why i believe

JesusLovesYou
Theist
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
why i believe

From the very first week of existance God established MARRIAGE.  He made Adam, and saw he was helpless, so from Adam God created Eve.  Not as his servant, but as his partner-in-crime, his helper, his confidant.  Im sure most of you are atheists partly because some "power-hungry" men in the past oppressed women in the name of the Lord.....BUT they Bible has nothing of the sort.....

 

Anyway, God created marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN as a direct example of Christ's relationship to the church.  The church is the bride of Christ.  The church is not a building....the bible definition of church is the body of believers.  The Bible says that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church and gave Himself for it.

The wife in Song of Solomon 5:16 says "my beloved and my friend".  Biblical marriage is not only a man and woman co-existing together, but its FRIENDSHIP.  IMHO the straw that breaks the camel's back leading to divorce is LACK of FRIENDSHIP in marriages. 

If a man saw his wife as his BEST friend he would not covet other women, he would not sit on his "two-pack" with a tv remote or PS3 controller in his hand.  He would be SERVING her.  lack of SERVING is another thing that destroys marriages.  Secular Society (and infortunately some "pious" religious societies) are SELFISH rather than SELFLESS.  People do what they want, when they want, how they want, because THEY want...."Forget my husband or wife, THEY don't understand MY desires"

This is the problem with athiests.  "I don't have to be open and honest with my spouse"= I don't REALLY trust this person with my life.

"I can window shop, as long as I don't buy"=Majority of the time ends up in adultry

Why is divorce so devastating? Why is one or bother parties completely destroyed emotionally in a non-marital sexual relationship?  The act of intercourse physically, emotionally, and spiritually bonds 2 individuals on such an intense level, that the Bible simply describes it as 2 become 1. THIS is why intercourse is reserved for marriage, because of that bond.  Actually under the law of Moses if you slept with someone out of wedlock, you just married them. 

 

Why do I believe this is all tried and true?  My wife and I went through things only God could have gotten us through.  I was not honest, and held things from my past from her out of fear.....things that she found out on her own, by accident.  She left for 5 days, we barely talked.  She would not accept apology, she doubted in my faith, she doubted my past was past.  Intense anger was present in our home for a good month.  We slept separately for that time.  What did we do?  we DID NOT divorce.  We both know God never intended divorce.  We prayed to the Lord for eachother every night, but mainly for the Lord to work in us individually, and worked on our personal relationships with Him.  We sought out BIBLICAL counseling.  What did the counseler do?  Well he started in Genesis 2, and from there we walked through scripture on guidance to what we must do.  I learned that secrets destroy, lies destroy, deceit destroys.  My wife learned that by kicking me out of the room she was punishing me by using the marriage bed as her personal space.  After a month we came together again, and she was able to forgive me.  We are now in a couple's small group learning more about Biblical marriage than we ever knew. 

During that time did part of me want to fear that we would never come out on the other side?  YES did she? YES  But with prayer, searching the scripture, working on our personal relationships with the Lord, and Biblical support from those around us we found the light at the end of the tunnel and our marriage now is better than it ever was.

 

Nobody but God could have brought us through.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:
There are hundreds of people out there who have supernatural encounters, myself included.   It's kinda arrogant to assume we are all liars or delusional.  I don't know what you really expect.  A supernatural encounter that you can reproduce at will in a science lab?  Not going to happen.

You have not experienced anything "supernatural" by any working definition of the term. If you have experienced something then it is natural. It is not a matter of assuming you are liars. It is a matter of knowing you are not using words with their commonly accepted definitions.

As to the lab, the god experience was induced in Harvard Chapel with the use of LSD by Timothy Leary decades ago. Yes, it can be induced in a reproducible manner consistent with the methodology of science. That means it is quite natural.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Considering the

TWD39 wrote:
Considering the countless possibilities of items she could have brought, the odds of it being mere concidence would be astronomical.  Of course, you could simply claim Doyle is a lying sack, but if you knew Doyle, you would find him to be one of the most friendliest down to earth people.  His community is the guitar community, Christian or not.   He could enjoy the same level of success and admiration without embellishing such a story so I have absolutely no reason to believe he is lying.  It must be maddening to live in your world where you approach everything and everyone with complete skepticism.   But I'm sure you don't live your life that way.

I clearly explained why someone might make up or embellish such a story, and why it doesn't exactly make them a "lying sack", but you are of course free to ignore all that.

I approach supernatural claims with skepticism. That doesn't include "everything and everyone", but you're free to ignore that too.

Still no answer ? Gonna be one of those threads again ? *sigh*

Fine, I'll ask again : Why go for a supernatural explanation when there are still so many rational ones ? 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Real case of

TWD39 wrote:


Real case of what?  If you are claiming that I am this Paisley character then you are absolutely wrong, and you have no evidence to prove it.  I only joined this forum a few months ago so I advise you drop it.

You're saying this is your first account here ? 

Just answer that one with a simple yes or no, and I will happily drop this. Extremely happily. 

And really, whining about this doesn't really make sense. You could have ignored this just as easily as you ignore certain people's posts. Complaining is more fun, I guess.

 


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:TWD39

Anonymouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:


Real case of what?  If you are claiming that I am this Paisley character then you are absolutely wrong, and you have no evidence to prove it.  I only joined this forum a few months ago so I advise you drop it.

You're saying this is your first account here ? 

Just answer that one with a simple yes or no, and I will happily drop this. Extremely happily. 

And really, whining about this doesn't really make sense. You could have ignored this just as easily as you ignore certain people's posts. Complaining is more fun, I guess.

 

 

Yes.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Yes.This just

TWD39 wrote:

Yes.

This just gives me the warm fuzzies all over. Smiling

Thanks, dude. Consider this dropped.

 

Since you're in a reasonable mood, answer the other question too ? 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Ok , I have no problem with

Ok , I have no problem with leaving this area alone as well.

I'm still not worried about TWD ignoring me - I don't have a problem with posting unchallenged facts.

"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


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:TWD39

Anonymouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Yes.

This just gives me the warm fuzzies all over. Smiling

Thanks, dude. Consider this dropped.

 

Since you're in a reasonable mood, answer the other question too ? 

 

Thank you for dropping it.  I'll be glad to answer your other question.   I actually do look for rational explanations instead of accepting a supernatural one by default.  For example, when people claim to see the face of Jesus in clouds or on a piece of toast, I believe it is merely the function of our brain that recognizes faces at work here instead of a divine sign. When I see youtube videos of UFOS and psychic ability, I am skeptical because I know these images easily be faked.  I have a hunger to research and learn the truth behind bizzare events.   The Cottingley Fairies is an example that would be fun to believe it, but after researching the story,  I can't deny that it was a hoax.

 

OTOH, I am willing to accept supernatural explanations when it defies natural and physical laws.  Yes, objects flying acoss the room could be faked with strings, but my friends saw this happen in person, and it freaked the hell out of them.  There is no logical or rational explantion for Doyle's white rose beyond mere concidence or lying.  I find it hard to believe that this lady had a mental delusion, and the voice in her delusion happened to command her to bring the exact object that Doyle's daughter requested in prayer.  

 

The difference between you and me is I can accept both rational scientific explanations and supernatural.  You must find a way to scientifically explain it all, and so far, there is much that science can't explain.  

 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I looked at Doyle's story -

I looked at Doyle's story - coming up with a rational explanation isn't that hard.

Someone heard the song that he wrote for his kid. He said that he played it a lot. That person thought "Hey, I grow white roses - maybe I should give him one". Frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't gotten dozens.

The guitar story is similar. He dropped hints and his wife got him a custom guitar.

Lots of good people doing good things for others - where does God come in?

Christians sell themselves so short.

"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


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1548
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I know I wouldnt continue to ignore blacklight . . . .

blacklight915 wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

Faith is what is keeping the little girl in haiti that we are supporting through food for the hungry from giving up.

Um, are you sure it's not the food? Or the fact she knows people care about her?

Regardless, you and your wife are doing a wonderful thing, and hearing about it makes me glad. 

 

     'It' (double-meaning) barely can be described as making any sense. It ignores someone like Blacklight?  Perhaps learning the definition of Temperamentality would lead to a better time. BlackLight would like to talk to you and seeking out  a few people who are of a certain temperament couldnt hurt 'victim'. She did break down and say how everyone was being so ugly (a quote). Yeah?  Most should be curious as to why .. (I'm now curious as to why) you continue to ignore blacklight, TWD ? BlackLight is really kindly Smiling

 

   P. S . -- Why dont you give me that P.O. Box so I can write that apology, it would wound my conscious not to be able to send it now.

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:  Yes, objects

TWD39 wrote:
OTOH, I am willing to accept supernatural explanations when it defies natural and physical laws.  Yes, objects flying acoss the room could be faked with strings, but my friends saw this happen in person, and it freaked the hell out of them.  There is no logical or rational explantion for Doyle's white rose beyond mere concidence or lying.

 

There's the rub. No natural and physical laws need to be defied to explain any of this. You know there could be a reasonable explanation for both those cases. But you've decided that the supernatural is somehow a more reasonable option than the actual reasonable explanations that are still available. I don't understand that decision. 

Oh, I can assume/infer/etc what your motivations might be, like I did with that lady in the bbc show, but I don't know you well enough to even try that.

I'd rather ask you directly, and I'm actually pretty grateful to be given this chance, as this question usually gets dodged quite a lot.

 

So why do you pick the supernatural explanation when you know there's still a non-supernatural one, like in both these cases ? 


 

TWD39 wrote:
I find it hard to believe that this lady had a mental delusion, and the voice in her delusion happened to command her to bring the exact object that Doyle's daughter requested in prayer.  

 

But you don't need to go that far to rationally explain that. I'm not saying your friend is inherently dishonest. I'm saying he saw nothing wrong in making up or embellishing this particular story. His motivation for doing this could have been nothing more than to make people happy. 

 

TWD39 wrote:
The difference between you and me is I can accept both rational scientific explanations and supernatural.
 

 

And what I still can't figure out is why you would even need a supernatural one as long as there are rational ones.

 

I think I'll wait until you answer that question before I jump to any conclusions about what exactly divides us here.

 

 

TWD39 wrote:
You must find a way to scientifically explain it all, and so far, there is much that science can't explain.  

 

There used to be much more that science couldn't explain. Yet.  Every supernatural explanation offered turned out to be, to put it kindly, not true at all. Every single one. Surely that should count for something.

 

 

 

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:Why dont

danatemporary wrote:

Why dont you give me that P.O. Box so I can write that apology, it would wound my conscious not to be able to send it now.

You don't owe anyone an apology.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I looked at

jcgadfly wrote:

I looked at Doyle's story - coming up with a rational explanation isn't that hard.

Someone heard the song that he wrote for his kid. He said that he played it a lot. That person thought "Hey, I grow white roses - maybe I should give him one". Frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't gotten dozens.

The guitar story is similar. He dropped hints and his wife got him a custom guitar.

Lots of good people doing good things for others - where does God come in?

Christians sell themselves so short.

 

There you go, another rational option. 

There really are just too many of them.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Anonymouse wrote:TWD39

Anonymouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Typical atheist response.  Instead of addressing my point specifically, you take it in another direction of mockery.  Besides, some translations say two people in the same bed.

 

Typical theist tactic. You ignore me when I address your point directly, so I thought I'd try this. Instant success.

And btw, it's not mockery, it's simply just as far-fetched as your claims of bible science.

 

So anyway, how you been, Paisley ? 

Whats wrong with mocking an absurd claim?

If I claimed I could fart a Lamborghinni out of my ass, and truely believed it what would be wrong with you mocking that claim and saying something like "Yea you can fart a Lamborghini out of your ass like I can fart a space shuttle out of mine".

It still boils down to "if it sounds too good to be true" it should be mocked to knock the claimant into reality, otherwise I would go on continuing to falsely believe that I could fart a lamborghinhi out of my ass.

Claims are like sphincters, everyone has one. My rule is that I will stop mocking any claim when the claimant can take that claim to the patient office and win a nobel Prize in science. Other than that, just admit that it is something one likes believing.

I have no duty beyond the human rights of government to protect one's right to make any claim they want. I will always protect that right even if I attack the claim itself.

The claimant does have a choice. They can make the claim and back it up with evidence, or accept that it is nothing but their own personal predelection. But they do not have the right to be free from having their claims mocked. If they want to shut me up, all they have to do is prove it. But I would advise them that it really is journey to nowhere.

 

"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


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:jcgadfly

Anonymouse wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I looked at Doyle's story - coming up with a rational explanation isn't that hard.

Someone heard the song that he wrote for his kid. He said that he played it a lot. That person thought "Hey, I grow white roses - maybe I should give him one". Frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't gotten dozens.

The guitar story is similar. He dropped hints and his wife got him a custom guitar.

Lots of good people doing good things for others - where does God come in?

Christians sell themselves so short.

 

There you go, another rational option. 

There really are just too many of them.

 

 

He wrote the song years after he received the white rose.  There was no foreknowledge available to complete strangers.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
TWD39 wrote:Anonymouse

TWD39 wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I looked at Doyle's story - coming up with a rational explanation isn't that hard.

Someone heard the song that he wrote for his kid. He said that he played it a lot. That person thought "Hey, I grow white roses - maybe I should give him one". Frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't gotten dozens.

The guitar story is similar. He dropped hints and his wife got him a custom guitar.

Lots of good people doing good things for others - where does God come in?

Christians sell themselves so short.

 

There you go, another rational option. 

There really are just too many of them.

 

 

He wrote the song years after he received the white rose.  There was no foreknowledge available to complete strangers.

So therefore magic babies are real and surviving rigor mortis is real and brains with no brains are real? That is a huge gap you want us to jump.

The show MASH had the character named Radar that was depicted as reading people's minds and "feeling" the arival of the helicoptors with the injured. All utter bullshit and completly fictional.

I used to know a mental trick that someone taught me a long time ago. Simply guessing the number they thought of. Once I learned that trick I could convince them that I was actually reading their mind. It is bullshit. What I was really doing is aksing leading questions which lead the person to give me the answer without them being aware that they were doing it.

Now  your "no knoledge" as used for an excuse to justify woo, is merely an argument of ignorance. Not knowing how something happened does not make any sort of woo credible. There are natural exxplinations that can fit in without gap filling. That gap filling was what allowed me to fool that person that I read their mind and "guessed" the number.

People can and do subconsiously and consciously pick up on all sorts of things and can be unaware that they are doing such.

My co workers think, quite falsely that I read their minds because I am hyper aware of what is going on around me, where as most workers simply ignore what others do and only do what they have to. So when i show up behind a co worker "suddenly" to help them, I am not reading their mind, I am playing the odds because I am aware of what they are about to do.

What can be ruled out in your "account" is superstition and souls and god/s. If you are not flat out lying to us, then it is merely a subconsious que picked up on that never got noticed. But like all good con artists, they always lie and say that is not what is going on.

It is why magicians for a long time got away with convincing the creudulous that the actually sawed the woman in half or made her float. Now that that con has been around for so long, the honest ones like Penn and Teller admit it is a trick even if they don't tell you how it is done.

If your "account" had any credibility a science with independent scientists could quite easly set up a lab and a control group to verify the plausability to your end conclusion. The wise scientist when the con makes the claim doesn't simply accept it on faith and the wise con artist runs and avoids the challenge to maintain their lie.

The conclusion when an "I don't know" occurs the FIRST thing logical thinkers default to is Ocham's Razor, which stipulates that out of all claimed solutions to an "I don't know", the least complecated is the most likely answer.

Now if you are going to ask me to chose between untested woo and base it on a personal "experiance", I am sorry, I cannot and will not. Between "woo" and the reality that humans simply do not understand how easily their own brains can fool them and others, the natural explination and the least complecated is that humans have flawed perceptions.

Otherwise that song could easily have been inspired by a pink unicorn, or Allah or Thor or an invisible teapot orbiting Jupiter and would be as equally valid a guess as to "why" this "experiance" happened.

Bottom line the natural explination is that humans fool themselves and can quite easily fool 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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Anonymouse

TWD39 wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I looked at Doyle's story - coming up with a rational explanation isn't that hard.

Someone heard the song that he wrote for his kid. He said that he played it a lot. That person thought "Hey, I grow white roses - maybe I should give him one". Frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't gotten dozens.

The guitar story is similar. He dropped hints and his wife got him a custom guitar.

Lots of good people doing good things for others - where does God come in?

Christians sell themselves so short.

 

There you go, another rational option. 

There really are just too many of them.

 

 

He wrote the song years after he received the white rose.  There was no foreknowledge available to complete strangers.

No evidence of that from the linked article. Did you just think of this yourself?

"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: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
A couple of other examples

A couple of other examples of how people fool themselves. Some people like to claim that mothers can "sense" when their kid is in trouble. The flaw in that claim is that they never take into account a long term sample where they have that "feeling" and nothing happens.

Some twins and married couples complete each other's sentances. So what. My best friend Bob whom I only talk to on skpe we do that all the time. It is not that we are litteraly reading others minds, but that we are so used to each other we consiously or subconciously que off the behavior we are used to having with each other.

Historically it is even worse when the tactic of theists when they claim "How could all these flood stories exist if there was no connection between cultures, it must mean a global flood happened"

NO, no one living back then knew that local floods happen all over the world. Back then the layperson saw the horizon as being the entire world they lived in. So independent flood stories are perfectly to be expected because they had no clue the real size of the world on a scientific level.

So why do I bring this up? Because it still boils down to the natural conclusion and the most simple answer is that if someone wants to believe something badly enough they will, and if they want to fool others badly enough they will.

In your case, like I said, there are only two rational options. 1. They are missinterpreting their "experiance", or they are flat out lying. You don't have to be lying to be wrong, but many people even when not intentually lying like the missinterpretation even if they are unaware that that is all it is.

"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


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:TWD39

Brian37 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I looked at Doyle's story - coming up with a rational explanation isn't that hard.

Someone heard the song that he wrote for his kid. He said that he played it a lot. That person thought "Hey, I grow white roses - maybe I should give him one". Frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't gotten dozens.

The guitar story is similar. He dropped hints and his wife got him a custom guitar.

Lots of good people doing good things for others - where does God come in?

Christians sell themselves so short.

 

There you go, another rational option. 

There really are just too many of them.

 

 

He wrote the song years after he received the white rose.  There was no foreknowledge available to complete strangers.

So therefore magic babies are real and surviving rigor mortis is real and brains with no brains are real? That is a huge gap you want us to jump.

The show MASH had the character named Radar that was depicted as reading people's minds and "feeling" the arival of the helicoptors with the injured. All utter bullshit and completly fictional.

I used to know a mental trick that someone taught me a long time ago. Simply guessing the number they thought of. Once I learned that trick I could convince them that I was actually reading their mind. It is bullshit. What I was really doing is aksing leading questions which lead the person to give me the answer without them being aware that they were doing it.

Now  your "no knoledge" as used for an excuse to justify woo, is merely an argument of ignorance. Not knowing how something happened does not make any sort of woo credible. There are natural exxplinations that can fit in without gap filling. That gap filling was what allowed me to fool that person that I read their mind and "guessed" the number.

People can and do subconsiously and consciously pick up on all sorts of things and can be unaware that they are doing such.

My co workers think, quite falsely that I read their minds because I am hyper aware of what is going on around me, where as most workers simply ignore what others do and only do what they have to. So when i show up behind a co worker "suddenly" to help them, I am not reading their mind, I am playing the odds because I am aware of what they are about to do.

What can be ruled out in your "account" is superstition and souls and god/s. If you are not flat out lying to us, then it is merely a subconsious que picked up on that never got noticed. But like all good con artists, they always lie and say that is not what is going on.

It is why magicians for a long time got away with convincing the creudulous that the actually sawed the woman in half or made her float. Now that that con has been around for so long, the honest ones like Penn and Teller admit it is a trick even if they don't tell you how it is done.

If your "account" had any credibility a science with independent scientists could quite easly set up a lab and a control group to verify the plausability to your end conclusion. The wise scientist when the con makes the claim doesn't simply accept it on faith and the wise con artist runs and avoids the challenge to maintain their lie.

The conclusion when an "I don't know" occurs the FIRST thing logical thinkers default to is Ocham's Razor, which stipulates that out of all claimed solutions to an "I don't know", the least complecated is the most likely answer.

Now if you are going to ask me to chose between untested woo and base it on a personal "experiance", I am sorry, I cannot and will not. Between "woo" and the reality that humans simply do not understand how easily their own brains can fool them and others, the natural explination and the least complecated is that humans have flawed perceptions.

Otherwise that song could easily have been inspired by a pink unicorn, or Allah or Thor or an invisible teapot orbiting Jupiter and would be as equally valid a guess as to "why" this "experiance" happened.

Bottom line the natural explination is that humans fool themselves and can quite easily fool others.

 

 

 

 

So nothing is real until science proves it?  If that's the case, I guess events like the Oakville, WA blobs never really happen.  It occured on  August 7, 1994, and science failed to find a cause for the event.

 

Exactly how do you propose a control group could test something like Doyle's miracle?  Science is not a one size fits all solution.  There are things that can't be reproduced or tested at will.  Otherwise, it wouldn't even be a miracle.  It would just be another one of the physical realities that God created.   Look at the "scientific" studies that have been done on the power of prayer.  Skeptics rejoiced when a controlled study revealed that prayer made no difference.  Problem is there are other studies that show the opposite. The studies are worthless.  Too many variables.   Medical studies are particularly frustrating. For example,  I swear the scientists change their story every year on eggs and coffee.  Apparently this year, eggs are really really bad for you. As bad as smoking.  Years before, they said eggs were good for you.  And as far as I know, science fails miserably to explain the placebo effect and the mind/body connection.

 

Your magician analogy fails because there are concrete explanations and proof for their abilties.  OTOH, you have no concrete proof to boast that God is nothing more than a figment of our imagination.  You can only point out what you perceive as problems with my faith.  (ex. God is a jerk and a bully in the OT, therefore He does not Exist!) 

 

 You can throw out terms like pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monster all you want.  It doesn't change the fact that something amazing happened here.  The only way you can knock it down is to provide a rational explanation how a complete stranger received a command from her delusion  that exactly matched the right object at the right time.  


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:So nothing is real

Quote:
So nothing is real until science proves it?  If that's the case, I guess events like the Oakville, WA blobs never really happen.  It occured on  August 7, 1994, and science failed to find a cause for the event

 

No,

Amilia Eerhart's plane went down in the Pacific, that is a fact. It is also fact that we cannot find the plane, or have not so far. But if we go by your logic that it is true until proven false, then she was abducted by the Kebler Elves.

It was true that air flight was possible even before we knew it. The laws of physics and lift were arround long before the invention of the airplane. But even though we cannot find the plane, we can take the natural rout that a storm, or mechanical problem, or even worst case scenerio, shot down by mistaken identity. But what did not happen in her case was a Yetti throwing a gient snowball at her plane, or little green men, or Thor striking her down.

But science never made that assumption first and if since took your approach we'd simply strap feathers to our arms and jump off cliffs because we can see birds fly.

Newton got physics right, but he was NOT right about everything and even he gave up on his pet project of alchemy when he realized how absurd it was.

Sceintists do not claim nor should claim to know everything. Any scientist not willing to go where the evidence leads SHOULD NOT be in a lab.  But they do not fill in gaps with superstition or woo otherwise I could claim that Eerhart went down because of Godzila or King Kong and since you have never been to japan or been in every jungle, it must be true because you cant prove it isnt.

Never heard of this WA blob consperacy you are talking about. Lots of people claim horiscopes and ouija boards work. Lots of people think there was more than one killer in the JFK assasination and some people still today think the moon landing was faked.

Now if you think gap filling and faith is all that is required for evidence, then the next time you go to pick up your paycheck, let him say "It is an invisible pay check, in an invisible bank" Since paychecks are real and banks are reai then "faith" in an invisible one you cant see must mean it is real because he too could claim "how do you know it isn't real".

See if you can spot the pattern,

"Allah is real because you cant prove he isn't"

"Yawheh is real because you cant prove he isn't"

""Vishnu is real because you cant prove he isnt"

"My invisible pink unicorn is real because you cant prove it isnt"

 

So by your logic if you want to be consistant, all of those claims are true by default. The reality is that you wouldn't do that nor should you do that.

Now, take that same introspection you just used in rejecting the claims above, and apply it to your own claims as well. Otherwise all those gap answers above are true as well. That is what you are doing and that is what scientific method filters out.

"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


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:
Exactly how do you propose a control group could test something like Doyle's miracle? 

There are a few old stories about priests of competing gods performing miracle contests. If this is the kind of miracle your god does it is difficult to see its priests ever winning. This has no production values at all not to mention not the kind that might impress the judges.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
TWD39 wrote:Brian37

TWD39 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I looked at Doyle's story - coming up with a rational explanation isn't that hard.

Someone heard the song that he wrote for his kid. He said that he played it a lot. That person thought "Hey, I grow white roses - maybe I should give him one". Frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't gotten dozens.

The guitar story is similar. He dropped hints and his wife got him a custom guitar.

Lots of good people doing good things for others - where does God come in?

Christians sell themselves so short.

 

There you go, another rational option. 

There really are just too many of them.

 

 

He wrote the song years after he received the white rose.  There was no foreknowledge available to complete strangers.

So therefore magic babies are real and surviving rigor mortis is real and brains with no brains are real? That is a huge gap you want us to jump.

The show MASH had the character named Radar that was depicted as reading people's minds and "feeling" the arival of the helicoptors with the injured. All utter bullshit and completly fictional.

I used to know a mental trick that someone taught me a long time ago. Simply guessing the number they thought of. Once I learned that trick I could convince them that I was actually reading their mind. It is bullshit. What I was really doing is aksing leading questions which lead the person to give me the answer without them being aware that they were doing it.

Now  your "no knoledge" as used for an excuse to justify woo, is merely an argument of ignorance. Not knowing how something happened does not make any sort of woo credible. There are natural exxplinations that can fit in without gap filling. That gap filling was what allowed me to fool that person that I read their mind and "guessed" the number.

People can and do subconsiously and consciously pick up on all sorts of things and can be unaware that they are doing such.

My co workers think, quite falsely that I read their minds because I am hyper aware of what is going on around me, where as most workers simply ignore what others do and only do what they have to. So when i show up behind a co worker "suddenly" to help them, I am not reading their mind, I am playing the odds because I am aware of what they are about to do.

What can be ruled out in your "account" is superstition and souls and god/s. If you are not flat out lying to us, then it is merely a subconsious que picked up on that never got noticed. But like all good con artists, they always lie and say that is not what is going on.

It is why magicians for a long time got away with convincing the creudulous that the actually sawed the woman in half or made her float. Now that that con has been around for so long, the honest ones like Penn and Teller admit it is a trick even if they don't tell you how it is done.

If your "account" had any credibility a science with independent scientists could quite easly set up a lab and a control group to verify the plausability to your end conclusion. The wise scientist when the con makes the claim doesn't simply accept it on faith and the wise con artist runs and avoids the challenge to maintain their lie.

The conclusion when an "I don't know" occurs the FIRST thing logical thinkers default to is Ocham's Razor, which stipulates that out of all claimed solutions to an "I don't know", the least complecated is the most likely answer.

Now if you are going to ask me to chose between untested woo and base it on a personal "experiance", I am sorry, I cannot and will not. Between "woo" and the reality that humans simply do not understand how easily their own brains can fool them and others, the natural explination and the least complecated is that humans have flawed perceptions.

Otherwise that song could easily have been inspired by a pink unicorn, or Allah or Thor or an invisible teapot orbiting Jupiter and would be as equally valid a guess as to "why" this "experiance" happened.

Bottom line the natural explination is that humans fool themselves and can quite easily fool others.

 

 

 

 

So nothing is real until science proves it?  If that's the case, I guess events like the Oakville, WA blobs never really happen.  It occured on  August 7, 1994, and science failed to find a cause for the event.

 

Exactly how do you propose a control group could test something like Doyle's miracle?  Science is not a one size fits all solution.  There are things that can't be reproduced or tested at will.  Otherwise, it wouldn't even be a miracle.  It would just be another one of the physical realities that God created.   Look at the "scientific" studies that have been done on the power of prayer.  Skeptics rejoiced when a controlled study revealed that prayer made no difference.  Problem is there are other studies that show the opposite. The studies are worthless.  Too many variables.   Medical studies are particularly frustrating. For example,  I swear the scientists change their story every year on eggs and coffee.  Apparently this year, eggs are really really bad for you. As bad as smoking.  Years before, they said eggs were good for you.  And as far as I know, science fails miserably to explain the placebo effect and the mind/body connection.

 

Your magician analogy fails because there are concrete explanations and proof for their abilties.  OTOH, you have no concrete proof to boast that God is nothing more than a figment of our imagination.  You can only point out what you perceive as problems with my faith.  (ex. God is a jerk and a bully in the OT, therefore He does not Exist!) 

 

 You can throw out terms like pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monster all you want.  It doesn't change the fact that something amazing happened here.  The only way you can knock it down is to provide a rational explanation how a complete stranger received a command from her delusion  that exactly matched the right object at the right time.  

Studies are worthless? What do you think product develoment is? How do you think computers went from light bulbs and switches taking up entire gyms, to smaller punchcard mainframes, to smaller monochomatic pcs, to color pcs, to Apple to to Microsoft, to IPADS and cell phones that are now more powerful than the first PCS?

And eggs are bad FOR WHO? Some yes because they have alergies  and they do have colesteral, but they also have good protien. They would both say it isn't harmfull occasinally. Water is good for you too, but no doctor is going to recomend you down 20 gallons of it in 5 minutes, even doing that would kill you.

You are still stuck on "personal experience". We can scientificaly prove that our own perceptians can be flawed. You can draw two lines on a peice of paper if you do it right, and make them look to be different sizes, but if you simply turn the paper to a different angle, your perception changes. That is just optical illusions. People have phantom pains where their brians tell them a missing hand or mising foot or leg are still there, even though they are not.

Our perceptions are notoriously flawed. The natural explination to your examples are very simple mentaly, just like misinterpreting the size of something. You simply see something you don't understand, or if you are a con artist lie about it.

So now your argument is that scientists don't agree? If they did all the time I would think they were cons themselves. But once competing claims are settled THE ETHICAL scientist will discard the bad data and adapt the good data.

Dont confuse a drug company or a food company whose "scientists" look for excuses. What happens when scientists work for corperate America, not that they always do or will, but when something dangerous gets out it is because the wistle blowers working for them either get fired or under contract to never talk about it.

But method itself is not a person, it is a tool and it is the same method that causes a car engine manufacturer to put a belt on a pully and not on the rear view mirror. It is why you will never find a softwear developer using a feather boa instead of a keyboard. It is the same method that causes an orthopidic sergon to use x rays and cat scans, rather than ouija boards.

 

 

"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


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1548
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I wonder where people get ideas from . . .

 .. where people get ideas 'from'

 

   Anyone hear ABOUT for the embattled Missouri senate candidate  Todd Akin (you know the one) was brought up again, because has Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar apparently are rallying for him (received national attention, in the United States, for their support scheduled); we had two separate threads about  Akin and possibly part of a third if I recall. I can only speak for myself but I am curious who gave them the idea to support Akin in the first place ? Crazy as it sounds, I wonder where people get ideas from. I could have been Kirk (only guessing)? Must have been. Stuck me as odd, Yahoo News featured it as a main headline. Were they influenced by Kirk's earlier support ?

 

 

 

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3116
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is onlineOnline
danatemporary wrote: ..

danatemporary wrote:

 .. where people get ideas 'from'

 

   Anyone hear ABOUT for the embattled Missouri senate candidate  Todd Akin (you know the one) was brought up again, because has Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar apparently are rallying for him (received national attention, in the United States, for their support scheduled); we had two separate threads about  Akin and possibly part of a third if I recall. I can only speak for myself but I am curious who gave them the idea to support Akin in the first place ? Crazy as it sounds, I wonder where people get ideas from. I could have been Kirk (only guessing)? Must have been. Stuck me as odd, Yahoo News featured it as a main headline. Were they influenced by Kirk's earlier support ?

 

What amazes me is that these people get support from the voters to actually make it in to office.

Jon Stewart had a segment on a last week about the three crazies (legit rape, blacks should be thankful and the earth is 9000 years old).

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4517
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:The difference

TWD39 wrote:

The difference between you and me is I can accept both rational scientific explanations and supernatural.  You must find a way to scientifically explain it all, and so far, there is much that science can't explain.  

Why do you insist that we must be able to explain 100% of everything right this moment? And simply because there are some things that cannot currently be explained, you accept god as the answer? Several thousand years ago they couldn't explain rain, so they believed rain was caused by something supernatural. Today, we know they were wrong and there is absolutely nothing supernatural about rain and there isn't a god that directly causes it. No doubt 2000 years from now, humans will have a far greater understanding of the world and the universe and be able to explain much more than we can today. Simply because we do not know does not indicate that there is something supernatural or some deity behind it, it simply means we do not know. The difference between me and you is I do not have the arrogance to declare that I know everything and am willing to accept that there are some questions that will not be answered by anyone during my lifetime.  

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
While we are appealing to the crowd

TWD39 wrote:

There are hundreds of people out there who have supernatural encounters, myself included.   It's kinda arrogant to assume we are all liars or delusional. 

 

there are billions of people out there who have never had supernatural encounters. It is arrogant of you to assume that such people are all sinners and deserve eternal immolation at the behest of an undefined and unseen deity whose entire existence depends on belief without proof. Yet on the basis of no testable explanation you condemn us and our loved ones to death. It should not be very difficult for you empathy-saturated christians to put yourselves in our position and to feel a sense of our deep and abiding outrage and our distaste for the false morality of your dogma. Perhaps we should begin an atheist cult that condemns you christians to death for not genuflecting before the Taung Child. How would that feel? Mmm? 

In addition, given the supernatural is; by definition, non material; please explain how it is that anyone has experienced this assertion in a manner that could not be more adequately explained as adventures in the human imagination. To be honest, having been around you 2 theists for a while, it's obvious you need/want there to be something more, some extra meaning to life, something greater than just looking after the people you love and who love you. Something that makes each of you the centre of universal attention. I have no problem with this self-obsessed behaviour. And just as soon as you remove the baseless threats and bizarre 'moral' judgments from your 'holy' book I will be happy to let you get about your giddy lifetimes of creative reality without further comment.  

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


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:See if you can

Brian37 wrote:

See if you can spot the pattern,

"Allah is real because you cant prove he isn't"

"Yawheh is real because you cant prove he isn't"

""Vishnu is real because you cant prove he isnt"

"My invisible pink unicorn is real because you cant prove it isnt"

 

So by your logic if you want to be consistant, all of those claims are true by default. The reality is that you wouldn't do that nor should you do that.

Now, take that same introspection you just used in rejecting the claims above, and apply it to your own claims as well. Otherwise all those gap answers above are true as well. That is what you are doing and that is what scientific method filters out.

 

Faith in pink unicorns does not change people's lives.  Faith in Jesus Christ has literally changed people overnight into a completely new person, caused them to kick deadly addictions immediately, and give up sinful behavior.  I find it hard to believe that someone like Brian Head Welch was able to immediately quit his meth addiction overnight and be overcome with a faith so powerful that he quit one of the most successful rock bands in the world simply because of his own imagination or willful thinking.  If this was really true then people should be able to simply think themselves out of depression, fear, anxiety or suicidal tendacies. 

 

As for other religions, I have no doubt that some of them actually have supernatural experiences and their faith can be strong.  The problem is these experiences are supplied by the great deceiver.  One key difference between Christianity and all your examples is Christianity is not a physical action based belief.  You don't have to pray to a wall or face south certain times of a day, or some other physical ritual.   That's a man made religion.  A religion based on your own actions, and taking pride in those physical actions.  CHristianity is about letting go of that self pride and letting God work within you internally. 


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Studies are

Brian37 wrote:

 

Studies are worthless? What do you think product develoment is? How do you think computers went from light bulbs and switches taking up entire gyms, to smaller punchcard mainframes, to smaller monochomatic pcs, to color pcs, to Apple to to Microsoft, to IPADS and cell phones that are now more powerful than the first PCS?

And eggs are bad FOR WHO? Some yes because they have alergies  and they do have colesteral, but they also have good protien. They would both say it isn't harmfull occasinally. Water is good for you too, but no doctor is going to recomend you down 20 gallons of it in 5 minutes, even doing that would kill you.

You are still stuck on "personal experience". We can scientificaly prove that our own perceptians can be flawed. You can draw two lines on a peice of paper if you do it right, and make them look to be different sizes, but if you simply turn the paper to a different angle, your perception changes. That is just optical illusions. People have phantom pains where their brians tell them a missing hand or mising foot or leg are still there, even though they are not.

Our perceptions are notoriously flawed. The natural explination to your examples are very simple mentaly, just like misinterpreting the size of something. You simply see something you don't understand, or if you are a con artist lie about it.

So now your argument is that scientists don't agree? If they did all the time I would think they were cons themselves. But once competing claims are settled THE ETHICAL scientist will discard the bad data and adapt the good data.

Dont confuse a drug company or a food company whose "scientists" look for excuses. What happens when scientists work for corperate America, not that they always do or will, but when something dangerous gets out it is because the wistle blowers working for them either get fired or under contract to never talk about it.

But method itself is not a person, it is a tool and it is the same method that causes a car engine manufacturer to put a belt on a pully and not on the rear view mirror. It is why you will never find a softwear developer using a feather boa instead of a keyboard. It is the same method that causes an orthopidic sergon to use x rays and cat scans, rather than ouija boards.

 

 

My point is that science is nothing more than a tool, and it's not infallible.  There could be a discovery years from now which completely changes what we thought we knew about our universe.  So does that mean what you are claiming today as fact really wasn't a true fact?

 

My other point is that science can't explain everything, and skeptics choose to just ignore such things.  Such as the mind/body connection.   I constantly struggle with this problem, and it can't be treated because science doesn't have an answer for it.  For example, it's common for first year med students to start experiencing symptoms of unknown diseases that they experience.  You read about this horrible diseases where itching is the main symptom and now your body feels itchy.  You have an illness, and start becoming afraid that it won't go away, and it doesn't.    How is it that an emotion like fear or anxiety can produce such physical real life tangible results?  Now a doctor can give you a sugar pill that does nothing, but if your mind has faith that it will heal you,  it often does.  Why?  

 

This illustrates that there is more going on with the human experience than just our physical bodies. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:Faith in pink unicorns

Quote:
Faith in pink unicorns does not change people's lives.  Faith in Jesus Christ has literally changed people overnight

 

I am am sure it did. Betweeen WW! and WW2 Germany was changed overnight, and for a while it did well unitl raalty bitch slapped it.

The ability to switch positions on a dime is mundane and hardly impressive. And longgevity of a superstitious tradition is equaly as valid.

A magic baby witn no second set of sperm born out of wedlock is your sugar pill. I get it, But you are outnumbered by Muslims who think MOhammed is their magic sugar pill.

Fiath in Jesus Christ is the same as faith in Allah or Vishnu. If you look for a mental crutch and want one badly enough, you will find one.

Your pontificating about a fictional super hero is hardly impressive or unique to our species.

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:My point is that

Quote:
My point is that science is nothing more than a tool, and it's not infalable

Humans are infalibale, tools however minimize or SHOULD minimize that falibility.

Scientific method is a tool not a human. It is why you can use it to create medicine to cure a desease and create a weapon to kill other humans.

Your stupid mistake is that you confuse the hammer with the person using the hammer.

Theism is pulling shit out of your ass like lead protecting Superman from Kriptonite.

Can people use science to do bad things? DUH, but again, that is blaming hammer for what the user does with the hammer.

The technology that has caused death in all war has been produced by the mass majority of superstitious. Admitting that humans can do bad things is stupid and "DUH"

But scietific method is not a human, it is what humans use to come up with universal things like the computer you are typing your tripe on.

"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


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4517
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:My point is that

TWD39 wrote:

My point is that science is nothing more than a tool, and it's not infallible.  There could be a discovery years from now which completely changes what we thought we knew about our universe.  So does that mean what you are claiming today as fact really wasn't a true fact?

Yes, and unlike your special book for especially special people scientists will say "EUREEKA! We were wrong!" and there will be a flurry of scientists studying, examining and hypothesizing based on the new information and we will be that much closer to knowing all of the facts. As opposed to you when something contradicts the bible you declare the new information wrong and condemn the people who discovered reality. If a method of research does not allow for the possibility of radical changes in your beliefs, then you are not researching and you are not trying to find the truth- you are just trying to justify what you already believe. 

 

TWD39 wrote:

My other point is that science can't explain everything, and skeptics choose to just ignore such things.  

No, they don't ignore it. Skeptics often dedicate their entire lives trying to find an explanation to things they can't explain- that is what the entire field of science is. 

 

TWD39 wrote:

Such as the mind/body connection.   I constantly struggle with this problem, and it can't be treated because science doesn't have an answer for it.  For example, it's common for first year med students to start experiencing symptoms of unknown diseases that they experience.  You read about this horrible diseases where itching is the main symptom and now your body feels itchy.  You have an illness, and start becoming afraid that it won't go away, and it doesn't.    How is it that an emotion like fear or anxiety can produce such physical real life tangible results?  Now a doctor can give you a sugar pill that does nothing, but if your mind has faith that it will heal you,  it often does.  Why?  

This illustrates that there is more going on with the human experience than just our physical bodies. 

Why would you expect that the mind and body are not connected since both are physical? Once again, you simply point out an area of your ignorance, this is a question that has been studied for decades and there are several studies and books that provide explanations. Which you would know if you bothered to do a quick Google search before asking them. If you are really interested in answering your questions I am sure someone on here could recommend a good book on the subject. I doubt your questioning is sincere though since I am certain you have not even looked at any of the books or journal articles people have linked you to in the past. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
 TWD39 wrote:My point is

 

TWD39 wrote:

My point is that science is nothing more than a tool, and it's not infallible.  There could be a discovery years from now which completely changes what we thought we knew about our universe.  So does that mean what you are claiming today as fact really wasn't a true fact?

 

There are no 'true' facts. We can support hypotheses with varying degrees of certainty. That is all. Things that are claimed to be absolutely true are assertions. 

 

 

TWD39 wrote:

My other point is that science can't explain everything, and skeptics choose to just ignore such things.  

 

No they bloody don't. Skepticism is interwoven into the scientific method. No scientist believes they know absolute truth. What empiricists do expect is that objective assertions be supported with some data or be admitted to be assertions. It's really very simple. You can make whatever claims you want about things outside the universe but when you talk about supernatural intervention into material reality then there had better be objective proof. 

 

 

 

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Dana

JesusLovesYou wrote:

Damasius wrote:

 

   Yes, It is terribly courtesy to be disinterested.

 

Holding_On_To_His_Holiness wrote:
Its basic courtesy to answer the OP first. Im not so much interested in the debate that took part afterwards, I comment on the SUBSTANCE of the thread.

  Answer :: Yes, It is terribly courtesy to be disinterested. It's always good to know people can assert whatever the hell. It comforts me at night.  Intensifier is the insult I should have said for the brush off (which I in no way take personally). Good to know people can string any old series of quotes or passages together. Lurkers picking up on that yet ?!? 

 

 

 To:: I apologize JesusLovesYou  I was under the mistaken impression you werent going to be back for a long time, I may have been influenced by the hijacking of the OP's Thread in this. Sorry about that, K?  I did mean what I said that I do hope Emily is well.

 

''Yes, It is terribly courtesy to be disinterested''  I am not at all disinterested, however I am growing tired of the bitter little rants I see posted as a response to the serious topic from jesuslovesyou.

 

'' It's always good to know people can assert whatever the hell.'' 

????????

 

 ''It comforts me at night''

 

????????????????? 

 

 

''Intensifier is the insult I should have said for the brush off (which I in no way take personally). ''

Are you ok?

 

 ''Good to know people can string any old series of quotes or passages together. Lurkers picking up on that yet ?!? ''

 

What in heaven's name are you jabbering about?

damasius, you will come to learn that danatemp does jabber nonsensibly on a tangent quite a bit.  i have yet to make sense of her posts

 

is one of those rare creatures, a truly lateral thinker. She's always on topic in her own way. 

 

 

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


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3116
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is onlineOnline
Your faith is your faith and

Your faith is your faith and your faith alone. While you might compare notes with others and believe that your faith is the same as the others who you are connected to, you are in fact, misleading yourself.

Faith is a blind belief that a 'thing' is real but you have no proof that it is real nor can any one disprove it. If you have proof that your 'faith' is real, then it stops being faith and becomes a fact.

You do not have faith because you keep trying to justify it by posting evidence to show to others that it exists. You are trying to gain acceptance by giving us personal opinions from you and others.

When a person of faith debates their faith they are not actually debating their faith because in order to actually debate you must follow specific rules of debating. One of which requires you to be open to the fact that you could be wrong.

If you actually debate you must suspend your faith and therefore are a non-believer. I however have never found a person of faith who can actually suspend their faith. They either are faithful or they are not. Since you can not suspend your 'faith' for a debate it is no longer a debate and becomes a speech with a conclusion.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1548
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Wow Pa .. refering to yourself as Pa . . .

danatemporary wrote:

 Re :: You'll be sorry . .  . .

Quote:"Hey Pa, did ya hear that?"

"What's that, sonny?"

"I thought I hear something like, well like the sound of whining soul desperate for attention."

"You're mistaken, my boy.  It's just the hollow wind."

"Thanks Pa.  I'll just ignore it then."


  At this point I am afraid JesusLovesYou is not going to know who he is talking to. Sailing under  false colors (a British idiom)  is a major rule violation. Are you shooting for that Theistard by your UserName or moving up to full on Troll by this ?

  0ct. 15-17th

  The argument still stands.  I know for myself,  I have been on this board for a while  And have never referred to myself as either another User or claimed to be another User ( not even in jest )  Example w/ 'It Works for Me' #328  & another example of a  Pa  Posted on: June 27, 2009 - 6:14pm #329  

  Paisley 
Paisley Theist Joined: 2008   User is offlineOnline

 *  **  * 

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 788
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:TWD39

Vastet wrote:
TWD39 wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

There are several fairy tales myths on how marriage began, the Genesis account is one of them.

 

You have no proof that the book of  Genesis is a book of myths and fairy tales (a derogatory term used to belittle Christians).  Lack of evidence is not factual proof either.

 

All of science proves the bible is a book of myth and falsehood. We have more than a thousand years of proof. You've got nothing.

You left out  the mental sciences. All writing is a product of the mind. Metaphors are normally attached to fact. In the book the metphors may be or are attached to mental facts.   "Sandy's wrath" is a metaphor describing  of a climatic fact is it not.   Smiling

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:Vastet

Old Seer wrote:

Vastet wrote:
TWD39 wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

There are several fairy tales myths on how marriage began, the Genesis account is one of them.

 

You have no proof that the book of  Genesis is a book of myths and fairy tales (a derogatory term used to belittle Christians).  Lack of evidence is not factual proof either.

 

All of science proves the bible is a book of myth and falsehood. We have more than a thousand years of proof. You've got nothing.

You left out  the mental sciences. All writing is a product of the mind. Metaphors are normally attached to fact. In the book the metphors may be or are attached to mental facts.   "Sandy's wrath" is a metaphor describing  of a climatic fact is it not.   Smiling

Old Seer, you post as though you are dangerously close to solipsism.

 

"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