Re: Darwin believed in jin(super natural) or Dawkins does?
southie, #2 could be some thing I ate. perhaps. Also rememeber I was fully awake and I walked out of the room, with same feeling getting worst.
Re: Darwin believed in jin(super natural) or Dawkins does?
southie, #2 could be some thing I ate. perhaps. Also rememeber I was fully awake and I walked out of the room, with same feeling getting worst.
1 #3 were some thing. But you see the disconnect here??? I am telling you some I experienced, you just ignore because Darwin did not speak about it?
Aray bhai sahab
I was only referring ti the slept paralysis portion that bella referred to. I get in once in a while also. I was not invalidating your experience.
I ask you again want to step outside?
Re: Darwin believed in jin(super natural) or Dawkins does?
too bad. Now you have to read my post and comment!
no stepping out still. :D
I heard you run fast, and can run for long.
Re: Darwin believed in jin(super natural) or Dawkins does?
Ok. Read ur experiences. I have no explanation.
I feel like my brain is devolving to a monkey brain after reading this
Re: Darwin believed in jin(super natural) or Dawkins does?
thats quite freaky Monk. i shouldn't have asked you to explain, now i am going to have nightmares.
Re: Darwin believed in jin(super natural) or Dawkins does?
Mr. MONK
Boss is starting trouble. Let's unite.
Re: Darwin believed in jin(super natural) or Dawkins does?
if we go after Boss he is going to throw some made of black matter from out side of galaxy at us :nono:
Re: Darwin believed in jin(super natural) or Dawkins does?
Forgot about that.
Re: Darwin believed in jin(super natural) or Dawkins does?
This sound so dirty
Re: Darwin believed in jin(super natural) or Dawkins does?
Medical diagnosis are scientific explanations. Sleep paralysis has been induced, replicated, in people! See: http://www.journalsleep.org/Articles/250113.pdf
Your point is a distortion. You’re asking to prove a dis-positive. You can’t prove to me that there isn’t an invisible monkey on the dark side of the moon riding a rainbow unicorn! Assumptions in science are tested, and if they’re found to be unsubstantiated by evidence, then they are relegated.
Science is not based on belief. No one believes in science. Science is not religion. It provides evidence and facts. You test hypothesis based on evidence and the facts presented to you. The way scientists prove mastery is by then making precise and exact predictions about what will occur based on what they know! And it works! Anyone know what the weather will be tomorrow? When is Halley’s Comet due again? When was the last small pox outbreak?
Science doesn’t require faith…it requires evidence! Something religion can’t provide! Every time someone has used religion to predict the future…it’s been a spectacular failure!
Re: Darwin believed in jin(super natural) or Dawkins does?
Peace kprasad
The way they can disprove the “entity” is to show that the “entity” cannot come when certain conditions exist and when it comes it always comes when those “conditions” exist. This way the phenomenon is explained. But this request for *proving a dis-positive *is nonsense …
The way to prove anything is to have a falsification test … that if it fails then it can be proven false. So the test must come from the ones who are pushing the theory. The “entity” theory for those who believe in it need to provide the scientists a falsification test - that if it fails it would disprove the idea of the “entity”. Certain things may not be falsifiable … that is true … evolution theory is also one of them.
Re: Darwin believed in jin(super natural) or Dawkins does?
Monk bro, why don't you ask Dawkins himself? As for Darwin, he believed in God. Newton believed in all sorts of things. I don't believe one's spirituality has any impact on intelligence or curiosity. Like Einstein always said, "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details."
Re: Darwin believed in jin(super natural) or Dawkins does?
Peace kprasad
The way they can disprove the "entity" is to show that the "entity" cannot come when certain conditions exist and when it comes it always comes when those "conditions" exist. This way the phenomenon is explained. But this request for *proving a dis-positive *is nonsense ...
The way to prove anything is to have a falsification test ... that if it fails then it can be proven false. So the test must come from the ones who are pushing the theory. The "entity" theory for those who believe in it need to provide the scientists a falsification test - that if it fails it would disprove the idea of the "entity". Certain things may not be falsifiable ... that is true ... evolution theory is also one of them.
Brother Psyah,
I'm going to assume you're being serious, because this is a laughable assertion. But, I would add, this is par for course for the faithful. Luckily the law, courts, and science don't work this way. No one has top prove innocence, it is guilt that must be proven.
Your requirement for proof is a logical fallacy. That requirement only exists in the mind of people willfully ignorant of science.
Science has much more simple requirements. Show evidence, show data, then make predictions. If your predictions are wrong, go back and start over again. Evolution is a fact. It occurred. Scientists make predictions about what they will find in the fossil record and then, years later, they find it. Take a look at the tiktaalik. No religion can do that!
But here is an even better proposition, that religion fails at again, and why science is superior:
If you can show the evidence, scientists would relegate evolution! How many predictions do people make with their religious texts that never come to be?
Re: Darwin believed in jin(super natural) or Dawkins does?
Brother Psyah,
I'm going to assume you're being serious, because this is a laughable assertion. But, I would add, this is par for course for the faithful. Luckily the law, courts, and science don't work this way. No one has top prove innocence, it is guilt that must be proven.
Your requirement for proof is a logical fallacy. That requirement only exists in the mind of people willfully ignorant of science.
Science has much more simple requirements. Show evidence, show data, then make predictions. If your predictions are wrong, go back and start over again. Evolution is a fact. It occurred. Scientists make predictions about what they will find in the fossil record and then, years later, they find it. Take a look at the tiktaalik. No religion can do that!
But here is an even better proposition, that religion fails at again, and why science is superior: If you can show the evidence, scientists would relegate evolution! How many predictions do people make with their religious texts that never come to be?
Nicely said! It is like accusing the weatherman of witchcraft for accurately predicting the weather patterns. :/
Re: Darwin believed in jin(super natural) or Dawkins does?
Monk bro, why don't you ask Dawkins himself? As for Darwin, he believed in God. Newton believed in all sorts of things.I don't believe one's spirituality has any impact on intelligence or curiosity. Like Einstein always said, "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details."
he already has his answers to save his little world of atheism.
Just a question brother Monk ... what if Dawkins says that he does not believe that people are lying about the Djinn, but are mentally disturbed and have convinced themselves of them? What if he says the experience could be explained away using science?
Re: Darwin believed in jin(super natural) or Dawkins does?
Ok! I won’t 
Did it happen while you were awake?
sleep paralysis is that opposite of sleep walking?
how come no one discussed that in this thread, what does Darwin say about that?
did he write his theory while he was doing that? 
Re: Darwin believed in jin(super natural) or Dawkins does?
Good point abt Opp of walking. Never thought of that.