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 25th October 2017, 06:23 AM   #201
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
So you HAVE learned something in those 14 years?
Too bad you won't apply it.
I simply support a&f evidences. Rest all I can just copy you. So the emotion
__________________
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 25th October 2017, 06:28 AM   #202
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
What does this have to do with the topic?

You asked about differences between religions. I made a comment about the top two most popular ones today being bigger troublemakers than the others. Also, nonbelief is not a religion.

That's it.
Ok thanks. How and why two on top are bigger tourblemakers? Do they look because they are biggest, so more apparent?
__________________
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 25th October 2017, 06:30 AM   #203
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,350
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Ok thanks. How and why two on top are bigger tourblemakers? Do they look because they are biggest, so more apparent?
Do I really need to list religiously-motivated wars and terrorism and show you where they disproportionally lay?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon 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 25th October 2017, 06:46 AM   #204
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,416
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
I simply support a&f evidences. Rest all I can just copy you. So the emotion
No such thing Kumar, for the 1,703rd time.
__________________
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 25th October 2017, 10:12 AM   #205
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,153
Originally Posted by Kumar
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Kumar, which of the following do you consider basic nature's rules?

You can simply answer yes or no (it is a basic nature's rule) or no (it is not a basic nature's rule) for each one. Skip over any that you don't understand or can't decide.

They're numbered for convenience in answering. The numbers don't have any other meaning.

1. Energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system.

YES
2. He who hesitates is lost.
NO.BW-Both way
3. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
??
4. Liquor is not sold on Sundays.
NO
5. Do not covet anything that is someone else's property.
NO
6. Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates.
Somewhat YES.
7. Look both ways before crossing the street.
YES
8. Everything that exists can continue to exist only by being in balance with itself, with other things, and with the whole system of which it is a part.

YES
9. It is attachment that causes suffering.

YES
10. Keep yourself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
YES
11. Social harmony results from everyone accepting their place in the natural order.
YES
12. If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye.
NO
13. It is what it is.
YES
14. You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here.
YES
15. An object will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.
YES
16. The strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack.
??
17. Never spend more for an acquisition than you have to.
YES
18. Do be a plate cleaner. Don't be a food fussy.
YES
19. Do what ye will, and harm no one.
DEPENDS
20. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
NO
21. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
DEPENDs
22. In a right triangle, the square of the length of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the adjacent sides.

YES??
23. If at first you don't succeed, try, try one more time and then quit and binge-watch House of Cards.
NO
24. Only Nixon could go to China.
NO
25. The paths of glory lead but to the grave.
NO
26. Almost all processes that are not obviously simple can be viewed as computations of equivalent sophistication.
SEEMS YES?
27. Never use a tool that's more intelligent than you are.
NO
28. Luminous beings are we. Not this crude matter.

??
29. Like causes like; and things which have once been in contact with each other continue to act on each other at a distance after the physical contact has been severed.
YES
30. Nearly all energy used by plants and animals comes directly or indirectly from the sun via photosynthesis.
NO
Reply above in capital letter. Taken much time and energy.

Thank you for taking the time and energy. I think this will help clarify what you mean by "basic nature rules" and similar phrases, so I hope it will prove worth it. I'm going to reply for each item.

#1 is the First Law of Thermodynamics, a law of physics. As such, we know of no way to break this rule even if we wanted to. (And many people very much DO want to, because energy is valuable and we would wish it were available for free.) This is an example of what most members here mean when they say a "natural law" or "law of nature."

You answered YES, so you agree this is a basic nature rule. However, as we shall see, your usage of the phrase is much more broad. It includes many rules that are easy to break when we want to, and therefore are not laws of physics.

Note also that this law is not part of, and is not derived from, any narrative of any religion I'm aware of.

#2 is a common proverb. (These are also called adages, "sayings," or clichés.) People have found it applicable to some situations, but not always. ("Look before you leap" is another proverb that gives the opposite advice.) The reason it is often applicable is that many aspects of life are competitive, and delay in making decisions often results in losing the competition against another person or against nature. For example if one hesitates to shoot while hunting, the prey may escape; if one hesitates to harvest ripe crops, bad weather might destroy them first; if one hesitates to ask another person on a date, someone else might ask them first.

You answered NO. It's not clear whether this is because you disagree with the advice (you, like me, prefer cautious reflection and "looking before you leap" to impulsive action) or you don't believe the advice is universal enough to call it a basic nature rule. Either reason could make sense.

#3 is called the Golden Rule because it is so common, well-known, and generally applicable. In the U.S. it's usually associated with the Bible, and it does appear in the Bible, but versions of it also appear in much earlier sources including in many different religions.

It is clearly not a rule in the same sense as #1; that is, a law of nature that cannot be broken no matter how much we want to or how hard we try. It is more like #2, a piece of advice. Clearly it is possible to treat other people in ways that we would not want to be treated ourselves. It happens all the time. But the Golden Rule is a principle of basic social ethics, that ultimately comes from logic: assuming individuals are generally similar to one another in how they want to be treated (for instance, few would wish to be abused or confined), if no one treats others the way they themselves would wish to be treated, then no one will be treated by others the way they want to be treated.

You answered "??". That is surprising because it is a basic rule found in many religions, and it takes some effort to find cases where it doesn't apply (such as, a surgeon performing surgery wouldn't want the patient to perform the same surgery on her, because the patient is not qualified to do so and the surgeon isn't ill and doesn't need it). Philosophers have written more elaborately worded versions of the same basic idea, to cover such cases.

#4 is a typical local law. In the U.S. such laws that regulate business activities specifically on Sundays are called "blue laws" and they have their origin in Christian traditions about the sabbath day.

You answered NO. Fair enough; such laws are arbitrary unless you believe that the Christian narratives that motivated them are true, in which case one might believe that they are dictated directly by God's commandment. In practice, though, they can be easily changed, so they are not basic nature rules.

#5 is one of the Ten Commandments from the Bible.

You answered NO. Okay, so being a commandment of the God of Abraham engraved on stone tablets borne by Moses from Mount Sinai is not sufficient to be a "basic nature's rule." That's fine; we know in the real world that people often do covet (desire) what other people have. However, there is some wisdom in the commandment, in that coveting can be harmful to ones peace of mind (see #9 for comparison) and can lead to conflict.

#6 is the Principle of Vibration, one of the Seven Universal Laws described in The Kybalion, a book purporting to be ancient occult wisdom that was written in 1908.

At the time, the scientific discovery that light and heat are forms of vibration was fairly new, and it was popular to speculate that other phenomena that were still mysterious, such as thought and consciousness, might also be explained as even higher-frequency forms of vibration. Thus, "vibration" made its way into the occult literature, much like "quantum" did more recently, based on hasty and unjustified extrapolation from the science of the day.

Scientifically, this "law" is nonsense. However, as descriptive poetic narrative and a guiding principle for reflection about ones life, such as appreciating change and expecting ups and down, it has some merit. Take it too literally, though, and you end up with people treating sickness by singing at it, so that the vibrations in their voice will restore healthy vibrations to the patient's body, which is silly.

You answered "Somewhat YES."

#7 is safety advice taught to every child in the modern world. But it is in no way a law, either in the sense of a legal obligation or of a law of physics that cannot be broken. It also applies specifically to a human-made environment; it's not needed in the jungle as there's no motor vehicle traffic to run you over and no streets to cross in the first place. It's clearly possible to cross a street without looking both ways first; it's just not a good idea.

You answered YES. That answer tells me that good advice can qualify as a "basic nature's rule," as long as you agree with it. ("Do not covet..." and "He who hesitates is lost" are also advice but you answered NO for them.)

#8 is the Law of Balance, from a recent book that re-formulates the Seven Laws from The Kybalion and other mystery traditions, in ecological terms. (I think you would enjoy and appreciate this book. It's called Mystery Teachings from the Living Earth and it's by John Michael Greer.)

You answered YES, which is not surprising because Greer's seven laws deliberately set out to enumerate what one might well describe as "basic nature's rules." These rules are not laws of physics, but rather, general principles about how systems (including but not limited to ecosystems) behave. These also apply equally whether or not the "nature" under discussion includes human-made technology and infrastructure. Greer would maintain that if something is out of balance with itself, other things, or whole systems, it's headed for trouble whether or not technology is involved.

#9 is one of the basic teachings of the Buddha.

You answered YES. (And yet, as I noted before, you disagreed with the commandment not to covet, which is a form of attachment and a direct cause of suffering.)

#10 is part of the Scout Oath used by the Boy Scouts of America (rephrased as an adage instead of a stated promise as in the original). The oath is to "do my best to..." do those things, not to promise success.

You answered YES. Again, regarding good advice as a "basic nature's rule."

#11 is a summary of a basic tenet of Confucianism. Though it also emerges elsewhere in politics in general (for example in Plato's Republic), usually in support of an authoritarian system. The idea that a "natural order" that pre-assigns everyone a "place" actually exists is questionable, though, when we see in practice that in such social orders people usually acquire their "place" by accident of birth rather than merit, and are kept in their "place" primarily by means of force.

The "unalienable right" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" cited in the Declaration of Independence is in direct opposition to the notion of a "natural order" in which everyone must keep their place regardless of their happiness.

You answered YES.

#12 is from Hammurabi's Code of Laws, one of the earliest known enumerated systems of human law. The famous passage quoted, usually phrased as "an eye for an eye...," is often used as an icon of harsh punishment. But in its original context, it actually represents the opposite: the beginning of the legal notion of punishment whose severity reflects the severity of the crime, rather than just decreeing death for any infraction. (Compare, for example, the punishments specified in the laws of Leviticus.)

You answered NO. Clearly this is a case of human-designed law that could be and has been changed, so that answer makes sense.

#13 is a recent trendy business catch-phrase. It has no inherent meaning, but in practice it means "the matter is not worth discussing any farther," with implications of "I don't care."

You answered YES. I can't tell much from that; maybe you were reading it as a simple tautology, akin to "a = a." But neither a tautology nor a meaningless catch-phrase should really be eligible to be considered a "basic nature's rule," if that categorization itself is going to have any meaning.

#14 is from "The Desiderata," a poem from the 20th century popular (usually in day-glo poster form) around the early 1970s and a great example of pop spirituality.

It should be noted that "you are a child of the universe" is trivially true (as long as it's interpreted to mean "you exist in the universe"; otherwise it's false), but that the universe itself shows no sign of recognizing anyone's rights. If a boulder is falling on you, gravity won't turn off in respect for your right to be here.

You answered YES.

#15 is Newton's First Law, a law of physics.

You answered YES. This is consistent with #1.

#16 is from the poem "The Law of the Jungle" by Rudyard Kipling. The poem portrays the rules for survival being taught to a young wolf by, presumably, the experienced elders of the pack. These teachings could certainly be considered "basic nature's rules," at least for wolves. I recommend you read the poem (short, and easily found online).

You answered "??" The meaning of the sentence is, an individual wolf is only strong (capable, such as able to hunt large and control territory against other wolves) because she is part of a larger pack. A wolf by itself would not thrive and would probably not survive at all. ("In Winter the lone wolf dies. But the pack survives." - Ned Stark) But what makes the pack strong is the capability and will of the individual wolves in it.

Wolves are social animals, and so are humans, making the poem also a metaphorical manifesto of how Kipling thinks people should act to be successful. (Obviously he didn't write the poem to teach actual wolves; they can't read!) This was a favorite topic for Kipling; see also his poem "If—" for another example. He's telling people, in this case, to respect and cooperate with others.

#17 is one of the Ferengi Laws of Acquisition from the Star Trek franchise. The Ferenghi are a fictional alien humanoid species whose most notable characteristic (their "hat," in TVTropes parlance) is being clever ruthless business dealers. This gives this rule in particular, "never spend more... than you have to," a rather sinister undertone, because while it seems to be good consumer advice on the surface (don't waste money), it can also mean, for instance, never be honest when you can get away with cheating someone.

In a healthy local community economy, there are in fact good reasons for spending more for an "acquisition" than you absolutely have to. The person you're dealing with might be a friend or associate, and they're likely someone you'll have to deal with again, so some generosity on your side of the deal could help build goodwill and help keep them in business for your future benefit. Driving the hardest bargain possible (especially when you can afford not to) is therefore not always the best option. (The Golden Rule applies here.) This makes the Ferenghi a rather unflattering commentary on our own habits of buying stuff we don't need, at the lowest price we can get, from people we don't know and never expect to see again. I'm as guilty of this as anyone.

You answered YES. I think you should reconsider that answer. That there are valid reasons for rejecting this one, which makes it far from a "basic nature's rule."

#18 is a line from the "Do Bee" song from the old kid's show Romper Room. A kid's song (one of many of the general type) teaching kids how to behave.

You answered YES. This clearly falls into the category of "advice you agree with." I question its qualification as a "basic nature's rule" though.

Plate cleaning (finishing all the food in your meal) is a matter of etiquette that varies in different cultures. In some cultures, leaving some food on your plate is a sign that you're satisfied with the sufficiency of the portion you've received, while "cleaning" your plate means you want more.

Fussiness over food, in natural conditions where food might be contaminated or otherwise unsafe, might be necessary for survival.

#19 is a common saying in Wicca and related traditions, sometimes called the Wiccan Rede. The "and" is usually interpreted as "as long as." So, "do what you want to, as long as it harms no one."

You answered DEPENDS. Depends on what?

#20 is one of the Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth, from the Church of Satanism. (It's rule #2, and it's really a specific case of rule #1, "Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.") Arguably, it is a simple rule of common courtesy. What good does it do anyone, to tell your troubles to someone who does not want to hear them?

You answered NO. This goes in the "advice you disagree with" category.

#21 is another proverb. On its face it states simple logic. You can't consume something and still have it. You can't have your money and spend it too; if you've spent it you don't have it. (It only applies to things that are consumed, though. You CAN have your book and read it too.)

You answered DEPENDS. Can you clarify what it depends on?

#22 is the Pythagorean Theorem, a fundamental finding in plane geometry.

You answered "YES??" Does that mean theorems proven in mathematics are among basic nature's rules? Most skeptics here do regard mathematics as part of (even fundamental to) nature, so you won't get much argument about that.

#23 is a parody of an old proverb/adage/cliché, that I found online. (The original proverb is, "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.") The point of the parody is that the advice in such proverbs often falls short when applied in reality. Persistence has benefits, but how long should one continue to "try, try again" without success? Giving up has benefits too, such as being able to turn to more productive endeavors instead. Meanwhile, Yoda claims, "Do, or do not. There is no try."

You answered NO.

#24 is an old Vulcan proverb, according to Spock in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. (It was also said repeatedly by humans, prior to that movie, in the real world.) It recognizes a principle of politics and reputation: roughly, that a person who's consistently supported the status quo policy can become a particularly effective champion of a change in that policy.

You answered NO. Proverbs, human or otherwise, don't seem to have a good track record as basic nature's rules. Just as well, probably.

#25 is from the poem "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard" by Thomas Gray. The poem meditates upon the "unhonored dead" buried in a rural cemetery after having lived in rural obscurity and poverty. While not phrased as actual advice, Gray seems to express admiration for the rustics' simple stoicism: "Along the cool sequestered vale of life/They kept the noiseless tenor of their way," in contrast to "the boast of heraldry, the pomp of power" among the wealthy, whose path, as the line I excerpted for this list points out, leads ultimately to the same place anyhow.

You answered NO. That's a surprise. Is it not a basic nature's rule that everyone dies? Even if you believe in an afterlife (as the poet certainly did) or in reincarnation, the grave is still part of that path.

#26 is Wolfram's Law of Computational Equivalence, which he first presented in the book A New Kind of Science in 2002. It has not been proven mathematically. It is a conjecture consistent with all available evidence.

You answered "SEEMS YES?" which is very appropriate for an unproven conjecture consistent with all available evidence.

#27 is called Freitag's Law. Like many of the "laws" on this list it's not an actual law but rather good advice. On some days, one might be well advised to consider it carefully before picking up a screwdriver, but more generally it applies to for instance the one person in every office who is not (or should not be) permitted to touch the copying machine.

You answered NO. This disappoints me, because the law's originator is a clever fellow whom I sometimes admire. But maybe the reason is that the recent ubiquity of smart phones has made it one of the least heeded "laws" on this list.

#28 was said by Yoda in Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, but it expresses an idea that's found in numerous religions and occult traditions (with the films' Jedi religion being a watered-down version of the latter). That idea is that our true selves are eternal spirits (made of energy, light, vibrations, or some similarly ineffable stuff) only temporarily occupying bodies made of mere crude matter.

You answered "??". I figured you'd answer YES on this one. Perhaps you had difficulty understanding Yoda's unconventional grammar.

#29 states the two basic principles of sympathetic magic: the Doctrine of Signatures stating that things that resemble one another affect one another (such as, a voodoo doll used to affect the person it's designed to look like), and the Principle of Contagion stating that things that used to be in contact with one another can continue to affect one another (such as, a bit of a person's hair used in the voodoo doll helping to affect the person because it came from them originally).

Scientifically, these principles are nonsense. They related to straightforward cause and effect, they were true, then that would have long ago been verified by simple experiments. (No, quantum entanglement doesn't count, except in cases where quantum entanglement actually exists, which it does not in the case of e.g. hair clippings or effigies.)

You answered YES. Well, the statement does describe a natural law; whether it's true or not is another matter, and I didn't ask for your opinion on that in this case.

#30 is a simple statement of how the natural world works, which science confirms is true. Even if you count humans among "plants and animals," as you should, the energy we use from fossil fuels, which for the time being is accurately described as "nearly all the energy we use," did come from photosynthesis originally. (Nuclear, solar, wind, and geothermal energy are the largest exceptions.)

You answered NO. Really?


In summary, all the items on the list came from sets of rules or laws or principles that people have devised and promoted. In all cases, their originators could make a case for their particular rules being "natural" in some way or another.

That is why you need to be as specific as possible about what you mean when you talk about "basic nature's rules."

From your answers, the rules that you seem to accept most as "basic nature's rules" are the general ones that "reveal" the "true" nature of All Things, enumerated in systems like the Kybalion, various religions (when you happen to agree with them), sympathetic magic, or for that matter the Desiderata. Though you do appear to also include laws of physics and mathematics among them.

The answer to your original question, though, is that the different religions differ greatly between one another in which "laws" they contain. For instance, Christians don't claim that attachment causes suffering; they claim that sin causes suffering. And they don't agree that nothing is at rest and everything moves and vibrates; the Bible claims that God is eternal, and He rested on the seventh day of creation.

Even where there is agreement on principles of advice (such as the Golden Rule), the justifications for those rules differ. The same advice about how to behave might be God's commandment in one religion, a philosopher-sage's assessment of how to organize a stable society in another, a prophet's recommendation for personal happiness in another, and part of the innate fabric of the universe in yet another.

Where do you want to go with this?
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 25th October 2017, 10:17 AM   #206
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Do I really need to list religiously-motivated wars and terrorism and show you where they disproportionally lay?
No. But what difference you felt between thse two?
__________________
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 25th October 2017, 10:49 AM   #207
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,961
Hello Myraid,
I could read your reply. What a beautiful explaination, I never seen.Thanks. However, I need to understand it very deeply. It is not so simple and casual. Moreover, I am not famlier to many points due to culture differance. I shall need some time and will react bit later. Thanks again for your lot of efforts.
__________________
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 25th October 2017, 11:09 AM   #208
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,639
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Kumar, if a religion were to prohibit posting on Internet forums, would that prohibition be one of "current nature's rules"?
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Yes.

Kumar, when Homer Simpson said, "in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics", you did understand that it was a joke, right?
__________________
"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 25th October 2017, 11:11 AM   #209
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,639
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Hello Myraid,
I could read your reply. What a beautiful explaination, I never seen.

Did you understand what it explained?
__________________
"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 25th October 2017, 11:23 AM   #210
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,350
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
No. But what difference you felt between thse two?
They're VERY different. Read up on them, for pete's sake.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon 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 25th October 2017, 12:17 PM   #211
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,698
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Yes, so we should bot base it.
Bot base it baby!
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn 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 25th October 2017, 12:39 PM   #212
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,689
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
Absolute and final I think.

As in Kumar's sig:
Thanks. I was browsing without signatures visible, so never saw that.
carlitos 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 25th October 2017, 06:19 PM   #213
Little 10 Toes
Graduate Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,836
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
No. But what difference you felt between thse two?
Can't you do even the simplest work?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Islam
Little 10 Toes 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 25th October 2017, 06:45 PM   #214
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,696
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Possible. Few of my posts are bit deep and dynamic. Difficult to swim in them. [...]
Hah!
__________________
"I have no clue" - King of the Americas
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 25th October 2017, 08:19 PM   #215
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
They're VERY different. Read up on them, for pete's sake.
Just tell:

Whether basis of Islam can be basic nature's rules whereas gross in case of Christianity? 2000 year may be quite less out of total nature's progression period, so probably it can be taken as gross/latest. If so, it can be thought that difference in these is just the difference of nature's basic rules and gross 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 25th October 2017, 08:20 PM   #216
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes View Post
Can't you do even the simplest work?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Islam
I shall. Thanks.

However can you just tell:

Whether basis of Islam can be basic nature's rules whereas gross in case of Christianity? 2000 year may be quite less out of total nature's progression period, so probably it can be taken as gross/latest. If so, it can be thought that difference in these is just the difference of nature's basic rules and gross 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 25th October 2017, 08:22 PM   #217
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Did you understand what it explained?
I shall bit later since deep & big.
__________________
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 25th October 2017, 08:25 PM   #218
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Kumar, when Homer Simpson said, "in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics", you did understand that it was a joke, right?
Ist law................................
__________________
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.

Last edited by Kumar; 25th October 2017 at 08:28 PM.
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 25th October 2017, 09:07 PM   #219
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Thank you for taking the time and energy. I think this will help clarify what you mean by "basic nature rules" and similar phrases, so I hope it will prove worth it. I'm going to reply for each item.

#1 is the First Law of Thermodynamics, a law of physics. As such, we know of no way to break this rule even if we wanted to. (And many people very much DO want to, because energy is valuable and we would wish it were available for free.) This is an example of what most members here mean when they say a "natural law" or "law of nature."

You answered YES, so you agree this is a basic nature rule. However, as we shall see, your usage of the phrase is much more broad. It includes many rules that are easy to break when we want to, and therefore are not laws of physics.

Note also that this law is not part of, and is not derived from, any narrative of any religion I'm aware of.

YES BUT LIMITED TO ENERGY ONLY NOT TO ITS CHANGED OR MODIFIED FORM SAY MATTER. ITS CHANGED FORM CAN SOMEWHAT BE GROSS NATURE.

#2 is a common proverb. (These are also called adages, "sayings," or clichés.) People have found it applicable to some situations, but not always. ("Look before you leap" is another proverb that gives the opposite advice.) The reason it is often applicable is that many aspects of life are competitive, and delay in making decisions often results in losing the competition against another person or against nature. For example if one hesitates to shoot while hunting, the prey may escape; if one hesitates to harvest ripe crops, bad weather might destroy them first; if one hesitates to ask another person on a date, someone else might ask them first.

You answered NO. It's not clear whether this is because you disagree with the advice (you, like me, prefer cautious reflection and "looking before you leap" to impulsive action) or you don't believe the advice is universal enough to call it a basic nature rule. Either reason could make sense.
BECAUSE IT IS NOT UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE. SUPPOSE AN ANIMAL HESITATE TO GO OUT OF ITS SHELTER, SAVED DUE TO IT, OTHERWISE COULD HAD ALSO BE A CHANCE TO BE KILLED OR LOST BY OTHER ANIMAL.

#3 is called the Golden Rule because it is so common, well-known, and generally applicable. In the U.S. it's usually associated with the Bible, and it does appear in the Bible, but versions of it also appear in much earlier sources including in many different religions.

It is clearly not a rule in the same sense as #1; that is, a law of nature that cannot be broken no matter how much we want to or how hard we try. It is more like #2, a piece of advice. Clearly it is possible to treat other people in ways that we would not want to be treated ourselves. It happens all the time. But the Golden Rule is a principle of basic social ethics, that ultimately comes from logic: assuming individuals are generally similar to one another in how they want to be treated (for instance, few would wish to be abused or confined), if no one treats others the way they themselves would wish to be treated, then no one will be treated by others the way they want to be treated.

You answered "??". That is surprising because it is a basic rule found in many religions, and it takes some effort to find cases where it doesn't apply (such as, a surgeon performing surgery wouldn't want the patient to perform the same surgery on her, because the patient is not qualified to do so and the surgeon isn't ill and doesn't need it). Philosophers have written more elaborately worded versions of the same basic idea, to cover such cases.
BTW IS IT, TREAT/CONSIDER ALL SAME AS YOU DO TO YOURSELF OR TREAT/CONSIDER ALL AS THEY DESERVE ??

#4 is a typical local law. In the U.S. such laws that regulate business activities specifically on Sundays are called "blue laws" and they have their origin in Christian traditions about the sabbath day.

You answered NO. Fair enough; such laws are arbitrary unless you believe that the Christian narratives that motivated them are true, in which case one might believe that they are dictated directly by God's commandment. In practice, though, they can be easily changed, so they are not basic nature rules.

OKAY, I SHALL TAKE IT AS CURRENT NATURE'S RULE.

#5 is one of the Ten Commandments from the Bible.

You answered NO. Okay, so being a commandment of the God of Abraham engraved on stone tablets borne by Moses from Mount Sinai is not sufficient to be a "basic nature's rule." That's fine; we know in the real world that people often do covet (desire) what other people have. However, there is some wisdom in the commandment, in that coveting can be harmful to ones peace of mind (see #9 for comparison) and can lead to conflict.

CURRENT NATURE'S RULE.

#6 is the Principle of Vibration, one of the Seven Universal Laws described in The Kybalion, a book purporting to be ancient occult wisdom that was written in 1908.

At the time, the scientific discovery that light and heat are forms of vibration was fairly new, and it was popular to speculate that other phenomena that were still mysterious, such as thought and consciousness, might also be explained as even higher-frequency forms of vibration. Thus, "vibration" made its way into the occult literature, much like "quantum" did more recently, based on hasty and unjustified extrapolation from the science of the day.

Scientifically, this "law" is nonsense. However, as descriptive poetic narrative and a guiding principle for reflection about ones life, such as appreciating change and expecting ups and down, it has some merit. Take it too literally, though, and you end up with people treating sickness by singing at it, so that the vibrations in their voice will restore healthy vibrations to the patient's body, which is silly.

You answered "Somewhat YES."

MOTION AND REST ARE TWO FORMS/TOOLS OF BASIC NATURE TO SUSTAIN. SO ONESIDE/SOMEWHAT YES.

#7 is safety advice taught to every child in the modern world. But it is in no way a law, either in the sense of a legal obligation or of a law of physics that cannot be broken. It also applies specifically to a human-made environment; it's not needed in the jungle as there's no motor vehicle traffic to run you over and no streets to cross in the first place. It's clearly possible to cross a street without looking both ways first; it's just not a good idea.

You answered YES. That answer tells me that good advice can qualify as a "basic nature's rule," as long as you agree with it. ("Do not covet..." and "He who hesitates is lost" are also advice but you answered NO for them.)

BOTH SIDE LOOKING OR EQUANIMITY SHOULD BE PRIME OF EVEN BASIC NATURE'S RULES. IT IS ALSO ESP. LINKED TO REAL RELIGION. BIT DEEP.
#8 is the Law of Balance, from a recent book that re-formulates the Seven Laws from The Kybalion and other mystery traditions, in ecological terms. (I think you would enjoy and appreciate this book. It's called Mystery Teachings from the Living Earth and it's by John Michael Greer.)

You answered YES, which is not surprising because Greer's seven laws deliberately set out to enumerate what one might well describe as "basic nature's rules." These rules are not laws of physics, but rather, general principles about how systems (including but not limited to ecosystems) behave. These also apply equally whether or not the "nature" under discussion includes human-made technology and infrastructure. Greer would maintain that if something is out of balance with itself, other things, or whole systems, it's headed for trouble whether or not technology is involved.
WE NEED TO SEE IT IN CONSIDERATION OF BALANCE OF NATURE, UNIVERSE & PLANNETS. AT BEING LEVEL BY HOMEOSTATIS. WHETHER ALL THESE INCREASES AGE?

#9 is one of the basic teachings of the Buddha.

You answered YES. (And yet, as I noted before, you disagreed with the commandment not to covet, which is a form of attachment and a direct cause of suffering.)

NEED TO UNDERSTAND IT WITH LIBERATION/SALVATION/DE-BONDING vs BONDING OF SOUL/EMRs/CHEMICALS.

#10 is part of the Scout Oath used by the Boy Scouts of America (rephrased as an adage instead of a stated promise as in the original). The oath is to "do my best to..." do those things, not to promise success.

You answered YES. Again, regarding good advice as a "basic nature's rule."
OK, UNLESS WE FEEL REST ALSO CAN BE ENERGETIC.

TO BE CONTINUED......
Capital letters my replies.

Sorry, I could cover just 10, rest will cover bit letter. I am enjoying 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 25th October 2017, 11:30 PM   #220
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes View Post
Can't you do even the simplest work?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Islam
There appearto be some commons among them. However I feel main difference is in Incarnation angle, whether incarnation/son of prime god or its messanger. Rest theological differences may also be dependent on it. OK?
__________________
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 25th October 2017, 11:30 PM   #221
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,987
What is the native language of Kumar? Just askin', with helpful motives.
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 26th October 2017, 12:12 AM   #222
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
What is the native language of Kumar? Just askin', with helpful motives.
Thanks. Not just one. I know very well about use of google translste but outcome ís more odd than I write here. I simply need to decrease lot here but it also look odd to me.
__________________
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 26th October 2017, 12:20 AM   #223
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,639
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Ist law................................

"You do not talk about thermodynamics."
__________________
"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 26th October 2017, 12:31 AM   #224
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,639
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Quote:
#4 is a typical local law. In the U.S. such laws that regulate business activities specifically on Sundays are called "blue laws" and they have their origin in Christian traditions about the sabbath day.

You answered NO. Fair enough; such laws are arbitrary unless you believe that the Christian narratives that motivated them are true, in which case one might believe that they are dictated directly by God's commandment. In practice, though, they can be easily changed, so they are not basic nature rules.

OKAY, I SHALL TAKE IT AS CURRENT NATURE'S RULE.
Capital letters my replies.

You seem to be defining "current nature's rules" as rules that are man-made, or at least including man-made rules in that category. Is that right?
__________________
"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 26th October 2017, 12:33 AM   #225
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,639
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Just tell:

Whether basis of Islam can be basic nature's rules whereas gross in case of Christianity? 2000 year may be quite less out of total nature's progression period, so probably it can be taken as gross/latest. If so, it can be thought that difference in these is just the difference of nature's basic rules and gross rules.

Do you realise that Islam was established after Christianity?
__________________
"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 26th October 2017, 12:45 AM   #226
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,698
Hat's off to Myriad. As usual. He has more wisdom and capacity in one word than I can pretend in a hundred. Still.. some windmills are too perverse to tilt at. Engage sanity protection mode Myriad!
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn 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 26th October 2017, 01:04 AM   #227
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,416
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
I shall. Thanks.

However can you just tell:

Whether basis of Islam can be basic nature's rules whereas gross in case of Christianity? 2000 year may be quite less out of total nature's progression period, so probably it can be taken as gross/latest. If so, it can be thought that difference in these is just the difference of nature's basic rules and gross rules.
No such thing, Kumar. No-one on the planet other than you thinks there is any such thing. You've pulled it out of your backside.

By repeating this ad nauseum, despite being told, you appear to be trolling. Is that what you are doing?
__________________
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; 26th October 2017 at 01:06 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 26th October 2017, 01:15 AM   #228
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Do you realise that Islam was established after Christianity?
I asked about their basis. They recognize only one i.e Prime God. Whether Christianity also done that? Probably it can also be the basis of theological differences among them.?
__________________
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 26th October 2017, 01:16 AM   #229
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
You seem to be defining "current nature's rules" as rules that are man-made, or at least including man-made rules in that category. Is that right?
Prime source of man-made can also be nature. If so, why that can't be?
__________________
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 26th October 2017, 01:18 AM   #230
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
No such thing, Kumar. No-one on the planet other than you thinks there is any such thing. You've pulled it out of your backside.

By repeating this ad nauseum, despite being told, you appear to be trolling. Is that what you are doing?
We need to understand that very badly.
__________________
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 26th October 2017, 01:20 AM   #231
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
You seem to be defining "current nature's rules" as rules that are man-made, or at least including man-made rules in that category. Is that right?
Simply, modified rules to basic nature's rules due to change in environment. Whoever has made is not so important because nature may be real culprit to 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 26th October 2017, 01:23 AM   #232
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
"You do not talk about thermodynamics."
Why can't energy be created or destroyed in practical sense by inter conversion of energy and matter? Definitions of Energy and matter are different.
__________________
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 26th October 2017, 01:54 AM   #233
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,416
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
We need to understand that very badly.
An admission of trolling.

Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Why can't energy be created or destroyed.........
And there it is. If anyone took you seriously before (they didn't), that's the end of it now. You want to tear apart the basics of physics, with absolutely no understanding of it yourself. I don't have the time for such nonsense. Cheerio, Kumar.
__________________
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 26th October 2017, 02:00 AM   #234
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,851
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
We need to understand that very badly.
Don't wish your afflictions on others.
__________________
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 26th October 2017, 02:09 AM   #235
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,639
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Simply, modified rules to basic nature's rules due to change in environment. Whoever has made is not so important because nature may be real culprit to it.

And now you're defining "nature's rules" so vaguely that you could, ad hoc, decide whether or not something is one of "nature's rules" on the basis of whether or not you approve of it.
__________________
"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 26th October 2017, 02:10 AM   #236
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post

....2...
#11 is a summary of a basic tenet of Confucianism. Though it also emerges elsewhere in politics in general (for example in Plato's Republic), usually in support of an authoritarian system. The idea that a "natural order" that pre-assigns everyone a "place" actually exists is questionable, though, when we see in practice that in such social orders people usually acquire their "place" by accident of birth rather than merit, and are kept in their "place" primarily by means of force.

The "unalienable right" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" cited in the Declaration of Independence is in direct opposition to the notion of a "natural order" in which everyone must keep their place regardless of their happiness.

You answered YES.
THIS IS BIT CONTAVERSIAL. CURRENT NATURE's RULES CAN BE TAKEN AS: IN ACCORDANCE TO NATURAL ORDER.
#12 is from Hammurabi's Code of Laws, one of the earliest known enumerated systems of human law. The famous passage quoted, usually phrased as "an eye for an eye...," is often used as an icon of harsh punishment. But in its original context, it actually represents the opposite: the beginning of the legal notion of punishment whose severity reflects the severity of the crime, rather than just decreeing death for any infraction. (Compare, for example, the punishments specified in the laws of Leviticus.)

You answered NO. Clearly this is a case of human-designed law that could be and has been changed, so that answer makes sense.
ACTUALLY, IN BASIC NATURE's RULES< PUNISHMENT CAN BE MORE OR LESS BUT NOT USUALLY SAME BUT UNDER CURRENT LAWS PUNISHMENT CAN BE SOMEWHAT EQUIVILENT IN ANY FORM BUT MAY NOT BE SAME.

#13 is a recent trendy business catch-phrase. It has no inherent meaning, but in practice it means "the matter is not worth discussing any farther," with implications of "I don't care."

You answered YES. I can't tell much from that; maybe you were reading it as a simple tautology, akin to "a = a." But neither a tautology nor a meaningless catch-phrase should really be eligible to be considered a "basic nature's rule," if that categorization itself is going to have any meaning.
I TAKEN IT DIFFERENTLY i.e.WHATEVER IS THAT IS.

#14 is from "The Desiderata," a poem from the 20th century popular (usually in day-glo poster form) around the early 1970s and a great example of pop spirituality.

It should be noted that "you are a child of the universe" is trivially true (as long as it's interpreted to mean "you exist in the universe"; otherwise it's false), but that the universe itself shows no sign of recognizing anyone's rights. If a boulder is falling on you, gravity won't turn off in respect for your right to be here.

You answered YES.

RIGHT. NATURE WALKS ON ITS OWN FOOT.
#15 is Newton's First Law, a law of physics.

You answered YES. This is consistent with #1.

OKAY THANKS.

#16 is from the poem "The Law of the Jungle" by Rudyard Kipling. The poem portrays the rules for survival being taught to a young wolf by, presumably, the experienced elders of the pack. These teachings could certainly be considered "basic nature's rules," at least for wolves. I recommend you read the poem (short, and easily found online).

You answered "??" The meaning of the sentence is, an individual wolf is only strong (capable, such as able to hunt large and control territory against other wolves) because she is part of a larger pack. A wolf by itself would not thrive and would probably not survive at all. ("In Winter the lone wolf dies. But the pack survives." - Ned Stark) But what makes the pack strong is the capability and will of the individual wolves in it.


Wolves are social animals, and so are humans, making the poem also a metaphorical manifesto of how Kipling thinks people should act to be successful. (Obviously he didn't write the poem to teach actual wolves; they can't read!) This was a favorite topic for Kipling; see also his poem "If—" for another example. He's telling people, in this case, to respect and cooperate with others.
IT IS GREAT. I SHALL READ. BTW, WHETHER WOLVES ARE NOT SELFISH ESP TO THIS EXTENT?

#17 is one of the Ferengi Laws of Acquisition from the Star Trek franchise. The Ferenghi are a fictional alien humanoid species whose most notable characteristic (their "hat," in TVTropes parlance) is being clever ruthless business dealers. This gives this rule in particular, "never spend more... than you have to," a rather sinister undertone, because while it seems to be good consumer advice on the surface (don't waste money), it can also mean, for instance, never be honest when you can get away with cheating someone.

In a healthy local community economy, there are in fact good reasons for spending more for an "acquisition" than you absolutely have to. The person you're dealing with might be a friend or associate, and they're likely someone you'll have to deal with again, so some generosity on your side of the deal could help build goodwill and help keep them in business for your future benefit. Driving the hardest bargain possible (especially when you can afford not to) is therefore not always the best option. (The Golden Rule applies here.) This makes the Ferenghi a rather unflattering commentary on our own habits of buying stuff we don't need, at the lowest price we can get, from people we don't know and never expect to see again. I'm as guilty of this as anyone.

You answered YES. I think you should reconsider that answer. That there are valid reasons for rejecting this one, which makes it far from a "basic nature's rule."
DEBATE IS NEEDED ON IT. SORRY, IT SHOULD BE YES IN BASIC NATURE'S RULES SENSE BUT NOT IN CURRENT/GROSS NATURE'S RULES SENSE.

#18 is a line from the "Do Bee" song from the old kid's show Romper Room. A kid's song (one of many of the general type) teaching kids how to behave.

You answered YES. This clearly falls into the category of "advice you agree with." I question its qualification as a "basic nature's rule" though.

Plate cleaning (finishing all the food in your meal) is a matter of etiquette that varies in different cultures. In some cultures, leaving some food on your plate is a sign that you're satisfied with the sufficiency of the portion you've received, while "cleaning" your plate means you want more.

Fussiness over food, in natural conditions where food might be contaminated or otherwise unsafe, might be necessary for survival.
SEEN IT IN MANY ANIMALS & BIRDS LIVING NATURALLY.

#19 is a common saying in Wicca and related traditions, sometimes called the Wiccan Rede. The "and" is usually interpreted as "as long as." So, "do what you want to, as long as it harms no one."

You answered DEPENDS. Depends on what?

DEPEND ON WHETHER YOU NEED OR NOT NEED. YOU CAN STILL HARM(DO) ANYONE IF YOU NEED AND YOU MAY NOT DO IF YOU DO NOT NEED EVEN IF IT DO NOT HARM ANYONE> IT IS SOMEWHAT LIVE & LET LIVE i.e LET LIVE PROVIDED YOU LIVE.

#20 is one of the Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth, from the Church of Satanism. (It's rule #2, and it's really a specific case of rule #1, "Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.") Arguably, it is a simple rule of common courtesy. What good does it do anyone, to tell your troubles to someone who does not want to hear them?

You answered NO. This goes in the "advice you disagree with" category.
IT CAN BE YES IN CURRENT LAWS BUT NO IN BASIC NATURE's RULES. BASIC NATURE RULES MAY SUGGEST "TRY TRY AGAIN YOU WILL GAIN"

TO BE CONTINUED....3..
Sorry again, rest 21 to 30 and conclusion bit later in 3rd part.
__________________
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 26th October 2017, 02:17 AM   #237
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
XXX


And there it is. If anyone took you seriously before (they didn't), that's the end of it now. You want to tear apart the basics of physics, with absolutely no understanding of it yourself. I don't have the time for such nonsense. Cheerio, Kumar.
Mostly you admitted or anticipated science is not a&f. Physics is also a branch of science. Anyway this question was raised and clarified...somewhat by matter/mass-energy equivalence.
__________________
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 26th October 2017, 02:18 AM   #238
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,851
21-30................
I await with bated breath.............................
__________________
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 26th October 2017, 02:20 AM   #239
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
Don't wish your afflictions on others.
Since science is not yet a&f, we need to understand many many things very badly to make it a&F. May it be in medical or physical science.
__________________
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 26th October 2017, 02:22 AM   #240
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
And now you're defining "nature's rules" so vaguely that you could, ad hoc, decide whether or not something is one of "nature's rules" on the basis of whether or not you approve of it.
Don't environment change with the change of time/conditions?

Don't changes in environment changes nature?
__________________
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 09:37 AM.
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.