Do you believe?

We have a limited understanding of things going on in reality; we also only interact with a very small number of dimensions (scientific proofs demonstrate the existence of at least several times the ones we see -- more in the 20's at least -- with the possibility there are in fact an infinite number). Each dimension sees things happening incompletely and imperfectly. Imagine removing our understanding of time, in the middle of a ball game. In a stopped image, we would see a ball hovering midair, and would be forced to conclude that gravity does not apply to small, white balls. Personally, I think we have the same view of the universe: things happen we cannot understand or explain -- and there are a great many things going on that we can't explain at all -- because we have imperfect information. My father in law firmly believes that humans span all these other dimensions, and our actions here -- and existence, or end thereof -- are only a small part of that which is Us. I find comfort there, and afterlife aside I have to admit that current science does solidly confirm we're interacting with reality in ways we have no idea about. So there is room for clairvoyance, telekinesis, and apparitions in all our mathematical models.

Personally yes, I have had at least one real experience: we're quite sure that my father in law's house is "haunted." On several occasions, various people have heard a woman open the door and enter, and call out a greeting "I'm hoooome!" I didn't believe it personally, despite several people hearing it on several occasions, one without knowing the story at all, until I heard it myself. Sitting on the back porch talking to the family, I heard the greeting very clearly -- enough to say, "I think that's Jenny" and go greet my sister in law, who I thought it was. On all these occasions -- including my own -- the dogs were the first ones to react, jumping up and racing straight to the front door barking greetings. So there's definitely SOMETHING going on, although random hello's don't seem terribly ominous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricBadger

things happen we cannot understand or explain -- and there are a great many things going on that we can't explain at all -- because we have imperfect information.

---

Me not being able to explain things is not the same thing as nobody can explain it. Not being able to explain something only means just that. That's why Universities have physics departments. Anybody believing firmly in anything while there are several simultaneous plausible theories with the exact same amount of proof, (or non-proof) suporting them is not very bright. I despise any closed minded fanatic making certain claims based on hearsay, (insert anti-religious rant).

I leave it for the particle physists and astronomers to explain the universe, because they are in a position to know where I, (or anybody else without the training) most certainly are not.

I used to be respectful of other peoples religions and not point out their problems because I thought it would make the world a better place. Now I've realised that, this is one of the major problems we have today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

I used to be respectful of other peoples religions and not point out their problems because I thought it would make the world a better place. Now I've realised that, this is one of the major problems we have today.

---

Ok, not to challenge your point of view. However I don't know that by not pointing out the faults of others resulted in the worlds problems.

For if I understand some of the religious and political hot beds throughout history correctly. There are many that have been a result of disagreements to the point of conflict over who is more correct about a certian belief. I use the crusades as an example in this case. You can also cite the anti-abortion/right to life debate, which has a basis in religion.

Back the the thread of if there are or are not ghosts or an afterlife. Just because it can't be seen or proven doesn't make it not true even so. Lets take dinasoars for example. We find all these bones and such all over the planet. Does that mean they existed, or does that just mean that whatever benelovent being created the earth put them here to confound the scientists who refused to believe in a God of any kind? Who knows, and why doesn't anyone know. Cause no documentation has ever been found to state as much.

Do ghosts exist, do spirits exist, do souls of people and or things come and go throughout our existence? Don't know. I am not going to say they do or don't. I refuse to say they do or don't on the idea that if I claim such a thing, I must be able to show proveable evidence of such. I can't do that, so I wont.

V/R
ID

Interesting point Tom. I'm agnostic, but I do respect other's faith, particularly when it helps them through horrible or difficult circumstances. I remember reading of an American footballer who was paralysed, and his first reaction was "Thank you Lord for giving me this new challenge." Now, if he really meant that, how wonderful that his faith helped him through.

Where I agree with you, Tom, is the fundamentalism from all religions that causes war. I guess most holy wars might be about something else (e.g. Israel-Arabia is probably more about land than religion) but if people are using religion as an excuse for war, then that's clearly abhorrent. Does that mean that all religion is a bad thing? No!

It'd be like saying "cars are bad because they run over people and pollute the environment". True. But they also encourage people to travel and meet others and take people to hospital, school, etc. Don't judge all religion from a few dumbass fundamentalist psychos.

Here endeth the lesson.

Qmoq

i believe that ghosts exist, not in the world, but within us. We carry them in our memories and in our hearts, and they manifest, in our minds, at those moments when we are at our most open and vulnerable -- times of loss, times of emotional turmoil, when we find ourselves in unfamiliar surroundings, or when we are crossing the bridge between wakefulness and sleep.

I don't believe Christians have historically gone to war because of some inherant flaw in Christian morals. They might be the best guide that exist to live your life by. Who am I to judge? I think the Crusades where more down to politics than religion and is nothing Catholics/Christians today need to feel guilty about. Ethics is an interesting subject and is not my gripe with Christians or religions in general.

My gripe is the claims religious people make on the origins of our world, and the the bits about heaven, hell and angels. The supernatural stuff. When people are not able or willing to back up their claims there's no debate and it quickly turns farcical.

Not being able to prove that god doesn't exist is not the same thing as proving god exists. All you've done is opened up an infinite number of alternatives. It's just a mathematical head-game and is just silly. Nobody would ever even consider it in any other type of discussions. In logic it's known as "Arugment from ignorance". Link

We have so far never seen a shred of evidence to suport any form of supernatural force. Let's for the sake of argument assume there aren't any, until there apears some. Now we've radically changed the whole basis for suicide bombers, willing troops in the Crusades and a whole host of hate crimes. What all religious people need to understand is that by treating scientific evidence as a cute option in life they are giving nurishment to all the fundamentalists in the world. Humans are social creatures. We tend to believe things we are taught instead of thinking for ourselves.

IDC: You're just dead wrong about the dinosaur example. The bones are evidence of something. We know what types of animals create bones of the sort and we can deduce from this that dinosaurs actually did live at one point. Claiming they didn't is just being daft on purpose. We have no evidence any form of supernatural force ever has created anything on earth ever. Any form of energy exchange leaves traces. Considering all the worlds miracles all the time we should be able to at some point register any of these. But it's so far showed nothing. Claiming god covers all these traces up is...nice.... But why would that benevolent force do that? How can any of this make sense to anyone?

Playing head-games of logic just because you desperately want a god to exist is just deluded. There used to be good reason to believe a god existed. But science has progressed. Today we have other more plausible theories that doesn't necesarily involve anything supernatural. Let's move on. I find just laughing at the religous is a lot harder now when skyscrapers go up in smoke on Mahattan.

And there's religious and religious. Einstein was religious. He believed god was that first spark of life that set off the whole evolution and that first little bump that started the big bang. Today, that is a totally plausible explanation. We don't know any better theory. He did however not believe in heaven, interventions by god or any other supernatural force. So it isn't actually religion as such I'm against, only people who today believe in a supernatural entity interveaning on earth...and on top of that have the bad taste to teach it as fact to their children.

There is absolutly no conflict between being a faithful Catholic and being an atheist. You can follow all the moral comandments. Just don't make any claims on the existance of heaven. It might exist, maybe not. Let's just leave it at that and let some scientist mangage to prove it one day. Just don't count on it, like so many suicide bombers are doing. The church can have a major role as suport and help in our world even if we renounce this rediculous claim in the supernatural benevolent force. It doesn't take much to realise that it's the words in the Bible and Koran that help people, and have helped for all these years. Not some mythical god. The words can keep helping us in a secular world.

The miracle with the American footballer wasn't in god, but on his competetive nature. Would he really be happier by living a lie? God can easily be taken out of the equation. I don't believe we need to live in fear of god to behave against each other. It's a bad reason for faith.

My all time favorite quote is from Arthur C Clarke. "Magic is just what we call science we don't understand", I know the quote isn't exact, but it catches the essance of it.

edit: Denying that science is the best model for explaning how the world works is just plain stupid. Science is today in direct conflict with all of the major organised religions, (except Budhism). Science isn't optional.

Quote:

---

What all religious people need to understand is that by treating scientific evidence as a cute option in life they are giving nurishment to all the fundamentalists in the world. Humans are social creatures. We tend to believe things we are taught instead of thinking for ourselves.

---

True, but be aware that science is not all there is to life. Giving up all emotion, belief, and feeling for cold logic may help some things, but is ultimately against that which really makes life worthwhile. Love is not logical or scientific. Beauty cannot be discovered by the scientific method. Joy isn't found in a beaker -- and our attempts to do just that have led to a lot more problems today. This means that yes, we have ugliness and unhappiness too, and hate, but these things, ultimately, are worth the greater experience. I would not surrender the world to pure logic for anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricBadger

True, but be aware that science is not all there is to life.

---

ok

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricBadger

Giving up all emotion, belief, and feeling for cold logic may help some things, but is ultimately against that which really makes life worthwhile.

---

Why does giving up all emotion follow from believing in science? I believe in science and I am a very emotional being. Emotions is not a supernatural force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricBadger

Love is not logical or scientific.

---

Love is only illogical because we don't have all the variables. Love between people can be studied scientifically and that does not retract from how wonderful it is. Besides, I love reading scientific reports. So there. :blurp_ani

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricBadger

Beauty cannot be discovered by the scientific method.

---

Quite correct. Aestetics is one of the very few scholarly branches that do not aply the scientific method. There are many more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricBadger

Joy isn't found in a beaker --

---

Depends if you're into drugs or not, isn't it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricBadger

and our attempts to do just that have led to a lot more problems today.

---

You're going to have to explain that one. Most food we eat today is the result of a wide variety of scientific processes. Not starving I would call a form of "joy". Using condoms allows us to have a lot more sex than otherwise, =science at work creating "joy".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricBadger

This means that yes, we have ugliness and unhappiness too, and hate, but these things, ultimately, are worth the greater experience. I would not surrender the world to pure logic for anything.

---

So don't. There's no conflict. I'm not trying to be rude or anything but it sounds to me like you're making a case for the merits of ignorance? I just don't see it. Knowledge is always good, which religious people seem to agree on, or they wouldn't keep reading and analysing their books. The only difference between religious and scientific people is just that religious people have a very narrow selections of truths they are willing to accept, (aka =bad scientists).

It's not that scientists deny the possibility of the existance of god, they're just demanding some proof or even the slightest bit of circumstantial evidence before taking the leap. Doing your damndest to prove a theory as correct is bad science, just like the "Intelligent design" crowd are doing.

The universe is a magical, mystical and wonderful place even seen from the eyes of an atheist. Why fill it with obvious bullshit? Why not not gape in awe over the things that are true? The atheists world isn't a less beautiful place in any way.

for me, ghosts do not exist.
However ,if i see one, i will know i have been wrong all this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moth

for me, ghosts do not exist.
However ,if i see one, i will know i have been wrong all this time.

---

ha ha ha. amen. I'm all with you on that one.

a few years ago i had a lovely encounter with a hawk spirit but i had believed in this time of stuff long before it, i couldn't see the wonderful spirit but i could feel it when ever my hand would touch it

Tom - As far as me being wrong on the dinasor thing. I was using an example that was said to me from someone who was deeply devoted to their faith. It is not something I claim to believe.

I respect peoples need and desire to have something to believe in. Believe in God, believe in science. Wherever you put your faith, don't let the logic or beliefs of another challenge you. For if you are content with the answers you get from what you believe in. Then I am happy for you

V/R
ID

I personally have had too many encounters, too many things that can't be explained to not believe in them. When you can see the ghosts of people who have passed on, of people who have died decades before, it kind of makes you think. When you know something is going to happen before it does, after a while, you learn to listen. Sometimes, you're given warnings or messages for a reason, if you just stop and think.

I remember I had a dream of a bad auto accident happening to a co-worker on a Thursday night. I told her about it on Friday, and told her to be careful over the weekend. Monday came around and she looked horrible, pale as a sheet and obviously in pain. As she showed me the bruise on her belly from the seatbelt and steering column she told me that she totalled her truck that Saturday, and said she never wanted to hear another one of my dreams again. Another friend and I convinced her to go to the hospital because the bruises looked so ugly and she looked so pale. She ended up going in for emergency surgery to stop the internal bleeding that had been going on for two days. She survived, but it was a long recovery for her.

Now, while this may be turned over to coincidence, I personally don't think so. However, I do respect everyone's right to believe in their own way, be they Christian or pagan, or anything in between.

Quote:

---

You're going to have to explain that one.

---

I was talking about the drugs; ex was initially developed for exactly this reason -- to stimulate "joy" as a chemical antidote to depression. Whether or not you agree it should be banned, I think it's fairly clear its led to alot of problems.

Quote:

---

So don't. There's no conflict. I'm not trying to be rude or anything but it sounds to me like you're making a case for the merits of ignorance? I just don't see it. Knowledge is always good, which religious people seem to agree on, or they wouldn't keep reading and analysing their books. The only difference between religious and scientific people is just that religious people have a very narrow selections of truths they are willing to accept, (aka =bad scientists).

---

See, it seems to me you've chosen to disbelieve in anything that isn't proven according to your own understanding (and technically, all scientific 'proofs' are simply not proven wrong, not inherently proven right); an equally close minded point of view that leads to nothing but stagnation. I'm not arguing for any specific religion, and yes, I think faith should be subject to experience (shouldn't everything?) but to state so vehemently that all religion is wrong is just as obtuse and unfounded as stating it's all correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg

Tom - As far as me being wrong on the dinasor thing. I was using an example that was said to me from someone who was deeply devoted to their faith. It is not something I claim to believe.

I respect peoples need and desire to have something to believe in. Believe in God, believe in science. Wherever you put your faith, don't let the logic or beliefs of another challenge you. For if you are content with the answers you get from what you believe in. Then I am happy for you

V/R
ID

---

It's not a question of happiness. I also respect peoples need and desire to have something to believe in, but since when did that entail lying to myself or our children on purpose. I very strongly believe that there's intelligent life in space on other planets. That certainly is a sort of faith, but the difference is that there's no evidence against it. I'm not denying 3000 years of systematic study just to sleep better at night. Christians or Muslims have to. I'm a big fan of critical thinking. I wish more people where.

Other peoples beliefs are challenging me. I had two wait for two hours at Gatwick to board my plane because they had to go through wevery single bit of my stuff and scan my shoes. I couldn't even bring water to drink. That's a direct result of that we're pretending like science is optional because it doesn't have all the answers. Who does? Superstition from the dark ages is poisoning our world and much too few people see this.

Science as such is undeniable. You can refute various parts of science easily. Just just need some conflicting evidence. Religions is a completly different subject. They don't have an inbuilt system for questioning its own doctrines. So they don't. Just because you don't understand science doesn't mean it doesn't make a rock solid case for itself. It makes me sad that scientists still have to constantly battle outdated belief systems instead of doing what they do best, making our world a better place.

Here's a suggestion if you so badly need a religion. Convert to Budhism, Zoroastrianism, Pantheism or any of the religions who haven't made any claims of anything supernatural. Then I'm all with you. Using traditional belief systems or moral codes I have no problems with. It's when they are in conflict with me boarding my plane that I get pissed off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricBadger

I was talking about the drugs; ex was initially developed for exactly this reason -- to stimulate "joy" as a chemical antidote to depression. Whether or not you agree it should be banned, I think it's fairly clear its led to alot of problems.

---

Are you seriously making a case against science? There's no system behind happiness. What ever works for you is great. BTW not all drugs where developed in labs. Science wasn't developed into a method until 2620 BC under the rule of Imhoptep in Egypt. All people have since the dawn of man used drugs. This is probably the very first few generations in the entire history of man who aren't chronically off their rockers and doped up. Science have shown that early man where very much devoted to their drugs and being high/drunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricBadger

See, it seems to me you've chosen to disbelieve in anything that isn't proven according to your own understanding (and technically, all scientific 'proofs' are simply not proven wrong, not inherently proven right); an equally close minded point of view that leads to nothing but stagnation. I'm not arguing for any specific religion, and yes, I think faith should be subject to experience (shouldn't everything?) but to state so vehemently that all religion is wrong is just as obtuse and unfounded as stating it's all correct.

---

That's just the thing isn't it. You're somehow comparing science to religion as they are some parellel belief systems. Science is just one of many systematic methods of finding the truth. Science is undeniable, it's its results you can have opinions about. Religion isn't even in the same ball-game...or sport. If you think scientists are closed minded I suggest you reading up. It's about training your mind to be open minded to the extreme, but also how to avoid wasting your time going down killed off routes. Link

Religions are about accepting a package deal. You get the set of moral codes, supernatural forces and a beach-ball. Science is about refuting all package deals if any of the components don't stack up. We know some of the Bible is arrent nonsense. Why not just accept that the Bible doesn't have all the answers? It might be a nice guide but no more. I can't understand why religious people have a problem with this. The result is that religions are dangerous. The MTV generation are turning to god in increasing numbers. Very bad. I've followed the creationist debate in Kansas. I hope you agree that it's an absolute joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

I just don't see it. Knowledge is always good, which religious people seem to agree on, or they wouldn't keep reading and analysing their books. The only difference between religious and scientific people is just that religious people have a very narrow selections of truths they are willing to accept, (aka =bad scientists).

---

I would never describe myself as religious, but I do have a Christian faith which is pivotal to my life.

I would argue the opposite - that the discipline of science has a very narrow selection of truths which it is willing to accept. If something is not repeatable in an laboratory situation then generally within the scientific discipline it has to be ignored. If something cannot be 'proved' using accepted techniques then it has to be ignored. That is not a judgement of science, just a statement of its nature.

'Religious' people are willing to look beyond that and also embrace what they consider truths which have been discovered in other ways.

cariad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

My gripe is the claims religious people make on the origins of our world, and the the bits about heaven, hell and angels. The supernatural stuff. When people are not able or willing to back up their claims there's no debate and it quickly turns farcical.

---

It is supernatural stuff, you are quite right. And to accept any degree of 'proof' you have to be prepared to the supernatural. It is a circular argument I know - but not farcical, unless you choose to view it that way. I suspect that if you were given such a proof your response would be either, that is nonsense since you are quoting the supernatural to prove the supernatural or that you agree you don't understand the proof, but since the supernatural does not exist, in your mind, it is merely a case of science not having developed enough to give a natural explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

We have so far never seen a shred of evidence to suport any form of supernatural force. Let's for the sake of argument assume there aren't any, until there apears some.

---

In other words, I am right unless you can prove that I am wrong... Is that not what you accuse 'religious' people of saying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

What all religious people need to understand is that by treating scientific evidence as a cute option in life they are giving nurishment to all the fundamentalists in the world.

---

I strongly object to the statement that religious people treat scientific evidence as a cute option. It is incorrect and potentially offensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

Playing head-games of logic just because you desperately want a god to exist is just deluded. There used to be good reason to believe a god existed. But science has progressed. Today we have other more plausible theories that doesn't necesarily involve anything supernatural.

---

Smiles - I loved Tom! Follow your own logic.

1. There used to be good reason to believe a god existed. (Will not dispute this)
2. Science has progressed (Agreed - and it has not answered any of the fundamental questions which gave rise to why people believed a god existed.)
3. Today we have more plausible theories... (These are only theories, by definition there is no proof of them...dare I suggest you are playing head games here?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

Einstein was religious. He believed god was that first spark of life that set off the whole evolution and that first little bump that started the big bang. Today, that is a totally plausible explanation. We don't know any better theory.

---

I can go along with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

He did however not believe in heaven, interventions by god or any other supernatural force. So it isn't actually religion as such I'm against, only people who today believe in a supernatural entity interveaning on earth...and on top of that have the bad taste to teach it as fact to their children.

---

I may be wrong here, in which case please forgive me, but I suspect you would guide your children to not believe in the supernatural since there is no scientific proof of it. As someone who does believe in the supernatural, although I would call it spiritual, I find such guidance equally misguided. Children are intelligent beings, they should be presented with the facts - i.e. this is my experience, this is why I believe it, other people say etc - and then left to discover the world for themselves.

Just in case you have not already guessed I do believe in spiritual entities which are alive and very active on earth. I am sorry you are against me because of that belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

There is absolutly no conflict between being a faithful Catholic and being an atheist. You can follow all the moral comandments. Just don't make any claims on the existance of heaven. It might exist, maybe not. Let's just leave it at that and let some scientist mangage to prove it one day. Just don't count on it, like so many suicide bombers are doing. The church can have a major role as suport and help in our world even if we renounce this rediculous claim in the supernatural benevolent force. It doesn't take much to realise that it's the words in the Bible and Koran that help people, and have helped for all these years. Not some mythical god. The words can keep helping us in a secular world.

---

Why should everything left be scientists?

I agree the words in the Bible and the Koran and other spiritual books can help society - but that rather misses the point about faith. Christianity, which is my faith, and the one I know most about it, is primarily about having a relationship with God, not about following a code of conduct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

edit: Denying that science is the best model for explaning how the world works is just plain stupid. Science is today in direct conflict with all of the major organised religions, (except Budhism). Science isn't optional.

---

Science is not optional I agree. But you imply that it is the only discipline which should be used to explain the world works. Why?

cariad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Qmoq

Where I agree with you, Tom, is the fundamentalism from all religions that causes war. I guess most holy wars might be about something else (e.g. Israel-Arabia is probably more about land than religion) but if people are using religion as an excuse for war, then that's clearly abhorrent. Does that mean that all religion is a bad thing? No!

---

Speaking from a not well research standpoint, I suspect that the vast majority of religious wars are as a result of politicians using religion as a support for their own objectives. This means the use of the religion is wrong, not the religion itself.

cariad

I had not really paid much attention to this discussion when it started - but even the first post shows that it should actually be in the vanilla thread - so moving it there, although leaving a re-direct so it does not get lost.

cariad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cariad

I would never describe myself as religious, but I do have a Christian faith which is pivotal to my life.

I would argue the opposite - that the discipline of science has a very narrow selection of truths which it is willing to accept. If something is not repeatable in an laboratory situation then generally within the scientific discipline it has to be ignored. If something cannot be 'proved' using accepted techniques then it has to be ignored. That is not a judgement of science, just a statement of its nature.

'Religious' people are willing to look beyond that and also embrace what they consider truths which have been discovered in other ways.

cariad

---

You could argue the oposite, but it would also be false. Here's the link about the scientic method again. I'm not trying to be cheeky here, but that's just plain fact. Why would you find it easier to believe something just because the results are impossible to recreate? That makes to me no sense.

Let's analyse how religious research is done. Because it is done, or you would not have reached your beliefs as they are today. Basically it's based on that you in your head reason about what you think is the most common-sensicle result, right? Or maybe you accept the truths based on a religious authority who did the exact same thing? My point is that there is no way for an external force of person to control the results.

Christians don't deny they need proof to believe. What do you think the miracles in the Bible were about? That was proof. Just not scientific proof. A scientist when confronted with something like the burning bush would have asked themselves, can this be explained in any other way that is measurable.

Our senses are fallible, so we really need some external method of measuring. We simple can't trust what we see or hear as truth. This shouldn't be too hard to grasp. We've all had hallucinations in one form or another in our lives. It's a natural occuring phenonema among all humans.

How do you know that the truths in the Bible have been discovered at all? It could all be make believe. You just don't know. Why is this so hard to accept. I'm not asking you to stop being Christian. I have no quarrel with the tenets of Christianity regarding morals. I'm just asking you to read the Bible criticaly. Maybe the immaculate conception was really about Mary lying about getting laid. It's a much more plausible explanation, isn't it? and that does not retract in any way from the strengths of the ten commandments, but it does question wheather or not we will go to heaven or not.

What is it that you believe religous people are looking beyond? How do you define "religous" since you say you're not while at the same time having a Christian faith?

edit: The authorities in science do not try to convince the world they are right. They do their hardest in helping people disprove their theories. That is how scientific research works. It has a lot more apeal to me than some geezer in a funny hat telling me "it" came to him in a vision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cariad

It is supernatural stuff, you are quite right. And to accept any degree of 'proof' you have to be prepared to the supernatural. It is a circular argument I know - but not farcical, unless you choose to view it that way. I suspect that if you were given such a proof your response would be either, that is nonsense since you are quoting the supernatural to prove the supernatural or that you agree you don't understand the proof, but since the supernatural does not exist, in your mind, it is merely a case of science not having developed enough to give a natural explanation.

---

Now you're actually making assumptions that are a bit insulting. If any supernatural force would become proven as true I would accept it in minutes. I believe in science. The thing is that this has in a way happened over and over again in the world. Gravity is a prime example. It was seen as a supernatural force until Einstein came up with relativity, explaning how it could work without needing god.

Just to be perfectly clear on this, I am prepared to believe in the supernatural. I did have religious beliefs when I was young. I know perfectly well what it entails. It passed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cariad

In other words, I am right unless you can prove that I am wrong... Is that not what you accuse 'religious' people of saying?

---

Except that I didn't make any claims. I used the word assumption. I only introduced another explanation that has equal merit than the supernatural method. Not equal merit as far as proof is concearned, only in a purely mathematical sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cariad

I strongly object to the statement that religious people treat scientific evidence as a cute option. It is incorrect and potentially offensive.

---

ok, sorry. I'll rephrase that. Religious people who believe in anything supernatural treat scientific evidence as a cute option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cariad

Smiles - I loved Tom! Follow your own logic.

1. There used to be good reason to believe a god existed. (Will not dispute this)
2. Science has progressed (Agreed - and it has not answered any of the fundamental questions which gave rise to why people believed a god existed.)
3. Today we have more plausible theories... (These are only theories, by definition there is no proof of them...dare I suggest you are playing head games here?)

---

In many cases all we have is theories but a theory isn't the same thing as an unsubstaintiated guess. Gravity is only a theory. But good luck explaining it in any better way than Einstein did. Theories can be better or worse than other theories. It's not head games. Mathematics and predicate logic can be used to prove things. Without a doubt...or until new better evidence comes along for a new better theory.

Why don't you just ask yourself why you believe god exists? That should quickly answer why people seem to need answers to the "fundamental questions". I agree that science doesn't answer them but chances are pretty good that neither does religion. The creationism myth is as much an unsubstantiated guess as a theory. Not only are there other better theories against it but also masses of physical evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cariad

I may be wrong here, in which case please forgive me, but I suspect you would guide your children to not believe in the supernatural since there is no scientific proof of it. As someone who does believe in the supernatural, although I would call it spiritual, I find such guidance equally misguided. Children are intelligent beings, they should be presented with the facts - i.e. this is my experience, this is why I believe it, other people say etc - and then left to discover the world for themselves.

Just in case you have not already guessed I do believe in spiritual entities which are alive and very active on earth. I am sorry you are against me because of that belief.

---

If what you say is true then you display what I would define as good parenting. I have no problems with you telling your children what you believe, only that you don't tell them that it's the only truth.

There's been plenty of research into childrens intelligence and I do think it's valid to say that they are more gullible than adults, (for various reasons), so I do think it's criminal to fill their heads up with undeniable truths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cariad

Why should everything left be scientists?

---

I think it's better to leave the cutting edge research to the people with the training for it, and then just read their research. I have a degree in formal and symbolic logic. I am better at breaking down problems logicaly than people with no training, (try me he he he). I trust that physisists are better than me at physics and so forth. It's not that everything should be left to scientists but let's not ignore people who probably are better at understanding complicated concepts than we are. Quantum physics requires a degree in maths just to grasp it's basic concepts. That doesn't retract from it's merits at all.

Seeing a only theologically taught priest argue with a scientist about evolution just makes me sad. The priest has no training in it. His arguments are always, (compared to the scientists) stupid, but this keeps going on over and over again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cariad

I agree the words in the Bible and the Koran and other spiritual books can help society - but that rather misses the point about faith. Christianity, which is my faith, and the one I know most about it, is primarily about having a relationship with God, not about following a code of conduct.

---

Let's pretend that your relationship is really only about you talking to yourself. That what you are doing is vocalising your anxieties and problems to yourself to help you cope with them. Suddenly faith has helped you but without the necesity of a mythical god. To reiterate. You don't know god exists at all. Nobody does. You're just guessing.

Religion exists for a reason and I believe it can help people. Let's just leave the supernatural out of it until we can prove it. Love for instance is an all internal process. You don't need anybody to feel loved. It's all in your head. Because of your religion you have the power to feel loved just like that. It's a great power and capacity you have, but it doesn't prove god exists, only the power of religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cariad

Science is not optional I agree. But you imply that it is the only discipline which should be used to explain the world works. Why?
cariad

---

It's the best system we have. Before it we had religion, which is another popular method. It's good to use systems to explain the world because it allows research to be transfered between people. There has been a large variety of various research systems, but the one founded by Imhotep has won out over ther rest for a very good reason. It's the best system for finding flaws. Before displaying your theory you need to prove that you did your best to disprove it. It makes it a lot easier to identify bad science and allows us to easily focus on research with valid results.

Returning to the original question Tom, albeit rephrased. Do I believe in the supernatural – the answer is yes. How I understand the supernatural is via my faith.

Why do I believe in the supernatural – because I have seen too many things which can have no physical or psychological explanation. I agree that does not mean that in the future there may not be one found, I am sure turning on a light bulb and the room flooding with light would have been seen as supernatural at one time, and clearly it is not.

I have been told about a number of miracles – are these the proof you refer to? Are they miracles or is there a physical or psychological explanation for them. My personal reaction is always to doubt. Some I am quite sure are a hopeful figment of someone’s imagination, or sometimes an attention seeking behaviour. Some fall into a grey area, the person concerned is emotionally stable etc etc but there could be a non-supernatural explanation. There is also a third category, cases were for example someone had scientifically evidenced form of an illness, following healing those signs of illness have gone. It could be a miracle, or it be something we don’t yet understand. It could even be a combination.

Once you open up your mind to the possible presence of a supernatural element to our world there is more and more which needs an alternative explanation. This I guess is where the ‘faith’ bit comes in. I have considered what I have seen and what I have experienced and decided that there is a clear balance of evidence saying that there is a supernatural element to our world. I cannot prove it, but neither can it currently be disproved.

If some scientific proof were to come along which proved that I was wrong, then I would be stupid to ignore it. But that is proof, not a plausible theory.

You mention a scientist and a theologian discussing evolution, and say you would prefer to listen to the scientist. I suspect that shows your natural preference. I would like to listen to people who have learnt both disciplines, and of those who have, there are people who will argue both ways.

I agree with you that theologians who choose to ignore science are going to come up with a limited to answer to many of life’s questions, but I would not wish to view things only through a scientific perspective. To me they are complimentary disciplines, not opposing.

cariad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cariad

Returning to the original question Tom, albeit rephrased. Do I believe in the supernatural – the answer is yes. How I understand the supernatural is via my faith.

Why do I believe in the supernatural – because I have seen too many things which can have no physical or psychological explanation. I agree that does not mean that in the future there may not be one found, I am sure turning on a light bulb and the room flooding with light would have been seen as supernatural at one time, and clearly it is not.

I have been told about a number of miracles – are these the proof you refer to? Are they miracles or is there a physical or psychological explanation for them. My personal reaction is always to doubt. Some I am quite sure are a hopeful figment of someone’s imagination, or sometimes an attention seeking behaviour. Some fall into a grey area, the person concerned is emotionally stable etc etc but there could be a non-supernatural explanation. There is also a third category, cases were for example someone had scientifically evidenced form of an illness, following healing those signs of illness have gone. It could be a miracle, or it be something we don’t yet understand. It could even be a combination.

Once you open up your mind to the possible presence of a supernatural element to our world there is more and more which needs an alternative explanation. This I guess is where the ‘faith’ bit comes in. I have considered what I have seen and what I have experienced and decided that there is a clear balance of evidence saying that there is a supernatural element to our world. I cannot prove it, but neither can it currently be disproved.

---

I hope this makes sense to somebody because you lost me. Not being able to disprove the existance of god or anything supernatural is not proof of anything. We can similarly not disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster either, and nobody takes them seriously. Nobody. Their case is just as good as any other supernatural belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cariad

If some scientific proof were to come along which proved that I was wrong, then I would be stupid to ignore it. But that is proof, not a plausible theory.

---

The Bible has flaws. Science proves it. Creationism did not take place as described in the Bible. But most Christians only believe in selected parts anyway so never mind that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cariad

You mention a scientist and a theologian discussing evolution, and say you would prefer to listen to the scientist. I suspect that shows your natural preference. I would like to listen to people who have learnt both disciplines, and of those who have, there are people who will argue both ways.

I agree with you that theologians who choose to ignore science are going to come up with a limited to answer to many of life’s questions, but I would not wish to view things only through a scientific perspective. To me they are complimentary disciplines, not opposing.

---

I didn't say I'd "prefer" to listen to the scientist. What I said was that the scientist can massacre all theories floated by the theologan because he doesn't have a chance. He doesn't have the training to meet the scientists arguments. So priests just don't. Instead they use logical head-games that shouldn't make sense to anybody, (and probably don't because I doubt religious people really listen). It's so extremly frustrating to see it happen, time and time again. The priests arguments can always be killed off one by one, if picked apart by a pro. And scientists are the pro's here.

Theology as a subject that deals more about psychology and sociology than the laws of nature. It's not really their branch to discuss it as a subject. They can only say what the various religious texts say on it. They don't have the training to meet arguments found outside of the box. It's both cruel to the theologan and to the scientist. It's like having a a mathematitian race against Carl Lewis at his peak. Even if the mathematitian will beat Carl Lewis at maths he'll still lose the race.

Try aplying the scientific method to Christianity. Any of the supernatural tenets will run into trouble at once. Most major religions and Science is today very much in oposition to each other.

Bowing, hopefully gracefully, out of the exchange with Tom.

Having exchanged views and I think proven that we will never see eye to eye on this, there is little to be gained by continuing and making this a monotonous thread

Tom, I would love to explore some of the points futher in PM's please let me know if you are interested. I suspect however that it is a discussion which would hold little interest beyond ourselves.

cariad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cariad

Bowing, hopefully gracefully, out of the exchange with Tom.

Having exchanged views and I think proven that we will never see eye to eye on this, there is little to be gained by continuing. Tom, if you would like to explore any of the points which either of us have made in more detail in PM's I would enjoy doing so.

cariad

---

he he. Just my thought. In real life I'm a very private and discrete person when it comes to my philosophy and political views so I can get a bit carried away on the Internet. I recomend you reading Kirkegaard. A devout christian and a philosopher who did his best to make a case for christianity and the existance of god. If you aply the things I've said here I think it'll give you plenty to think about. He is without a doubt one of the most intelligent people and greatest philosophers who ever lived.

I'm not sure we can explore it further. I am in no position to make any judgement about your supernatural experiences even if you would tell me about them.

I'll just say this. Good luck with being christian. I hope it makes you happy.

Thanks all for sharing, I didn’t mean for it to turn into a discussion about Religion but I understand why Religion got incorporated. So I am going to just sit back and take in the conversations/discussions and see if a good ghost story pops up.

How about just a good ghost violetgem????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by violetgem

Thanks all for sharing, I didn’t mean for it to turn into a discussion about Religion but I understand why Religion got incorporated. So I am going to just sit back and take in the conversations/discussions and see if a good ghost story pops up.

---

What do you have against bad ghosts?

cariad

Quote:

---

What do you have against bad ghosts?

---

I think Scooby Doo caught all of those, though, and the few left to run free in the wild were the victims of arctic oil drilling.

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cariad

What do you have against bad ghosts?

cariad

---

Hmmm, now isn't bad sometimes good.... is that how it goes??? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

This a logical fallacy BTW:

Logical fallacy number 2:

"Another reason why I am inclined towards believing, is the fact that we, humans, cannot invent something that cannot exist, for the mere mentioning of something, makes it exist..."

You say in the same sentance that humans can make something exist from nothing, (mentioning X -> creates X) while you at the same time deny it.
-Tom

---

I'm sorry I did not express myself quite clearly: I am starting from the vantage point that there is a "place" where all that can exist already exists, and that we, Humans, can only draw from that "reservoir" to "invent" stuff...

Cheerio ;che

JJ

Halloween is getting really really close!! Anymore ghost stories/encounters they would like to share!!!! All the posts before have been freaking me out in a good way where shivers go down my spine and I get goose bumps!! Thank you to those who have shared their experiences!!!!

I believe in ghosts/spirits/etc... actually a rather firm belief at this point too. For years I didn't care or didn't know or wanted proof before I really believed in something. This past year or two has taken me on a journey where I now believe in things without having scientific explanations.... God, spirits, etc... I can't say I have specific stories to share, but I do have rather strong feelings on the topic. I am fascinated with the stories posted here :) And like some other people said, if you believe in it too, cool.. if not, no big deal... we're all adults here (most of the time!) and everyone has a right to choose what and what not to believe in..

I was the world's biggest skeptic until I lived in an old hotel more than 100 years old.

I was in my bedroom with a mate on a sunny afternoon, when I was around 19 years old. We heard footsteps upstairs, walking up the passageway- as plain as day. Shot out & could immediately see the only open door- the whole building was deadlocked otherwise, with bars on the windows.

We flew up the stairs determined to catch the intruder- there was no one there.

I had a room upstairs afterwards, once or twice I heard footsteps going up the passageway at night. They stopped outside the door of my room, then moved away. Upon opening the door, there was no one there.

I only stayed there a few weeks at a time, it was owned by my parents, but since then I've sure been a believer.

Tojo

Yes, I believe in them.

wow Tojo!! I would have been so freakin scared!!!