Just a thought

[ippy]

Iv'e been trying in a course of a forum discussion with Vlad, to reason with him and have tried to work my way through the usual Vladobable nonsense and a piece of Vlad's, I nearly wrote logic, post, it made me think, when the authorities pick people for jury service, technically perhaps holding a religious belief of one kind or another should disqualify them from jury service.

The reasoning behind my thinking on this, is that all of these religionists whatever religion they believe in, they tend to believe in things without sufficient evidence to do so, therefore having this tendency perhaps it should disqualify them from jury service because of this disability of not being able to recognise evidence when they see it or when it's not there.

I'm ready to be shot down in flames, if necessary, or find some support but believing things without evidence is a bit of a bummer and doesn't exactly fill people with confidence.   

Could be an interesting thread, who knows?

Regards to all ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

ippy,

Iv'e been trying in a course of a forum discussion with Vlad, to reason with him and have tried to work my way through the usual Vladobable nonsense and a piece of Vlad's, I nearly wrote logic, post, it made me think, when the authorities pick people for jury service, technically perhaps holding a religious belief of one kind or another should disqualify them from jury service.

The reasoning behind my thinking on this, is that all of these religionists whatever religion they believe in, they tend to believe in things without sufficient evidence to do so, therefore having this tendency perhaps it should disqualify them from jury service because of this disability of not being able to recognise evidence when they see it or when it's not there.

I'm ready to be shot down in flames, if necessary, or find some support but believing things without evidence is a bit of a bummer and doesn't exactly fill people with confidence.   

Could be an interesting thread, who knows?

Cognitive dissonance ipster, cognitive dissonance. My experience with religious people is that accepting "God" as a fact on the basis of no evidence doesn't necessarily mean they'll accept anything else as a fact on the same basis.

Indeed it's a good argument (though always ignored) to ask one of them, "OK if the reasons you've given for believing in your god (it gives your life meaning, lots of people think the same thing, you can't disprove it etc) constitute evidence to your mind, why isn't the identical reasoning evidence when validating different faith objects entirely?

Short answer - just because you can sell them "God" doesn't mean you can sell them London Bridge too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed it's a good argument (though always ignored) to ask one of them, "OK if the reasons you've given for believing in your god (it gives your life meaning, lots of people think the same thing, you can't disprove it etc) constitute evidence to your mind,

anybody got an emoji for straw man?

[SusanDoris]

Ippy

I think your OP is logical, but it is something that will have to wait until believers are fewer in number than believers and when non-belief has become the accepted norm. In the meantime, the jury system seems to work, so any change has to come about naturally.

[ippy]

anybody got an emoji for straw man?

Just a thought Vlad, how come you're so eaten up with this religious stuff, you know, talking snakes, burning bushes, feeding the umpty dumpteen thousand with the contents of a thimble and oh yes the biggy, rising from the dead.

Can't you hear that little voice in the background? Where this voice is saying, 'hang on Vlad, these things don't happen', 'think about it vlad'?

All of the above and you then have the gall to accuse someone of presenting straw men to you, come on Vlad, it's something about putting your own house in? What was it Vlad?

Regards ippy   

[ippy]

ippy,

Cognitive dissonance ipster, cognitive dissonance. My experience with religious people is that accepting "God" as a fact on the basis of no evidence doesn't necessarily mean they'll accept anything else as a fact on the same basis.

Indeed it's a good argument (though always ignored) to ask one of them, "OK if the reasons you've given for believing in your god (it gives your life meaning, lots of people think the same thing, you can't disprove it etc) constitute evidence to your mind, why isn't the identical reasoning evidence when validating different faith objects entirely?

Short answer - just because you can sell them "God" doesn't mean you can sell them London Bridge too.

I often sit around musing Blue.

Regards ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

ippy,

All of the above and you then have the gall to accuse someone of presenting straw men to you, come on Vlad, it's something about putting your own house in? What was it Vlad?

Just to note that not only is Vladdo the World champ, all belts combined, never had a glove laid on him king of the straw man, he also just wrongly described listing examples of bad arguments people have actually made here as a straw man.

You couldn’t make it up.

Oh wait, he just did 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just a thought Vlad, how come you're so eaten up with this religious stuff, you know, talking snakes, burning bushes, feeding the umpty dumpteen thousand with the contents of a thimble and oh yes the biggy, rising from the dead.

Can't you hear that little voice in the background? Where this voice is saying, 'hang on Vlad, these things don't happen', 'think about it vlad'?

All of the above and you then have the gall to accuse someone of presenting straw men to you, come on Vlad, it's something about putting your own house in? What was it Vlad?

Regards ippy   

These are fair and on the ball questions which deserve my thought and attention so hopefully we will hit all points in subsequent posts with this as a reference. I think Professor Davey and I are at the agree to differ stage on faith schools so i'll make your post my next priority...alright?

[Gonnagle]

Dear ipster,

I have been on jury duty, I hated it, but the poor fellow who was on trial, the evidence was overwhelming, the Polis had him bang to rights, but the jury ( ordinary folk ) wanted to argue about the DNA evidence, not one of them had any background in DNA, The Polis had fingerprint evidence, he was seen at the scene of the crime, he had motive and he had prior, I did not want to take this guys liberty away from him but for me he was definitely guilty.

Reminds me a bit about this forum, the evidence is all around you but you want to use the science to argue against.

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

Reminds me a bit about this forum, the evidence is all around you but you want to use the science to argue against.

Actually logic rather than science but ok - what evidence?

[ippy]

Dear ipster,

I have been on jury duty, I hated it, but the poor fellow who was on trial, the evidence was overwhelming, the Polis had him bang to rights, but the jury ( ordinary folk ) wanted to argue about the DNA evidence, not one of them had any background in DNA, The Polis had fingerprint evidence, he was seen at the scene of the crime, he had motive and he had prior, I did not want to take this guys liberty away from him but for me he was definitely guilty.

Reminds me a bit about this forum, the evidence is all around you but you want to use the science to argue against.

Gonnagle.

Reminds me a bit about this forum, the lack of evidence is all around and you may as well use science as well.

What evidence Gonners, surly you don't mean the man made up stuff.

Anything you need to know about D N A Gonners you only need ask I'm completely familiar with the Unwin school on that subject.

Regards ippy 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Iv'e been trying in a course of a forum discussion with Vlad, to reason with him and have tried to work my way through the usual Vladobable nonsense and a piece of Vlad's, I nearly wrote logic, post, it made me think, when the authorities pick people for jury service, technically perhaps holding a religious belief of one kind or another should disqualify them from jury service.

The reasoning behind my thinking on this, is that all of these religionists whatever religion they believe in, they tend to believe in things without sufficient evidence to do so, therefore having this tendency perhaps it should disqualify them from jury service because of this disability of not being able to recognise evidence when they see it or when it's not there.

I'm ready to be shot down in flames, if necessary, or find some support but believing things without evidence is a bit of a bummer and doesn't exactly fill people with confidence.   

Could be an interesting thread, who knows?

Regards to all ippy

Do you realise that when you write like this, you condemn yourself?

If someone is on jury service, they are presented with evidence. They have to draw conclusions from that evidence.

You, on the other hand make blanket statements such as

all of these religionists whatever religion they believe in, they tend to believe in things without sufficient evidence to do so

yet cannot even state what you would consider as evidence. It can be seen that your mind is already made up about so-called lack of evidence. Try taking that approach as a jury member!!

I can see the approach taken by some here in the courtroom. Some will want to see evidence and then try and spend their time trying to convince their fellow jury-members why the evidence presented in in fact not evidence. They will also have to reject both the defence and prosecution cases because they come with confirmation biases.

People who serve on a jury have to be open-minded, thereby considering both sides of the argument. Do you consider both sides of the argument when debating with Vlad, or is your mind already made up?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

People who serve on a jury have to be open-minded, thereby considering both sides of the argument. Do you consider both sides of the argument when debating with Vlad, or is your mind already made up?

Just to note that, to consider both sides of an argument, there has to be an argument to start with. When an attempt at one collapses in a heap of logical contradiction there's nothing there to consider.

As you'll just disappear again after having been corrected on this though I'm wasting my breath here aren't I.

[floo]

Do you realise that when you write like this, you condemn yourself?

If someone is on jury service, they are presented with evidence. They have to draw conclusions from that evidence.

You, on the other hand make blanket statements such asyet cannot even state what you would consider as evidence. It can be seen that your mind is already made up about so-called lack of evidence. Try taking that approach as a jury member!!

I can see the approach taken by some here in the courtroom. Some will want to see evidence and then try and spend their time trying to convince their fellow jury-members why the evidence presented in in fact not evidence. They will also have to reject both the defence and prosecution cases because they come with confirmation biases.

People who serve on a jury have to be open-minded, thereby considering both sides of the argument. Do you consider both sides of the argument when debating with Vlad, or is your mind already made up?

No evidence has ever been presented, which has established the existence of the Biblical god, or any other god for that matter.

[ippy]

ippy,

Just to note that not only is Vladdo the World champ, all belts combined, never had a glove laid on him king of the straw man, he also just wrongly described listing examples of bad arguments people have actually made here as a straw man.

You couldn’t make it up.

Oh wait, he just did 

Muse as much as you like at my age, even if they lock me up for it, it wont be for that long.

Vlad's become impossible, arrr yes I've just thought of it, that old army saying, it's a bit of a mixture of 'Bullshit baffles brains' and  shouting into a random word echo machine, makes me feel like Stan lorel with his hair standing up and him wobbling his bottom lip with his index finger, being chased by Ollie.

Regards  Stanly

[ippy]

No evidence has ever been presented, which has established the existence of the Biblical god, or any other god for that matter.

It's lovely cuddly Floo, good to hear anything from you.

Kind regards ippy

[floo]

It's lovely cuddly Floo, good to hear anything from you.

Kind regards ippy

Cuddly? Only if you remove the barbed wire.

[ippy]

Do you realise that when you write like this, you condemn yourself?

If someone is on jury service, they are presented with evidence. They have to draw conclusions from that evidence.

You, on the other hand make blanket statements such asyet cannot even state what you would consider as evidence. It can be seen that your mind is already made up about so-called lack of evidence. Try taking that approach as a jury member!!

I can see the approach taken by some here in the courtroom. Some will want to see evidence and then try and spend their time trying to convince their fellow jury-members why the evidence presented in in fact not evidence. They will also have to reject both the defence and prosecution cases because they come with confirmation biases.

People who serve on a jury have to be open-minded, thereby considering both sides of the argument. Do you consider both sides of the argument when debating with Vlad, or is your mind already made up?

It's an easy answer to you Sword, where is the viable evidence that would, if you had any, support your belief in the magic, mystical and things that go bomp in the night, superstitions?

I'm going out now for my scampi and chips I'll be expecting to see an answer by the time I get back!

Regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gonners,

Actually logic rather than science but ok - what evidence?

Logic was used here When was that?

[Gordon]

Yet more incoherent nonsense from you, Sword.

Do you realise that when you write like this, you condemn yourself?

If someone is on jury service, they are presented with evidence. They have to draw conclusions from that evidence.

The evidence presented to a jury isn't just anything that someone would like to advance: evidence has to be admissible in order to be even considered by a jury in the first place.

You, on the other hand make blanket statements such asyet cannot even state what you would consider as evidence. It can be seen that your mind is already made up about so-called lack of evidence. Try taking that approach as a jury member!!

Then you'll need to present evidence that would be admissible, if we are using a courtroom analogy, and of course your challenge for others to state what might be evidence is just as attempt to shift the burden of proof: we're wise to that tactic here.

I can see the approach taken by some here in the courtroom. Some will want to see evidence and then try and spend their time trying to convince their fellow jury-members why the evidence presented in in fact not evidence.

Which is quite reasonable, especially if the claimed evidence doesn't stand scrutiny: you see a claim that 'this is evidence' isn't sufficient.
 

They will also have to reject both the defence and prosecution cases because they come with confirmation biases.

That that sounds like a hasty generalisation since there are variety of reasons for rejecting evidence: perhaps your confirmation bias is showing.

People who serve on a jury have to be open-minded, thereby considering both sides of the argument. Do you consider both sides of the argument when debating with Vlad, or is your mind already made up?

There needs to be a sound argument to begin with: a fallacious one doesn't even get off the ground.

[SteveH]

No evidence has ever been presented, which has established the existence of the Biblical god, or any other god for that matter.

Change the record, there's a dear.

[Robbie]

Ippy i'm delighted with this thread because it has given me an idea for getting out of jury service if I am called. I was called years ago when just moved house. the letter came to my old address just a day or so afterwards & I collected it on the way home from work.  I wrote 'Return to sender, no longer lives here' on the envelope & put in post. Well I wasn't lying.

Now I will object on grounds of being religious. If that doesn't work I'll say I'm dead (I'd be a useless juror).

[SteveH]

I've long thought that juries are a pretty daft idea. Ordinary people have no legal training and no training in anything else that might be relevant to the case, and quite a lot of them are as thick as pig-shit.

[Stranger]

Actually logic rather than science but ok - what evidence?

Best of luck with that. The otherwise sensible and reasonable gonners becomes totally incoherent (not to mention unresponsive) when it comes to his belief in god. Can't actually say what 'god' even means, yet thinks people need to have some good reason not to believe in this god-whatever-it-is-thingy - and now (apparently) thinks there's lots of evidence for it too.

Frightening how ordinary, decent people get their brains totally addled by religion...

[SusanDoris]

Do you realise that when you write like this, you condemn yourself?

This shows that you are so arrogant about your own beliefs that the idea that you are wrong doesn't seem to enter your head.  You  condemn yourself with your own  post. 

If you were on a jury, how would you guarantee that your confirmation biases would not influence your decision?  Why should anyone take your word on that?

On what evidence should we take it that you have an open mind?