[PUG] Brothers & Sisters (split from [PAX] thread).

[the]

Oh, why?

What?

 

[Krumplenump]

What?

I'm wondering why you said that instead of be all and end all?

 

[Duty]

you look through your own eyes but don't see through ours. We want you to live, we want you to know the love of God in our lives so that you may share it.

We want you to understand that Christ is the only possible way for you to grasp salvation.

Do not cling to my words but instead those of God.

I'm still learning how to deal with this kind of communication difficulty, so forgive me.

I understand you. I used to think just like this. Now, I'm not saying my thinking is somehow higher then your's; on the contrary, your's is better adapted to your situation and mine to mine.

I'm not going to try to convince you you are wrong. I know you take how right you are very seriously. I'm glad you get so much out of your religion that you DO take it seriously. That means it is fulfilling some part of you that needs filled!

My question is: why bring your speech to this place? Why bring a speech meant for other Christians, those vegetarians among religions, to a potluck with no restrictions? I'd be very curious as to why you chose to bring it here. My only guess is that you want to show nonbelievers that they aren't doing the right thing...that they should feel guilty for not accepting the salvation that you see.

And that's ok. We are wrong. We are wrong because we see this religion from a completely different light. Knowing this, do you think it will be effective to come here and try to show us what has already been rejected?

I'm not trying to preach at you. That wouldn't help. I'm trying to suggest that maybe you're putting unnecessary stress on yourself. Does the bible warn that there are those that will never accept? It seems like it just causes you pain to deal with those that don't understand.

So, just let people be wrong. Live with the understanding that you're right, because, isn't that what is truly satisfying?

 

[laurie]

My sister came up with the theory that Christianity was like how Scientology is today, but gradually developed from the book it was made from into a proper religion with loads of believers (and not a cult).
I don't know, but it seems to hold about as much water for me as the cult.

I think Belief in yourself is the only way to true happiness and morality - only you can know what you believe to be right.
Right and wrong are all down to perspective and morals are constructed by society.
Is it evil for animals to murder one another to eat?
But then, Christianity states (or so I've heard) that animals don't have souls. If someone can look at my cats, live with them for a long time, then tell me they aren't equal to, or better than, people and ore deserving of a place in this 'Heaven', then I think I'll give up faith in humanity.
Christianity is also terribly convenient for those who wanted people to follow them at a certain time. We'll never know if it was all made it or not to create a way to control others and get quick, easy money.
It could be that the whole thing is true, that God did create the world in seven days etc. etc. but personally, I just don't think it could be true, or at least, I know I'll never know if it is or not til I'm dead and I don't think I'll be too bothered by it by then.
I don't really see that Christianity is the only way to live your life in a loving, moral manner. It just makes no sense to me.

I do feel that believers are lucky in a way though, that they can have blind faith in someone and find happiness and contentment through that. It's nice kind of heartwarming to see people really happy and into things like singing prayers and having a community spirit.

I just don't believe I could ever give myself over to it like that.

 

[Shai Gar]

Christianity was never like Scientology until the middle ages.

 

[patricky]

My question is: why bring your speech to this place? Why bring a speech meant for other Christians, those vegetarians among religions, to a potluck with no restrictions?

It's because in order to hold such a self-contradictory worldview, he has to do mental backflips and create massive blind spots in his logical landscape. By goading people he knows are going to disagree with him into a response, he is given the opportunity to copy and paste the Bible (a truly useless reference in religious "debate", regardless of its historical merit) into his responses and feel like he won the debate. Or maybe he wants to feel like he "really tried" to help those poor bastards who are going to burn for eternity in Hell for their disbelief. In either case, this is a technique for him to reinforce his delusion by mindlessly repeating the same few mantras, further programming his linguistic pathways to activate the 'sounds right' part of his brain whenever they're said. Because God knows he hasn't employed anything resembling proper philosophical reasoning when responding.

This is just masturbation for him, he has absolutely no intention of being convinced of another point of view because he is _absolutely positive_ that his answer to this particular question is infallible. That's the difference between religious nutjobs and reasonable people: reasonable people are capable of dealing with the concept that they _might_ be wrong, and tend to keep this in mind when employing logic and weighing evidence.

Shai Gar and Krumple, props to you two for taking this on point by point and remaining reasonable. Your arguments have more or less been spot on. I sure as hell don't have the stomach to go tit for tat with another religious robot.

Oh, but I do want to contribute one talking point to this debate: You all have been arguing fundamentally over the concept of "God", his reality, his communication mechanisms, and his relationship with humans. Please define the word "God" and provide justification for why this definition is a good choice.

 

[Duty]

This is just masturbation for him, he has absolutely no intention of being convinced of another point of view because he is _absolutely positive_ that his answer to this particular question is infallible. That's the difference between religious nutjobs and reasonable people: reasonable people are capable of dealing with the concept that they _might_ be wrong, and tend to keep this in mind when employing logic and weighing evidence.

You're right, you'll never convince him. Isn't putting him on the defensive hurting his opportunity to grow though? If he is putting mental concentration into defending against your attacks, I don't see how he could put effort into understanding that his view has holes. People generally need space to reflect if they are to develop as people.

I have to ask you the same question I asked him: Why defend this view against those that disagree? No one is convincing anyone and it just seems you're putting yourself in a place of stress.

I take it you value knowledge and reason (most ENTPs seem to ). I would suggest that it is a better expenditure of time to argue reason and knowledge where it makes a difference: amongst scientists and philosophers.

Maybe you can teach me what you learned later.

 

[patricky]

I take it you value knowledge and reason (most ENTPs seem to ). I would suggest that it is a better expenditure of time to argue reason and knowledge where it makes a difference: amongst scientists and philosophers.

Maybe you can teach me what you learned later.

You might note that this is my only contribution to this thread ;p And I wasn't arguing with barny as much as I was trying to answer YOUR question, which was trying to disassemble his intentions. Figuring out what makes religious folks tick is a reasonable scientific inquiry, especially if one wants to help them or manipulate their doctrine's language into meaning something more convenient to one's goals.

 

[Duty]

Figuring out what makes religious folks tick is a reasonable scientific inquiry, especially if one wants to help them or manipulate their doctrine's language into meaning something more convenient to one's goals.

The problem with the more dogmatic sides of religion is that they won't listen to reason. "You can't reason a man out of something he was never reasoned into."

Even with a lot of knowledge of their doctrines, I've found that they are not just completely set on having their religion, but they think they are just as right about their interpretation of it as well. This is frustrating I know.

I think the approach would be to manipulate the culture around them...create dissonance between the now segregated fundamentalists and what they see as the rest of the world. After enough time convincing themselves how wrong people on the outside are, they'll find that religion doesn't satisfy them as much as it once did. Let them come to it on their own, if you know what I mean.

Besides that, the beliefs of religion is interesting as far as science/philosophy goes. I wouldn't discourage that. I'm just trying to save some animosity here, because if I were religious I'd probably get really offended at what you said even though it wasn't directed at me. It would put me immediately on the defensive. Inquiry is great, I just think the context was off.

 

[patricky]

The problem with the more dogmatic sides of religion is that they won't listen to reason. "You can't reason a man out of something he was never reasoned into."

That's a good way to put it. They rely on the concept of "faith" without critically examining whether faith is really a smart idea. Personally I'm goal oriented: I want to see improved human quality of life, and the only savior that's even remotely capable of doing that is science. And I say that because science gets things done.

Even with a lot of knowledge of their doctrines, I've found that they are not just completely set on having their religion, but they think they are just as right about their interpretation of it as well. This is frustrating I know.

There are really three kinds of religious folks you'll ever debate with, and sometimes you'll find these attributes mixed together.

1.) Horrible at debate. Case in point. These guys have no concept of logical connectivity, employ fallacies with ease, and tend to only respond to the part of an argument that triggers a programmed emotional response. At best they'll respond to the parts that they feel like they have an answer to, but the answer is never a proper refutation.

2.) Good at debate, but fall back on broken axioms. These guys can keep up with a debate using appropriate tactics and generally are capable of responding to every part of an argument. In fact, you can usually resolve the debate with an 'agree to disagree' because good debaters will eventually come to the conclusion that they use fundamentally different axioms to reason about religion. The axiom of faith that a god exists is usually the key difference, and leads to the logical justification of all of their arguments.

3.) Independently of debate skills, think that religion is a useful sociological and psychological construct and don't use belief in god as a justification. Usually these people are either closet (1)s or mixtures of (1) & (2) scraping the barrel for an argument, but sometimes you get genuinely agnostic people who believe that religion is the foundation of morality, and without it we'd all be flinging shit at each other and having sex with kangaroos (no offense or anything Shai).

I think the approach would be to manipulate the culture around them...create dissonance between the now segregated fundamentalists and what they see as the rest of the world. After enough time convincing themselves how wrong people on the outside are, they'll find that religion doesn't satisfy them as much as it once did. Let them come to it on their own, if you know what I mean.

Just like the Mormons did, right? And although they're an interesting example of a totally wacky and made up religion, it's fascinating how right they get some things--education in particular. It might just be a cultural accident, I'm not sure if their religion--and in particular their extreme attitude toward not having contact with non-Mormons--is actually what caused them to make smart policy decisions.

I'm just trying to save some animosity here, because if I were religious I'd probably get really offended at what you said even though it wasn't directed at me. It would put me immediately on the defensive. Inquiry is great, I just think the context was off.

If Barny was a run of the mill (1), I would have just brushed it off. However, he's a (1) with such overwhelming arrogance and unnecessarily snide and insulting replies that I didn't really feel compelled to hold back my thoughts on the texture of the debate in this thread.

 

[Duty]

Just like the Mormons did, right? And although they're an interesting example of a totally wacky and made up religion, it's fascinating how right they get some things--education in particular. It might just be a cultural accident, I'm not sure if their religion--and in particular their extreme attitude toward not having contact with non-Mormons--is actually what caused them to make smart policy decisions.

The Mormons took over their society, they weren't segregated from it in the same way I'm thinking. You would have to do it in such a way as to create dissonance pressures. Mormons create dissonance pressures to those that AREN'T them, and it is the reason for their continued success in Utah.

Besides, I'm thinking more on the level of getting individuals to grow, not societies. Individuals grow out of religion when they realize it isn't satisfying anymore. For that they need to be encouraged to explore it with like minded people, but have a larger non-religious societal context on the outside. Unfortunately, Mormons generally don't have the "larger non-religious societal context on the outside" as that society is part of the religion.

 

[Krumplenump]

Shai Gar and Krumple, props to you two for taking this on point by point and remaining reasonable. Your arguments have more or less been spot on. I sure as hell don't have the stomach to go tit for tat with another religious robot.

Oh, but I do want to contribute one talking point to this debate: You all have been arguing fundamentally over the concept of "God", his reality, his communication mechanisms, and his relationship with humans. Please define the word "God" and provide justification for why this definition is a good choice.

When I've been referring to 'God' it's either in speech marks to accentuate the nonsensical inanity of the notion he/she or it exists, or in the absence of punctuation has been in response to Barnabas' direct usage of the word.

I give my final challenege to Barnabas' position in this thread regarding Jesus, not God. I anxiously anticipate a snappy capitulation on your part

This is taken from one of Christopher Hitchen's speeches that sum it up so well:

To proove that this individual [Jesus] did exist, which is impossible, would leave you as a Christian with all your work still ahead of you and you still have to face the objection that the teachings of Christianity from vicarious redemption to 'no thought for the morrow', to 'not thrift or care or family or society or solidarity is neccessary', are immoral teachings that have done and are continuing to inflict untold moral and physical harm on our species, and until we outgrow this nonsense we have no chance of emancipating ourselves.

That Jesus claimed to take our sins away promotes a VERY immoral concept, and that concept is that it is possible for humans to throw their sins and therefore responsibilities away on someone else and make him die and take your sin with him. That is vicarious redemption. A cop out from accountability.

 

[Shai Gar]

It's because in order to hold such a self-contradictory worldview, he has to do mental backflips and create massive blind spots in his logical landscape. By goading people he knows are going to disagree with him into a response, he is given the opportunity to copy and paste the Bible (a truly useless reference in religious "debate", regardless of its historical merit) into his responses and feel like he won the debate. Or maybe he wants to feel like he "really tried" to help those poor bastards who are going to burn for eternity in Hell for their disbelief. In either case, this is a technique for him to reinforce his delusion by mindlessly repeating the same few mantras, further programming his linguistic pathways to activate the 'sounds right' part of his brain whenever they're said. Because God knows he hasn't employed anything resembling proper philosophical reasoning when responding.

This is just masturbation for him, he has absolutely no intention of being convinced of another point of view because he is _absolutely positive_ that his answer to this particular question is infallible. That's the difference between religious nutjobs and reasonable people: reasonable people are capable of dealing with the concept that they _might_ be wrong, and tend to keep this in mind when employing logic and weighing evidence.

Shai Gar and Krumple, props to you two for taking this on point by point and remaining reasonable. Your arguments have more or less been spot on. I sure as hell don't have the stomach to go tit for tat with another religious robot.

Oh, but I do want to contribute one talking point to this debate: You all have been arguing fundamentally over the concept of "God", his reality, his communication mechanisms, and his relationship with humans. Please define the word "God" and provide justification for why this definition is a good choice.

Your post was full of insulting language. In the past I have said that "It'd be easier to just assume all christians are trolling, but, sadly, they're not." In this instance however, you're the one trolling.

It's one thing to attack an argument, it's another to attack a person.

 

[patricky]

Your post was full of insulting language. In the past I have said that "It'd be easier to just assume all christians are trolling, but, sadly, they're not." In this instance however, you're the one trolling.

It's one thing to attack an argument, it's another to attack a person.

I went back and reviewed what Barny's exact language was, and you're right, my post upped the level of antagonism another notch. I apologize to Barny if he was insulted specifically by the phrases "religious robot" and "religious nutjob".

However I responded to this thread because it had been changed to PUG, and I do stand by what I said about the lack of logical connectivity and the fact that this is just mental masturbation for Barny without any real desire on his side to come to agreement or consider other points of view. In my most recent post, the quotes I was referring specifically to as being snide and arrogant are:

you ok, you've had a few mistakes popping up in your posts and threads, like this doublepost. Your not drunk are you?

(If this was actually intended to be lighthearted jab, my bad. It came off as a serious if snide question)

Self deception would aslo be a foolhardy term use

And finally, just to be clear: that was not me trolling, that was me saying what was on my mind. I doubt Barny is going to be that upset, he seems to argue with about the same amount of venom and confidence. When I mean to "troll" I post inappropriate pictures with funny captions; if I was Trolling with a capital T I would go into PAX or sensitive threads and say mean shit. I don't feel like I was doing either here, though I do concede (as above) that I was more antagonistic than I should have been.

 

[Krumplenump]

[youtube]AL66d0Ag91Q[/youtube]
lol.

You cannot effectively argue with a mind like this.