Guest posts by smuglapse

1081

Religion / Re: Why don't you believe in God(s)?

« on: July 29, 2010, 08:48:32 pm »

By the by, I’ve been meaning to say this for the last couple of times I’ve seen you post – I too am a fan of the exploits of Jack Burton.

“How did you get up there?”
“Wasn’t easy!”

Cool. 8) It's a classic from my childhood that has stuck with me.

The truck on the highway may be part of a dream, and if you step in front of it, it may pass right through you instead of hitting you.

Perhaps Belthus is also a fan? 

There is a difference between taking a position and claiming 100% certain knowledge. I take the position that I am not a disembodied brain in a vat of nutrients having a vivid dream. I can't disprove the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis, but I can take a position anyway. And so do we all, on practical matters.

I actually don't consider that a practical matter myself.  Whether I'm a brain in a vat, we are all part of one large computer simulation, reality is just my dream, or everything is objective and material doesn't matter to me.  There is no way to tell the difference in all those scenarios, so they are not practical to consider.

In regards to gods I treat them as any other intangibles (pixies, UFOs, souls, etc...) until there is some evidence to show they exist, they are pointless to inject into our reality, whatever that reality may be.

1082

Religion / Re: Responses to a few common arguments

« on: July 29, 2010, 07:26:12 am »

Invisible Pink Unicorn
This is a response to a very specific argument, not a blanket statement.

I believe the original argument, as made by Bertrand Russell, was that he could not prove there was not a teapot orbiting Mars, yet this was not convincing evidence in favor of the teapot being there.

What every form of this argument invariably uses as an analogy is something silly, that no one would ever believe. What I have pointed out is that  these are vastly flawed analogies.

I would like to continue this discussion because this argument helped confirm my ideas about religion and helped me to develop opinions on other aspects of life.  My original conversion came from a thought experiment that I will try to boil down to the essential: "How can a just supreme being provide so many different valid paths when only one is correct, and choosing wrong leads to eternal torment?"  I freely welcome debate on either of these two arguments.

Invisible Pink Unicorn
Unless I missed it, the only response provided to this argument is an appeal to popular opinion as Innominate has pointed out.

Many different religions, only one can be correct
I am not familiar with the "official" name for this argument or have the proper analogy off-hand but I will give you my account.

If you are familiar with the game show Deal or No Deal this will be rather easy to follow.  The "reward" for following mono-theistic religions is entry into Heaven and this can be symbolized by the case that has the million dollars in it.  In this analogy each case you can pick is a different religion and only one can contain the $$, for there can only be one objective truth.  However, unlike the game show, if you choose incorrectly instead of going home with a consolation prize or nothing at all, you will actually receive a punishment in the form of eternal torment.  This analogy is not perfect, of course, because some religions do not have a heavenly reward or hellish punishment for following their creed.  In some religions, you may be reincarnated as a roach, cow, or an enlightened individual depending on how close you follow their religious path.  What I am trying to illustrate is that for almost all religions if you pick their case you will have a generally good outcome, where as if you don't you will have a generally bad outcome.

When playing the game there is no way to decipher which case holds the $$.  What you have before you are rows of exactly identical cases.  The only difference between them are numbers used for naming your selection.  Only after opening a case will you know if you made the right decision.  When choosing religions it is the same way.  Each religion has its holy book, historical accounts, wizened elders, and masses of followers.  They each may argue that their book is older, or their followers more numerous or more intelligent, but each also say that there is no way to prove theirs does or does not contain the $$.  Because of this until you have chosen a path, walked it, and finished your mortal life you will never know if you were correct in your beliefs.

How do contestants on Deal or No Deal pick the right case?  Luck.  How do you pick the correct religion?  Luck.

I say, if there was a creator that based the outcome of your afterlife on luck, then that is a vile creature not worth consideration, let alone worship.

1083

Religion / Re: Do you feel persecuted because of your beliefs?

« on: July 29, 2010, 06:29:41 am »

I'm going to skip over your post Boingo, because those all deal with government institutions and that is a whole other topic for me.

Ummm, not sure what to say...thanks for at least acknowledging the post? 

Out of curiosity, why does the involvement of government institutions exclude it from the belief persecution thread? Are you implying that government doesn't do that kind of persecution or, perhaps, they persecute all kinds of things so....?

Heh.  In your post you were curious what other people thought of those news bits, and I just wanted to unload some thoughts I had about this thread in general and didn't want to completely blow you off.   

To answer your question: I don't think those institutions should exist in the first place, so whatever decisions they come to are a moot point.

To me, governments are criminal institutions, so it would be like discussing the Mafia boss's decision to whack one of his lackeys--a purely academic, and ultimately pointless debate.

@ratcharmer and Xinef

To the point I was trying to make:  For a member of the majority opinion in a region to say they feel persecuted is very inconsiderate to the minorities in said region.

1084

Religion / Re: Why don't you believe in God(s)?

« on: July 29, 2010, 06:14:40 am »

As people, one of the most powerful motivators for us to change an idea, or take on a new one, is personal recommendation and proof. Marketers will tell you that the most effective form of advertising is word of mouth. If you have a friend, whom you respect, and they encourage you to try a new product, and they have used it themselves, and you can see the benefit it has brought to their life, you will be far more likely to try it yourself, than if a stranger simply told you it was good.

It is the nub of the “actions speak louder than words” principle, alongside “practice what you preach, and “physician, heal thyself.”

Just look at many of the arguments people will raise against a point – so many of them hinge upon the human examples of those who adhere to that point, rather than a philosophical assessment. To stick with religion for a moment, I have seen many people say, “I don’t believe in religion because of terrorists blowing other people / themselves up, the Crusades, paedophile priests, clashes in the Kashmir etc.” I see fewer comments along the lines of, “I have thoroughly examined the philosophy and doctrine of religion X, and I find them irreconcilable.” That isn’t to say they aren’t there; there’s just fewer of them.

Humans are a herd creature. We love to run with the crowd. When we see someone with something great, we’ll say, “I’ll have what she’s having.” Conversely, when we see hypocrisy, or even if we just see lives which don’t measure up to their claims, we become disillusioned, much as we do when the actual achievements of a political term don’t match up to the campaign promises.

Of course, I am making generalisations, and I’ll bet dollars to deutschmarks that there’ll be those out there who will post, or at least think, “That’s poppycock! My life decisions are based purely on my own experience, and my intellectual conclusions, not the actions of anyone else!” Without me knowing you personally, I’m not about to argue with you about your life. But I will say that I believe, with a degree of certainty, that whoever you are, whatever you believe, there will be a strong element of human influence that went into that personality and those beliefs you carry around today.

To give a contrary expression: "Would you jump off a bridge if everyone else was doing it?"  Choosing your philosophy and morals is not the same as choosing your favorite brand of soft drink.

"Generally...Humans are a herd creature."  Generally, I agree.  To use the common, but apt pejorative most people are sheep.  I am not going to waste my energy explaining why I am not a sheep besides saying I hold a minority opinion.  Of course, there is the common retort that "you are being a rebel" or "conforming to the anti-conformists", but I don't care about debating why I hold a certain opinion, just whether that opinion is logically correct or not.

If you count yourself among the herd, then there is no sense continuing a debate because you have decided to follow the popular opinion.

If you are not a sheep, don't use a sheep's argument.

1085

Patch Notes and Development News / Re: New pillars art poll - reloaded

« on: July 29, 2010, 02:55:40 am »

Why are you posting that deck there though? It seems completely irrelevant. 8)

Heh.  Check out his first post.  Ctrl+V Fail.   

1086

Buff This Card! / Re: Heal | Heal

« on: July 28, 2010, 02:18:46 pm »

SoD costs 3 and is not capable of giving you an EM.

Meh.  I don't really use either one.

1087

Humor / Re: Whos this?

« on: July 28, 2010, 02:14:26 pm »

Is that person 16?

1088

Religion / Re: Do you feel persecuted because of your beliefs?

« on: July 28, 2010, 10:29:34 am »

I'm going to skip over your post Boingo, because those all deal with government institutions and that is a whole other topic for me.

A little background on myself.  I call myself an Atheist because for me gods are the same as fairy tales and superstitions-people have extensive imaginations and those imaginings intrude upon reality.  I guess that falls under the "unicorn argument" which you can follow up with in the Common Arguments thread if you so choose.

My family are all Christians; my immediate family is a little less ardent or regular about it as my uncles, aunts and grandparents.  They are all Baptist but have gone to Methodist or non-denominational churches if going with friends or out of town.  I have one uncle that is a president of a Christian college and one uncle that is a pastor of a small rural church.  I have never felt comfortable debating my beliefs with them as usually we only see each other around Christmas and the conversation stays around family and small talk.

From books and periodicals that they read I can tell their is always a belief that they are (persecuted is probably too strong a word) but there is always an agenda out to get them.  I see a mirror between how Christians in the US see themselves as a group and how the US Government acts towards the world.  It is a mentality of us vs. them and we had better strike first.  I know that Christianity started as a persecuted religion but now it has become a dominant force in the world.

And I am astounded that any Christian living in the US feels persecuted.

Imagine if you were a Christian living in a Muslim country.  You could not walk one mile in any direction without seeing a mosque.  Small businesses would routinely incorporate Muslim slogans in their advertising and greetings.  Every hotel has a copy of the Koran in the night stand.  Every piece of money that you are legally forced to use says "In Allah We Trust".  No person can have a legitimate chance to run for a high office in government without a profession of faith to Islam.  At least one car in every parking lot has a crescent emblem on their trunk or witty religious bumper sticker.  If you happen to mention that you aren't a Muslim yourself people will look at you funny or want to have a long drawn out conversation when you would rather be on your way.  People on the street hand out pamphlets about their faith or put little comics under your windshield wiper.  There are several broadcast and cable channels devoted specifically to Islam.  There are Muslim versions of bookstores and singles groups and school athletic assemblies.  People constantly send you emails where someone has seen the face of Allah in their toast or a crescent symbol in a destroyed building.  There are private schools and universities dedicated to the Islamic faith and even in other schools there are courses about Islam's influence.  If you work in a customer service job for any length of time a customer is going to feel as if it is their calling to discuss Mohammed with you.

Now for any Christian to say they feel persecuted in the US is a slap in the face to any non-Christian, because what I have described for you is the daily life of a non-Christian living in the US.

1089

Religion / Re: Why don't you believe in God(s)?

« on: July 28, 2010, 09:27:38 am »

I thought I’d toss in what I believe to be a fantastic quote on the ‘why’ behind atheism.

The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today are Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable. – Brennan Manning

That sounds like something a pastor would say to their congregation.  It is not a reason "why" to be an atheist.

1090

Religion / Re: Why all the venom?

« on: July 28, 2010, 07:34:14 am »

I was a member of a christian religion before I decided I don't want to be part of it. How many religious people have tried living without religion?

Please forgive me if I have missed or misinterpreted your point, but it doesn’t seem to answer any of the questions on this topic. Also, your question seems ambiguously rhetorical. I don’t know how many religious people are converts from atheism or agnosticism. And I don’t know how many former religious people are now apostates. And I don’t know how these figures help to answer an enquiry into vilification.

Being inherently lazy, I will now copy one of my post's from another section, since I think it also fits here.


Allow me to suggest an analogy that may help both sides to understand what's going on here:

Suppose I'm at a party, and from across the room I see a friend of mine set her drink down for a moment and a shady looking character pours something into her drink. The room is crowded and by the time I can get close enough to talk to her, she's picked up the beverage and is about to drink it.

Now, I don't want my friend to come to harm, so rather than politely waiting for the opportune time to let her know she may be drinking a roofie, I smack the drink out of her hand. Generally this would be a very rude thing to do, and she probably won't be happy with me, but I would say it's inarguably the right thing to do under the circumstance.

But suppose for a moment I was wrong. Suppose the the guy I thought was so shady looking was actually the guy who was mixing the drinks, and he'd forgotten to add the lime juice to my friends drink? Was it still the right thing to do to knock it out of her hand? I would argue that it was.

Now apply this to the present discussion. There are two groups with opposing views, and each is convinced that the other is doing themselves great harm by following their beliefs. Responses between the two tend to get heated, not because of any inherent hate in either group, but out of desperation to try and "help" the other.

Does this sound like a reasonable explanation to both parties?

A fine analogy, which I have no problem with at all. I feel it sums up marvellously the motivation for impassioned debate becoming heated.

But that’s not what I see going here. What seems to be more common, if I may jump into your analogy, is more like this:

My friend picks up the drink. With a sneer, I say to her, “You really drink at parties? I didn’t think anyone with half a brain still did that. I believe in science, which you obviously don’t, and science has proved beyond doubt that party drinkers are imbeciles in self-denial. So go ahead and drink it, if that’s what you want to do. Hopefully it’s poisoned, and there’ll be one less idiot left to pollute the gene pool.”

You see, your point is that sometimes, out of compassion and concern for the welfare of people we care about, we get a little over-zealous in our attempts to help them. Sometimes, we’re even mistaken, not is full possession of the facts, and do things which are just plain wrong. But at heart, we’re still doing it because we care.
I just don’t see that here. So still, I ask: why the venom?

Excellent analogy, ratcharmer.

Hamish MacWolf, I would like to respond.

A lot of times when you are discussing viewpoints with people, especially on the internet when you can't see their apperance, age, gender, mannerisms, etc. you tend to imagine them as someone you know who has a similar viewpoint.  Of course, it is wrong to do this, but it is like a shortcut, at least I noticed I have sometimes, in communicating with people.  And so when you see an argument that you have discussed several times before, you get agitated or annoyed.

To continue the analogy, it would be as if your friend has had multiple occurrences of date rape, or waking up the next day not knowing what happened, and you see her leave her drink alone in a bar only to come back and start sipping from it again.  Not only are you feeling that you are trying to save her but you feel as if she is careless, ignorant, or even "asking for it".  I think that is the fuel that motivates people to make the remarks they do.  It is still wrong, because again the person you are speaking with is not the same person you are always speaking with, but I hope that helps you understand.

And Hamish MacWolf, I think I know of a couple of threads, by title alone, you may be responding to.  Believe me there are other thread titles that have the same venomous sting to the other viewpoint.  I just try to stay out of those threads.

1091

Sports / Re: Favorite Sports to Play and Watch

« on: July 28, 2010, 07:15:26 am »

Play?  I'm too lazy.

Watch?  Basically any sport I understand, have a side to root for, and have a passionate friend to watch with is fun.  I'm not big into baseball, but since the Rays have been winning my Mom likes to watch them and I find it enjoyable.

Of course college football and NFL are my favorites.

1092

Sports / Re: Soccer vs. Football

« on: July 28, 2010, 07:10:32 am »

@ScaredGirl, Hilarious and true.  John Cleese=badass.

But I still love watching football, its like live-action chess.  Many of the players are chosen for their size, shape, and speed rather than their talent or creativity.  And yes, they have to follow orders or it would just be a big mess--offensively, anyways.  The defense are assigned men or zones and have to respond to the play as it happens, I guess for them it's a little more like Soccer.  But it's beautiful to watch how each individual battle, either blocking or tackling, decides how the play will end up.

I guess it's a little like Starcraft in a way, too.  You have your SCVs doing their every-man job down in the trenches and you have a few star Ghosts or BattleCruisers making plays downfield.  And if you had a few Marines running off without orders after an Ultralisk you would be pretty pissed off.