Go to church, it'll solve all your problems

[Saxon]

19 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

Delusion? Uhm, no, there is a difference between delusion and putting faith in your belief. Delusion is to believe in something where there is solid proof of said thing not existing. Nobody can say what does or does not exist outside of our realm of existence. Nobody can say where we go when we die. Atheists are just as wrong and arrogant as Christians. It's up to you personally to determine what you choose to believe.

Delusions are "a peculiar or personal belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument ".

Persuading yourself that you are the reincarnation of Nefertiti, or that you're going to graduate into an angel and be given an apartment in valhalla when you die, would be delusions. 

Saying 'it is out of our realm of existence' is a fancy way of saying 'It doesn't exist'.  

What's delusion without truth?  

If truth is defined as all the things that are known(collectively),  is delusion all things that are not? 

Then how do we separate individual truth, or delusion,  from the general consensus? 

*Just a thought

 

No. Delusion has a very specific definition, which you could have looked up in about 5 seconds. 

 

Edited December 30, 2015 by Saxon

[Lucyfish]

Just now, Saxon said:

Delusions are "a peculiar or personal belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument ".

Persuading yourself that you are the reincarnation of Nefertiti, or that you're going to graduate into an angel and be given an apartment in valhalla when you die, would be delusions. 

Saying 'it is out of our realm of existence' is a fancy way of saying 'It doesn't exist'.  

Except it isn't. We cannot sit here and say for sure what reality does and does not entail. We have not explored all of reality, in fact we keep discovering that there is more to reality than we ever thought. We didn't know there was any existence outside our planet until we were able to develop the tools to explore that outer beyond. Even the most influential scientific minds like Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson have expressed their interest in the studies that show there are still many possibilities outside our universe to explore.

You can't say there's no god. You have utterly no proof. You can't say there is one, either. You can only choose what you believe on a personal level. For example, I believe in my heart that the people I love that I've lost are still looking over me, somewhere. I don't have any proof so it's not a belief I'd force on anyone else, but it's what keeps me going. If I didn't believe that Red was still watching over me, then I'd have already killed myself by now. That is part of my spirituality. Without that belief, I would have no purpose that works for me. I've tried to live without some sort of supernatural purpose or belief, but it simply doesn't work for me. The meaninglessness and depression is too much for me to handle. So I choose to believe that those people are still watching over me, and when I die I'll get to be with them again.

This belief doesn't stop me from doing what I want or trying to help make the world a better place, so who are you to call me deluded or say I'm doing something wrong?

[Saxon]

Just now, Lucyfish said:

Except it isn't. We cannot sit here and say for sure what reality does and does not entail. We have not explored all of reality, in fact we keep discovering that there is more to reality than we ever thought. We didn't know there was any existence outside our planet until we were able to develop the tools to explore that outer beyond. Even the most influential scientific minds like Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson have expressed their interest in the studies that show there are still many possibilities outside our universe to explore.

You can't say there's no god. You have utterly no proof. You can't say there is one, either. You can only choose what you believe on a personal level. For example, I believe in my heart that the people I love that I've lost are still looking over me, somewhere. I don't have any proof so it's not a belief I'd force on anyone else, but it's what keeps me going. If I didn't believe that Red was still watching over me, then I'd have already killed myself by now. That is part of my spirituality. Without that belief, I would have no purpose that works for me. I've tried to live without some sort of supernatural purpose or belief, but it simply doesn't work for me. The meaninglessness and depression is too much for me to handle. So I choose to believe that those people are still watching over me, and when I die I'll get to be with them again.

This belief doesn't stop me from doing what I want or trying to help make the world a better place, so who are you to call me deluded or say I'm doing something wrong?

Sorry to pop your hippy nonsense bubble, but we really can tell what reality does and does not entail. No matter how much further you explore reality, for instance, you won't be able to discover that the Earth is flat. 

Gods and Goddesses don't exist because the qualities attributed to them are magical in nature, and the laws of physics are now well enough understood for us to be confident that they preclude magical powers. 

Human conscious experience isn't immortal because medical investigation has shown that our consciousness is generated in an organ called the brain, which is extremely sensitive to damage. If part of the brain is irreparably damaged, the qualities of the personality it was busy generating are also lost, and cannot be restored. It makes about as much sense to assume that your dead relatives are watching over you, than it does to assume that a brain damaged person still has their full mental faculty. :\ When bits of the brain are damaged, there is no magical back up, sad as it is. 

 

Reality doesn't care about whether it 'works for you'; the cosmos doesn't rotate about your emotional narcissism or psychological imperatives. O_o 

 

[Terminal7]

10 minutes ago, Saxon said:

No. Delusion has a very specific definition, which you could have looked up in about 5 seconds. 

 

I questioned the definition of truth, not delusion. 

[TrishaCat]

*looks at thread*

This is not the future I asked for.

[Lucyfish]

Just now, Saxon said:

Sorry to pop your hippy nonsense bubble, but we really can tell what reality does and does not entail. No matter how much further you explore reality, for instance, you won't be able to discover that the Earth is flat. 

Gods and Goddesses don't exist because the qualities attributed to them are magical in nature, and the laws of physics are now well enough understood for us to be confident that they preclude magical powers. 

Human conscious experience isn't immortal because medical investigation has shown that our consciousness is generated in an organ called the brain, which is extremely sensitive to damage. If part of the brain is irreparably damaged, the qualities of the personality it was busy generating are also lost, and cannot be restored. It makes about as much sense to assume that your dead relatives are watching over you, than it does to assume that a brain damaged person still has their full mental faculty. :\ When bits of the brain are damaged, there is no magical back up, sad as it is. 

 

Reality doesn't care about whether it 'works for you'; the cosmos doesn't rotate about your emotional narcissism or psychological imperatives. O_o 

 

So what you're saying is I should just accept everything that depresses me and blow my brains out right now because they can never be different.

Dude, I used to think the exact same way you do. That being spiritual was some sort of delusion. Then I realized that some people NEED spirituality to survive, and that I was one of those people. Having a belief that validates your existence and gives you a reason to fight on and survive is not a delusion, it's a foundation. Trying to destroy someone's foundation for living isn't "breaking their delusion," it's hurting them and honestly a real dick move.

Like I said, atheists are just as arrogant and wrong as Christians. No, physics does not determine reality, because we don't even fully understand physics yet or how the laws of physics even came to be. NO HUMAN can determine reality, because no human was here for the creation of it. The only reality you can say for sure is what you see and experience. There are no pictures of the Big Bang, no recording, no person who was there that can tell the story. We simply use evidence to make a theory. A theory, which is a scientific statement that can be tested, and we will keep testing it in order to discover more and more about what really happened.

To say for sure there is no gods out there is just as "deluded" as saying for sure there is. You can only meditate on what keeps you smiling.

[Saxon]

3 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

So what you're saying is I should just accept everything that depresses me and blow my brains out right now because they can never be different.

Dude, I used to think the exact same way you do. That being spiritual was some sort of delusion. Then I realized that some people NEED spirituality to survive, and that I was one of those people. Having a belief that validates your existence and gives you a reason to fight on and survive is not a delusion, it's a foundation. Trying to destroy someone's foundation for living isn't "breaking their delusion," it's hurting them and honestly a real dick move.

Like I said, atheists are just as arrogant and wrong as Christians. No, physics does not determine reality, because we don't even fully understand physics yet or how the laws of physics even came to be. NO HUMAN can determine reality, because no human was here for the creation of it. The only reality you can say for sure is what you see and experience. There are no pictures of the Big Bang, no recording, no person who was there that can tell the story. We simply use evidence to make a theory. A theory, which is a scientific statement that can be tested, and we will keep testing it in order to discover more and more about what really happened.

To say for sure there is no gods out there is just as "deluded" as saying for sure there is. You can only meditate on what keeps you smiling.

I'm saying that reality won't contort itself to make you happier. 

[Lucyfish]

Just now, Saxon said:

I'm saying that reality won't contort itself to make you happier. 

But I already know that. I never said believing in something would change the world around you. It simply changes the way you see and deal with it. It's a PERSONAL ISSUE.

[willow]

what I fail to understand is why people who don't practice any faith or spirituality, or believe in any deity are determined to disprove that X isn't real and anyone who believes in it is delusional and stupid. it's kinda like going around telling kids Santa's not real because you yourself don't believe. it's actually pretty shitty to insist that what makes someone happy or is helping them isn't actually helping them. but I draw the line at people who force their beliefs on others. that goes for both religion and atheism and well...

also finding something to believe in or believing that something could exist but we don't have definitive proof isn't the same as delusion.

[Terminal7]

3 minutes ago, willow said:

also finding something to believe in or believing that something could exist but we don't have definitive proof isn't the same as delusion.

I think the issue is that religious beliefs don't have any rational evidence to support it, but what's failing to be understood is that it isn't just a matter of right and wrong : it's also that beliefs (on either side) are just beliefs,  whether based on tangible evidence or spiritual understanding & personal experience. 

People are too concerned about which puzzle will be completed fastest instead of putting them together and build a collective understanding of the world and universe around us. 

[Lucyfish]

Atheism doesn't have any rational evidence to support it, either. The only true, purely "rational" way of thinking, is agnosticism. To accept that we as humans know nothing about how the universe came to be, and likely never will know.

[Onnes]

I think willow nailed it: arguing against personal, non-interfering spirituality is, at best, utterly pointless. First, that kind of criticism accomplishes nothing; if someone is happy with their beliefs then they aren't going to change them just because someone else thinks spiritual beliefs are pointless. And if they aren't hurting anyone else or themselves then there's little reason bother them in the first place. 

This brings me the second issue. If someone derives significant personal value from their beliefs then they are not going to respect that kind of criticism. They may even view it as a personal attack -- one is, after all, going after something personally significant for no important reason and can thus be interpreted as wanting to cause harm. This also carries over to bystanders. Maybe I've just been on the internet too long, but the evergreen atheism v. religion arguments and all their variants are just tiring and do nothing but make me annoyed at whoever starts them.

[Derin Darkpaw]

The real question Saxon is not whether or not religion/ spirituality is a delusion, but whether or not it can have positive consequences.  To say that people should never be religious you would need to demonstrate that it primarily results in negative consequences which you have yet to provide any evidence of. 

Maybe however you have more of a deontological viewpoint rather then a consequentialist one.  If that is the case do you view all instances of delusion inherently wrong and why?  If you do believe delusion inherently wrong then do you also hold that it is always wrong to lie even in extreme cases where a lie could save another human beings life?

Also none of the questions even address a more basic problem underlying this entire issue.  Can we choose what we believe?  If the answer to that is no then as Kant famously put "ought implies can" and if one is unable to choose their beliefs then you can not tell them to change because such a thing would be impossible.

[Saxon]

29 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

So what you're saying is I should just accept everything that depresses me and blow my brains out right now because they can never be different.

Dude, I used to think the exact same way you do. That being spiritual was some sort of delusion. Then I realized that some people NEED spirituality to survive, and that I was one of those people. Having a belief that validates your existence and gives you a reason to fight on and survive is not a delusion, it's a foundation. Trying to destroy someone's foundation for living isn't "breaking their delusion," it's hurting them and honestly a real dick move.

Like I said, atheists are just as arrogant and wrong as Christians. No, physics does not determine reality, because we don't even fully understand physics yet or how the laws of physics even came to be. NO HUMAN can determine reality, because no human was here for the creation of it. The only reality you can say for sure is what you see and experience. There are no pictures of the Big Bang, no recording, no person who was there that can tell the story. We simply use evidence to make a theory. A theory, which is a scientific statement that can be tested, and we will keep testing it in order to discover more and more about what really happened.

To say for sure there is no gods out there is just as "deluded" as saying for sure there is. You can only meditate on what keeps you smiling.

I thought I would approach this argument. It's interesting that you assume that reality even had a creation, when you believe that you can't tell anything about the event without having literally have been there. 

 

As it happens there is a picture of the big bang, collected by powerful telescopes. This is because light takes time to reach us, so when telescopes peer into the depths of the cosmos they look further back in time. 

The furthest back a telescope can look is about 13.7 billion years ago, a few hundred thousand years *after* the big bang. The specific image, which is a fuzz of microwaves, is that which Astrophysicists predicted would be released when the universe first became transparent, after the universe called down sufficiently after a big-bang event. The microwave spectra tell Astrochemists that the Universe was made from Hydrogen and trace Helium and Lithium, just as a Big bang model would predict.

This is what the Cosmic Background radiation looks like: http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/WMAP_2010.png

 

Atheism doesn't have any rational evidence to support it, either. The only true, purely "rational" way of thinking, is agnosticism. To accept that we as humans know nothing about how the universe came to be, and likely never will know.

 

Just like people who don't believe in fairies don't have any evidence to show they aren't real.

Try performing a google search for 'Null hypothesis' and 'Burden of proof'. 

 

Edited December 30, 2015 by Saxon

[Sycophantic Feline]

23 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

So what you're saying is I should just accept everything that depresses me and blow my brains out right now because they can never be different.

 

So the only thing keeping you from killing yourself is the belief in something magical? That's not right.

Take that away, and you're done? You don't see why someone might have an issue with that at all?

Yes, you should accept it, and deal with it, that would help you become an emotionally stronger person. Taking solace in fantasy is running away at best.

All it tells me is that you're mentally weak and perhaps unstable.

[Lucyfish]

Just now, Sycophantic Feline said:

So the only thing keeping you from killing yourself is the belief in something magical? That's not right.

Take that away, and you're done? You don't see why someone might have an issue with that at all?

Yes, you should accept it, and deal with it, that would help you become an emotionally stronger person. Taking solace in fantasy is running away at best.

All it tells me is that you're mentally weak and perhaps unstable.

No shit I'm weak and unstable, lol. But I found a belief that helps me deal with my weakness and doesn't harm or affect anybody else, so what's the problem? Why does my reason for carrying on concern you in the least?

[Saxon]

24 minutes ago, willow said:

what I fail to understand is why people who don't practice any faith or spirituality, or believe in any deity are determined to disprove that X isn't real and anyone who believes in it is delusional and stupid. it's kinda like going around telling kids Santa's not real because you yourself don't believe. it's actually pretty shitty to insist that what makes someone happy or is helping them isn't actually helping them. but I draw the line at people who force their beliefs on others. that goes for both religion and atheism and well...

also finding something to believe in or believing that something could exist but we don't have definitive proof isn't the same as delusion.

Imagine one of your adult friends tells you he believes in Santa Claus, and that the idea he will receive a reward on christmas keeps him on the straight and narrow. 

 

[Lucyfish]

1 minute ago, Saxon said:

Imagine one of your adult friends tells you he believes in Santa Claus, and that the idea he will receive a reward on christmas keeps him on the straight and narrow. 

 

I would say "Alright whatever floats your boat dude" and move on with my fucking life because his beliefs don't affect me lol

Edited December 30, 2015 by Lucyfish

[willow]

4 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Imagine one of your adult friends tells you he believes in Santa Claus, and that the idea he will receive a reward on christmas keeps him on the straight and narrow. 

 

okay and? is he hurting anyone? is he insisting me and everyone else believe in Santa too? if it's making him a nicer person or even if aside from that he's perfectly 'normal' then I don't really see any reason to shit on his beliefs..

 

Edited December 30, 2015 by willow

[Saxon]

6 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

No shit I'm weak and unstable, lol. But I found a belief that helps me deal with my weakness and doesn't harm or affect anybody else, so what's the problem? Why does my reason for carrying on concern you in the least?

The problem is that you haven't addressed the root cause of your psychological discomfort. You've put a band-aid on it, by adopting a narrative which is consistent with the discomfort's pathology. 

If you actually want to kill yourself because you're not immortal, then you have some rather more serious problems that need to be addressed. :\

Maybe your expectation of life is so impossibly high that you find the facts of life, which include death, so threatening that you have to invent a narrative in which nobody can actually die, for example.  

 

okay and? is he hurting anyone? are they insisting me and everyone else believe in Santa? if it's making him a nicer person then I don't really see any reason to shit on his beliefs..

 

 

If you're posyletising, then your claims are fair game, whether or not they hurt anybody. 

I would describe belief in father christmas as 'intellectually incapacitating' but some people don't view that as harmful, presumably because they don't value their intellects anyway. 

Edited December 30, 2015 by Saxon

[Lucyfish]

4 minutes ago, Saxon said:

The problem is that you haven't addressed the root cause of your psychological discomfort. You've put a band-aid on it, by adopting a narrative which is consistent with the discomfort's pathology. 

If you actually want to kill yourself because you're not immortal, then you have some rather more serious problems that need to be addressed. :\

Maybe your expectation of life is so impossibly high that you find the facts of life, which include death, so threatening that you have to invent a narrative in which nobody can actually die, for example.  

I know my problems lol. Physical brain damage, transgenderism, and the fact that the two people I cared about most are dead. These are things that I cannot fix, I merely have to cope with them. What business is it of yours that I found a belief that helps me cope?

4 minutes ago, Saxon said:

If you're posyletising, then your claims are fair game, whether or not they hurt anybody. 

I would describe belief in father christmas as 'intellectually incapacitating' but some people don't view that as harmful, presumably because they don't value their intellects anyway. 

We have a term for that, it's called being a dickweed and not minding your own business.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Lucyfish

[Derin Darkpaw]

8 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Imagine one of your adult friends tells you he believes in Santa Claus, and that the idea he will receive a reward on christmas keeps him on the straight and narrow. 

 

As I have expressed before as both a preference hedonist and consequence minded utilitarian if that particularly belief caused more pleasure then it did displeasure I wouldn't bother attempting to debunk it.  I am much more worried about people believe things like vaccine denial or climate change denial.  Both of which have drastic negative consequences on humanity and neither of which is primarily derived from religious or spiritual grounds.

[Saxon]

1 minute ago, Lucyfish said:

I know my problems lol. Physical brain damage, transgenderism, and the fact that the two people I cared about most are dead. These are things that I cannot fix, I merely have to cope with them. What business is it of yours that I found a belief that helps me cope?

I'm not sure why you're insisting that a narrative a 'damaged' brain invented to comfort itself isn't deluded?

You were recommending that other people follow suit and do the same, and I am entitled to express my view that this is a really bad idea. 

 

[Lucyfish]

Just now, Saxon said:

I'm not sure why you're insisting that a narrative a 'damaged' brain invented to comfort itself isn't deluded?

You were recommending that other people follow suit and do the same, and I am entitled to express my view that this is a really bad idea. 

 

What the fuck? I never recommended anybody do anything. My only recommendation was that people simply follow what makes them happy, so long as they're not harming anybody else. I don't know where you're getting these "recommendations" of mine from dude.

[Saxon]

 

2 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

What the fuck? I never recommended anybody do anything. My only recommendation was that people simply follow what makes them happy, so long as they're not harming anybody else. I don't know where you're getting these "recommendations" of mine from dude.

You did recommend the pursuit of 'personal spirituality' earlier, and have been ecstatically championing the notion that people can solve their problems by inventing personal mythologies and that this is all okay because it's impossible to ever know anything :\ 

At least I've taken the time to dismantle the logical architecture behind these positions, instead of calling you a 'dick weed' and telling you that challenging my ideas might make me do self destructive things. 

[Lucyfish]

5 minutes ago, Saxon said:

 

You did recommend the pursuit of 'personal spirituality' earlier, and have been ecstatically championing the notion that people can solve their problems by inventing personal mythologies and that this is all okay because it's impossible to ever know anything :\ 

At least I've taken the time to dismantle the logical architecture behind these positions, instead of calling you a 'dick weed' and telling you that challenging my ideas might make me do self destructive things. 

I champion that notion because it's true. To try and debunk what makes someone else happy IS a dickweed move. I know because I used to try to do the same thing, and I was a dickweed for doing it. This is why so many atheists are literally just as bad as those religious folks who try to push their beliefs on people. You are pushing your beliefs on people just as they do.

My personal philosophy is ethical hedonism. My spirituality is within the spirits of those people I loved and tragically lost. Your desire to take that spirituality away from me isn't valiant, polite, or right in any way. It's you getting mixed up in other people's business because you want them to believe the same way you do. Hmmmm, kind of like those religious zealots, innit?

Edited December 30, 2015 by Lucyfish

[willow]

2 minutes ago, Saxon said:

If you're posyletising, then your claims are fair game, whether or not they hurt anybody. 

I would describe belief in father christmas as 'intellectually incapacitating' but some people don't view that as harmful, presumably because they don't value their intellects anyway. 

that's the thing though. why should I care if my adult friend believes in something I don't unless it's harmful to me or others? as I said earlier, I draw the line when beliefs are doing more harm than good. and this is why I don't get why you guys (and arguably most atheists in general) are so compelled to dismantle the things that people believe in or that make them happy. if it's about proving that you're smarter than people who are religious or spiritual because you don't believe in "fairytales" or whatever, then I've got some bad news for you

[Saxon]

5 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

I champion that notion because it's true. To try and debunk what makes someone else happy IS a dickweed move. I know because I used to try to do the same thing, and I was a dickweed for doing it. This is why so many atheists are literally just as bad as those religious folks who try to push their beliefs on people. You are pushing your beliefs on people just as they do.

My personal philosophy is ethical hedonism. My spirituality is within the spirits of those people I loved and tragically lost. Your desire to take that spirituality away from me isn't valiant, polite, or right in any way. It's you getting mixed up in other people's business because you want them to believe the same way you do. Hmmmm, kind of like those religious zealots, innit?

The idea that 2 has a rational root makes me very happy. This isn't as far fetched as it sounds, actually. 

Pythagoras got great satisfaction from his idea that all of maths was rational, and that his version of maths was enough to solve all problems; it made him very happy. 

Pythagoras actually ordered people killed for trying to prove him wrong, such was his obsession with this idea. 

But you know, the people trying to correct Pythagoras were just as bad, because they were jeopardising his precious happiness. 

 

 

At least we can all agree that whether or not 2 was actually rational didn't matter at all; only people's precious feelies. 

 

that's the thing though. why should I care if my adult friend believes in something I don't unless it's harmful to me or others? as I said earlier, I draw the line when beliefs are doing more harm than good. and this is why I don't get why you guys (and arguably most atheists in general) are so compelled to dismantle the things that people believe in or that make them happy. if it's about proving that you're smarter than people who are religious or spiritual because you don't believe in "fairytales" or whatever, then I've got some bad news for you

I'm more interested in whether ideas can be shown to be wrong or right, than I am whether or not those ideas are emotionally appealing. 

I think there are wider practical implications, when people begin to think that the emotional value of an idea determines whether it is right or not, because this attitude is potentially disastrous. 

I'm also worried that delusions do not represent a good paliative for psychiatric problems. 

 

Edited December 30, 2015 by Saxon

[Lucyfish]

Just now, Saxon said:

The idea that 2 has a rational root makes me very happy. This isn't as far fetched as it sounds, actually. 

Pythagoras got great satisfaction from his idea that all of maths was rational, and that his version of maths was enough to solve all problems; it made him very happy. 

Pythagoras actually ordered people killed for trying to prove him wrong, such was his obsession with this idea. 

But you know, the people trying to correct Pythagoras were just as bad, because they were jeopardising his precious happiness. 

Were you just sticking your fingers in your ears when I said "as long as you aren't harming anybody else?"

[hectichusky]

1 minute ago, Lucyfish said:

Were you just sticking your fingers in your ears when I said "as long as you aren't harming anybody else?"

He had to ignore all replies so he could build up to his precious Pythagoras example, the treasure that it is

[Lucyfish]

Need I remind you that Joseph Stalin forced atheism on the USSR and murdered millions of people to do so? There is evil on either side, spirituality or the lack thereof doesn't determine evil.

[Sarcastic Coffeecup]

This isn't even a fun read. Live and let live, you've already made your points

[Derin Darkpaw]

2 minutes ago, Saxon said:

The idea that 2 has a rational root makes me very happy. This isn't as far fetched as it sounds, actually. 

Pythagoras got great satisfaction from his idea that all of maths was rational, and that his version of maths was enough to solve all problems; it made him very happy. 

Pythagoras actually ordered people killed for trying to prove him wrong, such was his obsession with this idea. 

But you know, the people trying to correct Pythagoras were just as bad, because they were jeopardising his precious happiness. 

 

 

At least we can all agree that whether or not 2 was actually rational didn't matter at all; only people's precious feelies. 

When has any body in this thread ever said that religion should be used to justify murder or that one individuals happiness is more important then another individuals life?

[Saxon]

8 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

Were you just sticking your fingers in your ears when I said "as long as you aren't harming anybody else?"

You expressed the view earlier that organised religion has done much harm- the conquest of whole continents of people no less. Yet a few pages later you accuse me of causing equal harm by challenging an opinion you have. 

I mean, really?

 

When has any body in this thread ever said that religion should be used to justify murder or that one individuals happiness is more important then another individuals life?

 

I chose the example because Lucy fish made a middle-ground argument, that being skeptical about religious ideas was 'just as bad' as the ideas themselves.

Eminently not.  

 

 

Edited December 30, 2015 by Saxon

[Lucyfish]

Just now, Saxon said:

You expressed the view earlier that organised religion has done much harm- the conquest of whole continents of people no less. Yet a few pages later you accuse me of causing equal harm by challenging an opinion you have. 

I mean, really?

What? Equal harm, what? Dude, it's an equal ATTITUDE. When did I say you were murdering people holy shit.

You are really breaking this debate with your constant making up of things I've said. For a religious person to force a belief is the exact same attitude as it is for an atheist to force a belief. Religions have murdered for their cause, atheists have murdered for their cause. There is no right answer or good guy. If you can't accept that, then you are simply arrogant.

[Saxon]

3 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

What? Equal harm, what? Dude, it's an equal ATTITUDE. When did I say you were murdering people holy shit.

You are really breaking this debate with your constant making up of things I've said. For a religious person to force a belief is the exact same attitude as it is for an atheist to force a belief. Religions have murdered for their cause, atheists have murdered for their cause. There is no right answer or good guy. If you can't accept that, then you are simply arrogant.

I think you mean 'both of these perspective upset me equally'. My attitude isn't very similar to religiosity, where ideas must be accepted for their perceived emotional value and rewards, and must be protected from criticism. 

I think that, because my challenges to your ideas upset you, that you sought to upset me too by accusing me of being similar to groups of people who you think I dislike [rather than simply disagreeing with their ideas]. 

 

Ultimately, if your belief really is immune from all criticism and the only thing which determines its relative truth is whether it makes you happy, I have to wonder why you care whether I challenge it or not, because apparently these challenges don't change your investment in it. 

Edited December 30, 2015 by Saxon

[Derin Darkpaw]

Just now, Saxon said:

My attitude isn't very similar to religiosity, where ideas must be accepted for their perceived emotional value and rewards, and must be protected from criticism. 

Funny though how you haven't responded to any of the criticisms I have actually posited about your ideas here.

[willow]

5 minutes ago, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

This isn't even a fun read. Live and let live, you've already made your points

it's a thread that mentions religion. this was inevitable and now we're in hell. just..let it happen :v

10 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I'm more interested in whether ideas can be shown to be wrong or right, than I am whether or not those ideas are emotionally appealing. 

I think there are wider practical implications, when people begin to think that the emotional value of an idea determines whether it is right or not, because this attitude is potentially disastrous. 

I'm also worried that delusions do not represent a good paliative for psychiatric problems. 

 

I think that would depend on the idea

1 minute ago, Saxon said:

My attitude isn't very similar to religiosity, where ideas must be accepted for their perceived emotional value and rewards, and must be protected from criticism.

You're the one insisting that beliefs need to be tangible or have some basis in reality to be valid though............

I'm done, man. I'm done

[Saxon]

Just now, Derin Darkpaw said:

Funny though how you haven't responded to any of the criticisms I have actually posited about your ideas here.

If you don't think I've responded to them why don't you summarise them and I'll respond to them now?

 

I am very surprised about the huge fuss that has resulted.

I only commented on Lucyfish's post to say that how much you like an idea has no influence on whether it is likely to be true or not. 

Apparently that means that I am comparable to stalinists? 

 

[Lucyfish]

4 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Ultimately, if your belief really is immune from all criticism and the only thing which determines its relative truth is whether it makes you happy, I have to wonder why you care whether I challenge it or not, because apparently these challenges don't change your investment in it. 

You are being the blackest pot who ever called the tea kettle black right now.

[Saxon]

2 minutes ago, willow said:

 

You're the one insisting that beliefs need to be tangible or have some basis in reality to be valid though............

I'm done, man. I'm done

Yes, I am insisting that beliefs need to be tangible and reality based to be of any worth. 

Do you see why this is different to accepting beliefs only because of their perceived emotional value? 

 

You are being the blackest pot who ever called the tea kettle black right now.

 

Even if I was a hypocrite [let's say I had my own spiritual belief of some sort, for example] how exactly would this make any of my points wrong? 

Edited December 30, 2015 by Saxon

[Derin Darkpaw]

Just now, Saxon said:

If you don't think I've responded to them why don't you summarise them and I'll respond to them now?

 

Since apparently you were so focused on tearing down a single poster to bother reading other posts I will just repeat the entire post I made earlier for you.

The real question Saxon is not whether or not religion/ spirituality is a delusion, but whether or not it can have positive consequences.  To say that people should never be religious you would need to demonstrate that it primarily results in negative consequences which you have yet to provide any evidence of. 

Maybe however you have more of a deontological viewpoint rather then a consequentialist one.  If that is the case do you view all instances of delusion inherently wrong and why?  If you do believe delusion inherently wrong then do you also hold that it is always wrong to lie even in extreme cases where a lie could save another human beings life?

Also none of the questions even address a more basic problem underlying this entire issue.  Can we choose what we believe?  If the answer to that is no then as Kant famously put "ought implies can" and if one is unable to choose their beliefs then you can not tell them to change because such a thing would be impossible.

[Lucyfish]

1 minute ago, Saxon said:

Even if I was a hypocrite [let's say I had my own spiritual belief of some sort, for example] how exactly would this make any of my points wrong? 

Because your belief that there can be no outside power IS just that, A BELIEF. There is no tangible proof that there is nothing outside our universe. Atheism in and of itself is a religion. It is a belief based on what you consider to be truths. "There is no god" and "there is a god" are two sides of the exact same coin. Nobody knows for sure what can or cannot exist outside our understanding. The only people who can say for sure what comes after death are dead people, and they can't exactly tell us about it can they?

[Saxon]

6 minutes ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

Since apparently you were so focused on tearing down a single poster to bother reading other posts I will just repeat the entire post I made earlier for you.

The real question Saxon is not whether or not religion/ spirituality is a delusion, but whether or not it can have positive consequences.  To say that people should never be religious you would need to demonstrate that it primarily results in negative consequences which you have yet to provide any evidence of. 

Maybe however you have more of a deontological viewpoint rather then a consequentialist one.  If that is the case do you view all instances of delusion inherently wrong and why?  If you do believe delusion inherently wrong then do you also hold that it is always wrong to lie even in extreme cases where a lie could save another human beings life?

Also none of the questions even address a more basic problem underlying this entire issue.  Can we choose what we believe?  If the answer to that is no then as Kant famously put "ought implies can" and if one is unable to choose their beliefs then you can not tell them to change because such a thing would be impossible.

I don't think the real question about religion or spirituality is whether they have positive consequences. I think the real question is whether those claims are true or not. 

I think I can illustrate this for you:

Two mutually exclusive spiritual beliefs might both have influences that we subjectively think are positive, which means at least one of them must be objectively wrong. 

I think you're quoting Kant incorrectly, if you arrive at the conclusion that changing people's ideas is physically impossible. Even if we didn't 'choose' our beliefs, we definitely can be compelled to modify or reject them by being exposed to new knowledge and reasoning. 

 

Because your belief that there can be no outside power IS just that, A BELIEF. There is no tangible proof that there is nothing outside our universe. Atheism in and of itself is a religion. It is a belief based on what you consider to be truths. "There is no god" and "there is a god" are two sides of the exact same coin. Nobody knows for sure what can or cannot exist outside our understanding. The only people who can say for sure what comes after death are dead people, and they can't exactly tell us about it can they?

Is your belief that there is no tooth fairy a religion too? 

Edited December 30, 2015 by Saxon

[willow]

8 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Yes, I am insisting that beliefs need to be tangible and reality based to be of any worth. 

Do you see why this is different to accepting beliefs only because of their perceived emotional value? 

yes. because what you believe in is something you can touch

what other people believe in is something they feel

atheists are so boring though tbh

[Lucyfish]

1 minute ago, Saxon said:

Is your belief that there is no tooth fairy a religion too? 

Who am I to say there's no tooth fairy? Obviously she doesn't operate under the parameters we have created for her, since putting a tooth under your pillow doesn't automatically put money under it the next day, that's done by your parents. But who am I to say there is no weird creature who secretly obsesses over teeth? That's the thing about the supernatural, is that it cannot be tangibly disproven. That is why I remain skeptical of any doctrine that says "This is how things are for sure."

That's why I'm agnostic. There is no tangible proof that there is supernatural, but there is also no tangible proof that there isn't. We literally are incapable of providing that proof with the way the laws of physics are, so I'm not going to be so arrogant as to say I know how things are for sure. You, on the other hand, are defending that arrogance just as any religious person might. That you know the solid truth about our existence and that it is irrefutable.

[Saxon]

1 minute ago, Lucyfish said:

Who am I to say there's no tooth fairy?

Oh brother I've convinced someone that the tooth fairy might exist. :\ 

 

 

When I brought up ideas like 'the burden of proof' and 'the null hypothesis' earlier, do you look them up to find out more about them? 

Edited December 30, 2015 by Saxon

[Lucyfish]

1 minute ago, Saxon said:

Oh brother I've convinced someone that the tooth fairy might exist. :\ 

 

 

When I brought up ideas like 'the burden of proof' and 'the null hypothesis' earlier, do you look them up to find out more about them? 

I know what those terms mean. However you have to subscribe to the same exact thing. The burden of proof falls upon you as well, bub. You're not immune to it.

[Derin Darkpaw]

7 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I don't think the real question about religion or spirituality is whether they have positive consequences. I think the real question is whether those claims are true or not. 

I think I can illustrate this for you:

Two mutually exclusive spiritual beliefs might both have influences that we subjectively think are positive, which means at least one of them must be objectively wrong. 

But why is the truth of these beliefs important?  What gives truth value in this case?  If truth is always valuable do you believe it is always wrong to lie even if it would save some one's life?

[Saxon]

5 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

I know what those terms mean. However you have to subscribe to the same exact thing. The burden of proof falls upon you as well, bub. You're not immune to it.

You don't know what the burden of proof means if you think that it is symmetric. 

 

The Burden of proof applies to all positive claims, or 'hypotheses'. The antitheses to these claims are refered to as 'skeptical positions' or 'null hypotheses'. 

In philosophy a null hypothesis is considered true until a burden of proof has been generated which proves the competing hypothesis. 

But why is the truth of these beliefs important?  What gives truth value in this case?  If truth is always valuable do you believe it is always wrong to lie even if it would save some one's life?

I think you should review what you've just written. You're trying to convince me that Lucyfish's perspective is justifiable, because I should think of it as a morally justified lie. 

Edited December 30, 2015 by Saxon