|
Unsung Forum » "Horrorcore".... what next? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Squid Tempest 8763 posts |
Oct 09, 2009, 13:06
|
|
handofdave wrote: I am unaware of any scientific evidence that conclusively either disproves or proves the existence of God, angels, demons, ghosts, evil spirits, etc. Scientific method requires evidence (not necessarily proof). There is no direct evidence* of god, angels, demons etc, therefore to believe in them is unscientific. You don't need to "disprove" it, because there is no evidence of its existence. *personal experience can't be measured on scientific instruments can it? |
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Oct 09, 2009, 13:23
|
|
Squid Tempest wrote: handofdave wrote: I am unaware of any scientific evidence that conclusively either disproves or proves the existence of God, angels, demons, ghosts, evil spirits, etc. Scientific method requires evidence (not necessarily proof). There is no direct evidence* of god, angels, demons etc, therefore to believe in them is unscientific. You don't need to "disprove" it, because there is no evidence of its existence. *personal experience can't be measured on scientific instruments can it? We have no direct evidence of dreams, do we? I mean, do you have a recording you can show me of your dreams? I don't believe you ever have dreamed. ;-) You are suggesting that science should openly shun religion and religious experience because it does not have the tools to measure them. Thing is, we can do MRI's of people's brains while they're under a state of religious euphoria. So, we know that for some people, religion gets them high. Hmmm.... is that not curious? Why wouldn't a scientist find that interesting? |
|
|
Squid Tempest 8763 posts |
Oct 09, 2009, 13:31
|
|
handofdave wrote: Squid Tempest wrote: handofdave wrote: I am unaware of any scientific evidence that conclusively either disproves or proves the existence of God, angels, demons, ghosts, evil spirits, etc. Scientific method requires evidence (not necessarily proof). There is no direct evidence* of god, angels, demons etc, therefore to believe in them is unscientific. You don't need to "disprove" it, because there is no evidence of its existence. *personal experience can't be measured on scientific instruments can it? We have no direct evidence of dreams, do we? I mean, do you have a recording you can show me of your dreams? I don't believe you ever have dreamed. ;-) You are suggesting that science should openly shun religion and religious experience because it does not have the tools to measure them. Thing is, we can do MRI's of people's brains while they're under a state of religious euphoria. So, we know that for some people, religion gets them high. Hmmm.... is that not curious? Why wouldn't a scientist find that interesting? It shows...that there is brain activity. Not that there is a god. And there is no need for science to "shun" religious belief, it just doesn't make sense for science to have "faith" in something - that isn't what science is about! |
|
mojojojo 1940 posts |
Oct 09, 2009, 13:42
|
|
At least Chjristians and Muslims etc mean it. How can anyone seriously be a Pagan, Odinist..whatever? It's a pose surely. If any of you dis Zeus though I'm going fundamental. x
|
|
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Oct 09, 2009, 14:11
|
|
Brain activity doesn't prove God exists, it just proves something is going on in the brain. But to reduce very powerful experiences to 'brain activity' is misleading. My observation is that a great many people who are uncompromisingly against all religion are prone toward labeling the whole kit'n'kaboodle based on that religion's worst elements. In a nutshell, it's unfair to judge someone who lives by the code of being fair, friendly and honest because they might have Xtianity (of different variety) in common with someone who's dogmatic, intolerant, and fanatical. |
|
dodge one 1242 posts |
Oct 09, 2009, 14:33
|
|
Squid Tempest wrote: FWIW Tonestone I've enjoyed your posts on this thread. I suspect that Dodge hasn't really grasped your irony though. Ah well, that'll be the deicide... Decide what? Speaking for me {a privelidge i'd like to think is still reserved for ME, Squid}, I'll decide for for myself what is "IRONY" when i see 0r read it for myself. Or have i given you reason to believe i'm incapable to decide for myself? Please review any statements i've made....Where was it i've defended Religion or for that matter condemned it? Of any denomination? I took the RIGHT stand against Hatred. If you find that people making statements about how "The only GOOD christian is a DEAD christian" Enjoyable reading....you and i have profoundly differing viewpoints on what it takes to get along in this world. Something i didn't realize until YOU decided that you could better speak MY mind better than I. As a matter of curtesy, Something that i wouldn't DARE do to you. I'm at work right now, if you feel you need to drag this out, i'll be more than glad to continue later. Until then, Please don't speak for me. |
|
|
Squid Tempest 8763 posts |
Oct 09, 2009, 14:42
|
|
handofdave wrote: Brain activity doesn't prove God exists, it just proves something is going on in the brain. But to reduce very powerful experiences to 'brain activity' is misleading. I'm sorry, but that's science! OK, you could argue that this is where science falls short, but without that rigour the discipline of science would be meaningless. Perhaps I should explain where I'm coming from here, as I feel that you are lumping me in with dogmatic scientists who will not even allow the possibility of something existing without "proof". I have a generally scientific mind set. I do not think it is right to simply have "faith" in things, let alone to build a whole belief system around such assumptions. I have, however, had something which could only be described as a "religious" experience on more than one occaision. For years I have tried to reconcile this with a scientific viewpoint. Hence my interest in discussing the subject. I think that there is something "going on under the bonnet" of reality, but as yet have not determined what that something is. I suspect it is something deep-rooted in the quantum world, but until someone comes up with a god-o-meter and can show what energies/particles/dimensions are involved, I don't want to have "faith" in it. After all, it could just as easily have been caused by abberant brain activity or chemistry. To summarise, a dogmatic scientist would deny there is anything going on here without absolute "proof", but an open-minded scientist would say that perhaps there is something going on, but until we see some evidence we have no idea what it actually is. |
|
|
Squid Tempest 8763 posts |
Edited Oct 09, 2009, 14:51
Oct 09, 2009, 14:50
|
|
dodge one wrote: Squid Tempest wrote: FWIW Tonestone I've enjoyed your posts on this thread. I suspect that Dodge hasn't really grasped your irony though. Ah well, that'll be the deicide... Decide what? Speaking for me {a privelidge i'd like to think is still reserved for ME, Squid}, I'll decide for for myself what is "IRONY" when i see 0r read it for myself. Or have i given you reason to believe i'm incapable to decide for myself? Please review any statements i've made....Where was it i've defended Religion or for that matter condemned it? Of any denomination? I took the RIGHT stand against Hatred. If you find that people making statements about how "The only GOOD christian is a DEAD christian" Enjoyable reading....you and i have profoundly differing viewpoints on what it takes to get along in this world. Something i didn't realize until YOU decided that you could better speak MY mind better than I. As a matter of curtesy, Something that i wouldn't DARE do to you. I'm at work right now, if you feel you need to drag this out, i'll be more than glad to continue later. Until then, Please don't speak for me. 1. "That'll be the DEICIDE" - a quote from Julian Cope. It is a play on "That'll Be The Day". The lyric occurs in Poet Is Priest on Jehovahkill IIRC. Deicide - like Peggy Suicide - geddit? It also refers to god-death - dei-cide. 2. I had no intention of speaking for you, sorry if that was how it appeared. I just got the impression that you didn't realise that ToneStone was being a little ironic with his "The only good christian is a dead christian" - he was quoting from a song! i.e. he wasn't being entirely serious, although he was making an anti-christian statement. Note that I said I suspected that you hadn't seen the irony, not that I knew that you hadn't. Tonestone - please correct me if I'm wrong, I wouldn't want to be accused of putting words into your mouth too! 3. Lighten up! It's Friday!
|
|
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Oct 09, 2009, 15:59
|
|
"but an open-minded scientist would say that perhaps there is something going on, but until we see some evidence we have no idea what it actually is." And any open minded person should also recognize that there perhaps is something going on (beyond the scope of our science) and so a definitive 'no' is just as refutable by logic as a definitive 'yes'. The politics of this debate are probably so overwhelming as to make an unheated discussion of it all but impossible. |
|
cHARLIE 2607 posts |
Oct 09, 2009, 16:06
|
|
Mrs Ahab wrote: You are the 'Dad' of the board! Or a bored DAD? ...SORRY dAVE (((Mischievous grIn))) ...I will get my goat and my coat too.
|
| Pages: 14 – [ Previous | 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 14 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| Unsung Forum Index | |
