Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[TruthCalls]

Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve. Atheists do not believe in God. But not believing in something is not necessarily saying it absolutely doesn't exist. I do not believe there is a God, but I certainly can't say I KNOW there is no God. No one actually KNOWS whether there is or is not a God despite their claims to know. What they have is a BELIEF, not a knowledge.

Personally, I think most agnostics are atheists who are not quite ready to declare themselves non-believers publicly, or even privately, due to societal pressures. Being an atheist in some parts of the world is tantamount to inviting social/professional ostracism. In extreme cases, it's legally punishable as it's considered heresy.

Briefly, I am agnostic because there are things in the physical world that I struggle with as much as I do trying to comprehend the existence of a God. Virtually all of the evidence relevant to this discussion falls on the side of science and evolution, but I have questions and life experiences that create an element of doubt about me being here simply by chance.

 

[Bill Williams]

Briefly, I am agnostic because there are things in the physical world that I struggle with as much as I do trying to comprehend the existence of a God. Virtually all of the evidence relevant to this discussion falls on the side of science and evolution, but I have questions and life experiences that create an element of doubt about me being here simply by chance.

As Leonard Cohen wrote, don't worry about being broken, that's how the light gets in.

What amazes me reading this discussion is the number of people who need to misrepresent science thinking the misrepresention saves it from the ignorant, religious villagers storming the lab with torch and pitchfork.

The engine of science is not limited to skeptical, evidence-based inquiry, which is necessary but not sufficient.

Science is as much dependent on awe, wonder, curiosity and doubt as non-dogma-defined religion is. Defending the dogma of each always leads to unnecessary conflict. Indeed the critique of religion I've read here is always a repudiating of some instance of bone headed dogma that has been used by religion's patriarchy to (as Philip Roth observed) surveill and control. Of course all that needs to be rightly and roundly rejected.

Why can't scientists and religonists just lie in the grass at night, observe the stars and both keep their big yaps shut?

That's how the light gets in.

 

[acbytesla]

I respectively disagree. You claim I have it wrong and then repeat exactly what I said.

Put simply, an atheist does not believe in the existence of any gods. Period. No ambiguity. An agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves. An agnostic accepts the possibility but believes it not possible to prove either way.

I was born and raised a Catholic but I consider myself agnostic. I firmly believe I am here through millions of years of evolution and when I pass that is it. However, I accept the possibility of a God and therefore try to live my life in a way which I believe God (as I was taught as a child) would want.

This is why I hate the term Agnostic. Allow me to break this down. This comes from the ancient Greek. Gnosticism which means having knowledge of or knowing. Agnostic simply means Not having knowledge of.
One can identify to be:
1. gnostic theist. (One who knows there is a God.)
2. agnostic theist (You believe in God but you don't know)
3. agnostic atheist (You don't believe in a God, but you don't know)
4. gnostic atheist (You don't believe in a God and you know it)


I would describe most atheists as agnostic atheists. This is how I would describe myself if I used the word agnostic atheist. I don't know there isn't a god I just reject the claims of there being a God without evidence and a coherent argument. I see the word agnostic to be a a bit of a misnomer. Usually it's atheiests who just don't want use the word atheist. Atheism has been vilified since it poses a threat to religion.

 

[Desert Fox]

There is another thread you may be interested in based on your recent discussion
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=306054&page=19

 

[Bill Williams]

There is another thread you may be interested in based on your recent discussion
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=306054&page=19

Truly, though, what is there to talk about any more in THIS thread. AK and RS are innocent, are out of legal harms' way, innocentisti were right, guilters were wrong.

The subtext of this thread since April 2015 (Vixen's arrival) has NOT been about this case. It's been about Vixen's treatment of sources.

It's been about Vixen's selection of sources to make an argument, and then a constant stream of misquoting, or pointing to supposed "proofs" which simply are not there.

This thread, in the main, has NOT been about guilt or innocence of RS and AK, or even about the tortured court process in Italy. Not for a year, anyway.

We've been treated to dictionary-definition wars, disputes over the literary merits of True Crime writing, dreaded "gotcha" moments as well as good old fashioned catfishing.

So why not discuss the merits of religion? Where I agree with those arguing a hard evidence-based analysis, is that much of the PGP musing here and elsewhere actually DO resemble the fixed-dogma of unselfreflective religion. Especially that kind of religion that has no built-in crap-detector about what it says or means by implication.

So the merits of religion, per se, are relevant to this thread, given that the court process on the big issues is now 14 months closed, and the peripheral satellite-predatory prosecutions (SLAPP) are nearly all being decided in the manner innocentisti predicted they would be - with the ECHR stuff pending.

 

[acbytesla]

Truly, though, what is there to talk about any more in THIS thread. AK and RS are innocent, are out of legal harms' way, innocentisti were right, guilters were wrong.

The subtext of this thread since April 2015 (Vixen's arrival) has NOT been about this case. It's been about Vixen's treatment of sources.

It's been about Vixen's selection of sources to make an argument, and then a constant stream of misquoting, or pointing to supposed "proofs" which simply are not there.

This thread, in the main, has NOT been about guilt or innocence of RS and AK, or even about the tortured court process in Italy. Not for a year, anyway.

We've been treated to dictionary-definition wars, disputes over the literary merits of True Crime writing, dreaded "gotcha" moments as well as good old fashioned catfishing.

So why not discuss the merits of religion? Where I agree with those arguing a hard evidence-based analysis, is that much of the PGP musing here and elsewhere actually DO resemble the fixed-dogma of unselfreflective religion. Especially that kind of religion that has no built-in crap-detector about what it says or means by implication.

So the merits of religion, per se, are relevant to this thread, given that the court process on the big issues is now 14 months closed, and the peripheral satellite-predatory prosecutions (SLAPP) are nearly all being decided in the manner innocentisti predicted they would be - with the ECHR stuff pending.

I kind of feel guilty having brought up theistic thinking or arguing in comparison to the way that V argues the guilt of Knox and Sollecito. It certainly does spin the discussion off. Nevertheless as your post accurately describes we don't really discuss the merits of the case with V. We spend almost all our time chasing our tails to V's amusement. So why not discuss how we think about these arguments? Epistemology is also almost as important as the knowledge itself.

 

[Vixen]

I think Vixen's contributions have been educational. In the UK there are strict rules on reporting crimes and trials to avoid prejudicing the trial. Vixen shows the importance of this. Vixen's evidence of guilt is very much influenced by early reports in the press, stories such as bleach receipts. Reports that Vixen feels are more valid than the testimony given in court. The report of the testing for menstrual blood is from an imagined conversation in darkness descending, not from testimony in court. The mixed blood meme and 'clear EPG' means blood memes are likewise from darkness descending, at least partly from imagined conversations. In contrast the actual testimony given by Steffanoni says the opposite. Steffanoni is explicitly clear, the source of the DNA cannot be known.

The message I take is that 'sub juice' rules are important for justice.

When did you start thinking Stefanoni's comments about menstrual blood were "imaginary"?

Don't tell me, the three co-authors of the book are all in on the conspiracy to frame the kids.

If the defense attorneys failed to bring up the topic in court, take it up with them. A witness can only answer questions he or she is asked.

 

[Vixen]

Corrected for you. These would be the experts who admitted no familiarity with the anatomy of feet in court? Who were not aware that prints should be taken static and walking? That did not seem to be aware that feet change size during the day. That only examined photographs not the original mat? That they do not document how they obtained measures of a fraction of a millimetre from a non orthogonal photograph.

As a statistically competent person what does highly mean? Should the 'experts' have been able to give some guidance? Should their be SEM for their measurements?

FWIW, the measurements by the 'experts' are clearly fixed. The interpretation is clearly false.

Fingerprint analysts don't see the actual fingerprint either, just the imprint. Boemia (_sp?) IIRC was introduced as having analysed literally tens of thousands of foot imprints.

Do let him and Rinaldi know about how feet spread out according to tread. After all the Italians are so backward, one wonders how they coped without your input.

 

[LondonJohn]

I kind of feel guilty having brought up theistic thinking or arguing in comparison to the way that V argues the guilt of Knox and Sollecito. It certainly does spin the discussion off. Nevertheless as your post accurately describes we don't really discuss the merits of the case with V. We spend almost all our time chasing our tails to V's amusement. So why not discuss how we think about these arguments? Epistemology is also almost as important as the knowledge itself.

I think it's a valid and relevant subject to bring up and discuss - so long as the thread doesn't morph into an in-depth discussion on theism and religious faith systems!

And to expand upon the theme of there being nothing really left to discuss about the Knox/Sollecito case itself, I'd disagree. Of course the heart of the matter is resolved, but there's still an interesting debate to be had about the legal/judicial rulings and ramifications. And there's also Knox's criminal slander conviction and the application to the ECHR. In addition, there are the ongoing (but withering on the vine) satellite trials, and it will also be worth following any accountability/disciplinary processes within the Italian police and judicial communities.

On top of all that, there's the possibility that Guede - the one person who definitely knows what happened - will talk about things when he gets released, although I remain highly confident that he will never tell the truth and continue to seek to (falsely) minimise his role in the murder and make insinuations about Knox, Sollecito and/or others.

 

[Vixen]

"Article 3 – Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." ECHR


You simply never learn, do you? Making claims that are so easily refuted with facts supported by quotes and citations doesn't work with anyone with a knowledge of this case. Your tactics might work on Twitter with the less informed, but not on us. They are as unsuccessful and dishonest as photoshopped images of Amanda claiming she's "in a cruelty to dogs row" and that she "abandons rescue dog with 'cut paws'".

It's a pity Mez' attackers didn't apply the same principles to Mez.

 

[acbytesla]

It's a pity Mez' attacker (singular) didn't apply the same principles to Mez.

FIFY

 

[Vixen]

You are so funny. Have you ever thought of doing stand up? Of course being a believer in any of the Monotheistic gods usually necessitates the rejection of other Gods. Not saying you are faithful to your own religion. But most adherents would.

No, contrary to your wild and absurd remarks, Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted because the evidence of their guilt was a combination of non-existant, corrupt and absurd.

Stand up?

Raff walks into a restaurant and orders.

"And what would Sir like to drink?"

"Chateau knives du Pape, please."

"You mean Chateauneuf du Papes?"

"You heard."

---

Father Christmas is out delivering presents in the deepest, whitest, driven snow (although who knows who drove it there?), when he trips over a mound of reindeer dung and gets muck all over his bright red costume.

"Who's responsible for this?" he barks, asking his reindeer one by one.

"Not me," says Donner.

"Nor I," says Blitzen.

Then Santa comes to Dalla Vedova (for it is he). Dalla Vedova shuffles his feet, coughs, blushes to his roots and says...







"Rudy did it."


-----


Knock, knock

"Who's there?"

"Amanda, who?"

"Amanda knocks."

______



Raff is throwing a party this weekend. Bring your own knives.

------

What is Raff's favourite fruit?

Manga.

-------


What do you call an FOA professional rock climber?

A window shill.

_____


Amanda is throwing a party this weekend. Bring your own rocks.

____


Papa Raff: What would you like for Christmas, son?"

Raff: " A knife".

Papa: I gave you a knife last Christmas and looka ata whata happens, eh? What's the madda wit' you, hey? Gotta no respect.

Raff: It's all your fault Papa! If you'd let me have those Marilyn Manson tickets when I asked you for them, I wouldn't have ended up at that poxy classical music concert and met that ...<sfx O Sole Mio>

__

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, you have been a great audience <fx dodges rotten fruit and hooligan heckling from the back.

 

[Vixen]

The authenticity of the Testimonium is highly suspect and is considered by religious scholars to certainly be both authentic and later Christian interpolation. But I still assert even if you could prove JC lived and was crucified it still wouldn't prove that he was a deity.

LMAO Yeah but there was nothing on that page that verified your post.

Now you're making the Pee wee Herman argument.

Mornington Crescent! I win.

 

[Vixen]

Here is an article posted on I *********** Love Science that sums up a study on what religious thinking does to the brain: Here's What Belief In A Religion Does To Your Brain.

Their research found that those with religious or spiritual beliefs appeared to suppress the brain network used for analytical thinking in order to engage the network for empathetic thinking. Equally, those who were non-religious showed they suppressed their empathetic thinking for analytical thinking.​

To hold religious beliefs, you need faith to allow you to believe the stories that you tell yourself, and the stories that are told inside your group. Faith-based beliefs can be held in the absence of evidence, and in the face of contradictory evidence. To my mind, a couple of the faith stories the PGP tell themselves are:

• The whole all-powerful PR machine story based on the hiring of Gogarty Mariott.
  • Big crazy story based on one small grain of truth.
  • Very handy. Allows one to ignore well-formed evidence-based arguments by experts in their fields just by saying "PR shill" or "Paid liar!"
• The multiple attackers story, enshrined in the results of Rudy Guede's trial process.
  • @ttmon, April 10 2016: <snip>The 'judicial truth' established in Rudy Guede's trial process destroyed Knox and Sollecito's right to a fair trial process'. <snip with link to a video showing prosecutor Mignini>
  • From @soletrader4u, April 11 2016: @tttmon Are you saying that 'judicial truth' is not the real truth, or do you just believe what you want to? #amandaknox
• She was there, lied, covered for Guede & washed Mez's blood from her hands @jack4mk on March 25 2016 and about a million other times.
  • The acquittal becomes a guilty verdict in disguise.

It's not just believing things that have no basis in evidence that I find strange, its believing them utterly and without doubt. IMO people who don't hold strong religious beliefs are free to embrace and explore their doubts, while people of faith are chained to a set of beliefs and get in the habit of squashing any niggling doubt by making up stories to fill in gaps and cover up inconsistencies. Some of the stories in the motivations reports are quite bizarre to those unused to habitually stretching their credulity to accommodate unlikely stories. Like the kitchen knife in the purse story. Or the selective cleaning of incriminating evidence to show why there is no evidence story. Especially the murder for poop story.

Bruno and Marasca criticize Nencini for filling in evidentiary gaps with speculations:

It is, surely, undeniable the interpretative effort displayed by the fact finding judge in order to remedy the unbridgeable investigative gaps and the significant shortfalls of evidence with shrewd speculations and suggestive logical arguments, even if merely assertive and apodictic [dogmatic].Marasca Bruno Motivations (p. 45)​

The point here is, I believe, that wherever one wishes to adopt an empathetic style of thinking rather than an analytical one, that style of reasoning should not be employed in the investigative and judicial process.

Faith is believing what you know ain't so. ~ Mark Twain - Following the Equator, Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar​

ETA: To be honest, I don't think anyone on either side believes the murder for poop story.

Apart from those who go into the priesthood, get ordained, or go sit under a holy tree to mediate on their navel, for most people, religious belief is an acknowledgement of their culture. Their identify, if you like. My Jewish friends call themselves Jewish and and my Muslim friends identify strongly with Muslim culture, even though one of them, a brilliant, talented barrister at a leading Lincolns Inn chambers, is a an avowed atheist and adores Christopher Hitchen's mocking views of Christianity and Islam.

My Jewish acquaintances, also mostly atheist, are forever pointing out they are Jewish.

So, yeah, you need to separate the social from the spiritual.

It is ridiculous to aliken those able to see the pair are probably guilty as fundamentalist bigots.

 

[Vixen]

Briefly, I am agnostic because there are things in the physical world that I struggle with as much as I do trying to comprehend the existence of a God. Virtually all of the evidence relevant to this discussion falls on the side of science and evolution, but I have questions and life experiences that create an element of doubt about me being here simply by chance.

That's exactly it. No-one can know for sure. How much is inculcation, a product of social moraes, and how much is Truth?

IMV Ecclesiastes 7:1 sums up the whole religious dilemma in one.

 

[Vixen]

This is why I hate the term Agnostic. Allow me to break this down. This comes from the ancient Greek. Gnosticism which means having knowledge of or knowing. Agnostic simply means Not having knowledge of.
One can identify to be:
1. gnostic theist. (One who knows there is a God.)
2. agnostic theist (You believe in God but you don't know)
3. agnostic atheist (You don't believe in a God, but you don't know)
4. gnostic atheist (You don't believe in a God and you know it)


I would describe most atheists as agnostic atheists. This is how I would describe myself if I used the word agnostic atheist. I don't know there isn't a god I just reject the claims of there being a God without evidence and a coherent argument. I see the word agnostic to be a a bit of a misnomer. Usually it's atheiests who just don't want use the word atheist. Atheism has been vilified since it poses a threat to religion.

In the past it was associated with the world's heathen masses. These days, it is more closely associated with the well-educated.

'Agnostic atheist' doesn't make sense. It's like calling yourself a Republican Democrat. I dunno, a 'floating voter'? Someone who sits on the fence?

Let your yeah be yeah and your no be no. You secretly strongly suspect the kids are guilty but are too afraid of social opprobrium to come out and say so. Come out, acbytesla!

"The truth will set you free."

 

[acbytesla]

In the past it was associated with the world's heathen masses. These days, it is more closely associated with the well-educated.

'Agnostic atheist' doesn't make sense. It's like calling yourself a Republican Democrat. I dunno, a 'floating voter'? Someone who sits on the fence?

Let your yeah be yeah and your no be no. You secretly strongly suspect the kids are guilty but are too afraid of social opprobrium to come out and say so. Come out, acbytesla!

"The truth will set you free."

LMAO. The way you think almost always make me laugh. Thanks V.

I said I DON'T like the word Agnostic since it results in confusion. The word "agnostic" was coined only recently by Huxley. Huxley just added "a" prefix to this ancient Greek term.

As for the guilt or innocence of Knox and Sollecito, I don't understand why I would be "afraid" to come to the guilt conclusion. You do understand that the only person I've interacted with i person on the innocence side is Judge Heavey and that a 5 minute conversation about 4 years ago? There is no carrot or stick effecting my views on this case. If there was evidence with a coherent argument I would absolutely change my mind. I would happily put the nooses around their necks. I have no problem with Capital Punishment if we can 100 percent be sure that the defendant was guilty of murder. It is only the impossibility of that task that makes me opposed to CP

I have also attempted to argue that they were guilty and came to the conclusion that the arguments are absurdly weak and extremely difficult to make. I will say this on your side. It is easier to argue that Knox and Sollecito are guilty than it is that there was or is a creator.

 

[Stacyhs]

You claim the majority of agnostics are really atheists but too scared to say so because of fear of retribution. As we live in a largely secular society, I am doubtful of this. You seem to be saying that 'the majority believe XYZ, therefore XYZ is true.'

Another example of your not stating facts. I did not "claim" any such thing. I said "Personally, I think..." That is a personal opinion and stated as such. I was also speaking from a view as an American where religion, especially in the South, plays a huge part in people's daily lives. There have been several state governments ordered to remove the Ten Commandments from government buildings by federal courts. Your claims that "we live in a largely secular society" may be the case in the UK and western Europe, but that is certainly not the case in large parts of the world such as the Middle East. Just last month, Nazimuddin Samad, a secular blogger was hacked to death Bangladesh. Several other secular bloggers were also hacked to death there in the last few years.

 

[Stacyhs]

I agree with your entire post except the interchanging of God and a Purple Unicorn. A Purple Unicorn, if it exists, is a physical creature that one should be able to see, touch, etc., and therefore to say it is not possible to prove would be incorrect. However, a God does not exist in a physical state. You can not see, touch, etc. a God. It is therefore not possible to ever prove it's existence.

That depends on the religion. Mormons believe God has a physical body.

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's... "

Joseph Smith
Mormonism founder
D&C 130:22

"Latter-day Saints believe that the physical human body was created by God in his express image"
Author: Van De Graaf, Kent M.
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Physical_Body

 

[acbytesla]

That depends on the religion. Mormons believe God has a physical body.

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's... "
Joseph Smith
Mormonism founder
D&C 130:22

"Latter-day Saints believe that the physical human body was created by God in his express image"
Author: Van De Graaf, Kent M.
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Physical_Body

Does he still and can we verify that?