Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-16-2019, 07:31 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,083 posts, read 20,582,163 times
Reputation: 5927

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
Of course, because everything you say about theism always sounds completely normal and sane.
Thank you Ozzy. I would like to say the same about your posts. Unfortunately I can't. At least - not insane, but irrational.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
Yeah, that's precisely what I meant by the number of hoaxers. It makes picking out the genuine phenomena impossible. That holds true with UFO videos, ghost pictures, and whatever else someone wishes to investigate.

My issue is that skeptics are just as quick to dismiss it all as nothing but hoaxers as the UFO nuts are to assume every circle was made by aliens.

I prefer a middle ground.

I've seen way too many skeptics and authority figures do as much mental contortion exercises to explain away any possible alien cause as I've seen believers explain away the things it says in the Bible. Which is exactly why I began noticing the bad logic of some skeptics - it was identical to the way fundamentalists argue their case.

It's not that I think with any conviction that crop circles have anything to do with aliens - but I'm not at all willing to, as I said, throw the baby out with the bath water by proclaiming the entire phenomenon a big hoax and art display and pretend there's nothing at all to this.

Trouble is - there is a copy-cat effect to both fake *and* genuine circles.

One of the worst taints to genuine investigation is, like always, money. There are people out there who make a living on debunking every claim they hear - and if they didn't, they would soon go broke. Nothing but nothing can be true, genuine, or honest lest they lose money in book sales; more people would be willing not to buy into the skeptical point of view. They have a vested economic interest to get as many people as possible - not to be skeptical - but to literally disbelieve 100% with no questions asked.

I have seen some of the worst logic I've ever seen used come from the mouths of skeptics in regards to the alien phenomenon - which doesn't mean aliens really are visiting here and leaving circles - but if you dismiss the bad logic of these people, it means we still have an effect without a cause - i.e. something unexplained.

And since the stigma of even taking the phenomenon seriously has kept the scientific community rather far away, there is likely never to be any serious push to get to the bottom of this. And while we spend loads of money in projects like SETI and send up hundreds of billions of dollars in probes designed to look for earth-like worlds in the hopes of finding alien life, we're still silly enough to exclaim, "But they aren't coming here ... at all!"

I think there is just as much psychology involved here as there is science - because as long as we find the aliens way out "there" somewhere hundreds of light years away, people can feel comfortable and at ease. But if they're here ... now ... uh oh! And people get panicky.


This really ought not to become a UFO thread, Shirina, and yet i feel that it is important because the apologetics in Ufology and Creationism (for example) are the same. Science skepticism is a basic -together with a clear admiration of the reputation of science and a longing that it would endorse their beliefs.

Now I agree with you that many skeptics have not done too well in Explaining away the evidence. A C Clarke with his crisp -packet theory, Patrick Moore with his airy dismissal and Philip Glass with Explanations that were more far -fetched than a real flying saucer. Yet there was so much wrong with the 'proof' used for UFOs. Anedotal evidence, 'Why would they lie?', evidence of fakery, denial of alternative explanations, and textual evidence of a concocted story (1). Claims that can't be checked and investigations that are flawed in methodology.

One example of this was the 'African children' sighting where an investigator got the children to describe and draw what was seen. One can see that they varied wildly and she selected the one or two that looked best. Unfortunately for her, the other alien 'faces' were published showing complete difference.

The three biggest 'biggies' (Socorro, Villas Boas and the Hills) have all been explained. There may be a phenomonon. There may even be real Alien -piloted spacecraft. It would be great. I don't 'Not want it to be true'. But the evidence is now less good than it was fifteen years ago. And that includes crop -circles. They have been explained and even disproved. But people prefer to go into denial and believe. Don't do it to yourself. Like God, Flying saucers don't become untrue simply because the evidence for them is not good enough and worse than it even used to be.

In case you might see me as a hard -case skeptic, let me share with you a secret that only one other person knows...so don't tell anybody else, right? I have always been convinced of the moon landings - and still I am (lasers measuring moon -distance are still reflecting of reflectors left there), but I can been given rather persuasive evidence that First 'landing' was not real. It isn't the usual arguments which were all superbly debunked in the 'Mythbusters' episode (better than NASA did it). Shall I give you a hint? Witness statement.

If I can find it an interview which if you listen, sounds like someone trying to imagine what it's like on the Moon when he's never been there. In space, yes, round the Moon, quite likely. On the moon...I wonder. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIPn_iuLPA4

(1) what I think of as the 'Flashman' syndrome. You can tell an invented story when what was said at the outset changes later on. It's a slip writers do when the character Knows something they couldn't have known - but the writer did.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-16-2019 at 07:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-16-2019, 08:35 AM
 
Location: Southwestern, USA, now.
21,020 posts, read 19,291,518 times
Reputation: 23659
It's ok if this veers to UFO's because they are also hard to prove.
Yet, you have 'sane' pilots that know what they saw. Even if they snapped a picture
there would be doubt, as you know.
A few years ago on the Discovery Channel while eating, my fork stopped in mid air, I was stunned,
as they re-enacted what a policeman reported seeing...it was the exact thing that I saw once...
but I mean exact. (And I could care less if anyone believes me, I have nothing to 'prove'...it was maybe
15 feet over my 2 story home in Central NY, in the country one summer..and 'WOW"!
It took it's sweet time to head East over fields.


And here I am saying over and over, any one can see, let's say, 'spiritual things', not meant to be in this 3rd Dimension...
but they drop through or in, anyway...it's a tweaking of the senses, or rather, a tuning or focusing
to be able to feel, see, hear, sense what others can't or
don't believe you/we are able to experience.

But, how could these things be proved? Even when a couple of people at the same time
see the same thing (UFO or an angel) no one believes them. (Usually their friends kinda do cuz they can see and feel the change in them!!!)

We are part of a little group that is made fun of now... yay...lots o' fun. Similar to the early NDErs.
We know there are 'other things' beyond this place going on.

TRANS , I know you don't make fun of us....and thanks.
And I will repeat, I think seeing is believing ...and people that have sweet, precious feelings of
upliftment and a swelling of love in their hearts hearing beautiful sermons...are great.
But, there is more that can be actually seeeeen...if they would be still and go within ...for years
and for hours...
way more then a gush of joy in church...that is later
pushed on others that they will go to (((hell))) if they don't believe what you do.


End of morning rant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2019, 01:09 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,083 posts, read 20,582,163 times
Reputation: 5927
The real point is not whether a thing did or did not happen (or rather the person is sure of what happened) but what cause it?

I don't deny the UFO phenomenon, or what airline pilots see. Indeed their testimony was considered the strongest UFO evidence.
But nobody knows what it is that they saw? When we can understand and test and explain it - then we'll be getting somewhere.

The similarity with religious apologists is in thinking is that 'unexplained' is never the answer. 'Believe (in Flying Saucers) or not, are supposedly the only options. They are not. 'Don't know' and 'Unexplained' are perfectly good ones. But committed belief (like with the evidence of NDEs) does not think that way.

Ps "(1) what I think of as the 'Flashman' syndrome. You can tell an invented story when what was said at the outset changes later on. It's a slip writers do when the character Knows something they couldn't have known - but the writer did."

I ought to explain this. It is something I noted when updating (correcting perhaps) the Judge Dee stories that i have loved since boyhood. Because the plot and clues don't work so (for my own reading enjoyment) I hod to devise a plot that did work. For example, the short story 'murder at the fort' (renamed by me "A matter of red tape" - I'm a real cavalier), the clue of docket numbers doesn't really work I had to devise a system that did. I noticed this in the 'Flashman' books where Lord Cardigan was intended to be a 'good friend' to Flashman. But later on, the writer gave up trying to make that work and Cardigan and Flashman were deadly enemies. If the memoirs were true, Flashman could never have written that Cardigan was a friend.

Now the gospel example I'd cite is Matthew's nativity. With a star guiding them, what's the need to go to Herod at all? Because the story needs Herod's massacre to get the family out of Judea so they can go to Nazareth. That means they need needless direction from Herod so that he knows there is a Rival to be eliminated. We even know how he targeted two -year olds - because he asked what time the star appeared. There is no point in asking this, other than to learn how old the boy will be.

Plot construction - all the way though.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-16-2019 at 01:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2019, 02:01 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,105,746 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn View Post
But the main point: we can explain so little ...how are we going to explain or prove "God"?
Your point is flawed.

What's the difference between you and someone who lived 15,000 years ago?

Not much, because you both can't come to grips with the World around you and chose to assign those things you can't understand to gods (and goddesses).

And, how odd is it that of the thousands and thousands of cultures that existed, not one chose a single deity, rather they all, without fail, without exception, chose multiple deities.

It took thousands of years to shift from polytheism to monotheism, and in reality, Islam is the only true monotheistic religion: Jews and christians monolatrists.

The shift to monolatry was first done by the Amorites for political reasons, long before the Hebrews and others did. The Hebrews and others simply copied what the Amorites were doing.

The fact that things cannot be explained is irrelevant.

Knowledge comes through learning, and learning comes through observation and experimentation. Technology greatly assists that.

2,000 years ago, people didn't know atoms existed. Now we do, and we can even fission or fuse them and manipulate them for other purposes.

Anything that is real can be measured, so if god is real, he leaves a foot-print that can be measured.

If god is an energy-thing, then it's unlikely to have a consciousness, which means god is worthless to you, since he doesn't know you exist and can't do anything for you.

So, the best use of your time and energy is to deal with what you can control, instead of wasting it through devotion to something that will never do anything for you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2019, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
19,823 posts, read 13,361,179 times
Reputation: 9821
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
And with the latest edict, there can be no other such scientific hypotheses, claims, or assertions about God in the R&S forum. So you win.
You do not take my point, which is that there's no way to talk about science in the face of a non-falsifiable (scientifically invalid) god hypothesis.

Supernatural beings and realms, are, by definition, not examinable to begin with.

I realize of course that you think you have found the Holy Grail, a falsifiable god hypothesis, and so I understand your consternation. And IIRC there's a corresponding prohibition on the science forum concerning discussion of religion.

Non-overlapping magisteria, apparently. I have never bought that. It is actually a question of two basically opposite epistemologies: presuppositionalist blind faith vs following evidence wherever it leads.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2019, 05:37 PM
 
63,566 posts, read 39,855,129 times
Reputation: 7819
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
You do not take my point, which is that there's no way to talk about science in the face of a non-falsifiable (scientifically invalid) god hypothesis.
Supernatural beings and realms are, by definition, not examinable to begin with.
But they have banned a "natural" God from the R&S forum and it cannot be discussed in the Science forum because it is God. Convenient, demand that God be "supernatural" (which does not exist) and ban a "natural" God from the R&S forums instantiating a Godless and atheistic rule for the R&S forums. Ignorant and arrogant b******s make me sick!
Quote:
I realize of course that you think you have found the Holy Grail, a falsifiable god hypothesis, and so I understand your consternation. And IIRC there's a corresponding prohibition on the science forum concerning a discussion of religion.
Non-overlapping magisteria, apparently. I have never bought that. It is actually a question of two basically opposite epistemologies: presuppositionalist blind faith vs following evidence wherever it leads.
Quite the trick that the atheists have conned the powers that be into, isn't it? The "natural" God is NOT presuppositional. That is the "supernatural" God. It is the "Nature" supposition that assigns all existing evidence to a "No God Nature" (which remains just as unexplained as God) and demands proof of God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2019, 05:43 PM
 
Location: Southwestern, USA, now.
21,020 posts, read 19,291,518 times
Reputation: 23659
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Supernatural beings and realms, are, by definition, not examinable to begin with.
Well, there....you got my point!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2019, 07:06 PM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,521,721 times
Reputation: 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
But they have banned a "natural" God from the R&S forum and it cannot be discussed in the Science forum because it is God. Convenient, demand that God be "supernatural" (which does not exist) and ban a "natural" God from the R&S forums instantiating a Godless and atheistic rule for the R&S forums. Ignorant and arrogant b******s make me sick! Quite the trick that the atheists have conned the powers that be into, isn't it? The "natural" God is NOT presuppositional. That is the "supernatural" God. It is the "Nature" supposition that assigns all existing evidence to a "No God Nature" (which remains just as unexplained as God) and demands proof of God.
mystic even simpler than that. he is applying the word out of context. He thinks he got an iron clad reason but hes off.


Let me help you and others out. If i may be so bold that is.

I allays come up with debate points then think how would I get around my own point. Its basically the scientific method for debating.

what we are actually doing is making claims and then we talk about relative validity of the claims. This "god" claim that they are dismissing out of hand because they feel its not testable is akin to somebody saying that bark matter is not falsifiable. They are applying the word wrong.

when in actuality what is done is that we come up with claims (hypothesis) as to what it is and then we apply the falsifiable notion.

for example, "WIMPS" are dark matter. well, we can test that. even before they could they listen to the claim "WIMPS" ans thought about it and checked if it made sense. There were other ideas and a few of them made sense. some made so much sense that they actively started to look for them.

so, was it not fasible? and dismissed out of hand? no, it wasn't. they couldn't test it but it made sense. They spent million looking.

now, lets apply it to god.

what god are you (not you mystic, but them)saying isn't falsifiable? what traits did you assign it that we are looking at?

rejecting every claim as fasible is bush league. especially when we see they are applying the word wrong, as he did in this case.

lmao ... take that to science people and then ban it ... too funny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2019, 07:13 PM
 
12,918 posts, read 16,813,911 times
Reputation: 5434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
mystic even simpler than that. he is applying the word out of context. He thinks he got an iron clad reason but hes off.


Let me help you and others out. If i may be so bold that is.

I allays come up with debate points then think how would I get around my own point. Its basically the scientific method for debating.

what we are actually doing is making claims and then we talk about relative validity of the claims. This "god" claim that they are dismissing out of hand because they feel its not testable is akin to somebody saying that bark matter is not falsifiable. They are applying the word wrong.

when in actuality what is done is that we come up with claims (hypothesis) as to what it is and then we apply the falsifiable notion.

for example, "WIMPS" are dark matter. well, we can test that. even before they could they listen to the claim "WIMPS" ans thought about it and checked if it made sense. There were other ideas and a few of them made sense. some made so much sense that they actively started to look for them.

so, was it not fasible? and dismissed out of hand? no, it wasn't. they couldn't test it but it made sense. They spent million looking.

now, lets apply it to god.

what god are you (not you mystic, but them)saying isn't falsifiable? what traits did you assign it that we are looking at?

rejecting every claim as fasible is bush league. especially when we see they are applying the word wrong, as he did in this case.
I don't understand why you would even take them seriously. There are crazy extremists on both sides. They aren't really hurting anyone, so I just look at both sides with amusement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2019, 04:44 AM
 
Location: Florida
23,164 posts, read 26,118,923 times
Reputation: 27898
I would think Mystic could take his ideas to the science forum without mentioning god at all by asking if people agreed or not as to whether 'nature' is sentient/intelligent.
And/or whether or not there could be some kind of universal consciousness where all our 'thoughts'
[simplyfing here] coalesce.

Those things are what his belief hinges on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:16 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top