Why I CANNOT Believe in The Resurrection

[Subduction Zone]

Lol. To you peer review is like the bible is to creationists. However neither of you will accept they are flawed.

Here's another for you

The Mess That Is Peer Review, and What Should Be Done About It | BioSpace

Another article that you didn't read or didn't understand. Are you just reading titles?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

How could they be scholars if they accepted myths about a figure dead for over a century?

You have Christian scholars today who accept the myths as truth. What convinced me Jesus was mythical was that there is no evidence outside the Bible Jesus ever lived. Someone who rises from the dead and causes thousands of zombie bodies to rise and go into Jerusalem, earthquakes and unnatural darkness would have been written about by thousands of people, certainly Philo who was in Jerusalem at the time.

 

[F1fan]

Believe what you wish,

It's more an issue of me NOT believing what isn't rational.

I’m just telling you my experience, what God did for me and countless others.

The social science explain how people adopt the beliefs they are exposed to in their social experience. This is why there are so many religions that exist in geographical areas.

And there's nothing that suggests a God is doing anything for anyone. Look at 12 Step programs that rely heavily on religious attitudes, they often fail the addict. We see many children and innocent people in real need of a God intervening on their behalf, yet they are left to their fate. Plus given your attitudes that are rather indifferent to minorities I don't see God doing enough for your hardened heart. I'm not impressed by the work your God has done for you.

How I know I have eternal life and found the Truth. The Holy Spirit bears witness to me that I have eternal life.

It's more likely you heard this from other believers and your ego found it really appealing, so you adopted these concepts. Of course you don't really know. But then I doubt you take Christianity all that seriously. If you did you'd be bending over backwards to follow the example and teachings of Jesus. I don't see you doing that.

 

[We Never Know]

Another article that you didn't read or didn't understand. Are you just reading titles?

Sure I did. Did yiu?

"Despite its obvious benefits, the peer review method is not without its flaws. There have been quite a few issues with people committing peer review fraud over the years, and this is far from the only problem with peer review. In fact, there are numerous flaws, and as such, peer review has garnered a lot of criticism.

Interestingly enough, peer review itself hasn’t received much testing as to its efficacy, and so those that adhere to it do so out of the belief that it works as it should rather than any sort of empirical evidence thereof.

One pretty significant problem with peer review is that it may be prone to bias from the reviewers. Not only are women greatly underrepresented in the peer review process, but reviewers are much more likely to have a preference to work done by those that are the same gender as themselves. This is obviously a serious issue, especially when science already has a problem with sexism.

As if being subjected to fraud and biased reviewers wasn’t enough, some suggest that peer review might actually be stifling scientific advancement by rejecting valuable and impactful research."

 

[F1fan]

If trustworthy testimony is a valid form of evidence in a court of law, could it be a valid form of evidence in religious claims?

If someone claims they ate a ham sandwich when they witnessed a robbery we would accept the sworn testimony since ham sandwiches exist, and people eat them.

If the witness said he was an angel and witnessed something there would be grounds to not trust the witness since angels aren't known to exist, and a person claiming they are one without demonstrating that is true is disqualifying.

Whoever wrote the Bible stories, and then later edited them, were under no penalty of perjury, nor obligated to report facts. These are texts written for a purpose of ritual and meaning, and during a time when these texts were heavily embellished.

If a believer in the truth of Bible texts want to treat them like affidavits then they have a lot of work to do. The huge dilemma is the actual writers aren't known, the editors aren;lt known, and none are alive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure I did. Did yiu?

"Despite its obvious benefits, the peer review method is not without its flaws. There have been quite a few issues with people committing peer review fraud over the years, and this is far from the only problem with peer review. In fact, there are numerous flaws, and as such, peer review has garnered a lot of criticism.

Interestingly enough, peer review itself hasn’t received much testing as to its efficacy, and so those that adhere to it do so out of the belief that it works as it should rather than any sort of empirical evidence thereof.

One pretty significant problem with peer review is that it may be prone to bias from the reviewers. Not only are women greatly underrepresented in the peer review process, but reviewers are much more likely to have a preference to work done by those that are the same gender as themselves. This is obviously a serious issue, especially when science already has a problem with sexism.

As if being subjected to fraud and biased reviewers wasn’t enough, some suggest that peer review might actually be stifling scientific advancement by rejecting valuable and impactful research."

Yep the title was click bait and you fell for it. No one has claimed that peer review is perfect. And those flaws do not affect this discussion, well sexism is probably a problem. But there are no examples of fraud or other problems they discuss in that article here. You need to understand how to apply articles to the discussion at hand. Watch out for click bait titles. Like it or not peer review still works.

 

[We Never Know]

Yep the title was click bait and you fell for it. No one has claimed that peer review is perfect. And those flaws do not affect this discussion, well sexism is probably a problem. But there are no examples of fraud or other problems they discuss in that article here. You need to understand how to apply articles to the discussion at hand. Watch out for click bait titles. Like it or not peer review still works.

Like I said, just like a creationist is with their bible lol

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said, just like a creationist is with their bible lol

No, oh my you have some serious projection issues. Peer review is not as flawed as you like to pretend that it is. You fall for clickbait titles as your last article was and flawed studies. Yes, in the medical business there are issues, but even there it works. It may take longer to get rid of bad claims, but the process still works. You seem willing to replace it with sources that are far worse. You appear to want the myths of the Bible to be true even though you know that they are not.

One simple question: What is your substitute for peer review?

 

[We Never Know]

No, oh my you have some serious projection issues. Peer review is not as flawed as you like to pretend that it is. You fall for clickbait titles as your last article was and flawed studies. Yes, in the medical business there are issues, but even there it works. It may take longer to get rid of bad claims, but the process still works. You seem willing to replace it with sources that are far worse. You appear to want the myths of the Bible to be true even though you know that they are not.

One simple question: What is your substitute for peer review?

If you would have taken the time to read the links you would have the answer to that question.

"Despite the many flaws within the peer review system, throwing it out completely probably wouldn’t be the best approach. At least, not until there are acceptable alternative methods that have been proven to work better. Instead, the focus should be put on improving what is already there and working to rid peer review of its flaws.

With that said, many improvements have already been suggested, and very few have shown any positive results. Neither blinding reviewers to limit biases nor training reviewers seemed to have any sort of improvement on the process.

However, there is one method that aims to improve the entire process as a whole. This approach would require that researchers post their work online before they submit it to journals. The idea behind this sort of open review is that it would allow for more eyes on the study in question and, thus, extra scrutiny even before undergoing traditional peer review. Furthermore, this method could potentially help reduce biased decisions as it would allow for anyone, regardless of their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., to comment on the research and add their criticisms.

It will no doubt end up being a long and arduous process in order to improve the peer review system, especially when so many attempts have already failed to show any promising results. Such an endeavor as improving a system as old as peer review will most likely require thinking outside the box. But, despite all of the time and effort that will be required, it will be more than worth it to have a better, and fairer, process for all involved."

 

[We Never Know]

No, oh my you have some serious projection issues. Peer review is not as flawed as you like to pretend that it is. You fall for clickbait titles as your last article was and flawed studies. Yes, in the medical business there are issues, but even there it works. It may take longer to get rid of bad claims, but the process still works. You seem willing to replace it with sources that are far worse. You appear to want the myths of the Bible to be true even though you know that they are not.

One simple question: What is your substitute for peer review?

And this one...

"So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you would have taken the time to read the links you would have the answer to that question.

"Despite the many flaws within the peer review system, throwing it out completely probably wouldn’t be the best approach. At least, not until there are acceptable alternative methods that have been proven to work better. Instead, the focus should be put on improving what is already there and working to rid peer review of its flaws.

With that said, many improvements have already been suggested, and very few have shown any positive results. Neither blinding reviewers to limit biases nor training reviewers seemed to have any sort of improvement on the process.

However, there is one method that aims to improve the entire process as a whole. This approach would require that researchers post their work online before they submit it to journals. The idea behind this sort of open review is that it would allow for more eyes on the study in question and, thus, extra scrutiny even before undergoing traditional peer review. Furthermore, this method could potentially help reduce biased decisions as it would allow for anyone, regardless of their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., to comment on the research and add their criticisms.

It will no doubt end up being a long and arduous process in order to improve the peer review system, especially when so many attempts have already failed to show any promising results. Such an endeavor as improving a system as old as peer review will most likely require thinking outside the box. But, despite all of the time and effort that will be required, it will be more than worth it to have a better, and fairer, process for all involved."

I read it. It was pretty much complaining about relatively minor issues and not offering any solution. Sexism will improve, It takes time. Fraudulent stories tend to appear tin the glamour press and they are not well respected already. The supposed problems were overblown. Mostly just complaints in an attempt to get an article out.

Meanwhile as usual when a question shows that you are wrong you dodged it.

 

[We Never Know]

I read it. It was pretty much complaining about relatively minor issues and not offering any solution. Sexism will improve, It takes time. Fraudulent stories tend to appear tin the glamour press and they are not well respected already. The supposed problems were overblown. Mostly just complaints in an attempt to get an article out.

Meanwhile as usual when a question shows that you are wrong you dodged it.

Both of my replies answered your question.
While its flawed there are not other alternatives at the moment.

 

[F1fan]

Nope if you would have took time to read it all you would know that.
Peer review used to be the golden standard. Now its the flawed standard. Here's another....

The two researchers, Douglas Peters and Stephen Ceci, wanted to test how reliable and unbiased this process actually is. To do this, they selected 12 papers that had been published about two to three years earlier in extremely selective American psychology journals.

The researchers then altered the names and university affiliations on the journal manuscripts and resubmitted the papers to the same journal. In theory, these papers should have been high quality — they'd already made it into these prestigious publications. If the process worked well, the studies that were published the first time would be approved for publication again the second time around.

What Peters and Ceci found was surprising. Nearly 90 percent of the peer reviewers who looked at the resubmitted articles recommended against publication this time. In many cases, they said the articles had "serious methodological flaws."

Let's stop pretending peer review works - Vox

Oh, so what you mean is there's a failure of the ethics in science. The example you gave was done because peer review works when done ethically.

What peer review does is other researchers perform independent tests on published experiments, and the results should be replicated in each new test. Ethics is highly important in science and it happens that some people break ethics rules. There are usually reasons for this. Some is money. Another is the lowering standard of ethics in society. Another is a growing contempt for science in the USA.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And this one...

"So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."

And that is a clearly false claim. The continued advances in the sciences that rely on peer review demonstrate this. You are constantly finding interesting science articles and publishing them. Guess what process that science went through? It was peer review. The only notable "science" that avoided peer review that I can think of was Cold Fusion. And why is that. Because nuclear physicists that understood how fusion and fission worked immediately saw the flaws of that claim. Fusion does not work as the chemists tried to claim. And of course there idea was put tthrough the peer review process where it died a relatively quiet death.

 

[ElishaElijah]

It's more an issue of me NOT believing what isn't rational.



The social science explain how people adopt the beliefs they are exposed to in their social experience. This is why there are so many religions that exist in geographical areas.

And there's nothing that suggests a God is doing anything for anyone. Look at 12 Step programs that rely heavily on religious attitudes, they often fail the addict. We see many children and innocent people in real need of a God intervening on their behalf, yet they are left to their fate. Plus given your attitudes that are rather indifferent to minorities I don't see God doing enough for your hardened heart. I'm not impressed by the work your God has done for you.


It's more likely you heard this from other believers and your ego found it really appealing, so you adopted these concepts. Of course you don't really know. But then I doubt you take Christianity all that seriously. If you did you'd be bending over backwards to follow the example and teachings of Jesus. I don't see you doing that.

Do you know anything about 12 Step programs, why they work or don’t work? I do
You’re guessing at where people are or aren’t spiritually because you haven’t had an encounter with God yet.
I met God by myself in a room when I had nowhere else to turn and at the bottom, that’s when He shows up.
Like Jesus said only the sick person needs a physician, I did and He is that great and merciful to meet me at my lowest point in life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Both of my replies answered your question.
While its flawed there are not other alternatives at the moment.

That was not a direct answer. And no one is claiming that it is not flawed.

I should not have to keep repeating this: Peer review is the minimum standard. People that reject peer review usually cannot even meet that low bar. That is one of the reasons that it works. If an idea cannot meet peer review then it is almost certainly false. If you want to show that peer review is not valid you would need to find a significant idea that was recently rejected by peer review.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you know anything about 12 Step programs, why they work or don’t work? I do
You’re guessing at where people are or aren’t spiritually because you haven’t had an encounter with God yet.
I met God by myself in a room when I had nowhere else to turn and at the bottom, that’s when He shows up.
Like Jesus said only the sick person needs a physician, I did and He is that great and merciful to meet me at my lowest point in life.

Yes, they quite often do not work because they require a belief in a god.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You are constantly accusing others of what you do. When it comes to confirmation bias that is all that you have. You cannot think of a reasonable and rational test for your beliefs.

Brother, look in the mirror, your go to is confirmation bias, I didn’t even know what that word was till you brought it up, seems to be your favorite.

 

[We Never Know]

And that is a clearly false claim. The continued advances in the sciences that rely on peer review demonstrate this. You are constantly finding interesting science articles and publishing them. Guess what process that science went through? It was peer review. The only notable "science" that avoided peer review that I can think of was Cold Fusion. And why is that. Because nuclear physicists that understood how fusion and fission worked immediately saw the flaws of that claim. Fusion does not work as the chemists tried to claim. And of course there idea was put tthrough the peer review process where it died a relatively quiet death.

You better get your paper submitted to "ncbi" and let them know they are wrong lol

 

[Subduction Zone]

Brother, look in the mirror, your go to is confirmation bias, I didn’t even know what that word was till you brought it up, seems to be your favorite.

And you still do not understand it or how to avoid it.

One more time: What reasonable test could show your beliefs to be false? If you do not have one then you are working on confirmation bias and not rational thought.