Gibberish of the day!

violence in the media · Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:02 pm

tzor wrote:PL and Kaelik (while trying to get the occasional anti-Religion jab in) are arguing based on end result. I am trying to argue based on the attitude behind the means.

I thought the road to hell was paved with good intentions?

“Our intentions tend to be much more real to us than our actions, and this can lead to a great deal of misunderstanding with other people, to whom our actions tend to be much more real than our intentions.”
E. F. Schumacher

How much weight can you really give to intentions, compared to the actual actions or results of those actions? Intentions certainly affect our attitudes towards actions and modify our response to them (determining classifications of manslaughter, for example) but they don't generally exonerate or condemn someone wholly on their own.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:37 pm

tzor wrote:Contrary to popular opinion, marriage is not a “sex license.” It is a sacrament (a sign instituted by Christ for the transmission of grace) of mutual love that leads to new creation.

That's why I prefer the Lutheran approach: sex is God's gift to marriage.

Although, I had always wondered about the origin of the Catholic point of view on the matter.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:59 pm

violence in the media wrote:
tzor wrote:PL and Kaelik (while trying to get the occasional anti-Religion jab in) are arguing based on end result. I am trying to argue based on the attitude behind the means.
I thought the road to hell was paved with good intentions?

Pithy saying, but not actually religious thought on the matters.

Catholics have this idea that there are good acts, which are when you have just this specific intention, and do something that helps others. All other acts, good intentions or good results alone, or shitty everything doesn't count and is bad.

So if you selfishly give someone a dollar because it makes you feel good, you are committing a bad act.

Oh, but then they take everything back with double effect, like reres. So even if you know you are going to kill some innocents and you undergoe an action with 100% certainty of killing them, it's okay as long as you didn't want to and just felt you had to. So neither results nor intentions matter, only your preferences.

Protestants are retarded and think results aren't important at all.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:34 pm

Kaelik wrote:Protestants are retarded and think results aren't important at all.

Care to elaborate?

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:05 pm

RobbyPants wrote:
Kaelik wrote:Protestants are retarded and think results aren't important at all.
Care to elaborate?

Do you believe Jesus Christ is your lord and Savoiur? Welcome to Heaven!
No? Burn in hell.

That's seriously it. You can be a crazy murderer, you still go to heaven.

Depending on the sect, it gets more specific, some of the explicitly define actions as good or bad based solely on your intentions, so shooting someone in a dark alley you think was going to kill you is still a good act, even if it turns out to be your mom.

Others are less specific, or not specific at all, because they don't have overt teachings on those things, but it's still in built in the way they talk about the world, because it's the fundamental premise of your worth to the universe is based on belief not action.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:21 pm

Kaelik wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:
Kaelik wrote:Protestants are retarded and think results aren't important at all.
Care to elaborate?
Do you believe Jesus Christ is your lord and Savoiur? Welcome to Heaven!
No? Burn in hell.

That's seriously it. You can be a crazy murderer, you still go to heaven.

Depending on the sect, it gets more specific, some of the explicitly define actions as good or bad based solely on your intentions, so shooting someone in a dark alley you think was going to kill you is still a good act, even if it turns out to be your mom.

Others are less specific, or not specific at all, because they don't have overt teachings on those things, but it's still in built in the way they talk about the world, because it's the fundamental premise of your worth to the universe is based on belief not action.

I thought that the Protestant cannon was one of Predestination, where you demonstrate that you were predestined to go to Heaven through good deeds.

violence in the media · Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:39 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote: I thought that the Protestant cannon was one of Predestination, where you demonstrate that you were predestined to go to Heaven through good deeds.

That sounds like a mess to try and sort out.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:45 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:I thought that the Protestant cannon was one of Predestination, where you demonstrate that you were predestined to go to Heaven through good deeds.

It might vary denomination by denomination. I know the Lutheran belief is salvation by grace alone, not by merit of deed. As Kaelik so eloquently said: "Do you believe Jesus Christ is your lord and Savoiur? Welcome to Heaven!
No? Burn in hell."

Although it's supposed to be a bit more complicated than that, needing repentance, but that's widely up to interpretation. Could Hitler go to heaven if he repented by this idea? Yes, but what is the measure of repentance? Hmmmm...

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:43 pm

Kaelik wrote:
violence in the media wrote:
tzor wrote:PL and Kaelik (while trying to get the occasional anti-Religion jab in) are arguing based on end result. I am trying to argue based on the attitude behind the means.
I thought the road to hell was paved with good intentions?
Pithy saying, but not actually religious thought on the matters.

Catholics have this idea that there are good acts, which are when you have just this specific intention, and do something that helps others. All other acts, good intentions or good results alone, or shitty everything doesn't count and is bad.

So if you selfishly give someone a dollar because it makes you feel good, you are committing a bad act.

Oh, but then they take everything back with double effect, like reres. So even if you know you are going to kill some innocents and you undergoe an action with 100% certainty of killing them, it's okay as long as you didn't want to and just felt you had to. So neither results nor intentions matter, only your preferences.

Protestants are retarded and think results aren't important at all.

Kaelik, I’m going to put this as simply as possible, while still remaining within the spirit of The Gaming Den: You don’t have a fucking clue what you are writing about, do you?

First of all good acts are good acts. We know that in the Gospels God rewards those who are not rewarded for their good acts. Jesus gives examples of people who pray and give alms so that they can be seen by others, he doesn’t call them bad but he says that they have already been rewarded.

Finally PDE

The principle of double effect (PDE) or doctrine of double effect (DDE), sometimes simply called double effect for short, is a thesis in ethics, usually attributed to Aquinas. The doctrine of double effect seeks to explain under what circumstances one may act in a way that has both good and bad consequences (a "double effect").

Catholic view

The moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, based on the writings of Aquinas, in particular states that an action having a double effect is permitted only under the following circumstances:

The act may not be inherently wrong. It must in itself be either good or at least morally neutral.

The person making the act must not actually intend to accomplish the bad effect, but must simply not be able to avoid it while accomplishing the good effect. If there is any way to accomplish the good while avoiding the bad, then that should be done.

The good effect must be at least as directly an effect of the action as the bad effect is. In particular, the good effect must not be caused by the bad effect, which would be prohibited.

The benefit of the good effect must be weighed against the harm of the bad effect, and the good must outweigh the bad. This comparison must be done with prudence and reflection.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:27 pm

Kaelik got it exactly right. The principal of double effect is twenty flavors of bullshit and absolves you of any responsibility for anything, ever.

You can still murder people wholesale as long as ït was part of your plan to sing praises to the Lord over their corpses.

-Username17

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:24 pm

tzor wrote:PhoneLobster, you seem to be of a more Old Testament mindset that all sins are equal and if you break any one to either a minor degree you’re screwed; end of story.

Where you get that idea I have no idea. I just told you what your position looks like and what the softer populist leaning Catholic position is. And it isn't exactly "old testament" in your words is it?

More importantly though YOU DIDN"T FUCKING ANSWER ANY OF MY DIRECT QUESTIONS YOU JERK. You evaded with some fairy story about old testament values and mentioned "intentions" without explaining the particulars in the slightest.

But... you... are you even really Catholic at all?

I think I might be more Catholic than you.

I just told you how it fucking works.

You commit whatever sin you feel like. You confess. You are forgiven. Anything short of an excommunication and you are good to go.

And you are all like "OMG freaky old testament shit!"

The whole thing revolves around the attitude around the process and not the process itself.

So then you DO think it IS ok to use a condom WHILE practicing NPF.

Good. Now we know the particulars of your position. Unless you care to actually give a fucking straight answer on the matter but since you won't well have to go with this.

This is why there are exceptions to the rule because you can have the wrong attitude towards NPF and the right attitude toward a condom.

Wait. So now I can use a condom any time without confessional. I just have to sprinkle fairy dust and think happy thoughts.

NativeJovian · Post by **NativeJovian** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:14 pm

Kaelik wrote:Do you believe Jesus Christ is your lord and Savoiur? Welcome to Heaven!
No? Burn in hell.

That's seriously it. You can be a crazy murderer, you still go to heaven.

If you're down with Jesus then you won't be a crazy murderer, because Jesus is pretty explicitly not cool with that. If you used to be a crazy murderer but did the whole born-again thing so now you're down with Jesus, then you won't be a crazy murderer anymore, and probably start doing your best to make up for being a crazy murderer.

It's not "you can do whatever you want as long as it's in Jesus' name!", it's "if you really worship Jesus you'll act in the way that he said he wanted you to act".

Though deathbed conversions are still a legitimate concern, if they bother you. All I can say to that is that it has to be real to count. You can't say "I totally believe in Jesus now, so all that raping and murdering I did doesn't count now!" unless you actually believe in Jesus and therefore (literally) repentant of your previous actions.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:23 pm

If you're down with Jesus then you won't be a crazy murderer, because Jesus is pretty explicitly not cool with that.

Well, I guess that could technically be true, since even though in Revelations he's pretty clear about murdering and torturing millions (billions really) of people Jesus never said it was okay for you personally to kill people.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:47 am

NativeJovian wrote:
Kaelik wrote:Do you believe Jesus Christ is your lord and Savoiur? Welcome to Heaven!
No? Burn in hell.

That's seriously it. You can be a crazy murderer, you still go to heaven.
If you're down with Jesus then you won't be a crazy murderer, because Jesus is pretty explicitly not cool with that. If you used to be a crazy murderer but did the whole born-again thing so now you're down with Jesus, then you won't be a crazy murderer anymore, and probably start doing your best to make up for being a crazy murderer.

It's not "you can do whatever you want as long as it's in Jesus' name!", it's "if you really worship Jesus you'll act in the way that he said he wanted you to act".

Though deathbed conversions are still a legitimate concern, if they bother you. All I can say to that is that it has to be real to count. You can't say "I totally believe in Jesus now, so all that raping and murdering I did doesn't count now!" unless you actually believe in Jesus and therefore (literally) repentant of your previous actions.

Believing in Jesus is believing that a dead guy who may never have existed is your best friend. Either you are retard who believes things without any evidence at all, in which case you are too stupid to figure out what Jesus actually wanted, so you'll do whatever a crazy person tells you, or you believe because you have actual evidence, IE, Jesus talks to you, IE, you are a crazy motherfucker and we have no idea what 'Jesus' will actually tell you to do, but it turns out to be murder an awful lot of the time.

All that is quite apart from the fact that Jesus wants a lot of things from people that all contradict each other, assuming you actually read the bible, and you could just as easily decide that it's your job to help him bring a sword as not cast the first stone.

NativeJovian · Post by **NativeJovian** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:11 am

So according to Kaelik, religious people are by definition either stupid or crazy, and therefore everything taught by any religion is either crazy or stupid. Gotcha.

Or in other words...

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:39 am

NativeJovian wrote:So according to Kaelik, religious people are by definition either stupid or crazy, and therefore everything taught by any religion is either crazy or stupid. Gotcha.

Or in other words...

No, it's not Circular reasoning. They aren't by definition stupid, they are stupid because they have stupid beliefs. Where the fuck aside from out your asshole did you get the by definition part?

Yes, believing in Jesus doesn't mean you are never going to do bad shit, because believing in Jesus means you are crazy. No it's not by definition. Just like people who believe that 2+2=5 are not definitionally stupid, they are stupid for believing stupid things.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:42 am

NativeJovian wrote:So according to Kaelik, religious people are by definition either stupid or crazy, and therefore everything taught by any religion is either crazy or stupid. Gotcha.

Or in other words...

Not really. If we applied the same standards of logic and evidence to religion (and specifically belief in an unseen omnipotent being) that we do to everything else, religious people would clearly be regarded as at least as crazy as people who believe in UFOs or the Tooth Fairy.

The line between delusions and faith is an artificial one, created to protect religious people from actually thinking about whether what they believe has any basis in reality.

NativeJovian · Post by **NativeJovian** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:19 am

Kaelik wrote:They aren't by definition stupid, they are stupid because they have stupid beliefs.

Why are religious people stupid? Because they believe stupid things. Why are the things they believe stupid? Because they're religious.

Seems pretty circular to me.

Kaelik wrote:Where the fuck aside from out your asshole did you get the by definition part?

The part where you said that all Christians are either stupid or crazy.

Kaelik wrote:Either you are retard who believes things without any evidence at all [...], or you believe because you have actual evidence, IE, Jesus talks to you, IE, you are a crazy motherfucker

That part.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:41 am

NativeJovian wrote:
Kaelik wrote:They aren't by definition stupid, they are stupid because they have stupid beliefs.
Why are religious people stupid? Because they believe stupid things. Why are the things they believe stupid? Because they're religious.

Seems pretty circular to me.

No, what they believe is stupid because it is wrong and illogical. That's why all stupid beliefs are stupid.

Why are people who believe 2+2=5 stupid? Because they believe stupid things. Why are things they believe stupid? Because they are wrong and illogical.

You don't get to just decide that crazy stupid beliefs about cosmic sky men who love you are sane beliefs because you really wish it was true.

NativeJovian wrote:
Kaelik wrote:Where the fuck aside from out your asshole did you get the by definition part?
The part where you said that all Christians are either stupid or crazy.

So just to be clear, you think it's circular logic to say that people who think 2+2=5 are either stupid or crazy?

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:42 pm

Kaelik wrote:Why are people who believe 2+2=5 stupid? Because they believe stupid things. Why are things they believe stupid? Because they are wrong and illogical.

The difference here is that you can logically prove that 2 + 2 = 4. Logically disproving the existance of God is a bit more tough; the whole concept is set up to be quite non-falsifiable. It doesn't make it right, it just means you can't prove it wrong. Of course, religious people are also stuck in the same boat as not being able to prove their own beliefs right, either.

violence in the media · Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:48 pm

I lolled.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:48 pm

RobbyPants wrote:
Kaelik wrote:Why are people who believe 2+2=5 stupid? Because they believe stupid things. Why are things they believe stupid? Because they are wrong and illogical.
The difference here is that you can logically prove that 2 + 2 = 4. Logically disproving the existance of God is a bit more tough; the whole concept is set up to be quite non-falsifiable. It doesn't make it right, it just means you can't prove it wrong. Of course, religious people are also stuck in the same boat as not being able to prove their own beliefs right, either.

Of course, the general rules of logic don't require anyone to prove anything false. Everything is assumed false unless there is sufficient evidence to show it is true. And no one really disagree with that. Which is why atheists are the only sane people on the planet.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:55 pm

violence in the media wrote:

I lolled.

Priceless.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:09 pm

Neeeek wrote:Of course, the general rules of logic don't require anyone to prove anything false. Everything is assumed false unless there is sufficient evidence to show it is true. And no one really disagree with that. Which is why atheists are the only sane people on the planet.

I always understood the term "non-falsifiable" to mean that the subject is not scientific, so there's little point in discussing it scientifically. Of course, I only took Philosophy 101 and Ethics as gen-ed classes, so, I might not have a good grasp on the term.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:13 pm

RobbyPants wrote:
Kaelik wrote:Why are people who believe 2+2=5 stupid? Because they believe stupid things. Why are things they believe stupid? Because they are wrong and illogical.
The difference here is that you can logically prove that 2 + 2 = 4. Logically disproving the existance of God is a bit more tough; the whole concept is set up to be quite non-falsifiable. It doesn't make it right, it just means you can't prove it wrong. Of course, religious people are also stuck in the same boat as not being able to prove their own beliefs right, either.

Logical proof is not the standard of sanity.

You can't even logically prove that a table exists if we start getting into Cartesian Demons. But someone who flat denied the existence of a table would be insane.

People who claim various far fetched things about Jesus with no evidence are crazy. The vast majority of those claims can be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt.

If one of those claims is that Jesus talks to you...

Yes, it's possible that it really is Jesus talking to you.

It's just as likely as me claiming that Socrates talks to me.

And yet no one finds any difficulty in saying that someone claiming Socrates talks to them is crazy. It is sufficiently unlikely as compared to craziness that it is well within sensible conclusions to treat all people who hear voices of dead people as crazy.