By flabber Go To PostMoreover, when an internet scientizer, who has never directly encountered a quark, neutron star, or Adenine-Thymine-Base-pair, immediately dismisses so many other complex encounters, I can't help but be a bit amused by so many demarcations of belief and faith.
These examples are not a matter of faith, but of trust regarding scientists, and critical thinking towards their findings. Scientific discoveries are not the same as theological scriptures.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostI do think that every single UFO and ghost sighting ever has been fraudulent and I think everyone else does also.
It's not at all unprecedented that millions of people had experiences they misinterpreted.
It's billions. And while not at all unprecendented, it's incredibly highly improbable to the point of being near impossible that every single experience is fraudulant. The only reason you believe it, is because you're an atheist. There isn't a single other thing you would treat with the same dismissivness if it spanned thousands of years and billions upon billions of interactions.
We're not debating religion in religious terms. We're debating in pure probabilitiese and scientific terms. Scientifically, the absence of evidence isnt an evidence of absence and the probability that every interaction ever is bullshit is damn near almost impossible. One cannot be SURE that every interaction is bullshit and God doesn't exist without taking a leap of faith. The probabilities are just too damn slim.
By giririsss Go To PostAlso, Vahg's stance on the burden belonging to athiests isn't true either. It's a deflection that relies on the premise that all religious experience being pure and actual. Which certainly isn't true.
Not what I said at all, and fundamentally misunderstanding the point. But sure, whatever.
By Vahagn Go To PostScientifically, the absence of evidence isnt an evidence of absence and the probability that every interaction ever is bullshit is damn near almost impossible.
Oh my god, how many times is he going to repeat these two logical fallacies?
"Billions of religious experiences, obviously at least one was true!" claiming the scientific spirit while providing zero insight in causality, because NUMBERZ
"the desert might be dry, but if you weren't there the minute prior, you can't prove it did not rain!"
Stop claiming science is on your side if you don't understand it
I've suffered from hallucinations briefly due to severe mental illness and if I was born in the 1800s (and somehow made long in life without hanging myself or being locked up in an asylum) I would have attributed these hallucinations to something religious due to a lack of knowledge of mental illness. I just don't trust religious visions considering the largely poor understanding of the brain that humans have had for most of their existence.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostI've suffered from hallucinations briefly due to severe mental illness and if I was born in the 1800s (and somehow made long in life without hanging myself or being locked up in an asylum) I would have attributed these hallucinations to something religious due to a lack of knowledge of mental illness. I just don't trust religious visions considering the largely poor understanding of the brain that humans have had for most of their existence.
You're giving me explanation and rationalizations as to why you believe they're fraudulant. You cannot and have not verified. That's the point. When you study religious studies, you start to see pretty insane patterns of belief systems throughout the old world within cultures that were unable to interact but yet reached many similar conclusions and patterns of behavior. The question isn't whether you can explain things away without God. Anyone can in a theoretical world where their explanations don't have to be verified or proven. The question is whether you can prove the non existence thereof. It's fundamentally impossible.
By Gabyskra Go To PostThese examples are not a matter of faith, but of trust regarding scientists, and critical thinking towards their findings. Scientific discoveries are not the same as theological scriptures.You just want me to get pedantic, don't you?
Forgive me, but I'll defer to the Oxford English Dictionary in these sorts of matters. I put my faith in their researchers to have correctly followed linguistic trends, rather than bowing to the semantic quibbles of internet debaters.
...No, I can't prove the nonexistence of God. I don't know if even the most militant of atheist has claimed that. It might have even been proven in logic that the nonexistence of God is impossible to prove, I'm not arguing that I'm 100% certain that God does not exist.
My explanations aren't really theoretical either as "visions as a mental health problem" is testable by comparing amount of visions prior to mental health care and after mental health care.
My explanations aren't really theoretical either as "visions as a mental health problem" is testable by comparing amount of visions prior to mental health care and after mental health care.
By reilo Go To PostI think my only counter-argument to the fraudulent debate is to question that with all of our scientific and engineering improvements that allow us to travel space and capture imagery of planets billions of years away, then why have the sightings and recordings of discussions with a deity disappeared or outright dismissed? We have more people living on this earth than ever before, yet religious sightings are going down. What was so different 2,000 years ago that a sighting of God was more plausible then than today?
Their are billions of religious people alive today, many of whom swear by religious experiences. It hasn't died down at all, it's just no longer catalogued and such a focus of society.
By Vahagn Go To PostYou're giving me explanation and rationalizations as to why you believe they're fraudulant. You cannot and have not verified. That's the point. When you study religious studies, you start to see pretty insane patterns of belief systems throughout the old world within cultures that were unable to interact but yet reached many similar conclusions and patterns of behavior. The question isn't whether you can explain things away without God. Anyone can in a theoretical world where their explanations don't have to be verified or proven. The question is whether you can prove the non existence thereof. It's fundamentally impossible.
That's because ideas arise in contexts, they're not just transmitted orally. Similar modes of economic production led to similar aspirations and ideologies. To a given material setting will correspond an ideological frame, and some correspond. This does not prove there was some truth to superstitions about Zeus or Buddha.
The spirit of science is not to study every person who claims to have talked to Mary, but to experiment with some and then move on with the findings.
Absence in an infinity of experiments (every second passing by without a manifestation) is eventually positive evidence.
And then we work with what we have, to get a little bit closer to truths. Where are we at now? The God hypothesis absolutely serves zero purpose to scientists today.
I didn't ask whether people believe, I asked about cataloging actual interactions with deities or instances of miracles.
Doctrines from thousands of years ago are littered with them, but somehow they ceased to exist as we invented the means to quantify it all and the population grew in magnitude. Why did miracles only happen during biblical times?
Doctrines from thousands of years ago are littered with them, but somehow they ceased to exist as we invented the means to quantify it all and the population grew in magnitude. Why did miracles only happen during biblical times?
By flabber Go To PostYou just want me to get pedantic, don't you?
Forgive me, but I'll defer to the Oxford English Dictionary in these sorts of matters. I put my faith in their researchers to have correctly followed linguistic trends, rather than bowing to the semantic quibbles of internet debaters.
Sorry, but you're using the wrong definition considering the context. Yeah, faith can be used like trust since it has been used more liberally in recent history, but here might as well be clear. Trust towards scientists is not the same thing as faith in spirituality (which obeys no proof).
Internet debater yourself.
By IWMTB19 Go To Post…No, I can't prove the nonexistence of God. I don't know if even the most militant of atheist has claimed that. It might have even been proven in logic that the nonexistence of God is impossible to disprove, I'm not arguing that I'm 100% certain that God does not exist.
My explanations aren't really theoretical either as "visions as a mental health problem" is testable by comparing amount of visions prior to mental health care and after mental health care.
Of course people have visions as a mental health problem. What I meant by theoretical is to then ascribe that to all visions in the past with absolute certainty is a theoretical explanation.
Yogananda wrote a book called autobiography of a Yogi. In it he travelled India and catalogued different experiences with different people with different powers. Including his guru dying, coming back to life in a resurrection, and visiting all of his disciples. This guy became famous, an ambassador around the world, visited the President of the US, started self-realization fellowship centers all throughout the US. Maybe he's crazy. Maybe he's not. You hallucinating when you were sick has nothing to do with him though with any certainty, right?
By Vahagn Go To PostYogananda wrote a book called autobiography of a Yogi. In it he travelled India and catalogued different experiences with different people with different powers. Including his guru dying, coming back to life in a resurrection, and visiting all of his disciples. This guy became famous, an ambassador around the world, visited the President of the US, started self-realization fellowship centers all throughout the US. Maybe he's crazy. Maybe he's not. You hallucinating when you were sick has nothing to do with him though with any certainty, right?
"you can't prove the non-existence of dragons and santa claus, it's just very unlikely, but God is not unlikely enough for me not to say it's as unlikely, God knows why"
"people say they resurrected, it might be true because one met the president"
So, you're telling me, a guy died, self-resurrected, and we can't prove it beyond one man's word saying it happened? And that is considered legitimate because "we don't know"?
By reilo Go To PostI didn't ask whether people believe, I asked about cataloging actual interactions with deities or instances of miracles.
Doctrines from thousands of years ago are littered with them, but somehow they ceased to exist as we invented the means to quantify it all and the population grew in magnitude. Why did miracles only happen during biblical times?
They didn't? Read the stories of Ramakrishna, Yogananda, Ramana Maharshi to name a few. These people all lived within the last 150 years, all had westerners following them, cataloging them and writing biogrophies and autobiographies. You can dismiss it all as nonsense, that's fine. But there are absolutely claims of lots of miracles happening.
Uh, is that not the bible or any other scripture? Your question was, why do miracles only happen 2000 years ago, and my answer was, they don't. Either it's all bullshit, or it's not. But these same stories and miracles keep happening over and over again.
I mean, if you want to spend the remainder of your life in ashram's and travelling through India and monastaries to find holy men and see if they can perform miracles for you. That's cool. But you're not interested in that, which is fine. Just don't ask me why only a couple hundred people experienced things with these individuals and not you or whatever number you deem appropriate.
I mean, if you want to spend the remainder of your life in ashram's and travelling through India and monastaries to find holy men and see if they can perform miracles for you. That's cool. But you're not interested in that, which is fine. Just don't ask me why only a couple hundred people experienced things with these individuals and not you or whatever number you deem appropriate.
I am asking to scientifically record it in a way beyond a person's word. If a miracle can manifest itself physically, it can be recorded physically beyond an eye witness account. Why is that so hard?
By IWMTB19 Go To PostIt might have even been proven in logic that the nonexistence of God is impossible to disprove,
That's a triple negative. Don't get too lost in those. :D
Absence of a phenomenon can be considered positive evidence eventually.
For instance, if after 30 years of living in Paris, I have witnessed no dinosaur ever, I can safely infer that there is no such thing as a dinosaur in Paris. Even if I don't have a physical manifestation right in front of me. It's not simply "unlikely". I know there aren't.
Btw, do you guys know the joke?
"A New Yorker is whistling. Someone asks him:
- why are you whistling?
- To make sure tigers don't show up.
- ... but there are no tigers here!
- See, it works!"
By flabber Go To PostYou just want me to get pedantic, don't you?
Forgive me, but I'll defer to the Oxford English Dictionary in these sorts of matters. I put my faith in their researchers to have correctly followed linguistic trends, rather than bowing to the semantic quibbles of internet debaters.
There's nothing semantical about his comparison between scripture and scientific discovery.
By reilo Go To PostI am asking to scientifically record it in a way beyond a person's word. If a miracle can manifest itself physically, it can be recorded physically beyond an eye witness account. Why is that so hard?
The story goes, Ramakrishna would go in and out of Nirvana, his body would for days or months at a time essentially die. There would be doctors there checking his pulse. There would be nothing there. He was a pretty famous man in India, lots of random people would visit. Lots of miracles would happen.
You want something to be catalogued how. On video tape?
By Vahagn Go To PostThe story goes, Ramakrishna would go in and out of Nirvana, his body would for days or months at a time essentially die. There would be doctors there checking his pulse. There would be nothing there. He was a pretty famous man in India, lots of random people would visit. Lots of miracles would happen.
That's pretty cool, it happened to me last month too
But my friends had forgotten to charge their phone
It was my best shot at being in a WSHH Vine comp :(
Scripture is just plain ol' allegories and fables meant to mystify the audience and make them in awe of a god or goddesses power. Or convince them of the genuine nature of a prophet. Scripture is always suspect because it's a PR machine, not a historical document. I also forgot to mention a lot of the details of so called events are embellished in later centuries or full on written centuries later so the veracity of claims is even more suspect.
By Gabyskra Go To PostThat's a triple negative. Don't get too lost in those. :D
Bah, I meant to write "impossible to prove the nonexistence of God" anyway so that was a typo :(
I'm not suggesting that scriptures are infallible or the word of God or anything like that. Just that miracles keep happening in the same way that they happened thousands of years ago. There are personalities and disciples and others around claiming they're performing miracles. That's still very much going on.
To move to another topic. I struggle with whether science or religion is more at fault for wars. Thoughts?
To move to another topic. I struggle with whether science or religion is more at fault for wars. Thoughts?
Miracles are random coincidence and confirmation bias. I mean, what miracles are you even talking about and why aren't these miracles happening in places most needed?
Edit: science a reason for war?
Edit: science a reason for war?
By Vahagn Go To PostTo move to another topic. I struggle with whether science or religion is more at fault for wars. Thoughts?
... Oh my non-existent God...
By db Go To PostWhy would science be at fault for war?
For the same reason that "guns dont kill people. people do" is a dumb statement. While it's true that religion is a motivation for many wars, science and technology are the means by which all wars occur ever since at least the last few hundred years.
By Vahagn Go To PostThe story goes, Ramakrishna would go in and out of Nirvana, his body would for days or months at a time essentially die. There would be doctors there checking his pulse. There would be nothing there. He was a pretty famous man in India, lots of random people would visit. Lots of miracles would happen.EKGs, video, brain activity. Why is that an unreasonable request? It's what the standard is nowadays and the technology has been around for decades. Like, proving a miracle should be more than just "so some guy said he saw a dude..." That's not an unfair request.
You want something to be catalogued how. On video tape?
Wars are fought usually over hatred and I don't think hatred has been a finding in most science.
The seeds of the Holocaust were sown by the original Martin Luther even back in the 1500s and so I don't know if eugenics as a scientific theory pushed it along much. The genocide of Native Americans was caused by religious delusion and extreme racism, the Civil War was fought over racism, WW1 was fought over extreme stupidity.
... I mean, I don't know which wars could be said to be fought over science? Science helps build bigger weapons, but medicine saves people from being killed in huge numbers by those bigger weapons.
The seeds of the Holocaust were sown by the original Martin Luther even back in the 1500s and so I don't know if eugenics as a scientific theory pushed it along much. The genocide of Native Americans was caused by religious delusion and extreme racism, the Civil War was fought over racism, WW1 was fought over extreme stupidity.
... I mean, I don't know which wars could be said to be fought over science? Science helps build bigger weapons, but medicine saves people from being killed in huge numbers by those bigger weapons.
I'm still not seeing the connection here. Science does not provide a philosophical framework to commit acts of war, it's merely a tool. Religion arguably can because it contains justifications for violence. Science has nothing to do with any of that.
By Vahagn Go To PostFor the same reason that "guns dont kill people. people do" is a dumb statement. While it's true that religion is a motivation for many wars, science and technology are the means by which all wars occur ever since at least the last few hundred years.
Science is the accumulation and constant reformulation of verifiable knowledge.
Ignorance kills more.
By reilo Go To PostEKGs, video, brain activity. Why is that an unreasonable request? It's what the standard is nowadays and the technology has been around for decades. Like, proving a miracle should be more than just "so some guy said he saw a dude…" That's not an unfair request.
Oh, not suggesting it's unfair at all. Just stating that people claiming miracles are happening and holy men exist didnlt stop 2000 years ago. It's still very much going on. Honestly, I believe if there was some massive scientific fund paying for scientists to travel the world and going into holy places, meeting hundreds and hundreds of so called holy men, something miraculous would be catalogued. But that's just a personal belief.
By Vahagn Go To PostHonestly, I believe if there was some massive scientific fund paying for scientists to travel the world and going into holy places, meeting hundreds and hundreds of so called holy men, something miraculous would be catalogued. But that's just a personal belief.
Guess why scientists don't bother? Pro-tip: it's not for a lack of funding.
Science is the means by which wars are waged. Religion is at times the WHY. Science is almost always the HOW. To say that twisting religious messages to justify genocide is something that should be recognized but twisting science to build atomic bombs and kill millions with a single impact isn't in the same realm is silly to me.
Again, you're essentially arguing that "guns dont kill people. people do" are you not? Being for gun control but refusing to acknowledge the role that science plays in the instruments of war seems....like a convenient ideological jiujitsu
Not to mention that many people used social darwinism and phrenology to justify racism and oppression. Junk science i know. But, junk religion doesnt and shouldnt get a pass.
Again, you're essentially arguing that "guns dont kill people. people do" are you not? Being for gun control but refusing to acknowledge the role that science plays in the instruments of war seems....like a convenient ideological jiujitsu
Not to mention that many people used social darwinism and phrenology to justify racism and oppression. Junk science i know. But, junk religion doesnt and shouldnt get a pass.
The Catholic Church definitely has the funds to set off that type of mission. Believing that religious institutions lack the funds to do so, is like, plainly wrong.
By reilo Go To PostThe Catholic Church definitely has the funds to set off that type of mission. Believing that religious institutions lack the funds to do so, is like, plainly wrong.
You can't trust the catholic church to be objective or to go into different religious communitiies and do things honestly. Some honest 20 year exercise by respectable scientists without an agenda would be fascinating.
By Vahagn Go To PostScience is the means by which wars are waged. Religion is at times the WHY. Science is almost always the HOW. To say that twisting religious messages to justify genocide is something that should be recognized but twisting science to build atomic bombs and kill millions with a single impact isn't in the same realm is silly to me.Nope. Not when stories in the texts have plenty of examples of slaughter of apostates, heretics, etc.
Again, you're essentially arguing that "guns dont kill people. people do" are you not? Being for gun control but refusing to acknowledge the role that science plays in the instruments of war seems….like a convenient ideological jiujitsu
Not to mention that many people used social darwinism and phrenology to justify racism and oppression. Junk science i know. But, junk religion doesnt and shouldnt get a pass.
Again science has no such framework or excuses, it's merely a tool by which people develop harmful things. It does not provide a moral or ethical conclusion. A person has to do that him or herself. Scientific discoveries don't automatically mean bombs over another nation.
O_O
Wouldn't it only benefit the Catholic Church to prove miracles and by extension an act of God are real? Their membership would soar.
And no real group of scientists would agree to such an experiment without autonomy.
Wouldn't it only benefit the Catholic Church to prove miracles and by extension an act of God are real? Their membership would soar.
And no real group of scientists would agree to such an experiment without autonomy.
I mean, guns don't kill, people do lol. We can put limits on people's access to guns so they don't kill with them, but guns don't kill people.
By reilo Go To PostEKGs, video, brain activity. Why is that an unreasonable request? It's what the standard is nowadays and the technology has been around for decades. Like, proving a miracle should be more than just "so some guy said he saw a dude…" That's not an unfair request.You're describing scientific breakthroughs, not miracles. Miracles are leaps of faith and we don't document or prove those, we just hear about them and believe them in the absence of definitive evidence. What you're asking for is not going to happen. The two aren't compatible, they're not similar, they don't cross over.
Yeah pretty much the biggest reason we have to limit guns is the culture surrounding them and our violent tendencies. It really isn't the fault of guns, but such an easy killing weapon in the hands of a unchecked violent populace just makes for shitty situations.
By db Go To PostNope. Not when stories in the texts have plenty of examples of slaughter of apostates, heretics, etc.
Again science has no such framework or excuses, it's merely a tool by which people develop harmful things. It does not provide a moral or ethical conclusion. A person has to do that him or herself. Scientific discoveries don't automatically mean bombs over another nation.
Religion doesn't automatically mean bombs oer another nation either dude. Gandhi and MLK were religious. This Pope is religious.
This is blind denial at this point. No one's suggesting that the moral judgments made by science are the cause of war. The weapons made by science are the MEANS of war.
Religion is the cause of some wars. Racial hatreds, economics, land and resources are other causes. But the means of war are scientific developments. A terrorist who uses Islam to fashion a homemade bomb using information gleaned from our understanding of chemistry is both using religion and science to carry out his terrorism.
By reilo Go To PostO_O
Wouldn't it only benefit the Catholic Church to prove miracles and by extension an act of God are real? Their membership would soar.
And no real group of scientists would agree to such an experiment without autonomy.
Not if it happened in a Buddhist monastary it wouldn't
I'm just still not seeing the connection between knowing more chemistry, observing interactions and facts, to an actual philosophical framework that can justify horrific acts.
Science never does this. Science is just straight up knowledge and observations. It does not require nor does it encourage a certain philosophical position. Religion does.
Science never does this. Science is just straight up knowledge and observations. It does not require nor does it encourage a certain philosophical position. Religion does.
There are only so many people you can kill with bows and arrows and spears and shit. Science dramatically increased our capacity for war. The scales that we can fight them at. Heck, more people probably died from the Atomic Bomb in two Japanese Cities than all wars for centuries and centuries in the middle ages.
By db Go To PostI'm just still not seeing the connection between knowing more chemistry, observing interactions and facts, to an actual philosophical framework that can justify horrific acts.
Science never does this. Science is just straight up knowledge and observations. It does not require nor does it encourage a certain philosophical position. Religion does.
Not the why. But the how. Religion doesn't give you the power to kill someone. You need weapons for that