Religious Nonsense

[Musika]

You misuse so many words here that guessing your meaning from context is too unreliable to bother with.
Besides, except in attempts to disparage me you don't use that word at all around here - and I am not talking about religions, but theists and their deities. So -- - -

So once again nothing relevant, nothing answered, basing an attempt at personal disparagement the only role of the pretext.

The main source of the disparagement you receive arises from your unconventional use of the word abrahamic. Your inability to use the word meaningfully has zero to do with your perception of anyone else's linguistic skills, real or imagined.
If it was an honest mistake on your behalf, as you vigorously sought the shortest route to identity politics rants, you've had more than enough time to clear it up. Instead you just go deeper into absurdity.
Of course, if identity politics rants never leave the realm of absurdity, it is no great loss.

 

[James R]

For every googlable meme there is an equally googlable explanation
https://forums.catholic.com/t/numbers-31-17-18-how-to-defend-this/114421/2

While I’m not certain as to the precise nature of your question, the quote is in specific reference to the Midianite women and children who were taken captive after Israel defeated them in battle. The rationale for killing the male children is so that they don’t grow up seeking revenge. The rationale for the killing of the women was that they were the ones who had gotten Israel into the whole mess (read several verses previous):

“So you have spared all the women!” he exclaimed. "Why, they are the very ones who on Balaam’s advice prompted the unfaithfulness of the Israelites toward the Lord in the Peor affair, which began the slaughter of the Lord’s community."
Num 31: 15-16

And what was the justification for keeping all the young virgin women for themselves?

 

[Write4U]

Call me a fanatic, but I exclusively employ the term "abrahamic" as an umbrella term for islamic, judaic and christian religions.

And they are all seriously flawed documents that would never stand up to scientific inquiry on supposed factual physical scriptural interpretation of the history and evolution of the universe. Nevermind the God which is supposed to have created this factual scriptural mess.

How does a "divine word of God" thrive in a world where "God has confounded all languages" ?
Give me a break.

The first centuries of Islam gave rise to three major sects:
Sunnis, Shi'as and Kharijites. Each sect developed distinct jurisprudence schools(madhhab) reflecting different methodologies of jurisprudence

Christian schisms and their councils.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches#Quranism

p.s. the only language which is completely standardized and consistent is a "mathematical language".

E = Mc^2 means exactly the same at Oxford as it does at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (Italian: Pontificia accademia delle scienze, Latin: Pontificia Academia Scientiarum) is a scientific academy of the Vatican City,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

p.p.s. At the findings of the Pontifical Academy of sciences, two popes have declared Darwinian evolution to be fact. "A small step for man, a giant leap for religion?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Or in any other section - nobody's faulted for merely posting.

But posting nothing - seriously, nothing - but bad faith irrelevance, slander, and pretexts for dishonest personal attacks on scientists, science, and anyone stereotypically connected with science and/or scientists (such as "atheists" not associated with religion, and the like),
raises the question of motive, agenda, etc.

Since these guys have no interest in discussion, never address issues or matters at hand, and so forth, why are they posting here at all? It's a legitimate question. They are not, for example, ordinary trolls - they are too consistent, with each other as well as within their own posting.

They have a characteristic rhetorical approach, similar to the one familiar from Fox News punditry and the like.

That is interesting, no?

Eh, I don't pay a lot of attention to some peoples posts; I can't really comment.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

At the findings of the Pontifical Academy of sciences, two popes have declared Darwinian evolution to be fact. "A small step for man, a giant leap for religion?

Well thats encouraging.

You have to take what you can get.

Things will get better ...I tend to blame religion but it may be like many reasonable institutions that humans can stuff up...sortta like communism ..it would work except for the humans☺

Alex

 

[Musika]

And they are all seriously flawed documents that would never stand up to scientific inquiry on supposed factual physical scriptural interpretation of the history and evolution of the universe. Nevermind the God which is supposed to have created this factual scriptural mess.

How does a "divine word of God" thrive in a world where "God has confounded all languages" ?
Give me a break. Christian schisms and their councils.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches#Quranism

p.s. the only language which is completely standardized and consistent is a "mathematical language".

E = Mc^2 means exactly the same at Oxford as it does at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (Italian: Pontificia accademia delle scienze, Latin: Pontificia Academia Scientiarum) is a scientific academy of the Vatican City,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

p.p.s. At the findings of the Pontifical Academy of sciences, two popes have declared Darwinian evolution to be fact. "A small step for man, a giant leap for religion?

So your essential view is that anything that is culturally expressed automatically removes itself from an objective (reputable ? valid?) knowledgeable status (by dint of cultural "affliction")?

 

[Write4U]

So your essential view is that anything that is culturally expressed automatically removes itself from an objective (reputable ? valid?) knowledgeable status (by dint of cultural "affliction")?

Not at all. Anything that is not true in spite of common belief removes itself from an objective
knowledgeable status. Evidentiary facts persist in spite of your beliefs.
For centuries people believed the earth was 6000 or 9000 years old and that all of universal history occurred within those few thousand years. Should we accept this cultural expression as true, just because it was "common knowledge" at that time and still today?

The Creation Museum, located in Petersburg, Kentucky, United States, is operated by the Christian creation apologetics organization Answers in Genesis (AiG). It promotes a pseudoscientific, young Earth creationist (YEC) explanation of the origin of the universe based on a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative in the Bible.

The museum is controversial and has received much commentary from cultural observers and the museum community. Scholars of museum studies, like Gretchen Jennings, have said that creationist exhibitions lack "valid connection with current worldwide thinking on their chosen discipline" and with "human knowledge and experience," and are not in their view museums at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum

 

[iceaura]

The main source of the disparagement you receive arises from your unconventional use of the word abrahamic

I don't use that word.
And my use of Abrahamic is not "the source" (illiterate, as always - half your posting reads like an incompetent translation from some other language) of any of your abuse or disparagement. It's an occasional pretext, but as with all your pretexts the issue itself you ignore.

If it was an honest mistake on your behalf, as you vigorously sought the shortest route to identity politics rants, you've had more than enough time to clear it up. Instead you just go deeper into absurdity.

The bullshit "if", followed by personal disparagement and insult. No thread issue addressed.
The overt Abrahamic theist posts on a science forum.

Why?

 

[Musika]

I don't use that word.
And my use of Abrahamic is not "the source" (illiterate, as always - half your posting reads like an incompetent translation from some other language) of any of your abuse or disparagement. It's an occasional pretext, but as with all your pretexts the issue itself you ignore.

The bullshit "if", followed by personal disparagement and insult. No thread issue addressed.
The overt Abrahamic theist posts on a science forum.

Why?

PTSD triggered once again by the word "if". It's like a regular schtick, you never fail to deliver on. Its like a banana peel in slapstick
And as far as "why's" go, the only one worth ruminating on is why you can't seem to stop abrahamicing yourself into corners.

 

[Musika]

Not at all. Anything that is not true in spite of common belief removes itself from an objective
knowledgeable status. Evidentiary facts persist in spite of your beliefs.
For centuries people believed the earth was 6000 or 9000 years old and that all of universal history occurred within those few thousand years. Should we accept this cultural expression as true, just because it was "common knowledge" at that time and still today?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum

I'm not sure you understand.
You previously linked a chart showing various divisions that arose as a consequence of social/ideological (aka cultural) schisms. Since it is inevitable that culture lends itself to such division/development/change/schism, are you of the opinion that this is a fatal flaw as it pertains to valid (?) knowledge?

If not, what precisely is the "fatal flaw" you are alluding to with such charts? What are you looking for in terms of a singular, non-changing historical narrative that equates with credibity (validity?)?

 

[Write4U]

I'm not sure you understand.
You previously linked a chart showing various divisions that arose as a consequence of social/ideological (aka cultural) schisms. Since it is inevitable that culture lends itself to such division/development/change/schism, are you of the opinion that this is a fatal flaw as it pertains to valid (?) knowledge.

Not at all. But it does not prove God confounded their languages, just to make human life miserable, either. There is a perfectly natural logical explanation without the need for a decision made by a supernatural sentience as recorded in theist history.

Insurance companies still have clauses such as "Acts of God", a common term, but that does not make any natural disaster a factually true Act of God. Thor died in human history a long time ago.
Oddly, Thor has not yet died in the mind of a Chimpanzee. To an Alpha Chimp, Thor is a real threat. Some "unseen" being, making loud noises and throwing light beams and water at him and his family.
Rings a bell, no?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor
http://thanasis.com/winds.htm

 

[Musika]

Not at all. But it does not prove God confounded their languages, just to make human life miserable, either. There is a perfectly natural logical explanation without the need for a decision made by a supernatural sentience as recorded in theist history.

Insurance companies still have clauses such as "Acts of God", a common term, but that does not make any natural disaster a factually true Act of God. Thor died a long time ago.

http://thanasis.com/winds.htm

So what would a natural disaster (one that bears a connection to an omnimax God) look like in your opinion ?

 

[Write4U]

So what would a natural disaster (one that bears a connection to an omnimax God) look like in your opinion ?

Not a single one. If they are natural disasters then they are by definition explainable in terms of the composition of our biosphere and the pertinent physical mathematics.
No god is required for such "naturally" occurring "patterns".

 

[Musika]

Not a single one. If they are natural disasters then they are explainable in terms of the composition of our biosphere and the pertinent physical mathematics. No god is required for such "naturally" occurring "patterns".

You didn't answer the q.

 

[Write4U]

You didn't answer the q.

Sorry to be obtuse. A natural disaster, such as being struck by a large asteroid, is by definition not the machinations of a sentient, creative, supernatural entity, no? It might have looked that way millions of years ago. But not today, I believe.
Better?

 

[Musika]

Sorry to be obtuse. A natural disaster, such as being struck by a large asteroid, is by definition not the machinations of a sentient, creative, supernatural entity, no? It might have looked that way millions of years ago. But not today, I believe.
Better?

You stlll have not answered the q.
Let's try it a different way, since you don't seem to want to answer it.

What is it about the planet getting struck by an asteroid that rules out a connection to an omnimax God?

 

[iceaura]

PTSD triggered once again by the word "if". It's like a regular schtick, you never fail to deliver on. Its like a banana peel in slapstick

The overt Abrahamic theist posts on a science forum.
Over and over and over, nothing but that.
The question is: why?

This is a science forum. We have data, evidence - the posts, literally thousands of them, just on this forum.
It's a legitimate question of significance to matters of interest here, such as the role and position of science and scientific inquiry in our larger societies

 

[iceaura]

What is it about the planet getting struck by an asteroid that rules out a connection to an omnimax God?

That is dishonest, that question. And by now, since the argument is so long familiar, its dishonesty is conscious - deliberate.
(If you are brand new to this: by definition nothing rules out an "omnimax God". If something could rule it out, it wouldn't be an omnimax God. And since everyone here knows that, and the poster knows that everyone knows that, the question is in bad faith

- a species of dishonesty universal and ubiquitous among the overt Abrahamic theists who post here).

 

[Goldtop]

So what would a natural disaster (one that bears a connection to an omnimax God) look like in your opinion ?

A world wide flood, where it was clear there was nowhere near enough water to accomplish the task.

 

[Write4U]

You stlll have not answered the q.
Let's try it a different way, since you don't seem to want to answer it.

What is it about the planet getting struck by an asteroid that rules out a connection to an omnimax God?

Once again, I see no possible "natural event" which would demand a "supernatural" explanation. What is so hard to understand?

If you consider a probabilistic path by an asteroid starting millions of years ago on a journey from another galaxy, long before man had even appeared on earth and mankind itself was just a probabilistic potential, the picture of "motivated sentient action" changes.

I find it highly improbable that this was plotted by a sentience for the specific purpose of teaching an as yet non-existent human animal a lesson in the future.

There are far simpler explanations than an omnimax God which satisfy all requirements for such a probabilistic event.

The known natural universal mechanics are not all that complicated. Don't make the unknown mechanics unnecessarily complicated.....