Should we not base, creating, love, peace, civil, non-violence, harmonizing or loving side on nature? Or should we base just opposite side of nature of these? In fact not in religion?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?
- Thread starter Kumar
- Start date
Should we not base, creating, love, peace, civil, non-violence, harmonizing or loving side on nature? Or should we base just opposite side of nature of these? In fact not in religion?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Nature is none of those things. You've been presented with the facts that demonstrate that nature is none of those things, but you simply can't handle it.
You are doing nothing more than foisting your oddball religion and pretending it derives from nature. There's no use pretending your argument in this thread is any more sophisticated than that. You are a child viewing the world with a child's eyes. And not in the good way -- rather in the profoundly ignorant way.
No, there shoúld be nothing which is not dependendent on nature like an infant ón mother. We should not underestimate a child, who is always successful in achieving its prosperity. Many compare child júst at par to god. Nothing is odd in my thoughts in sense.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
I feel, This inspiring story is to be added in this topic. It may suggest highest level of morality or validity or justification:
Once, one GOD at basic level preferring natural living was getting married. Many competent angels came to greet and gift HIM.
One Angel A competent in building/city making asked: "O great Lord, since you are getting married, you shall need a house. I shall made a big & beautiful palace for you having maximum needed facilities".
God asked: "for how much time your house will sustain and will it give all nature like facilities?
Angel A: House will be sustainable for about 100 years but it can not provide all nature like facilities.
God: Then why I should take it, when I have this consistent permanent nature house all around with all nature facilities? Why I should opt an inferior thing against superior thing?
Angel A: Awnserless.
Then Angel B competent in wealth asked: O Lord, your wife will need so many ornaments and wealth. I shall give these.
God: Whether these will serve, soft pleasing touch, ever changing, good sense/smell, healthful and still looking more beautiful?
Angel B: no these can not?
God: Then, why I should take these? Lot of nature had been destroyed in making these and still with no real benefit. Lot of fallen flowers are available here, my wife can use those having all those real things as I mentioned above i.e.soft pleasing touch, ever changing, good sense/smell, healthful and still looking more beautiful.
Angel B: Awnserless.
Then Angel C competent in farming asked: O Lord, you shall definitely need grains, vegetables etc. to run your home. I shall clear lot of land for you suitable for farming.
God: whether such crops will be better healthful, no efforts in getting these and making food, and if enjoyable like fruits/milk?
Angel C : No Lord but you will get more & continuous means for foods. She can cook.
God: Why I should take it? You will kill lot of plants and devoid inhabitants of those plants from their home in clearing land and without additional real benefits. Lot of fruits and sufficient milk is available here which is sufficient for my family survival. That food is more healthful, enjoying and no energy and killings are needed to get and prepare those for food. I can conserve such energy and use for other better purpose.
Angel C; also awnserless
So on.......
As you said,
At least you seem to be getting the idea that religions are fictional.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
It is one sided and conditional approach. Proud and proud can have different meaning though same word. Also Base, MPOVs, non-absolutism, pluralism.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Nonsense as always, but especially ironic in context. The link provided was to a famous study the gist of which is that people who are incompetent believe wrongly that they are experts in the very field at which they are incompetent. It has come to be called the "Dunning-Kruger effect" and if you would yourself consider the content of the post and seek further knowledge instead of trying so hard to be a textbook example of its subject you might come to understand something. One might start by noting that the word "proud" does not actually occur within the link cited. Even the response to the link reeks of the very thing it's about!
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You keep treating nature as if it were some sort of conscious, independent entity. What you've been shown is that the components which make up nature don't behave in the way you envision they do. You're foisting an ascetic morality and trying to claim it's natural. It's been proven not to be.
Way to keep missing the point. And so very nonsensically, to boot.
Ok let us check it practically. Pls tell me 2/3 practices or principles of any religion. I shall try to show you its relevance with nature.
Simply, content of that link may be appliçable to some but not to all, who are really expressing their achievements or views. So that will be specific not inversely applicable.
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,213
Not too aware of reality, are we?
This would be heresy in any religion I've ever heard of.
Possibly so, seeing that your thoughts (or at least your expressions of them) make no sense whatever.
fagin
Philosopher
Go on then...
Believing in imaginary beings.
Talking to imaginary beings.
Reading about imaginary beings.
Sounds a bit insane to me.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Most of this thread is involved with having already done that. Most relevant already to your OP: animals are not observed to follow an ascetic lifestyle.
But you don't know what nature is. You simply define it as whatever your religion teaches, hence you are proposing we conduct a circular argument. First you need to correct your understanding of what nature is.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
If we make the obvious leap that Kumar is a Jain, then this has limited application because Jainism is not a theistic religion. It's ascetic Hinduism. However -- and I'm sure you noted this -- he opened it up to all religions. That would then have to include some Western ones that he may not know about.
So let's start with Jehovah's Witnesses, who forbid the celebration of birthdays.
Seventh-Day Aventists believe in worshiping the Christian weekly holiday on Saturday, not Sunday. Keep in mind the operative concept is not that humans should rest for one day in seven, or devote one day in some number of days periodically to worship and devotion. The concept is that one specific day is preferred over another that is more commonly recognized in the tribe.
I don't see where either of those two practices derive from nature. However, Kumar is just trying to shift the burden of proof. The problem is that the facts of nature as his critics see them do not support his view of humankind as having a dually natural and unnatural role. Kumar's insistence upon that division is key to his argument that humans commit sins against nature in a way that only humans can do, and therefore merit special obligation.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Straw man. You're trying to set a lower bar for yourself than your argument requires. Given sufficient time to think, I'm sure anyone can construct a line of reasoning -- however tenuous -- that shows how some practice could simply be "relevant" to nature. I already addressed this in pointing out that your religion largely preaches about nature without carefully observing it. Talking about something is not the same as being derived from it. More importantly, talking about something does not invoke its authority for your own moralizations.
The bar you need to clear is to establish that nature is the basis for your religion. You are imposing a moral obligation allegedly based on nature, but you haven't shown how mere relevance implants that basis.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
No mixed fibers, burn any furniture a woman has sat upon, rest on the sabbath
Ok, leave it. Íf you all claim, religion has no relevance with nature then you should also agree that no nature rule apply to religion. May it be harsh side of nature or soft side of nature. No love & affection side no violence side. No war no peace. No fire no water. Then what religion is left to make?
fagin
Philosopher
Wither and die on the vine, hopefully.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Straw man. You are claiming your religion derives from nature. Specifically you are claiming its moral code derives its authority from mimicking what happens in nature. You have been shown that this is not factually correct. The claims made by your religion do not stand up to fact, and therefore its moral code stands on shaky ground.
You challenged that criticism by asking your critics to give examples of religious practice, and you would demonstrate that they are "relevant" to nature. I responded in two ways. First I showed that your proposed rejoinder was too weak because it discussed only relevance and not derivation. Relevance can be satisfied simply by talking about one thing from the point of view of another, which your religion does with nature. Second I gave examples of practices from Western religions and asked you to show how they derived from nature. So did two other critics.
You refused to describe even relevance, so it's safe to assume you cannot show the more strict requirement of basis. Do you therefore concede that there are religious practices that not only do not derive from nature, but which have nothing whatsoever to do with it? Since you have failed to meet the challenge you set, that would be the customary conclusion to draw.
You are the one who wants to divide nature up into different facets and ignore the parts that don't fit your predetermined beliefs. Your critics rightly are not letting you do this, because it amounts to a circular argument in favor of your religion. You claim your religion is derived from nature, but then you simply ignore the parts of nature that don't fit what your religion teaches. That's blatantly illogical.
In my opinion, religion is simply a tool used by some people to enslave and ensnare others who are weak-minded -- enslaving them socially, financially, politically, and spiritually. Yes, I include Jainism in that description. It seems to use deception in order to deprive people of rich and full lives, and to solicit donations to its clergy.