Some Important Facts for the Religious (and Everybody Else)

[rational experiences]

So, are you claiming that some accounts of these events are fabricated or mistaken?

So it's just your opinion on the veracity of hearsay then.

Well, you need to look a bit harder. We know that the brain can produce hallucinations and delusions that the subject considers to be absolutely real. We also know that people can be mistaken in their recollection of events. These two crucial elements are beyond doubt. There are many studies confirming the phenomena.
If you have a claim that would require either the laws on nature to be temporarily suspended, or for the subject to be mistaken or dishonest - there is only one rational explanation.

It does seem that you are willing to accept any claim of supernatural goings-on without anything more substantial than the claim itself. It is all very well attempting to justify this by claiming you haven't heard any convincing natural explanation, but that is just confirmation bias. Your insistence that you only arrive at your conclusions after careful examination and critical analysis seem somewhat overblown.

This is where you are missing the fundamental point.
Science will never "come to accept" the existence of the supernatural without some means of repeatedly detecting, testing, predicting it, etc. Because that's how science works. It doesn't just take people's word for stuff.
If you are relying on science simply accepting hearsay and assertion as evidence, you will be waiting quite some time, I'm sorry to say.

The church and Nasa own all the proven evidence of artificial conjured presences. AI as a human designed cause is a machine from human thought only. Not God.

A human says my design is by my bio thoughts non reactive equals my life.

Meaning it's not reactive. Meaning it can't hurt life. He says using displaced AI words I'm the machine. Identifies his advice but not by correct word use. Then he mind controls reactions not the machine.

Is now falsely communicated to by Ai brain possessed by science. Human status only.

They test in on God products to see what men of science can change earth mass into controlled by biologies non stop thinking.

Humans own the condition AI science causes by their own control. Bio and bio thoughts. Body and mind controlling machines.

So it's paranormal. We are normal phenomena occurs para on the side.

Man's Adam maths confession changed by maths womb fake mother at my side.

So said the first man men brother science theists who wrote my confess of Sion fusion into fission Sion theirselves.

CH gases only known advised to biology in a water oxygenated atmosphere are above us position only. Not contained.

You think. No space in our atmosphere except between immaculate mass which has space incorporated to be clear cold stretched gas and it's sacrificed burning.

Which isn't advice.

It however truly messes with your head as you claim space wisdom in a place that doesn't give you space wisdom.

Your science sin was to form new sink holes spaces in earths mass is as wrong as you all are.

Scientists are liars. We know you owned origin title a satanist.

Satanist human versus natural human life...the sciences.

 

[Colt]

So, most Americans are not proficient in English?

I speak American not English. Some even say that American accents are more like the early English speaking immigrants to North America before the The Great Vowel Shift of the 1500"s.

Anyway, if the story of Jesus is true then that would mean great changes in the life of a nonbeliever. Thats the context of "You don't want it to be true" or I could say "You hope its not true" becuse you are invested in Atheism.

"Primitive man lived a life of superstitious bondage to religious fear. Modern, civilized men dread the thought of falling under the dominance of strong religious convictions. Thinking man has always feared to be held by a religion. When a strong and moving religion threatens to dominate him, he invariably tries to rationalize, traditionalize, and institutionalize it, thereby hoping to gain control of it. By such procedure, even a revealed religion becomes man-made and man-dominated. Modern men and women of intelligence evade the religion of Jesus because of their fears of what it will do to them—and with them. And all such fears are well founded. The religion of Jesus does, indeed, dominate and transform its believers, demanding that men dedicate their lives to seeking for a knowledge of the will of the Father in heaven and requiring that the energies of living be consecrated to the unselfish service of the brotherhood of man.

disappointments attendant upon the foolish and deceptive pursuits of selfishness, and subsequent to the discovery of the barrenness of formalized religion, will he be disposed to turn wholeheartedly to the gospel of the kingdom, the religion of Jesus of Nazareth." UB 1955

 

[Heyo]

Anyway, if the story of Jesus is true then that would mean great changes in the life of a nonbeliever. Thats the context of "You don't want it to be true" or I could say "You hope its not true" becuse you are invested in Atheism.

So @Quagmire was right and I was wrong.

"Primitive man lived a life of superstitious bondage to religious fear. Modern, civilized men dread the thought of falling under the dominance of strong religious convictions. Thinking man has always feared to be held by a religion. When a strong and moving religion threatens to dominate him, he invariably tries to rationalize, traditionalize, and institutionalize it, thereby hoping to gain control of it. By such procedure, even a revealed religion becomes man-made and man-dominated. Modern men and women of intelligence evade the religion of Jesus because of their fears of what it will do to them—and with them. And all such fears are well founded. The religion of Jesus does, indeed, dominate and transform its believers, demanding that men dedicate their lives to seeking for a knowledge of the will of the Father in heaven and requiring that the energies of living be consecrated to the unselfish service of the brotherhood of man.

disappointments attendant upon the foolish and deceptive pursuits of selfishness, and subsequent to the discovery of the barrenness of formalized religion, will he be disposed to turn wholeheartedly to the gospel of the kingdom, the religion of Jesus of Nazareth." UB 1955

That text would have better fitted into my recent thread about Learned Helplessness and Religion

 

[Colt]

So @Quagmire was right and I was wrong.

That text would have better fitted into my recent thread about Learned Helplessness and Religion

Yes, what we learn in religion is that the "self" cannot be its own savior.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, what we learn in religion is that the "self" cannot be its own savior.

Why not? No 'objective verifiable evidence' otherwise.

Actually humans depend on the sense of community and belonging to survive. Religions to a degree provide that.

 

[Colt]

Why not? No 'objective verifiable evidence' otherwise.

Actually humans depend on the sense of community and belonging to survive. Religions to a degree provide that.

Only salvation from self can carry one beyond the grave. Thats the entire point of this world is to provide the environment to make that decision. But its true, an exalted humanism can provide peace and relative happiness in this world up until mortal death.

Then Jesus told His disciples, “If anyone wants to come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. 25For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? 27

 

[George-ananda]

Until these people can produce observations that can be independently and repeatably verified, science has nothing to study.

You repeatedly are not grasping the fact that I can even agree with that statement BUT my interests can also lie in the teachings of various wisdom traditions like Vedic (Hindu) and Theosophical.

From my decades of interest in the so-called spiritual and paranormal I am convinced things do happen that require us to consider a grander view of reality than can be found in materialist philosophy.

To sum it up, I am pro-science but also believe there are those that can tell us about things beyond what can be directly detected by current science. For example, I believe we possess psychic/clairvoyant senses that can tell us about things science cannot detect. And the model they present has explanatory power for spiritual/paranormal phenomena that materialist science would prefer to explain-away unsatisfactorily.

 

[KWED]

You repeatedly are not grasping the fact that I can even agree with that statement BUT my interests can also lie in the teachings of various wisdom traditions like Vedic (Hindu) and Theosophical.

From my decades of interest in the so-called spiritual and paranormal I am convinced things do happen that require us to consider a grander view of reality than can be found in materialist philosophy.

To sum it up, I am pro-science but also believe there are those that can tell us about things beyond what can be directly detected by current science. For example, I believe we possess psychic/clairvoyant senses that can tell us about things science cannot detect. And the model they present has explanatory power for spiritual/paranormal phenomena that materialist science would prefer to explain-away unsatisfactorily.

WADR, it seems to be you who is not grasping the issue here.
I understand that you believe in a load of supernatural stuff, but you need to stop trying to shoehorn science into the equation. The only part science has to play is in testing claims when they involve the physical, measurable, observable. And as we both know, whenever that happens, science finds nothing.

 

[George-ananda]

But the evidence suggest the opposite. Fewer people believe in a spiritual world than they did in the past. What's more, higher levels of education (as good an indicator of "intelligence" as we have) tend to lead to less belief in the supernatural.

Claiming that higher intelligence necessarily leads to belief in the supernatural is obvious nonsense. It seems that the opposite is more likely to be the case.

Here's how I see it. Narrow science trumps narrow religion. That's where your thinking level is at. But what then develops is a broader science/spirituality that produces a New Age of spiritual thinking. Currently I see the conflict's front line to be between narrow materialist science and the next stage New Age (for lack of a better term) spiritual thinking that is not so concerned with scriptures of previous millennia.

 

[KWED]

Here's how I see it. Narrow science trumps narrow religion. That's where your thinking level is at. But what then develops is a broader science/spirituality that produces a New Age of spiritual thinking. Currently I see the conflict's front line to be between narrow materialist science and the next stage New Age (for lack of a better term) spiritual thinking that is not so concerned with scriptures of previous millennia.

IOW, you have a belief in the supernatural that cannot be demonstrated or verified. Anyone who requires something more substantial than belief and assertion before accepting your claims is therefore displaying "narrow" thinking.

There is a famous saying which goes, "Take care not to be so open-minded that your brain falls out".

 

[Sheldon]

Not sure where I brought God into this.

A "god of the gaps polemic" need not only apply to theistic arguments. It is an argument using a common common logical fallacy, called argumentum ad ignorantiam.

I understand this is beyond current materialist science but I have interests beyond materialist science.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for this claim?

These higher planes can someday even be part of mainstream science too.

You seem to be just reeling off unevidenced subjective opinions.

I am convinced paranormal events occur that are not satisfactorily explainable by current science.

Another sweeping unevidenced subjective claim. It is also a textbook argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

there are those proposing theories that can make sense out of what current science cannot understand. This calls for a consideration by science.

Science is just a toolkit of methods used for studying and understanding the physical natural world and universe. If you want to claim something exists outside the physical natural world, then please demonstrate something beyond unevidenced subjective assertions.

my best consideration of the evidence and argumentation, it has become my belief that there are spiritual/clairvoyant masters (Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical) that can present a framework for how these seemingly impossible events can occur.

I get it, you believe something, what objective evidence can you demonstrate to support this belief?

These things involve beings and energies outside of our familiar three-dimensional world and in dimensions not directly detectible by our physical instruments and senses.

Another unevidenced subjective claim, again is that all you have?

 

[Jagella]

...I think that most people would have taken it, as: "you hold a desire for it not to be true".

Yes, it would be great if Christian beliefs aren't true, and it looks like nobody needs to worry that those beliefs are true. Christianity posits a really awful God that only a callous or sadistic person could love.

 

[Valjean]

1) Prove it.
2) Prove it.
3) Prove it.
4) Prove it.
5) Prove it.
6) Prove it.
7) Prove it.
8) Prove it.

You don't understand science or epistemology. Nothing, outside of mathematics, is proven. Rationally, we believe most things based on evidence and credibility. Do you believe cars exist? Do you believe the Earth is spherical? -- Prove it.
Apparently you don't understand why scientists, scholars and historians believe these points. I'd venture to say there is better evidence for Jagella's points than you have for the divinity, miracles or empty tomb of Jesus.

Please understand that the credibility of a belief is based on the amount and quality of the evidence supporting it. Christian mythology is largely unevidenced. What evidence there is is poor -- mostly hearsay. We have no firsthand accounts from any actual witnesses to Jesus' acts or miracles.

9) Jesus did.

Prove it. Absent proof, can you at least show some credible evidence for this?

You make suppositions with out providing empirical proof. Theory is Supposition.

No. The colloquial understanding of "theory" does mean supposition, but not when used in science as a technical term. Remember that both the germ and heliocentric theories are -- and will always remain -- theories. There is nothing in science with a higher level of confidence than a theory.

Theory needs it's only theory of evolution as theories in general are constantly being re-theorized.

No. The theory of evolution has never been re-theorized, it has only been expanded, as continuing research and experimentation have added to our understanding of the processes involved.

One theory in particular comes to mind. If you venture too far in your sailing ship you will fall off the edge of the earth. To change theory into reality is a contradiction. It cannot be done.

That was never a theory. It was never evidence-based. It was never science. It was always folklore or speculation.
Your above statement is just flat-out wrong.

100 years from now how old will the universe be? How old with the earth be? You don't know the future, so don't go there. To invalidate that which you refuse to understand is arrogance.

Refuse to understand? Please explain. Isn't understanding the whole point of science, research and scholarship?
It's you who don't understand. You don't know why scientists believe what they do, or why they're skeptical of theology, so you just reject it out-of-hand.

Atheists must prove they are right at all costs. Nothing else seems to matter to them. They are not unlike school yard bullies attempting to impose their will on everyone else.

Right about what" Atheists have no beliefs. Apparently you don't understand atheism, either.
Atheists have no doctrine to promote, and obviously no burden of proof. All we do is point out that the theists -- who do make positive claims -- have not met their burden of proof.

Oh, I'm a scientist! Big deal. Anyone can become a scientist & anyone can get a doctorate. It doesn't mean they have any common sense. They live in a bubble, their own universe
where they play & delight themselves with great theories. But the thing about theories is they leave out empirical proof. Oh; Well theories prove other theories, or themselves. No they don't.

What the heck are you talking about? You're projecting; accusing science of what theology is guilty of.
Science is all about empiracal evidence. Empirical evidence is science's thing.
Again, you don't understand "theory." A theory cannot exist without a lot of empirical evidence. Faith can. It's faith that lacks empirical evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

I am personally interested in science and also into spiritual speculation (Vedic, Theosophical) led by those claiming perception of planes of nature which science can not yet observe.

Science cannot observe things that provide no data, I am dubious this means the methods of science are at fault. Especially since you seem to be reeling off unevidenced claims one after the other.

Yes but that opinion forms after a consideration of the quality of the report. A clear report from someone I know and respect carries a lot of weight with me.

Fine, but in here what you have just described is second hand hearsay. This is also pretty close to be an appeal to authority fallacy.

I take the full body of paranormal claims and ask: 'All things considered, what is most reasonable for me to believe'.

My answer is that the from the quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence I believe beyond reasonable doubt that things beyond the understanding of current science is occurring.

Yet you have failed to demonstrate any objective evidence, despite repeatedly making claims for it?

Next, I'm looking at possible explanatory theories that will by definition be outside the current knowledge of science. Nothing wrong with that.

Except it is another unevidenced claim, that is pretty vague, and you seem very keen to ringfence these beliefs from scientific scrutiny based on just subjective opinion.

 

[Valjean]

And what evidence you have that those are the facts? The problem here is that none of those can be proven correct. They are only common beliefs.

But they are facts -- and there is no "proof" -- as you should well know, by now.

I'm sorry if you're ignorant of the evidence-based reasons science believes these things. As we've explained to you countless times, there is no "proof" outside of mathematics. But these "common beliefs" are evidence based -- and strongly evidenced, at that. Scientists did not pull these beliefs out of their hats.

 

[Valjean]

The strange about socalled facts is, they change when science discover new knowledge about the topic. So facts aren't that reliable either.

Religious belief are based on faith and belief in a teaching. But that does not make it less valuable for those who believe in it.

In the same time, some people do not believe in faith, and that is perefctly ok too.

But it is less valuable. Science based beliefs, ie: evidence based, are much more likely to be true than beliefs based on folklore, with no supporting, empirical evidence. Hence, they are more valuable.

 

[Valjean]

I can't take away what science found
Nor can i take away what wisdom are found in religious teaching

But religious wisdom is about values, purpose, meaning and propriety, not facts.
When religion disputes the Facts of science, it is out of its depth, and making assertions it has no evidence of.

 

[Valjean]

1. Its true that scientific investigation has given an estimation of the universe. So do you believer the "cosmos" as you termed it has a beginning?
2. Its true that earth has a certain age. But are you sure its a fact? I mean 100% knowledge?

Nothing is 100%, but it is as well evidenced as many things I'm sure you believe.

3. Two points prior to this you were speaking of scientific findings. Now, you are speaking of "no evidence". Are you sure no evidence means evidence?

Huh?

4. theoretically humans and chimps have a common ancestor. But are you sure its "absolute fact"? Is that how science works?

Science works by amassing observable evidence and testing it, as far as is possible.
We have consilient evidence for this from multiple disciplines. There's at least as much evidence for this as there is for the germ theory. Are you skeptical of the germ theory, a well?
If 100% is your criterion for belief, how do you believe anything?

 

[Valjean]

Sei divertente! Ciao Viole!
Parlez-vous français?

Comment?

 

[firedragon]

Nothing is 100%, but it is as well evidenced as many things I'm sure you believe.

Very good. So dont call them facts. Thats against science.

Science works by amassing observable evidence and testing it, as far as is possible.

Thanks for the brand new information. A revelation. Gracias.

We have consilient evidence for this from multiple disciplines.

Who is this "we" group? Do they live with you? Is it an exclusive club? Who is this "we"? Is that a religious cult?

There's at least as much evidence for this as there is for the germ theory. Are you skeptical of the germ theory, a well?

Please read a book on the philosophy of science.

If 100% is your criterion for belief, how do you believe anything?

I dont believe in anything with such blind faith like you just for the sake of argument. Thats your method of establishing faith. I have been taught to use reason and logic. No blind faith or group mentality like your "we" love.