This post still raises the question to me: Where did God exist before there was a place in which to exist? Before one can exist, there has to be a place in which to exist!
Its a strawman because no one is taking the position that racists/bigots aren’t equally delusional.
As for the bolded (by me) comment - thats a pretty broad brush and makes the term “delusional” functionally useless.
If “everybody” is delusional, no one is.
Secondly - no one “has” to be delusional in the face of better evidence - unless we’re talking about in the pathological sense (they have a brain wiring issue) - “god believers” are unique in this respect as they often REFUSE to accept the evidence in front of them.
Then you need to be more clear.
Since God does not exist - God did not physically help them - they functionally did whatever it was they did without God.
YOu again demonstrate how little you know - SSM == “Same Sex Marraige” and in this country (USA), the ‘Christian Majority’ are the ones fighting giving equal rights to homosexuals.
Another demonstration of your knowledge -
“The Flood” refers to the worldwide flood as described in Genesis - it didn’t happen. None of that myth is valid for a number of simple reasons.
If you have evidence that this worldwide flood happened as described in Genesis “in a reasonable manner” - please start a new thread - it should be fun.
again - a delusion is simply “holding a belief that is not true” - it doesnt have to go to “mentally ill” - it just means believing a lie even tho it has been shown to be a lie.
Conspiracy Theorists are delusional in thier belefs per that conspiracy - it does not mean that they are “mentally ill” in any other pathological way.
Subjective evidence that you describe is useless in a scientific setting - there is no objective evidence to back the assumption that “something greater is out there” - thats why they call it FAITH.
debating the value of “parables” from a 2000 year old text is for a different thread - assuming those “parables” and “good stuff” is unique to the bible is a fallacy taught by the church.
You suggest that only ‘good’ people go to church and that only ‘bad’ people don’t?
this is exactly the kind of self serving thing that a church would teach you.
You misunderstand. I’m not saying combat or any generally dangerous situation is guaranteed to break someone psychologically if they don’t find a way to steel themselves. People work all sorts of dangerous jobs without thinking about it too much. People drive cars on the highway in crummy weather without having to say a prayer beforehand. I’m talking about people in situations they can’t escape from where survival has unfavorable odds. The threshold for what constitutes “unfavorable” will of course be different depending on the person, but when that threshold has been passed, how do they endure it and cope psychologically? Can anyone here truly say that they’ve been in a situation that has exceeded that threshold?
I’m not saying faith in God is the only way to make it through. I’m saying I can understand why people find it helpful, and there’s nothing necessarily crazy about it. Yes, even for Soviets. And I’m skeptical that anyone could enter into a truly dire situation and evaluate it in a purely mechanistic fashion. Even if you’re inclined to rely on luck or fate, that’s still an imaginary force. If faith is an unhealthy delusion in such circumstances, then so is hope.
There have been hundreds of floods that have occurred since man’s history on earth, just not a world-wide flood. Some believers trying to still make sense of it all, think it may have been a partial flood now, although it seems clear enough to most that the bible depicts a world-wide flood.
There are many logical impossibilities with that story, but will address only one. If you notice, believers to date that try to duplicate Noah’s ark only build it to a smaller scale. No engineer even to date can make a seaworthy vessel of that size just out of wood and have it float. It would have leaked like a sieve! Noah and company couldn’t have bailed that much water that would have been taken in. His ship would have been before the Iron age. It would have needed some kind of iron or other metal supports to keep the wood planks from pouring in the massive amounts of water.
There is one that was actually built to size in the Netherlands, but he took the easiest route of all, by taking two metal hulls of several barges, putting them together, and put a façade of wood on the outside and inside of disguising it as a wooden ship. I don’t think they bother with the details of mentioning the metal aspect on their site, or at least when I looked into this a year or two ago they didn’t. Still looks pretty cool though.
Do you ever apply Hume’s scale to any of their stories?
Does it make sense that consciousness resides somewhere in the brain, and without it, it would cease to exist? Neurologists have mapped out a great deal of what many specific parts do, and they also know through many brain injuries, even parts of the brain that have been removed, that consciousness often still goes on. If I’m not mistaken, I believe they also know if certain parts are damaged enough, (prefrontal cortex, I think is one, not sure) consciousness stops. Graziano’s work as a neurologist is also doing some interesting work with his theory of awareness. See in the article, “An action map in the motor cortex.” Anyway, what if neurologists do start having a more complete picture of how consciousness works? Would you think any less of it?
You’ve certainly been fair to me thus far, and I have enjoyed most of your posts, but your insults and name calling to others is piling up. Have some fun, and try not to make things so personal.
It may not seem to some that there is a substantial difference between:
a) I hope I live through this… I don’t want to die like this.
and
b) Please God, help me live through this… I don’t want to die like this.
If your ticket is about to be punched, what does it matter if your next to last thought on this earth is a) or b)? Rational or irrational, dying trumps everything else. On the other hand, the rationalization that often comes if you survive is what’s most revealing.
for some, however, (b) may equate to “waiting” for a sign/help and not actively pursuing a solution to the problem - while (a) may turn to an active role.
Isaac Asimov was a strong atheist. When he was dying - and he knew he was dying - he was quite emphatic about no one pretending that he had a deathbed conversion to anything.
At least some atheists - Asimov and me for two examples - aren’t atheists due to lack of thought but exactly due to thought and reasoning. Hope in terms of a new medicine, or the cavalry coming, or a remission, that I can see. Throwing all my intelligence away to believe in an absurd god is not going to help at all. Deathbed conversions are a common theist lie about atheists, for instance Darwin.
Now if I suffer from dementia all bets are off.
Let’s just say you can’t dig yourself any deeper into that fox hole and the manner in which the mortars are landing gives every atheist and believer the same odds. Nothing either one can do to improve his situation one bit.
I was ‘out of the foxhole’ and commenting on the difference in ‘personal action’ between (a) and (b) - otherwise, I agree with you on the primary point you are making.
I would agree that consciousness is not the same as the brain, I do hold that the relationship is somewhat similar to the relationship between a story, and the manuscript on which it is printed. The story is not the same as the ms…but the story is conveyed and realized by the ms. The ms is the interface between the story and the rest of the universe.
If copies haven’t been made, then destruction of the ms means destruction of the story. If the author has passed away, and no one else has read the story, then this destruction is irreparable: there is no “afterlife” for a story.
(And human brains are, to date, very resistant to having backup copies made.)
You’ve said this many times, and I have rebutted this many times. (Shall we dance?)
The place might have come into existence at exactly the same time as the God. God might actually be the place; God might be the universe.
You insist on the word “before,” and that is not logically supported.
It is also against forum rules to play “junior moderator” telling other people how to behave.
It is also against the rules to hurl direct personal insults at other posters:
Get control yourself and stop this sort of response.
[ /Moderating ]
That doesn’t make it a strawman. You said that my list of everyday delusions was laughable, except for phobias, so I added racism/bigotry/bias which is a valid addition. It is meant to bring home the point that everybody suffers from a delusion of sorts that directly effect their well-being/decision making.
Any argument against the above statement is essentially arguing for the delusion of believing in a god also being acceptable.
That’s not necessarily true, because everybody is delusional to a different level of significance.
Which qualifies every bias as a form of delusion. This also qualifies stubborn religious folks as a biased group.
This is an example of your bias. You cannot KNOW that a deity did not help them. You just believe that.
Oh gee sorry I didn’t know an acronym. Just because I’m not a regular to forum discussions where such acronyms are prevalent doesn’t mean I’m not just as knowledgeable on the matter. LGBT is a much more common acronym associated with that sort of discrimination in general.
Me asking you to clarify what your claim is, is not in any way a demonstration of my knowledge. I don’t know why you attempt to detract from my credibility. That is generally frowned upon in a debate, especially when it is unfounded. If I am wrong I or make a mistake, I own up to it…
Obviously I wasn’t implying that the flood occurred as the Bible said. Myths, or history passed by word-of-mouth tend to be inaccurate. Just play a game of telephone.
I guess I just assumed that an atheist whose beliefs are founded in fact and science would know that the Bible’s version is just one of many great flood stories from many civilizations. Also, that scientific evidence does indeed suggest that a great flood happened in one way or another.
[QUOTE]
again - a delusion is simply “holding a belief that is not true” - it doesnt have to go to “mentally ill” - it just means believing a lie even tho it has been shown to be a lie.
[/QUOTE
Well “delusional fantasy world” doesn’t bring to mind an average religious person, it more or less brings to mind a mentally ill person.
Those were rhetorical questions… I was just making a point. I have been aware of delusions in regards to pathology since I posted the definition.
No need for the definitions. I have been specifically using the word “subjective” for a reason; to distinguish it from objective. And, BTW, you haven’t been calling it “FAITH,” you have been calling it a “delusional fantasy,” which is why I addressed this in the first place. If someone has witnessed something that science can’t explain, it is equal to claim faith or science or both.
Agreed, but that doesn’t make those hours better spent somewhere else(for them)
No, that’s retarded. I suggested that you generally meet a better crowd at church than at a bar. And I suggested that you might meet a better crowd at church than a lot of other places. I never said bad people don’t go to church so please don’t insinuate that I did.
“In one way or another” covers a lot of ground. There were huge Mississippi River floods in 2011, which can certainly be called “Great Floods.”
On the other hand, there was no world-wide deluge that comes anywhere near the universal flood depicted in the Bible. That didn’t happen; the scientific evidence absolutely discredits the idea.
how is ‘bias’ a delusion unless it is based on falsehood? It may be an extension, but in and of itself is not. I can be biased toward x based on my knowledge of x - does not make me ‘delusional’.
In today’s culture - belief in ‘god’ is not considered a delusion - it is accepted - that does not make many of the believers any less ‘delusional’ in their approach to it.
Only if you extend the definition of delusional to the point of breaking - to include having any basic mis-information/misunderstanding in your baggage - which is not what we’re talking about here.
I think you should go look up what bias is, and figure out why this last statement is incorrect.
Won’t disagree there. The bias is not the delusion - its an extension of it.
When you can show me objective evidence of a deity - and then you can add to that objective evidence that said deity did in fact help that person - then I will believe it.
Until then - the default position that deities don’t exist holds true, and by extension, deities that don’t exist can’t help people.
It takes zero belief to understand that.
SSM is all over the news - and this forum - it would have taken you about 30 seconds to figure it out before posting. Again - it goes to pointing out your lack of knowledge about the topics being discussed.
Thats not an insult - its pointing out that you have some more work todo.
We’re talking about the bible - we’re talking about god - you even mentioned “Noah and the animals” - its laughable that you want to claim to not understand that that refers to the global flood - not just a ‘great’ flood.
no doubt that ‘great floods’ happen often and alot - that a worldwide flood as depicted in the bible happened is a myth - one that many bible/god believers to be fact - it is an example of one of their many delusions when it comes to fact vs fantasy.
where did I say “delusional fantasy world”? I said seperating fact from fantasy - again, using the flood as the example - since it is not fact, it is fantasy - if you believe the flood as depicted in the bible (or any portion therefo) is “fact” or “reasonable” - then you are believing in a fantasy.
So, you are actaully managing to create a strawman out of a very simple statement by blowing it out of proportion.
here we go again “rhetorical” and “only joking” - I take your comments as they are written, clearly your wit is not making it thru the keyboard.
faith can never equal science - you understand that right?
Faith is belief without evidence (in this context).
Science is based on evidence. Science can explain just about everything that happens - but the majority of these things that believers claim “science can’t explain” is because there is no evidence that anything actually happened OR they simply don’t like the ‘boring’ answer that science provided (see earlier discussion on potential cause for NDE experiences that believers want to call proof of ‘afterlife’).
Belief in “life after death”,“heaven”, “hell” - etc are all based on 'faith" - and as such, they are fantasy - as they are not based on any kind of “fact”.
I do consider it to be delusional - they are deluding themselves into believing that supernatural beings exist and help them and are waiting for hem when they die.
sure it does - any time spent doing real things for real people is 100 times better than studying any words in a 2000 year old text for common sense parables.
You are insinuating just that - you are insinuating that good people don’t go to bars, etc - Why would I meet a ‘better crowd’ at church? you know that suicide bombers go to church too, right?
its an idiotical statement - at best, if you are a believer, and you go to church with fellow believers, you will meet people that believe in the same bits - that doesn’t make them a “better crowd”.
I agree that the Bible’s version of the flood is not in any way accurate, but i do think that it was based on a true story. Cracks me up to think of telling some religious zealots that, “it may have been based on a true story.”
I had never heard of it until now so I couldn’t have knowingly applied it. After reading and coming to an understanding of Hume’s Law (very interesting btw), I still think that there would be many believers claiming that, within their subjective evidence, a god has revealed themselves in one way or another.
I believe the brain is absolutely a proponent of consciousness and without it, we would cease to exist in this world. Beyond that, I can’t be sure. I understand that neurologists have a certain understanding of the physical sections of the brain and what purpose they serve; which is great for practical medical applications. But we still don’t know how all of the chemicals can come together and behave in such a complexly ordered manner that produce complex biological structures within structures that interact with other structures and so on and so on. How could all of these magnificently complex things be occurring AND be creating consciousness seemingly as a bi-product? Were not sure.
I mean are there energy fields or forces that interact with us significantly that we are unaware of? Probably. Is there an order to the universe that we haven’t figured out yet? I would say most certainly. My point is that we don’t yet fully understand what prerequisites(scientifically speaking) a deity would have to have to exist. So comparing our understanding of how consciousness seemingly goes from a bunch of material substances to us thinking in our heads about abstract concepts is a fair comparison to our understanding of what a deity would need to exist.
Like I said, I consider myself a fairly reasonable person. A person who generally is only willing to cross the forum lines when pushed or provoked. I am not the only one in this thread who is guilty, but I admit I must hold a majority percentage of the incidences. Thanks for the advice and I’m glad you’re enjoying this!
It is based on falsehood since the bias does not represent the way things are as a whole. Biases are commonly applied in situations where they are false, making them delusional actions and/or thoughts; therefore a delusional belief.
I have looked it up, and it didn’t deter me from posting that statement.
I’m not asking you to believe in anything. I’m just saying it is false to assert some of the things you have.
Ahh this is a great place to apply Hume’s law, which Razcain so graciously opened me up to. I’m not saying your wrong in holding that position, I just think it’s wrong to assume it to the fullest, in a purely logical sense that is.
Well I googled it before asking you what it was and nothing readily showed what SSM meant. It gave a bunch of other examples of what SSM could stand for, but I could easily assume you weren’t talking about surface-to-surface missiles. I think that’s a testament to it’s low prevalence as an acronym. BTW I watch an hour of news almost everyday, half hour of local and a half hour of Brian Williams.
Huh? That’s not what I claimed. I was just showing that the biblical story could be based off an actual event. Obviously if anyone believes the Bible word for word then they are delusional, but these are changing times. The next generation(the one I’m a part of) I don’t think would be likely to believe the Bible word for word. Some will, but I think any of them that are well informed will see the folly in that. And as for my point, I think any current well-informed person would be likely to dismiss the exact story of Noah’s Ark and dismiss many other stories altogether.
How many believe this to be a fact? Do you have a statistic?
To believe that a flood did occur that the story is based on is not unreasonable. I think it can be pretty easily assumed that any notion of it being the entire world is associated with antique ignorance.
You have called it a delusion and a fantasy, I think it’s perfectly fair for me to combine them together into what you think.
I just asked you to clarify what you mean on a certain detail, that’s hardly blowing it out of proportion or creating a strawman. You have a point that people who believe in the Bible’s exact word are highly delusional, but you have not stated what percentage do believe that. It is pretty much irrelevant anyways since we are talking about the effects of belief in a deity not the effects of believing the words of a holy book.
And yet you claim to capture tone from my statements… Just sayin
I was making a broad statement in the part you quoted. If science can’t explain something someone witnessed or experienced, then how can you claim someone is delusional in having a a belief about it?
I’m addressing the very core of belief in a deity.
Considering there has been compiled evidence of NDE experiencer’s testimonies for years and years and the evidence that “surges in brain activity may explain NDE’s” only came about a few months ago. I think it’s safe to say most of them aren’t denying science.
And sure science is the faultless thing that explains everything right?
I agree, those could technically be called fantasy. Whether or not it’s politically correct is a different matter. On a larger scale, this is not what we are discussing. We are discussing belief in a deity or deities, which is not in and of itself a delusion or a fantasy because the subjective facts or evidence someone has for it are not necessarily wrong(I’m not talking about a holy book, but individual experience). Don’t be mistaken either, those subjective facts and/or evidence are not to convince you of a deity, the point is not what you think, but how what others think effects their own lives.
This is an opinion. I should upload one of her weekly Bible study packets to show you it is anything but simple. It is akin to any English course where you are asked to break down all literary devices used to extrapolate meaning.
Why do you insist on this? I’m am clearly insinuating likelihood, not some black and white definition of the way things are. Clearly you are blowing this out of proportion. Since this is in regards to my activities or people of my demographic region, suicide-bombers are irrelevant.
I can quite plainly state that in my experience I have met a more wholesome crowd at church than at a bar. And I don’t really think most reasonable people would dispute that this is generally true.
Easy killer… The above statement does not make them a “better crowd” you are right. But the above statement is a hollow one since it ignores anything that might make the “crowd” more wholesome.
If you want to go meet people at a bar, that I’m sure are statistically more “bad,” and claim that they are “better” than the ones you would have met at a church across the street, then that is your right, but it doesn’t make you right.
If God only reveals himself to some, he is not just, or a good father. A good father treats all his children good and doesn’t hide from them.One shouldn’t just be able to believe some one they should all be able to see the same being Just as all children can see their earthly father! Of course some cannot see with their eyes, But has physical touch and hear the sound of his voice or touch. A good father would make sure he was known.
YoungKusher, these walls of text and phrase by phrase rebuttals you post have become repetitive and tiresome to wade through. People have presented you with any number of valid view points and factual arguments to which your only reply seems to be, ‘Well, that’s just your opinion’. Additionally, every counter argument you make adds up to nothing more than, ‘I consider myself to be a reasonable person and all reasonable people who attend the same church as I do would agree with me’.
You’ve not presented a single compelling reason why anyone should accept your view that god exists simply because science has not taken the time to prove he doesn’t, to your satisfaction.
Believe anything you want to believe but if you want to be taken seriously I suggest you spend more time listening and less time being contrary. Particularly about subject matters of which you show very little understanding.
I’m not saying God isn’t aware of time and how WE see it and measure it. I’m saying that when we propose a being who is eternal, no beginning and no end we can’t then measure any interaction with time. Because God sees and understands time it doesn’t mean God acts within time. Any interaction can be totally unrelated to time.
If there is a God , man is reaching out in a very imperfect way, with very limited knowledge and understanding. The differences in religions and doctrines is a reflection of his limits. When we tear apart certain doctrines and concepts {and we should} we are attacking certains beliefs about a possible God, and IMO saying, If there is a God ,X doesn’t make sense, is unreasonable, illogical, etc. but we lack the perspective and knowledge to claim God cannot and does not exist. We won’t and can’t know until we do or don’t get there, so to speak.
So, for my money, rather than continued arguments about whether there is a god. which we can’t know one way or the other, I’d rather engae in specific details that we have facts to support.