[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
You’re way too vague mon ami! Please dumb it down for my old brain!
For example what are the tools you’re talking about!?[/quote]
Science uses tools to try and prove things (i.e., natural phenomena) based on observational evidence.
Things exist that we can’t prove - i.e., we don’t (and in some cases likely won’t ever) have observational evidence. But just because we can’t prove them doesn’t mean they don’t exist, and so, we have to spent some inquiry on those things.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Because the claims of Religions are not that prayer is to make you feel good, it’s that prayer is a method of contacting supernatural beings. So the issue is that someone is saying you can contact God by praying, but they are making a false claim because we humans tested it and almost all tests show that prayer doesn’t do anything.
And then at the bigger end of the spectrum you have people praying instead of getting medical attention. Example: Those parents who decided to pray for their kids appendix to heal instead of taking him to the hospital, and then the kid died. (Google it, it’s everywhere) Thanks a lot prayer.
Just because something has a Placebo effect doesn’t mean we should just accept it and move on.
[/quote]
Placebo effect gets a bad rap, but within limitations it works just fine. You are talking about stupidity here, not just prayer.[/quote]
Yes but Religion/Prayer and stupidity go hand in hand in a lot of cases because the beliefs in which they’re based aren’t justified, yet they go on teaching it anyway so that to me is …pardon my french, stupid.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
So the issue is that someone is saying you can contact God by praying, but they are making a false claim because we humans tested it and almost all tests show that prayer doesn’t do anything.
[/quote]
Really? How did you falsify the remission of sins?
[/quote]
Can you expand on this?
Do you mean how do I falsify that I can pray and be remissed of my sins and therefore not go to hell?
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I went to Catholic high school and we were taught evolution. We discussed Genesis in religion class.[/quote]
Precisely. The warfare over these positions exists in the fevered minds of two camps of blinkered extremists. The rest understand the positions, properly understood, are not irreconcilable.
Science is a body of knowledge of based on a methodology of observability and measurability, and therefore empiricism; religion is based on faith.
Science shouldn’t try to answer questions about faith because it cannot do so adequately. Religion shouldn’t try to answer questions about science because it cannot do so adequately. That isn’t an indictment of either one - it is simply a truth that each handles and informs a different aspect of human inquiry.[/quote]
Very well said.[/quote]
I wouldn’t say so because he says "Science shouldn’t try to answer questions about faith "
I don’t see how that makes any sense. Science is useful for answering questions about everything so why not Faith too?
For example it was a great idea to Scientifically conduct prayer tests because now some of us are aware that prayer (related to faith) doesn’t accomplish anything except possibly giving someone a false sense of accomplishment. This is another example of Religion polluting the mind because you have all these people wasting time all over the world praying when they could be doing something that’s actually productive.[/quote]
If prayer has an effect of making people feel better , like for eg meditation, then what’s the issue? Some things cannot be empirically proved/disproved because they are subjective. Prayer provides comfort for some.
Who is anyone to say otherwise? I think you are vastly overreaching here.
[/quote]
Because the claims of Religions are not that prayer is to make you feel good, it’s that prayer is a method of contacting supernatural beings. So the issue is that someone is saying you can contact God by praying, but they are making a false claim because we humans tested it and almost all tests show that prayer doesn’t do anything.
And then at the bigger end of the spectrum you have people praying instead of getting medical attention. Example: Those parents who decided to pray for their kids appendix to heal instead of taking him to the hospital, and then the kid died. (Google it, it’s everywhere) Thanks a lot prayer.
Just because something has a Placebo effect doesn’t mean we should just accept it and move on.
[/quote]
You have kids?
If you do, I’m sure you have said to them “it will all be fine, don’t worry” or something along those lines.
Why? You have no empirical evidence it WILL be ok, so why do you bother? You are perpetuating a delusion. Any comfort you ever offer along those lines will be in real terms ,a lie. A sham.
Perhaps you’ve never done that , I don’t know. I know I certainly have.
As for placebo effect, I don’t think you’re clear on what that means in this particular instance. [/quote]
So you’re saying the real point of prayer is actually to just make people feel good and the god claim is known BS?
I’m all for feeling good and all that but that’s not what they’re selling, no?
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
So the issue is that someone is saying you can contact God by praying, but they are making a false claim because we humans tested it and almost all tests show that prayer doesn’t do anything.
[/quote]
Really? How did you falsify the remission of sins?
[/quote]
Can you expand on this?
Do you mean how do I falsify that I can pray and be remissed of my sins and therefore not go to hell?[/quote]
Keep it simple, leave a ‘final destination’ out of it. You made the claim that contact with God doesn’t do ‘anything.’ You said it was a ‘false claim.’ That prayer doesn’t do ‘anything.’ So, how was the remission of sins, following a contrite prayer, falsified?
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Because the claims of Religions are not that prayer is to make you feel good, it’s that prayer is a method of contacting supernatural beings. So the issue is that someone is saying you can contact God by praying, but they are making a false claim because we humans tested it and almost all tests show that prayer doesn’t do anything.
And then at the bigger end of the spectrum you have people praying instead of getting medical attention. Example: Those parents who decided to pray for their kids appendix to heal instead of taking him to the hospital, and then the kid died. (Google it, it’s everywhere) Thanks a lot prayer.
Just because something has a Placebo effect doesn’t mean we should just accept it and move on.
[/quote]
Placebo effect gets a bad rap, but within limitations it works just fine. You are talking about stupidity here, not just prayer.[/quote]
Yes but Religion/Prayer and stupidity go hand in hand in a lot of cases because the beliefs in which they’re based aren’t justified, yet they go on teaching it anyway so that to me is …pardon my french, stupid.
[/quote]
I wont contest you on that, it’s a legitimate opinion.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
You’re way too vague mon ami! Please dumb it down for my old brain!
For example what are the tools you’re talking about!?[/quote]
Science uses tools to try and prove things (i.e., natural phenomena) based on observational evidence.
Things exist that we can’t prove - i.e., we don’t (and in some cases likely won’t ever) have observational evidence. But just because we can’t prove them doesn’t mean they don’t exist, and so, we have to spent some inquiry on those things.[/quote]
You’re saying we should spend time on things that have no observational evidence? OK nope you lost me. That doesn’t make any sense to me at all.
If something has no observational evidence, then that means we have no reason to believe it exists. That’s right, just ask yourself: If there’s no evidence to be expected, then from our point of view what is the difference between a God that exists and a God that doesn’t exist?
Please explain more what you mean by remission of sins and contrite prayer. If you tell me what that is then I guess I can probably explain how to falsify them. But the issue may be that they don’t need to be falsified because they aren’t shown to be true anyway.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Please explain more what you mean by remission of sins and contrite prayer. If you tell me what that is then I guess I can probably explain how to falsify them. But the issue may be that they don’t need to be falsified because they aren’t shown to be true anyway.[/quote]
Sir, you implied that science had falsified contact with God. That human testing has shown that there is no contact. And that prayer doesn’t do ANYTHING. How was the forgiveness of sins, following a prayer of contrition, falsified? There’s nothing else to it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Please explain more what you mean by remission of sins and contrite prayer. If you tell me what that is then I guess I can probably explain how to falsify them. But the issue may be that they don’t need to be falsified because they aren’t shown to be true anyway.[/quote]
Sir, you implied that science had falsified contact with God. That human testing has shown that there is no contact. And that prayer doesn’t do ANYTHING. How was the forgiveness of sins, following a prayer of contrition, falsified? There’s nothing else to it.
[/quote]
Ok I see. Well it looks like there’s no way to test it, and therefore no reason to believe that it’s even happening, right? If there’s no evidence that sins are being forgiven in the first place, no need to falsify it.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I went to Catholic high school and we were taught evolution. We discussed Genesis in religion class.[/quote]
Precisely. The warfare over these positions exists in the fevered minds of two camps of blinkered extremists. The rest understand the positions, properly understood, are not irreconcilable.
Science is a body of knowledge of based on a methodology of observability and measurability, and therefore empiricism; religion is based on faith.
Science shouldn’t try to answer questions about faith because it cannot do so adequately. Religion shouldn’t try to answer questions about science because it cannot do so adequately. That isn’t an indictment of either one - it is simply a truth that each handles and informs a different aspect of human inquiry.[/quote]
Very well said.[/quote]
I wouldn’t say so because he says "Science shouldn’t try to answer questions about faith "
I don’t see how that makes any sense. Science is useful for answering questions about everything so why not Faith too?
For example it was a great idea to Scientifically conduct prayer tests because now some of us are aware that prayer (related to faith) doesn’t accomplish anything except possibly giving someone a false sense of accomplishment. This is another example of Religion polluting the mind because you have all these people wasting time all over the world praying when they could be doing something that’s actually productive.[/quote]
If prayer has an effect of making people feel better , like for eg meditation, then what’s the issue? Some things cannot be empirically proved/disproved because they are subjective. Prayer provides comfort for some.
Who is anyone to say otherwise? I think you are vastly overreaching here.
[/quote]
Because the claims of Religions are not that prayer is to make you feel good, it’s that prayer is a method of contacting supernatural beings. So the issue is that someone is saying you can contact God by praying, but they are making a false claim because we humans tested it and almost all tests show that prayer doesn’t do anything.
And then at the bigger end of the spectrum you have people praying instead of getting medical attention. Example: Those parents who decided to pray for their kids appendix to heal instead of taking him to the hospital, and then the kid died. (Google it, it’s everywhere) Thanks a lot prayer.
Just because something has a Placebo effect doesn’t mean we should just accept it and move on.
[/quote]
You have kids?
If you do, I’m sure you have said to them “it will all be fine, don’t worry” or something along those lines.
Why? You have no empirical evidence it WILL be ok, so why do you bother? You are perpetuating a delusion. Any comfort you ever offer along those lines will be in real terms ,a lie. A sham.
Perhaps you’ve never done that , I don’t know. I know I certainly have.
As for placebo effect, I don’t think you’re clear on what that means in this particular instance. [/quote]
So you’re saying the real point of prayer is actually to just make people feel good and the god claim is known BS?
I’m all for feeling good and all that but that’s not what they’re selling, no?
[/quote]
I’m saying that some things and their benefits are highly subjective. And that many people take what they want from certain institutions and situations, and disregard the rest.
And some things are outside the scientific scope and no amount of square pegging them into the round hole will make it otherwise in my view…
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Please explain more what you mean by remission of sins and contrite prayer. If you tell me what that is then I guess I can probably explain how to falsify them. But the issue may be that they don’t need to be falsified because they aren’t shown to be true anyway.[/quote]
Sir, you implied that science had falsified contact with God. That human testing has shown that there is no contact. And that prayer doesn’t do ANYTHING. How was the forgiveness of sins, following a prayer of contrition, falsified? There’s nothing else to it.
[/quote]
Ok I see. Well it looks like there’s no way to test it…[/quote]
All you needed to say. This goes back to Thunderbolt’s comments. Enjoy your day.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Please explain more what you mean by remission of sins and contrite prayer. If you tell me what that is then I guess I can probably explain how to falsify them. But the issue may be that they don’t need to be falsified because they aren’t shown to be true anyway.[/quote]
Sir, you implied that science had falsified contact with God. That human testing has shown that there is no contact. And that prayer doesn’t do ANYTHING. How was the forgiveness of sins, following a prayer of contrition, falsified? There’s nothing else to it.
[/quote]
Ok I see. Well it looks like there’s no way to test it…[/quote]
All you needed to say. This goes back to Thunderbolt’s comments. Enjoy your day.
[/quote]
Yup, no way to test it, no evidence that it exists, no reason to believe it exists, and if you do believe it exists without testing it’s existence using existing evidence then…speaks a lot about your mental state.
Enjoy your day as well Sloth 
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Please explain more what you mean by remission of sins and contrite prayer. If you tell me what that is then I guess I can probably explain how to falsify them. But the issue may be that they don’t need to be falsified because they aren’t shown to be true anyway.[/quote]
Sir, you implied that science had falsified contact with God. That human testing has shown that there is no contact. And that prayer doesn’t do ANYTHING. How was the forgiveness of sins, following a prayer of contrition, falsified? There’s nothing else to it.
[/quote]
Ok I see. Well it looks like there’s no way to test it…[/quote]
All you needed to say. This goes back to Thunderbolt’s comments. Enjoy your day.
[/quote]
Yup, no way to test it, no evidence that it exists, no reason to believe it exists, and if you do believe it exists without testing it’s existence using existing evidence then…speaks a lot about your mental state.
[/quote]
I can only imagine you’re implying an abnormal mental state. Surely you didn’t mean to compliment me. So, have the psychological/neural sciences shown it to be abnormal? One of the most widespread practices of humanity? Do you have a link for that?
I always enjoy my days, but thank you.
Most Christians I know don’t believe that anything out of scripture belongs in a science classroom.
Science is about hunches and proof and evidence and theories. Religion is about faith–blind faith, faith without proof, faith in something even the face of evidence to the contrary. I sometimes envy people with the capacity to have that kind of faith, but there is no room for it in a science classroom.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Please explain more what you mean by remission of sins and contrite prayer. If you tell me what that is then I guess I can probably explain how to falsify them. But the issue may be that they don’t need to be falsified because they aren’t shown to be true anyway.[/quote]
Sir, you implied that science had falsified contact with God. That human testing has shown that there is no contact. And that prayer doesn’t do ANYTHING. How was the forgiveness of sins, following a prayer of contrition, falsified? There’s nothing else to it.
[/quote]
Ok I see. Well it looks like there’s no way to test it…[/quote]
All you needed to say. This goes back to Thunderbolt’s comments. Enjoy your day.
[/quote]
Yup, no way to test it, no evidence that it exists, no reason to believe it exists, and if you do believe it exists without testing it’s existence using existing evidence then…speaks a lot about your mental state.
[/quote]
I can only imagine you’re implying an abnormal mental state. Surely you didn’t mean to compliment me. So, have the psychological/neural sciences shown it to be abnormal? One of the most widespread practices of humanity? Do you have a link for that?
I always enjoy my days, but thank you.[/quote]
I didn’t mean you specifically, but people in general.
Anywho I’m saying anyone who believes something without evidence isn’t making sense because faith is without evidence and people honestly don’t use faith for anything else in life (Seriously try and think of one thing) so why should we use it to answer one of the most interesting and important questions there is? (How we came to be)
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Most Christians I know don’t believe that anything out of scripture belongs in a science classroom.
Science is about hunches and proof and evidence and theories. Religion is about faith–blind faith, faith without proof, faith in something even the face of evidence to the contrary. I sometimes envy people with the capacity to have that kind of faith, but there is no room for it in a science classroom.[/quote]
Why would you envy them? Faith is not a pathway to truth and if they’re ignoring evidence on top of having faith (which is already completely a bad idea) then I would say I definitely do not envy them.
Extreme faith in the face of evidence is extreme stupidity because at least before there was no other explanation but if there is another explanation and you’re STILL ignoring it and having “faith” in something else…well let’s just say I would not want a person with those decision making abilities working for me.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Anywho I’m saying anyone who believes something without evidence isn’t making sense because faith is without evidence and people honestly don’t use faith for anything else in life…
[/quote]
Oh, I’m not sure about that. I think many people believe that some inalienable rights exist. That some acts are simply evil, despite the consensus of the day. Despite who is in power. Despite the legislation that ignores or even promotes such acts.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Please explain more what you mean by remission of sins and contrite prayer. If you tell me what that is then I guess I can probably explain how to falsify them. But the issue may be that they don’t need to be falsified because they aren’t shown to be true anyway.[/quote]
Sir, you implied that science had falsified contact with God. That human testing has shown that there is no contact. And that prayer doesn’t do ANYTHING. How was the forgiveness of sins, following a prayer of contrition, falsified? There’s nothing else to it.
[/quote]
Ok I see. Well it looks like there’s no way to test it…[/quote]
All you needed to say. This goes back to Thunderbolt’s comments. Enjoy your day.
[/quote]
Yup, no way to test it, no evidence that it exists, no reason to believe it exists, and if you do believe it exists without testing it’s existence using existing evidence then…speaks a lot about your mental state.
[/quote]
I can only imagine you’re implying an abnormal mental state. Surely you didn’t mean to compliment me. So, have the psychological/neural sciences shown it to be abnormal? One of the most widespread practices of humanity? Do you have a link for that?
I always enjoy my days, but thank you.[/quote]
I didn’t mean you specifically, but people in general.
Anywho I’m saying anyone who believes something without evidence isn’t making sense because faith is without evidence and people honestly don’t use faith for anything else in life (Seriously try and think of one thing) so why should we use it to answer one of the most interesting and important questions there is? (How we came to be)
[/quote]
You’re pretty far off the reservation. Science doesn’t prove anything absolutely to be true either. It just says things are probable.
At the basis of science there is an element of faith. You have faith that the universe is as you perceive it to be. You assume this to be true. It is your base premise that all of your probable beliefs rest upon.(This is what I believe as well, but I am aware of it and you seem to not be)
Please prove to me that you know with 100 percent certainty that the universe is exactly as you perceive it to be and that you are not just assuming this is the case. Having some faith as it were.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Please explain more what you mean by remission of sins and contrite prayer. If you tell me what that is then I guess I can probably explain how to falsify them. But the issue may be that they don’t need to be falsified because they aren’t shown to be true anyway.[/quote]
Sir, you implied that science had falsified contact with God. That human testing has shown that there is no contact. And that prayer doesn’t do ANYTHING. How was the forgiveness of sins, following a prayer of contrition, falsified? There’s nothing else to it.
[/quote]
Ok I see. Well it looks like there’s no way to test it…[/quote]
All you needed to say. This goes back to Thunderbolt’s comments. Enjoy your day.
[/quote]
Yup, no way to test it, no evidence that it exists, no reason to believe it exists, and if you do believe it exists without testing it’s existence using existing evidence then…speaks a lot about your mental state.
[/quote]
I can only imagine you’re implying an abnormal mental state. Surely you didn’t mean to compliment me. So, have the psychological/neural sciences shown it to be abnormal? One of the most widespread practices of humanity? Do you have a link for that?
I always enjoy my days, but thank you.[/quote]
I didn’t mean you specifically, but people in general.
Anywho I’m saying anyone who believes something without evidence isn’t making sense because faith is without evidence and people honestly don’t use faith for anything else in life (Seriously try and think of one thing) so why should we use it to answer one of the most interesting and important questions there is? (How we came to be)
[/quote]
We all go to bed every day with the belief/faith that we’re going to wake up in the morning, and live our lives accordingly. We believe. We have no proof.
I think there are plenty of instances in our lives we resort to faith.