Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:
What you FAIL to understand is that RE (religious evidence) is different than some other types of evidence.

That's where we get 'Intelligent Design' or ID, then. Don't do today what you can put off for a lifetime. Vive la différance.

Thus:

Anthropocentric Religio-Spiritual Evidence / Wisdom-Inducing Philosophical Evidence.

If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well.

John Platko wrote: Given the number of religions and varied methodology used to gather "religious evidence" (RE) it's hard to come up with a concise and complete definition. But I'll give it a go:

Element e belongs to the set ALL_RE, which consists of all RE, if e is deemed to be RE by any person claiming or considered to be religious.

Agrippina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

angelo wrote:Anyone trying to lie for god should note that using Lourdes or any other so called miraculous site anywhere in the world is destroying their credibility before they even start.

It is always strange that uneducated peasant people are involved.

In Ireland there are so many shrines and holy places. Does John accept that they are all valid as well?

If you read my definition of Religious Evidence (RE) you would know the answer to that.

The biggest one is "our lady of knock".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock_Shrine

How about moving statues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_statues

The one thing you can say about the Irish they how to get money out of peoples pockets.

BTW Ryanair flies to most of the famous shrines John and if Michael Ryan is in on it you know it is a fiddle.

You don't have to define religious evidence: religious (pertaining to religion); evidence (verification that a claim is real).

The two are incompatible. Religion is only evidence for religion. It is not evidence for anything scientific.

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:Because to understand what I mean one must understand the many ways text communicates and it's inefficient for me to explain the many way text communicates in a comment block. And besides, the expert I pointed you to is a world class professional at teaching it.

It may be the case that text communicates in many different ways, but you don't seem eager to permit readers to interpret your text in many different ways. You have piled up the bullshit so high and steep on this one that the angle of repose for bullshit heaps has been exceeded, and your ideas are now being inundated by your bullshit.

Naturally, one of the interpretations of text so coated in bullshit that nothing else shows through is that it is bullshit through and through. And that's some tough shit, John.

Regina wrote:

MrFungus420 wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Regina wrote:
It's very helpful of you to answer Lucid's question by telling her that RE means that all groups have their "own requirements and processes for determining" what RE consists of. One cannot be more precise, obviously.
It should be clear to everyone now.

Well it's obviously not clear to you!

Please don't misquote me. It causes confusion. I've been getting tutored in "quote mining" on the welcome thread and I'm not a fan of quote mining.

Funny, you still don't have a fucking clue as to what it is.

John Platko wrote:I never said: "that RE means that all groups have their "own requirements and processes for determining" what RE consists of."

That wasn't her quote of you.

The part that she quoted was: "own requirements and processes for determining", and that IS a direct quote.

You did say that applies to Religious Groups, Religious Organization and Religious Individuals, she just paraphrased that to "all groups"

John Platko wrote:Follow my argument?

Don't worry, it's very easy to follow.

Religious evidence is anything that a religious group, organization or individual says is religious evidence.

In other word, if YOU say it is religious evidence, it IS religious evidence.

It's true that I did not quote the part in which John felt I was "misquoting" him. What he probably meant was that I misrepresented him since he was referring to religious groups and their definition religious evidence. Leaving out the "religious" in my posts points at the idea that any group, religious or otherwise, can make up their definitions of what evidence consists of. We surely don't want privileges for the religious types, no?

John Platko wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:Because to understand what I mean one must understand the many ways text communicates and it's inefficient for me to explain the many way text communicates in a comment block. And besides, the expert I pointed you to is a world class professional at teaching it.

It may be the case that text communicates in many different ways, but you don't seem eager to permit readers to interpret your text in many different ways. You have piled up the bullshit so high and steep on this one that the angle of repose for bullshit heaps has been exceeded, and your ideas are now being inundated by your bullshit.

Naturally, one of the interpretations of text so coated in bullshit that nothing else shows through is that it is bullshit through and through. And that's some tough shit, John.

It case there's some confusion about it, everyone is free to interpret my words anyway you like. You are however not free to misquote me at will, at least not here. And I'm good with that.

MrFungus420 wrote:

John Platko wrote:Element e belongs to the set ALL_RE, which consists of all RE, if e is deemed to be RE by any person claiming or considered to be religious.

Okay, let's try another tack.

Element e (evidence) belongs to the set of ALL_BE (all bigfoot evidence), which consists of all BE, if e is deemed to be BE by any person claiming to or considered to believe in bigfoot.

Element e (evidence) belongs to the set of ALL_AE (all astrological evidence), which consists of all AE, if e is deemed to be AE by any person claiming to or considered to believe in astrology.

Element e (evidence) belongs to the set of ALL_AAE (all alien abduction evidence), which consists of all AAE, if e is deemed to be AAE by any person claiming to or considered to have been abducted by aliens.

John Platko wrote:[All I want to establish is, are the doctors involved in the medical review of the cases at Lourdes working well within standard medical practice for what their tasked with determining. i.e. type of illness before, state of patient after, can a cause of recovery be determined.

Agrippina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Agrippina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Homework assignment for Agrippina:

Review the process that Isaac Newton experienced after he discovered that white light consists of the entire spectrum of color, not the absences of all color. The answer to your question is buried in there somewhere. But don't misunderstand, feedback is good, it's just that sometimes it's hard to get "good" feedback.

Who are you to imagine I need your brand of indoctrinating education?

If I want something explained, I'll ask a scientist, not a theologian.

You think Isaac Newton was just a theologian?

Don't be ridiculous. You're sending me a theological explanation for science. I'm telling you that religion doesn't explain science, therefore if I want a scientific explanation for something, I'll ask a scientist. Isaac Newton was a scientist not a theologian. You cannot use theology to explain gravity. I didn't say anything about Isaac Newton. I said something about asking for scientific answers, for example miracle cures, from scientists, not from bishops or monsignors.

MrFungus420 wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

angelo wrote:Anyone trying to lie for god should note that using Lourdes or any other so called miraculous site anywhere in the world is destroying their credibility before they even start.

It is always strange that uneducated peasant people are involved.

In Ireland there are so many shrines and holy places. Does John accept that they are all valid as well?

If you read my definition of Religious Evidence (RE) you would know the answer to that.

Yes, it IS Religious Evidence.

ANYTHING that a religious person claims is religious evidence IS religious evidence.

Agrippina wrote:

MrFungus420 wrote:

John Platko wrote:Element e belongs to the set ALL_RE, which consists of all RE, if e is deemed to be RE by any person claiming or considered to be religious.

Okay, let's try another tack.

Element e (evidence) belongs to the set of ALL_BE (all bigfoot evidence), which consists of all BE, if e is deemed to be BE by any person claiming to or considered to believe in bigfoot.

Element e (evidence) belongs to the set of ALL_AE (all astrological evidence), which consists of all AE, if e is deemed to be AE by any person claiming to or considered to believe in astrology.

Element e (evidence) belongs to the set of ALL_AAE (all alien abduction evidence), which consists of all AAE, if e is deemed to be AAE by any person claiming to or considered to have been abducted by aliens.

And all people cured by the dirty waters in the lake at Lourdes, what group they belong to?

Agrippina wrote:

Agrippina wrote:

MrFungus420 wrote:

John Platko wrote:Element e belongs to the set ALL_RE, which consists of all RE, if e is deemed to be RE by any person claiming or considered to be religious.

Okay, let's try another tack.

Element e (evidence) belongs to the set of ALL_BE (all bigfoot evidence), which consists of all BE, if e is deemed to be BE by any person claiming to or considered to believe in bigfoot.

Element e (evidence) belongs to the set of ALL_AE (all astrological evidence), which consists of all AE, if e is deemed to be AE by any person claiming to or considered to believe in astrology.

Element e (evidence) belongs to the set of ALL_AAE (all alien abduction evidence), which consists of all AAE, if e is deemed to be AAE by any person claiming to or considered to have been abducted by aliens.

And all people cured by the dirty waters in the lake at Lourdes, what group they belong to?

Either stop with the acronyms, or I'll ask a moderator to tell you to stop doing it.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

John Platko wrote:

MrFungus420 wrote:

John Platko wrote:

If I understand what you're saying, you have no problem with how the medical evidence is collected or analyzed, or the clinical peer review process used to evaluate the specific clinical medical case. ( I ask because some here have seemed to conflated the type of medical peer review process used to evaluate a particular medial case with the type of peer review process the medical community uses to evaluate a medial study on a group of people.)

No, I have never said that.

What they are doing is NOT peer review. Part of the peer-review process is people outside of your group examining and trying to verify or falsify your claims.

But, that does not matter because the doctors are NOT part of declaring it a miracle. The ONLY thing that they do is claim to rule out natural causes. All that they can do is say that it is not explained.

John Platko wrote:Your issue is with the religious part of the process, that is, how the valid empirical medical evidence is weighed,

That evidence was weighed by the medical professionals. Their determination is that it is unexplained.

John Platko wrote:along with religious evidence,

Not religious evidence.

The opinion of a bishop.

John Platko wrote:to determine if the "event" should be added to the set of "approved miracles of Lourdes" by the Catholic Church. Am I getting the gist of your position. If not, please clarify.

The medical findings are irrelevant except to rule something out. There is NO medical evidence that there was a miracle.

From that point, it is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. "This is unexplained, therefore it was a miracle."

The funny thing is that about 5 years ago, Lourdes stopped declaring healings as "miraculous", but now calls them "remarkable"; in part because it is nearly impossible to meet the original criteria (the Lambertini criteria). For example, cancer can virtually never meet the criteria (it can go into spontaneous remission and treatment is so common that virtually nobody with cancer hasn't received some treatment).

Furthermore, there is no way to verify whether or not God caused a miracle to happen

Let's try this again even mmmmmmmooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeee slllllllllllooooooooowwwwwwwwllllllllllllllyyyyyyy.

What specific medical conclusion is the task of the International Lourdes Medical Committee (abbreviated in French to CMIL)

Hint:

From Wikipedia
CMIL is not entitled to pronounce a cure "miraculous"; this can only be done by the Church. The bureau may only pronounce that a cure is "medically inexplicable".

Can we agree on this much? I'm hoping for a yes or no.

It is irrelevant what the specific task of the CMIL is. The fact remains that it's conclusions aren't based on independently peer-reviewed evidence.
More importantly, since it ultimately comes down to the subjective decision of the bishop, the entire process is meaningless.

John Platko wrote:
And for all I know, DIRTY_WATER may be an empty set.

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:
What specific medical conclusion is the task of the International Lourdes Medical Committee (abbreviated in French to CMIL)

Hint:

From Wikipedia
CMIL is not entitled to pronounce a cure "miraculous"; this can only be done by the Church. The bureau may only pronounce that a cure is "medically inexplicable".

Can we agree on this much? I'm hoping for a yes or no.

John, it appears that the CMIL is only interested in considering cases in which 'cures' appear to be associated with some shrine at Lourdes. Such selective attention is not scientific, and would not be granted scientific peer review by a scientific review panel.

John Platko wrote:
Do a bit of research on when and how clinical peer reviews function.

Reviewing only cases from Lourdes could never constitute a clinical trial for medical science.

John Platko wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
Reviewing only cases from Lourdes could never constitute a clinical trial for medical science.

I didn't say anything about a clinical trial. What the doctors do for the specific cases at Lourdes is a clinical case review- and that's different than a clinical trial.

John Platko wrote:

Agrippina wrote:

MrFungus420 wrote:

John Platko wrote:Element e belongs to the set ALL_RE, which consists of all RE, if e is deemed to be RE by any person claiming or considered to be religious.

Okay, let's try another tack.

Element e (evidence) belongs to the set of ALL_BE (all bigfoot evidence), which consists of all BE, if e is deemed to be BE by any person claiming to or considered to believe in bigfoot.

Element e (evidence) belongs to the set of ALL_AE (all astrological evidence), which consists of all AE, if e is deemed to be AE by any person claiming to or considered to believe in astrology.

Element e (evidence) belongs to the set of ALL_AAE (all alien abduction evidence), which consists of all AAE, if e is deemed to be AAE by any person claiming to or considered to have been abducted by aliens.

And all people cured by the dirty waters in the lake at Lourdes, what group they belong to?

For the sake of clarity let's just define DIRTY_WATER as the set consisting of all people cured by the dirty waters in the lake at Lourdes.

And for all I know, DIRTY_WATER may be an empty set.

Agrippina wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:
What you FAIL to understand is that RE (religious evidence) is different than some other types of evidence.

That's where we get 'Intelligent Design' or ID, then. Don't do today what you can put off for a lifetime. Vive la différance.

Thus:

Anthropocentric Religio-Spiritual Evidence / Wisdom-Inducing Philosophical Evidence.

If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well.

ID is an acronym, no one makes up mathematical equations using ID. You're trying to use your made up acronym to explain that religion can actually produce some sort of evidence, mathematically. Don't obfuscate John, you're wrong. Accept the fact.

lyingcheat wrote:

John Platko wrote: Given the number of religions and varied methodology used to gather "religious evidence" (RE) it's hard to come up with a concise and complete definition. But I'll give it a go:

Element e belongs to the set ALL_RE, which consists of all RE, if e is deemed to be RE by any person claiming or considered to be religious.

This ^^^ definition is circular. It's a, no doubt typically, meaningless example of itself asserted by someone who fits the definition.

Though I note it would also allow every bizarre delusion ever uttered by any psychotic in the grip of devout religious mania to be considered 'religious evidence', regardless of the apparent theme.


Too too silly.