Just A Reminder About Religious People

[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? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ 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."