Why naturalism is irrational (page 24)

rem

Hmm... maybe I've been mistaken all my life, but I was pretty sure that the word delusional had the connotation of being fooled by the brain. Thus, if I beleive their perceptions are merely their brain fooling them, then yes I can label them as delusional.

And no, I'm not changing the definition of the word... I'm using a fairly common interpretation of it. As I've said before, it is quite acceptable to use the word delusional in this sense:

"That person who believes that invisible fairies live in his knees is delusional"

That claim is not falsifiable, he is claiming that only he can perceive them but they are real, and there is no evidence for the claim. My default position for such a claim is that the person is delusional until evidence is forthcoming. Is that so ridiculous?

rem

LittleToe

The term is derogatory, as well you know, since it implies mental illness - especially in the context of your application.

Nonetheless, I haven't fallen out with ya. I've been called worse things off the cuff than "sick", though it's usually in connection with my occasionally dark sense of humour

rem

Yes, I do understand that it has a derrogatory connotation. I have to agree with Bill Maher when he says "religion is a mental disorder." :)

Fortunately for the vast majority of humans it doesn't seem to be overly debilitating... in fact most seem to do quite well and many are far better off than I am.

Of course I have my own delusions... like I said before, I'm not immune. The thing about delusions, though, is that usually it's up to someone else to point them out to you.

rem

Shining One

>Excellent. That's exactly what we're looking for. The kind of evidence that would be accepted in a court of law. Perfect. Now, where is it?

The testimony of the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 is a good place to start....
Rex

Shining One

This is from Abaddon and aimed at Hooberus:
are you still a 'Young Earth Creationist' who believes in an Earth that is less than/approximately 10,000 years old? If so, how can you credibly quote from a source which doesn't hold the same opinion? ReMine, for example, accepts standard time scales. Yet you are willing to quote him to support your argument when it suits you, despite the fact that his view are utterly incompatable with yours.

That is a genetic fallacy. The person of the source is entirely irrelevant to the evidence submitted by the source.

>It would be like a Hindu quoting part of a Christian Bible-literalist YEC theory puportedly supporting a low age of the Earth to support a Hindu Creationist theory.

So, what is wrong with that? If the evidence itself is related, in context, to the argument at hand there is no problem with using it. NOw, if you only quote the source partially and twist the context that is a Watchtower trick for sure.
Rex

Shining One

Derek,
>Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, and certainly don't meet the standards Rex mentioned.
That's too general of a statement. You also need to prove they are impeachable, case by case.

>Now, of course, there are a lot of eyewitness accounts, which would certainly be taken into account in a law court. If fifty people say they saw the same person committing a crime, then a conviction is likely, even without physical evidence. However, if fifty people all disagreed about who they saw committing the crime, and the details of when, where and how it happened, then their evidence would likely be dismissed.
That's a false delimma. The evidence would be sifted and weighed by several factors and most likely used to convict. I know, I have surved on a jury!

>This analogy, I think, corresponds very well to experiences of the supernatural. While there are thousands of recorded incidents, many of them contradict one another.
The question is this, do they contradict one another regarding the same specific incident? If they appear to do so, can they be reasonably reconciled? This is just what Christian 'apologia' is all about!

>While some see the Virgin Mary, others are given evidence that Allah is the one true god, while others are abducted by aliens. Even those who encounter the same deity are often given different instructions.
Case by case, Derek. That is too general of a statement. BTW, Allah is the Islamists name for God. You can attempt to dismiss accounts of the Virgin Mary, Allah, Jesus, Grey Aliens, whomever, but to be intellectually honest you need to consider each accounts on its own merits, just like we do in a court of law.
Rex

rem

Not to belabor the point, but this type of thing is what I'm referring to:

>> Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

I have no idea whether Bush said those things at all, but if he did then I believe he is delusional... or maybe just a liar.

To me it is scary that public policy is influenced by such delusions.

rem

Shining One

Cygnus,
>I'd need the eywitnesses to be independent of each other and carrying along no preferential presuppositions.
WHEN has that ever been the case? Everyone has their own axioms.

>Christians champion Paul's defense of himself when relating his conversion to the Roman authorities
That is only the beginning, uninspired traditional accounts list hundreds of martyrs who say they saw the risen Lord and would not recant. Christians who had seen Jesus risen, the apostles and many of their disciples followed suit except for John, who escaped that death. People do not die for a lie and a sham unless they have been fully indoctrinated and not shown any opposing evidence. Chuck Colson gives an excellent analogy of this in his book, 'Born Again'. He was part of a conspiracy that caused President Nixon to resign. You had several men who knew of the conspiracy and could have contained it themselves but they turned on each other and sold each other out without ever having to worry about being killed.

>but today he'd be laughed at and tossed into the looney bin. I never did quite get if he heard or if he saw Jesus (of his "glory") anyway.
Your ignorance is absolutely overwhelming.

>edited to add since I'm out of posts for the day: The supposed eyewitnesses of Jesus who authored the gospels did a poor job getting their story straight. One has to wonder, with all the contradictions and different language (for instance, did Jesus literally say "Kingdom of Heaven" or "Kingdom of God"?) how the catholics (univeralists?) canonized them as Hoy Writ.
Ignorance knows no bounds with you, Cygnus. I effectively debunked your alleged contradictions and I even sent you to sources that would enlighten you. Too bad you just don't want to investigate it for yourself.
Rex

Shining One

REM
>Yes, I do understand that it has a derrogatory connotation. I have to agree with Bill Maher when he says "religion is a mental disorder." :)

LIBERALISM is a mental disorder. (Michael Savage). LOL

OldSoul

OldSoul
"There is no spoon" ceases to be a convincing or satisfying argument at a certain point. Yeah, we all know we could be part of someone's dream, or that the entire Universe could have JUST NOW been created, and our memories of the past with it. But we all know that for everyday porpoises, and even extraordinary dolphins, this is probably "a load of bollocks". Most people accept reality is rather nicely exemplified by a fast moving truck, and take pains to avoid stepping in front of such exemplifiers of reality as even thought it MIGHT be a dream et. al., they like the possibley illusory reality they think they are having in place of what is objectively agreed to be subjectively terminal.

I have no idea why this would be addressed to me. The only circumstance under which I mentioned anything remotely similar is in context of responding to whether someone believing their if no spoon is falsifiable. It is not, of course. Therefore, I may disbelieve and disagree with the person all I want, but unless I can falsify their belief it is not "delusion"—it is difference.

rem:

Spin it any way you like. Your definition is a falsifiable one, according to the definition of the language part you chose, as is your belief based on your falsifiable definition. That aside, LittleToe is correct that needlessly and improperly using charged language that carries widely understood negative connotations to the degree that "delusional" does is argumentative, disrespectful, and destructive to the acceptance of your arguments. If you want me to stick to facts as defined but refuse to do so yourself, we aren;t going to get very far and you are going to look silly.

the_classicist:

Your continuing assertion as to the nature of God is laughable given that you admit to (a) never having experienced God in any way, and (b) disbelieving in God's existence. Since you can't speak from personal experience as to the nature of God, by your own admission, and you asserted as fact something related to majority belief about the nature of God, my request for data supporting your assertion is entirely founded.

I suspect you have no data to support your statement as fact, but I always welcome being proven wrong. In case you are having trouble understanding which statement I take issue with:

Now since God is totally unsensible, his existence or non-existence is completely meaningless as it is impossible to determine it to be so.

If you don't believe in God, by what means did you arrive at a belief in an unsensible God? I do not believe God to be unsensible. I believe I have sensed God. I suspect LittleToe believes likewise. You stated earlier that the majority believe God is unsensible and proceeded to substantiate that statement with .... nothing at all. Where is you data supporting your statement of majority viewpoint? Until you posted that viewpoint I had never heard of it in my life, and I know a lot of people.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

Why naturalism is irrational

Share this