But you're right, they could be lying for malicious reasons too. There is a third possibility for why someone could be religious, beyond a failure of logic or a failure of imagination.
My assumptions about people who rely on purely emotional arguments led me to suspect that the person you responded to 1) doesn't know what "orthogonal" means anyway, and 2) couldn't be arsed to look it up.
Huh. Wow. Those are the *only* three possibilities? Across history, there has never been even one single religious person who does not fall into one of those three categories?
Being religious necessarily requires one or more of: 1) concluding that any given religion is more likely than any other, or none (a failure of logic) 2) concluding that any given religion is the only remaining possibility (a failure of imagination) or 3) lying about it for profit.
Most religious people fall into a combination of 1 and 2 - failing to properly consider all the possible causes of their "religious experience", they incorrectly conclude that a deity must be involved, and that it must have been the deity they prefer.
Most religious *leaders* are case 3, sometimes with a side order of 1 and 2.
We've had this discussion before. You're serving yourself a big heaping order of 2, because you first fail to consider that your experiences are entirely unremarkable and have entirely normal, predictable, REPEATABLE causes in the real world without ever involving God, and then you incorrectly dismiss Xenu, Krishna, The Cosmic Space Werewolf, and the Underpants Gnomes as being less likely supernatural interveners than Joseph Smith.
Heh - we don't claim that Joseph Smith intervenes for us, and we never did. I think it's funny that you have the impression that we believe he does.
Argh - I just don't have time for an extended conversation on this, sadly, as much as I wish I did. So rather than start one and abort it in the middle as has been my wont thus far, leaving both of us frustrated by the lack of completion on the subject, I'll express my wish that I could and duck out before we get the ball rolling.
Snide comments I make about prophets versus belief in the supernatural nature thereof should not be taken as serious descriptions of any religion.
Which is to say: Yes, I understand that the prophets aren't intercessory figures, but it makes for a much pithier soundbite when I say it that way, and gets both the same message *and* a clear expression of my opinion across.
*nod* Fair enough, as long as you realize that since some religions DO believe their prophets/holy figures intervene for them, it becomes an issue of clarity to distinguish between them.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-22 03:47 am (UTC)[* and by awesome, i mean, here's an awesome opportunity; not, that's an awesome sign/sentiment/use of monogrammed printer paper ...]
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-22 04:09 am (UTC)Try and stop him from what? From busting a phat rhyme? From taking first place? From cheating on Stacy?
I think they accidentally the whole thing.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-22 05:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-22 06:36 am (UTC)MY GOD!
LOVE'S YOU!
You try....
-AND STOP HIM!
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-22 11:44 am (UTC)Why must you send messages of universal peace and love using hundreds of exclamation marks, capital letters, and baseball bats with nails in?
Alas :)
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-22 12:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-22 05:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-22 05:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-22 07:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-23 11:08 pm (UTC)Also: "Not nice" and "not true" are "not orthogonal".
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-24 12:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-24 02:01 pm (UTC)But you're right, they could be lying for malicious reasons too. There is a third possibility for why someone could be religious, beyond a failure of logic or a failure of imagination.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-24 03:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-24 09:29 pm (UTC)Also, are you under the impression that the fact that it's not "nice" means that he's wrong?
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-24 09:47 pm (UTC)Yeah, I screwed up my phrasing in pursuit of a pithy sound.
"Not nice" and "not true" ARE orthogonal. Being one does not indicate being the other.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-24 09:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-24 10:01 pm (UTC)My assumptions about people who rely on purely emotional arguments led me to suspect that the person you responded to 1) doesn't know what "orthogonal" means anyway, and 2) couldn't be arsed to look it up.
So I dumbed it down for 'em.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-25 01:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-25 02:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-25 02:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-25 03:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-25 03:49 pm (UTC)Being religious necessarily requires one or more of:
1) concluding that any given religion is more likely than any other, or none (a failure of logic)
2) concluding that any given religion is the only remaining possibility (a failure of imagination)
or
3) lying about it for profit.
Most religious people fall into a combination of 1 and 2 - failing to properly consider all the possible causes of their "religious experience", they incorrectly conclude that a deity must be involved, and that it must have been the deity they prefer.
Most religious *leaders* are case 3, sometimes with a side order of 1 and 2.
We've had this discussion before. You're serving yourself a big heaping order of 2, because you first fail to consider that your experiences are entirely unremarkable and have entirely normal, predictable, REPEATABLE causes in the real world without ever involving God, and then you incorrectly dismiss Xenu, Krishna, The Cosmic Space Werewolf, and the Underpants Gnomes as being less likely supernatural interveners than Joseph Smith.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-25 06:06 pm (UTC)Heh - we don't claim that Joseph Smith intervenes for us, and we never did. I think it's funny that you have the impression that we believe he does.
Argh - I just don't have time for an extended conversation on this, sadly, as much as I wish I did. So rather than start one and abort it in the middle as has been my wont thus far, leaving both of us frustrated by the lack of completion on the subject, I'll express my wish that I could and duck out before we get the ball rolling.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-25 06:12 pm (UTC)Which is to say: Yes, I understand that the prophets aren't intercessory figures, but it makes for a much pithier soundbite when I say it that way, and gets both the same message *and* a clear expression of my opinion across.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-25 06:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-25 06:18 pm (UTC)(Besides, I included Xenu on the list. That's pretty much the OPPOSITE of a benign intercessor, and, I thought, set the tone.)