faith is boolean

Solitary said:
Actually, within the framework of the debate, it is an experiment.

Dixie simply suggested that you try certain life style and record any changes.


Whether those changes would occur because of some higher power or because of your own self-awareness would still be up for debate.

But it most certainly is an experiment.
Click to expand...

Not in any scientific sense of the word.
 
Dixie said:
What do you mean, it needs a 'control'? I have given you the parameters to conduct the controlled experiment. Practice meditations first thing every morning, and last thing every night, give thanks for your food, devote 1 hour a week to reflect on the week's events and contemplate how you could have been a better person. Do this for 1 year, and record any subsequent changes in your conditions. If you can come back in 1 year, and tell me you experienced absolutely no change for the positive in your life, then you will have confirmed your theories and refuted mine. Simple as that.... but you won't do it because you are closed-minded and have already drawn your conclusions.
Click to expand...

The fact that you have no idea what a "control" is means you never passed eighth-grade science class.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Not in any scientific sense of the word.
Click to expand...

Please explain why my experiment is not Science? It deals with natural and physical elements and parameters of measure. It is conducted in a controlled manner, and most certainly relates to the science of psychology, as it studies human behavioral characteristics. I really do get tired of you supposed "scientists" jumping in to 'inform' people how something isn't really science. You are obligated to explain why it isn't, and do so in a compelling way, yet you guys always seem to overlook that detail of debate. WTF?
 
AssHatZombie said:
No. When I say belief I'm using definition 1. Can't you read?
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, which is why I made the comment I made...

Definition 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

So, you think the Earth is flat?????

Maybe you should try reading the thread posts again when you've removed at least one of your two fists from your own ass, I think it is impairing your ability to read.

You should just shut up now and let this thread die, you're going to look even more ridiculous with your feet in your mouth.
 
Dixie said:
Yes, I know, which is why I made the comment I made...

Definition 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

So, you think the Earth is flat?????

Maybe you should try reading the thread posts again when you've removed at least one of your two fists from your own ass, I think it is impairing your ability to read.

You should just shut up now and let this thread die, you're going to look even more ridiculous with your feet in your mouth.
Click to expand...

Above = Dishonest thread of the day.
 
Good Luck said:
One can study the laws of physics and chemistry and "believe" they have a good grasp on how the universe functions. But you still are exercising faith - faith that your methods yielded accurate results, faith that your hypothesis can be extended beyond the sets of experimental data that have so far verified the hypotheses. (Which in physics is risky, as it has already been shown how quickly Newtonian laws break down under various circumstances.)

And religious faith is based on the observation of miracles. Life is a miracle. Science CLAIMS to have an explanation for life, but when that explanation is examined closely, one finds as many unsupported, unobservable and untestable assumptions in that explanation as one finds in a religious explanation.

As is the very set of laws of chemistry and physics upon which you base your observations. One can say the laws that allowed us to develop and to use the periodic table of elements to describe - and predict - the behavior of the elements is "just the way the universe works". Or one can say it is because the laws of chemistry (and physics) were deliberately and carefully designed. Neither view is observable, testable, nor provable. Both views are based on faith in one's own conclusions.
Click to expand...


Science does not accept untestable conclusions as true just because MAYBE THEY ARE TRUE. It has no comment on such stuff. Considering this, ID is not science.
 
And how does finding a way to test meditation/reflection (AKA "positive thinking" which is a well-studied part of psychology) back up or refute your "theory" about the existence of God, Dixie?
 
You cannot, for instance, test how fast a banana rots in the freezer vs in a basket in the window with one banana. Nor can you do with with an apple or an orange as a substitute for a banana.
 
One last thing: I don't claim to be a scientist. I'm just not an ignorant Southern dumbfuck who never passed middle school-level science.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Above = Dishonest thread of the day.
Click to expand...

What the FUCK is dishonest about it? I posted the definition VERBATUM, along with AssClown's OWN words, and asked a perfectly valid question! There is not one goddamn thing dishonest in my post, and you are a full of shit little weasel to say so. Step up to the plate, Big Man! You have a problem with something I say? Tell us what it is! Don't pull this cute little bullshit throwing game with me, I don't have time for it.
 
Dixie said:
What the FUCK is dishonest about it? I posted the definition VERBATUM, along with AssClown's OWN words, and asked a perfectly valid question! There is not one goddamn thing dishonest in my post, and you are a full of shit little weasel to say so. Step up to the plate, Big Man! You have a problem with something I say? Tell us what it is! Don't pull this cute little bullshit throwing game with me, I don't have time for it.
Click to expand...

I believe you do have time for it.
 
Dixie said:
What the FUCK is dishonest about it? I posted the definition VERBATUM, along with AssClown's OWN words, and asked a perfectly valid question! There is not one goddamn thing dishonest in my post, and you are a full of shit little weasel to say so. Step up to the plate, Big Man! You have a problem with something I say? Tell us what it is! Don't pull this cute little bullshit throwing game with me, I don't have time for it.
Click to expand...

Fuck you, you prissy little shit eating dog fucker.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Your independent and dependent variable cannot be the same.
Click to expand...

The dependent variable was given in the ritual itself. It must be followed rigorously for the duration of the test period, or the test is not valid.

You cannot, for instance, test how fast a banana rots in the freezer vs in a basket in the window with one banana. Nor can you do with with an apple or an orange as a substitute for a banana.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, but you can do the test with two banana's. My test is no different, you can observe the quality of life of two subjects, or as I suggested, 100 subjects, one group practicing the ritual and the other, not. How is my experiment any different than any other science experiment? We just don't have any 'willing' lab rats.
 
Dixie said:
The dependent variable was given in the ritual itself. It must be followed rigorously for the duration of the test period, or the test is not valid.



Ah, yes, but you can do the test with two banana's. My test is no different, you can observe the quality of life of two subjects, or as I suggested, 100 subjects, one group practicing the ritual and the other, not. How is my experiment any different that any other science experiment? We just don't have any 'willing' lab rats.
Click to expand...

You're not isolating confounding variables. And you didn't suggest using 100 subjects. You suggested using one person and having that individual see if they did better or worse compared to the previous year(s) of their lives. As you presented it, your test was not a valid scientific experiment.

The more subjects you test, the more you eliminate confounding variables and the greater the chance the variable being manipulated is responsible for any measurable change. This would be shown as a statistical chart and an analysis of likelihood.

Again, I ask you what the heck "meditation" and "reflection" have to do with existence of God. You're implying your hypothesis here, then changing words (dishonestly) so you can't get trapped into saying you were talking about prayer and church.

Just state explicitly what your hypothesis is. What conclusion would you draw if your experiment yielded statistically significant results?
 
ib1yysguy said:
You're not isolating confounding variables. And you didn't suggest using 100 subjects. You suggested using one person and having that individual see if they did better or worse compared to the previous year(s) of their lives. As you presented it, your test was not a valid scientific experiment.

The more subjects you test, the more you eliminate confounding variables and the greater the chance the variable being manipulated is responsible for any measurable change. This would be shown as a statistical chart and an analysis of likelihood.

Again, I ask you what the heck "meditation" and "reflection" have to do with existence of God. You're implying your hypothesis here, then changing words (dishonestly) so you can't get trapped into saying you were talking about prayer and church.

Just state explicitly what your hypothesis is. What conclusion would you draw if your experiment yielded statistically significant results?
Click to expand...

God Is Real!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top