<!-- .style1 { font-size: 20px; font-family: georgia, "times new roman", times, serif; } .style2 { font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight:430;
} .style3 { font-size: 18px; font-family: georgia, "times new roman", times, serif; } .style4 {color: #ff0000} .style5 { color: #009900; font-weight: bold; } --> should god be held responsible for the evil that men do?if you still believe in god do you hold him responsible or accountable by a misleading .
organization claiming to be gods channel of communication?
i have an additional question. perhaps "sub question". it is again directed at believers in the omnimax abrahamic God (that would be you Christians):
Should God be held responsible for the good that his followers do?
thank you all. i would like to know the answer to this sub-question.
tetra
trying to follow skyking's instructions for downloading pictures.
i picked out the "false religion" brochure.
thought i had it figured out but don't know what to do next.
gary,
blogger does not let you link photos to other sites.
tetra
trying to follow skyking's instructions for downloading pictures.
i picked out the "false religion" brochure.
thought i had it figured out but don't know what to do next.
for desskis
trying to follow skyking's instructions for downloading pictures.
i picked out the "false religion" brochure.
thought i had it figured out but don't know what to do next.
seems to be working for me.
when you are posting a picture, you need to copy the entire url of the image (it will start with "http" and end with ".jpg") into the image posting box. you get the image posting box by clicking on the little icon that is a square picture of a mountain, a sun and a yellow sky with a paper clip over it, and pasting the full url into the "picture source" box.
tetra
most scientist feel that the paranormal can not be taken seriously.
however, when the persons making extreme claims are professor brian josephson at camberidge and jessica utts who is a professor of statistics at the university of california at davis.
both have impressive credentials and marshals the evidence for their case using repeatable tests that proves mathematically that the paranormal is real.
skyking,
i had a look at the two links you provided. and before i get into the things that i consider "pros" on the situation, let me just note something:
the links did not contain any evidence. the links were op ed pieces on evidence, not the evidence themselves.
which is fine! i am not saying that it doesn't exist. i'm just saying that as RAF pointed out, you did not post data. you posted opinions about data.
THAT SAID, let me continue on:
i am actually encouraged that some scientists are standing up for their data, and evidence and hypotheses regarding these phenomena. i believe that a true scientist will not reject things out off hand if they fall into a certain realm of probability just because of personal philosophical reasons.
the data that the two links spoke of, seem to be reliable and well thought out in my opinion. i felt that Utts made a good case, and actually touched on some things that i consider very important for consideration (her being a statician). she takes most of the article to show that there *is* something going on here, without immediately diving into *what* it might be.
closer to the end of the article, she gives some of her thoughts on *what* might be causing the results/success rates she earlier outlined. she finishes it by saying that it is highly speculative, but that we might do well to lose some of our abhorrence of such concepts, considering success rates. i still would like to understand the variables of the tests, since that would make or break my final opinion on the matter.
i thought that generally joshephson's description of test results were well done as well.
it seems that these two individuals have good motives, and are behaving fairly and professionally with this phenomenon. Utts even provides a link to skeptical treatment of the US govs test results. it seems that more than wanting to uphold some personal philosophy, both of them truly want to get to the bottom of what is going on. and i applaud this sort of attitude. it seems to be missing in some scientists and editors of certain journals.
and personally, i agree that we are getting closer to some sort of physical/empirical understanding of some very strange phenomenon. and i think that the fact that they were only really achieving 27% success rate says that while it is statistically very very interesting, people who say they are psychic must understand this too. they are not *always* on the mark, nor do they fully understand their own "gifts".
i find the investigations fascinating. i think that consciousness could indeed be "quantum" in nature, though there is much debate on this still. the skeptics are doing their job well, and basically giving the general lay public a second opinion. but i do also think that it would be unprofessional to reject findings out of hand. it seems that the scientists have indeed been rigorous, from what i have seen.
thanks for the links.
tetra
trying to follow skyking's instructions for downloading pictures.
i picked out the "false religion" brochure.
thought i had it figured out but don't know what to do next.
hi B_C,
The document that I really want to post is in rtf format, and it looks like I can't download it to "tiny pic."
rtf stands for rich text format. you do not need to host it from tiny pic. just copy the text in the rtf doc that you want to put on jwd, and then paste the text into the thread here on jwd.
you know, copy. paste.
one problem will be is that if there are images in the rtf doc, then they will not show up when you paste. only the text will.
tetra
imagine you have your full powers of reason and can debate with others in the same situation but you have absolutely no knowledge of the nature of existence.
where would you start?
it's a tricky one for sure, but if you could unlearn everything you know and start from absolute zero what conclusions do you think you might reach about the big questions?.
intersting nic!
but to say that we would have our full powers of reason, is to imply that reason has had an effect on us, and that we have access to the scientific data that powers reason. by these variables, i would say that i would end up as a person who:
Who are we?
felt that we were bipedal apes with large brains.
How did we get here?
felt that we got here, to where we are by the slow gradual process of evolution. billions of years after that last big bang.
Is there a purpose to life?
felt that the only purpose to life is that which i personally, subjectively, give it. it might turn out to be a grand purpose, if i had the tenacity to make it that way.
but, if i were to start from real zero, with no data or logic ability, then i would argue that the way i saw the universe would be very similar to the way that our distant ancestors saw the world and life 150 000 years ago. which is to say that my answers to the above questions would be way different. even magical.
tetra
i think it's a deserving act of love to make the sacrifice to rejoin a cult in order to stay connected to your family.
it's putting your love of your family over so so many things.
what could we call it so we could easily understand someone's actions who also does this?
i'm sorry for gumby. but as long as he keeps that nut sack buffed up, i'm sure he'll be radiant at whatever he chooses to do.
:)
tetra
most scientist feel that the paranormal can not be taken seriously.
however, when the persons making extreme claims are professor brian josephson at camberidge and jessica utts who is a professor of statistics at the university of california at davis.
both have impressive credentials and marshals the evidence for their case using repeatable tests that proves mathematically that the paranormal is real.
Richard Hawkins
you told me in a pm you sent me yesterday, that you did not like richard dawkins for certain reasons.
Dawkins.
Hawking is the really brilliant guy in the wheelchair who wrote a brief history of time.
tetra
most scientist feel that the paranormal can not be taken seriously.
however, when the persons making extreme claims are professor brian josephson at camberidge and jessica utts who is a professor of statistics at the university of california at davis.
both have impressive credentials and marshals the evidence for their case using repeatable tests that proves mathematically that the paranormal is real.
skyking,
there are many many paranormal claims that, indeed, have no evidence to back them up. i am not saynig that this is the case with the data that you posted, but i will have to reserve my opinion on them until i review them. but just for the record, there is much paranormal with no evidence backing it up.
if a certain paranormal hypothesis (lets call it that instead of "claim") produces some data/evidence that seems to work, then: a) we should send it off for peer review, and b) we would do well to avoid the claim that all paranormal hypotheses are now in the same standing. which is not the case.
there is another caveat that i thought i would share as well.
there are still competing hypotheses. for example, there is a phenomenon. hypothesis X says that it is psychic phenomenon. hypothesis Y says that it is psychosomatic and coincidental. and hypothesis Z says that it is both X and Y a certain percentage of the time.
i am not saying this to imply that your hypothesis (or in this case the results you posted) is wrong in some way. i just wanted to clarify that there are always different ways of lookikng at the same data.
and that said, if a so-called paranormal hypothesis was ever verified, through the maze above, then it would cease to be "paranormal", and would become "normal", wouldn't it? no longer "supernatural", but natural. are you okay with those labels?
indeed, science is incapable of measuring some phenomena. while i think science is the best tool we have come up with for objective varification, there is much that blows right over it's head. but i am encouraged lately with some of the studies that have been going on into the "paranormal", and that scientists are not being burnt at the stake as much for it.
oh, and while abaddon is perfectly capable of defending himself, i will just say that abaddon is not close minded as you suggest. quite the contrary. skeptics like abaddon have helped many people on this board to avoid being taken by hogwash. you see, there are lots of lame magical ideas floating around the world still. when someone leaves the WTS, they still may not always know how to think critically. skeptics help those individuals to broaden their views, simply by giving them an additional skill set. let's be clear about this. we ALL already know how to think magically about phenomena, or we wouldn't be here on an exwit board posting.
as sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. do not call people close minded because they insist on standards. that makes you look close minded and insecure, not them.
okay, thanks for the stuff. i'll check it out too. have fun shopping, lol.
peace,
tetra
