ahh, now you said the word "christianity". different thing.

don't worry, i am not in any way flustered, it just sounds like that because discussing on the internet is quite clumsy.

it's anyway interesting to do it, but you don't really get anywhere.

so i am not angry or bitter, maybe more like tired.

you started this with "not to be rude" so i think you knew it was touchy territory! it's just so hard because neither of us know each other.




In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Wooah! Easy there, MINK. I didn't attack you, let alone argue with you. I'm not trying to beat you down, prove you wrong or change your mind. This is just a regular ole conversation, so pull yourself together.

First of all, I didn't state or imply that Christianity was blissful ignorance, that came purely from your own imagination. The fact that those thoughts are hovering around your brainpan is probably significant.

I agree that language isn't sufficient to fully explain the euphoria of love, hate, fear, sadness, religion, music, dance, psychedelics, etc...... but that doesn't mean you should shut down communication altogether.

I'm not sure what the source of your anger and bitterness is (over-exposure to political propaganda would be my guess?) but having to trudge through your emotional minefield is no fun.

Take a deep breath and relax.....

We're not required to have all the answers....

It's OK to say 'I don't know'.....

There's room enough for everyone's ideas....

PAX

In reply to this comment by MINK:
defensive because you attacked, with your "isn't faith basically happy stupidity" argument.

faith isn't meaningless, your question was meaningless, or at least cannot be responded to meaningfully, because there's no way to describe faith satisfactorily to someone who's already decided it is happy stupidity.

Words are not good enough to debate this topic. They only work for science, not for feelings, emotions, spiritual concepts, music, love.

So if you are arguing science vs faith by using words, the science guys have a big advantage and the stuff the faith guys say sounds meaningless.

Anyway... interesting video here:
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Science-of-Remote-Viewers-959

the second half is more interesting.

I am pretty sure science will catch up with god one day and find out that prayer and karma and belief and faith are tangible and important, and scientists will come up with new words for stuff that used to be "impossible" or "unscientific".

So i think we get closer to "proving" faith is sensible rather than "disproving" it as irrational and stupid.

Hope that makes some kinda sense, even though the meanings of the words are not exactly what i think.

Your attitude to the world changes your experience of the world. Having faith in something good can improve your experience of the world. Having faith in existing science is stupid because it will change. Having faith in the scientific method to one day discover everything is not stupid, i think the scientific method is ok. You just need to remember that we might only be 2% of the way on the journey of science, but theology and philosophy uncovered some powerful basic truths a long long time ago.




In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Why so defensive? I wasn't going to whack you over the head with your answer. Is faith meaningless?



In reply to this comment by MINK:
that question is either loaded or meaningless.

Faith from a scientific standpoint is weak. Science from a faithful standpoint is weak.

Is that quantum enough for you?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
What does faith mean to you?

In reply to this comment by MINK:
some people have a willful lack of understanding of faith.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
/\ Not to be rude, but isn't faith - by its very definition - a willful lack of understanding.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
this dude rawks. notice how he has more confidence in his lack of understanding than they have in their faith.

b...b...b...but the bible was inspired by the holy spirit... or sumtin... so... you're like wrong i guess...!

Wooah! Easy there, MINK. I didn't attack you, let alone argue with you. I'm not trying to beat you down, prove you wrong or change your mind. This is just a regular ole conversation, so pull yourself together.

First of all, I didn't state or imply that Christianity was blissful ignorance, that came purely from your own imagination. The fact that those thoughts are hovering around your brainpan is probably significant.

I agree that language isn't sufficient to fully explain the euphoria of love, hate, fear, sadness, religion, music, dance, psychedelics, etc...... but that doesn't mean you should shut down communication altogether.

I'm not sure what the source of your anger and bitterness is (over-exposure to political propaganda would be my guess?) but having to trudge through your emotional minefield is no fun.

Take a deep breath and relax.....

We're not required to have all the answers....

It's OK to say 'I don't know'.....

There's room enough for everyone's ideas....

PAX

In reply to this comment by MINK:
defensive because you attacked, with your "isn't faith basically happy stupidity" argument.

faith isn't meaningless, your question was meaningless, or at least cannot be responded to meaningfully, because there's no way to describe faith satisfactorily to someone who's already decided it is happy stupidity.

Words are not good enough to debate this topic. They only work for science, not for feelings, emotions, spiritual concepts, music, love.

So if you are arguing science vs faith by using words, the science guys have a big advantage and the stuff the faith guys say sounds meaningless.

Anyway... interesting video here:
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Science-of-Remote-Viewers-959

the second half is more interesting.

I am pretty sure science will catch up with god one day and find out that prayer and karma and belief and faith are tangible and important, and scientists will come up with new words for stuff that used to be "impossible" or "unscientific".

So i think we get closer to "proving" faith is sensible rather than "disproving" it as irrational and stupid.

Hope that makes some kinda sense, even though the meanings of the words are not exactly what i think.

Your attitude to the world changes your experience of the world. Having faith in something good can improve your experience of the world. Having faith in existing science is stupid because it will change. Having faith in the scientific method to one day discover everything is not stupid, i think the scientific method is ok. You just need to remember that we might only be 2% of the way on the journey of science, but theology and philosophy uncovered some powerful basic truths a long long time ago.




In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Why so defensive? I wasn't going to whack you over the head with your answer. Is faith meaningless?



In reply to this comment by MINK:
that question is either loaded or meaningless.

Faith from a scientific standpoint is weak. Science from a faithful standpoint is weak.

Is that quantum enough for you?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
What does faith mean to you?

In reply to this comment by MINK:
some people have a willful lack of understanding of faith.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
/\ Not to be rude, but isn't faith - by its very definition - a willful lack of understanding.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
this dude rawks. notice how he has more confidence in his lack of understanding than they have in their faith.

b...b...b...but the bible was inspired by the holy spirit... or sumtin... so... you're like wrong i guess...!

defensive because you attacked, with your "isn't faith basically happy stupidity" argument.

faith isn't meaningless, your question was meaningless, or at least cannot be responded to meaningfully, because there's no way to describe faith satisfactorily to someone who's already decided it is happy stupidity.

Words are not good enough to debate this topic. They only work for science, not for feelings, emotions, spiritual concepts, music, love.

So if you are arguing science vs faith by using words, the science guys have a big advantage and the stuff the faith guys say sounds meaningless.

Anyway... interesting video here:
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Science-of-Remote-Viewers-959

the second half is more interesting.

I am pretty sure science will catch up with god one day and find out that prayer and karma and belief and faith are tangible and important, and scientists will come up with new words for stuff that used to be "impossible" or "unscientific".

So i think we get closer to "proving" faith is sensible rather than "disproving" it as irrational and stupid.

Hope that makes some kinda sense, even though the meanings of the words are not exactly what i think.

Your attitude to the world changes your experience of the world. Having faith in something good can improve your experience of the world. Having faith in existing science is stupid because it will change. Having faith in the scientific method to one day discover everything is not stupid, i think the scientific method is ok. You just need to remember that we might only be 2% of the way on the journey of science, but theology and philosophy uncovered some powerful basic truths a long long time ago.




In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Why so defensive? I wasn't going to whack you over the head with your answer. Is faith meaningless?



In reply to this comment by MINK:
that question is either loaded or meaningless.

Faith from a scientific standpoint is weak. Science from a faithful standpoint is weak.

Is that quantum enough for you?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
What does faith mean to you?

In reply to this comment by MINK:
some people have a willful lack of understanding of faith.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
/\ Not to be rude, but isn't faith - by its very definition - a willful lack of understanding.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
this dude rawks. notice how he has more confidence in his lack of understanding than they have in their faith.

b...b...b...but the bible was inspired by the holy spirit... or sumtin... so... you're like wrong i guess...!

But if you believe in a universal supernatural force, sooner or later the science guys will catch up, work out how to measure and define the supernatural, and THEN i want a video of you eating your hat, posted on videosift. (but don't self link).

I'm taking the bet, and will keep the hat ready.

Oh and don't forget, I have evidence, I feel God, i just can't show that evidence to you. So, it's proven to myself, and all I can do is tell you that if you look for him, you'll find him. Sounds a bit Christian? Well they're not far off.

This doesnt fall under the criteria of "evidence", because its not evident to anyone but presumably you. Evidence is universal, demonstrative to everyone, and there is a reason we keep insisting on it, its because personal conviction doesnt hold water. just google "I was abducted by aliens", or visit one of the David Icke sites to hear testimonies from people who have seen our shape-shifting reptile illuminati overlords. Those people will tell you the same things, "look inside" or "look beyond the narrow worldview they pull over your head" and youll see space aliens too.. You might not like the idea of being compared to these loons, but the theistic arguments are all the same, personal revelation, wishful thinking, pick your description.

Observable, common, universal evidence, where I can see and hear the same thing you can, where repeatable experiments can be performed and a consistent explanation can be found, is the only thing that works. its the only reason we are having this discussion on a website instead of clubbing it into eachothers head. Science has helped us cured diseases, explore space and understand our origins. Its the only method that has ever worked. Muddling around in personal revelations gets you as far as Islam when its practised enthusiastically . It degrades and insults the human mind, and drives our species into misery

so scientists don't know if god exists or not, but people like dawkins are 99.9999999% sure he doesn't, is that what you are saying?

i am neither religious nor atheist, i think god is the universe, and most days i think the universe exists. other days i think it's all a dream, woven by God.

People like Dawkins define God, and then show how ridiculous it is to believe in the God he just defined.

Fine, Dawky! That's just fine by me!

But you're not talking about my God, you're dissing some other guy.

He didn't answer the question, maybe the questioner was just interested to know his answer, maybe he could have been human about it instead of spitting back "that's a stupid question". I would like to know his answer, however stupid it seems to him. I didn't see the question as so challenging... he doth protest too much.

Pascal's wager is obviously stupid, because if you pretend to believe in the wrong god then you'll get nowhere. But if you believe in a universal supernatural force, sooner or later the science guys will catch up, work out how to measure and define the supernatural, and THEN i want a video of you eating your hat, posted on videosift. (but don't self link).

It's like i am having faith that science will go in a certain direction due to new discoveries. i am just guessing ahead of people like Dawkins, and I am not restricted by someone else's dogmatic definition of "science" and "god". And if you ask me "what if i am wrong?" then i say "i might have the consciousness to be pissed off about it, or i might be just plain dead, or i might be in hell, but at least i thought about it and made up my own mind."

Oh and don't forget, I have evidence, I feel God, i just can't show that evidence to you. So, it's proven to myself, and all I can do is tell you that if you look for him, you'll find him. Sounds a bit Christian? Well they're not far off.

The "haw haw haw" at the end is the best. I was convinced it was actually just a mic effect cause jay seemed to fit several lines in one breath, but the science guy reacted as if it was normal.

Bill Nye, the high-fivin' science guy.

Almost Live, then Back To The Future Series where Doc gave him the name Bill Nye The Science Guy - then he had his own show :-)

Longer than "You Can't Do That on Television"?

I miss the Science shows. Whatever happened to Bill Nye? hmmmm....what was that show he was on before he did Science Guy? It was some kind of sketch comedy.... grrrr This will drive me nuts until I remember.

Ummm... that guy is Not to be confused with BILL NYE The Science Guy. (Almost, but no.)