Religious Nonsense

[Musika]

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

Can't represent supernatural reality at all, no?

Yet for some reason you can bandy around the term "supernatural" without blinking, so obviously you have some workings of mis/representation ... even if your surface is too muddy for you to see precisely what it is.

 

[Musika]

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

It also provides us with no apparent evidence for teleology either. Nature does not require nor reciprocate with your humility (assuming a bleeding ass is not what one was looking for in terms of reciprocation).

 

[Write4U]

That science would be more effective if it was immutable and/or that God would be effective if He was provisional?

"Ifs" do not change anything except confuse human understanding of "how things work"

Science being "effective if Science was immutable" ?
What exactly do you mean by that? Well, I know what you mean, but it is an incomprehensible question. The rigor for testing consistency is much harder in Science than it is in Religion.
That is the very crux of the matter.

The Theist (human) perspective and what is written about it in Scripture about what is immutable (truth) is clearly not true in many respects. A lot of it is just plain Religious Nonsense.

Nonsense in Science is called woo. Thus at least where Theist scripture is demonstrably flawed, that part may be called woo, no? Can't have that in Science.
All the parts must be true for the deterministic mathematics to be true and for the result to become predictable.

This scientific rigor allowed us to produce the Higgs boson and prove the existense of the Higgs field, a colossal discovery in the quest for knowledge of the fundamental nature of the Universe.

The OT account of Genesis is both factually and literally flawed. It meets the definition of "woo". A disqualifying consideration. When a Theist concept begins with a totally flawed premise, what then should we expect from the resulting assumptions?

Thor is dead, long live "thunder and lightning"

 

[Musika]

"Ifs" do not change anything except human understanding of "how things work"

Science being "effective" if Science was immutable" ?
What exactly do you mean by that?

You are struggling to see the pluralistic field of epistemology so I tried swapping things around.

You constantly suggest the problem with religion is that it doesn't adopt empirical standards. So I did a complete swap. If science starts to look ridiculous by adopting religious standards, its a fair cop to suggest the same absurdity flags "empirical" religion.
Kind of like square pegs poised over round holes make just as much noise as round pegs poised over square holes.

Well, I know what you mean, but it is an incomprehensible question. The rigor for testing consistency is much harder in Science than it is in Religion.

Frankly you are not in a position to compare relative merits since you can't even successfully breach even the sufficient level of inquiry to merely look at subjects of religious history, scripture, much less put together some sort of picture of the claim and the means to the claim.
And the clincher is, that you can't even control yourself to remain within the perimeter of the scientific methof. Periodically you venture into the realm of teleology, and subsequently get your ass handed to you by the scientific community.

That is the very crux of the matter.

Indeed it is, but you can't see it to save yourself.

That is the Theist perspective and what is written about it is clearly not true in many respects.
A lot of it is just Plain Nonsense.

Tiassas gone out of his way to bring you up to speed, and he's not even operating from the ramparts of "the enemy" ... yet even he is pretty much done and dusted with your willful ignorance of religion.
You even finished on that gem about not caring what scripture says, even if it happens to be about your opinions of what scripture says.

Nonsence in science is called woo.

And how many times have you publicly worn that label when you try to rigorously explain science?

 

[Write4U]

You are struggling to see the pluralistic field of epistemology so I tried swapping things around.

No I am not struggling with anything. You are.
Conditional propositions can only work with undefined values or functions. What if's is good when there are unknowns to be discovered. But an IF indicating a change in scientific rigor is unimaginable. It is contrary to the very definition of Science.
That would fall under theoretical science and any theoretical finding are subject to rigorous demand for empirical evidence.
It took 15 years for an opportunity to prove Einstein's gravitational curving of light. Since then the measurement has been repeated several times, confirming the theoretical finding.

In 3000 years what are the confirmational findings (empirical evidence) of Scripture?
There isn't any. Scripture is not a Scientific instrument.

 

[Write4U]

Yet for some reason you can bandy around the term "supernatural" without blinking

Is God a supernatural entity? If possible, please explain.
Is God an omnipotent entity? If possible please explain.
Is God a motivated sentient entity? If possible please explain.

 

[Musika]

No I am not struggling with anything. You are.
Conditional propositions can only work with undefined values or functions. What if's is good when there are unknowns to be discovered. But an IF indicating a change in scientific rigor is unimaginable. It is contrary to the very definition of Science.
That would fall under theoretical science and any theoretical finding are subject to rigorous demand for empirical evidence.
It took 15 years for an opportunity to prove Einstein's gravitational curving of light. Since then the measurement has been repeated several times, confirming the theoretical finding.

In 3000 years what are the confirmational findings (empirical evidence) of Scripture?
There isn't any. Scripture is not a Scientific instrument.

At a certain point, you have to decide whether you want to actually engage in discussion or merely earn "likes" from a guy whose critical thinking skills don't extend past posting memes.

 

[Write4U]

It also provides us with no apparent evidence for teleology either. Nature does not require nor reciprocate with your humility (assuming a bleeding ass is not what one was looking for in terms of reciprocation).

But that is the point. You don't mess with (mother) Nature, she'll spank you good if not reward you with permanent removal.

Humility is not worship, it is an introspection of knowing one's place in relation to the larger natural global forces. Respect for Nature and the Natural Order.

Nature = the potential implicate (enfolded) order expressed as the explicate (unfolded) order.

The Dynamical functions of Evolution and Natural Selection are not controllable functions. Nature messes up, you're dead. You mess up, you're dead.

Carlin said it succinctly by observing that "people build their homes next to volcanoes and then wonder why they have lava in the living room".....

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

At a certain point, you have to decide whether you want to actually engage in discussion or merely earn "likes" from a guy whose critical thinking skills don't extend past posting memes.

///
LMAO
Now you have a problem with likes.
Unlike you, we are not trying to win anything.
Go back to your playpen.

<>

 

[Write4U]

At a certain point, you have to decide whether you want to actually engage in discussion or merely earn "likes" from a guy whose critical thinking skills don't extend past posting memes.

Interesting observation. Do you realize the hubris in what you just said there?

 

[Tiassa]

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

It seems the only evidence you will accept is whatever accommodates your make-believe.

 

[Write4U]

It seems the only evidence you will accept is whatever accommodates your make-believe.

If it is evidence that I can believe in, I'll become a believer, you bet!!

 

[Capracus]

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.

The portrayal of God as man in the person of Jesus was meant to imply a material manifestation of God. Was that an example of orifice ramming by the founders of Christianity?

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.

It has nothing to do with how truth is defined, but how any definition of truth reflects actual reality.

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

Your mind and body are in a constant state of sensory analysis and verification, it’s part of every action you make, and if everyone in the world ceased doing so, it truly would be a mad situation.

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

How something is defined is always a matter of its relation to the constituents of its existence, that’s context. If something existed by itself in an unchanging reality, then you could argue for a single context. I’m not aware of any such a reality, are you?

You are struggling to see the pluralistic field of epistemology so I tried swapping things around.

And you're using the pluralistic field of epistemology as a fig leaf for an ill defined path to knowledge.

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?

But that is the goal of science, to have an immutable tenet of practice, while gods are presumed to have the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want.

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.

When you have known contextual parameters you can scientifically verify a teleological argument.

 

[iceaura]

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

Of course it does. You misrepresent the claims of science continually, for example, without affecting it in the slightest (religious nonsense category) .

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.

The bullshit "if", followed by wordfog carrying innuendo without accountability - an overt Abrahamic theist is posting on a science forum.
(Using science as a mallet? Using science as demagoguery? Representation = use? Theists on these forums display linguistic patterns and symptoms that in a healthy person would suggest a mild concussion)

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

Refutation still a bar too high, apparently.

 

[Tiassa]

If it is evidence that I can believe in, I'll become a believer, you bet!!

And that's why you're a religious zealot.

So keep screaming about "religion", bigot. You're just like the strawfolk you screech against.

• • •​

(Using science as a mallet? Using science as demagoguery? Representation = use? Theists on these forums display linguistic patterns and symptoms that in a healthy person would suggest a mild concussion)

This coming from an atheist who didn't know Torcaso? Atheists on these forums display clueless hatred that a healthy person would describe as open bigotry.

 

[Musika]

The portrayal of God as man in the person of Jesus was meant to imply a material manifestation of God. Was that an example of orifice ramming by the founders of Christianity?

Well, that was a change of subject as subtle as a tv news helicopter crashing into an orphanage, but ok, let's go with the flow.

To begin, the danger with desiring to only develop a superficial understanding of things so one can crack fart jokes is that one only develops a superficial understanding of things so one can crack fart jokes.

Granting you the greatest charity, I guess we can assume you have issues with Tertullian. Does that make you a supporter of Praxeas? Arius perhaps? Which founders are you talking about exactly?

And a "material manifestation of God"? ... gee ...

Oh forget it. Here, pull my finger(link) ... (...haw haw).

It has nothing to do with how truth is defined, but how any definition of truth reflects actual reality.

You are correct.
It has to do with how knowledge is defined, hence the specific and repeated use of the word "epistemology".

Your mind and body are in a constant state of sensory analysis and verification, it’s part of every action you make, and if everyone in the world ceased doing so, it truly would be a mad situation.

Haven't we been over all this before?
Correct philosophy is about bringing the right epistemology to the right problem.
It is not a pissing contest or one-size-fits-all thing .... although a devout square peg basher may struggle on this point.

How something is defined is always a matter of its relation to the constituents of its existence, that’s context. If something existed by itself in an unchanging reality, then you could argue for a single context.

Then it becomes a question of who is doing the defining. Who is perceiving the relationships between things.
I just go to the doctors, see the needles, the machines that go "beep" and a few funny charts.

I’m not aware of any such a reality, are you?

If you are not aware, why ask q's that cannot possibly deliver a meaningful answer to you?

"Hey doc, this machine that goes beep, are you sure it works? What does it do anyway?"

Assuming the doctor is qualified and working with your best interests at heart, what position are you in to respond in any critical manner?

And you're using the pluralistic field of epistemology as a fig leaf for an ill defined path to knowledge.

Perhaps I could begin to take that statement seriously if you first displayed an understanding of basic epistemology.

But that is the goal of science, to have an immutable tenet of practice, while gods are presumed to have the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want.

Interesting.
What part of science do you think should not be subject to change?

When you have known contextual parameters you can scientifically verify a teleological argument.

Sure.
That explains why all such scientific (?) teleological arguments begin and end at the arbitrary position of "human".

 

[Musika]

No I am not struggling with anything. You are.
Conditional propositions can only work with undefined values or functions. What if's is good when there are unknowns to be discovered. But an IF indicating a change in scientific rigor is unimaginable.

That was the whole purpose of that exercise.
The reason I threw that "if" into science was so the noise of the round peg smashing the square hole might bring to your attention that the square peg smashing into the round hole (the "if" you insist on bringing to religion) is making a similar racket.

In 3000 years what are the confirmational findings (empirical evidence) of Scripture?

Sorry I can't hear you over that racket?
What were those immutable findings within science you were talking about?

There isn't any. Scripture is not a Scientific instrument.

Sure.
The problem is that you expect it to be one.

 

[Musika]

Is God a supernatural entity? If possible, please explain.
Is God an omnipotent entity? If possible please explain.
Is God a motivated sentient entity? If possible please explain.

Doing aside with the obvious issue of terming God "supernatural" (namely, which party owns that language use), your qs look like this :

Can the supernatural, the omnipotent or the sentience of God be explained evidenced empirically?
Well of course not, that would be impossible.
("Sorry, can you please repeat that answer again? I can't hear you above the noise of that square peg you are trying to bash into a circular hole!")

 

[Musika]

But that is the point. You don't mess with (mother) Nature, she'll spank you good if not reward you with permanent removal.

Thats a tautology. We can not "not mess" with nature, by definition. Determining the pros and cons of our "messing" by assessing the state of our backside is simply an assessment of the state of our backside.

Humility is not worship, it is an introspection of knowing one's place in relation to the larger natural global forces.

Incorrect.
By your own admission, the introspection and knowledge of relationship only goes as far as one's backside.

Respect for Nature and the Natural Order.

You mean to say respect for ones backside,

Carlin said it succinctly by observing that "people build their homes next to volcanoes and then wonder why they have lava in the living room".....

Once again, you never leave the arbitrary human sense of value.

 

[Write4U]

And that's why you're a religious zealot.

So keep screaming about "religion", bigot. You're just like the strawfolk you screech against.

No, Im screaming against the notion of a straw god that makes gullible people do unspeakable things.

Zealotry in the practice of prejudice and religious exclusivity is a bad thing.

• • •​

This coming from an atheist who didn't know Torcaso? Atheists on these forums display clueless hatred that a healthy person would describe as open bigotry.

The only open hatred I have encountered in my life was from religious zealots. As an 8 year old I used to run to avoid being beaten, by a bunch of 14 year olds. No longer, today I stand my ground and if you can't take the heat , leave the kitchen. I didn't start this thread which suggests "Religious Nonsense". Why do you not accuse that poster with zealotry?

If I zealously defend the atheists perspective in my own unique way way, it is only in response to the religious zealotry directed at me. As is my right, which you now seek to take away from me.

Zealotry in defense of truth is an good thing.

Who are you? God? Methinks your are displaying too zealous a defense of those poor religious sheeple. Well, you are innocent and naive. Religous people are dangerous.

They'll kill you for your beliefs if they differ from their's. That's bad zealotry, don't you agree?