[QUOTE=jsgoddess “Religious” is a word in which the connotation changes relative to the speaker or hearer. [/QUOTE]
That in and of itself would seem to disqualify “religious” as a candidate for the word I am seeking. Let narrow the search a little. I am looking for a term that is not offensive to theists and that has a definition both sides acknowledge to be accurate.
Well life is good as long as the depth of your discussion is limited by the conventions of polite conversation. Issuing a challenge to someone’s core beliefs is usually outside the bounds of polite conversation. I will add another qualifier to my term–One that might be used in debate or argument, rather than polite conversation.
You’re describing a world in which no evidence or experience of any kind can be trusted. A tricksome God could be tricksome about anything. That’s part of my point. I cannot realy on anything I experience externally, but I also cannot be certain my internal “experience” is also not being tampered with, right, because God is the Trickster. Like I said, not only does Occam’s razor and science go out the window, reliance on any thought or experience of any kind does as well. God the Trickster is God the completely arbitrary, so far as I can tell. I think, because I form theories based on experiment, and Occam’s razor generally helps guide me towards the best ones, that I’ve got good evidence to be confident in it as a rule of thumb. But no! God is playing with my mind and my experience to test my faith. Well, I read the Bible, but over here are the Vedas and Upanisads. Worse, some parts of the Bible don’t even match up. What do I do? Is God trying to trick me? What do I believe? OK, say I pray, and I feel I have an epiphany. But what if God is trying to trick me then? What if that’s another test of faith? I already know He behaves this way, so where does it end? How can I rely on Faith if everything is a potential trick? How do I know what feelings or writings to have faith in?
Given those rules, I’m not sure how I might have any guide to behavior of any kind. Faith doesn’t work, evidential support doesn’t work. I suppose it follows then that all logic is delusory, but then I run into serious problems, since I can’t use logic to deduce this.
As much fun as this is, I don’t know if I’ll stay around for the party we’ll throw afterwards.
I’d like to point out, just for shits and giggles, that I’ve answered the below, repeatedly.
From Contrapuntal:
(Bolding mine.)
Yes, but without the ‘religious’ part thrown in. Take that out to apply to ALL beliefs and my answer is yes. Again.
I’ve answered your second question over and over and over again. Now I understand you don’t agree with what I said and that’s fine. However, don’t pretend (and this is to everyone in the thread who constantly asks the same questions even though they’ve been answered, ad nauseum) that no one has answered you. Perhaps, no one noticed or they’ve got that person on ‘ignore’ or whatever that may be. But at this point of utter ridiculousness, I’d suggest that you pick out someone that you don’t have on ‘ignore’ or just go back and read any of the posts from the people who are on the other side of this issue. I’m sure you know who they are.
Already answered.
For me, I think I’ve only used phrases, but I know others have used words. Now I understand that you may not like their choices, but for the billionth time, they HAVE answered you.
See the first part of the answer to your repeated first question that is in quotes above.
Even if I did, I would not call someone’s assertion (even about the Easter Bunny or Pauly Shore’s hotness) “delusional” period. So, that’s been answered as well. Many posts, by many people, ago.
For my terms, again the answer is yes.
Again, already answered.
I don’t know anyone here who’s contended that “religion get[s] a pass.” Once more, for me, everything, I repeat, EVERYTHING, is treated the same.
I can’t be anymore clear than that Contrapuntal. And for that particular subset out of the other billions here, I see no reason to keep answering them again. Either you can take the answers I’ve made or you can call me delusional. Knock yourself out. Since I’m not ‘religious,’ it’s all the same to me. EVERYTHING. I’ll still think the same thing about you (generally speaking). Whatever opinion I had going into this.
Add the work “logical” in front of “guide,” and I’m with you. However, if you don’t realize that religion isn’t playing by the rules of logic, then you’re missing something vital.
In a world with a tricksome God, faith can guide you, because it in as much an axiom as Occam’s Razor is for you and me. Just like you and I become lost without Occam, religious literalists are lost without faith. On what basis do you declare your rudder valid and theirs in-?
And of course there are religious people who aren’t literalists, who don’t believe in the literal truth of the Flood, and against whom your accusations of delusion are totally inaccurate. But I’m not sure you’ve yet acknowledged them, despite the many times in this thread that they’ve confronted you.
Already answered. And the bolded part is all we’ve ascertained since we’ve been going through. Then again, the answers we (I think that includes everyone here that feels “delusional” is not the correct word used to be descriptive) believe have already answered the question.
gum and I are good, so I’ll leave our “agree to disagree” view where it is. Thank you gum.
Nope, I am not saying that theists say that. I’m contending that anyone called “deluded” isn’t going to (probably) agree, change their way of thinking because you called them “delusional” or do anything but feel disrespected.
I have no idea, seeing as I’m not a mental-health professional. But considering that they probably have no dog in that fight nor are they bothered by using “delusional,” I would tend to guess it might be because they DO NOT SEE IT THAT WAY. Just my WAG.
My opinion to this, and I stress opinion, is that you are stating your opinion here. Now, you probably don’t agree with my opinion. That is your right. But that is my answer.
Already answered.
To me, yes.
Nope. “A lot” has nothing to do with it. I feel it is appropriate, when in a discussion of any sort, to speak respectfully to that other person or persons. Period.
Ah, so the trickster god ™ is at the bottom of all this! Cool. Now, have you read any of the stuff I’ve posted about how I tested my own putative theophany, insofar as that is possible. Why I am convinced that it’s the Real Deal, and not a personal self-delusion?
I admit it’s possible I might be in error. But the application of passably stringent skeptical techniques to my experience suggests strongly to me that it’s reliable.
And for this I get your superior ukase that I’m deluded? Because you get to be the arbiter of what experiences are valid? And thrown into the same hopper with the Universal-Flood clowns?
Bluntly, that pisses me off.
You want to argue about the validity of religious belief with me in Great Debates? With respect for me as a fellow human being? Good; do so. You want to call me derisory names? And say that they’re valid – why? Because you say so? And you’re the arbiter of what’s delusory and what’s valid? Fuck you, Charlie!
You do not get that privilege. Neither do I. Common consent as to what is proper grounds for evaluating supposed claims is what’s applicable. And I’ve maintained for six years that I’m not entitled to insist my view is what someone else ought to believe, simply because it happened to me.
I’ll go into more detail on why I am convinced that it was not self-delusion, if asked to by someone willing to treat me with common decency.
That’s where my problem with you is.
I can, with a little difficulty, conceive of a scenario where the term “cocksucker” might be a valid descriptor – translating “fellatrix,” for example, or in an IMHO discussion of methodology used by gay men in their sex lives. But it will generally be used as an insult term, and wandering into MPSIMS or GQ and using it will not be acceptable – even if the person to whom it’s applied happens to be a gay/bi man or straight/bi woman who enjoys being a fellator/-trix. And when gobear and I were having our little tiff earlier in this thread, my hypothetically using the term at him would not have been received by him as an acknowledgment of his sexual-act preferences but as a deadly insult, meant and intended to be so – the more so for being accurate.
It might be quite possible for you to back down, say “In my opinion persons who hold a belief in God are delusory, because I don’t see evidence to back up their claims.” **Nobody **, AFAIK, would have a problem with that.
What you’re doing at this point, however, is attempting to play verbal sleight-of-hand, using the term insultingly and then taking an oh-so-innocent stance that “I only mean it as a descriptor.”
Well, no. You don’t get to decide for the world who is deluded and who is not. You have every right to make that determination for yourself, and I’ll be quick to defend your doing so as against the next fundy to show up and try to show you, “by the objective evidence of the Bible” :rolleyes: , where you’re wrong.
Some of us hold to a belief in an entity that we have experiential evidence of, which evidence might possibly be self-delusory, but which we have reason to believe is not. Many among that number are quick to accept the idea that if legend in Scripture contradicts the evidence of science, the Scriptural passage is most likely either figurative or incorrect. That does not affect the question of the validity of the deity supposed to have influenced the writers of Scripture – unless, as they do and we don’t, you assume it to be literally, dictation-wise inspired. But the idea that they had some experience of Him, and recorded it coupled with their own myths and legends, is not contradicted by the invalidity of any of those myths or legends. (“The Bible is not God” – something I keep pointing out to fundies, and didn’t think I needed to, to nonbelievers.)
Supposedly, I ought to be able to keep my cool and not be offended by your sanctimonious name-calling, and forgive you for it. I’m not that far along in my spirituality yet. That’s my problem, not yours.
But the idea that you are name-calling and then excusing it away on the basis of your own worldview, is your problem. If you don’t want a fundy insulting you for not buying his worldview on his say-so, you’re obliged to behave accordingly when the shoe is on the other foot.
Shit. I meant to put Grant in that last post too. Sorry Grant. But I just had to come back and amend this, because anyone who understands what we (?) have been saying, deserves recognition.
How can they be faithful if even scripture could be a trick? There are no axioms in such a system, and no rudders either. Or, if I simply reject this option, then, as you say, faith is devoid of logic. The philosphers of religion will surely be in a pickle without logic, I suppose, if faith has no logical guide or structure. Or, I suppose, faith supercedes all logic, in which case it’s useless to be philosophical about it (if there’s a philosophy in which logic is irrelevant, I’m interested in learning about it, in all sincerity). Now we have a choice between a system based on logic applied to experince, and a system where there is no logic, and a literalist interpetation (even when the Word is internally inconsistent) is the only viable mode of thought when explicit references are made. Otherwise, there is everything that is not described, which we must assume is arbitrary. Or, we arbitarily decide to apply logic to it, assuming a priori that God does not play tricks except where explicit references to potential tricks are made (like absence of evidence of a worldwide flood).
OK, I can sort of get my head around that. I’m not sure how that can be called an equally valid approach to the world, or how it is no less delusory than the one using logic informed by evidence. Seems to render the word delusion essentially meaningless, since everything potentially is. It’s like saying the idea of delusions is itself a delusion. All or nothing is delusion, I suppose, as evidence and logic are just something we choose arbitrarily to utilize. Flip a coin, be faithful or evidential. It doesn’t matter.
As for those who are not Biblical literalists: So what? If they have faith without evidence or concern for evidential contradiction in some-or-other portion of it (say, that Jesus is the God, and He rose from the dead, which I imagine is a minimal set of beliefs to be something other than an agnostic theist, or a theist without faith), how have we a person without delusion, granting the possibility delusion has some meaning at all?
Although artists have celebrated the beauty of the human form for centuries, many women dislike the way their body looks, and are too ashamed to even mention some of their body’s parts. I propose that all rational people invoke the fine old technique of synecdoche, and henceforth address women as “cunt.” This will help them understand the above self-evident reasoning, and they will develop a happier and more realistic appraisal of themselves.
Unless they’re deluded. Or need to get a thicker skin. Or . . .
Their faith tells them it’s not. THat’s the axiom you’re missing.
Again, I am making no claims about the validity of that system or any other. If you want to make a claim, it’s up to you to be the one to do so–and keep in mind that any claim about the validity of Occam’s Razor may not employ Occam’s Razor in its support.
Again, I’m pretty happy with my system relying on Occam’s Razor; it serves me well. But I’m not going to go over to the guy who’s feeling well-served by his Faith Uber Alles system and tell him he’s deluded, as long as he leaves me alone.
Well, let me ask. Polycarp, do you believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead? If so, on what evidence do you base that belief?
I hope it’s clear that I’m not lumping Polycarp et al. in with literalists (which literalists I can only understand by positing the Trickster God); claims of his delusion are even more ridiculous IMO. I am, rather, going even farther than Polycarp in my defense of religion: whereas he refers to the Universal-Flood Clowns, I actually don’t have a problem with them as long as they don’t want me to believe in the Universal Flood. (If he’s referring to a particular subset of believers who advance a material agenda, then my apologies).
If you don’t want to be polite, there are already words.
If you do want to be polite, the word cannot include a judgment about the worth of the beliefs.
And, again, if you say someone is religious, I’m gonna think that they are deluded. Apologies to the religious folk who may be reading this, as I’m not trying to offend you but to describe my beliefs. No word in the world will convey the delusional aspect of religion while being inoffensive to religious folk.
That’s like expecting a word to convey your loathing for women without being insulting to women. You either have to use a neutral term, with or without qualifiers, or you have to use a loaded term. Your choice.
Am I wrong, then, in wondering if you have doubts of certainty why you say you have faith? I would call this confidence, and I don’t mean to play with sematics here. And what passably stringent techniques have you used to dermine you are likely not in error, and hence confident?
Well, I rely on independent verification, do I not? So I am not a sole arbiter of anything. Since there is no verifiable evidence that I can see that informs your belief (not even consensus, it appears, givent he plethora of beliefs out there that claim such experience), I do not say the evidece is valid so much as to say it is absent, as far as I can tell. If you could show me the evidence, I’d be able to assess it’s validity in the manner you did, perhaps.
I don’t see how it’s “because I say so”. I’ve taken the available evidence and made observations. I’ve at least provided the evidence to show why I think they are valid by way of justification for that position, so I don’t see how I’m asking you to take only my word for it. And again, where is your invalidating evidence? How are you being respectful of my expression, insisting that I only speak arbitrarily and derisively?
Well, I don’t think I’ve been indecent, despite your assertions. It seems it’s your oppinion that I have been, and in that we differ. I suppose we are at something of an impasse, since your claim to indecency negates any need to respect my own oppinion on said decency. You’ve simply passed judgement, without considering any of the evidence I’ve provided to inform my observations as valid in any way, and hence justifiably reliant. And you’ve provided me with no evidence in return, only claims you’ve had experiences that you assert are valid. Why should I believe you? It’s not disrespectful, I think, to have doubts. Maybe you’re lying to me. How can I know? I don’t think I’ve lied about my position, because you can corroborate all the examples and observations I’ve given without any input from me whatsoever. What have you to offer me by way of an equivalent means of verification of your sincerity? Worse, since you claim I am merely wanton in my disrespect, you profess no need to offer up such evidence. I am beneath your contempt.
[/QUOTE]
They’re faith tells them to have faith in their faith? That’s an axiom? Looks like a perfect tautology to me. Are you saying the word “axiom” can include fallacy? Well, I suppose if you toss all logic, an axiom can be anything you say is self-evident and true, so why not. I can say something else, and it’s just as axiomatic, in that framework. Anyone can say anything, claim “faith is my axiom”, and ignore fallacy all they like then.
Fine. Once again, you’ve asserted the world is compeltely arbitrary, and I have abosultely no reason to favor one way of looking at it over another. I don’t even know how to evaluate a statement like that. It cannot be refuted, now that I think of it. In that case, ought I to bother?
ANOTHER good synopsis and example. However, unfortunately coffeecat, the idea you (we’re) trying to impart will (most likely) be ignored in it’s complete context or re-questioned although the particulars have been answered repeatedly a zillion times, by those that it is intended for.
But I (and I’m sure some others) thank you for it.
And who says I am? I never did any such thing. I only positied that he had faith in some portion of the belief system, sufficient to call him a Christian, which I assume means unquestioning belief in the risen Christ and His divinity. I suppose there might be some doubt to the “unquestioning” portion, as Polycarp has stated he has evaluated some subset of the beliefs critically based on some kind of evidence (though what that evidence is I cannot say).
I also note that Polycarp views the Biblical literalists in a negative light, perhaps even derisively (some are “hateful”, and/or “clowns”). My experience of fundamentalists is they do not believe they are hateful, nor clownish. They follow the Bible, they say, and feel they interpret it properly. I don’t think all of them believe imposing certain standards of Christian decency on others in their midst is hateful or immoral. It’s wrong, nay sinful, to allow others to kill the innocent, for instance, and hence it follows naturally that abortion, which is a form of killing innocents, should be banned. Perhaps they claim to have had experiences of the sort Polycarp has had, informing them of the rightness of their position. He appears to claim they have no right to behave that way, but they believe otherwise. Perhaps Polycarp would quote scripture (limited literalism) to provide evidence (presuming, of course, that scripture is an objective kind of evidence upon which they should both agree), that they have no such right, thus negating a portion of their belief in a rather direct sort of way. Or does he suffer their imposition in silence out of respect, or try to use other language besides “hateful” and “clown” in their presence to avoid making them feel demeaned?
Putting your petulance aside, I’ll answer your question:
NO. YOU SHOULD NOT BOTHER.
That’s what I’ve been getting at all along. Your claims of other folks’ delusions are unsupported by evidence, on a metaphysical level, SO YOU SHOULD NOT BOTHER MAKING THOSE CLAIMS.