Send a Message
to scaritual

Comments

15,763

Joined

May 18, 2009

scaritual's Favorites

scaritual Profile

Recent Posts

Top Stories

Prove there's a god.

So where does the Jesus! fit within that declaration? Don't you consider that to be your "god" too?  (Thursday | post #928347)

Top Stories

Prove there's a god.

Really. The Kolbrin, Dave? Don't tell me you were swept up in the - Nibiru/Planet X, "end 0' the world", "Jesus! is coming", "indigo children", "light warrior", catastrophe cuLt craZe - that sprang up at the tail end of the 20th century. Dave?  (Thursday | post #928334)

Top Stories

Prove there's a god.

No atheist I know says atheists have a monopoly on science. We(atheists) also don't have a monopoly concerning the use of reason or logic. Everyone should utilize that more often. Yourself includedIt's strange you'd say that. It appears as if <a lot> of Christians have a disturbing and irrational mistrust concerning science. They'll completely throw it out the door if it conflicts with their religious beliefs, for that reason aloneIs this a reference to your theistic creator deity "hypothesis "? The scientific method - has the capability to answer questions we have concerning what is found in the natural world - known as reality. Science doesn't concern itself with the supernatural. The "supernatural " or "unreality " can't be tested since there is no evidence concerning the "supernatural " to test. If there is evidence discovered of the "supernatural " and we test or confirm the new discovery and are aware of it, we will never know that it was "found". That discovery is within the realm of the natural, or reality at that point. The "supernatural ", by the very nature of the definition or aspects ascribed to -it- will never be discovered. Anyway... *a posteriori* conclusions are subservient to the data; data is not subservient to conclusions. The conclusion is reached after the data or facts have been observed. Only data or fact that can be verified are utilized in the conclusion. *a priori* conclusions are subservient to the conclusion; data is subservient to the conclusion. The conclusion is made, then the data or facts are observed. The facts or data are rejected or accepted based on the conclusion. Fundamentally, science utilizes *a posteriori* methodology in verifying and testing new evidence, with *a priori* methodology used when knowledge already known and verified(a posteriori) is utilized in accessing or verifying new ideas, experiment, or hypothesis, etc. Nevertheless, the primary approach within essentially all scientific endeavor is rooted in *a posteriori* methodology. That's the goal. For example; the results(a posteriori) found during an experiment are what is most important. The conclusion is made after observing the results/facts. If the data is accurate and verified it may be utilized as a basis for *a priori* usage in future endeavor. Both approaches are helpful within the scientific method. For contrast; *a priori* methodology was/is primarily utilized by theologians, and people with supernatural, religious or superstitious beliefs etc., with very little, if any, *a posteriori* methodology utilized. For instance; a belief is formed in a deity is based upon what is either read in a book, or claimed to be true by others etc., and utilized or claimed as factual(a priori) . It may very well be factual, however, there is no way to independently substantiate or test those claims as literally representing something arrived at by(a posteriori) methods - in reality. Religion/deity/sup ernatural/supersti tious beliefs avoid *a posteriori* methodology as much as possible, and for good reason. That's why those beliefs are almost bereft of facts. Religious claims are bare assertions. Being theist, you believe those assertions, passionately. I'm aware of that. But it's still just a faith supported belief based on a story in a book or ancient idea, and at best, those fall into the realm of historical fiction, sometimes known as myth. If you understand the above, you'll see why your creator deity barely qualifies as a hypothesis.  (Thursday | post #928326)

Top Stories

Prove there's a god.

This is why we have a separation of church and state.  (Wednesday | post #927970)

Top Stories

Prove there's a god.

ba dum tish*  (Wednesday Aug 26 | post #927670)

Top Stories

Prove there's a god.

He shouldn't think about this either. http://i1246.photo bucket.com/albums/ gg601/scaritual/cl own_zpsajxxsibv.jp g  (Wednesday Aug 26 | post #927666)

Top Stories

Prove there's a god.

But you can still learn how to read.  (Wednesday Aug 26 | post #927585)

Top Stories

Prove there's a god.

Well put, I agree and thank you for sharing that.  (Wednesday Aug 26 | post #927579)

Top Stories

Prove there's a god.

And yet he was included and participated in the formation in this country and while they may not have liked him, either based on personality or the disbelief in deities, they did not exclude him. That speaks volumes more about what this country was founded on, than any of your assertions can ever do.  (Wednesday Aug 26 | post #927576)

Top Stories

Prove there's a god.

Hello, Andy.  (Tuesday Aug 25 | post #927052)

Top Stories

Prove there's a god.

You don't have to tell us... We see it on a daily basis here.  (Tuesday Aug 25 | post #927045)

Top Stories

Prove there's a god.

Cormorants illustrate that, perfectly. Notice the aft positioning as the direction of the air moves the stream out and away. http://ibc.lynxeds .com/files/picture s/Cormorant_1463.j pg Plus, Cormorants traverse between underwater, on top of water, and through the air, so I have to think they have some concept, however limited or different in comparison to what own our perceptions may be, about air and what air is. Water, too.  (Tuesday Aug 25 | post #927038)

Top Stories

Prove there's a god.

scaritual wrote: <quoted text> The problem with your analogy is that we know mothers and fathers are real. There is no evidence for deities. Science doesn't just start looking under the couch and asking "Where in Sam Hill is the deity?" Science has to have something to detect, observe or measure, so science does not concern itself with the endeavor. That job is for the people who believe in the invisible disembodied magical superbrain(S). However, there is no reason why a deity or deities presence couldn't be measured or detected in some way and substantiated. Theists insist that scientifically detecting their deity is impossible - although they claim to "feel" and experience it regularly. Why would theists insist their deities can't be scientifically detected? This is because the deities of theists aren't detected and are nowhere to be found, so, intricate illogical stories with hoop jumping rationale are given by theists in an attempt to explain this allegedly vast, all encompassing, loving, eternal, all-powerful "<insert your deity name and description here>" which in every objective, logical respect, is indistinguishable from nothing. There is a reason for thatThat's a good platform and is the primary reason theists and theistic religions should not try to insert their faith only supported beliefs into the govt., schools etcIdentify in the post I supplied above where I exhibited, said or implied that emotion guides my conclusionsYou've just described the primary aspect of theism, perfectlyScience falls into that category. You can also add individuals who base beliefs upon evidence or proof, and not faith to that category. For instance, you'll never hear me say "I feel, I really really feel like I'll have enough fuel in my vehicle to make it to my destination - even though technically I won'tIf I were trolling you, it would be evident. Or maybe notI'm not wasting my time, nor the time of others who frequent this forum and find any portion of what I write either informational, entertaining, troubling, or disagreeable - or all four at the same time. So, if it's a waste of your time to respond to my posts, feel free to ignore them. I'll keep responding to yours whether you or anyone else ignores my responses or reads them.  (Monday Aug 24 | post #926835)

Top Stories

Prove there's a god.

PRAISE FLAZATHAMThere's a point to it, I think. We've seen it on this thread literally thousands of times. Theists will often evade defining or describing the deity they worship when asked to do so. They often respond with something similar to... <theist> "You know the god that I'm talking about! Have you ever read the bible?" It's the same with pretty much all deity worshipers. The name of the particular holy book or deity is irrelevant. Then atheists and others who are not theist will supply a definition based upon what is said about the deity contained in the holy book that contains the deity - since that's the only thing remotely resembling evidence that's said to describe the deity. Then the theist will disagree and generally responds with something to the effect: <theist> "THAT'S NOT MY DEITY!" Then generally act as if you'll never get the definition right for their deity - even though they never supplied <their own> definition to begin with. I think that's the point. It's sorta like "plausibly deniable ambiguity". hahaa theists are a hoot.  (Monday Aug 24 | post #926774)

Top Stories

Prove there's a god.

http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=E15IC 3YKv8g  (Monday Aug 24 | post #926754)

Q & A with scaritual

Headline:

The eye has it...

Hometown:

Russell's Teapot

Neighborhood:

Hills, Mountains

On My Mind:

Yeah ... well