kx000
Valued Senior Member
Explain the what now?
We have more fake gold than real gold, but that does not make gold fake.Oh, thanks. It looks like fun:
We have more Gods and Goddesses than you can shake a stick at.
But people with different names for water generally agree on the properties of water. People tend to disagree more about the properties of gods than they do about the names, so Gods are a much more subjective concept than water.kind of like citing the numerous different words different cultures have for water to explain how "water" is a human invention
:shrug:
We have more fake gold than real gold, but that does not make gold fake.
Religion becomes fake gold when it diverts impressionable minds from the immense value of scientific knowledge about what the real world is, and how the processes of nature have nothing to do with good or bad behavior.
And that's money you can take to the bank!
when you start bandying around words like "reality" in a philosophical void and make claims totally outside of the authority of your cited discipline (like words to the effect : science establishes that the processes of nature exist independently of any sentience) its pretty clear that you are simply raving along the lines of someone who has already had their mind substantially "impressioned" uponReligion becomes fake gold when it diverts impressionable minds from the immense value of scientific knowledge about what the real world is, and how the processes of nature have nothing to do with good or bad behavior.
And that's money you can take to the bank!
Salient point (although if you throw a political slant on water, such as environment vs industry, then the differing views on its main relevant properties tends to become obvious)But people with different names for water generally agree on the properties of water. People tend to disagree more about the properties of gods than they do about the names, so Gods are a much more subjective concept than water.
when you start bandying around words like "reality" in a philosophical void and make claims totally outside of the authority of your cited discipline (like words to the effect : science establishes that the processes of nature exist independently of any sentience) its pretty clear that you are simply raving along the lines of someone who has already had their mind substantially "impressioned" upon
of their cited discipline (like words to the effect : science establishes that the processes of nature exist independently of any sentience)
its pretty clear that you are simply raving along the lines of someone who has already had their mind substantially "impressioned" upon
Given that you also have problems with persosn who promote the "real" world through the (apparent) authority of science, its pretty obvious you are just being a trollReligionists do the same thing: they bandy around words like "reality" - and "authority," "obligation," "duty" - in a philosophical and practical void and make claims totally outside of their jurisdiction.
Unless, of course, we are to believe that religionists, specifically, theists, are all fully empowered representatives of God and all non-theists are under their jurisdiction, so that if a theist comes to a non-theist's property, the non-theist has to abide by the instructions of the theist, lest the non-theist would commit an offense to God.
Not really sure what you are talking about .... much less how it is relevant to this threadDo you think that the authority of theists over non-theists is established independently of God Himself making this clear to the non-theists Himself?
errr ... okayAnd theists are like a bunch of Americans who go into a foreign country and demand that those people acknowledge and live by the US Constitution.
Given that you also have problems with persosn who promote the "real" world through the (apparent) authority of science, its pretty obvious you are just being a troll
Not really sure what you are talking about .... much less how it is relevant to this threadDo you think that the authority of theists over non-theists is established independently of God Himself making this clear to the non-theists Himself?
errr ... okay
If God is the first cause of all things,
can this first cause explain himself?
If God is the first cause of all things,
can this first cause explain himself?
No, which is why it's a fallacy.
No, which is why it's a fallacy.
If God is the first cause of all things,
can this first cause explain himself?
How can anyone understand god, with our punny human brains? If any scientists or theologian thinks they can explain this to you they are lying.
Science keeps asking this question, why would any human have the answer. Science has no answers to this to why would any other person understand.
We are inside a system, how can anything inside a system understand whats outside it. This is why science will never really answer any question, as they too will always be inside the system. Real scientists understand that.