Hypothetical Questions [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

David Sklansky

07-01-2005, 07:41 PM

I know of know of no extremely intelligent person that has access to the recent knowledge that explains what used to seem miraculous, who believes in the detailed aspects of organized religions. I am sure that there are exceptions. But I'd bet a lot of money that the percentage of 150+ IQ people, who have had some training in science, that believe in these silly details, is far less than in the general population. Most religious people don't dispute that but instead say the reason is that these people are psychologically predisposed against believing. But of course they have to say that because the alternative would be to admit that clear, clever thinking leads to disbelief.

Meanwhile what about my point that you should take the five mil and use it to help others?

vulturesrow

07-01-2005, 07:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I know of know of no extremely intelligent person that has access to the recent knowledge that explains what used to seem miraculous, who believes in the detailed aspects of organized religions. I am sure that there are exceptions. But I'd bet a lot of money that the percentage of 150+ IQ people, who have had some training in science, that believe in these silly details, is far less than in the general population.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be right. My only point is that there are plenty of intelligent people out there that do believe. Which is why I suggested the answer may lie more along a pyschological basis than an intellectual one. I could be wrong, but my feeling is that you may be barking up the wrong tree.

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile what about my point that you should take the five mil and use it to help others?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you should or could? At any rate, while I see where you are going with this, I am a human being. To personalize it, if the person in question that were dying was my wife or one of my children, there is no way I am taking money in exchange for missing my last chance to be with them. Which choice would be more "Christian" is whole separate topic of debate. All I can say that no one is a perfect Christian , nor do most reasonable religious people expect that. If this is indeed the "non-Christian" choice, then that is a point where my human failings would be exposed.

David Sklansky

07-01-2005, 08:40 PM

"If this is indeed the "non-Christian" choice, then that is a point where my human failings would be exposed."

And if this is the non Christian choice, and you choose it, you can still get away with it by expressing remorse (which I don't think you would really have) and by saying you love Jesus. Meanwhile the non Christian who makes the "Christian" choice, tearfully leaves his wife so he can save thousands of children, and then says Jews are correct in their belief that Jesus is mortal, goes to hell.

vulturesrow

07-01-2005, 08:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And if this is the non Christian choice, and you choose it, you can still get away with it by expressing remorse (which I don't think you would really have) and by saying you love Jesus. Meanwhile the non Christian who makes the "Christian" choice, tearfully leaves his wife so he can save thousands of children, and then says Jews are correct in their belief that Jesus is mortal, goes to hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

You frankly seem to have difficulty with the fact that Christianity recognizes the fact that people cannot pefectly follow the teachings of the Bible. Christianity explicitly teaches this.

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile the non Christian who makes the "Christian" choice, tearfully leaves his wife so he can save thousands of children, and then says Jews are correct in their belief that Jesus is mortal, goes to hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont believe this nor do other Catholic Christians as BluffTHIS already pointed out in another thread.

[ QUOTE ]
you can still get away with it by expressing remorse (which I don't think you would really have)

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually if we established that his was the non-Christian choice I would feel remorse. I dont like failing in my faith. I didnt know being good at math gave you mindreading powers as well.

[censored]

07-01-2005, 09:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"If this is indeed the "non-Christian" choice, then that is a point where my human failings would be exposed."

And if this is the non Christian choice, and you choose it, you can still get away with it by expressing remorse (which I don't think you would really have) and by saying you love Jesus. Meanwhile the non Christian who makes the "Christian" choice, tearfully leaves his wife so he can save thousands of children, and then says Jews are correct in their belief that Jesus is mortal, goes to hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it just me or does David's writing style and tone seem comepletely different from the norm in this thread? Even the timing and frequency of his reponses is different. If it was at all possible I would say it was someone else.

David Sklansky

07-01-2005, 09:20 PM

"Actually if we established that his was the non-Christian choice I would feel remorse. I dont like failing in my faith. I didnt know being good at math gave you mindreading powers as well."

Being good at math helps me realize that your statement is illogical. It is illogical because you acknowledge ahead of time that you will commit this "sin" without a doubt if faced with the choice. My definition of remorse includes the thought that if the situation were to come up again, you would at least try to choose the non sinful path. But you admit you wouldn't. This is a very important point. Please make sure that you understand it.

Aytumious

07-01-2005, 09:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"If this is indeed the "non-Christian" choice, then that is a point where my human failings would be exposed."

And if this is the non Christian choice, and you choose it, you can still get away with it by expressing remorse (which I don't think you would really have) and by saying you love Jesus. Meanwhile the non Christian who makes the "Christian" choice, tearfully leaves his wife so he can save thousands of children, and then says Jews are correct in their belief that Jesus is mortal, goes to hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it just me or does David's writing style and tone seem comepletely different from the norm in this thread? Even the timing and frequency of his reponses is different. If it was at all possible I would say it was someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

vulturesrow

07-01-2005, 09:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My definition of remorse includes the thought that if the situation were to come up again, you would at least try to choose the non sinful path.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well bully for your definition, but the word remorse has no meaning about future actions. That said, semantics is not the point here and so I wont make more of it than to point out that technically your definition is wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
you would at least try to choose the non sinful path. But you admit you wouldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats funny, where was the post where that question was asked? If indeed the situation were to repeat itself I would be more apt to make the Christian choice, had it been established that this was indeed the more correct action to take. Im not saying that I would definitely do it, because I am still aware of my weaknesses as a human being, but the chances would be much higher, especially if I was fairly certain this was what God wanted me to do or at least be more acceptable in His eyes.

AlphaWice

07-02-2005, 06:13 AM

money every time.

The second case is obvious. The first case is a bit harder, but what it boils down to is that after tommorow, they are dead anyways.

Furthermore, I would even do this for $1000.

snowden719

07-02-2005, 06:55 AM

I'm not sure that this is entirely true sklansky, as I think people often feel remorse even if they know they will perform the action given the relevant circumstances. For example, I think many alcoholics who are unable to quit drinking for whatever reason often feel remorseful for the fact that they drink so often, but they would clearly drink if given the opportunity. To say that to feel remorse is for one if presented in the future with the relevant circumstances that one would choose otherwise seems obviously wrong to me. Even if someone has a intense psychological disposition to do wrong, they can still recognize that it is wrong and feel remorseful for what they've done, even if they would do wrong if given the chance in the future.

snowden719

07-02-2005, 06:57 AM

also vulturesrow's statement is not illogical or irrational in any meaningful sense, you should know better than to just throw those words around randomly David.

David Sklansky

07-02-2005, 07:28 AM

I am under the assumption that when you confess a sin and are forgiven, there is a presumption that you will make a mighty attempt to not to it again.

Meanwhile how can there be any argument that not taking the money is a sin if that money will be used to save thousands of lives but only if one takes the deal?

Cyrus

07-02-2005, 08:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Would you cut off your own leg to prevent the tsunami??

[/ QUOTE ]

In the case of war amputees, it is fair to say that, in terms of expectation, they did agree to have a limb cut off in order to do their job. One may substitute "job" with a fair description of pious and altruistic endeavors, equivalent to preventing a tsunami.

I understand and accept that a person will tend, in general, to under-estimate greatly the chances of losing a limb (or a life) in combat. The fact remains, however, that said person is not estimating, in general, that probability to be zero.

link (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0740753851/qid=1120308342/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-1142781-0464722?v=glance&s=books)

Cyrus

07-02-2005, 08:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I am under the assumption that when you confess a sin and are forgiven, there is a presumption that you will make a mighty attempt to not do it again.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure this is the case, actually. Any experts out there ?

I think one can sin and, then sin again and again, committing the same sin every time, and getting forgiven every time as well. (I accept that the number of assigned Hail Mary's will propably be rising tremendously every time the priest sees the sinner's sorry ass [i]again, but that's irrelevant.)

I know of historical precedents with Popes sinning serially.

daryn

07-02-2005, 09:36 AM

<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
Would you cut off your own leg to prevent the tsunami??

[/ QUOTE ]

In the case of war amputees, it is fair to say that, in terms of expectation, they did agree to have a limb cut off in order to do their job. One may substitute "job" with a fair description of pious and altruistic endeavors, equivalent to preventing a tsunami.

I understand and accept that a person will tend, in general, to under-estimate greatly the chances of losing a limb (or a life) in combat. The fact remains, however, that said person is not estimating, in general, that probability to be zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, this reply is pretty much way off.

MtDon

07-02-2005, 06:41 PM

I agree with the $5 million, but not the $1,000 - if the loved one is awake and aware.

The main aspect of my reasoning to take the $5 million is that I've had time with them throughout our relationship and one day won't make that much difference. In the normal situation, the loved one will not be alone. He or she will have other loved ones and/or caregivers with them. Though, if I am very close to them and they would like me to be there, it would be a more difficult decision. But $5 million is a lot of money. And, most of my family would understand my decision.

At first thought, it seems rather heartless not to fore go money to be with someone their last 24 hours. But, there are lots of times when people can not be with dying loved ones, for many reasons and it's okay. Very often, probably usually, you don't know when someone you love is going to die within a day. So not being with a loved one their last 24 hours is a common and natural occurence.

bronzepiglet

07-02-2005, 10:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am under the assumption that when you confess a sin and are forgiven, there is a presumption that you will make a mighty attempt to not do it again.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure this is the case, actually. Any experts out there ?

[/ QUOTE ]
[i]
re·pent
1 : to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life
2 a : to feel regret or contrition b : to change one's mind

I think it's supposed to be this way... there are a lot of people who don't seem to take this seriously, but I think the Bible indicates this as the way to get forgiveness.

BTW. I really hope people think about giving some money to help people even if they don't have to forsake a dying loved-one to get it. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

tolbiny

07-02-2005, 11:48 PM

What harm is there in believing in a higher power? An individual can believe in a God without it harming anyone. And in fact they can use the teachings of any number of religions to "enrich" their own lives, and those of others. There will be a community of people who will support them in times of need, and they will be able to connect with others (a vital part of life for any social animal) immediately based upon their faith. So only an idiot would want these things? only an idiot would have to give very little to recieve a what they consider to be a great deal?
How does being sure of the nonexistance of god improve your life Mr Sklansky? There are plenty of people who feel that faith improves thier life, and becase of the beauty of faith, if they think that it does then it actually does. Perhaps one day you will realize that while you calling anyone who follows religion an idiot causes many people to lose respect for you, at the very same time when VulturesRow replies in a very polite way simply stating his beliefs, he gains respect.

tolbiny

07-02-2005, 11:57 PM

I'll take the money. I ain't giving much of it away either.

Cyrus

07-03-2005, 12:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]

re·pent
1 : to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life
2 a : to feel regret or contrition b : to change one's mind

[/ QUOTE ]

But can't you do it again ?

And again?

David Sklansky

07-03-2005, 01:25 AM

"What harm is there in believing in a higher power?"

Even religious people would disagree with this statement if they thought the there was no shred of evidence for that power. Don't you think there is harm in believing in astrology? Don't you think there is harm in believing that OJ is innocent? The harm is that it is not good for you or others, for you to think something is highly likely, when intelligent, objective evidence evaluators would deem it highly unlikely. It isn't a religious issue at all.

bronzepiglet

07-03-2005, 01:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]

But can't you do it again ?

And again?

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... I guess so. I think I might not understand what you are getting at. I just got the definition from a dictionary. What question (A or B) are you trying to ask?

A. Is that definition in line with what Christianity says?
or
B. Is the idea of repentance (in the Christian sense) just stupid in general?

If A. I would say that yes, that is what Christianity says: that you have to be planning not to do it again at the time of your asking for forgiveness. Whether people generally do this or follow through very well... I don't know.

If B. I don't know. If one thinks it's stupid then they think it's stupid.

If you were making a point or asking a question relating to neither A. nor B. then I will try to understand you better if you would clarify.

kurosh

07-03-2005, 01:38 AM

I'd like to take the money in situation #1 for selfish reasons, but I don't think even $5M of counseling would make me able to live with myself.

Situation #2 is a no-brainer. Money please.

kurosh

07-03-2005, 01:40 AM

Why do you constantly insist on arguing with people about religion? You're not going to change any Christian's mind. The entire concept of faith relies on being devoid of logic. Thus, trying to use logic to disprove faith is silly. Why can't you just let it go and make some poker posts instead of something ridiculous about God every week?

I realized a long time ago it was pointless to debate religion. I wonder why you haven't done the same.

Edit: Just read the Sklanskyanity post. You talk about living a good life. Define moral good.

bronzepiglet

07-03-2005, 01:42 AM

Wait a sec... I thought you believed in God, but just not a Christian God. That's what I got from the Sklanskyanity posts. Perhaps you were just trying to create a more feasible religon for others?

Anyway, I would appreciate if you could clarify this point for me, as the person you responded to seemed to think you do not believe in any god whatsoever (and you did not deny it), where I did not get that impression before.

David Sklansky

07-03-2005, 03:05 AM

Because science has not explained the big bang, quantum weirdness, or the existence of consciousness, I am not ready to discount the existence of some sort of god. If we ever have conscious computers I will probably believe that only deism is conceivable, if a god exists at all. If the big bang and quantum mechanics is ever understood better, I will probably move from agnostic to atheist.

BluffTHIS!

07-03-2005, 03:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"What harm is there in believing in a higher power?"

Even religious people would disagree with this statement if they thought the there was no shred of evidence for that power. Don't you think there is harm in believing in astrology? Don't you think there is harm in believing that OJ is innocent? The harm is that it is not good for you or others, for you to think something is highly likely, when intelligent, objective evidence evaluators would deem it highly unlikely. It isn't a religious issue at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if it isn't a religious issue, it isn't a scientific one either. I take the hypothesis that Christianity is true, and you take the hypothesis that it isn't. From a scientific perspective both both hypotheses lack an important factor to be considered valid theories worthy of investigation: falsifiability.

David Sklansky

07-03-2005, 03:50 AM

Its a gambling issue. Suppose someone said Abraham Lincoln could read a book backwards and still understand it. The fact that it couldn't be proven or not proven, doesn't stop us from saying that it is highly unlikely.

BluffTHIS!

07-03-2005, 06:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Its a gambling issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was the perspective urged by Pascal.

David Sklansky

07-03-2005, 06:31 AM

Pascal's wager would be perfectly fine if he had slightly changed his words to "SAYING you believe will get you saved, so you should SAY it given the infinite pot odds, even if you think it was a big longshot." In any case his argument in no way implied that the church's beliefs were actually a favorite to be true.

Meanwhile we all know that most "Christians" in this day and age are really only following the first sentence altered version of Pascal's advice.

HighStakesPro

07-03-2005, 06:45 AM

I would take the five million in either case, and to be totally honest, I'd rather NOT be around someone I loved when they died. One very practical reason is that I would have a HIGHLY increased risk of ALSO dying (if it was a car accident, gunfire, etc), but notwithstanding that possibility, I would feel much more grief having to see them die, whether instantaneously or slowly, the trauma might scar me in ways I don't want to imagine, but if I was not around then the moment of death would already be over, and while I would still be deeply saddened and stricken with grief, the traumatic effect would not be as strong.

As far as cutting off my leg to prevent the tsunami, I wouldn't do it, even though I would save hundreds and thousands of lives. I suppose this is a product of my non-religious view on life, and my dismissal of the concept of afterlife. How does saving other people's lives, on the opposite side of the globe, benefit me? I don't know any of them, my conscience is not so strong as to gnaw at me for the rest of my life, and even though it cost the US 350 million dollars or whatever, and it results in spending cuts that directly or indirectly affect me, I honestly would have no idea how. People don't committ the federal budget to memory, and 350 million dollars, in relation to the total US budget, is not that much, and it's only for one year!

I realize this sounds like an unsympathetic argument, but I'm not the type of person who would feel like a martyr by undertaking such an action. Sure, I saved thousands of lives, but it's impossible to comprehend or grasp from anything beyond a statistical perspective. And I don't mean to sound prejudicial, but almost all of the people who died were common folk who lived in internationally undistinguished communities and who had absolutely no bearing on US events or even world events. It's not the same as preventing the loss of the US's 150,000 most powerful lawmakers, lobbyists, CEOs, governors, doctors, professors, and entertainers. I know, just because they're poor doesn't mean they have any less of a right to live their meaningless lives than I or Bush or Bill Gates or Oprah, but international quality of life wasn't affected by their deaths.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot: I'D HAVE TO CUT OFF MY LEG! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Sorry, this has been a lengthy post, so here's a happy meal-sized explanation of why Sklansky is basically right, religion is not on par with science, and nobody should ever be forced to have someone else's religious views imposed upon him or her:

Science can be repeated over and over with complete predictability, and it is tangible, we can experience and interact and confirm its validity with our five senses, taste, smell, touch, sight, and sound.

Theism, on the other hand, cannot be explained with repetition and predictability, or observed with any of the five senses, it is purely a psychological, mental concept. How do I know God exists? I can't see it, touch it, feel it, taste it, or smell it. "Creation" cannot be predicted with any accuracy, much less repeated, by any known means, because only God can do it, but then we're right back where we started: How do we know that? It all leaves you with a suspicious feeling that it's all made up, like the one you had when you were a kid about Santa Claus.

And what's the number one reason that religion should be viewed with a skeptical eye? How do the vast majority of people learn about religion for the first time? Does the Creator swoop into the mind of almost every newborn babe and instill in him or her a set of core religious beliefs? Absolutely! Only in this case, the "creator" is the parent(s)! That's right, you learn about God and Jesus and all the other good stuff FROM YOUR PARENTS! And we all know how smart mom and dad are...ha ha.

I'm sure I'm going to get grilled for this post, but that's what makes these forums fun.

HighStakesPro

07-03-2005, 07:38 AM

One other thing I forgot to mention in the first post: If repenting does not require one to strive not to committ the sin in the future, then what's the point of repenting at all? How is feeling sorry going to help anything, and isn't a hollow repentance when you can't even strive not to sommitt the same sin again? The reason why you feel bad about it is because it's wrong, and it is the goal to do what is right, and while you can't be expected to do what is right all the time, it seems rather uunproductive to repent over something which you may knowingly do in the future. When you screw up, you can't fix it by saying you're sorry, you have to make a conscious effort not to screw up the same way again.

tolbiny

07-03-2005, 09:01 AM

If its a gambling issue how can you ignore the potentially positive benefits from religion (a few of which are listed in an above post).

BZ_Zorro

07-03-2005, 09:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I realize that you think that most religious people are dumb ...However, its a very faulty position to take given that some very brilliant people have been religious. ..

[/ QUOTE ]

IQ is not a measure of decisiveness, self awareness, and objectivity.

People in organised religions lack all three, and often intelligence as well.

Cyrus

07-03-2005, 10:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
re·pent
1 : to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life
2 to feel regret or contrition ; to change one's mind

[/ QUOTE ] Is that definition in line with what Christianity says?

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, why not?

We are assuming that at the time of repentance, the faithful is honestly believing he will not do it again.

Yet, he does it again. (And, again, he is forgiven.)

[ QUOTE ]
Is the idea of repentance (in the Christian sense) just stupid in general?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't pronounce on stupid so easily but repentance seems like a highly mercantilistic concept in Christian religion! You give to the Church X amount of a disposable and Church-exchangeable commodity (eg 10 Hail Mary's) and you get back the equivalent of X in forgiveness.

It can only be presumed that the trade can be enacted again and again, albeit probably at rising values of X. (Next time you confess to masturbating, it's 20 Hail Mary's!)

Cyrus

07-03-2005, 10:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This reply is pretty much way off.

[/ QUOTE ] What part did you not understand exactly ?

drudman

07-03-2005, 02:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This reply is pretty much way off.

[/ QUOTE ] What part did you not understand exactly ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your analogy is non-analagous.

Lawrence Ng

07-03-2005, 08:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you were told that someone you loved was going to die in 24 hours and you could either stay with them during this time, or you could recieve $5,000,000, which would you choose?

If you were told that just for today you couldn't see someone you loved, and would be given $5,000,000 but couldn't spend it until after they died, would you choose seeing them today or the money?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I never took Philosophy as any elective in school, even one which was based more so on scientific reasoning and logic.

There is no correct closed answer to this question and you spawn a series of infinite questions that result in nothing more than morale ambiguity.

Lawrence

David Sklansky

07-03-2005, 08:27 PM

"This is why I never took Philosophy as any elective in school, even one which was based more so on scientific reasoning and logic.

There is no correct closed answer to this question and you spawn a series of infinite questions that result in nothing more than morale ambiguity.

Lawrence"

The fact remains that there are many people who would say that they would leave their loved one alone that last day if it would save 1000 lives. And if asked at a different time, would say they wouldn't leave them for 5 mil. And if asked at a different time, would say that 5 mil would save 1000 lives. The reason they would say these contractictory things is simply that they have not trained their minds to think like a mathmetician or a chess player. They throw out thoughts from their gut without realizing they can't coexist with other thoughts in the back of their mind.

In a nutshell, it is this type of behavior that I am trying to change, since, except for rare exceptions, it is bad for the world.

HighStakesPro

07-03-2005, 09:01 PM

This is another unfavorable aspect of religion; it compels people to make decisions that either worsen their quality of lif4e or eschew oppurtunities to improve it, because of what "God" wills, or because it will get them into heaven, or because it's the "right thing to do". This is not a normal human thought process, it's a result of being brainwashed by their parents and pastor at an early age, insisting that they do what the bible says or else burn in hell, and so on. Any normal person who has not been expoesd to and proselytized by these foolish ideas would have a very easy decision to take the five million dollars, not cut off their leg to stop the tsunami, and other things like that. You can do a lot more with five million dollars than you can do with someone you love for 24 hours, and anyone whose conscience would be relieved of guilt by forgoing five million dollars to spend just a day with someone either had a very tenuous or unfulfilling relationship with that person through their entire life and is trying to make everything right in 24 hours, or because their conscience has become so prone to being guilt-ridden because of the foolish ideas of being saved by Jesus and doing what's "morally right" with no regard for your own quality of life, and like I said before that's why teaching kids religion at a young age is so problematic, because you fool them into thinking that by making these "sacrifices" they'll get into heaven or something like that, when in fact nobody knows this and it's all a complete guess. If you don't believe these made-up stories your life will be of a much higher quality.

snowden719

07-03-2005, 10:57 PM

the following are consistent
1) I would leave my loved one to save 1000 lives
2)5 million dollars could save 1000 lives
3) I would not leave my loved for 5 million dollars

given that the three are consistent, who is the one that is not thinking clearly about the problem David.

bohemian

07-03-2005, 11:16 PM

HighStakesPro

07-03-2005, 11:24 PM

That is completely inconsistent, and by calling David inconsistent you are just proving his point, because you really aren't aware of your own inconsistency, and therefore are projecting it onto him.

The only assumption I'm making is that it would be feasible to budget the five million dollars in such away so that you could ensure that it actually would save 1000 lives.

You state that you would leave your loved one to save 1000 lives, and that you could save 1000 lives with 5 million dollars, and yet you would not leave your loved one for money which could be verily used to save 1000 lives? How is that consistent? It is totally inconsistent. By claimint to be consistent, and in fact being inconsistent, you have just given empirical evidence to support David's point.

snowden719

07-04-2005, 12:54 AM

the problem is that you don;t understand consistency in the narrow sense.

HighStakesPro

07-04-2005, 03:15 AM

con·sis·ten·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-sstn-s)
n. pl. con·sis·ten·cies

1.

a. Agreement or logical coherence among things or parts: a rambling argument that lacked any consistency.

b. Correspondence among related aspects; compatibility: questioned the consistency of the administration's actions with its stated policy.

Do these definitions from www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) not conform to your "narrow" standards? Because the three statements you made have no agreement, logical coherence, compatibility, or correspondence, as I explained earlier.

You have yet to explain how you could agree to saving 1000 lives, yet decline a monetary sume which you readily agree could be verily used to accomplish the same goal of saving 1000 lives. How is that consistent?

snowden719

07-04-2005, 03:42 AM

First, for a statement to be considered consistent merely means that one can draw no contradictory inference from any of the premises, and I think the three premises I gave can give rise to no contradictory infreneces. Let me show you how.

imagine a person who is psychologically disposed to never give to charity, but has feelings of general empathy. he could very easily assent to all three premises. Because he would feel bad to not save 1000 people he would not see his loved one, he has read convicing evidence that 5 millin could save 1000 people, but because he would not give to charity if given 5 million, he would rather see his loved one then be given 5 million. Although this person may seem odd, there is nothing irrational about him insofar as all of his conclusions are consistent with he judgment sensitive attitudes toward charity and others. This is why the three statements are consistent, and this is why a person is not being illogical or irrational if they assent to all three premises(that's the first definition you gave), please think harder in the future before embarassing yourself.

snowden719

07-04-2005, 03:45 AM

your problem is that you are drawing from the three premises the inference

4) If given 5 million dollars, I would always allocate it toward charity, such to save 1000 lives.

This inference is not valid, as there is nothing about the first three premises that necessitate this 4th one

HighStakesPro

07-04-2005, 05:00 AM

So you would trade 24 hours of your life, the last 24 hours that your loved one would be alive, in exchange for saving 1000 lives, but you wouldn't trade 5 million dollars to save a thousand lives. Yet you wouldn't trade the last 24 hours of your loved one's life for 5 million dollars. This is a contradiction, and can be presented algebraically:

1. A C
3. B = C

where A is the last 24 hours, B is saving 1000 lives, and C is 5 million dollars. if (1) and (2) are true, then (3) must be false. So from a purely rational point of view, this makes absolutely no sense and is inconsistent.

[ QUOTE ]
your problem is that you are drawing from the three premises the inference

4) If given 5 million dollars, I would always allocate it toward charity, such to save 1000 lives.

This inference is not valid, as there is nothing about the first three premises that necessitate this 4th one

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're willing to save lives at the cost of your loved one's last 24 hours of life, then it begs the question: Why WOULDN'T you spend the five mil on saving those lives? Wouldn't it be terribly obvious that via the exchange of 5 million dollars, you could save 1000 lives by not spending time with your loved one? Would this one intermediary step really change your stance? Don't the ends justify the means? Yes, because the means are EXACTLY THE SAME as you would have consented to, only without the in-between step of spending the five million dollars to save 1000 lives. You can try to create a semblance of convoluted consistency by taking the case of someone who is psychologically predisposed never to give money to charity, but this is an extremely far-fetched and unrealistic scenario because any person capable of rational thought would see that the it's not really his money that is being given to charity, it's the money of the person who is offering it to you in exchange for leaving your loved one. Only someone incapable of rational thought would be unable to make this deduction, and how can he be consistent when he is irrational?

It is entierly logical to assume that in the case of leaving your loved one in direct exchange for saving 1000 lives, whoever was making this offer would simply spend that same five million dollars himself in order to save those lives (unless he has otherwordly powers of healing, resotration, etc, but let's keep this at least somewhat believable.) The end result is exactly the same in BOTH cases: You lose your loved one's last 24 hours, 1000 lives are saved, and the entity making the offer spends 5 million dollars.

Finally, correct me if I'm mistaken, but the first post you made with the original three premises accurately reflected your own beliefs, did it not? Does that mean, based on your own explanation of how the premises are consistent, that you yourself are psychologically predisposed never to give money to charity? Based on my analysis above, even if this was the case, you would have to be incapable of rational thought in order to consider the first three premises consistent, and despite my disagreement with your assessment that the premises are consistent, I would not go nearly so far as to say that you are incapable of rational thought. So, having read this, how can you still justify calling the three presmises consistent?

[ QUOTE ]
please think harder in the future before embarassing yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's try to keep this dialogue as civil as possible without the extra ad hominems thrown in at the end to artificially enhance your argument.

snowden719

07-04-2005, 05:36 AM

First, I am not a person who is disposed to take the three statements as all true as I would take 5 million dollars, regardless of whether it had to go to charity. I take issue with you using technical terms in too broad of a context. When you say it begs the question to when I say I wouldn;t use the 5 million to help people, that is not an example of begging the question, for I am not assuming my conclusion within my original premises.

Second, even if the person is "far-fetched" that does not mean the person is logically impossible. to say that these statements are logically inconsistent is to say that they geerte a contradiction, and you haven;t ben able to point one out because there is none. If I say that it is logically possible that humans could have been able to fly if they had evolved differently, it does not defeat the claim to say that the idea of a person who had wings is "pretty far-fetched"

Next, there is nothing irrational about this hypothetical person. Under technical definition, someone is rational iff there reasons for acting are consistent with their actions. Examples of someone who would not be rational would be someone who had no reason to go to the store, and in fact has good reason not to go to it, but does anyway. Another example woud be someone who says, "I hate it when you hit me, please continue to do it" ( although this is a bit looser, i think you can get the general idea) There is nothing irrational about this hypothetical persons, as his reasons for action are consistent with his actions. he takes charity as not serving as a reason to give money, so he doesn;t give money to charity. He takes the idea of human suffering to be a reason to not be with his loved one. And he has reason to believe that 5 million would save 1000. However, he does not have reason to take 5 million rather than see his loved one, for if he took it he would not give it to charity. The problem is not that he can;t see it as someone else's, it's that he see no reason to give it to charity due to his disposition to not give money to charity, and so feels that spending time with his loved one is more important than his personal gain of 5 million.

Finally, your "logical" proof that the premises have to be inconsistent is simly too cute. Let me present a similar "algebraic proof"

let a= a quadrelateral
let b= a square
let c= a rhombus

all squares are quadrelaterals b=a
all rhomi are quadrelaterals c=a
if a=b and c=a then b=c
so
all rhomi are squares.
The problem is that you assume a transitivty relationship that holds, and it simply doesn;t, furthrmore, it is untrue that 5 million dollars= 1000 lives saved. Mayb 5 million could save 1000 lives, but that does not mean they are equivalent.

In the future, when using technical terms like rationality, logical consistency, and such, please be aware of the exact definition before posting. There will be no disagreement that the person who would save the people but not take the money may be a bit odd, but there is surely nothing irrational or inconsistent about his behavior unless my above 4th premise is also true for said person.

HighStakesPro

07-04-2005, 06:07 AM

Okay, I will concede that I probably don't know the specific technical uses of some of those phrases as well as you do, but it still seems to me that it is illogical to refuse to give money to charity when you fully support the use of the money and the actions of the charity (as indicated by your first premise.) The only way this could make sense is if you valued the money MORE than you valued saving the lives, but this, combined with the first premise, is not consistent with the third premise (how can the money be more valuable than saving lives if you would not accept it in the same situation as you would accept saving lives?)

Cyrus

07-04-2005, 06:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Daryn : "Would you cut off your own leg to prevent the tsunami??"

[/ QUOTE ]

Examine the question, please, a little more carefully. What does it imply? It implies that the candidate for amputation, call him Fred Johnson , is presented with

(a) the probability of the tsunami happening sometime in the near future, a probability that is very near 1.0, and
(b) a probability equal or very near to 1.0 that, if Fred Johnson cuts off his arm, then the tsunami will NOT happen (at least, not this time -- "this time" defined in some satisfactory for Fred Johnsontemporal manner).

I submit that this situation is equivalent to the situation of Joe Bonham, a soldier who goes to war, because
- the soldier goes to war to prevent something he perceives as extremely hurtful to others (akin to a tsunami), eg a Tyranny,
- the soldier is in danger of getting hurt himself in the process of war, getting anything within the range of a skin scratch and death.

Here's the deal to which the soldier "agrees", albeit implicitly:

(a)the probability of the "bad consequences" (eg the Tyranny) happening sometime in the near future, a probability that is very near 1.0, and
(b) a probability equal or very near to 1.0 that, if Joe Bonham goes off to fight in the war, then the "bad consequence" (eg Tyranny) will NOT happen (at least, not this time -- "this time" defined in some satisfactory for Joe Bonham temporal manner).

You follow so far? Good.

Now, as we already know, it is directly implied in Joe Bonham's agreement above (in clause b), that, since war is dangerous, then participating in a war, means being in danger of getting anything between a skin scratch and dying!

In other words, both Fred Johnson and Joe Bonhamaccept the probability of getting their arm chopped off (albeit with a difference in the level of probabilities respectively assigned -- my original argument), on the promised condition that their potential sacrifice will prevent something "bad" happening to others.

Which means that the question posed by Daryn, about whether someone whould agree to have his arm (or leg) chopped off if that would mean saving the lives of other humans, the answer is, most conclusively, Yes - this has already happened in History.

--Cyrus

P.S. : Note that how I answer Daryn's question, or how someone else here answers it, or even how a poll of Americans responds, is not important. The important aspect is that humanity has already demonstrably shown that the answer to the question is Yes. (If Daryn, specifically but nonsensically, asks that particular 2+2 poster about his leg, the answer is probably No. But that's not about someone personally.)

snowden719

07-04-2005, 06:15 AM

it may seem bizarre, but it is not illogical. Take for example someone who thought that all charities were corrupt and actually stole the money. I support the idea of people being saved, but I don;t support charity, this is a consistent belief because I don;t believe that the charity will help the people. There is no doubt that his disposition is a bit weird, but I think it stretches the proper bounds of language to say it is irrational.

HighStakesPro

07-04-2005, 06:24 AM

If someone thouht this, whether true or not, then as a practical matter the second premise of five million dollars being able to save 1000 lives is not accurate. Although it could in theory be done, if the person does not believe that anyone person or agency had both the capability and the intention of using the money to save lives, then the second premise doesn't really apply, for it must be assumed that if the person could spend the money to save the lives, then he would, since the objective of saving lives has been established as being worth the concession of time with a loved one.

Cyrus

07-04-2005, 06:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This is why I never took Philosophy as any elective in school, even one which was based more so on scientific reasoning and logic.
 . 
There is no correct closed answer to this question and you spawn a series of infinite questions that result in nothing more than moral ambiguity.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "closed answer" can exist in Philosophy but not as you'd want it to! (For example, religious philosophers posit several closed-system answers.)

But, please note two extremely important (any way you look at them) issues here:

1. The path towards Truth is enough/all we have for enlightenment, even if Truth is seemingly unattainable, at least on a "closed-system" basis.

2. We should be after consistency in our search for Truth, rather than the mere enumeration of axiomatic principles. Note that it is to this attribute that D. Sklansky alludes in his post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2783035&page=0&view=& sb=5&o=&vc=1).

Technically, we are firmly in the realm of heuristics and utility -- and the many fallacies inherent therein. (I am not sure that labeling them "fallacies" is correct, though.)

HighStakesPro

07-04-2005, 06:57 AM

Many soldiers (I'm not sure if "most is accurate, but at least a significant minority) go to war not to prevent something that is extremely hurtful to others, but for many other reasons (for instance, they joined the army because they were poor and needed assistance for college, parents wanted them to become stronger individuals, bored and nothing better to do with their lives, and a host of other reasons people join the army.) Therefore, many soldiers would prefer not to go to war, even in the presence of imminent tyrrany, but must do so because of their contractual obligation to the army. Also, most of the time war is suddenly foisted upon the army without sufficient advance notice, yet another reason why many who enter war do so not by direct choice.

Also, I don't see howthe probability of the tyranny being prevented could be equal or very near to 1.0. Maybe in some cases the overall military effort could render this probability, when one side's forces are unequivocally superior to the other side's, but one single soldier's decision to go to war has virtually no chance of affecting the outcome of a military effort, much less all but guaranteeing success. This means that the soldier goes to war knowing that his presence in very, very high likelyhood will have no measurable effect on the military effort's probability of success, yet he nevertheless entails the risk of serious injury or even death. This is why I would never go to war nor encourage anyone I know to go to war, because the presence of a single person has no real effect on the probability of success, therefore the gain is minimal if nonexistant, but the risk entailed is extremely serious, possibly risking the ultimate price.

In the case of preventing the tsunami, it's different, because you're drastcally affecting the probability of success, from one end of the scale to the complete opposite. Yet even in this case I would not consent for the reasons I described in my first post in this thread. I don't gain any benefit to myself, and while there is no risk, there is a guarantee of a negative consequence which is irreversible and will forever diminish my quality of life.

Cyrus

07-04-2005, 07:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The following are consistent
1) I would leave my loved one to save 1000 lives
2) 5 million dollars could save 1000 lives
3) I would not leave my loved for 5 million dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]

#3 would not be consistent with #1 and #2 if there was an additional assumption, call it #1A, which states
"1A. I would give 5 million dollars to save 1000 lives".

(By the way, in this context, the implied answer to the question "How often?" is "Always", i.e. "I would always leave my loved one to save 1000 lives".)

Cyrus

07-04-2005, 07:23 AM

This is the problem with hypothetical questions. They are, subsequently, examined as closely as it is necessary to render them irrelevant! Of course, we should, instead, be focusing on the message imparted.

Please note that all your objections to my war amputee counter-example apply equally, if not more, to the tsunami example. (E.g. "I don't see how the probability of the tyranny [tsunami] being prevented could be equal or very near to 1.0"; "the presence of a single person has no real effect on the probability of success " -- Oh, and we readily accept that the amputatioon of one leg will prevent with probability 1.0 a ...tsunami?! Come on.)

This is about doing "good things" for others without any seemingly direct benefit to us - and about the extent that we'd go to do such "good things". (I.e. it is easier to give $1 mln to charity if you're Bill Gates or $10 if you're an average citizen, but it's equally tough to lose a leg, whether you are Bill Gates or an average citizen.)

We are looking to find out why people do it. Because, make no mistake, they [i]are doing it, as evidenced throughout History - everyday history or war history. But why are they giving up a part of themselves (limb, time, quality) to do something "good" for others?

Because their religion forces them to? In which case, their kudos are only deserved in the sense that {a} they are obedient, or {b} they are logical because the penalty for not doing so is incentive enough!

So is it, actually, only because we are obedient or logical (albeit, after accepting certain premises as true, eg Hell in the after-life) ?

Or because of something else?

AthenianStranger

07-04-2005, 07:30 AM

Money will not save anyone's life, for verily, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. The casting of the money option as the 'Christian choice,' which is supposedly counter-intuitive, serves only to illuminate for me the ridiculousness of the hypothetical. As if the answer meant anything. Surely if one felt badly leaving a loved one in the hospital in order to secure a needed five-million dollar sum, it would be a heavy burden on the soul. If done out of greed or malice, then it is wrong. If it is a necessary thing and peace has been made with the dying person, then it is right to do what one must do. Why is this even an interesting question? I don't understand. Why are you trying to save so-called 'starving children in third world countries'? With money, no less. Mr. Sklansky, your argument is pointless. The money is irrelevant.

Why do we live? To keep on living? No, to die. Just as the starving children will die, you will die, and so will we all. Money will not save us from death. Our love and care of our close friends and family will not save them from death. Life is a preparation for death, and the way of life that presribes that preparation is written in The Bible. That is the premise of a Christian life. What is your premise? What are we going to do for those starving children? Give them food, keep them alive, make them 'intelligent,' 'rational,' arrogant secular humanists like ourselves? Better they have a sense of mystery. And fear. And death. And I will attend to my dying whoever, but I will not grieve for him or her, because he or she is losing nothing, and gaining everything.

HighStakesPro

07-04-2005, 07:43 AM

The reason I objected to your war amputee example was because it was presented not as a hypothetical situation but as something which has occurred throughout history, "proving" that people will sacrifice their own limbs to do "good things for other people." But real war examples throughout history are unlike the hypothetical tsunami example because in no case has a sacrifice been made with absolute certainty that resulted in the drastic swing of a probablity to equal or near to 1 down to equal or near to 0, or vice versa. Through history, people have undertaken the RISK of personal harm in exchange for the POSSIBILITY of doing good things for others, but I do not know of any case like the tsunami one where the exact outcome is known before the decision is made. I'm sure there have been some cases where a soldier threw himself in front of another soldier and absorbed a lethal bullet to protect his comrade, but those kinds of acts are more instinctive and not a result of rational contemplation. In addition, saving one life is obviously not of the same magnitude as saving over over 150,000 lives that were lost to the tsunami, nor is losing a limb comparable to dying.

Cyrus

07-04-2005, 11:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I objected to your war amputee example was because it was presented not as a hypothetical situation but as something, which has occurred throughout history, "proving" that people will sacrifice their own limbs to do "good things for other people."

[/ QUOTE ]My war amputee example was simply more realistic than the totally hypothetical/unrealistic tsunami example. Which is why I found it more appropriate.

We often fall for long and fruitless arguments when faced with hypos such as the infamous one about "Would we torture a kidnapper if that was the only way to save his victim from getting blown up by a time bomb?", etc. We should be focusing more on realistic scenarios. Totally hypothetical thought experiments are useful not because they reflect reality (as we know it) but because through them we get to something else.

[ QUOTE ]
Real war examples throughout history are unlike the hypothetical tsunami example because in no case has a sacrifice been made with absolute certainty that resulted in the drastic swing of a probability to equal or near to 1 down to equal or near to 0, or vice versa.

[/ QUOTE ]Precisely. Note, please, that in the tsunami example, it is implied that we will be spared the tsunami's wrath if we cut off our leg, by a probability equal to 1.0 - or close enough!

[ QUOTE ]
Through history, people have undertaken the RISK of personal harm in exchange for the POSSIBILITY of doing good things for others, but I do not know of any case like the tsunami one where the exact outcome is known before the decision is made.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes, exactly!

I'm satisfied that the real answer to the realistic war scenario (=risking harm for the probability of doing good to others), is, as you say, Yes, people will risk harm, incl. getting their limbs chopped off or worse, in order to increase the probability that bad things will not happen to others. This is a real answer because this has happened, in a significant number of instances throughout History. (And that's putting it mildly...)

[ QUOTE ]
Saving one life is obviously not of the same magnitude as saving over 150,000 lives that were lost to the tsunami, nor is losing a limb comparable to dying.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. This is consistent with what I'm saying. I.e. the man of war risks potential death; Daryn asks me to "merely" chop off a leg.

But note that when I'm fighting in a war, I'm not fighting only for the next village, or my company's comrades. I'm essentially fighting for the stakes of the whole war. The satisfaction is taken locally but the objective is perceived universally.

--Cyrus

P.S. [ QUOTE ]
There have been some cases where a soldier threw himself in front of another soldier and absorbed a lethal bullet to protect his comrade, but those kinds of acts are more instinctive and not a result of rational contemplation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Define "rational" when I (risk to) cut off my leg to (help) win a war instead of letting the others to fight it! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

But, about extraordinary heroics: I have claimed before that the greatest loyalty of a soldier, whether been told so or not, is not to "King & Country", "America the Beautiful", or what-have-you; but, rather, to his comrades in the trenches. He will not retreat out of shame, he will advance out of loyalty and he will endanger himself for them out of dedication - to them. That is all.

HighStakesPro

07-04-2005, 11:25 AM

...And with this sudden tangent we drift inexorably twoards the elusive question which is the root of all of these discussions: What is the meaning of life? Does this question even have an answer? This is why people made up the concept of an afterlife, the consolidation of everything you have done in your life on earth, be it good or bad. "Be good, or you'll go to hell." "If you repent your sins and accept Jesus as your savior, you'll get into heaven as a high-ranking born again Christian."

Life really has no all-encompassing meaning, only the indivisual things we do have meaning in relation to each other; we're all going to die anyway, but once we're dead, that's it. You're done. Probably forever. So while you're alive you might as well make the best of it.

HighStakesPro

07-04-2005, 11:32 AM

the reason for my stance in opposition to fighting in a war is because the minimal gain of probability success of the cause you're fighting for vert rarely, if not never, justifies the extreme personal risks that are required.

Thanks for the dialogue, you made some good points that made me think differently about the situation.

bronzepiglet

07-04-2005, 05:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't pronounce on stupid so easily but repentance seems like a highly mercantilistic concept in Christian religion! You give to the Church X amount of a disposable and Church-exchangeable commodity (eg 10 Hail Mary's) and you get back the equivalent of X in forgiveness.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree with your characterization. However, I only have a basic knowledge of Catholicism, which you seem to be describing.

What I know about Christianity from a basically Protestant perspective is this: forgiveness is basically "free" if you ask for it, with the attached responsibility that you should be intending to change yourself so that you won't sin in the same way again. It's also my impression that if you try to "work the system" and never intend to change your ways you do so at your own peril, because you can't "pull a fast one" on God, or whatever.

I don't think that saying a certain set of words as punishment would be of any benefit to God. But if you are to believe the concepts of Christianity, then it is God's nature to be repulsed by sin and he could get some benefit from having less of it in the world. I think the idea is that God can get something from the deal but leave some room for human fallibility (and yes, re-fallibility).

David Sklansky

07-04-2005, 05:21 PM

Thanks for disrupting my point with silliness. Point being that most people, who are neither gifted or trained in thinking through the consequences of their opinions more than one or two steps, will inevitably have contradictory opinions. If they were trained they would realize that they had to give up at least one. And if they choose to remain untrained they should tend to defer to those that are.

chomsky53

07-04-2005, 05:55 PM

its cute how ass hurt you get when you get served.

snowden719

07-04-2005, 05:56 PM

there is value in philosophy to not making overly broad statements, such that although the main idea may have some credence, the point is wrong as a whole. But I'm sure you already knew that David.

David Sklansky

07-04-2005, 07:04 PM

The point wasn't wrong as a whole. And I was perfectly aware that the three propositions were not rigorously contradictory even as I wrote them. Are you Quad Nines?

Dan Rutter

07-05-2005, 12:36 AM

Are you trying to just point out that spending time with a loved one may have different value depending on the circumstances involved in the time spent? While that is apparent in your questions, no one has really thought about the burden of the second situation is. In case one you must live the rest of your life knowing you blew your one last chance to spend time with this loved one. In case two you must live the rest of your loved ones life thinking "once this person dies I will receive 5 million dollars". Many here seem that case two is a no brainer, and would be extremely easy to get through. I think it may have just as strong psychological effect as case one.

I am not saying everyone would kill their loved one to speed up the process, although some would. I am saying that the loved ones impending death would be on the person recieving the $5 million pretty much everyday. I know husbands and wife's are not thinking about life insurance policies on their spouse all the time, but this siutation is much different.

But I would take the money each time, and I would expect and want anyone had me as their loved one to take the money too, as long as they do not kill me early in case 2.

Your Mom

07-05-2005, 12:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am not being snide. It truly boggles my mind that any intelligent person believes this stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

It truly boggles my mind that any intelligent person can be so confident to know 100% sure that this stuff is not true.

HighStakesPro

07-05-2005, 01:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not being snide. It truly boggles my mind that any intelligent person believes this stuff.

[/ QUOTE ] It truly boggles my mind that any intelligent person can be so confident to know 100% sure that this stuff is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

It truly boggles my mind that any intelligent person wouldn't have read the post where David said
[ QUOTE ]
If the big bang and quantum mechanics is ever understood better, I will probably move from agnostic to atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

You present the false dichotomy that one must either fully believe something to be true or fully believe it to be untrue; even many Athiests don't hold the opinion that it is 100% certain that no God exists, they merely do not actively believe in any particular God. Especially an agnostic person, by definition, is NOT 100% sure that "this stuff" is not true.

Your Mom

07-05-2005, 02:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not being snide. It truly boggles my mind that any intelligent person believes this stuff.

[/ QUOTE ] It truly boggles my mind that any intelligent person can be so confident to know 100% sure that this stuff is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

It truly boggles my mind that any intelligent person wouldn't have read the post where David said
[ QUOTE ]
If the big bang and quantum mechanics is ever understood better, I will probably move from agnostic to atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

You present the false dichotomy that one must either fully believe something to be true or fully believe it to be untrue; even many Athiests don't hold the opinion that it is 100% certain that no God exists, they merely do not actively believe in any particular God. Especially an agnostic person, by definition, is NOT 100% sure that "this stuff" is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he's saying that it shouldn't be possible for an intelligent person to believe it, then I think I can conclude that he 100% doesn't believe it.

David Sklansky

07-05-2005, 05:16 PM

"If he's saying that it shouldn't be possible for an intelligent person to believe it, then I think I can conclude that he 100% doesn't believe it"

Huh? Think OJ

Your Mom

07-05-2005, 06:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"If he's saying that it shouldn't be possible for an intelligent person to believe it, then I think I can conclude that he 100% doesn't believe it"

Huh? Think OJ

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are comparing all religious people with the jury that let OJ off?

HighStakesPro

07-05-2005, 10:27 PM

Like I said before, there is no dichotomy of 100% belief versus 100% disbelief. I think he was referring to intelligent people who believe in "this stuff" (which, as far as I can tell, is a reference to the beliefs of Christianity) to an absolute or near certain (say 80%+, or even 50%+.) One can believe something something to be most likely untrue without completely discounting the possibility of it being true. I don't believe in the Christian God, or the bible, but I don't completely discount the possibility that some or all of it is true, only that it is highly unlikely.

I have noticed that devout religious believers and far-right conservative reactionaries are often refuse to consider the concept of a gray area or multiple levels of belief on an issue; you're either one one side or the other. This is beautifully epitomized by Bush's satement "you're either with us or against ut." This is a totally childish point of view, suggesting that countries had better do everything the US says and agrees with the US on every issue, or you're "against us" and therefore we can attack you. This is the kind of divisive rhetoric that turned some people "against us" in the first place.