One question to atheists II (does that mean it's two questions now??)

[homer]

Originally posted by WOLFGIR: For a bit more descriptions of what is what I found an interesting article as a sideline to this thread. I hope that it is good reading for you who are interested in the differencies between an Agnostic and Atheist. However, not knowing who this person who wrote it (the joy and danger of internet ) I can´t say that this is ultimately true, or even politicly correct. So take it for what it is. Enjoy: http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E...l/agnostic.htm Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

Interesting article but, as you indicate, it is just someone’s opinions on what they think an agnostic is. I call myself an agnostic, however I do not agree with everything stated here.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Well said Mel ! [img]smile.gif[/img] The etymology of the word "theology" comes from ancient Greek : "theos" = god, and "logos" = talking. Basically what theologists do is talking about god(s). [img]smile.gif[/img]

Logos I believe, refers to the written word Moiraine. It is the "root word for LOGIC" as well. "Rhema" is the spoken word of speech. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: Have you carried out scientific experiments to prove any of its presumptions?

Most certainly. Of course I have. That's what I've been saying all along.

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: Do they for example test to see how powerful different types of praying are or similar?

There are different types of prayer yes, with different sucesses.

One can assess the success of each by comparing the Word of God to the effects in peoples lives, the way people pray to the effect in their life, the way oneself prays and it's effect. The effects of intercession against self prayer. The effectiveness of communal prayer. The effects and differences between petition, praise, prophetic prayer, and the continuance of faith.

Observances of the material world in general, compared against the bible, or ones own inner self, and others inner selfs can result in the realisation that it is somewhat futile to pray that God will remove someones free will for example.

"God, make him love me" is not effective prayer, as deduced from those realisations.

[ 01-28-2003, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[LordKathen]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: Have you carried out scientific experiments to prove any of its presumptions?

Most certainly. Of course I have. That's what I've been saying all along.[/QUOTE]What method of science did you use?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by LordKathen: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: Have you carried out scientific experiments to prove any of its presumptions?

Most certainly. Of course I have. That's what I've been saying all along.[/QUOTE]What method of science did you use?[/QUOTE]The same methods I'd use in studying sociology, anthropology, geography, psychology or astronomy. Observation, comparision and testing the results against further observation and comparison.

[LordKathen]

Thats imposable Yorick. You cant test and retest independently from the origanator the theory imposed. You are talking about faith. How can I test your faith going on just your words or writings?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by LordKathen: Thats imposable Yorick. You cant test and retest independently from the origanator the theory imposed. You are talking about faith. How can I test your faith going on just your words or writings?

My faith is the RESULT of those observations and comparisions Kathen. The RESULT.

I never said I was just comparing the writings in any case. I examine the writings of the Bible, Qu'ran, Buddhist thought, Taoism, and Confucianism. I examine the physical word of the earth and visible stars. I examine peoples spoken and written testimonies and visible effects, experiences in my own life, historical writings about human societies and my own personal experiences in a variety of human societies.

I am observing and analysing these and comparing them against other with a logical and scientific approach, no different to a psychologist or sociologist for example would. My field of observation is larger than a psychologists though.

THe RESULT of these observations, comparisions and analysis is my faith.

[LordKathen]

That doesnt make it scientific. I need to be able to test your analysis and theory myself and come up with the same conclusions, before you can it a scientific approach. You are talking phylosophy. Read up on Imperical Science.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by LordKathen: That doesnt make it scientific. I need to be able to test your analysis and theory myself and come up with the same conclusions, before you can it a scientific approach. You are talking phylosophy. Read up on Imperical Science.

You CAN test my analysis and theory yourself. It would be a large undertaking for you and substancial life change but you CAN do it. Plenty of people HAVE come up with similar conclusions to me through similar approaches. We test it against each other. Some examine different evidence, but we use the same method.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Melusine: Some people define science in the narrowest definition of the word, thinking labs, experiments, calculation, hard evidence. Some of you define it in the broadest possible sense, as in "anything studied by humans".

I think this hits the nail on the head. Some are limiting science to chemistry, physics and biology. In this case a narrow definition leads to a particular way of thinking, as language shapes thought.

It's like the narrow view of "culture" leads one to feel that they have no culture or that popular culture is not culture.

One needs to step back and look at things laterally, and that includes examining what definitions one is using and whether those definitions are restricting ones ability to ascertain knowledge. Restricting science.

Conscience, prescience, ominscience. All are based on the root word SCIENCE being "a state of knowing". "Scientific thought" is thought based on a "state of knowing", not merely a collection of chemical experiements.

Similarly faith is not the exclusive domain of religions. We excercise faith everyday, in small and large portions. Narrowing the defintion of faith leads one to closing off self-understanding and understanding how similar we are as people.

I would guess you and I are not so different Kathen. We have just come up with different conclusions given the experiences we have been given.

You are married to a Mormon. You do not share the Moprmon worldview. With all respect to Larry and Lady Aberdeen, neither do I. You've chosen atheism, I've chosen my interpretations of Christianity.

Differing conclusions does not mean we have different mindsets. What creates difference can be the RESULT of our conclusions.

But vive le difference. We then get to assess the others experience of life and compare it against our own, furthering the advance of knowledge. Knowledge of what this life is all about.