ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 22nd October 2017, 09:26 PM   #1
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,901
Lightbulb Differences in Different Religions?

Hello,

Below is the indicated list of world's 20 largest religions and their number of believers:

Quote:
*1. Christianity (2.1 billion)
*2.Islam (1.3 billion)
*3.Nonreligious (Secular/Agnostic/Atheist) (1.1 billion)
*4.Hinduism (900 million)
5.Chinese traditional religion (394 million)
6.Buddhism 376 million
7.Primal-indigenous (300 million)
8.African traditional and Diasporic (100 million)
9.Sikhism (23 million)
10.Juche (19 million)
11.Spiritism (15 million)
12.Judaism (14 million)
13.Bahai (7 million)
14.Jainism (4.2 million)
15.Shinto (4 million)
16.Cao Dai (4 million)
17.Zoroastrianism (2.6 million)
18.Tenrikyo (2 million)
19.Neo-Paganism (1 million)
20. Unitarian-Universalism (800,000)
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/1...body_religion/
It is difficult to discuss about all religions. So we can discuss about Ist four * marked in above list in this thread.

I have posted few posts in other topics, how religions can be different from other and how unnecessary arguments, MPOVs occur?

True religion should mean something auspicious entity or concept and should not attract odds among different people. Just from my POV, I feel, it is the level of suggested principles which should be real reasoning to getting such odds. Level: I mean from Prime/basic to gross/current and intermediate in term of progression of nature. From natural/truthful to modern/rational and intermediate Obsolete ones.

Can you indicate differences in levels in suggested principles in above 4 main religions? Had they suggested principles depended on, basic, intermediate or gross level of nature's state at the time of their introduction?

Please maintain dignity of all religions since real religion should not be odd.

Best wishes.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 10:07 PM   #2
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,605
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
It is difficult to discuss about all religions. So we can discuss about Ist four * marked in above list in this thread.

One of them is not a religion.

Quote:
I have posted few posts in other topics, how religions can be different from other and how unnecessary arguments, MPOVs occur?

Religions can be different from each other because they have been made up by different people.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 10:59 PM   #3
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,901
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
One of them is not a religion.




Religions can be different from each other because they have been made up by different people.
Welcome here.

Probably, to be secular may also be somewhat religion in opposite sense.

Yes, but they should have also considered some basis of introducing any religion, natural or social laws, if not selfish laws.?
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 11:09 PM   #4
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,360
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
.....to be secular may also be somewhat religion in opposite sense.........
No.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 11:12 PM   #5
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,360
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
......... Just from my POV, I feel, it is the level of suggested principles which should be real reasoning to getting such odds. Level: I mean from Prime/basic to gross/current and intermediate in term of progression of nature. From natural/truthful to modern/rational and intermediate Obsolete ones.........
No-one reading this will have the remotest idea what on earth this jumble of mis-connected words means. Could you try it again using standard English and paying particular attention to grammar.

You often use the "odds" incorrectly. Could you link to something that gives us a clue as to the meaning you are trying for. Or, you know...........use the correct word.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 11:49 PM   #6
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,901
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
No-one reading this will have the remotest idea what on earth this jumble of mis-connected words means. Could you try it again using standard English and paying particular attention to grammar.

You often use the "odds" incorrectly. Could you link to something that gives us a clue as to the meaning you are trying for. Or, you know...........use the correct word.
Sorry, you could not understand. In short, you can take it as: Basis of few religions can be basic nature's rules whereas of others, current nature's or social rules. When and where a relígion wae origionally íntroduced, that could had been affected by the environment existed at that time and at that place. I simply want to understand variations existing in any religion due to these factors. You can consider odd as abnormal.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 11:58 PM   #7
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,360
Thank you for that Kumar. That is much more readable. You should aim for that standard all the time.

What is the difference between "basic nature's rules" and "current nature's rules"?
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 12:09 AM   #8
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,901
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Thank you for that Kumar. That is much more readable. You should aim for that standard all the time.

What is the difference between "basic nature's rules" and "current nature's rules"?
I expected this question. Nice. Nature also changes due to changes in environment. Differance in Basic and current rules will be like, to travel by walking only and travel by modern vehicle or to remain nude and opt cotton clothes.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 12:17 AM   #9
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,251
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
I expected this question. Nice. Nature also changes due to changes in environment. Differance in Basic and current rules will be like, to travel by walking only and travel by modern vehicle or to remain nude and opt cotton clothes.
So you are saying that any modern inventions you personally do not want to do without are somehow 'currently natural' all of a sudden, so you can still claim to obey your own silly rules while wearing clothes and riding your moped around. How convenient.
And how very dishonest.

Last edited by Porpoise of Life; 23rd October 2017 at 12:21 AM.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 12:20 AM   #10
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,360
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
I expected this question. Nice. Nature also changes due to changes in environment. Differance in Basic and current rules will be like, to travel by walking only and travel by modern vehicle or to remain nude and opt cotton clothes.
Nature might change (it is constantly in flux), but nature's rules don't change at all.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 12:22 AM   #11
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,605
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
I expected this question. Nice. Nature also changes due to changes in environment. Differance in Basic and current rules will be like, to travel by walking only and travel by modern vehicle or to remain nude and opt cotton clothes.

Neither of those is anything to do with "nature's rules" changing; they are to do with custom and availability of technology.

You are still talking about social constructs rather than natural laws.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 23rd October 2017 at 12:26 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 12:47 AM   #12
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,974
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
No-one reading this will have the remotest idea what on earth this jumble of mis-connected words means. Could you try it again using standard English and paying particular attention to grammar.
It is not Kumar's fault if Google Translate does not produce better language than that.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 12:54 AM   #13
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,974
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
suggested principles depended on, basic, intermediate or gross level of nature's state at the time of their introduction
I feel like Bart Simpson hearing the voice of the teacher, but not registering the meaning of what she says.

Nevertheless, the belief systems of religions are mostly based on local and contemporary cultural values and (pseudo-)scientific perception of the world and its past. In some cases a religion is based on such perceptions of an entire population, or then of a smaller elite (or indeed one strong ruler, such as Mohammed) who are powerful enough to force their religion on the population. Or who devise a message pleasing enough for the population to accept without forcing.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 12:55 AM   #14
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,901
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
No.
Don't we need non-religious to know entity of religious one?
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 12:57 AM   #15
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,901
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
So you are saying that any modern inventions you personally do not want to do without are somehow 'currently natural' all of a sudden, so you can still claim to obey your own silly rules while wearing clothes and riding your moped around. How convenient.
And how very dishonest.
Why can't every of our act be dependent on nature's initiation or need to keep itself in order?
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 01:01 AM   #16
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,901
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Nature might change (it is constantly in flux), but nature's rules don't change at all.
No, both are changing constantly. We and our behavior are not same as was in our primitive age.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 01:05 AM   #17
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,360
No, you are flat out wrong. The laws of nature do not change. They remain constant. That doesn't mean nature remains constant. As I said, nature is constantly changing, but it changes within set rules.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 01:10 AM   #18
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,901
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Neither of those is anything to do with "nature's rules" changing; they are to do with custom and availability of technology.

You are still talking about social constructs rather than natural laws.
As said, why all our acts can't be dependent on nature's oriented? Say for example, if nature balances itself is true, and if nature is on more positive side,why it can't initiate destructing things via us? Excess of either side or everything is said to be bad, so nature should be taking care of excesses on either side to keep it balanced.
0/1>>7<<13.
Note: Slight changes in 7 possible due to change & need of the time/environment.

However this is a secondary issue. Basic issue of this topic is to understand, which religion is where say for example on zero to 10 scale?
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 01:15 AM   #19
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,360
Do we respond to that impenetrable word salad, do we comment on the incomprehensibility of it, or do we ignore it and wait for something we can read? Decisions, decisions.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 01:16 AM   #20
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,901
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
I feel like Bart Simpson hearing the voice of the teacher, but not registering the meaning of what she says.

Nevertheless, the belief systems of religions are mostly based on local and contemporary cultural values and (pseudo-)scientific perception of the world and its past. In some cases a religion is based on such perceptions of an entire population, or then of a smaller elite (or indeed one strong ruler, such as Mohammed) who are powerful enough to force their religion on the population. Or who devise a message pleasing enough for the population to accept without forcing.
Sorry, this is a secondary issue. Prime issue is, which religion basically is based on prime nature's rules and which on intermediate or current nature's rules? For convenience sake, you may consider everything happen by the initiation of nature.

If above is difficult to answer, we can start with the historical data of any religion when that is BASICALLY introduced?
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 01:18 AM   #21
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,901
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Do we respond to that impenetrable word salad, do we comment on the incomprehensibility of it, or do we ignore it and wait for something we can read? Decisions, decisions.
If my questions are bit difficult, you can start by giving historical data of these religions i.e when and where those were basically introduced?
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 01:22 AM   #22
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,843
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
If my questions are bit difficult, you can start by giving historical data of these religions i.e when and where those were basically introduced?
Google is your friend.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 01:23 AM   #23
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,649
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
As said, why all our acts can't be dependent on nature's oriented? Say for example, if nature balances itself is true, and if nature is on more positive side,why it can't initiate destructing things via us? Excess of either side or everything is said to be bad, so nature should be taking care of excesses on either side to keep it balanced.
0/1>>7<<13.
Note: Slight changes in 7 possible due to change & need of the time/environment.

However this is a secondary issue. Basic issue of this topic is to understand, which religion is where say for example on zero to 10 scale?
Huh?
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 01:26 AM   #24
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,745
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
However this is a secondary issue. Basic issue of this topic is to understand, which religion is where say for example on zero to 10 scale?
This is a purely subjective judgement by the 7 Billion+ people who live on this mudball. You cannot judge a religion on a "count by the numbers" from people who do or do not follow that particular religion. It has got to be one of the silliest things I have ever seen asked.

For example of your 2 Billion Christians, about half of those are Roman Catholic, and many non RC's do not consider them Christian, so would rate them as a zero.

Do you really know where you are going with this or are you making it up as you go along?

Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 01:31 AM   #25
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,360
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
.... prime nature's rules and which on intermediate or current nature's rules?......
There is no such distinction, Kumar, as you have been told repeatedly. Did you not understand?


Quote:
For convenience sake, you may consider everything happen by the initiation of nature.......
For whose sake? Yours, I think.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 01:32 AM   #26
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,360
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
If my questions are bit difficult.......?
It's your awful English which is difficult. If we don't understand what you are saying, how the hell are we supposed to comment usefully?
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 01:40 AM   #27
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,901
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
There is no such distinction, Kumar, as you have been told repeatedly. Did you not understand?




For whose sake? Yours, I think.
If there is no difference then there will be no environmental and phenotype changes and good thing, no big-bang. If nature can change it's rules can also change.

For example, using force and violence for any hunger or need (for food, sex etc) may not be odd in prime nature's rules but is odd in current rules.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 01:42 AM   #28
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,901
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
Google is your friend.
Yes but then how it will be clarified and known to everyone?
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 01:48 AM   #29
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,901
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
This is a purely subjective judgement by the 7 Billion+ people who live on this mudball. You cannot judge a religion on a "count by the numbers" from people who do or do not follow that particular religion. It has got to be one of the silliest things I have ever seen asked.

For example of your 2 Billion Christians, about half of those are Roman Catholic, and many non RC's do not consider them Christian, so would rate them as a zero.

Do you really know where you are going with this or are you making it up as you go along?

Norm
Sorry, I personally feel, it is basic understanding to really understand any religion. From 0 to 10 scale, I do not mean its rank or status but mean its principles based on its introduction time.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 01:50 AM   #30
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,360
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
If there is no difference then there will be no environmental and phenotype changes and good thing, no big-bang. If nature can change it's rules can also change.

For example, using force and violence for any hunger or need (for food, sex etc) may not be odd in prime nature's rules but is odd in current rules.
Crap. Crap, crap and bollocks.

The fundamental laws of nature are written in unchanging numbers. They are equations. They are Newtons Laws, and Einstein's formulae and Planck's and Mendel's work, and and so on, and none of them change. The laws don't change one iota. The laws allow for all sorts of variations within nature.

The ridiculous example you give shows just how little you know about anything, as violence is still used all the time to satiate hunger and sexual wants.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

Last edited by MikeG; 23rd October 2017 at 02:12 AM.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 01:54 AM   #31
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,374
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Don't we need non-religious to know entity of religious one?
Are you asking if non-religious people need to know about religions?

If so, the answer is basically no. It may be practical and it may interest them, but they don't need to.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 02:01 AM   #32
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,374
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Why can't every of our act be dependent on nature's initiation or need to keep itself in order?
What has this to do with religion?

Look, for everybody to actually know what we are discussing here, please state your evidence for claiming that religions are based on nature.

The only connection I can see is that primitive religions tend to try to explain things that people don't understand: Weather, disease, fate in general.

Once we move to the larger, theistic religions, they generally only try to explain (or rather explain away as the will of God) fate. Cultures at this point have generally gained at least some grasp of physics and other sciences, and they no longer need demigods or spirits to explain why it rains.


Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 02:03 AM   #33
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,374
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
No, both are changing constantly. We and our behavior are not same as was in our primitive age.
By "rules of nature" most here mean the laws of physics. They don't change. Our understanding of them changes, but not the laws.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 02:03 AM   #34
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,251
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Why can't every of our act be dependent on nature's initiation or need to keep itself in order?
Because nature is simply the sum of all natural processes.
Nature does not have a mind, or a goal, or an idea of balance and order. Those are all human things.
You are anthropomorphizing nature.
Stuff happens because it can, until it doesn't, and that's it.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 02:10 AM   #35
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,374
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Sorry, I personally feel, it is basic understanding to really understand any religion. From 0 to 10 scale, I do not mean its rank or status but mean its principles based on its introduction time.
Well, that is religious history, then. Many religions stem from earlier religions and all the larger ones have a few original ancestors.

Very (probably unreasonably) simplified:

Original Mosaic faith grew into current Mosaic faith, half a dozen Christian directions, and a few Islamic directions.

Hinduism has mutated several times and begat Buddhism, which merged with Old Chinese and spawned Taoism and Shintoism.

.... etc....

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 02:14 AM   #36
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,374
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Yes but then how it will be clarified and known to everyone?
It could be clarified by you when you explained your findings.

You tend to ask "why can't .... ?" What exactly do you expect people to do about such a question? It can have a million answers. Do you expect us to rush out and research every time you throw some question up in the air?

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 02:31 AM   #37
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,612
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
As said, why all our acts can't be dependent on nature's oriented? Say for example, if nature balances itself is true, and if nature is on more positive side,why it can't initiate destructing things via us? Excess of either side or everything is said to be bad, so nature should be taking care of excesses on either side to keep it balanced.
0/1>>7<<13.
Note: Slight changes in 7 possible due to change & need of the time/environment.

However this is a secondary issue. Basic issue of this topic is to understand, which religion is where say for example on zero to 10 scale?
¿Qué?
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 02:32 AM   #38
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,901
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Are you asking if non-religious people need to know about religions?

If so, the answer is basically no. It may be practical and it may interest them, but they don't need to.

Hans
No. They are meant for comparison purpose with Religious people. Moreover definition of true religious person can be bit different and they may come within the preview of it.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 02:33 AM   #39
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,251
Kumar: We have to live as nature intended!
Someone: You mean naked and without tools?
Kumar: Well, obviously not that, I want my modern machinery!
Someone: So, when did nature change its rules, and how do you know?
Kumar: *gobbledygook*
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 02:34 AM   #40
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,901
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
By "rules of nature" most here mean the laws of physics. They don't change. Our understanding of them changes, but not the laws.

Hans
I can't say unless we accept a&f. However it is not relevant to Physics laws esp invented lately.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:14 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.