User:K61824

Bad Box, damn it! user This user is a user. This user's Political Compass coordinates are (-6.62,-5.08). This user's Moral Politics results are -5.5,2.5. 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 This user does not know Kool-AidTM is offered at Conservapedia. GULP This user makes his own drinks. thank you very much. =3.0 This user wants to teach the real controversy. (1 Kings 7:23) moderate This user is stuck in the middle. E.G. This user likes to have examples to copy This user believes all religions are a form of psychosocial control and are therefore inherently bad for you. This user is concerned about the environment. "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Freedom of speech can be dangerous, but must be upheld by every one of us.

“”The fact that we stop our thinking at specified limits is hidden in the assumption that we are in agreement with an established authority, not seeing that it is we who have established that authority.

—James P. Carse, The Religious Case Against Belief

Stuff I am working on

• Project: fix the archived talk pages
• Castration
• God's lack of ability to deceit
• Transcendental argument for the existence of God
• Proof That God Exists: Analysis
• ICR tenets
• fun: legal classrom prayer

Thought experiment 1

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." 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."
• 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

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?

Followin' yer shameless POV pushin' on Archaeopteryx, 'tis been determined that ye be a parodist. Like all atheists, 'tis apparent that ye be a sock of Icewedge. Me has unilaterally wi'out discussion decided that ye will be monitored carefully. Ye best t' remember that this be t'Christian 'cyclopedia, an' ov'rly critical comments, such as yers 'bout Conservative 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 use t' "email this user" feature, which me been careful t' disable. Sincerely, Karajou 10:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC) Footnotes