Another nutjob

[Zhavric]

Quote by: phoenix_fire What I'm wondering, though, is how do you get those initial followers? How in this day and age can one convince people that one is what this guy says he is? I mean, I think it would be difficult enough to convince someone that you were the Antichrist, but darn near impossible to try to convince them you were both the Antichrist and Christ Jesus. I mean...come on.

Someone convinced you that someone living a long time ago was the christ, right? Conning people isn't so hard especially when people are down on their luck and WANT to believe something. When the person peddling the belief actually believes what they're preaching, the con becomes that much more effective.

[phoenix_fire]

I do not believe I have been conned.

Further, I am talking about actually starting a religion. I rather imagine that you believe I am a victim of something long ingrained into my culture and etc. Therefore, you could say that something that has been around so long and become so pervasive has quite a staying power. But this is something different. The founders of faiths past were were usually able to convince their followers by doing something that others were not able to do. This man's "miracles", however, seem merely to be his own tall tales.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: phoenix_fire I do not believe I have been conned.

People who've been conned rarely do.

Further, I am talking about actually starting a religion. I rather imagine that you believe I am a victim of something long ingrained into my culture and etc. Therefore, you could say that something that has been around so long and become so pervasive has quite a staying power. But this is something different. The founders of faiths past were were usually able to convince their followers by doing something that others were not able to do. This man's "miracles", however, seem merely to be his own tall tales.

The founders of faith of old did no such thing. They did exactly what founders of faith today do: they conned people. Then and now, I'm sure some people actually believe what they preach, but that only makes the con all that convincing. None of them ever have any evidence.

It's amusing to see theists scoff at religions invented today and never considering their own religion could be equally contrived.

[Fonceai]

Three things...

Quote by: Z People who've been conned rarely do.

I think that's an incredibly rude comment for which you should apologize. A person is no more conned into believing in God than a person is conned into believing science has all the answers. It's a subtle ad hom attack that might slip past the rules, but you've basically just insulted phoenix with the implications that accompany "being conned."

Quote by: Z Then and now, I'm sure some people actually believe what they preach, but that only makes the con all that convincing. None of them ever have any evidence.

Read those words carefully.

The passion of faith is at least something. Those who point to nothing as proof of something are attempting a more malicious "con".

Quote by: Z It's amusing to see theists scoff at religions invented today and never considering their own religion could be equally contrived.

"could be" is the operative qualifier.

But it is false to presume that JLDJ's religion is contrived in the same way as any of the older religions of the world.

JLDJ bases his entire belief system off of one aspect and interpretation of another.

None of the "major" religions are even comparable to that kind of unoriginality.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai I think that's an incredibly rude comment for which you should apologize. A person is no more conned into believing in God than a person is conned into believing science has all the answers. It's a subtle ad hom attack that might slip past the rules, but you've basically just insulted phoenix with the implications that accompany "being conned."

The statement isn't pejorative. It's factual.

Stop reading a "tone" into my posts.

The passion of faith is at least something.

Something? Yes: a fallacy. Appeal to belief.

None of the "major" religions are even comparable to that kind of unoriginality.

Originality isn't the issue. Truth (in the case lack there of) is.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z Stop reading a "tone" into my posts.

Interpretation is up to the recipient, not the speaker.

Unless you want to get into definitive nonsense over the meaning of the word "con" and how you could possibly know for a "fact" that someone is conned into believing in religion, I think it advisable that you leave that sentiment out of your posts, especially out of comment directed towards one particular person.

It's your opinion, and directing it towards another member here, and not on the people in the topic, is an attack.

Quote by: Z Something? Yes: a fallacy. Appeal to belief.

You're not addressing the rest of what you quoted.

JLDJ isn't debating, so he's not committing a fallacy. To suggest so makes no sense.

JLDJ has nothing but his passion. People can choose whether or not that is enough for them to believe his words.

What you miss is that his passion is something to which people can bear witness. What you have to offer is literally nothing.

His truth has some kind of proof people can state having "seen". Your truth is pointing at holes. Some people want to believe in faith and passion, some want to believe in your brand of "nothing".

That doesn't make you any more "true" than another person.

Quote by: Z Originality isn't the issue.

But you're the one who made it an issue...

Quote by: Z It's amusing to see theists scoff at religions invented today and never considering their own religion could be equally contrived.

If you could explain why it's okay to state your amusement over religious origins and then, when someone addresses your comment, to say it's not an issue, I'm very curious to see why.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai Interpretation is up to the recipient, not the speaker.

Then everything you've stated is terribly insulting to me... on par with calling a black man "ni***r". You owe me an Apology...



... or you can admit that the statement is flawed :)

[rez]

Quote by: Fonceai I think that's an incredibly rude comment for which you should apologize. A person is no more conned into believing in God than a person is conned into believing science has all the answers. It's a subtle ad hom attack that might slip past the rules, but you've basically just insulted phoenix with the implications that accompany "being conned."

Science does not claim to have answers, therefore, science does not con anyone.

If you want to claim that science is just as much of a magical belief as religion, then go ahead. The question then becomes "which institutional beliefs explain reality better" - the answer now becomes obvious.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: rez Science does not claim to have answers, therefore, science does not con anyone. If you want to claim that science is just as much of a magical belief as religion, then go ahead. The question then becomes "which institutional beliefs explain reality better" - the answer now becomes obvious.

Science does absolutely claim to have answers. These answers are, perhaps, more mutable in some cases, but it still makes definitive statements about the nature of things in our world. You may say that science does not claim to have answers, but try telling a scientist that electricity does not exist. See how sure he/she is.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: rez Science does not claim to have answers, therefore, science does not con anyone.

To play devil's advocate, my response would be to ask someone why they believe that which claims no answers over that which claims to have them.

Quote by: rez If you want to claim that science is just as much of a magical belief as religion, then go ahead. The question then becomes "which institutional beliefs explain reality better" - the answer now becomes obvious.

I would never claim that science is "a magical belief".

I don't think the answer is obvious, however.

Your question, "Which institutional beliefs explain reality better" contradicts the first line of your post.

Since science doesn't claim to have answers, it doesn't really explain anything, does it?

To avoid the semantical nonsense that could surely ensue, I'll bear with the point you were making.

I would then suggest that the answer is still not obvious.

Religion gives definitive answers... Science gives best guesses.

If you ask a question, and one gives you a definitive answer and the other gives you their best guess, can you honestly tell me that you would "obviously" choose the one with the best guess?

Or let me put it this way...

I used to teach my troops that it is better to give a solid answer and be wrong than hem-and-haw and be right.

Most people respond to confidence. If you are 80% sure of your answer, give that answer and say that it is your answer. If you are proven wrong, own up to the fact that you are wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling the scientific community a bunch of fence sitters.

I'm saying that most people respond to confidence. And of those people, most respect the ability to say, "I was wrong."

Don't get me wrong, rez, I agree with the context of what you are saying about the difference between science and religion in explaining the world.

But I think it would be safe to say that most people don't think that critically about every thing in the world.

[rez]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Science does absolutely claim to have answers. These answers are, perhaps, more mutable in some cases, but it still makes definitive statements about the nature of things in our world. You may say that science does not claim to have answers, but try telling a scientist that electricity does not exist. See how sure he/she is.

Well considering you did not really refute the fact that science answers anything I will try to articulate my post in a better way.

Science tries to explain things, but will never say those explanations are fully proven...

I will agree that science tries to explain reality just like religion, however, the question becomes which explanation is the better one.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: rez I will agree that science tries to explain reality just like religion, however, the question becomes which explanation is the better one.

Excellent statement.

I think the answer is a subjective matter.

As much as you or I would be perfectly willing to accept the science answer because we trust that if we had the same equipment and time we could see the same results...

It doesn't mean that those who choose the religious answer are wrong.

That's the thing about choice.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai As much as you or I would be perfectly willing to accept the science answer because we trust that if we had the same equipment and time we could see the same results...

We also know that science bases its statements on available information and is dynamic. As new information comes along, science will upgrade its answers to account for it.

It doesn't mean that those who choose the religious answer are wrong.

Religion is static. It does not change to account for new information. Change comes very slowly, if at all. As a result, the religious 'answer' often contradicts science... and the contradiction isn't based on valid evidence.

[rez]

Quote by: Fonceai To play devil's advocate, my response would be to ask someone why they believe that which claims no answers over that which claims to have them.

Because man, its obviously not how life works. Again, this is not about answers but the best formula to predict reality. Religion has failed miserably at doing so.

Religion gives definitive answers... Science gives best guesses.

First off, religion gave definitive answers a very long time ago. These answers are not allowed to be unchanged or questioned. This completely contradicts the way science answers questions and predicts reality. Science prefers the explanation that can be observed, and replicated for testing. This explanation may result in new and helpful discoveries. One explanation should be consistent with other observed and tested explanations as well. Finally, all explanations require critical thought, questions, and most importantly - honesty.

If you ask a question, and one gives you a definitive answer and the other gives you their best guess, can you honestly tell me that you would "obviously" choose the one with the best guess?

The conversation is not about the military, but the universe and the way people construct explanations of how it works.

But I think it would be safe to say that most people don't think that critically about every thing in the world.

Oh well, my attempts are worthless then.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: rez Religion has failed miserably at doing so.

On the contrary, with 84% of the planet believing in one religion or another, I'd say it's incredibly successful.

Here's the problem, as I see it.

I completely understand what you are saying, but I would not argue it the same way as you have chosen.

Your argument is perfectly valid to you, and perfectly sensible to me, but it rejects human nature.

As much as you say it's wrong for people to believe in religion, as much as you think that's true, it doesn't make it true.

In the meantime, until the JLDJ followers start trying to infringe on the rights of others, there is nothing "wrong" with them or their beliefs.

[rez]

Quote by: Fonceai On the contrary, with 84% of the planet believing in one religion or another, I'd say it's incredibly successful.

Religion has incredibly sucked at predicting anything previously unknown about the universe. Since when has supernatural constructs ever explained or predicted reality? Science has literally opened up an entire universe to humans that was once denied and shut out of our minds due to superstitious religions.

Another example of the success of science can be shown in the fact that even the theists are starting to use it to make god seem real. They like to use science when it does not contradict their beliefs and even try to make it be taught in schools. Their willful denial of this double standard shows their lack of morals.

Your argument is perfectly valid to you, and perfectly sensible to me, but it rejects human nature.

What would supernaturalists know about human nature when they ignore evolution?

As much as you say it's wrong for people to believe in religion, as much as you think that's true, it doesn't make it true.

It is dishonest and irrational to believe in religion - not "wrong". You either accept all supernatural explanations as the truth or no supernatural explanations as the truth.

In the meantime, until the JLDJ followers start trying to infringe on the rights of others, there is nothing "wrong" with them or their beliefs.

Well they are not infringing on the rights of others, but they certainly are practicing a double standard. To be able to fool oneself to believe in one set of supernatural constructs instead of another's is quite dishonest. It shows supernaturalist's hold absolutely no tangible values in life.

[Fonceai]

I think this also relates to what happened in the other thread.

Are you restricting your comments to those people who insinuate that their opinion is truth?

If so, I am confused about the following...

Quote by: rez It is dishonest and irrational to believe in religion - not "wrong". You either accept all supernatural explanations as the truth or no supernatural explanations as the truth.

And...

Quote by: rez To be able to fool oneself to believe in one set of supernatural constructs instead of another's is quite dishonest. It shows supernaturalist's hold absolutely no tangible values in life.

Are those two comments isolated to the ones who think their opinion is true for everyone?

If not, aren't you, in those comments, saying that your opinion is "Truth"?

[rez]

Quote by: Fonceai I think this also relates to what happened in the other thread. Are you restricting your comments to those people who insinuate that their opinion is truth? If so, I am confused about the following... And... Are those two comments isolated to the ones who think their opinion is true for everyone? If not, aren't you, in those comments, saying that your opinion is "Truth"?

Supernatural explanations are no longer relevant in society. The problem with magical thinkers is that they can not except this..

This thread was started by a magical thinker who seems to think that anybody but Jesus is a nutjob when it comes to having conversations with god. The problem he fails to recognize is that the understanding of mental illness was not yet explained 2,000 years ago.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: rez Religion has incredibly sucked at predicting anything previously unknown about the universe. Since when has supernatural constructs ever explained or predicted reality? Science has literally opened up an entire universe to humans that was once denied and shut out of our minds due to superstitious religions. Another example of the success of science can be shown in the fact that even the theists are starting to use it to make god seem real. They like to use science when it does not contradict their beliefs and even try to make it be taught in schools. Their willful denial of this double standard shows their lack of morals. What would supernaturalists know about human nature when they ignore evolution? It is dishonest and irrational to believe in religion - not "wrong". You either accept all supernatural explanations as the truth or no supernatural explanations as the truth. Well they are not infringing on the rights of others, but they certainly are practicing a double standard. To be able to fool oneself to believe in one set of supernatural constructs instead of another's is quite dishonest. It shows supernaturalist's hold absolutely no tangible values in life.

There is no acceptable way to prove or disprove the supernatural. Therefore, whether it speaks accurately or not about the universe is not a judgment you can make. Consider for a moment even trying to speculate the aspects of a higher dimension. We can make some very sparse predictions based on the next dimension's tangent to our own, but C will always be beyond our capability to determine insofar as we are relegated to the third dimension. The spirit is far more complicated than this. In this respect, one may say that science is far more narrow than faith.
___________________________________________

I believe that science and faith are not incompatible. Just because someone has a competing theory, that does not denote anything sinister on their part. You are simply irritated because faith will not give up and call itself impractical as you would like. I also believe that you have misused the term "morals". The way you have used it is entirely out of context. Believing something and trying to justify it does not show a lack of morality.
____________________________________________

There is far more to be known of the human mind than mere physiology can reveal, whether you accept evolution or not. Evolution really doesn't say a whole lot about human nature...just as my eye color or height would not really tell you a whole lot about who I am.
____________________________________________

Believing in the supernatural is not dishonest. If, however, you wish to take that road, I would posit that NOT believing in the supernatural is also dishonest. By your reckoning, the only state of true honesty would be agnosticism.

Your supposition that people of faith must believe in all faiths is ridiculously flawed. It would be equivalent to saying that to be a scientist, you have to accept all scientific theories...from the four humors to concentric spheres with fixed stars. Obviously the search for any truth requires accepting some things and rejecting others.
____________________________________________

Actually, it's their belief that they should destroy all other religions and that everyone on earth will end up bowing to our friend, Jose. Check the link.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: rez Supernatural explanations are no longer relevant in society. The problem with magical thinkers is that they can not except this.. This thread was started by a magical thinker who seems to think that anybody but Jesus is a nutjob when it comes to having conversations with god. The problem he fails to recognize is that the understanding of mental illness was not yet explained 2,000 years ago.

*sigh* If you're going to attack my intelligence and character, you might as well get my gender correct. I'm sure I've mentioned this before.

I object to the term "magical thinker" as pejorative. You seem to imply that I have pointy ears, a Master Sword, and a pet unicorn. I assure you that this is not the case.

I do believe that people talk to God. On a far grander scale than you think. But I am absolutely not required to believe everyone who makes that claim: especially one who says stuff that is in obvious opposition to the Bible and the character and nature of God.

To address the insult of the last sentence would be to repetitiously state the obvious, so I will only ask you to cut it out.