Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Harfelugan · **#81** by **Harfelugan** » Jan 09, 2012 12:33 am

trubble76 wrote:
How can a better explanation be less truthful? Science and rationality seek better explanations and by extension, truthfullness. Religious faith is the exact opposite. It takes a universal truth such as "we are share a common decent" and replaces it with the "personal truth" that "my god made each and every ickle wickel bunny”,
and when I say "personal truth", clearly I mean "religious lies".
Religion is The Deceiver, The Befowler, The Liar, etc. (for those that enjoy the grandiose labelling favoured by some religions)

Better explanations by extension will present only a more plausible story. Not necessarily anything to do with truth. Science and rationality, and religious faith are on more equal footing than in opposition as you suppose. Human perception is the only means to interpret either. The same frail weakness plagues both and causes our interpretative stances to seek presupposed answers. We’ve both been lied to from both sides on the search for truth.

trubble76 wrote:
So personal revelation is an invalid vehicle for the divine? I'm glad we could agree about something at least. Now we just have to convince the billions of deluded believers.

Personal revelation is the invaluable means by which anything of the divine is begun. This is the beginning of the very method of processing the intangible. What you described in the scenario of the had nothing to do with divine revelation as I know it. Revelation is a declaration of oneself. The Doctor was in no way revealing anything about God. At best he was promoting himself.

trubble76 wrote: Incidentally, why do you think that a perfect and all-powerful being needs to seek glory? Doesn't it seem a rather human desire? I don't know about you, but I don't really like people that constantly demand themselves glorified, less so a god.

Neither do I when it comes to people. Now God, that is another story. Glory is such a misunderstood word, not because of your inability to comprehend it, but to the meanings we assign to words. Glory can be nothing more than giving credit where credit is due. I would say this should be discussed in a separate thread but it does relate to how people of faith process the intangible.

I didn’t address it above but this is the determining factor in how people of faith can take universal truth of common descent as you claim it, and discard it as your personal truth. More so if the best argument for it is similar to a better explanation than God did it.
To a Christian you might as well say random chance when proclaiming common descent. It’s a better explanation to us to say, God did it. Yep every ickle wickle bunney of it.
Please don’t take this opportunity to defend your better explanations. I’m aware of them already. Funny, that’s the same thing I say when the Mormons come knocking.

Harfelugan · **#82** by **Harfelugan** » Jan 09, 2012 12:40 am

Calilasseia wrote:Addressing this for a moment ...

Harfelugan wrote:All claim a divine origin of some sort. As a Christian I appeal to a broad base theory. Which compares logical consistencies

Actually, there are a number of inconsistencies in your mythology. Not to mention assertions that are plain, flat, wrong.

Harfelugan wrote:historical, and anthropological evidences.

Exactly what "historical" evidence is there for any assertion involving magic entities performing conjuring tricks? Please, do provide some.

Harfelugan wrote:(For the extremely flatulent notice I referred to none of these as 100% evidentially accurate so please don’t get all tingly.)

I'd like to see something that rises above 0%. Do you have something that does?

Harfelugan wrote:Even when compared against each other by high intellectual atheists Christianity wins out over these other faiths.

Poppycock. NO assertionist, mythology-based world view is valid, plain and simple. Because ALL of them erect assertions that are either plain, flat, wrong, completely untestable, or outright absurd. The idea that your particular mythology "wins" some contest amongst all of these is null and void in the light of this.

Harfelugan wrote:Despite the rejection of all these faiths by said atheists. I’m certain that the atheists posting on this forum are equal opportunity scoffers of all religious faiths.

Congratulations on exhibiting your biases here. Namely, by describing the process of evaluating the evidence supporting the postulate that all mythologies are merely fabrications of the human imagination, as "scoffing".

Harfelugan wrote:But tell me the truth. Which gives you the biggest jollies to refute? I’m guessing Christianity.

I'd rather that none of the extant mythologies were regarded as anything other than interesting stories, cooked up in an attempt by superstitious and pre-scientific humans to make sense of a world about which they knew precious little. Unfortunately, that isn't the case - millions of people around the world treat these mythologies, and the assertions contained therein, as purportedly constituting established fact, yet do so on the basis of zero substantive evidence. I'd prefer it if our species grew out of the habit of treating blind mythological assertions as purportedly constituting established fact, because all the evidence we have with respect to this, points to the practice exerting a malign influence on human affairs.

As for the idea that I or others here obtain "jollies" from pointing out such elementary facts, this again is mere condescension on your part, and light years away from the reality. We lament the fact that it is necessary to tackle supernaturalist absurdity on the scale that it appears. Moreover, the only reason your mythology receives the amount of attention it does, is because it happens to be entrenched in societies that have the ability to disseminate this nonsense on a global scale, and those societies contain veritable armies of people willing to engage in said dissemination of nonsense. Indeed, there are entire publishing houses devoted to the matter of spreading the ideological virus of your brand of supernaturalism in its various forms, including publishing houses devoted to disseminating the fulminating absurdity of fundamentalist strands, whose professional propagandists routinely resort to fabrications and outright lies in order to propagandise for their doctrine, and who are especially dangerous because they have access to wealth and political connections. In the case of the USA, senior Republican politicians have sold their souls to fundamentalist Christofascism, and are seeking to impose that disease upon an entire nation, a nation moreover with several hundred Minutemans sitting in silos waiting for the order to fly. Some of the crackpots seeking office by pandering to the worst elements of fundamentalism, would probably issue that order at a moment's notice, if they thought it would hasten the Rapture. I and others here don't obtain "jollies" from opposing this dangerous lunacy, we consider it a matter of vital import for the survival of our species.

I didn't propose historical evidences as evidence for the supernatural. But as a framework of the mental process of comprehending the intangable. So in regards to your request for more than 0% evidence all I need is that the nation of Isreal did exist. You lose!
From reading the context of your post I think humanity has as much to worry about from your position as they do from the soul selling Republican politicians. All the ranting and nothing worth responding to.

Harfelugan · **#83** by **Harfelugan** » Jan 09, 2012 12:43 am

Calilasseia wrote:
Harfelugan wrote:
xrayzed wrote:This is the standard "proof" for a religious experience:

• I prayed.
• Something I liked happened.
• God must have done it.
• Therefore God exists.

That's the "A" variant. There's also the ever popular "B" variant:

• I prayed.
• Something nice didn't happen.
• God chose not to do something I liked for a reason.
• Therefore God exists.

The idea of God existing preceeds prayer. Prayer being answered or not bears no relationship as to His existance.

So why do some supernaturalists keep citing this as purported "evidence" for their magic man? Despite the fact that, as xrayzed points out, it's basically yet another apologetic fabrication, erected to try and support the idea that their magic man exists regardless of the outcome?

On the one hand, we have "My prayers were answered! God exists!". On the other hand we have "My prayers weren't answered, God moves in mysterious ways". Supernaturalists seem to be completely oblivious to the manner in which this is utterly laughable. If someone erected "X, therefore Y" and "Not X, therefore Y" as being simultaneously true in any other area of discourse, they'd be pointed and laughed at, but for some reason, when it comes to religion, anything goes.

Imaginary arguments with people not posting here. I cant take you seriously.

Calilasseia · **#84** by **Calilasseia** » Jan 09, 2012 3:19 am

Harfelugan wrote:I didn't propose historical evidences as evidence for the supernatural.

I'd like to see any evidence. Got any?

Harfelugan wrote:But as a framework of the mental process of comprehending the intangable. So in regards to your request for more than 0% evidence all I need is that the nation of Isreal did exist. You lose!

Poppycock. The idea that the original founders of this particular entity had supernatural assistance is one of the assertions you need to provide actual evidence for. On the other hand, I'm quite happy to conclude that they succeeded in this endeavour by being extremely belligerent and warlike, which doesn't need a magic entity to achieve. It's not as if humans haven't provided evidence of their propensity to fight wars over a very long span of historical time. Oh, and how come their magic man couldn't stop them from being subjugated by the Romans?

Harfelugan wrote:From reading the context of your post I think humanity has as much to worry about from your position as they do from the soul selling Republican politicians. All the ranting and nothing worth responding to.

Oh look, it's cheap ad hominem in place of substance time. How typically supernaturalist of you.

Now, once again, where's the real evidence for your magic man?

Harfelugan wrote:Imaginary arguments

Wrong. Quite a few supernaturalists erect the very sequence of apologetic horseshit I and the other poster described in our respective posts.

Harfelugan wrote:with people not posting here.

Ahem, the horseshit being exposed was, if you bothered to read our posts properly, presented as being a typical example of supernaturalist horseshit, of the sort we frequently encounter both here and elsewhere. Do pay attention to the elementary details.

Harfelugan wrote:I cant take you seriously.

Come back when you have something other than cheap ad hominems to post. Such as actual substance.

Darwinsbulldog · **#85** by **Darwinsbulldog** » Jan 09, 2012 3:53 am

Cali is a blue butterfly who only morphs into a human being when directly observed! :-)

orpheus · **#86** by **orpheus** » Jan 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Harfelugan wrote:
trubble76 wrote:
How can a better explanation be less truthful? Science and rationality seek better explanations and by extension, truthfullness. Religious faith is the exact opposite. It takes a universal truth such as "we are share a common decent" and replaces it with the "personal truth" that "my god made each and every ickle wickel bunny”,
and when I say "personal truth", clearly I mean "religious lies".
Religion is The Deceiver, The Befowler, The Liar, etc. (for those that enjoy the grandiose labelling favoured by some religions)

Better explanations by extension will present only a more plausible story. Not necessarily anything to do with truth. Science and rationality, and religious faith are on more equal footing than in opposition as you suppose. Human perception is the only means to interpret either. The same frail weakness plagues both and causes our interpretative stances to seek presupposed answers. We’ve both been lied to from both sides on the search for truth.
.

They are not on equal footing. First, science relies on experiments that can be repeated. That is a great guard against any one individual's perceptive mistakes. Not true of any religious revelation.

Second, as Dennett has pointed out, one crucial thing about scientific peer review is that it's competitive. So scientists try their best to disprove their own conclusions, because they know that others will certainly try to do so. All this ensures that the findings are more likely to be sound, they're more likely to accurately describe the world, they're more likely to be true, because they've stood up to withering attack by many experts in the field. There's absolutely nothing like that in religious faith.

The results are plain to see. Science gets much closer to the truth of how the world actually works, and we can observe this in the simple fact of the world we've built based on scientific experiment and findings. The building you're sitting in. The computer you're typing on. The very fact that most of us survive beyond thirty.

Compare to religious faith?

Steve · **#87** by **Steve** » Jan 10, 2012 4:00 am

^^ Science is objective, religion is subjective. Science is about looking and describing impartially what is seen. Religion is about the most intimately personal aspects of the act of seeing - seeing the good in those described as evil, seeing the benefit of shit storms, seeing the point of it all. They are utterly utterly different. They don't need each other, but we aren't human if we don't acknowledge the two sides of the process of perception - looking versus seeing.

orpheus · **#88** by **orpheus** » Jan 10, 2012 2:07 pm

Steve wrote:^^ Science is objective, religion is subjective. Science is about looking and describing impartially what is seen. Religion is about the most intimately personal aspects of the act of seeing - seeing the good in those described as evil, seeing the benefit of shit storms, seeing the point of it all. They are utterly utterly different. They don't need each other, but we aren't human if we don't acknowledge the two sides of the process of perception - looking versus seeing.

You're essentially arguing for Gould's NOMA. First, I don't accept the premise as true a priori. It certainly didn't used to be true. For most of history, religions made many, many quite specific objective claims about the world. And their stance was "this is literally true, and If you don't believe it, we'll kill you". And each time the findings of science encroached on religious claims, disproving them again and again, the religious resisted - sometimes violently. It's only recently that statements such as yours have gained common currency, since those things are all that's left for religion. As Hitch pointed out, religions wouldn't have the strength they have now if the hadn't had the strength they had then.

I even think that the process will continue. The realm of emotions, for example, is increasingly explained by the findings of neuroscience. That does not denigrate emotions, but it does objectively explain them. Thus religion can't even claim that as their own.

But even if NOMA is true, there are still, as Dawkins and others have pointed out, at least two major problems with it. First, I don't know of any religion that limits itself to those kinds of questions. For example, you're ignoring the creation myths in every major religion, as well as the fact that they all still make all sorts of claims about how the world objectively is.

Second, imagine if scientists found compelling evidence that one of the major tenets of a religion was actually true (e.g. the parthenogenesis of Jesus). How do you think Christians would react? Would they say "well, that's science; it deals with completely different questions; it has nothing to do with religion, just ignore it." Of course not. They'd chuck NOMA right out the window, and they'd trumpet it from the rooftops as confirmation of their beliefs. The religious argue that science and religion deal with separate questions only when science disagrees with them.

Edited for clarity, typos, and to add paragraph about historical claims of religion.

trubble76 · **#89** by **trubble76** » Jan 10, 2012 3:00 pm

Harfelugan wrote:
trubble76 wrote:
How can a better explanation be less truthful? Science and rationality seek better explanations and by extension, truthfullness. Religious faith is the exact opposite. It takes a universal truth such as "we are share a common decent" and replaces it with the "personal truth" that "my god made each and every ickle wickel bunny”,
and when I say "personal truth", clearly I mean "religious lies".
Religion is The Deceiver, The Befowler, The Liar, etc. (for those that enjoy the grandiose labelling favoured by some religions)

Better explanations by extension will present only a more plausible story. Not necessarily anything to do with truth. Science and rationality, and religious faith are on more equal footing than in opposition as you suppose. Human perception is the only means to interpret either. The same frail weakness plagues both and causes our interpretative stances to seek presupposed answers. We’ve both been lied to from both sides on the search for truth.

Your semantics notwithstanding, plausibility has little interest to the rational unless it is also accompanied by something a little more tangible, such as supporting evidence. In other words, plausibilty springs from the facts, not the other way round.

Human perception is inarguably dodgy, hence the scientific method, designed to eliminate perceived truths and replace them with examined and repeated truths. Religion has no such safety net and so possesses the greater portion of frail weaknesses.
And yes, we have both been lied to, but it is worth noting that the lies of both 'sides' are usually uncovered by science.

trubble76 wrote:
So personal revelation is an invalid vehicle for the divine? I'm glad we could agree about something at least. Now we just have to convince the billions of deluded believers.

Personal revelation is the invaluable means by which anything of the divine is begun. This is the beginning of the very method of processing the intangible. What you described in the scenario of the had nothing to do with divine revelation as I know it. Revelation is a declaration of oneself. The Doctor was in no way revealing anything about God. At best he was promoting himself.

I think the word you meant was 'worthless' not 'invaluable'. The divine you speak of here does not exist.
And whatever the doctor was doing, he should not have been doing it.
Interestingly your point does highlight how this god ends up looking just like the believer, the two become difficult to differentiate.

trubble76 wrote: Incidentally, why do you think that a perfect and all-powerful being needs to seek glory? Doesn't it seem a rather human desire? I don't know about you, but I don't really like people that constantly demand themselves glorified, less so a god.

Neither do I when it comes to people. Now God, that is another story. Glory is such a misunderstood word, not because of your inability to comprehend it, but to the meanings we assign to words. Glory can be nothing more than giving credit where credit is due. I would say this should be discussed in a separate thread but it does relate to how people of faith process the intangible.

I didn’t address it above but this is the determining factor in how people of faith can take universal truth of common descent as you claim it, and discard it as your personal truth. More so if the best argument for it is similar to a better explanation than God did it.
To a Christian you might as well say random chance when proclaiming common descent. It’s a better explanation to us to say, God did it. Yep every ickle wickle bunney of it.
Please don’t take this opportunity to defend your better explanations. I’m aware of them already. Funny, that’s the same thing I say when the Mormons come knocking.

Yes, we can play with the meaning of glory all we like, but either way you choose to cut it, it paints the abrahamic god as unpleasant to say the least.

I like random chance as an explanation (although it is far from the whole story), because I can see random chance with my own eyes, but I have yet to see a fully formed ickle wickle bunny pop into existence in front of me, but as you do not wish to have the real explantions then I shall refrain, I'm not an Biologist anyway.

As for your sly comparison at the end, thanks, but you can stick it up your arse until the day I come knocking on your door to convert you. You came to me, not the other way round.

Nicko · **#90** by **Nicko** » Jan 10, 2012 4:45 pm

Calilasseia wrote:The idea that the original founders of this particular entity had supernatural assistance is one of the assertions you need to provide actual evidence for. On the other hand, I'm quite happy to conclude that they succeeded in this endeavour by being extremely belligerent and warlike, which doesn't need a magic entity to achieve. It's not as if humans haven't provided evidence of their propensity to fight wars over a very long span of historical time. Oh, and how come their magic man couldn't stop them from being subjugated by the Romans?

Romans who attributed their own success to their own imaginary friends, I might add.

Winning a war does not prove an argument. It does not prove that your imaginary friend exists. The only thing winning wars proves is that the winner is better at fighting wars.

Arguing otherwise is not just factually wrong, it's morally repugnant.

Steve · **#91** by **Steve** » Jan 10, 2012 5:30 pm

orpheus wrote:
Steve wrote:^^ Science is objective, religion is subjective. Science is about looking and describing impartially what is seen. Religion is about the most intimately personal aspects of the act of seeing - seeing the good in those described as evil, seeing the benefit of shit storms, seeing the point of it all. They are utterly utterly different. They don't need each other, but we aren't human if we don't acknowledge the two sides of the process of perception - looking versus seeing.

You're essentially arguing for Gould's NOMA. First, I don't accept the premise as true a priori. It certainly didn't used to be true. For most of history, religions made many, many quite specific objective claims about the world. And their stance was "this is literally true, and If you don't believe it, we'll kill you". And each time the findings of science encroached on religious claims, disproving them again and again, the religious resisted - sometimes violently. It's only recently that statements such as yours have gained common currency, since those things are all that's left for religion. As Hitch pointed out, religions wouldn't have the strength they have now if the hadn't had the strength they had then.

I even think that the process will continue. The realm of emotions, for example, is increasingly explained by the findings of neuroscience. That does not denigrate emotions, but it does objectively explain them. Thus religion can't even claim that as their own.

But even if NOMA is true, there are still, as Dawkins and others have pointed out, at least two major problems with it. First, I don't know of any religion that limits itself to those kinds of questions. For example, you're ignoring the creation myths in every major religion, as well as the fact that they all still make all sorts of claims about how the world objectively is.

Second, imagine if scientists found compelling evidence that one of the major tenets of a religion was actually true (e.g. the parthenogenesis of Jesus). How do you think Christians would react? Would they say "well, that's science; it deals with completely different questions; it has nothing to do with religion, just ignore it." Of course not. They'd chuck NOMA right out the window, and they'd trumpet it from the rooftops as confirmation of their beliefs. The religious argue that science and religion deal with separate questions only when science disagrees with them.

Edited for clarity, typos, and to add paragraph about historical claims of religion.

I have no argument with anything you say here. My comment is based on my personal experiences with a spiritual practice over the last nearly 10 years. It is a work in progress and I see that religions has been a real mess in history while science has had to skulk in the shadows. No judgment there - it just is what it is. I also prefer to talk of a spiritual practice than religion - I still gag on dogma. For me this work is so personal it is almost not worth discussing, but based on my experience I have come to a somewhat arrogant opinion that I can actually make sense of what stands behind religion. I am not a religious scholar, nor want to be, nor even very curious about it.

We all have creation myths - they are called a fantasy life. I suspect they are an important way in which we exercise our mirror neuron technology. Check out what happens to children who are denied any human contact in the early years - they are not recognizable as humans except physically. Their language development is atrophied. They aren't stupid - they just don't mature the same. That is what culture does for us - that is the role of society.

If you think science can sideline emotion I am sure you are right. We are very plastic creatures. I am not sure I am interested in living in a world that sidelines emotion - since working on my own inner processes through meditation I am able to explore them to far greater depth and its a blast. It feels really good. I can stare at horror and not be blinded, and I can stare at beauty and not be blinded. The point, for me, is simply to live a fuller life.

And I still have a very long way to go - I started late, I am not sure I react as well as I might to the situations I find myself in. Truthfully I don't think anyone ever finishes working on themselves. What is tragic is those who never even start.

And this is where I am most critical of religions as such - I see religion as stifling this exploration. The god concept is such a killjoy as it objectifies the subjective where it dies. As I say - this stuff is the absolute essence of personal.

And don't accept the premise as true. I still don't. I am just being a good scientist about it and trying to find a way to say it isn't so. So far I have failed and I have not heard of any one that can justify it not being so. But we should never accept anything without doing our own work, in our own way.

orpheus · **#92** by **orpheus** » Jan 10, 2012 6:16 pm

Steve wrote:
orpheus wrote:
Steve wrote:^^ Science is objective, religion is subjective. Science is about looking and describing impartially what is seen. Religion is about the most intimately personal aspects of the act of seeing - seeing the good in those described as evil, seeing the benefit of shit storms, seeing the point of it all. They are utterly utterly different. They don't need each other, but we aren't human if we don't acknowledge the two sides of the process of perception - looking versus seeing.

You're essentially arguing for Gould's NOMA. First, I don't accept the premise as true a priori. It certainly didn't used to be true. For most of history, religions made many, many quite specific objective claims about the world. And their stance was "this is literally true, and If you don't believe it, we'll kill you". And each time the findings of science encroached on religious claims, disproving them again and again, the religious resisted - sometimes violently. It's only recently that statements such as yours have gained common currency, since those things are all that's left for religion. As Hitch pointed out, religions wouldn't have the strength they have now if the hadn't had the strength they had then.

I even think that the process will continue. The realm of emotions, for example, is increasingly explained by the findings of neuroscience. That does not denigrate emotions, but it does objectively explain them. Thus religion can't even claim that as their own.

But even if NOMA is true, there are still, as Dawkins and others have pointed out, at least two major problems with it. First, I don't know of any religion that limits itself to those kinds of questions. For example, you're ignoring the creation myths in every major religion, as well as the fact that they all still make all sorts of claims about how the world objectively is.

Second, imagine if scientists found compelling evidence that one of the major tenets of a religion was actually true (e.g. the parthenogenesis of Jesus). How do you think Christians would react? Would they say "well, that's science; it deals with completely different questions; it has nothing to do with religion, just ignore it." Of course not. They'd chuck NOMA right out the window, and they'd trumpet it from the rooftops as confirmation of their beliefs. The religious argue that science and religion deal with separate questions only when science disagrees with them.

Edited for clarity, typos, and to add paragraph about historical claims of religion.

I have no argument with anything you say here. My comment is based on my personal experiences with a spiritual practice over the last nearly 10 years. It is a work in progress and I see that religions has been a real mess in history while science has had to skulk in the shadows. No judgment there - it just is what it is. I also prefer to talk of a spiritual practice than religion - I still gag on dogma. For me this work is so personal it is almost not worth discussing, but based on my experience I have come to a somewhat arrogant opinion that I can actually make sense of what stands behind religion. I am not a religious scholar, nor want to be, nor even very curious about it.

But you were talking about religion and its domain as opposed to that of science. If you want to talk about a personal spiritual practice instead, we can do that. As far as I can tell, you're now saying something quite different than you did above. Perhaps I'm mistaken. I think you'll have to be clearer than you have been for me to comment on it.

We all have creation myths - they are called a fantasy life. I suspect they are an important way in which we exercise our mirror neuron technology. Check out what happens to children who are denied any human contact in the early years - they are not recognizable as humans except physically. Their language development is atrophied. They aren't stupid - they just don't mature the same. That is what culture does for us - that is the role of society.

I don't see what your first sentence has to do with the rest of the paragraph.

If you think science can sideline emotion I am sure you are right. We are very plastic creatures. I am not sure I am interested in living in a world that sidelines emotion - since working on my own inner processes through meditation I am able to explore them to far greater depth and its a blast. It feels really good. I can stare at horror and not be blinded, and I can stare at beauty and not be blinded. The point, for me, is simply to live a fuller life.

Here you have really misunderstood me. I did not say that science can sideline emotion - quite the opposite, in fact. I said that none of the findings of neuroscience denigrate emotion. They do not "sideline" it. Emotions are just as wonderful if you understand their neurological basis as if you don't. In fact, if we begin to understand more of what's going on in the architecture of the brain with regard to emotions, then we will probably be better able to fine tune our own emotional life.

And I still have a very long way to go - I started late, I am not sure I react as well as I might to the situations I find myself in. Truthfully I don't think anyone ever finishes working on themselves. What is tragic is those who never even start.

Agreed.

And this is where I am most critical of religions as such - I see religion as stifling this exploration. The god concept is such a killjoy as it objectifies the subjective where it dies. As I say - this stuff is the absolute essence of personal.

Ok, I think I may begin to see that you're drawing a connection between the discussion about domains of religion vs. science and the other discussion of your personal practice. But again, if you want me to comment on this, you'll have to say more.

And don't accept the premise as true. I still don't. I am just being a good scientist about it and trying to find a way to say it isn't so. So far I have failed and I have not heard of any one that can justify it not being so. But we should never accept anything without doing our own work, in our own way.

Here again, I'm sorry, but I don't understand you. What premise? That science and religion have separate domains? You argued the other way before.

By the way, I'd add something to your last sentence: we should be wary of accepting anything, especially if we do our own work (necessary as it is). Because you are the easiest one for you to fool. And that's true of everyone.

If you like, you can chalk our misunderstandings up to me being obtuse. :cheers:

Steve · **#93** by **Steve** » Jan 10, 2012 7:51 pm

orpheus wrote:

If you like, you can chalk our misunderstandings up to me being obtuse.

It is not you, it is our understandings. We are all obtuse. Some folks throw in the towel in the face of it and write it off to goddidit and others deny their own ability to see it. But it is in exploring the paradoxes that we learn.

Harfelugan · **#94** by **Harfelugan** » Jan 21, 2012 10:09 pm

Calilasseia wrote:
Harfelugan wrote:I didn't propose historical evidences as evidence for the supernatural.

I'd like to see any evidence. Got any?

Harfelugan wrote:But as a framework of the mental process of comprehending the intangable. So in regards to your request for more than 0% evidence all I need is that the nation of Isreal did exist. You lose!

Poppycock. The idea that the original founders of this particular entity had supernatural assistance is one of the assertions you need to provide actual evidence for. On the other hand, I'm quite happy to conclude that they succeeded in this endeavour by being extremely belligerent and warlike, which doesn't need a magic entity to achieve. It's not as if humans haven't provided evidence of their propensity to fight wars over a very long span of historical time. Oh, and how come their magic man couldn't stop them from being subjugated by the Romans?

Harfelugan wrote:From reading the context of your post I think humanity has as much to worry about from your position as they do from the soul selling Republican politicians. All the ranting and nothing worth responding to.

Oh look, it's cheap ad hominem in place of substance time. How typically supernaturalist of you.

Now, once again, where's the real evidence for your magic man?

Harfelugan wrote:Imaginary arguments

Wrong. Quite a few supernaturalists erect the very sequence of apologetic horseshit I and the other poster described in our respective posts.

Harfelugan wrote:with people not posting here.

Ahem, the horseshit being exposed was, if you bothered to read our posts properly, presented as being a typical example of supernaturalist horseshit, of the sort we frequently encounter both here and elsewhere. Do pay attention to the elementary details.

Harfelugan wrote:I cant take you seriously.

Come back when you have something other than cheap ad hominems to post. Such as actual substance.

More ranting about imaginary arguments of your past and people who have'nt posted in this thread. At least you admitted to it. And still you request me answer for people not here.

LucidFlight · **#95** by **LucidFlight** » Jan 21, 2012 10:23 pm

Harfelugan, I am interested to learn how to express thought processes through supernaturalistic means. Can you explain this for us, please?

Harfelugan · **#96** by **Harfelugan** » Jan 21, 2012 10:54 pm

orpheus wrote:
They are not on equal footing. First, science relies on experiments that can be repeated. That is a great guard against any one individual's perceptive mistakes. Not true of any religious revelation.

Second, as Dennett has pointed out, one crucial thing about scientific peer review is that it's competitive. So scientists try their best to disprove their own conclusions, because they know that others will certainly try to do so. All this ensures that the findings are more likely to be sound, they're more likely to accurately describe the world, they're more likely to be true, because they've stood up to withering attack by many experts in the field. There's absolutely nothing like that in religious faith.

The results are plain to see. Science gets much closer to the truth of how the world actually works, and we can observe this in the simple fact of the world we've built based on scientific experiment and findings. The building you're sitting in. The computer you're typing on. The very fact that most of us survive beyond thirty.

Compare to religious faith?

Correct and incorrect at the same time. The OP of this thread brings into question the thought process behind supernatural belief. My statement of equal footing is on the aspect of the development of an ideological worldview whether it be natural or supernatural. You have provided the dividing line between the two. Not a distinction between who is right and who is wrong, just from where we pull our perceptions.

I will admit you are correct that science gets closer to the truth of how the (natural) world actually works. But is that relevant to the OP questions? Which require me to expose my soft underbelly to a hyper form of criticism in which the OP didn’t address. I propose that natural science is merely an impotent tool to examine the supernatural with.

In a post later than this one I’m responding to, the subject of NOMA came up. I’m unfamiliar with it, being a wack job fundamentalist. Id like to respond that if science could prove supernatural evidence like what you described, I would describe it as hog wash. Your correct that many in the Christian camp would do as you say. Not someone familiar with the failings of natural science though. Wether or not there is anything to the supernatural or not is beyond the realm of natural science. I can also say that I would never ask anyone to accept any proof I try to give as a reason to consider the supernatural as evidential.

And last but not least you are correct again. There is nothing comparable within the natural world found in religion that will answer your evidencial questions with a more likely ring of truth.

Harfelugan · **#97** by **Harfelugan** » Jan 21, 2012 11:28 pm

trubble76 wrote:
Your semantics notwithstanding, plausibility has little interest to the rational unless it is also accompanied by something a little more tangible, such as supporting evidence. In other words, plausibility springs from the facts, not the other way round.

Were both adept at semantics. Now your adding a qualifier not addressed in the post I responded to. Which causes me to say that your first attempt at the better explanation wasn’t well thought out. I like what you’ve presented here better, because you have placed yourself in a defendable position, where you weren’t before. At least in the natural paradigm.

trubble76 wrote:
Human perception is inarguably dodgy, hence the scientific method, designed to eliminate perceived truths and replace them with examined and repeated truths. Religion has no such safety net and so possesses the greater portion of frail weaknesses.
And yes, we have both been lied to, but it is worth noting that the lies of both 'sides' are usually uncovered by science.

Correct within the frail limits natural sciences can even address the supernatural.

trubble76 wrote:
Yes, we can play with the meaning of glory all we like, but either way you choose to cut it, it paints the abrahamic god as unpleasant to say the least.

Your perceptions, not scientifically backed either. That concerns the meanings of the word glory and whether Abraham’s God was pleasant or not. Not relevant to the thread anyway.

trubble76 wrote:
As for your sly comparison at the end, thanks, but you can stick it up your arse until the day I come knocking on your door to convert you. You came to me, not the other way round.

Don’t flatter yourself I came to the OP, which doesn’t bear your avitar. Your just part of the price of admission. Who’s delusional now? You responded to my post, even in your rational house that’s an irrefutable proof of the matter.

Calilasseia · **#98** by **Calilasseia** » Jan 21, 2012 11:38 pm

Harfelugan wrote:More ranting

Translation: "I can't be bothered addressing your points, and don't have any answers to them, so I'll dismiss them with a one line piece of snide condescension".

Harfelugan wrote:about imaginary arguments of your past

Please, use the forum search function and find out how "imaginary" these are. Speaking of imaginary entities, got any evidence for your magic man? I keep asking supernaturalists to provide this, and they keep failing. Plus, I notice you didn't have an answer to my rebuttal of your farcical assertion, that the propensity of a group of homicidal nomads to win wars against unprepared opposition, somehow validated your magic man. But then I'm used to such displays of discoursive indolence on the part of supernaturalists.

Harfelugan wrote:and people who have'nt posted in this thread.

Once again, pay attention to the elementary details, as I stated earlier.

Harfelugan wrote: At least you admitted to it. And still you request me answer for people not here.

Well since YOU are the one who is engaging in snide, condescending dismissal of my numerous points, I think we're entitled to see YOU provide some substance to support your assertions. That is, of course, if you have any. You can start by telling us all, what real evidence exists to support the assertion that your magic man exists. That should keep you occupied for a little while.

Scot Dutchy · **#99** by **Scot Dutchy** » Jan 22, 2012 12:44 am

FFS cant these theists just FO

Harfelugan · **#100** by **Harfelugan** » Jan 31, 2012 1:37 am

LucidFlight wrote: LucidFlight
Expressing thought processes through super naturalistic means. I like it. How exactly does one perform such a task? Please, explain this for us.

by THWOTH » Dec 27, 2011 7:12 am
The only way to allow personal experience of super-nature to support knowledge and/or truth claims, or at least the personal belief in the veracity of the claims, is to put aside verifiable evidences as a reasonable justification for belief.

In explaining thought processes with others in this thread I’ve implied that a super naturalist develops his worldview in exactly the same manner that a naturalist would. There’s really no way to get around this, my mind works exactly like yours. You have no mental ability that sets you apart from the most religious nut-job you know. I’d like to clear up my wording to LucidFlight above. There is no expressing thought processes through supernatural means. However I can explain the process of thought in believing in the supernatural. A Christian needn’t put aside verifiable evidences as a reasonable justification for belief. Until belief is experienced through faith those evidences will lead me no farther than they’ve led you. At best a deist. For that matter, until belief, these verifiable evidences may be seen as a totally natural occurrence. The diving line is in natural/supernatural. A Christian is free to believe in settled order and development in the universe. Natural Law. Due to belief in a transcendent being however we can attribute the natural order to that being. When faced with an infinite possibility the naturalist can only attempt to conquer it and make it finite. A super naturalist has no problem with the infinite, seeking only to understand it as best as they can.

Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Re: Holy spirit,experiences of God or other supernatural beings.

Who is online