Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: where the moss is taking over the villages
2,184 posts, read 5,554,169 times
Reputation: 1270
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Do I detect insults now?...
Mmmm... It just sounds like a "secret" we'd have to beg for OR fake membership to hear about it...
Maybe it's "speaking in tongues"... If you've never been to a place to observe that... It's a worthwhile "experience" to behold.
On topic.... The only proof of creation I can think of is "faith based" & that in & of itself has a disclaimer of no proof... Right?
If creation comes from unseen divine sources: cool! I can dig that but it's really speculation & wishful thinking... I succumb to it in certain, non-subscribing ways...
They hear everyone else talking about it, and they want it to be true so badly, that they just pretend to feel the "power of the Lord" - in exactly the same way as everyone else around them does. But it's all make believe. They don't really feel anything.
For example, in a church where people speak in tongues, everyone will swear they are filled with the holy spirit and are speaking in tongues. But right down the block, not one person will speak in tongues. Is God's voice to you audible? Depends on which church you go to, etc.
I only know this because I used to be one of those people that lied to myself and others and pretended to feel a supernatural presence inside me. None of it was true. Mother Theresa had the same issue - she wouldn't admit it publicly, but privately she never felt the "presence of the lord".
It's all a lie they keep telling each other. But don't expect most Christians to admit that. No one wants to admit that they don't see the emperors new cloths.
I think there is an element of that in organized religion, perhaps in some denominations more than others. But, as you report about Mother Theresa, you don't need to have peak experiences to live the way Jesus Christ taught us to live. Why, even, er, um, dare I say it, an atheist could love and serve others, and many probably do...
Much like I choose to limit myself to believing that gravity works. It's such a self-defeating choice. If only I believed hard enough, I could fly
Those who believe in God also believe that gravity works because they have experienced it. Probably not much more than 150 years ago scientists would have declared that it is impossible for man to fly as we do today. I think they still say it's impossible for a bumblebee to fly. Science is of great value, but it's often wrong, as history proves.
What results? How would you go about applying the scientific method and using cutting edge manufactured tools to prove the existence of God?
Wrong method, wrong tools...
(Ok, I'm most likely getting quite obnoxious, but the right moment just keeps on arriving...)
More deflection...(Common among theists) The topic is prove creation, not god. You can do neither, whatever tools you choose to use. Personal opinion and your esoteric experiences are not proof except to and in your own mind.
We're in good company then, because in your attempt to validate your particular position about god, you fail in my opinion to give enough credit to billions of intelligent people over the ages who believed differently.
Am I misinterpreting your statement or are you laying down a numbers card to support your belief that God does not exist?
Yes, billions of people have their own cultural name for and understanding of God, but those billions do believe that there is a Supreme Creator/God of some description.
I might be able to dig out the references but as I recall, polls show that 93% of Americans have a Bible in their home and I think only about 15% of Americans do not belong to an organized religious denomination.
Although it is threatened today by powerful elitists, America was founded on Judeo Christian principles. I think it likely that most Americans continue today to love and honor Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice for all mankind.
How many atheists do you think live in America today?
This is intended as irony, right? The modern scientific method has been around longer than your religion.
Oops, I'm going to have to call you on that one. Perhaps someone reading would be kind enough to give us a date when the "modern scientific method" is likely to have originated. (I'm really not against science, don't know why some people keep thinking they've got the corner on science.)
"Your religion" has been around since Adam and Eve and even back into our premortal existence, perhaps a few aeons. But I suppose it's possible that God taught Adam and Eve the "modern scientific method" so they could rely on their own human skills instead of on Him??
Sorry, couldn't resist, guess I'd better get some breakfast into me...
You should really avoid trying to get any information from Faux News. It's just going to make you look foolish to people who have any knowledge on the subject.
Your political colors are showing KC, but I'm not surprised. And I did provide links to other sources, even Science Magazine. As I understood the initial report about Ardi she was likely going to split the theory of evolution into three lines of descent instead of two?? (No need to correct me if I'm wrong, the theory of evolution is just not important to me, though I acknowledge that for many Christians it is, possibly because their church leaders have told them it should be.)
Last edited by justamere10; 10-02-2009 at 09:45 AM..
I don't know either. But he's the doc and he seems to think he's on to something.
I'm sorry but that's just not acceptable. You support your position with a source who is not an authority on the topic and whose argument neither of us understand?
If that's how you roll, I'll simply mention Richard Dawkins, famous biologist, who believes his field of work provided him with plenty of evidence contradicting creation and was capable of actually explaining his arguments. Bam, instant win!
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamere10
How would you suggest that the scientific method be used to prove the Garden of Eden for example?
You'd have to refine your hypothesis a bit before an experiment is possible. Where was that Garden of Eden located? How long since it was destroyed? What do we know of the kind of wildlife that lived there? Then we can go look for geological or fossil evidence.
If, despite our effort, we are unable to figure out anything we could look for that might prove or disprove the Garden of Eden, then that hypothesis is beyond empirical testing and thus non-scientific. At this point, it would be irrational for anyone to believe in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamere10
I'm wondering why you are throwing away personal experiences as a method of discovery. Isn't every discovery known to science a matter of someone having a personal experience of some sort with something?
Some, maybe, particularly in the early days of semi-science. But the important thing for science is that an experiment can be replicated by anyone (with the proper equipment) and give predictable results.
What if Einstein had said "relativity is true because I made an awesome experiment that proved it beyond all doubts, but it could only happen once and didn't leave any mark"? His hypothesis would have remained a hypothesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamere10
If science had already detected everything there is to know I might agree with you that "it illogical to believe in claims which are undetectable by empirical means." But then there'd be no further need for science or scientists...
It is illogical to believe in claims which are currently undetectable by empirical means. That doesn't mean all those claims are false. Back to the "I believe it doesn't exist / I don't believe it exists" distinction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamere10
It seems reasonable, though not absolute, that if a billion intelligent people say they believe God exists because of personal experiences with Him, and a few thousand say He does not exist because their manufactured tools have failed to detect Him, I'd give those billions more credit than atheists commonly do on discussion boards.
Seems the logical thing to do in my opinion...
Except there are alternate explanations for why people believe this - superior explanations, because they do not invoke the need for a being who contradicts other scientific theories and laws.
Oh, and cue thousands of examples of wildly-popular-but-false beliefs throughout history and in modern times (including a number of other religions...).
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamere10
Is history science? Isn't almost everything we learn, especially about science discoveries "based on somebody's say so"? Unless you were one of the few people involved with the experiment, you are demonstrating faith that they and their peers actually got it right, had reliable tools, and reached valid conclusions; that the person/s reporting the discovery did it accurately, that it was translated correctly if need be, published accurately, and that you interpreted the report correctly.
Did anybody claim that science is never wrong? Of course not. If you're arguing against that, you're arguing against a giant strawman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamere10
Seems a bit like exploring the er Bible...
Not to me. Exploring the Bible does not involve repeatable experiments at all, let alone peer-review and the rest of the scientific method.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamere10
Science is ever changing, each discovery subject to the next discovery. With a history of centuries of change and I suppose thousands of theories being debunked, I don't think that I could ever bring myself to have enough faith in such a system as to risk my eternal well-being on it, even if I wasn't positive that there is life after death. (Which I am.)
Anything you believe in could be wrong. Your religious beliefs do not have a special immunity to that risk - rather the opposite, many would say. Science, however, uses a method to greatly reduce that risk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamere10
Seems to me that you'd view even a genuine spiritual experience as a "hallucination" or "delusion."
It's true that "hallucination" could be the most reasonable explanation for a number of possible experiences, though not for all. If I saw an elephant flying through the wall, I would guess "hallucination". If that elephant left an elephant-shaped shadow that can't be explained any other way, occurred again every day at the same hour, and was visible to other (reliable) witnesses, the "hallucination" hypothesis would loose credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamere10
(Assuming that those words are not just meaningless labels and it's possible for science to prove that such an experience originates in the brain and is not just translated there into data we can conciously become aware of.)
Now you're thinking like a scientist! That kind of question would indeed have to be taken into account if we could do any "religious" experimentation, and would be an interesting area of research for psychologists and neurologists.
Last edited by Roxolan; 10-02-2009 at 09:30 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That kind of question would indeed have to be taken into account if we could do any "religious" experimentation, and would be an interesting area of research for psychologists and neurologists.
