Are YOU a believer in miracles?

Started by Jude, April 23, 2010, 11:33:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jude

Insane Clown Posse - Miracles

One of the commenters put it best:
Quote from: TheBlackLagoonerI think this is the end of the internet.

Brandon

Cool video. Yes I believe in miracles.

Although I do have 1 question. Why is this in politics and religion?
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play


Xenophile

#3
I believe in the type of miracles that can be classified as remarkable events or incidents, but divine interventions? Nawh, that's not for me.
Ons and Offs
Updated 2011 June 5th A's and A's

Chelemar


Neroon

Quote from: Xenophile on April 24, 2010, 10:31:29 AM
I believe in the type of miracles that can be classified as remarkable events or incidents, but divine interventions? Nawh, that shit is for kids.

I think that discussions like this are best handled in a polite manner without dismissive comments.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

Nico

I don't exactly believe in miracles, but in this:

Faith can move mountains. :-)

Xenophile

Quote from: Neroon on April 24, 2010, 11:51:42 AM
I think that discussions like this are best handled in a polite manner without dismissive comments.
Point duly noted.
Ons and Offs
Updated 2011 June 5th A's and A's

Noelle

But guys. Guys.

Magnets. How the FUCK do they work?! :O

Xenophile

Quote from: Noelle on April 24, 2010, 12:51:14 PM
But guys. Guys.

Magnets. How the FUCK do they work?! :O

SCIENCE!

But seriously folks, it's science.
Ons and Offs
Updated 2011 June 5th A's and A's

Hemingway

Symphony of Science - 'We Are All Connected' (ft. Sagan, Feynman, deGrasse Tyson & Bill Nye)

Here's what I believe. It's ... oddly similar to the ICP video, what I saw of it, at least ... but scientific.

Paladin

Yes I do. There are so many things that can't be explained, like the gun that gets taken from a cop by a badguy who is about to kill him. The hammer falls once, twice, and yet there is no bang, and there is no bullets fired. Later when everything is checked the same two bullets work perfectly. Science can't explain it.

MasterMischief

I believe that an event which can not be explained by the observers does not necessitate the supernatural.  It merely means it can not be explained by the observers.

Hemingway

I forgot to mention this when I first posted, and was reminded of it by Paladin's post. I heard something quite, ah, accurate the other day. I can't remember who said it, though I suspect it might have been James Randi. What it amounted to was essentially that calling something supernatural because it can't be explained, is about the same as saying "it can't be explained, so here's the explanation".

Pumpkin Seeds

Yes, but the same is being done by saying "it's science, we just don't know how."  Someone is simply claiming that it has to be scientific reason with no more basis than the person claiming there is a supernatural explanation.

Hemingway

Well, thousands of years of scientific advances suggest they may be onto something.

But beyond that, one side is still making a paradoxical claim. If you say there is no explanation, then go on to explain, you're contradicting yourself. You cannot have it both ways.

Jude

Yep, that's a Randi quote, and I'm overwhelmed with joy at the fact that someone quoted Randi on this thread.  Seriously, I love you.

Pumpkin Seeds

At the same time you cannot claim to have an explanation using the scientific method when no experiments work and the hypothesis continue to be rejected.  Science is rigid for a reason.

Hemingway

It makes me happy to hear that, Jude. I do like it when someone takes notice.

And, no, you can't claim to have an explanation. But even if you gave up, to say that there is no explanation ( as opposed to saying you were unable to find an explanation ), is still a cop-out of enormous magnitude. Because explaining something that defies explanation is by definition impossible, the best you could do is continue to look for the explanation, and meanwhile, even if you never find it, admit that there may still be one.

Pumpkin Seeds

Those people of faith believe they have found an explanation for the event which falls within the parameters of their mind set.  The event is not unexplainable by their definition and so they are able to make the claim of divine intervention, supernatural occurence or what have you.  That is their choice and until another thought process, such as the scientific method, can surmount evidence to disprove their claim and prove their own there is little that can be said.

Science is constrained by its scientific method.  I respect that method immensely, but believe that many people fall prey to making a religion out of science.  People have just as much right and ability to state something is explained by supernatural forces as others do that an event is explained by natural causes but they just don't know how.

Jude

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on April 24, 2010, 04:00:05 PM
Science is constrained by its scientific method.  I respect that method immensely, but believe that many people fall prey to making a religion out of science.  People have just as much right and ability to state something is explained by supernatural forces as others do that an event is explained by natural causes but they just don't know how.
They have the right to make that claim, I certainly would never impede on someone's freedom of speech.

Throughout history people have claimed supernatural forces as the motivation behind a wide variety of phenomenon which, after further inspection, have turned out to be a completely explainable, natural occurrences.  To continue to use that same excuse, and believe it, is about as logical as telling your teacher that the dog ate your homework for the fiftieth time after she's called your house and confirmed that you have no dog.

Could you have gotten one?  Yes.  But uh, what's more likely here?

Pumpkin Seeds

Nobody has disproven the dog though, as you so eloquently put that example.  The dog was not disproven; the teacher is merely making an assumption.  That assumption violates her own constrains and tenets for absolute proof which dictate she satisfy before assuming that the homework is not being eaten by a dog.  She is in fact lying if she makes the statement that she has disproven the dog’s existence. 

Science has indeed explained many things, but has also proven many false things when its tenets were abandoned in favor of being “right.”  People are tied to the infrastructure of science and so are fallible, which science attempts to minimize by having their rigorous standards.  I do not think it wise to make claims of explanation without following the scientific method.  Such things have lead to disaster in the past and are still leading to future disasters. 

Both science and religion have given untold advantages to our species.  They have given us a great deal to be thankful for and have also given us many horrors and problems.  I will not deny either their place, but if people are going to use them then they need to use them as intended.  If people are going to make the statement that something is supernatural, then their beliefs had better encompass that statement.  If science is going to claim an explanation, then that explanation must be proven by their tenets.

Inkidu

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on April 24, 2010, 04:00:05 PM
Those people of faith believe they have found an explanation for the event which falls within the parameters of their mind set.  The event is not unexplainable by their definition and so they are able to make the claim of divine intervention, supernatural occurence or what have you.  That is their choice and until another thought process, such as the scientific method, can surmount evidence to disprove their claim and prove their own there is little that can be said.

Science is constrained by its scientific method.  I respect that method immensely, but believe that many people fall prey to making a religion out of science.  People have just as much right and ability to state something is explained by supernatural forces as others do that an event is explained by natural causes but they just don't know how.
Science is a religion. Just because its phenomena are easier to quantify doesn't mean its not. It's the newest thing telling people what to do and how to act.
If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.

Pumpkin Seeds

I do agree that science has become a religion, but I do not believe it was always meant to be so.  Scientists have abused the faith gained by their stance of empirical neutrality and twisted that belief to follow their own agendas.  I do believe science at its more pure and untouched is not a religion, but merely a set of standards to prove or disproven natural phenomenon. 

Hemingway

I was going to post something long-winded about how this ends up being a question over which is more important; facts, or feeling good.

But I'll leave it at that, and focus on what Inkidu said instead, because I find that something offensive and dishonest. Science is a religion? You either have a very broad definition of religion, or of science. It fits no definition of religion that I know of, having no commandments, no rituals, no sacred texts, nothing of the sort. It also doesn't tell people how to act or what to do. It's a tool - how could it?