Sklansky has it backwards
 

David has said several times in the past that Christians believe what they do because facing the revelation that their beliefs are wrong would be too painful. I've been pondering this theory for a while, and I've come to the conclusion that he has it backwards. It's not the Christians who would suffer the most if their beliefs are wrong, but the non-believers.

I know this sounds very Pascal wager-ish, but please hear me out.

DS- (from a recent thread)
"It is a disease, similar to stoke victims who don't admit they are paralyzed or Multiple Personality sufferers (who were almost always horribly abused as children). It is cause by the brain's propensity to do whatever is necessary to prevent severe emotional pain."

Between those who believe in God and those who don't, who would suffer the most emotional pain if their beliefs were proven to be wrong? I think it's logical to assume that on average it would be the ones whose lifestyle would be affected the most.

What if Christians are proven wrong, and God is found to be nonexistent? What changes? Although it would undoubtedly be an emotionally trying time, many Christians lifestyles probably wouldn't change too much (in the way that we interact with others in society, etc.) They might even find new freedom in that many things they once considered wrong would not be so anymore.

If on the other hand the God of the Bible were proven to exist, many nonbelievers would have a problem. Suddenly, they are accountable to a higher being. Many of the actions that they once enjoyed are now considered wrong. On top of that, they have that Hell thing to worry about (since it now exists).

Which instance would cause the most "severe emotional pain"?

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

If non believers are are wrong, it's their own fault. They weighed the evidence/arguments and made a decision.

If the believers are wrong then they have been lied to. What's more everything that they counted on as their security blanket is gone. Especially missing will be the meaning of their lives.
The believers will feel (rightfully) betrayed.

Emotionally, the believers are likelier to be shattered.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

Which party lost their security blanket?

As a Christian, is my life now meaningless? Yes and no. I can continue to live my life in the same way I lived before, only now knowing that when it's over, it's over.

As a non-Christian, will my life change forever? Yes. I can no longer live life the same way I lived it before because I now know that I will be held accountable for my actions. My security blanket (God's nonexistence) is now gone. If I don't change my life, I will go to Hell.

From an emotional standpoint, who is more likely to have a problem weighing the evidence objectively?

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

[ QUOTE ]


As a non-Christian, will my life change forever? Yes. I can no longer live life the same way I lived it before because I now know that I will be held accountable for my actions. My security blanket (God's nonexistence) is now gone. If I don't change my life, I will go to Hell.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you continue to assert that nonbelievers are somehow morally bankrupt? If God was proved to exist heres how my life would change, I would now believe in the Christian God. I would also be alot less concerned with the plight of my fellow man as its all just part of Gods plan and the meek shall inherant the earth. I stay in touch with alot of the people that I knew when I went to church and attempts to bring me back into the fold are inevitable consequences of this and its been made clear that my lack of belief is the only thing holding me back from going to heaven. One other change for a nonbeliever that doesnt apply to my broke ass but would apply to my father. All the money and time that he invests in helping other people would now be spent on building new churches and attending church services.

Using your logic that a belief in no God equals doing whatever you want, I dont see how you think that the average Christians life wouldnt change alot. Whats to stop him from now raping and murdering his sister?

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

[ QUOTE ]
Which party lost their security blanket?

As a Christian, is my life now meaningless? Yes and no. I can continue to live my life in the same way I lived before, only now knowing that when it's over, it's over.

As a non-Christian, will my life change forever? Yes. I can no longer live life the same way I lived it before because I now know that I will be held accountable for my actions. My security blanket (God's nonexistence) is now gone. If I don't change my life, I will go to Hell.

From an emotional standpoint, who is more likely to have a problem weighing the evidence objectively?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no security blanket for the non believer. In fact the non believer GAINS a shot at salvation. Never mind the fact that there is every chance that nothing changes for the majority of non believers who lead perfectly "righteous" lives, they just have to accept the validity of the bible.
And your life is irrevocably changed. No more "for the glory of god" mantra. No more " it is god's will".
Sorry, your argument is decidedly unconvincing.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

"There's no security blanket for the non believer. In fact the non believer GAINS a shot at salvation. Never mind the fact that there is every chance that nothing changes for the majority of non believers who lead perfectly "righteous" lives, they just have to accept the validity of the bible."

1. In terms of eternal destination, the belief that God doesn't exist IS a security blanket. The nonbeliever has that shot at salvation right now and chooses to ignore it.

2. Christian or non-Christian, NOBODY lives a perfectly righteous life. So, the non-Christian now has to answer for his sins. The Christian drops the "glory of God" stuff of which you speak from his vocabulary and moves on. Which is tougher?

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

"Why do you continue to assert that nonbelievers are somehow morally bankrupt?"

"Using your logic that a belief in no God equals doing whatever you want, I dont see how you think that the average Christians life wouldnt change alot. Whats to stop him from now raping and murdering his sister?"


I never said that nonbelievers are morally bankrupt. We're all sinners, Christian and nonchristian alike. What is in question is whether or not we have to answer to those sins in the afterlife.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

not necesarily
you see many people think/beleive that a God exists but dont practice any religion
no matter how stupid/crazy this may seem people still do it
and i beleive that a large portion of non-beleivers are this way

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

I think it is logically correct though to say that both camps would suffer emotional pain if proven wrong. We Christians would suffer emotional pain because having placed our hopes in an eternal afterlife with God that makes our sufferings here insignificant in comparison, we now would be confronted with a reality in which what we get in this life is all we can hope for, and for a significant portion of humanity that is grim.

Non-believers as you pointed out would also suffer emotional pain because they would have to change their entire world view, plus would often have to make significant changes in their lifestyles to conform to relgious behaviour and moral standards. There is however a "kicker" here for them. If upon having been proved wrong, they now did not accept religious faith, since they could not sincerely maintain unbelief, they would then be subject to the consequences of knowlingly rejecting that proved faith, consequences that would attach in the afterlife.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

Are you kidding? Have you SEEN how bitter a true believer gets when they "lose their faith?"

Me, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I long for the day when Odin reveals himself in all his glory. I'd pack up and go to Iraq on the next flight, to die a glorious death in battle and be carried to Valhalla by the valkyries.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

Except that a lot of us are hoping that we will be proven wrong, and will rejoice when it happens.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

[ QUOTE ]


1. In terms of eternal destination, the belief that God doesn't exist IS a security blanket. The nonbeliever has that shot at salvation right now and chooses to ignore it.

2. Christian or non-Christian, NOBODY lives a perfectly righteous life. So, the non-Christian now has to answer for his sins. The Christian drops the "glory of God" stuff of which you speak from his vocabulary and moves on. Which is tougher?

[/ QUOTE ]

You've twice now made the first point and neither time have you made any attempt to justify it other than saying it is so.
There is no security blanket for the non believer. The overwhelming majority of non believers(99.9%) are not running amok, wantonly causing chaos and destruction safe in the knowledge that there is no eternal judgement. It's just ignorant to suggest otherwise.
The believer, having invested his entire psyche in the reassurance that his eternal reward is assured, when faced with the sure knowledge that this is not so will be devastated. How can you say the believer will just shrug this off?

As for your second point, I didn't say a PERFECTLY righteous life. I said the average non believer would not have to make that many adjustments because the average non beliver still lives a righteous life. Which is to say, that they live a regular life, go to work, raise a family, contribute to the community. Very little changes for the non believers excepting that, now faced with irrefutable evidence of god, they are faced with the decision to worship/obey/atone or don't. There would be a multitude of Saul's running around, not hard to imagine.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

Any non believer because of lack of evidence wouldn't skip a beat becoming a worshipper if there was irrefutable proof. Any exception would be because of insanity or stupidity, not hubris.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

Taken point by point:

M1llion-
"You've twice now made the first point and neither time have you made any attempt to justify it other than saying it is so.
There is no security blanket for the non believer."

First of all, I didn't realize that point needed any more justification. Secondly, you've done the same thing. A "security blanket" by definition is "a usually familiar object whose presence dispels anxiety". Now, aside from the fact that we are speaking of a belief and not an object, the reliance on the "fact" that God does not exist allows many nonbelievers to justify their sinful acts (which we ALL commit by the way) whether they be of commission or of omission.


M1llion-
"The overwhelming majority of non believers(99.9%) are not running amok, wantonly causing chaos and destruction safe in the knowledge that there is no eternal judgement. It's just ignorant to suggest otherwise."

In that case, it's a good thing I never suggested otherwise. If you read my other posts in this thread, you will see that I said I do not think all nonbelievers are morally bankrupt. I said that we are ALL sinners. The only difference is that those who believe there is no God think that they will never be held accountable for their sins.


M1llion-
"The believer, having invested his entire psyche in the reassurance that his eternal reward is assured, when faced with the sure knowledge that this is not so will be devastated. How can you say the believer will just shrug this off?"

I made a point in my original post not to dismiss the emotional aspect of it. Of course there will be emotional trauma either way.


M1llion-
"As for your second point, I didn't say a PERFECTLY righteous life."

Yes, you did. Reread your post.


M1llion-
"I said the average non believer would not have to make that many adjustments because the average non beliver still lives a righteous life. Which is to say, that they live a regular life, go to work, raise a family, contribute to the community. Very little changes for the non believers excepting that, now faced with irrefutable evidence of god, they are faced with the decision to worship/obey/atone or don't. There would be a multitude of Saul's running around, not hard to imagine."

There are many reasons that people don't believe in God. It is important that we don't group all nonbelievers together and say, "This is what they are like."

Some who don't believe really want there to be a God. For the most part, I'm not talking about them. There is plenty of reasonable evidence for those who are truly searching, but that is off topic of this thread.

Others are mad at God. Others don't care, and don't want to bother with any potential evidence either way. Still others truly believe that their evidence proves God's nonexistence and refuse to consider any counter-evidence. It's these types of people to which I'm referring.

Also, something else should be clarified here. If God somehow revealed himself to everyone in the world using some type of "Road to Damascus" situation, it's not hard to imagine that everyone would believe.

But what if the proof was more subtle? If if was just a few calcuations on paper that proved God's existence or nonexistence, who would be more likely to refuse to acknowledge its truthfulness?

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

"Any non believer because of lack of evidence wouldn't skip a beat becoming a worshipper if there was irrefutable proof. Any exception would be because of insanity or stupidity, not hubris."

Not all nonbelievers refuse to believe because of lack of evidence. For the ones use "lack of evidence" as their excuse for unbelief, there is plenty of reasonable evidence for God's existence right now. If it's "irrefutable proof" they are waiting on, they aren't going to get it.

In how many other aspects of life does a person need irrefutable proof before he commits to something? Not many.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

"Are you kidding? Have you SEEN how bitter a true believer gets when they 'lose their faith?'"

To my knowledge, God has not been proven to be nonexistant. Therefore, that was not the reason for the loss of faith of which you speak. Furthermore, making a general argument based on one experience is a flaw in your reasoning.

Unless of course, you were just being sarcastic.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

See my response to your other post.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

The reason why you are, for the most part wrong, is because you make an assumption about most non believers that is, I am almost sure, not the case. Namely that their non belief is a big deal to them. You think it is because you think most non believers have a lot at stake in their non belief. Serial sinners and anthropologists being two examples.

You don't seem to understand that the great majority of non believers got that way gradually and with no feelings of revelation as they read, studied, and thought about what makes the world tick. This is especially true if you include in the non believers camp those who are unsure about God in general, but simply believe strongly that any individual religion is a big underdog to be correct even if there is a God. That last statement requires an IQ of 45 to understand and even BluffThis reluctantly admits he can't refute it.

Bootom line: Non belief in a specific organized religion requires no psychological component, especially if the non belief is in the brain of someone versed in physics, logic and probability.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Any non believer because of lack of evidence wouldn't skip a beat becoming a worshipper if there was irrefutable proof. Any exception would be because of insanity or stupidity, not hubris."

Not all nonbelievers refuse to believe because of lack of evidence. For the ones use "lack of evidence" as their excuse for unbelief, there is plenty of reasonable evidence for God's existence right now. If it's "irrefutable proof" they are waiting on, they aren't going to get it.

In how many other aspects of life does a person need irrefutable proof before he commits to something? Not many.

[/ QUOTE ]


There is "Plenty of evidence"? Did I miss something? Where? Enlighten me.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

Hey David! Glad to see you're back. Before I respond, I'd like to make sure I've got something correct:

"any individual religion is a big underdog to be correct even if there is a God."

Is this because you believe all religions to be diametrically opposed to one another, so the chances of one being correct is small? Or is there another reason?

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

Not always diametrically opposed to each other. But they disagree on things where they can't both be right. And they consider those disagreements immportant enough to be the basis of it being called a different religion.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

As someone unsure about the existence of God but leaning heavily against it I weigh in with this on the topic - I will be thrilled if I am wrong and there is a God. I live my life as morally as the vast majority of religious folks I know. Though I could always be a better person, I feel that if heavan isn't too exclusive I have a good shot at entrance. I would be thrilled if this happened.

Contrast this to folks who have spent many hours in church/synagogue/mosque worshipping a God that doesn't exist. Their purpose in life has been defined to a great extent by their religious views. I know because I grew up a devout Christian until I was a teenager and decided that not only religion but God logically didn't make sense and were inconsistent with much of what I saw in the world.

However, that sense of purpose and comfort and belonging I felt as a Christian is gone probably forever. And as I meander through life pondering the meaning of existence and why am I here? and all that other crap I envy those who still wrap their cold shoulders around that warm blanket of faith in God and take true comfort in it. It's nice to know God is waiting for you. I shudder to think what would happen to most people if that were taken away.

I would be thrilled if there was a God waiting - but I doubt I'm wrong and can't convince myself otherwise despite wanting to.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

If you can't find god in the theologies of religions, maybe it's because that's not where god is. Maybe you are revealing god to us in your life. If so, thanks.

PairTheBoard

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

"There is "Plenty of evidence"? Did I miss something? Where? Enlighten me."

The reasonable evidence out there is plentiful for anyone truly seeking. The existing evidences is scientific, historical and archaelogical, literary, and sometimes supernatural. It is more than can possibly be listed in one post, so I am going to send you to some websites. Any of these are great, and I'll be happy to discuss anything you wish from these sites.

www.rationalchristianity.net
www.apologetics.org
www.carm.org
www.godandscience.org

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

[ QUOTE ]
that sense of purpose and comfort and belonging I felt as a Christian

[/ QUOTE ]

and then

[ QUOTE ]
that warm blanket of faith in God

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not Faith you are describing, it is Community. Community is nice. Community is socially helpful. It can be dangerously conformist, but sometimes that is useful. It is also utterly mindless.

Faith, on the other hand, is rife with doubt and fear and pain. Faith can make you sick, and (when you get it twisted) it can make you turn against your Community with violence, literally or figuratively. Faith has almost nothing to do with Church. It’s less like “Nearer My God To Thee” and more like the DMX song “Who We Be.” It is a big risk, to have true faith, because:
A. You must think about it, and doubt it, and therefore you may lose it and become a different (happier? unhappier?) person.
B. You may think you’ve found the voice of god, and he may ask you to do some crazy s**t.


Mt.10:34
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." –J.C.


I’ve always interpreted this to mean: division and strife IN THE LIFE OF THE BELIEVER. That’s sort-of my problem with the supposed dichotomy discussed in this thread; believers vs non-believers. It seems to me more like: Blind Conformists vs Professional Againsters, neither of which is the best example of anything.

Neither a thoughtful atheist nor a thoughtful religious person can sleep well at night. That’s the price of knowledge-seeking.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

[ QUOTE ]
"There is "Plenty of evidence"? Did I miss something? Where? Enlighten me."

The reasonable evidence out there is plentiful for anyone truly seeking. The existing evidences is scientific, historical and archaelogical, literary, and sometimes supernatural. It is more than can possibly be listed in one post, so I am going to send you to some websites. Any of these are great, and I'll be happy to discuss anything you wish from these sites.

www.rationalchristianity.net
www.apologetics.org
www.carm.org
www.godandscience.org

[/ QUOTE ]

From godandscience.com

Scientific Evidence for Answered Prayer - Double blind, scientific studies validate the efficacy of Christian intercessory prayer.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

"That’s sort-of my problem with the supposed dichotomy discussed in this thread; believers vs non-believers. It seems to me more like: Blind Conformists vs Professional Againsters, neither of which is the best example of anything."

The Bible doesn't ask for "blind" faith. Blind faith is very, very dangerous.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

Here's the link for anyone else reading this:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

[ QUOTE ]

The Bible doesn't ask for "blind" faith. Blind faith is very, very dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize it until this post, but I think we can count another "Agnostic who just doesn't know it yet" in the chat forum. If you ever want to become openly agnostic, we have cool jackets.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

Lol. I believe I'll politely decline the offer. There is too much evidence to resort to that. :-)

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

The term "blind faith" is redundant. All faith is blind as it is unsupported by evidence.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

"The term "blind faith" is redundant. All faith is blind as it is unsupported by evidence."

I wouldn't say "unsupported by evidence". There is evidence that God exists, the Bible is true, etc. You probably won't find 100%, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt proof to that regard, but there is evidence.

Also, it depends on what definition of faith you use. Obviously, you mean "firm belief in something for which there is no proof", but faith can also be defined as "something that is believed especially with strong conviction" and "allegiance to a duty or person".

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

Now we are getting into a discussion of what the word "faith" means. Give me a break. Is it so hard for you to admit that you believe in God and don't need/want evidence to support it? Is this your rational mind rebelling against the notion of believing in something unprovable?

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

"The reason why you are, for the most part wrong, is because you make an assumption about most non believers that is, I am almost sure, not the case. Namely that their non belief is a big deal to them. You think it is because you think most non believers have a lot at stake in their non belief."

Our disagreement occurs because of what each of us believes the makeup of nonbelievers to be. Here is a repost of something I said in another post within this thread:

[There are many reasons that people don't believe in God. It is important that we don't group all nonbelievers together and say, "This is what they are like."

Some who don't believe really want there to be a God. For the most part, I'm not talking about them. There is plenty of reasonable evidence for those who are truly searching, but that is off topic of this thread.

Others are mad at God. Others don't care, and don't want to bother with any potential evidence either way. Still others truly believe that their evidence proves God's nonexistence and refuse to consider any counter-evidence. It's these types of people to which I'm referring.]

As for the ones who say their non-belief is not a big deal to them, I think that is just a facade. You can't honestly tell me that such a person objectively faces the possibility of eternal damnation and says, "Ah, it's no big deal." Can you?

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

"Is it so hard for you to admit that you believe in God and don't need/want evidence to support it? Is this your rational mind rebelling against the notion of believing in something unprovable?"

I do need evidence to support my beliefs. In 1 Thessalonians 5, Paul instructs us to "test everything". The evidence supporting Christianity is there. That is why I believe it.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

"Not always diametrically opposed to each other. But they disagree on things where they can't both be right. And they consider those disagreements immportant enough to be the basis of it being called a different religion."

Right, but if you trace the disagreements back to their origins it becomes much easier to make a decision about who is correct.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

[quote
I do need evidence to support my beliefs. In 1 Thessalonians 5, Paul instructs us to "test everything". The evidence supporting Christianity is there. That is why I believe it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it disagrees with many other passages in the Bible. For instance, in Genesis 22 when God tells Abraham to burn his son Isaac to prove his love. If Paul wants us to "test everything" shouldn't you test the notion that if God wants you to kill your son, that God is wrong?

Also, in this passage from Genesis God praises Abraham for being willing to sacrafice his son, but isn't the willingness to kill out of faith exactly the "Dangerous blind faith" you spoke of earlier?

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

Two things:

1. In context, Paul was specifically referring to the validity of false prophets. Easily, this can also be applied to the validity of false religions. It was in this context from which I posted.

2. Regarding Abraham, it didn't require a whole lot of faith to believe God's existence at this point in time as God was speaking verbally to him. So, he wasn't exactly killing out of faith, but rather just following instructions.

And by the way, for those reading this who have never read the Bible, Abraham didn't kill Isaac. God stopped him.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

[ QUOTE ]

2. Regarding Abraham, it didn't require a whole lot of faith to believe God's existence at this point in time as God was speaking verbally to him. So, he wasn't exactly killing out of faith, but rather just following instructions.


[/ QUOTE ]

The "blind faith" I was referring to here is the faith that God is just, and that following him is good, not the faith that he exists. If someone in a position of power to me would tell me "Kill your son to prove your allegiance to me" I would immediately question that person's integrity. Abraham does not question God's integrity at all, a course of action the Bible seems to promote.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

As I mentioned in my last post, when I said "test everything" I was referring to the evidence of God and Christianity. I was not saying to test God himself. It says elsewhere in the Old Testament "do not put the Lord thy God to the test". In fact, the only place in the entire Bible where God instructs us to test Him personally concerns our tithe.