Is there any religious argument that actually stands when scrutinized with reason?

[JoStories]

Yes I know I am at times snarky. It is mainly based on cause and effect on slurs,veiled insults and insults from others.

It is a carry over from the filth, insults and abuse many on the about.com, Atheist Forum were, without provocation, hurling at me.

I then quoted them "do unto others as you want them do unto you" I told them that I will now become "one of the others" and reflect that which they said back at them without ire, or being affronted by their ill attitudes.
After telling them of this decision they persisted with their uncouth remarks and ad hominem. Was this not then how they wished to be treated ?

I think it will take time for others to see that you are trying to be more respectful. And with all due respect, this is not about.com. I have been here about a year or so and have been, for the most part and I do acknowledge that some posters, most of whom are not here anymore, really got under my skin, have been kind to one and all. I try very hard to see things from the other person's POV. No one is wrong or right about an opinion. It is simply that, an opinion. There is a reason, for example, that outhouse is an atheist. Perhaps it was his choice, before being incarnated to this life, to experience atheism. Who am I to judge him or his life's path? Give people here time and try to remember that when you state something like parapyschology is an accepted and scientific discipline, you need to back up your opinion with credible sources. It is sort of like the God argument. I freely admit that I cannot prove the existence of God. I simply cannot. But that doesn't change that I believe in God. See the difference here?

 

[JoStories]

Okay which claims and assertions are you referring to? What Í considered to be a credible resource was not refuted with a credible source.
Take the links to the UCLA which were pooh poohed.

I was born with telepathy which I have kept hidden, from most people, because of the shock on peoples faces when I sometimes said something and their fear of the unknown.

For me there was never any proof necessary because I cannot be the only "freak" on earth and statistically there must be others like me.

I understand that you are telepathic, as I am an empath. That said, however, I am the first to admit that there is no credible scientific evidence to prove the existence of empathy, as I understand it. Studies done by UCLA may or may not be credible. Just because something comes of an ivy league school does not mean it can be replicated or validated by other scientists. Duke...or was it UNC Chapel Hill???,.... at one time, had a huge school of parapsychology but that has gone the way of the dodo as it was not proven science by today's standards. Telepathy, IMO, does exist but that is opinion and cannot be taken as proof.

 

[Theunis]

I think it will take time for others to see that you are trying to be more respectful. And with all due respect, this is not about.com. I have been here about a year or so and have been, for the most part and I do acknowledge that some posters, most of whom are not here anymore, really got under my skin, have been kind to one and all. I try very hard to see things from the other person's POV. No one is wrong or right about an opinion. It is simply that, an opinion. There is a reason, for example, that outhouse is an atheist. Perhaps it was his choice, before being incarnated to this life, to experience atheism. Who am I to judge him or his life's path? Give people here time and try to remember that when you state something like parapyschology is an accepted and scientific discipline, you need to back up your opinion with credible sources. It is sort of like the God argument. I freely admit that I cannot prove the existence of God. I simply cannot. But that doesn't change that I believe in God. See the difference here?

Sorry I edited my previous post while you were busy with your reply.
My further comment thus crossed with your reply.

AS clear as daylight.
But I was only trying to explain what caused me to be snarky at times and from where it originated.

I am at peace with atheists and theists. It is their way of life and their anchor points in life

Embrace the Universe and walk in beauty

 

[JoStories]

Sorry I edited my previous post while you were busy with your reply.
My further comment thus crossed with your reply.

AS clear as daylight.
But I was only trying to explain what caused me to be snarky at times and from where it originated.

I am at peace with atheists and theists. It is their way of life and their anchor points in life

Embrace the Universe and walk in beauty

I love your last remark. Its just wonderful. And I am happy you are at peace with others and their life choices. It is one of the things that Buddhism has taught me. I understand what caused you to be snarky. There are some posters here whom I have to work very hard to be kind to despite their continued insulting remarks and so on. And you will see that many times, those who are the most rude often leave after a very short time. Hang in there. And peace to you. Namaste!

 

[Theunis]

I love your last remark. Its just wonderful. And I am happy you are at peace with others and their life choices. It is one of the things that Buddhism has taught me. I understand what caused you to be snarky. There are some posters here whom I have to work very hard to be kind to despite their continued insulting remarks and so on. And you will see that many times, those who are the most rude often leave after a very short time. Hang in there. And peace to you. Namaste!

I say to Namaste - as in Sanskrit "na-mas-tay" to you.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Namaste+meaning&tbm=isch&imgil=DK9z5z0ArwrsQM%3A%3BXaz11B6DD2S4nM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcreateabundanceinyourlife.com%252Fnamaste-the-meaning-behind-it%252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=DK9z5z0ArwrsQM%3A%2CXaz11B6DD2S4nM%2C_&biw=1280&bih=681&usg=__QbUw_YwGgMIiLW-wW4-DEDBjye4=&ved=0ahUKEwjPguax4vvJAhVCtBoKHaPNB6sQyjcIPQ&ei=6bR_Vo_qBMLoaqObn9gK#imgrc=DK9z5z0ArwrsQM:&usg=__QbUw_YwGgMIiLW-wW4-DEDBjye4=

Being what I am and hearing the whispers from others minds I did not need teachers, but there was always this soft voice of an unseen friend that I conversed with on matters far beyond what was expected at my age. I investigate all things

I know the difference between empathy and an Empath. An Empath is far more than the empathy he reveals while empathy is mainly a trigger from past traumatic experiences
and thus that person has more compassion for the sufferer.

 

[Theunis]

[QUOTE="JoStories, post: 4560853, member: 41189"].....There are some posters here whom I have to work very hard to be kind to despite their continued insulting remarks and so on......[/QUOTE]

Cogitating and contemplating on your remark I shall ignore such Insulting and uncalled for remarks even if at times it may appear I am ignoring that person. I never place anyone on "Ignore" for a wisdom may be spoken and even a broken analogue clock is correct twice a day.

A soft spoken word diverts the ire yet it can cause coals to be heaped on the persons head.

 

[Shad]

No bull. Thats nice.
My logic lecturer must have scrambled my mind.

No idea if the lecturer did or not. Could of been scrambled before or after.

Pseudoscience does not appear to be one of your subjects of understanding. But you sure know how to make veiled insults. To be more specific in what I mean - you ask do I know what specific means, intimating that I am ignorant, why then O Grand Master (drip, drip) why don't you try to educate me on this matter and stop casting slurs on my knowledge. whilst in many aspects yours is severely lacking.

None argument. All your are doing is complaining that I pointed out flaws in your logic and questioned your knowledge of it rather than working on your argument better

Go back to Hereward Carrington where some things were fraudulent. Some thing does not mean all things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereward_Carrington

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereward_Carrington

Read your own source.

How about fraudulent science with the Piltdown Man and others placing arms on monkeys and apes in unnatural positions and then make fraudulent claims regarding the evolution of man. Using your logic Evolution is thus also a pseudoscience for it has been caught out in fraudulent acts, lies and deceit.

Red herring. Pitdown Man is a known fraud and has nothing to do with modern evolution. Evidence of evolution has been increasing while your idea has not.

You are not unlike those who say Psychology is not a science yet Psychology uses all the tenets and tools of modern day science; The same goes for
modern day research into the paranormal.

One nets results which have been verified repeatedly within science. Your idea has not.

Stop cherry picking and do yourself a favour by finding information all on your own regarding these present day researches.

When you produce more than a wiki page you never bothered to read we can talk. Until then you still have nothing backing your view

Q.

Who or what, my lad, was the father of science. A. Philosophy!

So? When you can use logic probably you will have a point, until that happens you are just posting bluster.

Dear me I had already apologized for equating element with component.
It is quite obvious that you have no comprehension of the fact I was using that site to explain that I meant dust to be a component of earth.

You used a site using the same flawed logic as you to explain your view. It didn't help your case at all since AIG is dishonest and uses flawed logic in order to maintain its literialism.

Man oh man now it devolves into you using strawman tactics

Nope. I read the article and pointed out direct mistakes using logic by injecting fallacious reasoning into their arguments. There was no strawman at all.

 

[JoStories]

[QUOTE="JoStories, post: 4560853, member: 41189"].....There are some posters here whom I have to work very hard to be kind to despite their continued insulting remarks and so on......

Cogitating and contemplating on your remark I shall ignore such Insulting and uncalled for remarks even if at times it may appear I am ignoring that person. I never place anyone on "Ignore" for a wisdom may be spoken and even a broken analogue clock is correct twice a day.

A soft spoken word diverts the ire yet it can cause coals to be heaped on the persons head.[/QUOTE]
I tend to not place people on ignore either, although, in the past, there have been a couple that were so rancorous I simply could not tolerate their hatred. It is rare however and as you say, sometimes the worst people are the ones that teach us the most. I often find that those who espouse a particular type of thinking that bothers me I need to look at why it bothers me. Often there is something there that I need to learn from. But I applaud your attempts here. People will notice.

 

[serp777]

I don't agree.

Its all in how you define "true" I do not define it how you wish

Well if true freedom cannot be defined at all then its entirely irrelevant anyways and nobody has true freedom since there isn't such a thing anyways to begin with.

 

[outhouse]

nobody has true freedom since there isn't such a thing anyways to begin with.

Sure there is.

Its all relative and in context. True freedom is an expression that can be viewed and interpreted differently.


I have true freedom in my eyes, and that is all that counts.

 

[Mister Emu]

I only wonder why morality as a concept needs to go beyond materialistic naturalism, unless your talking about human emotions.

Morality demands, and materialistic naturalism has no demands, nor a means of providing them.

 

[outhouse]

Morality demands

I do not understand the meaning of this sir

 

[Mister Emu]

I do not understand the meaning of this sir

Morality is demanding. It makes demands of our actions and thoughts. Morality tells us what we should do.

 

[outhouse]

Morality is demanding. It makes demands of our actions and thoughts. Morality tells us what we should do.

Thank you.

From a Christian perspective I would agree.

For me it is a free choice.

 

[Mister Emu]

Thank you.

From a Christian perspective I would agree.

For me it is a free choice.

I'm afraid it is my turn to for confusion. I am either misunderstanding what you are referring as it in your last sentence, or am failing to see how it ties into my statement.

Also, not sure what you mean by from a Christian perspective, from any perspective morality is the system used to distinguish or judge between good and evil actions. Materialistic Naturalism simply lacks the ability to provision such judgement.

 

[Riverwolf]

Even when a claim is made respectfully, it's still a claim. There are very few religions that say "I think this may or may not be true; I lean a bit towards 'true' (even though it's just as likely that I'm wrong), so I'll build my life around the idea that it's true." Most say something like "I know in my heart of hearts that THIS is true, even though I respect the fact that the beliefs of people who don't acknowledge this 'fact' are still meaningful and important to them, and may have been arrived at honestly and intelligently."

... and there are plenty of religions where the truth of their beliefs is dependent on the truth of facts about physical things. For instance, every single revealed religion is based on the idea that an event occurred where their god/gods/angels/whatever transmitted the revealed knowledge of their religion into a form in the physical world (whether this was stone tablets/scriptures transcribed by a prophet/oral tradition/golden plates/etc.).

But can you give some examples that aren't dependent on objective truth claims? I can't think of any.

Not revealed religions, no, but most religions aren't revealed; most are indigenous. Thus, most religions don't actually deal in belief much, if at all. They're intimately tied into the lifestyles of their cultures. So if you're asking for examples of religions, revealed, indigenous, or otherwise; that I *know* aren't dependent on objective truth claims, well...

Celtic Reconstructionism
Heathenry
Hellenism
Religio Romana
Rodnovery
Shinto
Shen Dao
Daoism
Vedanta
Shaktism
Most Hindu religions, actually, except for a few that gainted popularity in the West.
Buddhism
Wicca and its descendents

And I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of religions still practiced by unbroken Tribal cultures all over the world would qualify, as well.

That's not to say groups or individuals within these religions don't sometimes make objective truth claims, but your inquiry is about depdendence, not presence. I'm sure there's others I've either forgotten about or just don't know about.

yeah well...I was just responding to your post.....it was headed to digression...
and yes we are headed to extinction.

No more than anything else ever. Everything dies sooner or later, so in other news, Heaven is blue and cows go moo.

 

[Thief]

Everything dies sooner or later, so in other news, Heaven is blue and cows go moo.

a report of what you know?

 

[serp777]

Sure there is.

Its all relative and in context. True freedom is an expression that can be viewed and interpreted differently.


I have true freedom in my eyes, and that is all that counts.

To be honest I don't think it makes much sense to say freedom is relative and depends on context. First of all, you could easily justify slavery by being like, well hey, you've got true freedom by my definition! I just have even truer freedom!

True freedom seems to have an identical definition--maximal freedom. This is the maximum freedom you could have that isn't logically contradictory. It means you always have a choice on everything you could possibly do. Anything less than that is partial freedom, which is what all humans have by the very nature of being human. Our sub conscious makes a significant number of decisions for you. So you can assign any definition you want, but if you could have more freedoms, then how is your definition of having true freedom sensible in any sense?

 

[wizanda]

Like yhwh exists because.....

YHVH created a snare in the Tanakh to catch out the workers of inquity, that was established by Yeshua, which Christians have fallen into...

So the fact there are so many Christians following something evil, as if it is good, proves something helped orchestrate it across time, else it wouldn't add up so well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not revealed religions, no, but most religions aren't revealed; most are indigenous.

I'm not sure how those are supposed to be mutually exclusive categories, but that's a side issue.

Thus, most religions don't actually deal in belief much, if at all. They're intimately tied into the lifestyles of their cultures. So if you're asking for examples of religions, revealed, indigenous, or otherwise; that I *know* aren't dependent on objective truth claims, well...

Celtic Reconstructionism
Heathenry
Hellenism
Religio Romana
Rodnovery
Shinto
Shen Dao
Daoism
Vedanta
Shaktism
Most Hindu religions, actually, except for a few that gainted popularity in the West.
Buddhism
Wicca and its descendents

And I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of religions still practiced by unbroken Tribal cultures all over the world would qualify, as well.

That's not to say groups or individuals within these religions don't sometimes make objective truth claims, but your inquiry is about depdendence, not presence. I'm sure there's others I've either forgotten about or just don't know about.

I'm not familiar with all of those religions, but all of the ones I even know a little about are chock-full of objective truth claims. Take Shinto: at its core, it's based on three ideas being factually true:

- kami literally exist
- kami have real effects in the physical world
- kami's effects on the physical world can be altered by human rituals

I'm really surprised that you put Religio Romana on that list. One of the things that becomes apparent when you study Roman history is just how superstitious the Romans were. Their religion had rituals for everything in order to accomplish very specific real-world goals. Do you think that when Roman generals would consult the sacred chickens, for instance, they were only honouring a pointless tradition and not trying to gain actual knowledge about the real-world future by supernatural means?