If you don't know what's wrong it can't be fixed (page 13)

sabastious

I have a friend in Sab but he's a guy and doesn't umderstand how women need friendship.

Isn't friendship a gender neutral thing? By the way I think you just coined the term "evil prophecy" which is wonderful.

-Sab

N.drew

Therefore you simply BELIEVE it because it feels right.

If ever you know the man "Jesus" you will know the truth often does not "feel right".

Mr. Falcon

If the Devils lose tonight I'm going to study my Watchtower.

Knowsnothing

So how is it you believe the mind can't discover God for real? Is it because you have not learned to trust your own thoughts?

I think what you are saying is that you can make God be whatever you wish. He either is, and nothing I think about him would change him, or he doesn't and I am just wanting an imaginary friend that will pat my back when I need one.

How is defering your thoughts over to a non-existent being any different from solo meditation, reflection, etc.?

Bump N.drew.

N.drew

Thank you Lozhasleft. You are awesomeness to me and brave!

james_woods

They're not clever though WhaHappened, are they? Note the sarcasm in the inverted commas? N.Drew is a member here and just as entitled to a serious 'believers' thread about scripture as any other member with any other type of thread, many of which are atheist, making them nonsense to many of us.

Loz x

Give the lady a break ... It's starting to feel like bullying?

Loz x

Exactly. I do not have the same religious beliefs as her, but she is my friend. This was HER thread - she was not spamming someone elses subject.

sabastious

Well the scientific method IS all about disproving theories and hypotheses. It is to avoid confirmation bias, and the opposite of what religion, or spirituality does, which seeks to confirm. So yes, it is based on feelings. You can't KNOW that anything has been revealed, because you can't test it. Therefore you simply BELIEVE it because it feels right. I offer as evidence of this all the religions of the world today and throughout history. Each culture believed something different about specific signs or observations. Therefore none of them KNEW, they simply believed because that's how they felt about it. Your feelings are no stronger than the feelings of the Zeus worshipper, and yet somehow, you seem to think that your belief is more valid. With no way to back that up, you simply rely on what feels right.

With all due respect you are so wrong. If my friend and I see a fairy and then go back to our town and bring others back to the spot and the fairy isn't there that doesn't mean fairies don't exist or that I had a mental episode. When we saw the fairy the scientific method very well could have been used to prove/disprove my experience, but the fairy is intelligent and may resist. Yet, since I cannot get my fairy to come back, because I have not studied them, I am dead in the water with the scientific method even though I DID see the fairy and confirmed it with a second eye witness. You and SBC's "feelings" only argument is problematic. What I am hearing is that if an unexplained experience cannot be tested it should be considered to not have happened.

-Sab

SweetBabyCheezits

Sab: However if secular "truth" is used to bully a believer into feeling bad about their methods or conclusions or denying the existence of their creator is when I take issue.

In the OP (EDIT) second post in this thread, NDrew uses the Bible to call unbelievers cowards. How about that, Sab? Even if you remove NDrew from the equation, that verse could be considered bullying to an unbeliever. Do you take issue with that as well?

Here's the thing... we live in a democracy. Every vote counts, even Tom Cruise's vote. Usually a person's world view has much to do with his/her vote. As you stated, not all "theories" are created equal. (So that we don't abuse the scientific meaning of the term theory, I'd like to sub the term ideas.) So I take issue with ideas asserted as TRUTH when they emerge from a more subjective standard of judgment than the scientific method, as if they deserve equal respect.

I'm all for folks coming up with wild hypotheses..... when the originator regards it as such UNTIL it's found to have sufficient evidence to be accepted as a theory. Anything less is premature. So why not let conjecture be conjecture?

Skepticism turns to cynicism all too often with non believers, imo.

IMO, the failure to apply critical thinking leads to gullibility. Since I've already ridden that pony, I'll take my chances on becoming cynical now.

botchtowersociety

With all due respect you are so wrong. If my friend and I see a fairy and then go back to our town and bring others back to the spot and the fairy isn't there that doesn't mean fairies don't exist or that I had a mental episode. When we saw the fairy the scientific method very well could have been used to prove/disprove my experience, but the fairy is intelligent and may resist. Yet, since I cannot get my fairy to come back, because I have not studied them, I am dead in the water with the scientific method even though I DID see the fairy and confirmed it with a second eye witness. You and SBC's "feelings" only argument is problematic. What I am hearing is that if an unexplained experience cannot be tested it should be considered to not have happened.

That is a strong argument, Sab.

If you don't know what's wrong it can't be fixed

Share this