Religious Nonsense

[Write4U]

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

Why do you demand I explain my demand of someone else to you? Is he your boss?

 

[Tiassa]

No I want the theist to make the theistic argument.

Okay, but that's a separate issue from what you're demanding.

Nonetheless, that just brings us right back to your cheap vendetta.

Why do you demand I explain my demand of someone else to you? Is he your boss?

#startmakingsense

Seriously, though, what is the reason you are unable to follow your own posts?

We're, what, about a hundred ninety posts, ten pages later↑?

How about, stuff your troll job. Or would you prefer: Maybe next time you should just stay out of other people's discussions if you're incapable of keeping up even with your own self.

To the other—

I don't care what it says.

—since you've already made your position on evidence clear, it would seem the question of competence is independent of will, so, yeah, y'know, whatever the reason you can't follow your own posts, you're still putting on a troll job.

 

[Musika]

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.

I think that's a gross over simplification of contemporary society's infatuation with industrial economics.

For a start, other non-christian communities appear just as or even more competitive in the field of trashing the planet.
You could argue that this "earth trashing" model of economic development first appeared in predominantly christian countries, but the fact that it got exported, sans christianity, to other places shows its not an inherent "christian thing".
Or even if you want to argue it is just a local slant of "christian earth ecology politic" (or perhaps an illuminati conspiracy to pull the strings of the world from hidden enclaves) , to engineer the planet's demise to herald the rapture, one would have to question why they are so inefficient at it. If they really want to fast track the demise of the planet, more than one of us could offer them a few tips on how to do it better.

In short, these are the sort of poorly thought out arguments posed by atheists that make it look like they are more interested in scoring brownie points rather than bringing forth any legitimate criticism that can actually benefit the world.

 

[Musika]

As they would off you. If they even deigned to talk to you.

First I would have to deign to discuss teleology in a forum dedicated to the rigorous science.

Theism is not Science.

Neither is teleology.
This is what you don't understand (Hence your opting in for "bastardizing science").

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

Until you reach the point of bastardizing it by moving into topics of teleology ... at which point people mercilessly tear you to pieces.

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

(And here you are again, demanding others make your arguments for you ...)

I've been pretty clear at the onset, citing the standards of science to establish (or deride) something to which science has no access is a fool's errand.

If you think it can, that's your problem. I don't own the stupid.

 

[Write4U]

—since you've already made your position on evidence clear, it would seem the question of competence is independent of will, so, yeah, y'know, whatever the reason you can't follow your own posts, you're still putting on a troll job.

What evidence? A Human construct of a metaphysical concept? Writing something does not make it automatically empirically true.

By definition, theology does not use expressions of Natural Laws as evidence. Theism proposes that a motivated supernatural sentience is the creative force.

If this is not correct, then please state the theist view of the theistic functions according to the evidence.

 

[Write4U]

I've been pretty clear at the onset, citing the standards of science to establish (or deride) something to which science has no access is a fool's errand.

If you think you can fool me with empty promises and useless words which cannot be scientifically verified, then you are wrong.
That's the clientele of snake-oil salesmen.

If you think it can, that's your problem. I don't own the stupid

That's the problem, if science cannot account for your unsupported beliefs in snake-oil salesmen, you do own the stupid.

 

[Musika]

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

I'm implying your notions of evidencing God is stupid. If you want them presented, you will probably have to do something other than smirk at the impossibility of ramming square pegs into round holes, even though they appear to fit nicely in square holes.

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

Well actually, "to what degree?" is an epistemological issue. If, epistemologically speaking, you insist on having a family tree that takes on the appearance of a flag pole due to inbreeding, you are hamstrunged by anything other than square holes.

To varying degrees they do, consciously and unconsciously.

Well, the world is not completely mad (yet), so I would disagree.

To know is always a relative term,

Yeah, relative to "what"?
That's my point.
One can be totally ignorant of medicine, pharmacy, etc, yet such a person can get the benefits of all these fields of knowledge if they position themselves "relative" to a qualified medical practitioner.

it’s always a matter of detail and context.

And that's the problem.
You demand there is only one context, hence you are provided with a scarcity of details

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.

And, so what is the method of enlisting its use?
What knowledge does a sick person require to have in order to benefit from a doctor?

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.

That doesn't appear to be the obvious turn of events. To say the least, in all the one star google reviews of medical clinics I have read, nobody seems to mention these things. A far more dominant trend seems to present itself.

 

[Musika]

If you think you can fool me with empty promises and useless words which cannot be scientifically verified, then you are wrong.

If you think you can "scientifically" verify teleological arguments, you will constantly get your ass handed to you by people even remotely familiar with the rigours of science.

Your zeal for martyrdom at the hands of "bleeding ass rhetoric" is your problem. You own it.

 

[iceaura]

I'm implying your notions of evidencing God is stupid

You are the one attempting to compare as equivalent fields of knowledge or scientific expertise and Abrahamic theistic religion. The description of that as "stupid" is also yours.

One can be totally ignorant of medicine, pharmacy, etc, yet such a person can get the benefits of all these fields of knowledge if they position themselves "relative" to a qualified medical practitioner.

There is no field of knowledge involved in specifically theistic religion.

"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."
I think that's a gross over simplification of contemporary society's infatuation with industrial economics.

But it is not a gross oversimplification of the currently dominant and explicitly religious - Abrahamic theistic religion - justifications for US government policy and environmental regulation.

 

[Musika]

There is no field of knowledge involved in specifically theistic religion.
But it is not a gross oversimplification of the currently dominant and explicitly religious - Abrahamic theistic religion - justifications for US government policy and environmental regulation.

So I guess that makes it the "illuminati model" IYHO, eh?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

 

[Musika]

so the question really is: did you mean it as misrepresentations of people using science, or that science itself misrepresents?

This was the quote :

Or for that matter, what do you call the (mis?)represenration of science that goes around condemning any other belief, etc?

If its open to the former, its open to the latter.
Science doesn't exist independently from the persons charged with (mis)representing its claims.

I did state in that post that "a person may well do this, using science, but that is a completely different argument"

If they are "using" science they are (mis)representing it. Hence the query about using it the Dawkinesque (or some other) manner as a sort of demagogic mallet.

are you asking about now or in the future?

Usually people don't assume to rely on a person's clairvoyance ....especially in the midst of a discussion about the proper representation of science distinguished from the misrepresentation of science .... so it seems strange that you would suddenly ask.

for the now: no,

And that's probably just as well. We may like to eat tomorrow's donuts today, but it just doesn't seem feasible.

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

Yes, the hard-ons certain people have for post dated cheques written in the name of empiricism is certainly a "thing" (despite the notion of "believing what empiricism can do" being obviously calamitous to the discipline)

in the future: the answer will depend on if we can survive,

It is no coincidence that the future of eating donuts also faces the same constraints.

really, but there isn't a limit to science if science is defined as noted

Given that humans operate, in the universal picture, of being unlimitedly limited, it appears that there really is a limit.
I mean emptying the pacific ocean with a thimble is also an "unlimited" pursuit, but its precisely the limited means it employs that makes it so (outside, of course, of the before mentioned death of humanity).

a person believes that it can when?

At the present, one would assume,. Beliefs about things on the strength of "future knowledge" is primarily something empiricism sets out to discard, not empower.
I mean we wouldn't want to go around misrepresenting science, would we?

 

[Tiassa]

What evidence? A Human construct of a metaphysical concept? Writing something does not make it automatically empirically true.

You made a claim. You were shown the doctrinal evidence disagreeing. You said you didn't care what the evidence said.

 

[Write4U]

You made a claim. You were shown the doctrinal evidence disagreeing. You said you didn't care what the evidence said.

Because words (doctrinal evidence) are not evidence, other than expressed beliefs.
I prefer to see evidence.

 

[Write4U]

Science doesn't exist independently from the persons charged with (mis)representing its claims.

Science does not exist in the absence of evidence. When are you going to learn that?
The earth is no longer the center of the solar system. That science was replaced with evidence showing the sun is the center of the Solar system. Hence the name.

 

[Musika]

Science does not exist in the absence of evidence. When are you going to learn that?
The earth is no longer the center of the solar system. That science was replaced with evidence showing the sun is the center of the Solar system. Hence the name.

And, funnily enough, one can trace all these presentations of evidence to individuals and their involvement in events, developments, etc.
Did you have a point?

 

[Write4U]

At the present, one would assume,. Beliefs about things on the strength of "future knowledge" is primarily something empiricism sets out to discard, not empower.
I mean we wouldn't want to go around misrepresenting science, would we?

I agree.....
We would not want to misrepresent reality either.....

Can't represent supernatural reality at all, no?

 

[Write4U]

And, funnily enough, one can trace all these presentations of evidence to individuals and their involvement in events, developments, etc.
Did you have a point?

Science is the discipline with humility. Point is that science is always provisional, whereas religion is presented as divine and unchangeable ultimate Truth. That's hubris and an evidentiary misrepresentation of Knowledge of reality.

 

[Musika]

Science is the disciple with humility.

Humility before what?
The disciple of who?

Point is that science is always provisional, whereas religion is presented as divine and unchangeable ultimate Truth.

And?
You don't think it would be silly to think otherwise?
That science would be more effective if it was immutable and/or that God would be effective if He was provisional?

That's hubris and a misrepresentation of Knowledge.

You're not making sense, although I suspect that we are back at the point of atheistic delight in smashing square pegs into round holes.

 

[Write4U]

Humility before what?

Humility in our relationship to Nature. Nature provides, no evidence that a god does.