Christianists and their quest for "Dominion"

[Dr. Pepper]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why not.  When I approach something in a positive fashion it generally turns out better in my experience.  When people expect bad things to happen I think they, unconsiously, look for ways to facilitate the bad result.

That has nothing to do with something supernatural.  

 

 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Just now, Cas Stark said:

And yet the world is full of people who had a feeling that turned out to be correct, who dreamed their brother died and he did die, who dreamed they would save France and they did.  

Yes there are countless examples of delusional people throughout history, what is your point?

[Cas Stark]

Just now, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Yes there are countless examples of delusional people throughout history, what is your point?

I guess you can believe that everyone who had a dream or an intuition that turned out to be correct is delusional...but that isn't very "evidence based" is it?  LOL.  

[DunderMifflin]

1 minute ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Yes there are countless examples of delusional people throughout history, what is your point?

Also countless of examples of "delusional" people that given enough time are shown to not be delusional. Even examples where just sheer delusion(hope) turned into something great

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Just now, Cas Stark said:

I guess you can believe that everyone who had a dream or an intuition that turned out to be correct is delusional...but that isn't very "evidence based" is it?  LOL.  

If there was a single shred of evidence that dreams were somehow connected to a higher power and not just an internal function of brain chemistry I might believe it. But since that is clearly not true then I can't

[Kalbear]

I just think it is incredibly ironic for someone to say that they believe that intelligent people cannot be irrational in their thinking, then is presented with evidence stating otherwise doubles down on that - and therefore ignoring the evidence that rationality and intelligence are not necessarily related.

[Cas Stark]

2 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

If there was a single shred of evidence that dreams were somehow connected to a higher power and not just an internal function of brain chemistry I might believe it. But since that is clearly not true then I can't

It's all a matter of perspective, like the people who have had near death experiences....you say  brain chemistry, others say higher plane, you don't know you are right any more than they do.  

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

4 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

It's all a matter of perspective, like the people who have had near death experiences....you say  brain chemistry, others say higher plane, you don't know you are right any more than they do.  

Well .. actually no. There is no evidence that what people consider to be 'near death experiences' are anything supernatural, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest it has something to do with the way the body reacts to death. So actually until someone is able to bring ANY evidence that those experiences are something to do with a supernatural power it is utterly silly to believe in it.

 

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I just think it is incredibly ironic for someone to say that they believe that intelligent people cannot be irrational in their thinking, then is presented with evidence stating otherwise doubles down on that - and therefore ignoring the evidence that rationality and intelligence are not necessarily related.

Yes I understand your point. But it begs the question as to how people can be so rational about some things, yet so completely irrational about others. 
 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Thats because there is evidence that positive thinking works, for a number of identifiable reasons. The difference is that something like 'The Secret' will tell you that what is happening is that you are asking the Universe and it is answering you. 

 

 

Yes they do sadly. But then how many of them are studied in Science, History and are able to have that critical discussion with themselves as t why they believe what they believe?

Jon,

Because there is more on Heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy.  Rational discussion is wonderful.  I enjoy it immensely.  But I do not pretend that everything I will ever experience, feel, or encounter will lend itself to a perfectly rational and empirical explanation.  I find pure materialism incredibly limiting.  As such I don't buy into that. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Jon,

Because there is more on Heaven and Earth than in dreamt of in your philosophy.  Rational discussion is wonderful.  I enjoy it immensely.  But I do not pretend that everything I will ever experience, feel, or encounter will lend itself to a perfectly rational and empirical explanation.  I find pure materialism incredibly limiting.  As such I don't buy into that. 

So you are saying you are happy to believe in something despite there not being any evidence and when all evidence points to another explanation.. because it makes you feel better?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

That has nothing to do with something supernatural.  

 

 

I'm not claiming that it does.  Yet, it was lumped in with other "faith based" irrationalities that Jon was discussing.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

So you are saying you are happy to believe in something despite there not being any evidence and when all evidence points to another explanation.. because it makes you feel better?

Jon,

We had no evidence for atoms in the 19th Century.  Lord Kelvin denounced Atomists as crazies who were wasting the time of the scientific community and ignoring rational empirical science with their belief in things that could never be proven to exist.  

Had the world listened to Lord Kelvin you and I wouldn't be communicating today because we'd never have found and harnessed the power of quantum theory.

[Kalbear]

In this thread: the person who believes in a higher power is more of a scientist skeptic than the supposed rational atheist. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Jon,

We had no evidence for atoms in the 19th Century.  Lord Kelvin denounced Atomists as crazies who were wasting the time of the scientific community and ignoring rational empirical science with their belief in things that could never be proven to exist.  

Had the world listened to Lord Kelvin you and I wouldn't be communicating today because we'd never have found and harnessed the power of quantum theory.

So you think that someone is going to say that evolution doesn't exist and that the world is in fact 6000 years old?

[DunderMifflin]

2 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

So you think that someone is going to say that evolution doesn't exist and that the world is in fact 6000 years old?

That's a bit like saying 3% of scientists believe climate change is a hoax, so climate change is bullshit. Evolution deniers are a specific breed that are often propped up to manufactured social relevancy due to their wacky preachings and ability to stir controversy.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

So you think that someone is going to say that evolution doesn't exist and that the world is in fact 6000 years old?

I do not understand your question.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I do not understand your question.

What I'm getting at is you are suggesting that everything we believe today will somehow be shown to be false tomorrow. This is highly unlikely because we have an enormous wealth of evidence and tests that mean that certain things are almost certainly true. Evolution for instance is now not really a theory but a fact, we can demonstrate over and over again. If something turned up that completely contradicted the idea of evolution then maybe there would be some doubt, but so far there is nothing. 

It would be ludicrous to not believe in evolution at this point due to the enormous amount of evidence for it. That is a rational decision. 

There might be parts of scientific thinking that will change over time, and that is the great thing about science. Its evidence based and rational. I'm happy to believe in evolution because there is so much evidence for it. I won't believe in a religion because the evidence doesn't support it. 

Now it seems you are happy to go against all the evidence and believe in something because it helps you in your life. That is totally fine. My mother was Irish Catholic and she her religion helped her, and I respected that. We all have our helpful delusions. 

[mormont]

Can we possibly draw the focus of this thread back a bit from, y'know, the entire topic of the existence of any and all supernatural phenomena?

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Just now, mormont said:

Can we possibly draw the focus of this thread back a bit from, y'know, the entire topic of the existence of any and all supernatural phenomena?

Why? The conversation has evolved.. you know.. like the rest of all life on earth.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

35 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

What I'm getting at is you are suggesting that everything we believe today will somehow be shown to be false tomorrow. This is highly unlikely because we have an enormous wealth of evidence and tests that mean that certain things are almost certainly true. Evolution for instance is now not really a theory but a fact, we can demonstrate over and over again. If something turned up that completely contradicted the idea of evolution then maybe there would be some doubt, but so far there is nothing. 

It would be ludicrous to not believe in evolution at this point due to the enormous amount of evidence for it. That is a rational decision. 

There might be parts of scientific thinking that will change over time, and that is the great thing about science. Its evidence based and rational. I'm happy to believe in evolution because there is so much evidence for it. I won't believe in a religion because the evidence doesn't support it. 

Now it seems you are happy to go against all the evidence and believe in something because it helps you in your life. That is totally fine. My mother was Irish Catholic and she her religion helped her, and I respected that. We all have our helpful delusions. 

No.  Not at all.  What I'm saying is that if materialists insist upon evidence before something can be looked at you end up with the Lord Kelvins of the world holding back inquiry into speculative areas like "Atomism" in the 19th Century.  Most of the time that's not a big deal and it is heading up a blind alley.  However, Kelvin was dead wrong on this one and had his view prevailed we'd still be running on Steam locomotives and mechanical calculators.  

It's not that someone is going to suddendly show that Evolution is wrong and that the world is really 6000 years old.  It is that rejecting ideas and hypothesis as "impossible" limits inquiry into areas that we may not have considered possible at the time such hypothesises were offered.

(an aside perhaps that would have facilitated the completion of the Babbage/Lovelace Analytical Engine and we'd have purely mechanical universal computers by now. Who knows.)

But back to the original point I see no reason that religious belief and empirical inquiry cannot exist side by side.  Many religious people have conceived of an proven magnificant scientific theories without losing their religous faith.