JackC

OK, so what other subject would require a similar level of evidence to theology in order for you to believe it?

I never said double blind studies were used on a regular basis, merely that they are used. You agree with this so quite obviously, theology and psychology are held to different standards. My point, and I am aware that it is laboured, is that theology is never held to anything like the same standards of evidence one would hold virtually any other subject. The fact that someone would be willing to settle for a lower standard of evidence in one area (whatever that may be) could be seen as a concern for their standards in other areas. I am sure that this is a bad thing and if I get the chance, I think it is my duty to try to correct it.

Erm, no. In science they have this thing called a double blind study. They use this method in both medicine and, you guessed it, psychcology. Try a double blind study in theology and you'll get nowhere fast. In fact, theology can be held to no scientific standards at all which makes it quite different from psychology or medicine or business or criminology or sport, all of which can. If you're trying to find fact from fiction, evidence found using the double blind process does elevate science and diminish theology. That's why we no longer perform trapanning rituals to cure mental illness. If you really are planning to be a psycologist, I would urge you in the strongest terms to look into what constitutes good evidence. It could mean the difference between good practice and quackery.

Well, yes. But by imaginary I mean in the sense that pshycology is the study of mental processes, and how they are affected and/or affect an individuals or group's physical state, mental state, and external environment. Not that the patients episode with his step father at age 8 or his reaction to it was a mental fabrication. Of course I think God is imaginary. What kind of half arsed atheism do you think I go in for? Maybe you can run rings round me in both psychology and theism, but that wasn't my point. You said that you had been giving good evidence all day today for the reliability of JC and his resurrection. To which I replied that to call it "good" or even "evidence" is a gross overestimate. You then said "I have a different view of evidence than a scientist ..... It is never concrete. I don't expect pyschology to be, nor do I expect theology to be either" My point was that you seem to accept a much lower standard of evidence than I would be willing to and I hoped you would re-assess that position to see if it was justified. Different subjects demand different standards of evidence. The sky is blue requires a low level, criminal justice demands a higher level (or at least I hope so). The more complex or extraordinary the claim, the higher the standard of evidence should be. You seemed to be saying that in psychology, a standard of evidence that suggests a certain probabale diagnosis would be good enough for every other occasion also. I hoped to encourage you to re-evaluate that position.

Actually Steve, this is a fairly big point. Psychology is possibly the wooliest "science" known to man. Because it deals with stuff that is rooted in the patients own head it is therefore not subject to the normal rules of the universe. As such you're forced to take a lower standard of evidence than the rest of us. Now maybe this accounts for you being happy with the evidence you presented for JC being who he said he was. The trouble is, while it might be good enough evidence to diagnose whatever psychosis your patient is suffering from, it is in no way good enough to ascertain the reality of an event or object. If you use the psychologists standard of evidence in fields of endeavour that deal with non-imaginary things, you may well find yourelf coming to the wrong conclusion on a regular basis. Would you convict a criminal and send him to the chair on this standard of evidence? I certainly hope not. Although I come off as a hard assed skeptic, what you believe in in entirely up to you and it doesn't much matter to me either way. But I would urge you (and everyone else) to look again at your standards of evidence because it is worrying that for so many people it is so low.

Touche. On the flip side, Quantum Field Theory can mess with the mind too.

Yes but a psychologist deals with things that exist only in your head. A physicist deals with things that exist in the real world.

I think to call it "good" or even "evidence" is a gross overestimate. 2000 year old hear-say and the "why would they die for a lie" line wouldn't stand up in court. Even a tennis court.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ask+a+ninja Any questions?

Women might not have been allowed a legal voice, but they still had a voice. Maybe those women did find an empty tomb. So what? An empty tomb doesn't mean god exists either. Are you really suggesting that the story must be true because it was told by women? Seriously?

Whether they actually had false memory syndrome, or were the victims of a hoax is irrelevant. The mere fact that they could have been is enough to provide reasonable doubt given such an inconcievable story. So it's a numbers game is it? If I can find 13, can I expect your signed conversion to atheism on my desk in the morning? No? Thought not.

Is it possible for a first hand witness to be fooled into believeing something that is false? Quite obviously yes. Look up false memory syndrome, UFO abductions or people who really do think David Blaine can levitate or Derren Brown really can play Russian Roulette and win by reading your mind. Except that they do. If your premise were correct, then Greek and Norse mythology must be true, Islam must be true, Iraq really did have WMD's, in fact anything that anyone ever died for must be true. If I can find one single example of someone dying for something they knew to be false, your argument is sunk. Should I go looking? I'll bet I can find one.

All this proves is that they willing to die for their story. Soldiers do quite a bit of dying regardless of whether they believe in why they were sent to war. David Koresh's followers did quite a bit of dying too. A christian martyr doesn't prove that god is real.

Steve, all you've got is an ancient myth that makes some prophecy and another ancient myth that says the prophecy came true. Not that it would be hard to fake. 1) Born in Bethlehem, so what? Loads of people have been born in Bethlehem. 2) Some nutcase shouting "the end is nigh", there's one of those on every other street corner. Has been for as long as there have been corners.. 3) Rejected by his own people, well bullying is very common especially if you're rocking the boat or saying unpopular stuff. 4) Crucified, nothing special here either. If you make a big enough nuicance of yourself, governments tend to take measures to shut you up. Not so much nowadays in the west, but try making trouble in NK, China or Iran and see how far you get. Then you've got a bunch of martyrs. All that proves is that they were willing to die for a belief, not that their belief was true. Iraq and Afganistan turf out these by the truck load. It's weak and hear-say. If someone proposed a new theory relating to golf course management, I'd want to see more evidence than that. If you throw in lepricauns, loch ness monsters or a god, I'd want a whole load more evidence again. You say that's enough evidence to believe, I think it's a joke to even call it evidence.

I'd say you are wrong. If the indiginous people of wherever had never heard of Christ or had access to scripture, how in hell could they ever get to him? In order for someone to come to a particular religion, they need to be taught or they will remain ignorant of that religion.

And possession of the holy spirit is determined how exactly? Read Acts 1 & 2. JC declares it come on his followers who are born again. Let me get this straight. In order to understand the Bible, I need to have the Holy Spirit with me. But in order to know if I have the Holy Spirit with me, I need to read the Bible? You have got to be kidding.

And possession of the holy spirit is determined how exactly?

Given the myriad of biblical interpretations out there, it seems the holy spirit is fickle in who he imparts his wisdom to.

No shit

Actually, my latest obsession is the tapping riff in the middle of this. It's a bugger. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piijlF9hg0o

I've been trying to get this for about a year now and this fucker nails it and simultaneously looks bored, the bastard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuzyVkxo8EU

I think this guy is better at it clicky Shame he left the coat hanger in his jacket though Edit: OK the bass bloke has some mean chops too.

My company is sending me on one of these courses next week so in preparation I thought I'd try and find out what six sigma actually is. So far, all I've managed to find out is that 6 sigma appears to be the result of a large explosion in a corporate buzz word factory. Anyone have a Bollocks to English dictionary I can borrow? I might need one.

I know a bloke who works for MS and he asked their IT department for Vista on his works laptop. Apparently he was told that they don't recommend Vista for their own systems. This was about 4-5 months ago so the info could well be out of date by now.

Rubbish. Neutrinos can't be detected directly, we can only detect the tiny effect they have on other things. Does that make a neutrino supernatural? Absolutely not. We can actually tell quite a bit about neutrinos by their interactions with other things. Likewise, if god did any interacting with the universe we would also be able to tell a bit about him through those interactions. Science is a hell of a lot more dependable if you want to find out about the universe than divine relealation. The mere fact that you have to keep reinterpreting revealation to fit with empirical evidence surely must say something about the quality (or lack thereof) of the revealation.