quote::Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: But no, merely being "open to God" doesn't imply delusion anymore than being open to any message or experience.
Fair enough, but how many people who make a point of being 'open to God' also do not claim to have received a message?
A lot do. I know I've heard a lot of theists who speak with disdain about the evangelical types who claim to have received messages from God. Believing in God doesn't mean that you expect him to interact with individuals.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nick: Millions (maybe Billions) of people find greater fulfillment in Chocolate than in Christianity. I'm talking about all the non-Christians out there.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of chocolate in China.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
He already did. Billions of people are not Christians, and therefore their fulfillment from Christianity is zero. Most people like chocolate, say 90%. Therefore, 90% of those billions have a nonzero, positive fulfillment from chocolate, and zero from Christianity. QED.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, and I already took that into account with my 90% guesstimate. What's more, the assumption that all Christians get positive fulfillment from their faith is clearly untrue.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yes, and I already took that into account with my 90% guesstimate. What's more, the assumption that all Christians get positive fulfillment from their faith is clearly untrue.
Duh.
How dare you denigrate the fulfillment Christians find in their path of choice?
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:How dare you denigrate the fulfillment Christians find in their path of choice?
KoM was echoing and attempting to diminish this sentiment by substituting chocolate for religion. It was satire. Responding to satire with the sentiment being satired seems... odd.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: How dare you denigrate the fulfillment Christians find in their path of choice?
I'm not.
What I am doing is granting the chocolate lovers the same amount of respect I have for theists. This looks like disrespect to you because you are used to religion getting an exaggerated amount of respect - the instant 'God' or 'church' is mentioned, the gloves come on. I do not see any reason for this to be so, and refuse to conform to it.
[ June 30, 2008, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
If you believe religion is on the same level as a desire for chocolate, then it does follow that you probably don't see the value religious people take from their religion. But for what it is worth, to a religious person, religion is a very different thing than chocolate-loving is for a chocolate lover.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM's imaginings of what religious people are like and what they want and experience bears almost no resemblance to what religious people say about their own desires and experiences.
I'm not surprised he doesn't understand it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not see what that has to do with the issue of respect. Either you can show evidence for your position, or you can't. To say that you feel strongly about your position does not entitle you to greater respect, or at least it doesn't outside the realm of religion. I am merely applying the rule used everywhere else to theists.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who was talking about respect? I was saying why you are so often wrong about those you despise - because you do not understand them.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:How dare you denigrate the fulfillment Christians find in their path of choice?
KoM was echoing and attempting to diminish this sentiment by substituting chocolate for religion. It was satire. Responding to satire with the sentiment being satired seems... odd.
I considered writing a long response about how I was really responding to King of Men's suggestion that there are Christians who aren't positively fulfilled, not his promotion of chocolate lovers (a clan of which I am also a self-proclaimed believer). I could also respond to King of Men's response to my own "How dare you denigrate x" statement concerning how hypocritical he was in saying that, but I'm not going to. I was too lighthearted when writing that to take this too seriously, and I continue to be lighthearted having read Speed's last post. And, to add a bit of completely unverifiable evidence to my point, I also continue to feel lighthearted because of my recent spiritual mediation.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: But for what it is worth, to a religious person, religion is a very different thing than chocolate-loving is for a chocolate lover
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: How would you know? Are you reading the minds of the chocolate lovers?
Considering that Tresopax has made statements that suggest he is religious, and you have provided a guesstimate that 90% of people like chocolate, there would seems to be a likely chance that Tresopax is simply reading his own mind.Posts: 369 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was Christian before, I felt as though it gave me a great deal of fulfillment. Now that I'm no longer Christian, I still get that same fulfillment from analogous thoughts, musings, and activities.
I also get fulfillment from chocolate, so I consider myself qualified to relate that yes, the fulfillment from chocolate is of the same category as religious fulfillment. It may be different in many ways, but it's no less fulfillment for that.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pegasus: Considering that Tresopax has made statements that suggest he is religious, and you have provided a guesstimate that 90% of people like chocolate, there would seems to be a likely chance that Tresopax is simply reading his own mind.
Which will tell him nothing about people who like chocolate more than he does, and Christianity less.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of the estimated 90% of all people (gross inaccuracy, if you ask me, because chocolate isn't THAT big in southeast Asia or Africa or even eastern Europe) that like chocolate, it's safe to assume that a very insignificant fraction of them worship it, join a body that is wed to it, find atonement and reconciliation from it, or petition it to guide them and the world. I like chocolate, and not just whatever chocolate I see in the store. I gotta have that delicious Swiss stuff. But the fact that I have a little doctrine concerning chocolate doesn't mean that it's a religion, or has similar benefits.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [People who do not form their beliefs in accordance with evidence offend me.
Why? I believe blue is the best color! How can I possibly present evidence of that? That offends you? You need to grow thicker skin then. If a person said they believed in the Bible, the Koran or other such religious book, why can't you simply think they're a fool and move on with your life?
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nick: If a person said they believed in the Bible, the Koran or other such religious book, why can't you simply think they're a fool and move on with your life?
I won't speak for KOM, but I personally don't have a problem with people believing in unknowable things as long as it results in overall good, and as long as they keep it to themselves. When they attempt to legislate their belief systems, or attempt to hold back knowledge and societal advancement, or use their beliefs as a justification for violence and hatred, then it's a huge problem.
It's a greater problem than similar bad behavior based on rational choices rather than beliefs, because you have a chance to convince someone that their rational beliefs are incorrect with counter evidence.
You can't sway someone's belief in supernatural unknowable stuff, so once they decide that Gay people don't deserve equal treatment, or that evolution is unnecessary to teach in school, or that brown people are cool to kill, then we're up a creek without a paddle.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
One would almost think that KoM has been ordered by some organization to which he belongs to fight against the dangerous behaviors of a group whose lives are not about him.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How would you know? Are you reading the minds of the chocolate lovers?
And how would you know I'm not reading minds?
quote:I won't speak for KOM, but I personally don't have a problem with people believing in unknowable things as long as it results in overall good, and as long as they keep it to themselves. When they attempt to legislate their belief systems, or attempt to hold back knowledge and societal advancement, or use their beliefs as a justification for violence and hatred, then it's a huge problem.
It's a greater problem than similar bad behavior based on rational choices rather than beliefs, because you have a chance to convince someone that their rational beliefs are incorrect with counter evidence.
Ethical systems not based in traditional religion are not more "knowable" or rational than religious ethical beliefs are. Both the religious and nonreligious use reason to go about deciding what is right and wrong, but ultimately must base their reasoning in a set of starting assumptions. A starting assumption like "All men have natural rights" is not inherently more rational or knowable than a starting assumption like "Disobeying God's laws is wrong."
And it is just as possible to rationally convince a religious person they are wrong as it is an atheist - but in both cases it requires approaching it from the same starting assumptions. For instance, convincing a Christian fundamentalist might involve making rational arguments about how to correctly interpret part of the Bible. This sort of reasoning within religious groups is not unusual at all.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before I go and type a really long post, let me ask really quick - If I say that I am unequivocally convinced that I, as an individual, find a much greater amount of fulfillment in my Christianity than chocolate, would anyone argue with me? I'm not speaking in broad, general terms. I'm really not speaking to or about anything outside of myself. But speaking as someone who knows what life was like not being devoted to my faith and knows what life is like now, I find being a Christian is exponentially more fulfilling.
Just throwing it out there.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
False and deliberately rude analogy, Tom, born from a lack of understanding of the motivation for missionary work.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Say? I think it is pretty obvious he's referring to the stuff that's been discussed surrounding gay marriage.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Before I go and type a really long post, let me ask really quick - If I say that I am unequivocally convinced that I, as an individual, find a much greater amount of fulfillment in my Christianity than chocolate, would anyone argue with me?
I would not. I would point out that your fulfillment has nothing to do with the truth, or the goodness, of your beliefs.
quote:Both the religious and nonreligious use reason to go about deciding what is right and wrong, but ultimately must base their reasoning in a set of starting assumptions.
Yes, yes. But there is a difference between asserting "Love is good", which all moral systems I know of agree on, and asserting that "there exists a creator who has ordained X, Y and Z good, and A, B and C abominations". The latter leads you into the good old Euthyphro dilemma.
quote:Get over it. Their lives are not about you.
No man is an island. People who reason from false assumptions are bloody dangerous. The instant those people attempt to convince others of their beliefs, they make it my business.
quote:False and deliberately rude analogy, Tom, born from a lack of understanding of the motivation for missionary work.
I observe that you are somehow unable to say how it is false.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(As a side note: yes, I was referring to the First Presidency letter, and not to missionary work. And yes, it was a rude analogy. I don't think it was a false one, however. In fact, you can argue that KoM's frequent complaining about religious people is remarkably less harmful to those religious people whose lives are "not about" him than, say, an attempt to legislate against their faith.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I would not. I would point out that your fulfillment has nothing to do with the truth, or the goodness, of your beliefs.
Would you accept that the reason I am fulfilled by my beliefs is because I believe in their truth and "goodness"? Again, I'm not asserting that they are true or good (though for the record I do believe they are ), I'm just saying that I believe they are, which explains my fulfillment.
Then you say my fulfillment is based on false assumptions or some variation of that.
Then I say they aren't necessarily false assumptions, though they are indeed astounding assumptions.
Then you say they are false assumptions, because there is no God (I know, you would be much more eloquent and convincing).
Then I say "You're assuming there is no God", a pithy comment I thought of by myself sitting here at work.
Then we agree to disagree ... or rather we just disagree, you thinking that I'm a serious detriment to the the health of you and society in general, me thinking that I'm glad God's existence isn't contingent on KoM.
I probably missed a few steps in the process, and I hopefully didn't represent you too grossly. I really am not trying to be argumentative or even particularly clever. Just efficient. Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you accept that the reason I am fulfilled by my beliefs is because I believe in their truth and "goodness"?
Yes. You would still be wrong, and - to get back to the original discussion - your beliefs would not be entitled to any greater respect merely on account of your fulfillment in them.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to butt in for a second: I believe that since a sense of fulfillment is purely a personal construct, people can be fulfilled by anything they choose to be fulfilled by. If one person chooses to be fulfilled by a belief in the goodness of his beliefs, it's ridiculous of me to say that he's somehow incapable of it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe in free will, cause and effect, and purpose (for anything and everything really, including existence itself). Being brought up in the home that I did, and having those three foundational beliefs have led to my theistic values and beliefs.
To me the idea of fulfillment comes from the nature of purpose, that all humans have an objective purpose, and we find complete fulfillment by freely choosing to partake in our purpose. How can I myself give myself an objective purpose when I can't even create myself?
To me that is how I define fulfillment- or at least how to find out in this plane.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I keep trying to disagree with you, KoM, but due to it's difficulty I'm thinking that somewhere along the line we agree. Does the degree to which someone finds fulfillment in something necessitate a shift in the amount of respect shown to it?
It's possible that doesn't make any sense. What I'm saying is that if, as Tom says, fulfillment is purely a personal construct, it's concievable to state that it has a base value. This causes X amount of fulfillment compared to this which causes Y. If this is the case, does whatever causes more fulfillment deserve more respect to be shown to it?
To not use religion, if your friendship with ... say, Wendy, causes you a moderate amount of fulfillment but your relationship with your wife causes you a lot more, isn't it proper to respect the relationship with your wife more?
What about when your looking at someone else. If you think their marriage was a bad idea, perhaps if you go so far as to presume to know the marriage was a bad idea, but they obviously are very fulfilled by it, would you go up to that someone else and ridicule their marriage and say it's absolutely ridiculous? Or would you respect the fact that they are fulfilled, regardless of whether or not it's good or bad?
I fear I'm not making sense.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't agree that fulfillment is a matter of choice. For instance, if you want to get married you cannot simply choose any random person to marry and choose to make yourself be fulfilled by that person's company. Similarly, you can't just choose any random set of beliefs and choose to make yourself be fulfilled by those beliefs. Certain beliefs are by nature more or less fulfilling than others to you.
I'd also disagree with the idea that fulfillment in general has nothing to do with the goodness of your beliefs. I would compare bad beliefs to going to McDonalds and eating two Big Macs. You might find the act of eating the Big Macs itself to be fulfilling if you enjoy the taste. But shortly afterwards, the aftereffects of eating two Big Macs will probably make your stomach hurt - thus hurting your ability to find fulfillment in anything for a few hours. Similarly, it is possible that the act of believing something bad might make you feel good. But in the long run, it would likely negatively affect how fulfilling your life is in general, through the negative things that bad beliefs tend to cause. When religious people say they find fulfillment in their religion, I don't think they simply mean that the act of believing itself makes them feel good. I think they mean that religion makes their life as a whole more fulfilling - which has at least something to do with the goodness of religious beliefs.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:To not use religion, if your friendship with ... say, Wendy, causes you a moderate amount of fulfillment but your relationship with your wife causes you a lot more, isn't it proper to respect the relationship with your wife more?
Yes, but you have gone from respect for the beliefs of others, to respect for my own internal mental states. What is more, I think you are missing the exaggerated respect for religion that exists in our culture. Let us consider two parallel cases:
a) Bob says "I love my wife". b) Bob says "God exists".
The first statement is about something internal to Bob, and Bob is presumably the foremost expert on this. Even so, we can check up on the statement by, for example, seeing if he seeks out the company of his wife, hits her, buys her gifts, his endorphin production is higher in her presence, regions of his brain light up when he sees a picture of her... whatever you think love is. (And Tres, before you jump in, I am not getting into another discussion of 'qualia' with you, so pelase, just don't go there.) Now, you might not be particularly interested in the subject, so probably you would not spring for an MRI scan. But if Bob, say, beats his wife regularly, you would not think it disrespectful to say, "The evidence seems to contradict your statement."
Now for the bit about god existing. Again, this is in principle checkable. You can see whether prayers work, whether Bob seems happier in church, is more moral, annd so on. Whatever effect you think the existence of a god ought to have, you can check it. (If you think it ought not to have any effect, then your 'belief' is just a form of words - you could just as well assert that right-handed neutrinos exist, but do not interact with ordinary matter.) But even to mention the possibility that a belief in gods ought to be founded on some sort of evidence is considered disrespectful! Much less pointing out that the said evidence does not exist. This is what I object to.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But even to mention the possibility that a belief in gods ought to be founded on some sort of evidence is considered disrespectful!
If you believe that this is what is being objected to when people say that you are rude and dismissive and offensive when discussing religion, then you do not have sufficient self-awareness of your behavior concerning this topic.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:if you want to get married you cannot simply choose any random person to marry and choose to make yourself be fulfilled by that person's company
Sure you can. You just need to decide "I am fulfilled by this person's company." If in fact you decide that fulfillment requires other criteria, that person will need to meet those criteria.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So do you think the only reason a gay person isn't fulfilled in a straight marriage would be because they have chosen not to be fulfilled by a member of the opposite sex? Do you believe it is purely a matter of choice and decision?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But even to mention the possibility that a belief in gods ought to be founded on some sort of evidence is considered disrespectful! Much less pointing out that the said evidence does not exist.
I don't think religious folk consider it disrespectful to suggest their faith be based upon evidence. I certainly do think faith should be based upon evidence.
The latter part can be disrespectful though - if they say they possess such evidence and you simply assert that you know they don't.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), I'm just saying that I believe they are, which explains my fulfillment.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
