Karma reasons for concrete message

Message

Jesuis



    Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160

I do not think you understand what falsifiable means in terms of science.  Otherwise you would not claim that "atheists prove it does not exist daily".  Once a hypothesis is falsified, it's no longer relevant, because it's been shown to be false.  You have to modify the hypothesis to account for it, and so far you haven't done that.  Indeed, your statement "theists know and atheists don't" is a textbook example of a non-falsifiable hypothesis, because if someone doesn't 'know', they're automatically an atheist in your eyes.  Therefore, it is impossible to falsify because nobody can show that the hypothesis itself is false and thus force a revision of it.
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.

Quote
Again, I do not think you understand just what the scientific method is.  It is not a method that you can subsequently claim is scientific; it is a specific methodology used to test hypotheses to determine if they work or not.  The short version of the scientific method is to make an observation, formulate a hypothesis, perform experiments to test the hypothesis, then determine if your hypothesis is falsified or not.  If it is, then you formulate a new hypothesis; if it is not, then you perform new experiments to further test the hypothesis.  That's what it takes to call something scientific.  If these meditation methods you talk about have not been checked through the scientific method, they are not scientific.
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"?

Quote
No, that isn't what the controls I was talking about are for.  Basically, the purpose of controls is to limit the variations possible in the experiment as tightly as possible so that you can tell what the variable you're actually examining in the experiment actually does (assuming it does anything).  And you need to keep specific records of your results so that other people can reproduce them.  I highly doubt that anyone has done any kind of experiments to check lust, greed, and ego to see what effects they might actually have, for example.  Instead, it's always taking someone's word for it that they're bad and need to be excluded.
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.

Quote
Therefore, the process of "going within" is not the same for all, because what you get once you're 'within' is never the same.  It's the exact opposite of a reproducible experiment; you can "go within" as many times as you want and never have the same experience once you're 'within', therefore nobody who runs an 'experiment' on it will get the same result.  Science depends on reproducible experiments; if I do an experiment and get a certain result, then someone else who does the same experiment the same way I did should get the exact same result.  If they don't, then one or the other of us made a mistake somewhere (or else there's a variable that was different between us).
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.

Quote
Worse yet, at least from your perspective, there's no way to verify that the experiences that a person undergoes while "going within" are actually real.  As far as anyone else can tell, it might as well be a dream.  You can't have two different people "go within" and encounter each other because it's a personal, subjective experience.  Which, incidentally, is why it's not reproducible.

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.

Quote
If they were following the rules of scientific methodology, they would have had things they could have published and that other people could have verified.  That's how actual science works;
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.

Quote
The point is that if you have to know it works, or even if you have to believe it works, in order for it to work, then what you're doing isn't science and cannot be.
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.

Quote
You mean like the selective bias you've been engaging in the entire time you've been on this site?
You were doing so well. Why stop now?

Quote
It's because they aren't doing science to begin with.  It doesn't matter how many times you claim otherwise, it doesn't matter that you think it's laziness on the parts of the people you're talking to; if they aren't doing actual reproducible scientific experiments that other people can do and get the same result whether they believe in it or not, then there's nothing for anyone to investigate to begin with.  What you're preaching depends on people believing it can work; if they don't, then it won't.  Real, actual science doesn't depend on whether people believe in it or not.
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.

Quote
Yes, exactly.  You make claims, and when people investigate them, they find nothing except an unsupported belief system and wild claims by proponents that don't actually hold up.

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.

Quote
You're the one making claims that you can't support with actual research.  Several people in this thread alone have asked you to support your claims, and you've linked to books written by people who make claims that depend on people believing them in order for them to seemingly work.
I have made no claims. Several people have been trying to get me to make a "claim to" something.

Quote
Given that you can't support any of your claims except by telling people that if they believe strongly enough, those claims will actually work (ala Peter Pan and his fairy dust, where if you have some of it and think happy enough thoughts, you can fly through the air), I see no reason to give your beliefs any credence.  Compare that to actual scientific discoveries that have been tested and verified countless times, and have never required people to believe in them in order for them to work.
I do not make any claims other than 'Theists say'  ".........." and that is documented.
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"
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.
Changed Change Reason Date
SevenPatch Trolling propaganda March 21, 2014, 09:31:27 PM