Community > General Religion Chat

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 31 32 Next

Topic: questions that believers are afraid to answer - part 2
Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Sun 01/27/08 05:54 PM
I have seen you tell people they are delusional for believing in God. I have seen it more than once in more than one topic. "These criteria still live on in modern psychiatric diagnosis. In the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a delusion is defined as: A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith)" Since God cannot be shown as a false belief, that there are a large number of people that believe in him, and that there is no obvious proof or evidence to the contrary, then according to psychiatric diagnosis these people are not delusional. Also just because things cannot be seen or understood does not make them delusions and I stand by saying that your are using "An Argument from Ignorance". Absence of proof is not the proof of Absence.

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Sun 01/27/08 05:59 PM
no what you are doing is called "An Argument from Ignorance" (is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or false until proven true.) In fact, one of the most common forms of this is " * Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true" hey "Chazster"..I'm just going by what believers say that God is..that God is unseen and incomprehensible to the human senses can you name something else with those qualities that exist beyond the mind or delusion I don't know of everything in existance.. the only thing I can think of right now is Dark Matter.

Abracadabra Joined Thu 04/12/07 Posts: 17851	Sun 01/27/08 06:06 PM
I. Everything which exists, exists either in itself or in something else. Everything either exists or it doesn’t II. That which cannot be conceived through anything else must be conceived through itself. Something that has not yet been conceived cannot conceive itself. Therefore there can be no original conception. III. From a given definite cause an effect necessarily follows; and, on the other hand, if no definite cause be granted, it is impossible that an effect can follow. If there is nothing to begin with, nothing can begin. IV. The knowledge of an effect depends on and involves the knowledge of a cause. Not true. At least not in quantum physics. The causes of quantum effects are currently unknowable. Moreover, it has been proven that they are beyond knowable based on our concept of what knowledge means to us. In other words, quantum effects have been proven to be irrational and it has been proven that no rational explanation can be given based on what we consider today to be rational. V. Things which have nothing in common cannot be understood, the one by means of the other; the conception of one does not involve the conception of the other. Did Spinoza give an example of this? VI. A true idea must correspond with its ideate or object. Ah yes, the topic of the book I’m not working on. VII. If a thing can be conceived as non-existing, its essence does not involve existence. Not sure I agree with this. If it can be ‘conceived’ then the one who is doing the ‘conceiving’ is most likely involving their existence and experience whether they own up to it or not. Either that, or they genuinely don’t comprehend what it is they think they are conceiving. Just my thoughts.

Abracadabra Joined Thu 04/12/07 Posts: 17851	Sun 01/27/08 06:09 PM
@ Abra... he could have called you a Chri.. ah... nevermind... I've been called that before. That one can be excused because it has differnet meanings to differnet people,... But a republican? I need to take a week off to emotionally cool down after that one.

Lordling Joined Mon 12/31/07 Posts: 536	Sun 01/27/08 06:10 PM
I have seen you tell people they are delusional for believing in God. I have seen it more than once in more than one topic. "These criteria still live on in modern psychiatric diagnosis. In the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a delusion is defined as: A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith)" Since God cannot be shown as a false belief, that there are a large number of people that believe in him, and that there is no obvious proof or evidence to the contrary, then according to psychiatric diagnosis these people are not delusional. Also just because things cannot be seen or understood does not make them delusions and I stand by saying that your are using "An Argument from Ignorance". Absence of proof is not the proof of Absence. Good post... If you are going to disagree, then at least disagree accurately & competently.

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sun 01/27/08 06:13 PM
I wonder what you think of Spinoza's axioms? I never met the person but I'll give it a shot I. Everything which exists, exists either in itself or in something else. sounds like the food chain II. That which cannot be conceived through anything else must be conceived through itself. sounds like a spontaneous generated delusion III. From a given definite cause an effect necessarily follows; and, on the other hand, if no definite cause be granted, it is impossible that an effect can follow. sounds like every action has an equal but opposite reaction IV. The knowledge of an effect depends on and involves the knowledge of a cause. sounds like one can't give a question without first knowing the answer V. Things which have nothing in common cannot be understood, the one by means of the other; the conception of one does not involve the conception of the other. sounds like a close mind VI. A true idea must correspond with its ideate or object. sounds like what you see is what you get VII. If a thing can be conceived as non-existing, its essence does not involve existence. sounds like once a thing is conceived then the mind has given it existence but that doesn't mean it exist beyond the mind ...

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sun 01/27/08 06:15 PM
Abracadabra ...you must be a republican Well! Of all the years I’ve been on the Internet this is the worse insult anyone has ever flung at me! How rude! ..er..sorry..ok then what about a follower of the lyndon larouche philosophy perhaps

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sun 01/27/08 06:22 PM
I have seen you tell people they are delusional for believing in God. I have seen it more than once in more than one topic. sorry Chazster but you made an accusation that I was falsly accusing people of being delusional ...I need names alone with a brief explaination as to why they are not delusional.. and if you can not provide this then you are delusional for making those accusations

Abracadabra Joined Thu 04/12/07 Posts: 17851	Sun 01/27/08 06:25 PM
Good answers Funches, not to imply the are ‘great’, but certainly good. I particularly like your answer to number IV. I would love to know how Spinoza would answer your come back. I’m having trouble with number IV too. It seems circular. I think that, as humans, we certainly can have knowledge of effects without having a clue of what causes them. In fact, quantum mechanics is a blatant example of this! We can describe the effects with mathematical precision and have knowledge of them, but we have no clue what is causing the mathematical consistency. IV. The knowledge of an effect depends on and involves the knowledge of a cause. sounds like one can't give a question without first knowing the answer Note to Creative,.. When did Spinoza live??? Was he aware of quantum mechanics, or is he a Newtonian philosopher or even before that? Quantum mechanics certainly flies in the face of his axiom IV.

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sun 01/27/08 06:29 PM
no what you are doing is called "An Argument from Ignorance" (is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or false until proven true.) In fact, one of the most common forms of this is " * Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true" hey "Chazster"..I'm just going by what believers say that God is..that God is unseen and incomprehensible to the human senses can you name something else with those qualities that exist beyond the mind or delusion I don't know of everything in existance.. the only thing I can think of right now is Dark Matter. sorry Chazster... Dark Matter is a hypothetical form of matter ..

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Sun 01/27/08 06:31 PM
I have seen you tell people they are delusional for believing in God. I have seen it more than once in more than one topic. sorry Chazster but you made an accusation that I was falsly accusing people of being delusional ...I need names alone with a brief explaination as to why they are not delusional.. and if you can not provide this then you are delusional for making those accusations I know what i have seen and read and I am not gonna dig around just to make you happy. Also I am not delusional. You apparently still dont understand the meaning of the term even though I just defined it for you.

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sun 01/27/08 06:34 PM
Good post... If you are going to disagree, then at least disagree accurately & competently. hey Lordling...you still steamed over the fact that you couldn't give a rational explanation? ...dude let it go ...

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sun 01/27/08 06:40 PM
I’m having trouble with number IV too. It seems circular. I think that, as humans, we certainly can have knowledge of effects without having a clue of what causes them. that's called a phenomenom

Lordling Joined Mon 12/31/07 Posts: 536	Sun 01/27/08 06:43 PM
Good post... If you are going to disagree, then at least disagree accurately & competently. hey Lordling...you still steamed over the fact that you couldn't give a rational explanation? ...dude let it go ... Had nothing to do with our exchange, laddie. As you were.

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sun 01/27/08 06:44 PM
I have seen you tell people they are delusional for believing in God. I have seen it more than once in more than one topic. sorry Chazster but you made an accusation that I was falsly accusing people of being delusional ...I need names alone with a brief explaination as to why they are not delusional.. and if you can not provide this then you are delusional for making those accusations I know what i have seen and read and I am not gonna dig around just to make you happy. Also I am not delusional. You apparently still dont understand the meaning of the term even though I just defined it for you. see Chazster your failure to provide proof of your accusations especially when it is easily obtainable within these threads is a case of your seeing something that is not there... you yourself are proving that you are delusional

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sun 01/27/08 06:47 PM
Good post... If you are going to disagree, then at least disagree accurately & competently. hey Lordling...you still steamed over the fact that you couldn't give a rational explanation? ...dude let it go ... Had nothing to do with our exchange, laddie. As you were. ok "Lordling" stay in denial ...er.. laddie? ...sounds like scotty on Star Trek {kirk, spock}

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Sun 01/27/08 06:48 PM
no its laziness. Again your are misusing the term delusional again. I think you need to start finding out the meanings of words before you try using them. You just make yourself look bad. Just because I am not going to get it doesn't mean its not there. I remember you calling feralcatlady delusional before and I don't feel like wasting time searching through these forums.

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Sun 01/27/08 06:51 PM
no what you are doing is called "An Argument from Ignorance" (is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or false until proven true.) In fact, one of the most common forms of this is " * Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true" hey "Chazster"..I'm just going by what believers say that God is..that God is unseen and incomprehensible to the human senses can you name something else with those qualities that exist beyond the mind or delusion I don't know of everything in existance.. the only thing I can think of right now is Dark Matter. sorry Chazster... Dark Matter is a hypothetical form of matter .. Yes it is, some people believe it exists but it cant be proven and since it neither reflects or absorbs light it cannot be seen. It also is an unknown composition. Basically they dont really understand it and cant see it.

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sun 01/27/08 06:53 PM
no its laziness. Again your are misusing the term delusional again. I think you need to start finding out the meanings of words before you try using them. You just make yourself look bad. Just because I am not going to get it doesn't mean its not there. I remember you calling feralcatlady delusional before and I don't feel like wasting time searching through these forums. geez Chazster...you call it being lazy and I call it you being delusional ..so find the evidence and prove otherwise ...

Abracadabra Joined Thu 04/12/07 Posts: 17851	Sun 01/27/08 06:56 PM Edited by Abracadabra on Sun 01/27/08 06:57 PM
that's called a phenomenom Well, if you’re trying to do things using "pure thought only" then I’d say that the joke’s on you. I don’t believe it’s possible to even think in terms of “pure thought”. Every idea that you conceptualize is a result of your worldly experience right down to the very concept of logic itself. In fact, all we really mean when we say that something is logical is that it fits in with what we are used to experiencing in this universe. So if you’re under the delusion that there exists such a thing as “pure thought” or “pure reason” then you are indeed a delusional person. This is why I chose physics over philosophy. There can be no such thing as ‘pure philosophy', it must always be tied to our actual experience of life. Therefore why be delusional about it? Become a physicist and face the fact that the only thing that can be studied is what we actually experience, and nothing more. Can you see this Funches? Can you see why it is that the idea of “pure philosophy” is itself a delusional ideal?