Why?

[KennEnder]

Well, that's true enough, EL. There are plenty of examples of people being forced to "play the game" (participate) against their will. Slaves, Jews, American Indians... none of them wanted to play, but that didn't really matter.

I hate politics. But that doesn't make it go away. I can choose to ignore all elections, but my life will be affected by them nonetheless. There are plenty of people (even today) that know very little about the laws that govern them, but "ignorance is not an excuse" and will not protect them.

I believe a person is much happier before they know about the Game*, and although some people "thrive" on the Game, the Game sucks.

*Here, Game = Politics, right? I still don't want to know...

[Eaquae Legit]

No, "the game" isn't politics or anything concrete. It has no real world consequences except making you look like a dolt. It's just "the game," and it's rather irritating, so I'd say you probably don't want to know.

[suminonA]

The only thing that says the rules are undeniable are the rules themselves. It's rather circular.

That's exactly my point too. The problem is not "the game" (the meme itself is harmless, while having educative potential), but as KennEnder notes, the fact that this kind of "playing" or "Games" is rather generalized.

The funny (or rather, sad) fact is that people think they have the power to play the games they want, while most of the time they have no real power to "fight", especially when the Game* is not harmless at all.

A.

[BeansBrother]

I believe a person is much happier before they know about the Game*, and although some people "thrive" on the Game, the Game sucks.

HAH!

Sorry, that made me laugh.

But anyway, on a more serious a note (well, as serious as anything on this topic can get), this is like denying gravity (see my signature). Even if you deny the existence of "the game of Gravity" (I am using this as an example; the game consists of being effected by gravity), you are still playing the game, even if it is just, as suminonA said, passively playing the game. No matter what you do, you are still effected by gravity. Now, I am an active player, because I acknowledge gravity exists. But, people who don't are still players - they are still effected by gravity, or in the analogies case, they are still playing the game, whether they acknowledge it or not.

[Eaquae Legit]

Except you're comparing something physical to a game. People here have posted lists of the game's "rules," and they involve more than just knowing about the game. By those rules, you can't passively play the game. Nevermind that a game is, almost by definition, something one must actively participate in. Of course I'm affected by the existence of this stupid game. I'm affected by the existence of parcheesi, too, but that doesn't mean I play it.

Gravity doesn't work like that. Gravity doesn't care whether you think about it or not. It doesn't have arbitrary made-up rules. It doesn't have rules at all. It just has math. It doesn't demand anything of you. If there were no humans around, planets would still orbit.

Good Rahl but this conversation has given me new insight into how atheists must feel when someone tries to tell them the Bible is God's word because the Bible says so.

[BeansBrother]

The key word there is "almost." In this game, it does not demand that you actively participate, at least by my understanding of the rules. But, it does demand that you are affected by it. This is just as inevitable as gravity. Gravity does NOT demand that you acknowledge it; as you said, gravity does not demand anything of anybody. But, once again, by definition, gravity "demands" it effects you. It does not demand this as one person demands something of another person, it exists, and its point of existence is to effect the things around it (for the purpose of analogy I will call this everythying), and the game's existence is the same: it was meant to effect everyone.

[Eaquae Legit]

Of course I'm affected by the existence of this stupid game. I'm affected by the existence of parcheesi, too, but that doesn't mean I play it.

"Affected" does not mean "playing." I am affected by the existence of this game in the exact same way I am affected by the existence of parcheesi, except no one argues me about opting not to play parcheesi.

[BeansBrother]

The point I am trying to get across is that if you are affected by it, you are playing it. Back to my analogy, would you consider yourself playing the game of Gravity?

EDIT: Because if you are effected by the game of Gravity, you are playing it.

[Eaquae Legit]

No, because gravity isn't a game. Your analogy doesn't work. "The game" has rules. They're posted somewhere in this thread. "The game" demands more than plain awareness of it. It demands you play it, that you follow the rules. Its very name demands an active participation. Call it "the knowledge" and and demand nothing but my knowing, and I'll freely admit my inclusion. But I do not play this game.

[BeansBrother]

I will address your post systematically:

1. I created the game called "the Game of Gravity." This is just as someone can create the game of Pictionary. Pictionary is drawing and guessing, that's all. But technically, that's not a game, it's just something that people do. Yet, someone still made it a game. So yes, my analogy does work.

2. I reread the thread, and it said that, in the rules, it demands following the rules. I know this circular, but that is not the point. The point is that that is the only other rule that depends on nothing, and since this is circular, it really does not affect how the game is played. The other rules, the ones where one who knows about the game loses is based upon the PLAYING of the game, are not rules.

3. It does not demand that you play the game. Just, in the way that the game is, the game is ONLY played and ALWAYS played by those who know and don't know about the game, which happens to include everyone in existence.

4. Demanding that the rules are are followed is in the basis of almost anything in society.

5. So calling something a different name changes the meaning of it? Well, I think I will call the terrorists of the world saviors, and now, because I am calling them it, they are now the saviors of the world instead of the terrorists of the world? It seems I am not understanding something. Please inform of what I have misunderstood. [/sarcasm]

[Eaquae Legit]

Aaaand I think this conversation is over. Cheers.

[BeansBrother]

I am assuming you no longer want to speak of this, or that I am being forced into submission. Either way, I can't do anything about it, but it seems kind of rude that you want to end my point-making without my consent.

I guess, so we stop spamming this thread, we should take this to PMs, if you want to rebuke me or something.1

Cheers.

1: No offense intended, as I do not, nor have ever, intended to offend anyone, including you.

[Eaquae Legit]

I can't force you into anything. I just don't want to talk about it anymore. I'm tired of it. It's not getting anywhere. It's not a good use of my time when I have far more pressing things to deal with.

[Rei]

There are issues with that, though. Pictionary is drawing and guessing, but not all drawing and guessing is Pictionary. Further, gravity is still external of awareness and is irrelevant to that which is dependent on awareness. Something which exists by virtue of mathematical and physical rules which apply external of sentience is not equivalent to something which exists because a sentient being established a set of arbitrary rules with no purpose beyond the amusement of a few.

Also, the circular reasoning is in fact a significant point. If the reasoning is circular without any way to escape the circuit, it cannot hold. The game requires an appeal to an authority above that of average people in order to have validity whether average people wish it or not. Until this is the case, any individual has sufficient authority to declare it bunk or inapplicable to themself.

And with your third and subsequent points, you descend into nonsensical speech which has already been sufficiently addressed regarding an absence of valid, authoritative reasoning.

[Edit] Ah well, those were my thoughts and I shall join the troop of no longer derailing.

[eriador]

no, you can't say I'm playing the game. Why? Because I'm not, and I've told you that. I do not proclaim my status of winning or losing. I do not inform others about it. I do not insist other play it. I don't follow the rules. I'm not playing.

So... getting back to the topic, how is the missionary justified?

Lemme take your words and rephrase them a little bit:

"no, you can't say I'm going to Hell. Why? Because I'm not, and I've told you that. I do not proclaim my status of salvation or damnation. I do not inform others about it. I do not insist other believe it it. I don't follow the rules. I'm not playing."

You might outright deny "the Game," but then why believe in something (a religion) that can be denied just as easily?

[Rei]

Believing in atheism or agnosticism is as much a stance on believing as deism or theism. So one might just as easily say, why believe in something (the lack or unknowability of religion) that can be denied just as easily? The thing about sets of beliefs is that they cannot be as easily denied by individuals. Or rather, an average individual's rejection or acceptance of a set of beliefs does not determine the validity of that set of beliefs, nor provide their own beliefs with an authoritative state. Rather, an individual who makes a stand on a given set of beliefs must appeal to a higher authority. The authority whom nearly all cite is Reason. It is by appealing to her that atheists, agnostics, deists, and theists attempt to explain their beliefs to the others.

And yet, so many of us do. And that is because we believe in Reason and Faith. Some feel that Reason is incompetent and that it obscures that which shines through the aether. Some feel that Reason and Faith work together to bring to the earth what is made in heaven. Some feel that Faith is a liar and that she never did journey through the aether to heaven. But we all appeal to one or both of those authorities. So it is not so easy to deny a stance on God. There is an authority beyond the individuals who have sets of beliefs, and it is by that authority that they justify to others why they believe it.

The real issue is not "Why believe something at all?" but rather "Why believe exactly what you believe?" and "Is that reasoning consistent and valid according to their premises, and why those premises?"

[eriador]

Believing in atheism or agnosticism is as much a stance on believing as deism or theism.

I'm not even gonna read anything following that sentence. In short, you're an idiot. We've been over it. You can't prove a negative, okay? Get over it.



Anyway... I'll ask again: why believe in something that can be reasonably dismissed offhand?

[zeroguy]

Wow, look at all the replies! I probably forgot some stuff I wanted to respond to while reading, but oh well.

There are issues with that, though. Pictionary is drawing and guessing, but not all drawing and guessing is Pictionary. Further, gravity is still external of awareness and is irrelevant to that which is dependent on awareness. Something which exists by virtue of mathematical and physical rules which apply external of sentience is not equivalent to something which exists because a sentient being established a set of arbitrary rules with no purpose beyond the amusement of a few.

I do not believe that you can prove that gravity is not a figment of my imagination. Thus, I see no distinction in theory.

Also, the circular reasoning is in fact a significant point. If the reasoning is circular without any way to escape the circuit, it cannot hold. The game requires an appeal to an authority above that of average people in order to have validity whether average people wish it or not. Until this is the case, any individual has sufficient authority to declare it bunk or inapplicable to themself.

Aren't all systems either inherently circular, or require something from outside the system as a starting point? (See also: Gödel's incompleteness theorem)

And that last sentence; yeah, I believe my last post said essentially that. I don't see the need for that "until" stuff though; that's just the way it is and will be.

And this whole Game thing reminds me of this. Exercise to the reader: find the flaw in that argument.

[Edit] Ah well, those were my thoughts and I shall join the troop of no longer derailing.

Must this stop? I just came back! I lost a lot of time since reading this thread reminded me of almost all of 1/0 (specifically, the late 600s), and made me read some of it. (Sorry about linking comics in a thread like this, but hey, it's relevant!)

[eriador]

(The error? Yeah... it's that the definition of "God" is arbitrary. If you define God as existing, he exists)

[zeroguy]

Say I define God to be "the greatest jelly donut[sic] in existence" in my right hand, kinda like Ian did in the antepenultimate panel. I look in my right hand, but I see no doughnut. Clearly He does not exist as I have just defined Him.

[Slim]

2 problems with "the Game" 1st: Since I now know about the game, I have lost, so why am I still playing? 2nd: As has been stated, it defines itself as existing, which I do not believe.

So, with that, back to what we are talking about.

Wow.... I really like where this discussion has gone.

One thing that I haven't heard addressed though is how the missionary can reconcile his stated purpose (allow as many people as possible to go to heaven) with his method (which will cause those who reject him to go to hell).

I think I may have answered this in my previous post, but maybe I can explain this part more clearly.

First, the question is what happens to those who do not hear at all? If they go to hell, then obviously missionaries should teach. The original post, however, gave the answer that that is not the case. So, that leaves the assumption that those that do not hear go to heaven, which if true, does leave one baffled as to not only why there are missionaries, but any churches at all, as ignorance gives infinitely better chances of going to heaven.

As I said in my previous post, I reject both these theories, and I believe those who do not hear the gospel and have a chance to accept/reject the gospel will be taught and given the choice after death, before the Final Judgment.

So maybe the only question that remains is, "So why do you bother teaching now? why not wait until after death?"

First, I believe that those who would reject the gospel during mortality would still reject it after death. In addition, I believe that there are blessings to be had now, in life. I believe mortality is the time to repent and serve God. I believe that the more experience we have in mortality living the gospel, we will have all the more of a head start after death.

[eriador]

... assuming that there's a life after death. Where do you get that?

[BeansBrother]

Now, Slim, your thought process is circular. Please read the following example.

I believe those who do not hear the gospel and have a chance to accept/reject the gospel will be taught and given the choice after death, before the Final Judgment.

Now, you are clearly implying that to move onward to "heaven," you must accept the gospel (which, by the way, is obviously an opinion-based statement). But, believing that the only way to go to "heaven" is to believe the gospel is stated inside the gospel, if I am correct.

Therefore, the gospel says that you must believe the gospel... so now we need an authoratative figure (perhaps God, but if it is God, then "God" needs to tell it to EVERYONE, and not just the people who believe in the Gospel) to tell us whether or not it is correct in the beginning.

So, therefore, your question does not really have an answer, as, until further notice by a higher being, there really is no life after death, or at least no "Final Judgement."

[Eaquae Legit]

Presumably after death you would get that "further notice." Or not, in which case the question is moot and Slim has lived a happy and content life with his beliefs anyway.

[BeansBrother]

Well, I understand that, but if you get that further notice later after death, then there is no reason to believe that there really will be no notice, because for those atheists/agnostics, they don't believe in an afterlife (or at least some kind of heaven [sorry, I am generalizing, so if I offend anyone, please inform me]), so why would there be any reason to convert, if there really is no afterlife after all, and one would never really get that further notice?

[Eaquae Legit]

(Slim, feel free to correct me any time, it's been a few years since the sisters visited me.)

Because there are certain benefits to having believed while still in an earthly body.

[BeansBrother]

Because there are certain benefits to having believed while still in an earthly body.

Aren't those benefits only applicable if there is an afterlife to be awarded in?

So if you don't believe, then there are no benefits to believing, and there are benefits to not believing, e.g. not having to spend time at a church when you could be off doing something you believe in with your time, or all that other time "wasted" by praying and what not.

[Eaquae Legit]

Yes.

And if there is an afterlife, you missed out. It's called Pascal's Wager (Mormon Edition [TM]).

[BeansBrother]

Ah... I see now. So for atheists, there is no reason in believing, because atheists are sure "Heaven" does not exist, so atheists could possibly pity theists, while the opposite occurs for theists to atheists, right?

[Eaquae Legit]

Ah... I see now. So for atheists, there is no reason in believing, because atheists are sure "Heaven" does not exist, so atheists could possibly pity theists, while the opposite occurs for theists to atheists, right?

I think, if I am reading you correctly.

[BeansBrother]

Well, that settles it then. That means that we are really clueless until we die, which is when we find out the answer, and by that point, we can no longer tell anyone else the answer.

[eriador]

so then where the hell does religion come from? If we can agree on what BB said, then we have to acknowledge that religion is arbitrary.

[BeansBrother]

The need to have something intelligible to come out of something unintelligible.

[Eaquae Legit]

so then where the hell does religion come from? If we can agree on what BB said, then we have to acknowledge that religion is arbitrary.

I refer you back to the post I made somewhere about the atheism-agnostic-theist spectrum. Some people refuse to admit they could possibly be wrong in their belief for or against deity existing. Those people are generally highly annoying.

Others admit they could be wrong but have settled on a position anyway. They don't see things as "clueless," they just acknowledge that the question won't finally and unequivocally be answered until after death.

[eriador]

But why believe before death? It's not gonna do you any good, right?