I've stated this quite a bit, in threads about both religion and marijuana. Where's the implied disagreement?
I'm after the truth, not whatever path leads to the least FUD.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,580
- 982
- 126
That's what we all want.
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. --John 8:31-32
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Actually, I have seen some evidence out there. Smaller things like studies showing patients who were prayed for getting better more so than those whom were not.
Although if you are looking for something more significant and concrete, I would strongly suggest reading up on the Story of Fatima. One book in particular, "Meet the Witnesses," I highly recommend.
There is some evidence out there, you just need to look for it.
Although if you are looking for something more significant and concrete, I would strongly suggest reading up on the Story of Fatima. One book in particular, "Meet the Witnesses," I highly recommend.
There is some evidence out there, you just need to look for it.
About 94% of people believe in a god or gods, that's around 19 in 20. If you're in a hospital bed and get visitors, the chance that you'll be prayed for is extraordinarily high, unless you have no family or friends. I'm sure you're aware of how important companionship is for our health? If the studies were unbiased, which of course they aren't, they'd have groups of atheists visit atheistic patients.
Concrete? :laugh: That's worse than an "It's true because it happened to my sister's friend's cousin's teacher's dog" story.
There's none, and you have to be blinded by bias to think otherwise.
meltdown75
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2004
- 37,548
- 7
- 81
"Scientific materialism is at the opposite end of the theological spectrum from biblical literalism. But they share several characteristics that lead me to discuss them together. Both believe that there are serious conflicts between contemporary science and classical religious beliefs. Both seek knowledge with a sure foundation -- that of logic and sense data, in the one case, that of infallible scripture, in the other. They both claim that science and theology make rival literal statements about the same domain, the history of nature, so that one must choose between them.
I will suggest that each represents a misuse of science. Both positions fail to observe the proper boundaries of science. The scientific materialist starts from science but ends by making broad philosophical claims. The biblical literalist moves from theology to make claims about scientific matters. In both schools of thought, the differences between the two disciplines are not adequately respected.
In a fight between a boa constrictor and a warthog, the victor, whichever it is, swallows the vanquished. In scientific materialism, science swallows religion. In biblical literalism, religion swallows science. The fight can be avoided if they occupy seperate territories of if, as I will suggest, they each pursue more appropriate diets."
- Ian Barbour, "RELIGION IN AN AGE OF SCIENCE"
I will suggest that each represents a misuse of science. Both positions fail to observe the proper boundaries of science. The scientific materialist starts from science but ends by making broad philosophical claims. The biblical literalist moves from theology to make claims about scientific matters. In both schools of thought, the differences between the two disciplines are not adequately respected.
In a fight between a boa constrictor and a warthog, the victor, whichever it is, swallows the vanquished. In scientific materialism, science swallows religion. In biblical literalism, religion swallows science. The fight can be avoided if they occupy seperate territories of if, as I will suggest, they each pursue more appropriate diets."
- Ian Barbour, "RELIGION IN AN AGE OF SCIENCE"
It's already been claimed & refuted that religion holds any credibility whatsoever, what's the point of this post? Believe what you want, but if you have trouble doing so without evidence, rethinking your beliefs might be a better option than seeing evidence where there is none.
meltdown75
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2004
- 37,548
- 7
- 81
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
actually if u look deeper prayer studies don't hold water.
http://www.valleyskeptic.com/Prayer_Study_Flawed_and_Fraud.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/miracle-study.html
meltdown75
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2004
- 37,548
- 7
- 81
Some quotes I like:
"There is only one religion, though there are a hundred versions of it."
-George Bernard Shaw
*****
"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one."
-Thomas Jefferson
*****
"It is convenient that there be gods, and, as it is convenient, let us believe there are."
-Ovid
*****
"I fear God, and next to God I chiefly fear him who fears Him not."
-Saadi
*****
"A God who let us prove his existence would be an idol."
-Dietrich Bonhoeffer
*****
"We can know what God is not, but we cannot know what He is."
-Saint Augustine
*****
"Superstition is the religion of feeble minds."
-Edmund Burke
*****
"This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness."
-Dalai Lama
*flamesuit: on*
"There is only one religion, though there are a hundred versions of it."
-George Bernard Shaw
*****
"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one."
-Thomas Jefferson
*****
"It is convenient that there be gods, and, as it is convenient, let us believe there are."
-Ovid
*****
"I fear God, and next to God I chiefly fear him who fears Him not."
-Saadi
*****
"A God who let us prove his existence would be an idol."
-Dietrich Bonhoeffer
*****
"We can know what God is not, but we cannot know what He is."
-Saint Augustine
*****
"Superstition is the religion of feeble minds."
-Edmund Burke
*****
"This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness."
-Dalai Lama
*flamesuit: on*
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
I completely agree with you on the praying for the ill I mentioned, but the study I read about had a little more depth than what you assumed.
As far as the Story of Fatima, how can you pass judgement without at least reading up on it? If you are actually looking for evidence, I recommend this to be a good step. If you are just trolling, then I have nothing more to add. I don't need physical proof of God's existence.
It's evidence of god the way maps reading "here there be dragons" are evidence of dragons, give me a break. Nice of you to accuse someone of trolling though :laugh:
No, you accused me of trolling because it takes the focus off you - someone who revived a dead thread to cite some ancient folktale as fact and evidence of the existence of the christian god (thereby inferring that all other gods are false). Looks to me like a pretty strong case for trolling
Side 1: "There's no evidence for God."
Side 2: "You have to be blinded by bias to think that there's no evidence for God. <list of examples>"
Side 1: "You have to be blinded by bias to think that <list of examples> provides evidence for God."
Therefore, evidence alone is an invalid test for truth. It's open to interpretation and bias. There must be something else.
They have eyes, but they cannot see. Ears, but they cannot hear.
If there were absolutely no facts to back up religion, people wouldn't follow it, in the same way that if there were absolutely no facts to back up science, people wouldn't practice it. That doesn't mean that all religious ideas yield correct results, just as the majority of scientific experimentation is more error than trial. That doesn't defeat the validity of the system. Science is an attempt to explain the perceived natural world. Religion is an attempt to explain the perceived supernatural world (or the response to perceived ultimacy, if you want the Religion 101 definition). They don't have the same rules, but you can't dismiss either out of hand without looking at what each has to offer, since they seek to answer different questions based on different criteria.
Your philosphical ideas that result from disbelief in God is just as much a philosophical position as the sets of ideas that result from belief in Him, and if any statement about God is seen as a religious question, then atheism is just as much a religion as any other form and is bound by the same burden of proof. If you buy all that so far, then there's no difference between a religious zealot and a zealous atheist, and if you don't, just skip the whole post and move on, because you missed the point.
Side 2: "You have to be blinded by bias to think that there's no evidence for God. <list of examples>"
Side 1: "You have to be blinded by bias to think that <list of examples> provides evidence for God."
Therefore, evidence alone is an invalid test for truth. It's open to interpretation and bias. There must be something else.
They have eyes, but they cannot see. Ears, but they cannot hear.
If there were absolutely no facts to back up religion, people wouldn't follow it, in the same way that if there were absolutely no facts to back up science, people wouldn't practice it. That doesn't mean that all religious ideas yield correct results, just as the majority of scientific experimentation is more error than trial. That doesn't defeat the validity of the system. Science is an attempt to explain the perceived natural world. Religion is an attempt to explain the perceived supernatural world (or the response to perceived ultimacy, if you want the Religion 101 definition). They don't have the same rules, but you can't dismiss either out of hand without looking at what each has to offer, since they seek to answer different questions based on different criteria.
Your philosphical ideas that result from disbelief in God is just as much a philosophical position as the sets of ideas that result from belief in Him, and if any statement about God is seen as a religious question, then atheism is just as much a religion as any other form and is bound by the same burden of proof. If you buy all that so far, then there's no difference between a religious zealot and a zealous atheist, and if you don't, just skip the whole post and move on, because you missed the point.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
OP have you read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn? I think you'd love it.
gods were once not something to be worshipped, but respected. they were the spirit of a thing or a place. like a mountain has a spirit (not a soul) and if you were to live or hunt on this mountain you had to respect the spirit of the mountain. nothing supernatural, you just had to adjust to it's enviornment. how all this became out and out worship i cannot understand.
gods were once not something to be worshipped, but respected. they were the spirit of a thing or a place. like a mountain has a spirit (not a soul) and if you were to live or hunt on this mountain you had to respect the spirit of the mountain. nothing supernatural, you just had to adjust to it's enviornment. how all this became out and out worship i cannot understand.
Patently false... but then coming from someone responsible for the quote in my sig, I'm not surprised :roll:
Your play on words is interesting, but holds no water. Atheism could be considered a religion only in that it is a belief and often a life philosophy. There's no burden of proof as there is with a claim that a giant invisible guy exists
Well, I think it's pretty sufficient proof that the quote in the sig doesn't apply to you, as you in no way have an open mind about Christianity. From my standpoint, you have the freedom to believe whatever you want about God, including that He doesn't exist. I would do nothing to deny you this freedom, and to me it just reflects the majesty of his diverse creation. I'm sure you see it a different way, and I'm fine with that.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Originally posted by: Gurck
No, you accused me of trolling because it takes the focus off you - someone who revived a dead thread to cite some ancient folktale as fact and evidence of the existence of the christian god (thereby inferring that all other gods are false). Looks to me like a pretty strong case for trolling
What you say doesn't make sense. I'm trying to take the focus off me?
This is YOUR thread.
How is something that happened in the early 1900's be considered an "ancient folk story?" There are many investigations into this story and a handful of books, as well as other documents. Before you open your mouth about it, maybe you should actually read up on it a bit. That way you can bring forth a more sincere and sophisticated argument.
You should actually look for evidence and do some more research before starting a thread like this. I know that may actually call for you to read a book or two, so good luck.
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Gurck
No, you accused me of trolling because it takes the focus off you - someone who revived a dead thread to cite some ancient folktale as fact and evidence of the existence of the christian god (thereby inferring that all other gods are false). Looks to me like a pretty strong case for trolling
What you say doesn't make sense. I'm trying to take the focus off me?
This is YOUR thread.
How is something that happened in the early 1900's be considered an "ancient folk story?" There are many investigations into this story and a handful of books, as well as other documents. Before you open your mouth about it, maybe you should actually read up on it a bit. That way you can bring forth a more sincere and sophisticated argument.
You should actually look for evidence and do some more research before starting a thread like this. I know that may actually call for you to read a book or two, so good luck.
Yes, you're trying to take the focus off of your trolling. Had you read & followed the thread, you'd see that in addition to an invite for discussion, this was also in response to a bible quoting thread & an experiment to see if people who had no problem with said bible thread would call me a troll. Most did. I'll leave the connection between christianity and hypocrisy for you to make...
Would you care to link to video footage of the story of fatima?
A book or two on it would make for a boring day or two, I've no need to put up with some pompous ass "author" twisting facts, highlighting some while ignoring others, etc, all in order to sell books to people who insist they saw Elvis at a local gas station.Where is all the other evidence, btw? I mean, coming from a side which insists at every opportunity that evolution is "still only a theory!", I'd expect something a bit more solid than a single story which, much like the ones in the bible, has been retold so much over the course of so much time that it has turned into an impossible folktale.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 407
-
Facebook
Twitter