Belief Versus The Scientific Method

It might be worthwhile covering some very basic terms that so often get misused.

Reports: Reports are simply recitations of the facts under consideration.

Inference: Inference are additional statements not directly found in the report.

Let's start with these two since they are almost always evident in EVERY post from Phat and yet almost never identified.

An example are the alleged alleged "Supernatural" events he and others claim to have experienced.

A report of such an event would be who was there, when it happened, what was heard or smelled or tasted or seen.

But any statement about supernatural or demonic or spiritual causes is not a report, it is an inference.

Now inferences can be very important and in science inference is a major tool. A geologist can look at the shape of a valley and infer that it was produced by a glacier or a river or geological slippage or faults. But those inferences then get tested to see if there is any validity.

But that step never happens with spiritual or supernatural or demonic events. In those events the inference is made and then simply adopted and included in the Report as though it were factual and not an unsupported inference.

So if we are going to talk about belief versus the Scientific Method it is important to also understand words and language and not call an inference a report.

Edited by jar, : applin spallin

Edited by jar, : No reason given.

The big possibility Phat is that you might learn how to think; and learn the tools that will allow you to understand how much you try to avoid thinking and reality.

Consider the post on the difference between reporting and inference.

Stop and look at you posts and try to identify how often you mistake reporting and inference.

Look at your accounts of your experience Phat.

What parts are actual reporting and what parts are pure inference?

Phat writes: This gets us back to Jesus. Jesus is not simply a character in a book. If He were limited to that, I would have no overwhelming compulsion to commune with Him (since He wouldn't thus exist)

You keep using the word commune. I don't think it means what you think it means.

How many years have you been asked to explain how you know you are 'communing' with Jesus?

How many years have you either refused or been unable to explain how you do that or even what that means?

Phat writes: Jesus and I do have a relationship. It is not fantasy.

See above. Same questions part 2.

ringo writes: Utter nonsense. We have all kinds of evidence that Lincoln existed. We're only a couple of generations away from people who knew him personally and did actually commune with him. Please don't make such a **** of yourself.

And my Great-Grandfather was John T Ford so my family has a somewhat personal knowledge that Lincoln existed.

Phat writes: What is Holy Communion to you,

Holy Communion is a human created social supporting play, a rite of affirmation.

The Bible really says little about Holy Communion and any such pieces parts taken out of context are also inconclusive and most often mutually exclusive. We've discussed many such passages in the past Phat from the naming of Israel to God and the Pharaoh to the many versions of Saul's conversion and of the Great Commission among others.

Phat writes: What have the apologists added, in your opinion

Absolutely nothing of any worth or value Phat and the apologists have denigrated any possible meaning to nothing but another tool to brainwash those who never learned how to think; to a meaningless catch phrase to avoid actual thought.

You claim that you are in 'communion' with Jesus but avoid explaining what that even means.

P_hat writes: Likely it would be close to impossible to affirm anything beyond ones personal belief and convictions.

All of the evidence supports the position that any such communion is nothing but the creation of that individual's imagination though.

There is no evidence that it is anything other than the creation of that individual's imagination.

Phat writes: Whether Jesus is alive in Spirit now, as many claim, there is no way to measure this objectivly.

But there is far more to it than that. Neither you or anyone else has ever even explained what that means.

Phat writes: Phat writes: Whether Jesus is alive in Spirit now, as many claim, there is no way to measure this objectivly. jar writes: But there is far more to it than that. Neither you or anyone else has ever even explained what that means. You have. You often mention that it is the little everyday things we do for others that show our Spirit. One of my favorite scriptures is this: Matthew 10:40 ESV writes: “Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. Your actions of taking out the neighbors trash likely led them to receive you (accept you) as a trustworthy neighbor. According to Matthew, they then also receive the One who sent you. Unless you are telling me that nobody sent you, in which case I would roll my eyes and smack my forehead.

Of course I'm saying no one sent me.

BUT Wait! There's more!

Haven't you been told by me and by many others that the same directive; feed & clothe & shelter & protect & comfort & educate & heal are found in EVERY moral system known?

The things you point out have nothing to do with whether or not Jesus is living today (whatever that might mean) or even whether or not Jesus ever lived.

You should smack your forehead because it really is that simple; no one should have to tell you to do those things; they are simply the right things to do.

And you compound your silliness with the additional quotes from Luke & John (most likely they were slogans some apologist told you to use) but you didn't bother to actually read them and ask "What do these quotes have to do with marketing "Jesus lives today"?

Edited by jar, : apalin spallin

And I have explained this to you many times Phat.

Phat writes: You have mentioned a "charge" before. Question: WHO gave us this charge? I await a statement of faith from a fellow believer.

Have I ever mentioned to you that I am a Christian?

Have I ever mentioned to you that the Jesus character in the Bible said that to truly follow his teachings certain things should be done including feeding and sheltering and clothing and comforting and protecting and healing and educating?

Those are charges made to all Christians about how we should behave. But the charges remain whether or not Jesus is living today or even ever lived.

The charges are simply part of the path called Christianity.

They are also the charges were I a Muslim or Jew or Hindu or Buddhist or Taoist or Satanist or atheist or agnostic.

You always try to change the subject when present with the task of trying to explain what your catch phrases even mean like "Jesus is living today" or "in communion with Jesus" or "one must stand for something or they fall for anything" and the rest of the utterly stupid CCoI platitudes.

To say that Jesus charged Christians to behave in a given fashion has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus lives or lived.

Phat writes: jar writes: To say that Jesus charged Christians to behave in a given fashion has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus lives or lived. Which reduces Jesus to the same level as any other religious figure. Which is where you fall short. There may yet be hope for you if you keep doing what ________(insert religious character or charge here) said to do.

And consider the topic of this thread.

Belief vs the Scientific Method.

Why should anyone think Jesus is any different than any other religious figure?

When humans talk about or consider 'Jesus' they are simply using a symbol. It is as vague and internally inconsistent as 'apple'.

When humans use the the symbol Jesus it really has less absolute reality than the symbol 'Buddha' or 'Muhammad'. There is far more objective evidence that the two latter individuals actually did exist.

Humans use of the symbol 'Jesus' is far closer to their use of the symbol 'apple'; the symbol 'apple' can be red or green or yellow or multicolored or large or small or tart or sweet or soft or crisp or ...

The difference is that in a discussion when you use the symbol 'apple' there is at least a possibility that when asked "what do you mean apple" you might be able to add additional details and perhaps even a specific name to make sure both you and I imagine the same thing when you use the symbol 'apple'.

It's back towards some basics we've discussed many times.

Don't confuse the map for the territory. Don't confuse the symbol for the reality.

This exchange is critical to the topic.

On the belief side symbols are tossed out and accepted as the reality BUT, and it is a major but, none of the people on the belief side take the next step and ask 'When you use the symbol Jesus, what do you mean?"

When someone on the belief side says they are in communion with God no one raises their hand and asks "What do you mean?"

Belief equals everyone nodding their heads collectively.

The scientific method equals asking "Say what?"

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Phat writes: I tend to favor Holy Communion with SOURCE leading to better CONTENT, and would get frustrated and disillusioned were it found that Jesus actually was a simple human holy man on a par with any other mystic wandering down the pike.

Unfortunately neither truth not reality really care or depend on what someone favors.

AbE:

so what are some examples of better content that is dependent on the source?

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title & ABE

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin no v in source

Phat writes: You seem to think Christianity is about what we do.(CONTENT of character) and that SOURCE(Creator of all seen and unseen) is irrelevant.

There you go retreating yet again to just word salad and fantasy. What the hell does "CONTENT of character" even mean or other than your total fantasy involving "SOURCE(Creator of all seen and unseen) " which is totally refuted by all the evidence relevant?

There is absolute irrefutable evidence that the Bible is not something created by some single or supernatural SOURCE but rather by an unknown number of very simple humans. It's called "Scripture" and can be read by almost anyone except Biblical Christians it seems.

But you also simply refused or are unable to address what I posted about symbolism.

The pattern continues.

Phat writes: Yeah I forgot that you berate us for having the audacity to think we are any more blessed or favored than a womanizing, drunken atheist who laughs at organized religion and our "sky daddy".

What does the evidence show Phat?

Is there ANY evidence that there is any fewer percentage of Biblical Christians that are womanizing drunkards than there are atheists who are womanizing drunkards?

Have you even actually listed to the old Biblical Christian Hymn "The Church has one foundation"?

Does it bother you that it codifies women as property?

Correct, you don't see it. It's another example of Male Privilege and how people simply accept what the want rather than what is there.

Look again.

It was a sign of the times when first written but the sad and pitiful part is that even today you don't see it.

Edited by jar, : No reason given.

Phat writes: There is only one God (If any) and there is no reason it couldnt be the Christian God. Specifically.

You have never provided any evidence or even any reasoned argument that supports either of those assertions and all of the evidence suggests both are very unlikely.

In particular there is overwhelming evidence that there is no such thing as the Christian God. That evidence is the Bible and the existence of Club Christian.

We've been down that road many many man many times Phat.

Phat writes: Throw either the PRATTS away or throw away God as I understand Her?

You should think.

What does the symbol "PRATT" actually mean?

Next what does the symbol "God as I understand Her" actually mean?

What does the symbol "the Christian God" actually mean?

Of those three things it's very likely that there can be a common understanding of what the symbol "PRATT" actually means and an understanding that can be supported by evidence and reasoned argument.

But the latter two symbols are as meaningless as the symbol "apple".

The latter two exist only in the imagination of the individual until additional descriptive information is supplied. Unfortunately all of the evidence shows that EVERY single God or god EVER described is only a creature of fantasy and human imagination.

And so you once again make some silly assertion about some philosophy sitting on some fence which other than perhaps making you feel better has absolutely no meaning or relevance to the topic.

Remember Phat, you created this topic.

This is where you need to provide reasoned argument that support Belief versus The Scientific Method.

The very post to which you were replying posed two questions regarding assertions you made; and once again you simply avoid addressing either question.

jar writes: Phat writes: There is only one God (If any) and there is no reason it couldnt be the Christian God. Specifically. You have never provided any evidence or even any reasoned argument that supports either of those assertions and all of the evidence suggests both are very unlikely.