quote:Originally posted by MattP: [QUOTE]All of that aside, it's fallacious to argue an opinion based on who else holds it. Brilliant people often believe stupid things.
My comment only refers to the fact that Einstein wasn't a raving atheist, and I'd infer that he knew far more about UFT than Steven.
Hawking has gone on record to say that he believes UFT would show how the universe could spontaneously generate. I'd be interested to see how this could be correlated to determination of the existence of a human soul.
quote:Just because his belief was not aligned with a mainstream religion doesn't mean he was an atheist.
I didn't say he was an atheist. I said that he didn't "believe in God" in a way that most people would understand that expression. Claims about his religiosity are usually used these days to put him on a side of the culture war that he likely wouldn't have put himself so I when I spot a contextless claim like "Einstein believed in God" I try to point out that, at best, "it's complicated" describes his religious views.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You said quite a bit more than 'Einstein wasn't a raving atheist'. In fact you directly claimed he believed in a capital 'G' God, which is at best an incomplete statement.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keesh - You're cute when you're trying to get someone silenced. But, sorry, I'm just me, not a troll. And while I may not be able to read with my fingertips, or cross rivers at shallow points, I can create five or six backup screennames for a website that can ONLY ban screennames. So...take a chillpill. If you don't like what I have to say, don't read it. It's pretty simple, and most children can pull it off. Besides, I contest that I have broken any rules.
Blackblade, be fair. I never said believers in His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him) had the MOST ridiculous religion. But it's good to know you're willing to allow a secular criticism of HHPoG,PbuH that doesn't mock the believers. I might look into that. Does it count if something the HHPoG,PbuH did or said might make His followers look extra...hmm...willing to suspend their disbelief? I can't really help that.
eta - Capitalizing a lower case "his." No blasphemy on MY hatrack!
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Keesh - You're cute when you're trying to get someone silenced. But, sorry, I'm just me, not a troll. And while I may not be able to read with my fingertips, or cross rivers at shallow points, I can create five or six backup screennames for a website that can ONLY ban screennames. So...take a chillpill. If you don't like what I have to say, don't read it. It's pretty simple, and most children can pull it off. Besides, I contest that I have broken any rules.
Blackblade, be fair. I never said believers in His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him) had the MOST ridiculous religion. But it's good to know you're willing to allow a secular criticism of HHPoG,PbuH that doesn't mock the believers. I might look into that. Does it count if something the HHPoG,PbuH did or said might make His followers look extra...hmm...willing to suspend their disbelief? I can't really help that.
eta - Capitalizing a lower case "his." No blasphemy on MY hatrack!
Ok, while most of this is transparent BS, I'm curious: in what way do you think you haven't broken the 'no mocking religions or religious people for their beliefs' rule?
I mean since you're not a troll or anything, there must be a reason, right? But thank you for making it clear that even if you were banned, you would ignore it. This'll all be useful later on down the line when people less familiar with you make the mistake of treating you like an actual poster and someone worth talking to.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I honestly didn't know that it was verboten to refer to any of the Prophets as ***men. I mean, the entire planet believes that except for the Mormons and Scientologists, and I didn't understand this board's very special rules regarding such. But I've been super careful to be respectful to the Prophets of God ever since. So really, the question is, why do you think I'm mocking?
And I manage to have conversations with people. Just not with you. But in the future, when you do bring this oh so damning conversation up, just please don't show my children. I couldn't bear the shame of them seeing me lose an internet popularity contest.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Blackblade, be fair. I never said believers in His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him) had the MOST ridiculous religion. But it's good to know you're willing to allow a secular criticism of HHPoG,PbuH that doesn't mock the believers. I might look into that. Does it count if something the HHPoG,PbuH did or said might make His followers look extra...hmm...willing to suspend their disbelief? I can't really help that.
I never said I was quoting you, I'm saying that sentiment is expressed continually here, and it shouldn't be.
As for "I can't really help that". Well, yes you can. You actually choose the things you talk about and whether something ought to be said. It's not like you are a some machine that just spits things out, and hopes for the best.
You can't control that people will take issue with things you say that you feel need to be said. But you are not being asked to not say controversial things, just disrespectful ones.
I don't know what motivates you, but I post here because I want to learn, share, and enjoy that process. It's why I don't try to piss off other people because that's antithetical to those objectives. You have to ask yourself why you are here. If it's to get your jollies by making others look stupid, or get them mad at you, then inevitably you will violate the TOS at some point.
I would ask you to answer that question for yourself, and then decided if sticking around or leaving in peace furthers that objective.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I honestly didn't know that it was verboten to refer to any of the Prophets as ***men. I mean, the entire planet believes that except for the Mormons and Scientologists
No, the majority of the planet doesn't even know about Mormonism or Scientology.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. But what I'm trying to nail down here is what the moderator of this board feels is "disrespectful" to his Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.) Is merely stating the facts of the Holy Prophet's life allowed? If we do similar to the South Park episode, and just kind of go line by line of what people said happened, and then sit back and say "And so, this is what these people believe." And to other people, it makes them look, at best, naive? See, what I meant was I can't help how an honest recounting of His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him) looks to other people.
See, I don't think that would be disrespectful, but you've been rather protective over your Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.) And you're the mod. So if something like that isn't allowed, just say so, and we can all be that much closer to never, ever disrespecting your God.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I honestly didn't know that it was verboten to refer to any of the Prophets as ***men. I mean, the entire planet believes that except for the Mormons and Scientologists
No, the majority of the planet doesn't even know about Mormonism or Scientology.
Okay, you got me on the technicality. Although I doubt the MAJORITY of the world's population hasn't even heard of the two religions. God bless missionaries, right?
But let's adjust it, then. Everyone who hears the stories of the Holy Prophets of God (Peace be upon Them) either converts, or thinks that they're ***men.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
You realize you're the only person on the planet that uses this terminology, right? You realize that doing so exposes your ignorance, right? Or are you one of those, "If I'm sarcastic it means I'm right!" people?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I manage to have conversations with people. Just not with you. But in the future, when you do bring this oh so damning conversation up, just please don't show my children. I couldn't bear the shame of them seeing me lose an internet popularity contest.
Very few here, and even less with those who don't already agree with you.
As for a popularity contest, I'm having difficulty deciding if you mean that ironically because you're obviously competing as the 'cool outside badass' contender, or if don't realize how transparently hypocritical this is and actually believe you don't care about message board popularity.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Right. But what I'm trying to nail down here is what the moderator of this board feels is "disrespectful" to his Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.) Is merely stating the facts of the Holy Prophet's life allowed? If we do similar to the South Park episode, and just kind of go line by line of what people said happened, and then sit back and say "And so, this is what these people believe." And to other people, it makes them look, at best, naive? See, what I meant was I can't help how an honest recounting of His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him) looks to other people.
See, I don't think that would be disrespectful, but you've been rather protective over your Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.) And you're the mod. So if something like that isn't allowed, just say so, and we can all be that much closer to never, ever disrespecting your God.
Seems to me what you're doing is trying to find out just how close to the edge you can get. Which adds nothing to any sort of discussion. Are you trying to be devastatingly ironic right now? You're coming off more as antisocial. I get the impression you aren't being genuine at all.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am absolutely genuine in that I do not wish to be banned, and in order to do so I have to avoid offending the moderator's God and Holy Prophet. So yeah, I'm asking where the line is at. If I were to post something as outlined in your quoted text, would that be an offense against His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.)
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. I didn't think referring to His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him) as a ***man was a breach of the forum rules. Honestly, I didn't.
So now I'm curious how far that goes. If, as said above, I were to recount His Holy Prophet's life as seen by historians and critics instead of His followers, would that be an offense against our moderator's policies?
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forget the rules for a minute. If you're sitting in BlackBlade's living room, face-to-face, would you be comfortable calling Joseph Smith a con-man. If you did and BlackBlade took understandable umbrage at that characterization, would you pivot to "His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him)" and not expect him to to take that as snide condescension?
I don't know what your intent is here, but you are coming off as purposely belligerent.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Yep. I didn't think referring to His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him) as a ***man was a breach of the forum rules. Honestly, I didn't.
So now I'm curious how far that goes. If, as said above, I were to recount His Holy Prophet's life as seen by historians and critics instead of His followers, would that be an offense against our moderator's policies?
1. Refer to my primer above. 2. I don't believe so. Many have already.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, AFR, but I feel I'm in a safe place right now with how I refer to His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.)
There are shocking and blasphemous rumors that the Holy Prophet was ***victed of certain crimes in New York before His Glorious Revelation. Could we refer to them, or to the stories of His Holy Prophet changing up the transcription? I would hate to offend anyone.
eta - Thanks for the input, AFR. Now I just need to hear from our mod. It's his God we can't offend, after all.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am absolutely genuine in that I do not wish to be banned, and in order to do so I have to avoid offending the moderator's God and Holy Prophet. So yeah, I'm asking where the line is at. If I were to post something as outlined in your quoted text, would that be an offense against His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.)
Yeah, you're lying. And I very much doubt you're actually tricking anyone into believing you're sincere about this. Courtesy isn't the same thing as belief.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tittles, "Holy Prophet" is not a title commonly used to refer to the LDS prophet, and his official title is used only in some specific formal settings. If you are interested in having a sincere conversation you should probably just refer to him as "Joseph Smith". "The prophet" is neutral but gets confusing when discussing historical figures as there have been several individuals with that title and it may be unclear who you are referring to. Similarly, "His Glorious Revelation" seems, again, designed to demean and annoy.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am absolutely genuine in that I do not wish to be banned, and in order to do so I have to avoid offending the moderator's God and Holy Prophet. So yeah, I'm asking where the line is at. If I were to post something as outlined in your quoted text, would that be an offense against His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.)
Yeah, you're lying. And I very much doubt you're actually tricking anyone into believing you're sincere about this. Courtesy isn't the same thing as belief.
Interesting. What do you claim I'm lying about?
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly don't care about his word choice. He can assign everyone a single letter variable as long as he's actually discussing in earnest. I have no interest in conversing with a crank, however.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would indeed refer to him as a ***man, and the umbrage would be in no way understandable. But if he had the ability to throw me off the island, like he does here, I might well decide to be super duper respectful, just in case.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree that I am "rather protective". But that's neither here nor there.
This has nothing to do with being respectful to Joseph Smith or anybody else (now dead). It has to do with being respectful to me and others who have strong beliefs on a topic. I wouldn't walk into your living room and start discussing how ostentatious and gaudy everything looks. I wouldn't comment on the state of your teeth, or make light of the fact you not only ignore but deny the existence of the being that created you.
I can't possibly tell you exactly when you are or are not being disrespectful. Without context it's just not possible. But I can tell the difference between what you have been/are still doing, and somebody who wants to objectively talk about something.
As for honest recounting? What does that even mean? Honest in that you believe what you are relaying is as close to the truth as possible? Honest in that the people who left the records you are pulling from gave an accurate accounting?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blackblade - The beings who created me were my mother, my father, and supposedly the better part of a bottle of whiskey. I can back up my claim. Can you back up yours?
As for honest recounting, I mean historical sources that don't include people talking about voices they hear in their head. (They threw my sister in a crazyhouse for that. Born in the wrong century, eh?)
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Blackblade - The beings who created me were my mother, my father, and supposedly the better part of a bottle of whiskey. I can back up my claim. Can you back up yours?
As for honest recounting, I mean historical sources that don't include people talking about voices they hear in their head. (They threw my sister in a crazyhouse for that. Born in the wrong century, eh?)
Do you have documentation for who created your parents, all the way back to the earth being formed? What about the creation of the universe?
And as for historical sources. Oh, So you accept as gospel (no pun intended) the words of anybody who didn't hear a voice in their head. Perhaps you should go read studies of how reliable people are at recounting events period, not just the ones who say a voice spoke to them. I think your trust will be affected.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, so now I have to account for the creation of the universe, and not just myself? Well that's a mighty far distance to drag those goalposts. But as I recall, your own theory has an origin problem, doesn't it? Unless you can tell me who created your god? At least the scientific theories have support beyond "Just pray, and a voice in your head will tell you it's true."
Yes, I generally accept historical documents and sources over the accounts of people who hear voices. I'm comfortable with that. For example, I believe that the United States declared independence in 1776. I believe this due to historical documents and accounts. Through corroboration from the histories of other countries. If we were asked to believe that that was the date due to magical vanishing golden plates, or people hearing voices, I would not call that an honest recounting.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shifting goal posts? You said the beings who created you were your parents, so it stands to reason if we go down that road we should find an end to the matter.
Who created my God? Why his creator of course. My faith believes God transcended his humanity to become God. Progress and the gospel will eventually help all who so wish to do the same.
There is no true beginning. That's my belief anyway.
As for the Declaration of Independence. Great, you believe in a document that is with us today. Do you believe the ideas in it are correct? Because that's as least as important as whether the original document is still with us.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe most of the ideas in the Declaration are still valid, yes. I'm not sure what your point was, though. My point was that we could look upon a certain date as the date of independence, and be as close to sure on it as is reasonably possible. We can do that because there is historical documentation for it, from reliable sources, unlike some other claims that I don't dare name for fear of offending His followers.
Funny, there are scientific theories that claim that the universe doesn't have a real beginning or end. Or that it's cyclical. I would say that such theories are no less silly then your own, but again, most all of them have something to back them up.
What does your theory have to back it up again? Praying, right? That's it?
But hey, I'll admit, no one has the Proven Answer. At least I can admit that, however. And if you were to stand in my living room and mock my lack of belief in a creator, I would just laugh in your face. Because at least I'm comfortable enough in my beliefs not to get my precious little feelings hurt because someone dared to mock my Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.)
If your god is god, and all powerful and seeing and blah blah blah, do you really think he cares what a little punk like me says down here? If he doesn't, why do you?
I suggest you have a little faith.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? I'll admit that most of the ones I talk to online are in a Mom's group, but they are pretty staunchly and very nearly universally opposed. It's one of the biggest problems I have with the church.
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: It's also worth noting that most Mormons you talk to on here and in most online communities that I've seen are usually pro-gay marriage.
I haven't seen any poll numbers on how many Mormons are for or against gay marriage. There could be a strong echo chamber effect happening online but you would be surprised at how many people don't follow the general consensus.
Also somewhat interesting, most people I know that are Mormon and against gay marriage (and profess the opinion publicly for me to observe) live outside Utah.
Unfortunately this is all anecdotal so I guess pretty much useless.
posted
How about you at least *try* not to be a complete douchebag when you discuss peoples' beliefs? I don't care what you think about my beliefs. What bugs me is that you're acting like a typical schoolyard bully in your taunting and sarcasm. While I wouldn't expect that you would have a similar reaction to disparaging comments about your beliefs, I imagine there most certainly *are* aspects of your identity, persona, or life that you would certainly respond to with the exact same attitude. You need to realize that most people with religious beliefs have built much of their personal identity around those beliefs. If you think it's stupid for them to do so, fine. But mocking people for doing so is just straight rude, and pretty much against the ToC here. So maybe stop being a jerk.
"Funny, there are scientific theories that claim that the universe doesn't have a real beginning or end. Or that it's cyclical. I would say that such theories are no less silly then your own, but again, most all of them have something to back them up."
Actually, when you look at most of them, the only thing they really have to back them up is "A scientist said so". Which is only slightly more tangible than praying about it.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But hey, I'll admit, no one has the Proven Answer. At least I can admit that, however. And if you were to stand in my living room and mock my lack of belief in a creator, I would just laugh in your face. Because at least I'm comfortable enough in my beliefs not to get my precious little feelings hurt because someone dared to mock my Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.)
Yeah, yours is certainly the behavior of someone who is comfortable in his beliefs.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But hey, I'll admit, no one has the Proven Answer. At least I can admit that, however. And if you were to stand in my living room and mock my lack of belief in a creator, I would just laugh in your face. Because at least I'm comfortable enough in my beliefs not to get my precious little feelings hurt because someone dared to mock my Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.)
Yeah, yours is certainly the behavior of someone who is comfortable in his beliefs.
I've got me my very own Stonewolf. How cute.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Actually, when you look at most of them, the only thing they really have to back them up is "A scientist said so". Which is only slightly more tangible than praying about it.
Yeah, name any of these theories about the universe and it will be demonstrably more than "a scientist said so."
It's kind of fascinating that that's what it gets traduced down to for you, though.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: For that natter, I'm pretty sure that having a Grand Unified Theory would also be 100% correlated with knowing, beyond all doubt, whether there's any such thing as a soul, or anything like it, and its exact nature, assuming it exists.
How, for goodness sake, do you think this makes any sense?
Assuming the existence of a computer fast enough to do all the calculations, any G.U.T. should be able to predict, with 100% accuracy, any physical interaction in the Universe, even things as complex and unpredictable as human behavior and emotions. We're ultimately just made of the same particles that non-living things are, even our brains. Therefore, we are subject to the same laws of physics as anything else.
Therefore, if a particular G.U.T. can't predict everything with 100% accuracy, there are only two possibilities:
1. souls exist, and interact with the physical world (including and ESPECIALLY human brains) in (at least sometimes) ultimately unpredictable ways
2. You don't really have a G.U.T..
So far as I can tell, those are the only two possibilities.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you think a soul is, exactly? Why do you think that being made of the same particles that non-living things are made of and being subject to the laws of physics means that we have no souls?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What do you think a soul is, exactly?
If souls exist, then they, by my definition, would be anything that is not predictable using a G.U.T.. For the purposes of this thread, I'll define G.U.T. as "a theory that successfully explains the contradictions between quantum theory and relativity, and is mathematically and experimentally provable."
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why do you think that being made of the same particles that non-living things are made of and being subject to the laws of physics means that we have no souls?
If something is mathematically predictable 100% of the time, then it isn't really supernatural, by definition, right? And the very essence of the definition of a soul includes "being supernatural, i.e., not subject to natural laws".
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would define a soul as "an individual consciousness which persists and remains self-aware even in the absence of a physical substrate."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I would define a soul as "an individual consciousness which persists and remains self-aware even in the absence of a physical substrate."
Anything that exists "in the absence of a physical substrate" is, by definition, supernatural. However, I will concede that "soul" would, in most people's understanding, be a subset of "the supernatural".
So my point stands. A provable G.U.T. is 100% correlated with proof of the supernatural, or proof of the non-existence of the supernatural...again, assuming sufficient computer speed to do the modelling.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What do you think a soul is, exactly?
If souls exist, then they, by my definition, would be anything that is not predictable using a G.U.T..
I suppose that, using that definition your premise makes sense. But it isn't the usual definition and I don't think it is a very good one.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Well, no. A Grand Unified Theory doesn't need to address the question of souls at all.
Sure, but we both know it will be a topic of interest, as soon as a proven G.U.T. comes about, if one ever does.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How would a the theory even address the question? The next step after creating a theory of everything isn't to actually predict everything. It's to spend some cash on a bigger particle accelerator and check and see if maybe the numbers line up with a decent confidence interval to the results we get using some protons. How would one even try to check for the occurrence of a soul? We're still trying, and failing I might add, to truly understand and predict systems bigger than a proton and an electron. How does the existence of souls even factor into this?
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: How would a the theory even address the question? The next step after creating a theory of everything isn't to actually predict everything. It's to spend some cash on a bigger particle accelerator and check and see if maybe the numbers line up with a decent confidence interval to the results we get using some protons. How would one even try to check for the occurrence of a soul? We're still trying, and failing I might add, to truly understand and predict systems bigger than a proton and an electron. How does the existence of souls even factor into this?
Hobbes
I answered all this already, did I not, Tom?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
