Religious Nonsense

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,325
    So kind of you to provide two possible means to know that are both anecdotal.

    Perhaps the most stoned persons would light a joint to leave it smouldering in the corner, but even amongst stoners, the consensus appears to be that it doesn't appear to be a very efficient way to go about things.

    If he had the wisdom to not utilize it as a performance enhancing drug during interpersonal communication sessions for the presentation of complex scientific ideas, it proves my point.
    I'm sure many of us have read posts here and, regarding the poster, played the game "guess that drug".
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,177
    Ever tried Patchouli or Lavender oil to generate an agreeable atmosphere. You're probably too young to remember the hippie era. An amusing identification;
    , but this is historical
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,177
    This is your mistake, atheists do not advocate for non-gods or non-religions.

    Atheists, if advocating for a dynamical creative aspect to the universe, always do so on the basis of scientifically established Universal values and functions, methods and procedures.

    Atheists cannot speak Religious Nonsense. They can speak Scientific Nonsense ! And if they do, they are called out by scientists, who will not introduce God or Religion into their critique.

    On a Science Forum, theists are the ones left out from the conversation of Universal Truths.
    They are the ones expressing a jealous aspect in these debates. They are not morally allowed to do otherwise.

    A jealous God:
    https://www.allaboutgod.com/a-jealous-god.htm

    I call that Religious Nonsense. Am I wrong?
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,177
    Not anymore.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,177
    The point about what? Yeah, tell that to Bill Maher.
    Ahhh, a religious sprinkle of assassination by inuendo, how charming.
     
  9. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,325
    The point is that pot (like many other drugs) is not a performance enhancing drug on many fronts of interpersonal communication.



    The subliminal christianity in this vid must drive you bonkers.
     
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,825
    No, not anymore, just me misunderstanding your initial comment. iceaura has subsequently provided clarification on what I had misunderstood, so now that that is corrected I can only say: "Got it. Thanks."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,380
  12. Slartibartfast Registered Member

    Messages:
    61
    Most certainly not.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,177
    And you think that recreational drugs should be performance enhancing? How about alcohol?
    And how do you know cannabis isn't a performance enhancing drug in every area that requires imagination. Driving doesn't fall in that category.

    No one is advocating the use of cannabis. I just think it's an unfairly maligned drug.
     
  14. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,325
    Well you're the one who brought Carl Sagan in to it. One would assume that has something to do with exceptional performance unless one brought it up to mention his mediocre skill in playing Mario Bros. or something.
     
  15. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,204
    Methodological naturalism.
     
  16. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,204
    Musika referred to complex scientific communication. I'm sure it's great for imagination.
     
  17. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,825
    They can do. They can also eat chocolate and go for a walk if that are so inclined.
    They do? You don't think atheists are as capable as theists of talking nonsense about that which they don't know?
    Yes they can. And often do, when they misunderstand a religious point or principle, or simply talk about what they don't otherwise know about a given religion.
    So can theists.
    Unless the discussion is about scientific aspects of religion, I guess.
    Why do you think that? Have you never met a scientist who is also a believer?
    What jealous aspect might that be? And what leads you to conclude that they are not morally allowed to do otherwise?
     
  18. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,325
    I recall reading about a group of atheists of some noteriety circa 18/19th century that were anti science, as a reactionary stance to science based theism (at that time, science was popularly viewed as lending credibility to a theological understanding of the world). If I have time, I might try and dig it up with my google-fu.
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,177
    What else they can do is irrelevant. Read closer. I think that I gave clear examples of my perspective in context.
    Depends on context, no? Why would they talk nonsense about God? They're atheists. It's like saying atheists are capable of talking nonsense about nonsense.
    My point was that they could talk nonsense about science. To an atheist the concept of a sentient, motivated, moral God is nonsense to begin with.
    What is the one fundamental difference between an atheist's and a theist's understanding of the difference between religion and science? There can be no misunderstanding.
    I agree, but only in context of theism.
    What are the scientific aspects of religion? The entire theist belief system is based on non-scientific "miracles".
    Of course the miracles would be explainable through science, but theism assigns authorship to God, which is not science.
    Not a theist who does not believe in divine creation, regardless if he is a scientist. Else he would not be a theist.
    An example is the theist scientific proposition that the flagellum is an irreducibly complex system and therefore has to be a creation by God. (Dover trials). Today we are studying micro-tubules for the possibility they might be tiny organic quantum computers.
    Read closer. That was in response to an accusation that atheists are somehow jealous of religious people.
    Can't speak against, or divorce from the church, without penalty. The first one is blasphemy, the second is apostasy. Mortal sins. God is a jealous God.
    There are several countries where individuals are happy to act on behalf of God and meet out divine justice.
     
  20. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,514
    Reply

    To Sarkus

    Generally a atheist points out a belief in god is NOT a good basis to make law which is not exactly a advocate for non-gods or non-religions, more a keep your religious beliefs to yourself and don't use LAW to foster your religious beliefs onto others as well as so many religious beliefs have no basis in reality

    If a secular LAW is required to force religious belief do you really think you have converted someone?

    Or changed reality to fit religious belief?

    Always remember "But it does"

    *****
    In another effort to improve relations between the Roman Catholic Church
    and science, Pope John Paul II last week acknowledged the work of the 16th-century astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus as ‘one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time’.

    https://www-newscientist-com.cdn.am...14018970-900-copernicus-earns-papal-blessing/

    (Comment:- took a long time but I guess if you are occupied with other pressing matters such as should we allow condoms to prevent disease if they also prevent conception? the real world can wait for a sorry)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    *******

    No such animal exist

    They exist in the realm of touchy feely, feel good, but they also have no scientific explanation of god

    No formula

    No universal constant

    Warm and fuzzy feelings do not lend themselves, or are capable of being, studied in science

    Well they can if they parrot beliefs

    And pray tell what theist KNOW (as in provable) about god

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Write4U likes this.
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,177
    To the theist God is the Universal constant.
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,177
    And even more exciting, is the well hidden (low key) acknowledgement by (count them), two Popes no less, that Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-wizard/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.235c7d819850

    Even in acknowledgement of Darwinian evolution, Theism is duplicitous about the origins of man.
    Theists are bound to Theism, because God is a jealous God, who will punish you if you stray.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2018
  23. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,825
    When you make a sweeping generalisation, expect it to be pointed out to you. If you assert that "atheists do not advocate for non-gods or non-religions" you are simply ignoring all those that do. If however, you mean that one does not advocate for non-gods or non-religious simply by being atheist, then I would agree, but I would then suggest you be less ambiguous in your language.
    They are capable of that as well. But the issue is not a matter of why but of whether they can. And indeed they can.
    Not necessarily. An atheist merely doesn't hold the belief that such exists. There are many atheists who find that concept to make sense, yet can't be convinced that it actually exists, but don't assert that it doesn't. You are grossly generalising the atheist as some high-brow scientist that is only capable of what you consider to be rational thought. That is patently ridiculous. The atheist simply does not hold belief in God. Whether they consider the particular concept of God to be nonsense or not is not why they are atheist.
    For example, I am agnostic as to whether you are wearing a hat or not. I do not hold the belief that you are. I can be considered "a-hattist". But the idea of you wearing a hat is not nonsense to me.
    Again with the gross and rather absurd generalisations. Sure, some theists, possibly the majority (I don't know) have some difference of understanding, but it is not necessary. To some theists, God picks up where science ends. That is their belief. Their understanding of science is the same as many scientists, possibly even you, in it being the study of the natural world. But they consider God outside of science. To them there is no overlap. No issue between their belief and their understanding of science.
    To grossly generalise as you do is, frankly, disappointing.
    No, theists really can speak scientific nonsense outside of theism as well as atheists can. Why would you think they can't? Do you think they are infallible when talking about science outside of the context of theism?
    Not necessarily. Some theists believe in miracles, sure. Not all. But to say "the entire theist belief system is based on" them is absurd. It is based on scripture. Some take the miracles verbatim and some don't.
    But they can quite easily assign it to God via the agency of what you and I might believe to be the science behind it. Yes, some believe God is a sky-daddy who pokes his finger into affairs of man, while others believe he set the world in motion, left it to the laws of physics/chemistry/biology that he set up, and is able to interact via the agency of consciousness. And others hold different views. Some are incompatible with much of science, while others are not - they merely place God out of reach of science. To those, your rather bigoted views - and that is how they are coming across - hold no water.
    I know quite a number who believe in divine creation yet happily busy themselves in their roles as scientists. Do they believe in creationism? No. Do they believe in a physical cosmological model of the universe? Yes. But they hold belief of an ultimate cause. They hold beliefs that are outside the remit of science. They are also theists.
    Sorry, what is this supposed to be an example of?
    So saying "We don't smell... you do!" is your attempt at a grown-up response? If someone accuses atheists of being jealous then try to have that discussion of why they might think that, or some such. Resorting to petty and childish tit-for-tat exchanges is, as much of your message here, disappointing.
    So why would they be jealous of atheists? Envious, perhaps, if they see their own faith waning and are envious of the manner of atheists. Jealous, though? Or is your view that God is a jealous God your only explanation?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page