Atheism speak your mind about religion

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

The psychological would also remain the same regardless of how many doors for the question remains the same. Should I switch or shouldn't I, and the same process would be taken into account.

I said that pretty much the exact same way in my post. As far as the question being any harder, it would be of the same difficulty for me at least. The same thought process would take place since it would still be the question between those 2 doors just like the same question that started with 3 doors instead of 1000. I don't see how the number of other doors has any factor on either side of it but some people may think otherwise depending on their thought process.

No, I have not tried this method of thinking because I do not feel that it is compatible with my thought process or at least with my current understanding of how you use it. If you use it in the strict form in which you've stated then no, i don't think that is would work. If you adjust and twist it into some other interpretation, then possibly. I am more than interested in hearing you explaining this further however.

1 Reply

@Chights47,

Quote:

, it would be of the same difficulty for me at least. The same thought process would take place since it would still be the question between those 2 doors just like the same question that started with 3 doors instead of 1000.

I have heard this from a neuroscientist as well, "That is even though you show some people 1000 doors they still are not able to see it in a more simple way!

I think that it is important that you are able to see the simplicity of the 1ooo doors compared to the 3 doors before I go off and start talking about morality and society.

Please do not get me wrong, I do think that you are very wise and also what I would like to share with you about morality and society very well may be wrong, that is why I would like a peer review!
The sad thing is that you are the only peer that has an interest on this forum!

It may take me a couple of tries of rewording it, Well at least I hope!
I have had someone say " Well when you say it like that I can get it!

There are 1000 doors, you pick door #500! Your odds are 1 in 1000 of picking the correct door correct?

Now what I would like to do is magically take away 998 doors that have nothing behind them.

Just because I take away those doors will not change your chances of picking the correct door!

Now you do realize that your door was a door that had a chance of 1 in 1000 doors of being correct?

Please note that,
There is no corruption involved in what is being discuses here!

Your door can go either way , that is "the correct door or the incorrect door!

I chose to allow your door to be one of the last 2 doors to be considered!

Keep in mind you had a 1 in 1000 chances of choosing the correct door!

There is only the correct door and the loosing door do you need to think hard about it?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

I'm not fond of talking about hypothetical situations (your situation with the doors) in forums because I tend to way over think them when they really don't need to be. I would like to continue a post that you placed on another thread here. Mainly because it would be a topic shift and I hate BillRM.

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
I am sorry, Thomas. But I believe if it's wrong to do it in one place, it's wrong to do it in another

I agree with your moral consistency!

It seems logical to me but I can only guess that there could be exceptions to the rule. I think that some times it may be OK to be rude if you think it could offer moral or other insights, but other than that I am not so sure!

It would be my last result and I would prefer not to use rudeness.

Morality should always be consistant in the way that Arella Mae outlined because there are no exceptions. Moral is moral and immoral is immoral, but people do seem to think that there are exceptions which make these actions correct which is not the case. For example, if someone were to steal food for their staving family, it is considered an exception for an immoral action because it was down out of selflessness and to assist others. The reason doesn't change the action however, theft is theft and both are wrong. This is of course simple thinking, but I believe that it is neccesary to maintain a proper belief in what is moral.

Rationalization and justifications towards immoral actions are the thought processes of more advanced brain functions. Generally, the more outspoken religious people do not speak that way, they just tell it like they were told...which generally comes from the logic of people of 2,000 years ago, which of course isn't as advanced as ours is now. If it were only science in charge of determining what's moral it wouldn't be about what is or is not moral, but about the justifications or the "means to an end".

1 Reply

@Chights47,

Quote:

I'm not fond of talking about hypothetical situations (your situation with the doors) in forums because I tend to way over think them when they really don't need to be. I would like to continue a post that you placed on another thread here

I am speaking reality with you but to work it out in your head or on paper would be much easier than if you were to actually go and build 1000 doors and put a gift behind one of them and analyze the process!

I agree with you that morality should not change but the sad fact is that some people are in such a rut that they have no interest at all in thinking of such matters on their own so I think that it could be possible for you to come down to their level and befriend them and a little at a time share with them morality!

Do not get your hopes up because it seems that I may be very wrong but I will not give up on young people that I think may have a chance. I may need to keep trying different tactics and see what happens!

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

I am speaking reality with you but to work it out in your head or on paper would be much easier than if you were to actually go and build 1000 doors and put a gift behind one of them and analyze the process!

That's not really what I'm talking about. Your example implies that only one door is right and that there's only one prize, but I don't think that's the case in reality. There are thousands of doors to chose from that are just as right as another so every single door out of all the 1000 doors would have prizes, but it's a matter of which prize that we are looking for. We won't know what prizes there are unless we open the door. With your example, if we don't choose a door that we end up wanting after we see the prize that's there, then that option is lost to us forever and we must choose something else. There are many specific flaws in which I see such as this with the example of the doors which is why I don't really like hypothetic situations. As stated with your example though, the process would, of course, be the same regardless of how many doors that there were originally because the question afterwards would remain the same. Statistically it's smarter to switch doors, while psychologically, the decision is much harder because there are many other factors with that process.

reasoning logic wrote:

I agree with you that morality should not change but the sad fact is that some people are in such a rut that they have no interest at all in thinking of such matters on their own so I think that it could be possible for you to come down to their level and befriend them and a little at a time share with them morality!

Do not get your hopes up because it seems that I may be very wrong but I will not give up on young people that I think may have a chance. I may need to keep trying different tactics and see what happens!

You statement doesn't make any sense to me. You think that morality shouldn't change, but it's bad for people to be in a "rut". I would think that being in a "rut" would then be a positive since that means that they would be unchangable. Unless you think that you're views on morality shouldn't change, and that everyone should adopt your idea's on what is to be considered "moral". With over 6 billion people on there planet, though, I think that there are enough people that think about such things. The people that don't think about such things and are "in a rut" are more like the control and help to keep our justifications in check and help us from losing ourselves in a sea of them. If you think that everyone should think and discuss morality then you agree that it should be subject to change without any control. That's a terrible idea because all that would be needed would be someone with a silver tongue and a whole lot of money and power, and they can get away with just about anything that may be remotely controversial.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

How can you thank God and you don't even believe in him ?!

0 Replies

@Chights47,

Quote:

I'm not fond of talking about hypothetical situations (your situation with the doors) in forums because I tend to way over think them when they really don't need to be.

I can see what you are talking about in this next quote because it seems completely different from what I was trying to share!

Quote:

That's not really what I'm talking about. Your example implies that only one door is right and that there's only one prize, but I don't think that's the case in reality. There are thousands of doors to chose from that are just as right as another so every single door out of all the 1000 doors would have prizes, but it's a matter of which prize that we are looking for. We won't know what prizes there are unless we open the door. With your example, if we don't choose a door that we end up wanting after we see the prize that's there, then that option is lost to us forever and we must choose something else. There are many specific flaws in which I see such as this with the example of the doors which is why I don't really like hypothetic situations. As stated with your example though, the process would, of course, be the same regardless of how many doors that there were originally because the question afterwards would remain the same.

Quote:

You statement doesn't make any sense to me. You think that morality shouldn't change, but it's bad for people to be in a "rut". I would think that being in a "rut" would then be a positive since that means that they would be unchangable. Unless you think that you're views on morality shouldn't change, and that everyone should adopt your idea's on what is to be considered "moral". With over 6 billion people on there planet, though, I think that there are enough people that think about such things. The people that don't think about such things and are "in a rut" are more like the control and help to keep our justifications in check and help us from losing ourselves in a sea of them. If you think that everyone should think and discuss morality then you agree that it should be subject to change without any control. That's a terrible idea because all that would be needed would be someone with a silver tongue and a whole lot of money and power, and they can get away with just about anything that may be remotely controversial.

I guess that we seem to agree that it is difficult to understand each other at times

Quote:

I would think that being in a "rut" would then be a positive since that means that they would be unchangable.

This is an example of what I would consider to be a rut!
You can find these young people trying to make an art out of immoral behavior!
http://able2know.org/topic/33349-589

0 Replies

Atheism speak your mind about religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know