An endless feud?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

I believe that there is a greater spirit, we all have a soul and, there is life after death. What else do you need to know? ... besides maybe being nice to each other.

Do you 'Know' or do you 'Believe' there is a difference.

[naturalist.atheist]

It was also intended to be an analogy that I think is common for many of the so-called religious.

[kowalskil]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

kowalskil, if you are Ludwik Kowalski your surprise at religious conflict would be expected.

If you grew up behind the iron curtain you probably saw religion as a savior from the completely corrupt and brutal soviet regime. It probably never occurred to you that the abuses of communism say more about human nature than it says about the need for god to make man good. In the west religion has not been restricted and many have experienced abuses made in the name of god. So it must be a shock for someone who grew up under communism and used religion as a way to withstand the abuses of that regime to see conflict in a so-called religious society.

It's got nothing to do with god, we are in the world of men and if you want to understand what is going on then you must study men. There are no gods to study.

That is true in our material world. Our spiritual world is based on the acceptance of God. I am not talking about religion; I am talking about God, a spiritual entity.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by kowalskil

That is true in our material world. Our spiritual world is based on the acceptance of God.

Which god? Funny you cannot answer that question.

I am talking about God, a spiritual entity.

Which does not exist of course.

Or do you believe in and worship Evil?

--J.D.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by kowalskil

That is true in our material world. Our spiritual world is based on the acceptance of God. I am not talking about religion; I am talking about God, a spiritual entity.

The spirit world is a man made world.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Do you 'Know' or do you 'Believe' there is a difference.

From the standpoint of my own personal experience, without having to ask anyone else about it, yes, this is the bottom line. Although ultimately I think it hinges on our understanding of ethics and how we relate to one another.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Which god? Funny you cannot answer that question.

Even the native Americans bore tribute to the great Sky Father.

Which does not exist of course.

Why do you say that? It's obvious you prefer not to believe but, how does that differ from wishful thinking?

Or do you believe in and worship Evil?

--J.D.

Okay, what is evil? Would it be fair to say evil is born out of ignorance? If so, how does one attribute evil to a "God" which is purportedly all-knowing?

Obviously then, the evil/ignorance must be our very own.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

As for being reasonable I guess it all depends on what you mean by a religion being "true". And reasonable for what exactly?

Not even better off? This doesn't make much sense. It's like a blind person buying the best pair of glasses for no particular reason. If they buy a particular set of glasses for "reasonable" reasons then they must think there is a benefit to them in some way. Perhaps if they are sunglasses then people might pick up sooner that they are blind. In fact they probably should make them far from the best sunglasses otherwise people might pickup that they are vain. But for a blind person to buy a pair of glasses for no particular reason would hardly be considered reasonable by the more widely used meaning of the word.

And a person who thinks that their religion has no effect on them is in the same category as a blind person buying glasses for no particular reason. They are making choices that they think do not actually matter to them. The choice of the glasses should not matter either. There really isn't a set that is better than another. So there would be no religion that is better than another either.

If you are equating better with better off then it seems to me that you are using utility/benefit as your metric for defining "better". According to that metric, if religion A provides the believer with greater benefit than religion B then religion A is better than religion B. The corollary being that if I believe in religion A that makes me better off than if I believe in religion B and since I equate being better off with being better then I am better for believing in religion A than is someone who believes in religion B. I hardly think that the utility/benefit metric is the only metric available for determining relative merit.

Also, it seems to me that you are assuming that people acquire their belief systems as the result of some manner of concious choice. Further, it assumes that the choice is driven by some form of cost/benefit analysis. I suppose it is possible that some religious people do conciously choose their belief systems and that those choices are based on some sort of cost/benefit analysis. I don't think that either of those assumptions is a given.

I rather suspect that you are putting the cart before the horse. By that I mean that I don't think that most religious people acquire their belief systems as a result of comparing the perceived utility/benefit of different systems and then choosing the one that they conclude is most likely to provide them with the greatest utility/benefit. Although, I don't preclude the possibility that some people do just that. Rather, I strongly suspect that for most religious people the assignment of merit follows the acquistion of the belief system. That is to say, that whatever metric is used to evaluate the relative merit of different belief systems its application is heavily weighted in favor of the belief system that they have already adopted. Religious belief is inherently biased. Further, I would suggest that for most religious people the acquisition of a belief system occurs at a level that is largely unconcious or, at the very least, unpremeditated.

For example, let's take the person who says that my belief system is better than your belief system (or absence of belief system) because my belief system is true and yours is not. The conviction that one's belief system is true is largely presuppositional. The reasonableness of assigning superior merit on the basis of perceived truth value is a function of using perceived truth value as the metric for assessing merit.

I am not particularly skilled at constructing syllogisms, but let's have a go at one anyway.

P.1: Truth is singular.
P.2: True is better than ~true.
P.3: A is true.
C.1: ~A is ~true.
C.2: A is better than ~A.

Note that all three premises are presuppostional. If any of the premises are not true then the argument is not sound but it may still be valid. If the argument is invalid then the conclusions are, by definition, unreasonable. If the argument is valid then the conclusions are, by definition, reasonable. In other words, one may have perfectly good reasons for being wrong.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

P.1: Truth is singular.
P.2: True is better than ~true.
P.3: A is true.
C.1: ~A is ~true.
C.2: A is better than ~A.

Note that all three premises are presuppostional. If any of the premises are not true then the argument is not sound but it may still be valid. If the argument is invalid then the conclusions are, by definition, unreasonable. If the argument is valid then the conclusions are, by definition, reasonable. In other words, one may have perfectly good reasons for being wrong.

I don't see how your little syllogism shows that you may have perfectly good reasons for being "wrong" which I assume you mean "~true". Your conclusion is that true is better than not true, which is what you assumed. Is that your reason?

Is what you actually mean to say is that you could have a reason for doing something that is not better for you in some way and still think it is better? Or could it be the case that your thinking is based not on any calculation of what is better for you but simply because at an early age you were indoctrinated to think it was better period. Even so, why choose it if you don't care to make the better choice?

Does this train of thought reflect your current circumstances? It would be the kind of tortured thinking I would expect from a person who later in life realized they had made a very bad mistake but was too far into it to do much about about it.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Also, it seems to me that you are assuming that people acquire their belief systems as the result of some manner of concious choice. Further, it assumes that the choice is driven by some form of cost/benefit analysis. I suppose it is possible that some religious people do conciously choose their belief systems and that those choices are based on some sort of cost/benefit analysis. I don't think that either of those assumptions is a given.

In the original post you responded to the scenario for the case where a person is being approached by a religious advocate and presumably being presented with some reasons for choosing that religion and then asking for a choice.

But I am well aware that people can be born into it and over the course of their lives never examine what they are doing or examine reasons to continue with it. Certainly in the USA democracy and our current form or government appears to be such an unchosen choice.

I rather suspect that you are putting the cart before the horse. By that I mean that I don't think that most religious people acquire their belief systems as a result of comparing the perceived utility/benefit of different systems and then choosing the one that they conclude is most likely to provide them with the greatest utility/benefit. Although, I don't preclude the possibility that some people do just that. Rather, I strongly suspect that for most religious people the assignment of merit follows the acquistion of the belief system. That is to say, that whatever metric is used to evaluate the relative merit of different belief systems its application is heavily weighted in favor of the belief system that they have already adopted. Religious belief is inherently biased. Further, I would suggest that for most religious people the acquisition of a belief system occurs at a level that is largely unconcious or, at the very least, unpremeditated.

Perhaps merit follows the acquisition, but people can adapt to a great deal and once adapted oppose change. So the religion our parents gave us becomes the religion we find merit in as a rationalization for this human tendency to oppose change.

But again, my original observation concerned third parties being approached by those advocating the "better" religion. If you like your choice then good for you but don't bother me with it if you have no better reasons for it than those you list or the usual nonsense.

[Doctor X]

coberst kowalski has no answer.

Quelle surprise. . . .

--J.D.

[SR71]

Angakuk is a pretty interesting character. I would start a thread to just sort of interview him, Q & A style, but... I kind of doubt if he could answer some of the questions in the most forthright manner, given that those answers would then be a matter of public record.

Anather catch is that I would like to be in a better mental state than dead dog dumbass stoopid tired if and when we ever did it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by kowalskil

That is true in our material world. Our spiritual world is based on the acceptance of God. I am not talking about religion; I am talking about God, a spiritual entity.

How do you know that there is a spiritual world, or a God?

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by davidm

How do you know that there is a spiritual world, or a God?

Because they are Self-Evident [Tm.--Ed.].




Silly.

--J.D.

[Vivisectus]

Also, what is the difference between Spiritual and Completely Undetectable, in the same way that a hallucination is undetectable?

[Doctor X]

BECAUSE THEY ARE SELF-EVIDENCE VIV AND INVOLVE MATH AND NOMA!

--J.D.

P.S. Though, to be fair, I suspect he was on the juice when he played. . . .

[SR71]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, what is the difference between Spiritual and Completely Undetectable, in the same way that a hallucination is undetectable?

But some people say they can actually feel the woo! How much more proof do we need?

[Doctor X]

Maybe we should pray for him SR71?




I think there is a virgin in the vicinity. You bring the kindling. . . .

--J.D.

[SR71]

Virgins? Seems a bit harsh. Perhaps we could come up with a few poisoners if we look about a bit first.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I don't see how your little syllogism shows that you may have perfectly good reasons for being "wrong" which I assume you mean "~true". Your conclusion is that true is better than not true, which is what you assumed. Is that your reason?

No, "true is better than not true" was not my conclusion, it was my second premise. The argument was along the lines of: If A > B and C = A then C > B.

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Is what you actually mean to say is that you could have a reason for doing something that is not better for you in some way and still think it is better? Or could it be the case that your thinking is based not on any calculation of what is better for you but simply because at an early age you were indoctrinated to think it was better period. Even so, why choose it if you don't care to make the better choice?

My point (one of them anyway) was that "better for me" and "better" are not necessarily equivalent terms. It is certainly possible for me to do A when doing B would be better for me (i.e. provide me with greater personal benefit). In such a case I might choose to do A rather than B because I think it is the right thing to do, even though doing B would provide me with greater personal benefit. It may well be the case that my choices are constrained by early conditioning. Perhaps B is illegal and because I have been conditioned to respect the law I choose A over B, even though B would be more profitable. Your question, "why choose it if you don't care to make the better choice" assumes that the better choice is always the one that is better for me. In other words, you are assuming the use of the utility/benefit metric in measuring relative merit.

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

In the original post you responded to the scenario for the case where a person is being approached by a religious advocate and presumably being presented with some reasons for choosing that religion and then asking for a choice.

No, in my initial post I was responding to this.

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Well for starters the religious could stop claiming they are better than everyone that does not share their religion.

That response led into a larger discussion about the metrics one might use for assigning merit and the possible relationships between choice and belief. At no time did I address, or intend to address, the question of proselytism.

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

If you like your choice then good for you but don't bother me with it if you have no better reasons for it than those you list or the usual nonsense.

At no point have I bothered you with my particular belief system or attempted to persuade you to adopt it. If you think otherwise please be so good as to point out where you think I have tried to convert you.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No, "true is better than not true" was not my conclusion, it was my second premise. The argument was along the lines of: If A > B and C = A then C > B.

Angakuk, you defined A to be "true" and by negation ~A is defined to be "~true".

All you did was rewrite your assumption in p2. Your conclusion is "true is better than ~true" since that is what A and ~A are defined to be.

And what is even odder about it is that somehow you conclude that this supports your assertion that one can choose the ~A version when it is not better.

In any case this is not a logical problem this is a problem in human behavior. It is a matter of human choice and reasons for why humans would choose one thing over another. And you have already contended this may not be for logical reasons.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No, in my initial post I was responding to this.

That response led into a larger discussion about the metrics one might use for assigning merit and the possible relationships between choice and belief. At no time did I address, or intend to address, the question of proselytism.

Not exactly. They led you to metrics and to some poorly conceived logic. You of course may go anywhere you like with this, but I am under no obligation to follow.

[Angakuk]

I would never presume to attempt to lead you where you are constitutionally incapable of following.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I have gradually developed a problem where it is difficult for me to swallow when eating. I know I need to get to the doctor and find out what is going on, but in the meantime I'm doing a bit of self medication. I read somewhere that chocolate will relax the esophageal sphincter, so people with acid reflux should not eat it, but I figured it may help in swallowing. So I try to remember to eat just a little before a meal, but that is about all the chocolate I eat on purpose.

Dysphagia

Go see a doctor. It could be something much more serious than a mere minor inconvenience.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Dysphagia

Go see a doctor. It could be something much more serious than a mere minor inconvenience.

Thankyou, Yes I know that i need to see a Doctor about this, but it's a bit like the frog in the pan of water. If you drop a frog into a pan of hot water it will thrash about and try to get out. If you put a frog into a pan of room temperature water and then turn the heat on slow, it will stay there and slowly cook.