Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Hollowway, Jul 24, 2017.
Forgive my lack of eagerness to contend with such Harry Potter spells.
Where'd El Caco run off to? I don't care if anyone believes in the simulation, but trying to appeal to science to argue unscientific things is a bit of a pet peeve. Or at least trying to shoot down Ted by arguing that "experts" believe this stuff -- would like to hear more about these experts. And note, Elon Musk is not an AI expert.
Great article with regards to the whole "life as a simulation" idea;
It's preaching to the choir, though. Anyone who subscribes to a universe-transcending claim that doesn't predict any consequences toward confirming or falsifying tself can rationalize any new development or argument as actually being in-line with their narrative - The delusion requires only semantic ingenuity to sustain itself.
I mean, of course the universe-simulation would provide us with reasons to doubt its existence - It wouldn't be a convincing simulation, otherwise. By the same token, if you're limited to using the constraints of the simulation to test the nature of the simulation, then any results within the simulation would necessarily only serve to reinforce the laws of physics the simulation in built upon.
Etc. I've skimmed enough wiki and tvtropes pages to have attained a mastery of esoteric whatever. I can even italicize: rectum cum bustis.
Except that it's not though. I made a comment earlier in the thread about how I've heard people define "religion" as being a lifestyle or a metaphor, but you've just said yourself that you feel like you have some kind of actual relationship with your faith, which completely contradicts the "not religious" thing. That IS religion. That IS faith. You can't just redefine religion and expect everyone to follow - words have no meaning if everyone redefines them for themselves.
Sorry but I didn't read the other posts in the thread, just the first post, then wrote my reply. I did go back and read yours and several others though. What I was trying to explain is that there's a difference in faith and religion. Faith is a trust in something you cannot prove, or do not have tangible evidence for. Religion is a system of things done to try to be pleasing to God. For instance, things were so bad back around the time of Christ that these groups called the Pharisees -the religious leaders at the time - had many many rules they followed to seem religious. They would count the number of steps they were allowed to take on the sabbath days, they would weigh out the herbs they would collect for their offerings, they wore a strictly regulated wardrobe, they brought out bells and trumpets to call crowds around themselves to watch them make offerings or charitable donations so the people would see them and be in awe. These were the main ones who persecuted Christ and his followers.
These are personal definitions you've come up with for yourself, but are not really the accepted standard meanings of those things. Religion is, in general conversation without otherwise specifying in context, accepted to mean faith or worship or following of a higher power or something of importance. If you believe in a God, that makes you religious- and to state otherwise clouds the colloquial meaning of the word. The part that makes you religious is not the rules or the lifestyle, it's the faith behind them.
And that's the point I was trying to make- personal re-definitions of things like this cloud the real meaning of the words we use, making it that much harder to have a discussion centered around it. If nobody agrees on what a word means, that word is meaningless.
That also goes back to my comment a while ago about the difficulty in reporting stats regarding beliefs. Nobody uses the same words or definitions for things- lots of people call themselves religious just because they go through the motions, or because that's what their family traditionally labels themselves, but have no actual faith. Then you have people who say they aren't religious but still believe in something.
And they all vote.
Well said. In conversations about people who claim to believe in "God" when they are pantheists who just believe in the natural universe, I've a few times given this analogy (which admittedly is not perfect). You know, people who say "God is just the cosmic force of the universe, man" or "I don't believe in a bearded dude in the sky, but God is just the mystery of nature"
My favorite soda is Pepsi-cola...
...Only the Pepsi-cola that I like doesn't have kola nut flavor, it isn't dark colored, and it tastes like grapefruit.
If I walk up to you and tell you "My favorite drink is Pepsi-cola", will you understand that I like a light colored grapefruit flavored drink and not the classic pepsi-cola that everyone is familiar with? No, you wont. So what's the point in trying to tell people that I like Pepsi-cola instead of just telling them I like Squirt?
If you don't believe in a dude in the sky, then you don't believe in God. At least, you don't believe the same thing as 99.999% of other people who believe in God. So then what is the value in categorizing yourself along with them?
Anyway, I don't mean to steer this into an anti-religion thread. The original point I guess was to see how one faith might see another faith, and I think the atheist view of most religions is pretty clear. We've also had an unexpected example of how a simulation theorist might reconcile the differences between faiths.
In that vein, semantics aside, maybe Papyrus is the closest to being on the original topic- as, if I'm reading what you said correctly, you maybe see each religion as only being different in the not-necessarily-faith-related bits? As in the rituals and rules might be different or superficial, as long as the core beliefs boil down to the same thing?
I'm a Christian. I was raised that way but made my own decision to believe that Jesus is who he says he is. It's not a ritual or a moral code to me but is the very reason I live. Labels are can be helpful and damaging. Unfortunately the word fundamentalist has been hijacked but that's who I am: I'm not militant nor overly preachy (I don't think...) but I firmly believe what the Bible says is Truth.
I was recently in Shanghai and visited the Jade Buddha Temple there. The sculptures and works of art in that place are beautiful, but their faith is so different to mine that it also made me sad because faith is also about eternal consequences, not just the structures of some moral or ethical codes in this life. And to me, only faith in Jesus can deal with what happens to us after we die.
Nonetheless, it was important to me to not disrespect their system of belief, as long as it does not compromise my own personal faith. A small example: I was ok with viewing the Buddha, but if any of the visit would have involved worship rites (e.g. burning insense, kneeling etc.) then I would not have taken part.
As for religious, that has different meanings to different people. Do I follow one of the world's main organised religions? Yes. Do I go to church each Sunday? Yes. Do I subject other people to my points of view against their will? No. Do I add my rules in addition to what God has already laid down in the Bible? I try not to, and stop doing so if/when that's pointed out to me.
I think that part is very reasonable- and I usually would say the same thing, although for different reasons maybe. I don't attend any church or take part in any sort of religious ritual, even if I'm in a situation where it might be customary to do so. For example, I've had to go to things like baptisms, but I will not kneel or prey. Both because it goes against my personal values to act in what to me is a sort of submissive behavior to something I don't believe in, but also because I think performing an empty facsimile of another faiths ritual is disrespectful to that faith.
So, to get back to the original question, does that mean to you that, for example, Buddhists should expect consequences for being of the wrong faith? Or someone like myself who has no faith?
Yeah dude. It makes him sad. Really just too bad about those eternal consequences, but what can ya do if you're born in China ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
To state this simply, but with deepest respect to everyone, by faith in Christ, I believe that He is the way. I do not believe in any other way.
"Any other way" to go to heaven, or "any other way" to not burn for eternity in the flaming pits of hell where spooky Devilman pokes you with a pitchfork, or both?
Sorry, but when I read things like that, even written with deepest respect, it sounds to me like "I think you're a bad person, but certainly I shouldn't be held accountable for my own opinion since after all I read it in a very popular book."
Checking ss.org for new posts is idolatry.
Religion is so deeply ingrained in our culture and in most people's minds that they see it as the way to get to heaven or avoid hell, and view it as a personal choice. In these people's minds, I might go to heaven or go to hell when I die. Those who begin to question their own religion might begin to think of it as "did I choose the right answer," as if they are playing a game of roulette and the prize is heaven, but there is no such thing as heaven- it's all make believe, so this imaginary game of roulette has an imaginary prize, and so forth. It seems harmless on the surface, but it's really not, because people in general are violent nasty creatures willing to kill for the advantage in this imaginary game of roulette.
Think of the South Park episode where everyone was waiting at the golden gates of heaven to get in, and St. Peter comes out and says "Sorry folks, the correct answer was 'Mormon'..."
lol I believe they are all in hell and it's like the Director of Hell who tells them that the correct answer was Mormon and then it shoots to a scene in heaven where mormons are making crafts out of egg cartons
Ahh, yeah, now I remember it.
What I find the most interesting about the entire thing is that the concept of "hell" isn't even a Christian belief. There is mention of a lake of fire in Revelation, and mentions of Sheol in the OT, but neither of those are congruent with the popular imagery of hell.