My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

[_Franktalk]

Nope, not at all. I would use observation of their actions to determine if their behavior is consistent with their claim.

So people who have a spiritual event don't have behavioral changes? Just as love is unique for each of us a spiritual event is unique as well. How we interpret our feelings of love manifest in a wide range of personal emotions and mental patterns. Spiritual events also are interpreted in a wide range of personal emotions and and mental patterns. All of these reactions are valid for that individual. So why do you accept as valid some of these and reject others? Clearly there is something going on in the human condition that is pretty damn obvious. Yet a group of men deny the obvious and instead reject as invalid any human reaction to a spiritual event. Can't you see how science has blinders on to an obvious human condition?

[_SteelHead]

What is a spiritual event?

I don't not reject spiritual events meaning to those that have them. I reject the notion that I need to take the actuality and interpretation of said event as anything of import in my life. If it causes some one to be a nicer person, fine. It might conversely cause them to be a nastier person. Either way, their behavior speaks louder than their subjective experience.

It is still not the foundation for me to integrate said experience into my world view. It is an unverifiable, unfalsifiable claim and as such results in 0 actionable information.

If I am to accept any such events/claims as legit, ration dictates I must accept all. All unverifiable un falsifiable claims do have equal value to me - none.

If some one claims to love me their actions will evidence that claim. Now provide evidence for your aliens hypothesis.

Remember arguments are hypothesis, not evidence.

[_Lemmie]

Irony,
When the person who believes that Jesus is a hyper advanced space alien lectures an EV on what Jesus really meant.


For everything else, there is mastercard.

Further irony,

When franktalk uses the movie Contact as an example in expressing his views, given that Contact was based on the science fiction book by Carl Sagan, who also authored:

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

[_SteelHead]

Yep, Frank is to the tips of his hair deep in a demon haunted world. His bs detector, underdeveloped.

[_jo1952]

Real Truth even has the ability to help us understand WHY we treat each other the way do. As long as we are happy with believing that our belief system is providing enough truth, we aren't going to bother looking for more elsewhere. We will continue to pick whom we will follow; and give power and authority to them to lead us. It doesn't matter whether the belief system is about religion, about science, about education, politics, etc., as soon as we allow others to control our minds, we are giving in to the tremendous influence of the flesh. Thus, if someone comes along and tries to offer other options, they will be seen as a threat to the choices we have already made. It would appear that the people of this world just aren't going to try to make any changes in what they will allow themselves to believe. Even when another possibility is being offered about who we are and what is going on here, the mockers will continue. The fearful (the religious) will be afraid. Their fear of "God" causes them to believe that if they dare give up their beliefs about "God", or consider that THEY might be "God", is blasphemous. The science types can't allow themselves to consider other possibilities because that would put into question the things they already believe. Their egos won't allow it. Neither type of believers even bother to ask about that Real Truth, what it looks like, what the details are, and what solutions it has to offer all of mankind. They aren't even open to a discussion. Our belief systems have amazing control over us; even to the point we will allow them to destroy our world.

[_SteelHead]

Translation : you are all deceived sheeple, but me, I'm onto real truth.....


Aren't we lucky to have Jo here spouting evidence less conjecture?

[Guest]

Translation : you are all deceived sheeple, but me, I'm onto real truth.....


Aren't we lucky to have Jo here spouting evidence less conjecture?

Good point, Steelhead.

Jo, why do you think that your conjectures need not be backed up by any kind of objective evidence or are any more likely to be correct than the subjective, un-backed-up-by-evidence conjectures of anyone else, whether religious or not? You seem, sometimes, to be arguing that merely requiring evidence before believing something or giving more weight to conclusions supported by good, objective evidence than those that can not be so supported is a kind of unjustifiable bias or bigotry.

I would think that those in science would want to follow a path of real truth rather than choosing to cling to a science satisfied with needing to change her truth all of the time. Christ provided a way for us to learn of and follow a path of real truth which does not change. That path, by virtue of being the real truth about what is going on, would help us heal the problems we have created while we have floundered in our ignorance....the ignorance of not knowing the truth about what is going on.

Your implication that science does not want to follow or is not in fact following a path of real truth is patently ridiculous. It is not so much that truth itself is changing as that our perceptions of what the truth really is are continually being refined as we continue to increase in both knowledge and experience. There is nothing wrong with that, and that is not a weakness of science and its methods. I repeat again that this is its greatest virtue and strength. It makes science inherently self-correcting in a way that faith based religion can never be. There is simply no more effective way than that to approach ever closer to real truth. Absolute truth is much like the horizon. We can always move towards it, discovering new vistas and ever better understanding as we go, but it will always remain ahead of us, urging us on to still more discoveries and better understanding of the totality of reality. The only alternative to that is to merely stop moving forward and decide that we are already in possession of everything we need to know and need learn no more.

Once we decide that we have indeed achieved absolute truth, we are in danger of stagnating, perpetuating error and becoming intolerant of honest differences of opinion. This is the kind of attitude that makes it possible to justify such abominations as religious inquisitions, witch hunts, murderous political purges, the Nazi Holocaust, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Perhaps most important, as far as this thread is concerned though, is that nothing that Jo and Franktalk have argued on this thread detracts one iota from the conclusion of my OP that Young Earth Creationism is totally irrational, dishonest and deliberately deceptive bunk.

[_Jersey Girl]

jo1952,

Are you saying that you try to follow the teachings of Christ but that you don't consider yourself a Christian? Can you explain that for me?

[_huckelberry]

jo1952,

Are you saying that you try to follow the teachings of Christ but that you don't consider yourself a Christian? Can you explain that for me?

Jersey Girl, I will try to propose a summary, jo1952 is of course invited to correct my summary. In fact the summaries purpose is to invite clarification.

Doctrines proposed.
1 we are eternally all knowing and god.
2 we come here in order to escape the boredom of eternity.
3 we need opposition in all things. (perhaps this life in relation to eternity is like slipping out the back of church camp to smoke a jay.
4 People can get glimpses of their all knowing self.
5 Jesus had more glimpses because he was chosen or is in an administrative position fore us here. He will be an administrator reestablishing order here as we all sober up.
6 everybody returns safely to eternity for another dose of boredom.

Oh, and Jo1952, I wanted to mention that I do not mean you personally are a bully. I do not think that you are a hurtful person. I just think you sometimes slip into arguments that have a bullying color.

[_Jersey Girl]

Thanks huck!

When I start reading her posts I get lost in them and I'd like to try to understand what she's communicating. So, what are True Messengers? Is Jesus a True Messenger? Anyone else?