CLoNiNG

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from stu:



No. Not each will be rewarded accordingly. You cannot state that as a known. There may well just be NO reward at all for all any one knows

I try hard not to enter debate without precepts but I do hold principles, I try hard to discuss the content and substance. I try not to assume yet always when I talk to the religious , assumptions are flooded at me. I have nothing to prove I have all to discuss. I think it is wrong that religions assume the truth. By any evidence I can find they most definately do no such thing.

If you are truly scientific, you would find the statement that "all are rewarded accordingly" simply has its basis in the law of cause and effect.

If you want to refute the law of cause and effect, so be it.

No reward is also an effect of a cause.

In a physical universe in which every action has an equal an opposite reaction, in which the laws of causation on the physical level are the basis of all the physical sciences....

In a society where it is clearly understood that there is a relationship between mind and body, between thought process and mental state, cause and effect is also accepted.

That you read more into my statements than I am making just shows your bias and existing precepts you bring to this forum.

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:
If you are truly scientific, you would find the statement that "all are rewarded accordingly" simply has its basis in the law of cause and effect.

If you want to refute the law of cause and effect, so be it.

No reward is also an effect of a cause.

In a physical universe in which every action has an equal an opposite reaction, in which the laws of causation on the physical level are the basis of all the physical sciences....

In a society where it is clearly understood that there is a relationship between mind and body, between thought process and mental state, cause and effect is also accepted.

That you read more into my statements than I am making just shows your bias and existing precepts you bring to this forum.

Religiousness is attracted to anything whether they be statements truism or sayings, to which the religion can attempt to attach itself This is such an example.

In science, the cause would be tested to be as certain and as verifiably possible under scientific scrutiny that the cause was indeed A cause and a correct cause. Otherwise it is not a known cause. Then the Efeect of that Cause would be equally carefully examined.

Religion is not a verifiable Cause nor does it stand up to examination or scrutiny. It is not a known Cause in the sense that you portray it to be here.

The EFFECT such "causes" as religion have is obviously variable, unknown uncontrolled and to a great degree irrelevant.

You can't attach the rule of cause and effect to things like religion. It's Cause part alone has more holes than a sieve.

No reward is also an effect of a cause.
Then you make my point for me. You cannot say "each will be rewarded accordingly"

I read into your statements exactly what you said in them. .

So you call me biased and accuse me of holding existing precepts because my opinion is diametrically opposed to yours? Not because you examine and discuss the meaning of cause and effect.

Really, Religious folk are so insecure, preferring to attack when defensiveness wears thin .You just can't help yourself.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from stu:



Religiousness is attracted to anything whether they be statements truism or sayings, to which the religion can attempt to attach itself This is such an example.

In science, the cause would be tested to be as certain and as verifiably possible under scientific scrutiny that the cause was indeed A cause and a correct cause. Otherwise it is not a known cause. Then the Efeect of that Cause would be equally carefully examined.

Religion is not a verifiable Cause nor does it stand up to examination or scrutiny. It is not a known Cause in the sense that you portray it to be here.

The EFFECT such "causes" as religion have is obviously variable, unknown uncontrolled and to a great degree irrelevant.

You can't attach the rule of cause and effect to things like religion. It's Cause part alone has more holes than a sieve.

I read into your statements exactly what you said in them. .

So you call me biased and accuse me of holding existing precepts because my opinion is diametrically opposed to yours? Not because you examine and discuss the meaning of cause and effect.

Really, Religious folk are so insecure, preferring to attack when defensiveness wears thin .You just can't help yourself.

"Religion is not a verifiable Cause nor does it stand up to examination or scrutiny. It is not a known Cause in the sense that you portray it to be here."

You speak of religion, that is not the term I have been using.

Faith may not be verifiable with the tools you use to examine and scrutinize the results, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work nor have a causal effect on the practicioner.

It just means that the tools you are using are limited to the physical sciences.

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:



"Religion is not a verifiable Cause nor does it stand up to examination or scrutiny. It is not a known Cause in the sense that you portray it to be here."

You speak of religion, that is not the term I have been using.

Faith may not be verifiable with the tools you use to examine and scrutinize the results, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work.

It just means that the tools you are using are limited to the physical sciences.

If a Faith in a God which will produce a reward - is not a religious term then what the hell is?

Faith is Faith but so what. Faith fails as well ,it doesn't mean it can always be relied upon or that it is intended by God . Something which I distintcly get the feeling you are saying.

And the tools you are using are very limited by a religious imagination , I think

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from stu:



If a Faith in a God which will produce a reward - is not a religious term then what the hell is?

Faith is Faith but so what. Faith fails as well ,it doesn't mean it can always be relied upon or that it is intended by God . Something which I distintcly get the feeling you are saying.

Reward means consequence. Simple. Reward for bad action in society is punishment. Reward for good action is freedom. Both are rewards:

Faith in anything produces a reward, a consequence. I have never said what that reward will be, simply that there is a reward for faith.....the fruits of one's labor.

Wrong faith, punishment. Right faith, liberation. Right faith mental health, wrong faith poor mental health. It is just a cause and effect situation.

I am not saying what is the right faith that leads to a right conclusion, just that faith is impossible for anyone to function without.

That you are reading all kinds of religious implications into what I am saying is your bias, not mine.

To each their own. Each faith has its own rewards.

Reward synonyms from an on line thesaurus:

Entry: reward
Function: noun
Definition: payment
Synonyms: accolade, award, benefit, bonus, bounty, brownie points, bus fare, carrot, chip, comeuppance, compensation, crown, cue, dividend, fringe benefit, gain, garland, goodies, gravy, grease, guerdon, honor, just deserts, meed, merit, palm oil, perk, perks, plum, premium, prize, profit, punishment, recompense, remuneration, repayment, requital, retribution, return, salve, strokes, subway, sweetener, sweetening, tip, wages

I continue to contend that you are reading much more into what I am saying, due to the issues you have with religion and faith.

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:
I continue to contend that you are reading much more into what I am saying, due to the issues you have with religion and faith.

Then I say it is unreasonable to do so. You jump from defending connection from God and Faith to just Faith and at the same time try to accuse me again of reading stuff into what you say.
Shifting away from the thorny issue which you raised when you connected God to faith and the implied Reward is yet more condescension.
I have no problems with religion or faith. I do have a problem with those who profess in a faith to be a truth or a knowledge available to everyone once they "experience" it - or in other words become indoctrinated.

Faith in anything produces a reward, a consequence. I have never said what that reward will be, simply that there is a reward for faith.....the fruits of one's labor.
Wrong faith, punishment. Right faith, liberation. Right faith mental health, wrong faith poor mental health. It is just a cause and effect situation.

Well just read carefully your thesaurus. The reward you refer to is clearly shown as an expected benefit to say the least.
It can be stated that Faith doesn't always bring Reward or benefit - often can be the opposite. It may or may not bring a consequence. The consequence could quite well be that the Faith changes nothing including the mind or thought of the one who possesses it.
Faith can make you irrational, sick,compulsive,introvert.
Cause and effect ? How far do you want to stretch this as an aphorism in the name of something you call faith?

I can see however some of the Religious "issues" which bias your postings.

 

[igsi]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Try to prove that my experience is invalid.....

What for? Arguing with your experience would be plain foolish because that would mean making an assumption that your perception is objective and correct while it is subjective and not necessarily correct.

it can't be done any more than proving to a man without a sense of smell from birth the existence and value of a perfumed odor.

You are using that analogy second time which means you probably think there is some value in it. Well, there is none. First, the analogy is flawed. The value and the properties of an odor are irrelevant. Therefore, the implied analogy is that explaining faith to non-believer is like "proving to a man without a sense of smell from birth the existence of an odor". However, since there is a scientific evidence that the odors exist, that an odor is a part of the reality and is not just an idea which may have no real ground, the analogy does not stand.

I need no proof actually, but the simple fact is that you can deny my experience in whatever way you wish, but you cannot disprove it----any more than I can prove it.

There is absolutely no need to deny your experience. Quite in reverse, it should be assumed that the experience exists. Same as that it should be assumed that some people experience hallucinations. Hopefully, that analogy as well as the conclusions are obvious.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"What for? Arguing with your experience would be plain foolish because that would mean making an assumption that your perception is objective and correct while it is subjective and not necessarily correct."

My experience remains subjective to you and to all others who reject faith.

For those who practice faith, the perception is self evident.

"You are using that analogy second time which means you probably think there is some value in it. Well, there is none. First, the analogy is flawed. The value and the properties of an odor are irrelevant. Therefore, the implied analogy is that explaining faith to non-believer is like "proving to a man without a sense of smell from birth the existence of an odor". However, since there is a scientific evidence that the odors exist, that an odor is a part of the reality and is not just an idea which may have no real ground, the analogy does not stand."

If an analogy is valueless to you that certainly doesn't mean it has no value.

Odor does not exist for a man without a sense of smell. He may choose to believe science, he may not, but there is no experiential proof without smelling an odor for the man who cannot directly experience it. It remains on a theorethical level for the man with no sense of smell, as he has no direct evidence or proof.

This is the basic argument of the "scientific" types. If there is no objective proof of something, it cannot be proven to exist.

You cannot objectively prove something which someone doesn't have the ability to experience. If they come to believe it, they have taken it on faith.

Without direct experience of faith, those who are without it will forever try to dismiss its validity.

That the faithless are unable or unwilling to do the necessary labwork to prove the theory of faith is of no concern to the validity of faith and the experiences that follow.

"There is absolutely no need to deny your experience. Quite in reverse, it should be assumed that the experience exists. Same as that it should be assumed that some people experience hallucinations. Hopefully, that analogy as well as the conclusions are obvious."

What is obvious to one man is oblivious to another. Depends on their own personal experience.

 

[jaan]

Quote from Gordon Gekko:
the girl could take a pregnancy test, instead of just waiting.

not really. the tests will usually remain negative for the first couple of weeks, because the hormone they react to has not reached detectable levels yet. i... ehm... a friend of mine learned it the hard way...

Quote from Josh_B:
Or do you consider the clone a sentient being self aware living human entity?

duh, of course s/he is sentient human being. technically, the clone is just your identical twin (albeit younger).

- jaan

 

[igsi]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Odor does not exist for a man without a sense of smell. He may choose to believe science, he may not, but there is no experiential proof without smelling an odor for the man who cannot directly experience it. It remains on a theorethical level for the man with no sense of smell, as he has no direct evidence or proof.

If your arguments were true, then frequently people without a sense of smell would not believe in existnse of odors same as blind people would not believe in existnse of colors. That's hardly true. So, following that analogy, if God's existense was as verifiable as an existense of an odor, there would be practically no non-believers. Furthermore, how come there are many more non-believers in the concept of God than non-belivers in, say, the concept of electron, which noone can have "experiential proof" of.