It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by OldThinker
Are you aware that someone can be both a lunatic and make profound and insightful statements? I know people with bi-polar and schizophrenic disorders and I have heard them make statements that are both crazy and profound. This does not make them divine.
Originally posted by OldThinker
JC said, "destroy this temple, and in 3 days I'll rebuild it"
Religious leaders, "sure you can put this building back together, haha!"
in 3 days he arose from the dead, and 100 were killed for believing it
Originally posted by blupblup
Originally posted by OldThinker
JC said, "destroy this temple, and in 3 days I'll rebuild it"
Religious leaders, "sure you can put this building back together, haha!"
in 3 days he arose from the dead, and 100 were killed for believing it
So JC killed people for believing or not believing?
It's not very clear...
Originally posted by OldThinker
Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by OldThinker
Are you aware that someone can be both a lunatic and make profound and insightful statements? I know people with bi-polar and schizophrenic disorders and I have heard them make statements that are both crazy and profound. This does not make them divine.
Yes, I am aware...but the point is really irrelevant....
Mental illness has nothing to do with Jesus..
JC said, "destroy this temple, and in 3 days I'll rebuild it"
Religious leaders, "sure you can put this building back together, haha!"
in 3 days he arose from the dead, and 100 were killed for believing it
OK, pls keep your head in the sand...
IF you think OT is stupid, pls google 'ASQ LSS MBB'
I am in the top .0001% world wide.....
nope, you are just intimated by a religious dude who won't back down
HEY, LET's do an DOE, ok?
You ready?
Let's put 20 yrs on my approach and 20 yrs on yours, have an impartial panel to evaluate the fruit from both? And see who comes out ahead...?
Listen!!!! You need to understand clearly...OT was not born yesterday and my posts may not affect readers TODAY....but let's give it a DECADE or so...and I'm the one they will come to with a U2U when the SH*t hits the fan.....I could give you 25 or so that this has already happened....
Google the EMPIRICAL rule,,,it the CTL at affect!!!!!!
Originally posted by eight bits
Of course, having the full quote improves the discussion, and I am sincere in my thanks. I do have a concern, however, about the readiness with which you accuse those with whom you disagree of acting in bad faith. You did it to me, repeatedly. You've done it to Ewok.
Knock it off.
If you find it unfair that people are called out on quote mining then that's up to you.
i approach it from a scientific standpoint
I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
Originally posted by eight bits
i approach it from a scientific standpoint
The real problem with Einstein's remarks for atheists like you is what he reveals about the absence of any special relationship between being atheistic and being scientific.
Einstein, according to his letter, adopted what might be called agnosticism, because
I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
So, a practicing elite scientist believed that the question of god wasn't settled by science, "our intellectual understanding of nature of our own being."
Other scientists may or may not share Einstein's humility. But typcially scientists do distinguish between their scientific inferences and their other opinions which they hold on personal and non-scientific grounds.
On questions about which there is no evidence, scientists can say whatever they like, but science has nothing to say. That is what makes it science instead of woo: no evidence, no "scientific" conclusion. But personal opinions? Everybody has those, including scientists.
[edit on 27-11-2009 by eight bits]
I have not used a scientific founding, that would suggest evidence against something, i have said i use the scientific method, that being without proof there is no belief in something.
I would say that Einstein basically ignored the scientific method when it came to a belief in god
Don't you find it slightly odd that as education in a scientific discipline increases a belief in god decreases?
I see again you didn't quote Einsteins dislike of the idea of a personal god and i find that interesting
Originally posted by OldThinker
Yes, that sort of throws out the 'jesus is a myth' theory...many of the historians of the day, and after...recorded the deaths of the followers of Jesus...
Originally posted by OldThinker
Originally posted by Pr0t0
This thread contains little in the way of evidence... The Bible is not a suitable source.
What a bold claim!
Proof out there?
In many atheists the opposite is true....their BEHAVIOR dictates their BELIEF...the scriptures call that an 'EXCUSE', sorry
[edit on 17-11-2009 by OldThinker]
Originally posted by eight bits
You don't get to redefine words and phrases that already have a consensus meaning. Scientific method refers to the investigative practices of scientists using evidence. Where there is no evidence to use, there is no scientific method.
Originally posted by eight bits
Religious doctrine, metaphysical, philosophical, and subjective value findings fall outside the scope of any field of science.
Originally posted by eight bits
Obviously. Scientific methods have nothing to do with the question of god, as Einstein would well know. When he wrote about belief in god, he expressed his personal opinions. If you prefer to say "philosophical" opinions, then fine.
Originally posted by eight bits
No. Although my conclusions about any correlation are guarded since there is a nasty confounder (education in many fields has grown, not just sciences) and an even nastier methodological hitch (how to measure the prevalence of belief in god, especially in the past).
IQ does seem to scale with the level of education though.
Originally posted by watcher73
IQ does seem to scale with the level of education though.
No it doesnt. IQ should and does remain pretty constant throughout ones life regardless of the education received.
The scientific method starts by observing some form of phenomenon and then determining a cause through some form of data that can be analyzed. There is no data to analyze and so no proof of a god existing. That i would consider to be a use of the scientific method.
I state again clearly that if your argument is that no evidence is proof there being a god
We were deisgned to evolve, then why need a god at all?
Again i only ask you provide evidence for a positive claim that you are making or at least defending.
If i refuse to remove the hat then any observer can simply ignore me and not believe until i prove what i'm saying.
The prevalence is neither here nor there.
Originally posted by ewokdisco
but there IS evidence...but what you really mean is 'my kind of evidence'...
keep your dogma out of science and keep it well away from politics.