Gibberish of the day!

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:10 am

Murtak wrote:Maj: Regarding Mormons (not) being christians, I don't have a specific reason. Perhaps because I never heard of them when we discussed different faiths in school?

OK. Just curious.

Frank wrote:Personally, I view Mormons as Christians simply because when you ask them if they are Christians they mostly say "Yes."

The typical response is generally to point at the full name of the church and mention that is has "Jesus Christ" in it.

Frank wrote:But it's frekking obvious that Joseph Smith's piece of crazy bible fanfic was never part of any of the teachings of any of the original sects.

Yes and no. Yes, in that a large part of it is made up weirdness. No, in that a large part of it is pretty much a straight rip-off of the Bible, especially Isaiah.

What really gets me is that according on one of the Articles of Faith, Mormons "believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." This means that while Mormons accept the Bible as scripture, they believe that there were translation errors. What I don't understand is why, if there were translation errors, Joseph Smith copied chapters from the Bible whole cloth and included it as part of the Book of Mormon.

Frank wrote:And it is a social fact that Mormonism gave us Glenn Beck and is still feeding us Glenn Beck to this day.

I had no idea that guy was Mormon. That freaks me out, actually.

Boolean wrote:Look, I'm not knocking faith. Even Atheists have faith, and I agree that charity workers tend to be people of strong faith. Faith isn't some super speical character trait, it's just an epistemology, a way of knowing. Faith is the conscious decision to hold as true something which you can't demonstrate empirically.

This is an awesome, and even necessary thing if you're going to have morality at all. Things like "pleasure is better than pain" "life is better than death" and "knowledge is better than ignorance" are all statements which have to be taken on faith. There's simply no empirical evidence by which you could ever hope to prove that something is GOOD or BAD.

I think that faith has gotten a bad reputation because of its association with religion. Which is too bad... We need it for more practical applications.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:17 am

Maj wrote:Yes and no. Yes, in that a large part of it is made up weirdness. No, in that a large part of it is pretty much a straight rip-off of the Bible, especially Isaiah.

A fact which has been extensively parodied ever since the Book of Mormon ever came up. Mark Twain was particularly scathing (and hilarious) in his recap of the book.

But the bigger question is--who the fuck cares how much the Book of Mormon is plagiarized? The books of Yahweh are there to serve Him, not mankind. If the Book of Mormon causes more people to believe in Him, I really can't see God giving a fuck. For example, if I wrote a bunch of D&D material and Andy Collins plagiarized it without giving me credit but the material caused the hobby to gain a lot of new fans I would actually be glad he did it.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:48 am

Maj wrote:I had no idea that guy was Mormon. That freaks me out, actually.

It's not just that he is Mormon, it's that the LDS church buses people to Glenn Beck rallies, and the 912 Project is based on a series of books by Skousen, a famous Mormon "historian" and anti-communist.

Glenn Beck does PR for the LDS church, and the LDS church sponsors him and provides people to shout for Glenn Beck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USpeolBTKIo

-Username17[/url]

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:58 am

Boolean wrote:Actually omniscience is more compatible with Free Will than omnipotence is. Look,I think free will is a meaningless buzzword, a inherently unimportant and undecidable question. So It's hard for me to opine about it at all.

But it seems to me that if you postulate a being which is outside time, the fact that it can "see" your future choices in no way means you don't really MAKE choices, just as my ability to "see" your past choices doesn't disprove your free will. Of course once you add quantum mechanics there's some question about whether "seeing the future" makes sense at all, but hypothesizing a God who can do it doesn't mean that they control us. Omnipotence, on the other hand, directly contradicts free will. A being who can do anything controls everything. Nobody else makes any choices. Any decisions you think you make, God MADE you make.

Well no. The ability to choose doesn't necessarily mean the ability to execute. I can pretty much kill an ant that's running on the ground below me at any time. But whether I do that or not doesn't really matter. While it's alive, the ant can still choose to go left or right. It may not actually get there, but it can still make the choice.

Don't confuse the ability to make a choice with the ability to create change. You can be pretty much paralyzed and nearly powerless but still have free will. Your free will may only involve which direction you roll your eyes or even just what you happen to want to think about, but that's still free will.

If you buy into some religions, it's true that God can kill you to take away your free will or even mind control you, but that in no way really invalidates the idea that you have free will up until the point god does that. It's like saying that because a sniper's bullet may kill you in the future that you're already dead in the present.

The basic argument you're making is : "God could take X away at any time, therefore I don't have X in the present. "

It really makes no sense.

The ant under my foot currently has the ability to choose left or right. I could step on it at any time and prevent it from making that choice. But until I do that, it has that choice.

Really it's science that's more contrary to free will than religion. Because if you accept that decisions are made in the brain, then you're really not actually making choices through any kind of active will, the decisions are made via electric and chemical processes. Therefore, decision making is little more than a complex computer algorithm that accepts inputs and produces an output.

To even have free will you need a soul or some other kind of superconsciousness that exists outside the normal realm of physics and allows the brain to be more than just a biological supercomputer.

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:16 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Why would someone actually want to worship Yahweh anyway? I can't think of any fictional deity that would be worse to worship than Yahweh.

Remember, Yahweh personally took time out of his day to invent Hell. That is an act of douchebaggery that's pretty hard to top right there. At least total bastards like Asmodeus can claim that he just got dealt a very bad hand and as doing the best he can with his fate.

I literally made that exact argument to a very devout Christian on... Tuesday, I believe. His response was that god was in fact benevolent because he created heaven and wants us all to go to heaven, and that it is our faults if we go to hell, even though he's the one sending us there.

His analogy was that of a judge sentencing murderers to death. Only instead of being there for breaking the law, you're there automatically unless you accept Jesus into your heart.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 4:44 pm

Random -- your analogies are bullshit.

Omnipotent God is NOT just a physical bully who constrains your possible actions by physical violence or restraint. Imnipotent God can remove your desire to go left before it's ever formed.

A tied-up man can roll his eyes, but Omnipotent God is the one who caused you to want to roll your eyes in the first place.

NativeJovian · Post by **NativeJovian** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:02 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:No matter what I choose first, he chooses second. And his choice is bigger than mine. So no matter what I choose, the choice that actually created the outcome that occurs is his, not mine.

But if his choice is "whatever you said", then you're still making a real choice. The fact that he could override your choice doesn't mean that he does. Just like I could pull a gun on someone and demand all their money, but I don't. Having the power to remove one's free will is not the same as removing one's free will.

Cielingcat wrote:His response was that god was in fact benevolent because he created heaven and wants us all to go to heaven, and that it is our faults if we go to hell, even though he's the one sending us there.

The religious line is that God doesn't send people to hell. As your friend said, he created Heaven and he wants everyone to go there after they die and hang out in paradise. Problem is that it's not possible unless you buy into their religion. Jesus is your ticket in; if you don't take it, then that's your fault, not God's. Hell isn't a punishment created by God, it's just the only alternative to Heaven after you die, and it happens to be populated by a bunch of guys who are huge assholes so you get lakes of fire and neverending torment and whatnot.

Granted, I have no idea if any of this is actually supported by scripture and whatnot, but that's the explanation I've heard for it.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:12 pm

If nobody ever has their mind changed by god then there is no proof that God is all powerful. Just saying.

Edit: And of course free will no longer exists if anyone ever has their mind changed by god anyways.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:10 pm

I don't feel that free will actually exists, as the universe to me is very deterministic. Sure, there are a range of appropriate responses to stimuli, but really I'm bound by the laws of physics.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 1:22 am

Boolean wrote:Incidentally, I believe people who think of "god' as "the whole universe" are actually a kind of atheist, but I can't get them to identify as such.

It's the intense personal experience with unexplainable cosmic strangeness that makes a pantheist not an atheist.

I am certain that without that personal experience I would still be a mechanistic atheist.

Kaelik wrote:Seriously:

As a Pantheist do you:

A) Believe the universe has a will and consciousness? Okay, you are retarded and weird, but still better than all the other people who might be qualified as theists.

I find nothing strange with the idea that consciousness is collective and the universe is a unitary experiencing of itself, and that any separation between subject and object is an arbitrary parsing.

Hoobity-joobity.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 1:31 am

Boolean wrote:Random -- your analogies are bullshit.

Omnipotent God is NOT just a physical bully who constrains your possible actions by physical violence or restraint. Imnipotent God can remove your desire to go left before it's ever formed.

A tied-up man can roll his eyes, but Omnipotent God is the one who caused you to want to roll your eyes in the first place.

You're mixing up the ability to prevent something with actually being the direct cause. Yes an omnipotent god could take away your desire, but for him to take it away you had to have had it in the first place.

And you can't say that you never had something because some other force may take it away in the future. Like I said, that's not even logically consistent.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 1:48 am

mean_liar wrote:It's the intense personal experience with unexplainable cosmic strangeness that makes a pantheist not an atheist.

Well said.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:51 am

Mean Liar--

But, not to be dismissive, that doesn't reveal anything empirical about what the universe is like, just about how your brain works.

Your worldview as I understand it makes all the same predictions as the mechanist model about literally everything, right? So why can't we join forces. I promise my Greater Atheist movement, after absorbing the deists and pantheists, will strive to provide a respectful place for discussion of peoples' transcendental experiences while providing a united front against the fantasists.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:41 am

mean_liar wrote:I find nothing strange with the idea that consciousness is collective and the universe is a unitary experiencing of itself, and that any separation between subject and object is an arbitrary parsing.

Hoobity-joobity.

Hoobity-joobity makes more sense than the part that preceded it.

I have no idea what bullshit you are talking about subject and object, but for damns sake, your argument is the universe is 'experiencing itself' that's pretty damn tautological.

Also, the strange part would be were you believe this without any kind of evidence at all for no apparent reason.

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:34 am

Here's a related jibberish question --

What is my affiliation/title based on the following -- aka pantheist/agnostic/blah-blah-blah

A: I seem to find divinity/sanctity in places of beauty/moral quality.
B: I believe in all faiths to a degree that I find them totem gods/faiths. I'll even visit a place of worship for different religions every once-in-awhile.
C: Primarily, my faith seems to be knowledge (in whatever form), nature, and certain places that just strike me as amazingly awe-inspiring.
--
What do I qualify myself as?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:46 am

What do I qualify myself as?

Hindu apparently.

Doctrine of Knowledge, universal acknowledgment of all gods and spirits. You're moving up.

-Username17

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:47 am

FrankTrollman wrote:
What do I qualify myself as?
Hindu apparently.

Doctrine of Knowledge, universal acknowledgment of all gods and spirits. You're moving up.

-Username17

Damn -- so, I am what I always have been :-P

I used to be a hindu due to birth. But I left because of the orthodoxy but I suppose I kept the inherent philosophy.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:21 am

Kaelik -- people believe all kinds of crazy shit all the time for no reason. Like, "pain is bad"

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:37 am

RandomCasualty2 wrote:You're mixing up the ability to prevent something with actually being the direct cause. Yes an omnipotent god could take away your desire, but for him to take it away you had to have had it in the first place.

And you can't say that you never had something because some other force may take it away in the future. Like I said, that's not even logically consistent.

But an omnipotent creator gave you whatever desires you happen to have anyway. At no point is anything you do not something decided at the beginning of time.

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:36 pm

Cielingcat wrote:I literally made that exact argument to a very devout Christian on... Tuesday, I believe. His response was that god was in fact benevolent because he created heaven and wants us all to go to heaven, and that it is our faults if we go to hell, even though he's the one sending us there.

His analogy was that of a judge sentencing murderers to death. Only instead of being there for breaking the law, you're there automatically unless you accept Jesus into your heart.

I guess he overlooked the fact that since God is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, he created humanity knowing full well in advance that most of us would be unable to meet his moral and ethical standards for getting into heaven. The phrase "setting up for failure" comes immediately comes to mind.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:37 pm

Boolean wrote:Kaelik -- people believe all kinds of crazy shit all the time for no reason. Like, "pain is bad"

Whether or not the Universe has a collective conscious is a factual statement about reality, not a moral statement about preferences.

If I tell you that I believe your chair is lime-green, and you point out that I have no reason to believe that, "People believe all kinds of crazy shit all the the time for no reason. Like 'pain is bad'" is not a valid excuse for believing your chair is lime green.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:44 pm

Boolean wrote:Mean Liar--

But, not to be dismissive, that doesn't reveal anything empirical about what the universe is like, just about how your brain works.

Your worldview as I understand it makes all the same predictions as the mechanist model about literally everything, right? So why can't we join forces. I promise my Greater Atheist movement, after absorbing the deists and pantheists, will strive to provide a respectful place for discussion of peoples' transcendental experiences while providing a united front against the fantasists.

Ah. I was not attempting to provide any evidence and accept that its an entirely personal thing.

Kaelik wrote:Hoobity-joobity makes more sense than the part that preceded it.

I have no idea what bullshit you are talking about subject and object, but for damns sake, your argument is the universe is 'experiencing itself' that's pretty damn tautological.

Also, the strange part would be were you believe this without any kind of evidence at all for no apparent reason.

I did add hoobity-joobity for a reason.

Re: subject and object. It's the Buddhist/Hindu belief that there is no separation between anything, and that what we experience as individual consciousness is a distraction.

And yes, there is no way to prove it at all and I'm completely at peace with that. I have had personal experiences that lead me to believe that this is the case but I would hardly expect anyone to buy into it just based on my personal interpretation of these events. It certainly would not be evidence unto itself, but it is, for me, compelling.

David Bohm wrote a book covering some similar topics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_order

...but I'm not selling anything, just chiming in.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:26 pm

Draco_Argentum wrote: But an omnipotent creator gave you whatever desires you happen to have anyway. At no point is anything you do not something decided at the beginning of time.

Well yeah, scientifically this is exactly how it works. Like I said, you have to believe that the soul is basically something that works beyond the universe for free will to work at all.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:38 pm

Well, of course there's no way to "prove" it, because the concept of "proff" doesn't make any sense in that context. It can't be disproven either.

"All separations are artificial" is a description, not a prediction, so it's not testable and not capable of having truth or falsehood. It's just inspiring, comforting, or illuminating, or none of those things.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:03 pm

NativeJovian wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:No matter what I choose first, he chooses second. And his choice is bigger than mine. So no matter what I choose, the choice that actually created the outcome that occurs is his, not mine.
But if his choice is "whatever you said", then you're still making a real choice. The fact that he could override your choice doesn't mean that he does. Just like I could pull a gun on someone and demand all their money, but I don't. Having the power to remove one's free will is not the same as removing one's free will.

Except for the fact it absolutely does. Having an omnipotent, omniscient god is like being a kid who has to ask his parent's permission to do anything. Whether "Can I go outside?" gets a "yes" answer or a "no" answer, the choice isn't with the child at all. Free will means the decision ends with "I am going outside", without a further check upon the person.