Religious Typology Quiz

[Cancel 1 2023]

Thanks for the discussion.

I didn't see a "discussion", but you are welcome.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Thank you for literally ignoring every single point I made in that regards. So long as you ignore my position it is easier to argue against its existence.

After watching your posts for the past few days, your “points” often don’t address the points of others. You go off on tangents just like you did with my posts.

Mixing science and philosophy, morality, etc muddles the truth.

From a few days ago:

That's why I feel like there will always be room for science, philosopy, religion. They are not mutually exclusive.

I don't know if a time equals zero even makes sense. If time is quantized, time could never actually reach back to the zero right before the countdown. And if time really depends on the second law of thermodynamics, then maybe the singularity existed at Planck time and Planck scale infinitely long before cosmic expansion and inflation began.

The other way to look at it, is there was a realm of entirely unknown physics before the first nanosecond of creation.

Agreed. It's a problem when people either try to mix them too much or declare one is superior to the other.

When push comes to shove, I prefer to follow the facts. Studying and understanding the Universe is a good thing. Those who are religious and truly believe God created the Universe should also believe God gave humans a brain with the expectation people would use it. People saying, "No, we should do it like our ancestors Og and Olga did in the old days because they saw a grass fire" are not using their brains.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

After watching your posts for the past few days, your “points” often don’t address the points of others. You go off on tangents just like you did with my posts.

Mixing science and philosophy, morality, etc muddles the truth.

From a few days ago:

I assume you are aware that physical science used to be called Natural Philosophy.

Thanks for your critique of my posts. I will attempt to learn from them. I understand that often I got far too technical and far too detailed for the type of discussion here. I will moderate as best I can.

 

[Cypress]

I didn't see a "discussion", but you are welcome.

I understood your points, I just do not accept them as valid. I do not indulge the idea that innate ideas of the human mind, like freedom, exist out in the universe with measurable mechanistic properties like electrons.

I wasn't mocking you with test tubes, microscopes, and particle accelerators because those are the tools of physical science. I literally can't think of any tools of physical science which could be used to to do experiments on freedom, unless you can give me examples.

I thought your comments about invisible unicorns and imaginary widegets were beside the point, because there are many things which exist only in the human mind and do not have physical properties amenable to sensory perception: freedom, equality, the Pythagorean theorem, the concept of infinity, justice, a perfect right triangle.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I assume you are aware that physical science used to be called Natural Philosophy.

Thanks for your critique of my posts. I will attempt to learn from them. I understand that often I got far too technical and far too detailed for the type of discussion here. I will moderate as best I can.

I assume you are aware that people used to think the Sun revolved around the Earth. Are you still agreeing with Ptolemy or are you just muddying the waters with bullshit again, Jank?

Again, you’re most welcome. I’m here to help.

 

[Cypress]

I assume you are aware that physical science used to be called Natural Philosophy.

Thanks for your critique of my posts. I will attempt to learn from them. I understand that often I got far too technical and far too detailed for the type of discussion here. I will moderate as best I can.

Compared to the dozens of racists and nincompoops here, I think your contributions are a good addition to the forum

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

I assume you are aware that people used to think the Sun revolved around the Earth. Are you still agreeing with Ptolemy or are you just muddying the waters with bullshit again, Jank?

"muddying the waters with bullshit again"?

When have I done that before? (Or are you just saying that all my points are bullshit because you and Cypress disagree with them?)

 

[Cypress]

After watching your posts for the past few days, your “points” often don’t address the points of others. You go off on tangents just like you did with my posts.

Mixing science and philosophy, morality, etc muddles the truth.

From a few days ago:

There is a legitimate school of intellectual thought that believes in a very strict sense of materialism; that everything is a consequence of physics. Chemistry and biology can be reduced to physics.

I see major problems with this school of thought, and I never thought Michelangelo's Pieta could be explained by a collection of quarks and electrons.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

There is a legitimate school of intellectual thought that believes in a very strict sense of materialism; that everything is a consequence of physics. Chemistry and biology can be reduced to physics.

I see major problems with this school of thought, and I never thought Michelangelo's Pieta could be explained by a collection of quarks and electrons.

IMO, that’s the common belief of intelligent atheists. What else could they believe except that people are ambulatory meat-computers responding to genetic and biochemical programming. It also gives them a convenient excuse to ignore most human morality. Notice that the atheists Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were very materialist and had no qualms about mass murder.

Agreed, as this conversation covered a few days ago, not everything human can be explained by science.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

"muddying the waters with bullshit again"?

When have I done that before? (Or are you just saying that all my points are bullshit because you and Cypress disagree with them?)

Correct. Do you have short-term memory issues? Do you remember the first time I asked you that question?

Multiple times in this thread. You tend to move the goal posts if not leave the field completely. No on all your points. Just the ones where you veer off from the topic or, most often, avoid answering questions.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Compared to the dozens of racists and nincompoops here, I think your contributions are a good addition to the forum

Agreed on NovoJank. Not as bright as he thinks he is, but clearly brighter than any Trumper on JPP.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

IMO, that’s the common belief of intelligent atheists. What else could they believe except that people are ambulatory meat-computers responding to genetic and biochemical programming. It also gives them a convenient excuse to ignore most human morality. Notice that the atheists Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were very materialist and had no qualms about mass murder.

I have got to stop you right there. Most atheists are fully moral people. They just don't believe there is an invisible person outside of space and time who developed those morals.

It is insulting in the extreme to compare atheists to the absolute worst people imaginable. Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin did not do their horrors in service to atheism. They did their horrors in service to their own twisted need for power and control. That is easily extensible to the most religious. The medieval pogroms that saw the murder of jews in unimaginable numbers was usually done at the behest of christians. Were they doing it because Martin Luther wrote horrible things about Jews? No, they were doing it because they were evil and wanted to murder. Their faith was easily leveragable for the task. Slavery? Supported FULLY by people of faith (Christians) in the South. The examples are endless.

So let's not go down the path that somehow reserve "morality" only for the faithful and those who believe in the supernatural.

Thanks.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Agreed on NovoJank. Not as bright as he thinks he is, but clearly brighter than any Trumper on JPP.

Thank you for the insult. I believe I clearly stated I am not that bright. I never claimed to be. As I noted in one post I barely made it through my undergrad. So let's not start making up stuff about me, shall we?

Thanks.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Correct. Do you have short-term memory issues? Do you remember the first time I asked you that question?

Multiple times in this thread. You tend to move the goal posts if not leave the field completely. No on all your points. Just the ones where you veer off from the topic or, most often, avoid answering questions.

Incorrect.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed on NovoJank. Not as bright as he thinks he is, but clearly brighter than any Trumper on JPP.

To be honest, 20 years ago I might have been a kind of strict material reductionist myself. Modern science education really does not teach or require classwork in formal logic, theories of knowledge, how to recognize logical fallacies.

It took me years of reading and self education to supplement an education I had in the inductive method with a more sophisticated understanding of the nature knowledge.

Albert Einstein famously wrote that a proper science education should include coursework in formal logic and philosopy of science.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Thank you for the insult. I believe I clearly stated I am not that bright. I never claimed to be.

As I noted in one post I barely made it through my undergrad. So let's not start making up stuff about me, shall we?

Thanks.

If you agree you are not that bright, then why do you call it an insult?

What was your major? It’s not making stuff up if you already agreed with it.

You’re welcome!

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

If you agree you are not that bright, then why do you call it an insult?

Are you really asking that question?

 

[Cypress]

IMO, that’s the common belief of intelligent atheists. What else could they believe except that people are ambulatory meat-computers responding to genetic and biochemical programming. It also gives them a convenient excuse to ignore most human morality. Notice that the atheists Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were very materialist and had no qualms about mass murder.

Agreed, as this conversation covered a few days ago, not everything human can be explained by science.

State atheism and State theocracy are both threats to human freedom.

I think most atheists have adopted the moral maxims of the religious traditions of the culture they grew up around (Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, or Confucian), but they just secularized it by stripping away the religious language and context.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

To be honest, 20 years ago I might have been a kind of strict material reductionist myself. Modern science education really does not teach or require classwork in formal logic, theories of knowledge, how to recognize logical fallacies.

It took me years of reading and self education to supplement an education I had in the inductive method with a more sophisticated understanding of the nature knowledge.

Albert Einstein famously wrote that a proper science education should include coursework in formal logic and philosopy of science.

If there’s a point to life then it’s to learn and grow. A person who claims they are the same person they were 10 or 20 years ago are abnormal, IMO.

I’m certainly not the same person I was 10 years ago much less 20 or 40. In the old days I was a little further right than Attila the Hun…and less forgiving of idiots.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Are you really asking that question?

Jank, you’re proving you were correct when you posted you weren’t that bright. Since I asked the question, then, yes, I’m really asking that question.

It’s okay that you dodge questions. Your choice and right to do so. I always learn something from a person when they avoid some areas over others.