|
|
General religion discussion.
|
Posts:
3,593
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(4333 of 4603)
Aug 24, 2009 8:49 PM
|
> > 1. The act of deluding; deception; a misleading
> of
> > the mind. Pope.
> >
> > 2. The state of being deluded or misled.
> >
> > 3. That which is falsely or delusively believed
> or
> > propagated; false belief; error in belief.
>
> In other words, the answer is no. To believe in
> something with lack of evidence is NOT delusion,
> according to these definitions.
Delusion is deception from want of knowledge
A delusion is a false judgment, usually affecting the real concerns of life.
A fanatic, either religious or political, is the subject of strong delusions
2. The state of being deluded or misled.
You have no provable knowledge and are using your religious beliefs of pure faith to act on the real world.
> > Rather not. So what is your basis of belief in
> the
> > magic man in the sky?
>
> MY basis of belief is pure faith and personal
> experience. But, i do recognize there are other, more
> concrete reasons for belief in God.
So, nothing you can present as proof.
> > How is your belief in something unsubstantiated
> a
> > rational argument?
>
> Depends on what you believe makes something
> unsubstantiated. A rational argument is something of
> the mind/logic/reason. It does not necessarily
> require concrete proof.
Very well, I am waiting. This should be good.
> I highly doubt that.
Quite right. We use the words of Aristotle and Plato every day in modern science. Good catch on that one.
> Their
> > words are only useful as studies in the
> evolution of
> > science and have no relevence to actual science
> > today. However, their logic and supporting
> evidence
> > is clearly shown. Unlike Jesus with his
> > unsubstantiated and wild claims.
>
> They are only wild because you dont believe them.
They are wild because there is no supporting evidence.
> But, you do not, and will not, know everything there
> is to know about life, the Universe, and whats beyond
Agreed. That is why I am a big fan of exploration and research. It seems a much more intelligent approach than making shit up or believing unsubstantiated claims.
> it, so to make this claim based on this
> ignorance(lack of knowledge) is...ignorant. When it
> comes to things of God, one must not simply say "this
> is bull. its lies. its crazy. its impossible.
> etc...", for we are in no position of actually
> knowing this. We can only believe or not believe.
I never said that. I only said you have no proof or supporting evidence. There is no more reason I should believe in your god that I should believe there are little leprechauns with pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.
> > I am judging Jesus by the exact same standards I
> am
> > judging Plato and Aristotle. By those standards
> I
> > give him little to no weight.
>
> Yet, there is more evidence to support the actual
> existence of Jesus, as depicted in the Gospels, then
> there is to support the existence of such figures as
> Plato or Aristotle.
I disagree. However, only christian fanatics would believe such a questionable text as the gospels is... gospel.
A fanatic, either religious or political, is the subject of strong delusions
--
Edited by JaredP at 08/24/2009 5:51 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
3,019
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(4332 of 4603)
Aug 24, 2009 8:42 PM
|
> Just because God didnt say it Himself, does not mean
> they made it up. Like i told you, there are MANY
> verses that show God's omnipotence, ranging from
> people talking about God, to God doing things, to God
> saying it Himself. No ONE verse shows anything in the
> Bible.
What you're saying, is that the omnipotence is something the faithful concluded... basing said conclusions on passages written by... their mentors and antecedents? And this is not the same as, collectively, the Church, making it up.
As for Moses, God didnt prohibit Moses from
> entering the promised land because he broke some
> tablets. Where do you get that from? Moses was being
> punished for disobedience, lack of faith/trust in
> God, and taking credit for a miracle as if God had
> nothing to do with the miracle.
>
How can that be the reason? If these are known as the "Five Books Of Moses" for the traditional reason, then it contradicts itself, it's false on its face! Moses didn't tell the Israelites it was God who brought forth water from the rock? Is it not written in the book? Ostensibly by Moses? And if he wrote it... when was that? After he died?
Conclusion... Moses didn't write the books; and/or what it says he did, is false.
> > But even if it comes from the water, the oxygen
> in
> > the water is not in a form in which we can
> breathe
> > it.
>
> I never said it was.
>
Then what was your point about mentioning the source of the oxygen being the water?
> > The people in those days didn't know about gases
> in
> > chemistry, and they didn't actually see this
> > separation occurring, so they would have no
> reason to
> > differentiate. They did know that water comes
> from
> > the dark clouds in the sky, though.
>
> Nobody was around at the beginning of time, so this
> particular story comes from God, not human beings.
Again, you make an assumption without foundation. Just because nobody was around doesn't mean the story didn't come from human beings. In fact, considering that the sequence of events as described couldn't possibly be factual, but fits very nicely with the ignorance of the people at that time... it's pretty well certain that they made it up. Like, I think, they did most of the non-historical bible.
> > No, first you'd have to define what is meant by
> the
> > word. Then it can be decided if it's
> believable, and
> > then whether or not one chooses to believe.
>
> Not everything can be properly defined. What part of
> your natural body makes you "you"?
I suspect it's the unique collection of organic compounds and fluids in the brain that work on the same basic cell structure we all have.
|
|
|
Posts:
836
Registered:
1/20/08
|
|
(4331 of 4603)
Aug 24, 2009 8:20 PM
|
> 1. The act of deluding; deception; a misleading of
> the mind. Pope.
>
> 2. The state of being deluded or misled.
>
> 3. That which is falsely or delusively believed or
> propagated; false belief; error in belief.
In other words, the answer is no. To believe in something with lack of evidence is NOT delusion, according to these definitions.
> Rather not. So what is your basis of belief in the
> magic man in the sky?
MY basis of belief is pure faith and personal experience. But, i do recognize there are other, more concrete reasons for belief in God.
> How is your belief in something unsubstantiated a
> rational argument?
Depends on what you believe makes something unsubstantiated. A rational argument is something of the mind/logic/reason. It does not necessarily require concrete proof.
> 1. Those figures are far better documented by
> contemporary historians than the Jesus myth.
They are not.
> 2. There are widely noted discrepencies and blanks
> about said figures.
As with any other ancient historical figure, which was part of my point.
> 3. Their texts have been studied and discarded.
I highly doubt that.
Their
> words are only useful as studies in the evolution of
> science and have no relevence to actual science
> today. However, their logic and supporting evidence
> is clearly shown. Unlike Jesus with his
> unsubstantiated and wild claims.
They are only wild because you dont believe them. But, you do not, and will not, know everything there is to know about life, the Universe, and whats beyond it, so to make this claim based on this ignorance(lack of knowledge) is...ignorant. When it comes to things of God, one must not simply say "this is bull. its lies. its crazy. its impossible. etc...", for we are in no position of actually knowing this. We can only believe or not believe.
>
> I am judging Jesus by the exact same standards I am
> judging Plato and Aristotle. By those standards I
> give him little to no weight.
Yet, there is more evidence to support the actual existence of Jesus, as depicted in the Gospels, then there is to support the existence of such figures as Plato or Aristotle.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,593
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(4330 of 4603)
Aug 24, 2009 6:56 PM
|
> So, believing in the unproved is delusional?
Delusion (Page: 387)
De*lu"sion (?) n. [L. delusio, fr. deludere. See Delude.]
1. The act of deluding; deception; a misleading of the mind. Pope.
2. The state of being deluded or misled.
3. That which is falsely or delusively believed or propagated; false belief; error in belief.
And fondly mourned the dear delusion gone. Prior.
Syn. -- Delusion, Illusion. These words both imply some deception practiced upon the mind. Delusion is deception from want of knowledge; illusion is deception from morbid imagination. An illusion is a false show, a mere cheat on the fancy or senses. It is, in other words, some idea or image presented to the bodily or mental vision which does not exist in reality. A delusion is a false judgment, usually affecting the real concerns of life. Or, in other words, it is an erroneous view of something which exists indeed, but has by no means the qualities or attributes ascribed to it. Thus we speak of the illusions of fancy, the illusions of hope, illusive prospects, illusive appearances, etc. In like manner, we speak of the delusions of stockjobbing, the delusions of honorable men, delusive appearances in trade, of being deluded by a seeming excellence. A fanatic, either religious or political, is the subject of strong delusions; while the term illusion is applied solely to the visions of an uncontrolled imagination, the chimerical ideas of one blinded by hope, passion, or credulity, or lastly, to spectral and other ocular deceptions, to which the word delusion is never applied." Whately.
Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary
> > I've yet to see anything backing it up. Let me
> guess,
> > the universe is too big for you to comprehend
> so
> > their must be a god. Fallacious logic.
>
> Guess again.
Rather not. So what is your basis of belief in the magic man in the sky?
> > Based off that comment, I'm thinking you don't
> know
> > what rationality is.
>
> How so?
How is your belief in something unsubstantiated a rational argument?
> > Haven't discarded anything. Just said I see no
> > evidence. I put your religion on the same basis
> as
> > the idea my ass is the whole point of the
> universe.
> > It's a very nice ass, but I have no reason to
> think
> > that's true.
>
> Well, then, apparently you've looked more closely
> at..yourself...than to "my religion".
We have already proven I have a better background in christian theology than you. Do not make me go dig up some of our previous posts.
> > I never said I believed them either. WTF are
> you
> > talking about?
>
> Well, i never said you believed them. Im talking
> about many things, outside of religion, such as
> famous ancient figures as Plato, Aristotle. Not only
> do we not doubt the existence of such figures, but we
> dont doubt the authenticity of their writings. I
> understand that the context of their writings are not
> at the same level as what is claimed about Jesus, but
> i dont think we should judge the Gospels by a
> different standard than what we judge any ancient
> text/figure.
1. Those figures are far better documented by contemporary historians than the Jesus myth.
2. There are widely noted discrepencies and blanks about said figures.
3. Their texts have been studied and discarded. Their words are only useful as studies in the evolution of science and have no relevence to actual science today. However, their logic and supporting evidence is clearly shown. Unlike Jesus with his unsubstantiated and wild claims.
I am judging Jesus by the exact same standards I am judging Plato and Aristotle. By those standards I give him little to no weight.
--
Edited by JaredP at 08/24/2009 3:59 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
283
Registered:
1/12/08
|
|
(4329 of 4603)
Aug 24, 2009 5:55 PM
|
This preacher believes the bible is the literal word of God, ah Christian values...
Arizona pastor's sermons call for execution of gays, Barney Frank and the President
Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona is a bible-quoting hellfire and damnation sort of guy. He calls for the execution of gays in numerous sermons that you can listen to here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8603834&mesg_id=8603834
--
Edited by LadyV2 at 08/24/2009 2:56 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
836
Registered:
1/20/08
|
|
(4328 of 4603)
Aug 24, 2009 5:24 PM
|
> That's from their perspective. But let's face it...
> if you're saying God never said that about Himself,
> then where did they get it from? Wouldn't that mean
> they made it up? And let's take the example of
> Moses. Shall we figure He never intended for Moses
> to enter the Promised Land? If He did, He'd have
> written the commandments on plastic, or something
> unbreakable, right? Or just stopped the tablets from
> breaking. Or just told him he could enter anyway.
> But to contrive the broken tablets as an excuse...
> . that's just bogus.
Just because God didnt say it Himself, does not mean they made it up. Like i told you, there are MANY verses that show God's omnipotence, ranging from people talking about God, to God doing things, to God saying it Himself. No ONE verse shows anything in the Bible. As for Moses, God didnt prohibit Moses from entering the promised land because he broke some tablets. Where do you get that from? Moses was being punished for disobedience, lack of faith/trust in God, and taking credit for a miracle as if God had nothing to do with the miracle.
> But even if it comes from the water, the oxygen in
> the water is not in a form in which we can breathe
> it.
I never said it was.
> The people in those days didn't know about gases in
> chemistry, and they didn't actually see this
> separation occurring, so they would have no reason to
> differentiate. They did know that water comes from
> the dark clouds in the sky, though.
Nobody was around at the beginning of time, so this particular story comes from God, not human beings. Of course, if you believe all the Bible comes from humans, and not God, then thats a different story.
> No, first you'd have to define what is meant by the
> word. Then it can be decided if it's believable, and
> then whether or not one chooses to believe.
Not everything can be properly defined. What part of your natural body makes you "you"?
|
|
|
Posts:
836
Registered:
1/20/08
|
|
(4327 of 4603)
Aug 24, 2009 5:12 PM
|
> Yes. Delusional thinking. Even a blind pig can find
> an acorn in the forest. That doesn't mean it can see.
> Besides, I see no reason to think you are right.
So, believing in the unproved is delusional?
> I've yet to see anything backing it up. Let me guess,
> the universe is too big for you to comprehend so
> their must be a god. Fallacious logic.
Guess again.
> Based off that comment, I'm thinking you don't know
> what rationality is.
How so?
> Haven't discarded anything. Just said I see no
> evidence. I put your religion on the same basis as
> the idea my ass is the whole point of the universe.
> It's a very nice ass, but I have no reason to think
> that's true.
Well, then, apparently you've looked more closely at..yourself...than to "my religion".
> I never said I believed them either. WTF are you
> talking about?
Well, i never said you believed them. Im talking about many things, outside of religion, such as famous ancient figures as Plato, Aristotle. Not only do we not doubt the existence of such figures, but we dont doubt the authenticity of their writings. I understand that the context of their writings are not at the same level as what is claimed about Jesus, but i dont think we should judge the Gospels by a different standard than what we judge any ancient text/figure.
|
|
|
Posts:
272
Registered:
8/30/08
|
|
(4326 of 4603)
Aug 24, 2009 5:09 PM
|
> > It puzzles me as to why some people or "groups"
> think
> > they are so different from the rest of the
> human
> > race. Fundamentally we are all the same, it's
> only
> > conditioning and life events that make us seem
> > different. From a visionary point of view, In
> time we
> > will all come to our own discovery of this.
> >
> > Hmmm.....I wonder sometimes if we all had the
> same
> > exact upbringing, would we still be that
> different
> > from each other. The movie "syble" comes to
> mind. If
> > we were all raised and treated as she was, my
> firm
> > belief is that we'd all end up like her to
> varying
> > degrees.......any thoughts?
>
> I dont think so(great movie, by the way). To put it
> simple, not everybody reacts to everything the same
> way. Even if we were all raised under the exact same
> circumstances, not everybody would respond to these
> circumstances in the same way, and therefore would
> not end up the same as everybody else. There's much
> more to human beings than simple conditioning. We are
> more than mere products of our environments, imo.
You can't be saying this for real, because if you are then your not thinking. Have you even seen the movie? Everyone may not react the exact same way depending on other outside circumstances. But if there were no other external influences, we would all end up the same.
--
Edited by Lilianne at 08/24/2009 2:16 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
836
Registered:
1/20/08
|
|
(4325 of 4603)
Aug 24, 2009 5:06 PM
|
> It puzzles me as to why some people or "groups" think
> they are so different from the rest of the human
> race. Fundamentally we are all the same, it's only
> conditioning and life events that make us seem
> different. From a visionary point of view, In time we
> will all come to our own discovery of this.
>
> Hmmm.....I wonder sometimes if we all had the same
> exact upbringing, would we still be that different
> from each other. The movie "syble" comes to mind. If
> we were all raised and treated as she was, my firm
> belief is that we'd all end up like her to varying
> degrees.......any thoughts?
I dont think so(great movie, by the way). To put it simple, not everybody reacts to everything the same way. Even if we were all raised under the exact same circumstances, not everybody would respond to these circumstances in the same way, and therefore would not end up the same as everybody else. There's much more to human beings than simple conditioning. We are more than mere products of our environments, imo.
|
|
|
Posts:
272
Registered:
8/30/08
|
|
(4324 of 4603)
Aug 24, 2009 4:59 PM
|
It puzzles me as to why some people or "groups" think they are so different from the rest of the human race. Fundamentally we are all the same, it's only conditioning and life events that make us seem different. From a visionary point of view, In time we will all come to our own discovery of this.
Hmmm.....I wonder sometimes if we all had the same exact upbringing, would we still be that different from each other. The movie "syble" comes to mind. If we were all raised and treated as she was, my firm belief is that we'd all end up like her to varying degrees.......any thoughts?
|
|
|
Posts:
1,693
Registered:
7/9/08
|
|
(4323 of 4603)
Aug 24, 2009 12:46 PM
|
Good show this week, along with the discussion on religion and that author, I think his name was Shaw(?)
People aren't born religious. If they were, wouldn't we ALL share the ONE true religion? And, we don't call unbaptized babies, atheists either. They're just people, who haven't adopted (or been given) an opinion on Divinity.
Put down the magic totems, and just maybe you'll find the courage to live your life. If that courage directs you back to the magic totem, because life is devoid of mystery, in conflict with your values, or flat scary... then that's a truth you have to face, not the rest of us.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,693
Registered:
7/9/08
|
|
(4322 of 4603)
Aug 24, 2009 12:28 PM
|
> He'd have
> written the commandments on plastic, or something
> unbreakable, right? Or just stopped the tablets from
> breaking. Or just told him he could enter anyway.
> But to contrive the broken tablets as an excuse...
> . that's just bogus.
It's also a juvenile evasion of one of the creed's many insufferable contradictions = why does God punish in order to serve his pride, when he's supposed to forgive?
Umm... he didn't.. see, the tablets broke. Whoopsee 
|
|
|
Posts:
272
Registered:
8/30/08
|
|
(4321 of 4603)
Aug 24, 2009 11:23 AM
|
> If you don't like ritual, don't do ritual. But ritual
> is what makes a church a church rather than just
> another building.
>
> lol I am pretty much agreeing with you. I just wanted
> to offer something I thought would be helpful to the
> discussion. 
JaredP
lol I got that you agreed with me. I just wanted to add that any fixed belief system can become dogmatic.
--
Edited by Lilianne at 08/24/2009 8:28 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
3,593
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(4320 of 4603)
Aug 24, 2009 11:06 AM
|
The reason why I chose to attend a unitarian universalist church was because I thought it would incorporate all religions including atheists. But to be honest I found myself acting foolishly by having to stand to the north, south, east and west and praising each corner. This behavior and mode of thinking can also be thought of as dogma, since they do this at every service.
I can't speak for other unitarian universalist churches, since this is the only one I attended.
Btw, I have no fixed belief system. I don't label myself at all and I don't attend any church.
If you don't like ritual, don't do ritual. But ritual is what makes a church a church rather than just another building.
lol I am pretty much agreeing with you. I just wanted to offer something I thought would be helpful to the discussion.
|
|
|
Posts:
272
Registered:
8/30/08
|
|
(4319 of 4603)
Aug 24, 2009 11:00 AM
|
> Unitarian Universalism is a very diverse church.
> There are atheistic, pagan, christian, and many other
> religions incorporated and included under that
> title.
>
> Basically they believe there are certain universal
> truths found in all religions which transcend
> rhetoric and are rationally distinguishable. While
> other sections are mere dogma.
>
> From what I have heard the specific service ranges
> widely from church to church. *shrug*
>
> --
> Edited by JaredP at 08/24/2009 7:31 AM PDT
The reason why I chose to attend a unitarian universalist church was because I thought it would incorporate all religions including atheists. But to be honest I found myself acting foolishly by having to stand to the north, south, east and west and praising each corner. This behavior and mode of thinking can also be thought of as dogma, since they do this at every service.
I can't speak for other unitarian universalist churches, since this is the only one I attended.
Btw, I have no fixed belief system. I don't label myself at all and I don't attend any church.
|
|
|
|
|
