Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[fagin]

Er um.
There is no such thing as:
Godliness.
Soul.
Karmic matter.
Infinite bliss, knowledge, power, or perception.

Which makes all the rest bollocks.

 

[Kumar]

Er um.
There is no such thing as:
Godliness.
Soul.
Karmic matter.
Infinite bliss, knowledge, power, or perception.

Which makes all the rest bollocks.

Best shall be to take best valid med treatment.

 

[fagin]

How does that in any way relate to what I said?

 

[Kumar]

How does that in any way relate to what I said?

Just concentrate on best treatment.

 

[abaddon]

How does that in any way relate to what I said?

He is blatantly insulting you.

 

[Kumar]

He is blatantly insulting you.

Morality is a good thíng.

 

[fagin]

And?

 

[JayUtah]

Please try to better understand those. Your were good posts.

My posts made specific points that go right to the heart of your argument. You ignored those points. Since you're unwilling to address them, shall we agree that you have lost this debate?

 

[JayUtah]

Does above not indicate relation between nature & religion?

I already addressed this. You said your religion came from nature. Showing merely that there is a "relation" between your religion and nature does not prove its basis. In two rather lengthy posts, I showed how Jainism merely ennobles a particular caricature of nature to be its god. The derivation goes in exactly the opposite direction you claim. Since you failed to address those posts, I will consider that I have refuted your claim.

 

[bruto]

Many miracles(looking so) can also happen is nature. Yesterday miracle or supernatural may become science or natural tomorrow esp if science can achieve A&F status. Btw, whether science or independent people could endorse these supernaturals or miracles? Whether it was encouraged and allowed to understand? Here, we do that.

Sure, in the view of skeptics of a sort, atheists especially, and many other thoughtful people, what passes for a miracle is an example of a poorly explained natural event, and one can hope (though "A&F" is so unlikely in science as to be excluded from the expectations of any scientist) that explanations will be found. But the point which you continually miss, or deny, or fail to understand, is that the scientific explanation is rejected by persons of many religions. Their reason for rejecting is not insufficient knowledge. It is outright denial. It is the true belief that miracles occur and that the nature of a miracle makes it utterly immune to scientific explanation. It does not matter for this discussion whether they are right or wrong. Religion is about belief.

 

[JayUtah]

Why Miracles can't be defined as couldn't yet be known in science? Science is not yet A&F so obviously, we can not make its base in A&F. We can just stamp those miracles as "yet unknown in science". You can note many such things even in science and in application eg in medical science.

I know it by different POV. It is difficult for me to accept yet non-A&F with A&F.

Science is perfectly comfortable pointing to observations and saying it is not yet known what causes that. This is particularly true of one-time happenstance events, which are what most religiously-touted miracles consist of. Even when science can provide good candidate hypotheses for these events, religious people reject them outright. They are motivated to maintain that science has no explanation for their observations, therefore the supernatural explanation must be held. This occurs even when the scientific explanation for some observation achieves a high enough degree of rigor to bridge the inductive gap.

But my point was that science does not believe in true miracles, where the cause really is some local and otherwise inexplicable supernatural cause. Science does not believe the laws of nature are arbitrarily suspended in specific cases to allow a supernatural cause and effect. Science categorically rejects all supernatural causes.

 

[Kumar]

I already addressed this. You said your religion came from nature. Showing merely that there is a "relation" between your religion and nature does not prove its basis. In two rather lengthy posts, I showed how Jainism merely ennobles a particular caricature of nature to be its god. The derivation goes in exactly the opposite direction you claim. Since you failed to address those posts, I will consider that I have refuted your claim.

Thanks a lot for good posts. There is a basic difference which can lead to never ending arguments. These discussions remained quite useful and become quite lengthy. Hence we can discuss other topics elsewhere. I really respect you by heart. Thanks & bye.

 

[fagin]

The only difference is you (wrong) and every other poster in this and your other threads (right).

No argument.

A&F.

10-4.

 

[Kumar]

Science is perfectly comfortable pointing to observations and saying it is not yet known what causes that. This is particularly true of one-time happenstance events, which are what most religiously-touted miracles consist of. Even when science can provide good candidate hypotheses for these events, religious people reject them outright. They are motivated to maintain that science has no explanation for their observations, therefore the supernatural explanation must be held. This occurs even when the scientific explanation for some observation achieves a high enough degree of rigor to bridge the inductive gap.

But my point was that science does not believe in true miracles, where the cause really is some local and otherwise inexplicable supernatural cause. Science does not believe the laws of nature are arbitrarily suspended in specific cases to allow a supernatural cause and effect. Science categorically rejects all supernatural causes.

True. Probably conversion of energy in different forms, may be supernatural or miracle. Both way, things can be odd. From Science POV, it is not yet A&F, from religion POV, it does not agree with science on supernatural and miracles. So nothing can be fixed till things become A&F, so use to discuss further.

 

[fagin]

So the burning bush was actually a couple of bronze age boy scouts rubbing sticks together?

 

[JayUtah]

True. Probably conversion of energy in different forms, may be supernatural or miracle. Both way, things can be odd. From Science POV, it is not yet A&F, from religion POV, it does not agree with science on supernatural and miracles. So nothing can be fixed till things become A&F, so use to discuss further.

You continue to refuse to see the point.

The point is not whether miracles can be explained by science. The point is that the people who believe in miracles as part of their religion reject any scientific explanation, even if that explanation has merit. Specifically they reject any natural explanation for miracles, even if that explanation has merit. This disputes your claim that religion has a natural basis.

Please address that point, not the point of whether science can explain miracles or whether science may someday be able to explain them.

 

[JayUtah]

Thanks a lot for good posts. There is a basic difference which can lead to never ending arguments. These discussions remained quite useful and become quite lengthy. Hence we can discuss other topics elsewhere. I really respect you by heart. Thanks & bye.

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?

 

[Dancing David]

All things and beings are just modified form of probably one unified force(?) or four fundamental forces & elementary particles. This can suggest some universality at basic level.

Yes and not in anyway related to religion

 

[Dancing David]

Mixing Heat and cool giving fibers can give odd outcomes to body. This angle remain in my mind since long back, as I experianced odd on wearing mixed fiber cloths.

Probably, previously, we made lot of basis about possible infection. Protection was not there. Potential Hate by other members towards woman may be the resons.

May this day have some natural/radiation/conmic rays/astrological odd or like Sunday holiday.

I leave this as an example of 'as found in nature'.

 

[Kumar]

You continue to refuse to see the point.

The point is not whether miracles can be explained by science. The point is that the people who believe in miracles as part of their religion reject any scientific explanation, even if that explanation has merit. Specifically they reject any natural explanation for miracles, even if that explanation has merit. This disputes your claim that religion has a natural basis.

Please address that point, not the point of whether science can explain miracles or whether science may someday be able to explain them.

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