Religious Nonsense

My bad.
I assumed you were reading stuff you were responding to.
Just forget it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Very self effacing, to say the least.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You'd probably be better off just saying what you have to say.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A very important point, IMO.
Such willingness to be corrected and learn is never found on a religious forum.
"Repeat after me, blah, blah, blah....praise the Lord". Ecstasy is sure to follow......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I agree, which is why I say it's a difficult enterprise. But you can't solve it with religion, since even if I grant for the sake of argument that God exists, you don't know that the basis for his decisions is the good of humanity. You only assume so. That's not a moral method, that's giving up one's moral agency to an arbitrary authority.

And you can't prove he exists.

 

You forgot, already?

See #296↑ above, that Musika asked about a representation or misrepresentation of science, and TCS pared that down to "science" in order to post an offensively pedantic evasion.

 

And a good thing it is so. I'd hate to have to experience the alternative. I already did in real life.

Is that the point you were making? How is that useful to the discussion?

 

So "religion" declared "vendetta" on your atheistic response to religion before either you or your atheistic response to religion existed?

I remember one time, when we were kids, my brother was so mad at my mother that instead of asking why I wasn't being punished, he demanded, "Why aren't you getting him in trouble?" And, sure, he was nine and pissed off, but even at eight years old I could recognize he was using a different form of "getting him in trouble", that he was so angry he couldn't speak straight.

Thing is, there are multiple answers; the difference depends on what you mean.

• There is a question of which religions, such that any one that fails to declare apostates the enemy is sufficient to refute your assertion. I would be interested to learn the formal variations of Wiccan denunciation of apostasy; in over twenty-five years of familiarity with post-Gardenerian witchcraft, I've never encountered it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but, hey, it's a place to start.

• There is a question of how you treat words pertaining to groups and individuals, and classifications thereof. In this context, an appeal to supporting history would re-establish that your vendetta of judgment is in fact an exercise in grotesque prejudice. A subtle point is that the religion of the evangelist James is not the religion of the Apostle Paul; nor is the religion of these Biblical authors the religion of Tertullian, or Irenaeus of Lyon. These years down the line, certainly, we have a classification that denotes their commonality, but James and Paul couldn't quite agree, and Tertullian is worried about other things. More broadly and obviously, the religion of Paul and James and Tertullian and Irenaeus is not the religion of Abu Bakr, which in turn is not the religion of Rabia of Basra (Rābi'a al-'Adawiyya al-Qaysiyya). It's also true that, these years later, we do have a classification that denotes their commonality. Shall we throw in the religions of Smith, Farrakhan, and then that other Smith? Seriously, go around asking modern evangelical Christians to justify Yakub; they won't know what you're on about. And while it is possible you might tally that up as yet another negative experience and oppressive, offensive failure of religion, would you even know that not only can Christians not justify Yakub, they are, generally speaking, not even supposed to know what the question means? Be careful which Christians you ask, though; in some quarters it is possible to find a convert who knows the answer and nine hundred ninety nine of five would call you out for asking. I am guessing, however, on that occasion he would be wrong because even if you actually went and did it, you would have no idea what you were on about, and therefore no clue how you just offended him. Try this: Sometimes different differences are differently important.

• There is a path by which we can simply shrug, agree with you, and then point to your own behavior as corroboration for your point. This path will intersect, probably repeatedly, with the prior point about groups, individuals, and classifications.​

And history is witness to commercial persecution of free thought. And?

When you get around to studying history, you will find that the cycle started before the Jebusites held a rock.

Sure, but that would seem to be a separate issue.

You're the one who seeks to judge as severely wanting↑ according to tenets you have assigned others. When those factors happen to be true, they are true; when they are not, they are not. The difference? Either you can't grasp it, or choose to discard it, but in either case you shouldn't be making that anyone else's problem.

Well, generally speaking, it didn't, until you decided to get into the discussion.

They are relevant to what you said; they are part of what you chose to discuss.

There is actually a lot there: Yes, perspectivess on morals are subjective to individuals. Yes, we develop morals by common consent. 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.

Still, though, the precision and stability of convention is a pretty big discussion on a societal scale, especially in eventually accounting for the whole of the human endeavor.

You could always try not being so clumsy about your simplifications. Your pretense of observation is disruptive, and seemingly willfully so. Like asking what someone else's words have to do with you when it's their words you're demanding a rational justification of.

Is there something about a given religious historical record you would actually like to discuss, or are you just going to run around bawling about theists?

Here, let's skip back to the beginning, for a moment, and I'll try to give you an example.

†​

There is a story I sometimes tell about the Revised Standard Version of the Bible; I skipped over it, this time↑, and the discussion went along, doing its own thing, but part of the RSV story is actually germane to the topic post; more fool me for pulling the story for the sake of a shorter post. The short form:

• The RSV was intended to refine Biblical historicity, but triggered conflict among the faithful when more conservative factions disdained the literary and lexical result. The problem was that the RSV, compared to KJV, attended the Old Testament in more originalist terms. The difference might seem obscure, but were the Jews of the seventh century BCE mere bit players in the real drama that started with the Christian evangelism? Of course they weren't. Treating the Hebrew Scriptures as part of the Hebrew experience diminished a context in which the Old Testament sets up for the New, by which the Hebrew experience was the Hebrew experience instead of some unfortunately necessary precursor for Christ. The experts went back to the table and issued the New Revised Standard Version, but the NRSV only exacerbated the conservative Christian complaint.​

It might sound silly on the surface, but it makes a difference. And outside that particular dispute about Christianizing the Hebrew context, the differences 'twixt versions discussed in the early posts of this thread can be viewed similarly. And here is the really obscure part: Within the Christian and post-Christian experience, it is only in the last century or so that society has begun challenging the pretense of Genesis 1.28 licensing environmental irresponsibility and animal cruelty. The difference 'twixt "every living creature" and "whole creation" is, in Mk. 16, its own difference per the superficial question in the topic post. The KJV phrasing, though, "every living creature", reinforces the idea that God decreed human—and thus Christian—planetary dominion.

Sometimes the little differences tell big stories.

†​

Meanwhile—

—you're just not credible. I simply don't believe you're incapable of following the discussion.

Really, the alternative is asking how addressing and clearing up fallacy fails your standard of utility, and, come on, that's just ridiculous.

 

There is no misrepresentation without eventual refutation in science. The scientific method protects against continued misrepresentation.
OTOH, religion protects any continued misrepresentation, put forth with pedantic fervor by the father of his flock of sheeple, occasionally misleading them into using Science for going to war in the name of God.

Science does not go to war in the name of Science or God.

 

Okay, okay, okay, so ...

• #11↑: Considering the verse and question at hand, "Do any theists preach to animals?" the answer is and always has been affirmative, but it is difficult to figure how to inform properly in answering such a vague and inconsiderate inquiry; Mark 16 pertains to the Resurrection and frailty of faith and for our purposes the answer to the question is actually right there for the reading .... [cit. Mark 16.11-20 RSV]

• #15↑: The question is answered in Christ's assertion of handling snakes. Thus, according to the record we have, Christ Himself resolved the question.

• #29↑: To wit, the animals did not fall from Grace; there is no need to preach repentance, but communication of the Holy Spirit through the evangelist unto an animal is written into Christ's appeal ....

• #37↑: If we actually open our consideration to theists in general, instead of restricting ourselves to Christianity in particular, the answer is so unquestionably affirmative we can suggest that between the first familiar and twenty-first century videos explaining how to train the family dog to pray, the answer has never at any time been no.​

... er ... ah, sorry, I got distracted, there. What was that? Why don't I what? Why don't I "offer a declarative opinion about the OP question"?

What, you need another?

 

i quite enjoy Tiassa's ambivalent superiority.

passing thought

building facts & building walls/castles

predicatble patterns used to create foundation of modality define consistant normative function of variance.
This seems adjacently cyclical to Theology in a 'ism' and science in a theorem.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, religion declared a vendetta against me when I was 8 years old based on my being from an atheist family and when I eagerly tried to share with my classmates that people are made of atoms. It nearly got me killed.
My mother was accosted by the town's priest about the way she dressed. You know the offense was wearing slacks. It was remarkable, since the priest wore a frock which prompted my mother to ask if wearing a dress was any less offensive. The next day a $10,000 statue of a nude (private in our back yard) was utterly destroyed by a bunch of religious hooligans. This had been a gift from a prominent sculptress, who was also teacher to the royal family.
(btw. that town was 95% Catholic. 4.9% Protestant, .1% atheist)

LOL, having it both ways? Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn what you believe. you don't know me, I don't know you.

My reputation for credibility is well established by 30 years of community service.

I am trying to bring attention to the abundant fallacies in theism (Religious Nonsense) and thereby exposing these fallacies to the general public, so they may begin to functionally correct them.

That's why, in discussions like this, I always recommend the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.
It is based on extensive research on the veracity of Scriptural teachings and instruction from each of the three Abrahamic religions, and it has found these scriptures severely wanting in credibility by a myriad of expressed fallacies.

Let's clean the fallacies in the bible before we turn our attention to any fallacies espoused by others. IOW, Theists, clean up your own back yard before you complain about mine.

 

Page 17, Post 333. First declarative post on the OP question.
Good start, keep it up. Eventually you may actually touch on something which is scientifically verifiable. So far it's just nonsense, don't you agree?

Teaching dogs to pray?
Pray for what?
When I die I want to go to doggie heaven?

(and a variation)
There I will find 40 virgin doggies who will indulge my every sexual desire.....wooooof....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(but)
In the mean time do not look at the sexual organs of overflying birds (pigeons to be exact)..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Skeptic's Annotated Bible;

No shit. And this is just the Beginning!?

I love 7. Yes, man being created at about the same time as the Tyrannosaurus Rex had dominion over "every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

To those who believe that the "Flintstones" is part of history, go to the Creation Museum in Kentucky where you can see Moses' pet dino named "Ebenezer". I wonder if Moses taught Ebenezer to pray?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How's that for a declaration of war on Truth?
Religious Nonsense?

 

1) No. (Regardless of what you are talking about via "empirical evidenced" and ""necessarily exclude" and "omnimax God" and so forth).
2) A mistaken belief.

Uh, no, Musika typed a framing presumption into a Fox question of irrelevant import, for the purpose of innuendo - disparagement without accountability.
Musika, like Ardena, does not ask about things, as a rule, despite the prevalence of question marks. There is no reason to pretend otherwise.

Now, about the thread issue - - - -

 

You might as well reply in swahili. He not only does not understand these things, but does not even want to understand them, apparently not even reading responses he charges himself with the responsibility of responding to .... and the slammer is that he doesn't fail to miss a moment to glorify his unswerving dedication to knowledge :

A very important point, IMO.
Such willingness to be corrected and learn is never found on a religious forum.
"Repeat after me, blah, blah, blah....praise the Lord". Ecstasy is sure to follow......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Edit : Originally I was going to also say something about encountering an infantile critique of an infantile defense of an infantile definition ... and subsequently introducing a superior definition. To grant the audience the greatest charity, one would think (hope?) that is the effective means to raise the bar.
When that fails, what hope remains?​

 

Given the track record of human leadership and the general direction things seem to be heading, its not clear that you are bringing your apprehension to the right department.

Once again, it's one thing to say it's impossible for human society (theistic or otherwise) to do anything but deliver "more of the same". It's something else again to set the bar at this standard and simultaneously claim you are delivering "something else."

Whatever, but "values" becomes the common language and field despite whatever you or I believe a person can or cannot, does or doesn't, etc, know.

 

I guess you're just renting and subletting stupid.

Empiricism only allows us to know what we can know. There is no evidence that we possess faculties that allow us to aquire knowledge by any other means. 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.

You keep implying without evidence that epistemology grants your still unstated path to knowledge some kind of advantage over empiricism. To validate this assertion, show how your alternative allows you to know the divine.

 

Are you suggesting that Humanity has no value unless created for the pleasure of a supernatural being?
It is self-evident that man is created equal (under the secular moral law). Thus man has a declared value and is able to formalize these laws for the "common good".

The concept of the common good is a very effective survival technique. This immediately creates a symbiotic relationship among different races and interactions.

A crowning achievement of such a symbiotic relationship is found in the relationship between pollinating insects such as the honey bee and flowering plants.

This tiny creature along together with non-mobile plants have been so spectacularly effectively beneficial to each that some 70% of all grazing animals on earth depent on the product of the bee/flower marriage.

I would call that a moral marriage between two different species, to the benefit of all.
Both moral and amoral examples can be found in nature's physical expressions, in abundance.

 

This is a version of

which gives equal weight to some undetermined divine explanation which frequently contains NO (the bane of the divine) evidence

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!