quote:Read the next sentence. But substitute "person" for "religion", and "someone you met" for "correct"
Um. OK...
But substitute "person" for "person" and "someone you met" for "someone you met".
----
The point stands. The odds of meeting me are no more zero than the odds of knowing which religion is true are zero.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Thus, I am perfectly justified in saying my odds of meeting you are "lim x->infy 1/x = 0" just as my odds of picking the correct religion are "lim x->infy 1/x = 0".
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The real problem with this analogy is that atheists are worth extra points, so they probably get exposed to far more religious ideology than do people who just play it smart and pick one, for cryin' out loud.
It's like cell-phone plans. At some point, you just become convinced that there's no basis on which to make an informed decision, so you go back to pulse dialing and visiting people in person. Which, of course, makes it more likely that you'll be exposed to their religion.
It's a vicious circle.
Best to avoid the whole thing. Pick a theology you can live with, and then start trying to convert others.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa: You've proven your hypocrisy. You've shown yourself to be a poor example of a citizen and a poster. You've been egregiously wrong. And that's it.
quote:Thus, I am perfectly justified in saying my odds of meeting you are "lim x->infy 1/x = 0" just as my odds of picking the correct religion are "lim x->infy 1/x = 0".
Well, I'll agree that you're just as justified.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Well, in fact, I have. I've debunked your claims, I've mocked you for accusing me of hypocrisy without backing it up, I've taught Ron that Judaism is more than just a religion, I've actually seen more than one post thanking me for having explained something.
Hmmm.....no, you haven't. Debunked the hypocrisy, that is. I am not saying I don't understand your position, but I am saying it is very similar to the positions others took regarding the baptism issue earlier in this thread.
You don't see any hypocrisy, of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
And simply stating that you have debunked something isn't the same as actually doing so, Lisa. You reasons for believing you have are religiously based, and unprovable to anyone who isn't the same faith as you.
It is hypocritical to take such offense at one, and then completely expect everyone to agree with you about the other, simply because your faith requires them to do so.
Just like the beliefs of the Mormons you mocked earlier.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: A) Hmmm, sorta. With two religions you'd be right. It is possible for one to be right even if both claim to be true. However, with a thousand religions, the probability of any one religion being true is 1/1000.
Doesn't work that way. The probability of mine being correct, for instance, is 99%. The probability of all of the others together comes out at about 1%. You're giving them all equal weight, and that's a mistake.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Lisa: You've proven your hypocrisy.
No. You've asserted it, but that isn't the same thing. I dismiss your assertion out of hand. If you have some substance, I'll listen to it. And then I'll either show why you're wrong, or I'll try and fix it, or I'll explain why hypocrisy is correct in the given case. What I won't do is merely dismiss it out of hand. I'm only doing that because your bald assertions are silly. They demean you, and they amuse me.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You've shown yourself to be a poor example of a citizen and a poster.
I should be more like you, right?
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You've been egregiously wrong. And that's it.
Does it take a lot of work to come up with content-free posts? I mean, did you write this with actual content, and then delete all of the content and leave the accusations? Or did you just do the content-free thing first?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Well, in fact, I have. I've debunked your claims, I've mocked you for accusing me of hypocrisy without backing it up, I've taught Ron that Judaism is more than just a religion, I've actually seen more than one post thanking me for having explained something.
Hmmm.....no, you haven't. Debunked the hypocrisy, that is.
If you read just a tad more carefully, I said that I debunked her claims. I didn't debunk the particular claim of hypocrisy, because she never did anything more but assert it. You can't debunk an assertion, Kwea. You can mock it. You can dismiss it. You can ignore it. But you can't debunk it, because that requires it to have content to begin with.
As far as your accusation of hypocrisy, it's based on you equating things that aren't the same. You know they aren't the same, but you feel they're close enough. I disagree. Since I disagree, it can't possibly be hypocrisy on my part. I could be wrong about it, but not hypocritical.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I am not saying I don't understand your position, but I am saying it is very similar to the positions others took regarding the baptism issue earlier in this thread.
I get that you think it's similar. I don't.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: You don't see any hypocrisy, of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
And you see hypocrisy, but that doesn't mean it is there.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: And simply stating that you have debunked something isn't the same as actually doing so, Lisa.
Nice. Kat can shriek her accusations without any content whatsoever, and you're cool with that. But you give me a hard time for saying I've debunked something when you don't think I have?
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: It is hypocritical to take such offense at one, and then completely expect everyone to agree with you about the other, simply because your faith requires them to do so.
But I don't care if people agree with me about the other. Why do you think I do? I mean, I'd like people to, because it's true, but I don't need them to, and I certainly don't expect them to.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think 'hypocrisy' is the word you're looking for, here. Lisa finds Mormon religious behaviour offensive, and does not care that her own offends; both are perfectly consistent manifestations of that faith you lot are so fond of in other contexts. This is what a 'choice to believe' looks like; this is precisely why faith without evidence (yes, Lisa, I know you think you have evidence) is so dangerous. And ridiculous. And other things ending in -ous.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, I don't care if you see it, or agree with it. I just think it is close enough for others to see it, and consider for themselves if it meets their standards for hypocrisy.
As far as why I might consider that you care?
How about the fact that you re once again posting on a public board about these issues. If you really felt no need for validation you wouldn't care enough to discuss it....if you call what you usually do here discussion, that is.
I wasn't giving you a hard time, but telling you that I didn't think you had debunked anything. I still think you haven't. I also stated that I find it odd, although not surprising, that your personal beliefs allow you to dismiss any allegations of being rude or offensive....or to even bask in the pleasure of being those things, as evidenced in many, many thread here on Hatrack over the past year....but you balk at anyone else using religious beliefs to do anything you find offensive.
THAT is hypocritical, IMO.
And I know I am not the only one to think so.
Rather than continuing to suggest I need to read more thoroughly, perhaps you should consider how effectively your chosen methods of "communication" are (when debating things that you don't care about with people whose opinions don't matter, of course) at getting your points across.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly, the ability of the religious mind to lightly sidestep any point by descending into mockery is quite marvelous.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Certainly, the ability of the religious mind to lightly sidestep any point by descending into mockery is quite marvelous.
AS is your ability to do so without the benefits of religion, KoM.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Certainly, the ability of the religious mind to lightly sidestep any point by descending into mockery is quite marvelous.
And here I was thinking the hauty attitude of many an atheist is probably the biggest obstacle to persuading the religious to join them, well, that and having a lack of evidence on their side.
while I agree with you that whining about rudeness does not advance your arguements in anyway perhaps you might consider KOM why you are so often called on for being impolite.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by King of Men: Certainly, the ability of the religious mind to lightly sidestep any point by descending into mockery is quite marvelous.
Wow. The irony makes it hard to breathe in here.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, mph, if you would kindly show me which post I did not respond to, I will gladly do so.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And here I was thinking the hauty attitude of many an atheist is probably the biggest obstacle to persuading the religious to join them
In all seriousness, I think the biggest obstacle facing atheists who wish to recruit is the lack of communal ritual, closely followed by what appears to be for many people a possibly biological need for an anthropomorphic universe. Until atheism can provide a societal experience equivalent to religious gathering and can either eliminate the need for or find acceptable substitutes for opiates of purpose, it will always face enormous difficulties in countries where religious societies exist and can provide these benefits.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel reasonably convinced that I responded to those posts. If the response wasn't what you wanted, well, I can't help that. Now perhaps you might care to point to a post with an actual argument in it, as opposed to whining.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
'Point', rivka dearest, not 'post'. When you post something that contains an argument, I'll respond.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I remember her 'point.' It was that your interest in the details of messianic prophecies in Judaism was motivated by a desire to mock and not by a sincere interest to know more. As I recall, it was a point well taken by several participants in the discussion.
I'll give you an example where there was an argument you sidestepped with mockery. It's really old and I can't find it--the only reason that I'm using such an ancient example is because it's the only time I ever tried to participate with you in a discussion on religion, and decided thereafter not to bother--I've stuck to conversing with you on less controversial matters, which has been far more congenial. Why I'm responding to this now I have no idea.
Anyway, you were asking why Mormons would mourn the death of a missionary who was killed during his mission. Wouldn't that be a cause for celebration, you asked, since he should be, according to our doctrine, receiving a glorious eternal reward?
I responded as if you were seriously interested in the answer to that question, rather than just using it to push buttons. I posted a scripture that says that we should live together in love, insomuch that we mourn the death of those who pass.
Your response was something along the lines of "I'd like to thank Uprooted kindly for preaching at me" or something similarly dripping with sarcasm.
But the fact is, my post did address the point you were asking about, and you did not acknowledge that; you simply descended into mockery. Within our doctrine, which, yes, teaches that there is an eternal reward for righteousness, there is a reason and explanation for mourning. Those of us who didn't know the missionary love missionaries in general and mourn the loss of one of their number.
So yes, KoM, I'm sure that many more could give examples of your using this technique that you attribute to us deluded theists. Go ahead and refute away; you are certainly entitled to express your beliefs. Just don't be disingenous about your methods.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well then, I was at fault, and apologise. However, I'd have to point out that your scripture doesn't actually answer the question; it just re-asserts that yes, you should mourn. "Living together in love" is a fine thing, but it doesn't logically lead to mourning when something good happens to one of your number! I can't say I remember the incident, but it's at least possible that this was my thought process, and I thought it would be obvious where it actually wasn't.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: but you balk at anyone else using religious beliefs to do anything you find offensive.
<shrug> I posted several pages ago that while I view, and will continue to view, the practice of posthumous baptisms of Jews as deeply offensive, I wasn't going to rail against it any more, precisely because I know I'd do the same thing in their position.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I dislike Occasional's attitude of screw you, we're going to do what we're going to do, but to be honest, only because Mormonism isn't true. I expect that I'd be saying the exact same thing as Occasional, including thinking of the 1995 agreement as weaselly, if I were a Mormon and thought it was the real deal.
So I'll back off here. Not because I think baptising people who didn't ask for it is anything but nasty, but because the only real response I have to it is "You're wrong, so don't do it", and I know I wouldn't listen to that in their position.
How hypocritical of me.
And then I changed the name of this topic, because I felt it was too strong, given the way the topic had gone. I don't regret at all having called it what I did when I started it. But I learned a little something, and I changed it.
None of which should suggest for a moment that I find posthumous baptism any less offensive than I did at the start of this thread. But it does sort of make your accusations of hypocrisy seem a little dumb.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
By the sheer volume of your sarcastic mockery in the past, to a great many of us, you have made yourself unworthy of serious response on this topic in general.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: A) Hmmm, sorta. With two religions you'd be right. It is possible for one to be right even if both claim to be true. However, with a thousand religions, the probability of any one religion being true is 1/1000.
Doesn't work that way. The probability of mine being correct, for instance, is 99%. The probability of all of the others together comes out at about 1%. You're giving them all equal weight, and that's a mistake.
I'm sure that many members of other religions would give their own faith a >=99% confidence rating/weight as well, so this hardly makes yours unique from an objective external POV.
Tom Davidson: That makes a lot of sense. The human need for ritualized social behavior is very strong. However, that just explains why some religions are popular, not that they are necessarily more correct than others. I may note that in Asia, certain religions have less contact with their followers (i.e. not every Sunday). One consequence of this is increased social gatherings outside of religion. Another consequence is the sometimes quick growth of Western religions when initially introduced (as an example, the events leading up to the Taiping Rebellion).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well then, I was at fault, and apologise. However, I'd have to point out that your scripture doesn't actually answer the question; it just re-asserts that yes, you should mourn. "Living together in love" is a fine thing, but it doesn't logically lead to mourning when something good happens to one of your number! I can't say I remember the incident, but it's at least possible that this was my thought process, and I thought it would be obvious where it actually wasn't.
Just as I thought it would be obvious that when you love someone and they leave you, you miss them and you mourn. Thanks for your response.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted: Oh, I remember her 'point.' It was that your interest in the details of messianic prophecies in Judaism was motivated by a desire to mock and not by a sincere interest to know more. As I recall, it was a point well taken by several participants in the discussion.
And actually, I was going to answer KoM's question. But I didn't want to undercut Rivka, because she did have a valid point.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, for one thing, I didn't know that Mormons saw posthumous baptism as an invitation. I understood it, as I think most people do, as them actually claiming that they're converting the people they do it to. Try a little intellectual exercise and tell me whether you still find it ironic given that I thought that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well then, I was at fault, and apologise. However, I'd have to point out that your scripture doesn't actually answer the question; it just re-asserts that yes, you should mourn. "Living together in love" is a fine thing, but it doesn't logically lead to mourning when something good happens to one of your number! I can't say I remember the incident, but it's at least possible that this was my thought process, and I thought it would be obvious where it actually wasn't.
Just as I thought it would be obvious that when you love someone and they leave you, you miss them and you mourn. Thanks for your response.
I'd actually assumed that when you wrote "I posted a scripture that says that we should live together in love, insomuch that we mourn the death of those who pass", that the ending clause was part of the quote. Just because "insomuch" isn't a word you find people using very often. And since you'd written that, I was trying to figure out what KoM was thinking when he responded to you.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Well, for one thing, I didn't know that Mormons saw posthumous baptism as an invitation. I understood it, as I think most people do, as them actually claiming that they're converting the people they do it to. Try a little intellectual exercise and tell me whether you still find it ironic given that I thought that.
Yes. Not as ironic, but still somewhat.
Then again, I find a lot of things ironic. Usually about myself, or the situations I find myself in YMMV. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was a paraphrase from memory, but "insomuch" actually is part of the quote, now that I've looked it up. Not to beat a dead horse, but since it's come up I'll quote it correctly: "Thou shalt live together in love, insomuch that thou shalt weep for the loss of them that die. . ."
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm tempted to start charting the number of times you sidestep via mockery, or rely solely or even primarily on mockery, in questions of religious issues, KoM. Unless my memory is seriously flawed, past behavior suggests that within a half-dozen religious threads I'd have a wealth of evidence.
It's not your only method, far from it. Occassionally you do leave out open or veiled mockery, scorn, contempt, sarcasm, condescension, or disgust from your words and tone in posts discussing these matters...but very occassionally, you do not.
The most open hypocrisy in this thread, aside from Lisa's acknowledged hypocrisy, is yours about sidestepping via mockery. But at least Lisa's matches her stated beliefs and goals, whereas your does not. That actually puts you over the top in that particular contest Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll certainly cop to mocking people; but I see a useful distinction between using mockery as a tool to get people to reexamine their own position, and using it merely to sidestep arguments. If I have indeed been doing the latter, then I am at fault; but I'd like to see some examples before I believe it. It's not as though any of us are unbiased observers, after all.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:using mockery as a tool to get people to reexamine their own position
I doubt you've been as succesful at this as you think.
Becaue of your mockery, people tend to dismiss everything you say on the subject of religion. The same argument which might get me to reexamine my position when made by somebody I respect will immediately be dismissed if it came from you.
Is that a mature or reasonable reaction? Perhaps not. But I doubt I am alone in this.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, perhaps you wouldn't call it hypocrisy...but to criticize (quite...sharply, too) someone for doing what you acknowledge, if you were them, you'd probably be doing yourself certainly appears contradictory, at least.
------
KoM,
I question your sincerity, to put it bluntly, when you say mockery is a tool to get people to reexamine their own position. One of the things you've frequently commented on is the inability of many religious people to think critically about their own religion. Or am I mistaken, and you've not commented on that before?
Given that, any reasonable person would wonder what you intend mockery to be a tool for, since you and I are both aware that people in general often respond badly to mockery about deeply-held beliefs on anything, and deeply held beliefs on spirituality in particular.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, you are under the delusion that you are speaking truth when you are simply being a jerk, and a boring one at that. You have one subject that you harp on constantly with all the finesse of a seal in a desert. You are fooling no one.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
