"Horrorcore"​…. what next?

close
more_vert
Squid Tempest S
Squid Tempest Oct 9, 2009 13:31:47
Replying to handofdave

handofdave wrote:
Squid Tempest wrote:
handofdave wrote:
I am unaware of any scientific evidence that conclusively either disproves or proves the existence of God, angels, demons, ghosts, evil spirits, etc.
Scientific method requires evidence (not necessarily proof). There is no direct evidence* of god, angels, demons etc, therefore to believe in them is unscientific. You don't need to "disprove" it, because there is no evidence of its existence.

*personal experience can't be measured on scientific instruments can it?

We have no direct evidence of dreams, do we? I mean, do you have a recording you can show me of your dreams? I don't believe you ever have dreamed.
;-)

You are suggesting that science should openly shun religion and religious experience because it does not have the tools to measure them.

Thing is, we can do MRI's of people's brains while they're under a state of religious euphoria. So, we know that for some people, religion gets them high.

Hmmm.... is that not curious? Why wouldn't a scientist find that interesting?

It shows...that there is brain activity. Not that there is a god.

And there is no need for science to "shun" religious belief, it just doesn't make sense for science to have "faith" in something - that isn't what science is about!

H handofdave
handofdave Oct 9, 2009 14:11:08
Replying to Squid Tempest

Brain activity doesn't prove God exists, it just proves something is going on in the brain. But to reduce very powerful experiences to 'brain activity' is misleading.

My observation is that a great many people who are uncompromisingly against all religion are prone toward labeling the whole kit'n'kaboodle based on that religion's worst elements.

In a nutshell, it's unfair to judge someone who lives by the code of being fair, friendly and honest because they might have Xtianity (of different variety) in common with someone who's dogmatic, intolerant, and fanatical.