Delusion

[Az]

This is a rather charged word in the debate about the existance of God. It is for that reason that I avoid using it. But the fact is it is going to come up in discussions about God. Is there any way we can take the sting out of the word by discussing what is meant?

If someone believes something that is not true is that not a delusion? As atheists we naturally believe that theistic beliefs are misplaced. That is that they believe something that is not true (or phrased however the particular atheist wants it to be).

Atheists and Theists disagree. That should hopefully be readily apparent. We both believe the other is wrong in their beliefs. That is each side believes the other side is deluded. When a theist states that they believe there is a God and that we are wrong for not believing is that in any way different from an atheist stating that they do not believe there is a God and that the theist is wrong? Or are there special unwritten rules in play that we atheists must observe?

[zeemike]

1. Is a dream a delusion?

If so then we (I assume) have all had them.
And If there is delusion in us when we sleep could we not have them when we ar awake?
In fact who is to say that this world we perceive is anything more than an illusion? If you go by the physical evidence as we have come to know it (I am referring to the composition of mater)then there is the likelihood that it is.
In the Eastern mystics theology they say that the physical world is all illusion, and that we may be butterflies dreaming we are men.

[Az]

3. We do not directly experience reality

We rely on our senses to convery information to our brain which is then translated and shoved through various filters before it reaches our conscious mind. The reality we experience is a recreation of our brain. And sometimes it has its own idiosynchrocies that cause our experience to vary with reality.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Perhaps this is why

many spiritual practices concentrate on quieting the mind. I believe there have been scientific studies that have shown that meditation over a long period of time does affect the brain and actually causes certain centers to be more developed than they are in the average brain. Those who say the brain is all would probably say that this is the logical outcome of using the brain in a way that is different from normal use, while mystics would say the change in the brain are manifestations of changes and openings at other levels.

[zeemike]

7. But if mater itself is an illusion

Then so is the brain.
But no one except Physicist studding quantum mechanics would understand that there is noting to mater. It consist of space and energy and what we think of as solid matter is really noting at all.
So again we return to the dream.

[cyborg_jim]

35. Eh?

But no one except Physicist studding quantum mechanics would understand that there is noting to mater. It consist of space and energy and what we think of as solid matter is really noting at all.

That's a big non-sequitur. Energy is clearly 'something', not 'nothing. I don't see what quantum mechanics has got to do with it.

[zeemike]

45. Perhaps I was not too clear

But when you think of it there is noting to an atom of mater, Each particle in the atom takes up.00000000(to some number) space. So an atom is 99.9999(to some power) space or noting at all.
And the nature of mater is such that an entire galaxy can be compressed into a tiny ball like a black hole and there is no real way to tell if it even exist at all in what we would call a solid thing.
Quantum Mechanics has an explanation for it called String theory that is just as hard to understand as how the physical world is real at all.
Can you explain any of that with the concept of a real world that is physical hard solid matter?

[cyborg_jim]

50. You seem to have a real macroscopic perspective problem

there is no real way to tell if it even exist at all in what we would call a solid thing.

Solid = real? Since when? You need to adjust your thinking here I would say.

Quantum Mechanics has an explanation for it called String theory that is just as hard to understand as how the physical world is real at all.

Um, no. QM and M-theory are in quite different domains. M-theory is an attempt to produce a unified theory of everything but, as of yet, doesn't have anything but a purely conceptual basis - contrasted with QM which is a predictive and useful theory.

Again I have to ask myself just what criterion you require for something to be 'real'.

Can you explain any of that with the concept of a real world that is physical hard solid matter?

I can't because I don't really understand your metaphysical objections. The 'real' is simply what we experience (assuming you don't want to get into a metaphysical games about that). I don't think your concept of what 'real' should be trumps what it actually is.

[zeemike]

99. Then I would suppose

By your saying that "The 'real' is simply what we experience " that you would say the appearance of the Virgin to the children of Fatima was real? No? Because you did not experience it?
I don't have a criteria for real, in my world all things are possible, or to look at it another way I quote Ecleasieatices... There is nothing new under the sun. Which is the same as saying that if you can imagine it it has happened and is real.
And what is the problem you are having with this unified theory? Things not working out with the model you have of the real world? And then when you do get something like String theory to make sense of it it allows for possibilities that are quite fantastic like other dimensions.
There is one unifying theory that does explain it all and that is called God.
And it states that he is the Creator of all of this that we see and all of that which we do not see (which is lots more vast than what we do see) and he is the source that holds it all together but we can only "see" the results of it like gravity and time.
The God theory does explain it all and leaves no part of it unexplained but is so fantastic it boggles the mind far more than string theory.
And it begs the question; Could all of this that we experience in the physical world be just an illusion created by God to make us conscious and to develop our intellect to a point where we can understand what is real?

[cyborg_jim]

108. Please, not with the semantic games.

By your saying that "The 'real' is simply what we experience " that you would say the appearance of the Virgin to the children of Fatima was real? No? Because you did not experience it?

Clearly not. No point in playing semantic games.

I don't have a criteria for real, in my world all things are possible, or to look at it another way I quote Ecleasieatices... There is nothing new under the sun. Which is the same as saying that if you can imagine it it has happened and is real.

Then your term for real is useless.

And what is the problem you are having with this unified theory? Things not working out with the model you have of the real world? And then when you do get something like String theory to make sense of it it allows for possibilities that are quite fantastic like other dimensions.

*Sigh*. No, I explained the problem. It lacks predictive power. It is an interesting piece of theoretical work but it is PURELY theoretical.

Being or allowing for the 'fantastic' is utterly irrelevant.

There is one unifying theory that does explain it all and that is called God.
And it states that he is the Creator of all of this that we see and all of that which we do not see (which is lots more vast than what we do see) and he is the source that holds it all together but we can only "see" the results of it like gravity and time.

'God' explains nothing. It has no descriptive power.

How does saying, "oh God, yeah that's the thingy responsible for gravity," actually help me UNDERSTAND gravity?

Does the theory of god actually TELL me anything? What can I predict with this unified theory?

I really don't think you understand the things you are talking about.

The God theory does explain it all and leaves no part of it unexplained but is so fantastic it boggles the mind far more than string theory.

Tell me - how does your god theory explain anything? I mean ACTUALLY explain rather than, "oh God, yeah that's the thingy responsible for that thingy too." Hmm? How does that leave me better informed about reality?

I maintain that your God theory is as good as my theory of Leprechauns. Little Irish buggers running around drinking Guiness and doing their majickal mo-jo all over the place. They explain anything and everything.

And it begs the question; Could all of this that we experience in the physical world be just an illusion created by God to make us conscious and to develop our intellect to a point where we can understand what is real?

It's an uninteresting question to posit because it gets us nowhere.

If reality is an illusion nothing is certain and we might as well give up trying to understand it.

[zeemike]

124. It is not a word game

To say that reality is or is not what we experience.
What you want to say is that some of what we experience is real, but only that part that I can understand and approve of, and that fits my view of the world and universe.
And that all other experiences by others are not real if they seem to me to be to fantastic or mysterious, or does not fit my world view.

"Does the theory of god actually TELL me anything? What can I predict with this unified theory?"

You can predict that there is another reality that exist "above" us that the mystics call the astral world (but in actuality it is far vaster than just the astral world) and in this world we have an existence because all matter has an astral component to it of what they call spirit. And it is in this lower astral world where all physic phenomenon occur, like the appearance of the virgin in Fatima and other things that are not understandable in material terms as well as some results from scientific experiments that puzzle science.
And yet all of this is not even close to what God is because all of this astral world is still reliant on time and space and God is well above that.
The mystics say that there are seven levels and the upper three are the ones that are beyond time and space and it is here where God becomes a reality in a state of no motion or time in a steady state that shows us what gravity really is, because the nature of gravity is itself beyond time or motion. Gravity or our perception of it, is the force of God that created the universe and holds it together. and even us in our lower level of understanding can see that this is true.

OK I am prepared for the blow off phrase. I know how hard it is to accept this, but you asked and I told.But don't blame it on me, this theory goes back to ancient times by scholars far greater than my poor understanding.

[cyborg_jim]

127. No

And that all other experiences by others are not real if they seem to me to be to fantastic or mysterious, or does not fit my world view.

No I'm saying they're unreliable indicators of reality.

A drunk does not gain insight into reality a sober man cannot have. Everything says that the drunk man occupies the same reality we do whether or not he can, or chooses to, accept that.

Can you give me one reason to think otherwise?

You can predict that there is another reality that exist "above" us that the mystics call the astral world (but in actuality it is far vaster than just the astral world) and in this world we have an existence because all matter has an astral component to it of what they call spirit.

No I can't because there are people who understand gods who would tell you that this is nonsense.

This information does not follow from what you said. Not only can I not predict it I cannot hope to observe it.

And it is in this lower astral world where all physic phenomenon occur, like the appearance of the virgin in Fatima and other things that are not understandable in material terms as well as some results from scientific experiments that puzzle science.

I'm sorry to break this to you...

There are no psychics. May I remind you of the recent Silvia Browne incident? These people are either delusional or charlatans.

People see Jesus in toast. People can see patterns wherever. It is no more convincing to me that someone sees some holy virgin than it is when some South American tribe gets high on a local plant and has a spiritual journey.

And yet all of this is not even close to what God is because all of this astral world is still reliant on time and space and God is well above that.

And you know this how? Where ARE you getting this information from?

The mystics say that there are seven levels and the upper three are the ones that are beyond time and space and it is here where God becomes a reality in a state of no motion or time in a steady state that shows us what gravity really is, because the nature of gravity is itself beyond time or motion. Gravity or our perception of it, is the force of God that created the universe and holds it together. and even us in our lower level of understanding can see that this is true.

And these mystics know shit why?

But don't blame it on me, this theory goes back to ancient times by scholars far greater than my poor understanding.

The age of an idea is irrelevant to its truth. To be enamoured with so-called 'ancient wisdom' is a common thing but it is unreasonable. Many old ideas are clearly wrong. To latch onto one... why?

[zeemike]

131. What kind of logic is this?

To say Because there are charlatans and fakes all physic experience is false?
Would you use the same logic on science?
Because science has been wrong in the past it cannot be trusted now?
(And please don't tell us science has not been wrong so as not to wast time giving a long list of historical examples)

But we are not talking about drunks that have dulled there senses here but people who have enhanced them through the discipline of mediation and contemplation. And they are many going back to the times even before written history.
Volumes of books have been written including the Bragavad Gida and the Tibetan Book of the dead to mention just a few. And there are even more modern but less known ones like Edgar Casey who has a library full of his readings that are still studied today, and even the great Harry Houdini could not debunk. But I am sure you would have a blow off for any of them. Just refer us to the Amazing Randy as your expert witness.

[cyborg_jim]

133. Not quite

To say Because there are charlatans and fakes all physic experience is false?

Not exactly. It's just one example. Nobody has ever been able to show any actual abilities.

Would you use the same logic on science?

Yes. It's false until shown true.

Despite protests to the contrary no psychic phenomena have ever been shown.

No telepathy.

No talking to the dead.

No telekinesis.

No remote viewing.

Nothing.

Because science has been wrong in the past it cannot be trusted now?

Science is a methodology, not an absolute.

(And please don't tell us science has not been wrong so as not to wast time giving a long list of historical examples)

Please list some.

But we are not talking about drunks that have dulled there senses here but people who have enhanced them through the discipline of mediation and contemplation.

Enhanced? How very presumptuous. Meditation certainly alters one's brain operation but to conclude that it is an 'enhancement' is unwarranted.

And they are many going back to the times even before written history.

Again.

So what?

(And how reliable are the reports of things going back before written history anyway?)

Volumes of books have been written including the Bragavad Gida and the Tibetan Book of the dead to mention just a few. And there are even more modern but less known ones like Edgar Casey who has a library full of his readings that are still studied today, and even the great Harry Houdini could not debunk. But I am sure you would have a blow off for any of them. Just refer us to the Amazing Randy as your expert witness.

Yes I blow them off.

Why? Because a book means absolutely jack shit. Anyone can write a book that says anything they want.

None of it matters unless it is verified. Quite why you have decided that these people have accurate knowledge about mystical occurrences is beyond me.

[zeemike]

140. None of it matters unless it is verified.

What you mean to say is that noting matters unless it verifiable by ME.
Millions have verified it but sense you have never tried you could to blow off any testimony that they give you as just talk or writing.
These things can never be proved to you because you simply raise the bar every time proof is given and bring into question the motives or sanity or any other negative thing you can to discount and impeach the evidence.

Science is a methodology, not an absolute.

Then what is Mathematics? what is it a methodology for?

"Please list some."

http://www.copernican-series.com/sss/

"Yes. It's false until shown true."

And so that must also apply to your contention that there is no spiritual world or other dimensions to our universe Right? Or that we are just carbon based chemical machines with no soul that transcends the physical, Right? And can or do you ever say "I AM" and if you do why?

[cyborg_jim]

142. Sigh

What you mean to say is that noting matters unless it verifiable by ME.

That is kinda the point. Everyone gets to verify it for themselves.

Millions have verified it but sense you have never tried you could to blow off any testimony that they give you as just talk or writing.

Anecdotal evidence is unreliable. This has been shown time and time again.

It does not help when it contradicts each other either.

These things can never be proved to you because you simply raise the bar every time proof is given and bring into question the motives or sanity or any other negative thing you can to discount and impeach the evidence.

Things can never be proved to me?

If by that you mean, "things that never provide sufficient evidence for their existence," then yes. Otherwise plenty of things have been 'proved to me'. That what you want to convince me is real fails to live up to a sufficient standard of evidence is not my fault.

Then what is Mathematics? what is it a methodology for?

Mathematics is an logical construct.

Science is a methodology for determining knowledge about the operation of things. Denying its utility if you wish, I can only lament at the fact that people who benefit from science so much would so willingly cast it aside.

http://www.copernican-series.com/sss /

That guy sure sounds angry. Seems familiar - I think he's some nut who is upset that his ideas on physics aren't accepted by the scientific community - mainly because they are gibberish but there you go.

I can't actually see anything of substance there - not that should surprise me I suppose.

And so that must also apply to your contention that there is no spiritual world or other dimensions to our universe Right?

I don't even know what a 'spiritual world' is and I doubt you could give me a cogent answer.

And unless you're talking mathematics I assume your reference of 'other dimensions' is similarly vague.

I do wish people would actually understand what M-Theory is saying before getting all excited about 'extra dimensions'. You don't get to hide things there just because you want to.

Or that we are just carbon based chemical machines with no soul that transcends the physical, Right?

Can you give me any good reason why I should believe there is a soul?

You can get all uppity about it if you wish but no, I see no reason to believe. It's no more sensible for me to believe in a soul than to believe that the heart is anything more than a blood pump.

Start from the basics before rushing ahead to conclusions.

And can or do you ever say "I AM" and if you do why?

Why? Self-awareness one would assume.

Do you have some sort of incredulity that matter is sufficient alone for such a feat?

Please then do explain - why is it, if we do indeed have a soul that achieves all these things matter alone cannot, human behaviour is so stubbornly affected by the material? Be it chemical, electrical, physical damage - there are a whole host of ways the brain can be affected that alter perception, reasoning, ethical behaviour, and so on...

[zeemike]

149. Are you looking for a reason?

"Can you give me any good reason why I should believe there is a soul?"

I could give you reasons but I can't say they are good. in fact most would be counterproductive to free thinking, like the promise of life after death. But just because there is promise of something good in it does not mean it is a trick to get you to believe something that is untrue.

And in fact my goal here is not to get you to believe anything, it is just to get you to open up to other possibilities that are very real, and are well understood by many whether scientifically minded or not.
And that possibility is that there is other dimensions to matter and those dimensions are just as real as this one physical mater that we know so well.
And there are clues to it's existence that we commonly ignore like the fact that the physical body also is electrical and has a very complex electrical signature and as we know electrical fields extend out from the source to infinity whatever that is. And the other one I mentioned the awareness of self, the I AM in us all that while it may seem simple to you is not at all that way.
And even life in the microscopic world is more amazing than you let on, and has many mysteries yet to be solved.
As one said, the universe is not only more amazing than we know but more amazing than we can know.

[cyborg_jim]

155. You act like it is impossible that I have heard this stuff before

And in fact my goal here is not to get you to believe anything, it is just to get you to open up to other possibilities that are very real, and are well understood by many whether scientifically minded or not.

And if I have examined the possibilities, found them lacking and indeed found them to in fact be poorly understood and defined despite what you are saying?

And that possibility is that there is other dimensions to matter and those dimensions are just as real as this one physical mater that we know so well.

And again unless you're talking mathematics dimensions are not a place to hide woo.

Matter is not a dimension.

And there are clues to it's existence that we commonly ignore like the fact that the physical body also is electrical and has a very complex electrical signature and as we know electrical fields extend out from the source to infinity whatever that is.

We are an electro-chemical system - there is nothing bizzare about that. There is nothing odd about it being complex either - since it reflects the operations of our nervous system.

Oh, and that the influence of electric fields is theoretically at an infinite distance doesn't mean much when the effect drops so rapidly with distance.

And the other one I mentioned the awareness of self, the I AM in us all that while it may seem simple to you is not at all that way.

I did not say it was simple - I just wanted a reason why it cannot be explained with the physical.

And even life in the microscopic world is more amazing than you let on,

Yes it is amazing, but it is NOT in the way you propose.

As one said, the universe is not only more amazing than we know but more amazing than we can know.

That does not mean we get to make up stuff about it and then pretend that it is real.

[zeemike]

165. Matter is not a dimension.

No but it has 4 of them and maybe more.
Why not a fifth dimension?
The answer is simple, we cannot imagine what that dimension would be sense we have always been in only three. And time is the forth, a little harder to see, but not as much controversy.

[cyborg_jim]

167. NO. You do not understand the words you are using!

Matter does not have 'four dimensions'.

Matter OCCUPIES them.

Why not a fifth dimension?

One should not create dimensions for the hell of it. If it does not explain anything (and I do not mean explain as you seem to think, as in an explanation that makes things less clear) we do not add it.

The answer is simple, we cannot imagine what that dimension would be sense we have always been in only three.

Wrong, we occupy precisely however many dimensions there actually are. We perceive a world as a 3D construct.

I do not think you understand M-Theory - you just understand 'extra dimensions' as 'places to hide mystical things' and NOT, as they should be understood, as ways to explain the physical nature of reality. As I have already explained M-Theory does not yet provide the experimental support needed to conclude that it is an accurate representation of said reality.

[zeemike]

178. Talk about word games

Matter does not have 'four dimensions'.
Matter OCCUPIES them.

So you think Mater could occupy no dimensions? or only two? or maybe three if we could do away with time and stop motion.

"I do not think you understand M-Theory - you just understand 'extra dimensions' as 'places to hide mystical things' and NOT, as they should be understood,"

As I say I now understand how you think.

[cyborg_jim]

188. For someone who claims scientists are uncreative

You sure do lack imaginativeness.

So you think Mater could occupy no dimensions? or only two? or maybe three if we could do away with time and stop motion.

It could occupy as many as there are according to the universe it exists in. In our universe it's at least four dimensions - the space-time continuum.

As I say I now understand how you think.

I don't think you have a clue.

[zeemike]

49. And what is the conscious mind?

And why do we have It? And does it go away after we die?
And more importantly why was the conscious mind created from evolution and the natural selection of the species?
And do all life have consciousness of just us humans? Can and do bacteria act in a conscious manner or not?

[cyborg_jim]

53. Consciousness is the result of brain activity

And why do we have It?

To ask why we have it would first require we pin down what it is exactly.

And does it go away after we die?

There is no reason to think anything about us persists once our bodily chemistry starts reaching equilibrium with the environment.

And more importantly why was the conscious mind created from evolution and the natural selection of the species?

There are clearly advantages to advanced cognitive abilities.

And do all life have consciousness of just us humans?

No, all life clearly does not have consciousness. Determining the consciousness of other creatures is slightly harder but there are almost certainly other mammals with comparable cognitive abilities.

Can and do bacteria act in a conscious manner or not?

No.

[zeemike]

101. But you said it was due to brain activity

Is the brain of an insect not active? Or does size matter?
And so what is the connection with consciousness and advanced cognitive abilities?
Whales and elephants as well as dolphins all have brains bigger than ours, so they must have individual conciseness. And how does that serve them in evolutionary terms?
But there are a lot more questions than we have answers for and that is because we know very little about the nature of the universe. And the more we learn the more we understand just how far we are from knowing.

[cyborg_jim]

109. Here we go again....

Is the brain of an insect not active? Or does size matter?

All brains are clearly not equal. That is obvious. We clearly have cognitive capabilities an insect does not have. Strangely enough this is indeed a function of the hardware available.

And so what is the connection with consciousness and advanced cognitive abilities?

It IS one.

Whales and elephants as well as dolphins all have brains bigger than ours, so they must have individual conciseness.

Fallacious reasoning. Brain size is not necessarily the determining factor. There is also brain configuration to consider.

And how does that serve them in evolutionary terms?

Do you think your consciousness is helpful to your survival or not?

But there are a lot more questions than we have answers for and that is because we know very little about the nature of the universe. And the more we learn the more we understand just how far we are from knowing.

Yes, how poetic.

But would you stop pretending there are NO answers? Would you also stop pretending every random answer that comes along is as good as the next?

[zeemike]

125. So if size does not matter

Then who is to say that an insects brain is not so configured? Have they mapped out consciousness in brain function?

"Do you think your consciousness is helpful to your survival or not?"

Not
Because if it is not necessary for a whale or dolphin or even an insect than it is not necessary for us. Do you think there was a point in time when the cave man had no consciousness like the other animals?
No I believe that all life has consciousness at some level or another and is a part of life itself and gives a reason to live.

And would you stop pretending that science has all and the only definitive answers and that all others are just delusional?

[cyborg_jim]

126. Why is it either/or for you?

Then who is to say that an insects brain is not so configured?

The insect mind has insufficient computing power. A necessary brain size is required but it is not the sole variable in the equation.

Have they mapped out consciousness in brain function?

Many functions are known.

I don't know why you think it's a function of one variable.

Not
Because if it is not necessary for a whale or dolphin or even an insect than it is not necessary for us.

What bizzare reasoning.

It is not necessary for life to exist in our form at all. That is not the point. The point is whether or not it is a selective advantage for us to have the traits we do. Otherwise you might as well argue that we should be bacteria since there really is nothing else necessary for life.

Do you think there was a point in time when the cave man had no consciousness like the other animals?

No.

No I believe that all life has consciousness at some level or another and is a part of life itself and gives a reason to live.

Then I will need to hear what you understand by the term 'consciousness' because otherwise you are merely giving carbon based machinery a magical quality for... what reason now?

And would you stop pretending that science has all and the only definitive answers and that all others are just delusional?

I'll stop pretending as soon as science stops causing an exponential growth in our understanding and ability to control our environment.

Seriously, I sometimes wonder if you people think the objects you use everyday - the very machines you use to communicate with me - appeared as if by magic from some dream.

[zeemike]

130. Consciousness is what looks out of your eyes

And sees the world and is aware of self.
If insects or other animals don't have that then they are just little machines like our computer and have no reason to live or no knowledge of life at all.
So when computing power becomes large enough will the computer look out form it's monitor and have a feeling of self like we do?
And for all the wonders of science and the wonders to come it only controls or seek to control, a tiny Little bit of the environment and even less of the universe. It will always be able to theorize what a black hole is but probably never be able to control or identify just what one is.

[cyborg_jim]

134. Ants are not self-aware

If insects or other animals don't have that then they are just little machines like our computer and have no reason to live or no knowledge of life at all.

Yes. We are ALL like carbon based machines.

A complicated network of organic chemistry - a large machine designed to fight chemical equilibrium.

Now what I don't get here is where you get your rather odd conclusions.

A bacterium has no reason to live or no knowledge of life at all? Um, well no. It merely operates according to its function. What else would you like it to do? Would you like a conversation with the bacteria in your gut?

Your objections are bizzare.

So when computing power becomes large enough will the computer look out form it's monitor and have a feeling of self like we do?

No. Why don't you ACTUALLY listen to me rather than making silly little statements?

Consciousness is a function of computing power and organisation. It is not enough to have the raw potential, it must be properly organised. That you have a problem dealing with the fact that your brain is a system of chemical gates is not my problem. That is reality whether or not it is sexy enough for you or not.

Now, as to the question as to whether a silicon construct can be conscious - why not? It can only be if you propose there is some magical immaterial component to our thoughts that you would conclude otherwise - a kind of carbon bigotry.

Oh, and you might want to consider the fact that not all computers consist of a monitor, keyboard, desktop and mouse.

And for all the wonders of science and the wonders to come it only controls or seek to control, a tiny Little bit of the environment and even less of the universe. It will always be able to theorize what a black hole is but probably never be able to control or identify just what one is.

I fail to grasp your point. Is this the point at which you invoke some mystical force as the answer? (A mystical force without a proven track-record no doubt).

[zeemike]

141. "Yes. It's false until shown true."

"Yes. We are ALL like carbon based machines.
A complicated network of organic chemistry - a large machine designed to fight chemical equilibrium."

OK show it to be true.

"No. Why don't you ACTUALLY listen to me rather than making silly little statements?"

This is when we know that we have eaten the apple to the core. and it is always so in every conversation like this I have ever had. The anger grows when ones reality is challenged and it then becomes personal.
Science is not to just ask the question why, but to also ask the question WHY NOT?

[cyborg_jim]

143. Sigh AGAIN

OK show it to be true.

I have no idea how to achieve that feat with you.

Do you accept any science? Do you accept that you are made up of various atoms? DNA? Cells?

I mean, you start off complaining about things not being 'solid' in the way you think they should be. ('Filling' all the gaps, why that's necessary is beyond me.)

If sitting about pondering every mystical idea that comes across you and snatching them into your mind all day long is good enough for you then so be it. It's pretty clear just how much people got done with that approach compared to the scientific approach.

This is when we know that we have eaten the apple to the core. and it is always so in every conversation like this I have ever had. The anger grows when ones reality is challenged and it then becomes personal.

Oh dear. No, it is not the 'challenging of reality' that is angering me, it is your inability to respond to what I am actually saying as if you understood it at all.

Have you ever considered that if this is always occurring in every conversation you have like this it is YOU who is at fault and not everyone else?

Science is not to just ask the question why, but to also ask the question WHY NOT?

Jeezus, where did you get that claptrap from?

Science is NOT about 'why not's. Science is about ELIMINATING the 'why not's. Why nots are not helpful - cluttering reality with infinite possibilities does not get us anywhere.

[zeemike]

147. Just remember I am not angry with you

And I want to remind you not to be angry with me, it is so unnecessary for that to happen even in frustrating conversations like this.

"Science is NOT about 'why not's. Science is about ELIMINATING the 'why not's"

I suppose that then is the reason why the less creative people do the best in science. They piss people that are "above them" less often with questions like Why not. And that is what that "angry man" was talking about, the lack of creative thinking in the scientific community.

"Have you ever considered that if this is always occurring in every conversation you have like this it is YOU who is at fault and not everyone else?"

Oh I know it is my fault, I bring up uncomfortable things. I know you cannot accept things like that without destroying your whole world concept. And I do not expect that you will change it based on anything I have to say. But as long as you have questions i have answers, just as i would expect the same form you.

"Do you accept any science? Do you accept that you are made up of various atoms? DNA? Cells?"

I accept all science and especially the only pure science Mathematics. And even there in that pure science there are mysteries that cannot be explained like the beginning and end, the concept of 0 and infinity. And atoms too as energy bound by an unexplainable force, and DNA code that magical reproduces itself to create life in it's micro form.
Yes I understand and accept all of that, but I know that that is not all there is to the story, not by a long shot.
It is the rest of the story I am trying to tell you of.

[Evoman]

151. This is bullshit.

" suppose that then is the reason why the less creative people do the best in science. They piss people that are "above them" less often with questions like Why not. And that is what that "angry man" was talking about, the lack of creative thinking in the scientific community."

Science is a creative process. People who say things like this usually have a)had little experience with science b)jealous that scientists are smarter than them (anti-intellectual) or c) have an anti-science position.

[zeemike]

152. Science should be a creative process but it is not

Because it discourages those that ask questions like why not, and favors those that will not rock the boat and stick to proving the theories that have been accepted by the body as a whole.
Like this guy says;

http://www.copernican-series.com/sss/index.html

"The reason that Empirical Science needs to defend to the death the delusional concepts it creates is that, like religion, it is based on a set of revealed truths, laws, which have to be believed before one can become a participant in, and be protected by, the resulting belief system and benefit from the structure that has been crafted around it...."
"The delusion underlying a process that claims as fact beliefs that predict other facts and then calls the method scientific is self-evident".

[Evoman]

153. Are you a scientist? Have you ever worked in a lab, or even visited one?

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Science does not discourage those that ask questions like "why not"...where the hell do you get these ideas.

"This type of cancer does not respond to chemotherapy. Why not?"

We are always looking for answers, and sometimes those answers take new ideas, and creative approaches. My own research has turned over a lot of previously held hypothesis...but the only thing I've encountered has been excitement. Yes, I've been challenged, and rightly so. It gives me an opportunity to explain my own hypothesis, and provide suitable evidence.

Science is not exempt from criticism...I'm not saying that. I'm not even saying that there are absolutely no problems with science as a human activity. But your criticisms are based on ignorance.

[zeemike]

154. I am not a scientist nor do i play one on TV

And I was not insulting them in general or trying to put them down.
But My criticism of the SYSTEM is justified. And it is not my criticism alone but as you can see from the link I gave, from science itself.
But the question Why not, was meant to show inclusiveness as in "Why not homeopathic medicine." Your example of "This type of cancer does not respond to chemotherapy. Why not?" is still a "Why Question" the "Not" is just an unnecessary word.
If you are a scientist and ask that question the answer will be "What the hell is wrong with you don't you know that is all bullshit made up by Charlton? Only ignorant uneducated fools would ask such a thing"
instead of a real answer to the question. And if you persisted you would soon be out on your ass, branded as a kook and not a real scientist at all.
I submit the "Memory of Water" as a resent example.
(A disclaimer here will be necessary, I do not know whether homeopathic medicine works or not and make no judgment at all one way ot the other.)

The enlightened response to the question "Why not homeopathic medicine" should be " Well it sounds like bullshit to me, but if you can show any evidence that it works we will study it...Who knows we might discover something along the way to make it worth while?"
Can you see the difference? The latter does not destroy the creative thinking of the questioner by intimidation and fear.

[cyborg_jim]

157. Why not? Here's why

But the question Why not, was meant to show inclusiveness as in "Why not homeopathic medicine."

Simple. IT DOES NOT WORK!

It's no more effective than spell casting is.

I submit the "Memory of Water" as a resent example.

Cannot be shown to exist. No known mechanism would allow it. Attempts by woos to explain it are inconsistent.

It is a fantasy atop another fantasy to try and keep a whole house of fantasy from crumbling.

It was invented because some homeopaths can at least understand Avogadro's constant.

Can you see the difference? The latter does not destroy the creative thinking of the questioner by intimidation and fear.

And if the homeopaths had any honesty then the fact that it has been thoroughly shown NOT to rewrite the laws of physics or have any medical efficacy they would pack up and go home and find something more useful to do.

It's been studied. It's failed. Science works. Woo does not.

[zeemike]

158. Like I said I have no opinion on Homeopathic medicine

It is not about that.
Are you aware that this is a published article i think in Scientific America and was a controlled experiment.If you haven't read the paper you should before commenting.

[cyborg_jim]

159. I have no idea what article you are referring to

But homeopathy does not work so I doubt I will find any thing interesting in the article if that is what you are referring to (you seem to expect me to be psychic on what it is you are talking about for some reason I do not understand and to find the article by dowsing). That is the end of the story - it was based on a flawed premise when it was dreamed up in the 19th century and it is still based on a flawed premise now. A hundred odd years of failure - I fail to see the reason why anyone should take it seriously other than through an irrational distrust of so-called 'conventional' medicine (or as I like to call it, "stuff actually shown to work").

[zeemike]

162. It is a published scientific paper

Titled "The Memory Of Watter" I believe in Scientific America.
Google it, it should be there.

[cyborg_jim]

164. I doubt it is "The Memory of Watter"

Water perhaps.

It is nonetheless nonsense based on the observation that water is in a constant flux of semi-crystalline structures caused by the strong H-bonding in water. Such structures last only for fractional amounts of time.

It is straw grasping for the homeopaths - and it seems you are sympathetic to the straw graspers for some reason.

[Evoman]

161. Again, you don't understand science.

"And I was not insulting them in general or trying to put them down."

You said that uncreative people do the best in science. That was rather insulting. And completely untrue.

"My criticism of the SYSTEM is justified. And it is not my criticism alone but as you can see from the link I gave, from science itself."

If I read it correct....no, your criticism is not justified. The article, which I could only get through part of, is bullshit. The guy knows nothing about physics. This line, "Cries for funding basic research serve only to perpetuate the scam, implying a vast body of omnipotent scientific knowledge out of the public eye that is responsible for technological advancement, the claim that the pile of delusional concepts, occult beliefs such as gravity as a property of matter for why released objects move" for example. Gravity is not a property of matter...it is a force. I couldn't read the rest of that tripe.


"If you are a scientist and ask that question the answer will be "What the hell is wrong with you don't you know that is all bullshit made up by Charlton? Only ignorant uneducated fools would ask such a thing" "

No, if your a scientist, you should already know its bullshit because you would have already either read articles showing Homeopathic medicine doesn't work, or you would have done a study yourself. And let me ask you a question: How much do we have to study a subject, and how many times do we have to debunk something, before we can stop wasting our time?

----------

Woo woo1: Why won't scientists take our homeopathy claims seriously?

Scientist: Okay...*studies phenomena*...we did a test...in a double blind test, we found your claims to be false. It is purely a placebo effect. Moreover, my chemistry colleague had a look into the memory claims...we found absolutely no sort of "water memory", which is not a suprise given it chemical struc...

Woo-woo1: Your a hack, and you want to hide the real results to keep your corporate overlords happy.

Scientist: *sigh* I work for a university..but whatever....

NEXT DAY

Woo woo2: Why won't scientists take our homeopathy claims seriously?

-----------------------


"The enlightened response to the question "Why not homeopathic medicine" should be " Well it sounds like bullshit to me, but if you can show any evidence that it works we will study it...Who knows we might discover something along the way to make it worth while?"
Can you see the difference? The latter does not destroy the creative thinking of the questioner by intimidation and fear."


AHHHHHHHHHHHH! *cries into hands* If you KNEW any scientists, or had any actual experience with science whatsoever, you would see that is indeed how most scientists responds. We always ask for evidence...thats the point. The WOO WOO's NEVER provide evidence, and expect a scientist to waste their time and career chasing a pipe dream, instead of doing it themselves. And when we do come up with a falsification of their ideas, they cling to it anyways.....they make too much damn money to really care.

Your whole argument is a big straw man. You put up your strawman scientist, and then you kick him down repeatedly.

[zeemike]

179. you obviously did not read it

And that is surprising sense it should have been right up your ally and easier for you to understand the method they used and the controls they put on it
And been impressed that they repeated the experiment by eliminating people from it altogether by using a computer to give the results.
And even a little impressed that the "amazing Randy" even conceded it needed further study.
But see what happened here. I used this as an example of how science punishes anyone that strays from the fold of what they think they know and now we are talking about Homeopathic medicine, which I have no opinion on at all and it interests me not. It then becomes a diversion from the topic. I wish i could word a disclaimer so that everyone would understand it and be able to stay on topic.

[Evoman]

185. Dude, the topic is about delusion.

And you strayed into the "scientists are not creative" bullshit, not I. I am no more off topic than you.

[Rabrrrrrr]

172. Rigorous peer review and reproducible experiments does not equal "anti-creative"

As soon as someone shows that homeopathic medicine works, and works repeatedly, and is predictable, scientists will accept it.

Science is an amazingly creative endeavor - at least, any science that wants to move forward into the unknown, which is what science is all about.

[Evoman]

174. Thank you.

Exactly what I was trying to say, but without the linguistic ability that you have. Probably because I'm not creative.

[zeemike]

180. I agree it doesn't

But the controlling language that one see even in this thread And almost anywhere that things like this are talked about, calling people delusional, crazy, stupid, ignorant, and on and on, does.
This is not about Homo medicine even though you seem to want to talk about nothing else. When I first brought it up it was with a disclaimer that said I have no opinion on the subject and was only using it as an example, but that did not stop it from becoming the topic itself.

[Rabrrrrrr]

182. I only used it as an example, and clearly only used it as an example.

I also never talked about it before, so stop lying and saying that I seem to want to talk about nothing less. What an asinine thing to say.

Let me say this, then -- as soon as XXXXXXX (and let XXXXXXX be whatever one is talking about, whether it's homeopathic medicine, hexagonal water, or Einstein offering his theory of relativity for the first time) can be shown to be reproducible and predictable, scientists will latch onto it.

You made the claim that scientists are not creative because they don't accept things. I made the counter-claim that science is all about creativity, and that scientists will accept whatever scientific rigor forces them to accept. Scientists didn't like relativity at first, they didn't like quantum mechanics at first - hell, doctors didn't even like the idea of washing their hands when that was first proposed.

But they changed their minds when presented with facts.

Science is VERY creative, because it IS always asking the Why? question, the Why Not? question, the How Does This Work? question... it is always exploring the unknown, and providing humanity with more and more knowledge.

[cyborg_jim]

156. *SIGH*

I suppose that then is the reason why the less creative people do the best in science. They piss people that are "above them" less often with questions like Why not. And that is what that "angry man" was talking about, the lack of creative thinking in the scientific community.

What rot. What irrelevance.

As Evo has already pointed out there is no correlation here. You only presume it because you see your wooish friends as, 'creative' -> 'insightful' -> 'truth'. Truth that cannot be gotten by simplistic, mechanistic and uncreative science.

What a very lovely idea for those who lack the ability to do science that they could be privy to information that those cold intellectuals cannot. How very tempting to believe that when one lacks the intelligence to understand the science that a 'dumb' person could get one over on them. How very wrong.

I accept all science and especially the only pure science Mathematics.

Careful now - mathematics tells us absolutely nothing about reality - it's a purely artificial construct.

And even there in that pure science there are mysteries that cannot be explained like the beginning and end, the concept of 0 and infinity.

Concepts of 0 and infinity are mysteries that cannot be explained?

Sir, I don't think you know the first thing about mathematics.

And atoms too as energy bound by an unexplainable force,

The unexplained is not a place to insert conjecture as truth - especially if it not as unexplained as you assume.

and DNA code that magical reproduces itself to create life in it's micro form.

There is nothing magical about the operation of DNA.

It is the rest of the story I am trying to tell you of.

You are failing. The 'rest' of the story is apparently the random fantasies of humans. I cannot see why anything you have said has any merit to it whatsoever. And you have done nothing to show why it has either - just merely endless appeals to 'open my mind' to 'possibilities'.

I could make up my own system of woo if I wanted one - and I'm sure I could make it a darn sight more consistent as well.

[zeemike]

160. A light bulb just went off in my head

I finally see how it is that we see the same thing differently.

"Careful now - mathematics tells us absolutely nothing about reality - it's a purely artificial construct."

How is it that I see that mathematics tells us everything about reality. Well to even quote Jesus "even the very hairs on your head are numbered"
You cannot think about a single thing in this physical world that is not numbered in some way ot the other. And that is why the mystery of 0 and infinity.
But to you it is simply a system to count or label.
That is why I am failing to get across to you how I see the creation.
But it is OK neither of us need the others view to exist and prosper.

[cyborg_jim]

163. Because you do not understand mathematics

How is it that I see that mathematics tells us everything about reality.

Mathematics tells us nothing about reality. Mathematics can construct any reality anyone would care to defin.

I say again: I don't think you have the first clue about mathematics.

Well to even quote Jesus "even the very hairs on your head are numbered"

How... profound.

Please don't tell me you're into Numerology as well?

You cannot think about a single thing in this physical world that is not numbered in some way ot the other.

I fail to see what significance that has at all. You seem to be impressed by counting. Well I tell you this now - counting tells us shit about anything.

I await a barrage of arbitrary numerical links of no significance beyond that the viewer constructs.

And that is why the mystery of 0 and infinity.

Um, no. Again. There is no mystery.

But to you it is simply a system to count or label.

It is not 'simply' a system to count or label. It is a collection of logical symbolic constructs and logical symbolic manipulators.

[zeemike]

177. No further conversation on Mathematics is necessary

Or even possible. As I said I now understand how you think.
If you do not get what I said then you would never understand anything else I have to say on the subject. Perhaps it is to philosophical anyway

[cyborg_jim]

189. Yeah, that's right

Your philosophy is just totally beyond me dude. :eyes: Like, woah. :eyes:

[Rabrrrrrr]

173. My favorite pure science is German

I mean, if we're accepting forms of language as forms of pure science.

:rofl:

"Mathematics" as a form of pure science! :rofl:

My favorite pure food is a saute pan. :rofl:

[cyborg_jim]

175. Good analogy

But I am thinking zeemike is going to start rattling off the standard numerologist fare now...

[zeemike]

181. You are right to point out that it is the language of science

But it is a pure science because unlike a language it has clear meaning to each expression. 1+1 is always 2 and can be nothing else.
And unlike language every object in our universe is numbered and expressed by those numbers...The nearest star is 2.5 light years away...Our planet is 90 million miles from the Sun which is a medium sized star...We are the third rock from the sun....it takes 365 days to make one revolution around the sun...I weigh 200 pounds...the size of the object is one micron.

[Rabrrrrrr]

183. Language != science, dude.

Just because shit can be measured in numbers and those numbers can be expressed in random pencil strokes doesn't make the random pencil strokes, or the numbers, themselves science; any more than German is a pure science because I can use German to describe things.



And 1+1=2 is not always true -- it's true only when the symbols are defined in such a way that the statement becomes true AND takes place in a mathematical system in which it holds true. It does not hold true in binary, since there is no symbol in the form of "2". It does hold true in a system of particle and anti-particle collision, in which case 1+1=0, or maybe 0 + a neutrino, or some other combination.

Try this, for instance:

:rofl:

It follows the format of 1+1=2, but it has no meaning. It is not science.

[zeemike]

190. Man you just don't get it do you?

A rose by any other name is still a rose the same.
And in mathematics no matter what language you are using, even the cute little symbols in your post two is always two and you can check this by noticing that it is one for each hand if the system being used confuses you.
As long as Mercury and Venus remain in orbit we will always be the third rock from the sun no mater what language is used. And that is why it is an important science discipline because through this constant the universe is described and measured.
But maybe this is too philosophical for this discussion.

[cyborg_jim]

193. You shouldn't argue with people who understand mathematics

A rose by any other name is still a rose the same.

I doubt you could possibly comprehend the metaphysical problems with such a statement - it espeically does not help that you refuse to listen.

And in mathematics no matter what language you are using, even the cute little symbols in your post two is always two and you can check this by noticing that it is one for each hand if the system being used confuses you.

Using our hands? Maybe grade 7 was too generous a guess. It would seem your mathematical education stopped somewhere after kindergarden.

And that is why it is an important science discipline because through this constant the universe is described and measured.

So mathematics can TELL us that the Earth is the third planet in orbit can it?

What's that? No?

Then I guess we'll have to fall back on OBSERVATION then.

Mathematics is certainly important in science but pretending that it can TELL us ANYTHING about the universe we occupy is wrong. It can only describe it and it can only do so with any sort of relevance to the universe we are in if the mathematics is correctly constructed to accurately reflect it.

Mathematics is the map, not the teritory.

But maybe this is too philosophical for this discussion.

Yet again I must point this out for those who are lurking - this is a classic example of the sort of mental deflection those who are absorbed in wooish ideas engage in. *I* must be too stupid to understand what he is saying, it cannot possibly be that I fully comprehend the ideas presented yet find fault with them.

If anything zeemike can clearly not understand the important metaphysical implications here - maybe if I ever get him to understand the above I could expound. I don't see that happening whilst he's engaged in counting fingers and toes though.

[Rabrrrrrr]

198. It's not "too philosophical" -- it's "too hilariously ignorant"

:eyes:

Math is not science, no matter how much you protest otherwise. Math is a tool; a language; a descriptor; a symbolic way to speak of things that using mere words would be far too cumbersome to do.

But it ain't science. And I don't know any scientist who would ever tell you that mathematics is a science.

Because it isn't.

[cyborg_jim]

187. As I said you do not understand mathematics

1+1 is always 2 and can be nothing else.

Such a statement reveals your deep ignorance.

1 + 1 means exactly whatever it is defined to mean, nothing more, nothing less.

Here are some more examples following from Rabrrrrrr:

1 + 1 = 0

1 + 1 = 10

1 + 1 = 11

Every single one of those statements is as correct as 1 + 1 = 2. I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself and tell me why.

And unlike language every object in our universe is numbered and expressed by those numbers.

Which has any significance why? Especially when you give a whole series of arbitrary units.

[zeemike]

191. no they are not correct

But I will correct them for you

-1+1=0

5/1+5/1=10

10/1+1=11

But go ahead and invent your own system if you want there is noting wrong with that but just make sure that it is accurate and like I said you can check it by looking at how you express two and see if it is one for each hand. And 10 will match your fingers and toes and the distance between the sun and earth will be the same and will not change no matter what you call it

[cyborg_jim]

192. I don't expect you to acknowledge your ignorance but at least everyone else can confirm it

1 + 1 = 0, modulo 2 arithmatic.

1 + 1 = 10, base 2 arithmatic

1 + 1 = 11, uninary arithmatic.

None of these systems were invented by me.

The fact that your mathematical education doesn't go past - well, some grade, 7 or something by the looks of it, I don't know what is expected in the US - is not my problem.

And 10 will match your fingers and toes

So? What the hell does this have to do with anything?

the distance between the sun and earth will be the same and will not change no matter what you call it

Oh how lovely, I get to expose an ignornace of astronomy as well.

The distance between the Earth and the sun does change because the Earth is in an eliptical orbit.

[Meshuga]

194. Yep - and boolean arithmetic

And if you add boolean arithmetic to the mix you can also say that 1 + 1 = 1.

In boolean arithmetic you can say that since the sum "1 + 1" certainly isn't 0 (however, logically, in modular arithmetic it would wrap around to 0 if it is "1 + 1 mod 2"), it must be 1 by process of elimination.

The ignorance is confirmed, however, what is troubling is not the ignorance in math or astronomy since that is understandable for many here who once learned these things ages ago but never had any use for unary, binary, boolean, or modular arithmetic but the resistance to acknowledge the ignorance and the attempts to refute facts with ignorance is the troubling part.

[cyborg_jim]

196. Indeed

resistance to acknowledge the ignorance and the attempts to refute facts with ignorance is the troubling part.

Whilst he's convinced he holds secret knowledge I either lack some ineffable ability to grasp, am too 'intellectual' or 'closed-minded' to see he won't learn a damn thing.

Unlearning is the hardest process they say.

[zeemike]

200. Not to trouble you sir

But in my ignorance i just want to know what it is called when you have one for each hand and I have both of my original hands. Is it called different in all those systems you have mentioned?
Oh no just forget it this is much too stupid a question for you to be bothered with you could be out there solving the problems of the world with all that scientific knowledge you possess
I back out of the room head bowing low to the floor....

[Evoman]

197. Pwned.

Why does he keep digging deeper? Sometimes we just have to acknowledge our mistakes/ignorance....but it takes a big person to do that. I just knew he would take your bait.

[zeemike]

201. I am so small, so very very small...

And you are so huge, so very very huge in your superior knowledge and intellect.

[Evoman]

205. Look zeemike...I do not think that I have superior knowledge and intellect.

And I recognize that I am ignorant in many things. Just because someone has more knowledge than you in some area, as I do in science, does not make us intellectually unequal. But being passively aggressive and spiteful of other people who know more than you about something, is anti-intellectual BS. I took offense at your characterization of science and scientists as "uncreative". It is absolutely not true. People who say things like that do because they either don't know any scientists themselves (do you?) or maybe feel intimidated, or even jealous, of them.

This type of behaviour is unbecoming of you.

[zeemike]

210. It is a left brain right brain thing

And being uncreative is not equal to being stupid In fact creativity has noting to do with intelligence Knowledge, or learning. Some of the most creative people are not at all intelligent or learned. And I have known a great many creative people in the arts in my life. My own brother was a gifted artist practically from birth and was never tough art but could draw incredibly well, and he barley finished high school.
And living near Los Alamos it is hard not to know scientist. But if you are at a party and want to get rid of one of them just start talking about UFOs, they will be gone in a flash for fear that someone will see them talking about something so ridicules and be fired or demoted on suspicion of stupidity or worse yet ridiculed by there peers.
Yes the same kind of ridicule you see here in this thread, and not just against me. Any believer is fair game for ridicule because the atheist who come here have already concluded that it is stupid to think in such a way. And stupid people deserve to be ridiculed just the way they do in the scientific community.

But don't think that tI am offended by any of this because I am not. I am secure in what I know and what I don't know and I take no offense even when it is intended.
Others may be run off with intimidation but not me, I am not going any where and you will just have to put me on ignore if i piss you off that much. But I have never put someone on ignore and I never will because I long ago developed a callous right where it rubs against intimidation.

[cyborg_jim]

212. Well, I know a lot of intelligent people who seem to have no problem using both hemispheres

Yes the same kind of ridicule you see here in this thread, and not just against me. Any believer is fair game for ridicule because the atheist who come here have already concluded that it is stupid to think in such a way. And stupid people deserve to be ridiculed just the way they do in the scientific community.

AGAIN I MUST ASK YOU TO FUCKING LISTEN. You are quite exasperating you really are.

The ideas are understood. I understand what you are saying. I have merely learnt just how unreliable the ideas and concepts 'true believers' present are having been fooled by them before. Will not be fooled again.

We are trying to educate you but you refuse to listen or even acknowledge you may be wrong - you enjoy the idea that you have special knowledge far too much. You continue with this fallacy with your continual, "oh, I understand how you think," or "it's a right brained thing," - these are all just silly phrases for ignoring the issue of your inability to form a cogent argument for ideas that have little merit to them. They are the classic defence phrases defined to deflect the tough questions and protect the belief.

I am secure in what I know

THIS is what it means to be closed minded - not what I am, always willing to be challenged, eager to be shown wrong.

[zeemike]

216. Well if you have been fooled by some charlatan

You have my sympathy. I have been fooled before and know how it feels.
But don't paint everyone here with the same brush.

But now help me with my confusion,,,just what are you trying to educate me of?
And the knowledge I have is not special at all and can be had by anyone that is interested and willing to read a few books.
So why not ask the tough questions then and see?
Saying that I am secure in what I know is not the same as saying I know it all and have nothing to learn. Far from it, I have lots to learn, and not enough time to learn it all.

[cyborg_jim]

218. Broad strokes apply I'm afraid

I have no reason to believe otherwise.

But now help me with my confusion,,,just what are you trying to educate me of?

Science and mathematics currently.

And the knowledge I have is not special at all and can be had by anyone that is interested and willing to read a few books.

Yes, so you say, but being more informed about what psi advocates say doesn't make psi any more real. Reading a book about talking the dead is quite irrelevant if the dead are silent. No amount of Bibles, Korans or Torahs will enlighten me about a god that isn't there.

So why not ask the tough questions then and see?

I have.

You cannot present a cogent position for your beliefs. They rely on personal insight - something that has been demonstrated time and time again to be so incredibly faulty.

Saying that I am secure in what I know is not the same as saying I know it all and have nothing to learn. Far from it, I have lots to learn, and not enough time to learn it all.

Learning ideas is not as important as unlearning bad ideas. You have a lot of bad ideas. I suggest investing some time in unlearning.

[Evoman]

222. Left brain/right brain.....whole brain.

My gf plays piano, I draw and write....both of us scientists. As if you've never come across my witty (but admittedly shitty) plays in this forum.


"And being uncreative is not equal to being stupid In fact creativity has noting to do with intelligence Knowledge, or learning. Some of the most creative people are not at all intelligent or learned."

Fine, I can accept that. But scientists can, and are, as creative as anybody else in the population. Uncreative people don't generally do better in the sciences, as you said before. Maybe you need to define what "creativity" is.

" And I have known a great many creative people in the arts in my life."

Yeah, so have I. I took plenty of arts classes in my life as well though (I got a sociology minor)..in everyone one of them I was at the top of the class. I got top marks in my english classes on essays, stories and poetry. And all the time I was in the classes, I would hear, "The people in Science may be good at science classes, but are not as good in the arts because they aren't CREATIVE" and I would grin and bear it. The truth is, people in science took Fine Arts, and Arts, classes for easy marks.

"My own brother was a gifted artist practically from birth and was never tough art but could draw incredibly well, and he barley finished high school."

Good for you brother. I am glad he was a good artist....is that what he does now?


"But if you are at a party and want to get rid of one of them just start talking about UFOs, they will be gone in a flash for fear that someone will see them talking about something so ridicules and be fired or demoted on suspicion of stupidity or worse yet ridiculed by there peers."

This is not true for me. Not that I wouldn't walk away...I totally would (or rather, try to change the topic to something more interesting). But only because I find the topic boring. I mean...what is it you think you know that I don't? I've read books about UFOs. I've read books about chakras, and Aura's and psychics. I know about all that stuff, probably as much as you. I'm not interested in those topics because there isn't any more to learn...with evidence and without something to get me past the incredulity (and it doesn't help that most of the Woo Woos who push that stuff are obviously out the make a buck), its all a dead end to me.

Do I want to hear even more about Anal probes, and gray, big eyed men, and splicing Alien/human DNA, and quick moving lights? Pffffft...uh no (altough..I probably would be interested in where and what the lights look like, lol). At a party, I would rather get to know people, learn about their relationships.... and maybe be stimulated. When I was single, then I was all about the chicks

"Yes the same kind of ridicule you see here in this thread, and not just against me. Any believer is fair game for ridicule because the atheist who come here have already concluded that it is stupid to think in such a way"

You made statements. You were challenged. The ridicule is an unfortunate by product of my delicious, somehwhat sarcastic (and dare I say, creative?) wit.


"But don't think that tI am offended by any of this because I am not."

Good, no offense was intended on my part.

"I am secure in what I know and what I don't know and I take no offense even when it is intended."

No, you are not. You don't know anything about science or scientists (or math, apparently), and you act like you do.


"Others may be run off with intimidation but not me, I am not going any where and you will just have to put me on ignore if i piss you off that much."

I would not put you on ignore. I do not expect you to be intimidated, because that is not my intention.


"But I have never put someone on ignore and I never will because I long ago developed a callous right where it rubs against intimidation. "

Um...okay.


Edited: My spelling sucks...how did I pass English?

[zeemike]

199. OK you win I am defeated by your Superior knowledge

I could never expect you to understand what I mean by two is one for each hand, it is way to stupid a thing for your shining brilliance.
But I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across some deep sea.
Does that grovel enough before your shining light of wisdom?
And boy did you zap me with that elliptical orbit thing. I always thought everything in the universe rotated in an exact circle, but now I know it doesn't.
So from now on I will tremble and shake when I see you post for fear of further humiliation at you wondrous mind and you brilliance.
So to any religious lurkers out there or ones that think you understand what I mean by one for each hand stay away form the religious forum unless you want to be humiliated by our own supper scientific intellects that rule over us all.

[charlie]

202. For reference

Rabrrrrrr is a religious man. It seems you've managed to confound him too.

[Rabrrrrrr]

203. You are 100% correct!

I am indeed a religious man. AND deeply, deeply confounded by zeemike.

confounded is, in fact, the perfect word for this one. Good choice!

:shrug:

I am at a loss, even though I have two hands; which fact of having two hands is somehow an important matter in this conversation, though the reason for its import eludes me; and which reason, even if it were offered, would surely only compound my being confounded.

[Evoman]

204. I AM I AM.. A VERY RELIGIOUS MAN

Have you ever seen Nacho libre? There is a song in that movie that you just reminded me of!

[Rabrrrrrr]

206. LOL! No, I didn't - it's on my list of "movies to see"

which list seems to grow longer every week since I never have time to sit down and actually watch a @*(%&# movie....

[cyborg_jim]

207. He seems to think counting is a fundamentally profound thing

But he cannot say why.

"Look, I have two hands!"

"Um, great."

"And ten fingers!"

"Um, great."

"And the Earth is the third planet from the Sun!"

"Uh, huh."

"And that is why mathematics is a pure science."

"Um, no."

*WHINES OFF INTO THE DISTANCE*

[zeemike]

213. I haven't gone anywhere

And I don't plan to.
And just because you fail to see how profound this creation really is dose not bother me. Your view of the world does me no harm, and so welcome to it. but don't expect me to pretend that it is correct to avoid the ridicule that comes with it.

Some men see things as they are and ask why
I see things that never were and ask why not?

[cyborg_jim]

215. So your failure to communicate cogently is my fault?

but don't expect me to pretend that it is correct to avoid the ridicule that comes with it.

Here's the real puzzler for me; how does the 'profound' nature of counting lead you on to all the other stuff you were espousing earlier? I just don't see the connection.

Some men see things as they are and ask why
I see things that never were and ask why not?

And some people think poetry is an adequate substitute for meaning.

[zeemike]

217. I know you don't see the connection

Because you never let it go beyond calling it just counting.
We could have talked about how the concept of 0 and infinity is on the one hand imposable yet very real and even necessary.

And poetry is just the music of words, but I can accommodate you and hum it to myself. .

[cyborg_jim]

219. Round and round we go

Because you never let it go beyond calling it just counting.

Okay... I'm letting go... now what?

We could have talked about how the concept of 0 and infinity is on the one hand imposable yet very real and even necessary.

The concepts are impossible? Really. Explain cogently.

They are real and necessary? Really. Explain cogently.

And poetry is just the music of words,

I don't sing in conversations. It's distracting.

[zeemike]

221. I'll just cut and past the question again

Because I have to go.

And so then tell me about 0 and infinity.
Are no the things with 0 nameless then because they are 0? if it has a name or an number it cannot be truly a 0
And can we name something in this universe that is infinite in number? Or are all things by nature finite and if so what is the largest number?
Or are 0 and infinity the same thing?

[cyborg_jim]

225. Semantic games again

Are no the things with 0 nameless then because they are 0? if it has a name or an number it cannot be truly a 0

A duck has zero hands.

What the hell is your problem with that?

And can we name something in this universe that is infinite in number?

The amount of time it takes to reach the end of a circle.

Or are all things by nature finite and if so what is the largest number?

There is no largest number. Physical limits are irrelevant to the mathematics but you will not listen to this simple fact.

Or are 0 and infinity the same thing?

FUCKING NO!

[zeemike]

229. I ask a tough question and you play word games

What is wrong with it?
First if a duck had hands it would not be a duck but something else
Secondly given the thousands of generations of ducks living on just this earth there is no way to say that one or more ducks at some time through mutation did not have hands.
And finally the imaginary duck with hands you created for this answer is one and so the answer may have been 0 but now it is 1, the imaginary one you created.

And so you think the earth will revolve around the sun forever?

To say it will take infinite time to travel around in a circle you must have a circle that will last for an infant amount of time, and an object to travel around it must also last forever. can you name one of those?

[Rabrrrrrr]

223. I do not fail to see the profundity of the universe - it is awe-inspiring in its beauty

and beyond descriptive words. It is profound, sublime, and so wondrous as to make grown men cry, and to make artists to give up their art knowing that they shall never create anything so stupendous and thrilling and terrible and spectacular as this universe, and yet it's very breathtaking extraordinariness compels them to try to match it.

That still doesn't make math a science, though. Math is a language, a tool - used to describe things. But it is not a science, and it does not, in and of itself, offer any relevant meaning to the universe beyond the meaning we ourselves put into the symbology used in mathematics.

I'm sorry, zeemike, but just because I know that mathematics is not a science does not mean that i do not see profundity in the universe (and let me offer here that I am an electrical engineer, degree from an excellent private college, with a shitload of physics background, including extra studies in quantum mechanics and astrophysics: so trust me, I know math and science; and I know that they are not the same).

A golf club is not golf: it is the tool used to play golf. Mathematics is the tool that scientists use. But it is not science. How many times do we have to go around this little merry-go-round before you get that through your head? If we accept what you are saying about mathematics as a science, then we are forced to also conclude that German is a science, stop signs are a science, and Universal Product Codes are a science. And surely even you see how fucking ignorant that is?

[zeemike]

230. Well we can agree to disagree on that point

But I do maintain that Math is a science and is the Father of science really.
From the time that man realized that all things are numbered and could be measured it became the only science that could reach out and describe the world beyond there basic observations.
It is more than just a golf club to a golfer, because it can read the green, measure the distances tell the angle and imagine golf courses never built.
As for me I have always been interested in physics and have training as an electronic tec. but that was in the time of vacuum tubes which you may have never seen and are now just relics of the past.
I don't have any degrees to justify myself with but I am well read from the age of abut ten I read every science and science fiction book the library had. And the one that impressed me most was called One Two Three infinity. Can';t remember the author though.
So don't worry I can't trump you with a superior degree.

[cyborg_jim]

232. You maintain what you like

But I do maintain that Math is a science and is the Father of science really.

You have still not answered the question:

does 1+1=2 tell us that the Earth is the third planet from the sun?

Is there any maths that can?

Maths is the tool upon which science rests but it cannot TELL us anything about the world we inhabit. It is the construct we have created to describe the OBSERVATIONS we can make.

From the time that man realized that all things are numbered and could be measured it became the only science that could reach out and describe the world beyond there basic observations.

That is why we have a set of numbers called the 'Natural' numbers. As is classic with the woo woos you take an idea and you run with it until you support all kinds of nonsense with it.

And the one that impressed me most was called One Two Three infinity.

There is a saying in Computer Science:

Two is an impossible number.

I don't take the implications father than their scope though - this seems to be the exercise you are engaging in.

[zeemike]

236. If earth is the x planet from the sun

Then solve for x in any math system you chose. Would your math system add another planet or take one away to make it a different outcome?
Or does your system just add phantom planets and say that it proves that earth is actually the 5th planet if you count the phantom ones.
It is amazing to me that you can see this in Math but fail to be able to grasp that there is another dimension to matter that is unseen and unknown to you. But it does show that it is not for lack accepting imaginary things, because you readily do so in Mathematics at least when is serves your porpoise.

[cyborg_jim]

238. I cannot

Then solve for x in any math system you chose.

I cannot solve an algebraic question of that form. You cannot either. Mathematics can't tell you shit.

Would your math system add another planet or take one away to make it a different outcome?

NO! That's why mathematics can't tell you shit!

Or does your system just add phantom planets and say that it proves that earth is actually the 5th planet if you count the phantom ones.

If it does and we look up at the sky and notice there are no planets then the mathematics we've chosen must be WRONG!

MATH TELLS US SHIT ABOUT THE REAL WORLD.

It is amazing to me that you can see this in Math but fail to be able to grasp that there is another dimension to matter that is unseen and unknown to you.

What the fuck are you talking about?

But it does show that it is not for lack accepting imaginary things, because you readily do so in Mathematics at least when is serves your porpoise.

I can only conclude one of these three:

1) I have not made my point sufficiently clear
2) You are purposely being dense
3) You are an idiot

My 'purpose' is simply to demonstrate the fact that you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT FUCKING USE MATHEMATICS TO GAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THE REAL WORLD IF YOUR MATHEMATICS IS NOT RELATED TO THE REAL WORLD!

[zeemike]

240. Tell that to the builders of old

When they use Math and the knowledge of the 3-4-5-triangle to make there buildings square
Or the use of triangulation to measure the hight of distant mountains make maps and so forth.
Or Einstein who predicted the property of light correctly with nothing but mathematics.
But this is just counting to you?

[cyborg_jim]

244. And still you will not listen

Or Einstein who predicted the property of light correctly with nothing but mathematics.

I am certain you will not comprehend this but I will try again anyway - my generosity and patience in this matter being sorely extended.

BEFORE Einstein did his work there were OTHER equations. There was therefore ANOTHER set of mathematics that described the universe that told us things - but it was WRONG about certain things which is why it had to be CHANGED.

Mathematics IS THE MAP.

THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY.

Do you understand or not? I do not know if I can make it any simpler than that.

[zeemike]

246. For your reading pleasure

http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/misc/mathsci.html

[cyborg_jim]

248. Did you read your own fucking article?

The basic problem is that one can be confident of a fact derived by mathematical methods only to the extent that the mathematical object being considered is an accurate model of the relevant parts of the universe.

THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING YOU MORON.

[zeemike]

252. Yes I read it

It is by a moron that treats the question as serious and never once uses the term of moron stupid uniformed to make the point
But you have the last word and it is MORON

[cyborg_jim]

253. Then on ignore you go

I have failed.

[Rabrrrrrr]

254. Wow - that completely disproves your nonsensical hypothesis!

Thanks for posting your own refutation.

[zeemike]

256. Don't worry, I never expected you to get it

Yes she presented her argument well but never once did she refer to the other side as ignorant stupid or delusional. She did not need to tear the other side down to make here point.
Now just read back in this long thread to see something very different.

[Evoman]

257. Polite or not, rude or not. Your still wrong.

[zeemike]

260. The end justifies the means? n/t

[Evoman]

261. Dude, you started the argument.

But in this case, yes. The end of getting some semblance of truth through your thick skull was worth it.

[Rabrrrrrr]

258. If I "didn't get it", then why do you say that I got it?

And who cares how she feels or what she said about the other side? It has nothing to do with the argument at hand, which is that you assert - and have asserted ad nauseum, mind you, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary - that mathematics is a science.

Whether she called the other side boneheads or not doesn't matter, because the other side - your side, the side of claiming that mathematics is a science - is just plain wrong.

[zeemike]

259. The difference between you and her is

That she treats other peoples opinions with respect and you do not.
In the first paragraph she admits that they have there points and proceeds to give hers.
And that is what you don't get, that when even talking bout such unimportant things as d=definitions of words it is not necessary to insult the other side to win.

[zeemike]

211. Would you have been confounded if instead I had used Pi

Two hands is a a simple example of a constant
, one that everyone knows and is common to all men even the cave man had that concept down
Pi is also a constant and no matter what form of expression or math system is used it does not change. you cannot change the measurement of things in this universe by simply inventing a system that describes it differently.

[cyborg_jim]

214. And if I cut a hand off?

And again with the education...

Pi is also a constant and no matter what form of expression or math system is used it does not change.

The value of PI arises from axiomatic mathematical constructs. Change the axioms and that ratio that it represents also changes.

Mathematics does not have to reflect reality.

you cannot change the measurement of things in this universe by simply inventing a system that describes it differently.

You do not understand. I wish you would listen.

NO, you CANNOT change measurements. THAT is what science is about. HOWEVER mathematics DOES NOT GIVE A CRAP! If I want to describe a universe where gravity increases with distance I can do that. If I want to describe a universe where parallel lines intersect I can also do that.

At best you are saying that the mathematics of counting is the purest science - but since the descriptive ability of counting as far as constructing useful physical models is limited that's not saying a whole lot.

So I must ask again: just what the hell is it you find so significant about counting? Rattling off random examples of numbered things does not significant mathematics make.

[zeemike]

220. Mathematics does not have to reflect reality.

Then science does not have to reflect reality ether right?

And so then tell me about 0 and infinity.
Are no the things with 0 nameless then because they are 0? if it has a name or an number it cannot be truly a 0
And can we name something in this universe that is infinite in number? Or are all things by nature finite and if so what is the largest number?
Or are 0 and infinity the same thing?

[cyborg_jim]

226. No

Then science does not have to reflect reality ether right?

Not if you get it wrong.

Skip your blather I have already addressed. You are impressed by the silliest things the woo woos come out with aren't you?

[Rabrrrrrr]

224. If you define PI on a curved surface, its value is likely not 3.14159...

A triangle on a curved surface can have angles that add up to more than 180 degrees as well.

Perpendicular lines in spherical geometry intersect each other twice.

[zeemike]

227. That is the same as a man with one hand

You would not be dealing with the properties of a circle. constants are only constant if things are the same.

[cyborg_jim]

228. As I said

PI is a ratio of two properties derived from the axioms - if they axioms are changed then so does the ratio.

You need to stop getting your mathematical insights from the woo woos.

Maybe start by understanding what an axiomatic system is.

[zeemike]

231. And if you changed the axioms it would not be a constant

We are talking about the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle, you know simple math. But you can change that and come up with a different number for sure.

[cyborg_jim]

233. You fail to get the point

If I changed the axioms it would still be a constant FOR THAT SYSTEM.

There are an infinite amount of mathematical systems that can be constructed. They do not all have relevance in the natural world.

[zeemike]

235. How is it that you are willing to bring up

Mathematical systems that have no relevance to the natural world but will only consider theories that conform to what you know of the natural world.?

[cyborg_jim]

237. Your 'theories' only do not conform to the natural world

Despite your continual insistence otherwise they cannot be shown to even exist in the natural world.

Like I said before:

Why should I bother reading theories on psi until it is actually shown to exist? Why should I entertain theories on how people live on beyond death until it is shown that they do? How can reading religious books give me an insight into god if there is no god?

Show first. Bitch later.

[zeemike]

241. Why bother reading any theories until proved true

Why bother reading about the big bang if it can never be proved true
Why bother reading about the theories of evolution which has not been proved true (no matter how much you protest that it has) it too is still a theory, but one you have FAITH in and so you act like it is proved and anyone that disagrees with your act of faith is stupid for not believing in it.
Does that sound familiar to you? It should because it is the SAME as the fundies believe; That anyone that does not accept there faith in god is wrong or stupid.

Now I am not trying to change this to talking about the theory of evolution unless you have PROOF that it is no longer a theory. And as of today I have not heard any headlines that say "The Theory of Evolution is proved True"
So why do you consider some theories true and others trash. could it be that some are approved by the elite intellectuals and others or not?

[cyborg_jim]

243. Jezee, now we have evolution denial to add to the list

I'm glad you failed to listen to me. It really helps the progression here.

Why bother reading about the theories of evolution which has not been proved true (no matter how much you protest that it has) it too is still a theory, but one you have FAITH in and so you act like it is proved and anyone that disagrees with your act of faith is stupid for not believing in it.

Oh man, your misunderstanding of science is even deeper than previously thought. Do I dare to take this road? Do I bother to point out that science cannot prove anything true? Could you even understand the metaphysical reasons why? Should I waste my time trying to explain the terminological abuse you engage in? (Gravity is after all, 'just' a theory).

I am almost certain it would be a waste of time because you do not listen - either due to an inability or complete refusal.

It is not a matter of preference as to which 'theories' are scientific and which are not - which seems to be your attitude. There are rules that must be obeyed and all the woo woo you are pushing not only does not follow them it actively avoids them because following the rules would lead to the destruction of the ideas - and when you base what you decide is true on what you want to be the case real science is a very threatening thing.

So why do you consider some theories true and others trash. could it be that some are approved by the elite intellectuals and others or not?

Ah jealousy. This is why you latch onto these ideas - as I said before it is so satisfying to believe that you have some knowledge that the 'elite intelectuals' cannot. Your arrogance is quite astounding in this matter - no matter how many times you are clearly demonstrated to be wrong you will not stop digging that hole of ignorance.

No zeemike, I do not base some theories true and others trash based on the people presenting them; that is what you do (science is not about the people, it is about the process) - intellectual people are no less able to spew out utter nonsense than anyone else; if anything their intelligence makes them far better at it.

I do not listen to the ideas you present because they are without merit. They are fantasies. They have no evidence. Until that changes my attitude to them will not either.

That you cannot accept this simple fact is not my problem. I have spent a good deal of time trying to educate you on this matter but you are so enthralled with your beliefs that you refuse to listen. You are closed minded.

[zeemike]

245. "Could you even understand the metaphysical reasons why?"

I thought I Was trying to explain the metaphysical reasons why.

"There are rules that must be obeyed "

And that is where we part. I believe in freedom, intellectual freedom, academic freedom, and the freedom to think as far out of the box as one can, or wants to, without having to deal with those that would pull you down and make you obey the rules and chain your creative mind.
But most of all we should have freedom from having it made a personal thing; Imparting motives, confusing confidence in an idea with arrogance, And as always the threat of being thought ignorant.

But that may be for a reason; it may be blowup time, or long past, and i have not blown up yet and said things about you that were clearly nasty.
That is how Blowup is suppose to work. ( I get this term from a book written a while back called The Games People Play) You accuse me I accuse you back, then we blow up and we never have to talk about any of this again.
Some after a good blowout like make up post and that seems to satisfy
something in them that feels like good.

"I do not listen to the ideas you present because they are without merit. They are fantasies. They have no evidence."

No evidence that you will accept, and so that makes you the judge as well as the attorney representing the state. How would you feel if the lawyer on the other side of your case was also the judge and could reject any evidence you presented, Does that sound like a fair trial even for an idea?

[cyborg_jim]

249. Yeah right.

I thought I Was trying to explain the metaphysical reasons why.

Very funny.

And that is where we part. I believe in freedom, intellectual freedom, academic freedom, and the freedom to think as far out of the box as one can, or wants to, without having to deal with those that would pull you down and make you obey the rules and chain your creative mind.

Boo fucking hoo. There are rules for a reason in science. You follow the rules because otherwise you cannot have any confidence in your conclusions.

Science has proven itself. I really wish people who can't see that would get the fuck off the Internet until they gain the proper respect for the science that made it possible.

You are perfectly free to have any crazy fucking ideas you like but you cannot expect anyone to seriously believe that they have anything to do with reality until you show that it is the case.

You accuse me I accuse you back, then we blow up and we never have to talk about any of this again.

The only reason I am likely to stop and put you on ignore is not because of any sense of this being personal but because I do not think I can stand talking to a brick wall for much longer.

But most of all we should have freedom from having it made a personal thing; Imparting motives, confusing confidence in an idea with arrogance, And as always the threat of being thought ignorant.

There is nothing wrong with ignorance but your refusal to rectify it with knowledge from people who are demonstratively more knowledgeable than you is a cardinal sin.

Your confidence in the woo woos is misplaced. You'd be best off not listening to their lies.

No evidence that you will accept, and so that makes you the judge as well as the attorney representing the state. How would you feel if the lawyer on the other side of your case was also the judge and could reject any evidence you presented, Does that sound like a fair trial even for an idea?

You ignorant ass - even in a court of law there are standards which evidence must adhere to. You can't just present any old crap and call it 'evidence'.

Shall I add ignorance of legal systems to your list?

The real analogy here is that you want to be able to present, "feelings", "ideas" and "possibilities" as evidence. I'd be pretty fucking pissed off if a court allowed that whilst I have to provide solid facts to dismiss them. This is precisely what you are demanding.

Does that sound fair to you? You get to make up any crazy idea you like without any proof and I have to disprove it?!

[zeemike]

251. You have the last word n/t

[Rabrrrrrr]

234. I quit - I can only assume you are deliberately wasting our time playing games.

No one could possibly hold to the bullshit you're spewing, so I can only assume that you are pulling a prank by intentionally arguing nonsense.

Good job - you led us on for a couple days. :applause:

[Silent3]

239. The scary thing out there on these "internets"...

...is that there are enough people out there who are so whacked that it's very hard sometimes to tell the genuine wackos apart from the deliberate parodies.

While arguing with zeemike looks like a complete waste of time no matter what the true story behind his/her posts is, it's sadly true that there are real people out there who actually think like that, in a tangled mish-mash of "logic" which is little more than loose word association. Trying to get these people to follow and/or present a coherent train of thought is harder than trying to nail jello to a tree.

[zeemike]

242. Nail Jello to a tree

I like that
It proves that you do have some creative thoughts after all. I thought i was dealing with people that had had all of that kind of thinking destroyed by the fear of being ridiculed for something stupid like the concept of nailing Jello to a tree.

[Evoman]

247. Its jealousy. That is what this is all about. You are jealous of us.

These sorts of attacks:

"I thought i was dealing with people that had had all of that kind of thinking destroyed by the fear of being ridiculed for something stupid like the concept of nailing Jello to a tree"

Lol..your no more creative than the rest of us. Not a bit. But you need to think so, so that you feel better about yourself. It must burn you that not only are some of us--and I use the term sardonically--"intellectually elite", but just as creative as you. You have not demonstrated that you are more creative than any of us. All you have demonstrated, my friend, is your ignorance, and a close-mindedness that is frankly disturbing and borders on pathological.

Maybe in another thread we can have a coherent conversation. In fact, I look forward to it. But I am done here. You are embarrasing yourself, and I will play no further part in that (lol...although I'm pretty damn easy to push for a response). Bye.

[zeemike]

250. You have the last word n/t

[Evoman]

255. Okay.

Last word.

[Zhade]

145. "a kind of carbon bigotry" - man, you have a way with phrases!

I've found your arguments (which demolish those of believers in magical toasters exquisitely, btw) to be very astute and convincing.

Good job fighting the good fight!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Maya

is a term from Hinduism, I believe, that refers to the world of illusion. Haz. Inayat Khan, founder of my Sufi order, once said that when people look back on their life from the other side they will view it as "an interesting dream".

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. What is truth?

I certainly do not claim that I have the ultimate truth on the makeup of the universe, and I daresay that atheists as a rule don't either-I think we can both agree that science is discovering new laws and new ways in which matter and energy act. I choose to call All That Is God; atheists call it by other names, be it nature, matter and energy, etc. Perhaps delusion comes in when someone believes that all the answers about God's existance or non existance are already known.

[Meshuga]

6. "Delusion" - depends on the context

A delusion can be a "false belief or opinion" so I see it as being okay for an atheist to say the word "delusion" in that context. But when people use the word delusion in the context that someone has a mental illness for believing in something then I see a problem, obviously.

Perhaps I am not a strong theist since I don't see atheist as being deluded. If my beliefs were proven as being facts then I would consider the person with the disbelief as being deluded. But my belief is something that I can't prove it's a fact nor do I need to prove to anyone it is a fact.

[Lerkfish]

8. well, lessee. If I say atheists "believe" differently from me, I'll get a bunch

of posts complaining about the word "belief", and attempting to correct it.
And I respect that, I think any group should be referred to as they prefer.
I think there's a difference between saying "My point of view differs from yours" and saying "you're delusional".
I DO see a lot of threads like this one, by atheists, insisting they have every right to use the words "delusional", "irrational", "fairy tales", etc.
It would seem you wish to continue using these labels, even though theists have requested you do not.
I"m not sure where that leaves us. You wish to control the labels used by theists, but also wish to freedom to use whichever negative label you wish against theists.

It comes down to a fundamental lack of respect.


I respect atheists, but I don't think they perceive their own hypocrisy on this labeling issue.

[trotsky]

10. Right, Lerkfish. Just saying the word "believe" gets us upset.

Exaggerate much?

You know very well anyone comparing religious belief to "fairy tales" is violating the rules, so why the whining?

[Lerkfish]

12. I stand completely by what I just said. No exaggeration.

:shrug; I"ve experienced it firsthand. I will not deny my experience to make you feel better.

[trotsky]

13. As I have experienced genuine insults by believers.

I don't see how one side is superior, whereas somehow you do.

[Lerkfish]

14. no, you denied one side did anything, I never made any such denials

when I called you on it, you said "both sides do it".

:shrug:

I have EXPLICITLY pointed out I respect atheism and other religions. I do not feel superior in any way.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lerkfish]

16. my apologies for bad wording, if I've offended you I immediately apologize

when I said "atheism and other religions" I meant atheism APART from other religions, as in not a religion.

probably better stated as "other religions, and atheism".

I really don't understand your hostility towards me, its personal and inappropriate. I must have struck a nerve by pointing out flaws in your logic. But to the extent I have ever offended you, I apologize.
Please reread my posts in this thread, your anger is woefully misplaced.

but, at the same time, by your false example, if an atheist gets upset at being referred as a religion, wouldn't it be better if I respect that wish and reframed my language, if that was my intent? The difference seems to be that here many atheists refuse to reframe the labels "delusional" and "irrational" no matter how many requests are made accordingly.

[cosmik debris]

17. Help me understand

Are you saying that faith is rational? Or are you saying that atheists should be polite enough not to point out that it is irrational? Or are you saying that you would prefer a different label such as non-rational or differently rational enabled.

How can atheists note the fact that faith has no basis in fact without knocking the chip off of your shoulder?

[Lerkfish]

21. do you ask out of a desire to be sensitive to me, or to make a point that

you have no intention to be sensitive to me?

Certainly, you're saying you can see of no way to change your labeling, and then push the onus back on me for having a "chip on my shoulder".

Would there be something wrong with using language that is NOT incendiary? "irrational" and "delusional" imply mental illness, rather than a difference of opinion. Are you able to understand that?

:shrug:

[cosmik debris]

23. I asked questions

You provided no answers. You just questioned my motives. If you have no answers, I will understand, but as long as you are implying that I am at fault for asking, I have to assume that you are just looking for a fight.

[Lerkfish]

26. your questions were loaded, as you're fully aware.

the basis of the question is still "how should we refer to irrational people, then" and claimed I had a chip on my shoulder.

I tire of explaining this to you.

I already have. reread my posts. I am precisely doing the OPPOSITE of looking for a fight. I'm requesting a respectful reframing of the way some people label other people in order to AVOID discord.

If that means I'm looking for a fight, then I have no idea what to tell you.

[cosmik debris]

28. So, is it fair to say

that you believe that no mention should ever be made of the notion that faith has no basis in fact?

If that is not your position, how can that subject be discussed without giving offense? What words or phrases should be used?

[Lerkfish]

31. There are words which carry negative connotations.

and a great deal of the time, they are more so in certain contexts.
If you wish to discuss whether a religion is based on fact, or faith, that is a valid discussion. To call believers delusional or irrational is no longer discussing the basis of the religion, but is making judgmental negative remarks about those who adhere to that religion.

Is this really that difficult to understand?

[cosmik debris]

33. You still offer no options

You only impugn my motives. But that's not being offensive Nooooo!:sarcasm:

[Lerkfish]

34. actually, I just did, you just missed it.

I said you can discuss whether a religion is fact or faith base, which allows you to discuss whether there is any factual basis or not.

that is different from calling someone delusional. I've explained this over and over in different ways. I provide an analogy about chiropractors further down the thread. Perhaps that will be more helpful.

[trotsky]

18. The "nerve" you struck

was implying that somehow believers have been far more respectful in their use of language - surely not for any attempt you've made to point out "flaws" in my logic. And trust me, I doubt you've ever seen me angry, no matter how much you would apparently like to assign me that emotion right now. Perhaps in an attempt to distract from the flaws in your logic?

You flat-out exaggerated in your initial post. Atheists don't cringe at the words "believe" or "belief" - what (this one at least) doesn't particularly care for is referring to atheism as a "religious belief" in and of itself. Or a religion - which you then later did.

I suggest that if you have a problem with an individual's use of words, that you confront that individual and not me, or another atheist, as a surrogate.

[Lerkfish]

24. i pointed out your misperception and even reworded it for clarity, yet

you insist on clinging to that misperception. I was not referring to atheism as a religion, and explained myself on that, end of story.
For you to still take umbrage, even after I apologized and clarified, is counterproductive.

I did not exaggerate in my intial post, every thing I mentioned I have experienced here, INCLUDING those referring to my religion as a fairy tale.

My attempt at posting was to highlight what I see as a basic problem: many atheists here request certain semantics used or not used in labeling them...and I concur that is a good thing, we should all be labeled as we wish. However, as this thread demonstrates, many atheists refuse to even consider dropping the labels of "delusional" or "irrational", even when requested to do so. They still DO take umbrage at labels about themselves they consider unfair or inaccurate.

[trotsky]

47. I know the game you're trying to play, Lerkfish.

I'm not interested in playing it. If someone calls your religion a fairy tale, alert on them. I haven't done that, not even in the post that you got deleted - for which I have yet to get an explanation. Again I say, pick on the atheists who are saying the things you don't like, not the atheists with whom you apparently have a bone to pick.

[Lerkfish]

48. not playing a game, trying to achieve mutual respect.

but whatever.

[cain_7777]

54. Your wasting your time

I got into a debate with this guy and he had my posts deleted and blocked me too. He kept trying to play games and frame my aurgument as genocide when I was speaking of cultural change over generations in context of religion disapearing as people became more educated. People who try to frame a discusion of a shrinking religious population due to education as genocide are clearly among the delusional. If he has a problem with being called delusional then he should base his beliefs on reality rather than a book that could have been more factual if written by the Grimm brothers.

[Lerkfish]

56. apparently I'm the cause of all evil in the forum for asking for respect?

who knew?

:shrug:

btw: I don't recall whatever it is you're referring to, so I suppose it had a larger impact on you than me.

If you were offended, I apologize.

[cain_7777]

80. Its your pompous hollier than thou snide remarks

How can you expect someone to respect you when you talk down to everyone. Look at your tone towards Trotsky. You come off ass a pompous ass and then ask for respect. Furthermore, my intellect allows me to remember most conversations I have as opposed to your conceited belief of having an impact on anyone. Get over yourself :puke:

[Lerkfish]

90. thanks. may I post this over in the mea culpa thread?

I apologize for any offense I've caused you.

[cain_7777]

97. No

You don't offend me. You just annoy me and your self flagellation with your false appologies in your mea culpa post are as pompous as the rest of your posts. Its not that you are a theist or we hate you but rather your false accusations against people and your extremely conceited tone. We (atheists) give respect to those who are deserving of respect. Example: T-rex grannie always recieved respect from us because she argued her points without all the crap that you try to pull. She was extremely religious but also understood the meaning of hubris.

[Lerkfish]

100. ok, but my apologies are not false.

thanks.

I really am sorry that I've offended people, and I take full responsibility for doing so.

I'm sorry you think I'm pompous, and I'm sorry if that offends you.

but may I humbly suggest, if you cannot get past it, to put me on ignore and move on with your life?

If it makes you feel any better, after the mea culpa has its chance for everyone to be apologized to, I'll move on myself.

I encounter more scrapes in this forum than in the others, so for the sake of everyone's well being, I'm trying to make things right, do the right thing, and then move on.

Thanks for your comments.

[cain_7777]

106. I tried to help you but I give up

"may I humbly suggest, if you cannot get past it, to put me on ignore and move on with your life?"-lurfish My life is not put on hold because of a simple post by you. I am trying to help you so you can have a healthy debate here on DU but you are blind to your actions. I have repeatedly stated what you are doing as many people have tried to help you but everything has been in vain. goodluck and I never block anyone as you seem to. Maybe in the future we can try again

[Lerkfish]

107. I wasn't asking for your help, but thanks.

I'm actually waking up to my actions and trying to do something about it.
Thanks for UNblinding me.

its not in vain, You've held up an ugly mirror and I have looked in it. I don't like what I see.
I'm going to work on it.

I'm trying to atone for what I saw in that mirror. :shrug:

I guess I'm done talking to you about it. take care.

[Evoman]

85. Respect? You have to give respect to get it back.

Do you remember accusing me of lying? I may still be able to find that thread. Did you ever apologize to me for accusing me of editing my post and that your reply to me, mean as it was, was misconstrued because of my edit? I still remember that...I remember that I proved that I had edited my post 5 seconds after my first response, and 27 minutes before yours. You did not respond to me, nor did you apologize for your accusations. You accused me of lying, then left with your tail between your legs.

I remember EVERY time someone accuses me of being a liar. I let it go...I did not mention it again, and if you look at your last couple of entanglements with me, you will see that I have treated you with nothing but respect. I realize I make an ass out of myself, so why not give others some leniency.

But this is too much. You accuse others of being disrespectful. Beam in your eye, and all that.

[Lerkfish]

86. well, as long as I shouldn't take it personally.

please. continue. let it all out.

cleanse yourself of your hatred of me....purge youself of your contempt. Work it out of your system.

I guess I thought I was pounced on here because I'm a theist. My mistake.
It appears its just calling me out personally.

I will, right here and now, apologize for any offense i gave you or that you felt.
I don't recall the incident so it wasn't even a blip on your radar. you should really let it go and get on with your life.
There are more important things, honestly.

MEA CULPA. I apologize for all the vile things I committed against you that I don't recall. In fact, in the interest of peace, I'll start a mea culpa thread so you all can get rid of this bile in your throat once and for all.

[Lerkfish]

87. please, do find the thread. I don't remember it> I've posted a mea culpa

thread. I'm apologizing to you know and profusely to everyone else.

I thought I was treating people with respect, but I admit I sometimes get aggravated.

MY APOLOGIES.

[Evoman]

94. Your apology is accepted. Thank you.

And in case you really are curious, here is the thread.

But bygones...we are okay now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=79499

[Lerkfish]

95. thanks.

:)

[Lerkfish]

96. ah, thanks. I had completely forgotten about that.

again, I apologize. but in rereading it, I agree the accusation was bad on my part, but the other posts I had in the thread were not so egregious, I don't think.

I think I was attempting to make some good points, but then I got aggravated. I think that is my failing. I can get my blood pressure up and then I don't post as intelligently or respectfully.

ah well, that certainly deserves an apology.

[cain_7777]

89. Is he two feet tall because it seems as though everything just goes right over his head?

"I remember that I proved that I had edited my post 5 seconds after my first response, and 27 minutes before yours." -Evoman
I can back that up because I read Lurkfish accusing you of editting the post after he had responded and I informed him of the time stamp, but alas he had me on his ignore list. This whole mea culpa crap is just juvenile.

[Lerkfish]

92. thanks for your comment.

actually, I'm 6'4" and 300 lbs. I wish I weighed less, but alas.

I apologize for any offense I may have caused you.

and I'm even sorrier you think apologizing is juvenile.

[cain_7777]

102. again you miss the point

"I'm even sorrier you think apologizing is juvenile."-Lurkfish

You do this in all your posts and this is the reason people get pissed at you. Apologizing is not juvenile but your conceited false apologies are. You have a lot of good points when you are debating but they get lost under all the spin and crap you spew with it.

[Lerkfish]

103. thanks. I apologize.

I'm trying to do the right thing here.

Thanks for your patience while I work on that.

[Lerkfish]

93. I apologize for any offense I've caused you.

sorry.

[Zhade]

146. Atheism is not "another religion".

I think your sentence is a bit awkward - while I know that you know that atheism is not a religion but the lack of one, it reads otherwise.

Just a friendly composition tip!

[Chorophyll]

9. Actually I don't think anyone is "wrong."

I'm a theist, albeit a recent one. I would never argue with an atheist that he or she is wrong. I can't prove the existence of god, and I respect everyone's opinion as long as they don't try to shove it down my throat.

That's why I get a little annoyed at words like "delusion," etc.

[cosmik debris]

11. It is my opinion that we all believe delusions

I just prefer to believe MY delusions rather than the ones fed to me by people who want my money or my obedience. I know my own motives, I don't know the motives of those feeding me THEIR delusions.

[Chorophyll]

111. I think you're unfairly conflating belief with nasty forms

of organized religion. I believe in god, but I have absolutely no need for you to agree with me, and I sure as hell don't want your money or your obedience. I have been "witnessed to" and "evangelized" and I'm sickened by that crap. I understand your antipathy toward believers, but we're not all the same. Or even remotely similar.

I must add that judging by my brief sojourn here in Religion/Theology, theists are expected to tread more lightly than atheists. Maybe this is because atheists are the minority in real life as opposed to here at DU(?).

[cyborg_jim]

112. It is more...

...that expecting automatic deference to your opinion should not be expected. It seems may theists at DU have the opinion that R/T is not a debate forum and that atheists should have nothing to say on these issues.

I for one am perfectly happy to fight my corner. I feel no need to be coddled.

[Chorophyll]

113. I, for one, don't expect automatic deference to my opinion.

I don't expect to have to defer to yours, either.

[cyborg_jim]

114. Excellent

I would not expect any less.

[cosmik debris]

115. Why so defensive? And why make it personal?

I never mentioned you or your posts and I never implied that you were feeding me your delusions. You read a lot into my post that just wasn't there.

[Chorophyll]

116. I wasn't just speaking on my own behalf.

I know you weren't attacking me personally. But I have noticed a tendency among nonbelievers to lump the believers into one big delusional clusterf*ck.

And believe me, my delusions are my own. And no, god doesn't mind if I cuss. :hi:

[cosmik debris]

117. I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

I made a statement about people who try to feed me their delusion.

You responded that I am conflating belief with organized religion. In fact I didn't mention belief or organized religion.

Are you defending those who try to feed me their delusions?

Are you associating yourself or anyone else with that group?

I just don't understand your point or how it relates to what I said.

[Evoman]

118. Put together any sentence and someone will be insulted.

Its weird.

[cyborg_jim]

119. It's weird

*Insulted Grammar Nazi*

[Chorophyll]

120. Okay.

In your statement about people who try to feed you their delusion, you made reference to those who would demand your money and your obedience.

Since the topic of this thread is delusion, and since we are in the Religion/Theology forum, and since the debate here has pretty much broken down along theist/nontheist lines, I inferred that you were speaking about the types of faith-based organizations that would engage in such practices. If I erred, I'm sorry.

I think it was pretty clear however, that I was NOT defending those who try to feed you their delusions.

[cosmik debris]

123. If you say so,

But I still don't understand what it was I said that made you accuse me of being unfair.

Is it unfair for me to resist being fed the delusions of others? Or is it just your inference that all religionists are forcing their delusions on me? (Please note that I never said anything of the sort. That was your inference, not my implication.)

[Chorophyll]

132. I told you what I thought was unfair.

Twice. In the end, it doesn't really matter to me whether or not you resist being fed the delusions of others.

And no, I do not believe that all religionists are forcing their delusions on you, cosmik debris.

[cosmik debris]

136. Well, apparently I can't say anything negative in this forum

Or you will automatically infer that I am talking about religion, and by extension, all religious groups. You set the bar pretty high.

And you said: "theists are expected to tread more lightly than atheists"

You have certainly disproved that point.

[kwassa]

19. If you think me deluded, I really don't care much.

I might think the same of you.

"Delusion" is a charged word, however, because it involves a judgment that the speaker knows the truth, but the other person does not and believes in something that is patently false. By using the word, the speaker is insulting the other party, hence the negative reaction to the word from that person.

If one really and truly wants to have a conversation with someone of a different viewpoint, invoking such a judgment will likely shut down the conversation.

[cosmik debris]

20. Is there a synonym that would be preferable,

or is the whole subject off limits?

[kwassa]

25. A synonym would probably be just as insulting

A better question would be: why do we need to resort to such terminology in the first place?

How does this further a discussion in any way?

If you don't think that what I believe is the truth, that is fine. Calling me deluded, however, is not going to make me wish to engage in conversation with you. In order for us to have a civil exchange of ideas, we should probably not use such words, on either side.

[Lerkfish]

29. good post: why is a perjorative label even necessary?

simply calling us "theists" or "believers" would identify us accurately. And if you're an atheist, to refer to someone as a theist would more than adequately point out there is a difference in the points of view.
To use a perjorative label of "delusional" or any synonym thereof would simply be a judgemental adjective which does not further discussion but instead increases discord.
My concern is that many attempt to use the perjorative labels and then claim they are not and then attack anyone who takes offense as having a chip on their shoulder, instead of stopping and considering whether they are in fact being insulting.

Good rule of thumb: if people take offense, then you ARE being offensive. Claiming they have no right to be insulted does not remove the fact they feel insulted, it only permits you to continue to offend them.

[cosmik debris]

30. Shall I conclude that it is your position

That the whole subject is detrimental to fruitful discussion? Is there any way that an atheist can point out that faith is not fact-based without ending the debate?

[Lerkfish]

32. simply that: say faith is not fact-based.

then you can discuss it even with fervent theists. That's a statement of fact or an observation on the basis of the religion.


Here's an analogy:

you can talk to a chiropractor about whether manipulating the spine can truly lead to better health. Or, you can call him a quack. Guess which one leads to an actual conversation?

[cosmik debris]

36. So, if I refer to your "non-factual" beliefs

as a polite substitute for "delusional beliefs" that would be acceptable wording and would not stifle debate?

Now we are getting somewhere. Negotiation only works when both sides offer options.

[Lerkfish]

39. yes, I think that's tons better.

If you used that term, I would not be offended.
Do you understand why, though? its making an observation about how you view the tenant of my religion, and not making a negative judgment of me personally?

If you get that, GREAT! That's what I'm trying to accomplish.

[cosmik debris]

44. I don't get it, but I don't care.

What I'm trying to accomplish is to coax you into behaving better than you did yesterday in the "triple hypothetical" thread. And to stop you from blaming other people for your feelings. If a small concession can achieve that, then we have done well. Now let's see if we can convince the rest of the world to substitute "non-factual" for "delusional".

[Lerkfish]

46. wow. just wow.

so....your insincerity and condescension were a nice sucker punch.

good job!

I'll remember this in future dealings with you.

and you blased me for questioning your motives?

I'd say I pegged them very accurately. You had no desire to arrive at respect, only to throw in this sucker punch cheap attack.

Bravo! yeah for the atheists!

[cosmik debris]

58. When I first started posting in this forum

You were the very first person to put me on your ignore list because I challenged another of your non-factual posts. You even sent me a PM to let me know that you were ignoring me. I don't know what motivated you to take me off of your ignore list, but in retrospect, that might have been a bad decision on your part.

[Lerkfish]

59. perhaps so

I don't keep people on my ignore list permanently.

Apparently, the person with a chip their shoulder is really you, since I dont' recall the incident you refer to, but you've held this personal grudge for quite some time.


but if you like, I'll put you back on my ignore list.

[cosmik debris]

60. I only remember it because you were my first

:loveya:

[Lerkfish]

61. pretty sure skinner the use of the ignore list is not to be considered

a reason to attack another DUer.

but if it will make you happy, I'll put you on ignore from now on.

[cosmik debris]

62. Whatever you want to do is ok with me

But I didn't attack you because of something you did two years ago. I attacked the chip on your shoulder and the idea that everyone else has to play by your rules or you will delete all you post and go home. So do what you will about me, but don't expect deference until you play by the same rules that the rest of us play by.

[kwassa]

51. You are being a source of the problem with this post

cosmik debris;
"What I'm trying to accomplish is to coax you into behaving better than you did yesterday in the "triple hypothetical" thread."

So, none of the issue is with you, all of the issue is with Lerkfish. You try to coax him by insulting him. How productive is that?

"And to stop you from blaming other people for your feelings. If a small concession can achieve that, then we have done well. Now let's see if we can convince the rest of the world to substitute "non-factual" for "delusional"."

Again, you project the entire problem onto Lerkfish. Your last sentence seems to indicate an assumption that the world would naturally see Lerkfish, or any believer, as delusional, unless I am misunderstanding it.

[cosmik debris]

57. I coaxed him into offering an alternative

And then I opened a new thread to promote HIS alternative. You may say that I was not productive, but my evidence speaks louder than your opinion.

[cyborg_jim]

37. Conversations are irrelevant

you can talk to a chiropractor about whether manipulating the spine can truly lead to better health. Or, you can call him a quack. Guess which one leads to an actual conversation?

One does not determine the efficacy of chiropody by argument.

[Lerkfish]

40. depends on your goals: if you goal is to have a discussion, its important

not to insult the person you're talking with right out of the gate.
If your goal instead is to call him a quack, then being considerate is not your intent anyways.

however, my assumption is, this being a message board, that discussion is the ultimate goal.

[cyborg_jim]

42. The point is that discussion is useless to test the efficacy of anything

That is why we now use science rather than the 'wise men on a hill' method of determining facts about reality.

Science works. Wise men on a hill have a rather lower hit rate.

[kwassa]

52. So, do you see your purpose in participating here is to insult believers?

or do you ave another mission?

[cyborg_jim]

55. If to point out the nature of reality is insulting then I guess I am insulting

That is hardly my problem nor purpose. If you are content to merely be wounded rather than attempt a rebuttal then that is your choice.

[kwassa]

65. I'm not wounded at all ....

although the nature of reality is always debatable.

What is really under discussion in this thread, I think, is HOW we talk to each other, not what we are talking about.

I don't think that you are pointing out reality, for instance, I think you are pointing out your particular belief about reality. I have no problem with that. It is how you do it that counts. To me, you are simply asserting a strong belief, and are not really interested in conversation. That is my perception of the way you are speaking here.

[cyborg_jim]

67. I appeal to reality

I do not 'tell' what it is. I 'listen' to what it says.

My style is not an issue here. I only suspect such concentration on those issues is because there is little of substance to the argument that 'telling' the universe what it is is an exercise in pointlessness.

[kwassa]

74. What reality tells you might be quite different than what it tells me.

Your style is an issue to me. That style question is the very issue of this entire thread.

We might both be listening to reality and hearing different things.

[cyborg_jim]

79. Thank you

Now do you get why it is so important that we appeal to reality in a way we can BOTH observe and verify?

[kwassa]

82. No, I don't actually.

Why is it so important?

[cyborg_jim]

84. You really don't get it?

Please take a second to consider your environment.

There are literally thousands of examples.

[kwassa]

121. You are being too cryptic

Spell it out for me.

[cyborg_jim]

128. Is the operation of your computer a matter of opinion?

Or does it work the same as mine?

[Orrex]

38. But he's still a quack--you're advocating a "don't ask, don't tell" policy

That's hardly a reasonable way to go about improving our understanding of the world. Sure, we can snuggle into our non-fact-based and non-verifiable belief systems, and everyone clearly has the right to do so. But if our intent is to increase our knowledge of the world, then it is necessary, appropriate, and fruitful to distinguish baseless claims ("adjusting your subluxations will increase your health") from well-based claims ("cigarette smoking greatly increases the chances that you'll develop emphyzema or lung cancer.")

[kwassa]

63. what is baseless to one is not baseless to another

and knowledge comes in many forms, some non-rational.

It isn't the process that is in question, it is how the process is conducted.

[cyborg_jim]

64. Please state some knowledge that comes from non-rational sources

I think it's pretty obvious what rational inquiry has achieved for humanity. I fail to see what non-rational inquiry has done for us.

[kwassa]

66. I'm sorry you fail to see.

Of course, what I see as knowledge and you see as knowledge might be entirely different, of course.

Our emotions are a source of knowledge for us, and they are entirely non-rational. Intuition. Spiritual experiences. Great art has been created from these sources that has enriched all of us. It has informed ethical and moral considerations.

We percieve in many different ways, and utilize that information in different ways as well. All perceptions have value, and not all perceptions are rational.

[cyborg_jim]

68. Then define the semantics

Explain what you consider 'knowledge'.

Our emotions are a source of knowledge for us, and they are entirely non-rational.

Emotions are not entirely non-rational. Our emotional reactions are entirely open to analysis. It is only those who wish to keep the 'mystery' of emotions that refuse to accept this. There are reasons for our emotional reactions.

Either way I fail to see in what way you can consider emotions a source of 'knowledge' other than to imply that empathy is a mechanism to determining the emotional state of others. (Which would STILL be better done with a fuller knowledge of the mechanisms behind emotion in our brains - unless you contend a non-material source for emotion).

Intuition.

As I have said before on this forum 'intuition' is merely reasoning in an incomplete knowledge domain. We are often faced with the need to make decisions that are time critical, where it is not possible to have a complete view of all relevant facts and as such it would be irrational to spend a great deal of time making a 'rational' decision. Hence what we call 'intuition' is merely as attempt to make the best decision. I would call that an entirely rational strategy.

Of course intuition sometimes fails. As one would expect. Hence I fail again to see what knowledge we can gain from intuition.

Spiritual experiences.

Without evidence that the spiritual has any manifest existence then I would not see this as any more a source of knowledge then alcohol is. We know our brains can produce strange experiences irrespective of reality. Some choose to call them spiritual experiences - be they chemically enhanced or not.

Great art has been created from these sources that has enriched all of us.

But art is not knowledge - the enrichment we derive from art is merely a reflection of ourselves. There is no fundamental essence to art beyond how we each respond to it. Again there is no good reason I can see why understanding our reactions to art is beyond rational analysis other than for a desire to keep the mystical.

It has informed ethical and moral considerations.

Our very nature informs ethical and moral considerations. If it did not we would not function as a social animal. We can even see how our ethics can be affected by brain chemistry. Again the simplest thing would be to refer to the effects of alcohol - but there are many other examples.

We percieve in many different ways, and utilize that information in different ways as well. All perceptions have value, and not all perceptions are rational.

Above I present a reductionist approach to this. Have at it.

[kwassa]

73. Cyborg Jim

cyborg jim:

"Emotions are not entirely non-rational."

Oh, they most certainly are. That is why they are called emotions. There maybe rational causes behind the emotions, but the emotions themselves are not rational. And there are certainly non-rational perceptions that bring about many emotions.

"As I have said before on this forum 'intuition' is merely reasoning in an incomplete knowledge domain"

Your opinion. The final analysis, intuition is coming to a conclusion because it FEELS right, which is hard to break out into a rational process. It is partly rational, partly emotional. It isn't necessarily an incomplete process, it may be quite complete, and there may be no time pressure involved whatsoever. There are many who work on an substantially intuitive level.

"Without evidence that the spiritual has any manifest existence then I would not see this as any more a source of knowledge then alcohol is. We know our brains can produce strange experiences irrespective of reality."

But what makes our brain experience unreal? They are quite real. What I really object to is your notion of reality, which seems to come only as something as externally verifiable by others, and denies the reality of our own existence. If hundreds of millions of people throughout history have had spiritual experiences, that is one heaping stack of anecdotal evidence to suggest that the spiritual experience is real.

"But art is not knowledge - the enrichment we derive from art is merely a reflection of ourselves. There is no fundamental essence to art beyond how we each respond to it."

What is the rational explanation for music? Why does a collection of noises create such a variety of emotions and thoughts in us?

I have never heard a stranger definition of art as merely being a "reflection of ourselves". There is information galore in every great work of art.

"Our very nature informs ethical and moral considerations."

which includes our emotional and other non-rational qualities. This is what I object to in the rationalist school; it attempts to divorce and diminish all our non-rational qualities of our nature, which is just as much a part of who we are as rationality.

[cyborg_jim]

77. ...

Oh, they most certainly are. That is why they are called emotions.

Um, no. 'Emotion' is not a synonym for 'non-rational'.

There maybe rational causes behind the emotions, but the emotions themselves are not rational.

Please explain.

What is irrational about expressing sadness in order to gain social sympathy?

What is irrational about expressing anger in order to effect social justice?

What is irrational about expressing love in order to lubricate sexual coupling?

I fail to see why you consider emotions an affair in irrationality. They are evolved mechanisms for inducing behaviours that are necessary for effecting the goals of life - namely survival and reproduction. We have particularly complex emotions because of the added social dimensions.

And there are certainly non-rational perceptions that bring about many emotions.

Please elaborate.

Your opinion.

Please, need we state the obvious?

The final analysis, intuition is coming to a conclusion because it FEELS right, which is hard to break out into a rational process.

I believe I just did so. What is it about the word 'feel' that you 'feel' places it outside the realm of inquiry? Would you not consider that the 'feeling' you get is merely the result of a decision in your brain? If not then are you not implying that such feelings are extra-bodily in nature?

It isn't necessarily an incomplete process, it may be quite complete,

You are going to have to elaborate on this because I have no idea what you are trying to say. I do not think you understood what I was saying.

There are many who work on an substantially intuitive level.

Again, please elaborate.

But what makes our brain experience unreal?

Experiences not conforming to reality may be considered unreal. Surely you would not argue that such a thing is not possible?

What I really object to is your notion of reality, which seems to come only as something as externally verifiable by others, and denies the reality of our own existence.

The reality is, as science informs us, is that our subjective experiences are fallible and we should seek verification from others in order to reach an objective consensus.

That is to say in plain language: we lie to ourselves.

If hundreds of millions of people throughout history have had spiritual experiences, that is one heaping stack of anecdotal evidence to suggest that the spiritual experience is real.

Anecdotes are never reliable - no matter how many there are. It is especially unhelpful to that argument that 'spirtual experiences' are so inconsistent. It is even more unhelpful that we now understand enough about the brain to be able to observe the mechanisms that may lie behind these experiences and even induce them by various mechanisms.

I therefore must ask again - is a drunk a reliable source of information about reality?

What is the rational explanation for music? Why does a collection of noises create such a variety of emotions and thoughts in us?

A fascinating question which in itself requires a topic. At the core we like music because patterns please us. The music we create is full of patterns. This is rather incomplete I know but the point is that despite your incredulity we CAN ask these questions and we CAN approach the answers without merely assuming that such questions are beyond analysis.

I have never heard a stranger definition of art as merely being a "reflection of ourselves".

Does art not reflect the artist? Is the artist not a product of what we are and what the culture he existed in was? Is not what we call art merely a convention we agree on?

There is information galore in every great work of art.

Again I must ask for elaboration.

which includes our emotional and other non-rational qualities.

Which again I must point out I do not concur that they are non-rational.

This is what I object to in the rationalist school; it attempts to divorce and diminish all our non-rational qualities of our nature, which is just as much a part of who we are as rationality.

What I object to is the walls you are putting up. It seems to me more that you do not WANT these qualities to be rational or to be explainable or analysable - as if you would be diminished in some way.

[Orrex]

69. If the chiropractor is making a positive claim about health benefits...

Then she'd better damned well have the numbers to back it up.
(Get it? "Back" it up! Chiropractor?!? Back!?! I'm a comic genius!!)

Ahem.

If you're advocating chiropractic on the grounds that it can have a beneficial on back pain and the like, then I would agree with you that the evidence appears to support that advocacy.

If you're advocating chiropractic because it manipulates bio-energy (by whatever designator you prefer), then I say let's see your evidence. If you lack evidence, you can make no claim more concrete than "I believe it."

I tend to look for something a little more certain when consulting a medical practitioner.

[kwassa]

70. But are we talking about medicine?

:shrug:

Different levels of evidence, or types of evidence, for different things.

Look up the definition of the word "evidence" sometime in the dictionary. It can go on for pages.

[Orrex]

71. Are we talking about chiropractors?

If she passes herself off as a practitioner of medicine, then she'd better have pretty rigorous standards of evidence.

And if she passes herself off as a woo-woo feelgood manipulator-of-chi, then her victims had better demand a pretty rigorous standard of evidence.

If you're speaking of evidence in general, then obviously it's a spectrum. But when talking of the existence/non-existence of a thing (as opposed to the existence of a belief, opinion, memory, or feeling), then we need better evidence than "I believe it to be so."

[cyborg_jim]

72. The first thing would be to show it works

The evidential requirements in medicine are pretty clear.

The efficacy of chiropody is not proven. At best it seems to be a placebo. As such any claims as to 'how' it works are irrelevant until it is shown it does in fact work.

[kwassa]

76. Then why are there all those happy chiropractic customers?

Are they suffering from mass delusions about the therapeutic qualities of chiropractic treatment?

Their experience has no validity before your assessment of the efficacy of chiropractic treatment?

[cyborg_jim]

78. Same reason there are happy customers of mediums, homeopaths and the like

Belief.

Strong thing that.

Still... not strong enough to change reality.

[kwassa]

81. whose reality? Yours, or theirs?

I would point out that insurance companies believe enough in the reality of chiropractics to pay for such treatments.

I think your reality is rather subjective.

[cyborg_jim]

83. Could we agree at least there *IS* an objective reality?

I would point out that insurance companies believe enough in the reality of chiropractics to pay for such treatments.

That is rather irrelevant. The decisions of insurance companies does not trump science.

The efficacy is not proven. End of.

[kwassa]

122. No, we can't, really.

Objectivity is relative. It is a desired goal rarely achieved.

[cyborg_jim]

129. Objectivity is *NOT* relative by definiton

Please do not be obtuse - IS THERE OR IS THERE NOT an objective reality that exists irrespective of our opinions on what it might be?

[kwassa]

137. How would we ever know if we are not capable of perceiving it?

I'm not being obtuse at all, quite straightforward, actually.

[cyborg_jim]

138. *Sigh*

The question is posited irrespective of our abilities.

Simply answer the question.

Is there or is there not an objective reality?

If not there is no point in continuing the discussion. Let us go away in subjectivity. Your arguments are as worthless as mine.

If so then what value is their in subjective perceptions? Do you or do you not think that it is worthwhile trying to mitigate the inherent problem my collating subjective perceptions into that which can be verified for all?

Your choice.

[kwassa]

139. Yes and no

Not meaning to be obtuse.

There is certainly an objective reality. The problem lies in our ability to know it and understand it. There are certain things that we can know completely objectively, and prove beyond any doubt. There are other things that we can know substantially, if not completely. There are many things that we might know more about some day, but we don't currently know. And, there are things we will probably never know in our lifetimes, and some things that are simply beyond us as humans to ever know.

So, it comes down to perception about those things that we can't know both objectively and completely. That is where subjectivity comes in. How do we subjectively deal with the unknown? In different ways, obviously.

You wish to collate our subjective perceptions into that which can be verified for all. What are we supposed to do with those perceptions that we personally believe in that can't be verified to the satisfaction of everyone? Not talk about them? Discard them? The danger of this, in my opinion, it to narrow the definition of "reality" so greatly as to eliminate worthwhile information and insights that don't fall neatly into the categories of the verifiable.

The idea that we lack evidence of verifiability does not mean lack of existence. Lack of proof only means lack of proof, not disproof.

[cyborg_jim]

144. You should not trust them

What are we supposed to do with those perceptions that we personally believe in that can't be verified to the satisfaction of everyone? Not talk about them? Discard them? The danger of this, in my opinion, it to narrow the definition of "reality" so greatly as to eliminate worthwhile information and insights that don't fall neatly into the categories of the verifiable.

And so is the trap of, "well it's TRUE for me, and I cannot POSSIBLY lie to myself about these things, right?"

The unfortunate truth is that we do. That is what delusion is all about. None of us realise we are in it, some of us just have the resolve to combat it.

And again, I must refer you to my post way above. Despite your assertions about information and insights that supposedly come from the subjective experiences we have you have not demonstrated what any of these might be that cannot be achieved by rational inquiry. I can only posit that it is in fact impossible to do without first assuming the human perception even has such an ability.

There is nothing we know about ourselves that should indicate this is the case, it certainly does not help when we know our true context in the sphere of life, the universe and everything. Puny.

Again I can only conclude an unwavering DESIRE for human subjective experiences to actually have some irrational insight into reality rather than any good reason to believe that they actually do.

[kwassa]

168. au contraire

"Despite your assertions about information and insights that supposedly come from the subjective experiences we have you have not demonstrated what any of these might be that cannot be achieved by rational inquiry."

no, I did demonstrate that, you simply disagreed. Such is life.

[cyborg_jim]

169. I did not simply disagree

I demonstrated the reasons why not.

[Zhade]

148. Because, as DU's own Ladyhawk once said, "there's a sucker born-again every minute".

People convince themselves, without any objective external evidence to back it up, that these things work. That liberals are out to ban the bible. That gods exist.

[Lerkfish]

22. yes, this is the point I'm trying to make.

using words like "delusional" are ways to shut down or discredit an opposing viewpoint before they can even participate in the discussion.

[Orrex]

27. Well, let's see

Suppose that you're in a dangerous circumstance and unavoidably paired with a person on whose performance and abilities your survival depends, and vice versa. You go to great lengths to prepare yourself for the challenge and to obtain the equipment necessary to function to the best of your ability, but your counterpart says "I have an invisible magic hat that will protect us both," and he refuses to do anything further.

How much time would you spend in "discussing" this point with your counterpart? Would you listen with patience and interest while he extolls the virtue of his magic hat, or would you say "we're going to die unless you abandon your delusion" instead?

In an effort to preempt your hair-trigger "I'm offended" reflex, let me say that I am categorically not comparing religious faith to an invisible magic hat. I am simply exploring your claim that "using words like "delusional" are ways to shut down or discredit an opposing viewpoint before they can even participate in the discussion."

I would be interested to learn by what criteria you distinguish a claim that is delusional from one that is not.

[Orrex]

43. Hey, I think I've been put on "Ignore"

Was it something I said?
:shrug:

[Lerkfish]

98. I apologize if I offended you by putting you on ignore

I've taken everyone off ignore now.

[greyl]

104. Temporary delusion? nt

[Lerkfish]

105. sorry, I don't understand your comment.

[Orrex]

110. No harm done--but thanks for the apology!

Tempers flare now and again here in R/T, that's for sure!

:hi:

[jgraz]

41. Hate the belief, love the believer

Once again, this comes down to the supposed sanctity of religious beliefs over all others. While I think that everyone who comes on this board deserves respect, I don't have those same feelings toward the beliefs they express.

It's a fine line, but an important one. Saying that belief in a god is a delusion is different than saying theists are delusional. The latter says far more about the believer than the belief, and can rightly be construed as insulting.

The problem has to do with how deeply ingrained religious beliefs can be. If someone were to point out that one of your cosmological, historical or political viewpoints was a delusion, you'd likely be far less insulted than if the same description were applied to your faith. However, to the atheist, religion is a system of cosmological, historical and political beliefs -- beliefs held in the absence of any supporting evidence or, in many cases, in spite of evidence that is overwhelmingly against them.

Everyone has encountered people who believe something you know to be false (Fox news viewers come to mind) and persist in clinging to this belief even after you have presented evidence to contradict them. What word would you use to describe their belief? Is anything more appropriate than "delusion"?

[Evoman]

75. I find it impossible to state my opinions without offending somebody.

Its not just that "I have no belief in god"....I suppose I could JUST say that in response to everyone, so that nobody would ever get offended. But then I am stiffling my thoughts, my true opinions.

Its like walking on fucking eggshells. People get offended at everything. You can't challenge anything. If nobody got offended, this place would become so fucking sterile...like some sort of day care where all the babies are covered in bubble wrap with breathing holes. Are we adults, or are we children?

Here is a proposition: How about we ban anyone who challenges anybody else.

Theist 1: I believe in god.

Theist 2: I also believe in god.

Theist 1: Yes, it is good. We both believe in god.

Atheist 1: Hello theist 1 and 2, I do not believe in god.

Theist 1: Welcome atheist 1. I do believe in god.

Theist 2: As do I.

Atheist: Nice to meet you.

Theist 2: I love jesus. He is the path the true happiness.

Theist 1: What? Why are you saying that...there are plenty of ways to true happiness! *alerts*

Name Removed: Message deleted.

Atheist 1: Whew...well, theist 2 is gone. Now there is no more offense.

Theist 1: Yes, indeed. So...atheist 1...you don't believe in god..why not?

Atheist 1: Because, there is no rational proof for god.

Theist 1: Are you calling me irrational? *alert*

Name Removed: Message deleted.

[greyl]

88. Delusion is a great word that has unique meaning. It should be used as often as possible. :) nt

[jgraz]

91. You're deluded n/t

[MistressOverdone]

135. Excellent post

and a great coffee cup thinker! Delusion, I think is in the eye of the beholder. My dad had dementia in his 80's and was on an Alzheimer's ward. I think there should have been a sign on the elevator that said "park your reality here before you exit." Because there were some wild and crazy delusions up there. My dad spent time looking out the window watching the "game." He'd tell you to watch out for the bears in the hall, and he believed he was in heaven and the nurses were angels. He told me he talked to God all the time but that Jesus wasn't there; he was on a mission. (And no, we aren't Mormons.) At first I resisted and tried to redirect him, but eventually I learned to just live within his delusion. But really, maybe there WERE bears in the hall but I just wasn't aware of them. And maybe there was a game outside the window, but it was one from his past.

It all comes down to what is "reality" and as I have aged I have become more flexible in that concept. I also am a teacher and deal with very young children and their pretend activities. These are very real to them. And then as someone mentioned, there is dreaming. I take a supplement (zinc, calcium and mag.) that really enhances dream life. While I am having them, they are real.

The human mind is a fascinating thing.

[varkam]

150. I do not believe theists to be deluded

I believe theists to be mistaken. If I had absolute proof that there was no God, and shared that with them, and they still persisted in believing, then I would be happy to call them deluded. Likewise, if a theist had absolute proof that a God did exist and I persisted in my disbelief, then I would be deluded. Unfortunately, no such proof exists either way. That being the case, I am forced to admit that I don't really know one way or the other (as should theists, by the way).

What I am trying to point out here is that there is a difference between calling someone mistaken in their beliefs and calling them delusional for holding the beliefs that they do. I think, by and large, the word delusion should simply stay out of any metaphysical debate because there simply is no proof either way. In addition, the word delusion is too often used by both theists and atheists as an ad hominem attack when tempers run a bit high which just tends to shut down any productive debate.

[Rabrrrrrr]

166. Nicely stated! Truth is, atheism and theism are both non-fact-based systems.

"delusional" can be aimed in both directions just as easily as it is aimed in one direction.

There is no fact of a god (or gods) existing, and no fact of a god (or gods) not existing.

And so to cast "delusion" in any direction is to intentionally insult and degrade the other. And that is no basis for meaningful dialogue. It IS, however, a good basis for simply insulting and shutting down any discussion, and doing so from a loftier-than-thou position.

[jgraz]

170. OK, I'm in favor of getting along just as long as we GET THE FREAKING BASICS RIGHT

Atheism is fact-based. It is nothing BUT fact-based. The mildest form of atheism points out the FACT that there is no empirical evidence of God. Stronger forms of atheism point out the FACT that there is strong evidence (one might even say "proof") that God does not -- and can not -- exist.

This is not an opinion, it is a conclusion based on evidence. How do we know this? Well, as soon as ANYONE shows evidence of God, all atheists will acknowledge that FACT and change their beliefs.

Now, I can show the faithful fact after fact after fact that proves that their beliefs are nonsense. Most of them will not recognize those facts or acknowledge the inevitable conclusion to which they lead.

The FACT is that one of these epistemological systems is fact-based and one is not. That's the fundamental difference. When theists say otherwise, it's difficult to attribute it to anything other than a tacit admission that facts are somehow better than their own wishful thinking; if they can somehow show that atheism is not fact-based, they can bring it down to the level of their own beliefs and have some chance of refuting it.

When atheists say this, it's just pathetic.

[Rabrrrrrr]

171. You are correct that it is a FACT that there is no empirical evidence for a god or gods.

However, that doesn't mean that the statement "there is/are no god/gods" is a fact.

Until there is conclusive proof either way, god/s exist AND don't exist at the same time.

The FACT is, we really don't know. It's a probability wave that refuses to collapse at this point.

Perhaps, someday, we will know for sure. Probably not, though.

Speaking personally, I don't care where people sit on the atheism/theism fence, as long as they aren't in-your-face evangelical about having "the truth". No one has that. Not yet, anyway.

[jgraz]

176. It is also a fact that the two positions are not equivalent

In other words, this is not a 50/50 probability wave. There are mountains of evidence for the atheist view. There is zero evidence for the theist view. The only reason that the probability wave refuses to collapse is that theists play silly word and logic games to keep it from collapsing.

The concept of god is carefully structured so as to not be falsifiable. Even so, it falls well within the definition of "false", as far as most people define that word. This is why theists get angry when you compare their beliefs to faeries or Santa Claus. Those beliefs are widely accepted to be false, using the agreed-upon definition of the word. Belief in god only escapes this definition because large parts of the population refuse to accept it.

[Rabrrrrrr]

184. I prefer to be more intellectually honest about it.

Mountains of evidence against theism? Sure.

Mountains of evidence against atheism? Sure.

Why be so quick to come down on either side of the fence? We have no proof one way or the other. Why not accept and live in the ambiguity that this is one thing that humans simply do not have an answer for. Maybe some day we will - but that day has yet to come.

My mind is open until the probability wave collapses without being forced by own need for certainty.

Clearly, for you, it has collapsed - that is your interpretation of the data at hand. I prefer to believe that the data are woefully inadequate to make such a grandiose claim that theism is a delusion, or wrong, or unfactual. I equally prefer to believe that the data are woefully inadequate to make the claim that atheism is a delusion, or wrong, or unfactual.

[jgraz]

186. Apparently our definitions of intellectual honesty are quite different

As are our definitions of "proof" and "evidence". I'm using the traditional, scientific definitions of all of these. What definitions are you using?

Which definition of "evidence" allows you to find a mountain of it against atheism (i.e. in favor of theism)?

Which definition of "proof" allows you to ignore the biological, geological and astronomical observations that all point to the fact that there is no all-encompassing creator? How about the strong predictive power of the theories of evolution, quantum mechanics and relativity, to name a few? All of these point to a universe that DOES NOT behave in such a way as to allow for the existence of an all-powerful, eternal, magical being.

Our assumptions are simply not equivalent, unless you can somehow show your alleged mountains of evidence against atheism. I'm hoping that we use the same definitions for "against" and "atheism" because that means you need to present mountains of evidence in favor of the existence of a god or gods.

Good luck.

[trotsky]

195. Forget the mountains...

I'd like to see just one little pebble of evidence against atheism. For the record, things like "because so many people believe" or "because I just feel it" aren't evidence, they're logical fallacies.

[varkam]

208. Just for clarification...

what is the evidence against atheism? I believe very strongly that the Christian God - as described by theologians and scripture - does not exist and I believe somewhat less strongly that there are no g/Gods whatsoever. I believe that because it has seemed to me that is what the evidence has pointed to.

Being that my beliefs are based on evidence, I'm more than happy to revise them on the basis of new evidence. I am unfamiliar with any evidence aside from anecdotes or, unconvincing ontological arguments. So if you would be so kind as to discuss any of this evidence, I would enjoy it very much.

[cain_7777]

209. How does straddling the fence feel up your crotch?

Most atheists didn't cross the fence very fast because we tend to contemplate things for quite some time. There is mounting proof piling up everyday against religion and the probability of there actually being a deity is laughably minuscule. As to the evidence against atheism, I have no idea what you're talking about. Have you actually found proof of God to dispute us? There is plenty of physical evidence to discredit the judeo-christian belief and every other damn religion man has created. If your mind was truly open you would stop lying to yourself about these clear as day facts.