Thanks for the clarification. I don't understand cryptic posts very well.

But what if there are different types of spirituality? What if what we can repair depends on the type of spirituality we invoke?

Because my point above isn't mere survival its the repair and continued functioning of humans. Doesn't spirituality gives us an additional tool to function better?

Also I'm not saying everyone doesn't have spirituality. Everyone experiences wonder and awe and one of the reasons people seek out Buddhism is for the mental repair capacity inherent in meditation.

This is the kind of question: what and how and can we repair ourselves that science is in the process of assessing. We already know we can survive at least we can up til now.

Some forms of spirituality allow us to do certain things "better" (like coping with grief). There are areas where it is either useless or harmful, too.

Here's an outline of the scientific method:

Define the question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form hypothesis
Perform experiment and collect data
Analyze data
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

How does faith fit in there?

you have to have faith your instruments are accurate!!

David slipped in making his comment in my opinion because he once said that he does his best not to say anything he cannot prove.

I can prove what I say, just as a scientist can prove to another that putting 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen = water.

If you do not put these together correctly you do not get water.

Well, if you can OBEY and can FOLLOW instructions I can prove what I say, but just as with the water, if you decide you want to put 1 part hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, or you want to add helium intot he mix you will not end up with water. At least not anything I will drink.

Herein lies the issue, you do not obey or follow because you do not believe nor do you even want to believe or even see if it works. Hence you make stupid comments all the time showing your total lack of understanding of the bible and it will always be this way until you change.

You tie God's hands by your lack of cooperation and obedience and belief, its there to learn and understand IF you follow its principles and OBEY its directions IF NOT you do not get the results.

So you and all the other (atheist by religion) here get no where but chasing your tails in circles.

Pletho

Thanks, but the degree of dislike and ignorance you show towards people unlike you makes it perfectly clear that "following Pletho's instructions" is something I equate to joining a hate group.

I might not think too highly of revelead religion, but I have never tried to hide that there are many nice Christians out there - I actually think you are an embarrassment to them.

i assume pletho wants to be this guy and let be.

I think the ability to think is of divine origin. Scientists hold beliefs they make hypotheses (speculatively reason) just like people of faith the main difference is the type of testing. Scientists try to falsify things.

I'm going to contrast this with Sheldrakes' idea of morphic resonance. Some claim its pseudoscience because it is unfalsifiable and not scientifically testable. But what if its not? What if its just we don't have the tools yet. So then it becomes a matter of timing, intellect and tools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_resonance

A lot of good scientific discoveries come from following ideas in the opposite direction even though that appeared to be a deadend at first. You don't slam doors in science. Because there's always some discovery to be made in the opposite direction or against the mainstream. (Now that sounds demonic. What if God is managing our scientific evolution along a certain course?)

All of this is rough. I haven't thought a whole lot about it. I just have seen an extreme number of posters come on 2+2 and say that science has an element of faith to it.

i love how every. single. post. of yours is the no-true-scotsman fallacy. its quite remarkable.

This is correct and one of the instances where a superficial understanding of things (that even geniuses had in the 1700s) gives you a maximally false answer. Just like it takes a constant force to keep something going at a constant velocity or that the sun goes around the Earth 1 time every day.

I have never said one think about hating another group of people, I highly dislike the actions of certain groups of people and so on.

You need to think through your wording when you are tryin gto say I hate people. People are to be loved but loved according to the love of God and the love of God is defined in the word.

In all actuality other mainstream Christians are really the embarrassment to true Christianity, they do not believe the word, nor do they really believe God. Of course I would never expect you to be able to see the difference between truth and error.

I am and have got the reactions I knew I would get from this forum, because when I speak the truth regarding God and His word, it is rejected by the atheist on this forum, boo hoo, like you can get blood from a rock. I am not suprised about the reactions here.

I am simple stating truth when and where I feel I should, how you all react to it is really not my problem. I do know this, that NOT ONE of you on here including the Christians have ever taken the time to really learn what I have talked about regarding rightly dividing the word.

I have had one person who was planning on actually trying to record a conversation for his amusement, but no one on here is really serious about learning anything, you all are more into flaunting your egos and lack of understandings and unbelief about the word.

Have any of you actually really gotten anywhere with your conversations and debates?

Pletho

This book is obviously constructed by the Author to convey his personal religious ideas, and give Christians a false sense of evidence for their beliefs. It panders to the stupidity of Christians by implementing the commonly used logical fallacy that 'science is based on faith too', or that 'science is just as dogmatic as religion'. He cherrypicks small pieces of evidence out of context, and inaccurately characterizes them to depict them as being proof of these religious conceptual fallacies. This text is nothing more than typical pseudo-scientific religious propoganda. They're a dime a dozen nowadays.


Evolution proves that the ability to think evolved in h0mo sapiens.


This is a total misinterpretation of what a hypothesis is. Scientists don't necessarily "believe" a hypothesis is factual or theoretically sound until It's tested. They don't 'have faith' in a hypothesis until it has been verified by some kind of evidence or testing. Even putting it that way is still butchering it, because faith has no part in this process. Scientists never 'have faith' in anything but evidence, and provable deduction through evidence.



Sounds about as credible as the 'Thetans' concept from Scientology. Heck the force from Star Wars make more sense than that. If this kind of rubbish is your evidence for your beliefs, I pity you.

How you conclude that exploring probabilities is "demonic" I don't understand. It's not evil to follow the evidence where it leads. Although now that I think about it that would probably would be evil to a Christian that doesn't want to consider the evidence, because It's a threat to their beliefs...the good old "Satan put the dino bones in the ground!" kind of bull****. Figures you buy into that. Any sane person however shouldn't find anything "demonic" in acknowledging provable reality.


There certainly isn't any evidence of that. Scientific concepts as a whole fly in the face of religious textual and conceptual claims such as creationism. The 'infallible word' the bible is full of outdated and fallacious claims about physical things, like the moon generating It's own light when in fact it reflects the sun's light. And the 'fermament', etc..

If anything the scientific method is antithetical to religion and faith...in It's processes, and It's provable conclusions about the true nature of our universe. Furthermore faith by It's nature is the suspension of reasoning and the consideration of contrary evidence, for the purpose of believing.

You don't debate, so you don't get arguments from me. And I don't split hairs when it comes to discrimination, you're a hatemongerer as good as anyone.

Ok, to answer OP:

Ofcourse people think about things in rather similar manners. Some guy coming up with a brilliant physics theory probably does it for similar reasons and in the same manner some creationist whackjob figures god made the earth in 6 days, and all in all their brain functions are probably fairly similar.

Ofcourse one could also say their functions are wildly different, but it really only depends on your metric. If you compare them to an ant, they are frighteningly similar. And personally I think that's a better metric than only focusing on the differences.

Some focus on method or cortex activity can ofcourse show differences, but some incessant claim that this is an earthshattering difference between the two men shows a rather poor ability to take perspective.

We can't chase our tails we lost those in the evolutionary process, well unless you're one of these people.

Speak plain english please, I hate looking up all these terms to understand what you are talking about. Why make things so complicated just say what you mean in terms that any normal person can understand.

Using terms and words like you and all the other ego bloated self proclaimed intellectuals do, really is only to make you feel smarter than you actually are.

If it is a comforting for you to use these words that the normal joe does not use or understand then by all means comfort yourself.

Pletho

Your right I do not debate! Why would I need to if I already have the truth, that would make no sense.

As for hatemongerer maybe you fall into that classification?

Pletho

I like you batair, you are wrong most of the time but entertaining, good job.

Pletho

Thanks. You are entertaining too.

Last thread-applicable image post:

well, if i understand the underlying view that both of you hold- it must go something like - the chance that 2 branes collided and caused everything humans can observe, and more, ie. cosmos. is as likely, or more likely than any theory pertaining to 'origin of universe' theory [(for lack of a better term (lazy atm)] than we have seen in history.

ok, i'll stop being so verbose.

humans possess cognitive processes that look at curiosities in the observable environment, and attempt to interpret them the best they can, and vastly different conclusions are reached by each individual.

convoluted and disjointed, although im fairly sure my point won't be lost on most.

^^See this is the kind of trolling you get when you don't ban people after they wish a death camp on theists and call people by ugly names.

They should be banned if only to send a message to everyone not to troll on here. They do have the NFSW thread to act out in.

I don't even hold an extremely definitive position on evolution though I lean towards theistic evolution and I still get this creationism trolling.

1. This isn't trolling. It's responding to your argument.

2. You actually trolled me in that thread.

3. If you can't handle the arguments presented in my posts and these pictures, and if you're too stupid to respond intelligently; that's your ****ing problem, you passive aggressive trolling, self-crucifying, moron. Leave it to an amoral wretch like you to whine and cry for mod help when their argument is legitimately crushed.

This is trolling.

It is off topic and has nothing to do with the OP topic.

The angel pic is not even accurate.

At least put those angels north, south, east and west. 4 corners is a generic commonly used term for the 4 directions and John saw them while in a transcendent state of reality referring to a future time.