A triple hypothetical

[Orrex]

If God didn't exist and you still believed in God regardless and a pill existed that could "cure" you of your faith in a non-existent entity, would you take it?

[rug]

1. No.

[T Wolf]

2. If I believed in god I would be unable to make the rational decision to

rid myself of the delusion.

Therefore, the answer would have to be NO.

[Lerkfish]

3. nm

[Deep13]

4. You can't really turn it around so well.

If God existed, his/her/its/their presence who have observable consequences in the real world. Skeptics would, therefore, accept his existence based on the evidence. Either way, belief has nothing to do with it.

Something can be offensive and still be a valid argument or an objective fact.

[Lerkfish]

6. nm

[Orrex]

10. Bypassing? Well, that's the purpose of a hypothetical!

Look, I'm not asking "Here in the real world, will you take a pill to cure you of your loony belief in God?" because I'm not interested in exploring the question that way. Obviously belief should be a matter of free choice, but belief in something that doesn't exist (not something that might not exist, but which actually does not) is irrational in much the same way that schizophrenic delusion is irrational. That's why I constructed the hypothetical as I did, to put the question into the realm of "what if" rather than "here's how it is."

[Lerkfish]

13. nm

[Orrex]

15. Holy moley, would you please read what I wrote?!?

I said that I'm not interested in exploring the question in terms of "looney theists," and I mean it.

You seem to be going out of your way to be offended as quickly as possible. If you don't like the thread (or can't handle a hypothetical) then don't read it.

[Deep13]

17. The nature of atheism renders the pill unnecessary.

"Believe or nonbelief in a deity should always be an act of free will."

This presupposes two things. First, free will exists. I don't think it does. Given a sufficient understanding of a person's background and human behavior in general, a person is as predictable as a clock. Second, that a person's beliefs somehow have a right to be disconnected from objective reality. Sure, legally a person may believe what he or she wants. In that sense the right is absolute and must be so. In a larger sense, is it defensible for a person to insist on X when Y has been conclusively proven? It is not. In fact, it is one definition of insanity. God cannot both exist and not exist. Only one of those two conditions can be true. While theists are careful to define God in such a way that avoids any conclusive litmus test that would prove his existence or nonexistence, the circumstantial case for atheism is pretty compelling.

[Boojatta]

31. Just wondering

Given a sufficient understanding of a person's background and human behavior in general, a person is as predictable as a clock.

When you say "a person is as predictable as a clock", do you mean that it's possible to describe the person's behavior before the behavior occurs or simply that one can always say, "I knew you were going to do that" after the fact?

Are you imagining standing outside of the universe and making predictions from that external place or are you imagining predictions being made within the universe?

The word "predictable" suggests that there is a power to predict and that people might choose to use that power. However, if the people who might choose to use that power are as predictable as clocks, then it would seem that the mere fact that they do not use that power tells us that they could not have used that power. In other words, it would seem that either the predictions are actually made or the predictions could not have been made. Hence, a person is not predictable, unless the person's behavior was actually predicted.

[Deep13]

32. I meant predicted literally, clocks figuratively.

Granted it means knowing all the details of a person's life. People are very easy to predict en mass when specific variables are more or less evened out.

[Boojatta]

36. Is there an error here? (I deleted the reference to clocks)

The word "predictable" suggests that there is a power to predict and that people might choose to use that power. However, if the people who might choose to use that power are themselves predictable, then it would seem that the mere fact that they do not use that power tells us that they could not have used that power. In other words, it would seem that either the predictions are actually made or the predictions could not have been made. Hence, a person is not predictable, unless the person's behavior was actually predicted.

[Boojatta]

38. Kick because I'm still wondering. e.o.m.

[TRYPHO]

34. I just had a major flashback...

When you say "a person is as predictable as a clock", do you mean that it's possible to describe the person's behavior before the behavior occurs or simply that one can always say, "I knew you were going to do that" after the fact?

Wasn't that the i-Robot story line, or atleast a sub-plot thereof. The people living in secret on a hidden planet "earth" and underground at the Centre. They worked out how to calculate the future of Groups and structured events to control humanity. A "mule" messed things up for a while!

Sorry, its been 20 years since I read it probably, but it got my attention bigtime and the suggestion in this thread hits the same buttons.

TRYPHO

[Orrex]

39. I think that's The Foundation trilogy, rather than I, Robot

The premise was that sweeping predictions could be made about sociological and societal trends, but not about individuals or individual behavior.

[TRYPHO]

40. Yes! Thanks, I can sleep better now.

Great series of books. I mean REALLY* great.

TRYPHO
*My Mum would call them utter crap

[Orrex]

41. SPOILER (one last point from me before we get too off-topic)

SPOILER SPACE





















The scene in which a member of the 2nd Foundation confronted Pritcher and the Mule strikes me as one of the most evil acts I've ever read in sci-fi. The Foundation member freed Pritcher from the Mule's mind control, resulting in Pritcher's homicidal rage toward the Mule, restrained only by the FM's power. After the crisis had passed, the FM (or maybe his superior) put Pritcher back under the Mule's control and sent them on the way.

WTF?!? How evil is that? To free someone, giving him a glimpse of himself, only to tear it away again. Yikes! Sure, it might be expedient, but it really set my teeth on edge!

[Evoman]

5. I would take the pill.

If god did exist, then believing in god would be the truth, and I would want to believe the truth. Of course, I would like to think that if god existed, I would have some sort of evidence. But the hypothetical states that HE DOES EXIST. It is not offensive to me in the least.

[Lerkfish]

8. nm

[Deep13]

21. If I KNEW there was a God, my BELIEF would simply take a back seat...

...to the knowledge. Belief is irrelevant. Only facts matter.

[Orrex]

7. If he could be demonstrated to exist? You bet your ass I'd take the pill!

Otherwise, I would be engaging in willful self-delusion! And as Deep13 correctly pointed out, an honest skeptic would defer to the evidence. If evidence were put forth that conclusively demonstrated God's existence, an honest skeptic would accept it.

Your question doesn't offend me, nor can I see how my question would be offensive to theists.

[Lerkfish]

9. nm

[Orrex]

11. Perhaps I'm not communicating something effectively here

I'm not asserting that God doesn't exist, nor have I ever made that assertion in this forum. I'm simply asking "what if?"

I have, in other threads (quickly locked) asked how belief in a non-verifiable phenomenon differs from delusion, but I now recognize that such a framing of the question is inherently offensive to those who believe, so I don't care to pursue that question further.

I think that a hypothetical (a triple hypothetical, for that matter) is a fair way to explore a question in terms that do not coincide with the world at large.

[Lerkfish]

14. nm

[Orrex]

16. Whatever

:wtf:

[Deep13]

19. Why does "good day to you" always follow a personal insult?

Clearly, you do not sincerely wish him a good day.

[Orrex]

20. And I'm offended by his lack of sincerity

Though I wish him a gracious good afternoon nonetheless.

:hi:

[Lerkfish]

22. nm

[Deep13]

23. He did not say theists were schizophrenic delusional.

He drew a distinction between believing what might be versus what is known to be and said refusing to accept what is known to be is LIKE being schiz. delusional.

[Lerkfish]

25. nm

[Orrex]

24. Sure it is--and, recognizing that fact, I have abandoned that comparison

But the hypothetical is still a valid thought experiment.

Hey, if it'll make you feel better, I invite you to go ahead and ask me any question you want, in whatever terms you care to use. I promise not to be offended.

[Deep13]

18. I think the test should be veracity,...

...not the subjective offense someone might take. People can be offended by just about anything.

Delusion is a firmly held acceptance of "facts" that have been proven to be false. 95% of religion falls in that catagory. This casts quite a bit of doubt on the 5% that remains elusive to proof one way or the other.

[moggie]

26. But you took offence BEFORE Orrex said that!

I really can't see how a hypothetical question, couched in neutral language, can be offensive.

[asthmaticeog]

12. Atheist here, not offended by your turnaround.

Mostly because it makes no sense when you parse it, but there you go...

[cosmik debris]

27. Nothing offensive at all about that

With the exception of so called "strong atheists" there would be no problem in a pill that proved the existence of god. Most atheists would not find themselves proved wrong, but rather justified in holding out for proof.

On the other hand, a pill that proved the non-existence of god would prove that theists and deists were wrong. Nobody likes to be proved wrong. That is why atheists (except "strong atheists") just say I don't believe. That is a statement that cannot be proved wrong.

[Evoman]

28. Lerkfish, you didn't have to erase everything you said.

I would have liked to see your response to my post.

[Lerkfish]

29. sorry. I re-remembered that I, as a theist

was the interloper in the religion/theology forum.

In the interest of peace I just erased my participation. If I have no presence here, I cannot be offended.

sorry that I don't recall exactly what my response to your post was.

[Orrex]

30. I expect that you could readily feel offended wherever you go

As part of the persecuted theistic minority, and all that.

[Goblinmonger]

33. O comeon, man

Interloper? Please. Nobody here is telling you that you can't contribute. People are just challenging what you have to say. THAT is what the forum is about. In this particular case, you were offended and thought it was just. You demonstrated by trying to show atheists how a similar situation would offend them. Except you were wrong. I'm not offended by your twist either. Get over it; move one; there will be more threads for you to post on. If I left a forum after I made an ass of myself, I would have nowhere left to go.

[cosmik debris]

35. He wants to feel persecuted

And you can't change that. Let him go.

[MistressOverdone]

37. Well, just like the other hypothetical

I'd have to know that God did/did not exist in order to take the pill, and that begs the question, why would I need a pill then?

Now, here's the way I feel. I sure would like to know the truth. But I don't imagine I EVER will. If there is not God, then death is a void. If there is, I still don't believe the answers to all the big questions come along with the harp and the cloud.

[Lerkfish]

42. My apologies for deleting my posts in this thread

or for any way I offended other posters in this thread.

thanks.