Moved Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - religion

[steve_bank]

Lion

All cultures having myths of one kind or another. That there are many god myths does not prove any god exists.

Do you believe physical illness is caused by bad spirits that can be let out by drilling a hole in the skull, as some people once believed?

Or do you go by modern medical science?

If I walked up to you on the street handing you a pamphlet saying 'Have you heard the good news brother? Santa Claus is real and he knows if you have been good or bad when he comes at Christmas in a flying sleigh. So be good for goodness sake or get a lump of coal in your Christmas stocking' what would you think?

I do not love science, it is a tool. I love people not things or fictional charterers and myths.

Can you answer my questions above Lion? Without evasion.

As to corroborated evidence of a god can you be specific?


As to Henry 8th the point is at the top religion has always been about power, money, and control. The naratives seve special religios and political powers.

Nobody knows exactly how much the RCC is worth. Art, real estate and investments. Back in the 09s if was said if the RCC were rated as a corporation it would probably rank among the top 10 global corporations.

The Vatican elite are al about maintaining wealth and power.

Billy Gram went from a poor wandering revival preacher to a a wealthy corporation. In large part due to political influence.

 

[Lion IRC]

Do you believe physical illness is caused by bad spirits that can be let out by drilling a hole in the skull, as some people once believed?

Already answered.

Or do you go by modern medical science?

Already answered.

If I walked up to you on the street handing you a pamphlet saying 'Have you heard the good news brother? Santa Claus is real and he knows if you have been good or bad when he comes at Christmas in a flying sleigh. So be good for goodness sake or get a lump of coal in your Christmas stocking' what would you think?

I deliberately ignored this question. I wouldn't 'think' anything. Don't bother nagging me for an answer.

 

[Lion IRC]

As to corroborated evidence of a god can you be specific?

Yes.
Two people both reporting that they experienced an act of God/God.

 

[Jarhyn]

As to corroborated evidence of a god can you be specific?

Yes.
Two people both reporting that they experienced an act of God/God.

That's not evidence, that's two unverifiable and unverified bald-ass mere claims.

 

[lostone]

As to corroborated evidence of a god can you be specific?

Yes.
Two people both reporting that they experienced an act of God/God.

Were we to accept your ideas that some things that happen are not nature on its own. doesn't that also open the door to living in a simulation, or a whole world deities and semi-deities, or space aliens? How do we know which 'God', or what this 'God' is? You open the door to chaos. a universe beyond any understanding, where any efforts to make sense of reality are futile.

 

[TomC]

As to corroborated evidence of a god can you be specific?

Yes.
Two people both reporting that they experienced an act of God/God.

Back in the aftermath of 9/11,
Two groups expressed an experience of "Act of God". The Abrahamic God to be precise.

Muslim people thought it God smiting The Great Satan. Jerry Falwell considered it God passing judgement on pro-gay abortionists.
Two experiences of an act of God. The same God, technically.

I saw that as evidence that people create gods in their own image by firmly believing in fiction. But both groups "experienced" an act of God.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

Do you believe physical illness is caused by bad spirits that can be let out by drilling a hole in the skull, as some people once believed?

Already answered.

Or do you go by modern medical science?

Already answered.

If I walked up to you on the street handing you a pamphlet saying 'Have you heard the good news brother? Santa Claus is real and he knows if you have been good or bad when he comes at Christmas in a flying sleigh. So be good for goodness sake or get a lump of coal in your Christmas stocking' what would you think?

I deliberately ignored this question. I wouldn't 'think' anything. Don't bother nagging me for an answer.

But there is corroborating evidence of Santa. Every Christmas our defense system NORAD tracks Santa in the sky.

The placebo effect is a demonstrated psychological phenomena. If you really believe you are gong to experince god you will have an experince. Tat becmes a shred ex[erince.

In a controlled experiment people with chronic pain were given a placebo pill to rake, inert. A percentage felt reduced pain. Even when told it was a placebo some needed to rake the useless pill to feel reduced pain. That ex[ans religious experience.

Anton Mesmer. Mesmerism which became hypnotism.

Franz Mesmer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1775, Mesmer was invited to give his opinion before the Munich Academy of Sciences on the exorcisms carried out by Johann Joseph Gassner (Gaßner), a priest and healer who grew up in Vorarlberg, Austria. Mesmer said that while Gassner was sincere in his beliefs, his cures resulted because he possessed a high degree of animal magnetism. This confrontation between Mesmer's secular ideas and Gassner's religious beliefs marked the end of Gassner's career and, according to Henri Ellenberger, the emergence of dynamic psychiatry.

That was my point, somebody approaching me about cumming to Jesus is on the order of believing Santa is real.

 

[Lion IRC]

But there is corroborating evidence of Santa.

Yes.
Saint Nicholas was a real historical person.

 

[Lion IRC]

As to corroborated evidence of a god can you be specific?

Yes.
Two people both reporting that they experienced an act of God/God.

Were we to accept your ideas that some things that happen are not nature on its own. doesn't that also open the door to living in a simulation, or a whole world deities and semi-deities, or space aliens?

It opens the door to speculation, yes.

How do we know which 'God', or what this 'God' is?

Start with the real possibility that there is a Higher Being....a Higher lifeform, in this monumental, multiverse plane of existence.

Then process the relevance and meaning of the local landscape of your own existence.

If you then still sincerely think there's no Higher, transcendent overlay - no bigger picture - at least do so in a committed, honest way. (As I assume you would.)

You open the door to chaos. a universe beyond any understanding, where any efforts to make sense of reality are futile.

We dont know enough about the unknown to know that it is unknowable.
...or beyond understanding.
...or futile for us to contemplate

 

[Lion IRC]

No

As to corroborated evidence of a god can you be specific?

Yes.
Two people both reporting that they experienced an act of God/God.

That's not evidence, that's two unverifiable and unverified bald-ass mere claims.

Do you reject the epistemic idea of corroboration?

 

[Jarhyn]

No

As to corroborated evidence of a god can you be specific?

Yes.
Two people both reporting that they experienced an act of God/God.

That's not evidence, that's two unverifiable and unverified bald-ass mere claims.

Do you reject the epistemic idea of corroboration?

I reject the idea that mere claims without some reproducible, evokable evidence amounts to anything capable of being considered corroboration.

 

[Lion IRC]

I reject the idea that mere claims without some reproducible, evokable evidence does not amount to anything capable of corroborating

It's not "an idea".
Claims are not "mere claims", they are assertions of fact.

Brute rejection of another person's sincere, sane, bona fide, corroborated assertion of fact isn't rational unless you show cause why your rejection is warranted.

 

[Jarhyn]

I reject the idea that mere claims without some reproducible, evokable evidence does not amount to anything capable of corroborating

It's not "an idea".
Claims are not "mere claims", they are assertions of fact.

"Assertions of fact absent evokable evidence" is the definition of a "mere claim", or "argument from assertion"

Brute rejection of another person's sincere, sane, bona fide, corroborated assertion of fact isn't rational unless you show cause why your rejection is warranted.

No, there is no corroboration that withstands "please produce evidence" without Corroboration of the evidence itself. Corroboration by assertion is effectively proof of collusion at most, and nothing more.

 

[Lion IRC]

The assertion is the evidence.
All evidence is derived from the senses - even sincere, sane, bona fide, corroborated claims of scientists who say the polar ice caps are melting.

 

[Jarhyn]

The assertion is the evidence.
All evidence is derived from the senses - even sincere, sane, bona fide, corroborated claims of scientists who say the polar ice caps are melting.

Assertions are not evidence in the first place. See also "argument from assertion" and "mere claims"

 Proof by assertion

People who demonstrate that the ice caps are melting are measuring something re-measurable, recording the measurements and recording their act of measuring.

That's not mere assertion, that's "showing the receipts", something that has never been done with God.

 

[steve_bank]

As to corroborated evidence of a god can you be specific?

Yes.
Two people both reporting that they experienced an act of God/God.

The alleged St Nick was somebody who rode around on a horse tossing coins to people or something like that.

That there may have been a flesh and blood person is a far cry from a supernatural Santa living at the North Pole and flying abound in a sleigh with reindeer.

Likewise that there may have been a flesh and blood person refereed to as Jesus is a far cry from walking on water and coming back from being dead..

Christmas and Santa in the USA is a mix of pagan and Christian traditions. As Christianity at the start was a mix of different non Jewish traditions.

The poem Night Before Christmas. Maybe 2000 years from now there will be a religion based on Santa dropping down a chimney.

A Visit from St. Nicholas by Clement Clarke Moore | Poetry Foundation

'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house

www.poetryfoundation.org

Have a 'come to Santa' religious experience.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The assertion is the evidence.
All evidence is derived from the senses - even sincere, sane, bona fide, corroborated claims of scientists who say the polar ice caps are melting.

Funny thing about evidence -- it needs to be verifiable. Most especially in a field in which there are thousands of competing narratives.
If assertions are by themselves evidence (trustworthy and useful for making conclusions), then let's let in all the claimants:
> a pair of Mormon missionaries who will testify that reading the Book of Mormon produces the telltale 'burning in the bosom' that confirms the truth of their book
> Muslims whose dreams show them Mohammed, giving them spiritual guidance
> Pueblo people who come out of the kiva with vivid impressions of kachina spirits
> Maria de Bianchini and 150 others who saw the Virgin Mary appear in Venezuela in 1984
> an evangelical congregation who saw healings happen in their service and who will testify that the Holy Ghost took over their bodies

The list could go on for pages. Many of the faiths would claim exclusivity; their narrative is the only true one. Many would claim that if you choose in error, their god will reject you or consign you to eternal torment.
It's ridiculous to call this evidence. It has no probative power, and the cacophony of all the competing traditions makes the assertions nothing more than subjective.
Polar ice can be measured.

 

[pood]

The assertion is the evidence.

Assertions are the opposite of evidence
.

All evidence is derived from the senses - even sincere, sane, bona fide, corroborated claims of scientists who say the polar ice caps are melting.

Scientists can measure polar ice caps melting. Nobody can measure, see, taste, touch, feel, or hear your stupid Santa in the sky.

 

[Learner]

As to corroborated evidence of a god can you be specific?

Yes.
Two people both reporting that they experienced an act of God/God.

That's not evidence, that's two unverifiable and unverified bald-ass mere claims.

My word... people have been thrown in prison and 'hanged' on the word of other people giving reports,even many years later trying to recollect past events which aren't as fresh as they were the further apart from the time the events were witnessed.
These reports, to 'state the obvious' are called 'testimonies' by individuals whom we classify as 'witnesses'.
It is quite a normal thing in our courts today, the object is to tell the truth...not forgetting that the concept and having 'more than one witness', known sometimes as 'giving evidence' and 'to testify' is also highly emphasised in the Bible.Of course what results from testimonies requires a high standard of reasoning ability to make those conclusions, taking from the testimonies of witnesses - gaining analytical inferences and deductions. But.. you (plural) are seeking a different kind of evidence? Ironically we have no witnesses to testify the observable transitions phases from their original common ancestor. The line 'The evidence seems to suggest...' but not a 100% proof demonstration, is pretty much the claim on both sides, just to be fair.

 

[lostone]

As to corroborated evidence of a god can you be specific?

Yes.
Two people both reporting that they experienced an act of God/God.

That's not evidence, that's two unverifiable and unverified bald-ass mere claims.

My word... people have been thrown in prison and 'hanged' on the word of other people giving reports,even many years later trying to recollect past events which aren't as fresh as they were the further apart from the time the events were witnessed.
These reports, to 'state the obvious' are called 'testimonies' by individuals whom we classify as 'witnesses'.
It is quite a normal thing in our courts today, not forgetting that the concept of having 'more than one witness' known sometimes as 'giving evidence' and 'to testify' is also highly emphasised in the Bible.Of course what results from testimonies requires a high standard of reasoning ability to make those conclusions, taking from the testimonies of witnesses, analytical inferences and deductions. But.. you (plural) are seeking a different kind of evidence? Ironically we have no witnesses to testify the observable transitions phases from their original common ancestor. The line 'The evidence seems to suggest...' is pretty much the claim on both sides, to be fair.

The term used in courts for 'proof' is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Even eye witnesses are notoriously prone to false or inaccurate memories.

What that means in terms of religion and belief in Gods is not clear. Many people believe many different things when it comes to God(s), even people in the same religious sects. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. Could some of them possibly be right? That, it seems to me, is beyond our ability to determine. Since so many different opinions and POVs exist, the safest course seems to me to be to reject them all.