God Vs Science This Will Blow Your Mind

Talk about putting words in someone's mouth!

I said none of those things, which is probably why you cannot understand my way of thinking. Don't feel the need to post yourself into a corner. I suspect we agree on more than we disagree @wutever.

So let me guess, all this urge toward a reality free from superstition is not a sign of schizophrenia? You know what causes schizophrenia and you know that you caused this on yourself , be a man and admit what you have done and your true reasons for not believing in god , stop hiding behind the unreal .

There you go, you see, T... You couldn't resist the "mental illness" claim... I suppose I saw it coming which is why I challenged you to be more original by mentioning the Ripper/Miss of Ark references.

There are Billions of theists in the world... it's a little arrogant to assume we're all mentally ill. It's also a little bit of a stretch to invoke Occam's razor... to do so you have to assume that the simplest answer is the mental instability of hundreds of millions/billions of otherwise perfectly functional and rational human beings.

If anything, Occam's razor should point you in the other direction

Do you remember what I posted about probabilities?

Is superstition as reality more probable than non-supersticious reality? In which case, is any superstition equally valid? How would you suggest I choose? Is Christianity more probable than belief in Wotan or Ra the sun god?

Without understanding probabilities, any Human being becomes gullible to any old tosh touted as "truth". In the end, you have to sacrifice truth and go with what you personally believe is probable or believable.

I don't think that an omnipotent origin-less God is believable. No hiding.

There is a giant flaw in your otherwide impeccable argument. "Lots of people believe <insert human belief here> so it is probably true"

Do you see it now?

I should be a medieval racist - those dang nonconformist thinkers have spoiled everything!

Hehe... that's not what I said at all and you know it. You're a fine one for complaining about word puttage

To be fair, I call religion a benign delusion - not a mental illness (with all the unspoken connatations)

We all harbour benign delusions of one sort or another. I do, and don't feel threatened by it.

Believing that black people are inferior is an example of a benign delusion shared by many folk. You don't have to be classed mentally ill and it won't affect by and large, your daily life - especially if you don't talk about it much, and belittle it's importance in your practical daily life. I'm not proposing you have this particular delusion - I certainly don't!

I think your God is your benign delusion. I'm not calling you crazy, though as I have said, if I suddenly started to feel the same I would doubt my own sanity before simply accepting it. (Occam's razor again) It is benign. It works for you. It is an irrational belief - even you would surely accept that.

No need to check yourself into Rampton Hall.

=minor edits=

This post has been edited by torrenter: Nov 19 2008, 07:18 PM

I think you're confusing anything from a vague notion, up to a strongly held belief, with something entirely different.... It's not your fault, though. So far this range has been the limit of your experience.

You are attempting to define an experience you have never been exposed to, and (as is usually the case) the default response is to label it as a delusion... You have no REAL grounds to define it as such, any more than you do to label it as something else entirely. You simply choose the label that makes you most comfortable with YOUR view of the world.... Still, believing theists are delusional is what atheists do, so I won't hold it against you

I called an irrational belief a benign delusion. That's hardly contentious is it? If I told you I irrationally believed in fairies you might say the same to me.

If you have a rational argument for ther existence of God however... I'm waiting to read it. I haven't got one to offer.

Here's one of my irrational beliefs for free, if it makes you feel better about them. I have an irrational belief, based on my "feelings" about the weather in the last 50 or so years and a smattering of chaos theory knowledge that climate change has been accelerated by human activity.

Probably my benign delusion, but I have lots more

I posted earlier that my irrational belief in God is stronger and more explicit than you have told us yours is. I know it's a benign delusion, and it gives me much comfort and strength - as many Human benign delusions do.

Believing in something that you know is not true is a common experience for us all. We all "suspend belief" at a good acting performance. The duality delights some children of a certain age who know for a short time Father Christmas is their Dad yet still believe in a real and deep way. It can be a pleasure to experience such a duality of belief, and that is best how I can describe my experience with God-ness and a few other benign delusions I dearly hold. Maybe it's a capacity lost in adulthood that most people (who seem to insist always on "the truth" or nothing) grow out of. I haven't and am glad of it, since "the truth" is a slippery mistress.

Another hope is that most folk in the far future will eventually look on supernatural or irrational beliefs in this way. It sure would save a lot of religious fighting between the various flavours of "truthists" and possibly help people get the best from their benign delusions.

This post has been edited by torrenter: Nov 19 2008, 08:20 PM

I have absolutely nothing profound to say. But since I took the time to read this thread from beginning to end I feel I've earned the right to up my post count by 1.
This thread seemed to veer off onto different tangents a couple times but to answer the original poster...Your little story made me smile only because the message
it was trying to convey was so flawed that it was almost laughable. That comment is neither right or wrong, but simply my opinion. While also in my opinion belonging
to a Mason's Lodge or whatever they call it, is akin to belonging to a secretive cult. Just another opinion and I really don't care if I'm right or wrong, it's just what I
believe.

I am really curious though if there is a god or not. I think that will be my first question to Jesus when he stops by for supper tonight.

Also if there is anyone who is searching for answers and they're not sure which way to turn...you are welcome to worship me. I will not have you kill anyone in my name
and you don't have to give me monetary compensation in order to believe. I just ask for you admiration and love.

That only holds true if you accept 'God did it' as one side of options. Yes, 'God did it' is a more simpler proposition than 'human beings have a naturally evolved brain structure that develops predictable faults in certain common and repeatable circumstances'.

But of course, 'God did it' explains nothing. For your dichotomy to be a fair one, you have to explain (or at least go some way to understanding the processes behind) God.

Yet of course you can't, because you've been very careful to posit an ineffable God, so nobody can tie you down to specifics. Then we put against that the fact that WE ALREADY KNOW the human brain is so evolved as to be reliably and repeatably flawed and prone top irrational behavior. I don't just mean that 'people believe weird shit'. I mean that 'people' as a class will believe the same weird shit in the same repeatable circumstances. Psychologists and priest know this to be true. So yes, probability is at the heart of the matter.

So let me phrase the Occam's Razor question like this (bearing in mind Occam's Razor isn't a law of nature, just an aid to logic), and let's discuss if it's a fair one or if you want to change the terms:

Which is the simpler proposition, that human beings are so evolved by natural processes that they are routinely and repeatedly (to the point of it being 'most people') capable of malfunctioning in such a way as to undergo a conviction that they are experiencing a powerful presence (when we KNOW that human beings are capable of undergoing many similar delusions already), or that a <insert explanation for your ineffable being of choice here> exists.

It's not just probability I suppose, there's precedent too. Precedent in the case of common mental delusions, and lack of precedent when it comes to interventionist omnipotent beings.

I'll grant YMG his claim that atheism is a faith position a certain credibility (as long as he packs it in with the claims of arrogance - every fucking theist since Paul has pulled that one, and it's nothing but a rhetorical device to claim the moral high ground on a hill made from fresh-air). I DO occasionally claim 'there is no God'. But allow that that's merely short-hand for 'the existence of a God seem to me to be very unlikely'. And like I implied before, while it is (probably) true that it is impossible to absolutely disprove the existence of some kind of deity, when people start making claims about the nature of the universe (like 'I can feel the presence of God') then it's time to start rolling up our sleeves and taking measurements (if it wasn't such a colossally pointless exercise, I mean).

At the end of the day, if everybody who had religion had YMGs kind of religion, then secularists wouldn't need to get out of bed. Though it would STILL be delusional, it would be a benign delusion. However, I suspect (and this would be an interesting debate in itself), that YMGs kind of 'agenda-less' faith is rare as rocking horse shit. I don't share Torrenter's view that most religion is 'harmless' except for the frothy-mouthed fundamentalists. I think AT BEST, religious faith is 'not too damaging', but most religion is more harmful than that.

Religious moderates make the idea that 'faith without evidence is a virtue' a viable platform for fundementalists to build their fundamentalist beliefs on - because it's a position that has no 'reduction as absurdum'. If YMGs faith is valid, then so is Fred Phelps. So is uncle Bill's belief that he was abducted by aliens. So is any claim that the holder doesn't feel they have to provide evidence for.

This post has been edited by Tootle: Nov 19 2008, 08:23 PM

Not a particularly 'benign' delusion if you happened to be black over the past 300 years or so, torrenter. Or if you happened to be spitted on the end of some Crusader's lance for that matter.

Calling it a benign delusion (and then backing it up with examples of your own benign delusions) doesn't make it so... it just confirms in yourself your own belief that it is. However, like I have already said, you are labeling something that you have no experience of with the most comfortable explanation that fits your world view... it doesn't make the label correct, and it doesn't make your assessment of the experience accurate.

The pair of you went on about "believing in something that is known not to be true" - well here's a newsflash... I know no such thing. I firmly hold it to be the truth despite your assertions that I am deluded (even in a nice and benign way - as if such a thing somehow made it less patronising).

When I talked about the arrogance of atheists views I was referring to the attitude which is clearly demonstrated in this thread which states: "What you experience is a delusion that you are incapable of recognising as such... I can recognise it though (despite never experiencing it) because I'm an atheist"

Describing the above as arrogant is in no way a "rhetorical device to claim the moral high ground on a hill made from fresh-air"

Anyway, enough of this, for now. I've never been particularly comfortable talking about my brand of theism because, as I said earlier, I think it's akin to preaching... if God wants to carry on establishing his existence once I'm done with the thread, he's more than welcome to have a bash... though I don't fancy his chances much with you lot

This post has been edited by yourmercifulgod: Nov 20 2008, 01:12 AM

Fair enough. Thanks for giving us that much YMG

If God wants to post here he's welcome to try, but I suspect he'd get short shrift

He's banned isn't he?

Yes we can agree on a lot of things, after all we are all brothers and sisters. As I have stated earlier, I cannot understand your way of thinking, I can only build a model out from what you say, and test the model .The model successfully passed the test so I will restate the results:
a-you have a problem with your identity (possibly due to some narcotic use during childhood, blame yourself)
b-you have a problem with your authenticity (blame yourself)
c-you are projecting your experience on others instead of working through the *scientific* way and I believe you are only causing *evil* to yourself.
d-you may have a schizophrenic side based on your construction of reality and your fear of *superstition* (possibly due to a narcotic use)
e-you are still letting your negative childhood upbringing affects you.

I can respect you and respect your choices,i cannot respect the lack of responsibility that you exhibits -here and in real life - , I have drawn you a different image not the one you understood nor the one that you try to project, maybe one day you will understand.




I can safely say that your knowledge is fragmentary and that it sums to a set of maxims that you have learned to apply here and there in a contradicting manner without any thrive to attain any coherence or authenticity. Stop hiding behind empty names that you whimsically apply and build using a layman knowledge ,Good luck with your quest .

OK I've had enough of this "one day you will undestand" and "the lack of responsibility that you exhibits -here and in real life" nonsense. I require you, wutever, in order for me to take your postings seriously, to declare your professional expertise (if any), your philosophical or religious principles and whether or not English is your first language.

 junior_foghorn.jpg ( 47.88K ) Number of downloads: 1


Are the debates in LPP always this adversarial?
My money is on Foghorn because he has Egghead Jr to draw up the plans.

On Egghead Jr :The boy, I say, the boy's got a mouth like a cannon - always firin' off!

In retrospect I think that maybe I posted slightly hasty just up there and so I'll explain why I have got a bit grumpy. I dislike ad hominem arguments (basically any argument that attacks the poster rather than the post. I can call names with the best of them but I don't think it has any place in LPP. To take what torrenter has said so far in this thread and posit that he's got problems with his identity possibly through narcotic use, that he doesn't take responsibility for things or that he had a negative childhood is not possible by use of logic alone. So either some outside professional knowledge is being brought to bear on torrenter's posts, another source of information about torrenter's background (possibly from a different thread) is being used to analyse his posts here, or a religious or political agenda which has not been explicitly acknowledged is responsible for wutever's claims.

Now if, for example, wutever was a follower of Manichaeism, we would expect that his posts would relfect the preferences of that religion and things that would not make sense to us otherwise would make sense to us once we knew he was a Manichaeist.

Likewise if he is writing in a second language then he is doing spectacularly well and I am prepared to make an extra effort with his idiosyncratic syntax and vocabulary choices.

Otherwise we have someone casting aspertions on another poster, for no good reason at all or at least providing no reason or principle to back it up.

Incorrect. I know who I am, and I don't use drugs apart from nicotine.



A problem with my true-ness? Explain.



Evil is an opinion. What is your opinion of evil? I have related my internal experience of God - not yours. What is your experience of God by the way?


I embrace the duality of superstition. Are you projecting your fear of it to me?


Negative childhood? Negative to what? I consider myself a positive person. What was your childhood like @wutever? More projection?



I am responsible for my own actions. I do not blame God for anything I have decided to do. Tell me that which I do not understand - teach me what you think I need to learn. I will listen - then decide probabilities.

What empty names? I am puzzled because I thought I made everything as clear as I could.