Fair enough, though I don't think this is an issue of the scientific method. I'm still curious to know by what mechanism does religion accept new views - that things once thought to be not true, are now accepted as true?

There are tons of religious councils through the years that completely rewrite parts of the catholic catechism. edit: the most recent being vatican 2

What about evolution are you arguing against here, specifically? What experiments are you referring to?[/quote]
http://amasci.com/freenrg/evolv.txt
That explains the issues with the existing theory of evolution from the perspective of a scientist.

I do not see evidence for the claims. The claims tend to be cases which have either been disproved, or are unfalsifiable.

What is this evidence that can't be shared? Oh of course, you can't share it - couldn't anyone claim this about any belief they held, no matter how irrational it seemed?
[/quote]

There is nothing irrational with making claims that are un-falsifiable. There is a stark difference between something that seems irrational and something that is irrational.
Unscientific is not a synonym for irrational. Rationality deals purely with logic, which is not concerned with the existence of evidence only that an argument is consistent with the evidence that exists. For example:
1. if A then B
2. if B then C
3. if A then C
Is totally rational though there is no evidence and isn't really falsifiable. It's logically consistent.

As far as I know nobody has logically disproven God, so there's no reason to think that all religious people are irrational; certainly there are many who are, but that's true of any group of people really.

I'm reading right now a marvellous and well-sold greek book of a famous astrophysicist "I Komi Tis Verenikis" that deals with astronomy,cosmology,evolution and sociology and he poses the question 'can just the increase in calculations complexity of the brain give rise to what we define as the conscious mind, with the abilities to self-reflect and introspect?'. And his answer is 'probably, no'. But of course he is a wise man, not some adolescent that discovered Logic 101 last year and wants to shove his naive ideas to everyone's throat. But I digress...

Care to share more about this book or this "famous astrophysicist"? Who is this "wise man", who you consider so because you happen to agree with him? If he's famous surely we've heard of him.

Because all amazon knows of said title is this: http://www.amazon.com/I-Komi-Tis-Verenikis/dp/B001XJXICY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1312212819&sr=1-1

What about evolution are you arguing against here, specifically? What experiments are you referring to?

http://amasci.com/freenrg/evolv.txt
That explains the issues with the existing theory of evolution from the perspective of a scientist.
[/quote]
Can you write something yourself (you still haven't answered the Bible questions)? Currently the evidence suggests that you don't understand what you link.
You can read a review of this amazing scientist's book here: http://www.2think.org/darwinism.shtml
Also a discussion with the man here: http://www.talkorigi...oms/milton.html

I do not see evidence for the claims. The claims tend to be cases which have either been disproved, or are unfalsifiable.
What is this evidence that can't be shared? Oh of course, you can't share it - couldn't anyone claim this about any belief they held, no matter how irrational it seemed?

There is nothing irrational with making claims that are un-falsifiable.
[/quote]
<facepalm>

There is a stark difference between something that seems irrational and something that is irrational.
Unscientific is not a synonym for irrational. Rationality deals purely with logic, which is not concerned with the existence of evidence only that an argument is consistent with the evidence that exists. For example:
1. if A then B
2. if B then C
3. if A then C
Is totally rational though there is no evidence and isn't really falsifiable. It's logically consistent.

You've no idea what rational and falsifiability means.

As far as I know nobody has logically disproven [s]God[/s] invisible flying hippos, so there's no reason to think that all [s]religious [/s]people who believe they exist are irrational; certainly there are many who are, but that's true of any group of people really.

Fixed.

[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1312209342' post='4843131']
There is a stark difference between something that seems irrational and something that is irrational.
Unscientific is not a synonym for irrational. Rationality deals purely with logic, which is not concerned with the existence of evidence only that an argument is consistent with the evidence that exists. For example:
1. if A then B
2. if B then C
3. if A then C
Is totally rational though there is no evidence and isn't really falsifiable. It's logically consistent.

You've no idea what rational and falsifiability means.
[/quote]

I believe he does, actually. As you point out with your "flying hippo" argument, way2lazy2care asserts the following premise:
A: It is not true that I should disbelieve in the existence of something simply because there is zero evidence and no deductive or inductive argument to support its existence.

Given that he accepts this premise, there is no point in arguing. You two disagree on a very basic premise, and therefore your argument can't be fruitful.

Carl Sagan said:
"You can not convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe."

And perhaps where I've gone wrong is by not abiding by certain social protocols that are expected to be upheld. I think that's the source of the fact that I've offended some people.

To quote H.L. Mencken,
We must respect the other fellow`s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

Care to share more about this book or this "famous astrophysicist"? Who is this "wise man", who you consider so because you happen to agree with him? If he's famous surely we've heard of him.

He's Greek(I'm from Greece) so you might not heard of him of course:

http://www.physics.u...ammatikakis.php

I here provide a rough translation of mine of a part of the book, which has sold 17 editions here:

As Eric Chaisson states: "The epitome of civilization perhaps is the ability to search for the truth about ourselves and the Universe.
A more basic, though, factor that relates with it in importance is the ability to desire the search for the truth.
What is that, then, that allows us, even pushes us, to pose fundamental questions and try to find their solutions?
The answer gives consciousness,this part of human nature that allows us to wonder,introspect,abstract,interpret.
The ability to keep our distance and, understanding the grand picture, to question how our existence relates
to the existence of the whole of things".

And while the existence of consciousness, this subtle reality that allows our connection with the world and ourself
is not questioned, its origins are.
...
Generally, the mechanism of consciousness is unknown. Some assume that it's just the evolution of the neural system, the
accumulation of more and more specialized cells. Assumption rather naive and mechanistic, according to this author.
Because, the creation of images or imagination is difficult to explain with similar mechanism. Not just difficult, but impossible, is
with the same way, the explanation of self-awareness, the awareness of being and its manifestations, the question about how we
question. Some, perhaps, special and for long to come unknown, mechanism works here with the brain and the neural system and
produces or evolves consciousness.

As a prominent modern physicist, Roger Penrose, points out "Consciousness is such an important phenomenon, that I just
find it impossible to believe that it appears randomly through a complex calculative process. It's the phenomenon that allows
the very Knowledge of the existence of the Universe. One can state that a Universe with laws that don't allow consciousness is
a Universe that is not a Universe at all". Penrose stands by the opinion that, as Einstein insisted, Quantum Mechanics is not
sufficient for the explanation of the cosmos; it's possible that the natural processes of the mind are characterized by deeper,
unknown laws.
[/quote]

And I believe Roger Penrose at least needs no introduction.

[font="Arial"]And it seems that you, mikeman, are not the only christian who feels this way:[/font]
[font="Arial"][/font]
[font="Arial"]http://www.bbc.co.uk...-wales-14257755[/font]

I believe there are many Christians that would not miss some parts of the OT if there was thrown out. Some things just don't add up. Let's start again with the previous example, the man that was put to death because he was gathering sticks on Sabbath. God, says the Bible, order him to be killed. Yet, the same God, incarnated, told the exact same nation that "Sabbath was made for man" when his disciples plucked weed on such a day. And he also stopped a stoning of an adulteress. That doesn't mean He abolishes the law(and Sabbath is, in my opinion a good law, a day of the week that must be dedicated to rest and celebration of life), it's just that he introduces forgiveness. But it's the same God. Jesus Christ is Yahweh incarnated. One one occasion, he orders the Jews "kill the trepassers" and on the other occation he orders the Jews "forgive them"? It's not even about questioning God or throwing away parts you "don't like", it's about completely opposite orders for the same situation. Anyone with common sense will most probably suspect that there's something 'off' going on here, especially when Jesus said "not one stroke or letter of the law will pass as long as Earth and Heaven exist". Most honest Christians I know either struggle with these questions or they just ignore them, saying pretty much 'that stuff don't count'. But it's not like that, not for me at least.

He's Greek(I'm from Greece) so you might not heard of him of course:

http://www.physics.u...ammatikakis.php

I here provide a rough translation of mine of a part of the book, which has sold 17 editions here:

As Eric Chaisson states: "The epitome of civilization perhaps is the ability to search for the truth about ourselves and the Universe.
A more basic, though, factor that relates with it in importance is the ability to desire the search for the truth.
What is that, then, that allows us, even pushes us, to pose fundamental questions and try to find their solutions?
The answer gives consciousness,this part of human nature that allows us to wonder,introspect,abstract,interpret.
The ability to keep our distance and, understanding the grand picture, to question how our existence relates
to the existence of the whole of things".

And while the existence of consciousness, this subtle reality that allows our connection with the world and ourself
is not questioned, its origins are.
...
Generally, the mechanism of consciousness is unknown. Some assume that it's just the evolution of the neural system, the
accumulation of more and more specialized cells. Assumption rather naive and mechanistic, according to this author.
Because, the creation of images or imagination is difficult to explain with similar mechanism. Not just difficult, but impossible, is
with the same way, the explanation of self-awareness, the awareness of being and its manifestations, the question about how we
question. Some, perhaps, special and for long to come unknown, mechanism works here with the brain and the neural system and
produces or evolves consciousness.

As a prominent modern physicist, Roger Penrose, points out "Consciousness is such an important phenomenon, that I just
find it impossible to believe that it appears randomly through a complex calculative process. It's the phenomenon that allows
the very Knowledge of the existence of the Universe. One can state that a Universe with laws that don't allow consciousness is
a Universe that is not a Universe at all". Penrose stands by the opinion that, as Einstein insisted, Quantum Mechanics is not
sufficient for the explanation of the cosmos; it's possible that the natural processes of the mind are characterized by deeper,
unknown laws.

And I believe Roger Penrose at least needs no introduction.
[/quote]

I think you went a little far calling him "famous". Regardless, let's accept that he was. Let's accept that he was very intelligent as well. To assert that the fact that an intelligent person believes something is an argument for the validity of that thing is a fallacy. We can probably agree on that, at least, as surely you'll accept that there are many intelligent people who would call the idea of consciousness stemming from "deeper" laws than those of physics absurd.

And throwing Einstein in there is disingenuous. He did disagree with much of Quantum Mechanics (though he was posthumously proven wrong), but that does not mean he believed in the false dichotomy of: either QM is sufficient to explain the universe, or there is a supernatural consciousness. I can't find any Einstein quotes directly dealing with the concept of a consciousness, but this reflects his views well enough:

The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning. [/quote]

Either your translation is poor, or what you're reading is ideological pseudo-scientific rubbish.

[quote name='rozz666' timestamp='1312220958' post='4843186']
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1312209342' post='4843131']
There is a stark difference between something that seems irrational and something that is irrational.
Unscientific is not a synonym for irrational. Rationality deals purely with logic, which is not concerned with the existence of evidence only that an argument is consistent with the evidence that exists. For example:
1. if A then B
2. if B then C
3. if A then C
Is totally rational though there is no evidence and isn't really falsifiable. It's logically consistent.

You've no idea what rational and falsifiability means.
[/quote]

I believe he does, actually.
[/quote]

In the context of the discussion, falsifiablity deals with observation and experiment. Examples he has given are from a domain with absolute certainties where you can prove or disprove something. In physics, biology etc. you just gain evidence that supports a claim or contradicts it, you never have 100% certainty. Therefore, he's argument is off topic.

Given that he accepts this premise, there is no point in arguing. You two disagree on a very basic premise, and therefore your argument can't be fruitful.

I agree.

Either your translation is poor, or what you're reading is ideological pseudo-scientific rubbish.

Oh? Is that rubbish as well?

http://en.wikipedia....d_consciousness

I'm not saying Penrose is "correct"(many others, including Minsky, for instance, disagree and he's arguably the top mind of our day in the field of AI - but then again it would make sense for an AI expert to insist that AI can reach human intelligence, wouldn't it ), but, hell, it's Penrose. Go ahead and tell me that you think he's being ignorant and full of 'ideological pseudo-scientific rubbish'. Penrose and Grammatikakis are not even theists.