Where god fails, science succeeds

[cleanhippie]

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

1. And this photo is supposed to demonstrate what?

[Buzz Clik]

126. The title of the thread?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

131. How? Be specific

I wear glasses. It's much the same thing. I do not blame God for my nearsightedness.

[humblebum]

2. Any reason to slam religious belief. nt

[rrneck]

3. The technology is wonderful.

I especially like its elegant simplicity. But it's not a panacea.

Before anything can happen technologically, a lot has to happen emotionally. Technology can't really replace faith in something, whether it's God, ourselves, or the technology that allows someone to walk without legs.

You have to believe you can survive a life mutilated. You have to believe you can overcome the pain and difficulty of using the prosthetics. You have to believe.

There are those who profit from that most basic of human impulses. But that doesn't invalidate the value of faith. It could be that the only thing that can do that is having it and not acting on it.

[cleanhippie]

5. Faith in one's ability to overcome is one thing, faith in a supernatural entity is another.

"faith" has many different meanings, let's not conflate them. That's where the problem lies.

[rrneck]

6. One's ability to overcome may or may not be there,

that's why it takes faith. Until it's proven, its just as "make believe" as sky Santa. If believing in some supernatural being can get you up and going, well, OK. If you have to pay for access to that being or if someone wants to use It to garner power to themselves - that's fucked up.

Faith is just a free floating substance we project on the things and people around us constantly and spontaneously. It's about the least exclusive substance in the world. And we use it to fetishize things and people all the time. That's why you see "NRA" and "assault weapon" bantered about so much around here. They're not real - they're evil spells and talismans. And the facts and data used to respond to them are "NRA talking points", understood to be more evil spells.

Get rid of God? Nah. Replace him? At the drop of a hat?

[cleanhippie]

7. I do not disagree.

[rrneck]

8. Thanks. Same here. nt

[cbayer]

18. In fact, while I am sure he is grateful for the technology, he attributes much of his

success to God and his faith.

[rrneck]

19. I am, in the most technical sense possible,

an amputee. I cut off the tip of my left middle finger and a small portion of my left ring finger. Skillsaw 2, rrneck 0. I know for a fact that it hurts. A lot. Not when I did it, but as the fingers healed. It hurt all the way to my shoulder. The slightest touch made me want to kick a dog. Since then, the sensitivity in that finger is screwy. Everything just tingles. I can't imagine trying to learn to put weight on a wound left by the loss of a leg. Much less run on the damn thing. It takes something more than an enthusiasm for technology, whatever he wants to call it.

[cbayer]

20. I knew a kid in New Orleans who had an amputation due to cancer.

He got one a similar prosthesis and started competitive running. I was so impressed with his strength and drive.

Sorry about your hand. I have a friend who lost 4 fingers in an accident - down to the second knuckle. He plays guitar!

Amazing what some people can do.

[rrneck]

23. When I was in the ER I asked the doc if I would be able to play the guitar.

He said sure. I told him, "Great, I never could before." True story. I waited years to use that straight line.

[cbayer]

24. The question is, had the ER doctor heard it before. Hilarious!

[rrneck]

25. He just looked at me. It was a tough room.

But in admitting when they asked me if I wanted to be an organ donor I told them, "Sure, as long as you're not looking for fingers." That one went over better.

[rexcat]

4. Something that does not exist can't fail...

Some people think faith is a valid point but I think otherwise.

"Faith is believing in things without evidence and I personally don't do that because I am not an <self censored>."

[humblebum]

9. I guess that would depend on what one considers as evidence,

now wouldn't it?

[rexcat]

10. And what would you consider "evidence"?

[cleanhippie]

11. You need to have "other ways of knowing" abilities.

It's like a level up in Dungeons & Dragons or something.

[humblebum]

12. cleanhippie, is right. It does involve "other ways of knowing" - something

many atheists deny or haven't a clue. But subjective experiences, reason, evaluating others' religious experiences, and history are part of the mix.

When someone intimates that if one cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or physically touch something then it cannot exist or probably doesn't - I just shake my head.

I can appreciate if they base their beliefs or lack of them solely on empiricism or even rational empiricism, but such is not the case for many or most people, including myself, and I consider that form of thought far too restrictive. Fine and necessary for science - otherwise far too limited.

[cleanhippie]

13. !

[rexcat]

14. ?

I just don't subscribe to your way of thinking. Sorry but what you said makes absolutely no sense to me but I did get a good laugh out of it as did cleanhippie. Thanks for the chuckle!

[humblebum]

15. I expected nothing less, but

it's pretty common to see atheists displaying the attitude - "I don't understand it therefore it doesn't exist."

[rexcat]

21. You have it completely wrong...

If something is not understood we try to look for a rational explanation, unlike some.

[humblebum]

22. But the rationale employed in looking for your rational explanation is

purposely designed to field a very narrow set of probable answers. That's the difference.

[Confusious]

27. That it has a physical explanation is a narrow set?

Seems a better answer then "god did it." That answer doesn't really lead anywhere.

Doesn't explain the universe any better.

[humblebum]

28. I think you just validated my point. The statement "physical explanation" narrows

things down quite a bit when one is discussing intangible ideas, possibilities, and probabilities. If that is the limit that you apply to any explanation then your "reasoning" is indeed limited. I did not say good or bad. Just limited.

[Confusious]

29. Limited is usually bad

And it really doesn't narrow anything down.

One can speculate about a whole bunch of different things without actual evidence. Life on other planets for example. It's possible, and within the realm of science, but no one has ever seen it.


"If that is the limit that you apply to any explanation then your "reasoning" is indeed limited."

Well if it's real, then it has a physical explanation. otherwise you're treating things that are not real as if they are. Faith healing, prayer, Auras.

No evidence or proof of any of those things working, or existing. You can say they do, but really, I could get the same effect from a chocolate chip cookie.

Believing in those things doesn't give you a wider range of explanations, because they don't provide explanations. "god did it" isn't an explanation, it's a statement.

PS. "discussing intangible ideas, possibilities, and probabilities." Quantum theory is full of those sorts of things. We can't hold or touch an atom, but math says it's there. So does the atom bomb.

Anything else is just a flight of fantasy. You can't prove it, use it, or help people with it beyond a placebo effect.

[humblebum]

30. "otherwise you're treating things that are not real as if they are" - and

you can prove something is not real how? You seem to be stuck in that 'empiricism' and nothing else trap. With perhaps a dash of 'controlled rationalism' thrown in.

[Confusious]

101. I guess you could call it a trap

If you believed in faries and unicorns. They would be the only people upset by the sceintific method, 'empiricism' and 'controlled rationalism.'

You prove real by testing. If it's reproducible, then it's real. Most woo doesn't rise to the occasion. Faith healing, auras, homeopathy, goblins, ghosts, etc...

Basically, what you represent to me is a return to superstition. Superstition is what you can't prove through the scientific method, 'empiricism' and 'controlled rationalism.'

Superstition worked out so well before didn't it? Why not go back?

Ps. But of course your woo is the REAL woo, all the others are fake woo!

If you can't prove it, how do we know it's different then believing in witches, goblins or ghosts?

You don't believe in those things do you?

Maybe you only believe in witches and goblins, or goblins and ghosts or witches and ghosts.

But if you can't prove it, how are any of the three different?

Science, empirical evidence, and controlled rationalism has cured diseases which plagued mankind since we set foot on this earth, it's sent a man to the moon, a robot to mars, allowed me to live past 30.

Superstition, those things we can't prove through science, empirical evidence and controlled rationalism hasn't benefited us any where near as much. Maybe a few cool buildings.

I'll stick with science, empirical evidence and controlled rationalism over superstition.

[humblebum]

102. "You prove real by testing" - No, you can prove "your" reality by "your" tests.

That is the limitation of empiricism. You have no empirical way to prove nor disprove the reality of deity.

Something is not real or unreal just because you say it is. Pure opinion based upon very narrow methodology and epistemology.

[Confusious]

103. I thought we all lived in the same reality

Is yours different? Do you not eat, live in a house, go to work? Take medication when you're sick? Watch TV, or movies, or hell, work on a computer?)

If there is a deity, he sure has a way about him. He helps all the people personally with thier small things, but when he's REALLY REALLY needed, he skips town.

( he showed up on a piece of toast! Halaluja!)
(Well that didn't really help anyone during the holocaust did it?)

Sounds like a grifter to me.

Ps. Yea I know, all the good things are becuase of god, all the bad things are because of man. To my 'controlled realism' that sounds like bullshit.

[cbayer]

104. Do we all live in the same reality?

I'm not so sure.

Perception can alter events into different realities, IMO.

[Confusious]

105. Physical reality

My perception of being shot at can differ from yours.

When the bullet hits it all feels the same.

That's why the drugs make it feel all better.

[cbayer]

106. Sorry for jumping in here, but I found your statement intriguing.

I would suggest that people,s realities prior to the bullet hitting might be quite different.

Hence contradictory, but equally true, evidence at trials.

[Confusious]

107. Thats what I said nt

[cleanhippie]

132. Yes, we all live in the same reality.

While our perception of reality may differ, the reality is the same.

Something that humblebum just refuses to admit, is the fact that the only way any two people can agree on what reality really is, is through empirical observation and repeatable testing. Without that, it's merely perspective. And while being able to see things from anothers perspective to gain a better understanding if what that person perceives is an important skill, empirical evidence is the only way we can actually know, with any degree of certainty, what reality really is.

[humblebum]

108. It is easy for you to say what is "real" and what is not. And

yes those things are real for me to, but what proof do you have that such is the limitation of reality? you don't and you can't.

[Confusious]

109. No actually it wasn't easy

It took a 1000 years to get from the first piece of the scientific method to today.

That's how ingrained superstition was. The past 150 years has finally seen the benefits pay off, despite the efforts of the church and the superstitious.

Even though it's brought all these benefits, belief in superstitions, like magic, auras and faith healing still persist, despite 100 years of no evidence for them working at all. (more then a hundred. Any source I would find legitimate has no proof of any of these things working, ever)

The onerous is not on me to prove they exist, becuase I don't believe in them. The onerous is on YOU, because you do, and you want me to believe.

You don't believe in faries, goblins and witches, do you? Really?

[humblebum]

110. "The onerous is not on me to prove they exist" - no one said that it was, but as I have already said

believers cannot claim OBJECTIVE proof, even though some do. Knowledgeable theologians and believers do not.

As for the Scientific Method, the modern SM is based upon the method and epistemology of Logical Empiricism, and Logical Empiricism, by its own admission and structure automatically excludes any consideration concerning religion, metaphysics, a priori knowledge, intuition, etc.

Therefore, it does not have the capability of even attempting to evaluate, or to prove nor disprove anything that cannot be sensed, physically experienced, or observed. The result being of course that the Scientific Method, as it is applied to Science, is limited. And any attempt to use it other than for its designed purpose is illogical and foolish.

[Confusious]

111. Well you got that wrong

The atom, the proton, the neutron and the electron cannot be "sensed, physically experienced, or observed"

Many other subatomic particles cannot be "sensed, physically experienced, or observed." We can only infer they exist.

I guess you have other senses that allow you to experience things, since you seem to be inferring that by stating that "science is limited." if you have another sense, then surely it can be tested and proof can be had.

By any measure, religion, metaphysics, priori, intuition, all that is suppose to relate, in some way, to the physical world. (unless of course, you're just making chatty time with the spirit world) if it relates to the physical world, then it should be able to be measured by science.

As of this date, no one has found any proof those things exist, beyond people saying "I think it does."

Grifters all.

[humblebum]

112. You still don't seem to have a grip on what you are talking about.

"The atom, the proton, the neutron and the electron cannot be "sensed, physically experienced, or observed'" - no one said they could, BUT their effects and the data that support their existence certainly can be observed and experienced, proving indeed that they are physically real. induction, deduction, and testing.

Distant stars sometimes cannot be seen with the naked eye, but with the use of an instrument such as a telescope they can be observed. The telescope is mere an extension of vision.The methods of Logical Empiricism or the Scientific Method still apply and its limitations are still being observed.

"By any measure, religion, metaphysics, priori, intuition, all that is suppose to relate, in some way, to the physical world." Prove it.

[Confusious]

113. Oh brother

You specifically stated that a person can "sense, physically experience, or observe"

I gave you an example of something that cannot be. Inferring their existence is completely different then "sense, physically experience, or observe."

So, I guess I am the person who knows what he's talking about, and you are the person trying to weasel out of what you said.

Really, prove it? I think you're making a disegenous argument there, but ok.

Metaphysics - http://www.skepdic.com/metaphysics.html (not the woo you we're looking for?)
"What is there?"
"What is it like?"[3]
Two basic questions. Obviously physical.

Auras - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aura_(paranormal) Obivious

Intuition - obviously based on the physical world and physical experiences.

Spoon bending - obvious

Faith healing - obvious

Religion - obvious, miracles, physical world, what we do here has an obvious impact, at least that's what I was taught (sin - always physical)

Fortune telling - obvious

Horoscopes - obvious

Witches - love potions, curses, physical

[humblebum]

114. You are just kinda "out there" aren't you?

Um, yes " a person can "sense, physically experience, or observed" Yep, no doubt you can do all of those things, really you can. The burns caused by atomic radiation can definitely be experienced and observed.

As far as everything you referenced as "obvious" - prove it.

"Inferring their existence is completely different then "sense, physically experience, or observe." You are describing opposite ends of the SM. Inductive reasoning is used to form a hypothesis (I think you know that), then deductive reasoning is used to test the hypothesis (I think you know that too) - And then how do you test and prove or disprove your hypothesis (I know you know that one too)?

That's right! By physically observingwith your physical senses

I would suggest that you actually find out what indeed the Scientific Method entails, and I guarantee that you are NOT going to prove ANYTHING, OBJECTIVELY without the benefit of your physical senses. If you observe data, you probably use your eyes. If you want to prove a bear lives in the woods, you may not actually see the bear, but you certainly can see and identify fresh bear poop, and with your ears you hear the bear growl.

[Confusious]

115. Not even an obvious on spoon bending?

Fortune telling? Horoscopes? Auras? I thought all those would be, well, "obvious."

Guess science isn't the only one with a "limited" perception.

[humblebum]

116. When you use the term "obvious" - that is your SUBJECTIVE opinion. You still

haven't objectively proven such, in all cases. Just because something is "obvious" to you does not mean that it is "obvious" to everyone else. And that is particularly true of religious belief.

[Confusious]

117. If you can't even agree that a spoon is a physical object,

Then obviously, we're not going be able to agree, on anything.

It's not that reality is subjective, it's that you don't want it to be.

Like I said before, you represent superstition, not in any way a movement forward, but backward.

[humblebum]

118. Who said a spoon is not a physical object? You referred to "spoon bending." Not

quite the same things. You still don't have clue what you're talking about.

[Confusious]

119. Well then "spoon bending" is "action"

On a physical object, in the physical world. Woo woos set out to effect the physical world.

So there you go.

My other statements stand.

Ps. You're really twisting yourself into pretzels.

[humblebum]

122. You still do not have a clue what you are talking about. No one said that your so called

"woo woos" do not affect the physical world. Evaluating and assessing your "woo woos" is a different story.

What i said was that the Scientific Method, based on Logical Empiricism, does not allow the consideration of "woo woos." I have no doubt that there is and was a creator of the physical world, and that such still has an effect on events in the physical world. But the established SM does not recognize that which is not physical in nature.

So I can only assume that you are one of those who feels that if something cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched - physically sensed, then it cannot exist. Doesn't get much more narrow-minded than that.

Also, I do not think that "spoon bending" is considered to be anything supernatural in nature. You just simply implied that it was obvious that such could not happen when in reality that has never been objectively proven.
Your "woo woos" cover a whole lot more than is considered to be supernatural. But when you claim that so many things are "obvious" you are making solely a personal unsubstantiated subjective judgment.

[Confusious]

129. you said "prove it"

I did.

to remind you:
"By any measure, religion, metaphysics, priori, intuition, all that is suppose to relate, in some way, to the physical world." Prove it.

Your words "prove it". I gave you a list, you said it didn't prove anything. I included spoon bending in there. You said it was all subjective. Now you have a problem with the spoon bending.

And yes, spoon bending is suppose to be supernatural, as are horoscopes, fortune tellers, and everything thing else I listed. Look up Uri Geller. He did a lot of spoon bending and claimed it was due to supernatural powers.

A. Being open minded doesn't mean one has to be gullible and naive
B. People who claim to have "open minds" can be just as narrow minded as the next red neck, but in different ways.

"You still do not have a clue what you are talking about"

It's all subjective, isn't it? How would you know if everything is subjective. Not that your saying it makes it in any way true.

The "poster" doth protest too much, methinks.

[humblebum]

130. You still don't have a clue. Do you even have the least idea of what

Logical Empiricism entails? So now you are claiming that something supernatural is part of the natural world?
Now this is just a guess,(cough cough) but how would it then be considered supernatural if it was natural?

And using Uri Geller as an example of someone who clearly defines supernatural? Don't make me laugh.

However, James Randi definitely knows and uses the Scientific Method as it was meant to be used.

[Confusious]

134. sheesh. Do you even read?

You seemed to understand what I meant before, now you don't. Sure you're not getting dementia or something?

again:

"By any measure, religion, metaphysics, priori, intuition, all that is suppose to relate, in some way, to the physical world. "

Most people would UNDERSTAND that to mean "apply to," "relevant to," "bear upon," "concern," "have a bearing on," "have to do with," "pertain to," "refer to," "relate to," "touch," "effect," "associate."

Do you understand any of those?

What good is anything if it doesn't "relate to" human problems or human experiences? Religion is even more worthless if it doesn't relate to human experiences/problems. Some even think they have supernatural abilities to affect the physical world. Uri Geller, benny hinn, other charlatans (to god damn many to name).

Of course then there are also the other "new age" people (deepak chopra), who seem to think homeopathic medicine works, or in crystals, or in other nonsense, and try to wrap it in a "scientific" veneer. They're another category altogether.

[humblebum]

135. You are debating against the Scientific Method, not me. Even well-known

men of science like Stephen Hawking consider themselves to be logical positivists (logical empiricists) and apply those defined limitations to their work. If you want to add "God did it" to your criteria when forming a hypothesis, be my guest. But you will look like a fool.

[Confusious]

136. Figures

You missed the entire point or,
You aren't able to see the point.

Typical.

That's what I get for talking to a religionist. Talk about the narrow mind. thin as a needle.

[humblebum]

137. Well you would get the same reply from Hawking. And I don't think

he is exactly a religionist.

[Confusious]

138. Definitely dementia

for the third time:

"By any measure, religion, metaphysics, priori, intuition, all that is suppose to relate, in some way, to the physical world. "

Spoon bending. Psychic powers. paranormal. using those "paranormal powers" to effect the physical world, thus they can be tested?

don't you remember? this is what we've been discussing? (well, you've been having a discussion about the SM by yourself. Definitely dementia.)

Try your name. it might be easier.

[humblebum]

139. I should have guessed. Even your name is pretty close to confusion.

Try citing some sources. Then you might even gain a tiny bit of credibility, but as it is, not a chance.

[Shadowflash]

80. No.

It's that there is no proof or even evidence to suggest gods even exist.

[humblebum]

81. If one uses the very narrow epistemology designed specifically for application

to Science, then you are right. But ONLY then. No discerning believer or theologian claims OBJECTIVE proof of deity.

[Shadowflash]

88. There you go, then. You are correct.

You cannot claim Atheists don't believe in gods because they don't 'understand', it's because there is no evidence.

Easy-peasy.

[humblebum]

89. It is obvious to me that you do not have a clue. And I will

claim that some "Atheists don't believe in gods because they don't understand "

[Shadowflash]

90. If you find one

I'd like to see one.

[humblebum]

91. Take a look in the mirror. nt

[Shadowflash]

93. Ha!

That's all you have?

There are plenty of things I don't understand but are real. Quantum physics, molecular biology, woman, but these things are real.

Accusing people of not understanding god is the same as saying they don't understand Micky Mouse, unicorns or Spiderman. You cannot 'understand' fictional characters.

If you have any evidence to prove otherwise please put up or shut up.

[humblebum]

95. You just keep on proving my point. nt

[Shadowflash]

96. Sure. If you say so.

[humblebum]

99. And on and on and on...

[skepticscott]

31. You must never shake your head, then

Because EVERY time you've been asked to show some real, live person actually expressing the opinion that "if one cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or physically touch something then it cannot exist or probably doesn't", you fail miserably. You can't show that and you never will, because it's just another of your silly straw men. Everyone reading your schtick knows that, and you'll go through some more contortions here to avoid (again) a simple demonstration of your claim. Or you'll lie (again) and say you've already given that evidence many times and aren't going to bother doing it again. (just for the record, for those sensible people reading, he never has, and will refuse to link to evidence to the contrary, not surprisingly).

[humblebum]

33. You have never quite figured out the true meaning of empiricism, have you?

[humblebum]

34. And where have I ever made the claim that there was

some real, live person actually expressing the opinion that "if one cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or physically touch something then it cannot exist or probably doesn't?"

You seem to be the one perpetuating your lie. However, that is exactly what someone is thinking when they rely solely on empiricism as a measure of truth.

[skepticscott]

39. No that's YOUR dishonest projection onto other people

and your attempt to prop up your "other ways of knowing" If that is EXACTLY what all of these people relying solely on empiricism are thinking, why can't you show any of them saying it, or anything like it?

Show us anyone who is saying anything to the effect that empirical inquiry involves ONLY gathering sense data and nothing else. Or anything else remotely resembling your claim. Or do what you usually do..dodge, deflect and evade. (watch closely, class).

[humblebum]

57. It must be just me and the text books that have it wrong. They are

all about the same.

em·pir·i·cism? ?
noun
1.
empirical method or practice.
2.
Philosophy . the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience. Compare rationalism ( def. 2 ) .

Last I knew the senses involved seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching.

[Goblinmonger]

59. You know there are more than 5 senses right.

Science is pretty clear about that.

[humblebum]

60. I'm pretty sure we've been down this road before. But,

for the purposes of objective, empirical verification the five recognized external senses are recognized.

[Goblinmonger]

61. And you are saying this as a scientist

who works in an objective, empirical world? Or as someone who is railing against the objective, empirical world?

As an English teacher, I would not attempt to speak for what those working in the empirical world do on a daily basis.

[humblebum]

64. My sense of Déjà vu must be working overtime today. Or maybe

it is my sense of humor.

[Goblinmonger]

65. Yeah, we've had this conversation before

and you continue to disregard what really goes on in the world you rail against.

[humblebum]

66. As do you. Regardless the definition and process of empiricism remain the same. nt

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

74. Penn Jillette said essentially that

He wrote a piece, < a href=http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-16/opinion/jillette.atheist.libertarian_1_piers-morgan-friend-minimum-wage?_s=PM:OPINION>"I don't know, so I'm an atheist libertarian"</a> in which he says that he does not know if God exists, therefore he is an atheist. To me, that's a crap reason for atheism. It's an excellent reason for being an agnostic, but agnosticism and atheism are two different things.

Penn also said that he does not know what government should do to help the poor, therefore the government should do nothing. That's an equally crap argument.

[skepticscott]

77. Most self-identified "agnostics"

are atheists. They don't believe in any gods (hence, atheist), they don't conclusively deny that some type of god could exist, somewhere, but they are open to the possibility that evidence convincing them of such may someday come to light. In all those ways, they are no different than most self-identified atheists. They are just afraid of the label "atheist", so they've chosen one that they think makes them sound more rational and reasonable, and less likely to have people they say it to recoil with revulsion.

[humblebum]

92. Penn Jillette has also said "I know there is no God." nt

[Buzz Clik]

127. In the context of this thread, ...

... is there scientific evidence for the existence of God?

[humblebum]

128. If by "scientific evidence" you mean empirical, objective evidence, nowhere

does any exist. If any evidence is said to point to the existence of God, it can only be subjective in nature, e.g. intelligent design.

[patrice]

52. Only a God would be capable of the absolute conclusion you make. Not even Science engages in such

assumptions.

Why would you/anyone necessarily KNOW that a god, any god, exists or not, since, anything you assume about a god is other-than-rational.

The MOST that Science has to say about god is that it has no support for the god-hypothesis. All honest scientists KNOW that is not the same thing as what too many people refer to as "proof".

[rexcat]

55. What is your point?

I did not bring up "science." Religious views, either by atheists, agnostics, the religious, etc. are purely opinions but I will take the null hypothesis until concerning "god" until otherwise proven. I don't think I will be holding my breath on that one.

I am also not going to believe what bronze-age, superstitious people said over 2000 years ago. It is easy to make fantastic claims of everlasting life, healing the sick by placing hands on someone, etc. without proof. I for one need proof other than some ancient writings that were borrowed from a plethora of other older religious writings. As we say in science: "garbage in, garbage out."

[cbayer]

16. For the record, Pisotrius is a dedicated Christian

“God is the most important person in the world to me. If I’m on the right patch spiritually, it helps with everything else.”

He grew up in a Christian home, and accepted Christ as His savior “more or less before I could remember.”

Asked why he needs Christ in his life, he says: “Because He is the reason for my success and the one that takes me from strength to strength.

“Christ makes all the difference. He aids me in my struggles and makes my glories that much greater.”

http://www.webcitation.org/69faBKQ7L

[Goblinmonger]

17. "more or less before I could remember"

That sounds like a reasoned decision he made of his own accord.

He looks like a great guy from all I've seen and read.

[Starboard Tack]

26. Thanks for this post. It is a tribute to the human spirit.

Very refreshing. This guy is someone we all admire. I have no idea what god and science have to do with it, but the inspiration is wonderful.

[skepticscott]

32. Saying you have no idea

what science has to do with this is so incomprehensibly disingenuous as to be laughable. I know you just hate to give science credit for anything when you can't give equal credit to religion or "faith" (must run in the family), but have some sense, man...EVERYONE here can see through it.

[rexcat]

35. Science had everything to with it...

and a god or gods had nothing to do with it.

[cbayer]

36. Pistorius disagrees with you.

[cleanhippie]

38. Reality disagrees with him.

[rexcat]

40. And I suppose you spoke to him about this...

or are you making assumptions. Personally I have not heard anything from Pistorius. If you are speaking for him is that with his permission?

[cbayer]

41. See post 16

[rexcat]

42. You did not answer my questions.

[cbayer]

44. Take it up with Oscar, rexcat.

[rexcat]

46. See post 42...

You seem to be speaking for him.

Since he was born without the proper bone structure who is to blame for that? I would say genetic mishap but for the religious the blame squarely goes to their god or gods.

[cbayer]

47. No, he speaks for himself.

You could challenge him directly, I guess, but he's kind of busy right now, lol.

Go Pistorius!

[rexcat]

48. Strange, I have not seen any posts here from him...

I suppose he works in mysterious ways through you.

[cbayer]

49. Yeah, the reporter he spoke with probably just made those quotes up.

Give him a call. I am sure he would love to talk with you.

[rexcat]

50. My point...

which you seem to be missing, is he is not posting here and you are speaking for him. He might agree with you posts but we will never know. I am sure he is a nice person but I would rather have a conversation with someone more grounded to reality.

[cbayer]

51. I see now that you are actually serious. See you around the campfire,

or not.

[rexcat]

53. I have seen from you...

in the past getting irritated with posters, including me, who "speak" for others but when you do it and are challenged you bail out. Nice.

[cleanhippie]

70. Yep, just more blatant hypocrisy. It's to be expected.

[rexcat]

87. Of course I did not come out and say...

the poster was a hypocrite but just bring up the fact of a double-standard.

I have decided not make personal attacks per the advice of Heddi in A&A and what I posted to cbayer in the Religion Forum a week or two ago but I will challenge posts based on facts and logic. I am going the way of Heddi and Warpy as best I can.

[cbayer]

45. Dupe

[Starboard Tack]

37. Nor god nor science, but the amazing human spirit.

[rexcat]

43. I do believe that the prosthetics were....

made by human beings using the latest technology based on science.

[Starboard Tack]

56. So what. I'm sure the others' shoes were too.

I would hardly call his prostheses bionic. In fact they are very simple and organic. Obviously he couldn't have done it without the brilliant engineering and design, but the man's spirit and positivity is truly inspiring. You can dismiss that if it makes you feel better. We wouldn't want to ruin your day.

[rexcat]

85. Thanks for being snarky...

but I suppose that is the best you have.

I never called the prostheses bionic. Carbon fiber materials are organic in nature but that does not mean they are alive. Man's spirit does not have to have a religious tone but can be secular in nature. The gentleman's spirit is positive but not necessarily inspiring to all. I don't find religion or religious explanations inspiring but that is my opinion. If your opinion is that of a religious nature go for it but don't force it on others.

[demosincebirth]

54. ...and where does that "amazing human" spirit comes from?

[Starboard Tack]

58. It comes from within. Some call it heart, some call it soul. A place beyond the physical reality.

I am not religious nor do I believe in any deity, but I have a soul, which is that element we all possess that cannot be defined, analyzed, put under a microscope. But all of us are living proof of it's existence. There may be exceptions, but I think not. There are damaged tormented souls who scurry around in here from time to time looking for crumbs of cheese.

[skepticscott]

67. How wise and all-knowing you must be

to presume to know people's souls from the tiny, tiny piece of their life that's reflected here.

[Starboard Tack]

69. Even you, my friend, probably have a soul.

Denying the existence of something doesn't prove it's non-existence.
I don't know young Pistorius and I don't pretend to "know" his soul, but I know enough to see the beauty of it and the joy and inspiration he brings to others. I don't need to share his religious beliefs to be able to glimpse his soul.
Life doesn't have to be all about bitterness and resentment. I wish you well.

[cleanhippie]

72. "Life doesn't have to be all about bitterness and resentment. "

You are projecting again. The passive-aggressive spew is getting old.

[onager]

79. That's hilarious!

Because we don't all subscribe to Starboard Crack's Hallmark-Card-&-Woo-Bumper-Sticker philosophy, we must be bitter and resentful.

Some of the most bitter and resentful people I see in here seem to be the liberal Xians.

Their attitude: "Dammit, if ONLY the ignorant masses would just shut up and gratefully receive the revealed wisdom that we scraped off the Dalai Lama's sandals, those dumbass Fundie Xians would disappear and we could usher in a New Era of Peace and Brotherhood."

I'd write more, but it's a bee-yoo-ti-ful day in the neighborhood and I have puppies to kick.

[skepticscott]

76. No more than simply asserting

the existence of something proves its existence. Particularly when the thing you are asserting the existence of (a "soul&quot can be defined and understood in so many different ways.

Give us your concrete definition or definitions of "soul". Then we can talk about whether you've met your burden of evidence for asserting the existence of any of those things.

[rexcat]

86. I say that humans have no soul...

Last edited Sun Aug 12, 2012, 12:25 PM - Edit history (1)

but I can't prove a negative. It is up to those who think humans have a soul to prove it. Good luck with that one!

[Starboard Tack]

97. You may be the exception. I can't speak for everyone.

It's not up to anyone to prove or disprove. Do I need to prove to you that I have vision or hearing? No. Same as you have no need to prove that you have no soul or imagination. Some things don't need proof, they are apparent. You can listen to music without hearing it and you can look without seeing. You can hear a story like that of Pistorius without recognizing the man's spiritual strength. I do not share his religious faith or conviction, but neither do I dismiss it as irrelevant.

Religious faith, to many, is a tool (not a crutch), that they use to harness mind, body and soul, to build character, ethos and inner strength.

[rexcat]

120. Oh please...

[Starboard Tack]

123. Begging doesn't really help. Sorry.

[rexcat]

125. I don't see where I begged...

but could be delusional issue your part?

[demosincebirth]

68. I never mentioned religion, but reading your post you sound more like a spiritual person

Peace.

[cleanhippie]

71. "But all of us are living proof of it's existence."

There are damaged tormented souls who scurry around in here from time to time looking for crumbs of cheese.

Oh, and your passive-aggressive nonsense is back at full strength, I see.

[Starboard Tack]

73. Hello, little scurrier. Even you, yes you, have a soul.

Soul is like talent, we don't all realize we have it and some of us never discover it. Some have a hard time appreciating life. There are many with souls so dark and dismal that they dwell on the negative and others like Pistorius who are shining lights.
Have a bright and glorious day, my friend.

[cleanhippie]

75. And good morning to you, passive-aggressive pontificator.

It must be nice to have it all figured out. What's it like to feel so superior to everyone you despise?

I want you to also have a really, really, great day.

[skepticscott]

78. You know what's really sad?

People who have to try to defend their delusions or those of the people they love by passing judgement from on high on the state of other people's "souls".

Hard to imagine being someone that would find joy in that.

[cleanhippie]

82. It makes perfect sense when you put his "bitter and resentful" comment into context.

Simple textbook projection. A first year psych student could see where that comes from. Explains the passive-aggressive defense mechanism too.

[Starboard Tack]

83. "A first year psych student could see where that comes from."

That's pretty damned funny.

[dimbear]

62. The visiting pastor comes up to the old farmer working in his cornfield.

"God has given you a bountiful crop."

The old farmer points over his shoulder to a fallow weed-ridden field.

"That's the one God did by himself."

[cbayer]

63. Excellent. I like that, dimbear.

[Starboard Tack]

84. Now that is funny.

God never did get the farming thing down.

[rug]

94. Not the best way to make a point.

?t=1344685736

[onager]

98. Incredibly weak, even by your standards

Leo Szilard, Interview: "President Truman Did Not Understand," U.S. News & World Report, August 15, 1960, pages 68-71.

Q Dr. Szilard, what was your attitude in 1945 toward the question of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan?

A I opposed it with all my power, but I'm afraid not as effectively as I should have wished.

Q Did any other scientists feel the same way you did?

A Very many other scientists felt this way. This is particularly true of Oak Ridge and the Metallurgical Laboratory of the University of Chicago...

Q When did your misgivings first arise?

A Well, I started to worry about the use of the bomb in the spring of '45. But misgivings about our way of conducting ourselves arose in Chicago when we first learned that we were using incendiary bombs on a large scale against the cities of Japan.

This, of course, was none of our responsibility. There was nothing we could do about it, but I do remember that my colleagues in the project were disturbed about it...

Q Was that the end of the illusion?

A Yes, this was the end of the illusion. But, you see, there was still a difference between using incendiary bombs and using the new force of nature for purposes of destruction. There was still a further step taken here - atomic energy was something new.

I thought it would be very bad to set a precedent for using atomic energy for purposes of destruction. And I think that having done so we have greatly affected the postwar history.

Q In what way?

A I think it made it very difficult for us to take the position after the war that we wanted to get rid of atomic bombs because it would be immoral to use them against the civilian population. We lost the moral argument with which, right after the war, we might have perhaps gotten rid of the bomb...

The only conclusion we can draw is that governments acting in a crisis are guided by questions of expediency, and moral considerations are given very little weight, and that America is no different from any other nation in this respect.

http://members.peak.org/~danneng/decision/usnews.html

[rug]

100. Let me see . . . .

Your excerpt indicates that nuclear weapons were made by scientists who were then astounded that the nuclear weapons they made were used.

Incredibly weak, even by your standards.

[onager]

133. What? No more argumentum ad photographum?

n/t

[rug]

140. You mean like the argument in the OP?

[rexcat]

121. What standards?

You give too much credit where it is not due.

On edit: Rug, per your request the spelling error is fixed. Sorry I am not a perfect ... like you.

[rug]

124. Next time you edit, it's "too".