There is nothing to fear. There is only one true religion, so why would you fear of anything else? If you believed in Mohammedanism, why would you fear a Christian Hell? If you believe in atheism, why would you fear any Hell?
The reason to be afraid is because you can't possibly ever be sure, no matter what religion you follow. What makes you so sure Christianity is the answer?
I believe because I was told to believe. I tried to believe, and I did. I haven't been convinced to believe anything else, and unless that day comes (it won't), I will continue to believe. What I don't get, is, how do you not believe? How is it logical not to believe anything? Even from a bet-hedging standpoint, like LloydAsher claims to have, how is it logical to not believe? If you do believe, and you are correct, nearly every religion claims to have a reward for you. If you do not believe, and are incorrect, nearly every religion has a punishment. If you choose to believe, and are incorrect, most religions have the same punishment, so wouldn't it make sense to choose one to believe? You seem to have chosen to reject all religion, either that or you have chosen not to choose, but those don't really make that much sense to me.
Something I've never understood is people using the quote, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence," by Christopher Hitchens. That quote has never made sense to me, because if you dismiss purely based on lack of evident evidence, you might just be dismissing the truth. If someone went back in time and started explaining quantum physics to people, and the people believed Hitchens's words to be true, they would likely reject such claims, due to them having no proof, and, due to the technology of the time period, the person explaining would not be able to prove the truth.
Would not the scientific way be to attempt to prove the claim oneself, rather than relying on the person making the claim to prove it? If someone says something, and there's no evident evidence for it, it is either false or true. If it is true, to dismiss it without first disproving it would be bad from a scientific standpoint, would it not?
To believe something that cannot be disproven makes sense to me, is what I'm saying. I don't get why it wouldn't make sense. After all, you cannot prove it false, so to reject it as not true is not possible, since it is plausible. You might as well pick one of the plausible options and stand with it. If you really want to choose the plausible option that you believe to be most likely, but has the worst outcome, go ahead and be my guest, but I don't get why you would.
I read your long rant anyway. It made me think of nuclear physics, where the degree of plausibility can be quantified by using the branch of mathematics known as Statistics. There are phenomena in theoretical physics that cannot be disproven, but the consequences conflict with results that have been observed in particle colliders.
In empirical science, at least, theoretical possibilities often suggest hypotheses that can be tested. But, the quantification of plausibility (standard deviations, et all) is needed to drive the experimental research effort on the most likely plausiblities first. My personal interpretation of Hitchen's caveat is that he was arguing for procedural rigor in research methods.
What you have said makes quite a bit of sense. However, so many people use that quote to dismiss things as false that could be true, which is incredibly unscientific. I agree that research should be spent trying to either prove or disprove the most likely option first, but that does not mean that people should totally dismiss the "less likely" options as false until they are proven to be true.
Religion is frustrating
← View full post
There is nothing to fear. There is only one true religion, so why would you fear of anything else? If you believed in Mohammedanism, why would you fear a Christian Hell? If you believe in atheism, why would you fear any Hell?
--
Anonymous Post Author
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The reason to be afraid is because you can't possibly ever be sure, no matter what religion you follow. What makes you so sure Christianity is the answer?
--
RoseIsabella
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Faith makes me sure.
--
Anonymous Post Author
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Good for you, but you can believe literally anything on faith, which means it isn't a pathway to truth. What is your faith based on?
--
RoseIsabella
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
What difference does it make? I'm not here to try to convert anyone, and I certainly feel no need to justify my faith in God to anyone.
--
Anonymous Post Author
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I was only asking a question out of genuine curiosity, you know...
I believe because I was told to believe. I tried to believe, and I did. I haven't been convinced to believe anything else, and unless that day comes (it won't), I will continue to believe. What I don't get, is, how do you not believe? How is it logical not to believe anything? Even from a bet-hedging standpoint, like LloydAsher claims to have, how is it logical to not believe? If you do believe, and you are correct, nearly every religion claims to have a reward for you. If you do not believe, and are incorrect, nearly every religion has a punishment. If you choose to believe, and are incorrect, most religions have the same punishment, so wouldn't it make sense to choose one to believe? You seem to have chosen to reject all religion, either that or you have chosen not to choose, but those don't really make that much sense to me.
Something I've never understood is people using the quote, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence," by Christopher Hitchens. That quote has never made sense to me, because if you dismiss purely based on lack of evident evidence, you might just be dismissing the truth. If someone went back in time and started explaining quantum physics to people, and the people believed Hitchens's words to be true, they would likely reject such claims, due to them having no proof, and, due to the technology of the time period, the person explaining would not be able to prove the truth.
Would not the scientific way be to attempt to prove the claim oneself, rather than relying on the person making the claim to prove it? If someone says something, and there's no evident evidence for it, it is either false or true. If it is true, to dismiss it without first disproving it would be bad from a scientific standpoint, would it not?
To believe something that cannot be disproven makes sense to me, is what I'm saying. I don't get why it wouldn't make sense. After all, you cannot prove it false, so to reject it as not true is not possible, since it is plausible. You might as well pick one of the plausible options and stand with it. If you really want to choose the plausible option that you believe to be most likely, but has the worst outcome, go ahead and be my guest, but I don't get why you would.
I realize that this was a terribly long rant.
--
dude_Jones
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I read your long rant anyway. It made me think of nuclear physics, where the degree of plausibility can be quantified by using the branch of mathematics known as Statistics. There are phenomena in theoretical physics that cannot be disproven, but the consequences conflict with results that have been observed in particle colliders.
In empirical science, at least, theoretical possibilities often suggest hypotheses that can be tested. But, the quantification of plausibility (standard deviations, et all) is needed to drive the experimental research effort on the most likely plausiblities first. My personal interpretation of Hitchen's caveat is that he was arguing for procedural rigor in research methods.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
What you have said makes quite a bit of sense. However, so many people use that quote to dismiss things as false that could be true, which is incredibly unscientific. I agree that research should be spent trying to either prove or disprove the most likely option first, but that does not mean that people should totally dismiss the "less likely" options as false until they are proven to be true.
--
dude_Jones
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Exactly.