BS: The Delusion delusion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 05:25 PM

KirstenE differentiated between Anti-theists and Atheists (and agnostics). I'd have thought that (especially in context) her meaning was quite clear: an atheist believes in the non-existence of God and anti-theist is agressively so.

Also, not all religions believe in God, and there is an ongoing debate, "Is religion compatible with abelief in God?"

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 07:49 PM

an atheist believes in the non-existence of God and anti-theist is agressively so

Here we go again. That is a total misrepresentation of atheism. Dave thinks there are nice quiet ones and those who actually tell other people why they're atheists (the aggressive ones). Atheists, Dave, don't not believe in God. They don't believe in no God either. There is no engagement. We know there are people who think a God exists (they are very loud about it, so much so that religion occupies a sort of default position in much of the world) and we are simply waiting to see the evidence. Until such times the notions of believers will not impact on our lives (well, it's hard to avoid but we try hard not to let it). Get it right.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 08:55 PM

Steve, there are probably many different understandings out there of what the word "atheist" means, including among atheists themselves! You have just given your definition of the word atheist, but I'm sure you don't speak for all atheists.

I avoid this sort of pigeonholing and fighting over the definitions of terms by refusing to label myself as anything but a human being. ;-) I'm not an atheist. I'm not a theist. I'm not an agnostic. I'n not a Christian. I'm not a Buddhist. I'm not a Hindu. I'm not an existentialist. I'm not a deist. I'm a human being. Period. If people want to know what I believe, they have to talk to me at considerable length about many, many things, because I cannot be neatly defined by some debatable and possibly very misleading term like "atheist" or "agnostic" or "deist" or whatever else they might come up with. It's not that simple. You can't accurately define people most by such words, in my opinion, because the labelling words themselves usually mislead the listener, due to the listener's preconceived notions about the labels. If he is prejudiced against the label, he'll assume a whole bunch of negative stuff about the person labelled...but it may not be accurate. If he is prejudiced in favor of the label, he'll assume a whole bunch of positive stuff about the person labelled...but it may not be accurate.

The one vital thing about other people is character. To know their character, you have to get to know them...and that takes a good deal of time. You won't know their character by a label like "Christian", "atheist" or "agnostic"....it won't give you any insight at all into their character, because people of every sort of character, good and bad, are found under all those labels.

I know this from direct experience, not merely as a theory. ;-)

I don't concern myself with what other people "believe". I concern myself with their character...that is...how do they behave toward both themselves and others? That is the vital matter. That is the part that directly impacts you, me, and them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 09:09 PM

Yes but you are defining yourself in the negative all the time. You're saying what you're not. Atheists aren't "not" anything. Believers are the Johnny-come-latelies, not us, and it ill behoves us to allow them to define us on their terms, which is what you're doing. It is something I feel atheists should resist, and, in my experience, most do. After all, we've already gone far enough by allowing ourselves to be called a-theists.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 09:26 PM

I am not defining myself in the negative when I say "I am a human being". I think it's a very noble and worthy thing to be a human being.

I am simply avoiding having my humanity crammed into these little narrow mental boxes people have come up with like...

atheist
agnostic
existentialist
Christian
Muslim
Hindu
capitalist
socialist
communist
Buddhist
etc...

Because, you see...those little boxes are too way small to contain a unique human being. A human being is bigger than those kind of narrow definitions, he goes way beyond those definitions, and they will only serve to mislead.

To know me you must know me not by such labels, but by my entire being....and that takes a good deal of time and acquaintance! It takes patience!

People usually just opt for labelling because they are too mentally lazy to bother taking the necessary time and trouble to actually look beyond the labels when dealing with other people. If they did look beyond the labels, they'd find many unique human beings like themselves, and the labels wouldn't rise up to divide them against one another.

You see the possibility I am holding forth, Steve? I'm suggesting that we can go beyond the trap of labelling ourselves and others and find the many things we have in common rather than fighting over the few things we don't have in common.

That is not negative thinking. It's very positive thinking. I am defining myself be the positive thing I am...and you are that too...not by the many little labels that I am not.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 09:32 PM

By the way, Steve, I don't define you as an atheist. You choose to label yourself that way, but I don't label you that way. You're another human being to me, not an atheist. I don't care what you believe or don't believe...I care how you behave, because that directly affects me and you. This goes the same for other people too. What concerns me is: How do they behave? Are they friendly? Are they unfriencly? Are the helpful? Are they harmful? Are they honest? Are they dishonest? Are they reliable? Or not?

Those are the matters that concern me...not their religious beliefs or the lack thereof.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 10:20 PM

I think this is more accurate...

of, if you want it cleaner...

but I like the music better in the other one..

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: John P
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 10:35 PM

Little Hawk, when you say that labels can't identify a whole person, you are just stating the obvious. What in the world makes you think anyone thinks otherwise? The problem with your sanctimonious mocking of folks who are having these discussions is that we are a whole variety of things - male, young, old, hairy, bald, female, animal lovers, in love, religious, atheist, vegetarian, carnivorous, allergic, musical - all sorts of things that make up our humanity. And we like to talk about those things with others who are also interested in such discussions. Saying that you are just "human" and refusing to be anything else just makes it sound like you're not much of anything. Your contributions to the Delusion threads have certainly not been of much worth; quite the reverse, in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 10:40 PM

John P: "...Saying that you are just "human" and refusing to be anything else just makes it sound like you're not much of anything. Your contributions to the Delusion threads have certainly not been of much worth; quite the reverse, in fact."

It has been said, that often less is more!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 12:20 AM

I am not being sanctimonious, John, I am being sane rather than insane. You find my sanity offensive? Well (shrug)...whatever. I could lose my temper and respond in vitriolic kind and say a lot of really vicious things back to you...but it wouldn't change anything for the better. You wouldn't change, you'd just get more angry at me. I wouldn't change either, I'd just be under more stress, and I'd be sinking down to the ugly level so common around here which, frankly, ain't too high a level. No thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 01:40 AM

Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.--MLK

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 01:44 AM

Too right LH. Been there too many times and it is an ugly trap to fall into.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 03:33 AM

"Here we go again. That is a total misrepresentation of atheism. Dave thinks there are nice quiet ones and those who actually tell other people why they're atheists........"

Try reading what I said, rather than what you wanted me to say, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 07:42 AM

Well, Hawk, this, by the grace of God, has turned into a discussion of atheism for a minute or two. All you managed to do, apart from giving me a list of things you are not, was inform me that you are a human being. Informative though this is, in this particular discussion I'm more interested in your stance on matters God-and-religion. Thanks for telling me anyway. I'm not a contra-bassoonist. Just thought I'd mention it. I don't like being labelled either, as life has so many shades, but I'm happy to be called an atheist, even though the actual word itself is inappropriate. It isn't hard to allow myself this label because atheism is actually a very simple thing. If you think about it, there really can't be many shades of atheism. Whether I'm silent about it or loud about it doesn't alter the fact that I'm "it." Non-atheists such as yourself and that Jack fellow who's gone all quiet (and how I love to turn the tables with that expression "non-atheist") are fond of telling me that I can't possibly speak for all atheists. In the sense that there are atheists who'd wish I'd just belt up, you're probably right, but on the substantive issue of what atheism is I reckon we're all the same. The only atheists I'd ever slightly part company from would be those who express total certainty about God's non-existence or who demand proof of his existence. All I ask for is evidence. Does this make me a lily-livered, insurance-seeking agnostic? No, it doesn't, because the one thing I am certain of is that I'm not going to get that evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 07:44 AM

"Here we go again. That is a total misrepresentation of atheism. Dave thinks there are nice quiet ones and those who actually tell other people why they're atheists........"

Try reading what I said, rather than what you wanted me to say, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 08:29 AM

Sorry, premature hitting of send there. Again:

"Here we go again. That is a total misrepresentation of atheism. Dave thinks there are nice quiet ones and those who actually tell other people why they're atheists........"

Try reading what I said, rather than what you wanted me to say, Steve.

You said: an atheist believes in the non-existence of God and anti-theist is agressively so.

A fair interpretation of what you were saying, I thought. Non-aggressive quiet ones and more aggressive loud ones... Once non-atheists start using words like "militant" or "aggressive" to characterise atheists, you're going to get ripostes like this and I hardly think you can complain.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 09:23 AM

What I said was "I'd have thought that (especially in context) her meaning was quite clear: an atheist believes in the non-existence of God and anti-theist is agressively so."

As I said, try reading what I said.

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

Well, you posted the remark without comment. Had you disagreed with it I'd have thought you'd have said so.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: John P
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 10:15 AM

Little Hawk,
How is it sane to enter conversations (and start whole new ones) just so you can tell the participants that they are being stupid? It certainly seems sanctimonious to me. If you don't like people saying snarky things to you, you should learn to watch your own tongue.

You were chiding Steve for identifying himself as an atheist, in effect saying that he is less than you because you refuse to be bound by labels. If you don't think you were communicating your sense of your own superiority then you don't have a clear understanding of how your words are perceived. If, by some chance, you were just making some general observation, it was inane to the point of uselessness. "People are complex." Duh!

And yes, I think someone who refuses to identify what groups they belong to for the purpose of having a conversation about it is being non-committal to the point of being nothing, but only if, like you, they choose to insert themselves into the conversation anyway. And when you use your high-minded superiority as a put-down you become a sanctimonious twit. All clear now?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 10:36 AM

JohnP.... The one thing that stands out in the way Little Hawk puts his points across is that he never directly attacks people or starts name calling..... can I suggest that makes him somewhat special as a person and someone who doesn't deserve to be attacked himself. What do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 11:16 AM

I posted without comment, so whether I agreed with it or not is not relevant. However, as atheism means not-god-ism there is an implication that anyone who chooses to describe themselves in such a way nowadays has made a decision on their orientation.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 11:42 AM

True. Atheism actually means without God though, not not. Too negative for my taste but I live with it on the grounds that one word is more convenient than a damn great long description.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: gnu
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 01:47 PM

Ed T... the Pope called and said he wants your lawn rake as the courtyard is full of leaves. He says you can have it back after he burns the leaves and you can wear his hat for a while if you want.

Loved the link. Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: John P
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 02:17 PM

JohnP.... The one thing that stands out in the way Little Hawk puts his points across is that he never directly attacks people or starts name calling..... can I suggest that makes him somewhat special as a person and someone who doesn't deserve to be attacked himself. What do you think?

I agree with you that people who don't attack others shouldn't be attacked themselves. I also often find Little Hawk's comments interesting and refreshing. In these threads, however, he HAS been attacking others. Here's a few gems:

Imagine that you are being relevant.

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!

the pathetic daily blather that occurs on this forum full of misfits.

you'll still be an ant standing in front of a magnificent painting going "bla, bla, bla"

They are as predictable as trained dogs. They salivate when the bell rings, and growl when they hear the buzzer

People usually just opt for labelling because they are too mentally lazy

they are just venting, in my opinion, hanging out their dirty mental laundry and defending it to a world which, frankly, doesn't care

I stand by my sanctimonious judgment.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 02:26 PM

I guess we have a different take on stuff like that which I feel was not directed at any one person in particular..... many people make similar comments in general but I don't necessarily see them as sanctimonious..... certain comments wind people up and they react in different ways but personal name calling is unnecessary and uncalled for........
If you read back over LH's comments above.... as listed by yourself... do you not see reality in those words??? Perhaps your indignance is because you are taking it too personally... my answer (on a personal level) is if I can't stand the heat I get out of the kitchen......... what about you?
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: John P
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 02:57 PM

I don't have any problem with the heat, and I'm not taking it personally. Since most the quotes above were in response to specific comments by others, I disagree that they were not directed at specific people. Little Hawk has a way of making "general comments" that he can claim didn't refer to any individual, but which take place in such a way that it is clear that he is talking about others. His "general comments" are just ways for him to take pot shots at people without having to take the heat for it. In any event, his general attitude toward those who have been debating religion has been one of condescending mockery. Like I said, if he doesn't want people making snarky comments to him he should refrain from making them himself.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 03:44 PM

John P: "I also often find Little Hawk's comments interesting and refreshing. In these threads, however, he HAS been attacking others. Here's a few gems:.....(and then a list of quotes)."

I agree, John, There is nothing wrong with the manner in which Little Hawk has posted his 'observations'!...matter of fact, ANY decent lyricist SHOULD be doing exactly that! This forum has been a wonderful 'whet stone' for getting circuits to work, for writing...and any one who CLAIMS to be a writer, and performer, who doesn't see that, is more than likely 'non compos mentos' (Latin: Brain dead) anyway....and those are like those described in Dylan's classic:..

"Something is happening,
but you don't know what it is,
Do you, Mr. Jones"

So tired of the parrots! Try original thinking!!

I stand in agreement with John, on THIS ONE...(and maybe only, 'This one')...but it's a start!

Regards!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: John P
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 04:17 PM

GfS, Yes, it's a start. You and I disagree about almost everything -- except music. I've enjoyed and agreed with almost everything I've ever read by you about what makes a good musician, how practice works, how one could think about music, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 07:28 PM

"Atheism actually means without God"

The OED defines a- as "not: without; opposite to". I suspect it's the last that the Romans meant when they described the early Christians as atheists because they denied the divinity of Caesar.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 07:39 PM

Sorry. That was Collins.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 07:47 PM

John P: "Yes, it's a start. You and I disagree about almost everything -- except music."

Well, that proves another point that I made earlier....that in MUSIC people can come together, and set aside lesser differences..and being as most of us are musicians, then we have a tool(gift) to bring to people, that might help toward a unity..instead of all this other bullshit. If we can bring that spirit IN the music to people's minds and hearts, then you have used your tool(gift) in a way that honors.

As far as 'taste'..well some people just have perception deficit disorder!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 10:02 AM

'(Douglas Adams) proclaimed himself to be not just an atheist, but an "anti-theist"; he wouldn't have any truck with wet and weedy agnosticism.'

Richard Dawkins

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 03:16 PM

remembering some of dawkins delusion programme on TV he is much the same.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 04:47 PM

Wet and weedy agnosticism. I like that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 08 Dec 10 - 11:01 AM

Aren't agnostics a bit more practical believing something when they see it? It seems that they are wishy washy sitting on the fence but isn't it more commonsense to be open to what appeals most? I remember being asked once by a medium whether or not I believed in the paranormal and I said no because if you don't quite accept spiritual belief the opposite isn't going to be believed either chances are. I was looked at in distain by the medium and was told that if I didn't have faith I wasn't going to be seeing anything.

Hmmmm!?

Subject: RE: BS: The same radiation new machine delusion.
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Dec 10 - 11:35 AM

Madame Curie is excused for killing herself with Radium radiation because she did not know of its dangers.

Eveyone else and every raiation machine afterwards are guilty of identical ignorance. When will we learn. When will we remember.

SHoe stores used to have X ray machines to show the ones of your foot in your new shoes.

The ladies in Illinois all died from painting radium watch dials they glowed in the dark.

Sheriffs with radar guns at spped traps used to set the gun down in their lap while still turned on which essentaily cooked their penis and testicles over time.

We routinely use depleted Uranium in our bullets and armor piercing shells.

We store plutonium waste in places where it routinely leaks.

All nuclear power plants have a higher incidence of leukemia in the surrounding area.


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
***********************************

Now the TSA has backscattering X ray machines that have recently found to emit FIFTY TIMES the radiation that Homeland Security first claimed. The workers at those machines are in harms way.

The 500 HLS Mobile truck versions of the backscatter radiation imaging machines are 1000 times more powerful and can see into homes a 100 feet away.
The workers in those trucks are not told of the danger but certainly they must be deluding themselves if they know the first thing about radiation.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 10 - 11:58 AM

It's fine to be agnostic about stuff that may, or will, one day be confirmed by evidence. It's fine to be agnostic about life on other planets for example. One day it's likely that some hard evidence will come along. I'm agnostic about how the dinosaurs became extinct. There is evidence in the rocks suggesting how it may have come about, but until even more, stronger evidence comes along, which it may well, I remain agnostic. It is not fine to be agnostic about something that has been put deliberately beyond evidence. There will never be proof of God's existence or non-existence. As a rational sort of chap the best I can do is weigh up the odds. The odds of God's existence, by whatever objective measure you wish to apply, are almost zero. Not quite zero, but almost. I won't go through the reasoning all over again. If you say you're agnostic you're saying that there's a game chance that he exists. Not necessarily 50:50, but still a game chance. The evidence tells us that that is just not so, so agnostics just can't have it right. To take a fence-sitting position in the light of those odds is highly irrational. My house is 75 feet above sea level and half a mile inland. It is not impossible that a huge tsunami will one day get my house and drown me. But I weigh up the odds, bearing in mind the topography, position, the heights of past tsunamis etc., and conclude that, to all intents and purposes, I'm safe from tsunamis. That can never be an absolute certainty, but it would be ludicrous to declare that I was agnostic about it. On Dawkins' 0-7 scale, I'm 6.9 certain that I'm safe from any tsunami. There is a chance I'm wrong, but not a game chance. Agnosticism over God is a cop-out. I'd almost rather go the whole hog, believe in him and be thoroughly deluded.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 Dec 10 - 12:23 PM

Jon,

A delusion is an idea that is unprovable but at the same time requires obedience to it's assertion. It is a proposition that has no basis in physical reality such as a notion of a god.

The reason that atheists have no delusions is that the definition is carefully crafted to mean disbelief and nothing more than that in a theology or a deity. That is not a delusion since it never purports to support an unsupportable proposition.

A delusion is by definition an assertion that can't be backed up reasonably yet it perpetuated such as the idea that war solves problems or that cutting taxes create jobs.

To those who are objecting to Dawkins have not read enough of his books or heard his speeches. Dawkins is open-minded when it comes to any ideology and is a great listener. As a scientist, he wants to know how people think. He asks questions that make others uncomfortable as many who have delved into the foibles of society have done before him.

Dawkins is being attacked, pure and simple, but not on rational grounds but by blind prejudice by religionists who don't want to discuss ideas but instead substitute this for their own propaganda.

Atheism by it's definition can't be delusional because it only states a lack of belief.

As to the definition of a god, one pervades the argument that it is an authority of some sort destined to govern the minds of obsequious followers. Some may not believe this but the majority of religions make that case.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Dec 10 - 12:32 PM

as a rational sort of chap i would say self creation lacks evidence and certainly proof, so IMO agnosticism is at least more reasonable than atheism.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 10 - 01:53 PM

I don't know what you mean by "self-creation", but whatever the notion is I would ask you to apply it to your own God. Atheism is wholly rational because it is predicated on looking at whatever evidence there is for God (none), and on the recognition of the absurdity of proposing a being who supposedly explains the universe in all its complexities who must be infinitely bigger and more complex that that himself. As for agnosticism, it would be a rational position were there any prospect of evidence coming forward to prove God, and if the evidence we have so far pointed to a reasonable chance, even a remote chance, that he exists. Both these are in the negative, therefore agnosticism is a pointless and irrational condition. Just as irrational as it would be for me to spend thousands on tsunami defences and to spend every night on the roof keeping a fearful watch on the Atlantic.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Dec 10 - 03:28 PM

sringsinger-    IMO a more unsupportable proposition is that it all came about without a creator.
steve-you are quite right;the Maker must be more complex than the creation.
there are countless poeple of all levels of learning who would take issue with your assertion that there is no evidence for God.there is however none that you would countenance-at least at present.
i had considered citing fulfilled biblical prophecy but after looking on a sceptic site on that topic,isee they attempt to exlain this away too-but with a disclaimer on their site should they be inaccurate!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Dec 10 - 05:43 PM

the Maker must be more complex than the creation


By what evidence or facts do you have to support that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 10 - 06:02 PM

Well, he could hardly be simpler than the complex things he allegedly created. That would be like saying that a flute concerto created a flute.

If you have evidence, Pete, let's have it, but I could save you time and effort perhaps by reminding you of things that are not evidence. Hearsay. The word of "witnesses" who claim to have had visions, prayers answered or life-changing miraculous events. Tradition. Ceremony. Heavily-edited and translated texts that contradict themselves at every turn. Nice religious architecture and music. The fact that billions adhere to a particular belief. Your own personal warm glow. None of these qualify as evidence. So, with that in mind, let's hear your evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 10 - 06:06 PM

Fulfilled biblical prophesy? So I hope you'll tell us about the unfulfilled ones as well. You might as well make a claim for the efficacy of fortune-tellers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 02:02 PM

methinks we have been through most of this before steve.some of the things you mention i reguard as evidence,though not proof.the words of witnesses are weighed in court.i suspect many a verdict has been reached on less evidence.some time ago,iread a book called"who moved the stone".a lawyer setting out to disprove the ressurrection and examining the NT documents arrived at the conclusion Christ did rise from the dead.
perhaps you could be more specific re heavy editing/contradictions.if i dont know an answer i will say so,but at present you are making general assertions.
unfulfilled prophecy?the return of Jesus and final judgment!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 03:34 PM

"...Beliefs that would be considered normal for an individual's religious or cultural background are not delusions...

...A delusion is a belief that is clearly false and that indicates an abnormality in the affected person's content of thought. The false belief is not accounted for by the person's cultural or religious background, or by his or her level of intelligence...

...Delusions can be difficult to distinguish from overvalued ideas, which are unreasonable ideas that a person holds, but the affected person has at least some level of doubt as to its truthfulness...."
Source: Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 05:01 PM

Ed, it is not the belief in itself that really constitutes the delusion. I believe that Liverpool FC are the greatest football club in the history of the world. That is possibly not true (though don't say so in my presence please), but nothing I do in my life, save watching the odd Liverpool match on the telly, is predicated on it. The God delusion arises from the whole staking of one's life on what is almost certainly (back to the evidence...) a false belief. You live your life according to what is by far the most unlikely explanation of things. Call that perverse, call it deluded. It certainly isn't rational.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 05:17 PM

some of the things you mention i reguard as evidence,though not proof.the words of witnesses are weighed in court.i suspect many a verdict has been reached on less evidence

Yes, and there have been many miscarriages of justice. Stop saying proof. That gets us nowhere. Right, I crash my car and you are a witness. The court will ascertain whether you are independent or not (that you either are not my relative or that you don't bear me a grudge) and will attempt to get some corroboration. A second independent witness is twenty times better than one. The witness evidence will be tested for consistency against my evidence. You will likely be assessed for your sufficient soundness of mind to be a fit and proper witness. Now the sort of witness "evidence" you're talking about cannot be subjected to this kind of scrutiny. It's like my telling you that I saw a rare bird flying over my house, and my expecting you to accept that as evidence that the bird was really there. Now before you send off your exciting record to the bird-watching club just think of the awkward questions you'd like to ask me first. How expert are you? Did anyone else see it? Describe exactly its appearance and flight and any other details. Have you got a photo (that you can prove isn't a fake)? Let me see your binoculars! Your religion witnesses would fall at the first hurdle, subjected to this, every single time. You seem to want the bar set very low for your kind of "witnesses."

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 06:24 PM

"You live your life according to what is by far the most unlikely explanation of things".

I have no doubt that some people do just that.

But, I suspect it is far from the majority of believers in a God, as some seem to contend. Most people who have a belief in a God that I know, go to church once and awhile, and go about living their lives much the same as non believers in a God do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 07:14 PM

"The God delusion arises from the whole staking of one's life on what is almost certainly (back to the evidence...) a false belief."

Law of Fives

The Law of Fives is summarized in the Principia Discordia:

    The Law of Fives states simply that: All things happen in fives, or are divisible by or are multiples of five, or are somehow directly or indirectly appropriate to 5

    The Law of Fives is never wrong.
    —Malaclypse the Younger, Principia Discordia, Page 00016

Appendix Beth of Robert Shea's and Robert Anton Wilson's The Illuminatus! Trilogy considers some of the numerology of Discordianism, and the question of what would happen to the Law of Fives if everyone had six fingers on each hand. The authors assert that the real Law of Fives is realizing that everything can be related to the number five if you try hard enough. Sometimes the steps required may be highly convoluted. Incidentally, the number five appears five times within the quote describing the Law of Fives, which is stated in 23 words.

Another way of looking at the Law of Fives is as a symbol for the observation of reality changing that which is being observed in the observer's mind. Just as how when one looks for fives in reality, one finds them, so will one find conspiracies, ways to determine when the apocalypse will come, and so on and so forth when one decides to look for them. It cannot be wrong, because it proves itself reflexively when looked at through this lens.

At its basic level, the Law of Fives is a practical demonstration that perception is intent-sensitive; that is, the perceiver's intentions inform the perception. To whatever extent one considers that perception is identical with reality, then, it has the corollary that reality is intent-sensitive.