Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[bellenuit]

This and the moving statues debacle makes me ashamed of the stupidity of some in my homeland.

Holy image in stump is Virgin on the miraculous

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/holy-image-in-stump-is-virgin-on-the-miraculous-26549535.html

A spokesman for the Limerick diocesan office said the "Church's response to phenomena of this type is one of great scepticism".

"While we do not wish in any way to detract from devotion to Our Lady, we would also wish to avoid anything which might lead to superstition," he said.

One thing perhaps worth emphasising is that some here seem to think sceptics are some sort of organisation whose job is the go around checking the validity of claims made by people regarding supernatural events. A sceptic is someone who evaluates events in a certain way. It is not an organisation or a religion or a non religious belief. So saying sceptics should do this or do that to prove or disprove something really doesn't make sense.

The definition I like is: a questioning attitude towards what is presented, but not proven, as fact. You will find as many sceptics among the religious as outside of them, as some of the statements from Church sources in the above and my previous post on weeping statues attest.

To call them ignorant only proves a lack of understanding of what sceptics are.

 

[Tink]

I can't see any justification for teaching religion in schools apart from a historical perspective, ie how people's religious beliefs determined their behaviour and how this changed the course of history, without making any comment on the accuracy of those beliefs.

It has shaped Australia to where we are today, Christianity - Judeo Christian Values.
I think these should all be in schools.

 

[rumpole]

It has shaped Australia to where we are today, Christianity - Judeo Christian Values.
I think these should all be in schools.

Does that mean that Judeo-Christian values are the best available ? Have a look at how people with Judeo-Christian values treat others in society. Tony Abbott is a Catholic, but he turns back people looking for asylum, including children ("suffer the little children to come unto me, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven"),the treatment of children in religious organisations, and the subsequent cover-ups.

Hypocrisy abounds in religion and their followers. I don't think we should teach that religion is the best way to move society forward, only that it is a shaper of society, for better or worse.

 

[Tink]

I don't think they should ever have changed it, to what they used to be, back to the basics, rather than all this PC that has happened in the schools.

Teachers are having a hard time trying to deal with these children.

Thats my opinion.

 

[bellenuit]

Grandma's Experiences Leave a Mark on Your Genes

Your ancestors' lousy childhoods or excellent adventures might change your personality, bequeathing anxiety or resilience by altering the epigenetic expressions of genes in the brain.

As animal experiments continue apace, Szyf and Meaney have entered into the next great step in the study of behavioral epigenetics: human studies. In a 2008 paper, they compared the brains of people who had committed suicide with the brains of people who had died suddenly of factors other than suicide. They found excess methylation of genes in the suicide brains’ hippocampus, a region critical to memory acquisition and stress response. If the suicide victims had been abused as children, they found, their brains were more methylated.


http://discovermagazine.com/2013/ma...ve-epigenetic-mark-on-your-genes#.UwQU63n9PBx

 

[Value Collector]

It has shaped Australia to where we are today, Christianity - Judeo Christian Values.
I think these should all be in schools.

What exactly are "Judeo Christian values"?

You seem to be lumping a bunch of religions together there, how exactly would you teach that.

And why would you try and force a religion through a school anyway, If you want to teach kids a religion do it at church or sunday school, leave the school system out of it.

I am fine with teaching the history of religions as long as the teaching is broad based history on all religions, and is not trying to pass off any religious myths as truth.

 

[Value Collector]

My belief is dat miracles do happen whether we believe in dem or not and is not tied to any religion. All u need is faith and believe in the goodness of life.

Do you have an example of a miracle?

What exactly is your definition of a miracle?

 

[Value Collector]

Considering the seriousness of the Christian faith and that it involves your soul spending eternity in a lake of molten sulfur if you don't believe. Wouldn't you at least spend some time in church trying to seek out God??

When was the last time you spent some serious time in a mosque trying to seek Allah?

If there was a god who cared whether I believed in him, he would know exactly what it would take to convince me of his existence. The fact that I remain unconvinced is a sign that he either doesn't care about my disbelief or he doesn't exist, Either way I am fine

What kind of god would require belief anyway, believing something doesn't make you a good person? and if he cared about us believing why go out of his way to hide.

If we are playing the what if game, What if this world is just a test to weed out the gullible and only sceptics go to heaven :

 

[Value Collector]

I don't know why you wouldn't want a balanced view of religion and science in public schools, FX. .

religion had nothing to do with science, so no religious ideas should not come any where near the science classroom, science lessons teach science.

If you wanted to introduce a religion class, which religion would you teach?

would you be happy with your kids being taught Islam three times a week, probably not. So don't try and bring your brand in and force it on them or the hindus or the buddists or the atheists.

It would be impossible to put a lesson together that every brand of religion would be happy with without it becoming meaningless, So its best just to leave it out, there is plenty of other stuff to teach about.

 

[Chris45]

Looks like you don't even know what uv written...

Cbc, I am NOT an atheist, I am a Christian. I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

When you use the word "degenerated", I think you should look closely at yourself. You are the one I mostly see throwing insults at everyone who does hold the same opinions as you.

You conveniently ignore the provocation I have been subjected to here.

That's one of yours Chris. A brand new weeping statue that you want us all to believe has a supernatural explanation.

The reason I raised the topic of weeping statues was to try and get you to look at them, hopefully with an open mind. I realize that's a difficult ask because being a skeptic you naturally assume that because some of them are known frauds, all of them must be frauds. "No explanation doesn't mean supernatural" ... nor does it rule out the possibility of supernatural. I suppose it depends on whether you look at them from the "glass half-empty" or "glass half-full" position.

Until recently I have also dismissed them as frauds, along with the various apparitions of Jesus and Mary on pieces of toast, cheetos, clouds, handrails, stumps etc., until I looked at the statues more closely and read that some have not been rejected as frauds, and in the case of the Rockingham statue have actually been accepted as genuine. All of the links I clicked on re. hoaxes were dead, and since you seem to know your way around the skeptic websites better than I do, I thought I'd raise the topic. If they're fakes, how is it done? How can a cheap Thai fiberglass statue fool university experts?

You complain about me mocking skeptics. We had a classic case here a few years ago of a broken council handrail, which when viewed from a certain angle vaguely resembled a statue of Mary, and it was all over the front page of our local rag newspaper. Could that be a case of skeptics mocking Christians perhaps?

Sometimes you have to be taunted a bit to get you going.

Of course there will be fakes, trickery and pecuniary transactions (Satan's deception perhaps?) and I'd be amazed if there weren't. It's an obvious earner for unscrupulous conmen, even within the Church, to exploit the gullible and the Church would be stupid not to be skeptical.

I'm asking about the ones recognized as genuine, and which have been scientifically examined and cannot be explained (eg the Rockingham statue) which you automatically assume to be frauds and which I'm asking if they might be genuine.

I've looked at those links you provided and selected quotes that you seem to prefer to ignore.

http://www.evangelizationstation.co...lsehoods/vatican_drafts_guidelines_to_com.htm

THE VATICAN is planning to warn Catholics of the dangers of believing in bogus claims of heavenly apparitions in the wake of an explosion of so-called private revelations around the world.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) is to publish up-to-date criteria to help Catholics to distinguish between true and false claims of visions, messages, stigmata, weeping statues and Eucharistic miracles. It said the boom in such phenomena posed a risk to the unity of the Church and warranted an "exemplary pastoral response" from the Holy See.
.......
It said that between 1905 and 1995 there were 295 reported "apparitions", only 11 of which were recognized as genuine. It said that in many cases false seers had been unmasked, pecuniary transactions discovered, and "signs from heaven" exposed as human trickery.[/I]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-10-03/news/8503070291_1_vatican-statues-weeping

The only weeping Madonna accepted by the Vatican in this century is the one at Syracuse, in Sicily. In 1953 a small terra cotta statue of the Virgin of the Immaculate Heart in a roadside shrine inexplicably wept over a four-day period. The little statue even wept when police confiscated it to stop thousands of the faithful from congregating around the shrine. One year later, Ernesto Cardinal Ruffini, the archbishop of Palermo, announced "it was a miracle. From now on Syracuse will be known as the city of the miracle of the weeping Madonna." Since those four days in 1953, the statue has never wept.

http://www.answers.com/topic/weeping-statue

Beyond the natural explanation, parapsychologists have offered psychic explanations and skeptics have reached for any possible explanation, in the end suggesting hoaxing as the most widespread cause.

In other words, if we can't find a mundane explanation IT HAS TO BE A HOAX according to the skeptics. No other possibility.

I was thinking that perhaps the title of this thread should be changed to "Atheism, Science, Skepticism and Religion Bashing", which would be a better representation of its contents.

Religion is all about the great battle for our souls between the two superpowers, God and Satan. The evidence for the existence of souls is there but you choose to ignore it.

It's fairly obvious that few here want to hear about religion so any posts on the subject, unless they are of a "bashing" nature, are probably a waste of time.

 

[Value Collector]

I realize that's a difficult ask because being a skeptic you naturally assume that because some of them are known frauds, all of them must be frauds.

no that's actually a wrong view of what a sceptic is. A sceptic generally reserves judgement until something is proven. If there is a phenomenon such as a weeping statue, A sceptic will generally say "Without investigating it, it is impossible to establish its cause, It may be an elaborate hoax or it could be something else, without an investigation it is impossible to establish its cause"

It is religious folk that generally assume things to be signs of their various gods. A sceptic wants to have it proven before they accept something as the best explanation for a phenomenon, The religious however give credit to their god for a whole host of things without ever conducting an investigation.

here is james Randi investigation a faith healer.

 

[bellenuit]

Chris. Again you keep implying that I said things I didn't say. I have on many occasions said that if a sceptic finds no explanation for a phenomenon then that is their position. It is the religious that go one step further and say no explanation means supernatural.

In some cases I will suggest the mundane as being an obvious thing to look at, such as suggesting fraud in the Katya (forgot her family name) case. There were lots of signs that could point to that being a feasible reason - her fraudulent writings, another "visionary" claiming she was only in it for money, crucial footage not shown for no apparent reason, pecuniary interest of those involved with the documentary, the channel it was shown on etc.

In the case of your Tucker post, I left with an open mind and said that it was an area worthy of further research and it was good that Tucker was doing it. Go back and read what I wrote and you will see how unwarranted this attack from you was:

Stevenson's and Tucker's significant body of evidence for the reincarnation of souls seriously conflicts with their views so is swept aside without consideration and ignored

In fact I spent a considerable amount of time looking at your links. But one thing I discovered and stated that you for some reason don't appreciate. That is Tucker and Stevenson provided evidence for apparent temporary memory transfer between one person and another, memories which fade within a few years. They did not provide a shred of evidence for the reincarnation of souls. In fact you yourself had your own definition of "soul" that was different to what is generally accepted. Again this is typical of you. The evidence is that some memories were transferred and there is no current explanation. But no, you must insult everyone who doesn't go overboard and assume that this is something probably supernatural and could be related to M-Theory or unknown dimensions or whatever grabs your imagination.

I'm asking about the ones recognized as genuine, and which have been scientifically examined and cannot be explained (eg the Rockingham statue) which you automatically assume to be frauds and which I'm asking if they might be genuine.

In the case of the weeping statues, I did not ignore the 11 cases that had no explanation. I tried to explain to you that the Church is equally sceptical about any cases and 11 in 295 is under 4% unexplained. And what did you expect me to do regarding those which hadn't been rejected? Go around the world to verify them myself? Give me a break. If they were examined by scientists as you claim and they said they could not explain the phenomenon, then that is the scientific position - they are unexplained events. And what does it mean that the church found them genuine. That they we're a sign from God? Mary's tears? What do you mean by wanting to know if I found them genuine? If you mean genuine unexplained events, then yes, they are.

I realize that's a difficult ask because being a skeptic you naturally assume that because some of them are known frauds, all of them must be frauds.

I'm sick to my teeth with you trying to imply what I think and assume. I, probably more than anyone else here, have spent time following up on the posts you have made (I don't have time to do all), but when you do not get the response from me that you like, it is back to insults.

My position on most religious phenomena is simple. Those investigated tend to be over 95% rejected as false. Not necessarily fraudulent, as even the church will recognise that people can hallucinate and that was particularly evident in the plethora of moving statues reported in Ireland in the last two decades. If a new incident is presented to me and there has been no investigation done, then on probability I, and the church, would assume that it too is false and probably has a mundane explanation. If investigations have been done by credible scientists and they have no explanation, then that is the the current status position - no explanation. If the church and/or others want to interpret that as meaning they are genuine, then they need to explain what they are referring to as genuine and offer proof other than that is what they believe.

BTW, if you intend to make statements on what I think and assume, that last paragraph is my position on these type of events. Please refer to it and do not try to suggest something different

 

[bellenuit]

Where Native Americans come from

https://student.societyforscience.org/article/where-native-americans-come

 

[cbc]

Fx trader,

You honestly sound dumber than people not even looking for evidence. Sounds like you had your spiritual experience you were looking for and still refused to believe any of it.

If only you had of simply believed it.

Chris45,

Sorry my mistake. You talked later in the thread about looking for credible scientific evidence nd it sounded like atheist talk.

Value Collector,

You got a little sidetracked with what sounded like 'god should do this for me'. talk...... Still doesn't make sense to me though. You should be more concerned for yourself than for the way God does thing.

 

[Value Collector]

You got a little sidetracked with what sounded like 'god should do this for me'. talk...... Still doesn't make sense to me though. You should be more concerned for yourself than for the way God does thing.

You tried to make it sound like i risked burning in hell if i dont find and believe in the right god.

I just pointed out that if there was a god that really cared whether i believed in him he wouldn't play hide and seek, so he either doesn't care whether i believe in which case i am safe, or he doesn't exist in which case i am also safe.

 

[cynic]

My belief is dat miracles do happen whether we believe in dem or not and is not tied to any religion. All u need is faith and believe in the goodness of life.

Do you have an example of a miracle?

What exactly is your definition of a miracle?

If you reread that post carefully you'll see that your questions have already been answered!

religion had nothing to do with science, so no religious ideas should not come any where near the science classroom, science lessons teach science.
...

In case you hadn't already noticed, science is in fact a religion, and like so many other worthy religions it has been tarnished with a significant degree of jaundiced zealotry.

Arrogant claims to monopolisation of such things as truth, logic, intelligence and morality are typical of the religious bigotry with which science alongside many other great religions is deeply afflicted.

...
If we are playing the what if game, What if this world is just a test to weed out the gullible and only sceptics go to heaven :

Yes! I think you're definitely onto something here! That sounds like a great plan!
(On second thoughts, one might first need to give careful consideration to the various definitions of "heaven".)

 

[FxTrader]

You honestly sound dumber than people not even looking for evidence. Sounds like you had your spiritual experience you were looking for and still refused to believe any of it.

LOL, and this from a captive to religious mythology who slavishly parrots back the hellfire fiction scribed in iron-age scrolls just as an obedient, brainwashed religious drone should. I had hoped you were capable of intelligent dialogue even though clearly a fundamentalist dupe - won't make that mistake again. Revel, if you must, in your delusion that you are in possession of absolute god-inspired truth in the form of an assemblage of magic books called the Bible. Yet another arrogant, dismissive and willing victim of religious fraud. It's always sad to encounter someone whose mind is totally enslaved by the deception that is religion yet sees this as a virtue.

By the way, I don't believe Christian myth for reasons clearly explained but obviously beyond your comprehension.

 

[burglar]

LOL, and this from a captive to religious mythology who slavishly parrots back the hellfire fiction scribed in iron-age scrolls just as an obedient, brainwashed religious drone should ...

You write so well, ... yet waste your God-given talent in a religious thread. LOL :

 

[Tink]

Value Collector - I really couldn't care less about the public education system, as I never attended and neither did my children, but I was recounting what I have been told by others, especially one that spent her whole life in the public system, and sending her three children in the last thirty years, she couldn't wait to get her son out.
She was disgusted at what it has become.

My recollection of girl convent school is nothing like DocKs, the warmth in the school was obvious as the teachings of Jesus was told through the school. The caring of others was always encouraged and we were sent to help many different areas in society.

As I said at the start of this thread, Religion and Science can both be dogmas if you allow them, a healthy dose of both is a good thing.

Our Christian Values were encouraged from when this country started, if you don't know what they are, then best you look them up.
Without the influence of Christianity, we wouldnt be where we are today.

The cold stark reality of science without religion is cold. Both contribute in society.
As I said, they work well together.

We need to accept both in society for a healthy society.

That is my view

 

[lindsayf]

You write so well, ... yet waste your God-given talent in a religious thread. LOL :

Burglar I disagree

Fx's perspective and unapolgetic articulateness are extremely well placed in this thread
It is the perfect counter to the doctrinal and dismissive statements herein