I noticed also..i kinda like it.
they seem to be paying more attention to the troublemakers and disciplining them, instead of just letting them go.
Deity Appreciation
- Thread starter fieldsofrapture
- Start date
I noticed also..i kinda like it.
they seem to be paying more attention to the troublemakers and disciplining them, instead of just letting them go.
Are you actually saying you'd prefer only like minded posters allowed here?
No discussion, no interaction?. Just I blow you, and you blow me?...
Fuck that... I live for turmoil. I love a good debate, and this site used to be about that.
Bring back the the old Sci, or close it down... This place is dying a slow death.
Trust me, I know what it's like... It sucks.
Good to see you are feeling better, Gremmie.
I don't believe Squirrel means he prefers like minded posters at all. It's just that there is a clearly defined, broad line between disagreement and deliberate offensiveness. Don't want to mention any names, but the party who was banned this very thread in the very hour you first posted on it was being deliberately offensive.
Consider the original post and poster. He invites us to speak of which religion we favor. He even welcomes atheists to comment if they so wish. Then look at the banned person's reaction. How is that discussion or interaction in any positive way? Moreover it comes from a known agitator who pretty much says the same thing over and over. And even repeating one's self would be tolerable if it was done in a respectful way, and yet the banned one never does this.
The same holds true for your 'half the regulars' who are now banned. They are known for not listening to any argument (discussion and interaction) but constantly plowing on with whatever woo or abuse for its own sake they are currently favoring - and that was pretty much all they ever did.
Personally I try to ignore such loud and ignorant people. The difficulty is that when anyone clicks for New Posts - 80-90% of them will be from those same four or five people each with four or five fresh responses whose sole purpose is to agitate, derail topics or call attention to themselves. How does this look to new members? How does it encourage those of us who really want to discuss anything to stay and contribute knowing we will be shouted down by these same regular members who seem to have nothing better to do than inhabit this forum for hours and hours each day just to remind you who they are and what ax it is they have to grind? Some are prolific at cutting and pasting worthless nonsense, while others go straight for the personal abuse of others, but both kinds are irrelevant to what we are supposedly doing here.
I fully support the current bannings, and I see the difference between people like you and me who are not scientists, but just want to talk about sciency and often unsciency things, and those who are here just to toot their own horn and get the negative attention they crave. We (people like you or me) may use bad language, or have nothing scientifically illuminating to say, but we don't deliberately insult people and we don't refuse to brook any argument nor do we inflict pages of pages of woo without respite on the other members.
Last edited:
But sometimes people just want to start a fight for the hell of it or are just trolling as you know. That said order here must be maintained and so far, for the most part, the mods have been more than fair from what I've seen. I know on a very few instances the mods have made errors but those times are few and far between and I thank them for trying their best to keep this place form becoming a place for those only wanting to create havoc.
yes, what arnie said!
see here :http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141999-definition-of-atheist-(comment-on-definition-sticky)
two posters got in there to derail the thread, one started with insults and was very confrontational,(he got banned within a few posts,yeah!) the other did not insult and a discussion ensued, although both of their intentions were to cause problems, the one did it without obvious insults so the root of the discussion was maintained, readers that are hovering and not posting has sufficient info to make a decision one way or the other on the subject, IOW the integrity of the subject matter was maintained instead of diverting it to a slamfest with no relation to the subject being discussed.
so its not a matter of banning someone who disagrees, in that thread, the other guy disagree'd with me on most every point I made, calling for 'proof' for my statements and often utilized the term 'unsubstantiated' (which is the same as not listening to understand but to argue.) (if a person was seeking understanding, they wouldn't be so quick to call for 'proof' of any statement, as they should understand what it means (or if they don't they should ask what was meant), but that's not what happens/ed. so I would not consider that poster ban worthy, although he is guilty of not trying to understand and promoting his own agenda, he did do it without distracting from the main topic of discussion (even though that topic was not OP topic) and made some valid points for the non-poster to consider.(unfortunately imo there is a lot of feldergarb included in his posts that require one to discern from actual points.)
but I digress..
it is a good thing that they are paying attention to the troublemakers, instead of just letting them destroy the integrity/civility of this site.
as arnie said, to let them go, is to discourage new users, as why would anyone want to post if all they can expect is to be insulted and demeaned.
oh, and to answer OP, (as if anyone did not know) I would have to get the term 'worship' defined before I acknowledge that part, but I believe in God, but do not believe in religion, I think religion has it all wrong (proof is how the followers of religion act) follow God not religion!
Now that all the major trolls have been banned and it's possible to reply to a topic without fear of retribution, I will endeavor to reply to this one.
As Squirrel points out in post #26, we should perhaps have the term 'worship' clearly defined. However, I will not be the one doing that. I will explain myself in a moment. So to answer the question, I am a Christian, a follower of Christ Jesus, and as I mentioned somewhat facetiously in post #4, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (a.k.a.. 'The Spook', as we Catholic insiders sometimes refer to the third member of the Holy Trinity - oh, we're an irreverent fun-loving bunch, most folks have got us all wrong))
I appreciate that He created the Universe and us to inhabit it, and that He made it all so wonderfully interesting, infinite and complex. Many do not appreciate these aspects of humanity and the universe, but I don't believe they have thought things through. How would it be if we were stick figures on a limited, featureless grey plain with nothing but tubers to sustain us? Philosophers and scientists would have worked everything out lickety split, and now we'd be even more filled with ennui than before we had figured it out.
So, good job there, God, God Junior, Spook!
I have never cared for the word 'worship' because it brings to my mind prostrating oneself before a statue, leaving fruit or flowers, slaughtering animals or just saying lots of 'kiss ass' tings to the deity. I don't believe that God, whatever you may conceive Him to be (or not be) requires any such frivolity.
A part of Psalm 50 reads: (bold and underline highlights, mine)
And Jesus talks about the way to love (not worship, mind you) God Who you do not see is to love your neighbor whom you do see.
One such admonition is Mark 12:31
However, all that I have said is equally true of Judaism. Where Christianity goes a great leap forward is with Jesus' radical commandment to love your enemy. That sounded like nonsense when He first expressed it, and many still find it unreasonable and just too difficult (I know I find it difficult), but that's what my deity says I must do. Christ says that it is of no merit to love only those who love you. "Even the pagans do that much!"
So my deity requires no worship, He asks that we respect Him by respecting others - all others. It's not at all easy, and not one of us can measure up, but there you are. I hope I have answered your question, fieldsofrapture.
Oh, if you don't mind too much, here is my absolute favorite Bible verse - half verse actually. It's Old Testament and so just as Judaic as it is Christian, but that's cool, right?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I don't worship any deities. I'm not even sure what the word 'deity' means.
In other words, how could a human being, with all of our inherent limitations, distinguish deities from hypothetical imposters like super-space aliens? How does divinity differ from 'the unknown', apart from our tendency to project human-like moral and psychological characteristics onto whatever we imagine it is?
I suppose that I have considerable confidence in science. It's the best means that humans currently have for learning about the physical universe that we inhabit. But that confidence isn't unlimited, nor do I believe that it should be. It isn't Christian-style religious faith.
Our current scientific understanding is a work-in-progress, an approximation, a conceptual model. Science doesn't supply us with answers to every problem that we encounter in life. It isn't what gives our lives whatever meaning that they might have.
Science isn't a beatific vision.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I think that lots of people would prefer that.
Lots of people want to be in command, they want to set the agenda, to talk down to people, to define who is an insider and an outsider in what becomes a private little club.
Arne is chortling because he thinks he's won, the atheists/"trolls" have been banned, so now he's free to move the Sciforums religion forum in the Christian direction he desires.
And some of our atheists are equally disagreeable, trying to turn the religion forum into their own little anti-'religion' club.
Sciforums has to have intellectual interest. Here in the philosophy and religion fora, Sciforums is functioning at its best when discussions raise interesting foundational issues.
And our awareness that foundational issues still remain unresolved typically arises out of controversy. Philosophical issues arise when the parties to a disagreement realize that they are each making very different assumptions, defining words different ways or presupposing the truth of things that perhaps they don't really know.
I have to say that I'm losing interest in Sciforums. I still look in on it most days, but feel less and less motivated to post anything.
That was the premise of the movie Stargate which was so nicely dramatized, I thought. Of course the aliens have to be superior to us to even get here, so that rules out the bacteria that might someday show up on one of the moons of Jupiter, for example. And, as you say, they'd have to jump through something like worm holes unless they basically live forever and have endless supplies of energy. But all of that does jibe with minds of early cultures, at least in some of their ruminations on the subject, made of course in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and working from the only plausible ideas they could conceive.
The element of superstition only recently seems to have come under criticism now that people understand better what facts and evidence are, how to test them, and what the principles of valid logic are. The superstitious mind converts the unknown into something imagined to be true.
I've never quite understood your reservations. For example, I'd bet you're quite certain that the relationship between a circle's circumference and its diameter is Pi. Science has plenty of these principles which are considered "settled". Maybe you'd be willing to agree to that much. I'm not sure how much more the confidence in science matters. We rely on stuff that works. You don't press the elevator button expecting to go sideways, and you have pretty good reason to believe that as the airplane accelerates on the runway you're going to start feeling some gees, and seeing the ground drop below you. And so on. These things won't change. The only things that change, when they do, are the ways new information adds to the repertoire of facts currently in play. The use of antibiotics is now understood to contribute to the evolution of antimicrobial resistance, for example, so the treatment for an infection has become more complicated. That's a change, but not something that washes away the foundations. It's always possible that some pillar of science will fall, but I can't for the life of me imagine what it might be. So much of nature has been nailed down that it seems highly unlikely.
I see science as the ruling of a court, made up of the best minds yet to evolve, as to the truth of certain laws or principles of nature, as concluded from exhaustive review of the best evidence available. (Here I'm referring to the level of material found in science textbooks.) Very rarely those rulings are taken up on appeal, when there is new evidence, and something may very rarely be overturned. But more than likely, it just brings a new case, in which a new ruling comes out, specific to the new information. The approximations to truth are usually much better than needed to ascertain a derivative truth. So, for example, if we want to know the true position of the landing spot for the Mars rovers as their guidance systems were sending them there, the approximation to "actual time" were far better than the accuracy of the spacecraft. And still they landed . . .within a few football fields of the intended site? I can't think of examples where approximations mattered that much. Newton's discovery of the Law of Universal Gravitation can be restated as an approximation to General Relativity -- but very few kinds of practical applications need more than a couple of decimal places of accuracy, which Newton' Law usually gives them. Where science seems to be most sensitive to the kind of thing you're talking about is at the leading edge of new discoveries. The equipment needed to refine measurements evolves with the technology, so there's a big factor which drives the accuracy of new discoveries. Most of that seems to be relegated to the past, when experimental scientists often had cobble their own instruments together (Galileo had to grind his own lenses to discover the moons of Jupiter; Tyndall had to make his own calorimeter to measure the heat absorption of CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere, and the Genome Project had to have a new chip that reads random fragments of DNA and then integrates the fragments using a correlation technology related to cell phone signal processing). That's a huge piece of the work in progress you refer to. But I think it builds a lot more than approximations and conceptual models. To me it's more like exposing the whole remains of a Woolly Mammoth, by first exposing a tooth, then a jaw, then eventually the entire remains, as the scientist carefully removes one grain of sand at a time. The whole of a thing can eventually be known, if the signal is there; and if investigators are lucky enough to land on a large enough signal, then the conclusions can evolve quite rapidly, with good accuracy and with evidence far more tangible than just a conceptual model.
Technology certainly consumes itself with trying to answer every problem people encounter, but I guess people tend to be very needy, and great inventors of necessity.
So I guess that's an endless well. Another side of this is that science creates a lot of problems for people, through unintended consequences. A lot of patients die from side effects. Planes are great ways to solve our need to travel quickly but they also created a powerful psychological weapon for terrorists. The automobile "brought us so much joy" (one woman with cabin fever once wrote Henry Ford) but this is not the case where triage is being done for victims of traffic accidents. And the vehicles have created a dependency, and from that, a dependency on oil, and from that, pollution, climate change, petro-terrorism and volatile economies. But as for meaning, these artifacts of human progress seem to me, in the long run, to add meaning. Science can help us live longer which means we have more time for whatever the pursuit of meaning entails. Then there's the opportunities derived from science. Right now, for example, I'm having a moment to reflect on things that give meaning to my own life, which was planted in my mind by way of access to the technology which allowed your post to pop up on my screen. It all depends on what's meaningful to people, but from the sheer universality of the web, it would seem that the communications technology alone has greatly added to the meaning of folks' lives. At least the potential is there. Exploiting it to add meaning it is another thing, I suppose. (Now we just need an app for that.)
For me there is little on Earth that adds more meaning than the kind of material you might find at the Smithsonian, or taking a guided tour with a scientist in the Park Ranger Service at a place like Yellowstone, or say a daylong visit to the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Since sites like these are all provided for public access, they represent another cult within the scientific community than the dry research scientists. At least these folks ingeniously devised ways to take the public by the hand and show them new ways to find meaning in their lives.
I think a lot of science is founded on ideas much more beatific than, say, a Renaissance painting of the Apotheosis of Jesus. Consider all of the imagery from the Hubble alone, and "beatific" is really the best word to describe it.
Last edited:
Please do not presume to say how I think or feel. I have never chortled since a very early age, and I don't think I have "won." Won what pray tell? What do you think SciForum is some kingdom to rule? It's nearly nothing. Just some people chatting. Do you really think I have some agenda? 'Move the religion forum in the Christian direction I desire' ??? It's all part of your rock n roll fantasy. If I find something more interesting to do, I may never post here again. SciForum is not a huge part of my life. I'd feel a little sorry for someone who was so much a control freak they had to assert their will on an obscure forum some where. I just come here to share ideas, and learn a few things.I don't come here to entertain trolls like those who are banned.
I'll admit to being more comfortable now that gay men aren't christian-bashing and not seeing that it is the same thing as Christians gay-bashing, and it's nice that we can have discussion here without anyone making idiotic remarks about Donald Duck farting. Such things should make everyone more comfortable; however, I won't presume to know how others think and feel.
The OP asked about deities. I answered my way, and you answered yours. All done in a polite, respectful manner without flaming and trolling. What's the problem? It's not interesting enough? If anyone wants licence to be rude and bigoted they could go comment on Youtube videos and get away with just about anything as far as I can tell.
I haven't ever been called a troll by anyone but a crank, but nevertheless I have reared my ugly head from time to time to dispute some of your posts. But don't take it too hard. This is just harmless posting.
Catholics have one thing going for them on a science board. They aren't in denial of science, not officially anyway. American Catholics are famous for their schools and universities which typically far exceed the academic achievement at public schools.
To me the physical world is far from grey. It's filled with energy at all frequencies (colors) and chock full of stuff for us to discover and explore. We are naturally equipped to do that, thanks to evolution. So much so, that much of life can be immensely rewarding, even as Nature chips away at us and basically throws us in the dumpster when our cells time out. I have no idea how much anyone thinks things through, but I'm of the opinion that you guys haven't thought too deeply about the origins of your religion, or else I think you would adopt my position, and that of countless other atheists, namely, that all religion is just the product of superstitious cultures of antiquity who invented their myths, legends and fables to explain phenomena for which they had no science. That's a pretty commonly held idea amongst us guys.
I can't remember ever being bored in my whole life. There is always more to enjoy in life than any person has the opportunity to attempt. It may be that the juice you get from religious expression, if suddenly cut off, would send you into the doldrums. That's at least in part what Marx meant by religion is the opiate of the people. I guess you'd have to be in our shoes to understand what we mean. Of course, nearly all atheists are operating from the position of having a prior experience getting juiced by religion. From that standpoint we have a little more information to go on than you guys do. (Just fact, not brag, as the cowboys say.)
Remember that the psychological effects of mass worship (participating in rites & sacraments, choirs, group prayers, sermons, etc) parallel other group motivational experiences. The good feeling you get is operating at a sub conscious level. Take it away, and replace it with other products of positive group interaction and I doubt you would notice the difference. You could be an atheist on a board that reviews ways to spend charitable contributions, or work at a shelter or hospital, and I suspect you would get a high much greater than the parishoner who just limits their charitable activity to tithing.So, good job there, God, God Junior, Spook!
Indeed that's the point of just about all religious sites thus far excavated.
Of course not. The believers required it, and/or the cult leaders required it. But of course it was often beyond any requirement since it was a sacred rite that dovetailed with the creed. And of course they'd have to burn you at the stake for thinking it frivolous. So, see, you're halfway on the road to atheism already.
And yet the religions that propagated this ancient quip were immersed in rites of worship as foundations of their creed. Of course there is a lot a inconsistency between what people believe and what their scriptures either command or infer.
Remember that there was an evolution in religious thinking taking place in the Levant during the era of the Roman destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem. The people were invaded and martial law was imposed. There were mass trials and executions, creating refugees that fled into Egypt and Syria and beyond. Believing that God was evil, a trickster who cajoled them into the Covenant and then betrayed them by unleashing on them first the Greeks and then the Romans, they created a character named Jesus who only vaguely resembles the more humanized character you honor. I'm referring to the Gnostics, who were rooted in the same ancestral tradition you are. My point is merely that all is not as it appears to be; there is a back story which expands one's knowledge of how these traditions evolved.
That sort of message seems to me to be the inevitable consequence of replacing Judaic tradition with the new Christian one in the background of mass atrocities by the Romans. And it resolves the angst of the Gnostic cult which was either its sister or mother, making it more palatable to the new converts.
To some degree. But since the Jewish tradition already had almsgiving, Christian principles of charity seem more like a natural outgrowth of the earlier Jewish tradition.
Alexander the Great must have represented the pagan position to Jews of the Apochrypha. To some extent they demonize him, but it's not clear if that's simply out of ignorance (as in stories cobbled together long after the fact). As far as we know Alexander was mild in his treatment of the Hebrews. One of the strategies of the Greeks which made them able to march on and conquer the rest of the known world was that they didn't rape, pillage and burn their enemies citadels and fields. They left their temples alone and only took what they needed to supply the army. Alexander realized that this was necessary to keep the economies thriving, and the morale high enough that the population would more likely continue to support him. And it worked, which is why the New Testament was written in Greek during the era they should have switched to Latin.
To each his own. One thing is for sure--this is a helluva lot better than the sometimes hateful speech of the fundies. You get two points for not promoting that kind of attitude, and minus one point for giving too much credence to myth and superstition-based tradition. But you're still up by one point, so I think the guardians of atheist paradise are going to let you into the void, after death, for good behavior. The good news is, you won't know one way or the other what happens next--other than nothing. So no need to worry.
Believe or not, Id, I wasn't referring to you. We're supposed to be friends now, remember?
There you go being patronizing again. But, I'll play along: I think you atheists are also doing some real fine work in science. Keep the faith!
Think you misunderstood me here, buddy. I'm saying that our world/universe is not grey or uninteresting at all. Anyone would think so.
We are naturally equipped to do that, thanks to evolution. So much so, that much of life can be immensely rewarding, even as Nature chips away at us and basically throws us in the dumpster when our cells time out. I have no idea how much anyone thinks things through, but I'm of the opinion that you guys haven't thought too deeply about the origins of your religion, or else I think you would adopt my position, and that of countless other atheists, namely, that all religion is just the product of superstitious cultures of antiquity who invented their myths, legends and fables to explain phenomena for which they had no science. That's a pretty commonly held idea amongst us guys. I can't remember ever being bored in my whole life. There is always more to enjoy in life than any person has the opportunity to attempt. It may be that the juice you get from religious expression, if suddenly cut off, would send you into the doldrums. That's at least in part what Marx meant by religion is the opiate of the people. I guess you'd have to be in our shoes to understand what we mean. Of course, nearly all atheists are operating from the position of having a prior experience getting juiced by religion. From that standpoint we have a little more information to go on than you guys do. (Just fact, not brag, as the cowboys say.)Remember that the psychological effects of mass worship (participating in rites & sacraments, choirs, group prayers, sermons, etc) parallel other group motivational experiences. The good feeling you get is operating at a sub conscious level. Take it away, and replace it with other products of positive group interaction and I doubt you would notice the difference. You could be an atheist on a board that reviews ways to spend charitable contributions, or work at a shelter or hospital, and I suspect you would get a high much greater than the parishoner who just limits their charitable activity to tithing. Indeed that's the point of just about all religious sites thus far excavated. Of course not. The believers required it, and/or the cult leaders required it. But of course it was often beyond any requirement since it was a sacred rite that dovetailed with the creed. And of course they'd have to burn you at the stake for thinking it frivolous. So, see, you're halfway on the road to atheism already.
Yes, yes. Yada yada yada. What do they do? Pay you by the pound from the Dawkins Foundation to write this stuff?
Let's remember the OP please. You were not requested to comment at length on another's views, but to give your own. The trouble is you don't really have any; you merely feed off the views of others.
Here's the thing brother: no matter what you say and how seemingly and inarguably true it appears to be in your opinion, the fact is that there is a God. We Christians, and I'm throwing you a bone here - making a huge admission- may possibly have got it all wrong but The Lord is in His Heaven and all may not be right with the world, but We understand why that is far better than your team. ("I guess you'd have to be in our shoes to understand what we mean")
It is pointless for you to constantly be going on at the drop of a knee (good one, hunh?) about what nonsense religion is. You do it in a nice, polite (but condescending) way, but you've done it enough. We get it. You can stop now.
I, OTOH, may persist posting my Christian views because it's what the OP asked us about! I made my point, sure I was a bit heavy and preachy with the quotations, but I was in line with the OP, and I didn't knock down any one else' POV doing it. and then I shut up. So try just giving us your atheists POV as the OP invites you to without turning up your nose on other people's beliefs. You're completely off topic here.from word one. What has Alexander the Great got to do with anything?
Also, why should you be calling anyone a 'fundy'?How can anyone respect your views when you disrespect theirs?
You got yourself a bad case of the beliefs (in science): you won't think so, but I'm telling you as your friend, break out of your rigid views - it's not very scientific of you to be so convinced.
Last edited:
From Yazata Post #29:
BTW: There are at two excellent hard Science Forums which I visit & probably others. I have been paying less attention to Hard Science here due to Posters with limited knowledge of science.
It does not seem ethical to provide Links.
The Science Threads often tempt me to give up on SciForums. Some nonsense & fanaticism is expected in Religion & other Threads not related to hard science. When nonsense starts increasing in the hard science Threads, it suggests that it might be time to go.
BTW: There are at two excellent hard Science Forums which I visit & probably others. I have been paying less attention to Hard Science here due to Posters with limited knowledge of science.
It does not seem ethical to provide Links.
The main problem with proving God is based on the wall of limitations created by the philosophy of science. For example, if I have a dream and relate this to you, there is no way I can prove the details of my dream, in a scientific way, even if by presentation is honest and true. It cannot be proven by others or repeated by a second or third party since this is unique data.
It is real, since everyone has had details appear in dreams, but a specific dream data, exists where the scientific method can't go. It is too easy to con when there is no way to verify. One would have to conclude no dream details ever existed, based on the rules of scientific method, other than as type of urban legion. We know this is wrong, but technically by its own laws, this is what you have to conclude, sine it can't deal with such data.
People who sense God or spiritual things in their lives have the same interface problem with science, since they can't prove unique experiences anymore that one can prove the details within a dream using the method of science. The difference is the religion experience is less common than the dream detail and needs more consciousness of the right brain.
The scientific method was designed to factor out human subjectivity. This is done by using the condition of provable my many. Dream details are a phenomena which is both objective and subjective at the same time. It is something we all have witnessed, so it does exist. However, since only one person can see unique details for their dream, it is subjective in the sense of being unique and not a universal for the group by any means of objective proof. God is on the other side of the bridge opposite the scientific method.
It is real, since everyone has had details appear in dreams, but a specific dream data, exists where the scientific method can't go. It is too easy to con when there is no way to verify. One would have to conclude no dream details ever existed, based on the rules of scientific method, other than as type of urban legion. We know this is wrong, but technically by its own laws, this is what you have to conclude, sine it can't deal with such data.
People who sense God or spiritual things in their lives have the same interface problem with science, since they can't prove unique experiences anymore that one can prove the details within a dream using the method of science. The difference is the religion experience is less common than the dream detail and needs more consciousness of the right brain.
The scientific method was designed to factor out human subjectivity. This is done by using the condition of provable my many. Dream details are a phenomena which is both objective and subjective at the same time. It is something we all have witnessed, so it does exist. However, since only one person can see unique details for their dream, it is subjective in the sense of being unique and not a universal for the group by any means of objective proof. God is on the other side of the bridge opposite the scientific method.
Not to easy to prove something exists when it doesn't exist outside mythology. You don't have a clue about the scientific method. All you do is spew ideologue nonsense in every thread you participate in.
A real keeper of a post, ww. You make an excellent point. I hope our friends who have such staunch, dogmatic faith in science can see where you're coming from. The wall of limitations created by the philosophy of science - catchy phrase. Is it your own? I like the way you compare religious faith to dreams. Are dreams real? Well, they are as real as dreams by definition can be. It is their nature to be ephemeral, less than puffs of smoke, yet who can sat they do not exist?
Many here cannot understand that there are real things that cannot be tested and measured.
C.S. Lewis wrote that we tend to think of spiritual things as lighter and airier, less real than physical things, but really we ought to be thinking the opposite way.
Oh, you must have meant 'urban legend', not 'legion'. And I think you meant to say 'provable by many'
