[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Why would we do this, purposely put something in harm that we treasure? Comments like these makes me question the common sense of people.[/quote]
This divinely protected material, which is impervious to bombs, will be harmed by a bomb? And you’re questioning the common sense of other people?[/quote]
fucking brilliant!
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
How about subjecting the material to scientific scrutiny by objective scientists without a preexisting religious bias? For example, the claim that the material is divinely protected from explosive damage is easily tested. Wrap it around a few sticks of dynamite, light the fuse, and see what happens.
Of course, we both know that will never happen.
The same criticism applies to other supernatural claims, like being able to read minds. People appear to have unexplainable psychic abilities, but when you put them in a lab and study their performance under controlled conditions, they are no more accurate than would be expected by chance alone.
I believed there was undeniable, indisputable, rock solid evidence for my religious beliefs back in the day…and now I realize that it was all a crock.
Am I now under a denial bias? Could be, which is why I think the most honest and accurate position toward the supernatural is to say we simply don’t know, and leave it at that. [/quote]
Indifference is for the cats…
Second you want to wrap a stick of dynamite with the clothe to test it, but won’t take in the fact that there was a bomb set off right next to it?[/quote]
I’m at least as committed to knowing the truth as you are. Admitting that you don’t have all the answers when you really don’t is called integrity, not indifference.[/quote]
I was referring to the “we” part of your last sentence. Saying we don’t have enough evidence infers that I do not have enough evidence or maybe directly assumes…which one you meant, I am not sure. I have plenty of evidence myself through both schools of thought in the Catholic Church Thomism and the Franciscans or as some would call it empirical evidence.
I have not studied the account, so I would not be able to say. I can give an if then statement. I am not sure in what context the bomb was placed next to the cloth, but I do not fancy testing things for the sake of testing things when it comes to God (I’m not like Tirib who dared God to smite him). However, if someone would again put a bomb next to the cloth, then I would believe that it would go unharmed, if all accounts are true. However, I just know of the part of the story of Our Lady of Guadeloupe, not the whole thing and not in detail.
Tell me you have the common sense to not suggest such testing. This is like telling someone that got hit by a car, that in order to prove they got hit by a car and lived that we need to hit them with another car in a controlled setting to prove that they surveyed the first hit.
[quote]
Would you support such an experiment, or would it frighten you to actually test it? If the apron blew into smithereens, would that cause you to question your faith?[/quote]
No, I would not support such an experiment, by virtue and morals I would not allow condone destructive tests. If (just an example) a Muslim claimed that their building was protected by Allah and no one could destroy the building, no machine, no man, no explosive could take a flake off that building. I would stand in front of that building in order to stop anyone from “testing” his claim. It’s not smart or wise to do destructive experiments on things of importance.
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Why would we do this, purposely put something in harm that we treasure? Comments like these makes me question the common sense of people.[/quote]
This divinely protected material, which is impervious to bombs, will be harmed by a bomb? And you’re questioning the common sense of other people?[/quote]
I’m not even doubting your lack of common sense. So, no worries buddy.
If you don’t get the fact that as Christians we don’t test God, then I’m out of ideas.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
How about subjecting the material to scientific scrutiny by objective scientists without a preexisting religious bias? For example, the claim that the material is divinely protected from explosive damage is easily tested. Wrap it around a few sticks of dynamite, light the fuse, and see what happens.
Of course, we both know that will never happen.
The same criticism applies to other supernatural claims, like being able to read minds. People appear to have unexplainable psychic abilities, but when you put them in a lab and study their performance under controlled conditions, they are no more accurate than would be expected by chance alone.
I believed there was undeniable, indisputable, rock solid evidence for my religious beliefs back in the day…and now I realize that it was all a crock.
Am I now under a denial bias? Could be, which is why I think the most honest and accurate position toward the supernatural is to say we simply don’t know, and leave it at that. [/quote]
Indifference is for the cats…
Second you want to wrap a stick of dynamite with the clothe to test it, but won’t take in the fact that there was a bomb set off right next to it?[/quote]
I’m at least as committed to knowing the truth as you are. Admitting that you don’t have all the answers when you really don’t is called integrity, not indifference.[/quote]
I was referring to the “we” part of your last sentence. Saying we don’t have enough evidence infers that I do not have enough evidence or maybe directly assumes…which one you meant, I am not sure. I have plenty of evidence myself through both schools of thought in the Catholic Church Thomism and the Franciscans or as some would call it empirical evidence.
I have not studied the account, so I would not be able to say. I can give an if then statement. I am not sure in what context the bomb was placed next to the cloth, but I do not fancy testing things for the sake of testing things when it comes to God (I’m not like Tirib who dared God to smite him). However, if someone would again put a bomb next to the cloth, then I would believe that it would go unharmed, if all accounts are true. However, I just know of the part of the story of Our Lady of Guadeloupe, not the whole thing and not in detail.
Tell me you have the common sense to not suggest such testing. This is like telling someone that got hit by a car, that in order to prove they got hit by a car and lived that we need to hit them with another car in a controlled setting to prove that they surveyed the first hit.
[quote]
Would you support such an experiment, or would it frighten you to actually test it? If the apron blew into smithereens, would that cause you to question your faith?[/quote]
No, I would not support such an experiment, by virtue and morals I would not allow condone destructive tests. If (just an example) a Muslim claimed that their building was protected by Allah and no one could destroy the building, no machine, no man, no explosive could take a flake off that building. I would stand in front of that building in order to stop anyone from “testing” his claim. It’s not smart or wise to do destructive experiments on things of importance.[/quote]
In all seriousness though, Chris… wouldn’t a greater good be served by proving the veracity of the claim that the material was impervious to a bomb blast than that served by preserving it?
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Why would we do this, purposely put something in harm that we treasure? Comments like these makes me question the common sense of people.[/quote]
This divinely protected material, which is impervious to bombs, will be harmed by a bomb? And you’re questioning the common sense of other people?[/quote]
fucking brilliant![/quote]
Sorry, we’re not into Scientism, you should read The Mind’s Road to God if you want to understand what I am talking about. Charge of the Franciscan order, Saint Bonaventure a medieval monk and philosopher, he was heavy into empirical knowledge. As Catholics, I mean seriously how many times does this have to be explained, do not give science the highest authority. We do not need to run a 1000 or a few science experiments to believe it, if it can be reasoned or seen (empirical!) then why would we need science to prove it. We’re much more open minded then to think that dusty old science is the only way to believe something true.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
How about subjecting the material to scientific scrutiny by objective scientists without a preexisting religious bias? For example, the claim that the material is divinely protected from explosive damage is easily tested. Wrap it around a few sticks of dynamite, light the fuse, and see what happens.
Of course, we both know that will never happen.
The same criticism applies to other supernatural claims, like being able to read minds. People appear to have unexplainable psychic abilities, but when you put them in a lab and study their performance under controlled conditions, they are no more accurate than would be expected by chance alone.
I believed there was undeniable, indisputable, rock solid evidence for my religious beliefs back in the day…and now I realize that it was all a crock.
Am I now under a denial bias? Could be, which is why I think the most honest and accurate position toward the supernatural is to say we simply don’t know, and leave it at that. [/quote]
Indifference is for the cats…
Second you want to wrap a stick of dynamite with the clothe to test it, but won’t take in the fact that there was a bomb set off right next to it?[/quote]
I’m at least as committed to knowing the truth as you are. Admitting that you don’t have all the answers when you really don’t is called integrity, not indifference.[/quote]
I was referring to the “we” part of your last sentence. Saying we don’t have enough evidence infers that I do not have enough evidence or maybe directly assumes…which one you meant, I am not sure. I have plenty of evidence myself through both schools of thought in the Catholic Church Thomism and the Franciscans or as some would call it empirical evidence.
I have not studied the account, so I would not be able to say. I can give an if then statement. I am not sure in what context the bomb was placed next to the cloth, but I do not fancy testing things for the sake of testing things when it comes to God (I’m not like Tirib who dared God to smite him). However, if someone would again put a bomb next to the cloth, then I would believe that it would go unharmed, if all accounts are true. However, I just know of the part of the story of Our Lady of Guadeloupe, not the whole thing and not in detail.
Tell me you have the common sense to not suggest such testing. This is like telling someone that got hit by a car, that in order to prove they got hit by a car and lived that we need to hit them with another car in a controlled setting to prove that they surveyed the first hit.
No, sorry I am not a utilitarian.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If you don’t get the fact that as Christians we don’t test God, then I’m out of ideas.[/quote]
I’ve read the passage in the Bible where Jesus is tempted by Satan, and I understand that notion. But perhaps you can appreciate that I find the idea of an omnipresent, omniscient deity that chooses to reveal themselves through aprons – but is very particular about his aprons being kept in pristine condition – rather amusing.
I believe in things that can be tested and observed. If you base your beliefs on things that can never be tested, then I congratulate you on being able to form a coherent picture of the world. I’m not sure I could do that.
Chris, your refusal to allow the apron to be tested tells me that you doubt it is actually bomb-proof. If you actually believed it was protected as Cortes claims, you would not be endangering the apron in the slightest…it’s bomb-proof, remember?
And this is the beef I have with religious claims. It’s easy to cite sources, but when the opportunity is there to actually verify the claims in a controlled setting, people start creating excuses on why it shouldn’t be scientifically tested. If you really supported science as you claim, why wouldn’t you actually encourage such an experiment?
Think of the headlines:
SCIENTISTS EXPLODE HOLY APRON IN LAB, BUT APRON IS UNSCATHED
If the apron actually was bomb-proof, think of all the potential converts you might win to catholicism.
Then again, if it exploded into smithereens, think of the implications for your faith.
How convinced are you that your beliefs are actually based in reality? Are you willing to put those beliefs to the test by letting scientists study the apron? Or would you rather not know?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Why would we do this, purposely put something in harm that we treasure? Comments like these makes me question the common sense of people.[/quote]
This divinely protected material, which is impervious to bombs, will be harmed by a bomb? And you’re questioning the common sense of other people?[/quote]
fucking brilliant![/quote]
Sorry, we’re not into Scientism, you should read The Mind’s Road to God if you want to understand what I am talking about. Charge of the Franciscan order, Saint Bonaventure a medieval monk and philosopher, he was heavy into empirical knowledge. As Catholics, I mean seriously how many times does this have to be explained, do not give science the highest authority. We do not need to run a 1000 or a few science experiments to believe it, if it can be reasoned or seen (empirical!) then why would we need science to prove it. We’re much more open minded then to think that dusty old science is the only way to believe something true. [/quote]
You just got through telling us how you refuse to test a material that you believe to be bomb-proof, because you also believe that it would piss off a supernatural being that you can’t prove to us exists other than the fact that you believe he does… and, you want to claim the mantle of open minded???
You do realize that you are placing a number of restrictions on inquiry here, right?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
dusty old science [/quote]
You wouldn’t believe how much Pledge we went through today when firing up the ol’ real time PCR machine. Right on the money.
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If you don’t get the fact that as Christians we don’t test God, then I’m out of ideas.[/quote]
I’ve read the passage in the Bible where Jesus is tempted by Satan, and I understand that notion. But perhaps you can appreciate that I find the idea of an omnipresent, omniscient deity that chooses to reveal themselves through aprons – but is very particular about his aprons being kept in pristine condition – rather amusing.[/quote]
Okay, if you understand that notion then I digress. However, since there is more to your post than that, I am guessing you do not understand it.
God did not decide to reveal himself on an apron (He revealed himself through the Word), the apparition of Our Lady of Guadeloupe is on a cloak, not an apron – which is the current topic.
[quote]
I believe in things that can be tested and observed. If you base your beliefs on things that can never be tested, then I congratulate you on being able to form a coherent picture of the world. I’m not sure I could do that.[/quote]
And, how does me wanting to give more respect to a religious object than “wrapping it around a stick of dynamite” make me someone that doesn’t test and observe?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Which is why I take any claims for objective proof of the supernatural with a large grain of salt. People are too fallible, and despite the best training in critical thinking, what we want to be true often determines what we believe to be true, facts notwithstanding.[/quote]
I agree 100% with this - I cant remember what the actual term is called - But isn’t there a human psychology theory/method where by once a decision has been made, the brain will associate only with that which is beneficial to the behaviour, and blocks out (subconsciously) the negatives. For example once you’ve made a decision to buy a certain car - You wont associate with the reasons NOT to buy the car - this is used in sales all the time…
[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris, your refusal to allow the apron to be tested tells me that you doubt it is actually bomb-proof. If you actually believed it was protected as Cortes claims, you would not be endangering the apron in the slightest…it’s bomb-proof, remember?
[/quote]
Where did I refuse to let the cloak, which is not an apron, be tested?
So, because I have respect for a religious object, that means I do not believe it is divinely protected?
Because I have more respect for religious objects than that, and I do not needlessly and destructively test God. I really do not care if you believe if it is divinely protected or not. Honestly, I’m not sure why you are asking me all this stuff, because I do not know anything about the object. I do not know the claims about the object. I know of the image because of how close I live to Mexico and the fact that she is the Patron of Americas.
I’m glad you have beef with us religious types, usually means we’re doing something right. Because, even though I know zero about this object, you are throwing your hands up in the air because I think it is unwise to attempt to destroy a religious object. I do not believe in desecrating religious objects, not for science sake, not for anything.
Like I said above, I’m not a utilitarian, the ends do not justify the means.
[quote]
Then again, if it exploded into smithereens, think of the implications for your faith.
How convinced are you that your beliefs are actually based in reality? Are you willing to put those beliefs to the test by letting scientists study the apron? Or would you rather not know? [/quote]
I’m going to ignore this stuff because it’s assumptions, and it’s false dichotomy.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I’m going to ignore this stuff because it’s assumptions, and it’s false dichotomy. [/quote]
lolololol
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Why would we do this, purposely put something in harm that we treasure? Comments like these makes me question the common sense of people.[/quote]
This divinely protected material, which is impervious to bombs, will be harmed by a bomb? And you’re questioning the common sense of other people?[/quote]
fucking brilliant![/quote]
Sorry, we’re not into Scientism, you should read The Mind’s Road to God if you want to understand what I am talking about. Charge of the Franciscan order, Saint Bonaventure a medieval monk and philosopher, he was heavy into empirical knowledge. As Catholics, I mean seriously how many times does this have to be explained, do not give science the highest authority. We do not need to run a 1000 or a few science experiments to believe it, if it can be reasoned or seen (empirical!) then why would we need science to prove it. We’re much more open minded then to think that dusty old science is the only way to believe something true. [/quote]
You just got through telling us how you refuse to test a material that you believe to be bomb-proof, because you also believe that it would piss off a supernatural being that you can’t prove to us exists other than the fact that you believe he does… and, you want to claim the mantle of open minded???
You do realize that you are placing a number of restrictions on inquiry here, right?[/quote]
I never refused and I never said I believed it was bomb-proof, would you please show me where I said that?
I said I would not condone the testing because it is immoral and unwise to disrespect someone’s religious objects, I would say the same thing if it was a Jew, Muslim, Rastafarian, or whatever. I didn’t say it would piss off a supernatural being, where did I say this?
I’ve never attempted to prove God existed, how about you prove God does not exist to me, how come you believe he doesn’t exist?
The fact that I believe that God exists is only testament to that I have evidence myself that God exists.
I’ll refrain from any fallacious comments.
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Which is why I take any claims for objective proof of the supernatural with a large grain of salt. People are too fallible, and despite the best training in critical thinking, what we want to be true often determines what we believe to be true, facts notwithstanding.[/quote]
I agree 100% with this - I cant remember what the actual term is called - But isn’t there a human psychology theory/method where by once a decision has been made, the brain will associate only with that which is beneficial to the behaviour, and blocks out (subconsciously) the negatives. For example once you’ve made a decision to buy a certain car - You wont associate with the reasons NOT to buy the car - this is used in sales all the time…
[/quote]
Yes, it’s called cognitive dissonance, the pygmalion effect, and confirmatory bias.
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
dusty old science [/quote]
You wouldn’t believe how much Pledge we went through today when firing up the ol’ real time PCR machine. Right on the money.[/quote]
I guess my sarcasm and irony doesn’t shine through well, maybe I need some Pledge on personality.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I’m going to ignore this stuff because it’s assumptions, and it’s false dichotomy. [/quote]
lolololol[/quote]
Mak be honest, I mean I have two choices within his logic. Either I’m willing to desecrate a religious object or I do not believe that it is divinely protected. amiright?
The funny thing is that I really do not have any beliefs on the object beside that it is a famous picture of Our Lady of Guadeloupe that I have as a background on my smart phone.
For one, I never said it was divinely protected. Second, I would not test any kind of religious object in such fashion.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
How about subjecting the material to scientific scrutiny by objective scientists without a preexisting religious bias? For example, the claim that the material is divinely protected from explosive damage is easily tested. Wrap it around a few sticks of dynamite, light the fuse, and see what happens.
Of course, we both know that will never happen.
The same criticism applies to other supernatural claims, like being able to read minds. People appear to have unexplainable psychic abilities, but when you put them in a lab and study their performance under controlled conditions, they are no more accurate than would be expected by chance alone.
I believed there was undeniable, indisputable, rock solid evidence for my religious beliefs back in the day…and now I realize that it was all a crock.
Am I now under a denial bias? Could be, which is why I think the most honest and accurate position toward the supernatural is to say we simply don’t know, and leave it at that. [/quote]
Indifference is for the cats…
Second you want to wrap a stick of dynamite with the clothe to test it, but won’t take in the fact that there was a bomb set off right next to it?[/quote]
You got to this before I could. This is a classic example of the fact that there will never, ever, ever, ever, evereverever be enough evidence for someone to be convinced of something they are dead-set on not being convinced of.
Yeah, I understand it works both ways, but right now we’re talking about this way.
[/quote]
I can see what you’re saying (re: biases) but I think what he was suggested was that the event should be repeatable. But I’m intrigued - these things fascinate me.[/quote]
If we did and the thing came out of the explosion immaculately (harhar), skeptics would offer up their “scientific” explanations for why the cloth was unharmed, because the reason could never, ever, evereverever be that the material really is divine, or divinely protected, or whatever. The game is set up so we won’t win.
Thing is, I’ll say it again, there was a bomb that went off a few feet under the completely unprotected cloth. The marble steps the bomb was placed upon were demolished, the windows of the church and even those of neighboring structures were blown out, the brass crucifix you see above was warped into the shape it is by the force of the blast, and the cloth remained completely unharmed. This story is corroborated by hundreds of people, it’s not some made up fantastical event, it’s not a conspiracy. But the naysayers won’t be happy until we douse the thing with gasoline and set fire to it.
Give me a break.
Could it possibly, just maybe, be that there are still some things that we cannot explain with our current knowledge? That are outside of our ability to experience or measure?
[/quote]
lol you clown…You’re wrongly basing your assumptions and conclusions on the fact the cloth is in actually “divinely protected” - rather than it just coincidental that it didn’t get damaged - What if, simply, the clothe is not grounded and thus has no resistance, such as the metal cross would have - ie. instead of being broken out of shape the clothe flows with the resistance of the opposing force(the bomb) and therefore is not damaged - or maybe it was protected by the floor??? who knows??? But its no reason to call MIRACLE!!!
But of course, this is all here say… no way to tell unless its repeated with some form of reliability and validity (ahh science)
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Which is why I take any claims for objective proof of the supernatural with a large grain of salt. People are too fallible, and despite the best training in critical thinking, what we want to be true often determines what we believe to be true, facts notwithstanding.[/quote]
I agree 100% with this - I cant remember what the actual term is called - But isn’t there a human psychology theory/method where by once a decision has been made, the brain will associate only with that which is beneficial to the behaviour, and blocks out (subconsciously) the negatives. For example once you’ve made a decision to buy a certain car - You wont associate with the reasons NOT to buy the car - this is used in sales all the time…
[/quote]
Yes, it’s called cognitive dissonance, the pygmalion effect, and confirmatory bias.[/quote]
ah thats it…Is it worth discussing in the context of religion? …
“The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions. Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.”