BBF religious matrix

[barmar]

If you want to troll a JW, it probably won't work to ask the traditional religious paradox questions. They almost certainly have scripts for "Why is there evil/hunger in the world?" and "Why does God allow innocent children to be killed/molested/die of horrible diseases?".

 

But P=NP will almost certainly stump them (most likely because they won't even understand the question).

[dwar0123]

Too abstract for me - I doubt answers to "your" questions would enlighten me. Let's say God tells me there's human inequity because of the way our brains are wired, and it's a must to let us have free will. How is that more satisfying? Not trying to troll, it honestly seems like a good use of the question, assuming you're not trying to gain fame or wealth.

Given the nature of God, existing outside our Universe, setting the rules for it, all powerful and all knowing.

 

I object to you applying a must upon him. That is a limitation of his powers. We may not be able to see how you could have one without the other, but we are not God nor are we privy to all the possible variations by which the Rules of the Universes could have been formed.

[dwar0123]

But P=NP will almost certainly stump them (most likely because they won't even understand the question).

Shrug, it's a yes or no question. Give an answer and say its as God decreed. As the context for a meaningful conversation doesn't exist the question is in all honesty rather boring to ask anyone not actually invested in the topic.

[wyman]

I am both happy and sad re: the JW's response to Phil, though. The easy out is "God reveals himself in different ways to different people. Keep your eyes open; he shows himself to everyone" or some such. But it is also a little refreshing that he treats what he's selling as truth, and so rather than ad-libbing, he was honest enough to say that he didn't know and that he'd ask.

[Phil]

I am both happy and sad re: the JW's response to Phil, though. The easy out is "God reveals himself in different ways to different people. Keep your eyes open; he shows himself to everyone" or some such. But it is also a little refreshing that he treats what he's selling as truth, and so rather than ad-libbing, he was honest enough to say that he didn't know and that he'd ask.

 

Like many sales-based organizations (and organized religion is the epitome), they are given a script and presentation materials. All goes ATP when their prospect asks questions like Barmar suggests. A little ad-libbing might have led to an interesting discussion, instead of leaving me for a better prospect. But time is money I suppose.

 

And I really wasn't trying to troll them on my doorstep. They will be a much more effective disciple if they actually ponder the nature of God and life and reject or refute my conclusion, instead of following dogma.

[Antrax]

But P=NP will almost certainly stump them (most likely because they won't even understand the question).

Not sure they won't, the question is fairly famous. And dawr0123, it's a yes/no question but the answer is still interesting. It would be better to understand *why*, but even just knowing (or knowing that it could go either way) would be interesting. Also, based on what I already know about complexity, I have serious doubts I would be able to understand *why* - honestly there are some results that are already known that I can't wrap my head around.

But I'm done hijacking this thread. Sorry.

[han]

Surprise surprise, most of us say that we are very tolerant. But should we be tolerant towards the Jehova witnesses? How tolerant do you think they are when one of their children decides not to be a Jehova witness?

 

I am not saying that we should be unfriendly to the people on Phil's doorstep. We shouldn't, it is very likely that they have nothing but the best of intentions. But I think that their organization is completely immoral, and being tolerant or even supportive of that organization seems really bad to me.

 

Trinidad considers himself a tolerant non-believer. He thinks that telling another kid that he will go to hell because he doesn't believe in god is comparable to saying that you don't believe in god when asked about your religion. After all, both kids are just telling what they think, and it is shocking to the other kid. I don't agree with this, it is not the same. The parents have taught the other kid that Deb's kid is evil because he doesn't share their beliefs. Deb hasn't taught her kid that the religious kids are evil, at least I have never heard of such a thing. Perhaps the other parents have also taught their kid that homosexuals are evil, or who knows what. I don't think that is all fine, and I appreciate that some people are willing to speak up to it.

[dwar0123]

Trinidad considers himself a tolerant non-believer. He thinks that telling another kid that he will go to hell because he doesn't believe in god is comparable to saying that you don't believe in god when asked about your religion. After all, both kids are just telling what they think, and it is shocking to the other kid. I don't agree with this, it is not the same. The parents have taught the other kid that Deb's kid is evil because he doesn't share their beliefs. Deb hasn't taught her kid that the religious kids are evil, at least I have never heard of such a thing. Perhaps the other parents have also taught their kid that homosexuals are evil, or who knows what. I don't think that is all fine, and I appreciate that some people are willing to speak up to it.

I dunno, it sounds like you are dangerously close to saying that your way of raising kids is the right way, and their way is the wrong way.

 

You may not be teaching your kids that the religious kids are evil, but you are sure coming close to saying their parents are.

[han]

But I do think that it is wrong to teach children that people who believe differently then they do are evil. I think it is harmful to their children, and I think that it is harmful to society. I sure hope that I wouldn't raise children my children that way.

 

What are you saying in your second sentence? By saying that I think it is wrong to teach children to think that people who believe differently are evil, I would be raising my kids to think that kids of people who teach their kids to think that people who believe differently are evil, are evil? In other words, are you saying that because I think that people should teach their kids to be tolerant of other peoples opinions, I would teach my kids to be intolerant of kids who are raised intolerantly? Wow, that's a weird sort of logic, but I like it!

[BunnyGo]

I had a teacher growing up who would invite the JW in to lecture them about the bible--it helps when you can quote it in the original and 1000 years of commentary and philosophical debate about it. He used to come to class afterwards and teach us about their discussion...needless to say the JW used to run away from him, which is a change.

[mikeh]

I see nothing wrong with confining the proper bounds of intolerance to:

 

1. proactive intolerance of activities that are criminal, as defined by the laws enacted by democratically elected representatives, and interpeted by educated, trained judges and

 

2. reactive intolerance of all other forms of intolerance

 

 

Thus in debrose's child's case, his expression of his atheism is not an expression of intolerance towards those who believe in a god. However, the reaction by a child-believer to the effect that the atheist will burn in hell is a proactive intolerance and hence ought not to be tolerated.

 

 

I am sure that there are nuances and situations in which this simplistic stance would seem (and be) wrong or unworkable. And I recognize that some laws, tho validly passed, are either unjust ab initio or become to be widely seen as unjust. I do not intend my first proposition to 'require' proactive intolerance, merely to suggest that proactive intolerance ought not to extend, in terms of the internal workings of any society, beyond that realm.

[dwar0123]

But I do think that it is wrong to teach children that people who believe differently then they do are evil. I think it is harmful to their children, and I think that it is harmful to society. I sure hope that I wouldn't raise children my children that way.

 

What are you saying in your second sentence? By saying that I think it is wrong to teach children to think that people who believe differently are evil, I would be raising my kids to think that kids of people who teach their kids to think that people who believe differently are evil, are evil? In other words, are you saying that because I think that people should teach their kids to be tolerant of other peoples opinions, I would teach my kids to be intolerant of kids who are raised intolerantly? Wow, that's a weird sort of logic, but I like it!

You can crouch your viewpoint in terms of intolerant vs tolerant just as the religious can crouch their viewpoint in terms of being with God and being outside of God.

 

Would you tolerate someone who allows their child to randomly spray bullets in a classroom? Look at it from their perspective, to not believe in God is to condemn their child to eternal damnation. If you really believe that then allowing your child to be corrupted by the kid who doesn't believe is risking far worse than death itself. If you really believe this, could you easily tolerate that risk? You don't believe in their version of hell, so to you it doesn't seem like a risk at all, but to them it is EVERYTHING.

 

I am not trying to change your viewpoint about religion, we actually agree, I am just trying to point out that I don't think you are really appreciating the other point of view and maybe you should be teaching your kids to be tolerant even of the intolerant.

[mikeh]

maybe you should be teaching your kids to be tolerant even of the intolerant.

no

 

would you teach your kids to tolerate the physical bullying of another kid? Why not? Or, more scary, why?

[dwar0123]

no

 

would you teach your kids to tolerate the physical bullying of another kid? Why not? Or, more scary, why?

Not sure what that has to do with tolerating parents teaching their children about their intolerant religion.

 

Of course I wouldn't teach my children to tolerate bullying.

[mikeh]

Not sure what that has to do with tolerating parents teaching their children about their intolerant religion.

 

Of course I wouldn't teach my children to tolerate bullying.

So how do you differientate kids telling another kid that he will burn in hell, as will his parents, because he doesn't believe in god? or do you think that physical violence is intolerable but that verbal violence is not?

 

As I see it, we are discussing intolerant parents teaching their intolerance to their children who then verbally bully another child, and you think we should let this go unchallenged?

[billw55]

I think that most truly religious people, in their hearts, believe that the world would be a better place if everyone believed what they believe. This need not be with an attitude of intolerance; rather, it can be, and often is, entirely altruistic. After all, if you truly believe that yours is the true path to salvation/eternal life/communion with God/etc, is it not a kindness to want this for all people? Indeed, I find it hard to see how a devout believer could not think this way, and remain internally consistent in their beliefs.

 

Nor is this limited to any particular religion, or to religion generally. It certainly sounds like mikeh, for starters, thinks this way about his own beliefs.

 

For myself, I definitely do not think that the world would be better off if everyone thinks what I think. I have my opinions but I certainly don't think I have a monopoly on truth. Who is to say which philosophy will bring the most good to society, or which ideas will lead to advances in culture and civilization? So I voted supportive. The world would be much more boring if I could not approach Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, or Atheists alike for their thoughts and insights.

 

Hmm, I wonder, should Atheist be capitalized?

[dwar0123]

So how do you differientate kids telling another kid that he will burn in hell, as will his parents, because he doesn't believe in god? or do you think that physical violence is intolerable but that verbal violence is not?

 

As I see it, we are discussing intolerant parents teaching their intolerance to their children who then verbally bully another child, and you think we should let this go unchallenged?

If my child was actually bothered by it, I would certainly do something, the what would depend on far more details then are presented here.

 

 

In the far more likely case that my child is not bothered by it I would hope my child would tolerate the other kids beliefs.

 

I have to question the sincerity of your own beliefs if you think being told you will burn in hell actually rises to the level of verbal violence. I didn't think you believed in hell.

 

Also, I tire of the word intolerance. I was merely using the phraseology of the person to whom I was replying. This isn't the best word to describe what we are talking about, it is a loaded term meant to cast the opposing viewpoint in a negative light. Lets use the phrase sincerely devout.

[han]

I am not trying to change your viewpoint about religion, we actually agree, I am just trying to point out that I don't think you are really appreciating the other point of view and maybe you should be teaching your kids to be tolerant even of the intolerant.

 

You keep putting words in my mouth. You claim that I am intolerant to religious people or that I would teach my children to be intolerant to religious people, but that is simply not true. I have religious friends that I like. With some of them I sometimes talk about religion, with some of them I don't. When I do talk with people about religion, I won't say to them that I think that they are stupid (because I don't) or that they are bad people (because I don't).

 

I will tell them that I think religious institutions are bad, and the people willing to talk about religion with me tend to agree to some extend. Whether they believe that this world has a higher purpose or was created by some higher being really doesn't bother me.

[Fluffy]

I also marked Tolerant, however God in his infinite wisdom won't put me on a position to punnish atheists who burn down churches.

[dwar0123]

You keep putting words in my mouth. You claim that I am intolerant to religious people or that I would teach my children to be intolerant to religious people, but that is simply not true. I have religious friends that I like. With some of them I sometimes talk about religion, with some of them I don't. When I do talk with people about religion, I won't say to them that I think that they are stupid (because I don't) or that they are bad people (because I don't).

 

I will tell them that I think religious institutions are bad, and the people willing to talk about religion with me tend to agree to some extend. Whether they believe that this world has a higher purpose or was created by some higher being really doesn't bother me.

It wasn't my intent to say any such thing and if it came off that way I apologize. I am a little puzzled by what led you to think I took anything other then this statement from you.

 

In other words, are you saying that because I think that people should teach their kids to be tolerant of other peoples opinions, I would teach my kids to be intolerant of kids who are raised intolerantly?

 

Most Christians don't read the bible literally. But for those that do, having non-believers hanging around your children can be a scary prospect. I am sure you get a long just fine with most Christians, it isn't them to whom I was referring. It is the one's you don't talk to, probably because the conversations are invariable uncomfortable. The ones to whom you felt it was wrong that they were raising their children this way.

 

Parents right to teach their religion to their children is protected by the constitution. To my way of thinking, if you outlaw the sincerely devout, you outlaw religion.

[dwar0123]

punnish atheists who burn down churches.

Has that ever happened? I have heard of church burnings, but I always thought it was one religious sect doing it to another, or here in the US, whites doing it to blacks for purely racial reasons(ie not religious)

[JLOGIC]

I put in the middle for tolerance, however that is not really true I just didn't know how to answer it. If people start talking about their beliefs then "infuriated" but if people keep it to themselves then I don't care. Everyone has the right to believe what they want, just as everyone has the right to be stupid. However, if people say stupid things then it is annoying. If they continue to claim to be right in the face of all evidence/logic to the contrary then it is infuriating.

 

I date a christian, my entire immediate family is christian, etc, I know their views and they know mine and we just don't talk about it anymore and in that way I am completely fine/tolerant/whatever.

[Codo]

 

 

Trinidad considers himself a tolerant non-believer. He thinks that telling another kid that he will go to hell because he doesn't believe in god is comparable to saying that you don't believe in god when asked about your religion. After all, both kids are just telling what they think, and it is shocking to the other kid. I don't agree with this, it is not the same.

 

 

So, when you teach your children that there is no hell (what you surely do, don't you?), why should your children be frightend if other kids else claims that their parents belive that in such a silliness? For your kids this should be just a kind of mistery novel, nothing real...

And if you follow your own logic, you better forbid your kids to talk about their "belives" too. It must be very frightening for theists kids to hear that there is no eternity.

 

But besides the logical flaw: I think it is very silly to try to talk about the hellfire with an innocent kid of an atheist.

[Fluffy]

Has that ever happened? I have heard of church burnings, but I always thought it was one religious sect doing it to another, or here in the US, whites doing it to blacks for purely racial reasons(ie not religious)

Not yet, but groups of atheists assaulting a church to dance naked on the pulpit has. Doesn't matter much, I don't know how I would react if able to punnish whoever destroyed a millenary buda in the name of some god either.

[dwar0123]

Not yet, but groups of atheists assaulting a church to dance naked on the pulpit has. Doesn't matter much, I don't know how I would react if able to punnish whoever destroyed a millenary buda in the name of some god either.

Are you referring to the pussy riot incident in Russia? Wasn't that politically motivated?