Just A Reminder About Religious People

[David Sklansky]

Once every few months I have to repost this because people keep on staring threads without making mention of it.

Their are two types of "believers". Those who believe the Packers would win today because they just "know it in their hearts" (and also have some good, but what they realize are non convincing reasons), and those who cannot believe that any non biased fan could possibly think the Cowboys should be favored.

Most religious people are the first type. The ones who are members of a religion that allow such an admission usually admit it. Members of other religions are less apt to. But even most of them are deep down the first type. At least I think so. God help us if I'm wrong.

[Caesar88]

In my experience, most people who were brought up with religion and have believed in it all their lives are the first type, whilst converts/born-agains are usually the second.

[DougShrapnel]

Ya see, Brett Favre is is like an Old Christianity and and ah Tony Romo is like a new Judaism. And well Muslim is like you know a Brett Favre from a parellel world. Whos' the best quaterback in the league. Some even think it's Tom Brady, and he's like your hindi quaterback. And then of course there's all these dead quaterbacks that don't play the game anymore. Astrology(Bart Starr), Joe Montana(Greek Mythology), and and Terry Bradshaw.

Now when you have these quaterbacks playing each other the team with the most points and the end of the game is gonna win.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Once every few months I have to repost this because people keep on staring threads without making mention of it.

Their are two types of "believers". Those who believe the Packers would win today because they just "know it in their hearts" (and also have some good, but what they realize are non convincing reasons), and those who cannot believe that any non biased fan could possibly think the Cowboys should be favored.

Most religious people are the first type. The ones who are members of a religion that allow such an admission usually admit it. Members of other religions are less apt to. But even most of them are deep down the first type. At least I think so. God help us if I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's true, why would it need to be restated over and over again. The fact that posters don't start off stating that premise would indicate -
a) they don't think it is true
b) they think it's a given. "grass is green."
c) one of the above is true but it's not relevant to their post.

My take is that the absence of this claim is most likely, in rank order
- c, a, b.

Since we can't reach in a tear out their hearts we're essentially left with a head-to-head appeal, the lack of success suggests support for your theory that most are hearty theists.

luckyme

[furyshade]

[ QUOTE ]
Ya see, Brett Favre is is like an Old Christianity and and ah Tony Romo is like a new Judaism. And well Muslim is like you know a Brett Favre from a parellel world. Whos' the best quaterback in the league. Some even think it's Tom Brady, and he's like your hindi quaterback. And then of course there's all these dead quaterbacks that don't play the game anymore. Astrology(Bart Starr), Joe Montana(Greek Mythology), and and Terry Bradshaw.

Now when you have these quaterbacks playing each other the team with the most points and the end of the game is gonna win.

[/ QUOTE ]

grammatically, logically, and intelligently this may be the best post ever made

[UlidEyes]

Yeah, most people are the first type. What do you think the ratio is? I'd guess about 85/15.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Ya see, Brett Favre is is like an Old Christianity and and ah Tony Romo is like a new Judaism. And well Muslim is like you know a Brett Favre from a parellel world. Whos' the best quaterback in the league. Some even think it's Tom Brady, and he's like your hindi quaterback. And then of course there's all these dead quaterbacks that don't play the game anymore. Astrology(Bart Starr), Joe Montana(Greek Mythology), and and Terry Bradshaw.

Now when you have these quaterbacks playing each other the team with the most points and the end of the game is gonna win.

[/ QUOTE ]


Excellent!

[tame_deuces]

Call me a skeptic, but 'there are two types of ...' statements don't sit well with me. I like 'em when they are used in jokes though, that's fun.

[soon2bepro]

I think you're right, at least if you consider the western society only.

However you should also remember that most of these people also believe that believing what they believe is good, and that not believing it is bad.

So while they don't really believe they have good arguments, they think whoever doesn't believe the same as them is bad. Especially those who don't have another simlar belief instead.

Also, most of these people encourage others to be in the second group, because they think that's the right position to hold, even if they themselves "lack the faith".

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're right, at least if you consider the western society only.

However you should also remember that most of these people also believe that believing what they believe is good, and that not believing it is bad.

So while they don't really believe they have good arguments, they think whoever doesn't believe the same as them is bad. Especially those who don't have another simlar belief instead.

Also, most of these people encourage others to be in the second group, because they think that's the right position to hold, even if they themselves "lack the faith".

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree with last sentence. Actually your last sentence was contradictory because the second group need not have as much faith as the first.

[David Sklansky]

Since they baptize long dead Jewish people and others, I would think it implies that they realize that their beliefs are not so self evident that non believer's must be undeserving people with the type of ulterior motives that Not Ready ascribes to unbelievers. (Obviously I am not talking about the exact same type of unbelief or ulterior motives since there are two different religions involved. But you get the idea.)

So voting for Romney isn't as bad as Lestat makes it out to be.

[scorcher863]

[ QUOTE ]
Ya see, Brett Favre is is like an Old Christianity and and ah Tony Romo is like a new Judaism. And well Muslim is like you know a Brett Favre from a parellel world. Whos' the best quaterback in the league. Some even think it's Tom Brady, and he's like your hindi quaterback. And then of course there's all these dead quaterbacks that don't play the game anymore. Astrology(Bart Starr), Joe Montana(Greek Mythology), and and Terry Bradshaw.

Now when you have these quaterbacks playing each other the team with the most points and the end of the game is gonna win.

[/ QUOTE ]

haha. This sounds like something John Madden would ramble on about during a game - especially that last sentence.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
Ya see, Brett Favre is is like an Old Christianity and and ah Tony Romo is like a new Judaism. And well Muslim is like you know a Brett Favre from a parellel world. Whos' the best quaterback in the league. Some even think it's Tom Brady, and he's like your hindi quaterback. And then of course there's all these dead quaterbacks that don't play the game anymore. Astrology(Bart Starr), Joe Montana(Greek Mythology), and and Terry Bradshaw.

Now when you have these quaterbacks playing each other the team with the most points and the end of the game is gonna win.

[/ QUOTE ]

How did I miss this gem. Excellent!

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]

If it's true, why would it need to be restated over and over again. The fact that posters don't start off stating that premise would indicate -
a) they don't think it is true
b) they think it's a given. "grass is green."
c) one of the above is true but it's not relevant to their post.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot the most common reason: d) they don't stop to consider the implications of the different kinds of belief.

If the majority of theists are coming to their beliefs through faith and personal revelation, than picking on them for being illogical is completely misguided, akin to saying that a fish is defective because its gills don't work on dry land.

If someone says that he's a believer because he feels the touch of god, his belief is not logically falsifiable. So, you know, stop trying to falsify it. More importantly, IMO, don't call him a moron because he's using a different (yet equally valid) epistemology.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Since they baptize long dead Jewish people and others, I would think it implies that they realize that their beliefs are not so self evident that non believer's must be undeserving people with the type of ulterior motives that Not Ready ascribes to unbelievers. (Obviously I am not talking about the exact same type of unbelief or ulterior motives since there are two different religions involved. But you get the idea.)

So voting for Romney isn't as bad as Lestat makes it out to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to understand that there is a very real chance that some of these people are actually looking forward to judgement day! Mitt thinks Jesus will be in Missouri soon. Call it what you like... Dellusional or stupid. But the point is, are we really comfortable having someone who is even capable of such ludicrous beliefs at the helm of the most powerful country on earth?!?!

The fact is, there is no way to know what he really does and doesn't think. What we do know is that he is at least a little irrational. But what if he's a lot irrational? For all we know, he may view it as his religious duty to start the process of holocaust. You're a mathemetician... Work it out. What would the odds have to be for someone we know to be at least a little dellusional, to be VERY dellusional before it's better to fill the job with someone we're certain doesn't think Jesus will be in Missouri any time soon.

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone says that he's a believer because he feels the touch of god, his belief is not logically falsifiable. So, you know, stop trying to falsify it. More importantly, IMO, don't call him a moron because he's using a different (yet equally valid) epistemology.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone says that he's a believer because he feels the touch of god, his belief is not logically falsifiable. So, you know, stop trying to falsify it. More importantly, IMO, don't call him a moron because he's using a different (yet equally valid) epistemology.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid I disagree. I have read the recent posts about intuition and logic. The problem which was addressed regarding the valid uses of intuition do not extend to being touched by god. We can use intuition to arrive at better conclusion's then with logic when the topics are knowable, and then only after a great deal of study.

The claims that are made with regard to god are unknowable. We must indeed use logic to determine that what is presented to us as the word of god is indeed fabricated to at least some extent. Mistranslated or dileberately enhanced after the fact. You cannot know the authenticness of Bible in your heart, with out first having great understanding of lit.

Moverover, there can be no experts on religion, perhaps religious studies. But the very nature of religion means it's out of grasp of what is knowable.

[VarlosZ]

What do you mean by "knowable"?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone says that he's a believer because he feels the touch of god, his belief is not logically falsifiable. So, you know, stop trying to falsify it. More importantly, IMO, don't call him a moron because he's using a different (yet equally valid) epistemology.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I feel like its logically falsifiable. Don't knock my equaly valid epistemology.

or what a load of tosh. Its not about falsifiability, if the believer recognises its a feely type of thing rather than a rational belief then bully for them but they cannot be taken seriously if they place their belief as more valid then others peoples feely beliefs.

chez

[tame_deuces]

If religion isn't knowable, then I sit and wonder how come religious people know so much about it.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Its not about falsifiability, if the believer recognises its a feely type of thing rather than a rational belief then bully for them but they cannot be taken seriously if they place their belief as more valid then others peoples feely beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a common human failing, not a specifically theistic one.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean by "knowable"?

[/ QUOTE ]I mean a couple things, first the deeper meaning: that if it's typical to believe in Allah in your culture those touches by god come from allah, if it's Jesus that you grew up with then it's jesus that touches you, demons, aliens, ghosts it's all the same. The feelings are of course real, but they are agnostic, they are non exclusive to the meanings that we subscribe to them.

And the lessor meaning is that anyone who claims to have special knowledge of God is a liar.

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone says that he's a believer because he feels the touch of god, his belief is not logically falsifiable. So, you know, stop trying to falsify it. More importantly, IMO, don't call him a moron because he's using a different (yet equally valid) epistemology.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I feel like its logically falsifiable. Don't knock my equaly valid epistemology.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

agree again. the bottom line is that to have any sort of belief, you must start out at some unprovable position. for instance: "i think the sky is blue, because i see it as blue." might be more 'logical' than "i think the sky is green, because i feel like it's green," but it isn't any more valid or provable. how do you know that your perception is accurate and another's is inaccurate? you don't know, unless you take some things as given. (in your case, your perception of the material world=reality. in his case, something else)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its not about falsifiability, if the believer recognises its a feely type of thing rather than a rational belief then bully for them but they cannot be taken seriously if they place their belief as more valid then others peoples feely beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a common human failing, not a specifically theistic one.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, ufoists, astrologists, presleyonthemoonists etc they all get the same treatment. Its not a war with god.

chez

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone says that he's a believer because he feels the touch of god, his belief is not logically falsifiable. So, you know, stop trying to falsify it. More importantly, IMO, don't call him a moron because he's using a different (yet equally valid) epistemology.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid I disagree. I have read the recent posts about intuition and logic. The problem which was addressed regarding the valid uses of intuition do not extend to being touched by god. We can use intuition to arrive at better conclusion's then with logic when the topics are knowable, and then only after a great deal of study.

The claims that are made with regard to god are unknowable. We must indeed use logic to determine that what is presented to us as the word of god is indeed fabricated to at least some extent. Mistranslated or dileberately enhanced after the fact. You cannot know the authenticness of Bible in your heart, with out first having great understanding of lit.

[/ QUOTE ]

i guess i don't see what (what we are talking about) has to do with intuition vs. logic. i agree with the jist of what you are saying, but i don't think it applies. the "believer" is not trying to reach a logical conclusion through intuition. he is STARTING OUT with an assumption that whatever he believes is true. you do the exact same thing when you believe that the world is exists outside of yourself and that what you see and hear and smell and taste and feel the touch of is indicative of reality.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone says that he's a believer because he feels the touch of god, his belief is not logically falsifiable. So, you know, stop trying to falsify it. More importantly, IMO, don't call him a moron because he's using a different (yet equally valid) epistemology.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I feel like its logically falsifiable. Don't knock my equaly valid epistemology.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

agree again. the bottom line is that to have any sort of belief, you must start out at some unprovable position. for instance: "i think the sky is blue, because i see it as blue." might be more 'logical' than "i think the sky is green, because i feel like it's green," but it isn't any more valid or provable. how do you know that your perception is accurate and another's is inaccurate? you don't know, unless you take some things as given. (in your case, your perception of the material world=reality. in his case, something else)

[/ QUOTE ]
Some perceptions can be tested against reality, ain't perfect but its better that arbitary untestable beliefs.

Or maybe it isn't. The presleyonthemoonists are just as likely to be right as anybody else.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone says that he's a believer because he feels the touch of god, his belief is not logically falsifiable. So, you know, stop trying to falsify it. More importantly, IMO, don't call him a moron because he's using a different (yet equally valid) epistemology.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid I disagree. I have read the recent posts about intuition and logic. The problem which was addressed regarding the valid uses of intuition do not extend to being touched by god. We can use intuition to arrive at better conclusion's then with logic when the topics are knowable, and then only after a great deal of study.

The claims that are made with regard to god are unknowable. We must indeed use logic to determine that what is presented to us as the word of god is indeed fabricated to at least some extent. Mistranslated or dileberately enhanced after the fact. You cannot know the authenticness of Bible in your heart, with out first having great understanding of lit.

[/ QUOTE ]

i guess i don't see what (what we are talking about) has to do with intuition vs. logic. i agree with the jist of what you are saying, but i don't think it applies. the "believer" is not trying to reach a logical conclusion through intuition. he is STARTING OUT with an assumption that whatever he believes is true. you do the exact same thing when you believe that the world is exists outside of yourself and that what you see and hear and smell and taste and feel the touch of is indicative of reality.

[/ QUOTE ]It has to do with intuition because people are saying that they feel God's work, or plan, or hand, or noodley appendage. Starting with the assumption that FSM's noodley appendage touched him is an act of logic. But feeling the al dente is intuition.

We can discuss it both way's. Just let me know which one. Are we talking about assuming the FSM exists, or are we talking about sensing the touch of the al dente appendage? Or something entirely different?

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
. But feeling the al dente is intuition.

[/ QUOTE ]
i don't know if intuition is the right word. maybe it is. i guess i've never felt "the noodle", so i wouldn't know. either way, it's a trivial distinction. you can percieve reality through your senses or percieve it through your "intuition" or through some other means - but you can never know that what you experience is more "real" than what someone else experiences. that is my only point.

if we take for granted the 'standard' model of the world, then of course i agree that science is right and faith is wrong. the problem is that the religious faithful probably don't the accept the standard model, even if they don't realize it.

edit: "the standard model of the world" is a phrase i just made up meaning: the model of the world where one reality exists, time and space exist, and consciousness is either separate from the material world, or is created by the material world.

[Brad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
Since they baptize long dead Jewish people and others,

[/ QUOTE ]

What is this supposed to mean? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Jcrew]

[ QUOTE ]

You need to understand that there is a very real chance that some of these people are actually looking forward to judgement day! Mitt thinks Jesus will be in Missouri soon. Call it what you like... Dellusional or stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he is just in a situation similar to when his wife asks him whether he thinks she is fat.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Since they baptize long dead Jewish people and others, I would think it implies that they realize that their beliefs are not so self evident that non believer's must be undeserving people with the type of ulterior motives that Not Ready ascribes to unbelievers. (Obviously I am not talking about the exact same type of unbelief or ulterior motives since there are two different religions involved. But you get the idea.)

So voting for Romney isn't as bad as Lestat makes it out to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, they don't believe in hell. That puts them above all other Christian factions IMO. But it's still not saying much.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If the majority of theists are coming to their beliefs through faith and personal revelation, than picking on them for being illogical is completely misguided, akin to saying that a fish is defective because its gills don't work on dry land.

If someone says that he's a believer because he feels the touch of god, his belief is not logically falsifiable. So, you know, stop trying to falsify it. More importantly, IMO, don't call him a moron because he's using a different (yet equally valid) epistemology.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I believe that 2+2=6 because of a personal revelation, that doesn't make it true. My belief is still subject to rational scrutiny, and people should hardly say "well, we have to respect his belief that 2+2=6."

Further, if the beliefs people come to using a certain epistemology are varied and mutually exclusive, then that epistemology is less valid. In fact, we know that this method is invalid in the majority of cases due to that exclusivity. It's possible that in some tiny subset of cases the method is valid, but due to its terrible track record it's still nothing more than a lucky guess.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Once every few months I have to repost this because people keep on staring threads without making mention of it.

Their are two types of "believers". Those who believe the Packers would win today because they just "know it in their hearts" (and also have some good, but what they realize are non convincing reasons), and those who cannot believe that any non biased fan could possibly think the Cowboys should be favored.

Most religious people are the first type. The ones who are members of a religion that allow such an admission usually admit it. Members of other religions are less apt to. But even most of them are deep down the first type. At least I think so. God help us if I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, this is only relevant in some cases. (Also, I agree with tame that dichotomies almost always indicate sloppy logic.)

When a theist acts on a set of beliefs, it's generally acceptable to assume that he really does hold those beliefs. Even if he only hopes the beliefs are true, arguments based on those beliefs still tend to apply. Particularly when one of the beliefs is that those who disagree will be tortured forever. In this case, the former group of theists "know in their hearts," or at least hope fervently, that those who think differently deserve to suffer the most extreme torments imaginable.

This is a shocking and ugly belief. And they don't get a pass on it because they only pay lip service, either.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
edit: "the standard model of the world" is a phrase i just made up meaning: the model of the world where one reality exists, time and space exist, and consciousness is either separate from the material world, or is created by the material world.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please make a post that is true in all respects to the concept that the 'standard model' as you present it is false.

luckyme

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Ya see, Brett Favre is is like an Old Christianity and and ah Tony Romo is like a new Judaism. And well Muslim is like you know a Brett Favre from a parellel world. Whos' the best quaterback in the league. Some even think it's Tom Brady, and he's like your hindi quaterback. And then of course there's all these dead quaterbacks that don't play the game anymore. Astrology(Bart Starr), Joe Montana(Greek Mythology), and and Terry Bradshaw.

Now when you have these quaterbacks playing each other the team with the most points and the end of the game is gonna win.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is filled to the brim with awesome.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since they baptize long dead Jewish people and others,

[/ QUOTE ]

What is this supposed to mean? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]A thing that makes religion irrational is what happens to all the people who died before God's true word was spoken. For awhile there was a book in the bible that had Jesus going to preach in hell for the 3 days before he was resurected. Where we are to assume people like Moses and Plato have been burning all along. I believe that gospel is now apocryphal. But there is mention of the journey to hell in other gospels.

The Mormons have a very large geneology database that contains the names of all those known to have lived and died since records were keept, and pray for them. Every week in a special ceremonies Mormons are giving the list of names to pray for. The prayer is suppose to baptize the dead.

[Brad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since they baptize long dead Jewish people and others,

[/ QUOTE ]

What is this supposed to mean? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]A thing that makes religion irrational is what happens to all the people who died before God's true word was spoken. For awhile there was a book in the bible that had Jesus going to preach in hell for the 3 days before he was resurected. Where we are to assume people like Moses and Plato have been burning all along. I believe that gospel is now apocryphal. But there is mention of the journey to hell in other gospels.

The Mormons have a very large geneology database that contains the names of all those known to have lived and died since records were keept, and pray for them. Every week in a special ceremonies Mormons are giving the list of names to pray for. The prayer is suppose to baptize the dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, the definition of Baptize is to immerse in water. Mormons are not Christians, so please do not lump them in with us. Thanks.

[foal]

Anyone who believes in Jesus as Christ is a Christian (according to many dictionary definitions). Although if I was a Mormon I can't see myself wanting to be lumped with Brad1970.

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who believes in Jesus as Christ is a Christian (according to many dictionary definitions). Although if I was a Mormon I can't see myself wanting to be lumped with Brad1970.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno why brad feels the need to make posts like that, In 3rd grade they would make him look intelligent/cool. On SMP? Quite the opposite.

[Brad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who believes in Jesus as Christ is a Christian (according to many dictionary definitions). Although if I was a Mormon I can't see myself wanting to be lumped with Brad1970.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno why brad feels the need to make posts like that, In 3rd grade they would make him look intelligent/cool. On SMP? Quite the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's the truth. When did this thread majestically change into one about Mormons anyway?

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who believes in Jesus as Christ is a Christian (according to many dictionary definitions). Although if I was a Mormon I can't see myself wanting to be lumped with Brad1970.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno why brad feels the need to make posts like that, In 3rd grade they would make him look intelligent/cool. On SMP? Quite the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's the truth. When did this thread majestically change into one about Mormons anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

When you made that post.

Whatever, I'm not getting at you. Just calling what I see. If it's any help I'll say now that I'll not reply again in this thread so you can have the last word.

Just a shame to see it go this way again.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone says that he's a believer because he feels the touch of god, his belief is not logically falsifiable. So, you know, stop trying to falsify it. More importantly, IMO, don't call him a moron because he's using a different (yet equally valid) epistemology.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I feel like its logically falsifiable. Don't knock my equaly valid epistemology.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

agree again. the bottom line is that to have any sort of belief, you must start out at some unprovable position. for instance: "i think the sky is blue, because i see it as blue." might be more 'logical' than "i think the sky is green, because i feel like it's green," but it isn't any more valid or provable. how do you know that your perception is accurate and another's is inaccurate? you don't know, unless you take some things as given. (in your case, your perception of the material world=reality. in his case, something else)

[/ QUOTE ]

Right but once you've settled on your list of axioms that you simply decide are true, you are still held responsible for the consequences of those axioms. In other words, ALL of the logically derivable positions that are based on those premises. The people chez are talking about want their cake and to eat it too.

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone says that he's a believer because he feels the touch of god, his belief is not logically falsifiable. So, you know, stop trying to falsify it. More importantly, IMO, don't call him a moron because he's using a different (yet equally valid) epistemology.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I feel like its logically falsifiable. Don't knock my equaly valid epistemology.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

agree again. the bottom line is that to have any sort of belief, you must start out at some unprovable position. for instance: "i think the sky is blue, because i see it as blue." might be more 'logical' than "i think the sky is green, because i feel like it's green," but it isn't any more valid or provable. how do you know that your perception is accurate and another's is inaccurate? you don't know, unless you take some things as given. (in your case, your perception of the material world=reality. in his case, something else)

[/ QUOTE ]

Right but once you've settled on your list of axioms that you simply decide are true, you are still held responsible for the consequences of those axioms. In other words, ALL of the logically derivable positions that are based on those premises. The people chez are talking about want their cake and to eat it too.

[/ QUOTE ]

good point, i agree. by extension, picking the parts that you like most from various logical philosophies and discarding the parts that you don't like, to make a nonsensical jumble that you really like, should be frowned upon. i guess people do actually do that.

also, for the same reason i can't know that what someone else percieves is nonsense, he cannot know that what i percieve is nonsense. so, all religions that claim to be "right" or claim that others are "wrong" are out of line. i think i agree with you guys on that one. but you will never hear me ridicule someone who makes assumptions that i don't, as long as that person does not claim to be 100% sure he is right.

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
edit: "the standard model of the world" is a phrase i just made up meaning: the model of the world where one reality exists, time and space exist, and consciousness is either separate from the material world, or is created by the material world.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please make a post that is true in all respects to the concept that the 'standard model' as you present it is false.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm having difficulty decoding your request. i take it to mean: please suggest a model of the world that does not meet my definition of the standard model.

if i am reading that wrong, please clarify for me.

possibilities:
the world is a dream you are having (this is ambiguous. could mean different things depending on who/what "you" are)

more specifically, consciousness creates the world and itself in a loop-like manner. for instance, "the world doesn't exist. it is just imagined. where did the imaginer come from? he is part of the imagination he is having. the dream only exists relative to itself."

related idea, even more specific, would be that there are infinite parallel worlds, in which every possible reality is happening at once etc yada yada yada.

i have a feeling i might have misinterpreted your request, so please restate if necessary.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you're right, at least if you consider the western society only.

However you should also remember that most of these people also believe that believing what they believe is good, and that not believing it is bad.

So while they don't really believe they have good arguments, they think whoever doesn't believe the same as them is bad. Especially those who don't have another simlar belief instead.

Also, most of these people encourage others to be in the second group, because they think that's the right position to hold, even if they themselves "lack the faith".

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree with last sentence. Actually your last sentence was contradictory because the second group need not have as much faith as the first.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I must be missing something here. Do you mean that the second group actually believes they have good evidence for their beliefs, so they don't need faith?

I would agree with that, if it wasn't because these people are much less willing to evaluate or accept evidence against their beliefs. I would say that it's faith that produces this, but I can see how you can disagree with that.

Or maybe you didn't mean that kind of people at all when talking about the second group?

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you're right, at least if you consider the western society only.

However you should also remember that most of these people also believe that believing what they believe is good, and that not believing it is bad.

So while they don't really believe they have good arguments, they think whoever doesn't believe the same as them is bad. Especially those who don't have another simlar belief instead.

Also, most of these people encourage others to be in the second group, because they think that's the right position to hold, even if they themselves "lack the faith".

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree with last sentence. Actually your last sentence was contradictory because the second group need not have as much faith as the first.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I must be missing something here. Do you mean that the second group actually believes they have good evidence for their beliefs, so they don't need faith?

I would agree with that, if it wasn't because these people are much less willing to evaluate or accept evidence against their beliefs. I would say that it's faith that produces this, but I can see how you can disagree with that.

Or maybe you didn't mean that kind of people at all when talking about the second group?



[/ QUOTE ]

i think sklansky misinterpreted the post he was reading.
in the passage, "that's the right position to hold, even if they themselves 'lack the faith,'" he took "they" to mean "the believers", when the OPer meant it to mean "others"

[soon2bepro]

I meant all others, but especially other believers. What's the difference here?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

good point, i agree. by extension, picking the parts that you like most from various logical philosophies and discarding the parts that you don't like, to make a nonsensical jumble that you really like, should be frowned upon. i guess people do actually do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get this. Why would it be wrong to accept things that make sense to you and throw out those that don't?

[ QUOTE ]

also, for the same reason i can't know that what someone else percieves is nonsense, he cannot know that what i percieve is nonsense. so, all religions that claim to be "right" or claim that others are "wrong" are out of line. i think i agree with you guys on that one. but you will never hear me ridicule someone who makes assumptions that i don't, as long as that person does not claim to be 100% sure he is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the key point IMO.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since they baptize long dead Jewish people and others,

[/ QUOTE ]

What is this supposed to mean? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]A thing that makes religion irrational is what happens to all the people who died before God's true word was spoken. For awhile there was a book in the bible that had Jesus going to preach in hell for the 3 days before he was resurected. Where we are to assume people like Moses and Plato have been burning all along. I believe that gospel is now apocryphal. But there is mention of the journey to hell in other gospels.

The Mormons have a very large geneology database that contains the names of all those known to have lived and died since records were keept, and pray for them. Every week in a special ceremonies Mormons are giving the list of names to pray for. The prayer is suppose to baptize the dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, the definition of Baptize is to immerse in water. Mormons are not Christians, so please do not lump them in with us. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]from wiki
"In the practice of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a living person, acting as proxy, is baptized by immersion on behalf of a deceased person of the same gender. The baptism ritual is as follows: after calling the living proxy by name, the person performing the baptism says, "Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you for and in behalf of [full name of deceased person], who is dead, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." The proxy is then immersed briefly in the water. Baptism for the dead is a distinctive ordinance of the church and is based on the belief that baptism is a required ordinance for entry into the Kingdom of God." So yeah the dead are immersed in water by proxy.

When the Mormons got a hold of the records of the "Final Solution", and started "baptizing" all the murdered european jews, it caused quite a stink in the jewish community.

In this respect, Mormonism is better then most christain sects. How does knowing the all the great persons in history are boiling in hell, because the happen to be born before Jesus was around, fit with any sort of compassionate God? All the "heroes" of the OT, all the pious men had zero shot of a reward in the afterlife. And try as they might to do God's will, it was all for nothing. Because the only way to Heaven is Jesus. Does this make any sense? That Moses, and Abe, and Aristotle are being tortured as we speak?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone says that he's a believer because he feels the touch of god, his belief is not logically falsifiable. So, you know, stop trying to falsify it. More importantly, IMO, don't call him a moron because he's using a different (yet equally valid) epistemology.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I feel like its logically falsifiable. Don't knock my equaly valid epistemology.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

agree again. the bottom line is that to have any sort of belief, you must start out at some unprovable position. for instance: "i think the sky is blue, because i see it as blue." might be more 'logical' than "i think the sky is green, because i feel like it's green," but it isn't any more valid or provable. how do you know that your perception is accurate and another's is inaccurate? you don't know, unless you take some things as given. (in your case, your perception of the material world=reality. in his case, something else)

[/ QUOTE ]

Right but once you've settled on your list of axioms that you simply decide are true, you are still held responsible for the consequences of those axioms. In other words, ALL of the logically derivable positions that are based on those premises. The people chez are talking about want their cake and to eat it too.

[/ QUOTE ]

good point, i agree. by extension, picking the parts that you like most from various logical philosophies and discarding the parts that you don't like, to make a nonsensical jumble that you really like, should be frowned upon. i guess people do actually do that.

also, for the same reason i can't know that what someone else percieves is nonsense, he cannot know that what i percieve is nonsense. so, all religions that claim to be "right" or claim that others are "wrong" are out of line. i think i agree with you guys on that one. but you will never hear me ridicule someone who makes assumptions that i don't, as long as that person does not claim to be 100% sure he is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, to be fair, I dont start OUT ridiculing them for making assumptions that I dont make. And really at no point is that WHY I might ridicule them. More, I ridicule them for having no idea what assumptions they are actually making until forced to name them, and then pretending like these assumptions for some reason dont apply to everyone else. IOW, "I use my own personal experience as a way to find truth but Muslims are misguided heathens."

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

good point, i agree. by extension, picking the parts that you like most from various logical philosophies and discarding the parts that you don't like, to make a nonsensical jumble that you really like, should be frowned upon. i guess people do actually do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get this. Why would it be wrong to accept things that make sense to you and throw out those that don't?

[ QUOTE ]

also, for the same reason i can't know that what someone else percieves is nonsense, he cannot know that what i percieve is nonsense. so, all religions that claim to be "right" or claim that others are "wrong" are out of line. i think i agree with you guys on that one. but you will never hear me ridicule someone who makes assumptions that i don't, as long as that person does not claim to be 100% sure he is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the key point IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is wrong to pick out only the things that benefit you and hum really loudly when people mention the flipside of that coin.

Politics is rife with this type of blindness, where we care about freedom but only when it suits US, we care about rights but only in cirumstances that arent too much of a hassle, stuff like that.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, to be fair, I dont start OUT ridiculing them for making assumptions that I dont make. And really at no point is that WHY I might ridicule them. More, I ridicule them for having no idea what assumptions they are actually making until forced to name them, and then pretending like these assumptions for some reason dont apply to everyone else. IOW, "I use my own personal experience as a way to find truth but Muslims are misguided heathens."

[/ QUOTE ]

While i still don't think this is worthy of ridicule, I think it's much less objectionable to mock someone for this reason.

What happens when you point out the implications of their method of reasoning? How does ridiculing them help matters?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, to be fair, I dont start OUT ridiculing them for making assumptions that I dont make. And really at no point is that WHY I might ridicule them. More, I ridicule them for having no idea what assumptions they are actually making until forced to name them, and then pretending like these assumptions for some reason dont apply to everyone else. IOW, "I use my own personal experience as a way to find truth but Muslims are misguided heathens."

[/ QUOTE ]

While i still don't think this is worthy of ridicule, I think it's much less objectionable to mock someone for this reason.

What happens when you point out the implications of their method of reasoning? How does ridiculing them help matters?

[/ QUOTE ]

Two seperate questions, so I'll address them seperately. What happens when I point out the implications? For the most part, hemming and hawing and special pleading. Rarely, they admit that they've never thought of these implications and they soften their stance, or modify their assumptions slightly.

In the first case, I dont care what happens when I mock them because they arent going to hear a word I have to say. Maybe peer pressure will make them change their minds, but probably not and who cares. At this point I'm just not interested in dignifying their dishonesty and treating it like it belongs in the discussion. In the second case, I dont ridicule them so I dont have to worry about it.

I hear what you are saying about my motivations having at least SOMETHING to do with making myself feel better or big and strong or whatever. I cant claim that plays no role, I dont feel like it does but I'm probably not a great person to ask, right? I can only claim to be AWARE of that possibility and try not to let it take a huge role in my actions.