Author Topic: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.  (Read 14253 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2765
  • Darwins +223/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #174 on: October 12, 2011, 06:37:35 AM »

Bullcrap, utter and unmitigated bullcrap. Communism is a Dogma and shares a great deal of things in common with religion:

(1)A Holy Text
(2)A group of interpreters of said text supported through force
(3)Geographically isolated lead interpreters have differing interpretations(schism) which have led to conflict
(4)A resistance to evidence, to the point of mocking, jailing, and killing those that attempt to show that evidence
(5)Saints, revered dead figures that serve as icons

   (6) Basis in the Bible, from Acts 4, where they killed people for not collectivising.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Eaten by Bears

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 91
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #175 on: October 12, 2011, 08:19:33 AM »
Books by atheist on world peace?

See The World Set Free or The Shape of Things to Come by HG Wells.  See The Toynbee Convector by Ray Bradbury.  Read the works of any number of other science fiction authors such as Arthur C. Clarke or Isaac Asimov.

I haven't read these, but I will.

So, you say that there are some valid points to consider implementing into lifestyle from these works of fiction? Now, is this as ridiculous as the way I view my religion and spirituality? I've been mocked endlessly for accepting as truth some of the teachings of the bible and other holy books and even speaches by spiritual leaders. How is this any different than what you are suggesting?

Do you not see the difference between:

a) Reading a book and taking away from it some concepts and ideas.
b) Reading a book and taking it as historical fact and proof of supernatural and magical entities that cannot be proven.

Really?

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #176 on: October 12, 2011, 01:51:32 PM »
Do you not see the difference between:

a) Reading a book and taking away from it some concepts and ideas.
b) Reading a book and taking it as historical fact and proof of supernatural and magical entities that cannot be proven.

Really?

I've never claimed that the bible was historical fact or proof of supernatural and magical entities. Everything I have discussed is in relation to using the concepts and ideas of different holy books, teachings by spiritual leaders, and modeling inspirational figures.

Offline RaymondKHessel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1914
  • Darwins +73/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Born with insight, and a raised fist.
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #177 on: October 12, 2011, 02:10:17 PM »
Do you not see the difference between:

a) Reading a book and taking away from it some concepts and ideas.
b) Reading a book and taking it as historical fact and proof of supernatural and magical entities that cannot be proven.

Really?

I've never claimed that the bible was historical fact or proof of supernatural and magical entities.

Jello? Meet nail. Now stay on that wall!

<SHLOOOOP>

Damn. Why doesn't this ever work?  :-\
Born with insight, and a raised fist.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #178 on: October 12, 2011, 04:04:34 PM »
Let's not forget that there are also several issues that YY still has to respond to. Not just from myself, but from Velkyn and Belial as well. While his attempts to divert away from the subjects are amusing, I think they should be responded to, don't you YY?

Our memories and attention spans are not so poor that your ever-present dodging, strawmen and attempts at subject change actually work. So I'm waiting for your responses to all of them.

I'm sure it will contain the same enlightening and deeply-thought answers that I've come to expect from you.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #179 on: October 12, 2011, 06:03:25 PM »
Let's not forget that there are also several issues that YY still has to respond to. Not just from myself, but from Velkyn and Belial as well. While his attempts to divert away from the subjects are amusing, I think they should be responded to, don't you YY?

Our memories and attention spans are not so poor that your ever-present dodging, strawmen and attempts at subject change actually work. So I'm waiting for your responses to all of them.

I'm sure it will contain the same enlightening and deeply-thought answers that I've come to expect from you.

Please do me a favor and list them again so that I don't have to go through 20 pages of messages to find what you're looking for.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #180 on: October 12, 2011, 06:11:17 PM »
Let's not forget that there are also several issues that YY still has to respond to. Not just from myself, but from Velkyn and Belial as well. While his attempts to divert away from the subjects are amusing, I think they should be responded to, don't you YY?

Our memories and attention spans are not so poor that your ever-present dodging, strawmen and attempts at subject change actually work. So I'm waiting for your responses to all of them.

I'm sure it will contain the same enlightening and deeply-thought answers that I've come to expect from you.

Please do me a favor and list them again so that I don't have to go through 20 pages of messages to find what you're looking for.

Since you've spent all of this time ignoring them, I'm disinclined to repeat them, yet again.

Do your own reading instead of making excuses for your own laziness.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 06:12:50 PM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #181 on: October 12, 2011, 07:14:22 PM »
Since you've spent all of this time ignoring them, I'm disinclined to repeat them, yet again.

Do your own reading instead of making excuses for your own laziness.

You're the one asking. Then stop complaining if you're going to make vague references and then call me lazy.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #182 on: October 12, 2011, 08:54:33 PM »
Since you've spent all of this time ignoring them, I'm disinclined to repeat them, yet again.

Do your own reading instead of making excuses for your own laziness.

You're the one asking. Then stop complaining if you're going to make vague references and then call me lazy.

You're the one who has a responsibility to respond to the points raised and the questions asked. You're the one who has failed to acknowledge them everytime they came up. Why should I have to repeat myself a fifth time? Just because you don't want to do a little reading of posts that you clearly barely read the first time?

It's your responsibility. Go back and read what's being said.

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #183 on: October 13, 2011, 02:10:12 AM »
Since Alzael is not being clear as to what questions are being asked, I will answer the one question he actually did say was not answered. I've already answered it in another thread, but just to reiterate, I'll repeat myself.

What separates your beliefs from those of a lunatic?


LUNATIC
1. an insane person.


- I'm in no way insane. I'm very normal

Quote
The word normal typically is defined as a behavior conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm. So by this definition a normal person would be considered an individual who conforms to societal norms and standards. So typically a society will decide if a person is normal by whether or not they follow the rules that that given society uses to determine what is appropriate and inappropriate values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. For example when a person decides to enter a sport that is not traditionally competed in by his or her sex, they are viewed as abnormal. Each society will set their own definition for what is a normal person.

I have very appropriate values. I've never been arrested. I have normal beliefs. My beliefs are with the majority in terms of being a theist. My attitudes and behaviors are fine. I am well liked. I have almost 1000 friends on facebook :)

2. a person whose actions and manner are marked by extreme eccentricity or recklessness.

- I am not reckless. I drive safely, getting a moving violation maybe once every 5 years. I don't hold my son over the edges of balconies. I've broken one bone in my body about 20 years ago. I don't injure others. Pretty standard stuff.

3. Law . a person legally declared to be of unsound mind and who therefore is not held capable or responsible before the law.

- Again, never been arrested. Noone in my family has been in jail. I'm pretty sure none of them have been arrested either, but you never know.

insane
1. not sane; not of sound mind; mentally deranged.


- My beliefs are quite sane. I have a full time job with a large corporation and have been employed since I graduated from college. I have no signs of mental derangement. I don't get depressed. I don't hear voices in my head. I know right from wrong.

2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a person who is mentally deranged: insane actions; an insane asylum.

- I've never been in an insane asylum. I've never been accused of making insane actions.

3. utterly senseless: an insane plan.

- I have my senses about me. I don't have insane plans. My beliefs are doing just fine.


So, to sum it up I'm not a lunatic and my actions indicate that my beliefs are not those of a lunatic.  For the reasons provided in detail above, my beliefs are different than that of a lunatic.


Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #184 on: October 13, 2011, 02:22:30 AM »
Your turn. You still haven't explained yourself about the statements below even after I directly asked you about them. Are you held to a different standard? Is it allowable for you to ignore me for over two weeks and then demand answers to vague references of questions? 

I didn't say that you were insane. I said that your beliefs were indistinguishable from insanity.

Which still makes you indistinguishable from someone who is mentally ill.

Offline natlegend

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1674
  • Darwins +70/-0
  • Polyatheist
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #185 on: October 13, 2011, 03:01:57 AM »
Quote
LUNATIC
1. an insane person.

- I'm in no way insane. I'm very normal

Thing about insanity is, people who are truly insane don't usually know that they are.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #186 on: October 13, 2011, 08:46:46 AM »
Please do me a favor and list them again so that I don't have to go through 20 pages of messages to find what you're looking for.

It's always fun to see a theist unable to look back a page or two.  Here you go, yy: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20171.msg447902.html#msg447902

To avoid these questions, you have been moving the goalposts around in quite a frenzy.  It is amusing to watch, but rather ridiculous in a written medium.  I've asked for evidence for your claims that religous books have more "love" in them than hate.  I have yet to see this.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2343
  • Darwins +437/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #187 on: October 13, 2011, 10:40:13 AM »
Your turn. You still haven't explained yourself about the statements below even after I directly asked you about them. Are you held to a different standard? Is it allowable for you to ignore me for over two weeks and then demand answers to vague references of questions? 

I didn't say that you were insane. I said that your beliefs were indistinguishable from insanity.

Which still makes you indistinguishable from someone who is mentally ill.

I don't necessarily mean to speak for Alzael, but, well, I guess that's what I'm about to do so I'll simply ask Alzael for forgiveness if this comes off rather incorrectly.  I think that Alzael believes his point to be rather self-evident: your beliefs do not appear to coincide with the operations of reality.  Delusions are a form of insanity.  A delusion is a belief irrespective (or in contrast to) reality.  Ergo, you appear insane.  Unfortunately, the word 'insane' carries quite a bit of semantic baggage along with it - I know that when *I* picture insane, it is an extreme version of what could be labeled as 'not sane' (e.g. Daffy Duck in the Bob Clampett days).  But the softer version of 'not sane', the part about believing things despite reality indicating otherwise, is the type that Alzael is pointing you towards.  He's even softened it with saying that your beliefs were insane, and not you, as a person, are insane.  I assume this was to eliminate the emotional and semantic baggage associated with the word insane.

I'm in agreement with Alzael here insofar as your beliefs do not appear to be compatible with objective reality.  Focus on that part.  Focus on the concept that Alzael and likely many of us posting on this topic think that some of your beliefs are not compatible with reality and therefore unreasonable.  Ignore the baggage with the word 'insane', and focus on explaining why those beliefs (the 'god exists' belief is the primary one in question) are reasonable.

What you've done in your response to Alzael is to give reasons why you yourself would not be considered an insane person.  And I think we get that - you're a functional human being.  It's the belief 'god exists' that is the subject of contention here.  Alzael's point is that your belief in the existence of god looks very much like a delusion - that is, your belief in the existence of god does not appear to be predicated on anything in objective reality, and is therefore indistinguishable from a belief made up in one's own head.

Alternatively I have completely mis-characterized Alzael's point, and if this is the case, I apologize to him.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #188 on: October 13, 2011, 10:43:28 AM »
this essay from Greta Christina also seems pertinent to the subject: http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2011/10/13/listening-to-the-hair-dryer/ 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2343
  • Darwins +437/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #189 on: October 13, 2011, 10:44:35 AM »
Since Alzael is not being clear as to what questions are being asked, I will answer the one question he actually did say was not answered. I've already answered it in another thread, but just to reiterate, I'll repeat myself.

What separates your beliefs from those of a lunatic?


LUNATIC
1. an insane person.


- I'm in no way insane. I'm very normal

Quote
The word normal typically is defined as a behavior conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm. So by this definition a normal person would be considered an individual who conforms to societal norms and standards. So typically a society will decide if a person is normal by whether or not they follow the rules that that given society uses to determine what is appropriate and inappropriate values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. For example when a person decides to enter a sport that is not traditionally competed in by his or her sex, they are viewed as abnormal. Each society will set their own definition for what is a normal person.

I have very appropriate values. I've never been arrested. I have normal beliefs. My beliefs are with the majority in terms of being a theist. My attitudes and behaviors are fine. I am well liked. I have almost 1000 friends on facebook :)

2. a person whose actions and manner are marked by extreme eccentricity or recklessness.

- I am not reckless. I drive safely, getting a moving violation maybe once every 5 years. I don't hold my son over the edges of balconies. I've broken one bone in my body about 20 years ago. I don't injure others. Pretty standard stuff.

3. Law . a person legally declared to be of unsound mind and who therefore is not held capable or responsible before the law.

- Again, never been arrested. Noone in my family has been in jail. I'm pretty sure none of them have been arrested either, but you never know.

insane
1. not sane; not of sound mind; mentally deranged.


- My beliefs are quite sane. I have a full time job with a large corporation and have been employed since I graduated from college. I have no signs of mental derangement. I don't get depressed. I don't hear voices in my head. I know right from wrong.

2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a person who is mentally deranged: insane actions; an insane asylum.

- I've never been in an insane asylum. I've never been accused of making insane actions.

3. utterly senseless: an insane plan.

- I have my senses about me. I don't have insane plans. My beliefs are doing just fine.


So, to sum it up I'm not a lunatic and my actions indicate that my beliefs are not those of a lunatic.  For the reasons provided in detail above, my beliefs are different than that of a lunatic.


There are a fairly good number of Scientologists that would fit all of the above.  Would you classify those people as insane?  Would you classify their (scientology specific) beliefs insanse?  Why or why not?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2343
  • Darwins +437/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #190 on: October 13, 2011, 10:49:46 AM »
this essay from Greta Christina also seems pertinent to the subject: http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2011/10/13/listening-to-the-hair-dryer/

From the essay:
"What do you do if your hair dryer starts telling you to go to your blind date wearing a wedding dress and a hat made out of a rubber chicken?"

k I'm just going to say that while the above would be silly, stupid, completely outside of accepted social norms, and, yes, insane, it would also be AWESOME.  So doing this on the next blind date.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #191 on: October 13, 2011, 11:52:33 AM »
Thing about insanity is, people who are truly insane don't usually know that they are.

Are you implying that I'm insane? Just checking . . .

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #192 on: October 13, 2011, 11:56:41 AM »
Please do me a favor and list them again so that I don't have to go through 20 pages of messages to find what you're looking for.

It's always fun to see a theist unable to look back a page or two.  Here you go, yy: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20171.msg447902.html#msg447902

To avoid these questions, you have been moving the goalposts around in quite a frenzy.  It is amusing to watch, but rather ridiculous in a written medium.  I've asked for evidence for your claims that religous books have more "love" in them than hate.  I have yet to see this.

I actually quoted passages from the Bible and the Koran. You only gave me your (filtered) interpretations of what you think the message of the bible might be.  If you expect me to look back a page or two, you could at least look a message or two down for my direct quoted response to you.

At least Greybeard posted a thorough overview with quoted passages to support his claims. You have the gaul to accuse me of moving goalposts when you spout your own unsupported claims. Please take a good look in the mirror at this and MANY of your other posts. You are so much of what you accuse me of being.

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #193 on: October 13, 2011, 12:06:55 PM »
I don't necessarily mean to speak for Alzael, but, well, I guess that's what I'm about to do so I'll simply ask Alzael for forgiveness if this comes off rather incorrectly.  I think that Alzael believes his point to be rather self-evident: your beliefs do not appear to coincide with the operations of reality.  Delusions are a form of insanity.  A delusion is a belief irrespective (or in contrast to) reality.  Ergo, you appear insane.  Unfortunately, the word 'insane' carries quite a bit of semantic baggage along with it - I know that when *I* picture insane, it is an extreme version of what could be labeled as 'not sane' (e.g. Daffy Duck in the Bob Clampett days).  But the softer version of 'not sane', the part about believing things despite reality indicating otherwise, is the type that Alzael is pointing you towards.  He's even softened it with saying that your beliefs were insane, and not you, as a person, are insane.  I assume this was to eliminate the emotional and semantic baggage associated with the word insane.

I'm in agreement with Alzael here insofar as your beliefs do not appear to be compatible with objective reality.  Focus on that part.  Focus on the concept that Alzael and likely many of us posting on this topic think that some of your beliefs are not compatible with reality and therefore unreasonable.  Ignore the baggage with the word 'insane', and focus on explaining why those beliefs (the 'god exists' belief is the primary one in question) are reasonable.

What you've done in your response to Alzael is to give reasons why you yourself would not be considered an insane person.  And I think we get that - you're a functional human being.  It's the belief 'god exists' that is the subject of contention here.  Alzael's point is that your belief in the existence of god looks very much like a delusion - that is, your belief in the existence of god does not appear to be predicated on anything in objective reality, and is therefore indistinguishable from a belief made up in one's own head.

Alternat ively I have completely mis-characterized Alzael's point, and if this is the case, I apologize to him.


Hey jdawg70. I totally understand where you're coming from. In a technical sense, yes, there is no proof that 'god exists'. It's a sticking point that has been the achille's heel of religion. So, I'll agree to surrender that point - I believe there is no clinical proof that God exists.

Insofar as objective reality, I've been trying my hardest to explain WHY theists don't need evidence to incorporate God into their objective reality. God is an important part of millions of people's lives and probably the first person they turn to in the most critical times of their lives. There is definitely an amount of fear in place with going to God first, but for many, there is incredible comfort knowing that there is a supportive force that is with them in what may be their last breathe on this earthly plane. I don't know what the atheist equivilent would be, but if a theist and an atheist were in the WTC on 9/11/01 facing their impending doom, the theist will have God to help them through, even though it may only be in his mind, while the atheist has ???

So, might delusional be a judgement call? And yes, while technically "correct", does it warrant the lack of understanding that most atheists give toward theists?

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #194 on: October 13, 2011, 12:11:42 PM »
There are a fairly good number of Scientologists that would fit all of the above.  Would you classify those people as insane?  Would you classify their (scientology specific) beliefs insanse?  Why or why not?

I don't know many scientologists, but I wouldn't say that they or their beliefs were "insane". I'd disagree on the most part, but I know that many scientologists function just fine in society and don't have near the impact as the Christian fundies.

I also think that Tom Cruise became the face of Scientology when he had that horrible interview that made him look like a lunatic. A lot of the answers he gave seemed pretty controversial, but he didn't have the time or knowledge to expand on why prescription drugs might be harmful etc. Put one of Scientology's scholars out there and you might be impressed.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2343
  • Darwins +437/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #195 on: October 13, 2011, 12:55:10 PM »
I don't necessarily mean to speak for Alzael, but, well, I guess that's what I'm about to do so I'll simply ask Alzael for forgiveness if this comes off rather incorrectly.  I think that Alzael believes his point to be rather self-evident: your beliefs do not appear to coincide with the operations of reality.  Delusions are a form of insanity.  A delusion is a belief irrespective (or in contrast to) reality.  Ergo, you appear insane.  Unfortunately, the word 'insane' carries quite a bit of semantic baggage along with it - I know that when *I* picture insane, it is an extreme version of what could be labeled as 'not sane' (e.g. Daffy Duck in the Bob Clampett days).  But the softer version of 'not sane', the part about believing things despite reality indicating otherwise, is the type that Alzael is pointing you towards.  He's even softened it with saying that your beliefs were insane, and not you, as a person, are insane.  I assume this was to eliminate the emotional and semantic baggage associated with the word insane.

I'm in agreement with Alzael here insofar as your beliefs do not appear to be compatible with objective reality.  Focus on that part.  Focus on the concept that Alzael and likely many of us posting on this topic think that some of your beliefs are not compatible with reality and therefore unreasonable.  Ignore the baggage with the word 'insane', and focus on explaining why those beliefs (the 'god exists' belief is the primary one in question) are reasonable.

What you've done in your response to Alzael is to give reasons why you yourself would not be considered an insane person.  And I think we get that - you're a functional human being.  It's the belief 'god exists' that is the subject of contention here.  Alzael's point is that your belief in the existence of god looks very much like a delusion - that is, your belief in the existence of god does not appear to be predicated on anything in objective reality, and is therefore indistinguishable from a belief made up in one's own head.

Alternat ively I have completely mis-characterized Alzael's point, and if this is the case, I apologize to him.


Hey jdawg70. I totally understand where you're coming from. In a technical sense, yes, there is no proof that 'god exists'. It's a sticking point that has been the achille's heel of religion. So, I'll agree to surrender that point - I believe there is no clinical proof that God exists.

Insofar as objective reality, I've been trying my hardest to explain WHY theists don't need evidence to incorporate God into their objective reality. God is an important part of millions of people's lives and probably the first person they turn to in the most critical times of their lives. There is definitely an amount of fear in place with going to God first, but for many, there is incredible comfort knowing that there is a supportive force that is with them in what may be their last breathe on this earthly plane. I don't know what the atheist equivilent would be, but if a theist and an atheist were in the WTC on 9/11/01 facing their impending doom, the theist will have God to help them through, even though it may only be in his mind, while the atheist has ???

So, might delusional be a judgement call? And yes, while technically "correct", does it warrant the lack of understanding that most atheists give toward theists?

YY, this is why I think the claim of delusional is correct, technical or otherwise.

And it absolutely does warrant the lack of understanding by the absolute fact that there is no basis to *have* understanding.  I'll try to clarify as that is, admittedly, pretty vague.

You've made a claim that 'the theist will have god to help them through'.  Well, if god does not exist, then, well, no, they will emphatically *not* have god to help them through, as the entity's non-existence makes it rather difficult for it to have any kind of effect.  Let's go down the 'god does not exist' route for a moment; if this is the truth of reality, then the theist merely has a comforting idea to help them through, rather than an actual entity to help them through...

...and that can be important.  I'm going to change the scenario on you a bit to illustrate - a theist and an atheist on 9/11/01 at WTC.  Both are about to experience impending doom.  Now, in this change-up, the theist that *I* am now talking about is the one on one of the planes - let's say the first one for clarity's sake.  If we go down the 'god does not exist' route, then the theist has a comforting idea to help them through this, mainly, that his goal of murdering several hundred people is good in the name of this comforting idea.  Now I get to speculation part - the theist on this plane?  Maybe not a big fan of murdering innocent people.  In my experience, most people have an issue with killing those who do not deserve to be killed.  He is not only being comforted from the horror of his own death, but comforted that he is doing the right thing by killing those that deserve to die.

However, notice the difference between your theist (presumably one in the building and about to be murdered) and my theist (the one in the plane that is about to commit murder).  Both of them are comforted.  Your theist is comforted with something along the lines of 'god will save me', 'god will save my soul when I die', etc.  My theist is comforted with something like 'god told me to make these people die', 'these people are enemies of god and deserve to die', 'I am doing god's will', etc.

But none of that has anything to do with truth.  Just with 'feeling'.  And one of the above people are going with that 'feeling' and making a lot of innocent people suffer and die.  That 'feeling' is what allowed my theist to forgo his own sense of morality by assigning innocent people as evil and worthy of suffering and death.  Now, let's do another change-up and go the 'god exists' route.  Is your theist and my theist being comforted by the same god?  How can they tell?  According to my theist, your theist is an evil entity against god that needs to be exterminated.  According to your theist, s/he is going to be (in some form or another) saved, comforted, and/or protected by god.  These seem mutually exclusive to me, and one of them must be wrong.  Outside of objective reality (say, by asking god what the correct truth is), there is NO WAY FOR THEM TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE RIGHT.  If my theist were actually an atheist, he could begin constructing logical arguments for why your theist needs to die - they are representative of western evils, their suffering will lead to the greater good of my people, etc.  But they have some basis IN REALITY to make that distinction.

As a theist, he's got the 'god said do this' thing that he can go back to.  If he somehow discovers mid-flight that the people on the plane and in the buildings are, in fact, not evil and not deserving of death, well, as an atheist he may go 'oh crap I don't want to murder lots of innocent people, maybe I should turn this plane around and give up'.  He doesn't have that as a theist.  He can *never* come to the conclusion that these people are innocent and don't deserve to die - god said 'make them die' and that's that.

That's where the lack of understanding comes from, at least for me - for the life of me, I cannot understand making decisions that can help or hurt people based a belief structure that I cannot determine the validity of.

Oolong the Great exists.  Oolong the Great says that all white people are to corruptions of the first great creation and deserve to be killed.  I have no evidence of this.  I just know that it is true.  Now, in my experience, most white people, in fact, do *not* deserve to be killed.  If I simply assume that Oolong the Great exists, then my experience is irrelevant at this point.  Oolong the Great says they deserve to be killed.  Ergo, white people deserve to be killed.

Wouldn't it be better if I at least try to verify the actual validity of Oolong the Great's existence before I go about murdering white people?

As an aside, the atheist, perhaps, has the whole 'well I've lived my life in the attempt to better myself and my fellow human, and, crap, I really really don't want to die, but I can't really do anything about it' thing going on.  I really wouldn't be able to speak intelligently as to what other people would find comforting at those last horrifying moments, but hopefully s/he does have something so that his/her last moments of existence do not entail simply fear and terror.

Anyway, just thoughts.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2343
  • Darwins +437/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #196 on: October 13, 2011, 12:56:50 PM »
There are a fairly good number of Scientologists that would fit all of the above.  Would you classify those people as insane?  Would you classify their (scientology specific) beliefs insanse?  Why or why not?

I don't know many scientologists, but I wouldn't say that they or their beliefs were "insane". I'd disagree on the most part, but I know that many scientologists function just fine in society and don't have near the impact as the Christian fundies.

I also think that Tom Cruise became the face of Scientology when he had that horrible interview that made him look like a lunatic. A lot of the answers he gave seemed pretty controversial, but he didn't have the time or knowledge to expand on why prescription drugs might be harmful etc. Put one of Scientology's scholars out there and you might be impressed.

Out of curiosity, can you think of a belief that you *would* classify as insane?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #197 on: October 13, 2011, 02:44:23 PM »
TO jdawg - too much to quote . . .

With respect to the two very different theist views in their waning moments of impending death, here's the thing: one is truly a lunatic.

LUNATIC
1. an insane person.


Theist in the plane - Check

2. a person whose actions and manner are marked by extreme eccentricity or recklessness

Theist in the plane - Check

3. Law . a person legally declared to be of unsound mind and who therefore is not held capable or responsible before the law.

If there were a trial - most likely - Theist in the plane - Check


So although it was this LUNATIC's God that gave him justification to do what he was doing, this lunacy is not dependent on God. His lunacy could have been politically motivated just as well. His lunacy might have been caused by the FSM.

So your argument would be a straw man.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #198 on: October 13, 2011, 03:20:52 PM »
Your turn. You still haven't explained yourself about the statements below even after I directly asked you about them. Are you held to a different standard? Is it allowable for you to ignore me for over two weeks and then demand answers to vague references of questions? 

I didn't say that you were insane. I said that your beliefs were indistinguishable from insanity.

Which still makes you indistinguishable from someone who is mentally ill.

I've been adressing them repeatedly. Most of all of this has been an addressing of those. That's why you should actually read what people are writing and answer them to further the discussion.

Jdawg, you got it close enough.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 03:38:47 PM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #199 on: October 13, 2011, 03:37:29 PM »
Insofar as objective reality, I've been trying my hardest to explain WHY theists don't need evidence to incorporate God into their objective reality. God is an important part of millions of people's lives and probably the first person they turn to in the most critical times of their lives. There is definitely an amount of fear in place with going to God first, but for many, there is incredible comfort knowing that there is a supportive force that is with them in what may be their last breathe on this earthly plane.

We know why they don't think they need evidence. What you fail to show is why this is any different from just being a delusional nut. How is this any different from just making things up?


So, might delusional be a judgement call? And yes, while technically "correct", does it warrant the lack of understanding that most atheists give toward theists?

It's not a lack of understanding. If the beliefs can't be differentiated from the delusions of a madman, why should they not be treated as such? You still haven't answered this.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 03:39:17 PM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #200 on: October 13, 2011, 05:49:07 PM »
TO jdawg - too much to quote . . .

With respect to the two very different theist views in their waning moments of impending death, here's the thing: one is truly a lunatic.

LUNATIC
1. an insane person.


Theist in the plane - Check

2. a person whose actions and manner are marked by extreme eccentricity or recklessness

Theist in the plane - Check

3. Law . a person legally declared to be of unsound mind and who therefore is not held capable or responsible before the law.

If there were a trial - most likely - Theist in the plane - Check


So although it was this LUNATIC's God that gave him justification to do what he was doing, this lunacy is not dependent on God. His lunacy could have been politically motivated just as well. His lunacy might have been caused by the FSM.

So your argument would be a straw man.

You realize this really in no way actually addresses anything he said. You're getting really good at that.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #201 on: October 13, 2011, 05:53:49 PM »
If the beliefs can't be differentiated from the delusions of a madman, why should they not be treated as such? You still haven't answered this.

Here are beliefs that are similar to mine from another "delusional" madman.

Quote
A human being is a part of the whole, called by us, “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.

This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.

Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.

-Albert Einstein


So yes, I am delusional. But I'm in good company.


Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2343
  • Darwins +437/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #202 on: October 13, 2011, 05:59:20 PM »
TO jdawg - too much to quote . . .

With respect to the two very different theist views in their waning moments of impending death, here's the thing: one is truly a lunatic.

LUNATIC
1. an insane person.


Theist in the plane - Check

2. a person whose actions and manner are marked by extreme eccentricity or recklessness

Theist in the plane - Check

3. Law . a person legally declared to be of unsound mind and who therefore is not held capable or responsible before the law.

If there were a trial - most likely - Theist in the plane - Check


So although it was this LUNATIC's God that gave him justification to do what he was doing, this lunacy is not dependent on God. His lunacy could have been politically motivated just as well. His lunacy might have been caused by the FSM.

So your argument would be a straw man.

I'm not sure how I'm drawing up a straw man if we're referring to my theist as the straw man.  If I'm thinking about your response correctly, essentially, that my theist is a poor analogy...because I've preselected some who already has insane beliefs?  Because I think that is the argument we're having in the first place, no?  I'm asking you to explain why my theist's beliefs are insane and while your theist's beliefs are not.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/