Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ridemyjansen

Animosity towards Americans

Recommended Posts

1. Less intelligent people can be swayed into anything, even aboriginals think that cameras steal your soul

 

If someone's been taught something as being the truth since childhood they're pretty much going to believe it no matter how intelligent they are.

 

i rejected christianity and i was born into it. but then, after my understanding of the world, universe, time, space etc evolved, i realised that these things that i saw as "proof" against things like religion were really flawed. thus, i went back to the church - it was the only logical thing to do.

 

 

that's so true, what's chance do you have of being a christian is you were born in say iran...

 

 

So you went back to the church because you realised that your proof against religion was flawed, not because you actually found a reason or a shred of proof to validate the beliefs of the church? I do not see how you that is logical.

 

My problem with religion is simple. The only evidence of the existence of god are stories passed down from thousands of years, which is no proof at all. There is not a shred of actual proof and I think it is foolish to beleive something simply because other people tell you it is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else noticed how quite the yank is? I haven't seen a post from him in days! Whats wrong mate? Realised you couldn't win and left with your tail between your legs? Wheres that fighting spirit you guys love so much? :whistle::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you went back to the church because you realised that your proof against religion was flawed, not because you actually found a reason or a shred of proof to validate the beliefs of the church? I do not see how you that is logical.

Logical, yes. Proof, no. Logic is simply arriving at a decision based on the facts at hand, not necessarily needing verifiable undisputable proof on a course of logical action. Proof is without doubt but isn't required to take action based on logic. For example, if there was a gunshot and you turn around and see a kid with a smoking gun pointed at you, logic suggests that the kid fired the gun and we should run for cover. But in reality it could have been fired by an adult who then put the gun in the kids hand. It could have been fired by a third person and the smoking gun was a complete fabrication from an accomplice for the purposes of deflecting our attention as the purpetrator gets away. The gunshot could have been played via a loudspeaker. etc, etc, etc.... regardless of what actually happened, a logical step exists: Take cover. Later on, a videotape of the incident happening may reveal itself and would be more akin to proof - but the likelihood of getting that may not always be an eventual certainty. Notice how we already had a logical course of action even before proof was realised.

 

Thus for me, the flaws in the arguments against religion gave me a logical course of action. I find it similar in logic to how insurance works. You pay up-front for insurance so it is technically an extra burden on your finances, and there is no guarantee that you'll ever reap the rewards of an insurance payout - but you are covering for the possibility that the insurance works and you need a big payout. otherwise you have paid insurance for nothing. the benefits of insurance can logically outweigh the burden of insurance depending on your situation. you don't want to be uninsured, have a marginally less cumbersome financial level of disposable wealth... but then realise you actually needed it. The double-reverse-logic of that is of course, if you don't believe the insurance would pay out even if you paid up-front (Voltaire's predicament of Pascal's gambit). Thus, we're back to square one and we're talking about flaws against religion :) so i guess it boils down to pascals gambit yet again. it always does. that is what i have found.

 

To believe in a higher power does come out a net positive using decision theory. I was just on the wikipedia page of pascal's gambit and it's changed considerably since the last time I saw it a few years ago... this quote near the end is particularly interesting:

 

Richard Dawkins suggests that instead of the deity Pascal assumed, God might reward honest attempted reasoning and punish blind or feigned faith.

Richard Carrier expands this argument as such:

 

Suppose there is a God who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless god wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy.

 

My own revelation is this: If you spend your life being good to others, this comes with personal sacrifice - and most of us will be good to others most of the time. If you marry, you will sacrifice things for your partner, be it time/freedom/career etc. If you raise children, most of us will be good to them - at great personal sacrifice. So we do indeed go through life spending a very sizeable portion of our time and life's energy being good for other people's benefit. The cost of adhering to a religion which underpins the things that we wish to do voluntarily anyway and which also provides (the possibility of) personal salvation at a small cost compared to the already large cost we are servicing through life is, in my opinion and in my situation, worth investing in - even in the face of any real proof for or against such claims of salvation were to be assured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble with religion is, every religion says if you believe in another religion you will go to hell. How do you know your religion is the right one?

 

If i told you the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world and made everybody believe it was done by god, would you be forced to believe me because you cannot find any proof against my claims?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll find most religions will say if you are exposed to that religion and THEN you turn away, you will have problems. I can't recall exactly Chappy but there are passages that say this - eg if you've never heard of or been persuaded by it - eg: you're in the middle of africa dying... you are not held accountable. However if you're shown everything possible and then actively reject it point blank then yes, some bibilical stuff hitting the fan usually follows those parts of the script :lol: it's hard... but look at that quote from Richard Dawkins. It really can help when thinking about this stuff..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pascal's wager assumes that there's some kind of choice when it comes to what you believe in. The way I see it is that you don't get a choice... sure I could pretend to believe in a god, I could choose to live according to a certain religion, but I can't force myself to believe something, no matter how logical that decision would be in terms of potential cost/benefit.

 

Aside from that I can't see why a god would want to keep morally good people out of heaven simply because they haven't found a convincing enough reason for his existence especially seeing as he seems to have taken every possible measure to conceal himself from humanity and plant evidence which proves his followers, and their "divinely inspired" scriptures wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^Guys, we really are getting off topic here

 

I have posted a new topic, please continue your debate there.

 

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok,

 

After not being able to come back for a while due to work, school etc. I've finally had the chance to read some of your responses. Some make very valid arguments with atleast some kind of empirical evidence, which I always hold in high regard. Some have posted rants, others; subjective opinion.

 

I'm not going to beat the dead horse about certain topics. The generalization on both sides is as clear as day, and will always be so. (Thanks to our friends: the media). I'm not here to bash on Australia nor post neo-imperialist propaganda for America. I'm here to state my opinion based on the experiences I've had in my life, having lived both in The U.S. and Australia.

 

I've outlined the differences as I see them and I stand behind what I said 100%.

 

I'm not going to refute any statements. by any members because everyone here is entitled to an opinion on the matter, and I respect you guys for standing up for what you believe in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×