I do take the stance that imperfect knowledge and delusion are the same. I find the point trivially inarguable. If your knowledge is not complete with respect to that which circumvents your intent, delusion will manifest in some direction during the course of the intents you formulate.
As for the sad (and conversely “happy” part)… I find it unfortunate that happiness can validate ideas and beliefs that will ultimately circumvent the intent of a human being. That people recieve purpetual positive re-inforcement for ideas that serve no other purpose than to kill them, when you know that people want the option to not be killed. Tragic IMO.
I’m presuming Eutychus here is counting certain Eastern faiths like Buddhism as atheistic? Not unreasonable, given that while almost all Buddhists believe in an afterlife, they have no god in the sense of Christianity or such.
To find that the core of your being was incorrect, is to find that that wasn’t the core of your being. At that moment, you thought the core of your being was the core of your being… moments later, you realized that wasn’t true. You, were, in that prior moment, under a state of delusion. You actually believed “in your heart of hearts” was present, and yet you find moments later that it wasn’t. And then you state that you were not in delusion at that moment. More delusion?
Greeks and Romans and Israelites and Hittites, et al are newcomers. Human history goes back a lot further than that with most of it unwritten. I have no doubt, although I can’t prove it, that there was a time that 100% of the humans who thought about it at all, thought the world was flat.
While we’re at it, do Christians think Hindus suffer from a sad delusion? do Moslems think Shintoists do?
I’m an atheist who doesn’t. It is a bit much to expect everyone to go against their childhood training and the strong beliefs of their community. Not to mention in much of the world it is even more difficult to be an atheist than in the US, and much more than in Europe.
First and foremost, if I’m not clear in an instance where I intend to communicate an idea other than “not clear” – that is not “good”. It is not “good” that I had to be asked twice, because it suggests that I’m wasting time, and am delusional. If I try again, and it still remains unclear, I have wasted even more. If I get someone who agrees with me on what remains unclear to you, then I have started a religion… this is not “good”.
It’s interesting that you feel that it implies that it covers something flat. I wouldn’t have made that assumption at all. No matter though, the bible does not say the world is flat anywhere.
Isaiah 40:22 says in part, “He who sits enthroned above the circle of the earth…” (Most translations use the word “circle.”)
In any event, the bible makes no direct comment about the earth’s spherical shape, and my only point (as I do not want to hijack the thread) was that while there was bad information about the earth, it was not the bible that was guilty. It was people, who took some liberty and interpretated verses like Gen 1:6 incorrectly.
Don’t lean too far back on the couch, Freud, it’s not an unreasonable assumption.
True, but you’re also interpreting. The Bible does use the phrase “corners of the Earth.” And for that matter, the Earth isn’t a circle. Circles are two-dimensional.
