[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-December-20, 00:28, said:

And even worse are those who promote violence in the name of religion (not just religous terrorists, but also advocates of murdering abortion doctors).

I'd say those advocates are religious terrorists too.

[wyman]

Antrax, on 2012-December-20, 03:22, said:

I wish we had them over here. I wonder whether P = NP.

Waste of a question. It doesn't.

[Antrax]

Seems probable, but hardly certain. I wouldn't consider it a waste.

[wyman]

Antrax, on 2012-December-20, 08:55, said:

Seems probable, but hardly certain. I wouldn't consider it a waste.

In the grand scheme of things, the question that you want to ask God is: "Does P=NP?" I just don't see the importance, especially given our priors on the answer. [Maybe if he could provide you a proof, so that you could score the cool $1M, I'd understand, but that would be academically dishonest. Unless of course you believe that God provides us all of our thoughts, in which case it's probably kosher.]

You don't want to understand human inequity? hunger? war? massacre? You don't want to know why anyone in history did what they did, or how? You don't want to know about life beyond our planet? Or about the afterlife, if any? Which stories in the bible are literal, and which are parable?

Even if my sole purpose in life were to troll Jehovah's Witnesses, I think I could come up with more interesting questions than P=NP. And I'm a mathematician.

[Antrax]

Too abstract for me - I doubt answers to "your" questions would enlighten me. Let's say God tells me there's human inequity because of the way our brains are wired, and it's a must to let us have free will. How is that more satisfying? Not trying to troll, it honestly seems like a good use of the question, assuming you're not trying to gain fame or wealth.

[barmar]

If you want to troll a JW, it probably won't work to ask the traditional religious paradox questions. They almost certainly have scripts for "Why is there evil/hunger in the world?" and "Why does God allow innocent children to be killed/molested/die of horrible diseases?".

But P=NP will almost certainly stump them (most likely because they won't even understand the question).

[dwar0123]

Antrax, on 2012-December-20, 09:36, said:

Too abstract for me - I doubt answers to "your" questions would enlighten me. Let's say God tells me there's human inequity because of the way our brains are wired, and it's a must to let us have free will. How is that more satisfying? Not trying to troll, it honestly seems like a good use of the question, assuming you're not trying to gain fame or wealth.

Given the nature of God, existing outside our Universe, setting the rules for it, all powerful and all knowing.

I object to you applying a must upon him. That is a limitation of his powers. We may not be able to see how you could have one without the other, but we are not God nor are we privy to all the possible variations by which the Rules of the Universes could have been formed.

[dwar0123]

barmar, on 2012-December-20, 10:48, said:

But P=NP will almost certainly stump them (most likely because they won't even understand the question).

Shrug, it's a yes or no question. Give an answer and say its as God decreed. As the context for a meaningful conversation doesn't exist the question is in all honesty rather boring to ask anyone not actually invested in the topic.

[wyman]

I am both happy and sad re: the JW's response to Phil, though. The easy out is "God reveals himself in different ways to different people. Keep your eyes open; he shows himself to everyone" or some such. But it is also a little refreshing that he treats what he's selling as truth, and so rather than ad-libbing, he was honest enough to say that he didn't know and that he'd ask.

[Phil]

wyman, on 2012-December-20, 11:04, said:

I am both happy and sad re: the JW's response to Phil, though. The easy out is "God reveals himself in different ways to different people. Keep your eyes open; he shows himself to everyone" or some such. But it is also a little refreshing that he treats what he's selling as truth, and so rather than ad-libbing, he was honest enough to say that he didn't know and that he'd ask.

Like many sales-based organizations (and organized religion is the epitome), they are given a script and presentation materials. All goes ATP when their prospect asks questions like Barmar suggests. A little ad-libbing might have led to an interesting discussion, instead of leaving me for a better prospect. But time is money I suppose.

And I really wasn't trying to troll them on my doorstep. They will be a much more effective disciple if they actually ponder the nature of God and life and reject or refute my conclusion, instead of following dogma.

[Antrax]

barmar, on 2012-December-20, 10:48, said:

But P=NP will almost certainly stump them (most likely because they won't even understand the question).

Not sure they won't, the question is fairly famous. And dawr0123, it's a yes/no question but the answer is still interesting. It would be better to understand *why*, but even just knowing (or knowing that it could go either way) would be interesting. Also, based on what I already know about complexity, I have serious doubts I would be able to understand *why* - honestly there are some results that are already known that I can't wrap my head around.
But I'm done hijacking this thread. Sorry.

[han]

Surprise surprise, most of us say that we are very tolerant. But should we be tolerant towards the Jehova witnesses? How tolerant do you think they are when one of their children decides not to be a Jehova witness?

I am not saying that we should be unfriendly to the people on Phil's doorstep. We shouldn't, it is very likely that they have nothing but the best of intentions. But I think that their organization is completely immoral, and being tolerant or even supportive of that organization seems really bad to me.

Trinidad considers himself a tolerant non-believer. He thinks that telling another kid that he will go to hell because he doesn't believe in god is comparable to saying that you don't believe in god when asked about your religion. After all, both kids are just telling what they think, and it is shocking to the other kid. I don't agree with this, it is not the same. The parents have taught the other kid that Deb's kid is evil because he doesn't share their beliefs. Deb hasn't taught her kid that the religious kids are evil, at least I have never heard of such a thing. Perhaps the other parents have also taught their kid that homosexuals are evil, or who knows what. I don't think that is all fine, and I appreciate that some people are willing to speak up to it.

[dwar0123]

han, on 2012-December-20, 13:21, said:

Trinidad considers himself a tolerant non-believer. He thinks that telling another kid that he will go to hell because he doesn't believe in god is comparable to saying that you don't believe in god when asked about your religion. After all, both kids are just telling what they think, and it is shocking to the other kid. I don't agree with this, it is not the same. The parents have taught the other kid that Deb's kid is evil because he doesn't share their beliefs. Deb hasn't taught her kid that the religious kids are evil, at least I have never heard of such a thing. Perhaps the other parents have also taught their kid that homosexuals are evil, or who knows what. I don't think that is all fine, and I appreciate that some people are willing to speak up to it.

I dunno, it sounds like you are dangerously close to saying that your way of raising kids is the right way, and their way is the wrong way.

You may not be teaching your kids that the religious kids are evil, but you are sure coming close to saying their parents are.

[han]

But I do think that it is wrong to teach children that people who believe differently then they do are evil. I think it is harmful to their children, and I think that it is harmful to society. I sure hope that I wouldn't raise children my children that way.

What are you saying in your second sentence? By saying that I think it is wrong to teach children to think that people who believe differently are evil, I would be raising my kids to think that kids of people who teach their kids to think that people who believe differently are evil, are evil? In other words, are you saying that because I think that people should teach their kids to be tolerant of other peoples opinions, I would teach my kids to be intolerant of kids who are raised intolerantly? Wow, that's a weird sort of logic, but I like it!

[BunnyGo]

I had a teacher growing up who would invite the JW in to lecture them about the bible--it helps when you can quote it in the original and 1000 years of commentary and philosophical debate about it. He used to come to class afterwards and teach us about their discussion...needless to say the JW used to run away from him, which is a change.

[mikeh]

I see nothing wrong with confining the proper bounds of intolerance to:

1. proactive intolerance of activities that are criminal, as defined by the laws enacted by democratically elected representatives, and interpeted by educated, trained judges and

2. reactive intolerance of all other forms of intolerance


Thus in debrose's child's case, his expression of his atheism is not an expression of intolerance towards those who believe in a god. However, the reaction by a child-believer to the effect that the atheist will burn in hell is a proactive intolerance and hence ought not to be tolerated.


I am sure that there are nuances and situations in which this simplistic stance would seem (and be) wrong or unworkable. And I recognize that some laws, tho validly passed, are either unjust ab initio or become to be widely seen as unjust. I do not intend my first proposition to 'require' proactive intolerance, merely to suggest that proactive intolerance ought not to extend, in terms of the internal workings of any society, beyond that realm.

[dwar0123]

han, on 2012-December-20, 14:13, said:

But I do think that it is wrong to teach children that people who believe differently then they do are evil. I think it is harmful to their children, and I think that it is harmful to society. I sure hope that I wouldn't raise children my children that way.

What are you saying in your second sentence? By saying that I think it is wrong to teach children to think that people who believe differently are evil, I would be raising my kids to think that kids of people who teach their kids to think that people who believe differently are evil, are evil? In other words, are you saying that because I think that people should teach their kids to be tolerant of other peoples opinions, I would teach my kids to be intolerant of kids who are raised intolerantly? Wow, that's a weird sort of logic, but I like it!

You can crouch your viewpoint in terms of intolerant vs tolerant just as the religious can crouch their viewpoint in terms of being with God and being outside of God.

Would you tolerate someone who allows their child to randomly spray bullets in a classroom? Look at it from their perspective, to not believe in God is to condemn their child to eternal damnation. If you really believe that then allowing your child to be corrupted by the kid who doesn't believe is risking far worse than death itself. If you really believe this, could you easily tolerate that risk? You don't believe in their version of hell, so to you it doesn't seem like a risk at all, but to them it is EVERYTHING.

I am not trying to change your viewpoint about religion, we actually agree, I am just trying to point out that I don't think you are really appreciating the other point of view and maybe you should be teaching your kids to be tolerant even of the intolerant.

[mikeh]

dwar0123, on 2012-December-20, 14:44, said:

maybe you should be teaching your kids to be tolerant even of the intolerant.

no

would you teach your kids to tolerate the physical bullying of another kid? Why not? Or, more scary, why?

[dwar0123]

mikeh, on 2012-December-20, 14:52, said:

no

would you teach your kids to tolerate the physical bullying of another kid? Why not? Or, more scary, why?

Not sure what that has to do with tolerating parents teaching their children about their intolerant religion.

Of course I wouldn't teach my children to tolerate bullying.

[mikeh]

dwar0123, on 2012-December-20, 15:10, said:

Not sure what that has to do with tolerating parents teaching their children about their intolerant religion.

Of course I wouldn't teach my children to tolerate bullying.

So how do you differientate kids telling another kid that he will burn in hell, as will his parents, because he doesn't believe in god? or do you think that physical violence is intolerable but that verbal violence is not?

As I see it, we are discussing intolerant parents teaching their intolerance to their children who then verbally bully another child, and you think we should let this go unchallenged?