Evidence, please.

Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Evidence, please.

Quote:
Evidence should be:

 

  • Consistent
  • Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations)
  • Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predicatively)
  • Empirically testable and falsifiable
  • Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
  • Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
  • Progressive (refines previous theories)
  • Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

Wikipedia

 Your personal opinions, revelations, visions and warm fuzzy feelings are not evidence. They meet none of the basic criteria.

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
I find these criteria very

I find these criteria very limiting. They sound more like what lies in the end of research, not its beginning. I can imagine countless circumstances that could make nonetheless real phenomena not match up to these criteria. As a proverbial sieve, this one is pretty rough and lots of reality will fall through. Only the most stable and repeatable phenomena will remain and will continue to set the standard for criteria and therefore our worldview. I find that a little unsettling. A bit inflexible, asking for a huge paradigm shift every once a while. 

Anyway, I'd like to ask if there is any special treatment or word for pieces of evidence, which

 - considered separately can be explained by various causes
 - considered together can only be explained by one cause?

Which one is more worthy of Occam's razor?

 - a simple theory with huge effects
 - a complex theory with few effects 

What is more valuable in a scientist?
 - precise and thorough work on a trivial research
 - intuitive and approximate work on an innovative research
 

Please, don't assume I want to push some woo theory right now and don't say I don't understand science. Maybe I do, but want to look at it from sociologist's point of view. Every time all the well-meaning folks here explained me the scientific metod, I kept wondering about how is it affected by the sociology of scientific community. 
Truth isn't instantly recognized as a truth for more reasons than just lack of evidence. I've seen skeptics being wrong, yet convinced of their truth. Science is not simple or perfect, there are tendencies, fads, pet theories, prestige of journals, economic demand, political pressure, rivalry, cultural or anti-cultural prejudices and so on. And it takes time, effort, money and someone's interest to go through the proper channels. 

You surely heard of Clarke's first law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Empirical Science - the canon of reason (Lacks scientific proof)

Personal revelations can be consistent and parsimonious.

 

They can certainly be useful!

 

They can be empircally verified. (show me the holes in your hands where the nails were.)

 

There is no logical reason that every veridical truth needs to be a repeatable event simply in order to allow every single observer who wants to see it for themself the opportunity to do so. (I can't demand the right to direct, personal observation of costly experiments - I have to rely on the honesty of scientists and what gets reported.)

 

I find the notions of progressiveness and correctability simply a matter of opinion. Fair enough. We all have those. And science IS allowed to correct its own mistakes. (Who stole my planet called Pluto? Maybe the claim that it is/was a planet was just a fuzzy personal opinion) 

 

But I think its pretty audacious to try and set some epistemological "Gold Standard" for knowing what is "evidence" and what is "true" when we have no Gold Standard to use as a means of inspecting Gold Standards. 

 

"Empirical Science - the canon of reason"  

Ironically, this is a philosophical assertion which you can't prove empirically.

 

 


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
To the last decimal point...

Personal revelations can be consistent and parsimonious.

Yes, the institutions are simply jam up with people who have consistent and quite specific revelations... they are called psychotic delusions...

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10598
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:(I can't demand the

Quote:
(I can't demand the right to direct, personal observation of costly experiments - I have to rely on the honesty of scientists and what gets reported.)

Untrue. There are multiple ways to directly observe.
1: You do it yourself.
2: You become an expert in a field and do it yourself in the lab with the big bucks.
3: You fund the experiment.
4: You know someone.
5: You get a position in the lab, i.e. cleaner, and review the data whenever the opportunity arises.

I'm sure there's more.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Let me make it simple...

The objections so far seem to be:
"I don't wanna have to prove stuff because proving stuff is so HARRRRRRRRRRRRRRD...!"

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:Personal

Lion IRC wrote:

Personal revelations can be consistent and parsimonious.

 

They can certainly be useful!

 

They can be empircally verified. (show me the holes in your hands where the nails were.)

 

There is no logical reason that every veridical truth needs to be a repeatable event simply in order to allow every single observer who wants to see it for themself the opportunity to do so. (I can't demand the right to direct, personal observation of costly experiments - I have to rely on the honesty of scientists and what gets reported.)

 

I find the notions of progressiveness and correctability simply a matter of opinion. Fair enough. We all have those. And science IS allowed to correct its own mistakes. (Who stole my planet called Pluto? Maybe the claim that it is/was a planet was just a fuzzy personal opinion) 

 

But I think its pretty audacious to try and set some epistemological "Gold Standard" for knowing what is "evidence" and what is "true" when we have no Gold Standard to use as a means of inspecting Gold Standards. 

 

"Empirical Science - the canon of reason"  

Ironically, this is a philosophical assertion which you can't prove empirically.

 

 

When microwave comuncation was invented it was huge an bulky. Now we can communicate with cell phones which are more powerful than the computers made 25 years ago.

"Personal revelation" IS NOTHING compared to someone looking at science and technology and saying "what if". Now certainly lots of ideas go nowhere, but "personal revelations" are ideas that will never go anywhere than to be sold to the minds of the gullible.

Quote:
There is no logical reason that every veridical truth needs to be a repeatable event

If the Write Brothers took that attitude we wouldn't have airplanes now. What's the point of a patent office if we all get to make up shit we like? Fiction sells and it certainly doesn't require a patent to sell, but that doesn't make the fiction true because the motifs in it sound nice. If that were the case Harry Potter could really fly around on a broom.

Religion and politics affect all governments, so since that is the case and as long as both seek to make laws that affect me, they must not be given a pedestal with that attitude.

Knowledge isn't making up one's own facts. Knowledge is when you hand your claim over to others with no horse in the race and they repeat it and try to debunk it and STILL come up with the same thing. Religion does not have that standard. Religion is merely a comic book fan club where the only standard is to pat each other on the back because you like the same super hero.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Quote:(I can't

Vastet wrote:
Quote:
(I can't demand the right to direct, personal observation of costly experiments - I have to rely on the honesty of scientists and what gets reported.)
Untrue. There are multiple ways to directly observe. 1: You do it yourself. 2: You become an expert in a field and do it yourself in the lab with the big bucks. 3: You fund the experiment. 4: You know someone. 5: You get a position in the lab, i.e. cleaner, and review the data whenever the opportunity arises. I'm sure there's more.

 

In other words, seek and ye shall find.

In the meantime, accept that other peoples observations may ACTUALLY be true.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:Vastet

Lion IRC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Quote:
(I can't demand the right to direct, personal observation of costly experiments - I have to rely on the honesty of scientists and what gets reported.)
Untrue. There are multiple ways to directly observe. 1: You do it yourself. 2: You become an expert in a field and do it yourself in the lab with the big bucks. 3: You fund the experiment. 4: You know someone. 5: You get a position in the lab, i.e. cleaner, and review the data whenever the opportunity arises. I'm sure there's more.

 

In other words, seek and ye shall find.

In the meantime, accept that other peoples observations may ACTUALLY be true.

I find it interesting and ironic that the religion that promotes "Seek and ye shall find" is the one that is against scientific inquiry.

Observations can be true - it's easier to do that if the observations are repeatable. God doesn't like that, though.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
You mean

Lion IRC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Quote:
(I can't demand the right to direct, personal observation of costly experiments - I have to rely on the honesty of scientists and what gets reported.)
Untrue. There are multiple ways to directly observe. 1: You do it yourself. 2: You become an expert in a field and do it yourself in the lab with the big bucks. 3: You fund the experiment. 4: You know someone. 5: You get a position in the lab, i.e. cleaner, and review the data whenever the opportunity arises. I'm sure there's more.

 

In other words, seek and ye shall find.

In the meantime, accept that other peoples observations may ACTUALLY be true.

 

other people's imaginary observations. Paste one instance of supernatural 'proof' below...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Empirical evidence comes from the senses

If you had my direct experience and tried to tell your (former) fellow atheists about it, guess what they would say.

Empirical evidence comes from the senses - all of them.

 


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Ah, it's that time...

Lion IRC wrote:

If you had my direct experience and tried to tell your (former) fellow atheists about it, guess what they would say.

Empirical evidence comes from the senses - all of them.

 

 

I have to say, no... You have no 'direct experience' to relate whatsoever. This is the point in the discussion when we get told "I have the proof, but you wouldn't believe it anyway..." so then we are expected to tease it out of you... "Please...please enlighten us with your utterly convincing evidence...pleeeeeeeeease..."

Bullshit.

This is the point where I simply call you a liar and be done with it.
Put up, or shut up, but don't waste my time.

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
That facts are observed by human

 

Lion IRC wrote:

If you had my direct experience and tried to tell your (former) fellow atheists about it, guess what they would say.

Empirical evidence comes from the senses - all of them.

 

sense organs and perceived inside human brains does not free you up to suggest everything perceived by human brains, including unsupported beliefs and feelings, carries the same weight. Why do theists try to pull this one?

What is your standard for evidence, Lion? Please admit to me that it's possible there may be no god. I admit there is a vanishing chance there is one. It would be nice to think we had intellectual integrity as common ground.  

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Lion IRC wrote:

If you had my direct experience and tried to tell your (former) fellow atheists about it, guess what they would say.

Empirical evidence comes from the senses - all of them.

 

sense organs and perceived inside human brains does not free you up to suggest everything perceived by human brains, including unsupported beliefs and feelings, carries the same weight. Why do theists try to pull this one?

What is your standard for evidence, Lion? Please admit to me that it's possible there may be no god. I admit there is a vanishing chance there is one. It would be nice to think we had intellectual integrity as common ground.  

 

I've had this argument too many times now... I wonder what happened to that thread I had generated a few months ago.  I will try to dig it up.  It was about the lowest common currency for communication relative to an epistemic frame of reference, it died too quickly... this is heading that way...

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I believe you are talking

Lion IRC wrote:

If you had my direct experience and tried to tell your (former) fellow atheists about it, guess what they would say.

Empirical evidence comes from the senses - all of them.

 

 

about motivated reasoning here, not empirical proof. You are ascribing a god-source for pleasing events that could just as well have happened by chance, or have been perpetrated by decent human beings. 

If god intervenes in your private life we could collate a vast list of events where he should have intervened but failed to do so. Zapping Yersinia in the 1500s springs immediately to mind...

Or perhaps jesus could have advised his disciples on things like the contribution of clean water to controlling typhoid, the nature of antibiotics and c and c, instead of faffing around creating Penfolds Grange at his mate's dumb wedding.  

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 769
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You're trying to prove

Luminon wrote:

I find these criteria very limiting. They sound more like what lies in the end of research, not its beginning. I can imagine countless circumstances that could make nonetheless real phenomena not match up to these criteria. As a proverbial sieve, this one is pretty rough and lots of reality will fall through. Only the most stable and repeatable phenomena will remain and will continue to set the standard for criteria and therefore our worldview. I find that a little unsettling. A bit inflexible, asking for a huge paradigm shift every once a while. 

Anyway, I'd like to ask if there is any special treatment or word for pieces of evidence, which

 - considered separately can be explained by various causes
 - considered together can only be explained by one cause?

Which one is more worthy of Occam's razor?

 - a simple theory with huge effects
 - a complex theory with few effects 

What is more valuable in a scientist?
 - precise and thorough work on a trivial research
 - intuitive and approximate work on an innovative research
 

Please, don't assume I want to push some woo theory right now and don't say I don't understand science. Maybe I do, but want to look at it from sociologist's point of view. Every time all the well-meaning folks here explained me the scientific meted, I kept wondering about how is it affected by the sociology of scientific community. 
Truth isn't instantly recognized as a truth for more reasons than just lack of evidence. I've seen skeptics being wrong, yet convinced of their truth. Science is not simple or perfect, there are tendencies, fads, pet theories, prestige of journals, economic demand, political pressure, rivalry, cultural or anti-cultural prejudices and so on. And it takes time, effort, money and someone's interest to go through the proper channels. 

You surely heard of Clarke's first law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 

 

The bible with the bible. You need other sources for proof and verification. That's like asking the bank robber -who robbed the bank? If you want to prove Christianity you have to do it by other means then the bible. In order to do that you need to understand Christianity. If one doesn't understand Christianity there's no proof.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I remember it.

Ktulu wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Lion IRC wrote:

If you had my direct experience and tried to tell your (former) fellow atheists about it, guess what they would say.

Empirical evidence comes from the senses - all of them.

 

sense organs and perceived inside human brains does not free you up to suggest everything perceived by human brains, including unsupported beliefs and feelings, carries the same weight. Why do theists try to pull this one?

What is your standard for evidence, Lion? Please admit to me that it's possible there may be no god. I admit there is a vanishing chance there is one. It would be nice to think we had intellectual integrity as common ground.  

 

I've had this argument too many times now... I wonder what happened to that thread I had generated a few months ago.  I will try to dig it up.  It was about the lowest common currency for communication relative to an epistemic frame of reference, it died too quickly... this is heading that way...

 

and as you observed then, I think most our arguments relate to this atheist/theist divergence of comprehension in the nature of proof. The godly either have neurological networks that predispose them to mistaking mental supposition for sense data, or have so much invested in the debate that they refuse to allow a disparity between unsupported belief and what's arguably provable. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:Vastet

Lion IRC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Quote:
(I can't demand the right to direct, personal observation of costly experiments - I have to rely on the honesty of scientists and what gets reported.)
Untrue. There are multiple ways to directly observe. 1: You do it yourself. 2: You become an expert in a field and do it yourself in the lab with the big bucks. 3: You fund the experiment. 4: You know someone. 5: You get a position in the lab, i.e. cleaner, and review the data whenever the opportunity arises. I'm sure there's more.

 

In other words, seek and ye shall find.

In the meantime, accept that other peoples observations may ACTUALLY be true.

Not by proxy of utterance.

Not by proxy of popularity.

Not by proxy of tradition.

You have nothing but a fictional super hero you falsely believe to be real. No different than any other god/s made up in the past. It is merely your own wishful thinking in wanting to be protected by a super hero.

If you had something, if ANYONE claiming any invisible friend by any name, had anything, you'd be at the patent office by  now and have a Nobel Prize by now.

Your "observation" is your own emotional appeal combined with lack of understanding that the brain is very easily fooled, combined with your own selection bias in gap filling.

There never was a god by any name. Vocanos were not gods. The ocean was not controlled by Neptune. The sun was never a god. There never was a storm god named Yahweh. There never was a Hebrew god named Yahweh, There never was a Vishnu. There never was an Allah. And there is no such thing as magic babies without 2 sets of DNA and human flesh does not, nor ever has survived rigor mortis.

Deity belief is merely our evolutionary flaw of gap filling in our infantile disire for a parent to protect us.

When our species goes extinct all these myths will die along with us because there will be no future generation to sell the myths to.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10598
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:If you had my

Lion IRC wrote:
If you had my direct experience and tried to tell your (former) fellow atheists about it, guess what they would say.
Empirical evidence comes from the senses - all of them.

I'm guessing that you're referring to a personal experience of some sort. A feeling, a vision, a sound or voice, a figure or maybe a dream. That's all well and good for you, but you're right to assume we wouldn't accept it as evidence, because there are often, if not always, alternative explanations for such things.
Maybe your experience was special and actually revealed the truth to you, but I've never had such an experience. And I can't trust anyone who does sufficiently to believe it wasn't a hallucination or something else myself.
There are far too many examples of people making things up in order to manipulate and/or profit off of others who naively buy their bullshit. I'm sure you'd agree that scientology is a perfect example of this.
There are also far too many examples of people...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10598
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
...who are literally

...who are literally delusional, and are constantly seeing and hearing things. Whether those people are experiencing brain malfunctions, as proposed by science; or they are possessed or some-such as proposed by some religions, the fact remains that these people are not experiencing reality, and just because they think there are spiders crawling on them or they hear a voice telling them to do things does not mean these things actually are happening (as two of millions of examples).

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Luminon

Old Seer wrote:

Luminon wrote:

I find these criteria very limiting. They sound more like what lies in the end of research, not its beginning. I can imagine countless circumstances that could make nonetheless real phenomena not match up to these criteria. As a proverbial sieve, this one is pretty rough and lots of reality will fall through. Only the most stable and repeatable phenomena will remain and will continue to set the standard for criteria and therefore our worldview. I find that a little unsettling. A bit inflexible, asking for a huge paradigm shift every once a while. 

Anyway, I'd like to ask if there is any special treatment or word for pieces of evidence, which

 - considered separately can be explained by various causes
 - considered together can only be explained by one cause?

Which one is more worthy of Occam's razor?

 - a simple theory with huge effects
 - a complex theory with few effects 

What is more valuable in a scientist?
 - precise and thorough work on a trivial research
 - intuitive and approximate work on an innovative research
 

Please, don't assume I want to push some woo theory right now and don't say I don't understand science. Maybe I do, but want to look at it from sociologist's point of view. Every time all the well-meaning folks here explained me the scientific meted, I kept wondering about how is it affected by the sociology of scientific community. 
Truth isn't instantly recognized as a truth for more reasons than just lack of evidence. I've seen skeptics being wrong, yet convinced of their truth. Science is not simple or perfect, there are tendencies, fads, pet theories, prestige of journals, economic demand, political pressure, rivalry, cultural or anti-cultural prejudices and so on. And it takes time, effort, money and someone's interest to go through the proper channels. 

You surely heard of Clarke's first law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 

 

The bible with the bible. You need other sources for proof and verification. That's like asking the bank robber -who robbed the bank? If you want to prove Christianity you have to do it by other means then the bible. In order to do that you need to understand Christianity. If one doesn't understand Christianity there's no proof.

Which Christianity would that be? There are millions of version that are all based on the Bible.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 769
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
That would be

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Luminon wrote:

I find these criteria very limiting. They sound more like what lies in the end of research, not its beginning. I can imagine countless circumstances that could make nonetheless real phenomena not match up to these criteria. As a proverbial sieve, this one is pretty rough and lots of reality will fall through. Only the most stable and repeatable phenomena will remain and will continue to set the standard for criteria and therefore our worldview. I find that a little unsettling. A bit inflexible, asking for a huge paradigm shift every once a while. 

Anyway, I'd like to ask if there is any special treatment or word for pieces of evidence, which

 - considered separately can be explained by various causes
 - considered together can only be explained by one cause?

Which one is more worthy of Occam's razor?

 - a simple theory with huge effects
 - a complex theory with few effects 

What is more valuable in a scientist?
 - precise and thorough work on a trivial research
 - intuitive and approximate work on an innovative research
 

Please, don't assume I want to push some woo theory right now and don't say I don't understand science. Maybe I do, but want to look at it from sociologist's point of view. Every time all the well-meaning folks here explained me the scientific meted, I kept wondering about how is it affected by the sociology of scientific community. 
Truth isn't instantly recognized as a truth for more reasons than just lack of evidence. I've seen skeptics being wrong, yet convinced of their truth. Science is not simple or perfect, there are tendencies, fads, pet theories, prestige of journals, economic demand, political pressure, rivalry, cultural or anti-cultural prejudices and so on. And it takes time, effort, money and someone's interest to go through the proper channels. 

You surely heard of Clarke's first law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 

 

The bible with the bible. You need other sources for proof and verification. That's like asking the bank robber -who robbed the bank? If you want to prove Christianity you have to do it by other means then the bible. In order to do that you need to understand Christianity. If one doesn't understand Christianity there's no proof.

Which Christianity would that be? There are millions of version that are all based on the Bible.

All of them. Christianity (proper form) isn't a superficial religion. It's about the inner workings of one's person.  There are no real Christians on the planet including myself and the guys I'm with on this subject. IE-The Pope is not a Christian-as proper Christianity doesn't have an authority structure. The real Christianity became extinct from about 50 AD to 75 AD.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 769
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Well -one must understand

Vastet wrote:
...who are literally delusional, and are constantly seeing and hearing things. Whether those people are experiencing brain malfunctions, as proposed by science; or they are possessed or some-such as proposed by some religions, the fact remains that these people are not experiencing reality, and just because they think there are spiders crawling on them or they hear a voice telling them to do things does not mean these things actually are happening (as two of millions of examples).

That a deception can go on for centuries and even pass from generation to generation for millennium. Over time what's real gets lost and the deception becomes the reality. All religions presently rely on forwarding past deceptions in order to maintain the supremacy of the leaders--which is really what it's all about--a few leading the many for the "status" kick they get from it. There is "no" God as claimed by religions. If they can maintain a remote God, that creates someone else to blame for their errors and faulty judgements.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:jcgadfly

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Luminon wrote:

I find these criteria very limiting. They sound more like what lies in the end of research, not its beginning. I can imagine countless circumstances that could make nonetheless real phenomena not match up to these criteria. As a proverbial sieve, this one is pretty rough and lots of reality will fall through. Only the most stable and repeatable phenomena will remain and will continue to set the standard for criteria and therefore our worldview. I find that a little unsettling. A bit inflexible, asking for a huge paradigm shift every once a while. 

Anyway, I'd like to ask if there is any special treatment or word for pieces of evidence, which

 - considered separately can be explained by various causes
 - considered together can only be explained by one cause?

Which one is more worthy of Occam's razor?

 - a simple theory with huge effects
 - a complex theory with few effects 

What is more valuable in a scientist?
 - precise and thorough work on a trivial research
 - intuitive and approximate work on an innovative research
 

Please, don't assume I want to push some woo theory right now and don't say I don't understand science. Maybe I do, but want to look at it from sociologist's point of view. Every time all the well-meaning folks here explained me the scientific meted, I kept wondering about how is it affected by the sociology of scientific community. 
Truth isn't instantly recognized as a truth for more reasons than just lack of evidence. I've seen skeptics being wrong, yet convinced of their truth. Science is not simple or perfect, there are tendencies, fads, pet theories, prestige of journals, economic demand, political pressure, rivalry, cultural or anti-cultural prejudices and so on. And it takes time, effort, money and someone's interest to go through the proper channels. 

You surely heard of Clarke's first law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 

 

The bible with the bible. You need other sources for proof and verification. That's like asking the bank robber -who robbed the bank? If you want to prove Christianity you have to do it by other means then the bible. In order to do that you need to understand Christianity. If one doesn't understand Christianity there's no proof.

Which Christianity would that be? There are millions of version that are all based on the Bible.

All of them. Christianity (proper form) isn't a superficial religion. It's about the inner workings of one's person.  There are no real Christians on the planet including myself and the guys I'm with on this subject. IE-The Pope is not a Christian-as proper Christianity doesn't have an authority structure. The real Christianity became extinct from about 50 AD to 75 AD.

Christianity doesn't have an authority structure? What do you do with Christ then? You worship him but he's not your master?

If there is no longer a "real" Christianity why are you worshipping fakery?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Vastet

Old Seer wrote:

Vastet wrote:
...who are literally delusional, and are constantly seeing and hearing things. Whether those people are experiencing brain malfunctions, as proposed by science; or they are possessed or some-such as proposed by some religions, the fact remains that these people are not experiencing reality, and just because they think there are spiders crawling on them or they hear a voice telling them to do things does not mean these things actually are happening (as two of millions of examples).

That a deception can go on for centuries and even pass from generation to generation for millennium. Over time what's real gets lost and the deception becomes the reality. All religions presently rely on forwarding past deceptions in order to maintain the supremacy of the leaders--which is really what it's all about--a few leading the many for the "status" kick they get from it. There is "no" God as claimed by religions. If they can maintain a remote God, that creates someone else to blame for their errors and faulty judgements.

It is always the other guy who got it wrong and never the guy making the absurd claim who is willing to consider the absurdity of such claims.

If humans evolved without faulty judgment god claims never would exist in the first place. Since evolution isn't about perfection and merely getting to the point of reproduction, the persistence of superstition is quite aptly explained by that flaw.

All claims of deities have one core. The claim that there is a human like brain that can exist without a human like brain that has magical super powers. Volcanos were once believed to have thought capabilities of that of a human and the voclanos had super powers. The Egyptians falsely thought that the sun could think like a human and it had super powers and cared about them.

I find it absurd that anyone today would think, simply because of popularity or tradition that must make their particular pet deity any more real than the dead ones of the past.

Invisible friends are absurd claims. They were absurd in ancient times. The were absurd when Mayans claimed them. They were absurd when Greeks and Romans claimed them, and I don't see modern humanity as being special in doing anything differently in gap filling today than the mistakes we rightfully accept and call myth today.

Woo is woo and a myth is a myth and superstition is superstition. There never was and never will be a disembodied magical invisible super brain with magical super powers, no matter who claims it. Even the more new age crap such as claiming the universe itself is a thinking entity. Crap, all crap.

I am too tired to deal with theology or tradition to wade through that needless Yellow Brick road.

I am tired also of falsely being accused of hate when it is my love of reality and my love of humanity in wanting to help others escape the past and superstition. I don't like that long dance. I am glad others can wade through that stuff, I am simply not one of those people.

PLEASE try yourself to use that same logic you use to reject the pet gods of others and look in the mirror and aim that same logic at your own claims. PLEASE, I promise you once you do you will be happier not having to defend such ancient myth.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 769
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
As best we can tell

Brian37 wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Vastet wrote:
...who are literally delusional, and are constantly seeing and hearing things. Whether those people are experiencing brain malfunctions, as proposed by science; or they are possessed or some-such as proposed by some religions, the fact remains that these people are not experiencing reality, and just because they think there are spiders crawling on them or they hear a voice telling them to do things does not mean these things actually are happening (as two of millions of examples).

That a deception can go on for centuries and even pass from generation to generation for millennium. Over time what's real gets lost and the deception becomes the reality. All religions presently rely on forwarding past deceptions in order to maintain the supremacy of the leaders--which is really what it's all about--a few leading the many for the "status" kick they get from it. There is "no" God as claimed by religions. If they can maintain a remote God, that creates someone else to blame for their errors and faulty judgments.

It is always the other guy who got it wrong and never the guy making the absurd claim who is willing to consider the absurdity of such claims.

If humans evolved without faulty judgment god claims never would exist in the first place. Since evolution isn't about perfection and merely getting to the point of reproduction, the persistence of superstition is quite aptly explained by that flaw.

All claims of deities have one core. The claim that there is a human like brain that can exist without a human like brain that has magical super powers. Volcano's were once believed to have thought capabilities of that of a human and the volcano's had super powers. The Egyptians falsely thought that the sun could think like a human and it had super powers and cared about them.

I find it absurd that anyone today would think, simply because of popularity or tradition that must make their particular pet deity any more real than the dead ones of the past.

Invisible friends are absurd claims. They were absurd in ancient times. The were absurd when Mayans claimed them. They were absurd when Greeks and Romans claimed them, and I don't see modern humanity as being special in doing anything differently in gap filling today than the mistakes we rightfully accept and call myth today.

Woo is woo and a myth is a myth and superstition is superstition. There never was and never will be a disembodied magical invisible super brain with magical super powers, no matter who claims it. Even the more new age crap such as claiming the universe itself is a thinking entity. Crap, all crap.

I am too tired to deal with theology or tradition to wade through that needless Yellow Brick road.

I am tired also of falsely being accused of hate when it is my love of reality and my love of humanity in wanting to help others escape the past and superstition. I don't like that long dance. I am glad others can wade through that stuff, I am simply not one of those people.

PLEASE try yourself to use that same logic you use to reject the pet gods of others and look in the mirror and aim that same logic at your own claims. PLEASE, I promise you once you do you will be happier not having to defend such ancient myth.

As best we can tell, and going back to religious roots - prehistory peoples needed something to explain the forces around them. To them it was the physically natural forces such as rain, wind, thunder, floods etc that had a direct bearing on the days outcome for them. They merely explained what they couldn't explain by calling the forces "God", when actually it was mere fate. They had to succumb to forces greater then themselves. There's no way that people around 30,000 years ago had any idea what was the cause of a volcano or earth quake. Through the evidence and progression of science we now know. Those who say they're Christians don't know enough to get off the pot and deal with what Christianity is supposed to deal with and that's---what does it take to get along with each other. It's supposed to be able to explain "the self", not where the planet came from. Belief in material tings has nothing to do with "proper" Christianity. The ancient idea of "God" still persists to today.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


joe_2007
Theist
Posts: 57
Joined: 2008-06-11
User is offlineOffline
Not all trth Is 'Scientific'

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Quote:
Evidence should be:

 

  • Consistent
  • Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations)
  • Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predicatively)
  • Empirically testable and falsifiable
  • Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
  • Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
  • Progressive (refines previous theories)
  • Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

Wikipedia

 Your personal opinions, revelations, visions and warm fuzzy feelings are not evidence. They meet none of the basic criteria.

LC >;-}>

 

 

The problem is that atheist forget the not all truth IS "scientific" by the definition of the evidence.  No historical truth is repeatable. If there was only one record of something or some event, then that event would fail most of the criteria above.  That would include much of history taught in schools.  Evidence, or lack of such, does not change or create truth.  Truth is truth. Evidence only convinces us that we are right, whether we are or not.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
joe_2007 wrote:Louis_Cypher

joe_2007 wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Quote:
Evidence should be:

 

  • Consistent
  • Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations)
  • Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predicatively)
  • Empirically testable and falsifiable
  • Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
  • Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
  • Progressive (refines previous theories)
  • Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

Wikipedia

 Your personal opinions, revelations, visions and warm fuzzy feelings are not evidence. They meet none of the basic criteria.

LC >;-}>

 

 

The problem is that atheist forget the not all truth IS "scientific" by the definition of the evidence.  No historical truth is repeatable. If there was only one record of something or some event, then that event would fail most of the criteria above.  That would include much of history taught in schools.  Evidence, or lack of such, does not change or create truth.  Truth is truth. Evidence only convinces us that we are right, whether we are or not.

Sorry, joe.

"Those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it" has been proven many times.

The "evidence" you like may only convince you you're right. Evidence used in reality can change minds. Those minds have to be open first.

Can you do that?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
When does an apple become an orange?

joe_2007 wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Quote:
Evidence should be:

 

  • Consistent
  • Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations)
  • Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predicatively)
  • Empirically testable and falsifiable
  • Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
  • Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
  • Progressive (refines previous theories)
  • Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

Wikipedia

 Your personal opinions, revelations, visions and warm fuzzy feelings are not evidence. They meet none of the basic criteria.

LC >;-}>

 

 

The problem is that atheist forget the not all truth IS "scientific" by the definition of the evidence.  No historical truth is repeatable. If there was only one record of something or some event, then that event would fail most of the criteria above.  That would include much of history taught in schools.  Evidence, or lack of such, does not change or create truth.  Truth is truth. Evidence only convinces us that we are right, whether we are or not.



You are conflating event or phenomena with evidence of the event or phenomena.
Lincoln was shot at Ford Theater by John Wilkes Booth. This is an event, and yes, we can't shoot Lincoln over and over, but, that is not what repeatability is about.

We can examine the eye witness accounts for Consistency. We can look for the most Parsimonious explanation (That Booth alone shot Lincoln, evidenced by the fact that no witnesses described a second or third gunman).
We can say that based on the evidence at hand, the 'Booth Theory' is the most useful explanation and we can predict that there should be physical evidence based on the witness accounts. (There is, The shooter limped from the stage where he had jumped, Booth required medical attention for a broken leg ) Multiple observations, and quite a bit of physical evidence were gathered. If someone else were involved, there should also be evidence (the theory can be refined) As there were several other co-conspirators the theory WAS refined. At first, it was thought to be a grand conspiracy of the defeated southern states, that theory has been refined and is being refined to this day, as new ideas and notions pop up.

In short, the scientific method may not ascertain 'Truth', but it's the best way we have of refining evidence that gets us closer to truth.

Let me ask, what would you replace it with? What would you say is a better way to find 'truth'?

 

LC >;-}>

 

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Brian37

Old Seer wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Vastet wrote:
...who are literally delusional, and are constantly seeing and hearing things. Whether those people are experiencing brain malfunctions, as proposed by science; or they are possessed or some-such as proposed by some religions, the fact remains that these people are not experiencing reality, and just because they think there are spiders crawling on them or they hear a voice telling them to do things does not mean these things actually are happening (as two of millions of examples).

That a deception can go on for centuries and even pass from generation to generation for millennium. Over time what's real gets lost and the deception becomes the reality. All religions presently rely on forwarding past deceptions in order to maintain the supremacy of the leaders--which is really what it's all about--a few leading the many for the "status" kick they get from it. There is "no" God as claimed by religions. If they can maintain a remote God, that creates someone else to blame for their errors and faulty judgments.


It is always the other guy who got it wrong and never the guy making the absurd claim who is willing to consider the absurdity of such claims.

If humans evolved without faulty judgment god claims never would exist in the first place. Since evolution isn't about perfection and merely getting to the point of reproduction, the persistence of superstition is quite aptly explained by that flaw.

All claims of deities have one core. The claim that there is a human like brain that can exist without a human like brain that has magical super powers. Volcano's were once believed to have thought capabilities of that of a human and the volcano's had super powers. The Egyptians falsely thought that the sun could think like a human and it had super powers and cared about them.

I find it absurd that anyone today would think, simply because of popularity or tradition that must make their particular pet deity any more real than the dead ones of the past.

Invisible friends are absurd claims. They were absurd in ancient times. The were absurd when Mayans claimed them. They were absurd when Greeks and Romans claimed them, and I don't see modern humanity as being special in doing anything differently in gap filling today than the mistakes we rightfully accept and call myth today.

Woo is woo and a myth is a myth and superstition is superstition. There never was and never will be a disembodied magical invisible super brain with magical super powers, no matter who claims it. Even the more new age crap such as claiming the universe itself is a thinking entity. Crap, all crap.

I am too tired to deal with theology or tradition to wade through that needless Yellow Brick road.

I am tired also of falsely being accused of hate when it is my love of reality and my love of humanity in wanting to help others escape the past and superstition. I don't like that long dance. I am glad others can wade through that stuff, I am simply not one of those people.

PLEASE try yourself to use that same logic you use to reject the pet gods of others and look in the mirror and aim that same logic at your own claims. PLEASE, I promise you once you do you will be happier not having to defend such ancient myth.

As best we can tell, and going back to religious roots - prehistory peoples needed something to explain the forces around them. To them it was the physically natural forces such as rain, wind, thunder, floods etc that had a direct bearing on the days outcome for them. They merely explained what they couldn't explain by calling the forces "God", when actually it was mere fate. They had to succumb to forces greater then themselves. There's no way that people around 30,000 years ago had any idea what was the cause of a volcano or earth quake. Through the evidence and progression of science we now know. Those who say they're Christians don't know enough to get off the pot and deal with what Christianity is supposed to deal with and that's---what does it take to get along with each other. It's supposed to be able to explain "the self", not where the planet came from. Belief in material tings has nothing to do with "proper" Christianity. The ancient idea of "God" still persists to today.

How cute, trying to meet me half way. I will say that this empty box has new packaging on it but still the same old dodge.

"proper" Christianity. No such thing. Sorry. Every Christian claims to have it right, so you are no more special than any other fan of Jesus.

All Christians have the same core that the Jesus character was the result of the one true god. Still doesn't make magic babies real or zombie gods real. Still doesn't change that even before you get to that comic book, that a god claim itself is still the naked assertion that there is an invisible brain with magical super powers.

You ARE not only in the same boat of all Christians, but all Muslims and all Hindus and every human prior with their dead myths as well.

It takes TWO sets of DNA to make a baby. Human flesh does not survive rigor mortis. Consciousness is only found in biological evolution, thus any claim, past or present, polytheist or monotheist, of disembodied thinking beings are ALL absurd claims. Your "version" of Christianity is no more credible than any other and has as much evidence as any other deity claim in human history.

You have merely bought an ancient myth, no different than the Egyptians falsely believing the sun to be a god. No different than Muslims today thinking Allah is real. And no different than even pantheists in new age crap who claim the universe itself is a thinking being.

Woo is woo and superstition is superstition. You are merely falling for your own wishful thinking in wanting a fictional super hero to save you. Same empty box no matter how you dress it up.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


joe_2007
Theist
Posts: 57
Joined: 2008-06-11
User is offlineOffline
Science is great.

Louis_Cypher wrote:

 


In short, the scientific method may not ascertain 'Truth', but it's the best way we have of refining evidence that gets us closer to truth.

Let me ask, what would you replace it with? What would you say is a better way to find 'truth'?

 LC >;-}>

  

 

Don't get me wrong, LC. The scientific method is great for finding naturalistic cause and affect. But when observations are contrary to current evidence, another criteria seems to pop up: "Evidence must be naturalistic".  Take dark matter for instance. The universe behaves differently than the current evidence says it should, so "there must be some other natural cause."  Dark matter, that no one has observed, that behaves completely different then anything seen in nature so far, "must" be there because our observations say that it must. "It will be proved, or not, one day." Until then, the scientific community just has to have faith.

The scientific method just does not handle ALL truth. And that's fine, it doesn't need to. But some people on hear swear up and down that it does.

 

Here is another example. Let's say that God suddenly revealed to me your identity. I cold give you evidence by giving your address, ss number, date of birth and so on. Would you count this as evidence that God exists? Absolutely not. You would look for all other naturalistic explanations for me knowing the information. But what if you could never find any evidence of internet searches, or any other paper trail that explains how I could have known that information? What if every other explanation was shown false? Would you finally concede that God gave me the information? How could you? You have already eliminated that possibility with your criteria above.

 

Here's a quote from the thread that Ktulu alluded to earlier.

Ktulu wrote:

If you cannot reproduce the result and empirically verify the claim through a transparent process, the odds of that claim being true falls well short of the 99.9999% of certainty we grace the vast majority of our subjective universe.  Apply all this to religion, the Bible and deities and you will see where my atheism derives from.

 

joe_2007 wrote:

I thought about this statement as I watched the news story about people lifting a car off of a trapped person this weekend.  They even had video from a near-by security camera.  Now what if the video just showed one small women, who cried out to God to help her before she picked the car up and moved it.  Would you believe it or would you just think that the whole thing was staged?  Would you be able to reproduce the results? Not likely. If it was God's help, then he probably wouldn't help again just to appease you.   Could you empirically verify the claim through a transparent process?  If you start with the assumption that there is no God, then you probably are not going to believe the witness testimonies or the video, because you cannot reproduce it.  If you did believe them and that it happened, you would probably start with the assumption that if it wasn't staged, that there was some other adrenaline-based chemical process going on, but if it really was God's help, then you would not be able to reproduce it either.  Then which completely unverifiable theory would you give more certainty to? I am guessing the one that your assumptions have led you to.

 

 

Ktulu never came back with answer to this last passage.  LC, what's your take?

Thank you,

 

Joe

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 769
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You haven't seen/read all

my other posts on this site. I am not an Theist, Deist, or Atheist.  I'm not on either side. Christianity is nothing more then your human side, verses your animal side. a few years ago I was in a discussion (argument on his side) with a Humanist. I pointed out that what they had was a proposal of "proper Christianity. He would not accept that idea. BUT, what they are about "is" what proper Christianity "is" about. Your blaming JC for the actions and mentality of others. There are no Christians on this planet. It is an unknown (except by my group). It became extinct about 50 to 75AD. Once again it has become known. It is your Human side, not the animal side/mentality. I am not a Christian, as I haven't perfected it to it's appropriate point, and no one will be able to as long as the world doesn't understand that ---it operates on the animal mentality under which all man's troubles with one another emanate from. Everyone has Christianity---it's your human side/mentality. Put away the animal and you have a different world. Now, you know what it is also. Turn to and make do--or go the other. You can now relate to others by "human" only, or animal only--it's your choice. But the world as it is will continuously interfere. You can no longer relate to others by both as you have been. You now know yourself. If you wish to continue to use both--you will know. One cannot help fix the world until he fixes himself first. You cannot be free until you set all others free from yourself first. Now that you know, let's see hopw you do. I "will" know.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Evidence is that which can

Evidence is that which can be verified through testing and falsification and independent peer review.

God belief does not reflect that high standard. All claims of deities/non material entities/gods/super natural, are merely the inventions of humans.

If you or anyone had any evidence for your claims you'd be at the patent office right now with a Nobel Prize. The simple solution that makes the most sense are that these claims are mere placebos humans invent to try to cope with their ignorance.

You accept that Ra the sun god was made up and a mere placebo the Egyptians made up. Your pet invisible friend is no different. It is merely our evolutionary flaw in gap filling because we still have not shed, collectively our evolutionary infantile desire to have a parent protect us.

It still is the same anthropomorphism that caused people to think volcanos were gods.

The only "evidence" you have is that there IS a history of our species believing absurd claims. That is as far as I will extend you the usage of the word "evidence".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
joe_2007 wrote:Louis_Cypher

joe_2007 wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

 


In short, the scientific method may not ascertain 'Truth', but it's the best way we have of refining evidence that gets us closer to truth.

Let me ask, what would you replace it with? What would you say is a better way to find 'truth'?

 LC >;-}>

  

 

Don't get me wrong, LC. The scientific method is great for finding naturalistic cause and affect. But when observations are contrary to current evidence, another criteria seems to pop up: "Evidence must be naturalistic".  Take dark matter for instance. The universe behaves differently than the current evidence says it should, so "there must be some other natural cause."  Dark matter, that no one has observed, that behaves completely different then anything seen in nature so far, "must" be there because our observations say that it must. "It will be proved, or not, one day." Until then, the scientific community just has to have faith.

The scientific method just does not handle ALL truth. And that's fine, it doesn't need to. But some people on hear swear up and down that it does.

 

Here is another example. Let's say that God suddenly revealed to me your identity. I cold give you evidence by giving your address, ss number, date of birth and so on. Would you count this as evidence that God exists? Absolutely not. You would look for all other naturalistic explanations for me knowing the information. But what if you could never find any evidence of internet searches, or any other paper trail that explains how I could have known that information? What if every other explanation was shown false? Would you finally concede that God gave me the information? How could you? You have already eliminated that possibility with your criteria above.

 

Here's a quote from the thread that Ktulu alluded to earlier.

Ktulu wrote:

If you cannot reproduce the result and empirically verify the claim through a transparent process, the odds of that claim being true falls well short of the 99.9999% of certainty we grace the vast majority of our subjective universe.  Apply all this to religion, the Bible and deities and you will see where my atheism derives from.

 

joe_2007 wrote:

I thought about this statement as I watched the news story about people lifting a car off of a trapped person this weekend.  They even had video from a near-by security camera.  Now what if the video just showed one small women, who cried out to God to help her before she picked the car up and moved it.  Would you believe it or would you just think that the whole thing was staged?  Would you be able to reproduce the results? Not likely. If it was God's help, then he probably wouldn't help again just to appease you.   Could you empirically verify the claim through a transparent process?  If you start with the assumption that there is no God, then you probably are not going to believe the witness testimonies or the video, because you cannot reproduce it.  If you did believe them and that it happened, you would probably start with the assumption that if it wasn't staged, that there was some other adrenaline-based chemical process going on, but if it really was God's help, then you would not be able to reproduce it either.  Then which completely unverifiable theory would you give more certainty to? I am guessing the one that your assumptions have led you to.

 

 

Ktulu never came back with answer to this last passage.  LC, what's your take?

Thank you,

 

Joe

 

 

You didn't answer my question. What would you replace the scientific method with as a batter way to arrive at 'truth'.

You need to keep up with current events, The existence of Dark Matter has been pretty much empirically proven with Gravitational Lensing...

As to your examples:
I would still have no way to accertain that your 'god' in fact actually gave you the information, I would still only have your possibly flawed opinion as to the source.

In the same way, the little old lady calling out to 'god' would in no way show that it was actually 'god' that lifted the car, any more than the color of socks she was wearing.

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 Not blaming Jesus for the

 Not blaming Jesus for the actions but for the biblical sanction that the poorly written book allowed to be read into it.

Also, when Christians act like animals in the name of their God, are they still Christians? You say no but God says yes.

Who's right?

 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:my other

Old Seer wrote:

my other posts on this site. I am not an Theist, Deist, or Atheist.  I'm not on either side. Christianity is nothing more then your human side, verses your animal side. a few years ago I was in a discussion (argument on his side) with a Humanist. I pointed out that what they had was a proposal of "proper Christianity. He would not accept that idea. BUT, what they are about "is" what proper Christianity "is" about. Your blaming JC for the actions and mentality of others. There are no Christians on this planet. It is an unknown (except by my group). It became extinct about 50 to 75AD. Once again it has become known. It is your Human side, not the animal side/mentality. I am not a Christian, as I haven't perfected it to it's appropriate point, and no one will be able to as long as the world doesn't understand that ---it operates on the animal mentality under which all man's troubles with one another emanate from. Everyone has Christianity---it's your human side/mentality. Put away the animal and you have a different world. Now, you know what it is also. Turn to and make do--or go the other. You can now relate to others by "human" only, or animal only--it's your choice. But the world as it is will continuously interfere. You can no longer relate to others by both as you have been. You now know yourself. If you wish to continue to use both--you will know. One cannot help fix the world until he fixes himself first. You cannot be free until you set all others free from yourself first. Now that you know, let's see hopw you do. I "will" know.

Quote:
. Your blaming JC for the actions and mentality of others.

Do not defend the Jesus character and then claim that you are not a Christian.

Secondly. I do NOT blame the character JC for anything, anymore than I can blame Obe Wan for the actions of Darth Vadar.

Christianity is not my human side or my animal side. It is the invention of humans, nothing more. It came from the Hebrews who stole their characters from the Canaanites.

Humans are not outside nature. No myth, no religion, no superstition serves to explain what we are or how we evolved.

Basically what you are stupidly arguing is that if we are not fans of Jesus we will give into our base evolution and start going on killing sprees. BULL SHIT. Most, if not all the atheists who post  here,  are free from any sort of violent crime conviction. Nor would this website owner advocate physical harm to Christians or other believers. So to say belief in your magic baby theory is needed "be human" and avoid our "animal side"  to not fling poo at others is patently absurd.

I do not need belief in Jesus or Allah or Thor or Luke Skywalker to be a decent human. Neither do you, you just think you do.

But I will say this, if you feel you need to "know" the words of Jesus to keep yourself from physically hurting others, by all means, keep doing so, we don't need more violent people in the world. But you do not speak for me or the rest of humanity in claiming I need your superstition to be good and avoid doing harm to others.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Showing that you had

Showing that you had information that could not be obtained by any known 'natural' means, that you claimed to have got from what you experienced as a communication from God, would not be evidence for God, merely for an unknown process.

If it was absolutely provable that there was no natural means, there could be some kind of 'psychic power' involved, more plausible than a God. If some other 'being' really did exist and passed this information to you, it would not require anything like the attributes of a God, whether the Christian God or any other. No 'omni' or infinite qualities required.

Of course it would be almost impossible to prove with 100% certainty that there was no natural means of gaining the information.

=====

Empirical evidence is NOT limited by the imperfect nature of our sense perception - once we devise and employ measuring and detecting instruments, they are what determine what we can detect and measure. All our direct senses have to do is be able to read dials and other displays.

Any ideas not verifiable by scientific means can only remain speculations.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 769
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Well

Brian37 wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

my other posts on this site. I am not an Theist, Deist, or Atheist.  I'm not on either side. Christianity is nothing more then your human side, verses your animal side. a few years ago I was in a discussion (argument on his side) with a Humanist. I pointed out that what they had was a proposal of "proper Christianity. He would not accept that idea. BUT, what they are about "is" what proper Christianity "is" about. Your blaming JC for the actions and mentality of others. There are no Christians on this planet. It is an unknown (except by my group). It became extinct about 50 to 75AD. Once again it has become known. It is your Human side, not the animal side/mentality. I am not a Christian, as I haven't perfected it to it's appropriate point, and no one will be able to as long as the world doesn't understand that ---it operates on the animal mentality under which all man's troubles with one another emanate from. Everyone has Christianity---it's your human side/mentality. Put away the animal and you have a different world. Now, you know what it is also. Turn to and make do--or go the other. You can now relate to others by "human" only, or animal only--it's your choice. But the world as it is will continuously interfere. You can no longer relate to others by both as you have been. You now know yourself. If you wish to continue to use both--you will know. One cannot help fix the world until he fixes himself first. You cannot be free until you set all others free from yourself first. Now that you know, let's see hopw you do. I "will" know.

Quote:
. Your blaming JC for the actions and mentality of others.

Do not defend the Jesus character and then claim that you are not a Christian.

Secondly. I do NOT blame the character JC for anything, anymore than I can blame Obe Wan for the actions of Darth Vadar.

Christianity is not my human side or my animal side. It is the invention of humans, nothing more. It came from the Hebrews who stole their characters from the Canaanites.

Humans are not outside nature. No myth, no religion, no superstition serves to explain what we are or how we evolved.

Basically what you are stupidly arguing is that if we are not fans of Jesus we will give into our base evolution and start going on killing sprees. BULL SHIT. Most, if not all the atheists who post  here,  are free from any sort of violent crime conviction. Nor would this website owner advocate physical harm to Christians or other believers. So to say belief in your magic baby theory is needed "be human" and avoid our "animal side"  to not fling poo at others is patently absurd.

I do not need belief in Jesus or Allah or Thor or Luke Skywalker to be a decent human. Neither do you, you just think you do.

But I will say this, if you feel you need to "know" the words of Jesus to keep yourself from physically hurting others, by all means, keep doing so, we don't need more violent people in the world. But you do not speak for me or the rest of humanity in claiming I need your superstition to be good and avoid doing harm to other

 

 

 

 

Everyone has animal traits and human traits, and all have the same. I am not a Christian but I know what a Christian is. It's the "Good Guy" that we all have. Proper Christianity cannot be acquired at this time, or it's very hard to do' The world (as I previously pointed out) operates on animal mentality. I still have to live here and have to go along with the deal, at present there's no choice. The world doesn't run on the "Good Guy', it runs on force and counter force, greaters and lessers, the same as any cattle herd where there's the big bull that rules and has to be the greatest in herd. There is no requirement to accept JC, but no one can deny what he represents. He himself pointed that out. Today's Christianity (and since 50AD) is a lot of hooey. IE- The Pope does not represent JC, he represents the predator class which is religion, government, and business. The people are the ones that get preyed on. The lazy high class bastards don't care to throw the shit but want to drink the milk. JC points these types out--the ones lording it over others, but yet they lift not a finger to feed their own face. I would like to find a replacement for the word "Christianity", But we're stuck with calling a prince a frog, that's the way the dark age nit wits created it. They created JC in their image instead of the other way around.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 769
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
That's why we say

jcgadfly wrote:

 Not blaming Jesus for the actions but for the biblical sanction that the poorly written book allowed to be read into it.

Also, when Christians act like animals in the name of their God, are they still Christians? You say no but God says yes.

Who's right?

 

 

[/quote/]

That's why we say there are no real Christians on the planet today. They don't understand the differences between animal and human.

If they don't act like Christians then they're not.

They have the same concept of man as the rest of the world. There's no such thing as a human animal. Human is human and animal is animal. That is what is supposed to be the difference between Christians and the rest of the world. But -nada. There's abut 6 different applications of the usage "human". It's amazing, we have more trouble talking to Christians then Atheists. No one wants to be wrong. We only submit what we found from our studies, what a person believes or accepts is up to them. What really erks me is when Christians (so called) condemn others and they are no better themselves.

In any given situation a person is dealing from an animal point of view/process, or a human point of view/process. Anything we do facilitates one or the other except there are neutrals. IE-planting a vegetable garden need not facilitate either the human or inhuman. The two are the basics under which one relates to others. If one were alone on the planet there would be no such thing as human or animal/inhuman. Each is the values by which we relate or regard others. Our Psycho Guy verifies that.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:jcgadfly

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 Not blaming Jesus for the actions but for the biblical sanction that the poorly written book allowed to be read into it.

Also, when Christians act like animals in the name of their God, are they still Christians? You say no but God says yes.

Who's right?

 

 

[/quote/]

That's why we say there are no real Christians on the planet today. They don't understand the differences between animal and human.

If they don't act like Christians then they're not.

They have the same concept of man as the rest of the world. There's no such thing as a human animal. Human is human and animal is animal. That is what is supposed to be the difference between Christians and the rest of the world. But -nada. There's abut 6 different applications of the usage "human". It's amazing, we have more trouble talking to Christians then Atheists. No one wants to be wrong. We only submit what we found from our studies, what a person believes or accepts is up to them. What really erks me is when Christians (so called) condemn others and they are no better themselves.

In any given situation a person is dealing from an animal point of view/process, or a human point of view/process. Anything we do facilitates one or the other except there are neutrals. IE-planting a vegetable garden need not facilitate either the human or inhuman. The two are the basics under which one relates to others. If one were alone on the planet there would be no such thing as human or animal/inhuman. Each is the values by which we relate or regard others. Our Psycho Guy verifies that.

 

A Christian made the classification scheme that put us in the animal kingdom. Blame Linnaeus not atheists.

Or do you prefer being what God calls you - a clump of dirt? 

"If they don't act like Christians then they're not." But then if they ask for forgiveness then they are again. And, as a Christian, you can keep the sinning/forgiveness process for as long as the sin is beneficial to you.

Remember though, you have to have one more prayer of forgiveness than act of sin to be safe - don't lose count.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 769
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Woah Hoss

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 Not blaming Jesus for the actions but for the biblical sanction that the poorly written book allowed to be read into it.

Also, when Christians act like animals in the name of their God, are they still Christians? You say no but God says yes.

Who's right?

 

 

[/quote/]

That's why we say there are no real Christians on the planet today. They don't understand the differences between animal and human.

If they don't act like Christians then they're not.

They have the same concept of man as the rest of the world. There's no such thing as a human animal. Human is human and animal is animal. That is what is supposed to be the difference between Christians and the rest of the world. But -nada. There's abut 6 different applications of the usage "human". It's amazing, we have more trouble talking to Christians then Atheists. No one wants to be wrong. We only submit what we found from our studies, what a person believes or accepts is up to them. What really erks me is when Christians (so called) condemn others and they are no better themselves.

In any given situation a person is dealing from an animal point of view/process, or a human point of view/process. Anything we do facilitates one or the other except there are neutrals. IE-planting a vegetable garden need not facilitate either the human or inhuman. The two are the basics under which one relates to others. If one were alone on the planet there would be no such thing as human or animal/inhuman. Each is the values by which we relate or regard others. Our Psycho Guy verifies that.

 

A Christian made the classification scheme that put us in the animal kingdom. Blame Linnaeus not atheists.

Or do you prefer being what God calls you - a clump of dirt? 

"If they don't act like Christians then they're not." But then if they ask for forgiveness then they are again. And, as a Christian, you can keep the sinning/forgiveness process for as long as the sin is beneficial to you.

Remember though, you have to have one more prayer of forgiveness than act of sin to be safe - don't lose count.

I,m not a God guy as one would expect.

I'm not blaming anyone other then dark age Europeans.

I don't believe in the present Christian idea of creation.

I don't pray. I'm not a Theist, Deist, or Atheist, and I'm not a Christian.

The world today is a victim of ancient European ideology. Atheists are a victim as well as anyone else.

My God Does exist--it is my Human side-everyone has "my God" can you deny that. If my God is valid then "a God" exists. However,  that would not be the God of the present day Christians. If one says my God does not exist then no one exists, but we plainly do, don't we.

When you were born/formed you were natural. The State mandated that you go to school to become what the state requires. The state killed your child and replaced it with a predator. You are a victim.

As JC points out---God dwells in man. One won't find God anywhere else. The thing is---to refrain from being a God over and above someone else/others. Or, you can throw the term "god" out and replace it with-me you and everyone else.

The problem on this planet are those that run it.

( Smiley)

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:jcgadfly

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 Not blaming Jesus for the actions but for the biblical sanction that the poorly written book allowed to be read into it.

Also, when Christians act like animals in the name of their God, are they still Christians? You say no but God says yes.

Who's right?

 

 

That's why we say there are no real Christians on the planet today. They don't understand the differences between animal and human.

If they don't act like Christians then they're not.

They have the same concept of man as the rest of the world. There's no such thing as a human animal. Human is human and animal is animal. That is what is supposed to be the difference between Christians and the rest of the world. But -nada. There's abut 6 different applications of the usage "human". It's amazing, we have more trouble talking to Christians then Atheists. No one wants to be wrong. We only submit what we found from our studies, what a person believes or accepts is up to them. What really erks me is when Christians (so called) condemn others and they are no better themselves.

In any given situation a person is dealing from an animal point of view/process, or a human point of view/process. Anything we do facilitates one or the other except there are neutrals. IE-planting a vegetable garden need not facilitate either the human or inhuman. The two are the basics under which one relates to others. If one were alone on the planet there would be no such thing as human or animal/inhuman. Each is the values by which we relate or regard others. Our Psycho Guy verifies that.

 

A Christian made the classification scheme that put us in the animal kingdom. Blame Linnaeus not atheists.

Or do you prefer being what God calls you - a clump of dirt? 

"If they don't act like Christians then they're not." But then if they ask for forgiveness then they are again. And, as a Christian, you can keep the sinning/forgiveness process for as long as the sin is beneficial to you.

Remember though, you have to have one more prayer of forgiveness than act of sin to be safe - don't lose count.

I,m not a God guy as one would expect.

I'm not blaming anyone other then dark age Europeans.

I don't believe in the present Christian idea of creation.

I don't pray. I'm not a Theist, Deist, or Atheist, and I'm not a Christian.

The world today is a victim of ancient European ideology. Atheists are a victim as well as anyone else.

My God Does exist--it is my Human side-everyone has "my God" can you deny that. If my God is valid then "a God" exists. However,  that would not be the God of the present day Christians. If one says my God does not exist then no one exists, but we plainly do, don't we.

When you were born/formed you were natural. The State mandated that you go to school to become what the state requires. The state killed your child and replaced it with a predator. You are a victim.

As JC points out---God dwells in man. One won't find God anywhere else. The thing is---to refrain from being a God over and above someone else/others. Or, you can throw the term "god" out and replace it with-me you and everyone else.

The problem on this planet are those that run it.

( Smiley)

 

 

So you're a humanist who calls his humanity "God".

Why? You already have a great word for "humanity" - it's "humanity". Do you really need a word that has so much additional baggage?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The problem on this

Quote:
The problem on this planet are those that run it.

And the majority of the world's population holds some sort of belief in a deity. So if the people in power are the problem and the majority in power have a deity belief, maybe it's not such a good idea to run politics and economies based on a god?

Keep putting into it what you put into it you'll keep getting out of it what you get out of it.

Maybe our world's leaders should be less concerned about god claims and political gangs and more about the common things all humans have in common?

But I'm just a godless heathen out to rape and pillage and record the NFL without their permission. What would I know?

Living in Candy Land with the delusions of religious and political utopias that will never exist is what our species problem is, and from what you spew, you are simply part of the problem.

In the west, in civil pluralistic societies no one is required to kiss your god's ass or believe in your god. If you think god is a good solution for fixing government, I am quite sure Iran would agree, but only if you kiss their god's ass.

So get off your high horse and stop pretending you know what is best for 7 billion people.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 769
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You've got that right.

For the time being we're stuck with the term "God". The term covers a lot of territory, but it's still needed to explain things to others. Now---in our study we find the term "Way" is also used as the meaning of God. So-my "Way" to relate to others is through "Humanism", that's an acute observation of yours. BUT, if we converse with one who says he's a humanist and point out that what they believe in is "Christianity", they'll deny it. To solve the worlds problems one needs to understand Humanism from animal ism. The worlds problem is "animal ism", change that and we have a different world. That's all JC was representative of. He's the victim of the dark age botch job, and in turn so was/is everyone else. Civilization operates on animal entity/traits, change to humanism and all systems collapse. Civilizations and religions cannot exist without authority structures, as those same are derived from animal traits. Authority structures are not from humanism. Consider carefully- there's only two possible directions that the world operates on in it's relations with others, and you now know what that is. There can be no other "Ways". Now you're trapped-- if you wish to complain about the world and it's condition you have to give up the animal to change it. If you opt to remain using the animal then you remain at fault the same as others. Each one has to make up their own mind. When enough folk have made that decision the systems begin to fail. That is what is referred to in the book as "tribulation". What will one decide? Which "Way" to go? Keeping things as they are won't solve the problem(s). But, does one want to change to destroy the system to make the change.

  

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 769
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Only 7 billion

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
The problem on this planet are those that run it.

And the majority of the world's population holds some sort of belief in a deity. So if the people in power are the problem and the majority in power have a deity belief, maybe it's not such a good idea to run politics and economies based on a god?

Keep putting into it what you put into it you'll keep getting out of it what you get out of it.

Maybe our world's leaders should be less concerned about god claims and political gangs and more about the common things all humans have in common?

But I'm just a godless heathen out to rape and pillage and record the NFL without their permission. What would I know?

Living in Candy Land with the delusions of religious and political utopias that will never exist is what our species problem is, and from what you spew, you are simply part of the problem.

In the west, in civil pluralistic societies no one is required to kiss your god's ass or believe in your god. If you think god is a good solution for fixing government, I am quite sure Iran would agree, but only if you kiss their god's ass.

So get off your high horse and stop pretending you know what is best for 7 billion people.

 

 

people know now what's best for 7 billion people. We merely give them the choices.

I know you, you are part of the problem. Try to be human about things.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Its easy to dismiss someone ELSES experience

Reading some of the skeptics above, I see its very easy to simply dismiss another persons DIRECT evidence...miracle, hearing a voice, seeing a ghost, etc.

 

But my point isnt - "oh, please you gotta believe me."   (My individual, single, personal sensory experience)

 

My point is, why do you DISBELIEVE every single event claim ever made in the history of the human species?

 

And you dismiss them ALL for the same reason in every case - namely, because you didnt have the exact same experience yourself, and/or you expect to be able to summon up identical experience/evidence on command.

 

It's a category error. Naturalism/empiricism reminds me of that Abraham Maslow remark..."when the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail"

 

The universe isn't made of nails.

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 "My point is, why do you

 "My point is, why do you DISBELIEVE every single event claim ever made in the history of the human species?"

Because unique, non-repeatable experiences aren't beneficial to anyone other than the person experiencing them.

Now, if you experienced something and could tell me how you did it and I could get the same result you did that would make your results more substantial to me.

 If the universe isn't made of nails why is the only solution you offer a hammer named "God"?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:For the time

Old Seer wrote:

For the time being we're stuck with the term "God". The term covers a lot of territory, but it's still needed to explain things to others. Now---in our study we find the term "Way" is also used as the meaning of God. So-my "Way" to relate to others is through "Humanism", that's an acute observation of yours. BUT, if we converse with one who says he's a humanist and point out that what they believe in is "Christianity", they'll deny it. To solve the worlds problems one needs to understand Humanism from animal ism. The worlds problem is "animal ism", change that and we have a different world. That's all JC was representative of. He'st he victim of the dark age botch job, and in turn so was/is everyone else. Civilization operates on animal entity/traits, change to humanism and all systems collapse. Civilizations and religions cannot exist without authority structures, as those same are derived from animal traits. Authority structures are not from humanism. Consider carefully- there's only two possible directions that the world operates on in it's relations with others, and you now know what that is. There can be no other "Ways". Now you're trapped-- if you wish to complain about the world and it's condition you have to give up the animal to change it. If you opt to remain using the animal then you remain at fault the same as others. Each one has to make up their own mind. When enough folk have made that decision the systems begin to fail. That is what is referred to in the book as "tribulation". What will one decide? Which "Way" to go? Keeping things as they are won't solve the problem(s). But, does one want to change to destroy the system to make the change.

  

 

Stop it. this claptrap is the same as the last post. Your argument boils down to 'If you don't believe in my personal interpretation of being a fan of Jesus you will behave like an animal".

Evolution was around long before Christianity existed and the claims of Jesus existed and before the bible existed. It is a book of myth. Get over it.

I do not need to believe in your Jesus character to do good things or to be a decent person. Nor does my government require me or force me to bow to this horribly written junk.

Now here in this pile of crap you posted you used the word "authority".

Here is the difference between the fictional "authority" of the fictional god you claim, and the REAL authority citizens in the west live under.

Your fictional god character is a dictator, his "authority" is not through consent. You cannot vote this god out of office and you cannot impeach him.

The REAL authority that pluralistic governments have is done through the consent of the governed. We vote our leaders into office and have the ability to vote them out or even have them arrested if they break the law.

Your god character, as written as a literary character is not anything like the human governments in the west. You worship a dictator, and not even a real one. You have deluded yourself into mind slavery.

This is a childish attempt to demonize people who don't buy into your superstition or fictional god. Sorry, don't buy it and I don't need it.

Quote:
. That's all JC was representative of. He's the victim of the dark age botch job

No, he is a fictional comic book super hero. While a man or group of people certainly lead to the writing of the NT, none of the fantastic claims of the bible, much less virgin births or zombie god deaths, are not by any stretch credible scientifically.

It takes two sets of DNA to make a baby, thus the magic baby in the Jesus character who had no male contributer of a second set of DNA is bullshit. "Poof" does not count.

Human flesh does not survive rigor mortis, thus making his death story bullshit. Again, "poof" does not count.

You worship a myth, and a myth who's head character is a dictator.

I do not need your superstition or your bible or Jesus to live my life. I can't help you if you want to believe this junk, but you are not going to get anywhere here pretending to debate when all you are doing is preaching.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:For the time

Old Seer wrote:

For the time being we're stuck with the term "God". The term covers a lot of territory, but it's still needed to explain things to others. Now---in our study we find the term "Way" is also used as the meaning of God. So-my "Way" to relate to others is through "Humanism", that's an acute observation of yours. BUT, if we converse with one who says he's a humanist and point out that what they believe in is "Christianity", they'll deny it. To solve the worlds problems one needs to understand Humanism from animal ism. The worlds problem is "animal ism", change that and we have a different world. That's all JC was representative of. He's the victim of the dark age botch job, and in turn so was/is everyone else. Civilization operates on animal entity/traits, change to humanism and all systems collapse. Civilizations and religions cannot exist without authority structures, as those same are derived from animal traits. Authority structures are not from humanism. Consider carefully- there's only two possible directions that the world operates on in it's relations with others, and you now know what that is. There can be no other "Ways". Now you're trapped-- if you wish to complain about the world and it's condition you have to give up the animal to change it. If you opt to remain using the animal then you remain at fault the same as others. Each one has to make up their own mind. When enough folk have made that decision the systems begin to fail. That is what is referred to in the book as "tribulation". What will one decide? Which "Way" to go? Keeping things as they are won't solve the problem(s). But, does one want to change to destroy the system to make the change.

  

 

 

The problem with your idea is that there are those who call themselves "Christian Humanists" who don't consider God and humanism equivalent.

It also seems like you are bothered with being called an animal because you think humans are something special. I hate to disappoint you but we're not. We have some things that we do better than other animals and we have some things that we suck at compared to other animals. 

The "way" you need to go is the one that will help you and the rest of the species.  No extra BS required.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
The walls aren't laughing at you, they are laughing WITH you.

Lion IRC wrote:

Reading some of the skeptics above, I see its very easy to simply dismiss another persons DIRECT evidence...miracle, hearing a voice, seeing a ghost, etc.

 

But my point isnt - "oh, please you gotta believe me."   (My individual, single, personal sensory experience)

 

My point is, why do you DISBELIEVE every single event claim ever made in the history of the human species?

 

And you dismiss them ALL for the same reason in every case - namely, because you didnt have the exact same experience yourself, and/or you expect to be able to summon up identical experience/evidence on command.

 

It's a category error. Naturalism/empiricism reminds me of that Abraham Maslow remark..."when the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail"

 

The universe isn't made of nails.

 

 

The obvious problem lies in which claim do you choose to believe, and why?

When I worked on a Psych Ward for the US Army, we had a gentleman come in (no word of a lie) with his head encased in aluminum foil to prevent the aliens (he called them Martians) from beaming messages into his head.
He was sincere and utterly convinced.

We thought he was delusional to say the least.

Now as to every claim (of personal revelation) made throughout the history of well, history...
How do you weed out the contradictory claims, after all, they don't all agree on the nature, motivations or even number and gender of the deities in question. So what filter do you use to glean the wheat from the chaff?

Then you have to tell me what objective clinical criteria I should use to differentiate between claims of divine communication and my guy's claim of Martian communication?

Are you willing to claim that ALL personal revelations are valid? Mohammud in the cave or Joseph Smith with his head under the blanket? The Heaven's Gate crowd chug-a-lugging the Koolaid? That guy on the corner who pissed himself while talking to his dead uncle Frank?

I'll be happy to entertain the notion that personal revelation may be a 'proof' of divinity, if you can give me a reasonable method to pick the right one...

LC >;-}>



 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Experiences and mental

Experiences and mental 'events' are in themselves only evidence for the existence of the experiences, as an experience, a perception, for the person themselves.

Evidence for the experience being caused by something beyond the person's imagination would need to be something in addition to the reported experience itself, something not purely the testimony of a single individual. 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology