Science is a tool that can be abused!

[_Themis]

Where is educating oneself limiting the mind?

Good question, Themis! I can't think of anything more self-limiting than Franktalk's "inner journey" into his own mind and thoughts while trying to exclude outside influences and observations of and about the real, physical world around him--especially observations and evidence that seem to contradict what he would rather believe. Franktalk is quite fond of the aphorism "being in the world but not of the world." The truth is that no matter what we believe or do, none of us can avoid being both in and of the world.

My criticism is not that he has spiritual thinking and feeling, but that he just thinks because he has the experience it is evidence that his interpretations of them are true. He likes the sciences unless they disagree with those interpretations. Not uncommon for religious people to want science to support their beliefs but attack science when it does not. He is the definition of closed mind all the while thinking he is the truly open minded one.

[_Themis]

I'm not asking for empirical evidence that his mother existed. Which a well established assumption, based on limited experience. I'm asking for empirical evidence for her feelings. Which is also a well established assumption based on limited experience.

You asked for what evidence people would accept. Now you move to evidence of feelings. You are being dishonest when you know it is about evidence of God's existence that is in question.

To say nothing of God is not to say God is nothing.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence in many circumstances. Lack of evidence of God may not prove in absolute terms God's non-existence, but it does make a good question why anyone should care. I suspect you don't care about Xenu, and would demand objective evidence before believing. We just like to give our God a pass.

[_spotlight]

I made no such claim.

What? You constantly rattle off this claim about religion and science being authority based structures. It is only logical that those who prop up either are those who regard the authority of either.

You are the one who says they require evidence.

True. Science requires evidence. But I am not the one who says that. It is part of the definition of the scienctific method. You are the one who has the chutzpah to say that it is established upon something other than evidence. What would that be I wonder? Oh that's right arbitrary authority.

I am just repeating your own statements. I just used a type of evidence you would reject in my comment.

No, you did not provide evidence, you provided your own imaginative musings and what ifs that don't count as evidence. Seeing a body with nail marks and talking about seeing the marks are two separate things. One would be evidence the other is just imagination.

I have no idea about CCC.

He is self described as a TBM.

Again I made no such claim.

Yes you did about those who follow established religions in general. He happens to be a specific example.

Your overreach in your posts is very common from you.

Oh the irony of you complaining about over reach from someone who goes no farther than what the evidence will support when you yourself over reach the available evidence and accept all that you imagine in your little noggin' to be real. You're a funny guy.

[_Franktalk]

Oh the irony of you complaining about over reach from someone who goes no farther than what the evidence will support when you yourself over reach the available evidence and accept all that you imagine in your little noggin' to be real. You're a funny guy.

You reject personal evidence. You reject the path to truth as laid out by Christ. That is fine but then you mock anyone who takes that path.

Isa_29:14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

For a person who seeks to be wise you sure have taken the wrong path.

[_spotlight]

Oh, it's testimony time now, is it? Where are those missionaries when you need them? Let's pretend they are here shall we?

"We testify to you (Franktalk) that the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the restored church of Jesus Christ upon this earth and that Thomas S Monson is his currently authorized prophet holding all of the keys once held by Peter of old and that you will go to hell in a hand basket if you reject this authority."

You reject personal evidence.

You haven't presented any personal evidence. What would it consist of? Some tea leaves that fell a certain way on your table top?

You reject the path to truth as laid out by Christ.

Oh so now you have a firsthand source of Christ's words maybe? I was unaware that such existed.

That is fine but then you mock anyone who takes that path.

This is a discussion board Frank, if you can't hang why do you keep opening your mouth?

Isa_29:14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

So now, a scripture that was first appropriated by the LDS church has been reappropriated away from them by you to mean what you want it to mean? Am I supposed to be impressed by your schoolyard sandbox antics? Why can't I (if I still believed in prophets) appropriate this scripture to mean what I want it to mean (after all, all of our viewpoints are equal according to your nonsense). So I say Isaiah saw the great latterday rise of the scientific method that would reveal truths to mankind and before which the wisdom of past ages would vanish. Take that!

For a person who seeks to be wise you sure have taken the wrong path.

Says the one who's views are contradicted by the entire body of evidence collected over more than the past hundred years. Yah no, I think it's apparent that there really are biological creatures and that they are us Frank. You keep living within a fantasy if you need to and if you don't wish to be mocked then don't open your mouth.

[_The CCC]

You asked for what evidence people would accept. Now you move to evidence of feelings. You are being dishonest when you know it is about evidence of God's existence that is in question.

To say nothing of God is not to say God is nothing.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence in many circumstances. Lack of evidence of God may not prove in absolute terms God's non-existence, but it does make a good question why anyone should care. I suspect you don't care about Xenu, and would demand objective evidence before believing. We just like to give our God a pass.

The reason for asking is that having a priori of Theism or Atheism predetermines the outcome. In scientific terms God, or lack thereof, is a non-testable hypothesis. As such God is outside the realm of science.

Personally I care nothing for any God but one. I'm fine with your beliefs. Believe anything you want.

[_Franktalk]

Personally I care nothing for any God but one. I'm fine with your beliefs. Believe anything you want.

I really do wish man would live this way.

[_Franktalk]

Says the one who's views are contradicted by the entire body of evidence collected over more than the past hundred years. Yah no, I think it's apparent that there really are biological creatures and that they are us Frank. You keep living within a fantasy if you need to and if you don't wish to be mocked then don't open your mouth.

I have not contradicted any evidence. My beliefs fit well with all evidence collected by man over the last 200 years. It is you who distorts what I believe.

[_spotlight]

My beliefs fit well with all evidence collected by man over the last 200 years.

[_Franktalk]

My beliefs fit well with all evidence collected by man over the last 200 years.

The problem comes from extending collected evidence into an interpretation. Then you consider your interpretation as evidence which it is not. Don't feel bad many people do this.