[/quote]

No, it is the same. I can verify religious experience, but you cannot. You are just speaking for yourself. But instead of feeling as if you are my spiritual inferior, you claim to know more than I do.


------

Are YOU claiming that YOU can VERIFY the religious experience of another?
On what basis are YOU doing so.

WHat experiments are YOU repeating - with what written and verified results? WHere are the tables of data - and the actual methods used.?
Religious claims do not come with any SUPPORTING documentation.



TO claim that anyone is YOUR spiritual inferior is NONSENSE.

However - I will give you a chance to prove me wrong
EVERY verifiable study of prayer - using a representative sampling of the population (IE - thousands of people) - has shown that prayer has no result beyond chance. THere has been NO scientific study of prayer - published in a recognized peer reviewed scientific journal that has ever shown it to be of use.

YOU cannot claim that they are biased - since if the study actually showed that prayer worked - and the peer review showed proper procedures - it would be published. Science does not take sides against reality.

So - let us set up a scenario

It is said - in the bible - in several places - that anything YOU ask in prayer - you will receive. WHile I have heard lots of people claim that what you ask must be the will of god - that is NOT in the bible. ANd it inherently established that prayer is worthless anyway.

However - let us set up a test of prayer - that would fit the bill on both issues

1 - THE test would have to be of the magnitude that would require DIVINE intervention and cannot be explained just by chance
2 - THE test would need to be obvious - not subject to the "interpretation" of either side.
3 - To overcome the "God's will" objection - we will use a test that would HAVE TO BE the will of the "good" god.
4 - NO special claiming like - god is mysterious or works in mysterious ways.

We know that Newborn Babies and very young children are not capable of sinning - since they are not yet to the age of reason and responsibility. While there are objections to the age - different for different children - we CAN agree that children UNDER age ONE are not able to sin. So - they cannot do anything for which they would deserve to be punished from god.

Pray that ALL children under age ONE - get enough nourishment that NONE die of starvation.

THAT MUST be your god's will - after all - the alternative is that it is gods will for children to starve to death! And all of them are innocents. IF you claim that it is NOT god's will - why praise a god that wants children to die of starvation?

Now - that provides for the magnitude(Today - only a claimed divinity could pull that off) - and even allows for a claim of god's will!

I'll bet YOU argue against the test.

(March 10, 2013 at 8:49 pm)ThomM Wrote: We know that Newborn Babies and very young children are not capable of sinning - since they are not yet to the age of reason and responsibility. While there are objections to the age - different for different children - we CAN agree that children UNDER age ONE are not able to sin. So - they cannot do anything for which they would deserve to be punished from god.

What are you talking about? They're all evil atheists!

More likely he'll just call "original sin" instead...

I think little babies understand God a lot better than atheists do.

(March 10, 2013 at 9:25 pm)jstrodel Wrote: I think little babies understand God a lot better than atheists do.

Actually, little babies don't know what a "god" is. It's their parents and society that give them the idea of God.

That is what you believe. Virtually every culture in history has had some sort of sense of the supernatural.

(March 10, 2013 at 9:45 pm)jstrodel Wrote: That is what you believe. Virtually every culture in history has had some sort of sense of the supernatural.

As a baby? Highly doubt it. Babies aren't developed enough to hold superstitious beliefs.

Quote:That is what you believe. Virtually every culture in history has had some sort of sense of the supernatural.

And we have a perfectly valid social origin for this. And you know that.

(March 11, 2013 at 12:10 am)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:That is what you believe. Virtually every culture in history has had some sort of sense of the supernatural.

And we have a perfectly valid social origin for this. And you know that.

No, I know that I used to be involved in the occult. I have no idea what goes into some sort of study of primitive religions by someone who has never practiced them, and I really don't care. I know that the occult is real.

(March 11, 2013 at 12:34 am)jstrodel Wrote: I know that the occult is real.

How are we defining "occult" here? For example, Christianity is real, but that doesn't mean that god is. Are you saying that supernatural beings (spirits, etc.) are real? If so, why can no one demonstrate this?

Darkstar, plenty of people can demonstrate that. But can you demonstrate the truth of nuclear physics in a history library? Why not? So that means that nuclear physics must be false because it can't be demonstrated in a history lab. Of course this is fallacious.

The spiritual world is real, light and dark. I would highly recommend that you not involve yourself in the dark part of it, but it is real.