as many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
@Finkelstein - you don't see that from religious people often because religion is based on faith in certainties not probabilities perhaps.
As for 'spiritualists' (whatever you mean by that) - it depends which perspective they are speaking from - if it is froma direct personal experience they may be convinced their experience is a fact and therefore, again, not really a matter of probability.
as many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
Thanks.
as many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
Thanks Bohm - I was curious about what the search for Higgs Boson was trying to falsify following on from adamah's point.
finally, i've found the reason why some men become homosexuals.. the 1976 book "your youth: getting the best of it" explains it here in great detail.... .
I wonder if one or two are confusing being gay with 'sex with a person of the same gender'. In the case of institutional sex mentioned above the prevailing sexuality would be heterosexual however there being no females, the alternatives were masturbation, abstinence or sex with a man. I would think very few men having sex in such circumstances would prefer men if women were in the picture.
Men have sex with men for a number of reasons, some of them have nothing to do with sexuality per se eg power etc. I could certainly have sex with a woman but have no interest at all in it, if I did would that make me bisexual or heterosexual? I don't think so.
Also I have to say some of the statements on gay relationships seem wildly ignorant.
as many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
Let me check what you're saying Adamah - what were the experiments to find Higg's Boson an attempt to falsify?
A theory that it didn't exist? (genuinely curious because I found your statements on science interesting).
as many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
Good explanation Adamah. One small point - I'm not sure it's true to say that gravity is also a theory, it is a fact as you say. There may be theories about gravity.
I wouldn't say evolution is a fact although I do think there is a high probability it is a fact, especially compared to other hypotheses about how we got here. I might say evolution is a fact if I was better informed though :)
as many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
My understanding is that the theory in question is used to describe a process which, whilst it can't be fully observed occurring in practice, does leave evidence. There could be other theories which explain how we got here but they'd need to be supported by the evidence. The theory however isn't something airy-fairy and there is nothing in it which isn't supported by the known facts. There are a lot of facts which support evolution even if some of the steps are less well understood than others, some of these facts can of course be interpreted in different ways.
To my mind, the theory of gravity is something different in that we can observe gravity in action. There isn't much doubt in practical terms about how it works, and none about whether it exists, and we can all go see it in action any time. The theory of gravity relates to how gravity is generated and makes predictions about how it should behave, which can be tested.
Happy to be corrected.
Ps though I don't like Dawkins' style and thought the God Delusion was a bit of a rant, the title referred to looks fine to me.
Cofty's and Cold Steel's suggestion that a bit of humour can prick such a sanctimonious bubble is good advice imho. Think of a few sharp one liners, even if you don't say them out loud - "I see it's the traditional warm Christian welcome for me then lol" for example. Poking fun at such a pompous attitude will soon deflate it, especially if others see it. By their fruits you will know them.
Mel Brookes is a master of the art.
it's easy to just poo-poo the ufo thing, especially if you're naturally very skeptical after your jw experience as i am, but when you see documentary's like this it seems undeniable that some kind of inexplicable phenomenon is occuring.
.
could vehement deniars of the ufo phenomenon please suspend their criticisms until they've at least watched the whole documentary, to be fair to others who are more open-minded on this subject.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjismjxshpg.
@blondie - I used to love that picture from the Sistine Chapel until I got a birthday card with the caption "god shows Adam what he'll have to use until Eve is created".
are we conscious after death?
if we don't understand why and how consciousness exsist now, how do we know it doesn't continue after death?
can consciousness survive the death of the body?
The JREF prize is an interesting one. Firstly much of the body of research predates it. Secondly, even if Randi is genuine in his offer, there have been suggestions that he controls the criteria by which it is awarded. Randi does not strike me as open-minded on the issue or unbiased nor is the JREF. To enter into a contest with him would take some courage and the phenomena would have to be reproducible on demand and in a hostile environment. If psi phenomena are possible, there does seem to be evidence that it is adversely affected in such environments. One could say 'well they would say that wouldn't they' - but that would hardly be open-minded. :) I find the 'no ones claimed it' argument a red herring.
What you call anecdotes are also called testimony or evidence. A great deal of this evidence has been investigated independently. Were the investigators fools or 'in on it'? We cannot see what they experienced for ourselves so we can either dismiss their evidence out of hand, as you appear to, or accept it may be genuine. This depends on what assumptions we make about the world we live in. If we assume that psi phenomena and survival are impossible then we must accept there is some error in the investigators deductions if they come up with a paranormal explanation.
If we accept there is a possibility of such phenomena. Then we're into talking about probabilities. If the mundane explanations have been excluded, as far as possible, then the probability of a psi explanation increases. I think probabilities is all we can talk about in such a situation.
As for reincarnation and the transmission of injuries - I don't have an opinion. However in the general sense, just because we do not understand a mechanism does not mean such a mechanism does not exist.
