Creation and Evolution

[SkepticThinker]

And your point?

Faith is only valid to the person experiencing it.

The person talking to angels doesn't care if you can't see them too. In fact they may take that as just more supporting evidence that they are uniquely blessed.

wa:do

That is my point. Faith and personal experiences are not going to count as evidence to anyone else and therefore are not actually evidence. At least not in any demonstrable sense.

 

[painted wolf]

That is my point. Faith and personal experiences are not going to count as evidence to anyone else and therefore are not actually evidence. At least not in any demonstrable sense.

Of course it's actual evidence.

People take personal stories as evidence, even without any other corroborating evidence all the time. It's not ideal but it's a fact of life.

wa:do

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Of course it's actual evidence.

People take personal stories as evidence, even without any other corroborating evidence all the time. It's not ideal but it's a fact of life.

wa:do

However, this varies greatly with how ordinary or extraordinary the story is. If somebody tells me they saw that eggs are on sale at the store for 1.49, their story doesn't really require additional evidence or any type of rigour. On the other hand, if that same person tells me that they saw a man lift a school bus into the air, I'm going to need some corroborating evidence to believe it.

 

[McBell]

Faith and personal experiences are not going to count as evidence to anyone else ...

except when it does...
Why do you think there are all these magazines, websites, news letters, blogs, etc. of the personal experiences of others being presented as {le gasp} evidence?

 

[painted wolf]

However, this varies greatly with how ordinary or extraordinary the story is. If somebody tells me they saw that eggs are on sale at the store for 1.49, their story doesn't really require additional evidence or any type of rigour. On the other hand, if that same person tells me that they saw a man lift a school bus into the air, I'm going to need some corroborating evidence to believe it.

And that's fine... all of us judge such information on a highly subjective sliding scale. That scale gets more subjective as the subjects being judged get more emotionally charged.

We judge information from close "trusted" sources with far less intellectual rigor than we do information from sources we deem less "trustworthy".

We judge information based on our own personal view of what is "plausible" and not all of us find the same circumstances equally plausible.

For example, just how "into the air" is enough? Does it have to be over his head or can he just hoist it enough for someone trapped under the wheels to get out? Would you trust your best friend as an eyewitness or the crazy guy down the street?
What if it was about the fidelity of your lover?

Your opinion of plausibility will vary depending on the subject, the circumstance and the source of the information... and that will differ from how your neighbor or best friend judges it.

wa:do

 

[Ingledsva]

Non-empirical subjective experience. If evidence isn't empirical then it's subjective that's pretty basic. :sarcastic

Subjective evidence is still valid, if extremely limited in it's application.

wa:do

They don't even have experience - just Biblical myth!

 

[painted wolf]

They don't even have experience - just Biblical myth!

Sorry, but that is a profoundly ignorant statement.

Talk to just about any person of faith and they will tell you about their personal relationship/experience with deity...

I know no one who accepts the Bible just based on what is written in the book.

wa:do

edit: not to mention the fact that Christians aren't the only theists on the planet. Fail.

 

[Ingledsva]

And your point?

Faith is only valid to the person experiencing it.

The person talking to angels doesn't care if you can't see them too. In fact they may take that as just more supporting evidence that they are uniquely blessed.

wa:do

People don't actually see angels - they SAY they are talking to angels - when they are praying into the air.

We are talking real proof.

They want all of us to follw their Iesous - or go to hell - so where is the proof he or their God exists?

 

[Ingledsva]

Sorry, but that is a profoundly ignorant statement.

Talk to just about any person of faith and they will tell you about their personal relationship/experience with deity...

I know no one who accepts the Bible just based on what is written in the book.

wa:do

edit: not to mention the fact that Christians aren't the only theists on the planet. Fail.

I have a cousin that says she talks with God all the time. Now, my cousin does not actually talk with God, she needs the guy with the net.

We are asking for real proof - not what we are getting here.

I can say I pray to real flying pink polkadot elephants, and they answer my prayers, but such is not PROOF of their existence.

They would call that same guy with the net if I told everyone that they have to believe and pray to my polkadot elephant, or they are going to be condemned to spend eternity in elephant poop, while believers go to elephant paradise.

PROOF! REAL PROOF! Not a debate tactic.

 

[painted wolf]

People don't actually see angels - they SAY they are talking to angels - when they are praying into the air.

We are talking real proof.

They want all of us to follw their Iesous - or go to hell - so where is the proof he or their God exists?

How do you know? :sarcastic

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

I have a cousin that says she talks with God all the time. Now, my cousin does not actually talk with God, she needs the guy with the net.

We are asking for real proof - not what we are getting here.

I can say I pray to real flying pink polkadot elephants, and they answer my prayers, but such is not PROOF of their existence.

They would call that same guy with the net if I told everyone that they have to believe and pray to my polkadot elephant, or they are going to be condemned to spend eternity in elephant poop, while believers go to elephant paradise.

PROOF! REAL PROOF! Not a debate tactic.

You can say whatever you like.

What you say doesn't alter anything, nor is it a good rendition of Russel's teapot, Sagan's dragon or the IPU.

Again, you seem to be confusing empirical evidence with "proof". I'm a scientist, I really hate the term "proof".

Faith is not an empirical subject it's subjective experience. It's like howling for proof that Picasso was a good painter.

wa:do

 

[Ingledsva]

You can say whatever you like.

What you say doesn't alter anything, nor is it a good rendition of Russel's teapot, Sagan's dragon or the IPU.

Again, you seem to be confusing empirical evidence with "proof". I'm a scientist, I really hate the term "proof".

Faith is not an empirical subject it's subjective experience. It's like howling for proof that Picasso was a good painter.

wa:do

LOL! All I did was drop it to the basics - this thread can argue empirical or subjective until we are all blue in the face. And it is all just bull.

Why? Because you know perfectly well what we NON-believers mean, when we ask the people that tell us we must believe or burn in hell - for real proof.

Their myth and their experience is proof to them, not us. If they want us to believe in a magical invisible man in the sky, then thay had better have proof that we can see with our own two eyes, and test.

It is as simple as that.

 

[Alceste]

LOL! All I did was drop it to the basics - this thread can argue empirical or subjective until we are all blue in the face. And it is all just bull.

Why? Because you know perfectly well what we NON-believers mean, when we ask the people that tell us we must believe or burn in hell - for real proof.

Their myth and their experience is proof to them, not us. If they want us to believe in a magical invisible man in the sky, then thay had better have proof that we can see with our own two eyes, and test.

It is as simple as that.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Nobody who has chimed in since this thread was resurrected a few pages ago is a Christian.

First nations spirituality (painted wolf's faith) is a completely different kettle of fish. It is experiential, non-dogmatic pantheism, with a little animism to keep things interesting.

Fall is my favorite season. I hate cooking unless I put on a frilly apron and pretend I'm somebody else. I talk to animals and birds and feel like they answer me back sometimes. I can't prove any of that to you. When you ask for proof of such things you sound a little crazy.

 

[McBell]

LOL! All I did was drop it to the basics - this thread can argue empirical or subjective until we are all blue in the face. And it is all just bull.

Why? Because you know perfectly well what we NON-believers mean, when we ask the people that tell us we must believe or burn in hell - for real proof.

Their myth and their experience is proof to them, not us. If they want us to believe in a magical invisible man in the sky, then thay had better have proof that we can see with our own two eyes, and test.

It is as simple as that.

How is it his fault that you do not clearly state what you mean to say?

If you do not specify what kind of evidence then you leave it up to them to decide what type of evidence to present.

Your getting all bent out of shape because they did not read your mind and present you the evidence you want is not their fault.
it is yours.

 

[Ingledsva]

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Nobody who has chimed in since this thread was resurrected a few pages ago is a Christian.

First nations spirituality (painted wolf's faith) is a completely different kettle of fish. It is experiential, non-dogmatic pantheism, with a little animism to keep things interesting.

Fall is my favorite season. I hate cooking unless I put on a frilly apron and pretend I'm somebody else. I talk to animals and birds and feel like they answer me back sometimes. I can't prove any of that to you. When you ask for proof of such things you sound a little crazy.

However, the original post specified Judaism and Christianity.

Also a person's personal beliefs or daydreams are no problem. I don't care what they believe. - Proof is only needed when they want - ME - to believe it, and tell me I'm going to hell if I don't.

 

[painted wolf]

LOL! All I did was drop it to the basics - this thread can argue empirical or subjective until we are all blue in the face. And it is all just bull.

Why? Because you know perfectly well what we NON-believers mean, when we ask the people that tell us we must believe or burn in hell - for real proof.

Their myth and their experience is proof to them, not us. If they want us to believe in a magical invisible man in the sky, then thay had better have proof that we can see with our own two eyes, and test.

It is as simple as that.

Yes, I know perfectly well what you are asking/trying to do.

You are trying to make a subjective experience into an objective one.

It's just as annoying as when Creationists insist on claiming that their subjective evidence is worthy of being put in a science class.

Obviously the whole "hell" thing really bothers you despite your claims to not believe in it.

wa:do

 

[haribol]

This old debate goes on and on since the world is a mystery and no theory, no idea, nothing can go beyond the periphery. Our brains suffer its own limitation and we cannot transcend these limits.

Evolution or creationism we do not know. Of course i have to revolve around my own prejudices, conditionings or affectations or programmings. No new ideas come from and what i said mine is not mine at all.

We no doubt cannot go beyond what has been taught and it is called conditioning. As a child my mind was total blank like a canvas and family, society, friends, relatives or the rest of those whom come around for a variety of reasons have impacts on me.
Creationism is based on our theological tenets and when we cannot answer our basic questions, as to the time this universe was created we choose to turn to theological domains. Every religion and culture has its theory of creationism and there are gods and deities who carve out our course of life.

 

[Looncall]

This old debate goes on and on since the world is a mystery and no theory, no idea, nothing can go beyond the periphery. Our brains suffer its own limitation and we cannot transcend these limits.

Evolution or creationism we do not know. Of course i have to revolve around my own prejudices, conditionings or affectations or programmings. No new ideas come from and what i said mine is not mine at all.

We no doubt cannot go beyond what has been taught and it is called conditioning. As a child my mind was total blank like a canvas and family, society, friends, relatives or the rest of those whom come around for a variety of reasons have impacts on me.
Creationism is based on our theological tenets and when we cannot answer our basic questions, as to the time this universe was created we choose to turn to theological domains. Every religion and culture has its theory of creationism and there are gods and deities who carve out our course of life.

Wow! What a litany of defeat!

This kind of thing is one of the many reasons I despise religious thinking.

Instead merely moaning about your inadequacies, you should stride forward to conquer them.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes, I know perfectly well what you are asking/trying to do.

You are trying to make a subjective experience into an objective one.

It's just as annoying as when Creationists insist on claiming that their subjective evidence is worthy of being put in a science class.

Obviously the whole "hell" thing really bothers you despite your claims to not believe in it.

wa:do

I'm not trying to do anything.

A person's subjective experience with invisible gods will never be proof to people that don't believe in invisible gods.

 

[Alceste]

I'm not trying to do anything.

A person's subjective experience with invisible gods will never be proof to people that don't believe in invisible gods.

Feelings generally are exempt from most people's skeptical incredulity.

If I tell most people I have faith in the fundamental decency of my fellow humans, that I love the sound of eagles, or that I think Mozart's requiem is the greatest piece of music ever written, they will believe me without proof. Perhaps you have higher standards?