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.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 07:22 PM

"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:)"

Good in theory, but not necessarily easy in the execution, especially if the obsessively opinionated one has compulsive verbal diarrhea... or they just keep knocking on your front door ...

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 09:27 PM

LH, I think one can have personal foundation for beliefs. And have very strong beliefs with reason.

But to know (while you can feel certain but that is subtly different IMO) on some things is something that will only happen for most of us who believe in some deity or other power is probably only going happen after death in this world.

Or to know on some things if atheists are right are things we will never know.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 10:13 PM

Little Hawk: "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."

What blows me away, is when someone with a 'differing opinion', instead of addressing the issue, starts parroting blather...and when they run out of stored false bullshit explanations, start attacking the person!

Now if you want to get into a 'battle of wits' using insults, don't get your tights in a bundle when that blows back in your face, too. Enjoy the trip!...and appreciate that you were out witted, because you might be the last to know, that you're just an idiot....with an opinion!!

Wink,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 12:59 AM

I expect this has been picked up by someone but I didn't find it just now. Steve Shaw, In the space of less than an hour you say two wildly different things. Do you concur with the Carrollian dictum that a word means whatever you want it to mean?

Quote: 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. 7:05

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. 7:40

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 01:04 AM

A lot is strange...

I might feel certain that Steve Shaw and myself could get into vicious battles over belief.

OTOH, it is clear from his posts he could teach be some things I'd love to know about cricket.

It would also seem reasonable to suggest that (assuming I was on a good day) could happily join him playing say the Kesh Jig.

Not sure life is ever as simple as we may want it to be...

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 01:05 AM

Yup. The human race in general is just a not very well informed idiot with an opinion. We all know a little...very little...of what is out there to know. To admit that one only knows a little is a good start toward becoming genuinely human, and developing some degree of respect and understanding for other people, and not being threatened by the many differences of opinion that one encounters, but finding them instead quite interesting to think about and consider.

Jon - I understand that one can have "personal foundation for beliefs". For sure. That foundation arises out of one's culture, one's background, one's family, and one's own personal experiences and inner feelings. It's part of what we call "a sense of identity". Everyone has such a foundation of beliefs, opinions, habits, etc.

All these threads are usually really about is that everyone is out there defending his own personal foundation of belief, habit, and opinion. Yet most people are so pretentious as to think that their foundation is so superior that they must persuade everyone else in teh world to adopt it. That's a grievour error in human relations. It's an error made by those who proselytize religion aggressively...and it's an error made by those who attack religion aggressively. They are both out to change others, having the bizarre view that they can save those others from themselves by destroying the other person's present sense of identity and replacing it with their own.

That's tantamount to invading and conquering another person. It's like trying to exercise mind control by nental force. People don't like being invaded and conquered, and they will fight every inch of the way to defend their existing identity.

And that's perfectly understandable. A wise person doesn't invade someone else's sense of identity...their foundation of belief...and try to supplant it with his own. He listens to their explanation of their sense onf identity, learns whatever he can from it, and leaves them alone to be who they are. He neither surrenders his own identity nor attacks the identity of others, because he doesn't need to, and he knows it. He feels safe in a world of differences.

And that's how you would have a peaceful world....if people were wise enough to do that...but in a great many cases they are not. They'd rather be at war with what's different than live happily in a world with many different identities and forms of belief. The little murdering fascist lives inside every human being and says, "Attack, conquer, and convert or destroy all those who think differently. Make them see that there is only ONE right way to do everything...my way! They'll be grateful when they finally see the light."

That little fascist can be either religious or anti-religious, and it makes little difference, because whichever one he is, he still spills blood all over this world every day. He will not leave other people alone to just be who they are. He must change them. Well, he has no right to change anyone but himself.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 01:09 AM

Ebbie, for that tidbit of accuracy in observation, you get a star named after you, in the heavens above 'Galactic Central'!....not only that, you are absolutely RIGHT!

I've noted in another post, and others pointed it out, too, that he makes no sense,...but yours is priceless!

Steve, on the other hand, gets the 'idiot with an opinion award' with the 'special commendation' of being 'as good as the last person he talked with!

...and Ebbie, may all your Thanksgiving biscuits, have halos over them, and be a 'heavenly delight'!

Happy Thanksgiving!

Guest from Sanity

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 01:12 AM

Hey, Little Hawk..You're up?..Is it too late to ring you up? I left you some 'notes' last time. Did you get them?



GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 01:19 AM

That's tantamount to invading and conquering another person.

But is a trap we can all fall into. It just can't be done thought if tied by people with power, atrocities can arise...

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 01:24 AM

Jon: "But is a trap we can all fall into. It just can't be done thought if tied by people with power, atrocities can arise..."

I just love it when he talks dirty....


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 01:46 AM

Im just not sure whch HE ia talking dirty GFS. I'd feel pretty certain it is not the God I try to find,,,

But Satan, human greeds, stupidities and desires, listening to others with desire for power. I'll just again go ????

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 02:35 AM

Oh and on know, one thing I;d feel certain of is that if I post here, by my wording and thoughts, Joe, Jeri and Kat to name 3 MC mods would "know" it was from Jon Freeman who once lived in Wales and now lives in Norfolk even if I called myself Fred Smith from Tokyo and faked an IP address in some way, they all know me, my attempts at thought and wording too well for that to be...

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 05:40 AM

I expect this has been picked up by someone but I didn't find it just now. Steve Shaw, In the space of less than an hour you say two wildly different things. Do you concur with the Carrollian dictum that a word means whatever you want it to mean?

Quote: 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. 7:05

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. 7:40

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 05:54 AM

Oops, sorry about that last one.

I expect this has been picked up by someone but I didn't find it just now. Steve Shaw, In the space of less than an hour you say two wildly different things. Do you concur with the Carrollian dictum that a word means whatever you want it to mean?

Quote: 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. 7:05

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. 7:40

Well, the very last word in all that lot was a mistake - I meant "evidence." I'd already typed "proof" twice and it must have suggested itself to me again. It got past the proofreader of course (Sorry, Jon, you picked me up for it before but I didn't connect). As for the rest, I'm not going to admit to any inconsistency there at all. If you want to persuade me that there is a God I require evidence. If someone wants to persuade me that they existed in a previous life I require proof. There is a difference. If you want to persuade me that George Washington had existed in a former life I'll have to settle for evidence, but it had better be good. If you make an unusual personal claim to something or other I think I'm entitled to ask you to prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 06:08 AM

A list of logical fallacies found in
this and other related threads.


Bifurcation
Circulus in demonstrando
Affirmation of the consequent
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Plurium interrogationum
Reification / Hypostatization
Argumentum ad novitatem
Argumentum ad nauseam
Argumentum ad lazarum
Argumentum ad hominem

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 06:24 AM

loco in transit
illegitimes non carborundum
de minimis non curat lex
post hoc ergo propter hoc
Ite missa est Deo mucho gratias

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 06:50 AM

Thanks Steve for that.
I see you do pay attention.
Must be from the class room experience.
:)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 07:15 AM

I do pay attention most of the time, though not sufficiently to my own posts on occasion, it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 10:22 AM

Why should anyone wish to persuade you that there is a God or that there is reincarnation, Steve? ;-) What for?

I mean, look, I personally think reincarnation is quite probable...but that's just my own thought on the matter...I have no need to persuade YOU of it. It doesn't bother me that you are sceptical of the concept of reincarnation and that you don't believe in God. I simply don't care.

What does bother me, though, is that YOU appear to be trying to persuade the rest of the world (or at least the membership of Mudcat Cafe) that there is NO God and that there is NO reincarnation, when you have absolutely no way of being sure about either one of those things. Accordingly, you annoy me much as I would be annoyed by a Jehovah's Witness who stands at my door trying to persuade me about his version of Jehovah or a salesman at my door who's trying to sell me an overpriced vacuum cleaner. ;-D

"Do you get me, sweetheart?"

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 10:35 AM



Exactly. I was being hypothetical. I had to be to respond to Ebbie's challenge.

It doesn't bother me that you are sceptical of the concept of reincarnation and that you don't believe in God. I simply don't care.

Nah, me neither. It's such a silly idea. I don't not believe in God, by the way. You come on here bollocking people who disagree with you and you haven't even read the thread.

What does bother me, though, is that YOU appear to be trying to persuade the rest of the world (or at least the membership of Mudcat Cafe) that there is NO God and that there is NO reincarnation, when you have absolutely no way of being sure about either one of those things.

Nope. For the thirteenteenth time, I have no proof one way or the other and never will have. "Sure" simply don't enter into it. It's a discussion forum and I'm saying on it what I think, as are you with your tosh about reincarnation. I didn't start the bloody thing.

"Do you get me, sweetheart?"

In your dreams, you condescending pillock.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 11:12 AM

Yup Steve but I would be equality entitled to to ask you to provide evidence no God exists... And so we could go round in circles...

I'd much rather learn from you about say Everton Weeks or share a tune with you,

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 11:32 AM

Actually just looked up on wikipedia, To have a test batting average of 58 and in first class cricket to have a 304 not out is not at all bad!!!!

Parents tell me of the 3 Ws

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 11:34 AM

Yup Steve but I would be equality entitled to to ask you to provide evidence no God exists

Well you could but it doesn't make sense that way round. It's like my telling you that I saw a rare bird flying over my garden and I challenge you to produce evidence that I didn't. You'd think I was a bit of a crackpot, I suspect. You'd have to just shrug in my general direction.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 11:43 AM

Had the weird bird one once, Steve. Father saw some parrot around, In that case he wasn;t a crackpot but I knew straight off what he had seen and it was not a figment of his imagination... It was a green woodpecker.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 11:45 AM

I haven't "read the thread" (in its entirety), Steve, because I have a real life also...in addition to the pathetic daily blather that occurs on this forum full of misfits. Were I to read the entirety of all these divisive, soreheaded bla-bla threads with people fighting with each other over religion and politics, I would lose most, if not all, of that real life.

So, as one condescending pillock to another, may I say...."TTFN!" ;-) I must attend to a few things that actually need to be done in my real life. I may drop in later for a brief chat and condescend a little more, so hang on to that possibility, old sport.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 12:34 PM

Did a "con" actualy "descend" among the misfits?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 01:24 PM

I think a belief in reincarnation necessarily must assume a managing force behind it, call it God or not. The usual idea is that this force aims at perfection and therefore has to recycle our souls until they are perfect. This does not convince me at all, for the following reasons:

• if we have been created by a perfect force, our imperfections cannot be of universal nature


• if we were to be perfected at the end of time, we would still have been imperfect most of the time


• the average quality of souls on earth does not seem to increase from generation to generation


• it is not much of a punishment if we don't remember the sins for which we are being punished


• it is not much of an incentive to further purify ourselves if we are not going remember it in our next lives


• in fact the notion of two persons consecutively sharing a single soul is hard to conceive if they do not share their consciousness.

A very small number of persons claim to remember past lives, but even if they should have some knowledge we cannot explain yet, we cannot conclude that souls have been shared.

Metaphysical ideas cannot be proved, but metaphysical concepts can be checked for intrinsic consistency. An abstract concept of God is not subject to logical critizism, and I personally find it a suitable way of thinking about mankind and the universe. (Dave MacKenzie on 21 Nov 10 - 11:06 AM seems to recognize his own concept of God in Dawkins' statements!) But the more attributes are attatched to such a notion, the more feeble the building may become.

As I wrote before, conflicts are immanent when it comes to practical consequences of faith. These may be classified as delusions, if they severely inhibit the believer and are not supported by general agreements on morals and logic. Often persons try to legitimate their power or wealth by declaring it God's will, e.g. as a result of accumulated Karma from former lives, thus hindering other believers from claiming their rights. Such delusions we must try to cure, to help the deluded and to diminish unjust power. If Louis YVI had been Dei Gratia king by the very fact, then Robespierre would have been Dei Gratia revolutionary.

On the other hand, valid moral motivations cannot be called delusions, even if they come as results of questionable beliefs. Maximilian Kolbe's self-sacrifice is a good example.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 01:30 PM

"I think a belief in reincarnation necessarily must assume a managing force behind it, call it God or not".

Why so?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 02:28 PM

From a personal POV which does not believe in reincarnation, I;d find it very difficult to imagine without a creator./ being who could reincarnate.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 02:47 PM

Reintarnation: Jed Clampett coming back from the dead.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 03:01 PM

"A reincarnated Steve Smith!!!". Egad!

Considering this impact alone, I must vote in on Steve's side in reincarnation dilema. So, before you cast your ballots, please consider the burden that this could have on future generations. Hopefully, this possibility will bitch-slap you folks into reality. The time to act is now.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 03:04 PM

Gosh, I got so scared, I forgot the blokes name...It's Shaw, not Smith. Sorry, Mr Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 03:07 PM

"From a personal POV which does not believe in reincarnation, I;d find it very difficult to imagine without a creator./ being who could reincarnate".

Maybe the old expression "empty places get filled"?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 03:08 PM

Don't worry. I won't be back. Especially if God says I have to be a slug next time.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 03:09 PM

"Especially if God says I have to be a slug next time"

You left yourself open for a response "what next time" :).

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 03:14 PM

Why so?

Without a managing force it would make even less sense.

But indeed, in modern societies some people desparately believe in myths/delusions of non-religious kinds (i.e. not related to "The Meaning of Life"): the dream of a longer life as an individuum. Reincarnation here lines up with cloning and cryonics. Quite a different topic, even more bizarre than the strangest religion. Some people choose to cling to the faintest hope of a second chance rather than using the rest of their first one.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 03:29 PM

Steve I',m being nasty but atm, I'm seeing (not that I believe in this...) your next incarnation as being an earwig!

Attempted humour aside, why not just shake hands and agree you can not convince me there is no God and I can not convince you there is one.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 03:54 PM

"Without a managing force it would make even less sense"

Wow, that's what the Theists say about a God belief, and look where that circular argument took the discussion, in a circle. Hopefully you are not limiting the managing force to a God? If you are suggesting something else, what would that managing force be?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 04:15 PM

why not just shake hands and agree you can not convince me there is no God and I can not convince you there is one

I've said that God knows how many times already.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 04:23 PM

No idea,,, But I do find "no God" stance and a "God knows" statement somewhat contradictory..

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 04:25 PM

Anyway, out of here. It;s not worth the effort,

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 04:47 PM

Isn't re-incarnation ...isn't that like a cow chewing her cud?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 04:51 PM

Isn't re-incarnation ...isn't that like a cow chewing her cud?


You must be thinking of Carnation Instant Breakfast and milk.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 05:10 PM

The "managing force" behind something like reincarnation doesn't have to be a God at all, Grishka. It could just be the same set of very consistent natural laws that govern everything else that occurs around us. The laws of Nature, in other words.

The Buddhist teachings, for instance, are strong on the idea of reincarnation as a form of natural spiritual evolution toward greater perfection, but I find absolutely nothing in the Buddhist teachings that proposes the existence of a ruling deity. The Buddhists are interested in the process of the evolution of the mind, the body, and the spirit....they are not interested in proposing the existence of a managing ruler being of some kind to explain it all somehow.

It strikes me that those who want to link reincarnation to a God want to do so for this reason: they've already decided that having a God is a stupid idea, so they'd very much like to connect any other spiritual notion they come across WITH that God, so as to be able to criticize it more thoroughly. ;-)   "Guilt by association" in other words...

It ain't that simple! The world of spiritual investigation does not necessarily fall into the little box of prejudice you have built to contain it, but your prejudices fit into that little box perfectly, and inside that little box is the little ugly graven image of the "God" you imagine in your mind when you scoff at the idea of there being a "God". If there is a God...and I'm not saying there is....then he, she or it probably barely even resembles the image of whatever the heck you are imagining in your head when you mouth the word "God"....and it probably doesn't resemble what the religious people are imagining in their heads either.

It's the words themselves that mislead people. People first decide that the word has a specific meaning. They then force reality around them inside the boxes OF those specific meanings. They develop tiny limited notions of things based solely on the definitions they have given to the words they commonly use and stand like an ant in front of a great work of art, not even knowing what it is...and then talk about it as if they knew what it was! Hilarious. There are no words sufficient in human language to describe the things people are talking about here, and there never will be. Words simply won't get you there. But they're all you can do across your little keyboard here, aren't they? Well, fine...but they still won't get you there, and you'll still be an ant standing in front of a magnificent painting going "bla, bla, bla" and saying to all the other ants: "That is just a flat surface with a bunch of colors and marks on it. I have measured it, and its dimensions are exactly ---------. Its weight is ----------.   The colors on it are -----------. The materials in it are ---------. It has no intrinsic meaning, no purpose, and it happened by some sort of accidental natural process which we are investigating."

And the other ants will mostly nod sagely, write down all the technical details, and marvel at the brilliance of science. And they will remain wordbound, self-satisfied, and ignorant in the face of something they have not even a glimmer of understanding of. And they'll give it a name! ;-) And then they will imagine that they know what it is, because they can mouth the name...and they will all feel quite secure, and they'll all still be just a bunch ants.

As for the religious ants, most of them will do something equally silly and fairly similar...although they will at least recognize that whatever that painting is, it's not devoid of meaning. In recognizing that, they will, I think, have at least a glimmer of dawning awareness. And that's better than nothing at all.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 06:07 PM

Ed T, if you want an answer to your post of 25 Nov 10 - 03:54 PM, please explain what you are aiming at, and which of my assertions you are criticizing.

My notion of "managing force" was meant to include the Buddhist idea. Remember that I am sceptical about reincarnation and therefore do not imply any affirmation of a deity. In my post of 25 Nov 10 - 03:14 PM, I admitted that some persons manage to believe in reincarnation without a managing force, and commented on that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 06:21 PM

A few months ago, there was a scientist discussing the Turing Test on BBC4. He stated that the resulting conversation was proof that artificial intelligence was still some way off. I thought that it sounded like a transcript of a Mucat thread!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 07:55 PM

Well, Little Hawk, that was a fine and lengthy ranting, sneery post there. As ever with such things, you lose focus. 'Tis this: it doesn't matter one jot what your concept of "God" is, whatever the spiritual veneer is you want to put on it, or however inadequate you regard the words we use for it or have available for it. There is no refuge in the inchoateness of the concept, I fear. That's just saying to me that I can't get it because even you don't get it. There is a bottom line that just refuses to go away. Unless evidence is presented for whatever notion of God you hold, and there are many such notions around as we all know, you will appear to be living in the realms of imagination and whimsy. No-one in history has ever managed to demonstrate that God has ever appeared to them, answered a prayer for them, worked a miracle for them, has given them extra insight, has broadened their mind, has got their kid into university, has made bad people good. Not once, ever. Get this: I'm not saying for one second that God hasn't done any or all these things. I am saying that no-one has ever managed to show that he has, not once. Now I really am very interested in the various descriptions of God, believe me. I'm a believer in the value of human imagination and creativity in its highest flights. I don't not believe in any of the God concepts. But I am waiting for evidence. That's all.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 09:10 PM

Fair enough.

I'm simply saying, Steve, that spoken language and the written word are not capable of fully expressing all that we deal with in our lives.

They are capable of alluding to what we deal with, yes, but not fully expressing it. Spiritual disciplines are mostly aimed at dealing with the non-material experiences and feelings that we cannot fully express in words or grasp with our hands, and those are aspects of life we still need to deal with, even if they aren't physical in nature. They affect our physicality profoundly, because they affect our stress levels, our moods, and our health.

Most people are unconscious prisoners of their habitual word definitions. For instance, in the USA the word "socialism" or "socialist" conjures up such negative responses in most listeners that it is quite clear that they have a very different definition of those words than people in most of the rest of the world do. "Socialism" is virtually a dirty word in the USA! And that's really strange, wouldn't you say? It's not a dirty word in most other places.

Now, "God" is a sort of dirty word to some people, because it immediately summons up a host of negative thoughts and associations in their mind about organized religion, and they start thinking about all kinds of stuff they object to. I don't think of stuff I object to when I hear the word "God", mainly, I suppose, because I had absolutely no religious instruction inflicted on me by anyone during childhood or adolescence, apart from one single Sunday school class. ;-) So I never felt oppressed by other people's ideas about what they might call "God".

But you have to fully grasp what another human being means when he says the word "God" before you even know what he's talking about. What IS he talking about?

And that's where the problem arises.

If you don't know what he's talking about, and he doesn't know what you're talking about, then useful communication becomes virtually impossible.

Agreed?

So just talking about "God" and thinking that you're talking about the same thing another person is talking about is making a huge assumption....a leap of faith about the other person! ;-) Quite possibly, the two of you are talking about different things.

****

I'd try to find out what the other person means by "God" first. (And in many cases you will find out that they're really not that sure what they mean by "God", because they haven't actually given it much thought.) But if you tried to find out what they meant, then it might help both you and them understand each other a little better.

We all want to make the best of life that we can, correct? Thus we all have a great deal in common. I don't see why we should ignore all the good stuff we have in common and get hung up on different ideas about God, which is just a fragment of what we think about and devote our time to. Most of us are trying to earn a living, have good relationships, find happiness and a sense of purpose, stay healthy, eat, sleep, have some fun...those are the things our lives are really about......NOT our fragmentary and usually very vague definitions of whatever we think "God" is.

I have no certainty at all about what "God" is or isn't, and I'll tell you why: I've never had a direct encounter with something I could call "God"...not consciously or in a way that was clear to me.

I have had direct encounters with some other quite mysterious spiritual phenomena or experiences, but not with "God".

I have seen prayers answered...on just a couple of very dramatic occasions...but that doesn't necessarily make me think there's a God...and I'll tell you why: Prayer, when it's delivered in a very powerful way, is a very intensely directed thought, an intention and/or a visualization. If it gets "answered"...meaning that the eventuality you focused the prayer on is amended as you wished...then there is more than one possibility of how that happened.

1. "God" (a ruling deity) answered the prayer.

2. You had a "lucky" break.

3. You yourself accomplished the intention of the prayer somehow by your own intense focus...intense focus raises adrenalin levels, increases strength, and increases your accuracy.

4. Natural forces around you were set into motion by your intensity of focus, and that was what accomplished the intention of the prayer.

I've considered all of those 4 possibilities regarding prayers I saw answered, and I don't know if it was one of those possibilities that made the prayer work...some of them...or none of them. It might have been something else entirely.

All I know was, the prayers got answered.

Again, you see, it doesn't prove anything to me about a "God". It just proved to me that something worked in my favor on certain occasions when I prayed with absolute intensity. (there have only been a handful of such occasions...I very seldom pray.)

I'm by no means convinced that it works on all occasions. If it did, EVERYONE would win big at the casino! ;-D It may only work when it's "justified". If so...that could raise some very interesting possibilities about the overall purpose and meaning of our lives.

I could have all kinds of "beliefs" about stuff I haven't seen or done yet, if I was inclined to do that, but what I would rather do is have actual experiences, and learn directly from those experience, because I can depend on that. I learned from those experiences I had...not that I was planning it that way...it just happened spontaneously because I reacted very intensely to the situation at the time.

Most people pray because they've been taught to do that. I was not taught to pray by anyone. I just did it in those few moments, because it came naturally at those moments, due to an intense sense of need or an intense desire to help someone else whom I loved, and I went with it without a moment's thought or hesitation...and it worked.

I'm grateful for having had those experiences, but I've no idea if a "God" was any kind of active agent in the process. Until I MEET, SEE and HEAR a God in absolutely undeniable terms, I am not going to assume there is one just on someone else's sayso. Nor am I going to deny that there is one.

I simply don't know. I must wait for the actual experience. Same as with everything else. You can't know what an apple tastes like until you bite one. Other people can tell you....in thousands of brilliant words...what an apple tastes like. But you won't know until you bite one. Nothing else matches the direct experience, and no words can fully describe it. Therefore, no one can describe God to me, you or anyone else...though they might try...or they might get a book for me to read...but I won't really know a thing about God until...and unless...I encounter God directly and I know and recognize what I am dealing with when it happens.

If there's a God....

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 10:31 PM

GUEST,Grishka

No criticism intended. If I posted it to seem as such, sorry for that.

You stated that: "I think a belief in reincarnation necessarily must assume a managing force behind it".

My question was (more precisely):
Outside of a God (and Buddhism, what "managing force" are you suggesting that one must assume to exist? Or, are you suggesting one at all? (It now seems to me that you were not, as I am gathering you are a skeptic on reincarnation. I am also a skeptic, though I am open minded to the possibility).

However, can we rely merely on experience, good old common sense and opinion to guide us on such matters?

Or, are there other resources available to help us look into the future, such as cutting edge physics hat tells us that the real world is much stranger than most of us can imagine and some of the effects of quantum physics can seem somewhat mystical.

For example, Physicist Brian Josephson suggested that if telepathy exists (not that he said it can), then there's a physical mechanism that could explain it — Quantum entanglement. (Quantum entanglement can be seen as putting teleportation, in some form, within the area of science possibility in the future).

My point is, there are physical forces in our universe not yet figured out. They now may seem mystical to us,and, far beyond our experience and understanding.

Is it a possibility that reincarnation could fit within the possibilities of evolving science and fall completely outside the belief in a God? Maybe? But, I remain an open minded skeptic.

Unfortunately as we see with the history of science and ideas, often we are unable to overcome their conceptual limits.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 10:40 PM

"No-one in history has ever managed to demonstrate that God has ever appeared to them, answered a prayer for them, worked a miracle for them, has given them extra insight, has broadened their mind, has got their kid into university, has made bad people good. Not once, ever".

Do we know this for a fact?
Maybe, someone forgot to record it, for us to see? You know, good old Murphy Law.
:)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 11:36 PM

It's not a fact, Ed, it's an assertion that Steve is making. As assertions go, it doesn't seem to be based on anything except the author's wishful thinking...or a desire that things should be, and therefore are, just the way he already thinks they should be and are.

There have been any number of incidents throughout history where people swore that God (as they understood the term) had appeared to them, answered a prayer for them, worked a miracle for them, given them extra insight, broadened their mind, etc...thousands and thousands of such incidents. Maybe hundreds of thousands. I can't say I've had one, but I know many other people have.

But Steve asks if anyone has demonstrated it? ;-D Well, how could they in such a way as to meet Steve's requirements? Look, the entire French Army in the 1400s felt that Joan of Arc had powerfully demonstrated the assistance of God in helping them to inflict a series of catastrophic defeats on an English Army that hadn't lost a major battle to the French in the previous 50 years! To that French Army the role of God in their victories was absolutely certain. To the English, it was seen as the work of Satan. ;-D

Whether you think something is a demonstration of God's help or not is entirely dependent on your own subjective viewpoint of the event. There is NO demonstration that will serve to convince a sceptic who doesn't want to be convinced. They'll just come up with some other explanation for it....like the English did. They'll come up with whatever explanation makes them happy. The English explanation was that Joan was a witch in league with Satan. They couldn't possibly countenance the notion that an illiterate 17-year-old French peasant girl could lead an army against them without supernatural help of some kind...and achieve such victories. Neither could the French, but the French saw her actions as divinely inspired.

So they each gave it the subjective interpretation that suited their viewpoint of themselves as "the good guys".

There IS no demonstration possible which will convince a sceptic who is set on not being convinced, because he will give the demonstration a different interpretation, that's all. That's what people do. They already believe "thus and so" about life... and they then interpret whatever happens on the basis of their established beliefs and preferences. They are as predictable as trained dogs. They salivate when the bell rings, and growl when they hear the buzzer. Demonstrations are useless for minds that are already made up...unless they are demonstrations of something dead obvious...because it is wholly physical. Like a machine. There's a lot in life that isn't wholly physical, but which lies in the areas we could term "moral", "psychological", "emotional", "conceptual", "idealistic", etc.....and those aspect of life cannot BE demonstrated conclusively to a reductionist mind that will only pay attention to physical evidence, because they are not physical at all...they are workings in consciousness.

Spirituality is about the governance and working of consciousness...for good or for ill. You do not address the workings of consciousness through examining physical evidence, you address them through comprehension, observation, communication, listening, feeling, and perceiving. Consciousness can only be dealt with BY consciousness, not by a camera, a microscope, or a set of calipers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 04:02 AM

A simple to understand thought on 'reincarnation' as seen from Sanity-Land:

Well I can see, that if you're going to split hairs, over side issues, then everyone will just be stuck, after posting their preconceived notion.

So, let's establish a couple of premises, that can be agreed upon, by all.(Steve excluded, unless he thinks that 'contention' is a meaningful exercise, other than enjoying the process).....

All living things have 'life' in them, fair enough? Collectively, all life on the planet, is 'life on the planet' as a whole...OK, (not too much a stretch). In this life, there is a consciousness, shared mutually by the forms of life, inhabiting the planet(Steve excluded, 'wink')...therefore, just as there is a collective life, on this ball, spinning in space, trying to survive, there is a collective 'intelligence'.

If this 'intelligence' existed before any given generation, then it has been self generating, just as 'life' itself has, before we personally jumped on the train....

If you 'tapped' into this 'collective, ongoing, intelligence', that is connected to the life process, as a whole, then very possibly, and probably, one could 'remember' another manifestation, from another time, when that intelligence, manifested itself, and in doing so, could have retained collected sensory data....

..not that YOU were another 'person' before....but you tapped into that data, via the ONE ongoing intelligence....of which is a part of you....as well as the prior. ITS ALL ONE!

...Even 'Time' itself, is subject to the dimensional manifestation of the observer.

Now, that wasn't too much of a stretch, was it?


....easy now Steve, nobody 'deluded' any of that, with the dreaded 'God-monster'......nonetheless, it IS bigger, than the moment of observation.......


GfS

Hawk?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 04:45 AM

Sorry Hawk I disagree on this one I see Joan of Arc as being like a latter day suicide bomber who was prepared to take a life during the fight if she had to or else she would not be shown carrying a sword or wearing armour she would have ridden with the army unarmed. I hate the way the English burned her too but technically she was doing it for the Dauphim and God but the difference was she didn't go around killing innocent civilians in doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 05:41 AM

Ed T (25 Nov 10 - 10:31 PM), I understand you consider your previous questions answered. (In a thread like this it would have been quite ok if you had criticized my statements.)

Physics and technology are quite a different subject from religion, but they give rise to delusive hopes as well. Many things ("in Heaven and Earth") are possible, some are worth researching. However, if you asked me about our most reasonable hopes, I would recommend living the rest of ones present life with the best possible countenance. If after our deaths we find out that our gods don't exist at all, they will forgive us.

The rich whiners who publicly advocate cryonics seem to fall short of that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 05:49 AM

Thank you for the measured response.

Is it possible to demonstrate that you've had a prayer answered? Well, let's get one thing out of the way first. The fact that thousands of people down the ages have claimed that God answered a prayer, worked a miracle, etc., is not evidence. Whether the sheer mass of such claims has any persuasive power is up to you, but it doesn't persuade me on its own, not one jot. I come back to my hackneyed old example: thousands of people claim to have been cured by going to Lourdes. Not one of these people has produced incontrovertible evidence. Such evidence is possible: has anyone ever grown a new leg by going to Lourdes? In this day and age it would be a simple enough matter to get independent corroboration for such an event. Why, we could even watch it live on the telly. It sounds like naked cynicism, innit, but the obstinate fact is that every claim ever made for a miracle cure is, conveniently, one which requires a huge suspension of disbelief on the part of the recipient of the claim. Whether it's cures at Lourdes, little girls having visions on hillsides, or stories of miracles in the Bible, every single time this suspension of disbelief is required. Christianity has even made a virtue of this (cunningly I suggest) by inserting the apocryphal tale of doubting Thomas into the gospels; it's such a strong message that the gospel writers even have the risen Jesus himself pronouncing that it's holy to believe without evidence. The tale jars badly because it runs counter to everything that Jesus did in his ministry, doing what revolutionaries do, questioning conventional wisdoms at every turn, making the right to ask awkward questions a virtue. Potential cases of miracle cures or prayers answered, such as the new leg, which could indeed provide evidence, are avoided at every turn. You never get one of those, ever. Those of this ilk in the gospels that could have been in this category are now safely buried in history. There was no committee of independent sceptics taking notes and producing minority reports for any of Jesus' miracles. One more thing. If you have a God (at least, nodding in Hawk's direction, a Christian version of God) then he must be a God who can be petitioned and who must at least be available to modify at least some things for us on request. Otherwise there would be no point to his existence, and certainly no point to Christianity. The miracles and the answered prayers are just part of the whole package.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: andrew e
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 05:58 AM

From "A Couse In Miracles".

IS REINCARNATION SO?

In the ultimate sense, reincarnation is impossible. There is no past or future, and the idea of birth into a body has no meaning either once or many times. Reincarnation cannot, then, be true in any real sense. Our only question should be, "Is the concept helpful?" And that depends, of course, on what it is used for. If it is used to strengthen the recognition of the eternal nature of life, it is helpful indeed. Is any other question about it really useful in lighting up the way? Like many other beliefs, it can be bitterly misused. At least, such misuse offers preoccupation and perhaps pride in the past. At worst, it induces inertia in the present. In between, many kinds of folly are possible.

       Reincarnation would not, under any circumstances, be the problem to be dealt with now. If it were responsible for some of the difficulties the individual faces now, his task would still be only to escape from them now. If he is laying the groundwork for a future life, he can still work out his salvation only now. To some, there may be comfort in the concept, and if it heartens them its value is self-evident. It is certain, however, that the way to salvation can be found by those who believe in reincarnation and by those who do not. The idea cannot, therefore, be regarded as essential to the curriculum. There is always some risk in seeing the present in terms of the past. There is always some good in any thought which strengthens the idea that life and the body are not the same.

       For our purposes, it would not be helpful to take any definite stand on reincarnation. A teacher of God should be as helpful to those who believe in it as to those who do not. If a definite stand were required of him, it would merely limit his usefulness, as well as his own decision making. Our course is not concerned with any concept that is not acceptable to anyone, regardless of his formal beliefs. His ego will be enough for him to cope with, and it is not the part of wisdom to add sectarian controversies to his burdens. Nor would there be an advantage in his premature acceptance of the course merely because it advocates a long-held belief of his own.

       It cannot be too strongly emphasized that this course aims at a complete reversal of thought. When this is finally accomplished, issues such as the validity of reincarnation become meaningless. Until then, they are likely to be merely controversial. The teacher of God is, therefore, wise to step away from all such questions, for he has much to teach and learn apart from them. He should both learn and teach that theoretical issues but waste time, draining it away from its appointed purpose. If there are aspects to any concept or belief that will be helpful, he will be told about it. He will also be told how to use it. What more need he know?

       Does this mean that the teacher of God should not believe in reincarnation himself, or discuss it with others who do? The answer is, certainly not! If he does believe in reincarnation, it would be a mistake for him to renounce the belief unless his internal Teacher so advised. And this is most unlikely. He might be advised that he is misusing the belief in some way that is detrimental to his pupil's advance or his own. Reinterpretation would then be recommended, because it is necessary. All that must be recognized, however, is that birth was not the beginning, and death is not the end. Yet even this much is not required of the beginner. He need merely accept the idea that what he knows is not necessarily all there is to learn. His journey has begun.
       The emphasis of this course always remains the same; - it is at this moment that complete salvation is offered you, and it is at this moment that you can accept it. This is still your one responsibility. Atonement might be equated with total escape from the past and total lack of interest in the future. Heaven is here. There is nowhere else. Heaven is now. There is no other time. No teaching that does not lead to this is of concern to God's teachers. All beliefs will point to this if properly interpreted. In this sense, it can be said that their truth lies in their usefulness. All beliefs that lead to progress should be honored. This is the sole criterion this course requires. No more than this is necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 06:08 AM

All living things have 'life' in them, fair enough? Collectively, all life on the planet, is 'life on the planet' as a whole...OK, (not too much a stretch). In this life, there is a consciousness, shared mutually by the forms of life, inhabiting the planet(Steve excluded, 'wink')...therefore, just as there is a collective life, on this ball, spinning in space, trying to survive, there is a collective 'intelligence'.

If this 'intelligence' existed before any given generation, then it has been self generating, just as 'life' itself has, before we personally jumped on the train....

If you 'tapped' into this 'collective, ongoing, intelligence', that is connected to the life process, as a whole, then very possibly, and probably, one could 'remember' another manifestation, from another time, when that intelligence, manifested itself, and in doing so, could have retained collected sensory data....

..not that YOU were another 'person' before....but you tapped into that data, via the ONE ongoing intelligence....of which is a part of you....as well as the prior. ITS ALL ONE!

...Even 'Time' itself, is subject to the dimensional manifestation of the observer.

Now, that wasn't too much of a stretch, was it?

It was almost perfectly ridiculous, actually. You plough on hopefully through your improbable whimsy as though your consciousness and collective intelligence for all life is a given. Tell me what consciousness or intelligence was possessed by those very first coacervate droplets that made the transition from non-life to life. Where's the consciousness and intelligence in cyanobacteria living on a rock-face? Your proposition is charmingly higher-animal-centric (there's probably a word for that). You unwittingly produce an insoluble paradox by suggesting on the one hand that life/intelligence in one big collective, then you propose that it's some kind of train that we jump on. In that, you cheerfully skate over everything we know about evolution. You may well have something, but the baby has gone down the drain. To cap it all, you conclude with an indecipherable final sentence about time.

Incidentally, I'd be more inclined to avoid contention if you were more inclined to avoid snide little asides.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 06:09 AM

Sorry, I intended the italics to start at the beginning of that post.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 06:13 AM

is one big collective

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 09:56 AM

If science creates an intelligent machine from synthetic material that we define as intelligenent as a human..should one consider this "manufactured thing" to be the same as what evolotution produced? Should they be given the same rights and considerations as evolved life, such as humans? In the current situation, should an intelligent computers be considered life? If not, why not? (In this question, for discussion purposes, let's omit any consideration for any Gods).

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 10:03 AM

Grishka
"If after our deaths we find out that our gods don't exist at all, they will forgive us".

I have been trying to avoid religion and God related discussion in my posts, because my observation that firm positions on it seems to cloud discussion and lead to dead end (and sometrime frustrated) directions.

While your statement above seems reasonable to me,I suspect a similar statement in the other direction like "we could have a lot to lose, so why not make a small investment while alive", also seems reasonable to me. It's a personal choice, is all I can conclude on that one.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 10:04 AM

OK, on that one I will bite Ed. I'd think if we truly did create a computer that thought for itself and had a free will, I would consider it a life form.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 10:18 AM

Well we'll have to wait and see. Life has never been defined as a phenomenon requiring a certain level of intelligence (in fact, I don't even think intelligence has ever been satisfactorily defined). As an old-fashioned biology teacher, I'm inclined to stick, at least for the time being, until someone comes up with a better list, to the criteria of life that the musty old school books parrot out. Movement in part or whole under own steam, nutrition, respiration, irritability/sensitivity to stimuli, excretion, growth, and - a toughie for the machines I fear - reproduction. Unkindly, many a biologist has also inserted an eighth: possession of controlling nucleic acids. Now that is rather a high bar. As for whether it's equivalent to what evolution achieved, I don't much sign of natural selection going on in the manufacture of machines. You'll need another word.

And I didn't mention God.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 10:25 AM

I think intelligence and personality and free will probably exists in all animal life forms Steve. To use cats I've known past and present as an example, even if each was identical in appearance, I'd know which was which. They would all have what I would call "catty traits" but they are none the less individuals.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 11:02 AM

Reproduction may not be such "a toughie" for machines...especially if one see beyond the way humans do it. A machinge making another machine (even another version) is likely not that far off from reality.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 11:38 AM

And the DNA? Reproduction in living things has a particular and fairly narrow meaning and context. It isn't like doing photocopies.

I think intelligence and personality and free will probably exists in all animal life forms Steve.

Well I can't argue that my cat doesn't possess all three. But my cat is a higher animal. I'm looking at the black mould growing on my window frame. Can't see much sign of personality or intelligence there. As for its free will, I suppose its spores blow helplessly around and just had to grow in the first suitable place they landed. Don't see much free will being exercised there. As I said to Mr Sanity, it's all too easy to get higher-animal-centric about these things.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 11:55 AM

I must admit I'd have difficulty in relating what I said to amoeba... So yes maybe just higher animals?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 12:22 PM

Ed T, when I wrote "If after our deaths we find out that our gods don't exist at all, they will forgive us", this was meant as an aperçu. Our errors are forgiven already.

Those who think in terms of return-on-investment in afterlife, notably Blaise Pascal, have quite a different idea of spirituality than my own one. In my opinion, trading with God, for Karma, indulgence, or whatever, is not a dignified way of dealing with the foundations of our existence. Many theologists (more or less secretly) agree to that, but believers often insist on business and want their priests for pimps.

Similar considerations apply to prayers, blessings, etc. about earthly matters such as Lincolnshire gritters (see that thread).

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 12:27 PM

Guest Jon.....says.....I'd think if we truly did create a computer that thought for itself and had a free will, I would consider it a life form......... I am asking if the 'Creator' would be the computers God?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 12:40 PM

You have gone above my head there, Georgiansilver.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 12:55 PM

It's a question that has intrigued theologians, not to mention sci-fi writers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 01:18 PM

Theologians are rather easily intrigued, unfortunately.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 01:38 PM

That genuine theologians are easily intrigued is not something I would see as a misfortune. We are taught to blindly accept and from my POV that is probably my own way out but to question is part of human nature.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 03:25 PM

Grishka

I can see if you view "a belief in a God" in the distorted (IMO)way you describe....trading with a God for a return-on-investment in afterlife....dealing with (religious) pimps (on earth)... it's no wonder you choose another route.

I am not be a person to disrespect you for this "personal choice". I suspect you would also respect others who did not see it in the same odd terms (IMO) you post, and made a different "personal choice".

I am curious, just how have you managed to tap into the "secret" minds" of theologists? Are those the living, or the departed? (or, was that another an aperçu)?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 04:33 PM

Steve: "Incidentally, I'd be more inclined to avoid contention if you were more inclined to avoid snide little asides."

"So, let's establish a couple of premises, that can be agreed upon, by all.(Steve excluded, unless he thinks that 'contention' is a meaningful exercise, other than enjoying the process)....."

Steve: "It was almost perfectly ridiculous, actually. You plough on hopefully through your improbable whimsy as though your consciousness and collective intelligence for all life is a given."

I'm sorry, yours excluded, but I had it covered, when I posted (snidely or accurately) ...

GfS:"...All living things have 'life' in them, fair enough? Collectively, all life on the planet, is 'life on the planet' as a whole...OK, (not too much a stretch). In this life, there is a consciousness, shared mutually by the forms of life, inhabiting the planet(Steve excluded,"


I wish in your anxieties to 'snipe out', that you wouldn't be so 'slow'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 08:36 PM

I wish your posts actually made sense. Now of course that could be construed as snide, but at least it's an accurate observation. That last one is all over the place. Sort of post I might make after about ten pints of bitter. Of course, you do have the option of responding to points in my posts, but hey.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 11:46 PM

Does nag, nag, nag, take the place of widening your scope? I only gave you a premise..that makes perfect sense. I'm not 'picking' on you. You just take it that way, and get defensive and ASSUME people assimilate like you....so you get contentious, and think everyone is on the 'attack'. Chill!

You could have said, "Hey cool, Thanks..something to consider.."....then consider it....After you lay aside......your delusion!

Wishing you well, anyways,

GfS


(The Living Thread....)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 12:09 AM

I've never had ten pints of bitter. Thank "God". (Don't take that religiously, Steve! It's a cultural expression to me, nothing more.) ;-) If I ever did have ten pints of bitter, it would probably kill me. Anyway, I can't stand the stuff, so it ain't gonna happen.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 12:28 AM

Hey Hawk!...Hope you had a great and thankful Thanksgiving!...

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 12:43 AM

I did, GfS...but ours (Canadian Thanksgiving) is in October. What we did have tonight was an Orillia Folk Society concert at the local hall. It was quite good, and we turned a slight profit after paying the performers. (All we really aim for is to more or less break even...)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: 3refs
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 02:03 AM

"to question is part of human nature"

It's natural for humans to ask "the big questions(little ones too, I guess)". As has been stated! My questions are, when did this start, what caused it and are humans the only life form capable of questioning?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 03:24 AM

I'd feel sure cat's and dogs do have their own reasoning in their own ways but to question in the way humans do over how and why it all started, etc. is something I doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: 3refs
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 03:54 AM

What about chimps and dolphins!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 04:18 AM

I've not a clue 3refs...

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 05:09 AM

Ed T (26 Nov 10 - 03:25 PM), I was writing about some believers, not all of them. Joe O. would call them superstitious.

I am curious, just how have you managed to tap into the "secret" minds of theologists?

They keep their minds secret only towards their "superstitious" believers, who may otherwise be disappointed and join a fundamentalist sect. In books and four-eye talks many things sound differently than from the pulpit, although theology has learned to avoid downright self-contradictions. I am not accusing anyone of hypocracy, just pointing out that the conflict also exists inside each of the mainstream denominations, possibly even inside individuals. Of course, I am not an expert and do not know all the details of the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 10:35 AM

You can pick on me all you like, Mr Sanity. I care not a jot. My asking you to articulate yourself clearly does not constitute "defensive." If I actually knew what you were on about I could argue with you. Here it goes again:

Steve: "Incidentally, I'd be more inclined to avoid contention if you were more inclined to avoid snide little asides."

"So, let's establish a couple of premises, that can be agreed upon, by all.(Steve excluded, unless he thinks that 'contention' is a meaningful exercise, other than enjoying the process)....."

Steve: "It was almost perfectly ridiculous, actually. You plough on hopefully through your improbable whimsy as though your consciousness and collective intelligence for all life is a given."

I'm sorry, yours excluded, but I had it covered, when I posted (snidely or accurately) ...

GfS:"...All living things have 'life' in them, fair enough? Collectively, all life on the planet, is 'life on the planet' as a whole...OK, (not too much a stretch). In this life, there is a consciousness, shared mutually by the forms of life, inhabiting the planet(Steve excluded,"


I wish in your anxieties to 'snipe out', that you wouldn't be so 'slow'!

You think that's clear? Ha ha. It's just an incoherent mess.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 12:42 PM

It is pretty hard to determine what various people are talking about here, Steve, because too many people are talking at once. Too many cooks always spoil the soup. I think that the only real solution would be for some of us to resort to PMs and talk to each other directly one on one instead of in a thread....because in a thread people constantly get distracted and diverted by something someone said that was a reaction to something someone else said that was a reaction to something yet another person said that was a reaction to something the first person said to yet another person who reacted to....AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (runs screaming from the room)

With that in mind, I may presently PM you so I can figure out what you are actually talking about, and so you can figure out what I am actually talking about. It might be a worthwhile start toward some kind of real communication. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 02:55 PM

Steve Shaw: "You think that's clear? Ha ha. It's just an incoherent mess."

It's perfectly clear.

...even 'more clear', should you elect to tap into that collective 'intelligence' that you seem to deny exists..

Wink,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 03:47 PM

Well, your post is there for the perusal of all, Sanity. I wonder if anyone else thinks it's "perfectly clear." Tell you what. Let's not bother asking 'em. I mean, for example, what's this?

I'm sorry, yours excluded, but I had it covered, when I posted (snidely or accurately) ...

...and this?

I wish in your anxieties to 'snipe out', that you wouldn't be so 'slow'!

It certainly isn't English in the usual sense of the word, is it? Either think about what you want to say and type it clearly or let's not bother to engage.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 02:57 AM

Steve Shaw: "It certainly isn't English in the usual sense of the word, is it? Either think about what you want to say and type it clearly or let's not bother to engage."

Huh?
You don't get that??

Besides, you answered MY post.

Are you over 25?..Maybe you just don't understand what was (and still is)common terminology. ..or.. re-read the exchange again..maybe you might 'get it'.

GfS

P.S....or not.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 06:30 AM

Well over 25, thanks. I did just about decipher your improbable whimsy, true enough, but little you've said since has yielded to my considerable attempts at mental processing. Perhaps, if you concentrated on the matter to hand instead of peppering your comments with the sarcastic little asides you appear to be unable to resist, clarity would prevail.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 12:32 PM

If clarity ever succeeds in prevailing on this forum, I will leave my entire estate to the Jehovah's Witnesses... ;-D

(that's a joke)

Also, may God strike me down with a thunderbolt if I have failed to make myself totally clear!

(and that's another)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 01:55 PM

Well Hawk, he did re-read it(apparently), and is coming along...as per aforementioned, I reckoned he was a 'little slow'...but that's OK, as long as he gets in safe!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 06:06 PM

I must admit that I have difficulty in understanding some of GfS's pronouncements. Maybe it's apparent habit of falling asleep mid-sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 06:09 PM

Please redirect your enquiries and comments to the official "clarity" thread which I have just launched...

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 06:47 PM

Well Hawk, he did re-read it(apparently), and is coming along...as per aforementioned, I reckoned he was a 'little slow'...but that's OK, as long as he gets in safe!

In the words of the mighty Ronnie Reagan, there you go again.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 01:42 AM

Dave McKenzie: "I must admit that I have difficulty in understanding some of GfS's pronouncements. Maybe it's apparent habit of falling asleep mid-sentence."

Try getting more sleep, then.....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 05:24 AM

My apologies. That should have read: "Maybe it's his apparent habit of falling asleep mid-sentence."

And not spelling names correctly.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: KirstenE
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 01:04 PM

I can understand where richard Dawkins is coming from, as I, like him, used to be an anti-theist. I then became less angry about the whole thing and just became a plain down to earth, non judgmental atheist (although I prefered the term 'Humanist' at the time). I moved on to become an agnostic, and I have now been a 'Theist' for the past 14 years.
"Seek and ye shall find"
"Judge ye not, as ye shall be judged".

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 03:44 PM

We don't call religionists "anti-atheists." It's amusing that believers have adopted the converse terminology for atheists. Very amusing, and says much about the insecurity of those who indulge in such silliness.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 07:37 PM

At its most basic level, the Law of Fives states that, in any given pub, if I've had five pints I shall require at least another.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 07:39 PM

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.

In which case, you really do have to ask yourself what the point of belief is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 07:56 PM

"In which case, you really do have to ask yourself what the point of belief is"

I do not doubt that most people, not just you and me, have indeed done what you suggest. They have merely come to different conclusions than you, as people "often do" with many aspects of life. And, I have no problem with that. But, as I see from your many posts on the topic (many stating basically the same case), that you seem to have such a problem "with that".

If so, I suggest that it most likely will remain your problem, not one of the believers in a God (who seem to be doing OK with their belief).

I would wager that that all the posting on mudcat will not make even a ripple of change at all. C'est la vie

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 07:59 PM

QUOTE
If so, I suggest that it most likely will remain your problem, not one of the believers in a God (who seem to be doing OK with their belief).

I would wager that that all the posting on mudcat will not make even a ripple of change at all. C'est la vie
UNQUOTE

Yep, that precisely demonstrates just what the Law of Fives is all about.... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 08:16 PM

I fear I'm all at sixes and sevens with your Law of Fives.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 08:22 PM

I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they want to believe, and I've said that several times. I do have a problem with people who are so convinced of the truth of their beliefs that they have no compunction about passing on those beliefs (or conniving in that passing on, by sending their children to faith schools for example) as truth to impressionable children in the form of settled doctrine. This is the only way in which religion can be perpetuated, and, frankly, it stinks.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 08:53 PM

"Yep, that precisely demonstrates just what the Law of Fives is all about.... :-)"

I see what you mean. Six is really five plus one, and four is five minus one, and on and on.

Strange I never saw that for myself. To have missed it makes me feel like a stupid bunt.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 08:55 PM

Steve, it's so simple even I can understand it! :-P

But then I have had decades to get my head around it .... the same as for Hofstadter's Pulitzer Prize winning book "Escher Godel and Bach - An Eternal Golden Braid"

"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."

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 08:58 PM

"I see what you mean. Six is really five plus one, and four is five minus one, and on and on. "

Careful, I fell into the Dark Side by staring at that for too long, and it took me ages to get out.

I can honestly say that it had no lasting effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Dec 10 - 12:46 PM

steve-the 5,s thing lost me too,though i think i began to get it with subsequent posts-but not enough to comment with confidence.
i,m sorry to upset you again but the christian faith is inclusive of passing that faith on, so if you truly accept that we can believe what we like, you will have to get over it.having said that i dont know any christian that will pin you to the wall and make you listen.
as to indoctrinating children;in school this is education .i suspect they get more than enough evolutionary theory presented as fact to balance out any notion that they might otherwise naturally have that there is a creator God.

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

The difference is that evolution theory is indeed fact, supported by mountains of hard evidence. Of course, you've admitted several times that you haven't studied it, so I suppose it comes as no surprise that you do that typical believers' thing of putting it on the same level as religious belief. Well, I'll go along with that just as soon as you provide me with mountains of hard evidence for the existence of God. Agreed?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Dec 10 - 05:00 PM

"My father was a scholar!" brags the fool"
"My mother was a mare!" proclaims the mule"

Chinese proverb

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Dec 10 - 09:43 AM

the only "mountains"i have so far seen from what i have observed are more like anthills.where is your evidence of microbes to man evolution.you have probably seen the clip where dawkins is stumped by a "creationist"question,probably the others by his supporters alledging fraudulent editing.i doubt that is the case but either way the proffesser did,nt give a straight answer when he did finally respond.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 10 - 10:38 AM

where is your evidence of microbes to man evolution

You don't seem to understand that evolution is not a single line. There are branches, extinctions and dead-ends all over the story. There are also myriad gaps in the record. Evolution is a story of diversification from common ancestry, not a progression from one living form to the next. It really is difficult to discuss this with someone who is rather proud to profess their ignorance of it, and I repeat my oft-made suggestion to you that you get a good book about evolution and have a look. We non-believers were forced to study the Bible after all. At least it would be voluntary in your case.

As for being stumped by creationist questions, well they are usually such dumb questions that they can have the effect of leaving one utterly speechless.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Dec 10 - 10:43 AM

Evolution from a scientific perspective requires no evidence. It's a done deal if you respect what most biologists, physiologists and leading scientists say about it. Evolution requires no faith but has been hammered out into a sculpture of evidence-based reason by Darwin, despite what "Creationists" attempt to create which as they say in England is "absolute rubbish".

The bible is a purveyor of mythological proportions that do nothing to enhance scientific study but offer for those who obsessively adhere to it, an incoherent weapon that reinforces their imprisoned mind-set.

Still, enablers of fanaticism and reactionary claims, based on false religious premises, have drowned out the voice of reason in their strident rants and delusional arguments.

The "delusion delusion" is another way of promulgating this deluded rant by offering not a legitimate argument for its viewpoint but a head-in-the-sand
approach saying if we ignore it, it will all go away. I got news for them.

Atheism is polled as third in its mode of interest compared to Baptists and Islamists. It's growing and it's not going away.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 12 Dec 10 - 11:19 AM

Atheists, Baptists and Islamists? An interesting combination.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: John P
Date: 12 Dec 10 - 11:24 AM

Pete, Creation Science was invented by a bunch of pushy Christians in order to justify their taking over local school boards and forcing the teaching of the Bible in science classrooms in public schools.

Your refusal to get educated on this subject makes you somewhat irritating when you continue to put Creationism forward as something that anyone should take seriously.

Please learn something about all this. Creationism is, arguably, an attempt to overthrow the Constitution of the United States. Wouldn't you rather be on the side of right and honor?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Dec 10 - 12:21 PM

thankyou for your very wordy responses to my straightforward challenge, but which seem to amount to a lack of evidence,other than appeal to other "authorities"and my own lack of reading darwin/dawkins directly.
even suppose i were to read darwins books it would not mean you would consider the creationist case any more,would it steve?
and as i have also said before;you issue challenges but dont accept them yourself.my sources ie scientists who are creationists[though formerly evolutionist often]have read all those books and quote them,yet you dismiss them as oxymoronic-though i do note you are more polite lately,thanks.

stingsinger-if you have no evidence for evolutionism,i guess that makes it a faith position

i understand that historically it was a literal understanding of the bible among scientists that led to a great advance in practical science,as i think even atheists have sometimes conceded.by contrast,evolutionism has little impact on experimental science,that would not as well be the case by design.if you know otherwise;im sure you will say.

as to strident rants;ireckon you are more proficient at this skill than myself!

i am not in the least surprised by a rising interest in atheism.it is entirely in line with biblical predictions!i could give you chapter and verse if you like!
thankyou gentlemen for your continued interest which opportunes the sharing of my faith with you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 05:14 AM

The Modern Bible

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 11:34 AM

pete, (since you don't use capitalization, i won't either) there is plenty of evidence for evolution whether you want to accept that or not, since creationism is built on a house of cards that contains no valid evidence for its views, and it proclaims from the rooftops the bellowing idea that faith equals ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 11:41 AM

Steve, it is futile to explain Evolution to those who are diametrically opposed to it because they haven't learned to think for themselves and prefer the inane ramblings of their Sunday Sermons delivered by fanatical babblers. It's a form of mental glossalalia which makes as much sense as the ravings of a drug-crazed street addict.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 01:59 PM

asertions ad nauseum.at least steves had some some substance to his even though lacking evidence.
ever heard the expression"argument weak,shout like blazes"[or mudcat
equivalent]
quite right stringsinger;dont need capitals for mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 03:11 PM

It has been well established that creation "scientists" misread and misquote actually evolutionary science, so if you're relying on them and not on the original material or any trust in the vast body of work that is accepted (not strictly on faith) in the scientific world, then your understanding of evolution will be entirely flawed.

If I may be so bold, I believe that what Stringsinger meant to say was "Evolution from a scientific perspective requires no further evidence to be accepted as fact." However, further evidence is accumulated every day. It's absurd to expect a Mudcat screen-length response to your "straightforward question". I suggest, as I have before, starting at the resources recommended by the National Academy of Sciences.

~ Becky in Tucson
University of Arizona
Dept. of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 06:50 PM

asertions ad nauseum.at least steves had some some substance to his even though lacking evidence.
ever heard the expression"argument weak,shout like blazes"[or mudcat
equivalent]
quite right stringsinger;dont need capitals for mudcat.

You have this all the wrong way round. It's you making the assertions. All I can do is tell you what science has revealed to us (by dint of the painstaking gleaning of evidence over thousands of years). But you don't want to look at that. What you do is to assert that the universe/nature/life on Earth(whatever) are so improbable that there simply has to be a creator. In view of all the science we have (and, most tellingly, the fact of evolution), this simply doesn't make sense any more. All the time the jigsaw of the Big Bang is being put together, and all life on Earth in its beauty and complexity is explained in a two-line sentence describing natural selection. Your back is seriously to the wall, and that is because your assertion about a creator is not only infinitely more improbable than what science has so far yielded (I won't go over it again but I predict that you'll tempt me to) but is also completely bereft of evidence. Pete, your woolly posts have gone far enough. It's time to piss or get off the pot. Give us your evidence. Stop hiding behind "you lot won't believe it anyway." And, while you're at it, give us the names and credentials of some of these "creationist scientists" you're so enamoured of.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 08:03 PM

The Law of Fives is all about how our 'Reality' is based on our preconceived ideas of what we are looking for, and also what we reject and refuse to accept.

The human mind is programmed (the Evolution position is that those who had a low level of this ability did not thrive and thus died out) to
look for faces, now we have built relatively simple machines that can do that too. This is also seen as an attack on the indispensability of a magic sky fairy to solely make such entities.

If I tell you that this Image contains an image of Jesus, your brain is already programmed to look for human outlines, so even Atheists will see Jesus in the pose of Ascension. This simply explains why such images are regularly detected in toast, floors, walls, photos of snow fields, etc - it is an artifact of how the brain functions.

Further, our brain is also wired to reject or filter out things we insist on rejecting so that we refuse to acknowledge (viz - the gorilla on the basketball court research ), which is why those who have refused to study Science objectively, but treat it just like any other Religion (revealed unalterable facts, not a constant painstaking process of constantly rexamining), reject any possible understanding of Evolution. Further they deliberately 'misunderstand' (doubtless they think it 'funny') basic concepts, such as claiming that there is a 'direct line from slime to man', when such a claim is NOT Science, but merely their malicious (or just mentally incapable) twisting of The Science position, just to put down that change which they do not want to adapt to.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 08:29 PM

Brilliant stuff, Foolestroupe, but please tell me you didn't take a picture of a dog's arse just to make the point... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 08:53 PM

Steve,

Our Troll (current massive cut and paster in the BS threads) displayed his sense of humour by claiming it was a picture of me. Of course I was grateful for his claiming that I was a Christ Like figure, but he didn't get the real joke... That pic has been around for some time so I recognised it as one of the 'occult Jesus photos' series ...

I told the Narcissist to stop taking photos of himself in the mirror...

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 08:55 PM

Oh, and Steve - being brought up a Fundamentalist Lutheran, I was taught that the Mind of The True Believer sees God in Everything...

which also reinforces the Law of Fives thingy ... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 14 Dec 10 - 12:43 AM

In a Single-Cell Predator, Clues to the Animal Kingdom's Birth

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 10 - 06:46 AM

That's a very interesting article. I suppose we have to be wary of the trap of convergent evolution (but I am getting rusty as time passes...)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Dec 10 - 08:31 AM

It has been recently discovered, due to genetic coding being possible much faster and cheaper now, that many species that look alike (sea shell thingys, etc), are now in fact sufficiently distinct to be separate species of themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Dec 10 - 03:21 PM

hi becky.i read some of the articles on the NAS site which on the surface look quite convincing to the layman-if these objections to creation had not already been answered by qualified scientists.i dont know if you have ever visited creation.com but they would be more profitable for one of your learning to assess than my limited education.

steve-it would take too long to list creationist scientists and i,m sorry i dont know how to do the blue clicky thing but i,m sure you could find it on the aforementioned site-if you really want to know.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 10 - 03:50 PM

*Yawn* Just name bloody names, we'll lokk 'em up. Come on, scaredy cat.

You can be a working scientist (probably wearing a lab coat, doing the routine stuff and fetching the boiling tubes for the prof) and at the same time be a creationist. But you can't be a creationist scientist. Science is predicated on evidence, and there is no evidence for creationism.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 10 - 03:52 PM

look 'em up. Mind you, lock 'em up... tee hee...

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Dec 10 - 11:43 PM

"there is no evidence for creationism"

Don't worry Steve, just wait,and theytl make it up for you - like a suit ... :-P

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 03:15 PM

whats with the scardy cat steve.i told you where to find names.maybe its you that dont want his preconceptions challenged.after all i,ve looked on the unbelieving sites from the outright hostile to the more subtle.since you have dismissed my opinions as uneducated why not tackle those who are.
ref your post 11/12/10you admit yourself that evolutionary theory has myriad gaps and dead ends,so it makes no sense to me to say that creationism has no evidence!.common sense to the common man tells you that anything made has an intelligent maker.if all you have to offer is your learning, untranslatable to the layman, why should i accept that when i can read things that do make sence to me?.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 05:58 PM

ref your post 11/12/10you admit yourself that evolutionary theory has myriad gaps and dead ends,so it makes no sense to me to say that creationism has no evidence!

No, it's the fossil record that has the gaps and dead ends, not the theory. The theory is sound as sound can be. Evolution is the truth.

common sense to the common man tells you that anything made has an intelligent maker.

Well now, it depends on what you mean by "made." Once again, your lack of knowledge of the evolutionary process shines through. You developed from a fertilised egg which underwent a process of cell division and differentiation according to a blueprint that has taken billions of years to perfect, to end up with a human being. Not one natural law has ever been breached in the development of that blueprint. "Who made you" comes straight from that simplistic and mendacious Catholic document, the Catechism. As ever, you ask the wrong questions. Read some Darwin. You'll be amazed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 07:13 PM

"you admit yourself that evolutionary theory has myriad gaps and dead ends,so it makes no sense to me to say that creationism has no evidence!."

This statement makes no rational or logical sense. There is no connection between the two statements, except for an emotional one in the mind of the person making this claim.

This is another example of The Law of Fives reasoning style to make connived convoluted links 'beyond human understanding' to support preconceptions ... which succeeds very well.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 07:29 PM

Creation scientists and other specialists of interest

Scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation
(list of unknowns follows)

THE WORLD'S GREATEST CREATION SCIENTISTS
From Y1K to Y2K

# Most of the greatest scientists of the past 1000 years were Christians and creationists.
# To these scientists, Christianity was the driving force behind their discoveries.
# The Christian world view gave birth and impetus to modern science.

Accompanying the text are full-page color graphics in JPG and PDF formats, containing pictures, lists of accomplishments, tributes by others and quotes by the scientists themselves. They make excellent transparencies for teachers and speakers. The full set of these graphics can also be purchased from the products page,

http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm -> [Problem loading page]

No list of names found ...

Products ->

Evolution: Possible or Impossible?
by Dr. James F. Coppedge
Not found in stores (out of print)
Available Only Here

The best book on the probability argument against evolution. Mind-boggling statistics. Written for the layman – easy to understand. Learn about proteins, DNA and the laws of chance. Never again doubt the Creator's wisdom!

The "Truth" is not "Free", apparently ...
~~~~~~~~~~

Real Science is not 'Mind Boggling', but Shamans often make this claim about how difficult what they do is ...

Real Science, of course, in order to be understood, needs to progress slowly and carefully, with much review, of ideas built upon previous ideas. However, if you already know all the facts, there is no point in wasting time learning anything different or new.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 07:37 PM

"# The Christian world view gave birth and impetus to modern science. "

Unless for several hundred years prior to now you wanted to believe that the Earth went round the Sun.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 08:20 PM

"you admit yourself that evolutionary theory has myriad gaps and dead ends,so it makes no sense to me to say that creationism has no evidence!."

This statement makes no rational or logical sense. There is no connection between the two statements...

Yep, classic non sequitur, Pete. I spotted it but I thought I'd battered you enough. If you have evidence, let's have it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 08:15 AM

thanks foolestroupe for links notwithstanding negative comments.sorry one link difficult but there is still a lot of free "truth" on the site-as you put it!.

steve-sorry about some measure of misquoting you.i think i understood your analogy[?]but as the cell only has info for what it will be and no other end i dont understand how that supports macro evolutionary theory.
i read intro of origins yesterday.i wont promise to read it all-see how i get on.
i already noted p3 that darwin concedes that points he discusses could lead to conclusions directly opposite to which he arrived.
also admitting to some grave difficulties to his theory.all this before the discovery of DNA complexity!.
seems darwin had a lot more humility than dawkins.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 08:55 AM

Just because I gave a few quick links, doesn't mean that I don't believe that they are self delusional nutters/suffers of the Law of of Fives... I found no 'truth' - just irrational non-sequitirs typical of the Law of Fives self delusional types.

".a lawyer setting out to disprove the ressurrection and examining the NT documents arrived at the conclusion Christ did rise from the dead."

Yep Law of Fives again... as happened to Saul/Paul who had a mind flipo. (see Sargant, below) I have the book packed away.

Read "Battle for the Mind" -
SARGANT, William, Battle for the Mind:SARGANT, William, Battle for the Mind: A Physiology of Conversion & Brain-Washing 1957 - avail at http://annenberg.usc.edu/CurrentStudents/Resources/AbergResourceCtr/Books/S.aspx

also see http://www.freepdfdocs.com/index.php?q=Fitness+for+the+Mind+cover+page

explains how religious conversion works. This guy worked on people severely suffering from war trauma. His dad was a preacher. He took his class into a 'revival meeting', and by having them control the tempo of the clapping, took control of the emotions of the meeting, etc

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 09:04 AM

"the cell only has info for what it will be and no other end i dont understand how that supports macro evolutionary theory."

It does not forbid it - evolution can only use what's THERE NOW.

OK a few bits of damage that happen to allow some future possibilities when situations change are called mutations - and may be hidden there for unknown ages until those that possess it get an advantage - 'survival of the fittest' ... :-)

Fairly recent finding ... :-)

In Choanoflagellates, Clues to the Animal Kingdom's Birth - NYTimes.com (bit technical!)

some nutters will claim this to be a 'missing link' - but it's not missing NOW and evolutionary theory predicted this sort of thing WOULD EXIST anyway ... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 03:50 PM

the cell only has info for what it will be and no other end

Well now, this depends on what cell you're talking about. Every cell in your body, save for red blood cells which have no nucleus, contains in its nucleus the whole genetic blueprint for you. Differentiation of cells into tissues and organs dictates that there must be a mechanism for switching genes on and off (otherwise you'd be a massive great big blob of amorphous nothingness). Just think of the evolution that must have gone into developing not only the blueprint but also the control mechanisms for switching genes on and off. Wonderful stuff, mind-blowing even, and all triumphantly possible within the laws of physics. No God needed. Stick God into that lot and you end up not having to think about it and ponder it and marvel at it, and all within natural laws too. What a pity that would be.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Dec 10 - 06:52 PM

dont worry foolstroupe;i was,nt implying any change in your position,just quoting your sarcastic[?]use of the word"truth"
war trauma and revivalism sounds interesting but i,m sorry my mind did,nt join the dots...
some do get converted while emotionally charged but a lawyer setting out to disprove the ressurection dont seem relevant to that idea.maybe if i read the source-but i can,t read everything.
i did read the"bit technical"link.interesting that it mentions chimps/humans.yesterday i was reading how a recent study revealed a lot less similarity!.
does,nt a mutation mean losing info that may benifit in some circumstances?would not info gain be needed for macro change, however small the progress?
steve-while admiring your science knowledge,your conclusion seems entirely a bias blurb to do dawkins proud.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 12:15 AM

"(otherwise you'd be a massive great big blob of amorphous nothingness)"

Taking into account the level intellectual ability manifested by the Science Deniers.... Daddy, are we There yet?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 06:13 AM

does,nt a mutation mean losing info that may benifit in some circumstances?would not info gain be needed for macro change, however small the progress?

Nah. You just don't get it at all. A mutation occurs in an individual. An individual is just one of hundreds, or thousands, or millions, or thousands of millions in the population. A mutation in an individual has the potential to increase "info" [sic].

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 07:08 AM

... and then THAT individual, or descendants to whom that 'info' was passed, may have the ability to 'resist something'. It was discovered that some individuals, no matter the level of exposure to HIV/AIDS, did not contract the disease. Eventually, (to put it in very simple layman terms) it was discovered that they had a mutation that changed the surface structure of their cells, which meant that the virus was not able to 'latch on' so easily to the 'bits that were missing' due to the mutation... 'survival of the fittest' in a sense...

No Steve, don't beat me for using that term .... I was just trying to lay out the chain of causation simply ...

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 01:11 PM

If that mutation confers an advantage that makes it more likely to be passed on via sexual reproduction it is indeed a case of "survival of the fittest." Not how Darwin would have put it, but at least it's in the spirit of the thing.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 01:30 PM

The continuous accusation that Dawkins or anyone who doesn't agree with the harmful aspects of religion is sheer unmitigated prejudice and is an arrogance of its own.

I read Dawkins as being not arrogant but open to ideas even from those who vehemently disagree with him. He is a scientist foremost and as a result has a natural and wholesome curiosity about the ideas he finds swirling around him. As a scientist, he investigates with penetrating laser logic and discipline. He will protest against child abuse and the indoctrination of children, or the brickbats thrown at atheists by pompous popes. The world doesn't need another Torquemada. My reading of Dawkins is that he is sympathetic with the plight of those who are responding to their indoctrination and cultural bias. He has religious friends (mainly liberal) and shows his respect to them as people.

Deepak Chopra's attack on Dawkins is not convincing, forged in the galium spoon of empty double-talk with new agey sauce and so-called misty and foggy "spiritual" values.

People ought to read Dawkins carefully before heaping their prejudices on him.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 02:40 PM

Sheeshe!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 04:11 PM

it is a great honour that a great intellect such as yourself should deign to talk to,or about a low level such as i.
nevertheless foolestroupe that does not make me a science denier if i agree with scientists of another view .
but tanks for trying to communicate simply.

steve-i think i expressed the question badly on rereading it,though admittedly my understanding of the physics is lacking.however i believe that any change conferred by mutations has not been demonstrated to lead to macro change.if you can cite otherwise,i,m sure you will.

stringsinger-of course dawkins would not seem combative from your perspective,though i understand some other evolutionists do find him OTT.Ican only speak from what i have heard him say[not just soundbites]

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 11:32 PM

"it is a great honour that a great intellect such as yourself should deign to talk to,or about a low level such as i."

Sarcasm will get you nowhere. I once believed as you, then I opened my mind, studied, and learned.

You can side with who you want, (I won't mention even that Austrian Corporal), but the output of those alleged 'Scientists' reveals that they are only using emotion, not 'Science' when they claim they have 'proof'.

Their 'proof' relies on thinking similar to The Law of Fives. It is inconsistent, self contradictory, uses the same term for different inconsistent things, and conveniently and willfully ignores stuff that shoots them down in flames.

Their convolutions that have to be gone though to prove things such as that the Grand Canyon was formed in a matter of a few hours are laughably inconsistent, even to one such as I who is not an expert in matters of Geology.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Dec 10 - 08:56 AM

yes foolestroupe there was some sarcasm in light of your previous post, but not entirely.i was also making a bit of humour[did,nt work!]and honest admittance of your greater learning,though not agreeing with your conclusions.
i,ve no idea who this corporal is,
seems the rest of your post alleged falsehood on the part of creationists.do you imply they dont have phds,or is it simply because they come to opposite conclusions.
its one thing to allege consistencies,and worse, claim wilful errors-but its another thing to demonstrate as such.
perhaps you should learn some moderation from darwin;as i quoted earlier.
some of the creation.com site does touch on emotional issues eg abortion,racism,demicide,but some of it is hardgoing[for me]technical stuff.
not sure that i,ve read "proof" much,though "evidence"probably is used as a reguler word on the site.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Dec 10 - 06:44 PM

As I said before Pete, they may even HAVE the best intentions, but when you are trapped in a "Law of Fives" type intellectual loop, you cannot even see that you are deluding yourself, because everything you think only keeps reinforcing and 'proving' the false assumptions you start off with. Some more cruel than I might even feel that levels of sanity might be on the limits....

While I do have a great sense of humor (see my Fooles writing on the web), when it comes to pure intellectual processes juggling abstract concepts, I'm rather like Mr Spock from Star Trek - no 'sense of humor' at all... :-P .. also I am more of a Generalist Inter-Disciplinarian than a Specific Expert - I know a lot about a little, but a little about a lot. I'm also blessed (or cursed - I say that in the Kingdom of The Blind, The One Eyed Man will be persecuted as a troublemaker!) with a level of intellectual capability that is definitely 'not average' - but I still do keep on trying to improve the thinking machine... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Dec 10 - 02:15 PM

when i read your quote on other thread i thought you had gone for moderation!5x5

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Dec 10 - 04:52 PM

I'm starting a collection...

evoloution (and related ideas)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 03:57 PM

i dont think i need to worry that my reading in evolutionism might be too superficial after that!.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 04:16 PM

The opposite of Evolution is not Creationism. Creationism is a myth, Evolution is real.

Mythology has its place though. Joseph Campbell has made that point well.

Campbell maintains that myths help us learn certain cultural mores that are valuable.
"Thou Shalt Not Kill" is one that is an important dictum. Whether a Jesus really or physically said this or not, is irrelevant. It is still an important injunction.

Some myths help society and others are destructive. As long as we recognize myths as myths we can pick and choose accordingly.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 05:11 PM

"stringsinger-of course dawkins would not seem combative from your perspective,though i understand some other evolutionists do find him OTT.Ican only speak from what i have heard him say[not just soundbites]"

A lot depends upon how you hear what someone is saying.

I think any kind of evangelism is destructive and Dawkins is not an evangelist. I think he would allow people to make up their own minds about their beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 07:39 PM

"If religion is as much a fairy tale as you make it out to be, why does it mean so much to so many?" Quote, the movie, The Last Templar

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 07:46 PM

You're struggling, Ed. It doesn't matter if the world population bar one bloke in Pott Shrigley believes in God, if they're wrong they're wrong. Weight of numbers is neither evidence nor good argument and you know it. Of course, I know how desperate you must be to have to clutch at that particular straw. Hear the sound of a distant drummer, Ed. Avoid the herd mentality.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 08:23 PM

There you go again, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 08:27 PM

Steve was goated (aka herded) towards a comment twice in the same day. Likely not much of a life record, but a first for me.

"If you want to see him do his thing, simply pull a theist string" (Heehee).

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 09:53 AM

You have a peculiar idea of what constitutes little victories, Ed. I have no idea what you're talking about. Still, I understand that you do need some scrap or other to cling on to.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 10:04 AM

I suppose the biggest delusion is the belief by the contributors to this thread that the other side will actually understand the points they're making.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 10:25 AM

yep... my cartoons sure didn't impress anyone... ☺

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 06:00 PM

even if every scientist bar one was an evolutionist it would,nt make it fact.and you know it!
i like the story of the communist official lecturing russians on atheism.at the conclusion an old man asked to say a few words.
he simply said"Christ is risen"
"he is risen indeed"thundered back the audience.
i cant verify the accuracy of the story but it illustrates the firmness of belief of millions who see nothing illogical in believing in God.
if even darwin can concede that his research can be concluded by others opposite to his own conclusions,[origins ed1 p3]why do the atheists on these threads push their dogma so fervantly?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 08:19 PM

If every scientist bar one was an evolutionist it wouldn't make it a fact. Why, I agree with that wholeheartedly! You're on my side at last! You recognise that sheer weight of numbers does not make any sort of argument in favour. Very good. So you'll have to concede that all that firmness of belief by the gullible millions doesn't strengthen by one jot the argument for God's existence. So you need evidence, just like I do. Unfortunately, I have it in abundance and you have none.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 03:55 AM

I haven't even found evidence that I exist - Cogito ergo cogito ipse esse.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 01:29 PM

i am happy for you to demonstrate the alleged non existence of God,and gracious of you to take the ball in your own court.christians often attest to their experience of a sure faith[though admittedly sometimes questions]as the result of the Spirit of God in them,as scripture explains.
present your evidence and we can discuss it.
seasons greetings if i dont get back over christmas.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: John P
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 03:55 PM

i am happy for you to demonstrate the alleged non existence of God

No evidence, for any normal purposes, equals non-existence. How many times do we have to say this? If you want to propose and claim as rational the existence of something for which there is no evidence it is up to you convince others you are not just talking our your butt. Mind you, I'm completely fine with you believing in god and not needing any evidence. Just don't try to say that it is a rational belief, or that I should accept anything about it on your (or anyone else's) say so.

As soon as a believer gets into a debate about proving the existence of god, he or she has already lost the debate. Belief is, by its nature, irrational. Your only recourse is to say, "Yes, I believe in God, even though there isn't any clear reason for me to do so. So what?"

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 04:54 PM

If you can prove the existence of God, then it's not God. As I've said before, I heard Richard Dawkins on Radio 4 earlier this year making a good case for the existence of God.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: John P
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 07:52 PM

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

-Lao Tzu

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 04:27 PM

well john;if you read the previous post,it appears that steve claims to have evidence in abundance that there is no God.
most of us who do believe ,do so with reason and with evidence though none that you accept.that does not make us illogical just because it,s not good enough for you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: John P
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 06:04 PM

It all depends on your definition of God, Pete. Tell me what attributes you claim for God and we can talk about it.

Here's some questions:

Is God conscious in the way that we usually understand the word?

Does God communicate with people using words and understandable concepts?

Did God write the Bible?

Is God really three-in-one? What does that mean?

Was Jesus a god?

Did Jesus rise from the dead?

Was Jesus the result of a virgin birth?

Does Satan exist and concern himself with the doings of mankind?

Does God actually respond to the specifics of specific prayers?

Do miracles, of the type described in the Bible, still occur? If not, why not? If so, can you give some examples?

Should be Bible be taken literally?

Why is there so much discrepancy between the message of the Old Testament and the New? Which should a Christian pay attention to?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 07:08 PM

No, I said that I have evidence in abundance for evolution whereas you have no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 04:40 AM

'It is their very contrariness that makes these books so fascinating, yet also a stumbling block for latter-day atheists. If the Bible is supposed to be God's "truth", His word, faithfully recorded and handed down to His chosen people, then how is it that we have the Wisdom books, which, as Alter writes, "are, in different ways, worlds apart from Genesis, Deuteronomy ands Prophets?".

'The Adversary, known in the King James Bible as "Satan", is a mysterious presence; not the Devil, the sum of all evil, of the later scriptures, but more like a zealous factory inspector, whose function is to test the mettle of the divine creation, Job'.

Salley Vickers reviewing 'The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes - A Translation with Commentary' translated by Robert Alter.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 06:41 AM

John P... asks... >>>>>>It all depends on your definition of God, Pete. Tell me what attributes you claim for God and we can talk about it<<<<<<<<.

Here's some questions:

Is God conscious in the way that we usually understand the word?
(ans Yes and of course man and woman were made in Gods image)

Does God communicate with people using words and understandable concepts?
(ans Sometimes through the prompting/conviction of the Holy Spirit and sometimes by direct spoken word)

Did God write the Bible?
(ans All Bible scripture is by inspiration from God)

Is God really three-in-one? What does that mean?
(ans The Trinity or three in one is God the Father, God the son and God the Holy Spirit who are three pieces of the same pie.. ie all the one God)

Was Jesus a god?
(ans Jesus was God(part of the three in one) in human form)

Did Jesus rise from the dead?
(ans If He didn't then I talk to myself often. The resurrection is the key to us being able to relate to God through Jesus.... Jesus said "The only way to the Father is through me" if he had remained dead then there would be no way to the Father)

Was Jesus the result of a virgin birth?
(ans Yes He was His birth and life on earth were pure and faultless)

Does Satan exist and concern himself with the doings of mankind?
(ans satan does exist and is currently Prince of the earth)

Does God actually respond to the specifics of specific prayers?
(ans To those who know Him, God answers many kinds of prayer... not always in the way expected but always answers)

Do miracles, of the type described in the Bible, still occur? If not, why not? If so, can you give some examples?
(ans Take a look at 'Mikes Healing' here.... 'Mikes Healing' and Testimony. that is of course a personal healing)

Should be Bible be taken literally?
(ans Yes, because it is the history of the people and God)

Why is there so much discrepancy between the message of the Old Testament and the New? Which should a Christian pay attention to?
(ans Obvious answer is that CHRISTians are followers of Christ so the message of the New Testament is the one to live by... The OT is the history and prophesies leading to Christs coming but give some indication of the 'nature' of God) PS OLD Testament and NEW Testament should give a clue there..... both different Covenants with God.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: John P
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 09:57 AM

Georgiansilver, why do you believe all this stuff? Does any of it make any sense to you in any normal, logical way? If so, can you explain it? If not, how can you stand being inside your brain with such a big part of your life not making any sense? Are you having some sort of experience that makes it all seem worthwhile? If so, can you describe your experience?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 10:43 AM

John... if you click on the link in my previous post and read both my testimony and my healing, they explain why I cannot doubt Gods existence.. I was left in no doubt whatsoever..... Many things happen in my life to confirm it all for me time and time again... but actually proving what has happened is another story. Anything I 'claim' has happened can be given a logical explanation by someone who doesn't believe or have my Faith.. but until a person comes into a 'relationship' with the living God for themselves.. they cannot understand the supernaturalness of such a relationship. I don't claim to be better than anyone else and I often make mistakes... because of my freewill in life. But I do believe I have something special that anyone else who wants can have........ We all have choices. With regard to making sense of it.. It makes far more sense than anything else in my life ever has.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 07:11 PM

georgian silver;great to have someone else at last on these threads that,s a bible believer.
john-how can you say that a big part of someones life does,nt make sense when they have clearly demonstrated why it does make sense to them.thats not to say that theological concepts can be fully explained.not every science concept can be fully explained either,can it?
steve-reading back your post i dont think i read it wrong ,but i accept that may not be what you intended to convey.
however i consider both connected as evolutionism essentially attempts to explain everything without a God-and i doubt you have abundant evidence for it either.as i said before if your hero[whom you urged me to read ]concedes his findings can lead to the opposite conclusion how is it you can be so dogmatic.
hope you had a good christmas/solstice.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Amos
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 07:31 PM

Wait...God is a PIE???

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

evolutionism essentially attempts to explain everything without a God"
Evolution explains life on Earth (and possibly wherever else it exists) in all its beauty and complexity. It does not explain why sugar dissolves in my tea or why a stone goes plop when I drop it into water. It attempts to explain things by means of reason based on evidence. God cannot enter into this because God cannot be arrived at by reason or evidence. It has nothing to do with God and does not set out to exclude God. It's just that the best explanation by far of life on Earth is arrived at without having to consider a God at all. In fact, hw would be an intellectual impediment were he to be included. And I said explanation, not guesswork, whimsy, flights of fancy, resort to magic or belief in what foolish people of old, clinging to ancient, flawed texts and tradition, have told you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Amos
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 08:55 PM

The patterns of existence and their intricate connection at the micro, sub-micro and macro levels can easily lead one to the belief in intentionality as some kind of harmonizing and coordinating force in the universe. And there's nothing wrong with that perception, nor should it be suppressed or downtrodden. Materialist scientists don't know what to do with that sort of perception, but that's neither here nor there.

Of course, jumping from that to a fat old pedophile in the sky is a bit of a leap, probably less defensible...

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 03:21 AM

Pete. I have been on these threads for a number of years but am not necessarily as vocal as in the early days. I come on to learn more about Folk music from all parts of the world and only now contribute to BS if I have a funny quip for a particular thread...or something more serious to say on another. The interesting thing for me is I believe in evolution inasmuch as the world is constantly changing and we as humans have to adapt to that... and have done... and are still doing. However, when you come to a knowledge that there is something bigger than you out there.. your life changes... if you want it to.. and for the better. But as I mentioned before.. until people find God for themselves, they won't believe......until they experience what He has to offer for themselves they will always doubt. The debate will continue as neither believers or unbelievers can prove beyond a doubt that God does or does not exist. Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 04:11 AM

"a fat old pedophile in the sky"

If that's the god you believe in, then it's no wonder you don't believe in God.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 04:33 AM

Georgiansilver, I wasn't going to jump into this thread, BUT, what you just posted echos something very similar that I posted in the 'God Delusion' thread.

GfS "Believing in God is hardly a choice, to those who have had an experience, in which 'God', makes itself plain and obvious...and yet, still, NOT as portrayed within the confines of a denominational slant. Its bigger!....and unless you've experienced that experience, or one that comes to you, in whatever form it takes, I'd just be another person, giving a 'rap' that another may not understand."

GfS: "All I can say, from those who have, and from personal experience, is Love will communicate to those who it wishes to manifest itself to, in different ways, to those who 'hear', The best way I know, is to ask, like I said. ..after that, let that spirit, communicate to you, the way it knows. It will be personal, deeply personal...and it will show you the rest of the way through.
If I give you a 'formula', I become just another restricting, constricting, and conflicting denomination...and honestly I'm NOT into starting another damn religion!!
That being said, once the journey picks up, pay attention. It may lead you into places you'd never suspect, places you'd suspect to reject, down a path you can't detect.
...but once you pick up the phone, don't think the call is over..once you hang up!"

Georgiansilver, I believe you.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 06:17 PM

However, when you come to a knowledge that there is something bigger than you out there.. your life changes... if you want it to.. and for the better. But as I mentioned before.. until people find God for themselves, they won't believe......until they experience what He has to offer for themselves they will always doubt.

Nothing original here. Just the usual last-ditch gambit from believers: "I can't give you any evidence whatsoever, and I can't make you believe me, but I've had these 'experiences' that leave me in no doubt that God is there and doing it for me, and I only hope that one day you will also find what I have been so fortunate to find..."

Bullshit. Where's your evidence? And what sort of God would reveal himself to lucky old you but not to blighted old me? Like freemasons scratching the backs of the in-crowd? The attitude expressed here, in the italics above, is the very essence of delusion. Unjoin your hands, get off your knees, open your eyes and look at the real world instead of the sky. It's far more wonderful than anything your God could ever achieve for you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 06:43 PM

Steve Shaw..... the evidence of what God has actually done in my life is very obvious to the people who know me well and have seen the transformation ... I don't need your approval and I don't have to accept your disapproval... What I will not do is be drawn into some puerile playground talk with you about what I do or don't believe as your nature is obviously a naturally critical one. Just because you don't believe something doesn't make it a lie or untrue! You have a different perspective and that's all!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 07:02 PM

Dave:

Och, mon, whurs yer sensayewma?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 08:15 PM

If the evidence is so obvious, let's have it. Naturally, anyone predisposed to your way of thinking will possibly be less inclined to be critical and questioning. Personally, I regard the inclination to question and be critical to be very healthy. I doubt that your God, in his wisdom, would approve of your calling your sceptical critics "puerile." If there's anything puerile here it's the puerile acceptance of the outlandish claims of visions, revelations or miraculous life-changing interventions by God that can not be corroborated nor which were experienced by anyone other than the claimant. Most rational people would simply call that delusional. Hey, some of us manage to get our kicks from reality.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 03:45 AM

Steve, in my post on 29th Dec 6.41am. I put a link to a website where my testimony and my healing are outlined in as open and honest a way as possible. Once again, anyone who knows me will confirm that I am not a liar of fabricator of my own truths.... Read what I put and make your own mind up but hey! it served to change me from what I was to what I am and that is a miracle in itself. I don't need to prove it to you for it to be true of course but hey if you get your kicks from your reality... I sure get some huge ones from mine too. But who are you to question mine... I may not be able to give you conclusive proof of Gods existence but after my experiences, you could certainly not convince me that He doesn't exist, no matter how critical or questioning. Perhaps one of us is deluded and maybe one day all will be revealed... until then we'll go on doing our own (or Gods) thing as we choose.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 09:31 AM

Being delusional (about one facet of life, I hasten to add) is not at all the same thing as being a fabricator or liar.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 10:50 AM

as i have said before steve there is plenty of evidence that confirms our faith.but there will maybe never be enough for you even if we could add more to what we have already spoken of-but i wish you well.happy new year.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 01:33 PM

There he is again, the terminally ill arguer frothing at the mouth, about that which he, either knows is true, but is running away from, or just as ignorantly blind as a bat.

Steve, you asked for proof...a witness steps forward, and gives his account, which you apparently know NOTHING about, and you stupidly REFUSE to listen to his account, even though he is giving you his witness! Who are you, to tell him that something he experienced, and apparently has a knowledge of, that he is wrong?????

That tells me, according to your 'logic(?)' that ANYTHING you talk about, that wasn't seen or experienced, by anyone else, but you, is false!

You might shut up and listen, for a change, and at least make a feeble attempt, once you get past your self-absorption, to take in the experiences of another human being...who apparently, has experienced something broader, than your 'shut-off' little life!
If you talked to a millionaire, who was telling you his story, of how it came to be, would you not believe him, just because you were broke??????????

If he said he experienced these things, and has knowledge of what he is talking about, and also says that you'd have to experience what he experienced to fully know what he is explaining, that sounds a lot more credible to me, than some yapping snip, who has no apparently embarrassment over the fact, that he(you) is making a complete delusioned fool out of yourself...in public, as well!

And the DELUSION is YOURS....you are an 'expert' in 'knowing' that someone else's life's experiences are to be 'judged' as non-existent.
HOW FUCKING DELUDED IS THAT???!!!!?????!!!!????.....and YOU base IT on NOTHING!!!!!!

Grow up!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 02:19 PM

1. Calm down.

2. Don't be so damned insulting.

3. I have read the accounts, thank you.

4. For about the two millionth time, I do not ask for proof.

If that's the effect Christianity has on you, you can keep it!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 02:43 PM

Happy New Year to Christians and non-Christians alike..... may you be truly blessed with whatever you deserve during the coming year... and here's hoping it's all good! Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 02:59 PM

Steve Shaw:
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 02:19 PM

"4. For about the two millionth time, I do not ask for proof."


From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 08:15 PM

If the evidence is so obvious, let's have it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 09:31 AM

Being delusional (about one facet of life, I hasten to add) is not at all the same thing as being a fabricator or liar.

Steve Shaw: "Hey, some of us manage to get our kicks from reality."

Time to get some 'kicks'?????
It is in deed YOU, who is delusional!

Happy New Year, Mike!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: John P
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 03:01 PM

Georgiansilver, I read your accounts of your conversion. It is clear that you had a hugely life-changing experience that has made your life immeasurably better. What I still don't understand is how you get from that to virgin birth, rose from the dead, god-as-man, Satan, and all the other trappings of religion. There was nothing in your testimony that covers that.

Intensely moving, live-changing spiritual experiences have been known and well-documented through all of history and in all cultures, as has "unexplained" healing. How is your experience different than a non-Christian's, and why does it make you believe in all the stuff in the Bible? Why not have a deeply spiritual experience and be a better person without all the impossible explanations?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 03:18 PM

John P: "Why not have a deeply spiritual experience and be a better person without all the impossible explanations?...."

Because, out of the willingness to share something deeply personal, and spiritual, and because he actually may have something there. ..and because he was challenged, with much hostility.

Maybe he was attempting to make the world a better place.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 07:40 PM

John P.. it may have escaped your notice but if you had read 'Mikes Testimony' and 'Mikes Healing' via the link in a previous post of mine you would have realised that both my 'recognition'... for want of a better word that God exists.... and my healing came from Christian meetings and my subsequent way of life is as a direct result of those things....
All true Christians will totally understand where I am coming from..... Like it says in my testimony... 'You don't have to understand to believe... you have to believe to begin your understanding'..... that is so true..... However.. reaching a point of belief for some is a choice... for some is a revelation... and for others a non-entity....
Best wishes, Mike.

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

Asking for evidence, Guest ex-Sanity, is not asking for proof. A million scientists have sought and found evidence and are very cheerful about the fact that proof is not what they have found. Your red mist has blinded you to one or two rather obstinate realities in that department, unfortunately. As for the second part of your post, maybe I'm just thick but I can't see any kind of argument being made there. Well, that's what the red mist does I suppose. Makes you flail around aimlessly and uselessly in all directions. Happy new year.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 09:31 PM

evidence
: evidence that is of the same kind as evidence already offered as proof of the same factual matter —compare CORROBORATING EVIDENCE in this entry

evidence
c.1300, "appearance from which inferences may be drawn," from Fr. évidence , from L.L. evidentia "proof," originally "distinction," from L. evidentem (see evident). Meaning "ground for belief" is from late 14c., that of "obviousness" is 1660s. Legal senses are from c.1500, when it began to oust witness . As a verb, from c.1600. Related: Evidenced ; evidencing
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
–verb (used with object)
4.

World English Dictionary
evidence (ˈɛvɪdəns) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide


— n
1.         ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood

"PROOF"

Proof (truth), sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition

Proof In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis.

One must always remember that the burden of proof is on the person making a contentious claim. Within science, this translates to the burden resting on presenters of a paper, in which the presenters argue for their specific findings. This paper is placed before a panel of judges where the presenter must defend the thesis against all challenges.

When evidence is contradictory to predicted expectations, the evidence and the ways of making it are often closely scrutinized (see experimenter's regress) and only at the end of this process is the hypothesis rejected: this can be referred to as 'refutation of the hypothesis'. The rules for evidence used by science are collected systematically in an attempt to avoid the bias inherent to anecdotal

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 09:53 AM

Claiming that God intervened and suddenly changed your life is a contentious claim. It may require the laws of physics to be transgressed, especially if something apparently miraculous is alleged to have occurred. I call anything of that ilk contentious, to say the least. Even so, I'm not putting the burden of proof on anyone. I just want some evidence, that's all. Someone's say-so is not evidence, any more that my telling you that an Egyptian vulture just flew over my house in Cornwall is evidence. It's a claim. A claim is not evidence. Saying you had a pain that suddenly vanished is a claim. I've had that several times in my life. I had a pain in my abdomen for ten years that I was told I had to live with. It's gone. I had distressing ectopic heartbearts for many years that I was told I'd have to live with. Gone. Not gradually. Both rather suddenly. Had the improvements coincided with my attending a church I would still not associate them with any God. Why should I? A good thing that happens to you is just a coincidence if it happens at the same time as you attended a service. How many services were attended unaccompanied by an improvement? I could have have gone to church every day during my ten years of pain, then on the day it mysteriously cleared up claimed it was God wot done it. Oh yeah? How many devout Christians attend services then have something very bad happen to them? Those poor people in Haiti? Do they associate the bad thing with God? Why does God visit his goodness so partially? Because it's not God, that's why. It's coincidences. It's very interesting that God's miraculous interventions are never things that would actually provide evidence, someone growing back a missing leg for example. Now that would be something. As for the rest, it's just delusion, but, if it lights your fire, go with it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 01:38 PM

Steve Shaw: ".....I just want some evidence, that's all...."

Steve, Here's a C/P from another thread, that should direct you to your evidence/proof. Some parts are in the context of a directed question, in regards to a question about Pete Seeger, who was in topic to the question posed, at that time.
You may want to read it all carefully, and consider what's being laid out. It's not up for argument, but you may consider trying it.
I don't think you'll find anything, anyone can SAY to convince you of any evidence/proof. That would only come from the source!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both religion and politics are the biggest frauds perpetrated on the human race, to control masses of people!

That being said, it does not mean there is 'no God', or people can't find a way to live civilly with each other. There are the 'manipulators', the profiteering controllers, who establish 'qualifications' and 'regulations' as not to let people free from his grip!

When we speak of 'God', aren't we referring to 'Light', 'Love' to be the origin of life...and what all things are made of?..or the marriage of the two??? If its 'Love', isn't love conscious? Could there just be a link to that love, and light, that links us together...and it IS conscious??...and we can tap into it?...and be in consistency with its attributes?

I think it's possible..not only do I think its possible, I think its a form of 'death', not be at peace with that..or separated from it...not only that, just plain stupid!..and self absorbed. You think you are an island, detached from every energy, seen or unseen, in this dimension???
Think about it!
...and if it is a conscious energy, communicate with it...manifest it, and don't limit your access to it, with block-headed opinions. Maybe listen to what 'IT' has to communicate to you!

I'm sure Pete, in his deepest private moments has his 'communications', and possibly sees some consistencies with things in the Bible. I wouldn't take it as a 'disappointment'...by the way, Dylan is sayin' the same thing, now..Biff Rose, for years! Sting, another, all of 'Celtic Woman'..along with others. It hasn't hurt their artistic abilities..in fact, just the opposite! Doesn't 'God' have creative attributes???..How much are they creating??? How much are you?? how much does it touch people? How deep? Don't you think if you could tap into the 'Big Consciousness', you'd find anything, common among mankind?..then speak it it??..deeper??

I certainly wouldn't let someone elses spiritual tap, threaten YOUR view of them...maybe you're the one who doesn't get it....but hold onto your closed off trip.
Just a thought.

Then again, if there is a conscious energy, Love,and Light and you wanted to 'get acquainted' with it, why should it,(Love)refuse an honest request, from a sincere heart????

Ask...and watch. Maybe we're not all wrong. Maybe its cool! No where in the Bible, does it say that we're 'going to heaven', which is a popular distortion, by the 'manipulators'.....BUT, it DOES say, that heaven is coming to us!!...(and they even bullshit you about what that is, too!)

Find out yourself.
Once you do, you'll know..and know why.
Believing in God is hardly a choice, to those who have had an experience, in which 'God', makes itself plain and obvious...and yet, still, NOT as portrayed within the confines of a denominational slant. Its bigger!....and unless you've experienced that experience, or one that comes to you, in whatever form it takes, I'd just be another person, giving a 'rap' that another may not understand. Seeger seems to have had 'something' that made a connection for him. It's rather personal...but, "The children of light will be, permitted to look through each others eyes"-- Paul 'Biff' Rose (another one, and friend of mine, from the past).

But 'prove it'?...I've given a lot on that, but then you'd have to go back into some earlier posts, in which the 'adamantly argumentative' get into absurdity trying to discredit(read: 'preposterous excuses'), of justifying their particular boneheaded stubbornness....and I don't want to open the post up with a 'battle of wits with unarmed people'.

So, all I can say is 'ASK'. Sincerely ask, If you get no answer, blow it off.....but if you keep getting little answers, and keep ignoring it..well..that is your own stupidity. Just ask!..Its up to you to 'plug in' not up to me to talk you into anything. If I can talk you into something, then somebody can talk you out of it! So, ask for real, and pay attention. If you get answers, as to 'God' revealing something to you....hey, pay attention. The rest is between you and 'God'.
Maybe you might want to ask Pete, and find out how it came down to him...you ain't going to believe me!

Happy Looking!

ASK.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 01:58 PM

Definition of Circumstantial evidence.... 'Circumstantial evidence is evidence not of the actual fact to be proved but of other facts from which that fact may be presumed with almost certainty' ... I learnt that as a Police Officer in the 1960s.. as part of the understanding of the laws in the UK but I do believe it has some relevance here.
2010 years after the death of Jesus... one sixth of the worlds population are Christian... why???
All claim to have had an experience of the presence of the Lord by supernatural revelation.. by the word of God or by Spirit knowledge.
Steve... I guess you think all those people are deluded...... I guess in reality they don't really worry about what you think.... I have no problem with you thinking me deluded.... we all have delusions of one sort or another.....
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 02:00 PM

By the way Steve... I love the fact that we measure time from the death of Our Lord.. gives it some extra oomph don't you think!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 04:44 PM

Those pesky little bugs, those that infect the mind and body, often brought on by our own habits, found running rampant on the Net, in history, in pounds of paper used in treatises, in pronouncements from "authorities" who spew from pulpits, news broadcasts, blogs, winding up as "memes" and that are often given far more weight than they deserve are convertible viruses that are called "holy" or "spiritual".

Crosses burnt on lawns, leaders assassinated as they transgress, beheadings under holy law, those laws that are now being used to make people afraid, ritual wars, those underpinning the troubles in Ireland or the conflict in the Middle East, children abused,
and bloodshed are all brought forth in the name of religion.

Isn't it time to look for alternatives such as rationality, humanistic concerns, and thinking outside of the prison of dogma and vague, misty generalities such as a god or spirituality?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 08:38 PM

What Pete Seeger, or any other ancient folkie, or still less that charlatan Bob Dylan, and, definitely, very very very least of all, Sting, may think is of little concern to me. Well it's interesting of course but no more so than the musings of anyone else. I have no such people up on pedestals, thanks, especially when they're people who gain some sort of fame in one arena then start to sound off about something entirely unrelated to what they're famous for. Pete Seeger on religion is about as relevant as Sir Paul McCartney on the rare butterflies of the Bude Marshes Nature Reserve. And, for the two millionth and third time (please listen, will you, for a bloody change), I'm not asking anyone for proof of anything. I just want to see some reasonably convincing evidence. That does not include what a bloke and his like-minded mates (as opposed to independent witnesses, preferably of a reasonably sceptical nature) want to claim about some kind of bogus religious healing thing. I've already covered that so I won't dwell on it. Let me suggest an alternative approach. Look at the world in all its wonderful diversity and beauty. Then just dwell for a minute on how gloriously ordinary it all is. Everything you see is in harmony with itself, with everything else (except when we clumsy naked apes screw it up, of course) and with the laws of physics. That's joyously brilliant to me. It makes me want to explore and find out more, in the delicious knowledge that the more I learn the more I'll want to learn. When ordinariness is so sublime, there's no need to superimpose something extra-ordinary on top. In fact, not only is that pointless, it's abject and it's intellectually-stunting. It just stops you looking. You have a bogus "answer" which kills your curiosity. If you ask me why we're here, I haven't a clue really but I'm sure it's something to do with the need to be curious, never to stop looking. And that superimposing thing stops you doing that thing that you so aimlessly accuse me of not doing - asking.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 08:44 PM

"In fact, not only is that pointless, it's abject and it's intellectually-stunting. It just stops you looking. You have a bogus "answer" which kills your curiosity."

Sounds like a great definition of Atheism.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 08:51 PM

2010 years after the death of Jesus... one sixth of the worlds population are Christian... why???

Only one sixth? That isn't very good if you ask me! In any case, as I've said before, weight of numbers is not evidence. You can't make an argument out of that. It's a kind of last resort. I suppose that if you ask the populace (I haven't done a survey) whether burglars should be flogged and castrated, one sixth of them would likely agree with you, at a guess. And that's a free question at least. On the other hand, being a Christian is what most Christians have been railroaded into. Tradition, parental/social pressure, christening at birth and threats of ostracism or hellfire all help to swell the numbers. I'd be quiet about that one sixth if I were you. It actually sounds quite pathetic when you consider the methods that Christianity has had at its disposal for two thousand years. As for dating everything from Christ's alleged birth, I don't give a damn.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 08:57 PM

In fact, not only is that pointless, it's abject and it's intellectually-stunting. It just stops you looking. You have a bogus "answer" which kills your curiosity."

Sounds like a great definition of Atheism.

I'd rather just say that it characterises one aspect of atheistic thinking, if there is such a thing. Can't speak for all atheists, of course, not least because I don't want that wacky sailor chappie berating me again.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 10:32 PM

Not in an argumentative spirit:

Well, I guess, Steve, that you really didn't want your proof..otherwise, you go at least make an attempt to get it. Then you try to point to some 'scientific'(?) reason to explain it all away. Hmm, doesn't sound like much 'science' is within you...if it was, you'd go investigate all the possibilities...such as people who are truly into science do.
Still, I cannot do anything for you, that you are closed off, in your mind to really do...fair enough?
In that case, your closed off mind, is a block, to processing information....not only of this, but other things as well...and truly, that is a shame!
'Intelligence' is the ability to processes information...and yet, fear, and pride, prevents you..in this area, and others as well, I'm sure. The loss is yours....By the way, I'd lay odds, that your music, and performance, suffers from the same blockages.
Ever make mistakes, while playing in front of people because of 'self-consciousness??? Fear, and pride do that. Time to grow?

Think about it.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 03:38 AM

>>>>>>>>Then just dwell for a minute on how gloriously ordinary it all is<<<<<<<< Steve, have you ever stopped for a moment to think how complicated the whole thing is.... even down to something as 'ordinary' as a leaf? Pick one up and look at it... I mean really look at it. There's nothing 'ordinary' about this wondrous world we live in.... even your scientists must marvel at its' complexity and balance!!!
>>>>>>>>What Pete Seeger, or any other ancient folkie, or still less that charlatan Bob Dylan, and, definitely, very very very least of all, Sting, may think is of little concern to me. <<<<< Apparently what anyone says is of little concern to you because you are obviously happy being just the way you are!! Well that must be great for you......
>>>>>>>>That does not include what a bloke and his like-minded mates (as opposed to independent witnesses, preferably of a reasonably sceptical nature) want to claim about some kind of bogus religious healing thing.<<<<<<< My healing was real... how can you... I understand you have infinite incredible knowledge... but how can you declare it was bogus?
Open your eyes and ears Steve.. you might learn something different!
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,p
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 11:27 AM

i know i said similar before steve,but being christians and creationists has not stopped some great scientists from inquiring and making advances in science.it was infact their faith,and not despite it, that inspired them in their research.
i see the old charge that religion accounts for most of human suffering is wheeled out again;albeit ever so eloquently.
i suspect that the multiple millions butchered by atheist dictaters might want to differ,if they could.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 12:39 PM

Well, I guess, Steve, that you really didn't want your proof..otherwise, you go at least make an attempt to get it. Then you try to point to some 'scientific'(?) reason to explain it all away. Hmm, doesn't sound like much 'science' is within you...if it was, you'd go investigate all the possibilities...such as people who are truly into science do.

Actually, I have a science degree and taught science for 25 years (and was a chief examiner in 'A' Level biology). The "possibility" you are directing me to can only be subjected to scientific investigation if there is some way of getting some scientific evidence for it. Despite my asking repeatedly for this, all I get is uncorroborated claims. You see, the problem is this. Something remarkable happens (Mike suddenly loses his pain). There are several possible explanations for this, all quite feasible and earthbound, none needing any laws of nature to be breached. The illness finally ran its course. His medication finally kicked in successfully. A change in his mentality ended a psychosomatic vicious circle. There are other, less savoury possibilities involving a lack of honesty which I hasten to add I certainly wouldn't ascribe to Mike. I wouldn't be knowing. Yet you and he deliberately seek out what is by several light years the most improbable explanation you can - a supernatural being that no-one has ever seen nor begun to explain suddenly deciding to intervene, just for him - and you try to persuade me that there must be something in it. Let me tell you how science works when you want to solve a problem. You look for the likeliest explanations first and look for confirmation or rejection of each one in turn. You do not start with the zaniest, most outlandish notions which breach all the laws of science. I don't try to explain perturbations in the Earth's orbit by claiming that a ten-thousand-mile-long invisible monster keeps giving us a little shove.

Still, I cannot do anything for you, that you are closed off, in your mind to really do...fair enough?
In that case, your closed off mind, is a block, to processing information....not only of this, but other things as well...and truly, that is a shame!

'Tis you who's closed off I'm afraid. You're closed off to the normal, wanting only supernatural explanations for very natural things, like someone getting better from an illness. It happens all the time. It's normal, not miraculous. Unlikely cures have happened to me too. I tend to put it down to the medical profession not understanding at times what it is that enables healing processes to occur. The planet is littered with people, including me, who unexpectedly got better. You say it's God, I say it's doctors who occasionally don't get it. You reject out of hand any explanation, and there are several plausible possibilities, that is based on the laws of science and choose one which is utterly improbable and unsupportable. And you call me a closed mind. Wacky or what.

'Intelligence' is the ability to processes information...

Sez who?

and yet, fear, and pride, prevents you..in this area, and others as well, I'm sure. The loss is yours....By the way, I'd lay odds, that your music, and performance, suffers from the same blockages.
Ever make mistakes, while playing in front of people because of 'self-consciousness??? Fear, and pride do that. Time to grow?,

You type stuff like this and thereby make a complete fool of yourself. Congratulations on managing to dispel any doubts I might have harboured. I can't think why you'd want to do that. Odd.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 01:12 PM

Steve, have you ever stopped for a moment to think how complicated the whole thing is.... even down to something as 'ordinary' as a leaf? Pick one up and look at it... I mean really look at it. There's nothing 'ordinary' about this wondrous world we live in.... even your scientists must marvel at its' complexity and balance!!!

Not only do we marvel at it, we search for explanations for it. But some of us prefer to avoid the utter irrationality of imposing an "explanation" that is infinitely more difficult to explain in itself than any of the things it is supposedly there to explain. An "explanation" that requires all the laws of science to be breached, that must be far more complex than any of the things it's supposed to explain, and for the existence of which there isn't one scrap of evidence. The marvellous complexity of a leaf is the outcome of millions of tiny evolutionary steps over unimaginably huge periods of time, all normal, all explicable and all in tune with the laws of physics. All normal and ordinary and all wonderful. I suspect that you wish to insert God into this somehow. If you're a closet creationist, let's be having it!

>>>>>>>>What Pete Seeger, or any other ancient folkie, or still less that charlatan Bob Dylan, and, definitely, very very very least of all, Sting, may think is of little concern to me. <<<<< Apparently what anyone says is of little concern to you because you are obviously happy being just the way you are!! Well that must be great for you......

Give me one good reason why I should listen to Pete Seeger on religion. I like Pete Seeger and I listen to what he has to say about human rights and the fight for freedom and justice. I agree with nearly all he has to say on that front and I find him brave and inspiring. Last time I heard, though, he was not known to be a religious guru. What he says on that topic is no more interesting to me than what anyone else says, which isn't to say it isn't interesting at all. I told you this but you weren't listening, apparently.
   
>>>>>>>>That does not include what a bloke and his like-minded mates (as opposed to independent witnesses, preferably of a reasonably sceptical nature) want to claim about some kind of bogus religious healing thing.<<<<<<< My healing was real... how can you... I understand you have infinite incredible knowledge... but how can you declare it was bogus?

I'm not for one second questioning your healing. I told you that I have had similar pleasant surprises in my own life. I do think that the explanation you've come up with is by far the most unlikely one possible. Bogus would seem to be one word that applies, though I admit it carries somewhat pejorative connotations. There are plenty of bogus "healers" around, mind. I bet even you would admit that.

Open your eyes and ears Steve.. you might learn something different!

My eyes and ears are wide open, I assure you, but I tend to start with the most likely explanations first.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 01:15 PM

Nothing new in that post, Pete, and nothing much in focus either.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 12:49 AM

Steve,

Science Vs Faith

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 08:01 AM

I like that! :-)

It never ceases to amaze me that, in the ordinary world, you'd try to solve a mystery by looking at the apparently likeliest explanations first. In religion, on the other hand, you seek out by far the most improbable and outlandish explanation of all (and the more you can break all the hard-won laws of the universe, the better), and you reinforce your position by telling those people who would much rather investigate the more mundane and earthly (and infinitely more likely) ones that they have closed minds. It beats me why this God chappie of theirs has bothered to give us all such mighty brains when he then requires us to stop using them and resort instead to whimsy, fantasy and magic.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 09:05 AM

Steve Shaw... at the moment I am eating the most delicious apple I ever tasted...... can you taste it???

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 09:39 AM

The most delicious apples you could ever taste, in my opinion, are to be found hanging, fully ripe and almost ready to drop, on my ancient Laxton's Fortune tree in early October. Anyone thinking they can top this will need to provide evidence. My mind, as ever, is open.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 10:59 AM

p yesterday was me-mistake.
glad to hear about your inexplicable recoveries steve.we could of course remind you that God is merciful even to the ungodly....
but then again did it really happen/was you really ill...
after all theres no way we can prove it.
does that sound familiar?.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 12:01 PM

Steve.. I didn't ask you about the most delicious apples you can taste.. I asked if you could taste that delicious apple I was eating.......

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 01:00 PM

I assure you that my recoveries, whilst surprising, were not inexplicable. One thing's for sure. There was no divine intervention. Just a living body looking after itself. It's what they do. We don't always clearly understand how they do it, that's all. Whatever was going on, the laws of physics were being obeyed, that I know.

I don't really get the apple business, which is why I'm not, apparently, giving you a sensible answer. I suggest turning it into a sensible question.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: gnu
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 01:28 PM

I prefer Golden Delicious.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 01:43 PM

>>>>>>> don't really get the apple business, which is why I'm not, apparently, giving you a sensible answer. I suggest turning it into a sensible question.<<<<<<<< amazing... how could I possibly have thought that would be your answer!!!! Because you don't really get it!!! Yep... explains everything to me......

Like a nice Braeburn myself Gnu!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 04:48 PM

I didn't know Golden Delicious was actually regarded as an apple as such. Those Braeburns are all simple crunch and juice. I'm very fond of my Cox personally.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 04:59 PM

Mike, I have no idea what you want me to say or what you're trying to set me up for, but OK, no, I can't taste your bloody apple when you're in Exeter and I'm in Bude. Your point being...? Gerronwi'it!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 05:58 PM

"in the ordinary world, you'd try to solve a mystery by looking at the apparently likeliest explanations first. In religion, on the other hand, you seek out by far the most improbable and outlandish explanation of all"

This was not always so:

Ockham's Razor

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 06:09 PM

Steve... I'm in Lincolnshire...... Family in Exeter... be there in a couple of weeks.
Not trying to set you up at all but I guess unless you get a taste of something yourself... you can't accept it as being right or true eh???
One day you might taste my Jesus... I hope you do......... no more to say.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 06:24 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wfamPW3Eaw

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 07:37 PM

Well Dave, Occam's razor, for what it's worth, favours notions that have the most explanatory power. Tell me how God, as opposed to natural explanations, can come up trumps on explanatory power. No laws of science can be brought into play if God is invoked to explain things, slightly tricky for him I would have thought, and he has the additional burden of being impossible to be explained himself.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 08:02 PM

Steve... I'm in Lincolnshire...... Family in Exeter... be there in a couple of weeks.
Not trying to set you up at all but I guess unless you get a taste of something yourself... you can't accept it as being right or true eh???
One day you might taste my Jesus... I hope you do......... no more to say.
Best wishes, Mike.

Well, this is all a bit doubtful, Mike. I can certainly take on board the opinions of persons of a scholarly nature in their field. If Oz Clarke suggests a particular wine I'd sample it with some confidence. If the bloke who fills the wine shelves in Morrisons wine aisle suggests a bottle I might think differently. I'll hear out Pete Seeger on human rights but not on rare butterflies or religion. There are people who are expert apple tasters. I wouldn't necessarily accept what they say completely without demur but I would listen. You didn't apprise me of your apple-tasting credentials and you did queer the pitch just a little by singing the virtues of the very average, commercial Braeburn. As for your Jesus, I have to tell you that I admire the man, if indeed man he was. I don't admire all the bullshit about miracles/son of God, which were clearly add-ons provided by the tendentious gospel-writers. He wasn't perfect (which kind of rules out the God bit, no?) - I mean, turn the other cheek? Let injustice reign? Not a great idea, judging from what we see in the modern world. And sufficient unto the day? Sounds like the original, archetypal hippie talk to me. Clearly, he didn't have a bunch of kids to worry about. Still, his ideas were excellent. Even if it turns out that he was really just a committee.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 08:27 PM

"Well Dave, Occam's razor, for what it's worth, favours notions that have the most explanatory power. Tell me how God, as opposed to natural explanations, can come up trumps on explanatory power. No laws of science can be brought into play if God is invoked to explain things, slightly tricky for him I would have thought, and he has the additional burden of being impossible to be explained himself."

Try applying Occam's razor to your question. William of Occam had no problems with the admittedly limited knowledge of maths and science of his time. Are you a creationist or an atheist, Steve? It's hard to tell the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 08:38 PM

What question am I supposed to be applying it to, Dave? And if you can't tell that I'm not a creationist then I think you have some reading to do. A few hundred posts of mine, to be precise, old chap.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:38 AM

Occam's Razor tends to dismiss Creationism rather than Science, because Science is an elegant self consistent simple system (with black boxes that still need to be explained): 'Faith' tends to produce complex self contradictory results, hence Occam tends to go with the less complex way...

Of course, The Man of Faith who dismisses/denies 'all that stuff he can't possibly understand' sees the Simple way of 'just his Magic Sky Fairy doing it all' as much easier to 'understand' as just 'one Big Black Box beyond All Human Understanding' .... and thinks he is applying Occam's Razor ...

The two can never be reconciled in the mind of The Man of Faith ... he has to reject that which threatens his own 'simple system' as he cannot 'see' it ... sadly the Man of Science and Logic can also see the way of The Man of Faith, but is unsated ...

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 09:59 AM

Try applying it to the question I quoted, Steve. And I suspect I've had the pleasure of reading most of your previous posts.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:50 PM

You haven't quoted a question, Dave. I can't find anything of mine you've quoted that ends with a ? or which looks like a question. You're not one of those Americans that thinks a tune's a song, are you, by any chance? You might decide to demystify this situation, or you may simply decide that the moment has passed. Fine either way.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 02:01 PM

"tasting my Jesus" is like "dancing with the elves in my garden" ... it is a personal metaphor which depends on subjective definitions and premises positing the reality of elves...and/or Jesus. It already **assumes** the existence of something that is not universally accepted. It is similar to circular reasoning.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 12:04 AM

Steve Shaw: "'Intelligence' is the ability to processes information...
Sez who?"

Well being as you are so bent on people 'proving' the unseen, such as God, or that they might have had an experience with God, right?, and you seem to not agree that "'Intelligence' is the ability to processes information..." then its time for you to PROVE that there is intelligence, and/or you have had an experience with it. Go ahead..We're all waiting!!!!

GFS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 01:29 AM

Jeez, Steve, We're still waiting!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 04:07 AM

I guess intelligence could be the ability to know when to keep your mouth shut!! LOL

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 04:20 AM

"Tell me how God, as opposed to natural explanations, can come up trumps on explanatory power."

That looks suspiciously like a question to me, Steve. and has nothing to do with Occam's razor.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 04:45 AM

Still waiting!!....Me thinks he is even getting boring to himself!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 05:18 AM

Of course, The Man of Faith who dismisses/denies 'all that stuff he can't possibly understand' sees the Simple way of 'just his Magic Sky Fairy doing it all' as much easier to 'understand' as just 'one Big Black Box beyond All Human Understanding'

Nonsense. I think you demonstrate ignorance by resorting to "Magic Sky Fairy". or is it perhaps a limitation in imagination that only enables picturing a God as such?

As for which is easier, having been on both sides of this, ie. "devout athiest" to attempted Christian,, I can assure you that on a personal level, I found athiesm the easier and the cop out. I find it much harder (and often fail) to keep faith in God.

I think it is a great mistake to believe that science equals athiesm.
Einstein ("I am definitely not an atheist", Darwin ("I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist" are two highly respected scientists I gave earlier in this thread (or the other delusion one) who at least questioned.

It seems odd to me that some will use evolution for example as positive proof that there is no God and I can ask myself (rhetorically) "Are the people doing this really greater scientists than those who developed the theories?".

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 05:37 AM

Tell me how God, as opposed to natural explanations, can come up trumps on explanatory power."

That looks suspiciously like a question to me, Steve. and has nothing to do with Occam's razor.

Well, it was intended to be a piece of rhetoric, but never mind. Natural explanations are sufficient for phenomena such as improvements in people's health. We might have to dig and delve a bit for individual cases, owing to the fact that medical science hasn't revealed everything. Claiming that a supernatural force intervened is entirely superfluous. Were it to add some explanatory power it would perhaps be valid, but in fact it does the exact opposite. It gives us infinitely more explaining to do. So out with the razor, say I.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 06:01 AM

It's amazing how some people think that there's something about us atheists that exempts us from going to bed. Oh well. As you live in the UK, Mike, I'm surprised that you would even consider joining in with that piece of stupidity. I don't know where Sanity is, but it clearly isn't on this planet.

Steve Shaw: "'Intelligence' is the ability to processes information...
Sez who?"

Well being as you are so bent on people 'proving' the unseen, such as God, or that they might have had an experience with God, right?, and you seem to not agree that "'Intelligence' is the ability to processes information..." then its time for you to PROVE that there is intelligence, and/or you have had an experience with it. Go ahead..We're all waiting!!!!

I have £2.99 digital watch that can process information. I think I bought it on Bury Market. If you want to come up with a definition of "intelligence" you're going to have to improve considerably on that abject attempt above. Frankly, I personally can't be arsed. As for the other bit of your highly lucid post, well I think, if you'll excuse me y'all, that I'm going to have to shout here, as Guest ex-Sanity has a major cloth-ears problem. So, ahem, sharp intake: FOR THE TWO MILLIONTH TIME, I DO NOT WANT YOU OR ME OR ANYBODY ELSE TO PROVE ANYTHING. You can't prove there's a God and I can't prove there isn't a God. It is not possible now, either way, and never will be. I'm not interested in proof either way. I am interested in evidence. Is that clear now? There is a difference you know. Kindly do not tell me again to prove something or that I want proof, otherwise I might have to get very very very cross indeed.

As for people who say they've had experiences with God, etc., I fear they are all deluded. They are not deluded about doing their shopping in Asda, or in supporting Chelsea (though they're getting close there...), or in opining that George Bush is one of the biggest bellends on the planet, or in backing Silverheels in the 3.15 at Haydock Park. You can be deluded about one thing in your life without necessarily being in a general state of overall delusion. I'm sticking to that, even though the deludees concerned might get offended.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 06:20 AM

I think it is a great mistake to believe that science equals athiesm.

Indeed. Science need not concern itself over-much with religion at all. That's the way ahead. If only religion would stop fretting about science, that would be brilliant.

Einstein ("I am definitely not an atheist", Darwin ("I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist" are two highly respected scientists I gave earlier in this thread (or the other delusion one) who at least questioned.

So what? Their opinions on religion are no more than slightly interesting. It is outside their spheres of work. I expect their opinions on the best way to put up kitchen shelves would be mildly interesting too. I doubt that either Darwin or Einstein would admire you much for putting them on pedestals for their religious views. There's a website somewhere that lists hundreds of eminent scientists who are avowed atheists. That isn't particularly interesting either.   

It seems odd to me that some will use evolution for example as positive proof that there is no God

I don't know of any who use evolution in this way (and good scientists will seldom, if ever, claim "proof" for no God in any case). However, the uncomfortable fact for believers is that natural selection does, at best, make God entirely redundant. It explains the whole of life on Earth is all its beauty and complexity entirely within the laws of physics, without the need for divine interventions of any kind, and is coming very close to elucidating the origin of life similarly. When you think about it, natural selection is probably a very good bet for explaining life wherever it pops up in the universe. God is just twiddling his thumbs on the sidelines, I'm afraid.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 06:49 AM


So what? Their opinions on religion are no more than slightly interesting. It is outside their spheres of work.

But science was very much inside and they did not believe it held all the answers.

I doubt that either Darwin or Einstein would admire you much for putting them on pedestals for their religious views.

I think they would be intelligent enough to read through your distortion of what I said.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 07:39 AM

I didn't distort what you said. I quoted it directly and then commented on it. You appear to be confusing "distort" with "disagree with."

If they really said that science doesn't have all the answers (have you a direct quote?) then I shall have to make so bold as to disagree with them. Scientists may never find all the answers but that doesn't mean that the "answers" aren't out there, all couched in the lingo of the laws of physics I'll be bound.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 08:41 AM

Hi Steve. So you believe that the use of logical tools is only necessary if you believe in God.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 10:08 AM

How would I know?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 11:22 AM

Precisely.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 12:28 PM

even i know that natural selection does not "explains the whole of life on earth..."steve.
and on a previous post you said yourself that the theory has gaps and full stops.

agree entirely jon that believing is not always the easy option,but i read a quote recently which is bound to illicit denials

"atheism is the crutch leaned on by those not wanting to face the reality of God"
i wonder..?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 12:45 PM

even i know that natural selection does not "explains the whole of life on earth..."steve.
and on a previous post you said yourself that the theory has gaps and full stops.

Oh yes it does. All of it, all the diversity, the beauty, the complexity. Natural selection explains all that very elegantly and it does it by making very few assumptions. All you need is time, and four and a half billion available years has sorted out that issue. Certainly there are gaps in the fossil record and there's plenty of evidence of evolutionary dead-ends, but that's all grist to the mill. Natural selection cannot be undermined. You need to look into this far more than you do. It's wonderful and it's impressive.

"atheism is the crutch leaned on by those not wanting to face the reality of God"

It's hard to see how, in this religion-infested world, in which in some circumstances it can even be quite brave to come out as an atheist, atheism can ever be described as a "crutch." Atheists reading your post will be thinking how arse about face you have this. Hows about "God is the crutch leaned on by deluded people who are not wanting to face reality"?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 02:10 PM

Your final statement is fine Steve provided there is not a God!!!
God is not my crutch.. God became my springboard to a far better life than I had before.... I do lean on Him sometimes I have to admit because He can handle the problems I can't and He does answer prayer.... God may not be your reality but He is certainly mine.....

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 02:30 PM

Far better, during the bumpy ride through life, to stand up to your full height instead of leaning on "God." You get to see far more of the scenery that way. When the pianist/composer Moscheles brought the manuscript of the piano arrangement of Fidelio to Beethoven for his final approval, Moscheles had written on the last page "Fine mit Gottes Hulf" ("finished with God's help"). When Beethoven returned the manuscript to Moscheles, Beethoven had added the inscription "O, Mensch, hilf dir selber!" ("Oh, man, help yourself!").

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 03:06 PM

You have to consider that I do stand up to my height as a result of being able to lean on God.... Maybe my life is not so bumpy! Having God in my life has simplified many things and allowed me to live a fuller richer life than I would have done as I was. In fact I would no doubt be dead now!
Not sure what you think the reference to Beethoven and Moscheles is... bit of name dropping proves nothing does it... There have been many famous men Christian and non Christian. I am sure many of them have given their own opinions too................

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 04:57 PM

As I said before "I suppose the biggest delusion is the belief by the contributors to this thread that the other side will actually understand the points they're making."

Personally, I'm having fun seeing which side (out of how many?) can produce the most non-sequiturs.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 05:51 PM

Yoiu carry on having your fun, Dave. Perhaps one day you'll grace us with one of your opinions as well, instead of affecting to sail above us all in superior fashion. You do have views, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 05:59 PM

I do express my views when I think they're relevant. The trouble with thread's like these is that Atheists operate within a universe of discourse in which it is axiomatic that God does not exist. Creationists exist within a similar universe of discourse where completely contrary axioms pertain. It is therefore logically impossible for either side to convince the other.

Usually, when I express views, they are either misunderstood or ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 06:08 PM

I know what you mean, Dave MacKenzie:
I check by once and awhile, as with other threads. I gave up commenting some time ago.

Folks are just too "fired up", agressively defending their "firm" positions" (on either side) to consider that the "religious" topics may not be as "black or white" to many others. It reminds me of a war, where there is no room for the middle ground. (You must be either for us, or against us). If you are, and post as such, you could get shot at by either side.

I am sure that both sides will deny being so rigid, or agressive. That is why folks try new threads, that eventually get overtaken by the same suspects.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 07:35 PM

Gosh, Dave, you must be so pleased to have Ed jump to your defence so promptly! With friends like that... A couple of thoughts. First, if you're scared of putting your point of view lest your message be misunderstood, then why post to these threads at all? Second, the rigidity in these debates is all on the side of the Christians. Just look at Pete, for example. Debating with him is like trying to grab a greased pig at best and, at worst, like trying to piss into a strong wind. I'm not rigid at all. I have my convictions, 'tis true, and I'll argue for them, but I am open to persuasion. All I need is evidence. I've said it so many times. You'll find an awful lot of atheists just like me. We don't do rigid dogma but we do require evidence for claims made apropos of God/visions/miracles/cures/apparitions and the rest. A very reasonable stance. We positively eschew the rigidity of religious doctrine, which is executed with hands joined, eyes tight shut and face skywards. In fact, we hate rigidity!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 07:51 PM

I'm not scared of putting my point of view - as I said I've done it many times. You claim not to be dogmatic but that's not how you come over - belittling William of Occam's contribution to philosophy and logic because he was a Franciscan friar. No doubt you would also denigrate Lewis Carroll's contributions to mathematics because hr was an Anglican clergyman. Most of my posts have been to point out the flaws in Creationism, but if you get things wrong, you shouldn't be surprised if someone points them out.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 08:26 PM

Well, you got a bit obsessed with owld Occam in a fairly pointless context. I certainly didn't belittle him, and, I hate to admit, I didn't even know he was a man of the cloth at all. I mean, who cares. The points made were the points made. I'm no scholar of ancient logicians, to be honest. I know bugger all about Lewis Carroll and his maths either, to be honest, and I'm seasoned enough when it comes to putting my head above the parapet to be relatively fearless about anyone pointing out if I get summat arse about face (I'll admit it, generally speaking). I don't expect much credit for being relatively steadfast, but so be it. Just give me some evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 09:00 PM

Is there an echo in here?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 02:15 AM

Well a lot of blathering blah blah, from Steve!...Probably doing the bullshitter's two-step to avoid confronting, and answering:

GfS: "Well being as you are so bent on people 'proving' the unseen, such as God, or that they might have had an experience with God, right?, and you seem to not agree that "'Intelligence' is the ability to processes information..." then its time for you to PROVE that there is intelligence, and/or you have had an experience with it. Go ahead..We're all waiting!!!!

"MAKE MY DAY!!!

On top of NOT being able to answer it, he STILL is NOT displaying any signs of 'intelligent' activity going on between the ears! Not only that, EVERYBODY is shootin' him down..on almost every subject he uses as subterfuge!!

So, until then, We're still waiting!!!!
(Maybe he'll take the first 'plunge' and figure it out that somewhere along the line, he's errored........oh yeah, that damn fear and pride, I mentioned earlier, keeps him trapped.)

Try life.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 02:15 AM

Like Thomas in the New Testament Steve, who wouldn't believe his friends in spite of overwhelming circumstantial evidence ... it is not 'evidence' you want as you have already had some... you want definitive proof.. Nothing less will do for you because of your mindset. The only way you will get proof is to find it for yourself because you basically can't 'trust' other peoples words only your own opinion. I guess what you will find in life will be of your own making.... I just hope you find the real truth...... whatever it is.........................
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 02:37 AM

Mike, Nice to see you on while I'm on.....I think that folks who adopt atheism do it for three reasons, primarily. One is the confuse 'religion' with having ANYTHING to do with God, and vice versa...so they come up empty, and SOME of their resentments are true. Sometimes they are raised in a religion, that was powerless, so it all looks to be fraudulent.
Some have adopted it, as part of their 'political co-optation'. (I mean if there is no God, the Constitution is obsolete for them, because it acknowledges a Creator, and having unalienable rights from the Creator....and 'Libs' want to believe all their rights are from an ideology, and government.
And the third, is unlike those who have seen or experienced something which is undeniable, and compare notes with others, who have that in common, they just don't know...and are left to their own understanding..and impaired 'data processing'(intelligence).

Does that sound about right to you??
I'm open....(while I'm still waiting).

Give me some feedback,
Warmest Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 03:19 AM

"I don't expect much credit for being relatively steadfast"

No, not steadfast. You have a tendency to assume that if you don't fully understand a point it must be contrary to your views, so you should attack it. My original posting was mildly supportive of you, but pointing out that your post of 03 Jan 11 - 08:01 AM was a rather inaccurate generalisation.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 03:43 AM

Dave, Can't find a post of '03 Jan 11 - 08:01'

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 04:36 AM

Steve said "It never ceases to amaze me that, in the ordinary world, you'd try to solve a mystery by looking at the apparently likeliest explanations first. In religion, on the other hand, you seek out by far the most improbable and outlandish explanation of all (and the more you can break all the hard-won laws of the universe, the better), and you reinforce your position by telling those people who would much rather investigate the more mundane and earthly (and infinitely more likely) ones that they have closed minds. It beats me why this God chappie of theirs has bothered to give us all such mighty brains when he then requires us to stop using them and resort instead to whimsy, fantasy and magic."

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:35 AM

So what was wrong with that, Dave? Huh??

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:01 AM

Like Thomas in the New Testament Steve, who wouldn't believe his friends in spite of overwhelming circumstantial evidence ... it is not 'evidence' you want as you have already had some... you want definitive proof.. Nothing less will do for you because of your mindset. The only way you will get proof is to find it for yourself because you basically can't 'trust' other peoples words only your own opinion.

That particular story is the most blatant example of the tendentious gospel writer telling people to believe without question and shut up. Proto-catholicism! It flies in the face of the whole of Jesus's ministry, in which he asked his audiences to ask critical questions, think outside the box and take nothing of the old received wisdom as read. It asks for blind obedience, something which Jesus fought against throughout his ministry. You just know that story's a big fib, don't you! I would also question your interpretation of the "evidence" his friends presented as being overwhelming. We all saw a bloke dying the other day, but now we're all telling you that he's back walking and talking. Dunno about you, but, like sensible Thomas, my first reaction would be that you were taking the piss. Actually, I'm surprised he caved as easily as he did (you may glean from this that I think the whole of that particular yarn is a complete fabrication - cherrypickers unite!).

And I don't want definitive proof, as I'm tired of telling you. I want some evidence. Proper evidence. Not your say-so or your friends' say so. You're all Christians who are heavily inclined to believe a lot of stuff without demur that I would be severely sceptical about. You're biased. I'm not. You're the one with a fixed mindset (joined hands, closed eyes...), not me. I'm all ears. I'm standing here, arms folded, waiting for evidence. Yes, you have an uphill task all right with people like me, but it's one of your own making. You believe in a supernatural being who breaks all the laws of physics, who's infinitely more complicated and inexplicable that all the things he's supposed to be the explanation for - and there's never been a single sighting! I'm wide open to conversion, I assure you. But I want evidence. Not proof - I promise to settle for a lot less. Let's have one of these Lourdes miracles happening before our eyes on the telly. Something like that. Strip away all the delusion and dishonesty about all this stuff. All those moving virgins and quaking suns "witnessed" by thousands - but no video!! Never a Beeb cameraman in sight! Why is it so hard? I'll tell you why. Because you're all making it all up, that's why! You've had millennia to produce plausible evidence, but not once...

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:08 AM

Well a lot of blathering blah blah, from Steve!...Probably doing the bullshitter's two-step to avoid confronting, and answering:

GfS: "Well being as you are so bent on people 'proving' the unseen, such as God, or that they might have had an experience with God, right?, and you seem to not agree that "'Intelligence' is the ability to processes information..." then its time for you to PROVE that there is intelligence, and/or you have had an experience with it. Go ahead..We're all waiting!!!!

"MAKE MY DAY!!!

On top of NOT being able to answer it, he STILL is NOT displaying any signs of 'intelligent' activity going on between the ears! Not only that, EVERYBODY is shootin' him down..on almost every subject he uses as subterfuge!!

So, until then, We're still waiting!!!!
(Maybe he'll take the first 'plunge' and figure it out that somewhere along the line, he's errored........oh yeah, that damn fear and pride, I mentioned earlier, keeps him trapped.)

Try life.

GfS

I quote the whole of this piece of crap as a prime example of pointless, useless, aimless, insulting, inexplicable waffle. I can just about imagine myself typing that calibre of stuff (then shamefacedly deleting it) after about eight pints of Doom Bar. Actually, reading it again (so painful) it does make one wonder...

Shame on you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:10 AM

If you didn't get it the first time, Steve, you won't get it the next time. You've made your mind up, and nothing anybody's going to say will make you change it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:16 AM

"I don't expect much credit for being relatively steadfast"

No, not steadfast. You have a tendency to assume that if you don't fully understand a point it must be contrary to your views, so you should attack it. My original posting was mildly supportive of you, but pointing out that your post of 03 Jan 11 - 08:01 AM was a rather inaccurate generalisation.

Well I didn't pick up much support. Never mind. Please stick to attacking me, Dave, even though you appear to have difficulty in articulating exactly what it is you're attacking (as with this above post - I note lack of supporting examples, as ever). Better still, why not let us have some of your own views for a refreshing change (second request), instead of affecting to preside over the thread in, er, a godlike manner.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:17 AM

Get what, Dave? Do you ever do anything other than "clever" one-liners?
Why don't you get GfS to explain it to me for you? Heheh!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 11:01 AM

Steve you say >>>>>>>And I don't want definitive proof, as I'm tired of telling you. I want some evidence. Proper evidence. Not your say-so or your friends' say so.<<<<<< and at 2.15am on 6th Jan I said >>>>>>>>The only way you will get proof is to find it for yourself because you basically can't 'trust' other peoples words only your own opinion.<<<<<<< And Steve it is proof you want not evidence so why keep telling us you want evidence.... evidence comes from people... proof comes in many forms... You don't accept evidence from people (other than perhaps those of your own mindset who themselves may well be deluded) so you want proof. If you think I am off beam with this... what kind of 'evidence' do you want... please be specific.
PS I gave you evidence that my apple was delicious....... was it???

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 04:09 PM

It was your opinion that the apple was delicious, but "delicious" is a rather subjective issue. I happen to like apples, so there's a fair chance I would have agreed with you, but I can't know that you had made a useful judgement unless I had further evidence. In this case that would be be perfectly possible to achieve. I could have had a bite of your apple, or, failing that, a bite of an apple from the same lot as your delicious one. That wouldn't have proved that your apple was delicious, but there would have been enough evidence to satisfy me.
God is also a rather subjective issue, though in a different way. Also, in this case, unlike with the apple, I'm disinclined to accept your assertion that God cured you. For a start I'm very sceptical about God anyway and there's a lot more at stake here than the flavour of an apple. That doesn't mean I think you're a liar, but let's say that I am going to take some persuading. I hope you can accept that as a fairly rational viewpoint, after all, I simply can't go around believing automatically every yarn that's spun to me by all and sundry. As with the apple, I really need a bit more backup evidence. In this case all you've offered is your mates, who are Christians just like you and, therefore, potentially at least, biased, and, at worst, your henchmen. If I knew your mates in person, which I don't, the barrier might not be so high, but as I don't it is. Now there no use in your getting offended because I won't automatically accept your word or that of your mates, because what you're offering, unlike with that apple, is not evidence. It's you say-so. No judge or jury would settle for something that flimsy, especially as you're claiming what appears to me to be some kind of miraculous divine intervention, at odds with all natural laws. So I want something a bit more concrete. I find it difficult to suggest what that could be, but really, if you want to persuade me, which you possibly don't, the ball has to be in your court. So - evidence, please!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 11:23 PM

Steve Pshaw: I quote the whole of this piece of crap as a prime example of pointless, useless, aimless, insulting, inexplicable waffle. I can just about imagine myself typing that calibre of stuff (then shamefacedly deleting it) after about eight pints of Doom Bar. Actually, reading it again (so painful) it does make one wonder...

Shame on you."

Steve Pshaw: "Better still, why not let us have some of your own views for a refreshing change (second request), instead of affecting to preside over the thread in, er, a godlike manner."

Steve Pshaw: "Get what, Dave? Do you ever do anything other than "clever" one-liners?
Why don't you get GfS to explain it to me for you? Heheh!"



Steve Pshaw: "I find it difficult to suggest what that could be, but really, if you want to persuade me, which you possibly don't, the ball has to be in your court. So - evidence, please!"

Steve the Bullshitter: "Never a Beeb cameraman in sight! Why is it so hard? I'll tell you why. Because you're all making it all up, that's why! You've had millennia to produce plausible evidence, but not once..."

Steve Pshaw: "You're all Christians who are heavily inclined to believe a lot of stuff without demur that I would be severely sceptical about. You're biased. I'm not. You're the one with a fixed mindset (joined hands, closed eyes...), not me. I'm all ears. I'm standing here, arms folded, waiting for evidence."


GfS: Did I ever say I was a Christian?..You assumed it..probably because when people talk about 'God', you think 'Jesus'--Christian---run and argue. (funny, you equate the two, eh??)

OHHH, and all the post quotes above from you....you are just dodging MY question, and blathering typical responses, from some idiot with nothing to really say!!!

But you didn't answer it, because you CAN'T...and still, just spout insults to those who DO have an experience, that you know NOTHING ABOUT!
Knock it off....and stop embarrassing yourself. It isn't working. You've come off like a blithering fool....and don't have the 'intelligence' <<(you remember,..'INTELLIGENCE'??) to even guess a right clue!

Steve Pshaw: "Well I didn't pick up much support."

That's because we all know, what you don't see...stay stupid!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 06:23 AM

He says, referring to me: ...some idiot with nothing to really say!!!

Then he says: But you didn't answer it, because you CAN'T...and still, just spout insults...

Tee hee. And these statements right next to each other. Are you about twelve? At least I've never called anyone an idiot! Now stop blustering (though it is quite entertaining on the few occasions one can actually follow it). I seldom resort to this, but I can't honestly see any further point to having an exchange with you. Well, I'd exchange views, but my views for your spews don't cut it for me I'm afraid. Ta-ta!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 09:58 AM

i am quite happy to be known as fixed in my position.i hope i am considered respectful in defending such.i dont see it as my job to prove my faith.we are called to witness to it.steve is surpassing himself in insults;had to laugh-watwasit;greasy pig or summat!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 02:07 PM

I didn't call anyone a greasy pig. I used that common simile to characterise the slippery, moving-of-the-goalposts nature of one particular individual. Actually, Pete, it's greased pig. If you don't know the difference between imaginative use of clichéd similes and direct name-calling (which I try to avoid, unlike some around here, whom I note you are excusing from criticism - are you biased or what!), then I can't help you.

By the way, it might surprise you to know (in spite of my saying it several times, but you never do seem to notice the less convenient things I say) that my notions are not rigid. I'm open to conversion - as soon as I've seen the evidence. I promise.