Peanut Gallery

Belief as evidence?OK, here is the scenario:It is discovered that there is a universal energy field with which some folks can communicate. Enough evidence accumulates so that science accepts the existence of this field and learns to communicate with it, although haltingly at first. It develops that all the world's religions are descended from poor efforts on the part of various people over the years to communicate with this field, and that those religions have no particular relationship with this energy field.Now, how many folks change their beliefs on the basis of this new evidence?Do all the world's religions fold overnight while folks change to attempting to communicate with this new energy field?Or do those religions label this as heresy, blasphemy, etc. and things go on as usual?Food for thought when one tries to make belief into evidence. More likely belief is the opposite of evidence and the antithesis of science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Interesting response!Thanks!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You are probably correct that this adds nothing new to the existing body of knowledge.But that's not a problem! This theory doesn't have to be a "truly strong theory" -- it just needs to provide an accurate description of a given data set. That's good enough for much of science, isn't it?In the present case, this little theory accurately describes a particular data set and leads to the conclusion that supernatural beings have not been shown to exist outside of human imagination.As is the case with all science, if new data come along this theory can be revised to incorporate that new data. But for now, the evidence does not lead one to conclude that this little theory is incorrect.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Clarity of meaning? With 20+ definitions for how and 7 or so for why?That is being colossally, enormously, gargantuously, grossly, hugely, immensely, mammothly, massively, monstrously, prodigiously, stupendously, super-colossally, tremendously, vastly, whoppingly and overly pedantic, and is more likely to drive away any possible audience you may have.Brevity and clarity are much under appreciated in writing, nowhere more so than on the internet, whereas pedanticalness sucks where ever it is found.

Complete and accurate answers aren't always appropriate.In grad school I had a take-home exam which included a question of why a particular professor (very emeritus! at a very high-brow university) took a certain approach in his recent book.My professor expected a lot of erudite bs for an answer.Taking a direct approach, I called the very emeritus professor and asked him. He gave me a two sentence answer and I put that in my exam and cited it as "personal communication," giving the date.My professor didn't like that--he expected a lot of erudite bs for an answer--it was a graduate seminar after all! I received no credit for that answer at all! (But he gave me far more on the other questions than I deserved, so I got an A on the exam and in the class. That professor and I became good friends and argued about that answer for a decade or more!)Moral: the short quick answer, though perhaps accurate, may not be what is expected.

In the Great Debate thread, RAZD is grasping at straws and sinking fast: Message 77He has no evidence for the supernatural, so he demands that others prove that it doesn't exist.But he's sensible in other ways, and in other topics he can put together a very good argument. Blind spot, I guess.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Just provide convincing evidence for the supernatural and the debate is over.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Don't much care about the OP.What I am pointing out is that you have provided no empirical evidence for the supernatural.I have admired your rationality in other posts, but in this thread you are jumping the shark.You keep demanding that others prove their opposition to the supernatural, while failing to provide any evidence that it even exists. And it would be so easy to end the debate by providing that evidence. Instead you keep relying on word and logic tricks to shift the burden of proof.You can end the debate: just provide evidence for the supernatural.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The issue is simple: Is there evidence for the supernatural or not?If you have evidence, we'd like to see it.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Dodge and weave.Either you have evidence for the supernatural or you don't.Clearly you don't.In that you join a long line of shamans probably stretching back hundreds of thousands of years who made claims they couldn't support and who made promises they couldn't guarantee.Same 'ol, same 'ol, eh?.I think the "supernatural" is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in human history, and that you are supporting it with your posts.This to me is sad because most of your other posts have been strictly rational.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Dupe post deleted.Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You're dodging again.I still want you to provide evidence for the supernatural.You have failed to do so in spite of repeated requests. Instead you keep prattling on about fictional ghosts or something. Is that the best you have for the supernatural? Fictional characters?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Nonsense. Total nonsense.For this and several other threads you have been dancing around the issue, which is that there are supernatural critters out there.Neither you nor any of our shamans going back probably hundreds of thousands of years has ever produced a shred of verifiable evidence that such critters do exist.While lacking such evidence you keep harping on posters here to prove that these critters don't exist!Now I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night, so I'm not falling for your dodging and weaving and subject changing.Now would be a good time for you to produce your evidence for these supernatural critters.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You don't seem to get it!I don't care a whit for what bluegenes has said, or your responses to him. Not my department.What I am pointing out is that you have provided no evidence for the supernatural. None, nada, zero, zip.And if your position is "I have not ,and do not, claim that they do exist" then what is the point of this entire thread?From your previous posts you do seem to believe these supernatural critters exist. I feel the woo is strong in you!All I ask for is some evidence to support all of this.Forget the cartoon critters and the other distractions and just provide some real-world evidence for supernatural critters.(On the other hand, if you don't believe that supernatural critters exist then you're just being a troll and I don't want to believe that of you.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Why do you keep dodging and weaving, and playing silly word games on this thread?I considered you logical and rational until the "Great Debate" thread and this follow-up.How about trying to provide straight answers instead of dodging the questions?And the primary question you are dodging is: where is your evidence for the supernatural?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.