Additional Questions

[linda_mary_13]

Here is another question. Why is it that when the existence of God is debated with theists and atheists the physical science is used to debate but psychology is never used. Is the science of psychology not credible enough to support the arguments? There lies the lanquage necessary to have commonality between the theist and atheist's perspectives.

[Jack]

Psychology isn't a hard science in that it deals with subjective experiences and not objective evidence that can be examined with the scientific method. Still, psychology coupled with neuro-science is taking an ever more detailed look into the way the brain works.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: linda_mary_13 Here is another question. Why is it that when the existence of God is debated with theists and atheists the physical science is used to debate but psychology is never used. Is the science of psychology not credible enough to support the arguments? There lies the language necessary to have commonality between the theist and atheist's perspectives.

Jack had part of it, but providing accurate psychoanalysis over the internet is difficult. I can read a lot of your emotions through how you type but I cannot read all of them and so you're stuck with guesses and generalizations that lack penetrating power.

It also tends to be incredibly divisive because having your issues taken apart and laid bare by the other side is an unpleasant experience, especially when they guess right.

If you want to play this game I can do my best. Could you imagine a world without god? How would you feel? Also, tell me about your father.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Jack It has. In my opinion it decided incorrectly, unreasonably.

Then until you do something about it stop using the poor as reasoning as to why churches shouldn't be tax exempt. Regardless secular buildings that serve the poor share the same status.

Far easier and more practical to simply apply the rules evenly and fairly across the board. If you own property, you pay property taxes.

So salvation army thrift shops? Objective non religious aid kitchens? Homeless shelters? Etc... All should be taxed as well?

They already do. I do not consider the use of public property as an endorsement of a religion by the government. But when any group uses a public park, etc., they need to understand they're sharing it with others. As long as they aren't disruptive and don't try to deny access to others, I have no issue with that. Still, what's the problem with meeting in their homes, on property they own and pay taxes on?

Well one: Some of these churches (Like mine St James) have large numbers. A sunday worship or a holiday could easily gather several thousand people at a time. A tad hard to manage outdoors or in anyones private home.

Tithes and donations are income. You and I have to pay taxes on bonuses and monetary gifts, why shouldn't the church?

Do secular aid organizations pay taxes? If I donate 100,000 to the red cross does it have to pay a tax on the gift?

So a local Muslim group without their own meeting hall can rent St. Matthew's hall for their meetings? There is no atheist society, groups of atheists meet in homes or coffee shops, just like the religious could.

The Muslims can use their own place or worship. There are plenty, we have two here in Manchester.

I'm guessing your off the "equal for the sake of equality" crowd? Do you feel the boy scouts are sexist?

Obviously if one group wants to use a facility they can use one of their faith or build a new building and enjoy the benefits of the tax status. A big plus of the tax status is it allows people to more easily congregate and make a meeting location.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: rez Far too much evidence would mean the evidence would measurable, testable, and falsifiable. It would mean all the creationist explanations would be fruitful and yield the results that we expect from them. However, this is not the case. I should not have to go up to individuals find that 1/10 thought they saw a ghost and conduct my studies that way. I should not have to re-correct a creationist on the definition of "theory" and I shouldn't have to re-correct their methods for coming up with such an explanation. If I look at reality "as is", I can do the studies by myself without anybody else telling me what they saw. The evidence would speak for itself, not the person telling me the story. "far too much evidence" my ass. Do you actually think I would discount far too much evidence? Do you think I am some evil conspirator that just simply hates supernatural claims? I am all for reality explanations, I can't believe I have to justify that to you. It is simple HelioPrime, your standards are just too low. You are gullible.

And I'd say your in denial.

You've built a system where that even if something happened, unless it had direct evidence to view you'd deny it. Like if the Read Sea parted again for a short time. With no explainable evidence you'd just conclude it didn't happen, and every eyewitness must have been seeing things.

If there was no such thing as supernatural then there would be no such common claims from around the globe. Most people don't even benefit from sighting a ghost or seeing a dead relative.

So all you do is build your mind box declare everything has a natural explanation wether you can prove it or not.

I won't deny you felt that way. I am sure you did feel that way. I know exactly what you are talking about, but that is NOT evidence for a supernatural being. That is evidence for material causation.

There are real probabilities and their are low probabilities. The simple fact that she has motivation to quit smoking does not mean the actual words spoken out loud caused her to quit cold turkey. Ultimately she chose to quit and that simple fact right there is what most likely happened.

Another example: You don't know so you assume and expect everyone else to as well.

If a natural solution fixes your car then it must be applied in every case

Spells are composed words which make up sentences. Words are just noises that come out of your mouth. They don't actually change things in reality. Nobody is denying that the happy and positive reinforcement from the crowd helped her from stopping. What I am disagreeing with is that you think it was aided by a higher being that was effected by the spells the crowd casted.

Spells? Who ever said spells? This isn't witchcraft were talking about here. This is the experiences of thousands of people. Kind of hard to tell someone what they experienced first hand is false when all your have is theory and a textbook of unrelated other cases.

Are you me? Or anyone else who was there? No, but you feel your already know what happened and if you can't explain it you just shrug and call it something natural and leave it at that.

What are you even saying HelioPrime? Are you saying they were magically influenced during the retreat and all the speakers hard work and preparation was not involved at all? Or are you saying your god helped them somewhat and the rest depended on how well they studied their material? God gave them that extra push. Exactly what would the real possibility be in the situation. The speakers studied and prepared or god just helped them?

Well like the speaker said, everyone is only human.

I was commenting on how these people have given their time and energy to teach children and spread the word. They could be spending their time doing so much else, perhaps on the race to make money and have sex, but they choose to devote their time to a cause and a dedication.

THAT's something that separates religious from atheists. Atheists need a credible natural reason to do anything and something in return.

And I can find a website that shows that prayer does not work and infact causes more harm to the person being prayed for. I already explained what praying was, you just need to use your head and figure out what makes sense here.

So now its personal opinion....

I have a medical study where prayer seemed to help

You have a medical study where prayer seemed to hurt

So apparently all logical people are supposed to just go with the hurt story? Such a negative viewpoint.