Religious Nonsense

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

 

[Write4U]

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.

. Well, in the name of discovering truth it is perfectly civil to ask for the other's perspective, after having made my own subjective (attempting to be objective) perspective. If there is any commonality to be found on which to come to an acceptable generic explanation, a moment of mutual enlightenment.
A peace offering, if you will.

In an honest exchange, both sides should make their position as clear as possible. No hidden assumptions, no distractions. Only then can clear understanding take place and a new language of the cosmic force will be invented to the delight of both sides....a state of greatest common satisfaction. A moral victory on both sides....symbiosis ....Yessssss....

 

[Michael 345]

No compelling reason to wage religious war on?

The one biggie atheist can wage war on

"I disbelieve many more gods than you"

"Oh ya. Well the gods I disbelieve in have been around longer than your piss weak newbies"

"Well my piss weak newbies have upgraded weapons from sticks and stones and can kill in larger numbers"

Let the atheist wars begin

 

[Write4U]

The one biggie atheist can wage war on

"I disbelieve many more gods than you"

"Oh ya. Well the gods I disbelieve in have been around longer than your piss weak newbies"

"Well my piss weak newbies have upgraded weapons from sticks and stones and can kill in larger numbers"

Let the atheist wars begin

They'll pick a deserted back alley, pull out their cocks and have a pissing contest right there and then. Dispute settled...both relieved its over.....emotionally and physically....

 

[Michael 345]

They'll pick a deserted back alley, pull out their cocks and have a pissing contest right there and then. Dispute settled...both relieved its over.....emotionally and physically....

Oh if only was that easy

As soon as they agree on which gods are disbelieved in and how many the war changes

Round head or Cavelier?

Thickness or Length?

Raincoat with or without bumps?

What colour?

 

[Capracus]

Only to the degree I am responsible for introducing the notion of God.
If you or others want to run around with square pegs you achieve nothing by pointing at round holes in atheistic delight at the impossiibility at the task you have set before yourself, I don't own that.

Are you implying that your notions of gods are stupid? Why not present them so we can decide for ourselves?

.... So if you think its a case of the truth being the truth because of the truth ....etc etc

Truth is what reality allows us to perceive as truth. To what degree it approximates actual reality beyond our hamstrung capabilities, nobody knows.

To say the least, the world would be extremely dysfunctional if for some mad reason everyone decided to rigorously apply your standard for knowledge.

To varying degrees they do, consciously and unconsciously.

To be fair, you offer some reprieve from global madness with your bit in bold.

And to be fair again, it appears you are just playing with the semantics of knowledge. Does "to know" require the need to control (absolutely or fully) or the need "to apply" .. or perhaps even a mix of both (which would reduce the "control" factor down a substantial notch or two)?

To know is always a relative term, it’s always a matter of detail and context.

If a qualified doctor asks us to take a tablet, in order "to know" in that situation, do we have to develop a knowledge base over probably a dozen vocational fields (to know not only the field of medical practioning, but the field of pharmacy, chemistry, etc to personally verify and test everything is what they say it is and does what they say it does, from the Dr.s advice to the tablet etc etc that all above board?) ... or simply that all the said parties involved in delivering the goods are working with my best interests at heart?

There is both collective and personal knowledge, the former obviously being more valuable since it also possesses the latter. An individual need not possess knowledge to benefit from it, but they may need the knowledge of how to enlist its use.

Or to put it another way, if a lay person is complaining about some shortcoming about being at the receiving end of a medical service, what, more often than not, does the complainant generally field as the solution for nipping the problem in the bud?

Well obviously first is a visit to a faith healer to correct the misapplication knowledge by the medical personnel, and then to an attorney to launch an empirical investigation of the system that is responsible for the alleged harm.

You're being too dualistic on this point. "Empiricism only allows us to know what we know": True. "There is no evidence that we possess faculties that allow us to aquire knowledge by any other means": True.

Now, then—

• "We have the capacity to engage in speculation based on our empirically acquired knowledge, but that isn't in itself knowledge until it's empirically validated."
—this part also has another appication relevant to where Musika is going. Empiricism applied can still be faulty despite being validated. Empiricism is human.

Of course the human application of empiricism is at risk of practical fault, but that can be said of any human endeavor. That’s why scientifically, notions of truth are continually challenged, and the reason for doctrinal change in institutions, religion included. The kicker is that the method of finding the fault in the application of empiricism, is the application of empiricism.

Empiricism, faulty as it may be in practice, is the only method reality gives us to validate knowledge as we define it.

 

[Michael 345]

China

Ug me thinks god Thor angry but I don't KNOW why

How can I KNOW why he angry. He never tell me anything

 

[Write4U]

Oh if only was that easy

As soon as they agree on which gods are disbelieved in and how many the war changes

Round head or Cavelier?

Thickness or Length?

Raincoat with or without bumps?

What colour?

Shudders.....

 

[Musika]

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

You've tried that in several other threads here, and in the company of persons who hold you to a more rigorous scientific standard. They tear shreds off you.

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 further you move into science (which occurs when people start to challenge the "science" behind your claim), the further you move away from "greed".
The further you move to define greed in a manner reconciable with our human experience (which happens when people challenge you that your words about chemicals, etc being representative of greed), the further you move away from science.
And that is just on the human level.
Take it to the position of "life" , or even further to matter and energy, or even further to the universe as a constant, and your problems drastically multiply at each increment.
Fair enough if you just want to say "I have this idea about the possible state of things", but if you try to ply it as some cornerstone tenet of scientific thought, even laymen will call your bluff in less than 10 seconds.

 

[Tiassa]

Ug me thinks god Thor angry but I don't KNOW why

How can I KNOW why he angry. He never tell me anything

Quite clearly, it's because you aren't smart enough to understand if he bothered to say anything.

 

[Michael 345]

Quite clearly, it's because you aren't smart enough to understand if he bothered to say anything.

I'm thinking he is making so much noise with the thunder I wouldn't hear if he was saying anything anyway

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Well, Musika asked about a representation or misrepresentation of science, and you pared that down to "science" in order to post an offensively pedantic evasion. Was that sleight intentional?

more likely miscommunication as to intent or meaning on my part or his
I took it to be targeting science, not those who use science, and the post can be interpreted both ways

if it was intended to mean misrepresentations of those who use science then I will gladly apologize to Musika for the misunderstanding

it wasn't a sleight, nor was it an offensively pedantic evasion, nor was it meant as either despite your intimation, so I won't apologize to you for anything

I'm not the one you have to convince.

so the question really is: did you mean it as misrepresentations of people using science, or that science itself misrepresents?
I did state in that post that "a person may well do this, using science, but that is a completely different argument"

At the risk of jumping the gun, can science provide a complete enough empirical evidenced model of the universe to necessarily exclude/deny an omnimax God?

are you asking about now or in the future?
for the now: no, however, there is a strong circumstantial case using existing empirical evidence, especially that espoused by the religious as being the holy word of the omnimax abrahamic deity

in the future: the answer will depend on if we can survive, really, but there isn't a limit to science if science is defined as noted

And if science cannot do that, what do you call it when persons believe that it can?

a person believes that it can when?

Praise be the Immortal Jellyfish!!!

I bet being immortal sucks when they're eaten though ...

Of course the human application of empiricism is at risk of practical fault, but that can be said of any human endeavor. That’s why scientifically, notions of truth are continually challenged, and the reason for doctrinal change in institutions, religion included. The kicker is that the method of finding the fault in the application of empiricism, is the application of empiricism.

Empiricism, faulty as it may be in practice, is the only method reality gives us to validate knowledge as we define it.

can I hear an AMEN to that?
sorry, I just couldn't help myself considering the discussion...

 

[spidergoat]

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?

If people think all of creation including the Earth's resources was put here just for them, for temporary occupation until the rapture, they will change the climate like there's no tomorrow. Which is what they do. Science is pointing out the dangers of industry. The religious feel entitled to pollute.

 

[Write4U]

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'?"

Are these rational justifications different in theists and atheists?
Even if Scripture is held as the word of God, as a moral foundation, who invented the actual moral demand and symbolic coding?

Everything is defined by human history and human action. Any claimed active involvement of God is made up by human minds. Humans invented God and declared it a victory.
Yeah, "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction".

OK, that is my atheist rational justification for claiming that morals are natural (including human) inventions. Humans, theist or atheist alike. Humans symbolically codified the tenets in religious Scripture as well as in secular Philosophy.

NOW, "explain the theist rational justification of these human values". Fair enough?

 

[Write4U]

If people think all of creation including the Earth's resources was put here just for them, for temporary occupation until the rapture, they will change the climate like there's no tomorrow. Which is what they do. Science is pointing out the dangers of industry. The religious feel entitled to pollute.

Yes, when you worship a god other than Nature, one tends to lose respect for Nature. The true God (if you want to get metaphysical), is known as Nature, which is an implacable continuity wherein the human existence is no more than a speck of dust with some bacteria running around.

 

[Write4U]

You've tried that in several other threads here, and in the company of persons who hold you to a more rigorous scientific standard. They tear shreds off you.

As they would off you. If they even deigned to talk to you. Theism is not Science.

I can defend my position on general scientific ground, even as I use a more philosophical mathematical approach than pure physical mathematical approach.

Sorry to say, you can't.......

 

[iceaura]

Or to put it another way, if a lay person is complaining about some shortcoming about being at the receiving end of a medical service, what, more often than not, does the complainant generally field as the solution for nipping the problem in the bud?

No matter how deeply you bury your accountability in the wordfog, you are visibly attempting to claim the status of scientific expertise - actual knowledge as backed by performed research and validated findings and verified discovery and theoretical framework and repeated, repeatable experience - for Abrahamic theology. As if there were recognizable and knowledgable human experts in a definable, knowable, nameable, intersubjectively verifiable, existing, Abrahamic God.

And that is nonsense.

 

[Write4U]

No matter how deeply you bury your accountability in the wordfog, you are visibly attempting to claim the status of scientific expertise - actual knowledge as backed by performed research and validated findings and verified discovery and theoretical framework and repeated, repeatable experience - for Abrahamic theology. As if there were recognizable and knowledgable human experts in a definable, knowable, nameable, intersubjectively verifiable, existing, Abrahamic God.

And that is nonsense.

One remarkable and important adjustment of a fundamental aspect to the Universe made by theism is the acknowledgement by two Catholic Popes that the concept of Darwinian
(creative) evolution is factually proven.

Think of the implications of that scientific fact to several fundamental tenets in theism....

The more Science knows the more God just keeps shrinking.

 

[Tiassa]

NOW, "explain the theist rational justification of these human values". Fair enough?

Again, why do you demand the theist make the atheistic argument?

 

[Write4U]

Again, why do you demand the theist make the atheistic argument?

No I want the theist to make the theistic argument.
Else how would I know what he thinks?