Potential of almost anything: advances in understanding, in science, in art, literature, friendship, family etc.
From someone like (Q)'s perspective they could have been creating more potential for society by ridding it of religion.
As I said, some people may not find such actions immoral - the perpetrators probably didn't. I was merely trying to give example of what society as a whole probably thought, why the pervading view would be one of it being immoral.
What other reasons do we keep polls on religious belief? And why do people like (Q) view the dwindling numbers of religious belief, as a triumph?
Polls are, like anything, to track views within a society.
You'd have to ask Q for his views.
That so called societal moral is nothing but lip service, otherwise how is it that we support the wholesale slaughter of innocent animals (life, consciousness, tax..) for the purpose of satisfying our desires?
It's not lip-service at all. It is where the majority of people get their morals from: society. If you grow up in a meat-eating society you will likely not find it immoral to eat meat: after all, many animals have evolved to eat meat, and we would not be where we are today without having done so.
Your view of it being mere lip-service undoubtedly stems from your own personal morals, and, as you are undoubtedly aware, not everyone in society shares your view. I.e. You have overridden the societal morals with an additional, personal layer in this regard. Not everyone does, because not everyone disagrees with it.
But society morals also change with time, with understanding etc.
If we are able to override this evolutionary driver, which is caused by material nature, then we can contradict nature.
So why would nature contradict itself?
No. Being able to override an evolutionary driver is NOT contradicting nature.
Just because one thing caused by nature is in conflict with another thing caused by nature is not a contradiction. They are both obeying nature.
One rock in space hits another because their trajectories both want them to occupy the same space at the same time... You really see this as nature contradicting itself?? Because that is what you are suggesting.
I used that as one reason why someone would claim a miracle, and is most probably the main one.
I dare say it may at first, but once understood, it will be a natural occurance.
The thing with miracles isn't that they occur outside of nature, they are just different forms of nature.
Walking on water may be impossible for us to do in our current state of mind, but Jesus was demonstrating that we have different states of mind which we have forgotten. I suppose this is whats is called ''supernature'', but it's 'super-ness' is such because of our ignorance. Much like the combustion engine would be to people who have never encountered technology this advanced (from their perspective).
Sure, it's a nice theory. But given our current understanding, such things would fail Occam's razor.
You have to create new constructs to explain your concept, which is just another way of shifting the goalposts.
Yet if those constructs are consistent and explain the matter, what is the issue?
If you think they are inconsistent then highlight them. But instead you just cry foul of shifting the goalposts.
Further, perhaps you seem to think them new constructs is because you may not have encountered them before, that they are different to what you have been told.
But please have the decency to argue the points made rather than just cry foul when there has been none committed.
You may not realize it, but your whole thought process rejects the idea of anything outside of your understanding of material nature and in order to do that you have to create new ones.
You're like a footballer who is complaining that his opponent keeps avoiding your tackles and using moves you've never seen before.
If you think my "constructs" are inconsistent with what has gone before, point out that inconsistency.
But please don't try to make it my fault that you can't breach the defence or score a goal, that I'm somehow shifting the goalposts.
You've asked me questions, and I've done my best to answer them, even when you patently haven't taken on board the explanation provided (such that you ask the same type of question with the same lack of understanding of my position). I'm not saying you need to agree with that position, but you don't even seem to want to grasp it.
And then accuse me of shifting goalposts.
What next, Jan?