science and religion (atheists, about, different, against)
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.
I think it's sensible for you to reserve judgement and not have a strong opinion on this either way.
There is plenty of evidence, as I said, but devout atheists can always find convoluted ways to explain it away.
But I have no problem with people being scientific and skeptical agnostics. I am kind of agnostic myself. However, I am aware of some of the extensive evidence from near death experiences, out of body experiences, parapsychology, nearly universal human experiences, and my own personal experiences. So I don't really have the kind of doubts I used to have.
However, I am skeptical about most specific claims that people make on spiritual subjects. I don't think we are capable of knowing very much about higher levels.
So, let me get this straight. You're skeptical (your word choice) about claims that people make on spiritual subjects...but you are "aware of some of the extensive evidence from near death experiences, out of body experiences, parapsychology...and my own personal experiences".
So, let me get this straight. You're skeptical (your word choice) about claims that people make on spiritual subjects...but you are "aware of some of the extensive evidence from near death experiences, out of body experiences, parapsychology...and my own personal experiences".
That makes a lot of sense.
I don't understand what you are twisting my statements into.
They don't say science is "all-knowing." They say it is "self-correcting." And they say there is nothing preventing from answering all questions eventually.
So same difference, different words.
No, it's not the same difference with different words... and you just keep digging a deeper hole for yourself, the more you expound about science with half-truths and twisted words.
"Self-correcting" does not mean all-knowing, or anything so self-congratulatory (perhaps the use of "self" threw you off?). Quite the opposite: it's an admission we never know it all, and need to stay open to new information. Self-correcting refers to the fact that science is all about finding the truth, as confirmed by verifiable, reproducible results. It means that nothing is ever so cast in stone that it can't be improved upon, if new evidence comes along to refine our understanding. While it appears to make you and other posters uncomfortable, this is actually an advantage, because it moves us ever closer toward that ultimate truth.
Let me give you a real life, concrete example: For many years, we understood that gastric and duodenal ulcers were caused by stress and too much acid, and exacerbated by spicy foods. So treatment focused on suppressing stomach acid, bland diet, reducing stress, and so on. This helped some people, but was not a "cure." The knowledge base wasn't completely wrong, but was incomplete. In the early 1980s (I watched this play out firsthand), a serendipitous observation in a sample from one patient led to the discovery (supported by many more observations by many more scientists.... we call that "evidence") that ulcers are actually caused by a bacterium, Helicobacter pylori. Ulcers are a common infection... who knew!? This new knowledge revolutionized treatment, because bacterial infections can be readily treated by antibiotics (we know this from long experience and other lines of evidence.... thanks, science!). It also turns out that these bacteria play a role in stomach cancer, so now we have a better handle on a particularly nasty form of the multiple diseases to which you keep referring.
Thus, science "corrected itself" by incorporating new evidence and updating our knowledge base. And now people who suffer from ulcers, and hospitals that treat them, and any of us who pay for healthcare insurance, are better off because of it. See how that works?
Last edited by HeelaMonster; 10-31-2018 at 06:50 PM..
Perhaps Good4Nothin can provide the names of some...any...scientists or even any lay people who have ever stated that science does or might any time soon, have all the answers
MPD stated in a post, and even gave the year on the calendar it occurred, when the last time it was that there was a person who knew everything.
They don't say science is "all-knowing." They say it is "self-correcting." And they say there is nothing preventing from answering all questions eventually.
So same difference, different words.
Heela addressed the rest of your points rather well, so I will address the bolder portion.
I don’t think there is anybody who believes that science will answer all questions. If nothing else, the Big Bang seems to be an event beyond which we cannot explore. It also seems that the speed of light is a hard limit, so our exploration of the universe is similarly limited because we cannot get to most of it.
This doesn’t imply that your supernatural claims have any validity. I am simply pointing out that you are creating a strawman to argue against.
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.
