• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Search results

  1. charlie sc

    Science confirms validity of intercessory prayer

    You didn't cite any studies. What you did do is say this person did a study. Great. You can give the Title, the link or the DOI number. If not, we might as well be waiting for unicorns to show up.
  2. charlie sc

    Science confirms validity of intercessory prayer

    I'm not even going to comment if that's a book or some fringe christian science(?) journal. However, I notice it's from 1995. Is your DuckDuckgo search failing you?
  3. charlie sc

    Science confirms validity of intercessory prayer

    And talks about himself in the third person.
  4. charlie sc

    Science confirms validity of intercessory prayer

    I wonder if Spartan is frantically looking for this mysterious study or has given up this thread altogether.
  5. charlie sc

    Science confirms validity of intercessory prayer

    You’re not very loyal to DuckDuckGo if you’re asking me to use Google. Duck must suck then. Get with the times.
  6. charlie sc

    Science confirms validity of intercessory prayer

    There’s a peer review study saying that this study is a scam. Go look for it. You have google. :)
  7. charlie sc

    Science confirms validity of intercessory prayer

    Lol it’s a peer reviewed study that’s not peer reviewed :p
  8. charlie sc

    Science confirms validity of intercessory prayer

    It’s funny how important and revered researchers get when they confirm a theory. Do you have a link for this peer reviewed study?
  9. charlie sc

    Can science finally explain where we get the morals we believe in?

    When you say morality is intuitive, I don't know what you mean. Similarly, that's why the paper defines moral intuition right in the beginning. So that people know what they're talking about lol. Regardless, I'm talking about empathy.
  10. charlie sc

    Can science finally explain where we get the morals we believe in?

    No, it’s not sufficient enough to explain moral judgements. Morality is a philosophical abstraction, so it can never be truly explained by empirical means. However, empathy is sufficient enough to explain the foundation and origin of moral judgements. I never said that. Comprehending pain and...
  11. charlie sc

    Who is more criminally dangerous: the theist or the atheist?

    You have to explain, "the issue," succinctly and comprehensively if you want me to take you seriously. If you want to state it as a fact, then you need to give references. I'm not going to guess what's going on in your head.
  12. charlie sc

    Can science finally explain where we get the morals we believe in?

    No, intuition was not what I was describing. Intuitions are gut feelings and is usually described by instinctively knowing something without evidence. What I'm describing is empathy. Empathy is feeling the perceived emotions of another entity. They are quite different. I wouldn't say anything...
  13. charlie sc

    Can science finally explain where we get the morals we believe in?

    Yes, this is, in my opinion, the origin of morality and something we can't escape from.
  14. charlie sc

    Can science finally explain where we get the morals we believe in?

    It's quite simple: if it doesn't feel pleasurable or is unpleasant. When you see someone intentionally hurt, one might empathise and know it's a bad thing that happened. It's an unpleasant feeling to see someone that is in pain, therefore, if the entity doing it had a choice then it's the wrong...
  15. charlie sc

    Can science finally explain where we get the morals we believe in?

    It does. We have evolved with pleasure and pain/suffering. Empathy generally reflects this when someone is empathetic. Therefore, if I empathise with someone feeling pain, I will dislike this feeling. Therefore, I know it's wrong. To further this, Buddhists will avoid hurting bugs, because they...
  16. charlie sc

    Can science finally explain where we get the morals we believe in?

    I'm going to go on a whim here and say empathy/mirror neurons. If history has shown us anything, we can be cruel and are still cruel to entities we don't consider like us. Humans, animals and all species alike. The less we empathise, the less or don't consider if something is wrong. Hence...
  17. charlie sc

    Science cannot solve the final mystery

    Ummm what is the ultimate mystery of nature?
  18. charlie sc

    Who is more criminally dangerous: the theist or the atheist?

    I missed that. I thought he was just talking generally about cause vs correlation.
  19. charlie sc

    Who is more criminally dangerous: the theist or the atheist?

    Well, thanks. This thread has a few people who are either daft or trolling. I can't tell which.
  20. charlie sc

    Who is more criminally dangerous: the theist or the atheist?

    Yes, I say this in post #29. Errr, yes, correlation does not mean causation.
Top