I was reading, but not posting at that time. If I recall correctly, the IPU was not the wildest idea that was proposed at the time.
There’s also an “investment” factor to one’s faith. The usual acolyte has put in an incredible amount of time, effort, emotion and even money into these beliefs. To deny it now, as a delusion (!), is to admit they’ve been suckered and believed in fairytales as an adult.
:eek:
That’s the truth! 
Did you have an atheist number?
We have… numbers?!
Like I said, I was a reader only…but, dayum!…it was a great read.
This is why I think “belief” has a good likelihood of being dangerous. If someone is rational and bases their conscience thinking on reason, proven facts, and established theories, they allow their understanding to change without the crisis of losing face. They cn always say they were operating on the best knowledge they had at the time. But belief doesn’t work this way.
Imagine being so certain in your beliefs that you have told people to their face they are most certainly going to hell. Not just that you think they are going, but that you know for a fact they are. And you’ve also made a big deal of saying you’re going to heaven…that you’re “most favored”. That you’re saved from a fate that everyone else is destined for. Hahaha.
After you do this a few times, you’ve basically crossed a psychological Rubicon. How do you go to someone who you’ve condemned to hell and say, “Uh, bro, remember that time I said you were going to burn for all eternity? I was wrong. Forgive me?” I mean, of course it’s possible to do this, and I’m sure a few people have managed to humble themselves enough to. But as you said, having this level of conviction requires an investment that’s very hard to walk away from. If the sun suddenly starts setting in the east, I will feel like a fool for thinking I properly understood the Earth’s rotation. But I can always point to the evidence that supported my understanding and say I was operating on the best information I had, so shoot me.
I don’t have to apologize for being a jackass, in other words. A person who professes to know something they can’t possibly know can’t say the same.
To paraphrase someone famous - if you believe in God and you’re wrong, what have you lost? If you don’t believe in God and you’re wrong, what have you lost?
Note that I’m saying this as an Agnostic, so I don’t know much.
Slightly before I started there some theist claimed that there were only a handful of atheists on the net. So they started an official list of atheists, giving each a number to prove that there were tons of us. Mine was slightly over 1,000, and I think they were well above 2,000 when I left because I got overwhelmed by the volume of posts.
We get to define our own reality to a certain extent. If it is better with one’s person’s definition then anothers who is to say which is correct?
Which “god”, what does the “god” you chose require of you, and what if you piss off the right “god” by picking the wrong one? Pascal’s Wager is a fool’s bet.
Reality is already defined…but you are free to ignore aspects of it at your own risk.
Issue is in example one you were the ‘parent’ and raised a flawed child, as this tree did not grant your wishes consistent, in example 2 you are the child and have to learn as well as receive. In example 1 you did something wrong, in example 2 you have a loving parent who is perfect and will make it right.
So the replacement did radically change things to something you should not put such faith in to something that you could. It does not make sense to place that level of faith in the tree, that would be illogical - for you have raised it, why would you put more faith in it then yourself, but in your perfect parent that makes perfect sense and is logical.
Thank you, as you know I have long since read the disclaimer and accepted the risk.
I absolutely agree - some ignorance absolutely needs to be opposed and corrected, if it’s doing harm, or is contributing to a foreseeable future harm.
A bit of a sidetrack, but has anyone noticed how some lightening sprites look startlingly like Flying Spaghetti Monsters?
Back to the subject: Science has been unable to determine what all is involved in the meaning of “reality.” (I’ll take my skeptics when they are a little more open-minded.) But I agree that Pascal’s Wager is a fool’s bet. There’s no choosing whether you believe or not. Nothing new here.
But while people not being dicks might have the right to their wrong opinions, they don’t have the right to be sheltered from exposure to evidence against them.
That goes for teaching evolution. That also means we shouldn’t ban gay people from walking hand in hand because the religious parents of a kid don’t want him to see that there are people not like them.
Pascal’s Wager – an inherently flawed and spiritually dangerous thought exercise, for reasons which are a bit beyond the scope of this debate.
I myself am a somewhat non-devout follower of the Sevenfold Path (used to be the Eightfold Path, but due to the economic crisis had to downsize) and it has suited me well so far, precisely because my faith does not require the existence of any anthropomorphic “God” to protect me or bail me out of tough situations. As for the Invisible Pink Unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monster, that’s a cute joke but kind of side-steps the importance of spirituality in people’s lives – not everyone needs faith, of course, but many people do and have no clear idea how to adequately fulfill that need.
I believe in unicorns.
While this may or may not be true, I do believe passion and curiosity is a fundamental aspect of what makes us human. For myself, I pour that into shaping my philosophy on principles of human edification that have a rational basis which inherently allows for the infallible aspect of epistemology. This is why science has become a true and great part of my life and how I see the world, impacting the decisions I make and what to consider with healthy skepticism.*
I get there may be aspects to reality that might and forever remain hidden to us, but my experience at being human has taught me to take a heuristic approach to life, not someone else’s contrived path to “righteousness.” That’s lazy drivel.
*So, so much more astronomically so over christianity, but I hesitated to even post the above, only because I hate to compare science vs. religion. Science merely fulfills that part of me of which I believe seekers of faith to mistake as their “spirituality”.
raises hand
Yeh. I do too. Invisible ones. And it’s looking at me right now…