Religious Nonsense

There are no religions which do not condemn any and all other beliefs. "Thou shalt have no false gods before thee". Who decides which is the false god, the individual or the religion?
Can you name one religion which is not exclusive of other religions?

Science is not required to make moral judgements of any kind, it only needs to accurately describe the workings of the universe and the mind, so that consensus moral tenets can be achieved from informed knowledge, not from "feel good" belief systems.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Obviously you have lost connection with reality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you can’t think of any questions that you individually, or humanity collectively would like to have answered by the presumed master of all that is? You’ve never heard of the proposition of picking a historical figure to dine with? You don’t think master of reality would be high on your list. What about all the theists who expect to meet their maker when they check out, you don’t think they’ed have questions about their new digs?

Aren’t you privy to to higher truths by way of non-physical access to knowledge?

What would be the time, place or audience to discuss these things? A night in the desert with a bunch of Nazis?



How do you expect to legitimize your path to divine knowledge if your not willing to demonstrate it?

I really can’t recall any I’ve found persuasive, so there’s no point in picking one over another. But since you seem to recognize a value in some, go ahead and pick a favorite.

A conversation. Where I can ask questions. And unlike this discussion, get answers.

We’ve already been over that stuff. There is no evidence that human beings are capable of knowing anything out of relation to our physical neurology. Subjective notions of unseen existence are not knowledge, it’s at best reasonable speculation, but on average it’s just bad fiction.

What task I’ve set for myself? I have no expectation of knowing anymore about reality than can be determined by the collective knowledge of humanity during my lifespan. Who knows, maybe the Vulcans will land, or the Jewish messiah will finally show up, and we can receive an unexpected dump of advanced knowledge in our lap.

I guess you’re not familiar with the obfuscation tactics of our former president Bill Clinton. I was comparing his to your own.

In his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having sexual relations with Lewinsky. Based on the evidence—a blue dress with Clinton's semen that Tripp provided—Starr concluded that the president's sworn testimony was false and perjurious.

During the deposition, Clinton was asked "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1?" The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, Clinton answered, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later stated, "I thought the definition included any activity by [me], where was the actor and came in contact with those parts of the bodies" which had been explicitly listed (and "with an intent to gratify or arouse the sexual desire of any person"). In other words, Clinton denied that he had ever contacted Lewinsky's "genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks", and effectively claimed that the agreed-upon definition of "sexual relations" included giving oral sex but excluded receiving oral sex.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton–Lewinsky_scandal

Ring any bells? Any blue evidence of gods you can bring into court?

How about judging one’s performance on their ability to answer simple questions? By this standard you’re failing miserably.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I never start the debate, or vendetta. It is religion which declares vendetta on all other beliefs or non-beliefs.
According to religion, apostates are the "enemy", not the other way around. History is witness to theist persecution of "free thought".

Read the OT to see who started this millenia long vendetta. Read up on Hypathia, to see who took first action in vendetta against Science. Read the Q'uran to see who continues the vendetta against all apostates (people who do not believe in Islam)

Do I have the right to defend myself against the physical violence done to me in the name of religious vendetta?

How dare you accuse me of waging a vendetta against religion, I am a "pacifist" in the best sense of the term. You are the one doing mental violence now........!!!!

 

Make up your mind.
Do you want to discuss condemnation or having an identity?

.... and yet you cannot help yourself by saying ...

.... so we are just left to ponder why you are required to make moral judgments under the guise of something that apparently has no requirement.

And furthermore, you are left to ponder why the likes of others insist on dumping truckloads of criticism on your ideas rather than merely refine a sentence or two in the spirit of congeniality.

 

erm... Science doesn't condemn any "beliefs". Science provides a set of principles and a methodology to explain the universe around us
(links provided)

(links provided within)

so Science doesn't misrepresent or condemn a belief

a person may well do this, using science, but that is a completely different argument, and usually it's because there is typically no empirical evidence for a belief system as it's foundation is normally a faith.

moreover, even when there is "evidence" for a belief system it is usually misunderstood science or similar misunderstandings about the universe around us (UFO's come to mind here).

This is not exactly true. There are religions typically based upon cultural beliefs, history and mythology that don't condemn any religion (except that which is directly targeting their belief system for eradication, like the Papal Bull's or US Law - see: Powell, Jay; & Jensen, Vickie. (1976). Quileute: An introduction to the Indians of La Push. Seattle: University of Washington Press ).
A good example is the Siouxan beliefs (especially Lakota). The beliefs have a similar basis in cultural activities and share some cultural ceremonies, but each individual is walking their own path and no other person can tell them their path is wrong. Most religious practices and beliefs are still predominantly shared orally, though you can read up on some of them
See also: Black Elk Speaks is a 1932 book by John G. Neihardt
Sacred Fireplace (Oceti Wakan): Life and Teachings of a Lakota Medicine Man - Peter V. , Jr. Catches, Sr. Catches, Peter

 

Answer my question!!! I'm sick of your obfuscations and evasions.

You are the perfect example of spouting religious non-responses and nonsense.

 

That was a failure. Was it accidental?

 

Thanks for the link. You are right, there are belief systems which are not strictly exclusive of other. Deism is another neutral type philosophical outlook.

I am mostly addressing monistic (Abrahamic) religions, which spell out their prejudice against all other belief systems. "Thou shalt have no false Gods before thee".

Who decides which god is false and which god is true? It's all nonsense!

 

Please explain why that was/is a failure? I'm sure it was deliberate.

 

A "like" is dumping a truckload of criticism? Ah, you completely misunderstood; "the likes of others", "are dumping truckloads of criticism".
The reality is that to my pleasant surprise, I have received a truckload of "likes" in this thread.

I can think only of Tiassa who has criticized my posits, rather than offer refinement. It's true, there was a truckload of crap dumped on me, for no good reason.
My bad???

 

was it?

.

You're welcome.
I highly recommend those books as well. Good reads, though perhaps a bit limited.

Peter Catches also runs a Sundance on Pine Ridge if you ever want to first-hand observe and learn, though I would leave any dogs at home if you like them

 

There is a general principle that perfect answers require perfect questions (think of it as the glass half full version of "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer").

I'm just giving you the limelight so you can show us what you've got.

Once again, I am more surprised that you would hold me in such high esteem.

At this stage, anything better than a cohort of bawling online trolls would be a start.

How would you expect to benefit from a university if you demand access to radioactive elements during open day?

Requesting others to launch a defense of a critique you are too lazy to research is not the mark of a scholar.

I guess the next issue is where one determines if there are any framework or prerequisites to coming to such a position. I mean if even universities, even on their open days, are not recreational outlets for the possibly banal and probably dangerous curiousities of one and all, would it be reasonable to demand open access to the absolute store house of knowledge as the "first base" encounter of any slimy git that walks off an online forum?

Whatever.
I am just reminding you of your epistemological requirements for the task you have set before yourself.

Thanks for reminding me. I was giving you more credibility than what is warranted.

You are talking about "meaningful interaction" with God and a demand that it be expressed in the language of empiricism (since thats "according to the rules of reality" ... at least in your books).

So your challenge (the one you set for yourself, btw, since you've made it clear that its either your ideas of reality or the highway, so to speak) is to elaborate the empirical data that would identify God. Of course its a theoretical problem for you, but I assume would have more rigorous demands to be met rather than being introduced to someone who says, "Hi, I'm God".

So, whenever you're ready ...

If you can't distinguish the vulcans from a jewish messiah, its probably a good clue that you already have severe epistemological problems

I don't follow?
You asked what colour cloth God wore.
I pointed out that its a pointless q because you have no criteria to assess the merit of any answer given.
IOW, from your (empirical) perspective, you would have no means to determine if I told the truth, was lying, or anything in between.
It is exactly like sending someone who has no means to identify gold on a fool's errand to purchase it at a fruit market.
I'm pretty sure the marketplace will be unscrupulous enough to ensure the fool comes back with something they bought. Whether it is gold or not is a separate issue ...

 

WTF????

 

Trust me.
I'm not the one you have to convince.

Well now you are (possibly) getting in to tricky territory.
At the risk of jumping the gun, can science provide a complete enough empirical evidenced model of the universe to necessarily exclude/deny an omnimax God?
And if science cannot do that, what do you call it when persons believe that it can?

 

Well, Musika asked about a representation or misrepresentation of science, and you pared that down to "science" in order to post an offensively pedantic evasion. Was that sleight intentional?

 

No.

 

(Assuming one gets to the appropriate info source ...)
Perfect q's deliver perfect a's.
Substandard q's deliver substandard a's.
Stupid q's deliver stupid a's.
... and so forth.

Or to put it another way, knowledge finds its utility in action, and, desire for a certain type of activity prompts a certain type of knowledge.

Ok, you want to know stuff.
Fine.
But to what end?

 

Can you distinguish Vulcan scholars from any other "alien intelligence". I'd like

to hear it, or are you not "prepared" to offer your considered opinion?

 

Let's see;

A question about science was properly answered with a clear definition and meaning of the term science.

How can science misrepresent something which it refuses to address altogether. Or is science's refusal to address theism a sign of misrepresentation?

Where you got this notion of "pedantic evasion" shall forever remain a mystery. Are you perhaps being "pedantic"? Just a little, maybe?