BS: The Delusion delusion.

Subject: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 04:02 PM

Are people really deluded or do some just not understand their reasoning. Christian, atheist, agnostic.... whatever.. we are all entitled to believe whatever we want... what makes anyone who posts on those threads think they have the right to criticise anyone who thinks differently to the way they do???? Maybe we are all deluded! Yes even you!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 04:14 PM

Georgiansilver

Seems odd doesn't it. But, I'm not sure if opening another thread will abate the nonsense.

A few "very charged folks" post more like those from the religious organizations they criticize, than the objective people they say they are.

What I have seen are statements from a few that "individuals can believe whatever they want", as long as they don't push it on others. Then, they agressively try and push their views on others, limit debate, and go on to criticize those with other beliefs as if they are mindless fools.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 04:14 PM

To answer you, not that I live in hope of getting anywhere, no-one has suggested to my knowledge that people are not entitled to believe whatever they want. As for criticising, well we all have the right to criticise but we also have some kind of responsibility not to do it gratuitously or with prejudice. I could suggest that you pick up people who have transgressed in this manner rather than spouting some kind of aimless frustration at threads containing material you find disagreeable. In other words, use your brain.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 04:30 PM

We DO "believe whatever we want". If that's all you mean by 'entitled', it means little. Someone might believe that elves come out and dance in the moonlight when we are not looking, or that Martians are spying on their meals...but almost everyone else might see that in some cases someone "... who thinks differently to the way they do..." can indicate a flaw.

Still, if they are functioning ok otherwise, and harming no one else, we mostly shrug.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 04:32 PM

For other examples of 'interesting' thinking, see the thread on the Pope and condom use... *smile*

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 05:29 PM

the last word on the subject

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 05:47 PM

It's perfectly true that we are all deluded; but you have to realize that some delusions are better than others...


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 05:48 PM

LOL @Amos

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:03 PM

".. we are all entitled to believe whatever we want"

Well, maybe, but if someone is deluded that murdering me will benefit them, then I object!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:09 PM

You object if you are the object?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:17 PM

He objects if it isn't his idea.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:18 PM

Ahhh, so, that is his ideal objective.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:31 PM

Beware of the Nigerian "delusion confusion" thread scam.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: andrew e
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:38 PM

"Belief" is just a word for deciding in our own minds whether something
is true or not, without knowing for sure.

People with strong beliefs need other people to agree with them. They feel the more who agree with them, the more likelihood of them being right!

A belief or non belief in something of course doesn't make it true or not.
Everyone used to believe the world was flat. And they didn't like it when someone told them maybe it wasn't.

For myself I don't use the word "believe" any more. I just go with my feelings, and leave other people's ideas/beliefs open.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:53 PM

Everyone used to believe the world was flat. And they didn't like it when someone told them maybe it wasn't.

That's a delusion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 07:00 PM

"Everyone used to believe the world was flat."

Actually, there is documentary evidence in the existence of some hardware from Ancient Greek times that not only was the earth a sphere, but they also believed in the Heliocentric Universe, not the RC promoted flat or Earth centric theory.

Antikythera mechanism

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 07:02 PM

The mechanism demonstrates retrograde motion of certain planets, displaying the correct mathematical understanding of the motion of the solar system.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 07:05 PM

Please remember that the original topic was the book "The God Delusion" by biologist Richard Dawkins, who claims to pin down the mechanisms of religiosity as a result of evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 07:11 PM

You only need to see a curved horizon and sail towards it for long enough for it to be obvious that the earth isn't flat.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 07:34 PM

Please remember that the original topic was the book "The God Delusion" by biologist Richard Dawkins, who claims to pin down the mechanisms of religiosity as a result of evolution.

Huh? Not in my copy he doesn't. Are you sure you've read it?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 07:36 PM

"You only need to see a curved horizon and sail towards it for long enough for it to be obvious that the earth isn't flat"

There goes the flatware that I left in my flat, with my flat-chested friend.

Considering the world is round, versus flat, (in the future) if you have really good eyesight and strategically placed mirrors, it may be possible to look far back, and unaided by telescopes, see your own bunghole. Note that I am just say'in may be...so don't create a thread condemning my "flirtations" with the future.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 07:40 PM

if you have really good eyesight and strategically placed mirrors, it may be possible to look far back, and unaided by telescopes, see your own bunghole.
Yup. And you'll see lots of speech bubbles coming out of it, Ed. I wouldn't recommend it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 07:41 PM

"There goes the flatware that I left in my flat, with my flat-chested friend"

How I pine for natures curves.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 07:42 PM

I looked back and just saw Steve. The mirrors work.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 07:44 PM

"I looked back and just saw Steve. The mirrors work"

Opps, I forgot. :)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 08:25 PM

You appear to have forgotten how to communicate clearly, that's for sure. Two posts and I'm scratching my head.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 08:47 PM

There ur go'in off again, Wacko Stevo....(Oops, sorry I'm infringing on ur trademark insults on Jack the sailor boy).:)

Don't be scratch'in ur greyish, foxy head too hard (try'in to figure things out). It may contribute to early brain injury and ur going bald. (and, before you quip back in ur good-old inter-post'in retaliation, I'm not saying that would be the start of any such thing as brain mold. Let's be clear, I'm not say'in that).

Why not take a break, have some tae, or, go Christmas shop'in or something, ta relax yaself.
LMAO

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 08:52 PM

I'm perfectly relaxed and sitting back and waiting for you to explain the two posts above my last one. The Rosetta Stone would be a simpler task.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 09:01 PM

Mr. Steve:

I am comforted that u are a perfectly relaxed "one,in waiting".   

Yet, I have great confidence that u have it in u to move forward, and figure it out for ur self. Search deep, and may a God be with u in this journey :)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 09:06 PM

I am under the delusion that someone sees or even understands one of my posters. The hours it takes to do even one will never be worth the time, but perhaps taken as hundreds together the waste of time will be enhanced.

United States of Amnesia, Obnoxia and Toxic Ass et Holes

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: frogprince
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 09:14 PM

"Please remember that the original topic was the book "The God Delusion" by biologist Richard Dawkins, who claims to pin down the mechanisms of religiosity as a result of evolution."

How about remembering that that was the original topic of a previous thread, , not this one.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 11:07 PM

Yeah, it was. But so what?

Anyway, what does this sentence even mean:

"the original topic was the book "The God Delusion" by biologist Richard Dawkins, who claims to pin down the mechanisms of religiosity as a result of evolution."

Uhhhh....what???? Say that again? Is he saying that religiosity a result of evolution? Or is it an attempt to describe the results of evolution? Is Dawkins aware that a number of major Eastern religions and philosophies regard evolution as being both physical and spiritual, the two being innately connected to one another, or does he only have a bone to pick with the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 12:35 AM

Personally, I do not know where Dawkins comes from but he does strike me as being a head battering type. He might get cheers of applause from his fellow believers but from the little I have read about him, he stikes me as being every bit as bad as a holier than though Christian (which in my view is very different to a Christian with deep faith who might wish others shared their faith -one carries a superiority of person and mind and the other doesn't)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 05:25 AM

In his pre-2006 books, Dawkins tried to explain altruism as a result of evolution. He wrote that the resulting beliefs have originally been helpful for evolution, but now turned out to be dangerous delusions. His notion of delusion was meant quite literally (such as prayers for rain not being answered), not philosophically, and that is the only thing of which I wanted to remind us.

Of "The God Delusion", I only read those snippets in other media, and indeed I don't want to read more, let alone discuss it. If it withdraws Dawkins' previous ideas, I stand corrected.

In the other thread the author's recent media activities are discussed, obviously far away from science.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 06:13 AM

Then again, psychosis, which results in anti-social actions against the community, has been said to perhaps have evolutionary benefits to the one who profits by such actions. When there were fewer people, in smaller separated groups, they would run out of tolerance, and move on to another group. Which is what still happens today, except it happens in sub groups of people amongst the larger population ...

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 07:11 AM

Foulestroupe: not only "psychosis", but also ordinary selfish behaviour can have its benefits and is therefore included in our genetic heritage. Some call it "original sin". The dialectics between cooperation and selfishness are being studied by a branch of mathematics called game theory.

Evolution of plants and animals is based on our very special way of inheritance, called genetics, which leads to a special mathematical framework.

Science can make theories about what happens, but will never tell us what we should try to make happen. Dawkins knows this well and chooses to abandon the role of a scientist. Cf. Wikipedia articles.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 07:45 AM

I can live with being deluded, just not denuded as by the TSA viewing my unmentionables   .... uh....

HEY! Denuded is the opposite of nekkid isn't it? So scratch that... just so long as I am not precluded.

Fek that's impossible too..

I think I'll retract first statement. I'd rather not be deluded or prelewded or decluded.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 08:32 AM

Would you rather be included, excluded, intruded or extruded?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Amos
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 10:53 AM

Science can make theories about what happens, but will never tell us what we should try to make happen.

I don't think Dawkins does know this. And I am further not entirely persuaded it is true. It is possible there is a rational and quantifiable way to formulate ethics and the nature of right action.

Maybe.



A

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 10:58 AM

It's amazing how many critics of Dawkins haven't actually read the book they are so quick to criticise. So we get this:

Dawkins knows this well and chooses to abandon the role of a scientist. Cf. Wikipedia articles

And this:

Personally, I do not know where Dawkins comes from but he does strike me as being a head battering type. He might get cheers of applause from his fellow believers but from the little I have read about him, he stikes me as being every bit as bad as a holier than though Christian [sic]

At least, in Christian-type countries, we were force-fed the Bible. No-one forces anyone to read Dawkins. No wonder atheists often sound far more knowledgeable than Christians. God, I could be trolling...

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 11:06 AM

As I posted elsewhere, I switched on BBC Radio 4 earlier this year and heard a well known scientist making a good case for the existence of God. The scientist was Richard Dawkins, and I don't think he realized he was talking about God.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Amos
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 11:10 AM

He probably didn't think he was doing what you interpreted him as doing, then.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 11:24 AM

Steve, your first quotation is from my post, and so is Amos'. I referred to Dawkins' statements in his earlier books which I did read. In these he frequently attacks self-appointed Darwinists who wrongly conclude statements about human society. He makes a point that it should be possible to explain existing ethics by evolution biology, but not to found new ones.

I tried not to convey any positive or negative criticism, not even of what I read, but I could have done both.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 11:38 AM

Ah yes, another installment in the never-ending delusion series! Face it, delusion is a subject which lends itself to interminable discussion only because no two people agree on what it means. If we could all agree on one narrow definition, then the subject would exhaust itself in short order.

In order to be labeled delusional, an idea or belief must be capable of being proven false. That it cannot be proven to be true does not make it a delusion. Nobody has yet been able to definitively confirm the validity of belief in God, astrology, UFOs, or psychokinesis. But failure to prove validity does not prove invalidity. Therefore, such beliefs are not delusional.

Belief that one's mother is a cockroach is delusional. It can be proven to be false. Belief that one's mother is a reincarnation of an entity which was a cockroach in a previous life is not delusional. It can't be proven to be true, but it can't be proven to be false either.

Any discussion which ignores that distinction is not about delusion. It's about prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 01:04 PM

Belief that one's mother is a cockroach is delusional. It can be proven to be false. Belief that one's mother is a reincarnation of an entity which was a cockroach in a previous life is not delusional. It can't be proven to be true, but it can't be proven to be false either.

This isn't really the point. What is delusional about religion/faith/God is not that you believe in it but that you act, or live your life, according to your belief in it (and, worse, compel others, such as your children, to act accordingly). By any measure of rationality, the likelihood of God's existing is vanishingly small. I'll spare you my three-point argument for that as I've parroted it out a number of times already on those other threads. It is therefore rational to live your life in spite of what others believe about him. It is not rational to live your life according to a notion that is exceptionally-highly improbable. As for mother being a cockroach, the dedicated believer would argue that you can't prove she isn't one because he sees a cockroach shape where you see a woman shape. Believers always have last resorts of this kind. The belief that she was cockroach in a previous existence is slightly different to a belief in God because you can hardly live your whole life according to that belief. There isn't much you can do to modify your behaviour as a result of it, unlike the belief in God. Though again, you could put up a very good argument for the probability of her once having been a cockroach to be vanishingly small, even though you can't prove she wasn't. Let's say that on Dawkins' belief scale, on which he places himself as 6.9 out of 7 on the non-belief scale, you could plausibly say that you believe mother was never a cockroach, score 6.9. And you believe that the ex-cockroach notion is still a non-delusional belief. I don't really think I agree.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Amos
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 01:42 PM

By any measure of rationality, the likelihood of God's existing is vanishingly small.

Boy, you are sitting on a can of worms and trying to pretend it's a toilet seat with that one. If by "God" you mean the overmuscled pater noster flying through the universe with a bad attitude, I am inclined to believe you. But if you (as you seem to do) embrace in that word all the meanings it has been attached to, I would say you failed to tag first base.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 03:06 PM

The belief in reincarnation is by no means inconsequential. In India and in some other societies, it is used to justify inequalities by birth, claiming that they reflect merits in former lives. The Brahmins typically have no problem with it, whereas the Untouchables are told that they owe their status to their previous incarnations' lack of good Karma.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 03:53 PM

At least, in Christian-type countries, we were force-fed the Bible

Maybe once but it wasn't really my experience. I perhaps could argue schools force feed everything but the bible was no more force fed in that sense than the theory of evolution or genetics in biology and if I was persuaded anywhere by school as someone who got A in his o level biology and unclassified failure in his RE, I could argue which force feeding worked for me at that time was certainly not religion.

My later changes in belief were not force fed by anyone..

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 06:56 PM

Boy, you are sitting on a can of worms and trying to pretend it's a toilet seat with that one. If by "God" you mean the overmuscled pater noster flying through the universe with a bad attitude, I am inclined to believe you. But if you (as you seem to do) embrace in that word all the meanings it has been attached to, I would say you failed to tag first base.

OK. So here I go again. I don't care what your concept of God is. A big beardie guy up there, a spirit running through all things, a force who initiates things an' then lets 'em run... all these "concepts" fall at all the same hurdles. There is no evidence for any of them. Any of them requires the laws of physics to be circumvented, nay, denied. All of them presuppose a presence who must be infinitely more complex and inexplicable than all the complexities and hard-to-explain things he's supposed to be there to explain. You try to explain things by seeking evidence and using that mighty bloody thing between your ears, like Charles Darwin did. You do not explain anything at all by magicking up a being who is too complex to be explained and more inexplicable, permanently so (unlike natural phenomena, which we use our mighty brains to close in on relentlessly), than the most complicated things in the universe. Hey, I ran to first base and there was no-one there. God was sitting in the pavilion looking totally pissed off. Well you would, wouldn't you, when you'd been made utterly redundant by that self-same mighty human brain. God invented your brain, allegedly, and now finds it's his worst enemy. That's why his followers are so desperate to stop you from using it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 07:05 PM

The belief in reincarnation is by no means inconsequential.

Belief in reincarnation is no more plausible than belief in God. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. I care not a jot for traditions in various religions. What I want is evidence. I ask for this and never get any. Not witness or hearsay or tradition or myth. Evidence. Show me someone who can prove they existed in a former life. You just can't, because there isn't anybody (except for people making ludicrous claims that we're all supposed to respect and believe). I promise you, I'll believe anything that's supported by evidence.