₦airaland Forum

KunleOshob:
He tried to imply you can give to Jesus by giving to the church/pastor by twisting scriptures which say something entirely different.

How did he do so in the post which you quoted from him? He only posted the verses and made just on line of statement: 'This is the acid test of our love for all His children. Putting our money where our mouth is.' How does that qualify him for the derision you poured out upon him?

@Joagbaje,

I'm afraid you have not studied God's Word carefully and seem to be quoting it to suit your own convenience. Rather than take every line in your post and deal with, let me make an observation that captures the essence of the way you tend to regard prophetic statements:

Joagbaje:
Isaiah was not correct here ,

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

It were better for you to say that you don't understand Isaiah's prophetic declarations than try to judge it as inaccurate. Humble men show their dignity by accepting that they do not understand some of the things that Isaiah declared, such as the Ethiopian eunuch did in Acts 8:30-31.

Isaiah was not telling us what he thought in Isaiah 45:7 - rather, he was declaring the utterances of God giving him by prophecy. The personal pronounce 'I' in verse 7 flows on from verse 5 ('I am the LORD. .'). It was still the LORD speaking in Isaiah in verse 7 who Himself said that He forms the light, and creates darkness: I makes peace, and creates evil - and here the problem is on the nebulous word 'evil': what does it mean as used there? He attests to these things by saying, "I the LORD do all these things".

It was not only Isaiah the prophet that declared such things prophetically - other prophets did, and would you be saying they were inaccurate as well? Let's remind ourselves of a few:

[list](a) 'Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?' ~ Amos 3:6

(b) In Ezekiel 14:15-21, God Himself makes clear the sort of 'evil' He brings to an ungodly nation or people:
[list]* 'noisome beasts to pass through the land, and they spoil it'
* 'a sword . . to cut off man and beast from it'
* 'a pestilence'
* 'my four sore judgments: . . the sword, the famine, the noisome beast, and the pestilence'[/list][/list]

These are just examples - and the NT openly declares both aspects in clear terms:

'Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off' ~ Romans 11:22

People have a choice to continue in God's goodness - and to those who choose to qualify themselves for His severity, He has promised to mete out His severity. On this issue, ALL the prophets of both the OT and NT are agreed, so there's no need trying to play 'Joagbaje' here by saying that Isaiah was not correct in what he declared in chapter 45:7. . . otherwise you would also have to find a way of saying that all the prophets were also not correct, so we know for sure that you are not committed to God's Word or just seeking a religion of convenience. Does it then surprise me that you would be so far gone as to impugn upon the declarations of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself?

Thank you, Joagbaje. I am not attacking you but rather making an observation about the first line of your previous post. It is patently false to say that poverty is a curse - you don't just make statements like that and run off with it. That was why I first tried to understand what you meant by 'rich', and if you meant materialism, then you got it all wrong.

Most WOF proponents will tell us that we should be rich with a 'purpose' (I am not accusing you of being a WOF proponent); but in reality they preach such messages because of their insatiable desires for material wealth under the guise of preaching the 'goodnews'. Yes, we need money to bring the Gospel to far out regions and unreached people, such as the Gideons' example - but have you noticed that even the Gideons will not solicit for money like WOF preachers do?

We need to balance our messages and not despise the poor. To assert that poverty is a curse is one reason why flamboyant pastors despise the poor (please note that I'm not putting all pastors in a box).

nuella2:
Did you read this part?
Prosperity is not just about money but a total package. A state of total well being. God has given us all things to enjoy, but we dont[/color] live for ourselves we are [color=#990000]blessed to bless others, a poor man cant help anybody
The word "rich" Gk Ploutizo: to make wealthy,rich
God wants us to succeed in all areas in our lives; spiritualy, health,academics,finances and business.
Prosperity is not acquiring wealth just for yourself(greed) but becoming a blessing to others.

^^ Hi nuella, yes I read through his post as it is not my style to read people half-ways before I comment. That was why I started out by asking what he might have meant by 'rich'. If by 'rich' he was focusing on materialism, then something is wrong somewhere.

When you say that 'a poor man cant help anybody', in what sense do you mean 'poor' if it is not about money and material things? If that is the case, perhaps you failed to realise that while Joseph was in prison and was financially poor, the Bible shows that he was of great help to those in prison because the LORD was with him (Gen. 39:21-23). Did you forget that as well?

Let us be careful the sort of statements we make. The idea that 'a poor man can't help anybody' is an old mantraa by WOF (Word of Faith) proponents that is largely ignorant. I have seen many 'poor' people around the world (whether Christians or unbelievers) actually helped people than a rich man would contemplate if he had the opportunity to do the same.

KunleOshob:
Olaadegbu i am really dissapointed in the point you are trying to pass across in the above highlighted, i actually assumed that you were a much more sincere christian than this[ a bit mis-guided perhaps] but i didn't expect this outright contrieved falsehood from you. If it was the likes of Tonye-t or Joagbaje i would not have been suprised as they are the ones known on this forum to willfully twist scripture for filthy gain. In your case i always assumed you were just misguided. The only way Jesus recommend we give to him in the bible is in matthew 25:31-40, any other recommandation is the doctrine of men. Giving to our pastors or to the church is not giving to Jesus cause he never asked us to do ss besides the bible makes it clear that God as no needs human hands can meet so please lets stop twisting scripture to prove vacant assertions.

What has OLAADEGBU said there that has warranted all these derision from you?

Joagbaje:
God wants you to be rich. Poverty is a curse.

It all depends on what you mean. If by 'rich' you are pointing to materialism, then quite the opposite is true - God does not want His children to be focused on materialistic pursuits ("if riches increase, set not your heart upon them", Psa. 62:10).

There are many things that are of more value than an urge to pursue wealth and material riches. I'll give just one for now - "A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favour rather than silver and gold" - Prov. 22:1.

uplawal:
can u people fight at all

Is that why your folks are never at peace with themselves?

Chrisbenogor:
In times of war right and wrong are so close that its almost impossible to differentiate them.

That's true - and quite a perspective on this whole saga.

Traugott:
@Viaro: LOL! My guy!! Now you have another label/accusation, you are not only pilgrim.1, you are now an atheist? LOL. I'm in stitches here.

Haha . . . it happens, so what can one say?

Kay 17:
every place on this planet has suffered from this stigma, disease called religion. it offers no good.

What has the disease called atheism offered anybody?

skyone:
hnmm hope you are not in the same train with banom and ogaga  , if not apologies

No, I'm not. Perhaps someday I might share a few of my past posts where I've clarified that I'm a Christian and my denomination is Baptist. But there is no need to apologise - we all make mistakes, and mine are many. Cheers.

sinequanon:
This post by theHomer, I found most relevant,

My own opinion, here, is that religions do have parallel concepts but often to a lesser extent. So I, personally, would not call these differences fundamental.

Maybe, one day, something would supersede modern scientific methodology that would place it on a par with religion.

That's fine with me. Thanks.

skyone:
I thought a young breeding atheist like you should have a serious mentor hence messiah [/i]since you delibrately disregard Jesus Christ; or are you just a peddler on an imaginary theory that has no fundamental use to humanity.

I'm sorry, skyone. . . you might have me confused for someone else. I am not an atheist. . viaro is a Christian, and I have said so a couple times in other threads.

No fella in other words i can start a sermon titled "Jesus Christ is my only saviour" [i]if you are confused

I'm not confused, but thanks for the offer.

common dont be an unnecessary arrogant mischief;

My apologies if my tone sounded arrogant or mischievous - it was not intended so.

have you forgotten you got your riduculous idea of atheism from one of them

Which one, please?

'Shock' is an inadequate word to express my initial reaction. Then 'anger'. Then. . ??

One question that immediately crossed my mind: who was holding the camera and filming those callous murders? If it was the authorities, what could they possibly have in mind - especially when they knew it could someday be viewed around the world?

skyone:
@viaro

The quotes are from your messiahs so hope you shut the guts now.
[b]
"The Goal of Science is understanding lawful relations among natural phenomena.
Religion is a way of life within a larger framework of meaning."
(Ian Barbour, "Religion and Science," pg. 204)

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein) "

Religion is poetry plus, not science minus."(Krister Stendahl)

"Religion is the art of the poetic. Science is the art of the provable. Politics is the art of the possible." (Paul H. Carr) "

Science can purify religion from error and superstition;
religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish, 
We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be." (-Pope John Paul II)

"Culture (science) is the form of religion; Religion is the substance of culture (science)."
(Theologian Paul Tillich)

"Traditional religious creation stories and evolution are complementary.
Science and religion together can weave a rich tapestry of new meaning for our age."
(Theologian Philip Hefner)

"Science is an effort to understand the creation.
Biblical religion involves our relation to the Creator.
Since we can learn about the Creator from his creation, religion can learn from science."
(Paul H. Carr)

"There is more RELIGION in men's SCIENCE than there is SCIENCE in their RELIGION"
(David Henry Thoreau, "A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers."

"Science makes major contributions to minor needs.
Religion, however small its successes, is at least at work on the things that matter most."
(Justice Oliver W. Holmes) [/b]

@skyone,

Thank you for the harvest of quotes. To reassure you, none of those names are my messiahs - they may suit you, and I won't try to displace you in that hope.

However, if those same 'messiahs' of yours have anything to argue against what I posted on 'scientific paper', please show - or just kindly observe the thread. Cheers.

sinequanon:
As I said, viaro, stop getting excited and go back and read a little more critically. Then you won't waste time barking up the wrong tree.

I suggest you go all the way back to page 1, then you will see what is wrong with this,

It's almost laughable how twisted you've managed to get things in your haste and dismissive attitude.

If you don't see it, I agree to disagree with you.  

(Please don't waste too much time expanding on your red herrings.)

This is not red herring - if it is, it comes from your efforts in trying to gull the public on this forum. Either you know the meaning of "scientific paper" or you simply do not. If you did, please show me Dawkins' scientific paper on the supernatural - go back and check up the meaning of a scientific paper and let's see if you'd still be spinning a million degrees on one spot.

I was trying to be gentle with you - but trying to blow smoke in our faces and ask us to nod approvingly is not going to last long, trust me.

sinequanon:
OK, I think you have started to go round in circles, viaro. Perhaps you are trying to answer a question with some other title.

Nope, I was not going round in circles; nor am I confused as to what the title of your thread is, was and has been. If you want to change it, that's all fine with me.

I prefer you read back carefully, than I repeat myself.

Otherwise, I am happy to agree to disagree with you at this point.

I didn't have any worries until post #91 where I figured you've been spinning things in cyclical posts and evading issues. I'm not in a hurry to let anyone confuse me on what I know about the meaning of a 'scientific paper' - which was why I had persistently asked you to show me any works of Dawkins scientific study on the supernatural submitted to the scientific community. Since you want to give another meaning that shames the scientific community on the meaning of a 'scientific paper', I thought you'd either have to smart up for what you argue, or I should anticipate PastorAIO in annihilating this thread completely!

sinequanon:
OK, I think you have started to go round in circles, viaro. Perhaps you are trying to answer a question with some other title.

I prefer you read back carefully, than I repeat myself.

Otherwise, I am happy to agree to disagree with you at this point.

Slow down, I'm not done serving you the treat of Italian chilli yet. .

Now as to your definition of 'scientific paper', hmmm. . .

sinequanon:
A scientific paper IS "by scientists in their reports or profession," so this qualification is consistent with my offer to find a scientific paper that mentions (calls something) supernatural.

First, you were not being consistent. Let's trash out once again that mere "mention" of supernatural was the very thing you categorically disavowed:

[list](1) "Mentioning the term "supernatural" does not imply studying the supernatural" (quoting you)[/list]

[list](2) since you're defining a scientific paper with an ('IS') to be one by 'scientists in their reports or profession, that would suggest that such a paper is the reporting of a scientific study. If it is NOT a study (or research), then on what basis would it qualify as "SCIENCE REPORT" for the scientific community?[/list]

Now, let's take the second point and expound on it by offering you some excerpts -

[list][li]A scientific paper is a written report describing original research results[/li][/list]

[list][li]A scientific paper is a written report describing original research results whose format has been defined by centuries of developing tradition, editorial practice, scientific ethics and the interplay with printing and publishing services.[/li][/list]


[list]Here is an example in a particular case:[/list]

[list]The Scientific Paper[/list]

[list][li]Scientific papers should be reviewed by scientific peers and published in a primary journal. Most governmental reports and conference literature do not qualify as primary literature.[/li][/list]

[list]Expatiating on the above ~~[/list]

[list]An acceptable primary scientific publication must be the first disclosure containing sufficient information to enable peers to -[/list]
[list]
[list][li] 1) assess observations,[/li][/list]
[list][li] 2) repeat experiments,[/li][/list] and -
[list][li] 3) to evaluate intellectual processes;[/li][/list]
[/list]
[list] - moreover, it must be susceptible to sensory perception, essentially permanent, available to the scientific community without restriction, and available for regular screening by one or more of the major recognized secondary services (e.g., currently Biological Abstracts, Chemical Abstracts, Index Medicus, Excerpta Medica, Bibliography of Agriculture, etc., in the United States and similar facilities in other countries[/list]

[list]read it here[/list]

There, sir, is what I had in mind by "scientific paper" - choose your poison and let's have your examples of Dawkins 'science papers' on the 'supernatural', precisely as I asked you earlier ~~

viaro:
I am still waiting for your simple answers showing examples of Dawkins' scientific works with scientific results published in scientific journals for the scientific community. If you have none, please apologise to Krayola for trying to gull the public and for wasting his time - I can do without an apology for wasting mine or yours.

viaro:
. . .that is to say, please give us Dawkins' scientific meaning in his scientific study of the term supernatural in a scientific paper published in a scientific journal for the scientific community?

I see no such "connotation." I was pointing out that substituting the term "studying" for "mentioning" was one of your red herrings. Once again, you are making assumptions, leading to problems in communication.

Please stop dancing around and spinning a million degrees on one spot! Where does a science paper qualify as 'SCIENCE' just for "mentioning" a word without a scientific study/research? So, in other words, sinequanon could just "mention" the word "supernatural" and send it off as a SCIENCE PAPER to the scientific community to qualify as science, yes? If you want to waste your time, I could help you - trust me.

@sinequanon,

I'm really interested in seeing what you're trying to make out of all this. I suspected you were not actually trying to sort out any fundamental differences between science and religion, but as PastorAIO observed it should have been rather a matter of the differences between atheism and religion (something that is very much one of my interests to discuss).

Be that as it may, there's just one thing that you brought out that made me smile - the way you tried to defined 'a scientific paper. M-e-n. . . you're in for a treat of Italian chilli tonight!

sinequanon:
Because, even if I had spent a few hours digging up Dawkins examples, why would you agree he is speaking as a scientist as oppose to an atheist?

You would have to provide the grounds for anyone to agree with you so we know you're not showing up Dawkins the atheist instead of Dawkins as a scientist - they are worlds apart.

Even if I point out that he is speaking on a science forum, you would still ask for an explicit statement.

Please don't jump to conclusions. If you had presented your case, we would have examined it and then had our observations posted following your examples. We haven't seen you giving examples before making inisnuations about what anyone would do thereafter - is that objective at all?

So, I found your request unreasonable from that standpoint, too, because it is unlikely that a scientist speaking on a science forum is going to explicitly state that he is speaking as a scientist.

I wasn't looking out for a badge declaring their status before they make any speeches. I am rather more concerned about content - which would help one determine whether such a speech connotes 'science' or rather chitchat to a coterie of sorts.

There was a possibility that you would have come across the popular Dawkins case too, and agreed with me. If you had asked for cases with evidence provided, I would have chosen something else. When I later suggested this, you rejected the offer.

You seem to have taken a detour. Could I kindly ask where you made such an offer that was greeted by my rejection or declination?

I offered to find a scientific paper that mentions "supernatural."

Are we on about "mentions" of the 'supernatural' or the supernatural as a scientific study? I hold the view that they are worlds apart - which in anycase I should remind you here of your own disqualification of the same by: "Mentioning the term "supernatural" does not imply studying the supernatural"?

For all intents and purposes, may I again for the umpteenth time state my request, viz:

[list]

Do you (sinequanon) know any scientists calling things "supernatural" in their reports or profession as scientists?

Does Richard Dawkins actually believe that what he calls tooth fairies, flying spaghetti monster and the like are "supernatural" in a scientific sense

-  does he refer to such things in his reports or profession?

[/list]

Now, I could again make it simple for you:
[list]

Now, if you know of any works of Dawkins on the 'supernatural' that he has conducted and published as a professional scientist (not as an atheist) in a scientific journal with scientific results for the scientific community, could you (sinequanon) show us clear examples of such?

[/list]

[list]If you have nothing to show in SCIENCE for that, please say so and save us all the complaining.[/list]

sinequanon:
As for your vague accusation of me shifting ground, may I suggest that you bat back the few required definitions efficiently so that the "discussion on the ground" can actually proceed in a meaningful way, instead of complaining that the ground is shifting.

My request was simple and straight forward - it does not require "definitions" and "re-definitions" about this or the other. It was not an accusation I made, but rather a straight-to-the-point request. You could oblige my request or decline to do so.

I have explained the issue with the Dawkins case caused by your retrospective request for a reference.

Nope, you offered an excuse to wriggle out of the Dawkins case - unless you chose to not understand it so that we go on forever marking time on that spot.

^^ I feel you bro.

Traugott:
Trials, curses, generational curses, divine chastisements.

Are they all the same thing?

I'll briefly answer the first question: No, they don't mean the same things.

For one thing, remember some of the popular verses that instruct us about divine chastisements:

[list][li] (a) Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law - Psalm 94:12[/li][/list]

[list][li] (b) But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world - 1 Cor. 11:32[/li][/list]

The fact that chastisement does not mean generational curses or even curses is clear when we consider a simple case: Psalm 94:12 says those who are chastened of the Lord are blessed - surely that is not saying that 'blessed' is the man whom God 'curses'! Rather, as used there is a question of a believer being disciplined by the hand of God in the same way that a father would do to his son (Deut. 8:5).

More later.

sinequanon:
Because the examples I can think off are buried in youtube videos and I would have to sit through hours of video to timestamp the reference.

I could be that patient, trust me. If you had rather said so, I would have understood you - but instead you started making insinuations of 'get out clause' clause and 'get-out-of-jail' term. .  what was that all about?

Besides, I was not the one who made mention of a specific case (Richard Dawkins), and even after several times requesting that you furnish us examples of the particular case you made, you evaded that request forever and then now come back with "an alternative example", no? I'm just curious that it seems to me you're making assertions here and there but not actually helping us understand you at all.

I offered to provide an alternative example, instead. You declined to accept one.

I don't think so. If I did decline where you offered an alternative, please remind me. However, you seemed to have shifted grounds far too many times and calling for 'definitions' here and there and not actually holding this discussion on the ground.

You have changed "mentioning 'supernatural' in the course of his scientific profession" to "doing a scientific study."

Did I? That may well be, if by "mentioning" you are referring to "calling" - which I quoted from the part you had highlighted in Krayola's statement. Be that as it may, that did not go unqualified - for anyone can see that Krayola's statement was well qualified by scientists in "their reports or profession". That was why I had hoped you would oblige examples as to the Richard Dawkins you mentioned - and went on to articulate my query particularly in reference to science, not atheism. I just wanted to see what in Dawkins you were so confident about in this regard that you thought we were all oblivious of.

You also refused to accept an alternative example of "scientists calling things 'supernatural' in their reports or profession," after I offered to find a scientific paper that mentions "supernatural."

Are you not the same person that actually rejected that same suggestion by saying: "Mentioning the term "supernatural" does not imply studying the supernatural"?? I agreed with you on the premise that we're dealing here with SCIENCE, not mere 'mention', and that connotes the fact that we're seeking your examples of scientific study of the supernatural where such studies are scientific within the scientific community. Are we going to see such examples of scientific studies. . . or we're going to be marking time on the same spot - because you have none to show??

Then you blame me for not answering your question!

I'm sure that I was careful to articulate what I sought from you so no one is left in doubt thereof.

sinequanon:
You have lost the context and are going down a blind alley.

That is not true. Rather, I see you're evading the simple questions being put to you and are further excusing them away.

The 'contention' is whether the notion of "supernatural" is defined relative to science -- a function of science as Krayola succinctly put it. It is not about whether scientists study the supernatural.

When Krayola said that he did not know of scientists calling things "supernatural" in their reports or profession, you recommended Richard Dawkins - and on that particular note, I asked you to attest to that by furnishing us with scientific examples, not atheistic arguments. Have you done so? No. Why?

Scientists shunning "supernatural" phenomena is more relevant to demonstrating a dichotomy.

Which for me says that Dawkins has no scientific study on the 'supernatural', and you should not have tried to "recommend" him in reference to the part of Krayola's statement that you highlighted earlier.

sinequanon:
A premise cannot beg the question. It IS the premise.

This is a philosophical discussion. It goes beyond and queries dictionary definitions, especially internet ones! Note that philosophers do not rely on dictionary definitions.

Good. Now here is one I had hoped you would oblige us -

viaro: How does he explain the 'supernatural' in his 'science' as to be part of his vocation as a scientist?

. . .that is to say, please give us Dawkins' scientific meaning in his scientific study of the term supernatural in a scientific paper published in a scientific journal for the scientific community? I very well doubt that Dawkins knows enough to stand shoulder to shoulder with philosophers of science, so what you were saying about "philosophers" is another thing entirely for what you argue.

I think the term "supernatural" is used with respect to the science of the day, however 'primitive'. I believe phenomena can change classification from supernatural to natural as a result of changes in that science. Lightning may have once been a supernatural phenomenon. In Western cultures, at least, it no longer is considered to be so. Yet lightning itself has not changed. All that has changed is its status with respect to the scientific body of knowledge of the day.

That analogy is neat - it reminds me of the example of alchemistry. However, is the case we have been asking about a matter of philosophical linguistics, metaphysics, or the scientific paradigm of current scientific thinking?

Name something that is supernatural that is amenable to science.

Hehe. .  this sounds like you're asking him to help fill in the gasp for you, or to answer your own roll-call, or even supply answers for your own assignment. Did I get something wrong, if I thought you were the one who's on spot for making the connotation that 'supernatural' is a function of science? If that's you, then you should be the same person who should name something that is supernatural and is amenable to science, no?

If you cannot, then do you accept that there is an association? Is that association a coincidence?

It is arguable on the indices of their concerns rather than on broad strokes of presumptions and generalizations.

I understand what you are saying. I did not intend to be absolute. Everything is opinion, imo, and I only wanted to invite the poster to put forward his own opinion on the issue. That way we clarify our viewpoints and can identify simply where our differences of opinion lie. Then we can agree to disagree, all shake hands, and go home.  

Sweet.

sinequanon:
"notable" is your get out clause, is it?

Not at all. I would have expected that you please furnish us answers to our queries instead of these excuses. If you don't have any such answers, you could as well simply say so - which would sort this all out for you and save us further asking.

As for the capacity in which Dawkins made his assertions, that is also too vague.

There is no ambiguity between 'atheist' and 'scientist'. With regards to the 'supernatural', it is either Dawkins has clear scientific studies with scientific results for the scientific community - or he DOES NOT: there are no ambiguities there, no?

Again, if you have examples of Dawkins' SCIENTIFIC work on the supernatural, please furnish us with examples (throw out the qualifier 'credible' - just give us examples of his SCIENTIFIC works with SCIENTIFIC results published in SCIENTIFIC journals for the SCIENTIFIC community - that's all).

Any peer reviewed scientific paper that mentions the word supernatural should suffice, no?
If not, please state why not.

Nope - and I should remark that you may not even know the difference as to make such a comment. Please tell me you don't know - seriously. If that be the case, I may oblige you on how that is not true.

I make this observation, because it seems you're trying to stand on two dialectic grounds at the same time to argue what you have not been able to show. Why so? In the first place, you are the one who said just above that "Any peer reviewed scientific paper that mentions the word supernatural should suffice"; but in the very next statement, you argue that direct opposite that ~

Mentioning the term "supernatural" does not imply studying the supernatural.

Pardon me, sinequanon. .  but it does not seem that you have a grip on what you're arguing. For one, I would agree with you that a "mention" of the term 'supernatural' does not equate a scientific study; but there again, you had tried to use the direct opposite to save your position. Dude, it just doesn't make any sense and that is unacceptable by any means. So please show which of these two helps your position and we shall deal further, yes?

You are even wider from the mark, because my point is that, once scientists have identified something as supernatural, they would eliminate it from their studies. So, asking me to find "a credible (another get-out-of-jail-term) study on the supernatural" shows that you have missed the point.

I am not wider any mark, please. I could as well double repeat Krayola's line that you please stop this mundane chasing of the wind that you've been displaying all along - we're not kids! If you want us to go back again, here is how I came in and requested a simple case from you:

(a)

Krayola: I do not know of scientists calling things "supernatural" in their reports or profession or whateva. Like I said, science, IMO, does not give a rat's behind about the "supernatural".

(b)

sinequanon: I can recommend you some Richard Dawkins.

(c)

viaro: Please pay some attention to the very statement in Krayola's which you highlighted - it may be vital here if one might reiterate it simply thus - Do you sinequanon know any scientists calling things "supernatural" in their reports or profession as scientists? Does Richard Dawkins actually believe that what he calls tooth fairies, flying spaghetti monster and the like are "supernatural" in a scientific sense -  does he refer to such things in his reports or profession?

Pivotal to my query is this -

How does he explain the 'supernatural' in his 'science' as to be part of his vocation as a scientist?

From all these it should be clear that I'm not asking you for any other thing that on science & scientists - not atheists/atheism. Dawkins may argue against the 'supernatural', yada-yada. . . but does he make those arguments as a scientist or an atheist? Incase you may not remember, this is how I expressed it afterwards:

viaro:
The whole point is this: "Do you sinequanon know any scientists calling things "supernatural" in their reports or profession as scientists?" Dawkins, as we know, has no credible study on the supernatural that you have been able to exemplify. His arguments against the 'supernatural' is not science, and he makes such arguments as an atheist rather. I hope you are not trying ever so hard to gull the public between the two? Now, if you know of any works of Dawkins on the 'supernatural' that he has conducted and published as a professional scientist (not as an atheist) in a scientific journal with scientific results for the scientific community, could you sinequanon show us clear examples of such? That would be far much helpful than going round and saying nothing in this regard thus far.

Does he say that as an atheist or as a scientist?

I am still waiting for your simple answers showing examples of Dawkins' scientific works with scientific results published in scientific journals for the scientific community. If you have none, please apologise to Krayola for trying to gull the public and for wasting his time - I can do without an apology for wasting mine or yours.

Pastor AIO:
I think that the problem here stems back to the title of the thread and the OP (or rather the opening posts).  It suggests that there are 2 things, science and religion which may either by fundamentally the same or may fundamentally differ from each other in a ways that can be compared.  

Even if the OP thinks that there is no difference fundamentally that still leaves the idea that they are comparable in a manner that is unjustified.  

For example, I could be a business man and I could employ a marketing consultant.  Someone could then ask what is the fundamental difference between marketing and business?  It would be wrong to say that they are different things because business uses a lot of marketing, some businesses are even 99 percent marketing.  But then it would be wrong to say that they are fundamentally the same thing.

So it is with Science and Religion.  Their purposes are different.  Religion seeks fulfillment in life while Science merely seeks knowledge.  Science can be applied to helping Religion find it's goal.

This whole matter is very messy because both science and religion have often been tampered with by social engineers using it to press various political agendas.  Eg like the Eugenics projects of the Nazis, on science.  And the myriad times religion and other ideologies are used for social organisation.

Without straining for technicalities, that is simply beautiful.

____
Edit:

Herein lies the core of the problem of 'knowledge as justified true belief'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

Reminds me also of the Monty Hall (probability) Problem.

Krayola:
You definition was, IMO, begging the question, BIG TIME!!! you claim supernatural only exists relative to science, and then offer a definition, one that does not occur in any dictionary I can find, that defines supernatural directly as a "function" of science.

I don't know what you take us for here, but please stop it. [size=16pt]PLEASE!![/size]

>viaro waves at Krayo. . coughs and says: 'Bro, howdy??'<

Abeg o. Thank you my broda. help me to ask him well well o. E be like say some people think say we no go school.

Hahahaha!!

sinequanon:
We can continue to discuss once you have retracted and agreed to refrain from this sort of language.

I agree to refrain - and that would mean that you please simply attend to questions and not dribble us around forever.

sinequanon:
Yes. Richard Dawkins. He was formerly Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, and in that capacity wrote a number of books in which you will find references to things being supernatural.

Please provide us with some notable examples, and then oblige us as well (if you may) of any scientific work about the supernatural that he has conducted in his capacity as a scientist, not as an atheist. Thank you.

First you will have to address what Krayola declined to address specifically, and explain what you mean by "supernatural in the scientific sense."

I would first like to respect Krayola's simple statement so that I do not risk putting words in his mouth. Now do kindly attend to my request in precisely as you find it written in that portion of my quote there. I find it more than strangely out of this world that you would be asking me to do this assignment for you whereas you have been sounding far too confident that Dawkins has scientific work on the 'supernatural'. That, indeed, is simply a mechanical evasion of some sorts to the simple request I made.

I believe that he sees them as ideas that conflict with current scientific thinking.

Science, as you may well know, my gentle sir, is not predicated on "ideas that conflict with current scientific thinking". Dawkins' personal take on what he has not scientifically studied is not science - I hope that is quite simple enough to understand?

He advocates that such ideas have no place for discussion in science classes.

You have ended up destroying your own argument. The whole point is this: "Do you sinequanon know any scientists calling things "supernatural" in their reports or profession as scientists?" Dawkins, as we know, has no credible study on the supernatural that you have been able to exemplify. His arguments against the 'supernatural' is not science, and he makes such arguments as an atheist rather. I hope you are not trying ever so hard to gull the public between the two? Now, if you know of any works of Dawkins on the 'supernatural' that he has conducted and published as a professional scientist (not as an atheist) in a scientific journal with scientific results for the scientific community, could you sinequanon show us clear examples of such? That would be far much helpful than going round and saying nothing in this regard thus far.

He says that there is a 99.99999999% chance that God does not exist, so the existence of God should not be discussed in the science class.

Does he say that as an atheist or as a scientist?

He also doesn't like the idea of intelligent design and suggests that its merits and demerits should not be investigated in the science class.

I am not here about intelligent design - that could also be argued outside of the ambit of religion, an example being systemics. Let's do the KISS here (k[/b]eep [b]i[/b]t [b]s[/b]imple [b]s[color=Black]tup[/color]id) and not begin to draw upon unnecessary illations at this point. I would like for you to attend on the point above, thanks.

agathamari:
i dont understand how people can believe in a religion who says knowledge is bad

a religious idea that says if you live an evil life and later repent you can go into heaven, but if you live a moral life take the lords name in vain and have a heart attack youll go to hell

Does your religion (whatever it is) encourage people to take the Lord's name in vain (whatever 'Lord' you have in your religion) - and then applaud such behaviour? Please tell me: in your own religion, what morality comes out of taking 'the Lord's name' in vain?

Pastor AIO:
ps.  I don't want to hi jack the thread.  I want to annihilate it.  That is if it is going to try and make a fundamental distinction between science and religion.

My eyes nearly popped outa my head when I first read that, hehe. . but now I'm beginning to see why you made that prophetic statement!

Krayola:
I do not know of scientists calling things "supernatural" in their reports or profession or whateva. Like I said, science, IMO, does not give a rat's behind about the "supernatural".

sinequanon:
I can recommend you some Richard Dawkins. 

He talks about the flying spaghetti monster, tooth fairies and the like.

Please pay some attention to the very statement in Krayola's which you highlighted - it may be vital here if one might reiterate it simply thus - Do you sinequanon know any scientists calling things "supernatural" in their reports or profession as scientists? Does Richard Dawkins actually believe that what he calls tooth fairies, flying spaghetti monster and the like are "supernatural" in s a scientific sense - does he refer to such things in his reports or profession? How does he explain the 'supernatural' in his 'science' as to be part of his vocation as a scientist?