by Shining One 369 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
the_classicist:
You wrote: 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 rewrote that to read, "Now if God is totally unsensible..." I would agree with your conclusion. However, as written you assume as fact a conclusion that has not been established by your argument, and then argue from no foundation at all.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
Rex, this is my last post for the day, so saith Simon and the restrictions put on me.
: : 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.
I'm not proficient at law, but I'm pretty sure some examples could be found.
: : 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.
That's right, people have been willing to die for all sorts of crazy beleifs. Christians aren't/weren't the only ones.
: : 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.
Well, here's what the written word says:
vs.
OK it was Paul's men. Dude, I'm tired and have been really sick. I should have kept my trap shut.
: : 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.
No, man, I have, believe me, I have. Special pleading won't make my opinions go away. But that's all they are, opinions, and sometimes I goof up, which is why I try not to call people names like "ignorant" but I do slip up some times. The last couple of days have been rough on my life, a lot on my mind and a lot to do for health and money problem. I should stay out of deep threads like this one for the time being,
Oldsoul,
>> 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.
I don't believe I'm improperly using charged language. I am merely being consistent.
Just as I believe George Bush is delusional (based on the colloquial use of the term) because of statements regarding the spirit realm that he has made, I believe others including yourself are delusional. The reason is because you have given me no better evidence for your perception than George Bush has. If there is a way to differentiate then I'm all ears... but then we get into the realm of testability.
I can't have it both ways and feel that George Bush is delusional but your relationship with god is valid unless you provide some evidence.
I know it's not a pretty word, but I'm trying to be as consistent as possible.
Again, if we take "delusional" to mean: "harboring explicitly false beliefs or almost certainly false beliefs that cannot be explicitly falsified" then George Bush is delusional for the following reasons:
1. He believes his perceptions are caused by an external dimension
2. There is no evidence of this external dimension
3. There are physical explanations for the phenomenon he is describing
4. This is not a falsifiable belief
If #3 did not obtain, then I would probably not use the word delusional because the claim would simply be non-falsifiable and Occham's Razor would not apply.
Cheers,
rem
rem:
That's just it, rem, you assert that "There are physical explanations for the phenomenon he is describing," but you don't prove it.
OldSoul
Oldsoul,
I'm not trying to prove anything. I know for a fact that people hallucinate for various material reasons. I don't have to know exactly why a person is hearing voices or believes that he has a relationship with a non-material person - I just have to know that physical reasons exist.
This doesn't prove that the person has a physical reason for his perception, but it does mean that the most parsimonious explination is a physical one. There's no reason to make up or trust untested, unfalsifiable reasons when perfectly fine physical ones exist.
rem
There's no reason to make up or trust untested, unfalsifiable reasons when perfectly fine physical ones exist.
Precisely! And this is the question that I keep asking myself reading this thread....what is the motivation for the theist to ascribe supernatural causes (or extra-dimensions, etc) to explain some experience? Does this somehow enrich the experience ex post facto???
Ultimately, we will simply be talking in circles. However, I suspect there is an underlying emotional need to describe some particular experience in "supernatural terms" rather than purely physical ones. Is there a neurobiological basis for religiosity? Yes, indeed!!!
| Med Hypotheses. 2004;62(4):479-85. | Related Articles, Links |
Cygnus:
Rex, this is my last post for the day, so saith Simon and the restrictions put on me.
Fortunately I don't think Simon reads these threads, as they aren't his cup of tea. But I have to tell ya, I'm personally starting to find it really ooooold...
Rex:You're hitting Judgemental Street again. There's really no need to stoop to using that kind of language with Cygnus.
Rem:You're determined that we have to use YOUR definition of the word "delusional", huh?
What's wrong with Gyles definition, that tolerates harmless beliefs (in contrast to a world leader who may or may not be acting on them on a cataclysmic scale)?
I don't believe I'm improperly using charged language. I am merely being consistent.
Regardless of your consistency, the consensus is that you're intentionally using charged language. Being consistent in calling someone a b*st*rd doesn't make it any nicer.
You also make a number of assumptions, such as there being no evidence for an "external dimension" by which I assume you mean those theorized by scientists? You also claim that you have issues with certain things not being falsifiable, however I would posit that you take for granted that green is "green", with narly a whimper.
There's a lot about the mind that remains unknown, with Psychology and Psychiatry being evolving sciences. Nonetheless, there are very few people being locked up or even medicated because of religion or spiritual beliefs. I wonder why that is? Could it be because science doesn't yet deem such people as "delusional"?
Kid-A:
Interesting paper. I enjoy that kind of research immensely.
I have to ask you though, in the case of the paper starting with the fact that the "biological basis is little understood", and a smattering of constructs such as "hypothesis", "may result", "propose", and "potential implication", aren't you really grasping at a branch of science that is in it's infancy to explain that which you haven't experienced?
LT,
>> You're determined that we have to use YOUR definition of the word "delusional", huh?
I have a good reason for this as I have demonstrated. The strict interpretation of the word does not account for unfalsifiable claims, which is silly because I think we can all agree that *some* unfalsifiable claims are so out-to-lunch that any person believing in them is truly delusional. Therefore, my definition is actually more correct because it is how people actualy use the word in the real world. To use the strict definition is, in my opinion, just playing games with semantics.
Do you not agree that people who believe invisible yellow dragons live in their basement are delusional?
What about the claim being non-falsifiable makes it out of bounds of delusion?
>> What's wrong with Gyles definition, that tolerates harmless beliefs (in contrast to a world leader who may or may not be acting on them on a cataclysmic scale)?
I do tolerate harmless beliefs... that's why I said before I would not call someone who believes that we all see the color green differently delusional. I simply wouldn't agree, but there's not enough physical evidence to say one way or another. If they insist without evidence I would probably just think they were a little weird.
>> Regardless of your consistency, the consensus is that you're intentionally using charged language. Being consistent in calling someone a b*st*rd doesn't make it any nicer.
I'm chosing consistency over niceness. But really, I have admitted that I'm not immune to delusion either. It's part of being a human.
>> You also make a number of assumptions, such as there being no evidence for an "external dimension" by which I assume you mean those theorized by scientists? You also claim that you have issues with certain things not being falsifiable, however I would posit that you take for granted that green is "green", with narly a whimper.
I was referring to a spiritual realm when I said "external dimension". Sorry for the confusion. I have already explained my stance about the color green.
>> There's a lot about the mind that remains unknown, with Psychology and Psychiatry being evolving sciences.
But but but... there is a lot that *is* known... and that's what I've been trying to explain. Not taking the time to understand what we do know about the brain and how easy it is to fool, in my opinion, makes a person more susceptible to delusions.
>> Nonetheless, there are very few people being locked up or even medicated because of religion or spiritual beliefs. I wonder why that is? Could it be because science doesn't yet deem such people as "delusional"?
As I said before, it doesn't seem to be a very dibilitating issue in real life... probably not dibilitating at all for most people and maybe even advantageous for others. It's just scary to me that people with these delusions can end up in power and decide public policy or persuade people to reject modern medicine or convince people they can find their missing family members, etc. based on their delusions.
rem
You're right. In my own case I continue a career as a Mental Health Services Manager, and my Psychiatric colleages have no difficulty with this. Do you really think that I don't find the mind fascinating?
Do you also see why I have a strong dislike of your misuse of the word "delusional", since it has more than colloquial connotations to me?
I was referring to a spiritual realm when I said "external dimension".
So would you confess that you're prone to semantic games yourself, given that it has already been suggested that the so-called "spiritual realm" may in fact just be additional dimentions that scientists are already theorising about?
Gotta love that merry-go-round, huh?
>Rex: You're hitting Judgemental Street again. There's really no need to stoop to using that kind of language with Cygnus.
You are right, sorry Cygnus.
Rex
