Evidence?

[Jayhawker Soule]

That is not evidence of anything.

Actually, it is.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Actually, it is.

A Whole New World

 

[yossarian22]

Actually, it is.

I stand corrected.
It is not meaningful evidence of anything

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I stand corrected.
It is not meaningful evidence of anything

Actually it is.

 

[yossarian22]

Actually it is.

Actually its not.
Isn't this a nice intellectually stimulating discussion?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Actually its not.
Isn't this a nice intellectually stimulating discussion?

Experience is the premise behind all evidence. The issue is control.

 

[yossarian22]

Experience is the premise behind all evidence. The issue is control.

Anecdotes are not evidence.
Its not even weak evidence. There is no rhyme or reason to these patterns. Now, if these were at least sort of similar, then it would warrant looking into. But then, that is not an anecdote at all...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actually its not.
Isn't this a nice intellectually stimulating discussion?

I have no interest in stimulating your intellect no matter how advantageous that might be for you. The fact remains that religious experience is ubiquitous across widely disparate cultures. To claim that this "is not meaningful evidence of anything" is grossly and childishly ignorant, petulantly dismissing many decades of scientific inquiry.

 

[yossarian22]

I have no interest in stimulating your intellect no matter how advantageous that might be for you. The fact remains that religious experience is ubiquitous across widely disparate cultures. To claim that this "is not meaningful evidence of anything" is grossly and childishly ignorant, petulantly dismissing many decades of scientific inquiry.

it is plain that you know absolutely nothing pertinent about this particular field of science. That argument can be used to justify the yeti.
Furthermore, there is no pattern in the data. It is random. If there was any semblance of a pattern, then perhaps there is such evidence. But there isn't.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

it is plain that you know absolutely nothing pertinent about this particular field of science.

To what "particular field of science" are you referring?

that argument can be used to justify the yeti.

I've made no argument. You're babbling. Stop. :slap:

Furthermore, there is no pattern in the data. It is random. If there was any semblance of a pattern, then perhaps there is such evidence. But there isn't.

 

[autonomous1one1]

.....Furthermore, there is no pattern in the data. It is random. If there was any semblance of a pattern, then perhaps there is such evidence. But there isn't.

Greetings Yossarian. Just wanted to offer a comment on the "semblance of a pattern." There is a select group of experiences that do have common characteristics such that many of us think that one breakthrough experience is being described. I posted on this experience above in a response to Nanda.

 

[Yerda]

it is plain that you know absolutely nothing pertinent about this particular field of science. That argument can be used to justify the yeti.
Furthermore, there is no pattern in the data. It is random. If there was any semblance of a pattern, then perhaps there is such evidence. But there isn't.

If I were to propose that religious experience is rooted in human evolution would the observation that religious experience is ubiquitous across widely disparate cultures as Jay put it, constitute evidence toward determining the likelihood of my proposition?

 

[yossarian22]

To what "particular field of science" are you referring?

Statistical inference

I've made no argument. You're babbling. Stop. :slap:

Ugh. Do you need to nitpick everything? Surely you have enough intelligence to see what I meant.

Already read it, and it has little to do with the matter at hand, evidence for a religion.
To remind you...
There is some - admittedly very weak - evidence: the widespread reports of personal experiences with God. Now, I can see why this is unconvincing, but it is evidence. Weak, yes, but evidence nonetheless, which is more than can be said for the argument that there is no God. With that nit picked....

 

[Storm]

Already read it, and it has little to do with the matter at hand, evidence for a religion.

This thread isn't about evidence for any one religion.

 

[yossarian22]

If I were to propose that religious experience is rooted in human evolution would the observation that religious experience is ubiquitous across widely disparate cultures as Jay put it, constitute evidence toward determining the likelihood of my proposition?

Yes, but that is not what I take issue with.

 

[autonomous1one1]

If I were to propose that religious experience is rooted in human evolution would the observation that religious experience is ubiquitous across widely disparate cultures as Jay put it, constitute evidence toward determining the likelihood of my proposition?

Hi Jaiket. Yossarian gives a 'yes' to your question so it makes me more curious. Would you mind explaining a little more of what you mean by "..rooted in human evolution.."?
a..1

 

[yossarian22]

Greetings Yossarian. Just wanted to offer a comment on the "semblance of a pattern." There is a select group of experiences that do have common characteristics such that many of us think that one breakthrough experience is being described. I posted on this experience above in a response to Nanda.

Hmm, could you give me a post number? I don't want to have to search through the entire thread.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Statistical inference

When did this become a science? Your pretense is getting tiresome.

 

[yossarian22]

When did this become a science?

What do you think statistical inference falls under?

Your pretense is getting tiresome.

As is yours. I can only conclude that you have nothing meaningful to say at all.

 

[rojse]

What do you think statistical inference falls under?

As is yours. I can only conclude that you have nothing meaningful to say at all.

Although there are many different religious experiences across a multitude of cultures, and each experience is different, doesn't the fact that each of these ties in on a more powerful entity that wants to take care of people have some significance?

Obviously, it does not prove that God exists - it could be mass hysteria, for example, or some natural phenomena that affects how the brain or senses perceive stimuli. However, to dismiss it without consideration of all possibilities, including the existence of a higher entity, is not good practice for a statistician.

Now, can we get back on topic, or can you post this up in a separate thread?