Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
No, in the 2nd it's based on repeatable experiments and other evidence. No faith required unless you want to get deep into psychology and if our perception of the world can be trusted/is real/etc.

Oh, but that is exactly where I do want to get.

You see, the statement that nothing is 100% certain and that every single statement requires faith in something and is therefore a belief, is based in the belief that the human perception of the world is not neccesarily reliable and that the reliability of the human perception is not testable. It is a position of epistemological relativism that argues that everything in the end is subjective and that there is no such thing as absolute truth.

Ah, the inane and idiotic philosophy argument (for this situation and topic). Right, moving on.

Ah, the appeal to the stone. It is a good way to concede a discussion without having to admit the inability or unwillingness to come up with an actual intelligent argument.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
There is no faith required to believe in the theory of gravity, you can perform experiments yourself to verify it, and thus don't need to rely on other people's truthfulness. Will everyone do it to verify it themselves? No, in which case, yes they rely on the scientific process to ensure the info they're given is true. But yes, THAT could be all be false if you want to believe in a mass conspiracy to delude the world about the scientific process.

So, how would you prove the theory of gravity to yourself?

Steps:
1. Pick up an object that won't break or damage anything if dropped by wrapping fingers around it.
2. Carefully hold it at shoulder height.
3. Extend fingers to allow said object to drop.

Voila! (I'm sure there's a far more scientific test that can be done, such as finding out how fast the object falls, and if it's the same for all objects, etc but you're trying to push this down the path of "but do we really know for sure that anything is real?", which is not relevant here)

Okay, you just demonstrated that objects fall to the ground if you drop them. Now how does that prove the theory of gravity? Or in other words, how do we now know that it is gravity, and not some different force that compels objects to fall to the ground? Proving gravity is quite a bit more complicated than just dropping something. And that is true for all science, which is why science is done by specialists, and can not just be done by anyone. And that brings me back to my point that the belief in the theory of gravity is based on faith in science, rather than on knowing that it is true. For unless you have the neccessary advanced knowledge of physics etc, it is impossible to see for yourself whether the theory of gravity is true or not.
No relativism involved anywhere.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
No, in the 2nd it's based on repeatable experiments and other evidence. No faith required unless you want to get deep into psychology and if our perception of the world can be trusted/is real/etc.

Oh, but that is exactly where I do want to get.

You see, the statement that nothing is 100% certain and that every single statement requires faith in something and is therefore a belief, is based in the belief that the human perception of the world is not neccesarily reliable and that the reliability of the human perception is not testable. It is a position of epistemological relativism that argues that everything in the end is subjective and that there is no such thing as absolute truth.

Ah, the inane and idiotic philosophy argument (for this situation and topic). Right, moving on.

Ah, the appeal to the stone. It is a good way to concede a discussion without having to admit the inability or unwillingness to come up with an actual intelligent argument.

Iron, what does this prove? What path does this actually lead us down, other than "Human minds cannot be trusted to create sceientific methods, therefore everything's unreliable, therefore anarchy"?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
No, in the 2nd it's based on repeatable experiments and other evidence. No faith required unless you want to get deep into psychology and if our perception of the world can be trusted/is real/etc.

Oh, but that is exactly where I do want to get.

You see, the statement that nothing is 100% certain and that every single statement requires faith in something and is therefore a belief, is based in the belief that the human perception of the world is not neccesarily reliable and that the reliability of the human perception is not testable. It is a position of epistemological relativism that argues that everything in the end is subjective and that there is no such thing as absolute truth.

Ah, the inane and idiotic philosophy argument (for this situation and topic). Right, moving on.

Ah, the appeal to the stone. It is a good way to concede a discussion without having to admit the inability or unwillingness to come up with an actual intelligent argument.

So lets back up a minute then, what proof do you have that your theory could even be REMOTELY true? All you're doing is spouting what's effectively nonsense for this topic in an attempt to show that everything could technically be called faith by going to the most possible extreme example of "reality could just be another being's dream/computer simulation" type of argument. But, as we have no evidence of that it's an inane argument to make, and you're doing it literally just to be argumentative. (The idea that everything could just be a simulation/dream of another being is cool, but entirely irrelevant to this discussion.)

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Okay, you just demonstrated that objects fall to the ground if you drop them. Now how does that prove the theory of gravity? Or in other words, how do we now know that it is gravity, and not some different force that compels objects to fall to the ground? Proving gravity is quite a bit more complicated than just dropping something. And that is true for all science, which is why science is done by specialists, and can not just be done by anyone. And that brings me back to my point that the belief in the theory of gravity is based on faith in science, rather than on knowing that it is true. For unless you have the neccessary advanced knowledge of physics etc, it is impossible to see for yourself whether the theory of gravity is true or not.
No relativism involved anywhere.

Except in places with no/low gravity, objects fall at a much slower pace, or not at all, such as on the moon, or when not affected by any gravitational pull (i.e. if you got far enough away from any planet). I know what you're trying to get at (an asinine point that everything is based in faith for absolutely everything, down to even whether or not we exist). It's not perfect obviously, but for the average person it works.

 LordofHats wrote:

Lots of people use the word that way today.

And lots of people use "logic" correctly, while differentiating from reason. That does not change the colloquial meaning, as you have noted.

 jreilly89 wrote:


Iron, what does this prove? What path does this actually lead us down, other than "Human minds cannot be trusted to create sceientific methods, therefore everything's unreliable, therefore anarchy"?

Simple. To illustrate that atheism actually is a faith, contrary to what some posters in this thread have argued.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
No, in the 2nd it's based on repeatable experiments and other evidence. No faith required unless you want to get deep into psychology and if our perception of the world can be trusted/is real/etc.

Oh, but that is exactly where I do want to get.

You see, the statement that nothing is 100% certain and that every single statement requires faith in something and is therefore a belief, is based in the belief that the human perception of the world is not neccesarily reliable and that the reliability of the human perception is not testable. It is a position of epistemological relativism that argues that everything in the end is subjective and that there is no such thing as absolute truth.

Ah, the inane and idiotic philosophy argument (for this situation and topic). Right, moving on.

Ah, the appeal to the stone. It is a good way to concede a discussion without having to admit the inability or unwillingness to come up with an actual intelligent argument.

So lets back up a minute then, what proof do you have that your theory could even be REMOTELY true? All you're doing is spouting what's effectively nonsense for this topic in an attempt to show that everything could technically be called faith by going to the most possible extreme example of "reality could just be another being's dream/computer simulation" type of argument. But, as we have no evidence of that it's an inane argument to make, and you're doing it literally just to be argumentative. (The idea that everything could just be a simulation/dream of another being is cool, but entirely irrelevant to this discussion.)

As a philosopical theory, it is based on deductive logic, rather than on empirical evidence like a scientific theory.
In any case, it is relevant to this thread in the light of the "is atheism a belief/faith or not" discussion, which is why I brought it up. If you want to make a statement like "atheism is not a faith", you would first need to establish the definition of what "faith" actually is and where the line is between "faith" and "not-faith". Taken to the logical extreme, this will inevitably lead to the conclusion that it is very hard, if not impossible to draw that line because in the end, all of human knowledge is based on faith.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Okay, you just demonstrated that objects fall to the ground if you drop them. Now how does that prove the theory of gravity? Or in other words, how do we now know that it is gravity, and not some different force that compels objects to fall to the ground? Proving gravity is quite a bit more complicated than just dropping something. And that is true for all science, which is why science is done by specialists, and can not just be done by anyone. And that brings me back to my point that the belief in the theory of gravity is based on faith in science, rather than on knowing that it is true. For unless you have the neccessary advanced knowledge of physics etc, it is impossible to see for yourself whether the theory of gravity is true or not.
No relativism involved anywhere.

Except in places with no/low gravity, objects fall at a much slower pace, or not at all, such as on the moon, or when not affected by any gravitational pull (i.e. if you got far enough away from any planet). I know what you're trying to get at (an asinine point that everything is based in faith for absolutely everything, down to even whether or not we exist). It's not perfect obviously, but for the average person it works.

The average person can hardly get to the moon now, can he?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Iron, what does this prove? What path does this actually lead us down, other than "Human minds cannot be trusted to create sceientific methods, therefore everything's unreliable, therefore anarchy"?

Simple. To illustrate that atheism actually is a faith, contrary to what some posters in this thread have argued.

But atheism isn't a faith, it's a lack of belief. Saying that's faith is saying the same as not believing in invisible pink unicorns that live in your sock drawer don't exist requires faith. (yes yes, technically we can't know because of your inane philosophy argument)

 Iron_Captain wrote:

There is obviously no proof that "my" (well, it is not really mine, of course) theory is true. If there were proof, it would in fact contradict the whole theory. It also does not need proof. As a philosopical theory, it is based on deductive logic, rather than on empirical evidence like a scientific theory.
In any case, it is relevant to this thread in the light of the "is atheism a belief/faith or not" discussion, which is why I brought it up. If you want to make a statement like "atheism is not a faith", you would first need to establish the definition of what "faith" actually is and where the line is between "faith" and "not-faith". Taken to the logical extreme, this will inevitably lead to the conclusion that it is very hard, if not impossible to draw that line because in the end, all of human knowledge is based on faith.

Unless you're purposely being dense about this, faith is very clearly being used in relation to a positive belief in god/supernatural in this thread. Also, a definition which applies to this particularly: "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."

(there's also a more general one that fits your use, but is not how it's being used in this thread ("complete trust or confidence in someone or something"))

 dogma wrote:
That does not change the colloquial meaning, as you have noted.

Which would mean something if Orlanth were using it colloquially. Even after he explained his meaning, which he didn't just make up but is a common understanding in Biblical studies, the thread was still on "that's not what prophecy is." Granting that Orlanth seems to bounce between the colloquially and the contextual as it suits his argument, my only intent was to point out "yes prophecy can mean something other than future prediction when talking about the Bible," because if the threads just going to continue burning to the ground in a self righteous display of Orlanth vs the World, it might as well be an educational burning to the ground


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolfblade wrote:


But atheism isn't a faith, it's a lack of belief. Saying that's faith is saying the same as not believing in invisible pink unicorns that live in your sock drawer don't exist requires faith. (yes yes, technically we can't know because of your inane philosophy argument)

Questions about "what can we really know" are worthy philosophical questions, but are fundamentally worthless to science as a field (science has already concluded "what can we really know", because it posits evidence outside of human perception reveals truth and that the evidence can be tested to confirm truth). Atheism often being a position reached by a strong confidence that scientific evidence points to a conclusion, the application of the argument is inane, but not the argument itself. It's just a pointless argument to make in this regard.

 LordofHats wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolfblade wrote:


But atheism isn't a faith, it's a lack of belief. Saying that's faith is saying the same as not believing in invisible pink unicorns that live in your sock drawer don't exist requires faith. (yes yes, technically we can't know because of your inane philosophy argument)

Questions about "what can we really know" are worthy philosophical questions, but are fundamentally worthless to science as a field. Atheism often being a position reached by a strong confidence that scientific evidence points to a conclusion, the application of the argument is inane, but not the argument itself. It's just a pointless argument to make in this regard.

Which is what I said earlier, it's a great topic/discussion for another thread, just incredibly dumb when applied to this topic.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Simple. To illustrate that atheism actually is a faith, contrary to what some posters in this thread have argued.

It certainly is using that argument, but the logical conclusion for the general application of that philosophical argument is solipsism at worst, and a very limited mashing of Descartes and Wittgenstein at best (you know you exist as a consciousness for the duration of a thought period and at least one other consciousness must exist with which you share a common world).

Naturally though, such a definition of 'faith' is worthless for any discussion beyond the most abtruse of philosophical arguments. If someone asks where the bus stop is or what you think of cybernetics as a moral question, responding with 'none of us can know anything' rarely gets the conversation very far. Likewise, when someone says 'This proof you have that God exists is faith based', responding with 'well, all empirical data is faith based', whilst not technically incorrect, is not very helpful.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Iron, what does this prove? What path does this actually lead us down, other than "Human minds cannot be trusted to create sceientific methods, therefore everything's unreliable, therefore anarchy"?

Simple. To illustrate that atheism actually is a faith, contrary to what some posters in this thread have argued.

But atheism isn't a faith, it's a lack of belief. Saying that's faith is saying the same as not believing in invisible pink unicorns that live in your sock drawer don't exist requires faith. (yes yes, technically we can't know because of your inane philosophy argument)

No, atheism is a faith. Specifically it is a faith in the absence of a deity. There can exist no such thing as "lack of belief". Humans are always believing something to be true or not. Lack of belief means lack of higher brain functions.
Also, using the word inane doesn't reflect very well on yourself. Clearly you don't fully understand the meaning of this word. Your argument about invisible pink unicorns in sock drawers is inane. It is incoherent and fallacious.
I explained my position, put forward an argument to support it and showed how by logical deduction, I reached my position. Now, either refute the argument or forfeit the discussion, but leave out the fallacies.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

There is obviously no proof that "my" (well, it is not really mine, of course) theory is true. If there were proof, it would in fact contradict the whole theory. It also does not need proof. As a philosopical theory, it is based on deductive logic, rather than on empirical evidence like a scientific theory.
In any case, it is relevant to this thread in the light of the "is atheism a belief/faith or not" discussion, which is why I brought it up. If you want to make a statement like "atheism is not a faith", you would first need to establish the definition of what "faith" actually is and where the line is between "faith" and "not-faith". Taken to the logical extreme, this will inevitably lead to the conclusion that it is very hard, if not impossible to draw that line because in the end, all of human knowledge is based on faith.

Unless you're purposely being dense about this, faith is very clearly being used in relation to a positive belief in god/supernatural in this thread. Also, a definition which applies to this particularly: "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."

(there's also a more general one that fits your use, but is not how it's being used in this thread ("complete trust or confidence in someone or something"))

Not true. The first definition you are giving is merely an specifcation of the second where the "something" is defined specifically as religious doctrine. If you read the thread you will find that the word "faith" is used a lot more than to just refer to a confidence in religious doctrine, including in the post that I originally responded to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:


But atheism isn't a faith, it's a lack of belief. Saying that's faith is saying the same as not believing in invisible pink unicorns that live in your sock drawer don't exist requires faith. (yes yes, technically we can't know because of your inane philosophy argument)

Questions about "what can we really know" are worthy philosophical questions, but are fundamentally worthless to science as a field (science has already concluded "what can we really know", because it posits evidence outside of human perception reveals truth and that the evidence can be tested to confirm truth).

Irrelevant. The question as to whether atheism constitutes a faith or not is philosophical, not scientific in nature.

 LordofHats wrote:
Atheism often being a position reached by a strong confidence that scientific evidence points to a conclusion, the application of the argument is inane, but not the argument itself. It's just a pointless argument to make in this regard.

This is not a logically coherent argument. The conclusion "the application of the argument is inane" does not logically follow from the premise "atheism is a position often reached by a strong confidence that scientific evidence points to a conclusion". And the way by which the position of atheism is reached is irrelevant to the question of whether atheism is a faith or not.

 dogma wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Lots of people use the word that way today.

And lots of people use "logic" correctly, while differentiating from reason. That does not change the colloquial meaning, as you have noted.

However the presence of a colloquial meaning doesn't invalidate the original meaning.

It is easy to understand that as majority of secular society has little contact with prophecy or prophets they might limit their understanding to a more simplistic view of what prophecy means Especially as it mirrors secular use of the term.

"Arthur C Clarke in the early 1970's predicted the information age, and believed that a computer terminal would e in most homes and people would do their shopping on them." *
"Wow he had a prophetic insight into technology."

It is understandable that people might only consider future prediction as prophecy, but it is still erroneous to do so.



* This is true by the way,

 Ketara wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Simple. To illustrate that atheism actually is a faith, contrary to what some posters in this thread have argued.

It certainly is using that argument, but the logical conclusion for the general application of that philosophical argument is solipsism at worst, and a very limited mashing of Descartes and Wittgenstein at best (you know you exist as a consciousness for the duration of a thought period and at least one other consciousness must exist with which you share a common world).

And there is nothing wrong with solipsism.

 Ketara wrote:
Naturally though, such a definition of 'faith' is worthless for any discussion beyond the most abtruse of philosophical arguments. If someone asks where the bus stop is or what you think of cybernetics as a moral question, responding with 'none of us can know anything' rarely gets the conversation very far. Likewise, when someone says 'This proof you have that God exists is faith based', responding with 'well, all empirical data is faith based', whilst not technically incorrect, is not very helpful.

But wouldn't you agree that the question "Is atheism a faith or a lack of faith?" is in fact a very abtruse philosophical question?
I agree with you in the examples you give, but the questions in the examples you give are not comparable to the question at hand.

 Orlanth wrote:

"Arthur C Clarke in the early 1970's predicted the information age, and believed that a computer terminal would e in most homes and people would do their shopping on them." *
"Wow he had a prophetic insight into technology.",

Sorry, did you just post an example of someone predicting the future as evidence that prophecy isn't just about predicting the future...?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And there is nothing wrong with solipsism.

There's plenty wrong with it. It's a dead-end position. It doesn't help at all in understanding anything, it's just an excuse to stop thinking about a subject because none of it matters. And it very often turns into absurd "both sides are just as bad" arguments where the solipsist's pet fringe theories are just as valid as the mainstream consensus, because if we can't know anything then how can you say that they're wrong?

 insaniak wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

"Arthur C Clarke in the early 1970's predicted the information age, and believed that a computer terminal would e in most homes and people would do their shopping on them." *
"Wow he had a prophetic insight into technology.",

Sorry, did you just post an example of someone predicting the future as evidence that prophecy isn't just about predicting the future...?

No. As example of where secular use of the term begins and ends.
So some people erroneously think that is all the word 'prophecy' can mean,
Solely because theology is not a widespread study.

When you go back to its original usage, which should always remain fair use of the term, it means so much more.

Prophecy doesn't just mean 'predicting the future', because the original religious/spiritualist definition is more widespread and still relevant within some communities today.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And there is nothing wrong with solipsism.

Except the fact it's a dead end in a conversation. It shuts down all further debate on everything, forever, once you apply that line of argument.

 Ketara wrote:

But wouldn't you agree that the question "Is atheism a faith or a lack of faith?" is in fact a very abtruse philosophical question?
I agree with you in the examples you give, but the questions in the examples you give are not comparable to the question at hand.

It depends. In two words.

Orlanth: I had to insert some quote marks around what I know I wrote in order to quote you, so I hope I quoted you correctly.

 Orlanth wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

In addtion, IIRC: We started talking about proof, evidence, and the existence of the Christian God in an effort to see if we could justify his actions.

Now, you (Orlanth) have failed to convince a relatively small group of strangers on the Internet as to the existence of the Christian God and thus Daemonic Possession.

Of course I will fail to convince you, your chosen religious beliefs are opposed.

I have no religious beliefs. I am Agnostic - something that I have mentioned on several occasions. This position is not a set of religious beliefs and nor is a a position which is opposed to your Christian standpoint.

Orlanth wrote:A prophesy coming true two and a half millenia after the events is unique in history, as secular predictions are ineffective beyond a few days due to chaos, and the logic is shown with related passages to back them up..

A Prophecy the validity of which has been hotly contested on this thread alone does very little to support you. Try again.

Orlanth wrote:I could repeat evidence of people raised from the dead, in one case a man who had enough toxins in him to ensure his death, he was stung over eighty times by box jellyfish. He came back in the hospital morgue, and he had been brain dead long enough to guarantee by medical science that he would be a complete cabbage.

What do I see in this example? A completely unexplained medical outlier. I'm not seeing how this is proof of God existing.

Orlanth wrote:I met this man, Ian McCormick back in '96. He died, met God and was sent back, Whole.

A story that contains very little detail (how convenient for you) that sounds very much like a simple NDE which was interpreted as a religious experience. Again, I'm not seeing how this is proof of God existing.

Orlanth wrote:Of course, what do I get. Excuses...

Of course. You're making some pretty big leaps of faith by connecting those two unexplainable events to God.

Orlanth wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

I feel that this is more than enough evidence to demonstrate that somebody who is supposed to be a medical professional most certainly can't use it as a basis for professional diagnoses.

It is not necessary for me to convince you of what you will not accept, in order for it to be morally reprehensible to persecute a man for having a different opinion to your own.

Again, you seem to be very much confused as to what exactly I (and a number of others) are criticising. I am not criticising him no the basis of him having a difference of opinion. I am criticising based on malpractice - that is not difference of opinion

Orlanth wrote:You don't even have the basic moral integrity to check if indeed Dr Gallagher does actually does diagnose demonic possession.

I'd be very careful when questioning anyone's morality if I were you. It's a thin line between than and absolutely uncalled-for insults.

Also, him sitting in on exorcisms shows that he has failed to diagnose them with properly and also failed to recommend another doctor or medical body that has the capability to diagnose them properly. Combine that with the fact that he is voluntarily sitting in on and observing these exorcisms without insisting that the patient be properly diagnosed and that becomes synonymous with him diagnosing them with being possessed by a daemon.

Logical deduction, not lack of moral integrity. Be very careful what you accuse me of, Orlanth.

And let's assume for a moment that my logical deduction is wrong and Dr. Gallagher is right. His work still needs a lot more corroboration before mainstream medicine and the general public accept it as truth. Until Daemons, their ability to possess people, and Daemonic possession are all proven to be real, all his claims with be are "Based on my very extensive observational experience and my faith, I believe that Daemons and Daemonic Possession is real."

Orlanth wrote:Despite this being pointed out to you you still defend calling for his head. Shame on you.

You have not only completely failed to convince me of the truth of Dr. Gallagher's claims, you are now trying to shame me because I have said that he should no longer have a career in medical psychiatry (based on a very reasonable basis, mind you). Not only that, you've also tried to shame me for not having much (if any) moral integrity. I'd say that you're right at the tipping point between calling me out on things you disagree with and downright insulting me. Be very careful, Orlanth.


Also, you seem to have conveniently ignored the following:

Ketara wrote:I have a question for you, Orlanth.

What proof would you accept that would cause you to believe that God (of classical theism) does not exist?

It also (to my mind) raises a converse question:

If you were a non-Christian, would you honestly accept the evidence you're presenting to us?


You also seem to have conveniently ignored a lot of other content, but we can cross those bridges once we've crossed this one.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Irrelevant. The question as to whether atheism constitutes a faith or not is philosophical, not scientific in nature.

Something isn't irrelevant just because it points out the absurdity of saying a scientific position isn't scientific in nature (granting that not all atheism is reached via science).

There is no faith innately required to be an atheist. Someday maybe that line will die, because it's annoying dealing with it constantly.

This is not a logically coherent argument.

And "Deciding that God doesn't exist through scientific inquiry = faith based reasoning" is? Come on.

Wanting something to be true really badly doesn't make it true. Atheism isn't a faith decision. It inherently can't be what it rejects.

 Orlanth wrote:


However the presence of a colloquial meaning doesn't invalidate the original meaning.

No, but it does create a new ones. That's how language works.

 Orlanth wrote:

It is understandable that people might only consider future prediction as prophecy, but it is still erroneous to do so.

Why is prediction not prophecy?

 IllumiNini wrote:

I have no religious beliefs. I am Agnostic - something that I have mentioned on several occasions. This position is not a set of religious beliefs and nor is a a position which is opposed to your Christian standpoint.

Those are religious beliefs.
People who don;t believe in God want to be called as not having religious beliefs so that when the problems of the worlds religious beliefs are criticised they can claim to e above or immune. However history shows us the atheistic politics is as dangerous and as bloody as the politics attached to any religion.

 IllumiNini wrote:

Orlanth wrote:A prophesy coming true two and a half millenia after the events is unique in history, as secular predictions are ineffective beyond a few days due to chaos, and the logic is shown with related passages to back them up..

A Prophecy the validity of which has been hotly contested on this thread alone does very little to support you. Try again.

No I have no need to try again. It is hotly contested because it challenges some peoples faith in having no God.

 IllumiNini wrote:

Orlanth wrote:I could repeat evidence of people raised from the dead, in one case a man who had enough toxins in him to ensure his death, he was stung over eighty times by box jellyfish. He came back in the hospital morgue, and he had been brain dead long enough to guarantee by medical science that he would be a complete cabbage.

What do I see in this example? A completely unexplained medical outlier. I'm not seeing how this is proof of God existing..

Well it is impossible under medical science to be brain dead that long at normal temperatures and return with faculties intact. there s a lot of medicine behind that, brain cells decay very rapidly when there is no oxygen to feed them.

 IllumiNini wrote:

Orlanth wrote:I met this man, Ian McCormick back in '96. He died, met God and was sent back, Whole.

A story that contains very little detail (how convenient for you) that sounds very much like a simple NDE which was interpreted as a religious experience. Again, I'm not seeing how this is proof of God existing..

I have mentioned him before in greater detail. The miracles got handwaved away then, I don't think it will be different now.
The animal was identified. The box jellyfish is one of the most toxic animal on the planet, McCormick was not wearing protection and was clearly stung, He received what was likely to be a very high does from the number of stings. He was also dead long enough to ensure brain cell decay from lack of oxygen yet was raised after meeting Jesus with no ill effects, including any residual poison, which should still have killed him.

 IllumiNini wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Of course, what do I get. Excuses...

Of course. You're making some pretty big leaps of faith by connecting those two unexplainable events to God..

Well McCormick did meet God. And the prophecies of the return of Israel were directed by God.

 IllumiNini wrote:

Again, you seem to be very much confused as to what exactly I (and a number of others) are criticising. I am not criticising him no the basis of him having a difference of opinion. I am criticising based on malpractice - that is not difference of opinion.

It is a difference of opinion, because your claim of malpractice is entirely your opinion. You have not explained why Dr Gallagher should be accused of malpractice, which is odd for a 'prsecution' case. You have not attempted to refute any comment made in his defence, even though that related directly to the public domain articles.
You have not even once addressed the source material.
All you have to go on is that he expressed a belief that exorcism as real, and for that you wish to persecute him.

 IllumiNini wrote:

Orlanth wrote:You don't even have the basic moral integrity to check if indeed Dr Gallagher does actually does diagnose demonic possession.

I'd be very careful when questioning anyone's morality if I were you. It's a thin line between than and absolutely uncalled-for insults.

I have been exceptionally careful. I have made reference to the facts regarding Dr Gallagher and his work. I have advised you and others that if you want to condemn him you need to explain why.
You cannot say, its malpractice because it is malpractice. You have to have a reason, and so far you have given none that fits the documented evidence.

Even when this is presented to you you persist in the belief he should be condemned, which at this point is nothing more than religious persecution. I am sorry, but religious persecution is not acceptable, and should be exposed.

Had you posted reasons to condemn Dr Gallagher that fit the public record, that took into account his testimony of what he has been doing, rather than guesses at what he is doing, then I would not accuse you of lacking moral integrity.

It is important in the west that we do not forget our essential rights. Condemnation without evidence is something civilised society has found reprehensible for centuries, and is considered a sign of dicrimination, percecution and bigotry. You really dont want to go there.

 IllumiNini wrote:

Also, him sitting in on exorcisms shows that he has failed to diagnose them with properly and also failed to recommend another doctor or medical body that has the capability to diagnose them properly.

No. First he sits on exorcisms to observe them. Second he does diagnose many patients as mentally ill and has commented that they didn't need an exorcist as a result. He also claimed that some cases, went beyond that explainable by psychiatric medicine.
That is not to say he didn't diagnose them properly, that is not to say that someone else necessarily could, and he is not mandated to come to the conclusion that possession was impossible at any stage.

Your comment relies on the dogma that a supernatural cause of someones ills is a flat impossibility,this is fine as a person belief, but you impose that on others. You demand, without any case evidence, that if Dr Gallagher cannot identify a case as being mentally ill and can see patterns of an exorcists work that coincide with the symptoms and can possibly help; then he is de facto wrong.
First are you a psychiatrist with briefing on Dr Gallaghers case notes? Second are you a theologian of any stripe? Third, do you have moral authority to demand primacy over the opinions of a) the patient and b) the exorcists.

I expect the answer is no. If it is you have no business to consider your assumptions have priority over anyone elses. Thus they are no of themselves grounds for clam of malpractice.

 IllumiNini wrote:

Combine that with the fact that he is voluntarily sitting in on and observing these exorcisms without insisting that the patient be properly diagnosed and that becomes synonymous with him diagnosing them with being possessed by a daemon.

You really really should read the article. As Dr Gallagher has himself aid he has diagnosed the majority of cases as mentally ill. It means that he performs a diagnosis or this logically could not have happened.

 IllumiNini wrote:

Logical deduction, not lack of moral integrity. Be very careful what you accuse me of, Orlanth.

Your 'logical deduction' is based on not understanding the article or rejecting what Dr Gallagher actually wrote. The article was analysed for your benefit and links were given so you could correct your error.
You have no obligation to agree with Dr Gallagher, but he is entitled to a fair defense if he is to be condemned. You have defended calls for him to have his career terminated without any such defence. I can say this is true because a defense to your accusations is included in the same article you use to condemn him, and your condemnation doesn't fit the facts of what he does. Nor does it take into account that if he did what you claimed he did, he would have been held to account by the university to which he reports to with his findings.

 IllumiNini wrote:

And let's assume for a moment that my logical deduction is wrong and Dr. Gallagher is right. His work still needs a lot more corroboration before mainstream medicine and the general public accept it as truth. Until Daemons, their ability to possess people, and Daemonic possession are all proven to be real, all his claims with be are "Based on my very extensive observational experience and my faith, I believe that Daemons and Daemonic Possession is real."

I have no argument with that end statement, and it is a far assessment of what Dr Gallagher is saying.
However even without corroboration a fair point is that possession may be true, but is yet unproven. It doesn't mean is false.

 IllumiNini wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Despite this being pointed out to you you still defend calling for his head. Shame on you.

You have not only completely failed to convince me of the truth of Dr. Gallagher's claims, you are now trying to shame me because I have said that he should no longer have a career in medical psychiatry (based on a very reasonable basis, mind you). Not only that, you've also tried to shame me for not having much (if any) moral integrity. I'd say that you're right at the tipping point between calling me out on things you disagree with and downright insulting me. Be very careful, Orlanth.

It is unfortunate that you are offended. However you have been calling for public persecution, even if only on this thread, I am at right to call you out on that.

I need not convince you of Dr Gallagher's clams, and as you are agnostic, I expect you will remain that way regardless of what I say.
What I need convince you of is the need to read the article before condemning the man. Find out from his own wording what he has been doing with regards to observing exorcists, and recognising this is different from the excuses people want to kill his career for. It dosn't even require interpretation, the facts are face up in from of you in the article written in the OP.

 IllumiNini wrote:

Also, you seem to have conveniently ignored the following:
You also seem to have conveniently ignored a lot of other content, but we can cross those bridges once we've crossed this one.

So many people want a piece of me, I don't live on the forum.
Also not answering comments is not a 'convenience', that is rather loaded. Like you expect to find dishonesty and will assume it.
The thread has already had warnings on that point.

 IllumiNini wrote:

Ketara wrote:I have a question for you, Orlanth.

What proof would you accept that would cause you to believe that God (of classical theism) does not exist?

It also (to my mind) raises a converse question:

If you were a non-Christian, would you honestly accept the evidence you're presenting to us?

@Ketara - Ast this point because I have an active relationship with the Holy Spirit. I would need to be convinced that this was somehow faked. This would be rather difficult as God has a presence with me. God teaches me things, I have the corporate gift. I haven't just witnessed prophecy and tongues, I have participated, often many times in a single session and with an uncanny degree of accuracy.

Of course I have doubts, but I mostly doubt me not God. One when exasperated I approached a mentor and asked his I knew if I was hearing God. I was unsure a the time and unused to the phenomena. I told him that God just told me he was to open an orphanage in Egypt. I sounded so random. However this was very close to what God had indeed told him to do.
I have a reasonable grasp of statistics and as my experiences went beyond the realms of coincidence I grew in my faith and rust in God. I am not a brave man but I hope that if someone demanded I renounce my faith or die, I would refuse to do so. I believe in it that much, but I don't believe anyone should kill for it.

To answer our question it would be almost impossible for me to lose my faith. However had I just been a regular member of a dry church with none of the charismata and no evidence of the power of the living God; I might be an atheist by now. Christianity is pointless without the living God, with it is beyond value.

@Illumini - I wasn't born with my beliefs, nor were they inherited, nobody else in my family is anything more than nominally religious. There was a time before I was a Christian. I was willing to believe though, I did at some level believe in God, and already understood scripture from school in the 70's. But I wasn't interested in church or anything because it did not as far as I could tell relate to the God of the scriptures, who talked to people and did things. In my teens accepted a Koran and Bagavad Gita with the intent of reading both and seeing if they were for me. I was doing my best t be open minded about spiritual issues. Some Moslem students tried hard to convert me, and even now if someone I meet wants to try and preach another faith I see them as trying to do me a favour from their point of view.
After seeing very little of merit in the very dry CoE I ignored organised religion. I first encountered the charismata via the gay underground church. I am not gay, but I had more in common with the local gay community than the churches, some gays are Christians and back then they were not very welcome. I accept that God is not welcoming of homosexuality, and frankly so did they. They justified their Christianity in the same way a heterosexual does, by grace of God, who always condemns 'fornication' no less than 'homosexual acts'. I already understood this from my own study of the Bible and was not alarmed at a gay underground church or discouraged from joining a Bible group. All I wanted was the real God, not hymns and droning sermons. It was there that I first encountered the Holy Spirit in worship. The gay underground church met in peoples homes, and had a better understanding of God than any CoE or RC church I had ever visited.
I was pointed in the direction of accredited charismatic churches I could attend and was able to make myself home in one. The church I chose ticked all the boxes, knew the supernatural God, never demanded money or preached the offering, had a very diverse congregation including many intelligent professional people and a wide mix of incomes and social classes. Decent place.

I think you can see from this that I sought out the supernatural God, and wasn't interested in anything less. Were I not Christian yet and offered some evidence of a living God I would want to explore the trail. Some scepticism is wise, I always watch out for anyone with crooked self serving doctrines, or is after money.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
snip

IOW: "You can't prove me wrong because I'm using the most general definition of a word possible, and because it is impossible to truly know if anything is real, therefore every thought/belief we have is an act of faith."

 Orlanth wrote:
Those are religious beliefs.
People who don;t believe in God want to be called as not having religious beliefs so that when the problems of the worlds religious beliefs are criticised they can claim to e above or immune. However history shows us the atheistic politics is as dangerous and as bloody as the politics attached to any religion.

Atheism is a religion in the same way that "bald" is a hair color. It's a position about things related to religion, but there are no atheist churches, no unifying atheist beliefs besides "I don't believe in god(s)", no atheist rituals, etc.

It is hotly contested because it challenges some peoples faith in having no God.

Not really. It's hotly contested because it's a "prophecy" interpreted only after everyone knew that May 14th 1948 was the date they needed to make the prophecy fit. Despite how simple the prophecy is (just add up the days) nobody in 1940 was predicting that date, and you have to resort to "god did it" handwaving to dismiss that problem.

Well it is impossible under medical science to be brain dead that long at normal temperatures and return with faculties intact. there s a lot of medicine behind that, brain cells decay very rapidly when there is no oxygen to feed them.

Could you provide a link to this case, from secular sources with details on exactly what happened, how the fact that he was "brain dead" was discovered, etc? There is a whole lot of medicine behind the fact that brain cells decay with no oxygen, but that doesn't rule out things like "brain dead" being reported inaccurately. Nor does a quick search for this information look very impressive, as it seems to be another story that is only endorsed by explicitly Christian sources.

He received what was likely to be a very high does from the number of stings.

Key word: LIKELY to be a very high dose. Let's say there's a 99% fatality rate with that kind of sting. That still leaves one survivor every ~100 stings, simply by chance alone. This is why proof of medical "miracles" needs to be in the form of controlled trials, not occasional anecdotes. It's very easy to take the occasional lucky survivor and interpret it as "god did it". It's much harder to demonstrate a consistent record of divine intervention being successful at a higher rate than secular medical treatment.

Well McCormick did meet God.

Important question here: do you consider the near-death experiences by people who claim to have met non-Christian gods to be proof of those gods? If not, why do you consider the same experience to be proof of your god?

Your comment relies on the dogma that a supernatural cause of someones ills is a flat impossibility,this is fine as a person belief, but you impose that on others.

No, it relies on the fact that supernatural causes of ills are unproven speculation at best. The evidence for them is somewhere between "unconvincing garbage" and "nonexistent". Until supernatural causes are demonstrated in controlled trials (the standard of evidence used by everything else in medicine) considering them in "treatment" is quackery, nothing more. And endorsing quackery is a pretty big red flag about a doctor's professional credentials.

So many people want a piece of me, I don't live on the forum.
Also not answering comments is not a 'convenience', that is rather loaded. Like you expect to find dishonesty and will assume it.

Alright, I'll assume that you're an honest person. Please admit defeat on your claim that historians refused to accept the bible as a historical source prior to Rohl forcing them to acknowledge it, based on the indisputable fact that one of Rohl's most prominent critics (and a mainstream historian) is a devout Christian who explicitly endorses the use of the bible as a historical source. Since you are an honest person with a busy schedule this failure to acknowledge this defeat was clearly a mistake, and you should have no problem correcting the omission.

 Orlanth wrote:

People who don;t believe in God want to be called as not having religious beliefs so that when the problems of the worlds religious beliefs are criticised they can claim to e above or immune.

Speaking as a person who doesn't believe in God, I want to be called as not having religious beliefs because I don't have religious beliefs.

Nothing at all to do with wanting to feel superior to anyone else.

Well it is impossible under medical science to be brain dead that long at normal temperatures and return with faculties intact. there s a lot of medicine behind that, brain cells decay very rapidly when there is no oxygen to feed them.

Which proves that something unexpected happens.

How do you get from that to 'God did it'?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
..., but there are no atheist churches,

Not actually true.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
..., but there are no atheist churches,

Not actually true.

Well, not technically true. There are a small number of atheist "churches", but they're pretty rare and not very popular.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Irrelevant. The question as to whether atheism constitutes a faith or not is philosophical, not scientific in nature.

Something isn't irrelevant just because it points out the absurdity of saying a scientific position isn't scientific in nature (granting that not all atheism is reached via science).

There is no faith innately required to be an atheist. Someday maybe that line will die, because it's annoying dealing with it constantly.

There is nothing scientific about atheism. Atheism deals with unprovable claims and is therefore inherently unscientific. In the scientific method, unprovable claims should not be neither accepted nor rejected, because they are unprovable either way. In fact, they should not even be considered in any way at all, as such would be a waste of time. Therefore, anything that makes a statement about an unprovable claim, such as atheism does, is unscientific.
The only religious position reachable through the scientific method is agnosticism: "We can't possibly know the answer and therefore we shouldn't care."

 LordofHats wrote:

This is not a logically coherent argument.

And "Deciding that God doesn't exist through scientific inquiry = faith based reasoning" is? Come on.

Wanting something to be true really badly doesn't make it true. Atheism isn't a faith decision. It inherently can't be what it rejects.

I don't think I am really following you anymore. Firstly, existance or non-existance of a deity is unprovable through scientific inquiry, as it is by definition an unprovable claim. Science does not occupy itself with unprovable claims, as all unprovable claims are inherently unscientific and contribute nothing to our understanding of the world as we can perceive it.
Secondly, something can most definitely be that what it rejects. In politics for example, such is really common. After all, he who fights monsters should beware of not becoming one himself.
Atheists are convinced of the non-existance of a deity. They have no way of knowing whether this idea is true or false. An idea that is not proveable, but that you are nonetheless convinced of is true, is a belief. Believing in an idea means having faith in the truthfullness of that idea. Ergo, atheism is faith.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And there is nothing wrong with solipsism.

Except the fact it's a dead end in a conversation. It shuts down all further debate on everything, forever, once you apply that line of argument.

Solipsism is not at all a dead end. In fact, it often serves as the beginning of a philosophical theory or argument. It is a perfectly valid and logical philosophical position.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't think I am really following you anymore. Firstly, existance or non-existance of a deity is unprovable through scientific inquiry, as it is by definition an unprovable claim.

This is not true at all. The existence of a deity is something that could in theory be proved. For example, notice how Orlanth makes claims about provable things over and over again: miracle healing, the reasonableness of belief in demons and exorcism as a cure, speaking in tongues, etc. What is actually true is that the existence of a deity hasn't been proven. That's because the arguments in favor of the existence of a deity have all failed badly, not because the concept is somehow immune to discussions of proof.

Solipsism is not at all a dead end. In fact, it often serves as the beginning of a philosophical theory or argument. It is a perfectly valid and logical philosophical position.

It absolutely is a dead end because once you say "we can't know anything" there's no further discussion to be had. Any attempt to argue that a position is right or wrong can be met with "you can't prove that", and no conclusion can ever be reached. It's an eternal hell of agreeing to disagree.

And of course the inescapable truth here is that nobody is actually a solipsist in everyday life. If I ask you what you had for breakfast this morning you don't respond with "I don't know, I can't prove anything about the external world". You don't remain agnostic about the claim that Peregrine is the one true god and you should give Peregrine all of your money or be tortured in hell for eternity (if you disagree, I take paypal). You look at the evidence and come to solid conclusions on those positions, and you don't waste any time on "but you can't be 100% sure, only 99.9999999999999999%". There is no reason to treat religion any differently. We should apply the same standards for proof that we use with other "{thing} exists" claims, ignore any "you can't prove beyond any possible 0.000000000000001% doubt" arguments, and accept that "we're pretty sure about this" is close enough. And once we do that we have to conclude that there is no credible evidence for the existence of any god(s), therefore atheism is the only reasonable conclusion.

 Peregrine wrote:

Solipsism is not at all a dead end. In fact, it often serves as the beginning of a philosophical theory or argument. It is a perfectly valid and logical philosophical position.

It absolutely is a dead end because once you say "we can't know anything" there's no further discussion to be had. Any attempt to argue that a position is right or wrong can be met with "you can't prove that", and no conclusion can ever be reached. It's an eternal hell of agreeing to disagree.

And of course the inescapable truth here is that nobody is actually a solipsist in everyday life. If I ask you what you had for breakfast this morning you don't respond with "I don't know, I can't prove anything about the external world". You don't remain agnostic about the claim that Peregrine is the one true god and you should give Peregrine all of your money or be tortured in hell for eternity (if you disagree, I take paypal). You look at the evidence and come to solid conclusions on those positions, and you don't waste any time on "but you can't be 100% sure, only 99.9999999999999999%". There is no reason to treat religion any differently. We should apply the same standards for proof that we use with other "{thing} exists" claims, ignore any "you can't prove beyond any possible 0.000000000000001% doubt" arguments, and accept that "we're pretty sure about this" is close enough. And once we do that we have to conclude that there is no credible evidence for the existence of any god(s), therefore atheism is the only reasonable conclusion.

Iron_Captain is essentially correct in saying that atheism is a faith, in that it is, in the end, nothing more than a propositional attitude, dependent on a specific proposition, which can always be considered a beleif statement. But honestly, that means less than nothing. Its the kind of philosophical trivia that should only bring a smirk once to anyone. It is nothing to exploit, and nothing that atheists should even bother defending against. It just restates the rules of any language game.

If Iron_Captain goes further and wishes to advance that epistemological solipsism should detract atheists from their conviction, then that is a claim he won't be able to back for long. Truth-value depreciation in an epistemological network does not equally distribute. Relative confidence in many positive propositions can justify an absolute confidence in a negative claim. There is nothing unstable about that given a few basic assumptions about the relevancy of propositions.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Solipsism is not at all a dead end. In fact, it often serves as the beginning of a philosophical theory or argument. It is a perfectly valid and logical philosophical position.

It's a dead end in that unless you plan on breaking new rationalist philosophical ground, there's nothing more to say. Beyond a qualified form of Descartes and Wittgenstein (which I outlined above already), I don't believe any counter exists, and certainly no counter based upon empirical input. So there's no debate to be had beyond stating it. It can't be countered, it can't be argued with, and wraps things up more or less. All one can do, more or less, is acknowledge that the same flaw exists in whatever is being discussed as exists in practically every piece of empirical knowledge, and then backtrack to where the conversation was before it was brought up.

Whether it is a logical and valid position is nothing to do with how much it contributes to further discussion.

Orlanth wrote:@Ketara - Ast this point because I have an active relationship with the Holy Spirit. I would need to be convinced that this was somehow faked. This would be rather difficult as God has a presence with me. God teaches me things, I have the corporate gift. I haven't just witnessed prophecy and tongues, I have participated, often many times in a single session and with an uncanny degree of accuracy....
....I am not a brave man but I hope that if someone demanded I renounce my faith or die, I would refuse to do so. I believe in it that much, but I don't believe anyone should kill for it...To answer our question it would be almost impossible for me to lose my faith.

I see. So if a scientist were to say to you, 'You appear to be susceptible to certain types of magnetic waves that influence your brain in certain ways', and was capable of duplicating the phenomena via a 'God Helmet' or some equivalent, would you reject it? Feel free to replace the 'God helmet' with a medical professional doing an x-ray and detecting a nub of bone pressing on your brain or some other similar example/combination of potential causes if you like. It's the answer rather than the method I am interested in here.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Those are religious beliefs.
People who don;t believe in God want to be called as not having religious beliefs so that when the problems of the worlds religious beliefs are criticised they can claim to e above or immune. However history shows us the atheistic politics is as dangerous and as bloody as the politics attached to any religion.

Atheism is a religion in the same way that "bald" is a hair color. It's a position about things related to religion, but there are no atheist churches, no unifying atheist beliefs besides "I don't believe in god(s)", no atheist rituals, etc.

Atheism is a religious choice in the same way that bald is a hair style.

It has a doctrines, fanatics, unifying organisations, preachers, 'saints', a faith based eschatology of sorts - a world without faith in God; there is a form of low church, even ritual, both relating to the atheist state/party system, it is an official faith system for several regimes - all unpleasant ones,

It is hotly contested because it challenges some peoples faith in having no God.

 Peregrine wrote:

Not really. It's hotly contested because it's a "prophecy" interpreted only after everyone knew that May 14th 1948 was the date they needed to make the prophecy fit. Despite how simple the prophecy is (just add up the days) nobody in 1940 was predicting that date, and you have to resort to "god did it" handwaving to dismiss that problem.

Nothing was 'made to fit' it is a straight up calculation. It is also a straight up multiplier. If someone wanted to fit 1949 as the answer they would have needed to add a whole lot of junk because when you multiply a large number by seven you get gaps.

 Peregrine wrote:

Could you provide a link to this case, from secular sources with details on exactly what happened, how the fact that he was "brain dead" was discovered, etc? There is a whole lot of medicine behind the fact that brain cells decay with no oxygen, but that doesn't rule out things like "brain dead" being reported inaccurately.

Ian McCormack. Do a google on him. I have discussed him with you on another thread.

 Peregrine wrote:

Nor does a quick search for this information look very impressive, as it seems to be another story that is only endorsed by explicitly Christian sources.

A story of this kind is normally endorsed explicity by Christian sources is not indicative of a lack of authenticity. You have seen what happens when people in secular medicine say they believe in a story. Taking example Dr Gallagher and calls to end his career.

 Peregrine wrote:

He received what was likely to be a very high does from the number of stings.

Key word: LIKELY to be a very high dose. Let's say there's a 99% fatality rate with that kind of sting. That still leaves one survivor every ~100 stings, simply by chance alone. This is why proof of medical "miracles" needs to be in the form of controlled trials, not occasional anecdotes.

Controlled trials of box jellyfish stings?

 Peregrine wrote:

It's very easy to take the occasional lucky survivor and interpret it as "god did it". It's much harder to demonstrate a consistent record of divine intervention being successful at a higher rate than secular medical treatment.

Sure he can say God did it if he met God and was asked to go back.

What is the secular medical treatment for brain death?

 Peregrine wrote:

Well McCormick did meet God.

Important question here: do you consider the near-death experiences by people who claim to have met non-Christian gods to be proof of those gods? If not, why do you consider the same experience to be proof of your god?

Each case is its own. I cannot disprove Islam, I can only say it has incompatible teachings.

 Peregrine wrote:

No, it relies on the fact that supernatural causes of ills are unproven speculation at best. The evidence for them is somewhere between "unconvincing garbage" and "nonexistent".

It certainly exists and is heavily documented. It remains unproven because that is the way God wants it. It is flatly rejected by some because that is how they want it.

 Peregrine wrote:

Alright, I'll assume that you're an honest person. Please admit defeat on your claim that historians refused to accept the bible as a historical source prior to Rohl forcing them to acknowledge it, based on the indisputable fact that one of Rohl's most prominent critics (and a mainstream historian) is a devout Christian who explicitly endorses the use of the bible as a historical source. Since you are an honest person with a busy schedule this failure to acknowledge this defeat was clearly a mistake, and you should have no problem correcting the omission.

Source please on your critic.

Also the old chronology long rejected the Biblical source for aligning the timeline, and resulted in the three hundred year dark age gap to make sense. Rohl and others showed that including the Bible as a historical source gave a more plausible timeline. It was not implied that Biblical archeology didn't occur in separation, but a rejection of the Bible was a factor as to why the old chronology persisted as long as it did. Rohl opened a door, there are several variants because ancient sources from across the middle east understandably do not all agree and there are gaps in the timeline.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 dogma wrote:
That does not change the colloquial meaning, as you have noted.

Which would mean something if Orlanth were using it colloquially. Even after he explained his meaning, which he didn't just make up but is a common understanding in Biblical studies, the thread was still on "that's not what prophecy is." Granting that Orlanth seems to bounce between the colloquially and the contextual as it suits his argument, my only intent was to point out "yes prophecy can mean something other than future prediction when talking about the Bible," because if the threads just going to continue burning to the ground in a self righteous display of Orlanth vs the World, it might as well be an educational burning to the ground

That is rather difficult point, as it makes sense to use colloquial definitions of words in these discussions. However that doesn't remove the contextual definition. However I am aware of this and when I use a term with unclear context I normally explain. My posts are thorough after all. You might not agree with my explanations, but it is vain to claim I dont articulate them. This is how this sub-discussion started. I explained the Biblical meaning of prophesy so that examples of Biblical prophesy could see identified. Then people turned around and claimed it cant be prophesy as it doesn't fit the single colloquial definition.
If I had indeed bounced between the colloquial and contextual without explanation you might not have noticed.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:


But atheism isn't a faith, it's a lack of belief. Saying that's faith is saying the same as not believing in invisible pink unicorns that live in your sock drawer don't exist requires faith. (yes yes, technically we can't know because of your inane philosophy argument)

Questions about "what can we really know" are worthy philosophical questions, but are fundamentally worthless to science as a field (science has already concluded "what can we really know", because it posits evidence outside of human perception reveals truth and that the evidence can be tested to confirm truth). Atheism often being a position reached by a strong confidence that scientific evidence points to a conclusion, the application of the argument is inane, but not the argument itself. It's just a pointless argument to make in this regard.

Yet atheists due to their strong confidence can insist that an opposed conclusion, that there is a God, must be entirely faith based and without evidence. That takes faith, and is a commonly experienced mantra.
It is a common excuse: 'there is no evidence', really how would you know. Do you know all? There is no calculation or equation which comes up with the solution God = 0, so there is no scientific premise to dismiss evidence as it emerges, and some of the evidence is quite profound.
Atheists may certainly choose not to believe it, but that is different from handwaving it all away and dismissing it all as nonsense. Many do, which takes faith, and many of those who do, do so with fervour. Which has never been a scientific principle to apply to a field that hasn't provided proofs.

It is more than possible to understand the same dataset of evidence of how the world works and conclude that God is good. One can have a decent grasp of evolution, cosmology, a social history of the ills of organised religion, and psychology and still believe in God. Some can even end up beleiving in God after being exposed to all that science first. Religious people are not excluded from contribution to science, outside of some very ugly atheist states.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
In the scientific method, unprovable claims should not be neither accepted nor rejected, because they are unprovable either way.

In science anything that can't be proven either in the positive or the negative is assumed false. This entire nonsense argument stems from a bunch of talk circuit knitwits who fundamentally abuse Argument from Ignorance with regards to Russel's Teapot. The Teapot was never about what is or is not true, but the absurdity of proclaiming a position and demanding to be proven wrong. The Tea Pot was pointing out that Faith based reasoning innately violates the Burden of Proof principle in scientific inquiry, and science has no business indulging the position. Russel wasn't even the first person to postulate the absurdity in an analogy;

Some people speak as if we were not justified in rejecting a theological doctrine unless we can prove it false. But the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter.... If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed? Some minds would be prepared to accept it, if it were reiterated often enough, through the potent force of suggestion. ~ J.B. Bury 1914

The only religious position reachable through the scientific method is agnosticism: "We can't possibly know the answer and therefore we shouldn't care."

That's a rather narrow band of agnostic. There are agnostics who think there is a god, but that whoever it is doesn't matter/we can't know. Agnosticism isn't a position innately of "we can't know", it's a position of "it doesn't matter on way or the other," hence the terms agnostic theism and agnostic atheism.

Science does not occupy itself with unprovable claims,

Academia occupies itself with unprovable claims all the time; ancient aliens, antivaxers, "cigarettes don't cause cancer," atheism is a faith decision, etc. It's all nonsense, but people keep repeating it so science has to keep dealing with it if it wants to be relevant to people's lives.

as all unprovable claims are inherently unscientific and contribute nothing to our understanding of the world as we can perceive it.

As opposed to postulating that nothing can be known to be true therefore everything is faith based? No wonder you're not following

Secondly, something can most definitely be that what it rejects.

If the entire basis of a position is "rejection of faith based reasoning, beliefs, and considerations," then no it can't. Pointing out that politics is full of hypocrisy is a terrible example. At best, you might be able to suggest that there are atheists who believe in all kinds of things based in faith (luck, superstitions, etc), which would make them hypocrites maybe, but it wouldn't suddenly make atheism a faith decision.

After all, he who fights monsters should beware of not becoming one himself.

Shallow platitudes are just that.

Atheists are convinced of the non-existance of a deity.

As far as science is consumed, it is non-existant. Science does not postulate that something "maybe exists don't know maybe maybe not." It is either supported by evidence to be true, or it is not.