but I don't know if some here are relating that it IS okay to believe in God... or spirits. Indeed, some are literally stating that neither IS okay.
Well, if someone says it's wrong or you shouldn't beleive in God, then I would argue all day that they are 100% wrong and defend your rights to do so all day. I would draw the line at saying those beliefs should relate to laws for me, however.
I don't know that any of us "want" to start talking so. We kind of don't have a choice... because that's the ONLY "language" some of YOU know, speak, and so will communicate in.
Come on, that's bullshit and you know. That's the language and methodology of how things are tested. I can talk theology all day. The problem is your theology that you KNOW is true is different from MyElaine's, or BOTR's or a devout catholic, or a devout JW or a devout Baptist. There is no method of agreement and consensus so half the time you theological folks are all talking different ideas about the same thing and telling each other who is wrong.
If Cofty, Bohm, JonathanH and I are all talking about gravity, we all use a common language and all know exactly what the other is talking about. If you want to join in, you have to know that language and ideas.
That's all. It's not that we can't speak the other languages, it's just that you are all speaking 10000 different languages.
And there you GO! It's like people ("Americans") who don't believe in learning another language... even if they're the visitors in a non-English country... because THEY believe English SHOULD be the ONLY language... and that others should learn to speak IT... to accommodate THEM... even in THEIR country. Imagine the world "scene"... if EVERYONE knew at least one... or two... other language(s). Nothing stopping us, though...except our own laziness... and/or paradigms... on the matter.
See above. I can speak your language all day. You all just can't agree on the language or what you are saying or what's right or true or anything else.
And, for the record, your link to the MW dictionary on the definition of "theory" belies your claim of willingness to learn scientific language. I know I personally have explained more than once to you what "theory" means in scientific parlance and I have seen others do the same. I know you are above average intelligence and yet you continue to act as if theory in common parlance means the same as in scientific. Very disingenuous of you, Shel. It doesn't demonstrate that willingness to learn you spoke of.
Still overlooks the spiritual, which is what this was about. Yes?
All I am saying is that if you want to have a theological discussion, you need to have a common framework of conversation. Same for sciene and any other subject. If you want to talk about fishing then and I am using computer programming terms and material...it's likely not relavent.
But isn't that EXACTLY what some of YOU did, here?
No. The OP wanted to talk about spirits. Fine, let's talk about them. Lots of people try to use scientific methods to prove they exist. There have been shows on them. You yourself once gave me instructions (which, incidentally, didn't work) on how to contact spirits that you said were scientific.
You may not like that particular aspect of spirits, but it was there and brought up in discussion.
And I think the OP was pushing a set of CD's. NC and I both got PM's from her urging us to buy the CD set. That's opinion, though, I could be wrong.
Why won't YOU "educate" yourselves... perhaps by asking questions (which is what the OP did!) versus ridiculing? Do some of YOU not use the parts of it YOU like... and reject the parts YOU don't?
Not at all. If someone says they have seen spirits, I will admit I don't believe them. If someone says they have seen a dog, I believe that since I know dogs exists. Spirits are an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. The trust level and proof requires is proportional and commensurate to the claim. If someone says they saw a black hole (something sciency thrown in there for you) or Halley's comet yesterday, I would have the same disbelief.
I don't reject it so much as require proof. If spirits and ghosts were a proven phenomenon that were well described and provable, I would be likely to beleive that person.
I suppose you could say I live atheistically as if there were no God, but I am intellectually more agnostic, if there is repeatable testable evidence of his/her/its existence, I would evaluate that accordingly.
When she SAID, "I don't know enough ABOUT science to put it in such terms."
I think you are talking about Tec, here. I think she knows and you do too that I like her quite a bit (and you too, for that matter), so I will respond as if you were referring to me.
I am not trying to rip Tec to shreds, but I AM trying to show that, when you start talking about things like spirits as energy forms or standing wave functions, there is absolutely a way to evaluate those claims AND be both open minded and skeptical at the same time. The two are not only NOT incompatible, they are both REQUIRED for science.
When you start talking about things like standing wave ideas (it's not even a hypothesis, much less a theory in the scientific sense) I am trying to give a sense of where that fits in the overall picture and relate it to things we DO understand and illustrate what would be required to even formulate a hypothesis and how the energies involved relate to things we all understand. That's all.
YOU are INVITED to learn our language. YOU have made it plain, under no extenuating circumstances... that you are NOT interested in doing so.
No, I already know it. Quite well. It's kind of like rebuilding 1960's and 70's muscle car motors. Yes, I know quite well how to do it. I have no interest in doing so again, however.
It's hypocrisy, dear one. And mean. And short-sighted. And... understandable. Because it's human... and of earthling man.
No at all. It's understanding both sides and seeing which one is a muddled mess of confused ideas, fundamantals that want to strip people of their rights, impose theocracy, reject knowledge, complete disagreement on basic ideas and reliance on the wisdom of sheepherders and which one has saved billions of lives and seeks to move forward.
It's not hypocrisy at all, it's just asking for proof just like I would of anything else.
It might feel mean, just like when I tell my youngest that no, he can't have a third piece of cake. Just like religion, I tell him no because I don't want to deal with the inevitable throwup all over the place (and sometimes on me).
But does the fact that there is no scientific backing NOW... and no way to test NOW... and no explanation better than the current standard model NOW, and no predictive powers... NOW... mean that it is not TRUE, dear EP (again, peace to you!)?
Nope, it doesn't mean that it's not true at all. You asked a great question. It may well be true. But there is no hypothesis, math, evidence, predictive powers or anything else. It MAY be true that we are just materialized color operating on the 49th vibration, but so far there is no evidence and the idea go against everything that is independently testable and provable.
When some evidence appears, I will re-evaluate. Until then, I won't simply think it might be true because I have no evidence. That is naive and gullable to the highest degree. If you think it makes sense to beleive something because there is no evidence it is true, you should trust me with your bank account and social security number because there no evidence I AM a Nigerian prince.
And if things are not really true until man says/discovers/"proves" it... how can we take issue with the changing "light" of those such as the WTBTS?
Well, for one, scientists (good ones, anyway) should be saying things like "Our current knowledge, evidence and testing leads us to this as our current understanding, the more we learn, that may change" and indeed, that is what they do. For TV shows (and we've had this discussion before), they often will state things in factual terms. Is that right or wrong? I dunno, it's TV. Should doctors not make a flu vaccine because we will have a better understanding of virii 10 years from now?
Of course, unlike the WTBS, they aren't telling you will die or shun your or cut you off from your family if you don't beleive magnatars exist and aren't claiming to speak for God, so there are three major differences right there. There are more, but that seems sufficient to disarm this fallacious line of reasoning that science is faith just like religion and scientist are just like the WTBS since what we understand changes. It's a silly and fallacious comparison.
Oh, and one final comment, if you are typing fast because you are in pain, take a break. It's not like the conversation is on a deadline. Or like we won't have it again :)
