Franko and Deism.org

[Plutarck]

jkorosi:

Prediction: Franko will use the same tactics he always uses unless you sufficiently corner him, in which case you are just posting nonsense and he won't waste his time with you anymore - basically, what he does with everyone else.


Oh, and about Yalel. I can't actually figure out if he's kidding. Sometimes it seems like it's a parody, but other times it's hard to believe his not just faking it.

 

[Tricky]

I've played AD&D in high school, although I didn't get as caught up in it as others did (i.e., to the point of being confused as to when the game stops and reality starts), so I am familiar with the concepts. But that is beside the point.

My problem with the D&D analogy is that it begs the question. In D&D, you know there is a DM...you directly communicate with this person throughout the entire game. You can see the DM's face - although not whatever they're working on, due to the screen. The DM is as much a player in the game as anyone, albeit with a more involved role. He does a lot more than just "subtly and mysteriously direct the course of the game"...he's not like the mysterious voice in the Gauntlet video games that does nothing but say "Red Warrior needs food, badly" every once in awhile.

But the D&D analogy, while it describes the God hypothesis in a sense, cannot be used to prove the truth of the God hypothesis. Franko asked "how is reality different from a game of D&D?" I say that it's different because in D&D, everyone knows there's a DM...but in reality, the existence of the "DM" is very much in question.

Good points, jkorosi, but there are more holes in the D&D analogy that it takes to fill the Albert Hall. For example:

• The DM cannot control the players decisions. He can determinge the outcome of those decisions, but if the DM knew in advance what would happen, there would be no point in playing.
• The DM cannot decide what people/creatures populate it's "world". Players bring their own characters to the game.
• Players can decide not to be in the DM's world. When presented with a tyrannical, intransigent DM, they will simply move to another game with a better DM.

There are many others, but the simple fact is that D&D is a game. It is not reality, nor is it a good model of reality. If you want a better model of reality, try The Game Of Life (the board game, not the flipping-disk game.)

 

[Checkmite]

Good points, jkorosi, but there are more holes in the D&D analogy that it takes to fill the Albert Hall. For example:

• The DM cannot control the players decisions. He can determinge the outcome of those decisions, but if the DM knew in advance what would happen, there would be no point in playing.
• The DM cannot decide what people/creatures populate it's "world". Players bring their own characters to the game.
• Players can decide not to be in the DM's world. When presented with a tyrannical, intransigent DM, they will simply move to another game with a better DM.

There are many others, but the simple fact is that D&D is a game. It is not reality, nor is it a good model of reality. If you want a better model of reality, try The Game Of Life (the board game, not the flipping-disk game.)

I dimly remember that game (Life)...from a long, long time ago. Loved it.

You've also raised good points regarding Franko's D&D analogy. I say on the ten-die, under 60 Franko responds with a defense of the D&D analogy - and Tricky's charisma is +2 for capturing Franko in his "gravity". Over 60, Franko responds with an insulting "fluff" post (possibly involving a complaint about ass-kissing) and Franko's charisma is -3.

 

[Ipecac]

Ipecac,

Wasn’t it you that I explained this very point too already? I know I have mentioned this (nearly) exact scenario in relationship to the notion of Karma. Just because you decided to be sane at the last minute doesn’t mean that all of the debts you accrued don’t have to be paid. The deathbed conversion is just you acknowledging “I WILL PAY MY DEBTS”.

Actually I remember reading several articles a few years back about how homosexuals with AIDS were going on crime sprees. The reasons, were some of them figured they’d get better health care in prison, but many found or figured out that they weren’t being prosecuted for the same reason – the government didn’t want the cost of taking care of terminally ill convicts who might spread the disease through the prison system.

I can’t even believe that you are arguing this point, it is so completely absurd in my mind!! Haven’t you ever heard of the concept of Rewards and Punishments? (I am guessing you DO NOT have children?)Are you really telling me that positive an negative reinforcement have no effect on behavior? Because unless you have been actually arguing that devout A-Theists are actually less moral people, it sounds like you are arguing that 50+ years of behavioral research are DEAD WRONG. What is your evidence for this belief? I don’t expect anything out of those retards – Trixy, Plutard, Whodidi, UpBlurch, or Diogenes (did I miss any consistent idiots [Fool, Doubt]) – they sure as hell aren’t going to actually defend their nonsense, but they don’t seem to have totally degraded your algorithm down to nothing yet. You still have a chance.

A-Theists are Evil humans. But like Christians, simply calling yourself an A-Theist alone is not the sum of it. You also have to be an A-Theist in Deed – in Action. In other words, not all A-Theists are devout, they pay the Faith Lip-service, but little more. These A-Theists aren’t quite as evil. But they sure as Hell ain’t helping themselves either.

You believe that there is evidence for “free will”, and no evidence for “god”.

I believe that there is evidence for “God”, and no evidence for “free will”.

Your universe is inside out, and backwards.

Franko,

I was talking about certain sects of Christianity (none of whom buy the concept of karma). People who believe with all of their heart that they can accept Jesus on their death bed and all is forgiven. Using your logic, shouldn't these people feel free to run amuck? (And not just for six months. These people could run amuck their entire lives and be saved, so long as they accept Jesus and ask forgiveness on their death bed.) I don't think you answered my point here. Why wouldn't they behave as you suggest?

While I will accept (without any evidence, I might add) the idea that some people with AIDs may have committed crimes to receive care, I don't think it proves your point. These people weren't committing crimes because there were no consequences, they were committing crimes to enhance their comfort and possible survival. Better to survive in prison than die in the street.

You would be wrong in your assumption that I don't have children. You would also be wrong in assuming that because something doesn't make sense in your mind, it shouldn't make sense in someone else's.

Of course positive and negative reinforcement can affect behavior. Therefore, when an atheist is given six months to live, having learned the positive/negative reinforcement lesson, he will still behave himself as he has been taught his whole life. He won't suddenly be free from the morality he has learned. You seem to be arguing that given six months to live, people (I'm sorry, atheists) will change their basic nature. So much so that they will feel free to commit any crime. Do you have any evidence for this belief other than your own opinions?

My universe is inside out and backwards? How many adherents are there to your logical deism? I would respectfully suggest that any time you are the only person in the world who believes something, you might want to consider that you're wrong.

 

[Ipecac]

• The DM cannot control the players decisions. He can determinge the outcome of those decisions, but if the DM knew in advance what would happen, there would be no point in playing.
• The DM cannot decide what people/creatures populate it's "world". Players bring their own characters to the game.
• Players can decide not to be in the DM's world. When presented with a tyrannical, intransigent DM, they will simply move to another game with a better DM.

One small correction to your second point. A DM can decide what people/creatures to let into the world. Many groups roll up characters specifically for a new game. That way the players can't come in with super-human characters and easily defeat the scenario designed by the DM.

 

[Upchurch]

• The DM cannot control the players decisions. He can determinge the outcome of those decisions, but if the DM knew in advance what would happen, there would be no point in playing.

• 
  
  Oh. Good point. Forgot that Franko doesn't include free will in his world view. Is it possible he added it in later as he developed the idea?
  
  Upchurch

 

[Tricky]

One small correction to your second point. A DM can decide what people/creatures to let into the world. Many groups roll up characters specifically for a new game. That way the players can't come in with super-human characters and easily defeat the scenario designed by the DM.

I concede this point. Don't the players get to choose the character class they are rolling for though? The DM still couldn't know in advance if he was going to face ten warriors or ten wizards.

 

[Ipecac]

I concede this point. Don't the players get to choose the character class they are rolling for though? The DM still couldn't know in advance if he was going to face ten warriors or ten wizards.

Practices vary and it depends on the game being played. In our campaigns, the DM asks people what class they want to play and the players agree who will play what. That way we have a balanced group.

I imagine most regular groups work as we do, as a collaboration between the players and DM to design and play a balanced game that's a challenge to the players and fun for the DM.

 

[Upchurch]

Regardless, it seems to me that there are enough inconsistancies to assume that Franko didn't pull all, if any, of his religious beliefs from playing to much D&D. It was just an idea. Of course, Franko has never been known for his overly logical mind. It could just be a preversion of the game rules.

Regardless, I've not been following Franko's posts forever. Does anyone know or remember where this weird corruption of physics principles came from? The whole gravitons with spin thing?

Upchurch

 

[Ipecac]

Regardless, it seems to me that there are enough inconsistancies to assume that Franko didn't pull all, if any, of his religious beliefs from playing to much D&D. It was just an idea. Of course, Franko has never been known for his overly logical mind. It could just be a preversion of the game rules.

Regardless, I've not been following Franko's posts forever. Does anyone know or remember where this weird corruption of physics principles came from? The whole gravitons with spin thing?

Upchurch

Absolutely. Life may be like a box of chocolates, but it's not much like a game of D&D.

Your question is one I've been wondering, not having participated in the R&P board for very long.

Franko, I'd be pleased to hear the origins of your belief. They are, at the very least, unique. How did you come about them?

 

[Franko]

Ipecac,

[Karma …]I was talking about certain sects of Christianity (none of whom buy the concept of karma). People who believe with all of their heart that they can accept Jesus on their death bed and all is forgiven. Using your logic, shouldn't these people feel free to run amuck? (And not just for six months. These people could run amuck their entire lives and be saved, so long as they accept Jesus and ask forgiveness on their death bed.) I don't think you answered my point here. Why wouldn't they behave as you suggest?

They wouldn’t (according to how you have defined this sect). They might likely get cast back to the abyss the same as anyone else who is not compatible. Does the fact that a lot of brand-name theists go to Hell, make the Atheists feel better about going there themselves?

While I will accept (without any evidence, I might add) the idea that some people with AIDs may have committed crimes to receive care, I don't think it proves your point. These people weren't committing crimes because there were no consequences, they were committing crimes to enhance their comfort and possible survival. Better to survive in prison than die in the street.

Ipecac, the fact of the matter is that the notion of Rewards and punishments – positive and negative reinforcement is a well known and established fact. If you want to argue that people occasionally and randomly run “red” lights, or that the Behaviorists are Dead Wrong, then you are talking to the wrong guy. I have no interest in explaining the basics of human nature to you.

Of course positive and negative reinforcement can affect behavior.

“Can”, or do you mean “Always Does, and is the only thing that does”?

… Therefore, when an atheist is given six months to live, having learned the positive/negative reinforcement lesson, he will still behave himself as he has been taught his whole life.

His whole life he has been taught that when he is about to die there is the same punishment (ceasing to exist) regardless of what he does.

… He won't suddenly be free from the morality he has learned.

What morality did he learn? Other than doing what benefited him, what other morality does he have?

… You seem to be arguing that given six months to live, people (I'm sorry, atheists) will change their basic nature.

No … they are pretty much evil their whole entire lives. I’m not saying they change.

… So much so that they will feel free to commit any crime.

All crimes are committed by A-Theists (Atheists at heart). Anyone who Truly believed in Karma wouldn’t commit a crime. They’d only be committing a crime against themselves.

Do you have any evidence for this belief other than your own opinions?

I was going to ask you the same question. B.F. Skinner and the Laws of Physics agree with me. Other than the A-Theistic Religious fanatics on this site, what evidence do you have?

My universe is inside out and backwards? How many adherents are there to your logical deism? I would respectfully suggest that any time you are the only person in the world who believes something, you might want to consider that you're wrong.

Even if that were True, are you claiming that the Truth of Reality is decided by Majority Vote? If that is the case, then guess what – Atheism is False.

 

[Franko]

Dungeons and dragons …

The DM cannot control the players decisions. He can determinge the outcome of those decisions, but if the DM knew in advance what would happen, there would be no point in playing.

The Dm can do whatever he wants. Its his world. He wants your character to have a heart attack … and you have a heart attack. If that is not controlling your destiny … then what is it?

The DM cannot decide what people/creatures populate it's "world". Players bring their own characters to the game.

That’s not true, and even if it were in D&D its not true here.

Players can decide not to be in the DM's world. When presented with a tyrannical, intransigent DM, they will simply move to another game with a better DM.

The nearest exit from this game (if you are tired of playing) can be found at the top of the closest tall bridge or High Building. Thanks for playing!!!

Franko, I'd be pleased to hear the origins of your belief. They are, at the very least, unique. How did you come about them?

I was working on a computer program … and one day I ran it.

 

[Ipecac]

Ipecac,

They wouldn’t (according to how you have defined this sect). They might likely get cast back to the abyss the same as anyone else who is not compatible. Does the fact that a lot of brand-name theists go to Hell, make the Atheists feel better about going there themselves?

Why wouldn't they behave as you've outlined? They wouldn't because they're Christians? Atheists automatically would because they're atheists? That sole belief is the basis of their behaviour? Nothing else matters? (And your crack about atheists feeling better is silly. We don't believe people go to hell so we can hardly take comfort in it.)

“Can”, or do you mean “Always Does, and is the only thing that does”?

I said what I meant. Can. Not always.


What morality did he learn? Other than doing what benefited him, what other morality does he have?
....
No … they are pretty much evil their whole entire lives. I’m not saying they change.
....
All crimes are committed by A-Theists (Atheists at heart). Anyone who Truly believed in Karma wouldn’t commit a crime. They’d only be committing a crime against themselves.

Ah. Thank you. I think I've finally gotten to the heart of your beef with atheists. It doesn't matter what they actually believe. It doesn't matter how they live their lives. "Atheists are evil," is your whole argument.


Even if that were True, are you claiming that the Truth of Reality is decided by Majority Vote? If that is the case, then guess what – Atheism is False.

Please note what I said, ". . . you might want to consider that you were wrong." I did not say that the majority determines truth. I was suggesting that you should reexamine your beliefs when you're the only one who holds them. That's always good advice.

 

[Franko]

Ipecac,

Why wouldn't they behave as you've outlined? They wouldn't because they're Christians? Atheists automatically would because they're atheists? That sole belief is the basis of their behaviour? Nothing else matters?

Read what I wrote again, my friend. I agreed that they would behave exactly the same, and that they would end up in Hell for it right alongside the devout Atheists.

I think I've finally gotten to the heart of your beef with atheists. It doesn't matter what they actually believe. It doesn't matter how they live their lives. "Atheists are evil," is your whole argument.

You sound like you are being turned by the dark side, in order to be able to twist what I said so far off what I said.

I have asserted that people who do not believe there are consequences for their actions behave like there are no consequences for their actions. You disagree, but you explanation is a bit hard to follow.

Please note what I said, ". . . you might want to consider that you were wrong."

Obviously you are incapable of taking your own advice.

I guess it isn’t possible that You are wrong – is it Ipecac?

I did not say that the majority determines truth. I was suggesting that you should reexamine your beliefs when you're the only one who holds them.

Why do I need to re-examine them? They work far better then what you believe, and not one of the bright little A-Theist minds on this forum has managed to so much as put a scratch in them.

Besides … I constantly re-examine them.

 

[Tricky]

I have asserted that people who do not believe there are consequences for their actions behave like there are no consequences for their actions. You disagree, but you explanation is a bit hard to follow.

According to Logical Deism, people have no "actions". (No free will, remember?) All actions are actions of The Goddess. So only The Goddess suffers consequences.

You sure you don't want to think about this some more?

 

[Ipecac]

Ipecac,

Read what I wrote again, my friend. I agreed that they would behave exactly the same, and that they would end up in Hell for it right alongside the devout Atheists.

You sound like you are being turned by the dark side, in order to be able to twist what I said so far off what I said.

I have asserted that people who do not believe there are consequences for their actions behave like there are no consequences for their actions. You disagree, but you explanation is a bit hard to follow.

Obviously you are incapable of taking your own advice.

I guess it isn’t possible that You are wrong – is it Ipecac?

Why do I need to re-examine them? They work far better then what you believe, and not one of the bright little A-Theist minds on this forum has managed to so much as put a scratch in them.

Besides … I constantly re-examine them.

I don't think it was very clear from what you wrote, but if you are saying that the Christians would behave as you have said the atheists would, then okay. I don't agree that people would or do behave this way but at least you're being consistent.

Here's my take on your consequences argument. Your scenario might be accurate but only in the case where a person believed there were *absolutely* no consequences. But that's not remotely a realistic scenario and therefore useless in this analysis. People just don't behave that way.

EVERYONE would believe there are consequences. Atheist, Christian, whatever, everyone would see consequences to running up their credit cards, raping, pillaging, and killing. Most people don't want to hurt others, regardless of the situation. Most people would not want to hurt or burden their friends and family. Most people like to think that when they die people will think kindly of them. If NOTHING ELSE, there is the consequence of getting caught and spending your last few months in jail. These consequences will tend to make people behave in your scenario.

Seeing as how I completely reevaluated my beliefs about a year ago and came to the conclusion that a lifetime of believing in Christianity was wrong, I can say quite confidently that I have examined my beliefs and changed them when necessary. Can you say the same thing?

 

[Franko]

Ipecac,

I don't think it was very clear from what you wrote, but if you are saying that the Christians would behave as you have said the atheists would, then okay. I don't agree that people would or do behave this way but at least you're being consistent.

People are responsible for their actions no matter what they call themselves; however, evidence suggests, that people typically label themselves consistently with what they believe.

Bad things happen to bad people; good things happen to good people. I don’t knohow else to explain it to you?

Here's my take on your consequences argument. Your scenario might be accurate but only in the case where a person believed there were *absolutely* no consequences.

Are you once again claiming that A-Theists DO NOT believe that eventually they will cease to exist? Are you claiming that once you have ceased to exist there are still consequences for your actions? Okay, if you answered NO to both those questions they you are agreeing that A-Theists DO NOT believe in ultimate consequences for their actions.

But that's not remotely a realistic scenario and therefore useless in this analysis. People just don't behave that way.

So you are claiming that A-Theists don’t believe they will cease to exist when they die?

Are you trying to be confusing, or are you just confused yourself?

EVERYONE would believe there are consequences. Atheist, Christian, whatever …

No … this is clearly NOT TRUE. Christians believe there are consequences – here and now, AND after they die. A-Theists ONLY believe there are consequences here and now. Once they have ceased to exist there are NO consequences.

… everyone would see consequences to running up their credit cards, raping, pillaging, and killing. Most people don't want to hurt others, regardless of the situation. Most people would not want to hurt or burden their friends and family. Most people like to think that when they die people will think kindly of them. If NOTHING ELSE, there is the consequence of getting caught and spending your last few months in jail. These consequences will tend to make people behave in your scenario.

So what? The Christian is concerned with going to jail, AND being made to suffer in the afterlife. The A-Theists is ONLY concerned about jail. You are claiming that this makes the A-Theist more, or at least equally moral to the believer in Karma? How so? By what logic? Sounds more like a wishful thinking A-Theist bias to me.

Seeing as how I completely reevaluated my beliefs about a year ago and came to the conclusion that a lifetime of believing in Christianity was wrong, I can say quite confidently that I have examined my beliefs and changed them when necessary. Can you say the same thing?

From the time that I first found out about death (around age 4 – 30+ years ago) until only a few years ago I was either Agnostic or Atheistic (more the latter) in regard to belief in an afterlife. I am happy to concede that I was foolish and shortsighted. I am glad that I was wrong.

 

[Plutarck]

EVERYONE would believe there are consequences. Atheist, Christian, whatever, everyone would see consequences to running up their credit cards, raping, pillaging, and killing. Most people don't want to hurt others, regardless of the situation. Most people would not want to hurt or burden their friends and family. Most people like to think that when they die people will think kindly of them. If NOTHING ELSE, there is the consequence of getting caught and spending your last few months in jail. These consequences will tend to make people behave in your scenario.

You might also note that not everyone wants to or would enjoy raping, pillaging, killing, or even running up their credit cards.

Call me a die-hard Capitalist, but the idea of not paying back something I rightfully owe - even if I know very well I can get away with it - sickens me. Why should someone have to pay my bills, especially if I can pay them?

Or to put it simply: If you knew there were no consequences, would you put your hand in a blender?

Of course there is a consequence - the sensation of having your hand in a blender!

 

[Darat]

Franko – thanks for the response. Unfortunately I still remain confused… please see below…

Darat,

…snip…

It was ONLY preordained by HER, if She created you. But She didn’t, She only created (generates) this universe. She didn't create You.

If I understand you right this is the “deist” part of your belief system i.e. the creator of the universe (and the rules it runs by) who then leaves it to unfold. But if the universe is “run” by the rules she decided upon she did create me – I am direct consequence of her choice or will. Which is the position many of my Christian friends maintain i.e. their God created me.

You have no choice, this is True. Some entities are inherently insane, but other entities are not. The Sane ones are trying to sort out and “capture” the other Sane entities from the rest (the insane). The insane entities get dumped, and after a long long time they fade into nonexistence. But a Sane entity can reach “escape velocity”, and travel through Time perpetually (Eternally).

So you seem to be saying that your Goddess decided to create a universe where at least a certain percentage of people are insane is this a fair summary of your belief ( and do you have an idea of what percentage)?

If you were taking a test, the LG would be the person to copy an answer from. She is the sanest, and therefore the most benevolent entity perceived. It is true that this is her universe, and while you are here you obey her rules, but that does not change your intrinsic nature (whether you are good or evil). The LG being the “most good” (the goodest? … how about Omnibenevolent?) entity is also the most powerful (Omnipotent, which is the same as “sanest”).

OK – so your Goddess again shares a trait with my Christian friends God i.e. the most perfect being. But you do limit the “powers” of your Goddess unlike the Christians.

(As an aside I think you should be careful about using the “omni” words in talking about your Goddess; you have confused not just me before with using words like “omnipotent” when in fact you mean “most”. The “omni” words tend to mean “all/everything” not “most”. As in the difference between the Christians God and your Goddess. The Christians believe their God is “omnipotent” i.e. all-powerful whilst you state your Goddess is just the most-powerful, a subtle but important distinction.)

I also understand (but please correct me if I am wrong) that there is a link between “beneficial” and “power”.

However isn’t this linked to what is beneficial for the Goddess and not for me? The logical outcome of this belief would seem to be it doesn’t matter if any act is beneficial to you, I or anyone else but is only important if it is beneficial to the Goddess?

Now when you say that something is “wrong”, or ‘bad”, or “immoral” what you are saying is that it is “wrong”, or ‘bad”, or “immoral” relative to the perception of the logical goddess. One might assume that this is arbitrary, and that this is so just because She happens to be the one in charge. If someone else was in charge, then their perceptions would decide “wrong”, or ‘bad”, or “immoral”. While that is true, the LG didn’t get to be LG by accident. Gravity, consciousness, even Time itself (all manifestations of the same thing really) all conspired to make her “God”. It was her Fate.

So the Goddess didn’t always exist? Aren’t you saying here that there is a greater force then the Goddess and that “force/entity” decided to make her the Goddess? Shouldn’t we therefore be more concerned about doing what this “greater force then the Goddess” wants us to do? The Goddess is only another “entity” like you and I that is constrained by another level of rules and wishes.

Not at all. Just because your intrinsic characteristics are intrinsic, doesn’t make you NOT responsible for them. You are who you are, like it or not. If you don’t like it … alter your Fate.

But I don’t have free-will so I can’t change or even control my intrinsic nature because the Goddess has decided what that will be.

I can’t see how your belief explains the apparent paradox –which is exactly like the paradox the Christians face. I.e. if the “ultimate power” is the only being with free-will everything I do is not a consequence of “my” choice but the “ultimate power’s” – they are totally responsible for any action “I” make.

Atheists are intrinsically evil. They would destroy EVERYTHING if they could (yeah, I know what you’ll say [think], but it is true in a metaphysical sense). But the game has been rigged from the start. The A-Theists are going down, and I am one of the hitmen sent for the job. My Fate ... but I am perfectly content with it.

By using the information you have supplied I have to disagree. The logic of your beliefs means that the only entity in the universe that can be good or evil is the entity with free will i.e. your Goddess.

Another way of putting it is that atheists are not evil; they are simply the way the Goddess wants them to be. If you consider them evil then you consider your Goddess evil.

 

[Ipecac]

Ipecac,

Are you once again claiming that A-Theists DO NOT believe that eventually they will cease to exist? Are you claiming that once you have ceased to exist there are still consequences for your actions? Okay, if you answered NO to both those questions they you are agreeing that A-Theists DO NOT believe in ultimate consequences for their actions.

Atheists believe that eventually they will cease to exist. On this we agree. No one said otherwise.

However, you are the one making the claim that atheists believe that once we die there are no consequences. Every atheist in this thread has told you that they would not behave differently if they knew they were going to die because of the consequences. There may be no further consequences to the person who dies, but there are very likely consequences to the individual's family and friends. Since atheists care about their family and friends just like other people and will tend not do anything to bring bad consequences to their family, they will behave. (Not to mention the other reasons people have mentioned, including that they just don't want to do the things you assume they'll do.)

Your only response to this is that atheists are evil and incapable of not committing horrible crimes given the chance. Basically, you're telling everyone here how they'll behave, despite their objections. Pardon me if I don't find your reasoning compelling.