Rocky

Very recently, I asked someone on FB where it says that in the Quran. She gave me a chapter and verse. A rudimentary internet search enabled me to find said verses. They didn't say what she claimed they said. Do YOU have a chapter and verse to back up that claim? Or do you just go by what the Islamaphobes in your congregation tell you?

And just how is that "certain pertinent, invisible information" which you add to the equation supposed to be evaluated for consistency -- especially when what one person who abandons the premise related to factual information -- is NOT consistent with various other persons? Against what is said information supposed to be evaluated? What spin might that be? Please be as specific as possible.

How Moody of you!

Seriously? LOL. I didn't say anything about whether anyone should question or challenge me. But I see what you did there. Nice deflection. Hoping you could get me to take your bait so all could be distracted from the question at hand, which is you questioning the honesty of my motives? Again, that seems more like a psychological defense mechanism than a cogent response to a legitimate challenge to your position on the question posed at the start of this thread. One might get the idea that you can't form an argument on the points in question.

I get your point.

Kudos for trying to figure it out. Take the path of most persistence.

It's a freakin' STORY!

Who are you to judge the honesty of my motives? That seems much more like a psychological defense mechanism on your part. As if I need to blame you for failing to make your point clear? You seem to have read comments explaining the concept of communication previously. Your projection does the blaming all on its own, TUVM. And at the top of your comment, if it's not a claim, you certainly expressed it in words as if you were making said claim. Are you really now telling us that you can't be bothered supporting that claim? If you wanted legit discussion, it seems you'd have to at least demonstrate willingness to consider counterpoints rather than dismiss them out of hand. OTOH, that's why I asked you if you could back up your claim about basing judgments and decisions on something other than rational data.

Yes there was. The corpse members got to wear the elite status nametags. IOW, "Look at ME! I'm elite!!"

While this may be only indirectly related to the thread topic of the question on the Resurrection of Christ, it does go to TLC's argument against rational argument. (Three comments above this one) That concept (as TLC set it forth for us) has bothered me for quite some time. Besides TWI being caught up in fundamentalism, it's also fundamentally flawed regarding what really boils down to intuition. But VeePee taught the concept as "reaching up into Daddy's cookie jar." We've seen, both here on GSC and in other forums/platforms, things argued as truth/fact that simply lack any kind of legitimate reasoning or factual basis. I'm reading a book by Rutger Bregman at this time. The book has political undertones and overtones and major themes. But that's not why I bring it up. Chapter 9 of Bregman's book is titled Beyond the Gates of the Land of Plenty. In that chapter, Bregman cites Daniel 1 for the first historical record of randomized control trials. And he gives great examples of how, not limited to trying out new pharmaceuticals, policy decisions that previously had been made on spendings immense amounts of money solely on the basis of intuition sometimes worked but often failed. He then demonstrates, with extensive citation of source documentation, how evidence data takes the guess work out of the equation and makes all the difference in the world on outcomes that can make a difference in the lives of people. My point is that I simply am appalled at the brazenness of TLC's silly irrational argument about what more reasonably should be labeled human intuition rather than revelation from God. Forty years ago, I bought into the silly irrational way of thinking. I don't anymore. But I don't consider myself atheist.

That model is now known as randomized control trials. Take equal numbers of test subjects, give half a placebo, and half the medication they want to test. Record the results and RELY on said results and data for decisions and judgment. Why didn't God tell Daniel to just tell Ashpenaz that he had special instructions from God?

TLC, just curious, can you back up that claim (about the erroneous premise) with scripture? The record of Daniel and some of his pals suggests that material facts provide a reasonable basis for decision making. In fact, the record in Daniel chapter 1 provides the basis for how to model scientific experiments, specifically medical research. 3 Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring into the king’s service some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility— 4 young men without any physical defect, handsome,showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace. He was to teach them the language and literature of the Babylonians.[b] 5 The king assigned them a daily amount of food and wine from the king’s table.They were to be trained for three years, and after that they were to enter the king’s service. 6 Among those who were chosen were some from Judah: Daniel,Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. 7 The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego. 8 But Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine, and he asked the chief official for permission not to defile himself this way. 9 Now God had caused the official to show favor and compassion to Daniel, 10 but the official told Daniel, “I am afraid of my lord the king, who has assigned your[c] food and drink. Why should he see you looking worse than the other young men your age? The king would then have my head because of you.” 11 Daniel then said to the guard whom the chief official had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, 12 “Please test your servants for ten days: Give us nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink.13 Then compare our appearance with that of the young men who eat the royal food, and treat your servants in accordance with what you see.”14 So he agreed to this and tested them for ten days. 15 At the end of the ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food. 16 So the guard took away their choice food and the wine they were to drink and gave them vegetables instead.

sigh...

I don't think the word ubiquitous means what you think it means. Then again, I could be wrong. adjective existing or being everywhere, especially at the same time; omnipresent

#Sad

The thread title should be Ol' Loy was a PIKER compared to these guys.

Y'all ever heard of a cult called NXIVM? (pronounced "nexium") (video of an interview with Catherine Oxenberg at the link) NEW YORK (AP) — A co-founder of an embattled upstate New York self-help organization has pleaded guilty in a case featuring sensational claims that some followers became branded sex slaves. Nancy Salzman pleaded guilty to conspiracy during a hearing in federal court in Brooklyn on Wednesday. She’s to be sentenced on July 10. There was no immediate response from her lawyer. Salzman was a co-founder of NXIVM, a cult-like group based near Albany. Prosecutors say a secret society within the organization branded women with a spiritual leader’s initials and forced them to have sex with him. The leader, Keith Raniere, is set to go on trial next month. Also charged in the case are Salzman’s daughter as well as Seagram liquor fortune heiress Clare Bronfman and TV actress Allison Mack.

There's profit and then there's profit (prophet?). I recently viewed a documentary about the global economy. One point in it is that some people make a living by doing or making something that adds value (to the economy) and others do so just by shifting existing value from one place or person to another. If VeePee created something that some people found value in (e.g. PFLAP) then the splinters are just shifting it around.

It's only 19 days until 4/1/19.

I bet Stephen King could make that story sing!

Ummm... "rational thought" is about the last thing people who are needing to be persuaded actually take heed to. The resources for learning persuasion are numerous, here is one. Perhaps one of the most significant resources of our era is the seminal research of Robert Cialdini, emeritus professor of social psychology and author of Influence. But I digress.

Looks like Raf abstained from posting on Sunday this week.

Yelling doesn't make it so. But thanks anyway. Define quantitative and qualitative evidence Quantitative: Numerical or statistical information (data), which often comes from surveys, surveillance or from administration records. Qualitative:Descriptive information, which often comes from interviews, focus groups or artistic depictions such as photographs.