Is belief in spiritual or supernatural entities a sign of mental weakness or illness?

[walterpthefirst]

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Remarkably, even in this same thread, we have discussed the inability of science to adequate define.....and that's what you're going with?  I thought we were discussing patterns, the recognition process only.  

 

Come on Walter, rally the troops, you can do this.

 

 

We're just discussing patterns, Ed?

 

 

No sweat, although the pattern fits well, let's go back to water/spirit purification.  Moses used a staff of wood to purify water (spirit) in the desert.  Jesus used the Cross.  Water purification today is done through cellulose membranes.  And the Bible makes a direct comparison to water and Spirit.  Whether it be osmosis or reverse osmosis, here's another example of science in the Bible.....and the Bible came first.

 

 

I thought you were claiming that there was science in the bible.

 

So which is it?

 

Just patterns or bona fide science?

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

13 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

We're just discussing patterns, Ed?

 

 

No sweat, although the pattern fits well, let's go back to water/spirit purification.  Moses used a staff of wood to purify water (spirit) in the desert.  Jesus used the Cross.  Water purification today is done through cellulose membranes.  And the Bible makes a direct comparison to water and Spirit.  Whether it be osmosis or reverse osmosis, here's another example of science in the Bible.....and the Bible came first.

 

 

I thought you were claiming that there was science in the bible.

 

So which is it?

 

Just patterns or bona fide science?

 

 

 

 

You realize when you turn towards semantics, the conclusion?

 

I really don't want to describe how accurate the pattern is for the sake of the residents here,...even though I have seen some points to the analogy that even I haven't noticed until today. 

 

And the odds. Do we have a cat in the house that can calculate the odds of the comparison of the story to the osmosis/reverse osmosis process. 

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

You realize when you turn towards semantics, the conclusion?

 

I really don't want to describe how accurate the pattern is for the sake of the residents here,...even though I have seen some points to the analogy that even I haven't noticed until today.  

 

Citing what another member has posted and claimed is a normal and accepted part of debate in this forum.

 

 

Why has doing that suddenly become a problem?

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

10 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Citing what another member has posted and claimed is a normal and accepted part of debate in this forum.

 

 

Why has doing that suddenly become a problem?

 

 

 

The Prof isn't having difficulties understanding what I'm trying to get across.  Uncertain why it's suddenly difficult for you. The story and the Bible were first.  The scientific discovery of osmosis and reverse osmosis was second.  The comparison I'm making is the story to later scientific discovery.  Don't reiterate that you actually were thinking that I was noting the scientific process IN the Bible.  Come on Walter....

[TheRedneckProfessor]

26 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Do we have a cat in the house that can calculate the odds of the comparison of the story to the osmosis/reverse osmosis process.

Not sure about any cats; but I know a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.  If the bible tells one story that you think fits a pattern with modern science then there's probably something to be said of conjecture and coincidence.  Now, if the biblical cure for leprosy happened to be antibiotics, I might be a bit more impressed.

[Edgarcito]

10 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Not sure about any cats; but I know a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.  If the bible tells one story that you think fits a pattern with modern science then there's probably something to be said of conjecture and coincidence.  Now, if the biblical cure for leprosy happened to be antibiotics, I might be a bit more impressed.

I think it only has a cure for Monkey Pox....

[Edgarcito]

Besides, if it was the argument that he was making, he would have used the same “ misunderstanding “ in the initial ICP analogy…. 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

The Prof isn't having difficulties understanding what I'm trying to get across.  Uncertain why it's suddenly difficult for you. The story and the Bible were first.  The scientific discovery of osmosis and reverse osmosis was second.  The comparison I'm making is the story to later scientific discovery.  Don't reiterate that you actually were thinking that I was noting the scientific process IN the Bible.  Come on Walter....

 

No, you've misunderstood, Ed.

 

What I'm asking is, beyond pattern finding, how do you intend to carry out the scientific process YOURSELF.

 

To do that you've got to go through the scientific method to establish that your claim is valid.

 

Simply claiming that there is science in the bible because you see patterns doesn't cut it.

 

You need to go beyond pattern finding to testing with experiments, analysing the data and reporting your conclusions.

 

Until you do those things your claim to see patterns is just that and no more.

 

Seeing patterns isn't science.

 

Carrying out the scientific method fully is.

 

 

That help?

[Edgarcito]

37 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

No, you've misunderstood, Ed.

 

What I'm asking is, beyond pattern finding, how do you intend to carry out the scientific process YOURSELF.

 

To do that you've got to go through the scientific method to establish that your claim is valid.

 

Simply claiming that there is science in the bible because you see patterns doesn't cut it.

 

You need to go beyond pattern finding to testing with experiments, analysing the data and reporting your conclusions.

 

Until you do those things your claim to see patterns is just that and no more.

 

Seeing patterns isn't science.

 

Carrying out the scientific method fully is.

 

 

That help?

I don't have any desire to carry out the scientific process myself regarding this.  I've already stated the impossibilities of doing so.  I think you need to put a mark in the L column.

 

Thx.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't have any desire to carry out the scientific process myself regarding this.  I've already stated the impossibilities of doing so.  I think you need to put a mark in the L column.

 

Thx.

 

Then it seems that you have yielded the debate, Ed.

 

You cannot demonstrate that there is science in the bible, as per your claim.

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Then it seems that you have yielded the debate, Ed.

 

You cannot demonstrate that there is science in the bible, as per your claim.

 

 

 

Bugger off Walter… you have no substance…

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Bugger off Walter… you have no substance…

 

Graceful.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

15 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Graceful.

[Edgarcito]

6 minutes ago, Weezer said:

How about he just answer honestly instead of deflection…. Or just say, yeah Ed, I see that.  Not that difficult.  

[walterpthefirst]

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

How about he just answer honestly instead of deflection…. Or just say, yeah Ed, I see that.  Not that difficult.  

 

If you believe that I've wronged you in some way Ed, how about you putting all your talk about grace into action...

 

...and forgiving me?

 

You don't have to be perfect, you don't have to have perfect understanding of it and you don't even have to define it.

 

All you need to do to make good on all of your talk about grace is to do it.

 

 

 

So, am I forgiven?

 

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Is this conversation in the best interest of those seeking support when leaving christianity?  Or in the best interest of anyone?? 

[walterpthefirst]

7 minutes ago, Weezer said:

Is this conversation in the best interest of those seeking support when leaving christianity?  Or in the best interest of anyone?? 

 

Weezer,

 

Edgarcito claimed that there was science in the bible, but then declined to do the work needed to show that there was.  So, if he won't do the work he can't support his claim.  If he can't support his claim, then he's loses the debate.  Debate is adversarial, with winners and losers.  By failing to support his claim, he lost.

 

Yet when I point this out he tells me to bugger off.  From this I conclude that he feels wronged by me.  So I asked him to extend grace to me by forgiving me.  Seeing as Ed talks a lot about grace this is the perfect opportunity for him to show it in action.

 

This conversation will be in the best interest of those seeking support when leaving Christianity if they see a Christian talking about grace but refusing to give it.

 

But, if Ed does give it, then this conversation will be in his best interest because it will show that he is good to his word.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

On 7/21/2022 at 2:29 PM, Edgarcito said:

How about he just answer honestly instead of deflection…. Or just say, yeah Ed, I see that.  Not that difficult.  

 

Hi again Edgarcito.

 

 “Is belief in spiritual or supernatural entities a sign of mental weakness or illness?”

 

The subject of this thread, of course, is tongue-in-cheek humor since all of us here were once Christians and also once believed in supernatural beings; none would want to admit that they once suffered from mental weakness or illness

 

But if not stupidity, what is wrong with Christianity and religion in general?  Many know of the many good things in the world that have been done in the name of religion. But history is filled with many wars and bad things also done in the name of religion. And many ex-Christians know of the many personal abuses done in the name of religion.

 

Since Christianity is based upon the Christian Bible, then what is wrong with it?

 

Starting with the Old Testament, one of the most obviously ridiculous parts of it is the book of Genesis – the creation of all things in the beginning. This reading is more than ridiculous in the face of the mountain of scientific evidence and facts that refute it. And the book of Noah within it is equally laughable. And there are equally ridiculous parts of the New Testament, some of which will also be listed, but first let's talk about "Pascal’s Wager."

 

Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) was a French mathematician, physicist, and philosopher who came up with an interesting and famous argument for the belief in God.

 

Pascal argued that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in him. If God does not exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in heaven) and avoid infinite losses (an eternity in Hell).

 

Sounds reasonable, right? But there is also a flaw to this argument IMHO. If one's belief in God were false, one could be losing much more than just some pleasures, and luxuries, etc.  One could be losing a far better understanding concerning the truth and common-sense understanding of reality. For a person like myself this "truth" would be one of the most valuable things I could never know, and the happiness that goes along with knowing the truth. As Newton once said, Plato is my friend, Aristotle is my friend, but truth is my best friend.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager

 

And here are some of the seemingly “non-Christian” aspects of the New Testament:

·  Jesus was "born of a virgin", but in order to assert his ' kingly lineage,’ his biblical genealogy traces back through Joseph,  not Mary.

·  The New Testament does not condemn polygamy, and the Old Testament accepts it as normal or advisable for the more affluent.  In fact, Jesus supposedly uses it in one of his so-called parables. (Matthew 25:1-13)

·  Slavery is also not only accepted and tolerated in the New Testament as it was in the Old, but nowhere in the Bible is it said that slavery is a bad thing.

·  The entire new testament clearly states women should not learn, be independent, teach, or ever have sex with more than one man. This theme of women’s required obedience to man is present in almost every book of the New Testament as well as the old.

 

In Revelation, God kills everyone that doesn't worship him. The "bow to me or die a horrible death and suffer for eternity" is a pretty common theme in both the new and old testaments.

 

Revelations is the most obviously ridiculous book of the New Testament as to its reading, and laughable in the face of modern science.. This book contains obviously mythical visions of heaven, hell, God, angels, spirits, mythical creatures monsters and Kings, detailed physical descriptions of heaven above, and the hell below, etc.

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

46 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Weezer,

 

Edgarcito claimed that there was science in the bible, but then declined to do the work needed to show that there was.  So, if he won't do the work he can't support his claim.  If he can't support his claim, then he's loses the debate.  Debate is adversarial, with winners and losers.  By failing to support his claim, he lost.

 

Yet when I point this out he tells me to bugger off.  From this I conclude that he feels wronged by me.  So I asked him to extend grace to me by forgiving me.  Seeing as Ed talks a lot about grace this is the perfect opportunity for him to show it in action.

 

This conversation will be in the best interest of those seeking support when leaving Christianity if they see a Christian talking about grace but refusing to give it.

 

But, if Ed does give it, then this conversation will be in his best interest because it will show that he is good to his word.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m remembering you stating the ability to adequately communicate, that it were possible to anticipate and follow through successfully.  That appears a failure now in light of our status and you not voluntarily achieving success.  So yes, grace would be needed per your failure….one, the aforementioned and two, your failure to honesty address the pattern/analogy.  
 

Why do you do that.  Why do you twist the conversation and then repeat the twist over and over and whine like child until you get you questions answered.  Surely religion hasn’t hurt you so much that you are a perpetual juvenile?

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

31 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Weezer,

 

Edgarcito claimed that there was science in the bible, but then declined to do the work needed to show that there was.  So, if he won't do the work he can't support his claim.  If he can't support his claim, then he's loses the debate.  Debate is adversarial, with winners and losers.  By failing to support his claim, he lost.

 

Yet when I point this out he tells me to bugger off.  From this I conclude that he feels wronged by me.  So I asked him to extend grace to me by forgiving me.  Seeing as Ed talks a lot about grace this is the perfect opportunity for him to show it in action.

 

This conversation will be in the best interest of those seeking support when leaving Christianity if they see a Christian talking about grace but refusing to give it.

 

But, if Ed does give it, then this conversation will be in his best interest because it will show that he is good to his word.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Knee jerk reaction on my part.  Ignore it.

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I’m remembering you stating the ability to adequately communicate, that it were possible to anticipate and follow through successfully.  That appears a failure now in light of our status and you not voluntarily achieving success.  So yes, grace would be needed per your failure….one, the aforementioned and two, your failure to honesty address the pattern/analogy.  
 

Why do you do that.  Why do you twist the conversation and then repeat the twist over and over and whine like child until you get you questions answered.  Surely religion hasn’t hurt you so much that you are a perpetual juvenile?

 

 

 

This is really very simple, Ed.

 

You claimed that there is science in the bible.  You seem to think that the appearance of patterns in the bible that look like science is science. But I showed that for anything to be science, it has to be more than just the appearance of a pattern.  Science is a method and a process to be followed in full.  Pattern recognition is just the beginning of that process.  If that process is carried out in full, to it's proper conclusion, that the result is science. Anything that falls short of the full process is not science. 

 

 You (the claimant) have done no more than point to a pattern appearing in an ancient holy book.  And, when asked to do more than that, you refused. Therefore, your claim fails.

 

If you want to dispute this please demonstrate how the finding of patterns in ancient books qualifies as bona fide science.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

9 hours ago, Weezer said:

Knee jerk reaction on my part.  Ignore it.

 

Thank you, Weezer.

[Edgarcito]

7 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

This is really very simple, Ed.

 

You claimed that there is science in the bible.  You seem to think that the appearance of patterns in the bible that look like science is science. But I showed that for anything to be science, it has to be more than just the appearance of a pattern.  Science is a method and a process to be followed in full.  Pattern recognition is just the beginning of that process.  If that process is carried out in full, to it's proper conclusion, that the result is science. Anything that falls short of the full process is not science. 

 

 You (the claimant) have done no more than point to a pattern appearing in an ancient holy book.  And, when asked to do more than that, you refused. Therefore, your claim fails.

 

If you want to dispute this please demonstrate how the finding of patterns in ancient books qualifies as bona fide science.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're delusional dude.  A pattern that matches scientific discovery...  You certainly understand what I was saying, as does everyone else here, yet you continue to be a child.  Don't answer anymore.  Or at least say, Ed, the conversation makes me uncomfortable, we will have to talk another time....

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

You're delusional dude.  A pattern that matches scientific discovery...  You certainly understand what I was saying, as does everyone else here, yet you continue to be a child.  Don't answer anymore.  Or at least say, Ed, the conversation makes me uncomfortable, we will have to talk another time....

 

Ok Edgarcito,

 

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that there are patterns within the bible that match scientific discovery.

 

Muslim apologists use the following verse to show that the expanding universe was predicted in the Quran.  They claim that Allah himself is expanding the universe.

 

And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.

 

https://legacy.quran.com/51/47

 

That's a double prediction.  A prediction that only one heaven (the observable universe) exists and that it's expanding. 

 

Unless you can give a valid reason why the Muslims can't do as you do, this example stands.

 

So, what have you gained by showing that patterns in the bible match scientific discovery?

 

Not much, really.

 

Apologists from other religions can do exactly the same as you with their holy books.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.