spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Showing the difference between facts and faith is the value.
One must choose that human well-being is your goal, because the universe doesn't care. That is the foundation of morality.
Religious Nonsense
- Thread starter StrangerInAStrangeLand
- Start date
- Status
"what do you call the (mis?)represenration of science ...?"
You quoted it.
I'm just looking at the words in the sentence. You're the one trying to say "properly" without actually addressing the point.
Seriously, though: Do you really want people to believe your behavior is genuine?
I was thinking to say you are the perfect example of someone who muddles their presentations by a clumsy use of language, but frankly there is quite a bit of competition and jostling for that position, so I will refrain.
This is what you said :
There are no religions which do not condemn any and all other beliefs.
Well, there are.
Even to grant you the greatest charity and talk exclusively about the bible (which is what you really mean when you start trying to talk about "all religions"), one could talk of the guest appearance of samaritans, hardly the big movers and shakers of judaic/christian theology, yet apparently getting a good rap from the bosses representative nonetheless.
"Thou shalt have no false gods before thee". Who decides which is the false god, the individual or the religion?
Well, that proves it I guess. If you cant find instructions of plurality in the 10 commandments, you can't find them anywhere in the religious world.
I can't decide if this is a plea for me to link the first few hits from google that could apparently move some distance to ressolve this conundrum or an equally desparate plea to refrain from it.
It's like when an agitated person says "Don't you dare say another word!"
Can you name one religion which is not exclusive of other religions?
And here's the clincher. Was it intentional to end a diatribe about persecution on a query, daring one to prove otherwise by showing a religion that is not exclusive?
What did you have in mind?
A place of worship with a spinning wheel out the front they give a whiz on the morning to determine whether they should perform holy communion, wudu or acamana?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Yeah, I should have corrected the spelling but in the spirit of generosity I refrained from useless criticism. The word reads represenration a word completely unknown in the english language. Of course it should read "representation". There, now we have corrected the spelling.
I know how to say "properly", it's a nice word.
What is the point you are trying to make?
Seriously, do you want people to believe my behavior is inappropriate?
So far you have agreed with everything I said. The problem is that after your agreement you proceeded to dimish the contribution as being true but not of any value. I guess in your book that makes it disingenuous. I find that odd......
So answer me where are the signs that I am not genuine in my convictions. No sleight of hand here. My life is an open book.
As I said earlier in the piece, not my problem. I don't own the stupid.
I can understand why empiricism works in certain circumstances, but I can't understand why one would think it works in all of them.
So if you think its a case of the truth being the truth because of the truth, or one size fits all, or it being the crème de la crème of epistemology, fine.
But don't come complaining to me to solve the stupid.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
A point which I conceded in a subsequent post.
What does "getting a good rap from the bosses representative" mean? Another example of religious nonsense? There are so many levels of confusion and bad grammar in that single sentence, I am not even going to try and address the question.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Yes you do.
Note, I am not saying you are stupid, but if you believe in an Abrahamic religion, you do own it and you really should try to solve it, or you will continue to own it.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
You mean "rationalism"? I don't think religion can be rationally explained either, can you?
We know it cannot be empirically explained, that's why you have to invent a reason why religion does not need to answer to either empiricism or rationalism.
Your belief is "spiritualism" or "supernaturalism", which do not need to answer to scientific rigor at all. How convenient.....
Last edited:
Science offers a explanation of the workings of the Universe based on repeatable experiences which fit the observations
Literally anyone can disagree with said science explanations
Provide a better explanation no problem. Provide a different explanation which provides a alternative (but not a better) explanation) then it is time to Duke it out with better observations
With the Universe there really is no alternative reality. I consider PHYSICS to be reality and explanations the fly in the ointment
The common misuse of science, I think, fall into two main groups
One misuse is the aforementioned alternative explanations
"Well Professor Imright says planets form by starting small and growing bigger"
"Well Professor Yourwrong says planets form by starting large and getting smaller"
Common person Mr Misuse comments "See science is in disagreement so all science is wrong"
Another Mr Misuse looks at science explanations and discovers a subject (generally something which science cannot answer because no observations can be made)
Mr Misuse points out the obvious "See science cannot answer why I like strawberry icecream so all science is useless, false or just opinions"
Science never misrepresents anything
Professor Imright and Professor Yourwrong have conflicting explanations which boils down to the subject being a work in progress awaiting a better definitive explanation
Professor Imright and Professor Yourwrong are not able to answer WHY you like strawberry icecream although I suspect if a few million million dollars were thrown into research they might discover a strawberry icecream liking gene
This would tick the discovery box of the genes property BUT NOT the Mr Misuse question of WHY
4am and time to go back to sleep
If you are powering that pronouncement on faith (aka arbitrary human values), its not clear what makes your contribution unique to what you are critiquing as the current standard.
Then it becomes a question of defining that goal by actual values rather than losing the details in a haze of the goal is to benefit humans and humans will benefit by following the proper goal by focusing on the greater good, or any other such noticeboard wisdom posted in the communal kitchen of a bunch of hippies screaming at each other.
At a certain point, if you want to launch a relevant critique of religion ... well actually let's keep it real for you and just say christianity ... you have to be prepared to read a bit of scripture, understand a bit of history or context, philosophy etc.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Choosing facts over faith is an evidence based position, as faith is often wrong. Human values are not arbitrary, unless you think that the results of any actions are arbitrary.
It's a start. Figuring out what's moral is still hard work. You asked about foundations, not details.
How do you do it? You never answered me.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I have done a considerable amount of reading on the subject, so whatever you have in mind, have at it.
p.s. have you read the"Skeptic's Annotated Bible" ? I can recommend it as a great source for information on the scripture of the three Abrahamic religions.
Check it out!!! A little exerpt; "And the magicians did so with their enchantments, and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt. - Exodus 8:7"
https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Believers are often more interested in confirmation than in information.
When I say human values are arbitrary, I say they are fluid and speak only of an immediate goal, which can often turn out to be contradictory to subsequent immediate goals.
For instance industrial development, colonial enterprise, etc ... all deemed quite praiseworthy human goals in pursuit of the greater good, at certain times in history.... all with plenty of evidence to back them up (at the time). You are talking about "humans" but there is a more complex thing operating under the hood called "selfhood" which is where things start to get complex as far as goals, etc go. In one sense, sure, "human" is a static designation, but the internal world of desire and nature is like a universe unto itself (so good luck keeping that little beasty under control).
You are talking about foundations that never leave the arbitrary realm of humans. While there are problems with that, you dramatically exacerbate them when you allude to this now putting you in a position to distinguish faith from evidence, etc . This is the same MO, manipulating things to jeer or exploit other things, that has been in vogue for at least quite a few centuries.
I mean its one thing to say its impossible for human society to do nothing but deliver more of the same (with slightly better damage control proceedures in place, perhaps). Its something else to dress more of the same as something brand new and dynamic ( at best) or a trojan horse for a more discreet agenda (at worst).
I thought it was obvious.
If a player outside not only the human situation but the environment of the human situation is introduced (ie God), then its a whole new ball game.
Last edited:
If you don't understand basic stuff (like who the samaritans were) or throw other so called "check mate" problems on
At the very least, this site provides good evidence that this is not something the religious have a monopoly on.
On the contrary, we see members correcting each other all the time. One atheist often criticizes what another atheist says. I, for one, would rather be corrected than stay wrong.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Have we discussed Samaritans? What kind of bizarre scenario are you painting now?
Name one?
I just gave you a link to the internet that in 7 seconds will show you the warts in Abrahanic religions. Have you looked at it yet, read some of it? No? Then you just don't understand where I am coming from and it would suggest that it is your own doubts which cause you to experience these uncomfortable emotions and your reluctance to change your perspective.
I know I am standing on firm ground..... morally and ethically...., but I do not absolve myself from any stupid mistakes I have made in my life. I'll have to bear those guilt feelings without the convenient absolution by confessing my "sins" to some incognito father figure behind a little curtain who calls me "My son".
In the face of such arrogant hubris, that's where I get up and leave.
- Status