/sci/ is saving my soul.

[Anonymous No.1988366]

Keep it up with the religion vs science threads /sci/.

Honestly, I know you are all annoyed by them from time to time but thank you. I am learning so much and learning to rationalize more and more.
I am not 100% sure yet (don't know if I ever will be) but I would like to take a moment to say:
I was wrong about my religion and I may be wrong about God as well.

Thank you for arguing this so much and making me question the things I put my faith and energy in.

[Anonymous No.1988381]

you're welcome

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1988394]

Deism is okay too, yenno.

[Anonymous No.1988407]

The problem I have with atheism is no amount of evidence is enough. They will all simply rationalize out any evidence that exists. No amount of personal witness is adequate. I believe some of the accounts of people witnessing miracles/angels/god are true. Atheists believe they're ALL wrong.

The slightest evidence proves atheism wrong and yet all such evidence is ignored. I find that to be the ultimate hubris.

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

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1988439]

>>1988407

>>The problem I have with atheism is no amount of evidence is enough. They will all simply rationalize out any evidence that exists.

You've never presented any, just personal anecdotes.

>>No amount of personal witness is adequate. I believe some of the accounts of people witnessing miracles/angels/god are true. Atheists believe they're ALL wrong.

Yeah, see, personal anecdotes don't qualify as "evidence" in any field of science.

I don't have very high standards for evidence of the divine. I can think of a dozen things I'd accept. God's signature in our junk DNA in every current language would do it for me. So would finding a massive engraving on the far side of the moon of some portion of the Bible. Sure there's ways to rationalize stuff like this if you really tried, but being a reasonable guy if they found shit like that I'd conclude the Biblical god exists.

The thing is, you act like you've got this mountain of evidence, and you don't. You have millions of people insisting they have had experience with God because they are coached to, because it signifies piety, because they want it to be true and have convinced themselves. Nearly all atheists in the western world are former Christians, myself included, so we know that's all fraudulent. We were there, going through the same motions for the same reasons. It's all a combination of social engineering, psychology and memetics.

[Anonymous No.1988455]

>>1988366
>learning to rationalize more and more
I hope you mean "use rational arguments".

[Anonymous No.1988463]

>>1988439
>Yeah, see, personal anecdotes don't qualify as "evidence" in any field of science.

See this isn't true, and is often used disingenuously to dismiss first hand accounts of things. "Anecdotal accounts" can't be used for identifying causes. But they can be, and certainly are, used for identifying facts and observations.

If you say that magnets cured your cancer, that is a conclusion that can't be taken at face value, because causation has to be tested only with proper controls. However, if you say you saw X, Y, and Z, then that is a valid observation, that is recorded and used as evidence of an observation, regardless of what X, Y, and Z are, and processed in combination with other peoples' observations.

[Anonymous No.1988471]

>>1988407
Well the problem is observer bias always plays a part in personal witness.
That's why we have to develop things like scientific tests.
The human mind is pattern recognition machine, I see things all the time that appear to reinforce the faith I had.
However, these are patterns that I must place on reality. I cannot ask, what is that? and then get an undeniable evidence for the christian God.
Instead, if I draw the conclusion that what I just witnessed was my god's doing, I can think about it and realize that it is likely that a Buddhist would see it as evidence for his faith instead.
This amounts to observer bias. IE - I see it as God because I hope it is.

[Anonymous No.1988475]

>>1988455
I mean, apply rational arguments to my worldview.

[Anonymous No.1988477]

I personally find it ok within a reasonable sphere of discourse (i.e. not-trolling) but since 99% of religion threads are trolls or out right retards that think that science is the very anti-thesis to their child-infatuations, then I don't like them.

Other than that. You welcome--as long as you keep your deism out of politics (HAHA oh man, might as well ask you to give the grand unified theory in less than 5 lines) deism or any other type of metaphysical beliefs should be harmless.

[Anonymous No.1988478]

>>1988439
>Nearly all atheists in the western world are former Christians

I don't think you can call yourself a former Christian if you were only a christian as a Child, and not after you were old enough to rationally consider things. Most atheists who say they used to be christians were never chirstians as adults. And most Christians that I know were atheists (or agnostics) at one point in their lives, usually as teenagers.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1988492]

>>1988463

>>See this isn't true, and is often used disingenuously to dismiss first hand accounts of things. "Anecdotal accounts" can't be used for identifying causes. But they can be, and certainly are, used for identifying facts and observations.

They are used as a starting point, but they are not admissable as the equivalent of empirical evidence within science.

>>If you say that magnets cured your cancer, that is a conclusion that can't be taken at face value, because causation has to be tested only with proper controls. However, if you say you saw X, Y, and Z, then that is a valid observation, that is recorded and used as evidence of an observation, regardless of what X, Y, and Z are, and processed in combination with other peoples' observations.

Sure, but the religious aren't actually observing God, they only believe they are. And stuff like this suggests why: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627574.200-brain-shuts-off-in-response-to-healers-prayer.htm
l

Millions believe in ghosts. Does that mean ghosts must be real? Are those sightings, by themselves, sufficient evidence to prove that ghosts exist? Are you stubborn and dogmatic for remaining skeptical?

[Anonymous No.1988495]

>>1988478
Op here, just for a personal note: I am 25 and tearing through arguments for and against religion.
Currently, I hope I can find a way to retain at least a belief in a god of some kind. I suspect this may just be an internal appeal to emotion but I'm trying non the less.
I was a christian until just a short time ago when /sci/ and the internet in general started showing me enough stuff to make me review this belief system.
I currently cannot subscribe to the organized religion that is Christianity no matter what sect. This is as far as I have gotten but it's not looking good for religion in my studies.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1988499]

>>1988478

>>I don't think you can call yourself a former Christian if you were only a christian as a Child, and not after you were old enough to rationally consider things. Most atheists who say they used to be christians were never chirstians as adults. And most Christians that I know were atheists (or agnostics) at one point in their lives, usually as teenagers.

I'm much older than you think. I was a Christian well into adulthood.

It seems like you're searching for a trump card that will invalidate my views. Why? Why try to dismiss people altogether rather than hear and consider their arguments? Saying "Oh well none of your points mean anything because you don't understand Christianity" is just the "emperor's new clothes' tactic.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1988503]

>>1988495

>>Currently, I hope I can find a way to retain at least a belief in a god of some kind. I suspect this may just be an internal appeal to emotion but I'm trying non the less.

I've written a well researched essay that specifically addresses people in your position. Would you like to read it?

[Anonymous No.1988504]

>>1988477
I've always thought that faith and politics should never mix. These are the two most hotly debated topics in all of human history. Putting them together is a mix for maximum trolling, nothing more.

[Anonymous No.1988508]

>>1988503
sure, link it.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1988513]

>>1988508

http://rapidshare.com/files/428529877/Why_I_am_an_Atheist.rtf

[Anonymous No.1988527]

>>1988513
Thanks, I just spotted a book by that title in borders about an hour ago.

I'll give this a read and post more after my astronomy test.

[Anonymous No.1988535]

>>1988463

Not true. To within the external point of view, we can never fully determine that the person did or did not in fact witness the stated. Think of it this way, let's say you live in your house on your own and for whatever reason, your sister happened to drop by. However, she stays briefly and nothing is moved or changed at all. Your sister tells you she was there. No neighbor live around your house, nor anyone saw your sister within the time period. When you go home you can't tell your house from before to now--it's exactly the same. What then can you do about your sister situation? If you trust her, then you may be convinced your sister was indeed home. If you don't you may suspect she wasn't, but do you know for sure in either case? No. Ultimately no one knows for a fact if your sister was home except herself, and if you have no previous experience to trust her then it's all inconclusive. Here the key is trust, for even if you do trust her, that is because her claims in the past have been verified by external independent circumstances but not because she just said.

If you think about it carefully, first account witness have provide no useful evidence unless these very same people can be shown to have made claims consistent with EXTERNAL and INDEPENDENT evidence. Otherwise, it's all up in the air, and whatever you accept is on blind faith.

On the same subject, I would like you to send me $500 to my paypal account. I promise I'll give it back. You can TRUST me with it, can't you?

[Anonymous No.1988536]

>>1988439
think about it more broad mindedly. billionbs upon billions of humans through time learning about their world. Yet, tell me, because we know more today, are we superior to them, when we face the same thing... death. If there is a science that can fight death, lets do that. Death is a black blot staining the human consciousness. Let us not forget what the point of science should be, unless we fear. Unless knowledge needs to be controlled.

[Anonymous No.1988547]

>>1988535
Yes, when analyzing evidence of 1st hand accounts, analyzing the credibility (or trustworthiness) of the witness is an essential step. It works the same if it's done for scientific purposes or in a courtroom. But it is certainly evidence. The quality of the evidence = the credibility of the witness.

[Anonymous No.1988573]

>>1988536
>If there is a science that can fight death, lets do that
Yes, lets.
http://www.manhattanbeachproject.com/

[Anonymous No.1988576]

>>1988547
Name an example where first hand accounts were used/accepted as evidence.
I doubt that this has ever happened, since reproductibility is one major feature of the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.1988618]

>>1988576
And the thread stops there.

So anyway, thanks again /sci/ for opening my mind and causing me to really think about my worldview.

[aether !ELufdjZJa. No.1988641]

if you can not put god into your life, then god will kill you and send you to hell for all eternity

[Anonymous No.1988653]

>>1988547

But that's the key point: you <span class="math">can't[/spoiler] corroborate personal anectodes no matter what--the best you've got is to either trust them or not and that's based on <span class="math">external[/spoiler], <span class="math">independent[/spoiler] verification. For instance Zeus just told me through my mind that I should respond to this and you should believe me, because I know this is true to my heart. If you have understood my argument so far, you'll know just how reliable my previous statement really is.

[sage No.1988662]

>>1988641

And the thread now actually ends here.

[Anonymous No.1988663]

>>1988492
It certainly gives me enough reason to have faith. If millions of people claim to have seen ghosts than I'll certainly have enough faith that ghosts possibly exist. The same goes for God. If people claim a personal witness of God it's enough evidence to have faith that he exists.

Is that so hard to understand? Apparently, because atheists demand physical evidence which I find unnecessary to having faith.

[Anonymous No.1988665]

That's great for you OP. Now, let's get a Religion and Philosophy board so you can have an appropriate place to have your soul saved.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1988677]

>>1988663

>>Is that so hard to understand? Apparently, because atheists demand physical evidence which I find unnecessary to having faith.

I accept the possibility that God exists, just like you accept the possibility that ghosts exist. I accept the possibility that anything exists. But I assign probabilities based on the quantity and quality of evidence for each, and believe or disbelieve accordingly.

[Anonymous No.1988679]

>>1988641
lol Thanks aether, i'll be waiting for that one.

[Anonymous No.1988691]

>>1988677
What if it happened to YOU may I ask? What if you were the one that had a witness of God? What then? Does he still not exist because everyone hasn't had the same witness or does he exist regardless of what others think?

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1988705]

>>1988691

>>What if it happened to YOU may I ask? What if you were the one that had a witness of God? What then? Does he still not exist because everyone hasn't had the same witness or does he exist regardless of what others think?

It did happen to me, bunch of times. I felt what I was certain was the presence of god in church. But as it turns out: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627574.200-brain-shuts-off-in-response-to-healers-prayer.htm
l

Group worship does funny things to the brain. The repetitionl proximity, exertion, etc. can trigger brief euphoria and some of the symptoms of intoxication. This is well understood and has been perfected and exploited by cults. I'm not so cycnical as to think it was designed into church service from the outset but rather that we hit upon an activity which evoked feelings of the spiritual for reasons we didn't understand and gradually refined the practice over the centuries.

[Anonymous No.1988712]

This is a video series made by a person who was a true christian and later became atheist, he explains Everything, every tiny detail, logicaly,emotionally etc how he became atheist.
Although am an atheist since a long time ago but this series was really interesting to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOmSYHzeoNA&p=A0C3C1D163BE880A

[Anonymous No.1988727]

All posts are troll from this point on.

[Anonymous No.1988729]

>>1988712
watched the whole serious few months ago, it gets better, watch it in order he made a really good job.

[Anonymous No.1988776]

>>1988705

You claim only a fraction of the witnesses of God to be incorrect which has little to do with much of what I've seen.

Of course you would never believe anything I have to say so we're at an impasse.

You will accept any explanation as superior to a belief in the divine, I bet you'll even openly admit that. I find that attitude foolish.

Once again it all goes back to this.
>>1988407

There is no point to further conversation.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1988795]

>>1988776

>>There is no point to further conversation.

If you're not open to being reasoned with I suppose there's nothing I can do. vOv

[Anonymous No.1988813]

>PhD in Theology
> 9000000000000000000000000 X 10²³ K starting
>Get hookers and blow
>Any board i want
>Haters gonna hate
>Sciencers gonna science

[Anonymous No.1988869]

>>1988366
>>I am learning so much and learning to rationalize more and more.
Rationalization means using logic incorrectly to believe something that's false... fyi.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(making_excuses)

So what you are doing is not rationalizing, but reasoning. Or like >>1988455 said, learning to use rational arguments.

[Anonymous No.1988876]

[Anonymous No.1988970]

>>1988869
Look more into it.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rationalize

I am taking the first definition, 'to make something rational' IE - to make my worldview rational.

That is what I mean. I will however, cede that my chosen term appears to have a different meaning here. So, we'll call it reasoning instead if we must.