Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

^ no atheist would even attempt to disprove the existance of God.

Probably his stance would be condomnation.

Maybe now that the Pope has allowed it he has gone on a condom-using frenzy all around Deutschland!  

At least this is one ''cover up'' that shouldn't end in scandal.

Snow Dog: Yeah the colleague who told me that Jesus talked to his wife when she was five, it's actually worse than I said. Here's the detailed version.

How is that gossip? It's something he said to me himself.

Textbook wrote: How is that gossip? It's something he said to me himself.

I don't quite see how you can describe dismissal of the accounts as being unscientific when plausible scientific explanations are put forward and equally dismissed by those who believe the experiences were "real".

thellama73 wrote: Dean wrote: I don't quite see how you can describe dismissal of the accounts as being unscientific when plausible scientific explanations are put forward and equally dismissed by those who believe the experiences were "real". I don't dismis any plausible scientific explanations. The theory that all these people are just nuts or hallucinating or whatever, even in cases where the person in question has shown no signs of mental instability or even imagination, is not something I can easily swallow without looking into it further, however. Scientists insist that none of these accounts are genuine, not because they have investigated them, but because they refuse to admit the possibility of anything they don't understand. I believe in some cases, people are experienceing real phenomena. This is not to say that what they are seeing is real, but something is causing them to see something. Even if it is a case of halluciation, there must be a root cause, and isn't that in itself worth investigating rather than just waving it away as unimportant?

Without subjecting the person to controlled scientific investigation it is impossible to validate any claim, yet over the years there have been many serious investigations and even more less serious (by which I mean non-academic rather than comical) studies into all manner of paranormal phenomena (into which we must group divine visitations as being a paranormal activity since it is by definition para (beyond) normal), none of which have been demonstrated to be real in any form. All known cases of hallucination have been explained by scientific means as being natural phenomena created within the subject and none have been shown to be of external influence or control - this is not dismissal or waving it away as unimportant - especially if they are the result of psychosis or some other clinical condition (or "just nuts" if you prefer). This is a lose-lose situation for science of course - if  a doctor treats the patient with anti-psycotic drugs and the divine visitations continue this is taken as proof that they are real (not that the drugs didn't work) but if they cease this still isn't accepted as proof that the visitations were an hallucination, but that the drugs have blocked the reception of the divine message.   The danger for the scientific community is when a plausible explanation cannot be found that is 100% conclusive and irrefutable. In normal scientific investigation this is perfectly acceptable, but in the lay-world this is misinterpreted as proof that the phenomena is real. The case of miracles is one prime example of this - just because science cannot give a conclusive explanation of why a cancer goes into remission this is taken as proof of divine intervention and a miracle cure - which is a fallacious assumption.

thellama73 wrote:  Scientists insist that none of these accounts are genuine, not because they have investigated them, but because they refuse to admit the possibility of anything they don't understand.

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 03 2010 at 13:45