🚀 go-pugleaf

>                                 dale bass
>>All the religions I have studied,
>>Christianity{catholisism, protestants}, mormons, Witnesses of Jehova,
>>Buddhism, Zen buddhism, Sri Chinmoi, hinduism, aesir, olympus, Egyptian,
>>Communism, a.s.o.
>>have the common characteristic of discribing reality in some way, and
>>also contain some logic for determining truth.
>
>      Actually, most core doctrine is taken on faith.  There ain't no
>      way to determine the 'truth' of faith.  It's 'true' until the 
>      last adherent dies, after which may be debate.

That's not my definition of 'truth'. Not my friends either.
What kind of language are you using? It seems to me that your use of 'truth'
makes possible conflict between 'truth' and 'reality', which are synonyms to mee.

>>None agree with the scientific method, and their descriptions of reality are
>>far too often wrong.
>
>      I might point out here that their 'descriptions of reality'
>      are not scientific and should not be judged on that basis.
>      Nor should they be mistaken for science.

They are not scientific, yes. But they still are descriptions of reality,
which are the domain of science. We agree that they are not science.

>>Many say that religion don't contain falsifiable statements. This is wrong,
>>since virtually all religions I have seen, do contain falsifiable statements.
>
>      Only if *they* allow them to be falsifiable.  They are not
>      necessarily so, even if *you* take them to be falsifiable.

In that case, they don't use the language the way most other people do,
they are lying, or they are just producing noise.

>As for science disproving existance of God: This can be done by showing
>>that the description of God is inconsistent, or by falsifying.
>
>      By using science or logic you can do no such thing.  'God' is
>      not required to be consistent, nor even logical.  You cannot 
>      falsify a concept taken on faith.

But I can, I do, and I have done falsifications. The religious persons
react with confusion, or anger, or completely misunderstand me. Confusion
appears when they can see no fault in my argumentation, anger appear when
they think I'm trying to fool them, but misunderstanding is the usual thing,
because of very different languages, and stereotyped views.

>      Why do certain people have such difficulty with the proposition
>      that there are domains which 'science' and 'logic' can never reach?
>                                 dale bass
Because it's a false proposition.


In article <1d6ov2INNe54@agate.berkeley.edu>, emarkp@soda.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping) writes:
 > In article <1992Nov3.161226.1740@ugle.unit.no> kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar
 > St|vring \yhus) writes: 
 > 
 > }All the religions I have studied,
 > }Christianity{catholisism, protestants}, mormons, Witnesses of Jehova,
 > }Buddhism, Zen buddhism, Sri Chinmoi, hinduism, aesir, olympus, Egyptian,
 > }Communism, a.s.o.
 > }have the common characteristic of discribing reality in some way, and
 > }also contain some logic for determining truth.
 > }
 > }None agree with the scientific method, and their descriptions of reality are
 > }far too often wrong.
 > 
 >   If religion agreed with the scientific method, it would no longer be
 > religion; it would be science.  In my religion, we believe that we can have
 > proof of our beliefs -- but each person must recieve this proof
 > individually.  There is no method by which an experiment can be verified the

Hey, waitaminute! Individual proofs are a type of verification. Verification
don't have to be experimental to be scientific. All that is required is that
something that is observed, can act as a verifier or falsifier of theories.

 > exact same way everywhere as things can be in science.  Much of the
 > importance of religion is to take things beyond one's understanding on faith
 > and some personal confirmation.  If we could prove to everyone that a
 > certain way was undeniably correct to all objective observers, it would no
 > longer be religion.

Wrong. Some religions DO confirm everyone of it's validity, though always in a
localized area. If they didn't, we would not have this discussion.

 > }Many say that religion don't contain falsifiable statements. This is wrong,
 > }since virtually all religions I have seen, do contain falsifiable statements.
 > }
 > }As for science disproving existance of God: This can be done by showing
 > }that the description of God is inconsistent, or by falsifying.
 > 
 >   Science can *never* disprove the existance of a God.  If you were to show
 > "that the description of God is inconsistent" you would only prove that the
 > description is invalid.  There is no way we can know *everything*.

Plenty of religious people claim that the Bible is without inconsistencies. The
Bible itself say it is true. The bible contain inconsistencies, and can therefore
not be true, since truth can't contain inconsistencies. And proving that some
description is invalid goes a long way.

 >   "Say, that's a nice bike."          --Cyberdyne Systems T-1000
Nice quotation ;-)

Kim0