Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not

DogmaHunter said:

No. They clearly claim to have done so.
Just like alien abductees clearly claim to have been abducted.

Click to expand...

You don't think mystical experiences are subjectively real to the experiencer? I don't see what's unreasonable about believing that one's personal experiences match up to reality, regardless of whether or not they actually do.

DogmaHunter said:

No, that is most certainly not the "only question".

Click to expand...

What other question would there be? If you have a mystical experience, you have a mystical experience. The only question is whether or not it was real.

Silmarien said:

You don't think mystical experiences are subjectively real to the experiencer?

Click to expand...

Sure.
Just like I think that the schizofrenic going through a psychotic episode really does head voices. And not just "in his head". But like, real auditory input. At least, that's how his subjective experience is. Objectively, off course, those voices don't exist.

I don't doubt people's experiences. Like alien abductees that pass lie detector tests. Clearly, they have experienced something which leads them to believe what they believe.
I however, don't believe for a second that they were actually abducted by aliens. Neither do you, most likely.

But most certainly, they have experienced *something* that lead them to believe that they were...

I don't see what's unreasonable about believing that one's personal experiences match up to reality, regardless of whether or not they actually do.

Click to expand...

Wow! Just.... wow!

What other question would there be? If you have a mystical experience, you have a mystical experience.

Click to expand...

Does the subjective experience actually match objective reality?
That's the first question.

The only question is whether or not it was real

Click to expand...

You changed your "only" question now....

In your previous post, it was "did they count correctly?". Not "did they actually count?".

SkyWriting said:

It can still be science and scientific even if you don't share it.

Click to expand...

For crying out loud.....

It's not about if you actually share it or not.
It's about not even having the option if you wanted to, in case of "personal" experience.

Science IS shareable. No matter if you actually share or not. Or if NDA's don't allow you to share.

Personal experiences can not be shared. Even if you wanted to.
Science can be shared.

SkyWriting said:

Science is always personal. You can choose to share it if you wish.
I share it in the signature line of every post I've ever made.

Click to expand...

Are you trolling me?
It's an honest question, because I'm not buying that after all these clarifications, you still haven't understood the point being made.

SkyWriting said:

Oh. Then it should show in the definition, me thinks.

Click to expand...

And it does.

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"

Click to expand...

There you have it. It unravels how the world works.
And it does so by building explanatory models of reality. Also known as theories.

Engineers etc, can then use that knowledge to manipulate the world (technology, products, meds,...)

DogmaHunter said:

There you have it. It unravels how the world works.
And it does so by building explanatory models of reality. Also known as theories.

Click to expand...

So you think that

-the
-systematic
-study
-of
-the
-structure
-and
-behavior
-of
-the
-physical
-and
-natural
-world

Click to expand...

would define "theory." Lets see if that is covered:

Theory - :

an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events. : an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true. : general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject.

Click to expand...

I would have thought "The" would be a common word.
But alas....not one word in common with the definition of theory.

I suggested that you research first, attack second.
I repeat my suggestion.

SkyWriting said:

So you think that

would define "theory." Lets see if that is covered:

Click to expand...

I did not say that that sentence "defines" the word "theory".
I said that science does what that sentence describes, by building explanatory models of reality. The scientific study of the world results in theories.

A theory, is what you develop by studying the world, to explain the aspect of the world you are studying.

I would have thought "The" would be a common word.
But alas....not one word in common with the definition of theory.

I suggested that you research first, attack second.
I repeat my suggestion.

Click to expand...

I suggest you try and read with a bit more attention.
I never said it was how theories were defined.

I said that the practice of scientific study results in theories. Which can then be used to build technology, products, meds,....

You can't build an atomic bomb, if you don't know how atoms work.

The "gumballs" were counted time and again over a span of thousands of years and were formally recorded by various witnesses to the counting. Because the last of those recordings was approximately 1900 years ago, the question is whether or not one believes the recorded accounts. The ones who believe the accounts have faith, the ones who don't, don't.

BigDaddy4 said:

The "gumballs" were counted time and again over a span of thousands of years and were formally recorded by various witnesses to the counting. Because the last of those recordings was approximately 1900 years ago, the question is whether or not one believes the recorded accounts. The ones who believe the accounts have faith, the ones who don't, don't.

Click to expand...

This is precisely the problem.

HitchSlap said:

This is precisely the problem.

Click to expand...

Not for those who believe.

DogmaHunter said:

I did not say that that sentence "defines" the word "theory".
I said that science does what that sentence describes, by building explanatory models of reality. The scientific study of the world results in theories.

A theory, is what you develop by studying the world, to explain the aspect of the world you are studying.



I suggest you try and read with a bit more attention.
I never said it was how theories were defined.

I said that the practice of scientific study results in theories. Which can then be used to build technology, products, meds,....

You can't build an atomic bomb, if you don't know how atoms work.

Click to expand...

Hello Dogma Hunter.

On the subject of atomic bombs, this in time could very well cause an extinction event.
Technology has it's advantages and disadvantages, as time proceeds we sure are paying the price for this technological innovation.

I fear scientific advancement probably more than anything else, that man has applied his mind to. So much pollution, global warming, deforestation, this list is a very long list of what we really get from scientific advancement.

klutedavid said:

Hello Dogma Hunter.

On the subject of atomic bombs, this in time could very well cause an extinction event.
Technology has it's advantages and disadvantages, as time proceeds we sure are paying the price for this technological innovation.

I fear scientific advancement probably more than anything else, that man has applied his mind to. So much pollution, global warming, deforestation, this list is a very long list of what we really get from scientific advancement.

Click to expand...

That's nice, but it has nothing to do with the point I was making.

BigDaddy4 said:

Not for those who believe.

Click to expand...

Using your metric, a person could believe just about anything, then.

HitchSlap said:

Using your metric, a person could believe just about anything, then.

Click to expand...

I suppose they could, but that's irrelevant to the gumball counting. They've been counted. There is evidence and testimonials of the counting. There's been over 1900 years of time for the counting to be proven it didn't happen, or was incorrect in some way. None have succeeded thus far.

BigDaddy4 said:

I suppose they could, but that's irrelevant to the gumball counting. They've been counted. There is evidence and testimonials of the counting. There's been over 1900 years of time for the counting to be proven it didn't happen, or was incorrect in some way. None have succeeded thus far.

Click to expand...

And what was it, during the last 1,900 years, that convinced you a god exists?

HitchSlap said:

And what was it, during the last 1,900 years, that convinced you a god exists?

Click to expand...

I was pretty sure god or spiritual world exists even before Christianity. Just look at the creations of this world and the evidence is irrefutable. Of course you can argue that all happens at random, the percisesly adjusted parameters of the physical world are just random in a "multi-verse". I find the multi-verse theory much more unlikely.

dcalling said:

I was pretty sure god or spiritual world exists even before Christianity. Just look at the creations of this world and the evidence is irrefutable. Of course you can argue that all happens at random, the percisesly adjusted parameters of the physical world are just random in a "multi-verse". I find the multi-verse theory much more unlikely.

Click to expand...

There was a time when I was a Christian that I thought the anthropic principle was something more than an argument from incredulity, as well.

HitchSlap said:

And what was it, during the last 1,900 years, that convinced you a god exists?

Click to expand...

God spoke to me, claiming me as his own and offering me forgiveness of my sins and eternal life if I follow him. I accepted. I did not need to know how many gumballs there were or if there were an odd or even amount.

BigDaddy4 said:

God spoke to me, claiming me as his own and offering me forgiveness of my sins and eternal life if I follow him. I accepted. I did not need to know how many gumballs there were or if there were an odd or even amount.

Click to expand...

Audibly?

HitchSlap said:

There was a time when I was a Christian that I thought the anthropic principle was something more than an argument from incredulity, as well.

Click to expand...

I wonder what you believe now.