Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[fagin]

Rejection by anyone or disputing by anyone do not change the fact. Wé need to relate true religion with nature.

That is not a fact.

fact
NOUN

1A thing that is known or proved to be true.


It's just you own little hobby horse.

hobby horse
NOUN

2A preoccupation or favourite topic.

 

[JayUtah]

Rejection by anyone or disputing by anyone do not change the fact. Wé need to relate true religion with nature.

The fact you're trying to change is that there are quite a lot of people who see their religion as expressly contrary to nature and natural law. Their claim that miracles defy natural law is the foundation of their religion. That fact doesn't fit your notion of religion as deriving from nature, so you simply ignore it as if it weren't there. You're withdrawing from reality in order to maintain the illusion of your religion.

Further, I proved your religion isn't based on nature either. It doesn't derive from nature. It doesn't "relate" to nature. You have merely invented something, called it nature, and made it your god. You seem to have accepted that I have proved you wrong, so we're beyond that now.

 

[Kumar]

No, you can't get rid of me that easily. Just because I have refuted your claim doesn't mean this debate is over and that you're off the hook to answer any further questions.

The "basic difference" here is that you're misrepresenting the role of nature in your religion. You're saying your religion came from nature and is based on it. In fact your religion manufactured a picture of nature that bears no resemblance to reality, and you have essentially ennobled this idealized picture and made it your god, instead of the personalized deities in some religions. Now on the basis of the characteristics of this god you've manufactured, you intend to impose moral obligations on everyone by equivocating what is meant by nature.

If you agree that I have refuted the alleged connection between nature and your religion, then do you agree it would follow that your proposed dietary policy is not "natural" but simply the beliefs of your religion? And as such, do you agree that they should not apply to people who don't believe your religion?

I am not making base of any specific religion or agency. I am talking about true religion, which can suggest every being has fundaméntal ríght to lífe and personal liberty. If any religion support it, this part of that religion can be taken as true religion. It does not mean that, all principles of that religion shall necessarily match with true religion. Hence, pls do not base specifics with me but make universal base with equanimity with me.

 

[Kumar]

The fact you're trying to change is that there are quite a lot of people who see their religion as expressly contrary to nature and natural law. Their claim that miracles defy natural law is the foundation of their religion. That fact doesn't fit your notion of religion as deriving from nature, so you simply ignore it as if it weren't there. You're withdrawing from reality in order to maintain the illusion of your religion.

Further, I proved your religion isn't based on nature either. It doesn't derive from nature. It doesn't "relate" to nature. You have merely invented something, called it nature, and made it your god. You seem to have accepted that I have proved you wrong, so we're beyond that now.

You can make your own view point, ñeed not to be applicable on my view point. I am making base of that part of any religion which match with true religion and nature and ignoring that part which is odd in this sense. We may need to extracts such evens from many religions by ignoring the odds in true religion or nature sense.

 

[JayUtah]

I am not making base of any specific religion or agency.

You told us to name any religious practice from any religion and you would show how it relates to nature.

I am talking about true religion...

There is no such thing. You're just describing your personal religion, Jainism, and arguing that its tenets constitute some sort of universal religion that derives from nature. Jainism is not "true" religion. Nor does it derive from nature.

Hence, pls do not base specifics with me but make universal base with equanimity with me.

I am holding you to the challenged you posed to your critics. Do you admit that you have failed that challenge?

 

[JayUtah]

I am making base of that part of any religion which match with true religion...

There is no such thing as "true" religion. You challenged us to provide examples of religious practice from any religion and that you would show how it relates to nature. You were shown examples of religious practice that are based on the presumption that they are wholly outside of nature.

Do you admit that you have failed that challenge?

 

[bruto]

You cannot equate truth with religion unless you believe that what the religion says is true. Period. End of discussion. If you believe that a miracle is not a supernatural event, then you do not believe what the religion says, and therefore, by necessity, the religion and the truth differ in an irreconcilable way. If an event your religion says is a miracle is not miraculous, then the religion is false. This is the case even if (and perhaps especially if) the event itself truly occurred.

Kumar, if you cannot understand this you cannot understand any of what is being discussed. It is quite likely that what religions call miracles, if they happen at all, are not actually miracles. But if that is so, then the religions are wrong, and what they say is not true. You cannot be untrue and true at the same time.

Stop, please, and think about what is being said. Try not simply to double down on repeated misunderstandings and errors, but to stop, and think about what is being said and what it means. You are being told by people who have a degree of knowledge of English and (at least in Jay Utah's case of science) that exceeds what you have demonstrated. Do yourself a favor and do not make yourself a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. Stop. Pay attention.

 

[Kumar]

You told us to name any religious practice from any religion and you would show how it relates to nature.



There is no such thing. You're just describing your personal religion, Jainism, and arguing that its tenets constitute some sort of universal religion that derives from nature. Jainism is not "true" religion. Nor does it derive from nature.



I am holding you to the challenged you posed to your critics. Do you admit that you have failed that challenge?

Just few more posts to respect you.

Pls base true religion only. If one put some artificial fruits on trees, it does not mean those fruits are natural. On true religion base, no one can fail.

 

[Kumar]

There is no such thing as "true" religion. You challenged us to provide examples of religious practice from any religion and that you would show how it relates to nature. You were shown examples of religious practice that are based on the presumption that they are wholly outside of nature.

Do you admit that you have failed that challenge?

I feel, many such things are already indicated. If you do not understand or do not accept those, due to any personal reasons, need or perception, I can not do anything or force you. Enjoy.

 

[Kumar]

You cannot equate truth with religion unless you believe that what the religion says is true. Period. End of discussion. If you believe that a miracle is not a supernatural event, then you do not believe what the religion says, and therefore, by necessity, the religion and the truth differ in an irreconcilable way. If an event your religion says is a miracle is not miraculous, then the religion is false. This is the case even if (and perhaps especially if) the event itself truly occurred.

Kumar, if you cannot understand this you cannot understand any of what is being discussed. It is quite likely that what religions call miracles, if they happen at all, are not actually miracles. But if that is so, then the religions are wrong, and what they say is not true. You cannot be untrue and true at the same time.

Stop, please, and think about what is being said. Try not simply to double down on repeated misunderstandings and errors, but to stop, and think about what is being said and what it means. You are being told by people who have a degree of knowledge of English and (at least in Jay Utah's case of science) that exceeds what you have demonstrated. Do yourself a favor and do not make yourself a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. Stop. Pay attention.

Do you want to impress that basis of religion are just miracles, supernaturals, paranormals etc.? In other sense, they are beyond the understanding of people and science? Please noth any unnatural(all above normal) can not be digestible because we shall not be having inherent sense of right or wrong for those. It will not be possible to process by body mechanisms, pre-informed normally so can cause odd side affects. Do you want to claim that religions give us such affect to us?

 

[JayUtah]

Pls base true religion only.

There is no such thing.

If one put some artificial fruits on trees, it does not mean those fruits are natural. On true religion base, no one can fail.

We already dispensed with this trite nonsense.

Nothing you wrote answered my question. Do you admit that you failed your challenge?

 

[JayUtah]

I feel, many such things are already indicated. If you do not understand or do not accept those, due to any personal reasons, need or perception, I can not do anything or force you. Enjoy.

I've given you the reason why your argument is not convincing. You failed to address them. You have also not answered my question. Do you admit that you have failed your challenge?

 

[Kumar]

There is no such thing.



We already dispensed with this trite nonsense.

Nothing you wrote answered my question. Do you admit that you failed your challenge?

Sorry, I feel you couldn't understand true sense of true religion. It is very difficult to express absolute truth to the satisfaction of all. May it be odd now.

 

[JayUtah]

Do you want to impress that basis of religion are just miracles...

He's trying to expand your understanding, which is severely limited. We have pointed out to you that certain religions are expressly based on exactly the opposite approach to nature as yours. You are patently unable to incorporate that concept into your thinking, which disqualifies you from discussing the relationship between religion and nature, if any.

Do you want to claim that religions give us such affect to us?

His post was quite clear. Nothing you wrote has the slightest thing to do with it. Take his advice and attempt to understand your critics' posts instead of posting from the hip with a bunch of incoherent babbling.

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry, I feel you couldn't understand true sense of true religion.

No, the problem is not that your critics do not understand. The problem is that "true" religion doesn't exist. What you're calling "true" religion is just the particular sect of ascetic Hinduism you practice.

It is very difficult to express absolute truth to the satisfaction of all. May it be odd now.

You are avoiding my question. Do you agree that you have failed your challenge?

 

[Kumar]

I've given you the reason why your argument is not convincing. You failed to address them. You have also not answered my question. Do you admit that you have failed your challenge?

I feel, you failed to understand true sense. We need to maintain some limitations due to blind faiths & civility esp when such blind faith can help to gain peace,health, motivation, placebo etc. at some cost. Nett Benefit may be more in calculating Harm-benefit ratio.

 

[JayUtah]

I feel, you failed to understand true sense. We need to maintain some limitations due to blind faiths & civility esp when such blind faith can help to gain peace,health, motivation, placebo etc. at some cost. Nett Benefit may be more in calculating Harm-benefit ratio.

Stop blaming your critics for your failure. Stop avoiding my question. You challenged us to provide examples of religious practice from any religion, and you would show how they relate to nature. We provided several, including transubstantiation, that are specifically held by their followers to defy nature. You are unable to show how that has any basis in nature. Do you agree that you have failed your challenge?

Answer that question and only that question, please.

 

[Kumar]

He's trying to expand your understanding, which is severely limited. We have pointed out to you that certain religions are expressly based on exactly the opposite approach to nature as yours. You are patently unable to incorporate that concept into your thinking, which disqualifies you from discussing the relationship between religion and nature, if any.



His post was quite clear. Nothing you wrote has the slightest thing to do with it. Take his advice and attempt to understand your critics' posts instead of posting from the hip with a bunch of incoherent babbling.

Could we understood nature in A&F? If science is not yet A&F, nothing can be said with A&F. As I said, yesterdays or today, miracles or so felt as supernaturals can become normal and natural on our A&F understandings. There can be a natural reason to mass existing thing in well distributed people since long with least adversities. Let the things become A&F or die in themselves id odd in A&F. Till then just wait and watch.

 

[JayUtah]

Could we understood nature in A&F? If science is not yet A&F, nothing can be said with A&F. As I said, yesterdays or today, miracles or so felt as supernaturals can become normal and natural on our A&F understandings.

It has been repeatedly explained to you that the point of this line of reasoning is not whether miracles have a scientific explanation or whether they may someday have an explanation. You have been further advised to read posts carefully, so that you do not continue to make this mistake. You are being very rude.

 

[Kumar]

No, the problem is not that your critics do not understand. The problem is that "true" religion doesn't exist. What you're calling "true" religion is just the particular sect of ascetic Hinduism you practice.

No but essence of every understanding. It ultimately lead to omniscience. Many things to which you never interacted, still accept or reject, how? It can suggest, we have something more in us for which we are not aware and i.e Omniscience due to omnipresence.

You are avoiding my question. Do you agree that you have failed your challenge?

No you are avoiding to understand real sense. These are not Olympic games, so no challenge, win or lose, issue. Just logical discussions.