Oh lawd, you need to learn what trolling means.
It's not a different question. By "this situation" I'm talking about religious beliefs.
How do you manage tying your shoe laces? Or do you have velcro shoes?
I'm in the wrong job! £60 an hour for playing make believe!
- Thread starter NeilF
- Start date
Oh lawd, you need to learn what trolling means.
It's not a different question. By "this situation" I'm talking about religious beliefs.
How do you manage tying your shoe laces? Or do you have velcro shoes?
Nice, personal insults. Proof of god that.
How about you answer my question then?
What do you think/assume my religious beliefs are?
What does it matter what they are? I haven't even thought about them.
WE are discussing if proof is subjective or not. Your faith has no bearing on that. Unless you are suggesting that rulers give different measurements for christians than atheists?
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
Right right. So I haven't said anything about how people won't accept proof if they don't deem it as proof?
In practice "proof" isn't objective because people don't treat it as such. The very fact that people accept or deny things based on their beliefs shows that proof in PRACTICE is subjective.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
proof = belief now?
In practice, it's how people use it.
That's why I have been mentioning DNA, some people believe that DNA is proof of God's existence.
The very same way that the existence of God is subjective in practice. No one can objectively prove that God does or doesn't exist, yet many people claim to have proof of one or the other simply because they are willing to accept that as proof of existence/non-existence.
That's why I have been mentioning DNA, some people believe that DNA is proof of God's existence.
The very same way that the existence of God is subjective in practice. No one can objectively prove that God does or doesn't exist, yet many people claim to have proof of one or the other simply because they are willing to accept that as proof of existence/non-existence.
Nobody is bashing islam, they're bashing the belief in Jinns. The same as we would bash the belief in werewolfs, vampires or the chupacabra.
Do you believe in the yeti? Zeus? Nessie? If not then why not?
It's called the scientific model. Repeatable, measurable and empirical evidence can be seen by anyone.
Saying you don't accept that or that your own personal experiences (which can be affected by many outside factors) are proof despite the lack of actual evidence is simply willful ignorance.
I don't think they do. Disproving the existance of something is next to impossible. That's why the onus is on those claiming something exists to prove that it does.
Incorrect.
That's not the point I'm trying to make. I'm not religious. I understand how science works, again that's not what I'm trying to say.
I'm saying that despite all of that, something is only really "proof" if all involved parties are willing to accept it as such.
That it's largely meaningless to people who don't see it proof.
I'm not saying that it's not proof in the capacity of it being untrue but the truth of something doesn't necessarily matter because of people are.
I don't think the onus is on religious people to prove that God exists, but I also don't think the onus is on non-religious people to prove that God doesn't exist because it's simply impossible either way, however there are various things to both sides that they both consider proof of the existence or non-existence, and that to them IS proof.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
Then we're arguing semantics. Proof again (hur hur) that these people don't know what they are talking about.
They are of a smokeless flame, Satan is infact a Jinn. You could say he is the first Jinn as Adam was the first Human.
Codswallop it may be to some, but the Qur'an has mentioned things 1400 years a go, which were found only a few decades ago. Jinns are mentioned in the Qur'an.
Not sure if serious.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 16,513
- Location
- Swimming in a lake
Any good knowledge of the placebo effect would probably qualify you well for this...
kd
kd
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 10,234
- Location
- Slough
I havent read the entire thread but i'd like to inject some interesting points relevant to the thread
the majority of this thread seems to be about religion and religious healers. The recent derren brown series brings some excellent insight into this and is well worth a watch
this one shows why religion has come about and what are the causes of most religious and supernatural phenomena
This shows that supernatural phenomina can be explained by basic psychology. For example, when you are placed in a room and all sensual stimulus is removed, the brain will create non existent stimulus, which explains most ghost/jinn/poltergeist/whatever stories.
and this video shows the power of the placebo effect, which is widely used by religious healers.
That second video explains the theory behind the healer's setup in the OP - the placebo effect. He has all this religious gubbins around him and makes the setting as spiritual as possible because these will make the healing process more believable to the recipient since they will be deeply religious. Its pretty much the same way as atheists will be more susceptible to the placebo medicine if it is injected compared to pills.
Also, if anyone genuinely had supernatural powers, such as being a fortune teller, being a mystic healer or any of those things mentioned in this thread, i'm pretty sure that they would apply for James Randi's $1,000,000 challenge. He is willing to give whoever can prove that they have supernatural powers $1,000,000. If someone genuinely had supernatural powers then i'm pretty sure they would apply for this even if they didnt want the money because it would be a massively good gesture to give the money to charity. unsurprisingly no-one has passed even the preliminary tests yet which is pretty good evidence that this kind of stuff is rubbish.
As a final note I would like to say I have nothing against anyone who is religious and I couldn't care less if they believe that the world was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure, as long as it makes them happy i'm cool with that. What I do not find acceptable is when people take advantage of religious beliefs to con people or use religion as a reason for violence.
the majority of this thread seems to be about religion and religious healers. The recent derren brown series brings some excellent insight into this and is well worth a watch
this one shows why religion has come about and what are the causes of most religious and supernatural phenomena
This shows that supernatural phenomina can be explained by basic psychology. For example, when you are placed in a room and all sensual stimulus is removed, the brain will create non existent stimulus, which explains most ghost/jinn/poltergeist/whatever stories.
and this video shows the power of the placebo effect, which is widely used by religious healers.
That second video explains the theory behind the healer's setup in the OP - the placebo effect. He has all this religious gubbins around him and makes the setting as spiritual as possible because these will make the healing process more believable to the recipient since they will be deeply religious. Its pretty much the same way as atheists will be more susceptible to the placebo medicine if it is injected compared to pills.
Also, if anyone genuinely had supernatural powers, such as being a fortune teller, being a mystic healer or any of those things mentioned in this thread, i'm pretty sure that they would apply for James Randi's $1,000,000 challenge. He is willing to give whoever can prove that they have supernatural powers $1,000,000. If someone genuinely had supernatural powers then i'm pretty sure they would apply for this even if they didnt want the money because it would be a massively good gesture to give the money to charity. unsurprisingly no-one has passed even the preliminary tests yet which is pretty good evidence that this kind of stuff is rubbish.
As a final note I would like to say I have nothing against anyone who is religious and I couldn't care less if they believe that the world was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure, as long as it makes them happy i'm cool with that. What I do not find acceptable is when people take advantage of religious beliefs to con people or use religion as a reason for violence.
people believe what they want to believe
its not necessarily specific to religious beliefs as per the OP
plenty of people go and see homeopaths and chiropractors both of which are arguably no more valid than the religious healer chap in the OP - they are both also 'belief' based though rely on a belief in pseudo-science rather than evil spirits
How do you know there's not a purple elephant about to stick his **** in your ear and scramble your brain? You don't apparently.
The key thing to remember here is logic. For either of those things to exist, they'd need to violate nearly every law of physics we have, and completely defy every aspect of common sense. I see no evidence that they exist (purple elephant, ghosts, jinns, gods) and MANY reasons why they cannot. Therefore it's a pretty safe, and logical assumption to say they don't.
Yes, we can't prove it, but that doesn't mean that it's an equal argument for and against their existence. EVERYTHING we have says they don't, nothing says they do. Fairly simple to explain that way.
