[MD] MOQ Missionary

[Christoffer Ivarsson]

Ian, Everybody

True that.

And this wasn't really missionary work either, I just felt like complicating 
things for people - it was on a random community, so I can't link to it, and 
it really was just by chance that this discussion turned up.

But in reference to the title of this thread - what are your Quality 
Missionary experiences? Have you got any?

(Or has anybody else here on the forum got any thoughts on this matter?)

Being rather young and at a university, I of course find it hard not to 
bring the MOQ into different kinds of debates, but I try to do it as 
selectively as possible and only when it is really relevant.

Regards

Chris

> I could point out that
>
> Whilst religion is a belief system
> Not all belief systems are religions
>
> A belief system of the Harris atheist kind is definitely NOT a
> religion, but some atheists are pretty religious about it. They're as
> bad as theists in my book. The problem is the basis in faith, not the
> object of faith.
>
> But I wouldn't want to spoil your missionary fun ;-)
> Can you ping a link to that forum ?
> Ian
>
> On 5/6/08, Christoffer Ivarsson <IvarssonChristoffer at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Allright, so I get a little bored sometimes, and sometimes it is fun to
>> whine at random internet people, and while it usually don't result in 
>> much
>> amusement I think you all will find at least the last reply of this huy
>> quite amusing and perhaps you will feel that you have heard this 
>> somewhere
>> before.. =D
>>
>> (I pointed out that Atheism is a belief system i.e a religion)
>>
>> [Random Guy:]
>> Is it recognized that atheism is a religion? Really? By whom?
>>
>> You're way off, mate. Atheism is NOT a religion, by definition it's just
>> that: a desbelief in the existence of deity. How is THAT a religion? 
>> Because
>> disbelief is also a belief? That's ridiculous, nothing more than word 
>> play.
>>
>> [Me]
>> It is not word play, but rather the most basic philosophy. One must start
>> with a metaphysical assumption in any case, and metaphysical assumptions 
>> can
>> only be proved by other metaphysical assumptions - but no matter:
>>
>> Atheism may not be an organized religion in the scale of Christianity or
>> Islam say, but as you say Atheism has a core belief - That there is no 
>> god
>> or anything like that - and this core BELIEF then links up with other
>> assumptions that follows from it: the most predominant one being that 
>> there
>> is an objective reality (or for that matter a subjective one) all of 
>> which
>> is beliefs, and banded together they constitute a frame of reference of 
>> the
>> world that is in essence no different in nature to religious views - both
>> are systems with which to categorize and handle the experiences that 
>> people
>> have.
>>
>> [Random Guy]
>> ALL different in nature to religious views. Atheism is involved with 
>> science
>> (though by now I think you might think science "is a form or religion" 
>> too).
>> Anyway, if you're not sure that there is an objective reality and that 
>> there
>> is a systematic method to find out approximate truths of this reality,
>> called the scientific method, I suggest you jump out of a 50th floor, see 
>> if
>> gravity is just a belief pretty much like religious ones. Who knows, 
>> maybe
>> after the thump you'll wake up in an even wealthier country. Or you can 
>> test
>> Ohm's law with your own body if you happen to have a pair of electrodes. 
>> It
>> won't be so traumatic in the first low-voltage trials.
>>
>> Anyway, it's all the more ridiculous since you DO lead your everyday life
>> under the assumption that there is an objective reality.
>>
>>
>> [Me, amused]
>> Haha, I've heard this argument a million times. It's always the same. 
>> "But
>> science can be proven!" - sure it can: within it's own realm. There is
>> absolutely no denying that science is based on metaphysical assumptions
>> however: and as for those "jump down a building and see what happens" 
>> kind
>> of "arguments" they are really just noise in the wind. It doesn't prove 
>> an
>> objective reality in any way: in truth you can't any way you try - 
>> because
>> the concept of an objective reality is a metaphysical assumption, and to
>> prove it you have to use the tools that that metaphysical assumption 
>> hands
>> you. To simplify: first you say that the world is made up of A, then you
>> prove this by using the tool AB. The problem is that this tool must be 
>> based
>> on A to work, and thus A can't be proven.
>>
>> So, if someone says that the world actually consists of 1 and then tries 
>> to
>> prove this with the tool 1.2 - you are really doing the same thing.
>>
>> (and to overly simplify A = There is an objective reality and 1 = God is 
>> the
>> originator of our reality)
>>
>>
>> So it's all beliefs you see: what it comes down to is perhaps what belief 
>> is
>> the most useful one: but then again if within the realm of assumption E
>> there is no value in this kind of usefulness.
>>
>>
>> [Random Guy]
>> Anyhow, I put it this way: in your GUT you know that it'd still be stupid 
>> to
>> jump off that building. And you don't dip your finger in boiled water
>> because you KNOW you'll get burned, every time you do it. That's a 
>> pattern,
>> but you choose to label that "A" as a metaphysical belief. Science is 
>> based
>> on this kind of patterns and therefore it is as real as anything can get.
>> But if you think this is all assumptions without basis, you may as well 
>> live
>> in a nut house.
>>
>>
>> - here I would enter and say: QUALITY. But I'm tired of missionary work 
>> and
>> have work to do.