OK I now have a better understanding of what you mean by falsifiable relative to science. Anyway that title is not the hypothesis or what the science is .. It is more to do with semantics. I am trying to make it clearer for other atheists to see what I see. I am trying to shine a light in the dark tunnel so to speak. That not all atheist are dogmatic or rigid.
I'm glad you have a better understanding, but science isn't about semantics. More specifically, it's intentionally precise - you don't want people to be confused as to what you mean. That's a big part of the reason why your attempts to define theist and atheist differently than common parlance keep failing in such a big way. You mean them one way, but the people you're talking to understand them another way. More to the point, you come across like a religious devotee, which makes your attempts to describe your beliefs as if they're scientific fall totally flat.
Very simply, if you want to promote what you believe as if it's scientific, you need to show scientific evidence to support it. Diaries and the like don't really count - they're useful, but you can't verify that what's written in the diary actually took place, nor can you show that the things that they write about have an independent existence.
Ok so who is going to check it through? Not that it hasn't been done already but you seem to be indicating that it hasn't. So unless I m misunderstanding you maybe I should ask what do you mean by "checked through"?
In scientific methodology, stuff gets checked repeatedly. Basically, one person does an experiment, then other people do the same experiment to see if they get the same results, and so on and so forth. That's why science puts so much stock into reproducible experiments; if you can't reproduce what someone else does, how can you possibly tell whether their results are valid? You would just have to take their word for it (which is essentially what you're pushing), which collapses the whole framework that science is built on.
They do prescribe a daily introspective dairy that must be maintained by followers or disciples for the purpose of progression. To become more and more aware of course.
Diaries are useful in a subjective sense, but you can't use them to prove that something really happened. It's like keeping a dream diary - you can become more and more aware of your dreams, but you can't ever show that those dreams were real.
I have obviously / maybe deliberately exploded your mind. -- So No! if you were coming to Earth via a wormhole the experience of coming to earth via the wormhole is always the same but what you experience on Earth when you come is different every time depending on where you are or want to go. The sciency bit is the way to get to the wormhole and what happens in the wormhole.
No, you haven't exploded my mind. As for your example, leaving aside the fact that we have no wormholes (because they're way beyond us), if we did develop the technology to produce/use them, we would (obviously) be able to verify that wormholes existed through science. We could put observational devices inside the ship that they traveled through, to get data used to check whether the things that the people reported actually happened. And we could do various kinds of experiments Notably, these are things that we cannot do for these things you keep trying to promote. People can talk about what they seem to experience, but it is impossible to get independent observation or verification of those things. And without that, it's purely subjective, which means it might be interesting (just as the contents of a dream diary might be interesting), but it's certainly not scientific.
Another point you seem to have missed is that if someone is coming to Earth, it's possible to go to the same place more than once (a specific city would be recognizable as the same city whether it's summer or winter, although it would look different), and it's possible for multiple people to go to that same place. Yet as far as I know, nobody who's done this astral traveling (or whatever you call it) has managed to encounter a single other person or realistically gone to the same place more than once. That means their experiences are more like lucid dreaming than them actually going somewhere.
Not true you can meet up for classes like you do here on earth its in their books. I am not sure all are free online but I will not be providing any evidence of this. Freewill to the mind is always going to be a stumbling block when new pathways open up.
This is the problem and it has always been the problem. You refuse to provide evidence to support your assertions, and you expect people to just read through books written by people who make grandiose claims but can't provide any real evidence either. So why should anyone care? It sounds like just another religious belief, complete with unverifiable stories which seem to support the whole idea.
I am sure they have that. Paul Twitchell broke the rules and published outside their inner circle. They have a plan and a science but I suppose main stream scientists do not have their paperwork. I doubt they are bothered either.
That is not what I mean by publishing. Scientists publish papers describing their experiments and whatnot in journals which are read and reviewed by their peers and which are also open to the general public. The point being that other scientists in the same field can review what they did, repeat the experiments, publish comments and criticism, and so on. No doubt you'll claim that this is exactly like what advocates of Eck do, but it really isn't. First off, they're promoting a religious belief - you have to believe for it to work. Second, there's no realistic way to verify what someone else comes up with; they could easily claim they just went somewhere else in the "astral plane" or whatever it is, and nobody could disprove it. There would be no way to falsify anyone's specific results. And third, you have to rely on purely subjective perceptions, when those subjective perceptions are notoriously unreliable (as evidenced by the unreliability of eyewitness testimony).
Yea that is what my grand said when he gave his science report to his teacher. His teacher was not impressed if only he knew what you knew they would all have had "A"s. Maybe they are just programming them.
What does that have to do with anything?
You were doing so well. Why stop now?
I'm not your student, so don't treat me like it. The reason I made that comment is because you're throwing around similar terms yourself, and it isn't doing you any good. If you want people to take you seriously, you have to treat them seriously, and you really haven't been treating anyone here seriously since you first started posting. It gets frustrating. I had to take a break because I was getting too annoyed with you.
That's right -- theists say pure means pure -- it does not mean if you believe you will be saved. You must know who you are and if not get a teacher.
No, I mean, unless someone believes that their methods work, they won't work for them. The gurus get the methods passed down to them from 'god' and then pass it on to believers. Meaning, if someone isn't a believer, it won't work for them.
We are on a sync here "Key words" ... you investigate them. Where is the investigation by any claimants of atheism when clearly there are living teachers on how to know God - in your version of the use of the word no one can investigate. They can only sit on their laurels and say where is the evidence - hoping other will bring it for them. Knowing has a process.
What makes you think these teachers know 'god' in the first place? You've been asked this and asked this and asked this, and you've never really even acknowledged it. You define theist and atheist in your own way and aren't even willing to admit that other people define it differently, at least not as far as I've seen. The fact of the matter is that you believe in what these teachers say, and you believe in the god they preach about, whereas the people here do not do either. So you're seen as a liar by most of the people here because you keep claiming to be an atheist even though you clearly have a religious belief in Eck. It would be like someone claiming to be an atheist but promoting the religious doctrine of Christianity.
This may be difficult for you to understand, but when a person makes a claim, it's their responsibility to support it with evidence. There are simply too many people who make claims like yours without evidence to have it any other way. If a person isn't willing to provide evidence, or is unable to, then they have no right to expect anyone else to take them seriously. In short, if you want the people here to take you seriously, then you need to provide scientific evidence which supports what you're claiming. Otherwise, you're just wasting everyone's time.
I have made no claims. Several people have been trying to get me to make a "claim to" something.
You've been making claims since the very first day you got here. "Theists know God, atheists don't" is a claim, for example, and that's hardly the only one. What people here have been trying to do is to get you to provide evidence to support what you're saying.
I do not make any claims other than 'Theists say' ".........." and that is documented.
No, it is not documented. This is the thing that you just don't seem to get. Just because you're willing to accept that these people somehow know 'god' doesn't mean they actually do, and it doesn't relieve you (and them) of the responsibility to prove it.
When people on here are debating the bible the say in Genesis 1 verse 29 it says.
Or they say Jesus said "Blessed are the pure at heart for they shall see God"
Writings in a religious book do not serve as evidence that the original writer somehow knew 'god'. You need to understand this, Jesuis.
What I am saying is that there is a pattern and a process when it comes to identifying theists and what they say do and teach. I have also said theists are no use to us dead so there are living ones. What I am now observing is the root cause of atheism your style. And it has nothing to do with investigation or detective work where the theist are concerned but more of a "I don't care attitude". But Not from you of course.
Humans are really good at figuring out patterns, even patterns that don't actually mean anything. People see images in clouds all the time; or they see a pattern and assume that some intelligence was responsible, then make up stories about that intelligence when they don't even know whether it's real or not.
Simply put, I'm just too much of a skeptic to take your word, or anyone's word, for it, unless I already know and trust them very well, and sometimes not even then. It has nothing to do with atheism, and everything to do with the fact that you keep making claims that you won't support and keep expecting other people to just jump right in and take your word for it by going and reading all the books that you think prove your case. There are way too many people in this world who will try to take advantage of the credulousness of others, or even just want to promote their own credulousness as fact. I've fallen for a few schemes like that myself, but not many - and it's only because I'm a skeptic and don't take their word for it.
That means you and your belief, too. If you aren't willing to give enough of a damn to provide the evidence you need to support what you believe, then you have no business expecting anyone else to give enough of a damn to care about what you believe and are trying to promote. The only reason I'm still responding is because I've learned to cultivate a huge amount of patience when dealing with other people.