BS: The Delusion delusion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 07:17 PM

Steve and this is a big IF.

If there was a power beyond our understanding, how would you expect to prove and explain it?

The easy way out is to deny it/

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 07:25 PM

I've still to meet anybody who can prove that I exist.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 07:27 PM

I will accept you posting as proof of you existing Dave ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 07:40 PM

Steve and this is a big IF.

If there was a power beyond our understanding, how would you expect to prove and explain it?

The easy way out is to deny it/

For about the eleventeenth time, I am not interested in proof. Nothing we are talking about will ever be susceptible to proof one way or the other. I really wish we could get that out of the way once and for all. If you think there's a power beyond all understanding (which means a power that sidesteps all the laws of nature, etc.), then I'm very interested but I require proof. Not claims by "witnesses," visions, the traditions of the good book, the fact that billions have been persuaded, nice church architecture and church music, etc., and all the rest...evidence. I have no easy way out because I'm not in in the first place. I deny nothing, but I do declare that your God notion is highly-improbable, for the oft-stated reasons. Show me your evidence and I promise to change my mind. Evidence, mind, not bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Amos
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 07:52 PM

Steve,

I greatly appreciate your intention to remain hard-nosed and ration on this topic.

However, you're walking along one side of a boundary condition. The arguments in favor of spiritual extent or dimension are by their nature not evidentiary in physical terms. There can be evidence, but unfortunately it will not meet the "objective, repeatable" criteria we usually hold out for physical experiments. I don't know who it was that first said "writing about music is like dancing about architecture" but this discussion--and the many similar ones that have preceded it -- are bouncing against the same wall.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 08:07 PM

Existence is futile (or something).

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 08:14 PM

For about the eleventeenth time, I am not interested in proof.

If you think there's a power beyond all understanding (which means a power that sidesteps all the laws of nature, etc.), then I'm very interested but I require proof

?????

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 08:31 PM

The arguments in favor of spiritual extent or dimension are by their nature not evidentiary in physical terms.

I'm not arguing at all against spirituality (though I don't pretend to understand some of the fuzzy notions put around about it). I'm not Mr Spock and I do have my inner moments. I'm arguing against a pretty concrete notion, that there is a supernatural being who's in charge of all stuff and always was and ever will be. That is not spirituality. It's perfectly valid to require evidence before you'll believe stuff, including (and especially) stuff that apparently goes against all natural laws. God isn't my idea any more than a celestial teapot is my idea. I will believe in both or either once I have evidence. That isn't hard-nosed, it's normal and sensible. To believers, it's a very inconvenient demand, but that doesn't stop it from being a very valid demand.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 08:35 PM

I couldn't have been clearer, could I, Jon? You think there's a higher power, fine. I don't agree with you, though of course I could be wrong. But, as the notion is yours, not mine, and because it is utterly counter-intuitive, I remain to be convinced that you have a notion worth entertaining. So show me some evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 08:46 PM

But Steve, if this power exists, only he can reveal himself to you in ways he chooses. I can state that I've seen enough in my life to convince me my previous scientific and atheist beliefs were flawed but I can not show you he is there any more than you can prove to me he is not there. As I think Amos hinted at, we can just wind up battering at brick walls when we try.


I do argue with you over your use of terms like celestial teapot. It does wind me up, make we want to argue to prove I am right even though it can get nowhere but I find things like that unnecessarily insulting.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 08:56 PM

"I finally began to understand that it is distinctly possible to stay too long at the Fair".

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 08:59 PM

How many miles to Babylon?
Three score miles and and ten—
Can I get there by candlelight?
Yes, and back again—
If your feet are nimble and light
You can get there by candlelight.

"GOODBYE TO ALL THAT"                                           by Joan Didion

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 06:01 AM

But Steve, if this power exists, only he can reveal himself to you in ways he chooses. I can state that I've seen enough in my life to convince me my previous scientific and atheist beliefs were flawed but I can not show you he is there any more than you can prove to me he is not there.

This is standard believer talk. God has been carefully constructed so as to be beyond science, beyond the need for evidence. He works in mysterious ways which we have no right to question, let alone comprehend. But constructed he is, unfortunately for him, and by some very earth-bound individuals. I reserve the right to ask for evidence on the grounds that it's reasonable to expect to have some before I start to believe. And take insult from flying teapots all you like. It wasn't a personal attack on anyone and in fact it was a post responding to someone else. And for the twelveteenth time, I don't want you to prove anything and I can't prove anything to you. Red herring.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 06:09 AM

Of course it is standard believer talk....   Red herring, I do not think so.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 06:18 AM

Sorry, missed where you where saying red herring, Steve, For either of us to prove and convert the other would be a red herring or daft attempt. Apologies there.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 06:39 AM

Totally OT Steve but curiosity leads me ask are you the flute and whistle man?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 08:47 AM

No, I play Irish tunes on harmonicas.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 08:56 AM

At least we have a couple of things in common then Steve! I can not play harmonica to that degree but I well remember getting one as a present as a young child and waking up at 4 in the am say and being able to get some tune out before parents woke up. I also at least when well enough love an Irish session but my instruments are GDAE strings - mandolin and tenor banjo.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 12:14 PM

Be the god delusion thread as it may, this one goes farther afiled in psychology, mind set and paradigms. be that as it may, Hitchins rules.

I consider people who are stuck in one perception despite all the changes that have occured making their orpiginal perception a heinous mistake. It takes willful ignorance and deliberate blindness to the changes that happen to stay in one's original "delusion".

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: John P
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 11:00 AM

On the reincarnation question: I think reincarnation is more possible than god. At least with reincarnation, while there is no evidence for it, there is also no evidence against it. With god, there is a preponderance of evidence against the idea as well as there not being any evidence for it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 11:41 AM

"...with reincarnation, while there is no evidence for it, there is also no evidence against it."

Hmmm... I'd say that IF you consider there to be 'evidence' against God, many of the same reasons would apply to reincarnation. After all, they both posit metaphysical concepts that require much subjective definition and speculation. Reincarnation assumes that 'something' hangs around after death...for some unspecified time in some unspecified place.... and then 'enters' a new body in some unspecified way. Sounds like a 'soul' to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 11:44 AM

This article takes the state of delusion to the highest order.


The Ultimate Delusion

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 12:04 PM

My favourite part of the article I linked to is:

"There are no states, just corporations. Every body politic on this planet is a corporation. A corporation is an artificial entity, a fiction at law. They only exist in your mind. They are images in your mind, that speak to you. We labor, pledge our property and give our children to a fiction.... you also have been declared a fictional entity."

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 12:05 PM

It's not a matter of criticizing the people who think in deluded terms. It's questioning the delusion(s) themselves. We all have the right to do this and to shut up the critics is tantamount to muzzling free speech and dissent.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 12:15 PM

But what are delusions, Frank? I might think an atheist deluded. You might think a Christian deluded...

OTOH, I suspect we both agree that a dreadful desire for power and wealth is a delusion but are we deluded in thinking that? (I think not personally)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 12:51 PM

John, there is no physical evidence for reincarnation. And how could there be? But there is a simply vast amount of evidence for it in the form of people (most often young children) who have recall all sorts of detailed stuff from other lives that they would have no way of knowing, stuff that was then confirmed by investigation, and thousands of such cases are well documented. That's experiential evidence that is pretty convincing...if one bothers to investigate it seriously.

To say that there is "no evidence" therefore, is merely to state a prejudice...not a fact...and that prejudice is based on your lack of knowledge of the subject, I would think.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Amos
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 01:22 PM

a pretty concrete notion, that there is a supernatural being who's in charge of all stuff and always was and ever will be

Well, if I understand you aright, I am inclined to agree; I think subordinating one's existence to such a postulated critter is doing oneself a disservice of the first order.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 02:56 PM

"It's not a matter of criticizing the people who think in deluded terms. It's questioning the delusion(s) themselves"

IMO, it is a matter of showing respect, rather than disrespecting anothers persons belief. Of course, free speech allows a broad scope to say just about anything one wants, in just about any way. But, as moral and social folks, with a degree of kindness, questioning a belief can be done in a way that respects others and avoids discourse. But, the faceless internet stimulates many folks to "shoot from the hip, (often using unkind language) at others in a way most would never do in a face to face discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 04:14 PM

Yes, and that is the main problem with communication on the Internet.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 10:21 PM

Speaking of delusions...EVERYBODY on the left bitched, pissed and moaned at Bush for the 'Patriot Act'....and how right wing Nazi paranoia, it was of him to enact it...remember?(all I have to do is pull up the 'Patriot Act' thread.....well as it turns out....ity was none other than Joe Biden.

And you thought I was 'right wing'?...when I've been telling you all along, it was both parties pushing a bullshit globalist agenda, and being used through corruption to accomplish it!!

I think a lot of you are 'nutzo', and not very forward or independent thinking. Time to re-check out the propaganda you read, and accept as Gospel!

Suckers!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 10:30 PM

CORRECTION:

Speaking of delusions...EVERYBODY on the left bitched, pissed and moaned at Bush for the 'Patriot Act'....and how right wing Nazi paranoia, it was of him to enact it...remember?(all I have to do is pull up the 'Patriot Act' thread, to refresh your memories).....well as it turns out....it was originated and conceived by,none other than Joe Biden.

And you thought I was 'right wing'?...when I've been telling you all along, it was both parties pushing a bullshit globalist agenda, and being used through corruption to accomplish it!!

I think a lot of you are 'nutzo', and not very forward or independent thinking. Time to re-check out the propaganda you read, and accept as Gospel!

Suckers!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 06:14 AM

"IMO, it is a matter of showing respect, rather than disrespecting anothers persons belief."

IMO, in the same way that one can show respect to the Office, but not necessarily to the person who holds it, one can have respect for the person without necessarily having any respect for the gibbering nonsense they sometimes utter.... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 06:30 AM

OK, but it is all right to respectfully suggest to someone that they ditch their delusions? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 06:34 AM

I don't think so Steve BUT it is fine for you to respectfully present your own beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 07:06 AM

I was joking.

If I thought you had a deluded belief it would be dishonest of me to respect it. I have to confine myself to respecting you as a person who, like all the rest of us, is full of flaws. Your flaws might be a bit different to mine, that's all. You might be the finest chap in the neighbourhood to talk cricket with or the town's best whistle player. Grand, all that I can respect and admire and be in awe of. But I can't respect a belief you have that is founded on nothing except tendentious witness, hearsay, tradition, an ancient and heavily-flawed book, what equally-deluded people have told you to believe and downright superstition. We probably won't even talk about it. I can live with that. As ever, what I can't respect is a person who wishes to propagate deluded beliefs to other, impressionable people.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: andrew e
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 07:11 AM

Why have a belief at all?

If you don't know something for sure, just leave it open in your mind.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 07:28 AM

As we saw before, beliefs can have various degrees of consequences in practice, affecting other persons. For example, a model of tolerance might say: "You say you believe Allah tells you to fly a plane into the WTC. Well, I respect your good intentions, but I personally hold the view that an airport is a more adequate place for a plane."

Unfortunately, conflicts cannot be avoided. Then it is not the best idea to present your own beliefs in full length. Instead, find weak points in your opponents' argumentation. For example, you could point out that Allah (if he/He existed) would not want the reputation of Islam blemished. Often conflicts can be solved without anyone feeling defeated. When every such attempt has failed, it is time to stand firm.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 07:35 AM

You might be the finest chap in the neighbourhood to talk cricket with

OT but definitely not... But amongst childhood heroes were the great WI side with Viv Richards, Gordon Greenidge, Michael Holding, etc. and I did once meet Clive Lloyd/

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 07:47 AM

Think the only crickter I wound up in an maybe 1/4 hr chat with was Don Shepherd This was in a pub in N Wales after a game. Lovely person.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 12:30 PM

Garfield Sobers was the pro for my town team in the north of England when I was a little lad. I once watched him score a quick hundred and take nine-fer all in one afternoon, and he stood within feet of me as he was fielding on the boundary! We also, at different times, had Frank Worrall, Everton Weekes and Sonny Ramadhin. Ah, those were the days. Shane Warne played for Accrington in the Lancashire League too in his early days. Apparently the local batters knocked him all over the park. Heheh.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 12:35 PM

Wow! Garry Sobers is a little before my time (and the Glamorgan player I mentioned above had retired - doing BBC Wales work when I spoke to him)... but some famous names there!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 01:03 PM

To continue with the cricket drift. Somewhere here there is an autograph book, Got Graham Pollock, Lance Gibbs and I think Mike Proctor in there.... It was a game in Colwyn Bay - I think one side was called the Cavaliers. Again really a bit before my memory although I do remember that when I was encouraged to collect autographs that day Fred Trueman was a miserable git, refusing any and going into the bar.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 01:21 PM

"one can have respect for the person without necessarily having any respect for the they sometimes utter"

A good start may be not to call it "gibbering nonsense" to the person, or to resist the temptation, and not get on the topic at all:)

"Why have a belief at all?

If you don't know something for sure, just leave it open in your mind".

Well, I guess that would rule out much of life, that one does not know for sure?

That would include "stuff" like a belief that your wife is beautiful....at least until her "looks" are put through some type of test to certify she really does or doesn't fit the universal mold for such a belief, (if such a test exists).

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 01:40 PM

Fred Trueman was a miserable git

Aye, bloody Yorkshiremen. Tykes, the lot of 'em.

Steve (a Lancashire lad)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 02:56 PM

As Andrew said, "Why have a belief at all?"

Beliefs are usually just opinions, and opinions can be in error, therefore beliefs are very often in error as well...and this goes just as much for the nonreligious (who have all kinds of beliefs and opinions about stuff that they don't necessarily KNOW yet)...as it does for the religious, who likewise have all kinds of beliefs and opinions about stuff that they don't necessarily KNOW yet. They may think they KNOW it. ;-D But if they haven't dealt with it directly through actual experience, they don't KNOW it, they just have an opinion about it.

So why have beliefs? Beliefs are just a bunch of talk. But if you KNOW something by direct experience, you know it without a doubt. Like I know what an apple is! Because I've dealt with apples. And if you don't know it, you are welcome to have any opinion you want about it, but you should be honest enough to admit you don't know it...and can neither confirm or deny it with absolute certainty. No one here can either confirm or deny the existence of God, unless they've had some sort of direct encounter with what they would term "God"...in which case they KNOW it to their own satisfaction allright, but they cannot provide that knowledge or prove it to anyone else, and neither can anyone else disprove it, and it's a waste of time TRYING to prove it or disprove it to anyone else.

I don't believe in reincarnation...nor do I disbelieve in reincarnation....but my opinion about reincarnation is that it's quite likely something that does happen and is real, and I base that opinion on a whole bunch of stuff I've encountered or read about...but it's not a belief of mine. It's an opinion of mine.

I don't believe or disbelieve in God. I have no basis for either believing or disbelieving in God at this point, because I haven't had a direct encounter with God (that I was aware of) and there's no possible way I could with certainty prove that there is no God either.

I KNOW I'm alive. And that I'm human. And that I'm sitting here at my desk and typing as I type this. Those aren't beliefs, they're direct knowledge.

I think that I probably have a soul, and that there is probably an afterlife. It's not a belief either. It's an opinion. I think there are probably aliens visiting this planet from time to time. Not a belief...an opinion. I think there was a plot to kill John Kennedy that involved other people, not just Lee Harvy Oswald. Not a belief...an opinion.

Who needs "beliefs"? All we have is what we KNOW for certain....and the rest is our opinions...and our opinions are formed on the basis of what we think is most probable, and that's all there is to it.

You can disagree with an opinion, but why attack it on the basis of it supposedly being a "belief" when it's just an opinion? Just recognize that it is an opinion, and if you want to disagree with it, that's fine, but if you cannot disprove it, don't act like you absolutely KNOW whether or not it is so. Cos you don't. You just have another opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 05:05 PM

"I KNOW I'm alive. And that I'm human. And that I'm sitting here at my desk and typing as I type this"

Doesn't prove anything. I definitely don't exist (and Harvey agrees - he should know) and I'm sitting here typing a reply.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 05:38 PM

I didn't say it would prove anything, Dave. ;-D I just said I KNOW it from direct experience of it. That doesn't impinge in the slightest upon your freedom to take issue with whatever I say and contradict it, merely because it pleases you to do so. I know how capricious people are here, how self-satisfied and competitive they are, how inflated their little egos are, what pleasure they take in opposing anyone else's assertions, and I expect that sort of response from a few such people here, no matter what I should happen to say to them. I even could say that YOU exist, for example, and you might choose to deny it, just to spite me or to spin a clever wordweb for your own satisfaction.

And it doesn't matter. Nothing people say here matters. Nothing that happens here matters. Nothing you or I say here matters. Nothing that is said here proves anything or ever will. It's sheer vanity to imagine it would. It's like listening to a bunch of silly birds chattering at the feeder. We all just do it because we like to talk....same as those birds at the feeder. This place is Bullshit Central, so dig in and enjoy it!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 05:41 PM

So glad you agree with me, Little Hawk.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,999
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 05:43 PM

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 05:47 PM

Yeah. ;-) Agreement is relatively rare here, but it happens now and then. Sort of like a brief moment of calm at the noisy seagull rookery.