Does Religion rely on Death.

Mick Fenner · Post by **Mick Fenner** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:23 pm

It appears religions rely on our death to keep it going.

My opinion is its faulse of it to do this because My life cannot end for me. Will your life end and you know it.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:29 pm

Mick Fenner;1377933 wrote: It appears religions rely on our death to keep it going.

My opinion is its faulse of it to do this because My life cannot end for me. Will your life end and you know it.

Religion relies on the FEAR OF DEATH. I will die and be unaware of ANYTHING afterwards the same as my unawareness prior to my birth.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:11 pm

It relies on our fear of death and gullibility

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:31 pm

I don't know about all the religious folks out there, but my religion relies on my treating everyone with love and respect, doing for others as I would wish others would do for me.

Death is nothing to fear.

theia · Post by **theia** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:23 pm

LarsMac;1377952 wrote: I don't know about all the religious folks out there, but my religion relies on my treating everyone with love and respect, doing for others as I would wish others would do for me.

Death is nothing to fear.

I like this post...thank you.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:20 am

I fear the way death will come, and pray it will be over quickly when it comes, and be without burden on anyone else.

Mick Fenner · Post by **Mick Fenner** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:02 am

A good answer and something I am sure most people believe in what ever there beliefs. I do get the impression with my limited knowledge that "some" faiths invented afterlife and where you go to as in heaven and hell. May I ask if your religion does say in any way if something happens after death which may be alters according to how you acted in life with regards to love and respect excetra. I agree death is nothing to fear but can make one think which can easily bring a fear of some level.

May I ask if you agree that each human has life with no befors or afters.

As Talbot Monday said. I was not born and shall not die.

Kind Regards.

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:46 am

I take exception to your suggestion that faiths "invented" afterlife. One of the major realities to prehistoric people was the death and subsequent decomposition of tribe members, the development of ritual to handle the remains, the story-telling which emergent language first brought into being. Nobody set out to lie about what happened, these were enquiring minds. The retention of outmoded Creator Powergod monotheist ideas nowadays is sheer mental illness, I hope we collectively cure ourselves of them sooner rather than later, but the process of enquiry was a necessary step to making us who we are.

Mick Fenner · Post by **Mick Fenner** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:04 am

Hello Spot.

I am sorry you took exception to it especialy as you said it was a sugestion and that is what I implied.

I think you are wrong to say something is "sheer mental illness" because of what a person believes. You said enquiry was a necersary step" and that is what we are doing.

All the best.

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:09 am

Scientific enquiry has chased the Creator Powergod out of the known universe. There's no place left for Heaven or Hell to hide, no creative action left for the Powergod to have taken, no moral pinhead left on which such a devil could pretend to be in any sense Good. It's distressing history, it should be let go of, we have places still to reach and being preached at by fundamentalist mumbo-jumbo bible-quoting bigots convinced they know The Truth is just embarrassing.

Mick Fenner · Post by **Mick Fenner** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:34 am

Hi again Spot.

Yes but how to do it is the main problem.

Science is single things for us to look at of which there are millions of points and religions are the same so I would say its imopossible to just stop them we must raise points within them and discuss them. A club with or without a name means nothing just as a person saying I am a Christian doesnt say anything when we see the different sects and differences within each one. Me saying I am an Atheist doesnt say anything about me. I am a great believer in where I see a single religion teaching children and say running a country. I will try and bring all faiths and children together this will enable us to have a better chance to see all ways and ideas.

Kind regards.

theia · Post by **theia** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:39 am

spot;1378002 wrote: I take exception to your suggestion that faiths "invented" afterlife. One of the major realities to prehistoric people was the death and subsequent decomposition of tribe members, the development of ritual to handle the remains, the story-telling which emergent language first brought into being. Nobody set out to lie about what happened, these were enquiring minds. The retention of outmoded Creator Powergod monotheist ideas nowadays is sheer mental illness, I hope we collectively cure ourselves of them sooner rather than later, but the process of enquiry was a necessary step to making us who we are.

In what sense are you using the term "mental illness?"

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:47 am

theia;1378006 wrote: In what sense are you using the term "mental illness?"

Oh please theia, you know he will only go and tell us now ?

Some more of his zany off the wall mildly eccentric navel gazing gumph !!!

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 5:00 am

theia;1378006 wrote: In what sense are you using the term "mental illness?"

The insistent retention of an erroneous antisocial point of view in the teeth of both logic and every speck of available evidence, that would do for a starting point. I'm aware other mental illnesses exist but that condition qualifies, I think. It may be that the word "monomanic" fits close by.

theia · Post by **theia** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 5:26 am

Bruv;1378007 wrote: Oh please theia, you know he will only go and tell us now ?

Some more of his zany off the wall mildly eccentric navel gazing gumph !!!

I can't help myself, Bruv...sorry

Spot...antisocial? In what way?

Mick Fenner · Post by **Mick Fenner** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 7:21 am

If I may but in on the last few messages. I think when we all give opinions we must be carefull our words do not distract for the argument and I think such words as mental illness, antisocial, plus maybe one or two others that are pointed at the person and not at the discussion.

Regards to all and thanks for your contributions on this thread.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:15 pm

LarsMac;1377952 wrote: I don't know about all the religious folks out there, but my religion relies on my treating everyone with love and respect, doing for others as I would wish others would do for me.

Death is nothing to fear.

It's not natural not to fear death .....You do not fear losing your children in death? your mother your father ? your spouse?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:17 pm

spot;1378009 wrote: The insistent retention of an erroneous antisocial point of view in the teeth of both logic and every speck of available evidence, that would do for a starting point. I'm aware other mental illnesses exist but that condition qualifies, I think. It may be that the word "monomanic" fits close by.

~snigger~ Spot used the term "anti-social" lol

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:05 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1378060 wrote: It's not natural not to fear death .....You do not fear losing your children in death? your mother your father ? your spouse?

What point is that? I hated losing my parents. We fought pretty hard to help them stick around, but when they gave in and left, All I could do was help keep them comfortable and take care of them.

I would face my own death rather than lose my spouse or children, but it us not because of fear.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:29 am

No. Religion does rely on fear but the physical act of dying isn't the problem. It's the fear of insignificance that drives us. Our progeny perform a death denying function, our works, our fame, our status etc are all used to create a sense of immortality. We know we're going to die and most of us can accept that. Where we have the problem is in fading away.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:47 am

You're only dead if you're forgotten . it will be centuries before any of us really die . think of how many people go into their ancestory ...those people centuries ago suddenly have lives again .

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:02 am

fuzzywuzzy;1378094 wrote: You're only dead if you're forgotten . it will be centuries before any of us really die . think of how many people go into their ancestory ...those people centuries ago suddenly have lives again .

No they don't......

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:16 am

fuzzywuzzy;1378094 wrote: You're only dead if you're forgotten . it will be centuries before any of us really die . think of how many people go into their ancestory ...those people centuries ago suddenly have lives again .

Names, Fuzz. Very few of them leave details more substantial than that and a date or two in a register.

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:30 am

Mick Fenner;1377933 wrote: It appears religions rely on our death to keep it going.

My opinion is its faulse of it to do this because My life cannot end for me. Will your life end and you know it.

I'm completely baffled by this duality notion. We agree, presumably, that the physical brain is capable of generating our day to day thoughts, our ideas, all the work needed to give a person their mental abilities. If we look at people with damage to their brains we can explain the change in their thinking in terms of the damage they've sustained.

So what's this "soul" people are so insistent they have which can exist independently of the body and hang around once the body dies, or be breathed by some deity into a newborn? What's it capable of? Thinking? That's already being done by the physical brain. Either the same event is happening twice, once in the brain and a second time in the soul, or the soul's incapable of thought. Or memory. Or expressing the ideas of a person.

I suggest medical science has chased the soul out of pre-enlightenment thinking into a historical setting. And yet people still talk in terms of the survival of some aspect of their personality in a post-death infinite setting associated with meeting up with their departed families and having a great time singing for all eternity around the throne of the creator.

My impression of this is that people cling to religion because it's legal to indoctrinate children with the lies of the priests. I'd call that child abuse. One day perhaps we'll leave it to adults to explore religion rather than force children to "believe" by lying to them.

As for would "I" like to survive the physical dying of my body, no. Not in the slightest. Shutting down, powering off and leaving it to my descendants is what every creature on earth has done for billions of years, I see no reason to expect Homo Sapiens to be any different in that regard.

theia · Post by **theia** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:09 am

spot;1378112 wrote: I'm completely baffled by this duality notion. We agree, presumably, that the physical brain is capable of generating our day to day thoughts, our ideas, all the work needed to give a person their mental abilities. If we look at people with damage to their brains we can explain the change in their thinking in terms of the damage they've sustained.

So what's this "soul" people are so insistent they have which can exist independently of the body and hang around once the body dies, or be breathed by some deity into a newborn? What's it capable of? Thinking? That's already being done by the physical brain. Either the same event is happening twice, once in the brain and a second time in the soul, or the soul's incapable of thought. Or memory. Or expressing the ideas of a person.

I suggest medical science has chased the soul out of pre-enlightenment thinking into a historical setting. And yet people still talk in terms of the survival of some aspect of their personality in a post-death infinite setting associated with meeting up with their departed families and having a great time singing for all eternity around the throne of the creator.

My impression of this is that people cling to religion because it's legal to indoctrinate children with the lies of the priests. I'd call that child abuse. One day perhaps we'll leave it to adults to explore religion rather than force children to "believe" by lying to them.

As for would "I" like to survive the physical dying of my body, no. Not in the slightest. Shutting down, powering off and leaving it to my descendants is what every creature on earth has done for billions of years, I see no reason to expect Homo Sapiens to be any different in that regard.

For me the "soul" is beyond thought. As "it" doesn't belong to the realm of thought or physicality, it can't be thought about or proven. But a lot of us try to express it in various ways even though it's inexpressible...I, for one, find that comforting.

I comforted my children when they were little by trying to express it...why do you view this as child abuse, spot?

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:25 am

theia;1378115 wrote: For me the "soul" is beyond thought. As "it" doesn't belong to the realm of thought or physicality, it can't be thought about or proven. But a lot of us try to express it in various ways even though it's inexpressible...I, for one, find that comforting.

I comforted my children when they were little by trying to express it...why do you view this as child abuse, spot?

I'm still working on "antisocial? In what way?".

What I regard as abuse is teaching a child to accept and express a dogmatic belief while telling it that the teaching is factual. If you have one class of children being taught Islamic dogma and another being taught Christian dogma and each class being told it's receiving the truth then one class, at least, is being lied to. I suggest both are.

FG threads always have this problem when using words like "soul" and "spirit", we need to clarify what we're talking about. I need a word for the allegedly immortal component of the personality which survives death and retains the memory of the individual who has passed on. I've used "soul", in this thread. What word would you use instead? Because it's that description which I'm claiming to be a non-existent disproved corrupt medieval concept. There are lots of other uses of the word "soul" that I'm not challenging but if your use doesn't include, for example, the ability to recall the life experiences of the person as memory, then I claim it's not "I" and I wonder how you can identify yourself with such a thing.

As for antisocial, the pretence that a specific monotheist religion is the sole possessor of The Truth when it comes to the Creator Powergod is why we have these Islamic clerics suppressing women while claiming their actions protect them, Christian fundamentalists protesting against the equal treatment of homosexuals, the Zionist belief that Israel is permanently given them by God and whatever nonsense the Mormons are up to this year. I'd call all of that the antisocial consequence of a commonly shared mental illness.

theia · Post by **theia** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 9:01 am

spot;1378116 wrote: I'm still working on "antisocial? In what way?".

What I regard as abuse is teaching a child to accept and express a dogmatic belief while telling it that the teaching is factual. If you have one class of children being taught Islamic dogma and another being taught Christian dogma and each class being told it's receiving the truth then one class, at least, is being lied to. I suggest both are.

FG threads always have this problem when using words like "soul" and "spirit", we need to clarify what we're talking about. I need a word for the allegedly immortal component of the personality which survives death and retains the memory of the individual who has passed on. I've used "soul", in this thread. What word would you use instead? Because it's that description which I'm claiming to be a non-existent disproved corrupt medieval concept. There are lots of other uses of the word "soul" that I'm not challenging but if your use doesn't include, for example, the ability to recall the life experiences of the person as memory, then I claim it's not "I" and I wonder how you can identify yourself with such a thing.

As for antisocial, the pretence that a specific monotheist religion is the sole possessor of The Truth when it comes to the Creator Powergod is why we have these Islamic clerics suppressing women while claiming their actions protect them, Christian fundamentalists protesting against the equal treatment of homosexuals, the Zionist belief that Israel is permanently given them by God and whatever nonsense the Mormons are up to this year. I'd call all of that the antisocial consequence of a commonly shared mental illness.

Personally, I like the word "soul" and I was using it to describe "beyond thought." As I said above, I think that "beyond thought" can't be expressed, so my usage of "soul" is my clumsy attempt to describe that which can't be described. Any alternative term would prove just as useless but, if we are trying to discuss personality and memory after death, I'll go along with whatever everyone else agrees upon.

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 9:26 am

"Beyond thought" seems to be reductionist. A cat or dog exists continually beyond thought. I, on the other hand, have language. Do I want to revert to a pre-lingual mammalian mind in order to re-establish this mode of being? And if I did, would I still regard that small part of me as adequately representative, given that the small part isn't even capable of asking such a question?

theia · Post by **theia** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:32 am

spot;1378128 wrote: "Beyond thought" seems to be reductionist. A cat or dog exists continually beyond thought. I, on the other hand, have language. Do I want to revert to a pre-lingual mammalian mind in order to re-establish this mode of being? And if I did, would I still regard that small part of me as adequately representative, given that the small part isn't even capable of asking such a question?

Isn't a biological approach in danger of being seen as reductionist too?

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:48 am

theia;1378134 wrote: Isn't a biological approach in danger of being seen as reductionist too?

I only have one requirement of a soul in order to acknowledge it as real and mine, which is that it remembers me whenever it's not connected with my living body. I see no reason whatever to think such a thing exists. Do you think you've got something like that? The "biological approach" is inherent in the reference to a living body since that's what I am. I don't have any reason to think we're anything other than that.

theia · Post by **theia** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:10 am

spot;1378135 wrote: I only have one requirement of a soul in order to acknowledge it as real and mine, which is that it remembers me whenever it's not connected with my living body. I see no reason whatever to think such a thing exists. Do you think you've got something like that? The "biological approach" is inherent in the reference to a living body since that's what I am. I don't have any reason to think we're anything other than that.

No. Though I can't be sure of this.

So, if we are nothing more than our bodies, from where do emotion and thought come?

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:20 am

theia;1378138 wrote: No. Though I can't be sure of this.

So, if we are nothing more than our bodies, from where do emotion and thought come?

From the structure of your brain. You presumably recognize that cats and dogs have emotions and thoughts? I'd say birds and reptiles do too though it's harder to empathize with them to recognize it.

Why do you find it hard to imagine that a structure like the brain can't give rise to consciousness and emotion? You can even regulate the extent to which you feel emotion by using drugs on the brain. Isn't emotion a brain function? Damaged brains have very specific limitations to their thoughts - not recognizing verbs in speech, for example - it can get very specific. I'd have thought thinking was very clearly a function of the brain, and easily demonstrated to be by finding the repeatable "consequences on the capability to think" of shut-down bits in patients with brain damage.

theia · Post by **theia** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:44 am

spot;1378139 wrote: From the structure of your brain. You presumably recognize that cats and dogs have emotions and thoughts? I'd say birds and reptiles do too though it's harder to empathize with them to recognize it.

Why do you find it hard to imagine that a structure like the brain can't give rise to consciousness and emotion? You can even regulate the extent to which you feel emotion by adjusting the brain by using drugs on it. Isn't emotion a brain function?

You said in an earlier post that cats and dogs exist beyond thought...I'm confused.

I know so little about the structure of the brain that you could be right. Though I'm in a complete state of muddle now because you can also regulate emotion by changing your thoughts...so that is the brain changing the brain, presumably.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:46 am

I base my belief on the Johnny Nash classic "There are more questions than answers"

There many events that defy logic or understanding, people that have out of body experiences, so called miracle cures, people apparently healed through Faith, some are undeniably nonsense, some are not.

Nearly on topic, what about the people that have experience of ghosts or other super natural events, I would put 99.99% down to the mind, but some are beyond explanation.

I sat in on a seance once long long ago, four of us around a table, letters laid out, each participant had a finger lightly resting on the upturned glass, I KNOW the glass moved without any direct obvious action by the others.

I made my apologies and declined any further activity.

And believe me, I am not gullible or over impressionable........it happened.

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:55 am

theia;1378143 wrote: You said in an earlier post that cats and dogs exist beyond thought...I'm confused.
I was quoting back your expression, which I was interpreting there as "without words" - I followed it immediately with "I, on the other hand, have language". I've never worked out how inarticulate animals think, it's a mystery to me, but they manage it somehow.

theia · Post by **theia** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:04 pm

spot;1378147 wrote: I was quoting back your expression, which I was interpreting there as "without words" - I followed it immediately with "I, on the other hand, have language". I've never worked out how inarticulate animals think, it's a mystery to me, but they manage it somehow.

I've reread your earlier post several times and I still haven't had an "ah, I see" moment.

theia · Post by **theia** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:14 pm

Bruv;1378144 wrote: I base my belief on the Johnny Nash classic "There are more questions than answers"

There many events that defy logic or understanding, people that have out of body experiences, so called miracle cures, people apparently healed through Faith, some are undeniably nonsense, some are not.Nearly on topic, what about the people that have experience of ghosts or other super natural events, I would put 99.99% down to the mind, but some are beyond explanation.

I sat in on a seance once long long ago, four of us around a table, letters laid out, each participant had a finger lightly resting on the upturned glass, I KNOW the glass moved without any direct obvious action by the others.

I made my apologies and declined any further activity.

And believe me, I am not gullible or over impressionable........it happened.

I'm definitely with you on what you're saying, Bruv, but because these experiences do defy logic, it's impossible to have a wholly rational discussion about them or to show proof of them...all we can say is that these experiences are true for ourselves.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:23 pm

Why not simply go about learning of the brain to get answers? If you're truly interested in truth, seek truth.

There's a certain comfort in holding on to beliefs whether or not they make sense. The sense part we can talk ourselves into rationalizing. That's why it's so important to teach children what we know when we get to know it, so they can carry, perhaps, just a small morsel of truth, forward.

Mick Fenner · Post by **Mick Fenner** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:27 pm

Hello all.

What an interesrting subject most of you have made from my thread. Some points a bit beyond my understanding. To Spot I must add top class words especialy when you comment on children and how they are taught with regards to religion. I still see death as something no human can experiance as only life and life now has any accuracy to it. But regretfully because of the word death it has created sometimes I think intentionaly a good excuse for people to exploit there religous beliefs, starting mainly as Spot rightly condemed in innocent children thus I think a form of abuse. I attempt to continue when people say to me Soul, Heaven and Hell by asking what they are same with the word God of course, dont let them go by unquestioned it then creates thought.

Tghanks tyo all of you.

theia · Post by **theia** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:49 pm

Ahso!;1378152 wrote: Why not simply go about learning of the brain to get answers? If you're truly interested in truth, seek truth.

There's a certain comfort in holding on to beliefs whether or not they make sense. The sense part we can talk ourselves into rationalizing. That's why it's so important to teach children what we know when we get to know it, so they can carry, perhaps, just a small morsel of truth, forward.

What is your definition of "truth?"

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:58 pm

theia;1378162 wrote: What is your definition of "truth?"

Truth changes.

As knowledge expands we find the 'facts' we fed to our children make us liars.

Believing in the truth as we now understand it doesn't make you evil.

Back to the all religious teaching is lies idea Spot keeps on about ?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:03 pm

theia;1378162 wrote: What is your definition of "truth?"Reality. That which is provable.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm

Bruv;1378166 wrote: Truth changes.

As knowledge expands we find the 'facts' we fed to our children make us liars.

Believing in the truth as we now understand it doesn't make you evil.

Back to the all religious teaching is lies idea Spot keeps on about ?I think I see your point, but I'd say truth advances rather than changes. Personal interpretation changes, I think.

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:19 pm

Ahso!;1378168 wrote: Reality. That which is provable.

I'm not sure such a thing is available to people, outside of mathematics. All science is the interpretation of observations. The interpretations are more or less powerful but the observations are the only bit that reflect the underlying reality. There may actually be an omnipotent creator god manipulating everyone and everything but, firstly, it seems a pointless assumption and secondly, it would not be a good god if it were true. The only sensible assumption is to give him the benefit of the doubt and choose to decide he was a bogus interpretation of observations from the start.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:02 pm

Wouldn't scientific observation be provable in that it can be replicated and therefore predictable?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:11 pm

I'm looking at a a corner of my room where nothing sits, but someone said there is a potted plant there. This person talks to the plant and pours imaginary water and food on the plant, but that does not mean the plant is actually there, though when this person says to me "prove there is no plant sitting in that corner" all I can do is point and have others confirms there is nothing in the corner. This person who sees that plant may also bring others to say that the plant is indeed in the corner, but that does not make the claim actual. There is no God or evil & good. Those are the inventions of people who'd like to create an imaginary existence.

theia · Post by **theia** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:37 pm

Ahso!;1378176 wrote: I'm looking at a a corner of my room where nothing sits, but someone said there is a potted plant there. This person talks to the plant and pours imaginary water and food on the plant, but that does not mean the plant is actually there, though when this person says to me "prove there is no plant sitting in that corner" all I can do is point and have others confirms there is nothing in the corner. This person who sees that plant may also bring others to say that the plant is indeed in the corner, but that does not make the claim actual. There is no God or evil & good. Those are the inventions of people who'd like to create an imaginary existence.

Surely neither claim is actual? You brought in others to confirm that the plant was not in the corner and the other person did the same to confirm that the plant was in the corner. So some people saw an empty corner and some saw a plant. It doesn't make one of the groups right and the other wrong. It just means that they were perceiving differently.

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:16 pm

Ahso!;1378175 wrote: Wouldn't scientific observation be provable in that it can be replicated and therefore predictable?

Yes, and that's the observation part of science. How it's interpreted is the thing that changes by refinement and the introduction of new perspectives, or paradigms. One repeatable set of observations can give rise to a succession of hypotheses and theories about how best to interpret it.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:51 pm

theia;1378181 wrote: Surely neither claim is actual? You brought in others to confirm that the plant was not in the corner and the other person did the same to confirm that the plant was in the corner. So some people saw an empty corner and some saw a plant. It doesn't make one of the groups right and the other wrong. It just means that they were perceiving differently.One group is delusional and the other is not. There is no plant there and the person claiming it is confirms it isn't by the behavior of only pretending the feeding and watering. They know I'd be upset by pouring water directly onto my carpet.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:55 pm

spot;1378184 wrote: Yes, and that's the observation part of science. How it's interpreted is the thing that changes by refinement and the introduction of new perspectives, or paradigms. One repeatable set of observations can give rise to a succession of hypotheses and theories about how best to interpret it.It seems to me that "interpretation" merely leaves doors open for further findings which may add or subtract from those already established. Theories are open-ended, however, when considering the existence of a god there is nothing concrete because that's based on faith.