religion

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok. It was still a terrible conflated example. It did nothing to show even a remote correlation between scientific method and religion. I don't know how how to break it down for you any more.


Your post illustrates my point more effectively than any rebuttal I could have come up with.

Yet you respond.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I just asked what I'm not getting, and you aren't pointing it out. I have exactly what you said quoted, and still don't see what I'm missing. It's your job to make me understand your question if I don't supposedly understand it. I answered exactly what you asked. It is probable you that is fucking up and not asking properly what you want.

It's not his job. It would be on him if his posts lacked articulation. They don't, therefore it isn't.

You only have yourself to blame for your lack of understanding / refusal to understand.

[Daldolma]

i don't know about evolution or intelligent design but better question:

who is dumber, the guy with no reading comprehension or the guy who has written 30,000 words to a guy who allegedly can't comprehend what he's reading?

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yet you respond.

Yes. I'm hoping that if you see it often enough you'll understand that you should endeavor to improve your communication skills.

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can't observe prayer?

You can't determine an experiment to be done to determine if prayer works or not?

You can't conduct a prayer?

You can't find several people who confirm prayer works?

What am I not getting?

Ok, now that's an honest question. That's a place we can begin a discussion. I think it was already addressed, but I'll try and explain.

1. Someone prays for their loved one who has contracted a malignancy

2. The patient recovers! They are now cancer free and living happily

3. Hypothesis: Prayer works

4. Inference: If you pray for someone who has contracted cancer, they will then recover

Ok, we've just completed an experiment. Now, let's repeat it just to be sure.

1. Someone prays for their loved one who has contracted a malignancy

2. The patient dies

3. Hypothesis: Prayer does not work all of the time

4. Inference: If you pray for someone who has contracted cancer, they will not always recover

So, that's two experiments, and so far our success rate is 50%. Do I need to continue on so you can see where this is going?

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's not his job. It would be on him if his posts lacked articulation. They don't, therefore it isn't.

You only have yourself to blame for your lack of understanding / refusal to understand.

Then tell me, what did I not understand Kagatob? Because I responded to the T exactly the 4 questions he asked. Point to where I didn't. Tell me where I didn't. Don't just say I fail to understand, but don't provide any feedback. I don't tell my child he just doesn't get how to catch a baseball, then proceed on my life without telling him what he is missing. Is this another one of those I'm just suppose to read his mind? That I did answer his questions to exactly what he asked, but I was suppose to really answer the questions in his head?

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

i don't know about evolution or intelligent design but better question:

who is dumber, the guy with no reading comprehension or the guy who has written 30,000 words to a guy who allegedly can't comprehend what he's reading?

The former is clearly lacking in some respect. The latter is likely bored or has copious amounts of free time.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah, you are right, I probably should of not participated in the first place. It's just so hard sometimes when you view forums like this for a game you enjoy, and so many people spewing idiocy. It's like you try, but just sometimes you can't help it.

Meh, I do the same thing about racism on this forum.

You know who I think created life on earth? Mother fuckn veeshan.

Veeshan for prez!

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Then tell me, what did I not understand Kagatob? Because I responded to the T exactly the 4 questions he asked. Point to where I didn't. Tell me where I didn't. Don't just say I fail to understand, but don't provide any feedback. I don't tell my child he just doesn't get how to catch a baseball, then proceed on my life without telling him what he is missing. Is this another one of those I'm just suppose to read his mind? That I did answer his questions to exactly what he asked, but I was suppose to really answer the questions in his head?

That's the issue. You don't (I'm leaning towards: refuse to) understand any of it.

Even your analogy is bad. If you are the kid, you can't catch because even though I've shown you a dozen times, you can't even put on the glove.

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Meh, I do the same thing about racism on this forum.

You know who I think created life on earth? Mother fuckn veeshan.

Veeshan for prez!

That's racist.

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok, now that's an honest question. That's a place we can begin a discussion. I think it was already addressed, but I'll try and explain.

1. Someone prays for their loved one who has contracted a malignancy

2. The patient recovers! They are now cancer free and living happily

3. Hypothesis: Prayer works

4. Inference: If you pray for someone who has contracted cancer, they will then recover

Ok, we've just completed an experiment. Now, let's repeat it just to be sure.

1. Someone prays for their loved one who has contracted a malignancy

2. The patient dies

3. Hypothesis: Prayer does not work all of the time

4. Inference: If you pray for someone who has contracted cancer, they will not always recover

So, that's two experiments, and so far our success rate is 50%. Do I need to continue on so you can see where this is going?

Well there lies another issue. First being, and I'm assuming you already know this, the statistical data for health related issues is an effort that has fallen by the waste side. Most, if not all data (though substantially small) proves that it doesn't work...... for healing sicknesses. Some have claimed it to be true, I'm just merely pointing out what you can find off google. Side note, let us assume God did exist, and he had some sort of expectation to help out our fellow man, would it really rely on him so much to heal the sick when there is the technology to heal the sick?

The next is although it isn't 100%, it's safe to assume that many scientific claims aren't 100% (which is funny, because that was the whole basis of a lot of arguments in this thread, and something I've specifically tried pointing out. I actually haven't claimed once that evolution is false, I've merely presented that it's possible that it's fabricated in the same sense that religion is fabricated). A majority of scientific minds could believe one thing to be so, therefore it is so. It works kind of like a majority vote you could say. It's also one reason science is always evolving, because things in life may later point out something wrong in previous conclusions.

Anyways, if you are to use what leewrong presented expecting a 100% result, then you are right. That wouldn't work since 100% of the population would receive the same results. It also depends on the question you ask, for example, if I ask if gravity is real by dropping a pen. It would be impossible to refute (does that make any sense what I'm saying, because honestly, don't know how to explain where I'm getting at better with that comment). There was no claim though that there had to be 100% result, and better yet, I would argue the hypocrisy for me to provide 100% results when he can't do anything of the sorts to the most heated argument in the thread, evolution.

I think you know what I'm saying though, but who knows, because supposedly no one understands anyone in this thread.