Religious Nonsense

Discussion in 'Religion' started by StrangerInAStrangeLand, Jul 21, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Why do you demand I explain my demand of someone else to you? Is he your boss?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Okay, but that's a separate issue from what you're demanding.

    Nonetheless, that just brings us right back to your cheap vendetta.

    #startmakingsense

    Seriously, though, what is the reason you are unable to follow your own posts?

    We're, what, about a hundred ninety posts, ten pages later↑?

    How about, stuff your troll job. Or would you prefer: Maybe next time you should just stay out of other people's discussions if you're incapable of keeping up even with your own self.

    To the other—

    —since you've already made your position on evidence clear, it would seem the question of competence is independent of will, so, yeah, y'know, whatever the reason you can't follow your own posts, you're still putting on a troll job.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    I think that's a gross over simplification of contemporary society's infatuation with industrial economics.

    For a start, other non-christian communities appear just as or even more competitive in the field of trashing the planet.
    You could argue that this "earth trashing" model of economic development first appeared in predominantly christian countries, but the fact that it got exported, sans christianity, to other places shows its not an inherent "christian thing".
    Or even if you want to argue it is just a local slant of "christian earth ecology politic" (or perhaps an illuminati conspiracy to pull the strings of the world from hidden enclaves) , to engineer the planet's demise to herald the rapture, one would have to question why they are so inefficient at it. If they really want to fast track the demise of the planet, more than one of us could offer them a few tips on how to do it better.

    In short, these are the sort of poorly thought out arguments posed by atheists that make it look like they are more interested in scoring brownie points rather than bringing forth any legitimate criticism that can actually benefit the world.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    First I would have to deign to discuss teleology in a forum dedicated to the rigorous science.
    Neither is teleology.
    This is what you don't understand (Hence your opting in for "bastardizing science").

    Until you reach the point of bastardizing it by moving into topics of teleology ... at which point people mercilessly tear you to pieces.

    (And here you are again, demanding others make your arguments for you ...)

    I've been pretty clear at the onset, citing the standards of science to establish (or deride) something to which science has no access is a fool's errand.

    If you think it can, that's your problem. I don't own the stupid.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    What evidence? A Human construct of a metaphysical concept? Writing something does not make it automatically empirically true.

    By definition, theology does not use expressions of Natural Laws as evidence. Theism proposes that a motivated supernatural sentience is the creative force.

    If this is not correct, then please state the theist view of the theistic functions according to the evidence.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2018
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    If you think you can fool me with empty promises and useless words which cannot be scientifically verified, then you are wrong.
    That's the clientele of snake-oil salesmen.
    That's the problem, if science cannot account for your unsupported beliefs in snake-oil salesmen, you do own the stupid.
     
  10. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    I'm implying your notions of evidencing God is stupid. If you want them presented, you will probably have to do something other than smirk at the impossibility of ramming square pegs into round holes, even though they appear to fit nicely in square holes.

    Well actually, "to what degree?" is an epistemological issue. If, epistemologically speaking, you insist on having a family tree that takes on the appearance of a flag pole due to inbreeding, you are hamstrunged by anything other than square holes.

    Well, the world is not completely mad (yet), so I would disagree.

    Yeah, relative to "what"?
    That's my point.
    One can be totally ignorant of medicine, pharmacy, etc, yet such a person can get the benefits of all these fields of knowledge if they position themselves "relative" to a qualified medical practitioner.

    And that's the problem.
    You demand there is only one context, hence you are provided with a scarcity of details

    And, so what is the method of enlisting its use?
    What knowledge does a sick person require to have in order to benefit from a doctor?

    That doesn't appear to be the obvious turn of events. To say the least, in all the one star google reviews of medical clinics I have read, nobody seems to mention these things. A far more dominant trend seems to present itself.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2018
  11. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    If you think you can "scientifically" verify teleological arguments, you will constantly get your ass handed to you by people even remotely familiar with the rigours of science.

    Your zeal for martyrdom at the hands of "bleeding ass rhetoric" is your problem. You own it.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You are the one attempting to compare as equivalent fields of knowledge or scientific expertise and Abrahamic theistic religion. The description of that as "stupid" is also yours.
    There is no field of knowledge involved in specifically theistic religion.
    But it is not a gross oversimplification of the currently dominant and explicitly religious - Abrahamic theistic religion - justifications for US government policy and environmental regulation.
     
  13. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    So I guess that makes it the "illuminati model" IYHO, eh?
     
  14. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    Michael 345 likes this.
  15. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    This was the quote :

    Or for that matter, what do you call the (mis?)represenration of science that goes around condemning any other belief, etc?

    If its open to the former, its open to the latter.
    Science doesn't exist independently from the persons charged with (mis)representing its claims.

    If they are "using" science they are (mis)representing it. Hence the query about using it the Dawkinesque (or some other) manner as a sort of demagogic mallet.

    Usually people don't assume to rely on a person's clairvoyance ....especially in the midst of a discussion about the proper representation of science distinguished from the misrepresentation of science .... so it seems strange that you would suddenly ask.

    And that's probably just as well. We may like to eat tomorrow's donuts today, but it just doesn't seem feasible.

    Yes, the hard-ons certain people have for post dated cheques written in the name of empiricism is certainly a "thing" (despite the notion of "believing what empiricism can do" being obviously calamitous to the discipline)


    It is no coincidence that the future of eating donuts also faces the same constraints.

    Given that humans operate, in the universal picture, of being unlimitedly limited, it appears that there really is a limit.
    I mean emptying the pacific ocean with a thimble is also an "unlimited" pursuit, but its precisely the limited means it employs that makes it so (outside, of course, of the before mentioned death of humanity).

    At the present, one would assume,. Beliefs about things on the strength of "future knowledge" is primarily something empiricism sets out to discard, not empower.
    I mean we wouldn't want to go around misrepresenting science, would we?
     
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    You made a claim. You were shown the doctrinal evidence disagreeing. You said you didn't care what the evidence said.
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Because words (doctrinal evidence) are not evidence, other than expressed beliefs.
    I prefer to see evidence.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2018
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Science does not exist in the absence of evidence. When are you going to learn that?
    The earth is no longer the center of the solar system. That science was replaced with evidence showing the sun is the center of the Solar system. Hence the name.
     
  19. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    And, funnily enough, one can trace all these presentations of evidence to individuals and their involvement in events, developments, etc.
    Did you have a point?
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I agree.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    We would not want to misrepresent reality either.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Can't represent supernatural reality at all, no?
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Science is the discipline with humility. Point is that science is always provisional, whereas religion is presented as divine and unchangeable ultimate Truth. That's hubris and an evidentiary misrepresentation of Knowledge of reality.
     
  22. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Humility before what?
    The disciple of who?

    And?
    You don't think it would be silly to think otherwise?
    That science would be more effective if it was immutable and/or that God would be effective if He was provisional?

    You're not making sense, although I suspect that we are back at the point of atheistic delight in smashing square pegs into round holes.
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Humility in our relationship to Nature. Nature provides, no evidence that a god does.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page