Replies

"So it depends on my definition of a word?"

No, it depends on your definition of not of the word, but of the thing itself. In addition, there is a significant difference between the word "is" and the word "substantiation." To quibble over the definition of the word "is" is obviously meretricious, but reasonable people can reasonably disagree over the definition of "substantiation."

Besides, you answered the question below: you insist on the sort of "study" that academia endorses.

"But you offered no citations, not even to your own documented research."

People who insist on "citations" and "documented research" in all cases, rather than only where appropriate, think they are applying intellectual rigor. In actuality, they are only engaging in willful ignorance. This is especially humourous in light of the recent study showing that most studies are bunk.

WRT the present subject, any valid experimental design would require the researchers to engage in illegal activities, and would in the end rely on the judgment of human beings as to whether conduct amounted to implying or communicating that the fossil record disproves the existence of God.

If the referees were liberals, they'd deny it even if they saw it. And since all studies (outside of narrowly circumscribed areas in the hard sciences) are selected by liberals for funding, conducted by liberals, and designed by liberals to support liberal dogma, you're demanding that which is as a practical matter impossible.

"You are offering nothing more than your own interpretation of obsrevations"

Yes, that's right. And that is far and away more reliable than most "studies" coming out of academia.

"I could just as easily point out that I have encountered few if any atheists who argue that evolution somehow disproves the existence of deities to counter your claim."

Certainly you could. And one might say that, a priori, your impressions are as valid as mine. From that starting point, however, one must ask a few questions. For instance, have you been looking for such data in the right places; is your experience as wide as mine; do you have an axe to grind that influences your perceptions; have you been watching for as many decades as I; do you have the historical perspective lent by personal experience and observation both before and after the great melt-down; and, perhaps most important, have you spent most of your academic career over in the hard sciences enclave, or do you have the background in the humanities (theology, philosophy, psychology, literature, history, political science, etc.) to correctly interpret such data as you have collected?

"If this is the case then you could surely at least point to online discussions where this has occured."

Soitenly I could, if (a) I had been collecting links, or (b) I were willing to invest the time in searches. Saw one right here on FR last night. Quick search…ah…there are some instances here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1522991/posts

And that’s about all the time I have for searching just now.

"Now you are telling me to do your research for you."

Nope. Telling you to do your own research.

"I have never encountered anyone telling me to do this who was making a sustainable claim."

Or rather, every time someone has told you to "do your own research" you have refused, instead deciding arbitrarily that the evidence you have not looked for doesn't exist. Tsk, tsk, hardly scientific.

"Nothing that you have offered amounts to evidence"

You arrive at that conclusion only by arbitrarily discounting my observations and interpretation thereof. What are your "scientific" grounds for that?

"why should I trust anything that you say?"

You can never know whether you should trust anything I say until you do your own research.

Besides, you answered the question below: you insist on the sort of "study" that academia endorses.

I insist that you provide some demonstration that your claim has a basis in reality before I accept it. Thus far you've offered me nothing but your own say-so, and you even admit that your own say-so is based purely on anecdotal evidence. Worse, you don't even offer any evidence for the anecdotal evidence. You don't even cite a specific example of it occuring in your personal experience.

As I said, I can use the fact that I've not encountered any atheists who use evolution as a disproof of all gods as a counter to your own claim, and my "evidence" would be just as valid and grounded as yours.

People who insist on "citations" and "documented research" in all cases, rather than only where appropriate, think they are applying intellectual rigor. In actuality, they are only engaging in willful ignorance. This is especially humourous in light of the recent study showing that most studies are bunk.

This sounds to me like you are making excuses for making a bogus claim that you now know that you can't possibly support as factual.

You claimed that many if not most atheists cite evolution as proof that gods do not exist. Not only does my personal experience not suggest the same thing, but you can't even offer a shred of evidence -- even anecdotal evidence -- that your claim is true. The best you've offered is a claim that you've experienced it without a single specific recounting of such an experience.

WRT the present subject, any valid experimental design would require the researchers to engage in illegal activities,

What illegal activities?

I asked you to provide a link to an online discussion where an atheist made a claim that you attribute to "many" atheists. That's hardly a clinical study, and it certainly wouldn't be illegal. Why did you ignore that request?

you're demanding that which is as a practical matter impossible.

Wouldn't it be easier for you just to admit that you made an unsubstantiated assertion and be done with it? Why all of this verbose and heavy-handed nonsense in an attempt to justify making unsubstantiated assertions that are almost certainly false?

Certainly you could. And one might say that, a priori, your impressions are as valid as mine.

But I'm sure that you'll try to come up with a load of lame excuses to pretend otherwise.

From that starting point, however, one must ask a few questions. For instance, have you been looking for such data in the right places;

Well, where did you do your research? Oh, wait, that's right. You won't give any references.

is your experience as wide as mine;

Yes. Prove otherwise.

do you have an axe to grind that influences your perceptions;

You know, that's right. What if I did have some kind of starting bias, like believing that atheism stems from evil?

have you been watching for as many decades as I;

How many decades of experience do you have?

do you have the historical perspective lent by personal experience and observation both before and after the great melt-down;

What melt-down?

and, perhaps most important, have you spent most of your academic career over in the hard sciences enclave, or do you have the background in the humanities (theology, philosophy, psychology, literature, history, political science, etc.) to correctly interpret such data as you have collected?

Nice of you to lay all of this out without specifying a single one of your own personal credentials. Nevermind that in the end, it's still all a load of anecdotal evidence. You're going out of your way to defend making a completely unsubstantiated assertion. Look, I get it, you got caught in a lie. Just admit that you made a statement that you can't support and move on. All of this verbiage from you in trying to defend the validity of a claim while at the same time refusing to support it with even a shred of evidence, even a single specific recounting of an anecdotal event just makes you look incredibly desperate.

Soitenly I could, if (a) I had been collecting links, or (b) I were willing to invest the time in searches. Saw one right here on FR last night. Quick search…ah…there are some instances here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1522991/posts

Uh, could you reference a specific post where that occured, or are you going to say "do your own research" and then when I fail to find anything accuse me of having a bias?

And that’s about all the time I have for searching just now.

Oh, okay. The latter choice then.

Nope. Telling you to do your own research.

To support your claim. That's telling me to do your research for you. You've thus far not offered any reason for anyone to believe your starting statement.

Or rather, every time someone has told you to "do your own research" you have refused, instead deciding arbitrarily that the evidence you have not looked for doesn't exist. Tsk, tsk, hardly scientific.

When someone makes a dubious claim and then refuses to provide any supporting evidence, even when asked to support the claim, I get a bit suspicious, yes. And no, that's not "hardly scientific". There's nothing wrong with rejecting claims when the person making the claim absolutely refuses to substantiate it.

You arrive at that conclusion only by arbitrarily discounting my observations and interpretation thereof.

No, I arrive at thjat conclusion by noting that you didn't offer anything other than an assertion that you have made observations. I can assert that I've made all kinds of observations, but that doesn't amount to evidence of anything.

However, this said, I can understand why you would support a postion on Intelligent Design, given that you are willing to treat "do your own research, I'm not going to support my claims" as valid evidence.

What are your "scientific" grounds for that?

I see nothing unscientific for rejecting claims for which not only is no evidence provided, but the person making the claim balks outright at the mere suggestion that the claim be supported with more than "I saw it!"