zedvictor4

I would suggest that the term "nature" applies to everything....As such the term  "super nature" is perhaps inevitable but probably unnecessary.

In an oscillating sequence of universes, god would be a necessary creation that would enable the re-initiation of the sequence.

Create a god to create a new universe, to create a new god to create a new universe etc. 

God would be the ultimate purpose of material evolution.....A flux of knowledge, data and energy.

And so to answer Stephen's question...The superfluous machinations (killings) of an organic enabler (humankind) would be irrelevant and inconsequential.

So what about the serious suggestion that a god would not view killing in the same way that we view killing.

We make an assumption and therefore expect a god to comply with our assumption.

Wouldn't it be a tad arrogant to expect this of a god?

So do you understand the problem I have with your version of things?.....Acceptance without proof...Belief.

It's not that I am saying that your version is incorrect....It's just,  as I see it, your version is but one hypothesis.

Accepting one option and ignoring other possibilities is undoubtedly an easy fix.

So do you accept that other people see things differently?

So what do you mean when you say "knowledge of reality".

Why not work on the idea that a god was and a god perhaps will be again, but for now we are on our own.

Well stated.

Well.

Eternal universe is the dilemma.

No beginning is the problem...Once the components are in place there is then the opportunity for eternality....Never ending.

In this respect I subscribe to an oscillating universe hypothesis, and consequently can accept the notion of a god principle, which though is far more about the functionality, sequence and re-initiation of a process rather than anything to do with spirituality.

Spiritualising the god principle is probably an inevitable and also perhaps necessary phase of organic development though.  Especially If we regard the history of religion and the role it has played in the development of knowledge and understanding. In so much as, religious institutions provided focus and opportunity for learning, science and technological development.

No beginning though.

What is your take on the beginning?

It's also an easy fix to ignore the issue.

And energy is a property of matter rather than matter being a property of energy.

As I said, backward thinking.

Probably from a comfortable isolationists perspective.

One World and nowhere else to go.

Coronavirus certainly had no respect for borders.

Not sure what you meant re circuses and zoos.

Nonetheless when you consider the necessary logistics of the ark thing, it would have needed to have been one hell of a boat.

As for the hypothesis problem:

The underlying dilemma with all creation hypotheses is the something from nothing principle.

I personally cannot accept the idea that the something exists eternally.

Ok, so it was perhaps a bit tongue in cheek. 

Nonetheless the analogy isn't so ridiculous if you think about it.

Resisting temptation and the sins of the flesh and all that.

The irony of this is the information that the bible offers is unreliable.

I agree that research should extend beyond a mere archaic mythology.

The comparison was there to make.

No.

I think that what is being referred to is a time of ignorance.

Figuratively speaking......The one eyed serpent and the juicy peach.

Not at all.

Floods are common place.

Boats are boats. 

And mythical exaggerations are what they are.

And the god things is a valid hypothesis, but falls down because of the existence of a god....The theist hypothesis like all other hypotheses never quite start at the beginning.

Looking at it globally.

I would expect that there are millions of people that would be more than content with what you might consider to mediocre.

We are all citizens of the World.

No one has as yet proven the whole flood, ark and Christian god thng.

So believers and non-believers alike are always somewhat jumping the gun when attempting to interpret and contextualise, biblical mythology.

I would suggest that we should all appreciate the hypothetical nature of such discussions.

Ok.

Independence is backward thinking.

Such is the human condition hey.

Yes. 

But that is based upon your assumption, that a god is real rather than a concept. It also implies that a universal god is only really concerned with human existence.

My assumptions are based upon a hypothetical, universal god.

Taking into consideration a god's universal responsibilities, rather than what would be just an inconsequential organic life form, languishing upon an inconsequential speck of rock, somewhere within the vastness of space.

Why would a god, the precursor of mankind, be a variety?

I think that Hawaii should be independent.

And Alaska.

And Texas.

And Rhode Island

And......

On the one hand people strive for equality and on the other hand they like to think that they are different.

What we need is a god to pop down and put people straight on a few things.

Ain't going to happen though is it?

So what do you think that all that ritual bible-speak actually means?.....Or does it just roll of the tongue with little thought?

I would suggest that your juxtaposition of bible speak and human social reality clearly emphasises the negativity of theocracy.

Human social government, the real manifestation of justice, imposes law, irrespective of a religious hypothesis.

And how can 2000 year old bible-speak fully relate to modern law?

As I previously stated....Theocracy is tyranny.

I see Dr Frank as a cynical yes man.

Nonetheless, I agree with him in this instance.

You said "I see"

So what do you see?...A holy, perfect man could describe a million different images...So what is your perfect image of a man?

Ok, all things to all men..... Nonetheless, a perfect man is an arbitrary decision

And why would a hippy be my nemesis?

And me and who?

Well as I stated.

The Christian biblical god is hypothetical irrespective of belief.

Therefore any standard that is applied is also hypothetical.

All that we do is design and set human standards.

So my personal conclusion is that a universal god would not be overly concerned about the problems of one evolved organism here on Earth....Such a small problem in the context of a seemingly infinite universe.

It's a bit like us worrying about swatting flies.

Have you created a god in your own image then?

Or is it the stereotypical image of a hippyish looking Caucasian bloke, as seen in bible illustrations?

It's somewhat naïve to assume that an actual god would be a particular one that you prefer to refer to.

As it is not proven that there is an actual god

Or if it was proven.... which particular one it was

Or perhaps it would be a completely different one altogether.

It is therefore impossible to say what regard an actual god would have in respect of killing.

All that we are certain of is that there are a variety of ways and means that bring about the demise of the organic mass (Human)

My suggestion is that a god would probably look at the state of the world and probably not give a toss, especially when you consider expected birth and death rates globally. (A god would be global not regional)

As far as we are currently able to know, murder is a human thing that only bothers humans.

Point proven.

Theists will not be honest.

So what is bible law and who gets to make it up and who gets to impose it?

I think that what you propose is simply good old tyranny dressed up as religion.

I sure that there are one or two Dart members who would be keen to wield the stick.

Are you attempting to use quantum mechanics as an explanation for a god?

I think that you perhaps have a stylised picture of a Muslim in your head, maybe derived from media images rather than from personal experience.

A bit like an Iranian Muslim assuming that all Christians are White Caucasian.

Interestingly though, the ethnic mix and physical characteristics of the Iranian people is quite diverse. Which isn't surprising if you study Persian/Iranian history within the context of the wider Middle Eastern region.

Islam is a religion and a Muslim is an adherent to Islam and anyone of any race, skin tone or ethnicity can be or become a Muslim.

Hmmmm….Conveniently inconsequential.

It's interesting how a text so full of fact, is simultaneously so short of facts.

Sort of pseudo-hypothetical mythology as it were.

And exodus didn't say anything...It was the compilers of the mythical hypothesis that came up with tales.

Some might say that the inconsequence of the text, as you put it, is somewhat devaluing. 

Which specific mountain did Moses ascend?

Or was it just a metaphorical mountain?

Well.

Tough one, because of the ambiguity of the English language, using the "ist"  suffix directly doesn't work and in fact sort of means the opposite.

So Anti-Hindu is therefore probably the best available option.

So if you want to create a specific word, then feel free to do so.

Hmmmm…..How about Theoantism…..Therefore, Hinduantism.

One wasn't trying to prove a "bloody thing".

Anyway last post on this thread.

Regards.

Bigotry is an inward thing relative to the bigot.

The process of thinking is such that bigotry or intolerance is self contained.

Similarly, a third party awareness of said bigotry is also self contained.

Bigotry manifesting as active opposition to something is probably best defined by using the "Anti" prefix, as suggested by Dr Franklin.

"Snti-chrostinay"...Well, I assume that they were trying to say Anti-Christian.

A Phobia is an irrational fear or aversion....Another internal data construct....But not necessarily one that results in intolerance.

One is extremely fearful of spiders....Arachnophobia....Though one is wholly tolerant of a spiders existence for example.

Well.

One was not disputing religion or faith or belief.... Confidence and acceptance of ones own thoughts (or data constructs as I refer to them), should be a given right.

All that one was asking, was for Theists to be honest and admit that they had no actual proof of their chosen god....(Real physical evidence that can be shown to a sceptic such as myself.)

As there has been no evidence to the contrary forthcoming. I am therefore confident that the truism as presented is in fact correct

Bigotry is bigotry.

Separate words are unnecessary.

And Islamophobia is not bigotry....Two different words with two different meanings.

Hello Ragnar.

Most religion threads have a tendency to evolve in a similar way.

Nonetheless, I will now leave this one alone altogether, confident in the knowledge that my point has been validated

Regards.

Interesting how you ignored all the relevant statistical data in my previous post.

And the attempts at refutation that you did give were, it has to be said, complete nonsense.

Statistics as presented are not based on conversion, that's just a foolish claim.

Children born to Christians will be counted as Christians as those born to Muslims will be regarded as Muslim etc.

Your argument seems to have reduced to wild self affirming claims.

And a multitude remains a multitude.

And your bias cannot change reality.

And your argument is not a lie....it is just the same old unprovable assumption.

But still no proof.

You see, things can be as complex or as simple as you care to make them...….Neologisms this and epistemological bullshit that.

But the bottom line remains the same.

Have a nice day sir.

I quite enjoy being naked myself. 

But as yet this year in Central Wales there hasn't been an occasion when I would have wanted to have been out of doors with no clothes on.

And when there might be... covering up loosely is often the better alternative to worrying about sun protection.

It really should be just a case of personal choice relative to use of available time.... Nudism as an activity though is something that I could not find time for....I already have a well established modus operandi that I am content with.

And so in the interests of debate, what do you think about the other related issue that I identified....Confidence in ones own skin and yet the need for assumed enhancement.

No criticism just a moot point.

Is there any real point in trying to reconcile an abstract concept, other than the exercise of trying to reconcile an abstract concept that is unreconcilable.

And a god can do anything imaginable.

And the likelihood of a tree and it's function is as likely as the observer and it's function.

And we assume that the qualities of the universe are what they are, whether or not we are able to know what they are.

And so we assume that we do in fact understand the physics of sound and also the difference between the standing tree and the fallen tree.

People clothed themselves because they were cold.

The taboo has become a collectivised and well established data construct.

It's so easy to blame everything on an assumed god.

Though using nature as a philosophy, one might  therefore question the boob job....One is either confident and therefore content in their natural body.... or not so perhaps.

Athias and therefore athiasism has one intent.

That is the glorification and adoration of their own intellect.

I would suggest that they are really not that interested in a god.

So with no proof forthcoming,  the truism remains intact.

Though the truism has never sought for proof of a god.

All that is required is for the theist to admit that there is currently no real proof of a god.

If the world population continues to expand then the numbers of those regarded as "Christian" will inevitably expand also.

As will the numbers of those regarded as atheist.

In terms of percentage though, approximately 34% of the world population is considered to have a  Christian label, which means that approximately 66% is labelled differently, including approximately 12% atheist/agnostic.... All of which can rightly be regarded as multitudes.

So non-Christian is the greater and Christian is the single greatest...It really all depends upon how one chooses to manipulate statistics and present information.

And of course a lot depends upon which sectors of World society breed and expand the most rapidly, because the transfer of labels is obviously relative to the expansion of multitudes.

Nonetheless, no amount of statistical  manipulation will validate a religious text.

I tend to use the word data because it is short to type.

Information and/or knowledge would perhaps be more meaningful.

I'm interested in the interaction between the mass, data and function, and in the context of moral relativism, how one consequently is able to pin down morality to be something other than one of 7.6 billion different ideas.

Are we one society of 7.6 billion or are we a society of 7.6 billion individuals.

Do we have a hive mind?....is uncritical conformity possible?

The notion of spirituality as a moral or governing influence separate to the internal acquisition and manipulation of data is undoubtedly interesting, especially as  material evolution has come to a stage where we now realise that data can be formulated and utilised independently of the mass and/or collective.

Though I would still suggest that archaic interpretations of spirituality were inevitably naïve. 

The bible is an inanimate book that cannot convince anyone of anything.

It's people who influence people.

And one doesn't need statistical data to quantify a multitude.

And it's a fact, that most people who loosely regard themselves as Christian have never read the bible.

For most of them  all that Christianity means, is dressing up and doing a bit of singing on a Sunday morning.