NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously?
I'm sad now... :(

You know what always bothered me? "Trojan" brand condoms.

The Greeks crafted a wooden horse to get into Troy when they were all drunk and in an orgy, and then snuck out, opened the gates, and burned the city to the ground.

Troy was penetrated and burned while drunk and having sex.

This is not the kind of condom I want.

The problem here - it is extremely likely that NONE of the Biblical books were actually written by anyone who ever saw any of the things written.

This is especially true in the Old Testament - where the texts were 'written' up to a thousand years after they are supposed to have happened.

Few likely could even read or write likely. The other reason for the Oral tradition. If they did write they would put their thoughts on scrolls. We have to find those scrolls if they exist. Not easy to do.

Why would the 'Israelites still be in Egypt'? You;'re assuming that based on the fact that the SAME source says they were imprisoned there?

So they never in Egypt they were always where they were today. I mean those are the only 2 options.


There is actually a very good answer to this question - Exodus is a revisionist history, written to try to make an invader look like a victim. The Hyksos pharaohs conquered half of Egypt, and maintained an empire for several hundred years, before they were violently overthrown by the 'native' Egyptians.

There is evidence the Hyksos pharaohs were Semitic, and didn't make monuments, not even to their god/gods.

'Exodus' could well be a retelling of this history. Except, in the Hebrew version... they're not the bad guys, they're the victims... and they're not the overthrown warlords chased from the picture, but the 'heroes' freed by miraculous intervention.


Oh so they Israelites are actually Egyptians. Could be I suppose it is never said what nationality Abraham was.


Why does there need to be? You mentioned Occam. According to the razor, the story that asks us (basically) to presuppose the LEAST qualifiers, is probably true. Well 'it is as it seems' requires no presuppositions..


So the simplest choice is if one can find nothing that says it didn't happen then it is possible it happened the way that was described.



No, it isn't.

If there's no evidence, there's no reason to believe it really happened. Not only that - but you don't believe it in application to any other text.


We disagree on the approach here. I think we should try to recreate as much of the event as we can with the help of scholars. Of course we do not expect the Red Sea to part but you may get an idea of where evidence might be.


Or are you going to tell me you really believe there is a Hogwart's Academy?

No I don't believe in Hogwarts

To be honest, (speaking for myself) that's all I've ever asked.

If people didn't start wars in the name of their religion, claim it as a mandate for government, use it to set laws that will apply to me - etc.... I'd have no problems with religion. Like, ever.

That's all I've ever wanted from fellow Christians, cause it seems like we invariably end up starting confrontations with non-believers by doing this sort of thing.

But I guess we just don't live in this sort of world.

http://www.genesisfiles.com/Exodus_RedSea.htm

I know, I know it is only a model but it works for me.

Kind of cool that with almost no information, hard evidence etc. We can get a pretty good synopsis of what "might" have happened.

http://www.genesisfiles.com/Exodus_RedSea.htm

I know, I know it is only a model but it works for me.

A couple things trouble me. First is the population number. Two million is flat out impossible. Walking six wide, the column would have just entered the Red Sea just as the tail would be leaving. Thus, for Pharaoh to recapture the Israelites, he would have had to literally step out his front door. This sort of story would most likely have been written much later. Because the Hebrew people took so much of their law and belief from parts of this accounts, it is their form of a "constitution". So, by making the number seem so large, the author is doing the same as the Declaration of Independence says "We the People." It's all inclusive. "We the People" literally meant the founding fathers, but figuratively meant all Americans. Same holds true here.

"Pillar of Fire" and "Pillar of Smoke/Cloud" actually has been confirmed as a reference to Egyptian battle standards, i.e. flags. Generally, the were at the head of the column, smoke in the day, fire ((torch)) at night. Thus at the Red Sea Crossing, Pharaoh was held back not by divine might, but because the Pillar of Fire was facing him. Thus, the bright light would have masked the crossing of the Israelites as well as fooled Pharaoh that they had done an about-face and were preparing to square off against him. Thus he held back and hesitated. This allowed the people of Israel to escape into the Red Sea.

However, aside from these things, the model you linked to seems workable.

That's all I've ever wanted from fellow Christians, cause it seems like we invariably end up starting confrontations with non-believers by doing this sort of thing.

But I guess we just don't live in this sort of world.

I must ask, though. Do you believe that Christianity is necessary to get into heaven? After all, given that this is the standard Christian theology, I really do understand why so many Christians are so quick to try to push their beliefs-- after all, if you believe that non-Christians will burn in Hell for eternity, then it seems almost criminally negligent not to do everything you can to convert people. Yes, I find pushy Christians (or people of any ideology) annoying, but given the theology, it makes perfect sense to act that way.

Oh so they Israelites are actually Egyptians. Could be I suppose it is never said what nationality Abraham was.

You're completely misunderstanding what he said. He's saying that the Hyksos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos), who came from elsewhere and took over Egypt were possibly Hebrew and that their flight from Egypt wasn't necessarily as freed slaves but as defeated rulers.

So the simplest choice is if one can find nothing that says it didn't happen then it is possible it happened the way that was described.

Again, you're completely misunderstanding. He's saying you shouldn't believe any story unless there's strong evidence that it happened.

I must ask, though. Do you believe that Christianity is necessary to get into heaven? After all, given that this is the standard Christian theology, I really do understand why so many Christians are so quick to try to push their beliefs-- after all, if you believe that non-Christians will burn in Hell for eternity, then it seems almost criminally negligent not to do everything you can to convert people. Yes, I find pushy Christians (or people of any ideology) annoying, but given the theology, it makes perfect sense to act that way.

You know, that is something I haven't come to terms with myself. My beliefs aren't one hundred percent finalized, there's still some holes, and I'm willing to admit that.

Big issues like these I tend to use the old "I'll wait till I die to find out" answer.

haha, that really is a tough one, I don't generally think on this one. Ummm....if forced for an answer, I'd have to say I don't really believe that all non-Christians go to Hell. If you'll bear with me for a second, I think that people who are kind and follow the teachings of Christ (Not actually believing, etc... but actually doing, if you know what i mean) are possibly subconsciously believing. I know, I have poor wording on this, but I hope you see what I mean.

And you're right when you say it'd be criminally negligent not to try and convert people. But I think that, in this regard, our mission is to preach through action. Let our deeds speak for us rather than just words. But not be pushy about it.

In any case, if you've tried and someone won't listen, well, you've done what you can.

I hope some of this made any sense?

You know, that is something I haven't come to terms with myself. My beliefs aren't one hundred percent finalized, there's still some holes, and I'm willing to admit that.

Big issues like these I tend to use the old "I'll wait till I die to find out" answer.

haha, that really is a tough one, I don't generally think on this one. Ummm....if forced for an answer, I'd have to say I don't really believe that all non-Christians go to Hell. If you'll bear with me for a second, I think that people who are kind and follow the teachings of Christ (Not actually believing, etc... but actually doing, if you know what i mean) are possibly subconsciously believing. I know, I have poor wording on this, but I hope you see what I mean.

I'm not entirely sure I do. Are you trying to imply that if I'm a decent person, that means that I actually secretly believe and must just be deceiving myself or something? Or have I misunderstood? (Not trying to be snarky or anything, just want clarification)

Of course, it's also entirely possible we disagree on what being a good person is. I mean, as a nonbeliever, I find no moral or ethical problem with, say, consensual pre-marital sex or recreational marijuana use-- things that I would expect most Christians would consider sinful.

But even if that's the case, I would argue that no person deserves eternal torment, because eternal torment is inherently disproportionate to the crime, and proportionality, I think, is essential to justice.

But I digress...


And you're right when you say it'd be criminally negligent not to try and convert people. But I think that, in this regard, our mission is to preach through action. Let our deeds speak for us rather than just words. But not be pushy about it.

In any case, if you've tried and someone won't listen, well, you've done what you can.

I hope some of this made any sense?

But it seems to me that even if they don't listen, you have a duty to keep trying-- after all, even if there's only a fraction of a percent chance of succeeding, the stakes are so high that you should do every last thing in your power.

I'm not entirely sure I do. Are you trying to imply that if I'm a decent person, that means that I actually secretly believe and must just be deceiving myself or something? Or have I misunderstood? (Not trying to be snarky or anything, just want clarification)

I think that what I am trying to say is this: if someone believes in Jesus as the Son of God and that he is saved through Grace, but goes and kills everyone he can, steals, rapes, etc... he is not saved because he didn't listen, and listening to teachings is an important basis of faith. The important part in believing in Jesus is His message of peace and neighborliness. Thus in doing these things, even a "non-believer" is upholding the message and mission, and that's the important part. It's more belief in the mission than Jesus, per se.

That's my take on it, anyway. Like I said, it's not something I've really taken too much time to think about. To put it simply, I haven't a clue, about reasonings behind it all, but I don't think someone's necessarily damned for all eternity for that.

The again, I may be entirely blaspheming and now I'm screwed, lol. I haven't a clue, I'm not going to profess to know, and I'm going to see what ends up happening.


Of course, it's also entirely possible we disagree on what being a good person is. I mean, as a nonbeliever, I find no moral or ethical problem with, say, consensual pre-marital sex or recreational marijuana use-- things that I would expect most Christians would consider sinful.

But even if that's the case, I would argue that no person deserves eternal torment, because eternal torment is inherently disproportionate to the crime, and proportionality, I think, is essential to justice.

But I digress...


Don't even get me started on this, lol. I'm not sure where most of those....things come from. But by "good" I mean not killing, not raping, taking some time out to help someone else when you get the chance always having an open home to someone who needs help, and so on and so forth.



But it seems to me that even if they don't listen, you have a duty to keep trying-- after all, even if there's only a fraction of a percent chance of succeeding, the stakes are so high that you should do every last thing in your power.

I don't really know what to say and/or believe on this one. I'm just going to go back on letting actions speak louder than words. I think, and this is my opinion, that if Christians as a whole community just backed off from pressing their views on everyone else and stuck to helping others. Being kind, community service, etc..., everyone else would be much more receptive to them and their message and might, just might change their mind or find faith, or any number of things. By continuing to act in this way, Christians are preaching their faith and trying, even if they haven't said anything.

You're completely misunderstanding what he said. He's saying that the Hyksos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos), who came from elsewhere and took over Egypt were possibly Hebrew and that their flight from Egypt wasn't necessarily as freed slaves but as defeated rulers.

Seems totally different to me. Granted I am not a scholar. I think we have to locate the famine that last 7 years first. That will tell when they went in. Then you may be able to work from there.


Again, you're completely misunderstanding. He's saying you shouldn't believe any story unless there's strong evidence that it happened.

Yes I have gathered that from discussing it with him at length. I submit you should not also dismiss it outright. They can't really critique the information in the book so they have to go after credibility. So you make a statement something like "It can't have happened because there is no evidence it happened". There is also no evidence that it didn't happen.

Wait, what? Are you trying to say that Exodus is a bias book? The shock is setting in.


Biased, and no... the point was I was illustrating how the story could be based on a germ of truth, while still being pretty much the exact opposite of 'true'.

Few likely could even read or write likely. The other reason for the Oral tradition. If they did write they would put their thoughts on scrolls. We have to find those scrolls if they exist. Not easy to do.

It's unlikely those scrolls exist. There is no evidence of a written tradition before the vacation in Babylon... which would explain why the OT accounts are so similar to Babylonian mythology, also...

So they never in Egypt they were always where they were today. I mean those are the only 2 options.


Those are nothing like the only two options.

Why would you even say something like that?


Oh so they Israelites are actually Egyptians. Could be I suppose it is never said what nationality Abraham was.


No - the Israelites would possibly have been the Semitic invaders that waged a war on half of Egypt, ruled parts of it, and were eventually driven out.


So the simplest choice is if one can find nothing that says it didn't happen then it is possible it happened the way that was described.


That's not the simplest choice, at all. The simplest choice is to assume that NOTHING happened that you can't prove.

Your account requires all kinds of presuppositions - the truth of the account, the existence of the characters, the existence of an omnipotent and miraculous interventionist god... etc.


We disagree on the approach here. I think we should try to recreate as much of the event as we can with the help of scholars. Of course we do not expect the Red Sea to part but you may get an idea of where evidence might be.


I don't care what scholars said, or say. I want to see some evidence.


No I don't believe in Hogwarts

Exactly - putting paid to your 'two sides' argument for proof. You don't believe in Hogwarts, despite the fact that it has written 'evidence'... which is the EXACT same evidence we have for the Exodus account.

Kind of cool that with almost no information, hard evidence etc. We can get a pretty good synopsis of what "might" have happened.

If you tell me you were walking down the road, and you got hit by a car, yet survived... I can give you several educated guesses about the factors involved. Doesn't mean any of them would be correct, or reflect any degree of reality.

Seems totally different to me. Granted I am not a scholar. I think we have to locate the famine that last 7 years first. That will tell when they went in. Then you may be able to work from there.


Egypt was built primarily on floodplains. Famines that last 'seven years' may well represent every alternate seven years, when the floodplains are not flooding. So - half of the entirety of history, basically.

Bear in mind also - the evidence for the Hyksos reign puts it in the 'several hundred years' category.


Yes I have gathered that from discussing it with him at length. I submit you should not also dismiss it outright. They can't really critique the information in the book so they have to go after credibility. So you make a statement something like "It can't have happened because there is no evidence it happened". There is also no evidence that it didn't happen.

But, as you proved, you don't accept OTHER things without evidence. So - you plead special exception.

I was raised a devout Catholic.

... but no more! I found that I felt more empowered and altogether happier when I began to live my life according to what I believe to be right and just, rather than out of guilt and the fear of being smited. Religion is not for this NSer.. maybe Paganism? heh.

i would really like to see, if we're going to have religeous media, fair and equal representation of and by other faiths. daoists, buddhists, agnostics, people who have their own faith in their personal, unpreassumed experiences of straingeness, and of course all the major systems of belief too, you know hindus and even zoroastrians and of course islamist and baha'is.

my only real major annoyance with christianity is its pretense of imagining itself to have some kind of patent on god.

i would really like to see, if we're going to have religeous media, fair and equal representation of and by other faiths. daoists, buddhists, agnostics, people who have their own faith in their personal, unpreassumed experiences of straingeness, and of course all the major systems of belief too, you know hindus and even zoroastrians and of course islamist and baha'is.

my only real major annoyance with christianity is its pretense of imagining itself to have some kind of patent on god.

To be fair, that's not just Christianity.

Given the ongoing debate on the nature of the classical and pre-classical historical record (and I still think, from a professional perspective, many of the posters on both sides of the debate sometimes misunderstand both the restrictions and opportunities provided by that record), I thought you might like to read a couple of Ambrose Bierce definitions from 1911's The Devil's Dictionary...


HISTORY, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.

Of Roman history, great Niebuhr's shown
'Tis nine-tenths lying. Faith, I wish 'twere known,
Ere we accept great Niebuhr as a guide,
Wherein he blundered and how much he lied.
Salder Bupp


PAST, n. That part of Eternity with some small fraction of which we have a slight and regrettable acquaintance.


Ambrose Bierce. 1911. Devil's Dictionary.


Edit:

And another oldie but goodie:

History is not what you thought. It is what you remember. All other history defeats itself.

W. C. Sellar and R. J. Yeatman. 1930 Preface, 1066 and All That.

The point that Truly Blessed is making is that just because oral tradition doesn't always pass down truths doesn't mean it can't pass down truths. To assume such is an Association fallacy.

True.
But we don't assume that since there is a country named England that has in the past experienced some severe food shortages that there is a castle in the sky with a giant living in it.

By the same measure I think it's folly to assume that since there is a country named Egypt that used to be reigned by pharaos there also is an invisible big spirit in the sky that walks around killing firstborns but insists he loves us.

And there was no Trojan War.

Only in literature. There's no evidence for it at all, there's not even a lot of evidence that Troja ever existed.

Yes I have gathered that from discussing it with him at length. I submit you should not also dismiss it outright. They can't really critique the information in the book so they have to go after credibility. So you make a statement something like "It can't have happened because there is no evidence it happened". There is also no evidence that it didn't happen.

I wonder, have you ever heard of that little teapot orbiting the sun just beyond Mars?

Only in literature. There's no evidence for it at all, there's not even a lot of evidence that Troja ever existed.

...erm, they call it Troy not Troja. They've found ruins of it in northwestern Turkey. It's old enough to be destroyed many times -- they think Troy VII was the one from the Trojan war.

Only in literature. There's no evidence for it at all, there's not even a lot of evidence that Troja ever existed.

...erm, they call it Troy not Troja. They've found ruins of it in northwestern Turkey. It's old enough to be destroyed many times -- they think Troy VII was the one from the Trojan war.

Indeed. If I recall correctly, it was originally located with help from Homer's writing. The Archregimancy might know more, actually working in Archaeology. (Which I am studying along with History, but still...)

Now, the events of the Iliad? Obviously very exaggerated and mythical. But it is entirely possible that a Greek fleet set out to do battle at this city, and that the obviously important story got passed down orally through the generations until the story reached its current form, possibly one that would be barely recognizable to those who fought in the war.

(Oh, and Troja is acceptable as well, deriving from Troia.)

Indeed. If I recall correctly, it was originally located with help from Homer's writing. The Archregimancy might know more, actually working in Archaeology. (Which I am studying along with History, but still...)

Now, the events of the Iliad? Obviously very exaggerated and mythical. But it is entirely possible that a Greek fleet set out to do battle at this city, and that the obviously important story got passed down orally through the generations until the story reached its current form, possibly one that would be barely recognizable to those who fought in the war.

(Oh, and Troja is acceptable as well, deriving from Troia.)


Dear God, do you know what a can of worms you just opened?

It's not really my period, but to the best of my knowledge, there is no unimpeachable and definitive proof that the archaeological site at Hissarlik is Homer's Troy (almost wrote 'Homer's Tory'; hmmmm). The association between the two is down to a combination of Schliemann's enthusiasm and a body of circumstantial evidence, including such things as hypothetical re-created coastlines which seem to match Homer's description, topographical features which likewise seem to match, and destruction layers in 'Troy VI' and 'Troy VIIa' which also seem to be the correct period for the war described in the Iliad (Schliemann himself thought that Homeric Troy was Troy II - which is where he found the 'Priam's Treasure' that he infamously photographed around the neck of his Greek second wife).

Archaeology is often based on making conclusions from a mass of circumstantial and sometimes conflicting evidence, and on that basis I respectfully disagree with my American colleagues who try to define archaeology as a science (I get the feeling that Grave n Idle would find most archaeology wouldn't meet his personal high standards of conclusive proof). Yes, it can use scientific tools to enhance interpretation, but results are not reproducable (you have to destroy a site to excavate it).

Eventually, most archaeologists have to accept that some of what they do is conjecture, and that most archaeological interpretations take a (usually secular) leap of faith somewhere.

So, with Troy/Hissarlik, we have a city from the right sort of time period, in the right sort of place, with the right sort of destruction layers from the right sort of period. Does that make it a very likely candidate to be 'Troy'? Yes. Does that mean it's absolutely and certainly Troy? No.

There are two ways to definitively prove the point:
1) find at the site material culture [artefacts] with period-appropriate inscriptions on them that say 'Troy'.

2) Excavate the entire Homeric-era Turkish coastline between Cyzicus and Rhodes, and see if there are any other lost cities with similar archaeological features from the same period.

1 is more feasible, but hasn't happened yet.

And for the record, 'Troy' is English, 'Troja' is German, and 'Troia' is Turkish.


Elsewhere in the thread, I'm not convinced by Grave n Idle's direct association between the Hyksos and early Israelites. Most archaeological theories on precursors to the Israelites that I've read involve a merger of indigenous hill-top populations and nomadic migrants from Sinai in c.1200BC. I know of no credible hypothesis directly associating Hyksos and Israelites - there were a lot of Semitic groups bumping around the area at the time. But again, It's not really my period.

Dear God, do you know what a can of worms you just opened?

It's not really my period, but to the best of my knowledge, there is no unimpeachable and definitive proof that the archaeological site at Hissarlik is Homer's Troy (almost wrote 'Homer's Tory'; hmmmm). The association between the two is down to a combination of Schliemann's enthusiasm and a body of circumstantial evidence, including such things as hypothetical re-created coastlines which seem to match Homer's description, topographical features which likewise seem to match, and destruction layers in 'Troy VI' and 'Troy VIIa' which also seem to be the correct period for the war described in the Iliad (Schliemann himself thought that Homeric Troy was Troy II - which is where he found the 'Priam's Treasure' that he infamously photographed around the neck of his Greek second wife).

Archaeology is often based on making conclusions from a mass of circumstantial and sometimes conflicting evidence, and on that basis I respectfully disagree with my American colleagues who try to define archaeology as a science (I get the feeling that Grave n Idle would find most archaeology wouldn't meet his personal high standards of conclusive proof). Yes, it can use scientific tools to enhance interpretation, but results are not reproducable (you have to destroy a site to excavate it).

Eventually, most archaeologists have to accept that some of what they do is conjecture, and that most archaeological interpretations take a (usually secular) leap of faith somewhere.

So, with Troy/Hissarlik, we have a city from the right sort of time period, in the right sort of place, with the right sort of destruction layers from the right sort of period. Does that make it a very likely candidate to be 'Troy'? Yes. Does that mean it's absolutely and certainly Troy? No.

There are two ways to definitively prove the point:
1) find at the site material culture [artefacts] with period-appropriate inscriptions on them that say 'Troy'.

2) Excavate the entire Homeric-era Turkish coastline between Cyzicus and Rhodes, and see if there are any other lost cities with similar archaeological features from the same period.

1 is more feasible, but hasn't happened yet.

And for the record, 'Troy' is English, 'Troja' is German, and 'Troia' is Turkish.

Interesting. Thanks. :)


Elsewhere in the thread, I'm not convinced by Grave n Idle's direct association between the Hyksos and early Israelites. Most archaeological theories on precursors to the Israelites that I've read involve a merger of indigenous hill-top populations and nomadic migrants from Sinai in c.1200BC. I know of no credible hypothesis directly associating Hyksos and Israelites - there were a lot of Semitic groups bumping around the area at the time. But again, It's not really my period.

Is there any other evidence of large numbers semetic peoples (especially candidates for the precursors to the Israelites) being in Egypt, or, more specifically, being enslaved there? I've never heard of any, but, admittedly, it's not an area of History that I'm particularly focusing on, and my studies in archaeology are still very basic. (I hope to get some actual experience one summer working with some friends of my aunt's who, she says, do some work in Greenland.)

I wonder, have you ever heard of that little teapot orbiting the sun just beyond Mars?

Really, why do you believe that is the first question? Not you are out of your mind. Stop smoking up and put the drink down.

If I remember the teapot has to be invisible too.

Dear God, do you know what a can of worms you just opened?

It's not really my period, but to the best of my knowledge, there is no unimpeachable and definitive proof that the archaeological site at Hissarlik is Homer's Troy (almost wrote 'Homer's Tory'; hmmmm). The association between the two is down to a combination of Schliemann's enthusiasm and a body of circumstantial evidence, including such things as hypothetical re-created coastlines which seem to match Homer's description, topographical features which likewise seem to match, and destruction layers in 'Troy VI' and 'Troy VIIa' which also seem to be the correct period for the war described in the Iliad (Schliemann himself thought that Homeric Troy was Troy II - which is where he found the 'Priam's Treasure' that he infamously photographed around the neck of his Greek second wife).

Archaeology is often based on making conclusions from a mass of circumstantial and sometimes conflicting evidence, and on that basis I respectfully disagree with my American colleagues who try to define archaeology as a science (I get the feeling that Grave n Idle would find most archaeology wouldn't meet his personal high standards of conclusive proof). Yes, it can use scientific tools to enhance interpretation, but results are not reproducable (you have to destroy a site to excavate it).

Eventually, most archaeologists have to accept that some of what they do is conjecture, and that most archaeological interpretations take a (usually secular) leap of faith somewhere.

So, with Troy/Hissarlik, we have a city from the right sort of time period, in the right sort of place, with the right sort of destruction layers from the right sort of period. Does that make it a very likely candidate to be 'Troy'? Yes. Does that mean it's absolutely and certainly Troy? No.

There are two ways to definitively prove the point:
1) find at the site material culture [artefacts] with period-appropriate inscriptions on them that say 'Troy'.

2) Excavate the entire Homeric-era Turkish coastline between Cyzicus and Rhodes, and see if there are any other lost cities with similar archaeological features from the same period.

1 is more feasible, but hasn't happened yet.

And for the record, 'Troy' is English, 'Troja' is German, and 'Troia' is Turkish.


Elsewhere in the thread, I'm not convinced by Grave n Idle's direct association between the Hyksos and early Israelites. Most archaeological theories on precursors to the Israelites that I've read involve a merger of indigenous hill-top populations and nomadic migrants from Sinai in c.1200BC. I know of no credible hypothesis directly associating Hyksos and Israelites - there were a lot of Semitic groups bumping around the area at the time. But again, It's not really my period.

What an awesome job!

Can we ask what your area of expertise is?

Man, beats the heck out of punching keys on a keyboard. I do software QA for a Speech Processing company.

i would really like to see, if we're going to have religeous media, fair and equal representation of and by other faiths. daoists, buddhists, agnostics, people who have their own faith in their personal, unpreassumed experiences of straingeness, and of course all the major systems of belief too, you know hindus and even zoroastrians and of course islamist and baha'is.

my only real major annoyance with christianity is its pretense of imagining itself to have some kind of patent on god.

I would love to explore those as well. Especially if you have experience with any of the above.

Really, why do you believe that is the first question? Not you are out of your mind. Stop smoking up and put the drink down.

If I remember the teapot has to be invisible too.

Why I believe what? :confused:
Your grammar is confusing.

Sure, if you want the teapot to be invisible to find it easier to believe, no problem there.

Why I believe what? :confused:
Your grammar is confusing.

Sure, if you want the teapot to be invisible to find it easier to believe, no problem there.

Sorry I will spell out the questions one may ask.

Why do you believe there is a teapot orbiting Mars?

Did you ever see this teapot?

What type of teapot is it?

If I wanted to see this teapot where would I look?

Could I send a satellite to detect it?

Did someone or something put the teapot there or has it always been there?

Does the teapot have any other significance?

Is there a difference between the invisible teapot and my preference for sugar in my coffee?

Sorry I will spell out the questions one may ask.

Why do you believe there is a teapot orbiting Mars?

Did you ever see this teapot?

What type of teapot is it?

If I wanted to see this teapot where would I look?

Could I send a satellite to detect it?

Did someone or something put the teapot there or has it always been there?

Does the teapot have any other significance?

Replace "teapot" in those posts with "god" and you see where the problem lies.
Believing everything you hear told without anything to back it up is generally not a clever approach in life. Yet when it comes to religion, such credulity suddenly becomes an admired ability...

Is there a difference between the invisible teapot and my preference for sugar in my coffee?

To whom?

To whom?

To anyone.

Is there a difference between the invisible teapot and my preference for sugar in my coffee?

Well an invisible teapot is unique and maybe worth exploring. The sugar in your coffee is a personal preference. I can see your point I like sugar as well.

The teapot doesn't have to be invisible; it just has to be too small for the strongest telescopes (and other scanners) to locate.

The teapot doesn't have to be invisible; it just has to be too small for the strongest telescopes (and other scanners) to locate.

How did it get so small?

Who built it?

Where did it come from?

Why not one around the moon, Venus, or the Milky Way.


See what I mean you can ask other question besides just dismissing it outright?

How did it get so small?

Who built it?

Where did it come from?

Why not one around the moon, Venus, or the Milky Way.


See what I mean you can ask other question besides just dismissing it outright?

So you would gather evidence before believing, is that what you are trying to say?

Well an invisible teapot is unique and maybe worth exploring. The sugar in your coffee is a personal preference. I can see your point I like sugar as well.

Neither can be empirically shown to exist.

Replace "teapot" in those posts with "god" and you see where the problem lies.
Believing everything you hear told without anything to back it up is generally not a clever approach in life. Yet when it comes to religion, such credulity suddenly becomes an admired ability...

So we are told.

God has always been there he is eternal. The Alpha and the Omega.
Can I see him. No
Can I use anything to detect him. No, or nothing we know of.
Does it have any other significance? Here is where there is tons of information and or beliefs

So we are told.

God has always been there he is eternal. The Alpha and the Omega.
Can I see him. No
Can I use anything to detect him. No, or nothing we know of.
Does it have any other significance? Here is where there is tons of information and or beliefs

oh, so god is real but the teapot is not, merely because more people believe it to be real?

So we are told.

God has always been there he is eternal. The Alpha and the Omega.
Can I see him. No
Can I use anything to detect him. No, or nothing we know of.
Does it have any other significance? Here is where there is tons of information and or beliefs

So essentially you believe because others believe? After all, there isn't a shred of empirical (as in, reproducable) evidence, so all the information is basically hearsay.

oh, so god is real but the teapot is not, merely because more people believe it to be real?

The difference between fairy tale and religion seems little more than a matter of numbers.

Neither can be empirically shown to exist.

You are correct. I am forced to admit that. It is based on feelings.


I work with tons of things I can't see, taste, smell, hear. or feel every day. It does not make them any less real.

A computer program is invisible for the most part

You can't taste it
You can't feel it
You can't smell it
You can't hear it
You can't really see it either

You can see representations of it.

I can give you a CD with it on there but it is not the CD it is somewhere down below. The computer can react to it either positively or negatively. The program may have been designed for good but it can be used for the wrong intentions.

When it is working I can't really point to a place where it is. Hard Drive could be right, main memory might be right, the chips themselves.

It is called intangiblity and it is / can be all around you depending on how you perceive things.

The difference between fairy tale and religion seems little more than a matter of numbers.

They perform different roles in our society. Religions provide social cohesion, while fairy tales are a way of passing on social norms to our children (religion can do this too, actually).

You are correct. I am forced to admit that. It is based on feelings....
It is called intangiblity and it is / can be all around you depending on how you perceive things.

Yes. many real things are intangible or non-material. Information, relationships, social systems, etc. God may also be one of these things.

You are correct. I am forced to admit that. It is based on feelings.


I work with tons of things I can't see, taste, smell, hear. or feel every day. It does not make them any less real.

A computer program is invisible for the most part

You can't taste it
You can't feel it
You can't smell it
You can't hear it
You can't really see it either

You can see representations of it.

I can give you a CD with it on there but it is not the CD it is somewhere down below. The computer can react to it either positively or negatively. The program may have been designed for good but it can be used for the wrong intentions.

When it is working I can't really point to a place where it is. Hard Drive could be right, main memory might be right, the chips themselves.

It is called intangiblity and it is / can be all around you depending on how you perceive things.

except the information on the cd is NOT intangible. You might not be able to perceive it iwth naked eyes, but it's certainly there, as little pits and grooves.

I despise this argument because it relies on a lie. "You can't see a program!". The program is just an arrangement of electrons on a magnetic tape. There's nothing mystical about it. "You can't see love!" We can measure the brain chemicals that cause the emotional feeling. Most of these "unobservable things" that are used to try to justify god, are, in fact, observable, or at least possible to be observed

They perform different roles in our society. Religions provide social cohesion, while fairy tales are a way of passing on social norms to our children (religion can do this too, actually).

But the only reason that they do these things goes back to the number of believers. If large numbers of people believed in the truth of fairy tales, they would become religion and would function as such. That was, essentially, my point. Apologies if I was unclear.

They perform different roles in our society. Religions provide social cohesion, while fairy tales are a way of passing on social norms to our children (religion can do this too, actually).

and yet, if enough people believed the fairy tales, wouldn't they serve that same function? As such, isn't it really only a matter of scale?

except the information on the cd is NOT intangible. You might not be able to perceive it iwth naked eyes, but it's certainly there, as little pits and grooves....Most of these "unobservable things" that are used to try to justify god, are, in fact, observable, or at least possible to be observed

But that's pits and grooves. Not information. It only becomes information in the moment the computer reads it. Like letters in a book are in actuality inkstains on pressed wood pulp, but can become more than that when a brain sees them as symbols for ideas or sounds.

But the only reason that they do these things goes back to the number of believers. If large numbers of people believed in the truth of fairy tales, they would become religion and would function as such. That was, essentially, my point. Apologies if I was unclear.

and yet, if enough people believed the fairy tales, wouldn't they serve that same function? As such, isn't it really only a matter of scale?

No, I don't think the numbers matter as much as whether or not we believe them to be true. Fairy tales are not taken as true by anyone, even if millions know the story, while a religious tale can be taken as truth by a small minority of the population.

Nowt is comparable with the concept of God. It has been with us for a very long time now, it serves a purpose(whatever that may be)

Go ahead and try to think of just one valid anolgy to a belife in God, I bet you can't.

No, I don't think the numbers matter as much as whether or not we believe them to be true. Fairy tales are not taken as true by anyone, even if millions know the story, while a religious tale can be taken as truth by a small minority of the population.

but to serve its purpose as a social cohesion tool, some numbers would be required one would think. It's hard to function as a social tool if nobody in the society believes it, unless you're restricting the idea of the society reflect only those who believe in it (IE very minority religion would be a social tool, in the society comprised of people who believe in it).

In which case just about everything has social cohesion, as long as the society in question is one comprised of people who think/act that way. Snow boarding probably does the same job at keepign a society of snow boarders together.

except the information on the cd is NOT intangible. You might not be able to perceive it iwth naked eyes, but it's certainly there, as little pits and grooves.

I despise this argument because it relies on a lie. "You can't see a program!". The program is just an arrangement of electrons on a magnetic tape. There's nothing mystical about it. "You can't see love!" We can measure the brain chemicals that cause the emotional feeling. Most of these "unobservable things" that are used to try to justify god, are, in fact, observable, or at least possible to be observed

Great you are almost all the way there. I can make a CD with random pits and grooves but it won't operate. I can do the same with Magnetic bits on a hard drive or tape.

You are more than just the sum of your parts. What makes Neo Art unique is part of this equation. There is no chemical or physical difference between a dead body and a live one. I can hook it up to endless sensors, it can be a prefect functioning body. I can shock it with electricity. Give it all kinds of chemicals, put in an Iron lung and yet the system won't come back "online".

Nowt is comparable with the concept of God. It has been with us for a very long time now, it serves a purpose(whatever that may be)

Go ahead and try to think of just one valid anolgy to a belife in God, I bet you can't.

Belief in Santa Claus?

but to serve its purpose as a social cohesion tool, some numbers would be required one would think. It's hard to function as a social tool if nobody in the society believes it, unless you're restricting the idea of the society reflect only those who believe in it (IE very minority religion would be a social tool, in the society comprised of people who believe in it).

In which case just about everything has social cohesion, as long as the society in question is one comprised of people who think/act that way. Snow boarding probably does the same job at keepign a society of snow boarders together.

Yes. The religious tale would act as a social unifier for those who believed it, not for the entire society. And it would require at least two people to be unified.

And while other things can unify groups of other people, it does not create that same sort of social cohesion that religion or language does. To use your snowboarding analogy, no one ever inspired the troops to kill the unboarders.

Great you are almost all the way there. I can make a CD with random pits and grooves but it won't operate. I can do the same with Magnetic bits on a hard drive or tape.

You are more than just the sum of your parts. What makes Neo Art unique is part of this equation. There is no chemical or physical difference between a dead body and a live one. I can hook it up to endless sensors, it can be a prefect functioning body. I can shock it with electricity. Give it all kinds of chemicals, put in an Iron lung and yet the system won't come back "online".

You're not really that bothered about facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinically_dead#Life_support_during_clinical_death)altogether, are you?

Yes. The religious tale would act as a social unifier for those who believed it, not for the entire society. And it would require at least two people to be unified.

And while other things can unify groups of other people, it does not create that same sort of social cohesion that religion or language does. To use your snowboarding analogy, no one ever inspired the troops to kill the unboarders.

So, essentially, it helps enforcing an "us vs. them" mentality?

So, essentially, it helps enforcing an "us vs. them" mentality?

Yes. Just like language, common history, and a common enemy. There's probably a few other things.

Now, we have to avoid thinking of this as an inherently bad thing. Reinforcing the group mentality helps organise people to do things they couldn't do individually. This can be bad, like going to war, or it can be good like organising charity drives. The result may differ, but the social mechanism is the same.

Belief in Santa Claus?

Nope don't work. Santa clause is a lie told to us by our perants and when we get older we no longer belive it.

Nope don't work. Santa clause is a lie told to us by our perants and when we get older we no longer belive it.

Yes... your point being?
Only because some people never wake up to the fact that god may be just as much a lie as Santa is (and btw, how can you prove Santa is a lie to begin with? Or was that just your common sense taking over and telling you it's silly to believe that?) doesn't invalidate the analogy.

Yes... your point being?
Only because some people never wake up to the fact that god may be just as much a lie as Santa is (and btw, how can you prove Santa is a lie to begin with? Or was that just your common sense taking over and telling you it's silly to believe that?) doesn't invalidate the analogy.

Well of course it does. Santa's existance is easily disproved the first time you catch your dad delivering the presents.

Whilst the question of Gods existance, well it's still not answered is it.

Brings to mind a song" We are spirits in the material world". Some people are just locked into the 5 senses. Carry on.

Well of course it does. Santa's existance is easily disproved the first time you catch your dad delivering the presents.

Whilst the question of Gods existance, well it's still not answered is it.

If you ever do catch him.
And besides, Santa might need a little help now and then, you shouldn't really take everything the big book says about Santa too literally. Some interpretation is required.

As to the question of god, I think the first time you realise that a rainbow isn't an actual bow placed between the clouds might be a good equivalent to dad in a beard and red suit. (If you believe in the Christian god, that is)

Brings to mind a song" We are spirits in the material world". Some people are just locked into the 5 senses. Carry on.

Some people feel the need for more, others are happy enough with what's actually there.

Carry on.

As to the question of god, I think the first time you realise that a rainbow isn't an actual bow placed between the clouds might be a good equivalent to dad in a beard and red suit. (If you believe in the Christian god, that is)


Heh yeah but only if you belive that God placed that rainbow there instead of the laws of nature.
:D

Some people feel the need for more, others are happy enough with what's actually there.

Carry on.

"What's actually there" is not limited to what we can sense with the five senses.

Heh yeah but only if you belive that God placed that rainbow there instead of the laws of nature.
:D

Well, it's in that other big book, isn't it? The one they call bible? ;)

Or do you think just because a belief gets to be interpreted around with, it no longer is belief?

Or do you think just because a belief gets to be interpreted around with, it no longer is belief?


Quite the opposite as it goes. Belife, well you can play around with it to your hearts content, I mean who's gonna call you out on it?

Heh yeah but only if you belive that God placed that rainbow there instead of the laws of nature.
:D

What if you merely believe that God placed the laws of nature?

What if you merely believe that God placed the laws of nature?

Then unless you actualy catch your dad doing that, the anology remains invalid?:D

What if you merely believe that God placed the laws of nature?


Very nice. Something I was actually contemplating bringing up.

1) I was born into an atheist family, parents started attending church when we moved to America for social reasons, and then they stopped going and thus I quit as well.
2) I'm not a christian.
3) By the time I hit 14 I started questioning the faith and my AP world civ class made me realise that religion is created by man. Plus I was too old for imaginary friends.

I am now a devout Pastafarian. All hail our noodly overlord! :tongue:

Fairy tales are not taken as true by anyone, even if millions know the story, while a religious tale can be taken as truth by a small minority of the population.

Heading into a very gray area here.

I take it - by 'fairy tale' - you aren't just refering to tales about fairies - which have been treated as religion, and still are in some contexts. And yet - those stories are historical accounts, too.

Macha, Badb and Morrigan are fairy tales. They are also religion. You talk like there is a separation between the two things. The Myrddin are historical, but also entirely mythological in one guise.

The Arthurian legend actually brings elements of that old religion (Morgana, or Morrigan) and unites it with a metaphorical account of a real phenomenon (Merlin, the myrddin, or 'crazy man').

Or, do you mean the tales like Cinderella? (Which I already discussed a little in this thread, showing it's roots as a legitimate history). Wihtikow are a 'fairy tale' that describes a historic truth, combined with a changing/transformation tradition common to fairy tales from around the world. These types of fairy tale are more likely to record concealed history... and THAT might be the difference between SOME fairy tales and SOME religions - those kinds of fairy tales tend to be 'true'.

Heading into a very gray area here.

I take it - by 'fairy tale' - you aren't just refering to tales about fairies - which have been treated as religion, and still are in some contexts. And yet - those stories are historical accounts, too.

Macha, Badb and Morrigan are fairy tales. They are also religion. You talk like there is a separation between the two things. The Myrddin are historical, but also entirely mythological in one guise.

The Arthurian legend actually brings elements of that old religion (Morgana, or Morrigan) and unites it with a metaphorical account of a real phenomenon (Merlin, the myrddin, or 'crazy man').

Or, do you mean the tales like Cinderella? (Which I already discussed a little in this thread, showing it's roots as a legitimate history). Wihtikow are a 'fairy tale' that describes a historic truth, combined with a changing/transformation tradition common to fairy tales from around the world. These types of fairy tale are more likely to record concealed history... and THAT might be the difference between SOME fairy tales and SOME religions - those kinds of fairy tales tend to be 'true'.

To me, a fairy tale is a story about the supernatural that people know is not literally true. Yes, it's possible that they contain a germ of truth like some 'historical' ones, but they don't have to, like Star Wars.

While religion is a story about the supernatural that people do believe is somewhat literally true.

To me, a fairy tale is a story about the supernatural that people know is not literally true. Yes, it's possible that they contain a germ of truth like some 'historical' ones, but they don't have to, like Star Wars.

While religion is a story about the supernatural that people do believe is somewhat literally true.

The fairy queens Badb, Macha and Morrigan... are also goddesses. Are they religion or 'fairy tale'? Their precise nature varies depending on which era you are reading from.

And you create a false dichotomy... our disbelief about 'fairy tales' is a recent phenomenon, in historical terms... and, depending on how you define those 'fairy' folk, the belief still exists into civilised nations in the present day. Our modern vampire myths can be traced directly through 'fairy' creatures (such as Sluagh)... and back into religion if you go far enough (Egypt, or even further back into Sumerian myth).

You say that religion is the story that people believe is literally true... that's how 'fairy tale' elements have been conceived for millenia, also. And, harping on about this point again - quite often these stories ARE true, just with a few (or few hundred) layers of imaginative storytelling. You say that 'fairy tales' are the stories we know are NOT true... but the reality is the reverse, and THAT was known for most of recent history.

Nowt is comparable with the concept of God. It has been with us for a very long time now, it serves a purpose(whatever that may be)

Go ahead and try to think of just one valid anolgy to a belife in God, I bet you can't.
Belief

So, essentially, it helps enforcing an "us vs. them" mentality?
Everything that encourages group membership, and that defines the group by comparison to different groups or non-groups, and that suggests in any way that membership in the group is better than non-membership, enforces an "us versus them" mindset.

That's why I don't join groups.

Well of course it does. Santa's existance is easily disproved the first time you catch your dad delivering the presents.

Whilst the question of Gods existance, well it's still not answered is it.
What about the first time you realize that it's the priest absolving your sins, not your god? Or the first time you realize that it's the surgeon saving your life, not an angel?

You say someone other than Santa delivers the presents. Well, someone other than god sets your broken bones, too. What does that tell us about either Santa or god? Nothing. The fact that a particular being does not do something is not proof that being does not exist. It's only proof that what is said about that being is not true.

I don't know why but I just have this desire to see one NSG religion thread not devolve into a big hostile circle-bitch.


I SO hear you on this. As someone who believes in a god of sorts but not in any organized religion, and whose extended family is mostly both extremely devout in their Catholicism and extremely awesome, I get more than a little sick of hearing that all Christians are horrible bastards, all non-Christians are going to hell, anyone who believes in anything godlike is delusional, anyone who sees anything bad about X religion or good about Y religion is insane, and on and on and on. I don't CARE what anyone here believes or doesn't believe; why do so many people care so passionately about what others choose to believe, regardless of whether that belief affects them in any way?

...anyone who believes in anything godlike is delusional...

I really don't see the problem with this one.

I really don't see the problem with this one.
I do. I mean, just with those words, out of context. The assertion that anyone who believes in something godlike is delusional is a bigoted assertion.

I do. I mean, just with those words, out of context. The assertion that anyone who believes in something godlike is delusional is a bigoted assertion.

In what way is that bigoted?

If we said 'anyone who hears voices is schizophrenic' or 'anyone who kills without remorse is psychopathic', that wouldn't be because we're bigots, would it?

(Whether or not those definitions are entirely accurate would be a different argument, of course.)

It's arrogance, you have no more proof that what the theist experiences is delusional any more than the world you experience right now isn't a delusion.

In what way is that bigoted?

If we said 'anyone who hears voices is schizophrenic' or 'anyone who kills without remorse is psychopathic', that wouldn't be because we're bigots, would it?

(Whether or not those definitions are entirely accurate would be a different argument, of course.)
A) Believing in something godlike is not akin to hearing voices. Such an analogy is entirely dependent on your a priori assumption that believing in the divine is not sane, which is still based on nothing but the fact that you don't like religion and prefer a different way of thinking, i.e. your prejudice.

B) Believing in something godlike is not akin to committing crime. Such an analogy is entirely dependent on your a priori assumption that there is something inherently negative in religious or spiritual belief (without, in this instance, any reference to what any person might do with that belief). Like the point above, that assumption is based on nothing that you have shown us so far except your dislike of religion, i.e. your prejudice.

C) Your prejudice against religion causes you to refuse to accept that other people choose to express their life experiences in terms of metaphor, or in terms of description of personal experience, rather than the strict scientific or materialistic terms you might prefer. Your suggestion that a way of thinking and expression that is different from yours is "delusional" has no foundation except your personal preference for one over the other.

D) Your insistance on interpreting everything religious people say in the most strictly literal sense possible, denying all explanations that would put them in a more nuanced light, is another strong suggestion of your bias against religion because it allows you to invent a standard by which you get to declare people delusional without giving them a fair hearing (since you refuse to listen to what they have to say).

E) An argument that is structured so as to cast the thing you don't like in as negative a way as possible, even if it means ignoring or misrepresenting counter-arguments, and which has no foundation in anything other than your personal preference for something else, is a bigoted argument.

A-E. Are those enough ways in which it can be bigoted to answer your question?

I notice that you didn't actually answer the question. Ah well.

A) Believing in something godlike is not akin to hearing voices. Such an analogy is entirely dependent on your a priori assumption that believing in the divine is not sane, which is still based on nothing but the fact that you don't like religion and prefer a different way of thinking, i.e. your prejudice.


You say "believing in something godlike is not akin to hearing voices".

I've seen hundreds of testimonies that argue directly against that, from Christians - that used almost EXACTLY that as their evidence for an interventionist god. So - not just 'akin', but often 'intrinsic'.

You then claim that I say this because of 'a priori assumption that believing in the divine is not sane', which - I'm afraid - is false. I make no such assumption.

You continue: "based on nothing but the fact that you don't like religion...", which is - of course - also wrong. I do like religion. My belief (or lack of it) is not a matter of like or dislike.

So - the prejudice you claim? Doesn't exist.


B) Believing in something godlike is not akin to committing crime. Such an analogy is entirely dependent on your a priori assumption that there is something inherently negative in religious or spiritual belief (without, in this instance, any reference to what any person might do with that belief). Like the point above, that assumption is based on nothing that you have shown us so far except your dislike of religion, i.e. your prejudice.


"Believing in something is not akin to committing a crime"... which is fine by me, because I never suggested it was.

You 'explain' where my 'argument' (which - let us not forget, is your strawman argument, not anything I actually said) comes from by once again resorting to my 'a priori assumption that there is something inherently negative in religious or spiritual belief'. Obviously - this is whole cloth. Not only is that not in anything I said, it's in direct contradiction to the position I've maintained on the forum for several years.

And this hinges, again, on my non-existent 'dislike of religion'.


C) Your prejudice against religion causes you to refuse to accept that other people choose to express their life experiences in terms of metaphor, or in terms of description of personal experience, rather than the strict scientific or materialistic terms you might prefer. Your suggestion that a way of thinking and expression that is different from yours is "delusional" has no foundation except your personal preference for one over the other.


So - we start here by telling me (telling, you notice) that I am prejudiced against religion.

This leads to me rejecting 'that other people choose to express their life experiences in terms of metaphor'. I've never expressed a problem with accepting other people expressing their life experiences in terms of metaphor, descriptions of personal experience... or alphabet spaghetti. All I've ever asked is that they don't expect ME to share those beliefs, and they don't force them upon me.

More to the point, your closing argument about me saying 'a way of thinking and expression that is different from (mine) is "delusional"...' is another fabrication. I didn't say it IS delusional, I said I don't have a problem with that argument. Where's the evidence that it's NOT delusion?


D) Your insistance on interpreting everything religious people say in the most strictly literal sense possible, denying all explanations that would put them in a more nuanced light, is another strong suggestion of your bias against religion because it allows you to invent a standard by which you get to declare people delusional without giving them a fair hearing (since you refuse to listen to what they have to say).


I 'insist' on 'interpreting everything religious people say in the most literal sense possible'?

When someone presents their argument as literal truth, that is a flaw(?) I can admit to. I'm curious, though, how I should better assess their claims of literal truth, than by interpreting literally?

I've not denied 'all explanations that would put them in a more nuanced light'. I've offered up, several times, the opinion that some things could be 'spiritually true' while not being 'literally true'. Am I not 'anuanced enough? Maybe.

But as for inventing 'a standard by which (I) get to declare people delusional'... where exactly did I do that?

Are you refering to the fact that the scientific method asks for empirical, objective evidence? While I'd love to be able to take credit for the scientific method, I'm afraid I'm going to have to admit I'm just a follower on that one.

As for refusing 'to listen to what they have to say' - I can't even indulge that one. That's not just offbase, that's pretty obviously untrue. Not believing what a religious person believes doesn't mean I don't listen.


E) An argument that is structured so as to cast the thing you don't like in as negative a way as possible, even if it means ignoring or misrepresenting counter-arguments, and which has no foundation in anything other than your personal preference for something else, is a bigoted argument.

A-E. Are those enough ways in which it can be bigoted to answer your question?

As for this one - I'm really not sure what this is supposed to refer to. Where did I say it was negative? Even if I had actually made the argument for delusion, why would that be a bad thing? Why do you assume 'delusional' is an insult?

I'm really not sure what the counter-arguments are supposed to be that you believe I have ignored or misrepresented.

As far as I can see, the only 'counter argument' I saw before you posted this reply... was something about how 'saying it is bigoted'.


So - you didn't answer the question, and you made a whole load of baseless accusations that border (heavily) on ad hominem. Well, okay.

It's arrogance,


I wonder if, perhaps, you are unsure of the meaning of the word 'arrogance'?


...you have no more proof that what the theist experiences is delusional any more than the world you experience right now isn't a delusion.

Which is okay, because I didn't express any idea to the contrary.

If god/gods/godlike beings is real/are real - I'm deluded. I have no problem with that. In fact, it's the only logical answer - because I don't seem to be able to 'see' these things... and if they exist, I (pretty much) must be delusional.

Now... if god/gods/godlike beings is not real/are not real... then what?

Which is okay, because I didn't express any idea to the contrary.


If you assert that someone who believes in something God like is delusional, you are implying that you know so, which would be contrary to the whole idea that you.. don't know.

I notice that you didn't actually answer the question. Ah well.

<snip>

So - you didn't answer the question, and you made a whole load of baseless accusations that border (heavily) on ad hominem. Well, okay.

Hilarious. I most certainly did answer it. I will not waste time trying to get you to admit that, or admit the fallacies in your own response to my answer. I will leave it to other readers to judge whether I answered your question or not.

I will also not waste time explaining, point-by-point, how all your point-by-point rebuttals of my comments were already covered by my other comments in the same post. You managed only to prove my points, GnI. The proof of that is in the posts.

I rest my case. Your argument is bigoted because there is no fact behind it other than your strong personal preference for your own way of thinking over that of religious people. That is text-book, dictionary-definition bigotry. That fact that you cannot show a single objective fact in support of the assertions you claim are factual, but that you merely bombard your opponent with anecdotes, generalizations, and accusations, further supports my argument that there is no objective foundation for your argument.

Finally, it is very disappointing that you, of all posters, reply to a clear analysis of your argument by running to Mommy Ad Hominem. I said your argument was bigoted. I explained how. If you can't not take that personally, then maybe you should avoid asking for such explanations. But the fact remains, an attack on the argument is not an attack on the poster.

As far as I am concerned, I made my case, and I rest my case. Let others judge.

If you assert that someone who believes in something God like is delusional, you are implying that you know so, which would be contrary to the whole idea that you.. don't know.

First - do try to keep up. Read what I actually type, rather than another posters commentary on what they THINK I typed. You know it makes sense.

I didn't personally say that anyone who believes in something god like is delusional. I commented on another persons post, where that person mentioned it, and I said I really didn't see a problem with that one.

And I don't. There's nothing fundamentally objectionable about it.

Secod - How am I implying that I 'know so'? I can make speculations about schizophrenia from description of the symptoms, can I not? Does that mean I 'know' the person is schizophrenic?

Would it be bad for me to say they might be?

There's something very intellectually dishonest about the defence, here. You apparently start from an unshakable first assumption that it CAN'T be delusion, which you are unwilling to even consider alternatives to.

Read my position... vis-a-vis the potential for delusion on the part of both the believer AND the non-believer. Which 'position' here is less intellectually earnest?

Grave is just doing his job. He is balancing the discussion. A lot of this stuff you are expected to accept without challenging. Some of the ideas are open to challenge.

Any religion worth it salt should be able to withstand those argument. In fact I find that Grave n Idle strengthens some of my beliefs. I started challenging a lot of what I believe. If you hold it up to the light it should look good from any angle.

I keep saying I am an apologist in training.

The argument boils down to :

tangible vs. intangible
abstract vs. concrete
belief vs. fact
proof vs. faith

People have been struggling with these since we first entered in to Philosophy. Some interesting idea get put forward on both sides. If nothing else it beats working.

There is no chemical or physical difference between a dead body and a live one. I can hook it up to endless sensors, it can be a prefect functioning body. I can shock it with electricity. Give it all kinds of chemicals, put in an Iron lung and yet the system won't come back "online".

Bullshit. SOMETHING is responsible for death in every case; you just don't study medicine enough to find them. "I don't have evidence of live people being different from dead people, therefore they're the same" is no different than cardinal Bellarmine's claim "I have no evidence for the earth orbitting the sun, so Copernicus's model is rubbish!".

Grave is just doing his job. He is balancing the discussion. A lot of this stuff you are expected to accept without challenging. Some of the ideas are open to challenge.

Any religion worth it salt should be able to withstand those argument. In fact I find that Grave n Idle strengthens some of my beliefs. I started challenging a lot of what I believe. If you hold it up to the light it should look good from any angle.

I keep saying I am an apologist in training.

The argument boils down to :

tangible vs. intangible
abstract vs. concrete
belief vs. fact
proof vs. faith

People have been struggling with these since we first entered in to Philosophy. Some interesting idea get put forward on both sides. If nothing else it beats working.
Not, really, TB. Or rather, it would boil down to that, if your arguments were not completely nutty. Seriously -- Bible stories are less weird than fairy tales? People believe them so they must be true? Please. You're making my life harder than it needs to be. :p

I didn't personally say that anyone who believes in something god like is delusional.

Hence the 'if', do try to keep up. :rolleyes:


Secod - How am I implying that I 'know so'? I can make speculations about schizophrenia from description of the symptoms, can I not? Does that mean I 'know' the person is schizophrenic?

It's arrogant to dismiss someone as delusional, simply on the tiny tiny snippet of information about them believing in God. Just like it's arrogant to assert someone as schizophrenic, just on the tiny, tiny snippet of information that they once heard voices (which could be caused by a huge number of factors).


You apparently start from an unshakable first assumption that it CAN'T be delusion

Not at all, I never said anything remotely like that.

Bullshit. SOMETHING is responsible for death in every case; you just don't study medicine enough to find them. "I don't have evidence of live people being different from dead people, therefore they're the same" is no different than cardinal Bellarmine's claim "I have no evidence for the earth orbitting the sun, so Copernicus's model is rubbish!".

Sudden infant death syndrome. May be you are right we do not know enough about medicine to find the problem. It could be something to do with the way the baby lies. We are not sure. Beforehand you couldn't have had a healthier specimen.

Hilarious.


Not really.


I most certainly did answer it.


You most certainly did not.

Let me elucidate:

"If we said 'anyone who hears voices is schizophrenic' or 'anyone who kills without remorse is psychopathic', that wouldn't be because we're bigots, would it?"

To which you... didn't respond. In a very roundabout way, admittedly.


I will not waste time trying to get you to admit that, or admit the fallacies in your own response to my answer. I will leave it to other readers to judge whether I answered your question or not.


You have not.


I will also not waste time explaining, point-by-point, how all your point-by-point rebuttals of my comments were already covered by my other comments in the same post.


Circular.

You cite my apparent faults, and your evidence is in the other faults you assert.

None of which cares a jot for anything I said.


You managed only to prove my points, GnI. The proof of that is in the posts.


If by 'prove my points' you mean 'prove my points... to be fatally flawed on every level', we have agreement.


I rest my case. Your argument is bigoted because there is no fact behind it other than your strong personal preference for your own way of thinking over that of religious people.


I have no preference. You once again claim it, but that still won't make it true.

I think the way I think, because I think the way I think. There's nothing about 'preference' there.


That is text-book, dictionary-definition bigotry.


Even if it were true... I'm not sure it's quite 'dictionary-definition bigotry'.


That fact that you cannot show a single objective fact in support of the assertions you claim are factual,


An objective fact in support of what?

That it's possible that religious experience could be delusion?

I didn't realise merely suggesting required support.

It's not the text I was thinking of, but a quick google search brought up this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/vis_brain.htm


...but that you merely bombard your opponent with anecdotes,


Wait, what? Where was the anecdote?


...generalizations, and accusations,


Erm... okay. See - to me, THIS sounds like 'generalization... and accusation'.


...further supports my argument that there is no objective foundation for your argument.


Objective foundation for the argument that religious experience could be delusion?

What exactly is it you're wanting me to objectively provide a foundation for?


Finally, it is very disappointing that you, of all posters, reply to a clear analysis of your argument by running to Mommy Ad Hominem.


A clear analysis... where you made a whole load of specific allegations against me (not my argument).. and, even worse, made UP those allegations.


I said your argument was bigoted. I explained how.


If by 'explained how' you mean 'made up a whole load of attributes, and then pinned them on' me, then yes - we have agreement.


If you can't not take that personally, then maybe you should avoid asking for such explanations. But the fact remains, an attack on the argument is not an attack on the poster.


You said my argument was based on my a priori assumption... 'that I don't like religion'. Attack on me, not the argument. Worse - it's not even true. You then told me I was prejudiced - an attack on me, not my argument... and again, not true. (Nor even a pretence at evidence).

You told me that my argument was based on my a priori assumption... 'that there is something inherently negative in religious or spiritual belief'. An attack on me, not the argument... and again, it's an invention.

You told me my 'prejudice against religion' caused me to refuse things... another attack on me, not the argument.

You told me I insist 'on interpreting everything religious people say in the most strictly literal sense possible, denying all explanations that would put them in a more nuanced light' - another attack on the person, not the argument. You also told me I 'refuse to listen to what they say', which is - again - an attack on me, rather than the argument.

You told me I was 'ignoring or misrepresenting' counter-arguments, based in my 'personal preference'. Another attack on me, not my argument.

I call it ad hominem, because your entire post was based in ad hominem, and false, to boot.


As far as I am concerned, I made my case, and I rest my case. Let others judge.

I wasn't interested in being 'judged'. I was exploring the possibility that reality isn't just as you (or I) might see it.

well...1) my nuclear family was not religious. my mother believes in God (asked her when i was 16 i think) but I'm definitely not sure about her viewpoint on the 'Jesus is God' thing. I do believe in the existence of God because of many occurrences that I can't explain except by ...divine intervention. not necessarily amazing things, just every day things. I believe in Christ as the son of God because a) I believe i have the Spirit and, according to the Bible, I couldn't have it without His blessing...or intervention...whatever hehe. and b) that same Bible says I must believe that to be 'saved'. 2)I am a christian now, although not 'religious' (i.e. part of any denomination), due to The Spirit and the occurrences (and the fact that, since I started praying and thanking God for things, life's...issues...have become more understandable and my own moral progression has become enhanced). *morality being defined by the ...western... christian definition hehe* 3) n/a

I didn't personally say that anyone who believes in something god like is delusional. I commented on another persons post, where that person mentioned it, and I said I really didn't see a problem with that one.

And I don't. There's nothing fundamentally objectionable about it.

Given that I objected, it seems like it's probably possible to object to it.

Secod - How am I implying that I 'know so'? I can make speculations about schizophrenia from description of the symptoms, can I not? Does that mean I 'know' the person is schizophrenic?

Would it be bad for me to say they might be?

Not at all. There is nothing bad about saying, "This specific, individual person who heard voices MIGHT be schizophrenic." There is something bad about saying, "Anyone who has ever heard voices in any context IS schizophrenic." Seeing as the latter, not the former, is comparable to my statement, it would be the relevant one.


There's something very intellectually dishonest about the defence, here. You apparently start from an unshakable first assumption that it CAN'T be delusion, which you are unwilling to even consider alternatives to.


Again, "Believing in something godlike MIGHT be delusional, or it might be perfectly sane; I really don't know" is a reasonable statement. "Anyone who believes in something godlike is delusional" is not.

It's arrogant to dismiss someone as delusional, simply on the tiny tiny snippet of information about them believing in God. Just like it's arrogant to assert someone as schizophrenic, just on the tiny, tiny snippet of information that they once heard voices (which could be caused by a huge number of factors).


Again with the arrogant?

Are you implying that this 'believing in god' thing is an occassional aberration?

Or would you say that it was more... institutional... in those who might call themselves believers?

I'm of the opinion that 'religious' people are probably inclined to 'believe' in gods or godlike beings pretty much as a matter of course. So - it would be the equivalent (and sometimes - not an equivalent, but the exact same thing) of someone hearing voices... all the time.

Someone hearing voices all the time... couldn't that maybe be argued somewhere in the 'schizophrenia' column?

Given that I objected, it seems like it's probably possible to object to it.


Possible, yes - I never denied that. I said there's nothing fundamentally objectionable about it.


Not at all. There is nothing bad about saying, "This specific, individual person who heard voices MIGHT be schizophrenic." There is something bad about saying, "Anyone who has ever heard voices in any context IS schizophrenic." Seeing as the latter, not the former, is comparable to my statement, it would be the relevant one.


Except that's NOT the parallel. We're not talking about someone who once experienced a belief in something that might have been something, under some circumstances. We're talking about a belief in god(s)... which seems more like an ongoing condition, than a vague reference to once seeing the moon, or talking to someone on the bus.


Again, "Believing in something godlike MIGHT be delusional, or it might be perfectly sane; I really don't know" is a reasonable statement. "Anyone who believes in something godlike is delusional" is not.

Reasonable... actually, it is entirely 'reasonable'.

Can you show that religious experience is NOT delusion?

Except that's NOT the parallel. We're not talking about someone who once experienced a belief in something that might have been something, under some circumstances. We're talking about a belief in god(s)... which seems more like an ongoing condition, than a vague reference to once seeing the moon, or talking to someone on the bus.

Except that IS the parallel, because we're discussing the similarity between statements, not conditions. But if you insist, how about a different comparison: "All black people are stupid." Since being black, like believing in a god or gods, is an ongoing condition, does that make that statement non-bigoted?


Reasonable... actually, it is entirely 'reasonable'.

Can you show that religious experience is NOT delusion?

Of course not. Which, again, is why I have no major problem with the statement that religious belief MIGHT be delusional, or might not be. Seriously, this is not a difficult distinction to grasp.

Again with the arrogant?

Are you implying that this 'believing in god' thing is an occassional aberration?

Or would you say that it was more... institutional... in those who might call themselves believers?

I'm of the opinion that 'religious' people are probably inclined to 'believe' in gods or godlike beings pretty much as a matter of course. So - it would be the equivalent (and sometimes - not an equivalent, but the exact same thing) of someone hearing voices... all the time.

Someone hearing voices all the time... couldn't that maybe be argued somewhere in the 'schizophrenia' column?

I don't think that belief in a higher power is an indication of being delusional.
It's a principle of the universe that something cannot come from nothing. To believe that there's a creator of some sort is actually not-so-very-irrational.
I mean, I don't believe in a big, sometimes-pissy, sometimes-loving grandfather in the sky. But I think it's reasonable that the universe came from somewhere, other than an inexplicable Big Bang (which I think is the answer to how the universe got here, not the answer to why, if you'll forgive the platitude). I think it's reasonable to believe that there was a cause for that, a trigger, and this may have happened in accordance with a plan.
I also think that humans are unique, different from animals, in a way that evolution can't account for. I do believe in evolution, naturally, but I think that we have a little something extra that modern science can't explain. I believe that every person has a soul, and that it separates us from all other creatures.

No, there's not hard evidence, but there are plenty of things that can be more easily explained by the presence of god(s). Sure, a long time ago, ignorant savages couldn't explain lightning so they assumed it was Thor. They couldn't explain wind so they blamed it on angry spirits.
And maybe the mysteries science faces today, the ones we explain by assuming it was divine intervention, will be solved.
Until we know more, I think it's more reasonable to believe than not to believe- not because I'm afraid of a smiting or a sentence to Hell, but because it genuinely makes sense to me.

I don't think that belief in a higher power is an indication of being delusional.
It's a principle of the universe that something cannot come from nothing. To believe that there's a creator of some sort is actually not-so-very-irrational.
I mean, I don't believe in a big, sometimes-pissy, sometimes-loving grandfather in the sky. But I think it's reasonable that the universe came from somewhere, other than an inexplicable Big Bang (which I think is the answer to how the universe got here, not the answer to why, if you'll forgive the platitude). I think it's reasonable to believe that there was a cause for that, a trigger, and this may have happened in accordance with a plan.
I also think that humans are unique, different from animals, in a way that evolution can't account for. I do believe in evolution, naturally, but I think that we have a little something extra that modern science can't explain. I believe that every person has a soul, and that it separates us from all other creatures.

No, there's not hard evidence, but there are plenty of things that can be more easily explained by the presence of god(s). Sure, a long time ago, ignorant savages couldn't explain lightning so they assumed it was Thor. They couldn't explain wind so they blamed it on angry spirits.
And maybe the mysteries science faces today, the ones we explain by assuming it was divine intervention, will be solved.
Until we know more, I think it's more reasonable to believe than not to believe- not because I'm afraid of a smiting or a sentence to Hell, but because it genuinely makes sense to me.

Well said. Also well argued.

Not really.<snip>
You're right. Your post wasn't really all that funny. Nor is the rest of this post of yours any more sound than the one before. When did you forget how to structure an argument?

You made a statement. I challenged it. You asked on what grounds I challenged it. I answered you. You have now spent three posts chasing yourself around in circles trying to prove that what I said about your argument is not true, but all you have really done is repeat your original assertions as if they are their own proof, and accuse me of engaging in fallacies without actually showing any such fallacies. Just like I said you were doing. Which, you know, is why I said that everything you were saying had already been addressed in my earlier post. That tends to happen when you repeat yourself.

And you still have offered no supporting evidence for your claims about the mental state of religious people other than your own personal opinion. So, your argument basically boils down to you're right and I'm wrong because you say so. Not much of an argument.

I wasn't interested in being 'judged'. I was exploring the possibility that reality isn't just as you (or I) might see it.
I see, so the statement that you see nothing wrong with the assertion that belief in something godlike is delusional is your idea of exploring the possibility that reality isn't just as you or I might see it? Heh, yeah, right.

Can you show that religious experience is NOT delusion?
Asking your opponents to prove a negative now?

First, your position is the positive assertion, so the burden of proof, if there is one, rests on you.

Second, neither Poli nor I are claiming that religious belief is categorically NOT delusion. I am only arguing that YOUR assertion that it is delusion has no factual foundation and is driven by bias rather than information, and if I understand Poli correctly, she is arguing that your assertion that it is delusion is a sweeping generalization and, thus, unreasonable.

We don't have to prove that religious belief is not delusion, nor anything else about religious belief, in order to object to those obvious flaws in your argument.

Except that IS the parallel, because we're discussing the similarity between statements, not conditions. But if you insist, how about a different comparison: "All black people are stupid." Since being black, like believing in a god or gods, is an ongoing condition, does that make that statement non-bigoted?



Of course not. Which, again, is why I have no major problem with the statement that religious belief MIGHT be delusional, or might not be. Seriously, this is not a difficult distinction to grasp.
Perhaps it becomes more difficult when you are trying to defend an indefensible position.

Except that IS the parallel, because we're discussing the similarity between statements, not conditions. But if you insist, how about a different comparison: "All black people are stupid." Since being black, like believing in a god or gods, is an ongoing condition, does that make that statement non-bigoted?


Being black is innate. Being 'stupid' is not parallel to 'being delusional'.

But, apart from the complete lack of parallel-ness...


Of course not. Which, again, is why I have no major problem with the statement that religious belief MIGHT be delusional, or might not be. Seriously, this is not a difficult distinction to grasp.

I have no major problem with it with either wording. So - it's not a difficult concept to grasp. However, the statement that 'religious people are deluded' is reasonable.

I don't think that belief in a higher power is an indication of being delusional.


I think it could be.

More to the point - if there is no god, then it IS delusion, no matter what we think.

(Similarly, if there IS a god, then the atheists were deluded).


It's a principle of the universe that something cannot come from nothing.


Kind of wonky logic there. Who said anything had to come from nothing? There are several ways to scientifically explain the nascense of the universe without having to resort to 'something from nothing'.


To believe that there's a creator of some sort is actually not-so-very-irrational.


No, indeed. That doesn't make it right.


I mean, I don't believe in a big, sometimes-pissy, sometimes-loving grandfather in the sky. But I think it's reasonable that the universe came from somewhere, other than an inexplicable Big Bang (which I think is the answer to how the universe got here, not the answer to why, if you'll forgive the platitude).


The Big Bang isn't inexplicable. We can't do more than hazard guesses at what might have CAUSED the Bang, but the bang itslef is pretty explicable. And - science doesn't really have any position on the WHY.


I think it's reasonable to believe that there was a cause for that, a trigger, and this may have happened in accordance with a plan.


It's reasonable to believe there was a trigger. It's only reasonable to believe there might have been a plan, if you START from the assumption of an intelligent creation.


I also think that humans are unique, different from animals, in a way that evolution can't account for.


That's pretty nebulous. What is this uniqueness?


I do believe in evolution, naturally, but I think that we have a little something extra that modern science can't explain.


Modern science can't explain it... but what IS it. That's like saying you can't explain what I'm holfdng in my hand.. without me telling you what it is.


I believe that every person has a soul, and that it separates us from all other creatures.


Ah. A soul. Which puts you at odds with the scripture, for a start - which says animals have souls... but, more importantly.. .what IS this soul?


No, there's not hard evidence, but there are plenty of things that can be more easily explained by the presence of god(s).


Sure. There are lots of things that can be more easily explained by atoms being solid like marbles, too. Doesn't make it true.


Sure, a long time ago, ignorant savages couldn't explain lightning so they assumed it was Thor. They couldn't explain wind so they blamed it on angry spirits.


(Both of those things are OT assertions too... what is this 'ignorant savages' argument?)


And maybe the mysteries science faces today, the ones we explain by assuming it was divine intervention, will be solved.


Science doesn't assume divine intervention.


Until we know more, I think it's more reasonable to believe than not to believe- not because I'm afraid of a smiting or a sentence to Hell, but because it genuinely makes sense to me.

That's okay - for you. But belief isn't necessarily connected in any way to reality.

Which brings me back to my original point - if there IS no god... are the believers deluded?

Being black is innate. Being 'stupid' is not parallel to 'being delusional'.

But, apart from the complete lack of parallel-ness...

"Complete lack," eh? So, there is nothing parallel about the statement "All X people are Y" and the statement "All A people are B"? (And, furthermore, switching "delusional" to "stupid" is an unreasonable parallel, but switching it to "psychopaths" is fine? Explain that one to me, please?)

But hey, I'll humor your semantic games. How about "Anyone who likes pickles is mentally ill." Is that a reasonable statement? I mean, you can't PROVE that liking pickles isn't a symptom of mental illness, so obviously it makes sense to assert as fact that it is! :rolleyes:


I have no major problem with it with either wording. So - it's not a difficult concept to grasp. However, the statement that 'religious people are deluded' is reasonable.

Yeah, no. It is not based on reason. It is based on an assumption, and a stupid one at that, seeing as it makes the overwhelming majority of the world "delusional" - not "mistaken," or "incorrect," but actively having something wrong with them, which is frankly nonsensical.

You made a statement. I challenged it. You asked on what grounds I challenged it.


And I asked a two-part question, which you singularly failed to answer. And still fail to do so.


I answered you.


Not the questions asked.


You have now spent three posts chasing yourself around in circles trying to prove that what I said about your argument is not true,


You lied about my motivations, my bias, and my position. You claimed this 'proved' that my argument was wrong.

It doesn't.

You've done nothing to actually answer the questions I asked. You've done nothing to actually deal with the concept of 'delusion'.

Apparently, you just got all offended and decided to ad hominem your way out of the situation without having to present an argument or answer a question.


And you still have offered no supporting evidence for your claims about the mental state of religious people...


As I suspected, you haven't been reading my posts. Try again.


I see, so the statement that you see nothing wrong with the assertion that belief in something godlike is delusional is your idea of exploring the possibility that reality isn't just as you or I might see it? Heh, yeah, right.

If reality isn't as you see it, you're deluded.

If reality isn't as I see it, I'm deluded.

So.. yeah, right, actually.

Asking your opponents to prove a negative now?


No.

"Religious experiences are a phenomenon that can not be explained by scientific explanations" would prove religious experiences to be quite clearly NOT delusion.

But we KNOW that 'religious experiences' CAN be delusion. So we KNOW that it can't be proved that "religious experience is not delusion".


First, your position is the positive assertion, so the burden of proof, if there is one, rests on you.


First - I didn't make an assertion.

Second - As I already replied to you in one post, the burden of proof has been satisfied.


Second, neither Poli nor I are claiming that religious belief is categorically NOT delusion. I am only arguing that YOUR assertion




...that it is delusion has no factual foundation and is driven by bias


Wrong, and ad hominem is still ad hominem.


...rather than information, and if I understand Poli correctly, she is arguing that your assertion that it is delusion is a sweeping generalization and, thus, unreasonable.


'it is delusion' wasn't MY assertion.


We don't have to prove that religious belief is not delusion, nor anything else about religious belief, in order to object to those obvious flaws in your argument.


You don't 'have to prove' that religious belief is not a delusion, no. That's your option. It puts you at a disadvantage, though.

"Complete lack," eh? So, there is nothing parallel about the statement "All X people are Y" and the statement "All A people are B"? (And, furthermore, switching "delusional" to "stupid" is an unreasonable parallel, but switching it to "psychopaths" is fine? Explain that one to me, please?)


The symptoms determine the diagnosis.

Imagining the world to be other than it is - roughly - would be what leads to the 'delusional' label.

'hearing voices' would be what led to the 'schizophrenic', and 'killing without remorse' would be what led to 'psychopathic'. Neither are intended to represent anything other than the fact that symptom x, symptom y, and symptom z lead to diagnosis x, diagnosis y and diagnosis z, respectively.


But hey, I'll humor your semantic games. How about "Anyone who likes pickles is mentally ill." Is that a reasonable statement? I mean, you can't PROVE that liking pickles isn't a symptom of mental illness, so obviously it makes sense to assert as fact that it is! :rolleyes:


I've seen the argument that 'happiness' is actually an abnormal state in humans - which would make 'being happy' a symptom of a mental aberration.

I don't have a problem with this.


Yeah, no. It is not based on reason. It is based on an assumption, and a stupid one at that, seeing as it makes the overwhelming majority of the world "delusional"


One person or every person... irrelevent. If every single person ever... saw the world incorrectly, we'd ALL have been deluded.


- not "mistaken," or "incorrect," but actively having something wrong with them, which is frankly nonsensical.

Something wrong? By what measure? Is our having only two arms instead of four... something wrong?

Sudden infant death syndrome. May be you are right we do not know enough about medicine to find the problem. It could be something to do with the way the baby lies. We are not sure. Beforehand you couldn't have had a healthier specimen.

Except, you know, they've done a ton of research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome) on it.

There's also the fact that "SIDS" is sometimes actually infanticide. For the record, I knew someone whose uncle who was charged for murdering two infants (http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/07/25/loc_kyfather25.html) and claiming it was SIDS.

The Big Bang isn't inexplicable. We can't do more than hazard guesses at what might have CAUSED the Bang, but the bang itslef is pretty explicable. And - science doesn't really have any position on the WHY.

Are you sure? They've proved that gas expanfs, and so do solids and liquids if compressed under certain circumstances (e.g. sponges). And if it's tight enough, they can explode awfully violently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons)...

Can you show that religious experience is NOT delusion?

can you show that it's not actually true?

can you show that it's not actually true?

The experience?

Yes. I can show that religious experience can actually 'not be true'.

Yes. I can show that religious experience can actually 'not be true'.

That's nice. It's also not at all what I asked you. I didn't ask you if it iwas possible that a religious experience could be untrue. I asked you if you could prove that a particular experience is untrue.

Please answer the question I asked, not the one you want to pretend I asked. If I say to you, that 30 seconds ago I saw god, can you prove that I did not? Not "can you prove that there's a possibility that I did not". Not "can you prove that it can have not".

Can you prove I didn't?

The experience?

Yes. I can show that religious experience can actually 'not be true'.

Well....duh. I can show that, on quite frequent occasions, there is not a desk in front of me. I've dreamed about sitting at my desk before, so I can even point to examples of me experiencing a desk that wasn't there. How the heck does that in any way indicate that there is not a desk in front of me now?

Well....duh. I can show that, on quite frequent occasions, there is not a desk in front of me. I've dreamed about sitting at my desk before, so I can even point to examples of me experiencing a desk that wasn't there. How the heck does that in any way indicate that there is not a desk in front of me now?

because if something COULD be untrue, it obviously MUST be untrue.

Unless you're Grave-n-idle, of course, in which case your beliefs, even if they could be untrue, must be true, because the alternative, which could be untrue, thus is.

That's nice. It's also not at all what I asked you. I didn't ask you if it iwas possible that a religious experience could be untrue. I asked you if you could prove that a particular experience is untrue.

Please answer the question I asked, not the one you want to pretend I asked. If I say to you, that 30 seconds ago I saw god, can you prove that I did not? Not "can you prove that there's a possibility that I did not". Not "can you prove that it can have not".

Can you prove I didn't?

What you actually 'asked', since you seem to want to get all quibbly about it, is "can you show that it's not actually true?" and the parameters were set by me ("Can you show that religious experience is NOT delusion?").

I can show that 'religious experience is delusion', which fits with my original condition.

But - allowing for that fact, the question you NOW seem to want me to answer (instead) is... can I prove that an event you claim happened in the past... was delusion? I can't even prove you DID experience the event.. and neither, incidentally, can you.

So debate over the real-ness or delusional quality of isolated possible events, is somewhat self-defeating.

Now - if you wanted to discuss an event you were experiencing right now... or, for preference, at some point in the future with enough preliminary notification to allow me to set up some scientific peripherals...

I asked you a yes or a no question. Thus it requires only a yes or a no answer. Which makes all this:

What you actually 'asked', since you seem to want to get all quibbly about it, is "can you show that it's not actually true?" and the parameters were set by me ("Can you show that religious experience is NOT delusion?").

I can show that 'religious experience is delusion', which fits with my original condition.

But - allowing for that fact, the question you NOW seem to want me to answer (instead) is... can I prove that an event you claim happened in the past... was delusion? I can't even prove you DID experience the event.. and neither, incidentally, can you.

So debate over the real-ness or delusional quality of isolated possible events, is somewhat self-defeating.

Now - if you wanted to discuss an event you were experiencing right now... or, for preference, at some point in the future with enough preliminary notification to allow me to set up some scientific peripherals...

Utterly superfluous.

So in case you missed it the first time, I'll pose the question again. If I say to you, that 30 seconds ago I saw god, can you prove that I did not?

All that is required and requested of you, is a yes, or a no.

Well....duh. I can show that, on quite frequent occasions, there is not a desk in front of me. I've dreamed about sitting at my desk before, so I can even point to examples of me experiencing a desk that wasn't there. How the heck does that in any way indicate that there is not a desk in front of me now?

Is your desk a religious desk? Do you experience it religiously?

You can apply direct stimulation to the brain, and create artifact 'religious experiences'. Dreams and desks are irrelevent. You can engender, deliberately the state of 'religious experience'. That's what I'm getting at.

I asked you a yes or a no question. Thus it requires only a yes or a no answer. Which makes all this:


Sure. You asked me a yes or no question. But it's not the one you're now pretending it was. Which makes all of this utterly superfluous - and not a little disingenuous.


Utterly superfluous.

So in case you missed it the first time, I'll pose the question again. If I say to you, that 30 seconds ago I saw god, can you prove that I did not?

All that is required and requested of you, is a yes, or a no.

And this has already been answered. But then, you already knew that.

Sure. You asked me a yes or no question. But it's not the one you're now pretending it was. Which makes all of this utterly superfluous - and not a little disingenuous.



And this has already been answered. But then, you already knew that.

ya know what I"m not seeing here?

An answer to my question.

What a fucking shock. I'm done with you.

because if something COULD be untrue, it obviously MUST be untrue.

If something COULD be untrue, it's not unreasonable to say that people who claim to repeatedly do/see/be that thing could be deluded.

No?

(You know, taking it back to the actual point I was replying to, originally).

Is your desk a religious desk? Do you experience it religiously?

You can apply direct stimulation to the brain, and create artifact 'religious experiences'. Dreams and desks are irrelevent. You can engender, deliberately the state of 'religious experience'. That's what I'm getting at.

Yes, and I'm sure if we get good enough at brain-poking, we could engender the state of "thinking there's a desk in front of you." How does that in any way answer the question of whether there is, in fact, a desk in front of me right now?

ya know what I"m not seeing here?

An answer to my question.

What a fucking shock. I'm done with you.

You haven't 'started' with me.

You tried to hijack one of my points, and when it didn't go as you planned, appear to have decided petulance is the best defence.

You aren't even 'in the game' yet. You're the benchwarmer throwing in the towel before he's called.

Yes, and I'm sure if we get good enough at brain-poking, we could engender the state of "thinking there's a desk in front of you." How does that in any way answer the question of whether there is, in fact, a desk in front of me right now?

Because, if we actually CAN find that particular poke, it will call into question all those times you or I were certain that we were sat at desks.

And - if it later turns out that there were no desks - we'll both have been deluded.

Yes, and I'm sure if we get good enough at brain-poking, we could engender the state of "thinking there's a desk in front of you." How does that in any way answer the question of whether there is, in fact, a desk in front of me right now?

I think it goes a bit far afield here. If I understand what GnI is saying, he doesn't necessarily mean you can create an entire experience out of thin air. What he's saying is that you have an experience, but your biases/desires/etc turn that perception of an experience into a religious one.

There is no chemical or physical difference between a dead body and a live one.

what the fuck? Of course there is. It's called "firing neurons"

Mmk, I'm going to try this:

There is no solid, 100% proof that God exists.

There is no solid, 100% proof that God doesn't exist.

Either way, we won't actually know until we're dead.


That's the point of "faith" and belief. Is there a lot of evidence stacked against religion? In many, many areas, yes. And thus faith means believing something is true, despite odds being against it. Even if there's a .0000000001% of something being true, it still can be.

I think it goes a bit far afield here. If I understand what GnI is saying, he doesn't necessarily mean you can create an entire experience out of thin air. What he's saying is that you have an experience, but your biases/desires/etc turn that perception of an experience into a religious one.

Yes and no.

In laboratory conditions, you can experimentally induce 'religious experiences'.

Which suggests that people in mundane situations engender those reactions, themselves, from time to time. And your experience (of that desk) for example - may become a 'religious experience, based on a combination of specific stimuli and brain 'processes'.

Yes and no.

In laboratory conditions, you can experimentally induce 'religious experiences'.

Which suggests that people in mundane situations engender those reactions, themselves, from time to time. And your experience (of that desk) for example - may become a 'religious experience, based on a combination of specific stimuli and brain 'processes'.

Are we talking about a form of auto-suggestion when you refer to these induced experiences? Because it seems to me that you require at least a minimum of some stimuli before you can turn it into whatever experience you want it to be.

Memory isn't perfect after all, and new stimuli or existing biases may color any recollection.

If there's a debate going on, I'm not joining it. I'm just answering the question.

1. My family was never religious/spiritual, but they sent me to a nearby Christian school for convenience.
2. I am a Christian because Christ lives in me. This question can not be answered by mere logic as if it were just another question like "Is there a paper on the floor?" I guess people just feel it, that they have some union with Him. Not all questions can be answered in the same way. But for me this is what I feel to be the best answer on why I am a Christian.
I am sinful, as all are, they say. But the point is not that I become sinless once I become a Christian, it's just that I sin less and less. I am "saved" by this Christ not because of what I've done, but because of His love. I can't even explain or probe around if that statement is tangibly true or not, but I find that I do relate to that statement.

I'm no expert at these things, and I do get bored at the stuff some pastors say. But being a Christian, I felt that I need to say something and maybe change perspectives a little. I don't want to be some big crusader propagating Christianity in this site, but I'd like to answer the best way that I can as a Christian.

For those Christians who've felt that they've been abandoned by God, as I did at one time, think, that maybe, we're the ones who have left him, forgotten him in pursuit of other things.

For those skeptics who've grown cold against praying to the skies for nothing, c'mon, you know faith is more than that. Faith is more than just praying for what you want. As I understand it, faith is knowing what your Maker wants for you and trusting Him that it's the best.

And for everyone else, here's my own two cents. Faith in Christ is never easy to understand. It is never easy to grasp and live by. Things happen in this world that suggest that faith in Him is nonsense. But that's what faith is. Blind faith. And it feels a whole lot better running blind with him than just standing there and waiting for your time to end.

People die of starvation in Africa, wars are fought in the middle east, and a whole bunch of other bad things are happening all around the world. Don't think that God isn't working to stop these. He is. Through each of us.

People say, "If God is truly God, then why did he let all these happen?" He let these happen to show his power when someone steps up and works towards ending these sufferings. God shows his might when he moves people to "solve" world problems. God is far too great, too unfathomable, to just simply use His hand to "stop" all these problems. He far more powerful than that. He shows his power through us, channeling His love and power through each of us and moving us to unite and work together to solve things. People are harder to change than things. I think God is great in that He doesn't simply put an end to bad things, He seeks to make people make the changes and do stuff to "make this world a better place."

God's light shines the brightest when it is darkest. Don't say God is not around because of these bad things. Rather, God is here, because we have the power and opportunity to change these bad things. And we do.

I'm sorry. My reply is already deviating from the topic. I don't even know if what I'm saying does make sense or not, but this is what I believe I should say. I don't care what people may say in retaliation to what I say, and I may never find and read this thread again, but I say this not in anger, not in defense, not in pursuit of something, but in Christ. I say all these in His name, because He lives in me, and because I have personally witnessed His goodness in me that I feel I have to say something in a thread like this...

Are we talking about a form of auto-suggestion when you refer to these induced experiences? Because it seems to me that you require at least a minimum of some stimuli before you can turn it into whatever experience you want it to be.

Memory isn't perfect after all, and new stimuli or existing biases may color any recollection.

The specific series of experiments I am talking about used direct electrical stimulation to certain areas of the brain.

The sensation was considered to be equivalent over each test subject, with the only difference being in the 'flavour' of the experience, which directly related to the immersion culture of the subject.

If we can create a situation by deliberately targetting in experimental conditions, then the same thing can happen 'naturally' by untargetted stimulation... or by stimulation targetted by some other mechanism.

The specific series of experiments I am talking about used direct electrical stimulation to certain areas of the brain.

The sensation was considered to be equivalent over each test subject, with the only difference being in the 'flavour' of the experience, which directly related to the immersion culture of the subject.

If we can create a situation by deliberately targetting in experimental conditions, then the same thing can happen 'naturally' by untargetted stimulation... or by stimulation targetted by some other mechanism.TCMS.
http://www.wireheading.com/brainstim/religious-ecstasy.html
and for fun
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/60/1/49.pdf

Quite the opposite as it goes. Belife, well you can play around with it to your hearts content, I mean who's gonna call you out on it?

Well, then where's the difference between believing in Santa and believing in some kind of god?

I don't think that belief in a higher power is an indication of being delusional.
It's a principle of the universe that something cannot come from nothing. To believe that there's a creator of some sort is actually not-so-very-irrational.
I mean, I don't believe in a big, sometimes-pissy, sometimes-loving grandfather in the sky. But I think it's reasonable that the universe came from somewhere, other than an inexplicable Big Bang (which I think is the answer to how the universe got here, not the answer to why, if you'll forgive the platitude). I think it's reasonable to believe that there was a cause for that, a trigger, and this may have happened in accordance with a plan.
I also think that humans are unique, different from animals, in a way that evolution can't account for. I do believe in evolution, naturally, but I think that we have a little something extra that modern science can't explain. I believe that every person has a soul, and that it separates us from all other creatures.

No, there's not hard evidence, but there are plenty of things that can be more easily explained by the presence of god(s). Sure, a long time ago, ignorant savages couldn't explain lightning so they assumed it was Thor. They couldn't explain wind so they blamed it on angry spirits.
And maybe the mysteries science faces today, the ones we explain by assuming it was divine intervention, will be solved.
Until we know more, I think it's more reasonable to believe than not to believe- not because I'm afraid of a smiting or a sentence to Hell, but because it genuinely makes sense to me.

Well, then if that argument were followed through, where did that creator come from?

Well, then where's the difference between believing in Santa and believing in some kind of god?

Santa's much easier to deal with. If you're good he gives you toys and candy, if you're bad he gives you coal or nothing. With God, if you're good, who knows what's going to happen, if you're bad, who knows what's going to happen.

Santa, ftw.

Mmk, I'm going to try this:

There is no solid, 100% proof that God exists.

There is no solid, 100% proof that God doesn't exist.

Either way, we won't actually know until we're dead.


That's the point of "faith" and belief. Is there a lot of evidence stacked against religion? In many, many areas, yes. And thus faith means believing something is true, despite odds being against it. Even if there's a .0000000001% of something being true, it still can be.

That is very true and sums it up nicely.
However, in everyday life, believing in something on odds this small would indeed be called deluding yourself (see belief in aliens, in Santa, the Elvis isn't actually dead, etc.)
Yet when you call it religion it suddenly becomes a virtue in its own right. And I find that... well, dishonest.

Belief

*shrug* meh!

What about the first time you realize that it's the priest absolving your sins, not your god? Or the first time you realize that it's the surgeon saving your life, not an angel?

You say someone other than Santa delivers the presents. Well, someone other than god sets your broken bones, too. What does that tell us about either Santa or god? Nothing. The fact that a particular being does not do something is not proof that being does not exist. It's only proof that what is said about that being is not true.

I have no idea what your point is? I have never belived that God set's broken bones and frankly if there are people out there that do, I would advise you stary away from them.

As to santa are you argueing that santa does exist?

It's arrogance, you have no more proof that what the theist experiences is delusional any more than the world you experience right now isn't a delusion.

It's not really it is merely using words the correct way.

A belife in God is certianly a delusional belife. The main problem with that of course is people just cannot stand being called so and get all defensive.

*shrug* I belive in God, I have this delusional belife, so what, that means this one aspect of mine is not based on empircal evidance.

Ask those that call you delusional wheter or not they think they are less so? They arn't, they are just delusional about other aspects of their lives. It's quite normal.

Well, then where's the difference between believing in Santa and believing in some kind of god?

The material benefits. Santa gives presents.:tongue:

Well, then where's the difference between believing in Santa and believing in some kind of god?

Come on now, are you really asking that? In short then the differance is the reasons why, the pay off, the differing roles.

I was born into a not too christian family, e.g didn't push it. Attended church for years but only truly became "full living christian" after going to a elim church and going to the gathering(a big christian event, it's awesome). I just think it makes so much sense like why are birds perfect for the job. Why does the bee have its own niche.I think alot of people think christianity is "boring" and that you just turn up on sunday and sing hymns, say lords prayer, pray and then go to some save the church fund in the week but its not, there's christian rock, metal, rap and all sorts just check out Delirious, Altern Brigde if you want to konw what I mean.

I only truly advanced after I became christian and prayed alot to god. Although I would agree to disagree with differing views and don't believe in the church interfering in law too much(anti-gay etc.) and beintg intergrated with government.
I also don't think Big bang and science contradicts christianity as the story of creation could be like a sort of parable.

Is your desk a religious desk? Do you experience it religiously?

You can apply direct stimulation to the brain, and create artifact 'religious experiences'. Dreams and desks are irrelevent. You can engender, deliberately the state of 'religious experience'. That's what I'm getting at.

Any experience can be engendered in the brain. Consequently, you could say that anyone who experiences anything could be delusional.

If something COULD be untrue, it's not unreasonable to say that people who claim to repeatedly do/see/be that thing could be deluded.

No?

(You know, taking it back to the actual point I was replying to, originally).

Well, saying someone could be deluded is different from saying that one is deluded. Which is what Poli was complaining about and that you had no objection to.

...anyone who believes in anything godlike is delusional...
I really don't see the problem with this one.

That is very true and sums it up nicely.
However, in everyday life, believing in something on odds this small would indeed be called deluding yourself (see belief in aliens, in Santa, the Elvis isn't actually dead, etc.)
Yet when you call it religion it suddenly becomes a virtue in its own right. And I find that... well, dishonest.

That's true, and has been stated, it may very well be delusional. But, unfortunately, we're still gonna have to die to figure that out or not :P

what the fuck? Of course there is. It's called "firing neurons"




I am going to answer both SIDS and firing neurons.


My answer to SIDS is they have a lot of factors for example it may have to do with how the baby is placed on the bed. It could be the temperature of the room. It could be because the parent smoked. It could be because the bed was not firm enough. What I was looking for is what caused the issue in the first place. Some baby will be just fine if you were to do any of the above, some will not. usually no reason, no warning just happens.



With regard to Dead body vs. Live Body. Yes of course that is a symptom of death. You could say the heart does not beat as well. Why are those neuron not firing. You could look at brain wave as well. Those are symptoms not the difference. Dead bodies tend to become very rigid and begin to break down chemically.

If there's a debate going on, I'm not joining it. I'm just answering the question.

1. My family was never religious/spiritual, but they sent me to a nearby Christian school for convenience.
2. I am a Christian because Christ lives in me. This question can not be answered by mere logic as if it were just another question like "Is there a paper on the floor?" I guess people just feel it, that they have some union with Him. Not all questions can be answered in the same way. But for me this is what I feel to be the best answer on why I am a Christian.
I am sinful, as all are, they say. But the point is not that I become sinless once I become a Christian, it's just that I sin less and less. I am "saved" by this Christ not because of what I've done, but because of His love. I can't even explain or probe around if that statement is tangibly true or not, but I find that I do relate to that statement.

I'm no expert at these things, and I do get bored at the stuff some pastors say. But being a Christian, I felt that I need to say something and maybe change perspectives a little. I don't want to be some big crusader propagating Christianity in this site, but I'd like to answer the best way that I can as a Christian.

For those Christians who've felt that they've been abandoned by God, as I did at one time, think, that maybe, we're the ones who have left him, forgotten him in pursuit of other things.

For those skeptics who've grown cold against praying to the skies for nothing, c'mon, you know faith is more than that. Faith is more than just praying for what you want. As I understand it, faith is knowing what your Maker wants for you and trusting Him that it's the best.

And for everyone else, here's my own two cents. Faith in Christ is never easy to understand. It is never easy to grasp and live by. Things happen in this world that suggest that faith in Him is nonsense. But that's what faith is. Blind faith. And it feels a whole lot better running blind with him than just standing there and waiting for your time to end.

People die of starvation in Africa, wars are fought in the middle east, and a whole bunch of other bad things are happening all around the world. Don't think that God isn't working to stop these. He is. Through each of us.

People say, "If God is truly God, then why did he let all these happen?" He let these happen to show his power when someone steps up and works towards ending these sufferings. God shows his might when he moves people to "solve" world problems. God is far too great, too unfathomable, to just simply use His hand to "stop" all these problems. He far more powerful than that. He shows his power through us, channeling His love and power through each of us and moving us to unite and work together to solve things. People are harder to change than things. I think God is great in that He doesn't simply put an end to bad things, He seeks to make people make the changes and do stuff to "make this world a better place."

God's light shines the brightest when it is darkest. Don't say God is not around because of these bad things. Rather, God is here, because we have the power and opportunity to change these bad things. And we do.

I'm sorry. My reply is already deviating from the topic. I don't even know if what I'm saying does make sense or not, but this is what I believe I should say. I don't care what people may say in retaliation to what I say, and I may never find and read this thread again, but I say this not in anger, not in defense, not in pursuit of something, but in Christ. I say all these in His name, because He lives in me, and because I have personally witnessed His goodness in me that I feel I have to say something in a thread like this...

Well said. Very nicely put.

Focus on the message, not on the facts. Live outside of what you can touch, hear, see, smell, or taste.


Yoda
“Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship.”

Why are those neuron not firing.

Because they're dead.

Dead bodies tend to become very rigid and begin to break down chemically.

That's because the biological functions which prevent our bodies from doing that have ceased. It's not that complicated or mystical.

Once the brain dies, other biological functions cease. Once those functions cease, the body stops doing those things that it does to keep us from rotting.

The specific series of experiments I am talking about used direct electrical stimulation to certain areas of the brain.

The sensation was considered to be equivalent over each test subject, with the only difference being in the 'flavour' of the experience, which directly related to the immersion culture of the subject.

If we can create a situation by deliberately targetting in experimental conditions, then the same thing can happen 'naturally' by untargetted stimulation... or by stimulation targetted by some other mechanism.


Everything is electrical signals in our brains. You can simulate anything. How would God communicate with us? How would anyone else communicate with us? It is the processing the differs.

You can also hypnotize someone and tell them a piece of metal is really hot and then throw an ordinary ice cube at them and the will act as if they were burnt.

Because they're dead.



That's because the biological functions which prevent our bodies from doing that have ceased. It's not that complicated or mystical.

Once the brain dies, other biological functions cease. Once those functions cease, the body stops doing those things that it does to keep us from rotting.

I can artificially make those neurons fire by drugs and whole host of other methods yet it will not return to life. I can stimulate the brain as described By Grave-N-Idle and it won't get up and walk around?

I can artificially make those neurons fire by drugs and whole host of other methods yet it will not return to life.

No, you can't. Once the synapses are damaged, there's no known method of recupperating them. Once the neuron is fried, it's fried.

No, you can't. Once the synapses are damaged, there's no known method of recupperating them. Once the neuron is fried, it's fried.

What you said.

No, you can't. Once the synapses are damaged, there's no known method of recuperating them. Once the neuron is fried, it's fried.

Sure once they get damaged beyond repair.

http://www.utexas.edu/research/asrec/dopamine.html

Just one example. You are telling me that the "Motor doesn't hum" anymore. I am saying it has everything it needs to hum and yet it does not.

Let's talk a few minutes after death not an extended time.

I am saying it has everything it needs to hum and yet it does not.

Does it have everything it needs to "hum"? How long after brain-death occurs does it take for the neurons to be damaged beyond repair?

Sudden Death we call it. Not the sports one. 2/3 of case are explained by conventional medicine. 1/3 are unexplained.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sudden-death/HB00092

What can cause sudden cardiac death in young people?
The causes of sudden death in young people vary. About two-thirds of the time, a coroner discovers during an autopsy that the death was due to a heart abnormality. The remaining one-third of deaths are sometimes referred to as sudden unexplained death, because a cause could not be pinpointed. In these cases, we usually suspect a genetic disorder, and we may need to do further genetic testing to confirm such suspicions that it's heart-related. However, what all sudden cardiac deaths have in common is the final common pathway that leads to death.

Does it have everything it needs to "hum"? How long after brain-death occurs does it take for the neurons to be damaged beyond repair?

Brain death and permanent death start to occur in just four to six minutes after someone experiences cardiac arrest. Cardiac arrest is reversible in most victims if it's treated within a few minutes with an electric shock to the heart to restore a normal heartbeat. This process is called defibrillation. A victim's chances of survival are reduced by 7 to 10 percent with every minute that passes without CPR and defibrillation. CPR can double or triple a cardiac arrest victim's chances of survival. Few attempts at resuscitation succeed after 10 minutes. If someone becomes unconscious, call 9-1-1 immediately. They may be suffering from sudden cardiac arrest.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4741


I submit you can shock the crap out of some and they won't come back.

http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/4/269

Discussion: In 4.1% of sudden unexpected deaths under 65 years, no cause was found. Until it becomes accepted practice to identify these cases by a name, such as Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS), it will not be possible to study their aetiology systematically.



Sometimes your number is up.

Sudden Death we call it. Not the sports one. 2/3 of case are explained by conventional medicine. 1/3 are unexplained.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sudden-death/HB00092

What can cause sudden cardiac death in young people?
The causes of sudden death in young people vary. About two-thirds of the time, a coroner discovers during an autopsy that the death was due to a heart abnormality. The remaining one-third of deaths are sometimes referred to as sudden unexplained death, because a cause could not be pinpointed. In these cases, we usually suspect a genetic disorder, and we may need to do further genetic testing to confirm such suspicions that it's heart-related. However, what all sudden cardiac deaths have in common is the final common pathway that leads to death.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Brain death and permanent death start to occur in just four to six minutes after someone experiences cardiac arrest. Cardiac arrest is reversible in most victims if it's treated within a few minutes with an electric shock to the heart to restore a normal heartbeat. This process is called defibrillation. A victim's chances of survival are reduced by 7 to 10 percent with every minute that passes without CPR and defibrillation. CPR can double or triple a cardiac arrest victim's chances of survival. Few attempts at resuscitation succeed after 10 minutes. If someone becomes unconscious, call 9-1-1 immediately. They may be suffering from sudden cardiac arrest.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4741


I submit you can shock the crap out of some and they won't come back.

Yes, I'm well aware of defibrillation, I know how to use one and carried one on my guntruck for a year in Iraq. I may not be AUTHORIZED to use it, but I know how

I'm not sure what cardiac arrest has to do with anything. I'm talking about brain-death, when the neurons stop firing. That's how most Western governments define death.

Sure once they get damaged beyond repair.

http://www.utexas.edu/research/asrec/dopamine.html

Just one example.

It's a shitty example. Dopamine doesn't start damaged parts of the brain working again. L-DOPA can simulate the body's natural production. It's a suppliment. But all the L-DOPA in the world won't make a difference if the brain is damaged to the point of brain death.

You are telling me that the "Motor doesn't hum" anymore. I am saying it has everything it needs to hum and yet it does not.

No, it does not. You keep arguing that someone can be "dead", yet their body essentially mimics the body of a living person. This is untrue. Death occurs when ones brain ceases to function. This occurs as a result of trauma to the brain. People don't suffer brain death when they have a perfectly working brain. Brain death occurs when the brain stops working because of damage.

Cardiac arrest isn't death. It used to be considered death when the heart stopped, but that's because, essentially, we had no way of reversing it.

Now, pretty much universal consensus is, one is dead when ones brain stops working. You seem to be operating under this nonsensical proposition that somehow someone can be dead yet still physically the same as someone who is alive. This is utterly, completely, totally false. The person who is alive has something that the dead body does not, a functioning brain. Healthy brains don't just "stop working". They only stop when something is WRONG WITH IT. Once that happens, the doesn't "have everything it needs to hum", namely, it doesn't have an undamaged brain. The brain is damaged.

Does it have everything it needs to "hum"? How long after brain-death occurs does it take for the neurons to be damaged beyond repair?

You have your operations backwards. Brain death occurs when the neurons are damaged beyond the point of functioning. That's what brain death IS. It's when your brain stops working.

http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/4/269

Discussion: In 4.1% of sudden unexpected deaths under 65 years, no cause was found. Until it becomes accepted practice to identify these cases by a name, such as Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS), it will not be possible to study their aetiology systematically.



Sometimes your number is up.

Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Sure, people die of unknown causes. People a hundred years ago died of unknown causes far more often, mainly because we're better able to find the causes now. In another hundred years even fewer people will die of unknown causes.

You have your operations backwards. Brain death occurs when the neurons are damaged beyond the point of functioning. That's what brain death IS. It's when your brain stops working.

Ah, appreciated. My grounding in biology is rather weak and my medical training is focused around the "what" instead of the "why".

Any experience can be engendered in the brain. Consequently, you could say that anyone who experiences anything could be delusional.


You could, I agree.

And, if someone can show that other types of experience can be engendered remotely, as 'religious experience' can, I'll consider such experiences to be of the same reliability.


Well, saying someone could be deluded is different from saying that one is deluded. Which is what Poli was complaining about and that you had no objection to.

I do have no objection to people saying that. Because I see that, if 'god' is not real. it is delusion. Just as, if it IS real, not seeing it is the delusion.

And, if someone can show that other types of experience can be engendered remotely, as 'religious experience' can, I'll consider such experiences to be of the same reliability.

I see you've never taken LSD.

I do have no objection to people saying that. Because I see that, if 'god' is not real. it is delusion. Just as, if it IS real, not seeing it is the delusion.

And yet you fail to understand the difference of "could be" and "is". Saying belief in god is a delusion is saying that there is no god. It's a definitive statement. The fact that you keep having to add the qualifiers "if" as bolded demonstrates that you understand this, you just refuse to admit it.

Another interesting conundrum

Let's suppose we have Area51 where humans are allowed to be cloned. We take an individual and clone him or her into 3 separate entities. Do they share the same "soul"?

For those non-religious we take each of these entities and we socialize them. The master copy supervises the training of each clone. Will they ever be absolutely the same? Like 3 copies of the same CD? If not why not?

Another interesting conundrum

Let's suppose we have Area51 where humans are allowed to be cloned. We take an individual and clone him or her into 3 separate entities. Do they share the same "soul"?

For those non-religious we take each of these entities and we socialize them. The master copy supervises the training of each clone. Will they ever be absolutely the same? Like 3 copies of the same CD? If not why not?

No, they will not be absolutely the same. Next question.

And yet you fail to understand the difference of "could be" and "is". Saying belief in god is a delusion is saying that there is no god.
Fair point. But only in so much as one views the "belief" as the delusion, rather than the event that the corresponding belief emerges from. If, as I think Grave supposes, the "event" is a delusion, then while belief in God is delusional, the actual delusion is the God that you're talking about, and the two are one and the same. God exists (as the delusion), because the delusion happened, and the evidence of the delusion is the fact of the delusion, by nature of subjective experience.

If not why not?

Because all clones are is identical twins, and they're not exactly the same.

Another interesting conundrum

Let's suppose we have Area51 where humans are allowed to be cloned. We take an individual and clone him or her into 3 separate entities. Do they share the same "soul"?

For those non-religious we take each of these entities and we socialize them. The master copy supervises the training of each clone. Will they ever be absolutely the same? Like 3 copies of the same CD? If not why not?

I don't see how it would be humanly possible to socialize these clones in exactly the same way. Also, people aren't entirely rational creatures, there's no reason to believe they'd behave in exactly the same way even if you managed to magically engineer all the stimuli they received to be exactly the same.

Also, are you going to address earlier points or are you going to keep throwing out random scenarios?

Let's suppose we have Area51 where humans are allowed to be cloned. We take an individual and clone him or her into 3 separate entities. Do they share the same "soul"?
What they share is memory and structure. That's all. They are otherwise totally distinct. The soul isn't something you're born with; it's something that develops over time, through a combination of the biological development of your physical form and the experiences to which you're exposed, and even at the point of the cloning, the two clones have taken different paths to get to where they are.

What they share is memory and structure. That's all. They are otherwise totally distinct. The soul isn't something you're born with; it's something that develops over time, through a combination of the biological development of your physical form and the experiences to which you're exposed, and even at the point of the cloning, the two clones have taken different paths to get to where they are.

They wouldn't even share the same memory. To a large extend, yes, but each individual will have gone through his/her own experiences growing up.
Even conjoined identical twins are distinctly different from each other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truly Blessed View Post
If not why not?
Because all clones are is identical twins, and they're not exactly the same.

+1

You could, I agree.

And, if someone can show that other types of experience can be engendered remotely, as 'religious experience' can, I'll consider such experiences to be of the same reliability.

A realistic dream is an example of remote engenderment of all sorts of other experiences. For example, I dream of eating bacon. The experience of eating bacon has been engendered remotely. This would make the 'eating bacon' experience as reliable as the religious experience. Would you then say that those who claim to have experienced eating bacon as delusional?

I do have no objection to people saying that. Because I see that, if 'god' is not real. it is delusion. Just as, if it IS real, not seeing it is the delusion.

Madagascar is real. I have never seen it. Is that a delusion on my part?

They wouldn't even share the same memory. To a large extend, yes, but each individual will have gone through his/her own experiences growing up.
Even conjoined identical twins are distinctly different from each other.
Oh, wait, we're assuming the entirely feasible variant of cloning where a new person is created that is just genetically identical to the original? Sorry, the use of the term Area 51 led me to think we were going down the "Identical copy" road of cloning.

In light of this new understanding, any sense of "Conundrum" instantly vanishes, because they're just genetically identical.

There, that was easy! :D

Madagascar is real. I have never seen it. Is that a delusion on my part?

Well, you can go there and find out.
I consider the fact that there are regular scheduled flights to the place quite good evidence.

Madagascar is real. I have never seen it. Is that a delusion on my part?
Do you acknowledge that it might not be real?

Well, you can go there and find out.
I consider the fact that there are regular scheduled flights to the place quite good evidence.

I would say that it is real, I have not seen it, and that I am not delusional.

Therefore, to say that 'delusional' is 'not seeing what is real' is perhaps not the best definition.

Do you acknowledge that it might not be real?

Yes. A conspiracy of cartographers, to quote...um...Stoppard, I think.

I see you've never taken LSD.


True, this.


And yet you fail to understand the difference of "could be" and "is". Saying belief in god is a delusion is saying that there is no god. It's a definitive statement. The fact that you keep having to add the qualifiers "if" as bolded demonstrates that you understand this, you just refuse to admit it.

We're either right or wrong. Which means, each of us has a 50/50 chance of being deluded.

The 'if' part is actually irrelevent... because there either 'is' a god, or there 'isn't'.

Another interesting conundrum

Let's suppose we have Area51 where humans are allowed to be cloned. We take an individual and clone him or her into 3 separate entities. Do they share the same "soul"?


What is this 'soul' of which you speak?

If you use the common Christian idea - yes, they do - because the common christian argument is that the 'soul' is bestowed at the point at germination. Which theoretically means identical twins share a soul, too.

If you mean 'soul' as it is used in Hebrew scripture - then, no - because they each have their own blood.


For those non-religious we take each of these entities and we socialize them. The master copy supervises the training of each clone. Will they ever be absolutely the same? Like 3 copies of the same CD? If not why not?

Why would they be exactly the same?

Yes. A conspiracy of cartographers, to quote...um...Stoppard, I think.
I think, then, that as long as you appreciate that it's always a possibility, then you're neither delusional nor being deluded.

I was about to qualify that "possibility" by saying "however remote", but of course, quantifying the possibility that you might be being deluded is entirely based on how much exposure you've had to what would be the lie, and as such has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not you're actually being deluded.

A realistic dream is an example of remote engenderment of all sorts of other experiences. For example, I dream of eating bacon. The experience of eating bacon has been engendered remotely. This would make the 'eating bacon' experience as reliable as the religious experience. Would you then say that those who claim to have experienced eating bacon as delusional?


The dream is not 'remotely engendered'.

If you can stick a wire in your head, and generate a 'bacon eating experience', that would be a parallel.


Madagascar is real. I have never seen it. Is that a delusion on my part?

How do you know it's real?

I would say that it is real, I have not seen it, and that I am not delusional.

Therefore, to say that 'delusional' is 'not seeing what is real' is perhaps not the best definition.


Bit of a Red Herring, really.

What about "seeing what is NOT real". Would that be better?

Bit of a Red Herring, really.

What about "seeing what is NOT real". Would that be better?
Gimmee a sec; I'm working out what about this strikes me as odd.

Presumably, by seeing, we're talking more than just sight here. You're as delusional if you touch something that is not real as you are if you see or hear it.

The question is, how do you frame reality if you acknowledge the possibility that not everything you see and hear and touch is real? Are we not entirely informed of the nature of our reality by our sensory perception of it?

I suppose my point is, under your understanding of delusion, whether or not I'm delusional isn't something I can ever know. It's not even something I can ever be informed of, because the possibility always exists that my information concerning the state of my delusion is itself a delusion.

I think delusion is something more basic than statements about reality; it's simply when there exists a blurring between imagination and perception. We are delusional when we subconsciously want something to be true (even if the nature of this want is masochistic) to the extent that we are convinced that our perceptions confirm this desire, even when the perceptions themselves do not.

Another interesting conundrum

No, it's not, no more than wondering "do twins have the same soul?" It begs the question.

For those non-religious we take each of these entities and we socialize them. The master copy supervises the training of each clone. Will they ever be absolutely the same? Like 3 copies of the same CD? If not why not?

because no two person's experiences will be entirely identical.

The dream is not 'remotely engendered'.

If you can stick a wire in your head, and generate a 'bacon eating experience', that would be a parallel.

The point remains that we can experience eating bacon even though we haven't actually eaten bacon, but that doesn't mean that people who claim to eat bacon are delusional.

Bit of a Red Herring, really.

What about "seeing what is NOT real". Would that be better?

That's fine.

Now, in order to show that '...anyone who believes in anything godlike is delusional...', you just have to show that '...anyone who believes in anything godlike is seeing what is not real...'

Gimmee a sec; I'm working out what about this strikes me as odd.

Presumably, by seeing, we're talking more than just sight here. You're as delusional if you touch something that is not real as you are if you see or hear it.


I agree.


The question is, how do you frame reality if you acknowledge the possibility that not everything you see and hear and touch is real? Are we not entirely informed of the nature of our reality by our sensory perception of it?


Yes. And I readily admit, everything could be delusion. I don't see that as problem. I live my life as though it were all 'real', but I'm aware I could 'wake up' tomorrow and find my whole life had been a dream the real 'me' had had while 'I' was napping.


I suppose my point is, under your understanding of delusion, whether or not I'm delusional isn't something I can ever know. It's not even something I can ever be informed of, because the possibility always exists that my information concerning the state of my delusion is itself a delusion.


Sounds reasonable.


I think delusion is something more basic than statements about reality; it's simply when there exists a blurring between imagination and perception. We are delusional when we subconsciously want something to be true to the extent that we are convinced that our perceptions confirm this desire, even when the perceptions themselves do not.

While I'm loathe to cite Wiki as my source on this, it has the basic information I was looking for, and I don't really feel like digging around too long:

"These criteria are:

certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)"

Now, in order to show that '...anyone who believes in anything godlike is delusional...', you just have to show that '...anyone who believes in anything godlike is seeing what is not real...'

Right.

So - the applicability of 'delusional' hinges on whether or not those who CLAIM religious experience can prove that their experiences were 'real'.

Sounds fair.

Right.

So - the applicability of 'delusional' hinges on whether or not those who CLAIM religious experience can prove that their experiences were 'real'.

Sounds fair.

Are you saying that we should automatically assume that the experiences are not real? Then, if no empirical evidence can be shown to disprove the assumption, we should assume that the claimants are delusional?

Right.

So - the applicability of 'delusional' hinges on whether or not those who CLAIM religious experience can prove that their experiences were 'real'.

Sounds fair.

one would think that the one claiming delusion would have the burden to demonstrate that those experiences were NOT real.

Well, rational people would think that, anyway.

Are you saying that we should automatically assume that the experiences are not real? Then, if no empirical evidence can be shown to disprove the assumption, we should assume that the claimants are delusional?

Sure.

Sure.

Any special reason why the entire burden of proof is on those who may disagree with you?

one would think that the one claiming delusion would have the burden to demonstrate that those experiences were NOT real.

Well, rational people would think that, anyway.

You want me to prove a negative?


When someone tells you that they believe they find themselves on the planet Ogo, part of an intellectual elite, preparing to subjugate the barbarian hordes on Pluto...

Do you expect to have to PROVE that that is not the case, or do you think it is safe to assume they are divergent?

You make the claim that differs from observable reality? The onus is on you.

Any special reason why the entire burden of proof is on those who may disagree with you?

'Disagreeing with me' is irrelevent. It's the substance of the disagreement that matters.

While I'm loathe to cite Wiki as my source on this, it has the basic information I was looking for, and I don't really feel like digging around too long:
That's a nice behaviourist answer, but you're just listing symptoms! If you're saying that a delusion is a diagnosis one makes of a person's psychological state when they hold impossible beliefs in the face of convincing counter-argument, then someone might be considered delusional simply by virtue of being stubborn and stupid. For instance, "Water isn't wet because I say it isn't, la la la, I can't hear you!" isn't delusional; it's just childish.

There is a fundamental difference between delusion and the appearance of delusion, and I don't think that definition quite bridges that gap.

'Disagreeing with me' is irrelevent. It's the substance of the disagreement that matters.

So, those who claim to have religious experiences have the burden of proof because it 'differs from observable reality'.

How do we know these experiences differ from observable reality?

How do we know these experiences differ from observable reality?
Oh, believe me, they do. When you see God/Chaos/The Incarnate Universal/Whatever (note the capital W), you know your grip on reality has loosened.

So, those who claim to have religious experiences have the burden of proof because it 'differs from observable reality'.

How do we know these experiences differ from observable reality?

I would assume it's because the 'observable reality' part is the part we observe, while the 'religious experiences' part is the part we DON'T observe.

Oh, believe me, they do. When you see God/Chaos/The Incarnate Universal/Whatever (note the capital W), you know your grip on reality has loosened.

Actually, I have had ecstactic visions. My grip on reality is quite strong.

But our somber and lazy colleague has no objection to claiming I'm delusional, based on a series of assumptions that apparently do not need any evidence. And do you why no evidence is needed for these assumptions? Because I'm apparently delusional, i.e. experiencing something that differs from reality.

Actually, I have had ecstactic visions.You say that you've had them. I have no proof that you have had them. To take your statement as truth takes a faith in you that I do not posses.

Yes. A conspiracy of cartographers, to quote...um...Stoppard, I think.

Stoppard is correct. My most favoritest play. :)

Are you saying that we should automatically assume that the experiences are not real? Then, if no empirical evidence can be shown to disprove the assumption, we should assume that the claimants are delusional?

This is entirely possible. Would you like to find out? I have two pills here....the red one will reveal the truth to you, and the blue one will make you forget everything you've done in this thread.....

True, this.
I am not going to go back and go through all your posts for the following reasons:

1) I don't see anything since last night that actually advances the argument that was going on between you and me. I wish to try to stem the tide of redundancy because life is short.

2) I see no point in sinking deeper into what was amounting to little more than a "who's the bitchiest" contest between us. I, of course, would win the general title because my bitch-fu is best, but you would definitely win for Most Annoying. Let's just call that one decided, shall we?

3) Others have already made arguments that I would have made, so you may take me as +1 to Neo Art, Poli, GoG and Kamsaki.

That said, I will jump in again at this point:

We're either right or wrong. Which means, each of us has a 50/50 chance of being deluded.

The 'if' part is actually irrelevent... because there either 'is' a god, or there 'isn't'.
"Mistaken" and "deluded" are two different things. You can believe something in error without being deluded about it.

Further, "deluded" and "delusional" are two different things. "Delusional" describes a psychotic mental state. "Deluded" can refer to that, too, but it also means being utterly misled by false information, without any suggestion of mental illness.

You started out by saying that a belief in something godlike is delusional, i.e. psychotic, mentally ill.

Now you are throwing around the word "deluded" and descriptions of states of mind that would be merely mistaken, not either deluded or delusional, and you seem to be treating all these ideas as interchangeable.

Tell me, are you just not aware of what all the relative terms mean, or are you deliberately obfuscating in an attempt to avoid admitting that you cannot defend your initial assertion?

How do you know it's real?
Is it your contention that Madagascar is not real?

Remember, you were the one who framed this entire debate in the form of factual assertion. You asserted that a belief in something godlike is delusional. Based on your subesquent attempts to defend that statement, you clearly believe it to be a statement of fact. Therefore, the related assertion that godlike things are not real must also be an assertion of fact, beause I don't see how you can have a factual assertion without a foundation of fact.

So, to turn this to the analogy: GoG has never been to Madagascar, but he believes it exists because of the reports of others who say they have been there, who have no reason to lie about it as far as he knows. If you are going to question that and suggest that he cannot rely on those reports, then you must have other knowledge to show him, right? You must have some evidence that the reports are false, right? Otherwise, why should he not believe them?

So, lay it on us. What reason do you have to question GoG's reliance on third party reports for the existence of Madagascar? If all you have is, "Well, it might not be there, you know, if the whole universe is just a dream and all," I'm sorry but that's not enough to undermine the reasonableness of GoG's reliance on those reports. Who are you, compared to those other people that anyone should listen to your doubts over their certainties?

GoG may choose to believe the Madagascar reports or not, but your mere "well, they might be false" is not a counter argument or counter evidence against them.

Replace "Madagascar" with "something godlike" and "GoG" with "anyone other than you", and you will have the entire problem.

Bit of a Red Herring, really.

What about "seeing what is NOT real". Would that be better?
But by your own argument (below), that standard is impossible to meet.

You have claimed that, in your worldview, everything could be a delusion, and there is no way to tell. So how, then, is anyone supposed to prove that anything they are seeing is real or not real? Clearly, you have left an out for yourself to claim, no matter what anyone says to you, that it is not real. This philosophy or whatever it is of yours that "life is but a dream" is rather self-serving.

The point remains that we can experience eating bacon even though we haven't actually eaten bacon, but that doesn't mean that people who claim to eat bacon are delusional.
My entire issue with GnI's argument is that he is using a subset to disqalify the entire group. Because some delusional people claim religious visions, etc., he is arguing that this means ALL religious belief is delusional.

By that same argument, because some delusional people claim to be French, when they are, in fact, German, or claim to be rich, when they are actually poor, or claim to have personal connections to the president, when in fact, they don't, that means that there is no such place as France and everyone who says they're French is delusional, that anyone who says they are rich is delusional, and that anyone who claims to have a meeting with the president should be put away.

It's a ridiculous stretching of a narrow point to act as proof for a broad generalization.

That's fine.

Now, in order to show that '...anyone who believes in anything godlike is delusional...', you just have to show that '...anyone who believes in anything godlike is seeing what is not real...'
Which he cannot do. At least, he has not done it.

I agree.



Yes. And I readily admit, everything could be delusion. I don't see that as problem. I live my life as though it were all 'real', but I'm aware I could 'wake up' tomorrow and find my whole life had been a dream the real 'me' had had while 'I' was napping.



Sounds reasonable.



While I'm loathe to cite Wiki as my source on this, it has the basic information I was looking for, and I don't really feel like digging around too long:
Originally Posted by Karl Jasper's psychiatric definition of delusion
"These criteria are:

certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)"
All of the above criteria could just as easily apply to your own argument, especially if we follow your view that all of life could be delusion. You are clearly certain you are right; you clearly will not change your mind no matter what is said to you or shown you; and nothing you say can be taken as true, proven, provable, testable, or any of that sort of thing because you have left the question of "it all could be false" hanging over everything.

I would assume it's because the 'observable reality' part is the part we observe, while the 'religious experiences' part is the part we DON'T observe.
Weeelll... I would say it's more like in the religious experience, peripheral observation is temporarily totally shut down in favour of the hallucinogenic image perception. There is an "observation"; it's just of something that isn't "seen" per se. The Religious would say that this observation reflects a deeper reality, the scientists that this is indicative of illness, but I think there's an in-between.

The actual hallucination is internally generated, and as such, the individual perceives the contents of his own subconscious mind. But as a member of a society and culture, whose character is reflected in the mind of the individual (just as genes are to the organism), what you see is not just your own understanding, but that of your cultural environment as well. The images of all senses, so vivid in recent memory, are heavily influenced by where you are right then and there. And so, someone in a Christian environment has an experience that is directly and specifically Christian, based on a fragmented cultural memory instilled into the witness. The individual isn't just hallucinating; they're Christian hallucinating. It is a hallucination very specifically generated in an individual by the Christian Church.

Well, what is that if not God; an exposure to the collective subconsciousness of an entire religious culture?

The Religious would say that this observation reflects a deeper reality, the scientists that this is indicative of illness, but I think there's an in-between.

Just as an aside, the assumption that "the religious" and "the scientists" are two entirely separate groups of people makes me want to tear my hair out. One can make a reasonable argument that following the scientific method requires agnosticism. One CANNOT make a reasonable argument that following the scientific method in any way requires a lack of theistic belief.

I'm having lots of exposure to Christians right now. Unbeknownst to me when I signed myself in here, the college I'm staying at is run by Opus Dei, an extreme Catholic cult.

The rules are unbelievable for the 21st century. Apparently there is a second college in the building containing a whole bunch of girls who are being trained in how to cook and clean at Opus Dei centres. It's got a second entrance and other than the 50+ lunch ladies these girls are not allowed to be seen by us in the all guys college. Usually when they clean a floor they'll seal it off, and I once got caught in that forbidden zone and saw one of them. She saw me and literally ran away! I didn't understand until I heard that apparently she can get "punished" for being seen by me...what exactly that means I have no idea, but given that this cult is a fan of self-mortification...

The Opus Dei guys themselves are actually ok. Most of the ones who actually join seriously and become numeraries are celibate and get neither contact with girls nor the opportunity to masturbate, hence they all have some sort of weird way of releasing all this pent-up energy, so most of them are slightly odd. But since they live out in the normal world, serving god through their daily work, you wouldn't know who or what they are in picking them from a crowd.

But what motivates someone to join an outfit like this, I don't know. I can only imagine it involves some serious disillusionment with the things a real life can offer.

Are you saying that we should automatically assume that the experiences are not real? Then, if no empirical evidence can be shown to disprove the assumption, we should assume that the claimants are delusional?

Sure.

Then, using your own criteria, we can assume that you are delusional, since you are making claims about an "observable reality" which you yourself have just said we should assume is not real.

Then, using your own criteria, we can assume that you are delusional, since you are making claims about an "observable reality" which you yourself have just said we should assume is not real.None of it's real, man, none of it! It's all faked by the government to throw us off our game! :D

You want me to prove a negative?


When someone tells you that they believe they find themselves on the planet Ogo, part of an intellectual elite, preparing to subjugate the barbarian hordes on Pluto...

Do you expect to have to PROVE that that is not the case, or do you think it is safe to assume they are divergent?

You make the claim that differs from observable reality? The onus is on you.
Why not ask you to prove a negative? You asked us to do so when you demanded that we show that religious beliefs are not delusional.

Also, you made a positive assertion based on your much vaunted observable reality. You claimed that religious beliefs are delusional. That is not a negative, and you should be able to prove it. We are still waiting.

I'm having lots of exposure to Christians right now. Unbeknownst to me when I signed myself in here, the college I'm staying at is run by Opus Dei, an extreme Catholic cult.

The rules are unbelievable for the 21st century. Apparently there is a second college in the building containing a whole bunch of girls who are being trained in how to cook and clean at Opus Dei centres. It's got a second entrance and other than the 50+ lunch ladies these girls are not allowed to be seen by us in the all guys college. Usually when they clean a floor they'll seal it off, and I once got caught in that forbidden zone and saw one of them. She saw me and literally ran away! I didn't understand until I heard that apparently she can get "punished" for being seen by me...what exactly that means I have no idea, but given that this cult is a fan of self-mortification...

The Opus Dei guys themselves are actually ok. Most of the ones who actually join seriously and become numeraries are celibate and get neither contact with girls nor the opportunity to masturbate, hence they all have some sort of weird way of releasing all this pent-up energy, so most of them are slightly odd. But since they live out in the normal world, serving god through their daily work, you wouldn't know who or what they are in picking them from a crowd.

But what motivates someone to join an outfit like this, I don't know. I can only imagine it involves some serious disillusionment with the things a real life can offer.

Opus Dei is an extreme example. I'm not even sure of the Catholic church's official stance on them (whether or not they actually exist within the church). These guys are extremely radical in their faith. I'd suggest leaving.

Soon.

None of it's real, man, none of it! It's all faked by the government to throw us off our game! :D
I'm starting to believe that. :tongue:

I'm having lots of exposure to Christians right now. Unbeknownst to me when I signed myself in here, the college I'm staying at is run by Opus Dei, an extreme Catholic cult.

The rules are unbelievable for the 21st century. Apparently there is a second college in the building containing a whole bunch of girls who are being trained in how to cook and clean at Opus Dei centres. It's got a second entrance and other than the 50+ lunch ladies these girls are not allowed to be seen by us in the all guys college. Usually when they clean a floor they'll seal it off, and I once got caught in that forbidden zone and saw one of them. She saw me and literally ran away! I didn't understand until I heard that apparently she can get "punished" for being seen by me...what exactly that means I have no idea, but given that this cult is a fan of self-mortification...

The Opus Dei guys themselves are actually ok. Most of the ones who actually join seriously and become numeraries are celibate and get neither contact with girls nor the opportunity to masturbate, hence they all have some sort of weird way of releasing all this pent-up energy, so most of them are slightly odd. But since they live out in the normal world, serving god through their daily work, you wouldn't know who or what they are in picking them from a crowd.

But what motivates someone to join an outfit like this, I don't know. I can only imagine it involves some serious disillusionment with the things a real life can offer.
what college are you attending and how did you end up there without knowing how.... religiously conservative...it is?

Welcome to the Matrix.....

Just as an aside, the assumption that "the religious" and "the scientists" are two entirely separate groups of people makes me want to tear my hair out.
Sorry about that; I would have said Scientismists (the modern day equivalent of materialists), but somehow that doesn't roll as nicely off the tongue.

Blarg.

I've never been to Iraq, but I assume that there is an ongoing conflict there, because of societal circumstances that leads me to believe in it (education, media). I have no way of proving otherwise. If I chose to be a skeptic, I could talk about conspiracy theories, about how Iraq is a gigantic nuclear wasteland, and US is closed off like North Korea. People going on vacations to see other countries? Government conspiracies -- the last time I went on a school trip to China was actually a visit to Chinatown, and Shanghai city was a huge projection. Immigrants are all capitulated Middle Easterners/Asians who were all brainwashed.

I don't see what's the point in proving/disproving God, unless atheism is being disproportionately persecuted on a massive scale.

I'd suggest leaving.

Soon.
Less than 3 weeks now.

what college are you attending and how did you end up there without knowing how.... religiously conservative...it is?
It's one at UNSW (college in Australia not meaning the school itself, but the buildings where people live around it, BTW). It doesn't refer to the faith thing heavily on its website, other than in a fairly small "Values" section where OD is mentioned once. I didn't read that part, I saw pool tables, three meals a day and good prices.

I didn't do all my research, and I've dealt with the consequences. Nonetheless, my time in Sydney so far as been a blast, so it's hard to feel too bad about it.

Less than 3 weeks now.


It's one at UNSW (college in Australia not meaning the school itself, but the buildings where people live around it, BTW). It doesn't refer to the faith thing heavily on its website, other than in a fairly small "Values" section where OD is mentioned once. I didn't read that part, I saw pool tables, three meals a day and good prices.

I didn't do all my research, and I've dealt with the consequences. Nonetheless, my time in Sydney so far as been a blast, so it's hard to feel too bad about it.
oh that is so wierd to me. do they not give you a hard time over not being all opus-dei-ish in an opus dei building?

Then, using your own criteria, we can assume that you are delusional, since you are making claims about an "observable reality" which you yourself have just said we should assume is not real.

Sure.

oh that is so wierd to me. do they not give you a hard time over not being all opus-dei-ish in an opus dei building?
Nope, they've been great in that respect. There are lots of normal people here too, and provided we don't yell too loudly while they've got their chapel-events going on, there are no issues. I've had good discussions with priests (who all seem to be of the position that as a priest they shouldn't get involved in that stuff, which is great), but I've never been asked to join them or told anything that I didn't ask to be told.

Given that OD has a reputation for aggressive recruiting, I was pleasantly surprised. I suppose I don't seem the vulnerable type. :tongue:

Why not ask you to prove a negative? You asked us to do so when you demanded that we show that religious beliefs are not delusional.


Which should be easy. Show a 'religious experience' that is genuine.

I can easily show 'faked' or artificially-induced ones.


Also, you made a positive assertion based on your much vaunted observable reality. You claimed that religious beliefs are delusional.


I didn't, you know.


That is not a negative, and you should be able to prove it. We are still waiting.

I presented a source, and Straughn actually presented another.

Then, using your own criteria, we can assume that you are delusional, since you are making claims about an "observable reality" which you yourself have just said we should assume is not real.
I'd be careful around the phrase "Can assume". Although you're absolutely right in noting that the understanding of any given person as suffering from delusion is largely (if not completely) based in a subjective interpretation of their perceived behaviour, it's also absolutely right to state that regardless of relevancy or logical validity, people are at liberty to assume whatever the heck they want.

Sorry about that; I would have said Scientismists (the modern day equivalent of materialists), but somehow that doesn't roll as nicely off the tongue.

Blarg.

Hehe, understood. It's just a bit of a pet peeve. :)

Actually, I have had ecstactic visions. My grip on reality is quite strong.

But our somber and lazy colleague has no objection to claiming I'm delusional, based on a series of assumptions that apparently do not need any evidence.


Somber and lazy? Interesting.

The flaw which is the gaping heart of the thin veneer of 'argument' you presented - is that you base this little foray on a flawed assumption.

You are not alone in this guilt - it has been reiterated several times by others, also. Your flawed assumption is that I 'object' to these religious claims, or 'object' to religious people... or some other assertion that I don't care, don't like, or don't understand... with reference to the subject.

Apparently, this is because I am open about my atheism. I can't work out any other source - since NONE of the claims is based on my behaviour.

Specific to YOUR response - you kind of base your argument on the assumption that I've never had 'religious experiences', myself.

Not only have I had 'religious experiences', but at least one of them was a topic of discussion in a thread in it's own right, right here on this forum.

And curiously - I was told I was deluded.


And do you why no evidence is needed for these assumptions? Because I'm apparently delusional, i.e. experiencing something that differs from reality.

You have it backwards - the diagnosis of 'delusion' would be derived from the symptoms you admit.

Further, "deluded" and "delusional" are two different things. "Delusional" describes a psychotic mental state. "Deluded" can refer to that, too, but it also means being utterly misled by false information, without any suggestion of mental illness.


I have been consistent. I have consistently referred to delusion (and, by extension, 'deluded', etc) in reference to a psychiatric definition.


You have claimed that, in your worldview, everything could be a delusion, and there is no way to tell. So how, then, is anyone supposed to prove that anything they are seeing is real or not real?


It's a conundrum, isn't it?


This philosophy or whatever it is of yours that "life is but a dream" is rather self-serving.


Because... it advatages me, in some way, to acknowledge that the world might not be as I see it?

I think you're stretching aa little, no?


My entire issue with GnI's argument is that he is using a subset to disqalify the entire group. Because some delusional people claim religious visions, etc., he is arguing that this means ALL religious belief is delusional.


I didn't 'disqualify' anyone from anything. And I didn't base the argument that 'ALL religious belief is delusional' on the assumption that 'some delusional people claim religious visions'.

You consistently pretend my arguments have been other than they have. Why?


By that same argument, because some delusional people claim to be French,


'Being French' isn't usually consider a symptom for delusion.


All of the above criteria could just as easily apply to your own argument, especially if we follow your view that all of life could be delusion. You are clearly certain you are right

I am 'certain I am right'... about what? Surely, I've been pretty clear that I am not certain I am right?

Weeelll... I would say it's more like in the religious experience, peripheral observation is temporarily totally shut down in favour of the hallucinogenic image perception. There is an "observation"; it's just of something that isn't "seen" per se. The Religious would say that this observation reflects a deeper reality, the scientists that this is indicative of illness, but I think there's an in-between.


The shutdown of peripheral observation could be the key here. SInce it implies that - even if the 'religious experience' IS 'real'... it is unobservable, unverifiable... outside the confines of your own head.


The actual hallucination is internally generated, and as such, the individual perceives the contents of his own subconscious mind. But as a member of a society and culture, whose character is reflected in the mind of the individual (just as genes are to the organism), what you see is not just your own understanding, but that of your cultural environment as well. The images of all senses, so vivid in recent memory, are heavily influenced by where you are right then and there. And so, someone in a Christian environment has an experience that is directly and specifically Christian, based on a fragmented cultural memory instilled into the witness. The individual isn't just hallucinating; they're Christian hallucinating. It is a hallucination very specifically generated in an individual by the Christian Church.


The same basic thing happens in direct electrical stimulation - the 'experience' is generated in every test subject, but the 'flavour' varies with immersion.

It'd be an interesting (although arguably inhumane) experiment to raise a child with absolutely no exposure to any religion at all... but heavily immersed in, for example, the tale of "Cinderella"... and then see what the nature of the 'religious experience' looks like.


Well, what is that if not God; an exposure to the collective subconsciousness of an entire religious culture?

When I dream, signs that I am supposed to be able to read are written in English (sometimes French). This doesn't speak to any cosmic significance of English (or French) - it speaks to the fact that the 'flavour' of the 'experience' is dictated by my immersion.

The shutdown of peripheral observation could be the key here. SInce it implies that - even if the 'religious experience' IS 'real'... it is unobservable, unverifiable... outside the confines of your own head.
Well, all reality is unobservable except in as much as it is perceived from within the confines of your own head. I say peripheral observation is shut down because the discontinuity between (a) seeing the world as I understand to be consistent, and (b) the flash of Whatever is an observation I've made, but this observation itself is something more Mental than Physical. For all I know, this discontinuity could simply be an illusion generated by whatever the Real world is.

I choose not to interpret it that way, since thar be dragons, but it's worth bearing in mind that one kind of subjective experience is no less intangible and ethereal than the other.

The same basic thing happens in direct electrical stimulation - the 'experience' is generated in every test subject, but the 'flavour' varies with immersion.

It'd be an interesting (although arguably inhumane) experiment to raise a child with absolutely no exposure to any religion at all... but heavily immersed in, for example, the tale of "Cinderella"... and then see what the nature of the 'religious experience' looks like.
I agree with the reservations, but we do have individuals already immersed in an alternative fictional culture. Say hello to the MMORPG experiments!

I do think that said experiments would yield totally different experiences to those generated by religion. However, I do not believe them to be devoid of what we call Spiritual content. You're touching the Zeitgeist with these kinds of experiences, and as a would-be philosopher, I find the idea of direct interaction with cultural consciousness of any creed to be a fascinating prospect.

What's more, through our shaping of the stories that these people immerse themselves in... can we create Gods, that we can then interact with?

0_o

When I dream, signs that I am supposed to be able to read are written in English (sometimes French). This doesn't speak to any cosmic significance of English (or French) - it speaks to the fact that the 'flavour' of the 'experience' is dictated by my immersion.
Oh, indeed, no. But then again, that may perhaps say more about the nature of languages as media for your ideas, rather than ideas of themselves, than it does about the nature of dreaming.

With regard to the nerve thing I guess I am saying there is no reason they are not firing other than the obvious which the person is dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death


Historically, attempts to define the exact moment of a human's death have been problematic. Death was once defined as the cessation of heartbeat (cardiac arrest) and of breathing, but the development of CPR and prompt defibrillation have rendered that definition inadequate because breathing and heartbeat can sometimes be restarted. Events which were causally linked to death in the past no longer kill in all circumstances; without a functioning heart or lungs, life can sometimes be sustained with a combination of life support devices, organ transplants and artificial pacemakers.

Today, where a definition of the moment of death is required, doctors and coroners usually turn to "brain death" or "biological death"; people are considered dead when the electrical activity in their brain ceases. It is presumed that a stoppage of electrical activity indicates the end of consciousness. However, suspension of consciousness must be permanent, and not transient, as occurs during certain sleep stages, and especially a coma. In the case of sleep, EEGs can easily tell the difference.



To get around this we could theoretically stimulate the areas of the brain as previously described. Likely the person will not come out of it.

Historically, attempts to define the exact moment of a human's death have been problematic.

How do Christians, especially the pro-life ones, define it btw (genuine interest) ? When does the soul depart ?

Well, all reality is unobservable except in as much as it is perceived from within the confines of your own head. I say peripheral observation is shut down because the discontinuity between (a) seeing the world as I understand to be consistent, and (b) the flash of Whatever is an observation I've made, but this observation itself is something more Mental than Physical. For all I know, this discontinuity could simply be an illusion generated by whatever the Real world is.


True, this. No argument.

And that's where the problem lies - why does the 'real world', then, only generate this ilusion in your head, and not mine? We both look at the sky and see blue ( I assume), so why do we react so differently to this.. .well, whatever kind of stimulus it is?


I choose not to interpret it that way, since thar be dragons, but it's worth bearing in mind that one kind of subjective experience is no less intangible and ethereal than the other.


Again, no argument.


I agree with the reservations, but we do have individuals already immersed in an alternative fictional culture. Say hello to the MMORPG experiments!


Intersting.

If I play CoH all day, by the time I go to bed, even my dreams tend to be influenced by the content I've been immersed in. I'd be totally willing to play CoH all day, and then try the electrode experiment.

*waves sign for researchers to see*


I do think that said experiments would yield totally different experiences to those generated by religion. However, I do not believe them to be devoid of what we call Spiritual content. You're touching the Zeitgeist with these kinds of experiences, and as a would-be philosopher, I find the idea of direct interaction with cultural consciousness of any creed to be a fascinating prospect.


Agreed. Again.


What's more, through our shaping of the stories that these people immerse themselves in... can we create Gods, that we can then interact with?

0_o


Can collective consciousness (plural) lead to 'A collective consciousness' (singular, entity)? A fascinating prospect, and one which I have long considered as the possible origin of 'gods' if there ARE any.

(That is to say - when I think about the 'what if' of 'gods', the most logical source of their manifestation would seem to be a kind of coalesced 'intent' or 'belief'. Terry Pratchett touches on it in 'Small Gods").


Oh, indeed, no. But then again, that may perhaps say more about the nature of languages as media for your ideas, rather than ideas of themselves, than it does about the nature of dreaming.

It seems to me that dreaming takes place at a more symbolic level than most thought processes, somewhere 'below' the fully conscious. Written language in dreams, then, serves a dual purpose of conveying meaning, and conveying the SYMBOL of meaning.

Which should be easy. Show a 'religious experience' that is genuine.
You have made that impossible by your a priori definition of religious belief as necessarily false. I could stop by your house with Jesus H. Christ himself, carrying home movies of everything he did, and it would not convince a closed mind who could and, based on your performance here, likely would just say, "How do I know he's not just some random Jew you picked up?"

Religious people clearly state that their experiences are personal and subjective. That being the case, if the sincerity of the person reporting the experience is not enough for you, then what criteria would qualify as a "genuine" personal and subjective experience in your view?

The fact that you demand that genuineness be proven, but do not say what will satisfy you that something is geniune suggests that you are not really open to any proofs. The fact that you are willing to declare a person delusional just because they can't convince you that they really had the personal and subjective experience they say they did strongly suggests that you are biased against religious people.

I can easily show 'faked' or artificially-induced ones.
I know. It's been the bedrock of your "some are false, therefore all are false" argument. Which is BS, by the way.

I didn't, you know.
Yeah, you did, actually. I guess you must be deluded.

I presented a source, and Straughn actually presented another.
A source that did not support you as solidly as you wish.

I'd be careful around the phrase "Can assume". Although you're absolutely right in noting that the understanding of any given person as suffering from delusion is largely (if not completely) based in a subjective interpretation of their perceived behaviour, it's also absolutely right to state that regardless of relevancy or logical validity, people are at liberty to assume whatever the heck they want.
Perhaps you missed the point that I was illustrating the fault in GnI's reasoning by applying it to him.

I have been consistent. I have consistently referred to delusion (and, by extension, 'deluded', etc) in reference to a psychiatric definition.
Yes, that's what I thought.

So, then we're back where we started with me saying that that argument is bigoted and has no factual foundation -- as evidenced by all your argument so far. And I guess your use of those other terms was just a mistake.

It's a conundrum, isn't it?
No, it's not a conundrum. It's a dodge. Not a very successful one so far.

Because... it advatages me, in some way, to acknowledge that the world might not be as I see it?
Not in this argument, it doesn't. It's getting you nowhere.

I think you're stretching aa little, no?
Nope, I'm well within my comfortable reaching limit. No stretching involved.

I didn't 'disqualify' anyone from anything. And I didn't base the argument that 'ALL religious belief is delusional' on the assumption that 'some delusional people claim religious visions'.
And yet, delusional people are the only examples you have cited. Therefore, you either are attempting to define the majority by the minority, or you are bigoted against religious people, because neither medical science nor psychiatry says that religious people are delusional. That would be just you saying that, and you have shown no basis for such an assertion except that you don't like religion or religious ways of thinking. Welcome back to square one.

You consistently pretend my arguments have been other than they have. Why?
I haven't. That must be another one of your delusions.

'Being French' isn't usually consider a symptom for delusion.
But it could be, if we applied your reasoning. To show the absurdity of your argument was the point of mentioning France at all. Or are you now going to try to claim that you don't know what an analogy is?

I am 'certain I am right'... about what? Surely, I've been pretty clear that I am not certain I am right?
Well, if you're not certain that you are right, then you repeat yourself endlessly for no reason at all.

But I'll be honest and say that on this point, I suspect you are lying. I do believe you think you are more right than me.

But I'll be honest and say that on this point, I suspect you are lying. I do believe you think you are more right than me.That's not what you said the first time. You just said that he thought that he was right. Not more right than you, or anyone else. Just that he is "clearly certain that he is right". Why the qualifier now, instead of the first time you posted?

All of the above criteria could just as easily apply to your own argument, especially if we follow your view that all of life could be delusion. You are clearly certain you are right;

You have made that impossible by your a priori definition


I'm beginning to wonder if you actually know what 'a priori' means.

Could I arrive at this conclusion through reason alone? Yes - indeed, arguably, 'reason alone' is the ONLY way to arrive at ANY conclusion about the subject matter, so 'a priori' is redundant.


...of religious belief as necessarily false.


Which I quite definitively have not said.


I could stop by your house with Jesus H. Christ himself, carrying home movies of everything he did, and it would not convince a closed mind who could and, based on your performance here, likely would just say, "How do I know he's not just some random Jew you picked up?"


The home movies might be worth looking at, although the question of anachronism would obviously rear it's ugly head.

But - yes, if you turned up on my doorstep with a Jew, and said he was 'Jesus', I would have reservations.

Which has nothing to do with whether religious belief is false.

Are you seriously telling me, if I turned up on your doorstep and introduced my friend Jesus, you'd be immediately convinced?


Religious people clearly state that their experiences are personal and subjective. That being the case, if the sincerity of the person reporting the experience is not enough for you, then what criteria would qualify as a "genuine" personal and subjective experience in your view?


Sincerity is irrelevent.

Seriously - is strawman the only refuge you have here? When did this become about being sincere?


The fact that you demand that genuineness be proven,


We could look at the context of that...


...but do not say what will satisfy you that something is geniune suggests that you are not really open to any proofs.


No, it suggests that I'm 'agnostic' in a lot of capacities, not just 'belief with regard to the existence of god'. I don't know if it's possible for you to show me that a 'religious experience' was 'real', so I certainly don't know HOW you could.


The fact that you are willing to declare a person delusional just because they can't convince you that they really had the personal and subjective experience they say they did strongly suggests that you are biased against religious people.


Sorry, but that's a load of crap. I didn't declare anyone delusional - you keep saying I did, and it's still not true. What I said was, I didn't see the problem in someone saying it.

Since then, I've expanded, by saying how it could be justified - the characteristics of 'religious experience' are remarkably concordant with the criteria I showed for delusion.


I know. It's been the bedrock of your "some are false, therefore all are false" argument. Which is BS, by the way.


And, fortunately, not my argument.


Yeah, you did, actually. I guess you must be deluded.


Fine. Show me where I said "religious beliefs are delusional".

I'll wait.


A source that did not support you as solidly as you wish.

But it DID support me. At least you're no longer pretending I didn't post it.

No, it's not a conundrum. It's a dodge. Not a very successful one so far.


How is it a 'dodge'?

I mean - seriously?


Not in this argument, it doesn't. It's getting you nowhere.


Fortunately, my 'philosophy' doesn't exist solely for the purpose of this argument.


Nope, I'm well within my comfortable reaching limit. No stretching involved.


So - "making shit up" is well within your range?


And yet, delusional people are the only examples you have cited. Therefore, you either are attempting to define the majority by the minority,


Which is actually one of the counterarguments to the criteria I presented earlier. That is - I'm apparently not the only one who sees that that definition would allow for all of religious experience to be defined as delusion.


...or you are bigoted against religious people,


Not at all.


...because neither medical science nor psychiatry says that religious people are delusional.


Eminent Biologist Robert Pirsig said "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion".

Richard Dawkins has sold a million and a half copies of a book based on the same central premise.

Steven Pinker (psychologist) endorsed "The God Delusion", as did James Dewey Watson (molecular biologist).


...and you have shown no basis for such an assertion except that you don't like religion or religious ways of thinking.


I do like religion. I've said it repeatedly. I like the religious way of thinking.

Those aren't the reasons I'm an atheist, but you seem to consider my admissions of atheism as sufficient grounds to keep saying those things about me.


I haven't. That must be another one of your delusions.


It's a simple matter to go back through these posts and look at each time you've claimed I said something that I deny, and that you fail to show me actually saying.


But it could be, if we applied your reasoning. To show the absurdity of your argument was the point of mentioning France at all. Or are you now going to try to claim that you don't know what an analogy is?


An analogy is only relevent if there's relevence. In the case of 'delusion', the criteria I've cited are both descriptive of the sphere of religious experience AND sufficient to render a diagnosis of 'delusional'.

There is no such compatibility in the case of 'being French'.


Well, if you're not certain that you are right, then you repeat yourself endlessly for no reason at all.


Ah. I see.

So, you are certain you are right?


But I'll be honest and say that on this point, I suspect you are lying. I do believe you think you are more right than me.

Which is odd, because I've repeatedly admitted that I could be entirely wrong.

It's the admissions of fallibility that lead you to conclude I believe I'm always right?

And that's where the problem lies - why does the 'real world', then, only generate this ilusion in your head, and not mine? We both look at the sky and see blue ( I assume), so why do we react so differently to this.. .well, whatever kind of stimulus it is?
Why don't I see what you see, or know what you know? Some things are explainable through scientific order, some only through artistic chaos, but for questions like this, I only have their intersection in Douglas Adams and the Sage up a Pole:

What I see and what I know cannot replace what you see and what you know, because that would be to replace you yourself.
There's something about the distinction between us that means we see things differently. There has to be. Otherwise, we'd be the same person. Maybe the way we interpret "spiritual" events is itself a unique function of our biology, our culture, our environment, our experience and our self-analysis, just like the other individual facets of our personality and philosophy.

Intersting.

If I play CoH all day, by the time I go to bed, even my dreams tend to be influenced by the content I've been immersed in. I'd be totally willing to play CoH all day, and then try the electrode experiment.

*waves sign for researchers to see*
As if the options for my thesis weren't broad enough already... Interestingly enough, that would give me an excuse to claim monthly server charges as research expenses... *Ponders*

Can collective consciousness (plural) lead to 'A collective consciousness' (singular, entity)? A fascinating prospect, and one which I have long considered as the possible origin of 'gods' if there ARE any.

(That is to say - when I think about the 'what if' of 'gods', the most logical source of their manifestation would seem to be a kind of coalesced 'intent' or 'belief'. Terry Pratchett touches on it in 'Small Gods").
I keep coming back to this proposition. For me, what continues to render it a legitimate option is the fact that the Human consciousness exists at all. After all, even in an existence governed by free-agent particles, the notion that systems of small-scale choices result in large-scale decision making processes of the kind we exhibit is nothing short of mindblowing if there isn't somehow a mechanism for emergent behaviour deeply embedded within the way reality works.

What's more, I think if it were possible to demonstrate such a proposal, then as regards "God" (biggest G), the Pantheist position would be quite a reasonable one, if a little idealistic.

It seems to me that dreaming takes place at a more symbolic level than most thought processes, somewhere 'below' the fully conscious. Written language in dreams, then, serves a dual purpose of conveying meaning, and conveying the SYMBOL of meaning.
I'll have to grant you that. Alphanumeric characters and words are themselves meaningful above and beyond the language they convey, and incorporate a whole mesh of cultural meaning and memory.

Heh... I wonder how Wittgenstein would respond to that? :D

Perhaps you missed the point that I was illustrating the fault in GnI's reasoning by applying it to him.
I was just pointing out that he could (and did) give an incredibly simple answer, partly because of that very qualification, without surrendering his stance. It might not contribute much to the discussion, but if we're going by his position of considering delusion an analysis made in response to observed behaviour, you're right; you can, if you like, think of him as deluded, because it's on the basis of a subjective interpretation that he has no right to question you over.

Of course, this is all dependent on a behaviourist view of psychology (the only valid view, if you wish to view psychology as a science), rather than a focus on the actual nature of human ontology. I think this view is worth challenging in terms of its useful outcome - a Psychologist might be able to tell you what's wrong with you, but it takes a Sociologist to work out how to make things better (or a biochemist to drug you into thinking they're already better, I suppose).

Eminent Biologist Robert Pirsig said "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion".

Richard Dawkins has sold a million and a half copies of a book based on the same central premise.

Steven Pinker (psychologist) endorsed "The God Delusion", as did James Dewey Watson (molecular biologist).

I have mostly been staying out of this argument for a couple of pages, because it's clearly going nowhere, but this was just too ridiculous to let stand. Mur points out that medical science and psychiatry disagree completely with your "diagnosis" of the overwhelming majority of society as suffering from a mental disorder, so you point to....individual biologists who are atheists and make philosophical arguments against religion! Which has fuck-all to do with the fact that medical science and psychiatry STILL disagree completely with you!

How is it a 'dodge'?

I mean - seriously?
I already explained how it is a dodge, but since you seem not to be connecting the dots: It's a dodge because its sole function (as you are using it) in this conversation is to allow you to deny the reality of anything anyone else says to you, while at the same time declaring that you didn't really say or didn't really mean anything in your argument that anyone else objects to. I called it self-serving and a dodge because that is how it is functioning.

Fortunately, my 'philosophy' doesn't exist solely for the purpose of this argument.
That's good. I would hate to think it was entirely for nought.

So - "making shit up" is well within your range?
No.

Which is actually one of the counterarguments to the criteria I presented earlier. That is - I'm apparently not the only one who sees that that definition would allow for all of religious experience to be defined as delusion.
Oh, how adorable. You're repeating your "some are delusional, therefore all are delusional" fallacy again, just as if you have forgotten all the other times you've said it. Tell me, do you think that if you keep doing the same thing over and over, you'll get a different response every time?

Not at all.
So you say. I stand by my statement that your argument says otherwise.

Eminent Biologist Robert Pirsig said "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion".

Richard Dawkins has sold a million and a half copies of a book based on the same central premise.

Steven Pinker (psychologist) endorsed "The God Delusion", as did James Dewey Watson (molecular biologist).
I am not familiar with the general position of Pirsig, but that one facetious wisecrack does not make a reasoned argument. Also, Dawkins and Pinker are well known for their anti-religion bias. Citing prejudice people does not make you look unprejudiced. It only means you're not the only person arguing from a prejudice.

Also, appeal to authority is a classic fallacy. How many times have you slammed others for trying that lame trick, and what makes you think it will work when you do it?

I do like religion. I've said it repeatedly. I like the religious way of thinking.
Some of your best friends are religious people?

Those aren't the reasons I'm an atheist, but you seem to consider my admissions of atheism as sufficient grounds to keep saying those things about me.
And now who's making shit up? Kindly show me where I said anything at all about you being an atheist or where I made any comment at all about why you might be prejudiced against religion. I'll wait.

It's a simple matter to go back through these posts and look at each time you've claimed I said something that I deny, and that you fail to show me actually saying.
EDIT: No, actually, I'm not going to play that game. At first, while wading through all this crap, I thought you were asking me to prove by quoting you that you had used the words I said you did. Now, having read back a couple of posts to see what you were referring to, I see you want me to prove another negative -- that I have not done something. I sick of this bullshit from you. I have nothing to prove to you, and I refuse to jump through hoops to the tune of your constant, pointless gainsaying of anything that is said to you.

My argument is my argument. It is all in the thread. Anyone who wants to judge whether your interpretation or mine is the more accurate, can do so by reading the thread. Period.

Oh, and by the way, when you get the point of responding to each and every word individually, in its own quote box, stop. You will have gone too far. EDIT: From now on, I will be reconsolidating your posts, if you don't do it yourself.

An analogy is only relevent if there's relevence. In the case of 'delusion', the criteria I've cited are both descriptive of the sphere of religious experience AND sufficient to render a diagnosis of 'delusional'.

There is no such compatibility in the case of 'being French'.
I stand by my analogy. I don't care if you don't like. I think it works and leave that judgment to other readers.

Ah. I see.

So, you are certain you are right?
No, but I'm certain you are full of crap.

Which is odd, because I've repeatedly admitted that I could be entirely wrong.

It's the admissions of fallibility that lead you to conclude I believe I'm always right?
No. Guess again.

Why don't I see what you see, or know what you know? Some things are explainable through scientific order, some only through artistic chaos, but for questions like this, I only have their intersection in Douglas Adams and the Sage up a Pole:

There's something about the distinction between us that means we see things differently. There has to be. Otherwise, we'd be the same person.


We are the same person.

We just have different collected memories that make us react differently.

Maybe.


Maybe the way we interpret "spiritual" events is itself a unique function of our biology, our culture, our environment, our experience and our self-analysis, just like the other individual facets of our personality and philosophy.


Which is true whether those events are 'real' or 'imagined'.

It's actually a pet interest of mine, this concept of how our thought and understanding are shaped by factors internal and external. The effect of the external factors, and how they can be mitigated. The effects of the internal factors, and whether they should be indulged. How much does this malleable awareness (what I call 'the poisoned mind') shape what we can be aware of? And how do you best get at truth... by stripping the poison? By shaping it? By being shaped by it?


As if the options for my thesis weren't broad enough already... Interestingly enough, that would give me an excuse to claim monthly server charges as research expenses... *Ponders*


I like you, you make me laugh.


I keep coming back to this proposition. For me, what continues to render it a legitimate option is the fact that the Human consciousness exists at all. After all, even in an existence governed by free-agent particles, the notion that systems of small-scale choices result in large-scale decision making processes of the kind we exhibit is nothing short of mindblowing if there isn't somehow a mechanism for emergent behaviour deeply embedded within the way reality works.


I'm not yet convinced there is a human consciouness. What appears to us to be human consciouness could be the amalgamated response to millions of stimuli, and so we only 'think' we are 'thinking'... when, in fact, we are automatons clicking through to the only perfect response each time (based on our individual stimulus cargo).

It's an idea I toyed with for a science fiction story - the idea that we're all computers, processing data slightly differently, to generate an overall picture that is acccurate by virtue of it's cumulative qualities.


What's more, I think if it were possible to demonstrate such a proposal, then as regards "God" (biggest G), the Pantheist position would be quite a reasonable one, if a little idealistic.


Polytheistic, at least - but probably not strictly conforming to any recognised pantheon. Indeed, it would be the other way round - (the) pantheon(s) would form in conformity with the consciousness.

I have mostly been staying out of this argument for a couple of pages, because it's clearly going nowhere, but this was just too ridiculous to let stand. Mur points out that medical science and psychiatry disagree completely with your "diagnosis" of the overwhelming majority of society as suffering from a mental disorder, so you point to....individual biologists who are atheists and make philosophical arguments against religion! Which has fuck-all to do with the fact that medical science and psychiatry STILL disagree completely with you!

Perhaps it was a little too subtle.

The bulk of medical science and psychiatry will find ways to counter the idea, because the bulk of medical science and psychiatry have an ulterior motive.

As I hinted at, by pointing out that the counterargument used against the criteria I cited, is that the model should accomodate the majority as the norm.

It's interesting that you object to the idea of a separation between religious and scientist, and yet, you're willing to buy into the conspiracy theory that it can't be true, because majority science doesn't say so. Of course it doesn't - scientists are mostly religious people... just as people are mostly religious people.

It's also intersting that you discredit the people I mentioned - based on their atheism. Whither bias?

No.


You claimed it wasn't a stretch.

My mistake.


Oh, how adorable. You're repeating your "some are delusional, therefore all are delusional" fallacy again,


I don't know how you get there, from what I typed.

I'm getting the feeling you don't feel limited to my actual responses, when forming responses of your own.


Also, Dawkins and Pinker are well known for their anti-religion bias.


Ah. You are biased against them because they are openly atheistic.


Also, appeal to authority is a classic fallacy.


You said that medical science and psychiatry didn't say something. I showed you scientists that had said, or had endorsed, exactly that kind of thing.

That's not an appeal to authority - that's citing evidence.


Some of your best friends are religious people?


Some of my best me has been religious people.


And now who's making shit up? Kindly show me where I said anything at all about you being an atheist or where I made any comment at all about why you might be prejudiced against religion. I'll wait.


You've constantly told me I don't like religion, religious people, religious thought, or whatever.

It's not based on anything I've posted... so I'm left concluding you infer it from my atheism.


EDIT: No, actually, I'm not going to play that game. At first, while wading through all this crap, I thought you were asking me to prove by quoting you that you had used the words I said you did.


I asked you to prove by quoting me that I had used the words you said I did.


My argument is my argument. It is all in the thread. Anyone who wants to judge


Ah.

Light dawns.

We're heading for different goals here. I'm trying to debate, and you're playing to an audience.


Oh, and by the way, when you get the point of responding to each and every word individually, in its own quote box, stop.


Okay. When you stop making posts that require being broken into smaller chunks to respond to, I'll stop breaking them.

In recognition, however, I've dropped like a half dozen responses that didn't seem that fruitful. That good?


I stand by my analogy. I don't care if you don't like.


It's not a matter of 'like'. Why do you keep confusing 'agree' with 'like'?

Your analogy doesn't have any parallel value - thus it's not a very good analogy. That's not because of my like or dislike.


No, but I'm certain you are full of crap.


You said: "Well, if you're not certain that you are right, then you repeat yourself endlessly for no reason at all."

I responded by asking you if YOU believed you are right...

...because that is the conclusion that your example would lead to, since you have repeated your position.

The other alternative, of course, is that repeating my points is a factor of having to keep refuting the same flaws in your own presentation.

I have mostly been staying out of this argument for a couple of pages, because it's clearly going nowhere, but this was just too ridiculous to let stand. Mur points out that medical science and psychiatry disagree completely with your "diagnosis" of the overwhelming majority of society as suffering from a mental disorder, so you point to....individual biologists who are atheists and make philosophical arguments against religion! Which has fuck-all to do with the fact that medical science and psychiatry STILL disagree completely with you!
Thank you! I have to say I am really surprised that GnI is pulling stunts like this.

You claimed it wasn't a stretch.

My mistake.



I don't know how you get there, from what I typed.

I'm getting the feeling you don't feel limited to my actual responses, when forming responses of your own.



Ah. You are biased against them because they are openly atheistic.


I also pointed out that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.


You said that medical science and psychiatry didn't say something. I showed you scientists that had said, or had endorsed, exactly that kind of thing.


That's not an appeal to authority - that's citing evidence.

Kindly point out where I said anything prejudiced against them? All I said was that their known bias does not help your argument appear unbiased.

Also, you cited three individuals who do not represent "medical science and psychiatry." Your evidence fails to support your assertions.


Some of my best me has been religious people.



You've constantly told me I don't like religion, religious people, religious thought, or whatever.

It's not based on anything I've posted... so I'm left concluding you infer it from my atheism.



I asked you to prove by quoting me that I had used the words you said I did.
Are you denying that you used the words "delusional" and "deluded" and "belief in something godlike"?

Also your inferences are incorrect. I have gone on at great length to show precisely what in your posts in the current thread leads me to the conclusions I have drawn. Your refusal to acknowledge those explanations does not interest me.



[quote]<snip the rest of your post because it is more about me than about the topic and is not responsive to any points>

Are you denying that you used the words "delusional" and "deluded" and "belief in something godlike"?


Ah. So - because the words "Jesus", "eats" and "babies" ALL appear in the bible, the bible says "jesus eats babies"?

You have repeatedly claimed that I said something. Picking out this word here, and that word there is a cheap trick at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.

If you can show me making the claim, do so.


Also your inferences are incorrect. I have gone on at great length to show precisely what in your posts in the current thread leads me to the conclusions I have drawn. Your refusal to acknowledge those explanations does not interest me.


No, you haven't - you STARTED by attacking me for my 'a priori' assumptions, a list of which you've continuously expanded upon, despite a complete lack of evidence.

Let's pick one.

You claim I 'don't like religion'.

Okay - show me.

Ah. So - because the words "Jesus", "eats" and "babies" ALL appear in the bible, the bible says "jesus eats babies"?

You have repeatedly claimed that I said something. Picking out this word here, and that word there is a cheap trick at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.

If you can show me making the claim, do so.



No, you haven't - you STARTED by attacking me for my 'a priori' assumptions, a list of which you've continuously expanded upon, despite a complete lack of evidence.

Let's pick one.

You claim I 'don't like religion'.

Okay - show me.
No.

Why?

Because you are bullshitting me. Your first paragraph is a strawman and a misrepresentation of the point I was making. Your challgenge is crap as well, beause I have already given this explanation several times over. And over. And over. Poli is right. This is going nowhere. I am not going to chase you around this bush anymore.

I have already stated that your argument is bigoted because it contains no fact but plenty of negative characterizations of religion and religious people. I have explained over and over that your characterization of religous people as delusional WHICH YOU STATED MANY TIMES IN THIS THREAD is a negative and hostile one. I have already explained at length that the fact that you have failed to show any factual evidence whatsoever that religion is associated with delusional mental states indicates that there is no basis for your statement other than the negative view expressed by it. I have already explained that your insistance that the measure of delusional or non-delusional is how well a claim conforms to observable reality -- and then your insistance on fudging and blurring that criterion with your "philosophy" so that no arguments could ever satisfy it -- also indicate that you are motivated to keep religion in a negative light so that you can continue to call it delusional. That is another indicator of pre-existing bias.

I have made these explanations in response to specific statements by you, referencing the content of those specific statements.

I will not do all that again.

I said before that I had made my case and I rest my case. I say that again. I say that your statements about religious people are bigoted. I say that your own arguments in this thread -- and nowhere else -- illustrate your bias against religious people and the extent to which you are willing construct bogus arguments to express that bias. All of your words and all of mine are in the thread.

That is my case. I rest my case. Anyone else who wants to read the thread and judge whether I'm right or wrong about your arguments may do so. But I am not going to keep saying the same thing to you over and over again just because you want to keep typing. (Or whatever it is that makes you want to keep running around in this circle.)

EDIT: This makes me quite unhappy. I used to be able to rely on you at least for good arguments, but in recent weeks, your arguments in religion threads have not only become increasingly hostile and closed-minded, but also increasingly loaded with poor reasoning and logical fallacies. In this thread, you have fudged, if not moved, your goalposts, engaged in strawman attacks, bogus appeal to authority, begging the question, and several other classic fallacies that I have, in the past, seen you justly slam other posters for. I am surprised at you.

Perhaps it was a little too subtle.

The bulk of medical science and psychiatry will find ways to counter the idea, because the bulk of medical science and psychiatry have an ulterior motive.

As I hinted at, by pointing out that the counterargument used against the criteria I cited, is that the model should accomodate the majority as the norm.

It's interesting that you object to the idea of a separation between religious and scientist, and yet, you're willing to buy into the conspiracy theory that it can't be true, because majority science doesn't say so. Of course it doesn't - scientists are mostly religious people... just as people are mostly religious people.

It's also intersting that you discredit the people I mentioned - based on their atheism. Whither bias?

Please show me the quote where I said "belief in something godlike CANNOT be a delusion." I'll wait. In the meantime, you might try reading my very first couple of posts on the subject, y'know, the ones were I very specifically stated that I had no objection to the statement "anyone who believes in something godlike COULD be delusional," but rather to the statement "anyone who believes in something godlike IS delusional."

Please also show me how I "discredited" people who were not doctors or psychiatrists' authority to make psychiatric diagnoses by pointing out that they were atheists. 'Cause it kinda seems to me that I pointed out that they were not doctors or psychiatrists, and furthermore were not making medical arguments in any way, shape or form, but rather atheistic arguments against religion.

While you're finding me these things I supposedly said, I will go find my tinfoil hat to protect me from the vast psychiatric conspiracy of...basing diagnoses on actual symptoms rather than some guy on the internet's non-medical opinion. How DARE those doctors do such terrible things! Next they'll be conspiring to claim that liking the color blue better than red isn't a symptom of dissociative identity disorder, even though somebody somewhere said it was! Those bastards!

Please show me the quote where I said "belief in something godlike CANNOT be a delusion." I'll wait. In the meantime, you might try reading my very first couple of posts on the subject, y'know, the ones were I very specifically stated that I had no objection to the statement "anyone who believes in something godlike COULD be delusional," but rather to the statement "anyone who believes in something godlike IS delusional."

Please also show me how I "discredited" people who were not doctors or psychiatrists' authority to make psychiatric diagnoses by pointing out that they were atheists. 'Cause it kinda seems to me that I pointed out that they were not doctors or psychiatrists, and furthermore were not making medical arguments in any way, shape or form, but rather atheistic arguments against religion.

While you're finding me these things I supposedly said, I will go find my tinfoil hat to protect me from the vast psychiatric conspiracy of...basing diagnoses on actual symptoms rather than some guy on the internet's non-medical opinion. How DARE those doctors do such terrible things! Next they'll be conspiring to claim that liking the color blue better than red isn't a symptom of dissociative identity disorder, even though somebody somewhere said it was! Those bastards!
You're just better than me. :D :fluffle:

The only good part about this is that at least I don't feel like I'm the only one. ;)

...I will go find my tinfoil hat to protect me from the vast psychiatric conspiracy of...basing diagnoses on actual symptoms...

I presented a set of criteria.

You did nothing with those criteria - the only person who has hunted up counter-arguments... is me.

'Religious experiences' conform to those criteria.

You've done nothing to show that 'religious experiences' DON'T conform to those criteria.

Seriously - what you're doing here is like the scene in "Red Dwarf" where the crew encounters the long-dead-and-skeletal remains on another ship, and when they mention the whole 'being dead' thing, are asked 'are you a doctor?'