This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Hell
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Laihendi
So withouth reading most of this stuff, Laihendi is just going to jump in and say that science cannot be right or wrong, because one of the purposes of science is to make you question your beliefs, and come closer to learning the truth. No intelligent person has ever reached a point where he felt he knew everything he needed to know thanks to science. An intelligent person uses the scientific process to keep learning new things, breaking his old beliefs, and coming closer to learning how things work.
Also, there is no real evidence that the soul, heaven, or hell exist.
Shocking. There is also no proof for half the scientific
theories
. What's your point?Prove it. If you want to challenge the established science, then provide evidence to back up your claims.
Take a look at the bolded word first.
Second: Name me 10 theories you have absolute proof for, beyond a shadow of a doubt. All scientific.
People who know what they're talking about don't claim that scientific theories are fact. Because they aren't established facts, they are just theories... backed up by scientific evidence. So asking for absolute proof for a theory is just stupid, because no one claims that any scientific theory is a fact, and asking for absolute proof for something that isn't necessarily true is just impossible. The point is that you shouldn't believe something just because it can't be disproved (heaven, hell, etc) because nothing can be disproved beyond all doubt, and you should at least have substantial evidence to back your beliefs up, or else they aren't valid at all.
Post by
Monday
So withouth reading most of this stuff, Laihendi is just going to jump in and say that science cannot be right or wrong, because one of the purposes of science is to make you question your beliefs, and come closer to learning the truth. No intelligent person has ever reached a point where he felt he knew everything he needed to know thanks to science. An intelligent person uses the scientific process to keep learning new things, breaking his old beliefs, and coming closer to learning how things work.
Also, there is no real evidence that the soul, heaven, or hell exist.
Shocking. There is also no proof for half the scientific
theories
. What's your point?Prove it. If you want to challenge the established science, then provide evidence to back up your claims.
Take a look at the bolded word first.
Second: Name me 10 theories you have absolute proof for, beyond a shadow of a doubt. All scientific.
People who know what they're talking about don't claim that scientific theories are fact
. Because they aren't
established facts, they are just theories
... backed up by scientific evidence.
So asking for absolute proof for a theory is just stupid
, because no one claims that any scientific theory is a fact, and asking for absolute proof for something that isn't necessarily true is just impossible. The point is that you shouldn't believe something just because it can't be disproved (heaven, hell, etc) because nothing can be disproved beyond all doubt, and you should at least have substantial evidence to back your beliefs up, or else they aren't valid at all.
Bolded parts.
Religion doesn't need proof, because it is what you BELIEVE.
Post by
Squishalot
Well, honestly, I just don't believe it. Just because something does not seem immediately explainable in no way means that "God" is the only answer. Maybe aliens healed her. Or cosmic rays. Or little cancer-eating elves.
Just because we can't see a scientific explanation doesn't mean there isn't one.
I realise that. But this is my point - no matter how much evidence there is that a God exists - even if Jesus came along and brought people back from the dead, you'll still be going "well, it might've been something else some mind-controlling super-evolved alien who's using this Jesus guy as a puppet".
This is as good evidence as you're going to get of faith-based healing (assuming that there are more details documented in that book, or other resources), and you're rejecting it outright. Medical scientists, legal experts, they all agree that there is no scientific basis for the survival of these patients. But that's not enough for you, apparently.
There isn't any chance of convincing you, because you're not open to discussion. So why do you even bother to discuss anything at all, if you're going to be so closed-minded? "I don't believe it, and that's that" - that attitude is as bad as the evangelists that you profess to hate, making you equally despisable.
Post by
Laihendi
Bolded parts.
Religion doesn't need proof, because it is what you BELIEVE.
Are you trying to prove Laihendi wrong by using what he says against him? Laihendi accepts that there is no scientific fact. He knows that theories aren't necessarily true. However, a scientific theory is supported by scientific evidence. And religious doctrine isn't.
You really need to get over the concept of proof. There is no proof of anything. Science offers no proof of anything, it only offers evidence indicating that things are a certain way. But you should have evidence to back up your religious beliefs, because beliefs based on nothing is ignorance. You can call it faith if you want, and try to make it seem like something more noble than it is, but whatever you say, if you believe something but can't even begin to understand how what you believe could be true, then you are choosing to be ignorant.
You also need to get over the perception you seem to have that science is set in stone, and that people who think scientifically think they know everything. Someone who thinks scientifically knows he doesn't know anything, and uses science as a method to learn what he can. People learn new things every day, and these new things are added on to what was learned in the past, and as time goes on, people learn that old theories are wrong, and then new theories are made based on what has been learned.
Post by
Monday
Bolded parts.
Religion doesn't need proof, because it is what you BELIEVE.
Are you trying to prove Laihendi wrong by using what he says against him? Laihendi accepts that there is no scientific fact. He knows that theories aren't necessarily true. However, a scientific theory is supported by scientific evidence. And religious doctrine isn't.
You really need to get over the concept of proof. There is no proof of anything. Science offers no proof of anything, it only offers evidence indicating that things are a certain way. But you should have evidence to back up your religious beliefs, because beliefs based on nothing is ignorance. You can call it faith if you want, and try to make it seem like something more noble than it is, but whatever you say, if you believe something but can't even begin to understand how what you believe could be true, then you are choosing to be ignorant.
You also need to get over the perception you seem to have that science is set in stone, and that people who think scientifically think they know everything. Someone who thinks scientifically knows he doesn't know anything, and uses science as a method to learn what he can. People learn new things every day, and these new things are added on to what was learned in the past, and as time goes on, people learn that old theories are wrong, and then new theories are made based on what has been learned.
So wait, you are saying religion needs evidence but science doesn't? WTF?
And secondly, I have evidence. Spiritual evidence, but you won't take that as evidence because it isn't scientific evidence.
/shrug
Post by
Laihendi
Science does have evidence. Science is based on evidence. Blind religion is based on faith. And spiritual evidence isn't valid, because it is based on faith, rather than evidence, which means it isn't really evidence at all.
Laihendi has very thoroughly explained everything and you keep posting random things like "So wait, you are saying religion needs evidence but science doesn't? WTF?", which isn't what Laihendi said at all, and it makes you look extremely stupid.
It doesn't really seem worth the time or effort to try to have a serious discussion with you, so Laihendi will just stop.
Post by
Squishalot
Science does have evidence. Science is based on evidence. Blind religion is based on faith. And spiritual evidence isn't valid, because it is based on faith, rather than evidence, which means it isn't really evidence at all.
Does Laihendi consider the evidence for the canonisation of saints (as described on page 12 of this thread) as valid evidence?
Post by
TheReal
To address the original post: I do not believe in the Christian Hell. God loves EVERYONE, no matter what! But he'll toss your ass into Hell if you don't love him back. Does he love unconditionally, or is he vengeful? The confusion is the very reason organized religion can take a flying leap.
Post by
Skreeran
I realise that. But this is my point - no matter how much evidence there is that a God exists - even if Jesus came along and brought people back from the dead, you'll still be going "well, it might've been something else some mind-controlling super-evolved alien who's using this Jesus guy as a puppet".I really don't think I would. If Jesus showed up and showed me personally that he was for real, I don't think I would object.
And he's totally capable of showing me personally. Why won't he give me any proof?
This is as good evidence as you're going to get of faith-based healing (assuming that there are more details documented in that book, or other resources), and you're rejecting it outright. Medical scientists, legal experts, they all agree that there is no scientific basis for the survival of these patients. But that's not enough for you, apparently.No, no. An evangelical website is saying that with some unspecified women, some unspecified scientists helped the Catholic Church come to the conclusion that she was healed through faith by Mary MacKillop.
THAT is not enough for me. I don't trust evangelical websites. I don't trust the Catholic Church. I have no name to look up and no case to see. All I have is the word of an evangelical website. That is not enough for me.
There isn't any chance of convincing you, because you're not open to discussion. So why do you even bother to discuss anything at all, if you're going to be so closed-minded? "I don't believe it, and that's that" - that attitude is as bad as the evangelists that you profess to hate, making you equally despisable.No, I refuse to believe explanations that do not have evidence. Valid, cross-examinable evidence, that can stand up to scrutiny. What is enough to convince the Pope is not enough to convince me, because he already believes in faeries, and I don't.
I believe that
everything
in the universe, has a natural explanation. I don't not believe that there is anything at all that cannot be reasonably explained. Just because we have not found the explanation, or we don't have enough data to produce a definite explanation does not in any way mean that something is a "miracle," or "God," or magic healing faeries.
If Jesus walked up to me and raised my dog and cats from the dead, I would believe that he was for real. However, we both know that that isn't going to happen. Even if evidence was required for biblical figures to believe, apparently I don't get any.
Post by
Squishalot
No, no. An evangelical website is saying that with some unspecified women, some unspecified scientists helped the Catholic Church come to the conclusion that she was healed through faith by Mary MacKillop.
THAT is not enough for me. I don't trust evangelical websites. I don't trust the Catholic Church. I have no name to look up and no case to see. All I have is the word of an evangelical website. That is not enough for me.
That's why I pointed out that book on Amazon and asked you to look that up instead, because I know that you don't trust the Catholic Church. That's why I asked you to find doctors who participated in these sorts of inquiries.
In case you don't trust Amazon either, here are some credentials:
http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/HistoryofChristianity/Modern/?view=usa&ci=9780195336504#Author_Information
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/360/21/2261
(needs paid access, which I don't have, but if you do, perhaps, you can read the full review)
http://litmed.med.nyu.edu/User?action=viewEditor&id=22
http://meds.queensu.ca/medicine/histm/jacalyn-duffin.html
We have here a doctor with 36 years of experience who is convinced that there exist historical events of miracles with no medical explanation. If you still want to say that's not enough for you, then again, you're beyond hope.
If Jesus walked up to me and raised my dog and cats from the dead, I would believe that he was for real.
No. I think you would still keep saying:
Just because something does not seem immediately explainable in no way means that "God" is the only answer. Maybe aliens healed her. Or cosmic rays. Or little cancer-eating elves.
You haven't given me any reason to believe that you'll believe a supernatural event is caused by God, and not something else that is equally unbelievable. Because Jesus is going to say "Yeah, that was me who raised your dog from the dead". And you're going to say "Wait, how can I verify that it was actually you, and not some invisible alien who's using you as a puppet?"
You're completely missing the point that the Vatican doesn't want to agree to all claims of faith based healing. If there is any chance that healing was done by human intervention, then it doesn't count. You know that I'm agnostic, that I don't have any affiliation to the Catholic Church, but in this respect, I do think that they do give close scrutiny to such things, simply because they'll be ridiculed otherwise.
As a skeptic, I'm highly considering buying that book, and I would, if there wasn't so much 'history' from the 16th century that won't really be as scientifically rigorous. It's more the 20th century cases that I want to see, and the process by which the doctors come to their conclusions that miracles do occur.
Tell me - if you could oversee a case where a person was completely cured of a disease, with no remission, that's considered to be medically uncurable, without the use of experimental treatments, and you were provided evidence of all of the above by a panel of international doctors who are specialists and leaders in their field, who tested the evidence using 'blind' testing, would that be sufficient to convince you that there exists a deity?
Edit: Ok, got access to the NEJM book review. Without copying and pasting enough for me to get caught for plagiarism, here's a quote from it:
Duffin was surprised to find that up-to-date medical science has always been crucial in the canonization process. For a cure to receive consideration as a miracle, the person who was cured has to have been treated according to the best practices and the most advanced treatment for the time and place in which he or she lived, and it must be demonstrated that the treatment failed.
Post by
Skreeran
Tell me - if you could oversee a case where a person was completely cured of a disease, with no remission, that's considered to be medically uncurable, without the use of experimental treatments, and you were provided evidence of all of the above by a panel of international doctors who are specialists and leaders in their field, who tested the evidence using 'blind' testing, would that be sufficient to convince you that there exists a deity?No, there could always be a different explanation. How do I know it's god? How do I know it's not something completely natural, rather than supernatural?
My mind is not closed, but I find it much easier to believe that there is a rational explanation not involving faeries that simply hasn't been explained yet.
Post by
Laihendi
Laihendi agrees with Skreeran. People shouldn't just say god did it when they can't explain how something happened. They should try to figure out how it did happen until they know how it happened. And if this leads them to discover that god did it, then fine... but so far that has never happened before. Any belief in god being responsible for something has been based on faith. A person doesn't understand how something happened, and rather than trying to understand until he does, he just assumes it was an act of god.
Post by
Squishalot
Tell me - if you could oversee a case where a person was completely cured of a disease, with no remission, that's considered to be medically uncurable, without the use of experimental treatments, and you were provided evidence of all of the above by a panel of international doctors who are specialists and leaders in their field, who tested the evidence using 'blind' testing, would that be sufficient to convince you that there exists a deity?No, there could always be a different explanation. How do I know it's god? How do I know it's not something completely natural, rather than supernatural?
The evidence would be that there was no recovery, up until the point where they made a pilgrimage to so and so monastary, and the patient got better the following morning. Coincidence or causation?
My mind is not closed, but I find it much easier to
believe that there is a rational explanation not involving faeries
that simply hasn't been explained yet.
Your mind is closed, for all intents and purposes. You appear to be happier to search endlessly for an answer, rather than accepting the thing that doesn't seem to make sense (but is an entirely consistent argument), because it involves a 'supernatural' force. The problem is that if you assume the existence of God, then he's not 'supernatural' by definition; he is, in fact, natural. He's only 'supernatural' if you assume that he doesn't exist.
Laihendi agrees with Skreeran. People shouldn't just say god did it when they can't explain how something happened. They should try to figure out how it did happen until they know how it happened. And if this leads them to discover that god did it, then fine... but so far that has never happened before. Any belief in god being responsible for something has been based on faith. A person doesn't understand how something happened, and rather than trying to understand until he does, he just assumes it was an act of god.
Has Laihendi considered that there may be evidence that it's an act of god? As I said - cause and effect - if you do something medical and there is no improvement, and you do something spiritual and there is an improvement, there lies evidence that the spiritual action caused the patient to get better. The burden of proof would be on science to explain that it's something other than an act of god, in the same way that scientists show the cause-and-effect of evolution and require religious people to provide the burden of proof otherwise.
Post by
Laihendi
You're just assuming that doing the spiritual thing is what helped. You can't even explain how the spiritual act could have helped, so you should not assume that it did.
Post by
Squishalot
You're just assuming that doing the spiritual thing is what helped. You can't even explain how the spiritual act could have helped, so you should not assume that it did.
Of course they can explain - they prayed to god that the person would be cured, and god cured them. It's just not enough evidence for you and Skreeran to be convinced skeptics, but it all makes sense from their viewpoint - it fits their understanding of the world.
Post by
Laihendi
They don't understand how by praying, some supernatural being could hear them. They don't understand how this supernatural being could fix something for them, and they don't understand how that supernatural being could exist. They are basing everything on faith.
Post by
Squishalot
They don't understand how by praying, some supernatural being could hear them. They don't understand how this supernatural being could fix something for them, and they don't understand how that supernatural being could exist. They are basing everything on faith.
They do understand, and they can explain it to you. You just don't accept their explanations. There's a very big difference.
Post by
Laihendi
They're explanations are also based on faith.
Post by
57943
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Your mind is closed, for all intents and purposes. You appear to be happier to search endlessly for an answer, rather than accepting the thing that doesn't seem to make sense (but is an entirely consistent argument), because it involves a 'supernatural' force. The problem is that if you assume the existence of God, then he's not 'supernatural' by definition; he is, in fact, natural. He's only 'supernatural' if you assume that he doesn't exist.Oh, right. I guess I'll just start believing in faith healing, Young Earth Creationism, and the
Anemoi
. After all, why look for explanations like evolution and meteorology when you can just say God did it?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.