Hey Der Trihs, over here

[FinnAgain]

@jsgoddess

If you believe in God, and you believe God is a person, and you believe God is invisible, and you believe God is everywhere, you believe in an invisible person in your living room (and your den, and your kitchen, and your car, and your post office).

Fallacy of equivocation.

Belief in a ‘person’ who is transcendent, resident both in and ‘out of’ reality, immortal, eternal, omniscient, etc… is not the same as what people mean when they talk about “an invisible person in your living room.”
A ghost in my living room is not the same concept as Jesus sitting at the right hand of God.

@jsgoddess

If you believe that when you talk to God there is a being who hears you and who can respond to you and act on what you’re saying and who cares about what you’re saying, then it’s a very very small additional step to claim that God can answer you.

It’s a huge step as even most of the people who will say that God ‘communicates’ will say that God once did so, via the Bible/prophets, or does so, via our intuitions/‘honest feelings’, or does so via the arrangement of events themselves.

Virtually no religious people talk about God actually speaking to them. This is another fallacy of equivocation, as the vast majority of mainstream religious people do not use the phrases “speak to God” and “God answers all prayers” to denote the same form, manner or nature of communication, at all.

You go on to list all sorts of communication that wouldn’t count as insanity such as dreams, etc… and then tack on that some might believe God speak to them with “very plain words”. But surely you realize that the subset of believers who think that God has actual conversations with them correlate very strongly with the subset of schizophrenics who think they talk to God? And, of course, that they’re hardly a majority view within the religious community?

There is a substantial (and significant) difference between believing that God is some sort of VALIS-like being (which is unfalsifiable and an aesthetic judgment) and that God is a localized presence in your living room (which is a factual claim that can be falsified.) Likewise, there is lots of daylight between claims that one’s emotions/intuition/dreams can be informed by a Higher Power and that they’re hearing actual voices in their head which tell them what to do.

@Voyager

I made it, and I get it fine.

With all due respect (and I’m serious on that point, not mocking you) I don’t think you do understand just why your analogy was so unsuitable.

If you admit yourself that neither the “dog worshiper” nor the normal, ordinary religious person are receiving communications that they simply accept without any thought, then you’ve already identified one reason why using such an offensive analogy is beyond the pale, especially since a dog-talker is an allusion to the Son of Sam. It’s as needlessly offensive an analogy as if a religious person asked something along the lines of why atheism is any less insane and potentially dangerous than listening to the dialectic materialism of Stalin.

Also, if you can accept that having a ‘revealed Word of God’ that people pick and choose from isn’t much different from having a ‘revered Words of the Founding Fathers’ that people pick and choose from, then you don’t understand why equating books which actually exist to a lunatic’s imagined conversation with a canine is unnecessarily insulting as well as being false to facts.

If you wanted an honest comparison instead of an analogy that was false to facts and designed to be offensive, you could have asked something like how people who read the Bible and believe in its God and the power of prayer are more rational than people who read New Age books and believe in a Goddess and in the Power of Positive Thinking, or what have you.

Surely you realize why the inclusion of talking dogs is a step too far if you really meant to just analyze pick-and-choose book-based beliefs, right?

[MrDibble]

@Alessan

I think being able to compartmentalize is a sign of a healthy psyche.

I know at least one therapist who would disagree with this. The goal of my therapy to date has all been about integrating my experiences and beliefs and general … stuff…into a whole.

@Alessan

It’s the people who* can’t *compartmentalize their beliefs who scare me.

I’m not scared of people who compartmentalise, but I don’t see it as the healthiest situation, mentally. I’m sure many cope reasonably well with holding contradictory ideas in their heads simultaneously, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see it coming out in other ways - little neuroses or depression or the like.

[askeptic]

@Lord_Ashtar

What was it you were complaining about before? Something about how you weren’t free to tell Christians exactly what you thought of them, I think. How’s that workin’ out for ya?

Apparently about as well as that golden rule is working out for you.

Interesting name there Ashtar…

[Lord_Ashtar]

So it’s working out well for him then. Glad to hear it.

[Voyager]

@FinnAgain

With all due respect (and I’m serious on that point, not mocking you) I don’t think you do understand just why your analogy was so unsuitable.

No offense taken. The big disconnect on this point is the special treatment of claims about gods that theists assume - which is why analogies like mine and like the IPU piss off theists so much.

If you admit yourself that neither the “dog worshiper” nor the normal, ordinary religious person are receiving communications that they simply accept without any thought, then you’ve already identified one reason why using such an offensive analogy is beyond the pale, especially since a dog-talker is an allusion to the Son of Sam. It’s as needlessly offensive an analogy as if a religious person asked something along the lines of why atheism is any less insane and potentially dangerous than listening to the dialectic materialism of Stalin.

The average religious person thinks that God listens but does not talk. Why? I submit that as religion became organized, it was not to the advantage of the hierarchy to have members running around saying God told them to do something forbidden. Look what happened to Joan of Arc. However several religious Dopers say that the justification for their belief is a direct communication from God or Jesus. The President of the Mormon Church claims to get communications from God, and I’d suspect any statement by the Pope classified as infallible would be considered inspired also.

Now, someone who is religious may choose to reject any number of these supposed contacts with God. However you must believe that God directly spoke to someone somewhere sometime, or else your religion is entirely secular and created by people. So, assuming that you accept that God has directly spoken at some point, how do you identify true communications from God versus false ones? I think that without good solid evidence of true communication all claims of speaking with god are no more valid than ones for speaking with dogs. I understand that your first reaction will be that they are just two different cases, but I ask you to give good reasons why they are, besides that a lot of people accept that communication from god happened.

As for Son of Sam, my ancestors were brutally treated by Christians for nearly 2,000 years, some times on direct orders from those who supposedly were in close contact with God. If God, who creates morality, actually gave those orders it would have been tough on us. Clearly no one today thinks he did, but without some sort of secular moral filter we are quite unable to reject any command from God. We might want to verify that something was coming from the actual god, but we can’t do that even for commandments that are clearly moral, and a lot of religions reject the attempt as being against faith.

Finally, atheism says nothing about morality. Atheists can be ethical or unethical. I think Stalins atrocities are examples that show fundamental anything can lead to evil.

Also, if you can accept that having a ‘revealed Word of God’ that people pick and choose from isn’t much different from having a ‘revered Words of the Founding Fathers’ that people pick and choose from, then you don’t understand why equating books which actually exist to a lunatic’s imagined conversation with a canine is unnecessarily insulting as well as being false to facts.

So would it be different if this guy wrote down what the dog told him? What it be more valid if he got a clever disciple and the cult lasted for 100 years?

But you’re missing the difference between the Bible and the Constitution. The Constitution is 100% written by man, and 100% fallible (though some people treat it like holy writ.) The amount of fallible stuff in the Bible depends on what faith you have. Atheist think it is 100% man created, but if you believe you have to believe that at least a part of it is inspired and accurate. Think about what would happen if certain passages were proven to be untrue. Which would destroy your belief?

If you wanted an honest comparison instead of an analogy that was false to facts and designed to be offensive, you could have asked something like how people who read the Bible and believe in its God and the power of prayer are more rational than people who read New Age books and believe in a Goddess and in the Power of Positive Thinking, or what have you.

I’m not sure how many goddess believers actually believe. No one thinks the power of positive thinking is infallible, that I know. I know some New Agers channel and junk like that, but I’m unaware of any who claim to get inspiration directly or directly from deities.

Surely you realize why the inclusion of talking dogs is a step too far if you really meant to just analyze pick-and-choose book-based beliefs, right?

No. Even fundamentalists and believers in inerrancy pick and choose to some extent. The heart of the matter is whether any religion has a special claim to truth through contact with a higher power. If you believe that, you will accept that though there is plenty of noise in religious writings now available to us, there is a signal that can be detected. If you think that at heart supposed communications from god are no more valid than communications from a dog, then there is no signal. The noise itself might create beautiful patterns, and the filters constructed to try to extract the signal might be works of art, and the engineers employed to design these filters might be happy in their work, but there is still no signal there.

BTW, do you think the dog story would be more appealing if we found out the guy was claiming that the traditional god was talking through the dog? Remember he spoke through Balaam’s ass, so he can do it.

[FinnAgain]

Sorry, I’m getting dinner ready now and I promise I’ll respond more thoroughly later on, but for now I’d just like to add one quick tidbit.

In the Reform tradition, or at least according to every Reform rabbi I’ve ever spoken with, the Torah is 100% written by man and 100% fallible. There was no Davidic Empire, some passages are antiquated and no longer serve as good guides for morality, and even the “sacred stories” are sacred because they reveal some good messages and not because any deity dictated or directly inspired them.

Now, I admit this may just be the view of all the Reform rabbis I spoke to (I haven’t checked the official planks of Reform Jewish theology in quite some time), but I’d say that this view informs my approach to discussions of biblical theology.

I’ll respond more later either tonight or tomorrow (Lunarnoodle could really use a break this evening and I think I’m going to take her out to see Quantum of Solace after we get done with dinner), but you deserve more than a quick driveby.

I do still find it funny that some of the more intolerant atheists is thread would list Rabbi Jerome K. Davidson (who performed Reform Judaism’s first gay marriage) along with Rabbi Karen Bender (who was married in that ceremony) as enemies of progress, reason and/or social justice. Personally I’d wager that Jerry Davidson has done more for advancing the cause of equality than most Dopers have, or will, ever do. And it was his religious faith as a Reform Jew, and most importantly his position as a spiritual leader of Reform Jews that led him to his course of action.

[KGS]

@Voyager

Your claim to be a scientist is contradicted by your intention of publishing your great discovery as a fantasy story, not in a refereed journal. This shows that deep down you know you have nothing.

I have ideas, and that’s where science begins. Hamadryad said it himself: “Ask a Question / Do Background Research / Construct a Hypothesis.” That’s how far I’ve gone. I’ve also conducted experiments, and observed the results – even in this thread, I’ve run a few minor experiments. As for the results…well, they are intriguing at least to me, but I’ve already fessed up to the fact that my testing methods were flawed, mainly because they were conducted in an uncontrolled environment, and also because I can’t obtain independent verification on some of the claims people have made in this thread. This does mean my data is worthless – it just means I’m still at the beginning, that’s all.

But that’s all a moot point, now. Contrary to popular belief, I don’t think my findings are all that earth-shattering. It’s not like I found a cure for cancer or something (and what’s up with that cliche? Why always cancer? Why not some other deadly disease?) and it’s not like somebody else won’t discover these things later. As I said before, let someone else do the dirty work – I’ve decided on a different career path, for now. Science – however you choose to define it – can wait.

@Voyager

I can assure you, you are no scientist.

If professional scientists are at all like some of the close-minded jerkwads in this thread, thank god I Am Not One Of You. I will never be one of you, because that’s not who I am. To Thine Own Self Be True – and if that means I’m just a crazy, unmedicated lunatic asshole, so be it. I’d rather be hated for what I am, instead of loved for what I’m not.

[Voyager]

@FinnAgain

Sorry, I’m getting dinner ready now and I promise I’ll respond more thoroughly later on, but for now I’d just like to add one quick tidbit.

In the Reform tradition, or at least according to every Reform rabbi I’ve ever spoken with, the Torah is 100% written by man and 100% fallible. There was no Davidic Empire, some passages are antiquated and no longer serve as good guides for morality, and even the “sacred stories” are sacred because they reveal some good messages and not because any deity dictated or directly inspired them.

<Lenny Bruce>
Reform shuls. Reform Rabbis. So Reformed they’re ashamed they’re Jewish. </Lenny>
I think the Davidic Empire stuff came after there was archeological evidence casting doubt on it. Plus, I think I specifically said that this is a fact based religion I like to see. As soon as they decide there is no god, I’ll go back to shul - though, being raised Conservative, I’d much prefer praying mostly in Hebrew.

I’m heading off on a trip across the country tomorrow, so if I don’t respond it’s nothing personal.

[Voyager]

@KGS

I have ideas, and that’s where science begins. Hamadryad said it himself: “Ask a Question / Do Background Research / Construct a Hypothesis.” That’s how far I’ve gone. I’ve also conducted experiments, and observed the results – even in this thread, I’ve run a few minor experiments. As for the results…well, they are intriguing at least to me, but I’ve already fessed up to the fact that my testing methods were flawed, mainly because they were conducted in an uncontrolled environment, and also because I can’t obtain independent verification on some of the claims people have made in this thread. This does mean my data is worthless – it just means I’m still at the beginning, that’s all.
If professional scientists are at all like some of the close-minded jerkwads in this thread, thank god I Am Not One Of You. I will never be one of you, because that’s not who I am. To Thine Own Self Be True – and if that means I’m just a crazy, unmedicated lunatic asshole, so be it. I’d rather be hated for what I am, instead of loved for what I’m not.

The number one thing scientists do is to try to prove themselves wrong. Not all do, but submitting a paper to peer review is a way for other people to tell you that you missed something, or that you are drawing unwarranted conclusions, or you missed a paper showing the same result 20 years before. That’s also why you analyze results, to see if they may be due to chance.

[KGS]

@Voyager

The number one thing scientists do is to try to prove themselves wrong.

Are you serious?? Man, no wonder scientists are so negative-minded.

When you think of it, most scientists are totally out of touch with society at large. They use confusing terminology like “falsify” when they want to prove something, or “theory” to describe fact. For instance, I’m positive that the Theory of Evolution would become more widely accepted if they merely changed the word “Theory” to something else!!

[Grumman]

@KGS

Are you serious?? Man, no wonder scientists are so negative-minded.

It’s called “learning”, numbnuts. If you can prove yourself wrong, it means you now know more about the universe than you did before, and if other people shared your misconception, it means you can help other people gain a better understanding, too.

When you think of it, most scientists are totally out of touch with society at large.

Have you considered the possibility that this is a problem with society, rather than with the scientists?

They use confusing terminology like “falsify” when they want to prove something-

Not quite. They use terminology like “falsifiable” not because they want to prove something, but because a hypothesis with no theoretical means of disproving it is so vague as to be meaningless. A hypothesis that is not falsifiable by definition cannot tell you anything about how the universe works.

-or “theory” to describe fact. For instance, I’m positive that the Theory of Evolution would become more widely accepted if they merely changed the word “Theory” to something else!!

So… your point is that most people are stupid, and can’t remember that things like gravity are also described by “theories”?

[Hamadryad]

@KGS

When you think of it, most scientists are totally out of touch with society at large. They use confusing terminology like “falsify” when they want to prove something, or “theory” to describe fact. For instance, I’m positive that the Theory of Evolution would become more widely accepted if they merely changed the word “Theory” to something else!!

<Steve Martin>‘Chapeau’ means ‘hat.’ ‘Oeurf’ means ‘egg.’ It’s like those French have a different word for EVERYTHING!</steve martin>

I am unable to come up with words to describe how incomprehensibly stupid you’re showing yourself to be. Are you anything but a brain stem and a pair of arms? How do you get out of bed without hurting yourself? Are you allowed anything sharper than a spoon? Really, honestly, what the FUCK? You make young-Earthers seem rational and full of damned fine ideas.

[Cervaise]

@KGS

Are you serious?? Man, no wonder scientists are so negative-minded.

When you think of it, most scientists are totally out of touch with society at large. They use confusing terminology like “falsify” when they want to prove something, or “theory” to describe fact. For instance, I’m positive that the Theory of Evolution would become more widely accepted if they merely changed the word “Theory” to something else!!

Ladies and gentlemen, finally we have arrived at the post which speaks for itself, and needs no further elaboration.

Seacrest … out.

[KGS]

@Grumman

So… your point is that most people are stupid, and can’t remember that things like gravity are also described by “theories”?

Absolutely yes…though I’d prefer to use the word “ignorant” or “illogical”. That being said, it’s equally ignorant & illogical to assume that people will ever come around to the correct way of thinking on their own. That’s the disconnect between so-called “scientists” and the general population – each group believes their own way of thinking is the correct one, and they don’t bother trying to understand the other group’s perspective. And that’s exactly why the so-called “Fight Against Ignorance” is taking so goddamn long…

@Hamadryad

<Steve Martin>‘Chapeau’ means ‘hat.’ ‘Oeurf’ means ‘egg.’ It’s like those French have a different word for EVERYTHING!</steve martin>

I am unable to come up with words to describe how incomprehensibly stupid you’re showing yourself to be. Are you anything but a brain stem and a pair of arms? How do you get out of bed without hurting yourself? Are you allowed anything sharper than a spoon? Really, honestly, what the FUCK? You make young-Earthers seem rational and full of damned fine ideas.

Great Jumpin’ Jehosephat! Do you pay your wife to piss in your coffee, or is she doing it behind your back?

Also, it was rather mean-spirited of you to cast that counter-spell, which reflected and caused some innocent person’s tyre to go flat (assuming, of course, that Autolycus wasn’t just lying to muddy the waters further…) Naturally, you obviously have no clue what you did – but extreme emotional reactions often create spontaneous “magick”, at least from my experience. In other words, learn to control yourself, fool. :mad:

[Rubystreak]

@KGS

Great Jumpin’ Jehosephat! Do you pay your wife to piss in your coffee, or is she doing it behind your back?

Why couldn’t read Hamadryad’s aura off the internet and know that she’s a woman???

[Hamadryad]

@Rubystreak

Why couldn’t read Hamadryad’s aura off the internet and know that she’s a woman???

I must have muddied the psychic waters.

No, wait - the fact that I’m actually female will prove something or other about something that was “throwing KGS off” in his/her assessment or something. You watch.

[Rubystreak]

@Hamadryad

I must have muddied the psychic waters.

No, wait - the fact that I’m actually female will prove something or other about something that was “throwing KGS off” in his/her assessment or something. You watch.

It was that wicked counterspell thing that you did. You are obviously some sort of wild magick witch without knowing it. Scaaaaaaaaaaary.

[ToeJam]

@KGS

Also, it was rather mean-spirited of you to cast that counter-spell, which reflected and caused some innocent person’s tyre to go flat (assuming, of course, that Autolycus wasn’t just lying to muddy the waters further…)

Couldn’t you read Auto’s aura again and try to see if he was lying? Since you read his aura earlier, so perhaps you’d have luck with that now, as sometimes you can tell when people are being untrue or deceptive?

Or since he is no longer so trusting in you, did he suddenly develop a shield?

[ivan_astikov]

IANAPsychiatrist but I have a sneaky feeling **KGS **might just be having a bit of fun with these ‘aura’ claims. As for the rest of his post content, I think if he was half as crazy as some of you seem to think he is, he would have exploded in a blaze of incandescent goobledegook by now.

[wonky]

@ivan_astikov

IANAPsychiatrist but I have a sneaky feeling **KGS **might just be having a bit of fun with these ‘aura’ claims. As for the rest of his post content, I think if he was half as crazy as some of you seem to think he is, he would have exploded in a blaze of incandescent goobledegook by now.

You mean like… this thread?