keithb wrote: I haven't searched for evidence of UFO's, just like I haven't searched for evidence of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. Please, enlighten me.
Which shows how open minded you are.
You draw a conclusion when you haven't searched the evidence, which is like, in legal terms, finding someone guilty on a guess, or a "rational hunch". This admission almost totally disqualifies you from being objective, but it doesn't surprise me. And you claim to be a "scientist"?
That doesn't surprise me, either. It's typical of all the modern "Jihadists" materialists, who insists on setting "standards" of "truth". You have no idea how you people make Mormon "bureaucrats" look open minded.
But that's what I'm here for, to make people realise how they've traded one form of dogma for another, and why many "modern" scientists are no less closed minded than the same "scientists" who burned Giordano Bruno at the stake. A goof who draws conclusions in any age without fully examining the evidence is a goof in all ages, no matter how many "letters" lie behind their name.
Do you find any compelling reason for me to search for evidence of something I don't believe exists? Instead of evidence of UFO's, why not evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Also, I really don't understand how this makes me "close minded". Have you ever searched for evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If not, are you not also, by your logic, close minded about the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence?
In fact, here is the short list of things I haven't looked for evidence of in life because I don't think that they exist:
1. The Flying Spaghetti Monster 2. Werewolves 3. Demons 4. UFO's 5. The Shire 6. Narnia 7. Hobbits 8. Tom Sawyer 9. Zeus 10. Kolob 11. Vampires 12. Zombies 13. Intelligent members of the John Birch society
If you are aware of evidence supporting the existence of ANY of the following things on that list, I would be very interested to see it.
"Joseph Smith was called as a prophet, dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb" -South Park
keithb wrote:All I can say is that, as someone who IS a physicist, has attended scientific conferences, and does interact with and present to other scientists on a regular basis, the statements of the two scientists in the panel discussion are 100% on the money. I just can't believe the misinformation that Chopra is spreading about science, the scientific process, quantum mechanics, and physics in general.
Wow.
There is not one scientist among those four. (To be clear, I certainly do not endorse Chopra or Houston's woo. But Shermer and Zoolander are not scientists.)
What I did say is that (1: There is no objective evidence for the existence because (2: Every falsifiable claim that religion makes has (to my knowledge) been falsified.
Does that ultimately mean that God doesn't exist? No. But, by I would argue that, without objective facts to support a belief in God, a belief in God is just as rational as -- and has the same level of objective support as -- one in werewolves or Bigfoot.
keithb wrote:All I can say is that, as someone who IS a physicist, has attended scientific conferences, and does interact with and present to other scientists on a regular basis, the statements of the two scientists in the panel discussion are 100% on the money. I just can't believe the misinformation that Chopra is spreading about science, the scientific process, quantum mechanics, and physics in general.
Wow.
There is not one scientist among those four. (To be clear, I certainly do not endorse Chopra or Houston's woo. But Shermer and Zoolander are not scientists.)
Well, I am a Physicist, and I do know what terms like "non-local" and "quantum correlation" signify, so I am saying that Chopra doesn't know what he's talking about.
It's kind of like if I said one day, "The transmission is transferring torque to the ball bearing, causing spark plug stress and a failure in the head gaskets, due to rack-and-pinion steering misalignment," in response to why my car wasn't working. Each of those terms mean something to a person who knows something about cars, but, taken together in the sentence I've just formed, they're utter nonsense. This is the way I felt listening to Chopra talk about Quantum Physics.
"Joseph Smith was called as a prophet, dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb" -South Park
What I did say is that (1: There is no objective evidence for the existence because (2: Every falsifiable claim that religion makes has (to my knowledge) been falsified.
Does that ultimately mean that God doesn't exist? No. But, by I would argue that, without objective facts to support a belief in God, a belief in God is just as rational as -- and has the same level of objective support as -- one in werewolves or Bigfoot.
That would be your error.
I've been on this discussion board and others like it for the past several months trying to find objective evidence for the existence of God. So far, I haven't found any. What have I missed?
"Joseph Smith was called as a prophet, dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb" -South Park
keithb wrote: In fact, here is the short list of things I haven't looked for evidence of in life because I don't think that they exist:
1. The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Referring to the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" makes one look buffoonish and socially inept.
5. The Shire 6. Narnia 7. Hobbits 8. Tom Sawyer
Have a librarian explain to you the difference between fiction and non-fiction.
If talking about the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" makes one look socially buffoonish, talking about a "Talking Donkey" (Numbers 22:1-35) makes one look . . .
Also, for points 5-8, perhaps you would prefer
5. Thor 6. Osiris 7. Elohim 8. Athena
They're just as much mythical characters (probably) as Tom Sawyer and crew, except no one has ever died defending a belief in Tom Sawyer.
"Joseph Smith was called as a prophet, dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb" -South Park
keithb wrote: For example, I grew up believing in God. Because of evidence and arguments that I have seen/heard during my adult life, I have shifted my personal beliefs towards atheism.
And that is all it is - a belief (or disbelief)
What "evidence"? If "evidence" convinced you that "God doesn't exist", then you are claiming more than you can chew on. "I don't see God, so he doesn't exist". Science can explain everything! We looked for God through our telescopes and microscopes, and we didn't find him. Furthermore, Shermer and Harris say so! So it must be so!
I will venture my biased opinion here, that when the likes of Shermer, Harris and Dawkins finally see the results of what they have done to eradicate faith (with all of its faults, which could be improved), or the "end of faith" as they see it, they will come face to face with the social monster they have created.
It is now going that way, and has been for a long time, and the earth is "filled with violence", "as it was in the days of Noah", and family is against family, and "the love of many shall wax cold" (Jesus), and hearts are hardened and callous, and distrust reigns.
Maybe Shermer and Harris can come up with some "laboratory solutions" formed out of experiments based on the thesis that we are only and no more than "molecules assembled by chance".
Why are we so afraid of atheism? Without religious belief will we lose our capacity to love? Will we no longer have compassion for others? Will we no longer feel empathy? Will we quit caring for our families and our fellow man?
Do we do good only because we fear God? I would rather be surrounded by atheists who do good because it's the right thing to do, than be surrounded by religious zealots who do good because they fear their God.
More evil has been done in this world in the name of God than in the name of atheism. Every evil known to man has been committed in the name of God. Atheists have no one to blame, but themselves.
keithb wrote:Do you find any compelling reason for me to search for evidence of something I don't believe exists? Instead of evidence of UFO's, why not evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
One reason would be that I don't know of any serious studies devoted to The Flying Spagetti Monster (except tongue-in-cheek). It's a parody in the same genre as the Invisible Pink Unicorn and Bertrand Russell's Celestial Tea Pot, and used in debates on whether or not God exists. I've already said that this is not a winnable debate; not in my opinion.
I've already outlined numerous evidences and given links to data collected over 60 years, here in the Celestial Forum, and formerly in the Terrestrial Forum. If you refuse to examine that data because you don't believe it's even possible for UFO/Aliens to exist, or to be a real phenomenon, and then make a decision based on that extensive analysis, there's probably not much more we can exchange on this subject until you do. This thread is in any case more about whether God has a future. Maybe I'll address some of your previous points on that later.
Anyway, that was an enlightening debate. While Dr. Chopra was indeed full of it, I think it was, at least, a harmless form of doo doo that he was advocating. Even a cynical atheist like myself could find no harm in it.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.