›
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

Religion

245

Comments

  • CounterclockCounterclock
    Belief
    Never even heard of Mormons till I met one in High school.
  • ViviVivi
    $80+ per session
    Just because they went to someone's door to spread the word doesn't mean they were trying to impose.
  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth
    How about those guys that hand out Jack Chick tracts instead of candy on Halloween?
  • ViviVivi
    $80+ per session
    You aren't usually forced to take them.
  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth
    Um.

    The Crusades?
  • vandrovandro
    edited 2011-08-22 02:45:41
    He who laments and can't let go of the past is forever doomed to solitude.
    Gelzo, I have to take it that you believe in rationality, fine, I accept that my beliefs which are agnostic theist are irrational, I don't say I don't doubt there is a god, but to me, a craft without craftsman makes atheism irreconciliable with my point of view: whether it is a clock and a watch maker, or a valley and erosion, everything that is a effect has a cause, and the big bang is either the first effect of a creator or the first cause itself, which can be further said to be a prime mover, the inmovable engine, a very basic and broad concept of a god. As for agnostic, I do not find meaningful to try and find a physical explenation for a metaphysical concept such as a god. I've found no satisfactory rational explanation for what I believe, but I do not feel it is wrong to keep irrational beliefs, furthermore, at first glance, a superrational action is no different from an irrational one. And to be honest, while I do feel most people are morons, I'd prefer if people tried to be superrational rather than rational.

    The crusades happened for economic and politic reasons that veiled themselves in holy war. And it happened quite a while back, also you cannot blame religion for the human nature of self-destruction.
  • ViviVivi
    $80+ per session
    Wow. Vandro and I have the same religious beliefs.
  • vandrovandro
    He who laments and can't let go of the past is forever doomed to solitude.
    Not quite, I am lapsed-catholic that still believes in the church, at least the Company of Jesus' side and its affiliates.
  • ViviVivi
    $80+ per session
    Ah. Well, everything you said in your last post, I am for.
  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth
    Well, my point was just that forcing religion on others is a real thing that happens. It was an absurdly extreme example. I know that the Crusades specifically don't have much relevance to today's issues.

    I still don't see why keeping irrational beliefs is something one ought to tolerate in oneself. I mean, we all have to make allowances for mistakes we might make, but continuing to do things that you know don't make sense... doesn't make sense..?

    And while it's true that from what we've observed, it's safe to assume cause and effect is at work in most things, but to conclude that there is a god based on that is a big leap. For one thing, if you can't accept the universe manifesting from "nowhere" how can you accept a deity doing the same? It would make more sense to me to say something like the beginning of existence is an exception to the rule, or that time is cyclical. We don't really have proof for that either, so that's not something I say I believe in either. I just admit ignorance.

    And I kind of lost you when you started talking about superrationality.
  • vandrovandro
    He who laments and can't let go of the past is forever doomed to solitude.
    A god is a concept that can be equated with a first cause via the concept of the prime mover.

    About superrationality, its game theory speak, look up the Prisioner's dilemma and superrationality.

    The gist of it is

    A rational player on a prisioner dilemma will act out of pure rational self-interest. i.e.: In most cases he will betray his co-conspirator because it holds the best rewards for himself.

    A superrational player on the same will act out to find the best possible solution for every party involved: In every case he finds out that his fellow co-conspirator is a superrational: Neither will betray the other because it holds the best solution for both. Even if rationality says otherwise in the short-run.
  • BeholderessBeholderess
    I'm not sure I follow what you're saying about justice, could you give a
    specific example of a belief you have that you don't think you have a
    logical justification for?

    This one believes that what people do to others is  what  they ought to receive in return. Not because of benefit. Simply  because...it's  just  (shrugs).

    For one thing, if you can't accept the universe manifesting from "nowhere" how can you accept a deity doing the same?

    Good question. This one does not see any difference  between universe coming out of nowhere and god coming out of nowhere to create universe.
  • VorpyVorpy
    ☭Unstoppable Sex Goddess☭
    There are two concepts I don't like about everyone else's definiton of God. One is a jailkeeper and one is a fickle tormentor.
  • MillerCrossMillerCross
    You can change. You can.
    There are two concepts I don't like about everyone else's definiton of God. One is a jailkeeper and one is a fickle tormentor.

    There are two concepts I don't like about everyone else's definiton of God. One is its existence and one is his beard.

    But yeah, put me in the non-believer camp. I also don't care whether you believe or not and if it provides spiritual comfort, then sure, go ahead. Just don't shove it down my throat.
  • BeholderessBeholderess
    There are two concepts I don't like about everyone else's definiton of God. One is a jailkeeper and one is a fickle tormentor.

    Do you mean the concepts of religious people, or non-religious ones?
  • MillerCrossMillerCross
    You can change. You can.
    Seems like both, as it''s covered by "everyone"
  • vandrovandro
    edited 2011-08-22 11:24:51
    He who laments and can't let go of the past is forever doomed to solitude.
    If you act so reactionary at the assumption of the existance of god, it seems kinda difficult to not say something that may count as shove it down your throat.
  • MillerCrossMillerCross
    You can change. You can.
    I simply meant to point out that it's annoying when you go out of your way to attack other people's metaphysical conceptions.
  • vandrovandro
    He who laments and can't let go of the past is forever doomed to solitude.
    Bitch, please. They are someone wrong, on the internet, of course I we have to set them straight.
  • BeholderessBeholderess
    Oh come on. It's  IJBM
  • vandrovandro
    He who laments and can't let go of the past is forever doomed to solitude.
    I was being fascetious, btw,
  • BeholderessBeholderess
    edited 2011-08-22 12:10:18
    There are two concepts I don't like about everyone else's definiton of God. One is a jailkeeper and one is a fickle tormentor.

    This one has no problem with irreligious  people's definitions of god, except for the case when they are factually incorrect. But what is factually incorrect can be rather difficult to determine.Their definitions of god are point of academic argument - interesting to discuss, but unlikely to affect actions.

    What bothers this one - a lot - is religious people who believe in a god which, by their own description, is what this one would consider immoral monster - and still hail him as good and worthy of worship.

    Note that there are lots of people who's god is not like that - why  they share the same religion is somewhat puzzling  for this one, but she has absolutely nothing against them and their belief.  In fact, this one is  almost envious.
  • RaddRadd
    The worst part is, I can't even argue against that.
  • vandrovandro
    He who laments and can't let go of the past is forever doomed to solitude.
    Any dogma is the opiate of the mass that it takes hold into.
  • VorpyVorpy
    ☭Unstoppable Sex Goddess☭
    Hey juan_carlos, you are required to learn about my God, mmkay? You will go to Vittrahell if you do not, and you are a sinner before you were even born, brah.

    Now let me teach you the laws of Chrithihaha.


  • GelzoGelzo
    edited 2011-08-22 12:35:40
    Pony Sleuth
    I understand that there are a lot of definitions of gods. I only tend to object to definitions that exclude the personality and decision making aspects, since it seems odd that you would call something like that a god instead of just a force or group of forces of nature.

    Anyway, my concept of justice goes something like this. Tell me if you think it's rational. I think it should be a high priority to minimize and maximize net suffering and pleasure respectively, and that the best justice system is one that facilitates this. The purpose of punishment should not be primarily motivated by emotions, but serve as a way to discourage and prevent people from committing crimes that cause others to suffer. I'm not of the opinion that this case I'm about to present is usually much more than hypothetical, but say that we know that issuing a certain punishment fails to discourage people from committing crimes, then it's causing purposeless suffering and is wrong no matter how good it feels to make the criminal suffer.

    Furthermore, crimes that cause negligible net suffering and increase net pleasure should not be considered crimes.
  • CounterclockCounterclock
    Belief
    Vorpy is using /joke.

    What has the world come to?


  • vandrovandro
    He who laments and can't let go of the past is forever doomed to solitude.
    You are being rational, I commend you for that. But I still disagree, reducing justice to a mere pros-cons stimate is a mockery of the term.
  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth
    Is it? I thought I was just boiling it down to what its real purpose is.

    How else do you justify justice? Emotions? Going by instinct can be useful, but I still think you ought to evaluate where that leads you. Punishments can work out in nature even when it sometimes costs the punisher its life. and I think this could be the kind of primal thing people are tapping into when they have emotions like vengefulness. But, I think if we give it some thought we can come up with something better, say, a justice system that prevents more crime.
  • vandrovandro
    He who laments and can't let go of the past is forever doomed to solitude.
    Justice has no need for justification besides righteousness. Now a justice system is something different altogether, this is where pros-cons take hold. Your proposal uses both terms interchangeably.
Sign In or Register to comment.