What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[Undeceived]

Exactly. The bias is to withhold judgment until a natural solution is found.

So, scientists are bias because in the absence of any understanding of natural mechanisms they refuse to entertain an untestable, supernatural hypothesis? I think you are confusing bias with intellectual integrity, which is that the lack of evidence for one hypothesis does not strengthen the case for another. Each must meet the burden of proof, and the fact that our current body of scientific knowledge lacks a natural explanation does not get the supernatural explanation any closer to meeting this burden. Therefore, judgement must be withheld until an hypothesis can meet this burden, which every supernatural claim has failed to do.

Science does what science does. It has its place. But when questions arise that science cannot technically answer, why not go to the realm of philosophy that can?

[Ryantology]

So, scientists are bias because in the absence of any understanding of natural mechanisms they refuse to entertain an untestable, supernatural hypothesis? I think you are confusing bias with intellectual integrity, which is that the lack of evidence for one hypothesis does not strengthen the case for another. Each must meet the burden of proof, and the fact that our current body of scientific knowledge lacks a natural explanation does not get the supernatural explanation any closer to meeting this burden. Therefore, judgement must be withheld until an hypothesis can meet this burden, which every supernatural claim has failed to do.

Science does what science does. It has its place. But when questions arise that science cannot technically answer, why not go to the realm of philosophy that can?

Because philosophy doesn't answer these questions when it is based on fantasy and fiction. It's less of a weakness to admit we can't currently answer a question than it is to completely make up an answer and insist it is valid.

[Anymouse]

If Jesus really did pull off the Second Coming, I am willing to bet that a majority of Christians would think he is an imposter if he acts in any way different from how they believe he should, or if he is not the long-haired gentle-faced caucasian man with a beard as he is generally depicted in Christian art. Could you imagine the reaction if Christ II preached for the acceptance of homosexuality because God is Love and appreciates all expressions of it?

I cannot imagine Jesus's second coming since I cannot imagine his first.
And how would he be treated if he came back as a poor, black, single-mother from the inner city?
No food stamps for you.
"If you don't want tax dollars helping the sick and the poor, then it's time to stop saying you want a government based on Christian values."—John Fugelsan, political satirist. But then, Conservapedia is editing the "socialistic Jesus" out of its forever unchanging holy book version of the New Testament.
Do you suppose that the general Fundamentalist opposition to abortion access could be rooted in the idea that someone might abort Jesus II?
Of course, if prayer worked as the New Testament claims it does, then with the number of believers in the USA, surely they could simply pray away abortion. But since prayer demonstrably does not work, they resort to their favourite tactic, used since the suppression of the Ebionites and Marcionites and Gnostics and Cathars (all Christians), and perfected since the Inquisition. Bullying and threat of force.
Because God cannot stop abortions, they use the law where they can, and bombings or arsons or bullying patrons and employees where they cannot.

[Zen Badger]

So, scientists are bias because in the absence of any understanding of natural mechanisms they refuse to entertain an untestable, supernatural hypothesis? I think you are confusing bias with intellectual integrity, which is that the lack of evidence for one hypothesis does not strengthen the case for another. Each must meet the burden of proof, and the fact that our current body of scientific knowledge lacks a natural explanation does not get the supernatural explanation any closer to meeting this burden. Therefore, judgement must be withheld until an hypothesis can meet this burden, which every supernatural claim has failed to do.

Science does what science does. It has its place. But when questions arise that science cannot technically answer, why not go to the realm of philosophy that can?

And what philosophy would that be?

Religion?

[Faith No More]

Science does what science does. It has its place. But when questions arise that science cannot technically answer, why not go to the realm of philosophy that can?

I think you're substituting "philosophy" here when you really mean "religion," but regardless, can you name one question that science has failed to answer that for which philosophy alone was able to meet the burden of proof?

[Whore Of Babylon]

Actually, Jesus came back as a Puerto Rican. Jose Luis de Jesus.

If Jesus really did pull off the Second Coming, I am willing to bet that a majority of Christians would think he is an imposter if he acts in any way different from how they believe he should, or if he is not the long-haired gentle-faced caucasian man with a beard as he is generally depicted in Christian art. Could you imagine the reaction if Christ II preached for the acceptance of homosexuality because God is Love and appreciates all expressions of it?

I cannot imagine Jesus's second coming since I cannot imagine his first.
And how would he be treated if he came back as a poor, black, single-mother from the inner city?
No food stamps for you.
"If you don't want tax dollars helping the sick and the poor, then it's time to stop saying you want a government based on Christian values."—John Fugelsan, political satirist. But then, Conservapedia is editing the "socialistic Jesus" out of its forever unchanging holy book version of the New Testament.
Do you suppose that the general Fundamentalist opposition to abortion access could be rooted in the idea that someone might abort Jesus II?
Of course, if prayer worked as the New Testament claims it does, then with the number of believers in the USA, surely they could simply pray away abortion. But since prayer demonstrably does not work, they resort to their favourite tactic, used since the suppression of the Ebionites and Marcionites and Gnostics and Cathars (all Christians), and perfected since the Inquisition. Bullying and threat of force.
Because God cannot stop abortions, they use the law where they can, and bombings or arsons or bullying patrons and employees where they cannot.

[genkaus]

If the results of an experiment are unable to be replicated, science throws them out.

And then we start over - not give up and stop.

We're not talking about their purview-- every experiment has to be in the "interest range" of scientists to be conducted in the first place! When did this argument shift from discussing objective measurement to speculating about subjective anticipation?

When you started talking about what can or cannot come under scientific scrutiny.

Could you explain, please? In my experience, I don't understand something unless it happens more than once or changes with the manipulation of a single variable.

And how do you what those variables are without prior understanding?

Exactly. The bias is to withhold judgment until a natural solution is found. That might be a fine practice in discovering how things work but science has never discovered a solution natural or supernatural why things work. Scientific laws are in the "why" category. Not only has a "why" never been found, but hundreds of philosophers have argued why it can never be found (it requires ending the chain of efficient causes as we know it--a logical fallacy). So why don't we move into the realm of philosophy for answers rather than holding out for the improbable?

What in blazes are you babbling about? What do you mean that science has never found a "why". Science has been answering those "whys" all over the place. Besides, philosophy and science are nto as separate as you might think.

[Minimalist]

Jesus saves! But Gretzky gets the rebound and scores!

Dear, I'm so old I remember that one as

"Jesus Saves but Espo Scores on the Rebound."

Fuck.

[Undeceived]

Science does what science does. It has its place. But when questions arise that science cannot technically answer, why not go to the realm of philosophy that can?

can you name one question that science has failed to answer that for which philosophy alone was able to meet the burden of proof?

First hit on google: http://io9.com/5945801/8-philosophical-q...ever-solve
More: http://www.google.com/search?q=philosoph...e&ie=UTF-8

I think you're substituting "philosophy" here when you really mean "religion,"

I don't mean religion, but if philosophical deliberation leads us to theology, we won't fight logic. 'Religion' is a belief system and in another category altogether.

[Angrboda]

I'm reminded of the maxim that the invisible and the non-existent tend to look an awful lot alike.


This is one reason I lean towards anti-realism: it clears away a lot of useless metaphysical kruft that isn't doing any work. Material? Non-material? Who the fuck cares. If it affects experience, it must be accounted for, regardless of its ultimate nature or essence. And if it doesn't affect experience, then you're talking about nothing at all.


First you say these feelings must come from God because they aren't natural. Then you define natural as anything repeatable. Are these feelings consistent and repeatable? If so, you've just defined yourself out of a job.