American Christians, do you feel persecuted?

[11_Panama_]

I will refrain from posting on religious topics...after this post. One thing that non believers and/or science will never understand or "measure", is that some of us has "felt" the presence of God. You can't understand that because you don't believe. Some of us have actually witnessed miracles. I have, and I might talk about it someday.

[CommanderOtto]

I will refrain from posting on religious topics...after this post. One thing that non believers and/or science will never understand or "measure", is that some of us has "felt" the presence of God. You can't understand that because you don't believe. Some of us have actually witnessed miracles. I have, and I might talk about it someday.

yes, science can't explain that

[Darth Crater]

Yes, it can. You have to remember that our brains are fallible. We're prone to all sorts of cognitive biases. We take in information through faulty channels, store it in faulty formats, and judge it based on faulty algorithms. This is precisely why personal experience is not accepted as an argument for things that seem otherwise unreasonable.

[Col. Hstar]

If our brains are fallible then the conclusions you draw from scientific research can also be fallible. You don't get it both ways.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

A human's perception and experiences shape belief (some of us may believe this is religion's disposition solely),though our experiments and observations stem from what we perceive, and because humans are creatures with a limited view of the spatial and of the temporal, our perceptions are skewed. This is a divergent from Pantheistic philosophy as applied to human thought.

I'd like to further delve into experiences we claim to have "felt" or things we claim to "know." A culmination of all our experiences, knowledge, and personality shaped by the aforementioned collectively lead us into believing what we do believe. For those who believe I'm simply going off on a tangent, let me explain I'm coming at Panama's point from a philosophical perspective rather than a scientific one. As humans, we know what we know, and we are threatened by what we do not know. Human nature is to question, but when answers are too complex or perceived to be threatening to our way of life, we cling to what we "know" is true. Unfortunately, what we "know" is only a sum total of conclusions drawn from what we perceive. Humans who feel they have "experienced" the force of God have placed what we may believe to be blind faith but to them is a judgement drawn through their perceptions - a valid conclusion based off of what they think they "know." Because such people "know" God exists, they are reluctant to accept new evidence (Evolutionary Theory, Big Bang Theory, etc.). Because this flies across the boundaries of what they "know" they cannot and will not accept it.

[[m'kay]]

another philosophical question: why is all your text [m'kay] blue god so annoying

[kjeopardy]

If our brains are fallible then the conclusions you draw from scientific research can also be fallible. You don't get it both ways.

I absolutely agree—I'm not gonna say anything nice to you for a while, so there you go

Science in no way, shape, or form is ever a valid counter against a religion, unless a religion explicitly says something which is directly contradicted by empirical evidence. This rarely (if ever) happens.

[Darth Crater]

If our brains are fallible then the conclusions you draw from scientific research can also be fallible. You don't get it both ways.

True. This is why we have things like repeatable experiments, double-blind trials, and peer review - we know we're biased, so we do our best to eliminate the biases. "You're not 100% sure" isn't the magic bullet you seem to think it is - scientists already know it and have taken it into account. I don't need it both ways - I'm not the one who's trying to equate "we're not absolutely sure evolution is correct" and "evolution must be wrong and my favorite idea must be correct instead".

Science in no way, shape, or form is ever a valid counter against a religion, unless a religion explicitly says something which is directly contradicted by empirical evidence. This rarely (if ever) happens.

It's true that many religious beliefs have now become unfalsifiable (something which is distinct from "true" or "false" in that we have no way to tell if it's true). Generally, this occurs when studies contradict the falsifiable parts of a religion (for example, that deities control the weather or that the Earth is around 6,000 years old) and those beliefs fall out of favor. However, in many cases people either ignore or do not seek out the available evidence. This is why beliefs like "prayer is medically effective" still persist despite studies saying otherwise.

[kjeopardy]

Science in no way, shape, or form is ever a valid counter against a religion, unless a religion explicitly says something which is directly contradicted by empirical evidence. This rarely (if ever) happens.

It's true that many religious beliefs have now become unfalsifiable (something which is distinct from "true" or "false" in that we have no way to tell if it's true). Generally, this occurs when studies contradict the falsifiable parts of a religion (for example, that deities control the weather or that the Earth is around 6,000 years old) and those beliefs fall out of favor. However, in many cases people either ignore or do not seek out the available evidence. This is why beliefs like "prayer is medically effective" still persist despite studies saying otherwise.

I agree—I'm no great lover of religion (though I wouldn't call myself an atheist), and think it is absurd how people ignore the role that science plays in our lives in favor of blindly believing in God.

Many of these die-hard Christians don't even realize that the Old Testament says you shouldn't put your life in danger unnecessarily....

[CommanderOtto]

Yes, it can. You have to remember that our brains are fallible. We're prone to all sorts of cognitive biases. We take in information through faulty channels, store it in faulty formats, and judge it based on faulty algorithms. This is precisely why personal experience is not accepted as an argument for things that seem otherwise unreasonable.

if the spiritual doesn't exist...I just don't understand how scientists would be able to prove that. It is impossible for some things to be a work of our imagination or a result of a natural phenomenon. How could someone scientifically explain the following?

*People immediately getting cured of certain diseases (miracles)?
*ghosts
*rituals where people speak to the spirits?
*people who can see the future?

those things do exist. No er what religion you believe in, christian, muslim, jew.. whatever... these things do exist. Just parts of the brain turning on and off don't prove it's just imagination. Just in case Crater, don't take this personally, i'm just saying what I think.