Sklansky has it backwards

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
"But this little thought exercise wasn't hard at all! Why did txag007 fail so miserably in the OP? I think maybe, just maybe, txag007 isn't quite experiencing the "fulness of life." No, on the contrary, txag007 has a powerful subconcious desire to escape the bonds of Christian morality. He researches and debates the empirical evidence for his faith so vigorously because he is quite bereft of existential evidence."


1.) This is just a rewording of many of the other arguments already discussed in this thread.

2.) You obviously haven't read many of my other posts. To an honest seeker, the evidence in favor of Christianity is substantial.

[/ QUOTE ]

You retard, did you even read the first 3/4 of my post? The premise of this thread is so wrong it's ridiculous.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Born again Christians think life is wonderful.


[/ QUOTE ]

The biggest generalization I have seen today.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
"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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotta disagree here-to "go back to the origins" you usually have to go back around 6,000 years- and several translations through different laguages (without the benefit of dictionaries to make sure you get the regional dialect correct) and tons of missing scrolls/writings- these are the reasons scholars who spend their entire lives studying these things still disagree.

There is one fact that is without question true here, and that is the fact that no one knows if there is really a GOD. You cannot prove that there is a GOD. If you could, we obviously wouldn't be having this discussion.

That said, to sit here and state that those who don't believe in a GOD, would be more negatively affected emotionally then those who believe in GOD, if each side were to experience a revelation of the truth, which would contradict their beliefs, is done so without warrant. I think that David spoke a little of this point before, but not in as much detail as this.

Most people who truly believe in GOD, dedicate their entire lives to this belief. They go to church routinely, they pray routinely, so on and so on. The people who do not believe in GOD, are not dedicating their lives to their non-belief. They don't spend a great deal of their time discussing their non-beliefs. They do not head to a building frequently to study their non-beliefs. They do not believe that their life is in existence, in order to satisfy their non-belief. However, those who do believe, think that their existence on this planet is to satisfy their GOD. Take that away, and they have nothing left. There whole reason for living has been essentially taken away.

Let us now examine the situation of the non-believers finding out that they were wrong. Will some non-believers have a hard time living in a world, which entails them to behave more "morally?" The answer to this question is obviously yes. More important, though, is this concept of existence. Undoubtedly, most of these people, simply, are of the thought process of not knowing why we are here. A lot of them may think we are here for no particular reason at all. Others probably just come to terms with the fact that they don't really know why. They can't tell you why or why not. Although, they will tell you that they do not believe we are here because of a GOD, they do not, on the other hand, have an answer as to why we are here. So, if these people are wrong, they are not going to be emotionally crushed to find out what their existence now is, because they never knew what their existence was in the first place.

It could actually be argued that they would be affected in a more positive way, because now their life has a finite meaning in an overall sense. Despite the fact that, there is now a hell, there is also now a heaven, which can be looked forward to, as nothing was looked forward to before.

Your point is just not logical. You are essentially arguing that it is emotionally easier to go from believing you were put on earth for a reason, to not having a reason, than it is to not have a belief as to why you were put on earth, to now knowing why you were put here.

[David Sklansky]

Welcome to 2+2. Your first post was terrifically written.
It should not be surprising though, that people who believe in precise religious ideas also usually tend to believe that non believers have at least as strong psychological reasons for their non belief as they do. Because, if they were to admit that people who think that specific religious ideas are nonsense, are in fact psychologically pretty unbiased, they would not be able to satisfactorly explain why these unbelievers increase in proportion as their IQ and scientific education increases.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Welcome to 2+2. Your first post was terrifically written.
It should not be surprising though, that people who believe in precise religious ideas also usually tend to believe that non believers have at least as strong psychological reasons for their non belief as they do. Because, if they were to admit that people who think that specific religious ideas are nonsense, are in fact psychologically pretty unbiased, they would not be able to satisfactorly explain why these unbelievers increase in proportion as their IQ and scientific education increases.

[/ QUOTE ]

And David likewise you are deluding yourself if you don't think a certain amount of "pride of unbelief" exists amongst academia.

This "pride" in itself is a stumbling block on the quest for the truth. Add some peer pressure and how many would actually accept the "truth" if it faced them?

[txag007]

Retard? Wow. That's a strong reply.

I just reread your post to make sure I didn't miss anything the first time. I didn't. It's just a verbose way of repeating the same arguments. Did you even read the other posts in this thread?

[txag007]

"And David likewise you are deluding yourself if you don't think a certain amount of "pride of unbelief" exists amongst academia.

This "pride" in itself is a stumbling block on the quest for the truth. Add some peer pressure and how many would actually accept the "truth" if it faced them?"

Exactly. Similar to the way that most of academia is politically liberal, belief in God is often seen as anti-intellectual.

[David Sklansky]

As I said you need to believe that. But the fact is that "pride in getting it right" is a far greater motivater to smart people than "pride in unbelief". (In my case there was never a pride of unbelief or a desire to escape moral commandments. It was just as I learned more and more, it became more and more obvious that any religions specific precepts had to be a big underdog to be true. It was no different than how I decided astrology or rushes were big underdogs to be true. I'm quite sure that most scientists reach their skepticism in about the same way.) And even a nine year old kid is capable of thinking "Wait a second, there are at least ten types of major religions with significant differences. And those who practice them are all sure that the evidence supports them. So even if there is a God, a randomly chosen religion is no more than ten percent to be right. Yet these religious people are all SURE they are right . What's wrong with them"?

[IronUnkind]

It is not "pride in unbelief" that is the motivating psychological factor, nor is it "pride in getting it right"; it is more along the lines of "shame of being considered unintelligent."

Existing in a culture such as a university environment where religious belief is widely considered to represent an intellectual flaw or even a psychological defect, one confronts strong social pressure to conform to the community standard.