Religious Nonsense

[Musika]

That's the problem with theism. Nature is no longer used as the teacher. The bees and the flowers don't give a damn about you. If you do not respect the moral example of this symbiotic relationship, you will eventually learn by its physical impact on the natural environment.

This misplaced trust that "God will provide", may become the death of us all.

I see your point.
If only theism had clear historical connections in trying to understand something like "The Book of Nature", then there would be some scope for it to move beyond the suicidal trajectory of industrial economic development gone mad. Perhaps we need to follow the example of China, which is leading the way in ..... oops! Hang on?

 

[Musika]

Actually it is not. It is a natural law, a cosmic constant.

Greed is an extreme expression of the principle of "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction" and is foundation of the 7 deadly sins, each sin being an extreme example of "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction".

Maybe you should term these ideas of yours as "superdupernatural" just to avoid the pitfalls that otherwise befalls ideas of mere "supernatural" origin.

 

[Write4U]

Arh I see where you are mistaken

God will provide you mistakenly thought food or good life

What is going to be provided is death

And death is non discriminating, everybody gets a equal measure

Hence the term "equality under natural law", i.e. no one is exempt from death....

Ooops, there is one blessed immortal species; the "immortal jellyfish"

The good news is that you can be immortal. The bad news is that you have to become a floating blob of jelly to do so. Scientists have discovered a jellyfish which can live forever.

Turritopsis dohrnii is now officially known as the only immortal creature on earth.

https://immortal-jellyfish.com/

Praise be the Immortal Jellyfish!!!

 

[Write4U]

Maybe you should term these ideas of yours as "superdupernatural" just to avoid the pitfalls that otherwise befalls ideas of mere "supernatural" origin.

No, "natural" is quite sufficient to identify universal constants. They are based on the mathematical values and functions employed by nature during its physical expression of cosmic potentials.

 

[Michael 345]

Hence the term "equality under natural law", i.e. no one is exempt from death....

Ooops, there is one blessed immortal species; the "immortal jellyfish"

https://immortal-jellyfish.com/

Praise be the Immortal Jellyfish!!!

Did I miss the book and movie where a jellyfish got nailed up on a cross?

 

[Musika]

No, "natural" is quite sufficient to identify universal constants. They are based on the mathematical values and functions employed by nature during its physical expression of cosmic potentials.

Sure.
Its just when you start to get to a certain point (such as extrapolating from a human condition to a condition of the universe), you have to decide whether to take the plunge and become teleological and/or, bastardize science.

 

[Write4U]

I see your point.
If only theism had clear historical connections in trying to understand something like "The Book of Nature", then there would be some scope for it to move beyond the suicidal trajectory of industrial economic development gone mad. Perhaps we need to follow the example of China, which is leading the way in ..... oops! Hang on?

Yeahh......indeed..... never underestimate the Chinese, they had millenia of scientific and technical advances, long before the industrial revolution.
But their very isolation resulted in stagnant leadership, mired in the old ways, as is the case today with theocracies.

 

[Write4U]

Did I miss the book and movie where a jellyfish got nailed up on a cross?

It was recorded and made available for popular perusement, but it was a commercial flop.
The problem was that the live jellyfish just slipped from the nails , repaired the damage and went merrily on its way, without saying goodbye or anything.

 

[Michael 345]

But their very isolation resulted in stagnant leadership, mired in the old ways, as is the case today with theocracies.

Why go to all the trouble of being a leader in technology when you can let others do most of the running and when the end is in sight, gain access and work towards improvements?

Overtaking in the last 1%

 

[Musika]

Yeahh......indeed..... never underestimate the Chinese, they had millenia of scientific and technical advances, long before the industrial revolution.
But their very isolation resulted in stagnant leadership, mired in the old ways, as is the case today with theocracies.

You also missed a 2nd detour, amongst all that ...

 

[Write4U]

Sure.
Its just when you start to get to a certain point (such as extrapolating from a human condition to a condition of the universe), you have to decide whether to take the plunge and become teleological and/or, bastardize science.

I disagree. The same universal laws hold for everything within the universe. That's why they are named 'constants", but it's by no means assigning any kind of super-naturalism to the constant.
The universe is a "self-ordering system". Everything in it is an expression of these self-ordering constants, with a sprinkle of probability thrown into the mix. I'm almost sure that mutations happen on a fairly regular basis, branching a new timeline on the family tree, which is the common denominator of all living things on earth.

I do hold an open mind to the possibility that there were more than one genesis events, each possibly establishing their own family tree time-line

 

[Write4U]

You also missed a 2nd detour, amongst all that ...

There were many, I'm sure. Which specifically do you have in mind? Let me guess. Atheism!!!

But that would be a wrong association as atheism has nothing to do with science or technological advancement. You cannot credit or blame atheism for any technological advances.
And when you need to feed several billion people, you concentrate first on agriculture.

The result and success of this strategy is just now becoming apparent. Been to China lately?
They are still primarily atheistic, so their industrial advancement cannot be credited or blamed on theism either.

You see, the Chinese are used to think in terms of centuries, whereas we don't have the time to make ourselves a hot-dog. We want instant gratification, both physical and spiritual.

We exercise the freedom for the extreme expression of the cosmic imperative of "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction" (Greed) frequently and everywhere.
China exercised extreme restraint in spending to build the modern society we see today. Apparently did not need divine commands. They just curbed Greed in their population.

 

[Musika]

There were many, I'm sure. Which specifically do you have in mind? Let me guess. Atheism!!!

Close, I guess, but no.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Nature

 

[Write4U]

Is that why my fanged girlfriend left.

Thought she was just like the other girls and garlic breath put her off

Now you tell me she had a extra reason

Perhaps you were lucky. Garlic is a divine onion, don't you know?
It clears any area of bad spirits by replacing it with bad breath.

While there is still wild garlic in the wild, the domesticated garlic is no longer able to reproduce by itself and needs human assistance for reproduction. That's how long we have "believed" in the magical properties of Garlic and cultivated it domestically.

 

[Musika]

I disagree. The same universal laws hold for everything within the universe. That's why they are named 'constants", but it's by no means assigning any kind of super-naturalism to the constant.
The universe is a "self-ordering system". Everything in it is an expression of these self-ordering constants, with a sprinkle of probability thrown into the mix. I'm almost sure that mutations happen on a fairly regular basis, branching a new timeline on the family tree, which is the common denominator of all living things on earth.

I do hold an open mind to the possibility that there were more than one genesis events, each possibly establishing their own family tree time-line

Taking the human experience of "greed" and tying that in to a universal construct beyond "human" requires either a teleological argument and/or a bastardized form of science. Given your unabashed foray into science by way of clarification, I think it's safe to vouch you are hedging your bets on an unadulterated expression of the latter.

Even in biology (ie the study of living stuff on our planet) you are liable to get a rap over the knuckles if you try this shit.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2948194/

Its ironic that a thread that aims to trouble religion with nonsense inevitably ends up as a glass cabinet display of (so called) science with nonsense.

 

[Write4U]

Close, I guess, but no.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Nature

Thanks for the link, very interesting.

I do feel that the introduction of the concept of a god in that model of Nature of the Universe makes it unneccessarily complicated.

The Nature of Nature is defined, the Nature of God is undefined.
The Nature of Nature suggests a mathematical consistency (the defining aspect).
The Nature of God has no physical impact on Natural expressione (no defining aspects)
Therefore Theism cannot claim to be a required aspect of Natural expression, IMO.

I prefer simplicity over mystery.

 

[Write4U]

Even in biology (ie the study of living stuff on our planet) you are liable to get a rap over the knuckles if you try this shit.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2948194/

Lol, I see what you mean, but setting all judgement aside and looking at this from a purely mathematical perspective, there is no one lesser cause than another.
In mathematics a 1 is just as numerically valid as the number 100. There is no rap on anyone's knuckles. This is getting down to the nitty gritty of knowledge of the universe. If you can understand it at its smallest scale, you can understand it at any scale.

 

[Tiassa]

That is a misleading and fatally flawed statement. I demand no such thing.

Seriously, this many posts later, the least you could do is be honest: "... then you explain the theist's 'rational justification of these human values'?" (#215↑)

Stop lying.

Or is there a reason you can't keep track of your own posts? No, really. That was #215. Now, are you ready? You also took a second swing at it, in #216↑, explaining, "I consider that tactic as part of the world of Religious Nonsense." Then in #260↑, you tried, "Remind me again why atheists should have a rational justification of a theistic argument also known as 'Religious Nonsense'?" When asked when I made that demand, you responded in #264↑, that you were just echoing my question, that you "countered with the same question from an atheist perspective". When told that was pointless, you asked in #270↑, "And it was meaningful for you to pose the opposite question?" So it is explained again, and you ask, in #275↑, "And what does that have to do with me? .... And what do someone else's words have to do with me?" Presented with the logic—

In the case of religious community moral assertions, we can argue the lack of rational foundation all we want, but the counterpoint, the rational alternative, would ostensibly have a rational justification. Inquiring as to the rational justification of the rational alternative is functional. Demanding the theist write the rational justification of the rational alternative, just for the sake of having "countered with the same question from an atheist perspective", is nothing more than demanding the theist write the atheist's argument for the sake of being disruptive.

(#328↑)​

—you seem to have run out of prevarications, and now simply deny you ever said it: "That is a misleading and fatally flawed statement. I demand no such thing."

†​

As to the rest:

I demand that the theist write a rational justification for using the name God as that rational alternative. I don't find that rational at all. In fact I find that highly irrational, in view of the flawed scriptural evidence and no physical evidence at all for an extra-dimensional God.

Actually making sense might help.

Somehow we have come to believe that God wrote the bible.

Somehow? As if there is a mystery?

Oh, right. It's you.

That is utterly false, all three Abrahamic scriptures were written by men. The three scriptures abound with inconsistencies, assumptions and outright misrepresentation, which is completely understandable.

No, really, this isn't exactly news. And there are at least four, not counting Apocrypha.

The scribes all heard God say the same thing but in a slightly different accent, and here we are 3000 years later and we still have not managed to combine all religions into a single consensus religion. Isn't that odd? You know why?

And centuries apart. No, it's not really odd that they haven't. It has to do with socioeconomics, cultural history pertaining to revelation of Scripture, and political empowerment.

Because each religion claims exclusive rights to teach the ways of the true God.

That's actually false. See Qur'an, Al-Imran (3.64-71)↱, Al-Ankabut (29.46)↱)

 

[Write4U]

Taking the human experience of "greed" and tying that in to a universal construct beyond "human" requires either a teleological argument and/or a bastardized form of science. Given your unabashed foray into science by way of clarification, I think it's safe to vouch you are hedging your bets on an unadulterated expression of the latter.

I dare anyone to improve on my example of extreme expression of a cosmic imperative of "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction".

This is not necessarily an abstract emotional state, it can be purely physical as in chemistry . Taking this Universal concept to its extreme form in the human experience it gets you into the human expression of the same principle identified as "Greed".

The principle applies to all chemically induced emotions seeking greatest satisfaction (an effective survival technique), such as with production of natural endorphins and pheromones for reproduction.

 

[Write4U]

That's actually false. See Qur'an, Al-Imran (3.64-71)↱, Al-Ankabut (29.46)↱)

I don't care what it says. The question is rather;
"Why are the Sunni and Shia still at war after centuries of opportunity to make divine peace". Seems like a long time to figure it out peacefully. Exclusivity.

You see, I find it odd that I never had to ask that of an atheist. "Hey , why have you not waged religious war at all with other atheists for so long?" "Oohhh.. No compelling reason to wage religious war on?............ Cool......".....