There is a state of mind which denies reality by its own system of beliefs, and claims to have evidence for its own system, while calling anything outside of it delusional. It is impossible for such a mind to be able to escape from that state of denial, even though the evidences are all around.
Basically, the cure is Jesus. I agree....but not in school.
Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
One of the major purposes of debate is to help you hone your arguments. Yours are pretty bad. They can use all the honing they can get.~Ringo
What does history show about individuals who stand out from the majority? It' not a criterion for truth but often the case.
True. The criteria for being a good and wise teacher involves logic, reason, and reality,however. A wise teacher will not simply teach from one book. (not even 66)
Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
One of the major purposes of debate is to help you hone your arguments. Yours are pretty bad. They can use all the honing they can get.~Ringo
-And what do you do when the independent research shows your opinion to be faulty?
Then it's the independent v's the majority. What does history show about individuals who stand out from the majority? It' not a criterion for truth but often the case.
You seem to miss the point again. Badly, and you have made the logical fallacy of equivocation "the independent" is not the same "independent" as in "independent research" which you then follow with the logical fallacy of popularity as a valid metric for truth.
What history shows is that science gets it right most of the time, and improves its accuracy over time, while opinion is much less indicative of future results. If having better results in the long run, in history, then you (by your argument of "not a criterion for truth but often the case") should choose the scientific answer rather than your opinion.
In addition, historically it is the scientist that is the independent thinker and is the one who stands out in history. Like Darwin.
There is a state of mind which denies reality by its own system of beliefs, and claims to have evidence for its own system, while calling anything outside of it delusional. It is impossible for such a mind to be able to escape from that state of denial, even though the evidences are all around. So no evidence will be of any use to such a person, as they will only accept what they already think they know. Ephesians 4:17 -19 KJV.
Recognizing your problem is the first stage to resolving it. As I have said before, delusion is curable by education, by learning, by becoming an open-minded skeptic who is as skeptical of their own beliefs as well as the beliefs of others, by being willing to learn.
A criteria you can use, is how many things, how much of reality, must you deny in order for your belief system to be workable -- the less reality you need to deny the more in tune with reality is your belief system. Here are two items in specific:
(1) The earth is old, very very old. (2) There was no noachin flood.
The evidence for these two items fills the world around you. Accepting these truths does not mean giving up faith, rather it means having faith in tune with reality. As a deist I believe that science is the best method for understanding how the universe was created.
The evidence that this is true comes from the fact that they cannot overcome their self destructive habits, ...
You can do it. Others have.
If I have tree ring chronologies that extend past 12,000 years, which is more likely to be in tune with reality:
(a) the earth is 6,000 years old, or (b) the earth is at least 12,000 years old
Can you explain how (a) could possibly be in tune with reality?
Do you agree that "the earth is flat" is not a view in tune with reality?
Do you agree that "the earth is the center of the universe" is not a view in tune with reality?
... something which even evolution should not be in favor of.
I can't remember saying different 'faiths' just faith on its own, it doesn't need gowns and candles.
And how do you teach this (non-denominational general vanilla type of) faith? Is it part of critical thinking? of Logic? Is it part of open-minded skepticism? Of learning how to think for yourself?
(definitions in yellow above, seeing as you rejected 4 and 5 as applicable here)
Is it an arbitrary set of rules that you must learn by rote, or something you must "learn" by just accepting the word of some arbitrary authority without question/s? (faith2,3&6?)
What kind of knowledge is that?
Or do you mean the confidence you can have that an interaction that has been observed many times will continue to behave the same way -- the confidence we have than a pen dropped will fall down rather than up?
The confidence we can have that when I count 12000 tree rings in a dendrochronology that you can count 12000 tree rings in the same dendrochronology?
This would be faith1, but as you can see it is more precise to use the word confidence than faith, less likely to be confused with "gowns and candles."
Anyway, I asked for evidence of love,...
Such as swans mating for life? Or like honey bees where the workers attend the queen and maintain the hive? The wolf pack caring for the pups of the alpha male and female?
What scientific evidence proves love, or doesn't it?
If I lived in a world of death and dysfunction, and I was offered eternal life, I would take it even if I had no proof of it, I have nothing to lose do I?
What if you choose the wrong promise? What if you choose Christianity and the real God fries you?
In the end, it's only your own human wisdom (and the advice of other humans) that you can count on, even to choose a god.
Colbard writes:
If you fell down a well and survived without a scratch and someone passed down a rope, would you make a loop and be hauled up or would you make a noose and hang yourself?
Well, in the movies, you'd be pulled up only to have Lee Van Cleef pointing a gun at you. Or you could pull a Harrison Ford and decide which stone to press to open the secret passage. It's your decision.
Here is why - There is a state of mind which denies reality by its own system of beliefs, and claims to have evidence for its own system, while calling anything outside of it delusional.
You don't defend your propositions or even offer evidence for them because you have none. You've pretty much acknowledged that already, but now you try to blame your failure to others.
even though the evidences are all around.
You are well past put up time, bro. Cite the evidence.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
Well, in the movies, you'd be pulled up only to have Lee Van Cleef pointing a gun at you. Or you could pull a Harrison Ford and decide which stone to press to open the secret passage. It's your decision.
Morality is a source of evidence just as the physical world is. To deny love and morality is to deny reality, which is the evidence for it.
So, no, you do not understand what evidence is.
Love is an emotional feeling.
Morality is a set of behavior rules established by society.
At best these are subjective, certainly they are not the objective empirical evidence used in science.
Subjective evidences are will-o-the-wisps ... elusive at best.
Example: in one nation on earth today it is "moral" to stone a victim of rape to death because she had sex out of wedlock; but in our society it is moral to charge the perpetrator of the rape and put them in jail, and also to charge the stone throwers with premeditated murder. The "evidence" is quite different between these two cases, and thus it is not trustworthy. Can you tell which is more moral ... without using your personal sense of morality? Can you trust evidence that depends on who is judging it ?
Trustworthy evidence provides the same answer regardless of who observes it. Such as the number of tree rings in a dendrochronology.
Only a fool refuses to use his mind - only trusting his eyes.
So it is a good thing that scientists use all their senses AND their minds, ...
... while a creationist refuses to use their mind - or their senses - only trusting a book ...
Of course the existence of morality is trivially evidence that morality somehow came to be part of us (and some other animals). But the existence of morality is not evidence for any particular means by which morality came to be.
Morality is a set of behavior rules established by society.
At best these are subjective, certainly they are not the objective empirical evidence used in science.
Love could be defined by some as an emotional feeling, but it can also be seen as an active living principle upon which the creation of the universe is based. This gives creation a primary purpose, and provides a means of interpreting its physical evidences of that purpose, by things such as beauty and a trillion functions all synchronized to make it happen.
If morality is a code/rules of an established society, we may be talking politics, rather than human instinct or the development of morality through a variety of circumstances in time. 'Morality' could well be a term given to what we think is morality, when it could just be incidental or political, and even brain washing, who's to know, since every society and country has poor dysfunctional policies on some level, that simply do not agree with nature or human preferences.
We expect morality to have a natural cause rather than a contrived or artificial one.
But still, people escape the atheist/communist/Islamic/pagan countries to live in the Christian countries or semblances of them. Showing that no matter what persuasion people have they know what a better life is. It shows that humans have certain needs in life, and expect morality to be the code of conduct in keeping such a life.
This does not mean that "Christianity" is the draw card in so called christian countries, far from it, however, some of those freedoms have allowed desired prosperity, and the greed that goes with it has baleful results of corruption and vice as well. Perhaps that is the draw card. Not that a communist country lacks those at all.
It does not seem to be in the interest of Christendom to have a separation of church and state, because they prefer to fill the pews and coffers, as well as have civil control, proving that politics and religion are sometimes cousins in crime.
But it is a Biblical principle of freedom to keep civil laws for civil matters only, and no laws on worship whatsoever.
Therefor the answer to the Q of the thread, may be to keep religious education separate from school, belonging to church activities out side of education.
Do you have any evidence, logical evidence of course, for love?
Do you expect people to do your homework for you?
If you lack the ability to research the psychological correlates of "love" you should not be commenting about it.
Colbard writes:
but it can also be seen as an active living principle upon which the creation of the universe is based.
Only by people who are idiots. Love is an emotion. Open any undergrad psychology text book and look at the chapter on emotion: there is your science.
Even Captain Kirk knew about this thing called "love".
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities. -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
™ Version 4.2
(1)
