of contention is ridiculous, and only highlights that certain people have no idea what they're talking about or trying to argue.  Try again.

He is about to tell you that you can't reasonably be confident that the scientists actually did any of that research at all, since we didn't watch them do it ourselves, so it's faith.  Despite the fact that...ya know...we live in the world and witness the fruits of their labor on a daily basis.  Unreal.

[Jesster]

LFC:

[LadyForCamus]

So you're just going to go ahead and hang on to that fallacy until the tips of your fingers bleed, no matter how ridiculous you appear, huh?  That's about what I expected.

And, within the parameters of your 'scientific evidence is nothing more than testimony, just like biblical scripture' fallacy, the most reasonable world view according to YOU as stated above is:

'None of us can be confident in either scientific conclusions or scripture claims since they are both just testimony; that the only thing which qualifies as "sufficient evidence" is physically seeing something with my own eyes.'

Yes?

Do realize that according to this position accepting bible scripture as true is unreasonable, and accepting that the earth revolves around the sun is EQUALLY as unreasonable?  That seems rational to you?  That seems logical to you?

No it doesn't... Which I have maintained all along.

Oh, okay, so you're changing the answer YOU chose from my hypothetical above.  You think testimony IS reliable as evidence for things and since (according to you and your fallacy) scientific research and bible scripture are both testimony, which position do you think is most reasonable?


'Both scripture AND scientific research are equally sufficient evidence for things, and I accept some combination of both.'

OR

 'I accept one over the other.'