That was clarified in another post when I mentioned that most people will believe in something because "someone told them so". 

In this case, take a personal source away from the information and statistically, it's impossible for people to come to the same conclusion. 

Pneumotologists study the spiritual world with electro-magnetic impulses... I think... They do something with electricity to study it anyway.  God is more than just a big hunkin' generator to me of course.  Understand I'm just trying to figure out how to explain it where you and people on here can grasp it logically. 

All this and you stil haven't realized you've offered them anything to deal with and don't seem capable of doing so.

Science is the only way to prove anything. If there was a non-physical world science could prove it. Otherwise it's bullshit.

So your argument actually is "lots of people believe in X, therefore X must be true"?  So then you also believe in astrology, right?  Many people believe in that independenlty.  You must also believe that the sun revolves around the earth, right?  Many people came to that conclusionn on their own (from observations, no less).  Do you believe that dolphins are fish?  Lots of people believed that on their own, and not because "someone told them so." 

The bottom line is your argument fails spectacularly.  The entire population could believe something, and that would not make it true.  I guess at least in this case you're actually admitting that you're relying on a faulty argument, as opposed to trying to deny it.

You are an idiot. Scientific method and the people who are objective in using it EXPECT TO BE CHALLENGED! And when proven wrong scientific method says that you go where the evidence leads you, not where you want it to go. YOU want a god to be real so bad you'll believe any crackpot claim in order to justify it.

That crap you see on A&E AND Sci-fi is just that, sensational garbage to get gullible people like you to watch.

"Ghost Hunters" and "Paranormal" claims have been around in popular media since the days of black and white TV and radio. And every generation has had crackpots making the same stupid claims, including today.

Do you really believe there is a giant green dino living in Loc Ness? Do you really believe that Vampires exist? Do you really believe that aliens anally probed you?

You need to stop sniffing glue when watching the X-Files.

"Category as Pantheists", is an especially hard one for me make a sweeping damning generalization.

Sure, lots of New Age silly "ghost spirit believers" grab that label, but for many others it's a science hypothesis regarding "nature" and placement of consciousness in the incomplete material, energy matter physics models we have. I relate many pantheists as those trying to come up with a "theory of everything". In this sense, pantheism is a dry humble philosophy, scientifically questioning the not yet answered. Not at all like I.D. Creation Science quackery.

I believe in God, only I spell it Nature. - Frank Lloyd Wright (atheist / pantheist ?)

I believe in god, I am god. ~ me 

I can universally accept only one best label for myself, I am 100% god. I reject theism theology, so indeed I am atheist. I'll pass on pantheism, the label is to undefined, and misunderstood. Agnostic, nope, I am god.

To be god, is to be atheist. Some say that is an oxymoron, a contradiction, and that's ludicrous, but is it ?!!!  

   Here's an oxymoron, "Holy War".

  Cool quotes to "compliment a pantheistic outlook"

http://home.utm.net/pan/quotes.html

With my luck, I'd wind up splitting into Apathy Ren, Evil Ren, and Hideously Evil Ren.

Cap: Did you finish watching the videos I posted yet? If so, do you now feel more confident about:

 - Evolutionary theory

 - Your own understading of the above

and

 - What the term 'theory' implies in scientific doctrine

...And why or why not?

Holy fuck I love that episode! Not my Ren!

I don't fully understand their practice, but as you said, life energy is understood by electrical currents running around our bodies.  They take that understanding of electrical currents and look for it in places that don't have physical bodies to explain the "life energy". 

Again

1. You're taking the assumption that this is my only justification for my belief.  I've already said it's one among many.

2.  Let's tear the examples apart

    a.  Astrology - this gets on a whole other playing field.  Let's just keep it simple and say that astrology is real, but I don't believe in it.  It works on the basis of diseption versus anything legitimate.  Also, spiritually, depending on whether the person is a legit astrologist or not, it uses the manipulation from the spiritual world. 

    b. Sun revolves around the earth.  Those people came to the conclusion from observation alone and against the teachings of the Bible and Church at the time. 

       Also, how long did the belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth last?  I mean the people of the Bible understood that the Earth wasn't the center.  It was previous understanding and not just science that dissolved that understanding.  If my belief is likened to that, then it should be easy to disprove me.   Most who believed in that followed the understanding of others who told them that's how it was.  It wasn't mostly an individual discovery.

     c.  Most people I've talked to who believe that dolphins are fish leanred that because someone else told them.  I guess they could come to the conclusion through reasoning. A fish lives in the ocean, therefore, dolphins must be fish. anyone who actually takes the time to get to know what a dolphin is easily concludes otherwise.  Again making no comparison to people taking the time to research the Christian God and coming to the same conclusion on their own. 

(To seek out God with your heart, mind, soul, and strength isn't to see something miraculous and say "WOW!!!! God!!!!! or to conclude through observation alone that God is real)

Bottom line, you ignore that it is only one of many aspects of my understanding and that  it's hard to come to such a complex conclusion such as this particular God with your own understanding and no outside influence to sway you. 

Do you honestly feel it was a complex conclusion to say that the sun revolves around the Earth?  This belief didn't last for thousands upon thousands of years because someone saw that it made sense like the sun around Earth. 

I'm not sure where this idea of scientific method started getting blown away, but I never said that "scientific Method" shouldn't be used.  My challenge was using the Physical Sciences to explain a non-material world... (this now assuming it exists)

You are so assertive.  Man I believe you understand that you're right, I just want to logically come to the conclusion on my own.  Please please please give me your source for research!

Honestly, I haven't looked at them yet.  i just about had enough time at this point to finally check out hambydammits' links he posted so long ago.  I apologise.  I have a life outside this site that prevents me from taking adequate time for all the feedback I get in a given period.  I will check them out contrary to popular belief.

I have to laugh a little here.  I just happen to be reading a book on the history of science.  One of the biggest problems for humans to figure out was the idea of Inertia.  A lot had to do with the beliefs of the ancients regarding the patterns of the planets.

Basically, Aristotle was the biggest influence on why people were wrong for so long.  He established the idea of the characteristics of the elements and that the Earth was the center of everything.  Ptolemy came by and basically 'proved' that there were some 60 spheres spinning around the Earth of different diameters.  It wasn't until Copernicus came along and suggested that putting the Sun at the center reduced the number of rotating spheres to a mere 13 or so, but got him into problems, especially with the Church.  It was between Copernicus and Galileo that people started getting rid of the ideas of the spheres.

Yes, Cap, the Bible writers ABSOLUTELY believed the Earth was the center of the universe and that spheres of elements rotated around it.  It was the ONLY way people understood the Universe at the time.  The few dissenters were NOT the Bible writers and certainly didn't come close to the current view of the Cosmos.

I say again: NO ONE knew that the Sun was at the center of the Solar System, or that there weren't spheres of elements.

BTW< they believed that the elements (in explaining gravity) were compelled to "go home" and come to rest in their sphere. Hence, earth (the most base element) would fall to Earth, Air and Fire (more 'noble' elements) would try to rise or move.  Fire, especially, because it was most noble and was trying to get to its sphere which was closer to the sphere of Heaven than the others.

I know Xians try to rewrite history to make themselves look good but guess what?  It gives the opposite impression.

 I already tried your "POOF" logic and outgrew it. Maybe if you really wanted to, someday you can outgrow your fictional security blanket and use REAL logic.

"The people in the bible" HA HA HA HA HA

Circular reasoning abounds in all the holy books. "My god claimed this, my book says that" YAWN! You honestly think you and your pet fiction is the only claim out there? It honestly never occures to you that just because billions of people believe the same thing, you think that an ancient myth is true, just because it was printed in ink?

Your goat herders are no different than  the morons who prayed to the sun thinking it was more than a giant ball of gas, and that it cared about the trials of humans.

Your problem is not what the bible "says" your problem is that your ego wont allow you to consider that it is just a fictional story sold as fact,

It is all in your head, you just don't realize it and by proxy of using an old and 101 tactic, you are proving to me that you really buy this crap. I feel sorry for you. Just as I feel sorry for anyone who thinks rabbits feet work.

you keep making those circular points that really have no basis for understanding.  I've asked you for your sources, but you don't give me any.

Let me know when you have something that's going to challenge me.  If you think your ranting is going to change my mind, ask yourself if the same effect from me would work on you.

You want sources? How about putting down your babble and picking up a biology textbook? Is Biology not a source?

Biology= A  sperm and egg make a baby. Not a naked assertion, but provable fact!

Bible= "Poof, my fictional being did it" Naked assertion with nothing but prior naked assertions to back it up.

Biology= The cells in a human body die after lack of bloodflow and oxygen. Provable fact!

Bible="Poof, my fictional being reanimated it's fictional son" Naked assertion through self serving circular writings.

Lets look at the scoreboard.

Biology=2

Myth=0

And that only adresses 2 of myth's absurd claims in human history.

yea, I know.  You're in love with the whole God impregnating a girl thing.  You mention it a lot. 

Let's take this one step at a time.  I won't even consider explaining that story to you until we can get past the initial stage of whether there is a spiritual world or not.  One step at a time.  Tunnel vision will prevent us from doing it any other way. 

What source do you have for that topic first. 

BTW, biology does support the Bible or vise versa, but we're a long way away from that conversation.  There's no point in talking about that if you can't even grasp a spiritual world. 

DAMN IT JIM...I AM A THEIST.....NOT A DOCTOR!