John Platko wrote:Many more than three atheists ask for scientific evidence for the supernatural.

Citations please. List the posts in this thread where anyone has asked for 'scientific evidence' of the supernatural.
I've only done a cursory check, but as far as I can see, one poster is very keen on using the term, and no-one has actually asked for 'scientific evidence'.

And as this thread demonstrates, it is an unwise request to make where I can witness it as I do like the smell of atheists retreating in the morning.

Bordering on trying to inflame there. Who is retreating? Come on, a list of posts in this thread where anyone has asked for 'scientific evidence' of the supernatural.

John Platko wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

John Platko wrote:Save it for what? Scientific scrutiny?

It won't be saved for any scrutiny, as it won't be evidence.

How can evidence not be evidence?

It's quite simple John. Just because you flop something out on the table and proudly announce that it's evidence doesn't actually mean it is evidence.

BlackBart wrote: Just because you flop something out on the table and proudly announce that it's evidence doesn't actually mean it is evidence.

It counts in a biggest dick contest.

laklak wrote:

BlackBart wrote: Just because you flop something out on the table and proudly announce that it's evidence doesn't actually mean it is evidence.

It counts in a biggest dick contest.

Assuming I haven't entered.

I retired after I beat P Diddy.

Now this is something we can see evidence for.

Agrippina wrote:Now this is something we can see evidence for.

This is exactly what I was shouting about (albeit not too elegantly). We never see this wonderful evidence just his word for it.

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

John Platko wrote:Save it for what? Scientific scrutiny?

It won't be saved for any scrutiny, as it won't be evidence.

How can evidence not be evidence?

If it isn't accepted. We'll always have Paris. Cry me a river.

I'm struggling to wrap my mind around what you say here.

Perhaps an example would help. On what grounds would you not accept the evidence that was used to determine that the 14th Lama was the reincarnated 13th Lama? Please give all non scientific evidence that you use in your determination not to accept that evidence.

Agrippina wrote:Now this is something we can see evidence for.

Oops. Ziiiiiiip!

Sendraks wrote:

John Platko wrote:
And I wish atheists accepted the definition of evidence which refers to more than scientific evidence.

Basically evidence that we're not prepared to accept as evidence, because it cannot be tested or verified in any meaningful way.

What exactly do you mean by any meaningful way? Can you give some examples?

Cito di Pense wrote:Why do you think we have that joke about 'the plural of anecdote'?

John's argument is about anecdotes that come in bunches. The first job with data is to clean it. It's too bad for John's argument that anecdotes about the supernatural are sponged up by concerns over reproducibility. Hence, anecdote. Every miracle unique.

Where is it written that the first job with data is to clean it?

John Platko wrote:I'm struggling to wrap my mind around what you say here.

Perhaps an example would help. On what grounds would you not accept the evidence that was used to determine that the 14th Lama was the reincarnated 13th Lama? Please give all non scientific evidence that you use in your determination not to accept that evidence.

Here we have once again. Where is your evidence John? Where is the evidence used John? You are making the claims produce the fucking evidence. You have not done so. Notice?

Remember scientific evidence not waffle.

BlackBart wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

BlackBart wrote:Personally, 'as an athiest', I don't ask for evidence of the 'supernatural' at all. I merely ask for evidence of whatever it is one happens to be claiming exists. I have no interest what super-adjective one plasters on it to gain special pleading privileges, if you haven't got evidence for it, jog on.

Indeed, you can call the evidence whatever you like, but if it doesn't stand up to testing no amount of special pleading will save it.

Save it for what? Scientific scrutiny?

No, John. The dustbin. No evidence, no lollipop.

How do you determine if evidence goes lollipopless into the dustbin?

John Platko wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

Indeed, you can call the evidence whatever you like, but if it doesn't stand up to testing no amount of special pleading will save it.

Save it for what? Scientific scrutiny?

No, John. The dustbin. No evidence, no lollipop.

How do you determine if evidence goes lollipopless into the dustbin?

If it stands up to scientific rigours.

Paul wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

John Platko wrote:Save it for what? Scientific scrutiny?

It won't be saved for any scrutiny, as it won't be evidence.

How can evidence not be evidence?

Context again.

It won't be evidence for. It is rejected as evidence for whatever. The 'for' is implied, and only has to be stated for the benefit of nit-pickers.

On what grounds do you reject the evidence that was used to determine that the 14th Lama was the reincarnated 13th Lama? Do you have any non scientific evidence to support your rejection.

John Platko wrote:

Paul wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

It won't be saved for any scrutiny, as it won't be evidence.

How can evidence not be evidence?

Context again.

It won't be evidence for. It is rejected as evidence for whatever. The 'for' is implied, and only has to be stated for the benefit of nit-pickers.

On what grounds do you reject the evidence that was used to determine that the 14th Lama was the reincarnated 13th Lama? Do you have any non scientific evidence to support your rejection.

Supply the evidence John. Lets see it. Come on warts and all.

BlackBart wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

John Platko wrote:Save it for what? Scientific scrutiny?

It won't be saved for any scrutiny, as it won't be evidence.

How can evidence not be evidence?

It's quite simple John. Just because you flop something out on the table and proudly announce that it's evidence doesn't actually mean it is evidence.

Actually, it does.

From Wikipedia:

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.

(Edit: link added)

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

John Platko wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

It won't be saved for any scrutiny, as it won't be evidence.

How can evidence not be evidence?

It's quite simple John. Just because you flop something out on the table and proudly announce that it's evidence doesn't actually mean it is evidence.

Actually, it does.

From Wikipedia:

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.

Link John LINK. Get it. You just cant write things down John.

John Platko wrote: On what grounds would you not accept the evidence that was used to determine that the 14th Lama was the reincarnated 13th Lama? Please give all non scientific evidence that you use in your determination not to accept that evidence.

Who's going to challenge my stance if I don't? A bunch of woo heads? I'm shaking in my shoes. I'm concerned about my relations with people who have evidence for their claims, including claims that they have evidence.

John Platko wrote:
How do you determine if evidence goes lollipopless into the dustbin?

It depends how much I shake in my shoes if a bunch of woo heads are miffed that I don't accept their claims.

No one has any obligation to examine any kind of evidence, unless they're concerned about their relationships with people who rely on evidence rather than on claims that claims of evidence alone are evidence.

John Platko wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

It won't be saved for any scrutiny, as it won't be evidence.

How can evidence not be evidence?

If it isn't accepted. We'll always have Paris. Cry me a river.

I'm struggling to wrap my mind around what you say here.

Perhaps an example would help. On what grounds would you not accept the evidence that was used to determine that the 14th Lama was the reincarnated 13th Lama? Please give all non scientific evidence that you use in your determination not to accept that evidence.

What evidence John? Remember the flopping out on the table thing?