Wall Street Journal Opinion Piece: If You're an Atheist, Lie to Your Kids

[Ahab]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Unfortunately "understandings" can only be described semantically.

Those words still refer to different things, though.  Semantics is all about relating to meaning in language or logic.  So understanding semantics is close but not quite to the same thing as what semantics is all about.

[Calm]

Quote

have talked to a few Russians while living in the UAE that were atheists

Have you talked about the same sort of stuff with Russians of the same age group, but who were theists?  Despair and depression were rampant among the Russians when we were there in 95, as evidenced by alcoholism rates that were tragic.  It was hard to tell what kind of emotional state Russians were by walking down the street as very guarded expressions, but the ones we knew well enough either were themselves or had close family members struggling and most of them were religious to some extent (don’t know if they attended church).  My sister-in-law’s reaction (they were in business over there for at number of years almost as soon as it opened up until the mafia put out a hit on them and took over the business) was it felt like a nation full of victims of child abuse.  The differences between the older and younger adults were at times dramatic. 

Edited February 3, 2020 by Calm

[The Nehor]

There is a kind of tragic nobility in virtue without religion. I find a comparable pleasure in my love of Norse mythology, a pantheon where the gods are in the right but lack power. In the end all will be destroyed. The stupid giants and monsters will win out over Odin who was in the right the whole time. Odin could even be described as a god of existentialism as he saw his own death through the world tree and his only consolation is taking some of the evil down with him.

One thing I disagree with is that atheists and theists are seeking for the same thing by different routes. The value systems of the LDS and other Christians differs from that of an atheist. One thinks the person will live forever. The other does not. You treat things differently based on what you believe of them. Ironically euthanasis makes sense to an atheist and makes less sense to someone who believes the person enduring that suffering can benefit from it (though I admit to enough cowardice that I believe I would want to kill myself if I were in extreme pain even knowing that). Nations and even galaxies are the things of an eyeblink to immortals whereas to an atheist convinced they will not live forever they rank much higher in value with individual. What is Rome if it is worth less than its most debased slave?

There is a difference between living for today and living for eternity.

Edited February 3, 2020 by The Nehor

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Ordinarily, maybe not, but words have many definitions even if people are not using all of them when they use a particular word.  When I say I believe in God, for example, I'm saying I believe in particular definition of God, the definition I have in  my mind when I am using that word.  A definition of God that is valid and can be found by using a common dictionary.  Likewise when you use the word theism or atheism or God you are using a particular definition of those words.a definition that is probably valid and can also be found by using a common dictionary.  So you're not required to use the same definition of those words that I may be using, and you're not required to agree with me regardless of which definition I may be using.  But I can be telling the truth when I say you do believe in some particular version or definition of God.  It could be that I'm simply using a definition of a word that you are not using, but which is still a valid definition of that word.

I'm not making God small.  Heh heh, that would be rather preposterous of me if I were to try to do that, as if I thought my words would have the power to change what God actually is  This is simply an argument about the definition of words and how they can be used in more than one way because words have many definitions.  So when you say you don't believe in God you are using a particular definition of God and saying you don't believe in that version of God.  There are other ways you could use the word, though, and you would believe in that version or definition of God.  It's inescapable, because the word God is simply used to refer to something or some kind of being that is the most supreme kind of thing or kind of being, and you do believe something or someone is more supreme, even if you might not use the word God to refer to that thing or person.

If I wanted to be as equally dismissive of what you say you think, I could insist for multiple posts that you're really an atheist because the god you believe in doesn't exist, because your definition of God doesn't match God. But I'm not going to do that because it would be disrespectful, not just of you but of words and their meanings.

Honestly you can just not bother talking to me, okay? You've completely erased any expectation I might have of having a productive conversation with you.

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

If I wanted to be as equally dismissive of what you say you think, I could insist for multiple posts that you're really an atheist because the god you believe in doesn't exist, because your definition of God doesn't match God. But I'm not going to do that because it would be disrespectful, not just of you but of words and their meanings.

The God I believe in does exist so that's not what you should say to me.  If you were to say that I don''t believe some other definition of God doesn't really exist, some version that I don't believe in such as Thor or Odin or Zeus, then you would be correct to say I don't believe that version of God exists, even though that definition of God still exists in a dictionary.  And I would probably be willing to talk some more about why I don't believe that version of God exists even though that definition would still exist in a dictionary.

Quote

Honestly you can just not bother talking to me, okay? You've completely erased any expectation I might have of having a productive conversation with you.

Yeah I'm getting the same vibe from you, too.  But rather than giving you free reign to say whatever you want to say with no response from me I reserve the right to comment on the content of your message, without trying to connect with you on a personal level.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Ahab

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

If I wanted to be as equally dismissive of what you say you think, I could insist for multiple posts that you're really an atheist because the god you believe in doesn't exist, because your definition of God doesn't match God. But I'm not going to do that because it would be disrespectful, not just of you but of words and their meanings.

Honestly you can just not bother talking to me, okay? You've completely erased any expectation I might have of having a productive conversation with you.

My advice when it gets to this level of frustration is to use the ignore function.  There is no rule that someone can't respond as long as they are civil as far as I know...unless they are derailing and that might be more the OPer's call.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

My advice when it gets to this level of frustration is to use the ignore function.  There is no rule that someone can't respond as long as they are civil as far as I know...unless they are derailing and that might be more the OPer's call.

Ah.  That would be me.

Folks, let's stop talking about Meadowchik, okay?  To the extent I contributed to that previously, I apologize to Meadowchik and ask her forgiveness.

Let's just move on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  That would be me.

Folks, let's stop talking about Meadowchik, okay?  To the extent I contributed to that previously, I apologize to Meadowchik and ask her forgiveness.

Let's just move on.

Thanks,

-Smac

I was just using her as an example of someone with the thoughts she has.  The thought of apologizing to someone for not agreeing with them doesn't make sense to me so I will not be doing that.  We are each entitled to our beliefs and I have no problem discussing what I believe even in the context of what someone else believes while showing contrasts as well as agreements between different beliefs.

Put simply, anyone who believes there is something or some kind of being that is more supreme than any other believes in some form of God even if they do not refer to that thing or person as God.  it is an inescapable conclusion, based on the general concept of what the word God refers to in all of its meanings and definitions.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

I was just using her as an example of someone with the thoughts she has. 

Got it.  But let's move on.

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

The thought of apologizing to someone for not agreeing with them doesn't make sense to me so I will not be doing that. 

I didn't ask for that.

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

We are each entitled to our beliefs and I have no problem discussing what I believe even in the context of what someone else believes while showing contrasts as well as agreements between different beliefs.

I suppose.  But the particulars of Meadowchik's perspective on God are pretty far afield from the topic of this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suppose.  But the particulars of Meadowchik's perspective on God are pretty far afield from the topic of this thread.

Whether or not we should tell lies regarding a belief in God is what I understand the topic of this thread to be.  Which involves knowing something about what kinds of lies those are or could be.  Which involves understanding what God is, or could be, or the meaning of the words.

That's what I was talking about, simply talking about examples and particular perspectives.

[Meadowchik]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is no rule that someone can't respond as long as they are civil as far as I know...unless they are derailing and that might be more the OPer's call.

There's a difference between a forum rule and a personal request. 

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Folks, let's stop talking about Meadowchik, okay?  To the extent I contributed to that previously, I apologize to Meadowchik and ask her forgiveness.

Not needed, in my opinion. I simply object to people claiming to know a person's thoughts more than they do themselves and I will make that clear, directly, when necessary.

Moving on...

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I simply object to people claiming to know a person's thoughts more than they do themselves and I will make that clear, directly, when necessary.

I didn't claim to.  I was talking about objective facts vs, subjective opinions.  Words have multiple meanings even if you/anyone in particular isn't using them all of them at a particular moment in time.

Moving on now...

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Those words still refer to different things, though.  Semantics is all about relating to meaning in language or logic.  So understanding semantics is close but not quite to the same thing as what semantics is all about.

Words refer to other words, not things.

Logic is about the psychological laws by which we think, and is largely based on language 

Read Principia Mathmatica and all that has come since between Russell and Wittgenstein 

Wikipedia quote

PM, according to its introduction, had three aims: (1) to analyze to the greatest possible extent the ideas and methods of mathematical logic and to minimize the number of primitive notions and axioms, and inference rules; (2) to precisely express mathematical propositions in symbolic logic using the most convenient notation that precise expression allows; (3) to solve the paradoxes that plagued logic and set theory at the turn of the 20th-century, like Russell's paradox.^[1]

 

Edited February 3, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Words refer to other words, not things.

Logic is about the psychological laws by which we think, and is largely based on language 

Read Principia Mathmatica and all that has come since between Russell and Wittgenstein. Read about it, that will do

 

Wikipedia quote

PM, according to its introduction, had three aims: (1) to analyze to the greatest possible extent the ideas and methods of mathematical logic and to minimize the number of primitive notions and axioms, and inference rules; (2) to precisely express mathematical propositions in symbolic logic using the most convenient notation that precise expression allows; (3) to solve the paradoxes that plagued logic and set theory at the turn of the 20th-century, like Russell's paradox.^[1]

 

 

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Words refer to other words, not things.

I use the word "things" to refer to all of the kinds of things that words refer to... thoughts, feelings, physical things or spiritual things, etc.

Quote

Logic is about the psychological laws by which we think, and is largely based on language 

I would say logic is all about thinking of things in a way that makes everything make sense from a reasonable perspective. Not that what is logical and reasonable is necessarily true, but it is at least logical and reasonable to believe that they might be.

Quote

Read Principia Mathmatica and all that has come since between Russell and Wittgenstein 

 

I'll stick to learning from God directly rather than trying to learn through those who try to learn from him.  It's just easier for me this way.  And I've noticed that what is mathematically logical and reasonable isn't necessarily true, either.  Some of that stuff is only imaginary.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Ahab

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I'll stick to learning from God directly rather than trying to learn through those who try to learn from him.

Did you go to school at all or did you just pray for God to teach you math, science, literature, philosophy, music, history, etc., with no teacher?

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Whether or not we should tell lies regarding a belief in God is what I understand the topic of this thread to be.  Which involves knowing something about what kinds of lies those are or could be.  Which involves understanding what God is, or could be, or the meaning of the words.

That's what I was talking about, simply talking about examples and particular perspectives.

(Ahab, such a cute couple you two are in your avatar!!)

[Ahab]

23 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Did you go to school at all or did you just pray for God to teach you math, science, literature, philosophy, music, history, etc., with no teacher?

I've only ever just accepted what other people have told me is the truth.  No thinking was involved whatsoever.  Never checked with God to see if I was being duped and never questioned that what I was told was true.

How about you?   The same?  How did we get ourselves into this mess and how can we get ourselves out of it?  Oh, wait.  Nevermind.  Nothing to worry about.  This is just as it should be.  We're supposed to just believe that whatever people tell us is true.

Especially when they say that what they are saying is what God told them, personally.

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

(Ahab, such a cute couple you two are in your avatar!!)

Thank you.  I can easily see how I can be happy with her forever.

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I've only ever just accepted what other people have told me is the truth.  No thinking was involved whatsoever.  Never checked with God to see if I was being duped and never questioned that what I was told was true.

How about you?   The same?  How did we get ourselves into this mess and how can we get ourselves out of it?  Oh, wait.  Nevermind.  Nothing to worry about.  This is just as it should be.  We're supposed to just believe that whatever people tell us is true.

Especially when they say that what they are saying is what God told them, personally.

You didn't answer my question. You told mfbukowski that you didn't need to read those philosophers because you'll just ask God. You were making philosophical arguments and philosophy is an academic discipline (THE academic discipline, since all those professors are running around with Ph.D.'s... Doctor of Philosophy). Since you dismissed what the experts were saying on an academic topic, choosing instead to go directly to God, it seemed appropriate to ask you if you dismiss what other experts say on other academic topics.

Do you listen to what physicists teach and say about physics or do you just ask God about physics? Do you listen to what mathematicians say about mathematics or do you just ask God about mathematics? Who taught you your multiplication tables, God or your 3rd grade teacher? When you don't know how the remote works on your new blue-ray player, do you sit and pray about it or do you read the instruction manual?

My ultimate point is that you do not go straight to God on everything. We all clearly and obviously rely on people, so your response to mfbukowski was rather silly. 

[Storm Rider]

19 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

But the point in Buddhism is NOT to follow the gods, not to become a god, not to have anything to do with the gods. As I stated before, the Buddha actually said that the gods are in a worse position than we are. The gods don't give value to life. On the contrary, a belief and devotion to the gods is actually contrary to Buddhism. It is a distraction from what the Buddha taught.

My only point is that Buddhism, as a religion, gives direction to the lives of its followers. It was not about the doctrines or specific teachings of Buddhism.

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

You didn't answer my question. You told mfbukowski that you didn't need to read those philosophers because you'll just ask God. You were making philosophical arguments and philosophy is an academic discipline (THE academic discipline, since all those professors are running around with Ph.D.'s... Doctor of Philosophy). Since you dismissed what the experts were saying on an academic topic, choosing instead to go directly to God, it seemed appropriate to ask you if you dismiss what other experts say on other academic topics.

Do you listen to what physicists teach and say about physics or do you just ask God about physics? Do you listen to what mathematicians say about mathematics or do you just ask God about mathematics? Who taught you your multiplication tables, God or your 3rd grade teacher? When you don't know how the remote works on your new blue-ray player, do you sit and pray about it or do you read the instruction manual?

My ultimate point is that you do not go straight to God on everything. We all clearly and obviously rely on people, so your response to mfbukowski was rather silly. 

I get ideas from people other than God but I determine (and realize) what is true only when God helps me to know and experience that information as truth.  I go to him on everything even while I am pondering/thinking about what other people tell me.  

So if I were to read about some philosophies of men by reading some philosophical thoughts from some so-called philosophers, I would still commune with God to determine if there was any truth in what those men were saying.  And if there was any truth in any of those ideas, it's not as if I would never get those same ideas from God without reading about those thoughts from those men.  I know how to commune with God and can get any good idea from him, directly, without having to read about what other men have thought or written for others to read.

I don't see anything silly in what I am saying or thinking.  Why do you?  Do you think I have no choice but to read some philosophical thoughts from some men before I can get those thoughts or know if they are true?  I think maybe you underestimate the power of revelation.

[MiserereNobis]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I know how to commune with God and can get any good idea from him, directly, without having to read about what other men have thought or written for others to read.

Can you do me a favor, then? Can you please ask God how to unify quantum and classic/relative physics? You seem to have the easiest approach... you don't have to bother reading what others have thought, you don't have to bother thinking things through yourself, you just ask God and he tells you. Do you think he will tell you how to solve perhaps the biggest problem in contemporary physics? You'd be doing science an incredible favor.

Also, I'm curious how you approach what the LDS apostles say. Do you ignore them, too, since you can go straight to God? Do you bother to listen to general conference?

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I don't see anything silly in what I am saying or thinking.  Why do you?

Do you really think you can skip over studying, reading, and  thinking, and just get the answer on any subject straight from God? If so, that's what I'm calling ridiculous.

[Ahab]

30 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

When you don't know how the remote works on your new blue-ray player, do you sit and pray about it or do you read the instruction manual?

I think it through and pray for God's help to figure it out. I'm one of those guys who doesn't usually read instruction manuals and will instead just figure it out for myself. These days they usually have buttons that you can click on with a mouse and it's all fair self-explanatory but if something is a bit complicated I'll just work through it by considering different options and trying them out.  That's how I prefer to learn, and I think I usually get more out of things than I would if I just read what someone else wrote down, but I can see that some people don't like to do things that way and would instead prefer to just accept what someone else told them without thinking much about it.  And I can usually finish in about the same amount of time as someone who just reads the manual.  But I think I get more from it the way I do it, with God's help, and sometimes it's just nice to do something with God there with me to help me as we do things together.

[MiserereNobis]

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think it through and pray for God's help to figure it out. I'm one of those guys who doesn't usually read instruction manuals and will instead just figure it out for myself. These days they usually have buttons that you can click on with a mouse and it's all fair self-explanatory but if something is a bit complicated I'll just work through it by considering different options and trying them out.  That's how I prefer to learn, and I think I usually get more out of things than I would if I just read what someone else wrote down, but I can see that some people don't like to do things that way and would instead prefer to just accept what someone else told them without thinking much about it.  And I can usually finish in about the same amount of time as someone who just reads the manual.  But I think I get more from it the way I do it, with God's help, and sometimes it's just nice to do something with God there with me to help me as we do things together.

Is this what you do when your car breaks down? Pray to God and fix it with His help, ignoring all manuals and expert advice from mechanics?