From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Bad Box, damn it!
user This user is a user.

Political compass small logo.gif
This user's Political Compass coordinates are (-6.62,-5.08).
Moral compass logo.png
This user's Moral Politics results are -5.5,2.5.
Agnostic Question Mark.svg This user is an agnostic; they don't know if there's a God.
God? This user doesn't know WTF people meant by "God".
♩♪♫♬ This user prefers music in languages that he does not understand.
???!!! This user can be classified as an idiot.
CCCP This user thinks that CCCP is a codec pack to watch movies
Kool-AidMan.jpg This user does not know Kool-AidTM is offered at Conservapedia.
GULP This user makes his own drinks. thank you very much.

Pi-symbol.gif=3.0 This user wants to teach the real controversy.
(1 Kings 7:23)
This user is stuck in the middle.
This user likes to have examples to copy
Stop hand.png
This user believes all religions are a form of psychosocial control and are therefore inherently bad for you.
Blue Marble.jpg
This user is concerned about the environment.
Christopher Hitchens crop 2.jpg
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Karikatur 7.jpg Freedom of speech can be dangerous, but must be upheld by every one of us.

However, if as a work of literature the New Testament is confused, as a religious literature it's a glorious confusiuon. It's abiding power lies precisely in the fact that every attempt to improve it is doomed.
—James P. Carse, The Religious Case Against Belief


Stuff I am working on[edit]

Thought experiment 1[edit]

Let's say some shit accident happens which may or may not involve death and/or personal injury. Deeply religious people will have the following responses ready at their disposal for most outcomes:

  • If nobody is injured: "Thank <Insert name of deity> that everyone is fine."
  • If someone died: "<Insert name of victim> is in <Insert name of Good Place for Afterlife> now.[1]" or "<Insert name of deity> likes <Insert name of victim> so much, now <Insert pronoun for the aforementioned deity> is summoning <Insert pronoun of victim> to <Insert name of Good Place for Afterlife> through this tragedy[2]."
  • If someone is heavily/permanently injured/disabled: "By the <Insert name/section of scripture with similarities>, our faith is being tested; we will have unbreakable faith no matter what happens; it's in <Insert name of deity>'s plan to make <Insert pronoun of victim> stronger than ever."

Thought experiment 2[edit]

Argument: We should be happy about the death of any individual who is with a religion which asserts a good place for the afterlife (Heaven in the derivation, other religion is a matter of substitution of names) Derivation:

  1. Assumption: The religion that the victim was with asserts that going to heaven after death is a good thing
  2. Assumption: The religion that the victim was with asserts that if one belongs to their religion, he/she goes to heaven after death
  3. Observation: the person died (Assumption: we don't have sufficient information on causes of death, so we assume it is within the rules).
  4. Conclusion from 2 and 3: The religion that the victim was with asserts that said person goes to heaven.
  5. Conclusion from 1 and 4: Death of said person is implicitly a good thing (from his/her own perspective)
  6. Inference: We should congratulate said person's family member(s) for [the belief that] said person is in heaven

What we observe people do is somehow different:

  1. Observation: Somehow being happy about the death of an individual is treated as if it is a bad thing, which contradicts the previous derivation.
  2. Suggested explanation: It is suggested that the mortals who still lives (family members) 'misses' those who are in heaven.
  3. Inference from 2: we should suggest them to wait for their turn, also be aware of any hidden rules regarding front-running afterlifes.
  4. Observation: 3 is still kind of disrespectful to the family members.

So the Dilemma is as follows:

  • If we aren't happy when someone religious died, then it is disrespectful to their beliefs/religion (We are implicitly accusing that their religion is incoherent) or the individual themselves (that we implicitly accuse them breaking certain rules and not going to heaven)
  • If we are happy about their death, then it is disrespectful to their family members

Some may say such things are valid, others say it is utterly ridiculous. Some even implying the general case is valid but not the specific cases.

I am confused.

Random Quote from CP?[edit]

After yer mention of a forbidden vandal site in Talk:Conservapedia Commandments, t' consensus among senior administrators be that ye be t' bully here. Like all parodists, 'tis apparent that ye be a sock of Icewedge. After much debate, twas decided that ye will walk the plank. Ye best t' remember that this be t'conservative 'cyclopedia, an' ov'rly critical comments, such as yers 'bout Andy be pointless an' futile an' t'will be reverted. In conclusion, if ye think ye were blocked unfairly, an' would like to discuss this, please send me an email.

Sincerely, Karajou 16:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


  1. That also happens to be the same thing said about the <Insert name of aquatic lifeform people kept as pet>, which is then promptly flushed down the toilet.
  2. How would that be a tragedy if the victim is front-running the afterlife?