Non Scientific Evidence

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by CKava, Apr 22, 2006.

  1. Moony

    Moony Angry Womble

    I think this just typifies things for me this post. I might want a second opinion on this but it looks like you've mixed up subjective and objective evidence.

    hehe

    Wry's going to love this!

    Moony
     
  2. wrydolphin

    wrydolphin Pirates... yaarrrr Supporter

    lol- yep, mixed them up, in a complete turnaround you've said objective data is useless and subjective is the most reliable. :D
     
  3. Moony

    Moony Angry Womble

    Poops would get on great with your average Creationist then.....

    Moony
     
  4. snailfist

    snailfist Valued Member

    I think a lot of people who claim to have seen God have had near-death experiences (or claim to have done... :eek: ) so seeing God wouldn't have killed them, as they were biologically dead at the time :D
    There's almost certainly some nutters amongst them, but one or two interesting cases as well- people monitored to have zero brain activity whilst on the operating table and the like.
    Religion isn't really something you can logically subject to scientific analysis.
    Any power responsible for creating our universe couldn't be subject to its laws. The only pertinent questions you can ask are:
    • Is it logically coherent?
    • How do its scriptures compare with scientific observation and historical evidence?
    • Does its philosophy speak to you?
     
  5. Poop-Loops

    Poop-Loops Banned Banned

    How in the hell did you two get that from my post!?!?!? :confused: :confused:

    I said objective evidence is a pain in the ass. That means you need to go out and do research. Not that it's inferior. You don't always have time to do research.

    Then I said subjective evidence is easier. Not better, just easier.

    Jesus Christ, why do people here always twist my posts? Seriously, is it really that hard to understand what I'm saying?
     
  6. wrydolphin

    wrydolphin Pirates... yaarrrr Supporter

    Then you might want to word things more carefully, it read more like you just messed up the typing more then anything else.
     
  7. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Highly Skilled Peeper Supporter

    Sometimes . . . yes. :eek:
     
  8. Moony

    Moony Angry Womble

    I got that from the evidence at hand, your post!

    As Wry said aim for a little more clarity in your postings. We can only go by what you write so if you write a load of drivel then expect to be critisied for it!!

    And your view on objective evidence being a pain is just a subjective view point. As someone that's used to dealing with the objective i don't have any problems dealing with it at all. In fact in a number of ways my subjective view point is that it's easier to deal with objective stuff as it's a case of black and white a modest portion of the time.

    It's the subjective parts that can be a pain, because if your dealing with an ethical argument you will find that it is somewhat of a mindfield of issues. It just depends if someone likes the challange of a nice friendly and informed debate.

    Moony
     
  9. snailfist

    snailfist Valued Member

    Friendly and informed... key words there from Moony!
    Give that womble a gold star :D
     
  10. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    Perhaps we could go back to where this thread came from?

    Everyone agrees that good science produces undeniable evidence (all disagreements on Creationism/Evolution is on what's good science).
    The strong theist says evidence of God is as undeniable and disbelief isn't justifiable.
    The strong atheist says that belief of God isn't justifiable, and usually puts this down to lack of scientific evidence.

    I think both positions are extreme.
    If there was undeniable evidence of God then we'd all believe in him.
    Some theists reckon that it's because people think life is simpler without a God to answer to so people try to ignore the truth, but that's a bit presumptuous.
    The strong atheist argument is a little trickier but I still think that it's wrong.
    Religion deals with areas that science hasn't gone and maybe can't go. The extreme atheist seems to want to pretend that anything science doesn't cover simply doesn't exist. I'd be surprised if the strongest atheists didn't have beliefs that this reasoning disallowed.

    So Loops, is your position that no one has reason to believe in God or are you just trying to point out that not everyone has reason?
     
  11. snailfist

    snailfist Valued Member

    Sorry, good science produces evidence of what exactly? I'd like to refine that a little if you don't mind Strafio.
    Scientific theories attempt to describe, qualitatively and preferably quantitatively, how the observable world works. Scientific experiments examine how the world actually works for comparision with the predictions of existing theories (so as to support or disprove them), or for the formulation of new ones.
     
  12. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    Yep. That seemed about right.
     
  13. Moony

    Moony Angry Womble

    Also good science doesn't go about trying to prove/disprove the existance of deities.

    If a god or gods are there then to prove thenm conclusivly you'd probably need to have a level of knowledge on a par with the, and even if we discover that sort of volume of science it would be a collective effort so wouldn't really count. And how on earth do you go about proving a negative??

    *peers at her gold star andwonders what weapon she could make of if*

    Moony
     
  14. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    No one tries to prove that there is no God, proving the negative.
    They basically say that there's no evidence to support a belief in God so it's as rational as believing in invisible fairies and monsters under the bed.

    So the question is, are you justified in believing in something that isn't a scientific fact?
     
  15. Moony

    Moony Angry Womble

    Yes.

    At the end of the day if someone as a personal befief in a deity it's up to them. So long as they can identify the difference between their subjective evidence and objective evidence.

    Moony
     
  16. tekkengod

    tekkengod the MAP MP

    no, i' might settle for divine evidence if he had the testicular fortitude to come down here. :)
     
  17. thepunisher

    thepunisher Banned Banned

    Since millions of ppl seem to do it, I guess that must be answered with a: YES ! but whether its a good thing is a different question as they are also many questioning this very belief. As tekkengod says, I will believe it the moment the something some of you call "god" presents itself to me in person.

    Christian
     
  18. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    Situation: People often don't think Poop Loops posts make sense.

    Possible Reasons:

    1. Because everyone else is incapable of understanding Poop Loops deep insightful posts. Poop Loops makes sensible posts and everyone else is to blame.
    2. Because Poop Loops doesn't post in a very sensical way or make particularly sensible points. Poop Loops needs to think about what he posts.

    No 1 would be true if the world revolved around Poop Loops or if he was of such stunning intellect that no one is capable of grasping his magnificient posts. No 2 is true. :D
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2006
  19. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    Then your one step away from being a born again Christian. Many born again Christians tell stories of how they were ardent disbelievers or just didn't care... then all of a sudden they have some sort of personal experience and boom, whammy their views change.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2006
  20. thepunisher

    thepunisher Banned Banned

    Yeah, you mean like GWB, right ? Keep dreaming CKava. I'm first thing never going to meet god and second, I'm not going to become a born again Christian. I know enough ppl that did and to be honest, thats scary enough of me to know about them.

    Christian
     

Share This Page