Role Reversal Thread

[vbnautilus 48]

Anyone get the impression BG and crow don't like each other so much? Maybe its just me, but I am sensing some tension there.Maybe if BG would embrace our Christian values...

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Wow, this thread got pretty vindictive pretty quickly. And I thought the threads in Daniel's forum (ie the political forum) were bad.

[Balloon guy 158]

Wow, this thread got pretty vindictive pretty quickly. And I thought the threads in Daniel's forum (ie the political forum) were bad.

i'm not doing anything wrong, i was just here, trolling a religion forum with my anti-religious views, for 4 years and 4,000 posts, almost 99.9% of them in this section attacking religion, and this clown is all over me. even when i call him names he keeps taking pot shots at me. he can't stop to realize that i am right about everything, know the thoughts of entire continents of people, and cannot for the complete horror of my life, admit to anything I believe being anything but 100% true.poor me

[Balloon guy 158]

Anyone get the impression BG and crow don't like each other so much? Maybe its just me, but I am sensing some tension there.Maybe if BG would embrace our Christian values...

Values brought about by years of trial and error in societies throughout history to result in the level of morality we consider 'correct' today.

[Balloon guy 158]

i said for the sake of the forum. sucks having to defend myself on a personal level in every thread, but if i have to i will.

Pretty sure when the ballot to elect the people who's job it will be to safeguard the forums goes out..your name will not be on the lists.

i didn't feel like playing and didn't think it would accomplish anything if i did. no high horse involved.

Hear that vb...you are a fool for even starting this thread. Crow is trying to save the forum and here you are mucking about with this nonsense that us good atheist don't have time or inclination to lower ourselves to participate in. However we will stay on the sidelines and take pot shots at those of you playing along, just so everyone knows how smart we are.

[crowTrobot 2]

i'm not doing anything wrong, i was just here, trolling a religion forum with my anti-religious views, for 4 years and 4,000 posts, almost 99.9% of them in this section attacking religion, and this clown is all over me. even when i call him names he keeps taking pot shots at me. he can't stop to realize that i am right about everything, know the thoughts of entire continents of people, and cannot for the complete horror of my life, admit to anything I believe being anything but 100% true.poor me

since you chose to post a complete lying ass-wipe misprepresentation of what's been going on here i assume you're not interested in any of the threads here remaining civil. no problem.

[Balloon guy 158]

since you chose to post a complete lying ass-wipe misprepresentation of what's been going on here i assume you're not interested in any of the threads here remaining civil. no problem.

Feel free to do a little research and find out who began what skippy.Man this forum needs a cigar section

[vbnautilus 48]

Don't make me turn this car around!

[Balloon guy 158]

Don't make me turn this car around!

Okay, I promise to be a good boy.Because of course my being good is good for the group..which is pretty much consistent with my beliefs that morality evolved for the benefit of the group as a whole

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Don't make me turn this car around!

Haha. I swear to G-...um, I promise I thought about posting the exact thing several times.

[vbnautilus 48]

Okay, I promise to be a good boy.Because of course my being good is good for the group..which is pretty much consistent with my beliefs that morality evolved for the benefit of the group as a whole

Why is anything "good" for a group? A group isn't even a thing, it's just a collection of individuals. If it's good for one individual to subjugate the others in the group and become rich by enslaving them, why isn't that good for him? The only reason it's not good is because he is violating a universal moral standard set down by God.

[crowTrobot 2]

Feel free to do a little research and find out who began what skippy.

not fooling anyone.

[Randy Reed 0]

Stop all the bickering now. Basically none of you guys can prove anything one way or the other. The pointis that everyone is better off "believing" than not. Whether people evolved or were put here by an ultimatecreator we have the inate gift of imagination that no other species possesses. We can use that imagination toponder the wondrous things about our being, our planet, and our universe and the vast expanse of time and space.To ruin all of that by imagining we are nothing more than a simple animal doomed to hard lives and then death is aterrible way to live. By having solace that there is something greater than ourselves and a better place to look forwardto after death, we are in and of itself a better person. We physically and better off by having faith as it has been proventhat a positive outlook will make you more healthy. Religon as a guiding force and set moral standard that a communitycan agree to abide by is also better for everyone in the long run.So it's obvious that having faith>not having faith.

[brvheart 1,752]

Hi.Christianity isn't about a "need" for something. It isn't about "hope." That's like saying, 2 + 2 = 4 because I need it to be.It doesn't work that way. It just IS. God doesn't exist to fill a void (though, he does do that, of course). He exists because, without him, nothing would exist. Without an omnipotent entity to break the infinite cycle of regression, nothing can possibly be.There has to be an original mover, a universal cause. If not, we could ask, "what caused x, well, it was caused by y. But what caused y? It was caused by z..." There are two scenarios. Either we can ask these questions for infinity (ie there is no universal cause), or there is a universal end, and we eventually reach that end and say, "z was created by God".Clearly, the first scenario makes no sense. Infinite regression is impossible. So, there is a god, and it is he who is the cause of all that we see.Of course, that only explains that there is A god, not why there is the Christian god. For that, you have to look both at the evidence, and you have to search your soul to find what really makes sense, what you really believe in. Christianity has the benefit of plenty of evidence as well as making much more sense and being much more beautiful than any other religion. In other words, if there is a god, certainly he'd want to present himself to humanity, his creation, in some way. So, we can assume that god indeed has visited us in one form or another. What remains is to decide which claimed visit of those throughout history is most likely to have been the real god. I think Christianity (the story of Christ) wins by a wide margin.Good Luck.

The rule following broke down in the last few paragraphs.

This is true, of course, but probably not going to win over too many converts. I was trying to use the carrot. And since they haven't been able to disprove a single religious claim, despite trying for years and years with their fancy science, there isn't much of a question about god's existence. After all, it's quite obvious that there is something and not nothing.

You're not playing by the rules.

Yorke's Wager:So, we're all familiar with Pascal's wager, and we're all familiar with the simple refutation of the wager. Simply put, Pascal doesn't tell us which religion to follow, and we can't follow them all at once. Several beliefs may contradict each other, so we can't every be fully covered.But that's not the point. The idea behind Pascal's wager is to maximize the expectation value as summed over the different possibilities. Here's the key: we must weigh each possibility by it's probability of being true.So, here's how I'll do pascal's wager. Let's say that P(x) is the probability that x is the correct scenario (x may be no god, Christian god, Jewish god, Buddhism, or may be subdivided however one sees fit).Let's say V(x) is the value of scenario x, weighted in the long run.The original point of Pascal's wager was that V(Christianity) >>> V(atheism) because of the whole eternal life thing. But it's important to remember to keep in probabilities.So, Yorke's expectation value goes as follows:E[V] = Sum over x { P(x)*V(x) }This is clear so far. Now, we make some simplifying assumptions. Any religion or scenario x that doesn't involve an afterlife or eternal happiness or heaven clearly has a VERY small value compared to any that does. So, we can simply drop those terms in the above sum, no matter their probability. Basically, we're saying that infinity * small number > Big Number * Big Number.So, the real expectation value is given by: E[V] = Sum over x { P(x)*V(x) }, where we only sum over religions with a well defined afterlife containing eternal happiness.Also, since eternal happiness is equal to any other eternal happiness, we can pull the V term out of the sum:E[V] = V(eh) * Sum over x { P(x) }, where V(eh) means the value of eternal happiness (essentially infinity), and again, the sum only goes over heavenly religions.So, it is clear what we must do. We must maximize this expectation value. The above equation tells us that, to do so, we simply choose the religion that contains an enternal afterlife of happiness that seems most probable and follow that religion.Since Christianity clearly is that religion, we are mathematically obligated to be Christian. qed

The biggest problem with all this nonsense is that you aren't accounting for the fact that there may be a God who hates math, and will send you to hell for using these equations. There may also be a god who hates Radiohead and will torture all people who ever listened to them, which means we can dismiss this whole premise immediately.

[Balloon guy 158]

Why is anything "good" for a group? A group isn't even a thing, it's just a collection of individuals. If it's good for one individual to subjugate the others in the group and become rich by enslaving them, why isn't that good for him? The only reason it's not good is because he is violating a universal moral standard set down by God.

Because societies that have continued have found these traits to be the most beneficial for their survival, which is just as important for the individual as for the group.Groups that have practiced things contrary to the survival of the group have found their growth stunted, their conditions weakened and their survival less likely to be a sure thing. Hence the groups that incorporate a positive moral outlook will flourish, while the ones 'rewarding' selfish behaviors will always end up weakened.It is the beauty of allowing natural selection to mold us into beings who value things like empathy, love and compassion.This is also the source for our love of beautiful things, like art, music and Annette Funicello in the 60s and deep into the 70s before disease brought down that beautiful creature.We can see these things even in the base primates and their group mentality, as well as in the more primitive human tribes who have shown us that even in remote locations, things like respecting an elder and marital unions are incorporated in all functioning societies.

[Balloon guy 158]

Stop all the bickering now. Basically none of you guys can prove anything one way or the other. The pointis that everyone is better off "believing" than not. Whether people evolved or were put here by an ultimatecreator we have the inate gift of imagination that no other species possesses. We can use that imagination toponder the wondrous things about our being, our planet, and our universe and the vast expanse of time and space.To ruin all of that by imagining we are nothing more than a simple animal doomed to hard lives and then death is aterrible way to live. By having solace that there is something greater than ourselves and a better place to look forwardto after death, we are in and of itself a better person. We physically and better off by having faith as it has been proventhat a positive outlook will make you more healthy. Religon as a guiding force and set moral standard that a communitycan agree to abide by is also better for everyone in the long run.So it's obvious that having faith>not having faith.

What about the people of 'faith' who blow themselves up to prove their devotion to god?Or the religious practices that subjugate women, cause weak men to have un-justifiable power over whole groups of people because they claim to have the power to cast them out of the 'faith' and into hell?Religion is an antiquated way to view the world around us, and it's sins far outweigh it's benefits in today's modern world.

[Balloon guy 158]

The rule following broke down in the last few paragraphs.You're not playing by the rules.

don't follow these rules violations with this;

The biggest problem with all this nonsense is that you aren't accounting for the fact that there may be a God who hates math, and will send you to hell for using these equations. There may also be a god who hates Radiohead and will torture all people who ever listened to them, which means we can dismiss this whole premise immediately.

We don't need to give them any false ammo for them to misuse and create straw men arguments which is all they have..

[Randy Reed 0]

What about the people of 'faith' who blow themselves up to prove their devotion to god?Or the religious practices that subjugate women, cause weak men to have un-justifiable power over whole groups of people because they claim to have the power to cast them out of the 'faith' and into hell?Religion is an antiquated way to view the world around us, and it's sins far outweigh it's benefits in today's modern world.

I can think of a million sayings that we've all heard like, "just because he jumped off a bridge doesn't mean you should." In all cultures everyonehas the same basic moral guidelines but following them doesn't come easy, it takes work. So a few misguided people blow themselves up isn't reasonfor everyone to give up faith and trying thier best to live moral lives. It just doesn't make sense that because a few get it wrong that the rest should give up, overall religon's benefits far outweigh the negatives.I would also agree that a bad leader is no different from a bad coach but it doesn't negate the fact that teams with good coaches aren't more successful. Our leadersneed to help mold this reality and lead us from ignorance, prejudice and fear. Religon is needed now in the modern world more than ever. Just because we have technology that can make life easier and doesn't mean acting moral is easier. In many ways technology has separated families, community and caused people to lose a sense of "self". Religon is needed now more than ever to help guide people.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

There may also be a god who hates Radiohead

Don't even joke about that.

[Balloon guy 158]

I can think of a million sayings that we've all heard like, "just because he jumped off a bridge doesn't mean you should." In all cultures everyonehas the same basic moral guidelines but following them doesn't come easy, it takes work. So a few misguided people blow themselves up isn't reasonfor everyone to give up faith and trying thier best to live moral lives. It just doesn't make sense that because a few get it wrong that the rest should give up, overall religon's benefits far outweigh the negatives.I would also agree that a bad leader is no different from a bad coach but it doesn't negate the fact that teams with good coaches aren't more successful. Our leadersneed to help mold this reality and lead us from ignorance, prejudice and fear. Religon is needed now in the modern world more than ever. Just because we have technology that can make life easier and doesn't mean acting moral is easier. In many ways technology has separated families, community and caused people to lose a sense of "self". Religon is needed now more than ever to help guide people.

Maybe in today's current climate you can argue that a few bad apples don't spoil the soup, although I don't know what kind of soup uses apples.But when you have a history of religions going to war, subjugating it's people, or using religion as a cudgel over the heads of the peasants keeping them dumb and subservient, then you can't really argue that the way things are today is the way it will always be.

[Randy Reed 0]

Maybe in today's current climate you can argue that a few bad apples don't spoil the soup, although I don't know what kind of soup uses apples.But when you have a history of religions going to war, subjugating it's people, or using religion as a cudgel over the heads of the peasants keeping them dumb and subservient, then you can't really argue that the way things are today is the way it will always be.

But I can argue that that was then and this is now. Naturally people were uneducated and didn't have the benefit of the knowledge we now posess. We can learn from past mistakesmore readily than they could. Comparing today's society to peasants isn't a fair. I will say that it's not like today's society has achieved the pinnacle of educational success, albiet far from that,but we are much farther along. With education comes responsibility and that's where religon comes in, to help us keep the moral compass as we learn more through science. So in other words, religon ismore important now than ever lest we lose our ways and become subservient to analytical statistics. We need leaders with faith in God or we can only expect horrors down the road.

[Balloon guy 158]

But I can argue that that was then and this is now. Naturally people were uneducated and didn't have the benefit of the knowledge we now posess. We can learn from past mistakesmore readily than they could. Comparing today's society to peasants isn't a fair. I will say that it's not like today's society has achieved the pinnacle of educational success, albiet far from that,but we are much farther along. With education comes responsibility and that's where religon comes in, to help us keep the moral compass as we learn more through science. So in other words, religon ismore important now than ever lest we lose our ways and become subservient to analytical statistics. We need leaders with faith in God or we can only expect horrors down the road.

Like George W. Bush and Richard Cheney?

[Randy Reed 0]

Like George W. Bush and Richard Cheney?

I won't argue politics but that's better they were better than Hitler or the communists. They might havebeen poor at making correct decisions but their hearts were in the right place.

[Balloon guy 158]

I won't argue politics but that's better they were better than Hitler or the communists. They might havebeen poor at making correct decisions but their hearts were in the right place.

|Stepping out of the thread|Sorry dude, I know that was a low blow to make you defend|And back to the thread|Hitler claimed to be a ChristianNah that's pretty weak.How aboutHaving good intentions isn't a good enough requirement for being in charge of the largest military in the history of the world.As Winston Churchill said: "Sometimes we can't just do our best, sometimes we have to do what is required."

[Randy Reed 0]

|Stepping out of the thread|Sorry dude, I know that was a low blow to make you defend|And back to the thread|Hitler claimed to be a ChristianNah that's pretty weak.How aboutHaving good intentions isn't a good enough requirement for being in charge of the largest military in the history of the world.As Winston Churchill said: "Sometimes we can't just do our best, sometimes we have to do what is required."

haha, it was. I was stumped all day trying to come up with something.