In Gods We Trust(?)

[Lago PARANOIA]

If you can post me something that qualifies as a religion that does not have one of those three motives I described, I'll be much obliged.

I'd be interested to hear which of the motives you ascribe to Buddhism, and on what evidence. I'm hoping that, like science, it was born out of ignorance.

I'lll just copy from Rationalwiki.

Buddhism has successfully marketed itself to the Western world as a very peaceful religion, devoted to internal contemplation and personal enlightenment. The standard version of Buddhism promoted in the West leave out much of the rich and complicated mythology of gods and supernatural powers, as well as traditional Buddhist sexism (such as the belief that in order to become enlightened, a woman must first reincarnate as a man) and strict religious hierarchies. In their place is a pleasant (to Western ears) new myth about a nice guy who sat around thinking for a while, and decided the way to be happy was achievable if we'd all be less selfish.

And as you correctly observed, a lot of sciences like Chemistry had their start as a pseudoscience like Alchemy. However, the difference between these two things is that the protosciences led to real science while religion is just... sort of there. Yes, observations and experiences do transform religion and give birth to new ones, but the cores are still based in ignorance.

[Kaelik]

So, what you're saying is that you can't argue worth a shit because you're used to create straw men and having people not call you on it.

Are you that fucking dumb? Yelling STRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMAN doesn't count as a refutation.

If I'm not arguing against your actual point:

1) I am wrong because:
2) My opinion is logical and dispassionate.
and 3) It will change in the future.
4) The above somehow apparently proves that life is more then information by the:

If P and R
Then Retarded

Form.

Then please. Explain what the flying elephant fuck this mental diarrhea:

You'll understand once you hit adulthood.

EDIT: And I'm not saying that life is "spiritual" based on the "implications of reality." I'm saying that you'll just grow out of your "cold, dispassionate, purely logical" state sooner or later. It's a trend I've noticed with college students. They get their hands on a bit of logic and then they shit all over everyone who believes in illogical things (you know, like child molestation being wrong) and then they grow up.

actually means.

Seriously, instead of bitch whining about how you didn't mean what you said, why don't you tell us what your actual argument for the falsity of my statement is.

Or you can admit that I am correct, sit down, and shut the fuck up.

[Orion]

LAGO, I side with Anguirus here -- as an actual religious scholar (and evangelical atheist) what is and isn't a religion is *not* a clear-cut issue.

[Psychic Robot]

Are you that fucking dumb? Yelling STRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMAN doesn't count as a refutation.

If I'm not arguing against your actual point:

1) I am wrong because:
2) My opinion is logical and dispassionate.
and 3) It will change in the future.
4) The above somehow apparently proves that life is more then information by the:

If P and R
Then Retarded

Form.

Then please. Explain what the flying elephant fuck this mental diarrhea:

You'll understand once you hit adulthood.

EDIT: And I'm not saying that life is "spiritual" based on the "implications of reality." I'm saying that you'll just grow out of your "cold, dispassionate, purely logical" state sooner or later. It's a trend I've noticed with college students. They get their hands on a bit of logic and then they shit all over everyone who believes in illogical things (you know, like child molestation being wrong) and then they grow up.

actually means.

Seriously, instead of bitch whining about how you didn't mean what you said, why don't you tell us what your actual argument for the falsity of my statement is.

Or you can admit that I am correct, sit down, and shut the fuck up.

Your fail is strong. Given that I never said, "You're wrong because of X," you can go suck a bag of cocks and shove your spazzing elsewhere. Please spam more about how I'm saying something that I didn't say.

[Kaelik]

Given that I never said, "You're wrong because of X,"

So you never presented any argument for anything at all? You only made a horrendously long series of incorrect non-sequitars about my beliefs while quoting me for no reason at all?

Are you going to admit that I am correct? Are you going to present an actual argument? Or are you going to just run off and pretend you never entered this conversation because you now realize you have no justification for anything you've said?

Oh, and just because I can:

Please spam more about how I'm saying something that I didn't say.

STRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMAN
STRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMAN
STRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMAN
STRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMAN

See, everyone else is capable of claiming strawman for no reason as well.

Now, before you get your strawman macro ready and quote this post, notice how I asked you a bunch of questions. How about you answer one instead of trying to dodge all your previous statements more.

[Cielingcat]

Psychic Robot, saying "fail" does not automatically invalidate your opponent's argument. You are trolling, not arguing, and it has got to stop.

[Psychic Robot]

I'll answer your question by reposting our conversation.

You'll understand once you hit adulthood.

EDIT: And I'm not saying that life is "spiritual" based on the "implications of reality." I'm saying that you'll just grow out of your "cold, dispassionate, purely logical" state sooner or later. It's a trend I've noticed with college students. They get their hands on a bit of logic and then they shit all over everyone who believes in illogical things (you know, like child molestation being wrong) and then they grow up.

Please note the bolded section carefully. Then read the rest and try not to shit your pants.

So in other words, "You are a college student, your argument is therefore automatically invalid." Wonderful. Now I know what kind of retard you are. Thanks a bunch. I won't bother to point out your inaccuracies, since I would be wrong in those two, being a college student and all.

I also happen to be a college student; your strawman falls flat.

So you didn't just claim that I am wrong because of reasons other then my argument, that I would see how obviously wrong I am when I get older, because logic is new to me?

Oh wait, you did claim that. Congratulations on your fail sandwich.

No, in fact, I didn't.

I believe the term we use for this is "moving the goalposts."

No, that's called an accurate summary of your statements. Moving the goal posts would be the part where you backpedal when I point out that I said that life is in fact made up of just information.

And you, in your magnanimous knowledge of all things took this slim bit of information and deduced:

1) Logic is new to me.
2) I am shitting all over illogical things.
3) I will change my mind almost certainly in the next 10 years and become a good spiritual person like I must have been before logic was new to me.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you knew previously that I was a college student. But it wouldn't terribly surprise me if you "deduced" that from your crazy leet skills applied to the statement that "it seems trivially obvious that life is made of ones and zeroes. Or more precisely, base 4, but the same idea."

I neither said that, nor was it implied by my writing. Allow me to quote the relevant material for your benefit:

It's a trend I've noticed with college students. They get their hands on a bit of logic and then they shit all over everyone who believes in illogical things (you know, like child molestation being wrong) and then they grow up.

A comment only tangentially related, something that you seized upon and let out a cascade of verbal fail.

So, what you're saying is that you can't argue worth a shit because you're used to create straw men and having people not call you on it.

And, at that point, you start repeating yourself and screaming nonsense.

[Orion]

PR, you're being a douche. Either stand by your arguments or retract them don't pretend not to have made allegations that you totally did.

[Psychic Robot]

I edited out the only argument I made because I didn't want to get into an Internet pissing match about the meaning of life. I honestly didn't know that Kaelik was a college student, nor was I saying that I assumed that he is.

[ckafrica]

I'lll just copy from Rationalwiki.

Buddhism has successfully marketed itself to the Western world as a very peaceful religion, devoted to internal contemplation and personal enlightenment. The standard version of Buddhism promoted in the West leave out much of the rich and complicated mythology of gods and supernatural powers, as well as traditional Buddhist sexism (such as the belief that in order to become enlightened, a woman must first reincarnate as a man) and strict religious hierarchies. In their place is a pleasant (to Western ears) new myth about a nice guy who sat around thinking for a while, and decided the way to be happy was achievable if we'd all be less selfish.

You know just because the word "Rational" is in the name does not automatically make an unbiased. Atheism/Humanism/whateverism are just as biased in their interpretations of religion as Religion is at interpreting itself.

Sure Buddhism has loads of weird shit in it that wasn't in it when Buddha was around. Religions are perverted by the culture they find themselves in. Chinese Buddhism is laden with tradition animism plus morally degenerate Confucianism. Islam adopted the veil from Byzantine regions it conquered. Half of Christianities rituals have routes in Pagan rituals. Female circumcision is in fact a cultural practice conducted by both Christians and Muslims.

I tend to believe (based on my not terribly extensive reading) that Buddhism, Christianity and Buddhism began with progressive ideals for their time and place. You can judge what they've become based our current understanding of the world, but you should judge what they began as based the place they came from.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I tend to believe (based on my not terribly extensive reading) that Buddhism, Christianity and Buddhism began with progressive ideals for their time and place. You can judge what they've become based our current understanding of the world, but you should judge what they began as based the place they came from.

??!

But anyway, if I remember my sociology class correctly, the story pretty much goes that after wangsting about having a little bit of suffering in his previously awesome life, Buddha went under a fig tree and meditated for awhile until he found Enlightenment and then started telling people about how to achieve it. And shortly after his ideals started catching on, he died.

Anything you could call Buddhism literally began days after its founder died and his followers had a meeting to codify the beliefs because Buddha did not actually give enough information for a religion--he had enough for a pseudoscience. This story is almost identical to that of how Christianity finally branched off from Judaism, except for the fact that Buddha's disciples were a lot more competent and Christianity was lucky enough to have a religion to piggyback off of.

I mean, really, calling Buddhism a perversion of the original teachings is playing a shell game. By way of analogy, Christianity isn't just some weird shit Jesus said to his communist pals--Christianity is more what we got when John started spreading the word and putting some serious work down into making it a coherent doctrine while also getting the opinions of his buddies.



But anyway, Xtianity and Buddhism were not terribly original or even progressive so don't go fawning over them. Belief systems that boil down to 'don't obsess and hurt other people over material things and you'll be rewarded at some point in the future bigtime' is stupidly common, to the point where antagonistic belief systems are actually an aberration.

[Draco_Argentum]

If your omnipotence allows you to bypass all restrictions - including any you are capable of making - then there is at least one thing you can't do: lock yourself out. If on the other hand you can lock yourself out there is at least one thing you can't do: bypass your own lockout.

But once you've locked yourself out you aren't omnipotent and therefore being unable to bypass the lockout is not a contradiction. This applies if the being is a part of space-time using a strict definition of universe (ie everything that there is) and assumes that any being under discussion must follow basic logic (ie can't exist outside of everything). See next response for why I assume logic must be followed.

Or we could just say that imposing the limit of logical consistency to omnipotence directly contradicts omnipotence and so, the logical contradiction that arises is not really a problem. I have no problem with some one saying "My God is not constrained by logic, he can contradict himself without contradicting himself because he can do anything."

If you're going to claim Giant Frog is a valid counterpoint to any argument that can be advanced then it isn't possible to have a meaningful discussion with you. Hence all discussions will be constrained by logic in order to avoid a total waste of time.

[Username17]

But once you've locked yourself out you aren't omnipotent and therefore being unable to bypass the lockout is not a contradiction.

Yes it is. Because any chain of actions is an action. If you can't lock yourself out and subsequently let yourself back in, then that's a thing you can't do.

The fact that the chain of actions discussed presents a logical impossibility simply means that the idea of true omnipotence is itself logically impossible. Which is my entire point. The moment you make the claim for true omnipotence rather than relative omnipotence you are arguing from insanity.

-Username17

[Psychic Robot]

ITT: When people say that God is omnipotent, they mean "all powerful."

[ckafrica]

Lago: thank you for proving my point that:

Atheism/Humanism/whateverism are just as biased in their interpretations of religion as Religion is at interpreting itself.

I'll concur that religions are the cause of a lot of fucked up shit and would like to see several of them wiped off the map; but you still have to examine them in the context of the time and place in which they were active.

Islam, at the time of its foundation, was revolutionary in its treatment of women, slaves, education for the Arab world, and indeed many of its neighbors. Hence its popularity. If it wasn't better than what was already on offer to them, why would they go for it?

Now did Islam start going to shit rather quickly? Yes; though less so than Christianity. Was it still a step forward for the people of the Arabian peninsula? You fucking betcha.

Xtianity and Buddhism were not terribly original or even progressive. Belief systems that boil down to 'don't obsess and hurt other people over material things and you'll be rewarded at some point in the future bigtime' is stupidly common,

Originiality isn't important, lots of ideas don't catch on at one time/place but because wildly popular at another. Care to cite some proof for rest? What other prevalent religions/philosophies where presenting essentially similar arguments in the same times/places?

Edit: I'm not a christian so it doesn't offend me but replacing Christ with X as part of a dismissive argument is fucking weak

[Username17]

If it wasn't better than what was already on offer to them, why would they go for it?

Well, Muhammad's "stab unbelievers in the face" policy did wonders for recruitment.

Or to put it another way: do you believe that Joseph Smith's message was progressive for his day and place?

-Username17

[MartinHarper]

Kaelik - PR claimed that your world view is likely linked to your age, is common to college students, and you will grow out of it. He didn't say that your world view was wrong, or invalid. Try not to treat everything as a logical argument.

Dawkins sometimes makes a similar point when debating with Christians. He points out that they are Christian because of where they grew up and who their parents are, and that in a different context they would probably have a different religion.

I'll just copy from Rationalwiki.

Interesting stuff, but it's about how Western Buddhism differs from the traditional forms. I don't see anything there indicating whether Buddhism was born out of ignorance, fleecing people, or parody, or all three. There's nothing there about the birth of Buddhism at all, in fact. Could you try again?

[ckafrica]

Well, Muhammad's "stab unbelievers in the face" policy did wonders for recruitment.

Uhm... Actually in its inception Islam allowed quite a bit religious freedom. "People of the book" were allowed to follow their own religions and maintain their own places of worship. They were charged a higher tax rate and found it harder to option bureaucratic positions which has been suggested as one of the reasons for many conversions amongst the upper classes of conquered regions. They even specifically indicate that you can't forcibly convert people to Islam. You can't renounce Islam (it's punishable by death) but they generally did hold a sword to peoples throat. Of course things changed with time and place over history, overall Islam has been extremely tolerant compared to other religions until fairly recently.

Or to put it another way: do you believe that Joseph Smith's message was progressive for his day and place?

Fair cop. Mormonism baffles me as to how it ever managed to attract a single follower. But I don't know enough of the actual history of them to give fair comment.

[violence in the media]

Kaelik - PR claimed that your world view is likely linked to your age, is common to college students, and you will grow out of it. He didn't say that your world view was wrong, or invalid. Try not to treat everything as a logical argument.

Bullshit. Those statements imply dismissiveness by the author. If he's being dismissive of Kaelik's views, he's indicating that he finds them wrong, invalid, or both. If that's not the case, the he shouldn't have phrased that statement the way he did.

Personally, I want to know how P_R determined that the proper progression of maturity ends with a belief in invisible magical beings. Does he have a specific magical being in mind, or will any magical beings do?

[MartinHarper]

If he's being dismissive of Kaelik's views, he's indicating that he finds them wrong, invalid, or both.

I've no idea if PR was intending to be dismissive. Regardless, there are many reasons to be dismissive of views without finding them to be wrong or invalid. For example, solipsism is difficult to disprove, but most people dismiss it because they find it boring, useless, and anti-social. But none of those things have any bearing on its logical falsity.

[Roy]

Kaelik - PR claimed that your world view is likely linked to your age, is common to college students, and you will grow out of it. He didn't say that your world view was wrong, or invalid. Try not to treat everything as a logical argument.

Bullshit. Those statements imply dismissiveness by the author. If he's being dismissive of Kaelik's views, he's indicating that he finds them wrong, invalid, or both. If that's not the case, the he shouldn't have phrased that statement the way he did.

Personally, I want to know how P_R determined that the proper progression of maturity ends with a belief in invisible magical beings. Does he have a specific magical being in mind, or will any magical beings do?

Because Obvious Troll is Obvious. Otherwise maturity ceases to progress forward around age 5, what with all the faeries and dragons and such. It degenerates quickly from there, as the kid stops believing in invisible magical people.

[Psychic Robot]

Personally, I want to know how P_R determined that the proper progression of maturity ends with a belief in invisible magical beings. Does he have a specific magical being in mind, or will any magical beings do?

Actually, I never said that spirituality is linked to maturity. I merely said that the bullshit "hurfdurf, nothing matters, I AM SO LOGICAL THAT MURDERRAPEKILL AREN'T ACTUALLY WRONG" worldview is linked to i mmaturity.

[Gelare]

In all the discussion of which religions are nonsense and which aren't, I'm surprised no one has brought up Scientology yet...

[Roy]

In all the discussion of which religions are nonsense and which aren't, I'm surprised no one has brought up Scientology yet...

Why would someone choose to make a self making point?

[shau]

Actually, I never said that spirituality is linked to maturity. I merely said that the bullshit "hurfdurf, nothing matters, I AM SO LOGICAL THAT MURDERRAPEKILL AREN'T ACTUALLY WRONG" worldview is linked to i mmaturity.

Ah yes, the MURDERRAPEKILL stage of development. I went through this stage rather early. I was still in high school when I first began picking up men in bars, inviting them to hotels, then drugging them, slitting their throats and defiling their bodies. It is a little embarrassing now, but it is just one of the embarrassing stages of life we go through until we become mature.

Right guys? Back me up here.