Disappearing Act ? For the Rapture Lovers

Has it struck the "believers here" that the John+Daniel game would be a good commercial rival to the Da Vinci Code nonsense. On the premise that "there one born every minute" you guys could make a fortune if you got your act together. You could even give it away to the needy and come out of it wirg a celestial bonus ! How about it ?

Has it struck the "believers here" that the John+Daniel game would be a good commercial rival to the Da Vinci Code nonsense. On the premise that "there one born every minute" you guys could make a fortune if you got your act together. You could even give it away to the needy and come out of it with a poersonal celestial bonus ! How about it ?

I'm sure they've all got their reservations, already. All that extra work just for a slightly better seat, it probably isn't worth it.

Your misuse of the scientific method, claiming that I must prove a negative,

.........and your advancement of the initial wild claim with no evidence,

.........and posting 'supporting' links that gave no evidence,

leads me to believe that you know more about mushrooms from an experiential standpoint than an academic one.

Maybe that's why the adjective 'former' was used.

real life,

1. Regretably ...no personal experience with hallucinogens !

2. I would suggest you investigate the word "proof" with respect the "scientific method" because you clearly don't know what the relationship is. Try "Popper's Principle of Falsifiability" for starters.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/critical_thinking/Science_pseudo_falsifiability.html

If you understand Poppers principle then our discussion centres on whether "the mushroom theory" is "science" or "pseudoscience". This will depend on whether say botanic and historical witness evidence supports or refutes John's practices at that time. However, irrespective of whether "the mushroom theory" for "the Book" stands or falls, the circumstantial evidence of hallucinogenic effects remains. Further, Popper clearly rules out "religious doctrine" as worthy of discussion with respect to normal concepts of "truth".

This last point is where "believers" tend to switch off (i.e. the point where their licence to talk about "science" is revoked). Thereafter, they tend to misconstrue "truth" and "evidence " in the parochial manner which their vested interests restrain within in an idiosyncratic cocoon of "superior theistic rationality".

BTW Here's an amusing example of theistic "science" from Harris.

The "Heavens Gate" cult ordered an expensive telescope to observe their "redemption vehicle" they "knew" to be hidden in the tail of the comet Hale-Bopp. On failing to observe it they returned the telescope to the supplier as "faulty".

LOL Sounds like those who are around today. If reality does not line up with their assumptions then reality is faulty and not their suppositions.