Religion & Morality

[conversationpc]

Sorry, but i just don't agree with this statement. I'm degreed in philosophy(logic), and there's nothing remotely pseudo about it....I would rather hear an 'I don't know', then to sit through a BS, faith-based, straw-grasping, verbal diarrhea-laden dissertation on something that someone heard from a man who claims he's spoken to an invisible wizard who loves us, but chooses to live as an absentee landlord, while people suffer unimaginable atrocities because there is a greater purpose that we, lowly humans, are too stupid to comprehend in the bigger picture.....just saying...

Dave...No one can defend faith. That's why it is called, FAITH. It's entire meaning is indefensible...anything not based on logic cannot be defended. It's not a knock, it is the truth.

Proclaiming that there is a god...is no different than claiming the Orioles will win the WS this year. Then when asked why the fan thinks that....a reply of - I just know they are, I have faith - is all one gets.....

Really?

Most atheists assume God’s lack of existence and that they have arrived at that point through the benefits of sheer intellect. Having arrived there, they believe this position is far superior to that of the lowly religionist. This position – no matter how they couch it – offends because it presents their position as having an aire of superiority, though they have in fact proven nothing, except to themselves.

What needs to happen is for atheists to understand that the position they have arrived at is not one in which they have been elevated far above the religionsist. This is so because they are using faith as a means to understand and come to grips with their own belief system.

BTW...No one cares if you have a degree in philosophy. Judging from other threads where I've seen you get your backside handed to you by people who don't have a degree in that field, I'm thinking your degree isn't necessarily what you think it makes you.

[Rip Rokken]

Hitch destroys the Catholic Church:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3766TOukRo

The full Intelligence Squared debate is out there in 5 parts. The question was, "Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kuzYwzGoXw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv9ULxpWgPA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRpuFfGvEIc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEgdTfKZeME
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnerPDY87mM

They showed a pre-show poll on the question, and the looks on the Catholic reps' faces when the final poll was read is priceless.

[S2M]

^^^^^ here's my response to that. So, I guess the people who were opponents of the Flat Earth Society were looked upon as thinking they were superior too, huh?

Or the gents who knew believed in the heliocentric model of the solar system over the geocentric model were just throwing that pseudo-intellect around in error, right?

[conversationpc]

It amazes me that it is O.K. for everyone to add their two cents into this discussion but Christians.

Not true at all, I think you're just taking the opinions of people who don't share your same view and making them out as some kind of personal attack against you and/or your faith. If you're at peace with it like you say you are, shouldn't be the case. They're just sharing their thoughts and not one of them have stated it's not ok for Christians to share their thoughts too.

Melissa, that's not the point of what she said. She's saying it's OK for agnostics or atheists to share their opinion here without being belittled but when a Christian responds with theirs, well, they're just unintellectual buffoons for doing so.

[conversationpc]

Hitch destroys the Catholic Church:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3766TOukRo

The full Intelligence Squared debate is out there in 5 parts. The question was, "Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kuzYwzGoXw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv9ULxpWgPA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRpuFfGvEIc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEgdTfKZeME
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnerPDY87mM

They showed a pre-show poll on the question, and the looks on the Catholic reps' faces when the final poll was read is priceless.

I'm not a big fan of the Catholic church myself.

[conversationpc]

I've come to realize over the years that people who argue to defend their faith to high heaven ( ), and claim no one can shake it, are the ones that actually DO have shaky faith. Those who are at peace with their faith, don't fight to defend it against those who don't share the same view. Just sayin'.

That's not true at all. All Christians are called to defend their faith. Now, there are times I think when you need to gracefully bow out of an argument but, if you claim to be passionate about something, to just simply always ignore a challenge is also wrong.

Regardless, it's a double-edged sword. Folks like S2M would claim that people with faith who are challenged about it and don't answer are just avoiding conversation or know that they're already beaten. However, if you do respond, even if it's calm, measured response, then you're stupid, misled, argumentative, etc. It's basically a no-win position.

Sorry but it is true to a pretty well degree, and not just in religion. You're entitled to see it how you wish.

You've convinced yourself it's true. That doesn't mean it is.

[S2M]

Dave, no one is belittling anyone. I'm just telling it as i see it. In ANY other aspect of life faith doesn't stand a chance, but when talking about religion - suddenly it is ok? Facts vs. faith. Imagine going into court within prosecution based on faith...'I'm sorry, your honor, I have NO proof that the defendant killed that man...but believe me, he did....take it on faith.'

By the way...would you accuse a teacher of acting with an aire of superiority if she corrected one of her students who was doing a math problem incorrectly?

Would you hold a fireman in contempt for telling a person not to go back into that burning building because it was about to collapse?

How about a mother that is trying to teach her child that stealing is wrong. Is the passing of information looked upon as throwing one's superiority around?

[Rip Rokken]

Rip do you see me as shaky in my faith? You have met me. I am far from perfect, but I would not say I am at all shaky.

Is it stubborn to love your wife, your child? Or is it natural? Maybe love for God for some people is natural. Like love of family.

No, not at all, and I wouldn't continue the conversation if I thought I could shake your faith. I'm tickled to death when people say these discussions only increase their faith. But just to clarify, I didn't mean that all Christian's faith is shaky or unstable -- only that there is no such thing as unshakable faith (in anything, really). Here is an example I sometimes use... I've been with my company for 17+ years, and my paycheck has always hit my desk on payday, never once being a day late (or a dollar short, lol). That's roughly 450 paychecks. Right now I have absolute 100% faith with 0 doubt that next payday my check will be there exactly as expected, based on experience. Now, if anything changes and it's ever late for even a day, no matter what the reason, that faith will be shaken, and though I may be 99.99% sure, I doubt I could ever be 100% sure.

Now consider faith when applied to the "unseen", where most of the positive experience is entirely subjective and based on personal feeling or perception. Watch Lee Strobel's "The Case For Faith", where its said that every Christian's faith is tested at some point - that all Christians experience doubt. Where does the doubt come from? In my opinion, from inconsistent experience.

I think it was close to 3 years ago when my faith first started collapsing, and I posted a short something about it here. About 3 Christians here PM'ed me to encourage me, which was very much appreciated (and I don't think any of them are currently active on MR anymore). When I explained to them how I was feeling, two right off the bat said they'd been feeling the same way, but had just been afraid to acknowledge it. They didn't have answers. I believe the third said that what I was going thru was perfectly natural, that every Christian at some point comes to this type of crossroads and is tested in this way, but my question back was, why should a guy who believes without question for his entire life ever get to a point where he doubts the very existence of God? I can't doubt the existence of anyone I've ever met even once in person, but I have the witness of my own eyes to that. With faith, it's all perception, heart knowledge (truthiness, lol).

Sure, there were plenty of things on my "that was definitely a God thing" list, but when looking back and thinking of them in depth, none were beyond natural explanation. Coincidence (even extreme) alone is just not enough to prove the existence of God.

Evolution is a fact... "Lucy", Homo Erectus, Neanderthal Man (which actually turned out to be a different species, not a direct ancestor of modern man)... the bones don't lie.

Many of those bones are so incomplete and were found so far apart from each other, that these "missing links" have not been found to be fact, and are not noncontroversial.

Have you ever seen the bones of Lucy? Not much there, and they were found all over a site. Not together at all.

How old do you believe man is on this earth? According to the Bible, it all started with Adam and Eve, whom I firmly believed in, along with the notion that they probably existed 6,000 years ago (the "Young Earth" idea).

Neanderthal Man is dated back to around 40,000 years, and isn't even a direct ancestor of us. Lucy was something like 3,000,000 years ago, and about 40% of the skeleton was found, and even earlier was Ardi at around 4,000,000 years.



I know you're not one of them, but I find it astounding that some Christians actually believe Satan planted some of those bones deep in the fossil record to confuse believers.

[Rip Rokken]

Reposting this from the Amy Winehouse thread - still waiting for Dave's response.

Now, what about my question? It's an easy one, can't duck it without conceding the point.

Which question was that now? I've ever deleted in while editing the comments here or lost track of what one of your questions was.

If movies with make-believe violence are ok with God, then how about movies with make-believe sex? Again, in the eyes of God... By the way, the point I'm trying to make is how all Christians compromise with God, usually subconsciously, on the the line between holiness and worldly creature comforts. The bible calls believers to not be of the world, but to be holy (separate, called out from the world). But who can do that? Can you imagine being on a strict spiritual diet of God all the time? Reading the bible, praying, singing hymns and praising for the bulk of your entertainment, enjoyment, whatever? Very few people can do that, and it's because they are wired for it. For the rest of us, we simply can't - because having a make-believe, intangible friend only goes so far before it gets boring. If we could literally spend real, physical time with the God who created the Universe, it would be the furthest thing from boring. But our imaginations can only take us so far.

Hate to tell ya, but this is the very definition of "Truthiness" - truth which comes from the heart, not from the head. Radical Muslims also have absolute conviction in their beliefs - they "know" them to be true. No difference.

If all truth came from the head of mankind, truth would be quite elusive, wouldn't it?

I should have said, truth that comes from the gut, not from books. Feeling the truth and knowing the truth based on factual evidence are two different things.

[Rip Rokken]

It amazes me that it is O.K. for everyone to add their two cents into this discussion but Christians.

Not true at all, I think you're just taking the opinions of people who don't share your same view and making them out as some kind of personal attack against you and/or your faith. If you're at peace with it like you say you are, shouldn't be the case. They're just sharing their thoughts and not one of them have stated it's not ok for Christians to share their thoughts too.

Melissa, that's not the point of what she said. She's saying it's OK for agnostics or atheists to share their opinion here without being belittled but when a Christian responds with theirs, well, they're just unintellectual buffoons for doing so.

I don't think that, and people are more than welcome to call me a buffoon for my beliefs too - doesn't affect me. From my perspective, labels and names are cheap shots in debates and should be filtered out as unproductive. If someone can't substantiate their case, that's all that registers with me.

[Melissa]

It amazes me that it is O.K. for everyone to add their two cents into this discussion but Christians.

Not true at all, I think you're just taking the opinions of people who don't share your same view and making them out as some kind of personal attack against you and/or your faith. If you're at peace with it like you say you are, shouldn't be the case. They're just sharing their thoughts and not one of them have stated it's not ok for Christians to share their thoughts too.

Melissa, that's not the point of what she said. She's saying it's OK for agnostics or atheists to share their opinion here without being belittled but when a Christian responds with theirs, well, they're just unintellectual buffoons for doing so.

Hmm, well if that's the case then some of the comments directed back at the "agnostics" and "atheists" are a bit snotty IMO, but to each their own.

[Melissa]

You've convinced yourself it's true. That doesn't mean it is.

Interesting sentence in a debate such as this.

[Rip Rokken]

I don't agree with the way Stu said it but he does have a point. I know tons of people who blame God and everyone else except for themselves for their faith or lack thereof. I can't count the number of times I've heard people say they can't believe in God because of how many of those who claim to follow him act. While it's unfortunate that some who call themselves Christians act, they are responsible for their own behavior. Conversely, the person using that as a poor excuse for unbelief is not taking responsibility for themselves or acting appropriately, either.

It's not just how badly some people who represent God behave -- it's how serious those who try to follow God are, and whether they remain so for a sustained amount of time. Take any church and most likely there are only a handful of people who really pursue holiness according to the teachings of Jesus. The rest can't go full bore and cut their own subconscious deals with the Almighty according to what they are able to maintain without going nuts.

In my observations, I've come to think that a large percentage of religious folk (Christian, Jew, Muslim, whatever) - maybe a majority - really believe in the belief in God rather than actually believe in God. They believe because they think they should, not because they actually do. Many of those people aren't introspective enough to really know the difference, so it works for them.

Believers may be in a state of denial about their own condition, but unbelievers are more likely to detect hypocrisy or double-standards right off... and so the Lord's message rings hollow to them.

Also, there are plenty of examples of people who are following Christ and are true Christians but those get overlooked (sometimes even by myself as a Christian) because people in general today are often only looking for the poor example and completely miss seeing the good examples. The bad ones stick out. The ones who are living a good Christian life often don't stick out, not only because people aren't looking for it but because they also aren't drawing attention to themselves by their bad behavior. They aren't perfect and never will be but they're out there nonetheless.

Of course there are, and we all know many. If Christianity was filled with those success stories, more people today would be attracted to salvation than are.

There is one thing that keeps bugging me about this discussion on whole -- this is supposedly all for God -- it's his way, his plan, his church... if he actually indwells believers and all good comes from him, why is he so incapable of doing more in these people than he is? Humans keep getting blamed for the lack of work that God is supposed to be doing.

It's like planting a garden or something. Say that I have nothing but a black thumb, and anything I try to grow dies. Understood, got that part. But my father is a master gardner, and promises success if I stop trying to pilot the ship myself and let him do it. And he isn't just doing it by himself, he's guiding my own hands as I work, so it's not really my effort alone, but his effort through me.

As long as I ask for help in all sincerity and set the time aside for him to work with me, there should be no excuse under the sun if that garden doesn't grow, or just sputters along before withering. It was his time to shine, and he failed.

Supposedly God accepts us "as we are", but when Christianity doesn't work out the way it's supposed to and you pick apart the excuses given for why it doesn't, it's obvious you're faulted for not being perfect in the first place (e.g., "Your heart wasn't right", "You have unconfessed sin", "You haven't given enough of yourself to be asking for anything", etc., etc.).

I'll ask now the exact same question I asked myself at the age of 18 when I was trying so hard to find God -- "Is this the best that he can do?"

[S2M]

"Is this the best he can do?"

One of Carlin's better quotes.......

[conversationpc]

How old do you believe man is on this earth? According to the Bible, it all started with Adam and Eve, whom I firmly believed in, along with the notion that they probably existed 6,000 years ago (the "Young Earth" idea).

Neanderthal Man is dated back to around 40,000 years, and isn't even a direct ancestor of us. Lucy was something like 3,000,000 years ago, and about 40% of the skeleton was found, and even earlier was Ardi at around 4,000,000 years.



I know you're not one of them, but I find it astounding that some Christians actually believe Satan planted some of those bones deep in the fossil record to confuse believers.

That last sentence is unbelievable and I don't think I've ever even heard of that theory. It's ridiculous.

Anyway, I certainly believe that God created the entirety of the universe but I think my belief differs from many. It's not something I dwell on but the scriptures in Genesis say that "In the beginning the earth was FORMLESS AND VOID AND DARKNESS WAS UPON THE FACE OF THE WATERS" (correct my memory if that's wrong since I'm only reciting what I can remember...). That leads me to believe that the earth as we know it today was preceded by something that already existed, for who knows how long.

[Rip Rokken]

"Is this the best he can do?"

One of Carlin's better quotes.......

LOL, doesn't surprise me... when you look at the world today, it's a pretty natural question. Mine was in reference to Christianity in general -- I was firmly a believer at that point and having a hard time accepting that what I was seeing was God's real intent for the church, so I keep seeking for that reality. And I was strictly questioning man at the time, not God.

[Rip Rokken]

That last sentence is unbelievable and I don't think I've ever even heard of that theory. It's ridiculous.

Anyway, I certainly believe that God created the entirety of the universe but I think my belief differs from many. It's not something I dwell on but the scriptures in Genesis say that "In the beginning the earth was FORMLESS AND VOID AND DARKNESS WAS UPON THE FACE OF THE WATERS" (correct my memory if that's wrong since I'm only reciting what I can remember...). That leads me to believe that the earth as we know it today was preceded by something that already existed, for who knows how long.

I'll try to look up that first thought when I can. Your idea is interesting, and one I've only heard from among one group of Christians. I have a book all about the idea of a creation before the record in Genesis, and it's called "Earth's Earliest Ages" by G.H. Pember, I believe. I've heard more about it than I've read, and it's been a while.

On the other hand, Genesis also has God creating light, night and day before he created the sun, moon and stars which actually create and reflect the light, lol.

[conversationpc]

Reposting this from the Amy Winehouse thread - still waiting for Dave's response.

Now, what about my question? It's an easy one, can't duck it without conceding the point.

Which question was that now? I've ever deleted in while editing the comments here or lost track of what one of your questions was.

That's because, if you notice my quote above, I either accidentally deleted your question when I was editing my response or lost track of what it was you were asking.

If movies with make-believe violence are ok with God, then how about movies with make-believe sex? Again, in the eyes of God... By the way, the point I'm trying to make is how all Christians compromise with God, usually subconsciously, on the the line between holiness and worldly creature comforts. The bible calls believers to not be of the world, but to be holy (separate, called out from the world). But who can do that? Can you imagine being on a strict spiritual diet of God all the time? Reading the bible, praying, singing hymns and praising for the bulk of your entertainment, enjoyment, whatever? Very few people can do that, and it's because they are wired for it. For the rest of us, we simply can't - because having a make-believe, intangible friend only goes so far before it gets boring. If we could literally spend real, physical time with the God who created the Universe, it would be the furthest thing from boring. But our imaginations can only take us so far.

Well, the "make-believe, intangible friend" dig aside, there are some good points here. There are certainly some (including the minister and most of the church members of the first church I attended after coming to faith in Christ) who would ascribe to the view that true believers cannot participate in aspects of the culture such as going to movies, listening to popular music, playing cards, dancing, etc. I don't ascribe to that theory but instead would follow the principle set forth in 1st Corinthians chapter 8. There are some things some Christians are convicted about that they don't participate in that others feel they have the freedom in Christ to do. Drinking is one of them. I never get drunk (not even once) but don't see a problem with having a beer every once in a while. Same goes with movies, music, etc. Mind you, I won't go to a movie that has a ton of cussing, any amount of explicit sex, etc.

I don't think it makes someone "part of the world" to see a movie, listen to a rock song, or play a game of cards. My question would be, does the person's life reflect the qualities and fruit of the Spirit that the Bible says should come from someone who follows Christ? I know people who may have a particular habit that's not something they should be doing. Taking myself as an example, I have a big weight problem. I eat too much and exercise too little. Someone might look at me and see a fatso and judge me that I must be hypocritical because I claim to be a Christian yet I have an area (or more) of struggle. Everyone does. However, that doesn't mean that that one area characterizes the whole of my existence.

And it also goes back to what I was saying earlier...We tend to see the bad in people way before we notice any good and it seems that from what you've been saying recently that's what you're seeing in spades also.

I should have said, truth that comes from the gut, not from books. Feeling the truth and knowing the truth based on factual evidence are two different things.

Well, what is truth that "comes from the gut"? That sounds like that "everyone has their own truth" mumbo jumbo.

[conversationpc]

It amazes me that it is O.K. for everyone to add their two cents into this discussion but Christians.

Not true at all, I think you're just taking the opinions of people who don't share your same view and making them out as some kind of personal attack against you and/or your faith. If you're at peace with it like you say you are, shouldn't be the case. They're just sharing their thoughts and not one of them have stated it's not ok for Christians to share their thoughts too.

Melissa, that's not the point of what she said. She's saying it's OK for agnostics or atheists to share their opinion here without being belittled but when a Christian responds with theirs, well, they're just unintellectual buffoons for doing so.

Hmm, well if that's the case then some of the comments directed back at the "agnostics" and "atheists" are a bit snotty IMO, but to each their own.

Which ones...Evidence, please.

[conversationpc]

Dave, no one is belittling anyone. I'm just telling it as i see it. In ANY other aspect of life faith doesn't stand a chance, but when talking about religion - suddenly it is ok? Facts vs. faith. Imagine going into court within prosecution based on faith...'I'm sorry, your honor, I have NO proof that the defendant killed that man...but believe me, he did....take it on faith.'

By the way...would you accuse a teacher of acting with an aire of superiority if she corrected one of her students who was doing a math problem incorrectly?

Would you hold a fireman in contempt for telling a person not to go back into that burning building because it was about to collapse?

How about a mother that is trying to teach her child that stealing is wrong. Is the passing of information looked upon as throwing one's superiority around?

Ah, so you're just trying to "correct" me, is that it, or maybe trying to save me? Nice. Arrogant much?

[conversationpc]

I think it was close to 3 years ago when my faith first started collapsing, and I posted a short something about it here. About 3 Christians here PM'ed me to encourage me, which was very much appreciated (and I don't think any of them are currently active on MR anymore). When I explained to them how I was feeling, two right off the bat said they'd been feeling the same way, but had just been afraid to acknowledge it. They didn't have answers. I believe the third said that what I was going thru was perfectly natural, that every Christian at some point comes to this type of crossroads and is tested in this way, but my question back was, why should a guy who believes without question for his entire life ever get to a point where he doubts the very existence of God? I can't doubt the existence of anyone I've ever met even once in person, but I have the witness of my own eyes to that. With faith, it's all perception, heart knowledge (truthiness, lol).

That must've been back when I was absent from the forum for about nine months to a year or so but we did have a discussion via PM about your struggles and I shared that I had been struggling with prayer. I don't think it was me that said I was afraid to acknowledge it. Every Christian goes through something like from time to time and I wager I'll probably go through it again. That doesn't make my faith any less real than it was before or will be in the future.

[S2M]

I find it interesting that you would use the term, "trying to save me". Isn't that what religion tries to do...save, supposedly, lost souls?

I also find it interesting that the religious folks are the ones taking offense here. I've laid out numerous, salient points...but you choose to harp on the tone of my words, and actual word choice....

[Saint John]

You've convinced yourself it's true. That doesn't mean it is.

Interesting sentence in a debate such as this.

Ouch!

[conversationpc]

I find it interesting that you would use the term, "trying to save me". Isn't that what religion tries to do...save, supposedly, lost souls?

I also find it interesting that the religious folks are the ones taking offense here. I've laid out numerous, salient points...but you choose to harp on the tone of my words, and actual word choice....

I'm not out-of-control offended but, like I said earlier, "He who's offended by nothing, likely cares little about anything enough to be offended in the first place". I don't buy it when someone says that they're never offended by anything. If not, you're not really living and passionate about anything in life. Regardless, why shouldn't I question your tone when you're talking down to anyone with faith like you're the be-all end-all of philosophy and wisdom yet, in the next sentence claiming that you're not belittling?

As for the saving reference, you were the one who used the analogy of the fireman saving someone from a burning building as if by your intellectual superiority and unparalleled wisdom you'll save someone from faith in the great spaghetti monster when it dawns in their mind that you must be right and turn from their foolish ways.

[conversationpc]

You've convinced yourself it's true. That doesn't mean it is.

Interesting sentence in a debate such as this.

Ouch!

I didn't feel it.

[Melissa]

It amazes me that it is O.K. for everyone to add their two cents into this discussion but Christians.

Not true at all, I think you're just taking the opinions of people who don't share your same view and making them out as some kind of personal attack against you and/or your faith. If you're at peace with it like you say you are, shouldn't be the case. They're just sharing their thoughts and not one of them have stated it's not ok for Christians to share their thoughts too.

Melissa, that's not the point of what she said. She's saying it's OK for agnostics or atheists to share their opinion here without being belittled but when a Christian responds with theirs, well, they're just unintellectual buffoons for doing so.

Hmm, well if that's the case then some of the comments directed back at the "agnostics" and "atheists" are a bit snotty IMO, but to each their own.

Which ones...Evidence, please.

I said in my opinion, so there is no "evidence". Just an opinion.

[conversationpc]

It amazes me that it is O.K. for everyone to add their two cents into this discussion but Christians.

Not true at all, I think you're just taking the opinions of people who don't share your same view and making them out as some kind of personal attack against you and/or your faith. If you're at peace with it like you say you are, shouldn't be the case. They're just sharing their thoughts and not one of them have stated it's not ok for Christians to share their thoughts too.

Melissa, that's not the point of what she said. She's saying it's OK for agnostics or atheists to share their opinion here without being belittled but when a Christian responds with theirs, well, they're just unintellectual buffoons for doing so.

Hmm, well if that's the case then some of the comments directed back at the "agnostics" and "atheists" are a bit snotty IMO, but to each their own.

Which ones...Evidence, please.

I said in my opinion, so there is no "evidence". Just an opinion.

Gotcha.

[Melissa]

Hardly, lol. But hey, whatever makes you feel the superior.

[conversationpc]

Hardly, lol. But hey, whatever makes you feel the superior.

Honestly, I'm not superior to anyone here. I know my own weaknesses, screw-ups, etc., better than anyone, unfortunately. That was a big lesson I learned a while back at a retreat I went to.

There was a guy at the same retreat that I was kind of thinking "Who's that guy and why is he here?", making judgments that I shouldn't have been. He ended up being one of the guys on team and gave probably the best talk that made the biggest impact on me from the whole weekend. It's changed the way I look at people in a big way.

[S2M]

There is a problem in decision theory known as The Prisoner's Dilemma. It is sort of a puzzle.

Suppose you live in a totalitarian society, and one day you are arrested and charged with treason. The police say that you have been plotting again the government with a man named Smith, who has also been arrested and being held in a separate cell. The interrogator demands that you confess. You protest your innocence; you say you don't even know Smith. But this does no good. It soon becomes clear that your captors are not interested in the truth.....you are going to be sent to prison no matter what. But the length of your sentence will depend on whether you confess. You are given the following information:

* if you confess, and smith does not, you will get one year in prison and smith will get ten. ( you get one year...this is the best you can hope for)

* if neither of you confess, you will each be sentenced to two years in prison. ( you get two years...this is second best)

* if you both confess, you will both be sentenced to five years in prison. ( you get five years...this is third best)

* if smith confesses and you do not, you will get the ten years and he will get only one. ( you get ten years...this is the worst that could happen to you.)

Finally, you are told that smith is being offered the same deal; but you cannot communicate with him and you have NO way of knowing what he will do...assuming your only goal is to protect your own interests....

WHAT DO YOU DO?

You should forget about helping smith. The problem is strictly about calculating what is in your own interests. The question is: What will get YOU the shortest sentence? Confessing or not confessing?