Why wont god heal amputees

[Darwin]

Seriously?...you want the difference between evidence and proof? Evidence is something which supports the claim that something is true...proof is when you have enough evidence to fully and reasonably believe something is true.

What is and what is not support is then very subjective is it not? To me eyewitness accounts from people who might very well be lying or hallucinating is not evidence. It sounds more like evidence of some kind of mass-psychosis to me.

I don't know any nation that relies solely on religious charity, so if this is the discussion you wish, it will be a short and very theoretical one.

Was not talking about relying on religious charity 100%, my point was that it should not have to be part of the equation or something you rely on. We have lots of non-religious charity too btw, so religion is not a necessity for charity.

Actually what you said was "In my country we pay taxes and take care of eachother with the tax money, instead of slaughtering innocent people on the other side of the planet in places we have no business being in. Imagine that."

Unless you think that slaughtering innocent people on the other side of the planet is "charity", then no, thats not what I was criticizing you for.

Oh yea, you mean I felt pride in the fact that we are peaceful? Yeah, that I can agree with. I'm proud if we can peacefully coexist with the rest of the world. Sue me

In part through the indocrination of millions. It was also possible through advances in science. Shall we think those things are "bad" as well?

The advances in military science were bad. The so called science Dr Mengele represented was also an abomination and we would have done just fine without that.

How the hell did you get from my statement about you to this?

If you are going to base your beliefs on laymen who you happen to come across and talk with, than of course that will be your belief. Most people, religious folk included, have little critical thinking, argumentative, or debate skills. You want to give something a real chance at persuading you? Read the experts, read people who have devoted their lives to proving these things.

Most people who believe in something strongly, would probably do best to think about it too, don't you think? That is how I think you best fight racism, nationalism and such ruining a society. Bring the ideas up for discussion and analyze them thoroughly so we can try to see them for what they are. If religious people refuse to discuss religion, they are certainly free not to discuss it. A first step in the process that could be good is NOT TO DISCUSS IT ON MESSAGEBOARDS THEN, DON'T YOU THINK?

You were telling me that I should not try to discuss religion with the religious people on this board as they are are too common to actually discuss their beliefs, as far as I could tell. Then I responded to it? Or did I misunderstand:

"Most people, religious folk included, have little critical thinking, argumentative, or debate skills. You want to give something a real chance at persuading you? Read the experts, read people who have devoted their lives to proving these things."

 

[manu1959]

Absolutely wrong. Another big danger that religion has brought us....the idea that people who dont believe are immoral.

The idea that people NEED a god to punish or reward them to entice them to be moral must come from the type of mind that WANTS to rape and murder and can only be stopped by a threat of punishment. I figure prison works for that and is just as useful as a "god" concept.

The jails are FULL of believers btw.

I have a purpose to live and I am an atheist. This is my only life so its pretty dam precious and I certainly have morals. I dont need some guy in the sky to threaten me with hell to keep me from murdering people. I dont have ANY desire to murder or harm anyone..even when I am angry.

I am an atheist and have never had a problem feeling compassion, have done plenty of giving to charity etc. I never needed mr invisible to do or feel those things.

Are you revealing somthing about your inner criminal and immoral desires here? It makes me wonder since you seem to forward the idea that it creates morals.

one doesn't not need to believe to be a good person....and no one ever seems to claim the opposite except those that do not belive and want to claim they are moral and ethical and came up with moral and ethical rules all on thier own....most of societies laws and rules grew out of religous teachings....

you don't have to belive in god but you are living by gods teachings like it or not....

 

[Larkinn]

What is and what is not support is then very subjective is it not? To me eyewitness accounts from people who might very well be lying or hallucinating is not evidence. It sounds more like evidence of some kind of mass-psychosis to me.

Everyone "might well be lying". You believe people who may be lying every day. And no, evidence isn't very subjective. What is extremely subjective is how much evidence is required for proof or belief.

Was not talking about relying on religious charity 100%, my point was that it should not have to be part of the equation or something you rely on. We have lots of non-religious charity too btw, so religion is not a necessity for charity.

It is a necessity in some parts of the world. By the way much of the US's charity goes to other countries which don't have decent governments to take care of them.

Oh yea, you mean I felt pride in the fact that we are peaceful? Yeah, that I can agree with. I'm proud if we can peacefully coexist with the rest of the world. Sue me

Congratulations on being able to peacefully coexist with murderers and genocidal maniacs. If you are proud of the fact that your country did nothing about Rwanda in '94, your morals are pretty shitty.

The advances in military science were bad. The so called science Dr Mengele represented was also an abomination and we would have done just fine without that.

You do know that the Nazis were responsible for some "great" strides in medical research, yes? The wonders that can be achieved when one doesn't need to worry about ethics.

You were telling me that I should not try to discuss religion with the religious people on this board as they are are too common to actually discuss their beliefs, as far as I could tell. Then I responded to it? Or did I misunderstand:

I don't care who you discuss it with. But if you are really interested in intellectually engaging a topic, limiting yourself to arguing with other individuals, be they here or in real life, is foolish.

 

[Darwin]

As I said before, thats not why I called you a nationalist.


What you said was strongly nationalistic.

Again, if you refer to my wish for peace and the joy I feel that we spend more money on health care than war, sure.. I like it. We do have a few hundred soldiers in Afghanistan on a "peace keeping mission" though which angers me a lot. Our politicians are surely a bunch of self serving assholes, like most people are, its the country as a whole who must use their democratic tools to keep the country in OK shape.

You've strongly implied it.

Strongly implied? Where?

This is a thread discussing religion and religious people. If I talk about religious people I mean religious people, if you are not one of them then dont feel targeted by it. If you secretly are and feel like I'm talking to you, I guess I might be, but then all is in order, right? Just don't be surprised if I mention religion and religious people when the topic we discuss is religion.

You know the point, if you have any sense at all, you know its valid.

This discussion is such a big mess I certainly don't know what point you are trying to make, if any. So please, if you know what point you are trying to make. Make it.

If all you are saying is there might be a family of pink unicorns operating a meth factory under the brittish queens bedroom, because nothing is impossible and you cannot prove it is not there, if it isnt, as there is no physical evidence regarding the case, you can think so if you want to, I will not agree with it though and I will say its silly.

If you tried to make another point, feel free to give it another shot.

 

[Ruby]

But yet you accept much of it as true.

You made an assumption. No I mostly only believe history that has a very good record that includes evidence. I know that much of the history is false and embellished.

And as people get older and die, we no longer have as many first person accounts of WW2...but yet that doesn't mean it is any less true.

You get confused alot, its not the basis of eyewitness accounts that we accept it as fact...its based on the PHYSICAL evidence and I already pointed that out. We can prove it all happened without even ONE eyewitness account.

Eyewitness accounts are evidence.

Not if they are the ONLY evidence. They must come along with some other physical substantiating evidence.

And not all evidence can be. This is another logical flaw. Lack of evidence for something is NOT evidence against it.

No it isnt, but its a very good basis on which to come to a conclusion that it dosent exist. Its not about evidence AGAINST IT, you first have to PROVE It exists at all.

Thats why its not proof. However it IS evidence.

No, its not evidence at all so far. You havent offered ANY evidence at all, not ONE shred. Evidence will lead to proof but you havent offered ANY evidence at all.

And you know this how?...ah yes, eyewitness accounts.

No there is evidence of these things. We can accept people telling us what they believe as being WHAT THEY BELIEVE. That dosent mean there were actually witches or that there is an inherent "heresay" crime...we created that.

Based on what exactly is this a "clear fact" ?

Well we can fly, we have computers, we can perform medical tests and operations they couldnt, we have anti-biotics...its a long list.

Do you see it right now? No? Than all you have is an "internal feeling" that it exists.

No I have evidence that has already been verified and I do have some in my cupboard.

Not all of them.

Yea and the ones we can show EVIDENCE for cannot be said to be true mental illness.

*sigh* we went over this.

And still no evidence is forth-coming.

Obviously I do...because if I didn't you wouldn't be trying so hard to make it irrelevant.

I dont have to try hard or anything, you are trying to rely on things that dont constitute evidence which means they are irrelevant.

Really? So all science is good?

There is junk science out there but science is peer reviewed so it dosent stand up to the 3rd party test and is de-bunked as the junk science it is. But yes, strides forward are very good. We live a longer life as a result of this science, we have gotten to the moon due to this science and we have discovered many other numorous wonderous things due to this science. Its pursuit is always good.

Not really. I first heard about this on a mainly liberal site. Its a pretty well established fact by now. And you do, I hope, know that surveys generally don't survey the entire population, just a good cross-section, correct?

Oh come on! I read it, it stated if MORE PEOPLE were conservative.....and went on to show how conservatives are better than liberals. Is that the best you could do really?

No, they don't. Most people don't know logical flaws, are very bad at using logic, and generally believe all sorts of stupid things.

And you said most people believe in god...see the connection?

Yes...however there are sometimes things that are not possible.

Not sure what this response is sopposed to mean. I just gave an example of two people using critical thinking skills and both coming out with different views but BOTH basing it on evidence.

Then please explain for us all what exactly constitutes evidence. Please be extremely specific and please also explain why historical books do NOT constitute evidence. Oh and same for eyewitness accounts.

I already did, It can easily be verified by others...they wouldnt need your eyewitness account or internal emotional feelings to verify its existence. You used coffee as an example...it can be proven to exist and can be verified by any 3rd party and would not require it take my word for it, my emotional responses, my eyewitness account etc. ANYONE can experience it and see it, feel it, touch it, smell it....it is part of the physical world. It can be tested in a lab.

I worry about you that you dont even understand such a basic premise as credible evidence.

 

[Darwin]

Everyone "might well be lying". You believe people who may be lying every day. And no, evidence isn't very subjective. What is extremely subjective is how much evidence is required for proof or belief.

The fact that people have been taught that "God" exists and then have their experiences influenced by this fact ruins any value as "evidence" an experience of god would have, when a religious person claims to have had one. Very few have their experiences with god before ever hearing about god or religion, as far as I know. Do you have any cases like that I can check out? Like some bushman who never saw a christian emerging from the wild with storied about Jesus Christ etc? *shrug* What is evidence to you is not evidence to me.

It is a necessity in some parts of the world. By the way much of the US's charity goes to other countries which don't have decent governments to take care of them.

That is nice. Lots of Swedish charity goes to other countries too. I think Sweden even donates more than USA in pure cash, even though there are only 9 million of us. Not 100% on it can check it out later, I do know we donate more per capita for sure (Not counting bombs and white phosphorous attack etc as donations then)

Congratulations on being able to peacefully coexist with murderers and genocidal maniacs. If you are proud of the fact that your country did nothing about Rwanda in '94, your morals are pretty shitty.

Not sure if we should go there on this thread, mate If we are talking about which country did what with death squads and installing murderous fascist dictators, state sponsored terrorism and drowing people in Agent Orange etc etc... a certain country comes to mind as having a greater negative impact on the world than our little country

You do know that the Nazis were responsible for some "great" strides in medical research, yes? The wonders that can be achieved when one doesn't need to worry about ethics.

We might very well have reached those goals without unethical research. Today we are making new great strides with stem-cell research and other cutting edge methods! Go planet earth!

I don't care who you discuss it with. But if you are really interested in intellectually engaging a topic, limiting yourself to arguing with other individuals, be they here or in real life, is foolish.

Err... you were the one caring who I discussed it with and telling me the average believer is clueless so I should not seek any information from them, but turn to "professional thinkers" for answers. As religion is a very personal thing, I have a hard time seeing how I can find out about peoples personal beliefs unless I engage the person in discussion.

 

[Ruby]

one doesn't not need to believe to be a good person....and no one ever seems to claim the opposite except those that do not belive and want to claim they are moral and ethical and came up with moral and ethical rules all on thier own....most of societies laws and rules grew out of religous teachings....

you don't have to belive in god but you are living by gods teachings like it or not....

Morals develop due to our social needs as we are a social animal. Religion derives itself from the human mind because its a HUMAN CREATION and its morals also came from the HUMAN MIND that created religion. So truthfully, its religion that gets its morals from man and not the other way around. The problem with religion is that if you try to stay true to it then you would follow the ancient morals (some still are valid, other are now considered immoral). Slavery and sexism are great examples. In ancient times it was moral to own slaves, it isnt considered moral anymore because humans continue to develop and refine their morals and have bypassed religion in that arena.

 

[Darwin]

Morals develop due to our social needs as we are a social animal. Religion derives itself from the human mind because its a HUMAN CREATION and its morals also came from the HUMAN MIND that created religion. So truthfully, its religion that gets its morals from man and not the other way around. The problem with religion is that if you try to stay true to it then you would follow the ancient morals (some still are valid, other are now considered immoral). Slavery and sexism are great examples. In ancient times it was moral to own slaves, it isnt considered moral anymore because humans continue to develop and refine their morals and have bypassed religion in that arena.

Perhaps these dudes still are backing rape and dashing babies against rocks etc, Old Testament style! Go Christian Morals(tm)!

 

[Darwin]

Completely off topic now, here is my last comment to the Rwanda 94 statement made earlier.

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa.html

Follow the links and read about the US vetoes against UN resolutions and started armed conflicts etc. Good reading!

 

[Larkinn]

You made an assumption. No I mostly only believe history that has a very good record that includes evidence. I know that much of the history is false and embellished.

I made an assumption, because I highly doubt you've gone through and researched all the history that is based solely/mostly on eyewitness accounts and removed that from what you consider to be facts.

You get confused alot, its not the basis of eyewitness accounts that we accept it as fact...its based on the PHYSICAL evidence and I already pointed that out. We can prove it all happened without even ONE eyewitness account.

Really? Ever seen any physical evidence of Nagasaki? No? Than on what do you base its existence?...other people who have seen physical evidence of it?...isn't that an eyewitness account?

Not if they are the ONLY evidence. They must come along with some other physical substantiating evidence.

And if you personally do not see the substantiating evidence than you are relying on, again, eyewitness accounts. But now secondhand ones.

No it isnt, but its a very good basis on which to come to a conclusion that it dosent exist. Its not about evidence AGAINST IT, you first have to PROVE It exists at all.

Umm you have to prove that something exists to have evidence against it? Thats an incredibly stupid standard.

No, its not evidence at all so far. You havent offered ANY evidence at all, not ONE shred. Evidence will lead to proof but you havent offered ANY evidence at all.

Evidence does NOT always lead to proof. In fact it usually does not. Hence why there are more wrong scientific hypotheses out there than right ones.

No there is evidence of these things. We can accept people telling us what they believe as being WHAT THEY BELIEVE. That dosent mean there were actually witches or that there is an inherent "heresay" crime...we created that.

Oh? Who from the 1800's told you that they believed there were witches?

Well we can fly, we have computers, we can perform medical tests and operations they couldnt, we have anti-biotics...its a long list.

You know that they couldnt...how exactly?

No I have evidence that has already been verified and I do have some in my cupboard.

Use your brain for a moment...I know its hard but try. You discounted internal evidence and said that only external evidence matters. Now, if you are remembering something from the past is that external or internal?

Yea and the ones we can show EVIDENCE for cannot be said to be true mental illness.

Which does not mean that if we cannot show evidence for it, than it IS mental illness.

And still no evidence is forth-coming.

I've already provided it. You've summarily and foolishly dismissed it for arbitrary and unconvincing reasons.

There is junk science out there but science is peer reviewed so it dosent stand up to the 3rd party test and is de-bunked as the junk science it is.
But yes, strides forward are very good. We live a longer life as a result of this science, we have gotten to the moon due to this science and we have discovered many other numorous wonderous things due to this science. Its pursuit is always good.

Always good, hmm?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

Oh come on! I read it, it stated if MORE PEOPLE were conservative.....and went on to show how conservatives are better than liberals. Is that the best you could do really?

And is the best you can do an ad hominem attack? Care to address the issue, or are you just going to attack the author?

And you said most people believe in god...see the connection?

You aren't very good at logic either, and are an atheist. Shall I also make the same logical flaw you did in connecting them?

I already did, It can easily be verified by others...they wouldnt need your eyewitness account or internal emotional feelings to verify its existence. You used coffee as an example...it can be proven to exist and can be verified by any 3rd party and would not require it take my word for it, my emotional responses, my eyewitness account etc. ANYONE can experience it and see it, feel it, touch it, smell it....it is part of the physical world. It can be tested in a lab.

No, I used coffee as an example to disregard the silly and simplistic differentiation you created about internal/external things.

Please...tell me what the difference between something being "verified by a third party" and an "eyewitness account" is?

I worry about you that you dont even understand such a basic premise as credible evidence.

Worry about me less, and your own ideas more.

 

[Larkinn]

The fact that people have been taught that "God" exists and then have their experiences influenced by this fact ruins any value as "evidence" an experience of god would have

Why is this? I was "taught" that a law school existed far before I ever saw one...should I now doubt my own experiences of them?

, when a religious person claims to have had one. Very few have their experiences with god before ever hearing about god or religion, as far as I know.

So? Do you expect them to know what it is if its not explained to them?

Do you have any cases like that I can check out? Like some bushman who never saw a christian emerging from the wild with storied about Jesus Christ etc? *shrug* What is evidence to you is not evidence to me.

Do you expect that God, when appearing to someone, would somehow also relate the entire Christian story to them as well?

That is nice. Lots of Swedish charity goes to other countries too. I think Sweden even donates more than USA in pure cash, even though there are only 9 million of us.

Lmao. Not even close. Although Sweden does give "better" aid than the US. Also there are many different categories of Aid. Charity in general, charity to foreign countries, charity by citizens, charity by government, etc, etc.

Not 100% on it can check it out later, I do know we donate more per capita for sure (Not counting bombs and white phosphorous attack etc as donations then)

I highly doubt that is true on a private level. On a government level it is true.

Not sure if we should go there on this thread, mate If we are talking about which country did what with death squads and installing murderous fascist dictators, state sponsored terrorism and drowing people in Agent Orange etc etc... a certain country comes to mind as having a greater negative impact on the world than our little country

And this is why I think you are nationalistic. When did I ever say that the US is good at foreign affairs? But in your feeble attempts to justify Swedens failures, all you can do is attack America? The US is, for sure, done its share of wrongs around the world. But your statement was a general one about any military actions, which is wrong and idiotic. You are a nationalist, I am a humanitarian.

We might very well have reached those goals without unethical research. Today we are making new great strides with stem-cell research and other cutting edge methods! Go planet earth!

Yes, we might have. Irrelevant, but you said something true so go you!

Err... you were the one caring who I discussed it with and telling me the average believer is clueless so I should not seek any information from them, but turn to "professional thinkers" for answers.

The average person is clueless. And the point was don't base everything on your discussions with the laymen, especially if they are as low quality as your points are here.

As religion is a very personal thing, I have a hard time seeing how I can find out about peoples personal beliefs unless I engage the person in discussion.

Truth is not a personal thing.

 

[Larkinn]

Completely off topic now, here is my last comment to the Rwanda 94 statement made earlier.

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa.html

Follow the links and read about the US vetoes against UN resolutions and started armed conflicts etc. Good reading!

I'm curious as to what the US has to do with your pride over inaction in your own country over Rwanda ?

 

[jillian]

You start with saying you are not a religious type, then you claim that you are religious. How can you be both?

I never claim I am religious. I have a religion but am not particularly observant. I suppose, though that the tenets of that religion, many of them, at least, appeal to me and make a lot of sense. Many of its practices, however, I have disgarded.

I also think there is a difference between being religious and being spiritual. I can look out at the ocean and feel the power of nature. What that power is composed of or where it comes from are an unknown.

I'm 30 years old and study to be a veterinarian, in Sweden where I am born and have lived my whole life.

Your anger on this issue made me think you younger. Apologies. Congratulations on your veterinary studies. I hope you do well. As an aside, my religion dictates that animals are not to be misued, FWIW.

Looking at the american society from the outside, I can see how religion has completely permeated your society on all levels. In Sweden the discussions about abortion laws, wars, the climate and people not from our own nation would never look like the ones taking place in USA, because we are not as based on the christian religion as you are, anymore. Same goes for genocidal nations based on religion like Israel and all the horrible crimes against humanity they commit in the name of God, and the pieces of land they have given themselves the right to by refering to fairy tales.

There has, no doubt, been a concerted effort by some to enact their religion into law. I am as resentful of that as you are. But it is not ALL religious people. Those that are like that happen to be very vocal the politicians who courted their vote over the past decade have done a great deal to distort the political process over the past decade.

If one actually believes in something there is no proof for, I still think there is something wrong. Sure, people have been ignorant in our evolution from a single cell organism to the dangerous unstable species we are today, seemingly growing out of control and devouring the planet like a virus disease.

I am comfortable with my beliefs. Of course I don't understand people who reject the concept of evolution or who try to claim the earth is less than 6,000 years old. As long as they don't try to mis-educate my child or the children of others, I don't really care what they believe.

What I'm unwilling to state affirmatively is that evolution wasn't the means by which G-d created what exists. Given that I have no way of knowing and the belief gives me comfort and bothers no one else, I'm ok with it. Though I also fully acknowledge that I have many questions on that score and my faith isn't unshakeable.

I certainly think that religious people have done more harm than the nazis did in their short reign. Wonder if anyone got hurt in the christian crusades, perhaps even broken nails and worse damage was done to people, huh?

Given that I'm a Jew, I'm sure you might understand where I'd disagree with you about religious people versus the nazis. I do, however, think fundamentalists and extremists are dangerous.

That you believe the bible is not the word of god, and you are unsure if the content is made up, confuses me. What other options do we have? My brain might be a little tired, so please list a few more for my consideration.

Only fundamentalists believe the bible is not open to interpretation, first of all. Second, not being orthodox, I was taught that the bible was allegorical. A couple of years back, I took a course in kabbalah. What the rabbi said wast that there were different ways of looking at the bible. Orthodox Jews believe it is whatever the rabbi says it is. Conservatives and reform Jews tend to think it is allegory. Only Christian fundamentalists think it is the literal "word".

My experience tells me that what happens after death is decomposing, unless you are cremated of course, then its more like oxidation. You seem to be very confused for someone so old and wise.

Your experience is with the body... not what makes us people and what the body contains. Being a scientist, you know that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. So I figure, we don't know what happens to our energy when our bodies die.

I'm not confused at all... nor am I wise. But the anger and certainty I had when I was younger has certainly been tempered.

 

[Ruby]

I made an assumption, because I highly doubt you've gone through and researched all the history that is based solely/mostly on eyewitness accounts and removed that from what you consider to be facts.

NO you made an assumption that I accept all historical accounts, which I do not. Before I accept anything as fact I would have to research it and things I havent looked into I wouldnt give any automatic acceptance to.

Really? Ever seen any physical evidence of Nagasaki? No? Than on what do you base its existence?...other people who have seen physical evidence of it?...isn't that an eyewitness account?

It dosent matter if I HAVE SEEN IT, it matters that I CAN see it. I can go there and see the physical evidence. I can also see our own documentation of what we, the US did and dropped.

You seem to think evidence means that I MUST SEE IT, no it must be verfiable by anyone and not rely on internal emotions or "faith" to believe in it.

And if you personally do not see the substantiating evidence than you are relying on, again, eyewitness accounts. But now secondhand ones.

Not at all, the evidence is there and can be reviewed by anyone....you really just cant grasp the idea of evidence, which I find rather odd.

Umm you have to prove that something exists to have evidence against it? Thats an incredibly stupid standard.

Yes, things that DONT exist dont LEAVE evidence. You can use common sense to say somthing is not probable, but there isnt EVIDENCE.

Evidence does NOT always lead to proof. In fact it usually does not. Hence why there are more wrong scientific hypotheses out there than right ones.

No it dosent always, but its also not true that is USUALLY DOSENT, it actually usually does, but you would need to verify or a body of evidence is all.

I am not sure how many scientific hypotheses in the world to be able to confirm or reject that statement and I doubt you do either. Hypotheses though are there to be rejected or accepted through testing and gathering of evidence. They dont set out to be "right"...they set out to find an answer and if an answer is found at all (even the answer that the hypothesis is wrong) means you have found an answer and have learned somthing new which is a success.

Oh? Who from the 1800's told you that they believed there were witches?

We have documents of the times, but that dosent give evidence that the women WERE ACTUALLY witches, just that people of the time BELIEVED it and that they killed them for it.

Just as the bible dosent prove there is a god.....it just proves people believed there was a god.

You know that they couldnt...how exactly?

No evidence they could AND evidence of the path to discovering HOW to fly. The whole concept of credible evidence seems to bug you, but I guess its because you cant provide any to support your point of view so all thats left is to pretend that credible evidence itself dosent exist! Pretty funny!

Use your brain for a moment...I know its hard but try. You discounted internal evidence and said that only external evidence matters. Now, if you are remembering something from the past is that external or internal?

LOL, thats rich coming from you. You can even wrap your mind around the credible evidence concept and want to pretend that its nothing more than eyewitness account or internal emotional feelings and then say I NEED TO USE MY BRAIN! hahahahah!

If I remember somthing from the past its an internal brain function, but there is evidence of it in the world that can be verified then my memory is accepted as the truth, not based on my internal memory but on the evidence I can provide that it actually happened. Example, I remember giving birth to my son and I can offer my son as proof as well as his birth certificate, school records etc. A doctor can even examine me and can tell I have given birth.

Which does not mean that if we cannot show evidence for it, than it IS mental illness.

No, but to me it is a form of mental illness in a more tongue in cheek way. I think its unhealthy and harmful and this is shown through various problems we face in the more religious socieities.

I've already provided it. You've summarily and foolishly dismissed it for arbitrary and unconvincing reasons.

No you havent offered any credible evidence. You say that the bible is evidence, its only evidence that people believed in a god concept, it dosent provide a shred of evidence that any god actually exists!

This is where you keep proving you dont have any idea what credible evidence is nor do you even have a clue what compelling evidence is. Its not that odd though, this is most certainly one of those hazardous affects of religion.

Always good, hmm?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon m

Yes science advances and additional knowlege is always good....just because we abuse it and find more harmful purposes dosent change that more knowledge is good. Now you want to pretend that human failings and bad decisions is a good case for NOT pursuing advancement and more knowledge.

Sounds like the biblical sin of eating from the tree of knowledge....yep the bible starts off demonizing knowledge and education. That probably has always served leaders very well since a dumbed down public are easier to control and easier to confuse. Are you attempting to be exhibit A and present yourself as evidence of this?

PS, we also get power from our nuclear knowledge.

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheBenefitsOfNuclearPower

Knives and sharp objects have many nifty and helpful purposes too, but sometimes people use them as weapons....shall we live ina world with corked forks?

And is the best you can do an ad hominem attack? Care to address the issue, or are you just going to attack the author?

The article you provided was nothing but an ad hominem attack and you want me to pretend not to observe that fact?

You aren't very good at logic either, and are an atheist. Shall I also make the same logical flaw you did in connecting them?

LOL that was a fun jab, but sure go for it! The only time in life we accept things without some sort of evidence is when we are very small and thats when religion is indoctrinated into people and usually done so by people they love and trust and then upheld by the "masses" theory of surrounding them with others who also believe it. It becomes somthing many wont question due to the early exposure and indoctrination....of course this dosent continue to hold true because we have many that will go ahead and question it anyway and thats why we are seeing a rise in atheism.

Its like many of our morals or beliefs....they evolve and change as we move forward.

No, I used coffee as an example to disregard the silly and simplistic differentiation you created about internal/external things.

No you just didnt make sense, you tried to say somthing that is an external item and can provide evidence for itself was really just an internal emotional experience like peoples emtional internal experience about "god".

Please...tell me what the difference between something being "verified by a third party" and an "eyewitness account" is?

It means it provides evidence that ANYONE can come along and see, it has credibility. The existance of coffee can be seen by anyone...even a person who has never seen it or heard of it can be SHOWN it. They can see pictures of it. They can grow it. A lab can test it.....

I am amazed how hard it is for you to grasp the very simple concept of credible evidence.

Worry about me less, and your own ideas more.

Well your inablity to absorb and understand an extremely simple concept is worrying.

 

[ReillyT]

NO you made an assumption that I accept all historical accounts, which I do not. Before I accept anything as fact I would have to research it and things I havent looked into I wouldnt give any automatic acceptance to.

It dosent matter if I HAVE SEEN IT, it matters that I CAN see it. I can go there and see the physical evidence. I can also see our own documentation of what we, the US did and dropped.

Almost everything that you know, about the world today, or historically, is based on second-hand information, usually relaying eyewitness accounts. Especially before the invention of photography and video, this was pretty much the only means of passing knowledge. Even with respect to Nagasaki, the belief that you can go and see it is based (presumably) upon something you read or something someone told you. This is still just a second-hand account. Even physical evidence of history is only understood contextually, based on second-hand eyewitness accounts. It is just how we understand the world.

You seem to think evidence means that I MUST SEE IT, no it must be verfiable by anyone and not rely on internal emotions or "faith" to believe in it.

I think Larkin is actually saying the very opposite (Larkin, please tell me if I am wrong). He is pointing out that you accept evidence all the time for things that you don't directly experience.

Not at all, the evidence is there and can be reviewed by anyone....you really just cant grasp the idea of evidence, which I find rather odd. Yes, things that DONT exist dont LEAVE evidence. You can use common sense to say somthing is not probable, but there isnt EVIDENCE.

As a rather insignificant matter, it is not true that the non-existence of something can't leave evidence. A black hole is merely the absence of matter. Nonetheless, this "non-existence" affects the manner in which matter moves in relation to it. By observing the movement of matter, we have evidence for the non-existence of matter in a different location. Not really important, but I think it is interesting.

We have documents of the times, but that dosent give evidence that the women WERE ACTUALLY witches, just that people of the time BELIEVED it and that they killed them for it.

Just as the bible dosent prove there is a god.....it just proves people believed there was a god..

This is the crux of your misunderstanding with Larkin (I think). It hinges on the distinction between evidence and credible evidence.

Records of testimony at the Salem witch trials are actually evidence that there were witches (it is also, as you pointed out, evidence of a general belief in sorcery). They are first hand eyewitness accounts of acts of sorcery. Fortunately, we can use other evidence of the manners of belief of the people of Salem, coupled with evidence of those peoples’ lack of understanding about the physical world, to decide that the evidence of witchcraft is not credible. It is nonetheless evidence of actual witchcraft – just not ultimately credible when the situation is viewed as a whole.

Even without physical evidence, the eyewitness accounts of the survivors of the Holocaust stand as evidence that it truly occurred. The cumulative effect of thousands of such accounts makes this evidence very, very strong. The physical existence of Auschwitz is just more evidence.

Now the Bible. The Bible, inasmuch as it is relaying second-hand (or third, fourth, etc.) accounts of miracles and brushes with divinity, provides evidence of the existence of god. You may believe (as do I) that this evidence, in light of the surrounding circumstances (misunderstandings of the physical world, the existence of the “telephone” affect in storytelling, etc) is not credible. Nonetheless, it is some evidence of the existence of god, as is every first-hand account of a miracle or conversation with the all-mighty – however unlikely we may believe these to be.

The question of credibility is subjective. What might be credible to one person, may not be credible to another. You don’t feel this evidence is credible, but Larkin is just pointing out that, regardless, this is still evidence.

 

[Gunny]

The very successful tactic of keeping ones head down and never say anything that might anger anyone? Not sure that is the way to go if one wants to live in a democratic society, though.

Really? So your idea of a "democratic society" is telling others what they can and cannot believe in based on what you do and do not believe in?

You talk democracy, but all I've seen so far from you is intolerance and extremism.

 

[CockySOB]

Really? So your idea of a "democratic society" is telling others what they can and cannot believe in based on what you do and do not believe in?

You talk democracy, but all I've seen so far from you is intolerance and extremism.

But Gunny! It's for your own good!

 

[Gunny]

But Gunny! It's for your own good!

No shit. I haven't seen a bigger circle-jerk of wannabe-intellectualism on any board that I can recall.

When I need turkeys telling me what i need to think and believe, I'll be sure and ask one. Seems to be no shortage around here.

 

[Larkinn]

No shit. I haven't seen a bigger circle-jerk of wannabe-intellectualism on any board that I can recall.

When I need turkeys telling me what i need to think and believe, I'll be sure and ask one. Seems to be no shortage around here.

He is arguing for his pov about religion. That is not telling you what to think and believe. If you have a problem with people supporting their pov, what the **** are you doing running a politics board?

Reilly, spot on.

 

[eots]

once wrote a column pointing out that intelligent atheists had often converted to Christianity, and cited the case of C.S. Lewis. At least one of my readers wasn't impressed. Noting that Lewis had been fond of mythology since childhood, the reader dismissed the century's most prominent Christian apologist on the grounds that Lewis "was never a convinced and committed atheist."

I've always remembered that letter because it so perfectly illustrates the mentality of a certain type of nonbeliever. His unbelief doesn't stem from science or reason, as he'd like you (and himself) to think. At bottom, he simply refuses to believe. He's close-minded and proud of it.

You can find a similar attitude among evolutionists. Theirs is, as biochemist Michael Denton has called it, a theory in crisis, running into more problems all the time. Others have laid out the many scientific flaws of evolution. (See "Crumbling Icons" and "Was Darwin Right After All?"). What interests me at the moment is the reaction of evolutionists themselves.

If they were simply humble, open-minded inquirers as they claim, you'd think at some point they'd admit that their previous explanation might not hold water after all. Instead they've clung to it all the more determinedly. They've taken to insisting that we no longer speak of the "theory of evolution" but rather the "fact of evolution." They say decidedly unscientific and irrational things like "even if it has problems it's the best explanation we've got" — as if admission of their own ignorance, much less God's guidance in creation, were out of the question. You'd think evolution was a religion itself.

And so it has always been, argues biophysicist Cornelius G. Hunter in his fascinating new book, Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Backed by extensive quotation, Hunter contends that Charles Darwin and his heirs, far from being disinterested scientific observers, came to their views based on their assumptions about God. They looked at the world, decided it should have been designed better, and concluded that God simply wouldn't have done it that way. Hunter writes:


Darwin was concerned, for example, that tons of pollen go to waste every year, that some species are ill-adapted for their environments, that ants make slaves of other ants, and that parasites feed off their victims. He tried to make sense of what seemed to be the evil side of nature. "What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful blundering, low and horribly cruel works of nature," he concluded a letter to a friend.
How could divine creation be reconciled with such evils? It was questions like these that, for Darwin, seemed to confirm that life is formed by blind natural forces. He was motivated toward evolution not by direct evidence in favor of his new theory but by problems with the common notion of divine creation. Creation, it seemed, does not always reflect the goodness of God, so Darwin advocated a naturalistic explanation to describe how creation came about.

That naturalism colored all his perspectives. Take homologies, common traits between different species; e.g., lizards, bats, and humans all have five digits. "Before Darwin," Hunter writes, "homologies were interpreted as a sort of divine template revealing the Creator's unity of design." (I think of God as an artist Who has certain stylistic signatures He's pleased to imprint on His work.) But "according to Darwin, homologies are leftovers of descent with modification." There's nothing logically inferior about the former view, given a God who can do what He wills; it just didn't fit Darwin's worldview. So he needed to find an alternative — descent from a common ancestor — that rendered God unnecessary.

Not that Darwin was precisely an atheist. One of the most interesting aspects of Hunter's book is his exploration of Darwin's concept of God — a concept shared by many people of his time and in the centuries leading up to it. By Darwin's time influential people (including leading Victorian thinkers dominant in his native England) thought God was supposed to be utterly comprehensible to human reason, and invariably benevolent in His dealings with man. "God's goodness and wisdom were thought to be manifest in creation," Hunter summarizes, "but not his providence, judgment, or use of evil."

This was not even remotely like the God revealed in the Bible. Indeed, all of Scripture shows God actively guiding history, in ways often mysterious to men, especially in their own lifetimes. Scripture also tells of how all creation, not just mankind, has been corrupted, leading to the world Darwin found so inefficient and cruel. Had Darwin been steeped in a biblical worldview, maybe he would have found these realities easier to accept. But the God he'd heard about would never have created the world he saw in nature; this God had to be distant from it all. No wonder so many of Darwin's successors have stepped into outright atheism; if God hasn't done anything since the dawn of time, why believe in Him at all?

Yet as Hunter notes, "It is perhaps one of the great ironies in modern religious thought that one can profess to be an agnostic, skeptic or even atheist regarding belief in God yet still hold strong opinions about God. Evolution may breed skepticism, but its adherents have continued to make religious proclamations. And those proclamations are really no different from those made by Darwin and his fellow Victorians." For example,


for [science philosopher] Michael Ruse God cannot be reconciled with the facts of biogeography, so we must turn to evolution. He argues, "Given an all-wise God, just why is it that different [life] forms appear in similar climate, whereas the same forms appear in different climates? It is all pointless without evolution." According to [geneticist] Edward Dodson and [geologist] Peter Dodson, if God had created the species, then they should be distributed evenly about the globe. They write, "Had all species been created in the places where they now exist, then amphibian and terrestrial mammals should be as frequent on oceanic islands as on comparable continental areas. Certainly terrestrial mammals should have been created on these islands as frequently as were bats." It is remarkable how often evolutionists feel free to dictate what God should and shouldn't do.
The sheer arrogance of it all may be striking to the Christian reader — or for that matter to anyone who, in the words of a priest in the movie Rudy, knows at least two things: "There is a God, and I'm not Him." But we shouldn't find such arrogance completely surprising. Adam and Eve, after all, thought Satan's promise of godlike knowledge — and hence godlike stature — to be an irresistible temptation. In this sense, all of us really do reflect the traits passed on by common ancestors, pride foremost among them. Evolutionists just dress theirs up in scientific garb.

But in the end evolution is not pure science, and Hunter's purpose is less to argue against evolution (though he does do so) than to show that evolution rests on metaphysical assumptions. "An unspoken, unscientific position underlies evolution, and until this is understood public debate will continue to be more confusing than enlightening," Hunter concludes. "We need to understand these things because, ultimately, evolution is not about the scientific details. Ultimately, evolution is about God."