Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-21-2005, 11:22 PM
txag007 txag007 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 256
Default 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"?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-22-2005, 12:07 AM
m1illion m1illion is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-22-2005, 01:37 AM
txag007 txag007 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 256
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-22-2005, 03:02 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-22-2005, 03:27 AM
m1illion m1illion is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-22-2005, 08:30 AM
txag007 txag007 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 256
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-22-2005, 08:34 AM
txag007 txag007 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 256
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-22-2005, 01:51 PM
spaminator101 spaminator101 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: wondering where in the world I left my sweet tea
Posts: 581
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-22-2005, 04:09 PM
BluffTHIS! BluffTHIS! is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 375
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-23-2005, 02:39 AM
KeysrSoze KeysrSoze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Reverse implied odds of 500000 to 900
Posts: 190
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.