do people choose their religion?

[Immanuel Can]

WHICH theist exposure is correct?

Well, think about it this way: if some people say "Lacewing" is a 120 lb. 40 year old woman, and some say "Lacewing" is a 75 year old, 350 lb. man, we've got irreconcilable "exposures" to the idea of Lacewing. And the only one that's going to be correct is the one that actually corresponds to who Lacewing actually is.

[Lacewing]

WHICH theist exposure is correct?

Well, think about it this way...

Who knows which concept of a god actually corresponds to anything correct?

[Lacewing]

my beer virus humor thread: sure, folks bein' misled and the ones doin' the misleadin', that pretty much the whole thrust of it

Your almost obsessive focus on corruption and stupidity is your own brand of extremism about how you see people and life. It's short-sighted, and it's no better or truer than any other form of extremism you condemn.

[stacie]

WHICH theist exposure is correct?

Well, think about it this way: if some people say "Lacewing" is a 120 lb. 40 year old woman, and some say "Lacewing" is a 75 year old, 350 lb. man, we've got irreconcilable "exposures" to the idea of Lacewing. And the only one that's going to be correct is the one that actually corresponds to who Lacewing actually is.

If we are, say, talking about Lacewing's ideas, then her age, height or weight don't matter that much.

If we need to select a horse for Lacewing's to ride, weight becomes an issue. 350 lb would be too much for most horses - although not for a Clydesdale.

So "idea of Lacewing" is very much related to why this idea is important.

[Lacewing]

If we are, say, talking about Lacewing's ideas, then her age, height or weight don't matter that much.

I.C. seems to be comparing me to a god (since that's what we were talking about)... which is not an unfit comparison to make.

[Immanuel Can]

Who knows which concept of a god actually corresponds to anything correct?

If God exists, one necessarily does, just as if Lacewing exists, claims about her identity also necessarily are true or false.

Of course, we could suppose NO ideas about God are correct, and everybody is wrong. That's logically possible. But what we can never suppose is that CONTRADICTORY statements about God are all true. The Law of Non-Contradiction eliminates that possibility.

For man to have correct ideas about God, they would have to have some revelation from God. One thing for sure...we're not going to pull down any information without that. Without that, we're all equally at sea.

[Lacewing]

Who knows which concept of a god actually corresponds to anything correct?

If God exists, it necessarily does, just as if Lacewing exists, claims about her identity also necessarily are true or false.

But there aren't extensive imagined versions of me that legions of people have built entire religions around, I.C. What I say is right here on the forum, and everyone sees the same words. Interpretations of various gods' communication are widely varied and inconsistent... in print and orally.

If you truly know your god, why not simply answer the questions for that god? You often announce specifically what your god thinks, but when you're asked direct questions about that god, you dance and evade and project. Is your god so easily thwarted by questions that reveal contradictions... or is it just you who are thwarted by it?

[henry quirk]

anyone can be hoodwinked, but -- once you know you've been had -- you ought to put a stop to it or you get exactly what you deserve

Sure... if you ever get the awakening to realize it, and maybe some people don't or never do. Should stupid people be condemned to Hell?

Not as I see it: I'm a deist and have no hell.

[Immanuel Can]

Who knows which concept of a god actually corresponds to anything correct?

If God exists, it necessarily does, just as if Lacewing exists, claims about her identity also necessarily are true or false.

But there aren't extensive imagined versions of me that legions of people have built entire religions around, I.C. What I say is right here on the forum, and everyone sees the same words. Interpretations of various gods' communication are widely varied and inconsistent... in print and orally.

That doesn't even remotely present a problem. There are probably as many imagined versions of "Lacewing" as there are people she's talked with...no two alike. That doesn't imply that there's no real person behind the "Lacewing" name, and nothing objectively or uniquely true about her.

Likewise, there are false and true readings of what a person says. Those that conform to the speaker's intention are better readings than those that go wildly astray. There's no mystery to that much.

If you truly know your god, why not simply answer the questions for that god?

Well, because I'm not God.

But I can tell you what He says, if He has said something I happen to know about a particular subject. You can decide for yourself what you do about what He says. And it's never going to be me to whom you're accountable for what you do.

[henry quirk]

Jokes/claims about people being completely brainwashed or spoon-fed by the media.

my beer virus humor thread: sure, folks bein' misled and the ones doin' the misleadin', that pretty much the whole thrust of it

I don't think, however, in that thread, I've absolved the misled: quite the opposite, I think

anyone can be hoodwinked, but -- once you know you've been had -- you ought to put a stop to it or you get exactly what you deserve

That thread is a litany is rubbish that you want to believe. It's almost as if you love to participate in your own oppression.

yes, you're far too enlightened for such shenanigans

[henry quirk]

my beer virus humor thread: sure, folks bein' misled and the ones doin' the misleadin', that pretty much the whole thrust of it

Your almost obsessive focus on corruption and stupidity is your own brand of extremism about how you see people and life. It's short-sighted, and it's no better or truer than any other form of extremism you condemn.

yes, my thread of funny isn't your cuppa

[stacie]

Of course, we could suppose NO ideas about God are correct, and everybody is wrong. That's logically possible. But what we can never suppose is that CONTRADICTORY statements about God are all true. The Law of Non-Contradiction eliminates that possibility.

My understanding of the Law of Non-Contradiction is that its a law within formal logic, but one cannot just assume that everything in formal logic applies to the world.

[stacie]

If we are, say, talking about Lacewing's ideas, then her age, height or weight don't matter that much.

I.C. seems to be comparing me to a god (since that's what we were talking about)... which is not an unfit comparison to make.

Even so, surely the context of an idea, and of why its seen as important, is major factor?

[Immanuel Can]

My understanding of the Law of Non-Contradiction is that its a law within formal logic, but one cannot just assume that everything in formal logic applies to the world.

Well, "everything," no...but the Law of Non-Contradiction certainly does.

If you've really encountered it yet, then basically, it stipulates that when there are two genuinely equal and opposite statements, they cannot be true at the same time, and in the same way. One can be false, or both can be false; but there is absolutely no way for both to be simultaneously true.

Common sense reveals exactly the same thing. Aristotle just put it formally. And one of the most interesting places it applies is to questions about God.

Consider these three claims:

1. There are no gods. (Atheism)
2. There are many gods. (Polytheism)
3. There is only one God. (Monotheism)

One might not know which of these is true, perhaps. But one thing is for dead certain: at least two of the three are false, because the truthfulness of any one absolutely requires the falsehood of the other two. Moreover, since they cover all the possible alternatives, we can be quite certain one of the three is, in fact, true.

Interesting fact: whichever way is the right answer, a substantial number of people, subscribers to the other two views, are just dead wrong. And that's a certainty with no partisan considerations whatsoever.

[Skepdick]

Of course, we could suppose NO ideas about God are correct, and everybody is wrong. That's logically possible. But what we can never suppose is that CONTRADICTORY statements about God are all true. The Law of Non-Contradiction eliminates that possibility.

It's not a "Law". it's just a choice. If you are treating it as a '"Law" then you have invented an authority - a false God.

If you choose to subscribe to the LNC then you have chosen your religion. The Religion of Logicism.

If you've really encountered it yet, then basically, it stipulates that when there are two genuinely equal and opposite statements, they cannot be true at the same time, and in the same way. One can be false, or both can be false; but there is absolutely no way for both to be simultaneously true.

Q.E.D That's precisely the religious garbage one expects a Logicist would spew.

Do you care to precisely define what you mean by "genuinely equal and opposite statements"?
Do you care to precisely define what you mean by "the same time" and "simultaneously"?

If I can utter true contradictions. Why can't your God do it?

I know that I don't know anything.
I freely believe in the absence of free will.
There is nothing wrong with being wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism

Fuck your Gods. All of them.