Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Wildswanderer]

Please correct me if I'm mistaken. You've issued mixed signals, one about trying to send a certain kind of positive message to others and one saying you don't care what they think.

Because both are true. "He who has ears let him hear.".. If someone doesn't choose to listen, that's not my problem and their opinion of me is irrelevant.

 

[Sheldon]

But you never considered that you might be the delusional ones. ..

Well for a start a delusion is defined as an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

Since atheism is the lack or absence of a belief it can't really be classed as a delusion. And though many theists don't contradict objective reality, you certainly do, you deny known scientific facts like species evolution for example.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But you never considered that you might be the delusional ones. ..

Oops, you need to read my post again, if that's what you think.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nature appears to experiment with whatever things can be produced by genetic variation, retaining those variations that can most successfully propagate their genes to the next generation. This results in the progressive diversification and increase in complexity in the tree of life without their being any purpose or intelligent input into the process.

I hope you know I found this extremely amusing. First you claim nature " experiments" and then you go on to say that it has no intelligence. Obviously it does not experiment.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So you are God, because you know that past now as now. That explains a lot. But I still don't believe in you, since I have another faith.

If I have complete knowledge and you have another faith you have a false religion.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You still haven't explained why it can't be the case that we are automatons or robots or meat bags or whatever you call animals lacking free will

Yes I have. You just don't like any answers involving God.

 

[Sheldon]

It Aint Necessarily So said: ↑
Nature appears to experiment

I hope you know I found this extremely amusing. First you claim nature " experiments" and then you go on to say that it has no intelligence. Obviously it does not experiment.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes I have. You just don't like any answers involving God.

That's because they are unevidenced and lack any explanatory powers, they simply are not answers, but claims that appeal to mystery and magic.

 

[PruePhillip]

Really? People have believed that there are things that are talisman that enhance luck or good fortune for all of recorded history. Clothing, medallions, keepsakes, etc. A guy on my soccer


I am not trying to reconcile them with anything. I am saying that accepting existential claims based on faith is an exercise in hubris and vanity with little sincere interest in distinguishing fact from falsity. It is a choice to take the path of comforting lies over the road of hard truths. And that is the case even if there is a god.

Well just remember, science ultimately ends in faith - that science created the universe, b.e.f.o.r.e...t.h.e.r.e...w.a.s...s.c.i.e.n.c.e..... a.n.d...i.t...d.i.d...s.o..w.i.t.h.o.u.t...a.n.y...r.e.a.s.o.n...w.h.a.t.s.o.e.v.e.r....
There's real hubris and vanity in that too.

ps I am a science fan and former science teacher

 

[PruePhillip]

That's right. Back when the Democrats were conservative in their political platform they had an extremist view of things. Lincoln was the first Republican president and he had liberal views, which opposed indentured servitude. The north of the USA has always been largely liberal, and that is why it went from being Republican to democrat over time, mostly in the 60's.

Eishenhower as a republican spent vast amounts of money investing in the interstate highway system. Nixon carried on LBJ's Medicaid and Medicare policies. In the 60's and 70's the two parties were fairly close in that they both supported good social programs that helped the average American. Today we see a farther divide between the parties, one that wants to help balance the inequities and how the advantaged should pay more into society than the disadvantaged. The other party is more hostile to these ideas, and we see them accuse democrats as being socialists. The funny thing is during the Cold War what republicans call socialism today is what the republicans did themselves, so this is more political nonsense to riled up the conservative voter than service to the people.

Who today is limiting access to polls of minority voters? Which side of politics eliminated the voting rights act? Which side is designing representative districts to eliminate black representation? That happened in Florida specifically, and DeSantis looks to be getting away with it. Florida has nearly a 50/50 split in democrat to republican voters yet the way republicans have designed their districts they look to have 20 of 27 seats in congress. Does that suggest ethical governing? Or a violation of trust?

I am a paleo-conservative Australian. But that's different to America. Frankly if I was an American and Trump was re-elected I would leave the country. But then I was listening to this Pelosi woman railing against Elon Musk for not paying taxes one year 3-4 years back. That was when he was days from going broke. Now that he paid $4 billion in one year, the most any human paid in taxes, makes no difference to Pelosi - he's rich and that's a problem. This is the same woman who wanted to trans-boy to sign off on the Democrats trans bill, just because she was so emotional about him. Yeah, Republicans and Democrats suck these days.

 

[joelr]

You thought good work would save you? That's incorrect. Also eternal life starts here and now for a believer, not after death. We don't audition for heaven. We are given grace when we truly believe. Most everyone else thinks we are auditioning for heaven in this life, because most people and most religions believe they get there by their works, that's where Christianity is different.

From the Early History of Heaven, Edward Wright, Professor of Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism at the University of Arizona, but this is echoed in any historical piece about the time.
There are myths the Hebrews adopted. They are not real?


Second Temple Judaism[edit]
During the period of the Second Temple (c. 515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[49] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[47] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[40]

 

[Wildswanderer]

From the Early History of Heaven, Edward Wright, Professor of Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism at the University of Arizona, but this is echoed in any historical piece about the time.
There are myths the Hebrews adopted. They are not real?


Second Temple Judaism[edit]
During the period of the Second Temple (c. 515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[49] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[47] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[40]

I don't follow Judaism. And that's somebody's opinion piece.

 

[ppp]

Well just remember, science ultimately ends in faith - that science created the universe, b.e.f.o.r.e...t.h.e.r.e...w.a.s...s.c.i.e.n.c.e..... a.n.d...i.t...d.i.d...s.o..w.i.t.h.o.u.t...a.n.y...r.e.a.s.o.n...w.h.a.t.s.o.e.v.e.r....

None of those sentences or sentence fragments are true. Science is a method that humans created to explore and manipulate the universe. Nobody thinks that we used it to create the universe. Well, I guess you think it. But that is silly. It also sounds like you think that the Big Bang Theory is about the creation of the matter and energy that comprise the universe. You are wrong about that as well.

ps I am a science fan and former science teacher

Your poor students.

 

[PruePhillip]

Your poor students.

I taught IT and technology. One of my favorite talks with new students each year was to show how technology has accelerated - from going for a million years without change to going to a half million years, then to 100k years, then to 1k years, then to a century and now to this - chart it all out and ask the question, 'Will our knowledge eventually double every day?'

I have no issue with something creating the Big Bang, such as this M-theory or whatever. My concern is with the first science event, if you like. Science answers how things work, but ultimately is stymied by the 'why', ie why is there rain? water vapor and heat. Why is there heat? because of the sun. Why does the sun shine? Because of the fusion of hydrogen to helium.Why is there fusion? Because of gravity. Why is there gravity? Because of space time curvature. Why is there space time? ...... it isn't being pedantic, these question ultimately are asking existential questions about why everything is. What is the point of it all? And that question lies outside science.

 

[ppp]

I have no issue with something creating the Big Bang, such as this M-theory or whatever. My concern is with the first science event, if you like. Science answers how things work, but ultimately is stymied by the 'why', ie why is there rain? water vapor and heat. Why is there heat? because of the sun. Why does the sun shine? Because of the fusion of hydrogen to helium.Why is there fusion? Because of gravity. Why is there gravity? Because of space time curvature. Why is there space time? ...... it isn't being pedantic, these question ultimately are asking existential questions about why everything is. What is the point of it all? And that question lies outside science.

What makes you think that there is a "Why"?

I would also point out that a god does not answer the question of why. It just kicks the can down the road.

 

[PruePhillip]

What makes you think that there is a "Why"?

I would also point out that a god does not answer the question of why. It just kicks the can down the road.

Kicking a can down the road is not an apt analogy. Asking 'who made God' is not valid because we cannot comprehend anything outside of a materialist universe. For instance how can we comprehend a realm where there is no time - the bible says there will be 'no more time.' So the questions we ask about this universe can't be asked of something, somewhere before any physics existed.
Saying there is no why hasn't acutally answered the question - just dodged it.

 

[Sheldon]

science ultimately ends in faith - that science created the universe, b.e.f.o.r.e...t.h.e.r.e...w.a.s...s.c.i.e.n.c.e.....

That literally makes no sense.

 

[Sheldon]

we cannot comprehend anything outside of a materialist universe. For instance how can we comprehend a realm where there is no time

- the bible says there will be 'no more time.'

If you can't even comprehend it, then it makes no sense to accept claims about it like the one used here, without even the pretence of evidencing them, and that are quite obviously unfalsifiable woo woo. Also why would I care what unevidenced claims the bible makes?

 

[Muffled]

They tell me they saw incredible claims about the Bible being miraculous.

now what?

ciao

- viole

I believe I have never heard a claim that the Bible is miraculous. I believe the claim is that the Bible is the Word of God.

 

[Muffled]

Are you confessing that you don't trust science or democracy?


Yet in religion, how much is factual? Very little if any of it.

But I notice you offer no answer to my question, why did God inspire so many to write false narratives?

as in the Piltdown man and stuffing the ballot box?