An Amazing God Add

[Lucifer van Satan]

Yes. Amazingly stupid. Laughed at first and then realized how sad it actually was.

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html?gclid=CNaK5oPW87kCFQ0Q3god3jEALg

I guess most of you already know what academic reference the author will mainly use
The part about him saying why Christianity is the one true religion was... special. You will be converted instantaneously.

Joking aside, how do you approach people like this? Did you have any people that were close to you and held such beliefs?

 

[Hadoblado]

I wonder how many "let's rip on religion" threads there are on this forum.

 

[just george]

I wonder how many "let's rip on religion" threads there are on this forum.

666?

 

[Jennywocky]

I wonder how many "let's rip on religion" threads there are on this forum.

Isn't that one of the basic staples of the quintessential INTP forum?

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

I wonder how many "let's rip on religion" threads there are on this forum.

This thread ought not to be about that, but rather about your experience and your own approaches in communicating with the faithful.

 

[Jennywocky]

This thread ought not to be about that, but rather about your experience and your own approaches in communicating with the faithful.

Well, that was the sector of religious community I spent my whole life in, and I left when I was close to 40. I would say until I was 20, I thought the same kind of things, but then I began to be exposed to alternatives and criticisms that made sense to me and so my views changed; I think personality and individual preferences will impact how someone responds to new information, and some people just aren't open.

I don't know an easy way to communicate per se. The beliefs are intertwined with people's meaning and purpose in life and their perceptions of beauty and truth in the world. So to criticize or untangle the actual spiritual beliefs and/or doctrine from those positives in life is nearly impossible; to give up one's view of God (or even to allow some radical change) is like denying a lot of good things, and one has to rebuild their understanding of the world.

I did try to talk to my family (in the least controversial/confrontation ways possible), and the end result is that none of us ever talk about God anymore. I even have a decent relationship with my very religious ex, but we don't talk about religion; we don't fight, but we don't really engage. I'm willing; they are not. I also lost all the people from my last church, where I had actually led in music and written materials for religious education; people just aren't interested in engaging if they think your views aren't orthodox.

Maybe things are different in the 15-25 year old range. I don't know. I do know they're open to things (far moreso) like gay marriage, so maybe there are other doors open as well.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I wonder how many "let's rip on religion" threads there are on this forum.

Yes. Amazingly stupid. Laughed at first and then realized how sad it actually was.

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html?gclid=CNaK5oPW87kCFQ0Q3god3jEALg

I guess most of you already know what academic reference the author will mainly use
The part about him saying why Christianity is the one true religion was... special. You will be converted instantaneously.

Joking aside, how do you approach people like this? Did you have any people that were close to you and held such beliefs?

In order to approach and communicate, you've got to possess some level of understanding of their position, right?

So uh... What's wrong with it?

Generally speaking "It is the highest form of ignorance to criticize what one doesn't understand" - probably some old famous dead guy, paraphrase. So why criticize if you can't explain how he's (entirely) correct? I can, and I didn't even read the article.

 

[just george]

In all honesty, I distract them with a bit of logic sprinkled with bullshit that sounds good, and is probably true anyway.

I say something like "all of the religious books about God are similar. They all have adam and eve, and muhammad, and all the same dudes. Everything in those books happened a long time ago, and no one who was there to see it all is alive today.

At the same time, we know the books have been changed - we even revise and change it today, with new updated versions being produced by almost everybody. Today, priests do that based on their own interpretation, plus maybe a bit of social engineering for their own reasons - so we can't take any of the books 100% at their word.

Logically, since each of the holy books of the major religions probably came from the same original book a long time ago, then you can get away with changing the little ideas, but can't change the big ideas, or the religions would be too different. All of the details aside, the idea that is consistent in all of them is that we are made in Gods image, and so in honoring ourselves, and each other, we honor God. That is the only thing I care about, and I don't need a priest in a funny dress or a big building to do that. There might even be athiests who do it better than some religious people".

For some reason, the piousness of the whole speech shuts everyone up.

Btw there better not actually be 666 religion bashing threads on the forum, because that would be, uh

 

[Hadoblado]

Well, that was the sector of religious community I spent my whole life in, and I left when I was close to 40.

Wait you're >40?

You don't look it.

 

[Jennywocky]

Wait you're >40?
You don't look it.

Yeah. I know.
I try to see it as a boon.

(except then I get all these 50 year old guys who I wouldn't like anyway, hitting on me when they find out I'm their age... )

EDIT: No, I'm not in my 50's... I meant, "within dating age" versus, like, someone who is 22.

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

In order to approach and communicate, you've got to possess some level of understanding of their position, right?

So uh... What's wrong with it?

Generally speaking "It is the highest form of ignorance to criticize what one doesn't understand" - probably some old famous dead guy, paraphrase. So why criticize if you can't explain how he's (entirely) correct? I can, and I didn't even read the article.

If I cannot explain how he is correct? Umm, he is not.
Read the article, you may actually laugh a bit.

His beliefs are not true. There may be A LOT of possible causes to them. The trick is how to actually try to address most of them most efficiently.

 

[Hadoblado]

Generally speaking "It is the highest form of ignorance to criticize what one doesn't understand" - probably some old famous dead guy, paraphrase. So why criticize if you can't explain how he's (entirely) correct? I can, and I didn't even read the article.

Plz do.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

If I cannot explain how he is correct? Umm, he is not.
Read the article, you may actually laugh a bit.

His beliefs are not true. There may be A LOT of possible causes to them. The trick is how to actually try to address most of them most efficiently.

So if he's wrong, then prove it. It should be easy. From glancing over bolded words only I see he repeatedly cites the complexity of systems and agency interspersed with references to various scientific -ologies. He's surely not a decorated scholar by any means, but hey, I'm game.

You can't start a circle-jerk bashing thread in the faith & spirituality subforum and expect to get away with only pointing and laughing, holding steadfast to your own subjective interpretation of reality without opening yourself to valid criticism, can you? I mean, I could make threads entitled "How to deal with *insert label here*" all day, add a link and a few lines of snark, and never type a meaningful word the whole time.

Plz do.

The ball isn't in my court atm...

 

[Thurlor]

My Grandmother was a devout catholic (in her mind) and I learnt from a young age to never discuss religion with her. Later in life I've learnt to apply that precept to all theists (and deists to a lesser extent). You can't change their minds. They have to be willing to educate themselves and find their own way.

 

[Rook]

The ability to communicate with religously devout persons is hardened by the social integration of religion. Were I live, I do not know one person who does not cling to some supernatural view of the universe. Perhaps one. Thus, communication that is already near impossible, is hardened by societal preconseptions and "cultural integrity". It is a lonely life I lead.

 

[Thurlor]

@ Rook

I feel sorry for you.

 

[Hadoblado]

Someone pull me up.

What I'm seeing is:

OP: religion is stupid.

THD: How can you call it stupid if you can't even prove it correct?

@OP
Just saying something is bad does not an insightful argument make. If it's so obvious that it doesn't need pointing out then why post it in the first place? Critique the hell outa that shit. Tear it a new one. But do so with logic and reasoning, not peripheral pathway circle-jerkery.

@THD
Am I misunderstanding you? Isn't demonstrating why it's wrong enough? I understand that looking for counter-examples to your own position is a useful exercise, but having to demonstrate someone correct before you are qualified to criticise them seems... excessive.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

@THD
Am I misunderstanding you? Isn't demonstrating why it's wrong enough? I understand that looking for counter-examples to your own position is a useful exercise, but having to demonstrate someone correct before you are qualified to criticise them seems... excessive.

I only ask in this case because it's... really easy. Especially given the number of available topical dupes. And, addressing the dupes specifically, if one knows the other side, then hopefully it becomes a more restrained, thoughtful endeavor that doesn't require the creation of a topical dupe.

Am I smiling enough?

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

So if he's wrong, then prove it. It should be easy. From glancing over bolded words only I see he repeatedly cites the complexity of systems and agency interspersed with references to various scientific -ologies. He's surely not a decorated scholar by any means, but hey, I'm game.

You can't start a circle-jerk bashing thread in the faith & spirituality subforum and expect to get away with only pointing and laughing, holding steadfast to your own subjective interpretation of reality without opening yourself to valid criticism, can you? I mean, I could make threads entitled "How to deal with *insert label here*" all day, add a link and a few lines of snark, and never type a meaningful word the whole time.

The ball isn't in my court atm...

If you read the article, you will know that anyone capable of answering the main question of this post also knows the absurdity of the arguments that were made there. If you cling to these beliefs yourself or if you are not able to challenge them (which shouldn't be a problem for an average person on this forum), please go away, for this is not a thread for you. The main question is approaching people who hold on to dogmatic beliefs.
There are a lot of "let's rip on religion" threads here, as pointed earlier by Hadoblado.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

If you read the article, you will know that anyone capable of answering the main question of this post also knows the absurdity of the arguments that were made there. If you cling to these beliefs yourself or if you are not able to challenge them (which shouldn't be a problem for an average person on this forum), please go away, for this is not a thread for you. The main question is approaching people who hold on to dogmatic beliefs.
There are a lot of "let's rip on religion" threads here, as pointed earlier by Hadoblado.

You're right. It's a "let's rip on the religious" thread under the guise that you aren't exercising your own dogmatic beliefs.

please go away, for this is not a thread for you.

lmfao. Thread moved to Oubliette where it may rot in a sea of derails, spam, and fellow dead horses.

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

You're right. It's a "let's rip on the religious" thread under the guise that you aren't exercising your own dogmatic beliefs.

And those dogmatic beliefs are?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

And those dogmatic beliefs are?

"Science!" "Logic!" "Rationality!" "Empiricism!"

You asked how to deal with them. The answer is to understand their position, which you refuse to do. How dare you consider that you might be wrong! lol (And of course the irony being that you expect them to, lest you be forced to "deal with them").

 

[BigApplePi]

Damn. Some people I've known for a few years came around a couple days ago with their latest preachings. She read from the Bible and gave me a pamphlet. I wouldn't want to tell her her holes in logic. There were too many and that would be cruel and therefore stupid. What I try to listen for is not the logic holes, but what positive thing she is trying to get across ... tolerance for other people. I do remember she said those of other religions are part way there toward Christianity. The rest I didn't pick up as I was in a hurry about other things and couldn't pay attention.

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

"Science!" "Logic!" "Rationality!" "Empiricism!"

You asked how to deal with them. The answer is to understand their position, which you refuse to do. How dare you consider that you might be wrong! lol (And of course the irony being that you expect them to, lest you be forced to "deal with them").

Well, using logic, science, rationality and empiricism, we can create some effects in this world, right? Have two scientists to build you a rocket and it will fly. Ask the entire Christian world to pray that a rocket appears and flies and nothing will happen.
Do you agree?
The said things are not dogmatic. They lead you to question a lot and always check for consistency in order to understand them, not to accept them as unquestionably true from the start, which is the definition of dogmatic.
Do you agree?
The religious views views are inconsistent, incomplete and false.
Do you agree?
How then can you put yourself in a position of denial? Clearly their beliefs do not have much to do with logic.
Do you agree?
If I am wrong, I will adapt. They will not.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Well, using logic, science, rationality and empiricism, we can create some effects in this world, right? Have two scientists to build you a rocket and it will fly. Ask the entire Christian world to pray that a rocket appears and flies and nothing will happen.
Do you agree?
The said things are not dogmatic. They lead you to question a lot and always check for consistency in order to understand them, not to accept them as unquestionably true from the start, which is the definition of dogmatic.
Do you agree?
The religious views views are inconsistent, incomplete and false.
Do you agree?
How then can you put yourself in a position of denial? Clearly their beliefs do not have much to do with logic.
Do you agree?

The question is whether or not there is an effect, not whether that effect meets an arbitrary goal like... building a rocket to fly to who knows where. The goal is what leads to dogma, because a goal requires a preferred means to achieve it.

Irrational beliefs can also create some effects in this world, right? Beliefs influence behavior which influences action (of the self and of others). Beliefs encompass all of logic, not visa versa.

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

The question is whether or not there is an effect, not whether that effect meets an arbitrary goal like... building a rocket to fly to who knows where. The goal is what leads to dogma, because a goal requires a preferred means to achieve it.

Irrational beliefs can also create some effects in this world, right? Beliefs influence behavior which influences action (of the self and of others). Beliefs encompass all of logic, not visa versa.

A stopped clock is right twice a day. Not very useful if you want to know the time.

Science does not give a damn about what you believe. And it always works, given that we are smart enough. When we believe something, it is better for it to be true, right?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

A stopped clock is right twice a day. Not very useful if you want to know the time.

Science does not give a damn about what you believe. And it always works, given that we are smart enough. When we believe something, it is better for it to be true, right?

Knowing the time is a goal, as arbitrary as any other, and you apparently know very little about science.

Though it's fair to say that your faith in science is entertaining.
(<-Is a scientist. Troof.)

And all beliefs are true, silly.

And I'll bet you can't disprove ^that.

 

[redbaron]

It always works.

No?

Science has no basis in the metaphysical among other things. If I wasn't posting from my phone I'd elaborate, but anyway.

 

[Thurlor]

@ TheHabitatDoctor

And all beliefs are true, silly.

And I'll bet you can't disprove ^that.

I realize this wasn't directed at me, but I've just got to say that even if such a patently absurd notion were true it wouldn't be for Lucifer van Satan to disprove. You made the ridiculous claim that all beliefs are true therefore you need to offer proof.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I realize this wasn't directed at me,

Yup.

but I've just got to say that even if such a patently absurd notion were true it wouldn't be for Lucifer van Satan to disprove.

Well of course. That's because he can't. But let's start the autoerotic burden of proof dance because it's fun!

You made the ridiculous claim that all beliefs are true therefore you need to offer proof.

1.:
[bimgx=100]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_TZ4zYEBSw1I/S9RrxYRe4YI/AAAAAAAAMTY/_HBohR_fqNc/s1600/Heisenberg_uncertainty_principle.jpg[/bimgx]

2.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

Knowing the time is a goal, as arbitrary as any other, and you apparently know very little about science.

Though it's fair to say that your faith in science is entertaining.
(<-Is a scientist. Troof.)

And all beliefs are true, silly.

And I'll bet you can't disprove ^that.

I have no faith that is not deserved. How about you, my scientist friend?

Time is the only thing we lack. How is time not a priority?

Truthfulness looses its value if you make all beliefs true (that is, subjective).
Their usefulness makes them worthy of believing in.

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

@ TheHabitatDoctor



I realize this wasn't directed at me, but I've just got to say that even if such a patently absurd notion were true it wouldn't be for Lucifer van Satan to disprove. You made the ridiculous claim that all beliefs are true therefore you need to offer proof.

Hmm... how unscientific of him.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I have no faith that is not deserved. How about you, my scientist friend?

Time is the only thing we lack. How is time not a priority?

Truthfulness looses its value if you make all beliefs true (that is, subjective).
Their usefulness makes them worthy of believing in.

Values and priorities are subjective. As is usefulness.

And no, truth doesn't any value at all if all is true.

Hmm... how unscientific of him.

Also, I'm waiting...

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

Values and priorities are subjective. As is usefulness.

And no, truth doesn't any value at all if all is true.

Yes, and to the human race, maybe time is? Or are you so objective that you cannot accept that?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Yes, and to the human race, maybe time is? Or are you so objective that you cannot accept that?

Time is pretty meaningless and may well not even exist. "Time" leads to a whole lot of rat-racey phenomenon, like people so self-righteous that they want to retire so badly that they work for 50 years to do it. Values are a good pathway to slavery, really.

And no, saying "yes" doesn't make it true.

"Get on my level!" - White Rabbit

 

[BigApplePi]

You made the ridiculous claim that all beliefs are true therefore you need to offer proof.

How about, "All beliefs carry some sort of truth and the task is to discover if they are important enough for someone to hold them ... what that is."

 

[Hawkeye]

Yes. Amazingly stupid. Laughed at first and then realized how sad it actually was.

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html?gclid=CNaK5oPW87kCFQ0Q3god3jEALg

I guess most of you already know what academic reference the author will mainly use
The part about him saying why Christianity is the one true religion was... special. You will be converted instantaneously.

Joking aside, how do you approach people like this? Did you have any people that were close to you and held such beliefs?

I'm not really fussed with religion these days. People will obviously say things that I find rather daft such as "the Earth is the perfect size for us ergo God must exist".

However, if believing in Jesus gives a person a reason to get out of bed in the morning and do something good then what's the problem?

So long as I'm not being pestered (rather condescendingly at times I might add) to convert to a particular religion, I have no issues.

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

Time is pretty meaningless and may well not even exist. "Time" leads to a whole lot of rat-racey phenomenon, like people so self-righteous that they want to retire so badly that they work for 50 years to do it.

And no, saying "yes" doesn't make it true.

Call me when you succeed in living without the perception of time.
A usefulness makes a perception worth holding to. Or have I said something else?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Call me when you succeed in living without the perception of time.
A usefulness makes a perception useful. Or have I said something else?

Emoticons don't make you right either.

Spoiler

​

Use and usefulness are still subjective and bound by the arbitrary goals they're attached to.

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

Emoticons don't make you right either.

Quite amusing that you are the one to say that.

Use and usefulness are still subjective and bound by their arbitrary goals.

And do you have a better, more objective way of assessing anything?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Quite amusing that you are the one to say that.

Which one of the 270 elephants gave it away?

"My truth is the only truth! Yeah! I'm going to start a thread about it with no substance! WOO!!!"

And do you have a better, more objective way of assessing anything?

Considering all (or for you, other) perspectives and possibilities is a start.

I should probably introduce you to uncertainty since I don't see you making it there on your own within the foreseeable future: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

Which one of the 270 elephants gave it away?

"My truth is the only truth! Yeah! I'm going to start a thread about it with no substance! WOO!!!"

Considering all (or for you, other) perspectives and possibilities is a start.

I should probably introduce you to uncertainty since I don't see you making it there on your own within the foreseeable future: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Do you even read my posts fully? Quite sure I implied my flexibility towards the perceptions that prove useful somewhere.
Do you have any actual arguments that you want to resolve?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Do you even read my posts fully? Quite sure I implied my flexibility towards the perceptions that prove useful somewhere.
Do you have any actual arguments that you want to resolve?

"Call me when you succeed in living without the perception of time."

You asked, I called.

Please, tell me more about the infallibility of science!

Still waiting...

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

"Call me when you succeed in living without the perception of time."

You asked, I called.

Please, tell me more about the infallibility of science!

I am quite sure I already said everything that was necessary. If you will be so kind to read it.

If you think that I implied in any way that science is perfect, you are either not reading my posts or not knowing your logic.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I am quite sure I already said everything that was necessary. If you will be so kind to read it.

If you think that I implied in any way that science is perfect, you are either not reading my posts or not knowing your logic.

Was it this?: "My truth is the only truth! Yeah! I'm going to start a thread about it with no substance! WOO!!!"

How do you expect to get off the hook with this then?:

Yes. Amazingly stupid. Laughed at first and then realized how sad it actually was.

I guess most of you already know what academic reference the author will mainly use
The part about him saying why Christianity is the one true religion was... special.

Something about having cake and eating it too or something like that.

No substance then, and... not much more now.

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

Was it this?: "My truth is the only truth! Yeah! I'm going to start a thread about it with no substance! WOO!!!"

How do you expect to get off the hook with this then?:

I was asserting the poor explanation of his perceptions that are very unlikely to be true.
I didn't claim that I had all absolutely true answers. If some of my perceptions prove to be false, and his to be true, I will gladly shift.
I do tend to find this unlikely, though.

No substance then, and... not much more now.

What is keeping you here, then?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I was asserting the poor explanation of his perceptions that are very unlikely to be true.

Without substance, reason, or overt consideration. In other words: fluff.

I didn't claim that I had all absolutely true answers. If some of my perceptions prove to be false, and his to be true, I will gladly shift.
I do tend to find this unlikely, though.

What is keeping you here, then?

Because you're valuable as an example of what not to do.

 

[Absurdity]

What is keeping you here, then?

Someone has to stand up for the poor horse.