= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
The problem with self help is that most people don't know what they really want. If they did then maybe self help books might work.
I've known adult biblical literalists who seemed to have a genuine fear of hell who were no more isolated from viewpoints than the average theist. I can't think of any adult biblical literalists who appear to genuinely fear hell and not believe for any other reason, who are also not exceptionally isolated in their viewpoints, but that would be a prohibitively small set anyway, so if they exist I would not have a strong expectation of having met any and knowing about it.
This particular person was raised by an absolute nutter. From a very early age they were told there were demonic forces at work everywhere and the end of the world and the second coming were about to occur. This kind of upbringing probably necessitates a literalistic approach to life. If is not against the law to teach children such things, then it should be.
You're basically saying that kings and aristocrats exist. Everybody knew that (I don't think anyone doubted the physical existence of George III), so it obviously can't have been what the Declaration of Independence meant. Why are we even discussing this?
What the Declaration of Independence seems to mean (to me atleast) is that these dynasties of kings and aristocrats don't exist deservedly or "naturally".
I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. The topic asked for examples of bad logic. The use of the idea "all men are created equal" by people absolving themselves any responsibility for the destitute and failures in societies today is the use of bad logic I was trying to refer too.
This particular idea itself (not the entire declaration of independence), however, is poorly phased and open to ridicule because of its obvious falseness. Political ideas are routinely used and interpreted in ways that demonstate poor or bad lagic. All I was trying to point out was the pained feeling I get when I here someone using and idea like this one to argue an inconsistent and ridiculous position.
I have not been posting long and am beginning to learn very quickly that I need to make my ideas as clear as absolutely possible. (as I would argue the authors of this idea probably should have)
I'm wondering whether your relative believes that God is good. Because if so, combined with zhir other beliefs, zhir morality would seem very scary.
Next time ask your relative "What if God only saves atheists, and sends believers to hell?"
They would probably reply "Thats not what athiests say".
In response to
A sense of logic
"I think therefore I am"
Would it be more accurate to say I think therefore I think I am. What if I think I am not am I not. If I think I am a goldfish or a black hole is this what I am. If you were to show me a thought it would be by an action, so perhaps it should be I act therfore I am.
The question of what constitutes an "I" is the question that needs first to be answered in order to be able to demonstrate "I am".
(probably gone a little to far with this one, just interested in the nature of the self and what others think about this kind of idea. Maybe point me to a different more relevent post)
In response to
A sense of logic
A relative once told me they believed in god because;
"If god exists and I believe I go to heaven, If god exists and I don't believe I suffer for eternity in hell, if god does not exist then It does not matter if I believe. The logical and sensible thing to do therefore is to believe in god."
This is truly someones logic. When confronted with what happens to a person who has not been told to believe the reply was "I'm sure god will take that into account". When asked what happens to people of different faiths and beliefs "all thats important is that they believe in god". When asked what happens to people if they have no concience and commit unspeakable acts "as long as they believe in god they will be alright".
The fear of eternal suffering can create some strange logic.
All men are not created / did not come into existence equal. Intelligence, genetic risk factors for disease, appearance, etc are all examples of inequalities in the creation or existence of man.
As it's a political document, and not a medical text that it should discuss genetics, I think it's supposed to mean "equal in deserved political importance" -- thus differentiating itself from the monarchies that make some people be born in places of greater political status than others.
What about access to resource / opportunity. Also family circumstance / environment / status. All men are not born / created equal.
LessWrong doesn't have as many theists as it does Americans.
I found that hysterical for some reason.
I giggled quite a bit at that statement too.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Do we ever act or simply react according to our habits. I do believe habitual thoughts about our own character determine the basic principles at play in our decisions/actions. Our actions re-enforce habits, habits re-enforce actions and so on. Rarely, it seems, do people allow the possibility within themselve to act in a way that is "out of character" and are thus reduced to being vertual automatons, reacting to their established habitual proclivities. Perhaps this is true for everyone. Occassionally acting "out of character" may be just another habitual response. To change requires us to be stimulated either internally or externally, by thoughts or experiences, in ways that seems more desirable than the pre-existing conditions.