The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Judging by his/her/its LQ blog entries, I'm inclined to believe that Lahunken might be a bot or something equally non-human. Humans wouldn't be able to write so much stuff that is so devoid of meaning.

Originally Posted by Lahunken God doesn't torment anybody. He gives us advise on how to take the safe way. If we disobey Him it's our own fault.

Also found here, word for word:

http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/gro.../message/15578

Futhermore, looking through its posting history shows that three out of four of the posts that it currently has here are word-for-word identical.

Everything that it's posted here (including each of its blog entries) has also been posted to other websites.

The only thing that separates "Lahunken" from the average spammer appears to be what they're motivated by.

Can I have an explanation for why this cut-n-paste-posting, board-hopping serial troll is allowed to post here?

Originally Posted by MrCode At this point, I'd suggest not feeding the troll…

Aren't there more efficient(and entertaining) ways to troll people than writing a "word salad"? Just saying.

Originally Posted by sycamorex Judging by his/her/its LQ blog entries, I'm inclined to believe that Lahunken might be a bot or something equally non-human. Humans wouldn't be able to write so much stuff that is so devoid of meaning.

Sure they would. It's called theology.

Originally Posted by reed9 Sure they would. It's called theology.

Funny but true..LOL

Originally Posted by reed9 Sure they would. It's called theology.

No. This is far more nonsensical.

Seriously, I'm familiar with this kind of "logic": from what I can tell, it seems to revolve around this whole "New Age" business, but even that's questionable. It seems like who/whatever wrote the original piece managed to borrow a few fancy physics/biology terms, added in a little conspiracy and "spirituality" hoo-hah, and threw it all into a blender to see what came out.

Note that I'm not trying to feed the troll here. Rather, I'm trying to point out what kind of troll he/she/it is.

Originally Posted by MrCode No. This is far more nonsensical. Seriously, I'm familiar with this kind of "logic": from what I can tell, it seems to revolve around this whole "New Age" business, but even that's questionable. It seems like who/whatever wrote the original piece managed to borrow a few fancy physics/biology terms, added in a little conspiracy and "spirituality" hoo-hah, and threw it all into a blender to see what came out. Note that I'm not trying to feed the troll here. Rather, I'm trying to point out what kind of troll he/she/it is.

That's the thing. I genuinely don't think it is more nutty that what we consider run-of-the-mill religious beliefs. It's like when Harold Camping prophecied the Rapture would happen May 21st. Most people laughed, but how is his belief that it would happen then any more absurd than the millions of people who believe it will happen sometime, but because they leave it unspecific? Apparently more than 40% of Americans think Christ will return by 2050.

Originally Posted by reed9 That's the thing. I genuinely don't think it is more nutty that what we consider run-of-the-mill religious beliefs. It's like when Harold Camping prophecied the Rapture would happen May 21st. Most people laughed, but how is his belief that it would happen then any more absurd than the millions of people who believe it will happen sometime, but because they leave it unspecific? Apparently more than 40% of Americans think Christ will return by 2050.

That's because you believe that it does not make sense to believe that kind of thing. But what would make your belief superior? Empiricism, logic, science? Those would only matter to someone who believes they do. But where is their foundation? That would need to be something that does not require itself to be assumed/believed. And what would that be? Any idea? Don't bother with objectivity, consensus or any of the other claptrap. All of them just beliefs.

Originally Posted by sycamorex Judging by his/her/its LQ blog entries, I'm inclined to believe that Lahunken might be a bot or something equally non-human. Humans wouldn't be able to write so much stuff that is so devoid of meaning.

obviously you never met Alred
he was very capable at writing stuff like that

deleted...

Originally Posted by reed9 That's the thing. I genuinely don't think it is more nutty that what we consider run-of-the-mill religious beliefs. It's like when Harold Camping prophecied the Rapture would happen May 21st. Most people laughed, but how is his belief that it would happen then any more absurd than the millions of people who believe it will happen sometime, but because they leave it unspecific? Apparently more than 40% of Americans think Christ will return by 2050.

He has returned either as a used car dealer, or a politician...

Originally Posted by tiredofbilkyyaforallican He has returned either as a used car dealer, or a politician...

I wonder which option in this poll Jesus would select if he joined LQ.

Originally Posted by jay73 That's because you believe that it does not make sense to believe that kind of thing. But what would make your belief superior? Empiricism, logic, science? Those would only matter to someone who believes they do. But where is their foundation? That would need to be something that does not require itself to be assumed/believed. And what would that be? Any idea? Don't bother with objectivity, consensus or any of the other claptrap. All of them just beliefs.

First of all "just beliefs" is a silly phrase. I have already discussed how everything is belief, and the difficulty is figuring out what constitutes justified belief.

Logic is a method to justify belief. For deductive logic, it's simply true by definition but does not have to be grounded in the real world. Math is all deductive logic. There is no way that 2+2 cannot equal 4 under the definitions of the terms. A valid deductive argument must be true.

For inductive logic, which is what most of science is, yes, there is a problem, in that there is no deductive justification for induction. This is Hume's Problem of Induction.

The answer is not, as you seem to suggest, pure relativism. If you really believe empiricism and induction to be insufficient, I invite you to go onto the roof of a very tall building and step off. We'll see whether my inductive, empirical justifications for believing you will fall are valid.

And therein lies the answer. Science works, empiricism and induction work. Figuring out why they work may be impossible and perhaps tomorrow they will suddenly stop working, but do you really deny the knowledge that led to computers and planes and rockets to the moon? Do you really deny that if I take a few thousand people with bacterial infections, give some of them an antibiotic, some of them a sugar pill, and some of them get no treatment, and almost all of the antibiotic group improve within a week while almost none of the other two groups improve, that we are justified in believing that antibiotics cure bacterial infection? Do you deny that pilots and ship captains are justified in believing the earth to be round and it would be irresponsible of them to act otherwise?

Originally Posted by reed9 Science works,

It doesn't automatically mean that existence of god can be proven/disproven using science.

Originally Posted by SigTerm It doesn't automatically mean that existence of god can be proven/disproven using science.

Where did I say it did? All I've ever said is that specific religious claims regarding the material universe can be disproven, such as a literal Adam and Eve or a 6000 year old earth.

And I've said, and this is philosophy, not science, that belief in God or the supernatural is not epistemically justified.