Evidence for soul and spirit (versus, temple, America, atheist)
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.
yeah, I totally agree. And when that sound and valid evidence is presented for belief its instantly deemed not meaningful and avoided or locked in the closet so the faith-based belief can stand a real chance.
absolutely astounding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Agreed. It is beyond astounding to utter amazement and incredulity at the existence of such minds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Either you and AA are purposely not addressing the key issue or you don't recognize it for what it is...
How do we determine what is valid evidence? What are the criteria that we might/should be able to agree upon?
There is little disagreement among rational minds that science provides the best tools for ascertaining the validity of evidence, but it is limited by measurement issues, has domain constraints, and is not equally available to most people making your desired consensus problematic. It is the minds that engage in the specific exclusion of sound science out of ignorance in support of essentially faith-based beliefs about God, which includes the atheist beliefs about God, that Arach and I were reacting to.
yes, those are sensible, valid, reasonable points made. with clarity.
it is evident that the list given and the conclusions drawn from that list (in post 1099) are not rational or logical.
It does not reflect the best interests, health, balance, or well being of humanity, either individually or collectively.
It lacks common sense.
If you go to court with any of that 'evidence' on that list, you will lose.
You must not be familiar with the fact that many of those things you listed as "not evidence"...have been what's provided AS evidence (and rulings made on that evidence...even the penalty of death), in more cases than any other type of evidence, over the entire history of civilized humans.
There are many courts in this world, this very day...that will not rule on any other evidence than "eye-witnesses giving personal testimony"...even in cases such as rape.
THAT is how important and meaningful that type of evidence is.
Either you are ignorant of this...or pretending to be.
You know that is not what was meant here by 'personal testimony'. We are not talking about courts of law here.
Once again your need to straw man is evidence you have no valid arguments.
There is little disagreement among rational minds that science provides the best tools for ascertaining the validity of evidence, but it is limited by measurement issues, has domain constraints, and is not equally available to most people making your desired consensus problematic. It is the minds that engage in the specific exclusion of sound science out of ignorance in support of essentially faith-based beliefs about God, which includes the atheist beliefs about God, that Arach and I were reacting to.
Well that's something anyway...
Science does provide the best tools for ascertaining validity and yes of course there will always be limits thereof, but this is not an argument for saying something is evidence that science does not recognize as such. What we don't know or understand isn't license for anyone to fill those voids with claims of truth that are actually just personal feelings and experiences for which there is no valid evidence beyond say so.
As I have noted many times before, it's easy to fully recognize that different people can attest to their personal feelings and experience, versions of God and adherence to the different religions with "all their heart." All quite varied one from the next, but what we can all agree is valid evidence of truth is another thing altogether, and we have little choice but to wait patiently on science to lead the way there.
Not that there won't always be the people who prefer to go the way of Jim Jones instead...
There is little disagreement among rational minds that science provides the best tools for ascertaining the validity of evidence, but it is limited by measurement issues, has domain constraints, and is not equally available to most people making your desired consensus problematic. It is the minds that engage in the specific exclusion of sound science out of ignorance in support of essentially faith-based beliefs about God, which includes the atheist beliefs about God, that Arach and I were reacting to.
Alleged sound science you continually talk about but never show evidence for, only your usual excuse to go learn <--- insert jargon terms here.
You must not be familiar with the fact that many of those things you listed as "not evidence"...have been what's provided AS evidence (and rulings made on that evidence...even the penalty of death), in more cases than any other type of evidence, over the entire history of civilized humans.
There are many courts in this world, this very day...that will not rule on any other evidence than "eye-witnesses giving personal testimony"...even in cases such as rape.
THAT is how important and meaningful that type of evidence is.
Either you are ignorant of this...or pretending to be.
Are you saying that errors contained in judicial standards, many tainted by "religiosity", should be carried over to this issue". After all, a court is under a mandate to produce a verdict in a "timely" fashion, and must be granted a bit of leeway. The eternal quest for the truth isn't under any such deadline, so only the highest-level standard of determining what is and what isn't evidence should be applied. While purely circumstantial evidence has hung many, it has no place in such a matter as being contemplated here.
Alleged sound science you continually talk about but never show evidence for, only your usual excuse to go learn <--- insert jargon terms here.
Aren't you the one accusing me of calling 2000 years of science wrong? The science disparager seems to be you, not me. Your ignorance of certain fields of science as "mere jargon" should discourage you from even trying to judge the validity of science in those areas. It seems nothing will deter your arrogance in defense of your scientifically unsupportable default atheism.
Aren't you the one accusing me of calling 2000 years of science wrong? The science disparager seems to be you, not me. Your ignorance of certain fields of science as "mere jargon" should discourage you from even trying to judge the validity of science in those areas. It seems nothing will deter your arrogance in defense of your scientifically unsupportable default atheism.
and the fact that they ignore that they got me banned from talking to them because I know what you are saying and point to it exactly in the textbook. I say no, you are wrong.
Its a bold face lie when they say "they except all challenges". it is exactly like the end in gladiator. Stick a knife in our side, puncture a lung, then turn us loose.
And just like it the movie, even with heavy censorship, we holding the line fairly well.
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.