There are situations where having perfect information will get you killed. An
example used by Mr. Harris is the following:

"There was no way I was
going to escape this burning building if I knew just how the odds were stacked
against me, but because I didn't I was able to muster the emotional and physical
resources and get out."

That example is an assumption, not fact.

I don't get this "believing just in case" BS. Do you think the omniscient god you kinda-sorta believe in doesn't know you don't really believe? hmmmmmmm

 

Originally Posted by RUBINH

I don't get this "believing just in case" BS. Do you think the omniscient god you kinda-sorta believe in doesn't know you don't really believe? hmmmmmmm

Don't worry, as long as you really believe for a second right before you die you are good

I thought libertarians didn't believe in instinct.

I am actually saved and believe that I will go to heaven when I die. My theory was to give the non-believers something to think about as they lie their head down tonight. I also believe that churches and corrupt members take advantage of some people.

 

Originally Posted by LoLN2plus2is5

This is true.

And wishful thinking.

An interesting statement. Who is people? I assume you mean people who aren't religious to run against your previous statement of "Religious people," which would be incorrect because there are a few possibilities of what people who aren't religious think, as opposed to the singular answer you give as their supposed answer.

People who say there absolutely isn't anything do not have proof, this is correct. However it is not a baseless claim, assuming they're not just taking the antithesis perspective, but based on the workings of our physical being. Everything about us is localized to our brains. No more brain function, no more "us." Kind of (obviously not perfectly analogus) like a T.V. Lots of different channels but once you turn the T.V. off, what channel are you watching?

To be more specific, you have no evidence. (Assuming you're taking the Christian/Catholic type stance to this question and positing something like heaven)

Neat false equivalence, although ultimately incorrect.

This would also be incorrect, as there are more than two and you've mischaracterized at least one.

I think otherwise. Just for reference, it would probably help to know what other people (non-religious) actually think and why they think what they do before you try and argue against it. Tends to lend more credibility to your argument if it's based on something as opposed to what you think their reasons are going to be.

You can break it down however you want in hopes of making me look wrong and you look right or educated.

The simple answer is no one knows. All others answers are pure speculation.

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

If I had perfect information as you were musing about then I would know whether there was a way to survive or not. Under that scenario I would say that 100% of those that would have survived without the information survive with it as well. A certain percentage of those who died without the information would have lived as well once they knew the way to survive. Also, did he interview anyone who had perfect information but didn't make it out to ask why?

I'm not Sam Harris, you would have to ask him but I would think he's right based on basic human psychology. I would say that you're absolutely wrong in your assumptions, which seem to be baseless in origin. The added information changes things, including "you" if you're trapped in this hypothetical burning building.

You're also adding this, which is confusing:

 

once they knew the way to survive

Well, of course if you know the way to survive then your chances of actually surviving increase dramatically, however, in his hypothetical, there is no such "way to survive," but merely that the odds of them surviving are remarkably slim. If you know you can survive then that's great but if you know that the odds of you surviving are something like picking the winning lottery numbers then your outlook tends to get a bit more bleek.

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

And that's just dumb. I think most people given the choice between giving up (0% chance of survival) or trying to live (>0% chance of survival) will choose the latter even if it isn't a conscious choice. Instinct and adrenaline take over in situations like that.

You seem to be talking all over the map and extrapolating to somewhere that I don't even suggest I'm going to nor is suggested by the hyopthetical proposed.

You seemed to ignore the situation entirely because what you said is not related at all. We're not talking about a choice between 0% survival and >0%. We're talking about knowing the chances of escaping a burning building and not knowing them. The chances are there whether we're conscious of them or not. If you know that your chances of escaping are remarkably small then that will most likely paralyze you with fear whereas if you don't know them you're more likely to be able to bring to bear the emotional and physical resources to escape (not a guarantee that you do).

Hence his example.

 

Originally Posted by Prestonluv

You can break it down however you want in hopes of making me look wrong and you look right or educated.

The simple answer is no one knows. All others answers are pure speculation.

A nice evasion to be sure.

Yes, no one knows for sure but all answers are not pure speculation, some are based on evidence and observation. They are not the same, which is what I've already delineated to you but you didn't see that. All you saw was that I was trying to make "...(you) look wrong and (me) look right or educated." Not my intention and I don't need to do the former because I think your post by itself does that for you.

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Thought we were talking about "perfect information"? That was the premise for the hypothetical, yes?

Not exactly, no.

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

I ignored nothing. "Frozen with fear" = 0% chance of surviving.

I don't think you're intentionally ignoring what I'm saying but you're either not understanding what I am saying or just arguing for the sake or argument or to merely prove me wrong.

Yes, being frozen in fear does give you about a 0% chance of surviving but that is a result of having the information of, "your odds of survival are..." Not that you can choose to be frozen with fear or not. That is a consequence of having the information. Thus not having it allows you the greater possibilty of survival which was the whole point to begin with.

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Oh really?

The hypothetical was to illustrate that there are situations where having more information can be a bad thing. If you had "perfect" information then you wouldn't have been in the building in the first place.

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Then maybe you shouldn't have said "perfect information" then gone on to debate as if you said "more information"?

Or I was under the assumption that I was speaking to a rational person who would understand what I meant because if I had meant "perfect" as in knowing absolutely everything possible about anything, then the point of the hypothetical is moot. Yes, more information would have been ideal but I was taking what Sam said from memory so I assume I can be forgiven for using a technically incorrect term when realistically speaking it doesn't undercut the point I was attempting to illustrate, it would only do that if taken to an absurd extreme. Perhaps reasonably perfect would have been better than just perfect but still worse than simply "more information." But, point taken.

I would think context would also be important, but yes, I didn't use the perfect phrasing.

Do cats have a separate heaven or hell for each life or do you just put them all together and if a cat had 5 heaven lives vs 4 hell ones than he/she gets to play a harp?

Thus as Einstein said Matter cannot be destroyed only converted to Light and Energy...then the reverse is true for both Light and Energy...they cannot be destroyed...thus as you are 'Conscious' Light & Energy you cannot be destroyed...you are eternal in essence...only impermeable and changable in form.

It is true that atheists have no absolute proof that there is no God. We can't say that no proof that there is no God is definite proof that there is no God. However, science has showed that we don't need God to augment our understanding of our world. Looking at the universe, we saw no God.

Religion has on its side some convoluted texts filled with contradictions. They also say that God exists because nobody has shown absolute proof to the contrary.

I would say that Religion's position is far more tenuous in this debate.

I just thought this quote by Einstein was interesting. I think what he is saying is that your body may die but your soul doesn't meaning your no longer a physical being, hence the changeable form. That's how interpreted it.